If Iran is fair game because someone thinks they’re trying to build a nuke, then surely we should be allowed to bomb the countries which have demonstated that they actually have nukes.
[quote]John S. wrote:
I’m interested what the T-Nation community thinks.
I will start off with No.[/quote]
Absolutely not.
The 1977 Additional Protocols to the 1949 Geneva Conventions prohibit any wartime measure that has the effect of depriving a civilian population of objects indispensable to its survival. Article 70 of Protocol I mandates relief operations to aid a civilian population that is â??not adequately providedâ?? with supplies. Article 18 of Protocol II calls for relief operations for a civilian population that suffers â??undue hardship owing to a lack of supplies essential for its survival, such as foodstuffs and medical supplies.â?? Such provisions establish the legally permissible limit of sanctions, though their definition is subject to interpretation. The UN embargo against Iraq exempted â??humanitarianâ?? aid, but critics said the sanctions still caused excessive suffering.
This is right from your article.
What have the sanctions in North Korea and Iraq caused? I think we can call that an act of war.
If a sanction only hurts the government then yes we can agree it is not an act of war. But sanctions end up hurting civilians with “undue hardship owing to a lack of supplies essential for its survival, such as foodstuffs and medical supplies”.
Sanctions in the middle east will only hurt the civilians, thus making it an act of war right out of your own article.
There is no discussion. No…
/thread
Seriously.
[quote]John S. wrote:
The 1977 Additional Protocols to the 1949 Geneva Conventions prohibit any wartime measure that has the effect of depriving a civilian population of objects indispensable to its survival. Article 70 of Protocol I mandates relief operations to aid a civilian population that is â??not adequately providedâ?? with supplies. Article 18 of Protocol II calls for relief operations for a civilian population that suffers â??undue hardship owing to a lack of supplies essential for its survival, such as foodstuffs and medical supplies.â?? Such provisions establish the legally permissible limit of sanctions, though their definition is subject to interpretation. The UN embargo against Iraq exempted â??humanitarianâ?? aid, but critics said the sanctions still caused excessive suffering.
This is right from your article.
What have the sanctions in North Korea and Iraq caused? I think we can call that an act of war.
If a sanction only hurts the government then yes we can agree it is not an act of war. But sanctions end up hurting civilians with “undue hardship owing to a lack of supplies essential for its survival, such as foodstuffs and medical supplies”.
Sanctions in the middle east will only hurt the civilians, thus making it an act of war right out of your own article.[/quote]
Are you drunk?Did you miss WARTIME MEASURE?That’s just in the short quote you posted.Go back and read it again.You are having comprehension issues.
Just in case you missed it:
“A more important distinction is whether the sanctions were imposed or enforced during wartime by one or more of the warring parties. IHL does not apply in the absence of armed conflict. This means that â??nonbelligerentâ?? sanctions, including those against Cuba, Libya, Haiti, Rhodesia, and Yugoslavia, may be opposed on moral or political terms but normally cannot be considered war crimes.”
And just one final definition of ‘act of war’:
Unlike “war crimes,” which are defined by U.N. conventions, acts of war are more open to interpretation. However, the term has traditionally been reserved for militant acts by nation-states: one nation-state commits an act of war on another, with or without a formal declaration of war, thereby threatening a nation’s “territorial integrity, political independence or security” (North Atlantic Treaty). As such, the term “act of war” belongs to the geo-political language of governments, armies, distinctions between military and civilian targets, etc.
You’re wasting your time, Neuromancer. As long as Obama, or any Dem, is in office sanctions are an act of war - in John’s opinion. They were “diplomacy” under Bush, and will be again when and if a republican gets elected.
[quote]tme wrote:
As long as Obama, or any Dem, is in office sanctions are an act of war - in John’s opinion. They were “diplomacy” under Bush, and will be again when and if a republican gets elected.
[/quote]
Being that he linked to Ron Paul, I’m not so sure about that. Guys, seriously, think twice before making accusations about partisan party politics. Ron Paul was calling sanctions an act of war when Bush WAS in office.
[quote]lixy wrote:
If Iran is fair game because someone thinks they’re trying to build a nuke, then surely we should be allowed to bomb the countries which have demonstated that they actually have nukes.[/quote]
who’s we?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
tme wrote:
As long as Obama, or any Dem, is in office sanctions are an act of war - in John’s opinion. They were “diplomacy” under Bush, and will be again when and if a republican gets elected.
Being that he linked to Ron Paul, I’m not so sure about that. Guys, seriously, think twice before making accusations about partisan party politics. Ron Paul was calling sanctions an act of war when Bush WAS in office.[/quote]
Ok, then I apologize. I don’t read any of the links he posts, so I’ll just take your word for it. Some of what Ron Paul said last year made sense, but the reason he averaged around 1% of the primary votes was because most of what he said was retarded. Citing Ron Paul as proof that sanctions are an act of war pretty much invalidates your argument.
