Geneva Convention?? IRAQ? HAH!

[House-Of-Leaves]

Okay, so. Here's the thing.

I'd love to see Bush get it in the ass for starting an illegal war, but there's no way in hell I'm going to hope we LOSE because I disagree with it. So I've been doing a little reverse thinking.

Al-Jazeera showed images of dead and captured US soldiers, showed forced interviews, all that. I heard that, and put my head back on the couch, disgusted. Sad. I dunno who said it, because I wasn't watching...but whoever it was had the gall to say, 'They've BREACHED THE GENEVA CONVENTION.'

OH. MY. GOD.

Did our government or military actually think the Iraqi army gives a flying fuck about the Geneva Convention? PLEASE! Iraq is losing, and losing badly. They're not going to fight fair.

America's like...the boxer that doesn't hit below the belt.

Iraq is the bitch that claws with her inch-long nails and pulls out chunks of hair in her fists, then BITES. Iraq fights dirty.

Did our leaders actually expect the Iraqi government or army to comply with the Geneva Convention? Are they really that naive?

White flags, my ass. KEEP YOUR GUN ON THE SONS OF BITCHES, white flags be damned.

*sigh* Alright. So I believe my stance with this war has changed a little. I still dislike it, I don't think -anyone- likes war. I'll still demonstrate, but at demonstrations that are more geared toward what WILL help, rather than pointless protests. But I think I'm going to add to my opinion. If we're there, we'd better win.

[Ted-Easton]

The unwritten rules of war are changing. War used to be the gentleman's sport. They'd ride out, line up, and open fire.

Now, it's devious, underhanded ans guerilla.

[Der-Ubermensch]

No, the US government did not expect the Iraqi military and militia to fight "fair". It did on the other hand brainwash the masses into thinking that this conflict would be over quickly and with practically no loss of life (on the coalition side, at least). They're getting it square in the balls now.

[House-Of-Leaves]

At 3/24/03 07:24 AM, Ruination wrote: No, the US government did not expect the Iraqi military and militia to fight "fair". It did on the other hand brainwash the masses into thinking that this conflict would be over quickly and with practically no loss of life (on the coalition side, at least). They're getting it square in the balls now.

Ah...but see? I think on some level they did expect it. Because the man I heard (dammit, I wish I'd seen who it was), sounded totally shocked that they'd do such a thing.

I'm saddened by it. But not surprised. POW camps are something that comes hand in hand with war.

I've seen the pictures, though. The man standing over the dead US soldiers. GRINNING. I can't say that made me any happier.

I do have a grip on reality, though. I can just see our officials making a huge deal out of the fact that they didn't comply with the Geneva Convention. Like they actually expected them to. Something else to distract from all the mistakes and non-support of the war.

[JudgeDredd]

At 3/24/03 04:31 AM, House_Of_Leaves wrote: Okay, so. Here's the thing. If we're there, we'd better win.

..when i heard the US officials cite the Geneva Convention i got quite irate. It's the US that labelled captured Afgans as "War Combatants" ..Afganistan DIDNT declare war on the US, and until TODAY Iraq didn't either.

Amnesty International has been warning them (the US Government) for the past year concerning rights to ALL held in "outside juristictions"
-------------------------------------------------

"US President George W Bush has decided that the Geneva Convention on the conduct of war will apply to captured Taleban soldiers in Afghanistan, but not to al-Qaeda (terrorist) fighters."

"Officials in Washington suggested that Mr Bush's decision to invoke the conventions was aimed at ensuring that American soldiers captured in Afghanistan would be entitled to the same rights."

"The White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said that although the United States did not recognise the Taleban as a legitimate government, it had decided to apply the Geneva Convention because Afghanistan was a signatory of the treaty however Al-Qaeda is an international terrorist group and cannot be considered a state party to the Geneva Convention," Mr Fleischer said. "..however, neither Taleban soldiers nor al-Qaida fighters detained in Afghanistan at the US base in Guantamano Bay in Cuba would qualify as prisoners-of-war - because they had not carried arms openly or been part of a recognisable military hierarchy."
------------------------------------------------
Under the convention, prisoners-of-war are entitled to remain silent under interrogation, giving only their names, ranks and serial numbers.

[NEMESiSZ]

Neither the USA nor Iraq was at the Geneva Convention Treaties.

[House-Of-Leaves]

At 3/24/03 07:32 AM, Judge_DREDD wrote: "US President George W Bush has decided that the Geneva Convention on the conduct of war will apply to captured Taleban soldiers in Afghanistan, but not to al-Qaeda (terrorist) fighters."
"..however, neither Taleban soldiers nor al-Qaida fighters detained in Afghanistan at the US base in Guantamano Bay in Cuba would qualify as prisoners-of-war - because they had not carried arms openly or been part of a recognisable military hierarchy."

Ooooh, well isn't that convenient.

That makes me so irate at the people running this country. They pick and choose when they can use something like that. I don't...GAH! *lol* 4:30 in the morning isn't a good time for me to try to think straight about stuff like this. I use too much feeling, and get biased instead of being logical.

