PDA

View Full Version : Subject to the laws of war?



greensideout
11-29-06, 10:17 PM
With all of the flap about the treatment of the Gitmo prisoners I found it interesting that they really have no rights at all. I never thought that they did but my feelings about that were confirmed by little more then looking it up in the dictionary. Why would it take a court of law to figure this one out?

Belligerent---belonging to or recognized as a state at war and protected by and subject to the laws of war.

Insurgent---a rebel not recognized as a belligerent.

It looks to me that they cooked their own goose!

SuNmAN
11-29-06, 11:16 PM
Is there really solid evidence that each person held in gitmo is actually an insurgent?

If so, then good to go.

Otherwise, how would you feel it you were a law abiding Iraq citizen and US troops nabbed you up MISTAKENLY and threw you into Gitmo where you have no rights?

Yeah.

The Prisoners at gitmo deserve rights. The most important of these rights is a FAIR TRIAL.

greensideout
11-29-06, 11:23 PM
Sunman, it's called war. No one in their right mind ever said it was fair.
You say that they deserve rights? On what grounds?

greensideout
11-29-06, 11:54 PM
Please allow me to put forth a hypothetical situation.

You are receiving fire from what appears to be five Iraqis in the street. You are succesful in killing all of them. You then discover that one was unarmed and was just crossing the street when the other four fired on you.

What was the unarmed Iraqis "rights"? Hint: War blurrs what is right or wrong.

SkilletsUSMC
11-30-06, 12:11 AM
Is there really solid evidence that each person held in gitmo is actually an insurgent?

If so, then good to go.

Otherwise, how would you feel it you were a law abiding Iraq citizen and US troops nabbed you up MISTAKENLY and threw you into Gitmo where you have no rights?

Yeah.

The Prisoners at gitmo deserve rights. The most important of these rights is a FAIR TRIAL.

Dude you gotta be pretty hard core to make it all the way to Gitmo. My last time in Iraq, we worked out of FOB Abu Graihb, and when we took detainees that we had real dirt on, we had to move them to Camp Fallujah. You have to be a hard liner to make it "IN" to Abu Graihb. So it would stand to reason, that the worst of the worst make it to Gitmo.

On a side note, in the town of Kahndari, which litterally is right out side the wire from the Infamous Abu Graihb prison there was a huge mass grave discovered. Its where Sadam had all the bodies of the excecuted prisoners burried. What happened at abu graihb may be kinda low and unprofessional. But its nothing like what USED to happen there. (And for all you non infantry types, its not too much diferent than what some of the boots face when they show up to the fleet.) Any muslim who act shocked by the events there are just playing the PC weapon against you.

Its attitudes like yours that will loose the war for us. Those who havent been there can TALK about being nice, but once you are there you will realize that its all bull****. Iraqis respect firmness. Our western liberal style of justice is a joke to them.

ivalis
11-30-06, 07:02 AM
How many prisoners at gitmo have been convicted of anything versus the number that have been returned, uncharged, to their countries of origin????

SuNmAN
11-30-06, 09:16 AM
Sunman, it's called war. No one in their right mind ever said it was fair.
You say that they deserve rights? On what grounds?

on the grounds that some of them may be innocent people that we nabbed up mistakenly

you're right it is war you said

Prisoners of War have rights.

I don't care that they do not treat our captives accordingly. All I care about is that we (America) is supposed to be the beacon for democracy and freedom for the world and we must hold ourselves to a higher moral standard.

SuNmAN
11-30-06, 09:21 AM
Dude you gotta be pretty hard core to make it all the way to Gitmo. My last time in Iraq, we worked out of FOB Abu Graihb, and when we took detainees that we had real dirt on, we had to move them to Camp Fallujah. You have to be a hard liner to make it "IN" to Abu Graihb. So it would stand to reason, that the worst of the worst make it to Gitmo.

On a side note, in the town of Kahndari, which litterally is right out side the wire from the Infamous Abu Graihb prison there was a huge mass grave discovered. Its where Sadam had all the bodies of the excecuted prisoners burried. What happened at abu graihb may be kinda low and unprofessional. But its nothing like what USED to happen there. (And for all you non infantry types, its not too much diferent than what some of the boots face when they show up to the fleet.) Any muslim who act shocked by the events there are just playing the PC weapon against you.

Its attitudes like yours that will loose the war for us. Those who havent been there can TALK about being nice, but once you are there you will realize that its all bull****. Iraqis respect firmness. Our western liberal style of justice is a joke to them.


bull****...Iraqis respect firmness? Our firmness has now led to more violence and killings at a rate higher than the Saddam era.

What we need to do for the Iraqi people is put 500,000 troops on the ground and ensure the SAFETY of the Iraqi people.

Otherwise we might as well QUIT ON THEM AND GET OUT before more Americans die.

Each Iraqi that you treat with dignity and respect could be one less Iraqi that might shoot at an American soldier in the long run. This is not being nice. It is strategy.

And I'll repeat what someone else said above - How many at Gitmo have actually been convicted of anything, and how many have been released back to their home country because we couldnt actually find any dirt on them?

drumcorpssnare
11-30-06, 09:27 AM
SuNmaN- One of the things armed combatants need to do, in order to be accorded the "rights" of Prisoners of War, is to wear the uniform of the organized military unit of the country they are fighting for. A robe and a turban do not qualify as a "uniform." You want America to treat them as though they are soldiers. They are not. They are terrorists!

SEMPER FI:usmc:
drumcorpssnare

SuNmAN
11-30-06, 09:33 AM
SuNmaN- One of the things armed combatants need to do, in order to be accorded the "rights" of Prisoners of War, is to wear the uniform of the organized military unit of the country they are fighting for. A robe and a turban do not qualify as a "uniform." You want America to treat them as though they are soldiers. They are not. They are terrorists!

SEMPER FI:usmc:
drumcorpssnare

perhaps

but what about all the innocent people who have been held up at Gitmo and treated like **** despite the fact that we couldn't find any dirt on them??

SuNmAN
11-30-06, 09:39 AM
all I wanna know is what is so detrimental to national security to provide a fair trial in order to determine whether these "detainees" are innocent or guilty??

SuNmAN
11-30-06, 09:40 AM
Please allow me to put forth a hypothetical situation.

You are receiving fire from what appears to be five Iraqis in the street. You are succesful in killing all of them. You then discover that one was unarmed and was just crossing the street when the other four fired on you.

What was the unarmed Iraqis "rights"? Hint: War blurrs what is right or wrong.


that would be inadvertant and unintentional

the guy's fault for running with the terrorists. He was likely their support element.

drumcorpssnare
11-30-06, 09:55 AM
SuNmaN- The appropriate answer regarding uniforms for combatants is not 'perhaps.' The appropriate answer is 'you are correct.'

In referance to "all the detainees..." etc. Although I personally don't have all the facts, I believe that America has held these people 'with just cause.' Our country has not, and does not just indiscriminately round up people "for the heck of it." These people have been apprehended because they are in some way involved in terrorist activities, funding, planning, etc. Their freedom poses a danger to you and me...and you want us to LET THEM GO FREE???

Okay, if you want them free, fine. And when they kill MORE Americans, I hope you and yours are among the victims. Does that thought give you a warm fuzzy feeling? No? Then maybe it's best to leave these people in a place where they can't hurt us.

These are extraordinary times, that require extraordinary measures.

drumcorpssnare:usmc:

SuNmAN
11-30-06, 12:26 PM
SuNmaN- The appropriate answer regarding uniforms for combatants is not 'perhaps.' The appropriate answer is 'you are correct.'

In referance to "all the detainees..." etc. Although I personally don't have all the facts, I believe that America has held these people 'with just cause.' Our country has not, and does not just indiscriminately round up people "for the heck of it." These people have been apprehended because they are in some way involved in terrorist activities, funding, planning, etc. Their freedom poses a danger to you and me...and you want us to LET THEM GO FREE???

Okay, if you want them free, fine. And when they kill MORE Americans, I hope you and yours are among the victims. Does that thought give you a warm fuzzy feeling? No? Then maybe it's best to leave these people in a place where they can't hurt us.

These are extraordinary times, that require extraordinary measures.

drumcorpssnare:usmc:

No, I don't want them free

dang it I hate it when people take my words out of context

but I do believe they deserve a fair trial. Even Saddam Hussein, who was blatantly guilty of genocide got one. These people deserve a chance to prove themselves innocent.

David Jameson
11-30-06, 12:55 PM
In any other war ,any one that takes a shot at you could and were put up to a wall and shot.They have no rights. Sun --Whatever You seem to have a major concern about these scum balls.Where the **** are your prioritys.To me this is like our guys are getting killed all around us in a WW2 battle and some idiot on our side is REALLY,REALLY concerned about our SS pows( that had rights because they were in uniform) .Makes me wonder where your heads at. I may be mistaken ,but I do not recall any post by you with any other cocerns about this fight.Just about our enemies rights. Interesting
LOL --Think your talking to the wrong crowd

SuNmAN
11-30-06, 01:03 PM
we want to win the war, we must stand on the moral high ground

an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

If we cannot convince Iraqis that America is all about justice, freedom and democracy like we claim to be. WE WILL LOSE THE WAR.

I swear some people are all "ooorah kill kill kill them all" but they don't see the grander scheme of things.

Let me put it this way:

For every Iraq that we treat unjustly could be one extra Iraqi that ends up joining Al Qaeda. Ensure the safety of the Iraqi citizens. Treat prisoners of war justly. Ensure that Abu-Ghraib and rapes and murders of Iraqi girls by US troops NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN and maybe we stand a chance at winning this war.

and call me an idealist, but although I love America very much and care about America much more than I care about any other country in the world, I care about the world as a whole more than I care about America.

SkilletsUSMC
11-30-06, 01:15 PM
In any other war ,any one that takes a shot at you could and were put up to a wall and shot.They have no rights. Sun --Whatever You seem to have a major concern about these scum balls.Where the **** are your prioritys.To me this is like our guys are getting killed all around us in a WW2 battle and some idiot on our side is REALLY,REALLY concerned about our SS pows( that had rights because they were in uniform) .Makes me wonder where your heads at. I may be mistaken ,but I do not recall any post by you with any other cocerns about this fight.Just about our enemies rights. Interesting
LOL --Think your talking to the wrong crowd

Hell yeah, excecute all insurgents caught in the act on the spot.

SkilletsUSMC
11-30-06, 01:22 PM
Hell yeah, excecute all insurgents caught in the act on the spot.

Though, only after we "extract intel":mad:

SkilletsUSMC
11-30-06, 01:27 PM
I swear some people are all "ooorah kill kill kill them all" but they don't see the grander scheme of things.

And YOU see it how? You havent even been there!!!

David Jameson
11-30-06, 01:36 PM
Yeah I forgot about the intel. Pobly have time for a few quick questions while the guys load up.

SkilletsUSMC
11-30-06, 01:40 PM
One of my friends was killed by an IED while escorting an insurgent Back to division....

**** the Muj

David Jameson
11-30-06, 01:44 PM
Thats what I think about whene I read his.crying. Makes me beyond angry.

Four F
11-30-06, 02:12 PM
Either these people are combatants, or they're criminals.

If they're combatants, this country needs to treat them like POWs, according to US laws and treaties.

If they're criminals, this country needs to treat them like criminals, also according to US laws and treaties.

When neither one of these things happens, we're being asked to support an America that no longer exists.

SkilletsUSMC
11-30-06, 02:15 PM
Either these people are combatants, or they're criminals.

If they're combatants, this country needs to treat them like POWs, according to US laws and treaties.

If they're criminals, this country needs to treat them like criminals, also according to US laws and treaties.

When neither one of these things happens, we're being asked to support an America that no longer exists.

So I suppose the fact that Marines excecuted Japs durring WW2 means that America no longer exists?

rhino1delta
11-30-06, 03:50 PM
Take it easy, Bros. We're all on the same side. We still have our priorities:
1. Complete the mission;
2. Protect your Team;
3. Conserve your resources.

If you're the one tasked with leading - you'll need to have your head on straight or you'll lose it. We're all taught that leaders shouldn't make decisions in anger and Marines are NOT robots nor do we serve a feudal lord.

But we are ALWAYS going to be asked to do ****-duty ... That's what we trained for ... and it doesn't matter whether you light the fire or stir the bucket - it's gotta be done and it will get done ... and if we're careful - we won't get too much overspill - or end up downwind.

Best suggestion: continue to support our troops AND pray for the leaders.
Semper Fi

rhino1delta
11-30-06, 03:53 PM
Thanks for the asterisks, Jerry.
>Lew

Four F
11-30-06, 04:35 PM
So I suppose the fact that Marines excecuted Japs durring WW2 means that America no longer exists?Marines who execute anybody at any time had better be sure they are doing it legally. That's part of their oath (supporting and defending the US Constitution), and if they disregard it, they're no different from gangs of warlords.

SkilletsUSMC
11-30-06, 05:08 PM
Marines who execute anybody at any time had better be sure they are doing it legally. That's part of their oath (supporting and defending the US Constitution), and if they disregard it, they're no different from gangs of warlords.

Bull****. Any one who was just shooting at you, runs out of ammo and then throws his hands up to surender should be bound and shot IMO. That doesnt make the Marine a thug. Do you know anything about insurgent TTP's? And like wise do you know how high the pecentage of detained insurgent set free is? The will be back on the street doinig it all agin tomorrow

SkilletsUSMC
11-30-06, 05:18 PM
Either these people are combatants, or they're criminals.

If they're combatants, this country needs to treat them like POWs, according to US laws and treaties.

If they're criminals, this country needs to treat them like criminals, also according to US laws and treaties.

When neither one of these things happens, we're being asked to support an America that no longer exists.

Hey Four F,

Why are you even here if you are really "4F"? are you upset that you arent quallified for military service, and now just trolling?

Four F
11-30-06, 05:47 PM
Hey Four F,

Why are you even here if you are really "4F"? are you upset that you arent quallified for military service, and now just trolling?Yes, I am really 4F, and I'm here because I have family members who are Corps veterans: I have been exposed to the military all my life. Okay?

My turn, now: Am I to understand that you believe anyone who disagrees with your personal views online is "just trolling?"

Zulu 36
11-30-06, 05:49 PM
WWII and the fight against the Japanese was a different era with a vastly different mindset. Regardless of our worldview now, back then the Japanese were not viewed as our racial, or even human, equals. That's just the way it was.

Many WWII Pacific vets I've spoken with had very little concern about killing Japanese who were viewed then as devious subhumans. They saw it more as killing a rabid animal, not a human. Most of their regrets came later in life.

Yes, many Japanese soldiers were killed out of hand even while surrendering. Partly, they could blame some of their own comrades who faked surrender in order to kill a few more Americans. It was viewed as survival to simply gun down any live Japanese and not take chances.

My father admitted doing this more than once when I asked him. He also admitted sniping out Japanese medics and litter bearers whenever he got the chance (he was a scout-sniper). Partly this was retribution as the Japs would kill American medics too, partly it was killing any live Japanese the moment they were seen to keep them from hurting Americans later. He knew from experience that Japanese soldiers had no problem killing any American under any circumstances.

My father never expressed any regrets for doing so, to me at least. I think he was pretty realistic about killing an enemy - something that is done and not dwelled upon. I believe he was much more saddened about the friends he lost in combat than for the enemy he killed - regardless of the circumstances. In fact, I can't remember him ever expressing any hatred for Japanese. It was like he viewed it as, "We won, they lost, its over."

My dad did say that most Japanese who were taken prisoner were generally well treated once away from the front line troops. Prisoners were treated a little brusquely by infantry troops.

Do I think less of my father knowing he might have killed Japanese soldiers in "violation of the laws of war"? Not a bit as I believe he was doing his duty according to the mores of the time. The belief was the Japanese did not follow the laws of war, so we didn't have to either. By-and-large, it is well established the Japanese did not follow those laws even when Americans were.

I refuse to judge him using today's mores, I must use those of his time. Furthermore, I refuse to judge my father, or any other soldier, who in the heat of combat kills someone, who on later investigation, might not have deserved killing.

Likewise, I refuse to judge Japanese soldiers of the day for the same reason. Unlike most Islamofacist terrorists, the Japanese were using uniformed military in what they believed was the defense of their nation. They also had a different belief system than we did, and that didn't necessarily accord with the "laws of war" as we knew them then or now. Personally I enjoyed Japan and the Japanese when I served there.

As a former police officer I prefer to use the legal test long established by the US Supreme Court in police use of force cases: To judge, we must use only that information available to the officer, soldier, Marine, citizen, whoever, at the moment the trigger was pulled. Not information learned later, only that information known at the split-second the fatal shot was fired.

In combat, the legal test should be even broader because there are too many sharp things are flying around in too many directions to allow for careful deliberation. I could go into an extensive treatise on the psychology and physiology of humans in combat situations (I am in my PhD dissertation), but I won't here.

Suffice it to say, if you ain't been there when your ******* has slammed shut (or worse, refuses to shut at all), then you have zero idea what it is like when you believe it is kill or be killed and something has to be done right NOW!

SkilletsUSMC
11-30-06, 06:00 PM
Yes, I am really 4F, and I'm here because I have family members who are Corps veterans: I have been exposed to the military all my life. Okay?

My turn, now: Am I to understand that you believe anyone who disagrees with your personal views online is "just trolling?"

Anyone who would first call themselfs 4f, and then, whithout combat experience, post on a Marine Corps forum that a service memeber who doesnt follow the PC rules of war is now a warlord thug sounds like troll.

Four F
11-30-06, 06:10 PM
Anyone who would first call themselfs 4f, and then, whithout combat experience, post on a Marine Corps forum that a service memeber who doesnt follow the PC rules of war is now a warlord thug sounds like troll."PC rules of war?" Screw PC! I have never been all that politically correct, and I have no use for political correctness. I'm also honest enough to admit to being 4F.

My point was and is this. Marines of all people have a code of conduct that they must live by. If you're really in the Corps, you've taken an oath to support and defend the constitution above anyone or anything else, including yourself. And I as a taxpayer expect every Marine to live up to that oath. And if they had no business taking the oath in the first place, well, too bad for them.

Four F
11-30-06, 06:37 PM
WWII and the fight against the Japanese was a different era with a vastly different mindset. Regardless of our worldview now, back then the Japanese were not viewed as our racial, or even human, equals. That's just the way it was.

Many WWII Pacific vets I've spoken with had very little concern about killing Japanese who were viewed then as devious subhumans. They saw it more as killing a rabid animal, not a human. Most of their regrets came later in life.

Yes, many Japanese soldiers were killed out of hand even while surrendering. Partly, they could blame some of their own comrades who faked surrender in order to kill a few more Americans. It was viewed as survival to simply gun down any live Japanese and not take chances.In that particular theater of war, such an approach made perfect sense. The main reason for taking prisoners at all is to encourage surrender and minimize your own casualties. Unfortunately, most of the Japanese preferred to die fighting, so it really didn't matter.
As a former police officer I prefer to use the legal test long established by the US Supreme Court in police use of force cases: To judge, we must use only that information available to the officer, soldier, Marine, citizen, whoever, at the moment the trigger was pulled. Not information learned later, only that information known at the split-second the fatal shot was fired.

In combat, the legal test should be even broader because there are too many sharp things are flying around in too many directions to allow for careful deliberation. I could go into an extensive treatise on the psychology and physiology of humans in combat situations (I am in my PhD dissertation), but I won't here.

Suffice it to say, if you ain't been there when your ******* has slammed shut (or worse, refuses to shut at all), then you have zero idea what it is like when you believe it is kill or be killed and something has to be done right NOW!I don't disagree with any of that. Of course, a Marine going into combat should already know how the law and the code of conduct requires him to behave, at least in general terms.

DWG
11-30-06, 06:41 PM
Bull****. Any one who was just shooting at you, runs out of ammo and then throws his hands up to surender should be bound and shot IMO. That doesnt make the Marine a thug. Do you know anything about insurgent TTP's? And like wise do you know how high the pecentage of detained insurgent set free is? The will be back on the street doinig it all agin tomorrow
The only difference between an "insurgent" (terrorist) and an "innocent" civilian casuality is someone picked up his weapon before the AP reporter took the picture. Yeah, yeah, we have to win their hearts and minds, but you have to be alive to do it. Better a dozen dead possibles than one dead Marine! Marines ain't cops-they're warriors-stop expecting them to stop, ID, and confirm someone is a card carrying member of the other team before they open up on them! You shoot at us then expect the whirlwind!!
Drifter-let the 4F talk-his ramblings are entertaining!

SuNmAN
11-30-06, 07:14 PM
The only difference between an "insurgent" (terrorist) and an "innocent" civilian casuality is someone picked up his weapon before the AP reporter took the picture. Yeah, yeah, we have to win their hearts and minds, but you have to be alive to do it. Better a dozen dead possibles than one dead Marine! Marines ain't cops-they're warriors-stop expecting them to stop, ID, and confirm someone is a card carrying member of the other team before they open up on them! You shoot at us then expect the whirlwind!!
Drifter-let the 4F talk-his ramblings are entertaining!


Sorry D W George. Marines also ADAPT, IMPROVISE AND OVERCOME. And unfortunately in THIS WAR we would have to play the role of policeman at times and make serious attempts to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis

or we WILL LOSE.

The Soviet Union did in Afghanistan against the Mujahideen, and we did before in Vietnam and Somalia.

If you're looking for Cold War-esque wars and battles, there hasn't been any since the Persian Gulf War bro.

SuNmAN
11-30-06, 07:16 PM
And YOU see it how? You havent even been there!!!

I don't need to be there to know historical precedents. We are occupying foreign territory with a hostile population.

I may not know the tactical in-and-outs that an Iraq Veteran would, but I DO KNOW History, diplomacy and rudimentary knowledge of strategy.

SuNmAN
11-30-06, 07:18 PM
Bull****. Any one who was just shooting at you, runs out of ammo and then throws his hands up to surender should be bound and shot IMO. That doesnt make the Marine a thug. Do you know anything about insurgent TTP's? And like wise do you know how high the pecentage of detained insurgent set free is? The will be back on the street doinig it all agin tomorrow


In this situation, he should be detained as a Prisoner of War

HOWEVER

I would not find it unreasonable if the Marine decided to put a round through his skull.

SkilletsUSMC
11-30-06, 07:22 PM
In this situation, he should be detained as a Prisoner of War

HOWEVER

I would not find it unreasonable if the Marine decided to put a round through his skull.

well there you go Sunman... Nice to see you are at least attempting to see it from both sides.

SuNmAN
11-30-06, 07:24 PM
told you that I always like to see both sides of things. <br />
<br />
If I was on the jury trying a soldier of Marine charged with murder who was in such a situation, my vote would definitely be NOT GUILTY.

SkilletsUSMC
11-30-06, 07:27 PM
That is really good to know!

Four F
11-30-06, 07:33 PM
Drifter-let the 4F talk-his ramblings are entertaining!Better to be entertaining than boring: at least somebody here might learn something from me! :iwo:

greensideout
11-30-06, 08:26 PM
that would be inadvertant and unintentional

the guy's fault for running with the terrorists. He was likely their support element.

Thank you, you must have understood the analogy. Now it's time to apply it to the prisoners at Gitmo.

Zulu 36
11-30-06, 08:29 PM
The only difference between an "insurgent" (terrorist) and an "innocent" civilian casuality is someone picked up his weapon before the AP reporter took the picture...
This reminds me of the scene from Full Metal Jacket when the helo door gunner talks about VC and well-disciplined VC.

Innocent people get killed in war, always have, always will. Of course flinging tons of "to whom it may concern" around the countryside doesn't help, but just partially replaces the victorious and vengeful armies of antiquity putting conquered cities to fire and sword.

SuNmAN
11-30-06, 08:29 PM
Thank you, you must have understood the analogy. Now it's time to apply it to the prisoners at Gitmo.

only on a case by case basis. In that case the guy running with the 4 armed terorists was killed inadvertantly

at gitmo, the prisoners must be proven guilty in a court of law, where they will have a chance to vindicate themselves of any wrong doing.

greensideout
11-30-06, 08:47 PM
only on a case by case basis. In that case the guy running with the 4 armed terorists was killed inadvertantly

at gitmo, the prisoners must be proven guilty in a court of law, where they will have a chance to vindicate themselves of any wrong doing.


Maybe you didn't get it? In the one case, he was killed. In the other, he was imprisoned. Both were innocent. Are you making the point that it would be better to kill them then to take them prisoner?

SuNmAN
11-30-06, 08:49 PM
Maybe you didn't get it? In the one case, he was killed. In the other, he was imprisoned. Both were innocent. Are you making the point that it would be better to kill them then to take them prisoner?


he was killed inadvertantly

the prisoners are intentionally imprisoned

once you kill an innocent man, you can never go back

if you imprison an innocent man wrongfully, you can rectify it by setting him free.

DWG
11-30-06, 08:50 PM
Sorry D W George. Marines also ADAPT, IMPROVISE AND OVERCOME. And unfortunately in THIS WAR we would have to play the role of policeman at times and make serious attempts to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis

or we WILL LOSE.

The Soviet Union did in Afghanistan against the Mujahideen, and we did before in Vietnam and Somalia.

If you're looking for Cold War-esque wars and battles, there hasn't been any since the Persian Gulf War bro.
Sweetheart-we did not lose in Viet Nam!! The liberal press and the ass sucking appeasers in the US did. Had the military been given their heads the NVA would have been done in in six months, as the VC were at big Tet. The terrrorists have stated openly that this war will be won in the media and they were right. Already the AP is printing lies about what is going on in the middle east and NO ONE is questioning the "facts". Once again the military will win a war that the politicians and the media will lose. There is an innate hatred of the US and the military in the main stream media that will eventually destroy us all.
If you want cops in Iraq, send the UN, they are useless to start with and their destruction would not be noticed or missed. If you want a problem solved send the US military, let them DO THEIR JOB, and it can then be handed over to the "diplomats" to screw up any way they want.

greensideout
11-30-06, 09:06 PM
he was killed inadvertantly

the prisoners are intentionally imprisoned

once you kill an innocent man, you can never go back

if you imprison an innocent man wrongfully, you can rectify it by setting him free.


You have already said that you would go as part of a jury with your mind made up. It seems to be the same in the case of the Gitmo prisoners.

Four F
12-01-06, 11:39 AM
Marines ain't cops-they're warriors-stop expecting them to stop, ID, and confirm someone is a card carrying member of the other team before they open up on them! You shoot at us then expect the whirlwind!!Well, despite your jumping on the *****ing bandwagon against the "liberal media," this point is actually a damn good one. :thumbup:

Marines and other military forces are now being given a policing job in Iraq, and they're not trained to do it. Their job was over in 2003.

BTW, I'm glad I'm entertaining around here and not boring. Someone might learn something from me.

DWG
12-01-06, 12:24 PM
[quote=Four F]Well, despite your jumping on the *****ing bandwagon against the "liberal media,"

quote]
The recent reports of the AP reporting atrocities that never happened and shrugging off the facts makes me jump on the bandwagon. It's amazing the press was completely impressed when they were embedded but now they believe anything any haji has to say, despite proof to the contrary.:mad:

OLE SARG
12-01-06, 12:57 PM
Our media has sunk to the lowest level I have ever seen it. Screw the facts, just report what they feel like mentality sucks.
I am to the point where I don't believe anything I read in the media and half of what I hear on the news.

SEMPER FI,

SuNmAN
12-01-06, 04:30 PM
Sweetheart-we did not lose in Viet Nam!! The liberal press and the ass sucking appeasers in the US did. Had the military been given their heads the NVA would have been done in in six months, as the VC were at big Tet. The terrrorists have stated openly that this war will be won in the media and they were right. Already the AP is printing lies about what is going on in the middle east and NO ONE is questioning the "facts". Once again the military will win a war that the politicians and the media will lose. There is an innate hatred of the US and the military in the main stream media that will eventually destroy us all.
If you want cops in Iraq, send the UN, they are useless to start with and their destruction would not be noticed or missed. If you want a problem solved send the US military, let them DO THEIR JOB, and it can then be handed over to the "diplomats" to screw up any way they want.

perhaps you don't understand dude


WE LOST THE WAR IN VIETNAM HAVING WON JUST ABOUT EVERY SINGLE FOUGHT BATTLE.

You can win tactically and operationally, which we did, yet we lost strategically, politically and diplomatically. The latter three matter far more than the tactical and operational side of things.

SuNmAN
12-01-06, 04:31 PM
You have already said that you would go as part of a jury with your mind made up. It seems to be the same in the case of the Gitmo prisoners.

would have to review evidence.

ggyoung
12-01-06, 04:33 PM
After reading all of the posts here I come to realize there are a couple to many bleeding hearts here. Bleeding hearts don't count for a damn thing in combat. The only thing that counts is your ass and your buddys ass. What the hell has happened here? Is the Corps getting soft on its new people now days? Remember in any combat the idea is to kill,kill,kill. It's your ass or there ass. Wich way do the bleeding hearts want it? If you have not SEEN THE BEAST then don't talk about the BEAST. If it is going to save Americans life then I say "the red wire is hot the black is cold hook them up and crant like hell.

DWG
12-01-06, 05:23 PM
perhaps you don't understand dude


WE LOST THE WAR IN VIETNAM HAVING WON JUST ABOUT EVERY SINGLE FOUGHT BATTLE.

You can win tactically and operationally, which we did, yet we lost strategically, politically and diplomatically. The latter three matter far more than the tactical and operational side of things.

Which is why we now have vietnamese leadership in this country?
We didn't lose anything except a lot of good troops. Our leaders caved to the media hysteria fueled by communist agitators(yeah, I used the "C" word). Viet Nam was a lost cause from the beginning according to R. MacNamara. When he made those statements a few years ago, he branded himself and every member of every administaration from kennedy to nixon, as a war criminal. They went in to lose-the military did everything it was allowed to do. The various civilian leaders(?) pulled the plug, the military did not surrender, stack arms or become prisoners of war like the french before us. I really don't understand why you have this compulsion to brand this country, or the Nam vets, as a loser, since the lack of backbone by the government is a much better way to slander the nation and is the reason this country will fall. If you think the country is an imperialist juggernaut, I invite you to move to france, where they share your opinion. We fight this one to win or we will be adhering to Sharia(?) llaw. It is them or us-the Crusade is coming, whether we want it or not.

SuNmAN
12-01-06, 06:08 PM
Which is why we now have vietnamese leadership in this country?
We didn't lose anything except a lot of good troops. Our leaders caved to the media hysteria fueled by communist agitators(yeah, I used the "C" word). Viet Nam was a lost cause from the beginning according to R. MacNamara. When he made those statements a few years ago, he branded himself and every member of every administaration from kennedy to nixon, as a war criminal. They went in to lose-the military did everything it was allowed to do. The various civilian leaders(?) pulled the plug, the military did not surrender, stack arms or become prisoners of war like the french before us. I really don't understand why you have this compulsion to brand this country, or the Nam vets, as a loser, since the lack of backbone by the government is a much better way to slander the nation and is the reason this country will fall. If you think the country is an imperialist juggernaut, I invite you to move to france, where they share your opinion. We fight this one to win or we will be adhering to Sharia(?) llaw. It is them or us-the Crusade is coming, whether we want it or not.


I respect that you are a Vietnam Veteran, but please tell me how we could have won in Vietnam.

We occupied the country. The bled us for 20 years until we couldn't take it anymore and we left.

SuNmAN
12-01-06, 06:09 PM
Which is why we now have vietnamese leadership in this country?
We didn't lose anything except a lot of good troops. Our leaders caved to the media hysteria fueled by communist agitators(yeah, I used the "C" word). Viet Nam was a lost cause from the beginning according to R. MacNamara. When he made those statements a few years ago, he branded himself and every member of every administaration from kennedy to nixon, as a war criminal. They went in to lose-the military did everything it was allowed to do. The various civilian leaders(?) pulled the plug, the military did not surrender, stack arms or become prisoners of war like the french before us. I really don't understand why you have this compulsion to brand this country, or the Nam vets, as a loser, since the lack of backbone by the government is a much better way to slander the nation and is the reason this country will fall. If you think the country is an imperialist juggernaut, I invite you to move to france, where they share your opinion. We fight this one to win or we will be adhering to Sharia(?) llaw. It is them or us-the Crusade is coming, whether we want it or not.


Excuse me?

I have the compulsion to brand Nam Vets as losers??

ABSOLUTELY NOT. I have the utmost respect for Vietnam Veterans

as I said again and again

we won every single battle in Vietnam but we lost the war.

They had something that we didn't. They had POLITICAL WILL.

SkilletsUSMC
12-01-06, 06:19 PM
After reading all of the posts here I come to realize there are a couple to many bleeding hearts here. Bleeding hearts don't count for a damn thing in combat. The only thing that counts is your ass and your buddys ass. What the hell has happened here? Is the Corps getting soft on its new people now days? Remember in any combat the idea is to kill,kill,kill. It's your ass or there ass. Wich way do the bleeding hearts want it? If you have not SEEN THE BEAST then don't talk about the BEAST. If it is going to save Americans life then I say "the red wire is hot the black is cold hook them up and crant like hell.

GGYOUNG....

Dont fret... every Fleet Marine grunt I know is properly warped in the head (as they should be.)

I am so suprised at how PC some posters are on this site. To me the Marine Corps is the anti-PC. you would think most of these new Lance Coolies would want to "Kill Kill Kill" as many badguys as they can, but all I get arround here are lectures about what "WE" are doing wrong in IRAQ. How the hell do they even know what they are talking about?

I can see why some of the old salts have the opinion they do, they rate it because they lived it. It is NOT wrong to disagree with the war, its just crappy to be unsuportive while we still have Marines down range. As Marines It is wrong to knock those fighting it if you havent walked a mile in their shoes.

SkilletsUSMC
12-01-06, 06:23 PM
Excuse me?

I have the compulsion to brand Nam Vets as losers??

ABSOLUTELY NOT. I have the utmost respect for Vietnam Veterans

as I said again and again

we won every single battle in Vietnam but we lost the war.

They had something that we didn't. They had POLITICAL WILL.

Like I said before... It was the cultural (socialist) "revolution" at home that stopped us from winning. we certainly never LOST.

SuNmAN
12-01-06, 06:26 PM
Like I said before... It was the cultural (socialist) "revolution" at home that stopped us from winning. we certainly never LOST.

you're giving the hippies way too much credit than they deserve.

SkilletsUSMC
12-01-06, 06:29 PM
you're giving the hippies way too much credit than they deserve.

youre giving the NVA and VC more credit than they deserve

SuNmAN
12-01-06, 07:37 PM
youre giving the NVA and VC more credit than they deserve

no. they defeated us at the cost of 3 million Vietnamese lives. And I added that US troops were never defeated on the battlefield.

The Vietnamese simply had much more political will than we did and knew that the American people would be fed up as long as they kept bleeding us daily.

And they did.

SkilletsUSMC
12-01-06, 07:48 PM
no. they defeated us at the cost of 3 million Vietnamese lives. And I added that US troops were never defeated on the battlefield.

The Vietnamese simply had much more political will than we did and knew that the American people would be fed up as long as they kept bleeding us daily.

And they did.

So do you think the USA of WW2 would have pulled out of Vietnam? It was the Peace&love generation that created the illusion of a "quagmire" in Vietman.

DWG
12-01-06, 07:57 PM
you're giving the hippies way too much credit than they deserve.
The hippies and their ilk were not the cause, they were just a tool. There was, and still is, an active anti-American propaganda machine at work in this country and abroad. The communists ran it in the 60s, and their bastard spin offs run it now (george soros, etc). The war in Viet Nam could have been won by taking it to the north-Shutting down their harbors, cutting off their rail lines and making sure nothing flew over N. Vietnam but us. Making Hanoi a several square mile dust pile would have helped too. It's hard to fight a war with zero supplies.
The war was doomed from the start by liberals at the administration level who had no intention of finishing what they started. If we(our leaders) do not have the balls to finish this one we better gear up for a war right on our own streets because, unlike the Vietnamese, these *******s want us all dead.
I don't want to see our troops in the middle east indefinitely-I think the Iraqis need to step up soon and show that they will fight for their own country, if not, let's split it 3 ways, arm everybody and bid them adieu. I think this will be the solution that will be eventually arrived at, but as long as there is one Marine in that rat infested hell hole we should give them every bit of support and firepower available. And I'm done arguing the Viet Nam war.

SkilletsUSMC
12-01-06, 08:41 PM
The hippies and their ilk were not the cause, they were just a tool. There was, and still is, an active anti-American propaganda machine at work in this country and abroad. The communists ran it in the 60s, and their bastard spin offs run it now (george soros, etc). The war in Viet Nam could have been won by taking it to the north-Shutting down their harbors, cutting off their rail lines and making sure nothing flew over N. Vietnam but us. Making Hanoi a several square mile dust pile would have helped too. It's hard to fight a war with zero supplies.
The war was doomed from the start by liberals at the administration level who had no intention of finishing what they started. If we(our leaders) do not have the balls to finish this one we better gear up for a war right on our own streets because, unlike the Vietnamese, these *******s want us all dead.
I don't want to see our troops in the middle east indefinitely-I think the Iraqis need to step up soon and show that they will fight for their own country, if not, let's split it 3 ways, arm everybody and bid them adieu. I think this will be the solution that will be eventually arrived at, but as long as there is one Marine in that rat infested hell hole we should give them every bit of support and firepower available. And I'm done arguing the Viet Nam war.

Hippies and socialists are like hand to glove...

SuNmAN
12-02-06, 03:57 PM
So do you think the USA of WW2 would have pulled out of Vietnam? It was the Peace&love generation that created the illusion of a "quagmire" in Vietman.

The US of World War II did not fight any unconventional, insurgency type wars.

Patriotic sentiment was high given the attacks on Pearl Harbor and the evils of Nazism, but if you're asking me if Vietnam happened during the 1940s and we did not have an Imperial Japan/Nazi Germany threatening us, then yes, we would've pulled out of Vietnam all the same.

OLE SARG
12-02-06, 05:35 PM
I concur with drumcorpssnare!!!!!! A military tribunal perhaps, but not a trial as wanted by our slobs of the aclu. As stated in previous posts, these are hardcore terrorists and had to make an effort to wind up where they are (the *******s probably should have been dispatched on the battlefield).
Last I heard, there were NO INNOCENT SHEETHEADS AT GITMO!!!!!!!!!

SEMPER FI,

Sgt Leprechaun
12-03-06, 06:18 AM
Well said, Sarg. Bottom line is, they are NOT 'POW's in any sense of the word, since they were NOT wearing uniforms, NOT fighting with or for a country or state group, and have therefore given up the rights granted to soldiers by both the Hague and Geneva conventions, despite what the idiots in the ACLU and whomever else think. (And I use the term 'think' loosely at best). Ike shot, after military tribunal, German soldiers who infilitrated US lines wearing US uniforms in WWII. "Partisans" have never, ever, been officially granted any kind of status, anywhere, anytime.

Personally, I'm in favor of Corps level commanders having the authority to try, and execute, these dirtbags. Simply put, they have the authority to order OUR young men and women into harms way, and to their death, why shouldn't they have the same power over terrorist scumbags? This would eliminate Gitmo and all the other crap.

SuNmAN...you are right about WWII...but....you have forgotten the 'other' small wars we fought, in our own Marine Corps history...Haiti, Nicarauga, DomRep, etc. We were successful at those..and they took, literally...YEARS. Lets also not forget the Philippines ('Stand Gentlemen....He served on Samar' ring any bells?).

The Vietnam war was lost...LOST, here at home, thanks to the media, among other things. Note that the protestors....stopped protesting after the draft was ended.

10thzodiac
12-03-06, 05:04 PM
The Vietnam war was lost...LOST, here at home, thanks to the media, among other things. Note that the protestors....stopped protesting after the draft was ended.

That is the only thing the Bush administration got right, using the National Guard instead of the draft.

Otherwise if they did, those college kids would of had this war long over.

I can just see all those guardsmen privately saying, "Boy, did we got fuked." http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/34.gif

SF
10th