the rest of the "civilized" world

[Alenci]

It irritates me to no end that, despite the U.S. producing irrefutable evidence that Saddam has and has denied the existance of his chemical and biological agents, and has lied about the quantity and range of his missiles, the rest of the world perceives no threat (or chooses to ignore it because it's not in their best interests to aid in stamping it out).

I suppose now that Saddam has flagrantly defied the Geneva Convention's requirements for treatment of POWs by torturing and killing some of his American prisoners and parading around the rest on television, the rest of the world will ignore it. They probably are going to say he had a right to do it in the face of "American aggression" and the atrocities we have commited by accidentally killing civilians he puts in and around obvious targets to make us look bad...

 

[Wolseley]

You are perceptive far beyond your years, Alenci.

 

[Dopeuter]

I thought you weren't getting the footage there in the US??? Did you go watch it on the web??? Is that the right thing to do???

I see Iraqi prisoners of war plastered all over the TV every night, is that a breach of the Geneva convention by the US and coalition forces?? On aussie tv they are claiming the US are totally hypocritical about this because I seen stuff that shocks me that you guys are not allowed to see in the US and it isn’t the Iraqi’s doing it, it’s the coalition???

I also haven't seen Iraq us anything like bio, chemical and nuclear weapons??? only America is using WMD on around 4 or 5 whole cities in Iraq????

war crimes?? who has committed them ???

Preceptive?? I don’t think so, it sounds like something my 16 yr old would say, if thats what i fed her???

 

[nephilimiyr]

Alenci Iraqi doesn't see the video of the POWs being aired on tv as a violation of the GC but does see the POWs held at Guantanamo as a pure violation of the GC. Would you care to debate that?

I thought you weren't getting the footage there in the US??? Did you go watch it on the web??? Is that the right thing to do???

I see Iraqi prisoners of war plastered all over the TV every night, is that a breach of the Geneva convention by the US and coalition forces?? On aussie tv they are claiming the US are totally hypocritical about this because I seen stuff that shocks me that you guys are not allowed to see in the US and it isn’t the Iraqi’s doing it, it’s the coalition???

I also haven't seen Iraq us anything like bio, chemical and nuclear weapons??? only America is using WMD on around 4 or 5 whole cities in Iraq????

war crimes?? who has committed them <IMG alt="" src="http://www.christianforums.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif" border=0>???

Dope the media here in the states isn't airing the footage but they themselves have seen it and is discribing what they saw. That is the right thing to do!

As for the media here I know I can say I haven't seen any footage of Iraqi POWs or Iraqis laying down with bullet holes in their forehead. Maybe where your living their showing you such things but I haven't seen it here.

Do you care to list your sources to these stories that is telling you that the coalition has used WMD?

 

[Tau]

Today at 12:15 AM Alenci said this in Post #1

It irritates me to no end that, despite the U.S. producing irrefutable evidence that Saddam has and has denied the existance of his chemical and biological agents, and has lied about the quantity and range of his missiles, the rest of the world perceives no threat (or chooses to ignore it because it's not in their best interests to aid in stamping it out).

I suppose now that Saddam has flagrantly defied the Geneva Convention's requirements for treatment of POWs by torturing and killing some of his American prisoners and parading around the rest on television, the rest of the world will ignore it. They probably are going to say he had a right to do it in the face of "American aggression" and the atrocities we have commited by accidentally killing civilians he puts in and around obvious targets to make us look bad...

I think there's a very good reason for the opposition to the war, namely the way it was presented by the Bush administration. There's plenty of reason to go into Iraq and remove Hussein by force, most importantly that he's being incredibly oppresive to his population, and that he has shown an unwillingness to cooperate with the UN. The problem is, that's not what the US said.

They originally presented the war as being related to the WTC attacks. Unfortunately they couldn't present any evidence. Not a good reason, then.
Then it was about the war on terrorism. But the Iraqi government was not on the list of terror organisations compiled by the US, nor could they ever show more than a very weak link to Al-Qaeda. Not a good reason either.
Then it was the weapon inspections. That's better, but at this point people had become rather suspicious of the US claims. Besides, most people thought, the UN resolutions were never about removing Hussein, they were just about weapons inspections. That didn't work out either.

Then it was liberating the Iraqi people. That's a good reason. But at this point, no one would listen, because the US had come up with quite a few half-baked reasons for the war already. Never mind that the US had a point here, people felt no real reason to listen. And honestly, I can't say I blame them.

 

[Michael0701]

hmmmm.... I guess there is a fine line. Has the US crossed it? I don't know, I will say that I haven't seen it if they have. As I understand it, you can show pows, what you can't do is exhibit them. What I mean is to show footage from a distance, without focusing on the "individual" would be ok. Having him sit in a chair in front of the camera giving his name, rank and service number for public display is not. (The one exception that comes to mind is that american traitor who fought for the taliban). Showing a dead body lying in the field of combat is ok. Displaying a soldier as a trophy kill is not. And so on. Has the media crossed the line in the past, I'm sure. Is it military policy to ignore the line, I don't think so.

 

[Wolseley]

The way I see it, there are plenty of reasons to go into Iraq, not the least of which is to finish off the job that we should have done 12 years ago.

Then, of course, we couldn't do what needed to be done because we were still agreeing to fight a war UN-style, with both hands tied together and our pants around our ankles.

 

[JesusServant]

Excellent points Alenci.

The part that cracks me up is that they tried to sell that carbomb as an American car bomb planted by us. Sure, we have 50,000 GPS/Satellite guiding smart bombs that can strike within a foot of the desired target, but we planted a carbomb to take out one of our journalists and women and children with them.

 

[tamtam92]

...
*lost my voice*

 

[Alenci]

Today at 02:51 PM Dopeuter said this in Post #3

I thought you weren't getting the footage there in the US??? Did you go watch it on the web??? Is that the right thing to do???

No, but it's been described over and over on the news.

I see Iraqi prisoners of war plastered all over the TV every night, is that a breach of the Geneva convention by the US and coalition forces?? On aussie tv they are claiming the US are totally hypocritical about this because I seen stuff that shocks me that you guys are not allowed to see in the US and it isn’t the Iraqi’s doing it, it’s the coalition???

Two questions. Are they just showing a group of them, or interviewing them individually on camera? And have you seen mangled bodies of dead Iraqi soldiers, brutally tortured and killed? Ah, that's what I thought.

I also haven't seen Iraq us anything like bio, chemical and nuclear weapons??? only America is using WMD on around 4 or 5 whole cities in Iraq????

In your mind, just what sort of weaponry falls under that classification? Also bear in mind that we cannot use biological and chemical weapons in warfare (we can't even use tear gas to try to keep civilians safe).

war crimes?? who has committed them ???

No one ever said war was nice. But I think if you would take time out for an unbiased analysis, you would probably find that the U.S. fights wars fairly, treats our prisoners (more) humanely than others, and tries to keep civilian casualties to a minimum.

Preceptive?? I don’t think so, it sounds like something my 16 yr old would say, if thats what i fed her???

That was low. I won't bring myself to respond to that.

 

[Alenci]

Today at 03:46 PM nephilimiyr said this in Post #4

Alenci Iraqi doesn't see the video of the POWs being aired on tv as a violation of the GC but does see the POWs held at Guantanamo as a pure violation of the GC. Would you care to debate that?

Whether or not Iraq chooses to sees it as such is irrelevant. It very clearly is a violation.

And about Guantanamo Bay- I'm not entirely thrilled about how the Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters are being treated there, but I don't know enough about it to say if it is or isn't a violation.

You can find the full text of the document at this site if you're interested
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/lawwar.htm
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm

 

[datan]

Today at 05:47 PM Alenci said this in Post #10


Two questions. Are they just showing a group of them, or interviewing them individually on camera? And have you seen mangled bodies of dead Iraqi soldiers, brutally tortured and killed? Ah, that's what I thought.

YES--there are pictures of mangled bodies of dead Iraqi soldiers, if you care to do a search that your censored news media will not broadcast.

Also, the geneva convention forbids subjecting them to 'public curiosity'. Now, explain how showing a group of surrendered Iraqis POWs isn't 'public curiosity'? If the public aren't curious about them, why did a lot of Western media air the footage?

Finally, there are footage of Iraqis being handcuffed being their backs, Afghani detainees being hooded, shackled and kneeling. How isn't this humiliating for the prisoners?

No one ever said war was nice. But I think if you would take time out for an unbiased analysis, you would probably find that the U.S. fights wars fairly, treats our prisoners (more) humanely than others, and tries to keep civilian casualties to a minimum.

Um...have you ever heard about the Vietnam war? What about American soldiers massacring entire villager?
Fight wars fairly? -- why were there special forces and CIA operatives in Iraq weeks before Bush gave his ultimatum? Doesn't seem very fair to me, invading another country's soveriegnty before giving notification of war.
treat prisoners humanely -- okay what about torturing to death those Afghani detainees? How exactly is that humane? What about sleep deprivation, food deprivation, sensory manipulation? Is that humane as well?

 

[Ryder]

Today at 06:26 PM datan said this in Post #12

Um...have you ever heard about the Vietnam war? What about American soldiers massacring entire villager?
Fight wars fairly? -- why were there special forces and CIA operatives in Iraq weeks before Bush gave his ultimatum? Doesn't seem very fair to me, invading another country's soveriegnty before giving notification of war.
treat prisoners humanely -- okay what about torturing to death those Afghani detainees? How exactly is that humane? What about sleep deprivation, food deprivation, sensory manipulation? Is that humane as well?

No it isn't. America isn't perfect, so now what? I'd say the far far&nbsp;far lessor of evils as nations go, but that isn't good enough is it? Try Antarctica.

 

[datan]

I wasn't claiming that America was perfect. I was trying to argue against Alenci's point that
the U.S. fights wars fairly, treats our prisoners (more) humanely than others, and tries to keep civilian casualties to a minimum.

 

[Ryder]

Today at 05:47 PM Alenci said this in Post #10

No one ever said war was nice. But I think if you would take time out for an unbiased analysis, you would probably find that the U.S. fights wars fairly, treats our prisoners (more) humanely than others, and tries to keep civilian casualties to a minimum.

fights wars fairly - for the most part I'd say yes

treats our prisoners (more) humanely than others - definately, you can find some bad examples here and there, but the question is (more) humanely, and I don't think there are too many countries in the world at all that are as decent to prisoners as the states

civilian casualties to a minimum - is the US carpet bombing Baghdad?

 

[Wolseley]

Okay, I give up.

datan is right. What the United States needs to do is declare war on the United States. We should shoot all our own citizens, destroy all our own infrastructure, annihilate all our own cities with our own nuclear weapons, and leave absolutely nothing left except 3,615,211 square miles of smoldering wasteland utterly devoid of all life, and lethally radioactive for the next 500,000 years.

Then the world can rejoice, because all their problems will be solved. The Great Satan, Source Of All That Is Evil, Wicked, Unfair, Racist, Ethnicist, Colonialist, Imperialist, And Home Of The Blue Meanies, will be gone.

No one will ever be able to oppress the peoples of the world again, and they can walk in freedom and equanimity, because the Americans, the most heinous people in the history of the planet, worse than the Nazis, worse than the Communists, worse than the Huns, worse than the worst, will be wiped out.

And then, at long last, the world can be happy. The horrible Americans will no longer exist.

I just hope the world can figure out where their foreign aid is going to come from, where their humanitarian aid is going to come from, where they're going to go to get a good education is whose universities, and where a goodly portion of them are going to get their next meal from.

You can't eat radioactive wheat.

 

[Alenci]

Yesterday at 11:26 PM datan said this in Post #12


YES--there are pictures of mangled bodies of dead Iraqi soldiers, if you care to do a search that your censored news media will not broadcast.

I'm curious, did your media services happen to say what caused their deaths? Really now, what logical reason would we have to torture poor soldiers who don't want to fight and ran out waving white flags before shots were even fired?
Now if that happened to them during a military encounter then that's different. But you can't jump to conclusions and say it is just the same as the killing of our POWs by the Iraqis.

Finally, there are footage of Iraqis being handcuffed being their backs, Afghani detainees being hooded, shackled and kneeling. How isn't this humiliating for the prisoners?

Well ok, I have to agree with you on that.

Um...have you ever heard about the Vietnam war? What about American soldiers massacring entire villager?

Yes... a tragic chapter of history. Thank goodness we're not doing that in THIS war... if we are, my faith in our present government will be severely shaken.

Fight wars fairly? -- why were there special forces and CIA operatives in Iraq weeks before Bush gave his ultimatum? Doesn't seem very fair to me, invading another country's soveriegnty before giving notification of war.
treat prisoners humanely -- okay what about torturing to death those Afghani detainees? How exactly is that humane? What about sleep deprivation, food deprivation, sensory manipulation? Is that humane as well?

Ok, first point, I really don't know what to say...
... for the second point, I'd like to see your sources. How do you know we're torturing them "to death," starving and drugging them? Have you personally witnessed it? Or is this second hand, third hand, fourth hand, fifth hand information?

... or maybe just anti-American propaganda?

 

[stray bullet]

Today at 06:26 PM datan said this in Post #12



YES--there are pictures of mangled bodies of dead Iraqi soldiers, if you care to do a search that your censored news media will not broadcast.

Our media isn't censored. We have freedom of speech/print here. Media is allowed to be as disgusting and reckless as they want, but they don't act disrespectful to the victims.

I've always found it interesting to here people tell us our media is censored. They have no grasp on reality, they believe what their fed.

 

[datan]

Today at 09:28 PM Wolseley said this in Post #16

Okay, I give up.

there was no need for this outburst of sarcarsm.

I was merely pointing out that contrary to what Americans like to believe, America isn't 100% untainted when it comes to fighting wars. America had a very bad record during the Vietnam war. It got better in the last Persian Gulf War. Unfortunately, its treatment of prisoners from the Afghan war really stinks and contravenes the Geneva Conventions.

Therefore, it is hypocritical to cry foul and complain when other countries don't live up to the highest standards. After all, the only difference between stealing $1 and $100 million is the amount (maybe the jail time as well).

So far, it seems to me that a lot of arguments against me are one of the following:
* personal attacks (ad hominem) -- I seem to be attracting a lot of these lately.
* emotional outbursts
* sarcarsm

I would appreciate if we could actually debate facts and reasonings, rather than having to resort to absurd statements or personal attacks.

 

[datan]

Today at 10:42 PM stray bullet said this in Post #18



Our media isn't censored. We have freedom of speech/print here. Media is allowed to be as disgusting and reckless as they want, but they don't act disrespectful to the victims.

I've always found it interesting to here people tell us our media is censored. They have no grasp on reality, they believe what their fed.

"censored"--not in the sense of your constitutional right to free speech, but "censored" in the sense that you don't get all the relevant facts. "Censored" in the sense that the major news networks--Fox, NBC, CNN--are so blatantly "patriotic" that it makes me want to laugh when CNN puts its label "CNN--the most trusted name" across the screen. None of these networks are anything near being objective.

For example, have you seen graphic video of Iraqi casualties? There are such images on Arab TV as well as the European press. While one might argue that it is a matter of taste/discretion, one could also argue that Americans are not getting the true picture of the horrors of war. IF more people knew what actually goes on in war, public opinion against the war might be swayed.

Consider the Vietnam war--there is a famous photograph of a naked girl running away from a napalm attack. Was that graphic? Yes. Did it serve to bring home some of the horrors and consequences of the war on civilians? Yes. Did it sway public opinion? Yes. Why are all these images missing from American television now? Instead, we get snazzy video-like footage of tanks/buildings being blown up. Death and destruction are abstracted away. You can't see it directly, so you pretend it doesn't exist.