2005-05-30
2005 June Thoughts
Please add your thoughts from 2005 June 01-15. Please check the groundrules before posting. They are unusual. If you make personal attacks against me or other posters, your comments will be deleted. If you, don't like the groundrules, you can debate me in the alt.politics.bush newsgroup
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Legality of Napalm
Roedy said...
Despite Brian's lawyerly and technical defense of the use of napalm, that does not change the fact the UN banned napalm in 1980 because it “concluded that the spread of fire with these weapons affected military and civilian targets indiscriminately, that the injuries were intensely painful, and that medical treatment was beyond the resources of most countries.”
Acutallly... no. That is a false statement. The fact sheet that you referenced [link] specifically states that the "third Protocol restricts the use of incendiary weapons." Let me re-iterate: restricts Which is exactly in line with what the actual protocol says, located here [link].
By its very definition, restricting the use of napalm is different from completely banning it. All I'm saying is that the US has been using napalm according to the restrictions that the UN laid down (even though we didn't actually sign the protocol).
Roedy also said...
"Only the most depraved sadist could watch a child roasted alive with naplam to face a slow, agonising death and claim this was just fine with him because of the legal technicalities."
Very true... and that's why we are abiding by the UN restrictions by not using napalm against children. These "legal technicalities" specifically prohibit the use of napalm against civilian targets.
Roedy, I'm asking you to stop twisting around the truth: the UN protocol [link] clearly does not outright ban incendiaries, it only restricts their use. If you disagree with that, read the source document for yourself.
US Use Of Napalm
The USA obviously used napalm on children in the Viet Nam war. Consider the famous photograph that helped end the war.
In Iraq, US troops raid a home, and instead of risking their lives searching it, flood it with napalm flames or similar incendiaries. This roasts alive any elderly, women or childen hiding anywhere in the house. They also indiscriminately dropped them from planes all over Fallujah.
No amount of legalistic excuses to get Bush off on technicalities for his atrocities and tortures will convince me what he did was acceptable.
Legal Use of Napalm
The UN protocol makes it very clear the way the USA uses napalm is illegal. Read the link you provided.
You can't even use incendiaries on military targets where there are civilians, even if the civilians are there as a shield.
There is no front in the Iraq war. Civilians are everywhere. There is no possible way to use napalm in a way that complies with the UN ban/restrictions.
Brian, why are playing advocate for such a sadistic means of warfare?
Playing Lawyer
Restricting napalm to military targets is just another way of saying banning its use on civilians.
This debate is a silly word game that is of no consequence. What matters is the excruciating, sadistic suffering caused when Bush roasts civilians, children and the resistance alive. It is utterly evil and wrong.
But if you insist on playing devil’s advocate, the war itself is illegal, therefore the use of napalm or any other weapon on anyone in Iraq is automatically illegal too.
Only soldiers know war
There was a commercial on AirAmericaRadio.com
for a group of soldiers wanting to tell everyone about the Iraq war. They claimed only they knew war. Everyone else should shut up and listen to them.
I think they have an inflated opinion of themselves for three reasons:
1. They are experts on how to kill people, not why.
2. Most of them have very little education. Most have never even opened a book since they left school.
3. All of them went through a brainwashing procedure called boot camp. It is impossible to think rationally after having been conditionsed to obey authority that way.
Stay the Course
Bush says the USA should fight terrorists abroad to avoid fighting them at home.
The catch is there were no terrorists in Iraq when the the war started.
Certainly no one involved with 9/11 was there.
Bush is creating future terrorists, but the folks there fighting the Americans are resitance fighters, working to turf the Americans out of their country.
They are not terrorists.
Hi,
I found this new software:
http://www.best-blog-link-generator.com
This is perfect for free traffic, high ranking, backlinks etc.
Check it out!
You don't want to miss this one.
Post a Comment