Anti War Protests

[Jones]

What the Hague says:

Art. 42.
Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

What you said:

By definition, when a country is occupied, the Occupying Power serves as government and security because they've defeated/overthrown the existing one.

As we've seen time after time in this thread, when the existing definitions don't support your argument, you either add caveats where none exist or just make up your own definitions.

What the Hague says:

Art. 43.
The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutelyprevented, the laws in force in the country.

Note that it give no preconditions for ending an occupation. It just says what your resonsibilties are as long as you're there.

What you said:

You need to know, that once they have taken control, they are the authority and responsible for keeping international law. If conflict comes to a cease fire or withdrawl of troops, the responsibility of the citizens returns to the still-existing govt. This wasn't possible in Iraq.

More hand waving, you don't really seem to have a point except to add some caveats.

Yeah, that was a tough one. From your link, first lines:

"The Syrian occupation of Lebanon is one of several terms for the period 1976-2005 when Syria had a military presence in and significant control over Lebanon.[1] Some dispute the term "occupation", especially since Syria originally entered the country at the request of the Lebanese government.
During the Lebanese Civil War, Lebanon requested Syrian assistance as an Arab peacekeeping force. The Arab League agreed to send a peacekeeping force mostly formed by Syrian troops. Initially Syria's mission was to protect the Christians; two years later, in 1978, Syria changed its position and sided with the PLO."

Once again with the hand waving. It's mildly interesting that you're trying to dispute Syria's occupation of Lebanon using an article titled Syrian Occupation of Lebanon, but in the end your opinion is irrelevant. The rest of the world viewed it as an occupation, because the rest of the world uses the definition in the Hague:

Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

How they actually got there in the first place is not material to the point I was making. (hint- it had nothing to do with making an analogy, leave that straw man alone and try to pay attention for a change).

Again, apples and oranges to Iraq. From your link:
Quote:
The signing of the Oslo II agreement in 1995 by Yasir Arafat and Yitzak Rabin marked a change in the administrative policies in the West Bank. According to the Oslo Accords West Bank land was divided into 3 administrative categories, areas A, B and C (these areas are not contiguous throughout the territory), and 11 Governorates (districts). Currently, the jurisdictions of areas A, B and C represent 17%, 24% and 59% of West Bank territory respectively. The Palestinian Authority has full civil control in area A, area B is characterized by joint-administration between the PA and Israel, while area C is under full Israeli control. 98% of the Palestinian population reside in Areas A and B.[citation needed] Israel maintains overall control over Israeli settlements, roads, water, airspace, "external" security and borders for the entire territory.

More hand waving that appears to have little relation to the topic we're discussing. The West Bank is considered United Nations Security Council,[1] the United Nations General Assembly,[2] the International Court of Justice,[3] and the International Committee of the Red Cross[4] to be Israeli occupied because they adhere to the definition in the Hague:

Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

Your own opinion, like the caveats and "add ons" you keep trying to insert into International Law, are irrelevant.

Our responsibilities become conditions if that's how you want to look at it

Once again, that's just your opinion. It's NOT International Law.

Responsibility: One of the responsibilities of the belligerent is to restore and ensure the safety of the populace. (Govt and functioning security force)
Condition: Once that condition is met, we can leave without endangering the population. It's the same thing, we have to protect the civilians.

More of your opinions. I must admit you have a knack for making up you own definitions. Perhaps you should try your hand at writing your own set of International Laws, since the ones we already have don't seem to suit you?

Add to the list of those in support of my position and who do see the difference:

A couple of clips from the United Nations. <snip>

This seems to be more of your tactic of "post a whole lot of irrelevant stuff and then declare myself the winner"

Nowhere in any of those transcripts does anyone say that the US cannot withdraw from Iraq because it would violate International Law. Of course they don't, because they know better.
Here's the originals, have another look:

Geneva Conventions

Hague Conventions
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague02.htm
Take care

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

The situation in Iraq is not even half as bad as the pansy ass Liberal media is reporting. By the way they are reporting it you'd think our troops were dropping by the thousands everyday and that there is absolutely no stable govt. but in actuality we are losing something like 3 troops a day (compare that to the losses we sustained daily in other wars) and the new Iraq govt. is starting to show signs of a stable government. The problem areas are in or around the immediate area of Baghdad and in Basra. These people setting bombs and shooting down our helicopters are terrorists. Most of them are your typical run of the mill Jihadists but a select few are the "freedom fighters" that are simply trying to fight off what they think is an evil invading army because they are too stupid to realize that we are there to help them. What I don't get is why Liberals are trying to associate the "freedom fighters" with the terrorists? There is a huge difference. Anyway....it just appuals me that so many people in the U.S. (mainly Liberals) want us to just pick up our gear and high tail it out of Iraq. That would be the biggest mistake this country could ever make. It would end worse than when the N.V.A. invaded South Vietnam even as our troops were still evacuating. The terrorist minority would enslave the rest of the population and it would become another pre 9/11 Afghanistan. Iraq would become the ultimate terrorist nation. And you think they are gong to just stop there? WRONG! They'll lash out at us and who will be the first people in the U.S. to cry for help and wonder what went wrong? Liberals of course.

 

[Slothrop]

Canon,

Thank you for vetoing my suggestions, I wasn't aware you had veto powers.

Just a few points. Iraq is a sovereign nation as of June 28th, 2004.

The suggestions to draw down troops, place remaining troops at the border, put control in the hands of clan and tribal leaders came from US armed service commanders on the ground in Iraq.

Do a Google search for 'Bremer missing billions pallet'.

While you are at Google, type this in the box: 'How to Win in Al Anbar'.

Our continued presence in Iraq is breeding more hatred of America, and more terrorists.

The entire 'crusade' as our dear leader put it, has been ill conceived and ill executed from the beginning. The current administration has no desire to see it end.

It is un-American to allow this administration to 'stay the course' unchecked.

Good Day.

 

[canon]

What the Hague says:

What you said:

As we've seen time after time in this thread, when the existing definitions don't support your argument, you either add caveats where none exist or just make up your own definitions.

What the Hague says:

Note that it give no preconditions for ending an occupation. It just says what your resonsibilties are as long as you're there.

What you said:

More hand waving, you don't really seem to have a point except to add some caveats.

Once again with the hand waving. It's mildly interesting that you're trying to dispute Syria's occupation of Lebanon using an article titled Syrian Occupation of Lebanon, but in the end your opinion is irrelevant. The rest of the world viewed it as an occupation, because the rest of the world uses the definition in the Hague:

How they actually got there in the first place is not material to the point I was making. (hint- it had nothing to do with making an analogy, leave that straw man alone and try to pay attention for a change).

More hand waving that appears to have little relation to the topic we're discussing. The West Bank is considered United Nations Security Council,[1] the United Nations General Assembly,[2] the International Court of Justice,[3] and the International Committee of the Red Cross[4] to be Israeli occupied because they adhere to the definition in the Hague:

Your own opinion, like the caveats and "add ons" you keep trying to insert into International Law, are irrelevant.

Once again, that's just your opinion. It's NOT International Law.


More of your opinions. I must admit you have a knack for making up you own definitions. Perhaps you should try your hand at writing your own set of International Laws, since the ones we already have don't seem to suit you?

This seems to be more of your tactic of "post a whole lot of irrelevant stuff and then declare myself the winner"

Nowhere in any of those transcripts does anyone say that the US cannot withdraw from Iraq because it would violate International Law. Of course they don't, because they know better.
Here's the originals, have another look:

Geneva Conventions

Hague Conventions
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague02.htm
Take care

You know what's missing in all that? The one thing I asked for: Cite a source which supports your interpretation of the geneva convention.

Until that time Jones, you're all fluff and no filler. You keep claiming there is plenty of support for your side, yet you don't post it. Sorry, you're still in checkmate.

 

[Jones]

You know what's missing in all that? The one thing I asked for: Cite a source which supports your interpretation of the geneva convention.

Who needs a "source" to support an "interpretation" when anyone can read the originals?

Read, my son:

Geneva Conventions

Hague Conventions

Take care

 

[canon]

Canon,

Thank you for vetoing my suggestions, I wasn't aware you had veto powers.

Just a few points. Iraq is a sovereign nation as of June 28th, 2004.

The suggestions to draw down troops, place remaining troops at the border, put control in the hands of clan and tribal leaders came from US armed service commanders on the ground in Iraq.

It is a sovereign nation still in need of assistance in security as a result of our military defeat over Iraq. We're not putting control in the hands of clan and tribal leaders. While it would facilitate an evacuation, the humanitarian disaster which would follow in the civil war would be on our hands for making a hasty retreat.

Making progress, but not ready to leave quite yet.

Slothrop: Do a Google search for 'Bremer missing billions pallet'.

From CNN:

L. Paul Bremer, who as the administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority ran Iraq after initial combat operations ended, said the enormous shipments were done at the request of the Iraqi minister of finance.

"He said, 'I am concerned that I will not have the money to support the Iraqi government expenses for the first couple of months after we are sovereign. We won't have the mechanisms in place, I won't know how to get the money here,"' Bremer said.

"So these shipments were made at the explicit request of the Iraqi minister of finance to forward fund government expenses, a perfectly, seems to me, legitimate use of his money," Bremer told lawmakers.

Democrats led by Waxman also questioned whether the lack of oversight of $12 billion in Iraqi money that was disbursed by Bremer and the CPA somehow enabled insurgents to get their hands on the funds, possibly through falsifying names on the government payroll.

Fascinating. Irrelevant to the question, but I'm all the better for having read it.

Slothrop: While you are at Google, type this in the box: 'How to Win in Al Anbar'.

Ok, I saw the presentation. We're not doing that either. The presentation suggested training militia hired by sheiks to serve as police in local areas. When you look at places like Sudan and Afghanistan you begin to see what's already happening in Iraq. And it stems from tribal leaders. Is there a way out via this option? Some think it's the only way out, but that's because the tribal leaders will resort to any level of violence or oppression to control its territory. The most violent wins. It's a far cry from the democracy envisioned by the United Nations as a replacement for Saddam.

Our continued presence in Iraq is breeding more hatred of America, and more terrorists.

The entire 'crusade' as our dear leader put it, has been ill conceived and ill executed from the beginning. The current administration has no desire to see it end.

It is un-American to allow this administration to 'stay the course' unchecked.

Good Day.

So you're saying once we're out of Iraq, the world will embrace us and terrorist numbers will decrease? Unlikely.

You keep saying the administration doesn't want it to end, yet fail to say "why". Is this a part of the 'grand vision' you mentioned earlier? I too have some serious reservations about our plan in general. I think Iraq fell much faster than anyone anticipated, and nobody could see the future that the people wouldn't embrace democracy. (Incidently, it's the tribal leaders who don't want that to happen... they want power to themselves.) Again, your goal this whole time has been to convince people "Bush" is guilty. A point better suited to be battled out in a courtroom and providing little if any guidance as to fulfilling our responsibilities as an occupying power in iraq.

You say it is un-American to stay the course. I say it is un-American to abandon the Iraqi civilians to a future carved out by civil war and oppressive warlords. I'm glad "your administration" isn't at the helm.





I googled what you asked, now it's your turn.

Google: 'occupying power responsibilities'

On the very first page you'll see the links I've been using: Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, War Crimes Project, American Society of International Law




Google: 'requirements to end belligerent occupation'

On the first page of return links, here's this:

US Army Doctrine and Belligerent Occupation ​

Successful termination of Operation Iraqi Freedom now depends not on the combat operations, but on how well the United States and the U.S. Army, in particular, reestablishes the Iraqi government and facilitates the building of a stable nation.

Source: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/sam/bellig_occup_burgess.pdf
Staying the course ceases to be about prolonging the war after all, eh?

I await your homework.

 

[canon]

Who needs a "source" to support an "interpretation" when anyone can read the originals?

Read, my son:

Geneva Conventions

Hague Conventions

Take care

I've read. Amnesty International has read. The UN has read. Human Rights Watch has read. The only one it seems who can't comprehend is you...unless you can post some support to your claims.

That's what I thought. Keep dodging.

Here's another source for your misery.

Israel Required by International Law to Protect
Palestinians Under Occupation​

Foundation for Middle East Peace
Settlement Report | Vol. 4 No. 3 | May 1994​

Israel's rule of the West Bank and Gaza is defined as a "belligerent occupation" by the body of international law developed after World War II. Its responsibilities toward the Palestinian population under its occupation are codified in both The Hague Convention Regulations (1906) and the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War (1949). Israel does not recognize the applicability of these international conventions to its rule, but has nevertheless agreed to honor them.

In its role as occupying power in the territories, Israel is charged under the law with three basic responsibilities:
maintaining the security of the territories,
insuring public order and safety, and
acting for the welfare of the local population.

Gee, you were right. The Palestinians under Israeli occupation are entitled to the same provisions as Iraq. The difference is, if Israel withdrew, there would still be a functioning govt in Palestine. The same did not hold true with Iraq at the end of our military actions.

Rofl... I love it when a plan comes together.

 

[Jones]

I've read. Amnesty International has read. The UN has read. Human Rights Watch has read.

None of those sources supported your contention that International Law contains preconditions for ending an occupation. There's a good reason for that.
Read for yourself:

Geneva Conventions

Hague Conventions

Israel Required by International Law to Protect
Palestinians Under Occupation​

Foundation for Middle East Peace
Settlement Report | Vol. 4 No. 3 | May 1994​

Israel's rule of the West Bank and Gaza is defined as a "belligerent occupation" by the body of international law developed after World War II. Its responsibilities toward the Palestinian population under its occupation are codified in both The Hague Convention Regulations (1906) and the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War (1949). Israel does not recognize the applicability of these international conventions to its rule, but has nevertheless agreed to honor them.

In its role as occupying power in the territories, Israel is charged under the law with three basic responsibilities:
maintaining the security of the territories,
insuring public order and safety, and
acting for the welfare of the local population.

Note what they are not charged with, ie, meeting any preconditions before ending the occupation. As long as they are there, they have to meet their obligations under International Law governing an occupation. But they can leave whenever they want.

Gee, you were right. The Palestinians under Israeli occupation are entitled to the same provisions as Iraq.

Slowly, ever so slowly, you learn what the rest of the world already knows. I'm proud of you, I know it's not easy for you .

The difference is, if Israel withdrew, there would still be a functioning govt in Palestine. The same did not hold true with Iraq at the end of our military actions.

The Palestinian government is functioning at about the same level as the current Iraqi government, ie, they are both on the brink of civil war. If we leave Iraq, it becomes the Iraqi's problem in much the same way that if Israel leaves the West Bank, the problems there become the Palestinian's problems. International Law sets no preconditions for ending either occupation.

Study Study!:

Geneva Conventions

Hague Conventions

Take care

 

[canon]

None of those sources supported your contention that International Law contains preconditions for ending an occupation. There's a good reason for that.
Read for yourself:

Geneva Conventions

Hague Conventions

Note what they are not charged with, ie, meeting any preconditions before ending the occupation. As long as they are there, they have to meet their obligations under International Law governing an occupation. But they can leave whenever they want.

Slowly, ever so slowly, you learn what the rest of the world already knows. I'm proud of you, I know it's not easy for you .

The Palestinian government is functioning at about the same level as the current Iraqi government, ie, they are both on the brink of civil war. If we leave Iraq, it becomes the Iraqi's problem in much the same way that if Israel leaves the West Bank, the problems there become the Palestinian's problems. International sets no preconditions for ending either occupation.

Study Study!:

Geneva Conventions

Hague Conventions

Take care

You failed to post any thing that might look like support for your claim. You're still in checkmate.

Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

Your own opinion, like the caveats and "add ons" you keep trying to insert into International Law, are irrelevant.

This was from your earlier post. It's not my opinion. It is article 42 of the geneva convention. You should see article 43...

Art. 43.
The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

It's not a list of "preconditions" you're supposed to see Jones, it's the laws aimed at protecting the civilians from the consequences of our actions like civil war. Those protections serve as a basis for avoiding violating international law by endangering the safety of the civilians. That's why organizations like the International Red Cross, HWR, and Amnesty International are involved. They know international law because it is their job to.

Leaving Iraq before Iraq is capable of taking care of itself would violate international law because it endagers the civilians... not because there's a list in the conventions that say you cannot do this or that. It's more a list of what your responsibilities are while there and for the safety of the citizens. Returning the govt and security to a point where it can defend and function for the safety of the civilians is our responsibility. Plain and simple. For some of us anyway.

Call it handwaving all you want, you still haven't posted a single link to ANYTHING that supports the legality of immediate withdrawl following belligerent occupation which resulted in the overthrow of the government and dismantling of their military. As such, your position becomes opinion.

Also, I have to point out you didn't address my posts from the UN saying exactly what I've been saying all along. How convenient for your argument.
Everybody else saw them.

 

[canon]

New York, 10 April 2003 - Secretary-General's press encounter upon arrival at UNHQ (unofficial transcript)

Q: Mr. Secretary-General, this morning a spokesman for the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs said in Amman that the occupying forces – the US and the UK – were violating the Geneva Conventions by their inaction in allowing lawlessness and chaos and looting to go on? Is that a violation of the Convention? What should they be doing to clear up the situation?

SG: Let me first say that from what we have seen in the reports it appears there is no functioning government in Iraq at the moment. We also saw the scenes of jubilation, but of course when you think of the casualties - both military and civilian - the Iraqis have paid a heavy price for this. We have also seen scenes of looting, and obviously law and order must be a major concern.

Regarding your question I think the [Security] Council has also reaffirmed that the Hague Regulation and the Geneva Conventions apply to this conflict and that the coalition has a responsibility for the welfare of the people in this area. And I am sure that will be respected.

Like I've said, that responsibility doesn't cease just by leaving. We have to restore and ensure the safety of the civilians (as per geneva conventions). And that can't happen until 1) A functioning govt is established and 2) a capable security force is built.

I'm going to keep looking, I'm sure I can find an article that supports your position SOMEWHERE. If you know of one, it would be a great service to everyone reading these posts that you post it. I'm starting to believe you don't really have any support for your position and it's all in your head. I know you'll do your best to convince the readers otherwise.

 

[Jones]

This was from your earlier post. It's not my opinion. It is article 42 of the geneva convention. You should see article 43...

Not surprisingy, you failed to put things in context. This from is Article 42:

Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

And this is from your opinion, to which I was refering:

By definition, when a country is occupied, the Occupying Power serves as government and security because they've defeated/overthrown the existing one.

In other words, it not necessary to defeat/overthrow a government (that is just your opinion), simply to occupy by military force territory which previously did not belong to you (that is the Hague). Syria's occupation in Lebanon is a good example of that.

This is article 43:

Art. 43.
The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

It's not a list of "preconditions"

You really are beginning to make progress! I'm impressed

it's the laws aimed at protecting the civilians from the consequences of our actions like civil war. Those protections serve as a basis for avoiding violating international law by endangering the safety of the civilians. That's why organizations like the International Red Cross, HWR, and Amnesty International are involved. They know international law because it is their job to.

This is essentially hand waving, but at least you're not claiming it somehow amounts to preconditions. Not too bad...

Leaving Iraq before Iraq is capable of taking care of itself would violate international law because it endagers the civilians

Oh no! You're going the wrong way! Just can't seem to resist trying to add in things that aren't there . The most amusing thing about that statement is what happens if follow to it's logical conclusion, ie, that anytime you endanger civilians you're in violation of International Law. Good stuff

Returning the govt and security to a point where it can defend and function for the safety of the civilians is our responsibility. Plain and simple

See, now that's what I like to hear. You're giving a rationale for staying in Iraq that is actually defensible (if it wasn't, there wouldn't be any grounds for debate) on some level, without trying to invoke International Law. There's hope yet!

you still haven't posted a single link to ANYTHING that supports the legality of immediate withdrawl following belligerent occupation which resulted in the overthrow of the government and dismantling of their military.

Psst! Hey Canon....over here:

Geneva Conventions

Hague Conventions

Take care

 

[canon]

Not surprisingy, you failed to put things in context.

They're in context. Along with statements and interpretations by the very organizations responsible for dealing with international humanitarian law. Keep back peddling, we've all seen your failure to post anything other than rhetoric.

Analysis: The law on rebuilding Iraq

Rights and wrongs​

BBC News
Wednesday, 10 December, 2003, 17:53 GMT​

If competition law turns out to be a dead end, human-rights rules may look more promising.

The rights and obligations of occupying administrations are mainly laid out in two chunks of international law - the Hague regulations of 1907, and the Geneva conventions of 1949.

The first tactic of America's critics here is to argue that the whole war was illegal; post-war occupation, therefore, is also illegal, and so is reconstruction (or profiteering, depending on one's point of view).

Many lawyers feel that the initial use of force against Iraq may well have been illegal.

But international law is unambiguous: whether war was illegal or not, the occupier has a duty to reconstruct the country.

Source: BBC NEWS | Business | Analysis: The law on rebuilding Iraq

I could have sworn I saw that somewhere before... oh yeah. It's in every post I've supplied along with my initial position that we have certain responsibilities under international law.

you still haven't posted a single link to ANYTHING that supports the legality of immediate withdrawl following belligerent occupation which resulted in the overthrow of the government and dismantling of their military.

Psst! Hey Canon....over here:

Geneva Conventions

Hague Conventions

Yes Jones, those are the sources the rest of the world uses to determine international law. So far, you're the only one that disagrees. I'll repeat the request to supply one source that supports your position.

 

[Jones]

the occupier has a duty to reconstruct the country.

Hey, it's just like Article 43! And just like Article 43, it's not a precondition for leaving (and nothing on the BBC site or anywhere else says otherwise). Our obligations as an occupying force end as soon we cease being an occupying force. Once again, you're attempting to add in preconditions where none exist.

I know you think it's all just rhetoric, but read and heed, young Padwan:

Geneva Conventions

Hague Conventions

Take care

 

[toonertoo]

Bush and Cheney lied to get us into this war. Why should not everyone on each side protest this unjust war. There where no weapons of mass destruction. The Iraqis did not attack us. It was the the Saudies our government should be after. Although, Bush vacations with the Bin Ladens, and he really does not care if we ever get Osama!!!

I don't blame everyone for protesting. Bush lied and people died.

Bush lied and people died, is oh so not original, or true.
I dont blame them for protesting either, but I think if they had a clue they would protest the political correctness of not profiling. Not protection for those who should be profiled, and not to bring harm to our troops, there is where I have the problem. No matter how or why we are there, every man or woman there is a volunteer. And the majority of them have the intellect to decide what they are doing is for a good reason, and to give people like you, and the Iraqis, the freedom to express their feelings. Without being stuck in a plastic shredder, or mutilated, for speaking their mind, no matter how small their mind may be.

 

[canon]

Hey, it's just like Article 43! And just like Article 43, it's not a precondition for leaving (and nothing on the BBC site or anywhere else says otherwise). Our obligations as an occupying force end as soon we cease being an occupying force. Once again, you're attempting to add in preconditions where none exist.

I know you think it's all just rhetoric, but read and heed, young Padwan:

Geneva Conventions

Hague Conventions

Take care

Hey, WE ARE STILL AN OCCUPYING FORCE. The "precondition" is that our departure can't cause a humanitarian disaster. It's in the links you supplied.

ONCE WE LEAVE, yes we cease to be an occupying force. But under international law, leaving before the country can take care of itself puts the civilians in harms way which IS outlined in the links you keep supplying. We have to protect them, that is the law. It prevents said nation from being plundered because they can't defend themselves.


*Again, you've not addressed the sources I linked from the UN.
*Again, you've not supplied one ounce of opposing debate other than your opinion which counters every relief agency out there as well as the United Nations.

Pure rhetoric Jones. Post your source or I'm done with your childishness. I suspect this is what you're wanting since you've been in the corner for so long. I'll give you an out.. post ANY source which offers a counter position to the agencies involved with monitoring violations of international law and I'll continue this topic.

I already know you can't. It's been nice talking to u.

 

[Jones]

I found this rather interesting:

Iraqi sovereignty

On June 28, 2004, the occupation was nominally ended by the CPA, which transferred limited power to a new Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. The multinational military alliance continued to assist the Allawi government in governing the Iraqis. The purpose of the Occupation of Iraq was(past tense), according to U.S. President George W. Bush, purely to bring about a transition from post-war anarchy to full Iraqi sovereignty.

It doesn't sound like Mr Bush has heard about your preconditions, Canon Better get on the horn and let him know! It might be a little late though, since according the administration the occupation ended roughly 2 1/2 years ago . Read all about it

Don't give give up your lonely battle though! And remember to study your homework:

Geneva Conventions

Hague Conventions

Take care

 

[Jones]

It's been nice talking to u.

Declare victory and leave? I don't blame you, it's probably your best option at this point. And if history is any guide it's what will eventually happen in Iraq, so perhaps you're not as alone as you might think

Geneva Conventions

Hague Conventions

Take care

 

[canon]

I found this rather interesting:

Iraqi sovereignty

It doesn't sound like Mr Bush has heard about your preconditions, Canon Better get on the horn and let him know! It might be a little late though, since according the administration the occupation ended roughly 2 1/2 years ago . Read all about it

Don't give give up your lonely battle though! And remember to study your homework:

Geneva Conventions

Hague Conventions

Take care

It's like I have to hold your hand thru this. Thanks for the link, it does nothing to support your position:

In a June 1, 2004, press conference, President Bush said that he was working with various world leaders to create a U.N. Security Council resolution endorsing the transition from the U.S.-dominated occupation to complete autonomy for Iraq. Under this resolution, Coalition forces would remain in Iraq until the new government could establish security and stabilization: "There is a deep desire by the Iraqis — don't get me wrong — to run their own affairs and to be in a position where they can handle their own security measures."

****

On June 28, 2004, the occupation was nominally ended by the CPA, which transferred limited power to a new Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. The multinational military alliance continued to assist the Allawi government in governing the Iraqis. The purpose of the Occupation of Iraq was(past tense), according to U.S. President George W. Bush, purely to bring about a transition from post-war anarchy to full Iraqi sovereignty.


If you need help with the definition of nominally, in this context it means in name only. You don't think bringing about a transition from post-war anarchy to full Iraqi sovereignty has anything to do with what I've been talking about? We have a duty to the civilians. And "bringing about a transition from post-war anarchy to full Iraqi sovereignty" seems to be exactly what every post I've made said: It is the responsibility of the occupying power to restore and ensure the safety of the civilian population. And as we trasfered power back to Iraq, they declared they weren't ready for such a responibility.

Link time:

Security Council
4982nd Meeting (PM)​

BRIEFING SECURITY COUNCIL, IRAQI FOREIGN MINISTER CALLS FOR RESOLUTION ENDORSING

INTERIM GOVERNMENT, RECOGNIZING CONTINUING NEED FOR MULTINATIONAL FORCE

Also Says Text Should Remove Label of Occupation,
Endorse ‘Genuine and Comprehensive’ Transfer of Power on 30 June​

(Speaking of Iraqi Foreign Minister, Hoshyar Zebari)

He sought a clear reference to the status of the multinational force, and its relations with the interim government, stressing that any premature departure of international troops would lead to chaos and the “real possibility of a civil war in Iraq. That would cause a humanitarian crisis and provide a foothold for terrorists to launch their evil campaign in Iraq and beyond its borders. At this stage, a call for immediate withdrawal or a fixed timetable would be unhelpful.

Source: BRIEFING SECURITY COUNCIL, IRAQI FOREIGN MINISTER CALLS FOR RESOLUTION ENDORSING INTERIM GOVERNMENT, RECOGNIZING CONTINUING NEED FOR MULTINATIONAL FORCE
As I've said, it is international law that the occupying force is responsible for reconstruction of a govt and security force prior to leaving. Once that govt is established, it is up to them as to wether or not we stay or leave. Obviously, our job there wasn't finished and leaving would have created a humanitarian crisis. Our responsibility remains.

I'm not opposed to different options, but those options just don't include leaving the iraqi civilians open for a return oppression or civil war. I'm willing to bet if we leave tomorrow and civil war ensues, you'll be the first to jump to the conclusion we violated international law.

Now, try to find something that actually supports your views. And as much as I like wikipedia, it really doesn't offer a counter view to the interpretation of international law which qualifies as a legitimate source which I requested.

I'll request once more: Post a legitimate view that refutes the role of an occupying force as defined by the UN, ICRC, HRW, Amnesty International, BBC News, etc or I'm done with you. Declare victory if you want, you've posted nothing in support of your position other than wikipedia which ended up supporting my views.

Once again, you failed to address my posts supporting my views from the UN. Support yours with something more than your rhetoric, or we're done.
I'll give you last word unless you come up with something more substantial than wikipedia or nonsensical bleating.

Proceed with your childishness, I'm sure you know no other route.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

The U.N.? Why would anyone take the U.N. seriously? It is a joke. We should have kicked their asses out of New York and the country a long time ago.

 

[canon]

The U.N.? Why would anyone take the U.N. seriously? It is a joke. We should have kicked their ***** out of New York and the country a long time ago.

They're directly involved with relief agencies that deal with humanitarian issues surrounding international law etc. Their involvment in this thread was purely for definition purposes on interpreting international law.