Two missing soldiers found dead

[Sooner in Tampa]

FUGGERS!!! I feared that this would be the outcome, but I had hoped for the best.

"There is not greater sacrifice...to give your life for your homeland"

Missing US soldiers' bodies found in Iraq
http://hosted.ap.org/icons/spacer.gifhttp://hosted.ap.org/icons/spacer.gif
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- A senior Iraqi military official said Tuesday the bodies of two missing U.S. soldiers have been found near the town where they went missing, but the U.S. military said it could not confirm the report.
Maj. Gen. Abdul-Aziz Mohammed said the bodies were found on a street near a power plant in the town of Youssifiyah, just south of Baghdad. U.S. Maj. Doug Powell said he could not confirm the report.
The two men went missing Friday after an attack that killed one of their comrades.

[Sooner24]

:(

[picasso]

wouldn't you think though that if insurgents knew they had killed them they would have drug their bodies around or propped them up for propaganda?

:mad: :(

[Sooner in Tampa]

wouldn't you think though that if insurgents knew they had killed them they would have drug their bodies around or propped them up for propaganda?

:mad: :(You would think...there are signs that they were tortured and killed...so let's stop all of this b!tching about how bad we are treating their prisoners. OK

[slickdawg]

Very tragic. My thoughts and prayers got out to their families, comrades,
and all of our troops.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Tortured and beheaded...Also heard the bodies were found in a gruesome manner. Not sure hwat that means - desecrated?

I hope we find those lowlifes and do what CSI Cain did to the gang shooter. Shoot 'em at close range...

[Sooner in Tampa]

Tortured and beheaded...Also heard the bodies were found in a gruesome manner. Not sure hwat that means - desecrated?

I hope we find those lowlifes and do what CSI Cain did to the gang shooter. Shoot 'em at close range...


Al-Qaida in Iraq claimed responsibility for killing the soldiers, and said the successor to slain terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had "slaughtered" them, according to a Web statement that could not be authenticated. The language in the statement suggested the men had been beheaded.
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: These c*cks*ckers have some payback coming:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: I so fu*&ing tired of this sh!t!!!!

FU*K Collateral damage...lets use a "scorched earth policy"!!!!

[White House Boy]

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: These c*cks*ckers have some payback coming:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: I so fu*&ing tired of this sh!t!!!!

FU*K Collateral damage...lets use a "scorched earth policy"!!!!

We could just make the whole area the biggest piece of glass known to mankind. :mad:

[soonerhubs]

We could just make the whole area the biggest piece of glass known to mankind. :mad:
You got my vote.

[usmc-sooner]

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: These c*cks*ckers have some payback coming:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: I so fu*&ing tired of this sh!t!!!!

FU*K Collateral damage...lets use a "scorched earth policy"!!!!


everything he said and then some.

[C&CDean]

[vaevictus]why? we're there terrorizing them. those soldiers deserved it[vaevictus/]

**** restraint. **** diplomacy. **** it all.

[oumartin]

bush is holding out for his last 3 months of term and he's gonna blaze that entire area!

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I do like the idea of nuclear glass in what was known as Iraq/Iran, now known as "The Wasteland"...

[jk the sooner fan]

[vaevictus]why? we're there terrorizing them. those soldiers deserved it[vaevictus/]




major spek.....

[walkoffsooner]

bastages kill em all.

[Sooner in Tampa]

When the rest of the information gets de-classified and the public hears about it...you will be even more ****ed. :mad: :mad: :mad: These fuggers are absolute scumbags.

[usmc-sooner]

[vaevictus]why? we're there terrorizing them. those soldiers deserved it[vaevictus/]

**** restraint. **** diplomacy. **** it all.


funny

[Scott D]

We could just make the whole planet the biggest piece of glass known to mankind. :mad:

I didn't know you were such an advocate of the destruction of the world.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

When the rest of the information gets de-classified and the public hears about it...you will be even more ****ed. :mad: :mad: :mad: These fuggers are absolute scumbags.

Have you heard something specific or are in a position to more than we know? or are you just postulating?

[SoonerBorn68]

[vaevictus]why? we're there terrorizing them. those soldiers deserved it[vaevictus/]

**** restraint. **** diplomacy. **** it all.

Naked human pyramids vs. tortured, beheaded soldiers. :mad:

I know I'm going to take heat for this but the Nazis might have had the right idea in this situation: When an SS unit in Russia was ambused and 20 soldiers killed they retaliated by killing 2,000 Russian men, women, and children. I'm not condoning killing innocent civilians, but I'm sure we've got some "insurgent" prisoners locked up somewhere that could be lined up against a wall and shot.

[Sooner in Tampa]

Have you heard something specific or are in a position to more than we know? or are you just postulating?Yes...I have read something specific. I work at CENTCOM here in Tampa.

[JohnnyMack]

I know I'm going to take heat for this but the Nazis might have had the right idea in this situation: When an SS unit in Russia was ambused and 20 soldiers killed they retaliated by killing 2,000 Russian men, women, and children. I'm not condoning killing innocent civilians, but I'm sure we've got some "insurgent" prisoners locked up somewhere that could be lined up against a wall and shot.

wow.

[Stanley1]

Naked human pyramids vs. tortured, beheaded soldiers. :mad:

I know I'm going to take heat for this but the Nazis might have had the right idea in this situation: When an SS unit in Russia was ambused and 20 soldiers killed they retaliated by killing 2,000 Russian men, women, and children. I'm not condoning killing innocent civilians, but I'm sure we've got some "insurgent" prisoners locked up somewhere that could be lined up against a wall and shot.

Word.

[Stanley1]

Yes...I have read something specific. I work at CENTCOM here in Tampa.

Er.....can you share with us?

[Stanley1]

Lot of videos on this website that show what kind of people we are dealing with. Nothing too graphic that I've see, but pretty telling none the less.

http://www.militaryspot.com/multimedia.htm

[SoonerBorn68]

wow.

Yes wow. I'm not as forgiving or touchy/feely as you are, Johnny.

[Sooner in Tampa]

Er.....can you share with us?Not if I want to keep my job. :)

I wish I could...but it will get out in time. It always does.

[JohnnyMack]

Yes wow. I'm not as fogiving or touchy/feely as you are, Johnny.

No, in fact you're no better than they are.

[Stanley1]

One of the two soldier's uncle gave an interview today. He stated that he wanted to use all the money/gold we found in Iraq, and use it to pay the ransoms.

[Sooner in Tampa]

Lot of videos on this website that show what kind of people we are dealing with. Nothing too graphic that I've see, but pretty telling none the less.

http://www.militaryspot.com/multimedia.htmIf you REALLY want to know what kind of people we are dealing with take a trip over to www.ogrish.com (http://www.ogrish.com) (NSFW) they have some pretty graphic material.

[usmc-sooner]

No, in fact you're no better than they are.


wow :rolleyes:

[Stanley1]

No, in fact you're no better than they are.

Yea, cause killing US soldiers that are trying to free your country is the same as killing enemy combatents(sp).

[Sooner in Tampa]

No, in fact you're no better than they are.Have you ever heard the term "fight fire with fire"?

Now is that time.

[SoonerBorn68]

No, in fact you're no better than they are.


Never claimed to be. However, if I were as fanatical as they were I would have declared a jihad on you a long time ago. :D

[JohnnyMack]

Yea, cause killing US soldiers that are trying to free your country is the same as killing enemy combatents(sp).

How is his advocation of the wholesale slaughter of enemy POW's any different than what they did to those two soldiers?

[White House Boy]

I didn't know you were such an advocate of the destruction of the world.
I'm ready.... and it's gotta come sometime, right? ;)

[SoonerBorn68]

I wonder if fewer prisoners will be taken in the months to come. It would be a shame if we couldn't fill up those prisons.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Yes...I have read something specific. I work at CENTCOM here in Tampa.

Not to get you to release info, but will this be made public and Americans will know or will it be kept quiet in deference to the families?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Have you ever heard the term "fight fire with fire"?

Now is that time.

Agree,

A-rabs only know and respect force, heavy force. Show 'em decency and respect "Western" style, they think you are weak. Hit 'em and hit 'em hard and make their families pay. That will get their notice and their respect/fear. That's all they know.

[Sooner in Tampa]

Not to get you to release info, but will this be made public and Americans will know or will it be kept quiet in deference to the families?It will get out. It really isn't any threat to national security or anything, but it is still classified right now.

Who knows...it may prove to be false too. I doubt it though.

[jeremy885]

Agree,

A-rabs only know and respect force, heavy force. Show 'em decency and respect "Western" style, they think you are weak. Hit 'em and hit 'em hard and make their families pay. That will get their notice and their respect/fear. That's all they know.

That hasn't worked for the Israelis, why would it work for us?

[achiro]

That hasn't worked for the Israelis, why would it work for us?
It would if they wren't playing with their hands tied behind their backs.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

That hasn't worked for the Israelis, why would it work for us?

I think it has worked quite well for Israel. They still are in existence and few Arab nations bother them. Their raid on the Iraq nuclear site was quite effective.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

CNN just released that the bodies were boobytrapped.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

It will get out. It really isn't any threat to national security or anything, but it is still classified right now.

Who knows...it may prove to be false too. I doubt it though.

I understand where you're coming from, but if by chance, you hear or read that it has been released or someone is publishing it, perhaps you could post the link to the story. You know, then your not doing anything wrong...

[jeremy885]

I think it has worked quite well for Israel. They still are in existence and few Arab nations bother them. Their raid on the Iraq nuclear site was quite effective.

Didn't know they were fighting a guerilla war against the Egyptians and Syrians, thought it was against Hamas and the Palestinians. Last I saw, it seems not to be working.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Well, if Israel could respond like they wanted to, then the problem would be solved. Unfortunately, the Europeans and others have hamstrung them such that they have one arm tied behind their back as someone mentioned.

[C&CDean]

Look at our boy Johnny Mack. All aghast. Yet he's dying to hear about whether I killed those puppies or not.

Truth be known, it'd be easier to shoot these **********s in the face than those dogs.

[Sooner in Tampa]

Look at our boy Johnny Mack. All aghast. Yet he's dying to hear about whether I killed those puppies or not.

Truth be known, it'd be easier to shoot these **********s in the face than those dogs.KING SIZE SPEK!!!!!

[jk the sooner fan]

here's the problem, we arent heavy handed enough over there.......we arent brutal enough

the common iraqi wants a peaceful existence, but they've been living under fear and oppression for so long, that they dont have it in them to rise up and squash the insurgency......they could do it easily...but they need to know we have their back.....and not in some mamby pamby way

we're killing insurgents but we're doing it quietly and conventionally......the insurgents are killing by fear and in grand spectacular fashion

if we ever want to win the hearts and minds of iraqi's, we have to earn their respect, the same way the insurgents have

and we should NEVER, worry about who we **** off over there or anywhere else, for fear of gaining new enemies.......if that isnt the pussification of America, then I dont know what is

[jeremy885]

here's the problem, we arent heavy handed enough over there.......we arent brutal enough

the common iraqi wants a peaceful existence, but they've been living under fear and oppression for so long, that they dont have it in them to rise up and squash the insurgency......they could do it easily...but they need to know we have their back.....and not in some mamby pamby way

we're killing insurgents but we're doing it quietly and conventionally......the insurgents are killing by fear and in grand spectacular fashion

if we ever want to win the hearts and minds of iraqi's, we have to earn their respect, the same way the insurgents have

and we should NEVER, worry about who we **** off over there or anywhere else, for fear of gaining new enemies.......if that isnt the pussification of America, then I dont know what is

So events like Haditha are ok? Because if we did what you are suggesting, they will happen again and again. Maybe not planned but as a natural result of the ratching up our operations to the level you're suggesting.

[usmc-sooner]

here's the problem, we arent heavy handed enough over there.......we arent brutal enough

the common iraqi wants a peaceful existence, but they've been living under fear and oppression for so long, that they dont have it in them to rise up and squash the insurgency......they could do it easily...but they need to know we have their back.....and not in some mamby pamby way

we're killing insurgents but we're doing it quietly and conventionally......the insurgents are killing by fear and in grand spectacular fashion

if we ever want to win the hearts and minds of iraqi's, we have to earn their respect, the same way the insurgents have

and we should NEVER, worry about who we **** off over there or anywhere else, for fear of gaining new enemies.......if that isnt the pussification of America, then I dont know what is

the pussification has already set in on a few

[jk the sooner fan]

So events like Haditha are ok? Because if we did what you are suggesting, they will happen again and again. Maybe not planned but as a natural result of the ratching up our operations to the level you're suggesting.

there's a difference between outright murder and "collateral damage"

[Stanley1]

there's a difference between outright murder and "collateral damage"

Exactly.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

yeah, tell that to the 9/11 families.

We should find the terrorists families and take them out...Just sayin'

[jk the sooner fan]

if you want to "win" a dirty war, then you better be prepared to stomach whats necessary to do so

[Scott D]

I'm ready.... and it's gotta come sometime, right? ;)

I'd personally rather have it come well after I'm deceased ;)

[jk the sooner fan]

We should find the terrorists families and take them out...Just sayin'

i'm all for it

[TUSooner]

Perhaps we need to forget about the whoe "taking prisoners" deal. Much easier for our guys to say "those damn insurgents just won't surrender any more so we have to shoot them in field" than to bring them back and feed them and listen to them complain and stuff. Just a thought.


It'sbetter than the thermonuclear annihlation of millions of innocents whom we went over there to liberate.

[Tear Down This Wall]

I still want to see the report on this. I have a hard time believing Marines could be captured by crap-eating Arabs. Seems to me they'd have gone down in a blaze of glory while sending as many modren day Baal worshipers to hell as they could on the way out.

[Scott D]

I still want to see the report on this. I have a hard time believing Marines could be captured by crap-eating Arabs. Seems to me they'd have gone down in a blaze of glory while sending as many modren day Baal worshipers to hell as they could on the way out.

an ambush is an ambush I don't care who you are. Clearly a lot of planning went into this attack.

[picasso]

I believe their driver was killed and they were surprised by the enemy.

[Fugue]

I still want to see the report on this. I have a hard time believing Marines could be captured by crap-eating Arabs. Seems to me they'd have gone down in a blaze of glory while sending as many modren day Baal worshipers to hell as they could on the way out.

I'm guessing there are some blazes of glory going on right now for a little payback.

[jk the sooner fan]

I still want to see the report on this. I have a hard time believing Marines could be captured by crap-eating Arabs. Seems to me they'd have gone down in a blaze of glory while sending as many modren day Baal worshipers to hell as they could on the way out.

how about showing just an ounce of respect?

[Scott D]

how about showing just an ounce of respect?

that would require him admitting that he'd **** his pants if he had a HMG in his face.

[BeetDigger]

I'm staying out of this thread, other than to post that I feel awful for the families of those soldiers. I hope that they know that America appreciates the sacrifice that their sons made and that we are all greatful for them and all of the military, past and present. I walked outside at lunch today, free to get in my car and to drive to my home for lunch with the biggest worry being the normal risks associated with driving. Today, rather than taking this for granted, I stopped and said "thanks". I hope that everyone will take a moment today and stop yourself during a freedom that you normally take for granted and do the same thing. I work hard and take pride in the fruits of my labor. But my work is nothing compared to the work of those soldiers.

[Scott D]

I always tell the old dudes wearing unit hats or with veteran plates 'Thank you'....nothing like seeing their eyes light up in recognition for their service...especially the WW2 vets.

[jeremy885]

there's a difference between outright murder and "collateral damage"

not much of one for the family members of those who were killed, for what you are talking about. Here we are trying to get the Iraqis to stop doing revenge killings when one of their group is killed by another, but if an American gets killed it's ok for us to go Rambo on their asses?

I think Al Queda would thank you for doing their recuitment for them.

[White House Boy]

I always tell the old dudes wearing unit hats or with veteran plates 'Thank you'....nothing like seeing their eyes light up in recognition for their service...especially the WW2 vets.
Good post.

[jk the sooner fan]

not much of one for the family members of those who were killed, for what you are talking about. Here we are trying to get the Iraqis to stop doing revenge killings when one of their group is killed by another, but if an American gets killed it's ok for us to go Rambo on their asses?

I think Al Queda would thank you for doing their recuitment for them.

i think you know squat about having the stomach to win a dirty war, and i think you are blending in the good guys with the bad guys

its ok to take sides.....war isnt about a level playing field, its about an uneven playing field

recruiting for AQ didnt seem to be a problem before the war now did it? if you think that really matters or is somehow tied to what we're doing over there, then in my honest opinion, you're clueless

[arenateam]

:(

[JohnnyMack]

not much of one for the family members of those who were killed, for what you are talking about. Here we are trying to get the Iraqis to stop doing revenge killings when one of their group is killed by another, but if an American gets killed it's ok for us to go Rambo on their asses?

I think Al Queda would thank you for doing their recuitment for them.

Didn't I warn you about becoming a commie pinko friend of Sheehan?

[JohnnyMack]

we're killing insurgents but we're doing it quietly and conventionally......the insurgents are killing by fear and in grand spectacular fashion

if we ever want to win the hearts and minds of iraqi's, we have to earn their respect, the same way the insurgents have


So the bombing of Zarqawi's hideout and the subsequent release of pictures of him wasn't grand and spectacular enough for you?

[picasso]

not much of one for the family members of those who were killed, for what you are talking about. Here we are trying to get the Iraqis to stop doing revenge killings when one of their group is killed by another, but if an American gets killed it's ok for us to go Rambo on their asses?

I think Al Queda would thank you for doing their recuitment for them.
revenge torture killings you mean.

who do you want to win this war? just curious.

[jk the sooner fan]

Didn't I warn you about becoming a commie pinko friend of Sheehan?

:rolleyes:

its ok to place a higher value on the lives of american soldiers than that of their iraqi counterparts, its ok to place a higher value on the lives of our family members over theres

i can assure you the are doing the same thing vice-versa over there

if you have an enemy that equates an american life to that of "an animal", you cant treat them like humans......they dont get that, they dont respond to that

so, either you want to win this or you dont.....if you do, be prepared for ugliness because thats what it takes

have no fear though, the fight over there has been politicized and pussified to the point where its not an issue, you can sleep well tonite knowing that we're doing everything we can to keep from offending those god fearing people over there

[jk the sooner fan]

So the bombing of Zarqawi's hideout and the subsequent release of pictures of him wasn't grand and spectacular enough for you?

you do understand the purpose behind displaying pictures of him dead dont you?

please tell me you "get that"

[JohnnyMack]

you do understand the purpose behind displaying pictures of him dead dont you?

please tell me you "get that"

I do.

[JohnnyMack]

:rolleyes:

its ok to place a higher value on the lives of american soldiers than that of their iraqi counterparts, its ok to place a higher value on the lives of our family members over theres

i can assure you the are doing the same thing vice-versa over there

if you have an enemy that equates an american life to that of "an animal", you cant treat them like humans......they dont get that, they dont respond to that

so, either you want to win this or you dont.....if you do, be prepared for ugliness because thats what it takes

have no fear though, the fight over there has been politicized and pussified to the point where its not an issue, you can sleep well tonite knowing that we're doing everything we can to keep from offending those god fearing people over there

My issue was with the advocation of murder. I view collateral damage and murder as two different things.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I still want to see the report on this. I have a hard time believing Marines could be captured by crap-eating Arabs. Seems to me they'd have gone down in a blaze of glory while sending as many modren day Baal worshipers to hell as they could on the way out.

They weren't Marines. They were soldiers assigned to the 1st Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division from Fort Campbell, Ky. But that doesn't make any difference. They were part of a three person humvee patrol, they got shot at by multiple vehicles and two went after the vehicles, one stayed at the checkpoint and was overrun by a different car. One person was killed in a fire fight, the others were taken hostage. There was blood at the scene, but no one has said if they were wounded, surrendered or what...

[jeremy885]

revenge torture killings you mean.

who do you want to win this war? just curious.

We have about a 135K troops in Iraq with maybe half being non-support troops (the ones actually doing the fighting). I don't see how we can expect to launch this grand operation of going out and killing any suspected terriorist. I feel that we should continue what we are doing.

1) Launch operations against targets that we have intel on (like the Zarquiwi bombing)

2) Guard vital areas that we don't trust the Iraqis to guard.

3) Train the Iraqi forces, so we can get the **** out of there.

With what we have in Iraq, I don't see how we can do more unless W wants to commit another 100-200K troops. We (by ourselves) aren't going to win this war, the Iraqi government with our support will.

[jk the sooner fan]

My issue was with the advocation of murder. I view collateral damage and murder as two different things.

i agree, and said as much earlier in the thread

there is a way to be brutal without being barbaric

although others may not see it that way

[Stanley1]

I'm just curious, this is just a question, I don't have any implicit agenda, seriously just want to know. What does the military "teach" our soldiers as far as being taken hostage, especially in this war, being that your chances of being released and/or rescued are probably slim to none?

[JohnnyMack]

You have intel that says 10 badguys are holed up in this house. Also 8 womens and childrens are probably in that house. **** it. Waste the house. That's part of the game.

You have 10 badguys in custody that were picked up by a routine patrol. You line them up and shoot them all in the head to send a message to the rest of the village. Then you've crossed the line.

[jk the sooner fan]

I'm just curious, this is just a question, I don't have any implicit agenda, seriously just want to know. What does the military "teach" our soldiers as far as being taken hostage, especially in this war, being that your chances of being released and/or rescued are probably slim to none?

i dont know what the specific training is for "this war", but generically you're trained on how to act/react when taken prisoner by countries operating under the Geneva Convention

i'm not sure how you prepare soldiers for kidnapping and subsequent beheading.....

[SoonerBorn68]

You have 10 badguys in custody that were picked up by a routine patrol. You line them up and shoot them all in the head to send a message to the rest of the village. Then you've crossed the line.

You have A-rab terrorists torturing and beheading US military troops and you line those 10 f'ers up against the wall and shoot them to show the terrorist leadership this is how the game's gonna be played when that happens.

[IBTT]

Is my man on vacation or what? :D

[usmc-sooner]

I'm just curious, this is just a question, I don't have any implicit agenda, seriously just want to know. What does the military "teach" our soldiers as far as being taken hostage, especially in this war, being that your chances of being released and/or rescued are probably slim to none?

we were told that we would almost certainly be tortured or beheaded. Kinda one of those things whether your really taken chances if you stop fighting.

But sometimes you just can't help being taken POW, if your pinned under a truck, or knocked out due to an explosion, all shot up.

But most Marines, Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen have a pretty good idea what will happen.

[Vaevictis]

[vaevictus]why? we're there terrorizing them. those soldiers deserved it[vaevictus/]

I've never said anything of the sort, nor implied it.

Obviously, you must think that John McCain, Murtha, and other such vets who are against torture and/or prisoner mistreatment as policy think our troops deserved it too. :rolleyes: Asshat.

It's no f*cking wonder our military is having the difficulties it's having when public opinion -- and even people in the military itself -- think it's okay to treat civilians like garbage and make enemies where there weren't enemies before.

When this sh*t ends like Vietnam, don't ask why. Soldiers and civilians tortured, our military making enemies of people who weren't before, and the same old refrain from the politicians and military fanboys: "Stay the course." It's the same goddamn sh*t, 30 years later.

(and no, just because I know some of you are idiots and will take it this way: I'm not saying anyone deserves this. I'm just saying it's not suprising given some of the things that have happened. You want to stop this **** from happening? Don't repeat the same mistakes: Kill the enemies you already have, and stop making new ones when you don't have to. I mean, how hard is that to understand?)

[jeremy885]

You have A-rab terrorists torturing and beheading US military troops and you line those 10 f'ers up against the wall and shoot them to show the terrorist leadership this is how the game's gonna be played when that happens.


Do you really want us to start doing this? Do you really think the terrorist leadership will care when they use sucide bombings to fight war? How does this help us win the war?

http://www.yale.edu/yale300/democracy/may1text/images/Vietnamshooting.jpg

[Hoosier Dynasty]

You would think...there are signs that they were tortured and killed...so let's stop all of this b!tching about how bad we are treating their prisoners. OK

People today (Americans) have no idea what torture means. They think that putting bags over someone's head and making them stand naked on a box is torture? LMAO.

[C&CDean]

I've never said anything of the sort, nor implied it.

Obviously, you must think that John McCain, Murtha, and other such vets who are against torture and/or prisoner mistreatment as policy think our troops deserved it too. :rolleyes: Asshat.

It's no f*cking wonder our military is having the difficulties it's having when public opinion -- and even people in the military itself -- think it's okay to treat civilians like garbage and make enemies where there weren't enemies before.

When this sh*t ends like Vietnam, don't ask why. Soldiers and civilians tortured, our military making enemies of people who weren't before, and the same old refrain from the politicians and military fanboys: "Stay the course." It's the same goddamn sh*t, 30 years later.

(and no, just because I know some of you are idiots and will take it this way: I'm not saying anyone deserves this. I'm just saying it's not suprising given some of the things that have happened. You want to stop this **** from happening? Don't repeat the same mistakes: Kill the enemies you already have, and stop making new ones when you don't have to. I mean, how hard is that to understand?)

You must be out of your ****ing mind.

So now we're torturing civilians over there? And soldiers? Do they even have soldiers?

