" "Two Captured American Soldiers and the Implied "What If": "

[donsu]

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/

Chances are, maybe even by the time you read this, the two American soldiers, captured by Mujahideen Shura Council in Iraq, will be dead, probably in some horrible way, probably with their bodies dumped like all the horribly murdered Iraqis in the blood and gore-strewn landscape that are the markers of Iraqi liberation. The Rude Pundit can't help thinking, though, about the implied "What if" of the capture, on the field of battle, of American soldiers, prisoners of war, if you will.

What if we get pictures of the soldiers, nude, cowering, screaming in a corner, shitting themselves on the filthy floors of a makeshift cell, as their captors hold snarling dogs on leashes just out of bite range of the soldiers?

-snip-

What will our government do? What could it do? Could it condemn the actions as not abiding by the Geneva Conventions? Could it call the actions "torture"? Could it demand accountability? Could it demand that the soldiers be treated as POWs? Could it simply say, "Well, we don't do that shit...anymore"?

And what about the good right-wing punditry? Would Rush Limbaugh look at the photos of the nude, cowering Americans and say it looks like fraternity hazing or some such shit? Would others dismiss it as a media fabrication? Or would they just pathetically overlook everything done in our American names to Iraqis, Afghanis, and others, calling madly for the heads of the captors, not even thinking about the irony of such a statement?
-snip-
---------------------------

what goes around comes around

[boston bean]

1. very true, what if. k&r. nt

[gratuitous]

Whaddya mean, "what if"?

Of course it will happen, and if not this time, then some time in the future. And the Unshakeable Doctrine of American Exceptionalism (it's okay of we do it, it's an atrocity if you do it) will rear up, buttressed by the Infallible Postulate of Redemptive Violence (the only thing these savages understand is violence, and by killing ten or a hundred or a thousand of theirs for every one of ours, we will "win").

You may not question the UDAE or the IPRV. It's practically illegal to mention them! All hail the UDAE and the IPRV!

[TomInTib]

2. The Administration bought god-awful tickets for these poor souls

Mercy.

[Cyrano]

3. But, but, they're foreigners. Our soldiers are Americans.

Don't these evil doers know that God is on our side? Don't they know that we stand for truth and justice? Don't they know we're liberating them? Fucking ingrates. We'll show them.

[KansDem]

12. That's right! We're the good guys; they're the bad guys!

What could be more black and white than that?

Now, excuse me while I return to watching a John Wayne western...

See! White hat...white hat!!!

[Bad Penny]

20. Hope it's not The Searchers or Fort Apache. Pilgrim

Those westerns weren't always as black and white as you think they were. John Wayne makes a convenient beating board here at times.

Why doesn't Roy Rogers ever get a shit kicking around here?

[donsu]

25. I'll give Roy a kick, he was a punk - wife too

nt

[roguevalley]

19. I do not give a damn which side of the divide is being struck here,

Abu Ghraib or these boys. All of them, on both sides, deserve good treatment. I find nothing in this that makes me anything but OUTRAGED over their capture. I am as outraged as I was for the poor guys and girls in Abu Ghraib or Gitmo. NOTHING makes this okay or paybacks or whatever. I have been through Madras and eastern Oregon. There is nothing there for people to do. These guys are young guys who took the only road open. They do not deserve anything but our complete support, the same way the guys in Abu Ghraib who were harmed do.

Nothing about this makes me anything but sick to my stomach.

[Cyrano]

26. WTF are you talking about? Don't you recognize sarcasm when you see it?

[The Straight Story]

24. It's about sides really - which one are you on?

The side that thinks killing people by beheading, etc, is wrong, or the side that thinks killing people is wrong?

A lose lose almost. The idea is thus:

The US does not target civilians. The US does not condone torture (we did convict people of that). Are we going to tell the avg american voter that someone killing our soldiers, after capturing them, is ok because we had it coming? While at the same time bitching about our own troops and things they have done?

When is wrong wrong? If they captured a few of ours, is it too much to ask that they observe the same rules we expect our soldiers to follow? And if they don't - are you going to call them out on it?

[Cyrano]

27. See post #26 above.

[Aviation Pro]

4. There are several issues at play here

1) First and foremost is finding these soldiers, nothing could be more important.
2) The suppression of any message from the kidnappers/terrorists/insurgents.
3) The suppression of any videos or photos of our men being tortured or executed.

These are probably the priorities right now for the government. If our soldiers are harmed in any way, and it is made public, it will ignite a fallout in the U.S. that will rival anything seen during Vietnam. The illegal administration knows this and is frantically trying to find these men at all costs.

[donsu]

5. agree - the neo cons can't let these missing soldiers see the light of day

whether they find them dead or alive or not found at all.

the neo cons want silence and definitely no pictures.

[Shipwack]

16. You're correct, though I bet the administration's priorities...

... have those in reverse order.

[catmandu57]

6. This misadministration will scream bloody murder

turning a blind eye, stunningly blind, to the fact that they don't have a leg to stand on. It won't be right, but, it wasn't right when we do this either.

[Time for change]

7. Excellent points

[jazzjunkysue]

8. Rudepundit is not rude: The B*** admin and their tactics are rude.

Very well said. Wish the network journalists were half this good.

[DakotaDemocrat]

9. The Geneva Conventions are not...

...for the prisoners we take. We went into the Geneva Conventions because we wanted OUR soldiers treated fairly.

These Conventions are "quaint", to this administration, which means it gives others full authority to do whatever they want to our troops.

The Rude One is spot on.

[nancyr]

11. An excellent point!

But, torture is all right when we use it, right?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. 2 is "just a number".

Unless you happen to be one of the two, or give a rip about them. Which this administration doesn't..except in PR terms.

[mike_c]

13. karma is mean bugger...

...and the U.S. has much to answer for, IMO.

[Ezlivin]

14. Hypothesis: Dead soldiers are better than captured soldiers to this admin

Americans don't see the flag-draped coffins of dead veterans. But they do see the grisly videotapes that always follow the kidnapping of hostages.

Bush et al would rather that our soldiers simply die on the battlefield; the news is so much easier to manage.

[ComerPerro]

15. According to FReepers, these captured GIs should be tortuerd

they not only think it appropriate, but necessary.

[Aviation Pro]

18. Freepers are sick, sons-of-bitches...

...I got a deal for the terrorists. Let's trade our men for Freepers and then let them torture the Freepers to their hearts content.

[me b zola]

17. I think that this is exactly what they had in mind when they took the GIs

It sounds like they went to great lengths to capture our guys alive.

"What if..." Sounds like we may find out :(






Peace to these GIs and their families.

[BuyingThyme]

21. I suspect we won't see these folks until October.

[Disturbed]

22. If the Insurgents were smart they would

issue a statement saying that the soldiers will not be harmed and will be treated as POWs should be treated according to the Geneva Accords. These soldiers were captured not kidnapped if it is true that the US is at War in Iraq, as Busholini and his Criminal Cabal keep spouting.

[The Straight Story]

23. Question is: Will we say it is wrong and evil, or say it is our fault?

Each human on this earth is responsible for their actions. Will we call the folks on it if they do the wrong thing, or say they were justified?

Would you vote for someone who said our enemies were justified in beheading someone, or for the candidate who said it was evil and wrong no matter the circumstances?