NationStates Jolt Archive

I must admit to a certain distaste for prisoner abuse, abuses out in the field, massacres, etc..I don't think that anyone in any normal situation would disagree with me..

Now..it's no secret I am a vet..a combat vet with more then one campaign on my military credits..and I understand there are also a few active duty military here of one branch or another as well as foreign military vets. My question is..given what we know of war, the goings on during war, and the results of war..have the Geneva Conventions lost touch with reality and way War has changed since the inception of the Geneva Conventions?

I don't know who else here has been in combat, but it seems to me that once combat has occured..things take on a life of their own..a mentality different then one you'd practice in peacetime. priorities shift.

When you look down the barrel of your weapon and see a child with a rifle..who only moments ago turned another child..only this one perhaps 18 or 19 in to a pile of mush where his brain had been..do you really care what the Geneva Convention is going to say?...Or do we initate payback for the loss of a comrade..do we care that we're beating the hell out of an enemy prisoner if it leads us back to a village where artillery fire is decimating your unit?

I have to say in Vietnam..while the number of atrocities that Kerry seems to have stipulated too didn't happen..I did hear of a few stories, and in a couple occasions I myself did some....questionable things..but on some level you rationalize it..you want to go home..it's me or them mentality. Do we care how history remembers us? I'm not sure anymore..I know it sets up our troops for horric treatment....that I can't have revulsion for treatment done to our troops if I'm willing to condone it to an enemy...That may be true..but..twice in the last 50 yrs..we've gone up against enemies that didn't give a rat's ass bout the Geneva Conventions..

Yet...in the end we went to great lengths to have German and Japanese personnel tried for War Crimes using the Geneva Conventions as a backdrop...we couldn't get the Vietnamese ones..but no matter...there..in the field..justice was served nonetheless...

Where is this post leading...I don't know..perhaps it's just years of pent-up frustration..or just an ignorant rant..

So your saying that because we fight people who disreguard the geneva Convention we should too?

And in what way is it 'redundant?

So your saying that because we fight people who disreguard the geneva Convention we should too?

And in what way is it 'redundant?

Ok..need to know your military background if you have any...I specifically addressed this topic to us vets..civilians with questions I'll get too later..right now am looking for input from my fellow vets

Military Background:

I've watched, and laughed at the local Cadets crwaling on their stomachs , holding wooden guns.

My mates Dad is Chaplain (something) at a British Army Base in Germany.

So none. But as I'm the only person to reply to you, can you answer my questions?

This is a tough issue. As a pacifist, there's no way I can comprehend the true inferno of actual combat. Playing MMORPGs is almost too much for me. I can't even begin to understand the choices one would have to make or the internal pressures one would suffer when looking down the barrel of a gun at someone who's looking right back at you down the barrel of another gun. Does that pressure, though, excuse mistakes or deliberate actions that are contrary to both furthering peace or even simple human decency?

The answer is, I don't know. It's a cruicible I'll never have to be in. Getting slapped around at a protest or spending an evening or two in jail are not really the same thing (at least, not yet). It seems to me, though, that all the Geneva Convention attempts to do is write down a set of rules for the most unholy and ruleless activity mankind can do; to try and provide some sense of order and a reminder that, ultimately, we are better than two lions fighting over hunting grounds because in addition to ferocity, we can make a concious decision to show mercy. And perhaps, in the middle of the malestrom that is combat, this needs to be reinforced.

It occurs to me that the best warriors, the successful warriors, are the ones who realize that what they're ulitimately fighting for is peace. In an odd way, they're trying to put themselves out of a job. They understand what they do is, at least to their way of thinking, necessary and do it so they can go home and not have to do it anymore. The hotheads, the ones who rush into battle, even when it's not needed, are always capable of finding another conflict until, finally, their own bravado betrays them. The warriors who live are the ones who fight for the end of the battle. It would seem that the hothead warrior, the one who fights for the sheer enjoyment of violence, would be the most likely to break the Geneva Convention (which, when you get right down to it, are no more than crystalizations of common human decency), either purposefully or while carried away on their battlelust. For this sort of transgression, I don't think there can be any allowance or leeway. Breaking of the Geneva Convention is a crime and there must be punishment and rehabilitation.

However, for the other kind of warrior, the one who fights with a goal in mind, even if that goal is only to be able to stop fighting, it's not nearly so clear. Like I said, the pressures of combat are unbelievable and dehumanizing, so even with the best of intensions mistakes can occur and tough decisions sometimes must be made in an instant. Can we then hold these men and women accountable for what, in hindsight, might have been an error in judgement made under the most adverse conditions imaginable? I'm not sure. One would imagine that, for this second category of warrior, the knowledge of at least the questionability of their actions would haunt them to the end of their days and this might be punishment enough.

However, there is a third type and I hesitate to call them "warriors" because they are neither the pragmatic or the incendiary. They're the leaders. There was a time in this world when the leaders of armies would lead their troops into battle and take the same risks as their soldiers. Now, these leaders are so removed from the battle that the actual warriors are just numbers and the civilians are just "collateral damage." When these leaders break the Geneva Convention (as possibly happened with Rumsfeld), there is no excuse for leniency. Period. If they are going to sit in their offices at the Pentagon or wherever and blithely condemn men and women to their deaths, they can damn well take responsibility for it afterwards with NO excuse for "errors of judgement" or "unexpected fatalities" after the fact. The price of a cushy chair and four-star restaurants is not having the excuse of "I was under pressure" to fall back on. I am vehemently against capital punishment, but leaders like this, who take no responsibility for their troops or their mistakes, could make me reconsider.

Like I said before, the Convention is a touchestone. In a way, they remind us what we are fighting for in the middle of the fight. Will they be broken in the confusion of war? Most likely. Will it be intentional? Perhaps. Is there an excuse for it? It depends. These are all legal questions, though. There is a much more basic question of human morality wrapped up in the Geneva Convention. If we do not do everything in our power that we do not decend below a certain level of savagery, then regardless of the outcome of the conflict, we have lost. The Conventions represent that bottom line between rational human and vicious animal. If we cross that line, there is a price that must be paid.

Military Background:

I've watched, and laughed at the local Cadets crwaling on their stomachs , holding wooden guns.

My mates Dad is Chaplain (something) at a British Army Base in Germany.

So none. But as I'm the only person to reply to you, can you answer my questions?

The day is young...I'm hoping as the day goes on other vets will see this post and respond..

You've nothing to compare to how things evolve with a group of men whom you go to war with....I'm not sure what I believe but it does seem to me be irrevelent to obey a set of rules for something that is inherently "ruleless"?...times were different..when the Geneva Conventions were initially adopted men had barely gotten past walking in a formation toward their enemy while firing one-shot rifled weapons.. Granted, they have been upgraded in times past..but I'm not so sure they have been updated enough to match the pace and philosophies now being advocated in war..

And I see no reason to follow a set of rules when my enemy doesn't..since you've not been in combat you'd never understand the feelings that arise..can't comprehend the actions we take in order to come home.."Taking the moral high ground" is hallow indeed when you're writing home a letter to some wife or parents of one of your comrades killed in action..an action that might have been avoided by situations that could have been ignored if not for the Geneva Conventions..the Geneva Conventions cold comfort to the men who had to endure the Hanoi Hilton, the Bataan Death March, the slaughter of US prisoners by the SS during the Battle of the Bulge, the Rape of Nanking...

Military Background:

I've watched, and laughed at the local Cadets crwaling on their stomachs , holding wooden guns.

My mates Dad is Chaplain (something) at a British Army Base in Germany.

So none. But as I'm the only person to reply to you, can you answer my questions?

The day is young...I'm hoping as the day goes on other vets will see this post and respond..

You've nothing to compare to how things evolve with a group of men whom you go to war with....I'm not sure what I believe but it does seem to me be irrevelent to obey a set of rules for something that is inherently "ruleless"?...times were different..when the Geneva Conventions were initially adopted men had barely gotten past walking in a formation toward their enemy while firing one-shot rifled weapons.. Granted, they have been upgraded in times past..but I'm not so sure they have been updated enough to match the pace and philosophies now being advocated in war..

And I see no reason to follow a set of rules when my enemy doesn't..since you've not been in combat you'd never understand the feelings that arise..can't comprehend the actions we take in order to come home.."Taking the moral high ground" is hallow indeed when you're writing home a letter to some wife or parents of one of your comrades killed in action..an action that might have been avoided by situations that could have been ignored if not for the Geneva Conventions..the Geneva Conventions cold comfort to the men who had to endure the Hanoi Hilton, the Bataan Death March, the slaughter of US prisoners by the SS during the Battle of the Bulge, the Rape of Nanking...I have but one thing to say:

Two wrongs does NOT make a right.

That was my $0.02. I have no further business here. *poof*

If the military don't follow the Geneva Convention, then they should stop being sent in as liberators.

I have no problem with unethical tatics when you are defending yourself from intruders, or even when you're being honest about quite bastardly (invasion etc) intentions. But hypocrisy (sp) makes me nauteous (sp).

\clueless and young

Military Background:

I've watched, and laughed at the local Cadets crwaling on their stomachs , holding wooden guns.

My mates Dad is Chaplain (something) at a British Army Base in Germany.

So none. But as I'm the only person to reply to you, can you answer my questions?

The day is young...I'm hoping as the day goes on other vets will see this post and respond..

You've nothing to compare to how things evolve with a group of men whom you go to war with....I'm not sure what I believe but it does seem to me be irrevelent to obey a set of rules for something that is inherently "ruleless"?...times were different..when the Geneva Conventions were initially adopted men had barely gotten past walking in a formation toward their enemy while firing one-shot rifled weapons.. Granted, they have been upgraded in times past..but I'm not so sure they have been updated enough to match the pace and philosophies now being advocated in war..

And I see no reason to follow a set of rules when my enemy doesn't..since you've not been in combat you'd never understand the feelings that arise..can't comprehend the actions we take in order to come home.."Taking the moral high ground" is hallow indeed when you're writing home a letter to some wife or parents of one of your comrades killed in action..an action that might have been avoided by situations that could have been ignored if not for the Geneva Conventions..the Geneva Conventions cold comfort to the men who had to endure the Hanoi Hilton, the Bataan Death March, the slaughter of US prisoners by the SS during the Battle of the Bulge, the Rape of Nanking...I have but one thing to say:

Two wrongs does NOT make a right.

That was my $0.02. I have no further business here. *poof*

I'm sure that your 2 cents has just as much value as my post..but this isn't bout making a right..or keeping one wrong from happening while one has already occured..it's bout doing your time, keeping you and your buddies safe, and coming home in one piece, and just what is important to you in combat..doing what is necessary to come home in one piece or sacrifice your principles...I vote for coming home..I can always seek therapy if need be for the loss of my principles...and indeed can we inject principles into modern warfare?....a century and a half ago....were I an officer I could simply give my parole to an enemy and expect just quarter, be allowed to retain my sword....that is not the case now.

My people before we were "civilized" were ruthless in war...by the time the white man had come to our region we had expanded into two sub-septs, the Choctaw and the Chickamaugas...both of whom had fought wars with the whites and the Cherokee..we were savage....war was fought "to the knife" and rarely was quarter given..savage though we might have been then...at least then your vision was clear...they were the enemy..and you were not..to that end....nothing was held back. Could or should this philosophy prevail now..doubtful..but it does explain how warfare and thus the codes we live by has changed..so too must our observance of the Geneva Conventions...either that or another update must be done.

Military Background:

I've watched, and laughed at the local Cadets crwaling on their stomachs , holding wooden guns.

My mates Dad is Chaplain (something) at a British Army Base in Germany.

So none. But as I'm the only person to reply to you, can you answer my questions?

The day is young...I'm hoping as the day goes on other vets will see this post and respond..

You've nothing to compare to how things evolve with a group of men whom you go to war with....I'm not sure what I believe but it does seem to me be irrevelent to obey a set of rules for something that is inherently "ruleless"?...times were different..when the Geneva Conventions were initially adopted men had barely gotten past walking in a formation toward their enemy while firing one-shot rifled weapons.. Granted, they have been upgraded in times past..but I'm not so sure they have been updated enough to match the pace and philosophies now being advocated in war..

And I see no reason to follow a set of rules when my enemy doesn't..since you've not been in combat you'd never understand the feelings that arise..can't comprehend the actions we take in order to come home.."Taking the moral high ground" is hallow indeed when you're writing home a letter to some wife or parents of one of your comrades killed in action..an action that might have been avoided by situations that could have been ignored if not for the Geneva Conventions..the Geneva Conventions cold comfort to the men who had to endure the Hanoi Hilton, the Bataan Death March, the slaughter of US prisoners by the SS during the Battle of the Bulge, the Rape of Nanking...I have but one thing to say:

Two wrongs does NOT make a right.

That was my $0.02. I have no further business here. *poof*

I'm sure that your 2 cents has just as much value as my post..but this isn't bout making a right..or keeping one wrong from happening while one has already occured..it's bout doing your time, keeping you and your buddies safe, and coming home in one piece, and just what is important to you in combat..doing what is necessary to come home in one piece or sacrifice your principles...I vote for coming home..I can always seek therapy if need be for the loss of my principles...and indeed can we inject principles into modern warfare?....a century and a half ago....were I an officer I could simply give my parole to an enemy and expect just quarter, be allowed to retain my sword....that is not the case now.

My people before we were "civilized" were ruthless in war...by the time the white man had come to our region we had expanded into two sub-septs, the Choctaw and the Chickamaugas...both of whom had fought wars with the whites and the Cherokee..we were savage....war was fought "to the knife" and rarely was quarter given..savage though we might have been then...at least then your vision was clear...they were the enemy..and you were not..to that end....nothing was held back. Could or should this philosophy prevail now..doubtful..but it does explain how warfare and thus the codes we live by has changed..so too must our observance of the Geneva Conventions...either that or another update must be done.It should be blatantly obvious that MY two cents are not as valuable as yours. After all, they're Canadian pennies :P

My total is now $0.04 cents. Plus this really shiny bottle cap I found on the floor..

No offense, but for starters the Nuremberg and Tokyo war crimes trials had nothing at all to do with the Geneva Conventions. Those conventions sprung up as a result of what happened in WWII and were only signed in '49.


But how exactly have the Conventions "lost touch with reality?" You admit you find prisoner abuse distateful - but are you saying that soldiers should not be brought to trial for analy raping prisoners with lights? That war makes that OK?

Let's face it - few people ever get convicted of Geneva violations. But if they limit the atrocities by putting limits in peoples minds then it still serves a purpose. The alternative is "anything goes" at which point we might as well just fight wars by nuking whole countries just to be sure.

You're not the first person to raise the question as to whether the Conventions are relevant, and perhaps some of the issues regarding foreign fighters in cases such as Iraq need to be better defined. But I sincerely hope that you do not advocate OKing whatever barbarism anyone in the service might commit under the "Oh welll - it's a war so nobody cares" precept.

IF you feel that they are in need of updating, perhaps you should point out how you think the possible atrocities should be addressed legally to try and keep wars from descending into an even worse waste of human potential than it already is.

Which is to say: What is your alternative?

-Z-

No offense, but for starters the Nurmburg and Tokyo war crimes trials had nothing at all to do with the Geneva Conventions. Those conventions sprung up as a result of what happened in WWII and were only signed in '49.


But how exactly have the Conventions "lost touch with reality?" You admit you find prisoner abuse distateful - but are you saying that soldiers should not be brought to trial for analy raping prisoners with lights? That war makes that OK? Not ok...but if good intelligence can be obtained thru acts by men who any other day would be considered fine men, then it is a fact of reality that events like this will occur, war was never intended to be nice Zep...never was..never will be

Let's face it - few people ever get convicted of Geneva violations. But if they limit the atrocities by putting limits in peoples minds then it still serves a purpose. Serves a purpose?..But if our enemy chooses not to adhere to these rules..of what tangible plus is there for our side to adhere to them?The alternative is "anything goes" at which point we might as well just fight wars by nuking whole countries just to be sure.

You're not the first person to raise the question as to whether the Conventions are relevant, and perhaps some of the issues regarding foreign fighters in cases such as Iraq need to be better defined. But I sincerely hope that you do not advocate OKing whatever barbarism anyone in the service might commit under the "Oh welll - it's a war so nobody cares" precept.Not advocating anything of the sort Zep, but in war, men do things they'd never do in peacetime or as a civilian, there simply is no other comparison model. I knew a preacher's son who used an M-60 to good effect in razing a hooch, a hooch where women had just entered, it also housed a booby-trapped VC tunnel that he collapsed by doing the unthinkable. Soldiers do things that we must live with Zep, not all of them fondly or that don't scar us...but for someone else to try to judge us when they have no concept of what we go thru..it's difficult to swallow..who knows...these men at the prison might have obtain crucial intel on enemy movements, arms caches..etc.....would it have been right to torture them if it saved American lives....in combat..there is no doubt what many soldiers would have said...yes

IF you feel that they are in need of updating, perhaps you should point out how you think the possible atrocities should be addressed legally to try and keep wars from descending into an even worse waste of human potential than it already is.

Which is to say: What is your alternative?

-Z-

No offense, but for starters the Nurmburg and Tokyo war crimes trials had nothing at all to do with the Geneva Conventions. Those conventions sprung up as a result of what happened in WWII and were only signed in '49.


But how exactly have the Conventions "lost touch with reality?" You admit you find prisoner abuse distateful - but are you saying that soldiers should not be brought to trial for analy raping prisoners with lights? That war makes that OK? Not ok...but if good intelligence can be obtained thru acts by men who any other day would be considered fine men, then it is a fact of reality that events like this will occur, war was never intended to be nice Zep...never was..never will be

Let's face it - few people ever get convicted of Geneva violations. But if they limit the atrocities by putting limits in peoples minds then it still serves a purpose. Serves a purpose?..But if our enemy chooses not to adhere to these rules..of what tangible plus is there for our side to adhere to them?The alternative is "anything goes" at which point we might as well just fight wars by nuking whole countries just to be sure.

You're not the first person to raise the question as to whether the Conventions are relevant, and perhaps some of the issues regarding foreign fighters in cases such as Iraq need to be better defined. But I sincerely hope that you do not advocate OKing whatever barbarism anyone in the service might commit under the "Oh welll - it's a war so nobody cares" precept.Not advocating anything of the sort Zep, but in war, men do things they'd never do in peacetime or as a civilian, there simply is no other comparison model. I knew a preacher's son who used an M-60 to good effect in razing a hooch, a hooch where women had just entered, it also housed a booby-trapped VC tunnel that he collapsed by doing the unthinkable. Soldiers do things that we must live with Zep, not all of them fondly or that don't scar us...but for someone else to try to judge us when they have no concept of what we go thru..it's difficult to swallow..who knows...these men at the prison might have obtain crucial intel on enemy movements, arms caches..etc.....would it have been right to torture them if it saved American lives....in combat..there is no doubt what many soldiers would have said...yes

IF you feel that they are in need of updating, perhaps you should point out how you think the possible atrocities should be addressed legally to try and keep wars from descending into an even worse waste of human potential than it already is.

Which is to say: What is your alternative?

-Z-

Hmmm - so if war affects a man to the point where he starts commiting atrocities for personal enjoyment is that OK too?

You keep pointing only to interrogation, however that is only a small factor at play.

My Lai after all, was not an intelligence gathering exercise.

But it seems clear that you DO want to excuse all soldiers their excesses. Fortunately there are many others in the armed forces that do not subscribe to that ideal. Where you should work towards the lowest common denominator of barbarism.

I don't expect war to be clean Salishe. But I don't excuse those that go beyond what is required either.

And as an aside, if everything in war is OK, then I guess you can no longer put terrorists in a separate category. They simply prosecute their battles as they see fit just as you feel you have a right to. War, after all, is not restricted to country vs country else you would have to determine that civil wars were not real wars.

And that being the case - you would have to decide that you felt that 9-11 was an acceptable method of waging war, and that those behind it were well within their rights to commit that act. I.e. , that it was no better or worse than any other military action.

I think most people would disagree with you on that concept.

-Z

No offense, but for starters the Nurmburg and Tokyo war crimes trials had nothing at all to do with the Geneva Conventions. Those conventions sprung up as a result of what happened in WWII and were only signed in '49.


But how exactly have the Conventions "lost touch with reality?" You admit you find prisoner abuse distateful - but are you saying that soldiers should not be brought to trial for analy raping prisoners with lights? That war makes that OK? Not ok...but if good intelligence can be obtained thru acts by men who any other day would be considered fine men, then it is a fact of reality that events like this will occur, war was never intended to be nice Zep...never was..never will be

Let's face it - few people ever get convicted of Geneva violations. But if they limit the atrocities by putting limits in peoples minds then it still serves a purpose. Serves a purpose?..But if our enemy chooses not to adhere to these rules..of what tangible plus is there for our side to adhere to them?The alternative is "anything goes" at which point we might as well just fight wars by nuking whole countries just to be sure.

You're not the first person to raise the question as to whether the Conventions are relevant, and perhaps some of the issues regarding foreign fighters in cases such as Iraq need to be better defined. But I sincerely hope that you do not advocate OKing whatever barbarism anyone in the service might commit under the "Oh welll - it's a war so nobody cares" precept.Not advocating anything of the sort Zep, but in war, men do things they'd never do in peacetime or as a civilian, there simply is no other comparison model. I knew a preacher's son who used an M-60 to good effect in razing a hooch, a hooch where women had just entered, it also housed a booby-trapped VC tunnel that he collapsed by doing the unthinkable. Soldiers do things that we must live with Zep, not all of them fondly or that don't scar us...but for someone else to try to judge us when they have no concept of what we go thru..it's difficult to swallow..who knows...these men at the prison might have obtain crucial intel on enemy movements, arms caches..etc.....would it have been right to torture them if it saved American lives....in combat..there is no doubt what many soldiers would have said...yes

IF you feel that they are in need of updating, perhaps you should point out how you think the possible atrocities should be addressed legally to try and keep wars from descending into an even worse waste of human potential than it already is.

Which is to say: What is your alternative?

-Z-

Hmmm - so if war affects a man to the point where he starts commiting atrocities for personal enjoyment is that OK too?

You keep pointing only to interrogation, however that is only a small factor at play.

My Lai after all, was not an intelligence gathering exercise.

But it seems clear that you DO want to excuse all soldiers their excesses. Fortunately there are many others in the armed forces that do not subscribe to that ideal. Where you should work towards the lowest common denominator of barbarism.

I don't expect war to be clean Salishe. But I don't excuse those that go beyond what is required either.

And as an aside, if everything in war is OK, then I guess you can no longer put terrorists in a separate category. They simply prosecute their battles as they see fit just as you feel you have a right to. War, after all, is not restricted to country vs country else you would have to determine that civil wars were not real wars.

And that being the case - you would have to decide that you felt that 9-11 was an acceptable method of waging war, and that those behind it were well within their rights to commit that act. I.e. , that it was no better or worse than any other military action.

I think most people would disagree with you on that concept.

-Z

Not excuse their excesses Zep..Mercy this is difficult to put into words... bad things occur to men in wartime..when any other time they'd be fine men, upstanding soldiers....Should a year or more of service be tarnished for one day..or even a score of days wherein bad things happen?..

And I still haven't gotten the answer to this...If my enemy does not adhere to the Geneva Conventions, of what practical, and tangible benefits is there for my side to adhere to them?

One of the finest benefits that occurs as the result of following The Laws of War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war) is that the country or countries that observe these laws during conflict tend not to unnecessarily provoke the adversary into fighting more aggressively and with more passion than they otherwise would have; in essence & theory leading to a conflict of shorter duration/intensity.

But here are the three chief reasons given for their purpose [from the link provided].

The laws of war were inspired by the desire to diminish the evils of war by:

1) Protecting both combatants and noncombatants from unnecessary suffering;
2) Safeguarding certain fundamental human rights of persons who fall into the hands of the enemy, particularly prisoners of war, the wounded and sick, and civilians; and
3) Facilitating the restoration of peace.

One of the finest benefits that occurs as the result of following The Laws of War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war) is that the country or countries that observe these laws during conflict tend not to unnecessarily provoke the adversary into fighting more aggressively and with more passion than they otherwise would have; in essence & theory leading to a conflict of shorter duration/intensity.

But here are the three chief reasons given for their purpose [from the link provided].

The laws of war were inspired by the desire to diminish the evils of war by:

1) Protecting both combatants and noncombatants from unnecessary suffering;
2) Safeguarding certain fundamental human rights of persons who fall into the hands of the enemy, particularly prisoners of war, the wounded and sick, and civilians; and
3) Facilitating the restoration of peace.

In theory...yes...in practice...doubtful as to it's effect.

In theory...yes...in practice...doubtful as to it's effect.

For United States Marines, you're right Salishe, maybe not. It wouldn't make a sh*t of difference to me one way or the other whether our guys were trearted fairly or not and how these facts would influence my intensity to repel or assult the enemy. Semper Fi, do or die, make sure you eliminate the other guy (unless of course he gives up, creating a condition where you have to slow down the assult in order to process the cowardly bastard i.a.w. the Laws of War.)!

Hey, Salishe! Did you read this (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-05-18-connable_x.htm) today? Good message from a Marine Major (a Mustang to boot)!

The laws of war and Geneva serve as guidlines at the time of conflict. Geneva is only a tool for after the conflict.

It's easy to sit back in our nice warm houses, comfy chairs, a latte in hand and moralise the actions of war.

War is immoral.

You want morality then outlaw war and the formation of armies.

I think that Salishe started to say is that when you are under fire and you see a kid blow your buddies brains out, you are not going to say "Wait what does Geneva say?"

I saw My Lai mentioned. It was a bad thing and people should have been punished. However, why is it that you never hear about the VC attrocites. There was one small village whose men were serving in the South Viet Army. The VC went into the village, rounded up everybody they could grab and turned a a couple flame throwers on them.

Nobody was punished for that.

In the past I mentioned a friend who served in Korea. He was captured and they thought he knew deployment information. He didn't. They broke everything in his body. Litterally. He almost died and to this day walks around like a guy who is 400 years old.

Nobody was punished for that.

The German Army after Stalingrad had 63000 men march of to the POW camps. Less then 5000 survived.

You have to understand that in conflict, the enemy is not even human. You saw that with Berg and you saw that with the Prision abuse.

Salishe: My family have been soldiers for longer then we can remember. We were not always good at it. My dad was a terrible soldier, my grandfathers were excellent soldiers. I am the first to break the line due to a near deathbed promise of my grandfather. Even then I still got indirectly involved. Intel stuff.

I think I understand your experiences as I have listened to all my relatives talk of theirs. Many saw ugly combat. As one said. Hand to hand is probably the worst as your basic animalistic instincts kick in.

But I still recognise that I only think I understand since I have not served in a war.

You have my respect. When were you in-country?

No offense, but for starters the Nuremberg and Tokyo war crimes trials had nothing at all to do with the Geneva Conventions. Those conventions sprung up as a result of what happened in WWII and were only signed in '49.

Well, there was the 1929 Geneva convention. 47 nations signed it. Japan and Russia did not adhere to it, but Japan gave a qualified promise to abide by the Geneva rules in 1942, and the USSR announced that it would observe the terms of the Hague Convention of 1907 in 1941. Nürnberg trial had loads to do with both Hague and Geneva conventions.

According to 1929 convention every prisoner of war was entitled:
*adequate food and medical care
*right to exchange correspondence
*observe ordinary military discipline and courtesy
and could attempt to escape at his own risk. Once recaptured, he was not to be punished for his attempt. All the usual stuff in the 1949 convention and it's amendments.

What comes to the rest of mr. -Z-'s points, i fully agree. If the Japanese soldiers were told about the Hague and Geneva conventions, they might not have fought to the bitter end. The high command couldn't have made them believe the 'ugly american' will torture them to death.

My country has compulsory military service, and we are all taught the importance of Geneva conventions. I only spent 11 months in the army, but i can clearly see that these things must be taught as well as the drill moves. Some people tend to lose grasp to reality even in peace time.

peace.

No offense, but for starters the Nuremberg and Tokyo war crimes trials had nothing at all to do with the Geneva Conventions. Those conventions sprung up as a result of what happened in WWII and were only signed in '49.

Well, there was the 1929 Geneva convention. 47 nations signed it. Japan and Russia did not adhere to it, but Japan gave a qualified promise to abide by the Geneva rules in 1942, and the USSR announced that it would observe the terms of the Hague Convention of 1907 in 1941. Nürnberg trial had loads to do with both Hague and Geneva conventions.

According to 1929 convention every prisoner of war was entitled:
*adequate food and medical care
*right to exchange correspondence
*observe ordinary military discipline and courtesy
and could attempt to escape at his own risk. Once recaptured, he was not to be punished for his attempt. All the usual stuff in the 1949 convention and it's amendments.

What comes to the rest of mr. -Z-'s points, i fully agree. If the Japanese soldiers were told about the Hague and Geneva conventions, they might not have fought to the bitter end. The high command couldn't have made them believe the 'ugly american' will torture them to death.

My country has compulsory military service, and we are all taught the importance of Geneva conventions. I only spent 11 months in the army, but i can clearly see that these things must be taught as well as the drill moves. Some people tend to lose grasp to reality even in peace time.

peace.

Heh, of course only 2 first lines are Zeppistan's (I really must learn how to quote!)

I must admit to a certain distaste for prisoner abuse, abuses out in the field, massacres, etc..I don't think that anyone in any normal situation would disagree with me..

Now..it's no secret I am a vet..a combat vet with more then one campaign on my military credits..and I understand there are also a few active duty military here of one branch or another as well as foreign military vets. My question is..given what we know of war, the goings on during war, and the results of war..have the Geneva Conventions lost touch with reality and way War has changed since the inception of the Geneva Conventions?

I don't know who else here has been in combat, but it seems to me that once combat has occured..things take on a life of their own..a mentality different then one you'd practice in peacetime. priorities shift.

When you look down the barrel of your weapon and see a child with a rifle..who only moments ago turned another child..only this one perhaps 18 or 19 in to a pile of mush where his brain had been..do you really care what the Geneva Convention is going to say?...Or do we initate payback for the loss of a comrade..do we care that we're beating the hell out of an enemy prisoner if it leads us back to a village where artillery fire is decimating your unit?

I have to say in Vietnam..while the number of atrocities that Kerry seems to have stipulated too didn't happen..I did hear of a few stories, and in a couple occasions I myself did some....questionable things..but on some level you rationalize it..you want to go home..it's me or them mentality. Do we care how history remembers us? I'm not sure anymore..I know it sets up our troops for horric treatment....that I can't have revulsion for treatment done to our troops if I'm willing to condone it to an enemy...That may be true..but..twice in the last 50 yrs..we've gone up against enemies that didn't give a rat's ass bout the Geneva Conventions..

Yet...in the end we went to great lengths to have German and Japanese personnel tried for War Crimes using the Geneva Conventions as a backdrop...we couldn't get the Vietnamese ones..but no matter...there..in the field..justice was served nonetheless...

Where is this post leading...I don't know..perhaps it's just years of pent-up frustration..or just an ignorant rant..
Meh, "rules of war" is kind of an oxymoron, don't you think? One must determine what is more important: Victory or adherence to some silly convention? As long as one isn't willing to do whatever it takes to win, one will almost surely be defeated. We saw this in Vietnam, we practiced this maxim on Germany and Japan, and we're seeing it occur in Iraq. Sometimes, "rules" have to be ignored for the sake of the greater goal, especially when the enemy does not adhere to the rules. One can't constrain oneself with silly rules and regulations if one hopes to win. As a Vietnam veteran, you know that. Yes, some will surely say "If you use the enemy's tactics, are you any better than he?" Well, no, but at least you'll be alive. There's an old, incredibly true saying that I am reminded of: "Choose your enemies wisely, for you will become them."

What comes to the rest of mr. -Z-'s points, i fully agree. If the Japanese soldiers were told about the Hague and Geneva conventions, they might not have fought to the bitter end. The high command couldn't have made them believe the 'ugly american' will torture them to death.


Highly doubtbul. They had a completely different mindset. I remember talking to one kid whose great-great-uncle was one of the Pearl Harbor pilots. He kind of admired but did not like him if that makes sense?

He said you have to keep in mind that for all our talk of the Bushido. Nobody really understands it because the Samurai are all gone. You had many wannabe Samurai in the war.

I also saw a show that talked about Gen. Slim and his campaigns. They had Japanese Veterens on the show. One thing they said that drove them crazy was the attitude of the Americans and the Australians. To the Japanese soldier the most disgraceful thing was to surrender. It was the lowest thing possible. Yet, here are the Americans and the Australians who just surrendered and told us we were going to loose the war!

For what they did in Korea, Nanking, and the Cabatuan(sp) Prisions.....the conventions would have meant nothing to them.

These days, in order to win you've got to be "unconventional".

No offense, but for starters the Nuremberg and Tokyo war crimes trials had nothing at all to do with the Geneva Conventions. Those conventions sprung up as a result of what happened in WWII and were only signed in '49.

Well, there was the 1929 Geneva convention. 47 nations signed it. Japan and Russia did not adhere to it, but Japan gave a qualified promise to abide by the Geneva rules in 1942, and the USSR announced that it would observe the terms of the Hague Convention of 1907 in 1941. Nürnberg trial had loads to do with both Hague and Geneva conventions.

According to 1929 convention every prisoner of war was entitled:
*adequate food and medical care
*right to exchange correspondence
*observe ordinary military discipline and courtesy
and could attempt to escape at his own risk. Once recaptured, he was not to be punished for his attempt. All the usual stuff in the 1949 convention and it's amendments.

...

peace.

Not to nitpick, but I did not list that convention ( which is extremely scope-limited when compared to the '49 docs which is what are generally refered to these days) regarding the Nurmberg trials for the simple reason that POW treatment was not included in any of the charges brought in that venue.

The total list of treaties and offical documents cited in the official records of the Nurmberg trials are:

The British War Blue Book
The Bullet Decree (Kugel Erlass); March 4, 1944
Directive No. 1 for the Conduct of the War
The Hague Conventions
Hossbach Memorandum; November 10, 1937
Kellogg-Briand Pact and Associated Documents
Moscow Conference; October 1943
Munich Pact and Associated Documents
Nazi-Soviet Non-Agression Pact
Night and Fog Decree (Nacht und Nebel Erlass); December 7, 1941
Program of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP)
The Stroop Report : The Warsaw Ghetto is No More; April - May 1943
The Treaty of Versailles; June 28, 1919
Tripartite Pact

Germany actually generally treated POWs quite well, with a few noteable exceptions. Japan, of course, was a diferent story - but as noted it was not signatory to even the '29 treaty.

As to Salishe's statement regarding what advantage is there to adhereing to a more civilized standard than your enemy, all I can say is this: After the al qaeda ties and WMD argument hit the circular file, all that has been left is that it was a war to liberate a downtrodden people from a brutal, heinous man. A leader who so transgressed the bounds of common decency that he needed to be removed from the world. In other words - a war for humanitarian purposes.

So - by deciding that it is OK to sink to his level you have removed even that as a meaningful reason. All it seems now is a complaint that the people were under a brutal dictator... that wasn't you!

Is that what American Foreign policy is supposed to be about?

-Z-

-Z-

Not excuse their excesses Zep..Mercy this is difficult to put into words... bad things occur to men in wartime..when any other time they'd be fine men, upstanding soldiers....Should a year or more of service be tarnished for one day..or even a score of days wherein bad things happen?..

And I still haven't gotten the answer to this...If my enemy does not adhere to the Geneva Conventions, of what practical, and tangible benefits is there for my side to adhere to them?[/quote]


I like to think that even under impossibly challenging circumstances and pressure that a soldier can maintain some semblance of humanity and morality if only for their sense of self. If wars are fought solely on pragmatism and practicality then on what basis does one side claim the moral high ground. I think that even in times of war, the mere pretense of dignity and right and wrong are among the most important things for a person.

I have no military experience but I believe that is how I would feel had I done so.

One point I would like to make about the practical benefits of adhering to the convention would be that civilians (and even former soldiers) would be far more likely to receive you more cordially and less likely to join a resistance group if they believed that you had behaved what they perceive to be correctly during the conflict.

... all I can say is this: After the al qaeda ties and WMD argument hit the circular file, all that has been left is that it was a war to liberate a downtrodden people from a brutal, heinous man. A leader who so transgressed the bounds of common decency that he needed to be removed from the world. In other words - a war for humanitarian purposes...

Not so fast! I believe that there is evidence of these two things. But since it isn't reported, the president and his supporters have to use the other, more noble angle of why we deposed the despot. In the end, I even believe it to be the more effective selling point for political reasons. Amongst the people who are not blinded by their hatred for the president and his staff, the liberation angle further demostrates just how much the Democratic Party has strayed from traditional beliefs. In the long run this will show that today's core Democrat is not about individual freedom, market economies, family values, and limited federal government. The more and more that these facts can be illustrated, the more and more Americans will pine to get them back.

The bottom line: unless I miss my guess, today's Democratic party will have to make a big lurch to the center or risk being the party of the past.

The bottom line: unless I miss my guess, today's Democratic party will have to make a big lurch to the center or risk being the party of the past.I agree and I think that is where a small group of them are trying to get back to. The problem is that the party has submitted to the extremists for so long that it will be a long, hard struggle for them to even define what the center is.

I think you raise a number of issues which I believe are in fact symptmatic of the real problem.

For a start, you address your post specifically to veterans. The implication is that vets have a greater understanding of the issue. This attitude in and of itself is part of the problem. In a democratic society, the military is answerable to the government, which is in turn answerable to the population, yes the unedcated, inexperienced, unwashed masses who "just don't understand".

There are nations where the military controls the government, like Burma.
There are nations where the military has an extremely influential position in government, like Indonesia. I do not believe that either represent a better situation.

The second issue that concerns me is that from the present US administration to any sort of disagreement with its decisions.
When the UN was unconvinced of the necessity to invade Iraq, the response was that the UN was irrelevant and outmoded, full of anti-American elements, and could be bypassed.

When the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay was raised, we were told that the Geneva Convention did not apply to them, purely because the US administration wished it to be that way.

Now that the treatment of prisoners within Iraq becomes an issue, we are told that the Geneva Convention is irrelevant and outmoded.

When allegations of mistreatment were first raised by the Red Cross, they were ignored. I feel certain they we can expect a similar attack now on the Red Cross. Undoubtedly, it will be described as outmoded and irrelevant.

When will the message be finally recognised that international agreements and the rule of law should apply to all, and are designed for the benefit of all.

I think you raise a number of issues which I believe are in fact sympotmatic of the real problem.

For a start, you address your post specifically to veterans. The implication is that vets have a greater understanding of the issue. This attitude in and of itself is part of the problem. In a democratic society, the military is answerable to the government, which is in turn answerable to the population, yes the unedcated, inexperienced, unwashed masses who "just don't understand".

There are nations where the military controls the government, like Burma.
There are nations where the military has an extremely influential position in government, like Indonesia. I do not believe that either represent a better situation.

The second issue that concerns me is that from the present US administration to any sort of disagreement with its decisions.
When the UN was unconvinced of the necessity to invade Iraq, the response was that the UN was irrelevant and outmoded, full of anti-American elements, and could be bypassed.

When the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay was raised, we were told that the Geneva Convention did not apply to them, purely because the US administration wished it to be that way.

Now that the treatment of prisoners within Iraq becomes an issue, we are told that the Geneva Convention is irrelevant and outmoded.

When allegations of mistreatment were first raised by the Red Cross, they were ignored. I feel certain they we can expect a similar attack now on the Red Cross. Undoubtedly, it will be described as outmoded and irrelevant.

When will the message be finally recognised that international agreements and the rule of law should apply to all, and are designed for the benefit of all.

... all I can say is this: After the al qaeda ties and WMD argument hit the circular file, all that has been left is that it was a war to liberate a downtrodden people from a brutal, heinous man. A leader who so transgressed the bounds of common decency that he needed to be removed from the world. In other words - a war for humanitarian purposes...

Not so fast! I believe that there is evidence of these two things. But since it isn't reported, the president and his supporters have to use the other, more noble angle of why we deposed the despot. In the end, I even believe it to be the more effective selling point for political reasons.

Ah yes... the invisible proof... now why don't we all just remember to take the governments word for everything... :roll:

As to the "noble" reason, let us step back and remember that this was not the key reason claimed when GW started the war. It was listed as a nice side effect, but on the eve of war the speech went:

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep.

Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq. America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations. One reason the U.N. was founded after the second world war was to confront aggressive dictators, actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace.


You can buy his new sales pitch if you like, but that is rather self serving since this pitch came after he closed the sale.

Amongst the people who are not blinded by their hatred for the president and his staff, the liberation angle further demostrates just how much the Democratic Party has strayed from traditional beliefs. In the long run this will show that today's core Democrat is not about individual freedom, market economies, family values, and limited federal government. The more and more that these facts can be illustrated, the more and more Americans will pine to get them back.

The bottom line: unless I miss my guess, today's Democratic party will have to make a big lurch to the center or risk being the party of the past.

Nice accusation: "blinded by hatred". Anyone who disagrees with this government's foreign policy is "blind"?

What a nice thought.

People can't possibly have a diferent opinion without it being caused by an unwillingness to see th light.

:roll:

As to your other assertions, do bear in mind that this President has expanded both the government powers and the size of the government to levels never before seen, put in place legislation removing individual freedoms, and has even gone so far as propose a constitutional ammendment to deal with an issue that is clearly defined to be a State-level issue - not a Federal one.

Arguing points of view on "market economies" would take way too long here, but so far you are 0-for-3 on the other "ideals" you pointed out.

-Z-

Nice to see you back Salishe. But I am not a vet so I wont stay long.

For all its worth I believe in total war with no limitations imposed by civilisation, ie do whatever you can to kill the enemy regardless of right or wrong. So I would throw the Geneva convention out of the window if I was fighting to defend my country.

I am just against Iraq as I can see no reason for Britain to be there other than as Bushs lapdog.

:twisted:

I think you raise a number of issues which I believe are in fact sympotmatic of the real problem.

For a start, you address your post specifically to veterans. The implication is that vets have a greater understanding of the issue. This attitude in and of itself is part of the problem. In a democratic society, the military is answerable to the government, which is in turn answerable to the population, yes the unedcated, inexperienced, unwashed masses who "just don't understand".

There are nations where the military controls the government, like Burma.
There are nations where the military has an extremely influential position in government, like Indonesia. I do not believe that either represent a better situation.

The second issue that concerns me is that from the present US administration to any sort of disagreement with its decisions.
When the UN was unconvinced of the necessity to invade Iraq, the response was that the UN was irrelevant and outmoded, full of anti-American elements, and could be bypassed.

When the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay was raised, we were told that the Geneva Convention did not apply to them, purely because the US administration wished it to be that way.

Now that the treatment of prisoners within Iraq becomes an issue, we are told that the Geneva Convention is irrelevant and outmoded.

When allegations of mistreatment were first raised by the Red Cross, they were ignored. I feel certain they we can expect a similar attack now on the Red Cross. Undoubtedly, it will be described as outmoded and irrelevant.

When will the message be finally recognised that international agreements and the rule of law should apply to all, and are designed for the benefit of all.


I don't think addressing my question to veterans is a problem Smeagol, only those of us who have been in combat can truly know what the deal is, all others, however well educated regarding it...or well intentioned over it..are just arm-chair generals who make judgements long after we come back broken, bruised, or beaten.

Second...I am all for being an honorable sort..if my enemy is...If I could have counted on the Al-Queda or Ansar al-Islam(sp) to be honorable men I would not be disagreeing with you..if I could count on the Madhi army to conduct itself to the Geneva Conventions...I'd not be disagreeing with you. But I am being told repeatedly that my side must abide with the Geneva Convention whilst my Enemies repeatedly break them at every turn...They have used mosques as combat operations centers..they have used snipers from mosques...they do not wear uniforms indicating they are combatants...they use ambulances to transport troops and materiel, and a host of other offenses...

So...like I've asked repeatedly and not got a very satisfactory answer, why should my side abide by international law when my enemies do not?

As to the "noble" reason, let us step back and remember that this was not the key reason claimed when GW started the war. It was listed as a nice side effect, but on the eve of war the speech went...

You can buy his new sales pitch if you like, but that is rather self serving since this pitch came after he closed the sale.

Huh? A new sales pitch? This is the speech - transcript from CNN archives (http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript/) - our president gave on September 20th 2001. It is long, but I'm going to bold the parts that you either mised or have forgotten about. This took me some time so please take the time to read it and see if you still feel misled or redirected about what the goal was/is.



I'm so honored the British prime minister has crossed an ocean to show his unity with America.
Thank you for coming, friend.
(APPLAUSE)
On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. Americans have known wars, but for the past 136 years they have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941. Americans have known the casualties of war, but not at the center of a great city on a peaceful morning.
Americans have known surprise attacks, but never before on thousands of civilians. All of this was brought upon us in a single day, and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack.
Americans have many questions tonight. Americans are asking, "Who attacked our country?"
The evidence we have gathered all points to a collection of loosely affiliated terrorist organizations known as al Qaeda. They are some of the murderers indicted for bombing American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and responsible for bombing the USS Cole.
Al Qaeda is to terror what the Mafia is to crime. But its goal is not making money, its goal is remaking the world and imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere.
The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics; a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam.
The terrorists' directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans and make no distinctions among military and civilians, including women and children. This group and its leader, a person named Osama bin Laden, are linked to many other organizations in different countries, including the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.
There are thousands of these terrorists in more than 60 countries.
They are recruited from their own nations and neighborhoods and brought to camps in places like Afghanistan where they are trained in the tactics of terror. They are sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction. The leadership of al Qaeda has great influence in Afghanistan and supports the Taliban regime in controlling most of that country. In Afghanistan we see al Qaeda's vision for the world. Afghanistan's people have been brutalized, many are starving and many have fled.
Women are not allowed to attend school. You can be jailed for owning a television. Religion can be practiced only as their leaders dictate. A man can be jailed in Afghanistan if his beard is not long enough. The United States respects the people of Afghanistan -- after all, we are currently its largest source of humanitarian aid -- but we condemn the Taliban regime.
(APPLAUSE)
It is not only repressing its own people, it is threatening people everywhere by sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists.
By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder. And tonight the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban:
-- Deliver to United States authorities all of the leaders of Al Qaeda who hide in your land.
-- Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens you have unjustly imprisoned.
-- Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country.
-- Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. And hand over every terrorist and every person and their support structure to appropriate authorities.
-- Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.
These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion.
(APPLAUSE)
The Taliban must act and act immediately.
They will hand over the terrorists or they will share in their fate. I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah.
(APPLAUSE)
The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself.
The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends. It is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them.
(APPLAUSE)
Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there.
It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.
(APPLAUSE)
Americans are asking "Why do they hate us?"
They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.
They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa.
These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us because we stand in their way.
We're not deceived by their pretenses to piety.
We have seen their kind before. They're the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it ends in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies. Americans are asking, "How will we fight and win this war?"
We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network.
Now, this war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success.
We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge or no rest.
And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.
From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. Our nation has been put on notice, we're not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans. Today, dozens of federal departments and agencies, as well as state and local governments, have responsibilities affecting homeland security.
These efforts must be coordinated at the highest level. So tonight, I announce the creation of a Cabinet-level position reporting directly to me, the Office of Homeland Security. And tonight, I also announce a distinguished American to lead this effort, to strengthen American security: a military veteran, an effective governor, a true patriot, a trusted friend, Pennsylvania's Tom Ridge.
He will lead, oversee and coordinate a comprehensive national strategy to safeguard our country against terrorism and respond to any attacks that may come. These measures are essential. The only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it and destroy it where it grows.
Many will be involved in this effort, from FBI agents, to intelligence operatives, to the reservists we have called to active duty. All deserve our thanks, and all have our prayers. And tonight a few miles from the damaged Pentagon, I have a message for our military: Be ready. I have called the armed forces to alert, and there is a reason.
The hour is coming when America will act, and you will make us proud.
This is not, however, just America's fight. And what is at stake is not just America's freedom. This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom.
We ask every nation to join us.
We will ask and we will need the help of police forces, intelligence service and banking systems around the world. The United States is grateful that many nations and many international organizations have already responded with sympathy and with support -- nations from Latin America to Asia to Africa to Europe to the Islamic world.
Perhaps the NATO charter reflects best the attitude of the world: An attack on one is an attack on all. The civilized world is rallying to America's side.
They understand that if this terror goes unpunished, their own cities, their own citizens may be next. Terror unanswered can not only bring down buildings, it can threaten the stability of legitimate governments.
And you know what? We're not going to allow it.
(APPLAUSE)
Americans are asking, "What is expected of us?"
I ask you to live your lives and hug your children. I know many citizens have fears tonight, and I ask you to be calm and resolute, even in the face of a continuing threat.
I ask you to uphold the values of America and remember why so many have come here.
We're in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them. No one should be singled out for unfair treatment or unkind words because of their ethnic background or religious faith.
I ask you to continue to support the victims of this tragedy with your contributions. Those who want to give can go to a central source of information, Libertyunites.org, to find the names of groups providing direct help in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia. The thousands of FBI agents who are now at work in this investigation may need your cooperation, and I ask you to give it. I ask for your patience with the delays and inconveniences that may accompany tighter security and for your patience in what will be a long struggle.
I ask your continued participation and confidence in the American economy. Terrorists attacked a symbol of American prosperity; they did not touch its source.
America is successful because of the hard work and creativity and enterprise of our people. These were the true strengths of our economy before September 11, and they are our strengths today.
And finally, please continue praying for the victims of terror and their families, for those in uniform and for our great country. Prayer has comforted us in sorrow and will help strengthen us for the journey ahead. Tonight I thank my fellow Americans for what you have already done and for what you will do.
And ladies and gentlemen of the Congress, I thank you, their representatives, for what you have already done and for what we will do together.
Tonight we face new and sudden national challenges. We will come together to improve air safety, to dramatically expand the number of air marshals on domestic flights and take new measures to prevent hijacking.
We will come together to promote stability and keep our airlines flying with direct assistance during this emergency.
(APPLAUSE)
We will come together to give law enforcement the additional tools it needs to track down terror here at home.
We will come together to strengthen our intelligence capabilities to know the plans of terrorists before they act and to find them before they strike.
(APPLAUSE)
We will come together to take active steps that strengthen America's economy and put our people back to work.
Tonight, we welcome two leaders who embody the extraordinary spirit of all New Yorkers, Governor George Pataki and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.
As a symbol of America's resolve, my administration will work with Congress and these two leaders to show the world that we will rebuild New York City.
After all that has just passed, all the lives taken and all the possibilities and hopes that died with them, it is natural to wonder if America's future is one of fear.
Some speak of an age of terror. I know there are struggles ahead and dangers to face. But this country will define our times, not be defined by them.
As long as the United States of America is determined and strong, this will not be an age of terror. This will be an age of liberty here and across the world.
Great harm has been done to us. We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment.
Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom, the great achievement of our time and the great hope of every time, now depends on us.
Our nation, this generation, will lift the dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter and we will not fail.
(APPLAUSE)
It is my hope that in the months and years ahead life will return almost to normal. We'll go back to our lives and routines and that is good.
Even grief recedes with time and grace.
But our resolve must not pass. Each of us will remember what happened that day and to whom it happened. We will remember the moment the news came, where we were and what we were doing.
Some will remember an image of a fire or story or rescue. Some will carry memories of a face and a voice gone forever.
And I will carry this. It is the police shield of a man named George Howard who died at the World Trade Center trying to save others.
It was given to me by his mom, Arlene, as a proud memorial to her son. It is my reminder of lives that ended and a task that does not end.
I will not forget the wound to our country and those who inflicted it. I will not yield, I will not rest, I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people. The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them.
(APPLAUSE)
Fellow citizens, we'll meet violence with patient justice, assured of the rightness of our cause and confident of the victories to come.
In all that lies before us, may God grant us wisdom and may he watch over the United States of America. Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)


As to your other assertions, do bear in mind that this President has expanded both the government powers and the size of the government to levels never before seen...

Believe me when I tell you that I'm not happy about this, yet I also believe that it is disingenuous to suggest that Democrats are somehow opposed to the growth of government and the stripping of freedoms.

So...like I've asked repeatedly and not got a very satisfactory answer, why should my side abide by international law when my enemies do not?

I believe Neitzche sums it up when says "He Who Fights The Monster Should Take Care Least He Thereby Become a Monster"

You're right, those of us who have never seen combat can moralise all we want and are nothing more than "arm chair generals"

But if you disregard the moral value system that you abide by during peace time, during war, then really what exactly are you fighting to protect? To lower yourself to their crimes may bring you home alive, but if it's eroded your own belief system does that not just make you a shallow mockery of who you thought you were?

Nice coverage of the speech... and for highlighting all those items regarding Al Qaeda and Afghanistan.

Which is why I supported the War in Afghanistan.

Of course - that is all completely irrelevant to IRaq, but you did a nice job of bolding it.

However I fail to see where it somehow proves your initial assertion which was that the IRaq war was primarily about liberating the Iraqi's from a dictator.

You know damn well that wasn't it.

-Z-

So...like I've asked repeatedly and not got a very satisfactory answer, why should my side abide by international law when my enemies do not?

I believe Neitzche sums it up when says "He Who Fights The Monster Should Take Care Least He Thereby Become a Monster"

You're right, those of us who have never seen combat can moralise all we want and are nothing more than "arm chair generals"

But if you disregard the moral value system that you abide by during peace time, during war, then really what exactly are you fighting to protect? To lower yourself to their crimes may bring you home alive, but if it's eroded your own belief system does that not just make you a shallow mockery of who you thought you were?

And no one intentionally goes about to disregard the very principles that we are instilled with during peacetime....but every man has a point in his time during combat....it may not even be a major point but it is there nonetheless..now as for me...I grew up in a sub-culture that perpetuated still the idea of the Warrior and how to deal with your enemies. I am completely comfortable with the idea of becoming a monster if I can still come home to be a husband and dad....now others...they are decent, good men, who at any other time would never conduct themselves in any but the most honorable means...but war changes men..some of us never even acknowledge that change or see it's effects....some become the monster, most will never see it but feel it coiling in their chest...and some will be able to get by ignoring it altogether and go home satisfied that they never fell victim to it.

War makes victims of us all gents...some have scars on the outside, visible, easily taken care of....others....the scars are on the inside...so unless you can do away with War....men like those who fell victim to the beast in Iraq will continue to exists.

So your point is "War is Hell" and changes men (Or perhaps unmasks them?)

In which case why do you care if your enemy abides by a set of rules or not?

So your point is "War is Hell" and changes men (Or perhaps unmasks them?)

In which case why do you care if your enemy abides by a set of rules or not?

No...that's not what I said at all...you way oversimplified something that you just can't simplify....and For pete's sake, will you or any other poster please just answer the friggin question....WHY SHOULD MY SIDE ABIDE BY THE GENEVA CONVETIONS IF THE ENEMY DOESN'T....it's a simple quetstion...my enemy breaks it at every turn...and has broke it from the moment they took up arms against Coalition authority.

So your point is "War is Hell" and changes men (Or perhaps unmasks them?)

In which case why do you care if your enemy abides by a set of rules or not?

No...that's not what I said at all...you way oversimplified something that you just can't simplify....and For pete's sake, will you or any other poster please just answer the friggin question....WHY SHOULD MY SIDE ABIDE BY THE GENEVA CONVETIONS IF THE ENEMY DOESN'T....it's a simple quetstion...my enemy breaks it at every turn...and has broke it from the moment they took up arms against Coalition authority.

I did answer it.

I said if you commit acts that you think unconscinable and criminal on the basis that your enemy does too, then what are you fighting for? Surely war should be the last ever resort, when your way of life and value systems are threatend. If you are willing to disregard those values to save them you've lost.

You've already said you're happy to become a monster if it means going home as a husband and father... you've answered your own question. You shouldn't abide by them.

Ok, I understand that you do not believe that Saddam Hussein was not involved in any way, with any of the terrorist networks originating in the Middle East; fine, whatever! I do believe it

I also believe that our responses to Saddam Hussein (sp?) since the cease fire of the first Persian Gulf conflict was completely inept and futher emboldened the dictator to snub his nose at us and the United Nations.

In fact, I also find it to be no accident that since the cease fire of Gulf War I, the "arangement" with N. Korea over nuclear technologies, the pulling out of Somalia, the downing of our spy plan by China over [we claim] international waters, have given us a weak image.

Were we wrong to take out Saddam? Would you as a president of a free people - who desire security - not acted on the intelligence regarding Saddam, his weapons programs, his behavior regarding being inspected, his ties [however loose] to terrorist organizations, and his skirting around the embargos of the United Nations? At what point do you allow this to continue, even when the very members of this world organization - the one that is supposed to enforce the policies of its body - have been deliberately overlooking and willfully disobeying those policies in place?

I really want you to answer these three questions. Sure you could duck them, but this goes to the heart of the argument. If you had a bettre way, I'd like to hear it.

Call me crazy.. but if I had been president, I would of waged an all out frontal assault on the people who attacked my country on 9/11.. I would of stuck to that game plan.. What I wouldn't of done was drop the ball on Al Qaeda to go settle an old score with Saddam.. but that's just me.. after all, Saddam never did a damn thing to America.. :|

So your point is "War is Hell" and changes men (Or perhaps unmasks them?)

In which case why do you care if your enemy abides by a set of rules or not?

No...that's not what I said at all...you way oversimplified something that you just can't simplify....and For pete's sake, will you or any other poster please just answer the friggin question....WHY SHOULD MY SIDE ABIDE BY THE GENEVA CONVETIONS IF THE ENEMY DOESN'T....it's a simple quetstion...my enemy breaks it at every turn...and has broke it from the moment they took up arms against Coalition authority.

Well, it's not a great reason, but how about we're supposed to be better than that. On a very basic level, the Geneva Conventions are what we're fighting for.

One of the battlefronts in any conflict and, particularly, in this one, is the propoganda war. In order to "secure" Iraq, we must be seen as a clear and better option than Saddam. By shattering the Geneva Conventions (which in a very basic way only codify in one place the baseline of human decency anyone has a right to expect simply by being human), we invalidate ourselves and become the Western Monsters that terrorist organizations paint us as in order to recruit.

I understand your point and it makes a great deal of visceral sense. The trouble is, if we are going to claim to be 'protectors' or 'liberators' we must allow ourselves to be bound by the rules and regulations we are supposedly striving to protect. The enemy has no such compunction, particularly in the case of terrorists. They can break whatever rules they wish because the way they choose to fight is an inherant denial of human decency. We don't have that option unless we want to not only endorse terroristic attack modes, but also indulge in them ourselves.

We, as a country, claim to fight for ideals. Freedom, liberty, justice, Mom and apple pie. That's why we do what we do, supposedly. That's why we went into Viet Nam and, in a way, why we went into Iraq. If we're going to make that claim, we must obey those laws. The other option is to admit we only do things for political or financial gain, sacrifice whatever honor we have left and reduce our military to no more than a confederation of terrorists and thugs with no respect for human life.

...and For pete's sake, will you or any other poster please just answer the friggin question....WHY SHOULD MY SIDE ABIDE BY THE GENEVA CONVETIONS IF THE ENEMY DOESN'T....it's a simple quetstion...my enemy breaks it at every turn...and has broke it from the moment they took up arms against Coalition authority.

I tried to answer the question with an earlier post of mine. Though, you didn't care for it much. Cause & effect scenarios can be powerful motives for an increases in aggression. It is ideal to avoid pissing off your enemy anymore than you have to....but, if your enemy is ruthless to you first...well then all bets are off!

IMO once you have captured the enemy, and have secured him with trained correctional officers any maltreatment should cease. The crappy part is having to halt an offensive in order to process EPWs...you almost don't want them to surrender if you're in a thourough route of the bastards.

Call me crazy.. but if I had been president, I would of waged an all out frontal assault on the people who attacked my country on 9/11.. I would of stuck to that game plan.. What I wouldn't of done was drop the ball on Al Qaeda to go settle an old score with Saddam.. but that's just me.. after all, Saddam never did a damn thing to America.. :|

So, let me get this straight...you would have went right into Pakistan - whether they liked it or not - which probably would have started a war with an entire region because you did not recognize the existing government of the country where bin Laden happened to be?

Or would you step back and think of a better way to assist in the transformation of ideas of that entire region - ideas that embraced freedom, choices, and independence...and look to the one country that you could make a case against based on the history, knowledge, and intelligence that you have?

Well, maybe you wouldn't have if you had any inkling that the people that you lead in your very own country would attack you at every turn and undermine your vision for this transormation.

If I recall, over 70% of the American public supported the war [because it really was the last option thanks to France, Russia, and China]. Now, you can claim all that you want that you were lied to but if you read the speech that I posted [you don't even have to read it carefully or between the lines]. The media is very good at what they do and that is to influence their news consumers. The president knows that he is doing the right thing for the people of Iraq [and the region if you subscribe to the domino theory] in the long run. I just can't believe that I'm having this argument with someone of you who [allegedly] value human rights and liberalization :cry:

Ok, I understand that you do not believe that Saddam Hussein was not involved in any way, with any of the terrorist networks originating in the Middle East; fine, whatever! I do believe it

I never said that. Saddam was providing funds to Hamas. However he has never had any proven ties to Al Qaeda. Hamas, however, is not a threat to the US. And the War on Terror should surely go after the direct threats to your own country first?

I also believe that our responses to Saddam Hussein (sp?) since the cease fire of the first Persian Gulf conflict was completely inept and futher emboldened the dictator to snub his nose at us and the United Nations.

In fact, I also find it to be no accident that since the cease fire of Gulf War I, the "arangement" with N. Korea over nuclear technologies, the pulling out of Somalia, the downing of our spy plan by China over [we claim] international waters, have given us a weak image.


So you are saying a $200B war was worth it just an "image makeover"? Not that I don't disagree that some poor decisions were made before, but will you be the one to go tell the mother's of the fallen that their son had to die just to boost the country's image as a tough guy?

Were we wrong to take out Saddam?

Under the reasons given - YES. Not saying I miss the guy, but the suffering caused has been huge.

Would you as a president of a free people - who desire security - not acted on the intelligence regarding Saddam, his weapons programs, his behavior regarding being inspected, his ties [however loose] to terrorist organizations, and his skirting around the embargos of the United Nations?

The intelligence that was often contradictory? OR from single sources? That was in direct contravention to what the inspectors were saying they were finding? The intelligence with all the caveats that nobody cared to explore until afterwards?

And have you fogotten that it was Madeline Albright who told Saddam that even under full compliance with the inspections that the US would refuse to relax sanctions as long as he was in power? i.e. that the US didn't really care about the inspections from day one? But you expected the guy to still bend over backwards to please you? after being told that he neve could no matter what?

So - to answer your question - no, I would NOT have dropped the ball on the destruction of Al Qaeda and the establishment of a stable government in Afghanistan in order to rush off to start a war with a country that was no immediate threat. I believe that the priorities of the people ARE to safeguard themselves, but that this war has done nothing in that regard.



At what point do you allow this to continue, even when the very members of this world organization - the one that is supposed to enforce the policies of its body - have been deliberately overlooking and willfully disobeying those policies in place?

As opposed to the way that the US does the same when it is THEIR own national interest? I don't like that from any country - but at least I'm not going to be hypocritical and call my own lilly white while denigrating others.

I really want you to answer these three questions. Sure you could duck them, but this goes to the heart of the argument. If you had a bettre way, I'd like to hear it.

Questions answered. As for a better way to prosecute the War on Terror? It has become clear to most of us that the Iraq adventure has had no real bearing on the War on Terror. He should have stuck with that and finished the job in Afghanostan properly. If he had, he would still have pretty good support.

-Z-

Well, maybe you wouldn't have if you had any inkling that the people that you lead in your very own country would attack you at every turn and undermine your vision for this transormation.

What vision? So far all we've discovered is that in addition to miscalculating the cost of the war, the time we would have to be over there, the will of the Iraqis and the number of troops we would have to send, we have absolutely no exit strategy or, indeed, any idea of what is actually going down on the ground over there and that the whole war was predicated on, if not an outright lie, at least a twisting of the truth. What vision was this, exactly?

And why shouldn't the President expect his own country to question his actions? That's a fundamental responsibility of every US citizen, to question the government. The public is as much a part of the checks and balance system as any governmental branch. Dammit, this makes me so mad when people make is sound like demanding accountability from our government is somehow "unAmurican". That sounds a helluva lot more like the USSR to me or one of those Middle Eastern Theocracies which we're trying to prevent springing up in Iraq. The President absolute should expect his country to question his actions and, if they don't hold up, he should be expected to be called out on it. Otherwise, our Constitution isn't even good for toilet paper and we have truly failed ourselves and our country.


If I recall, over 70% of the American public supported the war [because it really was the last option thanks to France, Russia, and China].

Based on what? Seem that France, Russia and China were correct. We're stuck in a morass of endless conflict over there and we haven't found anything approaching the WMDs or Al-Qeada links we claimed to be looking for and we sure as hell can't claimed to have furthered human rights. All it all, I think Russia, France, China, Germany and MOST OF THE FREE WORLD, hit this nail right on the head.


Now, you can claim all that you want that you were lied to but if you read the speech that I posted [you don't even have to read it carefully or between the lines].

I was in that 30% that didn't support the war from the get go, so I will claim I was lied to because I claimed we were being lied to then. I don't see what this has to do with anything.


The media is very good at what they do and that is to influence their news consumers. The president knows that he is doing the right thing for the people of Iraq [and the region if you subscribe to the domino theory] in the long run.

HA! The president doesn't even know when he's going to be able to pull our troops out over there or how many we're even going to need, why should I believe he's got any inkling of what he's doing in the long run? What past evidence has he given to support he has any idea of what the ramifications of his actions are going to be next week, let alone at some mysterious future point?


I just can't believe that I'm having this argument with someone of you who [allegedly] value human rights and liberalization :cry:

I can't believe you claim to be championing human rights while you seem more than willing to blinding surrender one of the inherant principles of American responsibility, the right to question our government and demand accountability. :roll:

So you are saying a $200B war was worth it just an "image makeover"?...

Calculate the value of the amount of money in lives and in wealth that were destroyed as a result of the war that was brought to us...I'll even let you off the hook and we'll assume that this war was brought to us no earlier than 9-11-2001. Keep in mind that members of our armed forces know that they are risking their lives and they are compensated for it; innocent civilians don't ask to be a victim.

...but will you be the one to go tell the mother's of the fallen that their son had to die just to boost the country's image as a tough guy?

The hardest part of a presidents job...and that of a warrior's commander. parents and spouse with faith are griefed to be sure but also believe that their loved one is in a better "place". This takes leadership!

...And have you fogotten that it was Madeline Albright who told Saddam that even under full compliance with the inspections that the US would refuse to relax sanctions as long as he was in power? i.e. that the US didn't really care about the inspections from day one? But you expected the guy to still bend over backwards to please you? after being told that he neve could no matter what?...

Honestly, I did not know of this. I did not follow foriegn affairs or politics until the Summer of 2000 when my step brother turned me on to politics; the first election cycle I ever voted in. I've been kicking myself in the ass ever since for being so indifferent and so stupid. You'll only have to kick yourself half as hard though... and only just for being stupid - once you finally wake up that is :wink: :P Just kidding.

...As for a better way to prosecute the War on Terror? It has become clear to most of us that the Iraq adventure has had no real bearing on the War on Terror... -Z-

You and I will just continue to disagree on this one. I believe it is all connected and very important to the goal/finished product.

.....WHY SHOULD MY SIDE ABIDE BY THE GENEVA CONVETIONS IF THE ENEMY DOESN'T.....

IMO once you have captured the enemy, and have secured him with trained correctional officers any maltreatment should cease. The crappy part is having to halt an offensive in order to process EPWs...you almost don't want them to surrender if you're in a thourough route of the bastards.

"Having to halt an offensive" is EXACTLY the "defence" offered by the SS in regard to the killing of American prisoners at Malmedy, December 17, 1944,m during the Battle of the Bulge. It was, not surprisingly, unaccepted by the tribunal.

http://www.qmfound.com/malmedy.htm

That is one of the reasons that you should stick by the Geneva Convention if your enemy doesn't ...because it places you in some very poor company.

More importantly, it is generally better to maintain your own standard. To justify your behaviour by what someone worse does merely leads to a rapid spiralling race to the bottom.

A country illegally attacks the USA. They have bombed most of your infastructure, killing thousands of innocent men, women and children. Many thousands more are severely wounded, losing arms, legs, eyesight, 3rd degree burns, etc. Many of them are your neighbours and friends.

Then they start to infiltrate your town with tanks and air gunships. Many more of your friends die or are injured. Then they go house to house, removing mlitary aged males without charges being laid. You are one of them.

They take you to a jail and strip you naked. They put a collar around your neck and pee on you. They treat you like a dog. They make you crawl. Then they put an anal prob up your rectum and laugh at you. They use attack dogs to terrify you and then thy let the animals go. You receive multiple wounds. Then they put you together with a bunch of other naked male prisoners and get you to simulate oral sex, anal sex, etc.

They take pictures of you and threaten to expose the pictures to your family and friends. Some of the other prisoners die due to the brutal investigations. Then they let you go.

Is this ok then Salishe? Forgive and forget?

Don't need any Geneva Conventions?

A country illegally attacks that has only been the case of the anti-war crowd, my opinion was that it was perfectly in line with UN resolutions...they insisted we operate within those bounds, we did, and still the UN sat on the ass,...well..we know now why...billions going to French, Russian, and German kickbacks from the Food for Oil deal, why kill the golden goose must have been their thinkingthe USA. They have bombed most of your infastructureobviously an incorrect statement our bombs did precision bombing of military, government, and other pertinent targets, not like we just started bombing neighborhoods, killing thousands of innocent men, women and childrenuncorroborated numbers, not reliable. Many thousands more are severely wounded, losing arms, legs, eyesight, 3rd degree burns, etc. Many of them are your neighbours and friends.

Then they start to infiltrate your town with tanks and air gunshipsmebbe you missed the throngs welcoming our tanks and troops, I know I didn't. Many more of your friends die or are injured. Then they go house to house, removing mlitary aged males without charges being laid. You are one of them.3 full divisions totalling 100,000 men at conservative estimates of the Republican Guard and Gods know how many paramilitary such as the Feyadeen disgarded their uniforms and vanished into the population, only prudent to try to identify as many troublemakers as possible wouldn't you say

They take you to a jail and strip you naked. They put a collar around your neck and pee on you. They treat you like a dog. They make you crawl. Then they put an anal prob up your rectum and laugh at you. They use attack dogs to terrify you and then thy let the animals go. You receive multiple wounds. Then they put you together with a bunch of other naked male prisoners and get you to simulate oral sex, anal sex, etc.[b]Our boys in Vietnam endured far worse then an anal probe, talk to a Bataan Death March survivor, he'll tell you they got off light, remember at least 1 in 3 was a terrorist in that prison, they've killed our troops, destroyed our vehicles, what is good for the goose is good for the gander[/b}

They take pictures of you and threaten to expose the pictures to your family and friends. Some of the other prisoners die due to the brutal investigations. Then they let you go.

Is this ok then Salishe? Forgive and forget?

Don't need any Geneva Conventions?


I don't care how history will remember us...only that we leave the place stable...I will be dead in 30 yrs or so..in that 30 it is entirely possible the Iraqis will have a stable government and economy, and while this generation of Shiites (those backed by Iran of course, not those Iraqi Shiites who desire peace) may not think well of us...then again...the Kurds have welcomed us from day 1 as their liberators and have not wavered from their support of us. As for the Sunnis..well..I really can't blame them for fighting us..we did after all spoil their preferred status in the Saddam regime..sucks to be low dog on the totem pole now I guess.

As for the Geneva Conventions...we have gotten away from what War is all bout...victory...not how history will remember us...My people have a saying...roughly translated...it means "Bloody Ground"..it is a philosophy held by the warriors of my Clan for millenia before we were "civilized" and it means to take War to the knife..in war there are victors and losers..we have let politics dictate to us how war is to have been fought for over 100 yrs...we have tried the "higher moral ground"...and it has costs lives...perhaps now it is time for "bloody ground"

A country illegally attacks that has only been the case of the anti-war crowd, my opinion was that it was perfectly in line with UN resolutions...they insisted we operate within those bounds, we did, and still the UN sat on the ass,...well..we know now why...billions going to French, Russian, and German kickbacks from the Food for Oil deal, why kill the golden goose must have been their thinkingthe USA. They have bombed most of your infastructureobviously an incorrect statement our bombs did precision bombing of military, government, and other pertinent targets, not like we just started bombing neighborhoods, killing thousands of innocent men, women and childrenuncorroborated numbers, not reliable. Many thousands more are severely wounded, losing arms, legs, eyesight, 3rd degree burns, etc. Many of them are your neighbours and friends.

Then they start to infiltrate your town with tanks and air gunshipsmebbe you missed the throngs welcoming our tanks and troops, I know I didn't. Many more of your friends die or are injured. Then they go house to house, removing mlitary aged males without charges being laid. You are one of them.3 full divisions totalling 100,000 men at conservative estimates of the Republican Guard and Gods know how many paramilitary such as the Feyadeen disgarded their uniforms and vanished into the population, only prudent to try to identify as many troublemakers as possible wouldn't you say

They take you to a jail and strip you naked. They put a collar around your neck and pee on you. They treat you like a dog. They make you crawl. Then they put an anal prob up your rectum and laugh at you. They use attack dogs to terrify you and then thy let the animals go. You receive multiple wounds. Then they put you together with a bunch of other naked male prisoners and get you to simulate oral sex, anal sex, etc.[b]Our boys in Vietnam endured far worse then an anal probe, talk to a Bataan Death March survivor, he'll tell you they got off light, remember at least 1 in 3 was a terrorist in that prison, they've killed our troops, destroyed our vehicles, what is good for the goose is good for the gander[/b}

They take pictures of you and threaten to expose the pictures to your family and friends. Some of the other prisoners die due to the brutal investigations. Then they let you go.

Is this ok then Salishe? Forgive and forget?

Don't need any Geneva Conventions?


I don't care how history will remember us...only that we leave the place stable...I will be dead in 30 yrs or so..in that 30 it is entirely possible the Iraqis will have a stable government and economy, and while this generation of Shiites (those backed by Iran of course, not those Iraqi Shiites who desire peace) may not think well of us...then again...the Kurds have welcomed us from day 1 as their liberators and have not wavered from their support of us. As for the Sunnis..well..I really can't blame them for fighting us..we did after all spoil their preferred status in the Saddam regime..sucks to be low dog on the totem pole now I guess.

As for the Geneva Conventions...we have gotten away from what War is all bout...victory...not how history will remember us...My people have a saying...roughly translated...it means "Bloody Ground"..it is a philosophy held by the warriors of my Clan for millenia before we were "civilized" and it means to take War to the knife..in war there are victors and losers..we have let politics dictate to us how war is to have been fought for over 100 yrs...we have tried the "higher moral ground"...and it has costs lives...perhaps now it is time for "bloody ground"

Can you not see that you are using the exact same arguments to "justify" your actions that the terrorists do to "justify" theirs.

Morality is not subjective.

Actions are inherently right or wrong.

Reducing your respect for law, international conventions, and human dignity because your opponent does merely leads to a rapid spiral to the lowest and most base of the human condition. In that case, there are no victors, only victims.

OK, I suppose I'll respond....

First, my military background....US Army, 89-93, was in Iraq during the Gulf War.

I'll admit to not having read much of this thread so far. I just wanted to put my own opinion into the mix. I think the Geneva Convention is an ideal that we should attempt to uphold. I saw where someone asked why we should uphold it if the other side doesn't. My response to that would be, if you were to have a choice between 50% and nothing, which would you choose?

It shouldn't matter if the other side doesn't uphold their side of the bargain. As an American soldier, I was taught that we were held to a higher standard of quality, discipline, and respect for our adversary. I am reminded of the reputation American soldiers had during the World Wars. German soldiers made an effort to surrender to Americans as opposed to any other Ally force due to our treatment of prisoners. This type of reputation breeds a safer environment for our military. If an outnumbered enemy is facing a force they know to have such a reputation, they are more likely to surrender than to fight to the death. Thus, a beneficial result of upholding the Geneva Convention.

But aside from that, it is something that as an American, I was taught was a code of conduct that we do follow and believe in. It is painful to see those who view America with an air of hatred have something to grasp on to as their "proof" of why they have such hatred. Yes, during war, bad stuff happens. Friends I knew very well were pushed to levels of functioning most people simply aren't wired to handle. There will always be civilian death during war. It is the wish of the Geneva Convention that such incidents are kept to a minimum. It is a noble and just goal.

I thought about writing about a day I'll never forget. About a friend of mine and what we both went through. But after having written it and looking it over....its just not something I wish to share. Its a wound that hasn't healed yet.

OK, I suppose I'll respond....

First, my military background....US Army, 89-93, was in Iraq during the Gulf War.

I'll admit to not having read much of this thread so far. I just wanted to put my own opinion into the mix. I think the Geneva Convention is an ideal that we should attempt to uphold. I saw where someone asked why we should uphold it if the other side doesn't. My response to that would be, if you were to have a choice between 50% and nothing, which would you choose?

It shouldn't matter if the other side doesn't uphold their side of the bargain. As an American soldier, I was taught that we were held to a higher standard of quality, discipline, and respect for our adversary. I am reminded of the reputation American soldiers had during the World Wars. German soldiers made an effort to surrender to Americans as opposed to any other Ally force due to our treatment of prisoners. This type of reputation breeds a safer environment for our military. If an outnumbered enemy is facing a force they know to have such a reputation, they are more likely to surrender than to fight to the death. Thus, a beneficial result of upholding the Geneva Convention.

But aside from that, it is something that as an American, I was taught was a code of conduct that we do follow and believe in. It is painful to see those who view America with an air of hatred have something to grasp on to as their "proof" of why they have such hatred. Yes, during war, bad stuff happens. Friends I knew very well were pushed to levels of functioning most people simply aren't wired to handle. There will always be civilian death during war. It is the wish of the Geneva Convention that such incidents are kept to a minimum. It is a noble and just goal.

I thought about writing about a day I'll never forget. About a friend of mine and what we both went through. But after having written it and looking it over....its just not something I wish to share. Its a wound that hasn't healed yet.

Thank you for an excellent, well argued and moving post.

Ditto to Smeegsy

So you are saying a $200B war was worth it just an "image makeover"?...

Calculate the value of the amount of money in lives and in wealth that were destroyed as a result of the war that was brought to us...I'll even let you off the hook and we'll assume that this war was brought to us no earlier than 9-11-2001. Keep in mind that members of our armed forces know that they are risking their lives and they are compensated for it; innocent civilians don't ask to be a victim.


Once again invoking 9-11 in relation to Iraq, when the President himself has stated that there was no link between them. Please stop that.

...but will you be the one to go tell the mother's of the fallen that their son had to die just to boost the country's image as a tough guy?

The hardest part of a presidents job...and that of a warrior's commander. parents and spouse with faith are griefed to be sure but also believe that their loved one is in a better "place". This takes leadership!

It takes Leadership to tell a mother her son is dead? No. It takes leadership to ensure that this onlyhappenes in a worthwhile cause.

...And have you fogotten that it was Madeline Albright who told Saddam that even under full compliance with the inspections that the US would refuse to relax sanctions as long as he was in power? i.e. that the US didn't really care about the inspections from day one? But you expected the guy to still bend over backwards to please you? after being told that he neve could no matter what?...

Honestly, I did not know of this. I did not follow foriegn affairs or politics until the Summer of 2000 when my step brother turned me on to politics; the first election cycle I ever voted in. I've been kicking myself in the ass ever since for being so indifferent and so stupid. You'll only have to kick yourself half as hard though... and only just for being stupid - once you finally wake up that is :wink: :P Just kidding.

So - you have been following politics for three whole years now, admit you have no real understanding of the history of the US-Iraqi relationship - but think you have all the answers?

That says a lot right there kiddo.

Or is it just that you are so naiive as to think that your President does?

Frankly, I think you should keep kicking yourself in the ass to go and educate yourself so you have a better understaning of what you are talking about. then you would stop looking so foolish by continually invoking 9-11 as being related to Iraq as a causal issue.

Oh yes, and I would be careful if I were you about calling people stupid on this board.... even with your "just kidding" afterwards. It is not very well received.

...As for a better way to prosecute the War on Terror? It has become clear to most of us that the Iraq adventure has had no real bearing on the War on Terror... -Z-

You and I will just continue to disagree on this one. I believe it is all connected and very important to the goal/finished product.

We certainly will disagree on this. Vehemently. For it to be related to a defense against terrorism against US interests the country would have had to be involved in terrorism against US interests.

It wasn't.

But there just might be enough people who hate you there now that it will be in the future.


-Z-

OK, I suppose I'll respond....

First, my military background....US Army, 89-93, was in Iraq during the Gulf War.

I'll admit to not having read much of this thread so far. I just wanted to put my own opinion into the mix. I think the Geneva Convention is an ideal that we should attempt to uphold. I saw where someone asked why we should uphold it if the other side doesn't. My response to that would be, if you were to have a choice between 50% and nothing, which would you choose?

It shouldn't matter if the other side doesn't uphold their side of the bargain. As an American soldier, I was taught that we were held to a higher standard of quality, discipline, and respect for our adversary. I am reminded of the reputation American soldiers had during the World Wars. German soldiers made an effort to surrender to Americans as opposed to any other Ally force due to our treatment of prisoners. This type of reputation breeds a safer environment for our military. If an outnumbered enemy is facing a force they know to have such a reputation, they are more likely to surrender than to fight to the death. Thus, a beneficial result of upholding the Geneva Convention.

But aside from that, it is something that as an American, I was taught was a code of conduct that we do follow and believe in. It is painful to see those who view America with an air of hatred have something to grasp on to as their "proof" of why they have such hatred. Yes, during war, bad stuff happens. Friends I knew very well were pushed to levels of functioning most people simply aren't wired to handle. There will always be civilian death during war. It is the wish of the Geneva Convention that such incidents are kept to a minimum. It is a noble and just goal.

I thought about writing about a day I'll never forget. About a friend of mine and what we both went through. But after having written it and looking it over....its just not something I wish to share. Its a wound that hasn't healed yet.
Thank you for your honesty and for sharing. Your code of conduct is an honourable one.

OK, I suppose I'll respond....

First, my military background....US Army, 89-93, was in Iraq during the Gulf War.

I'll admit to not having read much of this thread so far. I just wanted to put my own opinion into the mix. I think the Geneva Convention is an ideal that we should attempt to uphold. I saw where someone asked why we should uphold it if the other side doesn't. My response to that would be, if you were to have a choice between 50% and nothing, which would you choose?

It shouldn't matter if the other side doesn't uphold their side of the bargain. As an American soldier, I was taught that we were held to a higher standard of quality, discipline, and respect for our adversary. I am reminded of the reputation American soldiers had during the World Wars. German soldiers made an effort to surrender to Americans as opposed to any other Ally force due to our treatment of prisoners. This type of reputation breeds a safer environment for our military. If an outnumbered enemy is facing a force they know to have such a reputation, they are more likely to surrender than to fight to the death. Thus, a beneficial result of upholding the Geneva Convention.

But aside from that, it is something that as an American, I was taught was a code of conduct that we do follow and believe in. It is painful to see those who view America with an air of hatred have something to grasp on to as their "proof" of why they have such hatred. Yes, during war, bad stuff happens. Friends I knew very well were pushed to levels of functioning most people simply aren't wired to handle. There will always be civilian death during war. It is the wish of the Geneva Convention that such incidents are kept to a minimum. It is a noble and just goal.

I thought about writing about a day I'll never forget. About a friend of mine and what we both went through. But after having written it and looking it over....its just not something I wish to share. Its a wound that hasn't healed yet.

Thank you, Thunderland. That was an excellent post.

So - you have been following politics for three whole years now, admit you have no real understanding of the history of the US-Iraqi relationship - but think you have all the answers?

That says a lot right there kiddo.

Or is it just that you are so naiive as to think that your President does?

At least I have the stones to admit my short comings on subjects that I know nothing about. Do you do the same?

Frankly, I think you should keep kicking yourself in the ass to go and educate yourself so you have a better understaning of what you are talking about. then you would stop looking so foolish by continually invoking 9-11 as being related to Iraq as a causal issue.

And that's what I'm doing, getting educated and becoming more and more a classical liberal while kicking less and less every day. And you want to know something else, I actually don't feel foolish for disclosing those things for which I don't know. It sure says a lot about your character though when you pounce on someone as uneducated as me but yet still feel the need to refute my arguments.

Oh yes, and I would be careful if I were you about calling people stupid on this board.... even with your "just kidding" afterwards. It is not very well received.

Ok, you're a frikin' moron and a bitter one at that! No smiley & no "just kidding"

peace is impossible screw that sh*t.

Hrm. A lively thread, it seems that many of the people here are somehow displeased with one another after a brief discussion on an unpleasant topic. Can we try for a little civil behaviour please? Everyone wipe the rabid foam from your chins and try again eh?

Anyway, I think what we have is a small amount of confusion between the "soldiers perspective" and the "big pitcure" questions that we are confronting in Iraq. In addition we have a blurred image of "heat of the moment" incidents in war and premeditated breaches in the conduct of war.

The questions as to wether or not the Geneva conventions are useless, misguided, or simply hopelessly idealistic I will try to be brief in answering.

Useless? To the soldier in the trenches yes. No soldier can reasonably expect to have an EASIER time of things because of the Geneva conventions. To the Generals? No, because the Geneva conventions limit what a general has to prepare for in terms of responses to enemy tactics. In cases where the enemy uses unconventional weapons or excessive brutality against US soldiers, the US generalship has to anticipate chemical/biological attacks, anticipate torture being used on their own soldiers, etc. It makes war harder to wage. I'll skip political implications, they seem to have been reasonably well covered.

Misguided or hopelessly idealistic? I've seen some arguments that attempting to place restrictions on warfare is some kind of false invention of the 20th century that was only used by the Western powers. Bullhockey. Nothing could be further from the truth. The simply fact of the matter is that restrictions of warfare ebb and flow with the intensity of the conflicts and the "types" of warfare one encounters. I've seen and studied this flow and find that it fully applies to all documented wars in history.

To be VERY generalizing; the more people involved in a conflict, the less "civil" or "professional" it tends to be. That is to say that when more of the populace of a nation is mobalized for war you encounter more people with...morally flexible stances but in addition there are those who are less circumspect in their application of such methods.

Lets bring this back to modern day now. What we have in the Iraqi war is a rather interesting situation. The US has what is largely to be considered a "professional" army, one that is made up of specially trained citizen-soldiers who are have very different methods than the mass-conscripted soldier. However many of the policy planners throughout the US civilian leadership have little or no military background (in the name of everything holy, nobody dare say chickenhawk!), these people have been making reccomendations for an open return to the more...open ways of war.

They do this most likely entirely due to their only lack of practical experience, not on in the trenches as it were, but as generals. They see the freedoms they could have in planning policy if the restrictions were removed, but they do not realize that generals rely on those conventions or even the illusion of their protection to guide their own actions and those of the enemy. If the enemy gasses our troops when the conventions are in place its a warcrime, that doesn't help those gassed, but it frames the general's response to the incident!

These reccomenations have now trickled down the ranks of the civilian leadership and reached the pundits who broadcast this message to the US public. The public is now confronted with the question. Just how much of this morally flexible stance on war do we want as a nation?

The soldier has no need for the Conventions in the short-term, for it is doubtful a person in a foxhole with their head down is gonna be worried about staying within the rules at the possible cost of their and their fellow soldiers lives. The pundits thus take the following line when addressing the public, "The US military needs to take these measures to help their soldiers."

Thus we have messages on the forums like this one. Where our veterans look back on their battlefield experience and they don't notice the conventions...well of course they don't. The true aim of the conventions is to effect the generalship! Its the upper levels of the command structure that needs those rules to help them protect their men while obtaining their objectives, the soldier needs to stay alive in those conditions the generals create for them.

