Geneva Conventions outdated?

[Toastburner B]

Originally Posted by Omega Mage Zero

As for your Hooah and military pride, yes it is sickening if it's an unthinking pride.

I know...having pride for what you're doing. What a sick, sick concept.

But, seriously Omega. You think the war is wrong, I don't. That's okay. We happen to live in the United States of America, where that is perfectly legal. What a concept, huh?

So, why am I still here? Simple: For a teacher, you lack senstivity and common sense. "Your friends died for nothing?" What kind of response did you expect from that? That's is what is referred to as "crossing the line". A term I suspect you know, and therefore I don't have to explain it.

We have different opinions, and that's cool. That's what this country is all about. But telling someone his friends died for nothing was just hurtful. I don't know if you meant it that way or not, but it was.

[Mashirosen]

Therefor I make it my mission to piss off each and every one of you

Except no. Calm down and leave this thread alone before you get yourself into trouble.

[pfcq]

I'll calm down a little bit. I would hate to get thrown out of this discussion just when it started to get interesting. I guess you could call it Post tramatic stress disorder or what not (see thats a joke). Unthinking pride now huh? See when I say I don't care about these iraqis, I mean compared to my unit. If I kill some of these people because I truely belive that my actions would save some lives, then I would feel as bad as if I had thrown away a gum wrapper. I have a whole year to feel guilty about what I did or did not do. Belive it or not, if I hated all these people, I most likely would have not come here in the first place. I think the confusion comes from the fact that personaly, I think my friends and other U.S. Military personal are more important then the civies over here. I would always move to save the life of a buddy over an Iraqi any day of the week. Will I leave an Iraqi to die? Again depends on circumstance. If I was the one who shot em up then I don't have to worry cause the guys already dead. If it wasn't me, and I'm not under fire, then yeah I'll patch the guy up, that is if my Mission leader lets me and we have the equipment to spare. I love it how just cause a "Friend of a friend of a brother of mine went to war" People suddenly know more about it then say someone whos over there right now. Dude I don't care if your dad was in fricken WWI, or that some of your friends came back hateing life. They have my respect. You on the other hand don't. Why? hell If I have to spell it all out again I will but toastburner said it best so go read his post. Lets try this. To anyone reading this Thread, ask me something about the war that you don't understand.
Be it something I said, Something you saw on t.v. Something a buddy said and I will do my best to answer any questions (of course provided it still maintains OpSec.)

Fair?

[Omega Mage Zero]

Originally Posted by Toastburner B

So, why am I still here? Simple: For a teacher, you lack senstivity and common sense. "Your friends died for nothing?" What kind of response did you expect from that? That's is what is referred to as "crossing the line". A term I suspect you know, and therefore I don't have to explain it.

I didn't think it was insensitive, I thought it was tragic. Last week on 60 Minutes they spent 11 minutes scrolling the faces of dead Americans past the screen. And as I watched it I grew angry, thinking about all these people had died for lies. About how they died in a country where the population they were ostensibly there to help were likely the ones that killed them. A country that's turning into a repressive theocracy, not a democracy. About how terrorism has increased,not decreased, because of this war. Maybe they didn't die for nothing, maybe their deaths could be a lesson. Maybe people will think twice before they let the American government try to solve problems with bombs and bullets.

And having pride in something doesn't make it right, Toastburner. I think you and pcfq are being willfully ignorant. As if you're the only people who have a stake in this and anyone who disagrees is some kind of traitor and dishonoring your friends and family. If I said exactly the same thing but was in the military, would that change anything? Or do you think no one in the US military could possibly think this war was a bad idea?

I'm done with this regardless, it's too much like arguing with children. That is to say, pointless. No, I'm not slinking away in defeat or overawed by your moral superiority, this is just pointless.

Edit: It's also a little painful.

[GatoFiero]

If you’re in the army, your job is to follow the orders of the president. They weren't sent into Iraq because he lied to them, they knew exactly what they were doing and what they would face. They went into Iraq because they were told to. They had a job to do; they did it, and are still doing it right now.

