Asylum Forums Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Show all 37 posts from this thread on one page

Asylum Forums (http://asylumnation.com/asylum/index.php)
- The Lost Forum (http://asylumnation.com/asylum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=3)
-- general war crap (http://asylumnation.com/asylum/showthread.php?threadid=28995)


Posted by brimstone on 03-25-2003 08:20 AM:

general war crap

me and the bud say


I don't really get it personally

when we hold a few thousand from iraq or afghanistan as prisoners, as americans we basically go "hooray, good, one less to waste a bullet on"

Then again, when another country finds someone from the US to take hostage, be it marine, army, etc. they take pride in themselves like they caught a fucking leprachaun.

I mean did you see the video footage when the Apachi helicopter went down, holy shit. "I GOT ME A NIGGER!" is what it looked liked to me.

Well shit, then again if I was promised a few grand in USD I guess I'd jump too if i shot an iraqi with a BB gun

Either way, the entire "hoorah!", flag burning, constant rioting against the USA is just bullshit. Bush leads a war on Saddam, they protest the entire country, there isn't shit noone can do about it these days, there's no vote for president, there is no "people's opinion". Whatever the motherfucker in office wants he gets.

Then the protests...

I mean who really gives a fuck, get back to fucking work, american or foreigner. Make something useful of yourselves, go back to serving me my god damned mother fucking medium regular and occasionaly the cheeseburger at lunch. Take me fucking hotel reservation rather than spend your time shouting form the top of your lungs your meaningless voice.

I don't need to deal with fucking traffic because of the slacker fucks
my little brim cups tiddles

__________________

- brimstone

"brimstone - your sig was too big."


Posted by brimstone on 03-25-2003 08:21 AM:

what this all comes down too is no more protesting in the streets, k thx

__________________

- brimstone

"brimstone - your sig was too big."


Posted by The Wraith on 03-25-2003 08:58 AM:

"Make something useful of yourselves, go back to serving me my god damned mother fucking medium regular and occasionaly the cheeseburger at lunch."

- How interesting. I wonder, where do you currently work?

__________________

Regards,
The Wraith


Posted by skalie on 03-25-2003 09:26 AM:

quote:


Then again, when another country finds someone from the US to take hostage, be it marine, army, etc. they take pride in themselves like they caught a fucking leprachaun.




May have been less of a prize if Rumsfield had kept his trap shut about the Geneva convention.


Posted by The Wraith on 03-25-2003 09:39 AM:

That prisoner doesn't appear to be humilated to me. I see standard mortuary documentation. I see no violation.

__________________

Regards,
The Wraith


Posted by Smug Git on 03-25-2003 11:24 AM:

There isn't any problem with taking pictures of PoWs, either; broadcasting them, or facilitating their broadcast, is the problem, I believe.

__________________

I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of


Posted by skalie on 03-25-2003 11:45 AM:

An article about human rights, the Geneva Convention, Rumsfield and, er, Guantanamo, can be found here.

a line or two....

quote:


But at the same time, Rumsfeld maintains the prisoners don't have any rights under the Geneva Conventions because they are "unlawful combatants."

Byers notes that the "unlawful combatants" category is one of Rumsfeld's invention and not found in any international treaty.

To be sure, the Iraqis aren't taking their human rights cues from Guantanamo. But if they want a precedent, there it is.



Posted by Weasel Spoor on 03-25-2003 12:47 PM:

Re: general war crap

quote:
Originally posted by Smug Git
There isn't any problem with taking pictures of PoWs, either; broadcasting them, or facilitating their broadcast, is the problem, I believe.


So ALL the CNN/ BBC/ ITN footage showing Iraqi's surrendering and being taken prisoner without their features being obscured is flouting the Geneva convention then.

Seems like we are doing just as much trampling on the Geneva convention as Al Jazeera and the Iraqi government are. What the fuck does a conservative reactionary like Rumsfeld give for international conventions on war or anything else for that matter. Like Camp X-Ray he happily twists the rules when it suits him.

To the Arab world this is an illegal attack on Iraq, they are about as 'entitled' to fuck around with the rules just as much as the US did with the prisoners from Afghanistan.

I don't support it. But no-one is paying much attention to international law on either side of this conflict.

quote:
Originally posted by brimstone
Then the protests...

I mean who really gives a fuck, get back to fucking work, american or foreigner. Make something useful of yourselves, go back to serving me my god damned mother fucking medium regular and occasionaly the cheeseburger at lunch. Take me fucking hotel reservation rather than spend your time shouting form the top of your lungs your meaningless voice.

I don't need to deal with fucking traffic because of the slacker fucks
my little brim cups tiddles



And why don't you go back to shooting varmints from your pick up truck with your conervative yahoo friends and stop being worried by people who have an opinion different from your own.

Look forward to buying a hot dog from you on the next ant war march with the money I earn from my decent job.


Posted by Mugtoe on 03-25-2003 01:28 PM:

Re: Re: general war crap

quote:
Originally posted by Weasel Spoor
with the money I earn from my decent job.



And the chicks! And the booze! The all-night coke jags in fancy hotels! The glamour!!

and then you come home to Rooster. That is so sweet.
__________________

quote:
Originally posted by Smug Git
The brotherhood of melon loving will save us all, I am sure of it.


Posted by funkyrooster on 03-25-2003 01:44 PM:

This is the same Weaselspoor who turned down an invitation to an orgy with Kid Rock, 20 groupies and 3 kilos of coke so he could go and have a cup of tea in his hotel room

Rock n Roll.

Mind you, this is also the same Weaselspoor who was thrown out of a train in the middle of Belgium after beating up a homeless amputee and stealing his false teeth.

__________________

Ein Reich
Ein Volk
Ein Rooster


Posted by Mugtoe on 03-25-2003 01:47 PM:

quirky lad, that weasel

__________________

quote:
Originally posted by Smug Git
The brotherhood of melon loving will save us all, I am sure of it.


Posted by brimstone on 03-25-2003 01:54 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by The Wraith
"Make something useful of yourselves, go back to serving me my god damned mother fucking medium regular and occasionaly the cheeseburger at lunch."

- How interesting. I wonder, where do you currently work?



I work hardcore

and you missed the point I guess on that, shit, EVEN WHEN BLAHRBLLAHBLABERING after a drinking night you can't grasp it


Secondly, aren't you supposed to be out there right now driving your team 2 miles in the wrong direction?
__________________

- brimstone

"brimstone - your sig was too big."


Posted by brimstone on 03-25-2003 01:56 PM:

The Geneva Convention has been tiptoed around for some time now, John Walker was the perfect case, it's not as if we saw problems with the mass media screaming "We caught the rat!" when we had him stripped and strapped

__________________

- brimstone

"brimstone - your sig was too big."


Posted by oxsan on 03-25-2003 01:59 PM:

I don.t remember Rumsfeld being the one behind the lens of any of those cameras of surrendering Iraqi's. Nor do I remember any of those cameras operated by "official US armed forces " camerapersons. Seems to me that the pictures of Iraqis surrendering were taken by"embedded" journalist type cameramen and simultaneously transmitted by satellite to waiting TV sets in the US. So it isn't Rumsfeld who is taking forbidden pictures but rather the privately owned media.

__________________

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.


Posted by Smug Git on 03-25-2003 02:12 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by oxsan
I don.t remember Rumsfeld being the one behind the lens of any of those cameras of surrendering Iraqi's. Nor do I remember any of those cameras operated by "official US armed forces " camerapersons. Seems to me that the pictures of Iraqis surrendering were taken by"embedded" journalist type cameramen and simultaneously transmitted by satellite to waiting TV sets in the US. So it isn't Rumsfeld who is taking forbidden pictures but rather the privately owned media.


