Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Hearts and Minds

  1. Oct 20, 2005 #1

    Art

    User Avatar

    It seems the US military have still a lot to learn about winning over hearts and minds.

    Desecrating the dead seems to me to be somewhat counter-productive. :rolleyes:
    http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=2121322005
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 20, 2005 #2
  4. Oct 20, 2005 #3
  5. Oct 21, 2005 #4
    do americans find it concerning that Geneva Conventions are being thrown out the window in this conflict? i would be outraged if canadian soldiers did something like this (im canadian). i mean how can you expect to be protected by the geneva convention in the future if your countrymen are ignoring it when they find it convenient???
     
  6. Oct 21, 2005 #5
    Some are very upset. Some are happy that we're doing these things, as long as muslims are the victims. Many don't really have an opinion.
     
  7. Oct 21, 2005 #6
    I think the entire country would be outraged.

    For those of you who don't think I'm serious, or don't believe me - just look at what happened last time we did, the entire regiment was disbanded, some 20 people were prosecuted and the minister of national defence was forced to resign (pretty much as high as you could go short of the PM).
     
  8. Oct 21, 2005 #7
    I'm outraged. I'm also a hell of a lot more vocal than I was a few years ago.

    There's so much to be outraged about, being lied to for war, possible election fraud on a huge scale, torture/Geneva convention, hypocrisy, encroachment of church onto state, to biased news coverage and propaganda, the list continues.

    I haven't "taken to the streets" but I've written letters from everyone to local churches (phoned one again yesterday for more christian paperwork that came home in the backpack) to senators. I've signed petitions, donated to grassroots efforts, started voicing things here on this political forum, today I spoke with the principle about setting up a fundraiser for the Pakistan earthquake victims (we came to an agreement about how to do sucha thing at the school).

    I don't know how many people are pissed off or even aware.

    If Kerry had ended up in the WH, I may have not been so jolted out of my past assumptions that the system works. Since I was jolted out of that complacency, and no longer trust the system as I used to, I'm looking harder at these sorts of issues and doing things to help.

    But people that are happy that Bush won, may complacently assume that the system is working, and may not realize the problems with torture, and other issues.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2005
  9. Oct 21, 2005 #8
    See now I always figured that the very fact that Kerry and Bush were the only options made it blatantly obvious the system wasn't working. Actually, the fact that there has yet to be a president that is not a rich, white, male with lots of corporate connections is also pretty obviously corrupt.

    You could say the same about pretty much every western "democracy", with very few exceptions.
     
  10. Oct 21, 2005 #9
    The Geneva convention does not apply to the insurgents.
    It applies to conventional military conflicts vs. "uniformed" soldiers.

    If you are some random A-Hole hiding amongst the General population and setting up road side bombs you don't get the benefit of the Geneva convention.

    Thats my understanding anyway.
     
  11. Oct 21, 2005 #10
    I had faith in the system --- the trends were in the right direction. There was a female running mate (Ferraro) back in 80-something, there was a jewish runningmate (Lieberman), (Wasn't Dukakis Jewish too?) and so on. Female senators, female supreme court justices --- the trends indicate that it is a matter of time. The demographics in the country's population are changing too, far more hispanics than a generation ago, far more asians, so the white male's days are numbered.

    I think it is a only matter of time til we see a woman (etc) in the white house, and frankly I don't expect the change from no votes for women --> women presidents to occur very quickly. I had been satisfied with the rate of progress in those terms.
     
  12. Oct 21, 2005 #11
    I just received something in my inbox from MoveOn. They're claiming another victory for the common man here. This has nothing to do with torture per se, but has to do with whether Americans are just sitting on their duffs or not.

    It's true that we're not in the streets like in Vietnam Days, but the general sense from beyond the borders, that Americans "don't care" or don't rise up in numbers, is not entirely accurate.

    I don't know of any similar moves to mobilise people on the torture issue. I'm sure they're out there, though. There's a hell of a lot that we are putting our efforts towards rectifying.
     
  13. Oct 21, 2005 #12

    Art

    User Avatar

    The Geneva conventions and thus it's protection does apply to guerilla fighters wherin they are classified as having combatant status (convention 1 art. 13). Only mercenaries are exempted (protocol 1 art. 37).
    The specific article allegedly violated by the US troops is convention 3 art. 120.

    Regardless of the Geneva convention most right thinking people would be apalled by this behaviour. It doesn't need familiarity with an international treaty to recognise that behaviour like this is utterly despicable.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2005
  14. Oct 21, 2005 #13
    This type of behavior by Americans may well backfire in our faces. Our burning them over there will only give them an increased incentive to burn us over here. The administration tells us that we must fight them over there so that we do not need to fight them here. But it almost appears that we are deliberatley trying to incite them to attack us on our homeland.

    What could be the reasoning behind this? Could it be perhaps to bring about the global war that Bush and his Christian fundamentalists supporters want?
     
  15. Oct 21, 2005 #14
    I don't personally think global war is the mindset - but I wouldn't be surprised if Bu$h and co are as aware as we are, that terror attacks on home soil boost his approval and support for american aggression overall.
     
  16. Oct 21, 2005 #15

    Art

    User Avatar

    Whatever their intentions the liklihood is that eventually there will be a major attack on US soil in response to these provocations.
    Here's a quote from an article showing the effect this incident has had on the 'hearts and minds' of even America's muslim allies in Afghanistan.
    http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/WorldNF.asp?ArticleID=188024
    More on the US military's fight for the hearts and minds of muslims.
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16977750%5E23109,00.html Yep, that should help defeat global terrorism okay. :rolleyes:
    And here's more
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4349032.stm
    Just what you need to win over the waverers.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2005
  17. Oct 21, 2005 #16
    What do you think about men in control rooms sitting in front of a computer setting the locations of where the missiles are going to land.... i hope they don't go to work in civil clothes.....
     
  18. Oct 21, 2005 #17
    You're understand is wrong. The Geneva conventions doesn't have to apply to the insurgents, it still applies to the US. There are rules about both Combatant and non-Combatant rules, and the US has broken rules in both.

    And the Geneva convention doesn't distinguish between 'A-holes' and 'non-A-holes', it resides on this principle known as "human rights". You know, all humans?
     
  19. Oct 21, 2005 #18
    What you call "progress" I call excuses and rhetoric.
     
  20. Oct 21, 2005 #19
    I tend to think that most things change as the people who hold to outdated ideas die off.

    If this is true, you should expect that any period will be different than 30 years prior or afterwards, and that overnight change is unlikely. The changes today from 30 years ago are significant, if not complete.

    I could be wrong, but I think that the idea that when "old boys" die off, you'll have a new set of ideas, is generally a reasonable level at which to set expectations. (God, another awkward sentence. Sorry everyone.)
     
  21. Oct 21, 2005 #20
    Is that why we're going back to privatizing so many industries?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?