PDA

View Full Version : Things are turning around in Iraq


bond003
Jul 28, 2003, 01:37 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54345-2003Jul27.html

And we will see how things look 6 months from now.

zimv20
Jul 28, 2003, 01:58 AM
Col. David Hogg, commander of the 2nd Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division, said tougher methods are being used to gather the intelligence. On Wednesday night, he said, his troops picked up the wife and daughter of an Iraqi lieutenant general. They left a note: "If you want your family released, turn yourself in."


holy crap! is this what passes for military action these days? kidnappings? ransom? how can this possibly be legal?

or does "legal" not count anymore?

macfan
Jul 28, 2003, 02:22 AM
It worked. The guy turned himself in. Jolly good show.

Inu
Jul 28, 2003, 02:32 AM
Originally posted by macfan
It worked. The guy turned himself in. Jolly good show.

Off course if ***** worked! But hey, you are really trying hard to look like the good guys over there. At least the hostages weren't raped or something, so your methods are at least a bit better than the guy you toppled for no apparent reason (Because there is still no evidence of WMD, and you just showed that you can be as cruel as Big S by showing petty little victories and taking (innocents as) hostages)...
At least we didnt hear of rapings _yet_

zimv20
Jul 28, 2003, 02:58 AM
Originally posted by macfan
It worked. The guy turned himself in. Jolly good show.

the ends do not justify the means. that's an illegal act and should result in a court martial. if you find this acceptable, your moral compass is whacked.


i am sick of tired of "we're at war" and "everything's changed since 9/11" to be used as cheap-ass excuses for breaking the law and absolving all responsibility from being decent human beings. if this is what we're reduced to, we don't deserve any respect from the rest of the world.


if bush or rumsfeld have _any_ respect for human life, heads will roll. anything short of that proves that they are sick, vindictive f***s.

zimv20
Jul 28, 2003, 02:59 AM
and don't bother reporting my post. i already did it.

bond003
Jul 28, 2003, 11:20 AM
zimv20

Are you at all encouraged to see that the US is making progress in rounding up those who kill American troops?

It appears that you are actually angry about the progress being made.

Other than bringing in NATO and UN troops or just simply leaving Iraq, is there anything we should be doing to stop the killing of our troops?

Why may I not amazed that you would pick one part of the article to deflect the overall positive report? The number of attacks have decreased without any UN intervention.

zimv20
Jul 28, 2003, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by bond003

It appears that you are actually angry about the progress being made.


i'm angry about HOW it's being made.

before the war, we might as well have kidnapped catherine deneuve to get the french UN security council vote. would that have been acceptable?

Sayhey
Jul 28, 2003, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
i'm angry about HOW it's being made.

before the war, we might as well have kidnapped catherine deneuve to get the french UN security council vote. would that have been acceptable?

no, no .... NO that would be wrong! Though visions of catherine dance through my head, that would definitly be wrong! :D

Seriously, I hope for progress in Iraq. The faster we get our troops out of harm's way the better. One can hope for progress and still condemn conduct done under the name of progress. Some folks out there supported the war in Vietnam, but few would support the massacres in My Lai. The standards we hold our troops to must be higher than this.

IJ Reilly
Jul 28, 2003, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
no, no .... NO that would be wrong! Though visions of catherine dance through my head, that would definitly be wrong!

If that would be wrong, then I don't want to be right!:p

Sayhey
Jul 28, 2003, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
If that would be wrong, then I don't want to be right!:p

Hey, if nothing else we can thank zimv20 for enriching our fantasy life! What a mental image! LOL

zimv20
Jul 28, 2003, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
Hey, if nothing else we can thank zimv20 for enriching our fantasy life! What a mental image! LOL

natalie portman has ms. deneuve tied to a chair in the hot, humid boiler room and is feeding her wet strawberries.

back on topic: i'm not seeing any headlines about the strongarm tactics. what's up? have we become that cynical?

IJ Reilly
Jul 28, 2003, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by macfan
It worked. The guy turned himself in. Jolly good show.

“Any means that leads to the aim suits me... whether it is the most violent or that which appears to be most peaceable.” --Frederick Engels

toontra
Jul 28, 2003, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
back on topic: i'm not seeing any headlines about the strongarm tactics. what's up? have we become that cynical?

We don't have a clue what's being done on a daily basis on the ground by the US. For all we know all manner of wrong-doing may be going on. The likelihood is that, as the number of US casualties increases, more and more expedient tactics will be utilized.

That's why I, and many others, would like to have seen the UN go in weeks ago.

zimv20
Jul 28, 2003, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by toontra
We don't have a clue what's being done on a daily basis on the ground by the US. For all we know all manner of wrong-doing may be going on.


indeed. is it all mob-inspired tactics? can the military be charged under the RICO act?

Sayhey
Jul 28, 2003, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
natalie portman has ms. deneuve tied to a chair in the hot, humid boiler room and is feeding her wet strawberries.

back on topic: i'm not seeing any headlines about the strongarm tactics. what's up? have we become that cynical?

My typing may be shaky from laughing so hard, but if I have to stay on topic, I'd say yes we have become that cynical. It's not just the US coverage -- look at the BBC story at their website about US troops being shot at. It ends with this little tidbit, "Meanwhile, the Arab television station al-Jazeera reported on Monday that US troops had released its reporter Nawaf al-Shahwani and his driver, who were detained after filming an Iraqi civilian vehicle coming under fire from a US military patrol.

