General Madness

Ed Gadziemski

America's military brass is fighting mad that Iraq is not obeying the "rules of war." They say Iraq is: violating the Geneva Convention by showing POWs on TV; dressing in American uniforms; blending with civilian populations; using guerilla tactics; (possibly) executing captured soldiers. Strangely enough, if America were invaded by a superior force, I (and most of those generals, I'm sure) would do those sort of things and possibly worse to protect my wife and my home and my country. Why, then, is it wrong for Iraqis to protect their country and their families?

Chris Austin

Ed Gadziemski wrote: America's military brass is fighting mad that Iraq is not obeying the "rules of war." I always laugh about that myself. Weren't the American Revolutionaries one of the first to engage these gorilla tactics. I am sick of these loozers complaining....Just get on with and get our people home. Hey don't worry, I can handle it. I took something. I can see things no one else can see. Why are you dressed like that? - Jack Burton

Jeremy Falcon

Come on Ed, put your thinking cap on. Here's a scenario for you that illustrate this point about people. Imagine your dog eats your neighbor's cat. You're all apologetic, etc. and the dirt settles down after a while. Let's say another neighbor runs over your dog accidentally. Wouldn't you at least complain even if you "understood"? I'm sure you would. Jeremy Falcon "so be it, threaten no more, to secure peace is to prepare for war" - Metallica

peterchen

Strangely, I've seen POW's captured by the Allied forces on CNN and BBC - they were not "presented" individually as the Americans, but definitely faces and "treatment" was visible. I don't know if or where the Geneva Convention draws a line, and for me this isn't merely a formal difference, but at least US propaganda moves on very thin ice here. Ed Gadziemski wrote: Why, then, is it wrong for Iraqis to protect their country and their families? Because The Shrub is on a mission from GOd, and Saddam is the Antichrist, and his demons must be banished from each and every Iraqui who's not throwing long-stemmed roses at their excorcistsliberators. :cool:

Italian is a beautiful language. amare means to love, and amara bitter.
sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen

Jason Henderson

I would do the same too except maybe killing POWs. Geneva convention be damned.

Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

articles profile

KaRl

It may be hard for a guerilla unit to keep PoW behind the enemy lines. I suppose also all special forces operating in enemy territory do the same.

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Jon Sagara

Chris Austin wrote: gorilla oo oo oo AH AH AH!!!

Jon Sagara

You know the world is off tilt, when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest basketball player is Chinese, and Germany doesn't want to go to war. -- Charles Barkley

Doug Goulden

So you are saying that what the Fedeyeeh Sadaam is OK?:wtf: Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Brit

Yes, I can understand that one would resort to every means available to win a war. I don't know what you mean by "America's military brass is fighting mad that Iraq is not obeying the 'rules of war'". First, I can understand that the US would be frustrated by this, but that doesn't mean the US is claiming that it is a violation of the "rules of war" (as you are saying). The only thing the US has complained about is the treatment of POWs. The main idea behind the Geneva convention is that a country should not take out its anger on POWs. Freqently, there is nothing to be gained by mistreating POWs - it is just an angry indulgence on the part of the nation which captures them. As for the other cases: - dressing in American uniforms: this is particularly terrible if they start killing their own civilians with the intent that the population will blame the US. (Or are you saying that its okay to kill civilians with impunity?) - blending with civilian populations: not necessarily wrong - but, again, it puts civilians in the line of fire. - using guerilla tactics: nothing wrong here. Frustrating, but I don't think you can come up with evidence that the US claims Iraq is violating some international law. - executing captured soldiers: this is clearly a violation of the Geneva conventions, and it is freqently just an indulgence on the part of the capturing nation. In short, most of the examples you bring up are a straw-man argument because the US isn't even claiming that they are a violation of some "rules of war". If, on the other hand, your point is that "rules of war" are stupid, then fine. But, don't be surprised if war becomes much more brutal. (If you think war is brutal now, you have no idea.) But, don't blame the US for withdrawing from the ABM treaty. Don't blame the US for not signing the anti-landmine treaty. (BTW, those are in a different class than the "rules of war" argument mentioned above because they are part of mutual agreements which can legally be withdrawn from. The ABM treaty had explicit provisions for "how to withdraw from the treaty".) Even further, you should not blame the US if it suddenly decided to create nasty biological weapons, use nuclear weapons, use a neutron bomb, poison water supplies, uses weapons to permanently blind soldiers, or anything else that it could create. ------------------------------------------ "What happened in that Rhode Island club is shocking. To think that over a hundred people would attend a Great White concert." - The Onion

Chris Austin

damn! Hey don't worry, I can handle it. I took something. I can see things no one else can see. Why are you dressed like that? - Jack Burton

Lost User

Gorilla tactics are where you bash someone over the head with a banana :laugh: The tigress is here :-D

Ed Gadziemski

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82289,00.html[^] Those willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither - Benjamin Franklin

Ed Gadziemski

http://www.spiked-online.co.uk/Printable/00000006DCFB.htm[^] Those willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither - Benjamin Franklin

Ed Gadziemski

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030327-275525.htm[^] Those willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither - Benjamin Franklin

Alvaro Mendez

Well said! Brit wrote: Even further, you should not blame the US if it suddenly decided to create nasty biological weapons, use nuclear weapons, use a neutron bomb, poison water supplies, uses weapons to permanently blind soldiers, or anything else that it could create. I wonder if the US is actually considering doing something similar to what we did with Hiroshima/Nagasaki, in order to shorten this war and reduce the number of coalition casualties. I hope Saddam is not stupid enough to use chemical/biological weapons against our forces... or he may see a nuke coming his way. :~ Regards, Alvaro

That which does not kill me postpones the inevitable. -- despair.com

Ed Gadziemski

Very punny indeed! Those willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither - Benjamin Franklin

Chris Austin

I should pay attention to my spell checker eh? Hey don't worry, I can handle it. I took something. I can see things no one else can see. Why are you dressed like that? - Jack Burton

Lost User

Please don't, life would be much more boring :-D Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D

Lost User

you mean US does not have chemical and biological weapons. :confused: My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers

Lost User

It is Fidayeen My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers