the rest of the "civilized" world

[datan]

Yesterday at 09:29 PM Alenci said this in Post #17


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.

my point exactly: how do we know how the US POWs were killed? We don't know yet. It could very well be that they were executed in cold blood after they laid down their weapons. However, until these facts have been established, I think it would be premature to jump to any conclusions.

Also, I'm getting confused. Are we arguing whether it is a dastardly thing to execute POWs in cold blood, or to show footage of dead soldiers? If it is the former, I agree it is despicable. If it is the latter, my argument was that both sides are doing it, as has been pointed out by ICRC.

... 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?

OK. I'll only give you American/British sources.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...e=22&u=/usatoday/20030306/ts_usatoday/4922305
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=384604
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31111-2003Mar15.html

I don't think these sources are far-out-there.

 

[sweet&sassy]

datan,

Being a new member here, my impressions are coming very quickly during this horrible time.

You don't like America much, do you? It's pretty obvious, actually. In reading your posts, you make a lot of excuses for Saddam's current and past behavior, but have a death-grip on President Bush and the rest of the conservatives.

Just an observation. But is it wrong?

 

[stray bullet]

Yesterday at 11:59 PM datan said this in Post #20

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.

That's very ironic, because you're being into the spin I've seen elsewhere. May I ask what country you live in?

I've seen a few French and German websites that try to claim we aren't seeing it because it would sway our opinion. It's a load of nonsense to further suggest the idea that we're a bunch of lemmings, and you buy right into it.

The networks have the images and are under no legal obligation not to show them. They have the right to. But they don't because we've traditionally not wanted families to learn ot deaths and captures through media. Until everyone is contacted, press tried not to report it.

In the Gulf War Americans had been captured and shown on American TV, same with Kosovo.

Your claim is wholey ironic and bogus.

 

[stray bullet]

Today at 12:25 AM sweet&sassy said this in Post #22

You don't like America much, do you? It's pretty obvious, actually. In reading your posts, you make a lot of excuses for Saddam's current and past behavior, but have a death-grip on President Bush and the rest of the conservatives.

I'm very interested in his nationality right now.

 

[ksen]

Yesterday at 09:51 AM Dopeuter said this in Post #3

...only America is using WMD on around 4 or 5 whole cities in Iraq????

Would you care to document this?  If you can't you should retract that statement.

What do you consider a WMD?

 

[O'Mara]

oh you know, daisy cutters, patriot missles, hellfires...

just the one's that make US a superior military.

We should all trade in our guns and missles for swords and let the Marines and Republican Guards 'hash' it out, right?

 

[ksen]

Yesterday at 11:52 PM datan said this in Post #19



Unfortunately, its treatment of prisoners from the Afghan war really stinks and contravenes the Geneva Conventions.

No it doesn't.  The Geneva Convention doesn't apply to those imprisoned in Guantanamo.

 

[ksen]

Yesterday at 11:59 PM datan said this in Post #20

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.

Is that what you want?  For our opinion to be swayed so that we leave the Iraqis in the hands of a blood-thirsty tyrant like Sadaam?  The Iraqi civilians are welcoming the coalition forces with open arms in gratitude for their liberation.  Would you like to see them put back under the yoke of bondage?

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.

Ah yes, and because of all that wonderful coverage we lost our political will to fight and doomed the Vietnamese people to live in a communistic nightmare of a society.  We should be proud.

 

[O'Mara]

Today at 05:52 AM ksen said this in Post #28

Ah yes, and because of all that wonderful coverage we lost our political will to fight and doomed the Vietnamese people to live in a communistic nightmare of a society.  We should be proud.

excellent post! It seems like just because quite a few people protested it, Vietnam was a blunder by default.

I guess you need a secret decoder ring to understand history books, eh?

 

[ksen]

Today at 12:43 AM O'Mara said this in Post #26

oh you know, daisy cutters, patriot missles, hellfires...

just the one's that make US a superior military.

Those aren't WMD's by anyone's definition.  Nice try though.

 

[O'Mara]

Today at 05:55 AM ksen said this in Post #30



Those aren't WMD's by anyone's definition.  Nice try though.

But they destroy mass don't they?

 

[ksen]

Today at 12:55 AM O'Mara said this in Post #29



It seems like just because quite a few people protested it, Vietnam was a blunder by default.

Exactly!  We were in the right to fight in Vietnam.  If we had continued and secured the victory that was in our grasp than Asia may have been totally different today.

I think it's kind of ironic that the same people arguing we should have attempted to keep Saddam contained are the same people that scoffed at us trying to contain Communism by saying it would never work.

 

[ksen]

Today at 12:57 AM O'Mara said this in Post #31




But they destroy mass don't they?

Technically true, but I don't think the amount of mass destroyed by those weapons you mentioned qualify them as WMD's.

 

[datan]

Today at 12:45 AM ksen said this in Post #27



No it doesn't.  The Geneva Convention doesn't apply to those imprisoned in Guantanamo.

exactly why? Because Dons Rumsfield says so?
I think it's really convenient that they held them on Cuba--oustide the jurisdiction of the US civil legal system.

When we get down to it, those prisoners were captured in a war. How is it that they are not prisoners of war?

 

[datan]

Today at 12:25 AM sweet&sassy said this in Post #22

datan,


You don't like America much, do you? It's pretty obvious, actually. In reading your posts, you make a lot of excuses for Saddam's current and past behavior, but have a death-grip on President Bush and the rest of the conservatives.

Just an observation. But is it wrong?

Would you care to point out where I've made excuses for Saddam's current and past behaviour--or retract that statement?

Would you care to point out where I've said anything factually incorrect about President Bush--or retract that statement?

 

[datan]

Today at 12:30 AM stray bullet said this in Post #23

That's very ironic, because you're being into the spin I've seen elsewhere. May I ask what country you live in?

I've seen a few French and German websites that try to claim we aren't seeing it because it would sway our opinion. It's a load of nonsense to further suggest the idea that we're a bunch of lemmings, and you buy right into it.

The networks have the images and are under no legal obligation not to show them. They have the right to. But they don't because we've traditionally not wanted families to learn ot deaths and captures through media. Until everyone is contacted, press tried not to report it.

In the Gulf War Americans had been captured and shown on American TV, same with Kosovo.

Your claim is wholey ironic and bogus.

Well, I think you misunderstood my statement. I'm talking about Iraqi casualties. Why don't we have the same graphic pictures of Iraqi casualties on American television?

So are you saying that seeing graphic pictures of casulties won't sway public opinions?

I resent your assertion that I 'buy into' nonsense. That is tantamount to a personal attack.

 

[datan]

Today at 01:02 AM ksen said this in Post #33




Technically true, but I don't think the amount of mass destroyed by those weapons you mentioned qualify them as WMD's.

OK--if a daisy cutter or a MOAB can kill thousands of people at once, how is it different from a chemical warhead that can do the same in terms of its destructiveness?

 

[O'Mara]

a daisy cutter can only kill thousands of people at once, if they are all standing on a bridge that is hit by one.

 

[ksen]

Today at 01:14 AM datan said this in Post #37




OK--if a daisy cutter or a MOAB can kill thousands of people at once, how is it different from a chemical warhead that can do the same in terms of its destructiveness?

A WMD has always been defined as either a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon.  Those have the capacity to kill tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people.  Even the MOAB can't wreak that much havoc.

 

[ksen]

Today at 01:07 AM datan said this in Post #34




exactly why? Because Dons Rumsfield says so?
I think it's really convenient that they held them on Cuba--oustide the jurisdiction of the US civil legal system.

When we get down to it, those prisoners were captured in a war. How is it that they are not prisoners of war?

The Geneva Convention applies to prisoners we take from an enemy nation's military.  Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were not enemy nations.  They were/are rogue elements and need to be treated as such.