Im still amused at the red cross = no credability comments

First, the ICRC is highly selective in its public accusations of international law violations, with democracies getting the short end of the stick. An excellent example is the ICRC's 2001 report on Iraq -- the last year of Saddam Hussein's rule before preparations for the 2003 war that toppled him. Anyone reading this report could not tell whether the ICRC believed Saddam's government was violating international humanitarian law or not. Its principal criticisms were reserved for the U.N. sanctions, noting deep concern "about the adverse consequences of the embargo" on Iraq and that the Anglo-American "no-fly" zones. The report also said that along with "persistent reports of possible military action against Iraq were yet another source of psychological stress for the population." Similar reports were just as uncritical of Syria and Iran.

These mild assessments are in notable contrast with the 2001 ICRC study on Israel, the Middle East's only democracy. The ICRC repeatedly referenced human-rights "violations" by the Israeli government and noted that it "regularly drew the attention of the Israeli authorities to their obligation to respect the rights of individuals and populations protected by IHL." This is, presumably, because, in the ICRC's view, the Israelis very much needed such reminders. Obviously, the ICRC felt free to attack Israel openly, while maintaining a diplomatic silence regarding its neighbors, because Israel would not retaliate against ICRC personnel. This may be common sense, but it is not "neutrality."

Second, the ICRC has a policy agenda -- to promote additional human-rights protections for insurgent or guerrilla forces. This bias is most evident in the organization's support for the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions. This document would give important advantages to irregular fighters, those who do not wear uniforms or fight as part of an organized military force that itself observes the laws of war and was flatly rejected by former President Reagan on that account. For example, Protocol I requires such "unlawful" combatants to distinguish themselves from civilians, by wearing a uniform or insignia, only when preparing to attack or attacking. Regular armed forces are expected to wear their uniforms consistently, effectively giving the guerrillas the initiative. As a practical matter, when they are not attacking, irregular fighters would have to be treated as civilians. In this, Protocol I establishes a "law enforcement" model for counter-insurgency efforts that is ill-suited for protecting genuine civilians from terrorist attack, and which the ICRC has attempted to impose on the United States in the context of the war on terror.

In fact, in criticizing American actions in Iraq and elsewhere, the ICRC has behaved as if the United States is bound by Protocol I, when it plainly is not. That treaty is relevant to U.S. actions only insofar as its provisions may restate otherwise applicable customary international law norms. Some of them do, but Protocol I's rules respecting unlawful combatants do not enjoy that status. Therefore, when the United States fails to provide unlawful combatants the special rights and privileges prescribed by Protocol I, it is not violating international law.

Third, the ICRC's concern for irregular fighters has blinded it to half of the humanitarian equation presented by the war on terror. In many places, governments do present the greatest danger to human rights.

For Americans, however, the greatest danger is international terror organizations that reject any notion of humanitarian law. In interpreting the requirements of international law, and especially the Geneva Conventions and other humanitarian documents, the undoubted right of American civilians to be protected from attack must count for something. To the extent such considerations do not figure in the ICRC's analysis, American officials can hardly be blamed for being skeptical of its claims.

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/political-discussions/2269-red-cross-loses-all-credibility.html

There is no shortage of right wing spin Dr's but the american track record in world affairs is pretty poor as far as human rights go, lets face it our number one tradeing partner is China a brutal regime we aid and enable and are heavily invested in. You can spin this nonsence all day long but it wont change reality. When we have americans who denounce the red cross its a pretty good sign something is realy realy wrong with our country

hey dude if you really think that we are so bad..

quit being one of US and go live in one of the countries that you think is better.

wonder how long it will take before they either shoot you or send you back to US with you tail between you legs.

I AM PROUND TO BE AN AMERICAN.

durn i was excpecting a thank you for cutting and pasting.
i guess you only believe in half of the things you read, huh????

HITLER HITLER HITLER

please ooo please

take that picture down

Yea well I used to be proud to be an american untill we invaded countries on lies, untill we started tortureing prisoner. I was proud when america was the beacon of democracy and fair play. There isnt a lot to be proud of any more and I will stay to help make it great again. It will never be great untill we hold the criminals accountable to their war crimes and crimes against peace and humanity. We are a nation led by a war criminal and we have far far to many uninformed americans aiding and abbeting. No thanks I will stay maybe Icould get lucky and get called to jury duty for a trial of war criminals.

As for you amigo, Jimmy Carter.

Why Don't you move to iraq then

enjoy the last 4 months of BUsh

The problem is, if a liberal said something intelligent, how would you know? You are obviously one of those good old Nascar watching, tobacco chewing, wife beating, anyone not lilly-white hating rednecks who got this country into the problems we face by voting for Bush twice. "He looks like someone I can have a beer with." How stupid are you f?$!ing people? I would rather have a president I feel way inferior too (Gore, Obama) than some dumbass who is below my intellect. You see, the president has to be able to UNDERSTAND those intelligence reports. Can't do that when you don't have any. Too bad you idiots thought Gore sounded, "Too intelligent" for the job. I think we should just split up the country in 2, the south, with a big wall around it(red states) and everyone else. Yes Bush should be tried for war crimes as well as Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Libby and anyone else in the administration who was implicit or knew about what was going to happen and did nothing. You guys who voted for them should be tried as accessories to the crime. After the trial, we can move forward with the intelligent people and restore our country to her former glory and standing in the world.

Why is it that when international organizations call out other countries, they are doing their jobs, but when they call out the US, all of a sudden, they are puppets who hate us, etc? I am proud of my country but think it is run by dirt bags. I'd like to know how many of you so called flag-waving patriots have ever served in the military? I have and have lost many friends there. Disagreeing about things is what makes us Americans and unique in the world because we are guaranteed those rights. Of course, you fascists don't like things that way because the only correct opinion is yours. That's what got us into this mess. A true patriot questions his government when he sees crimes being committed. Is your love of your country or your party? Think about that.

Yep. Typical dumbass response from someone who intellectually can't compete so they have to resort to, "why don't you just leave?" You know a lady told me the same thing over a bumper sticker I have about Bush and I told her to go F!!?* herself and if she didn't like it, she could leave.

Nice thought but doesn't make it right. Bush has no love for this country. Only a small percentage of it and he has done his best to serve those 1% to the best of his ability.

I hope he suffers someday.

My friend, that is plain and simple FASCISM! Remember, there is a saying that goes' " When FASCISM comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sound familiar? RepubliCANTS anyone?

Are you F!@@*ng serious? What did he lie about? That is why republiCANTS can win elections. They can always count on the deaf, blind and dumb to vote for them. He is a baby Hitler. See, the problems didn't start with Jimmy Carter. Yes there was a hostage situation and he tried resolving it but ran out of time. Reagan takes over, Lebanon happens (marine barracks bombing) and Reagan, that great bastion (maybe bastard) of conservatism that you guys are so proud of, CUT AND RUN!!! That emboldened Islamo-fascists into thinking that they could make America come to her knees the way they did with Russia. Read you history and don't let Rush Limp or Bill Orally read it for you.

Lets be honest. At least, if you're going to be a racist redneck, have the balls to say it. You hate Obama mostly because he is black and you can't stand the thought of a black man probably doing a better job than the lot of white presidents have done for a long time.