It has now been from over fifteen people that I have heard a comment that to me is very alarming in regards to Iraq. Many more in regards to Israel. The statement is basically "how else do you expect them to fight?" The question; "Are you aware Iraq is breaking rules of war and international laws?" The funniest thing is, every one of those who've expressed this belief have been pro-peace. And almost every one, if memory serves, argued that the United States is leading an illegal war (which is actually not true - but a popular propoganda phrase for the peace side).

Anyway, the question is about Iraqi troops. Should international law and rules of war apply to Iraqi solidiers and commanders? To phrase this another way; should international law and rules of war apply to only the army which is stronger?

I watched an interview today with an ex-major from the Iraqi army on CBC. When asked about Iraq's respect of international law and rules of war he said that Iraqi's (that is, those in military/government positions) feel the rules of war were written by the superpowers and therefore do not apply to Iraq.

And I've seen a number of people back this sentiment. A few of our members have said straight out, as I said earlier, that there is no other way for Iraq to fight, therefore they should use break rules of war. My question is - what is the logic for this? It seems to me that saying Iraq can use any method it wishes is to say that any military struggle should be fought on the basis of both sides having an equal chance of winning. To me this seems a little ridiculous. So far I've seen no actual logic to show why the rules of war should not apply to Iraq. Just a lot of people saying "They have no other way!" Well, that's grand. The US was getting in trouble in Vietnam. The Vietnamese were use to the terrain, the Americans had no idea what they were doing. It would have been okay, then, if they'd just nuked 'em? Or as Slobadan and his cronies began to go down, how about if they'd lined up every civilian in a town and shot them through the head?

So.....
Well, I've asked a few questions now I guess.

Rules of war and international law apply to everyone. I can't really see any valid exception to this.

It has now been from over fifteen people that I have heard a comment that to me is very alarming in regards to Iraq.

oh the drama!

Many more in regards to Israel. The statement is basically "how else do you expect them to fight?" The question; "Are you aware Iraq is breaking rules of war and international laws?" The funniest thing is, every one of those who've expressed this belief have been pro-peace.

funny? that means you see a contradiction b/w being pro peace and not upholding the rules of engagement?
(i do not see how an illegal war can have any rules. how does it go? for instance, before you attack and bomb the shit out of me, you advise me on what i can and cannot do to defend my self - that is frikkin hilarious!)

And almost every one, if memory serves, argued that the United States is leading an illegal war (which is actually not true - but a popular propoganda phrase for the peace side).

ok just so i am clear on this; how do you conclude that this is a legal war? be very specific! show me legal citations. your opinion is not good enough

Originally posted by Nightpoet
Rules of war and international law apply to everyone. I can't really see any valid exception to this. Iraq is an exception right? I didn't hear the U.N. condemn their murder of PoWs...

"severe consequences"
Those words, in UN resolution, can easily be interpruted as war. I've said it before and I'll say it again - every word is used for a specific reason in law.

The French idea of "severe consequences" is a four-month long continuation of inspections followed by more discussion by the UN and no chance of war.
The Russian idea is the same.....unless they get their money out of Iraq, then they don't care.
The Chinese haven't suggested much (actually - to be honest, not much taht I've heard of is more exact)
The British and the US interpret "severe consequences" to mean war.

The simple fact is that the resolution does leave room for war. There's a very good reason the UN isn't actually pushing very hard for the US to be tried - they wouldn't win.

:)

whose resolution is it?

us to be tried? how? what body? has the us signed on?

what about you tyler
rules of engagement= knives only, cuts above the belt.
i then attack your house with the intent of killing you

what would you do? gonna play nice?


;)

Originally posted by spookz
It has now been from over fifteen people that I have heard a comment that to me is very alarming in regards to Iraq.

oh the drama!

