Subject:
|
Re: Outrageous Iraqi Geneva Convention Violation
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:14:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
609 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> >
> > > > > "Our" side of this war might regard the conventions more than the other
> > > > > side, thank goodness, but we'll break the rules if it suits our purposes.
> >
> > > > Sooo, damning us if we do, and damning us if we don't. Sounds about right.
> >
> > > You could equally say damning them if they do, damning them if they don't.
> > > As others have said neither side is squeaky clean in this "War on Terrorism".
> >
> > If you mean that I damn them if they breach Geneva Conventions, and I damn them
> > if they abide by Geneva Conventions, but fight to preserve an evil regime, then
> > yes you could say that.
> >
> > As far as being squeaky clean, I don't agree that one must be perfect to
> > confront evil. And I reject the moral equivalence of our actions to theirs.
> >
> > JOHN
>
> And I reject that you can sit there on your high horse and say "Those
> b*stards!!" when you're doing the same thing.
By "same thing", do you mean that *we* are waving white flags at the Iraqi army
and then ambushing them, or do you mean that we are displaying closeup images
of dead Iraqis shot execution style through their forehead?"
>
> I'm not saying that the US is *morally* equivalent to SH and his regime--I'm
> quite thankful that, even though it was under false pretenses, that it's the
> US leading this little war instead of, say, the Soviet Union.
>
> That said, you expounding loudly that Iraq has broken Geneva conventions of
> war and ain't that a bad thing!!! when your side did same tells me that you
> turn a blind eye to your side.
Please cite because I don't know what you are talking about.
>
> So again, take your head out of the sand, John. "They" are not totally
> "black" and you're not totally "White"--there *are* shades of gray. Can we
> still fight for justice even though we're not pure? Of course we can.
> Should they be accountable for their actions? Absolutely.
That said, what's your point??? I never said we were perfect-- you implied
that I said that. Okay, how about this: Saddam was black, and we are light
gray...:-) All I am saying is that we have high ideals and attempt to act with
honor and dignity. Of course we fail. But acting as such is never a part of
strategy.
Yeah, we fight to win, but we have the luxury of knowing that victory is
*certain*. So it doesn't have to be at any cost. There is a code of ethics on
the battlefield for the US. That is how our military is trained. Heck, even
the Iraqi army recognizes this. How else would such "ruses" even work against
us?
But victory over the Iraqi resistance isn't the objective. It is the means to
an end, which is the liberation of the Iraqi people from a repressive and evil
regime. We are only fighting those who resist and defend SH's regime. The sad
part is that there are many Iraqi soldiers who have been led to believe that
they are fighting to defend Iraqi soil, which is honorable. But we don't want
their soil, oil, or spoil. We want a strong, free, democratic Iraq.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Outrageous Iraqi Geneva Convention Violation
|
| (...) You just aren't listening, or being deliberately obtuse. *You* started this thread with: (URL) which you expressed outrage because Iraqis violated Geneva Conventions I, as well as others went on to point out to you, John, that the US, as well (...) (22 years ago, 25-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | extra-judicial executions
|
| (...) If pictures do exist, there are cultural reasons why we would not show them. That does not mean that extra-judicial executions are not occurring. I read this report from Afghanistan yesterday: One rule for them (URL) interviewed a Northern (...) (22 years ago, 26-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
42 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
