Was the invasion of Iraq illegal?

I honestly cannot believe this even came up! According to a poll on excite.com:

United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Wednesday that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was illegal and that the violence in Iraq puts in doubt that national elections in that country will take place in January. British and Australian leaders maintain the legality of the war. (BBC)

See the results for yourself...

http://poll.excite.com/poll/home.jsp?cat_id=1

Furthermore, there's a fuckton of people saying it is illegal and trying to justify it! I can understand your average uneducated idiot with an opinion and internet access expressing that opinion, but the Secretary General of the U.N.? What law is he claiming we broke? Last I checked the U.N. is not a governing body capable of writing and enforcing laws.

Please help me understand this.

I usually try to avoid political discussions but I believe the war was illegal.
Why? Because there was no justification or reason to attack. I dont say it was bad/good or morally correct/incorrect.
I say it was illegal.

For example:
You see Mr.X stealing 1000$ dollars from your car. You cant prove it but you are caught in an attempt to *get the money back*. However that can seem as stealing, thus illegal.

Personally I dont believe human rights violations in Iraq was the reason of the atttack, just an alibi. What ever was the reason, it was not for good of Iraqi people.

"I dont say it was bad/good or morally correct/incorrect."

Actually, you just did say that. The legality of an action is not dependent upon justification or right or wrong, but merely whether it abides by law.

There's other things I could debate with you, but I won't. That's not the issue.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say a thing about justification. Legally speaking (correct me if I'm wrong), I believe we can attack Indonesia because China pissed us off. In an extremely absurd example, of course. But the debate is simply over the legality.

Now, if the President orders a military strike and Congress says "Hell no, call them back." And the President says, "Ladies and gentlemen of Congress, screw you, I'm attacking anyway." Then yeah, that'd be illegal. And technically, I can refuse to go to war, because I am required to follow the lawful orders of my superiors. If the President defies Congress, then I can say no. If he defies the U.N., who the hell cares? They don't write our laws and they don't enforce them.

Once again, I'm not saying the war was right or wrong. I'm not talking ethics. I'm talking law. And the only legal right the U.N. holds over us is that which we have willingly signed in the form of a treaty. And I believe we are also within our rights to break treaties... that I'm NOT sure of.

Of course, there's a lot of things we can legally do that'll piss everybody off and may even result in a U.N. led attack on us if we're totally stupid. Legal don't mean right and it don't mean smart. It means we said we could.

You say illegal, but you mean wrong. In that, you're entitled to your opinion. But whether it was illegal is not subject to opinion, but fact.

Now I get your point. But as far as I know countries in UN cannot attack each other without any justifications.
So IMO US cannot attack Indonesia just to test new war strategies. Maybe someone who knows more can enlight us.

Ejda, it sounds like you don't follow international news that much so I will try to explain.

Legal Reason #1:

In 1991, Iraq illegally invaded and conquered Kuwait.

The US lead a coalition of nations to expell Iraq from Kuwait.

The US did so, and eventually signed a cease fire agreement with Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

That cease fire had a variety of terms. Some of them included a ban on missiles that could travel beyond a certain range, a ban on developing any chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon technologies, etc. No fly zones were also created. The US was given authorization to patrol these no-fly zones. Obviously, Iraq agreed not to impede the US from patrolling these no-fly zones.

The UN Inspectors found numerous violations of these terms including missiles that could travel much further than the legal maximum, ricin, anthrax, and other chemical weapons (though not in the quantities that US, Russian, and British intelligence thought would be found).

Furthermore, for many years, Iraq has shot at US planes patrolling the no-fly zones.

Thus, under international law, the US had the legal right to attack Iraq since Iraq violated the terms of the 1991 cease fire. In other words, this war could legally be termed the continuation of the 1991 attack.

Legal Reason #2:

Under international law, any nation has the right to protect itself from a potential aggressor. This includes pre-emptive action.

The US believed (and had an enormous amount of evidence from many countries to support the belief) that Iraq possessed and was developing chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. The US also believed (and again had a lot of evidence to support) that Iraq was supporting international terrorism.

Illegal chemical weapons were indeed found in Iraq after the invasion (though not in enormous quantities).

Mountains of evidence was found that Iraq was indeed a safe haven for international and Al Quaeda terrorists. Even the 9/11 commission found plentiful evidence of a connection between Iraq and Al Quaeda (though they did not find a connection between Iraq and 9/11 specifically).

So there you have it. Those are two completely legitimate reasons to attack another country. Both of which are legal under international law.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
So there you have it. Those are two completely legitimate reasons to attack another country. Both of which are legal under international law.

---

All of which begs the question:

Why has the Secretary General of the U.N. declared the U.S. to be acting illegally?

I should state that I disagreed vehemently with the decision for the U.S. to invade Iraq, and I do believe that Bush has made a mess of things there. However, the U.N., in declaring this act illegal, has once again shown itself to be both inept and irrelevent.

Firstly, even if Kofi were the appropriate authority to make such a statement (he isn't, by the way. The Secretary General does not make findings on International Law), and even if he were not incorrect in the first place, his opinion couldn't have less impact on the actual behavior of the U.S. Most Americans probably aren't even aware he said anything :D

Secondly, even if the U.S. were violating International Law, the Secretary General has only resulted in betraying a scary fact... It doesn't matter. :) The more of a fuss world leaders make, and the more such histrionics don't at all impede the actions of the U.S., the more free the U.S. will feel to do as it wants, and the less respect our citizens and government will have for world leaders and international agencies (if it is even possible for the U.S. to care less then it does now).

If leaders like the secretary general wish to have any influence in the foreign policies of the U.S., they will have to acquire at least a modicum of common sense, and be much more realistic about the relative power of the rest of the world to that of the U.S.

I follow international news as much as I care but to me all the *famous* countries (countries we regularly hear about in news) are corrupt. So based on experience, I am not very interested in hearing international news since they tend to made me angry.

Anyway, about legal reason 1, those are not considered to be legitimate reasons for attack, as UN never agreed with an invasion, unlike the Gulf War. To give an example both Iraq-Kuwait and Iran-Iraq wars were claimed on similar reasons.

Quote:

---

Furthermore, for many years, Iraq has shot at US planes patrolling the no-fly zones.

---

For example Iraq always claimed that those shots were fired at planes that had swayed out of no-fly zone. I am not saying Iraqi government was right with its claim. I am saying these kinds of conflicts, which both sides accuse each other, are natural and never a legitimate reason.

The second reason has never played a role in justifying the attack. Anyways, I am bored, just see this survey.
To summarize, IMO US used a pile of half baked and incomplete justifications to attack.
The biggest truth here is:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Graeblyn

... the relative power of the rest of the world to that of the U.S.

---

Finally, I am not saying reasons 1 and 2 are false, or misleading or whatever. I am saying they are not a justification to *attack* Iraq. They are too weak to for a reason to attack.

Ejda, I am not sure you read my post.

Iraq violated the 1991 Cease Fire in numerous different ways. Thus, our attack was a resumation of the 1991 Iraq Gulf War that was DEFINITELY legal.

Furthermore, as I already mentioned, it has always been legal under international law to strike pre-emptively if you believe a country poses a threat to their security. Since chemical weapons WERE found (ricin and anthrax) and since countless examples of Saddam being connected with international terrorism were found, the legal argument is easy to make.

Questions regarding whether or not it was a GOOD idea, or the RIGHT idea, or a well carried out idea are completely different.

Only an absolute fool would try to argue it was illegal.

Furthermore, the answer to the question as to why Kofi Anan is saying this is simple:

He's scared shitless about the fact that the Iraqi Oil For Food Program scandal is about to be completely exposed.

The UN, France, Germany, and Russia were engaging in complete fraud and embezzlement. This scandal could be absolutely disastrous for the United Nations, as well as the credibility of France, Germany, and Russia.

As an aside, who actually gives a rats left testicle what the UN decrees.

Since 1976, the UN have stated that Indonesia does not have sovereignty over East Timor, yet despite the hundreds of thousands of lives lost there, they have done squat.

So they declare another invasion illegal, big deal. All they might do now is allow another country onto the security council that have atrocious human rights violations. /sarcasm

Under the US Constitution it was perfectly legal. The President is Commander-in-Chief of our military forces, he can use them to invade, attack, etc at his will. That's a power he gets from the Constitution.

Under the UN treaty, really? Who cares. The UN is an incredibly corrupt group.

I don't see either entity (UN or the US) as pillars of morality, myself.
I wouldn't be surprised if the UN morphs into something new within the next decade.

This is gonna sound kinda coarse, but...

We have the strongest military force in the world, not to mention the most advanced. Might makes Right, no matter how wrong that seems/is. We can do it, so we did. Regardless of the legality of the attack. Personally, Iraq was and has been a threat for years, and still is in may a sense. It had to be done eventaully. Why not sooner, rather than later?

/rant

I think it's that kind of mentality that helps recruit more terrorists.
You can't go around the world, flexing your military muscles with that kind of mentality Leveth, and not expect retaliation.
This is not a solution.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
I think it's that kind of mentality that helps recruit more terrorists.
You can't go around the world, flexing your military muscles with that kind of mentality Leveth, and not expect retaliation.
This is not a solution.

---

This argument is a non-starter. I can easily rattle off a dozen terrorism incidents that occured before the war in Iraq. You would probably rattle off a dozen incidents that the U.S. allegedly perpetrated before all the terorism incidents I listed, and so it would go ad nauseum.

The end conclusion is that what we do is irrelevent to the hatred islamic extremists feel towards us. What THEY do just brings more and more of our might on them. They will always hate us, and we have to deal with that decisively. Eventually, they may figure out that beating their head against a brick wall does them more harm then it does the wall.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
I don't see either entity (UN or the US) as pillars of morality, myself.
I wouldn't be surprised if the UN morphs into something new within the next decade.

---

This mentality is something that is killing the Democratic party and helping the Republican party. Normal people, moderates, etc do not like to hear that we are responsible for the world's woes or are a corrupt society especially when we shell out billions of billions of dollars and manpower each year to help the less fortunate in other countries...

By less fortunate I would say sending 20 billion dollars to africa for AIDS research OR sending our troops into any given third world country to stop a dictator from killing off villiages that dont believe what he believes.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Frobozz
By less fortunate I would say sending 20 billion dollars to africa for AIDS research OR sending our troops into any given third world country to stop a dictator from killing off villiages that dont believe what he believes.

---

Gee, I thought you have at least watched bowling for columbine to know what US has done to lesser countries. Naturally (and obviously) the history of third world countries does not interest the american but you should know that the deepest root of many of the problems in middle-east or third world countries start from 1500's, with the rise of European countries. Countries like England, Spain, Russia, Portuguese, Germany, France, US, ... have always tried to control (not conquer) other countries because of natural resources, strategical advantages, a market for their exports, cheap labor force and etc. The history of mankind is so tainted that you can hardly claim *ONE* sincere political gesture throughout the history. I see US no exception to this rule.

From what I've seen and heard about Bowling for Columbine it's probably not the best source to base an argument on.

Everything which is said about involvement of US in third world countries in bowling for columbine is 100% true and in fact is a tiny fraction of what more advanced countries has done in less advanced parts of the world.

We have had an other thread about Michael Moore in an other thread. He surely has a political motive and he has been caught more than once bending the truth or even lying. Saying this you should still balance the amount of claims and attacks he have made up against the number of people who try to discredit him and what they actually have on him. From the homepage in the other thread I found the list on Moore to be rather slim to make the conclusion that he is untrustworthy.

The part of Bowling for Columbine that I believe that Ejda was referring to was a list of military interference by the US since the Second World War. Moore surely put his own opinion as a layer over the whole movie but the fact still stand that a big part of the wars have been political and not always been for the better of the people.

With all this said about Moore and US wars I might have given the impression that I believe that the US military influense is 'evil' and this is untrue. I know that some people only understand the when weapons talk and that these people would be terrorising even larger parts of the world if we did not have a civilized country as the US with the largest firepower. In reference to the invasion of Iraq I believe that it will end up being for the better of the Iraq people as long as the world does not give up on the country before they are strong enough to fend off extremists on their own. If we leave Iraq within the next years I fear that they will be much worse off than they were with Saddam.

I better give my view on the question of this thread as well =)
I believe that the invasion might be against the UN charter... but this is just a battle for layers...
Even if the US broke the charter it would not have any consequences because the UN would not be worth much without the US. This might be a weakness of the UN but that does not change that it is the way it works in politics.

I have been reading this board for long enough to feel a need to add the following when posting on a political topic:
- What I post is my conclusions on what I have read. Like everyone else here my knowledge is nothing more than what I see, what I read and what others say to me… all mixed together to what I believe to be the truth.
- All the factual details are based on my memory and therefore probably a bit off... If you catch one of these please post a correction =)


Peter

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ejda
Gee, I thought you have at least watched bowling for columbine to know what US has done to lesser countries.

---

Did you also read Mein Kampf to learn about Jewish people?

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110003233

Side by side comparison of an actual Charlton Heston speech and the heavily edited version used by Michael Moore

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000037.html

http://www.moorelies.com/

Michael Moore is nothing more than a dishonest vulture who earned copious amounts of blood money by stoking the fires of America Haters.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ejda
Everything which is said about involvement of US in third world countries in bowling for columbine is 100% true and in fact is a tiny fraction of what more advanced countries has done in less advanced parts of the world.

---

Hahahahahahaha.

Ejda, be honest. You are just trolling now, right?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
Hahahahahahaha.

Ejda, be honest. You are just trolling now, right?

---

I know about Moore's lies. But that part about interference of US, which is probably 2-3 minutes of the whole movie, is completely correct. I am honest and I have read the history of the middle east and I can assure you it is nothing to be proud of. Not the local governments, not foreign countries not any of the treaties, abolutely NOTHING. the whole history is DISGUSTING. Of course sometimes it is hard to find the real truth. For example consider this fact from histroy of Iran I found somewhere on the internet. The fact (year, events and the names) is most probably correct but it is half the truth:

Quote:

---

From here
1617

Merchants of the English East India Company established trading houses in Shiraz and Isfahan. After the fall of the Portuguese base at Hormuz in 1622, Bandar Abbas became the center of the East India Company's trade.

---

Well, when you read it you might think "but thats great, a trade company was found which is good. Which would benefit the people of that country. What harm can it cause?"

But the real truth is, those treaties are signed by bribing the kings. The usual way was either pay the king with technology (for example cars, music players, ....) or money or trips to europe. And the treaty was always in the line of "Company X can extract resources from mine Y as much as desired, for an annual fee of something_very_small_which_is_paid_ to_the_king". Or the trade center could be a place to sell foreign goods or exports. Now it is clear why in this specific example the British helped the king defeat the Portuguese.
This exmaple is just one tiny tiny piece I picked randomly from the history. The history is *FULL* of similar stories which are usually more hideous.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ejda
Gee, I thought you have at least watched bowling for columbine to know what US has done to lesser countries. Naturally (and obviously) the history of third world countries does not interest the american but you should know that the deepest root of many of the problems in middle-east or third world countries start from 1500's, with the rise of European countries. Countries like England, Spain, Russia, Portuguese, Germany, France, US, ... have always tried to control (not conquer) other countries because of natural resources, strategical advantages, a market for their exports, cheap labor force and etc. The history of mankind is so tainted that you can hardly claim *ONE* sincere political gesture throughout the history. I see US no exception to this rule.

---

I wanted to point out that the US is not a european country, nor is Russia, and neither were powers in the 1500's. The US was not a power until the 1940's (give or take a few years).

I dont need "Bowling for Columbine" to learn about world history... I have a BS in Political Science/History and a BA in Philosophy. It gets me through the day.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Frobozz
I wanted to point out that the US is not a european country, nor is Russia, and neither were powers in the 1500's. The US was not a power until the 1940's (give or take a few years).

I dont need "Bowling for Columbine" to learn about world history... I have a BS in Political Science/History and a BA in Philosophy. It gets me through the day.

---

Russia not an European country? Sure, most of the country might by geographically located in Asia, but it nevertheless is considered a European nation. Just go look it up for yourself.

I was expecting a person with a degree in Political Science and History to know better. It is quite apparent now what the BS in your degree really stands for.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Alydar

I was expecting a person with a degree in Political Science and History to know better. It is quite apparent now what the BS in your degree really stands for.

---

Oh man, wow. That has to be the single worst comment I have ever read on these forums. It was both childish and in no way supported your previous statement with facts, opinion or even rumor.

Even Ejda, as misguided as his/her statements are made those statements while maintaining a degree of respect to those who posted.

Dude, grow up.

Well we all know that WW2 was one of the reasons USA is a superpower today... Until now Eurpore has not fully recovered from that war...

Anyhow. I see it pointless arguing whether in fact, Iraq was invaded illegally or legally. What matters is how to solve the violence that is tearing up through Iraq. And since USA has been deemed responsible. She and her allies have to fix Iraq... And the hostage crisis. So its kind of late to pull-out of Iraq right now huh? Haha... off topic a bit.

But what bothers me is, so many people are dying in Iraq, Hostage taking to raids to car bombs to mere violence. And why is the UN still sitting on its backside?

We are not going to see UN turn into a League of Nations kind of organization, are we? Sigh... so screwed up...

But I guess Kofi was trying to insert some authority as the USA is not above the UN after all. He was I guess trying to save face?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Alydar
Russia not an European country? Sure, most of the country might by geographically located in Asia, but it nevertheless is considered a European nation. Just go look it up for yourself.

I was expecting a person with a degree in Political Science and History to know better. It is quite apparent now what the BS in your degree really stands for.

---

Hahahaha. Wow dude. Either Russia is a European country or it is not a european country. History doesn't talk about Russia invading from Europe, it talks about Russia INVADING EUROPE. You do not read that Napolean took his forces into the northern European nation of Russia, you hear that he took his army into the frigid Asian nation of Russia.. etc etc.

Basic logic says that either something is A or A prime, can't be both.

This person with a degree in PS/H does know better. But I find it typical that people try to go after someone elses credentials to try to scare or embarass them out of talking... It's pretty common. Try again.

This was different from my assertion to Edja that they rely on personal education rather than the rantings/ramblings of a pyschotic, money hungry, film producer that has almost no reputation at all unless you are so out of touch with reality and simply wish to see people hurt with propoganda... Basically, rather than relying on Moore you should be out reading history books, going to class, etc.

Sorry for the delayed response, I do not read the forums that often.

Quote:

---

I don’t need "Bowling for Columbine" to learn about world history... I have a BS in Political Science/History and a BA in Philosophy. It gets me through the day.

---

I am glad that you have a high education in history and hopefully that can be helpful with details in some discussions in here. That does not change the fact that you have opinions as the rest of us do. The one with the highest education is not always the one being right. I personally think that people see too much black and white and forget that there might be a gray somewhere in between.

I am glad that you do not need "Bowling for Columbine" to educate you but me as well as others have learned a few things from the movie. I am aware that not everything is fact and I know what message Moore wants to send. But that is what propaganda is like... in the modern world we get lots of it each and every day. I am sure it come as no surprise to anyone how important a role the flow of information have been in the Iraq War. Not just by the US but both 'sides'...

