Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

United States War Crimes 

by Lenora Foerstel and Brian Willson

 

Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG),  globalresearch.ca,   26  January 2002


The issue of War Crimes emerged after World War I at the Versailles Conference, but it was not until the end of World War II that a more comprehensive definition of what constitutes war crimes was developed. First among new international conventions addressing war crimes was the 1950 Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal. Its fundamental premise was that the conduct of war in violation of international treaties was a crime against peace. Ill treatment of prisoners of war, killing hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages was a war crime. Crimes against humanity include murder, extermination, deportation, and prosecution based on political, racial or religious grounds.

The 1949 Geneva Convention gave recognition to the development of new technologies which exposed civilian life to greater threats of destruction. A 1977 addendum further emphasized the right of civilians to be protected against military operations. This included the protection of civilians against starvation as a method of warfare. Article II of the Geneva Convention addressed the issue of genocide, defined as killing or causing serious bodily harm to individuals based on their nationality, ethnic, racial or religious group and with the intent to destroy that group.

Since the Geneva Convention, a number of other significant international treaties addressing war and human rights have been drafted, but the United States has rejected almost all of them. Among the treaties that the United States has refused to sign are the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (1966); the Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966); the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (1966), and the American Convention on Human Rights (1965).

The United States has been particularly reluctant to sign treaties addressing the "laws of war". It has refused to sign The Declaration on the Prohibition of the Use of Thermo-Nuclear Weapons (1961); The Resolution on the Non-Use of Force in International Relations and Permanent Ban on the Use of Nuclear Weapons (1972); The Resolution on the Definition of Aggression (1974); Protocols Additional to the 1949 Geneva Convention (1977); and the Declaration on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons(1989).1

Equally disturbing was the U.S. refusal to sign the Convention on Rights of the Child, introduced into the United Nations General assembly on November 20, 1989 and subsequently ratified by 191 countries.

The first use of atomic weapons against human beings occurred on August 6-9 1945, when the United States incinerated the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II, killing an estimated 110,000 Japanese citizens and injuring another 130,000. By 1950 another 230,000 died from injuries and radiation. Earlier in 1945 two fire bombing raids on Tokyo killed 140,000 citizens and injured a million more.

Since World War II the US has bombed twenty-three nations. Author William Blum notes: "It is sobering to reflect that in our era of instant world wide communications, the United States has, on many occasions, been able to mount a large or small scale military operation or undertake other equally blatant forms of intervention without the American public being aware of it until years later if ever."2

The growing primacy or aerial bombardment in the conduct of war has inevitably defined non-combatants as the preferred target of war. Indeed, the combination of American air power and occupation ground forces has resulted in massive civilian casualties around the world.

by on Aug. 28, 2013 at 11:18 AM
Replies (171-176):
furbabymum
by Gold Member on Aug. 29, 2013 at 3:48 PM
1 mom liked this

 Double standard for sure!

Quoting prommy:

 

Quoting furbabymum:

 See you are very very condescending. It grates.

Quoting D.O.E.:

I have just as much empathy for the plight of the american people as i do for the syrians, or egyptians.
I dont hate american people. I feel sorry for them.
I would be the first to start cheering if the american people took back their country


Quoting furbabymum:

 Yes, a counselor. Proof that I don't mind looking at the hard facts and changing my opinion/myself.


Now, I'm the one that started all this so I guess I should be the one to answer. I have absolutely no problem examining what is wrong with America. I have actually changed a lot of opinions based upon things I've seen discussed in this very forum. It's very educational and since I live in a small place it is nice to hear the opinions of those outside of what I know. However, it is exceedingly annoying to have one person, who doesn't even live in your country, constantly posting about how awful said country is. I don't feel like she's looking for discussion. She's just looking to let those nasty American's know how awful they are and how awesome Canada is. I'm glad she is proud to be Canadian. I would hope most people would be proud to live where they do. I just don't like how she goes about these "discussions". I mean if she wanted to examine war crimes why not examine ALL war crimes. But no, only the U.S.'s which is typical for one of her posts. Thus, I replied with defense of my beloved country and disgust at her constant need to tear it apart. 


Quoting Raintree:


Oh dear. A counselor.


I'm not. I'm asking a pertinent question- 


Here it is again- why can't you discuss the topic? What are you afraid of? Why do you think it's okay that she's been called an ass in this thread? Why?


Quoting furbabymum:


 Our marriage counselor has told my DH and I several times that we are responsible for our own actions and reactions. Just because he's being an asshole doesn't mean I can excuse being a bitch and vice versa.


So, try not to blame your responses on our nastiness. You are responsible for yourself.


Quoting Raintree:


Well gee. You were nasty first. I had to be nasty back because that's the quagmire of war. If I give you a cookie, will you forget what I did?


No one has discussed- or tried to discuss- ANYTHING in this thread. It's all just jump on the OP like a bunch of historical revisionists.


Quoting Sekirei:


reread what I said. I do know about it .. bleh. 


thanks for being nasty to me. 


Quoting Raintree:


You don't know much about this shit?


Figures. I bet Prommy doesn't, either.


Well there's a reason for a discussion about it then. If you don't like it, feel free to bow out.


Quoting Sekirei:




Quoting prommy:


 


Quoting Sekirei:


-sigh-


While I know about most of that shit... it is hard to have even a rational discussion with a person who only posts out of hate and anger. If you would look at thing objectively or not come off as an ass.. I would be more inclined. 


Now, before you say, 'well, you opened this post' I am simply making my quota... have a nice day


 


-bows- Thank you.. thank you <3








 




 

 

 Absolutely and somehow by pointing out that she is condescending you become accused of denying that the US committed war crimes. Doesn't make any sense does it?

 

fireangel5
by Gold Member on Aug. 29, 2013 at 10:45 PM


The way I am seeing it is that if the US is such a big bad ass country doing all of these horrible things and sticking our nose into other people's business, I say fine, we should remove ourselves, our $$ and our resources from everywhere. Put our troops and $$ here and let everyone else fend for themselves.  Maybe then we won't be looked on so unfavorably by others. 

Quoting supercarp:

 So you're in favor of disbanding NATO?

Quoting fireangel5:

Nah, lets opt out of everything outside of our borders and lets see what happens. 


Quoting supercarp:

 The US has agreements with many other countries, Canada for one, that says that the US will consider an attack on Canada as an attack on the US and will defend her as such. The US has a responsibility to be a war machine, as things stand now. We can't just "opt out."


 



 









blondekosmic15
by on Aug. 29, 2013 at 11:09 PM

 

Quoting muslimahpj:

It's a good organization

http://codepink.salsalabs.com/o/424/p/salsa/web/thank_you_page/public/thankYou.sjs?thank_you_page_KEY=3367

Quoting D.O.E.:

Is that the name of the file the cia has on me? Lol jk no, whats code pink?

Quoting blondekosmic15:

Op.... are you a member of 'Code Pink'?


Of course you believe Code Pink is a reputable organization. Not surprising. You forgot to mention the founder's association & friendship with Communist & terrorist leaders such as Hugo Chavez, Fidel & Raul Castro, Daniel Ortega, the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood just to name a few. Jodie Evan's disrespect for our brave troops & our Nation speaks to her radical views & hatred of America.

Code Pink: The Castro and Chavez Fan Club

http://www.humanevents.com/2007/09/04/code-pink-the-castro-and-chavez-fan-club/

A CLOSER LOOK AT CODE PINK

Obama Funder Jodie Evans on Her New 'Tali' Pals: Taliban Bring Peace and Justice, U.S. Created 'Hell on Earth' in Afghanistan

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2009/12/21/Obama-Funder-Jodie-Evans-on-Her-New-Tali-Pals--Taliban-Bring-Peace-and-Justice--US-Created-Hell-on-Earth-in-Afghanistan

Jodie Evans: Code Pink founder, Obama bundler, Osama apologist

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/12/jodie-davis-code-pink-founder-obama-bundler-osama-apologist/

snookyfritz
by Platinum Member on Aug. 29, 2013 at 11:55 PM

I just saw this on Facebook and had to share...love it!

Sisteract
by Whoopie on Aug. 30, 2013 at 11:12 AM

Good idea- Unfortunately the people who make loads of money off war mongering would never stand for that logical approach- they own the US government.

Quoting fireangel5:


The way I am seeing it is that if the US is such a big bad ass country doing all of these horrible things and sticking our nose into other people's business, I say fine, we should remove ourselves, our $$ and our resources from everywhere. Put our troops and $$ here and let everyone else fend for themselves.  Maybe then we won't be looked on so unfavorably by others. 

Quoting supercarp:

 So you're in favor of disbanding NATO?

Quoting fireangel5:

Nah, lets opt out of everything outside of our borders and lets see what happens. 


Quoting supercarp:

 The US has agreements with many other countries, Canada for one, that says that the US will consider an attack on Canada as an attack on the US and will defend her as such. The US has a responsibility to be a war machine, as things stand now. We can't just "opt out."


 



 










fireangel5
by Gold Member on Aug. 30, 2013 at 1:18 PM


You've got that right. On the backs of the American people. So sad actually. 

Quoting Sisteract:

Good idea- Unfortunately the people who make loads of money off war mongering would never stand for that logical approach- they own the US government.

Quoting fireangel5:


The way I am seeing it is that if the US is such a big bad ass country doing all of these horrible things and sticking our nose into other people's business, I say fine, we should remove ourselves, our $$ and our resources from everywhere. Put our troops and $$ here and let everyone else fend for themselves.  Maybe then we won't be looked on so unfavorably by others. 

Quoting supercarp:

 So you're in favor of disbanding NATO?

Quoting fireangel5:

Nah, lets opt out of everything outside of our borders and lets see what happens. 


Quoting supercarp:

 The US has agreements with many other countries, Canada for one, that says that the US will consider an attack on Canada as an attack on the US and will defend her as such. The US has a responsibility to be a war machine, as things stand now. We can't just "opt out."


 



 












Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)