SAS Soldier quits army in Disgust at American Tactics in Iraq

[Glirk Dient]

im sorry but did you actually read the article ? . if innocent civilians are being imprisoned and tortured then i dont see how the hell that is bringing stability to the country ? . further more
"He added that he now believed that the Prime Minister and the Government had repeatedly "lied" over the war's conduct." if the war is infact bringing positive reinforcement to the country then i dont see why they have to lie about the severity of the matter or about the actions taken to preserve order.

So a few incidents are going to halt the entire advancement of the country? A few negative incidents aren't going to ruin the entire country...

Besides the second part of your post is completely opinion so that doesn't count. It is still mutiny what this soldier did. Refusing to follow orders just because you dont like it isn't gonna fly.

 

[Razor]

More's the pity then since it doesn't speak too highly of their elite team if they have members quitting when the job is not yet done. If they are so respected, then they should either all quit or none quit. He is not only deserting the Iraqis they are there to help but he's also deserting his fellow SAS and that to me is despicable.

He didn't desert anyone, he waited till he finished his tour of duty and got back home before making any decisions to leave. But from reading it through, to me it sounds far more like it was the American's and their attitude that pissed him off more then the overall scheme of the war being bad.

Who knows but i have a huge amount of respect for him, he went to Iraq, did his duty and saw first hand what was going on there and made his opinion that the war was wrong for himself...and not just saying "oh the war is bad" because some idiot told you it was or a load of newspapers said it was bad. But who the heck are you to say he is deserting anyone, his commanding officer doesn't think so and i'm sure you're not a member of the SAS and serving in Baghdad.

 

[halflifeguy]

kudos to this guy.........

 

[mortiz]

So a few incidents are going to halt the entire advancement of the country? A few negative incidents aren't going to ruin the entire country...

Besides the second part of your post is completely opinion so that doesn't count. It is still mutiny what this soldier did. Refusing to follow orders just because you dont like it isn't gonna fly.

That guy has seen it first hand, you haven't, you also have no idea how wide spread it is, this guy might. If you go to say, 10 different towns and you see abuse in all of those 10 different towns you'd begin to suspect it was widespread wouldn't you? That's probably what this guy has seen.

 

[French Ninja]

This guy does have a very good point. The US forces don't know what they're doing. Serious, you don't win hearts and minds by patrolling round in your Hummvees pointing the .50 cal at everyone in the street. (Which would appear to be the usual US routine.)

And what are they supposed to do? Hand them candy? The honor code? We know what happens when we do that. That crap just doesn't fly.
Its still a war zone and everyone is a suspect.

I have always said that the US army are a bunch of idiots! Ok, ok idiots are found anywhere, but in the US army there are above average! That is why advanced technology doesn't help, there are to many incompetent people in there!

That was uncalled for.

even though i don't know any US soldier to back up my claims, i have seen lots of videos on google, orgish,... that proves some points!

You know what? I've seen some pretty disgusting videos myself. And guess what? Insurgents are doing nasty stuff! Look it up! Here's a hint: It rhymes with "seabeding" and "suicide calming childern".

Prat.

 

[Solaris]

You know what? I've seen some pretty disgusting videos myself. And guess what? Insurgents are doing nasty stuff! Look it up! Here's a hint: It rhymes with "seabeding" and "suicide calming childern".

Saying the other side is worse isn't good reasoning.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Stop Press: Solaris Makes Excellent Logical Point Shocker!

 

[French Ninja]

Saying the other side is worse isn't good reasoning.

Intentional killings of civilians by the Coalition are much lower than the insurgents. Both sides do bad things, correct, but the Insurgents are intentionally causing harm in almost all instances in comparison to isolated incidents within the US Army.
jverne gave the impression that the US Forces cause all the atrocities in Iraq, and if true, he needed to be corrected.

 

[VictimOfScience]

Who knows but i have a huge amount of respect for him, he went to Iraq, did his duty and saw first hand what was going on there and made his opinion that the war was wrong for himself...and not just saying "oh the war is bad" because some idiot told you it was or a load of newspapers said it was bad. But who the heck are you to say he is deserting anyone, his commanding officer doesn't think so and i'm sure you're not a member of the SAS and serving in Baghdad.

Hahaha! Clever bloody you! Of course I am not, but to stop trying to help because a few bad apples gave him a bad taste in his mouth is selfish and irresponsible. Why in the world did he sign up then? I can only hope it was to help those in need in Britain and around the world, but I fear that it wasn't.

And again, if he were regular army this wouldn't be such a big deal but since he is part of the legendary SAS he makes headlines for not wanting to try to improve things in a region that desperately needs a multi-national coalition. Politics be damned but these people need help! The answer is not to just leave!

 

[Glirk Dient]

That guy has seen it first hand, you haven't, you also have no idea how wide spread it is, this guy might. If you go to say, 10 different towns and you see abuse in all of those 10 different towns you'd begin to suspect it was widespread wouldn't you? That's probably what this guy has seen.

You are speculating on what he has seen. It still doesn't matter what he has and hasn't seen. If I saw anyone doing that stuff I would report them and see to it they are court marshaled. I wouldnt cry like a baby and want out of the military because someone else is roughing people up. He is going about this all wrong.

 

[Avtamat]

He can keep his mouth shut just like the other soldiers. But he decided to stand up.

how brave..

 

[Razor]

Hahaha! Clever bloody you! Of course I am not, but to stop trying to help because a few bad apples gave him a bad taste in his mouth is selfish and irresponsible. Why in the world did he sign up then? I can only hope it was to help those in need in Britain and around the world, but I fear that it wasn't.

And again, if he were regular army this wouldn't be such a big deal but since he is part of the legendary SAS he makes headlines for not wanting to try to improve things in a region that desperately needs a multi-national coalition. Politics be damned but these people need help! The answer is not to just leave!

You could always join up and volunteer to go over there and help?

 

[CptStern]

Intentional killings of civilians by the Coalition are much lower than the insurgents. Both sides do bad things, correct, but the Insurgents are intentionally causing harm in almost all instances in comparison to isolated incidents within the US Army.
jverne gave the impression that the US Forces cause all the atrocities in Iraq, and if true, he needed to be corrected.

the facts:


"The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of death. Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher (95% CI 8·1–419) than in the period before the war."



http://www.zmag.org/lancet.pdf

 

[Some_God]

the facts:


"The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of death. Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher (95% CI 8·1–419) than in the period before the war."



http://www.zmag.org/lancet.pdf

http://www.zmag.org/ ... what a great unbiased source of information. Stern, we can depend on you and your sources to prove your points. I would like to thank you on behalf of all HL2.net. :dork:

 

[VictimOfScience]

You could always join up and volunteer to go over there and help?

But I didn't and he did...that is, until he quit. Big difference. He chose his path and I have chosen mine.

 

[Venmoch]

And what are they supposed to do? Hand them candy? The honor code? We know what happens when we do that. That crap just doesn't fly.
Its still a war zone and everyone is a suspect.

Uh, talk to the British? Seriously.

We've been doing this type of thing since the 50's. I mean Ireland wasn't "that" bad......

I mean the helmets come off as soon as combat stops berets go on and FOOT patrols start. We meet the people we're protecting. I mean seriously, its not that hard.....

 

[CptStern]

http://www.zmag.org/ ... what a great unbiased source of information. Stern, we can depend on you and your sources to prove your points. I would like to thank you on behalf of all HL2.net. :dork:

:upstare: ummm znet just hosted the article ..they have nothing to do with the lancet or the study ...but way to make an ass of yourself :thumbs:

 

[French Ninja]

the facts:


"The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of death. Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher (95% CI 8·1–419) than in the period before the war."



http://www.zmag.org/lancet.pdf

I stand by my arguement.
Intentional killings of civilians by the Coalition are much lower than the insurgents.

 

[CptStern]

you're referring to soldier on the street whereas the stats show it's bombing. Bombing is intentional

 

[French Ninja]

you're referring to soldier on the street whereas the stats show it's bombing. Bombing is intentional

Bombing is intentional in the elimination of armed threats. We did not bomb villages for the heck of it. There was and is good reason put into each strike. Of course with large population densities in some areas this results in high civilian casualties.

 

[Glirk Dient]

you're referring to soldier on the street whereas the stats show it's bombing. Bombing is intentional

Bombing isn't intentional to kill civilians. The fact that the iraqis packed military targets full of civilians and parked military vehicles next to hopsitals and other civilian building to raise the civilian death count.

 

[CptStern]

here we go again ..are you suggesting that saddam is still moving his artillery around civilian areas in the hopes of thwarting those pesky americans?

in any event over 7000 iraqi civilians were killed during the invasion (March 20-May 1, 2003) that's a lot of missed targets and sorry little "oh we didnt know saddam put an anti-aircraft gun on the roof of a hospital" excuses. As the video below shows it didnt stop here

Bombing is intentional in the elimination of armed threats. We did not bomb villages for the heck of it. There was and is good reason put into each strike. Of course with large population densities in some areas this results in high civilian casualties.

indiscriminate bombing

 

[Sulkdodds]

I wouldnt cry like a baby and want out of the military because someone else is roughing people up.

