PDA

View Full Version : Pictures you don't often see



ChillPill
09-10-2003, 15:34
Hmm...I don't know, I just feel to post it here.
Though, I wouldn't aim to discuss war...I'd wish to think about peace instead.

ChillPill
09-10-2003, 15:35
2

ChillPill
09-10-2003, 15:36
3

ChillPill
09-10-2003, 15:37
4

ChillPill
09-10-2003, 15:38
5

ChillPill
09-10-2003, 15:40
6

ChillPill
09-10-2003, 15:41
:)

Intourist
09-10-2003, 15:49
Awwww, look at how nice and peace-loving the American soldiers are ! If I had known they were just petting kitties and high-fiving arab children, I would have gone and enlisted myself.

Chill, no offense, but this propoganda is just as bad as any Soviet era stuff.

ChillPill
09-10-2003, 15:55
it's not a Propaganda, Intourist....

If you want to offend me I'm for that Bush intervention?? Then you already offended me, coz I'm not.

The aim was to say...Americans or Russians, Or Some other country's troops...Do you think they enjoy fighting???

Anyway, sorry, I'm not going to dig into international politics here.

J.D.
09-10-2003, 16:05
You're right Intourist. All of these soldiers signed on just so they could go kill some foreigners. Just like the Russians soldiers did so they could go to Afagahistan and Chechnya.

Get a clue guy.

Start by looking up the word 'propaganda'.

Intourist
09-10-2003, 16:07
No, Chill, that was not directed at you at all.

Of course, I have no idea where those pictures are from, but they're so suspiciously nice, I find it hard to believe that they were made publicly available for any other purpose than to show how nice our army is, and how everyone loves the US army.

By themselves, I fault not YOU for posting them, but whomever took them and made them available. I meant no offense towards you whatsoever.

J.D.
09-10-2003, 16:11
More genius from Intourist!

All seemingly nice pictures of Americans should be censored and banned.

Intourist
09-10-2003, 16:14
Originally posted by J.D.
You're right Intourist. All of these soldiers signed on just so they could go kill some foreigners. Just like the Russians soldiers did so they could go to Afagahistan and Chechnya.

Get a clue guy.

Start by looking up the word 'propaganda'.

No, J.D., you're right. What a heel I am. That's exactly what I said, isn't it ?. You should have quoted the part where I said "all American soldiers are war-mongering murderers". And you appear to be in need of a clue yourself, little buddy, if you think the majority of people killed in Russia/Chechnya "signed on".

-Intourist

P.S. - Why don't you start by looking up "Afghanistan" ?

Intourist
09-10-2003, 16:18
Originally posted by J.D.
More genius from Intourist!

All seemingly nice pictures of Americans should be censored and banned.

J.D. Your powers of observation are amazing ! Do you read English the same way everyone else does ? Please show me the part where I advocated censoring photos ?

J.D.
09-10-2003, 16:18
I didn't quote you at all. If I did it would have quite a few [sic] entries, for meaning not spelling that is.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . think the majority of people killed in Russia "signed on".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This could certianly use one. What they hell does that mean? Is it related to what were talking about now?

J.D.
09-10-2003, 16:21
Supposittion. And it didn't take a huge leap.


I fault not YOU for posting them,

Note the emphasis on "YOU"

Intourist
09-10-2003, 16:22
Originally posted by J.D.
I didn't quote you at all. If I did it would have quite a few [sic] entries, for meaning not spelling that is.

Since you appear to be learning-impaired, I'll shlow down a bit for you. I said "You should have quoted me". This is sarcasm because I said nothing of the sort you accused me of.

Two what does Russia/Chechnya have to do with this ? You brought up Chechnya, genius, not me. Chechnya, is currently located in Russia. This apparently threw you for a loop.

Take a breather, J.D., and perhaps you'll stop infering things I haven't said. Otherwise, shut-up.

Intourist
09-10-2003, 16:25
Originally posted by J.D.
Supposittion. And it didn't take a huge leap.



Note the emphasis on "YOU"

Emphasized to tell Chill that I meant no offense towards her. Your problem is that you read way to far between the lines, and you jump to conclusions that have not been made.

And finding fault with pictures or with the person who took them, is not the same as censoring them. Again, your "suppositions" are pretty far-stretched.

J.D.
09-10-2003, 16:31
I spell it simply for you since either your English skills are severly lacking or you are just plain not too bright.

I assumed you are Russian so I mentioned situations that Russian soldiers have been in in hopes that it would give you some perspective.

". . . people killed in Russia signed on. " Do you even know what you said here?

"all American soldiers are war-mongering murderers".
Yes you clearly said this with sarcasm here but earlier when you said

Awwww, look at how nice and peace-loving the American soldiers are !
and then

but they're so suspiciously nice,
you were saying it almost as clearly

J.D.
09-10-2003, 16:33
Emphasized to tell Chill that I meant no offense towards her

Emphasis on her, meaning you fault someone else.

Go learn some English.

Pussy Cat
09-10-2003, 16:39
Originally posted by ChillPillRules
Hmm...I don't know, I just feel to post it here.
Though, I wouldn't aim to discuss war...I'd wish to think about peace instead.
___________

Chilli! Great pics! Really touch... За душу берут...

Intourist
09-10-2003, 16:46
OKay, J.D. Let's take this issue by issue.

