if this 'war' has not been conducted in an appropriate manner. . . what would have been the proper response to the events of September 11?
Al Qaeda and their buddies violated the Geneva Conventions on over 4,000 counts on 9/11. Need I remind you that killing civilians is illegal in war? The rules of war do not apply when we're confronting people who target civilians almost exclusively, and the way I see it the best way to keep the total number of violations of the Geneva Conventions low is to kill these people. If they are prepared to attack a civilian target and obtain a 100:1 (or 4,000:20) kill ratio via suicide methods, then my conscience is perfectly at ease committing a single violation in order to prevent those 99 violations that would otherwise occur were they able to carry out their intent. If these tourists - "Afghan Arabs" - get out of Afghanistan, then they will try to attack us, and we will be forced to hunt them down. That would take years, and some of them would get past our defenses. I much prefer they get a bullet in the back of the head in Afghanistan than take the risk of having them sneak in here and kill another few thousand Americans. Since they also want to kill my family - and yours, if they live in the US - I have no problem seeing that threat disappear. When these people attack US civilians, it should be personal to every American who actually understands what's going on. They aren't just trying to kill our soldiers, they're trying to kill us. They would kill my dog without a second thought. That really pisses me off. And at least these guys are combatants. They chose their level of risk, unlike the people who went to work in the WTC on 9/11. They could have chosen basketweaving.
<B>The rules of war do not apply when we're confronting people who target civilians almost exclusively, and the way I see it the best way to keep the total number of violations of the Geneva Conventions low is to kill these people. </B> You establish moral authority by committing to those values regardless of the circumstances, not just when it's convenient. If we expect people to take us seriously when criticizing their human rights violations, we can't just follow those standards whenever its easy. The Geneva Convention standards were developed as a recognition that soldiers in battle are human beings and deserve to be treated with some amount of basic rights, no matter what the circumstances. That is, when they surrender, we can't just summarily execute them for the sake of convenience. If we throw that away because its easier on us, we lose any sense of moral authority we might have developed. Ethics are earned only by standing for what's right in the most difficult of circumstances. Now, I'm not saying we are violating Geneva Standards or anything of the sort -- there no reason to think that. I would not be surprised if our "ally" (the Northern Alliance) is and we're simply standing by, but that's a bit of a different matter. I'm just pointing out why I believe you can't trash those standards just because we think of these people as scum.
shanna: The Geneva Conventions have been difficult to implement from day one on a practical level. War is just not as clean and simple as most people would like. It is semi-organized mass-murder conducted in order to attain political objectives, and mass murder is never pretty. Or easy to regulate. In practice, the Geneva Conventions have failed in their intent in every single war since their inception. The only success they have really had has been the limitation of the use of chemical weapons, and even that is more likely due to retaliation prospects. Prisoners will always be executed... We have had the moral high ground in this war from day one, and until we decide to start nuking cities we will keep it. We do not intentionally attack civilians, and they do. The moral equation is as simple as that. This really is a simple matter of wartime security. As the "riot" in Mazar-I-Sharif showed, these people have no intention of actually surrendering peacefully. They have been trained to die fighting - and to kill American civilians if at all possible. Tell me, how do we lose moral high ground by killing a suicide assassin before he attacks? He is going to die anyway, and we save lives by killing him beforehand. So how is that a surrender of moral principles? If anything, killing him to save others is a moral act IMHO. You'd shoot a rabid dog before he bit anyone, wouldn't you? If moral principles involve standing idly by and watching a suicide bomber blow up a school bus full of innocent children (or a skyscraper full of innocent investment bankers, for that matter), then I choose to be an immoral SOB and take that f*ker out before he gets the chance to kill himself.
NCSTATEFAN - "boy" has said before that he doesn't support Al Qaeda, and I think we should take his word at face value on that. He has, however, said that he supports Hamas as a legal entity, which is why I ride him so hard... I for one will accept that he is not a Taliban or Al Qaeda supporter. But his views are still based on lies IMO (like Hamas are "freedom fighters", and Iran is a democracy), and are fully subject to righteous ridicule when he feels like expressing them.
Nobody wins here Innocent men,women and children on both sides have died because of the ignorance of one man and an organization. In war their is no winner everyone loses. Instead of praising the defeat we should all be praying and thanking god for sparring us the horror those people have faced and endured.
If wars are actually concluded/finished there is always - always - a winner and a loser. And the loser is usually better off when the US is the winner. Afghanistan has for the first time in over 20 years a chance to create a stable government. Will they do it? That's entirely up to the Afghans, and completely out of our control. At least now they have the opportunity to make their own choice - something they've never had under previous "foreign invaders"... Incidentally, if we move in Iraq, then Iraq could have the first Arab democracy in history. They're pretty secular, and it would actually probably work there... That would be a good way to conclude what started in August of 1990.
Wow, that just looked wierd. I need to see it alone: Arab Democracy That has never happened before. Iraq could be the first. And it could be a good one - a real democracy, ala Turkey. They already have a secular tradition (1G). Not like what Saudi Arabia is about to turn into... That would be a very good end to a long war.
I say we finish what Patton wanted to do (but couldn't due to the "thinkers" in Wash.) and that is make an entire continental sweep....but this time in the war against terrorism.
Treeman, I agree with you wholeheartedly about the novel idea of democracy in not just the Arab World, but the whole muslim world. Like I have stated many times: I feel many Arab Nations use Isreal as a crutch or a rallying cry to cover up their own oppressive, totalitarian, corrupt regimes. I very much disagree with Isreal's apartheid regime, but Arab nations are not much better. A few Points I Disagree with you On: 1.) If Arab Democracy was such a paramount idea, why did the US and French overthrow a democratically elected Muslim government in Algeria causing years of civil war and bloodshed because we helped place a totalitarian, oppressive regime in power instead of the democratically elected government. 2.) Iran really is coming into its own. Since the elections have been in place, the population is becoming much more open to ideas and has the highest women literacy rate in the middle east. They even supported the efforts in Afghanistan (though they have clashed with the Taliban in regards to Sunni vs. Shiite philosophy. 3.) If we throw away our honor in war,what have we become? The enemy? I feel that the Taliban and Al-Queda network need to be eliminated and shattered, but slaughtering people will simply water the seeds of hatred in an already tumultuous region. Viewing the Marshall Plan shows how we can help post war nations help themselves and us through economic means. I believe we can kill a few thousand Taliban people, slaughter them and it won't finish the problem, it will simply compound it. Like you constantly say, many in the Arab world don't like America, I see acts of honor and compassion to prisoners as a way of showing that population that their propaganda from their government is wrong.