Soldiers talk of less than savory things they have been forced to do or did in the heat of battle. I argue that this is a very different thing than denying those conventions flat-out. War may be ugly already but to let it spiral out of control would hurt our troops desperately.

OK, I suppose I'll respond....

First, my military background....US Army, 89-93, was in Iraq during the Gulf War.

I'll admit to not having read much of this thread so far. I just wanted to put my own opinion into the mix. I think the Geneva Convention is an ideal that we should attempt to uphold. I saw where someone asked why we should uphold it if the other side doesn't. My response to that would be, if you were to have a choice between 50% and nothing, which would you choose?

It shouldn't matter if the other side doesn't uphold their side of the bargain. As an American soldier, I was taught that we were held to a higher standard of quality, discipline, and respect for our adversary. I am reminded of the reputation American soldiers had during the World Wars. German soldiers made an effort to surrender to Americans as opposed to any other Ally force due to our treatment of prisoners. This type of reputation breeds a safer environment for our military. If an outnumbered enemy is facing a force they know to have such a reputation, they are more likely to surrender than to fight to the death. Thus, a beneficial result of upholding the Geneva Convention.

But aside from that, it is something that as an American, I was taught was a code of conduct that we do follow and believe in. It is painful to see those who view America with an air of hatred have something to grasp on to as their "proof" of why they have such hatred. Yes, during war, bad stuff happens. Friends I knew very well were pushed to levels of functioning most people simply aren't wired to handle. There will always be civilian death during war. It is the wish of the Geneva Convention that such incidents are kept to a minimum. It is a noble and just goal.

I thought about writing about a day I'll never forget. About a friend of mine and what we both went through. But after having written it and looking it over....its just not something I wish to share. Its a wound that hasn't healed yet.

My brother in arms...I understand your desire to see our troops uphold the very virtues that set us apart from our enemies..I would truly like to believe that the Geneva Conventions...given by all honorable nations would be obeyed by our enemies.but we live in perilous times..twice now in this century we have come up against enemies who held little if any regard for those very same protections we'd offer them...it has allowed for our prisoners who have expected fair and proper treatment at the hands of the enemy to be maltreated, abused, even killed without course of redress...while those who committed abuses in a formal situation such as the prison, those prisoners have the ability to address grievances..ours have not..now...to distinquish these premeditated actions against those "in the moment" of which we can only pity men who otherwise are fine servicemembers who commit actions not within the bounds of those Conventions...for example...a .50 caliber machine gun used on personnel is against the Geneva Conventions because of the damage the ammunition would do to a human body..but should we pass judgement on a man who might have used one in order to repel an overwhelming wave of enemy soldiers in order to save his comrades?....

Medici has it down pat in a much better way then any words I might have possibly typed...Thanks Medici you said it better then I could have and in a way that is phrased easier for others to understand.

Lets get down to the specifics.
It is US forces that are currently shown as not behaving in accordance with the Geneva Convention, specifically in regard to the treatment of prisoners, both in Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay. This is not a "heat of the moment" type scenario. The mistreatment (torture?) of prisoners and possible deaths in custody are being investigated at the moment.
Should the US be abiding by the Geneva Convention's rules for the treatment of prisoners or not?

Lets get down to the specifics.
It is US forces that are currently shown as not behaving in accordance with the Geneva Convention, specifically in regard to the treatment of prisoners, both in Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay. This is not a "heat of the moment" type scenario. The mistreatment (torture?) of prisoners and possible deaths in custody are being investigated at the moment.
Should the US be abiding by the Geneva Convention's rules for the treatment of prisoners or not?

I've said it before SG...yes..by all means..punish all personnel involved in the abuse of prisoners, which is exactly what has been going on...unless you've not been keeping score...Investigations began in January, arrests had been made, and court-martials were acquiring enough evidence to convict any personnel involved...as for Civilians, in the form of Federal intelligence agents, they have their own system to correct any crime. Civilians under contract to the DoD or Federal Agencies also have their systems....Let it work the way it's supposed too..in fact the first guilty plea has been accepted, more pleas or convictions will follow.

But you're wrong...the ones currently in violation of the Geneva Conventions were the individuals were killed Berg..our enemies...and that was not "in the heat of the moment" situation either.

At the beginning to WW2, Russians took German prisoners and took pretty good care of them, but when they saw what the Nazis were doing there was no mercy.

In Iraq, the Iraqis troops didn't torure US POW's if they had any, so what happend in
the prisoner busness was disgusting.
The soldiers that did all this should of been shot, instead they get one year.
:shock:

So - you have been following politics for three whole years now, admit you have no real understanding of the history of the US-Iraqi relationship - but think you have all the answers?

That says a lot right there kiddo.

Or is it just that you are so naiive as to think that your President does?

At least I have the stones to admit my short comings on subjects that I know nothing about. Do you do the same?

Frankly, I think you should keep kicking yourself in the ass to go and educate yourself so you have a better understaning of what you are talking about. then you would stop looking so foolish by continually invoking 9-11 as being related to Iraq as a causal issue.

And that's what I'm doing, getting educated and becoming more and more a classical liberal while kicking less and less every day. And you want to know something else, I actually don't feel foolish for disclosing those things for which I don't know. It sure says a lot about your character though when you pounce on someone as uneducated as me but yet still feel the need to refute my arguments.


Such an interesting position you operate from. You agree that you are relatively unversed in an area, hold up your supposed willingness to learn as being a virtue, but then call people names who don't agree with your position on that very subject. For someone who claims a willingness to learn, you sure seem to object to people actually offering some information that might just be relevant to that process.

But yes, if you had been here long enough you would know that I am an honest debater who is willing to admit when he doesn't have all the answers.




Oh yes, and I would be careful if I were you about calling people stupid on this board.... even with your "just kidding" afterwards. It is not very well received.

Ok, you're a frikin' moron and a bitter one at that! No smiley & no "just kidding"

Obviously friendly advice does not sink in with you.

Ah well - enjoy your stay at NationStates. I have this feeling that you won't be here long with your attitude.

Not only are insults like that forbidden here, but you are really, really picking the wrong target to start off with.

-Z-

Lets get down to the specifics.
It is US forces that are currently shown as not behaving in accordance with the Geneva Convention, specifically in regard to the treatment of prisoners, both in Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay. This is not a "heat of the moment" type scenario. The mistreatment (torture?) of prisoners and possible deaths in custody are being investigated at the moment.
Should the US be abiding by the Geneva Convention's rules for the treatment of prisoners or not?

I've said it before SG...yes..by all means..punish all personnel involved in the abuse of prisoners, which is exactly what has been going on...unless you've not been keeping score...Investigations began in January, arrests had been made, and court-martials were acquiring enough evidence to convict any personnel involved...as for Civilians, in the form of Federal intelligence agents, they have their own system to correct any crime. Civilians under contract to the DoD or Federal Agencies also have their systems....Let it work the way it's supposed too..in fact the first guilty plea has been accepted, more pleas or convictions will follow.

But you're wrong...the ones currently in violation of the Geneva Conventions were the individuals were killed Berg..our enemies...and that was not "in the heat of the moment" situation either.

I have no doubt that the cold-blooded murder of Berg is a crime which deserves swift justice and retribution, and that such an act is a contravention of Geneva.

But so it seems is the US forces handling of prisoners.

Do not follow your statement "But you're wrong...the ones currently in violation of the Geneva Conventions were the individuals were killed Berg..our enemies...and that was not "in the heat of the moment" situation either." Please expand. Do not see how this makes me "wrong" when I say that apparently US forces are in contravention of Geneva.

Lets get down to the specifics.
It is US forces that are currently shown as not behaving in accordance with the Geneva Convention, specifically in regard to the treatment of prisoners, both in Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay. This is not a "heat of the moment" type scenario. The mistreatment (torture?) of prisoners and possible deaths in custody are being investigated at the moment.
Should the US be abiding by the Geneva Convention's rules for the treatment of prisoners or not?

I've said it before SG...yes..by all means..punish all personnel involved in the abuse of prisoners, which is exactly what has been going on...unless you've not been keeping score...Investigations began in January, arrests had been made, and court-martials were acquiring enough evidence to convict any personnel involved...as for Civilians, in the form of Federal intelligence agents, they have their own system to correct any crime. Civilians under contract to the DoD or Federal Agencies also have their systems....Let it work the way it's supposed too..in fact the first guilty plea has been accepted, more pleas or convictions will follow.

But you're wrong...the ones currently in violation of the Geneva Conventions were the individuals were killed Berg..our enemies...and that was not "in the heat of the moment" situation either.

Now I'm confused Salishe.... you seem to want people punished for abuses, but to rules that you are claiming need to be thrown out? Or is just that you only want soldiers to answer to the Uniform Code, without any consideration to the fact that this code was modified in the 40s and 50s to bring regulations in line with the very Conventions that you are decrying?

Or is it only that you don't want soldiers prosecuted under an international legal body - which no one here has yet suggested anyway?

Or is it just that it should be discretionary to the military who gets punished for what without regard to international law?

Your position just seem fundamentally contradictory.

But pointing to the death of Berg as a contravention without acknowledging the deaths of prisoners under US care as being equivalent seems flawed too. One can't be "heat of the moment" but the other not can it when both relate to secured prisoners who have been in custody for a while?

-Z-

Lets get down to the specifics.
It is US forces that are currently shown as not behaving in accordance with the Geneva Convention, specifically in regard to the treatment of prisoners, both in Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay. This is not a "heat of the moment" type scenario. The mistreatment (torture?) of prisoners and possible deaths in custody are being investigated at the moment.
Should the US be abiding by the Geneva Convention's rules for the treatment of prisoners or not?

I've said it before SG...yes..by all means..punish all personnel involved in the abuse of prisoners, which is exactly what has been going on...unless you've not been keeping score...Investigations began in January, arrests had been made, and court-martials were acquiring enough evidence to convict any personnel involved...as for Civilians, in the form of Federal intelligence agents, they have their own system to correct any crime. Civilians under contract to the DoD or Federal Agencies also have their systems....Let it work the way it's supposed too..in fact the first guilty plea has been accepted, more pleas or convictions will follow.

But you're wrong...the ones currently in violation of the Geneva Conventions were the individuals were killed Berg..our enemies...and that was not "in the heat of the moment" situation either.

Now I'm confused Salishe.... you seem to want people punished for abuses, no..according to the legal statuates inherent in the Uniform Code of Military Justice for those who are military, civilian parties have separate legal statutes to rely upon for their proceedingsbut to rules that you are claiming need to be thrown out? Or is just that you only want soldiers to answer to the Uniform Code, without any consideration to the fact that this code was modified in the 40s and 50s to bring regulations in line with the very Conventions that you are decrying?

Or is it only that you don't want soldiers prosecuted under an international legal body - which no one here has yet suggested anyway?

Or is it just that it should be discretionary to the military who gets punished for what without regard to international law?

Your position just seem fundamentally contradictory.

But pointing to the death of Berg as a contravention without acknowledging the deaths of prisoners under US care as being equivalent seems flawed too. One can't be "heat of the moment"didn't say that the prisoner's actions constituted "in the heat of the moment".that is totally separate from actions in combat, the prison guards actions fall squarely as criminal actions and should be punished according to military law but the other not can it when both relate to secured prisoners who have been in custody for a while?

-Z-

Now I'm confused Salishe.... you seem to want people punished for abuses, no..according to the legal statuates inherent in the Uniform Code of Military Justice for those who are military, civilian parties have separate legal statutes to rely upon for their proceedingsbut to rules that you are claiming need to be thrown out? Or is just that you only want soldiers to answer to the Uniform Code, without any consideration to the fact that this code was modified in the 40s and 50s to bring regulations in line with the very Conventions that you are decrying?

Or is it only that you don't want soldiers prosecuted under an international legal body - which no one here has yet suggested anyway?

Or is it just that it should be discretionary to the military who gets punished for what without regard to international law?

Your position just seem fundamentally contradictory.

But pointing to the death of Berg as a contravention without acknowledging the deaths of prisoners under US care as being equivalent seems flawed too. One can't be "heat of the moment"didn't say that the prisoner's actions constituted "in the heat of the moment".that is totally separate from actions in combat, the prison guards actions fall squarely as criminal actions and should be punished according to military law but the other not can it when both relate to secured prisoners who have been in custody for a while?

-Z-

So, then your complaint only holds water if you assume that all of the prisoners who were abused were military.

Saddly, they weren't.

They included civillians suspected of being insurgents picked up in sweeps - and the US military has admitted that over 60% of those picked up turned out to be innocent.

Whether any of the suspected murders happened to civillians still hasn't been clarified as, for the most part, the details have not been made public yet. If such turns out to be the case will you then admit that the circumstances were legally identical to the Berg case?

-Z-

Now I'm confused Salishe.... you seem to want people punished for abuses, no..according to the legal statuates inherent in the Uniform Code of Military Justice for those who are military, civilian parties have separate legal statutes to rely upon for their proceedingsbut to rules that you are claiming need to be thrown out? Or is just that you only want soldiers to answer to the Uniform Code, without any consideration to the fact that this code was modified in the 40s and 50s to bring regulations in line with the very Conventions that you are decrying?

Or is it only that you don't want soldiers prosecuted under an international legal body - which no one here has yet suggested anyway?

Or is it just that it should be discretionary to the military who gets punished for what without regard to international law?

Your position just seem fundamentally contradictory.

But pointing to the death of Berg as a contravention without acknowledging the deaths of prisoners under US care as being equivalent seems flawed too. One can't be "heat of the moment"didn't say that the prisoner's actions constituted "in the heat of the moment".that is totally separate from actions in combat, the prison guards actions fall squarely as criminal actions and should be punished according to military law but the other not can it when both relate to secured prisoners who have been in custody for a while?

-Z-

So, then your complaint only holds water if you assume that all of the prisoners who were abused were military.

Saddly, they weren't.

They included civillians suspected of being insurgents picked up in sweeps - and the US military has admitted that over 60% of those picked up turned out to be innocent.

Whether any of the suspected murders happened to civillians still hasn't been clarified as, for the most part, the details have not been made public yet. If such turns out to be the case will you then admit that the circumstances were legally identical to the Berg case?

-Z-

Legally identical?...not a lawyer but it would seem to me that any deaths arising from prison guard misconduct might be construed as manslaughter, what the killers of Berg did without a doubt as first degree pre-mediatated murder...While the prison guards have cared for literally hundreds of Iraqis without killing or abusing them..the terrorists who killed Berg never had any intention of keeping him prisoner but knew from the beginning they were going to kill him.

My brother in arms...I understand your desire to see our troops uphold the very virtues that set us apart from our enemies..I would truly like to believe that the Geneva Conventions...given by all honorable nations would be obeyed by our enemies.but we live in perilous times..twice now in this century we have come up against enemies who held little if any regard for those very same protections we'd offer them...it has allowed for our prisoners who have expected fair and proper treatment at the hands of the enemy to be maltreated, abused, even killed without course of redress...while those who committed abuses in a formal situation such as the prison, those prisoners have the ability to address grievances..ours have not..now...to distinquish these premeditated actions against those "in the moment" of which we can only pity men who otherwise are fine servicemembers who commit actions not within the bounds of those Conventions...for example...a .50 caliber machine gun used on personnel is against the Geneva Conventions because of the damage the ammunition would do to a human body..but should we pass judgement on a man who might have used one in order to repel an overwhelming wave of enemy soldiers in order to save his comrades?....

I understand the frustration when there are two sets of rules. Its difficult to see what happens one side refuses to abide by a code of conduct that we are bound to follow. But that's just the thing, we are bound to follow it.

I wonder if you have children, especially young ones. If you do, think back to a time when your child was treated unfairly. Perhaps another child whose parents come from a lot of money gets away with something that your child is punished for. Perhaps your child is being bullied by someone. What do you do? Do you tell your children that just because another child doesn't follow the rules they are now given free pass to do the same? Its the same in life, you can't simply choose to not obey the rules simply because someone else gets away with it.

Its also the same during war. The other side may not abide by the terms of the Geneva Convention, but that doesn't give us free reign to do the same. Those who are guilty of violations will be punished for their actions. But when all of this is over with, how does it look if both sides are equally guilty of committing atrocities? Think about the conflict in Rwanda: there may very well be one side that is fighting for a noble cause. But all of that is lost when both sides resort to heinous behavior. The noble cause is lost in the fray and both sides look equally villainous.

Look upon it another way. Whether or not you agree with our military being in Iraq, they are there. And it will end one day. How well we achieve our goals there is determined by how well we show those in Iraq what it means to be an American. What it means to hold ourselves to a lofty standard. It may never be a standard we'll ever achieve but the minute we stop trying to we are no better than those we condemn.

I've always believed that even in the darkest and most perilous of times, it makes it that much more important that we strive to uphold the best of virtue. For without the glimmer of light in the darkness, we are blind. When we stop remembering what it is we truly are fighting for, we lose sight of who we are. We can not merely snuff out our virtues because of circumstance. We must instead be the lighthouse: firm, guiding, the light in the dark that tells those in need that we are there to care, we are there to give strength and reassurance. We are not firm and caring because we have to, but rather because that is who we are....who we strive to be.

I have a question.

In the detainment of suspects for high crimes, does the police force construct it's investigations by the use of torture to extract information?

Why doesn't it?

Amazing post, Medici, but then your posts usually are. :D

Now I'm confused Salishe.... you seem to want people punished for abuses, no..according to the legal statuates inherent in the Uniform Code of Military Justice for those who are military, civilian parties have separate legal statutes to rely upon for their proceedingsbut to rules that you are claiming need to be thrown out? Or is just that you only want soldiers to answer to the Uniform Code, without any consideration to the fact that this code was modified in the 40s and 50s to bring regulations in line with the very Conventions that you are decrying?

Or is it only that you don't want soldiers prosecuted under an international legal body - which no one here has yet suggested anyway?

Or is it just that it should be discretionary to the military who gets punished for what without regard to international law?

Your position just seem fundamentally contradictory.

But pointing to the death of Berg as a contravention without acknowledging the deaths of prisoners under US care as being equivalent seems flawed too. One can't be "heat of the moment"didn't say that the prisoner's actions constituted "in the heat of the moment".that is totally separate from actions in combat, the prison guards actions fall squarely as criminal actions and should be punished according to military law but the other not can it when both relate to secured prisoners who have been in custody for a while?

-Z-

So, then your complaint only holds water if you assume that all of the prisoners who were abused were military.

Saddly, they weren't.

They included civillians suspected of being insurgents picked up in sweeps - and the US military has admitted that over 60% of those picked up turned out to be innocent.

Whether any of the suspected murders happened to civillians still hasn't been clarified as, for the most part, the details have not been made public yet. If such turns out to be the case will you then admit that the circumstances were legally identical to the Berg case?

-Z-

Legally identical?...not a lawyer but it would seem to me that any deaths arising from prison guard misconduct might be construed as manslaughter, what the killers of Berg did without a doubt as first degree pre-mediatated murder...While the prison guards have cared for literally hundreds of Iraqis without killing or abusing them..the terrorists who killed Berg never had any intention of keeping him prisoner but knew from the beginning they were going to kill him.

While your assumption as to the inital intent of Berg's captors may be true, and probably is, unlike you I'm not going to assume that I know what the intent was at the moment of capture and use that as a proof point of my argument. Just as I don't claim to know the circumstances of all of the deaths currently under investigation to pass judgement on them.

And unless I miss my guess, I don't think you can do so either. We hope that no prisoners were deliberately executed by US servicemen, but we have to wait and find out. Don't we?

-Z-

My brother in arms...I understand your desire to see our troops uphold the very virtues that set us apart from our enemies..I would truly like to believe that the Geneva Conventions...given by all honorable nations would be obeyed by our enemies.but we live in perilous times..twice now in this century we have come up against enemies who held little if any regard for those very same protections we'd offer them...it has allowed for our prisoners who have expected fair and proper treatment at the hands of the enemy to be maltreated, abused, even killed without course of redress...while those who committed abuses in a formal situation such as the prison, those prisoners have the ability to address grievances..ours have not..now...to distinquish these premeditated actions against those "in the moment" of which we can only pity men who otherwise are fine servicemembers who commit actions not within the bounds of those Conventions...for example...a .50 caliber machine gun used on personnel is against the Geneva Conventions because of the damage the ammunition would do to a human body..but should we pass judgement on a man who might have used one in order to repel an overwhelming wave of enemy soldiers in order to save his comrades?....

Medici has it down pat in a much better way then any words I might have possibly typed...Thanks Medici you said it better then I could have and in a way that is phrased easier for others to understand.

I don't think that you hit one of the arguments presented, which is that treating the enemy well is strategically smart, even when the enemy does not always return the favor. When an enemy knows that it will not be tortured or humiliated, whether in prison or in the "heat of the moment" after capture, he is more likely to surrender instead of fighting to the death. Furthermore, adhering to high standards also improves our image among the population. It makes us look like the "good guys" and helps counter any negative enemy propaganda to the contrary. Why should we commit massacres and humiliate prisoners with the full knowledge that this stuff is a propaganda gold mine for the enemy? If America is to succeed in Iraq, or any other war in which the good will of the population is crucial, it will not be by sinking to the level of the enemy. It will be by demonstrating that we represent a humane and appealing alternative. Although we can debate which rules of the Geneva Convention are valuable, tossing aside any attempt at "civilizing" war will cause more barbarism on our side, and thus more casualties on both sides. If these soldiers are systematically exempted from any reprimand, this not only invites a moral slackening--other soldiers won't feel the need to control their actions as much--but it also signals to the enemy that America's moral code doesn't consider this behavior to be worthy of punishment. This discussion about pitying soldiers who act in the "heat of the moment," while understandable to an extent, seems to ignore the larger strategic picture.

OK, I suppose I'll respond....

First, my military background....US Army, 89-93, was in Iraq during the Gulf War.

I'll admit to not having read much of this thread so far. I just wanted to put my own opinion into the mix. I think the Geneva Convention is an ideal that we should attempt to uphold. I saw where someone asked why we should uphold it if the other side doesn't. My response to that would be, if you were to have a choice between 50% and nothing, which would you choose?

It shouldn't matter if the other side doesn't uphold their side of the bargain. As an American soldier, I was taught that we were held to a higher standard of quality, discipline, and respect for our adversary. I am reminded of the reputation American soldiers had during the World Wars. German soldiers made an effort to surrender to Americans as opposed to any other Ally force due to our treatment of prisoners. This type of reputation breeds a safer environment for our military. If an outnumbered enemy is facing a force they know to have such a reputation, they are more likely to surrender than to fight to the death. Thus, a beneficial result of upholding the Geneva Convention.

But aside from that, it is something that as an American, I was taught was a code of conduct that we do follow and believe in. It is painful to see those who view America with an air of hatred have something to grasp on to as their "proof" of why they have such hatred. Yes, during war, bad stuff happens. Friends I knew very well were pushed to levels of functioning most people simply aren't wired to handle. There will always be civilian death during war. It is the wish of the Geneva Convention that such incidents are kept to a minimum. It is a noble and just goal.

I thought about writing about a day I'll never forget. About a friend of mine and what we both went through. But after having written it and looking it over....its just not something I wish to share. Its a wound that hasn't healed yet.

My brother in arms...I understand your desire to see our troops uphold the very virtues that set us apart from our enemies..I would truly like to believe that the Geneva Conventions...given by all honorable nations would be obeyed by our enemies.but we live in perilous times..twice now in this century we have come up against enemies who held little if any regard for those very same protections we'd offer them...it has allowed for our prisoners who have expected fair and proper treatment at the hands of the enemy to be maltreated, abused, even killed without course of redress...while those who committed abuses in a formal situation such as the prison, those prisoners have the ability to address grievances..ours have not..now...to distinquish these premeditated actions against those "in the moment" of which we can only pity men who otherwise are fine servicemembers who commit actions not within the bounds of those Conventions...for example...a .50 caliber machine gun used on personnel is against the Geneva Conventions because of the damage the ammunition would do to a human body..but should we pass judgement on a man who might have used one in order to repel an overwhelming wave of enemy soldiers in order to save his comrades?....

Medici has it down pat in a much better way then any words I might have possibly typed...Thanks Medici you said it better then I could have and in a way that is phrased easier for others to understand.
If anyone had it truly down pat, it was the post by Thunderland.

IF the ULTIMATE goal was to liberate Iraq (which I don't believe to be true), then the invading forces need to be a shining example of the "democracy" that they wish to impart upon their captives.

The moment that the invading forces resort acts that parallel the existing regime, they lose all credibility. To make excuses for such behaviour only compounds the problem. It appears that you want "bloody ground". That is ugly to the world and brings shame to what should have been a noble goal.

Like I said, Thunderland stated what he felt and I admire his courage of conviction. You seem to want to try and sully his convictions and I find that repugnant.

My brother in arms...I understand your desire to see our troops uphold the very virtues that set us apart from our enemies..I would truly like to believe that the Geneva Conventions...given by all honorable nations would be obeyed by our enemies.but we live in perilous times..twice now in this century we have come up against enemies who held little if any regard for those very same protections we'd offer them...it has allowed for our prisoners who have expected fair and proper treatment at the hands of the enemy to be maltreated, abused, even killed without course of redress...while those who committed abuses in a formal situation such as the prison, those prisoners have the ability to address grievances..ours have not..now...to distinquish these premeditated actions against those "in the moment" of which we can only pity men who otherwise are fine servicemembers who commit actions not within the bounds of those Conventions...for example...a .50 caliber machine gun used on personnel is against the Geneva Conventions because of the damage the ammunition would do to a human body..but should we pass judgement on a man who might have used one in order to repel an overwhelming wave of enemy soldiers in order to save his comrades?....

I understand the frustration when there are two sets of rules. Its difficult to see what happens one side refuses to abide by a code of conduct that we are bound to follow. But that's just the thing, we are bound to follow it.

I wonder if you have children, especially young ones. If you do, think back to a time when your child was treated unfairly. Perhaps another child whose parents come from a lot of money gets away with something that your child is punished for. Perhaps your child is being bullied by someone. What do you do? Do you tell your children that just because another child doesn't follow the rules they are now given free pass to do the same? Its the same in life, you can't simply choose to not obey the rules simply because someone else gets away with it.

Its also the same during war. The other side may not abide by the terms of the Geneva Convention, but that doesn't give us free reign to do the same. Those who are guilty of violations will be punished for their actions. But when all of this is over with, how does it look if both sides are equally guilty of committing atrocities? Think about the conflict in Rwanda: there may very well be one side that is fighting for a noble cause. But all of that is lost when both sides resort to heinous behavior. The noble cause is lost in the fray and both sides look equally villainous.

Look upon it another way. Whether or not you agree with our military being in Iraq, they are there. And it will end one day. How well we achieve our goals there is determined by how well we show those in Iraq what it means to be an American. What it means to hold ourselves to a lofty standard. It may never be a standard we'll ever achieve but the minute we stop trying to we are no better than those we condemn.

I've always believed that even in the darkest and most perilous of times, it makes it that much more important that we strive to uphold the best of virtue. For without the glimmer of light in the darkness, we are blind. When we stop remembering what it is we truly are fighting for, we lose sight of who we are. We can not merely snuff out our virtues because of circumstance. We must instead be the lighthouse: firm, guiding, the light in the dark that tells those in need that we are there to care, we are there to give strength and reassurance. We are not firm and caring because we have to, but rather because that is who we are....who we strive to be.

Thoughtful, powerful and provoking: a great post, along with many others in this thread. They express similar feelings to mine with an elegance and dignity that I would wish to aspire to.

OK, I suppose I'll respond....

First, my military background....US Army, 89-93, was in Iraq during the Gulf War.

I'll admit to not having read much of this thread so far. I just wanted to put my own opinion into the mix. I think the Geneva Convention is an ideal that we should attempt to uphold. I saw where someone asked why we should uphold it if the other side doesn't. My response to that would be, if you were to have a choice between 50% and nothing, which would you choose?

It shouldn't matter if the other side doesn't uphold their side of the bargain. As an American soldier, I was taught that we were held to a higher standard of quality, discipline, and respect for our adversary. I am reminded of the reputation American soldiers had during the World Wars. German soldiers made an effort to surrender to Americans as opposed to any other Ally force due to our treatment of prisoners. This type of reputation breeds a safer environment for our military. If an outnumbered enemy is facing a force they know to have such a reputation, they are more likely to surrender than to fight to the death. Thus, a beneficial result of upholding the Geneva Convention.

But aside from that, it is something that as an American, I was taught was a code of conduct that we do follow and believe in. It is painful to see those who view America with an air of hatred have something to grasp on to as their "proof" of why they have such hatred. Yes, during war, bad stuff happens. Friends I knew very well were pushed to levels of functioning most people simply aren't wired to handle. There will always be civilian death during war. It is the wish of the Geneva Convention that such incidents are kept to a minimum. It is a noble and just goal.

I thought about writing about a day I'll never forget. About a friend of mine and what we both went through. But after having written it and looking it over....its just not something I wish to share. Its a wound that hasn't healed yet.

My brother in arms...I understand your desire to see our troops uphold the very virtues that set us apart from our enemies..I would truly like to believe that the Geneva Conventions...given by all honorable nations would be obeyed by our enemies.but we live in perilous times..twice now in this century we have come up against enemies who held little if any regard for those very same protections we'd offer them...it has allowed for our prisoners who have expected fair and proper treatment at the hands of the enemy to be maltreated, abused, even killed without course of redress...while those who committed abuses in a formal situation such as the prison, those prisoners have the ability to address grievances..ours have not..now...to distinquish these premeditated actions against those "in the moment" of which we can only pity men who otherwise are fine servicemembers who commit actions not within the bounds of those Conventions...for example...a .50 caliber machine gun used on personnel is against the Geneva Conventions because of the damage the ammunition would do to a human body..but should we pass judgement on a man who might have used one in order to repel an overwhelming wave of enemy soldiers in order to save his comrades?....

Medici has it down pat in a much better way then any words I might have possibly typed...Thanks Medici you said it better then I could have and in a way that is phrased easier for others to understand.
If anyone had it truly down pat, it was the post by Thunderland.

IF the ULTIMATE goal was to liberate Iraq (which I don't believe to be true), then the invading forces need to be a shining example of the "democracy" that they wish to impart upon their captives.

The moment that the invading forces resort acts that parallel the existing regime, they lose all credibility. To make excuses for such behaviour only compounds the problem. It appears that you want "bloody ground". That is ugly to the world and brings shame to what should have been a noble goal.

Like I said, Thunderland stated what he felt and I admire his courage of conviction. You seem to want to try and sully his convictions and I find that repugnant.

Sully his convictions?...On the contrary...I admire and respect them..at no time in any of my posts can you point to an attempt to "sully them".. what I find repugnant is you and other's attempt to paint with such a wide swath over 100,000 troops as sadistic thugs.

My brother in arms...I understand your desire to see our troops uphold the very virtues that set us apart from our enemies..

Now if you had of stopped there, that would be honourable. However you continued……


I would truly like to believe that the Geneva Conventions...given by all honorable nations would be obeyed by our enemies.but we live in perilous times.

Like Thunderland doesn’t know this?


.twice now in this century we have come up against enemies who held little if any regard for those very same protections we'd offer them...it has allowed for our prisoners who have expected fair and proper treatment at the hands of the enemy to be maltreated, abused, even killed without course of redress

Okay, stop right there. Once is Viet Nam….second is? What protections were offered to those Iraqi prisoners that were tortured and or ended up dying? If by second you are inferring Iraq, then you are suggesting that Iraq is one, not an honourable nation and secondly that they mistreated and killed US prisoners? The news I have been reading is about the abuse of Iraqi prisoners not vice versa?


...while those who committed abuses in a formal situation such as the prison, those prisoners have the ability to address grievances..

And rightly so. and I believe that Thunderland had suggested in his post that the above should never have happened in the first place, and not trying to put words in his mouth, his quote was:

“The other side may not abide by the terms of the Geneva Convention, but that doesn't give us free reign to do the same. Those who are guilty of violations will be punished for their actions. But when all of this is over with, how does it look if both sides are equally guilty of committing atrocities?”

Here is where you try to convince Thunderland that certain kinds of violations are acceptable:

ours have not..now...to distinquish these premeditated actions against those "in the moment" of which we can only pity men who otherwise are fine servicemembers who commit actions not within the bounds of those Conventions...for example...a .50 caliber machine gun used on personnel is against the Geneva Conventions because of the damage the ammunition would do to a human body..but should we pass judgement on a man who might have used one in order to repel an overwhelming wave of enemy soldiers in order to save his comrades?....

This is not even happening to US soldiers. If anyone is overwhelmed, it is the Iraqis. The US has been going into towns with air battleships, planes, and tanks. What do the Iraqis have to counter such force? A few RPG’s and AK-47’s? Then the troops were going house to house and removing male aged men for questioning, with no charges being laid. A lot of those ended up being abused, humiliated, tortured and many were killed.

You keep twisting the story and expecting people to buy your version of the truth. I believe that it is a shame that you are looking for Thunderland to buy what you are selling.

Thunderland summed it up best with these words:

I've always believed that even in the darkest and most perilous of times, it makes it that much more important that we strive to uphold the best of virtue. For without the glimmer of light in the darkness, we are blind. When we stop remembering what it is we truly are fighting for, we lose sight of who we are. We can not merely snuff out our virtues because of circumstance. We must instead be the lighthouse: firm, guiding, the light in the dark that tells those in need that we are there to care, we are there to give strength and reassurance. We are not firm and caring because we have to, but rather because that is who we are....who we strive to be.

I respect that, and most of the world would expect that of the US, not the “bloody ground” that you referred to earlier.

BTW, I am not attempting “to paint with such a wide swath over 100,000 troops as sadistic thugs.” I know that it is only a small number committing these atrocities, but unfortunately, it is the small number that is making the news ugly.

My brother in arms...I understand your desire to see our troops uphold the very virtues that set us apart from our enemies..

Now if you had of stopped there, that would be honourable. However you continued……


I would truly like to believe that the Geneva Conventions...given by all honorable nations would be obeyed by our enemies.but we live in perilous times.

Like Thunderland doesn’t know this?


.twice now in this century we have come up against enemies who held little if any regard for those very same protections we'd offer them...it has allowed for our prisoners who have expected fair and proper treatment at the hands of the enemy to be maltreated, abused, even killed without course of redress

Okay, stop right there. Once is Viet Nam….second isThe conflict in the South Pacific against the Japanese? What protections were offered to those Iraqi prisoners that were tortured and or ended up dying? If by second you are inferring Iraq, then you are suggesting that Iraq is one, not an honourable nation and secondly that they mistreated and killed US prisoners? The news I have been reading is about the abuse of Iraqi prisoners not vice versa?


...while those who committed abuses in a formal situation such as the prison, those prisoners have the ability to address grievances..

And rightly so. and I believe that Thunderland had suggested in his post that the above should never have happened in the first place, and not trying to put words in his mouth, his quote was:

“The other side may not abide by the terms of the Geneva Convention, but that doesn't give us free reign to do the same. Those who are guilty of violations will be punished for their actions. But when all of this is over with, how does it look if both sides are equally guilty of committing atrocities?”

