Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The war in the East was rougher because the Germans were practicing genocide and the Soviets were responding in kind. It wasn't that one was not a party to the Convention- it was more that one group thought themselves superior and on God's side.

Meanwhile we're at war with people who chop of their prisoners heads. Does this sound more like the Eastern front or the Western front to you?

Stalin had his own genocidal thing going on, too. Meanwhile, the war in the Pacific was more like the Russian Front than the Western Front (as I pointed out in the blog entry I linked to at the bottom of that post). As brutal as the Japanese could be, the problem wasn't that they were "practicing genocide." And we were just as brutal in response. Neither side took prisoners, and that's just the start of it.

So I agree that the Geneva Conventions are not magic, but I also think that you are missing something.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Stalin had his own genocidal thing going on, too. Meanwhile, the war in the Pacific was more like the Russian Front than the Western Front (as I pointed out in the blog entry I linked to at the bottom of that post). As brutal as the Japanese could be, the problem wasn't that they were "practicing genocide." And we were just as brutal in response. Neither side took prisoners, and that's just the start of it.

So I agree that the Geneva Conventions are not magic, but I also think that you are missing something.

I'm missing something? I agree it would be nice if the terroists were nice too! No more head chopping- that's not nice! No more airplane crashing- that's not nice either!

I was not debating whether the Geneva convention could have been better followed by the Germans- my point was that your point was vapid given our current enemy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I'm missing something? I agree it would be nice if the terroists were nice too! No more head chopping- that's not nice! No more airplane crashing- that's not nice either!

I was not debating whether the Geneva convention could have been better followed by the Germans- my point was that your point was vapid given our current enemy.

To start with, it was Freeman Dyson's point. I only adopted it. He's not someone who fits any definition of "vapid."

Second, the question is whether we will save lives (etc.) by following the Geneva Conventions, not whether by doing so we will eliminate inhumanity on the part of our enemies. Bad things happened on the Western Front, too. On this question, you're being willfully obtuse. The next enemy may decide what to do on the basis of what we're doing and saying now.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

All sorts of well-put points in the Dyson review. Here's another:

• A fourth lesson of World War II is the moral ambiguity of war even when it is fought for a good cause. Armageddon is full of examples of moral ambiguity, both at the level of individual soldiers and at the level of governments. No matter whether their cause is just or unjust, individual soldiers in the heat of battle frequently kill prisoners of war or innocent bystanders. Women are raped, goods are stolen, and homes are destroyed. Horror stories are more horrible in the East but also occur in the West. Those who commit crimes are not always German. War is inherently immoral, and everyone who engages in war is doing things which under normal circumstances would be considered criminal. One of Hastings's witnesses was a private in an American infantry division during the German offensive in the Ardennes in December 1944. Speaking of German prisoners, he says, "If they wore the black uniforms of the SS, they were shot." He did not know that all German tank crews had black uniforms, whether they belonged to SS or to regular army units.

This reminds me of an exchange that club and I were having a ways back about the morality of different things done in the name of war, like torture. I heard club to be suggesting that war makes it all right. Dyson's point is obvious; it also refutes what I heard club to be saying.

This is what we bargained for when we invaded Iraq. As a country, we took it far too lightly, and too many of us are still denying as much of it as they can.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
To start with, it was Freeman Dyson's point. I only adopted it. He's not someone who fits any definition of "vapid."

Second, the question is whether we will save lives (etc.) by following the Geneva Conventions, not whether by doing so we will eliminate inhumanity on the part of our enemies. Bad things happened on the Western Front, too. On this question, you're being willfully obtuse. The next enemy may decide what to do on the basis of what we're doing and saying now.

Among the "millions lost" were the civilians killed by the Nazis- are you saying the concentration camps could have been better run? The Geneva convention had no bearing on the East because it was one country fighting people it thought subhuman- if you're saying that if we didn't do the Iraq prison incidents things would have been better for the prisoners- cheers- we agree. If you think that would have any bearing on how US hostages are treated- sorry, no. Our guys must assume if they surrender they'll likely get their heads chopped off. If an insurgent surrenders he might assume we'll do some shit to him, not as bad as would have happened to him in an Iraqi prison a few years ago- but still not good. He wouold be surprised I bet, that that has been addressed and is no longer happening.

I mean do you have a point, or is it just another log on the old US is very bad because W is president fire.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Among the "millions lost" were the civilians killed by the Nazis- are you saying the concentration camps could have been better run? The Geneva convention had no bearing on the East because it was one country fighting people it thought subhuman- if you're saying that if we didn't do the Iraq prison incidents things would have been better for the prisoners- cheers- we agree. If you think that would have any bearing on how US hostages are treated- sorry, no. Our guys must assume if they surrender they'll likely get their heads chopped off. If an insurgent surrenders he might assume we'll do some shit to him, not as bad as would have happened to him in an Iraqi prison a few years ago- but still not good. He wouold be surprised I bet, that that has been addressed and is no longer happening.

