How far would you go in defending your country?

[whitefork]

If your country were being invaded would you feel justified in:

Suicide bombing?
Guerilla warfare?
Faked surrender?
Human shields?
Torture of captured invading forces?

Where would you stop? Would you do anything differently than what you believe the Iraqis have done?

In short, why should you adhere to any of the rules of war?

Why or why not?

[Lurker]

Originally posted by whitefork
If your country were being invaded would you feel justified in:

Suicide bombing?
Guerilla warfare?
Faked surrender?
Human shields?
Torture of captured invading forces?

Where would you stop? Would you do anything differently than what you believe the Iraqis have done?

In short, why should you adhere to any of the rules of war?

Why or why not?

suicide bombings - yes
guerilla warfare - definitely since it seems very American anyway!
Faked surrender - no, it poisons the well for others who surrender.
Human shields - yes
torture - Definitely not!

That's my take on it. I'll be interested to hear other responses.

Lurker

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by whitefork
If your country were being invaded would you feel justified in:

Suicide bombing?
Guerilla warfare?
Faked surrender?
Human shields?
Torture of captured invading forces?

Where would you stop? Would you do anything differently than what you believe the Iraqis have done?

In short, why should you adhere to any of the rules of war?

Why or why not?

The Iraqis who are suicide bombing are doing so under pressure from a leftist radical totalitarian regime.

That is different than fighting for "freedom". When fighting for freedom, a soldier is morally more perfect and righteous. They will not commit crimes against humanity because the soldier from the free state is the moral man.

That said, I would use every ounce of military training I received and would also use my extensive war experience to defend the United States if it were invaded. It would be the duty of all Amricans to do so because we are a free country, and to invade us means that the country invading was very evil and had to be destroyed.

There is no moral relativism between the invasion of Iraq and a hypothetical invasion of the United States. Iraq is a terror nation-state, while the US is a free state. If you can't see that, perhaps 1,000 MG of leftistcillin is what you need lol.

If the US was ever invaded I would be a General Officer in command of a covert light infantry division of some type.

JK

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


The Iraqis who are suicide bombing are doing so under pressure from a leftist radical totalitarian regime.

That is different than fighting for "freedom". When fighting for freedom, a soldier is morally more perfect and righteous. They will not commit crimes against humanity because the soldier from the free state is the moral man.


Wow! JK knows what is in the mind of suicide bombers. Soon he will be a guest on Montel Williams alongside Sylvia Browne.

JK, you don't think the suicide bomber for the PLO is thinking he is doing it for the freedom of HIS people?

QUOTE]Originally posted by Jedi Knight



If the US was ever invaded I would be a General Officer in command of a covert light infantry division of some type.

JK [/QUOTE]

My, someone has delusions of grandeur.

Lurker

[whitefork]

I'm not trying to get into a discussion of whether the more extreme Iraqi tactics are justified here, or not, Jedi - others can argue that better than I.

As the leader of some kind of covert operation, would you draw the line anywhere in defense of your country? Are all conceivable tactics on the table?

Presumably, If the Soviet Union had invaded the US in such a way that military retaliation was impossible, you would NOT have bombed buildings in Moscow or hijacked an Aeroflot passenger liner and crashed it into the Kremlin, since these would constitute crimes against humanity.

But where's the line to be drawn? You don't speak of suicide bombings. Does the moral rightness of one's cause justify the means used to defend one's country? If so, the Iraqis, merely by fighting against the coalition troops, has committed immoral acts, no? (OK, so I am asking if the Iraqi tactics are justified).

(edited for the NOT in caps)

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Lurker
JK, you don't think the suicide bomber for the PLO is thinking he is doing it for the freedom of HIS people?

No, the suicide bomber for the PLO is uneducated and unfree, not due to Israel, but due to the PLO fascism that keeps those people in bondage.

My, someone has delusions of grandeur.

No, just an acknowledgement of capability.

JK

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by whitefork
If your country were being invaded would you feel justified in:

Suicide bombing?
Guerilla warfare?
Faked surrender?
Human shields?
Torture of captured invading forces?

Where would you stop? Would you do anything differently than what you believe the Iraqis have done?

In short, why should you adhere to any of the rules of war?

Why or why not?


Speeking as some one that lives in Canada, if we were invaded, it may take a while , but we would eventually organize a resistance after the initial shock passed.

Suicide Bombing - never, live to fight another day (or run away to live to run away another day :))

Guerilla Warfare- definately, take advantage of geography, stay away from civilian centres to avoid retribution on civilians by invaders

Human shields,- unlikely, using fellow Canadians for shields would not sit well. Counterproductive. Invites the invader to target non-combatants. Look for different solutions 1st.

Torture of captured invading troops: not likely, probably give them quarter. if the captured invader is reasonable that is. If more trouble than it is worth and our resistance cell needed to stay mobile and there was no feasable way to deliver them to POW camp then shoot them as last resort.

If invading army threatened to kill civilians if our resistance cells refused to capitulate then other options would have to be discussed and possibly acted on.

Surrender is never an option.

The actions of the invading army would determine the resistance cells tactics. Many of Sun Tsu's tactics and strategies may need to be applied. Try not to restrict options, look for targets of opportunity, and resist, resist, resist.

and , if the invading army is any other than American, beg for help if the US has not already taken action. An agressive army invading Canada would not be tolerated by Americans. There intersests would be threatened.

I am not sure that Canada has a "blank check" from the Americans, but I know it would be a lot easier to resist an invading army having the USA on our side.

[Tmy]

Ever see the movie RED DAWN. (starring Patrick Swaze). It was about a small band of teen rebels fighting the occupying Soviet troops in the hills of Colorado


When I was a kid I remember think thing that it was such a good movie. If you watch it now its a laughable piece of cold war propaganda. Just like those commie Smurfs cartoon.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by whitefork
I'm not trying to get into a discussion of whether the more extreme Iraqi tactics are justified here, or not, Jedi - others can argue that better than I.

As the leader of some kind of covert operation, would you draw the line anywhere in defense of your country? Are all conceivable tactics on the table?

Presumably, If the Soviet Union had invaded the US in such a way that military retaliation was impossible, you would NOT have bombed buildings in Moscow or hijacked an Aeroflot passenger liner and crashed it into the Kremlin, since these would constitute crimes against humanity.

But where's the line to be drawn? You don't speak of suicide bombings. Does the moral rightness of one's cause justify the means used to defend one's country? If so, the Iraqis, merely by fighting against the coalition troops, has committed immoral acts, no? (OK, so I am asking if the Iraqi tactics are justified).

(edited for the NOT in caps)

Terrorism is the immoral war, the unjust war and dishonorable war. Only dishonorable men use tactics of terrorism because terrorism lacks moral civility.

That is what separates the moral men representing the United States and the immoral men who conduct terrorist operations. The moral war is fought by disciplined armies. Terrorism is not conducted by disciplined armies because terrorism is the total disregard for discipline and moral grounding.

JK

[Troll]

Suicide bombing? No. I mean if you wanna do it then fine. But I look at it from the perspective of why instantly give up my life and not have a chance to enjoy the freedom I'm fighting for.

Guerilla warfare? Yep. Nothing wrong with it at all.

Faked surrender? No. There's no honor in that and it'll screw others that may have to later.

Human shields? Nope. Too cowardly to hide behind non-combatants.

Torture. Of a POW? Nope.

[Tmy]

My 10 million commie friends an I would welcome the invaders and try to win their favor so we can secure high positions in the newly formed Commie States of America.

(pssssssssst dont tell Jedi)

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by whitefork
If your country were being invaded would you feel justified in:

Suicide bombing?
Guerilla warfare?
Faked surrender?
Human shields?
Torture of captured invading forces?

Where would you stop? Would you do anything differently than what you believe the Iraqis have done?

In short, why should you adhere to any of the rules of war?

Why or why not?

Suicide Bombing - no. As someone earlier pointed out, live to fight another day.

Guerilla Warfare - You bet!

Faked Surrender - Probably. It would depend on circumstances. Would make a good ambush. I would form a "L" shaped ambush, with "surrendered" troops forming part of the "L". JK knows what I am talking about.

Human Shields - no.

Torture - Probably not. I couldn't completely discount it, though.

I'll add one that wasn't listed:

Exectute POW's - Maybe. Do I have the facility to imprison POW's? If I don't, then I can't let them go free. If I do, then I would imprison them. I would also expect a very harsh reaction from the other side.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by whitefork

Suicide bombing?
Guerilla warfare?
Faked surrender?
Human shields?
Torture of captured invading forces?

Where would you stop? Would you do anything differently than what you believe the Iraqis have done?

In short, why should you adhere to any of the rules of war?

Why or why not?
There was a time, way back, when a friend and I fenced (the foil and mask kind, not the hammer and nail kind). It was just a friendly game we played and not taken seriously. However, I had a tendency to fight dirty. My favorite example of that is when, just after starting, I tilted my head and looked obviously over my friend's sholder. He stared at me, lowered his sword, and turned around to see what I was looking at. I walked up to him and tapped him on the back with the tip of my foil, unchallenged.

Misdirection is one of my favorite tactics and I use it in almost every competition-like activity that I can. And that's when my life isn't on the line. So:

Suicide bombing? No. The point at best is to win, at least is to survive. Suicide bombing is a false victory.
Guerilla warfare? Americans used Guerilla warfare in almost every war from the Revolutionary War to Korea and Vietnam. I see no reason why it shouldn't be used (unless I misunderstand the definition).
Faked surrender? Again, I'd be a hypocrite if I said "No". I use misdirection all the time. Yes, it poisons the well for any true surrenders, but dang it, I usually play to win. I don't usually plan on ever being in a position to where I need to actually surrender.
Human shields? If the shield consists of the enemy's own self (i.e. I've managed to menuver a place where a group of the enemy's own troops are between me and them), absolutely. If the shield consists of civilians, captured troops, or my own troops, never.
Torture of captured invading forces? Never. I can't think of a single instance where such a thing would be justifiable.

The dividing line is that it depends on if the people involved had a choice in being where they are. Compative soldiers/armies/whatever are there because they choose to be. Captured soldiers/civilians have little to no choice in the matter.

[Lurker]

I will add that although I would suicide bomb it would only be done under very specific conditions:

1. The objective were truly pivotal in the war.
2. Only against military targets.

Some things I am willing to die for.

Lurker

[PogoPedant]

20 miles.

[whitefork]

Interesting, the negative opinions on suicide bombing. Did it not work in Lebanon? If you can take out 241 enemy combatants at the cost of one of your own, isn't that a pretty good bargain?

How many of the items on my list are prohibited by the various Geneva Conventions, anyway?

[ABBY-NORMAL]

Originally posted by whitefork
If your country were being invaded would you feel justified in:

Suicide bombing?
Guerilla warfare?
Faked surrender?
Human shields?
Torture of captured invading forces?

Where would you stop? Would you do anything differently than what you believe the Iraqis have done?

In short, why should you adhere to any of the rules of war?

Why or why not?

In my case, I think my behavour would, for the most part, be based largely on the nature and mthods of the invading army. The most extreme cases I can think of are:

A) Invasion by angry Canadians upset over piss poor American beer, or to liberate us from our 'intellectually changled' president. In which case I would advocate nothing stronger than a bop on the nose with a rolled up newspaper, coupled with intense taunting.

B) Invasion by parasitic aliens similar to those in the movie 'puppet masters'. In that movie, most of the tatics listed above were used and justly so. [/b]:)

edited to fix html

[CapelDodger]

I wouldn't go beyond the end of my street to defend my country. (And I'd be defending my locality against threat). If I was defending a way of life that I valued, that would be a different thing. Patriotism is, in my opinion, for fools. As Rudyard Kipling put it :
"It's Tommy this and Tommy that,
And 'Tommy here's my boot'.
But it's 'Tommy, you're a hero'
When the guns begin to shoot."

(I think it was Kipling.)

From Lurker:
1. The objective were truly pivotal in the war.
Over-stated, I think. There would have to be some good reason, a major potential pay-off in pursuit of a rational startegy. Heroes of legend have behaved suicidally in many cultures, and need I mention Thermopylae?

2. Only against military targets.
Too limiting. What about economic targets? Targets meant to sap the enemy's will to fight? War is intended to achieve ends - in this case, shall we say defence of something valuable against aggression - by military means. So the ends must be weighed against the effects of a particular attack to decide if they are justified. The nature of the enemy, and the results of their victory, are crucial here - many peoples have been conquered in the past without great practical effect, whereas having Hitler's Wehrmacht or Saddam's Republican Guard bearing down on you is a different thing. And many peoples have destroyed themselves, or just made their future far worse, by fighting on for nationalist, patriotic reasons. See, for instance, the different experiences of the Serbs and the Bosnians when the Ottomans turned up.

Faked surrender is always out. It not only dishonours you, it betrays your comrades. As in Mazar-i-Sharif. Soldiers have always considered it a most heinous crime - worse than killing the wounded.

Torture is a tricky one, but treatment of prisoners is likely to be reflected by the opposition, so again we're into betraying comrades. (See Eastern front, WW2.) It can only be in the most dire of circumstances.

Guerilla warfare, why not? Perfectly legitimate tactic, used many times by people of great honour, such as the Welsh.

Human shields - what are you actually defending here?

[whitefork]

Come on you wheelchair generals, you monday-morning quarterbacks. I was hoping for some creativity here.

If your country is invaded, would you poison the water supplies where the enemy drinks? Set off a dirty nuclear device under the command headquarters?

We speak of the priceless nature of freedom, yet how would you be willing to pay to get it back?

[Supercharts]

An improved, less damaging Mother Of All Bombs.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by whitefork
Interesting, the negative opinions on suicide bombing. Did it not work in Lebanon? If you can take out 241 enemy combatants at the cost of one of your own, isn't that a pretty good bargain?



Works so far against "paper tigers". Real tigers might respond differently. The 241 could be repaid with 241,000 deaths.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
When fighting for freedom, a soldier is morally more perfect and righteous. They will not commit crimes against humanity because the soldier from the free state is the moral man.But a little while ago JK posted:

I think of that guy, I thinking of him strapped to a metal mattress spring with it hardwired with 115 volts and when the loyal American who turns the power regulator up spins the little copper dial, people a mile away are wondering why their lightbulbs are dimming.

That is what I think of when I think of Al Qaida. I am thinking an American behind the electrode dial with earplugs on while the terrorist is doing the Zeus dance on the mattress spring. And then maybe, just maybe, 10 hours later the questions start to get asked.Morally more perfect? Sure. :(

[jj]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

My, someone has delusions of grandeur.

No, just an acknowledgement of capability.

JK [/B]

The envelope, please, Ed.

I sense something, maybe to do with eating, I know, it's ate! No, wait, it's the number 8, and something with grapefruits! 8 Sections? No, that's backward.

It's "Section 8", Ed.

:rolleyes:

[Ruby]

Originally posted by whitefork
If your country were being invaded would you feel justified in:

Suicide bombing?
Guerilla warfare?
Faked surrender?
Human shields?
Torture of captured invading forces?

Nope on all of them. I think our military would dispose of them fairly quickly without having to violate the Geneva convention or their honor.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


The Iraqis who are suicide bombing are doing so under pressure from a leftist radical totalitarian regime.

That is different than fighting for "freedom". When fighting for freedom, a soldier is morally more perfect and righteous. They will not commit crimes against humanity because the soldier from the free state is the moral man.

That said, I would use every ounce of military training I received and would also use my extensive war experience to defend the United States if it were invaded. It would be the duty of all Amricans to do so because we are a free country, and to invade us means that the country invading was very evil and had to be destroyed.

There is no moral relativism between the invasion of Iraq and a hypothetical invasion of the United States. Iraq is a terror nation-state, while the US is a free state. If you can't see that, perhaps 1,000 MG of leftistcillin is what you need lol.

If the US was ever invaded I would be a General Officer in command of a covert light infantry division of some type.

JK

special pleading.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Some Iraqis are resisting the occupation. Are they evil, anti-Americans or are they doing their duty, no different than any other member of a nation occupied by invaders?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Kullervo
If your country were being invaded would you feel justified in:

Suicide bombing?
Guerilla warfare?
Faked surrender?
Human shields?
Torture of captured invading forces?

Where would you stop? Would you do anything differently than what you believe the Iraqis have done?

In short, why should you adhere to any of the rules of war?

Why or why not?

For these to be viable options upon the invasion of my country, a whole lot of other stuff would have to have gone very badly first. The complete defeat of American military forces, for starters. So I guess we are talking about invaders from outer space, and therefore there are no "human rights" to violate.....

