Text 18370, 159 rader
Skriven 2005-12-10 17:54:54 av Raymond Yates (1:3613/48)
  Kommentar till text 18335 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Copyright
=================
 MV>>>>> The Geneva convention was a nice try. But what good is it if
 MV>>>>> the party with the biggest gun, the US, ignores it when it
 MV>>>>> does not suit their agenda?

 >>>> I don't see where we've ignored it.

 MV>>> Ask the "guests" at the Gitmo hotel....

 >> Who fall in te cracks of the Convention,

 MV> Cracks created for the purpose by the US interpreters....

No, cracks that existed when the thing was drafted.

 >> AFAICT. Esle they'd be treated differently as it is, they
 >> receive the benifits accorded to POW's.

 MV> No they don't. They are denied visits from the representatives of the
 MV> Red Cross.

Which they do not get beacuse they are not POW's, other than that...

 >>>> exploited the loopholes, yes, ignored, no. read it reference to
 >>>> teh definition of combatants. http://www.genevaconventions.org/

 MV>>> That's just word games. For all intents and purposes the
 MV>>> prisoners at Guantanomo Bay are prisoners of war. If the US
 MV>>> really *wanted* to play fair, they'd not be looking for
 MV>>> loopholes and play word games to avoid being bound by the Geneva
 MV>>> convention. They'd just apply it.

 >> OK, so presume that they are Prisoners of War. That means we
 >> get to keep them until the war's over, right?

 MV> They should have been released nearly two yeras ago when George Bush
 MV> declared that armed hostilities had ended and that the war was over.

You sure that's what he said? have you seen a peace treaty? and with whom..

 >> we don't have to have hearings and tribunals, we just get to
 >> house them until one of two thngs happen, a ending of the war, or
 >> a prisoner echange.  So, where's the problem?

 MV> 1) That according to your president the war IS over.
 MV> 2) That some of them are denied visits from the Red Cross.
 MV> 3) These ever increasing rumours about torture.

Rumours are rumors, as has ever been.

If the war is over who are we shooting at, still?

 MV>>> But they do not, they play judge in their own case and simply
 MV>>> rule that the Geneva convention does not apply. The Geneva
 MV>>> convention was meant to protect the weaker party - the prisoner
 MV>>> - against the captor abusing his power. What good is that if the
 MV>>> captor can unlateraly set it aside at will simply by labelling
 MV>>> the prisoners as "illegal combatants"?

 >> And yet, they get the /exact/ treatment that would if the were
 >> POW's.

 MV> No, they don't.

Aside from IRC visits, they are, I've seen the pictures, both before and after
Camp Delta. They are treated very well.

 >> What's the problem?

 MV> See above.

Ditto.

 MV>>> And of course Guantanomo bay is noit the one and only example of
 MV>>> the US ignoring the Geneva Convention. When the Iraqies showed
 MV>>> the captured amercican soldiers on TV, you screemed bloody
 MV>>> murder. Two weeks later, the US did the same with captured Iraqi
 MV>>> soldiers...

 >> OK, I can buy that. but . was the media state-run, or allowed
 >> to show that video? there's a difference.

 MV> The footage was shot by US "embedded" journalists. IOW with knowledge
 MV> and approval of the US army.

Knowledge, Perhaps, I'm not sure about approval. I'll look that one up.

 >>>> It wasn't about numbers, Michiel, it was about tactics.

 MV>>> Hmmm... why do I get the feeling that this "tactics" are in
 MV>>> violation of the Geneve Convention...?

 >> Beats me, as it was't. I can see why you would think that way,
 >> but that's perhaps just not having enough information?

 MV> Or because recently a LOT of information has come aviable about
 MV> incidents where the US did not exactly respect human rights....

Such as?

 >>>> They had a tactical doctrine that worked,

 MV>>> If it worked, what was stopping the other side from using the
 MV>>> same tactic? Outnumbered again...

Using conventional troops as a guerilla force does not historically work well.

 >> And yet, they were successfull until they were withdrawn..

 MV> If they really were succesfull, why were they withdrawn? And you
 MV> didn't asnwer the question: what stopped the enemy from using the same
 MV> tactic?

That was a command decision by MACV. they were making the regulars look bad,
and were considered "cowboys" and "Gone native" two no-no's at the time.

 MV>>> Why would the NVA be forced to use the "losing" tactics? I am
 MV>>> afraid I do not follow you.

See above re conventional forces, they do not have the training.

 >> Simple it would have been Conventional forces against
 >> guerillas, with the NVA being the conventional forces.

 MV> How would that stop /their/ guarillas?

It's a matter of training guerilla tactics, to be effective take specialised
trainig, which is what the Special Forces do. NVA had similar units that
trained the VC. they also had very few of them.

 >> You are awre of the difference between the NVA and th VC,
 >> correct? Vietnam was a lot more than a guerilla war.. there
 >> were conventional units employed on both sides.

 MV> So what your tactic amounts to is the US side *also* started to employ
 MV> guarilla tactics. That *still* does not give them the advantage.
 MV> /Their/ guarillas wre still fighting on their own territory.

And so were ours, as I stated, with the Hmong, the mountain people.

 MV>>>>> insurgents are getting stronger instead of weaker. One does
 MV>>>>> not need a crystal ball to predict that Iraq will become a
 MV>>>>> remake of Vietnam.

 >>>> I'm not so sure, and there are many differences. I'm willing to
 >>>> wait and see.

 MV>>> You can't free a fish from water...

 >> You've not seen the ones you can, have you?  Not all cretures
 >> in the water are fish.

 MV> True. But those that have never lived outside the water can not live
 MV> without it.

 MV> The people of Iraq have never lived in a democracy.

Neither did we prior to 1776.. that arguement fails.
---
 * Origin: Ray's Rocket Shop - Out to Launch (1:3613/48)