Whos Really The Sad Bunch??

newsports

Rookie
Oct 25, 2003
17
0
1
According to the Laws regarding occupations it is a necessity that the nation that occupies not only protect the land but the people of that land.

The Bush administration seems to be passing the buck as they have on all of their other failures. When US Generals said that at least 250,000 troops were necessary in Iraq, It wasnt based on what would be needed in order to overthrow the Baath party.

This number was in line with what would be necessary to control the country throughout this reconstruction process. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz amoung others skoffed at the idea that these troops would be necessary.

They also seemed to incourage the mayhem that insued following Saddams departure from power. Rumsfeld even went so far as to say this was a good thing that the people were finally able to "loot"?? (i dont get it either)

The point is that the "insurgents, Saddam loyalist, foreign fighters, and Al queada simpithyzers" that have been creating a more volitile and deadly Iraq , are a direct result of the Bush administrations lack of forethought and the where with all to take the basic steps necessary to protect the lives of American GI's ,The Coalition of the Willing, Iraqis, and foreign aid workers.

I almost dont blame the UN and the Red Cross for deciding to cut and run. Neither of those organizations are armies and for those that insist that foreign organizations that leave are some how aiding terrorism is silly. Their leaving is simply a response to the occupiers not protecting their interest.

I'll just add this to the growing list of failures the Bush administration is amassing.
ANYBODY ELSE IN 04'
http://newsports.us Today's News

Figures that the Bush administration doesnt fund education their to dumb to realize its necessary to creating a healthy safe society. They should be called "The Dont Thinkables"
 
grammar aside, great post.

however, it won't matter. the moderators that run this site are so neck deep in the bushie BS, they won't see the truth if it had it's teeth presently sunken into their flesh.
 
Originally posted by spillmind
grammar aside, great post.

however, it won't matter. the moderators that run this site are so neck deep in the bushie BS, they won't see the truth if it had it's teeth presently sunken into their flesh.

It's an open forum. Yeah, the mediators are conservative but I haven't had any problems stating my views, have you? I asked one of them why he banned a left poster and he presented the list of events that led to his banning, basicaly the guy was repeatedly asked to post into the threads and he just refused. Are there other instances I'm not aware of (I've only been reading this board a couple weeks)?
 
Originally posted by newsports
According to the Laws regarding occupations it is a necessity that the nation that occupies not only protect the land but the people of that land.


Welcome to the board, newsports. I'd be very interested to see the laws you refer to. I'm familiar withthe Geneva conventions and the laws of war, but not any laws of occupation.
 
>>it is a necessity that the nation that occupies not only protect the land but the people of that land. <<

You suggesting we don't need to protect the Iraqis? (Or are you sharpening your rhetorical skills on the new guy)?
 
No, I'm just wondering what laws he's talking about. I agree that there is a moral mandate to take all reasonalbe steps to protect the citizens of the country you are occupying.
 
looks to be addressed by the 4th geneva convention?



http://people.howstuffworks.com/rules-of-war4.htm

On the most basic level, civilians are protected by the same general humanitarian principles that govern the treatment of POWs, the wounded, and others not taking an active role in the conflict. Any form of physical violence or degradation is prohibited. An armed force may not attack civilians, nor use them as a "human shield" to render a location protected from attack.

The general purpose of the fourth Geneva Convention is to shield civilians, and children in particular, from the effects of war. It provides for "neutralized zones" where fighting is prohibited, and hospital and safety zones for the protection of the sick, the elderly, pregnant women, children under 15 and mothers of children under seven. These zones are supposed to be labeled with a huge Red Cross sign to ensure their protection. Children are supposed to wear identity badges in case they are lost or orphaned. Hospital workers are also supposed to carry special identity cards so that they are never prevented from performing their duties.
 
Originally posted by spillmind
grammar aside, great post.

however, it won't matter. the moderators that run this site are so neck deep in the bushie BS, they won't see the truth if it had it's teeth presently sunken into their flesh.

Out of all the posters on the political portion of this site, only NT and myself have posted here consistently. And NT has been busy and hasn't barely posted here in the past 3 weeks. So, are you somehow saying this post would be directed solely at me? LOL

What a buffoon! :D
 
ahhh jim... mr. self proclaimed 145 IQ, back to name calling *sigh*

refer to my first post on this board, so i don't have to name names.

i really should try this selective ignorance thing you've got going.

...even if i am convinced that you do it as an act to generate traffic and angry posts. good for you, i guess.
 
You respond to a post by insulting the moderators of this board, and now you're telling me I'm wrong for calling you a buffoon?

Sorry, you initiated the issue this time.

And the name fits.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top