[Gunnair]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Thanos Thanos:

I wouldn't have wasted time trying to take prisoners among the babyfaces of the 12th SS in July of 1944. I certainly wouldn't have wasted time doing the same for Omar Khadr. My only concern would have been killing our enemies on the battlefield so they could no longer kill more of us, not making sure that they all had a defense lawyer waiting for them.

Allied soldiers for the most part had very few qualms about killing those members of the 12th SS who didn't surrender, which is why we were able to have a descisive win. The Germans were scared shitless of facing Canadian shock troops, because they knew they would shown almost no quarter and that they would ask for none.

All the cultural relativists now, with their hand wringing will ensure our battle against the current manifestation of Darkness, will go on. The Enemy doesn't see our restraint as a moral strength, but as a weakness to be exploited. Ayone who has spent any time amongst them will know this for a fact, while the rest are just commenting on what they read in a newspaper or were spoonfed by the MSM, while safely ensconced in Canada.

Couldn't rep you Thanos, but here you are X 5

Good call. Let's nuke them all.

[Gunnair]

Unsound Unsound:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

[ The Enemy doesn't see our restraint as a moral strength, but as a weakness to be exploited. Ayone who has spent any time amongst them will know this for a fact,

I don't neccesarily disagree with you, but I do have to ask; How much should we care what the enemy thinks of our restraint? Shouldn't we be more concerned with how we see oursselves, and how far we're willing to compromise our own souls just because the enemy has already lost theirs?

Apparently not.

To the more radical elements slathering out there with whatever cursory knowledge they have, it is irrelevant how far we are willing to go to sell our soul. No amount of Beckian hyperbole is beyond use in order to justify the removal of our moral restraints so that we can roll up our sleeves and get down there in the moral cesspool with our enemies and do as they do. So as we eliminate each other's children in a targeted spiral of who can be the dirtiest cute in a fight, well, at least they'll think us strong and respect us, right?

[ShepherdsDog]

Unsound Unsound:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

[ The Enemy doesn't see our restraint as a moral strength, but as a weakness to be exploited. Ayone who has spent any time amongst them will know this for a fact,

I don't neccesarily disagree with you, but I do have to ask; How much should we care what the enemy thinks of our restraint? Shouldn't we be more concerned with how we see oursselves, and how far we're willing to compromise our own souls just because the enemy has already lost theirs?

We need to demonstrate that our tolerance only goes so far. When they see a 'weakness' that can exploited, it encourages them to go even further and escalate matters. When battling the nazis, we bombed civilian targets...did we lose our soul and was the cause any less just? I'll trust informed opinions based on experience and fact rather than a mere opinion any day of the week.

[Zipperfish]

I don't see the prohibition against summary executions as a moral weakness, so much as the strength of discipline and law.

[PluggyRug]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I don't see the prohibition against summary executions as a moral weakness, so much as the strength of discipline and law.

Neither do I but as Shep said there are many who do.

[Gunnair]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I don't see the prohibition against summary executions as a moral weakness, so much as the strength of discipline and law.

Neither do I but as Shep said there are many who do.

Correct. They will be the ones that will drag this out and make it worse, if it can be made worse, by skirting around every moral depravity in the desperation not to show weakness.

[Unsound]

2 things;

I agree that we need to show strength, but we also need to be careful not to allow the enemy to redefine what "strength" means to us. One of the reasons our country and out western culture are so great is our respect for human life. All of our rules and our restraint, even as we persue the sometimes neccesary violence, are based on the idea that human life and dignity is worth preserving. It's what raises us above the level of the savages we're fighting. It's what makes us us. It's what leads to the marine general I'm about to misqoute saying "I'm begging you with tears in my eyes, don't make me kill you." We acknowledge that sometimes it's unavoidable, and that in the heat of battle things we don't like will happen. What bothers me about some of the things said about Khadr aren't said in the heat of battle, and that there is an palpable bloodlust to some of it.

If he had been killed on the field no one would shed a tear for him, but he wasn't. He was taken prisoner. We take prisoners because we're civilized and I don't think we should stop being civilized just because we're, justifibly, angry about the things he and his family have done. We're better than that.

Also, Shep, you say you'll trust informed opinion based on fact and experience more than just opinion. Are you saying that only those who've served on the battlefield should be alowed to take part in the debate?

[Gunnair]

Unsound Unsound:

2 things;

I agree that we need to show strength, but we also need to be careful not to allow the enemy to redefine what "strength" means to us. One of the reasons our country and out western culture are so great is our respect for human life. All of our rules and our restraint, even as we persue the sometimes neccesary violence, are based on the idea that human life and dignity is worth preserving. It's what raises us above the level of the savages we're fighting. It's what makes us us. It's what leads to the marine general I'm about to misqoute saying "I'm begging you with tears in my eyes, don't make me kill you." We acknowledge that sometimes it's unavoidable, and that in the heat of battle things we don't like will happen. What bothers me about some of the things said about Khadr aren't said in the heat of battle, and that there is an palpable bloodlust to some of it.

If he had been killed on the field no one would shed a tear for him, but he wasn't. He was taken prisoner. We take prisoners because we're civilized and I don't think we should stop being civilized just because we're, justifibly, angry about the things he and his family have done. We're better than that.

Also, Shep, you say you'll trust informed opinion based on fact and experience more than just opinion. Are you saying that only those who've served on the battlefield should be alowed to take part in the debate?

I'd rep ya if I could. Nice to see not everyone here is in a lather to shed the rule of law and the moral highground because of some foolish notion that those principles are a weakness.

[andyt]

I'd rep both of you guys if I could. Nice to see some people still understand that lowering ourselves to the enemies level gives us no moral leg to stand on. We don't have to be pussies, but if we act as bad as the enemy so that they will respect us, then we are the enemy. Why do we want the respect of people have no ethics?

[Brenda]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Unsound Unsound:

2 things;

I agree that we need to show strength, but we also need to be careful not to allow the enemy to redefine what "strength" means to us. One of the reasons our country and out western culture are so great is our respect for human life. All of our rules and our restraint, even as we persue the sometimes neccesary violence, are based on the idea that human life and dignity is worth preserving. It's what raises us above the level of the savages we're fighting. It's what makes us us. It's what leads to the marine general I'm about to misqoute saying "I'm begging you with tears in my eyes, don't make me kill you." We acknowledge that sometimes it's unavoidable, and that in the heat of battle things we don't like will happen. What bothers me about some of the things said about Khadr aren't said in the heat of battle, and that there is an palpable bloodlust to some of it.

If he had been killed on the field no one would shed a tear for him, but he wasn't. He was taken prisoner. We take prisoners because we're civilized and I don't think we should stop being civilized just because we're, justifibly, angry about the things he and his family have done. We're better than that.

Also, Shep, you say you'll trust informed opinion based on fact and experience more than just opinion. Are you saying that only those who've served on the battlefield should be alowed to take part in the debate?

I'd rep ya if I could. Nice to see not everyone here is in a lather to shed the rule of law and the moral highground because of some foolish notion that those principles are a weakness.

Taken care of

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

Also, Shep, you say you'll trust informed opinion based on fact and experience more than just opinion. Are you saying that only those who've served on the battlefield should be alowed to take part in the debate?

Not the only opinions, just the relevant ones, as they are the ones doing the dying in hopes that a peace/stability can be created. If they give opinions on tactics/courses of action that can be done to minimalize their casualty rates, and bring them home safely we should think about implementing said ideas.

Again, I go back to what I mentioned in my last post. The West was more aggressive against Germany and Japan in World War Two, than it is in the war on terror,. Did they lose their humanity... were they as bad as the nazis...was their cause not just and the way they acheived vicory justifiable? Once victory was acheived were they not merciful victors? Sometimes a lesser evil is necessary to acheive a greater good. hard and brutal choices need to be made by hard men and carried out by even harder men. These are the dogs that protect the flock from the predatrion of wolves. They can be vicious in a fight, but once the killing is done they can go back to being the gentle family pet.

[raydan]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

The West was more aggressive against Germany and Japan in World War Two, than it is in the war on terror,. Did they lose their humanity... were they as bad as the nazis...was their cause not just and the way they acheived vicory justifiable?

The difference between knowing your enemy and having to look for him under every rock and in every crevasse. Hard to be agressive when you don't know who you're fighting. It's also like the war on drugs... even if you take out a few, there will always be others to take their place.

The decision to drop the bombs on Japan may have been difficult but I think that even in hindsight, we'd all agree it was the right one. I seriously don't think the generals would ever even consider dropping one on the Afghans.

[ShepherdsDog]

There's nothing to nuke in Afghanistan. Hyperbaric Daisy Cutters aren't really that effective, and to be picky, I don't think I ever suggested nuking the Afghanis, that was somebody else's histrionics. I just don't think you can go into a knife fight and win if you play by the Marquess of Queensberry rules.

[Gunnair]

The Geneva Convention and rule of law can be inconvenient at times. Maybe we should dump it.

[ShepherdsDog]

There has been some disagreement as to whether the Geneva Convention applies to the Taliban
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=43960
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/olc/taliban.pdf

But there doesn't seem to be any disagreement over whether or not it applies to Al Qaeda, and the consensus seems to be not. So crying about violations of the Geneva Convention is like complaining about your Charter rights being violated while you're in another country.