France and Germany may also be backing a different process than the Americans. It is that black and white with you? Is Canada backing a corrupt regime then too?
i mean, i see things the way you do in a way - it’s obvious that Saddam is not going to “play fair”. And why should he? He’s committing the actions of a dying man. “from hell’s depth i spit at thee” and all that. This doesn’t mean that those against the bush/blair show are in favor of Saddam and evil tactics. But of course France and Germany are also supplying Saddam with hope, and a few other things, so they are obviously backing him. They never have any dealings with the US so they are obviously not backing the US.
I think this is a little simplistic. Also it’s not just Germany and France, but Canada, Mexico, Russia, China, and a bunch of other countries . . . .
Not much good really I can say about France. I mean protesting against the war is one thing (as they are free ought to), but furnishing pictures of Saddam during anti-war ralleys against the terrible invaders is quite the other…
I don’t mind so much Iraqi’s dressing in civilian clothing. Let’s face it, they are in many areas lacking a regular army (and thus the fatigues) and must resort to guerilla tactics (a case can be made against us during the American Revolution). However, something I absolutely cannot agree with is Iraqis pretending to “surrender” and then opening fire on American and British troops. Those people should be sought out and tried for war crimes. Same goes for the treatment of US POWs. In no way should they be paraded in front of TV or personally humiliated.
I put the US things just next to it, ok?
Here are a few things the Iraqi’s are violating
Part III. Methods and Means of Warfare Combatant and Prisoners-Of-War
Section I. Methods and Means of Warfare
Art. 35. Basic rules:
3. It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.Buring oil wells……
Depleted Uranium Ammo, still lying around there from 1991.
Your citiations all mention the same thing. Must show weapons and must try to distinquish oneself from civilians.
That’s not exactly what 44. 3. says.
Art. 47. Mercenaries
1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.
2. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; (b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities; © is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party; (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict; (e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and (f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.Sounds like this covers Al Quaeda
Does it? Let’s see for Al Quaeda
(a): yes
(b): yes
©: private gain? material compensation?? No!
(d): part, the “resident” can be true.
(e): wrong. the Al Quaeda as a Party to the conflict consists of “members of its armed forces”, the Al Quaeda mainly is armed forces
(f): yes.
So: i think © is the strongest point against calling all Al Quaeda members mercenaries.
Part IV. Civilian Population
Section I. General Protection Against Effects of Hostilities
Chapter I. Basic rule and field of application
Art. 48. Basic rule
In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.Iraqi’s troops are guilty again.
guilty in this conflict? Where? “Misguided missiles” are on both sides.
I don’t see either the US or Iraq failing the above.
It sounds like France and Germany are backing some really bad people.
Did i not mention that Germany backs the US?
I have read about 5 or 6 books by Norwegians about life in German prisoner camps, the prisoners in those camps were not treated fairly.
Forced labor and lack of food were a problem in many German camps.
F_alk, in your post you included this:
“3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:”
And then I said:
"Your citiations all mention the same thing. Must show weapons and must try to distinquish oneself from civilians. "
And you said "That’s not exactly what 44. 3. says. "
You are right, that is not exactly what it says, but it says the same thing in effect. “Carries his arms openly” = “Must show weapons”; "must try to distinquish oneself from civilians. " =
“combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack”
Must you force me to constantly defend what I have said? I just slammed you again.
BB
As for what Canada is doing in Iraq…… I’m not sure if anybody really knows. Our willy leader is an expert on sitting on the fence post and talking a good talk…
As for France and Germany backing a different process… If I thought they had a process that would be a common frame of reference. But both countries are on record as saying no matter how bad Saddam is, nothing other than more of the same should occur.
More of the same to the US means more 9/11, Europe just doesn’t get it. The last 12 years has been a disaster.
Europe says the US is unilateral, yet they unilaterally want to tie the hands of the US.
Dressing in civilian clothes is fine for troops provided they had no other clothes. Even so, they must distinguish themselves from civilians, a red bandana or anything according to the Geneva convention. This is good as it kills less civilians.
Depleted uranium amo has about the same background radiation has topsoil…
Our willy leader is an expert on sitting on the fence post and talking a good talk…
I haven’t heard “our” leader talk a good anything. Actually, I don’t think I’ve ever understood anything the PM has said.
The only good he’s done is take a pie in the face. :D
@Mr:
Our willy leader is an expert on sitting on the fence post and talking a good talk…
I haven’t heard “our” leader talk a good anything. Actually, I don’t think I’ve ever understood anything the PM has said.
The only good he’s done is take a pie in the face. :D
one day Bush will “liberate” us from his tyranny. I can’t believe he made money for gun control a vote-of-confidence issue. MP’s actually refused to show to vote in order to be able to vote their conscience and not get kicked out of the party.
i hate that guy.
Although he did say that he is cheering for the US, and is keeping our 31 officers and destroyers in place in the Gulf . . . .
“… he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:”
And then I said:
"Your citiations all mention the same thing. Must show weapons and must try to distinquish oneself from civilians. "
…
You are right, that is not exactly what it says, but it says the same thing in effect. “Carries his arms openly” = “Must show weapons”; "must try to distinquish oneself from civilians. " =
“combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack”
I highlighted the points that i think are important and that are not at all included in the way you said it.
As for France and Germany backing a different process…… If I thought they had a process that would be a common frame of reference. But both countries are on record as saying no matter how bad Saddam is, nothing other than more of the same should occur.
Have a guess how many german soldiers are in Quwait. Compare that to the amount of troops Poland has sent. Just because we Germans do strongly disagree with what the US did and are doing, doesn’t mean we are not (semi-officially) helping.
And for your “no matter how bad Saddam is….”: do i really have to comment this? I remember you were the one complaining about people who don’t look deeper, who “don’t want to see”…
More of the same to the US means more 9/11, Europe just doesn’t get it. The last 12 years has been a disaster.
What does 9/11 have to do with Iraq? What do the acronyms ETA, IRA, RAF tell you?
Europe says the US is unilateral, yet they unilaterally want to tie the hands of the US.
As if Europe was a single nation. As if it wasn’t the block-free nations now calling the UN to have a look at the US/UK behavior.
Dressing in civilian clothes is fine for troops provided they had no other clothes. Even so, they must distinguish themselves from civilians, a red bandana or anything according to the Geneva convention. This is good as it kills less civilians.
They must try. there is no word about “they had no other clothes”
Depleted uranium amo has about the same background radiation has topsoil….
Hmmmmm,
better read the WHOs report on
http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/DU_Eng.pdf
than believe the above statement.
In short: the WHO says: DU is “less dangerous” than “natural/commercial” Uranium, there are not enough studies to say how dangerous it really is, children in areas where there was fighting with DU are at a high(er) risk.
F_alk, if you don’t know what 9/11 has to do with Iraq you don’t understand what the Americans are thinking do you?
I’m not sure what your quip about “What do the acronyms ETA, IRA, RAF tell you?” is about, are you implying you don’t know what 9/11 means? Sept 11 terrorist attack win which more US citizens were killed then during the Pearl Harbour attack.
ETA is either Estimated Time of Arival or a terrorist group.
IRA is Irish Republican Army, a terrorist group.
RAF is Royal Air Force.
What’s your point?
As for me using Europe, I should have said Old Europe, that should clarify it for you since I obviously confused you as to what I really meant.
Uranium is a heavy metal, so yes it is not good if you get it into your body liked lead or cadmium. But as a source of radiation it is harmless. Since uranium is 70% heavier then lead it tends to sink to the bottom of things like deserts. Since U-238s radioactive half-life is 4.5 billion years it is rather stable. Meaning NON ACTIVE. Plutonuim has a half life of 24, 000 years hence it is ACTIVE. That’s why Plutonuim makes bombs and U-235 makes bullets.
Did you know that Abrams battle tanks use U-235 as armour? If tanks crews don’t get any more sick then the general population and they spend lots of time inside a shell made of tonnes of U-235 what makes you think a few burried bullets will make people sick?
Frankly, there is only about 2 or 3 cubic metres of depleted uranium in Iraq, compare this to 50 Exon Valdez tankers worth of Oil Saddam dumped into the environment.
In a contest Saddam wins hands down as the environmental villan.
BB
After further review, it seems soldiers fighting in civilian clothes is NOT a violation of the Geneva convention, however, those capture fighting like that would forgeit certain rights as POW’s. Perhaps being shot as spies might be a legal reaction?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030327-3d18e5c6.htm
F_alk, if you don’t know what 9/11 has to do with Iraq you don’t understand what the Americans are thinking do you?
Form what i think, the US believes there is a close connection between (9/11 and Al’Quaeda) and Iraq. AFAIK it is even like it now that more than 1/3 of the US citizens believe (were mislead into believeing) the 9/11 attackes were conducted by Iraqis.
That’s what i know. Are there other things you meant?
I’m not sure what your quip about “What do the acronyms ETA, IRA, RAF tell you?” is about, are you implying you don’t know what 9/11 means? Sept 11 terrorist attack win which more US citizens were killed then during the Pearl Harbour attack.
ETA is either Estimated Time of Arival or a terrorist group.
IRA is Irish Republican Army, a terrorist group.
RAF is Royal Air Force.
RAF also is “Rote Armee Fraktion”, a terrorist group. So, what i named was three european terrorists groups.
The RAF is not existant anymore, the IRA was “peaced down” a little, the ETA still is active, but losing support.
How could the groups be defeated: They lost support in the population.
So, the way to fight against terrorists is not only fighting the actual terrorists, but also cutting down their support in the population. Weapons you can get everywhere, a place to hide/food/etc. from where you start your actions not.
What i also wanted to say:
You sound like 9/11 was the first terrorist attack ever. It was the largest, true, but not the first. I think the IRA and ETA probably have killed more people in their existance than 9/11 did. Still, you treat the europeans as if we wouldn’t understand the concept of terrorism and the misery, pain and fear it causes. We do understand that. Just look at the reactions after 9/11 and the coalition for the War on Terror.
But again, what has the Iraq to do with terrrorism? This connection is something that too much looks like the US gov’t made it up (after the WMDs argument didn’t work, and before they started to use the humanity-argument) to get into Iraq.
Uranium is a heavy metal, so yes it is not good if you get it into your body liked lead or cadmium. But as a source of radiation it is harmless. Since uranium is 70% heavier then lead it tends to sink to the bottom of things like deserts. Since U-238s radioactive half-life is 4.5 billion years it is rather stable. Meaning NON ACTIVE. Plutonuim has a half life of 24, 000 years hence it is ACTIVE. That’s why Plutonuim makes bombs and U-235 makes bullets.
(1) A desert is not a fluid
(2) You mix up the isotopes
(3) you have no idea how a nuclear bomb works.
Did you know that Abrams battle tanks use U-235 as armour? If tanks crews don’t get any more sick then the general population and they spend lots of time inside a shell made of tonnes of U-235 what makes you think a few burried bullets will make people sick?
Yes, i know that. I have read the WHO’s paper on working in such an environment.
Buried bullets…. what happens to a bullet crossing some steel? Abrasive effects? Aerosols? Did you read you read the link i gave you?
It seems like you (quasi-quote: “i won’t talk to people who don’t want to see”) didn’t.
I belive it was Rumsfeld that said that war criminals will be punished. Those pictures are an excellent chance for him to prove that he was serious when he said that.
Just to make it clear, I want every war criminal to be punished. I don’t care if you are Iraqi,American,British, or Australian.
Humiliation of POW:
www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,grossbild-253447-242241,00.html
www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,grossbild-252004-242424,00.html
F_alk, you think you know what 9/11 means but you don’t. Oh sure you quoted some facts and I won’t dispute those. What 9/11 really means to Americans is insecurity. Iraq as it was created more insecurity. I don’t hold that with the invasion it will create much more terrorisim. 9/11 occured without invading a country, since Afganistan was invaded they have had no more successfull attacks inside the US.
9/11 was the second foreign terrorist attack inside the US the other was the first world trade tower bombing. I never said Europe doesn’t know what terrorist attacks are, you said that. I am saying you don’t know the impact on the Americans of that terrorist attack. YOU ASSUME since europe is more used to these attacks the US should be. I assure you F_alk, it came as a FREAKING HUGE SHOCK to the average american that not only were they that vulnerable but that there were people that hated them that much. You’d think more Americans would know how hated they are by so many but they don’t, trust me.
Sand behaves very much like a fluid. As for mixing up the isotopes, yes I did in the later part of my post. It should have been obvious to you as I had a contradiction in that post stating that U-238 has a long half-life thats why they use U-235 for bullets. I salute you ability to find simple errors that have no effect on the overall debate. Congratulations on wasting time, I again salute your ability to do this. I salute you ability to find simple errors that have no effect on the overall debate. Congratulations on wasting time, I again salute your ability to do this. I salute you ability to find simple errors that have no effect on the overall debate. ongratulations on wasting time, I again salute your ability to do this. I salute you ability to find simple errors that have no effect on the overall debate. Congratulations on wasting time, I again salute your ability to do this.
I stated it’s not good to ingest uranium, that should have answered you question “Buried bullets…. what happens to a bullet crossing some steel? Abrasive effects? Aerosols? Did you read you read the link i gave you?”.
I’ll answer that by asking you, did you read my previous post where I stated "Uranium is a heavy metal, so yes it is not good if you get it into your body liked lead or cadmium. "? Yes, I did read your article, I like the ending where it states “Gaps in knowledge exist and further research is recommended in key areas that would allow better health risk assessments to be made”
How can you say I have no idea how a nuclear bomb works? I never talked about how a bomb works so you made a grandiose statement not supported by any facts whatsoever as usual. Would you care to challenge me to a debate on it? I’d crush you.
F_alk, you think you know what 9/11 means but you don’t. Oh sure you quoted some facts and I won’t dispute those. What 9/11 really means to Americans is insecurity. Iraq as it was created more insecurity. I don’t hold that with the invasion it will create much more terrorisim. 9/11 occured without invading a country, since Afganistan was invaded they have had no more successfull attacks inside the US.
9/11 was the second foreign terrorist attack inside the US the other was the first world trade tower bombing. I never said Europe doesn’t know what terrorist attacks are, you said that. I am saying you don’t know the impact on the Americans of that terrorist attack. YOU ASSUME since europe is more used to these attacks the US should be. I assure you F_alk, it came as a FREAKING HUGE SHOCK to the average american that not only were they that vulnerable but that there were people that hated them that much. You’d think more Americans would know how hated they are by so many but they don’t, trust me.
of course despite the VERY likely fact that Iraq was unconnected to Al Queda in these attacks, 9/11 is used as an excuse to invade Iraq. No real connection, however the “oh no! now we are vulnerable” excuse is being used to invade a sovereign nation. How nice is that? Gee, some people from Quebec committed terrorist acts, maybe we should invade Quebec in order to quell our feelings of insecurities (or New Brunswick - as many of those people speak French). You get the disconnect? This is why so many of us object to the repeated bastardization and abuse of the tragic events of 9/11 to further Bush’s apparent political agenda - not because we don’t feel horrified that it happened, or saddened by the loss of life.
Sand behaves very much like a fluid. As for mixing up the isotopes, yes I did in the later part of my post. It should have been obvious to you as I had a contradiction in that post stating that U-238 has a long half-life thats why they use U-235 for bullets. I salute you ability to find simple errors that have no effect on the overall debate. Congratulations on wasting time, I again salute your ability to do this. I salute you ability to find simple errors that have no effect on the overall debate. Congratulations on wasting time, I again salute your ability to do this. I salute you ability to find simple errors that have no effect on the overall debate. ongratulations on wasting time, I again salute your ability to do this. I salute you ability to find simple errors that have no effect on the overall debate. Congratulations on wasting time, I again salute your ability to do this.
wow This cost me several precious seconds of my life. I want them back.
How can you say I have no idea how a nuclear bomb works? I never talked about how a bomb works so you made a grandiose statement not supported by any facts whatsoever as usual. Would you care to challenge me to a debate on it? I’d crush you.
i would consider that it’s possible at the end you’d believe that you would have crushed F_alk, however given debate criteria at the end, and an independent 3rd party panel reviewing the debate, you might find that others might feel otherwise. . . . 8)
@cystic:
of course despite the VERY likely fact that Iraq was unconnected to Al Queda in these attacks, 9/11 is used as an excuse to invade Iraq. No real connection, however the “oh no! now we are vulnerable” excuse is being used to invade a sovereign nation. How nice is that? Gee, some people from Quebec committed terrorist acts, maybe we should invade Quebec in order to quell our feelings of insecurities (or New Brunswick - as many of those people speak French). You get the disconnect? This is why so many of us object to the repeated bastardization and abuse of the tragic events of 9/11 to further Bush’s apparent political agenda - not because we don’t feel horrified that it happened, or saddened by the loss of life.
As all of you have no doubt noticed, I support this war. However, the Bush administration’s repeated misguided attempts to convince the public that there is a direct connection between 9/11 & Iraq (besides Saddam Hussein’s remarks celebrating the attacks) will go down in history as one of the biggest PR blunders of the early 21st century. People didn’t need 9/11 as a reason to go to war in Iraq, but the administration figured it could pull the wool over people’s eyes–people saw through it, & now can use it as an example of the President’s lies & half-truths. Of course, that obscures the facts, but if the President hadn’t brought it up (trying to obscure the truth himself), there would’ve been no opportunity for people to have done so.
i would consider that it’s possible at the end you’d believe that you would have crushed F_alk, however given debate criteria at the end, and an independent 3rd party panel reviewing the debate, you might find that others might feel otherwise. . . . 8)
We may never know. But I’d get all my ducks in a row (& my facts straight) before taking on F_alk in a debate. Just a word to the wise :wink: …
Ozone27
CC, agreed, the majority of Americans think Iraq was involved in 9/11. Not many in Canada do, I don’t think it was connected. I don’t recall any US representative drawing a direct link between Iraq and 9/11. I certainly do belive there is Al-qaeda in Iraq, there is some in the US too so that doesn’t prove much. However, we do know that al-qaeda does like to operate in failed states like Somolia and Afganistan. To a certain extent Iraq has parts that are a ‘failed state’. I agree that bush should have toned down the terrorist connection and concetrated on the argument that the Saddam regime was brutal and that alone should be enough to topple the regime.
China is brutal too, but not much anybody can do about that. So why not do what you can when you can rather than do nothing because you can’t do everything?
CC, if Quebec or New Brunswick acted like Iraq then the US should invade in my opinion. A few bombs does not make an Iraq, unless you think Iraq is all about just a few bombs.
Quebec did have terrorists in 1970 I think, the FLQ. They killed a brit diplomat and Canada invoked the war measures act and called the army into Quebec and suspended civil liberties. This for just a few deaths.
The nuke bomb understanding debate is an open challenge, I won’t even brush up. The point is, we weren’t even talking about nuclear bombs really, other than to say U-235 makes bombs and U-238 makes bullets so to speak. F_alk was the one who claimed I don’t know what I am talking about without testing me on the subject first. shrugs
BB
China is brutal too, but not much anybody can do about that. So why not do what you can when you can rather than do nothing because you can’t do everything?
Totally agree. That argument is stupid. People also bring up,“Well there’s a lot of countries that are brutal & the US supports them. So why attack Iraq?” To these people I say:“I agree. Let’s take on those countries after we deal with Iraq.” Usually shuts people up. Because for most of these people, no matter how bad a regime is, the prospect of the US fighting a war against them is even worse. So the situation festers. Which I guess is OK as long as its not on TV & you can blame it on good ol’ Uncle Sam…
Ozone27
I think we’re in total agreement on that. The status quo is fine as long as it’s a good situation and slowly improving, even then one can argue that the situation ought to be improving faster. I can’t understand the argument that preserving the current situation will lead to a better situation if given more of the same.
From a stand point of pure ugly logic, if you’re not American or British, how can you lose, things can only get better for everybody else except the aforementioned nations. Unless…… Unless somehow some countries benefit from more of the same terrible situation and won’t benefit from an Iraq controlled by a ‘good governence’ of new Iraqi leaders interested in benefits to the Iraqis first. But I’m sure France doesn’t know of any country like that, at least publicly that is.
BB
