AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Are Geneva Conventions outdated?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
Baldar,

Nothing to seriously argue with in your post above.

Something I've missed before:

ag Wrote:Somewhat another but related thing. Why we call the low life that engaged in terrorism a "militants", "unlawful combatants", even Reuterville "freedom fighters" when throughout the history they were called bandits? Proper definition goes a long way when there are attempts to apply some law.

Well, bandits would be a wrong term. You are dealing with a political movement here, not common criminals as bandits would imply (even if many of the enemy are individually common criminals, just like was the case with nazis, communists, or other collectivists). Of course, terms like "militants", "unlawful combatants" are not much better.

What is wrong with simply calling them islamofascists?
In Iraq, Sadr told us he would curtail his men. He could not. Analysists think that they are bandits or robbers under the guise of political movements.

Arafat for example and his "takings", bandit king with the guise of political movement or political movement headed by a bandit king?

Islamofascist isn't strong enough and does not bring enough distaste to the mind. It implies a certain purity of thought (even if evil) or dedication, which is really only reserved for the idiot servants and not the leaders.
Yes, some of them are regular criminals, but consider that Stalin was a also a gang leader before the communists took power.

Quote:Islamofascist isn't strong enough and does not bring enough distaste to the mind

Huh? I'd say that bandits isn't strong enough.

OK, should we actually run a poll on how to call the enemy? So far:
Bandits
Islamofascists
Militants
Unlawful combatants
Freedom fighters
Any other options before we make a poll?
Sons of black dogs whose fatherhood is questionable and whose mothers are harlots that sleep with vile crusaders for pleasure.

Yeah, that fits the bill.

A black dog is considered a bad thing by most Muslims.
Or maybe "Camel spawn, whose vile offspring no mother would touch and no father would claim. Whose manhood would not fill the thimble of a seamstress".
Olla greetings!

My 2 cents: It is time to get tough.

The US spent many years turning the other cheek and backing away from terrorists. It sure looks like that approach does'nt work very well. I think the mess we are in now comes in part from years of trying to appease and placate terrorists.

I watched GWB's commencement speech at the air force academy and like the language he is finally using. Like "world war against terror"
or " the terrorists are not protesting our policies and government they are protesting our very existence"

We need to play hardball and be very tough on these criminals and be very carefull not to give them any legitimacy whatsoever.
we are fighting a different and very dangerous animal here and I agree that the rules should change accordingly.
You know - you all are blowing hot air. Not to mention some the comments above are bordering on racism.

No one said appease them. Not me that's for sure. I thought we should have bombed the sh-it out of that little twerp Al-Sadr whether he was in his mosque or not. Weakness in military operations is not an option in my opinion. We should be as tough and unyelding as is possible, while trying to avoid civilian casualties. But how we treat prisoners after we get them in custody is something where we should show the Arab world that we are better than our worst impulses and better than they are in how they treat their prisoners. The Saudis are among the worst at torturing their prisoners - even going so far as partially beheading people, severing their spine and keeping them alive so the executed can watch themselves slowly die and not be able to move as they bleed to death.

Who in here has it in them to actually torture someone? I bet I can name a couple at the very least. When you have someone in custody - they are under your total control. Showing prisoners mercy is in the Koran as much as it is in the GC if we are to believe some of the more moderate voices in the ME and Bush himself. The Geneva Conventions were put in place for good reasons. Mostly because they help keep us from dropping to the level of savages - and most of you in here post pretty words that in the end are nothing more than the rantings of savage wannabes.

Once we have a prisoner in custody - it's game over for that guy. He is out of play...we did not create a martyr and he is not elevated in status if he is still alive - just captured and out of the way. Harmless.

I love it how so many in here are quick to let others spill blood for you...a bunch of arm chair warriors to be sure.

In war - we show our might - we kick ass and show the enemy no quarter - the Arabs understand this. But if we fail to show mercy once we have won the battle - we are no different than our enemy - funny how all of you want to be Arabs...it's really sad.
bob Wrote:I watched GWB's commencement speech at the air force academy and like the language he is finally using. Like "world war against terror"

"World War" is an improvement, "against terror" is still the same meaningless phrase.

Murdok Wrote:Not to mention some the comments above are bordering on racism.
Did not know that terrorists, or radical islamists, or even muslims, are a race. Link please.
Murdok Wrote:You know - you all are blowing hot air. Not to mention some the comments above are bordering on racism.

No one said appease them. Not me that's for sure. I thought we should have bombed the sh-it out of that little twerp Al-Sadr whether he was in his mosque or not. Weakness in military operations is not an option in my opinion. We should be as tough and unyelding as is possible, while trying to avoid civilian casualties. But how we treat prisoners after we get them in custody is something where we should show the Arab world that we are better than our worst impulses and better than they are in how they treat their prisoners. The Saudis are among the worst at torturing their prisoners - even going so far as partially beheading people, severing their spine and keeping them alive so the executed can watch themselves slowly die and not be able to move as they bleed to death.

Who in here has it in them to actually torture someone? I bet I can name a couple at the very least. When you have someone in custody - they are under your total control. Showing prisoners mercy is in the Koran as much as it is in the GC if we are to believe some of the more moderate voices in the ME and Bush himself. The Geneva Conventions were put in place for good reasons. Mostly because they help keep us from dropping to the level of savages - and most of you in here post pretty words that in the end are nothing more than the rantings of savage wannabes.

Once we have a prisoner in custody - it's game over for that guy. He is out of play...we did not create a martyr and he is not elevated in status if he is still alive - just captured and out of the way. Harmless.

I love it how so many in here are quick to let others spill blood for you...a bunch of arm chair warriors to be sure.

In war - we show our might - we kick ass and show the enemy no quarter - the Arabs understand this. But if we fail to show mercy once we have won the battle - we are no different than our enemy - funny how all of you want to be Arabs...it's really sad.




Jeepers! I'm having a hard time understanding what you are trying to say.
Lets see on one hand you want to blow up Al-sadr regardless of civilian losses and cultural ramifications. But on the other hand the rest of us are trigger happy blood thirsty arm chair warriors. Interesting dichotomy.

Regarding the war on terror: Since our enemy is a stateless entity current GC rules dont really apply. When I say the rules should be changed accordingly I mean that we must be very carefull not to change them so that we do not in any lend any legitimacy to these terrorist thugs.

I dont see or hear anyone advocating torture and I fail to see how the photos from Abu Ghraib constitute torture if that is what you are implying.

Sort of seems you might be trying to ride on both sides of the fence which is why it is difficult to understand what you are saying.
Bob - it's simple really.

War is war. If the enemy is in building "A" and you know he is in there...get him. Raid the building and get the bastard. Simple. As much as I dislike our being in Iraq, it's still a war and it needs to be fought hard to win and fought in such a way as to minimize casualties on ours and thier sides - if at all possible.

But when you have someone in custody - he or she is in your total control. No? What's so hard to understand?

We are not savages. And if Arabs only understand strength, then logic dictates that torturing or mistreating a prisoner is the ultimate sign of weakness - because then we are in effect torturing a helpless individual. No? And how does torturing a helpless individual show strength? Tell me?

By sticking to the GCs, we are in effect showing we are indeed powerful in how we treat prisoners - no matter the nationality or lack there of. We are in a war - whether we like it or not. Just because our enemy is not tied to a single country means nothing in todays world as borders are virtually transparent in this war. But the enemy is still human and he has to come from someplace...and why antagonize others into hating us further by torturing or mistreating helpless individulas who while in custody pose no further threat?

I guess I don't understand your logic.
Its still seems like you are trying to play for both sides. No one is advocating torture. The Abu ghraib scandal was being dealt with since it first came to light back in january. The perpetrators are being punished. Steps have already been put in place to make sure it does'nt happen again. The media has already made maximum political hash out of the issue. Its a defused issue.
Moving right along, the colalition military forces are dealing with the bathist rebels, the syrian mercenaries and the alqueda terrorists as they surface. Seems like they are being dealt with in a very firm but measured way. Seems like our military is smarter and better equiped than ever before. They are also doing double duty as peacekeepers and rebuilders of infrastructure. I find it very difficult to find fault in their opperations. It very easy to play monday morning quarterback. This seems to be the current liberal media passion.
This war and all war is an ugly nasty business not mater how you look at it. And I'll quote GWB from his recent speech "Failure is not an option" so unlike some other instances in which our military had less than favorable results we now have a very strong commitment to our mission which comes straight from the commander and chief.
There should be no confusion about that.
Somali being really the only recent example of failure - started nobly enough by Bush I and abruptly but rightly ended by Clinton.

Before that - the late Ronald Reagan and Lebanon?
Dont let those things distract you from what is at stake today and what our mision is. It is a time to stay focused and united. Our very existence is being challenged. It is time to let them know who we are and what we are made of.
An all or nothing approach to international military actions will inevitably lead to failure. It is better to choose targets carefully and than with precision take them out. I think the US was still developing its military power, changing it over from the failures of previous administrations and the post Vietnam syndrome. US intelligence has also been devestated during the Ford and Carter years leaving little connection and contacts on the ground in the area.

On a larger tableu the US was coming out of a deep recession which would invariably lead to an incredibly long period of prosperity (consider the taxes being cut from 70% + to 26%. The Cold War still raged and had no secure winner.

Based on this view, the attacks on the barracks may indeed have taken second seat to other needs. If there had been an attack similar to the World Trade Center, I do not doubt that those priorities might have shifted.[/quote]
Well - I think the war in Iraq is distracting as it has forced us to lose focus on the goal of taking out Al Qeada. And when you start stop loss to make up for severe troop shortages, you know we are in trouble with the number of military personel in the field. Bush has actually weaken us and forced us to lose foucs on the prize.

I feel that Bush has damaged our military in a way that will take years to fix...all politics aside - we are in trouble with our very stressed out military and it is a direct effect from Bush's policies. We should have finished the job in Afghanistan and then if we really needed to invade Iraq, do it once we had more intelligence and enough reserve troops to get the job done correctly.

Even a kid playing Risk knows this - simplistically of course - don't attack until you have some serious depth in troop numbers.
Have to clear the brush before you can root out the weasels. I wonder what the long term effects of an Iraqi democracy would have on dictatorships or theocracies or monarchies who use limited leadership to fund terrorism?

Quote:I feel that Bush has damaged our military in a way that will take years to fix...all politics aside - we are in trouble with our very stressed out military and it is a direct effect from Bush's policies. We should have finished the job in Afghanistan and then if we really needed to invade Iraq, do it once we had more intelligence and enough reserve troops to get the job done correctly.
Thats a laugh, everything is seen through your political prism. Sorry but that is not a credible answer. You present no evidence that our military is "stressed out" but claim it. Usually you are a propaganda driven individual and generally have a lackluster understanding of the facts and their implications, historically and otherwise.

We should have finished the job in Afghanistan? What about Serbia? Do you apply the same logic? If so, why are we in Afghanistan? Your reasoning is weak. I would say we are finishing the job in Afghanistan and working towards a conclusion, I would also say that Afghanistan has less of a strategic effect on the Middle East (where most of the funding comes from) than what we are doing in Iraq. I would also say that actions in Iraq have a great deal of influence in the Arabic world, opening up a world of possibility to the Arabic and Muslim future.
Quote:I think the war in Iraq is distracting as it has forced us to lose focus on the goal of taking out Al Qeada.
I generally agree with SDB that both Afg. and Iraq are necessary campains in a larger war. And therefore I do not agree that our strategic goal was/is/will be to take out AQ. Tactical, yes, but not strategic. Afg. and Iraq are just emergency surgeries to arrest cancer spread. I do think our goal is to remove breeding conditions for such malignant growth thus eliminationg the possibility of another AQ, or SH, or... (fill the blank).
Well said, I agree. The conditions must be improved both politically and economically.
Baldar - hide you head in the sand as much as you'd like and dismis all of the troops who's service was up and then were forced to continue service or were called back to active - and it's not just little old me. It's the generals and military who are telling us we are having troop strength problems and are stretched too thin.

So blabber all you like about this being more liberal propaganda - it does not change the reality that we are killing our military preparedness due to Bush and Iraq.
Murdok, you make no sense, I don't dismiss the troops (who seem to overwhelming support Bush), I just dismiss you. Which is easily done.
Pages: 1 2 3