4 US soldiers (rightfuly) abducted

[biko]

"The United States Armed Forces clearly respects the laws of land warfare."



thats where i will disagree with you. in my honnest opinion i dont think americans do not respect any laws as long as they are not the ones effect the most by it.

i think you have been a soldier for too long sxb and which is also why i think you can never be properly objective when it comes to your country.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

Biko
I have participated in the planning of countless military operations, and I can assure you the laws of land warfare are scrupulously observed. When I was in Somalia, we even had a JAG lawyer in our command post to advise the commander of the legality of decisions he was making.

As I said, the US military works hard to follow the laws of land warfare, which were NOT DESIGNED during the years of couner-insurgency. They were designed mostly immediately after WW II with that conflict in mind. Although regarding the treatment of POWS, that was before WW II.

Name an operation the US has conducted where it ignored the laws of land warfare?

[biko]

well since my impression of your country adn military isnt good i wll have hard time believing what you said.

i hear what you say about the profesionalism of your army and as am about to take that into serious concideration, the news comes on and voila; another american made disaster.

[Xplosive]

[quote="Galol"]Biko

Bleeding heck that was deep. Was that from Sheikh Zubeir aka Shakespear?[/quote]

@Sheikh Zubeir aka Shakespear

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

Biko
DO NOT confuse foreign policy decisions with the conduct of the armed forces.

You might argue, as others have done, that certain political decisions (such as the invasion of Iraq) were illegal. That, however, has nothing to do with the armed forces. They are not part of that decision making process.

But when it comes to combat operations, it is quite clear that we follow the rules, and that when the rules are broken, there is accountability. Can you say the same for the insurgents? How many American POWs have been executed by the insurgents so far? Every single one they have taken, actually. How many trials for war crimes have the insurgents held? Zero.

That you are arguing that there is moral equivelency in their conduct IS LUDICROUS. And you know it.

[biko]

That you are arguing that there is moral equivelency in their conduct IS LUDICROUS. And you know it.



my argument wasnt about a moral equivelance. insurgent are already insurgence so how can they be acountable for anything if they are concidered as criminals? and you shouldnt expect it too.

but when there is an invading force and the locals decide to fight them by any means, i say they have every right to do so.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

IF You say they are entitled to every means to fight us, THEN we are entitled to every means to fight back. What goes for one, goes for the other. You can't say it's OK for the insurgents to disregard any law of land warfare in their conduct, and then expect us to follow the laws.

[biko]

[quote="MAD MAC"]IF You say they are entitled to every means to fight us, THEN we are entitled to every means to fight back. What goes for one, goes for the other. You can't say it's OK for the insurgents to disregard any law of land warfare in their conduct, and then expect us to follow the laws.[/quote]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


are you realy this hard headed or is this just a front?...

no you are not entitled to to use anything let alone fight back. you werent meant to be there in the first place so nothing you do is legal in any sense of the word.

i say its ok for them because, they are the ones who have been invaded in their own home and you have the audacity to compare your unwaranted agression on their self-defence retaliation?

if kick your door in and then shoot your wife in front of you and then kick your baby son in the face and you defend your life and that of your family by the best way you see fit, then am in no position to complain about what weapon or means you use.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

"no you are not entitled to to use anything let alone fight back. you werent meant to be there in the first place so nothing you do is legal in any sense of the word.

i say its ok for them because, they are the ones who have been invaded in their own home and you have the audacity to compare your unwaranted agression on their self-defence retaliation?

if kick your door in and then shoot your wife in front of you and then kick your baby son in the face and you defend your life and that of your family by the best way you see fit, then am in no position to complain about what weapon or means you use."

This argument is NOT legal in the laws of land warfare, and it has been used before. IF the invasion is condired illegal, it still does not free those resisting that invasion from following the laws of land warfare. Your argument here is wholly and completely fallacious and has no legal substance to it.

When Germany invaded Russia in WW II, the Soviet summary execution of prisoners and the frequent maltreatment of same WAS NOT LEGAL just because the German invasion was illegal.

Occupation is not, in fact, illegal. And the laws of land warfare specify the responsibilities of the occupying power.

That you don't like the law, does not make it invalid.

Therefore, insurgents fighting occupying forces ARE, ACCORDING TO INTERNATIONAL LAW, REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE LAWS OF LAND WARFARE and can be tried in international court if they fail to do so.

The argument that the war is illegal, and therefore the Army participating in that war is committing a war crime, IS NOT a valid argument.

[biko]

The argument that the war is illegal, and therefore the Army participating in that war is committing a war crime, IS NOT a valid argument.
_____________________________________________________________


why is it not legal? i mean you yourself accept that it was eligal to invade.

so if the war is ilegal how can anything in that war be legal?...


i dont get.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

Biko
Just because you don't get it, doesn't mean that it isn't true.

The laws of land warfare are specific, not vague. Invading armies have rights. Defending armies have rights. The legality of the conflict does not impinge the rights of the soldiers participating in the conflict. It's quite simple really.

That's because, generally speaking, the soldiers involved do not have a choice concerning participation. International law can not place a soldier into a position where no matter what he does, his conduct becomes illegal.

So a war can be illegal, but that does not mean that constraint or restraint is removed from either side.

Again, the law is quite specific on this point.

Furthermore, I did not say that the war was illegal. Frankly, that is ground that the legal community has not sufficiently plowed. I would argue that the war was not very smart, which is why I was oppossed to it. I also am of the camp that, since all the various factions in Iraq have to do is keep a force in being and wait for us to leave, ultimately we are going to leave and the country is going to disintegrate and there is going to be a civil war. It's just a question of sooner or latter. So I think we should leave and let the Iraqis kill each other blistfully, comfortable in the knowledge that we gave them an honest shot at civil society and they rejected it.

[Ashlee]

no one would dare.

"the mooryans in mog should follow suit and try to abduct CY and Gueedi from villa somallia."

[biko]

"Furthermore, I did not say that the war was illegal. Frankly, that is ground that the legal community has not sufficiently plowed. I would argue that the war was not very smart, which is why I was oppossed to it. I also am of the camp that, since all the various factions in Iraq have to do is keep a force in being and wait for us to leave, ultimately we are going to leave and the country is going to disintegrate and there is going to be a civil war. It's just a question of sooner or latter. So I think we should leave and let the Iraqis kill each other blistfully, comfortable in the knowledge that we gave them an honest shot at civil society and they rejected it."




the whole of the international community rallied agaisnt that war. there was demonstration all over the world and all you can say is, it wasnt smart?...now whos refusing to accept the truth?

am not realy interested in the laws of land warfare. especialy when i see the whole war ilegal and you dont.


this is a perfect example of what i say to you before mac. i can accept and will agree with you about the terrorist muslims and those mindless jihadist that hide behind Islam, but you cannot even bring yourself to accept whats an international truth. that the war on Iraq was and is ilegal.

[BLUE RUSH]

am o happy its made my week

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

"am not realy interested in the laws of land warfare. especialy when i see the whole war ilegal and you dont."

Biko
We can choose to disagree on whether the war was illegal or not. But frankly, that does not change the fact that the conduct of the insurgents IS ILLEGAL. The legal status of the war is irrelevent to that point, whether you choose to admit it or not.


"this is a perfect example of what i say to you before mac. i can accept and will agree with you about the terrorist muslims and those mindless jihadist that hide behind Islam, but you cannot even bring yourself to accept whats an international truth. that the war on Iraq was and is ilegal."

Maybe it is, maybe it is not. Like I said, the ground has not been sufficiently plowed. Historically, wars between nation states were, by definition, legal. However, after WW II, where some German Generals were acccussed of plotting "Aggressive war", that pretty much opened a pandoras box which has yet to be settled. Does a war require a UN Mandate to be legal? Certainly a lot of people would prefer that, because they see that as a tool to limit warfare in the extreme. That would be correct, if it assumes that the conflicting parties would care. There is no law right now that lays this out very clearly, however. So was the war "illegal"? I don't know. I think we are in a gray zone on that issue.