• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Soldier Waterboards 6 Year Old Foster Child For Wetting His Bed!

Moot said:
But isn't that kind of understandable considering the soldiers go from the battlefield and in matter of hours back to civilian domestic life with little time to readjust? Not to mention the wives having been on their own for a year or more and were used to doing things their own way and some of the children are strangers to their dads when they return? But I think the military is aware of the transition problem and is trying to help the best they can considering that isn't what the military was designed to do.
Click to expand...

I would say it's not surprising. I don't think I'd call it understandable.
 
1069 said:
This is just anecdotal, just guesses, really, but from what I've seen, it seems like military folks get married younger and have kids younger than the gen pop.
Many of them aren't college-educated; they're from working class backgrounds.
To their youth and background, add the unique stresses of military family life, with its frequent moves and deployments... and it starts to make sense.
Click to expand...

The military cites youth, poverty, and of course maleness as key factors. I suspect, as do many of those who study the problem, that being trained to practice and glorify violence contributes to it as well.
 
Winston Smith said:
The military cites youth, poverty, and of course maleness as key factors. I suspect, as do many of those who study the problem, that being trained to practice and glorify violence contributes to it as well.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't surprise me any.
Although the official training/indoctrination/whatever seems to stress the concept of "honor", as well, and I doubt attacks on women and children in one's own household are officially sanctioned.
 
Last edited:
Hey he could have gotten something a lot worse, like say a switch across the legs.
 
Moot said:
Ah jeez, I hate to see children get abused. But gee whiz, I wonder where the soldiers got the idea to waterboard, let alone waterboard children? Any guesses?
Click to expand...

So, had he not been in the military, he wouldn't be a piece-a-**** child abuser? Puhleese, spare us that crap!
 
apdst said:
So, had he not been in the military, he wouldn't be a piece-a-**** child abuser? Puhleese, spare us that crap!
Click to expand...
Watch the video and read the thread before responding so I don't have to repeat myself responding to your crap.
 
Phantom said:


:thumbdown
Click to expand...


So a guy who used to be in the military waterboarded his child. Does that reflect on the military, or does that mean he is not fit to serve in the military? I would think the second option much more likely. On the other hand, the USA has been anally raped by our last 2 presidents. Should that therefore reflect on the American people?
 
Moot said:
Now, now, no need to fly off the handle and get personal, Msgt. I'm guessing you didn't watch the video because that was insinuation made by the news spokesperson when she said, "Prosecutors said, neither soldier said where they got the idea to use waterboard on children" There now, don't you feel foolish?

Btw, you could use a few anger management classes yourself.
Click to expand...

I didn't have to watch the video. It was your response that was innapropriate and your attempts to lay your personal responsibility at the feet of the ignorant media after falling all over it doesn't work here.
 
Moot said:
Hmm, it probably didn't help that Lynch couldn't defend herself because she had "a broken back, a broken arm, a broken thigh, and a crushed ankle" and was knocked unconscious, either. Wounds that are consistent with an automobile crash. She didn't ask to be used as the military's pro war propaganda anymore more than Pat Tillman did.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to get this. Her own testimony to Congress was that none of the "weapons systems assigned to her unit" fired. In other words, none of them had clean weapons and in the end they all blamed the desert sand for their own negligence and inabilities to defend themselves in combat. The same old "non-combatant" excuses passed around the Army commenced to get them off the hook of proper soldiering. I don't care how injured she was. She was not alone in her unprofessionalism and worthlessness.

As far as being used as a media gold mind, it has nothing to do with nothing when it comes down to proper soldiering in a combat zone. It's the same garbage spun about by the Abu-Ghraib pretend soldiers in regards to their unprofessional behavior. Anti war whiners and BUsh haters are all too willing to get them off the hook if they can find a way to "blame higher."
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
Yes, I saw that too. But doesn't it seem odd that "all the units weapons systems were jammed" and not just Lynch's? Because that would suggest that it was something else besides not just cleaning their weapons. Unless of course the unit was never trained to clean their guns since they were just a supply unit. I dunno, you military experts would know more about that stuff than I would.

PS: your avatar is beautiful.
Click to expand...

An entire Marine Corps Division+ led the way to Baghdad with weapons firing just fine. This includes all support elements.

What you are suggesting is very much a Army institutional problem that refuses to be fixed. The Army's 3rd ID rolled along on the west with their weapons ready to go. However, Jessica Lynch's unit was a support unit and the fact that most (if not all as she claimed) did not fire is not unheard of. They are taught how to fire and clean their weapons in Basic. But, they removed from being a "soldier" the moment they are designated non-infantry and all energy is focused on training them to perform techinal jobs whatever that may be. They do not go through annual sustainment training with infantry tactics and weapons handling. They are not engrained with a "rifleman first" mentality. And this is why Jessica Lynch and her kind are constantly placed in danger by the Army that is trusted to train her.

But in the end, what kind of idiot is too lazy to clean the very instrument of their survival in combat? Considering how quickly her convoy was taken, they left Kuwait with dirty weapons.
 
Moot said:
But isn't that kind of understandable considering the soldiers go from the battlefield and in matter of hours back to civilian domestic life with little time to readjust? Not to mention the wives having been on their own for a year or more and were used to doing things their own way and some of the children are strangers to their dads when they return? But I think the military is aware of the transition problem and is trying to help the best they can considering that isn't what the military was designed to do.
Click to expand...

It's not understandable at all. It's weakness.


There is a definate adjustment that must be made between returning "soldier" and wife. Obviously, the younger the couple (family) the harder it is. It is probably worse in the NCO ranks (Cpl & Sgt) because they are young leaders, yet old enough to hold ultimate responsibility for small units and then have to come home to share the decision making in a home where one has been the ultimate decision maker in his absence. There are transitional classes that are mandatory for servicemen upon their return to CONUS, but such things are not and could not be mandatory for civilian wives. In the end, it comes down to individuals and their sense of self.

On another note, there is definately a sense of PTSD felt among the vast majority. They can and do even last years and years. But the vast majority of these PTSD cases are minor and rarely become sources of stress in the household. The majority of whiners claiming PTSd for their indivdual life failures after their small bit of real world experience are full of crap. Much of the world live in regions full of war and are constantly protecting borders. Only in the West, especially America, will you find the individual too torn to survive on his own over a moment in time abroad.

This dip****, who abused his kid, would have done so without his military experience (which was next to nothing).
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
I didn't have to watch the video. It was your response that was innapropriate and your attempts to lay your personal responsibility at the feet of the ignorant media after falling all over it doesn't work here.
Click to expand...
You should have watched the video because the newspokeperson summed up the entire broadcast with....

"Prosecutors said, neither soldier has said where he got the idea to use water to disipline children."

If you feel to need to blame someone, then why don't you blame the person who posted this story and ask him what his motive was for posting it.
 
MSgt said:
You don't seem to get this. Her own testimony to Congress was that none of the "weapons systems assigned to her unit" fired. In other words, none of them had clean weapons and in the end they all blamed the desert sand for their own negligence and inabilities to defend themselves in combat. The same old "non-combatant" excuses passed around the Army commenced to get them off the hook of proper soldiering. I don't care how injured she was. She was not alone in her unprofessionalism and worthlessness.

As far as being used as a media gold mind, it has nothing to do with nothing when it comes down to proper soldiering in a combat zone. It's the same garbage spun about by the Abu-Ghraib pretend soldiers in regards to their unprofessional behavior. Anti war whiners and BUsh haters are all too willing to get them off the hook if they can find a way to "blame higher."
Click to expand...
Funny you should say that, because all I'm getting from you is there are some in the military who only seek to blame others, whether it's for the inadequacies in the military, or in their politics, or in themselves. You sir, fit the criteria for all three.
 
MSgt said:
You don't seem to get this. Her own testimony to Congress was that none of the "weapons systems assigned to her unit" fired. In other words, none of them had clean weapons and in the end they all blamed the desert sand for their own negligence and inabilities to defend themselves in combat. The same old "non-combatant" excuses passed around the Army commenced to get them off the hook of proper soldiering. I don't care how injured she was. She was not alone in her unprofessionalism and worthlessness.

As far as being used as a media gold mind, it has nothing to do with nothing when it comes down to proper soldiering in a combat zone. It's the same garbage spun about by the Abu-Ghraib pretend soldiers in regards to their unprofessional behavior. Anti war whiners and BUsh haters are all too willing to get them off the hook if they can find a way to "blame higher."
Click to expand...



You have the rest of your life to win a gunfight. :prof
 
Moot said:
You should have watched the video because the newspokeperson summed up the entire broadcast with....

"Prosecutors said, neither soldier has said where he got the idea to use water to disipline children."

If you feel to need to blame someone, then why don't you blame the person who posted this story and ask him what his motive was for posting it.
Click to expand...



Your words in response to the video......

"Ah jeez, I hate to see children get abused. But gee whiz, I wonder where the soldiers got the idea to waterboard, let alone waterboard children? Any guesses?"

It's your suggestion.
 
Moot said:
Funny you should say that, because all I'm getting from you is there are some in the military who only seek to blame others, whether it's for the inadequacies in the military, or in their politics, or in themselves. You sir, fit the criteria for all three.
Click to expand...


Army Soldiers have a long history of seeking higher blame for their unproffessional behaviors. It's people like you that seek to offer them legitimacy if it meets the criteria of criticizing the politician you hate.
 
MSgt said:
Your words in response to the video......

"Ah jeez, I hate to see children get abused. But gee whiz, I wonder where the soldiers got the idea to waterboard, let alone waterboard children? Any guesses?"

It's your suggestion.
Click to expand...
Also my words.....

Moot said:
Yes, I feel bad about the impression my first post left. I was more angry at what happened to those children than I was concerned about the soldiers.
Click to expand...

So while you were busy wallowing in your self pity and blame game, not once did you ever mention any concern for the kids in the article. Chew on that, MSgt.
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
Army Soldiers have a long history of seeking higher blame for their unproffessional behaviors. It's people like you that seek to offer them legitimacy if it meets the criteria of criticizing the politician you hate.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I am not the topic here, nor am I your punching bag. If you feel the need to take this personally, that's your problem but I suggest you grow up and start taking some responsibility for your own behaviour instead of blaming others.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Let's behave.
 
Moot said:
Sorry, but I am not the topic here, nor am I your punching bag. If you feel the need to take this personally, that's your problem but I suggest you grow up and start taking some responsibility for your own behaviour instead of blaming others.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm merely having a discussion with an individual who made statements and refuses to actually offer a base for them.

In what way are you seeking for me not to have taken resposnibility for my behavior? I'm not the one that sought to turn this into an excuse to bash away at the same political old crap. Do I waterboard? Or does my uniform place me in danger of waterboarding my kid? Or do I represent the great evil that is the U.S. military and its horrible torturing sense of morality? I'm just curious how you are seeking to make me take responsibility for this garbage. I blame the idiot. It's you who sought to blame "others."
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
She was just another dumbass soldier making her branch look bad. She was a part of a supply convoy that got turned around in Iraq during the 2003 invasion and in the end couldn't defend herself because her weapon was dirty. She was captured, along with others, and had to be rescued.
Click to expand...

You seem to conveniently forget we were moving so fast we left part of our supply line undefended. My dad and I being in the military ourselves were flabbergasted that basic military science 101 was ignored, and we left our supply lines wide open to attack. I think you're being a little harsh on Lynch.

As I'm sure you're well aware we were moving so fast we left enemy ammo dumps unsecured, which were later used for IED.s that took out a big share of our troops in the ensuing years. Then there was the naiveness that once we took the country we could call it Mission Accomplished. Boy were our leaders wrong on that one! Besides troops do stupid things in the fog of war and things don't always go as planned. You should know that.

Don't just unload on some PFC whose MOS probably doesn't even fit your criticism. There were plenty of mistakes in the war to go around especially the higher brass. She got a lot of attention but she had no control over that. Both the military and the media used her.
 
Last edited:
EnigmaO01 said:
You seem to conviently forget we were moving so fast we left part of our supply line undefended. Both my dad and I being in the military ourselves were flabbergasted that basiic military science 101 was ignored and we left our supply lines open to attack. I think you're being a little harsh on Lynch.

As I'm sure you're well aware we were moving so fast we left enemy ammo dumps unsecured which were later used for IED.s that took out a big share of our troops in the ensuing years.

Don't just unload on some PFC whose MOS probably doesn't even fit your criticism. There were plenty of mistakes in the war to go around especially the higher brass.
Click to expand...

I didn't forget the haphazard pace of the Army to beat Marines to Baghdad nor was it a matter of convenience to omit. It's not the excuse the Army pretends it is so I dismissed it. These are Army mistakes that seem to get repeated from war to war. Marines left their supply convoys behind here and there as well, but they know how to be "Marines." Never would a Marine supply convoy get caught with its weapons incapacitated due to neglect. All of them engaged the enemy as they were engaged. And never would a Marine unit back on an airfield far from the combat have weapons that are useles due to rust and sand no matter the MOS.

The Jessica Lynch issue is an Army failure that never gets fixed. And its embarrasing. Do you think support soldiers today are being trained annually on infantry tactics? Nope. Yet, we call them "soldiers" don't we? In what way are they soldiers if they can't fathom the importance of a clean weapon for personal or unit protection? The next Lynch story awaits to unfold in the next war because the Army conitnues to maintain a WWII model of organization. Until the Army removes itself from the WWII model of war, it will always set its soldiers up for this unnecessary danger. Lynch may have been a PFC and in an MOS where the Army stresses an absence of infantry training, but she was an individual with a gun and cleaning gear. In Basic she is taught how to use it. All of them are.
 
Last edited:
Oh yeah I forgot there is no one as good as you marines. :mrgreen:
 
MSgt said:
......The Jessica Lynch issue is an Army failure that never gets fixed. And its embarrasing. Do you think support soldiers today are being trained annually on infantry tactics? Nope. Yet, we call them "soldiers" don't we? In what way are they soldiers if they can't fathom the importance of a clean weapon for personal or unit protection? The next Lynch story awaits to unfold in the next war because the Army conitnues to maintain a WWII model of organization. Until the Army removes itself from the WWII model of war, it will always set its soldiers up for this unnecessary danger. Lynch may have been a PFC and in an MOS where the Army stresses an absence of infantry training, but she was an individual with a gun and cleaning gear. In Basic she is taught how to use it. All of them are.
Click to expand...

"CLP versus Militec: One reader directed me to a TV news report about the gun lubricant used in Iraq. Apparently, the military developed its own gun lubricant: CLP. According to the TV report, CLP sucks in the desert. Sand sticks to it. The troops prefer another civilian lubricant called Militec. Many are asking their parents to buy it and ship it to them.

If she attempted to fire it and it did not fire, here is what I think is a more likely explanation.

Lock and load: To fire an M-16 or M-14 or other military rifle, you must put a magazine of bullets into the bottom of it. That puts 20 or so bullets just below the firing chamber. To fire it, you still have to pull the bolt back. Sliding the bolt back allows the top bullet in the magazine to rise up to the chamber level. When you push the bolt back forward, that pushes the first bullet into the firing chamber. Sliding the bolt back and forward again also cocks the hammer that strikes the back of the bullet to fire it when you pull the trigger. After the first bullet, the others are moved into the chamber and the hammer is cocked using the explosive gasses released by the firing of the previous bullet. In other words, the weapon is semi-automatic, meaning it cocks itself each time after the first bullet is fired. You **** it once but can pull the trigger and fire it thereafter as many times as there are additional bullets in the magazine without cocking it again. You just **** it once at the beginning of each magazine.

If Lynch pulled the trigger and the weapon did not fire, it seems more likely that it was because she had not pulled the bolt back to chamber the first round and **** the hammer. It is even possible that she had no magazine in the rifle at all, although the magazine is of no use until its first round is chambered and the hammer cocked anyway....."

Mr. Reed, I recently read your article "PFC Jessica Lynch's Capture" and noticed that the common belief is that her weapon jammed. This may be true, but I heard quite a different story. While I was XO of an infantry company at Fort Benning, we had a 1SG who came to us straight from one of the Ranger Battalions and was in every major conflict from Somalia onward. He is a very honest straight-shooting NCO. We also had a Spec-4 who had been in the same battalion as our 1SG. They were part of the effort to recover PFC Lynch and other members of her unit when they were in Iraq.

According to both the 1SG and the SPC, the convoy didn't defend itself because they had their weapons in the back of their trucks. They may have even said that they were locked up in the back of the vehicles. If this is true, this is even worse than having a dirty weapon. I don't know if more information has surfaced, but I thought you may want to know. By the way, I started reading Succeeding yesterday and had to force myself to put it down when I realized it was almost two in the morning. It is a fantastic book! Thanks again!

PFC Jessica Lynch’s capture
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Apparently there are many explanations as to why Jessica's Lynch's gun didn't fire: dirty gun, wrong oil lubricant, didn't pull bolt back to chamber first round, magazine not loaded, guns locked in trunk, didn't fire gun at all. But one thing is blatantly clear, you don't know why Lynch's gun didn't fire, and you will probably never know, for the simple fact that you weren't there.
 
Moot said:
Apparently there are many explanations as to why Jessica's Lynch's gun didn't fire: dirty gun, wrong oil lubricant, didn't pull bolt back to chamber first round, magazine not loaded, guns locked in trunk, didn't fire gun at all. But one thing is blatantly clear, you don't know why Lynch's gun didn't fire, and you will probably never know, for the simple fact that you weren't there.
Click to expand...

One - CLP has been the gun lubricant used in our weapons for decades. It was used in Beirut, the Gulf War, Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq. It's been the issue through cold weather and hot weather. Jungle and desert. The same lubricant is used across the branches as is the same weapons.

Two - An entire U.S. military ground force was using CLP across the branches and only this convoy got caught with their thumbs up their asses.

Three - Jessica Lynch reported that hers and others weapons would not fire leading the obvious conclusion that they were dirty. She was not alone in her failure. Or did all of them forget to chamber a round?

Four - If some of their weapons were not on their person and in the back (which is common knowledge to us) then they were worse than bad soldiers.

And Five - I know exactly what happened because this isn't brain surgery. When an entire convoy can't fire their weapons there are only obvious answers as to why. There are only a few explanations and they all point to bad soldiering on a unit level. Seeking excuses only leads other soldiers to fall into the same lazy trap in the future. And they will because soldiers who dismiss fundamental basic errors will one day wear the stars that their current leaders wear.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom