So----you don't believe the Iranian government has a hand in any of the fighting inside Iraq?

__________________
"What exactly is this foreign policy experience?" Obama said mockingly of the New York senator. "Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no."

Didn`t Donald say something about US support to insurgents in Iran?

__________________
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
Marx (G.)

If the USA wants both free hands to do what they feel is necessary to prisoners, should they not expect their soldiers be treated the exact same way when taken prisoner?
If torture is to be allowed to get information that supposedly will save many thousands of lives, why should the USA expect more civil treatment of their own soldiers when they are captured?
Where does this Geneva agreement come into play?
Do we throw that agreement out because the style of war has changed?
All I'm saying is that what ever the USA feels is "justified" in getting information out of prisoners, the same should be allowed when their own soldiers are captured.

One other question;
What have the prisoners of Cuba not been given a trial to prove their guilt?
Isn't a trial the democratic way to deal with criminals?
Even Saddam got his day in court
Why are these human beings being held in jail without a trial?
Again, if this is the new way to treat enemies of the USA, Why can not countries hold USA soldiers that commit crimes in jail without a trial?

This discussion sound like some people want a certain set of rules for some but not the same set of rules for everyone to follow.
Was not the Geneva agreement support to be a set of rules that all countries are to follow?
If that agreement if obsolete, fine, what are the new rules of engagement that everyone is to follow?
The USA use to stand for truth and justice on a global scale.
Now you want to use the same things that you condemn other countries for using?
You want to use torture to get information that will save lives?
Is that justifications?
All I'm saying is that what every rules you put in place, expect the enemy to use the same rules on your own soldiers and citizens.
If they are already breaking the rules, is that justifcation for the USA to break the same rules?

Actually, you do have the appearance of insinuating one justifies the other. Not only in this thread, but in several others. While that may not be your intent, it is the way your presenting it. Perhaps you may not want to continue to frame the position in the manner you've been using heretofore.

As presented, it smacks of bifurcation. I mean, seriously, don't you think it's rather naive to think of either side in terms of good guys and bad guys? Not only is it a gross over-simplification, the idea of it often impedes legitimate conflict resolution. I mean, this is classic asymmetrical warfare of a small group within a population, not the entire population. Having the expectation of a good old fashioned stand up fight isn't realistic. (Which, by the way, doesn't make me against our troops or for the insurgents. I support our troops because they're OUR troops. That doesn't, by extension, mean our mission is a particularly good one.)

The sole reason our military has its hand tied behind its back is because our leaders chose to put them in a situation where they CAN NOT conduct full unrestricted warfare. I'm reminded of the officer who said (paraphrased) during Vietnam, we may have to destroy the village in order to save it.

One of the main reasons I voted for Bush in 2000 was because he eschewed nation building and promised what I thought of as a slightly more isolationist foreign policy than we had been on. Unfortunately, he's embarked on perhaps the greatest nation building project of the last 40 years and to this point has managed to screw it into the ground faster than I thought possible.

jp:they did not attack the USA. we invaded them. we are the occupying army.

as senator hayakawa said about the panama canal, "Why, it's ours, we stole it fair and square". our history tells the arabs that we made an oil grab.

notice that the iraqi PM does not want more US troops ... yet the premise of the 'surge" is that we are there in greater numbers to shore up his "democratic" regime so that it can be self-sustaining. effectively telling the ME that we are there for your own good whether you want us or not.

add to this mix the disproportionate support we provide israel while that country's regime embraces abusive treatment of the palestinians. our government will veto any UN condemnation against israeli atrocities ... then why would the arab people not think we ARE the bad guys in that region?

__________________

Quote:

"I like to watch the news, because I don't like people very much and when you watch the news ... if you ever had an idea that people were really terrible, you could watch the news and know that you're right."

Frank Zappa

The US should no longer be considered as a democracy. Forget the rule of law as long as US citizens are doing it, it is legitimate?

JP5 you wrote:-

Really, where’s your proof?

Justabuba said:-

Is it his duty to break the Geneva Convention?

When such tactics are used you become no better than what you are fighting.

DuH2 says:-

And if he isn’t found guilty, what will that say about the US democracy.

JP5 wrote:-

Only information obtained with the first few hours is likely to be of any use, these prisoners having been held past that point means that the treatment was only for the gratification of the perpetrators.

I touched on this subject in my "60/40" thread. Issues like this illustrate why it is so vital Iraqi troops be trained and equipped as soon as possible, in order that they might take a leading role in the fight. Unlike the US, Iraqi troops would not be limited, as the US is, in certain rules of conduct in the war. They would be free to conduct the war in accordance with their own standards and rules of conduct, which I suspect, are not nearly as restrictive as US rules of conduct.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

Article 17

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

Does the people in favour of extreme measures to get info from prisoners also agree that the same measures can be carried out on thier own soldiers when they are captured?

Article 103

Judicial investigations relating to a prisoner of war shall be conducted as rapidly as circumstances permit and so that his trial shall take place as soon as possible. A prisoner of war shall not be confined while awaiting trial unless a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power would be so confined if he were accused of a similar offence, or if it is essential to do so in the interests of national security. In no circumstances shall this confinement exceed three months.

Have the prisoners in Cuba been given this right?

__________________
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)

So, you are saying it's o.k. for western armies to practice beheading?
Is that what you are saying?
So, you want to be able to do the same savage torture to them?
So much for living in a Civilized Society.
If you stoop to their level, what makes you better than them?
Maybe in another 10 years, the USA will stoop to terrorist bombing of civilian targets just because it was done to them.
Where do you draw the line?
I ask you, is the Geneva agreement outdated and should not be quoted from either side anymore?
How can you condemn Saddam for war crimes when you want to do very similar extreme tortures just to get information?
I do condemn the actions of beheading and extreme torture.
That's why I can not condone it being use by the USA Military.
If it's wrong for one country, race or radical, it's wrong for all countries, races and radicals.
Why even debate this point?
How can you say beheading and torture is wrong when it's being done to your soldiers and then want to do it to the prisoners you capture?