Would you use that turn of phrase if it was one of your D-boys?

 

[marksmanHL2 :)]

What exactly did that video show stern?


I watched it, are they civilians?


God I hope not.

 

[15357]

What exactly did that video show stern?


I watched it, are they civilians?


God I hope not.

Its rather low quality. Who knows?

 

[Sulkdodds]

They might be.

You might expect someone to ask 'are they armed'?

 

[15357]

They might be.

You might expect someone to ask 'are they armed'?

Perhaps they edited it for the newspost. Nobody would know.

 

[CptStern]

not once does the commanding officer ask if they're armed or even a threat. He gave authorization without bothering to find out if they were combatants or not or if the area was clear of civilians ...indiscriminate bombing

 

[mortiz]

You are speculating on what he has seen. It still doesn't matter what he has and hasn't seen. If I saw anyone doing that stuff I would report them and see to it they are court marshaled. I wouldnt cry like a baby and want out of the military because someone else is roughing people up. He is going about this all wrong.

I was speculating with cause. This guy was in the SAS for gods sake, they don't quit over nothing. Report them? Report them to whom? If it is as widespread as the soldier has seen then no one is going to do/be able to do jack about it. All he can do is tell his superiors/the MOD and they have no jurisdiction over American forces. I'm inclined to believe he did report it, but like I said, I doubt anyone really wants to draw attention to the situation, which would have had to happen if they decided to proceed with punishment. That's if the American DOD wanted to pursue it (again, I very much doubt it).

The only court marshals we've seen come out of this war is against those who've been exposed by the media, and I certainly don't believe the media has exposed everything that's going on over there.

 

[Razor]

the facts:


"The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of death. Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher (95% CI 8·1–419) than in the period before the war."



http://www.zmag.org/lancet.pdf

Didn't Sadame massacre about 300,000 Iraqi civilian's though during his reign of terror, did you factor that into your causes of death?

 

[CptStern]

? ...ummm he killed them prior to the invasion, these figures are from after the invasion ...so I dont see how that would apply

 

[Razor]

? ...ummm he killed them prior to the invasion, these figures are from after the invasion ...so I dont see how that would apply

Well, to give a true representation of if the allied coalition are doing a better or worse job then the last dudes i.e. Sadame and his cronies, you have to factor in civilian deaths that both Sadame caused and the allied coalition caused, surely?

 

[CptStern]

it does touch on that ..it says that cause of death was 58 times more likely to be as a result of violence then before the invasion

 

[DeusExMachina]

Those son of a bitch Americans.

 

[CptStern]

Those son of a bitch Americans.

so you're hoping sarcasm will dispel cold reality, or do you just not give a shit?

 

[DeusExMachina]

Well honestly, I was being half-serious.

 

[CptStern]

alrighty then ...just sometimes hard to read people's motivations especially when given the seriousness of the topic

 

[jverne]

Bombing is intentional in the elimination of armed threats. We did not bomb villages for the heck of it. There was and is good reason put into each strike. Of course with large population densities in some areas this results in high civilian casualties.

love you stern...i just wanted to show that video too...it's an almost clear proof!
btw...why the hell would armed insurgents enmass in the middle of a large street!?!? of course they were civilians, most probably some protestors!

i give the SAS soldier 100% right, you cannot win the hearts and minds with such "shoot first, ask later" tactics! that is why the SAS is composed of elite troops...they are smart, which, of course, comes included with a FREAKING moral sense!

explain how can someone hate the US more than Saddam!? unless of course, the US is worse than him!

 

[Ome_Vince]

The war was wrong..
But... coalition forces abandoning Iraq now is the worst thing that could happen: civil war and total anarcy..
At the moment the insurgency and terrorists are also responsible for creating this climate of disgust, anarchy and targetting of Civilians.
How so? By dressing up as civilians, and using civilians to blow themselves up.
Its not helping Iraq AT ALL, only creating anarchy...

Only hypocrits think there's such a thing as a "clean war", no war is clean...
Right now the coalition needs to create stability and prevent the "Civil War" which will litterly destroy the country...

This is not a Black&white issue "anymore"... hence my vote now, even though i have always been AGAINST the war, is for the Coalition to stay and attempt to create stability.
Right now, whatever your opinion is about the war, it would make matters worse for the coalition to leave now...

 

[DeusExMachina]

I think everyone understands that. But, its the fact that our President made the choice in the first place. Honestly, Clinton should've followed Robert Baer's advice in '95 to overthrow Saddam. All countries should organize to take down fascism, despotism, dictatorships, and the like.