I don't understand why so many in the pro-war camp find themselves compelled to equate opposition to the war with support for Saddam Hussein.
It's called a 'straw-man' argument, and it's intellectual dishonesty at its finest. They do it because they don't have a strong enough argument to counter the true anti-war arguments. It's easier to defeat your opponent in an argument when you pretend that your opponent is defending a ficticious position that is impossible to defend.
I dont think demanding that our POW's not be tortured or killed is out of line.
It's a strange position our military finds itself in. I mean, by going to war unilaterally we basically stated that we don't believe that the U.N. is relevant. So, what right do we have to disagree when another country doesn't follow some of the U.N. laws? (Is the Geneva Convention officially U.N. material?)
I don't understand why so many in the pro-war camp find themselves compelled to equate opposition to the war with support for Saddam Hussein. I do not know very many people who support the war, but I do not know one single person that supports or would attempt to defend Hussein. Is it so difficult to comprehend that an individual might find the actions taken by the Bush administration difficult to justify - while still recognizing Hussein as a Bad Man?
Inaction == support. Please explain to me how NOT enforcing the U.N. Resolution helps the Iraqi people. Or the rest of the world subjected to terrorism by the likes of Al Queda and Al Ansar that have ties to Iraq.
"Bad Man" is cute, good effort in trivializing the atrocities his regime have committed and perpetuated though.
It's called a 'straw-man' argument, and it's intellectual dishonesty at its finest. They do it because they don't have a strong enough argument to counter the true anti-war arguments. It's easier to defeat your opponent in an argument when you pretend that your opponent is defending a ficticious position that is impossible to defend.
What anti-war argument? Most of the things I see the "anti-war" people say are simply anti-US. I have yet to see anything you guys have said in this thread equate to anything other than pointing fingers, much as you accuse the US government of doing.
1) CNN, FoxNews, ABC, CBS are not the US Government. Period. How they portray Iraqi prisoners is inconsequential. However, this being said, they did not "interview" wounded POW's with footage of dead soliders. Iraqi state TV did (then Al Jazeera re-ran it). All the shots I've seen of our media's portrayal of Iraqi POWs have been inpersonal, from a distance and have even show our medics tending to their wounded.
2) Aside from it being inconsequential as to whether or not the US can demand Geneva convention rights, Camp X-Ray is small potatoes (though I agree no prisoner should be beaten to death) compared to Iraq's track history torture and execution.
EDIT: decided to make point one a little more clear...
please try to read all the posts keeble... you guys are all misinterpreting what i said...
I think you are going to have to go back and edit your post to say something along the lines of "a legitimately proven case of abuse of prisoners"
Honestly, I don't get why you all can't see he meant a situation where the claim of abuse was legitimate and not the actual act of abuse being legit...people read what the want I guess.
I have yet to see anything you guys have said in this thread equate to anything other than pointing fingers, much as you accuse the US government of doing.
In all honesty, that might be because we've been arguing this for a long time. You may or may not be new around here, but some people probably don't want to reiterate all of the validations for their arguments simply because they've been reiterated to death. This is why it's best to stick directly on topic.
That being the Geneva Convention. So, as I asked before, is that officially U.N. stuff as I believe? If so, the U.S. can't move unilaterally outside the U.N. to take actions and then ask or demand that U.N. rules be followed. I have this feeling that if the U.S. were to immediately stop all extra-U.N. activities Iraq would stop torturing and/or executing our troops simply because they'd be happy to be rid of us.
As it stands, the U.S. and British soldiers found on Iraqi soil could easily be considered "illegal combatants" by Iraq since they are acting extra-judiciously. Thus, following the U.S. example, the "illegal combatants" acting within Iraqi borders are subject to Iraqi law. Like the United States, Iraq does support the death penalty and unlike the U.S. they most likely do officially support torture.
Given the circumstances I'd say a good argument exists that our troops shouldn't be covered by the Geneva Convention. And as sick as Saddam is, this is really too bad for our troops.
Had the U.S. acted within the framework of the U.N. Charter, the U.N. Security Council and thus the U.N. General Assembly, this treatment of our troops would not be tolerated by the international community.
Wow did you just admit that you guys didn't really have a point? That's a pretty big admission. I'm impressed. But it's not my fault if people don't want to reitereate their points, just because they've been said before doesn't make them right (or wrong I guess).
Regarding your /= statements...just because you use logical operators doesn't mean it's logical Bunge . The last 12 years of sanctions accomplished nothing except defience of the international community by Saddam while he went about with business as usual.
As for the Geneva Convention you should look it up (I did provide a link earlier but here's another as well as some other clarification that may be needed)...
Quote:
In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
I'm sorry that you soooo want the U.S. to be wrong (hence my anti-US jabs towards you and your comrads) but both Iraq and U.S. are members of U.N. This is a war. Therefore they are both held accountable by international law, and the rules of war, including the Geneva Convention. Whether or not this is an "offically sanctioned" U.N. action is inconsequential apparently (although it was U.N. resolution 1441 that prompted this action).
As a side note, the part I find most interesting in 1441 is...
Quote:
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
Resolutions without enforcement are empty. A few nations understand this.
You're misinformed TonTon... even a SCUD is in violation of sanctions. Also many other indicators that they have other weapon buzzwords we've heard lately. Though some inherantly distrust the CIA here's some documents that outine the WMD capabilities of Iraq.
Just wait until they get desperate enough to use the chemicals we didn't in find in that suspected chem weapons factory.
I doubt any of this will sway you hardcore anti-war folks and your misinformed good intentions and thats unfortunate. I feel I've said any points that needed to be said regarding the Geneva Convention and other side-topics. Take what you will, I'm done with this thread.
I found this very interesting. It needs to be proven but who here thinks this Khalid Sheikh Mohammed caught in Pakistan is the same one that went to school in North Carolina? Yea, odd huh? Who are these people? Or who were they?
If this article is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, it only proves that Iraq "spawned" these terrorists, way back in the 80's. I'd be surprised if there were no links of this type between Iraq and terrorism.
This article does not even come close to alleging cooperation between Iraq and these terrorists.
Since the article, true or false, clearly tries to show that Iraq created 'legends' for these terrorists, it sure as hell is alleging cooperation. And it may go back to the 80's but it also states that the creation of the identities was done while Iraq was occupying Kuwait in the 90's, using their control of Kuwait's breaucracy create the false 'legends'
...but both Iraq and U.S. are members of U.N. This is a war. Therefore they are both held accountable by international law, and the rules of war, including the Geneva Convention.
My point is that if the U.S. doesn't apply this same logic in Afghanistan or in going to war with Iraq, we should shut the hell up if someone else doesn't follow the law either.
The last 12 years of sanctions accomplished nothing except defience of the international community by Saddam while he went about with business as usual.
Not true. We had many decent years of inspections, then no inspections. Then the past six months were more powerful than the previous 12 combined. I've said this before and I'll say it again, it's dishonest to use the term 'inspections' and to pretend it means the same thing over the past 12 years. It doesn't.
But it's not my fault if people don't want to reitereate their points, just because they've been said before doesn't make them right (or wrong I guess).
Well it's not everyone else's fault if you want them to reiterate off topic points either. It's not everyone else's fault if you don't want to attempt to use the broken search function that won't return any useful results anyway.
a) I think Dviant is Scott and if he isn't he riding on the same genital as scott.
b) the whole Al-Qaeda link was dead wrong. We covered this ground already. It is a proven false assertion. to revistit it here shows intellecual bankruptcy.
c)If these yahoos were in fact FOR the backing up of UN resolutions then they would be out protesting that the US has NOT sent not one cruise misile over and into Israel. But they don't do this because they are HYPOCRITES and they assume the rest of us not to call them on it.
d) that the US has gone to war without US sanction, means this war is ILLEGAL under international law. Yet because the US has gutted the world court, not ONE person will be held responsible for the current killing going on in Iraq.
e) up until the US invasion the only person responsible for deaths in Iraq was Saddam. Now every soldier who has killed anyone in Iraq is legally a war criminal Since the invasion of a sovereign nation for any reason other than self defence (which this is not), is illegal under international law.
So the so called "pro-American' "pro-war" people on this board are wrong on ALL counts. Period. And if they want to know what's coming down the pipes for there children or grand children all they need to do is read on what happened in Iran and the whole history of the colonization of much of what is called the third world. Clearly they missed that part of history class.
Comments
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
I don't understand why so many in the pro-war camp find themselves compelled to equate opposition to the war with support for Saddam Hussein.
It's called a 'straw-man' argument, and it's intellectual dishonesty at its finest. They do it because they don't have a strong enough argument to counter the true anti-war arguments. It's easier to defeat your opponent in an argument when you pretend that your opponent is defending a ficticious position that is impossible to defend.
Originally posted by dviant
I dont think demanding that our POW's not be tortured or killed is out of line.
It's a strange position our military finds itself in. I mean, by going to war unilaterally we basically stated that we don't believe that the U.N. is relevant. So, what right do we have to disagree when another country doesn't follow some of the U.N. laws? (Is the Geneva Convention officially U.N. material?)
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
I don't understand why so many in the pro-war camp find themselves compelled to equate opposition to the war with support for Saddam Hussein. I do not know very many people who support the war, but I do not know one single person that supports or would attempt to defend Hussein. Is it so difficult to comprehend that an individual might find the actions taken by the Bush administration difficult to justify - while still recognizing Hussein as a Bad Man?
Inaction == support. Please explain to me how NOT enforcing the U.N. Resolution helps the Iraqi people. Or the rest of the world subjected to terrorism by the likes of Al Queda and Al Ansar that have ties to Iraq.
"Bad Man" is cute, good effort in trivializing the atrocities his regime have committed and perpetuated though.
They do it because they don't have a strong enough argument to counter the true anti-war arguments.
What is truly baffling is that fact that so many of the pro-war camp genuinely seem to believe that anti-war = pro-Hussein.
"Bad Man" is cute, good effort in trivializing the atrocities his regime have committed and perpetuated though.
Of course, because obviously my intention was to show support for Hussein rather then solicit a response to the question I posed.
Edit: clarification
Originally posted by bunge
It's called a 'straw-man' argument, and it's intellectual dishonesty at its finest. They do it because they don't have a strong enough argument to counter the true anti-war arguments. It's easier to defeat your opponent in an argument when you pretend that your opponent is defending a ficticious position that is impossible to defend.
What anti-war argument? Most of the things I see the "anti-war" people say are simply anti-US. I have yet to see anything you guys have said in this thread equate to anything other than pointing fingers, much as you accuse the US government of doing.
1) CNN, FoxNews, ABC, CBS are not the US Government. Period. How they portray Iraqi prisoners is inconsequential. However, this being said, they did not "interview" wounded POW's with footage of dead soliders. Iraqi state TV did (then Al Jazeera re-ran it). All the shots I've seen of our media's portrayal of Iraqi POWs have been inpersonal, from a distance and have even show our medics tending to their wounded.
2) Aside from it being inconsequential as to whether or not the US can demand Geneva convention rights, Camp X-Ray is small potatoes (though I agree no prisoner should be beaten to death) compared to Iraq's track history torture and execution.
EDIT: decided to make point one a little more clear...
Originally posted by dviant
please try to read all the posts keeble... you guys are all misinterpreting what i said...
I think you are going to have to go back and edit your post to say something along the lines of "a legitimately proven case of abuse of prisoners"
Honestly, I don't get why you all can't see he meant a situation where the claim of abuse was legitimate and not the actual act of abuse being legit...people read what the want I guess.
Originally posted by dviant
Inaction == support.
That might be true, but:
No war /= inaction.
So:
no war /= support.
Originally posted by dviant
I have yet to see anything you guys have said in this thread equate to anything other than pointing fingers, much as you accuse the US government of doing.
In all honesty, that might be because we've been arguing this for a long time. You may or may not be new around here, but some people probably don't want to reiterate all of the validations for their arguments simply because they've been reiterated to death. This is why it's best to stick directly on topic.
That being the Geneva Convention. So, as I asked before, is that officially U.N. stuff as I believe? If so, the U.S. can't move unilaterally outside the U.N. to take actions and then ask or demand that U.N. rules be followed. I have this feeling that if the U.S. were to immediately stop all extra-U.N. activities Iraq would stop torturing and/or executing our troops simply because they'd be happy to be rid of us.
As it stands, the U.S. and British soldiers found on Iraqi soil could easily be considered "illegal combatants" by Iraq since they are acting extra-judiciously. Thus, following the U.S. example, the "illegal combatants" acting within Iraqi borders are subject to Iraqi law. Like the United States, Iraq does support the death penalty and unlike the U.S. they most likely do officially support torture.
Given the circumstances I'd say a good argument exists that our troops shouldn't be covered by the Geneva Convention. And as sick as Saddam is, this is really too bad for our troops.
Had the U.S. acted within the framework of the U.N. Charter, the U.N. Security Council and thus the U.N. General Assembly, this treatment of our troops would not be tolerated by the international community.
Regarding your /= statements...just because you use logical operators doesn't mean it's logical Bunge
As for the Geneva Convention you should look it up (I did provide a link earlier but here's another as well as some other clarification that may be needed)...
In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
I'm sorry that you soooo want the U.S. to be wrong (hence my anti-US jabs towards you and your comrads) but both Iraq and U.S. are members of U.N. This is a war. Therefore they are both held accountable by international law, and the rules of war, including the Geneva Convention. Whether or not this is an "offically sanctioned" U.N. action is inconsequential apparently (although it was U.N. resolution 1441 that prompted this action).
As a side note, the part I find most interesting in 1441 is...
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
Resolutions without enforcement are empty. A few nations understand this.
Theres also numerous reports of terrorist links like this. The Al Ansar camp they found in Iraq just goes further to support this line of thought.
Just wait until they get desperate enough to use the chemicals we didn't in find in that suspected chem weapons factory.
I doubt any of this will sway you hardcore anti-war folks and your misinformed good intentions and thats unfortunate. I feel I've said any points that needed to be said regarding the Geneva Convention and other side-topics. Take what you will, I'm done with this thread.
ggs
Originally posted by tonton
Note:
Just to avoid Scott incorrectly labeling me as "pro-Saddam":
I'm against the prolonged sanctions, and I do think Saddam is a "bad man" who should be deposed. Legally.
Did I ever call you that?
Legally? That's joke while some of Saddams greatest supporters sit in the security counsel.
The Baluch Connection
Is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed tied to Baghdad?
BY LAURIE MYLROIE
Tuesday, March 18, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST
Originally posted by tonton
I know. Who said anything about SCUDs? Or are you still spreading the lie that those missiles fired at Kuwait were SCUDs?
Who cares if they were SCUDS or Al Samouds..both are banned.
Originally posted by tonton
If this article is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, it only proves that Iraq "spawned" these terrorists, way back in the 80's. I'd be surprised if there were no links of this type between Iraq and terrorism.
This article does not even come close to alleging cooperation between Iraq and these terrorists.
Since the article, true or false, clearly tries to show that Iraq created 'legends' for these terrorists, it sure as hell is alleging cooperation. And it may go back to the 80's but it also states that the creation of the identities was done while Iraq was occupying Kuwait in the 90's, using their control of Kuwait's breaucracy create the false 'legends'
Originally posted by dviant
...but both Iraq and U.S. are members of U.N. This is a war. Therefore they are both held accountable by international law, and the rules of war, including the Geneva Convention.
My point is that if the U.S. doesn't apply this same logic in Afghanistan or in going to war with Iraq, we should shut the hell up if someone else doesn't follow the law either.
Originally posted by dviant
The last 12 years of sanctions accomplished nothing except defience of the international community by Saddam while he went about with business as usual.
Not true. We had many decent years of inspections, then no inspections. Then the past six months were more powerful than the previous 12 combined. I've said this before and I'll say it again, it's dishonest to use the term 'inspections' and to pretend it means the same thing over the past 12 years. It doesn't.
Originally posted by dviant
But it's not my fault if people don't want to reitereate their points, just because they've been said before doesn't make them right (or wrong I guess).
Well it's not everyone else's fault if you want them to reiterate off topic points either. It's not everyone else's fault if you don't want to attempt to use the broken search function that won't return any useful results anyway.
Originally posted by Scott
Legally? That's [a] joke....
If International Law is a joke, what's the point of this thread? If the Geneva Convention is a joke, what are the hawks complaining about?
b) the whole Al-Qaeda link was dead wrong. We covered this ground already. It is a proven false assertion. to revistit it here shows intellecual bankruptcy.
c)If these yahoos were in fact FOR the backing up of UN resolutions then they would be out protesting that the US has NOT sent not one cruise misile over and into Israel. But they don't do this because they are HYPOCRITES and they assume the rest of us not to call them on it.
d) that the US has gone to war without US sanction, means this war is ILLEGAL under international law. Yet because the US has gutted the world court, not ONE person will be held responsible for the current killing going on in Iraq.
e) up until the US invasion the only person responsible for deaths in Iraq was Saddam. Now every soldier who has killed anyone in Iraq is legally a war criminal Since the invasion of a sovereign nation for any reason other than self defence (which this is not), is illegal under international law.
So the so called "pro-American' "pro-war" people on this board are wrong on ALL counts. Period. And if they want to know what's coming down the pipes for there children or grand children all they need to do is read on what happened in Iran and the whole history of the colonization of much of what is called the third world. Clearly they missed that part of history class.