American Hypocrites?

Pigman II

According to the news 5 American Soliders have been captured and paraded as a symbol of triumph by Iraqi soldiers on their national TV. The response of many American representatives has been to site this treatment of their captured soldiers a breach of the Geneva Convention.

Now is it just me or does anyone find it a bit hypocritical for some Americans to be mentioning the Geneva Convention (which to my admitedly limited policitial knowledge was an agreement reached by the UN) when they U.S. more or less ignored the what the UN was created for and it's process by going to war in the first place?

Meh

Originally posted by Pigman II
Now is it just me or does anyone find it a bit hypocritical for some Americans to be mentioning the Geneva Convention (which to my admitedly limited policitial knowledge was an agreement reached by the UN)

The Geneva convention predates the UN. It was first signed in 1929.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0860528.html

Gordon

And the fact that they ignored the Geneva convention in Camp X ray but oh yeah - they "weren't prisoners of war" apparently. Even though George Double A Bush is "waging war against terrorism" :rolleyes:

What amazed me was the fact that Sky news showed the faces of PoW's although they aren't doing it now, they did some hours ago. My mate was saying that they are hypocritical also because they are showing the captured US soldiers. If Iraq is showing US PoW's then they are breaching the Geneva convention but if the US shows US PoW's then surely the US is breaching this also? I could be wrong.

Éomer of Rohan

Personally I think the families of those 'paraded' will be glad at least to know that their sons / husbands / fathers are alive and will be coming home eventually.

Pigman II

Fair enough, but wasn't it updated by the UN in the 1940's pretty much making it part of their rulebook?

ZeFrog

Yes Hypocrits.

Particularely the media.

Since the government benefits from so much support at home (USA Today poll showed over 70 % of support), and that 'starship trooper' like media is covering the war, it is important that those media show every sides of the war:

Progress of the allies, but also pictures of 'the cost of the war'. I ve been watching CNBC and there are lots of live coverage witch could give a false feeling of what war really is.

I think if they would show pictures of victims of the bombing in Bagdad, maybe Bush would have less support.
I know it s horrible but I think it is important.



Bush said just before the War starts: it's just about removing the regime to control WMD, and also to free the Iraqi people .


Well, let's have a look at who gets the oil contracts after the conflict....

bonkey

Something just occurred to me....

Both the US and Iraqi armies are allowing camera crews to film their POWs in whatever "surrender position" they deem appropriate.

It is then the news companies who decide whether or not to digitally obscure the faces, etc, or indeed whether or not to broadcast

Thus, regardless of the actions of the news companies upon receival of this footage, the soldiers have been treated in exactly the same way in this respect.

So - two questions arise from this :

1) Surely both sides - as national military forces - are guilty of subjecting the surrendered to the same humiliation : that of being filmed etc. whilst in a submissive position etc.

2) News companies are not signatories of the Geneva Convention, so how are their actions relevant once they receive the footage?

jc

<edited to read "two questions", cause thats all there is>

Lemming

Originally posted by bonkey
Something just occurred to me....

Both the US and Iraqi armies are allowing camera crews to film their POWs in whatever "surrender position" they deem appropriate.

It is then the news companies who decide whether or not to digitally obscure the faces, etc, or indeed whether or not to broadcast

Thus, regardless of the actions of the news companies upon receival of this footage, the soldiers have been treated in exactly the same way in this respect.

Indeed bonkey. I was listening to the radio when mr. Rumsfeld reared his annoying a*se and ranted about the filming of POWs in any way shape or form was a violation of the Geneva convention.

And then I remembered ALLLLLLLLL of that footage showing lots of Iraqi soldiers in a "squat-pissing" position with their hands tied behind their backs shown by the US media with soldiers looking on and not attempting to intervene.

Pot meet Kettle perhaps? :rolleyes:

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
2) News companies are not signatories of the Geneva Convention, so how are their actions relevant once they receive the footage?

I haven't read over the particular parts of of the conventions, but most parts put the onus on the relevant power, those media organisations are in part under the control (during filming / colection images and in broadcasting) of the relevant powers.

So while the action necessary to moderate the situation may be an instruction to stop broadcasting such images, those individuals in the media organisation may be committing the same crime.
[EDIT]OHCHR

ARTICLE 12
Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them.

ARTICLE 13 .... Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

[/EDIT]

seamus

That what had me thinking. I saw sky news showing a long line of these people, and also a few in the back of a truck, faces easily recognisable, and sky news declaring that these were the soldiers who surrendered.

If Saddam isn't removed, or something else happens which puts him in the position - surely all of those shown will be hunted down and executed for treason. Not very forward planning of the media methinks

Jake303

Further to this...........
The Iraqis have this evening been branded as dirty fighters for employing guirella warfare agianst American and Brittish troops BUT the allied pilots who have been dropping 1000 and 2000 pound laser guided bombs from 50000 ft (well out of the range of the Iraqi air defences) are heros.

Éomer of Rohan

If Saddam isn't removed, or something else happens which puts him in the position - surely all of those shown will be hunted down and executed for treason. Not very forward planning of the media methinks

Fair point - twisted logic but accurate. After the second world war, when the USSR returned the captured Generals of the Wehrmacht to Germany - they were allowed to go to either Germany - but the Generals who surrendered to the Russians after the battle of Stalingrad against orders like General Seydlitz were deprived of their pension and reviled by the public even though the regime that ordered them to fight was exposed for what it was and deposed

Pigman II

Originally posted by Jake303
Further to this...........
The Iraqis have this evening been branded as dirty fighters for employing guirella warfare agianst American and Brittish troops BUT the allied pilots who have been dropping 1000 and 2000 pound laser guided bombs from 50000 ft (well out of the range of the Iraqi air defences) are heros.

Yet didn't America fight the British during the war of independance with Gurilla tactics? Still, that was pre-CNN so I suppose it doesn't count!

davelerave

Originally posted by Pigman II
Yet didn't America fight the British during the war of independance with Gurilla tactics? Still, that was pre-CNN so I suppose it doesn't count!

maybe they could do a deal ,the iraqis don't dress as civilians if the american's don't call in their choppers

PiE

...yea and no hitting below the belt or above the neck. That'd hurt.

Shinji

The prisoner of war thing is laughable - the Americans are going ballistic over their POWs being on Iraqi television, and at the same time Iraqi POWs have been on TV in the USA, Australia and elsewhere - probably the UK too. Never mind the whole Camp X-Ray farce...

I wonder what the reaction from the USA would be if their POWs were treated by the Iraqis like the captives at Camp X-Ray were, on the basis that the US/UK war in Iraq is an illegal terrorist action without UN backing? It'd be amusing to watch the hissy fits, if nothing else....

The whole "wah wah they won't fight fair" argument is equally laughable. The USA spends more on its military each year than the rest of the world combined, and they're surprised and shocked when the other side starts trying tactics other than "Run straight for them chaps, and no shooting until you see the whites of their eyes!"...

pepperkin

When I read that USA today poll mentioned by ZeFrog, I got angry, because in my view, that's the fastest way to convince any parties interested in retaliation that, well, what the he||, they don't care if WE die....we don't care if THEY do!

"Since the government benefits from so much support at home (USA Today poll showed over 70 % of support)"

Just want to point out, tho, that this poll was based on telephone calls made to 506 randomly selected adults.
So the entire opinion of americans, a country of some 290,550,000+ people (Acc'd to the population clock at www.census.gov) is represented by 506.

Sickening, isn't it? Shouldn't it say 70% of THOSE POLLED, not 70% of Americans?

Just in case anyone wonders, I'm American, and I'm anti-war against Iraq.

I'm also against Bush (I wanted Nader!) but what does my opinion matter?

We're not all cut from that cloth.

pepperkin

bonkey

Originally posted by Jake303
Further to this...........
The Iraqis have this evening been branded as dirty fighters for employing guirella warfare agianst American and Brittish troops BUT the allied pilots who have been dropping 1000 and 2000 pound laser guided bombs from 50000 ft (well out of the range of the Iraqi air defences) are heros.

Quite simple to explain really.

There are rules in war to allow surrender, to protect prisoners, and also to protect civilians.

While they are not perfect, they are far better than nothing, and...most importantly....they almost all exist to protect the non-combatants.

What the Iraqi army is doing is making surrender and civilian contact a potential deadly encounter. This, in turn, will require a change of operating procedure by the Allied Forces, which will (most likely) lead to them either firing on some genuine surrenderees or killing some genuine civilians.

The Iraqi's are clearly hoping that this will then put further international pressure on the US to stop its illegal war, because of the risk to civilians and/or the increased civilian death-count.

Dropping precision-guided bombs from an aircraft does not violate any rule of war. It does not put civilian life at more risk - it reduces it. The US issuing surrender instructions, similarly, are designed to make things safer and easier for those who wish to surrender.

Yes, I accept that the Iraqi army needs to be inventive in how it runs its side of the war. I accept that the US fixed-wing fly-boys are probably the safest combatants that war has ever seen, and that there is no heroism or glory in what they do.

However, this does not mean that it is acceptable for the Iraqi army to ignore the conventions of war because they havent got a chance otherwise. It might be the reality, but it is not acceptable.

jc

Clintons Cat

the Americans were parading Iraqi POWs on the previous evenings news. Hypocracy? Who Bush and Rumsfeild?

This is standard diversionary tactics,draws attention away from their circumstances of their capture.
By accussing Iraq of violating the geneva convention they are trying to diminish the propaganda value of the capture.
By the way it is not against the "rules" to attack lines of supply.

After all according to the press briefings the Fuzzy Wuzzies.1 are throwing their spears in the sand in their haste to surrender to the forces of democracy in shock and awe.2


Its all about control of News Images.

1 They dont like it up 'em,Captain Mannering
2 Sounds like a big puppet show

ZeFrog

Originally posted by pepperkin

"Since the government benefits from so much support at home (USA Today poll showed over 70 % of support)"

Just want to point out, tho, that this poll was based on telephone calls made to 506 randomly selected adults.
So the entire opinion of americans, a country of some 290,550,000+ people (Acc'd to the population clock at www.census.gov) is represented by 506.

Sickening, isn't it? Shouldn't it say 70% of THOSE POLLED, not 70% of Americans? "

Indeed it s hard to conclude this poll is representative of 280 million people. Though, every single time Ari Fleisher is asked if there is support for war, he gives this figure and refer to this particular poll.

Now we're talking about the media and hypocrisy I was watching Ari Fleisher briefing the other day just before the War starts. A journalist asked him about the French changing their mind, he answered using 'the French retreat'. Then, a few mn after, the journalist asked about Bush changing his mind, he acknowledged but used another wording: 'The president is on the road of diplomacy' .
Another interesting choice of word on CNBC, iraqi soldiers called 'terrorrists'. That was the premature report on the soldier who attacked his comrades with a grenade. Then the word 'terrorrist' became 'soldier'.

==>Also, talking about hypocrits, I find unbelievable the numerous references made about 9/11. Rumsfeld is constantly talking about the attacks on the WTC even nowadays, Rice made the connection between Iraq and Al Quaeda on live tv etc ..

ex:

Senator Mark Dayton:"What is it compelling us now to make a precipitous decision and take precipitous actions?"

answer from Rumsfeld:"What s differnet now ? What s different is 3000 people were killed !"



Just in case anyone wonders, I'm American, and I'm anti-war against Iraq.

I'm also against Bush (I wanted Nader!) but what does my opinion matter?

This morning an Iraqi was commenting at colateral damage he said: we have nothing against americans, we are against Bush etc ..

I think lots of people agree

seamus

Originally posted by pepperkin
Just want to point out, tho, that this poll was based on telephone calls made to 506 randomly selected adults.
So the entire opinion of americans, a country of some 290,550,000+ people (Acc'd to the population clock at www.census.gov) is represented by 506.

Ah fs....that's ridiculous. Even if it is properly 'random' then that's 10.12 people per state. Hmmmm......
Anyone do statistics? I used to but forget it now. Surely that kind of figure can't be substantiated with any proper degree of confidence?

Victor

Originally posted by seamus
Ah fs....that's ridiculous. Even if it is properly 'random' then that's 10.12 people per state. Hmmmm...... Anyone do statistics? I used to but forget it now. Surely that kind of figure can't be substantiated with any proper degree of confidence?

It is indicative, however it would have a large maring of error (but not enough to make it 50:50) to bring it down to a +3 in the USA, I think the sample is meant to be about 3,000 (it's something like 1,000 in Ireland).

Alizarin

this time they found a few MORE people in support of the war so they jabber about polling 580 people and getting better percentages...

as for how they throw those numbers around, the pollers supposedly look at who thinks what where and ask certain ranges of people from certain locations that (after putting it all together) represent what the greater population is thinking. at least that's (loosely) how it was explained in an article on presidential election polling. out of all the towns in the US, if you take polls in these 5, you come up with an exact match (or close to it) to who actually won. the real statistics will show up when Bush asks for our votes to let him play with his toy soldiers for another 4 years.

honestly, being an american right now leaves me with so many mixed feelings. i see blatant hypocracy in how Bush treated those POW's in cuba and now is bitching when someone else doesn't follow the rules. BTW... there is a very large difference between showing iraqi POW's being marched in or giving them medical treatment, and having POW's being questioned on TV at gunpoint. if they showed our POW's being marched in I'd have no problem with it, and if we did those sorts of "interviews" I would be just as sickened.

from mistreating prisoners in Cuba to mistreating US POWs by Iraq... Bush decides to go in after Saddam and terrorists, firing the first shot. turkey talks about sending their troops into Iraq to take out those that terrorize them (Kurds). oops... guess others are just following Bush's logic. he reaps what he sowed.

i keep going rounds and rounds and I see no real way out of it all right now. in the end.. Saddam is the rat bastard that put everyone in this position and no one knows what to do with him. his sons are even worse.

all i can hope for is that when all is said and done, we make sure the iraqi's get all the money Saddam sent to his own bank accounts elsewhere, that they get their natural resources back without anything missing, and that our military gets the hell out of the region asap. its the only way to regain some integrity and eliminate alterior motives. send the food and supplies in via the UN but get out of there unless someone asks us. damn.. makes me wonder if our international politics is Codependant or something...

Alizarin

It is indicative, however it would have a large maring of error (but not enough to make it 50:50) to bring it down to a +3 in the USA, I think the sample is meant to be about 3,000 (it's something like 1,000 in Ireland).

isn't the margin of error meant to describe within the polled people rather than between poll and actual opinion? thought that only described things like polled people answering d instead of a or answering the wrong question, etc.

best statistical example

population of the universe - finite
size of the universe - infinite
any number divided by infinity is zero
ergo: population of the universe = 0

so long and thanks for all the fish!

What the Iraqi army is doing is making surrender and civilian contact a potential deadly encounter.

As far as i'm aware the Geneva does not regulate how a war is fought. It just expands on the original idea of Honour on & off the battlefield. The Iraqi use of guerilla warfare doesn't break the convention, any more than the US using tanks does. What the US want is a conventional war, whereby they can use their airforce to full effect. Saddam, is fighting the only way possible, in these circumstances.

The VC did it in vietnam, the Irish did it against the british, and the french/allies did it during WW2.

Koopa

Alizarin:
ergo: population of the universe = 0

nope, even if your 3 other statements are totally correct, all it means is that "population of the universe divided by unit size of the universe = 0"

so, for example, if you have 1000 people living in an "infinite" area, and if 1000 divided by infinity is 0 in your mathematical model, then your mathematical model states that you have "0 people per unit area" - its a "fault" or "feature" of your mathematical model which you decided on yourself that causes this, you decided that 1000/infinity was equal to zero, so the results you get are consistent with that.

and no, "margin of error" is not meant to allow for people "ticking the wrong box" in polls, its meant to represent how accurate the poll would be if applied to the whole nation, or whatever. if someone is incapable of ticking a box correctly, the merit of including them in the poll in the first place becomes questionable..

Alizarin

its a "fault" or "feature" of your mathematical model which you decided on yourself that causes this, you decided that 1000/infinity was equal to zero, so the results you get are consistent with that.

yep.. that was the point

there's a lot going on in the polls that allow questioning 580 people to divine (a far better term the opinion of a whole nation... i don't know what faults/features are in their models and frankly.. don't really care because IMHO its bound to have them no matter what. usually its also very interesting to read all the questions. I've found cases where the ordering of the questions or specific wording of a question, likely led to a large sway in the results.

all we can say for certain is that a lot of americans support the war. a whole helluva lot more americans are more worried about the rent, whether their town is a target, and (sadly) who won the Grammies.. and there are a lot of people very against the war.

maybe a few more will read some Douglas Adams and get the exact version of the "population = 0" statement

Gordon

After finding out how Bush artistically engineered an election result I would put a small gravitational field around the "polls", I would.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Jake303

Originally posted by bonkey
Quite simple to explain really.

There are rules in war to allow surrender, to protect prisoners, and also to protect civilians.

While they are not perfect, they are far better than nothing, and...most importantly....they almost all exist to protect the non-combatants.

What the Iraqi army is doing is making surrender and civilian contact a potential deadly encounter. This, in turn, will require a change of operating procedure by the Allied Forces, which will (most likely) lead to them either firing on some genuine surrenderees or killing some genuine civilians.

The Iraqi's are clearly hoping that this will then put further international pressure on the US to stop its illegal war, because of the risk to civilians and/or the increased civilian death-count.

Dropping precision-guided bombs from an aircraft does not violate any rule of war. It does not put civilian life at more risk - it reduces it. The US issuing surrender instructions, similarly, are designed to make things safer and easier for those who wish to surrender.

Yes, I accept that the Iraqi army needs to be inventive in how it runs its side of the war. I accept that the US fixed-wing fly-boys are probably the safest combatants that war has ever seen, and that there is no heroism or glory in what they do.

However, this does not mean that it is acceptable for the Iraqi army to ignore the conventions of war because they havent got a chance otherwise. It might be the reality, but it is not acceptable.

jc

As was pointed out on Sky tv last night (bizarrly enough) special forces from the USA Britain and Australia are working behind enemy lines dressed as civilians and using some of the dirtiest tricks in the book (hell they wrote the book)

So are we saying that neither side is fighting fair or just the Iraqis?

Samba

I wonder if the cluster bombs have been put in to use........

So are we saying that neither side is fighting fair or just the Iraqis?

I find it funny when people try to bring rules in on war. Especially when they find they're being hit by something they're finding difficult to deal with. Saddams tactics are the best thing for this situation. The US using Spec Ops, is traditional for any war/skirmish that they have ever been in.

By now i think you've noticed that the World has double standards. The US is allowed to use these tactics, but the Iraqi's aren't simply because the US are the "Good Guys" in this war.

Persoanlly i have to respect any nation that defends itself from an aggressor, and Iraqs use of guerilla tactics falls neatly into that. The US are welcome to use such tactics... which i daresay they've already been doing for years. I very much doubt that the CIA will stop spying simply because Iraq says its wrong..

Victor

Originally posted by Jake303
So are we saying that neither side is fighting fair or just the Iraqis?

On the face of it, this looks like a double standard, with an invader allowed to attack a civilian area if it contains the defending force, but spies (more often saboteurs and assassins) can generally operate with impunity (until caught, see below).

Originally posted by Jake303
As was pointed out on Sky tv last night (bizarrly enough) special forces from the USA Britain and Australia are working behind enemy lines dressed as civilians and using some of the dirtiest tricks in the book (hell they wrote the book)

They are playing a dangerous game while some of the Special Forces (UK SAS, Aust SAS, US Seals, Delta, Rangers) are operating in uniform behind the lines, others (UK MI6, US CIA) will be operating out of uniform and are truly spies and if they are caught, they will probably be executed as they aren't protected by the Geneva Convention.

This is one of the places where Al Qaeda and the Taliban failed - they didn't wear uniforms or other distinguishing marks and this is part of the reason they are in a legal limbo as "illegal combatants".

"All's fair in Love & War"

The above just about says it. War has been declared. In my opinion, any tactic is allowable, with the exception of using WMD's or huge conventional weapons. Both sides, are capable of using spec ops. It's only because Iraq, doesn't have a formal type of spec op group, like the Rangers, or Delta, that they can come under criticism.

dahamsta

The above just about says it. War has been declared ...

No it hasn't.

adam

Victor

The above just about says it. War has been declared ...
No it hasn't.

Originally posted by dahamsta
No it hasn't.

By actions it has. When you go into a barber shop and say you would like a number 2 haircut you can't then say you won't pay because you didn't ask for a haircut. As is often said, actions speak louder than words. That said it would be nice to have things like parliamentary votes and the like before going to war and to end war (but this latter point is inconvenient for politicians).

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by Pigman II
According to the news 5 American Soliders have been captured and paraded as a symbol of triumph by Iraqi soldiers on their national TV. The response of many American representatives has been to site this treatment of their captured soldiers a breach of the Geneva Convention.

Now is it just me or does anyone find it a bit hypocritical for some Americans to be mentioning the Geneva Convention (which to my admitedly limited policitial knowledge was an agreement reached by the UN) when they U.S. more or less ignored the what the UN was created for and it's process by going to war in the first place?

Yes but it wouldn't be the first time US did something similar. As Saddams a right spanner anyway does it matter? Well I know it does, but wars a big grey area in reality isn't.

The above just about says it. War has been declared ...

No it hasn't.

Well considering that both the US & the UK are calling this the "War on Terror", it seems to be that they've declared essentially the same thing. Also, how many troops need to be involved before this becomes a war? Remember this is the largest mobilisation of troops since Vietnam... I daresay the Iraqi's consider this a war.

bonkey

Originally posted by klaz
"All's fair in Love & War"

The above just about says it. War has been declared. In my opinion, any tactic is allowable, with the exception of using WMD's or huge conventional weapons

The point is that the various Geneva Conventions were drafted in order to clarify exactly what is considered "All" in wartime, relative to the above statement.

The issue of Special Ops is a difficult call. When out of uniform, it is almost exclusively to undertake non-combat-oriented missions, such as spying, recruitment, PSYOPS, Humanitarian Aid and the like. However, because these are not intended to be combat-bound troops, there is a case to make that they are not acting in violation of the Geneva Conventions. Its by no means a cast-iron case, but it is generally accepted as "fair use" of the Conventions.

jc

dahamsta

I was being ironic. Forgot my special ironic tags.

Alizarin

The above just about says it. War has been declared. In my opinion, any tactic is allowable, with the exception of using WMD's or huge conventional weapons. Both sides, are capable of using spec ops. It's only because Iraq, doesn't have a formal type of spec op group, like the Rangers, or Delta, that they can come under criticism

the iraqis do have plenty of troops with similar skills and objectives. they have been deployed within the ranks of other troops and in civilian areas. they: conduct spec ops attacks, direct less trained troops in such tactics, ensure iraqi troops remain loyal by inspiration or fear of being shot (as needed), act as spies in the populace, herd women and children into the street so the invading troops won't press the attack.

its a tactic but... under your description they might as well force those women and children ahead at gunpoint carrying explosives so either we kill them or they kill them... that's not "allowable". its do-able, certainly but... allowable? basically the only line you've drawn is the size of the weapon.

spec ops out of uniform performing any activity in iraq would be considered spies. spies don't get many rights under any convention (human rights, geneva, etc). most special ops though, act in uniform.

bottom line is, the tactics the iraqis are using in some areas are specifically to force civilian deaths for political means. some are hiding behind women and children (is that an acceptable tactic?). surrenders are now going to be much dicier and there will be accidents and casualties. people who want to surrender are now at greater risk from both sides... its a quagmire of lowest common denominator of thugs rather than soldiers.

if that's what it would take to win, haven't they lost everything they were supposedly fighting for?

and their likely objective.. if we are subject to such attacks haven't we lost everything we were trying to fight for?

the whole thing sickens me... only good news so far is that Uday was supposedly killed that first night. he scares me more than Saddam. Saddam escapes and he's a fat old guy trying to survive somewhere else. One of his two sons escapes and you have a sociopath bent on rape/murder/oppression/destruction running around in a place where he can quickly get a terrorist group together. interesting quote yesterday from an iraqi - commenting on how most people wanted to off Saddam themselves after the gulf war, but they knew that next in line were his two sons and putting either of them in charge.... *shivers*.

Éomer of Rohan

All's fair in love and war

This is pretty much correct - and what takes this one step further is if our definition of fair is decided by pro-American media and pro-British media; think about it, nearly every independent source says that the UK/US troops should be supported now that they are engaged in the war - the only groups standing aloof are radicals because it is obvious to them that this is not right - never mind fair.

To say all is fair in love and war is to invite death of untold scale, cities reduced to ash, the memories of thousands of people removed from this planet because everyone they and everyone they ever knew are dead - these are the realities of war and it is all very well being pro-war on principles but would you really support a war if ultimately the consequences will come home to roost as they surely will? People over here don't realise it but there are many outlets in the USA crying for the Christian version of Jihad against Islam, citing it as evil and so on; a measure which ends dialogue as someone pointed out - one only has to log in to MSN chat to see the reality in what I am saying. If you really want to follow it up, the following topics should be interesting; religion, news, interests. Ultimately this can only result in much death no matter what the US cites as it's reason for invading - so long as these people scream their religious, bigotted battle cry, it is feasible that the Muslims in such regions could percieve that Crusaders once more walk the world. It is a contradiction of Democratic ideas to say that the US is interested in the Human Rights of the people of Iraq when the most vociferous section are clearly more for their extermination.

All is fair in love and war escapes the reality that war itself is wrong - if you are religious, then morally wrong and not even the Catholic idea of 'Just War' can make that otherwise since this theory is from a group of Bishop's who's perceptions are just as fallible as those Bishops who gave their blessing to the Conquistadores, to the subjugation of the Japans and China under Portugal and Spain, who signed the Concordat with Hitler, who tortured men for their 'heresies' and so on. It amazes me that the saying 'History needs it's surgeons' still prevails in modern thought after we have seen the destruction wrought by two world wars, vietnam, korea, the internicine feuds in Africa, genocide in the far east, revolutionary wars of liberation and the counterrevolutionary wars of liberation and on and on and on. No nation can stand as the defender of the free and hold a sword in it's hand and the 'debt' book in the other; therein lies the hypocrisy and for that the US are damned before History.

In regards to the "All fair in Love in War" statement, i made earlier. Everything, including the use of WMD's is applicable. I'm not saying i approve of it, however the object of war is not to loose. So any weapons/tactics used in a conflict are as such allowable. The winners of a conflict will determine if such tactics were acceptable.

Do you really think that if the Allies hadn't won WW2, there would still have been the Nuremburg Trials? The tactics/murder that the German High command, and Hitlers cronies did, would have been accepted if they had won.

I'm not saying that i approve of this. I do hope that there will be some rules applied to warfare, and that all nations will abide with them, however who will make up these rules?

ensure iraqi troops remain loyal by inspiration or fear of being shot (as needed), act as spies in the populace, herd women and children into the street so the invading troops won't press the attack.

personally i don't count these as military tactics. These lie outside the norm of warfare. Also while the Iraqi forces may indeed herd civilians to act as a shield, there will be just as many who will do so, for loyalty to being Arabic. Arab Public opinion, is turning to support Iraq in its war against the oppressive west.

spec ops out of uniform performing any activity in iraq would be considered spies. spies don't get many rights under any convention (human rights, geneva, etc). most special ops though, act in uniform.

If you're talking about western spec ops, then yes, they do act in uniform, however other nations are not so conformed to use uniforms with their spec op missions. Spies & Spec ops, in my opinion fall into the same category, since neither of them will fall into the same battle plan as the troops in the tanks, carriers, and in the field. Their actions are in the grey area of war, where anything may be planned, and not revealed.

the tactics the iraqis are using in some areas are specifically to force civilian deaths for political means. some are hiding behind women and children (is that an acceptable tactic?). surrenders are now going to be much dicier and there will be accidents and casualties. people who want to surrender are now at greater risk from both sides... its a quagmire of lowest common denominator of thugs rather than soldiers.

True. Its a tactics i don't particularly like. However, i can see the reasoning behind it. If there were two nations, of similiar size as the US, fighting each other, then yes, i would expect a conventional war. However here, we find the worlds current superpower, focusing its might against essentially a third-world power. I can see, why these tactics are used. I don't approve of them, however if it works, use em.

if that's what it would take to win, haven't they lost everything they were supposedly fighting for?

Not really. I assume you're talking about the Iraqi's? Well their fighting to stop an aggressor invading their nation. Its what most of us, would like to think, we'd do, if Ireland was ever invaded. Use of these tactics, does not lessen that. If Civilians die as a result of these tactics, it would be very easy to justify them, by saying the US have no need to shoot thru this buffer of civilians, or such.

