Do you mean it was a bad argument of mine? Are you saying you think Iraq followed Geneva convention rules?
Iraqi soldiers were surrendering themselves freely during Desert Storm. Their conditions as US POWs were probably better than what Sadaam provided them in the Iraqi military. On the contrary I debated whether American pilots should even parachute out of their planes if shot down over Iraqi territory. How about you? Would you rather be dead or a POW under Sadaam Hussein?
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
ajax18 wrote: Do you mean it was a bad argument of mine? Are you saying you think Iraq followed Geneva convention rules?
No, I'm saying the case you linked involved horrible treatment of people. I don't want to downplay everything that occurred just because the United States decided to adopt more vicious psychological torture. Again, the fact that you think linking it is a checkmate example suggests you don't even understand the US practices you are defending.
Would you rather be dead or a POW under Sadaam Hussein?
Would you rather be dead or an accused enemy in Abu Gharib?
It's a common failing to view "us" as better and more honourable than "them". What "they" did was wrong, what "we" did was justifiable. Both sides of a conflict do this. Both are wrong.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
It occurs to me that one of the worst things in the example Ajax offered as the worst of the worst was holding mock executions.
Allen West held a mock execution of an Iraqi police officer, which is what forced him to resign to avoid court martial. Not only did he not go to even jail, he became a US congressman.
What are the odds that one can search this message board and find ajax18 being favorable to him?
there is a certain "point of interest" when considering a "humanitarian waging of war".
War crimes are always prosecuted as a means to pose as justice in the wake of victory. To pick-and-choose the "acceptability" of behavior after a battle is waged is rather like limiting the size of bullet one should have put inside another man's skull.
Liberals will always demand this postured justice because it is the only battle they have the courage to fight.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
How can we persuade our enemies that our cause is the better cause when we lower ourselves to the same brutal standards that we condemn our enemies for?
I think it's unfair even by your standards to call the way the USA has treated POWs the same or worse than the way Iraq treated coalition POWs.
The US under the wicked evil regime of Bush/Cheney does know better. The US is drafter, signer of the Geneva Conventions on treatment of prisoners. So now when a enemy of the US captures one of our troops. What the HELL can we say, if they are tortured.
The CCC wrote:The US under the wicked evil regime of Bush/Cheney does know better. The US is drafter, signer of the Geneva Conventions on treatment of prisoners. So now when a enemy of the US captures one of our troops. What the HELL can we say, if they are tortured.
Excellent point. I have heard some make the ridiculous argument that we are only bound by the Geneva Convention regarding prisoners taken in a formally declared war, and that we are under no obligation to treat humanely terrorists who are taken prisoner as they are merely criminals, not soldiers taken in "real, formally declared war." This is pure nonsense! The constitutional protection from cruel and unusual punishment supposed apply to all, even criminals, even those who are not U.S. citizens. Nor does the Geneva Convention make exceptions in the case pf prisoners characterized as terrorists or insurgents, as far as I can tell.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