1. "Russians signing on" You state, and I quote "All of these soldiers signed on just so they could go kill some foreigners. Just like the Russians soldiers did so they could go to Afagahistan and Chechnya." I retorted with a minor point that front line Russian soldiers do not "sign on" (to use your words) since they have mandatory service. It's not a professional army as in the US. Does that make sense to you ? I also never said anything close to your above quote. Please move eyes downwards to point 2.

2. I find the photos very suspicious. A large group of photos all showing heart-tugging scenes from US occupations, presumably from Iraq. I think it's pro-Bush propaganda in the face of increasing criticism about US casualties.* I admitted that "of course" I didn't know for sure where they came from, but any series of objective photos would presumably depict the horror that armed conflict is as well. Not once did I indicate that they should be censored, as you implied that I did.

J.D., I bet you flunked your reading comprehension tests. You question phrases and points that you originally wrote, you make large leaps based--incorrectly -on supposition, and then you seem to lose any clarity whatsoever.

*PROPAGANDA -_ the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person; ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing causea public action having such an effect

Intourist
09-10-2003, 16:49
Originally posted by J.D.
Emphasis on her, meaning you fault someone else.

YES ! You're getting it JD ! Keep going !

Are you friggin drunk ? I claimed that I DO fault someone. Fault does not equal censor.

Learn English ? Dude, you can't read or make points for crap.

niola
09-10-2003, 17:47
Intourist - я давно хотела сказать, что Вы очень умный мужчина, с хорошим чувством юмора и здравым смыслом. Читать Вас одно удовольствие. Спасибо

CaliforniaAngel
09-10-2003, 20:49
Chill,

Thanks for posting a few pics with a little different perspective. I think photos like this help remind people that the men and women who are there fighting this war (and keeping peace or whatever they call it) are everyday people. They are all sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers. They may not like what they have been sent to do but are doing their jobs as best they can. My heart goes out to every one of them, and I hope that they all return home safe.

~Angel

ghost 6-3
10-10-2003, 09:57
It is helpful to remember that the military is a complex organization involving many support services.

For example, when I served in the fleet, the Chaplain's Office on my warship organized opportunities for charitable works and giving ahead of port calls. When off duty, we might assist in the construction or repair of buildings at an orphanage, as I did in Morocco, or simply donate the foreign currency not spent before we got underway for disbursement to charitable groups (which can come to several thousands of dollars).

You would be surprised how interested servicemen can be in helping when the opportunity presents itself.

dacha_culture
11-10-2003, 10:21
Just for the info:

Not all the pictures seem to be showing Americans: the first picture...most likely is not an American soldier. The guy is holding an M-16, but with tripod and scope (not typically US issue). Perhaps special forces, but his camoflouge and boots suggest he is a "coalition" soldier.

dacha_culture
11-10-2003, 10:41
It is quite interesting to read people's reactions of such photos. I find it a little sad that as soon as some people see a soldier acting in a friendly manner, it is automatically assumed that the picture was set up for propoganda purposes. To me, the actions of the soldiers in the photos seem geniune. Some of these pictures were very real for me; they brought back memories. Sure we had pets in Afghanistan. I had a cat that would come and sleep on my cot. Yes, we made friends with the locals. For those that we couldn't communicate with, a hand shake or "high five" when seeing each other was the only meaningful communication we needed.

Back to the propogand issue, the military has its cameramen and reporters whos job is to record images of a conflict. When pictures such as these are taken, they can be, and to an extent are, used for propoganda purposes. But that doesn't mean soldiers are heartless and would never act in a caring manner. And it doesn't mean that propoganda images are not of real soldiers, acting out everday situations, unaware of the fact that a camera is present.

Intourist
13-10-2003, 10:22
Originally posted by dacha_culture
Back to the propogand issue, the military has its cameramen and reporters whos job is to record images of a conflict. When pictures such as these are taken, they can be, and to an extent are, used for propoganda purposes. But that doesn't mean soldiers are heartless and would never act in a caring manner. And it doesn't mean that propoganda images are not of real soldiers, acting out everday situations, unaware of the fact that a camera is present.

Okay, hand me the paddle, I'm gonna take a few more whacks at this horse.

Dacha, your points are quite well-taken, but let me state for the record that, never did I say that soldiers were heartless and uncaring. Nor did I doubt the photos' authenticity, or deny that soldiers have pets and high-five locals.

As you yourself mention, "[pictures like those Chill posted] can be, and to an extent are, used for propoganda purposes". But, as witnessed here, many still feel obliged to couch that fact in justifications of authenticity or the photo subjects' true intentions.

Honestly, I, too, find others' reactions interesting. Apparently a lot of people are rather quick to infer large scale criticism of the US army where none (of that scale) was intended. Apparently it's a sore spot to use words like 'propaganda' with negative cold-war Soviet era connotations in reference to the US army. Apparently, some people are pretty defensive about it. To me the defensive nature of such responses is all the more reason to be more questioning.

Allenson
14-10-2003, 23:39
So much for world peace :eek:

Thanks Pill - my best friend has been in Iraq for over a year now and whether for propaganda (not on your part) purposes or not - its nice to see soldiers portrayed as real human beings. Not that I'm condoning war - just that we need to understand that many of these guys are sons, husbands, fathers and friends (for that matter - daughters, wives and mothers too) to people who care for them deeply and would like to see them come home.

edit- I just realized that I repeated what CaliAngel said - but its probably worth repeating anyway. :)

J.D.
15-10-2003, 08:03
I think that the U.S. went into Iraq for the wrong reasons. I think the whole world knows that it was about money. But this is not a decision that soldiers take part in. They do what they are told. Everything I've heard suggests that they have done their job very professionally. These photos seem to me to futher support that idea.
An earlier criticism that seemed to be directed at saying such photos were impossible to be true certainly rubbed me the wrong way.

Intourist
15-10-2003, 09:33
J.D. - Let's put aside the hostility for a few minutes, because I agree with much of what you wrote above.

Isn't it possible to support the soldiers as individuals (and sons, father, brothers, etc), BUT still question the source, time, and intent of these photographs ?

If Tom Brokaw or Dan Rather showed you footage on the evening news only of soldiers and cats, would you be suspicious ? If your brother/son/father soldier wrote home solely about his kid-cuddling activities, would you not find that one-sided ? Where's the harsh reality ?

The harsh ugly reality not depicted by these photos (as pleasant as they may be to those with relatives currently serving abroad) is that these same soldiers are dying every day, to this day. That tugs at my heart more than any soldier-baby photo. Wouldn't their deaths be even more heinous if there was someone at home trying to persuade the public (by publicizing these glurge photos) that the Iraq occupation was not really as bad as everyone else is making it out to be ?

The internet is just as useful and powerful a medium as any television broadcast or newspaper article. I think you always have to question the source and intent, especially when it appears as one-sided as the pictures in question. Life in Russia and, recently, the Bush administration, have taught me that these issues are rarely as straight-forward as they seem.

I hope that clears the air a little, J.D.

MDW
15-10-2003, 11:38
Let more U.S. bombs fly!
http://www.vokruginfo.ru/news/news3369.html
F@#$ing murderers!

J.D.
15-10-2003, 11:46
These photos were posted by ChillPillRules.

Intourist
15-10-2003, 12:13
Originally posted by J.D.
These photos were posted by ChillPillRules.

Yes, they were, and as I mentioned, I never intended any criticism towards Chill for posting them. But, does or should your interest/curiousity in the original source go no further than Expat.ru ? I don't think Chill took them. Who made them originally available ? I hope that everything posted on Expat is not accepted as beyond question or suspicion.

I'd also be happy to be proven wrong.

spice
15-10-2003, 13:04
Hi these photos of your have another face also!

It shows that warriors are not stone hearted and that they know only to kill, they are also kind hearted very kind, you guys dont know how every person in the army feels! he feels for his killings everyday! you just have to live among these guys who are ready to sacrifice their lives for their countries!

Hats of to these army guys!

J.D.
17-10-2003, 09:41
well Intourist, the next step will be to question who ordered these guys to pose like this for these pictures.

I don't think you know what your point is you certainly fail to make it clear and that makes you appear to be complaining because you like to complain.

Maybe you prefer the pictures by the L A Times photographer who doctored them to make the soldier appear to be threatening some civilians

Intourist
17-10-2003, 10:31
well Intourist, the next step will be to question who ordered these guys to pose like this for these pictures.

That's not the next logical question at all. Again, I never claimed the photos were unauthentic or staged. I suggest you reread my previous responses in detail to verify that.


I don't think you know what your point is you certainly fail to make it clear.

I understand my point quite clearly. Whether or not I've explained it well enough so that others understand it, is, of course, up to debate. Quite obviously, you don't understand it, and not due to a lack of trying on my part. A large number of your posts criticizing me, however, have been based on your own personal deductions which run-- just as above where you say the next question is to ask who ordered the poses-- counter to what I wrote. This leads me to believe that the understanding error is on your side.


and that makes you appear to be complaining because you like to complain.

I enjoy speaking out about that which I feel strongly. I'm hard-pressed to recall any posts which would lead or led me to register a complaint with anyone, so I'm unclear where your perception of me complaining comes from.


Maybe you prefer the pictures by the L A Times photographer who doctored them to make the soldier appear to be threatening some civilians

I have no idea what you're referring to in regards to the LA Times.

Diatel
17-10-2003, 15:46
Just thoughts. A lot of Wehrmacht soldiers were actually quite nice and liked pets too. They were also murderers.

I don't buy stories that American soldiers are just doing their jobs, because, unlike Soviet, German, Iraqi soldiers, they HAVE CHOICE. They can avoid going to the army, at no cost. They can avoid being sent to missions that contradict their inner judgment, at the cost of probably serving a couple of years in prison.

I do not think that they are not nice guys, they are probably just VERY stupid and prone to government propaganda and in propaganda department Yanks would really make Goebbels proud.

dacha_culture
17-10-2003, 17:47
That's not a good start Diatel...this was your first post and you've already shown everyone how ignorant you can be.

Diatel
17-10-2003, 17:49
about what?

ghost 6-3
17-10-2003, 17:56
These servicemen may have a choice about joining the army, but once that choice is made, they do need to follow LEGAL orders. And it is not just a matter of a few years in prison to pay: try getting a job with an dishonourable discharge.

Also, these are in many cases the same men who helped to restore order in Bosnia (I served with 6th fleet in that one), helped to restore a (sort-of) democracy in Haiti, were critisized visciously for not intervening in Rwanda and Liberia, etc.

Someone else always seems to know the proper decision these men in uniform should make. I have found that few have ever served.

You don't always have the luxury of choosing. But I do know (as I notice you are writting from the Netherlands), that if US forces had been guarding Srebrenica, instead of a bunch of pansy Dutch, 5,000 men would not have been executed by the Serbs while the US comander toasted General Mladic.

DaveUK1965
17-10-2003, 18:05
"that if US forces had been guarding Srebrenica, instead of a bunch of pansy Dutch, 5,000 men would not have been executed by the Serbs while the US comander toasted General Mladic."

Wooo, contingent of Serb troops rolls in one day, hundreds of them, versus a few Dutch guards who`d been specifically ORDERED as in AN ORDER, see your post above, not to fire..... take all the camp population out and shot them in front of the horrified Dutchies` eyes -

So, a platoon of US infantry - and not even front line infantry - on guard duty would`ve gone absolutely contrary to ORDERS and taken on a whole battallion of armed Serb regulars, would they ?

In what comic book ?

As you so rightly say -

"You don't always have the luxury of choosing" - yep, you don`t always have the right of choosing when hundreds of Serbs are going to come for tea and massacres. You`re telling us you`d pull out the M-16, return fire, call in an airstrike..... and then get put up against the wall with the others and got a bullet through your head ??

ghost 6-3
17-10-2003, 18:07
Have you ever read the report commissioned by the Dutch government to study the tragedy Sbrenica?

Read it, then repeat your statement.

DaveUK1965
17-10-2003, 18:11
OK, 20 of you there with light squad weapons. Civvies in the background. Along come 100 - 200 - what ? Serbs bent on murder. What`re you personally going to do ?

Nothing. It was a logistical error. Which didn`t take into account that in the 20th century, some bunch of animals would go along and massacre a load of civilians.

Saying "If I was there I`d have done this" is all very well, but all you`re doing is insulting a uniform, mate. Which is the easiest thing to do if you`re not actually there at the time with the prospect of being killed.

If it`d been your boys in combat fatigues on that day, would you still be saying the same thing ? It was, at the end of the day, a tragedy. But saying "I`d be there, I`d have made a difference" is just delusional fantasy. You weren`t. Someone else copped for a lot of trouble that day.

ghost 6-3
17-10-2003, 18:14
It is available at http://www.srebrenica.nl

DaveUK1965
17-10-2003, 18:18
Not Found
The requested URL /en/a_index.htm. was not found on this server.

And you`re going to mention logistics errors. NOTHING to do with the troops on the ground, which was all that mattered. Those "dutch pansies".

If they`d returned fire, what`s to say that the Serbs wouldn`t have gone off and "ethnically cleaned" every village and town in the area as a reprisal ?

ghost 6-3
17-10-2003, 18:20
From the Dutch Government commissioned report "Srebrenica, a 'safe' area - Reconstruction, background, consequences and analyses of the fall of a safe area" (the publication of which caused the government to resign).

"The conclusion with regard to the general performance and conduct of the battalions must be that they had to do their work while in a state of frustration and demotivation. Dutchbat III was the most seriously effected in this regard, and was therefore the most inward-looking. However, this does not imply that the Dutch battalions, even the third, were necessarily dysfunctional."

A whole battalion. But not a 'necessarily dysfuctional' one. How nice.

Diatel
17-10-2003, 18:20
I agree, in general, that the choice is limited, but it is not court martial and fire squad, as it used to be. I don't think I know better what decisions these guys should take, I just comment what I feel about the decisions they have taken.

The situation in Yugoslavia was simple: one bunch of mean people was beating up another bunch of mean people. Here comes the NATO, declares the second group almost saints, beats up the first group, sets up the "peacekeeping" mission. Now the "almost saints" are beating up the remainders of the first bunch. I would not consider creating this situation a remarkable achievement. These people are all mean, anyway, and would try to stab each other at the first opportunity.

The main reason American Army gets critisized for its actions is a complete lack of pattern/coherence in choosing when/where to intervene. When out of say 20 conflicts they pick 2, non-American people tend to maybe overly demonize their intentions. At least from Russian perspective, the purpose of involvement in Yugoslavia was to show (deservedly, probably) Russia its (shitty) place in World politics. Iraq was about oil and again, showing the "pathetic whiners" like you know who, that America can do whatever it wants. It is really difficult to sympathize with American soldiers in this situation.

ghost 6-3
17-10-2003, 18:21
Sorry, try this one

http://www.srebrenica.nl/

DaveUK1965
17-10-2003, 18:27
A whole battalion. But not a 'necessarily dysfuctional' one. How nice.

And ? It`s a shooting match - not a parade ground. What are you expecting ? Nice little rows of batallions marching in column formation to meet a defined enemy ?

"Dutch pansies. "

A small guard unit at a displaced persons` camp is woken up by a group of Serbs who vastly outnumber them. Their orders - their specific orders - are not to provoke an armed response, due to the tinderbox nature of the whole COUNTRY. The Serbs, who vastly outnumber them, disarm them and then shoot - what was it ? 6000 civilians ?

But the Yanks, if they were there, according to you, would have done it differently to the "Dutch pansies." Complete CRAP.

Outnumbered 5-10 to one by regulars and with civilians to think about, under direct orders NOT to return fire ? Not even a special forces platoon could have saved the day on that one, so don`t disrespect the uniform of someone else if you weren`t there on the spot.

DaveUK1965
17-10-2003, 18:30
Wrong argument. The politicians and generals fail the man on the ground. As usual.

Saying that if it was US forces on the day, instead of "pansy Dutch ones" would`ve made a difference is complete CRAP. Forget the politicians, generals, whatever, have some more respect for fellow soldiers in uniform, because no one was pointing an AKM at YOUR head on the morning in question.






Originally posted by ghost 6-3
Sorry, try this one

http://www.srebrenica.nl/

ghost 6-3
17-10-2003, 18:33
You need to read the report. The epilogue will do (it will take you a bit). There were LOTS of things they could have done, which is why the Dutch are so ashamed. I don't doubt for a moment, having served, that US troops would have acted differently.

http://www.srebrenica.nl/

'The Interchurch Peace Council's Van den Berg says that when Serbs pressed troops of other nations during this period, the troops -- operating under the same rules of engagement -- resisted. The Dutch, however, did not.

"We simply did not. So if you kick a French solider, he will kick you back. If you slam a British one, he will slam you back. If you do it to a Dutch one, he will step aside."'

DaveUK1965
17-10-2003, 18:50
Ghost,you`ve been in: I`m from a military family, waaaay back past the Crimean war - all my friends are military, mainly - I spent 11 years as a firearms instructor.

If you look at the individual records of single platoons, companies or even battallions, it`s very easy to say, "If only the 101st Airborne / Gurkas / SAS/ SBS / Green Berets were there on the day" - they weren`t.

You open fire in a civvy enviroment with women and children and old people around you, they`re going to die. So are you. Because you`re outnumbered. If you`d taken a company of SAS / Special Forces and put `em there, yes, POSSIBLY there would have been a chance of repulsing a superior force. Look at the Bravo Two Zero patrol where 6 men knocked off 500- 800 Iraquis. Point was, that was a FIREFIGHT. The guards were disarmed and no-one knew there was going to be a massacre until the shooting started. It`s easy to say "We could have guessed" - but - this was not a conventional war. It was a group of Serbs acting outside the boundaries to which war was conducted and it was a no-win situation. You can criticise the generals, the logistics planners, the politicians, but to criticise a fellow soldier on a peacekeeping mission who is inadequately supported, given orders which are specifically prohibit firing except in return fire situations, factor in 6000 civilians - and then criticise them for what happened ????

So the Dutch return fire, then. They SOMEHOW manage to repulse five times their number of REGULAR opponents - you may have had 1000 civilian casualties and the Dutch breaking the rules and having to fire the first shot, as intentions were unclear.

Wind back the clock, put yourself in the shoes of the commander on that day and all your military training would have been the same. At best, you`d contact HQ/GHQ and get clarity of orders or support brought in - by which time, it`d be too late, you`d be disarmed and in the ditch with the rest of them. The ONLY way to have prevented the massacre would have been to predict it coming and fire first. It was not an avoidable incident, no matter who the man in uniform was.



Originally posted by ghost 6-3
You need to read the report. The epilogue will do (it will take you a bit). There were lLOTS of things they could have done, which is why the Dutch are so ashamed. I don't doubt for a moment, having served, that US troops would have acted differently.

http://www.srebrenica.nl/

'The Interchurch Peace Council's Van den Berg says that when Serbs pressed troops of other nations during this period, the troops -- operating under the same rules of engagement -- resisted. The Dutch, however, did not.

"We simply did not. So if you kick a French solider, he will kick you back. If you slam a British one, he will slam you back. If you do it to a Dutch one, he will step aside."'

dacha_culture
17-10-2003, 18:50
Is this argument not getting a little silly?

OK, so Dutch soldiers stood by while thousands of people were slaughtered. Yes, that's bad.

But why argue about what would have happened if it had been American soldiers? After all, if the Serbs had pressed the American troops, and the Americans had responded, you would now be arguing over why US soldiers are killers of innocent people who just want to kill other innocent people.

dacha_culture
17-10-2003, 18:58
Wow Dave, firearms instructor...very impressive...

ghost 6-3
17-10-2003, 18:59
This is the last I will say on the subject.

This was not the action of a single day. This took place over many months. As the report shows, the Dutch Government, military heirarchy, and soldiers themselves were unprepared for their mission, and failed to fulfill it.

British, French, or American troops would have prevented this massacre.

If you took the time to read the report, you would not have had time to make the posts you did.

And you wouldn't have made them after, either.

Diatel
17-10-2003, 19:01
Dave, if you were a fire arms instructor fo 11 years (a lot), how did you manage to get a job in Moscow and what sort of job?

ghost 6-3
17-10-2003, 19:01
Wow, and now I have become a Senior Member.

DaveUK1965
17-10-2003, 19:01
I must say, Ghost, you talk a great fight.




Originally posted by ghost 6-3
This is the last I will say on the subject.

This was not the action of a single day. This took place over many months. As the report shows, the Dutch Government, military heirarchy, and soldiers themselves were unprepared for their mission, and failed to fulfill it.

British, French, or American troops would have prevented this massacre.

If you took the time to read the report, you would not have had time to make the posts you did.

And you wouldn't have made them after, either.

dacha_culture
17-10-2003, 19:03
So which picture did you guys like the best?

DaveUK1965
17-10-2003, 19:04
Hi Daitel - not in Moscow at the moment. UK.

