Understanding American English
-
ROK_RShadow wrote: Yes if you want to be technical we did show Iraqi prisioners on CNN. We DID NOT however show dead Iraqi soldiers bloody on the ground, will bullet holes in their head. BIG Difference! Yes, there is a difference. But still, showing the prisoners on TV is a violation of the Geneva convention, right? I'm not too informed about the stipulations of the Geneva convention, so I may be wrong here. I'd like to hear it from someone who knows more than me.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
...celebrating Indian spirit and Cricket. 8MB video, really cool!
Yes it is against the Geneva convention. But as a post below points out that they were not POW's yet. Again this is all technical, was X really that far from Y. I don't think I nessesarialy agree with what CNN said. If you get right down to the meat and potatos of it, we did show POWs on TV, however they took it one step further. Also let me remind you that the Military did not show POW's the American Media did. I don't agree with them being there. But none the less they are. As for the Weapons of Mass Destruction that I keep hearing is an American Lie to invade Iraq. If that is true I really don't understand why we are getting worried over the Iraq order to the Republican Guard to use Chemical weapons once American troops cross the line. seeings how those chemical weapons don't exist and all. ---------------------------------------------------- C# a poor attempt at bringing C++ to the VB masses ----------------------------------------------------
-
According to CNN, the difference (albeit a small one) is that the Iraqi soldiers shown on TV were in the process of surrendering, and therefore not technically POWs. Therefore, the U.S. is not in violation of the Geneva Convention. Since the U.S. soldiers shown on TV were already in the custody of Iraq, and therefore POWs, Iraq is in violation of the Geneva Convention. I don't stand by this argument because I am merely regurgitating what I heard on CNN. If it is true, I wonder if the convention differentiates between state-run media (Iraq) and the somewhat independent media of the U.S. CNN claimed that durning the first Gulf War, they badly wanted to show pictures of the masses of surrendered Iraqi troops, but the U.S. wouldn't let them because it would be in violation of the Geneva Convention. Again, I don't stand by this because of the regurgitation factor. Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War[^] What Google says[^] Jon Sagara I have no complaint with the “mentoring concept” or the marriage concept or the sex concept. But if you pay for any of those, something’s wrong. -- John T. Reed in The real estate B.S. artist detection checklist [^]
Jon Sagara wrote: According to CNN, the difference (albeit a small one) is that the Iraqi soldiers shown on TV were in the process of surrendering, and therefore not technically POWs. Ah, yes, I remember seeing it on TV how the Iraquis were standing waving a white flag and then were "frisked" and all for hidden weapons, bombs etc. So yes, technically they were not POWs yet. I agree. But I also saw lots of Iraqui soldiers in uniforms sitting in rows. Probably they were companies who surrendered. Now I don't exactly remember if they were POWs or just Iraqui soldiers. But that wasn't on CNN. It was an Indian news channel. Wonder where they got that footage from, though. Anyway, no use getting into technicalities now. :)
Regards,Rohit Sinha
...celebrating Indian spirit and Cricket. 8MB video, really cool!
-
ROK_RShadow wrote: Yes if you want to be technical we did show Iraqi prisioners on CNN. We DID NOT however show dead Iraqi soldiers bloody on the ground, will bullet holes in their head. BIG Difference! Yes, there is a difference. But still, showing the prisoners on TV is a violation of the Geneva convention, right? I'm not too informed about the stipulations of the Geneva convention, so I may be wrong here. I'd like to hear it from someone who knows more than me.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
...celebrating Indian spirit and Cricket. 8MB video, really cool!
Rohit Sinha wrote: But still, showing the prisoners on TV is a violation of the Geneva convention, right? yup..thats correct....Even if they show..it should be done in the presence of Red CRoss society.... cheers, Super ------------------------------------------ Too much of good is bad,mix some evil in it
-
Yes it is against the Geneva convention. But as a post below points out that they were not POW's yet. Again this is all technical, was X really that far from Y. I don't think I nessesarialy agree with what CNN said. If you get right down to the meat and potatos of it, we did show POWs on TV, however they took it one step further. Also let me remind you that the Military did not show POW's the American Media did. I don't agree with them being there. But none the less they are. As for the Weapons of Mass Destruction that I keep hearing is an American Lie to invade Iraq. If that is true I really don't understand why we are getting worried over the Iraq order to the Republican Guard to use Chemical weapons once American troops cross the line. seeings how those chemical weapons don't exist and all. ---------------------------------------------------- C# a poor attempt at bringing C++ to the VB masses ----------------------------------------------------
Yeah, as I said in my post above, no use getting into technicalities now. War is dirty, and all sorts of pressure tactics will be applied by both sides to reduce the morale of the troops and exert political pressure at home (US). And just to make my position clear, I was not bashing the US. I was merely asking a question. There are a lot of things I like about the US, and very few things I don't agree with, but let's not go there. As for the reasons behind the war, I would be naive if I thought it was just because of the fact that Iraq needs to be liberated, or that it is a threat to the US, or that it's just about oil. Every nation acts in its own best interest. All of them, US, UK, France, Germany, Russia. Even my own country, India. So bashing someone because they are acting in their own interest is like the pot calling the kettle black, IMO. A president has to think about the people of his country, millions of them, who chose him as their leader. No time to play the moral high ground. Justifications may be given for any thing, but that is only to take everyone along. Nothing wrong about looking after your interests as far as I can see.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
...celebrating Indian spirit and Cricket. 8MB video, really cool!
-
Rohit Sinha wrote: But still, showing the prisoners on TV is a violation of the Geneva convention, right? yup..thats correct....Even if they show..it should be done in the presence of Red CRoss society.... cheers, Super ------------------------------------------ Too much of good is bad,mix some evil in it
Thanks for that piece of info. :)
Regards,Rohit Sinha
...celebrating Indian spirit and Cricket. 8MB video, really cool!
-
Yeah, as I said in my post above, no use getting into technicalities now. War is dirty, and all sorts of pressure tactics will be applied by both sides to reduce the morale of the troops and exert political pressure at home (US). And just to make my position clear, I was not bashing the US. I was merely asking a question. There are a lot of things I like about the US, and very few things I don't agree with, but let's not go there. As for the reasons behind the war, I would be naive if I thought it was just because of the fact that Iraq needs to be liberated, or that it is a threat to the US, or that it's just about oil. Every nation acts in its own best interest. All of them, US, UK, France, Germany, Russia. Even my own country, India. So bashing someone because they are acting in their own interest is like the pot calling the kettle black, IMO. A president has to think about the people of his country, millions of them, who chose him as their leader. No time to play the moral high ground. Justifications may be given for any thing, but that is only to take everyone along. Nothing wrong about looking after your interests as far as I can see.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
...celebrating Indian spirit and Cricket. 8MB video, really cool!
well said. I agree completly
-
SELF DEFENCE When America invades a country (such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cuba....) without UN approval ACT OF AGGRESSION When Saddam invades a country (such as Kuwait) without UN approval FREEDOM OF MEDIA When 'embedded' TV reporters film Iraqi prisoners of war on CNN (such as on March 21 and 22) VIOLATION OF GENEVA CONVENTION When American prisoners are shown on al-Jazeera (such as on March 23) ILLEGAL ENEMY COMBATANTS WITH NO LEGAL RIGHTS Hundreds of Taliban soldiers held in Guantanamo Bay PRISONERS OF WAR UNDER GENEVA CONVENTION Handful of American soldiers held in Iraq AMERICA UNDER ATTACK When foreigners kill Americans (CNN's slug for its 9/11 stories) STRIKE ON IRAQ When Americans kill foreigners (CNN's slug for its 3/20 stories) OUR BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN IN UNIFORM American soldiers in 20-mile mechanized cavalry formations and pilots dropping bombs on Baghdad DEAD RUNNERS Rummy's colourful phrase for describing poorly armed Iraqis holding out till the end in Umm Qasr and Basra SHOCK AND AWE When America attacks cities (such as Baghdad and Basra) with bombs and missiles TERRORISM When Osama bin Laden attacks cities (such as New York and Washington) with aircraft FREEDOM OF MEDIA - II When captured Taliban John Walker Lindh is interrogated by CNN reporters VIOLATION OF GENEVA CONVENTION - II When captured Americans are interrogated by al-Jazeera reporters MINIMUM DETRRENTS Nuclear, chemical and biological weapons held by America and her allies (such as Pakistan and Israel) WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION Nuclear, chemical and biological weapons held by everybody else ALLIES IN COALITION FOR FREEDOM Muslim dictatorships (such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt and Kuwait) on America's side ALLIES OF TERROR Muslim dictatorships (such as Syria and Iran) that oppose America POLITICALLY INCORRECT All Mullahs who ask Muslims to wage jihad in the name of Islam on the infidels POLITICALLY CORRECT CNN's Tumi Makgabo described the US soldier who killed a fellow soldier yesterday as having "some kind of Arabic or Muslim name" cheers, Super ------------------------------------------ Too much of good is bad,mix some evil in it
-
Umm.. just a slight interjection. Yes if you want to be technical we did show Iraqi prisioners on CNN. We DID NOT however show dead Iraqi soldiers bloody on the ground, will bullet holes in their head. BIG Difference! -------------------------------------------------------- IMHO: C# a poor attempt at bringing C++ to the VB masses --------------------------------------------------------
cnn? during weekend they were showing pictures of slovak planes naming them iraq ones we often have fun to know what next was shown 'on cnn' possibly that were afghans from cuba t!
-
Well said, are you reading my mind? but I think American and british armies are having hard time there dont you think?:) La ILah Ila allah Mohamed Rasoul Allah
Samer12 wrote: but I think American and british armies are having hard time there dont you think? Well i dunno which network to believe..So by going with BBC world ,it true.. The war is not going smoothly as expected by US...They are facing some obstacles..Lets see how it turns up cheers, Super ------------------------------------------ Too much of good is bad,mix some evil in it
-
cnn? during weekend they were showing pictures of slovak planes naming them iraq ones we often have fun to know what next was shown 'on cnn' possibly that were afghans from cuba t!
-
Well said, are you reading my mind? but I think American and british armies are having hard time there dont you think?:) La ILah Ila allah Mohamed Rasoul Allah
Samer12 wrote: I think American and british armies are having hard time there dont you think? Yes they are in trouble because Iraqis are violating the law of war[^] :-D :-D :-D Are there any ethics of war or everything is fair in war? IMO everything is fair in war, because war is a war ..
-
Samer12 wrote: I think American and british armies are having hard time there dont you think? Yes they are in trouble because Iraqis are violating the law of war[^] :-D :-D :-D Are there any ethics of war or everything is fair in war? IMO everything is fair in war, because war is a war ..
Are there any ethics of war or everything is fair in war? IMO everything is fair in war, because war is a war .. in my opinion there are ethics in war ,but is it ethical that the US is fightinig Iraq ? why? it is an armed robery so every thing is allowed,CNN is a huge liar see CNN and BBC then compare,see aljazeera,USA is always blind when it comes to it self-when it comes to Israel too- :) La ILah Ila allah Mohamed Rasoul Allah
-
Samer12 wrote: I think American and british armies are having hard time there dont you think? Yes they are in trouble because Iraqis are violating the law of war[^] :-D :-D :-D Are there any ethics of war or everything is fair in war? IMO everything is fair in war, because war is a war ..
John-theKing wrote: violating the law of war War has rules? *Yeah, I know about the Geneva convention, etc/blahblah*
Bruce Duncan, CP#9088, CPUA 0xA1EE, Sonork 100.10030
Blackadder: Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is?
Baldrick: Yeah, it's like goldy and bronzy only it's made of iron. -
John-theKing wrote: violating the law of war War has rules? *Yeah, I know about the Geneva convention, etc/blahblah*
Bruce Duncan, CP#9088, CPUA 0xA1EE, Sonork 100.10030
Blackadder: Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is?
Baldrick: Yeah, it's like goldy and bronzy only it's made of iron.Bruce Duncan wrote: War has rules? Apparently back in Roman times there was this particular "game" which was popular. The slaves would be set loose on each other, permitted to do anything to win the fight, but no weapons were involved. The only rule was that you weren't allowed to pop your opponent's eye out. Which is where we get the saying "It's all fun and games, till somebody loses an eye" Now if only I could store useful info in my brain... :rolleyes:
I may try to delete my CP cookies. But its almost like tossing the keys of the appartment into the river. - Andreas Saurwein
-
Yeah, as I said in my post above, no use getting into technicalities now. War is dirty, and all sorts of pressure tactics will be applied by both sides to reduce the morale of the troops and exert political pressure at home (US). And just to make my position clear, I was not bashing the US. I was merely asking a question. There are a lot of things I like about the US, and very few things I don't agree with, but let's not go there. As for the reasons behind the war, I would be naive if I thought it was just because of the fact that Iraq needs to be liberated, or that it is a threat to the US, or that it's just about oil. Every nation acts in its own best interest. All of them, US, UK, France, Germany, Russia. Even my own country, India. So bashing someone because they are acting in their own interest is like the pot calling the kettle black, IMO. A president has to think about the people of his country, millions of them, who chose him as their leader. No time to play the moral high ground. Justifications may be given for any thing, but that is only to take everyone along. Nothing wrong about looking after your interests as far as I can see.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
...celebrating Indian spirit and Cricket. 8MB video, really cool!
Rohit Sinha wrote: No time to play the moral high ground. So you think the lack of time is to blame for their blindness on international law and human sufferings?
-
Rohit Sinha wrote: No time to play the moral high ground. So you think the lack of time is to blame for their blindness on international law and human sufferings?
Fazlul Kabir wrote: So you think the lack of time is to blame for their blindness on international law and human sufferings? :) No, that's not what I meant at all. What I meant to say was that the highest priority of a President was to look after the interests of his people. And that every single country does it. As a nation, no one can always be right. And they all act in their own best interest, and later justify it with reasons of all sorts. I was merely trying to explain it, not justify it. Please don't take my statements out of context.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
...celebrating Indian spirit and Cricket. 8MB video, really cool!
-
Well said, are you reading my mind? but I think American and british armies are having hard time there dont you think?:) La ILah Ila allah Mohamed Rasoul Allah
Not really. Yeah, we've lost about 40 men, but in the process we've taken the entire country with the exception of Baghdad. Its interesting to contrast how we treat their POWs and the Iraqis treat ours don't you think? We give them food, water, and medical treatment. The Iraqis shoot our guys in the head. BTW, you can shove that smiley up your a$$. You supporters of Saddam make me want to go inlist and I'm not a violent person.
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi -
Not really. Yeah, we've lost about 40 men, but in the process we've taken the entire country with the exception of Baghdad. Its interesting to contrast how we treat their POWs and the Iraqis treat ours don't you think? We give them food, water, and medical treatment. The Iraqis shoot our guys in the head. BTW, you can shove that smiley up your a$$. You supporters of Saddam make me want to go inlist and I'm not a violent person.
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - GandhiI did not really want to take it here. :( But, why is middle-east the most troubled area? My answer is oil. Every super-power took turns to screw up the place by supporting and installing dictatorships. ...and would Israel be getting the kind of attention that it gets now, if it had not been for its strategic location in the area. IMO, it would have got the same kind of treatment as Kashmir, if it had not been for oil. I am happy that India does not have any big reserves of oil; otherwise my country would also have been screwed up. This war may not be for oil; but all the causes of this war stem from the oil-related foreign policies of the current G8 countries including Russia or erstwhile Soviet Union. So, when you talk about freedom, liberation and other things, please understand that these places were under British occupation until the start or middle of the 2oth century; and then installed with dictators and kings, leaving not much choice for the people there. ...and the people there are not willing to forget the past, just like US is not willing to forget Pearl Harbour and Adolf Hitler. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
Not really. Yeah, we've lost about 40 men, but in the process we've taken the entire country with the exception of Baghdad. Its interesting to contrast how we treat their POWs and the Iraqis treat ours don't you think? We give them food, water, and medical treatment. The Iraqis shoot our guys in the head. BTW, you can shove that smiley up your a$$. You supporters of Saddam make me want to go inlist and I'm not a violent person.
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - GandhiOk man,you are chalenging me,I am not a violent person ,I dont want american young men and women in that army to die or get injured ,you got me all wrong You supporters of Saddam I did not say that ,the only thing I admit that sadam must be out of Iraq BY THE IRAQI PEOPLE ,still this is an armed robery your army is trying to rob Iraq,they have no good intention,this does not mean that all AMerican people are bad ,mI disagree with the government Its interesting to contrast how we treat their POWs and the Iraqis treat ours don't you think? this is not true ,or your army also treat POw good and pamper them in camp xray....... you are decived by the media do not belive all you hear The Iraqis shoot our guys in the head also not true and the Iraqi prisoners are shown on tv as long with those in xray camb who are treated like animals you can shove that smiley up your a$$. typical American language:cool: La ILah Ila allah Mohamed Rasoul Allah
-
I did not really want to take it here. :( But, why is middle-east the most troubled area? My answer is oil. Every super-power took turns to screw up the place by supporting and installing dictatorships. ...and would Israel be getting the kind of attention that it gets now, if it had not been for its strategic location in the area. IMO, it would have got the same kind of treatment as Kashmir, if it had not been for oil. I am happy that India does not have any big reserves of oil; otherwise my country would also have been screwed up. This war may not be for oil; but all the causes of this war stem from the oil-related foreign policies of the current G8 countries including Russia or erstwhile Soviet Union. So, when you talk about freedom, liberation and other things, please understand that these places were under British occupation until the start or middle of the 2oth century; and then installed with dictators and kings, leaving not much choice for the people there. ...and the people there are not willing to forget the past, just like US is not willing to forget Pearl Harbour and Adolf Hitler. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
Thomas George wrote: and would Israel be getting the kind of attention that it gets now, if it had not been for its strategic location in the area. Israel is located where it is because that's where the Jews originated. Its not because of British mandate. BTW, the Israelis formed their country in opposition to the UN in 1948. Thomas George wrote: So, when you talk about freedom, liberation and other things, please understand that these places were under British occupation until the start or middle of the 2oth century; and then installed with dictators and kings, leaving not much choice for the people there. ...and the people there are not willing to forget the past, just like US is not willing to forget Pearl Harbour and Adolf Hitler. Why hate the US then?
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi