What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

To the military members here.

nt250

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
1,013
Reaction score
72
Points
48
What's your opinion of what the United States should do in response to the two soldiers who were captured, tortured, killed, mutilated, and left out in the open with booby traps all around them for their fellows soldiers to find?

I post on a couple of different boards, and the general concensus is that these two deaths are no different than any of the other 2500 GI's who have been killed.

I don't think it's the same. They were taken alive.

What's your opinion?
 

dmp

Senior Member
Joined
May 12, 2004
Messages
13,088
Reaction score
748
Points
48
Location
Enterprise, Alabama
find the animals who did this, and execute them.
 
OP
nt250

nt250

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
1,013
Reaction score
72
Points
48
dmp said:
find the animals who did this, and execute them.

How can we sort out all the animals? These people kill their own.
 

dmp

Senior Member
Joined
May 12, 2004
Messages
13,088
Reaction score
748
Points
48
Location
Enterprise, Alabama
nt250 said:
How can we sort out all the animals? These people kill their own.

We find the 'specific' animals who killed our brethren.
 

pegwinn

Top of the Food Chain
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
2,558
Reaction score
330
Points
98
Location
Texas
nt250 said:
What's your opinion of what the United States should do in response to the two soldiers who were captured, tortured, killed, mutilated, and left out in the open with booby traps all around them for their fellows soldiers to find?

I post on a couple of different boards, and the general concensus is that these two deaths are no different than any of the other 2500 GI's who have been killed.

I don't think it's the same. They were taken alive.

What's your opinion?

Demolish and kill everything within one square mile of where the soldiers were found. Then seed the rubble with mines so it cannot be rebuilt. Repeat each time Americans are killed. When the country is destroyed confiscate the oil as a cost of doing business and leave after thirty days of no attacks.

-or-

Publicly execute senior prisoners and leave the bodies out in the elements to weather away for a few weeks. Bury them in hog troughs. Videotape the process and override local tv and radio transmission with sights and sounds for a few more months. Repeat each time Americans die.

-but-

None of the above will happen because in spite of the MSM allegations to the contrary we are the good guys. We do have a sense of Honor. We do treat enemies better than our own guys are treated. But there are days I wish I were the guy in charge....... Today is one of them.
 

Hobbit

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2004
Messages
5,099
Reaction score
423
Points
48
Location
Near Atlanta, GA
If I were in charge, I'd place immediate incentives for finding these guys. Anybody with a viable lead that results in finding these guys gets a bonus (for those in uniform) or a bounty (for civilians). For those actually finding the guy, I'd put a bounty on their heads so big, we'd be getting Hutts trekking all the way over here to collect on it. By the way, the bounty's cut in half if they're taken dead, but better dead than not at all. When I got my hands on their worthless heads, I'd put them on trial publicly and have their executions be carried out by a firing squad consisting of the squad these two soldiers were in. Knowing how professional and honorable our boys are, I'd be willing to bet they wouldn't even stoop to shooting for maximum pain inflicted. I might even be convinced to go back to the age old practice of putting their heads on pikes as a warning to others.
 

CSM

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
6,907
Reaction score
708
Points
48
Location
Northeast US
First thing I would do is issue orders and new rules of engagement:

1) IF you think you found terrorists or civilians hiding terrorists...kill them.

2) If you fnd a weapons cache in a house, blow up the cache in place (too bad about the house.)

3) If you find civilians in a house where a cache is found....kill them.

4) If you take fire from a house, call an airstrike on that house or the heaviest firepower available.

5) If you take fire from more than two houses in a town, level the town.

6) If any motor vehicle approaches within 200 feet of a US/coalition convoy, destroy it.

7) If any person is found fabricating, storing or emplacing explosives of any type .... kill them.

8) Take no prisoners.

I would make a few policy changes too.

A. Stop giving money to the "aggrieved" families. Your son, father, mother, sister, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew (whatever) got killed...sorry about that.

B. Build your own damn power plants, schools, hospitals etc.

C. Seal off the borders...any civilian found crossing the borders of Iraq in either direction will be executed.

D. Focus on protecting the oil infrastructure and pump the country dry. Take the oil back to the US...every ounce of it.

E. Let the Iraqis make their own government any way they want. If we dont like it, we destroy it.

F. No media allowed in Iraq, especially US media.
 
OP
nt250

nt250

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
1,013
Reaction score
72
Points
48
CSM said:
First thing I would do is issue orders and new rules of engagement:

1) IF you think you found terrorists or civilians hiding terrorists...kill them.

