[lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- From: Judy Evans <judithevans1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:19:41 +0000
Wednesday, November 16, 2005, 1:46:08 PM, Eric Yost wrote:
EY> Judy: You mean if someone's going to commit a war crime against
EY> you, you commit a war crime if you force people to act as human
EY> shields in the knowledge that the enemy will attack despite that?
EY> Eric: Your question doesn't make any sense.
I suggest it does make sense in the context of your post/s.
But I suggest instead a new Godwin's Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
substituting "Saddam" for "Nazis"/"Hitler" as your tactic here is to
counter an allegation against the US(/UK) by yammering "Saddam did
X", and my "we're supposed to be better, and not just slightly
better" has failed to persuade you that that is not appropriate.
EY> Saddam used this
EY> strategy in the Iran-Iraq War and also in Gulf War I.
EY> In both cases, Saddam used raw conscripts as strategic human
EY> shields,
I am aware of their use in Gulf War I. They were weak, ragged,
starving. Others may wish to query "human shield"; I wanted a cite
for your "(children, the elderly)". Please supply a cite for elderly
and child conscripts.
Wales? Wales is, as part of the UK, subject to the ICC.
--
Judy Evans, Cardiff, UK
mailto:judithevans1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
- References:
- [lit-ideas] Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit