Wmd Reminder

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by james_bond_rulez@13 December 2003 - 21:23
ok i see ur point

but i have to say any bombing on civilians is immoral and unethical

I agree 100%

[j2k4]

Originally posted by MediaSlayer@13 December 2003 - 08:25
j2k4 did you HAVE to use a quote from senator byrd to further your republican pool party? c'mon, you don't wanna get ruffed up do ya? i heard ole' clocker invested in some brass knuckles, MODS i smell a fight! hehe

but seriously, leave byrd alone, he ain't half bad. here is a speech from march of this year by him called "arrogance of power" it's good stuff, and it's sad to see an old man care so much for his country, the country he grew up with, just crumble before his eyes.

I hope to have time soon to respond more comprehensively to the other posts (I've got a project to finish), but I have to take a moment to respond to my southern colleague, MediaSlayer:

The Hon. Robert C. Byrd is a pompous, self-serving poseur of the first order.

He attempts to portray himself as a self-styled "House Historian", and then uses this "credential" in a vain effort to batter others.

He is vanity on parade; literally the only representative extant who can use the expletive "nigger" in the media and not be sent home for his sin.

He is the All-Time Champion of pork-barrel politics, as can be seen any time one enters the state of West Byr....I mean, West Virginia, a state where every speck of dirt is named in his honor.

The man is a joke.


Edit: I will refrain from mentioning his historical connection to the Ku Klux Klan, as to do so would be harping on his past unnecessarily.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+12 December 2003 - 16:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 12 December 2003 - 16:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@12 December 2003 - 16:50
We know the Democrats were making the same claims to make the illegal bombing of Iraq for the last Decade "palletable" to the public...

I ask a genuine question, which illegal bombing was this and what law / jurisdiction was it contrary to ?

If there was illegal bombing, why has no action been taken or has it ? Is some action proposed ? [/b][/quote]
Im talking of the systematic bombing of Iraq since Desert Storm.

The US/Uk had a clear mandate of what were legitamate targets..ie a Demilitarised Zone. I have no objection to any military target that was taken out in this zone, during that time.

Bombing such targets as Water Purification plants and Electricity/Communications infrastructure of a nation does not fall within the Mandate, especially when 1000&#39;s of civilians were being killed in the process, and the sanctions prevented the purchase of replacement parts.

This was murder, (we were not at war).... murder is illegal.

Or was the last time i looked at the statute books.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@13 December 2003 - 23:24


Or was the last time i looked at the statute books.

To which "statute books" do you refer ?

When was the last time you looked at those ?

Or was it just a glib, meaningless phrase, in an attempt to bolster your argument ?

[Rat Faced]

Murder is illegal in every country involved.

Murder is illegal in International Waters.

Are you claiming there is some part of this planet that Murder isnt illegal?



Im quite sure its a basic law in every country on the planet........even those where the Government systematically commits that very crime.

Please enlighten me of this never never land where the statute does not include murder as a crime....



BTW.. OT

Did you know that in the UK, if you fail in an attempted suicide; you could be charged with attempted murder?

Never done of course, as they obviously need medical help...but still, i&#39;ll make sure i do it properly if i ever get around to it


International Law:

Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

A/&nbsp; Crimes against peace:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
B/&nbsp; War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

C/&nbsp; Crimes against humanity:

Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@13 December 2003 - 23:24
Bombing such targets as Water Purification plants and Electricity/Communications infrastructure of a nation does not fall within the Mandate, especially when 1000&#39;s of civilians were being killed in the process, and the sanctions prevented the purchase of replacement parts.

Can you find a source on this? Even during the war, I was under the assumption that the destruction of said locations was committed by Saddam&#39;s regime in hopes of causing the disruption of daily life and turmoil we are now seeing in Iraq.

I fail to see a benefit for bombing such areas. Oh sure, to reconstruct them, but there is so much else that needs to be rebuilt, that hardly is even worth consideration.

Pre-war, it would have served a purpose, to help encourage revolution against Saddam, but be a totally criminal act. Did we really do this? I have never heard such a thing.




Edit: I found the following article, which describes an intentional plan by the US to prevent Iraq from being able to properly utilize it&#39;s water purification system. Nothing was said about bombing.

Although the policy is deplorable, the UN could have changed this, unless they truly are as worthless as they appear. You cannot blame 10 years of sanctions on the US, unless the US has complete control over the UN.

Water

[Rat Faced]

Operation Desert Fox is an example.

Both the one just after Desert Storm (1991) and again in 1998.


The time in 1991 was so bad that Russia withdrew its Embassador from the USA, i believe, (December 17th?) so im surprised you havent heard of it.

In 1998 Desert Fox targeted Baghdad........which is well outside the "No Fly Zone", and Basra..a major city.


In between there has was continual bombing of Iraq, aimed at keeping the North and South "demilitarized"...as I said, i have no problem with that, I just think that they should be careful targeting close to civilians as 20% of the missiles miss the target....colateral damage.

In addition, the intelligence is unfortunatly wrong quite often...such as the "successful" mission on an Intelligence HQ that turned out to be a civilian Bomb Shelter

I shall try and dig up links tomorrow, as im on and off at the moment...kids

[james_bond_rulez]

remember that time when US bombed the Chinese Embassy by mistake? forgot where but the poilot had an outdated map

oy

The Chinese govn. dissed America for soo long since then

[J'Pol]

RF

You base your statement that the bombings were illegal on you describing them as murder. A singularly circular argument, I&#39;ll give you that.

They are illegal because it was murder. It was murder because they were illegal bombings.

I really cannot argue with that. The argument spins round on itself and become self contained.

However if the bombings were not illegal, then it was not murder. It may be unethical, it may be unjust, it may be very many things, however that is not the point I am taking issue with.

Which takes us back to where we started, what made the bombings illegal.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@14 December 2003 - 01:05
RF

You base your statement that the bombings were illegal on you describing them as murder. A singularly circular argument, I&#39;ll give you that.

They are illegal because it was murder. It was murder because they were illegal bombings.

I really cannot argue with that. The argument spins round on itself and become self contained.

However if the bombings were not illegal, then it was not murder. It may be unethical, it may be unjust, it may be very many things, however that is not the point I am taking issue with.

Which takes us back to where we started, what made the bombings illegal.

He stated "illegal" to mean, non-miltary targets such as water treatment and electricity plants targeted outside of war times.

The Geneva Convention is absolutely clear. In a 1979 protocol relating to the "protection of victims of international armed conflicts," Article 54, it states: "It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive."]Geneva Convention

These were done to try and force the hand of revolution.

Instead of working, they resulted in the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children from disease and malnutrition.

Can you imagine how cruel Saddam must have been. He must have killed any and everyone one who he thought was a threat to avoid even the possibilty of a revolution. His children dying everywhere, while he poops in gold toilets and erects statues in his honor. He could have saved them at any time by complying with the UN. He found that he would rather kill his own, starve his own, rather than let people see that he had nothing to hide.

For this illusion, he lost his country, his heirs and probably his own life.