doncab said:
paracowboy: first, name-calling is a really good way to look like you don't know what you're talking about.
trust me, I have not begun to call you names. I am an Infantry jr NCO. When I call you names, there will be absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind. There will be colourful anecdotes, references to your ancestry, derogatory comments on your height, weight, choice of sexual partner, and favourinte food. They will be far-ranging and multi-shaded. So untwist your panties.
falluja general hospital. front page of the NYT "patients and hospital employees were rushed out of rooms by armed solidiers and ordered to sit or lie on the floor while troops tied their hands behind their backs." quote from geneva: "fixed..and mobile medical units may in no circumstances be attacked, but shall at all times be respected by both parties" they further moved to "shut down what officers described as a propaganda weapon..." since they released "inflated" casualty figures. also in the attack, male residents were forbidden from leaving the city.
firstly, the NYT? Why not the Weekly World News? However, hospitals, mosques, schools, in fact anywhere that is expressly forbidden by The Good Guys are now exactly where The Bad Guys operate from, conceal weapons, and launch attacks on/from. The Geneva Conventions only apply where both sides follow them. Trust me on this, we recieve intensive training on those conventions, and many other agreements created to make war a fair and fun time to be had by all, such as the Martens Clause, the Hague Conventions, and United Nations Conventions. Every soldier is taught what is legal and what isn't. In addition, every Canadian soldier is taught to understand that the more fair and just your treatment of enemies and noncombatants, the easier your job is. If you mistreat the enemy, they won't surrender and you have to fight longer and harder. If you mistreat the populace, they will rise up against you and ally themselves with your (and formerly their) enemies.
When you are unable to follow the letter of the Law of Armed Conflict, you WILL follow the spirit. You WILL meet the intent. In this case, by removing noncomabants, securing them away from potential fighting, preventing them from warning potential combatants, and ensuring they do not run into the line of fire. In the case of preventing the males from leaving the city, that was done to ensure they didn't simply move to a new locality and start violence there. They were kept penned up because the entire city was used as a staging area by the enemy, and once trapped in there, the US forces could destroy them easier, thus shortening the overall conflict. Thus making the violence end sooner, rather than dragging it out longer, and causing more collateral damage amongst the civilian populace. I notice you didn't mention that the women and children were encouraged and asisted in leaving, but that's okay, because the NYT doesn't like to mention things that cause Soldiers to appear in a positive light, so you may not have been aware.
and what what about torture,
Canadian, American, British, Australian and Eurpean forces do not use or condone torture. Despite what many think, what was happening in Abu Ghraib (while unprofessional in the extreme, and reprehensible) was most definitley NOT torture. It was a frat party. Everything done to the inmates was nothing compared to what we often put our own soldiers through. Torture is what Hussein and sons did to their own people, including their freakin' soccer team.
Western soldiers do not use torture because 1) it is illegal; 2) it is immoral; 3) it is counter-productive. It produces exactly the opposite result of what is intended. A tortured person will not give you erliable info. He will tell you what HE thinks You want to hear, in order to stop the pain inflicted on him. Sleep deprivation, sensory overload and deprivation, and diet will produce much better results, and is not physically damaging, or psychologically traumatic.
Are there the occasional criminal incidents? Of course. Like any other group of humans, soldiers have their percentage of loonies. Unlike other groups of humans, soldiers are tested, tried, and weeded out to limit the numbers as much as humanly possible. And when caught, they are punished, far more strictly than criminals are by civilan courts.
"unlawful combatants" attacking "soft targets" like al-jazeera?
Who? And When? I'm sorry but you'll have to refresh my memory on this one.
also, white house council Alberto Gonzales advised bush recinding the conventions would "substantially reduce the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes act."
yeah, that's his job. To find loopholes. He's a lawyer.
Broken international law? how many times has the US even tried to get UNSC approval for an attack?
the UNSC? You mean that group of nations with China, Russia, and France having veto power equal to the US and UK? The 3 nations most profitting (along with Germany) from the Oil-For-Fraud? France being dead-set on reclaiming her former status as a world power, and doing so by putting herself forward as the mouthpiece of Europe aimed at opposing the US at every turn? Or Russia, which is following it's interests first, regardless of consequences to the rest of the world, or it's own populace? Or China, still the enemy? And as to the rest of the Council, on any given year, it will be stocked with at least 5 nations that are run by tyrants or criminals.
Hmmm, I wonder why the US has lost faith in such a fundamentally flawed outfit? I wonder why I have?
they've also defied the non-proliferation treaty,
by allowing India, the world's largest democracy, and one of the most free-market economies to play. And a nation which has historically walked it's own path. As opposed to allowing Iran which is supporting terrorism, actively, on several continents, to gain nuclear weapons that they may carry out their threat of destroying an entire nation and race?
and actually rejected a UN resolution condemning terrorsism in 1987, their opposition? the resolution allowed people under "racist colonial regimes or foreign military occupation to contimue their resistance" and in 87' that meant South Africa and the ANC.
uhhh, you ARE aware that the ANC were a terrorist organization and murdered, tortured, raped and generally behaved in a very bad way for decades, right? You DO realize that the ANC were Soviet-sponsored, yes? You DO know that the ANC are single-handedly ersponsible for the closure of schools and hospitals in order to force blacks to remain ignorant, thus more susceptible to propaganda, and preventing them from recieveing medical care from whites, because it would weaken racial tensions? You ARE aware that Mandela was in prison because he was a terrorist, not because he was black, right? And amongthe first things he did on taking power was a purge of his political enemies, (although his wife already had a head-start on that. Good ol' "Give 'em a burning tire necklace Winne!)
Also vetoed a UNSC resolution "calling on all states to observe international law", was condemned by the World Court for "unlawful use of force"(vetoed again). the result? they increased their attacks on nicaragua and encouraged the attacking of "soft targets".
UNSC? see above. Nicaruagua was an enemy state sponsoring terrorism throughout Central America, remember? Mass murders? Torture? International communism? Domino theory?
also, look at US actions toward Cuba, there's plently of violations there too.
oh, yeah, because Uncle Fidel and his regime are a model of law-abiding citizens. Sponsors of terrorism? Schools in Yemen, Libya, Lebanon teaching the proper method of placing a bomb on a school bus? El Principe? Sponsoring Communism throughout South and Central America? Angola? Cocaine running?
Ignored the world court? see above.
unlike any other nation on Earth? Shall we stack up how many other nations have done as much good in the world, by ignoring the World Court, which is an offshoot of the United Nations which is an inherently flawed and incompetent organization? If it comes down to a committee, most which is composed of people who are criminals, or one man who will always do the right thing, I know who my friend is going to be.
participating in terror: again with the name calling, but on to your point:
forget it, I haven't called you any sort of name yet. See the opening bit.
how bout the CIA organizing and training mujahadeen?
Once again, the CIA did not train the Muj. And I fail to see how men who are attempting to drive out an invading army, with the full support of the overwhelming populace, and who actively go out of their way to reduce casualties among noncombatants equate to terrorists.
And they were terrorists, how? They were ridiculous, incompetent, clownish, amateurish, perhaps. But I don't see how they equate to terrorists.
I'm sorry, but I don't know where you're going here.
see above
Haiti(emmanuel constant) Cuba(carilles). Palestine? Honduras US/UK backed south african attacks during Reagan, Columbia? Turkey?do i need to go on?
I'm afraid you do, because you're losing me in the fog here. Put some details in there, please. I can toss the names of countires around as well, but without specific dates, times, events, etc they'd be equally meaningless to you.
some of the mujahadeen were farmers to being with, until they were funded and trained by the CIA, in fact allot of them, Bin laden included weren't even from afghanistan but other places like saudi arabia. like you say in your next post, they were funded by proxy-a favorite american tactic. But they still funded them, even if pakistan acted as middle man.
so, they stopped being legitimate freedom fighters the moment they accepted funds from America? Is that what you're saying? I don't know about you, but if I were fighting an invading army, I'll take money form anywhere, and it doesn't make my cause any less noble. and I don't know what you're trying to say here
in fact allot of them, Bin laden included weren't even from afghanistan but other places like saudi arabia
then you describe me as "anti-american", without refuting any of the facts i put forth.
because you quite obviously are suffering from Jan Brady Syndrome.
Also, the tern "anti-american" is a propaganda term.
oh, I was unaware of that. I was under the impression it was term used to describe people who are anti-America. The sort of people who just respond with a knee-jerk "America is bad" and go out of their way to blame everything from war to halitosis on the US in order to sooth their personal inferiority complex.
You obviously disagree with the policies of the former afghan government, does that make you "anti-afghan?" of course not. disagreeing with the government doesn't mean you're "anti" the people in that country, not to mention a large portion of americans feel the exact same way i do. are they "anti-american" too?
no, they are Americans. People of other countries who make derogatory attack on the US are anti-Americans. As you seem fairly intent on doing, with the above stream of vitriol.
as a side note, i think i think i've been pretty good about not using "rhetoric" while i've been called everything from a dolt, an unfgrateful socialist, hippie etc. instead i presented evidence, mostly from US officials and government sources....of which the most crucial has not been refuted. to me bringing up relevant facts isn't "rhetoric", it's being honest.
presenting "facts" in a certain manner to elicit a certain result is rhetoric, or propaganda. Which you are dead-set on doing. You have an agenda, and you are presenting your "facts" to correspond to that agenda.
Rational people realize that the US has screwed up and done thngs of which they should (and often are) ashamed. Rational people also realize that the US has done more good for more people than any other country on this planet.
and once again, i'm not now, nor have i ever said that the troops are bad people, or we wouldn't get along if we had a beer. What i'm saying is that you are not running these missions or deciding where/when to deploy, instead it's the heads of state, who as the evidence i've presented here (and history) shows, don't have much concern for terrorism or the lives of innocent people, but are more concerned about power politics, and maintaining the status-quo. Every leader, including hitler has proclaimed noble intentions, counter-terrorism etc.
No, you are saying that we, the troops, are too stupid to realize when we are receiving illegal orders, and are nothing more than pawns under the thumb of masters of Evil. Or that we are brain-dead kill-crazy zombies. Either way, you are implying that we would follow commands that are illegal, immoral, or fattening. Thanks for looking out for us poor, benighted morons.
America is losing a billion dollars a day to make sure Haliburton stays afloat. They also went for oil.....so that America would have access to cheap oil....thats working out real good too.