2) If you fnd a weapons cache in a house, blow up the cache in place (too bad about the house.)

3) If you find civilians in a house where a cache is found....kill them.

4) If you take fire from a house, call an airstrike on that house or the heaviest firepower available.

5) If you take fire from more than two houses in a town, level the town.

6) If any motor vehicle approaches within 200 feet of a US/coalition convoy, destroy it.

7) If any person is found fabricating, storing or emplacing explosives of any type .... kill them.

8) Take no prisoners.

I would make a few policy changes too.

A. Stop giving money to the "aggrieved" families. Your son, father, mother, sister, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew (whatever) got killed...sorry about that.

B. Build your own damn power plants, schools, hospitals etc.

C. Seal off the borders...any civilian found crossing the borders of Iraq in either direction will be executed.

D. Focus on protecting the oil infrastructure and pump the country dry. Take the oil back to the US...every ounce of it.

E. Let the Iraqis make their own government any way they want. If we dont like it, we destroy it.

F. No media allowed in Iraq, especially US media.

I agree with that.

Except the oil part. We're not supposed to be there for the oil, remember? Other countries have oil. We don't need it from Iraq, and it's not the reason we invaded. No matter what liberals like to think.
 

CSM

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
6,907
Reaction score
708
Points
48
Location
Northeast US
First of all, you are assuming I give a flying poo about what other countries or the libs think.

Second, if you remove all the oil, the economies of these medievil countries collapse and they can go back to herding camels (peacefully) and we (the US) dont have to worry about them buying weapons and explosives. That is, of course, assuming the ME doesn't corner the market on sand and then holds the worlds concrete manufacturing mega complex hostage. So it is not about oil...it is about removing the financial means for continuing to support terrorism.
 

KarlMarx

Senior Member
Joined
May 9, 2004
Messages
3,231
Reaction score
492
Points
48
Location
...
I agree with a lot of CSM's statements. Especially, the part about "no media".

The U.S. media was one of the Vietcong's best weapons against the U.S. war effort in Vietnam. It helped to turn American opinion after the war effort, it undermined morale, it glossed over the atrocities committed by the North Vietnamese communists during and after the war.

And, again, it is no different today. The media is out to undermine the war effort. For the life of me I never could understand how the Bush Administration, especially after Vietnam, could allow the media in a war zone. From the very first day of the war, I thought that embedded media, or media of any sort was a bad idea. Events since the 2003 invasion have vindicated my fears.

Whatever news comes out of a war zone should be controlled by the military censors. Sorry, we've already seen enough of the results of a "free press" where war coverage is concerned. The media gives one side of the story, automatically is against the war effort, and, in my opinion, is sadly unprofessional in its behavior. It becomes the weapon of the enemy against our own soldiers, our sons and daughters.

The media is probably indirectly responsible for a large number of military deaths in Iraq. Their negative coverage of the war serves to demoralize our trooops and emboldens the enemy to fight. They can see the results of their work on CNN, on the NYT websites.... to them, blowing up a convoy of American troops just to get on CNN is probably motivation enough.
 

CSM

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
6,907
Reaction score
708
Points
48
Location
Northeast US
Ya know, it is rather ironic that the MSM, libs, and Dems all want to know "the plan" for Iraq. I am sure the terrorists would love to know "the plan" as well. Guess what, there is a "plan" and the military/government is smart enough not to reveal it. I submit it is in the public's interest NOT to reveal the plan, especially to the US media.

If the coaches sports teams were required to reveal their "plan" not only publicly but send a copy to the opposing team for each and every play, sports would not only be very dull, there would be no sports.
 

pegwinn

Top of the Food Chain
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
2,558
Reaction score
330
Points
98
Location
Texas
CSM said:
First thing I would do is issue orders and new rules of engagement:

1) IF you think you found terrorists or civilians hiding terrorists...kill them.

2) If you fnd a weapons cache in a house, blow up the cache in place (too bad about the house.)

etc
etc

You managed to say what I was thinking without coming across in a fashion reminiscent of Jenjis Kon. :teeth:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to CSM again.
 

CSM

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
6,907
Reaction score
708
Points
48
Location
Northeast US
pegwinn said:
You managed to say what I was thinking without coming across in a fashion reminiscent of Jenjis Kon. :teeth:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to CSM again.

There is a reason most of the famous "world conquerers" were successful and it wasn't because they were worried about the moral high ground or winning hearts and minds.
 

pegwinn

Top of the Food Chain
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
2,558
Reaction score
330
Points
98
Location
Texas
CSM said:
There is a reason most of the famous "world conquerers" were successful and it wasn't because they were worried about the moral high ground or winning hearts and minds.

yep yep.
 
OP
nt250

nt250

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
1,013
Reaction score
72
Points
48
KarlMarx said:
I agree with a lot of CSM's statements. Especially, the part about "no media".

The U.S. media was one of the Vietcong's best weapons against the U.S. war effort in Vietnam. It helped to turn American opinion after the war effort, it undermined morale, it glossed over the atrocities committed by the North Vietnamese communists during and after the war.

And, again, it is no different today. The media is out to undermine the war effort. For the life of me I never could understand how the Bush Administration, especially after Vietnam, could allow the media in a war zone. From the very first day of the war, I thought that embedded media, or media of any sort was a bad idea. Events since the 2003 invasion have vindicated my fears.

Whatever news comes out of a war zone should be controlled by the military censors. Sorry, we've already seen enough of the results of a "free press" where war coverage is concerned. The media gives one side of the story, automatically is against the war effort, and, in my opinion, is sadly unprofessional in its behavior. It becomes the weapon of the enemy against our own soldiers, our sons and daughters.

The media is probably indirectly responsible for a large number of military deaths in Iraq. Their negative coverage of the war serves to demoralize our trooops and emboldens the enemy to fight. They can see the results of their work on CNN, on the NYT websites.... to them, blowing up a convoy of American troops just to get on CNN is probably motivation enough.

It wouldn't make much difference, they'd just make it up.
 

KarlMarx

Senior Member
Joined
May 9, 2004
Messages
3,231
Reaction score
492
Points
48
Location
...
nt250 said:
It wouldn't make much difference, they'd just make it up.
There is such a thing as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" during a time of war.

I believe the media is doing this by having such a slanted view of the war effort. However, I am also realistic enough to understand that the Administration would be walking to a legal nightmare by censoring the media.

Preventing the media from being in the war zone at all would help to get around that.

If that were to happen and the media were to make up stories, then they would find themselves in an indefensible position. In that case, it would be a clear cut case of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
 
OP
nt250

nt250

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
1,013
Reaction score
72
Points
48
KarlMarx said:
There is such a thing as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" during a time of war.

I believe the media is doing this by having such a slanted view of the war effort. However, I am also realistic enough to understand that the Administration would be walking to a legal nightmare by censoring the media.

Preventing the media from being in the war zone at all would help to get around that.

If that were to happen and the media were to make up stories, then they would find themselves in an indefensible position. In that case, it would be a clear cut case of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Oh, please. We're dealing with liberals here. I've just spent the last three days arguing with idiots who claim I'm wrong to say the John Kerry accused all service members in Vietnam of committing war crimes.

I posted quotes from his testimony on April 22, 1971, right from the Congressional Record, and still they called me a liar.

I guess "all" ranks right up there with "is".

These people believe whatever they want to believe. The truth is how they see it. Everybody else is a liar.
 

pegwinn

Top of the Food Chain
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
2,558
Reaction score
330
Points
98
Location
Texas
KarlMarx said:
There is such a thing as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" during a time of war. It doesn't apply to the news media.

I believe the media is doing this by having such a slanted view of the war effort. However, I am also realistic enough to understand that the Administration would be walking to a legal nightmare by censoring the media. All the admin has to do is authorize uncontrolled access to the media and the problem would eventually go away. See below.

Preventing the media from being in the war zone at all would help to get around that. Actually that is a bad idea. Instead the US Gov should remove all support and protections for any media. This means that if a reporter gets hurt, they don't get a free ride to Germany for treatment at my expense. This means that they are free to follow in trace of US Forces. But at their own expense, not mine (taxpayer that is). That means that they can do as they please but they are on thier own. We continue operations as if they didn't exist.

If that were to happen and the media were to make up stories, then they would find themselves in an indefensible position. In that case, it would be a clear cut case of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I don't think they would make up stuff as they would be too busy complaining about a non supportive government. Our PAO's would simply email press releases to the wire services on a daily basis so no one could complain about censorship.

Basically if we simply refuse to support the journalists, they will eventually go home.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
pegwinn said:
You managed to say what I was thinking without coming across in a fashion reminiscent of Jenjis Kon. :teeth:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to CSM again.
Covered ya!
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$80.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top