by Simon 26 Replies latest social current
"I'm sure you would rather have these things too wouldn't you ??"
Really, who would not. However, lets base our condemnation on the reality of the matter and in context, not on agendas driven by other than what we all here have affirmed.
I?m sure you feel the same way too, Right?
What made tilt for good ...(about "everybody did/does" situation) is when they interviewed the woman who was on the pics of the abuse of iraquies ... The journaliste asked her :
"People think you are the worth woman in the world for what you have done ... what do you think about that ? ... Do you have something to say".
The question seems not that interesting but her answer was : She said "I don't understand" (even now she is not able to realised that it was that bad ! guess why ?) ...
A commander, a soldier, a general.... all can operate with a doctrine to use appropriate force to kill enemy combatants who are not surrendering and will not surrender, or, they can operate with an attitude that any native person who might endanger me or my men, is an appropriate kill. Sorry, but that's just an excuse murder.
So let me see if i understand this line of brilliance..(don't spout stuff about Geneva Convention etc but try to think instead).
As long as the other side's soldier is refusing to surrender or still trying to kill you then you can kill him.
If you force a surrender of / or capture the other guy, you have to treat him well. Now killing is not allowed. Nor is anything that resembles battle.
Since he is captured though - does he have to refuse to try to escape? Is it OK for him to kill you while he (the soldier prisoner) tries to escape?
Perhaps there are these wunnerful rules that say he needs to treat his captor well and not try to escape??
To clarify my own stance:
I am against the stupid war in Iraq. But its still interesting to see how some people think. For me its:
I think for all the hype about precision bombing (yeah, like the missiles that hit the wrong COUNTRY !) the fact is that if you drop ordinance then innocent people get killed.
Watch the footage of the BBC correspondent John Simpson and the US soldiers he was with being bombed (by their own side) and say you still think bombing is *a good idea*
Look at the figures for kids being killed by cluster bombs. Now picture your OWN kids as being them.
The rules of war are there for damn good reason, to stop unnecessary killing and barbarity. When you declare that you do not want or intend to uphold them then I think you give up all claims or protest about whatever your opponents do to your people.
It's really not fair to send people to fight when the rules are changed like this.
We need less precise bombs...cheaper than precision.
If you want to have a war have a war - didn't jehovah teach you anything?
The rules of war are there for damn good reason, to stop unnecessary killing and barbarity. When you declare that you do not want or intend to uphold them then I think you give up all claims or protest about whatever your opponents do to your people.
It's difficult to have this discussion because it is to "Iraq-centric" and I don't think the war is justified. So I am talking on the aggregate here. If both sides are willing to uphold the rules of combat (including the captured prisoners) then I buy into it. Otherwise I would not.
"""If you want to have a war have a war - didn't jehovah teach you anything?""
LOL, God, I wish we were all in one place having a brew and a cigar right now......
