US detainees to get Geneva rights

Elrohir said:
America invaded their country, to take down a despotic regime which we believed, at the time, to be actively plotting against us with WMD. After invading, we have proceeded to set up a democratic government, and are on the way to withdrawing all of our troops. Our troops generally behave themselves and do not molest the civilians. I believe there is a difference between that, and, say, Germany invading Poland for "lebensraum".

Still, there are plenty of militias in Iraq who view the U.S. invasion as illegitimate; they are going to go after U.S. troops much like the Mujahideen fought Soviet troops in Afghanistan.

Whatever reason for your invasion doesn't matter to these guys - they view the U.S. as an enemy who has invaded their country.

I'm not siding with them, but that's just reality.
 
warpus said:
Still, there are plenty of militias in Iraq who view the U.S. invasion as illegitimate; they are going to go after U.S. troops much like the Mujahideen fought Soviet troops in Afghanistan.
Well, we (the west) finded the Mujaheddin, simply to strike at the Soviet Union.
Like when we Funded Saddam and Khomenei for profit.
 
IglooDude said:
Though the difference is apparently lacking in the minds of the Iraqis, and perhaps the Poles.
So because they can't, or won't, understand the difference I shouldn't either?

nonconformist said:
And I wanted to pick up on this.

The analogy comparing Iraq to Poland is moot-Poland was a conquest of ideology, and genocide.
A much more apt parallel, though still severely lacking, would be the German army in Western Europe-generally acting with a modicum of honour, and as a professional army, with isolated (in comparison) exceptions.
In fact when the Gemrans invaded the channel Islands (Guernsey?), tghey were perfect gentlemen.
But were they fighting against those they believed were about to attack them, or aid those who had attacked them, or were they wars of personal gain or revenge for previous humiliation?

Germany didn't invade France because they believed the French were going to drop sarin gass on Berlin. They did it for many reasons, but largely because they wanted revenge for the humiliation they'd suffered in the First World War. I find a moral difference between attacking a country over your pride, and attacking a country out of self-defence. (Even if you don't think it was necessary for the US to attack Iraq out of self-defence, surely you see a moral difference between the two.)

And while the German army was better behaved in the West than the East, they were hardly "perfect gentlemen".

warpus said:
Still, there are plenty of militias in Iraq who view the U.S. invasion as illegitimate; they are going to go after U.S. troops much like the Mujahideen fought Soviet troops in Afghanistan.

Whatever reason for your invasion doesn't matter to these guys - they view the U.S. as an enemy who has invaded their country.

I'm not siding with them, but that's just reality.
And if they kept their attacks solely against US troops, then they might have some claim as a genuine resistence movement - but they don't, they attack everyone, including Iraqi civilians. That makes them less like the French resistence of WW2, and more like Al Qaeda. They're terrorists.
 
Elrohir said:
So because they can't, or won't, understand the difference I shouldn't either?
No, you invaded their, country, you're the agressor, tey have the right, and the duty to fight.

But were they fighting against those they believed were about to attack them, or aid those who had attacked them, or were they wars of personal gain or revenge for previous humiliation?

Germany didn't invade France because they believed the French were going to drop sarin gass on Berlin. They did it for many reasons, but largely because they wanted revenge for the humiliation they'd suffered in the First World War. I find a moral difference between attacking a country over your pride, and attacking a country out of self-defence. (Even if you don't think it was necessary for the US to attack Iraq out of self-defence, surely you see a moral difference between the two.)

And while the German army was better behaved in the West than the East, they were hardly "perfect gentlemen".
What's your point?
Bush attacked Iraq over many things, none of which was concern for the Iraqis.
What was it? Oil? Loss of face after '91? Needing a Goldstein? Just plain retardation?


And if they kept their attacks solely against US troops, then they might have some claim as a genuine resistence movement - but they don't, they attack everyone, including Iraqi civilians. That makes them less like the French resistence of WW2, and more like Al Qaeda. They're terrorists.
Absolutely wrong!
Less than 10% of attacks by the insurgency are on civilians-the vast, vast majority are on Coalition troops, or Iraqi Army and security forces.
 
I don't know about that. Even if the troops or security personelle are targeted, there seem to be more civilians injured that non-civilians.
 
nonconformist said:
No, you invaded their, country, you're the agressor, tey have the right, and the duty to fight.


What's your point?
Bush attacked Iraq over many things, none of which was concern for the Iraqis.
What was it? Oil? Loss of face after '91? Needing a Goldstein? Just plain retardation?



Absolutely wrong!
Less than 10% of attacks by the insurgency are on civilians-the vast, vast majority are on Coalition troops, or Iraqi Army and security forces.
I would like for you to provide evidence for everything you just said, otherwise it is a non-issue.
 
nonconformist said:
No, you invaded their, country, you're the agressor, tey have the right, and the duty to fight.


What's your point?
Bush attacked Iraq over many things, none of which was concern for the Iraqis.
What was it? Oil? Loss of face after '91? Needing a Goldstein? Just plain retardation?



Absolutely wrong!
Less than 10% of attacks by the insurgency are on civilians-the vast, vast majority are on Coalition troops, or Iraqi Army and security forces.

I see nothing but propaganda here... ANYTHING to back it up?
 
nonconformist said:
No, you invaded their, country, you're the agressor, tey have the right, and the duty to fight.
Only if we were oppresssing them, or taking control of Iraq for our own gain. We are instituting a democratic government of Iraqi control there, we aren't turning it into a US territory.

What's your point?
Bush attacked Iraq over many things, none of which was concern for the Iraqis.
What was it? Oil? Loss of face after '91? Needing a Goldstein? Just plain retardation?
Do you have proof that Bush didn't consider the good of the Iraqi's? Or that that was not one of the reasons he attacked? I'd like to see that.

Absolutely wrong!
Less than 10% of attacks by the insurgency are on civilians-the vast, vast majority are on Coalition troops, or Iraqi Army and security forces.
Link?
 
We've always had it, considering the fact that we haven't been slicing people's heads off for some time now.
 
non believers said:
I would like for you to provide evidence for everything you just said, otherwise it is a non-issue.
I see nothing but propaganda here... ANYTHING to back it up?
Sure.
Where to start?
"tey have the right, and the duty to fight. "

Obviously the "duty" part is the duty of any patriot and idealist.
Right?
Let's take a little look at Geneva IV shall we?
1st Geneva Convention said:
Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. (3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a Government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. (4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civil members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany. (5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions in international law. (6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

"Less than 10% of attacks by the insurgency are on civilians-the vast, vast majority are on Coalition troops, or Iraqi Army and security forces."
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=169708
http://www.lefthook.org/Charts/CSIS.jpg
 
Elrohir said:
Only if we were oppresssing them, or taking control of Iraq for our own gain. We are instituting a democratic government of Iraqi control there, we aren't turning it into a US territory.
No, you invadeed. there's no "Well, we're nicer than the alst guy" tickbox.
You invaded, and as such, you bear the burden of being legitimate targets.


Do you have proof that Bush didn't consider the good of the Iraqi's? Or that that was not one of the reasons he attacked? I'd like to see that.
"WMD. Yeah. Definitely WMD." "Yeah, we know where they are"
"Uh....Gas shells from 1991?"
"Err....FLaunting...yeah, that's it...flauting the UN?"
"Ummmm....Oil for food....will they believe that?"
"Oh, right! Yeah! Saddam was a bad man!"
 
nonconformist said:
No, you invadeed. there's no "Well, we're nicer than the alst guy" tickbox.
You invaded, and as such, you bear the burden of being legitimate targets.
OK. And in the same way, the terrorists bear the burden of being legitimate targets as well. Let's say we all meet up 30 miles out in the desert, and shoot it out? I'm down with that.

"WMD. Yeah. Definitely WMD." "Yeah, we know where they are"
"Uh....Gas shells from 1991?"
"Err....FLaunting...yeah, that's it...flauting the UN?"
"Ummmm....Oil for food....will they believe that?"
"Oh, right! Yeah! Saddam was a bad man!"
I'm still waiting for that proof.

As for your "10%" figure on attacks on civilians, come on - I need a credible link, not a website billed as "A Leftist Youth Journal".
 
nonconformist said:
No, you invadeed. there's no "Well, we're nicer than the alst guy" tickbox.
You invaded, and as such, you bear the burden of being legitimate targets.

No... they invaded... remember Kuwait? They lost. They did NOT uphold their end of the treaty, Clinton didn't care, Bush did, we went in.
 
Elrohir said:
OK. And in the same way, the terrorists bear the burden of being legitimate targets as well. Let's say we all meet up 30 miles out in the desert, and shoot it out? I'm down with that.
Sure, except there are only around 3000 terrorists in Iraq :/

I'm still waiting for that proof.
C'mon, when have gooks and ragheads ever meant anything to the government?

As for your "10%" figure on attacks on civilians, come on - I need a credible link, not a website billed as "A Leftist Youth Journal".
Okay, from the US Department of State:
The ambassador said that more than 80 percent of the attacks are concentrated in four of Iraq's 18 provinces -- Baghdad, Al Anbar, Salah ad din and Ninawa -- while 12 provinces, which have more than 50 percent of the population, have experienced only 6 percent of the attacks.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usinfo/Archive/2006/Mar/16-646958.html?chanlid=washfile
 
nonconformist said:
Sure, except there are only around 3000 terrorists in Iraq :/
I'm pretty sure the number is higher. I thought it was at least 100,000-200,000.

C'mon, when have gooks and ragheads ever meant anything to the government?
Stop using racial epithets.

Thanks. But according to that link, only 80% are against the MNF, so 20% would be against the Iraqi's, not 10%. Also, it says that 75% of the casualties are Iraqi casualties - which somewhat destroys your point.
 
Elrohir said:
I'm pretty sure the number is higher. I thought it was at least 100,000-200,000.
No, back in 2005, there were only 3000 guys even vaguely liked to Al-Quaeda.

Stop using racial epithets.

Oh, I'm sorry. where do I report the West for racism?



Thanks. But according to that link, only 80% are against the MNF, so 20% would be against the Iraqi's, not 10%. Also, it says that 75% of the casualties are Iraqi casualties - which somewhat destroys your point.
The MNF does not include Iraqi soldiers and police.
Sure, 75% of the casualties are civilians-the insurgents learned a thing or two from the Westerners, who have years of military experience.
When trying to win a war, you don't go for the military-they got tanks and guns and stuff.
You go for the nice, soft civilian targets, cos they don't shoot at you when you're gunning 'em down.
 
rmsharpe said:
We've always had it, considering the fact that we haven't been slicing people's heads off for some time now.

That's not the only way of violating people's rights. Bad things don't become good only because there are things even worse in this crazy, crazy world.
 
nonconformist said:
No, back in 2005, there were only 3000 guys even vaguely liked to Al-Quaeda.
I'm sure there are other people who qualify as terrorists, who aren't Al Qaeda. :rolleyes:


Oh, I'm sorry. where do I report the West for racism?
Try God. I'd suggest you have your evidence in order, before suing, though, He doesn't like it when people exaggerate their case.

The MNF does not include Iraqi soldiers and police.
Sure, 75% of the casualties are civilians-the insurgents learned a thing or two from the Westerners, who have years of military experience.
When trying to win a war, you don't go for the military-they got tanks and guns and stuff.
You go for the nice, soft civilian targets, cos they don't shoot at you when you're gunning 'em down.
But wait - if Americans are the evil oppressors invading poor, helpless Iraq, why don't these freedom fighters actually, you know, fight for freedom instead of just killing civilians?

By killing civilians, they just show themselves for the monsters that they are.
 
Back
Top Bottom