sjmvsfscs08 wrote:
Well I think you completely ignore the mindset of a soldier fighting in a war. You're being ridiculously naive.
I know the mindset of soldiers and understand the pressures they are under. I fit the description of several adjectives you people like to throw out, but "naive" is hardly one of them.
You know what's more fucking overused and incredibly flawed than my "emboldening the enemy" argument? The "we were the original signatories to the Geneva Conventions" is completely fucking lame and useless in this war. Not to mention, you're wrong; the first Geneva Treaty was signed in 1864, we didn't ratify it until the 1880s.
Well sir, you are dead nuts wrong on that. Referencing the Geneva Conventions generically like I did directly refers to the Conventions of 1949 by all accounts Look it up. We're not talking "treaties" or any other bullshit. We are talking about a group of countries that realized that even under the horrors of war, certain rules needed to be abided by.
The US came to the forefront on this endeavor, because the US had always been the bastion of good intentions around the globe. We agreed to set of rules as did a multitude of other countries.
The most civilized countries on the planet signed the first Geneva Treaty, because it was a gentlemen's war so to speak and they basically treated it as game. Back then war was little more than bringing players to a field and lining up and shooting each other./
Incredible stuff. I'm sure Napolean and Ivan the Terrible viewed war as some sort of game. You are equating wars to a cockfight, whereby people come in and place their bets. Why don't you cite references to your claim that wars were "just a game" to these people. Incredible debating point, I must say.
So they made rules for the game. Places where wounded were being helped were out of bounds, the Red Cross symbol, and anyone wearing it, was essentially a referee and couldn't be shot as he was just taking care of the wounded, and don't shoot the civilians as they're just there to watch. That was basically it. Don't kill anyone that doesn't need to die because the war is over trivial objectives anyway.
LOL. "Trivial objectives". What books have you read? Incredible...and would be laughable if the subject matter were not so serious.
It worked well in European wars, in World War I/Word War II when the Germans knew they were defeated in a particular battle they laid down their arms and surrendered at the first opportunity. To them the game was up, and hopefully they could get back to their fields by spring. That was their mindset. It worked against Iraq too as many of them were just in it for a paycheck.
And now you claim that WWI and WWII were also games set up by a bunch of European leaders that found pleasure in millions of people killing each other.
I would suggest to you that you might try reading some real history books on the whys and wheretofors which led to the wars of the 20th century.
I've known some people debate some of the salient points on these wars, but to claim that WWI and WWII were some sort of "game" to be enjoyed by the generals et al is really quite remarkable. Tell me more.
Today, things don't work that way. Once again, the jihadist's goal is very similar to the Japanese in World War II: they will kill as many of us as possible, and surrender is not an option. They do not "play by the rules," so why should we so limit ourselves?
I could write a 10 page rebuttal to this point. Summarizing a responce to this doesn't do justice at all. So let me just say a couple of things. First of all, there were no jihadists in Iraq before we entered there. Not one. But much more importantly, because jihadists terrorize outside of the rule of laws in warfare, we have every right to become teerorists ourselves?
You absolutely cannot be serious.
IEDs, guerrilla warfare, suicide bombing, etc have completely shattered the level playing field they hoped to create with the conventions.
Suicide bombings and the like occurred quite frequently prior to 1949. It is not something that magically appeared post WWII. Terrorism is as old as the hills. Check out the history of the Irish Catholics blowing themselves up..or check out the Jewish terrorists in the 1929's and 1930's, such as Menachin Begin....future Prime Minkster of Israel.
And none of this crap that you are spewing has an ounce of relevance to what this thread is about either. This video shows point blank the unconditional and brutal assassination of Iraqi citizens...not soldiers, but citizens. It was as if the motherfuckers were playing a video game...cold calloused killers that laughed and joked about the slaughter of unarmed citizens. Even cracking a couple one liners regarding a couple of kids that had lead piercing their 6 year old bodies.
It's the mass killings such as these, the overall loss of respect for life, that has seen between 23 and 40 percent of our returning troops in seeking solutions to their own mental illnesses.
Soldier or no soldier...it is not within the human conscience at large, to kill other human beings that are walking the streets unarmed.
I'm not in any way shape or form advocating shooting civilians for shits and giggles, and I'm not the biggest fan of torture. I'm simply saying you are not being cognizant of the fact that these jihadists are just as willing to kill themselves and American soldiers whether they are wounded or not. To them the game is not up until they're dead. And I am PERFECTLY FINE in forcing them to meet Allah as soon as possible.
We invaded their country Slick. We invaded their country despite the overwhelming evidence that Iraq was devoid of jihadists. Somehow you cannot get this clear point through your head. The war with Iraq had nothing to do with Islamic extremists. Zero. We invaded their country based on twisted, distorted and manipulated intelligence. That fact that there are Iraqis that want to defend their homeland is perfectlly normal.
You wouldn't survive a week on a battlefield. You need to read some Machiavelli not attempt to guilt people with the "oh you won the demographic lottery." Because it's false, I simply decided not to be a jihadists, and that's why I'm not the one being blown to bits over in the sandbox.
Don't tell me what I would or would not do in a battlefield. Because you don't know. If realities were reversed, and some asshole country invaded my sovereign land, my guess would be that I would be one of the toughest bastards out there in defending my home land. But you did in fact win the demographic lottery. Had you been born in Iraq, you would have seen your country obliterated by an invading army that possessed 1000 times the military power and force that your own fellow countrymen had and could ever stand up to. You would have witnessed your own children brutally murdered by the invadors of your country. But in your twisted, bizzaro world, all Iraqi citizens are somehow guilty by association, and deserve to fuggin die....and if they die through brutal assassinations from the air, as this video clearly demonstrates, than too bad.