The lies were given to the American people so we would support the war, because no war has ever been won without the support of the native population (the off. army's NP, although having the support of the NP of the country their in, is always a big plus).

With that being said, I will commence the “I told you so” parade. I predicted this exact instance would happen back in February, in this very forum no less. Heck, I’m gonna look through the past threads and see if I can find it! And if I can’t then I’ll either write a synopsis or leave you all wondering.

Edit - Yeaha! I found it. The edit in the following post is in response to another post that was put on right after this one. It said a few shi'ite priests wouldn't make a difference.

Originally Posted by GatoFiero, Last edited 02-23-2004 at 01:20 PM

Look at it like this, no matter what government we put in Iraq, it's going to have Islamic fundamentalist crying that we didn't let the people decide, and that the government is not fair. Additionally, any government that is not Islamic fundamentalist in the middle east has been under constant attack by Islamic fundamentalist terrorists examples of which are Israel and Lebanon, and Lebanon collapsed quite a few years ago, so now it's pretty much a giant terrorist training camp.

Basically what I’m saying is this, Iraq will not get rid of its terrorist or "saddam loyalist" (*cough*bullcrap*cough*) problem until it has an Islamic fundamentalist government is in control of Iraq. Even if the people don't want such a government, car bombs can be quite persuasive.

Edit - The shi'ite's make up the majority of the population in Iraq, yes? These "few shi'ite priests" are very popular. It is more than likely that if there were to be popular elections they would be elected. If for no other reason than the fact that they're names are more well known than any other in iraq right now, and they currently occupy a position of power. Because of course you know that those "few shi'ite priests" include the current religious leader in iraq and all of his underlings and followers all the way down to the priest and worshiper in every city, town and village of Iraq.

I apologize if this sounds like a flame; I do not mean it in that spirit. I merely wish to educate upon this political f*ckup. Although it was hardly an unknown one, the US knew when it started the war that this would probably happen, but we thought we could avoid it. Unfortunately, we couldn’t.

Edit 2 - w00t w00t! 600th post!

[Lucas]

If I kill some of these people... then I would feel as bad as if I had thrown away a gum wrapper

and you call me a jerk.

[they have my respect] You on the other hand don't

remember that fight for us. if you've got a problem with us, then stop fighting.

Lets try this. To anyone reading this Thread, ask me something about the war that you don't understand

why don't we try this: you get off your high horse, because apart from not knowing how to communicate your ideas, you act like a patronizing retard. try paragraphs next, because reading your bricks of text annoys me, and causes power outages when i'm writing replies to your previous posts. next, why don't you ask us about the war: being a step away lets us see the big picture way better than you. if you kill someone in self defence, that's fine. but if the death you caused starts a riot that kills 6 troops, are those people dead thanks to you? that's the type of more indepth discussion that we're about here

A country that's turning into a repressive theocracy, not a democracy

i wouldn't go that far, the public won't accept that much more patriot being legislated.

[Raerlynn]

Originally Posted by Lucas

and you call me a jerk.

I'm leaning that way, yeah. If you're dumb enough to pull a gun on someone, they're going to rightfully get pissed. You pull a gun on me, or people who I care for, and I will starting breaking your limbs. I will do it with no more emotion than if I crushed a bug. I train myself that way for a reason. People are victimized all the time, and it isn't always reported in the news. I do that so I can defend myself and my loved ones. It's more effective than looking over my damn shoulder for terrorists every three seconds.

Originally Posted by Lucas

remember that fight for us. if you've got a problem with us, then stop fighting.

*Buzzer* WRONG! They fight for not for us, but for ideals that they are sworn to uphold. Don't give me this crock of shit that the military serves the people. The military serves the government, who serves the people (supposedly). Go to a war zone as a conscript and stop fighting. You'll still get shot, if not arrested for disobeying a direct order, endangering the lives of other servicemen, and treason.

Originally Posted by Lucas

why don't we try this: you get off your high horse, because apart from not knowing how to communicate your ideas, you act like a patronizing retard. try paragraphs next, because reading your bricks of text annoys me, and causes power outages when i'm writing replies to your previous posts. next, why don't you ask us about the war: being a step away lets us see the big picture way better than you. if you kill someone in self defence, that's fine. but if the death you caused starts a riot that kills 6 troops, are those people dead thanks to you? that's the type of more indepth discussion that we're about here

The same applies to you. As far as the "rioting" crap, Iraqis riot for different reasons. Some are corrupt, trying to gain a political advantage. Some are afraid of the US, hanging on to the old Anti US propaganda. Some are simply being ignorant and misled by Al-Sadr. Let me ask you this: if we brought back every single person right now because of your opinion, would you be willing to accept responsibility for what happens to Iraq next? I didn't think so. THAT is why we are still there, despite popular opinion that we should pull. We came through and tore the place to hell. We uprooted a huge chunk of its political structure, leaving a massive power vacuum there. If we leave right now, I guarantee Iraq would be no better than it was before the raids.

Let me go one step further and clarify something that seems to be so overlooked it pisses me off. Everyone here says we went to war for oil, to finish Bush Sr.'s handiwork, for lies, and various other crap reasons. I can tell you why we went to Iraq. Remember the Persian Gulf War? Remember us kicking Iraqi ass? Well, as part of the peace agreement, Saddam agreed to allow UN inspectors access, and to provide proof that he had disarmed. Go back and read that sentence again. THE BURDEN OF PROOF LAY ON SADDAM HUSSEIN, NOT ON THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, TO PROVE DISARMAMENT. Don't believe me? Go look it up. I'll wait for you. Point being, the UN didn't follow through on their "threat" of military action, so we did. Which is exactly why we didn't get UN support. Because they're corrupt, and they do not follow through on their word. We did.

Moderator(s) reading this: Please split this discussion off somewhere else, so that Viper's original question can be answered.

[Fifthfiend]

THE BURDEN OF PROOF LAY ON SADDAM HUSSEIN, NOT ON THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, TO PROVE DISARMAMENT.

Except he pretty much did, to the extent that you can prove that something doesn't exist.

There were ongoing inspections, we pulled the inspectors out before we started bombing the country in the late 90s, he refused to let them in because they were spying for the US, then he let inspectors back in, who found nothing, after which Bush decided to invade anyway.

You pull a gun on me, or people who I care for, and I will starting breaking your limbs. I will do it with no more emotion than if I crushed a bug.

Hooray, you're a total badass, nobody cares.

hanging on to the old Anti US propaganda.

Um... Propaganda? We've got like three people right here going on about how little Iraqi deaths mean to them, and you think they don't like us because of "propaganda"?

It's more effective than looking over my damn shoulder for terrorists every three seconds.

Dude -- you look over your shoulder for terrorists every three seconds?

Erm, paranoid much?

[Lucas]

The military serves the government, who serves the people

so idealy, the military is the extention of the people's will to enforce their wishes on a level that includes organized combat. good job on conscisely proving my point !

You pull a gun on me, or people who I care for, and I will starting breaking your limbs.

no, i'm pretty sure that if you try to break someone's limbs while they've got a gun, you get shot. you aren't (insert related to super power word here)man.

I will do it with no more emotion than if I crushed a bug.

first off, you won't be crushing "bugs" if you try to mess with a guy who's got a gun to your head. second, you show a complete apathy towards the person trying to shoot you, and as such, he's got no reason to care for you. this doesn't make sense in the mugging scenario, but apply it to an army that's trying to win the hearts of a nation and it makes more sense.

in sum, your "if someone points a gun at me" is a completely different situation than the one i'm describing. soldiers aren't innocents on a battlefield. they should understand that they're risking their lives to accomplish an objective. if you consider the objective of the iraq war to increase the safety of american civilians worldwide (or even on the land of the US), then each soldier should ask himself if american civilians are worth potentially dying for.

pfcq noted that he values the military more than civies, so i'm wondering why he's risking himself to protect those he values less.