Are you this dense in real life? I tend to doubt it.

"[A]re you saying the concentration camps could have bene better run?"

No.

"If you think that would have any bearing on how US hostages are treated- sorry, no."

In Iraq, maybe not. In the next fight, maybe so. Insurgencies are always less likely to take prisoners. They don't have the resources to deal with them, and they see too many advantages in being ruthless.

"He wouold be surprised I bet, that that has been addressed and is no longer happening."

Because Scott McClellan said so? Because there was a real effort to remove the policymakers and change the policies responsible? What planet are you on?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This reminds me of an exchange that club and I were having a ways back about the morality of different things done in the name of war, like torture. I heard club to be suggesting that war makes it all right. Dyson's point is obvious; it also refutes what I heard club to be saying.

This is what we bargained for when we invaded Iraq. As a country, we took it far too lightly, and too many of us are still denying as much of it as they can.

Okay- now i know Adder has you login.

You're point was that war is bad, and even the good guys do bad things if in fucked situations- i agree.

You think we should try and do better- I agree.

As for the "bargained for" if you mean we shouldn't go to war because bad things will almost certainly happen- I'm sorry that I have to disagree. I will note that this ivory tower attitude is exactly why JFK is not the President now, and won't be in 2008.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I'm missing something? I agree it would be nice if the terroists were nice too! No more head chopping- that's not nice! No more airplane crashing- that's not nice either!

I was not debating whether the Geneva convention could have been better followed by the Germans- my point was that your point was vapid given our current enemy.

Okay. So they act in a savage and brutal manner that completely defies the rules of human conduct. That doesn't make it okay for us to do the same. Do you really not get that?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
As for the "bargained for" if you mean we shouldn't go to war because bad things will almost certainly happen- I'm sorry that I have to disagree. I will note that this ivory tower attitude is exactly why JFK is not the President now, and won't be in 2008.

In hindsight, I think we can all agree that if we all had known then what we know now, including how two years of the occupation have unfolded, that the American people would not have supported the war ex ante. In the rush to war, we disregarded those who pointed out that "bad things will almost certainly happen," and we -- and many more Iraqis -- are paying the price.

If your point is that political campaigns are a bad way to discuss this, especially when the candidates are as flawed as Kerry and Bush were, you're right. In many countries, there's also a sort of collective amnesia about a war after the fact. Chris Hedges' book, War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning, talks about this.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Okay. So they act in a savage and brutal manner that completely defies the rules of human conduct. That doesn't make it okay for us to do the same. Do you really not get that?

Hank: Stop hitting your sister.

Hank's son: Dad, she started it.

Hank: OK, let her have it then.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This reminds me of an exchange that club and I were having a ways back about the morality of different things done in the name of war, like torture. I heard club to be suggesting that war makes it all right. Dyson's point is obvious; it also refutes what I heard club to be saying.

I most certainly did not. What I suggested was its hard for me to distinguish rape and other forms of torture from the other horribles that occur during war.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Hank: Stop hitting your sister.

Hank's son: Dad, she started it.

Hank: OK, let her have it then.

2.
when my little boy was 2 he was in the back seat with 5 year old sister. I could see in the mirror she was punching him in the arm when she thought I wasn't looking. he stabbed her in the leg with a crayon- she quit hitting him for awhile.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In hindsight, I think we can all agree that if we all had known then what we know now, including how two years of the occupation have unfolded, that the American people would not have supported the war ex ante. In the rush to war, we disregarded those who pointed out that "bad things will almost certainly happen," and we -- and many more Iraqis -- are paying the price.

you posted some rambling thoughts. I asked you what you thought they showed. Since then you keep asking me about my point. I guess my point was you read some airheaded blogs that don't tie to reality.

By the way- they now estimate 300000 bodies found in Sadaam's graves- no word on whehter they were treated humanely before the bullet or stump crusher hit them.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I asked you what you thought they showed.

Dyson's point is that the Geneva Conventions were a good thing and saved lives.

Your points seem to be that they weren't perfect, that other things matter to, and that since we can't persuade Al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents to start following the conventions, we shouldn't bother ourselves.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Dyson's point is that the Geneva Conventions were a good thing and saved lives.

Your points seem to be that they weren't perfect, that other things matter to, and that since we can't persuade Al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents to start following the conventions, we shouldn't bother ourselves.

Oh. Okay, thanks. I sound like a bad person- would you take over raising my kids?