Arab TV Shows Captured American Soldiers

[topicolo]

Originally posted by taeclee99
Hardly the same thing. The image you linked shows Iraqi's with their hands on the heads. Rumsfield is protesting the horrific nature of the video released by Al Jazeera televsion which clearly show mistreatment of our GI's at the hands of the Iraqi's.

Exactly the same thing. According to the Geneva Conventions, "...prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity." (Geneva conventions)
The fact that these prisoners were shown on CNN (and french tv, TV5) is a violation of the public curiosity part of the conventions.

I believe that containment would've worked with Iraq. I mean, it worked with Libya and Russia; both had insane dictators at one point or another, but both are now much less threatening than they once were.

 

[taeclee99]

Originally posted by topicolo
Exactly the same thing. According to the Geneva Conventions, "...prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity." (Geneva conventions)
The fact that these prisoners were shown on CNN (and french tv, TV5) is a violation of the public curiosity part of the conventions.

I believe that containment would've worked with Iraq. I mean, it worked with Libya and Russia; both had insane dictators at one point or another, but both are now much less threatening than they once were.

I believe Rumsfeld was objecting to the fact that the US soldiers were shown in a humilating fashion on AL-Jazeera television. The Geneve Convention forbids the display of prisoners in a humilating manner.

Yes containment did work with the Soviet Union because of one thing...mutual assured destruction.
The Russians may have been scary but they were not crazy nor stupid. The threat of mutual assured destruction kept the superpowers at at standstill and the world at relative peace.

Saddam is a madman. The US is not willing to take a chance that Saddam will distribute WMD to terrorists who want them . Unlike the Soviets, I do not think Saddam cares if Iraq is destroyed. He has shown his willingness to thumb this nose at the world.

In 1980 he invades his neighbor Iran. The war lasts 8 years. A million and a half would die. Uses gas on Iranian troops.

1988 - Saddam uses mustard gas on the Kurds.

1990 - invades Kuwait...tries to make it the 19th province. His forces plunders Kuwait and tortures its citizens.

1998 - Saddam kicks some inspectors out of Iraq. Accuses them of spying.

2003 - Saddam has known terrorist Abu Nidal killed because Nidal refuses to train Iraqis terrorist techniques.

Saddam routinely has dissidents torrured and killed. Peaceniks think that the peace can be achieved by leaving a madman like Saddam in power. PLEASE!!!!

 

[Juventuz]

Originally posted by topicolo
Exactly the same thing....

Actually it's not. The IRC condemned the Iraqi actions for contradicting the Geneva Convention whereas they did not condemn the US.

The Iraqi soldiers being shown on tv are surrendering and have not been processed as POW's and were not being interrogated. The US soldier had already been taken into custody and were being interrogated on air, which is a violation.

 

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by taeclee99

In 1980 he invades his neighbor Iran. The war lasts 8 years. A million and a half would die. Uses gas on Iranian troops.

1988 - Saddam uses mustard gas on the Kurds.

1990 - invades Kuwait...tries to make it the 19th province. His forces plunders Kuwait and tortures its citizens.

1998 - Saddam kicks some inspectors out of Iraq. Accuses them of spying.

2003 - Saddam has known terrorist Abu Nidal killed because Nidal refuses to train Iraqis terrorist techniques.

Saddam routinely has dissidents torrured and killed. Peaceniks think that the peace can be achieved by leaving a madman like Saddam in power. PLEASE!!!!

Your timeline forgets to include:

1983 - Donald Rumsfeld himself, serving as Special Envoy to the Middle East, hand delivers a message of blessing to Sadaam Hussein on behalf of President Ronald Reagan - this along with millions of dollars in support, as well as millions of dollars WORTH of millitary equipment - equipment eventually used against us in Gulf Wars I and now II (is this treason?).

We were on Sadaam's side during that eight year war, in which he gassed thousands.

I thought that was important to remember.

Davis

 

[topicolo]

Originally posted by taeclee99
I believe Rumsfeld was objecting to the fact that the US soldiers were shown in a humilating fashion on AL-Jazeera television. The Geneve Convention forbids the display of prisoners in a humilating manner.

Yes containment did work with the Soviet Union because of one thing...mutual assured destruction.
The Russians may have been scary but they were not crazy nor stupid. The threat of mutual assured destruction kept the superpowers at at standstill and the world at relative peace.

Saddam is a madman. The US is not willing to take a chance that Saddam will distribute WMD to terrorists who want them . Unlike the Soviets, I do not think Saddam cares if Iraq is destroyed. He has shown his willingness to thumb this nose at the world.

In 1980 he invades his neighbor Iran. The war lasts 8 years. A million and a half would die. Uses gas on Iranian troops.

1988 - Saddam uses mustard gas on the Kurds.

1990 - invades Kuwait...tries to make it the 19th province. His forces plunders Kuwait and tortures its citizens.

1998 - Saddam kicks some inspectors out of Iraq. Accuses them of spying.

2003 - Saddam has known terrorist Abu Nidal killed because Nidal refuses to train Iraqis terrorist techniques.

Saddam routinely has dissidents torrured and killed. Peaceniks think that the peace can be achieved by leaving a madman like Saddam in power. PLEASE!!!!

Oh come on! tell me this stuff isn't humiliating?

. I'm sure that all of those Iraqi soldiers are more than humilated to be forced to march in a line with their hands on their heads while they're being broadcast to the entire world.
What about this?

. That's pretty humiliating, if you ask me.

Juventuz: that is a completely useless statement. Just because the IRC hasn't condemned the US doesn't mean that the US didn't break the conventions. How is showing POWs to the ENTIRE WORLD not violating the public curiosity clause of the conventions?

The Soviets may have been contained by assurances of mutual destruction, but Libyan leader Muammar Al Qadhafi wasn't. He was pretty much as bad as Saddam back in the 80s, providing a blatant base for terrorists to lauch their assautls, but containment worked on that dictator, why can't it work on Saddam?

 

[beatle888]

delete

 

[pseudobrit]

By the way, in response to the previous poster who said "screw you" to all the anti-war here, this is the kind of pain you are praying is inflicted upon the Iraqi people:

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/mirror/mar2003/4/6/000CF4B5-5FDD-1E7E-881A80C328EC0000.jpg

Gather 'round you young rebels

and list' while I sing

for the love of one's country

is a terrible thing

It banishes fear

with the speed of a flame

and makes us all part of

the patriot game
-Traditional Irish Republican

 

[taeclee99]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
By the way, in response to the previous poster who said "screw you" to all the anti-war here, this is the kind of pain you are praying is inflicted upon the Iraqi people:

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/mirror/mar2003/4/6/000CF4B5-5FDD-1E7E-881A80C328EC0000.jpg

Gather 'round you young rebels

and list' while I sing

for the love of one's country

is a terrible thing

It banishes fear

with the speed of a flame

and makes us all part of

the patriot game
-Traditional Irish Republican

You routinely bring up examples of Iraqi's being killed by US bombs. Yes the killing of civilians in warfare is unfortunate...it is also unintentional. Saddam uses his citizens as human shields at military installations. He dresses his own soldiers in US uniforms to kill civilians and tells the world that we are war criminals. Saddam kills people in hospitals and tells the world that we are responsible. Can you trust this LIAR???

People like you call Bush a baby killer. Liken him to Adolf Hitler. I have never heard you or the other anti war crowd criticize Saddam.

You and others like you sound like apolpgists for the Iraqi regime pure and simple. Do you deny the atrocities commited by Saddam? Or are all the horror stories nothing but US propaganda? How could you sit there and think that the world is a better place if Sadddam is left in power?

How come you never bring up examples of Saddam torturing and killing his own people?
Dissidents are thrown into shredding machines. Messengers who bring Saddam Hussein bad news are shot

His son Uday kills and tortures underperforming Iraqi athletes.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/news/2003/03/24/son_of_saddam/

 

[taeclee99]

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
Your timeline forgets to include:

1983 - Donald Rumsfeld himself, serving as Special Envoy to the Middle East, hand delivers a message of blessing to Sadaam Hussein on behalf of President Ronald Reagan - this along with millions of dollars in support, as well as millions of dollars WORTH of millitary equipment - equipment eventually used against us in Gulf Wars I and now II (is this treason?).

We were on Sadaam's side during that eight year war, in which he gassed thousands.

I thought that was important to remember.

