Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor
  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
CODE PROJECT For Those Who Code
  • Home
  • Articles
  • FAQ
Community
  1. Home
  2. Other Discussions
  3. The Back Room
  4. General Madness

General Madness

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Back Room
questionlounge
21 Posts 11 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • E 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?

    B Offline
    B Offline
    Brit
    wrote on last edited by
    #9

    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

    E A L 5 Replies Last reply
    0
    • J 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

      C Offline
      C Offline
      Chris Austin
      wrote on last edited by
      #10

      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

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • C 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

        L Offline
        L Offline
        Lost User
        wrote on last edited by
        #11

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

        E C 2 Replies Last reply
        0
        • B 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

          E Offline
          E Offline
          Ed Gadziemski
          wrote on last edited by
          #12

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

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • B 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

            E Offline
            E Offline
            Ed Gadziemski
            wrote on last edited by
            #13

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

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • B 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

              E Offline
              E Offline
              Ed Gadziemski
              wrote on last edited by
              #14

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

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • B 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

                A Offline
                A Offline
                Alvaro Mendez
                wrote on last edited by
                #15

                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

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • L Lost User

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

                  E Offline
                  E Offline
                  Ed Gadziemski
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #16

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

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • L Lost User

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

                    C Offline
                    C Offline
                    Chris Austin
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #17

                    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

                    L 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • C 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

                      L Offline
                      L Offline
                      Lost User
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #18

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

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • B 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

                        L Offline
                        L Offline
                        Lost User
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #19

                        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

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • D 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?

                          L Offline
                          L Offline
                          Lost User
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #20

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

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • D 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?

                            K Offline
                            K Offline
                            KaRl
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #21

                            No, War is not Ok.

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

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            Reply
                            • Reply as topic
                            Log in to reply
                            • Oldest to Newest
                            • Newest to Oldest
                            • Most Votes

                            • Login
                            • Don't have an account? Register
                            • Login or register to search.
                            • First post
                              Last post
                            0
                            • Categories
                            • Recent
                            • Tags
                            • Popular
                            • World
                            • Users
                            • Groups