Interview with an anonymous American officer

[jc84corvette]

This "interview" is a big hoax. If 100+ soldiers were wounded, wouldnt you think the news media would cover it for like two days?!

And what kind of stupid reporter would ask "Did you see a lot of your buddies get killed? How did it affect you?" ?! Thats just dumb and retarded![!]

Scumbags love making up shi* about our servicemen in Iraq. I would kick there butt if I ever could!


One thing though, if this was true, the interview, this officer would be a 2LT-Col in ranks most likley. A platoon CO has a LOT of men under his command, a Company CO has even more, etc...

---EDIT--- Sorry for my remarks. Thats just how I feel.

[MJ-12]

cv

[jc84corvette]

I already knew about that Syria and Iran thing.

[Nagual]

First, yes, 150+ US soldiers died since peace has been declared; not at once...  It's more like 1 soldier dies every 1 or 2 days.

quote:And what kind of stupid reporter would ask "Did you see a lot of your buddies get killed? How did it affect you?"

I am afraid that's a really typical reporter's question...  Of course he already knows the answer; it's just an invitation for the guy to talk about it.

quote:wouldnt you think the news media would cover it for like two days?!

Yes and no... It depends on the nationality of the media and it's impartiality... It's not good publicity for Bush when GIs die every day...  So, if the media don't talk about it, Bush is happy.  If Bush is happy, some media are happy...

And last: it's war; what do you expect...

[no_leaf_clover]

quote:Yes and no... It depends on the nationality of the media and it's impartiality... It's not good publicity for Bush when GIs die every day... So, if the media don't talk about it, Bush is happy. If Bush is happy, some media are happy...

And last: it's war; what do you expect...

Here in the US, the media is generally very left-winged and will take up any chance they have to criticize Bush. Every time a single person dies in Iraq, the media over here is all over it and one more person is given an interview to say we need to pull out of Iraq. This was especially the case when the war was still new. The big media companies, like CNN, are most always against the republican party, for whatever reason.



The interview just doesn't feel right to me. It doesn't sound completely genuine, or at least very professional. You don't often hear of random soldiers being given interviews to much length, as short as this one is. What's more is that the soldier is anonymous and the details given on the soldier and his experiences are basically nonexistant.

The part that gets me is the drastic contrast between the tone of the interviewer and the tone of the soldier. The tones used don't even naturally match what is being discussed. The interviewer is too comfortable and almost happy while discussing war with the veteran, and the veteran is too angry.

Soldiers fresh from combat that have seen so many deaths (allegedly over 30) would not be so angry that they would have to be such assholes, though they would have a reason to be. Usually soldiers that've seen such things will quickly become depressed, and you can ask any Vietnam veteran about this. Several teach at the local high school and middle school as well as a veteran from the Gulf War that fought with the 82nd Airborne Division, and when they talk about their experiences, I can promise you they'll all easily get 'down' about it if they think back a little too much. You can watch interviews on TV as well, and no veteran you will see will be angered as they recall experiences of war. War takes the anger out of people.

[Nagual]

quote:The following interview was with an enlisted man, but someone very high up in the enlisted ranks, with over 20 years of military service. I have promised not to reveal his identity for reasons that he has a family and has been told not to speak to journalists. He told me the Army had put a gag order on him while he was home, and told him they would give him twenty years in prison if he spoke out in any manner against the US or the government.

That's why it's anonymous...  Wether you believe it or not is another story...  He seems to be around 40 years old btw...  His language seems weird indeed, but I think he "knew" the interviewer.  If you did not read the whole interview, follow the link...

[jc84corvette]

quote:Originally posted by Nagual

First, yes, 150+ US soldiers died since peace has been declared; not at once...  It's more like 1 soldier dies every 1 or 2 days.

quote:And what kind of stupid reporter would ask "Did you see a lot of your buddies get killed? How did it affect you?"

I am afraid that's a really typical reporter's question...  Of course he already knows the answer; it's just an invitation for the guy to talk about it.

quote:wouldnt you think the news media would cover it for like two days?!

Yes and no... It depends on the nationality of the media and it's impartiality... It's not good publicity for Bush when GIs die every day...  So, if the media don't talk about it, Bush is happy.  If Bush is happy, some media are happy...

And last: it's war; what do you expect...

Listen, I said and the reporter said "WOUNDED" not "DEAD". Theres a big diffrence between dead and wounded.

[Nagual]

quote:Listen, I said and the reporter said "WOUNDED" not "DEAD". Theres a big diffrence between dead and wounded.

, so I guess there is even less reasons for the media to talk about it...

[MJ-12]

yu

[Anonymous]

If anyone here has ever seen Bowling for Columbine, then you should know the American government condones the Media instilling fear in people. This is what keeps people both watching the news and easier for the government to control. I have a friend who was sent over to Afghanistan, because he is a member of the National Guard. He's seen some pretty terrible things. Though I appreciate what he has done for us here at home, I do not believe that Bush had any right sending anyone over there  to start a war. Whatever the case, I do not doubt this interview. It sounds accurate enough. Even if it is fake, this is probaly a pretty accurate depiction of what many soldiers involved in wars have seen. The U.S. army is not invincible.

[shaman]

Well, let's see some of the issues addressed here...
if you are a lieutnant or so, you might have about 50 persons under your command (say a company, or battery of artillery; the company might have a different meaning in the French army, where they also have Regiments - a french companie might have 2000 soldiers! more like a brigade or large batallion; The Regiment is more like a large brigade; For example the 3rd companie of the second Regiment of Infantry in the French Foreigner Legion).

A captain might have a little more. The next ranked officer, I think is called a major in English, not sure about that one, can have the command of a whole batallion, which is a few hundred people at least (can be as large as 500, even 1,000).
A battallion is made of 3-4 companies, plus additional staffs. A lieutnant-colonel might also be the commander of a batallion.

A brigade is made of 3-4 battalions. Usually there are armor brigades together with infantry ones, to make up the division. A brigade can be already pretty large, with additional staff such as engineers, mechanics, etc... A brigade can be as large as 3,000 troops or more. The brigadier is the officer in command of the brigade.

The Division is the smallest unit capable of carrying out a military task (say attacking a front, a city, etc..) and which contains all what is needed for that: infantry, tanks, artillery, etc...
A division can be anywhere between 10,000 up to 20,000 troops roughly, usually more like 12,000-15,000 troops. A division can be made up of one armor brigade (tanks), two infantry brigades and can be supplemented with batallions of artillery, batallions of engineering, etc.... Some divisions might be extrelly large with huge proportions, such as 30,000 troops.

An Army is made of many Divisions, depending from country to country.

The war in Irak, Afghanistan is a war, and as such it is of course no fun. Wars are the same everywhere.

Now there are 200,000 US soldiers on the land in Irak I think, with about 30,000 british troops (I think). There is about 1 killed everyday with about 5 wounded (say). There is about the equivalent of  15 divisions in Irak... but basically the fighting is taken by only a few large divisions. Many are in surounding seas (US carriers).

It is not a surprise that the troops have to fight guerilla style attacks, as it was the same in similar wars, such as the war of Lebanon in 1982. For any occupying army that intends to stay for a long time, sooner or later guerilla will start. Here in Irak it was not a surprise that also suicide bombers are entering the picture, exactly like in Lebanon. The US did not have many casualities in the war itself, and that too was expected. I think the main problem is that people do not know what war is, and so they though that we already won it in Irak. It is not true, it is a long way to the end and one has to be patient. In vietnam the US had up to 500,000 troops and lost about 50,000 troops; the french had there about 50,000 troops and lost more than 10,000 troops! The US troops in Irak were well prepared for the battles in the earliest phases of the war, but they were not prepared for the present situation. The thing is that everyone in the US army has now to learn his/her new task, from the highest ranked officer down to the soldier. It is by being there and having a hard time that the US army is learning how to deal with the new situation. One has to keep in mind that the US troops are in populated areas and therefore it is very difficult to protect yourself and at the same time not to be too extreme with the local population. If you are too tolerant with the local population they might come with suicide bombers in cars (etc) , and if you shoot at every moving thing you might well kill too many civilians. So the situation is not easy.

Usually during the war itself, the troops have more easy psychologically speaking, because that's what they were prepared for, that's how they trained. Once the war (battles) was finished and won, the situation changed and it is now new for everyone. The soldiers were not prepared for that. Now they have stress as they do not know from which direction it is coming on them (a shooting from a house, a side bomb, a suicide bomber in a car, etc...). They now have more time to sleep and rest than during the first phase, and so they have also more time to ruminate that over and therefore there are more chances that people will get depressed.

An important thing to remember, like in Vietnam, is that one can win all the battles and still lose the war. The question is what is the purpose of the war, was this purpose reached?

As back to the dreams of the soldier, it would be interesting to check that maybe some of the dreams he has might be more than just dreams.. maybe real OBEs in time and places, maybe premonitions of more attacks, etc....

[jc84corvette]

Some one needs a spell check[]

[jc84corvette]

he fixed his mistakes[] Bravo Canaovo!

[shaman]

Sorry often I type faster than I can spell... and then because my fingers are so large I often hit more than one key at a time... kind of not very easy...   []

[jc84corvette]

LOL ofcours, your the Haulk![]

[shaman]

Sorry I could not resist to continue answering some other issues here...

as to Syria and Iran being attacked... well there is also North Corea of course, with actual nuclear weaponery able to reach the west coast...

As to Iran, it is now being under UN scrunity, etc... The same path as Irak? Iran is really between Afghanistan and Irak, and that would make it easy to squeeze.

As to Syria, it has never signed a peace treaty with Israel and is formally still at war with Israel... I do not see Bush sending more US troops to fight the Syrian but rather I see that the Bush administration is very protective of the Israeli interests when it comes to Syria, in that sens that Bush declared that Israel has the right to attack terrorists there in Syria, and of course Ariel Sharon (ISraeli PM) would be more than happy to finish a busyness that has been on the table for so long. So well that the French Chirac has mentioned (that was written in an article in Le Canard Enchaine) that he see a war between Israel and Syria some time in November and that the US would actually use Israel as "its military extension" there, rather than send more US troops (original wording from that journal).  In addition, attacking Syria would be done on two fronts at least, from Lebanon and from the Golan (as far as the Israeli are concerned). The capital Damascus is not very far from the Israeli border. In the meanwhile the US could secure the Syrian/Iraki border or even enter from there for diversion.... That would take care also of getting rid of some 20,000 syrian troops still in Lebanon. Once that cleared up, it would open a way for Lebanon to be at last free and then to open peace negociation between (say..?) Israel and Syria and the whole region, that is, if all that does not turn into vinegar.... since it does not seem to be so easy right now in Irak...

[jc84corvette]

I think there will not be any conflicts or wars between the two countries from our present date to voteing time. Although, if Bush wins the 2004 election, then a conflict or war with one of the two countries is highly possible.

Thats what I think!

[MJ-12]

hahahaha