Iraq executest POW's, violates Geneva Convention, no Protest


  • So, there is no proof that Iraqi soldiers are fighting in civilian clothing in violation of the geneva convention and were able to capture US prisoners. There pictures are now on TV in violation of the Geneva convention (I suppose CNN is as well, there is a clause saying can’t show prisoners in humiliating circumstances, I guess barefoot and hungry isn’t humiliating….?) and these pictures show US servicement dead, piled ragtag in a room and some have been shot in the head… since they were maintenance personal I doubt they got shot in the forehead in combat…

    Where are the howls of protest now…

    BB


  • I think the “howls of protest” have been going on for several days now.

    Anti-war protesters are protesting the belligerency of the Coalition vs. Iraq. Therefore I believe the vast majority of them are just as horrified by these events as are you & me, they just see it as more evidence that George Bush is wrong & our boys need to come home. They don’t “love” Saddam, they love human life…

    Just my take on the situation…

    Ozone27


  • And you expected the Iraqis to treat them like German WWII prisoners in America? We’re talking about a cornered rat regime here. As far as Saddam is concerned, he know’s unless his desperate plans work, he’s dead anyway.


  • George Bush is wrong because Saddam’s regime is executing POWs…… This is an interesting bit of inverted logic. So if Saddam was not executing POWs then George Bush is right? By the way, it’s not just GWB but 100s in congress as well, but don’t let the facts get in the way of a flawed arguement.

    Why exactly is GBW wrong again? I suppose had Churchill been in power in 1937 and attacked Germany thus preventing the horrors that followed he would have been accused as being a war-monger. Actually, he was accused of being a warmonger in the late 1930s…

    Saddam should have been removed from power in 1981. I dare anybody to argue he should have been left in power.

    You both had an opportunity to say what was done was wrong, instead you both were apologist’s for Saddams behaviour. This sort of thing makes me sick. You think this kind of attitude promotes understanding in the people on the other side of the argument? The more people like you applogize for Saddam the more I disregard the opinion of the otherside. A pity since I want to understand it. Saying it is horrifying does not state you think it’s wrong.

    Germany managed to treat allied prisoners with respect even during it’s death throes. Why should we expect less from Saddam then we got from Nazis? If we should expect this from Saddam then force is even more justified.

    BB


  • Germany managed to treat allied prisoners with respect even during it’s death throes. Why should we expect less from Saddam then we got from Nazis? If we should expect this from Saddam then force is even more justified.

    Germany only really treated allied Airmen well. They treated Russian prisoners especially badly. That being said, the Japaneese and Russians treated their dogs better than captured PoWs.

    Why exactly is GBW wrong again? I suppose had Churchill been in power in 1937 and attacked Germany thus preventing the horrors that followed he would have been accused as being a war-monger. Actually, he was accused of being a warmonger in the late 1930s….

    We’re talking about 20x20 hindsight here. We didn’t know about Hitler’s weapons in 1937. In fact, we thought that the French and Russians would easily crush any attempt made by Hitler at a war. Its easy to look back at History and say “I told you so”, but people living at the time didn’t know the whole story, and were living in memory of the most deadly war in up to that point in history.

    Saddam should have been removed from power in 1981. I dare anybody to argue he should have been left in power.

    How was Saddam different in 1981 from 2nd tier dictators of the world? If Saddam had been removed from power in 1981, its incredibly likely Iran would hold most of present day Iraq. Who was worse in 1981, Iran or Iraq? The answer is Iran. So, the West decided to help Iraq win the war, and the rest is history. Again, 20x20 hindsight is nice, but people shouldn’t be judged using it.


  • @BigBlocky:

    So, there is no proof that Iraqi soldiers are fighting in civilian clothing in violation of the geneva convention and were able to capture US prisoners.

    i haven’t heard that they were “costumed”, i heard that the US troopers ran into an ambush.

    There pictures are now on TV in violation of the Geneva convention (I suppose CNN is as well, there is a clause saying can’t show prisoners in humiliating circumstances, I guess barefoot and hungry isn’t humiliating….?) and these pictures show US servicement dead, piled ragtag in a room and some have been shot in the head… since they were maintenance personal I doubt they got shot in the forehead in combat…

    Well, just as you mentioned. Having Iraqi soldiers on their knees, fenced in barbed wire in the sun…. when these pics where braodcasted, Rumsfeld was silent… The point of the Geneva convention is not about TV. It’s about the humiliation. But, Rumsfeld sells these two that the public believes the first to be true.

    George Bush is wrong because Saddam’s regime is executing POWs

    I have not heard of that.

    You both had an opportunity to say what was done was wrong, instead you both were apologist’s for Saddams behaviour. This sort of thing makes me sick. You think this kind of attitude promotes understanding in the people on the other side of the argument? The more people like you applogize for Saddam the more I disregard the opinion of the otherside. A pity since I want to understand it. Saying it is horrifying does not state you think it’s wrong.

    I don’t think you will ever find any one of us apologizing for the atrocities SH did. You want to hear our words as such, you do hear them as such. If calling something “horrifying” is not calling it “wrong” iy our ears, then either you or us have to be rather perverted or cynical to the max.
    And i personally don’t care about your regards, as long as you stick to the law. But, your defenses for his continual breaches in the international law make me concerned.

    Germany managed to treat allied prisoners with respect even during it’s death throes. Why should we expect less from Saddam then we got from Nazis? If we should expect this from Saddam then force is even more justified.

    lol rofl Hell yeah, we treated our POWs so good that we sent them into concentration camps and to forced labor.

    But now a serious question:
    We all agree that SH violated international law in peaceful times and was starting wars and committed atrocities.
    Many of those against the war had that position that a war would make it even worse: for civilians, other countries etc., that the price that would have to be paid would be higher than the profit/good it would do.
    Now, is there really anybody out there who is surprised, that the regime, that violated int. law even when unthreatened, would stick to these laws in war? Did you really expect that?
    If anybody did, that person would surely be a promising candidate for “most naive person of the millenium”.
    I mean the war was started for something you continue now to blame him for? That’s like going out in the rain and complaining that you get wet.
    I would say: it’s WAR!!! We should all be bloody happy if SH does stick to at least some international laws. He has nothing to lose, as the orders for the US army read “better dead than alive”.


  • F_alk, when you write 10 page replies I start to think you have too much time on your hands.

    Iraqi irregular forces are using civilian clothes and executing POWs, I can’t help it if you don’t want to see the evidence that has been presented by the allies.

    As for the pics I stated I thought the allies were wrong showing them and yet you devote a paragraph on this rather than say agreed. Can’t take yes for answer?

    As for horrifying, I admit I am splitting hairs. It was horrifying allies died fighting nazis. That does not mean that horrifying was wrong. It is more than just horrifying when POWs are executed, it is not morally indefensible.

    Germany treated allied prisoners very well as long as you were not Polish or Russian. I’m not sure how many relatives of yours were combatants for the Allies sans Russia but I had some who spent time in Germany. Allied soldiers and airment didn’t go to concentration camps, that was reserved for jews, gypsies, and slavs of various sorts. I am sorry I was not able to explain my point better, please except my humble appologies as I know you never misunderstand anything.

    So, F_alk, you admit to the fact Iraq flaunts international law and you seem to expect them to continue to do so and in fact, we should all not be suprised that they do. Do I understand you on this point? In fact you call those who assume Iraq might adhere to the Geneva concention as being naive, in fact the candidate for the most naive person of that last 1000 years. And yet you still appear to argue that it is wrong to remove him from power?

    The was was started for something I continue to blame him for. Do you expect me to stop blamming him for the invasion of Kuwait (this is the legal root of the issue). If you expect the world to stop blamming Saddam for this problem you ought to nominate yourself for the naive award….

    BB


  • btw
    Canadian news reports that US servicemen were captured by Iraqi’s pretending to surrender.
    What does this mean for future Iraqi’s claiming to surrender?


  • I’m not sure about the Canadian news claiming the servicemen were captured at that violiation of the Geneva conventions (I do watch a few hours/day of it :-). I have heard them say those captured were part of a maintenance crew that was ambushed when taking a wrong turn.

    The surrender thing was Iraqi irregular forces playing tricks. I hope it doesn’t end up costing the lives of legitimate iraqis trying to surrender, and of course that is the intent of those irregulars. Nothing like shooting prinsoners trying to surrender.

    No doubt we will see hundreds of tricks over the next week, hardly anything will be said until one incident where the US makes a mistake and everybody will be all over it……


  • @BigBlocky:

    F_alk, when you write 10 page replies I start to think you have too much time on your hands.

    Let me worry about that.

    Iraqi irregular forces are using civilian clothes and executing POWs, I can’t help it if you don’t want to see the evidence that has been presented by the allies.

    I have not seen it. I want to see it. I have not. Gnmpf. Show me a link to it please, so i can see it.

    Can’t take yes for answer?

    please except my humble appologies as I know you never misunderstand anything.

    As much as you 😉

    Germany treated allied prisoners very well as long as you were not Polish or Russian. …Allied soldiers and airment didn’t go to concentration camps, that was reserved for jews, gypsies, and slavs of various sorts.

    Just because the Nazis were extremely racist, you now complain that the Iraq treats allied soldiers worse than Nazi-Germany did?
    Hello?
    You complain that you were lucky in WWII???

    So, F_alk, you admit to the fact Iraq flaunts international law and you seem to expect them to continue to do so and in fact, we should all not be suprised that they do. Do I understand you on this point? In fact you call those who assume Iraq might adhere to the Geneva concention as being naive, in fact the candidate for the most naive person of that last 1000 years. And yet you still appear to argue that it is wrong to remove him from power?

    The threat of violence worked to force SH into obdience. The inspectors did good work. There was no need to go in for a war. Waging war always would have had the total loss of any control over the regime we had (including the control through threating the use of violence).
    Taking actions to remove from power from outside is ILLEGAL!!!
    I do not support that, as i do not support the other.
    It’s not like if i disagree with one i have to agree with the other (that’s how the US gov’t usually first found “allies” in dictators they fought wars against later). I can disagree with both.
    The enemy of my enemy can be my enemy.



  • If England had attacked Germany in 1937, the result would not have been a democratic Germany.
    In another thread, somebody mentioned France occupied the Ruhrgebiet, Germany’s industrial center. This stired national feelings in the Germans and resulted in bigger support for the political right.
    Some people, I even heard this from Americans, think that up to the beginning of the war Hittler was a very good leader. He reduced unemployment, built the autobahnen and was able to shake off the reparations Germany had to pay at that time to France. Those people ignore that many things were mere preparations for war and Germany could not have gone on without war in 1939, it would have been bankrupt. But attacking in 1937 would have enhanced this myth an we wouldn’t live in a democratic state today.


  • F_alk, you claim that Europe has a unique outlook on war because of their history, granted.

    How do you think 280 Million US citizens feel just 18 months after 3000 people were killed. Since Mexico and Canada are more and more connected to the US we feel vulnerable now. My sister lives in the US, she flies across the continent a few times per week. She was trapped for days in an airport, her choice was drive 2500 KM North East to her family or drive 2500 KM South West to her husband. There were 100 of millions of people on this side of the Atlantic who were scared to death, I truly didn’t know for 36 hours if she was alive or dead. This memory is more painfull and recent then anything europe has to whine about.

    Perhaps people in Europe thought it was ok to ‘contain’ Saddam. Most of us on the side think that is a mistake. European governements have the sovereign right to appease dictators. They do not have the right to force other countries into inaction when action is required in their opinion.

    Debate us, offer suggestions but when we decide what is right for us, don’t undermine us. If europe can’t do anything for the allied effort they ought not to undermine it. At the end if the allies have made a mistake then suggest actions to punish those who made them.

    My comment about Nazi’s treating western allied prisoners well is that it is a choice to treat prisoners well or not. The nazis made a choice to treat some well and slaughter others. So to have some Iraqi facists made a choice to disregard the geneva conventions. Don’t imply their excuse to ignore them is that it is impossible to adhere to them….

    The threat of violence comes from the allies. It is very easy for ‘old europe’ to allow the allies to pay the price both in money and in bad feelings amongst the arabs. Hell, France has it great. They insist that the ‘threat’ is working, then allow others to critize the US for having forces there. It’s win-win, Fance pays no money, watches the US pay for it all, watches the arabs HATE the US for dragging out sanctions for 10 years while French weapons inspectors drink coffee and tea with Saddam’s cronnies.

    The ‘premise’ that more years of ‘threat’ beyond the past 12 years is working is morally bankrupt.

    Saddam was winning that war. Every month 10, 000 more innocent iraqis die (but not anyone of value to his regime of course). That is a fact you can’t deny.

    Every month Saddam is closer to WMD. (OK, you choose not to belive this, can’t help that but even the French agree Saddam has them. Iraqi troops have gas masks, I saw it on TV. I guess your reply is it is Allied Lies or ummm, allied lies)

    Every month arab anger increases over the plight of Iraqis thus fueling anti-american sentiment that works just well for those like France and Germany (by guilt of association with the French I am afraid).

    Why is taking power from outside illegal? If we follow that premise then the allies in WWII had no right to invade Germany. Saddam like Nazi Germany invaded a foreign land. The UN voted to declare war on Saddam in effect. Part of the peace treaty was to disarm. He broke his part of the deal so the war is still on.

    Either way you look at it you logic is as full of holes as swiss cheese is.

    BB


  • Ok,
    so Iraq uses Guerilla tactics. Actually, it is not surprising considering their position (see Vietnam, Yugoslavia in WW2).
    And wearing a unifrom or not does not change that much. The Geneva Conventions defines Combatant ( see: http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/protocol1.html#43 ) as

    "Art. 43. Armed forces

    1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct or its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.

    2. Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered by Article 33 of the Third Convention) are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities.

    3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict.

    Art. 44. Combatants and prisoners of war

    1. Any combatant, as defined in Article 43, who falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war.

    2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.

    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:

    (a) during each military engagement, and (b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate."

    Notice that there are no “unlawful combatants” who would deserve treatment like the Al Quaeda fighters.


  • Are we all that really shocked that Iraq is fighting “dirty”? Saddam has had plenty of time to think about how to conduct the war. This is just the beginning, wait until we hit the streets of Bagdad. That’s when the blood will really start to flow…


  • 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……

    Art. 37. Prohibition of Perfidy

    1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy: (a) the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender; (b) the feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness; © the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and (d) the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.

    Faking a surrender is one. Sure you might not need a uniform, but you can’t pretend to be civilians, that’s three now including the oil wells.

    Your citiations all mention the same thing. Must show weapons and must try to distinquish oneself from civilians.

    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

    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.

    It sounds like France and Germany are backing some really bad people.

    BB


  • 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?

    @BigBlocky:

    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. 😄


  • @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. 😄

    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 . . . .


  • @BigBlocky:

    “… 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.

    @BigBlocky:

    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.

Suggested Topics

  • 14
  • 2
  • 73
  • 6
  • 10
  • 42
  • 1
  • 10
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

44
Online

15.3k
Users

36.4k
Topics

1.5m
Posts