Wounded POW rescue.

[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

[GRUNHERZ]

Wow...

I'm sure the iraqs only had her best interests at heart..  

Why do you choose to look at things this way?

[Ripsnort]

...and Iraqi's are firing on the coalition troops from Mosques...

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.

[Ripsnort]

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.

[Martlet]

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.

[Mighty1]

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.

[miko2d]

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

[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.

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.

[Turdboy]

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!

[Mini D]

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

[miko2d]

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

[batdog]

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?

[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

[Smut]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
...and Iraqi's are firing on the coalition troops from Mosques...

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

[Mini D]

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