Dear Incoming USA President, whoever you may be

I don't know if they would be rolling in their graves; old Prime Minister Billy Hughes was a bit of a racist bastard and would probably be happy to see the Arabs fighting with the Jews. From all reports Churchill and and the rest weren't much better. But hey, agreeing with Mr Hughes is hardly something to be proud of, so maybe you've got a point.

Did the US ever actually approve the Geneva Conventions? I remember someone telling me they didn't, but then the girl that told me was a rabid greenie and might have had too many magic mushies.

Hmmm; Impressment of U.S. Sailors; Mustard Gas; V2 Rockets and Gas Chambers; The Bataan Death March; The Hanoi Hilton; Gulf War Syndrome; Blackhawk Down; Beheadings, Roadside Bombs disquised as dead dogs and Suicide Bombers...golly gee Martha! I guess the rest of the world subscribed to the Geneva Convention too. It's easy to dis the actors when you're sitting comfortably in the audience. Get a clue. Better yet, try serving your country in some fashion and offer some constructive advice instead of belly aching with no point.

Agent Orange was a defoliant, not a chemical weapon. Tht it was later found to be a carcinogen is not relevant tot he Geneva Convention. The Invasion of Iraq was provoked by his refusal to live up to the armistice he signed when he was kicked out of Kuwait. The war never ended, it was just put on hold to give Saddam a chance, which he blew.

Political prisoners are not covered under the Geneva convention, however if you are referring to the abuse of prisoners atu Abu Graib, then you will also note the guilty parties are being tried and convicted of their crimes.

Whoever is the president, I can assure you that he will ignore you like a sack of rotting garbage, for it is clear you do not know your facts or history, but your communist screed died over a decade ago with the demise of the USSR.

Cacto, the US is a signatory of the Geneva Convention. Your friend is confusing it with the Kyoto accords.

I don't know if Agent Orange was used as just a defoliant. It was used on areas right next to civilian villages and used over water sources used by the locals. Sure it was designed to be a defoliant, but the mass use of it suggests that Bomber Command at least (who might be expected to know something about where it's used even if the government doesn't) wasn't particularly concerned about possible civilian loss of life or contamination.

Your friend is confusing it with the Kyoto accords

Nah, on recollection it was the rights of the child convention. The US supposedly won't sign because it disagrees with the line in the convention about executing minors.

I think you have touched the right bases, Agent Orange is forgotten. We have to worry about what father and son have together given this w

orld: I mean George I and GeorgeII. Depleted Urarium bombs have been dropped in large quantities In Iraq and there is every danger o

By: Champas Socialist Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 on Champagne Socialism Message Board: Politics Agent Orange in Vietnam. The unprovoked invasion of Iraq. The abuse of political prisoners. Dear US Presidents of the future, the Geneva conventions were not intended as guidelines. They are the combined wisdom of a generation who, unlike you, lived with war. You only ever have to observe from afar. Those wise men now roll in their graves

We signed the conventions but the second set was never ratified by the US. So it's non-binding! Do your homework before opening mouth and inserting foot.

Depleted Urarium bombs have been dropped in large quantities In Iraq and there is every danger o

Pop quiz, hot shot! What exactly does the US Military use Depleted Uranium for? What muntion or muntions can it be found in?

The answer might suprise you!!

- Grimgent X

Reply #7 By: Grim Xiozan - 10/20/2004 1:25:26 PM Depleted Urarium bombs have been dropped in large quantities In Iraq and there is every danger o Pop quiz hot shot what exactly do the US Military use Depleted Uranium for? What muntion can it be found in? The answer might suprise you!! - Grimgent X

Unless I'm saldly mistaken the other guy is talking out his butt! The US uses depleted uranium in cannon/mortar rounds (20 mike-mike if I remember correctly.) as armor piercing NOT as bombs!

Unless I'm saldly mistaken the other guy is talking out his butt! The US uses depleted uranium in cannon/mortar rounds (20 mike-mike if I remember correctly.) as armor piercing NOT as bombs!

Bingo!

The DU rounds are only used for Armor Piercing; bombs that are dropped are conventional explosives (non-DU).

Of course, if we are talking about the A-10 Thunderbolt it uses DU rounds in its Vulcan cannon to pierce tank armor.

- Grim Xorce: Step into the Black!

Political prisoners are not covered under the Geneva convention,

Yeah, isn't it convenient that the gov't can go around declaring people as 'enemy combatants' now. Come on, you can't possibly say that evrything that the gov't has done as of late is completely Kosher.

Whoever is the president, I can assure you that he will ignore you like a sack of rotting garbage, for it is clear you do not know your facts or history, but your communist screed died over a decade ago with the demise of the USSR.

And I hope he will have the insight to ignore your hateful opinion as well. While I am not a communist, I know enough about history to know that the USSR was not really communist either, but a socialist dictatorship that bordered on a theocracy. Go back to the 50s with your Red Scare BS.

Yeah, isn't it convenient that the gov't can go around declaring people as 'enemy combatants' now. Come on, you can't possibly say that evrything that the gov't has done as of late is completely Kosher.

Ever heard of Sodium Penthanol and the proper way to interrogate prisoners under Geneva Convention guidelines?

In fact, how would you (those of you who are concerned over Gitmo Bay) want an interrogation conducted according to your take on the Geneva Convention accords?

- Xplosively Grimmy

Sodium Penthanol (is that the right spelling?) is inefficient and often ineffective as an interrogation drug. Drugs are much more effective combined with psychological and physical torture like that inflicted in Iraq by both Saddam and rogue US forces.

I think most of Bahu's post has been lost - while his Depleted Uranium bomb claim shows ignorance, it might be better to wait and see what else he has to say before judging him completely.

I think most of Bahu's post has been lost - while his Depleted Uranium bomb claim shows ignorance, it might be better to wait and see what else he has to say before judging him completely.

I didn't say anything about him being ignorant just trying to get his reasoning behind his claim. As for the interrogation you can torture somebody without laying a hand on them...it is called sleep deprivation. Though the methods I wanted to hear from people complaining about Gitmo were methods that they consider are compliant with the Geneva Convention guidelines.

- Xond, Grim Xond, Agent 0069

Well, I would call his claim about depleted uranium bombs ignorant - that's why I said it showed ignorance. Depleted uranium bombs would be a ecological disaster. The US military couldn't justify that, despite their incredible PR machine.

Hearing about the massive psychological damage that one of Australia's Gitmo detainees appears to have suffered while in Cuba suggests to me that, if only Geneva Convention sanctioned torture was used, then perhaps the rules need to be tightened a little. According to his lawyers he's lost the capacity to speak or respond in any recognisably human way - one of the reasons the media aren't allowed in the courtrooms. That kind of deconstruction takes a lot of time and effort. It's fortunate that he's not subject to a court of justice or he'd probably be acquitted or sent to the asylum to be patched up.

One of the funniest things about writing articles like this one is watching the right wingers get their knickers in a twist over the silliest little things and completely missing the point of the article, as though their little nit picks somehow justifies what successive US Presidents have done. And then they pretend they know their stuff so much better than me, when even George Dubya would have a good chance of seeing through them. You crack me up, you really do.

Grim, I was simply calling attention to the seeming lack of any kind of a balanced opinion in your post. I don't pretend to know enough about Gitmo to make an informed comment on it, but as for the 'enemy combatant' thing, that seems pretty questionable to me, and you don't even pay it any attention.

It's nice to see that you can extrapolate from what little I said that I am diametrically opposed to every position you have. Good insight.

It's nice to see that you can extrapolate from what little I said that I am diametrically opposed to every position you have. Good insight.

Yes, we all know how a question like I asked is so unbalanced. Where did I say I thought you opposed my position I just asked what are acceptable methods of torture?

If you really want to chat about 'enemy combatants' be my guest, but you do know there is a difference between a war criminal and prisoner of war?

What opinion was unbalanced the DU rounds? Well I guess that could be an opinion based on fact or the Sodium Whatenthol, of course sleep deprivation is just plain awful. Speaking of that does anybody know where to look up what the Geneva guidelines say about torture at all?

Though when fighting against foreign soldiers to that foreign terrain what do you classify them as? I have yet to hear anybody living right now in the United States, right here on US Soil be called a 'enemy combatant', John Walker Lindh was on foreign soil attacking the US or its Afghan allies. Though before I go further into the subject I would rather hear first what are your thoughts on the subject.

PLINKO!

"Did the US ever actually approve the Geneva Conventions?" Yes, just not the additional Protocols. We signed and ratified the Geneva conventions so they have the same legal effect as federal statutes.

Reply #14 By: cactoblasta - 10/20/2004 6:53:06 PM Well, I would call his claim about depleted uranium bombs ignorant - that's why I said it showed ignorance. Depleted uranium bombs would be a ecological disaster. The US military couldn't justify that, despite their incredible PR machine

Actually it's not ignorant. It's stupid! There is no such weapon as a DU bomb! DU is used in cannon/mortar rounds as armor piercing!

Drmiler: "We signed the conventions but the second set was never ratified by the US. So it's non-binding! Do your homework before opening mouth and inserting foot."

Using weapons such as Agent Orange, The unprovoked invasion of Iraq and The abuse of prisoners ARE violations of the Geneva conventions and we DID sign them. The only part we didn't sign were the additional protocols which have no bearing on the use of indiscriminate weaponry, the treatment of POWs, or the act of engaging in aggressive war. So I suggest that before you berate others, you do a bit of homework yourself.

Champas Socialist : "One of the funniest things about writing articles like this one is watching the right wingers get their knickers in a twist over the silliest little things and completely missing the point of the article, as though their little nit picks somehow justifies what successive US Presidents have done."

I think you hit the nail right on the head.

Reply #20 By: T_Bone4Justice - 10/25/2004 8:19:19 PM Drmiler: "We signed the conventions but the second set was never ratified by the US. So it's non-binding! Do your homework before opening mouth and inserting foot." Using weapons such as Agent Orange, The unprovoked invasion of Iraq and The abuse of prisoners ARE violations of the Geneva conventions and we DID sign them. The only part we didn't sign were the additional protocols which have no bearing on the use of indiscriminate weaponry, the treatment of POWs, or the act of engaging in aggressive war. So I suggest that before you berate others, you do a bit of homework yourself.

Agent Orange? How far back did you have to dig for that one? Actually this is a defoliant. It was never intended nor was it used exclusively on human targets. Nor was it ever used as a primary weapon. You call it and unprovoked attack.... Wanna bet they get away with it? The abuse of prisoners has been *dealt* with by our military. So that also is a non issue as far a the conventions are concerned. The conventions would come into play if we stood back and nothing about the abuses.

"Political prisoners are not covered under the Geneva convention" Anyone caputured in the Iraq theatre is not a political prisoner, they are POWs. As such, the Geneva conventions apply. The administration itself declared this so I don't see how the characterization of Iraqi prisoners as "politcal prisoners" applies.

Reply #4 By: cactoblasta - 10/20/2004 10:02:41 AM I don't know if Agent Orange was used as just a defoliant. It was used on areas right next to civilian villages and used over water sources used by the locals. Sure it was designed to be a defoliant, but the mass use of it suggests that Bomber Command at least (who might be expected to know something about where it's used even if the government doesn't) wasn't particularly concerned about possible civilian loss of life or contamination.

Again it wasn't found out to be a carcinogen until much later. It was used close to villages so the VC couldn't hide there. Kind of hard to hide when ther's no foliage to hide under

Drmiler, "Agent Orange? How far back did you have to dig for that one?"

I didn't have to go far back at all since it was raised in this author's ACTUAL article! hahahahha! I only repeated it since that was the focus of the debate. (Which is ridiculous in and of itself since it misses the entire point of the article). While you can argue that Agent Orange wasn't a weapon per se, you can't argue that all the carpet bombings during Vietnam were not indiscriminate attacks. You can find all sorts of Geneva conventions violations in our past...we have no claim to sainthood. Secondly, the additional protocols, although, not ratified by the Senate are recognized by the U.S. as customary law and therefore binding upon the U.S. The whole point to Champas Socialist's article was to say that we should learn from our past mistakes and not repeat them. And he hit the nail right on the head when he wrote ""One of the funniest things about writing articles like this one is watching the right wingers get their knickers in a twist over the silliest little things and completely missing the point of the article, as though their little nit picks somehow justifies what successive US Presidents have done." You never argue the substantive main point of the argument. You just knit pick at the insignificant details.