General discussion


Should D. Rumsfeld resign -

By JimHM ·
After Rumsfeld address to the committee today do you feel he should resign or continue to try and clean up the mess left behind by Clintons 8 years as the commander.

First - He must Stay - finish cleaning up the mess left in the Pentigon by the Clintons -

Second - What these men did was understandable but shouldn't of been done. We (the members of the coalation) are better than the Iraqi's that do that to our men and women. The damage these 10 or 12 men did to the hundreds of thousands men and women who are doing good - demands a court martial with a dishonorable discharge.

Third - to all those that would vote for John Kerry - he has confessed to committing war crimes against the Vietnam people in his 4 months of duty there. Hum - Mr. Kerry, I think you should resign from being the Democratic Presidentail Canidate don't you! How can foriegn powers trust you when you have already committee crimes against humanity!

Interesting - Most Democratics don't care - it was OK to do that in Vietnam, because there leaders did it. Kerry was one of the leaders!

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Oh Please

by JamesRL In reply to Should D. Rumsfeld resign ...

I will leave the issue of Rumsfeld's resignation to other wags, except to say - where does the buck stop?

As for the use of torture and humiliation being "understandable"(your word), what are you nuts? Since when? If the roles were reversed, would you think it understandable for american capitves to be treated in a similar manner? Add to that the message from most intelligency agencies that its fairly unreliable in terms of getting information - someone who is being tortured could have a psychotic break and essentially lose coherance altogether. You can't get good intel from someone who has lost their mind.

Enlighten me - what war crimes did Kerry admit to? As to Kerry having been a leader in Vietnam, he lead a platoon, not an army - he can only be responsible for what he did. He didn't make policies, strategies or battle plans.


Collapse -

You must of never server in war?

by JimHM In reply to Oh Please

Lets see - you see your bothers and sister (doesn't matter which country - if you are on the same side) - burnt and hanging from a bridge while those that did it dance and fire guns.

I guess - you wouldn't want a little revenge? I guess if you seen your daughter raped - you wouldn't want something nasty to happen to the person that did it.

I guess - you don't understand - Understandable - I guess you don't understand what it takes to see you friend killed when he was next to you - I guess you just don't understand - war - and what happens in it..

A leader of a Platoon - Isn't a leader - you are a liberal aren't you. I guess you manager or supervisor at the office (who may only have 5 or 6 reporting to them) isn't a leader then also. So how high up do you want it to go? And I guess you missed his discussion about his war crimes of touching villages - firing on civilians - I will have to dig up that link again.

Bud turn off those video games - they will rote your brain James -

Collapse -

Many guesses

by Oz_Media In reply to You must of never server ...

Well Jim you Do have some form of a point here but it unfortunately shows the same mentality that must be stopped as it leads to such horrors.

"I guess - you wouldn't want a little revenge?"
Of course you would WANT revenge, but can you have it? Only in the form of letting the government deal with them. To lose your 'cool' and mimick the same atrocities is simply unprofessional and unwarrented. If we killed everyone who ruined our lives or caused us pain, the world woulf be a quiet place with plenty of room ni no time. These are SOLDIERS, TRAINED military personnel, arguably the best in the world, they hare said to have the BEST training, the best weapons, the best intelligence, the best leadership, the best support etc.

These are not children or thugs on a revenge mission, or are they?

There is NO excuse whatsoever, to claim they have been subjected to atrocities is irrelevant, they are SUPPOSED to be trained Military Police. Now I know it is commonly known that the US soldiers cannot police but this is simply going WAY too far.

I hope that this comes out exactly as predicted with every TV channel airing these people as they face judgement, this should ruin their chances at leading ordinary lives, they should be publically placed on trial no different than OJ, and I am quite sure they will be. In fact this is supposed to be the first Court Marshall televised, get the popcorn.

"I guess - you don't understand"

Well nobody will inderstand war unless they are directly in a war. As for having a friend die beside you, I have, not in war but laying in the middle of the street at 3AM with everyone just crossing and walking away so as not to be involved.

This doesn't make it acceptable or even undersatdnable for people to react this way. If they are not able to muster the mental strentgth to conduct themselves accordingly in a war, then why the **** were they given a gun or the authority to POLICE in the first place, what is it, ANYONE can join the army if you're fit enough to kill? Lets find at least a few that are MENTALLY fit enough to kill insted.

Collapse -

by DC_GUY In reply to Many guesses

One of the main purposes served by an organized society with rules (whether it's a modern civilization or a Neolithic tribal group) is to break the "cycle of revenge." No one and nothing can prevent you from having the feeling of outrage and hatred that comes from seeing a loved one killed willfully. It's genetically programmed in all social species, and in ALL warm-blooded animals when it concerns their own family.

If you catch someone killing your kin and you react violently out of instinct, most of us would cut you some slack. But if due to circumstances you get past those first moments and society is able to intervene, it's their duty to prevent you from exacting revenge.

Because what happens if you kill someone because of what they did to you? That person has friends and family, and regardless of what he did to you, they will feel the sense of instinctive outrage and they will want to seek revenge against you. It's the "Hatfields and McCoys," where ten generations later people are still killing each other and nobody knows or cares how it started.

Society -- whether an industrial civilization or a tribe of pastoral nomads -- must step in and apply the rule of law to the situation, to ensure that a culture of violence does not overwhelm their attempts to create a peaceful environment where people in neighboring societies can live safely.

If society abdicates that responsibility -- if the people who are supposed to be enforcing the rules engage in acts of revenge -- the whole system breaks down.

People who are entrusted with the care of prisoners -- the care of people who are suspected of committing acts of evil -- have the key responsibility to break the cycle of revenge. They must be stoic and neutral and wait for their society to rule on the guilt of the suspects and on their punishment. If jailers indulge in vengeance-taking -- even if, as in this case, it is less than lethal vengeance -- they are literally destroying society.

Yes, I'm sensitive to the argument that they saw their own brethren treated like livestock, something that one doesn't expect to see in a human settlement that dares to call itself a "city." Yes, I understand that these people are soldiers who were deliberately trained to be less sickened by violence and quicker to commit acts of violence than most of us would be expected or permitted to be. Yes, I know that jails are supposed to be run by people who are trained to run jails, not by MPs who are trained to break up bar fights and drag home drunken soldiers.

So I'm not prepared to sit in judgment on the individuals who perpetrated these atrocities. Let a court martial deal with it. Let the facts and extentuating circumstances be known and let some people who failed abysmally to execute their responsibilities and thereby humiliated our country be judged by people who are qualified to make that judgment. I won't second-guess them.

After all, as a nearly unwavering pacifist and foe of capital punishment, I can't help whispering, "yeah, but they didn't kill them."

What I do sit in judgment of is a society that allowed this to happen. We knew long ago that the US was going to have to administer Iraq in the role of an occupying force, not just a friendly bunch of helpers. We knew that would include having to administer jails located in places where the local population might be hostile to us and the inmates might raise the ire of even a trained and disciplined soldier. Why, therefore, in an operation so well organized that it provides hot meals, e-mail, and first-class medical service, didn't anybody foresee the need to provide trained jailers?

Whoever is responsible for that screw-up has a lot of explaining to do. It gives the impression that this occupation is run so as to only satisfy the needs of the occupiers, and that the people being occupied are, indeed, regarded as mere livestock. I don't want my country run by people who think that way.

Collapse -

Not to be misunderstood

by Oz_Media In reply to

The very first thing I would do is kill the ******* that killed my buddy. Then again, I'm not charged with ensuring their safety nor am I a trained military officer.

Even as a security forman, I saw LOTS of security guys who would put the boots to someone who may have hurt another security member. They lasted about 4 minutes after I saw it happen, enough time to place their radio back in the charger on the way out.

This isn't, or at least shouldn't be, an issue of people acting instinctively. The whole idea of breaking a man down in basic and building him to be a marine, airman or whatever the career choice is, is the entire reason that soldiers are inexcusable for these acts. They are SUPPOSED to be mentally and physically different than mainstream society. Part of this training is focused on reactionary issues. Just because someone is firing a gun at you, you still need to wait for the order to return fire, this is training. Something the US spends countless billions of your dollars on.

If these peolpe are accepted when they act inapropriately like a common citizen, then why the need for training beyond how to fire a gun?

Whatever happened to an elite force with a higher ability to work under such stresses than ordinary street folk?

Let's not equate them to the guy down the road, they are supposed to be far beyond that mentality, whether or not they are your brothers or sisters, they are trained military police, or at least we thought they were.

The public stoning they will receive is going to make for some interesting TR discussions I'm sure.

Collapse -

If you read my first post

by JimHM In reply to Many guesses

If you read the first post - I said what happened was understandable but should of never happened. Got a response back that they didn't understand the understandable part - I explained it -

I didn't say we had a right to do it ... please read Oz

Collapse -

I just read today...

by ND_IT In reply to You must of never server ...

I just read today that Bremer knew about the abuses back in January, before the murder of the four contractors. Could have the abuse increased after the murder of the contractors? Sure. But that doesn't make it right, and these soldiers should be punished for it. We are no better than the thugs that did this to these fine people who wanted to help the Iraqi people. The US needs to show the Iraqi people that we won't stand for this behavior and show that we are not barbarians.

Collapse -

unfortunately ...

by jardinier In reply to I just read today...

as US soldiers have committed these
atrocities, then obviously at least some
Americans are barbarians.

Please let me be the first to know if you hear of
any atrocites committed by Australlian
personnel in Iraq.

Unfortunately -- and I have started a separate
discussion on this issue -- the credibility of
America rests on these actions, and how they
are dealt with.

Collapse -

Australians No - British Yes

by maxwell edison In reply to unfortunately ...


On whether or not I think Rumsfeld should resign, I think I'm too far removed from knowing all of the particular details to make an educated opinion. I think all cries for resignation, or those not to resign, at least at this point, are driven by politics or emotions - or both.

Collapse -

Bad timeline

by Cactus Pete In reply to You must of never server ...

Abuses like those committed against the detainees were reported over a year ago. The complaint that many Iragi have is that no one is doing a thing about the mistreatment of the prisoners.

I guess you can understand their need for revenge and stringing up those burnt contractor bodies then.

I can't understand either side, myself.

Related Discussions

Related Forums