That means that I don't want to see you post at all regarding poor treatment, exploitation, or execution of US POW's.
If you, personally, hold no reagrd for the Geneva Convention then you are saying that any and all consequences that both Iraqi and Coalition troops face at the hands of their captors is fair.
That means that I don't want to see you post at all regarding poor treatment, exploitation, or execution of US POW's.
Why would I base my response to those things on the Geneva Convention?
Did you realize that humans lived and breathed *before* the Geneva Conventions were made? Did you know that the things listed in the Geneva Conventions were put there because humans reacted negatively to them BEFORE drafting the conventions?
HOW ON EARTH DOES ANYONE FEEL OR THINK WITHOUT INTERNATIONAL LAW TO GUIDE THEM!?
Quote:
If you, personally, hold no reagrd for the Geneva Convention then you are saying that any and all consequences that both Iraqi and Coalition troops face at the hands of their captors is fair.
That's not what I'm saying at all. You are not bright or clever.
The Geneva Conventions have nothing to do with me and how I react or feel. Once I become President I will care about the Geneva Conventions.
I think it's supposed to mean that Rumsfeld, Bush and the rest of the self-righteous conservative hawks should shut the hell up and quit complaining because the U.S. doesn't seem to give a crap about the Geneva Convention.
No, that isn't what I meant, at all.
I think you're being disingenuous when you say that the US doesn't care about the Geneva Convention.
Why would I base my response to those things on the Geneva Convention?
Did you realize that humans lived and breathed *before* the Geneva Conventions were made? Did you know that the things listed in the Geneva Conventions were put there because humans reacted negatively to them BEFORE drafting the conventions?
HOW ON EARTH DOES ANYONE FEEL OR THINK WITHOUT INTERNATIONAL LAW TO GUIDE THEM!?
That's not what I'm saying at all. You are not bright or clever.
The Geneva Conventions have nothing to do with me and how I react or feel. Once I become President I will care about the Geneva Conventions.
This thread is predicated on the Geneva Convention. We're not talking about the Groverat Convention.
Speciousness doesn't become you. Neither does yelling.
Of course I realize that people lived and breathed before the Conventions. I don't need a list of rules to let me see what moral guidelines we, as humans, should follow.
I think you're being disingenuous when you say that the US doesn't care about the Geneva Convention.
Well, saying the 'US' doesn't might be too general, but whoever is responsible for our treatment of the captives in Cuba doesn't care about it. To say that is not disingenuous in the least.
Well, saying the 'US' doesn't might be too general, but whoever is responsible for our treatment of the captives in Cuba doesn't care about it. To say that is not disingenuous in the least.
Look, honestly, I'm with Groverat on this one. I don't agree with his presentation, but the old saying that 'all is fair in love and war' fits.
I'll keep that in mind when I see pictures and television footage of allegedly (and most likely) executed US Soldiers.
Bingo. There it is. Call me what you will, but I will be the one here who has the balls to say it. I think many others agree with me:
I don't give a **** what happens to the prisoners at camp X-Ray. I am more concerned with Americans and others being slaughtered on their way to work. I am more concerned with Iraq ACTUALLY torturing and KILLING our LEGITIMATE military prisoners.
If they have been tortured, and I seriously doubt they have been, then I will care. If they aren't fed or given water, then I'll care. Short of that, **** them. Really. Go ahead and lose sleep over it, because I won't.
And those of you who say that this war will increase terrorism and anti-Americanism and destroy the world in general....you are wrong. Period. What this war WILL do is effectively "take the gloves off". Nations will know we are dead serious about winning the war on terror. We aren't just going to lob a few cruise missles at them anymore when they bomb our embassies and vessels. We aren't just going to put them on trial when we happen to catch them. No, we are going to hunt them down and kill them. And then? We are going to go after the state that sponsored them or supplied them or even WILL supply them. That's how we are going to win. It's the ONLY way to win.
As far as the US being an Empire, that's utter shit. Name one country that we have annexed and held in that last two centuries....go ahead...there aren't any. We have ALWAYS returned the government to its people. We DON'T conquer...we never have.
Once again the US is going to bear the burden of actually doing something about the madmen in the world. Scoff if you like, but it will be AMERICAN and BRITISH blood that buys Europe's freedom once again. Saddam's Regime is a problem that has been put off, swept under the carpet and ignored for twelve years.
So make your arguments: It will destabilize the region and make it unpredictable, it will increase anti-American sentiment, it will destroy the UN....whatever. Mark my words, good will come of this. The region isn't going to be any less stable than it is now my friends. The US is serious this time....and I think the world just figured it out.
I believe so. We can hope that the Coalition forces take the moral high ground, as it will only help with world opinion, but I still stick with the 'all is fair' comment.
So if the iraqis use human shields (the unvoluntary kind), chemical and biological weapons you say thats fair?
In response to you, I say it's fair insofar as their ability to wage a winning battle any other way. We're not fighting an army that's renowned for their stunning battle stategies. We can certainly see by their past actions that Saddam's forces, upon his bidding, will do anything and everything to provoke the US to attack civilian targets.
What I am saying, generally, is that as fair as it is for the Iraqi's to torture, exploit, humiliate, and execute PoW's it's just as fair for the Coalition to respond in like.
As I said in a previous post, though, I would hope that the moral high-ground was taken by the Coalition.
You can twist my words to meet your needs, as you wish.
Terrorists are neither regular army or militia. They are terrorists, which is a different animal entirely.
I thought we were talking about "illegal combatants" and how do you define terrorist? If say the Kurds took up arms against Saddam would they be terrorists?
You can twist my words to meet your needs, as you wish.
No. I´m cool.
I just set a higher standard for both the iraqi AND the US/GB* army: expect the Iraqi army not to use civilians and ABC weapons and the US/GB army not to attack when there is a high risk that civilians will be sacrified. One civilian Iraqi should count at least as much as a US/GB soldier.
*coalition? Lets be fair here. My country comes after US and GB in involvement in the war and we supplied a u-boat and a small war ship (expected to arrive around a week after the war is over).
I just set a higher standard for both the iraqi AND the US/GB* army: expect the Iraqi army not to use civilians and ABC weapons and the US/GB army not to attack when there is a high risk that civilians will be sacrified. One civilian Iraqi should count at least as much as a US/GB soldier.
Certainly. The standard can be set, but my expectation is low that the Iraqi forces will adhere to it.
I thought we were talking about "illegal combatants" and how do you define terrorist? If say the Kurds took up arms against Saddam would they be terrorists?
"Illegal combatants" is a term with no status under international law and was coined by the US military.
The prisoners they took were captured in battle with US forces, and as suspected members of a militia they should be considered PoWs under the Geneva Convention or tried by the government holding them in order to determine their status. This the American government refuses to do, claiming that since they are held captive off the American mainland they are under no obligation to try them.
So, in the eyes of international law they are indeed PoWs and should not be coerced to provide information and should be released, since the conflict is over.
They are prisoners of war in the eyes of international law.
We're not debating whether they're good people or not, but whether Rumsfeld can call on international law and the Geneva Convention with regard to the maltreatment of US PoWs in Iraq without hypocrisy when the army under his direct command is flouting international law and mistreating prisoners of its own.
I thought we were talking about "illegal combatants" and how do you define terrorist? If say the Kurds took up arms against Saddam would they be terrorists?
It's an interesting point you raise about the Kurds in northern Iraq, though.
The Turks want to move troops across their border to 'secure' the region from "Kurdish terrorism" and this annoys George Bush no end since it is pre-emptive and unilateral military action, against international law and undertaken with no evidence that the Kurds pose any kind of terrorist risk.
Ah. You see where I'm going with this.
Er... how, exactly, can George Bush object? He set the precedent.
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
What is that supposed to mean?
That means that I don't want to see you post at all regarding poor treatment, exploitation, or execution of US POW's.
If you, personally, hold no reagrd for the Geneva Convention then you are saying that any and all consequences that both Iraqi and Coalition troops face at the hands of their captors is fair.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2671287.stm
Originally posted by audiopollution
That means that I don't want to see you post at all regarding poor treatment, exploitation, or execution of US POW's.
Why would I base my response to those things on the Geneva Convention?
Did you realize that humans lived and breathed *before* the Geneva Conventions were made? Did you know that the things listed in the Geneva Conventions were put there because humans reacted negatively to them BEFORE drafting the conventions?
HOW ON EARTH DOES ANYONE FEEL OR THINK WITHOUT INTERNATIONAL LAW TO GUIDE THEM!?
If you, personally, hold no reagrd for the Geneva Convention then you are saying that any and all consequences that both Iraqi and Coalition troops face at the hands of their captors is fair.
That's not what I'm saying at all. You are not bright or clever.
The Geneva Conventions have nothing to do with me and how I react or feel. Once I become President I will care about the Geneva Conventions.
Originally posted by bunge
I think it's supposed to mean that Rumsfeld, Bush and the rest of the self-righteous conservative hawks should shut the hell up and quit complaining because the U.S. doesn't seem to give a crap about the Geneva Convention.
No, that isn't what I meant, at all.
I think you're being disingenuous when you say that the US doesn't care about the Geneva Convention.
Originally posted by groverat
Why would I base my response to those things on the Geneva Convention?
Did you realize that humans lived and breathed *before* the Geneva Conventions were made? Did you know that the things listed in the Geneva Conventions were put there because humans reacted negatively to them BEFORE drafting the conventions?
HOW ON EARTH DOES ANYONE FEEL OR THINK WITHOUT INTERNATIONAL LAW TO GUIDE THEM!?
That's not what I'm saying at all. You are not bright or clever.
The Geneva Conventions have nothing to do with me and how I react or feel. Once I become President I will care about the Geneva Conventions.
This thread is predicated on the Geneva Convention. We're not talking about the Groverat Convention.
Speciousness doesn't become you. Neither does yelling.
Of course I realize that people lived and breathed before the Conventions. I don't need a list of rules to let me see what moral guidelines we, as humans, should follow.
Originally posted by audiopollution
I think you're being disingenuous when you say that the US doesn't care about the Geneva Convention.
Well, saying the 'US' doesn't might be too general, but whoever is responsible for our treatment of the captives in Cuba doesn't care about it. To say that is not disingenuous in the least.
Originally posted by bunge
Well, saying the 'US' doesn't might be too general, but whoever is responsible for our treatment of the captives in Cuba doesn't care about it. To say that is not disingenuous in the least.
Look, honestly, I'm with Groverat on this one. I don't agree with his presentation, but the old saying that 'all is fair in love and war' fits.
Originally posted by audiopollution
Look, honestly, I'm with Groverat on this one. I don't agree with his presentation, but the old saying that 'all is fair in love and war' fits.
Is the treatment of American PoWs in Iraq 'fair', then?
Originally posted by audiopollution
I'll keep that in mind when I see pictures and television footage of allegedly (and most likely) executed US Soldiers.
Bingo. There it is. Call me what you will, but I will be the one here who has the balls to say it. I think many others agree with me:
I don't give a **** what happens to the prisoners at camp X-Ray. I am more concerned with Americans and others being slaughtered on their way to work. I am more concerned with Iraq ACTUALLY torturing and KILLING our LEGITIMATE military prisoners.
If they have been tortured, and I seriously doubt they have been, then I will care. If they aren't fed or given water, then I'll care. Short of that, **** them. Really. Go ahead and lose sleep over it, because I won't.
And those of you who say that this war will increase terrorism and anti-Americanism and destroy the world in general....you are wrong. Period. What this war WILL do is effectively "take the gloves off". Nations will know we are dead serious about winning the war on terror. We aren't just going to lob a few cruise missles at them anymore when they bomb our embassies and vessels. We aren't just going to put them on trial when we happen to catch them. No, we are going to hunt them down and kill them. And then? We are going to go after the state that sponsored them or supplied them or even WILL supply them. That's how we are going to win. It's the ONLY way to win.
As far as the US being an Empire, that's utter shit. Name one country that we have annexed and held in that last two centuries....go ahead...there aren't any. We have ALWAYS returned the government to its people. We DON'T conquer...we never have.
Once again the US is going to bear the burden of actually doing something about the madmen in the world. Scoff if you like, but it will be AMERICAN and BRITISH blood that buys Europe's freedom once again. Saddam's Regime is a problem that has been put off, swept under the carpet and ignored for twelve years.
So make your arguments: It will destabilize the region and make it unpredictable, it will increase anti-American sentiment, it will destroy the UN....whatever. Mark my words, good will come of this. The region isn't going to be any less stable than it is now my friends. The US is serious this time....and I think the world just figured it out.
Originally posted by audiopollution
Look, honestly, I'm with Groverat on this one. I don't agree with his presentation, but the old saying that 'all is fair in love and war' fits.
So if the iraqis use human shields (the unvoluntary kind), chemical and biological weapons you say thats fair?
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Is the treatment of Iraqu PoWs 'fair', then?
I believe so. We can hope that the Coalition forces take the moral high ground, as it will only help with world opinion, but I still stick with the 'all is fair' comment.
Originally posted by Anders the White
So if the iraqis use human shields (the unvoluntary kind), chemical and biological weapons you say thats fair?
In response to you, I say it's fair insofar as their ability to wage a winning battle any other way. We're not fighting an army that's renowned for their stunning battle stategies. We can certainly see by their past actions that Saddam's forces, upon his bidding, will do anything and everything to provoke the US to attack civilian targets.
What I am saying, generally, is that as fair as it is for the Iraqi's to torture, exploit, humiliate, and execute PoW's it's just as fair for the Coalition to respond in like.
As I said in a previous post, though, I would hope that the moral high-ground was taken by the Coalition.
You can twist my words to meet your needs, as you wish.
Terrorists are neither regular army or militia. They are terrorists, which is a different animal entirely.
I thought we were talking about "illegal combatants" and how do you define terrorist? If say the Kurds took up arms against Saddam would they be terrorists?
Originally posted by audiopollution
You can twist my words to meet your needs, as you wish.
No. I´m cool.
I just set a higher standard for both the iraqi AND the US/GB* army: expect the Iraqi army not to use civilians and ABC weapons and the US/GB army not to attack when there is a high risk that civilians will be sacrified. One civilian Iraqi should count at least as much as a US/GB soldier.
*coalition? Lets be fair here. My country comes after US and GB in involvement in the war and we supplied a u-boat and a small war ship (expected to arrive around a week after the war is over).
Originally posted by Anders the White
No. I´m cool.
I just set a higher standard for both the iraqi AND the US/GB* army: expect the Iraqi army not to use civilians and ABC weapons and the US/GB army not to attack when there is a high risk that civilians will be sacrified. One civilian Iraqi should count at least as much as a US/GB soldier.
Certainly. The standard can be set, but my expectation is low that the Iraqi forces will adhere to it.
Originally posted by trick fall
I thought we were talking about "illegal combatants" and how do you define terrorist? If say the Kurds took up arms against Saddam would they be terrorists?
"Illegal combatants" is a term with no status under international law and was coined by the US military.
The prisoners they took were captured in battle with US forces, and as suspected members of a militia they should be considered PoWs under the Geneva Convention or tried by the government holding them in order to determine their status. This the American government refuses to do, claiming that since they are held captive off the American mainland they are under no obligation to try them.
So, in the eyes of international law they are indeed PoWs and should not be coerced to provide information and should be released, since the conflict is over.
They are prisoners of war in the eyes of international law.
We're not debating whether they're good people or not, but whether Rumsfeld can call on international law and the Geneva Convention with regard to the maltreatment of US PoWs in Iraq without hypocrisy when the army under his direct command is flouting international law and mistreating prisoners of its own.
Originally posted by audiopollution
Look, honestly, I'm with Groverat on this one. I don't agree with his presentation, but the old saying that 'all is fair in love and war' fits.
So flying jumbo jets into sky scrapers is fair?
Originally posted by bunge
So flying jumbo jets into sky scrapers is fair?
That's not war. Try again.
Originally posted by trick fall
I thought we were talking about "illegal combatants" and how do you define terrorist? If say the Kurds took up arms against Saddam would they be terrorists?
It's an interesting point you raise about the Kurds in northern Iraq, though.
The Turks want to move troops across their border to 'secure' the region from "Kurdish terrorism" and this annoys George Bush no end since it is pre-emptive and unilateral military action, against international law and undertaken with no evidence that the Kurds pose any kind of terrorist risk.
Ah. You see where I'm going with this.
Er... how, exactly, can George Bush object? He set the precedent.