When should the Yanks be able to use nukes?

[rubberman]

Originally posted by knuckles
Taliban weren't a country. Just drug dealers with lots of land know as Afghanistan.

The Taliban regime were actually commended by the Clinton administration for their efforts to eradicate the heroin traffic. The Clinton admin were so impressed with their efforts that they GAVE the Taliban 1.7bil in aid...........hmmmm!
The US has never been implicated in the drug trade.
Manuel Norriega never existed.

 

[OldLion]

Whenever they like, it seems. We definately live in an Imperial times. Pax America indeed. Power is of no real use unless it is used.

Now they start to rewrite history, as all 'winners' do. It has always been this way. The problem is that then they start to believe it.

 

[skilts]

Originally posted by moomba
I think the legal basis for this war would be the breach of the original ceasefire terms. I am not sure of the particulars but I would have thought that troops from a country entering a country without the express authority of that country is in itself a declaration of war.

Moomba

Thanks for the answer, Moomba. I'm thinking more along the lines of an official declaration of war, passed legislatively, by both houses of Congress, on the reccomendation of the president. If this were to occur, I would think it could be safely said that the US had advised Iraq that they were declaring war on them.

Maybe I'm living in the past thinking any of this matters any more. It just seems peculiar that the US accuses the Iraqis of mistreatment of POWs, when the US refuses to join the International Criminal Court, or whatever it's called, for the expressly stated reason that they don't want their soldiers to be held accountable for illegal actions. If they are not accountable to this court, my interest is in whether there is ANY formal sanction on ANYBODY's behaviour in conflicts which aren't formally declared.

It's also possible there is no control available anyway, after all it is called the Geneva CONVENTION.

 

[dreamkillers]

Originally posted by skilts
Maybe I'm living in the past thinking any of this matters any more. It just seems peculiar that the US accuses the Iraqis of mistreatment of POWs, when the US refuses to join the International Criminal Court, or whatever it's called, for the expressly stated reason that they don't want their soldiers to be held accountable for illegal actions. If they are not accountable to this court, my interest is in whether there is ANY formal sanction on ANYBODY's behaviour in conflicts which aren't formally declared.

It's also possible there is no control available anyway, after all it is called the Geneva CONVENTION.

I think it's very hypocritical of the US that they keep telling us that Iraqi soldiers and leaders must face a war tribunal when the US themselves don't allow themselves to be put up before the same tribunal if they are caught breaching conventions.

Surely if this conflict and others that may occur in the future are about real democracy it should be a level playing field for both sides in the case of war crimes...........

 

[moomba]

Originally posted by skilts
Thanks for the answer, Moomba. I'm thinking more along the lines of an official declaration of war, passed legislatively, by both houses of Congress, on the reccomendation of the president. If this were to occur, I would think it could be safely said that the US had advised Iraq that they were declaring war on them.

Maybe I'm living in the past thinking any of this matters any more. It just seems peculiar that the US accuses the Iraqis of mistreatment of POWs, when the US refuses to join the International Criminal Court, or whatever it's called, for the expressly stated reason that they don't want their soldiers to be held accountable for illegal actions. If they are not accountable to this court, my interest is in whether there is ANY formal sanction on ANYBODY's behaviour in conflicts which aren't formally declared.

It's also possible there is no control available anyway, after all it is called the Geneva CONVENTION.

I think it raises an interesting question. What is the difference between the invasion of Iraq, according to the US all captured soldiers are POWs and covered by the Geneva Convention, and the invasion of Afghanistan, which the US claim was not a war, and as such the Guantanamo Bay prisoners are not technically considered POWs and not covered by the Geneva Convention.

Sadly, I can only raise the question, I don't have a clue about the answer.

Moomba

Moomba

 

[Dry Rot]

Originally posted by Mr Q
Looks like "an eye for an eye" is alive and well.

Actually that should be "an eye for some third party's eye".

Not at all.

If they surrender, they should be fairly treated and let a UN tribunal try them.

But if they use chemical weapons, then I don't care what happens to them.