How? They’ve never pretended to like us. And have been pretty up front about why they are pissed.
Propaganda or not, this is there side of the story.
Iran isn’t really an aggressor, if you stop being jingoist and read history, you’ll realize US and UK bullied Iran into it’s modern defensive posture. You all see it as beligerrence but,
if a country;
Overthrew your democratic government for a puppet, this dictator suppressed the country’s national religion, the US gov’t supported his brutality, after they sloughed the Shah, Iranian revolutionaries lashed out against America’s interference and insured, America would never interfere again by making them sign the accords after hostage crisis, then the USA got revenged by backing up and encouraging Saddam to crush the Iranian regime, giving him cash, moral and ammo support to kill million plus Iranians much of which with chemical biological weapons.
Our same country that did all this bullshit to this nation half way across the globe, Iran, has now conquered two of their neighbors, (like China conquering Mexico and Canada) and has now been calling Iran out for 8 years talking about “restoring democracy,” or some shit.
So Iran beefing up their army and building their army, is not only predictable, it is damn right logical in the face of relentless heartless American vigilance and aggression.
We need to diplomatically heal all the shit we’ve started with Iran, cuz they are willing to fuck us up like a looter in a riot. This will not be a cakewalk like Iraq, and it’s not even fucking moral to bully some nerd into defending themself, and then try to kill them for protcting themself. That’s fucked up.
Everybody thinks the hostage crisis was the one and only thing between us and Iran, you gotta think about it. WE TOOK THEIR WHOLE FUCKING COUTNRY HOSTAGE FOR LIKE 20+ YEARS. So, let’s drop the military bullshit and try to make up. Because I for one, will not fight the Iranians.
[quote]lixy wrote:
If Iran is fair game because someone thinks they’re trying to build a nuke, then surely we should be allowed to bomb the countries which have demonstated that they actually have nukes.[/quote]
If the country is one that follows a religion that has demonstrated time after time that it does not care about civilian casualties, then yes, we should be worried and prepare for a preemptive strike.
The USA making some questionable calls with regards to Iran does NOT negate the threat of Islamic fundamentalists getting the power of nuclear fission.
The self-hate is rather pathetic.
I have read through your article and debunked it. We can keep going back and forth but it seems we are going to have to agree to disagree.
If we press sanctions against Iran they view it as an act of war. So they will respond like they are at war, and since they can’t attack us with their army they will do what they are best at. Terrorism.
We are making them a threat, they are no threat to us right now.
*Edit
Should not say debunked, I should say that there is multiple ways to look at it.
[quote]The USA making some questionable calls with regards to Iran does NOT negate the threat of Islamic fundamentalists getting the power of nuclear fission.
The self-hate is rather pathetic.[/quote]
What self-hate? In order to love yourself, you must be honest with yourself and accept yourself.
Those in our country who refuse to grow as a nation, and take responsibility for our past while working to change the future, are the ones who are self hating and most of all self destructive.
I am not self destructive, and I don’t fear the Islamic bomb, Pakistan’s collapse has already made that happen.
Iran on the other hand, is probably one of the few countries in the world to deserve a nuclear weapon, they’ve been bullied into a corner.
BTW, Who the fuck is the USA to make call on any country? How would you feel if Japan started ttrying to mandate our internal policy? I think well-guided or not, any red blooded American would opposite of principle, violently if need be.
[quote]John S. wrote:
I have read through your article and debunked it. We can keep going back and forth but it seems we are going to have to agree to disagree.
If we press sanctions against Iran they view it as an act of war. So they will respond like they are at war, and since they can’t attack us with their army they will do what they are best at. Terrorism.
We are making them a threat, they are no threat to us right now.[/quote]
Debunked?LOL…but I’m fine with agreeing to disagree.
I made no comment whatsoever about whether sanctions against Iran are warranted,necessary,or worth pursuing.Personally,I think they should be left alone,as Israel will take care of any nuclear ambitions on their part when the time is right.
So bomb Iran?Why bother.There is no upside.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
tme wrote:
As long as Obama, or any Dem, is in office sanctions are an act of war - in John’s opinion. They were “diplomacy” under Bush, and will be again when and if a republican gets elected.
Being that he linked to Ron Paul, I’m not so sure about that. Guys, seriously, think twice before making accusations about partisan party politics. Ron Paul was calling sanctions an act of war when Bush WAS in office.[/quote]
It’s the only argument he has. Once you take away the partisan politics he is nothing more then a fish out of water. Until he can come up with something substantial just ignore him, eventually he will go away.