Thread: US attack in Iraq (WAR Talk)

so they are justified for being a part of an oppressive regime because it paid well???? wtf? i cannot believe that this is your rational?

>>The Geneva convention states you can't make up a new law and charge prisoners with it.
so then why make up any new laws?

>>Not one has been charged with any crime after 18 months.
how quickly we forget past conflicts, i dont ever recall hearing about our boys being given due proccess in korea, vietnam etc.


wow...........just wow

i replied to all this, it timed out, i don't feel like typing it all again so to summerize:

I seriously doubt all the prisioners are just farmers...

and since they are "Illegal Combatants" they are not protected by the Geneva Convention.

we've been over the rest.

>I saw it live. Prahaps you should take your own advice.

i cant help life ok, i read your link the first time and yes the answer was evasive.

edit:: but you forget hes a polititian, and as such its natural to dodge a queston hes not prepared for

secondly the british government has basically said this, the evidence leads them to believe they we're executed but they didn't recover the bodys so they cant be sure, it is still a pretty strong statement to say the least.

secondly his has nothing to do with the American prisoners, appearntly they had a witness:

http://www.borderlandnews.com/storie...29-93763.shtml

and i stand by my statements.

anyway as i've stated internet news is way behind.

>>so they are justified for being a part of an oppressive regime because it paid well

We are talking about the difference between you starving and your family to death or not.

Not being able to buy a nice car and home (or not).

>>>And it doesn't really matter what we think, as we're not members of Congress.

from a differenet perspective:
And it doesn't really matter what we think, as we're not members of the Taliban ruling Council.

>>so then why make up any new laws?

You can't enact a law today saying that eating French fries is illegal, then arrest someone for eating some last year (when it was not illegal). That is what the geneva convention protects against.

>>how quickly we forget past conflicts, i dont ever recall hearing about our boys being given due proccess in korea, vietnam etc.

I thought the US was claiming the moral high ground. That is, the US is upholding decency and doing this for the good of the world.

But then it violates these peoples human rights.

>>since they are "Illegal Combatants" they are not protected by the Geneva Convention

We seem to be in a circular argument.

Why are they not subject to any law, protection under the Geneva Convention or even the basic human rights?
Because they are illegal combatants.

Why are they illegal combatants not POW's or criminals?
Because we say so.

What is the difference between an Illegal combatant and a POW?
(apart from the rights they receive)

Interesting report of Cliff Pearson:
The Hidden History of US War in Iraq

Here is another one, you will find:
US contributions in world since 1846 (not complete)

Copy posted: GD -> It's War: USA To Annexe Liechtenstein

I thought THIS was interesting...
http://www.dawn.com/2000/09/21/top16.htm

I thought that the links are informative ( The Hidden History of US War in Iraq, US contributions in world since 1846 (not complete) and Archive of FreeSpeech.Org) on the perspective of this WAR and probable cause of the WAR, if there is anything untrue, you may ask the guy and even let us know.

So.. you decided to declare war against me . . .
You better open another thread.

Is this the way one stops other from telling the truth?,
or is this the way to counter the freedom of speech over there rather than admitting or presenting the reason? I heard lot about it. Didn't give attention ever. Never needed.

>But then it violates these peoples human rights.

you miss the point, we've done nothing comparable.

>We seem to be in a circular argument.

true.

>
Why are they not subject to any law, protection under the Geneva Convention or even the basic human rights?
Because they are illegal combatants.

Why are they illegal combatants not POW's or criminals?
Because we say so.
<

yes on both counts, see below for more on the second.

>
What is the difference between an Illegal combatant and a POW?
(apart from the rights they receive)
<

this may shed some light to the subject,

http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/rsepReso.../aug02/law.asp

I recommend reading it all, i don't have a lot of time at this moment so i read about half and skimmed the rest.

in particualar i will point out a particular part

"
A subsequent conference, concluded in 1907, went further, and accepted that prolonged resistance might be legal, provided certain conditions were met. These required that all combatants (1) be "commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates"; (2) wear a "fixed distinctive emblem" visible at a distance; (3) carry arms openly; and (4) conduct their operations "in accordance with the laws and customs of war."
"

or more generally the last five paragraphs.

This is the answer of your way:

"Bangladesh was followed closely in the world rankings by India, where 40 per cent of women were assaulted by men.

Western countries were not exempt - 29 per cent of women in Canada were assaulted, followed by 22 per cent in the United States and 20 per cent in South Africa."


But I admitted that the problem exist in out country. We are trying to eliminate, economy is in heart of our many auxiliary problems.


You know who provided this report?
UN, do you care? Should we?
Don't you know that UN is history.

Again, I thought that the links informative ( The Hidden History of US War in Iraq, US contributions in world since 1846 (not complete) and Archive of FreeSpeech.Org) on the perspective of this WAR and probable cause of the WAR, if there is anything untrue, you may ask the guy and even let us know.


I'm not going to answer you again on it, I think I have already explained my point.
I'm sorry if I did hurt you, actually the reason of the WAR is not that clear to the world, the other sources, logic and practical scenario doesn't match with US gov and we are among ordinary people discussing on war.

>>So.. you decided to declare war against me . . .
>>You better open another thread.
nah, i'd rather not, if you'd like to start a thread though ...go right ahead


>>Is this the way one stops other from telling the truth?
no, but you told your truth and i told mine. who are you to stop ME from telling the truth, maybe you should look inside your own country and it's problems before bashing other peoples homelands
you come on this board and bash my country by posting some facts that are taken out of context. america did this, did that. dont blame me for getting ........ed, im damn proud of this country and would gladly fight for it if called upon. i know we've had our dirty little secrets, but what country doesnt, if you can tell me that your country doesnt have it's little lies (whether you want to admit it or not) than i'll call you a liar to your face.

not saying your info is wrong... but when i see things like this
>>1964- Congo. The USA bombard Congo
w/no other explanation??? its statements like this that are out of context...its kinda funny how sites like this spout out all this "information" but provide no links, resources, books, fortune cookies, that they found this stuff in, and im supposed to believe this.....LMFAO

...dont make me get OSR on you

Yeah, Zahid -- almost all of that info? in those links are half-truths or incomplete or just plain wrong... 1 blatant one is it has the US invaded Panama in 1960's which is wrong - we invaded in 1988 and the further explanation in that 1 is just incomplete just like the others...

And also the cuban crisis is totally left out of the history - and instead they try to say that the US embargoed cuba and continued to this day b/c we sponsored an invasion of cuba that failed... that is not the reason for the embargo.

I hope u don't get your history or info from these links, plz don't be another novacain...

I read your artical from the NSA web site. Not exactly an impartial site, being run by the US military (.navy.mil/).

"The comments that follow are not intended to address the POW issue directly, still less the question of what should or should not count as "war" in present circumstances."

But I found it interesting. Especialy the following;

"The classification of prisoners taken in Afghanistan as "illegal combatants" immediately attracted much scrutiny, in part because international law provides no precise definition of what such a categorization implies, and in part because its use in the present instance was intended to deprive Taliban and al-Qaida fighters of the protections afforded prisoners of war under the 1949 Geneva Conventions."

the paragraph after your quote on the Hague Act of 1907 is also interesting;

"Among these the most ambitious is the first Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (Protocol I), concluded in 1977. Protocol I, which the United States has signed but not ratified, tried to take account of the perfectly obvious fact that no guerilla organization or resistance movement worthy of the name could possibly survive strict adherence to the requirements set forth at the Hague."

Correct me if I am wrong but the last instance of the Hague Act is the IJC which not only did the US refuse to sign, but activly campaigned against it . When it was passed and 78 countries signed the US enacted what has been called the 'Hague Invasion Act' and coerced 80 countries into signing a disclaimer that they would never prosecute US servicemen using the new international laws.



Can you explain the difference in treatment of Afghanii Taliban fighters who are suspected Al Queda members and Cuban terrorists?

Specifically why if I am a Taliban fighter in Afghanistan I get up to two years in Camp X-Ray Cuba without any rights / human contact. These guys are in solitary confinement, have about an hour outside a week and no contact with their families.

But if I hijack a plane an make it fly to the US I get BAIL!!?? (I am refering to the two very recent hijackings) Seems a uneven application of the law on terrorists.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/5535985.htm

"That same year, Cuban Army intelligence Lt. Col. Jose Fernandez Pupo hijacked a civilian plane to the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay. Pupo was acquitted of hijacking charges by a federal jury in Washington, D.C., but he was denied asylum because he used guns in the hijacking."

Hey, the Supreme Court just ruled that US law did not apply to Guantanamo Bay?


>>Yeah, Zahid -- almost all of that info? in those links are half-truths or incomplete or just plain wrong... 1 blatant one is it has the US invaded Panama in 1960's which is wrong - we invaded in 1988 and the further explanation in that 1 is just incomplete just like the others..

Again OSR you can't get it right.

First it was January 9, 1964 that Panamanians attacked US citizens and interests in Panama. Panama later took the US to the UN over the matter.

Second it was December 20,1989 that the US started bombing Panama (not 1988).

Like the rest of your posts this one contains "half-truths or incomplete or just plain wrong".

Originally posted by OneStiffRod
Yeah, Zahid --
.....................
........................................
plz don't be another novacain...

I don't know how is novacain. Actually for further verification & explanation there are lots of resource on line, library, etc. This is just a list .
Did you visit other links? Specially FreeSpeech.Org

I'm not believe in the existence of absolutely true, pure , perfect, correct, right, happy, peace, neutral, etc ... .. . I think those are impossible. All you have to do or can do with is rules of paper. Democracy is not the only solution, but better in average. Sometimes ..

Anyway, how do you justify the US attack in Iraq? Okay.. Actually I'm not that much interested in politics but last few weeks I studied little on it, I mean I opened myself to be informed on Iraq issue.

I'm & was in dark, the people who are against US policy always want to explain that US did this & that, I never believed desperately. Even many old people. I observed US gov policy in Middle east, Palestine, WTO, UN, World Environment, International Law, etc. Lot about Vietnam War, Iran-Iraq War. And the Palestine issue is just alway in front of me. This is a life witness for last 50 years and I'm 28+. I'm sorry you can't make me believe that you are doing right over there. Please don't ever tell me about it. And another one.

It does not matter you agree with me or not. Actually I found that cultural history is a big factor. Root is very important. This war is important for me. It started another process for another concept in me, I guess you did not understand my words. I have few other concept, such as on religion, democracy, being neutral, believe, patriotism, etc. Religion is one of the most important. You know this is about true or lie. Day by day confidence grows or gets adjusted.

This WAR is a WRONG and we have to pay for it, it could be today or tomorrow.
If webmaster allow I want to open a poll. Not to strengthen my confidence, you know I thought on word patriotism too. I'm eager to know the opinion of my fellow members, specially from US. We know majority of you are from US.

US attack in Iraq is a WRONG. Do you agree?
No
Yes

>>Again OSR you can't get it right.
>>First it was January 9, 1964 that Panamanians attacked US citizens and interests in Panama. Panama later took the US to the UN over the matter.

um where in osr's statement did he say anything trying to prove facts...he simply said that they werent the truth.

>>Second it was December 20,1989 that the US started bombing Panama (not 1988).
god forbid he was probably thinking right off the top of his head and was a year off....

>>Did you visit other links? Specially FreeSpeech.Org
who the hell is trying to take your free speech? im definately not, i havent seen anyone else that is, you express your opinions and views and i express mine...so why do you keep bringing up this free speech thing?

>>This WAR is a WRONG...US attack in Iraq is a WRONG. Do you agree? No Yes

no, i think there is plenty of proof to support the fact that saddam has chemical and biological weapons. i think there is also proof of terrorist cells in iraq.(hell, we've found terrorists cells in the U.S.) even if you believe this war is wrong, the inspectors found and destroyed stockpiles of chemical weapons....if they found and destroyed these why would you think there arent more, better yet, how can you think we'll find them all.

i have to believe that there are more weapons ... i think people forget we didnt go into iraq to colonize, we want to get rid of saddam and help set up a new government and get out, thats it, someone already said it, we've secured most of the iraqi oil feilds if it were about oil...we'd have it by now.

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just look at the reaction. The site FreeSpeech.Org is gone.

I'm not that surprised Now go for ThisOne

um...the freespeech.org site was still up, its the freespeech.org/F.uck_america_die_in_pig_$hit.html site thats not working correctly

youre other pro anti-american terrorism site is up and running swimmingly