gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (03/14/91)
How many Iraqis were killed in the recent Gulf War? Fifty thousand, a hundred thousand, two hundred thousand? Nobody knows for sure. One of the reasons is that the United States has chosen to violate the Geneva Convention in regard to the Iraqi dead. According to the Geneva Convention, the party in control of a given territory after combat is responsible for making its best effort to find, count, and identify the casualties of its adversary, including the dead. The U.S. command has made it clear that it has no intention of doing so. Many of the Iraqi dead were simply bulldozed into mass graves without any attempt to count them, much less identify them, and with no reports made or asked for. The American policy is especially ironic when you consider all the noise that's been made about American MIAs in Vietnam. The MIA issue is still the pretext for American refusal to normalize relations with Vietnam. One would think people who were so sensitive about this issue would respect the same feelings in others, even if they had been the enemy. One would think that the fact that these soldiers gave their lives for their country could be respected, even if their country was wrong. But it seems these things don't count when you have overwhelming moral superiority. Anyway, it's something to think about next time you see one of those ugly black MIA flags which have proliferated in the last year or two. Now you know what they mean. -- Gordon Fitch | gcf@mydog.uucp | uunet!cmcl2.nyu.edu!panix!mydog!gcf
jmc@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) (03/15/91)
A soldier wears two dog tags. When they bury him temporarily, I would suppose they would take one and leave the other with the body.
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (03/15/91)
From: gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) >How many Iraqis were killed in the recent Gulf War? Fifty >thousand, a hundred thousand, two hundred thousand? Nobody >knows for sure. One of the reasons is that the United States >has chosen to violate the Geneva Convention in regard to the >Iraqi dead. According to the Geneva Convention, the party in >control of a given territory after combat is responsible for >making its best effort to find, count, and identify the >casualties of its adversary, including the dead. The U.S. >command has made it clear that it has no intention of doing so. >Many of the Iraqi dead were simply bulldozed into mass graves >without any attempt to count them, much less identify them, and >with no reports made or asked for. As I understand it the British War Graves unit of their Army is in charge of this particular operation, so your gripe may be with someone else, tho that's a minor nit. They are indeed burying in mass graves, and providing the location and other details of these graves to the Iraqis. I don't know if the Iraqis use "dog-tags" and whether these are being collected and provided (I suppose it might be better to leave them with the body, there must be some custom for this.) I wouldn't expect the current Iraqi govt to go to a lot of trouble to resolve this right now. I would be surprised if they were turned down if they asked to exhume the graves, I don't believe they have asked for anything (yet.) My impression is that burying in mass graves and providing the whereabouts is a step in resolving the matter. It doesn't end there as later exhumation is still available, essentially forever, but might take some settling of Iraqi internal affairs to go to a second stage given the size of the operation required to finally settle this. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
twheeler@cbnewsj.att.com (theodore wheeler) (03/15/91)
In article <9103132214.879@mydog.UUCP> gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: >How many Iraqis were killed in the recent Gulf War? Fifty >thousand, a hundred thousand, two hundred thousand? Nobody >knows for sure. One of the reasons is that the United States >has chosen to violate the Geneva Convention in regard to the >Iraqi dead. According to the Geneva Convention, the party in >control of a given territory after combat is responsible for >making its best effort to find, count, and identify the >casualties of its adversary, including the dead. The U.S. >command has made it clear that it has no intention of doing so. >Many of the Iraqi dead were simply bulldozed into mass graves >without any attempt to count them, much less identify them, and >with no reports made or asked for. > Fitch, you unmitigated moron, graves registration units of all the services are right now combing the desert for dead Iraqis. Each body is identified as closely as possible, then buried with a marker. Most of the Iraqi soldiers carried dog tags just as ours do. The location of each marker is redorded on a map of the area. The compiled lists of the known dead and any that cannot be identified are turned over to the International Red Cross and to the International Red Crescent. This is all according to the Geneva Convention. If you would get your nose out of theat hate literature once in awhile, you could have observed the procedure right there on TV, or in the newspapers. Further, there are teams of doctors and medics combing the desert for wounded survivors. They are treated and taken to US medical facilities in the region. As a matter of fact, at least two doctors have been killed and several medics wounded when they stepped on mines while trying to take care of Iraqi wounded. According to the Geneva Convention, the dead are supposed to be buried as soon as possible right on the battlefield. Look it up. They must be identified first and their gaves marked. Get a life Fitch, you might be able to buffalo a few kids who never read or listen to the news, but you can't pull this kind of hate diareha on the rest of us. T. C.
alan@berlioz.nsc.com (Alan Hepburn) (03/15/91)
In article <BZS.91Mar14131340@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: > >other details of these graves to the Iraqis. I don't know if the >Iraqis use "dog-tags" and whether these are being collected and >provided (I suppose it might be better to leave them with the body, >there must be some custom for this.) > The practice in the US military is to issue 2 dog tags; in the event they need to be collected, one is collected and one remains with the body. I would imagine that this would be common practice in the armies of the world, but who knows? (rhetorically speaking, of course) -- Alan Hepburn "Those who expect to reap the blessings of liberty National Semiconductor must, like men, undergo the fatigue of Santa Clara, Ca supporting it." alan@berlioz.nsc.com Thomas Paine
barrey@frodo.Novell.com (Barrey Jewall) (03/15/91)
The News Manager) Nntp-Posting-Host: frodo Reply-To: barrey@Novell.com (Barrey Jewall) Organization: Organization for disorganized software of the future... References: <9103132214.879@mydog.UUCP> <BZS.91Mar14131340@world.std.com> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1991 00:54:30 GMT In article <BZS.91Mar14131340@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: (In Part): >They are indeed burying in mass graves, and providing the location and >other details of these graves to the Iraqis. I don't know if the >Iraqis use "dog-tags" and whether these are being collected and >provided (I suppose it might be better to leave them with the body, >there must be some custom for this.) The details of what is done with dog tags are a bit gory, so here's a for those who just ate lunch. The US custom is to issue two tags, at death the grave detail places one tag into the anus, with the chain sticking out, and one goes into the mouth, which is then pressed closed, to hold the tag in place. This is only done until the dead can be retrieved for later burial, of course. Well, you asked... > -Barry Shein > >Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs >Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD -- + Barrey Jewall - Network Admin.++ "One ring to hold them all, + + barrey@novell.com ++ and in the darkness + + Novell, Inc.- San Jose, Calif. ++ bind them." +
bhs@cbnews.att.com (bruce.h.simon) (03/15/91)
In article <BZS.91Mar14131340@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: > >They are indeed burying in mass graves, and providing the location and >other details of these graves to the Iraqis. I don't know if the >Iraqis use "dog-tags" and whether these are being collected and >provided (I suppose it might be better to leave them with the body, >there must be some custom for this.) > U.S. troops wear two at a time. One is returned to command and one stays with the body.
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (03/16/91)
>>other details of these graves to the Iraqis. I don't know if the >>Iraqis use "dog-tags" and whether these are being collected and >>provided (I suppose it might be better to leave them with the body, >>there must be some custom for this.) >> > >The practice in the US military is to issue 2 dog tags; in the event >they need to be collected, one is collected and one remains with the >body. I would imagine that this would be common practice in the armies >of the world, but who knows? (rhetorically speaking, of course) A common practice in VietNam (by Americans, on Americans) was to take a dog-tag, position it between the front teeth, and kick the jaw closed, "so it wouldn't get lost". -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
root@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca (Super user) (03/16/91)
In article <9103132214.879@mydog.UUCP> gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: >Iraqi dead. According to the Geneva Convention, the party in >control of a given territory after combat is responsible for >making its best effort to find, count, and identify the >casualties of its adversary, including the dead. The U.S. >command has made it clear that it has no intention of doing so. Can you provide specific evidence that the U.S. command has 'made it clear', or in any way stated it has no intention of pursuing the issue? (I don't get much tv time, so may have missed something.) Please provide whatever documentation is available to you which supports this allegation. >Many of the Iraqi dead were simply bulldozed into mass graves >without any attempt to count them, much less identify them, and >with no reports made or asked for. It was my understanding that the military first took pictures or whatever else was required for later identification and removal to Iraq - when did this policy change, and who changed it? -- Support a Marine in the Gulf! Send your mail| ANY MARINE | via saudinet@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca, and use the | H&S Co.Maint.Plt. | address on the right to reach our 'adopted' | 2nd. LAI Btn. DEPLOYED | unit. (Email for instructions reaching others)| FPO NY NY 09502-0204 |
rodney@sun.ipl.rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II) (03/16/91)
hmm. I'm not so sure that's correct. air force dog tags are ribbed all around except for one small 1/4" part that's been cut out. This is used to force the tag between the teeth of the corpse. -- Rodney
scw@ollie.SEAS.UCLA.EDU (03/16/91)
In article <BZS.91Mar15155015@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: >>>[Iraqui dog tags...] >> >>The practice in the US military is to issue 2 dog tags; in the event >>they need to be collected, one is collected and one remains with the >>body. I would imagine that this would be common practice in the armies >>of the world, but who knows? (rhetorically speaking, of course) This is correct, 1 remains with the body, one is retained by the unit commander. >A common practice in VietNam (by Americans, on Americans) was to take >a dog-tag, position it between the front teeth, and kick the jaw >closed, "so it wouldn't get lost". Where it the world did you ever dream up such sheer unadulterated crap. In 2 FULL tours in Vietnam I never saw any such thing done, I never heard of any such thing being done, and I suspect that if I had seen it done I would have given said moron a buttstroke to the forehead for fucking with the body of my comrads at arms. ----- Stephen C. Woods; UCLA SEASNET; 2567 BH;LA CA 90024; (213)-825-8614 UUCP: ...{ibmsupt,hao!cepu}!ollie}!scw Internet:scw@SEAS.UCLA.EDU "Non, je ne regrette rien"--1st Para, LE 1963
gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (03/16/91)
In <BZS.91Mar15155015@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: | >>other details of these graves to the Iraqis. I don't know if the | >>Iraqis use "dog-tags" and whether these are being collected and | >>provided (I suppose it might be better to leave them with the body, | >>there must be some custom for this.) (attribution lost) | >The practice in the US military is to issue 2 dog tags; in the event | >they need to be collected, one is collected and one remains with the | >body. I would imagine that this would be common practice in the armies | >of the world, but who knows? (rhetorically speaking, of course) (Barry Shein again, I think) | A common practice in VietNam (by Americans, on Americans) was to take | a dog-tag, position it between the front teeth, and kick the jaw | closed, "so it wouldn't get lost". As a U.S. Army Infantry veteran, let me assure you that this was not peculiar to Vietnam. It was and probably still is standard operating procedure. That's what the two little notches in the dog tag are for: so you can position the tag between the upper and lower front teeth, and it will stay in place until you can kick the jaw shut. Instruction in this practice was one of the first things I remember from Basic Training. A sergeant stands up in front of your platoon and starts out by saying, "Gimme your tags, 'cruit. Okay. Everybody see these little notches in the tag? ...." -- Gordon Fitch | gcf@mydog.uucp | uunet!cmcl2.nyu.edu!panix!mydog!gcf
abw@natchez.tmc.edu (Al Wesolowsky) (03/17/91)
In article <9103152226.1594@mydog.UUCP> gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: +In <BZS.91Mar15155015@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: [discussion of the use of the second dogtag in graves registration deleted] +(Barry Shein again, I think) +| A common practice in VietNam (by Americans, on Americans) was to take +| a dog-tag, position it between the front teeth, and kick the jaw +| closed, "so it wouldn't get lost". + +As a U.S. Army Infantry veteran, let me assure you that this was +not peculiar to Vietnam. It was and probably still is standard +operating procedure. That's what the two little notches in the +dog tag are for: so you can position the tag between the upper +and lower front teeth, and it will stay in place until you can [Sarge's explication from Basic Training deleted] Yup. I remember this explanation from '64. The idea is to make the tag stay with the corpse. I wish this could be a subject for alt.folklore.military, but 'fraid not. -- | Al B. Wesolowsky abw@bucrsb.bu.edu or arc9arn@buacca.bitnet | |"The event you have just witnessed is based on sworn testimony. Can | | you prove that it didn't happen?" Criswell-_Plan 9 from Outer Space_|
gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (03/17/91)
In <1991Mar14.183742.21018@cbnewsj.att.com> twheeler@cbnewsj.att.com (theodore wheeler) writes: | ... If you would get your | nose out of theat hate literature once in awhile .... Would you care to list the hate literature I read? -- Gordon Fitch | gcf@mydog.uucp | uunet!cmcl2.nyu.edu!panix!mydog!gcf
gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (03/17/91)
gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: | >Iraqi dead. According to the Geneva Convention, the party in | >control of a given territory after combat is responsible for | >making its best effort to find, count, and identify the | >casualties of its adversary, including the dead. The U.S. | >command has made it clear that it has no intention of doing so. twheeler@cbnewsj.att.com (theodore wheeler): | Fitch, you unmitigated moron, graves registration units of all | the services are right now combing the desert for dead Iraqis. | Each body is identified as closely as possible, then buried | with a marker. ... root@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca (Super user) writes: | Can you provide specific evidence that the U.S. command has 'made it | clear', or in any way stated it has no intention of pursuing the | issue? (I don't get much tv time, so may have missed something.) | Please provide whatever documentation is available to you which | supports this allegation. Unfortunately, my sources have been radio and television. While these are no more or less reliable than the printed word, they're harder to trace. Here's what I have: 1. I personally saw an American general asked, on TV, about the Iraqi casualties. He stated that he had no idea and that he didn't think the information would be available. I believe General Schwartzkopf himself said that he was "not going to play the body-count game" but this statement could have many interpretations. 2. The radio station WBAI interviewed a woman working for a relief organization in the Middle East who said they had become concerned about Iraqi MIAs because no one seemed to care about the situation, and that her organization had been "stonewalled." Because my car radio doesn't have a recording tape deck and my memory isn't perfect, I can't state the names. The telephone number of WBAI is 212 279 0707 if anyone wishes to call them. I called this number myself a few days ago and spoke to Robert Knight, who is one of the producers of "Undercurrents", a nationally-distributed radio program. Knight said that they are aware of more than one report of this type, and that a program will probably be devoted to the subject in the near future. 3. I've received confirmation of the story by e-mail, and I've written back asking for further information. Let me add that this case may be one in which the act of observation changes the thing observed. Specifically, public attention to a procedural "oversight" may cause the problem to be suddenly corrected. As a veteran I am rather sensitive to this issue and I would prefer to be "wrong" than to have the situation continue. Mr. User alludes to photographing KIAs. I had not heard of this before. It might be a good idea; I understand that many of the Iraqi troops did not have shoes[1], and they may have lacked dog tags as well. However, because a procedure exists -- and this refers not only to the articles I quote but to other articles as well -- a recitation of the steps of the procedure, or its demonstration in front of a television camera, does not mean it is being carried out in the field. Nor does the fact that the U.S. Government says something mean that it is necessarily true. -- [1] Village Voice, vol. XXXVI no. 12, dated March 19, 1991, pg. 8, third column, about 2/3 of the way down the page. -- Gordon Fitch | gcf@mydog.uucp | uunet!cmcl2.nyu.edu!panix!mydog!gcf -- Gordon Fitch | gcf@mydog.uucp | uunet!cmcl2.nyu.edu!panix!mydog!gcf
