🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

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

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.

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

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.

>>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

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   |

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

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

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.

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