Central Command states Iraqis feign surrender and then fire on US troops

Morat

Untitled One
Jun 6, 2002
2,725
4
48
Visit site
✟12,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Wolsely, just a suggestion: Stop a second and think before you post, okay?
Hmmm......the Geneva Convention is not a rule for warfare, and it won't work anyway; and in love and war all things are allowed.

Good deal. You just made it supremely easy for us to wrap this thing up within 30 minutes.

Message to Omaha: reposition your ICBM's to 33°14'N, 44°22'E, and fire at will.

Goodbye, Baghdad.
Why would we do that? I would think the international backlash would be horrendous. We have a lot to lose by violating the Geneva Convention (well, more than we have). Saddam doesn't. Not anymore.
But you see what would happen if we didn't have international laws regulating warfare?

And just for kickers, we are abiding by the Geneva Convention, and we also are not about to use a strategic nuke to vaporize Baghdad.

Uncle Saddam, however, has no qualms whatsoever about violating the Geneva Convention, which he has just proved. Can anyone doubt that were he in possession of a strategic nuke with a suitable delivery system, that he would have any qualms about launching it at Washington, or New York, or Los Angeles, London, or wherever? I don't.
Did you think about it? What would happen if Saddam nuked Washington? He'd be nuked in return. He'd only do it if he was screwed anyways.

This isn't rocket science. It was the entire basis for the Cold War.

People violate the Geneva Convention when the price of adhering to it is greater than the price of breaking it.

When you're country is being invaded, and you're losing, it's virtually impossible to make your situation worse. About the only thing that could make it worse was if Saddam used chem or bio weapons, which would end any real support he was getting and any chance of international pressure ending the war. Notice: He hasn't used chemical or bio weapons. I would be very suprised if he did prior to a "last stand" sort of situation.

This isn't a difficult concept. It's relatively straightforward.
 
Upvote 0

Smilin

Spirit of the Wolf
Jun 18, 2002
5,650
244
57
Appalachia, The Trail of Tears
Visit site
✟15,906.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Today at 11:49 AM Morat said this in Post #21

... Notice: He hasn't used chemical or bio weapons. I would be very suprised if he did prior to a "last stand" sort of situation.

This isn't a difficult concept. It's relatively straightforward.

And that is what scares me the most...
We're pushing him against the wall, when he is cornered with no way out... will he cower in fear? will he commit suicide? will he make a final lash against our troops or Israel?
 
Upvote 0

Michael0701

Harley Ridin' Believer!!
Nov 13, 2002
719
6
63
Tax Free Delaware!!
Visit site
✟8,417.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
morat-
"People violate the Geneva Convention when the price of adhering to it is greater than the price of breaking it."


I'm not sure what you mean, could you give me an example?

 

"Did you think about it? What would happen if Saddam nuked Washington? He'd be nuked in return. He'd <I>only</I> do it if he was screwed <I>anyways</I>."


&nbsp;

My assumption is that it is not your justification but rather a guess at his (saddam's).&nbsp; But isn't that one of the reasons we are there because we feel that IF he had them, he'd use them in a first strike situation&nbsp;(regardless of justification)?
 
Upvote 0

Morat

Untitled One
Jun 6, 2002
2,725
4
48
Visit site
✟12,690.00
Faith
Atheist
"People violate the Geneva Convention when the price of adhering to it is greater than the price of breaking it."


I'm not sure what you mean, could you give me an example?
Sure. Right now. If Saddam were to "fight fair", he'd lose. He'd be killed, or at least removed from power. Iraq would be conquered (or liberated, depending on your view).

A similiar example from our own history: We refused to fight the British in the 1770s the "civilized way". Because everytime we fought that way, we got slaughtered.

The Geneva Conventions really don't work in cases of open rebellion or invasion, because they're really designed for major powers fighting over neutral-ish territory.

Say, the American and the Soviets tangling in Germany. When the hostilities died down, we could swap soldiers, and we'd treat our captives right (or mostly) because if we didn't, the Russians would mistreat our soldiers (or vice versa). When things settled down, you could swap soldiers back.

The governments stayed the same. But Saddam? Why would he? Does he have any reason to suspect he'll be in any position to care what happens to his captured troops? Maybe if he wins. But how likely is that?

The only reason he will adhere (mostly) to the Geneva conventions is becuase a key element of his strategy is to maintain the moral high-ground with the rest of the world.

They're going to overlook showing captured POW's. Public executions of them? No. Torture of them? No.

They'll overlook guerrilla tactics too, like fake surrenders (and if you don't think our troops were already on the lookout for those, you're mistaken. Protocol is to be extremely careful of tricks and treachery when accepting surrender).

So, yeah. Saddam can break the Geneva Conventions in all sorts of minor ways. Why not? What's gonna happen? Someone going to invade? :)

Big ways will lose him world support. Little ways? Shrugged off as "fighting desperate defense against an overpowering enemy".

Judging by the war's progress, it appears Saddam and his generals learned enough from 1991 not to make the same mistakes.

I'm heavily worried about how vulnerable our supply line is, and our right flank is weak as well. Our battle plan was gambling on surrenders and weak resistance, and that situation never materialized.

We're pulling up more armor and moving troops rapidly forward. If we'd expected this sort of problem, they'd already be there. Instead they were in the back, because no one thought they were needed yet.

My assumption is that it is not your justification but rather a guess at his (saddam's). But isn't that one of the reasons we are there because we feel that IF he had them, he'd use them in a first strike situation (regardless of justification)?
An assesment I disagree with. He's shown himself to be nothing but a rational actor. The only risks he takes are once designed to keep him in power.

All these cries of "Madman! Madman!" aren't really founded on anything. Brutal tyrant, yes. Capable of using chemical weapons. Yes.

Randomly lobbing a nuke at another nation? Not so much..He didn't use the chemical and bioweapons he had in Gulf War I, because Bush the Elder flat out told him doing so would be inviting a nuke.
 
Upvote 0

ACougar

U.S. Army Retired
Feb 7, 2003
16,795
1,295
Arizona
Visit site
✟30,452.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Yesterday at 02:18 PM seebs said this in Post #6



The point of things like the Geneva convention is to say that, if you don't fight fairly, *everyone* will cooperate on getting you hung like a dog.

The thing is, if people fake-surrender and then kill the troops who offered them quarter, how can *anyone* hope to surrender and live? I don't care about WMD; troops pretending to surrender and then attacking are grounds for the destruction of the regime which gave them those orders. It's the same category of violation; without certain basic rules in place, the world is even bloodier.

All the troops surendering at the first sight of a US soldier in the last Gulf War has to have been extremely embarasing for SoDamn Insane in the past.&nbsp; It shouldn't surprise us that he would do everything in his power to insure that wholesale surrender didn't happen again.

Remember, you reap what you sow and decent treatment of POWs will only help us in the long term.&nbsp; Every Iraqi soldier that is housed, clothed, fed, given medical care and then sent home after the war is going to have a lot to think about.&nbsp;
 
Upvote 0
Yesterday at 10:26 PM cenimo said this in Post #13

Morat, Starscream

If we were using a take-no-prisoners policy you'd be the first ones to be screaming like banshees.&nbsp;


Absolutely.... America is the only one who can do wrong... next they will say it is OK for Saddam to use nukes and gas. What a warped sicko mentality. I guess if it is ok to do evil when you are overwhelmed by your enemy...

This is the exact reasoning used by terrorists. They cannot fight and win the toe to toe, so they have to crash planes into buildings and put gas into subways. Tell&nbsp;me Morat and Starscream, was&nbsp;9/11 the&nbsp;rational actions of a hopelessly&nbsp;overwhelmed foe? I mean this is war, right? Anything goes???

Is this something you would do in the same situation?
 
Upvote 0

Kristen

Blah Blah
Dec 24, 2001
3,374
28
54
California
Visit site
✟6,488.00
Faith
Christian
Yesterday at 12:02 PM seebs said this in Post #4



Never heard of the Geneva Conventions, I take it?

The fact is, the U.S. is going above and beyond the agreed rules of war, and the Iraqis are violating them; this only supports Bush's claim that this needs to get done.


I agree. Iraq is playing dirty, but somehow I knew they would.
 
Upvote 0

Morat

Untitled One
Jun 6, 2002
2,725
4
48
Visit site
✟12,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Absolutely.... America is the only one who can do wrong...
No. I hold America to high standards. Is there any reason I should not? Indeed, I even stated that where America to be invaded, I not only would be all in favor of dirty tricks, I'd be out there pulling them.

next they will say it is OK for Saddam to use nukes and gas. What a warped sicko mentality. I guess if it is ok to do evil when you are overwhelmed by your enemy...
Goodness. What an amusing way of thinking about things.

Why would it be okay? I don't think anyone here say it was okay. I do think we said it wasn't unexpected, it made quite a bit of sense, it was unsurpising....

This is the exact reasoning used by terrorists. They cannot fight and win the toe to toe, so they have to crash planes into buildings and put gas into subways. Tell me Morat and Starscream, was 9/11 the rational actions of a hopelessly overwhelmed foe? I mean this is war, right? Anything goes???
What does 9/11 have to do with a ground war in Iraq?

Seriously, do you think it would physically hurt you to read my posts? Or do you find it more comforting to simply make up my position?

Is this something you would do in the same situation?
What? Pull dirty tricks to defend my country against an invasion? You bet your bippy I would. I'd be out there in the woods with a rifle, homemade bombs, and as much ingenuity as I could muster.

Are you suggesting it would be better to allow America to be conquered than to restort to guerilla tactics and dirty tricks?

Here's a big, giant, fat hint: You're mad because it's unfair. We're scrupulously nice, adhereing to the rules, going out of our war to avoid hurting civilians. Saddam isn't. He's being as mean and nasty as he can, fighting dirty, and is only limited by trying to keep the moral high ground as far as the rest of the world is concerned.

It's dreadfully unfair, isn't it? We're laboring under a huge handicap. (Of course, so are they. Air power, to begin with. Technology is another). But you know what? All's fair in love and war.
 
Upvote 0

Wolseley

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu
Feb 5, 2002
21,074
5,546
63
By the shores of Gitchee-Goomee
✟272,888.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Wolsely, just a suggestion: Stop a second and think before you post, okay?
Would you care to expand in greater detail your observations concerning my apparent lack of thought before I post in this forum? I'm quite interested in your insight regarding my psyche.

By all means, explain further.
 
Upvote 0

Morat

Untitled One
Jun 6, 2002
2,725
4
48
Visit site
✟12,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Your post acted as if there was no difference whatosever from an outgunned and outmatched force fighting invaders by using things like false surrenders, and an overpowering invader using nuclear weapons on a weak country.

As the two cases are as dissimilar as it is possible to be, I felt that either you did not take the time to think about my point, or you were deliberatly being obtuse.

I charitably went with the former. I suppose it's equally possibly you simply don't think there is a difference, but I've always felt you were much smarter than that.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,914
1,529
18
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟55,225.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Today at 02:35 PM Morat said this in Post #28
Are you suggesting it would be better to allow America to be conquered than to restort to guerilla tactics and dirty tricks?

It might be better for those who wanted to "opt out" of the war if no one were trying dirty tricks; that tends to result in massacres. That's why we have the Geneva Conventions.
 
Upvote 0

Morat

Untitled One
Jun 6, 2002
2,725
4
48
Visit site
✟12,690.00
Faith
Atheist
It might be better for those who wanted to "opt out" of the war if no one were trying dirty tricks; that tends to result in massacres. That's why we have the Geneva Conventions.
Which wouldn't really matter much to me if I was defending my homeland. After all, what use did I have for cowards unwilling to defend America's soil? Perhaps that would make them fight....*

And, of course, there's the fact that, as far as violating the Geneva Convention goes, Saddam is sticking with the minor ones. No public executions, no chemical or bio weapons so far, no mass slaughter of civilians....



*See the point?
 
Upvote 0

Wolseley

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu
Feb 5, 2002
21,074
5,546
63
By the shores of Gitchee-Goomee
✟272,888.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Your post acted as if there was no difference whatosever from an outgunned and outmatched force fighting invaders by using things like false surrenders, and an overpowering invader using nuclear weapons on a weak country.
Of course there's a difference. My point is that both actions are in violation of the accepted rules of warfare.
As the two cases are as dissimilar as it is possible to be, I felt that either you did not take the time to think about my point, or you were deliberatly being obtuse.
I'm not obtuse; I am opaque. There are some suspended members here who would corroborate that.
I charitably went with the former. I suppose it's equally possibly you simply don't think there is a difference, but I've always felt you were much smarter than that.
You should have known better than that, Morat; you were doomed to be disappointed from the outset. ;)
 
Upvote 0

Morat

Untitled One
Jun 6, 2002
2,725
4
48
Visit site
✟12,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Of course there's a difference. My point is that both actions are in violation of the accepted rules of warfare.
Acting as if they are equivilant violations is the obtuse position, especially if you do not also take into account the specifics of the conflict.

Me? I'd love to see a world where the Geneva Conventions are always honored to the T.

However, I live in the real one. So it does not surprise me to see Saddam breaking as many as he can get away with in order to defend his country.

It does not suprise me to see him use our concern for civilian casualties against us.

All's fair in love and war.....
 
Upvote 0

Starscream

Well-Known Member
Mar 2, 2002
2,552
44
✟4,057.00
Today at 03:04 PM seebs said this in Post #31



It might be better for those who wanted to "opt out" of the war if no one were trying dirty tricks; that tends to result in massacres. That's why we have the Geneva Conventions.

I agree, but I how can we expect our foes to respect international law when we don't?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ryder

Whatever was the deplorable word
Jan 13, 2003
5,383
261
42
Michigan
✟15,589.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
The germans did alot of this stuff in the later part of ww2, feigning surrender, dressing up like americans, etc, etc... It's not a big suprise to me, I'm not entirely sure why anybody would be suprised. :scratch:&nbsp; Oh well, all the Iraqis do is increase the likelyhood they'll get killed trying to surrender.
 
Upvote 0

Wolseley

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu
Feb 5, 2002
21,074
5,546
63
By the shores of Gitchee-Goomee
✟272,888.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I have it on eyewitness accounts from at least five American G.I.s (two of whom I'm related to) who were in Germany during 1945 that another of the Germans' favorite tricks was to dig in and fight until they ran out of ammunition, then to come out with their hands up crying "Kamerad! Kamerad!"
 
Upvote 0

cenimo

Jesus Had A 12 Man A-Team
Mar 17, 2002
2,000
78
To your right
Visit site
✟10,182.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
A Brief History of Germany
>
> 1871 - Bismark founds modern Germany.
> 1890 - Bismark sacked, warmonger Wilhelm II
> takes direct control.
> 1914 - Germany starts World War I
> 1914-1918 - Germany kills millions upon millions
> of people.
> 1917 - Germany force peace-loving Americans to
> enter war.
> 1918 - Germany loses World War I.
> 1920's - Germans try democracy.
> 1933 - Germans reject democracy, elect Hitler to
> take power.
> 1939 - Germany starts World War II.
> 1939-1945 - Germany kills millions upon millions
> of people.
> 1941 - Germany force peace-loving Americans to
> enter war.
> 1945 - Germany loses World War II.
> 1946 - Germans whine about lack of food, America
> gives billions in food aid to feed them.
> 1947 - Germans whine about crappy economy,
> America gives billions in Marshall Plan aid to
> rebuild German economy.
> 1948-1949 - America puts its life on-line and
> risk WW3 to save a few Berliners from Soviet hordes.
>
> 1949 - Federal Republic of Germany (West
> Germany) established.
> 1950's - America spends billions to defend West
> Germany from Soviet hordes.
> 1950's - German 'economic miracle' occurs while
> America keeps watch on Soviet hordes.
> 1955 - NATO formed to protect West Germany from
> Soviet hordes.
> 1960's - America spends billions to defend West
> Germany from Soviet hordes.
> 1960's - German students protest war in Vietnam
> and American civil rights.
> 1963 - American President John Kennedy makes
> "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech.
> 1970's - America spends billions to defend West
> Germany from Soviet hordes.
> 1970's - Germans form the marxist terrorist
> group Red Army Faction (RAF).
> 1970's - Leftist German guerrillas burn, loot,
> and plunder much of West Germany.
> 1980's - America spends tens of billions to
> defend West Germany from Soviet hordes.
> 1980's - German leftist ***** about Pershing II
> missles.
> 1987 - American President Ronald Reagan makes
> "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" speech.
> 1989 - Gorbachev tears down Berlin Wall.
> 1990 - German Reunification.
> 1990's - America spends tens of billions to
> defend Germany from Islamic hordes.
> 1990's - Germany stands by as ethnic cleansing
> occurs in Balkans.
> 1993 - Germany joins European Union.
> 1995 - Americans send troops to Bosnia as
> Germans watch from the sidelines.
> 1997 - Germans finally send troops to Bosnia.
> 1998 - Hardline, left-of-left socialists come to
> power under Gerhard Schroeder.
> 1999 - American's lead air-war to save Kosovo as
> Germans watch from the sidelines.
> 2001 - Schroeder offers solidarity to America
> after 9/11 attacks.
> 2002 - Schroeder bashes America to distract
> voters during election campaign.
> 2003 - Germany sees rise in anti-Americanism
> after several decades of poor treatment from
> America.
>
> AND YOU THOUGHT THE FRENCH WERE A BUNCH OF
> UNGRATEFUL CLODS?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0