Many more in regards to Israel. The statement is basically "how else do you expect them to fight?" The question; "Are you aware Iraq is breaking rules of war and international laws?" The funniest thing is, every one of those who've expressed this belief have been pro-peace.

funny? that means you see a contradiction b/w being pro peace and not upholding the rules of engagement?
(i do not see how an illegal war can have any rules. how does it go? for instance, before you attack and bomb the shit out of me, you advise me on what i can and cannot do to defend my self - that is frikkin hilarious!)

And almost every one, if memory serves, argued that the United States is leading an illegal war (which is actually not true - but a popular propoganda phrase for the peace side).

ok just so i am clear on this; how do you conclude that this is a legal war? be very specific! show me legal citations. your opinion is not good enough


LOL.Dude......nice.

Tyler

Once again, you're miscalculating what you criticize, essentially tilting windmills.

Nobody's saying it's right that Iraq breaks the rules of war. But this is acknowledged to be an illegal, brutal, petulant regime. Seriously: What else did you expect?

Of course, I don't know a whole lot of peaceniks who support Israeli brutality against the Palestinians, but since you're obviously the expert on the minds of peaceniks, we'll accept your gospel truths.And almost every one, if memory serves, argued that the United States is leading an illegal war (which is actually not true - but a popular propoganda phrase for the peace side). Question: Is the United States violating its obligations to the United Nations?

Yes or no?

What's your answer?

In the meantime, please support your assertion instead of just assert. if it's just a popular propaganda phrase, why not gut it right here and now?When asked about Iraq's respect of international law and rules of war he said that Iraqi's (that is, those in military/government positions) feel the rules of war were written by the superpowers and therefore do not apply to Iraq. It's an extended argument from historical considerations. If a nation achieves a new technology, it declares all prior technology as "illegal". If the US hadn't come up with atomic weapons, we would still rely on chemical and possibly biological weapons. Where Iraq is coming from in this consideration is to simply say, "Of course, if we could afford fleets of carriers, nuclear submarines, B-2's, and a gaggle of smart bombs, and could attack ill-equipped armies from hundreds of miles away, we would probably complain about chemical weapons just like the Americans do."

However, insofar as Iraq is a member of the UN and entitled to its considerations, the rules of war do apply to it.

So in the end, yes, the madmen will be destroyed or prosecuted. But come on--it's a f:eek:cking war! I live in a nation that played nuclear brinkmanship with the world. I live in a nation that invents new terms for prisoners of war in order to circumvent the Geneva Conventions.

So it seems to me the question is: If Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons (duh) and knows he's going to lose the war (duh), why would he not use them?

One of the things that makes me wonder about your examples, Tyler, is that you seem to meet some of the stupidest people I've ever heard of. Sure, I know war dogs who literally believe in the utmost extremity of Bush Doctrine aggression--that we should literally take over the world--but I'm not about to ascribe these idiots to the whole of the rabid war movement. In the meantime, I know of no peaceniks who say, "How do you expect them to fight?" Rather, I know many peaceniks who say, "Well, what did you expect?"

I know what the word "basically" implies in a person's summary of their opponent. I personally think you're investing your frustration in a self-made bigotry against people who think differently than you.My question is - what is the logic for this? I can't believe you really need it explained to you.

So the Iraqi regime has a choice:

1) Surrender and be prosecuted
2) Fight back according to the rules of war, lose, and be prosecuted
3) Fight back with everything they've got, lose, and be prosecuted

What would you do, Tyler?

It's not that they should break the rules of war, but that they're quite expected to. Please do not tell me that the campaign planners did not account for this; it would fuck up their pre-war rhetoric about how dangerous Hussein is; they were well aware.

If the Soviets and the Chinese had attacked the US at the end of the Cold War instead of just watching the Iron Curtain fall apart, with fire raining down over the United States, would you expect the US to not use everything it has in its arsenal (e.g. nukes) to defend itself?

Whether the Hussein regime is legitimate or not is irrelevant to the issue at this point. There are invaders coming and be damned if Hussein won't empty the arsenals.It would have been okay, then, if they'd just nuked 'em? We nuked Japan on the pretense that it was the easier, more humane thing to do.

Anybody can choose to violate the rules of war. All is fair in love and war, and it's winning and losing that determines whether your actions were right or wrong.

And, after the war, the remaining members of the Iraqi regime will be prosecuted for their war crimes. And perhaps George Bush will be as well (as if ...).

There is a subtle problem, though, that goes undiscussed merely because the war party chooses to ignore certain facts. This is an illegal war. That will provide a hell of a defense for chemical weapons war criminals. It may, in fact, provide a defense for the treatment of our POW's. It seems a small detail, worth overlooking compared to a free and unfettered (ha!) Iraq. But it makes all the difference in the world after the shooting is over and the final tally is drawn. And, if we lose on any postwar counts because of the illegality of this war ... well, what are you going to do, blame the Democrats?

The Iraqi Bush War is a violation of the rules of war in the first place. That doesn't change what Saddam and his cronies do, but it does give whatever's left of that crew some leverage when this is all over.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

The Geneva conventions should IMO be respected and warcriminals prosecuted for low-life tactics like we see from some of the republican guard etc etc.. BUT:

Let me just ask the part of the pro-war people who seem to have embraced the Geneva Convention suddenly, if they themselves can manage to refrain from low-life tactics or just doing-what-it-takes should for example the Mexican army approach the gates of washington (nukes, ambushes, whatever) ???

Civilisation is only a small layer of paint.

Oh comon the proof so far of iraqis executing POW's consist of claims by the coallition that some of the casualties they have seen appear to have bullet wounds to the head.
You know in war people get shot in all sorts of funny places.
How about those Iraqis that were found full of lead in a trench with an empty gun and a white flag?
What about that bus full of people, they still wont say WHAT people, that was blown up fleeing advancing coallition troops killing dozens.
If Iraq invaded the USA would the people that came out with their guns and baseball bats realllllly be so worried about the geneva convention??

The rules of war to stick to them to the letter is a joke and no nation on earth has done this no matter what they claim its just not possable to have a nice clean war like that, this isn't a freaking football match.
Besides so far the "Dirty tactics" i've heard

Dressing as civillians - Erm...the CIA do this all the time and not to mention many of them at the moment ARE Civillians but the coallition have re-classified them "Irregular soldiers" or "Terrorists".

Pretending to surrender then opening fire - Not seen any proof of this and anyone who has any clue how we deal with surrendering forces will know they are considered deadly until they are face down on the floor with a gun to their head so this claim that they did this and managed to kill us is a joke made by ignorant people.

Using Civillians as human shields - I'll admit i've only seen reports of this from biased far right news sources so far, and given the lies spewed out that have already been proved false by them during this war until i see some proof i simply assume this is more bs trying to turn opinon against Iraq.

They have artillary in cities and so its their fault we are forced to attack them in the city and cause civillian deaths - oh comon, you expect them to put them out in the desert where they will just get bombed the fuck out of? you back them into the city you can't blame them of beind dirty, we did the exact same thing in WWII and such like when we are under attack we have artillary in and about towns to "Defend them" from ground and air troops, when they do it its "A calculated move to cause civillian casualties"

The interviews by Al jazera of POW's - The first days of the war showed coallition troops with dead iraqis and several POWS on the floor face in the dirt of kneeling with guns to their heads and a US Marine pouring water on his face with the title "We are brining mercy".......Compare pictures of Iraqi POWs kneeling with a gun to his head to American POWs after being interviewd by a news crew...which is more disturbing????
So the show dead bodies? oh horror no not that, war shouldnt be about death its about liberation and peace....what they dont mention also is the pictured of the civillian deaths, the pictures of little girls with their heads blown across the street from Coallition "Smart bombs".
If anything the bombing by the US or a civillian TV station killing Civillian news crews because they were damaging US Propaganda was a worse war crime that anything the Iraqis have done so far and against the Geneva convention but i forget, America is exempt from that.

I'm in the middle of school so I can't reply at any length, but.....


"It's not that they should break the rules of war, but that they're quite expected to. Please do not tell me that the campaign planners did not account for this; it would fuck up their pre-war rhetoric about how dangerous Hussein is; they were well aware."

This I don't agree with. I am talking about people actually saying - 'That's the only way they can fight' and writing it off. Here, I'll quote one member of sciforums that made me finally post this (emphasis mine):

By the way, how can you or anyone fault the Iraqis not only for using tactics like being dressed as civilians, but also using chemical weapons (which everyone knows they have)?

I fully expect them to use these tactics. I'm fairly certain that when we reach Baghdad, they will use chems (though, this is of course an unfounded belief - it's just my relatively educated guess). However, I expect those caught who commited war crimes to be tried. So far, I've heard otherwise from a number of sciforums members. If you disagree with the statement that those who carry out war crimes should be tried as war criminals - then we have an arguement. Otherwise, Tiassa, it seems you and I agree and I don't see a problem.

Well, Tyler ... this is another one of those times when I'm disappointed at the "lack of vision" of those who disagree with me.

You make good points, but should I hold the lot of you war dogs responsible for the prig who said anti-war protesters should be shot?

I know you're looking and watching the situation, but I honestly question your perception. Your approach to the war is a little like the atheist to Christianity at Sciforums, and vice-versa. Examples: You get upset at public speakers for doing what's expected of them; you get upset at peaceniks for being tired and desperate as anyone would be after working so hard and so furiously just to be disrespected by the brutes with the guns and bombs.

Why is any of this about the people who oppose the war? Is the war itself truly a secondary consideration? And if so, then where were the peaceniks wrong? There are a number of pro-war protesters who seem to treat this whole thing as a joke, as if this war is just a bunch of killing for their entertainment. Should I automatically apply the ignorance of Mr. G or the childishness of Jerrek to you? Should I, with a war afoot, choose to spend my days being a bigot?

And speaking of which, how about the right to draw some conclusions? Where the hell is the war party? If war is such an awful thing, a last resort, a tragedy, why is it that none of you will discuss the routes to peace? How long should I let the war dogs continue to treat human destruction as an occasion for humor and egotism? How long, in other words, should I continue to pretend that the people I'm arguing with have any dignity worth respecting?

Should I take Dr. Lou Natic's spiteful attempt to disrupt a topic seeking methods to peace as representative of the whole Sciforums War Club? Do you all hate peace that much that you won't contribute to it? And how long should I go on pretending that the war party is a bunch of people who have simply reached the end of their rope instead of the violent bigots they're representing themselves to be?

What would you like, Tyler? Shall we all take your route and start blowing up our personal frustrations to the point of absolute and pointless generalism? Remember, you war dogs are more consistent in your rhetoric than the peace movement; and beyond that, your fringe elements are downright dangerous; shall I really treat you according to the standard you set, Tyler?

Seems to me that, in other topics where I've done so, you haven't liked it.

So should I extrapolate the example you set and apply that shallow hypocrisy to the whole of the war party?

Or, since that hypocrisy does tend to run common among your ilk, would it be a better idea to simply sit back and wait for the lot of you to raise the inevitable points? I don't need to invent thing to resent; if I'm patient enough, the war party will be forthcoming. All you need to do is wait for a war dog to open their mouth. I keep hoping to be impressed, but in respecting anything about the war party at this point I'm running on more faith than a hundred starving Jehovah's Witnesses.

A "busload of faith", if I might be permitted to abuse Lou Reed for a moment; and what is that you've got strapped to yourself as you get on the bus?

Faith is not immortal. Keep bombing it, and I will eventually submit to the objective realities of my perception of people.

