DogOnPorch Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 Do you have any comments on what I actually wrote? In order to defeat your enemies don't you think that it is important to understand them, their motivations, their strategies, etc...? Yes indeed. That includes learning their schedules for travel...easier for the drones to find them. McNamara...the fellow you semi-quote...and LeMay burned millions in their wooden homes using this wee charmer. How's that for empathy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted October 9, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 Canadian Halifax bomber displaying its bomb mission over the Third Reich. What? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 What? Seems Canada was more than willing to fry folks in their beds when events call for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 Yes indeed. That includes learning their schedules for travel...easier for the drones to find them. McNamara...the fellow you semi-quote...and LeMay burned millions in their wooden homes using this wee charmer. How's that for empathy? How many of these mistakes are we repeating in the War on Terror? Robert McNamara's 11 lessons from Vietnam From Robert McNamara's 1995 book "In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam".[8] We misjudged then — and we have since — the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries … and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions. We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience … We totally misjudged the political forces within the country. We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values. Our misjudgments of friend and foe, alike, reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders. We failed then — and have since — to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces, and doctrine. We failed, as well, to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture. We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement … before we initiated the action. After the action got under way, and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course … we did not fully explain what was happening, and why we were doing what we did. We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose. We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action … should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community. We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions … At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world. Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex range of political and military issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War How's that for shooting ourselves in the foot? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 I love it when folks who wouldn't normally give Robert McNamara the time of day bandy him about like a long lost friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 I love it when folks who wouldn't normally give Robert McNamara the time of day bandy him about like a long lost friend. I love it when folks respond to a post with an irrelevant deflection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 (edited) I love it when folks respond to a post with an irrelevant deflection. Later in life, Robert reflected on all the folks he had signed-off on killing in their beds. Bound to have an effect...all that death. But, guess what? Our enemies don't give one whiff about McNamera's insights on Cold War brinkmanship. Their idea of empathy is giving you a chance to convert before lobbing your head off. Empathy is a rare commodity in reality. A fool's commodity when you're down to the brass tacks. As the ol' Clash song goes... When they kick at your front door, how you gonna come? Edited October 9, 2013 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 Later in life, Robert reflected on all the folks he had signed-off on killing in their beds. Bound to have an effect...all that death. But, guess what? Our enemies don't give one whiff about McNamera's insights on Cold War brinkmanship. Their idea of empathy is giving you a chance to convert before lobbing your head off. Empathy is a rare commodity in reality. A fool's commodity when you're down to the brass tacks. As the ol' Clash song goes... When they kick at your front door, how you gonna come? The whole point is that bypassing due process is not significantly eliminating our enemies and one of the "unintended consequences" is that it is helping the enemy to create more enemies! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 The whole point is that bypassing due process is not significantly eliminating our enemies and one of the "unintended consequences" is that it is helping the enemy to create more enemies! Then we'd best kill them faster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 Then we'd best kill them faster. Your "cure" is worse than the disease - you are playing into the hands of the enemy. For every one we kill we loose one ally, gain two more enemies, and spiral further into debt to boot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 A few points: 1) If the UN is the body that decides "international law", then I'd be glad to live in a country that doesn't pay attention to it. Do we want an international body which assigns nations like Iran to the committee on women's rights to dictate laws to us? No thanks. You made good points in your post, but the one I quoted above is the bottom line, IMO. So many of those who think the U.S. should agree to follow international law claim that just because something is a law doesn't mean it's good and/or should be followed. The U.S. is refusing to agree to abide by laws that it very well could question, and for good reason, as you state. I, too, see that as a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 A few points: 1) If the UN is the body that decides "international law", then I'd be glad to live in a country that doesn't pay attention to it. Do we want an international body which assigns nations like Iran to the committee on women's rights to dictate laws to us? No thanks. You made good points in your post, but the one I quoted above is the bottom line, IMO. So many of those who think the U.S. should agree to follow international law claim that just because something is a law doesn't mean it's good and/or should be followed. The U.S. is refusing to agree to abide by laws that it very well could question, and for good reason, as you state. I, too, see that as a good thing. Bonam and AW, what international law(s) do you think that the US is justified in not following? For example, is it OK to torture POWs and deny them rights enshrined in the Geneva Convention? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 Bonam and AW, what international law(s) do you think that the US is justified in not following? For example, is it OK to torture POWs and deny them rights enshrined in the Geneva Convention? I've never condoned torturing. As for the Geneva Convention, what rights specifically do you think they were denied? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hudson Jones Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 I've never condoned torturing. As for the Geneva Convention, what rights specifically do you think they were denied? What does Iran sitting on the status of women commission have anything to do with international law? Most of these laws have been in place since the UN came to be. How has Iran influenced the Geneva Convention? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 I've never condoned torturing. As for the Geneva Convention, what rights specifically do you think they were denied? Forst of all, there is the right to not be tortured. Here is a summary: Among the provisions of the Third Geneva Convention regarding humane treatment of prisoners of war, which the U.S. is refusing to apply, are: - Article 13: Humane treatment required; No reprisals allowed - Article 14: Respect for persons and honour; No gender discrimination - Article 16: No discrimination based on race, nationality, religious belief or political opinions - Article 17: No physical or mental torture; No coercion to obtain information; Prisoners who decline to provide information may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment - Article 18: Clothing, articles of personal use, to remain with prisoners - Article 20: Evacuation or transfer to be under same conditions as afforded Detaining Power - Article 21: Internment in camp allowed; Close confinement prohibited - Article 22: Internment in penitentiaries prohibited; Every guarantee of hygiene and healthfulness required - Article 25: Condition of quarters must be as favorable for POWs as for the forces of the Detaining Power; Accommodations for habits and customs of POWs required; Protection from dampness, adequate heat and lighting required - Article 26: Food must be in sufficient quantity, quality and variety to maintain good health and weight - Article 27: Adequate clothing, underwear and footwear required - Article 28: Canteens must be installed; Fairly priced food, soap, tobacco and ordinary items must be stocked - Articles 29 - 32: Proper hygiene and medical attention, including monthly health inspections, required - Articles 34 - 37: Prisoners must be afforded complete latitude in the exercise of religion, including attendance at services, on condition they comply with disciplinary routine - Article 38: Provisions for physical, intellectual and recreational activities - Article 70: Prisoners must be allowed to write to family, others http://baltimorechronicle.com/geneva_feb02.shtml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 10, 2013 Report Share Posted October 10, 2013 What does Iran sitting on the status of women commission have anything to do with international law? Most of these laws have been in place since the UN came to be. How has Iran influenced the Geneva Convention? Its just a convenient talking point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 10, 2013 Report Share Posted October 10, 2013 (edited) To me, a "rogue state" is one that is constantly breaking international law and conventions and norms, even those it signs and even helps create, that invades or attacks other states unilaterally and without UNSC approval, that tortures people, assassinates people in other countries, supports illegal coups of many different governments, supports dictators, has little respect for the sovereignty of other states etc. Sure that seems pretty obvious. But you have to realize that you are debating with the geopolitical equivalent of a gang member or sports fan. Our side can do not wrong, their side can do no right. Everything we do is good... everything anyone else does is evil. All that praise us are good... all critisism is evil. Its a fundamentally different way of thinking which is why these conversations go nowhere at all. And these folks make great citizens if you are the government. "Good little germans" if you will. But dont expect to have a useful conversation with them thats introspective of our own actions, or one that seeks to objectivize various different behaviors. That is simply not what they are about. Edited October 10, 2013 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted October 10, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2013 Seems Canada was more than willing to fry folks in their beds when events call for it. That's how it works in war. You can't arrest and have a trial for every single enemy member, sometimes you have to blow them up. Doesn't mean you should give no rights to prisoners of war and the like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 10, 2013 Report Share Posted October 10, 2013 That's how it works in war. You can't arrest and have a trial for every single enemy member, sometimes you have to blow them up. Doesn't mean you should give no rights to prisoners of war and the like. Who the heck said no rights for proper uniformed soldiers who wish to surrender? The question at the moment is: was shooting Rommel in his car a war crime? Was blowing-up Heydrich riding in his immoral? Were we wrong to off Bin Laden watching porn? Yes...that's how it indeed does work in war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted October 10, 2013 Report Share Posted October 10, 2013 Who the heck said no rights for proper uniformed soldiers who wish to surrender? You did DoP. Due process is reserved for citizens of my country and perhaps my allies. Not my sworn enemies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 10, 2013 Report Share Posted October 10, 2013 (edited) Who the heck said no rights for proper uniformed soldiers who wish to surrender? To be specific no one said that. Why? Because it was something that was never mentioned aside from you. It seems that we are dealing with how the US responds to terrorism acting like a rogue state that implements some rules but does not want to be accountable to them. Not to mention that when you are fighting terrorism you don't have people in uniform. How does your notion apply there? It does not. That is why there is a whole other rule set for something called 'enemy combatants' and can be held indefinably and without trial. The question at the moment is: was shooting Rommel in his car a war crime? Was blowing-up Heydrich riding in his immoral? Were we wrong to off Bin Laden watching porn? Yes...that's how it indeed does work in war. Maye not so much a war crime, but an act of war or an act of aggression. Still waiting for the notion that Pakistan was deliberately hiding Bin Laden. That would go a long way to help your stance. IF Pakistan gave the OK for the strike, then no war crime. If Pakistan did NOT give the OK for the strike, then yes, consider it an act of war by crossing into a sovereign nation where you have not been given permission to operate. The USA loves these kinds of technicalities in order to defend itself, but wont extend that to other nations when attempting to combat terrorism. Edited October 10, 2013 by GostHacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 10, 2013 Report Share Posted October 10, 2013 You did DoP. BS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted October 10, 2013 Report Share Posted October 10, 2013 (edited) BS Post 31, go check it, your words, your post. The undeniable truth is you said this... Who the heck said no rights for proper uniformed soldiers who wish to surrender? And previously had said this. It's well within my rights to not give a flying fark what you happen to think is right and what is wrong. Due process is reserved for citizens of my country and perhaps my allies. Not my sworn enemies. Man up DoP. Edited October 10, 2013 by Guyser2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 10, 2013 Report Share Posted October 10, 2013 Post 31, go check it, your words, your post. The undeniable truth is you said this... Man up DoP. You'd put every POW through Canada's courts? How silly. POWs should be rounded up into POW camps and kept there until hostilities cease. Not before. While POWs, they should be treated humanly. That's how it's done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 10, 2013 Report Share Posted October 10, 2013 You'd put every POW through Canada's courts? How silly. POWs should be rounded up into POW camps and kept there until hostilities cease. Not before. While POWs, they should be treated humanly. That's how it's done. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse You mean like that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.