After my stint with small arms, went off to university and into IT from there. My connection with Russia is that I was engaged to a Russian lady for a long time..... WAS looking for a job in Russia, but it`s a difficult market to get into for an expat. Looks like I`m set up in a new job after Christmas, so I may just be staying here and then going over to Russia once in a while - there`s a Russian connection. We`ll have to see. ;-)))



Originally posted by Diatel
Dave, if you were a fire arms instructor fo 11 years (a lot), how did you manage to get a job in Moscow and what sort of job?

Diatel
17-10-2003, 19:13
Yeah, the market does not look too good in any country at the moment. It is not too hard to get into Russian market at local salaries level, but they mostly suck.

liuboi
19-10-2003, 22:28
Sorry, Even we , Americans, don't believe this crok. Bush will be tried for treason after he is booted out from office.
I stopped saying I am an American when I travel. American is now equated with mud throughout the world.

dacha_culture
20-10-2003, 12:23
Well Liuboi, it's easy to tell that you never served in a combat zone, so you obviously know what you are talking about. (Oh, and thank you for speaking for all Americans, since the rest of us are apparently incapable of voicing our own opinions.)

Also, it's great to see another citizen who only wants to be American when it serves his/her own self interests. Of course, the only thing wrong with the U.S. is Bush. It surely couldn't be people who wave the flag when America is popular on the international scene, and think they should be ashamed of their citizenship if otherwise.

Yes, it seems (to me) that Bush and company have been making quite a mess lately in the international community. But, then again, the world has been a mess long before Bush and company came along, and it isn't realistic to think that things will get better no matter how great a president we have.

surfsky
13-06-2005, 02:25
You know I actually did serve I have been in combat 2 years since Sep 11. We try as best we can to live what you see in the pictures. It is not propaganda. Soldiers are handing out everything from shoes to school books out there. There is not enough getting to Iraq, so soldiers draft the support of there famillies and churches at home to get the stuff. It is a grass roots process taking place to live what you are seeing.

To the guys that say it is propaganda. What have you done for anybody except defficate your opinion on a blog?

Since leaving the military I have worked for a non profit group that funded my travelling to Sudan to research crimes against humanity and to find mass graves. It is not pretty. But at least I am not sitting on my butt in Moscow firmly imbeaded on a computer.

If you have such stong opinions...I do...why don't you do something about it..Oh ya, your probably having to much fun in Moscow night clubs to do anything.

Chubby Hubby
13-06-2005, 09:39
ChillPill - I want one of a storm trooper from star wars holding a kitty!! :trooper: :inlove:

jchidg1
13-06-2005, 12:42
Let more U.S. bombs fly!
http://www.vokruginfo.ru/news/news3369.html
F@#$ing murderers!


Regardless of where the bombs came from - and let's not forget Aljazeera in not exactly adverse at using pictures such as these for it's own ends - these images do bring home those who are the most vulnerable in times of war.
Maybe if we were less sheltered by our media and were exposed to stomach churning pictures such as these we would give our governments more stick about their motives for going to war in the first place. But then again...if the BBC did start showing pictures like this during the 6 oclock news could we then accuse them if sensationalism .........

There are never any easy answers are there?

Britanski Soldat
13-06-2005, 14:21
Further to what Surfsky has to say, I can confirm that nearly all photographs taken by military accredited camera crews etc are edited / vetted by the military before send down the wire. These photos have been released by the Coalition to counter other adverse footage / events such as Falluja, beatings, interrogations etc.. Al Jazeera then release their counter footage and so the game goes on.

As such the photos could be described as propoganda or spin, but in reality a lot of good work is ongoing in Iraq; we are not just being attacked by insurgents and countering these attacks by mounting offensive operations against operating bases etc.

Despite this, the photos are not staged - they are representative of one of the many roles the coalition perform in Iraq under extremely difficult conditions. We are not warmongerers and, as such, spend a great deal of time attempting to be humane and winning the hearts and minds of the population.

Long may that continue with the least loss of life to all parties...............

boscoe
13-06-2005, 15:20
I like this one

Goose0009
13-06-2005, 19:18
I am critical of American Policies, but I believe in my heart some of America's finest people serve in the Armed Forces. Well, with the exception of George Bush. I have friends and neighbors in Iraq. I know that they are good, humble, and unselfish people who want to protect their country and make it safe. I just don't think that the choice the president made is possible and it makes me angry that we could ruin another generation of young people. I have worked in a hospital and have experience in nursing, so I think I would like to work and donate my time to the V.A. Hospitals.

Green Tea
14-06-2005, 10:25
And the other side of the coin...

Propoganda can be played both ways.

http://www.einswine.com/atrocities/iraq/gutman_p.jpg

http://www.einswine.com/atrocities/iraq/american_brutality2.jpg

http://www.einswine.com/atrocities/iraq/halapja2.jpg

http://www.einswine.com/atrocities/iraq/blog-.bag10110291328.jpg

http://afixe.weblog.com.pt/arquivo/Abu7.jpg

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/image/0,1587,1210664_6,00.jpg

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/145/1296/640/abu%20ghraib.jpg

Rusty
14-06-2005, 11:19
Wars are hell...

The Pictures from any war tell the tail of man's worst side.


And the other side of the coin...

Propoganda can be played both ways.


Personally, I think USA should not be in Araq. Then again I think only polititions, should ever fight (leave the young men at home!!).

