Are you a great fan of Imperial Japan? My Grandfather's generation wouldn't even spit on you if you were on fire after hearing opinions like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Printable View
Are you a great fan of Imperial Japan? My Grandfather's generation wouldn't even spit on you if you were on fire after hearing opinions like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Your grandfather's generation is, for the most part, entirely dead. They probably wouldn't like hearing about gay or inter-racial marriage, legalized abortion, or cultural relativism either. My opinions are my own in this matter - tradition has nothing to do with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyspy
(1) You are correct. 16-in Naval Guns were outlawed by the Washington Naval Conference of 1922. http://www.militarymuseum.org/BtyDavis.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
(2) Why don't you give it a read yourself?
http://www.genevaconventions.org/Quote:
Originally Posted by Geneva Convention I, Chapter 1
..
So finally, Tribesman, you only end up looking kind of dumb. Seeing as it's you, that somehow doesn't really surprise me.
DA
Hogwash! Your grandfather's generation fire-bombed Dresden and Tokyo and put thousands of native-born American citizens in concentration camps. Get off your high horse and start reading history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyspy
DA
two wrongs dont make a right I beilive we were all tuaght that wernt we? Anyway torture is a tricky lil fellar to figure out. All humans have rights which should never be violated but on the other hand a few minutes of testicle ping pong could save allot of lives or it could turn up nothing. In the end torture is usually self defeating and will do more harm than good in the WOTQuote:
Originally Posted by Del Arroyo
Gah wrong one
Many people, including me, will be appalled by this. I strongly doubt whether there is any "consensus" for this view in the US or amongst their armed forces. Quite apart from moral arguments, quarter is both practical and logical for the following reasons:Quote:
Also, quarter in general is practical and logical in wartime only for the sake of potential information gathering. if it wasn't for this, immediate execution of prisoners is A-OK in my book. If you are going to fight a war, rules apply only when they are beneficial to your cause.
1. Unless you want to continue a war forever and end up dominating (or killing) everyone, quarter makes it easier to settle things once the war has finish. Your prisoners won't haved been killed by the enemy so they can return to their original ocupations, or if professional soldiers, you don't need to retrain new people to replace the ones you have lost. The prisoners that you have treated well and whose bravery you have honoured return to their homes and dispell any myths of how barbaric you are and you can work together to establish peace.
2. If your outnumbered or defeated enemy know that they will be slaughtered, they will fight to the last soldier standing. They may well kill many of your troops before you kill all of them.
3. Your own soldiers will become brutalised by killing those who pose no threat to them. You end up with a group of brutalised people with guns, tanks etc. Scary thought!
4. Today's enemy might be tomorrow's ally, but not if they are all dead.
Very dangerous morality - we are special; they are worthless. Be careful, because if this becomes accepted, someone in power may decide that you are not "we" but "they"; then you are in trouble.Quote:
Everyone dies and we live in a secular and ammoral nation. Ethics apply in this country only because we have come to a representative consensus. Everyone outside of this sphere has zero rights guaranteed by us unless they are beneficial to us. Get on board or drown.
So finally, Tribesman, you only end up looking kind of dumb.
Really ? then perhaps you could exlpain exacly what this power is you are at war with , what is its territory and who are its representatives .
Since you cannot then perhaps you could explain how operations in territory that is belonging to other powers are not covered ?
So before you make silly claims about people looking dumb you might want to examine some cases from those territories where servicemen have been punished for breaking the conventions which you foolishly think do not apply , hey there is even a recent one involving Psy-ops soldiers out of Fort Benning , perhaps your instuctors could enlighten you on that little case .~;)
Pray that your country will always be the top dog, because if "they" is in the lead, they might decide :rtwno: for you, when playing with the same rules as you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
When it comes to torture, US has already shown that in Iraq, practices that some might consider ok on bad guys gets applied on more or less random people.Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoose
As for applying torture on the terrorists because the "Genova conventions doesn't apply to them".
Why?
Why do you need to apply it?
Except for my Grandad and his brother, obviously. And another old man I known who was crippled by his treatment in a camp run by people who thought in the same way as you. And all the others who suffered because, at that time, the "morality" in which you believe was the creed of a nation.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Frankly your views disgust me.
There are others who believe the rubbish you spout here. They send suicide bombers into Israeli cafes, or fly planes into famous landmarks. They don't care who they kill or how they do it because the end justifies the means and the enemy is barely human. Why do you not praise them as heroes?