Mr Shahwani was said to be in good health after his release but the tape, which the station wants back, remains confiscated." Hmmm, civilians under fire from a US patrol and possible cover up doesn't even rate an investigation?

link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3102153.stm)

macfan
Jul 28, 2003, 01:11 PM
I don't know what the fuss is about just because some civilians were detained for a while to get the husband and father to turn himself in. Instead of using bullets and bombs, the troops used their brains and got the desired result. (Also, if you note, the wife and daughter would not have been detained indefinitely if the guy hadn't shown up). In legal terms, one could classify such detention as detaining a material witness (questioning about the location of the person they wanted to talk to), or taking someone into protective custody. (After all, if they were going to raid the guy's house when he showed up, it would be a good idea for his wife and kid not to be in the house. So, no, ends don't justify the means as a general rule, but legitimate ends and legitimate means are fine, and that is what we had here.

zimv20,
What are you talking about reporting your post? To whom? And why?

zimv20
Jul 28, 2003, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
civilians under fire from a US patrol and possible cover up doesn't even rate an investigation?


guess not. let's include the media in the RICO lawsuit.

MrMacMan
Jul 28, 2003, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
and don't bother reporting my post. i already did it.
wow this is great...

great great stuff.

Originally posted by macfan
I don't know what the fuss is about just because some civilians were detained for a while to get the husband and father to turn himself in. Instead of using bullets and bombs, the troops used their brains and got the desired result. (Also, if you note, the wife and daughter would not have been detained indefinitely if the guy hadn't shown up).
How do you know they would be held for a long period of time?

In legal terms, one could classify such detention as detaining a material witness (questioning about the location of the person they wanted to talk to), or taking someone into protective custody.
Protective Custody?!?!?!?

It was against their will and against what they wanted to do, it wasn't helping them...

(After all, if they were going to raid the guy's house when he showed up, it would be a good idea for his wife and kid not to be in the house. So, no, ends don't justify the means as a general rule, but legitimate ends and legitimate means are fine, and that is what we had here.

MacFan -- If you ever want to see your ____ again turn yourself in.

Don't take it personally but the U.S should have a random demand...

3rdpath
Jul 28, 2003, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by macfan
I don't know what the fuss is about just because some civilians were detained for a while to get the husband and father to turn himself in. Instead of using bullets and bombs, the troops used their brains and got the desired result.


it's comforting to know that i can still find some ari-spin now that the real ari's gone...:rolleyes:

i wonder why we don't take civilians from their homes and leave notes here in the u.s.? oh yeah, that whole individual rights balogna...

and to think we're there to establish a humane government...

pseudobrit
Jul 28, 2003, 04:58 PM
Don't feed the trolls after they've been banned... it just adds to their sense of accomplishment.

macfan
Jul 28, 2003, 05:07 PM
Folks,
Protective custody or material witness detentions are good analogies, but it is a war over there, not a criminal investigation.

MrMacman,
If you read the article more closely and you will see that they would have been released "in due course."

If they were taken into custody from their home which was likely to become a combat zone, the troops were doing them a favor whether they realized it or not.

What "random demand" should the US have? Everyone stand on their right foot and jump up and down?

pseudobrit,
What are you talking about?

IJ Reilly
Jul 28, 2003, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by 3rdpath
i wonder why we don't take civilians from their homes and leave notes here in the u.s.?

You mean, like Jose Padilla?

pseudobrit
Jul 28, 2003, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by macfan
pseudobrit,
What are you talking about?

Sanfeliovibond

zimv20
Jul 28, 2003, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by macfan
I don't know what the fuss is about just because some civilians were detained for a while to get the husband and father to turn himself in.


soldiers are supposed to behave according to rules of conduct. loosely, fight the enemy soldiers and protect the civilians. kidnapping civilians goes so far beyond the line it's nearly incomprehensible to me that anyone would even try to defend it.

(Also, if you note, the wife and daughter would not have been detained indefinitely if the guy hadn't shown up).


i doubt the guy had the article at hand for him to know that. and if iraqis were living under a regime as brutal as you say, what do you think that iraqi would have assumed was happening to his family?

if al qaeda kidnapped the bush twins, would you call that protective custody? what if the treasury department grabbed your family and forced you to make a quarterly tax payment?

zimv20
Jul 28, 2003, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by macfan

zimv20,
What are you talking about reporting your post? To whom? And why?

my post was inflammatory and insulting to bush and rumsfeld. it deserved to be reported. just because i agree w/ my own post doesn't mean i should let it slide. fair is fair.

MIMIC
Jul 29, 2003, 06:59 AM
Taking hostages is a war crime, as said in the Geneva Convention and the International Law Commission.

toontra
Jul 29, 2003, 07:37 AM
Originally posted by MIMIC
Taking hostages is a war crime, as said in the Geneva Convention and the International Law Commission.

Does it say anything about taking civilian hostages in a country you are occupying, I wonder?

MIMIC
Jul 29, 2003, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by toontra
Does it say anything about taking civilian hostages in a country you are occupying, I wonder?

The Geneva Convention strictly forbids ANYONE taken as a hostage, with no exceptions, period.