As far as the "rioting" crap, Iraqis riot for different reasons. Some are corrupt, trying to gain a political advantage. Some are afraid of the US, hanging on to the old Anti US propaganda. Some are simply being ignorant and misled by Al-Sadr. Let me ask you this: if we brought back every single person right now because of your opinion, would you be willing to accept responsibility for what happens to Iraq next? I didn't think so. THAT is why we are still there, despite popular opinion that we should pull. We came through and tore the place to hell. We uprooted a huge chunk of its political structure, leaving a massive power vacuum there. If we leave right now, I guarantee Iraq would be no better than it was before the raids.

nice move there! you missed my call to fundamental debate, and instead said that the US should stay in iraq. well, you know what? i agree that the US has to stay. my opinion has nothing to do with the occupation, but you'd sadly know nothing about that, since in the paragraph you quoted, i didn't offer a single opinion, save for those relating to pfcq's style of debate (which i don't think comes up to par with most other people on this forum). i asked a question that forces you to question if brute force is the key.

i don't think it is, i prefer diplomacy and finesse where applicable. making a few iraqi friends instead of "shooting everyone at the target" might save more lives than trying to question a few corpses. my strategy is different, yet you can't comprehend it. i don't see how you can't, since its been effective since the time of sun tzu, who wrote a few chapters on in.

[sarcasm]
then again, instead of arguing, maybe i should go to the target and shoot everyone there. that'll solve my problems.
[/sarcasm]

[Raerlynn]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

Um... Propaganda? We've got like three people right here going on about how little Iraqi deaths mean to them, and you think they don't like us because of "propaganda"?

We are talking about Iraq right? The same Iraq that had a dictator invade a neighboring ally? The same Iraq that had a man so egomanical that he essentially forced to people to approve him, lest they face a bullet? The very very same Iraq that had so muhc fucking Anti-US propaganda, that they saw the Persian Gulf War as an invasion to their rights? Give me a fuggin' break. Come back when you have something important to contribute.

Originally Posted by Lucas

no, i'm pretty sure that if you try to break someone's limbs while they've got a gun, you get shot. you aren't (insert related to super power word here)man.

Or you get smart like me and take self defense courses. You know, if you can be pried away from that copy of Final Fantasy. I know how to handle/disarm weapons, and I know the rules of thumb about them. I know how to prevent someone from shooting me with one. That's typically considered actively defending yourself, and it's also considered smart when you have to go to some ghetto school.

Originally Posted by Lucas

second, you show a complete apathy towards the person trying to shoot you, and as such, he's got no reason to care for you.

Way to run in circles there dude. He's already proven he didn't care about me as soon as he pulled a weapon and held it up to me/my friends. Way to use your head there. He pulls a gun, and I should have sympathy for him? On a cold day in hell.

Originally Posted by Lucas

pfcq noted that he values the military more than civies, so i'm wondering why he's risking himself to protect those he values less.

Originally Posted by Raerlynn

The military serves the government, who serves the people

That's as simple an answer as I can give you.

Originally Posted by Lucas

i don't think it is, i prefer diplomacy and finesse where applicable. making a few iraqi friends instead of "shooting everyone at the target" might save more lives than trying to question a few corpses. my strategy is different, yet you can't comprehend it. i don't see how you can't, since its been effective since the time of sun tzu, who wrote a few chapters on in.

Yeah we saw how effective talking was. Let's see, we tried talking at the very very beginning of this mess, and the UN didn't do jack. So we went ahead anyways.

"Shooting everyone at the target"? Do you have any clue as to what people have to face there. Our enemies are twisted enough to use small children (think age 16 and younger) as a psychological tool. Think about that.

Besides, if we actually had gone with "shoot everything" it would have been "Bomb everything" and then the mess would be over, and Bush would be on trial for War Crimes, and everyone who hates Bush would be happy. Have you ever tried urban door to door fighting? It ain't easy shit dumbass.