On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 01:20:27 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

We really don't give a rat's ass, Jim. The other side doesn't abide by any
rules, and we sure as hell shouldn't.



I hadn't read your post before my response, but great minds must think
alike!

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

NOYB wrote:
We really don't give a rat's ass, Jim. The other side doesn't abide
by any
rules, and we sure as hell shouldn't.


And this is why the rest of the civilized world considers us "The bully
on the block"

We claim to be better -- see Bush/Rummy Quote as follows
*****
Army Lt. Gen. John Abizaid also criticized the Al Jazeera satellite
channel for broadcasting images of the prisoners to much of the Arab world.

The officials said the U.S. military is using information from the
broadcasts to try to identify the soldiers in order to notify their
families.

American and humanitarian authorities roundly criticized the interviews
and the treatment of the first American Prisoners of War (POWs).

The Geneva Convention

"We don't know all the details yet. We do know that we expect them to be
treated humanely just like we are treating the prisoners of theirs that
we capture humanely," President Bush told reporters after returning to
the White House from the Camp David presidential retreat.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said that parading prisoners
of war before television cameras is a violation of the Geneva
Convention, a set of rules that supposedly govern nations' conduct in
the event of war.

The International Red Cross has also said the broadcasts violated
Convention rules.

"Article 13 of the Third Geneva Convention says clearly that prisoners
of war must at all times be protected... against insult and public
curiosity," said Red Cross spokeswoman Nada Doumani.

Iraqi Defense Minister Sultan Hashim Ahmad told a Baghdad news
conference Iraq would treat prisoners of war in accordance with the
Geneva Convention.

"NOBBY" wrote:
We really don't give a rat's ass, Jim. The other side doesn't abide by any
rules, and we sure as hell shouldn't.


John H wrote:
I hadn't read your post before my response, but great minds must think
alike!

If by "great minds" you mean pin heads, then yeah, you think alike.

Carefully following rules of engagement is what seperates soldiers from
trigger-happy thugs. Remember, Iraq is not an enemy country. We do not want to
simply kill a lot of Iraqi citizens at random.

In this case, guys with attitudes like yours are definitely part of the problem,
not part of the solution.

DSK

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Steven Shelikoff wrote:

On 1 Mar 2004 05:30:53 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Actually they give them descriptions also. I have a copy of an AC130
tape
and they tell them make sure they do not hit the square (or
rectangle - one
of the 2) building it is a mosque. So they are also careful. I would
post
it, but at about 2mb is way too big.
Bill

Oh, please do. I'd LOVE to hear it.

It's all over the web. Just do a google search on "ac-130 gunship
video"

Steve

Where are the videos kept of the civilian targets hit by "accident"? Do
the AF flacks release those, too?

No civilian targets hit by accident. The local terrorists pick those
civilian targets with care. IF we opened up our rules of engagement, there
would be very few attacks on convoys. The rule would be that if you are
with rifle shot, you will be shot. But we seem to care for the local
people, same as we did in WW II.
Bill

Jim wrote:
Google "Iraq +rules of engagement"

Couple of extracts

************
Since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in April, the military has
announced several inquiries into alleged transgressions by its forces in
the war-ravaged country. Few verdicts have been reported and almost all
of those have exonerated the soldiers.

“No one feels safe in Iraq now and not a day goes by without more
civilians being killed or injured by US soldiers or by armed groups
amidst total impunity,” human rights group Amnesty International told
AFP on Friday.
************************
BAGHDAD, Iraq – The U.S. military said Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez,
responding to a question Thursday about the Sept. 12 friendly fire
deaths of eight Iraqi policemen and a Jordanian guard in Fallujah, gave
a response about an earlier killing of two Iraqi policemen by American
forces in the same city.

Sanchez, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, said the military
investigation showed no misconduct in the incident.

"The initial findings are that the soldiers acted within the construct
of the military's rules of engagement," he told reporters.

The Associated Press reported that Sanchez was talking about a Sept. 12
shooting involving the 82nd Airborne Division.
***********************************

IT is even debateable that the showing og Sadam in captivity, and
particularly his dead sons violated the Geneva convention. For an
interesting discussion see
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/te...ners_3-23.html



John H wrote:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 08:53:57 -0500, Jim wrote:



John H wrote:

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 22:26:51 -0500, Jim wrote:



In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal concluded: "To initiate a war of
aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme
international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it
contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Nuremberg also taught us that "just following orders" is not an excuse
for what the winning side declares to be war crimes. So while the
Germans couldn't get off the hook, neither can the Iraqis, who have been
told from the beginning of the invasion that if they DID follow their
leaders' orders, they would be tried for war crimes. And yet, the
sensitive American soldier who is told to drop bombs on undefended Iraqi
villages -- well, he must do what he is told to do and there's no wiggle
room. He is ruled by people with divine rights; the power that comes

from holding one hand on a bible and keeping the other outstretched to


the oil oligarchy.

What is the wing opening in the sky? What is darkening the clouds? When
does it descend in all its ominous power?
"The best lack all convictions, while the worst Are full of passionate
intensity." (Yeats)


Can you provide an instance where an American soldier was told that he
was to drop bombs on an undefended village and then proceeded to do
so?

Tokyo and Dresden to name 2 cities that were firebombed in WW2. NEither
had military importance, and Thousands of civilians were killed. The
bombing of Hanoi was indiscriminate


I thought not. Now, what is the rest of your post worth?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


The thread was about Iraq. You must have missed that.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


A high number of rapes of American female soldiers by American male
soldiers has been reported...classy, eh?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Steven Shelikoff wrote:

On 1 Mar 2004 05:30:53 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Actually they give them descriptions also. I have a copy of an AC130
tape
and they tell them make sure they do not hit the square (or
rectangle - one
of the 2) building it is a mosque. So they are also careful. I would
post
it, but at about 2mb is way too big.
Bill

Oh, please do. I'd LOVE to hear it.

It's all over the web. Just do a google search on "ac-130 gunship
video"

Steve

Where are the videos kept of the civilian targets hit by "accident"? Do
the AF flacks release those, too?

If we have another 9/11 type attack under your mans presidency, you going to
play Vietnamese Monk and martyr yourself? Must be your fault if we do as
you spin that it is all Bush's fault.

Calif Bill wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Steven Shelikoff wrote:

On 1 Mar 2004 05:30:53 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Actually they give them descriptions also. I have a copy of an AC130
tape
and they tell them make sure they do not hit the square (or
rectangle - one
of the 2) building it is a mosque. So they are also careful. I would
post
it, but at about 2mb is way too big.
Bill

Oh, please do. I'd LOVE to hear it.

It's all over the web. Just do a google search on "ac-130 gunship
video"

Steve

Where are the videos kept of the civilian targets hit by "accident"? Do
the AF flacks release those, too?

If we have another 9/11 type attack under your mans presidency, you going to
play Vietnamese Monk and martyr yourself? Must be your fault if we do as
you spin that it is all Bush's fault.




And that has exactly what to do with our "accidental" killing of
non-combatants in Iraq?

As to the original 9-11 attacks, yes, I believe the Bush Administration
screwed the pooch on that, mainly because of Bush's decision to
"uninvolve" the US in Middle East peace talks and because of Bush
senior's "despoiling" (in the minds of the terrorists) some Moslem
terrority in Saudi Arabia.

Will there be more attacks? You bet. Nothing Bush has done to date has
made us safer. Today I watched for a half hour while waiting for a
meeting as Capitol Hill cops stopped car motorists at random for car
checks, while white vans and Winnebagos drove by unmolested. This was
between several congressional buildings. D'oh.

"Jim" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
We really don't give a rat's ass, Jim. The other side doesn't abide
by any
rules, and we sure as hell shouldn't.


And this is why the rest of the civilized world considers us "The bully
on the block"

We claim to be better -- see Bush/Rummy Quote as follows
*****
Army Lt. Gen. John Abizaid also criticized the Al Jazeera satellite
channel for broadcasting images of the prisoners to much of the Arab
world.

The officials said the U.S. military is using information from the
broadcasts to try to identify the soldiers in order to notify their
families.

American and humanitarian authorities roundly criticized the interviews
and the treatment of the first American Prisoners of War (POWs).

As I said, the other side doesn't abide by any rules, and we sure as hell
shouldn't. Nevertheless, remember that it's always the victor that gets to
make the rules and rewrite history.

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 21:16:19 -0500, DSK wrote:

"NOBBY" wrote:
We really don't give a rat's ass, Jim. The other side doesn't abide by any
rules, and we sure as hell shouldn't.


John H wrote:
I hadn't read your post before my response, but great minds must think
alike!

If by "great minds" you mean pin heads, then yeah, you think alike.

Carefully following rules of engagement is what seperates soldiers from
trigger-happy thugs. Remember, Iraq is not an enemy country. We do not want to
simply kill a lot of Iraqi citizens at random.

In this case, guys with attitudes like yours are definitely part of the problem,
not part of the solution.

DSK

The post to which you responded had absolutely nothing to do with
rules of engagement. It had to do with a 'violation' of Saddam's
rights.

Before you jump and call names, read the posts, if you please.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

John H wrote:
The post to which you responded had absolutely nothing to do with
rules of engagement.

Other than being about 'rules of engagement' and alleged violations of
same, yeah.



Before you jump and call names, read the posts, if you please.

I'm not calling names, just stating facts. And your posts have become
just more predictable boring fact-free BushCo cheerleading. At this
point I read very few of yours or Nobby's posts.

DSK