Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (187616)	5/28/2006 4:18:43 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I stand by what I said. Bush & Rummy have shown a great willingness to push the envelope of treatment of our adversaries ever since 9/11. If you can't see that you are asleep or in denial. The entire equivocation over "illegal combatants" set the tone. I noted with great amusement an incident in Afghanistan, where some General had to order American special ops troops to get rid of their beards and casual dress. Some here in the media (rightwing media mainly) howled about this endangering our troops, who needed to blend in, conveniently forgetting one of the key Bush administration metrics for what constitutes an "illegal combatant" and hence someone beyond the Geneva Convention. The General, off course was aware, which is why he issued the order. One thing you did nail on the head was this: But then again.. bombing of entire civilian population centers is not much different than authorizing soldiers to level a town and leave no survivors. Again, in the WOT, Bush has shown a much more casual regard for their civilians, and this attitude has enjoyed broad American public support, as 9/11 targeted our civilians. I bet I could find statements you made to that effect. Many of the rightwing posters here on SI have made such statements. To suddenly claim otherwise is hypocrisy. So, no, I'm not buying your bridge.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (187616)	6/4/2006 8:32:06 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Hawkmoon; Re "Biscari Massacre in 1943, where 70+ unarmed German and Italian prisoners were massacred", Canicatti Massacre, against in Sicily, 1943" and " Chenogne massacre in which 60 German soldiers were killed in retaliation for the German massacre of US soldiers at Malmedy:" You wrote: "All of these were ILLEGAL war crimes committed against the enemy." Yes, but the crime that the Marine unit is accused of is massacring a group of civilians. Of the examples you've given, only the " Balangiga massacre of 1901 in the Phillipines" involved significant numbers of civilians, and even that one was also a massacre of enemy combatants. What we're doing in Iraq has sunk below the standards of even our great grandfathers. And the whole thing is quite inevitable in guerilla war. In any reasonably large conflict, there are going to be some rogue units that do this sort of thing. Even if the administration doesn't actually order it. And the difference between now and 100 years ago is that we have MUCH BETTER methods of reporting these sorts of things to the world. Instead of staying hidden, this kind of crap besmirches our country in a manner that is impossible to erase. No amount of command and control is going to stop this sort of thing from breaking out. Our guys are under incredible pressures. You and I probably both know that those civilians could have saved their lives if they'd been a bit proactive at preventing the insurgents from using their front yards as a place to set up an ambush. Maybe their neighbors picked up the lesson. But while this sort of thing may make a Marine unit a bit safer, it makes the war as a whole that much more impossible to keep up. Forget the effect on the Arab public, what do you think the effect on the American public is? How much longer do you think we're going to stick around? As far as the next presidential election, the Democrats may end up with the same sort of fighting that has prevented them from taking advantage of other opportunities. But the same thing can't be said for the House and Senate. The Democrats can't screw up that many elections. And where then does the legislative support for the war go? You can go on and on about how fighting this war is the best thing that has happened to this country since FDR got us into WW2, and about how invading a country on the basis of weapons of mass destruction that we never found, was the best invention since sliced bread. But your arguments fall apart if the American public doesn't have the stomach to fight your war. A war that is lost is never a good idea, no matter how cheap it is. This is a Democracy, it is not a Dictatorship. This war is too expensive to fight, not only in blood and money, but also in pride. Yeah I know that things like this aren't supposed to happen. But they happen. Expecting soldiers to not punish enemy civilians who are aiding and assisting the enemy is like expecting teenagers to not get pregnant. The expectation is against all normal human tendencies, and no matter how loud you yell at them, you're going to end up with some pregnant teenagers and dead civilians. -- Carl