Text 18280, 140 rader
Skriven 2005-12-09 16:50:51 av Raymond Yates (1:3613/48)
  Kommentar till text 18250 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Copyright
=================
 MV> Hello Raymond,

 MV>>>>> There is no such thing as "fair" in war. War is where one uses
 MV>>>>> all means available to achieve one's goal. This usually means
 MV>>>>> that the man wit the bigger gun overruns the other. Nothing
 MV>>>>> "fair" about it.

 >>>> If that were true, then why is there a Geneva Convention?

 MV>>> The Geneva convention was a nice try. But what good is it if
 MV>>> the party with the biggest gun, the US, ignores it when it does
 MV>>> not suit their agenda?

 >> I don't see where we've ignored it.

 MV> Ask the "guests" at the Gitmo hotel....

Who fall in te cracks of the Convention, AFAICT. Esle they'd be treated
differently as it is, they receive the benifits accorded to POW's.

 >> exploited the loopholes, yes, ignored, no. read it reference to
 >> teh definition of combatants. http://www.genevaconventions.org/

 MV> That's just word games. For all intents and purposes the prisoners at
 MV> Guantanomo Bay are prisoners of war. If the US really *wanted* to play
 MV> fair, they'd not be looking for loopholes and play word games to avoid
 MV> being bound by the Geneva convention. They'd just apply it.

OK, so presume that they are Prisoners of War. That measn we get to keep them
until the war's over, right? we don't have to have hearings and tribunals, we
just get to house them until one of two thngs happen, a ending of the war, or
a prisoner echange.  So, where's the problem?

 MV> But they do not, they play judge in their own case and simply rule
 MV> that the Geneva convention does not apply. The Geneva convention was
 MV> meant to protect the weaket party - the prisoner - against the captor
 MV> abusing his power. What good is that if the captor can unlateraly set
 MV> it aside at will simply by labelling the prisoners as "illegal
 MV> combatants"?

Amd yet, they get the /exact/ treatment that would if the were POW's. What's
the problem?

 MV> And of course Guantanomo bay is noit the one and only example of the
 MV> US ignoring the Geneva Convention. When the Iraqies showed the
 MV> captured amercican soldiers on TV, you screemed bloody. Two weeks
 MV> later, the US did the same with captured Iraqi soldiers...

OK, I can buy that. but . was the media state-run, or allowed to show that
video? there's a difference.

 MV>>> One can not win a guerrilla war against a party fighting on its
 MV>>> own territory. You guys still haven't learned that lesson.

 >> Although it's never been done fore, does not mean there's not
 >> a first time.

 MV> True. Just like stones. So far they all faal down when dropped, but
 MV> that doesn't mean there can's be s first time for one that goes up...

 >> But that speculative, and irrelevant.

 MV> I don't think so...

 >>>> had we gone back in with the came policies and tactics, yes.
 >>>> but there were other optins available that were not explored.
 >>>> Special Forces for example were doing a very good job behind
 >>>> the lines and in the jungle, but were undersupported. I believe
 >>>> thay had the hearts and minds of the people better than the
 >>>> regulr units did as they lived as the natives did. In some
 >>>> cases, it was hard to tell them apart after a few months.
 >>>> Regular commanders did not undertsand that.

 MV>>> Maybe. I can not prove it of course, but I think those special
 MV>>> troop would have been outnumbered and lost in the end too.

Those troops, those tactics, they were supposed to be outnumbered, this does
not mean ineffective. In one area alone, a Special Forces "B" team tied up the
resources of an NVA regiment for several months. That was 20 against 1,000,
and the 20 were winning. Why? They were practicing guerilla war against
conventional troops. not exactly on own territory, except for the Hmong, who
lived there and only needed  better weapons and tactics.

 >> It wasn't about numbers, Michiel, it was about tactics.

 MV> Hmmm... why do I get the feeling that this "tactics" are in violation
 MV> of the Geneve Convention...?

Beats me, as it was't. I can see why you would think that way, but that's
perhaps just not having enough information?

 >> They had a tactical doctrine that worked,

 MV> If it worked, what was stopping the other side from using the same
 MV> tactic? Outnumbered again...

And yet, they were successfull until they were withdrawn.. and other more
favored tactics applied. wrongly, my opinion, but that's an informed one.

 >> better than conventiaonl ground assualt. Had then
 >> dactrine been explaned it would have reversed the tables on
 >> how the war was fought, and the NVA would have had to use the
 >> tactics we "lost" with.

 MV> Why would the NVA be forced to use the "losing" tactics? I am afriad I
 MV> do not follow you.

Simple it would have been Conventional forces against guerillas, with the NVA
being the conventional forces. You are awre of the difference between the NVA
and th VC, correct? Vietnam was a lot more than a guerilla war.. there were
conventional units employed on both sides. Ask any member of any firebased
attacked by human wave assualts by NVA regiments, with heavy weapons support.

 MV>>> True, it is not over yet. But the writing is on the wall, the
 MV>>> insurgents are getting stronger instead of weaker. One does not
 MV>>> need a crystal ball to predict that Iraq will become a remake of
 MV>>> Vietnam.

 >> I'm not so sure, and there are many differences. I'm willing to
 >> wait and see.

 MV> You can't free a fish from water...

You've not seen the ones you can, have you?  Not all cretures in the water are
fish.

 >>>> Me, personally, I /like/ "Speak softly, and carry a big
 >>>> stick".. We're not so good at the speak softly part, but
 >>>> I would hope we work on it.

 MV>>> Too late, the damage has already been done.

 >> Perhaps, perhaps not , any change would be an improvement.

 MV> It will get worse before it gets better...

Probably, but I would hope better arrives.

---
 * Origin: Ray's Rocket Shop - Out to Launch (1:3613/48)