I know that the media is free but if the population of the western world want to know the latest news each hour and the media have no way of getting first hand knowledge because of the war. They get the information from the Military. These news are still true but they have been filtered. If you want to get as close to the truth as possible you need to seek your knowledge in all types of media... even the ones you disagree with from the start and you have to give all claims a fair chance... I know that this is close to impossible in a situation as complex as a war but I believe it is the only way...


I guess I have rambled on for long enough... ohh and btw. even though this message started as a reply to Frobozz it ended up just being a rambling about what came to my mind... bare with me =)

Peter

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Frobozz
Hahahaha. Wow dude. Either Russia is a European country or it is not a european country. History doesn't talk about Russia invading from Europe, it talks about Russia INVADING EUROPE. You do not read that Napolean took his forces into the northern European nation of Russia, you hear that he took his army into the frigid Asian nation of Russia.. etc etc.

Basic logic says that either something is A or A prime, can't be both.

---

Completely off topic from the original thread, but I don't think that to simply state that Russia is an "asian country" really encompasses the entirety of it... I read somewhere about the question of whether Russia is Asian or European, and the quote was, "Europeans consider Russian to be Asia, while Asians consider Russia to be European" *grin*

Most of the time, the way I've seen Russia qualified was by dividing at the Urals - west, Europe; east, Asia.

As an Asian living in Asia... well yar. I guess Russia is considered part of Europe. But I feel that Russia is Russia you know? Why is this going off topic?? Haha...

Anyhow, still off topic, the Iraqi Interim Prime Minister thanked the USA, for getting rid of that tyrant, Saddam. How nice. Said that elections still on the way in Jan. Wonder how that is going to turn out without some degree of violence... sigh...

The fact is there was always violence in Iraq. Long before the US showed up there was violence and murder in teh street. Most of it caused by it's leader. When the US entered the picture the violence wasn't some new thing that everyone was suddenly shocked to wake up to. The biggest difference between the violence of old and the violence of present day is that the violence of present day will achieve a positive change in that country, while the violence of old was meant to maintain the same dictatorship. Unable to change because of fear and death.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Frobozz
Hahahaha. Wow dude. Either Russia is a European country or it is not a european country. History doesn't talk about Russia invading from Europe, it talks about Russia INVADING EUROPE. You do not read that Napolean took his forces into the northern European nation of Russia, you hear that he took his army into the frigid Asian nation of Russia.. etc etc.

---

Now, it is the first time that I hear that Russia is not European. You could argue that Siberia could geographically be considered Asian, but politically Russia has always been European, in particular the area around Moscow that is the one that Napoleon attacked.

Can you give me the reference of that book where it says that Napoleon took his army to the Asian nation of Russia. I would write to the editor to reconsider.

Salimar

I wonder... exactly what relevance is it what continent Russia is on? It is where it is. I've always been taught that it lies on both continents, but once again, it doesn't matter.

(Posted by Jarkis) Anyhow. I see it pointless arguing whether in fact, Iraq was invaded illegally or legally. What matters is how to solve the violence that is tearing up through Iraq. And since USA has been deemed responsible. She and her allies have to fix Iraq... And the hostage crisis. So its kind of late to pull-out of Iraq right now huh? Haha... off topic a bit.

The USA deemed responsible??? Gilgamar has already answered that for me. Yes, it's a given that we have to stay there and fix the mess. But it is VERY important whether the invasion is considered illegal. I'm probably gonna catch a lot of flack for this, but bear with me.

In the American Civil War, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1864. Legally speaking, it did absolutely nothing. Lincoln had no legal authority to free slaves in the CSA; however, it DID cause more uprisings and more important, killed any European support the South had.

Fast forward to today. Kofi declares the invasion illegal. We have pretty much established he's full of shit. But, it WILL have a political influence on our allies, our enemies, those undecided, even our own people. No one wants to support an illegal invasion of another country, and we have also proven that a lot of people are too damn lazy to do their own research and find the truth.

Why is the UN sitting on its collective ass? I think Ari nailed it on the head. They're hoping we pull out so their own scandal doesn't come to the forefront.

And as a statement on the true state of the Iraq conflict, I just have to say that Michael Moore and Al-Jazeera are so alike it's sickening. The attacks you see on TV are only because they're on TV. My friends told me that they took it easy until they saw Al-Jazeera setting up. Then they knew something was about to happen. They only want to show the bad to discredit the US. The beheadings? Mere politcal tools. They're desperate and they're trying to sway public opinion. And they don't mind killing a few people to do this. They place no value on human life, not even their own. This is EXACTLY why we can't leave. But as a whole, the country is fine. The people love us, and most of what the military does in Iraq is assist its people with feeding and building. Just as you can't trust Moore's snippets, so can't you trust the media for its clips. You wanna know what's really going on? Ask a soldier.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lebeau
You wanna know what's really going on? Ask a soldier.

---

This is quite possibly the best advice in this entire thread.

Kofi is a fucktard.
The media are fucktards.
The ones doing the beheadings are fucktards who commit atrocities so that weak-willed people will scream out "Stop the violence!"

I can't believe this thread has even lasted this long. The only reason why people hear about beheadings, car bombings, etc... is because those are the things that draw our attention.

"And today in world news, a handful of Iraqi children gave US Soldiers some flowers they found growing by the roadside..."

Or:

"Today in world news, three more are dead after a a suicide bomber detonated an explosive device in a crowded market square."

Now, which one do you think would make the headlines?

Ask a soldier what it's like over there. No, they probably don't want to be there, but they understand why and they know that it's for the best.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gilgamar
This is quite possibly the best advice in this entire thread.

Kofi is a fucktard.
The media are fucktards.
The ones doing the beheadings are fucktards who commit atrocities so that weak-willed people will scream out "Stop the violence!"

I can't believe this thread has even lasted this long. The only reason why people hear about beheadings, car bombings, etc... is because those are the things that draw our attention.

---

You know, the whole suicide bombing and attacking US/coalition soldiers thing would have ZERO effect if that fucking media wouldnt report it. If no one reported what was going on with these boring beheadings then whatever these terrorists did would have NO effect. We could cancel the whole effect of kidnappings and behadings and 'win' this war so much easier if we stopped the media from reporting what was going on. The energy of these terrorist forces would wear out real quick if no one reported the murderous things going on.

-tharun

Quote:

---

Originally posted by tharun
You know, the whole suicide bombing and attacking US/coalition soldiers thing would have ZERO effect if that fucking media wouldnt report it. If no one reported what was going on with these boring beheadings then whatever these terrorists did would have NO effect. We could cancel the whole effect of kidnappings and behadings and 'win' this war so much easier if we stopped the media from reporting what was going on. The energy of these terrorist forces would wear out real quick if no one reported the murderous things going on.

-tharun

---

Excellent point. This is precisely why Aj Jazeera is obviously a terrorist sympathizer. Furthermore, this is why it is utterly repugnant that Canada has chosen to allow Aj Jazeera to be broadcast there (when they actually exclude Fox News).

yeah, and nobody would know about Abu Ghraib.

How dare they challenge the coalition's moral superiority!!

Not that I'm defending anyone as far as the Abu Ghraib is concerned... I think that everyone involved should get their appropriate punishment. Their biggest violation in my eyes was being stupid. "Gee, let's take pictures and leak them to the media." Was what they did right? No, not in the situation most people who judge them are in. However, they are in a wartime environment. If my soldiers' lives depended on me embarrassing a prisoner and violating Geneva Conventions, I'd do it, but the media would never know. It's easy for us to judge them on this side of the ocean. In retrospect, yes, it was wrong, but a decision was made on many levels. I'd rather the wrong decision be made than none at all.

However, the point is simply this. It ain't none of our damn business. If no one knew about Abu Ghraib but CID and other necessary authorities, what would have changed? The terrorists that beheaded Nick Berg would have used another excuse. That's all that would be different.

As far as "moral superiority" is concerned, you're damn mother fucking right we're superior! I see a mere embarrassment of EPW's as nowhere even CLOSE to beheadings. Oh whooptie-fucking-doo, they were embarrassed. Let me cry a fucking river for the poor prisoners who WILL get to see their families again!

On the other hand, Tharun, it would have an effect. First off, the families need to be notified but on the news is hardly proper. Second, Al-Jazeera would still report it and it would still be circulating on the internet, even if American media didn't report it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lebeau

As far as "moral superiority" is concerned, you're damn mother fucking right we're superior! I see a mere embarrassment of EPW's as nowhere even CLOSE to beheadings. Oh whooptie-fucking-doo, they were embarrassed. Let me cry a fucking river for the poor prisoners who WILL get to see their families again!

---

Well said.

If an American takes a picture of a naked POW (who was actually a captured combatant), it is a Nuremburg-esque atrocity.

When Islamic terrorists behead innocents for kicks its "the result of us making them hate us so much."

What a crock.

Did you know that President Bush signed a directive back in February saying that Taliban soldiers didn't qualify as POWs.
They were called "unlawful combatants", which was designed to go around the Geneva convention. The idea was that Afghanistan wasn't a functioning state, and as such, the Taliban wasn't a functioning government, therefor, their previous adherance to the Act would be interpreted as null and void.
When you're no longer protected by the Convention, it's an opportunity for torture. (Not that the Taliban wasn't doing that already to their own people)

Bush finally decided to uphold the convention, until he decided otherwise.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

If Bush is willing to do this in Afghanistan, why the hell wouldn't he do it in Iraq? Was every prisoner in those photos an enemy combatant?

read Article 3 of the Geneva Convention
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Do you seriously think that the media should be taken away from war zones?

Frankly, I'm shocked at some of the opinions expressed on this forum.

Quote:

---

yeah, and nobody would know about Abu Ghraib.

---

I am assuming you are insinuating that without: clearly non-partisan, meticulous fact checkers from such honored media outlets like Al-Jazeera and CBS that the Abu Ghraib story would have never surfaced. A minimal effort put forth in checking on the FACTS of the case would reveal that those events came to a halt by actions of fellow soldiers/guards. This had been reported to the media with very little coverage. It wasn't till much later after the photos surfaced that their 'moral outrage' over the incident blossomed. The same 'outraged' have (IMHO) lost all moral authority when it didn't bother them that the previous regime was feeding LIVE Iraqis into industrial chipper/shredders...feet F#@$ing first.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra

Do you seriously think that the media should be taken away from war zones?

---

Well, uh, yeah. I do. Well, not completely. Frankly, if everyone knew the shit that soldiers have to do to survive, we'd never win a single war. There is a reason why the military has Public Affairs Divisions. There's some things the public does not need to know. There's things that I don't need to know. Did you really need to know about Abu Ghraib?

I say not completely because, as much as I'm against propaganda, we have a public image to defend, and if we look bad to our own people, we are destined to fail. Is it better to lose our asses and know all about it, or to win, be safe, and not know absolutely everything?

I'm personally divided between the right-to-know and need-to-know. Censorship is a necessary evil. Hopefully, this will show why it is. This is kind of a tough issue for me to argue because I can see both sides. However, there's some things that must be suppressed due to security and success of the mission.

For the record, I think every person that comes under fire by a servicemember of Geneva Convention members should be subject to Geneva Conventions. This includes Taliban and other terrorists. But one has to be familiar with Geneva Conventions to truly understand what I mean by this. Besides, I've already conceded that the pictures were illegal. I've also said I'd do it too, but no one would ever know. That is the difference. But again, that's not even the same league. If no one knewabout the photos, would there be any difference? No. If no one reported the beheadings? Yes, there would. They'd still be dead. The beheadings are something that the families of the victims need to know. Something we would eventually hear about. I'm not saying don't report it. I'm saying they shouldn't focus on the negative and swoop in on the killings as if that's the scoop they were waiting on to further their careers. Try showing some Iraqis giving coalition soldiers flowers. Show the whole story.