twheeler@cbnewsj.att.com (theodore wheeler) (03/22/91)
In article <9103162147.2178@mydog.UUCP> gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: >gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: >| >Iraqi dead. According to the Geneva Convention, the party in >| >control of a given territory after combat is responsible for >| >making its best effort to find, count, and identify the >| >casualties of its adversary, including the dead. The U.S. >| >command has made it clear that it has no intention of doing so. > >twheeler@cbnewsj.att.com (theodore wheeler): >| Fitch, you unmitigated moron, graves registration units of all >| the services are right now combing the desert for dead Iraqis. >| Each body is identified as closely as possible, then buried >| with a marker. ... > >root@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca (Super user) writes: >| Can you provide specific evidence that the U.S. command has 'made it >| clear', or in any way stated it has no intention of pursuing the >| issue? (I don't get much tv time, so may have missed something.) >| Please provide whatever documentation is available to you which >| supports this allegation. > >Unfortunately, my sources have been radio and television. While >these are no more or less reliable than the printed word, they're >harder to trace. Here's what I have: > >1. I personally saw an American general asked, on TV, about the >Iraqi casualties. He stated that he had no idea and that he >didn't think the information would be available. I believe >General Schwartzkopf himself said that he was "not going to play >the body-count game" but this statement could have many >interpretations. > Fitch, check the dates and times that this statement was made. The General spoke these words BEFORE the ground war even started. If you recall, then maybe you were too young, the first question out of reporter's mouths each day in Nam were, "what is the body count?" The General simply said the military was not going to get into that scenario again. Besides not wanting to the stupid and unproductive "body count" game, the real shooting war had not even begun when this question was asked. >2. The radio station WBAI interviewed a woman working for a >relief organization in the Middle East who said they had become >concerned about Iraqi MIAs because no one seemed to care about >the situation, and that her organization had been "stonewalled." >Because my car radio doesn't have a recording tape deck and my >memory isn't perfect, I can't state the names. The telephone >number of WBAI is 212 279 0707 if anyone wishes to call them. >I called this number myself a few days ago and spoke to Robert >Knight, who is one of the producers of "Undercurrents", a >nationally-distributed radio program. Knight said that they are >aware of more than one report of this type, and that a program >will probably be devoted to the subject in the near future. > Taking WBAI as a non-biased, even-handed source of information is akin to believing the PLO just wants to be friends with Isreal. Radio Moscow used to take lessons from this bunch. I would no more believe what is said on WBAI than anything spouted over the Christian Broadcasting Network. Both have very narrow biased agendas and will do anything they can to push that agenda. Further, WBAI is notorious for not checking sources. >3. I've received confirmation of the story by e-mail, and I've >written back asking for further information. Hell, if I send you some e-mail refuting what you say, does that make it official? > >Let me add that this case may be one in which the act of >observation changes the thing observed. Specifically, public >attention to a procedural "oversight" may cause the problem to be >suddenly corrected. As a veteran I am rather sensitive to this >issue and I would prefer to be "wrong" than to have the situation >continue. > I don't think we have an oversight here. What we have is a failure of the public to pay attention to the news and certain segments of that public, knowing that most people don't pay attention, grinding out half truths and downright misinformation to suit their political ends. >Mr. User alludes to photographing KIAs. I had not heard of this >before. It might be a good idea; I understand that many of the >Iraqi troops did not have shoes[1], and they may have lacked dog >tags as well. However, because a procedure exists -- and this >refers not only to the articles I quote but to other articles as >well -- a recitation of the steps of the procedure, or its >demonstration in front of a television camera, does not mean it >is being carried out in the field. Nor does the fact that the >U.S. Government says something mean that it is necessarily true. >-- >[1] Village Voice, vol. XXXVI no. 12, dated March 19, 1991, pg. >8, third column, about 2/3 of the way down the page. >-- How else are you going to get the news if it isn't written in a paper or broadcast over radio and TV? The incidents showing Graves Registration people going about their thankless task was filmed AFTER the shooting stopped and reporters were allowed to wander about and gather their own stories. One of the film bites showed Iraqi soldiers searching the bodies of dead comrades along the second road shootup north of Kuwait City. One of the Iraqi soldiers told the TV crew that he was collecting dog tags and held up a handfull. It really puzzles me that their are those out there in netland that see a government conspiracy behind every news broadcast. Just what is this so-called conspiracy out to do. Hide the fact that Iraqi soldiers died in the war. We will probably find out the exact number from the Iraqis themselves. Are you folks so desperate to fault the government that your grasping at any straw that wafts by on the wind? Do you want the news folks to go out and film each and every body recovery, then play it back each night during the evening news? Finally, I believe the coalition forces are doing everything they can to find, identify, and list the fallen Iraqi soldiers. The International Red Cross is satisfied. The International Red Crescent is satisfied. The UN is satisfied. The Geneva Convention Committee is satisfied. What makes you think that WBAI, an organization with its own political agenda, has all of the answers? What makes you think the Village Voice, a newspaper that has a credibility rating of less than zero, has all the answers and everyone else is wrong? I have problems with the main stream news sources too, but I think I am astute enough to see through the reporting fog so that I don't have to run to a blatently obvious political agenda mouthpiece such as WBAI or the Village Voice. T. C.
gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (03/23/91)
I've given what information I presently have as to sources; those who are interested can follow up this story if they wish. If I find out more, and I can do so, I will post an article. I would like to get into the question of the veracity of sources, however. Mr. Wheeler seems much exercised that I quoted WBAI and the Village Voice. twheeler@cbnewsj.att.com (theodore wheeler) writes: | ... | Taking WBAI as a non-biased, even-handed source of information | is akin to believing the PLO just wants to be friends with | Isreal. Radio Moscow used to take lessons from this bunch. | I would no more believe what is said on WBAI than anything | spouted over the Christian Broadcasting Network. Both have | very narrow biased agendas and will do anything they can to | push that agenda. Further, WBAI is notorious for not checking | sources. | ... What makes you think that | WBAI, an organization with its own political agenda, has all of | the answers? What makes you think the Village Voice, a newspaper | that has a credibility rating of less than zero, has all the | answers and everyone else is wrong? I have problems with the | main stream news sources too, but I think I am astute enough | to see through the reporting fog so that I don't have to run | to a blatently obvious political agenda mouthpiece such as | WBAI or the Village Voice. Mr. Wheeler says or implies some things here which just aren't so. The primary ones are that, in contrast to WBAI, CBN, and the Village Voice, the mainstream media do not have a political agenda or a biased point of view. The difference between the marginal and the mainstream media is not that the former have a particular point of view and a particular politics, and the latter don't; it's that the former admit their particularities. WBAI, CBN, and the Village Voice do not conceal their politics; the New York Times and Time Magazine do, because part of their act is claiming "objectivity." People who claim "objectivity" are saying that their texts, and only their texts, conform to reality. The idea that one's point of view is the one true point of view is totalitarianism. Thus, the New York Times and Time Magazine are totalitarian; the Village Voice, CBN, and WBAI are not.[1] I think the marginal media tend to be better on the facts than the mainstream media, in spite of having orders of magnitude less resources to do research with, because they know they're going to be attacked, just as they were in Mr. Wheeler's words above. But let me invite readers of these newsgroups who think otherwise to cite examples to the contrary -- if they know of any. | It really puzzles me that their are those out there in netland | that see a government conspiracy behind every news broadcast. | Just what is this so-called conspiracy out to do[?] Preserve and extend their power, of course. You don't get to run a major corporation or a government without wanting to worse than everyone else around, and once you get there, there's no reason to stop, even if you could. -- [1] I may be wrong about CBN. Most of the religious stations I have heard have been openly opinionated, rather than pretending to "objectivity", and I have not heard anything I recognized as a lie; but I am not their most faithful listener. -- Gordon Fitch | gcf@mydog.uucp | uunet!cmcl2.nyu.edu!panix!mydog!gcf