Author Topic: Wounded POW rescue.  (Read 1659 times)

Offline Sox62

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1159
Wounded POW rescue.
« Reply #30 on: April 02, 2003, 11:14:20 AM »
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.

Offline anonymous

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 984
Wounded POW rescue.
« Reply #31 on: April 02, 2003, 11:19:49 AM »
Quote
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.

Offline miko2d

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3177
Wounded POW rescue.
« Reply #32 on: April 02, 2003, 11:21:06 AM »
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

Offline anonymous

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 984
Wounded POW rescue.
« Reply #33 on: April 02, 2003, 11:22:27 AM »
Quote
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.

Offline Kanth

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2462
Wounded POW rescue.
« Reply #34 on: April 02, 2003, 11:22:28 AM »
The question isn't whether we rescue or not, but whether media blitzing it hurts our position in any way.


Quote
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.
Gone from the game. Please see Spikes or Nefarious for any Ahevents.net admin needs.

Offline Hortlund

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4690
Wounded POW rescue.
« Reply #35 on: April 02, 2003, 11:26:14 AM »
Quote
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...

Offline Smut

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 195
Wounded POW rescue.
« Reply #36 on: April 02, 2003, 11:35:52 AM »
Quote
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

Offline Kanth

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2462
Wounded POW rescue.
« Reply #37 on: April 02, 2003, 11:39:42 AM »
Quote
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?

Quote

 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.

Quote

 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.
Gone from the game. Please see Spikes or Nefarious for any Ahevents.net admin needs.

Offline Dingbat

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1004
      • http://mysite.verizon.net/res0v1l1
Wounded POW rescue.
« Reply #38 on: April 02, 2003, 11:48:33 AM »
Quote
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

Offline Preon1

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 571
Wounded POW rescue.
« Reply #39 on: April 02, 2003, 11:49:36 AM »
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.

Offline batdog

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1533
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com/
Wounded POW rescue.
« Reply #40 on: April 02, 2003, 12:01:16 PM »
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.
Of course, I only see what he posts here and what he does in the MA.  I know virtually nothing about the man.  I think its important for people to realize that we don't really know squat about each other.... definately not enough to use words like "hate".

AKDejaVu

Offline Sox62

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1159
Wounded POW rescue.
« Reply #41 on: April 02, 2003, 12:09:08 PM »
Quote
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.

Offline miko2d

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3177
Wounded POW rescue.
« Reply #42 on: April 02, 2003, 12:11:49 PM »
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

Offline Sox62

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1159
Wounded POW rescue.
« Reply #43 on: April 02, 2003, 12:21:28 PM »
Quote
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.

Offline miko2d

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3177
Wounded POW rescue.
« Reply #44 on: April 02, 2003, 12:41:26 PM »
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
« Last Edit: April 02, 2003, 12:43:27 PM by miko2d »