You are not logged in.


Sunday, July 10th 2005, 4:24am

I agree with most of what you say Hoo except this statement..


An unprovoken attack on Iraq - even if a criminal and evil system was destroyed - and Guantanamo Bay provide enough material to show that no side considers Geneva seriously.

First and foremost Saddam almost on a daily basis broke ceicefire agreements made with the U.S. shooting at planes legally patroling no fly zones recognized by the UN, he also defied 18 UN resolutions, and his forces attempted to assassinate the first president Bush.

For any other nation, this would be ample motive to renew hostility's, but because the U.S. is the lone superpower they are chastised for this action. The use of the terms "multi-lateral" and "uni-lateral" have been twisted to serve both sides of the arguement. The U.S. is accused of "unilaterally" starting the war dispite having many allies. The reality is even multi-lateral alliances are formed by the will of one nation that presses its case and convinces others to join the cause.

Let us also not forget the result of Saddams stimied support of Palestinian terrorist organization. Now Israel and Palestine have a very real hope of achieving peace through compromise, compromise Saddam and others were not wiling to permit.

The war on terror is not simply on Osama and his thugs, though they are the main target, its on the very idiology that premotes the growth of these groups, an idiology that strives for the distruction of Israel, the instalation of a worldwide theocracy, and repression of human rights to conform to thier interpritation of Islam.

If we had not gone to Iraq or Afganistan they would still attack Spain because it was once Muslim controled, they would still attack Britain for the creation of Israel and they would still attack the U.S. for being decadent and Immoral.

As for Gitmo, those who do not follow the Geneva convention rules are not subject to its protection nor are those who break the rule of law exempt from prosicution or incarceration. Dispite this detainees at Gitmo get fed quite well (better than the average U.S. soldier) and even get a Quran or other holy book of their choosing. They get treated better at Gitmo than they do when captured for their crimes in their own country's.


Sunday, July 10th 2005, 11:21am

I can think of a few hypocritical things;

The US came up a worldwide agreement banning the use of landmines. Almost every country in the world signed it, apart from the US.

The US armed forces use shotguns which are specifically banned by Geneva(or is it the Hague?)

Can we please end this discussion now? Either by locking this thread, or just shutting up.


Sunday, July 10th 2005, 12:36pm

If its too sensitive a topic I'm willing to forgo further discusion. Hopefully all our members in the UK are not dirrectly effected by the London tragedy's.


Sunday, July 10th 2005, 3:54pm

Actually I would call the first "modern" example of targeting civilians in war to demoralize the enemy and take out his infrustructure would be General Sherman....marched to the sea after burning Atlanta. 1864-1865 I think.

And yes, it is about time for this to end.