President's speech

[starang21]

Originally posted by dekeguy
Starang21,
As an ROTC cadet during my undergraduate days I received very focused training on the specifics of US military doctrine with great emphasis on what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. (UCMJ, Rules of Engagement, Law of Land Warfare, Geneva Accords, etc).
After graduation I was on active duty for three years before going to Law School. During that initial period of active duty I received extensive training in the Law of Land Warfare, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the requirements of the Geneva Accords, and the philosophy of how we as Americans fight. We don't target civilians, we don't tolerate atrocities much less use atrocities as a matter of routine policy in the manner of Saddam and his ilk, and we receive very specific training on how we fight in an honorable manner.
Since recall to active duty I have received intense refresher training which included very clear explanations of just exactly what was acceptable conduct and what was not.
I have personally ensured that every soldier under my command is fully aware of what we are going to do, how we are going to do it, and what are the rules of engagement.
We are not an armed mob of unruly thugs, we are the United States Army, an army that every American can be proud of no matter what your position happens to be regarding the President and his decisions.
We do not blindly set out to lay waste, we engage with clear objectives and within clearly established rules of engagement.
Your comments are outrageous and an insult to your United States Army and to the Soldiers, your fellow Americans, who will carry out the hard work.
You have the right to express your opinion but when you insult the integrity and honor of my Soldiers I have the right to my opinion of you. I am deeply disappointed that you would utter such a blanket accusation regarding those who have sworn an oath to protect and defend our nation and its people.

are you serious? you're making the claim that all your soldiers are some boy scouts!!! you guys have my support, but i'm not blind to the fact that illegal ish goes on. i'm not accusing anyone of anything, it's a FACT....just becuase we're the united states doesn't exempt us from wrong doing. just becuase you're personally responsible for all of your men, does that mean that one or a few of them isn't going to act a fool?

[starang21]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by AXJules
I never said you don't post on here. And actually, I did a search history to check myself before I sounded like a bitch. You have more posts than me, congratulations. This is something I've thought for awhile and maybe you caught me on a bad day or something but its not what you say, but the way you say it.

[Quote] as to this business of me posting to cause trouble, why not look at my post history. i bet most of them have nothing to do with arguing. becuase i disagree with you, you seem to think i'm trying to cause trouble. is that a sign of immaturity?

Tons of people disagree with me on here- thank god, or else it wouldn't be a discussion board. I'm not really sure what you're asking here, but if you're implying that I'm immature, you're the one flinging insults because I asked you to be nice.

Yeah, he is the one who insinuated that you didn't have deep knowledge about how we fight war. Maybe its b/c your original post wasn't that clear, I dunno....I'm not really concerned with why you guys are disagreeing. My point is that you do that, and then you quote me like "Didn't I just say that??? OMG I've had it, how stupid......seriously there's no need for an attitude like that.

i take back the immaturity statement. but that's the whole point of us disagreeing. just because he's been trained to do right, does that mean he's going to do right? how many corrupt cops does the united states have? i'm sure money laundering and tampering with evidence isn't something they teach at the academy. it's a fact of life, some of us turn a blind eye to it, some of us don't.

[adduncan]

FWIW, I have yet to see a discussion on any "hot topic" that does not include SOME personal attacks of one kind or another. Pretty sad for people who are otherwise pretty focused on the concept of "unity" in their organizations. If you think you have to "take it back" or apologize later on, maybe you shouldn't post it in the first place. Make sense?

Also FWIW, in response to the person who said that people in favor of this military action are only "repeating what they heard someone else say, not thinking for themselves" (I'm paraphrasing, and it may have been in one of the threads paralleling this one) I think those opposed to this action are just as inclined to be guilty of that. No one is justified in pointing fingers over who is "uneducated" among those on the sidelines. Unless you work at the CIA or the Pentagon, everyone "heard it from somewhere else".

Food for thought from a conscientious objector of these threads due to the tone of some people in them.

The REAL reason for this post.............
An interesting twist from Fox News, a few minutes ago. Maybe these threads are much ado about not much.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thousands of Iraqi Troops Appear Ready to Surrender

Wednesday, March 19, 2003

WASHINGTON — As the 48-hour clock continues to wind down on Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, there are signs that thousands of Iraqi troops are planning to surrender to the U.S. and its allies even in the first hours of war, Fox News has learned.

Senior Defense officials say they are seeing reports that in the first few hours of a military conflict, thousands of Saddam's soldiers will wave the white flag.

U.S. Central Command — led by Gen. Tommy Franks — is looking into reports of surrender attempts in the north and the south. Officials say Iraq's Republican Guard units have pulled out of the north - leaving behind conscripts who will likely surrender in large numbers.

"We have a pretty good idea who wants to surrender and who doesn't," one Defense official told Fox News. The intelligence community continues to get signs that even Saddam's top military structure is "brittle," the official said.

Iraqi troops who surrender will be taken into custody under the Geneva Convention as prisoners of war.

The U.S. military is trying to negotiate "capitulation agreements" with Iraqi commanders under which enemy troops would turn over most of their weapons and return to their barracks rather than be taken as prisoners of war, The Washington Post reported Tuesday.

Under this deal, Iraqi officers would be allowed to keep their sidearms and remain in charge of their units as long as they promised to steer clear of battle. U.S. forces would then be free to march toward Baghdad without being slowed down by thousands of prisoners.

Asked if any Iraqi commanders had accepted the offer, Lt. Gen. James T. Conway of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force replied: "We’re encouraged that could happen in some cases."

(snipped for brevity)

The U.S. military, meanwhile, continues to bombard military units in the south of Iraq with about 12 million leaflets, e-mails and broadcasts urging them to surrender.

"Indications are very scattered, but I would say positive," one official told Reuters news agency.

A spokesman at Central Command's Gulf military headquarters in Qatar said 1.4 million leaflets were dumped Monday — the biggest drop to date.

There are several types of leaflets: some contain references for Iraqis to tune to radio frequencies where coalition forces are broadcasting information about United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441; U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq; Saddam's reign; warnings to Iraqi troops not to use weapons of mass destruction; and warning to troops that the coalition will destroy any viable military targets and doesn't want to destroy landmarks or hurt the Iraqi people.

Another leaflet tells Iraqi troops to "not risk their life and the life of their comrades," and to "leave now, go home, and learn, grow, prosper."

Defense officials said very specific instructions are being given to Iraqi forces who want to surrender, including to leave their tanks with their turrets reversed and to abandon vehicles in the open while returning to barracks.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Tuesday that U.S. troops are headed into Iraq one way or another. If Saddam seeks exile, U.S. forces will enter Iraq to disarm it —hopefully without opposition. (emphasis added by me)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adrienne (PNAM-2003)

[dekeguy]

Originally posted by starang21
are you serious? you're making the claim that all your soldiers are some boy scouts!!! you guys have my support, but i'm not blind to the fact that illegal ish goes on. i'm not accusing anyone of anything, it's a FACT....just becuase we're the united states doesn't exempt us from wrong doing. just becuase you're personally responsible for all of your men, does that mean that one or a few of them isn't going to act a fool?

Starang21,
Yes, I am very serious. We are by no means boy scouts, we are soldiers, and we do not tolerate the sort of practices that Saddam and his ilk embrace as business-as-usual policy. My men know how to fight, to fight hard, and to defeat those we engage. We fight clean and and are willing to take a little extra risk to avoid civilian casualties and give the other side's soldiers the chance to quit before they are harmed. I expect a lot from my men, as they expect of me, as you should expect from your US Army. My chain of command expects a lot from me and the men of my command, and we will deliver.
Do tragic things happen? Hell yes, think about Lt Calley and Me Lai. Is this our policy? Hell no. It isn't now and it wasn't then. It was a tragic aberration, not business as usual. Have we learned from our mistakes? Hell yeah! Thats why we spend so much effort in teaching all our soldiers what is and what is not acceptable conduct.
We are laying it on the line to shut down a gang who have been operating a supermarket for international terrorists. We are not the ones who practice a policy of murder, repression, rape, and atrocity. We are the ones who will go the extra mile to fight fair and to fight clean. I really don't think it appropriate to directly compare your US Army to the gang of thugs who routinely stoop to the vilest of practices to intimidate their own people.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by starang21
are you serious? you're making the claim that all your soldiers are some boy scouts!!! you guys have my support, but i'm not blind to the fact that illegal ish goes on. i'm not accusing anyone of anything, it's a FACT....just becuase we're the united states doesn't exempt us from wrong doing. just becuase you're personally responsible for all of your men, does that mean that one or a few of them isn't going to act a fool?

"it's a FACT" that you are wrong.

-Rudey
--Deal with it. Record an LP about it. I don't care.

[sugar and spice]

Here's an interesting article on what could happen if the war doesn't go exactly to plan:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2003/031703a.html

Let's hope that everything works out and we get our soldiers out of there in one piece.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
"it's a FACT" that you are wrong.

-Rudey
--Deal with it. Record an LP about it. I don't care.

Unfortunately, it isn't. US forces have been accused of atrocities in just about every major conflict we've been in.

The important thing is that those are a TINY part of our military heritage. Generally, we ARE the good guys.

The heat of battle can make honorable people do bad things. That's why officers like DekeGuy are so important -- not only to carry out the mission, but to control and eliminate the opportunity for incidents like MeiLai (which he mentioned above).

I believe I am pretty much a realist when it comes to wars, and there is only one additional thing I would comment on. Wars aren't "clean." You use any tactic at your disposal to bring overwhelming firepower on the enemy and win the engagement. That's not necessarily fighting "fair." The days of lining up two armies behind flags and drums and marching across the "fields of honor" at each other until one prevailed went away with the American Revolution. If "clean" means that we treat prisoners as well as possible and don't go out of the way to cause civilian casualities -- I think we get fairly high marks, but in reality, war is about killing, and destroying the opposing force with as few casualities to your own unit. Remember, we're the country who dropped the atomic bombs.

That's not meant to be judgemental. It was an alternative to invading the Japanese mainland at huge potential losses. And I'm sure it did.

On the other hand, when I went through ROTC (1965), the United States had never signed the Geneva Conventions. I don't believe we have since. Importantly, though, we do tend to abide by them.

In the end, I have great confidence that our forces will comport themselves with honor -- as I believe we did in the last Mid-East war.

May they all return safely. I still wish they didn't have to go at all.

[starang21]

Originally posted by Rudey
"it's a FACT" that you are wrong.

-Rudey
--Deal with it. Record an LP about it. I don't care.

right, coming from a guy who makes moronic statements like it's going out of fashion. of course you wouldn't care, because you don't know either way.


--didn't you call yourself a pseudo-intellectual one time?

--definition of pseudo:
--False; deceptive; sham

[starang21]

Originally posted by dekeguy
Starang21,
Yes, I am very serious. We are by no means boy scouts, we are soldiers, and we do not tolerate the sort of practices that Saddam and his ilk embrace as business-as-usual policy. My men know how to fight, to fight hard, and to defeat those we engage. We fight clean and and are willing to take a little extra risk to avoid civilian casualties and give the other side's soldiers the chance to quit before they are harmed. I expect a lot from my men, as they expect of me, as you should expect from your US Army. My chain of command expects a lot from me and the men of my command, and we will deliver.
Do tragic things happen? Hell yes, think about Lt Calley and Me Lai. Is this our policy? Hell no. It isn't now and it wasn't then. It was a tragic aberration, not business as usual. Have we learned from our mistakes? Hell yeah! Thats why we spend so much effort in teaching all our soldiers what is and what is not acceptable conduct.
We are laying it on the line to shut down a gang who have been operating a supermarket for international terrorists. We are not the ones who practice a policy of murder, repression, rape, and atrocity. We are the ones who will go the extra mile to fight fair and to fight clean. I really don't think it appropriate to directly compare your US Army to the gang of thugs who routinely stoop to the vilest of practices to intimidate their own people.

you're trying to tell me that every single one of the american troops is an angel who fights just becuase he has to? yea right, why not sell that to someone who is more optimistic. of course you're going to expect a lot, you're the one who in command. but just because there are good men at the head, doesn't mean that there aren't a few fools in the trenches. no one is standing up for the iraqis, but i'm not going to sit there and believe that there isn't corruption within the government and that we're all just a bunch of goodie two shoes. that's idealistic and unrealistic. and regardless of whether or not your men are righteous or not...who's to say someone in command isn't going have some illegal dealings? who's to say there aren't ulterior (and illegal) motives behind this war other than to rid the middle east of saddam? you don't know that, i don't know that....we only know what they're telling us. we're not angels.

[Cloud9]

I actually have a question...

What happens to US members of the military who do not follow the "code of honorable combat?" Are they punished in anyway? And how is it judged that such a transgression has been committed?

My question has no argumentative ulterior motives, I really am uninformed and would be interested to know.

[AlphaSigOU]

Originally posted by sugar and spice
Here's an interesting article on what could happen if the war doesn't go exactly to plan:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2003/031703a.html

Let's hope that everything works out and we get our soldiers out of there in one piece.

And here's another scenario (fictional) that bears looking at, had we not stopped Saddam in his tracks:

http://www.cadre.maxwell.af.mil/warf.../iwac/2007.htm

Now THIS scenario I sure don't want to see happen.

[AlphaSigOU]

Originally posted by Cloud9
I actually have a question...

What happens to US members of the military who do not follow the "code of honorable combat?" Are they punished in anyway? And how is it judged that such a transgression has been committed?

My question has no argumentative ulterior motives, I really am uninformed and would be interested to know.

Good question there... All soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which is the mechanism for enforcing military law. (The complete text of the UCMJ is available at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/caseco...rs/47/toc.html).

Armed and unarmed combatants are also governed by the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC), sometimes also known as the Geneva and Hague Conventions. In a nutshell, these are the basics of LOAC (source: http://www.tpub.com/dental1/108.htm) :

LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT

The law of armed conflict encompasses all international law regulating the conduct of nations and individuals engaged in armed conflict.

As world tension increases, so does the potential for armed conflict. As members of a force dedicated to prevent such a conflict, we as medical personnel must face the reality of becoming involved. A basic understanding of the principles and applications of the law of armed conflict will help enhance our efforts in providing the best medical care possible while maintaining our moral and ethical obligation.

The terms combatant and noncombatant need to be defined. A combatant is anyone participating in military operations or activities. Generally, this means members of a military force, with certain exceptions, and civilian personnel who are actually engaged in hostilities.

Noncombatants include all others (e.g., civilians not engaged in hostilities, medical personnel, chaplains, other persons you capture or detain, and people who surrender, are captured, shipwrecked, sick, or wounded).

GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES

The general principles and guidelines include:

Only combatants are proper targets. Noncombatants must not be attacked.

Do not cause destruction beyond the requirements of your mission.

Do not attack protected property (e.g., buildings dedicated to religion, art, sciences, or charitable purposes; historical monuments; hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected and cared for; schools and orphanages).

Do not shoot at the Red Cross.

Do not hide behind the medical service symbols.

Do not shoot at a parachute, unless, it is a paratrooper.

Do not fire at shipwrecked personnel in the water.

Do not alter your weapons or ammunition to increase enemy suffering.

Let enemy personnel surrender.

Treat all captives and detainees humanely.

Provide medical care for sick and wounded captives.

Do not take personal property from captives.

Do not violate civilian rights in war zones.

Do not steal or burn civilian property.

SPECIAL APPLICATIONS

The law of armed conflict has special applications for medical personnel. These applications include: do not shoot at the Red Cross and do not hide behind the medical service symbols.

Do Not Shoot at the Red Cross

Medical and religious personnel and facilities are usually marked with the Red Cross on a white background. However, some countries use different distinctive emblems to designate their medical service personnel and facilities. For example, Turkey and most other Moslem countries use the Red Crescent. Other countries may use different red symbols on a white background that are not recognized by international conventions as protective symbols; e.g., Israel uses the Red Shield of David. Nevertheless, all persons or objects so marked are to be treated with care and protection.

Whether or not they are marked with a protective symbol, you must not fire at any person or object that you recognize as being a medical or religious person or facility.

Do not fire at hospital ships, medical personnel, chaplains, vehicles (air or ground), buildings, tents, or other facilities used for the care of wounded, sick, shipwrecked, and disabled persons.

Do Not Hide Behind the Medical Services Symbols

The medical service emblems (Red Cross, Red Crescent, and Red Shield of David) are symbols of protection for the wounded, sick, and disabled. In combat, the purpose of these emblems is to protect those who have become casualties and those personnel who are caring for them. It is a serious breach of the rules of war to use these signs to protect or hide military activities. Do not mark your position or yourself with a medical service emblem unless you have been designated to perform only medical duties.

Medical personnel or facilities will lose their special status if they commit injurious acts to the enemy. Furthermore, hospitals and ambulances lose their special protection when using hospitals as an observation post, as a shelter for able bodied combatants, or as a storeroom for arms or ammunition (except ammunition of the wounded until they are transferred), and when using ambulances to fire upon the enemy.

Most countries have signed and have agreed to follow the LOAC.

Hope this helps.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by starang21
right, coming from a guy who makes moronic statements like it's going out of fashion. of course you wouldn't care, because you don't know either way.


--didn't you call yourself a pseudo-intellectual one time?

--definition of pseudo:
--False; deceptive; sham

You're right. You are more educated than me and more well-read. I do not know what I was writing. I also said something I do not recollect about something going out of fashion. I make moronic statements. You are smart. You are good. A-OK partner!

-Rudey
--And DeltAlum, claiming something is a fact does not a fact make. That was my intention.

[Peaches-n-Cream]

The President will address the nation at 10:15 EST.

War has begun.

[AlphaSigOU]

TV cameras around Baghdad showing antiaircraft fire around the city. Unconfirmed reports that there were two massive explosions in the south of Iraq... more to follow.