International Burn a Qu'ran Day

[Fog]

Fog,
Not saying your thoughts are wrong, but the Geneva Convention says if you remove a gov't, then you are responsbile for the population until a new gov't is installed.
I'll concede we made lots of errors, but in removing the Taliban, the gov't of Afghanistan, then as GEN Collin Powell eloquently stated; "you break it, you bought it".
So we had to do some nation building in order to install a new gov't.
But I totally agree that trying to make Afghanistan a democracy that craved a McDonald's and Starbucks on every corner is a bridge too far...

Geneva Convention ?? I've heard of that . . . but the trouble is no one we've fought since WWII has honored it in the least. Come to think of it, neither did the Japanese nor Germans in WWII for that matter. Matter of fact, I would venture that the Geneva Convention is one of the least observed international treaties of all time. It's great for signing ceremonies and cocktail party dilettantes, but no one fighting with arms has much use for it. Viet Nam was my generation's war, and I sensed clearly in 1967 while in-country that we could not possibly win that war the way we were fighting it - and I was an OCS puke, not some academy grad. We got 58K Americans killed & hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese wasted before we walked away from it. With pure perfect hindsight, we should have dropped a low-yield nuke on Kabul a few weeks after 9/11 and never put an American boot on the ground. Collateral damage? Sure. Catch hell at the UN? You betcha, but no dead American servicemen and probably less long-term death & mayhem inflicted on the people who live in that region we call Afghanistan. Like VN, we can't kill everyone in Afghanistan to save it for the few dozen people there who might be interested in having a Jeffersonian Democracy in the Hindu Kush. JMHO.

 

[phrogdriver]

Once again, into the breach....

This type question comes up a fair amount, and even more so today during the GWOT (or term du jour for what we're doing). In one form or another, it's "Our enemies don't fight by any rules, so why should we?" There is a legitimate legal case to be made here. Hell, we've pissed all over our own Constitution anyway, so what difference does it make whether we obey a treaty signed years ago?

The treaty does specifically address non-conventional opponents. It includes and excludes certain protections for them.

The overarching thing for me, though, is that we're supposed to be the good guys. If we engage in the wholesale slaughter of innocents, then the only argument separating us and them is who hit who first, and that's an issue lots of people have opinions on. If we don't think we can successfully wage a war without targeting large numbers of civilians, torturing people, pick the issue you will, then we need to exit stage left ASAP.

To quote Jon Stewart,"If you don't stick to your values when they're tested, they're not values, they're hobbies."

 

[Brett327]

Once again, into the breach....

This type question comes up a fair amount, and even more so today during the GWOT (or term du jour for what we're doing). In one form or another, it's "Our enemies don't fight by any rules, so why should we?" There is a legitimate legal case to be made here. Hell, we've pissed all over our own Constitution anyway, so what difference does it make whether we obey a treaty signed years ago?

The treaty does specifically address non-conventional opponents. It includes and excludes certain protections for them.

The overarching thing for me, though, is that we're supposed to be the good guys. If we engage in the wholesale slaughter of innocents, then the only argument separating us and them is who hit who first, and that's an issue lots of people have opinions on. If we don't think we can successfully wage a war without targeting large numbers of civilians, torturing people, pick the issue you will, then we need to exit stage left ASAP.

To quote Jon Stewart,"If you don't stick to your values when they're tested, they're not values, they're hobbies."

+1

Doing the right thing (the moral thing) is the price we pay for being the only benevolent hegemon in this world. Otherwise, we're no different than the Soviets were. We get real bent out of shape when one of our constitutional rights gets trampled upon. By that same token on the international scene, people's human rights are just as sacred. Supporting human rights has been one of our most effective foreign policy tools in fighting communism in the Soviet Union and China.

Brett

 

[Fog]

B327 & Helo: You are failing to understand what I was saying. We fought Korea & VN substantially honorably and we're doing the same thing again in Afghanistan. Yes, we have honored the GC wherever we have fought since it was signed. My comment about nuking Kabul was totally TIC. My point, if I had one, was that we had a draw in Korea, we lost in VN and we're gonna lose again in Afghanistan because these types of wars where the enemy fights by a different set of rules are inherently self-defeating. This does not, however, reduce the number of American servicemen's lives wasted in these wars, nor does it reduce the number of Koreans, Vietnamese & Afghans who die as a result of collateral damage from military operations. JMHO.

 

[Brett327]

Well, we had a draw in Korea because MacArthur fucked it away. As for the other two, insurgencies are completely winnable if the stronger power goes about it in the right way. We can't blame our losses in VN or OEF on the other team playing by a different set of rules. We've got to acknowledge that our leadership has made some poor choices in both of these conflicts. Maybe that's your point - don't get involved in the first place, in which case, I'd tend to agree. IMO, we were foolish to get engaged in a COIN fight in OEF. Our operation should have been focused on counterterrorism. As it is al Qaeda is on its heels and increasingly irrelevant as a transnational organization. Getting the Afghan people to buy in to their corrupt government is a bridge too far and adds little to our fight against AQ.

