Unnatural Disaster : Iraq

LMAO!!! You didn't list the conditions! Note that in order to meet the criteria the militia has to meet all of the conditions. Ok let's take those one at a time.A. You could argue that the insurgents have commanders.B. The last time I checked insurgents didn't run around with cool uniforms, unit insignia, and rank.C. They definately fall into this category. However, they also conceal their arms and drop them after the initial ambush so they will no longer be "combatants," so they fail to meet this criterion as well.D. Doh! Insurgents don't exactly follow ANY rules whatsoever. But if you'd like an example: Cutting off a civilians head and posting it on the internet is considered by most to be a no no.So your militia theory has failed 3 out of the 4 conditions.This message has been edited by Tal, 01-21-2005 02:11 AM

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Heheheh... I was figuring that's why he didn't list them. Clearly you are right and he is wrong on that.Though one might note that most European resistance groups did not fall under that criteria during WW2 and we considered them patriotic resistance orgs (and they did include expatriate Americans). This is also true for the many Americans that turned out to help anti-fascist forces in the Spanish Civil War, as well as to fight Japan during the invasion of China.And as far as AQ/Taliban is concerned, we definitely had our "troops" go in under cover and teach these guys those tactics in fighting the Russians, as well as teaching the same tactics to guerrilas in central and s america. I wish we could all be more honest about this. We taught them did we not? These are essentially the same tactics used against the Russians (only they didn't have the internet and relied on different means of spreading the word of what happened).There were pictures of our guerrilas in C America forcing people to dig their own graves before being stabbed or their throats cut. It was used as propaganda to scare the gov'ts, and later against the guerrila movements we were running by human rights orgs.As far as "beheadings" go, that is an accepted form of execution in that part of the world. If you are not aware most of Europe is against executions in all forms and so the US executing anyone would be just as barbaric looking. Would you be against strapping an insurgent into an electric chair, hanging them, or putting them up in front of a firing squad.And finally I must point out again that all insurgents are not the same nor use the same techniques. To keep hyping beheadings as if that fits them all, is as inaccurate as using Abu Ghraib to describe all US soldiers, right?You know, just because they are an enemy, doesn't mean we have to lose the context of reality behind what is going on.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

quote:

---

LMAO!!! You didn't list the conditions!

---

Err no, of course I didn't. You didn't ask about them, you asked about whether it mattered if they came from outside Iraq. The answer is still No.holmes wrote:

quote:

---

Heheheh... I was figuring that's why he didn't list them. Clearly you are right and he is wrong on that.

---

Leaping on the bandwagon, holmes? All I did was answer Tal's question. Youn will recall I have previously argued that the only difference bewteen a terrorist andf a soldier is that one belongs to a group large enough to afford uniforms; as you can see, thats an entirely legitimate reading of the appropriate legislation.

quote:

---

B. The last time I checked insurgents didn't run around with cool uniforms, unit insignia, and rank.

---

Agreed - although just as good a case can be made that the Taliban DID wear a uniform mandated by their organised structure, given Islamic dress requirements.But an interesting addendum to this argument is the observation that the Kossovan Liberation Army, once it had been "adopted" by the west, suddenly appeared sporting spiffy urban camo uniforms and berets more or less overnight. Instantly they were transformed from terrorists to army.If the Iraqi resistance goes on for a few years, they will be uniformed by the end of it. There are enough wealthy sympathisers.

quote:

---

D. Doh! Insurgents don't exactly follow ANY rules whatsoever. But if you'd like an example: Cutting off a civilians head and posting it on the internet is considered by most to be a no no.

---

Indeed. But then again, invading soveriegn states which do not present a clear and present danger is such a no-no that it is illegal in the eyes of every state on the planet bar one.I would also point out that the is a substantial movement of the opinion that cluster bombs and mines are primarily weapons aimed at inflicting civilian causalties and should be banned. This position would place the USA outside its Geneva Convention responsibilities to safeguard civilians in the combat theatre, the case of cluster bombs being especially pertinent in this regard.This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-21-2005 09:09 AM

Let's apply some common sense to this. In order for it to matter whether they come from outside Iraq they have to fullfill the conditions listed by the article you quoted.Since they do not meet the condtions, the answer is yes, it does matter if they come from outside Iraq. And oh by the way, they are killing IRAQIS!

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Don't get me wrong. I went on to list cases where geneva convention rules also did not apply and we'd expect people to have fallen under the rules, thus questioning the airtight use of those rules in this case.But literally, he is correct. They do not fall under the GC criteria.I think what would be more useful and interesting all around is everyone (and that includes Bush and Co) would stop wrangling about how to manipulate and apply old rules, and instead try and get new rules established within the international community.I think we are facing a new form of international conflict and so new rules are needed, expectations formed. That would be great work for the UN.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

What rules could we make that insurgents would follow? Or would you want to rewrite the rules so that we treat "illegal combatants" as POWs? No sarcasm here, I'm just curious what rules we would rewrite.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

quote:

---

Let's apply some common sense to this. In order for it to matter whether they come from outside Iraq they have to fullfill the conditions listed by the article you quoted.

---

Yes but: these criteria apply to those groups such they can ALSO be considered parties to the conflict. Seeing as the alleged "insurgents" are the main opponent you are fighting, they cannot be anything other than parties to the conflict. Especially seeing as you attacked them. Therefore, all POW rules apply under the GC.I remind you that the GC has a clause indicating that where there is any doubt as to a persons sttaus, the GC treats them as POW's by default. This shows the lie propagated by the Bush administration that the GC did not cover or discuss the situation such that the "special" measure of the Guantanamo Bay gulag was required.

But only if they meet all 4 conditions. They only meet 1. No, because the insurgents also do not meet the 3 conditions. Post your source for this information please.This message has been edited by Tal, 01-21-2005 11:29 AM

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Again, this is sort of silly name calling is it not? Some do "follow rules" but others do not. Those without overwhelming force are forced to not follow the rules to survive.That is not only what our founding fathers did to create this nation, it is what our CIA and military advisors told the original members of AQ, right?We created the idea of permanent covert operations forces and tactics. We are the leader of the pack and we continue to use such methods, and teach such methods. AQ and now the new Iraqi (nonAQ) insurgents will use the methods we have used and taught.That is the nature of the new paradigm of international conflict, covert organizations modelled after intelligence operations, using asymmetric warfare and "terrorism" to fight overwhelming forces.In creating rules to deal with this new paradigm, we won't so much be asking will they follow the rules, but how will we handle all of the organizations which by their very nature will not follow rules. It is something along those lines but not nearly so simple. I would not expect to argue with an end goal in mind. I think we do need to do away with vague catagories such as "illegal combatant" so that all nations have an accepted way of dealing with fighters who currently fall outside our terminology for warfare, but it should not be assumed what they should be called.New words could be coined, and old definitions changed.With a strong set of rules, when future events occur nations wouldn't have to keep wrangling over how individuals should be categorized and treated in an ad hoc fashion. That would protect us as much as anyone else.Through this process we might also develop international mechanisms for dealing with such threats. Oh yes, we might also start developing rules for treatment of "rogue nations" as well as nations which are descending into genocide.This is where Bush really missed his chance. He could have lead at the UN by developing international consensus on criteria and mechanisms of dealing with the problems we were now facing (and others have for years). Instead we went it alone and abandoned the UN and must now use ad hoc reasoning to defend everything we do... quite poorly I might add.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

The Geneva Conventions apply to all prisoners of war....of all categories..and if we begin to make distinctions, we'd better not complain about torture of our covert operatives all over the world, or about the treatment of our troops if captured by unconventional insurgents. We're also supposed to set the standard, not destroy it.

I hope you understand that I am in agreement with what you said. I am saying that we must start creating rules that explicitly define how nations are to treat the many different entities which now exist, but fall between civilian (agent) and soldier.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

No it does not. If you fit the criteria above, you are elligible for POW status. Who said we were complaining? We know they are sadistic asshats that will cut off our heads if they capture us. They are sick people with a twisted view on the world.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

I don't understand how you don't get that fingers can be pointed at us just as easily... The rest of the world "knows" that "we" are sadistic asshats that bomb innocent people in order not to face danger ourselves, hoping to shock our enemies into obedience, and will torture those we capture as well as the possibility of killing them using electricity or wire or rope. To many nations (including much of Europe) we are sick people (especially Bush and Co) with an almost equally twisted view on the world.I'd say Bush's inauguration speech didn't help matters. It was so religiously fanatic I was yet again shocked and appalled as an american, much less what an average European may have felt.When both sides claim "with us or against us" and disregard all previously established international laws regarding conflict, and eschewing diplomacy as weak and useless, not to mention both advocating a return to middle age thought in general... aren't both sides pretty screwed up?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

Come on holmes, you know we don't look at a target and say, "Hey, there's a bunch of civilians, lets bomb em!"It can be summed up simply. We don't target civillians, they do. They are welcome to kick us out of the U.N. By both sides, you mean the US and Al Qeada?

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Is that really what all the insurgents do? Really and honestly? Or do they choose a way to spread fear by targeting specific civilian assets which will have a specific effect?Even some of the general bombings can be seen in context as part of a campaign to induce a specific result. It is not disimilar to what we did in Japan and Germany (where we most certainly did bomb purely civilian areas because they were civilian areas), and not wholly separate in practice to what we did with certain bombing selections during the initial phase of the war itself.I am against targeting civilians, and I find the actions of the insurgent groups deplorable. I am even "against" the insurgents and support trying to set up a democratic government asap now that Hussein has been toppled.That does not mean I have to use epithets and dumb down my understanding of what is going on. Neither do you.They are our enemy as they are competing with us in our attempt to set up a stable post Hussein regime. It is unlikely that they care as much about a specific replacement as they are in seeing our replacement govt fail, just as insurgents screwed with Russia in Aghanistan by simply preventing any coherent gov't structure from being put in place. Remember, we taught people who to do that? Glib statements do not an argument make. You have stated that people are twisted according to much of the world, yet fail to note that the US is also moving in ways (and making pronouncements) that are twisted according to much of the world.If you have no comment or insight regarding this, just say so, or say nothing. Yes. I realize that does not actually address the Iraq situation, which had nothing to do with AQ initially, but these are the sides we are "down to" now.With us or against us has been incredibly destructive. It has alienated foreign support which is vital and has even allowed us to disregard very good suggestions from longtime allies. Curiously it includes ignoring the fact that those suggestions turned out right. pretending instead that because we did invade and Bush got re-elected by a bare majority that that means we can continue to discount them and they should start listening to us. Absurd.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)