[Eleanor]

ARE YOU SURE Cdn forces aren't using DU?

[rearguard]

<blockquote>I have several friends who served in tank companies in Iraq who were using DU weapons... they are all fine by the way. Again, don't see what that has to do with this post. </blockquote> <br> <br> The use of DU is a war crime, and this whole topic is about the Canadian government telling its troops that it is OK to commit war crimes in Afghanistan. <br> <br> Ignoring the Geneva Conventions, of which Canada is a signatory, is by itself a war crime. Harper and his coherts should swing from a tree for this one. <br> <br> <a href="http://www.genevaconventions.org/">REFERENCE GUIDE TO THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS</a> <br> <br> Cancer takes time to develop, and the people who get the worst exposure from DU born radiation and its chemical toxicity are those who live in the region that was contaminated. The use of DU weaponary is clearly a war crime, since it indiscriminately poisons the land, of which the Geneva Conventions prohibit. Uranium by itself is a highly toxic heavy metal, similar to lead or mercury. DU is also radioactive, in the best case about 40% lower than unranium ore, or in the worst case similar to nuclear waste. If the DU is not properly processed it can be very dangerous. For example the US military was using improperly processed DU in the Gulf and Balkan wars and admited to this fact. <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0204-02.htm">The DU in question was contaminated by plutonium</a>, which is a significant health hazard.

[rearguard]

<blockquote>ARE YOU SURE Cdn forces aren't using DU?</blockquote> The occupation troops involved in the Afghanistan war are under NATO command (this in NOT a peackeeping mission). NATO is authorized to use DU munitions, therefore it may be possible that Canadian troops are using DU munitions even if the Canadian military by itself officially claims otherwise. It appears that the Canadian military is not stating if it is or is not using DU munitions, and there is some evidence that components within the Canadian military had in fact made use of DU in the past; while other components may still be using it. For example, I managed to find this: <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.2410:">Depleted Uranium Munitions Study Act (Introduced in House)</a> <i> (9) The United States Navy and the British Royal Navy are phasing out use of depleted uranium munitions, and the Canadian Navy has ceased using depleted uranium munitions. (10) It has been reported that depleted uranium munitions use has proliferated to more than 20 nations. (11) The 1949 Geneva Convention specifically outlines the precautions warring nations must take to avoid harming civilian populations, and it would be a violation of the 1977 Protocol to that Convention to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering to civilians, as depleted uranium munitions may cause.</i>

[Armyguy]

As I have stated before, Canada has NO VEHICLES OR AIRCRAFT THAT CAN FIRE DU RDS. I get into one of those vehcles ever day. Coyote Recce Veh.

---
27 in the military, 9 tours.

[no1important]

Well we are joining the coalition of the War Criminals.
What BS. Why is Harper doing everything Bush does?

With all this hot air coming out lately from the
Government and Military, it is going to put us in the same
boat as the US. "Home grown terrorist" comments, no POW
status, my my my, our government needs to go now.

Harper is slowly ruining our good countries reputation.

We are inviting a terror attack now, thanks to Harper.

Harper will have blood on his hands...........

[Dr Caleb]

You may wish to actually read the Geneva Conventions. Specifically, Convention III, Article 4, Paragraph 6. Here, I'll make it easy:

"(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."

Canada is not going against the Geneva conventions, as stated in the article, (and Protocol I, article 45), they (prisoners) will be treated as Prisoners of War, and Canada will still protect them as they would civillians under the Conventions. But the conflict is no longer 'War' as the duly elected government (whatever you believe they are, US puppets or legitimate) is in charge.

Their *status* under the Geneva Conventions will not be determined, they will simply be treated well and handed over to the legal government. If the Taliban wish to put on a uniform, carry arms openly and abide by the Geneva Conventions, then they will be afforded the same. Otherwise, they are guerillas and not afforded rights under the convention.

---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

[rearguard]

<blockquote>Their *status* under the Geneva Conventions will not be determined, they will simply be treated well and handed over to the legal government.</blockquote> <br><br> There is no legal government in Afghanistan. The invasion was based on a pack of lies, the real purpose is to protect oil and gas pipelines as well as establish a 'friendly' government (of any kind) in the strategic region. <br><br> All wars throughout history have been fought for economic reasons, and public support is always achieved through deception and lies. The government of Afghanistan prior to the invasion did nothing threatening towards any other nation. The Osama Bin Laden story, even if true which it is clearly not, was just a manufactured excuse, since the aleged presence of one criminal does not justify the invasion of an entire country including the mass killings of thousands of innocent people. <br><br> The invading forces under NATO command (which really means US command) are NOT respecting the Geneva Conventions, as I have seen reports that they've bombed whole villages "by accident" of course, made use of torture and infinite detentions, and employ mercenaries to do various forms of dirty work. <br><br> <blockquote>If the Taliban wish to put on a uniform, carry arms openly and abide by the Geneva Conventions, then they will be afforded the same. Otherwise, they are guerillas and not afforded rights under the convention.</blockquote> Now that's a strange thing to say. Faced with overwelming firepower, the Afghan resistance cannot put on uniforms and charge into battle against unseen airplane dropping bombs on them, that would be committing instant suicide by. Instead they must fight a low level war of attrition, as they successfully did back in the 80's against invading Soviet forces. As far as anyone knows, the resistance is abiding by the Genva Conventions as they do not have to wear uniforms to do so which is stated in the conventions.

[rearguard]

<blockquote>Canada has NO VEHICLES OR AIRCRAFT THAT CAN FIRE DU RDS. I get into one of those vehcles ever day. Coyote Recce Veh.</blockquote> The Canadian Navy has weapons that can fire DU rounds, however officially Dept of National Defense (or more like 'offense' given the unprovoked war in Afghanistan) states that they stopped using DU munitions since 1998. <br><br> Although it is not explicitly stated, it is being implied that Canadian forces are not using DU munitions, which of course means that they may indeed be using munitions, since it has not been officially prohibited. <br><br> You can see for yourself that the offcial language used implies that DU is not being used, but fails to actually say so explicitly. <a href="http://www.forces.gc.ca/health/information/med_vaccs/engraph/DU_Backgrounder_e.asp">Does Canada Have Depleted Uranium Munitions?</a> <br><br> <i>The HMCS Athabaskan and the HMCS Terra Nova were both fitted with the Phalanx Close in weapon Systems (CIWS, the rapid-firing anti-missile defence system, an acronym creatively pronounced "Sea-Whiz") prior to departing Halifax harbour for the Gulf War. The Naval Blockade did not see enemy action during this conflict. Depleted uranium requires special storage restrictions, which created logistical problems aboard our ships. It was eliminated from our weapons inventory in 1998. Canadian munitions now use tungsten to "harden" projectiles.</i> <br><br> You can interpret the above statement however you like, but as far as I'm concerned all it really says is that the Navy no longer uses DU only because of storage problems, but its use has not been ruled out completely, and it says nothing about ground and air forces. <br><br> In any case, while under NATO command, how can anyone say what our troops are being ordered to do?

[rearguard]

<blockquote>Why is Harper doing everything Bush does?</blockquote> Because Harper is a bought and paid for neocon under US command. <br><br> I hope most Canadians finally get to understand what the so-called opposition is really made out of, because they can stop Harper's madness at any time they choose, yet so far they're merrily going along for the ride.

[Dr Caleb]

Under the conventions, they do have to wear an identifiable uniform, in order to be considered a 'soldier'. The convention states that there is an exception, where a militia may be formed due to a sudden invasion, but 5 years later is no longer 'sudden'.

As for putting on a uniform being suicide - Duh! They are guerillas, did I not say that? Guerillas do not get the protection of the convention.

Whether you believe the invasion was justified or not, whether the Afghan government is legitimate or not - it is recognized by other countries and the UN as such. Which is more than the Taliban ever were.

Why are you defending a group of men that forced women to control themselves because they could not? And they still do.

---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

[rearguard]

<blockquote>As for putting on a uniform being suicide - Duh! They are guerillas, did I not say that? Guerillas do not get the protection of the convention.</blockquote> <br><br> Your argument is debatable, since it is impossible for a legitimate resistance to form a regular army under such a massive invasion force. The conventions do not set a specific time limit, therefore it can be argued that the current resistance movement is a legitimate force protected under the conventions. <br><br> <blockquote>Why are you defending a group of men that forced women to control themselves because they could not? And they still do.</blockquote> <br><br> I am not defending the Taliban, but I am defending the right for a people to defend themselves against an overwelmingly brutal and amoral invasion force using whatever methods are at their disposal. <br><br> The fact that we are hearing that Canadian troops are to ignore the Geneva Conventions means only one thing, and that is they are given the green light to murder and torture anyone who stands in their way in the exact same way US forces are operating in Iraq. I find such a set of values to be very offensive, which is in no way suggestive that I am defending the Taliban. <br><br> Futher, civilians are protected under the conventions, and when everyone can be a 'Taliban terrorist' in disguise, it means that the general population of Afghanistan can be targeted for supporting the resistance, and this is exactly what we see happening in Iraq already, with news of collective punishment killings, mass arrests, infinite detentions, and torture. <br><br> We also have no idea who is making up the resistance forces in Afghanistan. We hear media reports that it's the Taliban, however the main stream media has been proven to have lied to us in the past (for example, they uncritically parroted the fraudulent claims that Saddam had WMD stockpiles, as well as other obvious lies), and even if they are trying to be sincere this time around, they have presented us with no proof of their allegations. For all I know, the Afghan people in general are rising up and fighting back, and I've seen a documentary which suggests this may be the case. <br><br> The legitimacy of the current Afghan government is highy questionable, considering that the country held elections while under the watch of an hostile occupation force, of which the UN took part in legitimizing based on lies. As we know, it has yet to be demonstrated that the Afghanistan government had anything at all to do with the Sept 11 attacks on the WTC complex and Pentagon, therefore there was no valid reason to invade the country - however, the big players in the UN stood to gain from the invasion because they wanted a protected pipeline in the region under their own terms. <br><br> While I am suggesting that the current Afghan government is illegitimate, I am in no way defending the Taliban for saying so. <br><br> Finally, I fail to see any valid reasons why Canadians are being forced to support (through mandatory taxation) a war on a people who have done us no harm what-so-ever. If the Taliban was so repulsive to the Afghan people, then we could have supported their efforts to rid themselves of its rule in many other ways without sending in troops under hoplessly flimsy pretenses. I am in no way supporting the Taliban by stating that I do not support the Canadian government's role in the invasion.

