It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Today America stands United in Shame

page: 7
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2004 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Satyr
The point is, we scream Geneva Convention all the time, and even use it as justification for attacking, but only seem to adhere to it when it benefits us. That's already been proven by our dropping cluster bombs.


When have we used the GC as a justification for attack?

How is using Cluster Bombs against the GC?

Would you prefer less capable ordnance that places more people at risk be used?




posted on May, 10 2004 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Do some research, buddy. Cluster bombs are illegal. You didn't know? And we've referenced the GC many times, while classifying Iraq as in defiance of certain terms of it. Here's but one example:


...but when five of its captured soldiers were paraded in front of the Iraqi television cameras on Sunday, Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, immediately complained that "it is against the Geneva convention to show photographs of prisoners of war in a manner that is humiliating for them".


The list is actually longer than I care to illustrate for you. Do some googling, and you'll see.

www.heritage.org...

[Edited on 5-10-2004 by Satyr]



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Satyr
Do some research, buddy. Cluster bombs are illegal. You didn't know? And we've referenced the GC many times, while classifying Iraq as in defiance of certain terms of it. Here's but one example:

I did do some research, and I failed to come up with anything that says the US agrees that they are illegal and refuses to use them ever again. Why don't you answer my question about whether or not you want to put more people at risk by using less capable ordnance?


...but when five of its captured soldiers were paraded in front of the Iraqi television cameras on Sunday, Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, immediately complained that "it is against the Geneva convention to show photographs of prisoners of war in a manner that is humiliating for them".


The Iraqis did that long before we did. What is your point with that quote?



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 11:20 AM
link   
What I clearly said Satyr was that these prisoners DO NOT fall under the convention, who are we to judge whether or not the photos depict outright harrassment for harassments sake - could just as well been part of breaking for interogation, thats for the military court to decide not us here on ATS, I mean were you there do you have first person experience to back up what you have asserted?



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
I did do some research, and I failed to come up with anything that says the US agrees that they are illegal and refuses to use them ever again. Why don't you answer my question about whether or not you want to put more people at risk by using less capable ordnance?

Ummm, we signed it, didn't we? It's specifically stated that indiscriminate weapons, such as cluster bombs (and depleted uranium), are not allowed. I can't help you much more than that, if you can't even look up the facts yourself. The world's most modern military, one determined to minimize civilian casualties, went to war with stockpiles of weapons known to endanger civilians and its own soldiers. The weapons claimed victims in the initial explosions and continued to kill afterward, as Iraqis and U.S. forces accidentally detonated bomblets lying around like small land mines.



Under Article 85 of the Geneva Conventions, it is a war crime to launch "an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population in the knowledge that such an attack will cause an excessive loss of life or injury to civilians." Under the Hague Conventions, Article 22 and 23, "The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited," and "It is especially forbidden to kill treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army."


www.commondreams.org...


Originally posted by Phoenix
I mean were you there do you have first person experience to back up what you have asserted?

I'm not stupid.


[Edited on 5-10-2004 by Satyr]



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Satyr
Ummm, we signed it, didn't we? It's specifically stated that indiscriminate weapons, such as cluster bombs, are not allowed. I can't help you much more than that, if you can't even look up the facts yourself.



You are the one who cannot do research on his own. You are relying on their interpretaion of the law. In actuality the law was written to prevent the massive bombings of the cities that you saw in WW2. It was not written to preven the use of cluster munitions. Therefore it is not illegal to use them, unless you carpeted a city with them which is not what they are even designed for.

I guess that you are in favor of using less capable munitions and putting more of our pilots and ground forces at risk, since you seem to be protesting the use of one of the best anti-armor weapons out there.

Next time read the text, and not someone's take on it.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Jesus Christ! You'll say anything to support your current state of denial, won't you?
To answer your question, I don't think we should be in Iraq in the first place, so I can't fully answer your question.


Unexploded bombs dropped over 30 years ago during the Vietnam war still endanger civilians in Laos. In Afghanistan, yellow cluster bombs have been mistaken for food aid packages wrapped in the same colour.

Could it be any more clear?


[Edited on 5-10-2004 by Satyr]



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Satyr
Jesus Christ! You'll say anything to support your current state of denial, won't you?
To answer your question, I don't think we should be in Iraq in the first place, so I can't fully answer your question.


[Edited on 5-10-2004 by Satyr]


What are you talking about? Are you trying to say that I am denying the use of a weapon which is not illegal, despite the information that you have provided?

I am trying to deny ignorance here, which you are showing plenty of.

You can still answer the question without compromising your stance.

Are you in favor of putting our people at risk by using less capable weapons? It is a simple question that involves a simple answer.

[Edited on 10/5/04 by COOL HAND]



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Read the bold text above. If that doesn't violate the GC, I don't know what does.


Here you go...


An indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects and resulting in excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. (Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 3)


www.globalissuesgroup.com...



[Edited on 5-10-2004 by Satyr]



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Satyr
Unexploded bombs dropped over 30 years ago during the Vietnam war still endanger civilians in Laos. In Afghanistan, yellow cluster bombs have been mistaken for food aid packages wrapped in the same colour.

Unexploded ordnance is found in France all of the time from WWI. What is your point?

Could it be any more clear?

Yes, as you cannot prove those are illegal. Read the actual text from the GC.

[Edited on 5-10-2004 by Satyr]



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Satyr
Read the bold text above. If that doesn't violate the GC, I don't know what does.


I did and they do not violate the GC. Maybe if you listed how it specifically the use of CB violate the GC then we can resolve this.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 11:49 AM
link   
You know what? Forget it. You're unreasonably stubborn and it's obvious that you won't see anything that you don't want to see. I can't debate this with you. I couldn't convince you that you lost a leg, if you didn't want to believe it, even if it was clear that you only had one.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Satyr,
Here is the part that talks about the Civilians:

Article 51: Protection of the Civilian Population
The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.
The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.
Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:
an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and
an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.
The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.
Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.


Please show me where it says that you cannot use cluster bombs.

LINK



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 11:54 AM
link   
(a) making the civilian population or individual civilians the object of attack; (b) launching an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects, as defined in Article 57, paragraph 2 (a)(iii);

30+ years worth of indiscriminate bombs scattered all over the country doesn't apply, eh?


You are truly blind. I give up. You win.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Satyr
You know what? Forget it. You're unreasonably stubborn and it's obvious that you won't see anything that you don't want to see. I can't debate this with you. I couldn't convince you that you lost a leg, if you didn't want to believe it, even if it was clear that you only had one.


If anyone here is unreasonably stubborn it is you. You provide no evidence to back up your claim, and refuse to answer a simple question becuase I already pointed out what your answer is.

Read the link that I gave and just try to prove that you can't use them on the battlefield. I would agree with you if you had said that it was illegal for us to use them to bomb a city, which would be a waste.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Satyr
(a) making the civilian population or individual civilians the object of attack; (b) launching an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects, as defined in Article 57, paragraph 2 (a)(iii);

30+ years worth of indiscriminate bombs scattered all over the country doesn't apply, eh?


You are truly blind. I give up. You win.


Do you even know what indiscriminate bombing is?

Might want to look into that one before you go any further.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 11:59 AM
link   
The bombs don't even explode half the time. They can be stepped on 30+ years later by anyone. If you don't think that's indiscriminate, please give me your definition, would you?


As I already said, there's no need to continue this. You're one of those who only reads what supports your stance. Once that type of person has been identified, there is really no reason to debate any further. It's pointless. Drop it. I'm done with you. It's like arguing with a tree.


[Edited on 5-10-2004 by Satyr]



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Satyr
The bombs don't even explode half the time. They can be stepped on 30+ years later by anyone. If you don't think that's indiscriminate, please give me your definition, would you?


Those bombs were dropped to either
A Attack a target
B Dropped to lighten an aircraft who is under attack to make it more manueverable
C. Dropped due to damage sustained in an attack.

I would define indiscriminate as being for no purpose. The closest thing I can compare it to is a pilot punching off ordnance for the hell of it. Not to attack anything.

In the case of CBs they are used on troop and armor formation. They are not good for much else. Some are programmed with a delayed fuse, so that the enemy cannot move into the area again.


As I already said, there's no need to continue this. You're one of those who only reads what supports your stance. Once that type of person has been identified, there is really no reason to debate any further. It's pointless. Drop it. I'm done with you. It's like arguing with a tree.



Tell me about it. You refuse to accept the information I gave you without attempting to debunk it. I have already taken care of yours. For this to be a true debate you need to come at it with better arguments/evidence.
[Edited on 5-10-2004 by Satyr]


Don't forget, from now on read the original text yourself and not someone else's interpretation of it. You will do better in future debates.

Any chance you will ever answer the question that I posed to you?



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 12:11 PM
link   
What the heck do cluster bombs have to do with the Iraqi prisoners not being covered by the Geneva Convention?

BTW not being covered by the convention, whats all this hand wringing about anyways? why should we share the shame of the few idiots that did this anyway?

I think this just amounts to another way for the anybody but Bush crowd to get their licks in - thats what I think, did we hear from these very same individuals when we bombed the Chinese embassy in the Kosovo affair - nope we did not.
Did we hear from these people at any time between the years of 1992 and 2000 about any abuse of human rights that the U.S. had the means to stop - nope we did not, and that my friends speaks volumes about the motivations behind the loudest complainers now.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Besides treatment of prisoners, refugees, the hell with ethics!

War is war. War MUST be won. So forget restrictions on cluster bombs, you fight the enemy with all you've got.

The loser is always the one who tries to be "humane." War is the exact opposite of being humane, so deal.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join