Cruz and Trump Plans Sound A Lot Like War Crimes

[USN_Hokie]

Would you mind pointing to the text that says carpet bombing is a war crime? I'm not even sure that's what it says.

And so that you understand how it was interpreted from the very moment it was enacted:

Do you know that we used B-52's (still in inventory, BTW) for saturation ("carpet") bombing during the first Gulf War? Keep in mind that some of our allies in that conflict were signatories to that agreement. They didn't seem to give a shirt.

Yeah, it was in the link I provided earlier. Whether or not they have the will or the power to prosecute us does not invalidate that it is a war crime.
FYI-we are signatories of it too.

As I said before, though - it's moot. We never agreed to it.

That's also irrelevant.

None of that describes what Cruz said. Try again - but again, it's irrelevant because we never agreed to it.

[Uprising]

Would you mind pointing to the text that says carpet bombing is a war crime? I'm not even sure that's what it says.

And so that you understand how it was interpreted from the very moment it was enacted:

Do you know that we used B-52's (still in inventory, BTW) for saturation ("carpet") bombing during the first Gulf War? Keep in mind that some of our allies in that conflict were signatories to that agreement. They didn't seem to give a shirt.

Yeah, it was in the link I provided earlier. Whether or not they have the will or the power to prosecute us does not invalidate that it is a war crime.
FYI-we are signatories of it too.

As I said before, though - it's moot. We never agreed to it.

That's also irrelevant.

None of that describes what Cruz said. Try again - but again, it's irrelevant because we never agreed to it.

Are you suggesting that Cruz didn't say "carpet bombing"? Or that he didn't really mean carpet bombing?
Nevertheless, my contention was with what you said:

"Carpet bombing" isn't a war crime.

And in continuation of your unbroken streak, you lack the intellectual honesty to admit what is demonstrably true.

[BG Hokie]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ng-gop-de/

Politifact saying Cruz misfires on carpet bombing definition...

[Hokie5150]

Carpet bombing was a dumb term to use. How does one carpet bomb terrorists that live among citizens?

One doesn't...one uses drones instead.

[BG Hokie]

Carpet bombing was a dumb term to use. How does one carpet bomb terrorists that live among citizens?

One doesn't...one uses drones instead.

You know, 5150, you're a stubborn fart, but sometimes you really come through for me on anti SoCon issues! Merry Christmas!

[absolutvt03]

There's really no reason for carpet bombing anymore. With the advances in technology and guidance systems I don't see why we would want to carpet bomb anyone so the debate of whether it's a war crime or not is mostly moot. Cruz is just using the term to sound tough.

[USN_Hokie]

Would you mind pointing to the text that says carpet bombing is a war crime? I'm not even sure that's what it says.

And so that you understand how it was interpreted from the very moment it was enacted:

Do you know that we used B-52's (still in inventory, BTW) for saturation ("carpet") bombing during the first Gulf War? Keep in mind that some of our allies in that conflict were signatories to that agreement. They didn't seem to give a shirt.

Yeah, it was in the link I provided earlier. Whether or not they have the will or the power to prosecute us does not invalidate that it is a war crime.
FYI-we are signatories of it too.

As I said before, though - it's moot. We never agreed to it.

That's also irrelevant.

None of that describes what Cruz said. Try again - but again, it's irrelevant because we never agreed to it.

Are you suggesting that Cruz didn't say "carpet bombing"? Or that he didn't really mean carpet bombing?
Nevertheless, my contention was with what you said:

"Carpet bombing" isn't a war crime.

And in continuation of your unbroken streak, you lack the intellectual honesty to admit what is demonstrably true.

Are you stupid, or just pretending to be?

If we carpet bombed an iceberg, would that be a war crime? Yes or no? The actual language you cite is not implicit in "carpet bombing" and Cruz never mentioned bombing cities or targeting civilians.

I have to believe you're purposely being an idiot in a silly attempt to score political points.

[USN_Hokie]

There's really no reason for carpet bombing anymore. With the advances in technology and guidance systems I don't see why we would want to carpet bomb anyone so the debate of whether it's a war crime or not is mostly moot. Cruz is just using the term to sound tough.

That's my take as well, I think Cruz was using the term as a euphemism of sorts.

[Uprising]

Are you stupid, or just pretending to be?

If we carpet bombed an iceberg, would that be a war crime? Yes or no? The actual language you cite is not implicit in "carpet bombing" and Cruz never mentioned bombing cities or targeting civilians.

I have to believe you're purposely being an idiot in a silly attempt to score political points.

Jesus effin' Christ! Now you're reduced to pretending that if someone uses the term carpet bombing they may actually be referring to bombing nothing. Again, intellectual honesty is not your forte.

[RiverguyVT]

I'm wondering when the left will be as worked up about Obama's and Hillary!->'s war crimes already committed, not just speculated upon.

I'm sure I'll grow old before they do.

[ip_law-hokie]

Carpet bombing was a dumb term to use. How does one carpet bomb terrorists that live among citizens?

One doesn't...one uses drones instead.

Then it is not carpet bombing. . .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[USN_Hokie]

Are you stupid, or just pretending to be?

If we carpet bombed an iceberg, would that be a war crime? Yes or no? The actual language you cite is not implicit in "carpet bombing" and Cruz never mentioned bombing cities or targeting civilians.

I have to believe you're purposely being an idiot in a silly attempt to score political points.

Jesus effin' Christ! Now you're reduced to pretending that if someone uses the term carpet bombing they may actually be referring to bombing nothing. Again, intellectual honesty is not your forte.

I see you're entrenched (clarification for stupid people - I'm not saying you're digging trenches for defensive military purposes, Uprising) in your stupid position. Let the record show that this mimbo is hanging his hat on the definition of an informal military euphemism which is not actually contained in the wording of the legal document which the US never ratified.

PS: Looks like the Politifact agrees with me.

[133743Hokie]

Trump's comment is ridiculous, but the idea that Cruz proposed a war crime is equally ridiculous.

Carpet bombing was a dumb term to use. How does one carpet bomb terrorists that live among citizens?

You level the town a la WWII.

[Uprising]

I see you're entrenched (clarification for stupid people - I'm not saying you're digging trenches for defensive military purposes, Uprising) in your stupid position. Let the record show that this mimbo is hanging his hat on the definition of an informal military euphemism which is not actually contained in the wording of the legal document which the US never ratified. [emoji38]

LOL... I guess the alternative is that one thinks carpet bombing is something one does to icebergs. [emoji23] I'd ask if you're embarrassed but I'm pretty sure you're incapable of it.

PS: Looks like the Politifact agrees with me.

Looks like reading comprehension is also not your forte.

[HokieJoe]

By definition, it is a war crime. What is meaningless is whether or not you accept that.

What Cruz said? Nope, I'm not sure it would be even by that definition. It's moot though, we never ratified it. Your argument is silly.

Your assertion, that because we did not ratify it somehow invalidates that carpet bombing is a war crime, is what is extremely silly. As if we would accept that excuse from any other country.

We're still a sovereign country. Our laws dictate what we do. And frankly, I don't give a flying F what other countries do WRT carpet bombing. That's their business; and what we do is our business.

[USN_Hokie]

I see you're entrenched (clarification for stupid people - I'm not saying you're digging trenches for defensive military purposes, Uprising) in your stupid position. Let the record show that this mimbo is hanging his hat on the definition of an informal military euphemism which is not actually contained in the wording of the legal document which the US never ratified. [emoji38]

LOL... I guess the alternative is that one thinks carpet bombing is something one does to icebergs. [emoji23] I'd ask if you're embarrassed but I'm pretty sure you're incapable of it.

PS: Looks like the Politifact agrees with me.

Looks like reading comprehension is also not your forte.

Let the record show that this mimbo is hanging his hat on the definition of an informal military euphemism which is not actually contained in the wording of the legal document which the US never ratified.

[HokieFanDC]

I see you're entrenched (clarification for stupid people - I'm not saying you're digging trenches for defensive military purposes, Uprising) in your stupid position. Let the record show that this mimbo is hanging his hat on the definition of an informal military euphemism which is not actually contained in the wording of the legal document which the US never ratified. [emoji38]

LOL... I guess the alternative is that one thinks carpet bombing is something one does to icebergs. [emoji23] I'd ask if you're embarrassed but I'm pretty sure you're incapable of it.

PS: Looks like the Politifact agrees with me.

Looks like reading comprehension is also not your forte.

Even I can't believe you're digging in this deep on this one!

[Uprising]

I see you're entrenched (clarification for stupid people - I'm not saying you're digging trenches for defensive military purposes, Uprising) in your stupid position. Let the record show that this mimbo is hanging his hat on the definition of an informal military euphemism which is not actually contained in the wording of the legal document which the US never ratified. [emoji38]

LOL... I guess the alternative is that one thinks carpet bombing is something one does to icebergs. [emoji23] I'd ask if you're embarrassed but I'm pretty sure you're incapable of it.

PS: Looks like the Politifact agrees with me.

Looks like reading comprehension is also not your forte.

Even I can't believe you're digging in this deep on this one!

As I've stated before, my contention was never with what Cruz said. My argument is that carpet bombing is a war crime. Understanding what carpet bombing is, do you not think it falls under purvey of article 51, specifically 5a?
For example, and contrary to USN's misunderstanding, Politifact agrees with me:

For one thing, it’s arguably outlawed by the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions.

[awesome guy]

I see you're entrenched (clarification for stupid people - I'm not saying you're digging trenches for defensive military purposes, Uprising) in your stupid position. Let the record show that this mimbo is hanging his hat on the definition of an informal military euphemism which is not actually contained in the wording of the legal document which the US never ratified. [emoji38]

LOL... I guess the alternative is that one thinks carpet bombing is something one does to icebergs. [emoji23] I'd ask if you're embarrassed but I'm pretty sure you're incapable of it.

PS: Looks like the Politifact agrees with me.

Looks like reading comprehension is also not your forte.

Even I can't believe you're digging in this deep on this one!

As I've stated before, my contention was never with what Cruz said. My argument is that carpet bombing is a war crime. Understanding what carpet bombing is, do you not think it falls under purvey of article 51, specifically 5a?
For example, and contrary to USN's misunderstanding, Politifact agrees with me:

For one thing, it’s arguably outlawed by the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions.

haha, it has nothing to do with Cruz? Even carpet bombing isn't prevented per the treaty we never ratified. This is hilarious and why we can't have nice threads.

[HokieFanDC]

I see you're entrenched (clarification for stupid people - I'm not saying you're digging trenches for defensive military purposes, Uprising) in your stupid position. Let the record show that this mimbo is hanging his hat on the definition of an informal military euphemism which is not actually contained in the wording of the legal document which the US never ratified. [emoji38]

LOL... I guess the alternative is that one thinks carpet bombing is something one does to icebergs. [emoji23] I'd ask if you're embarrassed but I'm pretty sure you're incapable of it.

PS: Looks like the Politifact agrees with me.

Looks like reading comprehension is also not your forte.

Even I can't believe you're digging in this deep on this one!

As I've stated before, my contention was never with what Cruz said. My argument is that carpet bombing is a war crime. Understanding what carpet bombing is, do you not think it falls under purvey of article 51, specifically 5a?
For example, and contrary to USN's misunderstanding, Politifact agrees with me:

For one thing, it’s arguably outlawed by the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions.

I think it's outlawed for the countries that have ratified it. I think it's immoral for the US to do it.
I think Cruz is a dopey, doughy Ivy Leaguer trying act tough, but who doesn't know what he was actually saying.

[awesome guy]

I see you're entrenched (clarification for stupid people - I'm not saying you're digging trenches for defensive military purposes, Uprising) in your stupid position. Let the record show that this mimbo is hanging his hat on the definition of an informal military euphemism which is not actually contained in the wording of the legal document which the US never ratified. [emoji38]

LOL... I guess the alternative is that one thinks carpet bombing is something one does to icebergs. [emoji23] I'd ask if you're embarrassed but I'm pretty sure you're incapable of it.

PS: Looks like the Politifact agrees with me.

Looks like reading comprehension is also not your forte.

Even I can't believe you're digging in this deep on this one!

As I've stated before, my contention was never with what Cruz said. My argument is that carpet bombing is a war crime. Understanding what carpet bombing is, do you not think it falls under purvey of article 51, specifically 5a?
For example, and contrary to USN's misunderstanding, Politifact agrees with me:

For one thing, it’s arguably outlawed by the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions.

I think it's outlawed for the countries that have ratified it. I think it's immoral for the US to do it.
I think Cruz is a dopey, doughy Ivy Leaguer trying act tough, but who doesn't know what he was actually saying.

Nope. He's a lot smarter than you or anyone else on this board for one thing. But he also said saturation bombing and used the gulf war as an example while discussing it. The "seeing if sand glows" part was hyperbole and tough talk, but he was right on what he was talking about.

[Uprising]

I think it's outlawed for the countries that have ratified it. I think it's immoral for the US to do it.

It's considered part of customary international law (and the US claims to abide by it), which is one of the sources of international law. They are considered universally applicable laws even without a treaty.

Customary international humanitarian law is a set of unwritten rules derived from a general, or common, practice which is acknowledged as law. It's the basic standard of conduct in armed conflict accepted by the world community. Customary international humanitarian law is applicable universally – independently of the application of treaty law – and is based on extensive and virtually uniform State practice regarded as law...

Customary international humanitarian law is important because its rules, and compliance therewith, can reduce the human cost of armed conflict. It complements the protection provided for conflict victims by treaty law, and fills in certain gaps resulting from treaties not having been ratified by certain States or from treaty law lacking detailed rules on non-international armed conflict.  

Although the 1949 Geneva Conventions have been universally ratified, for example, other treaties of international humanitarian law, such as the 1977 Additional Protocols or the 1997 Ottawa Convention banning anti-personnel mines, have not. As a result, victims of armed conflict, particularly those affected by non-international armed conflict, are not always fully protected by treaty law. That is why it was necessary to determine which rules are part of customary law and therefore applicable to all parties to a conflict, regardless of their treaty obligations...

https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/docu ... w-cihl.htm
Now, being able to enforce it against the US is an entirely different question.

I think Cruz is a dopey, doughy Ivy Leaguer trying act tough, but who doesn't know what he was actually saying.

I agree that he didn't use the correct term for what he late described. I'm not sure he did so unintentionally.

[awesome guy]

I think it's outlawed for the countries that have ratified it. I think it's immoral for the US to do it.

It's considered part of customary international law (and the US claims to abide by it), which is one of the sources of international law. They are considered universally applicable laws even without a treaty.

Customary international humanitarian law is a set of unwritten rules derived from a general, or common, practice which is acknowledged as law. It's the basic standard of conduct in armed conflict accepted by the world community. Customary international humanitarian law is applicable universally – independently of the application of treaty law – and is based on extensive and virtually uniform State practice regarded as law...

Customary international humanitarian law is important because its rules, and compliance therewith, can reduce the human cost of armed conflict. It complements the protection provided for conflict victims by treaty law, and fills in certain gaps resulting from treaties not having been ratified by certain States or from treaty law lacking detailed rules on non-international armed conflict.  

Although the 1949 Geneva Conventions have been universally ratified, for example, other treaties of international humanitarian law, such as the 1977 Additional Protocols or the 1997 Ottawa Convention banning anti-personnel mines, have not. As a result, victims of armed conflict, particularly those affected by non-international armed conflict, are not always fully protected by treaty law. That is why it was necessary to determine which rules are part of customary law and therefore applicable to all parties to a conflict, regardless of their treaty obligations...

https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/docu ... w-cihl.htm
Now, being able to enforce it against the US is an entirely different question.

I think Cruz is a dopey, doughy Ivy Leaguer trying act tough, but who doesn't know what he was actually saying.

I agree that he didn't use the correct term for what he late described. I'm not sure he did so unintentionally.

So we're clear, you're saying carpet bombing isn't saturation bombing? And implicitly, when the US used carpet bombing in the Gulf War, H. Bush was committing war crimes? And all of this is really from Cruz not knowing what he's talking about?

[absolutvt03]

So we're clear, you're saying carpet bombing isn't saturation bombing? And implicitly, when the US used carpet bombing in the Gulf War, H. Bush was committing war crimes? And all of this is really from Cruz not knowing what he's talking about?

I think he's saying that using the term carpet bombing and then when asked to elaborate talking about using targeting and technology to hit certain locations are two conflicting ideas. Carpet bombing isn't concerned about hitting a specific target or area or building and the main reason it was used was simply because the weapons weren't advanced enough to be that precise. These days there's not really a reason to just bomb an entire city when you can achieve the same objective using guided bombs focused at specific targets.

[awesome guy]

So we're clear, you're saying carpet bombing isn't saturation bombing? And implicitly, when the US used carpet bombing in the Gulf War, H. Bush was committing war crimes? And all of this is really from Cruz not knowing what he's talking about?

I think he's saying that using the term carpet bombing and then when asked to elaborate talking about using targeting and technology to hit certain locations are two conflicting ideas. Carpet bombing isn't concerned about hitting a specific target or area or building and the main reason it was used was simply because the weapons weren't advanced enough to be that precise. These days there's not really a reason to just bomb an entire city when you can achieve the same objective using guided bombs focused at specific targets.

That's not what he said. He specifically said saturation bombing and used the Gulf War as an example. Carpet bombing doesn't mean bombing an entire city, it's bombing a confined area. The Russians are doing this now against our funded and armed militants ISIS (the Syrian rebels). It's still a great strategy as it's cheaper and softens the targets before sending ground troops.