No, my point was that Berg's killing was carried out by neither Iraqis or soldiers from all indications. Al Quaeda are a terrorist organisation, they do not obey the Geneva Convention. Hopefully you are not insinuating that we should follow suit. ;)

Re-read 350's quote and your response. You imply that Berg's killers (whom he is refering to) were Iraqis, who you correctly point out signed the GC. They were not Iraqis. Bin LAdin's #2 has claimed credit (blame) for the murder. That is who we should be going after w/ all of our resources, IMO. :cool:

Actually, that is not what I was inferring. I do not know for sure who they were..but if they were anything but Iraqis, they have no protection under the GV for what they did. If Iraqi soldiers..it is possibly debatable. The voice analysis concluded that most of the men were indeed Iraqi...but I would not personally consider that strong enough to make such a conclusion yet. If, the leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi of Jordan committed the act...he has no protection. By the way, Jordan accepted the GC in 1951.

as a non combatant foreigner, there for what ever reason, berg would be rowing the same boat. voice analysis? give me a break. "hey!! that guy sounds iraqi!!". would that be shei, suni, or kurdish?

kevin

Speaking of suit. . .. I think all of our soldiers should be re-suited in bright red & white, and always march upright, in formation, toward the enemy . . . it would be so much more proper of us. :rolleyes:

The strange thing is that you guys think about war as if it's a fight with a rival street gang. They killed one of ours, we kill one of theirs, etc., until the last man standing owns the street. That's adolescent and self-destructive. The art of war, as people (unfortunately) have known for millenia, consists in anticipating not only the enemy's next move, but also the one after that (factoring in the response to our action), etc. It's a very complex game, and the Americans after WWII have one the whole been too shortsighted to play. Or too angry, or just too plain stupid.
Even aside from its questionable legitimacy, the war in Iraq has been badly managed, mostly (I believe) because the Pentagon interfered with the military's assessment. Contracting out intelligence and interrogation duties was part of this interference, and the prison tortures are a direct result of it. And that's what I really don't get about you Bushies: you're willing to overlook massive and apparent incompetence just so your boy stays in power. You have one of the most venerated soldiers of post WWII in your cabinet (Powell) and you cut him out of the loop because of some bureaucrat like Wolfowitz? C'mon guys, if you'd be honest for a moment you'd have to admit that these guys, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove etc. are blundering weenies with who you'd never would want to have a beer.
As for that Laura, on the other hand....

Berg would have full protection of the GC as a "person not engaged in hostilities."

I cannot imagine why you would think that different religions would have different accents..if from the same area.

If it were as you say it would not be nearly as difficult. Our military cannot be defeated and they do their job better than any other nation in history. The difficulty is finding politicians and countrymen with the resolve to stay the course in rebuilding the country and establishing a demoicratic country that we will not have to go back and defeat again in a few years....it is so much easier to surrender like many democrats and many other countries have.

The military is forced to contract out almost all non-fighting functions because of congressionally mandated force size limitations...just as if a city limited itself to 20 policemen and had a prison to run..they would not use 10 of the policement to cook dinner for the prisoners.

Why you would consider Powell one of the most venerated soldiers since WW2 ? a good politician maybe...

I cannot speak to Rove since he is only an issue to democrats and has no say so in government. As far as Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld....They have done a great job..in spite of those in this country that would side with any enemy to gain political power. It is always difficult for a country to fight a war when it is betrayed from within.

.

That's the moment when you lose my respect, fint: when you insinuate that someone who doesn't want to be stuck with a president who has a hard time swallowing a bleeping pretzel "would side with any enemy". Makes all discussion impossible, because it isn't only wrong, it's a vile thing to say. If I can't criticize this president, because that would mean surrender to the enemy, we've made the step into a non-democratic society.
Oh, wait....

OK, now I better understand your point of view. You live in delusional fantasy world where any and all failed policy by the U.S., no matter how huge the failure, is the fault of "politicians and countrymen" who will not allow the military to "finish the job". Even when right-wing, war mongering leaders have an absolute stranglehold on policy making at the moment? You've got to be kidding, right? What is it that you think that we are not doing but needs to be done at the moment? Kill more people?

Failure is failure, plain and simple. When I f*ck the dog in the business world, I can't tell the bank, "I need more time and a few more billions. This is a long-term project. I know that nothing has gone the way that I told you it would, and things are getting worse by the hour, and all of my original justifications have proved false, but you need to stick by me here." :rolleyes:

Same w/ the whole, "They have secret info that none of us know" BS. Yeah, they are the most secretive administration in history and have lied repeatedly to congress and the world, but that cat is out of the bag. They had bogus info and tried to cover it up, but no secret good info.

