Convention when other enemies do not.Is it not giving them permission to take our people our soldiers,rape them,cut their heads off,torture them for weeks and months..,lets not forget about the soldiers that they cut their penises off and stuffed in their mouths..,oh did we forget them???Yet because we are in the pacifists terms a better people?Bull crap I say what comes around goes around.Would you appeasers feel the same if it had been your son found with his penis stuffed in his mouth?
2006-09-17 08:51:22 · 15 answers · asked by halfbright 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Smitty you just showed your ignorance..,have to resort to name calling?Maybe youre lacking in manhood and have to take it out on a woman by calling her a name.You poor pathetic little man
2006-09-17 09:06:23 · update #1
Smitty you just showed your ignorance..,have to resort to name calling?Maybe youre lacking in manhood and have to take it out on a woman by calling her a name.You poor pathetic little man
2006-09-17 09:06:28 · update #2
we still expect others to abide by the geneva convention
and when they don't we try them for war crimes. if we
do not abide by these standards we will not have a leg
to stand on faulting others when they don't. i agree it
sucks when others do these things, but that does not
give us the right to do them. someone must raise the
bar, and why not us
2006-09-17 09:04:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Abiding the Geneva convention makes sense militarily. It demoralizes the enemy- why should they continue to fight when they can surrender and be better treated than what they are fighting?
It's kind of like how gathering the bodies of your own soldiers demoralizes the enemy- they never find out how many exactly they killed- did any die at all? Are they immortal?
For the case of terrorists, I still support the application of the geneva conventions- after all, they can't be assumed guilty when apprehended. Maybe they are just soldiers? Obviously none of them personally have blown up themselves yet. The definition runs pretty thin. Then, when it is proven that they have partaken in warcrimes, THEN lets be harsh.
2006-09-17 09:01:18 · answer #2 · answered by dane 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
International conventions are a peace of paper which are never respected but they are used after the wars by the victors to judge and sentenced the vainquished. They are the alibi of the good conscience of the victors but are always used afterwards and in a one-way manner. As Hjalmar Schacht, ex minister of the Economy during the IIIrd Reich, used to say during his trial at Nuremberg, "France too once had a revolution which was no less bloody and horrible than the crimes of Hitler and his followers. But at that time no one thought of morally outlawing the entire French nation."
2006-09-17 09:02:47 · answer #3 · answered by Mimi 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
1) The idealistic: If this is a war between civilization and barbarism then I'll be damned if I'm going to stand on the side of barbarism. The actions you describe are the act of barbarians, and do not wish to see my countymen take one step towards their level.
2) The practical: We do have a national reputation to uphold. If we are seen treating our enemies callously then over the long term we will have more enemies and fewer friends, and that will damadge this county.
2006-09-17 09:23:16 · answer #4 · answered by Adam J 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
say three out of every ten picked up and tortured did nothing and have no useful information they all have family you just created your next suicide bomber.the men women doing this come home some can't stop being the person who torture for information there cops who do they pick next.once you start down that path you destroy what you are fighting to protect that is why you obey the rules of war
2006-09-17 09:11:14 · answer #5 · answered by justasking 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
it absolutely amazing that certain folks think that...getting 3 squares a day...allowed to pray 5 times a day...receiving medical care....allowed to play soccer...being interrogated while sitting in a lazy-boy...is considered torture!!! while the n.Vietnamese beat...starved...hung...our men...while the Japanese cut throats...disemboweled American nurses after they were raped...gouged out the eyes of Americans....cut off their genitals and stuffed them down their throats....and the terrorists in Iraq decapitate and torture our men...but this seems OK to folks like McCain...who should know better after what he went through....it is just disgusting what these 4 repubs along with the democrats have done...coddle the terrorists...shameful!
2006-09-17 09:03:02 · answer #6 · answered by bushfan88 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because if we don't, what is the incentive for others to. We've already pulled out of the International Criminal Court, showing our disdain for international law. I, for one, do not feel that, if we are going to be the moral compass for the world (lol), we should lower ourselves to their level.
Are you saying that because they do it, we should do it, too? Laws are to protect the innocent, not the guilty. To arbitrarily break laws simply because we don't agree with them is the first step toward anarchy.
2006-09-17 09:21:37 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If we say it's OK to ignore them, then we're giving permission for our enemies to do the very things you're talking about.
2006-09-17 09:01:02 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
We are not just talking about terrorists, you broad. We are also talking about future conflicts where our soldiers could be captured.
Our own military personnel disagree with Bush. Don't be stupid and reactionary.
Maybe you should join the Bush administration.
2006-09-17 08:59:48 · answer #9 · answered by smitty 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Good question because in every war we have fought in - our enemy always tortured our soldiers.
2006-09-17 08:54:25 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