ForumGarden

How U.S. used Iraqi wives for leverage



Suspected insurgents' spouses jailed to force husbands to surrender


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11061831/

All's fair in love and war.

My first reaction is that it's a good sign that the enemy seems to have a heart, if we can use their women as leverage.



Before you ask, SCT, yes I read the aricle. :yh_tong2



Note that the article linked none of this to anyone outside the field, so your accusation toward Bush is incorrect, in this case.



The only confirmed case is one in which the woman was released when the Pentagon intelligence officer complained. This minor detail was buried in the story.



Remember that this is not a conventional war. The fighters do not wear uniforms, and can be male or female. Both have been used as suicide bombs. Therefore, it stands to reason that both will have information that warrants capture & questioning.



I'll let someone else point out the anti-war propaganda aspect of the article.

Accountable wrote: My first reaction is that it's a good sign that the enemy seems to have a heart, if we can use their women as leverage.



Before you ask, SCT, yes I read the aricle. :yh_tong2



Note that the article linked none of this to anyone outside the field, so your accusation toward Bush is incorrect, in this case.



The only confirmed case is one in which the woman was released when the Pentagon intelligence officer complained. This minor detail was buried in the story.



Remember that this is not a conventional war. The fighters do not wear uniforms, and can be male or female. Both have been used as suicide bombs. Therefore, it stands to reason that both will have information that warrants capture & questioning.



I'll let someone else point out the anti-war propaganda aspect of the article.


Note that the article linked none of this to anyone outside the field, so your accusation toward Bush is incorrect, in this case.



Is he not the reason we are there?



Who really knows the number of female detentions that have/are taking place in Iraq today? Kidnappers seized American journalist Jill Carroll on Jan. 7 and threatened to kill her unless all Iraqi women detainees are freed, it's just something that makes you go hmmm.

heres a poll to go hmmm about............



Live VoteDo you approve of jailing the wives of suspected Iraqi insurgents in order to get them to surrender? * 39558 responsesYes

40% No

60% Not a scientifically valid survey. Click to learn more.

StupidCowboyTricks wrote: Note that the article linked none of this to anyone outside the field, so your accusation toward Bush is incorrect, in this case.



Is he not the reason we are there?
The two are only indirectly related. Strategy vs tactics. No CEO can make every decision on every detail of what happens in his company. President Bush likewise can't make every tactical decision.



StupidCowboyTricks wrote: Who really knows the number of female detentions that have/are taking place in Iraq today? Kidnappers seized American journalist Jill Carroll on Jan. 7 and threatened to kill her unless all Iraqi women detainees are freed, it's just something that makes you go hmmm.

heres a poll to go hmmm about............



Live VoteDo you approve of jailing the wives of suspected Iraqi insurgents in order to get them to surrender? * 39558 responsesYes

40% No

60% Not a scientifically valid survey. Click to learn more.
What's the significance of them being female. In my view, it's just a convenient excuse the enemy is using to hold Ms Carroll hostage. If there were no females being held, they would demand we release any Iraqi journalists. If there were no journalists, they would claim she was spying.



Why would the enemy have more credibility with you than our military?

Accountable wrote: The two are only indirectly related. Strategy vs tactics. No CEO can make every decision on every detail of what happens in his company. President Bush likewise can't make every tactical decision.





What's the significance of them being female. In my view, it's just a convenient excuse the enemy is using to hold Ms Carroll hostage. If there were no females being held, they would demand we release any Iraqi journalists. If there were no journalists, they would claim she was spying.



Why would the enemy have more credibility with you than our military?


"BUSH"

Accountable wrote: Note that the article linked none of this to anyone outside the field, so your accusation toward Bush is incorrect, in this case.Didn't Harry Truman have a sign on his desk in the Oval Office reading "The Buck Stops Here"? Isn't the phrase "passing the buck" used as a metaphor for avoiding responsibility? I think the Commander in Chief is fully responsible for the actions of his over-eager crusaders. I also think that the United States forces should restrict their actions to those permitted under the Geneva Conventions - the US did ratify them, after all.

spot wrote: Didn't Harry Truman have a sign on his desk in the Oval Office reading "The Buck Stops Here"? Isn't the phrase "passing the buck" used as a metaphor for avoiding responsibility? I think the Commander in Chief is fully responsible for the actions of his over-eager crusaders.
Touche' Spot. One for you, SCT



spot wrote: I also think that the United States forces should restrict their actions to those permitted under the Geneva Conventions - the US did ratify them, after all.
How is detaining and questioning not in the Geneva conventions?

StupidCowboyTricks wrote: "BUSH"
I take a very dim view of people that would think that trained military people would be dishonest simply because the politician in charge is. Remember, I asked "Why would the enemy have more credibility with you than our military?"

Accountable wrote: How is detaining and questioning not in the Geneva conventions?Detaining and questioning aren't at issue. The holding of hostages by the occupying power in the hope of bringing in their relatives is at issue.

The Fourth Geneva Convention: Art 4 defines who is a Protected person: Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Section 1. Art. 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

Accountable wrote: I take a very dim view of people that would think that trained military people would be dishonest simply because the politician in charge is. Remember, I asked "Why would the enemy have more credibility with you than our military?"


So the officer in the article is a Liar? You take that view?

He disagreed and reported it therefore he is an enemy?

spot wrote: Detaining and questioning aren't at issue. The holding of hostages by the occupying power in the hope of bringing in their relatives is at issue.



The Fourth Geneva Convention: Art 4 defines who is a Protected person: Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.



Section 1. Art. 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Who's being held hostage? The far-from-objective MSNBC reports that women may or may not be held. So? Are they hostages or POWs?



This is not a conventional war. The enemy is not a conventional military. The Geneva convention cannot apply in this situation any more than ballet slippers can be adequate footwear in all situations. It's a nice guide, no more.

StupidCowboyTricks wrote: So the officer in the article is a Liar? You take that view?

He disagreed and reported it therefore he is an enemy?
In that situation, he complained and she was released. The other situation is purely he said she said.



Don't twist the question, just answer it.

Accountable wrote: In that situation, he complained and she was released. The other situation is purely he said she said.



Don't twist the question, just answer it.


Let's just cut to the chase.....Who invaded who?

StupidCowboyTricks wrote: Let's just cut to the chase.....Who invaded who?
Irrelevant to this particular conversation. We're there. Let's get out in one piece, then we can go back and slap the idiots around that started the whole mess.

Accountable wrote: Irrelevant to this particular conversation. We're there. Let's get out in one piece, then we can go back and slap the idiots around that started the whole mess.


No it isn't irrelevant........When I first heard about the Journalist it hadn't been reported the manner nor whom the other woman were......I went "hmmm" when I read it, just like I find more and more (like torture) what this President and administration are doing.....and feel they have "the right" to do (no questions asked) It is frigging scary ......how were you trained in the military? Is this your mindset never question authority?

You know 10 to 1 odds those young soldiers that got busted at guantanamo are "scape goats"

The terrorists captures some men this time. It's on the news right now. They said they would kill the hostages unless we release all the prisoners now.



This is their MO. No different than the lady.

Accountable wrote: The terrorists captures some men this time. It's on the news right now. They said they would kill the hostages unless we release all the prisoners now.



This is their MO. No different than the lady.


A rotting fish stinks from the head. Bush is "Kingfish"

Why is the White House white? Because of President Bush and Operation Iraqi Freedom. And all along we thought it had to do with past presidents.

I'm trying to keep it light. I wasn't trying to get anybody worked up with my previous post... just practicing.

Seriously, though, I vaguely remember reports of similar activity during the Vietnam War by American forces. It's a historical fact that Democrat president's got us into (and kept us in) that war. Were any of those president's put on trial at the Hague? Not that I recall. Just a thought of mine.

StupidCowboyTricks wrote: A rotting fish stinks from the head. Bush is "Kingfish"
I don't recall the date on that story. Assuming it came out today, I will wait until Wednesday. He should have responded by then.



Things happen underneath that a leader neither authorized nor approved of. The response will show the character. {don't ask me for a prediction :p }

1962 - U.S. uses Agent Orange in Vietnam (Kennedy)

1963 - Battle of Ap Bac (Kennedy)

1964 - Gulf of Tonkin incident (Johnson)

1965 - First Marines in Da Nang (Johnson)

Nixon ended the fighting in Vietnam.

No politics. Just the facts.

StupidCowboyTricks wrote: Let's just cut to the chase.....Who invaded who?
Does anyone else find it annoying and blatant avoidance when a question is continually answered with a question?

BabyRider wrote: Does anyone else find it annoying and blatant avoidance when a question is continually answered with a question?


Yeah, 'Dubya does do that quite a bit huh?

StupidCowboyTricks wrote: Yeah, 'Dubya does do that quite a bit huh?
I was going to say something about opinions, but then I put myself in check. I'm so proud of myself......