Lastly, you claim that Rove has "no say in government"?? WHich are you, ignorant or lying? It has been widely reported by those w/ access to this administration that all policy flows from the political wing of the administration. There is no normal, separate, policy making wing. Karl Rove, an absolutely horrible waste of genetic material, is probably the single most influential member of the predsident's cabinet. Try to find an instance when he was not at Bush's side. You have fallen off of the couch, buddy. Get some rest. :cool:

Please explain to me what Karl Rove's cabinet position is and what his duties are. I can't remember his confirmation or ever even seeing him with the president for that matter. You are right..if that is true, I will admit that either I am lying and/or ignorant as you say..or you are.

Just swap "cabinet" for "goon squad". That'll do.

Way, way up, you replied to my "common decency" argument by referring to the ability of an occupying power, under the GC, to:

"If they are not, international law dictates they should go to trial as criminals (since they are not protected by the GC) and receive their punishment per the law of that country for their offense. If they are indeed engaging in hostilities, that would be the death penalty."

That's not what we're discussing. We're discussing the prison scandal, which is sorely lacking in judges, trials, and a whole lot of other stuff that constitute your common decency rebuttal.

Denis said it - Failure is failure. One of Bush's goons decided that the army (and Powell) was wrong and he really only needed about 100k troops to run Iraq afterwards, not 300k. 300k is right. That is failure.

Every war is full of miscalculations. If your saying here is one failure, fine. If your saying this miscalculation turns the entire operation into a failure, you are wrong. The occupation will eventually end, the war was brilliant, patience my pretties.:)

Actually, it was a couple hundred post later and we were discussing whether or not the terrorists were protected by the GC...and they are not. Only bona fide POWs (per the GC definition) and those not engaged in hostilities. Anyone imprisoned that was not engaged in hostilities should not be released as soon as that is ascertained. Anyone that is a bona-fied POW should receive the protection due them. Anyone else should be dealt with as harshly as possible.

Actually, in war, one failure can lead to a complete failure if you don't fix it. At the very least make sure that when Iraqis are standing in a lineup to join the Iraqi Police, they are protected. Arm them and train them, PROTECT THEM! Trying to win this war on the cheap is a serious mistake.

Maybe, but we are not really "at war" anymore. Atleast not in the classic sense, WE WON, and we won big. Now all we are trying to do is restore some order so the country can heal its wounds and settle into democracy. We have a duty now to the good people of Iraq to finish the job. Railing against the military or saying we shouldn't have gone is pointless now. Getting all wet over torture photos and the media constantly railing against our plan is getting our guys killed. Hmmm, whats on 60 minutes tonight? This is sad. At this moment, all our guys are trying to do is get rid of the riff raff so the general population of Iraq can move on to better lives and many cannot even get behind that. Remember "how bad things were going" with the actual invasion after a few days? Ended up as one of the most impressive and quick wars in history. I put little faith in the gloom and doomers this time around either.

Hey guys. I think it's hopeless to talk to a wall. Anyone who doesn't have an open-enough mind to contemplate another answer besides theirs is beyond any semblence of discussion. I think the only way Flintstone might be swayed is if Bush made a public confession of his whole ineptness and misplaced loyalty to our country; and even then, the fault will somehow lie with the liberal left.

How can anyone condone/rationalize the treatment of these Iraqi POWs - any POWs? Just because someone in power said it's okay and the means justifies the ends? If so, we're closer to Fascism than we think.

Blindly following the fuhrer is what lead Germany into the mess they formed in WWII (only one historical example of this lemming phenomenon). In Vietnam, LBJ faced the same situation trying to extricate the US from that quagmire. The difference with Bush is that Johnson saw it was a no-win situation even though he couldn't do too much about it. Our current leader(s) have no such foresight and even less hindsight and they're even screwing up the here and now.

I quoted the fuerhrer in another recent thread, and I think it applies in both good and bad times: "What good fortune for those in power that people do not think."

Sherwood

http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/clap.gif

"Brilliant war", "most impressive and quick wars in history"?? Do you read the papers? We're cought in a winless situation because there's no plan, the military is shamed because of unprecedented breakdown in leadership, all international alliances have gone to pieces, the oil prices are sky-rocketing--brilliant indeed. Or do you call running over an army that was crippled by a previous war and barred from replenishing their arsenal brilliant? No one has ever doubted the US would win the fight against Saddams army; they have doubted that there is a good exit strategy. Enraging the populace by letting the grunts live out their sexual fantasy is not a good strategy.

Tony, I wondered if you would think I was singling you out. I was not. You just brought up something that got me going. I have no idea where you stand, so I was not referring to you as part of the "they":) Wow what a ramble. Hope that made sense. BTW I agree with much of what you've said.

Sherwood, I missed the part where you contemplated Flints position....does this mean you're "beyond any semblence of discussion"?:)