If you're talking abt the allies, then, we don't know why they're really fighting. I'm very cynical of he reasons given by the allies up until this point. So their killing of said civilians, might not affect their objectives.

the whole thing sickens me... only good news so far is that Uday was supposedly killed that first night. he scares me more than Saddam. Saddam escapes and he's a fat old guy trying to survive somewhere else. One of his two sons escapes and you have a sociopath bent on rape/murder/oppression/destruction running around in a place where he can quickly get a terrorist group together. interesting quote yesterday from an iraqi - commenting on how most people wanted to off Saddam themselves after the gulf war, but they knew that next in line were his two sons and putting either of them in charge....

I would love to see some evidence that points modern terrorism at Iraq's door. Lately there are hundreds of references between Terrorism and Saddam/Iraq, when to my knowledge, no proof has ever been shown. Saddam's sons, may indeed become "freedom fighters". (at least in the eyes of the Arab Nations), or terrorists in western eyes.

bonkey

Originally posted by klaz
I would love to see some evidence that points modern terrorism at Iraq's door. Lately there are hundreds of references between Terrorism and Saddam/Iraq, when to my knowledge, no proof has ever been shown.

The only known links (that I have ever heard) are to do with Hussein's ongoing payments of cash to Palestinian families from whom a member was a suicide-attacker.

Everything else, such as the all-too-often implications of links with Al Qaeda and 9/11 has less reliability then most CIE timetables.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by klaz
In regards to the "All fair in Love in War" statement, i made earlier. Everything, including the use of WMD's is applicable. I'm not saying i approve of it, however the object of war is not to loose. So any weapons/tactics used in a conflict are as such allowable. The winners of a conflict will determine if such tactics were acceptable.

Quite Machiavellian (the end justifies the means). The problem with you logic is that people are more likely to be held to account these days than previously. Certain methods of warfare are illegal under international war and any serious breach of these rules means the other side will also adopt a "gloves off" approach.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

I think piece in yesterday's Guardian sums it all up

Well if the Geneva Convention is no longer working to constrain the actions of the worlds foremost superpower, do you no think it should be revised or scrapped completely? The fact is that America, is the nation, thats involved with the majority of wars, within the last 40 years. If they're ignoring the Geneva Convention, and the international community is letting them, then, surely this convention is now invalid?

Either the US being brought up, on the grounds of how they've broken the Geneva convention on multiple accounts, or the convention should be officially abolished.

The fact remains, for the US to ignore the convention, and other nations to follow it, gives the US an advantage on the field of battle. (Politics, in War is just as effective as a mortor shell, especially with world opinion). To upbraid Iraq, and then ignore the US, is very wrong.

Cork

Originally posted by klaz


Either the US being brought up, on the grounds of how they've broken the Geneva convention on multiple accounts, or the convention should be officially abolished.

The fact remains, for the US to ignore the convention, and other nations to follow it, gives the US an advantage on the field of battle.

I think that the Gneeva Convention should be adapted by all nations. Iraq seems to have little regard for it letting coalition P.O.W.s being protographed by the media.

Even our own RTE (commercial and public service broadcaster) has no problems in broadcasting such pictures. This too is breaking the Gneeva convention as no prisoners shold be photographed on the grounds of public curiousity.

Fair play to both the Irish Examiner & Scotsman newspaper for not running these photographs.

I think that - we should make sure that the Gneeva Convention is implemented here first before casting stones at others.

But overall, there needs to be universal acceptance of the convention by all.

dahamsta

Originally posted by Cork
I think that the Gneeva Convention should be adapted by all nations.

ROFL. Isn't that what the U.S. is already doing in Guantanamo Bay?

adam

Originally posted by dahamsta
ROFL. Isn't that what the U.S. is already doing in Guantanamo Bay?
adam

The Al Queda do not have prisoner of war status as they are regarded as terrorists by the U.S.
mm

Johnmb

The Al Queda do not have prisoner of war status as they are regarded as terrorists by the U.S.

The convention is quite clear that they are prisioners of war. If the US wants to classify them as something else, there is a procedure they must follow, they haven't done so. Therefore the US are in breach of the convention in a much worse way than the Iraqis currently are.