Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: miko2d on April 02, 2003, 09:09:57 AM
-
Is that likely that a highly-publicised rescue of a wounded american POW from a hospital will make future adversaries less likely to move the wounded american POWs from whatever secure locations they are usually held to the hospital for necessary treatment - thus endangering the lives of our future wounded POWs?
I am not questioning here whether it was right to attack a hospital.
I am not questioning here whether it was right to risk combat troops in such operation.
I am not questioning here whether attempting to rescue the prisoners - that may well be in danger - will make it more likely for the enemy to kill or not take prisoners.
Just the narrow case of punishing the adversary for something we would want them to do - treating our POW in a hospitals - and then widely publicising that fact for all future adversaries to know rather than keeping quiet about it.
miko
-
Wow...
I'm sure the iraqs only had her best interests at heart..
Why do you choose to look at things this way?
-
...and Iraqi's are firing on the coalition troops from Mosques... :rolleyes:
Anyway, how are these guys gonna communicate? Its well known that the Iraqi communication lines are broke, and its obvious by the 11 bodies in the rear of the hospital that this was indeed a rare occurance, probably because she was female and a high ranking Hadji wanted her for sexual pleasure after her wounds healed alittle. Thats my guess.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Why do you choose to look at things this way?
New Yorker, he's been brainwashed by the New York Times.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Wow...
I'm sure the iraqs only had her best interests at heart..
Why do you choose to look at things this way?
because he's your typical anti american. He tries to put that slant on anything he writes. Why waste his time talking about the fact that the "hospital" she was being "treated" in, had been converted to a military HQ. Mentioning that would hardly further his cause.
So, as we march closer to the capitol, faster and with fewer casualties than any war in history, it becomes harder for his kind to find things to denounce the US.
New Yorker, he's been brainwashed by the New York Times.
And another immigrant. Go figure.
-
This is for miko2d who says he has Martlet on ignore list:
Originally posted by Martlet
because he's your typical anti american. He tries to put that slant on anything he writes. Why waste his time talking about the fact that the "hospital" she was being "treated" in, had been converted to a military HQ. Mentioning that would hardly further his cause.
So, as we march closer to the capitol, faster and with fewer casualties than any war in history, it becomes harder for his kind to find things to denounce the US.
And another immigrant. Go figure.
-
GRUNHERZ: Why do you choose to look at things this way?
Everybody else is celebrating. Some seem intent on vengeance for the treatment of some of our past POW. Those are justified and understandable reactions.
At the same time nobody seems concerned about the fate of our future POWs but somebody has to.
Support our troops does mean "let's have more of them killed", does it?
I want an adversary dread the though of mistreating us POWs for fear of the future vengeance.
At teh same time I want an adversary be comfortable providing the best care for our wounded POWs rather than worrying about exposing themselves.
Will it be tried to be used to mask the enemy's military installation in the places our POWs are being treated like they use hospitals, schools and mosques?
Probably - even likely. In that case we should attack/bomb/destroy the enemy installation like we attack any other such place - even if that means killing our POWs in the process - in an operation clearly publicised as an assault on the disguised military facility rather than as a POW rescue.
If we do happen to rescue a POW, it would probably make sense to keep it quiet untill the end of war, so as not to endanger the lives of other POWs in enemy hands. If we make such a great deal out of it, they might be tempted to deny it to us by killing them. Of course we will never see the number of POWs killed due to our policy and only know of the few rescued - at least most of the population. But lose them we may - and more than we save.
I fail to see how my status as an immigrant or my reading preferences (not New York Times, btw) reflect on the validity of my question. The logic certainly applies to any country that may have it's soldiers fall wounded into enemy's hands and wants the best possible care for them.
I could have used any country as an example but it's the fate of US POWs that concerns me - I am one of a very few "patriots" here who intends for his children to serve and who has a "ward" serving there right now on my advice.
So any "denouncing" of the US is purely incidental - if you prefer to think of my bringing attention to a possible mistake that could get our soldiers killed as "denounciation".
miko
-
I just don't see that our actions are going to make any difference in how they decide to treat our troops..
I see no evidence that this is so.
They will do what they think benefits them most, no matter what we do to their people, no matter what we think or how we act.
I don't think the fact that she was in a hospital means a whole lot, the last time we found our people at a hospital they were in a shallow grave and a metal bed with a battery attached was found inside along with bloody clothing.
I think she could have just as easily been found in a mosque or a school.
They aren't playing nice now, and nothing we do can change that.
And trying to make nice with them over POW's just gives us a weakness for them to exploit.
-
The problem is your "denouncing" of the US is in almost every one of your posts.
Iraq is not a country known for being nice to ANY prisoners!
I understand what you are trying to say about "Future" POWs but for me and a lot of others we look at it this way...if we CAN rescue our troops we SHOULD!
-
One of the dumbest posts you've ever made miko.
Do you think the rescue of one POW is going to do any more/less to endanger other POWs than the siege of Baghdad?
You are falling into the same trap as the media miko. You look at one event and over analyze it and draw conclusions that really make no sense when compared to the bigger picture.
Iraq is trying to win the media battle as well as the U.S. What works better: "Those U.S. pigs assaulted a hospital!" or "Those U.S. pigs assaulted a hospital so we tortured and killed their POWs."
MiniD
-
Ripsnort: ...and Iraqi's are firing on the coalition troops from Mosques...
As I've said - I am not questioning attacks on the military installations in mosques and hospitals but only POWs rescues.
Ripsnort: Anyway, how are these guys gonna communicate?
They? All our future adversaries - Iranians, Koreans, Syrians, etc. are getting it from our media. We are communicating it loud and clear - "try to provide a better care for our wounded and you will regret it".
Ripsnort: New Yorker, he's been brainwashed by the New York Times.
:) Yeah, that's where I got that idea about my avatar...
Ripsnort: probably because she was female and a high ranking Hadji wanted her for sexual pleasure after her wounds healed alittle. Thats my guess.
That is actually the only rational point relating to our discussion - or at least the question I raised. Let's wait and see if our command had such belief before they launched the rescue mission. That still does not explain the reason to highly publicise it. It's not the fact of the rescue that endangers the POWs - only the knowlege of it by our adversaries.
Anyway, anyone dares to venture a straight answer? Will it or will not such an act endanger our POWs in this and the future conflicts in years to come?
Kanth: I just don't see that our actions are going to make any difference in how they decide to treat our troops..
I see no evidence that this is so.
First, if you do not see it, it does not necessarily mean it's not there.
Second, who are they you are talking about? Certainly the afghans skin their prisoners and then keep them alive for days while chechens cut their throats while Iraqis seem to treat at least one of them in the hospital and returned a few alive and germans usually treated US POWs reasonably well, etc.
Kanth: And trying to make nice with them over POW's just gives us a weakness for them to exploit.
It looks like treating US prisoners humanely gives the weakness for us to exploit.
As for giving us a weakness for them to exploit, I don't see how not rescuing a POW from a hospital in a specific mission makes us weaker?
We can still attack their military facilities even if that means killing our own POWs, so they can not exploit POW as "human shields".
But if you can explain how it gives us a weakness that I fail to realise, it would be exactly a kind of an answer I was looking for in this thread.
Turdboy: The problem is your "denouncing" of the US is in almost every one of your posts.
If you see my bringing attention to our mistakes in hopes to fix them for the benefit as this country as "denouncing" - not much I can do.
Still, does that mean I cannot count on your rational input on the subgect in any of my posts?
Turdboy: Iraq is not a country known for being nice to ANY prisoners!
People get killed in a war - even prisoners. Whatever the state policy, there are alwasy people close to the action with their own motivatons. Any army killed prisoners in any war - including allies killing german prisoners in WWII. Once you have your family hurt/threatened or buddies killed, your average grunt or lowly officer does not care about Geneva Convention much.
But once the prisoner survives capture, those in Iraqi hands seem to be doing OK.
Jessica seems to be treated in the hospital - and if she was tortured there and US command knew about that before mounting the raid, maybe the command should be more explicit on that.
Gulf War I prisoners were beat up somewhat and scared by shooting with unloaded pistols, but that is way milder than what we believe acceptable - not just threats but sleep/sensoty deprivation, confinment/binding in akward positions in narrow spaces, etc.
Mini D: Do you think the rescue of one POW is going to do any more/less to endanger other POWs than the siege of Bagdahd?
I did not specifically mean Bagdahd but any future wars - some day we may have to asault Damaskus, Berlin or Paris or Tehran or Moscow or Belgrade, whatever.
But it applies to Bagdahd as well. They will keep our wounded POWs in the same dungeons as the rest instead of treating them in the hospitals. And, seing what a great deal we make out of the rescue and how dangerous it is to be around the POWs, they may just be tempted to shoot them all and be done with it.
What's so dumb about that?
You are falling into the same trap as the media miko. You look at one event and over analyze it and draw conclusions that really make no sense when compared to the bigger picture.
Iraq is trying to win the media battle as well as the U.S.
Not really. I look at a very narrow case. You move a wounded POW in a less safe treatment facility. US exploits it as well as scores a major media coup. You get fewer POWs getting moved into safe treatment facilities. Is that one case worth more POWs dead in the future - who's death could not be possibly blamed on such policy with any certainity but will be no less real?
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Is that likely that a highly-publicised rescue of a wounded american POW from a hospital will make future adversaries less likely to move the wounded american POWs from whatever secure locations they are usually held to the hospital for necessary treatment - thus endangering the lives of our future wounded POWs?
I am not questioning here whether it was right to attack a hospital.
I am not questioning here whether it was right to risk combat troops in such operation.
I am not questioning here whether attempting to rescue the prisoners - that may well be in danger - will make it more likely for the enemy to kill or not take prisoners.
Just the narrow case of punishing the adversary for something we would want them to do - treating our POW in a hospitals - and then widely publicising that fact for all future adversaries to know rather than keeping quiet about it.
miko
Your a true tard. She was in a hospital used as a command center vie Saddam's boys. She was in the hands of indiv's who have a rep of torture/murder.
Yea.. **** it we should of just left her there.
You sir are a complete and utter **** head.
And who the hell knows if she was BEING treated or how well she was being treated while in there?
-
Oh, Mighty1
I appreciate your effort but I put Mar on the ignore list not because he particularly offends me but because none of his posts so far contained an iota of information.
I will certainly appreciate if it is brough to my attention when he breaks that rule in any of his posts and writes anything worth reading, but the one you've quoted for me here was a waste of effort.
miko
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
...and Iraqi's are firing on the coalition troops from Mosques... :rolleyes:
Anyway, how are these guys gonna communicate? Its well known that the Iraqi communication lines are broke, and its obvious by the 11 bodies in the rear of the hospital that this was indeed a rare occurance, probably because she was female and a high ranking Hadji wanted her for sexual pleasure after her wounds healed alittle. Thats my guess.
They Iraqi's didn't wait to sexually assault one of the female POW's taken during the last gulf war. She had two broken arms, and was molested amost imediately. The second female POW was also sexually assaulted (and to a much greater extent from what I have been able to gather), but was not injured when she was captured.
The mistreatment of US female POW's was suppressed after the war by a certain female former congresswomen pushing for more combat roles for women.
-Smut
-
Originally posted by miko2d
[Mini D: Do you think the rescue of one POW is going to do any more/less to endanger other POWs than the siege of Bagdahd?
I did not specifically mean Bagdahd but any future wars - some day we may have to asault Damaskus, Berlin or Paris or Tehran or Moscow or Belgrade, whatever.
But it applies to Bagdahd as well. They will keep our wounded POWs in the same dungeons as the rest instead of treating them in the hospitals. And, seing what a great deal we make out of the rescue and how dangerous it is to be around the POWs, they may just be tempted to shoot them all and be done with it.
What's so dumb about that?
Either they care about public oppinion or they do not. Either they are going to let the soldiers live or they are not. Are you really thinking anyone fighting us is going to say "well... what about that one they recovered from a hospital in Iraq"? Come on miko... you're stretching it way to thin to have anything resembling a point. This one is purely inflamatory.
BTW... nice job on the "Damaskus, Berlin, Paris, Tehran, Moscow, Belgrade" reference. It really sheds some light on your point of view.
You are falling into the same trap as the media miko. You look at one event and over analyze it and draw conclusions that really make no sense when compared to the bigger picture.
Iraq is trying to win the media battle as well as the U.S.
Not really. I look at a very narrow case. You move a wounded POW in a less safe treatment facility. US exploits it as well as scores a major media coup. You get fewer POWs getting moved into safe treatment facilities. Is that one case worth more POWs dead in the future - who's death could not be possibly blamed on such policy with any certainity but will be no less real?
Sigh...
We found one surivivor Miko. Some day you may realize what that means, but I doubt you'll actually choose to.
I don't know that the Iraqis have taken any prisoners with the idea that we will not try to get them back. Surely they know this must have been a consideration BECAUSE EVERY MILITARY MEMBER WOULD ATTEMPT THE SAME THING! THIS SHOULD BE COMMON SENSE! That's why they hide them... or try to get them to a more well protected place.
As far as what is or is not more dangerous during a war Miko... Well... I just have to laugh at you for this whole aproach.
MiniD
-
Smut: The mistreatment of US female POW's was suppressed after the war by a certain female former congresswomen pushing for more combat roles for women.
That brings a similar dilemma. Publicise it and the public will demand their heads and possibly get them - even though we did not capture Iraq then but crtainly now.
But in the future the POWs will more likely to get killed in addition of being raped - much like increase of punishment for other crimes than murder prompts criminals to kill the witnesses.
I do not have an opinion about that. The only way seems to hold government responcible for the actions of the subordinates so they take all measures to protect the POW.
Which may still leave the perpetrators to kill the abused to hide the fact from their own superiors - like soviet troops did in Afghanistan. After a body has been ground under the APC tracks, its' hard to say whether she was raped or not...
War is hell. :(
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
First, if you do not see it, it does not necessarily mean it's not there.
the same can be said for God. ;)
Second, who are they you are talking about? Certainly the afghans skin their prisoners and then keep them alive for days while chechens cut their throats while Iraqis seem to treat at least one of them in the hospital and returned a few alive and germans usually treated US POWs reasonably well, etc.
"They"...would be Iraqi's, that's where the war is. And they appear to have treated more than one in a hospital but "treatment" in this case means torture and murder of them, of which we have found evidence.
It looks like treating US prisoners humanely gives the weakness for us to exploit.
because she was found in a 'hospital' doesn't mean she was being treated humanely, miko, is my point. I think you are assuming too much here.
It's just a building like any other building they use for military purpose, they are hoping, I think that we will find significance in it being a "hospital" rather than just any other building..
As for giving us a weakness for them to exploit, I don't see how not rescuing a POW from a hospital in a specific mission makes us weaker?
morale. If the troops know they will be left behind, because they are located in a "Hospital" even though they are being tortured and murdered in it..it will hurt morale (which is a huge understatement)
We can still attack their military facilities even if that means killing our own POWs, so they can not exploit POW as "human shields".
That is true. Although we tend to rescue our people instead of blowing them up with the building if possible.
-
actualy the US troops did not have to "attack" the "hospital", they knocked on the door and said "we bad, give us the girl and we won't throw you off the roof"
-
I don't understand the hostility... Seemed like a reasonable question to me. It doesn't appear that Miko is suggesting that rescue operations shouldn't be undertaken if the prisoner is being held in a hospital - only that perhaps such an operation shouldn't be publicised (he italicised that word). It makes a certain amount of sense to me...
Now maybe he hasn't considered something (that I can't think of either)... but since when should someone be so totally insulted for being concerned about the POW's ability to get medical treatment or the military's ability to conduct future rescues as a result of the details of this particular rescue being made public?
I must be missing something...
-
smut you got a cite on the sexual mistreatment ?
not callin you a liar but the only two women i saw as pow last war both said they were not assaulted sexualy.
are there others ? or have they changed their story?
-
Originally posted by miko2d
thus endangering the lives of our future wounded POWs?
No one gets left behind.
True it might mean that there is a higher risk that the next POW gets a shot in the head instead of medical treatment.
BUT
No one gets left behind.
That is worth so much more for the troops moral to know. If you are captured, we will do our utmost to come and get you. So you have to weigh the increased risk for future prisoners against the moral effects on the own troops.
BECAUSE
The alternative would be to tell the troops that "if you are captured and we know where you are, we are not coming for you because that might make it harder for others to surrender in the future."
(Is it just me or does that sound oh-so-very-French?)
THAT is unacceptable, and would wreak havoc on unit moral.
-
Wonder why that is...
Funny how people make a huge deal of sexual assault of female soldiers during wartime as though it is something different than the torture and murder of our male soldiers, as if it is somehow more important..
makes me sick.
Originally posted by Smut
The mistreatment of US female POW's was suppressed after the war by a certain female former congresswomen pushing for more combat roles for women.
-Smut
-
miko there was a military HQ located in that hospital. no one knows the real story yet but just as possible is the fact that she was there because it was a military HQ that happened to be in a hospital. also the skinning of soviet soldiers by afghani tribesmen, while totally unacceptable to any professional soldier might have had something to do with the intentional targeting of villages women and children for elimination by soviet military as a way to remove support base for afghani guerilla fighters.
-
Originally posted by Kanth
Wonder why that is...
Funny how people make a huge deal of sexual assault of female soldiers during wartime as though it is something different than the torture and murder of our male soldiers, as if it is somehow more important..
makes me sick.
Its a guy-thing Kanth. We just want to be knights in shining armor sometimes and protect the girls.
Frankly, I think its in our genes.
-
I think he enjoys being provocative. (like airhead enjoys trolling)
I think it's deliberate in order to get responses, rather than being a culteral or language difference.
I think people get frustrated with it in time. (or right away in some cases)
sort of like the media.
Originally posted by Nash
I don't understand the hostility... Seemed like a reasonable question to me.
I must be missing something...
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Oh, Mighty1
I appreciate your effort but I put Mar on the ignore list not because he particularly offends me but because none of his posts so far contained an iota of information.
I will certainly appreciate if it is brough to my attention when he breaks that rule in any of his posts and writes anything worth reading, but the one you've quoted for me here was a waste of effort.
miko
Translation:
Martlet has made me look like an idiot far to often. If I put him on ignore, I won't reply to his posts, thus giving him the opportunity to do it yet again.
-
Miko - is my reading comprehension screwed this morning or does your post say that you don't question the rescue operation, just questioning making the details public?
-
Sorry Hortlund, I was being a smartass (read: ), I didn't actually require an explanation.
It's origins can be debated, but not in this thread. :)
Originally posted by Hortlund
Its a guy-thing Kanth. We just want to be knights in shining armor sometimes and protect the girls.
Frankly, I think its in our genes.
-
in terms of planning you have to assume they went in after her because the planner did not feel that she was safe in current situation even if she was in hospital. miko you know i think because you were in military. the guy planning the op is never going to say "well shes being mistreated but if we go after her then in some future conflict is possible our pow not treated at hospital". besides look at the history American pow havent been treated decently since second world war. in korea war American pow found hands bound behind back and shot by chinese and north korean. American pow tortured in VN. to be honest i cant think of country America could wind up at war with over next twenty or thirty years that will treat pow appropriately. russian army would treat them fairly i think, but cant imagine us at war with russian army.
-
Originally posted by anonymous
russian army would treat them fairly i think, but cant imagine us at war with russian army.
Yeah, just ask the chechs
-
I don't know why this is even a debate.
If you know where a soldier is being held(prison camp,hospital,wherever)and you have an opportunity to extract them,you do so.
Every single time.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Yeah, just ask the chechs
russia wasnt risking nuclear exchange with cZechs by invading them. russia and American both know limited conflict with other very good chance of get out of control.
-
Mini D: Either they care about public oppinion or they do not. Either they are going to let the soldiers live or they are not. Are you really thinking anyone fighting us is going to say "well... what about that one they recovered from a hospital in Iraq"? Come on miko...
I am not examining that in view of public opinion - you are confused about that. Please re-read my posts here.
They will think:
- "that american POW needs a better care than we can provide in this dungeon, better move him/her to a hospital..."
- "well... what about that one they recovered from a hospital in Iraq? - that was highly publicised few years ago? They had quite a shoooting there..." "
- "Good point. The heck with him/her. If she dies, God's will."
Isn't that a reasonable to expect them (not necessarily iraqi) to think like that. Nowhere here does public opinion come into equasion. So don't derail the subject, please.
Kanth: "They"...would be Iraqi's, that's where the war is.
You may perfer to use the word "they" exclusively for Iraqis but this is my thread and you cannot tell me what meaning I should attribute to it. I used they for any future adversaries of US - serbs and syrians who sell stuff to iraqis, iranians, mexicans, germans, russians, koreans, etc.
because she was found in a 'hospital' doesn't mean she was being treated humanely, miko, is my point.
But that does not mean she was treated less humanely than in teh dungeon or threted inhumanely at all.
If she was treated inhumanely and it was a cosideration for launching the rescue - that would be a very valid way to dissuade the adversaries from doing so but it is not publicised as such so far. We want to punish them for doing bad things and not for doing good things.
If the troops know they will be left behind, because they are located in a "Hospital" even though they are being tortured and murdered in it..it will hurt morale
Will good point too. Does it balance the actual extra deaths of POWs and morale loss due to troops dreading to fall prisoners, specially wounded?
Would they be more likely to run, especially if wounded? Surrender not waiting for being wounded? Panic and kill civilians/friendlies?
I saw all those things happen - of course the soviet troops dreaded of being wounded not because they would not get good treatment at afghani's hands, but because being wounded may not allow one to kill oneself but the result is the same.
With all the propaganda against nazi in WWII - and many atrocities they did commit, the US aircraft crews used to parachute the crew members badly wounded by flak, etc. over german-occupied territories so they get the proper medical treatment soon, rather than risk dying hours-long flight home.
That did not give us any weaknesses to exploit.
Hortlund: If you are captured, we will do our utmost to come and get you.
And if not, you will be released from captivity at the end of the war in the course of a regular and common prisoner exchange.
"No one gets left behind." means we will not leave anyone to die or suffer horrible fate, not "we will keep you from a humane treatment in a prisoner camp if we have to kill you".
anonymous: miko there was a military HQ located in that hospital.
Right. So there was a great opportunity to publicise it as an attack on a military facility despite it being in the hospital - and downplay the POW rescue.
We should artguably blast the military in the schools, hospitals, mosques - exactly in order to dissuade them from doing that in the future and save more lives in the end.
But that is not what we are claiming to have done there.
Nash: Miko - is my reading comprehension screwed this morning or does your post say that you don't question the rescue operation, just questioning making the details public?
Right. If I don't know about it and our future adversaries don't know about it (it may get know after the war but not attract attention), then there are almost no bad side affects that I am concerned about. Sure, Iraqi would know about the rescue, but if we threw some false leads and with their comms in bad order, that would be negligeable.
Of course there is always a question if she would have been safer in captivity waiting for the release than exposed to dangers of rescue - or being shot by a guard to prevent rescue, but that is a purely tactical consideration that is the planning officer's prerogative. I am not questioning that.
Endangering all futire POWs though is a state policy issue. USSR in WWII treated all their POWs - even wounded - as traitors while we treat them as our countrymen in distress and worry about their well-being.
Sox62: If you know where a soldier is being held... and you have an opportunity to extract them,you do so.
Why? We want to win the war and have the least number of our people killed during that war or in the future wars. If the POWs are not mistreated, what's wrong with them being prisoners for a while? Not every rescue increases their chance of survival and may hurt the future ones.
We do recognise that whole prisoner thing, sign conventions, hold states accountable for abiding by them.
It may be nice slogans to some here but wea re talking about real people who fulfilled their duty the best they could have no desire to die and often no need to.
miko
-
Originally posted by Sox62
I don't know why this is even a debate.
If you know where a soldier is being held(prison camp,hospital,wherever)and you have an opportunity to extract them,you do so.
Every single time.
i think debate comin from honest question from guy from russian army which means different accepted norms from any western military in many areas.
-
The question isn't whether we rescue or not, but whether media blitzing it hurts our position in any way.
Originally posted by Sox62
I don't know why this is even a debate.
If you know where a soldier is being held(prison camp,hospital,wherever)and you have an opportunity to extract them,you do so.
Every single time.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
And if not, you will be released from captivity at the end of the war in the course of a regular and common prisoner exchange.
"No one gets left behind." means we will not leave anyone to die or suffer horrible fate, not "we will keep you from a humane treatment in a prisoner camp if we have to kill you".
Well, you are making a very big assumption that the Iraqis will follow the laws of war miko. They might not skin their prisoners, but you have to ask yourself how that girl broke both legs and one arm...
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
smut you got a cite on the sexual mistreatment ?
not callin you a liar but the only two women i saw as pow last war both said they were not assaulted sexualy.
are there others ? or have they changed their story?
Maj. Rhonda Cornum (Army doctor that suffered two broken arms when her Blackhawk was shot down):
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/doubleissue/heroes/cornum.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/war/5.html
I may have been incorrect about the second POW, the enlisted that was taken...what I find now agrees with you, she claims she was not mistreated. I stand corrected on that point.
-Smut
-
Originally posted by miko2d
this is my thread and you cannot tell me what meaning I should attribute to it.
LOL!!! is this an april fools thing?
If she was treated inhumanely and it was a cosideration for launching the rescue - that would be a very valid way to dissuade the adversaries from doing so but it is not publicised as such so far. We want to punish them for doing bad things and not for doing good things.
It has been publicized that they found the bed used for torture in a hospital along with several of our dead in a shallow grave, it has been publicized that they are executing our prisoners, first pictures of headwounds then confirmation that it's what they are doing.
I don't believe the degree of an individual's torture is needed before rescue attempts are made in light of this publicized information.
Will good point too. Does it balance the actual extra deaths of POWs and morale loss due to troops dreading to fall prisoners, specially wounded?
Would they be more likely to run, especially if wounded? Surrender not waiting for being wounded? Panic and kill civilians/friendlies?
I saw all those things happen - of course the soviet troops dreaded of being wounded not because they would not get good treatment at afghani's hands, but because being wounded may not allow one to kill oneself but the result is the same.
With all the propaganda against nazi in WWII - and many atrocities they did commit, the US aircraft crews used to parachute the crew members badly wounded by flak, etc. over german-occupied territories so they get the proper medical treatment soon, rather than risk dying hours-long flight home.
That did not give us any weaknesses to exploit.
A good point in that all enemies/friendlies and all wars are not equal.
This is why I chose 'they' to mean the iraqi's (and us to mean America), in order to be able to further discuss.
It's easier to generalize about all enemy or friendly in all wars, but it's inaccurate and a waste of time.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
smut you got a cite on the sexual mistreatment ?
not callin you a liar but the only two women i saw as pow last war both said they were not assaulted sexualy.
are there others ? or have they changed their story?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-03-23-missing-solidiers_x.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-03-23-missing-solidiers_x.htm)
-
I regret to admit that I haven't read this whole thread. However, I have to ask if miko2d has addressed the fact that Coalition forces didn't enter that hospital in an attempt to rescue POWs? That hospital had been transformed into an enemy HQ, probably in an attempt to once again put civilian lives further at risk. The hospital was secured to eliminate that risk.
-
The question it seems is why would we go into a hospital and rescue a POW. After all they are being treated there correct?
1)Well...the Iraq governement doesnt have a good track record in regards to treating indiv's humanly.
2)We do not like to leave our people under hostile hands after what happened to our indiv's in Vietnam.
3)The miltary has learned to take care of its own if at all possiable. It is part of the esprit d'courpe. You fight and die for your brothers and sisters in arms...you really could care less about the poly science 101 crap we see spewed on these boards;
Part of that is bringing your people the **** home.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Sox62: If you know where a soldier is being held... and you have an opportunity to extract them,you do so.
Why? We want to win the war and have the least number of our people killed during that war or in the future wars. If the POWs are not mistreated, what's wrong with them being prisoners for a while? Not every rescue increases their chance of survival and may hurt the future ones.
We do recognise that whole prisoner thing, sign conventions, hold states accountable for abiding by them.
miko [/B]
If you don't already understand "why",there's no way I could explain it to you.
Intentionally NOT rescue someone,when their location is known,and it's a doable mission?I find even the thought revolting.
You don't leave a fallen soldier behind.Ever.
-
Hortlund: Well, you are making a very big assumption that the Iraqis will follow the laws of war miko. They might not skin their prisoners, but you have to ask yourself how that girl broke both legs and one arm...
Maybe the peasant who took her prisoner remembered his family being bombed and took his anger on her before an officer could intervene?
Women have very fragile bones compared to men and are naturally clumsy - also relative to men, especially the clerk types, so once they start jumping from moving vehicles with greandes exploding all over the place, you are bound to have a few broken bones.
Any other possible scenario.
We got our prisoners (all but one?) from first Gulf War back safe no worse than bruised and scared by shooting with an unloaded pistol.
Kanth: LOL!!! is this an april fools thing?
:) What I meant was that you can use a word in any possibe meaning but when you are replying to what I posted, you should consider the meaning that I intended. I do not claim posession of any piece of this board, but if we mean different theings by the same word, we will get nowhere. I cannot list all 190 countries that we may have to fight every time just because you would not allow me to use the retm "them" to denote... er... all those countries. :)
If course your comments and thoughts about specifics in Iraq are welcome, but you should not threat my argument as if I mean only Iraq.
It has been publicized that they found the bed used for torture in a hospital
All I've heard they found a car battery in some room. I immediately though - how carefull they are providing backup power for some medical equipment in case the power goes down due to some bombing. What, did you hear more details than that?
Did they have electricity in the hospital? That can be used for torture too. 220 volts alternating hurts way more than 12 volt direct. Of course if you need 12 volt direct you do not need tolug a car battery around - just use a power supply from your VCR rewinder. Much lighter.
AFAIK, torture by electric current achieves maximum pain without adverse health effects - if done properly on a healthy person - no heart problems and such. Could it be called humane, compared to, say beating or sleep deprivation?
along with several of our dead in a shallow grave...
And two in the morgue. Hospital is a place wher people often die without being tortured to death - though I would not put it past some iraqus. We will have to wait for more detail too..
This is why I chose 'they' to mean the iraqi's (and us to mean America), in order to be able to further discuss.
It's easier to generalize about all enemy or friendly in all wars, but it's inaccurate and a waste of time.
I guess if we announce in advance to any particular country which policy we are going to conduct in any given conflict and abide by it, we may not have them using Iraqi experience when we invade them.
Or just bomb them an have a pilot shot down or something. But I am not entirely sure.
Preon1: However, I have to ask if miko2d has addressed the fact that Coalition forces didn't enter that hospital in an attempt to rescue POWs?
Well, I am basing this thread only on what I - and millions/billions of other people heard last night and read this morning.
Even if it was an asault on the militarty installation, it is still being publicised as a POW rescue.
Somewhere in this thread we've established that it is just such publicity - much less than the fact of the rescue itself - that jeopardises safety of our future POWs.
Instead of dissuading the enemy from using hospitals as cover, we dissuade them from treating our POWs in the future. All for the sake of short-term publicity campaign.
miko
-
Originally posted by Preon1
I regret to admit that I haven't read this whole thread. However, I have to ask if miko2d has addressed the fact that Coalition forces didn't enter that hospital in an attempt to rescue POWs? That hospital had been transformed into an enemy HQ, probably in an attempt to once again put civilian lives further at risk. The hospital was secured to eliminate that risk.
Wrong.It was a rescue mission.
You don't use a Seal team,with Rangers and Marines for cover just to secure a hospital.
-
Sox62: If you don't already understand "why",there's no way I could explain it to you.
If myself or my son is a prisoner in iraqi hands, I do not want you to throw his life away for some publicity campaign - as simple as that. Tens of thousands americans survived WWII captivity. Wounded bomber crewmen were parachuted into enemy hands rather than risk dieing in flight.
Intentionally NOT rescue someone,when their location is known,and it's a doable mission?
Why not just wait for end-of-war prisoner's exchange. Holding people prisoner of war is a long tradition in warfare.
You don't leave a fallen soldier behind. Ever.
That's BS. It kills our soldiers for no better reason than to make armchair generals like you feel good for a day. You start throwing lives away for the sake of propaganda, and you get all all kinds of negative side effects. Not just of enemy refusing medical treatment to POWs.
An order to never leave wounded to the enemy and risk one's life trying to get him out or order to rescue such wounded even if his life is not in danger or regardless, will just result in more wounded being killed by their comrades in order to avoid their capture or getting hit dragging them out. You won't see that in newspapers but it happens in real life.
I do not want to use my soviet experience but I talked to some people that went thrugh Vietnam and they said the same to my surprise - US units in bad situations were sometimes napalmed/bombed rather than risk more lives and helicopters during a rescue/extraction or let them fall into the enemy hands and expose a planning screw-up.
batdog: We do not like to leave our people under hostile hands after what happened to our indiv's in Vietnam.
But those captured in the first Gulf War ended up alive if somewhat traumatised.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
All I've heard they found a car battery in some room. I immediately though - how carefull they are providing backup power for some medical equipment in case the power goes down due to some bombing. What, did you hear more details than that?
the bed was bare metal and the car battery was attached to the metal of the bed directly.
Could it be called humane, compared to, say beating or sleep deprivation?
torture by any means isn't humane treatment.
I guess if we announce in advance to any particular country which policy we are going to conduct in any given conflict and abide by it, we may not have them using Iraqi experience when we invade them.
Or just bomb them an have a pilot shot down or something. But I am not entirely sure.
'Which policy we are going to conduct' in regards to what? rescuing our POW's? Or showing it on the media?
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Women have very fragile bones compared to men and are naturally clumsy - also relative to men, especially the clerk types, so once they start jumping from moving vehicles with greandes exploding all over the place, you are bound to have a few broken bones.
I hardly believe that, but then depending on the type of break. You still have to exert a lot of force to break bones
-
if the iraqi's are willing to use mosque's as cover and feild hq's what nake you think they aren't doing it with hostpitals, also i think she probly was sexually assualted:(
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Sox62: If you don't already understand "why",there's no way I could explain it to you.
If myself or my son is a prisoner in iraqi hands, I do not want you to throw his life away for some publicity campaign - as simple as that. Tens of thousands americans survived WWII captivity. Wounded bomber crewmen were parachuted into enemy hands rather than risk dieing in flight. miko
Remember,YOU opened this can of worms,not me.
Since you are using the Germans in WWII to show how "tens of thousands of Americans survived",perhaps you could tell me how the Jews viewed German imprisonment.Those that actually survived that is.
Counting on goodwill from a country your at war with is foolish.
But let's not stop there.Since you are bringing up past conflicts as an example,here is another one.
You are a Russian prisoner of Afghanistan in the early 80's.Yep,much better to depend on surviving till the conflict is over than a rescue eh?
My apologies to any German or Jewish folk here.I just wanted to shoot his WWII example down.
-
Because she's a 'clerk type' and a woman she tripped in all of the overwhelming excitement and broke two legs and an arm.
how she raped herself in that condition we'll never know.
maybe clerk types are more flexible and don't really feel pain.
-
If you take the time to read this article (http://www.msnbc.com/news/889604.asp), you will see why they went in to rescue the POW.
Just in case you don't feel like clicking the link, I will post the interesting quote here:
Planning for the rescue started when an An Nasiriyah resident passed Marines a note that said she was being held at a hospital being used as a headquarters by Iraqi forces, Sanders reported. The note even mentioned what room she was in.
Separately, Sanders was approached by an English-speaking resident who said a female U.S. soldier was being held at the hospital.
“Please make sure the people in charge know that she’s being tortured,” the resident claimed.
Sounds like a good reason to me to go get a POW. Then again, maybe we should just let her continue to be tortured.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Sox62: If you don't already understand "why",there's no way I could explain it to you.
If myself or my son is a prisoner in iraqi hands, I do not want you to throw his life away for some publicity campaign - as simple as that. Tens of thousands americans survived WWII captivity. Wounded bomber crewmen were parachuted into enemy hands rather than risk dieing in flight.
Intentionally NOT rescue someone,when their location is known,and it's a doable mission?
Why not just wait for end-of-war prisoner's exchange. Holding people prisoner of war is a long tradition in warfare.
You don't leave a fallen soldier behind. Ever.
That's BS. It kills our soldiers for no better reason than to make armchair generals like you feel good for a day. You start throwing lives away for the sake of propaganda, and you get all all kinds of negative side effects. Not just of enemy refusing medical treatment to POWs.
An order to never leave wounded to the enemy and risk one's life trying to get him out or order to rescue such wounded even if his life is not in danger or regardless, will just result in more wounded being killed by their comrades in order to avoid their capture or getting hit dragging them out. You won't see that in newspapers but it happens in real life.
I do not want to use my soviet experience but I talked to some people that went thrugh Vietnam and they said the same to my surprise - US units in bad situations were sometimes napalmed/bombed rather than risk more lives and helicopters during a rescue/extraction or let them fall into the enemy hands and expose a planning screw-up.
batdog: We do not like to leave our people under hostile hands after what happened to our indiv's in Vietnam.
But those captured in the first Gulf War ended up alive if somewhat traumatised.
miko
Golly-geen..I'm being called an armchair general now. Your a pure clueless ****.
Okay..let me make it simple. The so called HOSPITAL she was in was being used as a COMMAND and CONTROL base of operations. It was a hospital in NAME only.
The TREATMENT of said POW as in doubt... thus we went in and took her out.
As far as being some sort of armchair general that would seem to fall into a ****tards lap like yourself salamander. I was a notta but a non-com glorified grunt w/is simply not on the same level of intel like smart guys such as yourself.
Once again... despite all your typing and "rational" discussion you havent a clue.
Oh..and as far as being a publicity stunt..once again..your ****ing clueless. Tell HER that or the guys that went in to GET her. Jesus your so full of sh*& I can smell it from here.
-
Originally posted by Mathman
Just in case you don't feel like clicking the link, I will post the interesting quote here:
thanks for the link, I read the article.
I'll be very curious to see what she has to say, when she's ready to say it.
-
Sorry miko... you're still not doing anything other than stretch this as far as you can. Its really quite simple.
We will do whatever we can to get our troops back. This is a nessity since you are asking them to put themselves in harm's way. The Ranger's moto is "no man left behind." They swear by it. You would not have made it there. The first time you said, "well... let's evaluate the consequences of getting him out of there... I'm worried about its impact on future conflicts." you would have been transfered somewhere else... with a newly aquired limp.
You do everything to rescue POWs. If that's too confusing for you, there's this aproach: We do everything to rescue POWs, you sit back and pretend it shouldn't be done because of some neurotic worries about what "might" happen in the future.
Someone was saved in the here and now. That is worthy of thanks. This thread is worthy of despise. To question after-the-fact a rescue and downplay it as a negative for all future POWs is pathetic. That is not an over reaction. The POWs need to know there is hope. The soldiers need to know there is hope. They are all that matters. The guy sitting in the Lazyboy playing armchair analist means absolutely nothing and deserves their scorn (and receives mine too).
Damn... trying to stop typing but its just so stupid that this is being discussed. Miko... do you have any idea how many soldiers were lost in Vietnam recovering downed pilots? Do you know why they will continue to give their lives to do so?
MiniD
-
Originally posted by anonymous
russia wasnt risking nuclear exchange with cZechs by invading them. russia and American both know limited conflict with other very good chance of get out of control.
threat of a nuclear exchange effects your treatment of POWs how?
-
krazyhorse: if the iraqi's are willing to use mosque's as cover and feild hq's what nake you think they aren't doing it with hostpitals,
What make you think this thread is about that rather than safery of our POWs in the future wars with enemies other than iraqis?
also i think she probly was sexually assualted
So you want to prevent the next US POW that is sexually assaulted from being treated in the hospital and left to die of wounds in prison?
Because move to the hospital did not cause her to be sexually assaulted and that is what current publicised rescue is going to dissuade.
Sox62: Counting on goodwill from a country your at war with is foolish.
Tens of thousands of americans did and were better off for it. Of curse US aviation could have bombed the camps in order to let the prisoners scatter - even dropped some weapons. That would have ended in death of most of them and death of future americans who would not be taked as prisoner, but some would have escaped.
Is that what you would have done? Killed all those americans for publisity sake?
You are a Russian prisoner of Afghanistan in the early 80's.Yep,much better to depend on surviving till the conflict is over than a rescue eh?
You should read the posts you are replying to. Seriously. Or you should check your short-term memory. I've addressed that. Jessica was not found being skinned - neither were dozens of POWs from the first Gulf War.
Kanth: how she raped herself in that condition we'll never know.
Is that confirmed? Do you already know how she got hurt? My MSN link is not responding.
“Please make sure the people in charge know that she’s being tortured,” the resident claimed.
Mathman: Sounds like a good reason to me to go get a POW.
It sure does - whether true or not, I wish they started with that explanation. It would have been a great message - "You torture our POWs and we will come and get you."
Much better that "You provide medical treatment to our POWs and we will come and get you!", wouldn't you say?
Batdog - take a deep breath. If you are of such obviously low opinion of me, is it worth getting a stroke over what I think? Put me on ignore or something.
miko
-
Ya but it passes the work day during the slow times..
Originally posted by Mini D
Damn... trying to stop typing but its just so stupid that this is being discussed.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Kanth: how she raped herself in that condition we'll never know.
Is that confirmed? Do you already know how she got hurt? My MSN link is not responding.
miko
ya it was just on CNN, PFC Jessica Lynch somehow managed to rape herself with two broken legs and a broken arm.
I'm considering not responding as well, but the boredom is too thick around here.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
krazyhorse: if the iraqi's are willing to use mosque's as cover and feild hq's what nake you think they aren't doing it with hostpitals,
What make you think this thread is about that rather than safery of our POWs in the future wars with enemies other than iraqis?
also i think she probly was sexually assualted
So you want to prevent the next US POW that is sexually assaulted from being treated in the hospital and left to die of wounds in prison?
Because move to the hospital did not cause her to be sexually assaulted and that is what current publicised rescue is going to dissuade.
Sox62: Counting on goodwill from a country your at war with is foolish.
Tens of thousands of americans did and were better off for it. Of curse US aviation could have bombed the camps in order to let the prisoners scatter - even dropped some weapons. That would have ended in death of most of them and death of future americans who would not be taked as prisoner, but some would have escaped.
Is that what you would have done? Killed all those americans for publisity sake?
You are a Russian prisoner of Afghanistan in the early 80's.Yep,much better to depend on surviving till the conflict is over than a rescue eh?
You should read the posts you are replying to. Seriously. Or you should check your short-term memory. I've addressed that. Jessica was not found being skinned - neither were dozens of POWs from the first Gulf War.
Kanth: how she raped herself in that condition we'll never know.
Is that confirmed? Do you already know how she got hurt? My MSN link is not responding.
“Please make sure the people in charge know that she’s being tortured,” the resident claimed.
Mathman: Sounds like a good reason to me to go get a POW.
It sure does - whether true or not, I wish they started with that explanation. It would have been a great message - "You torture our POWs and we will come and get you."
Much better that "You provide medical treatment to our POWs and we will come and get you!", wouldn't you say?
Batdog - take a deep breath. If you are of such obviously low opinion of me, is it worth getting a stroke over what I think? Put me on ignore or something.
miko
Miko... I am acting like crass foam spewing ******* because I wore a scroll on my shoulder at one time that had a creed about never leaving a comrade to fall into the hands of the enemy. It was an unspoken rule that if we can get your bellybutton home we will..or die trying.
I am sorry about going all hardcore in these posts but my convections are strong, fanactical even.
-
Mini D: We will do whatever we can to get our troops back.
Not arguing about that. Just that the safest way for those - and future POWs - to get back may be to wait in captivity till teh end of war or get rescued quietly without a huge publisity campaign.
Real soldeirs do not care if the rescue they performed is trumpeted or not - saving a buddy and a medal should be enough of a reward.
You do everything to rescue POWs.
No we don't - we left plenty of people stay as POWs for a while in all our wars.
Damn... trying to stop typing but its just so stupid that this is being discussed. Miko... do you have any idea how many soldiers were lost in Vietnam recovering downed pilots?
Those pilots were in real danger, I guess. We value our pilots. Do you know how many soldeirs were napalmed or killed by "misplaced" artillery barrage to avoid losses during the extraction? What, you did not read about it in the newspapers? How strange...
I am sorry about going all hardcore in these posts but my convections are strong, fanactical even.
As hard as it may be for you to believe - the safety of pur troops is my first concern. Just becasue I am looking at it differently, does not make my concern any less genuine.
miko
-
miko i think you might have taken to much into my comment , in wars there will be POW's, and we can do nothing as to how they are treated, i'm simply implying that the Iraqie's are not comply with the"rules"of POW treatment, but i also believe thath we did not expect them to.
-
miko have a point "never leave a guy behind" dont always apply. if almost no chance of pulling off rescue without incurring massive casualty among rescue force then you dont go for rescue. CSAR in VN was totally diff situation, fluid situation tactically and were trying to get the guys before they got picked up. and for every guy we got we told one to wait overnight because situation too hot and we never heard from him next morning. batdog look at it this way you are captured and being worked over in place with insane security and you know your boys are plotting to come spring you. if you know you are gonna get shot before you ever rescued and that your boys are gonna get shot up trying you are praying they dont try. thats how ive always felt. if im gonna be tortured to death next 72 hours i dont want a single guy risking death if no reasonable chance of success. even when the odds are good and surprise there a pow prison break is gonna be a hairy deal at best. odds are they tried and sprung the girl because they could get local superiority on the enemy in the area and had surprise. "leave no one behind" is honorable but if she was in a prison block in middle of bagdahd even if she is being raped you dont sent 30 operators after her if theres a fifty-fifty that you lose half your guys even if everything goes right. smart enemy will always use pows as lure for ambush as well. and miko also right about no need to give details. just say she rescued and safe. let enemy wonder where we found her and how we got her.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Women have very fragile bones compared to men and are naturally clumsy - also relative to men, especially the clerk types, so once they start jumping from moving vehicles with greandes exploding all over the place, you are bound to have a few broken bones.
True colors shining through eh?
I'm not putting you on my ignore list miko, only because I never put anyone on ignore.
But this is...heh, I'm at a loss for words actually... You are talking about a 19 yr old girl
a 19 yr old girl who was shot, captured, tortured...raped. And you have the GALL to sit and talk some sexist bull**** about natually clumsy women?
Disgusting...you disgust me.
And with that this conversation is over for my part.
-
dude he aint being sexist. bigg diff between a 20 year old guy in infantry who have tough bones from running and assault course and such and 19 year old girl in maintanence. grenade go off nearby infantry guys know the drill and response is controlled and practiced. set off grenade near new maintainence person they likely to run into a vehicle at full speed and get knocked out. look at it this way dude breaking bones not very effective means of torture and iraqi guys who do that stuff are known to have alot of practice. no doubt she got worked over but not every injury on her came from secret police probably.
-
Originally posted by anonymous
dude he aint being sexist. bigg diff between a 20 year old guy in infantry who have tough bones from running and assault course and such and 19 year old girl in maintanence. grenade go off nearby infantry guys know the drill and response is controlled and practiced. set off grenade near new maintainence person they likely to run into a vehicle at full speed and get knocked out. look at it this way dude breaking bones not very effective means of torture and iraqi guys who do that stuff are known to have alot of practice. no doubt she got worked over but not every injury on her came from secret police probably.
:rolleyes: Each soldier gets the same basic training. Their specialty doesn't have much to do with it.
-
Originally posted by Kanth
Wonder why that is...
Funny how people make a huge deal of sexual assault of female soldiers during wartime as though it is something different than the torture and murder of our male soldiers, as if it is somehow more important..
makes me sick.
Kanth, its the man in us. We see ourselves as natural protectors of women. Its *instinct*
I know that sounds macho and I dont mean to. Its just nature.
-
Originally posted by Kanth
Sorry Hortlund, I was being a smartass (read: ), I didn't actually require an explanation.
It's origins can be debated, but not in this thread. :)
lol I like a tard replied to :D
-
Originally posted by Dingbat
:rolleyes: Each soldier gets the same basic training. Their specialty doesn't have much to do with it.
thats true but im not talking about basic training. im talking about advanced infantry combat training and the difference in day to day routine between some guy in a rifle platoon and some guy or girl in a maintanence company. theres a very big difference. you could take a guy from a supply type unit and 2 days in an infantry unit during field exercises would whup his butt.
-
This board has some seriously wild acoustics.
:D
Originally posted by X2Lee
Kanth, its the man in us. We see ourselves as natural protectors of women. Its *instinct*
I know that sounds macho and I dont mean to. Its just nature.
-
it is instinct.. I agree
-
Folks, Miko has a point to make and its valid. I cant believe most of you mouth off at it.
The way I see it Miko, if Iraq had followed geneva convention or did not have a record of extreme brutality, then its possible the US would not have made the rescue AT the hospital.
But when your enemy executes prisioners and is known to torture POWs (as happened to other POWS in 1991), I believe that disregarding the hospital as a safe haven is a wise choice. Chances are she wouldve been killed anyway when the Hussein regime crumbled.
One thing ive heard thrown around is "hey, they had her at a hospital, they cant be that bad"...
they also found 11 bodies, weapons stash and other military gear in the hospital.. maybe because they thought the US would not bomb said hospital and it was convenient to send a wounded POW there for torture (and she was being tortured, they found electric torture devices near her bloody clothes) to a place that would probably keep her safe from bombing and alive a lot longer to squeeze info out of her.
-
"The officer said that Special Operations forces found what looked like a "prototype" Iraqi torture chamber in the hospital's basement, with batteries and metal prods.
Briefing reporters at Central Command headquarters, Brig. Gen. Brooks said the hospital apparently was being used as a military command post. "
That's some frigging Hospital they got there.....