As for you Del Arroyo I seriously hope that your instructors can turn you around, or we'll no doubt end up seeing your face in the papers. My Grandfather's generation did indeed do those terrible things, but it was not systematic. However wrong those deeds were they all had one specific problem to solve and were not used as a matter of course, of routine. This does not make them right, but at least there is the knowledge that they were known to be terrible, not everyday. I cannot speak on the internment, not being American I know little about it. The atom bombs? Always a tricky moral issue as no doubt you understand. My gut feeling is that it was wrong. As for Dresden, well. Dresden is Britain's shame. Utterly unecessary, pointless terrorism on a grand scale. Few veterans to whom I have spoken talk about it with pride. They reflect on the deeds and do not always like what they see. One man I know was on the raid. He said that at the time the young men we excited by the thought of causing carnage, by the size of the attack, by thoughts of revenge and of the Germans getting their just desserts. But after the war, when the human cost of what had been done came home there was sadness and shame. That is right and proper, how it should be.
I disagree with your views as well. I do not believe in spending billions of dollars to have an ongoing war where there is cork on the end of our swords. When you make the decision to go to war, you kill until the other side can't take it anymore. Anything other than all out war is an absurd waste of time and lives. Any form of psychological torture is a humane way of avoiding real physical torture and i think it needs to be implemented in extreme cases. "Water-boarding" for a reason is acceptable, sadistic measures like those taken by soldiers at abu gharib is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyspy
Tribesman, not one single US servicemen has yet been charged under or punished for violating any of the Geneva Conventions. A small number have been charged under the US's Uniform Code of Military Justice for violating their Rules of Engagement (and some other charges). A much smaller number have actually been punished.
In the case of the two Psyops soldiers that you mentioned, they will face some administrative disciplinary action and not be charged with anything. http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?se...rld&id=3674516 In other words, they're not really being punished at all-- and they shouldn't be. And they came out of Fort Bragg, not Fort Benning.
As far as these mysterious references you keep making to "my instructors"-- do you have any military experience or knowledge at all? "My instructors" are there to teach us to kill and to work as a team. They also teach us to follow all orders, including our Rules of Engagement. When we get to the units which we will deploy with, we will recieve classes on certain things as directed by our commander, which will probably include some briefing on general rules we should follow. When we actually deploy we will be fully briefed on our specific Rules of Engagement, which may actually change from day to day. Do you have any more questions?
Slyspy-- If your self-righteous, arm-chair hand-wringing were to be the standard, then "my instructors" would certainly not be the ones you'd want to have "turn me around". As for your concern for my potential future infamy, as the one and only thing I've been advocating here is judicious use of torture in a controlled environment on specific individuals who are likely to yield very useful information, I would say based on that that your concern is unnecessary. I don't feel that I have a predisposition towards random and unnecessary cruelty, and even if I did-- the honest truth is that no matter what a US Soldier does (with a few exceptions), he is very unlikely to get into trouble unless it's on video tape. You can ask "my instructors" about that.
..
And anyway, this started as a simple academic discussion of the morality of torture, not whether or not I, as an American Soldier, personally plan on "water-boarding" anyone. Are you galoots capable of staying with the topic of a discussion, or is your repressed, neurotic hatred of the US military so strong that you cannot resist the opportunity to insult and slander the first Soldier, Sailor, or Airman you find willing to discuss?
DA
You're trying to de-rail your own debate.. Sounds as if you want to move towards that point instead of discussing "righteous" (OMG!) torture.Quote:
..Are you galoots capable of staying with the topic of a discussion, or is your repressed, neurotic hatred of the US military so strong that you cannot resist the opportunity to insult and slander the first Soldier, Sailor, or Airman you find willing to discuss?
No where have I stated that I hate the US. If I have implied such then that is my mistake, I did not intend to. Do not try to hide behind accusations about hatred of your nation or of the military. I live in a naval town, know servicemen in service and retired and I hate none for doing their duty.
TuffStuffMcGruff it all boils down to money does it? That most noble of motives.
I will agree that the restrictive rules of engagement (the real cork on the sword) have made the job in Iraq very difficult, but I'm not sure how allowing torture would help. I would also suggest that the Iraq war itself has served as the cork when it comes to international relations, which surely are of the upmost importance when trying to track down members of an elusive international terror group.
I would still say that if you examine recent history the views you have expressed on warfare are not those associated with the US or the democratic West. They are, however, common in the facist and stalinist states of the last century, and the Islamic terrorists of more recent infamy. Not good company at all.
PS
Is water boarding not physical torture?
Oh dear Del , they certainly are failing in their instruction then , as you have just made very a serious error about both the geneva conventions and the UCMJ , perhaps you might wish to check your statement .
Then again as you say later .... the honest truth is that no matter what a US Soldier does (with a few exceptions), he is very unlikely to get into trouble unless it's on video tape. You can ask "my instructors" about that.
...
you seem to believe that US soldiers are above the law and you believe your instructors are teaching you this , I pity you , and the military that accepts you , you appear to be a prime example of just what the military does not need .
Why how kind of you, sir, to offer your pity. I hope you will not think it too rude if I do not accept it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
DA
It seems that this thread has reached the stage where the debate moved from the actual topic to how the perticipants of the debate perceive each other.
Thanks for your contribution to the debate :bow:
Topic closed