Embedded journalists don't take pictures that they aren't allowed to, I don't think, so if it was them that did the filming then we facilitated the showing of identifiable pictures of the Iraqis, as far as I can see. I heard a long and somewhat boring interview on the radio about what embedded journalists are allowed to show, and they are under restrictions from the military that they are embedded with, seemed to be the gist of it. In fact, because these journalists are there by arrangement with us, we would have some sort of duty to ensure that they don't put us in the situation of breaking the geneva convention, in my opinion. If you cart a journalist around with you by arrangement and then he takes identifiable pictures of PoWs, then we are also culpable; I certainly shouldn't like to be from the family of any Iraqi identifiable as having surrendered.

If the pictures were taken by unaffiliated journalists, then the question would be 'did the military take reasonable steps to stop the PoWs being subject to public curiosity?', I guess, which would be something that I can't judge.
__________________

I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of


Posted by oxsan on 03-25-2003 02:38 PM:

I don't think that there is much censorship or direction of what "embedded journalists" film. They are probably "Attended" by a low ranking type to see that they don't wander off or get in the way of a bullet. I think responsible officers are much too busy with their own tactics to worry about whether the camermen are violating the Geneva Convention . The cameraman is probably better informed than the officer on what he should or should not shoot.

I incidentally like the embedded journalist system very much. It actually approximates what we had in WWII where all certified
war correspondents were given a Captain's commission and uniformed and embedded at a battalion level. Of course it wasn't quite as complicated then because the equipment was different and the WWII correspondents were censored after they wrote their copy and the media types today say they are not and I believe them.

I think that media personnel should be uniformed and commissioned even today for the simple reason that it might help their position if captured. I think that depending on what company they represented they might get harsh treatment from the Iraqis if captured.

__________________

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.


Posted by Smug Git on 03-25-2003 02:55 PM:

We are still responsible for whatever it is that embedded journalist broadcast, as they are there with us, along for the ride. So we have to be responsible for ensuring that our treatment of prisoners in accordance with the Geneva Convention is not compromised by their actions.

This woman that I heard interviewed gave the impression that they are happier not to be uniformed; I didn't think that it was the military who prevented them from at least wearing camofluage, but rather their own desire not to look like soldiers. There are general guidelines as to what they can say; they can talk to soldiers if the soldiers are willing to talk to them, on camera, I mean. Other people will, of course, know more about this than I do; my main interest was in expressing my belief that if we are bringing these people with us then we must bear some responsibility for what they report, certainly in as much as it compromises our treatment of Prisoners of War.

__________________

I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of


Posted by oxsan on 03-25-2003 04:02 PM:

quote:
...but rather their own desire to not look like soldiers"


Believe me ,Smug, if a bunch of Iraqis are shooting in my general direction I do not want to be distinguished by a difference in clothing. Rather than a deterrent I feel confident that an Iraqi would relish having a journalist in the cross hairs of his scope.

I also think that the maltreatment of US prisoners if it occurs is entirely independent of the actions of our troops with respect to
Iraqi prisoners. I believe thoroughly in the humane treatment of prisoners and general adherence to those parts of the Geneva Convention to which the US ascribed. You haven't heard me complain about the parading of US prisoners by the Iraqis---nor will you. It may be against the Convention but I feel that the Iraqis parading of US troops will just serve to make the troops (and US civilians) more angry and tend in the long run to work to the disadvantage of Iraqi interests. Now breaking the US prisoners legs or other such physical maltreatment is another thing.

Likewise I do not care if embedded (or un-embedded) media personnel show pictures of Iraqis surrendering. If it causes the people of nations outside the cooalition to think badly of the US for breaking the convention, so be it. They think that anyway and it won't make them think it any more so.

I also believe that we are costing Coalition lives by the stringency with which we try to avoid Iraqi civilian casualties. Iraqi troops in the Bagdadh area have reportedly surrounded themselves with human shields of Iraqi citizens that they don't give a shit whether they die or not. Our efforts to prevent those civilians from harm may end up blunting our support to our own troops and thus costing coalition lives. In either case we will be blamed for all of them dying that do die anyway.
__________________

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.


Posted by Smug Git on 03-25-2003 04:20 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by oxsan
I also believe that we are costing Coalition lives by the stringency with which we try to avoid Iraqi civilian casualties. Iraqi troops in the Bagdadh area have reportedly surrounded themselves with human shields of Iraqi citizens that they don't give a shit whether they die or not. Our efforts to prevent those civilians from harm may end up blunting our support to our own troops and thus costing coalition lives. In either case we will be blamed for all of them dying that do die anyway.


It seems almost certain that minimising civilian casualties will increase military ones on our side. I don't see that this is a surprise to the planners, though; the military is being used to achieve an set of objectives, one of which is removing Saddam Huessein. Other objectives, realting to controlling the country afterwards and installing a friendly government, are best achieved by minimising civilian casualties; soldiers killed as a result of this policy are still dying in the service of their country. It has ever been thus, because war is a political endeavour (as the briefings given by Tommy Franks and others have made clear; they are no political novices, these guys, and they know what they are doing when they give these briefings. They are tools in the hands of government, one of things that distinguishes our nations from others where the military hold power over the government); although it seems that there is to be some relaxation of the rules regarding what we can shoot at (as a result of the resistance being put up by sections of Iraqi society), but minimising civilian casualties would seem to me to be essential to the long-term strategy. Listening to the briefings from the coalition (at all levels) the importance of minimising civilian casualties is repeatedly stressed; it seems very sensible to me to pursue this policy because it must surely form essential support for any aftermath plans.

Personally, I don't count innocent Iraqi civilians as of any less worth than our own troops, although I know that this isn't a popular view.
__________________

I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of


Posted by The Wraith on 03-25-2003 04:32 PM:

"I work hardcore"

- I'll take that as "no answer". That is, unless, you're actually going to state where you currently work. Don't think it hasn't been noted how you avoided the question. So, where do you work?

__________________

Regards,
The Wraith


Posted by MstrG on 03-25-2003 04:48 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by skalie
May have been less of a prize if Rumsfield had kept his trap shut about the Geneva convention.

Looks like a picture of John Walker Lindh, a US citizen who was not a POW, but rather a criminal that was prosecuted here and sentenced as such.


Posted by skalie on 03-25-2003 05:42 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by MstrG
Looks like a picture of John Walker Lindh, a US citizen who was not a POW, but rather a criminal that was prosecuted here and sentenced as such.


Swinging at shadows, MstrG, swinging at shadows.


Posted by MstrG on 03-25-2003 06:29 PM:

Hard facts.


Posted by Smug Git on 03-25-2003 06:45 PM:

Saw a Brit officer on TV just now who was saying that he was pissed off with the fact that the Iraqi PoWs were broadcast and that he has been instructing journos to cease and desist (he also made it clear that it isn't that easy to stop them).

__________________

I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of


Posted by MstrG on 03-25-2003 07:15 PM:

As many of the "embeds" have discussed on air, their prime directives are to not report future missions, current locations or targets. They meet daily with public information officers, and are given much the same information the troops have.

They don't have military people shadowing them every minute. The first indication of this was watching the footage as a long convoy crossed over the border from Kuwait to Iraq on the second day of the war. There was a big deal made by all the cable networks here, as they were all showing similar live video of the event from different embeds. The one I was watching, which was either Fox or MSNBC, had their crew (three people) in a Humvee in the middle of the convoy. There was no military member in the vehicle, and they were freely showing video in all directions, and reporting on everything they saw.


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:01 PM. Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Show all 37 posts from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.8
Copyright © Jelsoft Enterprises Limited 2000 - 2002.
Copyright © 2014- Imaginet Inc.
[Legal Notice] | [Privacy Policy] | [Site Index]