Whats he at?

Sparks

Problem is man, it's not your choice to make.

Originally posted by hallelujajordan
the executioner general himself !

To be quite frank, this is more of the compare Bush with Hitler etc nonsense.
People who call Bush an Executioner general should provide proof or at least an equivalence with, the acts of Sadam and other despots.

Thats what drives my opinion , really,if the U.S/UK prosecuted this war with just a couple of thousand civilian deaths, they have saved many more thousands from Sadam's henchmen.

I see a report on Sky news, this morning, that, those defending one of his palaces, and captured by the coalition this morning were from Syria and the lebanon, there were no locals to be seen.
That speaks volumes for what the ordinary Baghdians think of Sadam.
Incidently, they also described the palace as relatively new, and dolled up in decor, what must have caused millions, with money that should have went on food and medicine.
mm

Originally posted by Sparks
Problem is man, it's not your choice to make.

Problem is, the make up of the security counsel really.
the counsel, that wouln't reach a consensus over Kosova.
maybe, the U.S and U.K should have left milosevic there also:rolleyes:
mm

Sparks

People who call Bush an Executioner general should provide proof or at least an equivalence with, the acts of Sadam and other despots.
Would disappearing people from the streets do?
How about torturing POWs to death while denying them legal status as POWs?
How about ignoring the Geneva convention and annihilating soldiers that were under orders to withdraw? (whoops, that was daddy, not junior )
How about ignoring the Geneva convention, the Hague convention, biochemical weapons treaties, the UN charter, the UN and the ICC?
How about going AWOL?
How about ripping off companies?

Al Queda are terrorists not prisoners of war

If he's to be called an executioner general for *cough* ripping off companies, then theres lots of them here too...

And as regards ignoring the U.N charter, Bush and Blair will tell you that they had grounds under existing UNSC mandates to go into Iraq, so in their eyes, they fought a legal war.
Untill I see it proved otherwise in an international legal forum, then I cannot accept your point.

And to make you feel at ease( or not), thats the problem of the UNSC, it cannot pass a motion declaring this war illegal, as the U.S and the UK have a veto!
mm

Kell

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Really? Perhaps you'd have some evidence of this then? Because no one else here does.

Anyone see midnight court last night? I found it interesting that not one person out of the panel which comprised of..... shíte I cant find it, but anyway the panel were made up of ex Iraqi citizens, Muslims and I think an Iranian. Anyway, my point is that not one of them supported the idea that America's actions in Iraq have anything to do with regime change. All of them (a hell of a lot more learned than me) see that America's interest there as purely self serving.

Where their opinions and mine strayed was they were pointing out that the actions in the gulf are designed to provide the US with a serious military influence in the region in the wake of the Gulf War two, which will serve as a reminder to states such as Siria and even Saudi that the US have the power and the will to bring about regime change to suit their own needs. One of the panel cited many of the correspondances of the right wing christian fundamentalist think thank to Bush and before him Clinton to effect a policy change in terms of the administrations thinking on Iraq and the middle east in general. The correspondances spoke of establishing a large military presence in the area and that the administration should be in a position to "seek out" danger before it presents itself on the US's shores. These "suggestions" became policy methinks sometime around Nov 2001.

I have said before elsewhere that 9/11 gave the US a passport to go and do what the fúck it likes and I still stand by it. Where the fúck did the term pre-emptive war come from? What "country" (POLITICAL UNIT) noun [C]
1 an area of land that has its own government, army, etc:

launch an attack on the US that would justify and armed attack in retaliation? A bunch of fúckin psychos who had it in for the American way of life laid claim to 9/11. And who, in it's divine wisdom put the guns in these lunatics hands? No response, needed but you get the picture.

Did Saddam launch an attack on the US? No.

Regime change? My boll0x. If it were a case of regime change, the US would be engaged in a war with at least 20 countries unless a) it wasn't a threat or b) it suited America's interest.

Interesting read: www.newamericancentury.org

Just read the first two paragraphs on the home page, then also the statement of principles. I was outraged.

K-

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
Al Queda are terrorists not prisoners of war

And what do you class the people they spirit away who are innocent? Guess they dont deserve any rights either?

The US have basically decided that there is a new class of "detainee" - neither POW nor criminal - who doesnt deserve many rights....regardless of whether or not they have done anything.

jc

Sparks

Man,
There is a valid argument over the al-Qaeda prisoners. There isn't over the Taliban ones, and the US has admitted as such.The ICRC have stated they regard them as POWs. Even Mary Robinson (as Human Rights Commissionar has condemned it. And the Geneva Convention specifically states who is regarded as a POW and the Taliban fall under that heading by it's definition. Therefore the US is in breach of the Geneva Convention just holding them without POW status. Then there are 14 other breaches regarding the manner of their imprisonment, and their torture (to death as in two recent cases).

And there's a difference between nicking a stapler and insider trading to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I notice you ignored the disappearing of people off the streets.

In the eyes of the UN, the war is illegal. In the eyes of the majority of legal experts in international law in the US, UK and Ireland, they are correct. As regards the UN charter itself, it specifically prohibits pre-emptive violence, which is what this war is.

And the UNSC can't pass that motion, but the UN GA can pass a 377 resolution - which is why the US is bullying nations away from that option.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
How about ignoring the Geneva convention and annihilating soldiers that were under orders to withdraw? (whoops, that was daddy, not junior )

So where exactly does the Geneva Convention prohibit attacks on retreating (not surrendering) soldiers? The Geneva Convention only protects prisoners of war.

I notice you ignored the disappearing of people off the streets.

Yes, the PATRIOT act is disturbing, and it's definitely being abused by the US government. But it still doesn't even begin to compare to what Saddam has done over the past few decades. Saddam doesn't bother to arrest and interrogate suspects -- he just uses poison gas on their village.

Sparks

Meh,
Article 3. It also protects soldiers who are no longer involved in the battle. Since the soldiers in question had been ordered to quit Kuwait on the 26th (and the orders were announced on Baghdad radio and Kuwaiti witnesses said the withdrawl began on the morning of the 26th and was in full swing by evening), Saddam was in compliance with UNSC resolution 660, 678's mandate was over and the soldiers were now covered by the Geneva Convention.
Bush annihilated them anyway, starting around midnight on the 27th.

Also, SH poison gasses villages like Halajba - but less than two weeks later, he's shaking Rumsfeld's hand, sitting down with him and receiving $300 million in credit to buy more weapons with.

And the prisoners in Guantanamo bay are in the same situation as every prisoner SH ever tortured - no legal protection, no Geneva convention, being tortured for information, and in at least two cases, tortured to death.
And so far over 20 have been released because it was found that they were innocent and had been shopped by Taliban informers as a punishment of some kind...

Originally posted by Sparks
Meh,
And the prisoners in Guantanamo bay are in the same situation as every prisoner SH ever tortured - no legal protection, no Geneva convention, being tortured for information, and in at least two cases, tortured to death.

Could you provide a reliable news story to back that up please.
As regards the Taliban...from your own link:

President Bush agreed on Thursday to apply the Geneva Conventions to Taliban prisoners but said the al Qaeda network could not be considered a state that is party to the treaty, which guarantees a wide range of rights to captives.

And what exactly has allegations on Bush's business life got to do with the War on Iraq?
If you have a problem with Bush the Man,you should take it up with the people that gave him a majority in both houses of congress.
There are precedents in this country too, you know for people, topping the polls, even though their business life is questionable eg Michael Lowry.

In the eyes of the UN, the war is illegal. In the eyes of the majority of legal experts in international law in the US, UK and Ireland, they are correct. As regards the UN charter itself, it specifically prohibits pre-emptive violence, which is what this war is.

and I say again, that unless this war is declared illegal by the UNSC, how can it be called illegal, if the U.S and the U.K are drawing from the UNSC's own resolutions to justify the invasion.
The structure of the UNSC is such that it's not very effective.
The case has yet to be proved in a legal forum.

And increasingly it's coming to light that ordinary people in Iraq are glad that the British Tanks are rolling in expelling Sadam's henchmen, withness Basra and other towns.
mm

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
Meh,
Article 3. It also protects soldiers who are no longer involved in the battle.

No it doesn't.

Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms

It is not, and never has been, illegal to attack retreating soldiers. No war in history has been fought on this basis.

Also, SH poison gasses villages like Halajba - but less than two weeks later, he's shaking Rumsfeld's hand, sitting down with him and receiving $300 million in credit to buy more weapons with.

There are two separate moral issues here:

1. Massacring innocent civilians with poison gas
2. Shaking hands with someone who massacres innocent civilians with poison gas

1. is worse than 2. I'm not arguing that the US is perfect; I'm simply arguing that the US is better than Saddam.

Johnmb

There are two separate moral issues here:
Massacring innocent civilians with poison gas
Shaking hands with someone who massacres innocent civilians with poison gas
1. is worse than 2. I'm not arguing that the US is perfect; I'm simply arguing that the US is better than Saddam.

What about moral issue number 3: Selling chemical weapons and the means to deliver them knowing full well what is planned, and moral issue number 4: trying to cover up the atrocity? Does that not make the US every bit as guilty as Iraq?

hallelujajordan

Originally posted by Meh
I'm simply arguing that the US is better than Saddam.

In what regard is the US better than Saddam . . .

Both Bush and Saddam are leading their countries as a result of phony elections. . . .

Both Bush and Saddam have executed their own citizens in breach of the UN Charter on human Rights. . . .

Both the US and Iraq have used WMD in the past. . . . the only difference here is that we know that the US still have them and are still willing to use them if necessary. . .

I could go on . . . . we seem to have allowed the US to swallow the notion that they are the rightful leaders of the free world and they now have carte blanche to do what they like with this title. . . GWB was elected president in the absence of democracy and he seems determined to prosecute ghis presidency in the same manner.


AND . . . I'm sick of hearing arguments that this war has a UNSC mandate . . . this is complete nonsense ! The UNSC have not mandated this war and would have vetoed military action had they been given the opportunity. It is ridiculous to say that a previous resolution mandates the war because that quite simply ignores any events that have taken place since the issuing of that resolution (such as the progress made by H. Blix et al. . . )

Meh

Originally posted by Johnmb
What about moral issue number 3: Selling chemical weapons and the means to deliver them knowing full well what is planned, and moral issue number 4: trying to cover up the atrocity? Does that not make the US every bit as guilty as Iraq?

Well, discounting the fact that nobody sold Iraq chemical weapons (they sold him the ingredients which could be used to make chemical weapons) and that most of the sellers were from Germany rather than from the US: If I sell you a gun (or to make the analogy more accurate, parts which could be used to make either a gun or a wheelchair), and you go off and build a gun and shoot someone with it, I'm not guilty of murder.

I'm guilty of being careless about who I sell dangerous things to, but that's a far less serious crime than murder.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Meh
Well, discounting the fact that nobody sold Iraq chemical weapons (they sold him the ingredients which could be used to make chemical weapons)

Hahahahaha, and guns don't kill people, people kill people :rolleyes:

Johnmb

Well, discounting the fact that nobody sold Iraq chemical weapons (they sold him the ingredients which could be used to make chemical weapons)

The US sold him Anthrax.

If I sell you a gun (or to make the analogy more accurate, parts which could be used to make either a gun or a wheelchair), and you go off and build a gun and shoot someone with it, I'm not guilty of murder.

If you sold me the parts, knowing that I was going to make a gun and shoot someone, and then tried to cover up the fact that I had shot someone by attempting to blame someone else, then I think you'd find yourself in just as much troble as me. We would both be charged with murder, and we'd both be guilty of it, not just me.

Sparks

Man,
Could you provide a reliable news story to back that up please.
Sure, and another one.
As regards the Taliban...from your own link:
Actually, he's only agreed to give them similar treatment to the convention's requirements - they still have no legal status in the eyes of the US.

And what exactly has allegations on Bush's business life got to do with the War on Iraq?
Goes to his credibility in both his general honesty and in his sincerity (ie. that the war isn't a way to move the spotlight off of Enron-type stories of Bush's business dealings).

If you have a problem with Bush the Man,you should take it up with the people that gave him a majority in both houses of congress.
Sure. Give me a list of names

Meh,
You sell the ingredients to chemical weapons for ease of shipping and storage, not for moral reasons.
Biological weapons, you sell in ready-to-use form.
And FYI, large numbers of british weapons have been confiscated from Iraqi armouries so far...
And further FYI, US companies are now to be investigated to see what they sold Iraq.
So noone is innocent on this one, not even the Irish (who sold beef to the Iraqi army).

There are precedents in this country too, you know for people, topping the polls, even though their business life is questionable eg Michael Lowry.
<snip Whoops wrong name snip>

In general, judging an Irish politician's character by his performance in the polls would be seen as rather naive...

and I say again, that unless this war is declared illegal by the UNSC, how can it be called illegal, if the U.S and the U.K are drawing from the UNSC's own resolutions to justify the invasion.
You seem confused here. The UNSC has no ability to declare an act legal when it's in contravention of the UN charter, which this war is. Thus the UNSC's ruling would be irrelevant. Now a UNGA resolution 377 ruling might be more straightforward, if the US wasn't bullying everyone about it.

The case has yet to be proved in a legal forum.
Name a suitable forum.

And increasingly it's coming to light that ordinary people in Iraq are glad that the British Tanks are rolling in expelling Sadam's henchmen, withness Basra and other towns.
Those that don't learn from history...
British Army tanks and personnel were welcomed into catholic areas of Northern Ireland too, in the beginning - for all of about two months.

Meh,
Article 3. It also protects soldiers who are no longer involved in the battle.
No it doesn't.
Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms


Yes, that proves my point. The timing of the events is crucial here. Saddam agreed to the Russian deal that involved compliance with UNSC resolution 660 on Feb21. On Feb.26 he issued the withdrawl order. FROM THAT POINT ON, the soldiers were taking no active part in the hostilities. They were later bombed on the road to Basra, illegally.

It is not, and never has been, illegal to attack retreating soldiers. No war in history has been fought on this basis.

Correct, but these soldiers were not retreating, they had been withdrawn from the battlefield and were under orders to stand down. Thus they were not retreating - they were taking no active part.

There are two separate moral issues here:
Massacring innocent civilians with poison gas
Shaking hands with someone who massacres innocent civilians with poison gas
Nope. Got the first one right. The second one is true, but the real second point is the $300 million in credit to buy more weapons that was given to Saddam at that meeting by Rumsfeld in full knowlege of what SH was doing and had just done.

I'm simply arguing that the US is better than Saddam.
In some aspects, correct. But not in terms of following the rule of law.

Meh

Originally posted by Johnmb
If you sold me the parts, knowing that I was going to make a gun and shoot someone, and then tried to cover up the fact that I had shot someone by attempting to blame someone else, then I think you'd find yourself in just as much troble as me. We would both be charged with murder, and we'd both be guilty of it, not just me.

No; seems to me all I'd be guilty of is obstructing justice and illegally supplying weapons. Are you a lawyer?

Yes, that proves my point. The timing of the events is crucial here. Saddam agreed to the Russian deal that involved compliance with UNSC resolution 660 on Feb21. On Feb.26 he issued the withdrawl order. FROM THAT POINT ON, the soldiers were taking no active part in the hostilities. They were later bombed on the road to Basra, illegally.

Correct, but these soldiers were not retreating, they had been withdrawn from the battlefield and were under orders to stand down. Thus they were not retreating - they were taking no active part.

The wording of the Geneva Convention here appears only to include those soldiers who have "laid down their arms" in its definition of persons who are "taking no active part" in the battle. As well as that, those soldiers were attempting to escape with looted civilian property. I don't think the Geneva Convention was put in place to protect looters attempting to get away with their stolen goods...

Johnmb

No; seems to me all I'd be guilty of is obstructing justice and illegally supplying weapons. Are you a lawyer?

There is no such thing as a lawyer in this country, and you'd be in for a major shock if you truely believe the above. You would be guilty of aiding me in the murder by providing me with the weapon knowing I was going to commit the crime, and attemping to give me a false alibi. We would be considered a partnership, you'd go down for almost as long as me, possibly even longer (depending on who made the better impression in court).

Sparks

Meh,
The charge would be conspiracy after the fact, which carries the same penalty for all conspirators.

The wording of the Geneva Convention here appears only to include those soldiers who have "laid down their arms"
Re-read it. The wording says "including those", not "only those".

Plus, the evidence suggests that the "looted civilian goods" were actually owned by the civilians who were travelling with the convoy and who were annihilated as well.

bonkey

Originally posted by Meh
[B I don't think the Geneva Convention was put in place to protect looters attempting to get away with their stolen goods... [/B]

Incorrect.

The Geneva Conventions allow for "secondary" issues such as criminal charges. It clearly states what procedures must be followed.

What it does not do is say "if you suspect these guys mighnt be model prisoners, or may have comitted criminal acts, you can slaughter them indiscriminately instead".

jc

Originally posted by Sparks
Man,

Actually, he's only agreed to give them similar treatment to the convention's requirements - they still have no legal status in the eyes of the US.

Oh, right, can't condone the two deaths or the interrogation methods, have you similar evidence that this is continuing in Guantanamo?

Goes to his credibility in both his general honesty and in his sincerity (ie. that the war isn't a way to move the spotlight off of Enron-type stories of Bush's business dealings).

you are questioning Bush's sincerity, regarding, a war on terrorism, based on his business dealings.

Would you also question Bill clintons Sincerity in the NI peace process based on his business dealings??

Does that mean that you would favour this war if the U.S president was squeaky clean?? probably not?
My own take on it is to judge, the outcome rather than to condemn the action.
I will condemn the outcome and the action, if it can be shown that more civilians die in this war than would be the case with another 20 years of Baath party rule.
mm

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
The wording of the Geneva Convention here appears only to include those soldiers who have "laid down their arms"
Re-read it. The wording says "including those", not "only those".

If the Geneva Convention was meant to apply to "soldiers withdrawing from the battlefield with looted property and their weapons", why doesn't it explicitly include them in the category of protected persons? If you're a soldier trying to run away with looted goods, the Geneva Convention does not mean the other side can't shoot you.

There is no such thing as a lawyer in this country

Really? The phrase is commonly used to refer to a member of either of the legal professions.

You would be guilty of aiding me in the murder by providing me with the weapon knowing I was going to commit the crime

That's the important part. When those ingredients were sold to Iraq, did the sellers sell them with the intent that they would be used to make chemical weapons which would then be used against civilians? In any case, since neither of us have any legal qualifications, this is just speculation.

Sparks

Yes, we have reports that this practise has been going on since Afghanistan and continues to be, and also that prisoners are shipped to "less squeamish" states, to use the words used. And not for manicures.

Nope, I'm questioning his sincerity about the war on the basis that his record shows him not to be an honest man. Insider dealing that he barely escapes with, going AWOL from the Texas Air Force Reserve, these aren't the acts of an honest man.

At least with Clinton, you just had to remember not to accept a proferred cigar.

No, I would not favour this war even if Ghandi were in the white house. (In fact I wouldn't have to, but you get my point.)
I'm questioning his stated motives for the war, not the war's morality itself.

To judge how many civilians die, we may need to keep counting for 20 years. The true danger here, remember is not that we see the use of nerve gas, it's that we see Baghdad become another Jenin.

Sparks

Meh,
If the Geneva Convention was meant to apply to "soldiers withdrawing from the battlefield with looted property and their weapons", why doesn't it explicitly include them in the category of protected persons? If you're a soldier trying to run away with looted goods, the Geneva Convention does not mean the other side can't shoot you.
Wrong. Dead wrong.
Firstly, as pointed out above,
The Geneva Conventions allow for "secondary" issues such as criminal charges. It clearly states what procedures must be followed.

What it does not do is say "if you suspect these guys mighnt be model prisoners, or may have comitted criminal acts, you can slaughter them indiscriminately instead".

Secondly, as I said earlier, there is evidence to suggest that they hadn't looted, but were actually accompanied by genuine civilians, hence the civilain articles found.

Thirdly, your assertion was:

If I sell you a gun (or to make the analogy more accurate, parts which could be used to make either a gun or a wheelchair), and you go off and build a gun and shoot someone with it, I'm not guilty of murder.

In point of fact, if I sell a pistol to someone and they murder someone with it, I'm guilty of both the sale of an illegal firearm and of being an accomplice to murder.
See, thing is, some weapons are illegal to sell and the penalty is shared responsibility for the crime committed.

Johnmb

Really? The phrase is commonly used to refer to a member of either of the legal professions

Yes really. It is not commonly used in any legal way in this country. That site you gave, you should read the disclaimer given.

That's the important part. When those ingredients were sold to Iraq, did the sellers sell them with the intent that they would be used to make chemical weapons which would then be used against civilians?

Giving that they continued to sell Iraq the goods AFTER the first such attacks, then yes they did know what the weapons were being used for, and they were guilty. There is also the little issue of the cover up that you have conveniently snipped, which is further proof of the intent of the US at the time.

Originally posted by Sparks


At least with Clinton, you just had to remember not to accept a proferred cigar.

Hmmm, depends on where he's been sticking it:D but no, I don't want his cigars.

To judge how many civilians die, we may need to keep counting for 20 years. The true danger here, remember is not that we see the use of nerve gas, it's that we see Baghdad become another Jenin.

Well, I will be judging this war on it's morality, it's outcome, regardless of the stated motives.
We will be here all day, doing no work if we get into that one, but,I've discussed my opinion in several threads here on that, and am willing to continue to do so, based on my beliefs...funny old world.
But I don't see, this turning into a Jenin,I note from sky this morning for instance that, one of Sadams palaces was being guarded by Syrian and lebanese militia, the Republican guard, no where in sight.
Now the people of Basra, would probably be giving them their p45's straight away.
mm

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
Wrong. Dead wrong.
Firstly, as pointed out above,
The Geneva Conventions allow for "secondary" issues such as criminal charges. It clearly states what procedures must be followed.

What it does not do is say "if you suspect these guys mighnt be model prisoners, or may have comitted criminal acts, you can slaughter them indiscriminately instead".

Yes, looters who have surrendered or been captured are protected by the Convention. Looters who are trying to avoid capture are not protected.

Secondly, as I said earlier, there is evidence to suggest that they hadn't looted, but were actually accompanied by genuine civilians, hence the civilain articles found.

Link please.

In point of fact, if I sell a pistol to someone and they murder someone with it, I'm guilty of both the sale of an illegal firearm and of being an accomplice to murder.

And your law degree is from which university? Just one high-profile case which proves the exact opposite of your assertion: Columbine Gun-seller: 6 Years (in the USA, but that's a common law jurisdiction too). If I supply a weapon used in a murder, I'm not guilty of the murder itself.

Yes really. It is not commonly used in any legal way in this country. That site you gave, you should read the disclaimer given.

Is a national newspaper headline common enough for you? "Lawyer" is commonly used in this country to refer to either a solicitor or a barrister.

Johnmb

Is a national newspaper headline common enough for you? "Lawyer" is commonly used in this country to refer to either a solicitor or a barrister.

A headline means nothing. It is meant to get your attention, nothing more. Guess what, they even (gasp, horror) make up words to put in headlines. read the article, it tells you what the people in question actually are (i.e. a barrister). The term "Lawyer" is not recognised in this country other than as a slang word gotten from too much american tv.