Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: hawk220 on March 23, 2003, 10:41:13 AM
-
five prisoners, including one woman.
Arab TV Shows Allegedly Captured Troops
Mar 23, 11:12 AM (ET)
DOHA, Qatar (AP) - The Arab satellite station Al-Jazeera aired footage from Iraqi television Sunday of interviews with what the station identified as captured American prisoners, and also showed bodies in uniform in an Iraqi morgue that it said were Americans.
There was no confirmation that the prisoners were U.S. troops, or if they were, what unit they were attached to. The U.S. Central Command had no comment.
On CBS's "Face the Nation," Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said that if those are indeed coalition soldiers being shown on the Al-Jazeera TV footage, "those pictures are a violation of the Geneva Convention."
Four bodies could be seen lying on the floor of the room.
The station said the prisoners were captured around Nasiriyah, a major crossing point over the Euphrates northwest of Basra.
At least five prisoners, speaking American-accented English, were interviewed. Two were bandaged. Those interviewed included one woman.
Two of the prisoners identified their unit only as the 507th Maintenance.
One of the men, sitting up, was being interviewed by an unseen person holding a microphone labeled "Iraqi TV." The soldier spoke in English and at one point said: "I'm sorry. I don't understand you."
The narrator provided an Arabic translation, but it was possible to hear some of the comments in English.
"I come to shoot only if I am shot at," said one prisoner, who said he was from Kansas. Asked why he was fighting Iraqis, he replied: "They don't bother me; I don't bother them."
Another prisoner, who said he was from Texas, said only: "I follow orders."
A voice off-camera asked "how many officers" were in his unit.
"I don't know sir," the soldier replied.
One of the prisoners was shown lying on his back on a bed, with apparent wounds to both arms and hands and marks on his forehead. He had a bandage on one hand and what appeared to be dried blood on his shirt, arms and face.
Al Jazeera later showed additional footage of what appeared to be a fuel or water carrier parked along side a highway and a body in uniform with full gear and still wearing a helmet lying behind the carrier.
The U.S. Army's 507th Maintenance Company is based in Fort Bliss, Texas. The unit is part of the Army's 11th Air Defense Artillery Brigade, which includes Patriot missile batteries.
-
all the US TV stations said they will not show this violation of the geneva convention.
-
a Maintance unit.........they are so far behind:(
What the hell are they doing there, racing to see who can get to Baghdad first.
For christ sakes, you have too "Clean" the area not by pass it:(
How many freakin times did they call Umm Qasr "Clean".
-
one of the talking head generals, said they prolly took a wrong turn at a t-bone in the road and got ahead of the mainf force and fell right into nme hands.
-
I would bet the Main Combat body, passed some resistance racing to Baghdad, and the maintance unit was ambushed.
They had a "Water Buffalo" on the back of their truck.
(shakes head)
-
Been looking for confirmation on this. Ain't run across it yet. I'm sure ya'll aren't yanking but I'd like to hear it for myself. It's just a little too close to the plot of that Paulie Shore movie.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Been looking for confirmation on this. Ain't run across it yet. I'm sure ya'll aren't yanking but I'd like to hear it for myself. It's just a little too close to the plot of that Paulie Shore movie.
don't think its a joke ...
on second thought, I ain't gonna post that, a screenshot of the dead is at drudge:
http://www.drudgereport.com
-
Originally posted by john9001
all the US TV stations said they will not show this violation of the geneva convention.
It's not a good idea to use this as evidence that the Iraqis are violating any kind of laws. I remember seeing Iraqi prisoners on several western news stations during the first gulf war. I've even seen video of prisoners from afganistan on the same stations.
-
What violation did the pictures show? (note: i haven't seen them)
At least I couldn't find anything about questioning or media in the geneva convention.
-
Interviewing them on TV is a violation. You won't see Iraqi POWs interviewed publicly by the US.
They are trying to break the Americans resolve, it might backfire on them.
-
You're not allowed to show images of any kind of POWs.
We've already done that with the Iraqis in this current war.
But the odious line of questioning apparently thrown at these guys leaves me just sick.
The Iraqis better realise what kind of wind they are sewing here...
-
You're just repeating what's already in the article - questioning on TV is supposed to be a violation of the geneva convention.
What I was asking for is a pointer to the exact paragraph that prohibits it, because I can't find it.
edit: at least not in "UN Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field". Am I looking at the wrong document?
-
No, I've heard the actual document quoted recently and any kind of images taken during conflict is prohibited under the Geneva convention. There's something in there about the dignity of man or something. I'll look it up.
-
Originally posted by ccvi
You're just repeating what's already in the article - questioning on TV is supposed to be a violation of the geneva convention.
What I was asking for is a pointer to the exact paragraph that prohibits it, because I can't find it.
edit: at least not in "UN Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field". Am I looking at the wrong document?
Part 2, Article 13.
Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity
-
I'd like to see our people saying yes we would rather not see them on tv of course not.
But the fact is, we have been showing POW's on TV for the past couple of days.
So if they are in violation of the geneva convention for that, so are we.
I'd really like our media to quit broadcasting the images and video of our soldiers..wtf are they thinking.
wtf are they thinking!
-
Originally posted by Kanth
I'd like to see our people saying yes we would rather not see them on tv of course not.
But the fact is, we have been showing POW's on TV for the past couple of days.
So if they are in violation of the geneva convention for that, so are we.
I'd really like our media to quit broadcasting the images and video of our soldiers..wtf are they thinking.
wtf are they thinking!
It's doesn't say you can't show POWs on tv. Read the Geneva Convention. Iraq is in violation.
-
I just read the article before posting
Article 13
Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.
Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.
Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.
-
yea when we tortured pows in afghanistant at least we didnt put them on TV. what the iraqis are doing makes me even sicker then that does.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
yea when we tortured pows in afghanistant at least we didnt put them on TV. what the iraqis are doing makes me even sicker then that does.
we didn't torture POWs in afghanistan
-
OK, so now showing Iraqi soldiers being captured or marched off to PW camps is the same as what the Iraqi government/media has done by "interviewing" PW's and showing the bodies of those they may have executed?
Complete and total crap if you ask me.
There are things that should be discussed/debated/argued/flamed over, POW's and their possible mistreatment is not one of those things (I guess I should add that it is just my humble opinion).
-
If you are talking to me, let me be more clear.
to be protected from public curiosity
As in not to be televised for everyone to gawk at.
The degree of the offense is irrelevant to the geneva convention. As soon as they hit the public tv screen it was wrong.
and it was wrong from both sides.
now articles aside, if you want to say you were more outraged because of the interviewing etc..
all I can say is NO ****, so was I.
But, that's not what I'm talking about.
Originally posted by Mathman
OK, so now showing Iraqi soldiers being captured or marched off to PW camps is the same as what the Iraqi government/media has done by "interviewing" PW's and showing the bodies of those they may have executed?
Complete and total crap if you ask me.
There are things that should be discussed/debated/argued/flamed over, POW's and their possible mistreatment is not one of those things (I guess I should add that it is just my humble opinion).
-
Originally posted by Kanth
If you are talking to me, let me be more clear.
to be protected from public curiosity
As in not to be televised for everyone to gawk at.
The degree of the offense is irrelevant to the geneva convention. As soon as they hit the public tv screen it was wrong.
and it was wrong from both sides.
now articles aside, if you want to say you were more outraged because of the interviewing etc..
all I can say is NO ****, so was I.
But, that's not what I'm talking about.
Showing POWs being captured is not displaying for public curiosity. Showing interviews with POWs on TV is.
-
really? then it's displaying for what reason exactly?
please quote your sources as well, when you reply.
Originally posted by Martlet
Showing POWs being captured is not displaying for public curiosity.
-
If I were a prisoner, I'd prefer to be televised. I wouldn't want to be interviewed, but at least something to let the world know I'm alive and if I'm not returned at the end of hostilities, someone needs to look into the matter.
-
Originally posted by Kanth
really? then it's displaying for what reason exactly?
please quote your sources as well, when you reply.
What sources? Displaying something for public curiosity is showing something for the entertainment value. Much different than reporting news.
-
What do you think the News is.
Originally posted by Martlet
What sources? Displaying something for public curiosity is showing something for the entertainment value. Much different than reporting news.
-
Originally posted by Kanth
What do you think the News is.
Oh, I'm sorry. I've confused news with re runs of "Married with Children". I now see why you are such an idiot. Go watch the Iraqi propaganda channel if you want to see entertainment. If you want to watch the news so you can begin to become INFORMED, then I'd suggest CNN or Fox.
-
information satisfies public curiosity.
Or do you just watch the news to be entertained?
-
Originally posted by Kanth
information satisfies public curiosity.
Or do you just watch the news to be entertained?
Obviously english is not your native language. I stated in no uncertain terms that the news is not for entertainment, it was for information.
In fact, that was a key point in my argument.
Let me know where you hail from, and I'll have my reply translated.
-
this sort of **** happens. the terrorist regime and filthy army of the soon to be former nation of iraq better enjoy what little time they have left on this world.
-
You having a hard time following me? :)
Originally posted by Martlet
Obviously english is not your native language. I stated in no uncertain terms that the news is not for entertainment, it was for information.
In fact, that was a key point in my argument.
Let me know where you hail from, and I'll have my reply translated.
-
The images shown on US TV stations were NOT POWs but rather Iraqi soldiers who surrendered, ie. not captured and detained against their will.
-
Martlet- apparently you are a whoopee idiot. Or maybe I am, I don't know. I interpreted that the same way Kanth did, though.
That said- if those ****ing jackals executed POWs, they really deserve to die a slow and extraordinarily painful death.
It really seems stupid to me why the 'average' Iraqi soldier would even bother fighting. Patriotism I guess, but their cause is hopeless and the sooner they quit fighting the sooner they can get to the business of remaking their country into something (hopefully) better.
-
No, they realized they their situation was desperate and surrendered to save their lives. Just like the Iraqis captured.
At least that is what they thought they were doing...
-
So you fail to see the difference between someone "turning themselves in" versus "being captured", subtle difference maybe, but definitely different.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Martlet- apparently you are a whoopee idiot. Or maybe I am, I don't know. I interpreted that the same way Kanth did, though.
That said- if those ****ing jackals executed POWs, they really deserve to die a slow and extraordinarily painful death.
It really seems stupid to me why the 'average' Iraqi soldier would even bother fighting. Patriotism I guess, but their cause is hopeless and the sooner they quit fighting the sooner they can get to the business of remaking their country into something (hopefully) better.
since you don't know, and I do, I'll help you out. You're right, it's you that's the idiot.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
On the point of why the Iraqi regulars are fighting it seems that you are unaware of one important fact; although most Iraqis hate Saddam, they hate Americans even more. You guys are not exactly popular in that part of the world. Why are they giving more fight now than in 1991? Because now they are defending their homeland, not a conquered Kuwait. Do not kid yourselves, there ARE hard days ahead. When the Coalition reaches the Baghdad stronghold and the 76 thousand strong Republican Guard the Coalition will face the hardest fighting ever. The outcome of the war is not in question however, unless something changes drastically on the "homefront".
I agree...It is different when the hated nme invades your homeland...The common soldier doesn't care that his leader is a POS,he will fight to his last breath.
Look at WW2...When you are fighting fanatics(Japanese/German soldiers on the defense when the war is a lost cause),there is no Geneva convention...NO Quarter taken...No retreat...It is going to get real dirty as has been shown(Iraqi's surrendering,then shooting)...There will be no mass surrendering as hope by everyone.
And when it is almost over,Allied tanks rolling into Baghdad..Saddam in his bunker..Before he pulls the trigger...He pushes the button.
-
what idiot let that woman anywhere near a combat zone?
lazs
-
Was it?
-
I don't think the oval office is a combat zone :D
-
Ya know.... I believe you are correct.
lazs
-
Lazs, why should the woman not be near the combat zone?
Because she is a woman? What part of her anatomy makes her unable to fiunction well as a soldier? She is as capable as any man in doing most tasks; only when extreme physical strength is needed is where a woman may come in short. Then again, I know of women that are stronger than me.
And in a survival situation, women are better off than men. Bigger fat reserves and less muscles means less need for energy through food. More fat means better insulation against heat and cold.
Ah, she might get raped if captured. Men can get sodomized with broomsticks, so I don't see how that is different. And men can be shot, too, just as women. Or blown to pieces.
There are enough women in extreme or adventure sports to show that they have the courage. And I've seen enough regular fist fights downtown to know that some women can be as aggressive as men, despite having less testosterone.
I realize that this is one of the last domains where a man can be a man. And I know that one of the gendr roles of a man supposedly is to be the strong protector. But the real reason why women aren't integrated into the armed forces (hell, here they don't even have to do anything with regards to conscriptiion; not even civilian duties or anything, they're let off the hook alltogether) is because it is a cultural thing, not because of something physiological or mental. It's the old school and a mind meme that propogates itself through culture.
Maybe I am wrong. Show me why women shouldn't be in armed forces. I can prolly show you reasons why men shouldn't :).
So, try to get over the macho thing and look at the practicalities involved, and then give me a compelling reason. Possibility or higher likelihood of rape if captured isn't one; getting killed is worse. PMS is also a very weak argument, because women can function also in this time of the cyclus, and invariably it also comes down to just how severe that issue is, which is individual for each woman. What else is there? Pregnancy. Can be avoided and/or a contract can be created in which the woman agrees not to become pregnant/have an abortion if that happens (I know some of you cringe at that word, but if you do it, then think what you should do when you hear the word 'war', which is many times worse).
So the problem is men not being able to contain their urges and biological drives and therefore raping or sexually molesting their female comrades in arms. That I suppose is a very valid concern, especially in units where discipline is low or non existant. It sure is better than the 'modesty' argument which suggests separate facilities for men and women is too much of a hassle.
The biggest issue would be the potential tension caused by having females as armed buddies, for example aboard a nuclear submarine. But all in all, these are small cultural issues that can be overcome. It wasn't that long ago women weren't considered important/worthy/whatever to have the right to vote.
And no. Am not a feminist. In fact, I dislike feminists in general, because it shouldn't be an issue at all, and taking on that feminist shirt is like preparing for confrontation. I just try to look at it rationally and logically, and despite me having an almost instinctual feeling that women should not be soldiers, I must say that there ´logically aren't any real reasons why they shouldn't. Sure, there are obstacles, but none that cannot be overcome. As the last two hundred years have shown, gender roles have dramatically changed. And will continue to do so.
Hah, soon some special forces tough guy macho SEAL dude will get his bellybutton kicked by an equally macho SEAL GIRL.
'A girl kicked your arse! Hahahahaha!'. 'A girl killed you in a war! hahahahaha!'. Seems to be the issue here.
-
As for beeing pilots women are way better suitable than men, because they can sustain higher Gs.
-
Lazs, why should the woman not be near the combat zone?
StSanta, yes women can do many(if not all) of the same things as a man. That's not the problem with women in combat IMO.
It's about men and how they'll act with women around. Will they act, in combat, the same way as if they weren't there.. or will they try to be 'heroes' in their eyes?.. or get distracted?
or will having them there cause soldiers to make different decisions than otherwise?
etc etc..
IMO this is more the reason for not having them than any other.
So, try to get over the macho thing and look at the practicalities involved, and then give me a compelling reason
there ya go
-
Yet another example of Iraq's mistreatment of its prisoners - they're threatening to kill kittens now!
-
Thanks alot gofaster, I almost choked on my donut.
-
Originally posted by StSanta
Lazs, why should the woman not be near the combat zone?
Because she is a woman? What part of her anatomy makes her unable to fiunction well as a soldier? She is as capable as any man in doing most tasks; only when extreme physical strength is needed is where a woman may come in short. Then again, I know of women that are stronger than me.
And in a survival situation, women are better off than men. Bigger fat reserves and less muscles means less need for energy through food. More fat means better insulation against heat and cold.
Ah, she might get raped if captured. Men can get sodomized with broomsticks, so I don't see how that is different. And men can be shot, too, just as women. Or blown to pieces.
There are enough women in extreme or adventure sports to show that they have the courage. And I've seen enough regular fist fights downtown to know that some women can be as aggressive as men, despite having less testosterone.
I realize that this is one of the last domains where a man can be a man. And I know that one of the gendr roles of a man supposedly is to be the strong protector. But the real reason why women aren't integrated into the armed forces (hell, here they don't even have to do anything with regards to conscriptiion; not even civilian duties or anything, they're let off the hook alltogether) is because it is a cultural thing, not because of something physiological or mental. It's the old school and a mind meme that propogates itself through culture.
Maybe I am wrong. Show me why women shouldn't be in armed forces. I can prolly show you reasons why men shouldn't :).
So, try to get over the macho thing and look at the practicalities involved, and then give me a compelling reason. Possibility or higher likelihood of rape if captured isn't one; getting killed is worse. PMS is also a very weak argument, because women can function also in this time of the cyclus, and invariably it also comes down to just how severe that issue is, which is individual for each woman. What else is there? Pregnancy. Can be avoided and/or a contract can be created in which the woman agrees not to become pregnant/have an abortion if that happens (I know some of you cringe at that word, but if you do it, then think what you should do when you hear the word 'war', which is many times worse).
So the problem is men not being able to contain their urges and biological drives and therefore raping or sexually molesting their female comrades in arms. That I suppose is a very valid concern, especially in units where discipline is low or non existant. It sure is better than the 'modesty' argument which suggests separate facilities for men and women is too much of a hassle.
The biggest issue would be the potential tension caused by having females as armed buddies, for example aboard a nuclear submarine. But all in all, these are small cultural issues that can be overcome. It wasn't that long ago women weren't considered important/worthy/whatever to have the right to vote.
And no. Am not a feminist. In fact, I dislike feminists in general, because it shouldn't be an issue at all, and taking on that feminist shirt is like preparing for confrontation. I just try to look at it rationally and logically, and despite me having an almost instinctual feeling that women should not be soldiers, I must say that there ´logically aren't any real reasons why they shouldn't. Sure, there are obstacles, but none that cannot be overcome. As the last two hundred years have shown, gender roles have dramatically changed. And will continue to do so.
Hah, soon some special forces tough guy macho SEAL dude will get his bellybutton kicked by an equally macho SEAL GIRL.
'A girl kicked your arse! Hahahahaha!'. 'A girl killed you in a war! hahahahaha!'. Seems to be the issue here.
Santa..I like you but your smoking dope. With regards to women in the miltary..sure. With regards to women in some combat roles, sure why not. With regards to women in say an infantry unit/specials ops etc...no way in hell. Why? Its simple...men are superior physicaly in what it takes to do these roles. Want me to prove it....
A) Take the BEST female in a sporting event
B) Take the best Male.
C) Compare
D) There is a REASON why the BEST female atheltes compete seperatly from the males.
The military goes by averages... a typical female simply cant endure say a 20mile forced march w/a full combat load... ie approx 60-80pds of equipment on her back plus sustain operations for days.
-
Originally posted by gofaster
Yet another example of Iraq's mistreatment of its prisoners - they're threatening to kill kittens now!
Who do they think they are? God?
-
Batdog, maybe yer right about special ops. Very valid point.
The army did some experiments with ordinary housewives - got them on weight training etc. In the end, they ended up slightly better than the average male performance wise. Am talking standard military units here.
Of course if males were given the same standards, they'd be stronger than the females. My point is, however, that if women are dedicated enough, they sure can fit in into a normal infantry squad. And they're more than qualified for support roles - such as the one the woman who is now a POW had, which is why I disagree with lazs who has the opinion that she shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Interesting little story; in Gulf War 1 there was a similar incident. Female said males were going the wrong way in their truck. males disagreeed and there was an argument, and in the end, the woman was overruled by democracy and peer pressure. So they drove straight into a town occupied by Iraqis.
So, I think it is *sexist* that women are exempt from all forms of participation in our conscript army. If they can, under threat of violence, force a man to serve/slave (depends on how you view it :)), they should apply the same to women. Cannot have discrimination. oh yes we can, but only if it goes one way. Forgot about that.
And I don't smoke dope batdog :). That stuff make me all dizzy and stuff, don't feel good at all. Now, gimme vodka and coca cola or sprite....or some good brewed beer...and you'll find a Santa dancing in the most odd ways, most likely near or with....WOMEN.
:D
-
Women can preform equally to men in combat. It just has to do with the role they are given, and they should have to meet the same requirements. You have to suit the job to the person, regardless of the sex. I've seen men in positions they shouldn't be in, strictly due to their physical capabilities.
You just have to be able to do the job.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
If you want to watch the news so you can begin to become INFORMED, then I'd suggest CNN or Fox.
Haha... HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH AHAHA!!!!!
-
Originally posted by StSanta
Batdog, maybe yer right about special ops. Very valid point.
The army did some experiments with ordinary housewives - got them on weight training etc. In the end, they ended up slightly better than the average male performance wise. Am talking standard military units here.
Of course if males were given the same standards, they'd be stronger than the females. My point is, however, that if women are dedicated enough, they sure can fit in into a normal infantry squad. And they're more than qualified for support roles - such as the one the woman who is now a POW had, which is why I disagree with lazs who has the opinion that she shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Interesting little story; in Gulf War 1 there was a similar incident. Female said males were going the wrong way in their truck. males disagreeed and there was an argument, and in the end, the woman was overruled by democracy and peer pressure. So they drove straight into a town occupied by Iraqis.
So, I think it is *sexist* that women are exempt from all forms of participation in our conscript army. If they can, under threat of violence, force a man to serve/slave (depends on how you view it :)), they should apply the same to women. Cannot have discrimination. oh yes we can, but only if it goes one way. Forgot about that.
And I don't smoke dope batdog :). That stuff make me all dizzy and stuff, don't feel good at all. Now, gimme vodka and coca cola or sprite....or some good brewed beer...and you'll find a Santa dancing in the most odd ways, most likely near or with....WOMEN.
:D
When the hell are you coming back to the friggen game? I'd pay your subscription for a couple of months. Interested, let me know.
-
I'll also pay a month or two for him. Seriously.
(and no favors in return needed! *wink* *nudge* ;) )
-
Glad to know your not cheap.
:rolleyes:
-
santa... that is crap.. women are not as aggressive as men and they do not have the upper body strength... you are a liberal so I can believe that you know women that are stronger than you... that is not the point.
wlfgang made the point... men don't need the extra baggage of worrying about women in combat... the people do not need the extra baggage of worrying about women POW's.
I will say you are a liar if you say that your reaction to hearing that one of the POW's was a woman made no difference to you.
Also... men think alike.. women think alike... I don't need to learn how women think when I am busy. I don't like surprises in tense situations.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
santa... that is crap.. women are not as aggressive as men and they do not have the upper body strength... you are a liberal so I can believe that you know women that are stronger than you... that is not the point.
wlfgang made the point... men don't need the extra baggage of worrying about women in combat... the people do not need the extra baggage of worrying about women POW's.
I will say you are a liar if you say that your reaction to hearing that one of the POW's was a woman made no difference to you.
Also... men think alike.. women think alike... I don't need to learn how women think when I am busy. I don't like surprises in tense situations.
lazs
LOL you obviously have not dealt with women in a military setting.
You are so, so wrong, except for the part about the public reacting diferent to women POW. You are right there.
Its because like you, they dont know any better.
-
well animal... I guess with your many years of experiance with women and especially women in mens job that you know all about it?
get a few more years under your belt laughing boy and we will talk about women then. hint.... they can't really kick mens butts like in the movies or TV shows..... big fat blowhards like but****o can kick the crap out of the best of em.
live a little longer and you may find that there are differences that you will not be able to fathom.
I have no problem with women in non combat roles so long as strength is not important... no .... "life or death"
lazs
-
Originally posted by Animal
LOL you obviously have not dealt with women in a military setting.
You are so, so wrong, except for the part about the public reacting diferent to women POW. You are right there.
Its because like you, they dont know any better.
Actually Animal... your wrong, and wolf is making very valid (and witnessed by yours truly) if not pc-incorrect points.
I support women in the military don't get me wrong... I definately believe women make perfectly good pilots and a whole host of etc's... however
Women have no business in the infantry or special ops (ground).. none (JMHO) and until god, genetics or evolution make some serious changes quickly.. that will remain so for our lifetimes. Thats not attributable to one characteristic... but a combination of many variables.
And just to clarify.. I do know exactly what I'm talking about.
-
No , he's not wrong.
Originally posted by Tumor
Actually Animal... your wrong
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Upper body strength can be built up. The standards should be the same for men and women ... they will just have to work more for it.
The body builder pic is misleading. This is a woman is has spent YEARS upon YEARS gaining this size. The miltary DOES NOT have years to develop this, period.
If we had say a warrior culture where females started at birth conditioning for the miltary then yes... they could hang w/men.
We do not... thus men are the only ones allowed in combat arms ground units.
P.S. Even then..with a warior culture..the men would still outpace the women by a large margin thus they still might not be seen as acceptable in ground force combat units.
-
On the strength issue, why not just accept women that DO meet the criteria?
I bet there are some women out there that do, and I don't mean those manish steroid pumping ones.
-
Cost...you'd have to accept large numbers to test/train. This would cost alot of money and be extreamly unproductive number wise. You couldnt just say... were going to have a pre test then allow those that make it to join up. They'd have to do the same for males...and alot of the males would fail at first as well. The difference is that the males could be brought up to speed much quicker than the females w/the same standards.
Its all about time Dowding.... 8-12weeks to turn a dumpy Video game playing marshmellow wannabe into something that resembles a soldier.
-
What right does US gov. have to refer in geneva convention after the afganistan war?
The fact is, US took prisoners in the war, didn't declare them as prisoners of war and took to a prison camp, where obviously some have been tortured and even died as the cause.
Not only human rights violation, but also against the geneva convention.
Now, those two things suddenly are important for US Gov. again.
Such a bunch of jerks you guys got in US Gov.
-
Fishu, go read more about the geneva convention.
Understand that terrorists (Al Qaeda) or irregular/insurgent troops are not covered by the Geneva convention. PERIOD.
In fact, if your captured fighting in civilian clothing, you are subject to battlefield summary execution. Just as in the current war, these Iraqi Fedayeen and militia units that are ambushing troops in civilian clothing are not covered by the Geneva convention.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
What right does US gov. have to refer in geneva convention after the afganistan war?
The fact is, US took prisoners in the war, didn't declare them as prisoners of war and took to a prison camp, where obviously some have been tortured and even died as the cause.
Not only human rights violation, but also against the geneva convention.
Now, those two things suddenly are important for US Gov. again.
Such a bunch of jerks you guys got in US Gov.
Not prisoners of war if they are not in uniform and identifiable as military combatants, I believe. The guys running around in towels are the one's in violation of the rules of combat.
-
Guys.. many of those captured in afganistan, who ended to US, did not even carry a weapon, but were rather arrested.
How exactly were they combatants in civilian clothes in that case?
-
I didnt know you needed superhuman upper body strenght to be a good leader or an excellent marksman.
I didnt know you needed many years of evolution to have courage under fire.
Granted, I didnt see any women under combat (not being in combat myself) but I did see women being better leaders than most of the men around, and I saw women who shot better with a rifle than most men around.
And if you think all men in the army are strong guys, wrong. Take a stride around an army base. Mostly they are average. With a nice exersice routine an already sturdy gal could easily have above average strenght compared to the men around them (in the ARMY at least, know nothing about Marines)
And as pilots, well lasz2 go to an AF or Navy base, go look for ANY female pilot in a bar, walk up to her male buddies and tell them your little female inferiority theory and I would love to film their reaction.
I agree though that women should not join teams like special forces, but really, if a woman enters the trial hell week and passes it, something most men cant even get half past, how can you deny her the right to be in?
-
I've run through all this with kanth but.. to boil it down.
animal.. are you saying that you treat women exactly as you treat men? I know you don't and would have very little respect for you if you did.
for every testosterone pill popping "female" weight lifter there are 1000kr more normal females that you and I have to deal with on a daily basis... not la la "the way the world should be " but day to day reality... how we see and treat women is formed by that interaction in our daily lives... how we react to women being shot or tortured or captured or raped is formed by that day to day interaction... you can't change that in a couple of months or switch it on and off.
as for combat... Why bother weeding out the useless women.. your chances that a man can fight another man are good enough with the training we have.. I can beat the crap out of those women and I am 53 years old... they have a limit on age they don't want to bother to see if I am 'capable" they don't want an old fart in with all them youngsters... they are right.
wonder how many women combat troops the Brits have?
lazs
-
Believe me..if it was workable SOMEBODY in history would of done it.
Women can SHOOT... THEY CAN FLY.... etc. They simply lack the lung and muscule capacity that a male has... they lack the potential as well.
There is a reason why the males take one PT test and the women another.
-
We have no frontline infantrywomen. Although female army officers are trained exactly the same way as their male counterparts, including squad based combat exercises etc.
But we do have frontline flyers. There's a few all female Tornado combat crews. And they are very capable, or they wouldn't be there and wouldn't be entrusted with multi-million pound combat aircraft.
Lastly, the BBC recently did a program called 'SAS - are you tough enough?'. Basically the premise is that a bunch of ultra fit wannabes are put through a series of trials which emulate the real SAS selection procedure, condensed into a short amount of time. The guys who are doing the assessing and setting the tests are all ex-SAS people, so they know what they are doing. The first series took part in Britain, the newest series moved to the Malasian jungle.
Out of a mixed group of 26 men and women, there were 3 women and 4 men left after one week of all sorts of tough stuff, including a mock torture session (white noise, sleep deprivation, mainly pyscological stuff).
By day 16 there were just 2 men and 2 women left - the third women was binned because she just didn't have the strength.
The winner was a woman, as decided by the opinions of six ex-SAS people.
-
Lasz,
Women are often very dedicated and strong willed soldiers.
I'd say more so on average than males.
-
fishu... I have no problem with what you say... I am merely pointing out that it doesn't matter.... all things considered..
you can get a blind man to be a good bus driver if you work at it hard enough but it's not worth the effort. or the risk.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Dowding
We have no frontline infantrywomen. Although female army officers are trained exactly the same way as their male counterparts, including squad based combat exercises etc.
But we do have frontline flyers. There's a few all female Tornado combat crews. And they are very capable, or they wouldn't be there and wouldn't be entrusted with multi-million pound combat aircraft.
Lastly, the BBC recently did a program called 'SAS - are you tough enough?'. Basically the premise is that a bunch of ultra fit wannabes are put through a series of trials which emulate the real SAS selection procedure, condensed into a short amount of time. The guys who are doing the assessing and setting the tests are all ex-SAS people, so they know what they are doing. The first series took part in Britain, the newest series moved to the Malasian jungle.
Out of a mixed group of 26 men and women, there were 3 women and 4 men left after one week of all sorts of tough stuff, including a mock torture session (white noise, sleep deprivation, mainly pyscological stuff).
By day 16 there were just 2 men and 2 women left - the third women was binned because she just didn't have the strength.
The winner was a woman, as decided by the opinions of six ex-SAS people.
LOL... can you say TV...
Look I LOVE the idea of strong chicks. My wife works out, has for years and years. She knows ladies who have trained for years and years. They cant hold a candle to me endurance wise or str wise. Its a simple fact. Its a law of averages. Oh..there are women out there who could nodoubt smoke the sh(* outta me..but they are the rare exception, not the rule.
-
Whether you like the idea or not, women can do the job.
you guys are pointing out boxing, are pointing out the olympics..are even saying you could beat up a woman..
well when war consists of two people punching the **** out of each other in the middle of a ring, you will begin to have a leg to stand on...and I only say begin because still there are some women who would in.
But war doesn't go like that, and it hasn't since mankind became tool users.
get real and quit watching so much tv...america's women don't all look like cheer leaders and super models.
-
Originally posted by Kanth
Whether you like the idea or not, women can do the job.
you guys are pointing out boxing, are pointing out the olympics..are even saying you could beat up a woman..
well when war consists of two people punching the **** out of each other in the middle of a ring, you will begin to have a leg to stand on...and I only say begin because still there are some women who would in.
But war doesn't go like that, and it hasn't since mankind became tool users.
get real and quit watching so much tv...america's women don't all look like cheer leaders and super models.
Yea... but they still gotta be able to hump the load. 70 to 100+ pounds of equipment for a full combat load. THIS sort of thing is the problem. Its not the ablity to fight..to shoot to respond to pressure... its simply the ablity to carry the same loads and also do the job.
Women are not the physical equals in the area's that matter for ground troops, period. You can argue till your face is blue but its a simple fact.
-
Lasz2 I understand your point and agree to a certain extent on the reaction the public would have to women getting tortured or executed, and that sort of problem.
What I'm trying to point out, is that a woman is just as capable as a man when it comes to shooting a rifle, soldiering, and operating heavy and complex machinery of war.
body strenght is and all that jazz is simply irrelevant in the modern battlefield, even though I still believe most female soldiers can kick the bellybutton of any iraqui raghead in h2h combat, but war isnt fought that way anymore. As long as a woman is capable of carrying and running with her equipment, and shooting her rifle accurately, she'll do ok.
What you are saying about women being uncapable of certain task, altought you exagerate it greatly, is true to some extent, our armed forces are aware of this, and that is why women are not sent to the front lines or join special forces teams. That woman POW was a mechanic who wasnt supposed to be in that zone in the first place. And still just by looking at her she doesnt look any better or worse than her fellow POWs.
The armed forces are well aware of the capabilities of women. Much more than all of us combined. They dont put women in F-16 or give them M016 just to be PC. They basically look for any person who can excell at doing that job and they dont care wether its male, female, dog, martian, muslim. If you can do the job well, you are the right person for the job.
End of story.
-
contrary to what you believe the alice pack (thing used to hump a load) is only balanced by the upper obdy..it's built to rest on the hips (the weight is carried by the hips and legs) to free up the upper body for shooting.
who has more lower body strength...and the amount of endurance required is trained into a willing person who wants to do the job.
my point is, the amount of strength and endurance you are talking about isn't hurculean, it's beyond the norm, yet not beyond the capabilities of women.
-
Originally posted by Kanth
contrary to what you believe the alice pack (thing used to hump a load) is only balanced by the upper obdy..it's built to rest on the hips (the weight is carried by the hips and legs) to free up the upper body for shooting.
who has more lower body strength...and the amount of endurance required is trained into a willing person who wants to do the job.
my point is, the amount of strength and endurance you are talking about isn't hurculean, it's beyond the norm, yet not beyond the capabilities of women.
LOL.... sorry bro the Alice pack is a mini pack used by mech units. You goto a light infantry unit and you carry a Golly-geen full size pack. I know..I carried one while humping a M60 among other weapons. That pack your talking about drives your damn head foward... the wieght tears into your shoulders and you dont use the damn belt... you cut it off or tape it up as it does next to nothing and just slows down the time it take to get it off if your getting shot at. Then..with all that damn wieght..70 to 100 pounds at time you struggel to get the GD thing back on and continue the misery of movement.
Then..you add in a vaiable of say swamp..or sand.. this take s EVEN more endurance str as it wear your bellybutton out trying to stay upright w/the damn thing.
Dont even try to be some sort of expert on that thing unless you carried it. I still have great trapoziods due to carry that GD ruck and my 60 after 10+ yrs.
-
When Britain first set up Israel as a country after WW II the Isreali's put women in combat units. When a woman got killed unit cohesion broke down completely. Men simply couldnt handle seeing a woman blown to pieces next to them. The Israeli's removed women from the combat units and solved the problem.
I read about this some years ago but don't recall the source or I would post it.
Unit cohesion breaking down is enough of a reason to NOT allow women in combat.
Elfie
Armageddon Pile-it
HiTech give us Napalm
-
I did carry it, and I did carry it humping heavy loads, you use the belt or your back will get fluffied up. That's why it has a frame, so you don't mess up your shoulders and back trying to wear it wrong.
don't fight your equiptment and you'll have an easier time doing your job.
btw an expert?? on alice packs?? ya I studied them for years and have a PHD is ruck sacks. hope yer kidding
Originally posted by batdog
Dont even try to be some sort of expert on that thing unless you carried it. I still have great trapoziods due to carry that GD ruck and my 60 after 10+ yrs.
-
then again if you could get a division of women whos monthly cycle was in sync, the war could be over in a week - THAT WEEK!
"ladies" do not belong on the front lines or anywhere near them
-
bad news for you, they *are* on the front lines and they belong there as much as any other american soldier.
Originally posted by Eagler
then again if you could get a division of women whos monthly cycle was in sync, the war could be over in a week - THAT WEEK!
"ladies" do not belong on the front lines or anywhere near them
-
Originally posted by Kanth
I did carry it, and I did carry it humping heavy loads, you use the belt or your back will get fluffied up. That's why it has a frame, so you don't mess up your shoulders and back trying to wear it wrong.
don't fight your equiptment and you'll have an easier time doing your job.
btw an expert?? on alice packs?? ya I studied them for years and have a PHD is ruck sacks. hope yer kidding
Nope..the belt doesnt do poop. Not trying to blast you but I'm going by personal experience. I was a gloriefied grunt and I carried it alot. The pack isnt designed for good wieght distrubution like a civilian pack. Maybe they've changed since I was in.
BTW when/where did you do miltary service?
-
I'm a (I guess now it'd be first gulf war) vet Batdog :)
uh60T10 USArmy out of Fort Bragg.
carrying a pack definately wasn't my primary (obviously) but I have and over long distances carrying heavy...once I had it adjusted properly I didn't notice it too much..(usually was more worried about my feet than the sack)
I think many people wear it too high up on the back because it seems more natural..but for long distances (20 miles +) it'll hurt ya.
how about you? where/when?
Originally posted by batdog
Nope..the belt doesnt do poop. Not trying to blast you but I'm going by personal experience. I was a gloriefied grunt and I carried it alot. The pack isnt designed for good wieght distrubution like a civilian pack. Maybe they've changed since I was in.
BTW when/where did you do miltary service?
-
1/75th, 24inf and final UNC Honor Guard Korea (It beat the DMZ for sure :) ).
Most of my tour was in Georgia, my last year was in Korea. I didnt do sh(* worth bragging about considering whats going on now for sure. I learned to do push ups in ways I never thought possiable, I learned to hate Spec 4's till I was one. I learned to hate everybody..even my mom. I learned to drink upside down.
I learned that just becuase it burns doesnt mean you've got the clap..but it still aint a good thing. I learned that nobody gives a sh*& what you've done when you get out. Including myself.
-
Originally posted by batdog
1/75th, 24inf and final UNC Honor Guard Korea (It beat the DMZ for sure :) ).
Most of my tour was in Georgia, my last year was in Korea. I didnt do sh(* worth bragging about considering whats going on now for sure. I learned to do push ups in ways I never thought possiable, I learned to hate Spec 4's till I was one. I learned to hate everybody..even my mom. I learned to drink upside down.
I learned that just becuase it burns doesnt mean you've got the clap..but it still aint a good thing. I learned that nobody gives a sh*& what you've done when you get out. Including myself.
Nice post!!!
-
^^
Hey!! where'd you get that avatar!
we can have those now??
[edit] OH I SEE KEWL!![/edit]
two things I'll take away from the army, the sense of family and the amount of really large expensive toys you get to play with.
:D
-
Women can be very athletic and strong ..
some of the female athlete's around here could probably kick most of your butts!!!
they have endurance, feriocity, intelligence, and yes.. strength.
amazing strength.
and some of the 'men' I've seen come through get tired if they can't use the elevator..
it's too broad a brush to say women this , men that..
it's more of an individual thing IMO.
that said, I still wouldn't want my platoon/wing whatever, with a mix of men and women on the front..
due to the distinct possibility that having women there may change the habbits of the men.
-
Sorry Fishu I missed your response in this thread earlier today. Back to the Geneva Convention issue....
Guys.. many of those captured in afganistan, who ended to US, did not even carry a weapon, but were rather arrested.
How exactly were they combatants in civilian clothes in that case?
To be honest I'm not sure, I'm not a lawyer, let alone an international lawyer. But in the case above the Geneva convention definitely would not cover those people. The Geneva convention is very specific in how it defines military personnel and how they should be treated. But, its ONLY for military personnel.
-
my points remain valid. men react differently around women... the few women that may make minimal standard for front line duty are not worth the cost and effort.
I will say that there are no women that could kick the crap out of an iraqi soldier in hand to hand... and no matter how you cut it... there will allways be a chance that it will come to that.
If I had to get a bunch of ammo or whatever moved in a big hurry I sure don't want to depend on women to do it.. so what do you do? leave it behind because you are the platoon that got stuck with the women?
I don't want to count on the men not being affected by a "coed" combat group. You aren't going to break 20 years of training in a few months.... and why should you? to be PC?
In dowdings example... I bet that the woman who finished would still have a hard time taking on joey butta****o even after he has polished off a 6 pack and a 20 oz prime rib.
If there is no difference then there should be no restrictions... "starship troopers" kinda heinlien la la land... the troops need to all shower together and sleep in the same tents barracks whatever... same open stalled bathrooms for everyone.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Animal
I didnt know you needed superhuman upper body strenght to be a good leader or an excellent marksman.
I for one will not argue this point.
I didnt know you needed many years of evolution to have courage under fire.
hoever I've seen a whole string of women who did not posess the upper body strength to charge a Mk-19... but they were still "certified" thanks to PC
Granted, I didnt see any women under combat (not being in combat myself) but I did see women being better leaders than most of the men around, and I saw women who shot better with a rifle than most men around.
Some.. however in my time I've seen very little of this. Remove the "most" and I'll agree.
And if you think all men in the army are strong guys, wrong. Take a stride around an army base. Mostly they are average. With a nice exersice routine an already sturdy gal could easily have above average strenght compared to the men around them (in the ARMY at least, know nothing about Marines)
And as pilots, well lasz2 go to an AF or Navy base, go look for ANY female pilot in a bar, walk up to her male buddies and tell them your little female inferiority theory and I would love to film their reaction.
:D Ya.. I'd like to see this scenario played out myself hehehe
I agree though that women should not join teams like special forces, but really, if a woman enters the trial hell week and passes it, something most men cant even get half past, how can you deny her the right to be in?
I guess my "experienced" input would lead me to agree... JUST AS LONG as standards are not lowered (as in the case of USAF Combat Controllers). IMO those standards are there for a reason... but someone still needs to tell me how to handle the issue of SEX (in a broader sense you perv's). We're not talking robots here, and like it or not, it's an issue that has made it's presence loud and clear over the years.
-
Originally posted by Vermillion
Sorry Fishu I missed your response in this thread earlier today. Back to the Geneva Convention issue....
To be honest I'm not sure, I'm not a lawyer, let alone an international lawyer. But in the case above the Geneva convention definitely would not cover those people. The Geneva convention is very specific in how it defines military personnel and how they should be treated. But, its ONLY for military personnel.
So we're actually talking about illegal arrest, torture and death of people regarded as civilians under geneva convention
-
No its not illegal (specifically under the Geneva convention, because it doesn't apply) as many of them were active in insurgency and terrorism. And I seriously doubt that most were arrestted without weapons or involvement in Taliban or Al Qaeda. Consult your local international lawyer for what legal conventions applies.
But you can stop the "Its against the Geneva Convention!!!" crap.