U.S. did not broke Geneva convention ....

Post-9/11 Era Forum

and what have been shown on CNN, so authorized by U.S. army, so the U.S. gov.

If this is not breaking Geneva convention ....

And Donald Rumsfeld said after Irak showed U.S. prisonner:

"It's something that the U.S. of A. will never do"


Brainwashed, you even forgot that. Easy to speak about what the others do then speaking about what you do ....

another one from the vid ...

and the interview of these prisoner:
I will try to find the full vids of that ...

and Rumsfeld shocked by the fact that Iraq showed U.S. prisonner and asked them question

Hypocrite as the U.S. gov is .....

Originally posted by Dilca


"i havent read declaration 1441 (not ultimatum) but if i am informed correctly there is no war mentioned in it..
...and french have their right to support saddam because its not in their interest that USA has army all over the world.."

I haven't seen any interviews of Iraqi prisoners on any state controlled media.

There have been journalists who take brief shots of groups of prisoners from afar - and briefly - but nothing like putting them up on a podium.

Bottom line is its silly to argue the details. Saddam's regime in self defense is using guerrilla tactics, no surprise, and I'm sure any American women are being raped, no surprise.

Dilca is wrong

again, you take one post .....

nobody is for Saddam, but for Iraqi people

you are so sure that it's about supporting Saddam that you will track anything to arg in your direction, but wrong way .....

even if you discuss with muslim, a lot of them doesn't support Saddam, but Iraqi people


you are wrong on the full line .....
it's something that you can't or doesn't want to understand but make a quite big diff

CNN images comes from through U.S. military headquarter censorship .....


And the interview has been showned on CNN, but organised on Abudabi TV broadcast channell which is the propaganda broadcast channel of the coallition ..........


You broke first the Geneva convention guys, that's a fact so don't be hypocrit with your puritanism

I agree with you - The French position is not to support Saddam. But the other French (dilca) made it clear that the idea is to OPPOSE the USA. It has nothing to do with Saddam and the French don't give a damn about the Iraqi's.

When I have argued about French support, my meaning is that the world perception, and especially the muslim world and Saddam/Iraqi perception, is that since the French call the US illegitimate, then they must be legitimate and fight.

Maybe you have missed my point all along. Maybe its language?

What did the prisoners say? I would love to know. Anything interesting?

PS - Did you hear about the treatment of allied prisoners during the last gulf war? Have you missed the forst for the trees on ALL OF THIS?

it's not opposing the US for opposing neither for a stupid comment on: they don't want US military troops everywhere.

Quite stupid.

France and others, I recall that because you seems to forget about Russia, Germany and China, are opposing to the war.

As I said in another post:

1. fakes has been used for the U.S. proof of evidences against Iraq
2. with $125 billion you can have about .... 350000 U.N. inspectors
3. use those nice satellite showing the town at 1 m precision to track "the dissimulation" of WMD

This encourage the Iraqis people to fight ?

Damn, you are saying: Iraqis people are afraid of Saddam, they want him to get rid off, he is a dictator

Do you think that because someon is standing up agisnt that war will encourage opressed people to defend the dictator ?
If it's the case, they are stupid and secondly the coallition has nothing to do in Iraq as the Iraqis want to kepp Saddam.

Damn, think a little bit, it's not because there are anti-war.

What did the prisoners say if interviewed like ours?

The prisonner where saying what's on the wonderfull sheet of paper dropped all over Iraq: their name and from which division, they surrended without fighting because Saddam is a dictator and the U.S (note that they don't speak about other allies) is coming to free them from Saddam and every Iraqi soldier should do the same.



And I do not forgot the first Gulf war but there have been a lot of lies.

Remember that girl testifying about Iraqi soldier killing hundreds of babies in Kuweit hospitals during Gullf War??
http://www.nowar.tchacheurs.com/pics/marketing13.gif
False: She never worked in hospital and she is the daughter of Kuweit ambassador in US ... And this testimony has been orchestrated by ... "Hill & Knowlton" group at the request of US government ...

Amnesty International denied this bloodbath ...

If you speak french, you should listen what's in the vids here: http://www.nowar.tchacheurs.com/marketing.html otherwise read the abstract on the page.

The document is an Divx avi of more then 450Mb ....

i don't see this as a violation, now saddam really did, as he show EXECUTED prisoners, there is a difference

Actually that Dilco had it pegged. This war is being fought for a number of reasons. One of them is definitely stability in the region where much of the world's oil comes from. Another is terrorism. Most of the world's terrorism is based in this region.

Dilco's position - is that the USA should be opposed because it creates an additional shift of the power balance in our favor (and not France, Russia, etc.).

Does your Chirac give a damn about Iraqi's? Really?

Its just a big powerplay. Russia has huge investment in Iraq that they lose. France has investment, trade, and an opportunity to increase prestige. German chancellor promised before election he would never fight.

quote:

1. fakes has been used for the U.S. proof of evidences against Iraq

If by that you mean that Saddam is in compliance with 1441 - please SOMEONE come out and say that. No one is disputing the case. Many are just picking at how the case was presented.

quote:

2. with $125 billion you can have about .... 350000 U.N. inspectors

I don't see how any number of inspectors could guarantee Saddam's immediate compliance. In any case, that would be an invasion. The USA would whole heartedly support the help of France in this. As it turned out, that is what we did,no one would help, and now we are the bad guys.

quote:

3. use those nice satellite showing the town at 1 m precision to track "the dissimulation" of WMD

What if they are underground? Read what previous inspectors have said about the difficulty of inspection.

quote:

This encourage the Iraqis people to fight ? Damn, you are saying: Iraqis people are afraid of Saddam, they want him to get rid off, he is a dictator

EVERYONE says this. No one says otherwise. As I already said, if Saddam is a good guy then my position is totally wrong. I have never met him.

quote:

Do you think that because someon is standing up agisnt that war will encourage opressed people to defend the dictator ? If it's the case, they are stupid and secondly the coallition has nothing to do in Iraq as the Iraqis want to kepp Saddam.

You please think a little. The French (and others), by denouncing the US led coalition, are creating support for Saddam. Why were the Iraqi's trounced in 1991 and did not put up resistence? Because they had low moral and no hope of winning because the world was against them. They are fighting now because of the governments and protesters worldwide who say this is a war of aggression against Iraq. They believe all of your signs and posters that Bush wants to steal their oil and kill their babies. That Bush is evil. They watch that on TV. It is GREAT propaganda for Saddam. You can be sure he uses it. I think most people fighting are convinced they are doing it for Iraq - and not Saddam. Your leaders should come out strongly and publicly to make it clear that its not a war against Iraq- its a war against Saddam.

It could be that Saddam is decent and misunderstood. I have not heard that by anyone including the French. If its true than of course our strategy was wrong.

Both sides will use propaganda. Get real.

But is your point that we should NOT have freed Kuwait?

You can buzz and buzz and buzz. But I hope you are not trying just to annoy.

Iraq did invade Kuwait - although you may remember Tariq Aziz on TV saying that they did not in fact invade and that was an evil US lie....

Sure.

So, because someone put this girl up, it means that there was no case to go against Iraq in 1991? What is your point? I believe very little of what the media says.

Because Saddam did not comply with UNSC, because he was given an ultimatum, because he invaded his neighbors and gassed his people, because he acquired WMD and tried as best he could to get nuclear capabilities, because he wanted to dominate the region... we should NOT take him out?

US broke the convention long time ago before the war started: al Qaeda detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

Excellnt job NOWAR. Rumsfeld is a propagandist, playing with truth to suit his needs. This is the reason why Europe stands against this war. He's damaging US reputation, and ironically, building Europe...

That's assuming that they are entitled to protection under the Geneva Convenctions.

I don't remember seeing Al Quaeda terrorists being interviewed.

I don't think they are POW's

I agree that if the bar is the showing of prisoners is a violation, then both sides have done something wrong. However, in America the Us government does not have 100% control over the reporters, while Iraq does.

Still, I am not sure this is a violation on either side (TV coverage only). I thought that law was made more for like putting a prisoner in a cage and letting the people of the country gauk and poke at the person.

In a way I find it comforting that the soldiers have been shown, at least perhaps the families know that their loved one is not dead, and can hold on to hope.

Now if those soldiers were executed, thats a totally different issue.

the question is, to use the same way of thinking of Charles :

did U.S. gov broke the Geneva convention ? Yes or no?

Y E S

or

N O

?

..............

you broke it first

so,

applying 1441 resolution mean disarm by any means: force mean U.N. military troops ....... not war

now the result of that is starting: first kamikase in Irak.

The bomb in the market: about 50 death, majority of children.
A old man was asking: where are the American briingig us freedom and peace ....
Another one asking people to sing in Saddam memory: no answer ....

How do you think coallition soldier will be greeted ?

Is against the Geneva convention rules on POWS.

marc

again, did I said it was a coallition missile ?


no one knows from where it comes: Iraq or coallition ...


the result is unfortunately the same for the Iraqi people: it's the coallition.

It's something that you seems not understand: how can you tell people " we come to free you from Saddam but sorry for the collateral damage - I'm adding from both side -".

They hate U.S. and innocents dying will only add more.

Again, who will pay the price ? soldiers, civilians ....

Okay nowar...I'll play your silly game to see where this leads me.

As to if Iraq complied with 1441? No they did not. They did not divulge the requested material, in a timely manner, as the resolution requested. To top off the fact that the Iraqi's used "missles" against Kuwait, which overshot whatever they were aiming for....that is the missle flew approx. 190km. That was in violation of 1441 and they did not divulge the fact of their missle capabilities in their initial report to the UN Inspectors.

Did the US gov "broke" the Geneva Convention first? If you are asking: "Did the US gov "break" the Geneva Convention first?" Then yes, in a matter of speaking I guess they did by showing footage of Iraqi soldiers surrendering.

So...I'm waiting to be corrected by you again in how I am not understanding what you are trying to get across.

it's not a game .... I'm trying to express my point of view and I do my best ....

about 1441, did you read this post: http://www.inreview.com/showthread....ht=legal+or+not

about the Geneva convention, yes they did ....

this only to show the hypocrisy behind that war ... and not always on the "bad" side.

Have you seen the Rumsfeld comment on TV about the Geneva convention ?

Honnest and balanced news ......

We are the best, we are the cleanest, .......

this make me spew (this is litteral translation from french to english, don't know the idiom for that) ....



I'm against the U.S. gov not the american people, that's all.

The hypocrisy of this entire situation is the wording and translations of 1441.

Why would anyone use words and threats of armed intervention if they had no intention of using it?

When was the UN willing and ready to utilize armed intervention?

Never...the intent was never there and some countries bargained and took a chance that the US would not act on it. They took a gamble and now what...everyone looses.

The French, or should I say Chirac, attempts to be innocent individual with no motive but to seek peaceful resolutions. Well of course he wants a peaceful resolution to this situation, his country has alot at stake here with the business and money making motivations. So was he in it to promote world peace? Was he this great guy for all to hold in high regard? I think not, he has a vested interest in this not to happen. He thought he could keep Saddam under control...he failed on that issue also.

Please, don't attempt to confuse the issue. I could honestly care less of what lawyers you had review the resolution....it can be interpeted in many ways by many different people.

In the end, what good came out of 1441? Nothing...idle threats to attempt in disarming a Leader...these threats were never going to be backed up by some of the leaders who agreed to sign it. In my book...if you are going to threaten someone, you had better be ready to back up your words. If you are not prepared to back up those words...then you will continue to be made a fool of.

Does this make this war right? Hell no it doesn't...but then again...we should have never agreed upon 1441. It shouldn't even have been brought to a vote. We should have never even bothered Iraq as it attempted (and did) to take over an innocent and defenseless country...or as some here would put it, colonize. Yes, we should have just let him be, maybe enough people in the Middles East would have taken things into their own hands...eventually and would have killed him on their own. How many would have died before that would have taken place? Who knows...but then again, its not my or any other countries problems...

I feel that the UN should be disbanded, it serves no purpose.

what would be the best way to ensure to keep or at least having a part of the after Saddam business ?

this was my opinion at the beginning, now I'm not quite sure as it seems that the U.S. gov is giving preferences to U.S. companies for the Iraq reconstruction ....

Blair must be a little bit disappointed now, nothing for U.K.

Marc, I think nowar (and others) does have a point regarding the displaying of the PoW's.

Presentation does not detract from the fact that US news organizations displayed video clips and photos of Iraqi soldiers surrendering and in custody. I don't think there is a fine line/gray area there...either you did or didn't. Our news organizations and unfortunately leaders need to bite the bullet on this one.

Nowar...as the future business and rebuilding opportunities, tell me, who should the preference be given to? I would think that the countries who opposed these actions, since they opposed it for moral reasons (which I believe is complete and utter BS), would not want to do anything with it. As for the countries representing the Alliance, I'm pretty sure they will all have opportunities.

SORRY, I don't understand...last weeek, UN denied USA the right to go to war, yes or no? So what's the point?!?

The Americans are suddenly talking about international law?