LTC Allen West to run for Congress

[DesertFox]

Retired Lt. Col. Allen West thinks the good people of Florida respect a leader who takes bold action to get results. He’s confident they’ll vote for him in November because of — and in spite of — an incident in which he took the law into his own hands in Iraq to protect his troops. ...

His goal is to land a seat on the House Armed Services Committee, where he believes he’s uniquely qualified to be an experienced voice for the troops.

Still, even with a solid 22-year Army career to back up his claims, he suffered a significant setback in October 2003, when he was relieved of command of 2nd Battalion, 20th Field Artillery, 4th Infantry Division for his illegal treatment of a detainee in Iraq.

More (http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/01/military_westcongress_080103w/)

[DesertFox]

He gots my vote. This is a man of courage and integrity, both proven literally under fire.

[buckeyepete]

If only we had the likes of this man in our political arena, we wouldn't be debating today who our next POTUS will be. True, the libtards, the career political families, and all others who want to 'talk a war' will denounce someone like this. But, until we again become a world power, a strong military nation, we will be offering the lesser of two evils to our sheeple to lead our country.

I'm again feeling that I may have to write my own name in,in the upcoming election, because I refuse to vote for a coward. All the front runners talk a good talk about the war in Iraq, but, being career politicians I know they'll screw us after they take office.

Just my opinion, for what it's worth.

[DoctorDoom]

(H)e was relieved of command ... for his illegal treatment of a detainee in Iraq.We haven't won a war since politicians and lawyers wrested control of our military and its actions from the Pentagon and its experts.

We burden our troops with the outrageous Geneva Conventions bullshit. Show me ONE enemy of America that has abided by that crap. Just one. The concept of what is "legal" in war is fostered by traitors who want to hamstring American military forces and to give aid, comfort and moral support to those who want to kill us.

"You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out."
-- General William Tecumseh Sherman to the Mayor and Councilmen of Atlanta

"I've been where you are now and I know just how you feel. It's entirely natural that there should beat in the breast of every one of you a hope and desire that some day you can use the skill you have acquired here.

"Suppress it! You don't know the horrible aspects of war. I've been through two wars and I know. I've seen cities and homes in ashes. I've seen thousands of men lying on the ground, their dead faces looking up at the skies. I tell you, war is hell!"
-- General William Tecumseh Sherman to cadets, Ohio State Fair, 1880 (War is hell! (http://www.mi5th.org/warishell.htm)

Truer words were never spoken. The purpose of war is to win, not to be nice to the enemy. And winning means either destroying the enemy or rendering him incapable of, or terrified of the consequences of, continuing to fight.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki drove home to Hirohito et al the reality that Japan was facing annihilation if they continued to fight. And it gave them a way to save face in surrender. In today's world of rule by cowards and traitors, the nukings would be deemed illegal and the US would be condemned and tried in a UN kangaroo court.

We will never again win a war until we return the waging of war to the control of the warriors, and we tell the whiners, appeasers, cowards and traitors to STFU or be dealt with appropriately.

[DesertFox]

Show me ONE enemy of America that has abided by that crap. Just one. Erwin Rommel in WWI and WWII. Heinz Guderian in both world wars. Hermann Balck in both. There were scores of them, Doc, on the German side in those wars. The Germans did not generally treat Americans and Brits badly.

We do need stout rules against torture and mistreatment of helpless enemy -- for the sake of our own side, not for their sakes. Once your own troops know there are no limits, moral authority breaks down, demoralization sets in and then you get things such as fraggings.

The prollem isn't the Geneva Conventions. It's idiotic, unrealistic Lefty civilians who think you can fight war the way you go to work every morning. War is a dirty business and shit's gonna happen. Shit no one wanted to happen. It takes adults to deal with the real world in all its cruelty, and Left liberals aren't. In the heat of battle, knocking someone around or shooting because you thought they were the enemy and guessed wrong -- that isn't wrong and it isn't evil.

We have to lose the stupid people in positions of authority.

[DoctorDoom]

Erwin Rommel in WWI and WWII. Heinz Guderian in both world wars. Hermann Balck in both. There were scores of them, Doc, on the German side in those wars. The Germans did not generally treat Americans and Brits badly.Content deleted as irrelevant based on further reading, since in WW1 and WW2, non-combatants were not addressed by the GC.

[DesertFox]

You moved the goalposts, Doc. The original challenge didn't say that. It said, Show me ONE enemy of America that has abided by that crap. I showed three, and can show a whole bunch more.

That whole approach isn't productive anyway, because someone can turn the tables and say, "Show me ONE American war where nobody got abused by Americans! Just ONE!" While we are nowhere near as guilty as other parties, we are not blameless.

But that isn't my main point. My main point is that we need those rules for our own good, and our people know it.

If the Germans seemingly adhered to the Conventions, it was purely for show. Depends on the Germans. I named three Germans (and can name more) who adhered to the Conventions when they fought us. They did not do it for show. Rommel especially was noted for chivalrous conduct in battle and his men followed his lead.

[DoctorDoom]

Germany was the enemy. We were at war with Germany, not with Rommel, Guderian and Balck. In WW1, the 1929 GC regardoing POWs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention_(1929)) did not exist, so Germany could not have been bound by it. So how zealously did Nazi Germany adhere to it in WW2?

IAC, the present Geneva Conventions were established in 1949, well after WW2 ended.

The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols
(complete versions)

The first Geneva Convention of 1864 dealt exclusively with care for wounded soldiers; the law was later adapted to cover warfare at sea and prisoners of war.

In 1949 the Conventions were revised and expanded:

1st Convention
- wounded soldiers on the battlefield

2nd Convention
- wounded and shipwrecked at sea

3rd Convention
- prisoners of war

4th Convention
- civilians under enemy control

In 1977 two Additional Protocols were added:

1st Protocol
- international conflicts

2nd Protocol
- non-international conflicts

In 2005 Additional Protocol III was adopted:

3rd Protocol
- additional distinctive emblemThe Geneva Conventions: the core of international humanitarian law (http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/genevaconventions)

The point is that we have not warred against a nation that adhered to the GC as they exist now, and because we handicap ourselves by our unilateral approach, we have not definitively won a war since they were enacted.

That whole approach isn't productive anyway, because someone can turn the tables and say, "Show me ONE American war where nobody got abused by Americans! Just ONE!" While we are nowhere near as guilty as other parties, we are not blameless.The difference is that if we violate the GC, it is the rare exception, not SOP. And IMO, if we are fighting an enemy that uses them for toilet paper, we are crippling ourselves by faithfully following them.

War is not a civil, gentlemanly disagreement. It's kill or be killed, and the only way to be victorious is to kill enough of the enemy to dissuade them from further action.

In our day, if our soldiers are being killed by terrorists who hide behind women and children (a violation of the 4th Convention), then we are foolish not to shoot them through their shields.

If the enemy sites its legitimate military targets in civilian areas (forbidden by the GC but SOP in Iraq, "Palestine", etc.), then "collateral damage" is unavoidable, and we should not hesitate to attack in order to avoid it.

The third Convention requires combatants to wear distinctive emblems. They are supposed to follow the rules of war and they are supposed to carry their weapons openly. So disguised soldiers who don't show their weapons and don't have recognizable emblems are a violation of the Third Geneva Convention. If the enemy wears civilian clothing and is indistinguishable from civilians, all must treated as the enemy.

The world of war in the 21st century was forever changed on 9/11/2001. If we don't adapt to it, we will lose more than wars "over there". And if the GCs impede our prosecution of war and subject our personnel to grievous danger, they should be ignored.

[DesertFox]

Doc, you keep moving the goal posts. You said: Show me ONE enemy of America that has abided by that crap. Just one. In WWI and again in WWII, the three men I named were enemies of America. And regardless of when the GC were adopted, those same three men abided by them in both world wars as far as their treatment of Americans was concerned.

All the GC did was encode the notion of chivalrous treatment of enemy prisoners, and that idea had been around since the 13th Century or thereabouts.

[DoctorDoom]

Since the GC re POWs did not exist until after WW!, the citing of the three re WW1 is immaterial.

All the GC did was encode the notion of chivalrous treatment of enemy prisoners, and that idea had been around since the 13th Century or thereabouts.That's evading the matter. The "crap" refered to ...

We burden our troops with the outrageous Geneva Conventions bullshit. Show me ONE enemy of America that has abided by that crap. Just one.... is the one-sided limitation imposed by the GCs, not by chivalry, which has been dead since the last knight in shining armor died. My comment was specifically re the GC.

[DesertFox]

It's only immaterial if you choose to neglect the whole idea of the GC, which is that your enemy is a human being and you should treat him decently in captivity. That was the idea behind chivalry. Chivalry hasn't died; Rommel was famous for just that -- chivalry -- and his conduct along those lines strongly influenced the conduct of the British in the desert war.

[DoctorDoom]

It's only immaterial if you choose to neglect the whole idea of the GC, which is that your enemy is a human being and you should treat him decently in captivity.It's nice in theory.

That was the idea behind chivalry. Chivalry hasn't died; Rommel was famous for just that -- chivalry -- and his conduct along those lines strongly influenced the conduct of the British in the desert war.Assuming for a moment that Rommel chivalrously adhered to the 1929 Convention on POWs, did Hitler and Nazi Germany? Did the Japanese? Did the North Koreans? Did the North Vietnamese? Did Saddam's bully boys? Do the terrorists?

I'm specifically addressing the Geneva Conventions as they relate to nations and groups against which the US has waged war since they were adopted. A few exceptions do not invalidate the rule, Hogan's Heroes notwithstanding.

However, nations vary in their dedication to following these laws, and historically the treatment of POWs has varied greatly. During the twentieth century, Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were notorious for atrocities against prisoners during World War II. Torture of prisoners was routine in conflicts in Korea and Vietnam

[snip]

Germany and Italy generally treated prisoners from the British Commonwealth, France, the U.S. and other western allies, in accordance with the Geneva Convention (1929), which had been signed by these countries [3]. Nazi Germany did not extend this level of treatment to non-Western prisoners, such as the Soviets, who suffered harsh captivities and died in large numbers while in captivity. The Empire of Japan also did not treat prisoners of war in accordance with the Geneva Convention.Prisoner of war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_war)

Chivalry evidently didn't apply to the Soviet POWs. One thus questions the sincerity of the Nazis being chivalrous to western prisoners.

I repeat my statement that since the signing of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the US has not had an indisputable victory in combat, because its enemies ignored the Conventions that bound us. And when the domestic traitors assumed control of US military operations, victory became all but impossible.

[DesertFox]

Refer to your post. You didn't specify Nazi Germany, or the Soviets, or anyone or anything else. You said: Show me ONE enemy of America that has abided by that crap. Just one. Now you can't argue that Rommel et al weren't enemies of America. They were. And how the Nazis treated Jews and Russians and Ukrainians and Poles is outside the scope of the question you asked.

You are of course technically correct about the GC not even coming into being until after WWII; and as I pointed out earlier, in different words, that's like evading the point of parables by sticking to their precise wording.

BE THAT AS IT MAY: We clearly disagree and won't be agreeing. No biggie.

since the signing of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the US has not had an indisputable victory in combat, because its enemies ignored the Conventions that bound us. And when the domestic traitors assumed control of US military operations, victory became all but impossible. I would say that the domestic traitors are the ones who have kept us from doing what needed doing in Korea and Vietnam. They are worse enemies than the enemies on the battlefield, who are at least honest about why they're there.