You're so wrapped up in your liberal logic that you make me wanna puke. What do we do over there? Oh, that's right, "kill the enemies you already have" (WTF does that mean? - I mean they're already dead, right? So we dig them up and kill them again??) "stop making new ones when you don't have to" (sorry jack, but when they behead one of our soldiers, **** down his neck, then leave his tortured body on display all booby-trapped up I don't give a **** who I **** off - and if you do, you're a cowardly son-of-a-bitch).

And you think we're gonna "stop this **** from happening" by singing kuhm-****ing baya with them? Newflash. They hate our ****ing guts. They hate everything we represent. They hate our lifestyle. They hate our skin. They hate our God. They believe killing us makes their God happy. In short, they're whacked out crazy sons-of-toothless whores who only know one language - kill the infidels. You cannot reason with them.

I mean, how hard is that to understand?

[mdklatt]

People today (Americans) have no idea what torture means. They think that putting bags over someone's head and making them stand naked on a box is torture?

I know people that will pay good money for that.

[FaninAma]

I've never said anything of the sort, nor implied it.

Obviously, you must think that John McCain, Murtha, and other such vets who are against torture and/or prisoner mistreatment as policy think our troops deserved it too. :rolleyes: Asshat.

It's no f*cking wonder our military is having the difficulties it's having when public opinion -- and even people in the military itself -- think it's okay to treat civilians like garbage and make enemies where there weren't enemies before.

When this sh*t ends like Vietnam, don't ask why. Soldiers and civilians tortured, our military making enemies of people who weren't before, and the same old refrain from the politicians and military fanboys: "Stay the course." It's the same goddamn sh*t, 30 years later.

(and no, just because I know some of you are idiots and will take it this way: I'm not saying anyone deserves this. I'm just saying it's not suprising given some of the things that have happened. You want to stop this **** from happening? Don't repeat the same mistakes: Kill the enemies you already have, and stop making new ones when you don't have to. I mean, how hard is that to understand?)

It will end like Vietnam only if the same players who advocate cutting and running win the day like they did in Vietnam. Some of you a-holes must think the average Iraqi citizen is an idiot and wants the murderous bastards in Al-Qaida to win the day. Right now they are waiting and trying to stay alive to see if the Democrats and their friends in the media convince the weak-minded American public that we have to pull out now.

The Iraqis aren't idiots. They know who the good guys are. That's why there are Sunni mothers turning their kids in who are running with the insurgents....so the Iraqi army doesn't capture and kill them or the Al-Qaida beasts don't kill them by forcing them to attack our troops. They know the best alternative is to be captured by the Americans and put in prison.

[colleyvillesooner]

Obviously, you must think that John McCain, Murtha, and other such vets who are against torture and/or prisoner mistreatment as policy think our troops deserved it too. :rolleyes: Asshat.


(and no, just because I know some of you are idiots and will take it this way:


Personal attacks on other posters, including name-calling, vulgar or not, are strictly prohibited and may result in suspension of posting privileges or banning from the board.

Pretty sure calling a mod an asshat is bad, especially Dean :D

[Vaevictis]

Some of you a-holes must think the average Iraqi citizen is an idiot and wants the murderous bastards in Al-Qaida to win the day.

Really. Is Al-Qaeda the only entity we're fighting today? How about the Sunni and Shi'ite religious zealots who want to ensure the dominance of their respective religious sects in the new government? How about the Pan-Arabists who don't care who ends up in charge as long as they're Arabs? How about the people are fighting only because they hate America, either due to ideological reasons, or because of mistreatment they or their friends and family have received at our hands?

Al-Qaeda alone is incapable of mounting the kind of insurgency we're seeing. They just don't have the operational capability.

[jk the sooner fan]

Dean, thanks for handling the response to that crap....

[C&CDean]

Pretty sure calling a mod an asshat is bad, especially Dean :D

Meh. I consider the source. Cindy Vaevictus Sheehan.

[mdklatt]

Pretty sure calling a mod an asshat is bad, especially Dean :D

Dean can take it. He likes it.

[Vaevictis]

Pretty sure calling a mod an asshat is bad, especially Dean :D

*shrug* And putting words like that in my mouth wasn't a personal attack?

If I get banned, I get banned. Sh*t happens.

[jk the sooner fan]

John McCain is going to be running for president and wants as many moderate to liberal votes that he can get, of course he's against torture

he's a politician!!!!!!!!!

[Vaevictis]

John McCain is going to be running for president and wants as many moderate to liberal votes that he can get, of course he's against torture

he's a politician!!!!!!!!!

... either that, or maybe he has some personal experience in the matter.

[colleyvillesooner]

*shrug* And putting words like that in my mouth wasn't a personal attack?


Didn't see that in the rules :D


If I get banned, I get banned. Sh*t happens.

Please don't curse, sir.

[slickdawg]

Slickdawg in 08

Inject every Muslim extremist with pigs blood, and tell them in their native
tounge that

"Every time your heart beats, the swines blood will pass through it.
When you die, you will burn in hell for eternity without exception".

They won't be as eager to die for Allah or anyone else.

[C&CDean]

Dude, if you get baned, it's gonna be based on your sheer stupidity. I'm sure somewhere in the board rules it says "please do not be a complete and total numbskull - barren of clue."

[colleyvillesooner]

Dude, if you get baned, it's gonna be based on your sheer stupidity. I'm sure somewhere in the board rules it says "please do not be a complete and total numbskull - barren of clue."


By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws. You further warrant that you will not post photos or links to any pornographic or otherwise lewd or unacceptable materials. Personal attacks on other posters, including name-calling, vulgar or not, are strictly prohibited and may result in suspension of posting privileges or banning from the board.

Also, please do not be a complete and total numbskull - barren of clue

Whatdya' know?

[usmc-sooner]

Meh. I consider the source. Cindy Vaevictus Sheehan.


true true

[Hoosier Dynasty]

Slickdawg in 08

Inject every Muslim extremist with pigs blood, and tell them in their native
tounge that

"Every time your heart beats, the swines blood will pass through it.
When you die, you will burn in hell for eternity without exception".

They won't be as eager to die for Allah or anyone else.

Excellent idea

[Vaevictis]

Dude, if you get baned, it's gonna be based on your sheer stupidity. I'm sure somewhere in the board rules it says "please do not be a complete and total numbskull - barren of clue."

C'mon, if you guys enforced that rule, there's a good 35% of the userbase here that would get culled immediately. :D

[C&CDean]

C'mon, if you guys enforced that rule, there's a good 35% of the userbase here that would get culled immediately. :D

You give the general posting populace far too much credit.

[slickdawg]

Excellent idea

WHB is gonna be my man for administering the injections, he's already on board.

[Vaevictis]

You give the general posting populace far too much credit.

Nah, because when people enforce that kind of rule, they tend not to enforce it with the other 35% who qualify, but also happen to agree with the enforcers on various subjects.

[Tear Down This Wall]

we were told that we would almost certainly be tortured or beheaded. Kinda one of those things whether your really taken chances if you stop fighting.

But sometimes you just can't help being taken POW, if your pinned under a truck, or knocked out due to an explosion, all shot up.

But most Marines, Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen have a pretty good idea what will happen.

Good points, I hadn't thought of that. That had to be what happened. I just can't imagine it any other way with a Marine.

[C&CDean]

You know what's cracking me up?

Now we've got CVS1 (you know who you are) and CVS2 (you know who you are).

[colleyvillesooner]

You know what's cracking me up?

Now we've got CVS1 (you know who you are) and CVS2 (you know who you are).

Am I one of those? :confused:

[colleyvillesooner]

Good points, I hadn't thought of that. That had to be what happened. I just can't imagine it any other way with a Marine.

Psst.

http://66.34.250.71/forums/showpost.php?p=1410489&postcount=79

[Tear Down This Wall]

Okay, but still...101st Airborne. They had to have been knocked out by a blast as usmc suggests. Those guys wouldn't go without a fight either.

[SoonerBorn68]

Do you really want us to start doing this? Do you really think the terrorist leadership will care when they use sucide bombings to fight war? How does this help us win the war?


And by "this" (I'll do the board a favor and not repost that ginormous pic) you mean the South Vietemese Colonel executing a Viet Cong spy? Then yes.

Some of you people amaze me. It's a FREAKING WAR! There's no rules, and by that I mean we're dealing with a rebel force, not a country. They don't have to play by the guidelines set out by the Geneva Convention or even show mercy on us. Ergo, sometimes you gotta play dirty to win.

And the same "some of you people" will never figure out the object of winning a war is to kill more people and break more things of the enemy, not be sympethetic toward them. Go watch Patton & figure it out.

[slickdawg]

:les: DON'T DIE FOR YOUR COUNTRY! LET THE OTHER SON OF A BITCH DIE FOR HIS !!!!

[Vaevictis]

There's no rules, and by that I mean we're dealing with a rebel force, not a country. They don't have to play by the guidelines set out by the Geneva Convention or even shoe mercy on us. Ergo, sometimes you gotta play dirty to win.

It's not about rules, and it's not about playing fair. It's about effective strategies. Given the current end goal of having a sustainable democracy in Iraq, the first thing on the list of things to do (towards that goal) is to pacify the local populace. Do you really think that things like say, Abu Grahib, are contributing to our achieving that goal?

If the ultimate goal is to crush Iraq, then fine. Level the cities, kill em all. But that isn't the goal, is it?

[Tear Down This Wall]

Okay, I found this article on the subject:

Strict military rules usually protect American forces from capture
By RYAN LENZ

BALAD, Iraq (AP) - Few American soldiers have been kidnapped by insurgents in Iraq, due largely to strict military procedures for those on patrol or at checkpoints.

The gruesome killings of two kidnapped U.S. soldiers showed just how important those measures are, and pose a central question: was there a breakdown in what the military calls "force protection" procedures?

U.S. troops in Iraq travel in groups of about 15 in at least three vehicles - usually armoured Humvees. If a convoy has more than four Humvees, often units will split into groups of two to patrol more area.

But a single Humvee patrol is not allowed.

In the case of the soldiers kidnapped Friday, a farmer later told The Associated Press that he saw insurgents swarm a U.S. checkpoint in a region south of Baghdad known as the "Triangle of Death."

The farmer said the insurgents managed to draw away two Humvees by firing on them. When they chased the attackers, the insurgents killed the driver of the third Humvee that stayed behind. Two Americans - presumably Pte. 1st Class Kristian Menchaca and Pte. 1st Class Thomas Tucker, both of the 101st Airborne Division - were captured.

An Iraqi Defence Ministry official said the men were tortured and "killed in a barbaric way;" "al-Qaida in Iraq" claimed they were "slaughtered" like animals - language suggesting the men were beheaded.

Operating in convoys works in part because American firepower, spread out, is readily available to counter-attack if a vehicle is targeted. Usually, insurgents don't get too close, instead opting to trigger roadside bombs from a distance, said Bruce Hoffman, counterinsurgency expert at RAND Corp. in Washington.

"That lowers the risk for the insurgents," he said. But "there's less opportunity to engage in combat and snatch someone on patrol or while he's wounded. They've deprived themselves from that opportunity by relying on the IED (improvised explosive device)."

The last U.S. soldier to be captured was Sgt. Keith Maupin of Batavia, Ohio, who was taken on April 9, 2004, after insurgents ambushed a fuel convoy. Two months later, a tape on Al-Jazeera purported to show a captive U.S. soldier being shot, but the army ruled it was inconclusive proof of Maupin's death. He is listed as missing.

Procedures also aim to keep track of troops so no one is left behind, either by accident or because of the chaos of war.

The army requires all soldiers in Iraq to have a "battle buddy," a term used to describe pairings of soldiers who are responsible for the well-being of each other at all times. If something happens to one soldier, the other must offer protection and help.

"Guys have to take care of each other," said Specialist Anthony Neal, 22, of Phoenix, Ariz., of the army's 68th Armour Regiment.

The military requires units leaving the confines of secure U.S. compounds in Iraq to follow strict checks to ensure the safety of every member "going outside the wire," as they call it.

A head count is called into post commanders before leaving, and the count must match when they return.

Once on patrol, units rarely split up, and if they do, troops are not permitted to operate alone whether it's to secure a house, a corner or even to watch their trucks as others walk about.

If kidnapped, a soldier has four things they can tell their captors: name, rank, date of birth and Social Security number. They are not to bargain for their release, exchange information for favourable treatment or make small talk.

The rules are respected tradition, and soldiers learn them from the time they enter the military as recruits and follow them no matter how high they climb in rank.

Whether they can handle the horrific pressures of torture or worse if kidnapped is something most soldiers in Iraq don't want to think about.

"If I had any choice in the matter, I'd rather be shot than kidnapped," said Specialist Joshua Boydstun, 21, of Roswell, N.M. "I'm more prepared to die than go through torture."

But they are reminded daily of the lessons. After every patrol, they inventory sensitive items, papers and equipment that could compromise the military if they fell into insurgent hands.

Pte. 1st Class Mike Johnson, 22, of the 101st Sustainment Brigade recalled that before leaving for Iraq he provided the military personal information to be used in the event of capture.

Among the questions were "Who is your best friend?" and "What is your mother's birthday?" If a soldier was captured, the answers could prove his identity.

While there are no poison pills to protect the information they hold, as sometimes depicted in the movies, Johnson said the army taught him one valuable lesson - silence.

"There's no training we get except to being told be quiet if it happens and don't give any information," he said bluntly.

Others question whether any training could prepare them for the horrors of wartime kidnappings. They've seen soldiers beaten in movies. But that's Hollywood - the real thing could be a thousand times different, they say.

"The army does it's best to train us for every scenario, but we'll only know if we're ready to withstand a kidnapped when it comes to it," said Neal.

Army Sgt. Mario Davis, 24, of Elkhart, Kan., said his training was more simple.

"We're not supposed to get captured," said Davis, a military policeman. "And if we get captured, we're supposed to try and escape - by any and all means."

[soonerscuba]

I didn't read any of this thread. Anything beyond "liberals are glad it happened" countered by "burn all non-white men, women and children in pits"?

Somehow I doubt it.

[Vaevictis]

I didn't read any of this thread. Anything beyond "liberals are glad it happened" complemented by "burn all non-white men, women and children in pits"?

Somehow I doubt it.

Fixed.

[picasso]

It's not about rules, and it's not about playing fair. It's about effective strategies. Given the current end goal of having a sustainable democracy in Iraq, the first thing on the list of things to do (towards that goal) is to pacify the local populace. Do you really think that things like say, Abu Grahib, are contributing to our achieving that goal?

If the ultimate goal is to crush Iraq, then fine. Level the cities, kill em all. But that isn't the goal, is it?
:rolleyes:
ever read any history?

[Sooner in Tampa]

Really. Is Al-Qaeda the only entity we're fighting today? How about the Sunni and Shi'ite religious zealots who want to ensure the dominance of their respective religious sects in the new government? How about the Pan-Arabists who don't care who ends up in charge as long as they're Arabs? How about the people are fighting only because they hate America, either due to ideological reasons, or because of mistreatment they or their friends and family have received at our hands?

Al-Qaeda alone is incapable of mounting the kind of insurgency we're seeing. They just don't have the operational capability.All the more reason to adopt the scorched earth policy...let all these johnny come lately **********s die for the cause.

But we can't do that because of the faggot arse lib's who are worried about the terrorist's rights.

F&*K EM

[soonerscuba]

:rolleyes:
ever read any history?

It is the reason I was against the war to begin with. Find me an Western empire that survived in the Mid-East.

[picasso]

It is the reason I was against the war to begin with. Find me an Western empire that survived in the Mid-East.
oh geez, I'm not touching that one. I'm on a comprehensive rant here about winning wars and pacifying the populace. it's done by pointing a gun and laying down the law. not by lawers looking over our soldiers shoulders.
how the heck do you think Saddam kept the peace in that country for so long? he killed people that rattled things.

[Vaevictis]

All the more reason to adopt the scorched earth policy...

Personally, I think we should be seriously considering that option at this point.

I think that it may be the only avenue we have left that is likely to succeed. It may be possible to build a democracy from the ruins, although I think it will be harder than in Germany or Japan, being that we don't have the benefit of the Commies on the eastern front, or a god-king instructing them to follow our ordrs.

[Sooner in Tampa]

I'm just curious, this is just a question, I don't have any implicit agenda, seriously just want to know. What does the military "teach" our soldiers as far as being taken hostage, especially in this war, being that your chances of being released and/or rescued are probably slim to none?Stan...there is a course called S.E.R.E (Survive, Evade, I think Rescue, and Escape) anyway it is how to be a POW...but as far as avoiding capture, it goes with your regular training. Plus, most folks don't get to attend SERE...it mostly for pilots and special forces...the folks who travel in small teams.
The is IRAQ specific training going on for folks who are going to deploy to the AOR (Area of Operation). But it is limited...time is ALWAYS limited in the military.

[Vaevictis]

oh geez, I'm not touching that one. I'm on a comprehensive rant here about winning wars and pacifying the populace. it's done by pointing a gun and laying down the law. not by lawers looking over our soldiers shoulders.
how the heck do you think Saddam kept the peace in that country for so long? he killed people that rattled things.

The problem is that such a strategy is largely incompatible with founding a democracy. There has to be a long period of miltary rule in the region, then baby steps towards a democracy.

If you'll recall, Bush and crew are still insisting that we won't be there in 15 years. How long did it take before we transitioned full sovereinty to Germany and Japan?

[picasso]

The problem is that such a strategy is largely incompatible with founding a democracy. There has to be a long period of miltary rule in the region, then baby steps towards a democracy.

If you'll recall, Bush and crew are still insisting that we won't be there in 15 years. How long did it take before we transitioned full sovereinty to Germany and Japan?
so what's your solution man?
there was a different political wind blowing back in those days. not to mention the fact that we've been permanently stationed in Germany since then no?
we've also helped re-establish an Army in Iraq.
I'm just saying the only way we make big strides over there now is to keep up the pressure.

[Scott D]

John McCain is going to be running for president and wants as many moderate to liberal votes that he can get, of course he's against torture

he's a politician!!!!!!!!!

I'm kinda thinking his experience of you know..being tortured in North Vietnam kinda helped influence that thought. Besides being a politician that is.

[Scott D]

Stan...there is a course called S.E.R.E (Survive, Evade, I think Rescue, and Escape) anyway it is how to be a POW...but as far as avoiding capture, it goes with your regular training. Plus, most folks don't get to attend SERE...it mostly for pilots and special forces...the folks who travel in small teams.
The is IRAQ specific training going on for folks who are going to deploy to the AOR (Area of Operation). But it is limited...time is ALWAYS limited in the military.

pfft...I knew about it and I was never legitimately in the military...hell I've even done some of it.

[usmc-sooner]

pfft...I knew about it and I was never legitimately in the military...hell I've even done some of it.

If you've never been in the military you've never been to S.E.R.E. You might have been to some civilian version but it costs a lot of money to give you that training. It's very hard, people get hurt and the military won't risk sending civilians to it.

If you've ever watched G.I. Jane where she was captured and says suck my d*ck. That was S.E.R.E.

I've never went to S.E.R.E. school either.

[Vaevictis]

so what's your solution man?

The first thing we need to do is admit to ourselves that we may actually be there for the next 15 years.

I think a lot of the domestic political issues that we're having right now are related to mismanagement of expectations. The war that we were sold is totally different than the war we got, so I think it's natural that there's buyer's remorse.

With that admission, follow it with a real honest declaration of war in Congress. This gives us three advantages -- first, if it doesn't pass, it's a pretty good indication that we don't have the political will to see this through, and if that's the case, I'd rather start the withdrawl sooner than later. There's no point in more of our soldiers dying if we don't have the political will to finish it. If it does pass, we're recommited and we know that we have the will to see it through, and that provides a morale advantage to our people, and our troops, and I expect causes a morale blow to the other side. It would be even better if we do this after the mid-term elections.

The second advantage is that one of the big problems the Bush administration is having right now is that it's trying to exercise wartime powers without an actual declaration of war. If the declaration passes, there's no more lawyers looking over shoulders at everything, much of the stuff which is in question now is then undoubtedly within the President's prerogative.

Finally, right now, politics are restricting the military's options. They can't really start laying the foundation for a 15+ year occupation with the administration swearing up and down that it won't come to that. The admission plus a proper declaration of war would give them a lot of political backing to do what it takes.

We also need to decide whether we're doing scortched earth, or if we're winning hearts and minds. This in-the-middle-sh*t we're doing right now just won't work. We need to commit to one strategy or the other; either lay waste, or seriously try to win hearts and minds (ie, officially prohibit anything that looks like torture, conform to cultural norms, etc).

After that, I'm not sure. But I think that's a good start.

[Hoosier Dynasty]

It is the reason I was against the war to begin with. Find me an Western empire that survived in the Mid-East.

The Ottoman Empire

[Vaevictis]

The Ottoman Empire

The Ottomans were Turks, no?

[SCOUT]

The first thing we need to do is admit to ourselves that we may actually be there for the next 15 years.

I think a lot of the domestic political issues that we're having right now are related to mismanagement of expectations. The war that we were sold is totally different than the war we got, so I think it's natural that there's buyer's remorse.

With that admission, follow it with a real honest declaration of war in Congress. This gives us three advantages -- first, if it doesn't pass, it's a pretty good indication that we don't have the political will to see this through, and if that's the case, I'd rather start the withdrawl sooner than later. There's no point in more of our soldiers dying if we don't have the political will to finish it. If it does pass, we're recommited and we know that we have the will to see it through, and that provides a morale advantage to our people, and our troops, and I expect causes a morale blow to the other side. It would be even better if we do this after the mid-term elections.

The second advantage is that one of the big problems the Bush administration is having right now is that it's trying to exercise wartime powers without an actual declaration of war. If the declaration passes, there's no more lawyers looking over shoulders at everything, much of the stuff which is in question now is then undoubtedly within the President's prerogative.

Finally, right now, politics are restricting the military's options. They can't really start laying the foundation for a 15+ year occupation with the administration swearing up and down that it won't come to that. The admission plus a proper declaration of war would give them a lot of political backing to do what it takes.

We also need to decide whether we're doing scortched earth, or if we're winning hearts and minds. This in-the-middle-sh*t we're doing right now just won't work. We need to commit to one strategy or the other; either lay waste, or seriously try to win hearts and minds (ie, officially prohibit anything that looks like torture, conform to cultural norms, etc).

After that, I'm not sure. But I think that's a good start.

Are you proposing that we declare war on the country of Iraq, Al Qaeda or terrorism in general?

[Vaevictis]

Are you proposing that we declare war on the country of Iraq, Al Qaeda or terrorism in general?

That's a good question. Precent requires that a declaration of war be made against a specific entity, but given that we're actually at war with a set of small entities -- to whom we may not want to give the legitimacy of being named in a declaration of war -- it may be that we should depart from that precedent.

I'm not really sure as to the answer to that question. But I think we need an real declaration of war, both to affirm that we have the political will to actually wage this war, and to trigger Presidential wartime powers.

[Vaevictis]

Also, I will admit that my suggestions above have more to do with politics than military strategy.

Truthfully, I'm wondering if a full-scale withdrawl wouldn't be the best strategy... followed by a full-scale hammering of our enemies as they poke their heads out of their hole to survey the landscape.

(ie, you pull back, let them think that we're gone, let them set up shop, and once they're out in the open, kill all the motherf*ckers.

In order for them to do what they *really* want to do, they have to actually take over the joint once we leave and build power structures in order to support their position. Our military isn't all that good at dealing with insurgencies, but man is it good at taking out conventional military and political orgs. Make them play to our strengths instead of letting them play to our weaknesses.)

[Scott D]

If you've never been in the military you've never been to S.E.R.E. You might have been to some civilian version but it costs a lot of money to give you that training. It's very hard, people get hurt and the military won't risk sending civilians to it.

If you've ever watched G.I. Jane where she was captured and says suck my d*ck. That was S.E.R.E.

I've never went to S.E.R.E. school either.

well I never went and did anything officially per say....however I sort of went out of my way to 'get captured' during readiness exercises on the base that I lived on at the time.

wasn't as fun as I thought it'd be...and definitely not as fun as the time we were helping a unit based at Schofield Barracks prep for Gulf War 1.

I'm pretty sure at some point my stepfather did go through it in his air crew training.

[Sooner in Tampa]

I am amazed and saddened by the lack of response from the limp wristed lib's. They don't have a problem climbing out of their holes and ranting about Abu Ghraid, Haditha, or any other conflict where the bad guys have been "abused".

The more information that comes out about this...the worse it gets. They boobie trapped the bodies and then built a mine field around the corpses.
And according to Fox News this a.m. the chickensh!ts stuffed their mouths full. :mad:

[C&CDean]

I've been to a couple of SERE schools. No fun. Let's just say spending about 20 hours inside a metal wall locker way out in the woods, in freezing temps, upside down, naked, with agressors pouring water in through the vents every hour or so while they beat the hell out of the locker with limbs was enough for me. I learned very quickly that I would never be captured again.

There were a couple of times I seriously thought I was fixin' to die.

And that is child's play compared to what happens when the filth over there captures one of our guys. They basically know they're dead. They can only hope it happens quick.

Vaevictus,

You're last post was probably the most cogent thing you've ever done. I just don't get your whole "we're torturing them so it's OK to torture us" attitude. We are treating them as POWs under the Geneva Convention. Yes, a couple of the pieces of filth were mistreated by a couple of guards, but I was mistreated much worse at the hands of my fellow soldiers - just to prepare me for what may happen if captured.

At this point, my philosphy would be "are you with us, or agin us?" If they say "agin" you immediately put a bullet in their brain. No questions asked. **** taking prisoners. If they're dead, you can't be accused of torturing them.

[picasso]

go back in history. our soldiers have never been treated well in POW situations.
Our record isn't perfect but it's the best on the list. yet, all we hear about is how bad the mean ole U.S. is.

[jk the sooner fan]

i'll say what i said again, the common iraqi just trying to live his life doesnt trust us enough to have their back if they tried to rise up against the insurgency

they're just as tired of living it as we are hearing about it, they've lived in fear for decades

they need to know that the force that has their back isnt going to puss out on them because of stateside politics

[Sooner in Tampa]

i'll say what i said again, the common iraqi just trying to live his life doesnt trust us enough to have their back if they tried to rise up against the insurgency

they're just as tired of living it as we are hearing about it, they've lived in fear for decades

they need to know that the force that has their back isnt going to puss out on them because of stateside politicsThis is a major point. Like I said earlier...this is why is was so important for GWB to go and show his support for the new government in Iraq. His dad really caused a lot of this since he bailed after DS/DS and Saddam ended up dropping the gas.

MOST Iraqis are appalled at the beheadings also. The are certainly appalled by lopping of testicles and shoving them in mouths too.

[FaninAma]

I just got back from a wedding in Tulsa where I had the opportunity to talk to 3 Marines who have spent a combined 3 years in Iraq. They are adamant that the local populace is behind them, even the Sunnis, but they aren't willing to stick their necks out because they know that there is a chance the spineless left could pull the rug out from underneath them at any moment.

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

I just wanna say that I'm learning a lot from this thread. I expected it to turn into another stupid fight thread that would eventually end up getting locked so I'm proud of you all for not letting that happen.

Please keep it going...it's good.

[Sooner in Tampa]

I just got back from a wedding in Tulsa where I had the opportunity to talk to 3 Marines who have spent a combined 3 years in Iraq. They are adamant that the local populace is behind them, even the Sunnis, but they aren't willing to stick their necks out because they know that there is a chance the spineless left could pull the rug out from underneath them at any moment.Fan...I am glad that you had to opportunity to chat it up with those Marines. This is the REAL DEAL. Iraqis support us...but they have to do it silently. If they do it openly they fear for their safety and safety of their family. These c*cks&*kers are ruthless and they will kill women, children and old people. They don't give a crap...they WANT the shock factor...they want it all over the world news.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Slickdawg in 08

Inject every Muslim extremist with pigs blood, and tell them in their native
tounge that

"Every time your heart beats, the swines blood will pass through it.
When you die, you will burn in hell for eternity without exception".

They won't be as eager to die for Allah or anyone else.

You've got my vote. Now how do we get you on the ballot!

[slickdawg]

This is a major point. Like I said earlier...this is why is was so important for GWB to go and show his support for the new government in Iraq. His dad really caused a lot of this since he bailed after DS/DS and Saddam ended up dropping the gas.

MOST Iraqis are appalled at the beheadings also. The are certainly appalled by lopping of testicles and shoving them in mouths too.


That is the biggest problem we face. We encouraged them to overthrow
saddam after DS, and "we'll be there for you", and we were not.

That is the single largest obstacle we have to overcome.

[soonerscuba]

We are treating them as POWs under the Geneva Convention.

Um, to but it bluntly. You're wrong. We classify them as "enemy combatants" for the express purpose of not operating under the Geneva Convention.

Personally, I don't give a **** about the Iraqis. I'm for making sure #1 stays #1, if anything, Iraq has weakened us. At least I have the balls to admit it.

[colleyvillesooner]

Everybody hold on, we're going again!!!

http://www.uwbg.org/tools/workplace/tool_6UwN6Qucp5/links/Merry%20Go%20round.jpg

[C&CDean]

Um, to but it bluntly. You're wrong. We classify them as "enemy combatants" for the express purpose of not operating under the Geneva Convention.

Personally, I don't give a **** about the Iraqis. I'm for making sure #1 stays #1, if anything, Iraq has weakened us. At least I have the balls to admit it.

Let's see, are we giving them 3 hots and a cot? I think so. Are we giving them bathroom facilities - however crude? I think so. Are we injecting them with chemicals just to see what happens? I don't think so. Are we subjecting them to torture ala what McCain went through in Hanoi? I don't think so.

Are we giving them cable TV? Probably, but maybe not. Are we letting them call Achmed and plan the next beheading?. Probably not, but if you and Cindy had your way, you'd let them borrow your cell.

So, I guess you're right. There's probably something we're doing or not doing that isn't completely kosher with the GC, but I ain't got any problems with that - since they're not really uniformed soldiers, and we're not really at war with them, and they're not really even human ****ing beings anymore.

So let me say this. The very worst treatment any of this filth has received at our hands is Ritz-Carltonesque compared to the very best treatment any of our people have received. Verdad?

[slickdawg]

And the f'n press cares more about this anyway:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060621/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/marines_iraq_shooting;_ylt=AkAnvZC2mkIRGWy0QPdUQL. s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

Marines, sailor to be charged with murder By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
42 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Marine Corps on Wednesday planned to charge seven Marines and one sailor with murder in connection with the April death of an Iraqi civilian, a defense official said.

At Camp Pendleton, Calif., where the eight accused service members have been held in a military brig since late May, officials announced that a news conference would be held later Wednesday concerning the alleged killing of the Iraqi in the village of Hamdania. The announcement did not mention murder or other charges.

The official who disclosed the Marine plans asked not to be identified publicly because the official announcement was still pending.

[lefty]

Reluctanly, I join the fray. This is done mostly with my "professorial hat" firmly attached to my head. The issue of whether or not something is "torture," or whether or not someone can be "tortured" is as much a question of international law as it is of any given action. It might be useful to review the legal issues involved by perusing the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

This link addresses the legal aspects of torture and the Geneva Conventions. Familiarizing onesself with this resource might help in developmenting ones arguements about recent (and past) events.

YWIA

P.S. What happened to those two soldiers was barbaric and should be dealt with in an appropriate manner. In determining what is appropriate I think we should always realize that we are better than those who would commit such atrocities.

[C&CDean]

I agree we're better there Mr. Lefty. That's why we just kill em' clean.

[GhostOfJAS]

We know the US regularly practices "waterboarding" and other acts of torture on "enemy combatants" (a term we invented to get around the Geneva convention regulations on the treatment of POWs):



Here's a list of interrogation techniques reliably documented at U.S. detention centers in Guantanamo or Afghanistan, compiled by medical ethicist, Stephen Miles, in a forthcoming book, "Oath Betrayed." His sources are 35,000 pages of FOIAed government documents or credible witness testimony:

Beating; punching with fists; use of truncheons; kicking; slamming against walls; stretching or suspension (to tear ligaments or muscles to cause asphyxia); external electric shocks; forcing prisoners to abase and to urinate on themselves; forced masturbation; forced renunciation of religion; false confessions or accusations; applying urine and feces to prisoners; making verbal threats to a prisoner and his family; denigration of a prisoner's religion; force-feeding; induced hypothermia and exposure to extreme heat; dietary manipulation; use of sedatives; extreme sleep deprivation; mock executions; water immersion; "water-boarding"; obstruction of the prisoner's airway; chest compression; thermal burning; rape; dog bites; sexual abuse; forcing a prisoner to watch the abuse or torture of a loved one.

These practices failed in one respect for well over 100 documented human beings. They died.


I agree with Lefty...the US should be be better than this. If we lower our ethics in response to terrorists, then they have acheived one of their goals.

[C&CDean]

And if you're buying what that lying sumbitch is selling, go ahead JAS.

I've got no problem with some good old fashioned jack-slapping, threats, and serious intimidation. I firmly believe there's a time to take em' up in the chopper, hang them out by their feet, and tell them "talk, or die." If it'll save the life of our troops, I'll personally drown one of these bastards by ****ing down his neck.

They have broken all the rules. ****. Them. All bets are off. I'll be humane about it though. That makes me MUCH better than them.

[1stTimeCaller]

for those of you who think we're trying to 'get around' the Geneva convention here is Article 4 of the Geneva Convention. it deals with who and who isn't a POW.

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

[jk the sooner fan]

that 'we need to be better" than them.....that "higher ground" BS sounds nice, its a lovely thought

but its useless in an unconventional war like this, where the enemy is so barbaric

you dont have to stoop to their levels, we dont have to behead prisoners in front of cameras.......but we dont have to be pussies about the whole thing either

[lefty]

ITC. That is exactly what all the consternation has been since we went into Afghanistan. Who and who is not an "official" combatant. This discussion needs to occur and needs to continue to occur. We should be the "bar setters," and we should set the bar relatively high. We should not set it so high as to undermine the mission, but high enough that there is no doubt who walks the high ground.

[GhostOfJAS]

And if you're buying what that lying sumbitch is selling, go ahead JAS.

Uhm, there's no one in the US administration that denies that waterboarding is a regular part of CIA interrogation "techniques". So, which of these two do you disagree with: 1) Waterboarding is used by CIA agents, or 2) Waterboarding is torture?

Again, if seeing what they do to us makes you want to stoop to the tactics of terrorists, I can only pity you.


The CIA had been authorized to use waterboarding in its interrogations, several intelligence officials have told The Washington Post. During the hearing Monday, however, U.S. officials refused to discuss intelligence practices.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/08/AR2006050801460.html?nav=rss_world

[Vaevictis]

You're last post was probably the most cogent thing you've ever done. I just don't get your whole "we're torturing them so it's OK to torture us" attitude.

I never said that, never implied it, never even thought it. It's something you decided to attribute to me for some reason, and I'm not sure why.

What I have said is that I think that:
1. There are people in Iraq who were not fighting us before Abu Grahib
2. Who saw what happened at Abu Grahib and/or had family members at Abu Grahib
3. Of which, some have probably taken up arms due to Abu Grahib

Ergo, stupid sh*t like Abu Grahib is a bad idea in so far as it is counter-productive towards achieving our goals. And the same goes for other culturally insensitive stuff that isn't tactically or strategically necessary for us to do that happens to **** of the local non-combatant populace.

And like I mentioned, the military actually agrees that this is a problem enough to have tasked a general to run around Iraq to try and knock this into the troop's heads. (I've forgotten his name; I saw a news segment on it a couple of weeks ago). It's not about being "culturally sensative" to the point that it hinders our operational effectiveness, it's about being "culturally sensative" when and where it doesn't conflict with the mission so that we're not making enemies of people who aren't yet our enemies.

Maybe you attributed that attitude towards me because I occasionally **** in usmc-sooner's cornflakes. I assure you, that has absolutely nothing to do with my overall attitude towards the military, it has to do with the fact that I just like to **** in usmc-sooner's cornflakes. We just don't get along. :)

[GhostOfJAS]

So, let's be clear about this, y'all think since terrorists cut off the heads of citizens/military, that gives us clearance to lower our ethical bar (as measured traditionally by the guidelines of the GC) to include such tactics as waterboarding, short chaining, scalding, freezing, etc.? Or to put it even more simply, they've been really bad so we have to fight dirtier?

I think one of the major goals of the terrorists is to make us less civilized, and this conversation makes me think they're winning on that front.

I find it funny that neo-cons spent so much time fretting and screaming about Clinton's definiton of the word "sex", but are really straining mightily to find legal loopholes in the words "enemy combatants" and "torture" to lower our ethics. Great jorb.

[Stanley1]

So, let's be clear about this, y'all think since terrorists cut off the heads of citizens/military, that gives us clearance to lower our ethical bar (as measured traditionally by the guidelines of the GC) to include such tactics as waterboarding, short chaining, scalding, freezing, etc.? Or to put it even more simply, they've been really bad so we have to fight dirtier?



Its not that simple, but yes, I think some of that is alright given the situation we are facing.

[1stTimeCaller]

JAS, you didn't read Article 4 of the GC did you?

[GhostOfJAS]

Very well then, we agree to disagree. I think lowering our ethical bar is in a sense caving to the enemy. Neg spek away, call me unamerican, call me a terrorist sympathizer, whatever. Torture is simply wrong and unamerican in my book. No moral relativism from me on this topic.

[Sooner24]

I
What I have said is that I think that:
1. There are people in Iraq who were not fighting us before Abu Grahib
2. Who saw what happened at Abu Grahib and/or had family members at Abu Grahib
3. Of which, some have probably taken up arms due to Abu Grahib

Link???

[C&CDean]

Uhm, there's no one in the US administration that denies that waterboarding is a regular part of CIA interrogation "techniques". So, which of these two do you disagree with: 1) Waterboarding is used by CIA agents, or 2) Waterboarding is torture?

Again, if seeing what they do to us makes you want to stoop to the tactics of terrorists, I can only pity you.

Huh?

I simply want them dead. How is that "stooping to the tacticts of terrorists?"

Here's the deal. War is ugly. I know, you wish they'd all go over there and give one another blow jobs, but it's not like that, OK?

So, anyhow, when you capture enemy terrorists (I carefully didn't use the term "soldiers"), and you believe they may have information that will help you prevent further bloodshed - especially to the good guys, you pretty much do what it takes to get that info out of them. If they don't want a little water run down their throats, then talk.

I am the Jack Nicholson to your Tom Cruise I guess. You weenises need me on that wall.....

[Stanley1]

Very well then, we agree to disagree. I think lowering our ethical bar is in a sense caving to the enemy. Neg spek away, call me unamerican, call me a terrorist sympathizer, whatever. Torture is simply wrong and unamerican in my book. No moral relativism from me on this topic.

It isn't about lowering our moral/ethical bar. As was stated earlier, if you don't fight fire with fire, this is going to be a tough war to win.

Think of it like any other crime, or unethical activity. If the "punishment" isn't severe enough, people will keep "committing the crime" b/c there isn't much of a deterrent.

If fighting back against the US, ambushing our soldiers, beheading them, kidnapping innocent people, etc.....is only going to result in being put in some camp for a while, or whatever, most of those Arab bastiges are going to keep doing it. On the other hand, if they know they might get tortured or killed, or that we may go after their family, they "may" not be quite so courageous, you know?

[Sooner24]

Very well then, we agree to disagree. I think lowering our ethical bar is in a sense caving to the enemy. Neg spek away, call me unamerican, call me a terrorist sympathizer, whatever. Torture is simply wrong and unamerican in my book. No moral relativism from me on this topic.


If that's what it takes to end this one day sooner. If that's what it takes to save one American life. If that's what it takes to bring all our troops home.

SO BE IT!!!

[lefty]

[Rodney King/on] Can't we all just get along? [Rodney King/off]. I must say that I am conflicted about the whole Iraq thing. I don't think we should have gone in there and taken resources away from Afghanistan and Bin-Laden. That being said, we are there and to paraphrase Colin Powell, "We broke it, now we bought it." As such, we have the opportunity to a bunch of good as long as we keep our eye on what we have declared (at least in the last declarations) to do. That is, bring a liberal democracy to the Middle East. As was pointed out above, the west has not been particularly successful in convincing those in the Middle East that that sort of thing is in their best interest. I think, ultimately, that it is in their best interest. For me, it is not about "winning" or "losing" in a military sense, but rather by helping to develop institutions that promote the ideals stipulated in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Ergo, (professorial hat on) our policy, both militarily and politically, need to promote those (these?) objectives. Moreover, that these kind of discussions occur, no matter what position one subscribes to, is the essence of AMERICA. We expose our "dirty laundry" to the world and are better for having done so. In the end, I'm pretty sure we'll do what is right.

[Sooner24]

Huh?

I simply want them dead. How is that "stooping to the tacticts of terrorists?"

Here's the deal. War is ugly. I know, you wish they'd all go over there and give one another blow jobs, but it's not like that, OK?

So, anyhow, when you capture enemy terrorists (I carefully didn't use the term "soldiers"), and you believe they may have information that will help you prevent further bloodshed - especially to the good guys, you pretty much do what it takes to get that info out of them. If they don't want a little water run down their throats, then talk.

I am the Jack Nicholson to your Tom Cruise I guess. You weenises need me on that wall.....



Maybe if Clinton was still in office he could send Gen. Lewinsky and her hummer troops over there and get this thing settled. :D

[Vaevictis]

Dean, ultimately my approach to matters military is as follows:

1. Finish the mission as fast as possible.
2. With as few casualties as possible.
3. ... and failing that, get them back home with as few casualties as possible.

When I see the military or the government doing something I think is stupid, I will say so. I feel no need to "support" the status quo when the status quo is getting our guys (or civilians) killed when it's not necessary. I will kick and scream and **** in anyone's cornflakes towards that end.

If that means I think the President is being a dumbass, I will say so. When I see the JCS being stupid, I will say so. When I see a PFC being a dumbass, I will say so. I support the troops in general (although obviously, I think a few individuals need their cornflakes ****ed in), and I do so by advocating what I perceive as the best, least costly path towards the goals of the mission (or if the goals are unattainable, getting them home intact in as much as that is possible), no matter whose toes I'm stepping on in the process. Often, my lack of tact irritates people and puts them off what I'm really saying, and yes, that is a fault of mine. Sometimes I'm wrong, too. That is also a fault of mine.

But I feel that my intentions are *always* in the right place.

I just don't agree that supporting the status quo when it can be improved is the right way to support our troops, and I *always* catch flak for that.

[C&CDean]

Very well then, we agree to disagree. I think lowering our ethical bar is in a sense caving to the enemy. Neg spek away, call me unamerican, call me a terrorist sympathizer, whatever. Torture is simply wrong and unamerican in my book. No moral relativism from me on this topic.

Let me get this straight. Here's a guy who thinks it's OK to slowly burn to death, and then suck a baby out of a female's womb. Here's a guy who feels it's OK to let someone who rapes, murders, mutilates, eats, and ****s out 15 humans get coddled by the state for the rest of his natural life. Here's a guy who thinks inserting his penis into another man's rectum is "normal behavior."

Dude, you simply don't have any cred.

[GhostOfJAS]

So, anyhow, when you capture enemy terrorists (I carefully didn't use the term "soldiers"), and you believe they may have information that will help you prevent further bloodshed - especially to the good guys, you pretty much do what it takes to get that info out of them. If they don't want a little water run down their throats, then talk.

Red herring. Study after study after study over the years has shown that very little reliable information is gathered using torture.

Oh, another recent study* of more than 500 Gitmo detainees showed that for more than half of them no known hostile activities toward US/coalition forces could be found. These techniques we are talking about are common at Gitmo, one of the reasons defense lawyers, the red cross, and human rights groups have been stymied access.

* http://law.shu.edu/news/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf



If fighting back against the US, ambushing our soldiers, beheading them, kidnapping innocent people, etc.....is only going to result in being put in some camp for a while, or whatever, most of those Arab bastiges are going to keep doing it. On the other hand, if they know they might get tortured or killed, or that we may go after their family, they "may" not be quite so courageous, you know?

So now you're advocating going after innocent families. And which is it, are we torturing as punishment or to extract information? Lowering the ethical bar is exactly what we're talking about here!

[C&CDean]

Dean, ultimately my approach to matters military is as follows:

1. Finish the mission as fast as possible.
2. With as few casualties as possible.
3. ... and failing that, get them back home with as few casualties as possible.

When I see the military or the government doing something I think is stupid, I will say so. I feel no need to "support" the status quo when the status quo is getting our guys (or civilians) when it's not necessary. I will kick and scream and **** in anyone's cornflakes towards that end.

If that means I think the President is being a dumbass, I will say so. When I see the JCS being stupid, I will say so. When I see a PFC being a dumbass, I will say so. I support the troops in general (although obviously, I think a few individuals need their cornflakes ****ed in), and I do so by advocating what I perceive as the best, least costly path towards the goals of the mission (or if the goals are unattainable, getting them home intact in as much as that is possible), no matter whose toes I'm stepping on in the process. Often, my lack of tact irritates people and puts them off what I'm really saying, and yes, that is a fault of mine. Sometimes I'm wrong, too. That is also a fault of mine.

But I feel that my intentions are *always* in the right place.

I just don't agree that supporting the status quo when it can be improved is the right way to support our troops, and I *always* catch flak for that.

The whole problem with this rant is that you don't have the intel to even have an opinion. You think the prez is ****ing up? Based on? Oh, that's right, the news. Or Al Franken. Or Michael Savage. Meh.

[Vaevictis]

Link???

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1407799&postcount=151
http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1407839&postcount=161
http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1407849&postcount=164
http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1408890&postcount=181

Meh?

[GhostOfJAS]

Let me get this straight. Here's a guy who thinks it's OK to slowly burn to death, and then suck a baby out of a female's womb. Here's a guy who feels it's OK to let someone who rapes, murders, mutilates, eats, and ****s out 15 humans get coddled by the state for the rest of his natural life. Here's a guy who thinks inserting his penis into another man's rectum is "normal behavior."

Dude, you simply don't have any cred.

Can you please point me to the posts where I said it's OK to slowly burn to death? Or the one where I said partial birth abortions are "okay"? Where I said anyone who does anything even remotely like that should be "coddled by the state". Of course you can't, because I did none of those things. You are the new king of the ad hominem, red herring, and strawman.

Then you bring up gay sex as a kicker, which has nothing to do with anything?

Major neg spek dude.

[1stTimeCaller]

angry dragon

[Sooner24]

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1407799&postcount=151
http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1407839&postcount=161
http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1407849&postcount=164
http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1408890&postcount=181

Meh?



I meant a CREDIBLE source? :rolleyes:

[Stanley1]

So now you're advocating going after innocent families. And which is it, are we torturing as punishment or to extract information? Lowering the ethical bar is exactly what we're talking about here!

Many might now share this opinion, but in a way, yes, I am advocating that, ESPECIALLY in cases where it can be proven that the families knew of the guy's "terrorist association or activities", and failed to turn him in.

I'm saying use it more as punishment and a deterrent to others, but extracting information wouldn't be a problem either.

Has nothing to do with ethics. You against the death penalty in the US? Its the same type of thing.

[Stanley1]

Major neg spek dude.

Good luck with that.

[Stanley1]

angry dragon

Arabian goggles.

[C&CDean]

Can you please point me to the posts where I said it's OK to slowly burn to death? Or the one where I said partial birth abortions are "okay"? Where I said anyone who does anything even remotely like that should be "coddled by the state". Of course you can't, because I did none of those things. You are the new king of the ad hominem, red herring, and strawman.

Then you bring up gay sex as a kicker, which has nothing to do with anything?

Major neg spek dude.

OK. Let me get it straight. You're now saying you do not support abortion, you are in favor of capital punishment? And I guess I'll just give you the whole butthole thing.

Gnash your teeth all you want about the alleged "torture" of terrorists. Knock our interrogators if you feel the need. Really doesn't matter to me - as long as they keep doing what they've got to do to get this thing over with.

[Vaevictis]

The whole problem with this rant is that you don't have the intel to even have an opinion. You think the prez is ****ing up? Based on? Oh, that's right, the news. Or Al Franken. Or Michael Savage. Meh.

The fact that Abu Grahib:

1. Happened.
2. People found out about it at all.

== **** up. (If you're going to do that sort of ****, it had better never leak, and there had better not be any survivors)

The fact that the Prez's team wrote up a document about how the Geneva Conventions don't apply to these people and that it may be legal to torture them, *and that we ever heard about it* == **** up. (it gives credence to the idea that we're torturing people as policy -- **** up.) Even if that isn't exactly what it says, it's what it's *reported* as saying, and that is also a **** up.

The fact that we refused to give any kind of tribunal to the people in Gitmo for so long, ****ing people off unnecessarily, then went ahead and did it anyway == **** up. If you're going to do it in the end, just do it to start with so you don't take the PR hit.

If you're going to engage in the kind of war we're trying to engage in, PR ****ups *are* military ****ups.

[Vaevictis]

I meant a CREDIBLE source? :rolleyes:

If you'll notice my original statement: "What I have said is that I think that:"

... well, I'm a pretty credible source on what I think.

[C&CDean]

The fact that Abu Grahib:

1. Happened.
2. People found out about it at all.

== **** up. (If you're going to do that sort of ****, it had better never leak, and there had better not be any survivors)

The fact that the Prez's team wrote up a document about how the Geneva Conventions don't apply to these people and that it may be legal to torture them, *and that we ever heard about it* == **** up. (it gives credence to the idea that we're torturing people as policy -- **** up.) Even if that isn't exactly what it says, it's what it's *reported* as saying, and that is also a **** up.

The fact that we refused to give any kind of tribunal to the people in Gitmo for so long, ****ing people off unnecessarily, then went ahead and did it anyway == **** up. If you're going to do it in the end, just do it to start with so you don't take the PR hit.

If you're going to engage in the kind of war we're trying to engage in, PR ****ups *are* military ****ups.

Oh, so GWB ****ed up in Gitmo? I never knew he was there.

And so we ****ed some people off cause we didn't give terrorists "tribunals?" Good.

If you seriously think these savages wouldn't be doing what they're doing - without some ugly-*** chick making them stand nekkid or ****ing on their koran - then you're sadly mistaken. You're advocating pacifism in the face of severe violence. And that's really, REALLY ****ing stupid.

[colleyvillesooner]

The fact that Abu Grahib:

1. Happened.
2. People found out about it at all.

== **** up. (If you're going to do that sort of ****, it had better never leak, and there had better not be any survivors)

The fact that the Prez's team wrote up a document about how the Geneva Conventions don't apply to these people and that it may be legal to torture them, *and that we ever heard about it* == **** up. (it gives credence to the idea that we're torturing people as policy -- **** up.) Even if that isn't exactly what it says, it's what it's *reported* as saying, and that is also a **** up.

The fact that we refused to give any kind of tribunal to the people in Gitmo for so long, ****ing people off unnecessarily, then went ahead and did it anyway == **** up. If you're going to do it in the end, just do it to start with so you don't take the PR hit.

If you're going to engage in the kind of war we're trying to engage in, PR ****ups *are* military ****ups.

dude, 1 = will work just fine.

"==" == overkill (pun intended)

[C&CDean]

dude, 1 = will work just fine.

"==" == overkill (pun intended)

I was having math flashbacks....

[Sooner24]

If you'll notice my original statement: "What I have said is that I think that:"

... well, I'm a pretty credible source on what I think.


That's what you think. :D

[Stanley1]

I was having math flashbacks....

Don't forget to carry the "2".

[C&CDean]

Don't forget to carry the "2".

bastard accountant

I declare jihad on your thirdborn

[picasso]

The fact that Abu Grahib:

1. Happened.
2. People found out about it at all.

== **** up. (If you're going to do that sort of ****, it had better never leak, and there had better not be any survivors)

The fact that the Prez's team wrote up a document about how the Geneva Conventions don't apply to these people and that it may be legal to torture them, *and that we ever heard about it* == **** up. (it gives credence to the idea that we're torturing people as policy -- **** up.) Even if that isn't exactly what it says, it's what it's *reported* as saying, and that is also a **** up.

The fact that we refused to give any kind of tribunal to the people in Gitmo for so long, ****ing people off unnecessarily, then went ahead and did it anyway == **** up. If you're going to do it in the end, just do it to start with so you don't take the PR hit.

If you're going to engage in the kind of war we're trying to engage in, PR ****ups *are* military ****ups.

why the hell are you even bringing that up? those guilty have been punished. move on already. it's not common policy. get a frickin clue.

[1stTimeCaller]

:les: ANGRY DRAGON

[Sooner24]

Vaevictis Throughout History!!



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/de/Washington_Crossing_the_Delaware.png/800px-Washington_Crossing_the_Delaware.png


"Washington, sir, please turn back. If we make the British madder at us, then they already are, they may kill more of our people." "What's wrong with you Vaevictis are you French or something?" :rolleyes:

[SoonerBorn68]

Major neg spek dude.

Too bad your spek hammer is limp.

[Sooner24]

Too bad your spek hammer is limp.


Maybe he should see that guy in your avatar.

[Vaevictis]

Oh, so GWB ****ed up in Gitmo? I never knew he was there.

He's the President. The commander in chief, right? Even if he was never there, he was aware and is responsible.


And so we ****ed some people off cause we didn't give terrorists "tribunals?" Good.

He ****ed up because he mismanaged expectations, ****ed a lot of people off who didn't need to **** off, and did so without needing to. PR screwups can have real military effects.


You're advocating pacifism in the face of severe violence. And that's really, REALLY ****ing stupid.

No, I'm not. I'm advocating not doing inflammatory **** if it's not necessary, and if it is necessary, don't let anyone know about it. I know you think that it doesn't matter who we **** off, but it *does* matter. It has real military ramifications.

**** off the wrong people, and a formerly neutral Iraqi picks up a rifle, or the Germans or Turks refuse to let our military use their airspace, or some arab country in the Gulf refuses to let us use their ports, or one of our allies in the area pulls its troops. Now, these difficulties aren't insurmountable, but they do raise the difficulty level, and can get people killed.

[GhostOfJAS]

Looks like Dean is the limp one this time, since he can't seem to find a response to my assertions that a lot of Gitmo detainees CANNOT be directly tied to terrorism (without access to any due process) AND that torture rarely yields any useful information. I'm sure he'll find more ad hominems and strawmen to distract us again...Dean?

Torture is punitive and it makes the big men feel better when **** happens like the deaths of our two servicemen yesterday. Better intelligence would have us much farther along the road to routing al qaeda.

[picasso]

anyone who remotely compares our so-called torturous policies like sleep deprivation, a little loud music, barking dogs, or even an occasional busted lip WITH slicing a person up, gouging the eyes, sawing off their heads, etc.
is beyond any rational help.

[Sooner24]

He's the President. The commander in chief, right? Even if he was never there, he was aware and is responsible.



He ****ed up because he mismanaged expectations, ****ed a lot of people off who didn't need to **** off, and did so without needing to. PR screwups can have real military effects.



No, I'm not. I'm advocating not doing inflammatory **** if it's not necessary, and if it is necessary, don't let anyone know about it. I know you think that it doesn't matter who we **** off, but it *does* matter. It has real military ramifications.

**** off the wrong people, and a formerly neutral Iraqi picks up a rifle, or the Germans or Turks refuse to let our military use their airspace, or some arab country in the Gulf refuses to let us use their ports, or one of our allies in the area pulls its troops. Now, these difficulties aren't insurmountable, but they do raise the difficulty level, and can get people killed.


Now is this fact or just what you think? You didn't say so I just wondered.

[picasso]

Looks like Dean is the limp one this time, since he can't seem to find a response to my assertions that a lot of Gitmo detainees CANNOT be directly tied to terrorism (without access to any due process) AND that torture rarely yields any useful information. I'm sure he'll find more ad hominems and strawmen to distract us again...Dean?

how the hell do you know this again? are you working for the government or do you sit in some priviledged circle to get such well known facts? or, are you sitting on your *** in Norman basing your knowledge on what you've read?

[GhostOfJAS]

He's the President. The commander in chief, right? Even if he was never there, he was aware and is responsible.

It's clear in this administration the buck stops ANYWHERE else but at his desk. Even though the west wing jumped through a LOT of legal hoops to make sure it was legal to torture WOT detainees and hold them indefinitely without any due process, I'm sure that was just a philosophical exercise on their part. Any fault really lies with the isolated night shift guard on duty in the field.


I'm advocating not doing inflammatory **** if it's not necessary, and if it is necessary, don't let anyone know about it. I know you think that it doesn't matter who we **** off, but it *does* matter. It has real military ramifications.

BINGO!!!! We have a winner. This stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum. And I'm sure we all misunderstood the photos from Abu Ghraib. The laughing and pointing was REALLY just a reaction of the guards to all that great intelligence they had just gained.

It's amazing what people will believe to justify their preconceived notions.

[GhostOfJAS]

how the hell do you know this again? are you working for the government or do you sit in some priviledged circle to get such well known facts? or, are you sitting on your *** in Norman basing your knowledge on what you've read?

The book excerpt I quoted a couple of pages ago directly references DoD documents about Gitmo detainees. But I'm sure the DoD is part of the librul conspiracy too.

BTW, you keep minimizing what I call "torture", saying it's just a few antics. Do you not consider waterboarding torture (one of many examples not denied as part of our common CIA techniques) or do you just not believe the widespread reports we do it regularly (which, again, our government doesn't deny)?

[1stTimeCaller]

what is waterboarding?

I wonder if they give them the angry dragon or hot carl?

[Stanley1]

what is waterboarding?

I wonder if they give them the angry dragon or hot carl?

I think we should give them all the Dirty Sanchez.

[1stTimeCaller]

is waterboarding anything like wakeboarding? Wakeboarding is fun.

[yermom]

so if they all want us dead and we should just turn the place to glass, why the **** are we there? oh yeah, oil

which is it? that they secretly want us there, or that they aren't human and don't deserve basic human rights?

the animals responsible for this and other atrocities deserve to be in a meat grinder, but that shouldn't be our policy.

[yermom]

anyone who remotely compares our so-called torturous policies like sleep deprivation, a little loud music, barking dogs, or even an occasional busted lip WITH slicing a person up, gouging the eyes, sawing off their heads, etc.
is beyond any rational help.

prisoners dying a slow painful death is still the outcome in some cases, we just don't release videos

[Vaevictis]

Now is this fact or just what you think? You didn't say so I just wondered.

To be fair, some of them are just my expectations -- I don't know of any specific instances of an Iraqi picking up a rifle -- but I do know that certain countries have denied us airspace rights over this, and that many of our allies have been lowering their troop levels as support wanes in their home countries.

Maybe this is more instructive:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fg-general9may09,1,6512558.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage


"We have to understand that the way we treat Iraqis has a direct effect on the number of insurgents that we are fighting," Chiarelli said in the interview with The Times after the seminar with about three dozen soldiers and Marines at Camp Taji, north of Baghdad. "For every one that I kill, I create almost 10 more."


To illustrate how American troops' behavior can come back to haunt them, Chiarelli told the group a story he said was first related to him by an interpreter for a media outlet. In the incident, a Sunni Arab insurgent who was being arrested in his home asked to be allowed to save face by being handcuffed outside.

Instead of sparing the tribal leader this humiliation in front of his relatives, a 19-year-old soldier forced him to the ground, secured him with a pair of flex cuffs and yanked him out the door.

"Now you are feeling good about life because you have taken a bad guy off the street," Chiarelli said, analyzing the encounter. "But guess what you have done? Every single person in the room, because of this whole concept of honor in this culture, has said, 'To hell with the Americans.' "


Chiarelli told the soldiers he knew that such directives might be hard to swallow, coming from "the general who lives in the palace, by the lake, with the big chandelier."

But he said he felt compelled to deliver the message. "If you really care about protecting the force and if you really care about the guy next to you and you going home, you are going to [try to] understand this culture."

In case you don't want to read the article, Chiarelli is Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, "the U.S. commander in charge of day-to-day military operations."

[GhostOfJAS]

the animals responsible for this and other atrocities deserve to be in a meat grinder, but that shouldn't be our policy.

Word. But apparently we're outnumbered...just throw all ethics out the window...whatever it takes...the ends justify the means. Torture them for punishment...torture their family...whatever "works" (or in reality, gives us the illusion we're winning and makes us feel better). They're uncivilized so we have to become uncivilized to save civilization.

Overhauling our international intelligence system -- cleaning up the cluster**** left by Tenet at the CIA (for which Bush gave him an award) -- would of course yield much faster and better results without throwing away our ethics, but that's beside the point.

[Stanley1]

To illustrate how American troops' behavior can come back to haunt them, Chiarelli told the group a story he said was first related to him by an interpreter for a media outlet. In the incident, a Sunni Arab insurgent who was being arrested in his home asked to be allowed to save face by being handcuffed outside.

Instead of sparing the tribal leader this humiliation in front of his relatives, a 19-year-old soldier forced him to the ground, secured him with a pair of flex cuffs and yanked him out the door.

"Now you are feeling good about life because you have taken a bad guy off the street," Chiarelli said, analyzing the encounter. "But guess what you have done? Every single person in the room, because of this whole concept of honor in this culture, has said, 'To hell with the Americans.' "

If they were related to, and housing the guy already, chances are they already hated America.

And you really mean to tell me it is against their culture to be handcuffed in their homes? I'm all for being a little respectful when the situation allows for it, but that is just ridiculous if true.

[lefty]

is waterboarding anything like wakeboarding? Wakeboarding is fun.

When I went wakeboarding, it was pretty close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

[Vaevictis]

If they were related to, and housing the guy already, chances are they already hated America.

Maybe, but a big part of the problem is that due to tribal revenge expectations, the tribe is actually now honor bound to respond. Not just him. Not just the people in the room. The tribe. Maybe not all of them actually will, but a few probably will. And it didn't necessarily have to go down that way.


And you really mean to tell me it is against their culture to be handcuffed in their homes? I'm all for being a little respectful when the situation allows for it, but that is just ridiculous if true.

Dude, these guys throw a hissy fit if you offer to shake with your left hand. There is no end to the miniscule infractions over which they will take insult. But we should try to accomodate them in as much as is tactically and strategically reasonable.

[picasso]

The book excerpt I quoted a couple of pages ago directly references DoD documents about Gitmo detainees. But I'm sure the DoD is part of the librul conspiracy too.

BTW, you keep minimizing what I call "torture", saying it's just a few antics. Do you not consider waterboarding torture (one of many examples not denied as part of our common CIA techniques) or do you just not believe the widespread reports we do it regularly (which, again, our government doesn't deny)?
I didn't read the last page.
And I'm not denying we do some troubling things to those we feel the need to work on. If one of them has knowledge of an enemy or a strike against us ala 9/11. I have no problem whatsoever with getting it out of them.

none of us know all of the details and I certainly won't act like I do.

however, our policy is still the best in the world. spin it all you want.

[Vaevictis]

If they were related to, and housing the guy already, chances are they already hated America.

My other comment is that is not necessarily true. Arab culture has some... interesting hospitality expectations.

Over there, just because you are feeding someone and protecting someone doesn't necessarily mean you like them and support what they're doing. It may just be an honor-related hospitality thing.

[Stanley1]

My other comment is that is not necessarily true. Arab culture has some... interesting hospitality expectations.

Over there, just because you are feeding someone and protecting someone doesn't necessarily mean you like them and support what they're doing. It may just be an honor-related hospitality thing.

We have that in the states too, its called looking out for family and friends, and you can be charged with "aiding and abetting (sp)" in alot of situations.

[Vaevictis]

We have that in the states too, its called looking out for family and friends, and you can be charged with "aiding and abetting (sp)" in alot of situations.

Trust me. It isn't the same. They'll do this for enemies too, under the right conditions. There's a code to it, all of the nuances I don't pretend to understand, but don't assume that they're friends just because hospitality is extended and accepted.

Do assume that if you f*ck with the person currently receiving hospitality that the host will f*ck with you right back.

Keep in mind that because the guy in the above example asked to be taken outside, if we had done so, he probably would have been outside of the "hospitality zone" and the hosts wouldn't feel honor-bound to respond on that account.

[Vaevictis]

C'mon guys, doesn't anyone want to put words in his mouth, or call him Cindy Chiarelli Sheehan, or rant about what a dirty pacifist troop-hating lib he is?

[jk the sooner fan]

no, we've saved that label for you

[Vaevictis]

jk, I understand completely.

There is never any shortage of people who prefer to reflexively wave the flag about, shouting down any dissent or criticism, in the name of "supporting the troops" when in fact all they're really doing is blindly supporting the politicians who put the troops in harms way to begin with.

[Sooner24]

jk, I understand completely.

There is never any shortage of people who prefer to reflexively wave the flag about, shouting down any dissent or criticism, in the name of "supporting the troops" when in fact all they're really doing is 100% supporting the politicians who put the troops over there to protect our freedom to begin with.


Fixed!

[GDC]

My friends and relatives in the military say the whole point is we are forcing them to fight us on their turf, thereby keeping Americans safe at home. I want to believe this, but it also seems alot of people are making a lot of money off this whole mess.

[Sooner24]

My friends and relatives in the military say the whole point is we are forcing them to fight us on their turf, thereby keeping Americans safe at home. I want to believe this, but it also seems alot of people are making a lot of money off this whole mess.


I do believe this.

[Sooner24]

If they were related to, and housing the guy already, chances are they already hated America.

And you really mean to tell me it is against their culture to be handcuffed in their homes? I'm all for being a little respectful when the situation allows for it, but that is just ridiculous if true.


I guess we should have just hid around the corner and waited for him to leave to go to Starbucks. :rolleyes:

[Vaevictis]

Buggered!

Really fixed this time.

[Vaevictis]

I guess we should have just hid around the corner and waited for him to leave to go to Starbucks. :rolleyes:

Maybe we should have just done what the General suggested would have been a better course of action -- take him outside before cuffing him.

[GhostOfJAS]

I didn't read the last page.
And I'm not denying we do some troubling things to those we feel the need to work on. If one of them has knowledge of an enemy or a strike against us ala 9/11. I have no problem whatsoever with getting it out of them.

You seem to be confusing the real world with an episode of "24" (great show, BTW). Study after study after study shows it is rare to get any useful, reliable information via torture. And generally what little useful information is gathered could just as easily and quickly be gathered through other methods. And there's no evidence to my knowledge the threat of torture (to self or family) acts as a deterrent to people as ****ed up as to believe blowing up a room full of innocent civilians will garner lots of virgins in eternal paradise. With that background, I'm only left to conclude torture as employed by US agents today is simply punitive and sadistic.


however, our policy is still the best in the world. spin it all you want.

Perhaps you're right (that's an opinion, so "spin" doesn't apply), but it's clear that if we were to follow some of the suggestions on this very thread -- that we should also torture family members, carry out summary executions, and use torture for punishment -- that some clearly DO want to abdicate any moral advantage we have. In fact, I would argue we're already well down that road. And I, for one, don't care to sit by silently and watch us become as uncivilized as the people we detest.

[Sooner24]

Yep, you are French.

[Sooner24]

You seem to be confusing the real world with an episode of "24" (great show, BTW). Study after study after study shows it is rare to get any useful, reliable information via torture. And generally what little useful information is gathered could just as easily and quickly be gathered through other methods. And there's no evidence to my knowledge the threat of torture (to self or family) acts as a deterrent to people as ****ed up as to believe blowing up a room full of innocent civilians will garner lots of virgins in eternal paradise. With that background, I'm only left to conclude torture as employed by US agents today is simply punitive and sadistic.



Perhaps you're right (that's an opinion, so "spin" doesn't apply), but it's clear that if we were to follow some of the suggestions on this very thread -- that we should also torture family members, carry out summary executions, and use torture for punishment -- that some clearly DO want to abdicate any moral advantage we have. In fact, I would argue we're already well down that road. And I, for one, don't care to sit by silently and watch us become as uncivilized as the people we detest.

It's kind of like in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. "Rules in a knife fight? There are no rules in a knife fight!"


http://www.gonemovies.com/WWW/WanadooFilms/Western/ButchHarvey.jpg

[Sooner24]

I'm pretty Brokeback.


Double fixed! :D

[Vaevictis]

I like to go munging with my father!

:D

[Stanley1]

Maybe we should have just done what the General suggested would have been a better course of action -- take him outside before cuffing him.

Maybe given him a cup of tea while we were at it, huh?

[jk the sooner fan]

jk, I understand completely.

There is never any shortage of people who prefer to reflexively wave the flag about, shouting down any dissent or criticism, in the name of "supporting the troops" when in fact all they're really doing is blindly supporting the politicians who put the troops in harms way to begin with.

i served for 21 years, i think i've earned the right to "wave that flag"

[Vaevictis]

Maybe given him a cup of tea while we were at it, huh?

Meh. Is there actual harm in taking him outside before cuffing him? No. Is there a possible benefit? Yes.

So why not do it?

[Sooner24]

Norman man accused of sex with puppy

http://mas.scripps.com/TCP/2006/06/20/20xdog-7523_o.jpg

Norman resident, Vaevictis allegedly had sex with this 4-month-old Argentine Dogo puppy. The dog is in the custody of the Humane Society of the Cleveland County and will be placed in foster care.
http://mas.scripps.com/TCP/2006/06/20/20xgarcia-7522_o.jpg

By GABRIEL MARGASAK
[email protected]
Updated at 9:59 a.m.
June 21, 2006

Norman— A mixed-breed dog was being placed in foster care Tuesday after being rescued from a Norman man who was allegedly having sex with the puppy. A witness called a Cleveland County deputy who arrived to find Vaevictis, having anal intercourse with the dog amid the woods in the 3200 block of Highway 9 about 12:11 p.m. Monday.


http://images.scripps.com/netw/1x1.gif
Upon being seen, Vaevictis said, "It's my dog," and, "What's the problem?" The male dog ran and hid behind the deputies, according to a report released Tuesday. Vaevictis, a Norman citizen working as a laborer, was charged with one count of felony sexual bestiality and one count of felony animal cruelty. He was also charged with one misdemeanor count each of giving a false name to deputies, exposure of sexual organs and possession of paraphernalia after a marijuana-smoking pipe was found in his pocket, according to the report.
He was being held on a $13,000 bail Tuesday at the Cleveland County jail.
Records from the Oklahoma Department of Law Enforcement show Vaevictis spent 28 days in jail after pleading no contest to an Oklahoma County misdemeanor larceny charge in 2005.
The dog, a 4-month-old Argentine Dogo, was being cared for by the Humane Society of the Treasure Coast.
"He's already been evaluated by the vet, and the vet says he's OK and will recover from whatever happened," Humane Society spokeswoman Roberta Synal said Tuesday. "If he's put in a good foster home, he's going to get lots of love and training."
Synal said the Humane Society, through the foster parent, would maintain custody of the dog, an unusual breed, until officials determine who actually owns it. If the owner or the legal process gives ownership to the Humane Society, the dog would be put up for adoption.
"If anyone wants to help out, the best thing they can do is come here and be a foster parent," she said.

[Stanley1]

Meh. Is there actual harm in taking him outside before cuffing him? No. Is there a possible benefit? Yes.

So why not do it?

There is a possible harm. Maybe not a great chance of it, but you can't say that walking a guy outside where "insurgents" could be waiting before cuffing him has zero risk.

Also, imo, it shows weakness. It shows that we aren't for real. That isn't something you do during war.....walk a guy outside before cuffing him to be nice. Goes along with my whole "gotta make the punishment severe enough to deter them" post I made earlier.

[jk the sooner fan]

wow, cross the line much?

[Vaevictis]

i served for 21 years, i think i've earned the right to "wave that flag"

You'd have the right even if you didn't serve for 21 years.

The point is that blindly supporting the politicians is not the same thing as, nor required in order to, support the troops. Neither is criticising what one honestly sees as counter-productive policy and behavior the antithesis of supporting the troops.

[Vaevictis]

There is a possible harm. Maybe not a great chance of it, but you can't say that walking a guy outside where "insurgents" could be waiting before cuffing him has zero risk.

My understanding was that prior to busting into the house to arrest the guy, SOP is generally going to be to secure the perimeter. Am I wrong?


Also, imo, it shows weakness. It shows that we aren't for real. That isn't something you do during war.....walk a guy outside before cuffing him to be nice. Goes along with my whole "gotta make the punishment severe enough to deter them" post I made earlier.

So if the is guilty, arrest him nicely, then guillotine the motherf*cker in the public square later. There are always opportunities to send a brutal message later, but once you do so, you can't take it back.

[Sooner24]

What makes you think we are BLINDLY supporting the politicains. They are doing exactly what I would want them to do by going over there and kicking their butts.

[Vaevictis]

wow, cross the line much?

If you're referring to the puppy post, to be fair, saying that he goes out munging with his father was pretty rude too ;)

[Vaevictis]

What makes you think we are BLINDLY supporting the politicains. They are doing exactly what I would want them to do by going over there and kicking their butts.

Well, I do suppose it could just be that you're an idiot. There is always that possibility.

[Sooner24]

Well, I do suppose it could just be that you're an idiot. There is always that possibility.

But then "that's just what you think" right? :D

[Vaevictis]

But then "that's just what you think" right? :D

Mostly, what leads me to think that has to do with the overly emotional knee-jerk reactions to any sort of criticism from certain people. Emotional knee-jerk reactions generally qualify as "blind support" in my book.

Example:

1. I say that making unnecessary enemies is bad -- conservative fury storm.
2. Lt. General says making unnecessary enemies is bad -- silence.

[Sooner24]

Mostly, what leads me to think that has to do with the overly emotional knee-jerk reactions to any sort of criticism from certain people. Emotional knee-jerk reactions generally qualify as "blind support" in my book.

Example:

1. I say that making unnecessary enemies is bad -- conservative fury storm.
2. Lt. General says making unnecessary enemies is bad -- silence.

Agreeing with what we are doing and blind support are two different things. Just because a Lt. General said it doesn't mean I agree with it. I never saw one politican say that we should have done it the way it was done so how am I supporting them blindly?

[Vaevictis]

Agreeing with what we are doing and blind support are two different things. Just because a Lt. General said it doesn't mean I agree with it. I never saw one politican say that we should have done it the way it was done so how am I supporting them blindly?

Ah, but when the Lt. General says it, no sh*tstorm. When a lib says essentially the same thing, sh*tstorm.

Why is it okay when the General says it, but worthy of a massive clusterf*ck when the lib says it? Politics is my guess.

To my mind, the implication is that lib must be (mis)using the troops to attack your political favorite, but the General, of course, has pure motives.

As I say, over and over again -- kill your enemies, but don't make new ones if you don't have to. What's wrong with that?

OTOH, it might just be that the lib really thinks that there's a better way of doing things. Might be right, might be wrong, but that doesn't mean the motive is impure.

Like I've said, repeatedly: Kill your enemies, but don't make new ones when you don't have to. What's wrong with that? (other than the fact that a lib said it)

[Sooner24]

The fact the General isn't on this message board makes it a little hard to argue with him.

[Vaevictis]

The fact the General isn't on this message board makes it a little hard to argue with him.

Yeah, that never stops anyone. How about all the ranting about people like, I dunno, Cindy Sheehan? They aren't on this board either. Plenty ranting though.