Thread: Quagmire....

I was actually hired for DDR but later on they insisted I help them with DSR.

*Stroller will need to do a lot of cleaning*

Originally Posted by Macha

I was actually hired for DDR but later on they insisted I help them with DSR.

*Stroller will need to do a lot of cleaning*

That's OK.
Our 'Headmaster' has little else to do but troll & clean...

saddam allegedly gave cash to the families of suicide bombers.

Originally Posted by raycarey

saddam allegedly gave cash to the families of suicide bombers.

I know, but I consider that to be a humanitarian gesture, as these families had their houses demolished by the Israeli government - in direct violation of the Geneva convension.

As far as I know, not one cent was given from Saddam to the suicide bombers themselves.

Originally Posted by raycarey

saddam allegedly gave cash to the families of suicide bombers.

Boon Mee,

Notice how this clown uses the word "allegedly" ... in regards to something Saddam Hussein might have done ... but when it's a good ole American fightin' man ... they're guilty even before they commit an offense.

I was "allegedly" banned from ajarn.com for threatening to beat this morons ass by the way.

^ Hmmm ... I never thought of the possibility that liberals might actually have balls.

and armchair heros conservatives hidding at the bottom of a warship have more balls ?

Originally Posted by Butterfly

and armchair heros conservatives hidding at the bottom of a warship have more balls ?

Heh, heh, guess who's back, eh?

Originally Posted by Butterfly

and armchair heros conservatives hidding at the bottom of a warship have more balls ?

P.S.

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

As far as I know, not one cent was given from Saddam to the suicide bombers themselves.

I can't imagine why?

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

I know, but I consider that to be a humanitarian gesture, as these families had their houses demolished by the Israeli government - in direct violation of the Geneva convension.

Does the Geneva convention cover suicide bombers?

Does the Geneva Convention covers illegal wars ? is the sky green ?

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

I know, but I consider that to be a humanitarian gesture, as these families had their houses demolished by the Israeli government - in direct violation of the Geneva convension.

Does the Geneva convention cover suicide bombers?

That is irrelevant. Suicide bombers are committing criminal acts in Israel. The Israeli government and its military leaders are committing war crimes in the occupied territories.

Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions collective punishments are a war crime. Article 33 states: "No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed," and "collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."

If you think the U.S. occupation of Iraq is a quagmire, illegal, or immoral, it could get worse:

Break Up Iraq to Save It
Getting Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds to relocate might be the only way to salvage the state.
By Michael O'Hanlon, MICHAEL O'HANLON is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
August 27, 2006


WITH THE IRAQ mission on the brink of outright failure, some analysts are contemplating a "Plan B" — pulling out and trying to prevent the war from spreading to other countries. But rather than accept complete disaster, outright civil war and the likelihood of genocide, we should try to develop a strategy for achieving some minimal level of stability, even if it requires discarding our loftier aims for Iraq.

There is what might be called a "Plan A-" option — facilitating voluntary ethnic relocation within Iraq while retaining a confederal governing structure. We should offer individuals who want to protect themselves and their families the chance to move to an Iraq territory more hospitable to their ethnicity and/or religion.

ADVERTISEMENT
To a substantial extent this is happening already, but the 100,000 or more internally displaced Iraqis have received scant help or protection to date. With Plan A- as a policy, not an accident, the international community and Iraqi government could help offer housing and jobs to those wishing to move, as well as protection en route. Houses left behind would revert to government ownership, to be offered to individuals of other ethnic groups who wanted them, in what would largely become a program of swapping. Funds for some new home construction would be needed as well.

Obviously, this idea would only work if Iraq's government, through a strong consensus of its Sunni Arabs, Shiites and Kurds, endorsed it. Most Iraqis, in fact, still say they want an integrated country, but if the civil war gets much worse, that option may no longer exist. In that case, reluctant Sunnis could be persuaded if it was made clear that the confederal governing body would distribute all Iraqi oil revenue equitably on a per capita basis, not by geography. Former Baathists, up to a certain rank in the party, also should be quickly "rehabilitated" and allowed to hold jobs and run for office.

For Americans who cherish the notion of multiethnic democracy, actively facilitating voluntary ethnic segregation would be a tough pill to swallow. Some might even go so far as to claim it unethical, making a mockery of the moral purpose we claimed to be furthering when we liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussein's cruel rule.

But what would truly mock our initial goals would be outright defeat followed by genocide — perhaps similar to what happened in Bosnia in the early 1990s. There, 200,000 people died; in Iraq, which has five times the population, the death toll could be much worse.

Although we should generally favor and support multiethnic democracy, it is not our most important objective — especially not in today's Iraq, where it may no longer even be achievable. For people trying to cope with the country's daily perils, staying alive is a higher priority than living in a diverse neighborhood.