[rustypouch]

I, for one, welcome our new leftist radical totalitarian matriarchal overlords.

But seriously, if Canada were being invaded there is very little I would not do, except I think torture is something I could not do.

[Ed]

Originally posted by rustypouch
I, for one, welcome our new leftist radical totalitarian matriarchal overlords.

But seriously, if Canada were being invaded there is very little I would not do, except I think torture is something I could not do.

You could, anyone could.

[peptoabysmal]

I would do all of the above, if it got the desired result. If, however; every time I did some rebelling act, the invading country brought their military might down upon my country in a show of pure military superiority, I would surrender rather than cause thousands or hundreds of thousands of my fellow citizens to die. This is why we cannot allow terrorism to have any effect other than making things far worse for the terrorists.

[Malachi151]

Let's face it, if I thought that I coudl "save the country" through a fake surrender then yes i would. To say no is absurd. Well, I think we could win this, but it will require dirty tactics, nah, better just let them win I guess.... :p

America has been the world leader is throwing away the rules of war. We are the ones that "invented" gurellia warefare and the "all's fair in love and war" tactics.

The REAL question is, what are you willing to do to save the country from the tyrants in power? Would you ever engage in military rebellion against an American President? If the leadership no longer serves the people, then our founders said it was our duty to overthrow that leadership.

If my country was being invaded, I'd welcome the people and say "Hi! My name is Whodini.", and try to get along.

More war wouldn't really solve anything, especially if it was a hopeless situation.

In any case, I'd always try and solve things by talking to people first.

-Who

[athon]

For me, I guess you would have to define 'invasion'. If it is in the old fashioned 'feudal' way, as in a the movement of actual armed forces into the territory where I live, killing and brutalising along the way, just so they can establish their own regime, I would probably go guerilla (no suicide - bombing; I guess I selfishly love my own life more than the sanctity of my nation's way of life).

But invasions such as this are rare, thankfully, in today's world. The influence of one nation over another is much more likely to be through trade relations, government influences, sanctions, treaties...those sort of things.

What are we truly worried about when an army invades? It is mostly losing a sense of identity, the suppression of our culture, seeing a sense of injustice and the fear of having your views neglected by the ruling body, and so on. The scary thing is that such things don't need guns and ammo to occur. Sometimes a physical army would be easier to fight.

Athon

[JAR]

Originally posted by Tmy
My 10 million commie friends an I would welcome the invaders and try to win their favor so we can secure high positions in the newly formed Commie States of America.

(pssssssssst dont tell Jedi)
Tmy, are you a communist. Before you say "yes", I'd like to remind you that countries and movements that claim or claimed to be communistic have a bad track record when it comes to not committing mass murder. I don't know what it is, they just tend be incompetent at not killing ridiculous numbers of people.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Let's face it, if I thought that I coudl "save the country" through a fake surrender then yes i would. To say no is absurd. Well, I think we could win this, but it will require dirty tactics, nah, better just let them win I guess.... :p

America has been the world leader is throwing away the rules of war. We are the ones that "invented" gurellia warefare and the "all's fair in love and war" tactics.

.

These tacticss certinly predate the revolution. I assume you have references, might yyou share them?

[Tmy]

I would just give up and obey my new overlords. Just like I did in the last presidential election.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by JAR

Tmy, are you a communist. Before you say "yes", I'd like to remind you that countries and movements that claim or claimed to be communistic have a bad track record when it comes to not committing mass murder. I don't know what it is, they just tend be incompetent at not killing ridiculous numbers of people.

No No No,. Im part of the new improved happy go lucky commie party. Our Motto: Communism, Its like America but with more Ashcrofts!

We're over that whole mass killing phase. But hey, who doesnt commit mass murder now and then. Nobodys perfect.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Kullervo
Come on you wheelchair generals, you monday-morning quarterbacks. I was hoping for some creativity here.

If your country is invaded, would you poison the water supplies where the enemy drinks? Set off a dirty nuclear device under the command headquarters?

We speak of the priceless nature of freedom, yet how would you be willing to pay to get it back?

Sneeze all over the enemy cafeteria salad bar!

Hey wouldnt we be expectedto rat out all our terrorists. Isnt that what people want the Palistinain people to do wh Hamas. Imagine the retaliation if I turned the JK brigade over to the invaders............OK thats a bad example.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Kullervo
If your country were being invaded would you feel justified in:

Suicide bombing?
Guerilla warfare?
Faked surrender?
Human shields?
Torture of captured invading forces?



This is crap.
I would not definitely lift a finger to defend my country from any invasion in any violent way. I hate patriotism, I love pacifism in Mexico, China or the USA.

What are nations?, am I going to kill and die to defend a peace of geographical land?. If I ever have to fight then it will be by more intelligent reasons that keeping a stupid territory. :rolleyes:

Q-S

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Q-Source
I would not definitely lift a finger to defend my country from any invasion in any violent way. I hate patriotism, I love pacifism in Mexico, China or the USA.

You mean you love slavery.

JK

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Lurker


Wow! JK knows what is in the mind of suicide bombers. Soon he will be a guest on Montel Williams alongside Sylvia Browne.

JK, you don't think the suicide bomber for the PLO is thinking he is doing it for the freedom of HIS people?

Originally posted by Jedi Knight



If the US was ever invaded I would be a General Officer in command of a covert light infantry division of some type.

JK

My, someone has delusions of grandeur.

Lurker [/QUOTE]

You missed JK's point,...and amazingly enough it's a good one. That is, what country one is fighting for is less important than what ideas motivate the soldier.

An example; America becomes a totalitarian police state, and Denmark invades in order to bring freedom, then I would gladly fight against my own countrymen and for the Danes!

Suicide bombers tend to kill innocent people,...plus tends to limit ones options after conducting such an operation. :rolleyes: Suicide bombers are not warfare...they are murderers.

Guerilla warfare?--sure.
Faked surrender?--no
Human shields?--ridiculous! no!
Torture of captured invading forces?--no. But if they are un-uniformed spies, sabateurs, or terrorists they should be hung in a public place. (We could start with most of the "detainees" in Gitmo)

-z

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


You mean you love slavery.


What's happening with your reading skills, Jedi?
or are you saying that the USA promotes slavery?

Q-S

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by rikzilla

Torture of captured invading forces?--no. But if they are un-uniformed spies, sabateurs, or terrorists they should be hung in a public place. (We could start with most of the "detainees" in Gitmo)


Here it is the pro-torture patriot! :rolleyes:

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Here it is the pro-torture patriot! :rolleyes:

There you are, the pro-terrorist nut job! :rolleyes: :p

[Q-Source]

You are the reason I despise patriotism. --Demon 2/9/03

I see that people know you well.

I am not wrong about you. :cool:

[whitefork]

bump on account of the would you be a terrorist thread.

Anyone have a different opinion on the matter a couple years or so later?

also in memory of the departed Jedi Knight.

[billydkid]

If your country were being invaded would you feel justified in:

Suicide bombing?
Guerilla warfare?
Faked surrender?
Human shields?
Torture of captured invading forces?

Where would you stop? Would you do anything differently than what you believe the Iraqis have done?

In short, why should you adhere to any of the rules of war?

Why or why not?
The problem is - how far do you stretch the notion of what constitutes "defending your country". Personally, I would defend my country to the death were it actually under attack. I don't doubt that everyone of us in here would be willing to die in defense of our country. However, "defending your country" has come to mean invading and occupying foreign countries thousands of miles away which constitute no actual threat to the country. Defending your country has come to mean whatever the people in power decide it means when they want to send our sons and daughters off to die. I do get your point, reading further. Yes, I am certain the Iraqi insurgents consider themselves to be great Iraqi patriots just as we would were we so occupied.

[Freakshow]

If your country were being invaded would you feel justified in:

Suicide bombing?
Guerilla warfare?
Faked surrender?
Human shields?
Torture of captured invading forces?

Where would you stop? Would you do anything differently than what you believe the Iraqis have done?

In short, why should you adhere to any of the rules of war?

Why or why not?There is a big difference between what I would do and what some Iraqi's are doing. And that is that I live in a democracy, and if we were being invaded, it would almost certainly be by a country that wants to make us part of a dictatorship.

The situation in Iraq is the opposite. They were living in a dictatorship, and are now forming a democracy. If I was an Iraqi, I would be glad the US threw was there. Even though the change would be painful. Change often is.

I wouldn't do suicide bombing or human shields. But I would do the other stuff on your list.

[DanishDynamite]

Personally, I don't think I would do much to defend my country. I would, however, do anything at all to defend my family. The question then becomes at what point does the defense of my family merge into the defense of my country?

[Zep]

The reality of any invasion of MY country means that it is hardly worth defending. The saying goes: Our military might could not hold off an invasion of well-prepared Boy Scouts at Bondi Beach on a sunny Sunday afternoon, let alone a determined enemy.

But the question that goes BEFORE all this is better: WHY would anyone invade us?

To take our wealth? Our "wealth" is all raw material in the ground, mostly iron ore and other minerals, and we are already shipping that overseas by the shipload ourselves.

Because they envy our lifestyle? Our immigration controls and qualifications are so lax by comparison that anyone who wants to come and live here in our lifestyle can do so easily enough already.

Because they need the space? Goodness me! Come and live in it! There's plenty of that to go around!

In summary, there's bugger all that would require any sort of armed invasion in the first place. Just fill out the proper forms, get a plane ticket, and Bob's your uncle!

[Leif Roar]

Suicide bombers tend to kill innocent people,...plus tends to limit ones options after conducting such an operation. :rolleyes: Suicide bombers are not warfare...they are murderers.

How about the Japanese Kamikaze pilots? Were they murderers or soldiers? "Suicide bomber" can mean other things than strapping plastic explosives around your waist and detonate it in a crowd of random civilians.

[whitefork]

The reality of any invasion of MY country means that it is hardly worth defending. The saying goes: Our military might could not hold off an invasion of well-prepared Boy Scouts at Bondi Beach on a sunny Sunday afternoon, let alone a determined enemy.

But the question that goes BEFORE all this is better: WHY would anyone invade us?

To take our wealth? Our "wealth" is all raw material in the ground, mostly iron ore and other minerals, and we are already shipping that overseas by the shipload ourselves.

Because they envy our lifestyle? Our immigration controls and qualifications are so lax by comparison that anyone who wants to come and live here in our lifestyle can do so easily enough already.

Because they need the space? Goodness me! Come and live in it! There's plenty of that to go around!

In summary, there's bugger all that would require any sort of armed invasion in the first place. Just fill out the proper forms, get a plane ticket, and Bob's your uncle!Sounds like Iraq to me.

[Skeptic]

I wouldn't go beyond the end of my street to defend my country... Patriotism is, in my opinion, for fools. As Rudyard Kipling put it :
"It's Tommy this and Tommy that,
And 'Tommy here's my boot'.
But it's 'Tommy, you're a hero'
When the guns begin to shoot."

Well, I can't say I'm surprised by your attitude, but you miss the point of Kipling's poem.

It is the likes of you--who claim patriotism and fighting for one's country is for fools, but only do so when they know for sure that somebody else will patriotically fight to defend them--which Kipling, quite rightly, despises.

Tommy Atkins, the protagonist of his poem, tells people like you that you "make a-mock of uniform that guard you while you sleep". Or, as Epictetus put it 2000 years ago, "The brave man is called a fool by the coward".

[bob_kark]

and Bob's your uncle!

Sorry for flying way off topic, but I've heard this before, my old roommate was from Manchester and I assume it means something like "there ya go." If I'm wrong, please correct me. Anyway, I've always wondered where this phrase came from. Any ideas?

[LW]

Sorry for flying way off topic, but I've heard this before, my old roommate was from Manchester and I assume it means something like "there ya go." If I'm wrong, please correct me. Anyway, I've always wondered where this phrase came from. Any ideas?

Quoting http://www.yaelf.com/questions.shtml:

The most plausible theory for the origin of "Bob's your uncle" refers to a case of nepotism wherein Lord Salisbury (Robert, or "Bob") appointed his nephew to the post of Chief Secretary for Ireland (1887).

[rikzilla]

Wow...a blast from the past!
Let me just say that I still agree with my 2003 self! ;) While there are posts in threads that I deeply regret participating in...this was not one of them.

Go Danes! :D
-z

Edited to add: Outlasted the pro-terrorist nutjob... ;)

[bob_kark]

Quoting http://www.yaelf.com/questions.shtml:

Thanks LW! Mystery solved!

[whitefork]

Happy to oblige, Rik. Q is still around, though. Don't write her off yet.