1 edit
Originally posted by newdad27Don't be so bloody stupid. Of course there is a 'threat of terrorism'. There has been a 'threat of terrorism' since I was nothing more than a glimmer in my father's eye.
So to you there is no threat of terrorism in the world, right?
That is no excuse for the blatant disregard for internation law, (and american law) being shown by your government at the moment. They are playing into the hands of all extremists out there when they behave like this.
Oh, and I'm glad you have now backtracked from your opinion in the 'Guantanamo Bay' thread, where you insisted these people were not pow's.
Fact: these are prisoners of a war 🙄
Originally posted by Redmikeno some countries just stand up and fight those that wish to do us harm. Unlike countries like spain who let a train bombing affect their political elections. Unlike France ignores the threat and accepts bribes from Saddam via Oil for food. Yes, I would much rather fight terrorism in Iraq (etc.) than wait for them to strike the U.S. again. And it's people like those on this sight who activley pull for the U.S. to fail and constantly attack the most benevolant country in the world who make me sick.
There has been a threat of terrorism for many decades now.
Its just that some people think it only counts when it directly affects the US.
1 edit
Originally posted by tojothey are prisoners of "a war", not typical pow's because they ARE NOT afforded geneva protections. You just dont know what you are talking about because no international law has been violated, and by saying there has been shows your ignorance.
Don't be so bloody stupid. Of course there is a 'threat of terrorism'. There has been a 'threat of terrorism' since I was nothing more than a glimmer in my father's eye.
That is no excuse for the blatant disregard for internation law, (and american law) being shown by your government at the moment. They are playing into the hands of all extremists out ...[text shortened]... where you insisted these people were not pow's.
[b]Fact: these are prisoners of a war 🙄[/b]
It is so frustrating debating with people like you who don't know what you are talking about. You just throw out "violating international law" when you know nothing about the law.
Originally posted by newdad27But Iraq wasn't responsible for any attack on the US.
no some countries just stand up and fight those that wish to do us harm. Unlike countries like spain who let a train bombing affect their political elections. Unlike France ignores the threat and accepts bribes from Saddam via Oil for food. Yes, I would much rather fight terrorism in Iraq (etc.) than wait for them to strike the U.S. again. And it's peo ...[text shortened]... he U.S. to fail and constantly attack the most benevolant country in the world who make me sick.
How did Spain let an attack affect their elections? The issue in Spain was that the president tried to use the attack for his own electoral purposes (he tried to blame ETA, if I remember), and the people saw through him. Should the Spanish people not be able to do that? What should the Spanish have done differently in those circumstances.
The US the most benevolant country in the world? Don't make me laugh. The US is generous only with your weaponary.
Originally posted by newdad27That's just bollox.
they are prisoners of "a war", not typical pow's because they ARE NOT afforded geneva protections. You just dont know what you are talking about because no international law has been violated, and by saying there has been shows your ignorance.
It is so frustrating debating with people like you who don't know what you are talking about. You just throw out "violating international law" when you know nothing about the law.
If they are taken prisoner in a war, they are prisoners of war, and entitled to all the legal protection that gives.
Originally posted by Redmikenope, sorry you are dead wrong. If they do not fight for a country, are not in uniform, do not follow rules or warfare, they are not afforded geneva protections.
That's just bollox.
If they are taken prisoner in a war, they are prisoners of war, and entitled to all the legal protection that gives.
Originally posted by newdad27Ah ha! So that's your argument. Very convienent.
nope, sorry you are dead wrong. If they do not fight for a country, are not in uniform, do not follow rules or warfare, they are not afforded geneva protections.
So when US soldiers are captured by these "non-uniformed combatants" are US soldiers afforded the protections of POW status?
Originally posted by Redmikeiraq aided the terrorist by letting them train there and maintaing them. at the time Iraq had violated 18 un resolutions and had broke the cease fire agreement which gave the U.S. the international authority to take action. Saddam alowed al queda to train there and supported other teorrist cells that were trainging and taking refuge there. Lastly, every intellegence soure (mi5, cia, british, etc) said there were definatley wmd's there. I dont see another choice but going into iraq. It is a bit more complicated than you (and the others) would like to believe.
But Iraq wasn't responsible for any attack on the US.
How did Spain let an attack affect their elections? The issue in Spain was that the president tried to use the attack for his own electoral purposes (he tried to blame ETA, if I remember), and the people saw through him. Should the Spanish people not be able to do that? What should the Spanish have do ...[text shortened]... evolant country in the world? Don't make me laugh. The US is generous only with your weaponary.
2 edits
Originally posted by newdad27There was, and still is, absolutely no evidence to support the claim that Saddam was aiding/supporting Al Q'aeda. That is just plain wrong.
iraq aided the terrorist by letting them train there and maintaing them. at the time Iraq had violated 18 un resolutions and had broke the cease fire agreement which gave the U.S. the international authority to take action. Saddam alowed al queda to train there and supported other teorrist cells that were trainging and taking refuge there. Lastly, every i ...[text shortened]... going into iraq. It is a bit more complicated than you (and the others) would like to believe.
Yes, Saddam had violated UN resolutions. UN resolutions. Therefor the UN had the authority to take things further, no-one else. The UN was specifically against invading Iraq. They wanted a new resolution, and further inspections.
Every intelligence source? You only mention America and Britain. In both cases, the 'intelligence' has been proven to be false.
Strangely, these are the two main countries who took part in the invasion of Iraq. I think you'll find that te situation is a hell of a lot more complicated then you seem to think.
You chuck rhetoric around as if it is a logical argument, and resort to (pretty lame) insults if no-one agrees with you. Strangely, there seems to be no-one around backing you in this thread. Wonder why...
Originally posted by newdad27Wow. Both MI5 AND British Intelligence said there were WMDs there? Incredible. 🙄
iraq aided the terrorist by letting them train there and maintaing them. at the time Iraq had violated 18 un resolutions and had broke the cease fire agreement which gave the U.S. the international authority to take action. Saddam alowed al queda to train there and supported other teorrist cells that were trainging and taking refuge there. Lastly, every i ...[text shortened]... going into iraq. It is a bit more complicated than you (and the others) would like to believe.
Pity none of the weapons inspectors believed there were weapons there.
D
Originally posted by wibof course they are since the us soldiers meet the requirements set by the geneva convention, but they are not treated near as well as the terrorist are.
Ah ha! So that's your argument. Very convienent.
So when US soldiers are captured by these "non-uniformed combatants" are US soldiers afforded the protections of POW status?
Originally posted by tojoagain you are wrong, i see this is really pointless. THere was plenty of evidence that saddam supported them. Saddams sons housed and treated Zarqawi in Saddams hospital for injuries he suffered in battle. This stuff if pretty common knowledge and the fact that you are not aware of it, or ignore it, shows your ignorance.
There was, and still is, absolutely no evidence to support the claim that Saddam was aiding/supporting Al Q'aeda. That is just plain wrong.
Yes, Saddam had violated UN resolutions. [b]UN resolutions. Therefor the UN had the authority to take things further, no-one else. The UN was specifically against invading Iraq. They wanted a new resolution, and fur ...[text shortened]... s with you. Strangely, there seems to be no-one around backing you in this thread. Wonder why...[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by newdad27You insist on spouting the rhetoric of your leaders, but refuse to look at any facts other than the ones they feed you.
again you are wrong, i see this is really pointless. THere was plenty of evidence that saddam supported them. Saddams sons housed and treated Zarqawi in Saddams hospital for injuries he suffered in battle. This stuff if pretty common knowledge and the fact that you are not aware of it, or ignore it, shows your ignorance.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war, that is pretty much substantiated. It is also pretty much substantiated that the camp he ran, for his 'Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad' organisation, was based in the Kurdish North, outside Saddam's juristiction.
The Kurds, who are now our allies, remember.
There is no evidence to support the hospital episode. Again, you repeat the lines given, without any further evidence. He was in a hospital in Iraq, that looks likely, but wether it was with the blessing of any of the Hussains, is nothing more than supposition, and probably always will be. Talk facts, not possibilities.
Originally posted by tojofact: the hospital was run by saddam's son. Fact: there is no region outside of Saddam's control.
You insist on spouting the rhetoric of your leaders, but refuse to look at any facts other than the ones they feed you.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war, that is pretty much substantiated. It is also pretty much substantiated that the camp he ran, for his 'Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad' organisation, was based in the Kurdish North, outside Sa ...[text shortened]... othing more than supposition, and probably always will be. Talk facts, not possibilities.