[Diogenes]

Mikey, Mikey, Mickey
It is painfully obvious you may lack the ability to connect the dots so that the larger image appears, in which case all you are LEFT (hehehehe) with is the narrow view.
And of course you don&#8217;t see the tie in to the topic. How could you unless you expand your view to include there are atrocities on ALL sides?

This &#8217;Your *bad* is worse than MY bad&#8221;&#8217; poo misses out on several levels the first of which is the US administrations actions are not to be confused with the heart and soul of all the American people.



---
The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.... : Albert Einstein

[Dr Caleb]

"The fact that we are hearing that Canadian troops are to ignore the Geneva Conventions means only one thing, and that is they are given the green light to murder and torture anyone who stands in their way in the exact same way US forces are operating in Iraq."

Read the article again. They are told no such thing. They are told the Taliban are afforded no *rights* as 'Prisoners of War' but are afforded *treatment* as Prisoners of war. Just as murderers in the city jail are not afforded rights as prisoners of war.

You assume our troops are mindless killing machines.

"Your argument is debatable, since it is impossible for a legitimate resistance to form a regular army under such a massive invasion force."

Your point is well taken. Isn't debate what we're here for?

---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

[wasjod]

Are average citizens going to have to rise up and start putting .50 calibre rounds into the heads of elected officials to get the stupidity to stop? What will it take people? Random check stops? Already happening in the USA. ID cards? Already in the UK and USA. Perhaps if a citizens army rose up and put the last few cabinets and PM's from the last few governments on a plane and put them in a war zone and said, "Fuck you xxxxx, see if you can make it out of here alive, goodbye," I wonder what the next federal government would be like.

---
My freedom is more important than your great idea.
– Anonymous

[rearguard]

<blockquote> Read the article again. They are told no such thing. They are told the Taliban are afforded no *rights* as 'Prisoners of War' but are afforded *treatment* as Prisoners of war. Just as murderers in the city jail are not afforded rights as prisoners of war. </blockquote> Here's the quote from the article ... <i>Captured fighters don't deserve these rights because this isn't a war between countries, says Lieutenant-General Michel Gauthier, who commands the Canadian Expeditionary Forces Command and thus oversees all Canadian Forces deployed abroad. <br><br> “They are not entitled to prisoner-of-war status but they are entitled to prisoner-of-war treatment,” he said, asserting that all detainees are humanely treated. <br><br> “The regulations apply in an armed conflict between states, and what's happening in Afghanistan is not an armed conflict between states. And therefore there is no basis for making a determination of individuals being prisoners of war,” he said.</i> <br><br> So, exactly what does "prisoner-of-war treatment" mean? I have to assume it means absolutely nothing in terms of prisoner rights, since there's no such designation. In other words, the Canadian troops are being told by their superiors that they can ignore the Geneva Conventions and do as they please to captured resistance forces, who may look like civilians, or may be civilians assisting with the resistance movement, it won't make any difference to them. <br><br> This statement is amazing: <i>"what's happening in Afghanistan is not an armed conflict between states."</i> I guess the logic is that if we say it's not a war enough times, then it's not a war. The Soviets said the exact same thing over 20 years ago when they invaded Afghanistan under the pretext that they were there to help the Afghan people. <br><br> <blockquote>You assume our troops are mindless killing machines.</blockquote> Well obviously they ARE killing machines! What do you think all of that training is for, growing pretty flowers? They also are expected to follow orders without question, anyone who does not is tossed out in a hurry. Most of the training is specifically design to brainwash the recruit into accepting the values instilled by the military establishment, and those values are to kill when ordered to do so. As we see with the current fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the solder sure does seem to operate mindlessly, otherwise they'd get the hell out in a hurry. Fortunately, some do figure it out which is being underreported, and that's why governments such as Britian have recently enacted life imprisonment penalties for refusing to do as their masters demand. <a href="http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=742682006">Soldiers to get life in jail for refusing to act as occupiers</a>