Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

"...he walked to the exact place where the body of Matthew Gene Axelson was lying. His face had been blasted by close-range gunfire in that quaint, old-fashoined way the Taliban have when they find a mortally wounded American...By the way, if anyone should dare to utter the words Geneva Convention while I'm writing this, I might more or less lose control. ...Anyway, they found Axe, with the bullets the Taliban rifles had emptied into his face as he lay dying, just as they had done to Mikey..."

Luttrell, Lone Survivor, p. 367

Seems to me that the Geneva convention should only apply when both warring parties agree to abide by it.
Just my

BlueHen86 wrote:Seems to me that the Geneva convention should only apply when both warring parties agree to abide by it.
Just my

Exactly.

Taliban are not parties to the Convention. But that doesn't mean we should stoop to their barbarity.

dbackjon wrote:Taliban are not parties to the Convention. But that doesn't mean we should stoop to their barbarity.

It has no bearing that the Taliban are not a party to the Convention. What matters is that WE ARE a party to it and strive to conduct ourselves accordingly. We just need to understand that our troops will not be afforded the protection the conventions and protocals would offer if they are captured. Just another reason to wrap that crap sandwich up and come home.

bobbythekidd wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Taliban are not parties to the Convention. But that doesn't mean we should stoop to their barbarity.

It has no bearing that the Taliban are not a party to the Convention. What matters is that WE ARE a party to it and strive to conduct ourselves accordingly. We just need to understand that our troops will not be afforded the protection the conventions and protocals would offer if they are captured. Just another reason to wrap that crap sandwich up and come home.

I understand the points, and agree that we must not undertake extended foreign combat missions and responsibilities with rules of engagement for which no domestic political consensus exists.

BUT it is sad and tragic that in our country, the only way to obtain such political consensus is to first suffer thousands of American casualties while witnessing millions of innocent casualties overseas and suffering shameless war propoganda such as was delivered before and during WWII by FDR.

THEN we firebomb civilians in Tokyo and Dresden. We could have prevailed in WWII with fewer civilian casualties and without "stooping to the barbarity" of our enemies, had we prepared militarily and stood up firmly before the onslaught, instead of reacting only after public opinion polls allowed it.

I do not begrudge the political process, but I do begrudge every one of you fvck!ng cowards who pay no price and bear no burden in the defense of liberty.

With very few exceptions, you fervently self righteous, high minded, selfish peacenik pu$$ies do not care about anyone but yourselves. You criticize without having to actually perform, perfectly willing to let an innocent schoolgirl have acid thrown on her face or your neighbor be executed by Taliban to protect your sensibilities.

You don't care until it is YOUR house burning down, then you demand with equally fervent self righteous indignation that something, By God, be done! But in most cases it is STILL someone else bearing the brunt of the burden.

If the shoe does not fit, don't wear it, but if the shoe fits, FARKUT0HELL!

native wrote:

bobbythekidd wrote:
It has no bearing that the Taliban are not a party to the Convention. What matters is that WE ARE a party to it and strive to conduct ourselves accordingly. We just need to understand that our troops will not be afforded the protection the conventions and protocals would offer if they are captured. Just another reason to wrap that crap sandwich up and come home.

I understand the point, and agree that we must not undertake extended foreign combat missions and responsibilities for which no domestic political consensus exists.

BUT it is sad and tragic that in our country, the only way to obtain such political consensus is to first suffer thousands of American casualties while witnessing millions of innocent casualties overseas and suffering shameless war propoganda such as was delivered before and during WWII by FDR.

THEN we firebomb civilians in Tokyo and Dresden. We could have prevailed in WWII with fewer civilian casualties and without "stooping to the barbarity" of our enemies, had we prepared militarily and stood up firmly before the onslaught, instead of reacting only after public opinion polls allowed it.

I do not begrudge the political process, but I do begrudge every one of you fvck!ng cowards who pay no price and bear no burden in the defense of liberty. With very, very few exceptions, you fervently self righteous high minded selfish peacenik pu$$ies do not care about anyone but yourself.

You are perfectly willing to let an innocent schoolgirl have acid thrown on her face or your neighbor be executed by Taliban to protect your sensibilities. You don't care until it is YOUR house burning down, then you demand with equally fervent self righteous indignation that something, By God, be done! But in most cases it is STILL someone else bearing the brunt of the burden.

If the shoe does not fit, don't wear it, but if the shoe fits, FARKUT0HELL!

Listen up fuckface! I've stood post in a combat zone on two different continents and hemispheres. Call me a coward again you pussy!

bobbythekidd wrote:

native wrote:
I understand the point, and agree that we must not undertake extended foreign combat missions and responsibilities for which no domestic political consensus exists.

BUT it is sad and tragic that in our country, the only way to obtain such political consensus is to first suffer thousands of American casualties while witnessing millions of innocent casualties overseas and suffering shameless war propoganda such as was delivered before and during WWII by FDR.

THEN we firebomb civilians in Tokyo and Dresden. We could have prevailed in WWII with fewer civilian casualties and without "stooping to the barbarity" of our enemies, had we prepared militarily and stood up firmly before the onslaught, instead of reacting only after public opinion polls allowed it.

I do not begrudge the political process, but I do begrudge every one of you fvck!ng cowards who pay no price and bear no burden in the defense of liberty. With very, very few exceptions, you fervently self righteous high minded selfish peacenik pu$$ies do not care about anyone but yourself.

You are perfectly willing to let an innocent schoolgirl have acid thrown on her face or your neighbor be executed by Taliban to protect your sensibilities. You don't care until it is YOUR house burning down, then you demand with equally fervent self righteous indignation that something, By God, be done! But in most cases it is STILL someone else bearing the brunt of the burden.

If the shoe does not fit, don't wear it, but if the shoe fits, FARKUT0HELL!

Listen up ****! I've stood post in a combat zone on two different continents and hemispheres. Call me a coward again you pussy!

Either the shoe fits or it doesn't. If you have stood watch in a combat zone, then you have paid the price and borne the burden, and you are therefore not a coward by my definition.

Read the entire post.

And thank you for your service.

You quoted ME you dolt.

dbackjon wrote:Taliban are not parties to the Convention. But that doesn't mean we should stoop to their barbarity.

I'd be in favor of allowing the military decide how best to handle a situation where our foe is not abiding by the Geneva Convention. I'm not thrilled at the idea of behaving like barbarians, but I'm also not thrilled by forcing our military to fight by different rules as those of our enemy.

BlueHen86 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Taliban are not parties to the Convention. But that doesn't mean we should stoop to their barbarity.

I'd be in favor of allowing the military decide how best to handle a situation where our foe is not abiding by the Geneva Convention. I'm not thrilled at the idea of behaving like barbarians, but I'm also not thrilled by forcing our military to fight by different rules as those of our enemy.

Well said, BlueHen. I do not like any of our available options. All have negative consequences. But we must choose one, nonetheless.

Nice edits Native.

bobbythekidd wrote:You quoted ME you dolt.

Yes, I quoted you, Bob, regarding "stooping to the level of the barbarians."

The point in doing so was to show that we eventually stoop to barbaric levels anyway. Why not do it in a more minimal and cost effective manner to save more lives?

bobbythekidd wrote:Nice edits Native.

Well, I called you a moron for not reading my entire post and missing the point that you are NOT a coward by my definition. The edit eliminated my mistake, but I apologize.

native wrote:

bobbythekidd wrote:You quoted ME you dolt.

Yes, I quoted you, Bob, regarding "stooping to the level of the barbarians."

The point in doing so was to show that we eventually stoop to barbaric levels anyway. Why not do it in a more minimal and cost effective manner to save more lives?

My point about you quoting me is you then addressed "YOU COWARDS.." Secondly, I never said anything about stooping to the level of barbarians, in fact, I said we shouldn't in a round about way.

bobbythekidd wrote:

native wrote:
Yes, I quoted you, Bob, regarding "stooping to the level of the barbarians."

The point in doing so was to show that we eventually stoop to barbaric levels anyway. Why not do it in a more minimal and cost effective manner to save more lives?

My point about you quoting me is you then addressed "YOU COWARDS.." Secondly, I never said anything about stooping to the level of barbarians, in fact, I said we shouldn't in a round about way.

Got it. DBJ actually initiated the barbarians comment, which was included in your post as a quote.

native wrote:Well, I called you a moron for not reading my entire post and missing the point that you are NOT a coward by my definition. The edit eliminated my mistake, but I apologize.

Apology appreciated and accepted. In turn I apologize for calling you a fuckface and pussy. However I reserve the right to think you are a dolt if the need arises.

bobbythekidd wrote:

native wrote:Well, I called you a moron for not reading my entire post and missing the point that you are NOT a coward by my definition. The edit eliminated my mistake, but I apologize.

Apology appreciated and accepted. In turn I apologize for calling you a **** and pussy. However I reserve the right to think you are a dolt if the need arises.

I'll drink to that!

Just don't take prisoners.

Then you don't have to violate the Geneva Conventions when you hurt their feelings while they are your captives.

Simple.

CID1990 wrote:Just don't take prisoners.

Then you don't have to violate the Geneva Conventions when you hurt their feelings while they are your captives.

Simple.

Which, apparently, is the Taliban's theory in this. Hence the finishing shots to the face of wounded soldiers.

The Geneva Conventions parameters don't just apply to "captured" warriors. But you knew that, didn't you?

native wrote:

bobbythekidd wrote:You quoted ME you dolt.

Yes, I quoted you, Bob, regarding "stooping to the level of the barbarians."

The point in doing so was to show that we eventually stoop to barbaric levels anyway. Why not do it in a more minimal and cost effective manner to save more lives?

Cost effective barbarity.

Post of the Month.

native wrote:You don't care until it is YOUR house burning down, then you demand with equally fervent self righteous indignation that something, By God, be done! But in most cases it is STILL someone else bearing the brunt of the burden.

If the shoe does not fit, don't wear it, but if the shoe fits, FARKUT0HELL!

So....you're pissed off at Cheney?

AZGrizFan wrote:

CID1990 wrote:Just don't take prisoners.

Then you don't have to violate the Geneva Conventions when you hurt their feelings while they are your captives.

Simple.

Which, apparently, is the Taliban's theory in this. Hence the finishing shots to the face of wounded soldiers.

The Geneva Conventions parameters don't just apply to "captured" warriors. But you knew that, didn't you?

I certainly do know that. I know exactly what the Geneva Conventions say, particularly concerning uniformed belligerents who are surrendering themselves. However, the GC only gives a little guidance on this, and does not circumvent the discretion of soldiers on the battlefield in the heat of the fight. It is after you capture someone where the meat of the conventions come into play.

So again, I say-

Don't take fvcking prisoners.

Real simple.

CID1990 wrote:I certainly do know that. I know exactly what the Geneva Conventions say, particularly concerning uniformed belligerents who are surrendering themselves. However, the GC only gives a little guidance on this, and does not circumvent the discretion of soldiers on the battlefield in the heat of the fight. It is after you capture someone where the meat of the conventions come into play.

So again, I say-

Don't take fvcking prisoners.

Real simple.

Gotta disagree. Captured fighters are a great resource of intel. We shouldn't pass that up.

houndawg wrote:

native wrote:
Yes, I quoted you, Bob, regarding "stooping to the level of the barbarians."

The point in doing so was to show that we eventually stoop to barbaric levels anyway. Why not do it in a more minimal and cost effective manner to save more lives?

Cost effective barbarity.

Post of the Month.

Thank you, dawg. I'll take the compliment.

Does anyone think war is not barbarous?