That’s not the point. The point is that the United States IS a signatory to the GC, it is binding, and it’s how we conduct ourselves. If the GC is outdated and needs to be revised to reflect changing tactics and conduct, then the place to do that is at the UN, and not a unilateral action by Bush.[/quote]
The point is it is binding on parties that signed up and earn the privilege through a quid pro quo mechanism. That isn’t at work here.
Bush hasn’t changed anything in the GC - not extending GC privileges to those that won’t play by the rules of war is not a modification of any rules in it. Just don’t tell that to our Secular Papacy in the Supreme Court building.
I suggest you read the GC and realize how the rules apply - there are requirements involved to earn GC privileges.
And, in matters of war, if everyone doesn’t play by the same set of rules, then huge advantages are to be had. When war is on the line, victory is the objective - nothing else. In no war do you casually deliver up a huge advantage to the other side with a nice red bow on top.
The GC was supposed to act as a set of incentives to promote certain behavior in war - i.e., you don’t torture my guys and I won’t torture yours. That is the basis of the Convention and why there are requirements to enjoy the privileges. Now that incentive system has broken down.
And, the GC is outdated - just like everything that tries to somehow turn the concept of war into something that isn’t brutal and savage. Should it be reformed? Better question - does it matter?
[quote]doogie wrote:
tme wrote:
doogie wrote:
At least you addressed her point. Or not.
Her “point” seems to be that the US should stoop to what ever level the “Islamic savages” use against us, which is too ignorant and stupid to bother addressing. “They’re scum, so why can’t we be scum too?” Gee, that’s something to be proud of.
Her point is that no country we’ve ever fought actually adhered to the Geneva Conventions, so what purpose do they serve beyond hamstringing the U.S.?[/quote]
The Germans adhered to the Geneva Conventions when dealing with US POW’s.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I’m no expet on the Geneva rules…ok, I actually don’t know anything about them. However, for those familiar with them, do you see religious fanatics (martyr personalities)being successfully interrogated under Geneva rules? In otherwords, just how effective can interrogations, following Geneva to the letter, be against martyr type personalities?
I don’t think so, not under the GC. I am not even convinced they can be interrogated all that effectively outside the GC, so I can’t possibly believe that the kid gloves of the GC would provide any good stuff.
The GC is a nice thought, but painfully naive. Any ‘contract’ is only as good as the signer’s intention to carry out.
And Islamists aren’t even signatories to begin with. Further, the martyr-types you speak of actually think restrictions like the GC are a sign of our weakness - they scoff at our attempts to make war more humane as a sign that we haven’t the stomach for true battle, and so they naturally exploit them as such.
Nowadays, the only nations that would respect, honor, and reciprocate the GC privileges are nations that are very unlikely to even fight one another. The race to the bottom by rogue states and terror groups has now produced yet another advantage in their information war - they can do whatever barbaric act they want, but the moment the US acts like a perceived meanie, the usual mouthpieces can shriek “look!! They don’t respect anyone!! They won’t even treat the enemy humanely!! They are creating more terrorists!!” - all to exceptional effect for the Islamists.
War is savagery. The day we tried to clean up war is the exact same day that dark forces started hatching plans to use that well-meaning desire against us.
That said, I have no truck with torture - but we must stop fighting a sissified war against our enemies.
Brilliant summary!
[/quote]
You know you’re wrong when a stupid fuck like HH agrees with you.
The UN is an impotent, useless organization that is comprised of countries seeking only to hamstring the U.S.
I ask this, how does being a UN member benefit the United States?
Answer: It doesn’t. We need to exit the UN stage left ASAP. At least Chavez was right about one thing, the UN does need to be located in some other country. Right after we are no longer members.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
tme wrote:
If the GC is outdated and needs to be revised to reflect changing tactics and conduct, then the place to do that is at the UN, and not a unilateral action by Bush.
You mean the UN where Bush got a 15 second applause for speaking of peace and friendship, while Chavez got 40 seconds of applause for calling our president Satan and that he smelled sulfur residue?[/quote]
I think Rush described the UN best when he compared the UN to the Star Wars bar scene. A mingling of crooks, scoundrels, thugs, and dictators.
I have never heard of anything stupider than to attach rules to warfare. War is cruel, horrible, and nasty. Do what it takes to win as quickly as possible. That is the only humane thing to do. Peace sould only be sought through victory. Pacifying stratigies only seek to prolong the agony. Victory is the only humane thing to do.
[quote]tme wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
And Islamists aren’t even signatories to begin with. Further, the martyr-types you speak of actually think restrictions like the GC are a sign of our weakness - they scoff at our attempts to make war more humane as a sign that we haven’t the stomach for true battle, and so they naturally exploit them as such.
That’s not the point. The point is that the United States IS a signatory to the GC, it is binding, and it’s how we conduct ourselves. If the GC is outdated and needs to be revised to reflect changing tactics and conduct, then the place to do that is at the UN, and not a unilateral action by Bush.
“but Mommy, she did it first!” works with 5 year olds, not in international diplomacy or conduct during a conflict.
I agree, if your county is in a war and you don’t want to get blown up then you need to leave that country until the fighting over. That may be difficult, but it’s better then getting blown up and shot.
If you let a fighter shoot at our peeps and then blend back in with you, you have just forfeited your life too. Not smart. If a fighter shoots from a mosque or runs into a mosque afterwards, sorry but you just lost your mosque.
My hat goes off to the people trying to fight this war with so many ridicules rules.