My advice is that when someone says something stupid, such as the example you provided, hold them to it, make them clarify. Don't just go take it out on other people because it's more entertaining that way.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Anyway, the question is about Iraqi troops. Should international law and rules of war apply to Iraqi solidiers and commanders? To phrase this another way; should international law and rules of war apply to only the army which is stronger?

The strongest are the ones that dictate what is just and injust, correct? My knowledge is a bit sketchy on the "rules of war," however I believe that some have been established for a good deal of time. This means that the stronger force, the United States, didn't just create a ton of rules that the Iraqis would have to go against in order to fight (i.e--If the U.S is fighting another nation, that other nation must use whips instead of rifles) in the first place. It applies to all sides, however, the stronger ones with greater influence can break them and generally suffer no consequences.

I watched an interview today with an ex-major from the Iraqi army on CBC. When asked about Iraq's respect of international law and rules of war he said that Iraqi's (that is, those in military/government positions) feel the rules of war were written by the superpowers and therefore do not apply to Iraq.

I can see where they're coming from. Saying that all nations must follow a set of rules is implying firstly that the whole world is actually, at the very least, somewhat of a loose confederacy, which it is most definitely not. I think that many of the actions committed during a war are wrong, however, more often than not, the winning side escapes from suffering the consequences of these actions. It leaves us at a bit of a dilemna.

Tyler, I'm not perfectly clear as to where you stand on the war. I have a pretty good feeling that you're pro-war (based on tiassa's post;)). If you wouldn't mind, either here or via p/m, would you post why you feel that the war is the right thing to do? Thanks, and farewell!

"severe consequences"
Those words, in UN resolution, can easily be interpruted as war.

every one has opinions. the question is who's opinion counts. yours? mine? the sec council? france, usa?

I've said it before and I'll say it again

silly little boy! you crack me up

- every word is used for a specific reason in law.

frikkin explain yourself! do you think you can get away with spouting shit without offering reasons? what is this reason, who used it? if it is "severe consequence" you are talking about, explain why this particular wording was used. tell me how you know this

Otherwise, Tiassa, it seems you and I agree and I don't see a problem.

"there is no fucking escape in here" (mallory knox - nbk)

"Why is any of this about the people who oppose the war? Is the war itself truly a secondary consideration? And if so, then where were the peaceniks wrong?"

This is, I think, the second time you've asked me this. My question is - what indicates to you that I count this as the foremost issue? I have participated in numerous threads about the validity of this war. I have PMed a number of members. I have debated on here in almost all threads that have been polite and mature (and many are not). I have only participated in two threads about the protestors themselves. So what on god's earth makes you think I consider this the most important issue? I really can't see one thing.


"Should I automatically apply the ignorance of Mr. G or the childishness of Jerrek to you? Should I, with a war afoot, choose to spend my days being a bigot?"

I don't apply my bias to all peaceniks though. In the last thread I was ranting about the peacefolk around me - and it's a view that I still hold. Like I said in that thread, the people around me are anti-war at the base. That is, everyone is anti-war whether they know anything about the situation or not. I find this disturbing. This thread is about a point I've heard raised by a number of people pro-peace. Thus I posted it as a question. Please notice the numerous questions in my opening post - eh?


"war is such an awful thing, a last resort, a tragedy, why is it that none of you will discuss the routes to peace?"

Well..... I believe I've asked you in specific about other routes to solving the problem - no?


"Should I automatically apply the ignorance of Mr. G or the childishness of Jerrek to you? Should I, with a war afoot, choose to spend my days being a bigot?"

Where in this thread did I apply it to all peaceniks?


"Don't just go take it out on other people because it's more entertaining that way."

Perhaps I don't read my own writing that well - but as far as I can see my opening post does not at all take it out on anyway. It asks questions. If you're against me asking questions, then I'm not sure how I'm suppose to clarify things.

Originally posted by Jerrek
Iraq is an exception right? I didn't hear the U.N. condemn their murder of PoWs...

Um, in my view, no. I guess I should rephrase-rules of war SHOULD apply to everyone.