Though I agree that occasional transgressions are almost inevitable, the idea that a government might be actively advocating one or even writing policy that supports it is the crux of the issue. Yes, it's nice that most of the rights have been protected, or that the offences are rare, few and far between, or generally take care of quickly, but any evidence tha Bush wants to laxen those rules in an official and true capacity is unforgivable.
Bush Makes The Call
Though I agree that occasional transgressions are almost inevitable, the idea that a government might be actively advocating one or even writing policy that supports it is the crux of the issue. Yes, it's nice that most of the rights have been protected, or that the offences are rare, few and far between, or generally take care of quickly, but any evidence tha Bush wants to laxen those rules in an official and true capacity is unforgivable.
Because, y'know, that isn't the case already.
Telan, I have a counter point to your comment on the insurgents. You say they are rebels and as such should be treated as no longer combatants BUT has America formally declared the war over yet? These 'insurgents' are the Iraqi combatants furthering combat through guerilla tactics the same as how the Vietkong fought.
It is the only way for their inferior force in terms of arms and numbers to succeed. It's why the Iraqi army folded like cards when the Coalition initially assaulted to force them into a long drawn combat. They learned from the lessons of Vietnam. Their are Iraqi leaders left orchestrating this so it's truly a new form of militia for a new form of war. So on this point, are militia considered part of the Geneva Convention? Where does the line between 'regular combatant' and 'irregular combatant' end on the modern field?
It is the only way for their inferior force in terms of arms and numbers to succeed. It's why the Iraqi army folded like cards when the Coalition initially assaulted to force them into a long drawn combat. They learned from the lessons of Vietnam. Their are Iraqi leaders left orchestrating this so it's truly a new form of militia for a new form of war. So on this point, are militia considered part of the Geneva Convention? Where does the line between 'regular combatant' and 'irregular combatant' end on the modern field?
He who fights as a soldier dies as a soldier. He who fights like a coward shall perish like one.
- - Czar Alexander III
Where? The answer is simple - -those who obey the rules are subject to their protection. Those who do not, are not. Simply put.
If the uniform of the army is the clothes of the populace than fine, I can concede that point. But if they refuse to take the surrender of a wounded soldier or slaughter civilians then indeed they are no longer an army but criminals. The same applies to the well-trained formation - if Ami soldiers go around shooting soldiers after they surrender than it is not war, but murder. If they shoot a rebel in civilian clothes, according to the rules of war, he may be shot out of hand as a spy. No questions asked.
It may be a new form of war, as you said, and if there are leaders in place to orchestrate it then they must also assume responsibility for restraining their men. Again, I understand that they may not have the resources to house prisoners of war - thus the option is open fopr them to give them to a neutral country where they can be looked after or paroled according again, to the rules of war.
If I break the rules in a game, does that entitle you to break them also? Yes. Why? Because a gentleman's agreement is exactly that. Breaking it opens you up to the reprecussions of defiling your honour and your word.
America bnever declared war on anything to begin with. The last declaration of war by the United States - -correct me if I am wrong, was in 1941 against Japan, Germany, and Italy. War was not even declared against North Korea and China, if I remember correctly.
One looks at that war - -the North Koreans fought doggedly as did their Chinese allies, but both were uniformed combatants entitling them to protection under the laws of combat. Removed from that protection are those who bayonet wounded and strip prisoners of their personal possessions - Ami and NK.
In the end, the answer is a very blurred line. The absic matter is that the Iraqi insurgents - as well as the Afghani rebels - are fighting against an occupying force that is seeking to install a puppet government based on its own image. If the Red Chinese Army started paratrooping into the west coast, Californians would shoot any Ami civilian who dared take league with the invaders. Same case here.
What is happening in Iraq is a civil war. The US is interfereing, so too is the vaunted British Empire, reduced by that country to the United Kingdom. If one steps in between, he is subject to the full fury of the attackers and for them I feel no pity. Of course I symapthize with dead soldiers- my compalint is with the leadership of the invading nations and those fools who call themselves Generals.
Take heart in this example -- how many parents are here? Think - how would you react if someone arrived in your home and told you how to raise your children? They would tell you exactly what needed to be done not because you are wrong, but because their view is better. What would you do? Resist? Or let them tell you how to run your own home.....
- - Czar Alexander III
Where? The answer is simple - -those who obey the rules are subject to their protection. Those who do not, are not. Simply put.
If the uniform of the army is the clothes of the populace than fine, I can concede that point. But if they refuse to take the surrender of a wounded soldier or slaughter civilians then indeed they are no longer an army but criminals. The same applies to the well-trained formation - if Ami soldiers go around shooting soldiers after they surrender than it is not war, but murder. If they shoot a rebel in civilian clothes, according to the rules of war, he may be shot out of hand as a spy. No questions asked.
It may be a new form of war, as you said, and if there are leaders in place to orchestrate it then they must also assume responsibility for restraining their men. Again, I understand that they may not have the resources to house prisoners of war - thus the option is open fopr them to give them to a neutral country where they can be looked after or paroled according again, to the rules of war.
If I break the rules in a game, does that entitle you to break them also? Yes. Why? Because a gentleman's agreement is exactly that. Breaking it opens you up to the reprecussions of defiling your honour and your word.
America bnever declared war on anything to begin with. The last declaration of war by the United States - -correct me if I am wrong, was in 1941 against Japan, Germany, and Italy. War was not even declared against North Korea and China, if I remember correctly.
One looks at that war - -the North Koreans fought doggedly as did their Chinese allies, but both were uniformed combatants entitling them to protection under the laws of combat. Removed from that protection are those who bayonet wounded and strip prisoners of their personal possessions - Ami and NK.
In the end, the answer is a very blurred line. The absic matter is that the Iraqi insurgents - as well as the Afghani rebels - are fighting against an occupying force that is seeking to install a puppet government based on its own image. If the Red Chinese Army started paratrooping into the west coast, Californians would shoot any Ami civilian who dared take league with the invaders. Same case here.
What is happening in Iraq is a civil war. The US is interfereing, so too is the vaunted British Empire, reduced by that country to the United Kingdom. If one steps in between, he is subject to the full fury of the attackers and for them I feel no pity. Of course I symapthize with dead soldiers- my compalint is with the leadership of the invading nations and those fools who call themselves Generals.
Take heart in this example -- how many parents are here? Think - how would you react if someone arrived in your home and told you how to raise your children? They would tell you exactly what needed to be done not because you are wrong, but because their view is better. What would you do? Resist? Or let them tell you how to run your own home.....
And what if any neutral country won't accept said prisoners of war? You know as well as I what would happen to any country that took in american prisoners and refused to hand them over to the american government. They would basically become the next target. And to give them to China or North Korea would cause an already strained relationship to become that much worse.
Yes, it is poor what is happening in Iraq, but circumstance has forced them to take their only path of resistance.
And further more (to add to the part of wounded civilains), how many Iraqi civilians were killed during the invasion? By bomb hitting the wrong targets and other such things? Or the example of something that happened in Afganhistan were several children were killed because the American's set up base right next to a school.
Both sides are responsible for their ills in the war, but the Iraqis have more right to theirs than the British or Americans whom have the resources to fight in a more 'proper' manner as you'd put it. As a great man once said 'We do what we can with the tools that are given.'
Yes, it is poor what is happening in Iraq, but circumstance has forced them to take their only path of resistance.
And further more (to add to the part of wounded civilains), how many Iraqi civilians were killed during the invasion? By bomb hitting the wrong targets and other such things? Or the example of something that happened in Afganhistan were several children were killed because the American's set up base right next to a school.
Both sides are responsible for their ills in the war, but the Iraqis have more right to theirs than the British or Americans whom have the resources to fight in a more 'proper' manner as you'd put it. As a great man once said 'We do what we can with the tools that are given.'
"There is not fate but what we make..."
You make and obey your own rules, hopefully they coincide with the rest of the world. If not conflict is sure to arise. As the world gets smaller and nations get bigger, as we move towards critical mass... we're always learning. I've learned that everyone thinks they're right and no one thinks they're wrong... I've learned that the rules of society are highly subjective... and I've learned that caek and pie go miles towards finding a common ground.
Caek, anyone?
You make and obey your own rules, hopefully they coincide with the rest of the world. If not conflict is sure to arise. As the world gets smaller and nations get bigger, as we move towards critical mass... we're always learning. I've learned that everyone thinks they're right and no one thinks they're wrong... I've learned that the rules of society are highly subjective... and I've learned that caek and pie go miles towards finding a common ground.
Caek, anyone?