Davis

Yes you are right. We were are Saddam's side during that war. Supplying weapons to Saddam back them was not treason. It was American foreign policy.
Just becasue he was our ally back then does not make us hypocrites. Remember we fought along side the Russians in WW2. After the war ended they were our enemies. The Iraqi's being our allies back then is irelevant to the present situation. Saddam turned his back on us when he invaded Kuwait pure and simple.

 

[taeclee99]

Originally posted by topicolo
Oh come on! tell me this stuff isn't humiliating?

. I'm sure that all of those Iraqi soldiers are more than humilated to be forced to march in a line with their hands on their heads while they're being broadcast to the entire world.
What about this?

. That's pretty humiliating, if you ask me.

Juventuz: that is a completely useless statement. Just because the IRC hasn't condemned the US doesn't mean that the US didn't break the conventions. How is showing POWs to the ENTIRE WORLD not violating the public curiosity clause of the conventions?

The Soviets may have been contained by assurances of mutual destruction, but Libyan leader Muammar Al Qadhafi wasn't. He was pretty much as bad as Saddam back in the 80s, providing a blatant base for terrorists to lauch their assautls, but containment worked on that dictator, why can't it work on Saddam?

You gotta be ****ing ****ting me. Calling that photo of Iraqi's surrendering humiliating? PLEASE!!!!! Forcing to march with their hands on your head being broadcast around the world is not humilating. The video showing our GI's with bullet holes in their heads is not only humilating...it is deeply maddening. These GI's were shot at close range most likely after capture. Where is your moral outrage over the treatment of American troops /

Second, dont expect me to feel sorry for the treatmenjt off that ******* walker lindh. That bastard should of hung for treason.

We did not try to contain Mummar Kadafy. We bombed the heck out of him with our fighter jets in 1986.. We didnt need to send no wimpy UN inspectors to Libya. We had a President that didnot take crap from nobody.

 

[skunk]

Originally posted by taeclee99
Yes you are right. We were are Saddam's side during that war. Supplying weapons to Saddam back them was not treason. It was American foreign policy.
Just becasue he was our ally back then does not make us hypocrites. Remember we fought along side the Russians in WW2. After the war ended they were our enemies. The Iraqi's being our allies back then is irelevant to the present situation. Saddam turned his back on us when he invaded Kuwait pure and simple.

Of course it COULD be said that YOU turned your backs on many others when you invaded Iraq. Beware double standards. What you lot have done to the Al Qaeda lot is hardly a good example.

 

[leprechaunG4]

psuedo - You are a plethera of rhetoric and clouded judgement, along with some of your tag-team partners here. The soldiers had close rang bullet wounds to their foreheads. Sorry, but the Iraqi military did not find them that way. A close range bullet wound to the forehead happens one way: execution. That is the greatest of outrages that you are blind to. Next the living soldiers are forced to speak to the camera, big no no under Geneva. On the US side you see Iraqi troops surrendering, none of them are singled out, or forced to make statements to the camera. In the first gulf war Iraq forced a downed airman to say on Iraqi tv that he disagreed with the war. If he did not say he disagreed, he was to be shot. Can you see the difference here? What's your news source anyways, Saddam's press notes?

 

[taeclee99]

Originally posted by skunk
Of course it COULD be said that YOU turned your backs on many others when you invaded Iraq. Beware double standards. What you lot have done to the Al Qaeda lot is hardly a good example.

Who did we turn our backs on when we invaded Iraq?

France? Hardly. When France agreed to support UN resolution 1441, Colin Powell got an assurance from the French that they would not veto any future resolution authorizing consequences against Iraq. They lied. Who turned their back on who?

Russia? Nope. It is Russian firms that are selling electric jamming devices banned under the UN to the Iraq.

China...despite their rhethoric...they could care less.

AL Qaeda deserves whatever punishment we give them. I don't feel sorry for them in the slightest.

 

[taeclee99]

Originally posted by leprechaunG4
psuedo - You are a plethera of rhetoric and clouded judgement, along with some of your tag-team partners here. The soldiers had close rang bullet wounds to their foreheads. Sorry, but the Iraqi military did not find them that way. A close range bullet wound to the forehead happens one way: execution. That is the greatest of outrages that you are blind to. Next the living soldiers are forced to speak to the camera, big no no under Geneva. On the US side you see Iraqi troops surrendering, none of them are singled out, or forced to make statements to the camera. In the first gulf war Iraq forced a downed airman to say on Iraqi tv that he disagreed with the war. If he did not say he disagreed, he was to be shot. Can you see the difference here? What's your news source anyways, Saddam's press notes?

Finally someone in this forum with some sense. Leprechan is totally right on this one. To equate those pictures of Iraqis surrendering with the images shown on Al Jazeera as motal equivalents is degrading and insulting. I think Psuedo gets his info from the Daily Worker or some other Marxist rag.

 

[skunk]

Originally posted by taeclee99
Who did we turn our backs on when we invaded Iraq?

the UN for a start. You made an explicit undertaking that 1441 would not automatically trigger war.

AL Qaeda deserves whatever punishment we give them. I don't feel sorry for them in the slightest.

Double standards. I rest my case. Justice of the lynch-mob? Do we all want this? New World Order my ar$e!

 

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by taeclee99
Finally someone in this forum with some sense. Leprechan is totally right on this one. To equate those pictures of Iraqis surrendering with the images shown on Al Jazeera as motal equivalents is degrading and insulting. I think Psuedo gets his info from the Daily Worker or some other Marxist rag.

yeah, must be a communist eh? way to throw around the freaking labels.


but i agree, the pictures of the iraqi troops weren't as appaling. i think that's pretty clear.

however, i DO think they shouldn't have been broadcast. specifically a clip of one of the embedded journalists walking right up to the prisoners, on their knees under blankets, and picking up their belongings and such... what the hell is that? sure, it's not as cruel as what was done to the american soldiers. i would never equate them. i just want our side to have some accountability too. that shouldn't have been broadcast.

 

[skunk]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
that shouldn't have been broadcast.

It shouldn't have been DONE

 

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by skunk
It shouldn't have been DONE

definitely. the reporter part was too much. beyond that, i didn't see anything terribly bad. though i'm sure i didn't see it all... but none of it should've been broadcast. the rest shouldn't have been done. agreed. wasn't think straight when i was typing the other part

 

[taeclee99]

Originally posted by skunk
the UN for a start. You made an explicit undertaking that 1441 would not automatically trigger war.

Double standards. I rest my case. Justice of the lynch-mob? Do we all want this? New World Order my ar$e!

You gotta be kidding me> Turn our back on the UN? What a joke! The UN Security Council's inability to enforce 17 prior resoltions led us to this quagmire. We did not turn out back on the UN...the UN by failing to live up to its own responsibilities turned its back on the US.

UN Res 1441 called for consequences for non compliance. What good is it if they do not enforce it? The UN Security Council is now a paper tiger whose chain is being yanked by Saddam.

Do you remember what those Al Quaeda *******s did to us on 9-11? What did those 3000 people who perished in those towers ever do to Bin Laden and his ilk? Absolutely nothing!!!

I rest my case.

 

[Ifeelbloated]

Hey jelloshotsrule and pseudobrits, why don't you guys join the red cross and do some humanitarian work in Iraq right now? I'm sure the indigenous people there would welcome your help. I'm not kidding.

 

[skunk]

Originally posted by taeclee99
You gotta be kidding me> Turn our back on the UN? What a joke! The UN Security Council's inability to enforce 17 prior resoltions led us to this quagmire. We did not turn out back on the UN...the UN by failing to live up to its own responsibilities turned its back on the US.

UN Res 1441 called for consequences for non compliance. What good is it if they do not enforce it? The UN Security Council is now a paper tiger whose chain is being yanked by Saddam.

Do you remember what those Al Quaeda *******s did to us on 9-11? What did those 3000 people who perished in those towers ever do to Bin Laden and his ilk? Absolutely nothing!!!

I rest my case.

You know perfectly well that the UN couldn't enforce anything in Iraq without US firepower. On the contrary, the UN is a straw dog, not a paper tiger. You think you don't need it any more. And what had the 3,000 plus Afghan civilians killed in US bombing raids done to the US? Talk sense....

 

[skunk]

Originally posted by taeclee99
You gotta be kidding me> Turn our back on the UN? What a joke! The UN Security Council's inability to enforce 17 prior resoltions led us to this quagmire. We did not turn out back on the UN...the UN by failing to live up to its own responsibilities turned its back on the US.

