Saddam Hussein -- U.S break Geneva Convention again

[Miss Jasmine]

jj...Then maybe you would like to explain the Northern Ireland conflict...not meaning to get sidetracked, but I wonder how it is truly a religious battle when it is over land??!!??!! If asked to pick sides though, I say let the people of Ireland control all of their own land. Novel thought, huh.

Okay maybe I went a little overboard on "supporting" the evil dictator, I guess it is more simply you are wanting to "protect" the war criminal from simply having his picture shown. It's not like he was getting electrical shocks, or they were dragging him through the streets. Proof was being offered up so the PEOPLE OF IRAQ could be assured that their attacker, their demonic leader, was no longer running free. Yeah what a horrible thing the coalition forces did.

 

[jjcollins]

Miss Jasmine your quite right

I say let the people of Ireland control all of their own land

Thats why the people of Ireland have there own goverment.

Not giving you a geography lesson but Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom lol


Back to the main issue -- i don't think it was his picture -- it was the video of him being beamed around the world in clear breech of the LAW. I know you don't like to hear but the U'S broke the LAW.




jj........

 

[poohandwendy]

jj,

So, if your opinion is that US 'broke the law', what do you think would be fitting 'punishment'?

 

[JDY]

I just want to clarify that I do not support Saddam Hussein. He was a horrible dictator who was responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people. It is good that he is no longer in power.

But what would have happened had we not stated the war? They have no WMD - as the inspectors kept telling us. There were no ties to Osama - the White House was even forced to admit it. So how were we, the United States, threatened by this horrible man? Surely there are just as evil people elsewhere in the world. I guess it makes me angry that hundreds of young American men and women gave their lives for something that presented no threat to the American way of life. But I FULLY support our troops and wish them nothing but safety and a long happy life.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Funny I look at a map and see Northern Ireland being a part of Ireland. It's a shame that there are such problems and issues. Ireland is such a beautiful country, especially in the north. I talked to some families last time I was in Ireland, and they were on vacation from the North because of problems going on at the time and not wanting to be there. I am looking forward to another trip visiting my DH's family. Anyway, wishing everyone peace. This thread had me upset and I said some things that maybe I shouldn't have. I should have just hit the back button.

 

[jjcollins]

Miss Jasmine don't feel bad -- cheer up your in the land of the free -- merry christmas from over here


jj........

 

[mickeyminnie]

is that the government doesn't control the media, (ever hear of watergate). If the media gets a hold a a photo or video clip and decides to run it constantly there is really nothing anyone can do. I think it makes it look like the US is posting the pics of whoever all over the world but really it is the fault of the media for the constant coverage of that and nothing else.


If you actually watched the President's speech you would have seen a man showing great restraint. He did not gloat, he didn't even really smile, although I feel he was holding it back. Officials up and down the country have publically stated what a great day this is for Iraq as well as the Americans involved in the war.


We have heard little else official since the initial capture, there have not been floods of other photos of him being paraded around in handcuffs or the like, of interrogations, or anything. Don't you think the greedy media would flood the airwaves with anything they can get there hands on.


So to say that the government is a fault for what you perceive as a violation of international law is at best shortsighted. They released a small amount of video information and the media went to town with it. I believe the people of Iraq and the coalition forces deserved to see that footage. Without video proof and even that may not be enough for some, many would not believe he had been captured.



As to the US putting SH into power, well that is unfortunate. I don't know the whole story, actually who does?, but I feel that at least on some level there was a fight fire with fire type of thing. Mistakes are certainly made on a daily basis. There is no reliable way to predict the future.

I am tired of the big bad US image so many like to scream about. We are all bad all consuming power hungry world rapists, no doubt about it (NOT). Maybe we should take all our toys and go home, put up a big wall and let the rest of the world go to hell. It amazes me the rest of the world can hate us so much but still beg for our business and hold out their hand. Yes I guess there is no perfect place. There are dirty dealings from one side of the world to the other.

What is the saying about power and corruption?


Of course things can always be done better, what person or persons cannot be held to that standard. That is why we bother to study history to attempt to avoid repeating the same mistakes.


I still don't think the US violated any of his rights by allowing that footage out.

 

[TiggerPiglet]

Mickeyminnie, I totally agree with you.
Also I'd like to point out, the war was declared over in early May, I believe. So how can he be a prisoner of war, when the war has been over for months? The U.S. is still there basically to stablize the country so they can establish a new government, to find WMD and to capture wanted criminals; i.e., Saddam Hussein.

 

[Teejay32]

Originally posted by macs4us
Oh, and the last report I saw, most Iraqis don't know about Saddam's capture, as they don't have access to information as readily as we do - you are seeing what our media wants you to see.

ummm.....no. I think a three-day national holiday has been declared. (Seriously!) Better check that "report" again.

 

[Kismetdreams]

jj,

Just thought I'd help you out, since you are so fond of posting this here....

From your post...Try reading ALL the words.

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Sub 2 states quite clearly that you must fulfill the following conditions and sub 2 (d) states that you must cunduct operations in accordance with the laws and customs of laws.

SH. Did not comply with that, thus he is not a POW, but a war criminial.

Obviously I will never convince you, but the law is quite clear and YOU are quite wrong.

 

[PamOKW]

Originally posted by JDY
Surely there are just as evil people elsewhere in the world.

I certainly hope not!!! Saddam is among the most evil dictators to have walked the face of the earth. He is the type we hope comes along only once in a generation.

 

[JDY]

Prisoners of war...are persons belonging to one of the following categories

So it is either 1 or 2. SH as leader of the Iraqi army would fall under #1.

Part 2 states that members of other militias and volunteer groups could receive POW status if they have a, b, c, and d.

The key here is Armed Forces versus Militias. Saddam would unequivocally be considered a member of the Armed Forces of Iraq and not a Militia member.

So, CLEARLY, he should receive POW status. He is ALSO a war criminal as he was wanted for crimes against humanity.

This thread is getting ridiculous. There are those who believe that the war was illegal and that US foreign policy is a dismal failure. There are those who believe the opposite. POW or War Criminal – the point is moot.

The best we can do now is move on and hope, for the sake of our troops, that the conflict ends soon.

Happy Holidays!

 

[JDY]

Originally posted by PamOKW
I certainly hope not!!! Saddam is among the most evil dictators to have walked the face of the earth. He is the type we hope comes along only once in a generation.

Check out this site: Really Bad People

Happy Holidays

 

[Yzma and Kronk]

Originally posted by jjcollins
[

Weapons of Mass Destruction -- Had to laugh at this -- does anyone really think there are any ????


jj........ [/B]

jj - from my post over at the debate board:

BY DANIEL HENNINGER
Friday, June 13, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT

We don't have access to those intelligence estimates, but you don't need them to be able to form an intelligent opinion about the basis for invading Iraq. Anyone can do that by visiting the Web site for UNSCOM, the U.N. inspection force.

In its first report, issued in October 1991, under U.N. Security Council Resolution 687, UNSCOM's inspectors said: "Conclusive evidence that Iraq was engaged in an advanced military biological research programme has been collected. No evidence of actual weaponization has been found, but the inspections have provided a sound database for future monitoring of biological capabilities in Iraq. Details are given in appendix IV."

Please read the nine other reports on Iraq's WMD program issued under UNSCR 687 until December 1995. And read the eight reports under UNSCR 715 between April 1992 and October 1995; and finally UNSCR 1051's eight reports from April 1996 till October 1999, the year after Saddam kicked the U.N. out of Iraq.

Presumably this mountain of U.N. on-site inspections, in public for any serious person to spend a week reading, may be regarded as a subset of the Bush fraud and fiction now being intimated about the U.S. intelligence estimates. Leaving aside their overwhelming evidence of Saddam's WMD programs, the constant theme across nine years' inspecting is Iraq's unrelenting refusal to cooperate.

That policy of refusal culminated, this past November, in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the one France got from George Bush, with which Saddam also refused to comply. France and Germany then asked for the fifth inspections resolution since the process began back in 1991 when the first team found "conclusive" evidence of an advanced biological weapons program. Instead, we went to war.

The proponents of this current thesis, that the war's basis has damaged U.S. "credibility," are the same people who since 1991 have been willing to move the goal posts constantly downfield for Saddam Hussein, a proven proliferator of WMD who should have been ousted when a premature cease-fire was declared in February 1991, or anytime in 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 and in every month that he was up and running--until March 2003. Now he, and his WMD proliferation nightmare are gone. Good.


Had to laugh at your comment.........I just think it's unbelievable that people need someone to show them the actual weapons (or is that against the Geneva convention too???.....can't parade captured tool of war on TV????" )
Do you think he was just "playing" with the UN when they asked him to prove he didn't have them?? Get real!
Do we have to wait until a nuclear device is detonated over a major US city, instead of a 767 aircraft hitting a building.......to say, "ooops, I guess he was a threat after all" (and please don't give me the argument that it's not Husseim, but the "other" terrorists......)

Off topic: I just finished a very interesting read which brings to light one woman's account of her survival under Saddam Husseim.
It's called "Mayada, Daughter of Iraq" by Jean Sasson.

That's my opinion....

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by Miss Jasmine
Also amazing is Three Circles and Travis (okay maybe not so amazing), maybe you two can incorporate dress codes, too.

Not too sure what the two have in common here. But, um, perhaps you can stay on topic and discuss the issue at hand? Oh, wait, perhaps not...

 

[Dan Murphy]

Originally posted by JDY
.......This thread is getting ridiculous.................Happy Holidays!

Well said, JDY!!!!!!

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by PamOKW
I certainly hope not!!! Saddam is among the most evil dictators to have walked the face of the earth. He is the type we hope comes along only once in a generation.

No, really, you're kidding, right?

Just to take one example, consider China.

China has LONG been known for its extensive abuses of human rights. Actions such as killing girl babies as a form of population control, torture and repression of those who seek other systems of beliefs, and denial of representation in government have been well-established and continue. They also have nuclear weapons and, if I were to guess, biological and chemical as well.

Now, what's so different between China and Iraq? China has killed tens of thousands of its own people (if not more), China has made threats to other nations in the region, and China has a dictator that controls the country as he wishes.

So, why not attack China? If Iraq and SH are supposedly "linked" to terrorism, than I'm sure we could make the same argument for China!

The difference is that the U.S. couldn't attack China. They have a standing army of 3 million, more combat aircraft than the U.S., an incomprehensible land area, and, once again, nuclear weapons.

Of course, we cannot forget the trade and economy that they support. All of these factors allow the U.S. to "overlook" the atrocities of China and focus on the "big problem" of Iraq.

Let's not pretend that SH was even a pawn in the arena of world affairs.

 

[noel]

To ThreeCircles, JDY and jj I'm not sure if I could say anymore than what you have said. We're not saying SH is a great guy who deserves to roam free and reign terror on his people.

I just wish that the US would admit it's role in SH's rise to power. All the news networks and papers in the last 24 hrs have shown timelines of Saddam's rise to power - somehow it neglects to include a very crutial part of his rise. In 1980 after Iran attacked Irag, the Reagan administration was scared Iran's revolution of Islam would spread, so they starting giving SH intelligence info and also WEAPONS.

It frightens me to see how people see CNN or their local news when so much other information about what our government is doing and not telling you via the internet. Take a few minutes OFF the DIS and check out some of the links on this page. It won't take but a few minutes of reading to see what the hell is really happening and the lies that the American citizens and rest of the world have all been told.

http://www.pitt.edu/~ttwiss/irtf/iraq.html#anchor1401104

Some of you can't stomach the idea of looking at pages that are anti-Bush or clearly more liberal than you care to see, but it's the TRUTH.

 

[jjcollins]

Kismetdreams try reading it again slowly

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;


Yzma and Kronk - Was the reason we went to war not Weapons of Mass Destruction - thats all we heard day in day out -- he'll use them in 45 mins he's near to making a atom bomb - it was all spoof to get us into the war. Not a thing found lol


I don't see the U.S rushing into North Korean lol wonder why or China.

U.S.A The police of the world -- well countries they think they can win in lol

jj.......

 

[jjcollins]

Well said noel some people have memory lost or can't stomach the idea there country helped this guy.



jj......