Just Bush is (if not already) working on becoming a muti billionar(sp), while in office. What none of his kin is getting hurt (one congressman's son, was/is in Araq), no other politition's children etc.. :bookworm:

RDV
15-06-2005, 20:02
I think that the U.S. went into Iraq for the wrong reasons. I think the whole world knows that it was about money. But this is not a decision that soldiers take part in. They do what they are told. Everything I've heard suggests that they have done their job very professionally. These photos seem to me to futher support that idea.
An earlier criticism that seemed to be directed at saying such photos were impossible to be true certainly rubbed me the wrong way.

J.D., let me guess... this was the first foreign mission where the US f@cked up big time. People just don't learn from previous experiences for some reason... And in the US, one does have a choice NOT to join the Armed Forces. So if the person is sane, he or she will never choose to let some stupid a$$hole decide for them. In case of the military, it's basically handing over your life...

TQ
15-06-2005, 23:10
a single death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic.

How cynical all those politicians are.

Crazyeelboy
16-06-2005, 01:17
The interesting thing in this thread is how the same photos inspire such different responses from different people. Some see humanity while others see propaganda and cynical politics. Still others feel a need to balance positive images with negative ones. The reactions tell us more about the people on this forum than do the substance of the posts.

I for one see the human face of everyone involved. These photos show that the soldiers and the local population are real people, and for me that's the whole story behind these photos.

Broken Arrow
16-06-2005, 01:17
What else can you expect from Bloody politicians. Though there are some goodies among them. But believe me honey, you don't want to take a look at the statistics.

koba65
23-06-2005, 06:09
No, Chill, that was not directed at you at all.

Of course, I have no idea where those pictures are from, but they're so suspiciously nice, I find it hard to believe that they were made publicly available for any other purpose than to show how nice our army is, and how everyone loves the US army.

By themselves, I fault not YOU for posting them, but whomever took them and made them available. I meant no offense towards you whatsoever.

Inturist,
I happen to know that more than a few of similiar pictures (not necessarily these) were actually taken by American soldiers and sent back to their families, not really intending for them to be made public. However, with all of the bad publicity over Abu Grahib, and other scandals, people are starting to post pictures of what the average soldier does over there. BTW, the first picture is NOT of an American.

koba65
23-06-2005, 06:13
J.D., let me guess... this was the first foreign mission where the US f@cked up big time. People just don't learn from previous experiences for some reason... And in the US, one does have a choice NOT to join the Armed Forces. So if the person is sane, he or she will never choose to let some stupid a$$hole decide for them. In case of the military, it's basically handing over your life...

You have no clue about life in the American military. You're last statement gets it partially right. You do hand over your life, but it is into hands that you entrust with your life - your fellow soldiers with you in the field. To these men, the politicians, the reasons why they are there mean nothing. Their main mission is to get their tasks accomplished and do so without getting themselves or their fellow servicemembers killed. We all make friends in life, but for those who have served in the military none are closer than the ones you serve with.

koba65
23-06-2005, 06:16
Wars are hell...

The Pictures from any war tell the tail of man's worst side.



Personally, I think USA should not be in Araq. Then again I think only polititions, should ever fight (leave the young men at home!!).

Just Bush is (if not already) working on becoming a muti billionar(sp), while in office. What none of his kin is getting hurt (one congressman's son, was/is in Araq), no other politition's children etc.. :bookworm:

There are at least three national politicians with offspring serving in war zones. There are several politicians, on both sides of the aisle, with sons and daughters serving in the U.S. military. Your argument only really is valid in countries where there is a non-volunteer force.

koba65
23-06-2005, 06:18
a single death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic.

How cynical all those politicians are.

I don't think I'd attribute a Stalin quote to most politicians, at least not from the States. Generals Sherman and Grant are long dead.

koba65
23-06-2005, 06:21
"that if US forces had been guarding Srebrenica, instead of a bunch of pansy Dutch, 5,000 men would not have been executed by the Serbs while the US comander toasted General Mladic."

Wooo, contingent of Serb troops rolls in one day, hundreds of them, versus a few Dutch guards who`d been specifically ORDERED as in AN ORDER, see your post above, not to fire..... take all the camp population out and shot them in front of the horrified Dutchies` eyes -

So, a platoon of US infantry - and not even front line infantry - on guard duty would`ve gone absolutely contrary to ORDERS and taken on a whole battallion of armed Serb regulars, would they ?

In what comic book ?

As you so rightly say -

"You don't always have the luxury of choosing" - yep, you don`t always have the right of choosing when hundreds of Serbs are going to come for tea and massacres. You`re telling us you`d pull out the M-16, return fire, call in an airstrike..... and then get put up against the wall with the others and got a bullet through your head ??

Dave, welcome back, and to answer your question - I'd put a million bucks that American and/or British troops in the same situation would have reacted and done so violently. We never really give up our complete command and control whilst serving in "UN" operations. BIG difference. Some would garner a guess that had the Brits or Americans been there instead of the Dutch the Serbs wouldn't even have tried to pull it off.

koba65
23-06-2005, 06:26
Okay, hand me the paddle, I'm gonna take a few more whacks at this horse.

Dacha, your points are quite well-taken, but let me state for the record that, never did I say that soldiers were heartless and uncaring. Nor did I doubt the photos' authenticity, or deny that soldiers have pets and high-five locals.

As you yourself mention, "[pictures like those Chill posted] can be, and to an extent are, used for propoganda purposes". But, as witnessed here, many still feel obliged to couch that fact in justifications of authenticity or the photo subjects' true intentions.

