SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Hawkmoon who wrote (197370)8/15/2006 6:27:02 PM
From: Noel de Leon  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
I figured you would manage to rant and rave in order to debase US ideals. That's OK, freedom of speech.

I was simply pointing out that the US has not signed the 1977 protocol covering prisoners from non governmental armed forces. As such the US is able to use the same despicable methods as, for example, Al Qaeda uses.

Read the convention and the protocols and try to understand that the US is not bound by the 1977 protocols to the Geneva Convention.

One could argue that the warmongers of the time had the foresight to keep the US from being bound by such a protocol. And by indirection insured that you could rant and rave about something of which you understand not at all.

You supply the answer to your own question about Hitler and gas attacks. Just read three lines back. "...Geneva Protocol of 1925 to restrict their use of chemical weapons to retaliation only." And then you continue with;"Then what you're telling us all here is that, DESPITE HIS VIOLATION OF THE TERMS OF THAT TREATY, the US would not be morally right in retaliating. That Hitler could gas our troops to his heart's content and we'd never retaliate or use the same methods." Quite pathetic, try a bit harder to develop a coherent argument.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext