While I DO realize that an attacking force holds some responsibility for civilians killed, but everyone knew SH would purposely put them in harms way to protect his own sorry ASS. This make the whole thing a little obvious than you appear to want it to be.
but still you have no proof... funny...
Quote:
I simply am stating that the original aggressor, SH, has the majority of the blood on his hands. A handful of conditions could have been met and all of this would never have happened. SH was the gatekeeper and refused to comply to world view.
The original argressor? is that a trademark? sort of like "the original coca cola"? So why did the US go against UN and world opinion then?
Quote:
You and the network media and many here in AO choose to ignore the previous 12+ years of Iraq/US/UN dealings and far too readily blame ONLY the US and more specifically president GWB for this current episode in the decades old Iraqi saga.
eh... I think you got it wrong. I'm that guy who steadily whines about root causes and imperialistic history going back hundreds of years. I blame US for things relating to Saddam back in the 60's. I blame France and the UK for the stuff they did. I blame Russia, iI blame corrupt arab dictators.
And right now. I blame GWB and his corrupt band of wolves, for this current episode. Yes.
The original argressor? is that a trademark? sort of like "the original coca cola"? So why did the US go against UN and world opinion then?
eh... I think you got it wrong. I'm that guy who steadily whines about root causes and imperialistic history going back hundreds of years. I blame US for things relating to Saddam back in the 60's. I blame France and the UK for the stuff they did. I blame Russia, iI blame corrupt arab dictators.
And right now. I blame GWB and his corrupt band of wolves, for this current episode. Yes.
Right..it's the Imperial US again! Can I get a "Blame America First"? Yeeeeaahhh!
Naples and SDW are right about Saddam using these tactics . . . it is well known . . . half of his military in wartime were made up of forced conscripts . . . . like a draft, except they would pick you up off the street.
All the more sickening that we would go ahead and slaughter them when we knew they were 16 year old conscripts.
All the more sickening that we would go ahead and slaughter them when we knew they were 16 year old conscripts.
Several human rights groups have criticized the US for unfair amounts of force used in attacking iraqi soldiers in certain situations. Bombing some divisions to dust before they had a chance to even enter battle. These divisions would probably have surrendered very easily anyway. As we saw many other soldiers do during the war, without even putting up a fight.
The argument is that a lot of conscript lives would have been saved. Soldiers who really were not to keen on fighting for Saddam anyway, but now have families that mourn their loss, and, guess what, blame the US for it...
Several human rights groups have criticized the US for unfair amounts of force used in attacking iraqi soldiers in certain situations. Bombing some divisions to dust before they had a chance to even enter battle. These divisions would probably have surrendered very easily anyway. As we saw many other soldiers do during the war, without even putting up a fight.
The argument is that a lot of conscript lives would have been saved. Soldiers who really were not to keen on fighting for Saddam anyway, but now have families that mourn their loss, and, guess what, blame the US for it...
Unfair amounts of force? That is a ridiculous notion. I suppose the US should have gone in with 20 year old weapons that constantly jammed to make it FAIR. Ha.
From an Heritage Foundation Article:
"On March 23, Iraqi soldiers and Fedayeen fighters killed 10 U.S. soldiers and injured 40 in an ambush after feigning surrender by waving a white flag and then opening fire on the U.S. soldiers preparing to accept their surrender.
Numerous reports have detailed how Iraqi soldiers have violated the ?principles of distinction? by disguising themselves as Iraqi civilians and concealing their weapons and military status, attempting to draw U.S. soldiers into an ambush.
An embedded reporter traveling with Marines on the road to Nasiriya reported taking fire from Iraqi soldiers dressed as civilians on a bridge outside the city of Nasiriya. By disguising themselves as civilians, Iraqi soldiers blurred the distinction between soldier and civilian in an effort to limit the force of the American military response. As part of this effort, the Iraqi soldiers stockpiled weapons and other heavy military equipment in several houses and moved freely among the houses disguised as civilians.
Iraqi officials have sanctioned the use of terrorist tactics to kill coalition forces. In several instances, Iraqi soldiers have disguised themselves as Iraqi civilians and then detonated concealed explosives. In one case, a pregnant woman pretending to be in distress lured three American soldiers guarding a checkpoint to her, and then the driver of the vehicle detonated an explosive device killing all three soldiers, the pregnant woman, and the driver.