Meh, it's frustrating. I think the most frustrating thing, in my mind, is not knowing what or how the soldiers overseas are being advised about the Geneva Convention. I'm sure they know it, and will follow it. Obviously. But I certainly hope they aren't being told by our military to trust that the Iraqi army will do the same. That's just deadly.

[House-Of-Leaves]

At 3/24/03 07:38 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Neither the USA nor Iraq was at the Geneva Convention Treaties.

But I believe the USA adopted the provisions. They talk about it enough. Say they do.

[JMHX]

At 3/24/03 07:05 AM, Ted_Easton wrote: The unwritten rules of war are changing. War used to be the gentleman's sport. They'd ride out, line up, and open fire.

Now, it's devious, underhanded ans guerilla.

Yet somehow we expect Iraq to play by the rules of Geneva. If you were an Iraqi soldier who had the choice of "Be Killed" or "Torture Americans", which would you choose? The rules of war are outdated, and we're realizing too late that it's not going to be Normandy.

[TheShrike]

True. The Iraqis are faced with a 'kill them or we will kill you' situation. This war isn't going to take a good turn until Saddam, his sons, and his generals are in custody/dead.

And we honestly can't point the finger at Iraq for breaches of the Geneva Convention, we do the same, ie Guantanamo Bay.

[JMHX]

At 3/24/03 10:10 AM, TheShrike wrote: True. The Iraqis are faced with a 'kill them or we will kill you' situation. This war isn't going to take a good turn until Saddam, his sons, and his generals are in custody/dead.

And we honestly can't point the finger at Iraq for breaches of the Geneva Convention, we do the same, ie Guantanamo Bay.

Well, in theory we're following the guidelines of the GC with Camp X-Ray. We're treating them as humanely as any American could to a person who has devoted their lives to killing you. But we're allowed to bend the rules a bit, since we know no one is going to stand up to a little mistreatment of crazy people.

[JudgeDredd]

At 3/24/03 07:43 AM, House_Of_Leaves wrote:

At 3/24/03 07:32 AM, Judge_DREDD wrote: ...in Guantamano Bay in Cuba.

Ooooh, well isn't that convenient.

That makes me so irate at the people running this country. They pick and choose when they can use something like that.

i'm glad you noticed it.

America specifically transported over 600 Afghans from their own country (where they had protection under the GC) to Cuba (where they don't have protection under the GC or US law) specifically to conduct suspect methods of interrogation.

I don't care they are getting 3 meals a day - they are still subject to ANY methods of interrogation, and without legal statis - be they innocent or not?! Any other explanation is just a cover story.

Iraq might just as well inact a law that reads; "during the time of interrogation of any coalition combatants, the land of the room they then occupy is temporarily deemed a sub-state (country within a country) and thus subject to no laws or conventions" ..that's what America is basically doing by using it's leased corner of Cuban territory.

[RoboTripper]

At 3/24/03 10:15 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

Well, in theory we're following the guidelines of the GC with Camp X-Ray. We're treating them as humanely as any American could to a person who has devoted their lives to killing you. But we're allowed to bend the rules a bit, since we know no one is going to stand up to a little mistreatment of crazy people.

That may be true, but the U.S. should set an example. Otherwise they are endangering their own troops - by flouting the "rules", they can hardly expect to have anybody pay attention to them when they start pointing fingers.

On another note, I think the U.S. military is perfectly capable of fighting dirty. In Vietnam they were plenty dirty, and while the actions (probably) weren't condoned by the top of the chain of command, they still happened - and went largely unpunished. It's just that the U.S. leadership is very sensitive to maintaining public support and keeping world opinion from becoming completely and overwhelmingly negative.

[iWalker]

At 3/24/03 04:31 AM, House_Of_Leaves wrote: America's like...the boxer that doesn't hit below the belt.

i hope you're being sarcastic here. do you think the american army gives a shit about the geneva convention? NO and neither do the iraqi. only, the americans may play it a little smarter and work their way around the genva convention in stead of breaking it.

Iraq is the bitch that claws with her inch-long nails and pulls out chunks of hair in her fists, then BITES. Iraq fights dirty.

of course they will fight like a cornered cat: they have nothing to lose. or as said in a slogan "qui sème la misère recolte la colère" (those who plant misery will harvest hate)

[TheEvilOne]

A few things:

1. I doubt anyone "expected" Iraq to follow the rules of the Geneva Convention. I also doubt that anyone cares. Those responsible are war criminals, and will be tried as such.

2. Taliban/Al-Qaeda are not a sovereign nation. They said that Taliban were being treated according to the rules of the GC because they were the de facto government of Afghanistan, but al-Qaeda, as a terrorist organization, was not subject to the GC. I fully agree with this view. We are not "picking and choosing", so to speak, but recognizing who is subject to the GC and who is not.

[NJDeadzone]

it's amazing how much television become the eyewitness to these violations

[panik]

When I heard that the soldiers were shot execution style on film.... I thought I would be sick.... I didn't sleep that night....

[bumcheekcity]

At 3/24/03 04:31 AM, House_Of_Leaves wrote: Okay, so. Here's the thing.

America's like...the boxer that doesn't hit below the belt.

Please. The Americans defied the Geneva Convention by parading the Iraqui POW's around in shackels. The Bush Administration are hypocrites. In your next election please vote Gore.

If we're there, we'd better win.

Yer. Yer right, i'm against but now that we're in, we've got to kill Saddam.

[iWalker]

At 3/24/03 03:31 PM, panik wrote: When I heard that the soldiers were shot execution style on film.... I thought I would be sick.... I didn't sleep that night....

why? do you think that's cruel? you ain't seen nothing yet

[Commander-K25]

At 3/24/03 04:35 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:
Please. The Americans defied the Geneva Convention by parading the Iraqui POW's around in shackels.

That is baseless and without proof. Besides, transporting prisoners in shackles is not unlawful.

The Bush Administration are hypocrites.

Waaaaahhh!!!! *sob*

In your next election please vote Gore.

You think Gore could protect the country! HAHAHAHAHA!!

Gore (in slow mechanical voice): "I am telling Mr. bin Laden in the STRONGEST possible terms that this terrorism is unacceptable. I feel that we can come to reasonable terms."

[House-Of-Leaves]

I wasn't being sarcastic about 'America the boxer.' I was oversimplifying. Perhaps I should have said, 'America likes to PRETEND it's a boxer that doesn't hit below the belt.' Because it most certainly does sometimes.

As for 'parading Iraqi POW's around in shackles', so what? That's not illegal, that's self-preservation. You don't think they'd fight back if they weren't restrained? Why do you think our police handcuff people being arrested?

The USA has not been THAT cruel to the Iraqi POWs yet. As far as I know. I'm not behind the door with them, I don't see, but I DO know that I don't honestly think the military's goal is to be cruel. They want to get the POW's out of the way so they can target what they're 'supposed' to be targeting. Saddam Hussein.

Basically, I'm arguing the logic, not the war, now. My stance is known, and it stays anti-war. But right now, it makes more sense to debate what's actually happening, rather than re-hashing WHY the war shouldn't have happened in the first place.

I do know that the US is the only nation that's given a country back to the people after a war. That's part of what I'm using to give myself a little hope that the Iraqi people aren't going to get screwed over.

[House-Of-Leaves]

At 3/24/03 04:35 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: In your next election please vote Gore.

Uh. I did. I voted for Gore in the last election.

And he's not running again, so that's a moot point.

All the points that Commander made are valid. Except for the Gore one. I don't pretend to know how he would have handled it, or what he would have done.

[NEMESiSZ]

"President Gore, we're under attack sir."
"Hey, is that a blimp?"
(jumps out window and is never seen again, heard saying "I didn't invent the internet to FIGHT!")

[House-Of-Leaves]

At 3/24/03 05:38 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: "President Gore, we're under attack sir."
"Hey, is that a blimp?"
(jumps out window and is never seen again, heard saying "I didn't invent the internet to FIGHT!")

I hardly think you're in the position to KNOW what would happen. That's pretty funny, tho. Blimp?? *lol*

What I'm confident about is our own stability as a country, if Gore would have been in office. Our economy was on a good path, Gore knew not to fuck with the simple equation that's taught in almost all college level economy classes...one that Clinton followed. He had us on the road to FINALLY recovering from Regan-omics.

That's one of my biggest arguments. How can we save another country if we can't even save ourselves? It rankles.

[BinLadenmustdie]

Actually, the economy was slumping for Clinton's entire last year. The internet bubble has burst and overinflated IPO's came back down to reality. Toss in 911 and Bush had a hell of an economic mess to clean up.

[NEMESiSZ]

Was Al Gore funny on SNL?
Yes, very.
Would he have been a decent president?
No, not at all.

[House-Of-Leaves]

At 3/24/03 06:03 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Was Al Gore funny on SNL?
Yes, very.
Would he have been a decent president?
No, not at all.

Are you stating your opinion as fact AGAIN?
Yes, you are.
Do you KNOW FOR SURE what would have happened?
No, not at all.

I'm not asking you to like Al Gore. I'm not asking you to even agree with his environmental or economic ideas or tactics. But I WILL ask you, yet again, to not state your opinion as fact.

[NEMESiSZ]

Here you go, enjoy.

[House-Of-Leaves]

At 3/24/03 06:08 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Here you go, enjoy.

Ah, so is this what happens when you can't make a logical, informed argument?

I have NO problem with you disagreeing with me, whatsoever. I do, however, have a HUGE problem with anyone telling me that my opinions are wrong. Opinions cannot be wrong.

That's why they're called opinion.

If you're going to respond to my suggestion that you respect people's opinions with a stupid 'STFU' picture you photoshopped, then perhaps you belong in the General forum, rather than one that requires a bit of thought.

That was incredibly unoriginal.

[NEMESiSZ]

At 3/24/03 06:12 PM, House_Of_Leaves wrote:

At 3/24/03 06:08 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Here you go, enjoy.

I have NO problem with you disagreeing with me, whatsoever. I do, however, have a HUGE problem with anyone telling me that my opinions are wrong. Opinions cannot be wrong.

That's why they're called opinion.

Your opinion isn't wrong, per se, just misguided and worthless.