Subject:
|
Re: Outrageous Iraqi Geneva Convention Violation
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:06:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
615 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> 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?"
You just aren't listening, or being deliberately obtuse. *You* started this
thread with:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=19770
In 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
as its allies, also broke Geneva conventions. I didn't hear righteous anger
against the US or the allies, so where does that get us? That you're
oblivious to the wrongs that your side commits, and focused on how bad the
other side is. Understanding comes from seeing *all* the issues/problems on
either side. To me, you're not trying to understand, comprehend or come up
with a viable solution--you're trying to impose your self-centered
"righteousness" on others without considering how bad your "righteousness" is.
So yes, I agree that what some Iraqi soldiers did with the surrender flags
and the ambush is *very* bad and breaks the Geneva convention, but what
about beating people to death to get info? Isn't that wrong as well? Get
off your horse and start cleaning up the manure you're spreading around.
> >
> > 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.
This entire conversation--Iraq bad, US perfect! Stop being
> >
> > 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.
So slamming them because they broke Geneva conventions is good, but us
breaking Geneva conventions can be written off 'cause we have 'high ideals'?
Listen to what you're saying.
Again I will reiterate my point which you so deliberately deleted (for you
can't deal with it)--
But if there is *any* crime (against the Geneva convention or otherwise),
shouldn't those responsible be taken to account for perpetuating said crime?
>
> 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
No, this war started out as the 'war on terr'sm', then it was to find and
disarm WoMD--'war in response to *UN* 1441, though totally against the UN',
then it was to 'preserve the safety of Americans', then it was in response
to the Kuwaiti incursion (though that was 12 years ago), then it was to
bring "Democracy" to Iraq, and now it's to remove SH.
Find another excuse will ya? Some of these are just absurd and *none* of
these are justification for a US led *war* with Iraq. Anti-war does not
mean we don't support *any* initiative to achieve the disarming of Iraq, or
the betterment of its peoples.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