Here is where you try to convince Thunderland that certain kinds of violations are acceptable:

ours have not..now...to distinquish these premeditated actions against those "in the moment" of which we can only pity men who otherwise are fine servicemembers who commit actions not within the bounds of those Conventions...for example...a .50 caliber machine gun used on personnel is against the Geneva Conventions because of the damage the ammunition would do to a human body..but should we pass judgement on a man who might have used one in order to repel an overwhelming wave of enemy soldiers in order to save his comrades?....

This is not even happening to US soldiers. If anyone is overwhelmed, it is the Iraqis. The US has been going into towns with air battleships, planes, and tanks. What do the Iraqis have to counter such force? A few RPG’s and AK-47’s? Then the troops were going house to house and removing male aged men for questioning, with no charges being laid. A lot of those ended up being abused, humiliated, tortured and many were killed. [/b]In case you've not been keeping up with current events..those few RPG's are literally hundreds and they've been tearing up our armor well enough, and since this is urban warfare the simple AK-47, which btw operates better in a dustry enviroment then our M-16A2 rifle, is all that a person needs to terminate US troops, not to mention IED's which have been devastating[/b]

You keep twisting the story and expecting people to buy your version of the truth.And you wish us to buy your version of the truth? You want me to believe your spin on events do you not?...That this was some huge conspiracy straight from Bush, which has not been proved one bit I believe that it is a shame that you are looking for Thunderland to buy what you are selling.I think I'm trying to get another vet to acknowledge the reality of what happens on the battlefield, which is what I was mainly referring to, not what happens in a prison in Iraq

Thunderland summed it up best with these words:

I've always believed that even in the darkest and most perilous of times, it makes it that much more important that we strive to uphold the best of virtue. For without the glimmer of light in the darkness, we are blind. When we stop remembering what it is we truly are fighting for, we lose sight of who we are. We can not merely snuff out our virtues because of circumstance. We must instead be the lighthouse: firm, guiding, the light in the dark that tells those in need that we are there to care, we are there to give strength and reassurance. We are not firm and caring because we have to, but rather because that is who we are....who we strive to be.

I respect that, and most of the world would expect that of the US, not the “bloody ground” that you referred to earlier.

BTW, I am not attempting “to paint with such a wide swath over 100,000 troops as sadistic thugs.” I know that it is only a small number committing these atrocities, but unfortunately, it is the small number that is making the news ugly. This last bit is so much hogwash..while you may know it's only a small number you and others have extrapolated on this and have on numerous posts painted that same swath...bigtime CH, and I'd have a whole lot more respect for you if you'd just admit that.

CanuckHeaven,
Read about the Bataan Death Marches, and the True story of the Bridge over the River Kwai.

You want to know about inhumanity?

My brother in arms...I understand your desire to see our troops uphold the very virtues that set us apart from our enemies..

Now if you had of stopped there, that would be honourable. However you continued……


I would truly like to believe that the Geneva Conventions...given by all honorable nations would be obeyed by our enemies.but we live in perilous times.

Like Thunderland doesn’t know this?


.twice now in this century we have come up against enemies who held little if any regard for those very same protections we'd offer them...it has allowed for our prisoners who have expected fair and proper treatment at the hands of the enemy to be maltreated, abused, even killed without course of redress

Okay, stop right there. Once is Viet Nam….second isThe conflict in the South Pacific against the Japanese? What protections were offered to those Iraqi prisoners that were tortured and or ended up dying? If by second you are inferring Iraq, then you are suggesting that Iraq is one, not an honourable nation and secondly that they mistreated and killed US prisoners? The news I have been reading is about the abuse of Iraqi prisoners not vice versa?


...while those who committed abuses in a formal situation such as the prison, those prisoners have the ability to address grievances..

And rightly so. and I believe that Thunderland had suggested in his post that the above should never have happened in the first place, and not trying to put words in his mouth, his quote was:

“The other side may not abide by the terms of the Geneva Convention, but that doesn't give us free reign to do the same. Those who are guilty of violations will be punished for their actions. But when all of this is over with, how does it look if both sides are equally guilty of committing atrocities?”

Here is where you try to convince Thunderland that certain kinds of violations are acceptable:

ours have not..now...to distinquish these premeditated actions against those "in the moment" of which we can only pity men who otherwise are fine servicemembers who commit actions not within the bounds of those Conventions...for example...a .50 caliber machine gun used on personnel is against the Geneva Conventions because of the damage the ammunition would do to a human body..but should we pass judgement on a man who might have used one in order to repel an overwhelming wave of enemy soldiers in order to save his comrades?....

This is not even happening to US soldiers. If anyone is overwhelmed, it is the Iraqis. The US has been going into towns with air battleships, planes, and tanks. What do the Iraqis have to counter such force? A few RPG’s and AK-47’s? Then the troops were going house to house and removing male aged men for questioning, with no charges being laid. A lot of those ended up being abused, humiliated, tortured and many were killed. [/b]In case you've not been keeping up with current events..those few RPG's are literally hundreds and they've been tearing up our armor well enough, and since this is urban warfare the simple AK-47, which btw operates better in a dustry enviroment then our M-16A2 rifle, is all that a person needs to terminate US troops, not to mention IED's which have been devastating[/b]

You keep twisting the story and expecting people to buy your version of the truth.And you wish us to buy your version of the truth? You want me to believe your spin on events do you not?...That this was some huge conspiracy straight from Bush, which has not been proved one bit I believe that it is a shame that you are looking for Thunderland to buy what you are selling.I think I'm trying to get another vet to acknowledge the reality of what happens on the battlefield, which is what I was mainly referring to, not what happens in a prison in Iraq

Thunderland summed it up best with these words:

I've always believed that even in the darkest and most perilous of times, it makes it that much more important that we strive to uphold the best of virtue. For without the glimmer of light in the darkness, we are blind. When we stop remembering what it is we truly are fighting for, we lose sight of who we are. We can not merely snuff out our virtues because of circumstance. We must instead be the lighthouse: firm, guiding, the light in the dark that tells those in need that we are there to care, we are there to give strength and reassurance. We are not firm and caring because we have to, but rather because that is who we are....who we strive to be.

I respect that, and most of the world would expect that of the US, not the “bloody ground” that you referred to earlier.

BTW, I am not attempting “to paint with such a wide swath over 100,000 troops as sadistic thugs.” I know that it is only a small number committing these atrocities, but unfortunately, it is the small number that is making the news ugly. This last bit is so much hogwash..while you may know it's only a small number you and others have extrapolated on this and have on numerous posts painted that same swath...bigtime CH, and I'd have a whole lot more respect for you if you'd just admit that.

Please point out to me where I have painted ALL US soldiers with this "thug" brush.

If anyone has used the wide brush, it would be you. When the 4 contractors were killed in Fallujah, you wanted to wipe out the "whole Sunni triangle". Yeah it was you who said that. You almost got your wish, because right after that, the US laid seige to Fallujah and killed hundreds of Iraqis as retribution.

In regards to the truth, I don't make this stuff up, and I am not powerful enough to get the reaction that is happening worldwide and within the US in regards to this matter of prisoner abuse, torture and death. It is in all the papers and plastered all over the net. Fingers are pointing everywhere and the links to the top brass are what is being pointed out by your own press corps.

I can clearly understand your desire to support the troops, but your over zealousness in defending those that have committed atrocities is mind boggling. At first when this story broke, you were in denial, then you said it was only a few, and now you are trying to make excuses for their behaviour because it is more widespread than originally thought. You are trying to rationalize and justify that which cannot be rationalized and jusified.

And I believe that is what Thunderland was so eloquently trying to point out to you. Perhaps it will sink in soon.

You say these are "perilous times", well of course they are, even more so if you happen to be an Iraqi citizen.

CanuckHeaven,
Read about the Bataan Death Marches, and the True story of the Bridge over the River Kwai.

You want to know about inhumanity?

I am aware of both of these events, and of many others. I have already mentioned Malmedy as one example of the treatment of prisoners.

These events are certainly barbaric and illegal.

Beyond that, your point is what precisely?

Sully his convictions?...On the contrary...I admire and respect them..at no time in any of my posts can you point to an attempt to "sully them".. what I find repugnant is you and other's attempt to paint with such a wide swath over 100,000 troops as sadistic thugs.

You know Salishe, you keep using this as a motivating factor, but yet I never actually notice people doing that here. Most of us are quite capable of viewing it as issues with individuals. On the other hand, you jump up to excuse any time a serviceman does cross the line into the realm of criminal actions as, I believe, a preemptive case to ensure that this painting with a wide brush does not happen.

This is unneccessary, and winds up diminishing you a bit in some of our eyes. Even when you say "the guilty should be punished", there is always a caveat "but not too much because war is hell after all... the poor guy couldn't possibly be a bad guy if he wears the uniform... think of the mitigating factors".

You know - if you take a group of 130,000 people from any walk of life - you are going to have a few bad apples. Most of the rest of the group, however, will not become apologists for them.

Being a supportive ex-military man is a thing to respect. Being a defensive ex-grunt who even tries to defend the indefensible is somewhat less noble.

As much as I belive that true patriot is someone who will be critical of their own country in an honest effort to ensure that it becomes the entity we can be most proud of, so I think an honest ex-military person should defend the troops by wanting those that denigrate it's image punished and removed from it's ranks. Not excused their excesses and defended. Because these people only make the job harder and more dangerous for all of the rest of the boys over there that you care for so much.

-Z-

Sully his convictions?...On the contrary...I admire and respect them..at no time in any of my posts can you point to an attempt to "sully them".. what I find repugnant is you and other's attempt to paint with such a wide swath over 100,000 troops as sadistic thugs.

You know Salishe, you keep using this as a motivating factor, but yet I never actually notice people doing that here. Most of us are quite capable of viewing it as issues with individuals. On the other hand, you jump up to excuse any time a serviceman does cross the line into the realm of criminal actions as, I believe, a preemptive case to ensure that this painting with a wide brush does not happen.

This is unneccessary, and winds up diminishing you a bit in some of our eyes. Even when you say "the guilty should be punished", there is always a caveat "but not too much because war is hell after all... the poor guy couldn't possibly be a bad guy if he wears the uniform... think of the mitigating factors".

You know - if you take a group of 130,000 people from any walk of life - you are going to have a few bad apples. Most of the rest of the group, however, will not become apologists for them.

Being a supportive ex-military man is a thing to respect. Being a defensive ex-grunt who even tries to defend the indefensible is somewhat less noble.

As much as I belive that true patriot is someone who will be critical of their own country in an honest effort to ensure that it becomes the entity we can be most proud of, so I think an honest ex-military person should defend the troops by wanting those that denigrate it's image punished and removed from it's ranks. Not excused their excesses and defended. Because these people only make the job harder and more dangerous for all of the rest of the boys over there that you care for so much.

-Z-

I have never wavered in my position that the prison guards should be punished..it is entirely a different thing entirely from actions that my occur in the heat of combat..you may not have seen this broad swath because you are one of those who is against the war but I'm not the only one who has seen those of the anti-war faction on this forum denigrate all American soldiers..what I want is the over 100,000 of troops over there to be defended from malicous insults due to the actions of fewer then a dozen at present.

what I want is the over 100,000 of troops over there to be defended from malicous insults due to the actions of fewer then a dozen at present.

I completely agree with you, Salishe. It's unfair, unjust and unproductive to assume that the actions of a small handful of people are indicitive of the moral actions of the majority. However, part of protecting those 100,000 troops is making sure we nab the right handful of people. If recent evidence is true and Rumsfeld and Wolfwitz did indeed sanction the ignoring of the Geneva Conventions by creating their special intelligence gathering team and this team did then move into Iraq, then the best way to protect the innocent troops is to make sure that the corrupt comanders (namely, Rummy and Wolfie) are brought to account for their actions. As a military man, does it not bother you that neither of these individuals, while they are in effect controlling our military policy, have anything resembling on the ground combat experience and this lack of experience has caused them to not only put our soldiers in harms way but also to dramatically redefine the scope of modern combat to make it much more dangerous?

what I want is the over 100,000 of troops over there to be defended from malicous insults due to the actions of fewer then a dozen at present.

I completely agree with you, Salishe. It's unfair, unjust and unproductive to assume that the actions of a small handful of people are indicitive of the moral actions of the majority. However, part of protecting those 100,000 troops is making sure we nab the right handful of people. If recent evidence is true and Rumsfeld and Wolfwitz did indeed sanction the ignoring of the Geneva Conventions by creating their special intelligence gathering team and this team did then move into Iraq, then the best way to protect the innocent troops is to make sure that the corrupt comanders (namely, Rummy and Wolfie) are brought to account for their actions. As a military man, does it not bother you that neither of these individuals, while they are in effect controlling our military policy, have anything resembling on the ground combat experience and this lack of experience has caused them to not only put our soldiers in harms way but also to dramatically redefine the scope of modern combat to make it much more dangerous?

Of course it bothers me....bothers me to no end..unfortunately it is our stated policy to have civilian oversight of the military...so instead of a career military officer whose overriding priority would be the troops as Secretary of Defense instead we have a political appointee system who is more concerned with helping themselves to the piece of the political pie.

Now...for the record in case none of you have seen this in print for me or have gotten confused over my various positions on this matter...if it comes out...and is proved that the need for intelligence proved greater then our obligations under the Geneva Conventions and those responsible go all the way upto and including President Bush (although I doubt he was in on all the particulars, probably didn't want to know actually if at all, plausible denialability....North did it with Reagan...as long as you don't tell the Boss..the Boss can't get into trouble)...then it's major cannon fodder for the Democrats come November and in all likelihood I would prosecute them to the fullest extent of the Law.

Now..on a personal note..some of you on here have noted my apparent lack of compassion for those abused...even if I go by the numbers listed by the Intl Red Cross or other sources others have listed..there are still at least 1 in 3 that were terrorists and/or insurgents/foreign fighters..the rest picked up in sweeps who may or may not have been innocent or common criminals. It is difficult for me...as a former Marine... to feel compassion for men who in all likelihood at least 33% of them were terrorists who have taken American lives...it is doubly hard for me to shed a tear as a father of Marines who were afield in Iraq....it perhaps is my greatest character flaw in that I can not dredge up the necessary compassion for them..but one in which only Grandfather Creator can judge.

I think Salishe makes an excellent point in his last post. While civilian oversight of the military is something I do agree with, the current system of political appointees isn't the best system for the military to operate under. As it stands, you have too many partisan groups in the Pentagon aiming for their enemy to expose the jugular, if only for a moment. No one stands responsible for their actions, instead choosing to find another to do it for them. We must have responsibility.

Salishe, I think you make another good point as well. I don't hold anyone responsible for using a weapon that is considered a violation of the Geneva Convention if that is what has been assigned to that person. I certainly wouldn't do such if it were a life and death scenario. And I also hold a distinction between a weapon deemed a violation and a civilian wired with a grenade. There is a big difference between unintentional and intentional violation. There is also a big difference between a soldier having to make do with what was given to him and a civilian willfully blowing themselves up.

When you mix politics with military, bad results happen. We could have finished the job in Vietnam if the politicians didn't force the military to fight with one hand tied behind its back. The same went with the Gulf War. The morale sinks when decisions are made that don't make sense. It leaves you with a feeling of emptiness and bitter anger.

I'd just like to take the time to thank Salishe for his point of view. We may disagree about the nuts and bolts of the situation at hand, but I sure do understand where he's coming from. As for everyone else posting, you've all raised interesting matters as well and I'd like to thank you all for reading my posts and understanding where I'm coming from. Canuck, you post your thoughts very eloquently, as do Zeppistan and Smeagol (although I keep thinking about the Precious now thanks!). Its wonderful that everyone can disagree and makes their views known in a civil manner. That can only help everyone's understanding.

Thanks to everyone in this thread. I'm glad I happened across it.

I found this this morning and thought I'd share.

Our Darkest Days Are Here
by Andy Rooney

The following is a weekly 60 Minutes commentary by CBS News Correspondent Andy Rooney.

If you were going to make a list of the great times in American history, you'd start with the day in 1492, when Columbus got here.

The Revolution when we won our independence would be on the list.

Beating Hitler.

Putting Americans on the moon.

We've had a lot of great days.

Our darkest days up until now have been things like presidential assassinations, the stock market crash in 1929, Pearl Harbor, and 9-11, of course.

The day the world learned that American soldiers had tortured Iraqi prisoners belongs high on the list of worst things that ever happened to our country. It's a black mark that will be in the history books in a hundred languages for as long as there are history books. I hate to think of it.

The image of one bad young woman with a naked man on a leash did more to damage America's reputation than all the good things we've done over the years ever helped our reputation.

What were the secrets they were trying to get from captured Iraqis? What important information did that poor devil on the leash have that he wouldn't have given to anyone in exchange for a crust of bread or a sip of water?

Where were your officers? If someone told you to do it, tell us who told you. If your officers were told – we should know who told them.

One general said our guards were "untrained." Well, untrained at what? Being human beings? Did the man who chopped off Nicholas Berg's head do it because he was untrained?

The guards who tortured prisoners are faced with a year in prison. Well, great. A year for destroying our reputation as decent people.

I don't want them in prison, anyway. We shouldn't have to feed them. Take away their right to call themselves American - that's what I’d do. You aren't one of us. Get out. We don't want you. Find yourself another country or a desert island somewhere. If the order came from someone higher up, take him with you.

In the history of the world, several great civilizations that seemed immortal have deteriorated and died. I don't want to seem dramatic tonight, but I've lived a long while, and for the first time in my life, I have this faint, faraway fear that it could happen to us here in America as it happened to the Greek and Roman civilizations.

Too many Americans don't understand what we have here, or how to keep it. I worry for my grandchildren, my great-grandchildren. I want them to have what I've had, and I sense it slipping away.

I would like to think all both vets and civilians and non-Americans who participated in this thread...I may not have gotten my points across smoothly..and certainly there are those who flat our disagree with them, some vehemently but that is what discussions are for...perhaps at some point we'll make it to the middle.

Once again..thanks...