War With Iraq

[Emma]

If it's legitimate to bomb TV stations showing pro-government propoganda, then the Iraqis must be entitled to blow up the Fox headquarters.

Personally, I can't wait.

[Ashley]

[s]Emma wrote on 09:24, 27th Mar 2003:
If it's legitimate to bomb TV stations showing pro-government propoganda, then the Iraqis must be entitled to blow up the Fox headquarters.

Personally, I can't wait.


I can't wait either. Sadly however,u

http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardi ... 63,00.html

http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/s ... 89,00.html

and that chemical weapons plant discovered?

http://media.guardian.co.uk/iraqandthem ... 49,00.html

[hr]
Nobody ever mentions the weather can make or break your day

[Left is Wrong]

I thought you crazy scotts would find this interesting
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030323-9543832.htm

AMMAN, Jordan — A group of American anti-war demonstrators, part of a Japanese human-shield delegation, returned from Iraq yesterday with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present, with Iraqis eager to tell of their welcome for American troops. The Rev. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor of the Assyrian Church of the East, said the trip to Iraq "had shocked me back to reality."
Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera, he said, "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam [Hussein]'s bloody tyranny."
Mr. Joseph said the Iraqis convinced him that Saddam is "a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists.
"Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so the [torture masters] could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head."


On another note if i tilt my lap top to a certain angle I see a freeky devil chick on the newmessage page. Is that supposed to be there or am I tripping out?

[_buff_]

For what it is worth, I am pro-war however I believe that war must be legal, fair and that each and every military intervention must be justifiable in accordance with international humanitarian law.

Re: Propaganda an Iraq TV

Clearly the Iraqi Government Regime has power over Iraq TV however the Geneva Convention protects the property of Iraq TV as it is a civilian owned and operated site. The broadcasting of propaganda does not legitimise the bombing of the Iraq TV HQ unless there is a demonstrable dual military purpose for the station. It is laughable to believe that the dissemination of propaganda by civilians can ever constitute a motive for a military attack.

Re: Stormin Norman’s Comments

We worry about the Geneva Convention and its application in this war for the primary reason that adherence to the protocol by all concerned constitutes an international humanitarian law to which signatory states can abide. To claim that we should not look to what is legal but to what is right in our forces conduct is stupid and dangerous since what is ‘right’ is subjective but what is legal is much more objective. International Law bypasses our concept of ‘right’ but binds the Geneva Convention signatory states into a set of mutually agreed rules regarding conduct during war time. We can expect that where all parties in a war have agreed to adhere to the Geneva Convention that it’s implementation will be universally humanitarian, else action is taken against protocol breaches. We cannot, on the other hand, expect where all parties in a war are conducting themselves in a manner deemed ‘right’ that that conduct will be universally humanitarian after all, we know that the Iraqi Government Regime's understanding of that concept is fundamentally different.

Clearly, Rumsfeld has bound the DoD to treat the Camp Delta detainees in accordance with the Third Geneva Convention and is not doing so. The Third Geneva Convention does not specify what constitutes torture however Art. 17 clearly disallows the application of ‘mental or physical torture’ by the detaining power. Sleep deprivation, as occurs at Camp Delta, does constitute mental torture and therefore breaches Article 17 (to name one of many).

I am British but I do not dislike the US but the Bush Administration. I do not dislike the UK but the UK Government. I support war but oppose the hypocrisy and selective implementation of international humanitarian law which it is characterised by.

Re: Iraq: A Staff and Student Forum

Did anyone go? I heard there was a good turn out but missed it as I was teaching. Seems like they are trying to make it a regular thing which would be good given the abject lack of rational and academic commentary on the war.

[Miss Maryland]

and its these products of corrupt culture who steal turf from the golf course. hehe. i've seen them kiss it, too, in places where inebriated males have urinated. ha, ha!

[Lord Cedric]

Why are students so fashionable and boring? The anti-war stance is the easy and popular chioce. Go on, free yourself, do something different- support the war and our troops in the pursuit of it.

[Curse of the irish]

[s]_buff_ wrote on 12:55, 27th Mar 2003:
For what it is worth, I am pro-war however I believe that war must be legal, fair and that each and every military intervention must be justifiable in accordance with international humanitarian law.

Re: Propaganda an Iraq TV

Clearly the Iraqi Government Regime has power over Iraq TV however the Geneva Convention protects the property of Iraq TV as it is a civilian owned and operated site. The broadcasting of propaganda does not legitimise the bombing of the Iraq TV HQ unless there is a demonstrable dual military purpose for the station. It is laughable to believe that the dissemination of propaganda by civilians can ever constitute a motive for a military attack.

Re: Stormin Norman’s Comments

We worry about the Geneva Convention and its application in this war for the primary reason that adherence to the protocol by all concerned constitutes an international humanitarian law to which signatory states can abide. To claim that we should not look to what is legal but to what is right in our forces conduct is stupid and dangerous since what is ‘right’ is subjective but what is legal is much more objective. International Law bypasses our concept of ‘right’ but binds the Geneva Convention signatory states into a set of mutually agreed rules regarding conduct during war time. We can expect that where all parties in a war have agreed to adhere to the Geneva Convention that it’s implementation will be universally humanitarian, else action is taken against protocol breaches. We cannot, on the other hand, expect where all parties in a war are conducting themselves in a manner deemed ‘right’ that that conduct will be universally humanitarian after all, we know that the Iraqi Government Regime's understanding of that concept is fundamentally different.

Clearly, Rumsfeld has bound the DoD to treat the Camp Delta detainees in accordance with the Third Geneva Convention and is not doing so. The Third Geneva Convention does not specify what constitutes torture however Art. 17 clearly disallows the application of ‘mental or physical torture’ by the detaining power. Sleep deprivation, as occurs at Camp Delta, does constitute mental torture and therefore breaches Article 17 (to name one of many).

I am British but I do not dislike the US but the Bush Administration. I do not dislike the UK but the UK Government. I support war but oppose the hypocrisy and selective implementation of international humanitarian law which it is characterised by.

Re: Iraq: A Staff and Student Forum

Did anyone go? I heard there was a good turn out but missed it as I was teaching. Seems like they are trying to make it a regular thing which would be good given the abject lack of rational and academic commentary on the war.



I'm drunk so i hope this is readible. It still comes down to whats right. In iraq we are attacking the regime. Targetting leaders of country is illegal(except in this case cause saddam runs the military) but even if it is illegal if it will save lives by taking the top out isn't it worth it? Same with the terrorists, if we drop them off at a country who tortures its citizens, isn't it worth it if it will stop another 9-11? I'm not advocating torture but I think anything that will save lives is most of the times well worth doing.

[Lord Cedric]

It is odd that Sinn Fein have adopted and anti-war stance. How ironic.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Obviously they abhor violence as much as everyone else.

[The_Farwall]

[s]Lord Cedric wrote on 02:22, 28th Mar 2003:
Why are students so fashionable and boring? The anti-war stance is the easy and popular chioce. Go on, free yourself, do something different- support the war and our troops in the pursuit of it.

What!? So you're being in favour of mass murder just to be different are you? There's a reason that the anti-war stance is so popular, and it's not just a trend, it's because this war is so unjustified and illegal. Of course you're going to dismiss me as just another one following the crowd but just think on this, some things become incredibly popular not because of a fad but because they make so much sense.
[hr][s]'Time of my life, I think you came to soon.'[/s]

[Prophet Tenebrae]

The US administration sees it's action as justified because of 9/11 - or something like that and it seems that in the USA if you don't support the war, you support Saddam. To a lesser extent, the same is true in Britain.

[Captain Capitalism]

[s]Prophet Tenebrae wrote on 15:01, 2nd Apr 2003:
The US administration sees it's action as justified because of 9/11 - or something like that and it seems that in the USA if you don't support the war, you support Saddam. To a lesser extent, the same is true in Britain.

yay people are posting here again.

Protesters arent all anti american.

there are three types of american protesters though

1) Ignorant kids- the most common kind they are easily convinced by pop culture and college teachers, these are the kind of people who carry signs that say no blood for oil. Or think Bush is trying to take over the world. Or they say why can the US have WMDs and Saddam cant. They are harmless but have just had thier perspectives altered by professors who represent the third type of protesters.

2) Pacifists-at least these people are noble in what they believe. Most will admit they don't know the answer to the worlds problems but standby the belief that war is wrong. Most pacifists I talk to believe that is wrong to take a life no matter how many you safe in hopes that they will set an example and the rest of the world will follow. It's a silly belief but a noble one.

3)Blame America First Anti Americans- These people pop every once in a while. They hate capitalism some still even cling to communism. No matter what goes on in the world they blame the United States. Thier reasons for the hatred of this country are to many to number but normally it breaks down that thier is another group they care about and blame the US for the problems. For example my latin american proffessor doesnt like capitalism because of what it does to latin american. The problem with this way of thinking is they dont look at what the latin american country did or didnt do to get in the problem. Some don't like America because they see it as a racist government, thats the entitlement crowd who feel they are owed something because thier ancestors got a raw deal. Theres many reasons why people who fall in this crowd think the way they do, but whatever the reason it blurs thier judgement on the country and its ambitions.

For the record the anti war movement isn't popular. Its the radical left its always been there. They started in vietnam, which even though the protesters did terrible things that was a just war to march against. In the 80s they marched for unillateral disarmament at the height of the cold war. In the 90s they marched for environmentalism, and against globalization (for some reason they didnt march againt the war in bosnia , hrmm). Now in the new century with a renewed vigor of an evil republican president in office they march against the war in Iraq.

damn that was a good post

[Al]

"A raw deal"

What a unique way of putting it. To me, a "raw deal" suggests being ripped off in some way, paying for something and not getting it. It does not begin to cover what the "Americans" did to the Americans. Murder. Genocide. Destruction. Those are much better terms for it than "raw deal".

But back to the war. Isn't it strange how a war of liberation turned so quickly into a war of conquest? What is with the US handing out contracts like there is no tomorrow. (By an amazing coincidence, many of the companies awarded lucrative contracts have close connections with the upper levels of the US administration. Who would have thought it?) Shouldn't reconstruction be the responsibility of the Iraqi people through the ballot box, or an interim civilian government? Let's face it, the Americans behaviour has all the character of imperialism except the one crucial aspect - knowing the people whom you are seeking to conquer and rule. Sorry, liberate!

[hr]Can you fly with swans in the dark?

[Buzzboy]

I don't see what is so wrong with a belief in communism as a form of government. Ideally it is the best form of government, the problem is that it has (so far) never been truely practised in any country. Sure we've had Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism and Castroism. 'Communism' to many is a euphamism for ruthless dictatorship, when in fact communism should rely on the party not the leader. It is my belief that the Communist nations of China and Cuba would be significantly worse off if they were democracies as they would have been brought to heel under the burgeoning might of the US dollar, just as Russia has and be subject to vast corruption where the poor weren't cared for at all. Lets bear in mind that in the states the poorest sections of society are left to rot, people die because they cannot afford health insurance, if you are born poor you are destined for a life of social deprivation and gang crime and are liable to die young with a bullet in your back.

I don't belive Saddam Hussien is right. I just believe that the US should try and get its house in order before trying to order others, the same is true for Britain.

The Bible Studying Bush Administration would do well to remember the christian saying:

" First take the plank out of thine own eye before taking the splinter out of another's"

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Even idealogically, communism as flawed as the idea that everyone is equal is quite obviously wrong - so unless everyone were to be indentical it was still suck.

[Guest]

Another brilliant post by Al.

This is all you resort too now, complaining about contracts given to US companies? Take a look into those contracts, you’ll find most of those contracts have to do with rebuilding Iraq and its infrastructure. From the beginning the US promised they would help rebuild Iraq after the removal of Saddam’s regime. So why criticize them for standing by their word?

[thewesman]

[s]Emma wrote on 09:24, 27th Mar 2003:
If it's legitimate to bomb TV stations showing pro-government propoganda, then the Iraqis must be entitled to blow up the Fox headquarters.

Personally, I can't wait.


You're simply amazing. I just can't understand how you anti-war people will say anything to justify the existence and even protection of someone so evil as Saddam.

You act like Iraqi TV is the BBC or CNN. It is nothing but a propaganda mouthpiece for Saddam and his regime. It does nothing but tell lies and is an impediment to the coalition mission. It is a very legitimate target.

And if Saddam's people can pull-off blowing-up Fox News, then they need seriously re-evaluate their priorities. I would say hiding in the deepest, darkest hole they can find would be good for starters, as they will not make it out alive.

[thewesman]

[s]_buff_ wrote on 12:55, 27th Mar 2003:[i]
For what it is worth, I am pro-war however I believe that war must be legal, fair and that each and every military intervention must be justifiable in accordance with international humanitarian law.


Legal? Okay, I can agree with that in principle. Fair? Holy cow! Fair? Are supposed to fire a shot and then let Saddam fire back, tit for tat? Fair? That is so laughable. An unfair advantage is what you dream of in war. You see the goal is to kill as many of their soldiers as you can before they kill your soldiers. (Please don't make some snide remark about coalition troops killing civilians - Saddam is the one who kills his own people, uses them for human shields, lets his son rape the women, etc., etc). Our troops have gone out of their way and at risk to their own lives to not target civilians.

Justified military intervention? In case you forgot, UN Res. 1441 gave all the legal and justifiable reasons we need. Saddam has thumbed his nose at the world for years and finally, Bush and Blair had the guts to hold his feet to the fire. The UN is full of a bunch of mamby-pamby appeasers on the one hand and ruthless dictators on the other hand. Yeah, Saddam was really scared of them.

[thewesman]

[s]Al wrote on 10:00, 3rd Apr 2003:
[i]"A raw deal"


But back to the war. Isn't it strange how a war of liberation turned so quickly into a war of conquest?

Shouldn't reconstruction be the responsibility of the Iraqi people through the ballot box, or an interim civilian government?

Let's face it, the Americans behaviour has all the character of imperialism except the one crucial aspect - knowing the people whom you are seeking to conquer and rule. Sorry, liberate!
[/i]
Your comments are beyond idiotic. Name one time where the US has done something imperialistic. Germany still belongs to the Germans, doesn't it? Japan still belongs the the Japanese doesn't it? Please tell me about America's long history of imperialism.

Oh, wait, I know what you must be referring to: It's the billions upon billions of dollars that the US gives to virtually every other country in the world. And we do this every year. We are such evil imperialistic bastards for the way we give away money. You will be eating your words in a few short weeks, maybe even days, when you see the Iraqi's dancing in the streets, celebrating their emancipation from that evil bastard Saddam.

And in a few short months, maybe years, the Iraqi people will have their own government and self-rule. We don't want to own anyone else's land. We don't want to have to be the welfare provider for the rest of the world and we definitely don't want to support Iraq indefinitely. Once Saddam is not hoarding all of the country's wealth for himself, the Iraqi people will prosper.

I'm so sick of you Europeans wagging your fingers at us and accusing us of doing evil things. Half of Europe is too cowardly to stand up to anyone and invariably it is left to us to clean up these messes.

You should be thanking us.

[thewesman]

[s]The_Farwall wrote on 10:54, 1st Sep 2002:
You see, that's the thing that's bugging me about it. I'm beginning to recognise that perhaps it is going to be a necessary evil but just the morals of the logic behind invading Iraq are, on a very basic level, dodgy to say the least.

Would it have been moral for the US to invade Nazi Germany if Hitler had not attacked the rest of Europe, but had killed millions of Jews? I suppose your answer is no. The only target of the US in this war is Saddam and his regime, which includes those soldiers fighting for him. The only one targeting Iraqi civilians is Saddam.

However, after these months of the US making it's intentions to attack Iraq very public, Sadam now has just as much justification as the west the use his weapons in self defence.

I don't think the word "justification" is the right word. The reason we're that, in large part, is because of his WMDs. If he used them, it makes our action all the more justified.

If we turn the camera around and put Iraq in the place of the US and vice versa the picture, at this point, would still make perfect sense.

It would make perfect sense? Holy cow! Last time I checked the US government wasn't dragging its citizens off to torture chambers for such heinous crimes as saying they don't like President Bush. I'm pretty sure we don't as a practice hand people in public squares for dissenting from the government, stick them in plastic shredders just to hear them scream, have government sanctioned rape, etc, etc, etc.

You act so intellectual, but you're so morally bankrupt. This discussion boils down to is political differences and just plain jealousy. The US gives billions upon billions of dollars away every year to just about everyone with a hand out to take it. Yeah, we're so evil with the way we take American tax dollars (i.e. money from American citizens) and give it to everyone else in the world.

Your equivicating Saddam and President Bush is telling about your moral bankruptcy. You would rather support the continued existence of Saddam, than the most generous nation in the world. Sad. Simply sad.