THIS PROPOSAL shares many elements with those that have favored the partitioning of Iraq. But partitionists have never explained how we would get to their preferred solution without massive and violent ethnic cleansing. Confederacy, along with safe passage, property swapping, job-creation programs and oil revenue sharing, provides at least a plausible path forward while in fact avoiding formal partition and holding out hope that the country could someday regain its cohesiveness.

The Bosnia experience is again instructive. We declared a victory of sorts there in 1995, even though a previously diverse society was ultimately divided into three ethnically homogenous pieces through a terribly violent war.

Iraq still has a chance to turn out better, even if our current strategy fails. If we can encourage future ethnic relocation to occur voluntarily and peacefully, rather than through murder, rape and intimidation, we can still salvage an imperfect but real success that ultimately leaves most Iraqis better off than they were under Hussein. And in contrast to Bosnia, where land swaps occurred only after the civil war had largely run its course, Iraq might use such a policy to nip a broader war in the bud.

To move in this direction, no one need immediately decide that Iraq will heretofore be a land of three or four major segregated populations. Rather, individuals can decide themselves where they feel most secure. To the extent that many take up the offer of government help in relocating, the program could be expanded. Much of the resettlement is likely to be within Baghdad, with many Sunnis relocating to neighborhoods west of the Tigris River while Shiites head east.

Radical solutions far different — and far more promising — than "stay the course" need to be designed now. "Give up hope" is not one of them.

From the LA Times.

Originally Posted by surasak

If you think the U.S. occupation of Iraq is a quagmire, illegal, or immoral, it could get worse:

Break Up Iraq to Save It

So perhaps we were right all along in Viet Nam when the policy was to destroy the Vil in order to save it?

Rummy's getting desparate:

Rumsfeld lashes out at Bush's critics - Yahoo! News

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday the world faces "a new type of fascism" and likened critics of the Bush administration's war strategy to those who tried to appease the Nazis in the 1930s.

In unusually explicit terms, Rumsfeld portrayed the administration's critics as suffering from "moral or intellectual confusion" about what threatens the nation's security. His remarks amounted to one of his most pointed defenses of President Bush' war policies and was among his toughest attacks on Bush's critics.

Surasak, who are you then? Give me a brief intro if you can be arsed.

Originally Posted by surasak

(and yes I initially supported the war on the grounds that it was legitimate and I voted for Bush)

Then you're complicit in the actions of the US...

"Dubya" = What a fuggin' idiot...

I don't know that I would have admitted this, anywhere, much less in a public forum...

"Dubya" will go down in the annals of history as the MOST corrupt and ignorant president in the history of the U.S. Some liken him to the anti-christ, if you believe in such drivel...

BTW, I am a U.S. citizen AND live in TexASS...

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

That is irrelevant. Suicide bombers are committing criminal acts in Israel. The Israeli government and its military leaders are committing war crimes in the occupied territories.

Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions collective punishments are a war crime. Article 33 states: "No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed," and "collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."

So Israel actions in dealing with these criminal falls outside of the "Geneva convention"

It is indeed irrelevant!

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Does the Geneva Convention covers illegal wars ? is the sky green ?

How is the air up there on Mars?

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

That is irrelevant. Suicide bombers are committing criminal acts in Israel. The Israeli government and its military leaders are committing war crimes in the occupied territories.

Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions collective punishments are a war crime. Article 33 states: "No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed," and "collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."

So Israel actions in dealing with these criminal falls outside of the "Geneva convention"

Well, the only way to "deal with" suicide bombers is basically to scape up the ramains of them. My point was that collective punishments of their families, who more often than not did not know about the intentions of the bombers, is clearly defined as a war crime. If you can prove that they took part in hostilities, e.g. by assisting the bombers in carrying out their attacks, then, and only then are you justified in taking action against them.

It is clearly spelled out above.

To turn this around - if collective punishment was permitted, 911 would have been a justified and legal attack.

You can't have it both ways.

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

To turn this around - if collective punishment was permitted, 911 would have been a justified and legal attack. You can't have it both ways.

hey, hey, hey.....don't start adding logic to this thread.

Originally Posted by Maudib

Originally Posted by surasak

(and yes I initially supported the war on the grounds that it was legitimate and I voted for Bush)

Then you're complicit in the actions of the US...

"Dubya" = What a fuggin' idiot...

I don't know that I would have admitted this, anywhere, much less in a public forum...

"Dubya" will go down in the annals of history as the MOST corrupt and ignorant president in the history of the U.S. Some liken him to the anti-christ, if you believe in such drivel...

BTW, I am a U.S. citizen AND live in TexASS...

Well, at least you know I'm honest about my politics.

I've been a lifelong Republican but I don't always vote the party favorite if I deem someone else to be a better choice. The problem in 2000/2004 is the alternative choices were worse. Such is the sad pathetic state of American politics.