America's Army Sucks, Fact

In article , John Mullen
writes
"Peter Twydell" wrote in message
...
In article , Legal Tender
writes
Those stupid American's saved your ass in two wars, or did you forget
that.
Also England has been around for a year or two, why don't you tell us how
England treated all of their POW's through out your history.
I think you will find what the Americans did was nothing compared to what
the Brits have done to their POW's over the years.

Frank

Which was what, exactly?

Do you mean the torture of IRA suspects in the 70s? That is the worst recent
example I can come up with. Like the current nonsense in Iraq, it actually
ended up making many more recruits for the guerrillas we were trying to
fight, and (along with internment) put the conflict beyond the scope of any
purely military solution.

However, the perpetrators of these abuses (which I am certainly not
defending) knew enough about the illegality of what they were doing not to
film or photograph themselves doing it and play kids' games with the
resulting images.

That was kind of silly IMO.

John


So you're taking specific examples from a situation that was by no means
a "normal" war to apply as a general rule? If not, that was the
inference from your post.
The IRA do not qualify for Geneva Convention protection, so are not
POWs.
IMO people who blow up women and children indiscriminately, and murder a
woman who comforts a dying soldier, and then claim political status,
deserve all they get. Doesn't make it right, though.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

"Peter Twydell" wrote in message
...
In article , John Mullen
writes
"Peter Twydell" wrote in message
...
In article , Legal Tender
writes
Those stupid American's saved your ass in two wars, or did you forget
that.
Also England has been around for a year or two, why don't you tell us
how
England treated all of their POW's through out your history.
I think you will find what the Americans did was nothing compared to
what
the Brits have done to their POW's over the years.

Frank

Which was what, exactly?

Do you mean the torture of IRA suspects in the 70s? That is the worst
recent
example I can come up with. Like the current nonsense in Iraq, it
actually
ended up making many more recruits for the guerrillas we were trying to
fight, and (along with internment) put the conflict beyond the scope of
any
purely military solution.

However, the perpetrators of these abuses (which I am certainly not
defending) knew enough about the illegality of what they were doing not
to
film or photograph themselves doing it and play kids' games with the
resulting images.

That was kind of silly IMO.

John


So you're taking specific examples from a situation that was by no means
a "normal" war to apply as a general rule? If not, that was the
inference from your post.

'Normal' wars are not that common these days. Have you come upon the term
'asymmetric warfare' at all?

The IRA do not qualify for Geneva Convention protection, so are not
POWs.

I never mentioned the Geneva Convention. I said that incarcerating,
torturing and murdering people on suspicion of support for a guerilla enemy
didn't work awfully well for us in NI. It hasn't done the US many favours in
Iraq either.

Pragmatism, not morality or law. Though obviously, the three tend often to
overlap.

IMO people who blow up women and children indiscriminately, and murder a
woman who comforts a dying soldier, and then claim political status,
deserve all they get. Doesn't make it right, though.

No indeed.

John

"Peter Twydell" wrote in message
...
In article , John Mullen
writes
"Peter Twydell" wrote in message
...
In article , Legal Tender
writes
Those stupid American's saved your ass in two wars, or did you forget
that.
Also England has been around for a year or two, why don't you tell us
how
England treated all of their POW's through out your history.
I think you will find what the Americans did was nothing compared to
what
the Brits have done to their POW's over the years.

Frank

Which was what, exactly?

Do you mean the torture of IRA suspects in the 70s? That is the worst
recent
example I can come up with. Like the current nonsense in Iraq, it
actually
ended up making many more recruits for the guerrillas we were trying to
fight, and (along with internment) put the conflict beyond the scope of
any
purely military solution.

However, the perpetrators of these abuses (which I am certainly not
defending) knew enough about the illegality of what they were doing not
to
film or photograph themselves doing it and play kids' games with the
resulting images.

That was kind of silly IMO.

John


So you're taking specific examples from a situation that was by no means
a "normal" war to apply as a general rule? If not, that was the
inference from your post.

'Normal' wars are not that common these days. Have you come upon the term
'asymmetric warfare' at all?

The IRA do not qualify for Geneva Convention protection, so are not
POWs.

I never mentioned the Geneva Convention. I said that incarcerating,
torturing and murdering people on suspicion of support for a guerilla enemy
didn't work awfully well for us in NI. It hasn't done the US many favours in
Iraq either.

Pragmatism, not morality or law. Though obviously, the three tend often to
overlap.

IMO people who blow up women and children indiscriminately, and murder a
woman who comforts a dying soldier, and then claim political status,
deserve all they get. Doesn't make it right, though.

No indeed.

John

As a Brit who has just "dropped in" while surfing I find this
discussion US v UK very interesting.
Forgive me for mentioning this - but aren't we supposed to be on the
same side?
All this argument is giving succour to our joint enemies,present and
potential.
All parties in war make mistakes,mistakes cost lives. Rather than
castigate individuals we should try not to make the same mistakes
again.
We should also remember that politicians make war and soldiers have to
fight them - and a high proportion of casualties are caused by
politicians asking the generals to strive for unachievable targets.
Politicians not the military also hold the purse strings - and
failures of military equipment are almost always rooted in finance and
not design. A classic example is the plight of British troops in Iraq
who are notoriously ill equipped. Troops putting their lives on the
line of any nationality are entitled to the best quality and quantity
equipment that money can buy.
As far as torture in Iraq is concerned it is a matter of leadership
and morale,and not necessarily of policy,and while regrettable is
inevitable. War brutalises people and anyone who thinks otherwise is
living in cloud cuckoo land




John Mullen" wrote in message et...
"Peter Twydell" wrote in message
...
In article , John Mullen
writes
"Peter Twydell" wrote in message
...
In article , Legal Tender
writes
Those stupid American's saved your ass in two wars, or did you forget
that.
Also England has been around for a year or two, why don't you tell us
how
England treated all of their POW's through out your history.
I think you will find what the Americans did was nothing compared to
what
the Brits have done to their POW's over the years.

Frank

Which was what, exactly?

Do you mean the torture of IRA suspects in the 70s? That is the worst
recent
example I can come up with. Like the current nonsense in Iraq, it
actually
ended up making many more recruits for the guerrillas we were trying to
fight, and (along with internment) put the conflict beyond the scope of
any
purely military solution.

However, the perpetrators of these abuses (which I am certainly not
defending) knew enough about the illegality of what they were doing not
to
film or photograph themselves doing it and play kids' games with the
resulting images.

That was kind of silly IMO.

John


So you're taking specific examples from a situation that was by no means
a "normal" war to apply as a general rule? If not, that was the
inference from your post.

'Normal' wars are not that common these days. Have you come upon the term
'asymmetric warfare' at all?

The IRA do not qualify for Geneva Convention protection, so are not
POWs.

I never mentioned the Geneva Convention. I said that incarcerating,
torturing and murdering people on suspicion of support for a guerilla enemy
didn't work awfully well for us in NI. It hasn't done the US many favours in
Iraq either.

Pragmatism, not morality or law. Though obviously, the three tend often to
overlap.

IMO people who blow up women and children indiscriminately, and murder a
woman who comforts a dying soldier, and then claim political status,
deserve all they get. Doesn't make it right, though.

No indeed.

John