Coalition abuse (including s**ual) of Iraqi PoW

Discussion in 'Wasteland' started by abdul, May 31, 2003.

  1. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Location:
    East Midlands, UK
    #1
  2. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #2
    wow, that's really awful. this is the first i've heard of that. so now we have reports of war crimes. i wonder how blair will handle it.
     
  3. macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #3
    Oh man thats sick. You know this kind of thing goes on though. Its not indicative of the whole military, once again its a few ass***** that really screw things up for the majority.
     
  4. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    London
    #4
    This is truely appalling. I hope that the MoD thoroughly investigate this, and that all the soldiers involved are held fully accountable for war crimes. (not given some relatively light penalty like a discharge)

    This along with the allegations of war crimes made against that colonel (can't remember his name) recently have really tarnished the army's reputation.

    On an aside, how dumb would you have to be to have pics like that developed at a 1hr type place. the mind boggles
     
  5. macrumors 68040

    Macmaniac

    #5
    Thats really fowl, unfortunanly there are people like this in every army:( Harsh penalties should be sought against these people, just because your the victor does not mean you have not commited war crimes.
     
  6. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #6
    i wonder how many incidents like this there were. i can't believe everyone in the military is dumb enough to take the negatives to a 1 hr place. how many went uncaught?
     
  7. macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #7
    Don't you people know that no matter what the Bush and Blair regimes do to the Iraqi POWs, it's all right because they are "evil doers!"

    This is just further proof that war should be avoided when possible, rather than rushed into like the Bush and Blair regimes want us to believe.
     
  8. job
    macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #8
    How do the actions of one sick mind dictate the foreign policy objectives of the respective administrations?
     
  9. macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #9
    Because as the head of the respective administrations, you should know that when you send 18-22 year old kids into war with guns, tanks and bombs, bad things happen. There hasn't been a war yet where people in the heat of battle or during a passionate moment haven't done something terrible.

    Look at WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Afganistan, Somalia, everywhere.

    War is a bad thing. As a commander in chief, you should know that, and you should try like heck to avoid it, if possible.
     
  10. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #10
    maybe it would help to actually have combat experience.
     
  11. Ugg
    macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #11
    War has always created a revenge mentality amongst the troops. Show me one war where there was not amoral treatment of prisoners. Every commander in chief knows that from the beginning. Cluster bombs in urban areas are clearly against the Geneva Convention, dozens of children have been killed by them, AFTER the war was declared over. That is an indication of a sick mind.
     
  12. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #12
    zimv20, it would help what? To stop a president from sending troops into battle? Truman had combat experience. Didn't stop him from intervention in Korea. Seems like Hitler had combat experience as well.

    mccrain,
    What kind of idiot do you think does not know that war is a bad thing? It is quite foolish to think that Bush and Blair do not know that war is a bad thing. I would remind you of the words of someone who knows a bit more about being a war leader than you or I do.

    Ugg,
    Did the concept of an agreement to make wars safer ever strike you as rather ironic? Woodrow Wilson, I think it was, had the slogan Making the world safe for democracy during WWI. The Geneva Convention has behind it the idea of Making the world safe for wars.
     
  13. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #13
    i'm not sure at all that bush knows that.
     
  14. macrumors 68000

    pivo6

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #14
    Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rove to name 3.
     
  15. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #15
    zimv20,
    You're not at all sure? That's pretty sad that your political dislike for Bush makes you think that he doesn't know war is a bad thing. Again, why is it that you think that combat experience would "help."

    mccrain will be along shortly to point out that the questin was addressed to him, and if I had wanted you to answer it instead, I would surely have said so! ;)
     
  16. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #16
    i've seen no evidence of remorse or pause for thought. i have seen evidence of the contrary (the aforementioned "good" about syria, the "i feel good" about to war w/ iraq, helen thomas' comments)

    in the context of knowing the ramifications of sending soldiers to war, it may help in the understanding to have actually fought in one.
     
  17. Moderator emeritus

    Rower_CPU

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #17
    Because a discussion forum is a two-way dialog. :rolleyes:

    Get over yourself. People on both sides of the debates here in the forums jump in and answer questions not specifically addressed to them. Your patronizing attitude is wearing thin.
     
  18. job
    macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #18
    Second World War.

    German POWs who were shipped back to the United States had more freedoms and were treated better than any other group of POWs from any other war.
     
  19. macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #19
    Hitler was a decorated combat veteran. Hitler loved war before and after his combat experience. That right there is a pretty strong indicator of a... bad thing.

    Bush only has half that equation, having never seen combat firsthand.

    Having been through war and remembering it fondly is indicitive of a sickness.
     
  20. macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #20
    So there was NO amoral treatment of prisoners during World War II?
     
  21. job
    macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #21
    Shall we turn this into a petty, "lets list all of Bush's *shortcomings* thread?" Because if that's the way this is heading, then it will become just like every thread in the political forum.

    I don't think 'ole Billie Clinton had any military experience either and yet he deployed the military more times in_peacetime_than any other president before him. Makes perfect sense.
     
  22. job
    macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #22
    I did not say that.

    If you're going to quote me, quote everything I wrote.

    I specifically stated the instances in which there were no "amoral" treatment of POWs.
     
  23. macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #23
    Oh, come on! That's not fair! He did furl his brow and looked very concerned and upset during the speech after that "I feel good!" outburst. And it must have been such an exhausting display of emotion too because he was in bed sleeping 20 minutes afterwards.

    What do you mean? Bush was defending Houston from Charlie! If it weren't for him, Texas would be a yellow communist satellite today!
     
  24. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #24
    no, you're right. he _did_ get some (non-combat) military experience flying fighter jets. some 12 to 17 months less than he'd promised, but... aw, nuts! i did it again!
     
  25. macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #25
    Okay.

    So there was NO amoral treatment of POWs during WWII?

    (There are instances where there is moral treatment of POWs in every war, but there is no war where there are no instances of amoral treatment)
     

Share This Page