On April 3, a non-commissioned Iraqi Army officer posing as a taxi driver detonated an explosive device in his car at a checkpoint, seriously wounding four American soldiers."
Yeah they would have given up long enough to get some soldiers in their sights and begin shooting.
All the more sickening that we would go ahead and slaughter them when we knew they were 16 year old conscripts.
I mean this in all seriousness: Thank god you are not running this country.
When one goes to war, one must go to win. This means using overwhelming force and using every possible means to kill the enemy. Prior to the war, we made every attempt to get the Iraqi army to surrender before we even started attacking. This worked in many cases. Those that chose to fight were slaughtered. That's the way war works. It's not pretty...but that's the way the world is.
Several human rights groups have criticized the US for unfair amounts of force used in attacking iraqi soldiers in certain situations. Bombing some divisions to dust before they had a chance to even enter battle. These divisions would probably have surrendered very easily anyway. As we saw many other soldiers do during the war, without even putting up a fight.
The argument is that a lot of conscript lives would have been saved. Soldiers who really were not to keen on fighting for Saddam anyway, but now have families that mourn their loss, and, guess what, blame the US for it...
You have got to be kidding me. "Unfair" amounts of force? In WAR? You either fight a war or you don't. And New, we DID get many of the Iraqi forces. We had massive military propoganda efforts to this end prior to the start of the war.
Please. If anything we should ahev had more troops and MORE force. Grow up...this is the real world.
I mean this in all seriousness: Thank god you are not running this country.
When one goes to war, one must go to win. This means using overwhelming force and using every possible means to kill the enemy. Prior to the war, we made every attempt to get the Iraqi army to surrender before we even started attacking. This worked in many cases. Those that chose to fight were slaughtered. That's the way war works. It's not pretty...but that's the way the world is.
It might be naive, I grant you that, but the Geneva Convention does says otherwise.
You have got to be kidding me. "Unfair" amounts of force? In WAR? You either fight a war or you don't. And New, we DID get many of the Iraqi forces. We had massive military propoganda efforts to this end prior to the start of the war.
Please. If anything we should ahev had more troops and MORE force. Grow up...this is the real world.
Hey, I didn't write these international treaties.
But you have to agree that less slaughter of iraqis = more support for the US invasion. In iraq and internationally.
I mean this in all seriousness: Thank god you are not running this country.
When one goes to war, one must go to win. This means using overwhelming force and using every possible means to kill the enemy. Prior to the war, we made every attempt to get the Iraqi army to surrender before we even started attacking. This worked in many cases. Those that chose to fight were slaughtered. That's the way war works. It's not pretty...but that's the way the world is.
"It is prohibited to employ (...) methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering."
and
"It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors, to threaten an adversary therewith or to conduct hostilities on this basis."
and
"Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, (...)"
While the Hague Convetion clearly states:
"it is especially forbidden -
(...)
To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
To declare that no quarter will be given;
To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;
(...)"
and so on...
If it applies to the US invasion can always be debated.
The chance they actually had to surrender will always be unclear. How do you surrender to a stealth bomber 10.000 feet up, or a high-tech tank several km away?
You have to agree that a lot of these guys were "sitting ducks". Many never even left their quarters...
"It is prohibited to employ (...) methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering."
and
"It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors, to threaten an adversary therewith or to conduct hostilities on this basis."
and
"Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, (...)"
While the Hague Convetion clearly states:
"it is especially forbidden -
(...)
To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
To declare that no quarter will be given;
To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;
(...)"
and so on...
If it applies to the US invasion can always be debated.
The chance they actually had to surrender will always be unclear. How do you surrender to a stealth bomber 10.000 feet up, or a high-tech tank several km away?
You have to agree that a lot of these guys were "sitting ducks". Many never even left their quarters...
None of this applies to what the US or it's allies did.
The only place that this might be argued is the deep dark rooms of the DNC or perhaps at SH's trial. It is a losing argument.
How many thousands of prisoners have we taken? How many of them have we given top notch medical care to?
I think it is time to take off the french-colored glasses.
None of this applies to what the US or it's allies did.
I never said it did. I said it could be debated. Because there are rules about this in international law. Get it?
Quote:
The only place that this might be argued is the deep dark rooms of the DNC or perhaps at SH's trial. It is a losing argument.
It doesn't have anything to do with SH. It has to do with the way the US fight their wars. Who the hell dreams up stuff like daisycutters and Mother of all bombs...? It's just sickening.
The only concern seems to be how to kill the most enemies will having no american casualties. Forgetting totally that they belong to the same people your trying to "save" so hard.
Quote:
How many thousands of prisoners have we taken? How many of them have we given top notch medical care to?
You mean like the "nudie-treatment"?
Quote:
I think it is time to take off the french-colored glasses.
I think it is time to start actually reading posts before hitting the reply button.
You have got to be kidding me. "Unfair" amounts of force? In WAR? You either fight a war or you don't. And New, we DID get many of the Iraqi forces. We had massive military propoganda efforts to this end prior to the start of the war.
Please. If anything we should ahev had more troops and MORE force. Grow up...this is the real world.
Ooh ooh ooh! I have a good idea for a member title for you:
It might be naive, I grant you that, but the Geneva Convention does says otherwise.
Which part exactly. Please show me and be more specific. I assume you're referencing excessive force. Also, realize that the US has not signed on to certain parts of the Geneva Conventions.
Quote:
Hey, I didn't write these international treaties.
But you have to agree that less slaughter of iraqis = more support for the US invasion. In iraq and internationally.
Again, which treaties? I also tend to disagree with you about "slaughter" of Iraqis. I think those who are opposed to Us military action are opposed...period. It does not seem to matter how hard we try toa void civilian casualties. Example: Fallujah
Comments
Originally posted by NaplesX
While I DO realize that an attacking force holds some responsibility for civilians killed, but everyone knew SH would purposely put them in harms way to protect his own sorry ASS. This make the whole thing a little obvious than you appear to want it to be.
but still you have no proof... funny...
I simply am stating that the original aggressor, SH, has the majority of the blood on his hands. A handful of conditions could have been met and all of this would never have happened. SH was the gatekeeper and refused to comply to world view.
The original argressor? is that a trademark? sort of like "the original coca cola"? So why did the US go against UN and world opinion then?
You and the network media and many here in AO choose to ignore the previous 12+ years of Iraq/US/UN dealings and far too readily blame ONLY the US and more specifically president GWB for this current episode in the decades old Iraqi saga.
eh... I think you got it wrong. I'm that guy who steadily whines about root causes and imperialistic history going back hundreds of years. I blame US for things relating to Saddam back in the 60's. I blame France and the UK for the stuff they did. I blame Russia, iI blame corrupt arab dictators.
And right now. I blame GWB and his corrupt band of wolves, for this current episode. Yes.
Originally posted by New
link?
bullshit?
Originally posted by New
but still you have no proof... funny...
The original argressor? is that a trademark? sort of like "the original coca cola"? So why did the US go against UN and world opinion then?
eh... I think you got it wrong. I'm that guy who steadily whines about root causes and imperialistic history going back hundreds of years. I blame US for things relating to Saddam back in the 60's. I blame France and the UK for the stuff they did. I blame Russia, iI blame corrupt arab dictators.
And right now. I blame GWB and his corrupt band of wolves, for this current episode. Yes.
Right..it's the Imperial US again! Can I get a "Blame America First"? Yeeeeaahhh!
Originally posted by SDW2001
Right..it's the Imperial US again! Can I get a "Blame America First"? Yeeeeaahhh!
Did you read the part about France, the UK, Russia and arab dictators?
Originally posted by SDW2001
bullshit?
Larksvomit?
Originally posted by pfflam
Naples and SDW are right about Saddam using these tactics . . . it is well known . . . half of his military in wartime were made up of forced conscripts . . . . like a draft, except they would pick you up off the street.
All the more sickening that we would go ahead and slaughter them when we knew they were 16 year old conscripts.
Originally posted by bunge
All the more sickening that we would go ahead and slaughter them when we knew they were 16 year old conscripts.
Several human rights groups have criticized the US for unfair amounts of force used in attacking iraqi soldiers in certain situations. Bombing some divisions to dust before they had a chance to even enter battle. These divisions would probably have surrendered very easily anyway. As we saw many other soldiers do during the war, without even putting up a fight.
The argument is that a lot of conscript lives would have been saved. Soldiers who really were not to keen on fighting for Saddam anyway, but now have families that mourn their loss, and, guess what, blame the US for it...
Originally posted by New
Several human rights groups have criticized the US for unfair amounts of force used in attacking iraqi soldiers in certain situations. Bombing some divisions to dust before they had a chance to even enter battle. These divisions would probably have surrendered very easily anyway. As we saw many other soldiers do during the war, without even putting up a fight.
The argument is that a lot of conscript lives would have been saved. Soldiers who really were not to keen on fighting for Saddam anyway, but now have families that mourn their loss, and, guess what, blame the US for it...
Unfair amounts of force? That is a ridiculous notion. I suppose the US should have gone in with 20 year old weapons that constantly jammed to make it FAIR. Ha.
From an Heritage Foundation Article:
"On March 23, Iraqi soldiers and Fedayeen fighters killed 10 U.S. soldiers and injured 40 in an ambush after feigning surrender by waving a white flag and then opening fire on the U.S. soldiers preparing to accept their surrender.
Numerous reports have detailed how Iraqi soldiers have violated the ?principles of distinction? by disguising themselves as Iraqi civilians and concealing their weapons and military status, attempting to draw U.S. soldiers into an ambush.
An embedded reporter traveling with Marines on the road to Nasiriya reported taking fire from Iraqi soldiers dressed as civilians on a bridge outside the city of Nasiriya. By disguising themselves as civilians, Iraqi soldiers blurred the distinction between soldier and civilian in an effort to limit the force of the American military response. As part of this effort, the Iraqi soldiers stockpiled weapons and other heavy military equipment in several houses and moved freely among the houses disguised as civilians.
Iraqi officials have sanctioned the use of terrorist tactics to kill coalition forces. In several instances, Iraqi soldiers have disguised themselves as Iraqi civilians and then detonated concealed explosives. In one case, a pregnant woman pretending to be in distress lured three American soldiers guarding a checkpoint to her, and then the driver of the vehicle detonated an explosive device killing all three soldiers, the pregnant woman, and the driver.
On April 3, a non-commissioned Iraqi Army officer posing as a taxi driver detonated an explosive device in his car at a checkpoint, seriously wounding four American soldiers."
Yeah they would have given up long enough to get some soldiers in their sights and begin shooting.
So it is not ridiculous.
Originally posted by bunge
All the more sickening that we would go ahead and slaughter them when we knew they were 16 year old conscripts.
I mean this in all seriousness: Thank god you are not running this country.
When one goes to war, one must go to win. This means using overwhelming force and using every possible means to kill the enemy. Prior to the war, we made every attempt to get the Iraqi army to surrender before we even started attacking. This worked in many cases. Those that chose to fight were slaughtered. That's the way war works. It's not pretty...but that's the way the world is.
Originally posted by New
Several human rights groups have criticized the US for unfair amounts of force used in attacking iraqi soldiers in certain situations. Bombing some divisions to dust before they had a chance to even enter battle. These divisions would probably have surrendered very easily anyway. As we saw many other soldiers do during the war, without even putting up a fight.
The argument is that a lot of conscript lives would have been saved. Soldiers who really were not to keen on fighting for Saddam anyway, but now have families that mourn their loss, and, guess what, blame the US for it...
You have got to be kidding me. "Unfair" amounts of force? In WAR? You either fight a war or you don't. And New, we DID get many of the Iraqi forces. We had massive military propoganda efforts to this end prior to the start of the war.
Please. If anything we should ahev had more troops and MORE force. Grow up...this is the real world.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I mean this in all seriousness: Thank god you are not running this country.
When one goes to war, one must go to win. This means using overwhelming force and using every possible means to kill the enemy. Prior to the war, we made every attempt to get the Iraqi army to surrender before we even started attacking. This worked in many cases. Those that chose to fight were slaughtered. That's the way war works. It's not pretty...but that's the way the world is.
It might be naive, I grant you that, but the Geneva Convention does says otherwise.
Originally posted by SDW2001
You have got to be kidding me. "Unfair" amounts of force? In WAR? You either fight a war or you don't. And New, we DID get many of the Iraqi forces. We had massive military propoganda efforts to this end prior to the start of the war.
Please. If anything we should ahev had more troops and MORE force. Grow up...this is the real world.
Hey, I didn't write these international treaties.
But you have to agree that less slaughter of iraqis = more support for the US invasion. In iraq and internationally.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I mean this in all seriousness: Thank god you are not running this country.
When one goes to war, one must go to win. This means using overwhelming force and using every possible means to kill the enemy. Prior to the war, we made every attempt to get the Iraqi army to surrender before we even started attacking. This worked in many cases. Those that chose to fight were slaughtered. That's the way war works. It's not pretty...but that's the way the world is.
Shit, why not just nuke 'em then?
Originally posted by New
It might be naive, I grant you that, but the Geneva Convention does says otherwise.
NO it does not.
Originally posted by NaplesX
NO it does not.
The GC DOES say:
"It is prohibited to employ (...) methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering."
and
"It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors, to threaten an adversary therewith or to conduct hostilities on this basis."
and
"Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, (...)"
While the Hague Convetion clearly states:
"it is especially forbidden -
(...)
To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
To declare that no quarter will be given;
To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;
(...)"
and so on...
If it applies to the US invasion can always be debated.
The chance they actually had to surrender will always be unclear. How do you surrender to a stealth bomber 10.000 feet up, or a high-tech tank several km away?
You have to agree that a lot of these guys were "sitting ducks". Many never even left their quarters...
Originally posted by New
The GC DOES say:
"It is prohibited to employ (...) methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering."
and
"It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors, to threaten an adversary therewith or to conduct hostilities on this basis."
and
"Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, (...)"
While the Hague Convetion clearly states:
"it is especially forbidden -
(...)
To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
To declare that no quarter will be given;
To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;
(...)"
and so on...
If it applies to the US invasion can always be debated.
The chance they actually had to surrender will always be unclear. How do you surrender to a stealth bomber 10.000 feet up, or a high-tech tank several km away?
You have to agree that a lot of these guys were "sitting ducks". Many never even left their quarters...
None of this applies to what the US or it's allies did.
The only place that this might be argued is the deep dark rooms of the DNC or perhaps at SH's trial. It is a losing argument.
How many thousands of prisoners have we taken? How many of them have we given top notch medical care to?
I think it is time to take off the french-colored glasses.
Originally posted by NaplesX
None of this applies to what the US or it's allies did.
I never said it did. I said it could be debated. Because there are rules about this in international law. Get it?
The only place that this might be argued is the deep dark rooms of the DNC or perhaps at SH's trial. It is a losing argument.
It doesn't have anything to do with SH. It has to do with the way the US fight their wars. Who the hell dreams up stuff like daisycutters and Mother of all bombs...? It's just sickening.
The only concern seems to be how to kill the most enemies will having no american casualties. Forgetting totally that they belong to the same people your trying to "save" so hard.
How many thousands of prisoners have we taken? How many of them have we given top notch medical care to?
You mean like the "nudie-treatment"?
I think it is time to take off the french-colored glasses.
I think it is time to start actually reading posts before hitting the reply button.
Originally posted by SDW2001
You have got to be kidding me. "Unfair" amounts of force? In WAR? You either fight a war or you don't. And New, we DID get many of the Iraqi forces. We had massive military propoganda efforts to this end prior to the start of the war.
Please. If anything we should ahev had more troops and MORE force. Grow up...this is the real world.
Ooh ooh ooh! I have a good idea for a member title for you:
"Nuance-Free Member"
Originally posted by New
It might be naive, I grant you that, but the Geneva Convention does says otherwise.
Which part exactly. Please show me and be more specific. I assume you're referencing excessive force. Also, realize that the US has not signed on to certain parts of the Geneva Conventions.
Hey, I didn't write these international treaties.
But you have to agree that less slaughter of iraqis = more support for the US invasion. In iraq and internationally.
Again, which treaties? I also tend to disagree with you about "slaughter" of Iraqis. I think those who are opposed to Us military action are opposed...period. It does not seem to matter how hard we try toa void civilian casualties. Example: Fallujah