UN Res 1441 called for consequences for non compliance. What good is it if they do not enforce it? The UN Security Council is now a paper tiger whose chain is being yanked by Saddam.

Do you remember what those Al Quaeda *******s did to us on 9-11? What did those 3000 people who perished in those towers ever do to Bin Laden and his ilk? Absolutely nothing!!!

I rest my case.

You know perfectly well that the UN couldn't enforce anything in Iraq with out US firepower. On the contrary, the UN is a straw dog, not a paper tiger. You think you don't need it any more. And what had the 3,000 plus Afghan civilians killed in US bombing raids done to the US? Talk sense....

 

[topicolo]

Originally posted by taeclee99
You gotta be ****ing ****ting me. Calling that photo of Iraqi's surrendering humiliating? PLEASE!!!!! Forcing to march with their hands on your head being broadcast around the world is not humilating. The video showing our GI's with bullet holes in their heads is not only humilating...it is deeply maddening. These GI's were shot at close range most likely after capture. Where is your moral outrage over the treatment of American troops /

Second, dont expect me to feel sorry for the treatmenjt off that ******* walker lindh. That bastard should of hung for treason.

We did not try to contain Mummar Kadafy. We bombed the heck out of him with our fighter jets in 1986.. We didnt need to send no wimpy UN inspectors to Libya. We had a President that didnot take crap from nobody.

You are no better than the Iraqis who filmed the soldiers if that is your true viewpoint. You are also missing the point about the pictures of the Iraqi prisoners. Go back up a few posts and actually read my posts before you make your comments. Here, let me save you the trouble: The Geneva conventions state that "...prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity." In other words, in addition to being forbidden to intimidate and act violently towards a prisoner, it's forbidden to expose POWs to public curiosity.
Iraq and Al-Jazeera are fools for their breaking of the conventions, but that if the coalition wants to maintain the moral high ground, they can't stoop to their level.

John Walker Lindh may have been a treasonous bastard, but treating him like an animal does not make the US any better. I never expected you to feel sorry for Lindh, but as a human being, he still has unalienable rights; rights that include dignity. If you don't believe in that, you're no better than Saddam.

 

[taeclee99]

Originally posted by topicolo
You are no better than the Iraqis who filmed the soldiers if that is your true viewpoint. You are also missing the point about the pictures of the Iraqi prisoners. Go back up a few posts and actually read my posts before you make your comments. Here, let me save you the trouble: The Geneva conventions state that "...prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity." In other words, in addition to being forbidden to intimidate and act violently towards a prisoner, it's forbidden to expose POWs to public curiosity.
Iraq and Al-Jazeera are fools for their breaking of the conventions, but that if the coalition wants to maintain the moral high ground, they can't stoop to their level.

John Walker Lindh may have been a treasonous bastard, but treating him like an animal does not make the US any better. I never expected you to feel sorry for Lindh, but as a human being, he still has unalienable rights; rights that include dignity. If you don't believe in that, you're no better than Saddam.

It was not the US that released the photos of the Iraqi's surrendering. The photos were taken by the news media and released to the public. The photos were not taken by our government for propaganda purposes.

Maybe you are right about Lindh. Maybe the treatment was a tad harsh. I still think he got off easy in the long run.

 

[taeclee99]

Originally posted by skunk
You know perfectly well that the UN couldn't enforce anything in Iraq with out US firepower. On the contrary, the UN is a straw dog, not a paper tiger. You think you don't need it any more. And what had the 3,000 plus Afghan civilians killed in US bombing raids done to the US? Talk sense....

Yes, I think that the UN has outlived its purpose. It failed to stop the genocide in Rwanda...was unwilling to confront Milosivic in Kosovo and now not lived up to its duty in enforcing 17 resolutions against Iraq. The security council is not there to serve the general welfare of all nations...it is there to server regional interests..ie France. Diplomacy failed in disarming Iraq not because of the US. Instead it was France that undermined diplomatic measures endorsed by US/UK/Spain coalition by threatening to veto any resolution that had teeth.

Yes...any civilian deaths in war is regretable. Does this mean that all war is unjustified? You think war against Adolf Hitler and General Tojo was unjustified? We did kill lot of innocent Germans and Japanese in WW2 you know. Under your logic all war is unwarranted. The price of freedom sometimes bears a very price. I am grateful to those troops right know who are fighting for your right to dissent.