War Criminals Come To N.i

bertiebowl

I'm outraged to see that the war criminals Bush and Blair are coming to Northern Ireland under the cover of discussing "Peace" - both Northern Ireland and Middle East,

However the reality is the bulk of the conference will be taking up with Bush telling Blair how he can have 2% of the Iraqi oil while America takes the rest.

And I do believe that Bush and Blair are war criminals having seen unbelievable footage during the weekend of dead and mutilated Iraqi citizens (yeah mainly on Sky news).

I was further "shocked and awed" to see that Gerry Adams of all people denounced the war as illegal and unjust. Could never see Bertie doing that.......

you may be outraged, but what court has decided that Blair and Bush are war criminals??
They do not have that title unless it is legally put upon them.
Gerry Adams, is being rather two faced to be honest, considering, his partys history.
mm

Cork

I was further "shocked and awed" to see that Gerry Adams of all people denounced the war as illegal and unjust. Could never see Bertie doing that.......

It is a pity Gerry Adams did not condemn the IRA's war as unjust or even the shooting dead of a Garda on the streets of Adare.

Bertie is Taoiseach. He has responsibilitys. No policy with regards to the use of Shannon has changed.

war criminals Bush and Blair

Where has this been decided?

sanvean

i think sinn fein/IRA justify the war against britain on grounds of self-defence*, ie, the british came over here, illegally occupied a country, and then refused to leave the north. so their war is in self-defence, while war in iraq is an imperialist endevour.

*which is their view, and not mine (not that i should have to justify myself, but around here, well, you tend to have to).

Meh

Originally posted by bertiebowl
And I do believe that Bush and Blair are war criminals having seen unbelievable footage during the weekend of dead and mutilated Iraqi citizens (yeah mainly on Sky news).

It's not a war crime to kill civilians. It's a war crime to deliberately target civilians. It might seem like I'm splitting hairs, but it's a very important distinction.

Originally posted by Man:
you may be outraged, but what court has decided that Blair and Bush are war criminals??
They do not have that title unless it is legally put upon them.

So we aren't allowed call Milosevic a war criminal either (since he hasn't actually been convicted yet)?

Sparks

Would breaking the Geneva convention on 14 seperate counts, allowing the use of chemical weapons, breaking the UN charter to start a preemptive war of aggression (which breaches the Neuremberg charter, thus branding him a war criminal according to the Neuremberg charter), using cluster bombs, and targeting civilian structures count for you guys as justification for calling him a war criminal?

dahamsta

My turn to be picky...

Originally posted by Sparks
using cluster bombs

Isn't this somewhat tenous? Any commentary I've heard over the last few days seems to accept that cluster bombs may be nasty, but that they're currently legal to use.

adam

Originally posted by Meh
So we aren't allowed call Milosevic a war criminal either (since he hasn't actually been convicted yet)?

Well yeah, innocent untill proven guilty.In all fairness though I think it's safe to assume that , a guilty verdict is the most likely outcome of that trial.

The distinction you draw between, deliberately targeting civilians as opposed to civilians getting caught up in the war event is an important one.
"intent" is an important factor in a lot if not most criminal cases.
mm

Clinical Waste

Originally posted by bertiebowl
I'm outraged to see that the war criminals Bush and Blair are coming to Northern Ireland under the cover of discussing "Peace" - both Northern Ireland and Middle East,

Well they will be in good company up there, won't they.

Originally posted by Sparks
allowing the use of chemical weapons,

I must have missed that somewhere, where did George W Bush use chemical weapons??

breaking the UN charter to start a preemptive war of aggression

So you break the U.N charter, if you use, some of the 17 resolutions of the UNSC in a technical justification of a war.
That illegality has not been declared and won't be by the UNSC, which I understand has jurisdiction in the matter.
mm

bug

Sorry for going a little off topic but did anyone see that the info bar at the end of the screen on sky news on Saturday said this "Bush to visit Dublin. N. Ireland" It dissapeared after 15 minutes.

Johnmb

So you break the U.N charter, if you use, some of the 17 resolutions of the UNSC in a technical justification of a war.

You break the UN Charter if you start a war without the clear mandate of the UNSC. It is not that hard to understand the Charter if you read it. Playing word games with resolutions as the US has done doesn't cut it either. Read the resolutions that allow for military action, they are quite clear. "Serious consequences" does not mean military action.

That illegality has not been declared and won't be by the UNSC, which I understand has jurisdiction in the matter.

Then you understand wrong. The UNSC does not have jurisdiction over stating what wars are illegal, the UN Charter does. The UNSC can make such a statement in order to show its displeasure, but not doing so does not make the war legal. Only an clear resolution mandating war can do that, and no such resolution exists.

Sparks

Man,
I must have missed that somewhere, where did George W Bush use chemical weapons??
Here

So we aren't allowed call Milosevic a war criminal either (since he hasn't actually been convicted yet)?
Not only that, but he wasn't delivered to the Hague by NATO forces even after the bombing, but by his own people...
Hmmm.
Brutal despot, survives bombing by western alliance that was the subject of political opposition and which did not go according to plan, continues in power after bombing, only to be toppled by own people.

Anyone see a plan for Iraq here?

Isn't this somewhat tenous? Any commentary I've heard over the last few days seems to accept that cluster bombs may be nasty, but that they're currently legal to use.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2912617.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/870644.stm
http://www.landmineaction.org/facts.asp

So no, technically they're not illegal in that they get through a loophole in the Ottowa treaty. But they were intended to be...

Corben Dallas

geez BertieBowl i thought for a sec that i was reading a post from Iraq's Information Minister.

I'm outraged to see that the war criminals Bush and Blair are coming to Northern Ireland under the cover of discussing "Peace" - both Northern Ireland and Middle East,

However the reality is the bulk of the conference will be taking up with Bush telling Blair how he can have 2% of the Iraqi oil while America takes the rest.

And I do believe that Bush and Blair are war criminals having seen unbelievable footage during the weekend of dead and mutilated Iraqi citizens (yeah mainly on Sky news).

Believe or not BB all the NI political parties will actually be discussing restoring the Norths policital process.
They really must have put a lot of time and effort into getting Ian Paisley, Jeffery Donaldson and Gerry Adams in the same room to drink tea & eat biscuits so the had a cool cover story -Nice!

Also on the agenda will be the Iraqi war.

and u still really believe that the The Alliance forces are goin in to get all the Oil, tanker it all up and sell it to highest bidder, none of it will go to the Iraqi ppl and as soon as the pipeline is set up out of Iraq they'll put Saddam back in power on condition that he promises not to turn off the oil, like a honest dictator :mad:

Also the fact that the Alliance Forces have repeatedly told us AND backed this up with their actions, tried to minimise civilian casualities, seems to have been completely missed by u. its terrible that innocent Iraqis will die in the conflict but what about thousands more that would die in the years to come if Saddam isnt removed from power. Please also be careful in suggesting that the Alliance Forces are somehow 'Mutilating' dead civilians or maybe u believe this as well

Sparks

and u still really believe that the The Alliance forces are goin in to get all the Oil, tanker it all up and sell it to highest bidder, none of it will go to the Iraqi ppl and as soon as the pipeline is set up out of Iraq they'll put Saddam back in power on condition that he promises not to turn off the oil, like a honest dictator

I doubt Saddam will be put in power. Of course it boils down to whether the state department or the pentagon win their current squabble over who gets to play at being pro-consul.

And there's the report of the CIA's favoured dictator - more vicious than Saddam it would seem, and they just extracted him from denmark covertly...

And minimise civilian casualties my left testicle. They're using incendiary weapons and cluster muninition out there!

Originally posted by Sparks
Man,
I must have missed that somewhere, where did George W Bush use chemical weapons??
Here

*cough* Tear gas is a widespread riot control weapon, it use doesn't merit the title of a war crime.

color=blue]So we aren't allowed call Milosevic a war criminal either (since he hasn't actually been convicted yet)?[/color]
Not only that, but he wasn't delivered to the Hague by NATO forces even after the bombing, but by his own people...

And they would have done that, without the NATO action, doubt it!
mm

Originally posted by Sparks
[And minimise civilian casualties my left testicle. They're using incendiary weapons and cluster muninition out there!

On a very limited number of occasions...and meanwhile the Republican guard have parked their armour in civilian areas, if your wife was in the Republican guard and she came home at night and parked her tank outside the neighbours house, I'd be recommending divorce:D
mm

Sparks

Tear gas is a chemical weapon. It is classed as a chemical weapon by the international treaties governing the use of same. And if you think it's not lethal, remember it's use on the battlefield is to incapacitate soldiers to permit easier targeting with a rifle.

And they would have done that, without the NATO action, doubt it!
Given the elapsed time between the cessation of bombing (and signing of a treaty with Milosovich) and his delivery to the Hague, my answer is yes, since effectively that's what they did.


Man,
On those limited number of occasions, they've hit busses, farms, and urban residential areas.

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
Well yeah, innocent untill proven guilty.In all fairness though I think it's safe to assume that , a guilty verdict is the most likely outcome of that trial.

So, what you're saying is that Milosovic is guilty even though not found so by trial, cause its pretty obvious that he's guilty, even though we are not done with his trial sentencing.

The US, on the other hand, are not guilty, because regardless of how clear it may be that they have gone against paltry agreements like the UN charter, they havent been actually tried and sentenced?

Its the same as the chemical weapons argument. Saddam is to blame for "using" chemical weapons. IN all probability, he's never actually used one in his life, but he is responsible for authorising and/or permitting their use. Indeed, if you look at whats being said about "Chemical Ali", he was the one who authorised the attacks, so technically Saddam is guilty (though not convicted) of permitting the acquisition and use of chemical weapons.

On the other hand, the US assisted in the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons programs. Indeed, they continued to assist even after the gassing of the Kurds. Unlike Saddam, though, they are not guilty of anything. Its not their fault that someone used the weapons they supplied - the same type of weapon they now claim to fight a war to prevent its proliferation. Its not their fault that they continued to supply the stuff after Saddam or his people had used it.

Why not? Because the US, unlike Saddam, is apparently only guilty if its a direct action that has secured a conviction in a court of law.

You can claim one is better or worse than the other, but the simple fact is that you should apply the same standards to both sides. If you want convictions, then neither side is guilty. If you dont, then claiming the US action is illegal is perfectly valid.

jc

Mighty_Mouse

You can just imagine Blair and Bush sitting in Camp David. !!

Blair: "These anti-war hippies seemed to have drummed up a lotta support. What will we do?

Bush: "F**k em"

Blair: "By jove ive got it George.

Bush: "i said F***K EM TONY!!"

Blair: "Please George just listen to me. This will make people think that you are actually trying to liberate the world"

Bush: "mmmm Tony you aint as stupid as you look.

Blair: Thank you George

Bush: "..............everyone liked that black Mandela fella and that Gandi fella that led the slaves outta egypt. They were popular doing the peace thing. maby, just maby tony I could be popular too. "

Blair: "lets try and show support to NI"

Bush: "What? Where the f**k?"

Blair: "The peace process there is in a spot of bother. lets go and try and restore peace to NI................that will show everybody that we just want peace ...............not oil."

Bush: "Oil, OIL do they have oil?"

Balir: "No"

Bush: "God dammit Tony, u siad they had oil?"

Blair: "no i didnt"

Bush: "yes u did"

Blair: "no"

Bush: "u did, u did, u did ,,,,,,,,,na na not listening to u ,,,,,,,,,na na na na, i cant hear u,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,na na , "

Bliar: Mr Cheney. I'll leave u to explain later, maby after he has a nap , bye 4 now"

bertiebowl

Also the fact that the Alliance Forces have repeatedly told us AND backed this up with their actions, tried to minimise civilian casualities, seems to have been completely missed by u.

Did you see the tv pictures taken from a Bradley armoured carried this weekend? They showed some young geezer about 19 years old blasting away with a huge machine gun on the road to Baghdad. Some car comes along and the solder just lets rip, destroying the vehicle which crashes into a barrier on the road.

Did the soldier stop to see if there were civilians in that car? Hell no

its terrible that innocent Iraqis will die in the conflict but what about thousands more that would die in the years to come if Saddam isnt removed from power

Remember Janet Reno the former US attorney general during the clinton years?

She said that the deaths of 400,000 Iraqi children a year was an acceptable price to contain Saddam Hussein. I would postulate that a lot of Iraqi deaths were due to sanctions placed on Iraq by western powers, specifically USA and UK

Please also be careful in suggesting that the Alliance Forces are somehow 'Mutilating' dead civilians or maybe u believe this as well

Did you see the picture of some little Iraqi girl being held up by her father? The one where her foot is held on by a sliver of flesh to the shin bone. That's what I mean when I refer to mutilation by the US/UK (there is no alliance) forces

Sparks

For those that haven't seen it,
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/gulfwar2/civilians.htm

[edit] Just a warning - Some people may find the images on that site disturbing - viewer discretion advised [/edit]

Originally posted by bertiebowl
Did the soldier stop to see if there were civilians in that car? Hell no

*cough* I saw that report, the car was heading straight for the tank,it veered into the crash barrier after being shot at.
Understandable, given the recent suicide bombing.
If they were completely innocent, what were they doing trying to ram, U.S forces?

