Denial of Water

Anna Gregoline | November 17, 2004
Decisions like these make me sick:

(link)

Jackie Mason | November 18, 2004
[hidden by request]

Mike Eberhart | November 19, 2004
It's pyschological warfare. I see nothing wrong with it as 90% of the regular civilians had already left the area and mostly the insurgents were left.

Scott Horowitz | November 19, 2004
I see it as a violation of human rights regardless of who's left there. It is one thing to cut off electricity, but water?

Mike Eberhart | November 19, 2004
It's standard military tactics. Insurgents don't deserve human rights. Cut off their water and they eventually have to come out. Then you can either capture or kill them. It happens in almost every conflict we've been in. This is nothing new.

John E Gunter | November 19, 2004
I'm kind of split on that part. Yes, it's a violation of human rights, but do you know what kinds of atrocities these people are capable of and not just to American soldiers, their own country men?

But we as Americans should be beyond that kind of thing, true.

Course I've noticed that a lot of comments have been made that the war has made these people hate America. I got news for you, there might be more who hate America now than there were before the war, but you've had people in foreign countries that hate America for a long time.

Don't know exactly when it started, but the world population hating America is nothing new and probably will continue for quite some time.

John

Scott Horowitz | November 19, 2004
Everyone deserves human rights. If we are to deny these to people, than we are no better than the people who commited these atrocities. In the constitution, people will not be subjected to "cruel and unusual punishment" I quote "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Cutting off water is a cruel punishment because it is a life necessity and a slow death. Don't give me "Inter Arma Silent Legis" either, because that is the biggest load of bullship I have ever heard.

Mike Eberhart | November 19, 2004
First of all, the constitution is for us, not the Insurgents. They are not covered under it. If this is a tactic that needs to be used to win the battle, then so be it.

Anna Gregoline | November 19, 2004
These people aren't all insurgents. There are thousands of innocent lives that will be adversely affected by this. If you can't see that, then you're turning a blind eye to it. People who have done nothing wrong are suffering because of our country's actions.

It's no different than terrorists hitting innocent lives on our own soil, in my opinion.

John E Gunter | November 19, 2004
Naw, by denying them water, we're not blowing them up!

John

Scott Horowitz | November 19, 2004
The constituion yes, applies to us. However, we cannot turn a blind eye to our laws when it comes to dealing with other countries. That is entirely hypocritical.

Anna Gregoline | November 19, 2004
You're right, John! It makes a huge difference. (eyeroll) =)

John E Gunter | November 19, 2004
Yeah, our method takes longer to kill them! ;-)

Or did you not catch that point about my comment?

John

Anna Gregoline | November 19, 2004
Uh yeah? I thought it was evident I was joking by the eyeroll and smiley face. It's hard to be clear on here.

Scott Horowitz | November 19, 2004
Why don't we just shove living snakes up their asses?

Anna Gregoline | November 19, 2004
That would not be cost effective. And cruel to the snakes. We're not barbarians here!

Scott Horowitz | November 19, 2004
But it would be amusing.

Anna Gregoline | November 19, 2004
This conversation? Amusing. The idea of snakes vs: rectums? Not at all amusing to me, bleck.

Scott Horowitz | November 19, 2004
we need a chat room on here... I hate slow days at work.

Mike Eberhart | November 19, 2004
That would be cool..