Just for fun, perhaps you'd like to take a shot at explaining why there was no initial declaration of war, no formal declaration of ceasation of hostilities and why there are no 'prisoners of war' only 'enemy combatants'.
I realise you may not have the wherewithal to achieve this unaided so here's some links to study from people who know what they're talking about:
You know just as well as I do that the Geneva Conventions applies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also the war is not over because the fighting hasn't stopped in either. Nit pickers like you with your pseudo legalistic international law arguments find any crack you can to demonize the US. You're just playing stupid to try to skirt the issue and pretend that the US is doing something against international law. There's this little problem called "reality" that creeps in. In the "real world" two sides are still fighting there. In the "real world" the Geneva Convention applies to us as well as them.
To be fair, the post about the broken treaties does have merit. I wasn't even thinking of non-military treaties. All the military ones have of course been broken by this current administration, and I was thinking about a long history of the USA breaking these treaties, which I thought the original post on the subject implied. Frankly, the missile treaties mentioned just didn't come to mind. It's a good answer, I was just looking for a pattern of broken treaties over a longer period of time instead of the recent string of them.
To be fair, the post about the broken treaties does have merit. I wasn't even thinking of non-military treaties. All the military ones have of course been broken by this current administration, and I was thinking about a long history of the USA breaking these treaties, which I thought the original post on the subject implied. Frankly, the missile treaties mentioned just didn't come to mind. It's a good answer, I was just looking for a pattern of broken treaties over a longer period of time instead of the recent string of them.
Total garbage. The "treaties" were never ratified. Therefor not treaties. ABM was worded with and out and that wording was followed therefor the treaty was followed. As far as any of us know the US has not systematically violated any treaty.
Someone pick BuonRotto up. He doesn't have a leg to stand on.
I would agree that the US doesn't, to my recollection (which seems to be faulty), have a track record of broken treaties or partake in any "systematic" breaking of them. But I thought the missile treaties and such were ratified. AFAIK, the recent war crimes court one was never ratified, and there are several of these environmental ones we haven't adopted either. But I could swear the old Cold War treaties from the Reagan and Carter years, whether pertinent or not, were ratified but recently retracted.
how is it spin? they were reporting a story, i saw it elsewhere as well.
i think your diluted.
Quote:
In an embarrassing rebuke to the White House, a group of Republican and Democratic governors is embracing the Kyoto accords on global warming.
...
July 21, 2003 _|_ A bipartisan group of Northeastern governors is expected to announce an historic agreement this week to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, a plan that would break sharply with Bush administration policy on global warming.
The agreement for mandatory greenhouse-gas emission caps could put the states on the road to compliance with the Kyoto climate-change treaty, an embarrassing rebuke to the president, who made a decision in 2001 to pull the U.S. out of negotiations on the pact.
In another repudiation of Bush doctrine, the states say that their move away from fossil fuels and toward sustainable energy will not only benefit the environment but the economy as well.
....
That's spin.
Bush is not against reducing greenhouse gasses (GHG). Salon makes it sound otherwise, as if any move to reduce GHG is counter to White House policy. It's not. Salon got it wrong.
Look at all the connotative words used: embarrassing rebuke, break sharply, repudiation of Bush doctrine (wtf is "Bush doctrine" wrt GHG. Salon is making it up at this point).
Bush himself proposed "alternative" energy development.
****** media anyone?
edit to add
This is not reporting on news. This is somewhere between news analysis and opinion with a strong whiff taking sides.
yeah, you're right because of the way they wrote the piece means it's not happening or real, and the white house is not asking the republican governors to back off. you're spinning.
That's what a second person reported that a third person said. And we never know why. So ... no real news makes good spin. This is supposed to be journalism.
I am totally indifferent with regards to their lifes. Here the end must decide if it was a good thing.
The faster the ghost of Saddam is removed from the eyes of the iraqis the faster they can start believing in another future.
If the killings will result in fewer attacks on american soldier one could hope it would mean they would use more energy in restoring the infrastructure again.
BUT:
This has denied the iraqis with an opportunity to deal with their devils themselves, something that could fuel a feeling of no responsibility for their own future.
This could also fuel the hate (and the attacks against american soldiers) among a very little post-elite in Iraq.
What the outcome is will deside if this was a good move or not for me.
I am totally indifferent with regards to their lifes. Here the end must decide if it was a good thing.
The faster the ghost of Saddam is removed from the eyes of the iraqis the faster they can start believing in another future.
If the killings will result in fewer attacks on american soldier one could hope it would mean they would use more energy in restoring the infrastructure again.
BUT:
This has denied the iraqis with an opportunity to deal with their devils themselves, something that could fuel a feeling of no responsibility for their own future.
This could also fuel the hate (and the attacks against american soldiers) among a very little post-elite in Iraq.
What the outcome is will deside if this was a good move or not for me.
Yes, but now that the process has began (the war) it must be achieved. It's not time to stop it now. Saddam and consorts have to be removed entirely.
The US Irak admin, have declared that they are waiting more attacks against them, in the next coming days. It will be good that Saddma is caught alive, and have a trial who will show all the wide of his evilness, him and the system he built.
However it will a hard job to take him alive. If he die, i will be indifferent to it, perhaps a small grin on my blasé face
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
Kyoto was never and WILL never be ratified by the US sentate because it exempts 80% of the world's biggest polluters. It's a sham.
i just read somewhere (here actually) that states are going to start implementing the kyoto treaty's limits on their own.
Originally posted by segovius
Then you think wrong. Again.
Just for fun, perhaps you'd like to take a shot at explaining why there was no initial declaration of war, no formal declaration of ceasation of hostilities and why there are no 'prisoners of war' only 'enemy combatants'.
I realise you may not have the wherewithal to achieve this unaided so here's some links to study from people who know what they're talking about:
Military law expert
Legal analyst
You know just as well as I do that the Geneva Conventions applies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also the war is not over because the fighting hasn't stopped in either. Nit pickers like you with your pseudo legalistic international law arguments find any crack you can to demonize the US. You're just playing stupid to try to skirt the issue and pretend that the US is doing something against international law. There's this little problem called "reality" that creeps in. In the "real world" two sides are still fighting there. In the "real world" the Geneva Convention applies to us as well as them.
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
i just read somewhere (here actually) that states are going to start implementing the kyoto treaty's limits on their own.
Ridiculous spin from Salon.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
To be fair, the post about the broken treaties does have merit. I wasn't even thinking of non-military treaties. All the military ones have of course been broken by this current administration, and I was thinking about a long history of the USA breaking these treaties, which I thought the original post on the subject implied. Frankly, the missile treaties mentioned just didn't come to mind. It's a good answer, I was just looking for a pattern of broken treaties over a longer period of time instead of the recent string of them.
Total garbage. The "treaties" were never ratified. Therefor not treaties. ABM was worded with and out and that wording was followed therefor the treaty was followed. As far as any of us know the US has not systematically violated any treaty.
Someone pick BuonRotto up. He doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Originally posted by Scott
Ridiculous spin from Salon.
how about a press release from the republican governor of the state of new york.
jesus scott what is your problem?
not related to the above
The ABM treaty had an "out" and that "out" was used. The treaty was written with a method to get out of it. That method was used.
Originally posted by Scott
I'm just saying that I think Salon is being ridiculous with that spin they are putting on it.
how is it spin? they were reporting a story, i saw it elsewhere as well.
i think your diluted.
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
how is it spin? they were reporting a story, i saw it elsewhere as well.
i think your diluted.
In an embarrassing rebuke to the White House, a group of Republican and Democratic governors is embracing the Kyoto accords on global warming.
...
July 21, 2003 _|_ A bipartisan group of Northeastern governors is expected to announce an historic agreement this week to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, a plan that would break sharply with Bush administration policy on global warming.
The agreement for mandatory greenhouse-gas emission caps could put the states on the road to compliance with the Kyoto climate-change treaty, an embarrassing rebuke to the president, who made a decision in 2001 to pull the U.S. out of negotiations on the pact.
In another repudiation of Bush doctrine, the states say that their move away from fossil fuels and toward sustainable energy will not only benefit the environment but the economy as well.
....
That's spin.
Bush is not against reducing greenhouse gasses (GHG). Salon makes it sound otherwise, as if any move to reduce GHG is counter to White House policy. It's not. Salon got it wrong.
Look at all the connotative words used: embarrassing rebuke, break sharply, repudiation of Bush doctrine (wtf is "Bush doctrine" wrt GHG. Salon is making it up at this point).
Bush himself proposed "alternative" energy development.
****** media anyone?
edit to add
This is not reporting on news. This is somewhere between news analysis and opinion with a strong whiff taking sides.
Originally posted by SDW2001
A perfect example of straw man, disingenuous liberal argument. You know damn well what I meant.
I thought I did till I read this reply. I'm now honestly baffled.
So do we hunt and kill terrorists or not?
Scott thinks it's a "war" but I'm not sure hunting and killing people is allowed under the Geneva Convention either.
The faster the ghost of Saddam is removed from the eyes of the iraqis the faster they can start believing in another future.
If the killings will result in fewer attacks on american soldier one could hope it would mean they would use more energy in restoring the infrastructure again.
BUT:
This has denied the iraqis with an opportunity to deal with their devils themselves, something that could fuel a feeling of no responsibility for their own future.
This could also fuel the hate (and the attacks against american soldiers) among a very little post-elite in Iraq.
What the outcome is will deside if this was a good move or not for me.
Originally posted by Anders
I am totally indifferent with regards to their lifes. Here the end must decide if it was a good thing.
The faster the ghost of Saddam is removed from the eyes of the iraqis the faster they can start believing in another future.
If the killings will result in fewer attacks on american soldier one could hope it would mean they would use more energy in restoring the infrastructure again.
BUT:
This has denied the iraqis with an opportunity to deal with their devils themselves, something that could fuel a feeling of no responsibility for their own future.
This could also fuel the hate (and the attacks against american soldiers) among a very little post-elite in Iraq.
What the outcome is will deside if this was a good move or not for me.
Yes, but now that the process has began (the war) it must be achieved. It's not time to stop it now. Saddam and consorts have to be removed entirely.
The US Irak admin, have declared that they are waiting more attacks against them, in the next coming days. It will be good that Saddma is caught alive, and have a trial who will show all the wide of his evilness, him and the system he built.
However it will a hard job to take him alive. If he die, i will be indifferent to it, perhaps a small grin on my blasé face
The dansih version of BBC has the news of the hunt down and killing of Uday and Qusay - in the sports section.