[quote]pat36 wrote:
I am sure the U.S. had something to do with it. Just like the Tsunami was a planned attack by Israel and the U.S. We apparently set off neclear bombs in the Indian Ocean to cause the tsunami because we wanted to have maximum impact on killing muslims (I got that peice of nonsense from Al-Jazeera shortly after the Tsunami.
There was nothing funny about the tsunami, but I had to laugh at that story. And that shit is presented as news in the middle east, great). Obviously, all we want to do is kill. Let kill everybody outside our borders![/quote]
Is that a bad joke or a true story? I sure never heard of it before. Google doesn’t to return any such Al-Jazeera page, nor any respectable source that cites the story. If you got anything backing it up, please share. Such excesses in the media have to be denounced in the harshest terms.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
When we oppose these guys we are bad. When we work with them we are bad. When we ignore them we are bad.
What’s bad is that you try to do all three at the same time.
Support human rights or don’t. Oppose tyrants or dictators or don’t. Support democracy (and accept the outcomes even if you don’t like them) or don’t.
If you pick and choose when your vaunted principles and lofty ideals apply and when they don’t (because it’s not good for the bottom line) don’t be surprised that people find you, as a country, to be meddling, brutish and hypocritical.
Who is we? Doesn’t Canada also have relations with brutal regimes? In fact they probably have more relationships with bad regimes than the US.
Does that invalidate everything your country does to improve human rights?[/quote]
the answer is no, of course. because canada does not have the power or influence to affect any kind of real change, global or local, without the U.S. there to hold it’s dick. then after the U.S. hold’s said dick and makes everything safe and nice for canada…well…then canada can rant about how the U.S. is evil and awful. you know, typical liberal/socialist behavior. also known as ‘impotent rage’.
[quote]DS 007 wrote:
the answer is no, of course. because canada does not have the power or influence to affect any kind of real change, global or local, without the U.S. there to hold it’s dick. then after the U.S. hold’s said dick and makes everything safe and nice for canada…well…then canada can rant about how the U.S. is evil and awful. you know, typical liberal/socialist behavior. also known as ‘impotent rage’. [/quote]
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Too many people want to pretend that this is not a war and rules of civilian life should apply.
[/quote]
Really? I thought that they just thought the articles of the Geneva convention should apply.
[quote]
It is hard to take anyone seriously that whines about Gitmo. That place is an island paradise. Those scum live more comfortable lives than our combat soldiers.[/quote]
Which OBJECTIVE Fox News report did that come from?
[quote]entheogens wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Too many people want to pretend that this is not a war and rules of civilian life should apply.
Really? I thought that they just thought the articles of the Geneva convention should apply.
…
[/quote]
We are following the Geneva Convention as written. As the enemy is not a signatory they don’t get the rights. Very simple and yet all the antis refuse to acknowledge this fact.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
We are following the Geneva Convention as written. As the enemy is not a signatory they don’t get the rights. Very simple and yet all the antis refuse to acknowledge this fact.[/quote]
Unfortunately, that is not how it is designed to work.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Is that a bad joke or a true story? I sure never heard of it before. Google doesn’t to return any such Al-Jazeera page, nor any respectable source that cites the story. If you got anything backing it up, please share. Such excesses in the media have to be denounced in the harshest terms.
Until then, I call BS![/quote]
I don’t know if I heard it on al-Jazeera or where, but I heard the same stories.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
We are following the Geneva Convention as written. As the enemy is not a signatory they don’t get the rights. Very simple and yet all the antis refuse to acknowledge this fact.
Unfortunately, that is not how it is designed to work.[/quote]
That is exactly how it works. It is a treaty. Both parties must abide by it or else it is useless.
[quote]lixy wrote:
pat36 wrote:
I am sure the U.S. had something to do with it. Just like the Tsunami was a planned attack by Israel and the U.S. We apparently set off neclear bombs in the Indian Ocean to cause the tsunami because we wanted to have maximum impact on killing muslims (I got that peice of nonsense from Al-Jazeera shortly after the Tsunami.
Is that a bad joke or a true story? I sure never heard of it before. Google doesn’t to return any such Al-Jazeera page, nor any respectable source that cites the story. If you got anything backing it up, please share. Such excesses in the media have to be denounced in the harshest terms.
Until then, I call BS![/quote]
Here ya go, there were a lot of these on conspiracy websites as well:
[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Millions? Millions of Iranians have died at the hands of the U.S.? Now that’s what I call bullshit.
He never said millions of Iranians. He said millions of people died because of your military interventionism. Vietnam alone more than makes up for that number.
[/quote]
The Vietnamese lost all of those people, fought a war to kick us out and now…
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
That is exactly how it works. It is a treaty. Both parties must abide by it or else it is useless.[/quote]
Whether or not a country is engaging in “war crimes” has nothing to do with whether or not another country is abiding by the conventions or is even a signatory. Sorry.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
That is exactly how it works. It is a treaty. Both parties must abide by it or else it is useless.
Whether or not a country is engaging in “war crimes” has nothing to do with whether or not another country is abiding by the conventions or is even a signatory. Sorry.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
That is exactly how it works. It is a treaty. Both parties must abide by it or else it is useless.
Whether or not a country is engaging in “war crimes” has nothing to do with whether or not another country is abiding by the conventions or is even a signatory. Sorry.
It is not a “contract” between parties.
Of course it is! That is all it is.[/quote]
I would see it as a voluntary adherence to a set of principles,not as a quid pro quo contract.
Is there then a different set of standards that would apply when a nation that is a Geneva signatory is in conflict with one that isn’t?
If that is the case then I have misunderstood the GC,so I would like to be informed.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
That is exactly how it works. It is a treaty. Both parties must abide by it or else it is useless.
Whether or not a country is engaging in “war crimes” has nothing to do with whether or not another country is abiding by the conventions or is even a signatory. Sorry.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
That is exactly how it works. It is a treaty. Both parties must abide by it or else it is useless.
Whether or not a country is engaging in “war crimes” has nothing to do with whether or not another country is abiding by the conventions or is even a signatory. Sorry.
It is not a “contract” between parties.
Of course it is! That is all it is.
I would see it as a voluntary adherence to a set of principles,not as a quid pro quo contract.
Is there then a different set of standards that would apply when a nation that is a Geneva signatory is in conflict with one that isn’t?
If that is the case then I have misunderstood the GC,so I would like to be informed.[/quote]
The GC only applies to signatories. Non-signatories are not covered.
Also not covered are unlawful combatants.
Since the enemy is both and unlawful combatant and a non-signatory we do not have to abide by the terms in the treaty.
We must abide by the US laws only. We get to decide, not a treaty.
Basically the president decides what to do. He can be over ruled by congress if they have a powerful enough majority and the courts will have their say but we are not obligated to apply to the conditions of the GC in the current conflict.
I believe the GC actually stipulates that these non uniformed combatants are subject to immediate execution upon capture. Perhaps someone can confirm this.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
That is exactly how it works. It is a treaty. Both parties must abide by it or else it is useless.
Whether or not a country is engaging in “war crimes” has nothing to do with whether or not another country is abiding by the conventions or is even a signatory. Sorry.
It is not a “contract” between parties.
Of course it is! That is all it is.
I would see it as a voluntary adherence to a set of principles,not as a quid pro quo contract.
Is there then a different set of standards that would apply when a nation that is a Geneva signatory is in conflict with one that isn’t?
If that is the case then I have misunderstood the GC,so I would like to be informed.
The GC only applies to signatories. Non-signatories are not covered.
Also not covered are unlawful combatants.
Since the enemy is both and unlawful combatant and a non-signatory we do not have to abide by the terms in the treaty.
We must abide by the US laws only. We get to decide, not a treaty.
Basically the president decides what to do. He can be over ruled by congress if they have a powerful enough majority and the courts will have their say but we are not obligated to apply to the conditions of the GC in the current conflict.
I believe the GC actually stipulates that these non uniformed combatants are subject to immediate execution upon capture. Perhaps someone can confirm this.[/quote]
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
I would see it as a voluntary adherence to a set of principles,not as a quid pro quo contract.
Is there then a different set of standards that would apply when a nation that is a Geneva signatory is in conflict with one that isn’t? [/quote]
That is irrelevant since it’s a war of aggression.
When you breaking into someone’s house and beat him up, there’s no point leaving your muddy shoes by the door, now is there?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
I would see it as a voluntary adherence to a set of principles,not as a quid pro quo contract.
Is there then a different set of standards that would apply when a nation that is a Geneva signatory is in conflict with one that isn’t?
That is irrelevant since it’s a war of aggression.
When you breaking into someone’s house and beat him up, there’s no point leaving your muddy shoes by the door, now is there?[/quote]
As far as my particular question goes,that is a moot point.In any war there has to be an aggressor,that is logically a given.Otherwise there would not be any war.
And as far as the analogy you draw goes,I’m not seeing the relevance or connection.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
I would see it as a voluntary adherence to a set of principles,not as a quid pro quo contract.
Is there then a different set of standards that would apply when a nation that is a Geneva signatory is in conflict with one that isn’t?
That is irrelevant since it’s a war of aggression.
When you breaking into someone’s house and beat him up, there’s no point leaving your muddy shoes by the door, now is there?[/quote]
WTF are you trying to say? If the US invaded France we would be obligated to treat captured French soldiers according to the GC just as they would be obligated to treat captured American soldiers per the GC.
It has nothing to do with who invades who. It has to do with signing the treaty and meeting the conditions.
The treaty protection covers soldiers, uniformed militia and others.
If we were to give the prisoners in the current war the rights listed in the GC we would not be able to interrogate them at all. No matter what your position is on the methods we are currently using anyone can see that completely banning interrogation would be a huge mistake.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
As far as my particular question goes,that is a moot point.In any war there has to be an aggressor,that is logically a given.Otherwise there would not be any war.[/quote]
If you agree that the US is the aggressor here, and that it can’t be bothered to abide by the international laws that forbid wars of aggression, then why would it care about the Geneva Convention? Put another way, if you violate the main clauses of a contract, subclauses matter not.
Ok, here’s another one. When one commits rapes, one rarely worries about foreplay or putting on condoms.