well its a good thing people want to detonate radioactive bombs on the US

Originally posted by scouse_dave:
no, they WERE innocent, but two wrongs doesn't make a right

ever heard of the death penalty?

Originally posted by scouse_dave:

Referring back to my previous post:

Originally posted by BlueStar: No, war is not good. And I'm not a big fan of war either.

But, Bush's statement was as follows:

“For every regime that sponsors terror, there is a price to be paid and it will be paid.... [Nations that support terror] are equally guilty of murder and equally accountable to justice... We must unite in opposing all terrorists, not just some of them. No national aspiration, no remembered wrong can ever justify the deliberate murder of the innocent. Any government that rejects this principle, trying to pick and choose its terrorist friends, will know the consequences..."

So, yeah, in going after the terrorists, we went after Afghanistan.

I do not agree with everything that the U.S. has done. I do not like war. War is shitty and shitty things happen. I don't like it. But, the U.S. could not sit back and do nothing when it was attacked like that. Bin Laden was not going to sit down with President Bush and have a discussion and together they reach some sort of peace agreement. The U.S. did what was necessary. Killing is never right or good. However, I am supportive of this "war". I do not agree with everything that has taken place, but I do think that it was necessary.

The U.S. has a moral responsibility to ensure the freedom of its citizens.

------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Originally posted by mpp:
ever heard of the death penalty?

no, we don't have that in britain...

Originally posted by BlueStar:
*stuff*

that doesn't explain the direct relationship between the scale of the terrorist act and the scale of the revenge, uh, i mean retribution...

Originally posted by scouse_dave:
no, we don't have that in britain...

well you damn well should! LOL

no seriously, all i'm saying is that although two wrongs don't make a right, retribution is very human

Originally posted by mpp:
in all seriousness, and i know you know this BlueStar, international law is a crock of shit; no enforcement mechanism, no internationally recognized supreme court, etc

as i think someone mentioned earlier, the US takes every opportunity to disobey international law

Well...there is a reason that the President of the U.S. is referred to as "the leader of the free world". The U.S. is the most powerful country...it is the leader. Thus, it tends to dictate "international law" and change the rules around as it sees fit. I'm not agreeing with this...but, that's how it is.

I fully believe that the actions taken by the U.S. after 9/11 were and are appropriate. If you want to argue from a "law" perspective, in regards to the "war on terrorism", the U.S. has obeyed every law and precedent.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Originally posted by BlueStar:
If you want to argue from a "law" perspective, in regards to the "war on terrorism", the U.S. has obeyed every law and precedent.

but your argument would be, "who cares if they do or don't? i mean, it's bad, but the US can do what it wants"

correct?

Originally posted by scouse_dave:
that doesn't explain the direct relationship between the scale of the terrorist act and the scale of the revenge, uh, i mean retribution...

Ummm...so Bush should have called up Bin Laden and invited him over for tea. And then the two of them would have taken a stroll through the rose garden while Bush politely told Bin Laden that he thought the 9/11 attacks were wrong and bad. And then the two of them would sit down and hammer out a peace agreement. ?????

The reason we attacked Afghanistan and not done something else was because the 9/11 attacks were considered an "act of war" by both the U.S. and other UN nations. We then went "to war".


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Originally posted by mpp:
but your argument would be, "who cares if they do or don't? i mean, it's bad, but the US can do what it wants"

correct?

No, not at all. The 9/11 attacks were an "act of war". In accordance with that, the U.S. followed the "laws" and went to war and fought back. I support that.

I disapprove of war. But, when attacked in such a manner and when threats of more attacks keep on coming...is there something else besides war?

Just responding to your comment that the U.S. disobeys international law... Yes, true. I was simply pointing out that it is basically the U.S. who creates the "international law"...hence why perhaps the U.S. does as it wants sometimes.

------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

[This message has been edited by BlueStar (edited 06-11-2002).]

Originally posted by BlueStar:
Bin Laden and Al-Qaida attacked the U.S. (one of the worst attacks in U.S. history). Bin Laden and Al-Qaida were operating out of Afghanistan. Afghanistan and the Taliban regime were harboring and supporting Bin Laden and Al-Qaida. Thus, Afghanistan was not an innocent country!

'One of the worst attacks in US history' - because the US has barely been attacked before, it's a massively powerful, highly isolated country. Yes the events were tragic, but if you compare the number of deaths and the economic damage to that suffered by other countries... the difference is, it hit close to home, so it seems much more 'real.'

You say Afghanistan wasn't an innocent country, yet a few posts earlier you're decrying the Taliban as an 'oppressive regime' and an 'un-recognized government.' Which is it? If you're going to bomb the civilians of a country, their government better actually be answerable to them, otherwise you're just making their lives even worse.

Originally posted by BlueStar:
Just responding to your comment that the U.S. disobeys international law... Yes, true. I was simply pointing out that it is basically the U.S. who creates the "international law"...hence why perhaps the U.S. does as it wants sometimes.

WHAT THE FUCK is the point in making a law when you can change it as, and when, you see fit?

ANSWER: there isn't one

Originally posted by DeviousJ:

You say Afghanistan wasn't an innocent country, yet a few posts earlier you're decrying the Taliban as an 'oppressive regime' and an 'un-recognized government.' Which is it? If you're going to bomb the civilians of a country, their government better actually be answerable to them, otherwise you're just making their lives even worse.

Uh...both. The Taliban was an oppressive regime and it was not recognized by the UN as the "official" government of Afghanistan.

The Taliban captured Kabul in September 1996 from Mujaheedin regime. The government of Burhan-ul Din Rabani ousted. The Taliban government in Kabul has been recognized only by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Republic.

We were not intentionally bombing the civilians of Afghanistan. Unfortunately, "casualties of war" are a side effect of war. It happens in every war.

The United Nations and other international communities condemn the Taliban regime because of its violation of human rights, particularly restrictions of women from outside work and freedom.

The Taliban regime was oppressive and harmful to its citizens. The citizens of Afghanistan are better off without the Taliban.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

the US does not solely make international law, but what it does do is continually flaunt it and the rest of the world is guilty of letting them get away it...

THIS is why people around the world dislike the US and THIS is the kind of mentality that makes people fly planes into buildings

NOTE FOR STUPID PEOPLE: i did not say that i agree with people flying planes into buildings

Originally posted by scouse_dave:
WHAT THE FUCK is the point in making a law when you can change it as, and when, you see fit?

ANSWER: there isn't one

Hey, that's the U.S. doing it, not me. And laws are changed, altered, and ammended all the time. And sometimes, it's just all about politics.

And when it comes to the "war on terrorism", there was no changing of the law. The U.S. followed what had been laid down and approved of.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Originally posted by mpp:
all i'm saying is that although two wrongs don't make a right, retribution is very human

Human maybe, but we're supposed to be above that now. Humanity is going to progress nowhere if the most powerful nations use violence to assert their will. In that kind of world, what else can you do but fight back?

Originally posted by BlueStar:
And when it comes to the "war on terrorism", there was no changing of the law. The U.S. followed what had been laid down and approved of.

with the way it mistreated its captives, it did not

the death penalty analogy is a bad one anyway

a better one would be supposing that when a criminal is convicted of a crime he is put to death with a bunch of random people from his country...

we'll call them "casualties of justice", how's that?

[This message has been edited by scouse_dave (edited 06-11-2002).]

Originally posted by BlueStar:
The Taliban regime was oppressive and harmful to its citizens. The citizens of Afghanistan are better off without the Taliban.

Better off dead? Considering the sheer power available to the US military, and the technologically backward state of Afghanistan's forces, the US did not have to bomb cities from thousands of feet in the air. But as a demonstration of power, it went very well.

So were they casualties of war, or casualties of "war"? You seem to be throwing quotation marks around a lot, like you're not actually sure if there really was a war or not. And that's because you need to be unsure, to deem certain actions necessary, and to overlook other irregularities. Because a real war would mean adhering to certain conventions.

Originally posted by scouse_dave:
with the way it mistreated its captives, it did not

Legally, they aren't considered to be "prisoners of war".

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has called the prisoners ''unlawful combatants'' who ******* murderous and suicidal terrorists, not POWs. Rumsfeld said the prisoners are ''better off'' than when they were living in Afghanistan, and will be afforded humane treatment.

Reversing himself, President Bush announced Thursday that the United States will grant the protections of the Geneva Convention to detainees who fought for Afghanistan's Taliban but will continue to deny them to members of the al-Qaida terrorist network.

------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Well then...what should the US have done/be doing?

Originally posted by DeviousJ:

So were they casualties of war, or casualties of "war"? You seem to be throwing quotation marks around a lot, like you're not actually sure if there really was a war or not. And that's because you need to be unsure, to deem certain actions necessary, and to overlook other irregularities. Because a real war would mean adhering to certain conventions.

Just go back and read everything posted at the beginning of this thread. Legally, it is a war. No formal (unnecessary) declaration of war was issued by Congress, thus, it can be referred to as a "war".



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Originally posted by Eulogy:
Well then...what should the US have done/be doing?

first things first it should bugger off out of Israel and stop supplying one side with arms

how can the "prisoners" in a "war" not be "prisoners of war"?

if the current definition of "prisoner of war" according to the Geneva Convention doesn't ******* this 'new' kind of prisoner, surely it should be ammended...

we could let an american change it. they like changing laws...

Originally posted by DeviousJ:
Better off dead?

Old article...

Today Afghan women cannot even expect proper medical care. Three weeks ago, the Taliban decreed that female patients could no longer be treated at any of the main hospitals in Kabul and would be completely separated from male patients and medical personnel. We discovered that sick women are being sent to a crumbling old building that has no windowpanes, no running water, no proper operating room and barely enough electricity to power lightbulbs. The patients are tended by a meager female-only staff.

In our two-day stay in the capital city, we watched agents for the Preservation of Virtue and Elimination of Vice enforce an endless list of edicts and absurdities at gunpoint, with rifle butts, with the backs of their hands. Women are forbidden to wear high heels or white socks because they are considered a sexual lure. Music is banned: cassettes are often snatched out of cars, the tapes stripped out and hung on signs as a warning. Kites may not be flown, and most forms of public entertainment, like movies, are not permitted.

The toll such measures take on Afghan women is impossible to assess. Several told us how dispiriting it is to be thrown off a bus or forced to sit in the back. We heard reports of an increase in the suicide rate among females, and that many have sunk into despair and depression. For Afghanistan's tyrannized women, there is no escape from an unsparing, medieval way of life.

They were dying under the rule of the Taliban.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Originally posted by scouse_dave:
how can the "prisoners" in a "war" not be "prisoners of war"?

Exactly. Is it a war? Isn't it a war? That depends on who's asking and why.

Originally posted by scouse_dave:
how can the "prisoners" in a "war" not be "prisoners of war"?

if the current definition of "prisoner of war" according to the Geneva Convention doesn't ******* this 'new' kind of prisoner, surely it should be ammended...

the United States will grant the protections of the Geneva Convention to detainees who fought for Afghanistan's Taliban but will continue to deny them to members of the al-Qaida terrorist network.

According to the third Geneva Convention, prisoners of war are members of the armed forces captured during a conflict, or:
Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, … provided that such militias or volunteer corps … fulfil the following conditions:
-That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
-That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
-That of carrying arms openly;
-That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

The Americans argue that captured members of al-Qaeda do not fall into any of these categories. They point out that al-Qaeda members don't wear uniforms ("fixed distinctive sign") or obey the laws of war. Rumsfeld has labeled them "unlawful combatants," and says the rules of the Geneva Convention do not apply.

------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Originally posted by DeviousJ:
Exactly. Is it a war? Isn't it a war? That depends on who's asking and why.

Legally, it is a war. No formal (unnecessary) declaration of war was issued by Congress, thus, it can be referred to as a "war".

The U.S. views it as a war. The countries that are supporting the U.S. view it as a war.


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

[This message has been edited by BlueStar (edited 06-11-2002).]

yes, you said that before BlueStar

i'm asking you why the US doesn't now try to change the Geneva convention for the new form of prisoners...

Originally posted by BlueStar:
Old article...

They were dying under the rule of the Taliban.

Yes, I'm fully aware that the removal of the Taliban was a good thing for the majority of the population. The way it was done, however, could have been better. It was a show of force, a 'don't fuck with us' demonstration. As was already mentioned, the US was planning attacks on Afghanistan before 9/11 - the removal of the Taliban was not a result of the terrorist attacks.

Originally posted by scouse_dave:

i'm asking you why the US doesn't now try to change the Geneva convention for the new form of prisoners...

Next time I run into President Bush, I'll be sure and ask him about that for you.

And, generally, things like that are changed after the war is over. The Geneva Convention wasn't created during a war, it was created after.


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg