LOL, a few facts:
* First Geneva Convention “for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field” (first adopted in 1864, last revision in 1949)
* Second Geneva Convention “for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea” (first adopted in 1949, successor of the 1907 Hague Convention X)
* Third Geneva Convention “relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War” (first adopted in 1929, last revision in 1949) * Fourth Geneva Convention “relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War” (first adopted in 1949, based on parts of the 1907 Hague Convention IV)
The point is that protection of civilians wasn’t adopted until after we nailed Japan.
"After the Hiroshima bombing, President Truman announced, “If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth.” On August 8, 1945, leaflets were dropped and warnings were given to Japan by Radio Saipan. (The area of Nagasaki did not receive warning leaflets until August 10, though the leaflet campaign covering the whole country was over a month into its operations.)[19] An English translation of that leaflet is available at PBS[20]
[/quote]
You are correct Nagasaki did not receive the leaflets, but they did receive radio warnings. Regarless, the leaflet campaign covering the whole country was a month into operations.
Responsibility for the timing of the second bombing was delegated to Colonel Tibbets as commander of the 509th Composite Group on Tinian. Scheduled for August 11 against Kokura, the raid was moved forward to avoid a five day period of bad weather forecast to begin on August 10.[21] Three bomb pre-assemblies had been transported to Tinian, labeled F-31, F-32, and F-33 on their exteriors. On August 8 a dress rehearsal was conducted off Tinian by Maj. Charles Sweeney using Bockscar as the drop airplane. Assembly F-33 was expended testing the components and F-31 was designated for the mission August 9.[22]
"(Wikipedia).
Facts are difficult to refute.
Thanks for a solid claim with no ad homs, and distortions, or taking words out of context.
Geez, I go to all the trouble to give you the specific articles that were violated, and all the two of you (Impenitent and aspacia) can do is come back to me with the title of the convention and say I must be wrong, cause from the title it doesn’t look like I’m right? Ever hear the one about judging a book by its cover?
Did either of you think to look for yourself? Or, (gasp) have you never bothered to read any of the Geneva Conventions?
But, hey, if it turns your handle to make broad pronouncements about things you have no knowledge of, be my guest.
I read this sucker, and many others years ago. The first revolves around the Red Cross and aiding wounded soldiers. It wasn’t until 49 that it discusses civilians being in harms way during war.
GASP, have you read it? If so, why not simply post it is quote or a direct link for our unenlightened minds.
LMFAO.
BTW, the terrorists target civilians, or did you know this?
If you set up to debate my assertion that the US breached the Geneva Conventions by bombing Hiroshima you might want to debate what I have said, not what I have not said. Straw man fallacies get no respect from me.
you said the bombing of hiroshima violated the geneva convention.
there was more than one geneva convention.
the geneva convention that the us signed before hiroshima said nothing about civilians.
the geneva convention that deals with civilians in war wasn’t signed until 4 years AFTER hiroshima.
you have been PROVEN to be INCORRECT on the facts of the matter.
complain some more.
He is stating facts, facts easily found. Why claim this is a straw man fallacy.
Straw man "the straw-man fallacy consists of an attack on a view similar to but ot the same as the one your opponent holds.
You claim that the First Geneva Convention covered civilians in a similar fashion to the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding civilians in war.
For clarity here is what the First Geneva Convention covers: "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
First Geneva Convention
The First Geneva Convention is one of several Geneva Conventions. It is more formally known as the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field, 1864. It covers the treatment of battlefield casualties and was adopted in 1864 as part of the establishment of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement."
"The undersigned Plenipotentiaries of the Governments represented at the Diplomatic Conference held at Geneva from 21 April to 12 August 1949, for the purpose of establishing a Convention for the Protection of Civilians in Time of War, have agreed as follows:
Art. 21. Convoys of vehicles or hospital trains on land or specially provided vessels on sea, conveying wounded and sick civilians, the infirm and maternity cases, shall be respected and protected in the same manner as the hospitals provided for in Article 18, and shall be marked, with the consent of the State, by the display of the distinctive emblem provided for in Article 38 of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949. [there is a problem with this as terrorists use ambulances to transport arms, and hospitals are often used for similar purposes].
[Here is the kicker]
Art. 28. The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.
Israel does use collective punishment. However, so do the terrorists.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.
Art. 34. The taking of hostages is prohibited."
Hey, we all goof, so what. I made a huge error the other day regarding Natural Law and The Law of Nature.
Hell, it is the beginning of another school year, a new facility and much is not working. Glad I returned early and am being the squeaky wheel.
LOL, now is the time to clarify your claim, so we can better understand your views. Mine was not an attempt to misrepresent you, only use what I understood to be your claim…
How has any person with an opposing opinion misunderstood your stance? I am really asking.
so how exactly does the violation or non-violation of the geneva convention, in relation to civilian casualties, have to do with what you think the acceptable civilian casualty rate should be?
it’s great to hear about the history of who followed and who abused who’s civilians during which wars, but besides getting a general idea for civilian to military death ratios, as has already been done, what value is there in deciding an individual nation’s specific abuse of it?
what should the civilian death ratio be?
and more importantly, WHY?
Art. 19. Fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service may in no circumstances be attacked, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict. Should they fall into the hands of the adverse Party, their personnel shall be free to pursue their duties, as long as the capturing Power has not itself ensured the necessary care of the wounded and sick found in such establishments and units.
The responsible authorities shall ensure that the said medical establishments and units are, as far as possible, situated in such a manner that attacks against military objectives cannot imperil their safety."
are you claiming that hiroshima was a medical unit? or are you claiming that anyplace that has a medical facility is immune from attack because of the first geneva convention? if I have a bandaid in my pocket does that protect me from attack according to the first geneva convention? that position renders the convention worthless.
"Chapter VIII. Execution of the Convention
Art. 45. Each Party to the conflict, acting through its Commanders-in-Chief, shall ensure the detailed execution of the preceding Articles, and provide for unforeseen cases, in conformity with the general principles of the present Convention."
specifically, how did the bombing of hiroshima violate this convention?
"Chapter IX. Repression of Abuses and Infractions
Art. 50. Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."
how was the bombing of hiroshima not justified by military necessity? It was a military necessity.
"Annex I. Draft Agreement Relating to Hospital Zones and Localities
Art. 11. In no circumstances may hospital zones be the object of attack. They shall be protected and respected at all times by the Parties to the conflict."
[b]once again: are you claiming that hiroshima was a medical unit? or are you claiming that anyplace that has a medical facility is immune from attack because of the first geneva convention? if I have a bandaid in my pocket does that protect me from attack according to the first geneva convention? that position renders the convention worthless.
if that is your argument, then any military action against anyplace that has any semblence of a medical unit would be against the convention. the convention is then worthless.
[/b]
You actually took the time to look at what I was refering to. It wasn’t that hard now was it.
Hiroshima contained within it a Red Cross Hospital. This hospital was exempt from attack, not the rest of the city, just this hospital. By employing a WMD that destroyed not only the city, but the Red Cross Hospital, the US military violated the GC, Art 19.
Destroying the IRC Hospital may be regarded as an unforseen consequence of the use of the first atomic bomb, by not providing for this unforseen case, the US violated Art. 45.
The use of the atomic bomb was a grave breach of the Geneva Convention (Art. 50), specifically because the bomb wilfully caused great suffering and serious injury to body and health of people, and caused extensive destruction of property to the IRC Hospital, none of which was militarily justifiable.
Annex 1, Art. 11 speaks for itself. If the rest of Hiroshima had been bombed into the dust but the IRC Hospital left standing, there would have been no breach. Art. 45 was designed specifically to disallow the defense of unforseen cases, such as the extent of the damage being great enough to destroy the hospital.
That is a fine example of non sequitur.
Having a hospital doesn’t protect the city. Only the hospital is protected.
It says will not be targeted, the hospital was not targeted, the city was. The hospital was not on the allies hit list. Therein lies the difference. It was collateral damage.
Not really, the responsible authorities did not ensure that said medical establishments and units would be situatued in a zone free from attack, a zone like a large city.
"Art. 50. Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.
[/quote]
Nope, you are off here, it was a military necessity to avoid a million allied losses during an invasion.
"Art. 11. In cases where they deem it advisable in the interest of protected persons, particularly in cases of disagreement between the Parties to the conflict as to the application or interpretation of the provisions of the present Convention, the Protecting Powers shall lend their good offices with a view to settling the disagreement. [the goverment and the people knew attacks were coming for a month and refused to unconditionally surrender or evacuate the hospital.
The responsible authorities did not evacuate them and had a months warning.
That is a fine example of non sequitur.
Sorry, still no cigar.
Look, I understand that the loss of innocent lives is devastating, God, I would have been devastated if my son had been murdered during 9/11. Everytime I read this, I feel their pain, believe that one.
Regardless, you stance regarding the First Genevea Convension is off.
With regards,
aspacia
Also, why on earth does my tone bother you? I am stating facts.
