It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Satyr
The point is, we scream Geneva Convention all the time, and even use it as justification for attacking, but only seem to adhere to it when it benefits us. That's already been proven by our dropping cluster bombs.
...but when five of its captured soldiers were paraded in front of the Iraqi television cameras on Sunday, Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, immediately complained that "it is against the Geneva convention to show photographs of prisoners of war in a manner that is humiliating for them".
Originally posted by Satyr
Do some research, buddy. Cluster bombs are illegal. You didn't know? And we've referenced the GC many times, while classifying Iraq as in defiance of certain terms of it. Here's but one example:
I did do some research, and I failed to come up with anything that says the US agrees that they are illegal and refuses to use them ever again. Why don't you answer my question about whether or not you want to put more people at risk by using less capable ordnance?
...but when five of its captured soldiers were paraded in front of the Iraqi television cameras on Sunday, Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, immediately complained that "it is against the Geneva convention to show photographs of prisoners of war in a manner that is humiliating for them".
Originally posted by COOL HAND
I did do some research, and I failed to come up with anything that says the US agrees that they are illegal and refuses to use them ever again. Why don't you answer my question about whether or not you want to put more people at risk by using less capable ordnance?
Under Article 85 of the Geneva Conventions, it is a war crime to launch "an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population in the knowledge that such an attack will cause an excessive loss of life or injury to civilians." Under the Hague Conventions, Article 22 and 23, "The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited," and "It is especially forbidden to kill treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army."
Originally posted by Phoenix
I mean were you there do you have first person experience to back up what you have asserted?
Originally posted by Satyr
Ummm, we signed it, didn't we? It's specifically stated that indiscriminate weapons, such as cluster bombs, are not allowed. I can't help you much more than that, if you can't even look up the facts yourself.
Originally posted by Satyr
Jesus Christ! You'll say anything to support your current state of denial, won't you? To answer your question, I don't think we should be in Iraq in the first place, so I can't fully answer your question.
[Edited on 5-10-2004 by Satyr]
An indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects and resulting in excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. (Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 3)
Originally posted by Satyr
Unexploded bombs dropped over 30 years ago during the Vietnam war still endanger civilians in Laos. In Afghanistan, yellow cluster bombs have been mistaken for food aid packages wrapped in the same colour.
Unexploded ordnance is found in France all of the time from WWI. What is your point?
Could it be any more clear?
Yes, as you cannot prove those are illegal. Read the actual text from the GC.
[Edited on 5-10-2004 by Satyr]
Originally posted by Satyr
Read the bold text above. If that doesn't violate the GC, I don't know what does.
Originally posted by Satyr
You know what? Forget it. You're unreasonably stubborn and it's obvious that you won't see anything that you don't want to see. I can't debate this with you. I couldn't convince you that you lost a leg, if you didn't want to believe it, even if it was clear that you only had one.
Originally posted by Satyr
(a) making the civilian population or individual civilians the object of attack; (b) launching an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects, as defined in Article 57, paragraph 2 (a)(iii);
30+ years worth of indiscriminate bombs scattered all over the country doesn't apply, eh?
You are truly blind. I give up. You win.
Originally posted by Satyr
The bombs don't even explode half the time. They can be stepped on 30+ years later by anyone. If you don't think that's indiscriminate, please give me your definition, would you?
Those bombs were dropped to either
A Attack a target
B Dropped to lighten an aircraft who is under attack to make it more manueverable
C. Dropped due to damage sustained in an attack.
I would define indiscriminate as being for no purpose. The closest thing I can compare it to is a pilot punching off ordnance for the hell of it. Not to attack anything.
In the case of CBs they are used on troop and armor formation. They are not good for much else. Some are programmed with a delayed fuse, so that the enemy cannot move into the area again.
As I already said, there's no need to continue this. You're one of those who only reads what supports your stance. Once that type of person has been identified, there is really no reason to debate any further. It's pointless. Drop it. I'm done with you. It's like arguing with a tree.
Tell me about it. You refuse to accept the information I gave you without attempting to debunk it. I have already taken care of yours. For this to be a true debate you need to come at it with better arguments/evidence.
[Edited on 5-10-2004 by Satyr]