Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Just to be technically correct, the Iraqi prisoners in almost all cases are not POWs and therefore not subject to the same level of protections under the Geneva Conventions that soldiers enjoy. In most cases they are likely either criminals or illegal combatants. The Geneva Conventions are pretty specific about what a lawful combatant is, so I would direct you towards the Conventions themselves if you are interested in the difference.
Originally posted by Kishore Dandu:
Hello there!!!
On a basic sense, there is no killing that took place in the Iraqi prison; I think it has more todo with some lessIQ military personnel.
Where as the beheading is a death to a human being, how can you compare and make similarities between these two different set of people??
I am basically disgusted with the above post...........
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
The "you" in "you shouldn't have" either means me personally or America. Sicne you can't possibly think I started the war in Iraq, it must mean America. Joe
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
Just trying to figure out what this thread is about. There was initially a comment about Iraq, but it's devolved into a rehashing of Vietnam.
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Maybe there's some middle ground that can be reached, but that seems rare when people's ideologies are at issue. In other words, I doubt we'd be having this conversation if the President right now was Bill Clinton or Al Gore. I know I'd be supporting the action still, and I suspect the idealogues who oppose things now would as well.
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Whether or not to attack is moot at this point. I understood the question to be relative to the present. In other words, given the current situation, should we go in with more troops, more arms, and more aggressive tactics.
Originally posted by Tony Alicea:
From the This must be one of the weirdest posts that you ever read! Dept.