Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

I wonder if they'll be tried in Iraq?Follow

#1 Jul 02 2004 at 10:50 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9068957.htm

Probably not, huh?


WASHINGTON - Three American soldiers have been charged with manslaughter in the drowning of a 19-year-old Iraqi who was forced into the Tigris River, and a fourth soldier has been charged with assault, the Army announced Friday.


America's heros, forcing nineteen year old kids into a river to drown.

God bless the USA.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#2 Jul 02 2004 at 11:17 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,980 posts
I wonder how this would have went if they had just shot the Iraqi men?

Probably would have gone unnoticed because they were suspicious men driving around near curfew. Of course the story would have to change so the men could have guns and the time could be advanced past curfew.
#3 Jul 02 2004 at 11:22 PM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
American troops tried for war crimes, God forbid.

We all know that America cant be judged by the same rules as everyone else.
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#4 Jul 02 2004 at 11:53 PM Rating: Decent
it was a humanitarian outreach program they just forgot to inflate the lil duck floaties they put on his arms before they tried to teach the under privelaged youth how to doggie paddle.
#5 Jul 03 2004 at 7:02 AM Rating: Good
Throughout history every war leader has had to deal with this sort of problem. It's very difficult to have troops go out and kill the enemy...only at the right times. They get out of hand.

Some armies are allowed and even encouraged to loot, pillage, and abuse the populace. As we call ourselves 'civilized' this is not viewed as acceptable.

IMHO the soliders should have been promptly court martialed and executed. It would have set the tone for the rest of soldiers behavior. People KNOW the difference between shooting an enemy soldier in battle and forcing civilians into a river to drown. But it's natural for people to test their limitations and without a couple of 'examples' troops will get out of hand. People, in general, can be mean bastards if they have no accountability for their actions.
#6 Jul 03 2004 at 7:06 AM Rating: Decent
kk going on the record as thinking that executing them would be too harsh, I mean come on it was an honest mistake next time they will inflate the duck arms I am sure.

Oh wait maybe we could do a reverse Nick Berg on them nevermind still have the horror of that one stuck in my mind.
#7 Jul 03 2004 at 1:46 PM Rating: Decent
I think they should be executed too.Or just tie their foot to a 70 poud brick and let it happen to them as what they did to another human being
#8 Jul 03 2004 at 1:54 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
I don't belive in the death penalty, personally, but the President does. I imagine they'll end up with 15 years or so a peice.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#9 Jul 03 2004 at 2:17 PM Rating: Decent
From reading it, it doesn't sound intentional, so the death penalty would be out of the question. And even it they did intenionally kill the kid, they wouldn't die for it.
#10 Jul 03 2004 at 2:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
From reading it, it doesn't sound intentional, so the death penalty would be out of the question. And even it they did intenionally kill the kid, they wouldn't die for it.


Hell they'll probablt be awarded the silver star and then be able to leave Active Duty 4 months early and run for political office.

(I couldn't resist... the temptation has been so overwhelming)

Edited, Sat Jul 3 16:01:18 2004 by Stok
#11 Jul 03 2004 at 3:00 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Hell they'll probablt be awarded the silver cross


Who gives that out? IS that Bush's secret torture Army's highest award?

Beacuse I'm pretty fammiliar with US war decorations, and that aint one, Mr. "I served for blah blah blah"!
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#12 Jul 03 2004 at 3:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Bah, Fruedian slip I meant Silver Star I was looking at a cross at the time.

You knew what I meant.
#13 Jul 03 2004 at 7:14 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
I don't belive in the death penalty, personally, but the President does. I imagine they'll end up with 15 years or so a peice.

The article said the ones charged for the death would only get a max of 10 years, so anything on top of that would be from the false statments they made.
#14 Jul 05 2004 at 4:03 AM Rating: Decent
**
450 posts
Maybe it's the Iron Cross. That seems to an appropriate medal for Mr. Bush to hand out.
#15 Jul 05 2004 at 8:11 PM Rating: Decent
The entire problem stems from the treatment troops recieve from thier own leadership.

If an NCO caused the death of a soldier serving under him by ordering him to swim in a river while back here in the States, it would be labled as a training accident. Even if the soldier is known to be unable to swim and has severe aquaphobia.

I watched one soldier get pulled out of swimming pool during "drownproofing" class because, after stating he was deadly afraid of water, he was pushed into the deep end of the pool by an NCO.
That soldier passed out when he hit the water and had to be revived by lifeguards.

If our NCOs can do that to our soldiers, what will the soldiers think?
Now put those soldiers into a situation where the people they are making "go for a swim" can not speak english, without a translator or with one that doesn't know the word "swim" because his training was focused on military matters rather then knowledge of the simpler things in the language.

I am sorry for the soldiers who have to put up with similar treatment back here, and for the people they interact with after being led to believe that it is acceptable treatment.
#16 Jul 06 2004 at 9:02 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
Now put those soldiers into a situation where the people they are making "go for a swim" can not speak english, without a translator or with one that doesn't know the word "swim" because his training was focused on military matters rather then knowledge of the simpler things in the language

If the US military is stupid enough to run check points without translators they would of nuked themselves by now. It is immpossible to run a checkpoint without being able to understand the people going through it, so it would be manditory for a translator to be there for every shift. It is just common sense and the reason why they are working with the Iraqis.
Quote:
If an NCO caused the death of a soldier serving under him by ordering him to swim in a river while back here in the States, it would be labled as a training accident. Even if the soldier is known to be unable to swim and has severe aquaphobia.

I watched one soldier get pulled out of swimming pool during "drownproofing" class because, after stating he was deadly afraid of water, he was pushed into the deep end of the pool by an NCO.
That soldier passed out when he hit the water and had to be revived by lifeguards.

For one these are totally different situations. The recruit is there by choice and is in training to have their limits pushed. On the other hand the Iraqis civilians were forced there, they had no choice. So this comparison is not accurate. Another point is were the soldiers under orders to do this like they were in training. Sorry I dont think so, or there would of been lifeguards to prevent deaths and other mishaps. I understand a soldier will do what they are ordered and do some terrible acts under orders, but there was no orders for this or the media would of jumped on it before now. There is nothing to justify a soldier to take actions in their own hands. These soldiers forced a man to drown to death, knowing full well that he could not swim ( I don't believe your no translator argument for a second.) They deserve more then 10 years in jail for doing this act, just as anyone who deliberatly kills another does.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 236 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (236)