Remember back when they invaded Iraq..

Dead · 03-07-2005, 10:36 PM

and the US was completely outraged that the Iraqi soldiers were using underhanded tactics such as dressing as civilians and then attacking? And the US was saying that kind of shit is against the rules of war or whatever..

At the time I thought that was kinda retarded seeing as how the US invaded Iraq, who did not agree to any of this, and suddenly are expected to follow some set of rules as to go about how to defend their country against invaders.

That's pretty shitty.

I just remembered this thought I had back then and decided to post. What do you think?

Nimrod's Son · 03-08-2005, 12:13 AM

Ununiformed troops are not eligible to be afforded the laws of the Geneva Convention.

wally · 03-08-2005, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dead
the US invaded Iraq

That's pretty shitty.

ChristopherRyan · 03-08-2005, 12:54 AM

Geneva convention rules are often bent enough that anything goes.

I've talked to an artillery soldier about this issue. He tells me while it's illegal to use phospherous munitions against enemy troops, it is allowed to use phospherous tracers which happen to be similar to the exploding ones. And they may need to trace the shot onto enemy troops a couple of times to get that good shot. end result, enemy troops burned to death by phosphorus munitions.

The above is just an example. The media and the PR people may shout about geneva conventions and rules of war, but thats the ideal. Things are different.

Just read between the lines-- when they're whining about rules being broken its just an explanation for US boys dying in some questionable war.

Dead · 03-08-2005, 11:19 AM

Well, breaking the rules is one thing, but this country Iraq didn't sign up for a war in the first place so like I said, it's kind of shitty for the US to get outraged that they're breaking the rules.

It would be like if I came up and held a gun to your head out of nowhere and was about to pull the trigger and then you kick me in the balls and I complain "Hey, no hitting below the belt!"

Heh that's a pretty good analogy in my opinion.

Dead · 03-08-2005, 11:21 AM

Actually, I don't remember exactly how it went down but I seem to remember Saddam saying something like "Go ahead, but you will lose." so maybe it wasn't as one-sided as I was making it out to be. But it was still considered an invasion by most people. Anyone?

Corganist · 03-08-2005, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dead

It would be like if I came up and held a gun to your head out of nowhere and was about to pull the trigger and then you kick me in the balls and I complain "Hey, no hitting below the belt!"

Heh that's a pretty good analogy in my opinion.

No. A better analogy would be this: You and I give our word that, in the event we should ever fight, there will be certain rules we have to follow (no matter who started it). The day comes and a fight starts, and then you go back on the agreement and start fighting dirty just because you think I started the fight. Regardless of whether or not I started the fight, we had a deal that was binding, so I'd have every right to be pissed at you for going back on it.

BeautifulLoser · 03-08-2005, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Corganist

No. A better analogy would be this: You and I give our word that, in the event we should ever fight, there will be certain rules we have to follow (no matter who started it). The day comes and a fight starts, and then you go back on the agreement and start fighting dirty just because you think I started the fight. Regardless of whether or not I started the fight, we had a deal that was binding, so I'd have every right to be pissed at you for going back on it.

But does that give you the right to do it in return?

Dead · 03-09-2005, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Corganist

A better analogy would be this: You and I give our word that, in the event we should ever fight, there will be certain rules we have to follow (no matter who started it).

Well that's a shitty agreement in my opinion. If someone invades your country, are you going to let yourself and your family die just to follow the rules? Kinda like eye gouging is against the rules in most fights but if your life depended on it, you'd gouge eyes. At least I would.

Corganist · 03-09-2005, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BeautifulLoser

But does that give you the right to do it in return?

Of course not. But going back to the "two people in a fight" analogy: Even in a heavily regulated fight (like a boxing match, for instance), there are going to be isolated incidences of rule breaking (accidental thumbs to the eye, headbutts, low blows, etc.). No one is saying to allow such dirty tactics, so points will be taken away when they happen. But it seems to me that an incidental headbutt is a good bit different than a boxer dressing up like a referee, faking a heart attack, and then hitting the other boxer in the balls when he's not looking. Both are technically wrong, but I think that maybe the second victim might have a little more to complain about.

Corganist · 03-09-2005, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dead

Well that's a shitty agreement in my opinion. If someone invades your country, are you going to let yourself and your family die just to follow the rules? Kinda like eye gouging is against the rules in most fights but if your life depended on it, you'd gouge eyes. At least I would.

It may be a shitty agreement, but Iraq signed on to it. If they really thought that it was such a bad deal, then they could have opted not to join up with it. Then they could gouge eyes to their hearts content....

...but so could everyone else, if they didn't feel like playing nice.

professional wannabe · 03-09-2005, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Corganist

No. A better analogy would be this: You and I give our word that, in the event we should ever fight, there will be certain rules we have to follow (no matter who started it). The day comes and a fight starts, and then you go back on the agreement and start fighting dirty just because you think I started the fight. Regardless of whether or not I started the fight, we had a deal that was binding, so I'd have every right to be pissed at you for going back on it.

excellent analogy, for some reason, i had little idea what this was about till i saw this....

Dead · 03-10-2005, 09:34 AM

Hmmm.. if Iraq signed an agreement then that changes things a bit. They were probably also under pressure to not surrender or Saddam would put them up on meat hooks or something if US lost.

I guess it's more complicated than I first thought. Interesting conversation.

Injektilo · 03-10-2005, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dead
I guess it's more complicated than I first thought.

Well now, I just don't know if that's possible. Surely anyone with absolultely no understanding of global politics and international regimes should be able to come up with a complete and sophisticated analysis of how the Geneva Convention and other HRC's should come into play in a quasi-legal invasion.

Dead · 03-12-2005, 03:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Injektilo

Well now, I just don't know if that's possible. Surely anyone with absolultely no understanding of global politics and international regimes should be able to come up with a complete and sophisticated analysis of how the Geneva Convention and other HRC's should come into play in a quasi-legal invasion.

How unkind.

homechicago · 03-14-2005, 07:05 PM

"Dear Ms. Rice,
We write concerning the legal status of the Guantanamo detainees. Our views reflect Human Rights Watch's experience of over twenty years in applying the Geneva Conventions of 1949 to armed conflicts around the world. We write to address several arguments advanced for not applying Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, which, as you know, requires the establishment of a "competent tribunal" to determine individually whether each detainee is entitled to prisoner-of-war status should any doubt arise regarding their status. Below we set forth each of the arguments offered for ignoring Article 5 as well as Human Rights Watch's response.
Argument: The Geneva Conventions do not apply to a war against terrorism.

HRW Response: The U.S. government could have pursued terrorist suspects by traditional law enforcement means, in which case the Geneva Conventions indeed would not apply. But since the U.S. government engaged in armed conflict in Afghanistan - by bombing and undertaking other military operations - the Geneva Conventions clearly do apply to that conflict. By their terms, the Geneva Conventions apply to "all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties." Both the United States and Afghanistan are High Contracting Parties of the Geneva Conventions."

Orenthal James · 03-15-2005, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dead
Hmmm.. if Iraq signed an agreement then that changes things a bit. They were probably also under pressure to not surrender or Saddam would put them up on meat hooks or something if US lost.

I guess it's more complicated than I first thought. Interesting conversation.

Iraq caught wind of the Geneva Convention three weeks before the invasion. I heard about it from rather on cbs. it was so sad.

03-07-2005, 10:36 PM	#1
Dead Deaddy is your daddy! Location: Veronica Mars played with my Wii. Posts: 39,187	Remember back when they invaded Iraq.. and the US was completely outraged that the Iraqi soldiers were using underhanded tactics such as dressing as civilians and then attacking? And the US was saying that kind of shit is against the rules of war or whatever.. At the time I thought that was kinda retarded seeing as how the US invaded Iraq, who did not agree to any of this, and suddenly are expected to follow some set of rules as to go about how to defend their country against invaders. That's pretty shitty. I just remembered this thought I had back then and decided to post. What do you think?

03-08-2005, 12:13 AM	#2
Nimrod's Son Master of Karate and Friendship Location: in your butt Posts: 72,943	Ununiformed troops are not eligible to be afforded the laws of the Geneva Convention.

03-08-2005, 12:54 AM	#4
ChristopherRyan Pledge Location: Hamilton, Ontario Posts: 166	Geneva convention rules are often bent enough that anything goes. I've talked to an artillery soldier about this issue. He tells me while it's illegal to use phospherous munitions against enemy troops, it is allowed to use phospherous tracers which happen to be similar to the exploding ones. And they may need to trace the shot onto enemy troops a couple of times to get that good shot. end result, enemy troops burned to death by phosphorus munitions. The above is just an example. The media and the PR people may shout about geneva conventions and rules of war, but thats the ideal. Things are different. Just read between the lines-- when they're whining about rules being broken its just an explanation for US boys dying in some questionable war.

03-08-2005, 11:19 AM	#5
Dead Deaddy is your daddy! Location: Veronica Mars played with my Wii. Posts: 39,187	Well, breaking the rules is one thing, but this country Iraq didn't sign up for a war in the first place so like I said, it's kind of shitty for the US to get outraged that they're breaking the rules. It would be like if I came up and held a gun to your head out of nowhere and was about to pull the trigger and then you kick me in the balls and I complain "Hey, no hitting below the belt!" Heh that's a pretty good analogy in my opinion.

03-08-2005, 11:21 AM	#6
Dead Deaddy is your daddy! Location: Veronica Mars played with my Wii. Posts: 39,187	Actually, I don't remember exactly how it went down but I seem to remember Saddam saying something like "Go ahead, but you will lose." so maybe it wasn't as one-sided as I was making it out to be. But it was still considered an invasion by most people. Anyone?

03-10-2005, 09:34 AM	#13
Dead Deaddy is your daddy! Location: Veronica Mars played with my Wii. Posts: 39,187	Hmmm.. if Iraq signed an agreement then that changes things a bit. They were probably also under pressure to not surrender or Saddam would put them up on meat hooks or something if US lost. I guess it's more complicated than I first thought. Interesting conversation.

03-14-2005, 07:05 PM	#16
homechicago Apocalyptic Poster Location: THIS IS IT! Posts: 2,921	"Dear Ms. Rice, We write concerning the legal status of the Guantanamo detainees. Our views reflect Human Rights Watch's experience of over twenty years in applying the Geneva Conventions of 1949 to armed conflicts around the world. We write to address several arguments advanced for not applying Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, which, as you know, requires the establishment of a "competent tribunal" to determine individually whether each detainee is entitled to prisoner-of-war status should any doubt arise regarding their status. Below we set forth each of the arguments offered for ignoring Article 5 as well as Human Rights Watch's response. Argument: The Geneva Conventions do not apply to a war against terrorism. HRW Response: The U.S. government could have pursued terrorist suspects by traditional law enforcement means, in which case the Geneva Conventions indeed would not apply. But since the U.S. government engaged in armed conflict in Afghanistan - by bombing and undertaking other military operations - the Geneva Conventions clearly do apply to that conflict. By their terms, the Geneva Conventions apply to "all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties." Both the United States and Afghanistan are High Contracting Parties of the Geneva Conventions."