Marines must give up souvenirs

[Pyrrho]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84008,00.html


BAGHDAD, Iraq — Since they arrived, U.S. Marines have been doing their own kind of looting – grabbing Iraqi pistols, rifles, uniforms and pictures of Saddam Hussein.

On Friday, they were ordered to dump what they took or lose their rank.

"You did not conquer ... this country. Get off your high horse," Lt. Col. Michael Belcher told his officers. "You took some thugs and ran them out."
I hope they let them take home something from the experience. Couple of rocks at least...

[Jedi Knight]

"You did not conquer ... this country. Get off your high horse," Lt. Col. Michael Belcher told his officers. "You took some thugs and ran them out."

Jesus, I can't believe that a Marine LT. Colonel would run leftist propaganda like that against his troops.

I don't have a problem with soldiers not being allowed to take rifles and ordinance home, but uniforms, patches and Saddam pictures?!? There is nothing wrong with that.

This is just an example of the leftist cultural terrorism embedded inside the US military now. The LT. Colonel must be looking for a promotion to be quoting time-sensitive leftist political opinion to the media like that.

..and "thugs"? No, crack dealing American leftist cultural terrorists are thugs. The 16 Iraqi divisions the US Marines and other military service branches took out were not "thugs". They were not "just some thugs", and the US Marines did conquer them.

I don't feel comfortable with a worm like that Marine Colonel leading troops. He is already sapping the will of his men's victory over the forces of evil in Iraq. First it was the troops being terrorized by leftists not to display the American flag, making the forces in Iraq some "unknown military power" because there was no flag flying over them during the invasion, and now after all the Marine sacrifices it was just against "some thugs".

I think that Colonel is a thug, a leftist thug because only thugs culturally terrorize their own men or the community. By the time that Colonel's men get back from Iraq that bastard will have them believing that they didn't do anything at all.

JK

[Gem]

Did you know what the Soviets did when they took Berlin in 1945? They raised THEIR flag over the city. I think you will agree that they conquered the city.
The US is trying to prevent to look like that. And not just to the "leftist," but also to anyone around the world. There were a few slipups (In southern Iraq, and on a statue of Saddam), but they were removed.
I do agree that it went a little too far, the troops should be able to take pictures of Saddam or other such trinkets. But the LT. Colonel is likely following orders from above.
And guess what? What did Soviet troops did to German troops in World War 2? They looted. In fact, there is a a famous photo that was slightly arranged to cover up the wrist of a soviet infantryman. Why? Because he had TWO watches on his wrist.
Argue as much as you want that the soviets are evil etc etc... looting from the army is not acceptable.
If you ask me, the LT Colonel is not a leftist. If he was your definition of a "leftist," then the whole CENTcommand is leftist, because they asked "no raising of flag" and "we must not look like conquorers" stuff they said. Are they leftist dogs too? If they wanted to they could say "screw public opinion," but political force are at play here.
The raising of the flag over your enemy's building is a symbol of conquest. They have repeatedly said they are not conquerors, but liberators. Even Bush said that, is he a leftist scum? And considering his board of advisors, I would say those guys aren't leftist scums either.

making the forces in Iraq some "unknown military power" because there was no flag flying over them during the invasion
I think the Iraqis know well enough who those guy in the desert camoflage uniforms are...

I think that Colonel is a thug, a leftist thug because only thugs culturally terrorize their own men or the community
Since when did he start terrorize his own men? He just asked them not to loot.

There will be no "'I won this country back. I can take what I can get,"' Belcher said.

I also doubt your claim that he's a worm. Wouldn't this "leftist thug" be an anti war protester and hide in his basement to avoid military duty?

But why am I arguing with you? You'll condemn me being a communist scum, or a leftist terrorist in your reply.

Gem

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem
Did you know what the Soviets did when they took Berlin in 1945? They raised THEIR flag over the city. I think you will agree that they conquered the city.
The US is trying to prevent to look like that. And not just to the "leftist," but also to anyone around the world. There were a few slipups (In southern Iraq, and on a statue of Saddam), but they were removed.
I do agree that it went a little too far, the troops should be able to take pictures of Saddam or other such trinkets. But the LT. Colonel is likely following orders from above.
And guess what? What did Soviet troops did to German troops in World War 2? They looted. In fact, there is a a famous photo that was slightly arranged to cover up the wrist of a soviet infantryman. Why? Because he had TWO watches on his wrist.
Argue as much as you want that the soviets are evil etc etc... looting from the army is not acceptable.
If you ask me, the LT Colonel is not a leftist. If he was your definition of a "leftist," then the whole CENTcommand is leftist, because they asked "no raising of flag" and "we must not look like conquorers" stuff they said. Are they leftist dogs too? If they wanted to they could say "screw public opinion," but political force are at play here.
The raising of the flag over your enemy's building is a symbol of conquest. They have repeatedly said they are not conquerors, but liberators. Even Bush said that, is he a leftist scum? And considering his board of advisors, I would say those guys aren't leftist scums either.


I think the Iraqis know well enough who those guy in the desert camoflage uniforms are...


Since when did he start terrorize his own men? He just asked them not to loot.



I also doubt your claim that he's a worm. Wouldn't this "leftist thug" be an anti war protester and hide in his basement to avoid military duty?

But why am I arguing with you? You'll condemn me being a communist scum, or a leftist terrorist in your reply.

Gem

You are confused about the international standards of war. I am not going to condemn you for your opinion. You think it is a good idea that US troops fight wars without the US flag identifying them, and I say it is a terrible idea shunned in history.

It has nothing to do with raising a flag over a city after our army obliterates it like we did Baghdad. That is not the point.

There is not a soul on this planet that didn't know it was US forces fighting in Iraq. Anyone with a clue knew it was US troops. Knowing that then, it is also known that an army always fights with its colors in the lead. That means the US flag is at the front of the formations in war. Every war in our history has been to that standard.

But now, gosh, it is a sin for US soldiers to display the very flag of their country when they go to war. It is a sin because radical leftist commies say it is.

Why bother draping the flag over the coffins of US troops when they come home in bodybags if they weren't allowed to fight under the flag in the war? An army is always idenitified by its national flag, but this war has turned into a leftist war under the guise of a non-leftist, non-UN war. It is the greatest deception I have ever seen in warfare.

An army never moves without its flag. Ours has and it is an Orwellian, leftist disgrace. Six months after the troops come home, leftists will bury the memory of their accomplishments. It is the leftist way because leftists hate America. When it becomes illegal for a soldier to fly and walk beneath his country's flag in war, he is not serving his country but something mercenary. You never disassociate a soldier from his country's flag. Never.

JK

[BillyJoe]

Jedi,

The flag means f*ck all.
It's just a bloody symbol.
It's not actually important.
What's important is whether the US will achieve its goals in Iraq not whether they carried the friggin' flag with them, or erected it or fought under the friggin' thing.

BJ.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Jedi,

The flag means f*ck all.
It's just a bloody symbol.
It's not actually important.
What's important is whether the US will achieve its goals in Iraq not whether they carried the friggin' flag with them, or erected it or fought under the friggin' thing.

BJ.

It isn't a US "force" in Iraq. It is a flagless, mercenary army. A country never sends its military forces to war without its flag. To do so is criminal and anti-sovereign.

You agree with the leftists that it is cool and fashionable to see an army operate without a flag, eh? You are sadly mistaken.

It seeds the ranks of leadership with confusion and sends the wrong message to other countries worldwide. I mentioned some of that confusion above where there was a LT. Colonel who scolded American soldiers under him about who they were. That type of confusion.

Or when the leftist global media demanded to know the identity of the soldier that draped the American flag on the Saddam statue in Baghdad and then demanded interviews with him on live TV. That should have never happened. No soldier can be enticed to give interviews to the media or anyone outside of his chain of command, but the leftist media just had to know the personal identity of a soldier serving in war whose crime it was to fly the American flag.

When an army marches through your neighborhood in the future and they have been trained to ignore their flag, you remember that you thought it was cool and fashionable for them to do it. You remember how you said it is just a "symbol" when those disassociated soldiers march; soldiers that are trained not to be concerned about what country they are marching for nor the country they are marching in. Only mercenary armies do that.

It also steals from soldiers their history. Without an American flag flying under the armies in Iraq, they become flagless armies. I can just see the leftists drooling about this one already. It was a huge mistake to allow this to happen.

The president told the UN what the American intentions were for Iraq. The action in Iraq was just to liberate the country. The flag issue was just a leftist attack on the United States, a commie attack. It was a deceptive underhanded attack on freedom, a key leftist trait.

JK

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
The flag means f*ck all.
It's just a bloody symbol.
It's not actually important.
It obviously means something, else people wouldn't be freaking out about seeing it.

I think it's wise for us to emphasize that we're not planning to rule Iraq. But we also don't want to bend over backwards trying to pretend we're something we're not. Trying too hard makes it seem like we feel guilty for what we're doing. Signals of self-doubt aren't going to help us or the Iraqis right now.

The Iraqis figured out what the "thumbs up" sign means. If we explain that to Americans, the flag represents an ideal of individual liberty and opposition to tyrrany, I bet they'll catch on to the fact that the flag isn't being shown to humiliate them.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by DrBenway
It obviously means something, else people wouldn't be freaking out about seeing it. Yes it does mean something and it means too much to too many people.
What I'm saying is that it should not.

Originally posted by DrBenway
I think it's wise for us to emphasize that we're not planning to rule Iraq. Yes and you don't need a flag to do that.

Originally posted by DrBenway
If we explain that[,] to Americans, the flag represents an ideal of individual liberty and opposition to tyrrany, I bet they'll catch on to the fact that the flag isn't being shown to humiliate them. But why bother to show it at all - America's actions will speak much louder and less ambiguously.

[Richard G]

http://www.armytimes.com/content/editorial/editart/041103front1.jpg
A Kurdish girl holds a U.S. flag during a celebration Thursday in Kirkuk, Iraq.

[Mel]

Personally, I think it's smart policy to avoid giving Muslim fundamentalists MORE fuel for their propaganda machine whenever and wherever we can avoid it.

This has less to do (if anything) with the anti-war crowd than with how we want to be perceived by the region we are trying to change.

Even though EVERYONE might know the truth.... that doesn't mean they will be willing to ADMIT the truth out loud. The coalition does not want to stay in the region a minute longer than necessary and does not want to convert every Muslim into a good little Christian...... but that's exactly what good brainwashing tells the downtrodden citizens of other corrupt countries in the region.

Taking the course of least resistance is smart.

[Gem]

You are confused about the international standards of war. I am not going to condemn you for your opinion. You think it is a good idea that US troops fight wars without the US flag identifying them, and I say it is a terrible idea shunned in history.

I think not raising the flag is dumb. They aren't doing it because doing so carries a lot of emotional (as opposed to rational) reactions.

I do agree that it's for the regional influence, not just the influence back in the US, that they aren't raising the flag. Of course, they "politely" point to the cases where we did raise the flag.

Gem

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Mel
Personally, I think it's smart policy to avoid giving Muslim fundamentalists MORE fuel for their propaganda machine whenever and wherever we can avoid it.

....perceived by the region we are trying to change.

The coalition does not want to stay in the region a minute longer than necessary .


The US is entrenched in the region, has been for 3 decades now (maybe more?). This entrenchment is one issue that makes the Muslim Fundies fume. The fundies do use a propaganda of making the facts fit or support the perception.

Perceptions play a large part in the way the actions of the coalition are viewed.

Generally:
Perceptions are difficult to "change" in people. People have to be presented with a lot of evidence before they even consider changing their minds about something that is strongly believed. Sometimes the new evidence is ignored because it does not support their beliefs or perceptions.

Re: flags. Flags are generally considered a traditional symbol of declaring a land conquered for western nations. I am not sure how flags are percieved by Muslims in Iraq or the Middle East.

Changing the region is a tall order.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
But why bother to show it at all - America's actions will speak much louder and less ambiguously.
It's a delicate matter. Too much hysteria against the flag sends a message of hidden agenda. Too much flag waving sends a message of domination.

The best policy, I would think: use the flag to identify American personnel (e.g., on uniforms, vehicles, on command posts); don't put the flag over Iraqi structures. When some eager 19 year-old forgets himself and proudly puts up a flag, take it down, but don't act as if the mistake were some sort of major diplomatic sin.

[Mel]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe



The US is entrenched in the region, has been for 3 decades now (maybe more?). This entrenchment is one issue that makes the Muslim Fundies fume. The fundies do use a propaganda of making the facts fit or support the perception.

Perceptions play a large part in the way the actions of the coalition are viewed.

Generally:
Perceptions are difficult to "change" in people. People have to be presented with a lot of evidence before they even consider changing their minds about something that is strongly believed. Sometimes the new evidence is ignored because it does not support their beliefs or perceptions.

Re: flags. Flags are generally considered a traditional symbol of declaring a land conquered for western nations. I am not sure how flags are percieved by Muslims in Iraq or the Middle East.

Changing the region is a tall order.

A tall order, yes..... but one we need to address or we must admit once and for all that there can never be a civilized relationship between Muslim countries and non-Muslim countries and wash our hands of the whole nasty business for good.

It's the corrupt governments that fuel their citizens hatred of "infidels." As distasteful as it might be, we do have to consider how best to diffuse the propaganda and how to take this very deadly 'weapon' out of their hands.



I agree DrBenway. There sure has been an overreaction to the flag issue, thanks to an over-emotional media.

Originally posted by pyrrho2000


I hope they let them take home something from the experience. Couple of rocks at least...

Or maybe heads of dead inoccents civilians...like PREDATOR the movie.

[Agammamon]

American troops are specifically prohibited from take weapons or body parts as trophies. There are pretty specific rules as to what can actually be taken and anything other than what is allowed is considered looting which is generally a capital offense.

Army story discussing battle trophies in Afghanistan (http://www.armyflier.com/11_7/2B.pdf)

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
[b]

I don't have a problem with soldiers not being allowed to take rifles and ordinance home, but uniforms, patches and Saddam pictures?!? There is nothing wrong with that.


I think they ought to allow the troops to bring home pistols and other memorabilia. Soldiers have been allowed to bring home pistols in other conflicts, and I see no problem with it. Automatic weapons present a problem, but pistols are alright.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Agammamon
There are pretty specific rules as to what can actually be taken and anything other than what is allowed is considered looting which is generally a capital offense.
Surely not a capital (i.e., death penalty) offense?

[reprise]

I recall reports during the last two weeks about the number of people who had been charged with taking 'souvenirs' from the scene of another human tragedy - the World Trade Centre site.

Should any of the forces serving in Iraq want souvenirs, I'm sure that many Iraqi citizens would be only too happy to either give or sell to them some enduring symbol of their time in Iraq.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by DrBenway
The best policy, I would think: use the flag to identify American personnel (e.g., on uniforms, vehicles, on command posts); don't put the flag over Iraqi structures. When some eager 19 year-old forgets himself and proudly puts up a flag, take it down, but don't act as if the mistake were some sort of major diplomatic sin. Sounds good to me.

[LW]

Originally posted by Gem
And guess what? What did Soviet troops did to German troops in World War 2? They looted.

Officially, looting was strictly forbidden in the Red Army. In practice, many Soviet soldiers took stuff that they thought they could get away with. The higher up they were in the military hierarchy, the more they could get away with. For example, one Soviet veteran of the Winter War against Finland commented that their comissar had all privates searched and every single Finnish-manufactured item was confiscated (including matchboxes) but that he had later been a member in a work party who had emptied a house and sent all furniture in it to the wife of their regimental commander.

Some commanders (such as Rokossovski, if I remember correctly) enforced military laws strictly, up to the point of sending offenders to Siberia, most others took a more lax view.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by LW
.....their comissar had all privates searched and every single Finnish-manufactured item was confiscated including matchboxes.....:D

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by pyrrho2000
...

I hope they let them take home something from the experience. Couple of rocks at least...

I think that this is just another example of military CYA.

Due to all of the media and military attention that is currently being focused on Iraq, I expect he is just worried that some of his troops may actually get caught doing some egregious looting, or make fast money by selling trophies, or have their picture appear in the papers while wearing an Iraqi combat helmet, or some such other thing. In any case, such an event would not reflect well on him since a big part of his job is to maintain troop morale and discipline.

Therefore, if such a thing does actually happen, he exonerate himself of the responsibility by saying something like, "I did my best to control the situation by ordering everyone in my command not to pick up any souvenirs!".

And if such a thing does not happen, he can take credit for it by saying something like, "Everyone in my command is well mannered; I ordered them not take any souvenirs and they did not!".

Heads I win.
Tails you lose.

Originally posted by Agammamon
American troops are specifically prohibited from take weapons or body parts as trophies. There are pretty specific rules as to what can actually be taken and anything other than what is allowed is considered looting which is generally a capital offense.



American troops were specially prohibited to atack Iraq against UN resoultions. All after that is bla bla.

[Denise]

Originally posted by latinijral


American troops were specially prohibited to atack Iraq against UN resoultions. All after that is bla bla.

Um, no. Show me the UN resoltuion that shows that.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Denise
Um, no. Show me the UN resoltuion that shows that.
Of course there isn't one. Does anyone think such a proposed resolution could have slipped by the Security Council without being vetoed by the US and the UK? :rolleyes:

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by DrBenway

Surely not a capital (i.e., death penalty) offense?
Under the punitive articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (http://www.military-network.com/main_ucmj/SUBCHAPTERX.html), looting is indeed punishable by death, although the sentence is not mandatory.

Many people would be surprised to learn the range of misconduct technically punishable by death in time of war under U.S. military law - from displaying cowardice to simply disobeying a legitimate order.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by DrBenway

Surely not a capital (i.e., death penalty) offense?

Yup. Theoretically, at least, looting--like defection or disobeying orders--is a capital offense in military law, although I doubt any American soldier was actually executed for looting in living memory. It is one of those things that are treated far more seriously by military law than by "regular" law.

Generally speaking, the only kind of war trophies soldiers can TAKE in war for personal use are bona fide military artifacts, excluding weapons themselves, that belonged to the opposing Army and that do not have intrinsic value.

A soldier cannot not take for himself a bottle of wine he found in a deserted or captured military base, or any money or jewlery, etc. He could take ammunitions or weapons found in a deserted military base, but that had to be given to the army as spoils of war. He COULD, however, take an Iraqi flag or a picture of Saddam Hussein from an abandoned military base.

This applies to captured spoils, those that belonged to the opposing army, as opposed to individuals. You can take a captured enemy soldiers' weapon and turn it over to the army, of course, but not his uniform or his picture of Hussein. And, of course, a soldier cannot take anything, without orders, from civilians, whether valuable or not.

When it comes to BUYING souveniers as opposed to taking them, soldiers CAN buy all sorts of things from civilians, and that is of course not looting. However, these transactions are usually strictly regulated for obvious reasons.

Originally posted by Denise


Um, no. Show me the UN resoltuion that shows that.

Show me the resolution that show that UN give the aproval to the "NN" to atack and kill inoccents.

Who read the "declarations" of the chief of inspectors of the UN?

[Denise]

Originally posted by latinijral


Show me the resolution that show that UN give the aproval to the "NN" to atack and kill inoccents.

Who read the "declarations" of the chief of inspectors of the UN?

In other words, you can't.

[Richard G]

Generally speaking, the only kind of war trophies soldiers can TAKE in war for personal use are bona fide military artifacts, excluding weapons themselves, that belonged to the opposing Army and that do not have intrinsic value.

My brother will be disapointed. He swore he would bring back a string necklace adorned with Iraqi ears.

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by DrBenway

Surely not a capital (i.e., death penalty) offense?
In Massachusetts, according to the Boston Globe, it's worthy of castration.
[No, I exaggerate. But not by much.]

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by DrBenway

Surely not a capital (i.e., death penalty) offense?

Yes.

This penalty can also be applied to civilian looters in military controlled areas.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Richard G


My brother will be disapointed. He swore he would bring back a string necklace adorned with Iraqi ears.
Un-liberated Iraqis only, I hope. Remember we are doing this for the Iraqi people.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by DrBenway

Surely not a capital (i.e., death penalty) offense?

If you read 'band of brothers', looting after WWII was just taken for granted. And the higher up you were, the more you could take.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tricky

Un-liberated Iraqis only, I hope. Remember we are doing this for the Iraqi people.

The Iraqi is a very ambigous entity. If he shows up on a refugee ship on our shores, he is thrown in a detention centre, and endless complaints are made about how much it costs for surveilence to keep him out. He has been accused of not being the type of person we want over he, because he was framed for throwing children overboard from the boat to force the Navy to rescue him.

However, we can spend countless millions and billions on fighting a war for him, and then, just as victory is achieved, cannot afford to maintain law and order.

His country will be rebuilt, by our companies, using his oil to pay the bills.

He is a 'towel head' terrorist one day, and a poor suffering human being the next.

[Lisa]

Been talking to the CMSGT I used to work for:
me:Is the taking of military trophies allowable under LOAC? This has come up on one of the forums I'm on. Just hoping you know off the top of your head, I really don't feel like reading the whole damned thing.
Lisa
Chief:I don't think there's any condition under which it's specifically allowable. Taking somebody's personal property is considered theft, and I know LOAC says that captured firearms and ammunition and the like are the property of the US government. Those two concepts probably cover most circumstances...haven't read the whole thing for a while myself. Well, heck...I'll grab a comment from the web training.....

"Do not loot or attempt to benefit from the "spoils or war". Taking private property (watches, photos, etc..) from prisoners or civilians is theft. All captured firearms, ammunition, etc...are the property of the U.S. Government."

And that oughta be close enough. However, everything is situational and comparative. LOAC says that if you're taken prisoner, do not try to escape. But our Code of Conduct says we will always try to escape. Everything's a judgment call, I reckon.

Originally posted by Denise


In other words, you can't.

In your own words.....you can`t and never can answer my question.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The Iraqi is a very ambigous entity. If he shows up on a refugee ship on our shores, he is thrown in a detention centre, and endless complaints are made about how much it costs for surveilence to keep him out. He has been accused of not being the type of person we want over he, because he was framed for throwing children overboard from the boat to force the Navy to rescue him.

However, we can spend countless millions and billions on fighting a war for him, and then, just as victory is achieved, cannot afford to maintain law and order.

His country will be rebuilt, by our companies, using his oil to pay the bills.

He is a 'towel head' terrorist one day, and a poor suffering human being the next.
He is that most protean of peoples. If we need him to justify invasion because he was cheering when the WTC went down, he can do that. If we need him to justify the invasion because he is cheering when we throw down Saddam, he can do that. If we need him to be hungry and poor and in need of our help, he can be that. If we need him to starve from sanctions because he will not overthrow the dictator, he can be that. If we want him portrayed as an ungrateful criminal who loots and plunders at the first opportunity, he can look like that. If we want him portrayed as the average citizen who wants the looting and plundering stopped, he can look like that.

He can be anything we want him to be. The only thing he cannot be is what he wants to be. Our imagination does not extend that far.