U.S. Soldier Shoots Tiger at Baghdad Zoo

[zakur]

U.S. Soldier Shoots Tiger at Baghdad Zoo (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-iraq-tiger-shot,0,4416688.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines)

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- A U.S. soldier shot and killed a tiger at the Baghdad zoo after it bit another soldier who had reached through the bars of its cage to feed it, a zoo security guard said Saturday.

The soldiers had been drinking beer when they entered the zoo Thursday night after it closed, said the guard, Zuhair Abdul-Majeed.

"He was drunk," Abdul-Majeed said of the bitten soldier.

After the man was bit, the other American shot the tiger three times in the head and killed it, Abdul-Majeed told The Associated Press.And what's the lesson here, kiddies?

[shemp]

And what's wrong with a little target practice using live targets?

It was after dark. Maybe they couldn't find any little children to shoot like they usually do.

[Tony]

Procecute the soldier and re-emburse the tiger.

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by shemp
And what's wrong with a little target practice using live targets?

It was after dark. Maybe they couldn't find any little children to shoot like they usually do.

whether out of sarcasm or ignorance statements like that, which are not based in fact (unless you can supply evidence that soldiers shooting children is usual,intentional behavior), are not exactly helpful.

[shemp]

And I suppose it's helpful to have drunken, armed U.S. soldiers walking the streets of Bagdad?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by shemp
And I suppose it's helpful to have drunken, armed U.S. soldiers walking the streets of Bagdad?

Shemp, you're an idiot. You're being purposefully provocative, without having any real legitimate point. Was this a bad thing? Of course, and the soldiers in question will be disciplined for it. But you are implying that it's US policy to have soldiers walking the streets armed and drunk. Drunk soldiers off base cause trouble in the US too, and probably every country with a sizeable military, it's just not news most of the time.

[Shinytop]

Anytime you have soldiers drunk and with weapons it means somebody in the chain of command has screwed up. It should be more than just these soldiers who are taken to task.

Shemp, you are an idiot if you think you have many any good point. You have been very insulting of a large group of people while just appearing very dense and insensitive. Maybe you are just having a brain fart, I don't know.

[CapelDodger]

The problem US armies have always had is not the with the soldiers but with the officers. As a result of officer incompetence the soldiers are ill-disciplined and suffer because of that. This incident is criminal, and the officers repsonsible should be shot and fed to any remaining tigers. (Notice the humanitarian touch; if the shooting is skipped I don't much mind.)

[Shinytop]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
The problem US armies have always had is not the with the soldiers but with the officers. As a result of officer incompetence the soldiers are ill-disciplined and suffer because of that. This incident is criminal, and the officers repsonsible should be shot and fed to any remaining tigers. (Notice the humanitarian touch; if the shooting is skipped I don't much mind.)

Actually you have occasional bad officers but the Army is remarkably well led by both its officers and NCO's. You do not have an Army that performs like ours has in the two gulf wars without great leadership. Your generalization was much too broad.

[CapelDodger]

from Shinytop:
Actually you have occasional bad officers but the Army is remarkably well led by both its officers and NCO's
NCO's no doubt, officers no. Military history is one of my interests, and the history of the US military is one of amateur officers. The professionals are produced in West Point, which is aimed at staff officers but actually provides command officers. What proportion of officers in Iraq now are reservists or part-timers?

And why were these guys wandering around Baghdad pissed and armed? You won't see that in Basra, or at least not for long.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by zakur
And what's the lesson here, kiddies?

Personally, I would say the lesson is "get confirmation to a story from more than one person before printing it." If you read the article you'll notice that it's based only on the word of one person.

I also find the following a bit hard to swallow:


It was impossible to reach the U.S. military spokesman's office because the telephones have not worked for three days.


Three days, and they weren't able to get any comment or statement from the US Army on the story? They really couldn't have tried all that hard.

[Shinytop]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from Shinytop:

NCO's no doubt, officers no. Military history is one of my interests, and the history of the US military is one of amateur officers. The professionals are produced in West Point, which is aimed at staff officers but actually provides command officers. What proportion of officers in Iraq now are reservists or part-timers?

And why were these guys wandering around Baghdad pissed and armed? You won't see that in Basra, or at least not for long.

Military history is also one of my interests. As in the military as demonstrated by my spending 26 years in its service. The history of the Civil War is replete with instances of amateur officers disobeying and modifying good battle plans. But once we did away with the state militias not meeting standards of active officers we began having a professional officer corps. True there are still many officers who are there to only serve a few years but the current system of military education and ratings does well in removing the amateurs.

Does this mean they never make mistakes? Hell no. Do you propose that the Brit officers never make mistakes? I hope not. But consider the size of the British army and the American Army. And then consider the price of the American policy of "up or out". And excellent captain in the British Army is allowed to stay when not selected for Major. In the American army two non selects mean you are out. There are pluses and minuses to both policies. One of the minuses of ours is less experienced officers at the lower ranks. But one of the pluses is our higher ranks have more imagination and better leadership. Again I must say we would not have done what we have in the last two gulf wars without some excellent leadership.

But I noticed you skip that point and do nothing but make claims. What evidence have you for damning the entire American officer corps? And besides reading military history what are your credentials for making such sweeping damnations?

[CapelDodger]

Shinytop:
I have no military qualifications, I even avoided the School Cadet Force. I have lived in garrison towns, I have known a lot of military personnel with whom I have had informed and inquiring discussions. That includes American Air Force and Naval persons, but they don't have the same problems the Army does. I've never met any US Marines and it may be just as well. I've met some Royal Marines and mostly smiled and nodded a lot. (Mind you, it's the Paras that are the real animals.)

US officers are under-trained in man-management, and that's why US troops are ill-disciplined. I don't mean that pejoratively, it's actually quite charming and terribly American to reject regimentation, but it means you get more sick, you get more casualties and you get jumpy men with insufficient orders opening-up wildly in crowded areas.

The recent conquest of Iraq was a brilliant display of staff work, as was the Kuwait War. It was technically excellent and bold and professional. But the rapid advance included the expedient of shooting-up all the street-side windows and doors of the towns and villages driven through so quickly. Who had the sense to point out that, if such a policy is necessary, the medium-term effects are going to be very negative? Probably lots of people, but they weren't being listened to. The timetable ruled, and the medium-term was left to itself.

In the medium-term, which is now, American troops are out on a limb. They did what they were supposed to do, under officers who knew how not to prevent them doing it, and now they don't know what they're supposed to do and they're not getting the leadership that will tell them. Sod the political catatonia, the Army on the ground should be sorting their own affairs out better than they are.

from Leif Roar:
Three days, and they weren't able to get any comment or statement from the US Army on the story? They really couldn't have tried all that hard.
If they weren't lying about the phones being out for three days, that's a story in itself. But I get your point.

[Shinytop]

Ah, I see. Well your experience is overwhelming and I am in awe of your brilliant analysis. Pardon me if I ignore your opinions of the quality of the American officer corps.

[Garrette]

I am both a West Point grad with 9 years of active service and a Reservist with too many years of reserve service; the two are not exclusive.

I am also in Baghdad. The unit involved in the tiger affair is subordinate to the unit to which I am assigned.

Armed, drunken soldiers were not wandering the streets of Baghdad.

The zoo is a relatively safe and enclosed area which was refurbished by US Civil Affairs units; the animals were also cared for by Reservist Civil Affairs officers. I personally know the Captain who was the lead on this.

In gratitude for US assistance, the Iraqi zookeeper made a portion of the zoo (a small 'island' in the manmade water areas) available to troops on occasion for unit functions.

The unit involved was holding a birthday party on the island, at the invitation of the zookeeper. They had weapons because weapons are required at all times with some very minor exceptions.

They were not supposed to be drinking. Apparently they were drinking anyway, though this is not officially known yet; there was a blood-alcohol test taken at the time, the results of which I am not privy to.

Soldiers do this. They find ways around rules, especially when it comes to alcohol. This is not new to the current US army, and alcohol is ridiculously easy to get here.

Then some soldiers did something stupid, and one soldier and the tiger paid for it.

It is my understanding that the US will replace the tiger. Disposition of the case regarding the soldiers has been pulled up to 1AD level.

The zookeeper would probably rescind his invitation to use the island, but it is a moot point; the military has put a stop to its use.

[Shinytop]

Thank you Garrette for the facts of the case.

[Regnad Kcin]

And thank you, Garrette, for your service.

[shemp]

I assume by "replace" the tiger, you mean get another one for the zoo. I suppose this is all fine and dandy, except that tigers are an endangered species, so we're one tiger closer to extinction today.

However, one cannot "replace" the human beings who have died in the Bush Reelection War. How many young Americans have died and will die so that Dubya can try to increase his chances of reelection? How many of other nations? How many will die when the Bush Reelection War moves on to our next likely target, Iran?

Thank you for clearing up the specifics of this incident.

[demon]

US soldiers pumping three bullets into the head of a caged animal...why am I not suprised? That`s the kind of odds the US military likes.
Well done fellas.

[a_unique_person]

I remember saying to someone once that Dubya just wanted to start the war to get re-elected. Then they pointed out that his father lost the next election after Gulf War 1. No, I think Dubya is just the patsy. The money men have achieved their aims, and Dubya will get the flick.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by shemp
I assume by "replace" the tiger, you mean get another one for the zoo. I suppose this is all fine and dandy, except that tigers are an endangered species, so we're one tiger closer to extinction today.


If the world ecology is a major concern, keep in mind that Saddam was no friend to the environment. Remember the burning of the Kuwait oil fields following Gulf War 1. More recently, he was involved in the draining of the marshes in Iraq.

So, while we may be down one tiger, the US has stopped, and started to reverse, one of the major ecological disasters in the middle east.

See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1342853.stm
http://www.amarappeal.com/proj1.htm

So, what would you rather have? One dead tiger, or one ecosystem on the planet wiped out?

(edited to add: Does anyone know if that tiger was involved in any breeding programs? If not, then the fact that it has died will not bring the tigers any closer to extinction, since it wouldn't be producing any offspring anyways.)

Originally posted by shemp
However, one cannot "replace" the human beings who have died in the Bush Reelection War. How many young Americans have died and will die so that Dubya can try to increase his chances of reelection? How many of other nations? How many will die when the Bush Reelection War moves on to our next likely target, Iran?


Again, has it ever occured to you that people were already dying in Iraq prior to the war? (Both directly by Saddam's actions, and by starvaction/poor medical care.) There will come a time in which the number o fpeople dead due to the war will be smaller than the number of people that would have died had Iraq remained in power.

Unfortunately, they don't show up in nice statistics like "killed in bombing" body counts, etc.

[Shinytop]

Originally posted by demon
US soldiers pumping three bullets into the head of a caged animal...why am I not suprised? That`s the kind of odds the US military likes.
Well done fellas.

What an ignorant remark. I suppose we should quit fighting wars with technology so we would be as backward as the idiots who attack us with bombs in the street and airplanes into buildings.

I wonder how much you complained about the US military for the decades that the presence of the US in Europe was all that saved Europe from being completely overun. We still have soldiers in hot spots where we will lose thousands while we ramp up to support them.

What an ignorant remark.

[demon]

"I wonder how much you complained about the US military for the decades that the presence of the US in Europe was all that saved Europe from being completely overun."

The presence of the US military in Europe did not save Europe from being "overun". What a ridiculous statement. Thinking it did is a typically arrogant and ignorant American perspective. Wouldn`t suprise me if you thought the US won the Second World War too.

"I suppose we should quit fighting wars with technology so we would be as backward as the idiots who attack us with bombs in the street and airplanes into buildings."

If you quit your killing sprees around the world, propping up dictators, invading countries based on lies then you just might find people wouldn`t fly airplanes into buildings and you wouldn`t have to whine about it all the time.
I hear that 7 out of 10 Americans think Saddam had something to do with 9-11. Go tell it to them...they are on your level of awareness.

Who trains your guys? Abbot and Costello?
If it wasn`t for your technology you would have trouble facing down an angry grasshopper with a wet twig.

[Shinytop]

Read some history, apologize profusely for wasting bandwidth and you might be capable of being taken seriously.

By the way, we were trained by the Three Stooges. And it still beats the hell out of being trained by Benny Hill.

By the by, almost all of the hot spots in the world today were created by England's inept drawing of artificial borders as their empires collapsed. I include Iraq, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, and Israel in that remark. I hardly feel I need to listen to you about how to behave on the world stage.

[demon]

"By the by, almost all of the hot spots in the world today were created by England's inept drawing of artificial borders as their empires collapsed. I include Iraq, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, and Israel in that remark. I hardly feel I need to listen to you about how to behave on the world stage."

I won`t argue with that and wouldn`t want to.
I`m not an aplogist for any kind of Imperialism.

[CapelDodger]

Thank you Garette. I'm obviously a mug for tiger stories.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by shemp
I assume by "replace" the tiger, you mean get another one for the zoo. I suppose this is all fine and dandy, except that tigers are an endangered species, so we're one tiger closer to extinction today.


Wild tigers are indeed close to extinction. However, breeding programs have been quite successful, and most tigers in zoos are bred in captivity. One dead tiger in a zoo will have little impact on the overall captive breeding program, which is not in danger of extinction. But hey, since when have you ever backed away from a little hyperbole?


However, one cannot "replace" the human beings who have died in the Bush Reelection War. How many young Americans have died and will die so that Dubya can try to increase his chances of reelection? How many of other nations? How many will die when the Bush Reelection War moves on to our next likely target, Iran?


How many Iraqis had to die before someone finally did something about Saddam? How many Kurds had to die so that France and Russia could get sweatheart contracts from the corrupt Baathist regime? Were you asking these questions before the war? If not, your current criticism reeks of hypocracy. I wasn't a member of this forum until relatively recently, but judging by the track record of posts I have seen, I would guess not, troll.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
How many Iraqis had to die before someone finally did something about Saddam? How many Kurds had to die so that France and Russia could get sweatheart contracts from the corrupt Baathist regime? Were you asking these questions before the war?

Were you asking them before the 1991 Gulf War? Was anybody asking them when Saddam was our bossum buddy and Iraq was the bad guy? Was anyone in the American and British governments asking them before the current Gulf War? Or were these questions deemed irrelevent until we found he had no weapons of mass destruction after all, and needed a post-hoc excuse for the invasion?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by demon
If you quit your killing sprees around the world, propping up dictators, invading countries based on lies then you just might find people wouldn`t fly airplanes into buildings and you wouldn`t have to whine about it all the time.


Funny because the time it did happen it was not for any of those reasons. It was for "soiling the holy land" by setting foot on it.