On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 10:57:50 +0200, "Knud Larsen"
<larsensknud@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>
>"Henrik Svendsen" <HrSvendsen@msn.com> wrote in message
>news:10db7y1qxxi06.dlg@hrsvendsen.fqdn.th-h.de...
>> for krigs og besættelsestilhængerne, at Irak i dag har ca. 7
>> gange flere dødsfald dagligt i Baghdad end under Saddam - og
>> så er ofrene for bomberne i byen slet ikke talt med. Og det
>> skal endda ses i lyset af, at Irak dengang led under verdens
>> blodigste boykot, der bla. kostede en halv million irakiske
>> børn livet.
>>
>> At de kristne flygter ud af landet alt hvad remmer og tøj kan
>> holde. De havde det laaaangt bedre under Saddam.
>
>Lad os få indført diktatur i alle FN's lande, som det er nu, er jo kun 67%
>af FNs lande diktaturstater, dér er noget at arbejde på. Vi elsker bare
>Mugabe og Fidel, - som man kunne se forleden så jublede Kofi Anan over at
>kunne overkysse overbossen Fidel, - vi elsker bare disse herlige fyre.
>
Hvor ynkeligt Knud. ;-(
Du besvarer berettiget kritik med samme argument som de
lavintelligente her i gruppen, Hvis du ikke støtter USA elsker du
Saddam. Det kan du gøre bedre.
Her er en lille bid fra en antiamerikansk amerikaner, andet kan han jo
ikke være da han er kritisk.
citat:
I remember a seasoned senior officer explaining the importance of the
Geneva Conventions. He said, “When an enemy fighter knows he’ll be
treated well by United States forces if he is captured, he is more
likely to give up.â€
A year later on the streets of Baghdad, I saw countless insurgents
surrender when faced with the prospect of a hot meal, a pack of
cigarettes and air-conditioning. America’s moral integrity was the
single most important weapon my platoon had on the streets of Iraq. It
saved innumerable lives, encouraged cooperation with our allies and
deterred Iraqis from joining the growing insurgency.
But those days are over. America’s moral standing has eroded, thanks
to its flawed rationale for war and scandals like Abu Ghraib,
Guantánamo and Haditha. The last thing we can afford now is to leave
Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions open to reinterpretation, as
President Bush proposed to do and can still do under the compromise
bill that emerged last week.
Blurring the lines on the letter of Article 3 — it governs the
treatment of prisoners of war, prohibiting “violence to life and
person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment
and torture†and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular,
humiliating and degrading treatment†— will only make our troops’
tough fight even tougher. It will undermine the power of all the
Geneva Conventions, immediately endanger American troops captured by
the enemy and create a powerful recruiting tool for Al Qaeda.
But the fight over Article 3 concerns not only Al Qaeda and the war in
Iraq. It also affects future wars, because when we lower the bar for
the treatment of our prisoners, other countries feel justified in
doing the same. Four years ago in Liberia, in an attempt to preserve
his corrupt authority, President Charles Taylor adopted the Bush
administration’s phrase “unlawful combatants†to describe prisoners he
wished to try outside of civilian courts. Today Mr. Taylor stands
before The Hague accused of war crimes.
It is not hard to imagine that one of our Special Forces soldiers
might one day be captured by Iranian forces while investigating a
potential nuclear weapons program. What is to stop that soldier from
being water-boarded, locked in a cold room for days without sleep as
Iranian pop music blares all around him — and finally sentenced to die
without a fair trial or the right to see the evidence against him?
If America continues to erode the meaning of the Geneva Conventions,
we will cede the ground upon which to prosecute dictators and
warlords. We will also become unable to protect our troops if they are
perceived as being no more bound by the rule of law than dictators and
warlords themselves.
The question facing America is not whether to continue fighting our
enemies in Iraq and beyond but how to do it best. My soldiers and I
learned the hard way that policy at the point of a gun cannot, by
itself, create democracy. The success of America’s fight against
terrorism depends more on the strength of its moral integrity than on
troop numbers in Iraq or the flexibility of interrogation options.
Several Republican combat veterans, including former Secretary of
State Colin Powell and Senators Lindsay Graham, John McCain and John
Warner, have recognized that the president’s stance on Article 3 is a
threat to our troops and to our interests. It would be insulting for
the president to assume he knows more about war than they do.
citat slut.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/25/opinion/25rieckhoff.html?th&emc=th
Det er sandelig også for dårligt at en amerikansk patriot og soldat
tillader sig at antyde Bush er udemokratisk, smid fjolset i fængsel
til han kommer på bedre tanker, kan det ikke lade sig gøre, kan man
bare flyve ham til lidt tortur i Syrien som man gør med canadiske
statsborgere der arresteres i USA.
Regards Croc®
Navigare necesse est, vivere non est necesse