user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Newest Ballots
Newest Blogs
Private Ballots
Joke Ballots
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
"Look at all the wars we've fought in the last century, even prior to the GCs creation we treaty POWs from WWII quite well, did the germans and japanese treat our soldiers well? We held the korean and vietnamese prisoners we took to the geneva convention, and while they hardly stayed in a resort they were treated according to the rule of law. By our example did they treat american POWs well? Ask McCain."
^^ So what you seem to be implying is that we are no better than they were/are? Or are you saying that 2 wrongs make a right? Or maybe you're saying that we should abandon our supposed moral high ground and throw all of our core values away beause if they did this or that, then we should too? And you think the world should value the words we use, like so much rhetoric, about freedom, and peace and equality and fairness? So sure, go ahead and throw it all away just because "they" did. No wonder we're in the dilema we're in. Thanks go Bush.
Post script. I see your ballot choice of "Yes, it is a naive comment to make, we should uphold the GC but we should not expect our enemies to." Thats the point, isn't it? We should base our decision to uphold the GC because yes, it would enable our enemies to mistreat American POW's but more importantly, the fact is, we should never have come to the point that we are even debating it.
The point wasn't to debate the validity of the geneva convention, as I said, it's a great document and we should follow it.
The point was to show how naive it is to assume that whether or not we follow it has no bearing on whether or not our enemies will. We have been following it for years, and our enemies never have. So to say we should uphold it because it will protect american soldiers is absurd. This man is naive at best, most likely lying for political gain.
The schizophrenia of the neocon is never more in evident when one proposes that the U.S. can behave in sadistic, fascistic, debauched behavior, and still claim to be defending the moral high ground. Seig Heil!
Very odd.
But I suppose potentially increasing the risks to our soldiers is an easy one for a neocon to assume, since neocons never fight the wars they crave so much. It's easy to act brave, when you know you will never have to actually be brave.
(herzie ballot category: bizarre rant)
The point was to show how naive it is to assume that whether or not we follow it has no bearing on whether or not our enemies will. We have been following it for years, and our enemies never have. So to say we should uphold it because it will protect american soldiers is absurd. This man is naive at best, most likely lying for political gain.
by herzog on Mon Sep 18, 06 5:52pm
^^ But it does protect them. Don't you see that if we follow it, which is the right thing to do, but our enemies do not, we in fact have a "leg to stand on" and we in effect, have the moral highground. There are wasy to enforce it, such as collectivley with action by a group of nations or the UN. There are many ways to protect our soldiers and all soldiers for that matter. Adhereing to the GC, even if our enemies do not, is one way to protect them.
But it has been violated by our enemies many times and never once has the UN done anything. The only time those who abuse prisoners are ever brought to justice is when we win such a devastating and absolute victory that the US and the US alone can bring them to trial for their crimes. At no other time does the UN or international community or anyone else get involved.
What did they do about our prisoners tortured and murdered by the vietcong? Or the Iraqi terrorists? With vietnam they've had 40+ years, and not a single one has been brought to justice.
Moral high ground, perhaps. But will it actually deter our enemies from torturing and killing americans? History would say otherwise.
Did we initially expect organized rebel gangs of a counrty that we invaded to abide by the treaties of the GC?
by MO_ on Mon Sep 18, 06 6:26pm
[+]
^no, of course not. So is it rational to say that we should follow the GC because then they will also follow it? Not saying we shouldn't follow it, just that we shouldn't follow it for those reasons.
I think we should always take the high ground regardless of what our opponents do.
It boils down to the trust factor. This administration does not have my trust... these INDIVIDUALS, not the party. It may sound hypocritical... but there is 'bending' the rules and there is 'breaking' the rules. Motive and resolution being the most important factors to support deviating from international treaties...
by MO_ on Mon Sep 18, 06 7:57pm
[+]
Voted : Comment
Although I oppose changing the Geneva Conventions, I actually do not think it will put American troops at greater risk than they are now. Our abiding by the Geneva Conventions is about us, not them. It is our statment that we are civilized and keep our agreements. Now, Mr. Bush wants to throw this away. At the same time, he wants to be able to use secret evidence, not disclosed to a defendant, to convict them. What? What? The very foundation of American Law is the right to know the evidence against you and the opportunity to dispute it. What on earth is happening? Are these people this crazy??? This should not be a partisan issue. Every American should be alarmed and on the march!!!
Voted : Yes it is a naive comment to make, we should uphold the GC, but we shouldn't expect our enemies to
The Geneva Conventions accord isn't worth the paper it's written on (or the cards our G i's carry) unless it's adhered to. That just doesn't and hasn't happened, nor will it in the future. We used to joke and say to each other, "If we're captured, just show our card and we'll be ok." It kind of reminds me of our treaties with the indians.
Voted : No, if we start mistreating our prisoners they'll 'start' abusing americans in their power
Our military personnel are already being mistreated by their captors. It's time to throw the rule book out when dealing with THIS enemy.
Yes, we should uphold it because of principle, not merely convenience.
As for what our enemies do ... it doesn't matter. We should be setting an example and precedent with our behaviour. Despite some folks' paranoia, the world is not filled just with enemies. If we act honorably, we may be surprised at how many others do reciprocate.
Cath: it is our enemies that we are concerned with here, because I doubt our allies will be capturing american soldiers and torturing them to death any time soon. And if so they would get kicked off our list of allies pretty quick.
So this comment: Despite some folks' paranoia, the world is not filled just with enemies, is completely irrelevent. No one claims we are surrounded by enemies, but in a discussion of american POWs yes we will be discussing enemies of the US.
And can you think of a single instance where american treatment of her captured soldiers has been reciprocated by good treatment of our men who were captured? Can you think of a single instance when american POWs weren't murdered and tortured?
Voted : Comment
I'm waiting for the day when American soldiers are taken prisoner. The moment they're shown in holding cells even *remotely* similar to those at Gitmo, expect a torrent of anger and rage across America to rival 9/12. The first known case of an American soldier being tortured, plan on hearing Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly screaming for blood.
"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."
Truth: american soldiers are tortured all the time. In every war americans have been taken prisoner they have been tortured.
|
|
