Angry U.S Soldier Talking Smack To Iraqi Police , page 2

Originally posted by rich23
reply to post by Darthorious

---

Why the hell should any of them put their lives in danger to protect an invader?

Didn't you hear anything the guy said?
Well?

He was telling them to act like Iraqi police and to protect Iraqis not Americans.


Seriously....

He was not talking to Iraqi civilians nor a bunch of school girls. Nobody forced those grown MEN to join the police force either. As far as the dress down as mentioned before I've seen and been through far worse.

Parris Island anybody?


Edit to add.

Thanks Mason you gave a REAL Authoritative description.




[edit on 5-8-2009 by SLAYER69]

reply to post by SLAYER69

---

Slayer, I too was laughing my ass off. The nice way of motivating the police has been tried for years now, and we see where that's gotten them.

So he appeals to their manhood, their loyalty, and their ability.

If you're a man-man, you should bristle at any questions of your manhood.

If you're a girly-boy, it won't matter.

I think he's right on topic.

And good for him.

reply to post by dooper

---

If you're a man-man, you should bristle at any questions of your manhood.

Bristling is quiet thing. The question is, what is a bristler going to do about it?

I find that when someone is trying to goad a thinking person, they just smile, keep silent and get even at a time and place that suits them.

However, it is possible that the US soldier was very successful in motivating the police officers but I doubt it. They most likely formed a contempt for him and the more "man man" of them are going to settle scores one way or another for the insult.

reply to post by Blundo

---

The soldier has balls of steel and is dead right. The Police have balls of noodles, and probably could fight their way out of a paper bag. Funny how the balls come out though when it's 20 to 1 in favor if militants. then the knives come out and the heads come off. If they don't want to fight, then go and hide in a ditch somewhere.
Figures!!



[edit on 5/8/2009 by reticledc]

reply to post by EyesWideShut

---

Shows How much I know... I thought he said "Walk , You don't need trucks"... Which would lead me to believe that in context they were asking for trucks to patrol in. Since I don't speak the language and you do then maybe I was wrong.

The video was fairly long and I was not intending to make a full translation of everything said. It was difficult as it was because the police officers had their backs turned to the camera and their words were muffled and incomplete.

Anyway, riding a truck through a dangerous area is a lot safer and quicker than going on foot.

I was pointing out that there were two different agendas. One was demanding the other to stick their necks out and the other was side was asking for the same equipment that US soldiers have considering that it was a US soldier reading the riot act to them.

reply to post by masonwatcher

---

Thanks for replying, Mason. The thing about their revenge? It certainly hasn't worked so well for them in the past.

Besides, now the Americans are out of the cities, and if one of these heroes wants a piece of American ass, he'll have to take it to them.

And those who've elected to take it to the American troops really don't do very well.

They would be better served to assume their duties with honor, honesty, courage, and conviction rather than seek revenge for being offended.

After all, the soldier offered to kick their ass, or let them try to kick his right then and there.

I noted no takers.

reply to post by masonwatcher

---

Interesting perspective Mason thanks for your input.

The US departure date is getting closer by the hour. When we are gone it will be Pucker time for the Iraqis and if they don't have their "Stuff" Squared away and I mean PDQ they wont stand a chance. They will take huge casualties learning a pretty tough lesson before they finally "Get It" by that time it may be too late.

reply to post by dooper

---

I am not talking about the police men taking up arms against the US. I was referring to your division of men into 'man man' and 'girly man'. My point is that you don't to have to come on strong to be a man man, you can be quietly lethal. This is how psychopaths rise to the top and how someone with a grudge gets even.

It makes no sense to show machismo at inopportune moments. The US soldier on the video was playing it large and if there are American enemies in the the police ranks or whatever, they may just turn around and tip off the insurgents when that chap comes back.

I just think that talking to allies in that manner is stupid even if they are cowards. The solution is to form elite Iraqi units in the police and military, pay them well and look after the families with scholarships, good housing, good medical care and put them in charge of these feet dragger.

At the least, the US officer should be able to speak the local language. The US has been in Iraq for years. You can learn any language to conversation level in six months with specialist training as used by diplomats and analysts.

For none Americans, the video does not look good at all.

reply to post by SLAYER69

---

I know a little Arabic but in an Egyptian accent which is considered standard modern. The Iraqi accent is a little different and more fluid but is also standard modern.

Those police officers seemed a bit 'street' and earnest at first with their comments but mocking in the end.

I thought the US would have had the sense to spend money on the training and motivation on forces they want to rely upon in future. I am actually shocked.

If this is the general calibre of these police officers, either Iraq will break up or there will be another Saddam rising to power.

Thanks for your comments.

reply to post by masonwatcher

---

Contrary to POP culture/Anti-Americanism opinion the issues Iraq will be facing when we leave will be nothing new to Iraq. You know as well I do Saddam kept the peace there between rival religious sects with severe brutality. These guys are going to be facing a meat grinder.

Originally posted by masonwatcher
reply to post by EyesWideShut

---

Shows How much I know... I thought he said "Walk , You don't need trucks"... Which would lead me to believe that in context they were asking for trucks to patrol in. Since I don't speak the language and you do then maybe I was wrong.

The video was fairly long and I was not intending to make a full translation of everything said. It was difficult as it was because the police officers had their backs turned to the camera and their words were muffled and incomplete.

Anyway, riding a truck through a dangerous area is a lot safer and quicker than going on foot.

I was pointing out that there were two different agendas. One was demanding the other to stick their necks out and the other was side was asking for the same equipment that US soldiers have considering that it was a US soldier reading the riot act to them.

Well you didn't make a full translation , you made a partial one... and you got the English part wrong... and you HAVE pointed out two agendas , the truth and whatever you're sellin'.

And riding in a truck through a dangerous area isn't a lot safer than going on foot. If you're engaged while in a truck (By small arms or IED) you're a sitting duck and that truck becomes a 4 wheeled coffin. On foot you can better locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver, or repel the enemy’s assault by fire and close combat during a Hasty Ambush.

As far as "One demanding the other to stick their necks out" , That Grunt wasn't asking those Iraqi Police Officers to do anything he hasn't done himself. In fact he reprimanded the Iraqi supervisors for not leading from the front.

I don't mean to twist your words up but I'm saying , If you have no experience in a matter simply don't comment and give people false info just to say something. I respect your opinion , And I've read some quality posts of yours in other areas of ATS , but with all due respect you are simply ignorant in this subject.

reply to post by SLAYER69

---

Saddam built up his country and spent lavishly on his people but he was brutal and allowed his country to be manoeuvred into a disaster. He didn't have to invade Kuwait or war with Iran.

Because of what has befallen his country, his negatives outweigh his positives. All that he built up and most of the people he educated to the highest levels are all but gone.

reply to post by EyesWideShut

---

Obviously I was focusing on the Arabic and merely left the English aside, it's self evident.

'March', 'walk'? I was putting what the police said in the context of what the US cussmiester was saying and not quoting him.

If this is what your latching onto, it is you that we have to ask what you are sellin'.

I really don't know what you want or are implying.

And riding in a truck through a dangerous area isn't a lot safer than going on foot. If you're engaged while in a truck (By small arms or IED) you're a sitting duck and that truck becomes a 4 wheeled coffin. On foot you can better locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver, or repel the enemy’s assault by fire and close combat during a Hasty Ambush.

You do realise you are referring to what poorly trained police men, probably paid a pittance, you think should be doing?

We are not discussing the short comings of Iraqi commandos.

[edit on 083131p://pm3102 by masonwatcher]

reply to post by masonwatcher

---

I'll leave this alone because there really is no use in going any further in what seems to be a misunderstanding , To put it as simply as possible. I am speaking about facts from an analytical side and you are speaking about opinion from an emotional side. I won't be able to dissuade you from your opinion with facts because you have an emotional attachment to your view. I would also like you to U2U me when you get a chance so that I can get your view on the situation and maybe I can get a better handle on what the Iraqis are saying through your translation.

reply to post by masonwatcher

---

But wasn't one of the reasons he gave for Gasing the Kurds in the North was becuase they were being too much trouble?


SADDAM'S CRACKDOWN

In 1979, the Islamic Revolution in Iran - where Shias constitute 89% of the population - galvanised Shia opposition to the Baath Party and made Saddam Hussein, now president, increasingly fearful of a similar revolution in Iraq.

When Shia political activists attempted to assassinate the deputy prime minister in 1980, Saddam responded by executing Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir Sadr, the uncle of radical cleric Moqtada Sadr, the first time so senior a cleric had been killed.

When Iraq declared war on its predominantly Shia neighbour, Iran, Saddam's government intensified its brutal crackdown.

Thousands of Shia were expelled to Iran or imprisoned, tortured and killed. Religious practices were restricted and pilgrimages to holy shrines were curtailed.

[edit on 5-8-2009 by SLAYER69]

Lets not sugar coat the situation. Read the headlines lately?
They are back to killing each other again.

Source

For more than 1,000 years, Iraq has served as a battleground for many of the events that have defined the schism between Sunni and Shia Muslims.

In more recent decades, the political and economic dominance of Iraq's minority Sunni Arabs and their persecution of the country's Shia majority have only served to stoke sectarian tensions.

The US-led invasion in 2003, in which the nominally secular Baath government of Saddam Hussein was overthrown, finally gave Iraq's Shias an opportunity to seek redress and end the imbalance of power.

Though sectarian tension has undoubtedly been a major catalyst of the violence that has plagued Iraq since the invasion, many argue that blaming sectarianism alone overstates the case.


HISTORIC SPLIT

Sunnis and Shias differ in doctrine, ritual, law, theology and religious organisation. It is the largest and oldest division in the history of Islam.

But the origins of the split lie in a dispute over who should have succeeded the Prophet Muhammad as leader of the Muslim community when he died in 632.

One group of Muslims elected Abu Bakr as the next caliph (leader) of the community, but another group believed the prophet's son-in-law, Ali, was the rightful successor.

Shias re-enact the battle near Karbala in which Hussein was killed
Though Ali eventually became the fourth caliph, his legitimacy was disputed and he was murdered in 661.

The Shiat Ali ("Party of Ali") refused to recognise the legitimacy of his chief opponent and successor, Muawiya.

[edit on 5-8-2009 by SLAYER69]

The "Terrorism" Hot Spot map. You would think they were crawling out of the woodwork everywhere...
  Posted 9 days ago with 16 member flags

Keep Your Eyes on Sudan!!! We Have Boots on the Ground. Jihad Threat!
  Posted 15 days ago with 11 member flags

ALL ATS`ers are terrorists
  Posted 3 days ago with 9 member flags

CNN Endorsing Terrorism
  Posted 6 days ago with 7 member flags

Insurgency in America? Former Border Agent Details Threats Spilling Into the U.S.
  Posted 3 days ago with 7 member flags

Department of Homeland Security declares anyone who disagrees with them a Terrorist!
  Posted 2 days ago with 7 member flags

Obama\'s terror Drones.
  Posted 4 days ago with 6 member flags

Pair Detained in Twitter Homeland Threat Mix-Up
  Posted 11 days ago with 5 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: