Fine, you win. Keep pampering the cute little terrorist and tell them how sorry the big bad infedels were for being so mean to them. Don't worry. I'll be there to beat them into submission when they try to take over your big screen TV.
The Geneva Convention was conceived...1949. Back when the Japanese were lobbing off American Prisoner heads. Then we had to nuke em twice and threaten them with a third bomb we did not even have to get them to play ball. Times are changing folks and nuke em till they quit and turning the Middle East into a glass plate would be a bit more unacceptable in comparison to the garden hose. You realize with the recent past nuclear ratification, agreed nations dictate there will be no military training associated with nuclear attacks, though these same nations still have a nuclear inventory. An oxy-moron I would say.
I don't get what you are saying. Do you mean we should update the treaty to include terrorists? Think they are willing to play by those same rules? Think they will play by the traditional rules of war and stop killing innocent people? I have no problems drowning terrorists.
Tiga I think he was trying to say the GC was outdated, and it is. The important thing is that the scum bag terrorist don't fall under the damned thing. Nor or they entitled to legal defense under our constitution. However, we have people who are nuttier than squirrel crap that think they should be "protected". In the words of Mike Gundy, "makes me want to puke".
You just made my point. To use the somewhat outdated Geneva Convention as a reason to not use the water hose is counter productive to today's battle field. With today’s battle field there is no eye for an eye theory where Waterboarding is compared to the Japanese lobbing off prisoners heads. In 1949 who could have fathomed today’s society?
I think we are talking about two different things ... conventional war and terrorism. Countries can sign agreements that govern war and the treatment of POWs. The GC may need updating, but doing so won't resolve how we should treat people linked to terrorism. Terrorism has been around for a long time and will never go away. They don't play by any rules of war, decency and humanity. Treating them nicely won't change that. It's fine with me if only 1 out of 100 gives up useful information through waterboarding. The GC should never apply to these people.
You are right and we are spinning around in circles saying the exact same thing just from another spectrum. My read is we are on the same sheet. Todays conventional war IS fighting terroism. You hold the hose and I will turn the water on and together we will end this mess.
Let me digress here...electrodes to the testicles is a good one. But, when it comes right down to it, its a matter of personal taste really. Oh, and BTW...these Aholes aren't POW in any way shape or form!!!
I don't think you are getting my point. It's called the moral high ground. Not "they do it to us so lets just do it to them".
Not exactly. Today's war is exactly like yesterday's war when fighting other military forces and we still face many traditional military enemies. Terrorism, for the most part, is not sponsored by nations, but by small groups of international criminals. Using the military against guerrilla renegades is poor use of forces unless the terrorists offer foolish targets as the Taliban did in Afghanistan. We shall have to make more use of covert action like our Special Operations Forces, the CIA, and other covert anti-terrorist units to hit them where they hide. We need law enforcement cooperation from our allies to deal with international criminals and we should treat them like criminals, not heroic freedom fighters and the defenders of islam. And we need overt police and homeland security measures to deal with any that slip through. But the military is best at offering airpower and logistical support for covert action rather than trying to stop terrorists by taking over countries. That's an endless and foolish task.
