Bodies of missing U.S. soldiers recovered

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
This kind of double talk is what is confusing me. First you say they aren't morally equivilant yet you say they are in the next breath. It's all the more befudling when our position quite clearly isn't that anything goes.

What does what Rufus say have to do with moral equivelance?

A murder is not morally equivalent to a burglary. They are both crimes though. A murderer and a burgler are both criminals. If I say a murderer and a burgler are both criminals, am I stating moral equivalency between the two?

What I understand from Rufus' statement is simple: the US has declared those we fight in the war on terror have no rights beyond those we decided to give them. It is silly for the US then to get pissy if the other side uses the same standard against us, ie. no real standard.

What that shows is a similarity, but certainly no equality.

Last time I checked, similar =/ equal.

[GePap]

Or to put it another way. IN capturing the soldiers and then killing them AQ violated their rights under the Geneva Convention. But the US has stated that members of AQ don't fit under the Geneva conventions. There should therefore be no expectation of them behaving according to those accords if they are not to be granted any rights under them anyways.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
This kind of double talk is what is confusing me. First you say they aren't morally equivilant yet you say they are in the next breath. It's all the more befudling when our position quite clearly isn't that anything goes.

It's simple: morality isn't objective. I don't think the positions are morally equivalent, but I recognize that's due to my subjective belief in the superiority of my worldview. Terrorists believe the exact same thing: that their point of view is morally superior -- indeed, in their case, divinely ordained. I can believe in the moral supriority of our fight, while recognizing that a sense of moral superiority is what's fueling the other side, too.

As for our position not being "anything goes," I'll modify it slightly: it's "anything goes until we get caught and it turns out people care."

edit: And what Gepap said, very well.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Why do some people just keep asking the same rhetorical questions over and over again... Michael, do you actually have any ANSWERS? It is obviously a matter of interests, so what's the friggin POINT?

The friggin POINT is that we need to start taking a longer term, deeper strategic view, and focus on the real goals of that strategy. Iraq was never more than a goddamned sideshow, and it has tied down and consumed a grossly disproportionate share of our political, economic, and power projection resources.

At this point, there are no ****ing answers, except maybe, hopefully, some future leader will actually apply some foresight and strategic insight from people who know what they're talking about, instead of yes-men political hacks and out of touch exiles with their own axes to grind.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GePap
Or to put it another way. IN capturing the soldiers and then killing them AQ violated their rights under the Geneva Convention. But the US has stated that members of AQ don't fit under the Geneva conventions. There should therefore be no expectation of them behaving according to those accords if they are not to be granted any rights under them anyways.

Did anybody expect that of them, ever?

[GePap]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Did anybody expect that of them, ever?

No, which is why I find this story tragic but uninteresting. No more interesting than any of the other regular US deaths.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I find it interesting in several respects -

probably the biggest is the bit about how "reinforcements arrived within 15 minutes" - 15 minutes is several lifetimes for a three man checkpoint or patrol in a dense urban environment. In this case, it was three lifetimes.

I wonder how the overall force numbers are still justified by anyone when you have isolated three man outposts in one of the most continuously hostile parts of the country, during a period of supposedly high alert and activity right after you wipe out a significant enemy leader?

Is the ****ing cupboard swept bare for anti-insurgent raids and operations, such that you end up with these sort of isolated checkpoints? You can't do **** with three men in a dense urban environment.

Or does that "level" of force in the area really reflect all we have to work with?

[MRT144]

soldiers die. thats part of their job risk.

boo to the ****ing hoo.

i wish fred phelps coulda been there though.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I find it interesting in several respects -

probably the biggest is the bit about how "reinforcements arrived within 15 minutes" - 15 minutes is several lifetimes for a three man checkpoint or patrol in a dense urban environment. In this case, it was three lifetimes.

I wonder how the overall force numbers are still justified by anyone when you have isolated three man outposts in one of the most continuously hostile parts of the country, during a period of supposedly high alert and activity right after you wipe out a significant enemy leader?

Is the ****ing cupboard swept bare for anti-insurgent raids and operations, such that you end up with these sort of isolated checkpoints? You can't do **** with three men in a dense urban environment.

Or does that "level" of force in the area really reflect all we have to work with?

Get your facts rigth - it was a three vehichle guard at the checkpoint - when fired at, two of those took up pursuit leaving the three soldiers at the checkpoint.

That pursuit was plain stupid - it would have been better to wait for the reinforcements, and then 15 minutes is enough.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5092072.stm

[Dinner]

What I never understood is how 3 men and one humvee were out alone. When I was there all US forces had a four vehicle rule meaning no one could leave post without at least four vehicles each of which had to have at least 3 people (a driver, a navagator, and a gunner) because you always wanted back up if you were abushed or ran into a fire fight. How the hell was there three men in one vehicle out alone at a check point?

Sometimes we would sometimes use ICDC (Iraqi National Guard) for 1 or 2 of those 4 vehicles but it was always ICDC we knew we could trust. I.E. people we'd worked with for a long time, whose tribe we knew, who had other people we trusted vouch for them (normally because they were related), and we took exra care to look out for those guys. When one of them had a kid who was sick we'd pass the hat around to help give him money, we'd hold parties where they'd be huge amounts of food so the ICDC guys could take the extras home to their families, etc... Those sound like small things but when you're dirt poor having people treat you fairly and help you when you need it earns loyality.