Joseph_Botwinick
<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
As my dad used to say to me when I was a kid, "Anytime you think you're man enough, take a swing and see what happens". I never took that swing.
Joseph Botwinick
Joseph Botwinick
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Annan says Iraq war illegal
- Thread starter church mouse guy
- Start date
Joseph_Botwinick
<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
Tell me the last time we fought a conventional war? Have you ever met anyone who spent time in the Hanoi Hilton and discussed the torture they endured while being demoralized by the treasonous speech of idiots like Kerry and Fonda? I didn't realize that the Japanese were following international rules of war when they bombed Pearl Harbor. I didn't realize we were following international rules of war when we fried Hiroshima. I didn't realize the Nazis were following some nice set of rules of war when they slaughtered 6 millions Jews (although I am sure Sobran and Buchanann might deny that part). Where do you get this Pollyanna picture of the reality of war, conventional or unconventional?
Joseph Botwinick
Joseph Botwinick
KenH
Well-Known Member
"The treatment of prisoners of war can depend on the resources, social attitudes and policies of the governments and militaries in question. For instance, in World War II, Soviet Union prisoners of Nazi Germany were often treated with neglect and brutality on account that the government considered them to be inferior races not entitled to fair treatment while western POWs of the western nation of the Allies like the USA and UK had treatment closer to the Geneva Conventions.
By contrast, POW facilities held by Allied nations like the USA, UK and Canada usually complied strictly to the Geneva Conventions, which sometimes created conditions POWs found were more comfortable than their own side's barracks. This approach was decided based on the idea that having POWs well treated meant a ready supply of healthy and cooperative laborers for farmwork and the like, as allowed by the Geneva Conventions, which eased personnel shortages. There were also the benefits of a lower chance of having to deal with escapes or prisoners causing camp disruptions. The comparatively favourable conditions also made interrogations of enemy personnel easier and more productive. In addition, as word spread amoung the enemy about the conditions of North American POW camps, it encouraged surrenders which helped further Allied military goals efficiently without the expense of combat. Furthermore, while there were initially complaints of coddling the enemy, the Allied population largely grew to support this approach which may have raised morale amoung the Allied personnel when by reinforcing the idea that this humane treatment of prisoners showed that their side was morally superior to the enemy. The fact that the above nations never suffered invasion by their enemies helped avoid the kind of enmity towards their prisoners that the Soviet Union had."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_war
I think the Allies had the superior idea as to how to treat prisoners as well as being much, much more moral by following the Geneva Conventions as closely as they did.
By contrast, POW facilities held by Allied nations like the USA, UK and Canada usually complied strictly to the Geneva Conventions, which sometimes created conditions POWs found were more comfortable than their own side's barracks. This approach was decided based on the idea that having POWs well treated meant a ready supply of healthy and cooperative laborers for farmwork and the like, as allowed by the Geneva Conventions, which eased personnel shortages. There were also the benefits of a lower chance of having to deal with escapes or prisoners causing camp disruptions. The comparatively favourable conditions also made interrogations of enemy personnel easier and more productive. In addition, as word spread amoung the enemy about the conditions of North American POW camps, it encouraged surrenders which helped further Allied military goals efficiently without the expense of combat. Furthermore, while there were initially complaints of coddling the enemy, the Allied population largely grew to support this approach which may have raised morale amoung the Allied personnel when by reinforcing the idea that this humane treatment of prisoners showed that their side was morally superior to the enemy. The fact that the above nations never suffered invasion by their enemies helped avoid the kind of enmity towards their prisoners that the Soviet Union had."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_war
I think the Allies had the superior idea as to how to treat prisoners as well as being much, much more moral by following the Geneva Conventions as closely as they did.
Don't know much about the prison scandal. I was watching the brave soldiers from the religion of peace saw Nick Berg's head off.
KenH
Well-Known Member
Clearly that was a war crime. Were the men who perpetrated that act ever caught?
By the way, I would think that as Christians we would want to see any prisoners of war in our nation's hands treated as humanely as possible, regardless of how our enemies treat their prisoners of war.
Joseph_Botwinick
<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
How close did we follow the Geneva Convention in Hiroshima? Personally, I understand why we did it and am glad we did because of the result. However, if we are to view war through some Pollyanna lense of the Geneva Convention, I doubt we would have gone through with the bombings. Further, I can't remember the last time we fought a conventional war against an enemy who was as willing to follow the rules as we were. And somehow, we are considered the rogue state by the ingrateful idiots of the world. The most recent memories in my mind are two airplanes flying into some towers full of innocent civilians, innocent civilians having their heads sawed off while they are still alive and screaming in pain being broadcast over the internet, Hamas and Al Aqsa blowing themselves up in the streets of Israel. Please, Ken, tell me the last time we fought one of these Pollyanna rule guided wars? Was it the time in Mogadishu where our enemies captured our soldiers and dragged their dead bodies through the streets for us to watch on CNN? Was it in Vietnam at Hanoi? Further, we don't need international law to tell us what we as a sovereign nation can figure out for ourselves. We know what is right and wrong, and have relatively speaking, a much better record than most the world in how we treat our own people and enemy POWs. When the rest of the world catches up and surpasses us in the area of human rights, perhaps they willl have the credibility to dictate to us how to run a war and treat others. We are not perfect. But we are still heads and tails above most the world.
Joseph Botwinick
Joseph_Botwinick
<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
Clearly that was a war crime. Were the men who perpetrated that act ever caught?
By the way, I would think that as Christians we would want to see any prisoners of war in our nation's hands treated as humanely as possible, regardless of how our enemies treat their prisoners of war. </font>[/QUOTE]They are. And when they are not, we punish those who are guilty under our own laws. We don't need the worthless UN or Geneva Convention to keep us in check because we are a Democratic, civilized, moral society.
Joseph Botwinick
Joseph_Botwinick
<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
I totally agree.
And I am also glad the Geneva Conventions are there to provide guidelines to show the rest of the world how we do it.
Joseph Botwinick
Yup. What happenned is awful, and needs to be immediately addressed and punished. Not dragged out over a long time, complete with supposed ties to Bush, and demands for people to resign.
KenH
Well-Known Member
Agreed!
However, just as we need general laws to outline how people should treat each other(no murder, no stealing, etc.) we need general laws to outline how nations should treat each other(Geneva Conventions, treaties, etc.), especially when passions run high during a time of conflict.
And conflict abounds.
But who sets these rules ? The ones with the most nukes ?
It should be against international law to gas your own people by the thousands, right ?
It should be against international law to gas your own people by the thousands, right ?
Also, is Russia breaking international law as we speak, with it's power grab ?
You ought to look it up. He seems to be positioning for a big sweep thru the break away republics, and is telling Bush to mind his own business. (I paraphrased a bit, pehaps even editorialized)
Another thread, perhaps.