Honestly, I, too, find others' reactions interesting. Apparently a lot of people are rather quick to infer large scale criticism of the US army where none (of that scale) was intended. Apparently it's a sore spot to use words like 'propaganda' with negative cold-war Soviet era connotations in reference to the US army. Apparently, some people are pretty defensive about it. To me the defensive nature of such responses is all the more reason to be more questioning.

Intourist, the use of the word "propaganda" in American culture is only considered negative. Not neutral, not positive, negative. This is where knowning the nuances of a foreign language come in handy.

koba65
23-06-2005, 06:36
Just thoughts. A lot of Wehrmacht soldiers were actually quite nice and liked pets too. They were also murderers.

You're confusing the Wehrmacht soldiers (a very professional officer corps mixed in with conscripts) and the SS, and other special services in the Nazi war machine.


I don't buy stories that American soldiers are just doing their jobs, because, unlike Soviet, German, Iraqi soldiers, they HAVE CHOICE. They can avoid going to the army, at no cost. They can avoid being sent to missions that contradict their inner judgment, at the cost of probably serving a couple of years in prison.

Um, wha? When you join the US Armed Forces it is unquestionably clear that you may be called upon to participate in the use of military force. Not sure I'm following you here. Unlike Soviet, German, and Iraqi soldiers, they have a choice? Is your premise that Soviet, German, and Iraqi soldiers are to be forgiven for any war crimes they committed if they were drafted?


I do not think that they are not nice guys, they are probably just VERY stupid and prone to government propaganda and in propaganda department Yanks would really make Goebbels proud.

Some of the smartest people I know I have served with. Most of attempts at what you label as "propaganda" is quickly recognized by those who serve. They're there on the ground - they know what's going on and what's complete B.S. .

Yet another comparison of the US, its forces, or leadership to Nazis. You show a complete ignorance of history and you also trivilize the victims of fascism.

It appears that you are a victim of propaganda yourself - what you have written is right out of the propaganda that is rampant on the net vis-a-vis the US and its forces. Perhaps you are the "VERY stupid" one prone to "propaganda"?

koba65
23-06-2005, 06:42
And the other side of the coin...

Propoganda can be played both ways.

http://www.einswine.com/atrocities/iraq/gutman_p.jpg

http://www.einswine.com/atrocities/iraq/american_brutality2.jpg

http://www.einswine.com/atrocities/iraq/halapja2.jpg

http://www.einswine.com/atrocities/iraq/blog-.bag10110291328.jpg

http://afixe.weblog.com.pt/arquivo/Abu7.jpg

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/image/0,1587,1210664_6,00.jpg

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/145/1296/640/abu%20ghraib.jpg

Green Tea - do you know the real background of a few of those pictures? Some depict casualties after insurgents attacked. Two, the Kurds lying dead ,are from Saddam's attack (carried out by Chemical Ali) on a Kurdish village using deadly nerve agent. One of the reasons the Bush Administration used to justify removing Saddam. A crime they will both soon be tried for. So, yer kinda publishing "propaganda" photos that work in the US's favor.

koba65
23-06-2005, 07:14
.

The main reason American Army gets critisized for its actions is a complete lack of pattern/coherence in choosing when/where to intervene. When out of say 20 conflicts they pick 2, non-American people tend to maybe overly demonize their intentions. At least from Russian perspective, the purpose of involvement in Yugoslavia was to show (deservedly, probably) Russia its (shitty) place in World politics. Iraq was about oil and again, showing the "pathetic whiners" like you know who, that America can do whatever it wants. It is really difficult to sympathize with American soldiers in this situation.

The American Army doesn't choose when/where to intervene. That's not their role.

CatGirl
23-06-2005, 09:26
:)

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_44.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZN) Auwwww...! How ...! Thanks, ChillPill!

CatGirl
23-06-2005, 09:35
But actually, War is A big big trouble. But ppl can check out their own natures and their Strenth (of character) only in trouble. So, everyone sees their actions, however, as for me, sometimes soldiers and peace citizens are so "fond" of war of the Highest that they don't recognize simple truth's just nearby...

I wonder, why war exists still? In such a cruel form? Well, ppl are like animals to fight for smth. But this smth mustn't be for life, for it's continueing...
(So, I still can understand the fight for territory but not for the followinf >>>)

No. It's for power. For money.

Ghost
23-06-2005, 10:36
Just thoughts. A lot of Wehrmacht soldiers were actually quite nice and liked pets too. They were also murderers.

I don't buy stories that American soldiers are just doing their jobs, because, unlike Soviet, German, Iraqi soldiers, they HAVE CHOICE. They can avoid going to the army, at no cost. They can avoid being sent to missions that contradict their inner judgment, at the cost of probably serving a couple of years in prison.

I do not think that they are not nice guys, they are probably just VERY stupid and prone to government propaganda and in propaganda department Yanks would really make Goebbels proud.

This is the beauty of the internet. People can sign on, post this type of nonsense and vanish into the sunset.

PHolmes
23-06-2005, 10:36
People are not like animals. Humans are the only animal that will kill for pleasure.

DPG
23-06-2005, 10:39
They can avoid being sent to missions that contradict their inner judgment

Sure - Everyone loves being shot by firing squad. Nowadays, it's all the rage down our way!

CatGirl
23-06-2005, 10:52
People are not like animals. Humans are the only animal that will kill for pleasure.


:cry:

Marisha
23-06-2005, 10:58
Nice photos...