Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ender098
I like to think the difference lies in what we aim to achieve and how far we are willing to go to achieve it. Were we as unscrupulous as our enemies, we WOULDN'T hesitate to drop our nuclear arsenal on any country that opposed us and our agenda. We would purposely attack civilians and innocents. We would routinely use torture to obtain our means. The funny thing is if we used THEIR tactics and disreguarded following the rules, we would beat them in a few days!
|
Yeah, basically. If the USA took the gloves off...it wouldn't be pretty.
There's a lot more restraint than critics abroad and at home think. (Not that we some criticism isn't warranted.)
I'd say the Geneva convention made terrorism more legit. In old school days, ununiformed combatants could and would be killed if captured. The west civilized warfare, but of course, other parties don't play by those rules...and there's little that can be done to make them.
And there-in lies the difference. The US military has recognized leadership, which can be held accountable. Can the same be said about guerillas and terrorists? No. They rely on hiding, secrecy. Nazi Germany could be defeated and was, and its surviving leaders held accountable for its actions. Would a captured Osama formally declare a surrender if captured or negotiate a cease fire? No. How about pay reparations to the families of 9/11? Nope.
Of course, if insurgents played by the rules, then they wouldn't have a chance, would they?
If we break all the rules, the US military risks becoming the "Nazis" that some claim the US is already acting like. (I'm really sick of people using the word "nazi" for everyone they hate).