Sauron

Originally posted by Sauron
The detainees from Afghanistan are not POW’s. They are terrorists and criminals. They are also people who beat up on defenseless women and aid and abet other criminals who commit terrorist attacks on defenceless people. As far as the US is concerned they are a special case due to the connection back to 9/11. The usual conventions do not apply.

Sauron

What are the detainees from Afghanistan then? Ok, they’re not prisoners of war because it wasn’t a war, although President Bush stated that operations in Afghanistan were part of the war against terrorism. They can’t be criminals because under American law even your vilest criminal is entitled to a trial so what are they. The only reason they are still there is because the American Government haven’t a clue what to do with them.

Regards

kev35

Re: Re: Re: the question is…

Vortex.

“Talk about arrogance…i’m capapble of listening, my ears may not be as good as before but sound waves are still being processed. I’m incapable of accepting things you’re saying, that’s all…i do have that right as an American don’t i? No? Don’t have that right either?”

Yes you have that right but from the tone of your posts it is obvious that although you may listen it is doubtful that you hear. Remember I have that right as well, as does everyone else on this forum. You are, rightly, an advocate of free speech, agreed? Why then do you always try to shout people down? Every post you make comes across as a rant. Why not try discussion? After all it is a discussion forum.

“If you understand the psyche of Americans after 9/11 then what you are saying can be construed as a THREAT and basically we Americans have to “shut up” with our views?”

Please, Americans weren’t the only victims of September 11th, they came from across the globe. What has September the 11th to do with the Geneva Convention? I’m not asking you to shut up, just to discuss things calmly and rationally. Make a point instead of a speech full of vitriol and venom.

Regards,

kev35

I don’t know enough about the charities but I do believe the Catholic Church should be brought to book over their continued covert support for paedophile priests. I suppose the Church believes it to be alright if it is done in the name of God. One really has to wonder whether this abuse is random or whether it is symptomatic of something far more sinister.

Regards,

kev35

I could be tempted, but don’t think I’d last very long.

Now, where’s the P-38 manual?

Regards,

kev35

Re: the question is…

Vortex.

“you do see images of Iraqi soldiers on western media surrendering and yes that can be claimed as against the way POWs are supposed to be treated, but i haven’t seen any being INTERVIEWED.”

The terms of the Geneva Convention state that a prisoner only has to state his name, rank and number. If the American prisoners wish to say more under interview then that is a matter of conscience for them.

“But, yes, it is kind of silly to claim violations because we KNOW for a fact that our POWs won’t be treated well. Since when have they been treated well? Korea? Vietnam? Dessert Storm? Please, we all know that Saddam’s regime will physically abuse them and make them say things under duress eventually…we all witness that before so why get so surprised?”

We don’t know that that will happen this time, though I admit Saddam’s past record indicates it is a possibility. Vietnam? Well wasn’t it a favourite trick of the US to take prisoners up in a helicopter and throw one out just to make the others a little more forthcoming? How about the treatment of your prisoners at Guantanamo? No legal representation, no right to a tribunal to even declare their status (against the terms of the Geneva Convention) and they are kept in cages. So, cut the double standard crap. All we can hope for is that all prisoners are properly treated.

“According to some, that’s fine too because he’s Saddam, he gets special previlages and he’s fighting the US.”

Or he’s defending his country. Depends on your point of view doesn’t it? But I forgot, you’re incapable of listenimng to anyone else.

“..to some Saddam’s is their subconscious hero who’s “standing” up against the US because they themselves are “inadequate”. “

I may be inadequate, I admit I walk with the aid of crutches and will need a wheelchair within the next twelve months or so. My real inadequacy lies in the fact that I don’t blindly believe everything the British and American Governments tell me. I form my own opinions, that too may be an inadequacy. I don’t know whether you realise this but the way you express support for American actions goes a long way to creating even greater anti-American feeling.

Regards,

kev35

ELP

“I was in error.”

ELP, you are entitled to your views I just believe your language was a bit harsh.

“I would hate to upset a male flight attendant and have them spill hot coffee on a passenger all because that ” *$%%## ELP ” said something in a certain manner. Could ruin their layover in Frisco.”

I have never considered you to be a “*$%%##” If I remember rightly you were one of the first people to help me (should that be ELP?) when I joined the forum over a year ago. We have to treat each other with a certain amount of respect. Elp, you have mine because of the quality of your posts over a long period. We may differ politically but we should all try to get along. It is our differences and diversity that makes this forum such an interesting place.

Regards,

kev35

Steve,

“Its something I’ve been thinking about for a while – I suppose its the age old case of “looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck so its a……….””

I see. An Invasion of a sovereign state to rid a dictator of any weapons of mass destruction he holds, and while we’re at it we’ll get rid of Saddam Hussein, free the people and give them the aid that we’ve denied them through sanctions for the past twelve years. An invasion which is, allegedly, illegal under international law. I can see it’s a duck now.

“Personally I think this is a tremendously good thing as it allows ordinary people a greater empathy with those at the front line whatever the consequence, now I think we have to start interpreting those images for a population that at the moment is listening to semi-trained anchor-people who cannot accurately interpret what they are seeing or place the images in context of the larger operation.”

You’re doing it again Steve. YOU have to interpret those images for US? You say it is encouraging the viewer to a higher level of empathy but then you imply we are not capable of understanding what we see. I think you’re wrong. Of course we are seeing civilian casualties and heartbreaking as it is we know they will occur and at the moment seem a lot less in number than during the 1991 conflict. We are seeing the actions of the coalition troops almost first hand. I can’t vouch for anyone else but I think I understand what I’m seeing.

“Take for example the resistance pockets in Basra – the military personnel on here know that its utterly inconsequential for those pockets to be left in place as the operation underway is an encirclement and holding action.”

Please go and say that exact phrase to the families of any soldiers kiled or wounded in those areas.

“People like Keltic, with no real comprehension of the strategy involved, see these reports and take up the banner of how much of a failiure everything is. So theres no point continuing……etc….etc….etc. I dont mean to criticise Keltic specifically but in this case he’s either not looked objectively at the media reports he’s seen or he has just seen what he expects to see in the media he has been exposed to. In neither case does he have a sound intellectual footing to arrive at an accurate picture of events. Despite this lack of logical foundation he has published an article on the internet making determinations as to the course of events.”

Very brave of you to make a statement like that. Keltic has expressed his opinions, and I don’t think Keltic is the kind of person to arrive at those opinions lightly. You don’t mean to criticise Keltic personally but… you suggest he lacks objectivity, a sound intellectual footing and a lack of ability to apply logic. I hope you don’t mean to criticise me, I doubt if I could take it……

“Sooo I’m forced to the conclusion that 4 nights of intensive bombing resulting in two “accidental targets” hit (namely 5 Iraqi houses in Baghdad and 1 Syrian coach that was tragically in the wrong place at the wrong time) make this one a damnsight cleaner than the last.”

I think I’d have to agree on that one, so far….

“Quite the opposite from needing to be guided I’m suggesting that people need to be making their own interpretations of what they are seeing NOT just listening to the direction of the media.”

In a paragraph above you stated ‘now I think we have to start interpreting those images for a population’. Make your mind up. Do we need guidance or don’t we?

“I appreciate what you’re saying that an emotional reaction is inescapable but it, in isolation, is no basis for for forming accurate opinions.”

I know my background influences me on this point but sometimes it’s all we have.

“The guy two houses up the street from me nearly always manages to park his car blocking my drive, now, my emotional reaction is to break both his legs and park his car on his head, however, this is not a civilised course of action.”

May not be civilised but I doubt if I would be as accepting of the situation as you.

“Am I angry that a US SAM took down a GR4 – yes of course I am. Am I upset that two brand new AEW Mk7 Sea Kings ended up at the bottom of the Persian Gulf with 7 good lads aboard – yes of course I am.”

There we differ in our interpretation of events again. I know you will be saddened by the loss of coalition forces in these incidents but it is interesting that you mention the equipment losses before that of the men.

“Does it alter my views of the yanks or lessen the reasons for the war….not for a millisecond. Those lads died fighting for something that, deep down, they may not have believed in but were fighting all the same with and for their mates.”

So now you admit that these troops and airmen may not have believed in the ’cause’ for which they died. ‘Fighting…with and for their mates.’ Exactly what happened to the Americans in Vietnam and I believe to the Russians in Afghanistan. It may not be about liberating the Iraqi people, just about doing the job and getting home.

“The fact that it was an accident or friendly fire that claimed them cheapens their sacrifice not a bit.”

No, but if they are dying for something they have no belief in, that surely cheapens the efforts of a Government which sends them there.

“As to your assertion that there is an effective resistance?????? Kev, in case your not following the story pal, the US 3rd is 70 miles south of Baghdad after 4 days of campaigning!?”

Anyone can capture miles of empty desert. It is the towns and cities that are important. The Iraqi Government has stated that the coalition forces can do as they please in the desert.

“Let me assure you that they exist ONLY at US and UK sufference and theyre doing very little apart from causing a nuisance and making nice pictures for the TV cameras.”

Again, say that to the families of the casualties. If these squads are not a problem why in Umm Qasr have US forces been relieved by British Marines? It has been stated that it is because the Royal Marines are better trained in street fighting. It would appear they are far more of a nuisance than you’d have us believe.

“56% of the population polled in favour given exactly the question you wrote above though Kev. Apparently it was in yesterdays Telegraph and on one of the news channels.”

I’ll give you that. But remember that these are not polls of the population but of small cross-sectional samples. I remember on a research course being told that a good researcher cam always influence their research to achieve the desired results. Also the vote by our MP’s in the House of Commons cannot be taken as representative of the view of the population. Did your MP ask your view on this or any other issue? It May be that there would have been support for the war but the only way to find out for sure would be to hold a referendum.

My Fingers are aching now.

Regards,

kev35

Jonesy.

“Elps opinion is as sincere and heartfelt as Keltics why should he be the only one villified and why do you assume he’s trying to silence anyone? In what you wrote you do realise you’re guilty of exactly the same prejudice that you are accusing him of? “

I don’t accept that. Elp, along with PII and Vortex are vehement supporters of the US led action in Iraq. At no time are they prepared to debate the issue or to accept any opposing point of view. They are Americans therefore they have God on their side and are always right. I have not assumed Elp is trying to silence anyone. His exhortation to ‘stop whining…. Get over it’ and PII’s eagerness to kill people as voiced in another thread does no credit to the American people. I am not prejuduced against the American people but that is how people choose to view me on the grounds that I question the justification for the current war in Iraq. BTW why are we calling it a war when no war has been declared?

“Eric simply said this is the nature of war and I actually think he went easy with Keltic – this is a NEW nature of war. War, even a decade ago, was a whole boatload nastier and more horrific than what we’re witnessing today.”

No again. Eric’s language is inflammatory to say the least and I fully admit I’m stupid enough to take the bait and reply. ‘This is a NEW nature of war.’ Yes it is. We are watching it on tv like it was a movie. Some incidents are shown in real time. Other incidents are not revealed at all due to ‘operational constraints.’ Was the last Gulf War any nastier and more horrific than the present one? That remains to be seen. One thing that we can be sure of is this wone will take a lot longer to finish. We can only imagine what casualties will be like over the coming days, weeks or even months.

“Please people start looking at your TV screens without the automatic emotional filters switched on. Analyse what you’re looking at instead of just having an unconscious reaction to it.”

Condescending of you and not like you at all. You are now suggesting that we are unable to analyse what we are being presented on tv and need to be guided. Our supposed ‘unconscious reaction’ to what we see is one of the factors that encourages us to think of ourselves as civilised. One cannot help but have an emotional reaction to what is going on.

“The Red Cross is moving from hospital to hospital checking to see if they have enough medical supplies and are bemoaning the possible psychological damage that the bombing might cause!!! Psychological trauma!!! As if being subject to a regime that executes dissidents after having their wives gang-raped in front of them isn’t traumatic!!!!”

You have a point. But the Red Cross should also be involved in checking on the welfare of the American prisoners and the psychological trauma they are almost certainly suffering. I agree it is to be hoped they are better treated than those captured in the last Gulf War.

“They all look healthy, well dressed and very determined to cash in on the bounty Saddam placed on dead or captured allied personnel to me.”

Human nature, it’s people hedging their bets. Those same people will probably end up greeting the coalition forces with open arms.

“I saw a Brit soldier pat one guy on the back after an inspection as a gesture of thanks and got a friendly reaction. The Iraqi in question seemed quite content with the state of affairs and he was just a normal guy going about his business.”

True, but contrast that with the determined and fluid resistance being encountered in almost every town the coalition forces reach.

“This is after 4 days of the most intensive precision bombing ever performed in history. Ladies and gents what we are seeing is not some shambolic mess its a carefully planned and controlled campaign designed to isolate an oppressive political regime from the citizens it controls and, in the main, it is doing just that.”

Carefully planned and controlled, yes, but with only limited effectiveness. We are not yet able to assess the effectiveness of the bombing in Baghdad. I would imagine it’s pretty accurate compared to what we have seen in the past. Let’s see though whether the military and political ‘head’ has been decapitated. At the moment it doesn’t appear so.

“To have an expectation that this would happen without anyone dying is fairyland. To have the expectation that there would be no accidents or blue-on-blues is fairyland.”

Of course it is fairyland. But you must admit that it is not exactly comforting that so many have died as a result of ‘blue on blue’ incidents or accidents, is it? We are told that everything is high tech, the war will be over in days, minimal casualties, mass surrenders. What we are now seeing is American prisoners and dead, an effective resistance which has caught coalition forces off guard, several journalists dead and missing, some allegedly due to friendly fire. There will obviously be civilian casualties as well. At the moment it seems coalition forces are endeavouring to keep them to a minimum.

“The average UK citizen knows whats going on for good and ill and Blairs popularity has jumped 20% on the strength of what is being reported from Iraq. I don’t quite see what basis you have for your statement?”

I don’t think support for the war has risen. I believe your 20% comes from a natural instinct to back our troops while they are in action. I doubt that if you phrased the question better, eg, “Do you support the war to oust Saddam Hussein?” the answer would still be a considerable no vote. However if you asked whether people were now supporting the war purely because British service personnel were involved and you wanted to support them, the answer would be different. I think the increase in suport is entirely due to the attitude ” Ok, they’re in, let’s get it over and bring them home with minimum casualties.”

Regards,

kev35