She said that the deaths of 400,000 Iraqi children a year was an acceptable price to contain Saddam Hussein. I would postulate that a lot of Iraqi deaths were due to sanctions placed on Iraq by western powers, specifically USA and UK

I wouldn't agree with that stance,by Ms Reno, but clearly, the sanctions were useless, in a climate where Sadams regime were spending millions on their own luxuries rather than adding to the aid spend.

Did you see the picture of some little Iraqi girl being held up by her father? The one where her foot is held on by a sliver of flesh to the shin bone. That's what I mean when I refer to mutilation by the US/UK

undeniably, those images are awfull, but there are innocent casualties in a war.
If we had CNN and Sky in the 1940's, there would be a huge up cry, but that doesn't mean, we would have been better off without that war.
Similar story here, indeed, I've seen what a car can do when it crashes into another one at 50 mph, within the legal speed limit, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to drive again.
mm

Sparks

*cough* I saw that report, the car was heading straight for the tank,it veered into the crash barrier after being shot at.
Understandable, given the recent suicide bombing.

Bollocks. I saw that report too. That's not what happened. And you haven't explained the shooting up of the truck, or the shooting up of the signs like some stereotypical confederate white trash...

If they were completely innocent, what were they doing trying to ram, U.S forces?
Why is there this quote running through my head? "If he runs, he's VC. If he stands still, he's highly trained VC."

I wouldn't agree with that stance,by Ms Reno, but clearly, the sanctions were useless, in a climate where Sadams regime were spending millions on their own luxuries rather than adding to the aid spend.
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the sanctions. Do you even know what happened there over the last decade?

undeniably, those images are awfull, but there are innocent casualties in a war.
Which is why we don't declare war without just cause.
BTW, were you that blase about the WTC atrocity?

Originally posted by Sparks
[
BTW, were you that blase about the WTC atrocity?

I'm never Blasé anyway especially about terrorism.

Bollocks. I saw that report too. That's not what happened. And you haven't explained the shooting up of the truck, or the shooting up of the signs like some stereotypical confederate white trash...

Well actually I clearly remember, in the report that I saw, the truck driving for the U.S forces.
i suppose, you'll complain about the pulling down of Sadam's statues next, thats symbolism, showing the end of a terrible era.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the sanctions. Do you even know what happened there over the last decade?

Well actually, on BBC news 24 the other day, they were talking about the hundreds of trucks bought by Sadam's regime supposedly for agricultural purposes.
They were modified to carry machine guns in the back.

Why is there this quote running through my head? "If he runs, he's VC. If he stands still, he's highly trained VC."

I'm sure those embedded reporters will disagree with you there, if thats what you think is the U.S/UK war plan:rolleyes:
mm

Sparks

I'm never Blasé anyway especially about terrorism.
But it's okay when the four-year-old has his arms blown off if an american with suspect business dealings, a suspect election to political office, a dishonourable military career and who is in violation of more international laws than Osama Bin Laden, says it's a war?

Well actually I clearly remember, in the report that I saw, the truck driving for the U.S forces.
Actually I remember it driving parallel to the APCs, falling behind, on the far side of the dual carraigeway divide, and then getting shot up without challange by 50-cal fire.

I suppose, you'll complain about the pulling down of Sadam's statues next, thats symbolism, showing the end of a terrible era.
No, but I'll sure bitch about the flying of the US flag from the presidential palace. War of liberation my ass.

Well actually, on BBC news 24 the other day, they were talking about the hundreds of trucks bought by Sadam's regime supposedly for agricultural purposes.
They were modified to carry machine guns in the back.
A welded piece of metal tube doesn't scare me that much.
As to the sanctions - you specifically stated that saddam abused the money that came in from the sanctions.
Which is crap. He misused the money from the Oil for Food programme, and if you can't make that distinction, you're not going to be much use in a real discussion of the area.

I'm sure those embedded reporters will disagree with you there, if thats what you think is the U.S/UK war plan
What, you mean like the Washington post reporter that covered the massacre of a family at a vehicle checkpoint?
Or the BBC reporter that was bombed yesterday in a US convoy?
Or the reporters that the US have beaten and harrassed?

Originally posted by Sparks
I'm never Blasé anyway especially about terrorism.
But it's okay when the four-year-old has his arms blown off if an american with suspect business dealings, a suspect election to political office, a dishonourable military career and who is in violation of more international laws than Osama Bin Laden, says it's a war?

I never said it was ok to blow a four year olds arms off, you are being more than generous in suggesting that I did.

We could go into the detail of Sadams "election" if you like..
{Iraqi accent}" X here, or I shoot you..." {Iraqi accent}

If you are talking about registered possibly democrat voters, being taken off the register in Florida, by Republicans,well thats an endictment of the Democratic party there also, for not putting them back on in time.
My own brother couldn't vote in the first Nice Referendum here as he had been taken off the register, for no aparent reason, maybe theres a conspiracy here too:rolleyes:

As to the sanctions - you specifically stated that saddam abused the money that came in from the sanctions.He misused the money from the Oil for Food programme, and if you can't make that distinction, you're not going to be much use in a real discussion of the area.

Heres what I actually said:
"in a climate where Sadams regime were spending millions on their own luxuries rather than adding to the aid spend. "
now clearly they were, I didn't state specifically where the money was coming from, but I will tell you , that,smuggled oil may not have been spent on food aid or medicine.
and as regards:

and if you can't make that distinction, you're not going to be much use in a real discussion of the area.

I don't go in for trading thinly veiled insults like that, apart from being against the rules on this board, it's poor debating style.

Or the reporters that the US have beaten and harrassed?

A reliable news report in relation to this would be nice thanks.
Are you saying we are not to take the reports of embedded news reporters from Sky, BBC,ITV etc as they are being beaten by their minders?:rolleyes:
mm

Sparks

US kills more with chemical weapons than Saddam Hussein

No excuse, says US military - but no action taken against 'cowboy' pilot

British troops take their own measures

Water? Sure. Just convert from Islam

The number of casualties in Baghdad is so high that hospitals have stopped counting the number of people treated, the International Committee of the Red Cross said Sunday.

UNICEF update

I visited Umm Qasr as part of a Catholic Agency for Overseas Development (Cafod) emergency response team, and had been led to believe it was a town under control, where the needs of the people were being met. The town is not under control. It's like the Wild West, and even the most serious humanitarian concern, water, is not being adequately administered.

Archeologists and museum curators have appealed to the leaders of both sides to avoid fighting near as many as 5,000 potentially sensitive sites, including some of the earliest examples of human civilization. The country, known as "the land between the rivers" to its ancient inhabitants, includes the remains of some of the oldest civilizations in the world, including the fabled cities of Babylon, Ur, Uruk and Nineveh.

The Pentagon on Friday defended the use of some civilian clothes by U.S. special operations forces, a tactic used to help them blend in with the local population. Alleging war crimes, Bush administration officials complained bitterly last week that Iraqi paramilitary forces dressed as civilians, faked surrenders and used other battlefield ruses to kill American soldiers.

Meanwhile, in afghanistan:
A senior Taleban military commander has told the BBC that the Taleban hope to regain power in Afghanistan, with popular support.

And finally, someone has a GOOD idea.

A reliable news report in relation to this would be nice thanks.
Man, just for you:
U.S. military warns foreign journalists in Iraq: "Don't mess with my soldiers. Don't mess with them because they are trained like dogs to kill. And they will kill you..."
http://vigilant.tv/article/3035
http://www.newswire.ca/releases/March2003/31/c5828.html
http://www.bakutoday.net/view.php?d=3577

I don't go in for trading thinly veiled insults like that
Man, if I issued a thinly veiled insult, you'd never notice...

I never said it was ok to blow a four year olds arms off, you are being more than generous in suggesting that I did.
What you said was :

undeniably, those images are awfull, but there are innocent casualties in a war.

Now that was blase.

dahamsta

Originally posted by Sparks
Isn't this somewhat tenous? Any commentary I've heard over the last few days seems to accept that cluster bombs may be nasty, but that they're currently legal to use.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2912617.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/870644.stm
http://www.landmineaction.org/facts.asp

So no, technically they're not illegal in that they get through a loophole in the Ottowa treaty. But they were intended to be...

What a bizarre response.

adam

bertiebowl

If we had CNN and Sky in the 1940's, there would be a huge up cry, but that doesn't mean, we would have been better off without that war.

Eh there a hell of a lot a difference between the WWII and this war.

In world war II the fight was to defend Europe and Russia from the Germans, America/Asia from the Japanese.

But in this war the US has just decided upon itself - ignoring world opinion and ignoring the UN security council to wage war itself.

There was the possibity for peace before the war - and these possiblity was not explored.

That's why I believe Bush n'Blair are war criminals.

simon_partridge

Originally posted by Meh
It's not a war crime to kill civilians. It's a war crime to deliberately target civilians. It might seem like I'm splitting hairs, but it's a very important distinction.

I have to disagree with the spirit of that argument (though in legal terms you are no doubt correct). Say you have a fox in your area that is making off with some of your prize chickens - your solution to this problem might be to go all over the neighbourhood firing a machine gun indiscriminately in the hope of getting the fox, never mind if you hit bystanders or not. Can you really say that's any better or less criminal than putting a bullet through someone's head just because that wasn't the primary intention?

SkepticOne

I suppose it comes down to whether or not you are in favour of this war. If you are not, then even if only 10 Iraqi civilians died it would be 10 too many.

If you are in favour of the war, then you will regard the civilians who died as unfortunate casualties that will occur in any war. You will also add that the numbers would be far greater if precision bombing was not used and that the number falls far short of that killed by Saddam and his regime.

Sparks

dahamsta,
What a bizarre response.
Not really. The Ottowa treaty was meant to ban all landmines. Cluster bombs disperse bomblets, of which roughly 5-10% do not explode on impact, and act as defacto landmines. But because they're not designed specifically as anti-personnel landmines, it's argued that they aren't covered by the treaty, to the loud protests of every human rights organisation on the planet.
So it's a loophole, and one that is being worked on but for now it's open

skeptic,
You will also add that the numbers would be far greater if precision bombing was not used and that the number falls far short of that killed by Saddam and his regime.
But this doesn't hold up. It's like congradulating the gardai on the Feb 15 protest because they resisted the urge to drop the numbers and lay into the crowd.

And if we're going to be looking at the numbers killed by Saddam, don't forget the US has killed more people with chemical weapons than he has.

What we're talking about here, is whether or not we should support Stalin in a war against Hitler when we know the human rights record of each and what the war will do to civilians caught in the crossfire.

Originally posted by Sparks
[BNow that was blase. [/B]

whats Blasé about saying there will be innocents injured in a war?

Ok so four journalists, were mistaken for spies,this is a war, whether you agree with it or not.
what embedded reporters say is subject to restriction for good reason-in that Sadam's militia watches and listens obviously.

Man, if I issued a thinly veiled insult, you'd never notice...

Assuming you are not God, how do you reach that conclusion?
mm

BattleBoar

Originally posted by simon_partridge
I have to disagree with the spirit of that argument (though in legal terms you are no doubt correct). Say you have a fox in your area that is making off with some of your prize chickens - your solution to this problem might be to go all over the neighbourhood firing a machine gun indiscriminately in the hope of getting the fox, never mind if you hit bystanders or not. Can you really say that's any better or less criminal than putting a bullet through someone's head just because that wasn't the primary intention?

.

It depends, is the fox firing an RPG at you?

Sparks

Oddly enough battleboar, under Irish law if I injure a third party while defending myself from someone, I am liable for those injuries, unless there was nothing I could have done to prevent them.

Since you have to actively choose to drop a cluster bomb, that defence doesn't apply here...

Man,
It's blase that you would assume that you have the right to chalk people off as acceptable losses.

And those four weren't the only ones.

Originally posted by bonkey
So, what you're saying is that Milosovic is guilty even though not found so by trial, cause its pretty obvious that he's guilty, even though we are not done with his trial sentencing.

The US, on the other hand, are not guilty, because regardless of how clear it may be that they have gone against paltry agreements like the UN charter, they havent been actually tried and sentenced?

jc

No, thats not my position at all.
just a small excerpt from, the UN case file:
http://www.un.org/icty/glance/milosevic.htm

This regime included the extermination, wilful killing or murder of hundreds of Croat and other non-Serb civilians, including women and elderly persons, the deportation or forcible transfer of at least 170,000 Croat and other non-Serb civilians and the arrest and unlawful confinement or imprisonment under inhumane conditions of thousands of Croat and other non-Serb civilians. As a result, virtually the whole of the Croat and other non-Serb civilian population were forcibly removed, deported or killed in the "Serbian Autonomous District ("SAO") Krajina", the "SAO Western Slavonia", and the "SAO Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem" regions.

At the very least, I am saying,there are a lot of withness's stacked up against him and I wouldn't fancy the job of defending him sucessfully.
Put it to you this way, if I was a no foal no fee lawyer, I wouldn't take on the case.
Thats not to say that he doesn't deserve a fair trial, he'll get that.

With respect to America, and the U.K, there has been no trial or declaration, of war criminality as yet.
The legal position is at best unclear
But those countries that wish to do so are free to persue the case, I await that with interest.
mm

Originally posted by Sparks
Man,
It's blase that you would assume that you have the right to chalk people off as acceptable losses.

I am a realist, thats all,warfare will cost civilian lives, and in this case, the likely end result is more lives , in the longer term will be saved, with the down fall of Sadam's henchmen.
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
With respect to America, and the U.K, there has been no trial or declaration, of war criminality as yet.
The legal position is at best unclear
But those countries that wish to do so are free to persue the case, I await that with interest.

You know as well as I do that no nation is ever going to be able to pursue the case. The US will refuse to answer the allegations, dismissing them as irrelevant or farcical, and there is no body which will or can compel them to do so.

Any nation wishing to walk down that path had better already be resigned to being struck off Dubya's Christmas Card list, too, cause we've all seen how rational and reasonable the US has been about anyone who has dared to voice any sort of opposition.

Every potential war criminal can trot out legal arguments and/or expertise to claim that its clearly not their fault.

You say that there's plenty of evidence about the atrocities of Milosevic that we can be reasonably certain about his guilt, and yet I'm sure that you'd argue that there's "reasonable doubt" about similar evidence about the US...for no other reason than that the US have never formally admitted or commented on it.

See allegations about Agent Orange, for example - the US refuse to comment on whether or not they knew it was lethally dangerous when they used it, and so the "legal position" is "unclear".

jc

BattleBoar

Originally posted by Sparks
Oddly enough battleboar, under Irish law if I injure a third party while defending myself from someone, I am liable for those injuries, unless there was nothing I could have done to prevent them.

This is perfectly understandable in civil or criminal law. Obviously in war, things are different and civilians do get killed. I don't blame the soldiers that are there trying to do the right thing, I blame politicians that sent them there while filling people up with unrealistic expectations that it was possible to fight an "antiseptic" war. There never has been such a thing and never will be.

War, simply, is the worst thing men can do to one another. Reminds me of a great quote by George McGovern, former Democratic presidential candidate and WWII bomber pilot, when asked is he regretted bombing beautiful cities like Vienna, Salzburg, and Innsbruck:

"Well, nobody thinks that war is a lovely affair. It is humanity at its worst, it's a breakdown of normal communication, and it is a very savage enterprise.

"But on the other hand, there are issues that sometimes must be decided by warfare after all else fails. I thought Adolf Hitler was a madman who had to be stopped. So my answer to your question is no, I don't regret bombing strategic targets in Austria. I do regret the damage that was done to innocent people...."

You cannot blame the troops for defending themselves, the soldiers for trying to win the war as quickly as possible. Being shot at does amazing things for emotional clarity. Cluster bombs are an amazingly effective weapons system against troops in the open and lightly armored vehicles and to not use them in many cases would not make tactical sense, even if you allow for the fact that some civilians may perish. It is a cruel science. But, once the decision is made to go to war, the leaders must accept that civilians WILL DIE.

That is why I don't believe, personally, in the concept of a "war of liberation". It is estimated that in bombing in the leadup to D-Day, over 12,000 French civilians...women and children, died. On the day of the invasion, further bombing took another estimated 5,000 (in part thanks to poor navigation leading to bombs dropping over towns). So, would we have been justified in storming normandy if the sole purpose was to "liberate the French" at the cost of nearly 20,000 civilians? Interesting thought to ponder.

Civilians have died and always will die in war. True, it used to be worse. True, precision munitions may improve this, but they will never eliminate it. To me, this means the threshold for military action must be very high. The question, as always, is to detemine where the threshold for action has been crossed. My personal opinion is that in this case, that threshold was not met. Nevertheless, now that it has started, I strongly hope that the war ends as quickly as possible with as as little casualties as possible on both sides. Let us hope that the Iraqis will soon see a brighter future. I have my doubts. I hope I am wrong.

I am a realist, thats all,warfare will cost civilian lives, and in this case, the likely end result is more lives , in the longer term will be saved, with the down fall of Sadam's henchmen.

Man, are you so sure of that? Why are you so certain that the coalition will be the perfect answer to Iraqs problems? Because Iraq has always had its problems even before Saddam took control. Although then again, the coalition will have an easier time than saddam, since i suppose the sanctions will finally be lifted...

With respect to America, and the U.K, there has been no trial or declaration, of war criminality as yet

There will be none. There are no nations out there willing to challenge the worlds largest superpower, and its closest ally. Nobody wants to "rock the boat", especially since the US could just decide to ignore the rest of the world. God knows they've done it in the past.

Just to give you one or two links in regards to WW2, in relation to treatment of German POWS in Europe. oddly enough the allies were never brought to bear for their actions here either...

http://www.ety.com/HRP/rev/warcrimetrials.htm
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/DachauLiberation/SoldiersKilled.html

Originally posted by bonkey
You say that there's plenty of evidence about the atrocities of Milosevic that we can be reasonably certain about his guilt, and yet I'm sure that you'd argue that there's "reasonable doubt" about similar evidence about the US...for no other reason than that the US have never formally admitted or commented on it.

jc

Well, I'll openly admit to liking america, that doesn't mean I would stand up for her, no matter what she does, that would be very unprincipled of me.
Like most things in life, I approach situations on a case by case basis.
In form with that I reserved judgement on this war,more especially going along with a little faith in Tony Blairs obvious conviction on the road he was going down,I admire the man, I'd be much more sceptical of Bush.
As of now, it is looking like, this war is not, turning out to be the total devil it was dressed up as by many, in that the tv screens at least show, locals welcoming the troops.
If I don't see, aid flying into Baghdad airport in the weeks and months after the war, I will be more than a little despondent.

Originally posted by klaz
Why are you so certain that the coalition will be the perfect answer to Iraqs problems?

I don't expect the coalition is the perfect answer to Iraq's problems. But at least when they elect their own government,they will be making their own choices, like for the most part we do here.
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Man

As of now, it is looking like, this war is not, turning out to be the total devil it was dressed up as by many, in that the tv screens at least show, locals welcoming the troops.
If I don't see, aid flying into Baghdad airport in the weeks and months after the war, I will be more than a little despondent.

Perfectly true and perfectly reasonable. I'd even agree with this.

What my objection to is people (not just your, or necessarily you at all) holding up the "better then it could have been...so far" as a fair accompli , saying that all the worries were for nothing, and shouldnt the anti-war protesters all be eating humble pie right now because this has been such a success.

I object to people making assumptions about what will happen as an argument for either side. We dont know what will happen, only what might, and the more we lose track of that the more likely it is that someone is going to screw something up big-time.

Ultimately, I guess what I have a problem with is what i see as "the wrong logic" being applied to this war - people trying to deflect criticism from one side or the other on grounds of "you cant technically say that", whilst using the exact same verbal license when making their own case.

Example : the US are acting in contravention of the UN charter with this war, but thats not "illegal". They killed thousands in Vietnam with Agent Orange and have left a devestating legacy that they refuse to even accept responsibility for, but thats not "illegal".


On the other hand, Saddam is in violation of some UN resolutions, and by gassing his own people has broken an accord that his nation is signed up to and both of these are "illegal".

People are getting sidetracked arguing over the different applications of the same term to different situations, simply because they dont want their chosen side being painted in "that" light....thats only for the other guy.

I'll readily admit that the UK troops appear to be doing a sterling job in Basra, and while they're teetering on the edge of a humanitarian disaster I believe they will pull the city back from the brink.

I have almost as much faith in the ability of the American soldiers to perform the same wins in the cities they get involved in, as long as the US administration doesnt get stupidly impatient with wanting to take Baghdad.

Generally, I would say that this war has progressed out "better" than I feared it would.

I am still opposed to it for a number of reasons. There is no contradiction here.

Your Side - whichever it is for each of you - does not have a monopoly on "good", nor on "right". The Opposition, whichever way you look at it, are not the only ones in the wrong.

I would have thought this much was obvious, that we are discussing shades of grey, but so many people seem to need to insist that its still black and white, and it just bugs the crap outta me.

Maybe thats why I play Devils Advocate so much.....

jc

bertiebowl

But at least when they elect their own government,they will be making their own choices, like for the most part we do here.

And when do you think that will be?

Remember Afghanistan still has the US appointed Hamid Kharzi in charge....

Do you really think the Americans after fighting a war would let the Iraqis elect someone whose policy was to eject the "coalition troops" as soon as possible???