Can Bush be right after all?

[nonconformist]

Afghanistan had a military. They may not all have had uniforms, but they certainly had a military. And soldiers not in uniform are considered spies, if I remember correctly.

When did this "Franc-tireurs" expand, how was it included and what does it say, exactly?

The 1977 Geneva protocol extends the 1949 convention to:

The 1977 Protocols extend the definition of combatant to include any fighters who carry arms openly during preparation for an attack and during the attack itself, (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3) but these Protocols aren’t as widely accepted as the four 1949 conventions.

from http://www.genevaconventions.org/

 

[Aegis]

The 1977 Geneva protocol extends the 1949 convention to:


from http://www.genevaconventions.org/

Thank you very much. =o)

Key phrase:

but these Protocols aren’t as widely accepted as the four 1949 conventions.

*Peruses the site some more*

 

[nonconformist]

Thank you very much. =o)

Key phrase:



*Peruses the site some more*

No probs .

However, I feel that the USA, being the only superpower, really should accept it, as it would give the USA [at least some] moral highground.

 

[Aegis]

No probs .

However, I feel that the USA, being the only superpower, really should accept it, as it would give the USA [at least some] moral highground.

I am in agreement with you, however I can understand why nations do not inlcude the new additions into their doctrine. Changing the rules of the Geneva Convention effectively nullifies the original agreement and would need to be accepted a second time.

Unfortunately moral highground does not amount to much anymore. =o/

 

[Aegis]

And I would like to be clarify one more thing: A jihad was called out prior to the US invasion of Afghanistan and people from all nationalities in the ME poured into the country in order to fight the Great Satan. They were not wearing uniforms, and in order to be covered by the Geneva Convention a person must be wearing uniforms, or else they are classified as civillians.

In order for the distinction between combatants and civilians to be clear, combatants must wear uniforms and carry their weapons openly during military operations and during preparation for them.

The exceptions are medical and religious personnel, who are considered non-combatants even though they may wear uniforms. Medical personnel may also carry small arms to use in self-defense if illegally attacked.

The other exception are mercenaries, who are specifically excluded from protections. Mercenaries are defined as soldiers who are not nationals of any of the parties to the conflict and are paid more than the local soldiers.

Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups — and thus endanger the civilian population — are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention.

A large number of combatants in Afghanistan could be best described as Mercenaries, however I seriously doubt that any of them were paid, much less more than the local soldiers.

 

[Blackbird_SR-71]

"He who would be willing to trade frredoms for temporary safety deserves neither"-Benjamin Franklin.

what does that have to do with anything. i pretty sure bush hasn't taken any people rights yet or is willing to.

Common sense.

humans have barely any common sense. what provided that common sense?

~How many countries did Hitler support? I can think of one, actively, and one in principle.

he didn't and neither did Saddam really.

America still sanctioned it.

against who?

First-not all dictators are alike.
Secondly- Saddam had a different agenda somehat to Hitler.

all dictators want to stay in control and presue their goals through conquest/war or mass killing of opposition

Trying to kill you? Ha! It's more fear rhetoric beeing spponfed to the America's people, to keep them in line.

im pretty sure many of those soldiers were actually found firing at soldiers. if thats not your definition of trying to kill you then i don't know what your talking about. also unlike you people who think that way we like to ensure our safety.

I'm done in this thread so go ahead and respond but i'm not posting in this thread anymore.

 

[nonconformist]

what does that have to do with anything. i pretty sure bush hasn't taken any people rights yet or is willing to.

Whoa-misinformed quote of the year! Did you think PATRIOT wqas a nice act legislating Ice-creams to poor kids?

humans have barely any common sense. what provided that common sense?

Kennedy and Khruschev.

he didn't and neither did Saddam really.

True.

against who?

Kuwait.

all dictators want to stay in control and presue their goals through conquest/war or mass killing of opposition

Wrong. There have been benevolent dictators. Such as Gorbachev. Akllso, other Soviet premiers, to a much lesser degree, such as Brezhnev. Didn't kill opponents, just locked 'em up.

im pretty sure many of those soldiers were actually found firing at soldiers. if thats not your definition of trying to kill you then i don't know what your talking about. also unlike you people who think that way we like to ensure our safety.

Hell man! It's war! In war you have soldiers! They try to kill your guys! It ain't a comuter game, or some GI Joe cartoon. It's harsh reality.

 

[nonconformist]

"also unlike you people who think that way we like to ensure our safety."

Heh. I love this quote. Well, I and "us people", who include like, most people, prefer to live our pwn lives, and not have some guys in a white building in the capital with their iron jackboot on our faces.

 

[Aegis]

The Patriot Act is not that bad. Not in my eyes, at least. I think that it is a neccessary evil. Is it a little restricting? Yes. However, the people we are supposed to be looking for cannot be stopped and questioned without some civil rights group crying out 'Profiling!' and filing a lawsuit. So the people who are the likeliest of candidates for a terrorist attack actually have the greatest of protection. How ironic.

There are checks and balances, man. Just because you do not like the legislation does not mean it does not balance out socially.

 

[Communisto]

bush was never right. He has twisted the invasion around by distracting the public with his puppeted iraqi elections to keep them away from the fact their are rebellions (yes rebellions not insurgents! i said it their rebels not terrorists) and no weapons of mass blah bleh blah. Bush can stage as many elections as he wants as long as brave men resist foreign invasion, he will never be right.

 

[Elrohir]

bush was never right. He has twisted the invasion around by distracting the public with his puppeted iraqi elections to keep them away from the fact their are rebellions (yes rebellions not insurgents! i said it their rebels not terrorists) and no weapons of mass blah bleh blah. Bush can stage as many elections as he wants as long as brave men resist foreign invasion, he will never be right.

You can almost smell the communist dogma.

Even the French government has praised the Iraqi elections dude, and they were the strongest opponents of the Iraqi War. The elections were largely fair and well done, all things considered. (They weren't up to par with US or European elections in areas of availability and efficiency, but it was a huge step forward, and to say otherwise is ignorant)

"Brave men"? Maybe you Canadians have a differant definition of "brave men", but down here in the good ol' USA, men who kidnap, behead, and blow up not only soldiers but innocent civilians are not "brave men". Their criminals and terrorists.

 

[Gelion]

Don't want to get into the discussion, but voted for the second option. No freedom can be brought together with bombs. And this is exactly whats being done. US can create better democracy through political pressure like it was done in Georgia or Ukraine (if thats indeed the case cuz I cannot be sure if its just a chage for political not democratic reasons). Freedom restrictions is US and messing with voting (elections observers said it was far from perfect - is that our ideal?) have significantly lessened the chances of US sucessfully suppotring Democracy round the world. I do believe the US should do that, but the course it took will require more time....

 

[BasketCase]

A while back, some time after Iraq War #1, the U.S. took the opposite approach: we refrained from supporting the Kurdish uprising against Saddam, except for no-fly zones and other token support.

The U.S. was roundly criticized for not helping the Kurdish rebellion.

So, we get criticized for helping rebellions, and we get criticized for NOT helping rebellions. This is why the U.S. doesn't give a damn what the rest of the world thinks. :rude_gesture:

 

[FearlessLeader2]

uh, where's the logic in that? After all, they had ANTI-democratic parties to vote for, too.

In light of things in iraq being totally hangin in the air, would you care to WAIT and SEE?


btw, you didn't address the important points of my post (as usual): does that mean you admit your interpretation of 'gift' and comparison with lottery and Bday present was indeed wrong?

You underestimate the addictive power of freedom. 58% of the Iraqis got their first hit. They're gonna want more. Even if they elect a fundamnetalist regime, the second it announces there will be no elections anymore because Allah says the mullahs will rule, the mullahs will be beseiged in their own mosques. Wait and see.

I did address the important parts of your post, the rest was completely irrelevant and wrong. You can throw a man out of prison even if he's institutionalized, you can give someone a million dollars tax free, you can give a people the right to elect their own leaders.

What they choose to do with it is their own concern. But mark my words, even if the Iraqis elect a fundamentalist state, they will remain democratic, or there will be a real civil war. When (no, not if, when) Iran interferes, its own mostly democratic population will make its ruling minority feel like the Ba'ath party does now.

Democracy is worse than cancer, worse than any virus. It's more like fallout, it seeps into everything, and mutates it. Islam won't survive as a political entity while it persists, and I don't think it has the strength anymore to make democracy go away.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Democracy is a gift, but it had a high cost and the iraqi people didn't have the option to choose. It's like giving a present to someone and at the same time cuting his hand, without asking him wheather he wanted to exchange the present for the hand. Now that the hand is lost, what are they going to do, refuse the present?

Ok, let's put it into perspective and make it a fair comparision. You say it is like giving someone a gift and cutting off their hand in exchange.

Well, you're right. The US did cut off their 'hand'. The iron fist(IF) that has been squeezing the Iraqis' throats for forty years is now lying in the sand. In exchange, the US has grafted the Bionic Hand of Democratic Self-Determination(BHDSD) onto the stump.

The cancerous, gangrenous IF has been amputated to save the patient, and a helpful prosthetic put in its place. Funny thing about the BHDSD, it's nigh worthless for throat-squeezing...

Some gifts are worth forcing on people. Freedom will always be one of them.

 

[Jorge]

Ok, let's put it into perspective and make it a fair comparision. You say it is like giving someone a gift and cutting off their hand in exchange.

Well, you're right. The US did cut off their 'hand'. The iron fist(IF) that has been squeezing the Iraqis' throats for forty years is now lying in the sand. In exchange, the US has grafted the Bionic Hand of Democratic Self-Determination(BHDSD) onto the stump.

The cancerous, gangrenous IF has been amputated to save the patient, and a helpful prosthetic put in its place. Funny thing about the BHDSD, it's nigh worthless for throat-squeezing...

Some gifts are worth forcing on people. Freedom will always be one of them.

You didn't understand what I meant. The hand that was cut off was not Saddam. The price the iraqi people had to pay for your present was several thousand human lifes. You forced them to buy democracy, it was not a gift because it had a cost. They should be allowed to choose whether they wanted to pay that price (you consider that price low, but maybe it was high for them, speceally for those that have lost a relative in the war).

 

[Ramius75]

You didn't understand what I meant. The hand that was cut off was not Saddam. The price the iraqi people had to pay for your present was several thousand human lifes. You forced them to buy democracy, it was not a gift because it had a cost. They should be allowed to choose whether they wanted to pay that price (you consider that price low, but maybe it was high for them, speceally for those that have lost a relative in the war).

Yes, this i agreed.

How many iraqis died during the invasion and indirectly ??

Will those that advocate the war says the same thing if this happens to YOU, your family ??

Like what i posted before, Iraq may find peace someday, but IT WILL NEVER BE BECOZ of this invasion. This invasion is totally wrong.

Its the Iraqis themselves that can make their countries flourish. They paid the price, and still paying for it.

The American invaders should not profit from this war in anyway. I hope the future Iraqis Gov will understand this and remove and void all contracts awarded unfairly to USA companies.

Then we will see what the ppl who stood by this war will do to the Iraqis.

 

[carlosMM]

You underestimate the addictive power of freedom. 58% of the Iraqis got their first hit. They're gonna want more. Even if they elect a fundamnetalist regime, the second it announces there will be no elections anymore because Allah says the mullahs will rule, the mullahs will be beseiged in their own mosques. Wait and see.

Nice, now YOU tell ME to wait and see when you didn't do the same in the first place.

Can we now AGREE to wait and see?

my prediction differs radiacally from yours - time will tell.

I did address the important parts of your post, the rest was completely irrelevant and wrong. You can throw a man out of prison even if he's institutionalized, you can give someone a million dollars tax free, you can give a people the right to elect their own leaders.

off the track again. I was talking about FORCING people.

What they choose to do with it is their own concern. But mark my words, even if the Iraqis elect a fundamentalist state, they will remain democratic, or there will be a real civil war.

Uh, what would you say is going on there right now?

When (no, not if, when) Iran interferes, its own mostly democratic population will make its ruling minority feel like the Ba'ath party does now.

Put that into the past tense - the mullahs HAVE interfered.

Democracy is worse than cancer, worse than any virus. It's more like fallout, it seeps into everything, and mutates it. Islam won't survive as a political entity while it persists, and I don't think it has the strength anymore to make democracy go away.

Dream on - I wish you were correct!

 

[Jorge]

Democracy is worse than cancer, worse than any virus. It's more like fallout, it seeps into everything, and mutates it.

History is plenty of examples of countries that were once democracies and turn later into dictatorships (Spain, Portugal, Germany and so many countries in latin America to name just a few).

 

[BasketCase]

You didn't understand what I meant. The hand that was cut off was not Saddam. The price the iraqi people had to pay for your present was several thousand human lifes. You forced them to buy democracy, it was not a gift because it had a cost. They should be allowed to choose whether they wanted to pay that price (you consider that price low, but maybe it was high for them, speceally for those that have lost a relative in the war).

The Iraqis didn't have a choice on Saddam, either. That's what the word "dictatorship" means.