RE: where is the outrage? [rant enclosed]

RE: where is the outrage? [rant enclosed] (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

thompsonx -> RE: where is the outrage? [rant enclosed] (3/12/2007 7:41:36 PM)
I was a "Hippie" too but not one of those "Peace and Love" Hippies, more like a "Jeuvenile Delinquent" Hippie. ----------------------------------- popeye1250: Hippies were not juvenile delinquents, they were citizens making their voices heard. Juvenile delinquents were amature thugs. Your candor, if not your vocabulary, is appreciated. thompson

vield -> RE: where is the outrage? [rant enclosed] (3/12/2007 7:53:14 PM)
If there was a draft, there may or may not be protests and political activism, but there would be people on hand in the military who had NOT bought into what is going on as a career move, people who have little stake in political correctness, and people who might blow the whistle on whatever is or is not going on. Then you have a chance to get activism going. I support our service people as I did during previous wars, but as a drafted soldier, I had a lot to share when I got back from Vietnam. I hated being drafted, but I feel a lot safer with people who hated being drafted in the service than an all volunteer system.

Marc2b -> RE: where is the outrage? [rant enclosed] (3/12/2007 7:57:31 PM)
quote: and i for one believe our service people may be dying unnecessary deaths as PC notions about fighting become their orders. Amen to that! I will never understand the desire to get good PR, the vain attempt to appease the so called anti-war crowd, by fighting a politically correct, "nice," war (the very concept is an oxymoron). War is Hell, therefore it should never be entered into lightly. But, if the decision to go to war has been made then it should be waged all out (short of a first strike of nuclear weapons): kill the enemy, blow up his stuff, and take his land! The only morality in waging war is ending it as quick as you can. Dragging it out because you want to be mister nice guy only results in more needless deaths on both sides. Once your enemy is defeated, then you can be mister nice guy. Until then -- KICK HIS FUCKING ASS!

thompsonx -> RE: where is the outrage? [rant enclosed] (3/12/2007 8:19:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: and i for one believe our service people may be dying unnecessary deaths as PC notions about fighting become their orders. Amen to that! I will never understand the desire to get good PR, the vain attempt to appease the so called anti-war crowd, by fighting a politically correct, "nice," war (the very concept is an oxymoron). War is Hell, therefore it should never be entered into lightly. But, if the decision to go to war has been made then it should be waged all out (short of a first strike of nuclear weapons): kill the enemy, blow up his stuff, and take his land! The only morality in waging war is ending it as quick as you can. Dragging it out because you want to be mister nice guy only results in more needless deaths on both sides. Once your enemy is defeated, then you can be mister nice guy. Until then -- KICK HIS FUCKING ASS! Mark2b: You appear to be saying that you do not believe in the Geneva Convention. This is a treaty that the U.S. is a signator to. thompson

Marc2b -> RE: where is the outrage? [rant enclosed] (3/12/2007 8:29:11 PM)
quote: You appear to be saying that you do not believe in the Geneva Convention. This is a treaty that the U.S. is a signator to. Once again you are following the scripts, seeing what you want to see based upon preconceived notions and false assumptions.

dcnovice -> RE: where is the outrage? [rant enclosed] (3/12/2007 8:39:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: You appear to be saying that you do not believe in the Geneva Convention. This is a treaty that the U.S. is a signator to. Once again you are following the scripts, seeing what you want to see based upon preconceived notions and false assumptions. Huh?

popeye1250 -> RE: where is the outrage? [rant enclosed] (3/12/2007 8:53:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: You appear to be saying that you do not believe in the Geneva Convention. This is a treaty that the U.S. is a signator to. Once again you are following the scripts, seeing what you want to see based upon preconceived notions and false assumptions. Huh? DCnovice, yes, we signed the Geneva Conventions but there's a whole bunch of orgs and countries who DIDN'T. Why should we be under any obligation to treat countries or organisations like al qeada according to the G.C.'s if they're not signatories? If you didn't sign it you're not in it! Like it says "the signatories will... If you're not a "signatory" tough shit! We can shove a hot poker up their ass if we want and there's nothing they can do about it!

Marc2b -> RE: where is the outrage? [rant enclosed] (3/12/2007 9:05:40 PM)
quote: Huh? If you are refering to "the scripts" it is a term that I used in another thread. The scripts is my term for people's notion that if someone says "A" then they must believe "B" and is they believe "B" then they must believe "C" and "D" as well. For example if someone criticizes Islamic fundamentalists for terrorism then they must support the war against terrorism and if they support the war against terrorism then they must be a Bush ass kisser. In this case the line of thinking seems to be: he believes in waging all out war therefore he must be okay with violating the Geneva Convention.

thompsonx -> RE: where is the outrage? [rant enclosed] (3/12/2007 9:07:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: You appear to be saying that you do not believe in the Geneva Convention. This is a treaty that the U.S. is a signator to. Once again you are following the scripts, seeing what you want to see based upon preconceived notions and false assumptions. Mark2b: It appears that you have a mantra that you now recite rather than answer questions. In case you are not aware the Geneva Convention, which we signed, prohibits the kind of war you advocate. So in lieu of your mantra you appear to be saying that your word is no good that you will put your signature to anything that is advantagious to you and then repudiate it when it is in your interests to do so. That sounds an awful lot like a bully...something you keep saying everyone who disagrees with you is. When I say you I mean you personally because you keep making the analogy to the bully in the school yard and the hypothetical lunatic next door to you and the fact that you have three guns and have no compunction to using them if it is in your interests. This is what I have gleaned from your psychobable. If I am mistaken then please disabuse of me and tell me what you think.....or is it back to the psychobabble? thompson

Sinergy -> RE: where is the outrage? [rant enclosed] (3/12/2007 9:11:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Like it says "the signatories will... If you're not a "signatory" tough shit! Depends on how you look at it, popeye1250. The terms of the Geneva Convention were basically developed by the winning nations of a war who were trying to put into words on paper the appropriate actions of civilized nations. While your comments are interesting, I personally would rather that the United States act according to a treaty originally designed to state what civilized countries follow as international law. Just me, etc. Sinergy

Marc2b -> RE: where is the outrage? [rant enclosed] (3/12/2007 9:19:56 PM)
quote: It appears that you have a mantra..." I'm taking this back to the other thread since it is clearly a continuation of that argument. As for this thread, I've said my piece.

popeye1250 -> RE: where is the outrage? [rant enclosed] (3/12/2007 9:32:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Like it says "the signatories will... If you're not a "signatory" tough shit! Depends on how you look at it, popeye1250. The terms of the Geneva Convention were basically developed by the winning nations of a war who were trying to put into words on paper the appropriate actions of civilized nations. While your comments are interesting, I personally would rather that the United States act according to a treaty originally designed to state what civilized countries follow as international law. Just me, etc. Sinergy Sinergy, I guess you can put that on your "wish list" but I don't think that ever will happen. I doubt that the G.C. was ever configured as a "blanket" document that would apply to other countries who didn't sign it nor could it be. More like a "Gentleman's agreement" for the countries signing that they would treat each other's POW's decently. Also how to treat refugees, asylum seekers and notably in that area (Section 1) that "once the situation stabilises in a country the* refugees* from that country can be repatriated." Gee, how often do we see THAT happening? We still have 300-500,000 so-called "refugees" from Bosnia, Kosovo, and other countries residing in the U.S. How many Cubans do we have who can be repatriated when Castro dies? When does the Geneva Conventions kick in on them? There have been violations among the member countries to that document who signed it like the Germans most notably in ww2. But, as far as I know U.S. Forces have always gone by the Geneva Conventions.

Sinergy -> RE: where is the outrage? [rant enclosed] (3/12/2007 9:34:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 But, as far as I know U.S. Forces have always gone by the Geneva Conventions. Two words, popeye1250. Abu Graibh. Sinergy p.s. For those who dont have the Cliff Notes, that means US forces have not always gone by the Geneva Convention.

popeye1250 -> RE: where is the outrage? [rant enclosed] (3/12/2007 9:36:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 But, as far as I know U.S. Forces have always gone by the Geneva Conventions. Two words, popeye1250. Abu Graibh. Sinergy p.s. For those who dont have the Cliff Notes, that means US forces have not always gone by the Geneva Convention. Sinergy, Four words; "Were they in Uniform?" Also, I wasn't aware that Iraq was a signatory to the Geneva Conventions.

Sinergy -> RE: where is the outrage? [rant enclosed] (3/12/2007 9:42:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 But, as far as I know U.S. Forces have always gone by the Geneva Conventions. Two words, popeye1250. Abu Graibh. Sinergy p.s. For those who dont have the Cliff Notes, that means US forces have not always gone by the Geneva Convention. Sinergy, Four words; "Were they in Uniform?" Also, I wasn't aware that Iraq was a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. We were. Our soldiers were in uniform, failing to abide by a treaty our country signed. If it was legal by our rule, why was Lyndie English stripped of rank and kicked out of Uniform? Please clarify your point? Sinergy

thompsonx -> RE: where is the outrage? [rant enclosed] (3/12/2007 9:48:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Like it says "the signatories will... If you're not a "signatory" tough shit! Depends on how you look at it, popeye1250. The terms of the Geneva Convention were basically developed by the winning nations of a war who were trying to put into words on paper the appropriate actions of civilized nations. While your comments are interesting, I personally would rather that the United States act according to a treaty originally designed to state what civilized countries follow as international law. Just me, etc. Sinergy Sinergy, I guess you can put that on your "wish list" but I don't think that ever will happen. I doubt that the G.C. was ever configured as a "blanket" document that would apply to other countries who didn't sign it nor could it be. More like a "Gentleman's agreement" for the countries signing that they would treat each other's POW's decently. Also how to treat refugees, asylum seekers and notably in that area (Section 1) that "once the situation stabilises in a country the* refugees* from that country can be repatriated." Gee, how often do we see THAT happening? We still have 300-500,000 so-called "refugees" from Bosnia, Kosovo, and other countries residing in the U.S. How many Cubans do we have who can be repatriated when Castro dies? When does the Geneva Conventions kick in on them? There have been violations among the member countries to that document who signed it like the Germans most notably in ww2. But, as far as I know U.S. Forces have always gone by the Geneva Conventions. popeye1250: I thought the Geneva Convention was signed in 1949...that would make it a little hard for the Germans to break it durring WWII. thompson

popeye1250 -> RE: where is the outrage? [rant enclosed] (3/12/2007 9:50:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 But, as far as I know U.S. Forces have always gone by the Geneva Conventions. Two words, popeye1250. Abu Graibh. Sinergy p.s. For those who dont have the Cliff Notes, that means US forces have not always gone by the Geneva Convention. Sinergy, Four words; "Were they in Uniform?" Also, I wasn't aware that Iraq was a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. We were. Our soldiers were in uniform, failing to abide by a treaty our country signed. If it was legal by our rule, why was Lyndie English stripped of rank and kicked out of Uniform? Please clarify your point? Sinergy Sinergy, if you're (your country) not IN the Geneva Conventions you can't demand the protections and privilidges from it. Many countries have not signed the Geneva Conventions. The U.S. or any other member countries have no obligation to non-member countries, only to the countries that are signataries of the Geneva Conventions. It was an "agreement" between certain countries like a "Club" as it were. If you're not in the G.C. you don't get the protections.

Sinergy -> RE: where is the outrage? [rant enclosed] (3/12/2007 10:14:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Sinergy, if you're (your country) not IN the Geneva Conventions you can't demand the protections and privilidges from it. But if you are in uniform representing a signatory, you have a responsibility to adhere to the contractual obligations your country has signed on to. While I understand your idiotic idea that people who did not sign the Geneva Conventions in the 40s, perhaps because their country did not actually exist at the time, should somehow be exempted from it's protections, I personally think the Geneva Convention was signed to prevent the sort of egregious abuses that Nazi Germany engaged in during World War 2. Look at it another way. Dubai uses all the money it gets from Halliburton, invades the United States, and sends you to Gitmo for torture. Do you think Dubai (which did not exist in 1940) should be prevented by the Geneva Convention from hooking your testicles up to 110 VAC? I suspect you wont actually answer, but I thought the question needed to be asked. Sinergy

popeye1250 -> RE: where is the outrage? [rant enclosed] (3/12/2007 10:25:41 PM)
Sinergy, I still have my Geneva Conventions card from when I was in the Navy in 1971. All it says on it is my name, rank and serial number. Say if I were still in the Navy and we had a war with N. Korea. That card wouldn't do me one bit of good because N. Korea isn't a signatory to the G.C. and they could do whatever they wanted to me if they captured me and there's nothing that the GC could do about it because N. Korea is not a signatary. What if we captured N. Korean prisoners? We could line them up and shoot them because they aren't covered under the G.C. The Geneva Conventions do not apply to "every" country, how could they? Many countries aren't "in the club" as it were. If countries won't sign and abide by the G.C. they don't enjoy the protections of it! You (a country) have to sign up to be in it! Now, if we had another war with Germany or England who are signatories to the G.C. we couldn't shoot their prisoners nor could they shoot ours. When we got that G.C. card many, many moons ago at RTC Great Lakes, Ill. the Company Commander told all of us; "Now if you go to Vietnam don't get taken prisoner because the gooks don't believe in that shit!" "If they catch you they'll fuckin kill you!"

Sinergy -> RE: where is the outrage? [rant enclosed] (3/12/2007 10:29:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Sinergy, I still have my Geneva Conventions card from when I was in the Navy in 1971. All it says on it is my name, rank and serial number. Say if I were still in the Navy and we had a war with N. Korea. That card wouldn't do me one bit of good because N. Korea isn't a signatory to the G.C. and they could do whatever they wanted to me if they captured me and there's nothing that the GC could do about it because N. Korea is not a signatary. What if we captured N. Korean prisoners? We could line them up and shoot them because they aren't covered under the G.C. The Geneva Conventions do not apply to "every" country, how could they? Many countries aren't "in the club" as it were. If countries won't sign and abide by the G.C. they don't enjoy the protections of it! You (a country) have to sign up to be in it! Now, if we had another war with Germany or England who are signatories to the G.C. we couldn't shoot their prisoners nor could they shoot ours. When we got that G.C. card many, many moons ago at RTC Great Lakes, Ill. the Company Commander told all of us; "Now if you go to Vietnam don't get taken prisoner because the gooks don't believe in that shit!" "If they catch you they'll fuckin kill you!" That is a very interesting little world you live in, popeye1250. I am personally of the opinion that there is a higher moral standard I want my military to ascribe to than the oen defined by a contract signed in the 1940s. My point is that there is a letter of the law, and there is a spirit of the law. Sounds like you want to wear a "letterman" jacket and egregiously torture people who were not invited into your club. Sinergy

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875