The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I have been listening to the recent discussions, pertaing to the printed images in the national newspapers, of soldiers in various humiliating poses. I don't understand why, various government leaders are speaking out against these images of their 'enemies' after capture.Surely,these photo's are depicting scenes of war. Acts of war, can be shocking, when seen by civilians, but the governments are fully aware of all the horrors that acts of war can, and do cause.After all,it is war, war authorised by those politicians.If they were really that sickened by such things,they would adopt whatever means they could, to find a solution, rather than declare war.
I have been listening to the recent discussions, pertaing to the printed images in the national newspapers, of soldiers in various humiliating poses. I don't understand why, various government leaders are speaking out against these images of their 'enemies' after capture.Surely,these photo's are depicting scenes of war. Acts of war, can be shocking, when seen by civilians, but the governments are fully aware of all the horrors that acts of war can, and do cause.After all,it is war, war authorised by those politicians.If they were really that sickened by such things,they would adopt whatever means they could, to find a solution, rather than declare war.
NawtyNel wrote:
> I have been listening to the recent discussions, pertaing to the
> printed images in the national newspapers, of soldiers in various
> humiliating poses. I don't understand why, various government leaders
> are speaking out against these images of their 'enemies' after
> capture.Surely,these photo's are depicting scenes of war. Acts of
> war, can be shocking, when seen by civilians, but the governments are
> fully aware of all the horrors that acts of war can, and do
> cause.After all,it is war, war authorised by those politicians.If
> they were really that sickened by such things,they would adopt
> whatever means they could, to find a solution, rather than declare
> war.
Because if their locked up in custody, they are no longer an enemy soldier trying to kill you. Indeed, most of those humiliated were not even enemy troops, just criminals and the like.
And i want to add, just because your in a combat zone, doesn't excuse your actions. Things like the My Lai massacre are no less acceptable during war than they are in peace.
I accept their is leeway with regards to what is acceptable during war. I see why Drezden(sp?) was firebombed. Don't like it, but that was a different type of war than the one in Iraq.
One of the reasons for being there was to stop this type of thing from happening, not just do it behind closed doors.
And don't have a go at the politicians for going to war knowning full well this stuff would happen. What were they to do? If troops needed to be sent in, for what ever reason, are they supposed to say, 'oh no, lets forget it, some rouge troops may get carried away'? No, they just have to hope the military higher ups can keep control of their troops. And for the most part, the British commanders have done that very well.
But the problem doesn't lie with politicians, but the mentality of the people doing this type of thing. Thats a sub-mentality within society, and is a very difficult thing to change.
> I have been listening to the recent discussions, pertaing to the
> printed images in the national newspapers, of soldiers in various
> humiliating poses. I don't understand why, various government leaders
> are speaking out against these images of their 'enemies' after
> capture.Surely,these photo's are depicting scenes of war. Acts of
> war, can be shocking, when seen by civilians, but the governments are
> fully aware of all the horrors that acts of war can, and do
> cause.After all,it is war, war authorised by those politicians.If
> they were really that sickened by such things,they would adopt
> whatever means they could, to find a solution, rather than declare
> war.
Because if their locked up in custody, they are no longer an enemy soldier trying to kill you. Indeed, most of those humiliated were not even enemy troops, just criminals and the like.
And i want to add, just because your in a combat zone, doesn't excuse your actions. Things like the My Lai massacre are no less acceptable during war than they are in peace.
I accept their is leeway with regards to what is acceptable during war. I see why Drezden(sp?) was firebombed. Don't like it, but that was a different type of war than the one in Iraq.
One of the reasons for being there was to stop this type of thing from happening, not just do it behind closed doors.
And don't have a go at the politicians for going to war knowning full well this stuff would happen. What were they to do? If troops needed to be sent in, for what ever reason, are they supposed to say, 'oh no, lets forget it, some rouge troops may get carried away'? No, they just have to hope the military higher ups can keep control of their troops. And for the most part, the British commanders have done that very well.
But the problem doesn't lie with politicians, but the mentality of the people doing this type of thing. Thats a sub-mentality within society, and is a very difficult thing to change.