[highsider]

Originally posted by bigred875

Kerry was a hero for shooting an unarmed 15yr/old wearing a towel around his waste in the back of the head after chasing him 50 yards...

He was awarded the silver star for that....and now this...it is crap...

What a unique spin. You should go work for Bill O'Lielly.


Ah, this feels much better...........

READ the FINE print Cam....

Originally posted by Cam_In_RI


Geneva Convention
Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

Gee, uh, what about "a passive part", as in the Marine who got killed when a wounded combatant booby trapped himself? Would you consider that "active", or how would you define "active"?

You do know that that's likely intentional, a leaving-the-door-open clause.... right?

[Honclfibr]

Originally posted by bigred875
It the unarmed soldier had a grenade he would be a hero...but he didnt...and now he is being prosecuted...

You know, with the rash of USPS employees going on rampant killing sprees, I'm wondering if I shouldn't kill the postman (he might have a gun).

That's it, I'm going to do it. I'm gonna kill the postman.

Wish me luck

[hohum]

Originally posted by Honclfibr
You know, with the rash of USPS employees going on rampant killing sprees, I'm wondering if I shouldn't kill the postman (he might have a gun).

That's it, I'm going to do it. I'm gonna kill the postman.

Wish me luck

Don't do it! That violates article 69 of the Geneva convention about non-agression to postal workers!

[highsider]

Originally posted by Honclfibr
You know, with the rash of USPS employees going on rampant killing sprees, I'm wondering if I shouldn't kill the postman (he might have a gun).

That's it, I'm going to do it. I'm gonna kill the postman.

Wish me luck

LMAO........

Originally posted by Honclfibr
You know, with the rash of USPS employees going on rampant killing sprees, I'm wondering if I shouldn't kill the postman (he might have a gun).

That's it, I'm going to do it. I'm gonna kill the postman.

Wish me luck

hmmm, you're a soldier part of RandyO's militia, now I have to do something....

[bentbryan]

Wow! I love it when people start quoting the Geneva Convention.

Once you surrender to an army, according to the rules of war (which are clearly stated, they are not up for debate or your personal 'interpretation') and you disband you are no longer protected under the GC if you continue to engage in hostilities. That's it, end of story.

[hohum]

Originally posted by bentbryan
Wow! I love it when people start quoting the Geneva Convention.

Once you surrender to an army, according to the rules of war (which are clearly stated, they are not up for debate or your personal 'interpretation') and you disband you are no longer protected under the GC if you continue to engage in hostilities. That's it, end of story.

I see, so when exactly did this OFFICIAL surrender (which the GC requires) occur?

Answer: It didn't

[bentbryan]

uhhh, did you miss the beginning of the war? go back and do some research....

[highsider]

Originally posted by bentbryan
uhhh, did you miss the beginning of the war? go back and do some research....

Bryan, I like you and find you amusing.

But do you ever watch the news?

Iraq never surrendered. We have supplanted a new government in there, which makes about half of the people of Iraq happy, and really pisses the other half off. Thus, we are still at war with the other half.

[bentbryan]

You're kidding right? Seriously I hope? You don't remember the THOUSANDS of Iraqi's who surrendered unit by unit then we disbanded them because we didn't have the manpower to contain them? Alot of these guys are some of the insurgents that we are still fighting.

[hohum]

Originally posted by bentbryan
You're kidding right? Serioulsy I hope? You don't remember the THOUSANDS of Iraqi's who surrendered unit by unit then we disbanded them because we didn't have the manpower to contain them? Alot of these guys are some of the insurgents that we are still fighting.

GC requires an OFFICIAL surrender, as in, the leader of the military forces/leader of a nation declaring surrender in Iraq. That NEVER happened.

Individual unit surrenders have NOTHING to do with whether a war is over or not. Not until there is an official surrender or a withdrawal of forces does it become "non wartime" in Iraq...

Sorry, but that argument for not having to abide by the GC is bogus.

[bigred875]

Originally posted by highsider
What a unique spin. You should go work for Bill O'Lielly.


Ah, this feels much better...........

you obviously what him as much as you follow politics..

[highsider]

Originally posted by bigred875
you obviously what him as much as you follow politics..

Touche, fukker.

All I know about Bill O'Lielly is what I read in an Al Franken book. That being said, it was pretty convincing stuff - i.e., facts with footnotes to newspaper articles.

Originally posted by bentbryan
You're kidding right? Seriously I hope? You don't remember the THOUSANDS of Iraqi's who surrendered unit by unit then we disbanded them because we didn't have the manpower to contain them? Alot of these guys are some of the insurgents that we are still fighting.

Bryan makes a great point. It's FACT that many units surrendered. If at that point, they laid their weapons down and never actively, or passively, in any way shape or form, engaged all is well and good. NOW they go off after the fact, and pick up guns and fight a guerilla war?

[bigred875]

Originally posted by highsider
Bryan, I like you and find you amusing.

But do you ever watch the news?

Iraq never surrendered. We have supplanted a new government in there, which makes about half of the people of Iraq happy, and really pisses the other half off. Thus, we are still at war with the other half.

why dont you spew this political spin to the 24,500,000 free iraqi's... I bet they could use the laugh....

2/3's of iraq is free...

[bigred875]

Originally posted by highsider
Touche, fukker.

All I know about Bill O'Lielly is what I read in an Al Franken book. That being said, it was pretty convincing stuff - i.e., facts with footnotes to newspaper articles.

and there you have it..you are excused

[highsider]

Originally posted by bigred875
and there you have it..you are excused

Just for that I'm going to watch him tonight and whine about it like a little liberal bitch all day tomorrow.

[bigred875]

Originally posted by hohum
GC requires an OFFICIAL surrender, as in, the leader of the military forces/leader of a nation declaring surrender in Iraq. That NEVER happened.

Individual unit surrenders have NOTHING to do with whether a war is over or not. Not until there is an official surrender or a withdrawal of forces does it become "non wartime" in Iraq...

Sorry, but that argument for not having to abide by the GC is bogus.

no it isn't

this is getting old...

how about this...Saddam surrendered when he had his hands up when we were pulling him out of the rat hole...

GAME OVA!!!

[bigred875]

Originally posted by highsider
Just for that I'm going to watch him tonight and whine about it like a little liberal bitch all day tomorrow.

lol..good you should..you have to wathc both sides..

But be prepeared to be disappointed..he gets just as many hate letters from the conservative calling him a liberal as he does from the libs....

You should substitute him for Hannity or Limbaugh...they are much harder core then ole bill

[hohum]

Originally posted by bigred875
how about this...Saddam surrendered when he had his hands up when we were pulling him out of the rat hole...

That is almost an argument for an official surrender, but it isn't really since Saddam has refused to surrender officially... BUT its much closer than "look all these troops gave up"...

[hohum]

Originally posted by bigred875
lol..good you should..you have to wathc both sides..

But be prepeared to be disappointed..he gets just as many hate letters from the conservative calling him a liberal as he does from the libs....

You should substitute him for Hannity or Limbaugh...they are much harder core then ole bill

ditto that... O'Reilley gets me irked, Limbaugh/Hannity/Coulter make me want to kill people

[bigred875]

Originally posted by hohum
ditto that... O'Reilley gets me irked, Limbaugh/Hannity/Coulter make me want to kill people

I like Hannity..tolerate Limbaugh...Coulter drives me nuts...lol

So Saddam having his hands up and then several units surrendering is nto enough for you..lol


What do you need an engraved monument? lol

[bentbryan]

Originally posted by hohum
GC requires an OFFICIAL surrender, as in, the leader of the military forces/leader of a nation declaring surrender in Iraq. That NEVER happened.

Individual unit surrenders have NOTHING to do with whether a war is over or not. Not until there is an official surrender or a withdrawal of forces does it become "non wartime" in Iraq...

Sorry, but that argument for not having to abide by the GC is bogus.

I'm such a sucker. I just poured over the GC to locate where it states 'official surrender' but can't find it. Help me out please.

[odduc]

Hey guys, who fucking cares, we have one less dirty fucker trying to kill our soldiers. Next topic, please!!!!!!!!!!!!