5 U.S troops accused of rape and murder

[Colpy]

This is just silly.

Take 130,000 young men between the ages of 18 and 25, which is the age/gender group with by far the highest murder/crime rate, and yes, there will be murders, and there will be rapes.

This would be a scandal if it were covered up by the authorities, it is a tragedy no matter what......the same type of tragedy that would take place within this population NO MATTER WHERE THEY WERE!

As long as this is handled properly, the accused are tried, the guilty are punished, life goes on........

 

[Simpleton]

Re: RE: 5 U.S troops accused

This kind of thing is preventable. Pull the troops out of Iraq! They shouldn't of been there in the first place!

Can't do that, JonB2004. The U.S. is in it for the long haul whether they like it or not. If the U.S. backs out now, and Iraq enters a full scale civil war, America will not only suffer the wrath of a very hostile international community, but they'd have to think twice before ever seeking a UN resolution on anything in the future.

This whole Iraq thing has been a huge disaster for the United States. They don't need to be reminded, however. They see the chaos unfold everyday on their television screens.

 

[Jersay]

Re: RE: 5 U.S troops accused of rape and murder

This is just silly.

Take 130,000 young men between the ages of 18 and 25, which is the age/gender group with by far the highest murder/crime rate, and yes, there will be murders, and there will be rapes.

This would be a scandal if it were covered up by the authorities, it is a tragedy no matter what......the same type of tragedy that would take place within this population NO MATTER WHERE THEY WERE!

As long as this is handled properly, the accused are tried, the guilty are punished, life goes on........

Its not silly Colpy. Because it keeps popping up. Maybe several incidents, can occur but not the number that we are finding including Abu Gharib

 

[Machjo]

The US authorities should have considered this kind of thing long before they ever decided to go into Iraq.

Let's say, for instance, that the US had limited itself to within the boundaries of international law. It would have stopped at Afghan because that is where the UN gave them a legitimate mandate. With US forces concentrated there, theyprobably would have cought Bin Laden by now! Saddam Hussain would be in power in Iraq and still hate the US and vice versa, but both the US and Iraq would still view Bin Laden as a common enemy. So Al-Qaida would get no respite in Iraq either. Al-Qaida, being Wahhabi, doesn't get along well with Iran either, and never had. So effectively, Bin Ladin would have been cornered.

Add to taht that due to the sheer number of US troops and rest time which could be given them,not to mention a large number of allied forces, including Canada, which were willing to help wiht a UN mandate, the likelyhood of murders and rapes would have been reduced in the first place, and even if it should have occurred, it would tend to limit itself to a legal as opposed to a political issue.

With the US in Iraq, now legally, but initially not, and with few allies, and suspected by the Iraqis due to its illegal entry, along with troop shortages, not only does the chance of this happening increase, but when it does, it then takes on a political dimension, making it an explosive issue in the region, adding likewise to stereotypes of the US re: its sexual mores, big taboo in a Muslim country. And then add to that that with all the already existing animosity, it thus gives the impression that US troops see Iraqis as nothing more than cattle to shoot at now and then. Needless to say, Iraqis will react.

Just because of this event, two US soldiers have already been killed in an apparent revenge killing by the iraqis. So were those Iraqis insurgents or terrorists, or perhaps just family members who decided to behead two US troops. What goes around, comes around. Now that this will make it into the Iraqi news, one way or another, we will probably end up with 100 new "terrorists" in the next month, all from the same town, many with the same family name!

The US authorites should have considered the potential psychological, social, political, cultural and religious issues of the area before ever going to war, and that would have included considering the age, maturity, training, etc, of US troops, as well as how their behaviour could make or break the US in this war.

They only looked at the military side of things, their fault.

 

[JonB2004]

Re: RE: 5 U.S troops accused

This kind of thing is preventable. Pull the troops out of Iraq! They shouldn't of been there in the first place!

Can't do that, JonB2004. The U.S. is in it for the long haul whether they like it or not. If the U.S. backs out now, and Iraq enters a full scale civil war, America will not only suffer the wrath of a very hostile international community, but they'd have to think twice before ever seeking a UN resolution on anything in the future.

This whole Iraq thing has been a huge disaster for the United States. They don't need to be reminded, however. They see the chaos unfold everyday on their television screens.

Iraq is going to enter a civil war regardless of whether the U.S. is there or not. This whole disater is not only going to result in the demise of Iraq, but the U.S. as well. The U.S.'s demise will be financially though. Iraq will be reduced to rubble.

 

[Simpleton]

Re: RE: 5 U.S troops accused

This kind of thing is preventable. Pull the troops out of Iraq! They shouldn't of been there in the first place!

Can't do that, JonB2004. The U.S. is in it for the long haul whether they like it or not. If the U.S. backs out now, and Iraq enters a full scale civil war, America will not only suffer the wrath of a very hostile international community, but they'd have to think twice before ever seeking a UN resolution on anything in the future.

This whole Iraq thing has been a huge disaster for the United States. They don't need to be reminded, however. They see the chaos unfold everyday on their television screens.

Iraq is going to enter a civil war regardless of whether the U.S. is there or not. This whole disater is not only going to result in the demise of Iraq, but the U.S. as well. The U.S.'s demise will be financially though. Iraq will be reduced to rubble.

Doesn't the U.S. currently have their eye on the ball in Iran? If they pull out of Iraq right now, how can they hope to accomplish anything with Iran?

Besides, if they can ever make any progress in Iraq, it will make for good base for any offensive actions against Iran. Should any offensive action become necessary, of course. And, providing the international community gives the U.S. the go ahead to f*ck up another country in the middle east.

 

[JonB2004]

RE: 5 U.S troops accused

They can accomplish things with Iran without occuping Iraq. And why should the U.S. be allowed to use Iraq as a base to attack Iran? Haven't the people of Iraq suffered enough?

 

[Machjo]

And considering that many Shi'i in Iran and Iraq have a good relationship, the US attacking iran from Iraq could suddenly find its feet standing on wobbly ground. Hard to fight when you're busy hanging on to the ground shaking under your feet.

Granted, common faith aside, the Iraqi and Persian Shi'ites might find the language barrier problematic in coordinating attacks, although there probably are enough bilinguals near the border areas. Yet even without coordinated stikes, unrelated attacks comming from both sides would still put the US in a two-front war.

But hey, if the US govt wants to rock and roll, attacking ran would be the way to years of fun and excitement.

Welcome to the wasp's nest!

 

[JonB2004]

RE: 5 U.S troops accused

I hope the whole Iraq problem brings the U.S. government down.

 

[Just the Facts]

Re: RE: 5 U.S troops accused of rape and murder

And considering that many Shi'i in Iran and Iraq have a good relationship, the US attacking iran from Iraq could suddenly find its feet standing on wobbly ground.

I think that ground is pretty wobbly already. Sistani is highly pro-Iranian, if not entirely controlled by the Iranian mullahs. I have seen lots of reports of Iranian involvement in Iraq already.

 

[Machjo]

Re: RE: 5 U.S troops accused

I hope the whole Iraq problem brings the U.S. government down.

Depends on what you mean.

Taking Bush down, yes.

But if you mean this war completely draining the US government of all international respect so as to become impotent on the international scene, that would be just as disastrous as the US government being too powerful on the international scene. There is a happy medium. While the US needs to be reined in right now, I do believe that the US ought to remain a fully participating member of the international community in future, within the bounds of international law of course. Culturally, the US has much to offer the world, and it would be a great loss if Shrub takes the US government down so low it can no longer fully participate in the international community for years to come.

Perhaps a good future strategy for the US would be to establish something along the lines of the British Council, which would thus allow the US to engage the world on a cultural level, which would be of great benefit to both the US and the world.

In a sence, the US already has something akin to the British council in the form of Voice of America; it would just need to develop VOA a little more by expanding its mandate beyond radio to cultural exchanges, or create a new organization which could cooperate with VOA on that front. The Peace Corp could likewise be a participant in such a new endeavour. And via such a process, the US might be able to repair its image years down the road, which could then allow it to reduce its military spending by engaging in a closer exchange of ideas between civilizations.

 

[JonB2004]

RE: 5 U.S troops accused

I wish to see the demise of the U.S. I'm personally fed up of them going around doing whatever they want.

 

[Machjo]

Re: RE: 5 U.S troops accused

I wish to see the demise of the U.S. I'm personally fed up of them going around doing whatever they want.

If you mean the current US administration, Oh God yes I totally agree with you!

And certainly the US as a nation will need to give up its role as the world's political and military leader without a doubt if it doesn't want to attract more problems to itself. After all, the bigger they are the harder they fall! The US would in fact be wise to pull back to within the boundaries of international law. If it should continue as it is now, it will certainly find itself isolated in the end. I suspect, however, that the US people are smart enough to see this and will change by next administration. Much damage will have been done to the US' reputation however, and that's why it would need to engage the world assertively on a cultural level so as to repair the damage caused by the current administration. In some ways, we could argue that while the US is still powerful economically and militarily, we can say that politically, it is now very weak as the world slowly pulls away from it and leaves it increasingly isolated. If the US cannot repair the damage soon, then certainly there could be repercussions in the long term economic front too. But I do believe that with a wise cultural policy, the US might be able to smooth out the damage at least a little, at least partially.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: 5 U.S troops accused

I wish to see the demise of the U.S. I'm personally fed up of them going around doing whatever they want.

If you mean the current US administration, Oh God yes I totally agree with you!

No, that's not what he means.

 

[Claudius]

Machjo said:
Add to taht that due to the sheer number of US troops and rest time which could be given them,not to mention a large number of allied forces, including Canada, which were willing to help wiht a UN mandate, the likelyhood of murders and rapes would have been reduced in the first place, and even if it should have occurred, it would tend to limit itself to a legal as opposed to a political issue.

If anyone else said this I'd agree they have a point about the mismanagement of the war and perhaps even it's direct connection to this incident.

But you're Chinese, or so your flag-avatar would indicate. Am I to assume you're posting from China? Didn't think so. If you are you're likely a spook because the last time Chinese were posting on forums outside their country (yes, some nations do have 'border firewalls') one of them got 30 years for condemning their government far less than you're condemning the Bush admin.

Seems to be you could maybe just release all those luscious details of your governments' continuing barbaric actions in Tibet for a nice comparison, but I suppose you're just not in the mood for that. Of course all the Chinese papers regard relations between Tibet and China as "50 years of friendship", so that shouldn't stop you from throwing stones.



.

 

[Machjo]

OK, let's follow the line of logic here.


If anyone else said this I'd agree they have a point about the mismanagement of the war and perhaps even it's direct connection to this incident.

So according to this, the credibility of a statement is based on the person who said it or his nationality. So following the same line of logic, should Hitler have ever said that we ought to love a nurture white children, yopu would have to disagree because he's Hitler, and so have to support tortoring white children just to not agree with him?

And should Mother Teresa have ever gotten angry one day and said "to hell with those Indians", you'd have to agree with her and become anti-Indian because of who she was?

And if you should ever meet a Cuban, it would be reasonable to assume he's Catholic and comunist because of his government, and that he's just as much to blame for his government's policies only because of his nationality!

All US citizens agree with Bush on the war in Iraq and agree with the death penalty because it's government policy, and all Canadians agree with abortion and gay marriage because the govenrment agrees with it. Sorry but anyone who's completed so much as compulsory education can see the flaw in this logic.

But you're Chinese, or so your flag-avatar would indicate.

Yes, and everyone in Canada is Canadian of course. Tourists and foreign workers just don't exist.

Am I to assume you're posting from China?


Yes.

Didn't think so.

What? Sorry to inform you that China does in fact have the internet... along with cars, planes, television, streets, trains, McDonald's, Muslims, Christians, churches and mosques, dog platters, Koreans (ethnic minority) along with at least 55 other minorities, forest, desert, mountains and rivers, rich and poor, and even some Chinese you'd confound for Europeans because of their white skin, mostly found in the North West and speaking Turkik languages, many speakers of English and sometimes other languages, MP3, DVD, QQ, digital cameras, pornography, prostitution, corruption, organised crime, bribary, nepotism, capitalists, communists, anarchists, one-China supporters and separatists, Pizza Hut, KFC, bicycle lanes, traffic lights, pollution, ice sculptures in winter, good people and bad people, honest and dishonest, short and tall, shopping malls, high rises, etc. etc. etc.

Hmmm... just like Canada. I don't nkow what your image of China is, but no not everyone looks the same, same height, body shape, cookie cutter like, and all sharing the same common brain!

So I would really be curious to know where this "I didn't think so" come from. 'Cause that seems to indicate quite the stereotype of an entire people which I admire very much, so I do take offense at this assumption that somehow the Chinese are a bunch of cyborgs from the dark ages incapable of thinking for themselves.

If you are you're likely a spook because the last time Chinese were posting on forums outside their country (yes, some nations do have 'border firewalls') one of them got 30 years for condemning their government far less than you're condemning the Bush admin.


Wow, just wow! Yes there is censorship in Chin, but it's not nearly as bad as you might think. Just visit the China Daily forum and check out some of the debate there. Did you know that as long as I'm not preaching, I'm quite free to express my faith openly and publicly in China? Bet you didn't.

Seems to be you could maybe just release all those luscious details of your governments' continuing barbaric actions in Tibet for a nice comparison, but I suppose you're just not in the mood for that.

My government? What the hell. Let's see here. If a person goes to Canada, many will call him a foreigner. Yet if I come to China, suddenly I own the government? Sorry, but the Opium wars are over. They've been over a while ago.

Of course all the Chinese papers regard relations between Tibet and China as "50 years of friendship", so that shouldn't stop you from throwing stones.

Wow, and I take it you're personally to blame for Abu Ghraib if you're an American, and personally to blame for any scandal that occurs in the Canadian government if you're Canadian because it's your government?

I'm sorry, but I just couldn't follow the logic of your entire post... maybe because there was no logic in it.


[/b]

 

[Machjo]

So if I understand correctly, my credibility is shattered not by what I say, but by where I live?

Oh, education in Canada today. Or are you from the US? Either way.

 

[Machjo]

I ought to point out one reason I don't criticize the Chinese government much in Canadian Content is because most here are from the US or Canada. So naturally I tend to discuss issues closer to Canada on this forum. If I go to China Daily, no one could accuse Canada of extreme censorship because they seldom read criticisms of Canada there. The reason is simply that usually we descuss Chinese issues there and so Canada usually only comes along when it somehow relates to chinese issues. You really do need to learn to think a little more.

 

[Claudius]

But you're Chinese, or so your flag-avatar would indicate.

Yes, and everyone in Canada is Canadian of course. Tourists and foreign workers just don't exist.

Never said that. I clearly indicated I didn't know where you were posting from.

Am I to assume you're posting from China?

Yes.

Didn't think so.

What? Sorry to inform you that China does in fact have the internet... blah blah blah

I never said you didn't have the internet, did I? Your whole emotional tirade after that about having TV’s and so forth after was a pointless diversion to try and paint me as stupid but it's backfiring on you. I didn’t say China has no internet. You say I said that. I clearly indicated China did have an internet by pointing out they have a border firewall. Don't let that stop you from getting winded over it though.

If you are you're likely a spook because the last time Chinese were posting on forums outside their country (yes, some nations do have 'border firewalls') one of them got 30 years for condemning their government far less than you're condemning the Bush admin.

Wow, just wow! Yes there is censorship in Chin, but it's not nearly as bad as you might think. Just visit the China Daily forum and check out some of the debate there.

You're saying no one ever gets a knock on the door because of what they say about China on the Internet? Are you saying China has no firewall? If you are I don't see it and that's all I said.

Did you know that as long as I'm not preaching, I'm quite free to express my faith openly and publicly in China? Bet you didn't.

I did know that...apparently you're not willing to point out that 'right' is not extended to Tibet.

My government? What the hell. Let's see here. If a person goes to Canada, many will call him a foreigner. Yet if I come to China, suddenly I own the government? Sorry, but the Opium wars are over. They've been over a while ago.

Never said you did, but you're not going to get into it either are you? I suppose it's easier to bash Americans because they have they have the right to chose their government, whereas you don't so it's really none of your business.

Of course all the Chinese papers regard relations between Tibet and China as "50 years of friendship", so that shouldn't stop you from throwing stones.

Wow, and I take it you're personally to blame for Abu Ghraib if you're an American, and personally to blame for any scandal that occurs in the Canadian government if you're Canadian because it's your government?

I’m not American and I never said you were to blame. I pointed out it seems a lot easier for you to put the spotlight on the US than your own country....and I'm right.

Next time argue what I say instead of what you wish I said.



.

 

[Claudius]

RE: 5 U.S troops accused

.
.