The Battle for Iraq - Ethnic Cleansing
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Sunday, June 22, 2025 01:22
VIEWED: 23789
PAGE 14 of 18
Double post strikes again.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- "So would the occupation of a hospital by the forces of the legitimate government and its allies for it's protection from insurgents, and the continued operation of that hospital after verifying the identity of the staff and patients violate this rule?"
The VERY first part of your statement- "legitimate government {of Iraq}"- is very much in question. If a government is installed by an illegally invading force, is it a legitimate government? Find me some evidence or point of law to provide even a shred of justification for your statement.
Well, you mean aside from the interim government being recognized as legitimate by the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, the Arab League, the EU, Muqtada al-Sadr, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, etc.? There's also UN Resolution 1546 (2004) that endorses the formation of a sovereign interim government in Iraq. Seems to be de facto evidence that the current Iraqi interim government is legitimate.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Basically, the world bowed to an illegal act by the USA, and it will come back to haunt us. In fact, it's aready haunting us- check out the arms deals between China and Germany, France, and between Russai and Brazil. (Get used to the feeling of that knife in your back, Geezer, it's gonna happen a lot in the forseeable future.) What I don't understand is why a straight-up kind of guy like you will defend the obviously illegal and immoral. Why do you do that? What fundamental justification do you tell yourself?
Part of your sentence is missing... please complete.
So, any comments on my other two points, and the entirety of my previous posts?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer,
Give it up. Arguing with these idiot trolls is pointless.
You just had your post glossed over by SignyM concerning the Geneva Convention. All your points were skipped over because SignyM can't argue against the real facts. So SignyM just ignores them.
I had a previous post concerning the Lancet article estimated 100,000 Iraqi deaths glossed over in the same way by Ghoulman. He completely ignored the statement about how the Lancet itself states that the STATISTICAL method they used to come up with the 100,000 number was statistically unsound and that the actual number would have been a small fraction of their stated number.
This point was completely ignored by Ghoulman because again, he can't argue against the real facts, so he just ignores them. They have used this Lancet article as if it was gospel, but when the Lancet refutes its own article, they can't deal with it (it must be a Bushite conspiracy or something. Rumsfeld must have threatened the Lancet writers with death if they did'nt change the article). Sheesh, what idiots. 
Then of course, Ghoulman follows up with a string of insults.
I'm out of here. I'm going back to the fun threads about Firefly and leave these idiot trolls to bask in their own ignorance.
Edit
My parting insults above were intentional, but do not neccesarily reflect the opinions of the author of this webpage. Direct all replies to these parting insults into the bit bucket. 
Adios
Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.
BarnStormer
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No time to respond, but look up GC Protocols I and II, which are page on page of civilian protections, including medical facilities, personnel, etc. They're far too long to post here.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Barnstormer- I didn't reply to the Geneva Convention points because that was not in my original post- in fact it wasn't in ANY of my posts, it was posted by Rue, who has obviously just responded. In fact, Geezer skipped over most of my points. And I am, as ever, impressed with his ability to dodge and weave! You'd think that boy'd be tired by now!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
shoveled, swept or hosed... yup, intened for Ghoulman. But as a previous battlefield medical person (right?) you'd understand this too.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Barnstormer:
Quote:
the Lancet itself states that the STATISTICAL method they used to come up with the 100,000 number was statistically unsound and that the actual number would have been a small fraction of their stated number.
This is the most outrageous LIE I have EVER seen posted. I challenge you to post the quote that supports your claim.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The right-wing apparently has no problems lying... after all, the Bush administration has turned it into a policy!
BTW, Bush's MOST SUCCESSFUL WAR has been, as far a I can tell, the "War on Truth". And Barnstormer is a just one footsoldier in that war. Don't expect an answer from BS (Barnstormer), he's just following orders. 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Basically, the world bowed to an illegal act by the USA, and it will come back to haunt us. In fact, it's aready haunting us- check out the arms deals between China and Germany, France, and between Russai and Brazil. (Get used to the feeling of that knife in your back, Geezer, it's gonna happen a lot in the forseeable future.) What I don't understand is why a straight-up kind of guy like you will defend the obviously illegal and immoral. Why do you do that? What fundamental justification do you tell yourself?
1. "Illegal act" is your opinion, and Kofi Annan's. Generally, to be guilty of an illegal act, you have to be prosecuted and convicted. This hasn't happened, so it remains just your opinion.
2. Even if I grant you, for the sake of argument, that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, the interim government has since been recognized by most of the world. They also recognize governemts that have come into being by revolution and coup. Recognition doesn't mean that everyone approves of how the government came into power, it just means that they realize there has been a change in the people they need to deal with.
3. Even if I go farther, and grant that the invasion of Iraq was both illegal and immoral, it doesn't negate the fact that it happened. at this point, for the people of Iraq or the coalition forces on the ground, it doesn't matter in any practical way whether Bush lied, or there were WMD, or if Halliburton wanted to bump up the bottom line, or whatever. They are stuck with what they have, and need to deal with it.
4. Coalition combat doctrine must be responsive to the tactics that their opposition employs. That opposition has shown no hesitancy in using tactics that violate all the rules or war, Geneva Conventions, Hague Protocols, etc. in the books. The Coalition has to try as well as they can to follow those same rules, while being aware that blind obedience to them will get their people killed.
5. Rue seems to be insinuating in her post that the actions of coalition troops in relation to Iraqi hospitals are war crimes and should be prosecuted. This is what I don't agree with. I believe that, given the character of their enemy, they are quite within the protocols in their actions.
Quote:
Part of your sentence is missing... please complete.
Huh?
Quote:
So, any comments on my other two points, and the entirety of my previous posts?
Not really, I was originally responding to Rue. However, if you'd like to respond to my previous question about war crimes prosecutions for the insurgents who've violated the Geneva, Hague, and other conventions, go right ahead.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME