The moral highground

If you have ANY question at all about what GWB/Cheney et al have done to this country think about this:

Cheney and Bush have condoned the use of torture.....they have condoned the use of holding people hostage without a trial....they have condoned violations of the Geneva convention on the theory that it does not apply to "terrorist nations".......

So now.....when Iran.....takes English Hostages and strips them down......and subjects them to possible violations of the Geneva Convention.....the United States is in a position in which we cannot speak out without being a hypocrite.....

Because Iran.....can now say.....well.....look at Abu Graib.....look at Guantanamo.....

GWB has sacrificed the integrity of this country....we have lost the moral highground. What a sad state Bush has brought this country to.

Prior to GWB....the United States was well respected in the world. We were the good guys....we could speak out against torture....abuse......but when you have warmongers such as Bush/Cheney....who condone this type of strategy in the name of "spreading democracy"....we have lost the moral highground.

The United States has lost the respect of a lot of the world community...because we have lost our values....our honor....our integrity.

If you have any question at all about where Bush/Cheney have taken this nation.....look no further than how we can respond to deplorable actions of our enemies. When we look at our enemies....and see that we have resorted to similar tactics to fight them.......we have lost our soul as a nation....

While you certainly have a strong argument with torture etc I think it's going too far to say we've lost the moral high ground. After all there remains a profound difference between our two nations still.

What's more it should be noted that the Geneva Convention only applies to civilians and soldiers. The rather strange legalize term of "enemy combatants" is someone who is neither a soldier nor a civilian. Terrorists, spies, and un-uniformed saboteurs (typically referred to as sappers) are neither civilians nor soldiers.


Spies specifically are not protected by any international agreements. If you capture an enemy spy you can without breaking any international laws torture him/her. While I do not approve of that tactic generally that does not mean that it is a violation of the convention.


Some might argue that this is a frivolous legal trick or escape. But it was intentionally written into the convention to discourage "dishonorable" warfare. That would include spies, terrorists, and sappers.


Consider for example what would happen if whole US divisions dressed in civilian clothing and entered an enemy country to do a covert strike? Why is that not done? Why not simply enter enemy countries posing as civilians? Or perhaps hiding in secret compartments in otherwise normal trucks?


This sort of warfare is generally frowned upon as it makes it very hard for countries to trust each other and to avoid fanatical paranoia. After all if an enemy army could at any moment be sneaking into your country dressed as tourists then consider how hellish that makes life for your citizens to say nothing of your enemy's citizens as you'll likely respond in kind.


Thus civilized nations have agreed NOT to do such things. Certainly we have spies and sappers. But even our covert forces typically remain in uniform to distinguish them as US military personnel. That is what civilized countries do. The enemy in this case is not civilized. I am willing to deal with them fairly on many topics but there is no way to pretend that their entire manner of fighting is not inherently barbaric.

Originally posted by Karmashock
Thus civilized nations have agreed NOT to do such things. Certainly we have spies and sappers. But even our covert forces typically remain in uniform to distinguish them as US military personnel. That is what civilized countries do. The enemy in this case is not civilized. I am willing to deal with them fairly on many topics but there is no way to pretend that their entire manner of fighting is inherently barbaric.

Click to expand...

Do you consider any of the following barbaric?

• Dropping a 500 pounder on a hospital
• Using cluster bombs in urban areas
• Using WP
• Using depleted uranium munitions
• Dropping more bombs on a country than all the bombs dropped in WWII
• Destroying 75% of a city the size of Long Beach, Ca just to get at less than 1/10 of 1% of the population

Because of renditions, Abu Ghraib and GITMO, we have no moral high ground whatsoever. How moral is it to attack a country that did not attack you first (nor even threaten you)? How moral is it to attack a country after they were forced to disarm? How moral is it attacking a country that only has 9 hours of electricity a day? How moral was that Highway of Death in the last Persian Gulf War? They couldn't even retreat without us going duck hunting.

Billo_Really said:

Do you consider any of the following barbaric?

• Dropping a 500 pounder on a hospital
• Using cluster bombs in urban areas
• Using WP
• Using depleted uranium munitions
• Dropping more bombs on a country than all the bombs dropped in WWII
• Destroying 75% of a city the size of Long Beach, Ca just to get at less than 1/10 of 1% of the population

Click to expand...

I'm not going to address any of that unless we put it in context.

I'm not saying you don't have an argument, I'm saying that a list isn't an argument and neither is a question an argument. Don't jump to preconceived conclusions so quickly and allow for other people to offer their opinion in the process. Also be open to other opinions instead of trying to set up a situation where anyone that disagrees with you would be immoral or stupid by default.

As to the gitmo extra erasing all of our moral high ground, I think you're either exaggerating how far we've fallen or over estimating how close nations like Iran were to us to begin with. After all, the moral high ground is a relative term. To have said high ground one need only be higher then the one you're compared against.


Please... wild exaggerations and unsupportable absolute statements will never represent you well. Try to moderate your position a bit.

Originally posted by Karmashock
I'm not going to address any of that unless we put it in context.

I'm not saying you don't have an argument, I'm saying that a list isn't an argument and neither is a question an argument. Don't jump to preconceived conclusions so quickly and allow for other people to offer their opinion in the process. Also be open to other opinions instead of trying to set up a situation where anyone that disagrees with you would be immoral or stupid by default.

As to the gitmo extra erasing all of our moral high ground, I think you're either exaggerating how far we've fallen or over estimating how close nations like Iran were to us to begin with. After all, the moral high ground is a relative term. To have said high ground one need only be higher then the one you're compared against.


Please... wild exaggerations and unsupportable absolute statements will never represent you well. Try to moderate your position a bit.

Click to expand...

There is, absolutely and unequivocally, no context you can possibly suggest that would justify any of those acts. There is no moral argument in favor of anything on that list. Which by the way, is a list of what the US is guilty of in Iraq and around the world. A list, I offered as an example of how immoral our actions have become. Are we an immoral nation. No. Just our actions and the direction our foreign policy is going.

As for wild exaggerations, you don't even provide proof that would justify drawing that conclusion. These aren't exaggerations. They are facts!

Dropping a 500 pounder on a hospital

Overnight US bombardments hit a clinic inside the Sunni Muslim city, killing doctors, nurses and patients, residents said. US military authorities denied the reports.

ICRC Voices Concern

"The ICRC urges the belligerents to ensure that all those in need of such care - whether friend or foe - be given access to medical facilities and that medical personnel and vehicles can function without hindrance at all times," a statement said.

The organisation said it was "deeply concerned about reports that the injured cannot receive adequate medical care".

Click to expand...

Using WP

US Forces 'Used Chemical Weapons' during Assault on City of Fallujah
By Peter Popham The Independent UK Tuesday 08 November 2005

Powerful new evidence emerged yesterday that the United States dropped massive quantities of white phosphorus on the Iraqi city of Fallujah during the attack on the city in November 2004, killing insurgents and civilians with the appalling burns that are the signature of this weapon.

Click to expand...

Using cluster bombs in urban areas

(b) cluster bombs, including those which upon explosion project lethal plastic fragments not detectable by X-ray, deployed by United States forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, which leave unexploded ordnance known to maim and kill innocent civilians and which are therefore also illegal under Geneva Conventions Protocol I, Article 85, as well as under Protocol I of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which bans the use of "the use of any weapon the primary effect of which is to injure by fragments which in the human body escape detection by X-rays," and under Annexed Articles 22 and 23 of the Hague Convention IV, which states that "It is especially forbidden to kill treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;"

Click to expand...

Dropping more bombs on a country than all the bombs dropped in WWII

An Impartial Interrogation of George W. Bush
By George McGovern The Nation Wednesday 17 January 2007
It makes me shudder as an aging bomber pilot to remember that we dropped more bombs on the Vietnamese and their country than the total of all the bombs dropped by all the air forces around the world in World War II. Do you, Mr. President, honestly believe that we need tens of thousands of additional troops plus a supplemental military appropriation of $200 billion before we can bring our troops home from this nightmare in ancient Baghdad?

Click to expand...

Depleted Uranium

Horror of USA's Depleted Uranium in Iraq Threatens World
By James Denver Vive le Canada Friday 29 April 2005

American use of DU is "A crime against humanity which may, in the eyes of historians, rank with the worst atrocities of all time." US Iraq Military Vets "are on DU death row, waiting to die."

Click to expand...

Destroying 75% of a city the size of Long Beach, Ca
just to get at less than 1/10 of 1% of the population

Fallujah was heavily bombed in April 2004 and again in November that year. The attacks destroyed 75% of the city's infrastructure and left more than 5,000 dead, according to local non-governmental groups.

Click to expand...

Exaggerations, I don't think so.

Originally posted by Karmashock
Don't jump to preconceived conclusions so quickly and allow for other people to offer their opinion in the process.

Click to expand...

How can I preconceive something I never knew existed? I didn't pre-conceive anything. I didn't draw conclusions until after I came across these reports and similar ones that corroborated their story. I really don't see how you can even make a statement like that. How could you possibly know what I pre-conceive?

Do you think the bomb was dropped on the hopsital on purpose? All other cases are uses of weapons or tactics that improve the chances of our troops to survive. I would chose the life of an American GI over the life of an Iraqi civilian any day.

Originally posted by RightOfCenter
Do you think the bomb was dropped on the hopsital on purpose? All other cases are uses of weapons or tactics that improve the chances of our troops to survive. I would chose the life of an American GI over the life of an Iraqi civilian any day.

Click to expand...

I can't say if it was on purpose or a wrong address, but to be fair, it was a hospital that had just been built, and had not been occupied at the time of the bombing. The bad part is, it was the only hospital in the area for miles.

There was another hospital that we deliberately targeted, but I don't use that as an atrocity since in that incident, there was insurgents using it for cover as they fired on helicopter gunships.

Billo_Really said:

I can't say if it was on purpose or a wrong address, but to be fair, it was a hospital that had just been built, and had not been occupied at the time of the bombing. The bad part is, it was the only hospital in the area for miles.

There was another hospital that we deliberately targeted, but I don't use that as an atrocity since in that incident, there was insurgents using it for cover as they fired on helicopter gunships.

Click to expand...

Alright, and now what are your problems with using weapons and tactics that help protect American troops?

Originally posted by RightOfCenter
Alright, and now what are your problems with using weapons and tactics that help protect American troops?

Click to expand...

When we overdue it. Target civilian infrastructure, which is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Billo_Really said:

There is, absolutely and unequivocally, no context you can possibly suggest that would justify any of those acts.

Click to expand...

The context is always relevant. That's why court trials focus so heavily on context.

Please, billo... don't exaggerate and make insane claims... it's doing nothing for your credibility.

Ok... in order now that you're provided some context.


The hospital incident... from what i can see that was a mistake. Such things happen in war and you can't honestly expect perfection. With that much lead flying around you're going to hit something on accident.

What's more, that does not make the US inferior to Iran as they've blown up schools on purpose.



As to WP, why is it worse then a just blowing them up? Why is getting burned worse then getting your body shredded by shrapnel? If anything WP might save lives in that tends to force people hiding in areas to run out of the structure. The alternative in most cases would be to fire a tank shell in there or grenades.


War isn't pretty billo... we weren't trying to bake a cake.


As to the cluster bombs, I AGREE with you! Isn't that nice? We should switch to a bomb type that can be detected. However, That does not make us morally inferior to Iran as they often use IEDs to blow up civilians.



As to using DU, my understanding is that we only use it for anti tank weaponry. In that context I don't see the problem. Unless of course it hurts the US tank operators... in that case I would recommend better shielding if that would fix the problem if it wouldn't then I would suggest they use more conventional rounds but retain the DU for emergency encounters when it would make the difference between life and death for our people. After all, I'd rather be exposed to a little DU then get blown up.


As to blowing up Fallujah what would you suggest we do instead? We used stand off weapons instead of sending our people in close to save American lives. They have fortified that city... set traps and wired buildings to explode.

How many American lives is that damage worth? Would you preferred if 100 or 200 Americans died but we saved perhaps 50 percent more of the city? Don't evade the hard questions, to remain credible you have to be willing to do more then make accusations.

As for wild exaggerations, you don't even provide proof that would justify drawing that conclusion. These aren't exaggerations. They are facts!

Click to expand...

There are "facts" in there however you're drawing conclusions from those facts which are of course not in and of themselves facts but just YOUR opinions.


And what's more to say that we have lost the high ground is say that we are relatively at or below the level of our enemy. This is the exaggeration. Because the fact of the matter is that our enemy is using terrorists. They're using un-uniformed soldiers and often civilians indoctrinated into a death cult that intentionally targets both civilian and military targets on a regular basis for the purpose of scaring both military and civilian populations and generating chaos.


We'd have to sink a whole lot lower to lose the moral high ground to that. And that hasn't even close to happened.
============================================

Billo_Really said:

When we overdue it. Target civilian infrastructure, which is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Click to expand...

Not if it's being used by military forces. The convention has some very clear things that it does NOT protect. It does NOT protect them because it wishes to discourage certain practices. Among them are the use of un-uniformed military personnel. Such as spies, sappers, and terrorists. These people are specifically NOT protected by the convention. You can eat them alive one piece at a time on international television and not violate the convention. It offers NO protection to them.

Further the convention also does not protect civilian targets that are being used for military purposes. This is again to discourage people from putting military hardware in churches for example. I believe that during WW2 the Vatican was used house military hardware. That sort of thing is just wrong. But it would be illogical for any policy to not have an exception in the case that said civilian target is used for military purposes.


So understand that the Convention is there to promote "civilized" war. Our enemies are not waging civilized war. So in most cases the convention is going to agree with us a lot more then it will agree with them. Even if we're not perfect with the convention either.

Billo_Really said:

When we overdue it. Target civilian infrastructure, which is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Click to expand...

You think they were intentionally targetting civilian infrastructure to harm civilians?

Originally posted by RightOfCenter
You think they were intentionally targetting civilian infrastructure to harm civilians?

Click to expand...

It's not that. I don't think we cared what happened to them. We destroyed 75% of Falluja. That's a city of 300,000 people. We captured or killed less than 1100 insurgents. 600 of them were foreign fighters. If you do the math, that is a very small percentage of people to use as justification to put 200,000+ residents in tents in the middle of the desert. Displacing that many people for that reason is very, very wrong.

We are obligated by the Geneva Conventions as the occupying force to take all necessary precautions to protect innocent civilians and their infrastructure. We have turned off basic utilities to whole neighborhoods because we thought they could tell us where the bad guys are. That is against the law to interrupt basic services to innocent civilians.

disneydude said:

If you have ANY question at all about what GWB/Cheney et al have done to this country think about this:

Cheney and Bush have condoned the use of torture.....

Click to expand...

Actually Bush has publicly said that he does not condone torture.

they have condoned the use of holding people hostage without a trial....

Click to expand...

They will recieve trials by military commission in conjunction with the Hamdan decision of the SCOTUS and Article 3 of the GC.

they have condoned violations of the Geneva convention on the theory that it does not apply to "terrorist nations".......

Click to expand...

Not to terrorist nations but rather to terrorists. The reason is because the GC does not apply to terrorists.

So now.....when Iran.....takes English Hostages and strips them down......and subjects them to possible violations of the Geneva Convention.....the United States is in a position in which we cannot speak out without being a hypocrite.....

Click to expand...

Wrong again buddy these British sailors met the requirements of G.C. protections they were commanded by a person who was responsible for his subordinates; they had a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; carried arms openly; and they conducted their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Billo_Really said:

It's not that. I don't think we cared what happened to them. We destroyed 75% of Falluja. That's a city of 300,000 people. We captured or killed less than 1100 insurgents. 600 of them were foreign fighters. If you do the math, that is a very small percentage of people to use as justification to put 200,000+ residents in tents in the middle of the desert. Displacing that many people for that reason is very, very wrong.

Click to expand...

Fallujah became a mini taliban state within Iraq, it was controlled by the insurgency, we evacuated most of the civilian population and for that too you think we were in the wrong, we can't win with you leftists.

We are obligated by the Geneva Conventions as the occupying force to take all necessary precautions to protect innocent civilians and their infrastructure.

Click to expand...

More precautionary than evaqing the civilian populace?

We have turned off basic utilities to whole neighborhoods because we thought they could tell us where the bad guys are. That is against the law to interrupt basic services to innocent civilians.

Click to expand...

It's against the law to target electrical facilities of the enemy these days? Glad that one wasn't around during WW2. So let me get this straight, when I don't pay my electrical bill and the power company cuts off my electricity it would be considered a war crime? Good to know.

Billo_Really said:

Do you consider any of the following barbaric?

• Dropping a 500 pounder on a hospital

Click to expand...

A hospital used as an insurgent HQ.

• Using cluster bombs in urban areas

Click to expand...

Source?

• Using WP

Click to expand...

Perfectly legal.

• Using depleted uranium munitions

Click to expand...

Perfectly legal and there's more radiation in your local radiology department than in depleted uranium.

• Dropping more bombs on a country than all the bombs dropped in WWII

Click to expand...

I'd say that is very improbable.

• Destroying 75% of a city the size of Long Beach, Ca just to get at less than 1/10 of 1% of the population

Click to expand...

When that city is under enemy control, yes.

Originally posted by Karmashock
Not if it's being used by military forces. The convention has some very clear things that it does NOT protect. It does NOT protect them because it wishes to discourage certain practices. Among them are the use of un-uniformed military personnel. Such as spies, sappers, and terrorists. These people are specifically NOT protected by the convention. You can eat them alive one piece at a time on international television and not violate the convention. It offers NO protection to them.

Further the convention also does not protect civilian targets that are being used for military purposes. This is again to discourage people from putting military hardware in churches for example. I believe that during WW2 the Vatican was used house military hardware. That sort of thing is just wrong. But it would be illogical for any policy to not have an exception in the case that said civilian target is used for military purposes.

Click to expand...

The GC applies to all persons in an area of conflict. It does not in any way allow for the destruction of civilian infrastructure unecessarily. There are qualifiers that must be met.

When do civilians become legitimate military targets and thus subject to attack?

Civilians become valid military targets if they are taking a direct part in the hostilities. Thus armed insurgents taking part in a battle would be subject to attack, as would a civilian directing military forces and planning attacks. Civilians otherwise directly assisting fighters during a battle, such as supplying ammunition to combatants, would become valid military targets.

Civilians indirectly assisting an armed force, such as those providing meals or lodging to insurgents, would not be legitimate targets. However, if such persons are harmed incidentally to an attack on fighters, the attack would not be unlawful so long as the civilian loss is not disproportionate to the military advantage to the attacker.

Armed insurgents have a legal obligation not to place civilians at risk. A defender who uses civilians as "human shields" to protect military targets from attack is in violation of IHL whether the civilians acted voluntarily or not. However, should armed forces attack a military target being protected by "human shields" they must still ensure that the harm done to the civilians is not disproportionate to the military advantage gained.

Can forces lawfully besiege cities?

Military forces may surround cities and restrict who enters and leaves, as well as the flow of goods. However, it is a serious violation of IHL to deliberately deprive the civilian population of food, or otherwise unreasonably to prevent humanitarian assistance, including food and necessary medical supplies, from reaching a civilian population. The wounded and sick must be collected and cared for, and access be allowed to impartial humanitarian agencies.

Military forces must permit civilians to flee an ongoing or future battle zone for their safety. However, a military force, particularly an occupying power, is entitled to restrict the movement of persons for security reasons and detain those posing a military threat. Persons seeking to enter a town that is a battle zone may be prevented from doing so. However, such restrictions cannot be used to prevent the delivery of humanitarian assistance to the population.

Click to expand...

I will comment on your excuses for committing Crimes against Humanity later after I have calmed down.

I think your post was appauling!

Billo_Really said:

The GC applies to all persons in an area of conflict. It does not in any way allow for the destruction of civilian infrastructure unecessarily. There are qualifiers that must be met.

Click to expand...

And those qualifiers were met.

The GC does not protect structures being used to protect the enemy. If an enemy force fortifies a city and bunkers in schools... and puts their supply dumps in hospitals. Then you can blow ALL of those elements up legitimately.


This is why you DO NOT mix civilian and military forces. Because once they're mixed the civilians and the civilian targets become impossible or unreasonably difficult to separate from the enemy.



Let me put it this way, if the enemy sat out in an area where we could carpet bomb the whole zone without any danger of hitting innocent life then they would acting in a responsible manner visa ve the safety of those innocents. However, if they're hiding in and among civilians then they are not acting in a responsible manner visa ve the safety of civilians.


Most US military bases and installations are not in cities are even that close to population centers of any real mass. What's more were we to be invaded US forces would not immediately put ammo dumps in schools or bunker tank devisions in hospital parking lots. The reason the terrorists and even saddam's forces did this was specifically because the US IS wary of hitting civilians. What would be the point of putting your critical military assets in schools if the enemy had no problem what so ever in blowing up said schools?


But the fact of the matter is that the US is wary of hitting such targets even if we do have every right and legal precedent to do so under our and the international engagement doctrines. Why for example put your military supplies in Muslim temples... something the terrorists frequently do?




The fact of the matter is that we've done very well all things considered. Which I don't think you are CONSIDERING. Your opinion is that the war was wrong and so you don't even bother judging what happened afterwards. It's all wrong no matter what because the war was wrong.


That's not fair to the people that have taken special pains to avoid civilian casualities and damage to civilian infrustructure. What's more I think you're ignoring that we're helping rebuild all of that infrustructure. Why would the US blow up anything that would only make the rebuilding effort harder needlessly?


Just illogical.


We're trying... it's not easy... and mistakes have been made. But that's a far cry from the demon's horns you seem to want to label us with. We're mortal. We're humans. We are not masters of time and space. And were it your job to organize and win this war I doubt very much you could do a better job. Understand, you job would not be fulfilled by saying "I don't like the war" and quiting. I'm saying if you were there to win you wouldn't do any better. So have a little perspective when you throw these criticisms around.

We're trying... it's not easy... and mistakes have been made. But that's a far cry from the demon's horns you seem to want to label us with. We're mortal. We're humans. We are not masters of time and space.

Click to expand...

You act like we're passive victims in all this; like we were somehow sucked into this situation against our will.
We didn't have to go there. We chose to go there.
Did we have some plan of action before we went there?
It's been so long ago, I don't rightly recall.
Did any of us understand we'd still be there all these years later, with no end in sight?
Devil's horns or not, those "mortals" and "humans" need to get their arses home now.
They've stayed out way, way past their bedtimes.

1069 said:

You act like we're passive victims in all this; like we were somehow sucked into this situation against our will.

Click to expand...

Absolutely not. Of course we decided to go there. That does not however mean that we are intentionally harming civilians or violating the GC by hitting targets where the enemy is bunkered.


I am merely pointing out that we are trying our very best to conduct this war in a civilized manner. That has not been perfect. There have been violations but with almost no exceptions those violations have been in and of themselves violations of US policy and generally the responsibility of specific individuals in the field that chose to violate that policy.

Did we have some plan of action before we went there?
It's been so long ago, I don't rightly recall.
Did any of us understand we'd still be there all these years later, with no end in sight?

Click to expand...

Yes we did have a plan. Was it a perfect plan? No. Was it about the best that could be considered under the circumstances... Generally yes.

As to understanding we'd be there this long? Yes. Absolutely. No one it seems was paying attention at the time. The war on terror was always concieved of as a long war. Something that would take between 30 and 50 years to win a decisive victory. The Bush doctrine said that the cause of organized international terrorism is safe habor nations that sponsor and otherwise support terrorism. It concluded that the way to kill organizations like AQ was to close those harbors to terrorists. The means to this end were not clearly specified as each region will have different defenses and different rulers that will respond differently to different types of pressure.


Afghanistan was the first country that was targeted by the Bush Doctrine. They were given a choice to turn over the terrorists and promise not harbor them in the future. The Taliban replied that AQ was a friend of the their regime and they could base there for as long as they wanted.


Noting that the Taliban was weak and unwilling to stop supporting terrorism the US invaded Afghanistan, destroyed the taliban, and started a new government that is relatively democratic and of course does not support support terrorists.

Next there are a LOT of terrorists in the middle east. And there are many terrorist sponsor states there. How do you put pressure on Iraq, Syria, Iran, etc and start moving towards a new middle east where there is no terrorism?


Saddam's Iraq was the easiest target for the US when it comes to military pressure. Further, we could count upon and do have a great deal of civilian support in that country for removing saddam despite invading. This is true in both Afghanistan and Iraq. We could not and cannot count upon the same thing in any other terrorist sponsor state. So what we must do now is hold these two region and put OTHER types of pressure upon Iran and Syria. that might be expanded at some point or the existing terrorist sponsor states might conclude that whatever advantages they get by supporting terrorism are not worth it.


In any event, what we will be doing now is putting diplomatic, economic, political, and light military harassment pressure upon these nations until they give up terrorism.


That will take a long time. We are talking about what what will be like a second cold war. We won't in all likelihood invade anyone else in this war and we don't really need to. What we need to do is choke them until they turn blue and either say "uncle" or pass out.


We might support further proxy wars such as the what happened in Ethiopia. Where in we take sides in a conflict between a terrorist sponsor state and a non-terrorist sponsor state. Providing logistical, intelligence, political, and perhaps even military support in the form of air power and navel power.

Devil's horns or not, those "mortals" and "humans" need to get their arses home now.
They've stayed out way, way past their bedtimes.

Click to expand...

Sometimes if you want a passing grade you have to do a few all nighters... it will hurt... we will bleed... we will cry... but we can also win. And in winning we will break the back of this enemy and the world will be better for it. Instead of being raised to believe that jews are the pigs and apes little children throughout the middleeast can be taught to live in peace and harmony with their fellow man.


This will not be easy. But the alternative is far far far bloodier then anything this plan could ever cause. If this is not stopped at some point these people will make a real try at us... or perhaps nearly as bad will detonate a nuke handed off to them by a rogue state...


What will happen if an Iranian nuke goes off in NY city?


Not only how many MILLIONS of Americans will die... but consider how many Iranians will die when we respond.



This saves lives. It isn't pretty... it's messy... it's dirty... it's hard. That's LIFE. It isn't for the meek. And before any of you think to question my personal sacrifice in all of this I'll make that plan right now. I have a LOT of family over there right now. I have cousins and uncles fighting this war. Most of them are in the Air force so they're relatively safe. But some of them are also in the special forces. They're not in the military because they're poor or stupid or rejects of any kind as many opponents like to style the members of our military. Several of my cousins there speak 4 languages. Some of them have strong backgrounds in computers. And one of them is just a bonafide commando. They ALL want to come home. But it's the same sort of want in that you want to be done with anything unpleasant. I want to be done with work every day around 9 am... that's literally when I start feeling like it would be nice if I didn't have to be there. What's more I sometimes feel it when the alarm rings and I wake up. Tough crap. The work has to be done. Even if it was a mistake to go to Iraq, it's too late to leave. We have destroyed the Saddam regime. That government is dead. We have put a new government in place which in time can grow to be an effective and superior government to anything the Iraqis could have otherwise expected. But it will only survive if we stay and help it through it's infancy.



To leave now would not be to say that the war was wrong. That statement could have only been made in action by not going in the first place. We did go. So that's gone unless you have a time machine.


To leave now instead is a decision to send Iraq into immediate and open civil war. That is the decision. And WE will be responsible for that civil war if and when we leave if the government of Iraq is not ready.


We have enough crimes on the soul of this nation. Let us do the right thing and make sure that Iraq has a chance to be a place worth living in. We can do that. We owe this to everyone. Ourselves especially after working this hard and investing this much in it... to throw it all away would be beyond wasteful.

Originally posted by Karmashock

Absolutely not. Of course we decided to go there. That does not however mean that we are intentionally harming civilians or violating the GC by hitting targets where the enemy is bunkered.

I am merely pointing out that we are trying our very best to conduct this war in a civilized manner. That has not been perfect. There have been violations but with almost no exceptions those violations have been in and of themselves violations of US policy and generally the responsibility of specific individuals in the field that chose to violate that policy.

Click to expand...

665,000 deaths suggest we didn't care about ensuring civilian safety. And that was confirmed with the way we distributed ordinance. There are too many incidents of violations for this to be merely isolated occurances.

War Crimes Committed by the United States in Iraq
and Mechanisms for Accountability

The report was prepared by Consumers for Peace (Consumers For Peace.org - Join the ExxonMobil War Boycott- Buy Citgo) with the advice of Karen Parker, noted lawyer in human rights and humanitarian law. Ms. Parker is President of the San-Francisco-based Association of Humanitarian Lawyers (Home Page Association of Humanitarian Lawyers, Karen Parker, Humanitarian, Law International) and Chief Delegate to the United Nations for the Los Angeles-based International Educational Development/Humanitarian Law Project (IED/AHL), an accredited non-governmental organization on the U.N. Secretary-General’s list.

October 10, 2006

1. Introduction
The opening of the U.S./British invasion campaign against Iraq in March 20031was one of intense aerial bombardment designed to create “shock and awe” among Iraqis. The goal was to terrorize the Iraqi people and intimidate the Iraq military. For the U.S. public, watching through their television screens, the opening of the war was little different than a video game. Military briefings illustrated the effectiveness of “precision bombs”. Later, as the land campaign got underway, military and media reports showed U.S. forces quickly moving north into central Iraq and meeting less resistance than had been anticipated. From the outside, the war seemed quick and contained. However, even at this stage multiple breaches of international humanitarian law occurred. The precision bombs touted by the military often were not. Hundreds of civilians were killed, and massive amounts of civilian property were destroyed. Cluster bombs were dropped on urban areas, including residential neighborhoods. Munitions containing depleted uranium were used in bombs and artillery shells. Tanks fired into hotels and residential areas. The basic infrastructure of Iraq’s urban areas was, in many cases, destroyed or disrupted by the invading forces. Less well known is how the subsequent U.S./British policies and military actions in Iraq, stretching from months into years, have included regular and serious breaches of international law.

This paper describes the multiple and overlapping breaches of international humanitarian law that have occurred during the U.S./British occupation of Iraq since 2003. Those infringements have occurred at many levels, from senior members of the Bush administration, to senior military leaders, to individual unit commanders, and to individual troops. In responding to some of the most egregious violations of humanitarian law, the U.S. administration and military authorities have focused on those who are sometimes termed “a few bad apples.” This paper argues, however, that the choices made at more senior levels than the ranks of individual soldiers have created the context in which regular abuses of civilians in occupied Iraq are occurring. It is argued that: the failure to adequately rebuild the civilian and social infrastructure; the failure to provide civilians with appropriate security; and the choices of weapons and tactics often used in military operations all constitute war crimes. Regardless of the rationale for invading and occupying Iraq, the U.S. and British governments, their commanders and all their soldiers in the field are accountable for these grave breaches.

Click to expand...

Overview of international humanitarian law
Modern humanitarian law has three branches

1. Law governing the conduct of combat Basic rules governing the conduct of combat prohibit attacks on undefended civilian population centers, dwellings or buildings. Buildings dedicated to religion, art schooling, medical care, or charitable purposes may not be attacked. Pillage, hostage-taking, “no survivors” orders and the use of tactics to terrorize the civilian population are prohibited. Military operations that target opposing military forces may not result in undue civilian casualties. Military operations cannot be carried out against facilities such as dams, nuclear facilities, or other installations that may create a danger to the civilian population.

Indiscriminate methods or means of warfare are prohibited, as are reprisals directed at civilians. Starvation of civilians as a military tactic is prohibited. Attacks against food sources and water are prohibited, as is preventing the civilian population from being provided with food, water and medical care necessary for survival. Methods and means of war that unduly effect the natural environment are prohibited.

2. The abuses within prisons in or outside of Iraq are not covered here as they are well-documented elsewhere.

3. The main instruments of humanitarian law include: The Hague Convention and Regulations of 1907; The Geneva Conventions I – IV of 1949; Protocols Additional I and II; and the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity (754 United Nations Treaty Series 73). Geneva Convention I addresses the rights of sick and wounded combatants in the field (on land); Geneva Convention II the rights of sick and wounded at sea; Geneva Convention III the rights of prisoners of war (POWs); and Geneva Convention IV, the rights of civilians.

There are also many resolutions of the General Assembly, primarily relating to the protection of civilians in armed conflicts, that are also part of the law of armed conflict. There are a number of key cases decided by tribunals such as the International Court of Justice (i.e. Corfu channel case, Nicaragua case, Nuclear weapons case) that address both tactics and weapons and which form part of the humanitarian law. There are 8 major international treaties banning specific types of weapons, and a number of provisions in both The Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention that provides specific limitations on weapons and weapons use.

Click to expand...

What was highlighted were violations committed in Falluja repeatedly.

You're just looking for bits that agree with you without ever realizing all the bits that don't. Open your mind please.

This is from part 1:

"prohibit attacks on undefended civilian population centers"

"Pillage, hostage-taking, “no survivors” orders and the use of tactics to terrorize the civilian population are prohibited. "


"Military operations that target opposing military forces may not result in undue civilian casualties."


That's just from part 1. Part 2 had no cited information and part 3 was entirely too vague.


What's more where did you get this text? Cite your source please. I want to know specifically where you got that quote block?




As to the above being crimes committed in Falluja, that's what you have to demonstrate. Thus far you're not there yet. I'm not saying I won't agree with you if you have a good case. As you'll note I have agreed with you on some issues. But you'll have to make your case and not assume you're preaching to the converted. I don't think you realize how you sound most of the time... it's like you've recited it in your head and because you agree everyone else must see it and agree as well. That's just how I perceive your arguments... they don't sound like they're designed to defend against counter arguments or even aware of counter arguments for that matter. Much as the internal monologue in someone's head might sound.

Originally posted by Karmashock
You're just looking for bits that agree with you without ever realizing all the bits that don't. Open your mind please.

This is from part 1:

"prohibit attacks on undefended civilian population centers"

"Pillage, hostage-taking, “no survivors” orders and the use of tactics to terrorize the civilian population are prohibited. "

"Military operations that target opposing military forces may not result in undue civilian casualties."

That's just from part 1. Part 2 had no cited information and part 3 was entirely too vague.

What's more where did you get this text? Cite your source please. I want to know specifically where you got that quote block?

As to the above being crimes committed in Falluja, that's what you have to demonstrate. Thus far you're not there yet. I'm not saying I won't agree with you if you have a good case. As you'll note I have agreed with you on some issues. But you'll have to make your case and not assume you're preaching to the converted. I don't think you realize how you sound most of the time... it's like you've recited it in your head and because you agree everyone else must see it and agree as well. That's just how I perceive your arguments... they don't sound like they're designed to defend against counter arguments or even aware of counter arguments for that matter. Much as the internal monologue in someone's head might sound.

Click to expand...

Fallujah is the size of Long Beach. Do you think it was necessary to destroy 75% of Long Beach just to get at less than 600 people? Displace at least 200,000 innocent civilians. The following are our responsibilities according to International Law as an occupying force.

War Crimes Committed by the United States in Iraq and Mechanisms for Accountability

The report was prepared by Consumers for Peace (Consumers For Peace.org - Join the ExxonMobil War Boycott- Buy Citgo) with the advice of Karen Parker, noted lawyer in human rights and humanitarian law.

October 10, 2006

A major obligation of occupying powers is that it must restore and maintain, as far as possible, public order and safety. An occupying power must also respect the fundamental human rights of the country’s inhabitants, including refugees and other non-citizens. One duty under the concept of public safety is the fundamental duty of an Occupying Power to ensure the life, health and safety of the civilian population under its control. Because of this rule the U.S. is obligated: to ensure that basic human needs—food, water, health care —are available to all Iraqi people;
· to provide for the physical security of all Iraqi people; and

· to meet these responsibilities without using any military tactics or weapons prohibited by international law. One area where the international agencies have been especially harsh in assessing U.S. violations as an Occupying Power relates to its obligation to provide adequate food and to not use food as a weapon of war. In Particular, Article 54 of Protocol Additional I provides: “It is…prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless…objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population such as food-stuffs, agricultural areas for the production of food-stuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works.”12 The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler (Switzerland), cites violations of Article 54 of Protocol Additional I in Tall Afar, Fallujah and a number of other locations in Iraq (87; 96). There have been numerous other UN and NGO reports of widespread withholding of food and water as well as rampant malnutrition of Iraqi civilians, in particular, the children. Further, there was serious damage done to the water installations and agricultural areas by the U.S. forces during the initial military actions and the ground invasion that has yet to be adequately repaired. A second area where the U.S. has received widespread condemnation for violations is in the complete breakdown of Iraq’s medical infrastructure, coupled by continued attacks on hospitals and other protected medical facilities and equipment. The UN expert human rights body was so shocked at the blatant disregard for the continued military operations against the medical infrastructure in Iraq that it issued Resolution 2005/ 2: Prohibition of military operations directed 12

This provision is considered so basic to humanitarian law that it is binding on all States, whether or not they have ratified Protocol Additional I. at medical facilities, transport and personnel entitled to protection during armed conflict. Both the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the International Committee of the Red Cross issued strong condemnations following the attacks on Fallujah’s medical infrastructure in November 2004 (88). Attacks on Fallujah’s medical infrastructure was followed by attacks on hospitals in Haditha, Al-Qaim, Tall Afar, Ramadi, prompting a major campaign sponsored by the Brussels Tribunal and many other international groups (89). Because protection of hospitals and medical personnel was the original purpose of the Geneva Conventions, these attacks are also viewed as against the Geneva Conventions themselves.

U.S./British forces have grossly failed to protect the lives of Iraqi civilians: well over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have likely been killed under the occupation. A highly credible report issued by Lancet provided that figure in 2004, yet conceded that civilian casualties due to U.S. military operations in Fallujah in 2004 were not part of that result (28). Casualties as a result of the two assaults on Fallujah clearly pushed that figure considerably higher, as have two further years of occupation. Along with the blatant disregard of the right to life of civilians while carrying out military operations, the U.S. forces are clearly failing adequately to identify and document those killed. U.S. military commanders have even said that they were not in the “body count” business, when under numerous provisions of the Geneva Conventions (for example, Article 16 of Geneva Convention IV) they are obligated to account for civilian deaths. As in Fallujah, the U.S. left the dead for days in many other locations, making identification even more difficult. Even worse, the U.S. forces have not tried to find the wounded and care for them as required, and many woundedare left to die.13 In some situations, such as in Fallujah, the U.S. actively prevented the Iraqi Red Cross from tending to the wounded. Concern is growing that the U.S. is obliterating the Geneva conventions because of its abject disregard for the life and dignity of Iraqi civilians. Socio-economic insecurity History demonstrates that economic conditions worsen for the majority of people under colonial rule. The occupation of Iraq presents parallel conditions to colonialism. For many people in Iraq, the occupation has brought a worsening of economic conditions. Even when compared to 13 Article 16 of Geneva Convention IV requires military forces to search for and aid wounded civilians if allowed by “military considerations.” In only a very few circumstances can the U.S. abandonment of wounded civilians be supported by arguments of military necessity. One of the U.S. soldiers that has refused to be redeployed spoke of his horror that the U.S. convoys were passing wounded civilians by when there were no military considerations at all. conditions in the 1990s and in the first years of the 21st century when Iraq was under a UN boycott, living conditions worsened in the months and years following the U.S./British invasion. The lack of water, regular electricity supplies, health services and other infrastructure services has been widely reported. Less often noted is the deepening poverty that has affected thousands of people. Thousands of houses have been destroyed and their occupants displaced, often onto the street or into abandoned buildings. The economic security of the family has steadily worsened since 2003. Although data and surveys are scanty, numerous sources describe widespread unemployment and underemployment in the post-invasion period. Unemployment at the end of 2004 was said to range between 20 and 40 percent of the working age population. For young people and women the rates were higher, as was the case in some areas (56). Many women are only working in domestic services such as housekeeping, cleaning and chores, and they are poorly paid. Survival strategies—such as prostitution and begging—are readily apparent. Over 40 percent of Iraqi people had a poor standard of living, as of early 2005 (56). The failure to repair, improve, equip medical centers and to protect medical staff all contributed to increased deaths among Iraqi civilians during the occupation.

A study sponsored by the Australian government, the UN Development Program (UNDP) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) found that 20 percent of Iraq’s citizens lived in poverty at the end of 2005. Of that percentage, two million people live on $1 per day or less (17). Median per capita household income fell from $255 in 2003 to $144 in the first half of 2004. Meanwhile, income inequalities were growing in the same period (18). Among the poorest households are those headed by women, representing at least 11 percent of all households (18). Although almost all households received subsidized food rations (instituted in 1990), medical authorities are reporting an increasing number of cases of malnutrition among children. A senior official at the Ministry of Health reported toward the end of 2005 that approximately half of Iraqi children suffered from some form of alnourishment and one child in10 is also suffering from chronic disease or illness (90). A survey by UNICEF, published in May 2006, found one-third of children in households without regular access to sufficient food to be chronically malnourished (57). The war has resulted in hundreds of thousands of displaced people. According to a report in April 2006 by the NGO’s Coordination Committee in Iraq, about 1.5 million people in the country had been displaced in the three years following the U.S./British invasion in April 2003. The Seattle Times reported 250,000 displaced from the October 2004 siege of Fallujah alone (14). While some sources suggest internal disruptions have occurred for three decades, most acknowledge that the invasion and occupation both accelerated and greatly expanded displacement in Iraq. As displaced people move into new areas, the demand for basic services in those locations increases. In what can only be viewed of gross indifference, the Iraqi government’s budgeted U.S.$400,000 to assist the tens of thousands of displaced people is hugely inadequate. The U.S. appears to pay little or no attention to the situation of the displaced, and on occasion, has even blocked aid from others from reaching them. The food ration provided to Iraqis runs counter to prevailing market-oriented U.S. policy—as well as that of the World Bank and IMF which regularly advise the Iraq governing authorities.

Click to expand...

You've provided no sources to validate your position. The burden of proof is on you to show your rebuttal is justified.

Billo_Really said:

Fallujah is the size of Long Beach. Do you think it was necessary to destroy 75% of Long Beach just to get at less than 600 people? Displace at least 200,000 innocent civilians. The following are our responsibilities according to International Law as an occupying force.You've provided no sources to validate your position. The burden of proof is on you to show your rebuttal is justified.

Click to expand...

First, where is it said that 75 percent of the city was destroyed? I need a reliable source.
Second, where does it say that we only thought there were 600 fighters there? Again, I need a reliable source.
Third, the burden of proof is upon the person making the claims not the person questioning them.


Your are JUDGING our forces... you are taking up the position of the prosecution. The burden of proof is upon YOU.


That said, what would you like me to prove? I don't think I've said anything as yet that required proof. But I'm open to your requests... what would you like proof of?

disneydude said:

If you have ANY question at all about what GWB/Cheney et al have done to this country think about this:

Cheney and Bush have condoned the use of torture.....they have condoned the use of holding people hostage without a trial....they have condoned violations of the Geneva convention on the theory that it does not apply to "terrorist nations".......

So now.....when Iran.....takes English Hostages and strips them down......and subjects them to possible violations of the Geneva Convention.....the United States is in a position in which we cannot speak out without being a hypocrite.....

Because Iran.....can now say.....well.....look at Abu Graib.....look at Guantanamo.....

GWB has sacrificed the integrity of this country....we have lost the moral highground. What a sad state Bush has brought this country to.

Prior to GWB....the United States was well respected in the world. We were the good guys....we could speak out against torture....abuse......but when you have warmongers such as Bush/Cheney....who condone this type of strategy in the name of "spreading democracy"....we have lost the moral highground.

The United States has lost the respect of a lot of the world community...because we have lost our values....our honor....our integrity.

If you have any question at all about where Bush/Cheney have taken this nation.....look no further than how we can respond to deplorable actions of our enemies. When we look at our enemies....and see that we have resorted to similar tactics to fight them.......we have lost our soul as a nation....

Click to expand...

That shining city on the hill is looking pretty dim these days.