Geneva Conventions U-turn

It's not those people we are trying to influence. They are who they are.

It's the OTHER 22 million people in Iraq . . . the ones we are trying to win the hearts and minds of . . . the ones we are trying to convince that WE do it the right way . . . the ones whose help we need to finally stand up against the insurgency. It's hard to do that if we are considered no better than the insurgents.

Why am I even making this argument? It's so freaking simple it should go without saying.

 

And those who hate us will hate us whether we treat these animals with respect or we don't. Those who were Baathists were going to hate us no matter what. Those who weren't were either going to hate us or like us depending upon how much they were persecuted by, or benefited from, Saddam.

 

Oh, it's not only the people in Iraq that should prompt us to follow the Geneva Conventions. It's every person in the world, every soldier we enlist, every country we might someday join in a fight or fight against. That's the reason we honor these rules.

To sit here and think otherwise is incredibly short-sighted and stupid.

Of course, incredibly short-sighted and stupid is a rather accurate description of the dumbass occupying the White House.

 

Sorry, alley --
I think this went too far up the chain of command to let the military completely off the hook. The biggest problem -- as I said -- is the theory that the Executive is beyond all restraint, oversight, and constitutional limits during "wartime," and that "wartime" is whenever the Executive says it is. That's a fair summary of where we're at.
We're also beginning to see the "Brutes Don't Appreciate What We've Done For Them" arguments start to appear, as they inevitably do when one country forcibly occupies another. No surprise.

 

I'm gonna disagree a bit there, Fenian.

The problem that the military is facing is that the Fredo administration has removed every military consultant that has disagreed with what they want to do. Look at all the generals who have said, in one way or the other, that they disagreed about an aspect of this war during one stage or another. Immediately, whenever one of these guys say they recommended something else, Fredo's gang trots out some other general who says he signed off. And it's always a different general. We've got one guy who agreed with the initial war plan, another who agrees on the current plan, another who's signing off on the Gitmo shit, and so on.

This administration, you've got to give 'em credit, are excellent at circumventing the rules, the Constitution, common sense and morality to get what they want.

I agree with Allen. These soldiers have been given absolute shit to deal with here. I give these guys all the leeway in the world. Some bad shit has happened, no doubt. But at the same time, you've taken kids, placed them in a very emotional, very hostile, very scary place, you've extended their tours and broken their wills and many of them are snapping. Who's to blame for that?

 

That's precisely my point, Dog. Just because Iraqi terrorists are willing to behead soldiers doesn't mean ever enemy we face will do the same thing. Nor does it mean we should, either. And you're right, winning the hearts and minds of <insert name here> is what's important, because they're the ones who will help us defeat an enemy that would cost us even more lives fighting them ourselves.

 

So does this mean the war isn't really over?