U.S. Soldier taken hostage..............

[red indian]

.......the U.S. media has not suprisingly gone in to a frenzy about this incident. What views do any of you have about the fact that the U.S. are holding "enemy combatants" in a military base in cuba, which most people think is ok, but its not ok for U.S. "enemy combatants" to be held hostage in Iraq.

Now before you mods start with the terse e mails, I must point out that I am no bleeding heart liberal who thinks George Bush was responsible for 9/11, but I do have something of a dilemma when wrestling with this question. Surely both groups are prisoners of war, what ever tag they are given.

The U.S. media choose to call the U.S. soldier a "hostage" which is of course suitably emotive. Where as the guys in Quantanamo Bay are refered to as the rather more mundane and matter of fact "enemy combatants".

 

[Psycho]

I just read about that this morning. Aren't all of the people in cuba terrorists though? I would also like to point out that the POWs in cuba are treated well and not tortured as the hostages taken in the middle east have been known to been.

Psycho

 

[red indian]

The cuba detainees.......

......have never been refered to as "terrorists" by the U.S. government or the military, they are always refered to as "enemy combatants".

Having watched the small amount of footage that the U.S. military allow of quantanamo bay, it looks pretty unpleasant to me, guys chained, blindfolded and transported about the camp on hand carts, and thats just what they let the media see.

 

[Flatfoot]

.......the U.S. media has not suprisingly gone in to a frenzy about this incident. What views do any of you have about the fact that the U.S. are holding "enemy combatants" in a military base in cuba, which most people think is ok, but its not ok for U.S. "enemy combatants" to be held hostage in Iraq.

Now before you mods start with the terse e mails, I must point out that I am no bleeding heart liberal who thinks George Bush was responsible for 9/11, but I do have something of a dilemma when wrestling with this question. Surely both groups are prisoners of war, what ever tag they are given.

The U.S. media choose to call the U.S. soldier a "hostage" which is of course suitably emotive. Where as the guys in Quantanamo Bay are refered to as the rather more mundane and matter of fact "enemy combatants".

I'm going to break it down Barney-style. It's the U.S. media, which means it's a news source aimed at citizens of the United States. Since the soldier in question belongs to us (the United States), we consider him a hostage, as opposed to an enemy combatant, because he is NOT an enemy, and we want him back. Since the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay were OPPOSING the U.S., they are referred to simply as "enemy combatants", or the more neutral term, POWs (Prisoners of War).

Though I'm a U.S. Marine, and I tend to avoid any heated discussions on world events, I'll be honest with you that one thing I never liked about the news is that it's more aimed at ratings than providing useful information. Also, until we've got machines to record all current events that go on in the world, I don't think it will be possible to provide unbiased news without any propaganda. Of course, if that DOES ever happen, people will lose interest (It's like the 2-minute hate in George Orwell's 1984.). The U.S. military can be victims to this as well, and it happens quite often. Any time a Marine, sailor, soldier, or airmen does something stupid that gets him/her arrested, the news report always clearly states in the headline, "Marine rapes woman", "Airmen arrested, caught with cocaine in trunk of car", "Soldier beats spouse", or "Sailor arrested for starting bar brawl", as opposed to "Man rapes woman", "Man/Woman arrested, caught with cocaine in trunk of car", "Man/Woman beats spouse", or "Man/Woman arrested for starting bar brawl".

Nowadays, our public image is heavily stressed because of idiots like LCpl Boudreaux (If you don't know who I'm talking about, just do a search on Google for "LCpl killed my father, then he knocked up my sister" You'll see what I mean), who took a stupid joke picture without thinking about what it would look like if it got back to the rest of the American public (I don't think that was a doctored photo, either, because I know of Marines dumb enough to do something like that, trying to be funny.).

 

[Haltickling]

The prisoners in Guantanamo are denied POW status (and all other rights) by the US, and the soldier in Iraq is denied any rights as well.

That's where the analogy reaches its limit. Their situation isn't comparable at all. IMO, this soldier IS held as hostage, not as a prisoner of any kind. I send my sincere sympathy to his family and friends. I also send my sincere sympathy to the families and friends of the prisoners in Guantanamo.

I'm trying to see this from a different angle than the lopsided mass media though. Try to imagine the following (merely hypothetical) situation: A foreign army invades your country and tries to impose an Islamic theocracy, with traditional Islamic laws. The invaders kill thousands of your people. Of course there will be a lot of armed resistance from the population, they will fight the enemy wherever they meet them. One day, a soldier of the invading army gets caught. Is he a hostage? A POW?

To some parts of the Iraqi people, exactly this is the situation of their country. To them, Western democracy and lifestyle are utterly alien concepts. The only acceptable form of state for them is an Islamic republic, because Allah must rule. Yet the West tries to impose their own concept upon Iraq, regardless of the native population's opinion. Even if only 20% of Iraqis support the militant groups, the US policy has failed. Personally, I think less than 20% support the Western concept.

And one word about political definitions: We agree that terrorism can be defined as violent actions against civilians and non-combattants for political reasons. However, people fighting against West-supporting regimes are called terrorists, whereas people fighting for West supporting groups are called "freedom-fighters". Their actions are judged differrently, although they commit the same crimes.

How many Iraqi and Afghani civilians and non-combattants have been killed by US troops?

 

[Psycho]

I guess i was wrong in my first post. However i agree he is our friend and they are our enemies.

Psycho

 

[MrMacphisto]

I'm trying to see this from a different angle than the lopsided mass media though. Try to imagine the following (merely hypothetical) situation: A foreign army invades your country and tries to impose an Islamic theocracy, with traditional Islamic laws. The invaders kill thousands of your people. Of course there will be a lot of armed resistance from the population, they will fight the enemy wherever they meet them. One day, a soldier of the invading army gets caught. Is he a hostage? A POW?

To some parts of the Iraqi people, exactly this is the situation of their country. To them, Western democracy and lifestyle are utterly alien concepts. The only acceptable form of state for them is an Islamic republic, because Allah must rule. Yet the West tries to impose their own concept upon Iraq, regardless of the native population's opinion. Even if only 20% of Iraqis support the militant groups, the US policy has failed. Personally, I think less than 20% support the Western concept.

And one word about political definitions: We agree that terrorism can be defined as violent actions against civilians and non-combattants for political reasons. However, people fighting against West-supporting regimes are called terrorists, whereas people fighting for West supporting groups are called "freedom-fighters". Their actions are judged differrently, although they commit the same crimes.

How many Iraqi and Afghani civilians and non-combattants have been killed by US troops?

You bring up some good points Hal, but unfortunately, the current situation in Iraq will probably make it mandatory for us to westernize Iraq not only economically, but also culturally. The days of theocratic rule are ending for the Third World, and Iraq will probably be the second Middle Eastern country to experience a massive governmental change by our hands (the first being Afghanistan). Simply put, theocracy is outdated, and the only way we can hope to keep these people from killing each other is to rule them by force and subsequently create a functioning democracy in place of the former government.

Entering Iraq was a big fucking mistake to begin with, but now that we're there, what else can we do to maintain order than to escalate military involvement? Diplomacy is only halfway working, and with each passing day, the death toll rises. I suppose if the U.N. was brought in, this nation-building would look less like an oppressive occupation by Americans, but even then, wouldn't they just see it as East vs. West? Heck, even with China and India's help, they'd probably still blame things on the West. The reality of the matter is that we were wrong to enter, but it's not like they were running things that well in the first place. If we do things right, then we can turn Iraq into a First World nation capable of providing a massive oil supply to the rest of the world. They already provide a lot of oil to begin with, but imagine how efficient they'd be if we modernized them economically and culturally.

The central problem to all of this, however, is that properly nation-building them will take, at the very least, several decades. Inevitably, both parties will have to play an equal part in restructuring Iraq. The best thing that could happen to this nation, Iraq, and the rest of the world is if Kerry gets elected and actually does things right. Bush and his cabinet have shown that they are incapable of properly rebuilding Iraq, and now, someone new should get us out of this mess.