The US media take any and all shots at our armed forces. Thier is no evil fascit censership going on, but thats an argument for another day.I know that they don't show such things in the U.S. That's the problem with self-censorship and maybe why I couldn't find an English reportage of that incident.
Oh I trust you. If you say it says that it says that. I just don't trust them.You can see the reportage here. But it is in German. You have to trust me that they say what I say that thay say it - or you have to find someone you trust to translate it for you.
That is correct I do believe and here atleast I do agree. A wounded man was shot to death. Still I would need to know the details on why he needed to be killed. Please don't state evil American agression as the answer. Anyway it's not a warcrime officaly because the enemy is not protect by the Geneva conviction. They don't quaillfy, all that stuff about not wearing uniforms and junk.The pilot has seen that the person was wounded. He asked if he should kill the wounded. The answer via radio: Kill him. He has done it: He has killed a wounded person, who was not fit for action. According to the Geneva Convention that's murder - even if it wouldn't have been a civilian.
More like all of them.I know that sometimes in a war also civilians are killed
That war is over,but that doesn't stop the guys from trying to blow junk up. So thier is a war going on.But - as Bush has said - the war in Iraq is over
I would need to see footage of that going on, not a web artical saying they do,and a lot more then thirty seconds of night footage.But often enough the American forces show that they don't care if they kill civilians and there are many incidents in which they kill civilians without any need.
Well that isn't needed for my question, I simply picked a name of a man regarded as evil and wiht plans for global domination. I guess I could have said stalin but Hitler has better street cred. However both Hussein and hitler were mass murdering despots so thier not that dissimilar.Don't compare Hussein with Hitler
??? You compare Bush to Hussein and infact say he worse IIRC, but comparing one brutal thug to another is inappropriate? The biggest differnce between them is one we let go on and on until he was a major threat. The other we kept nipping in the bud, permantly now.That's inappropriate
Niether do I, when they work. They rarely have an effect however. I'm not saying War should byour first responce, but it has to be on the table.And I have no problem with political and diplomatical sanctions
The first part I agree with. One should always try diplomacy first. The second however I don't understand. Why in the *bleeping* hell does the UN decide when to go to war? You realise atleast half the guys in thier are brutal despotic thugs right? Hell thier human rights commetie is a living joke. Plus they never declare war. They pose sanction after sanction and form commeties and push a lot of paperwork around but thats it. However if you prefer feel good motions over getting the job done knock yourself out.And if it is really necessary - and the U.N. decides so - a war is still a possibility
From our point of view it was necessary and the UN seemed more interested in oil for castle programs and having it's members sell military hardware to Iraq then fixing the problem.But it was neither necessary nor has the U.N. permited that war.
True, thier are plenty of crummy regimes out thier, but it doesn't mean freeing the people wasn't a good thing.And one has to be honest: That war wasn't done because Hussein has killed his own people.
Actually that has been a fear of the US since well after the first gulf war. So yes atleast part of the reason was that we believed he had them.And the war wasn't done because the American government was concerned that he could get weapons of mass destruction
Actually just about every intel agency at the time, including those from countires trying to stop the war, agreed he had WMDs. We also found IIRC gas cansisers (eith toxic gas in them)which was forbiden under treaty I believe. Not what we were looking for but proof he broke the treaty.the official reason they have given for the "pre-emptive" attack although they have known that that is rubbish
Which in thise case was a very stupid law that shouldn't exist.and not allowed according to international law
That my friend is life. We said nice things about the soviets during WWII despite the fact they were as bad if not worse then the Nazis because we had a common enemy. I have no problem working along side, even helping lesser evil as along as we are fighting the greater evil. You have to pick your battles, and we can't invade every country on Earth can we? :)And one shouldn't be hypocritical. It isn't right to demonize one person for things he has done when he was still a friend and the things he has done were approved then.
Iraq did not attack the us directly, that comment was directed twoards afgan, but anyway he did attack US personal which is grounds for war. Second he used to pay for kids to go blow themselves up in Israil I call that terrorism. Then thier was the training camps and providing shelter to the odd terrorist or two.Not the Iraq has attacked the U.S. nor has it supported terrorism.
Our right to self-defence is over when the threat is over. not a mere attack. Nor do we have to sit on the defensive and wait for the enemy we know will attack us to strike. We simply went to them. As to something we wanted to do for a long time, what? Invade Iraq? Why the hell did we want that? Do you think we wanted three or four thousand dead American soldiers? To waste billions blowing up then rebuilding a country? We did not want this. We finaly after a decade of sloth responded to a guy who was asking for it. We should be thanked for removing a bit of filth from the world, instead we get this.And your right for self-defence is over when the attack is over. Self-defence is only to ward off an attack. It's not a justification to do what you have wanted to do a long time ago if it goes farther than it is necessary to ward off an attack.
?The fact the wars were legal is irreleveant to the question of if the wars was legal?That's irrelevant for the question if the wars Bush has started were legal.
Uh we demanded bin ladin, they refuse to give him to us, so we went in. Granted we didn't wait around for the UN seal of approval, but we wanted to capture him before he died of old age. That was all part of responce to the attack on US soil directly part of the self defense you grant. As to Iraq I pointed out he broke the rules, any one of which the treaty said we could go back in and finish the job. really only a continution of the war before, so unless that one also was illegal it's covered.Fact is that they were illegal and that he has known it. 9/11 can not justify the wars of aggression in Afghanistan or Iraq.
If defending one's nation is violation of the law, well then maybe the law should be reviewed. It could have been writen under a false assumption like say the UN is a morally superior force then say the US.These wars have violated the law of nations. That's a fact - and not merely an opinion.
I mean what happens if thier is a brutal, tyrant with dreams of global domination, but the Un refuses to go to war for whatever reason. WOuld you sleep better at night allowing things to escalate until they reach the boiling point and we have to fight him on his terms? Or would you advocate nipping the problem in the bud despite UN objections. I eagerl await your responce.
Me, I've learn from history. Despots need to be hit hard and fast as soon as possible. WWII would have been a footnote if we had simply gone to war back in 1934 or 36 when Hitler started breaking the treaties. Instead we talked peace and end up with one of the most brutal wars , and left Europe in ruins.