 

[squorch2]

Total threadjack here, but...

If you take the long view, are Korea and Vietnam "lost" ? DPRK is an international pariah, ROK is a thriving industrial nation, and Vietnam is rapidly becoming the capitalist bastion we wished they would be back in the 60s and 70s.

 

[helolumpy]

Fog, if I missed your point, I apologize.
I agree that trying to build a nation to a culture that really doesn't acknowledge a leadership hierarchy above the tribal leader; reinforced by a religion that doesn't have an organized C2 architecture above the local leaders (unlike many of the Christian counterparts); additionally a religion with its own set of laws that exist outside of the concepts of a central gov't; in an area where the narcotics trade results in warlords that are a destabilizing influence resulting in the central gov't being unable to provide security.

So, I agree that trying to develop a functioning nation-state in this "country" will take more blood and treasure than this country is probably willing (or should be expected) to provide.

 

[Brett327]

Total threadjack here, but...

If you take the long view, are Korea and Vietnam "lost" ? DPRK is an international pariah, ROK is a thriving industrial nation, and Vietnam is rapidly becoming the capitalist bastion we wished they would be back in the 60s and 70s.

If you take the really long view, the sun explodes and then we're all big losers.

 

[Jim123]

Getting the Afghan South Vietnamese people to buy in to their corrupt government is a bridge too far and adds little to our fight against AQ Communism.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." -Mark Twain


("... and rhymes connect." -Run DMC)

 

[phrogdriver]

If you take the really long view, the sun explodes and then we're all big losers.

Didn't Keynes say,"In the long run, we're all dead?"

 

[PropStop]

If you take the really long view, the sun explodes and then we're all big losers.

Says you. I plan to transcend my physical body and become a being of pure energy, a god roaming the stars. Oh yes. I don't have far to go either, I'm already pretty fucking awesome.

 

[KBayDog]

Didn't Keynes say,"In the long run, we're all dead?"

"On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero."

 

[Mike Tyson]

Geneva Convention ?? I've heard of that . . . but the trouble is no one we've fought since WWII has honored it in the least. Come to think of it, neither did the Japanese nor Germans in WWII for that matter. Matter of fact, I would venture that the Geneva Convention is one of the least observed international treaties of all time. It's great for signing ceremonies and cocktail party dilettantes, but no one fighting with arms has much use for it. Viet Nam was my generation's war, and I sensed clearly in 1967 while in-country that we could not possibly win that war the way we were fighting it - and I was an OCS puke, not some academy grad. We got 58K Americans killed & hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese wasted before we walked away from it. With pure perfect hindsight, we should have dropped a low-yield nuke on Kabul a few weeks after 9/11 and never put an American boot on the ground. Collateral damage? Sure. Catch hell at the UN? You betcha, but no dead American servicemen and probably less long-term death & mayhem inflicted on the people who live in that region we call Afghanistan. Like VN, we can't kill everyone in Afghanistan to save it for the few dozen people there who might be interested in having a Jeffersonian Democracy in the Hindu Kush. JMHO.

In the weeks before we dropped the bomb on Japan, I've heard numbers as high as 20,000 people being killed each week. Yes, the two bombs are estimated to have killed some 130,000+ people but that's only about 6 weeks of fighting. That war could have easily lasted a few more years with the attitude that the Japanese people had. A land invasion into Japan would have been hell on American soldiers and the Japanese also.

 

[Fog]

In the weeks before we dropped the bomb on Japan, I've heard numbers as high as 20,000 people being killed each week. Yes, the two bombs are estimated to have killed some 130,000+ people but that's only about 6 weeks of fighting. That war could have easily lasted a few more years with the attitude that the Japanese people had. A land invasion into Japan would have been hell on American soldiers and the Japanese also.

The estimates I've read were that the US/Allies would have experienced 1MM casualties in a land invasion of Japan and that Japanese casualties would have exceeded 5MM. They were ready to fight to the last man, woman & child for the emperor. We did everyone a service by dropping the bomb and ending the war abruptly.

 

[scoober78]

Has anybody really leveled with these people and told them in unPC terms what their actions are going to cause?

These 50 fucktards are going to perpetuate the violence which they are "commemorating." I think a biker gang needs to go "beseech" that church on Saturday morning to not go through with this in public.

I know the government cant stop them, but they can't be allowed to do this.

So, I know there are 12 pages to this thread and I preface with what I'm about to say with "I haven't read them", but...

WTF makes the media think this is a story? You know what would happen if CNN and every other network in the world ignored morons like this? Not a goddamn thing. It wouldn't be a story. The Taliban wouldn't know about, DoD wouldn't issue statements about it, American soldiers, sailors and airmen wouldn't be endangered by it. Nothing. You know why? Because who gives a $hit about 12 redneck idiots burning a book in central FL? Seriously.