Anti War Protests

[Overpaid Union Thug]

International laws are a joke as well as the U.N. That's all that needs to be said about that.

 

[Slothrop]

Canon,
I guess if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullcrap.

I haven't seen such circular arguments and declarations of victory since tieguy last visit current events.

There is absolutely nothing prevent any of the coalition forces from pulling out. Please, without filling half the page with diversions, post something besides your interpretation of international law. By your reasoning we should still be in Vietnam.

How come when I search for 'international law Iraq' all I see is arguments on the illegality of U.S. actions?

It's tough to reason with a 30%er.

 

[canon]

International laws are a joke as well as the U.N. That's all that needs to be said about that.

Well, if we had known that, we could have avoided all this discussion! Where were you 3 pages ago? Thanks for the insight.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Well, if we had known that, we could have avoided all this discussion! Where were you 3 pages ago? Thanks for the insight.

Hey glad to help. The rest of the world expects the U.S. to follow the rules but the other countries, especially smaller countries that are responsible for terrorism, genocide, lack of human rights, etc., get a free pass. What kind of BS is that?

 

[Ghost Who Walks]

Canon, I hate to weigh in, being new here and all, but you are misinterpreting U.S. obligations.

According to the White House just 3 days ago: We were there as an occupying force, and now we’re there at the invitation of the sovereign, elected government of Iraq.

There is nothing preventing us from leaving at any time, except the fortitude to do so. We are accomplishing nothing by being there, except creating enemies out of a people that used to be our friends. Your understanding of International Law seems to be on a par with your understanding of the nuances of Middle Eastern culture.

You may want to reconsider that career at the State Department.

 

[over9five]

Canon, Great job! Don't worry about all these cut and run liberals.

And Jones, Thanks for all those links that supported Canons views.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

"There is nothing preventing us from leaving at any time, except the fortitude to do so. We are accomplishing nothing by being there, except creating enemies out of a people that used to be our friends. Your understanding of International Law seems to be on a par with your understanding of the nuances of Middle Eastern culture."

We aren't accomplishing anything? That's funny because I've heard quite the opposite from all the soldiers, sailors, airman, marines that I've talked to thats been deployed to Iraq. But hey....I'm not surprised that you think that. I mean it's hard to hold it against you while next to all of the news sources in this country have been taken over by America hating liberals. Take "60 Minutes" for example. If they weren't a bunch of hard headed Liberals they could have easily found thousands of active duty soldiers to totally contradict what those few (that probably took them forever to find) said.

 

[canon]

Canon, I hate to weigh in, being new here and all, but you are misinterpreting U.S. obligations.

According to the White House just 3 days ago: We were there as an occupying force, and now we’re there at the invitation of the sovereign, elected government of Iraq.

There is nothing preventing us from leaving at any time, except the fortitude to do so. We are accomplishing nothing by being there, except creating enemies out of a people that used to be our friends. Your understanding of International Law seems to be on a par with your understanding of the nuances of Middle Eastern culture.

You may want to reconsider that career at the State Department.

So you think it's a lack of fortitude that is keeping us there? Wouldn't be the humanitarian disaster that would follow a withdraw before Iraq is ready?

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​

The newly appointed Iraqi Foreign Minister, Hoshyar Zebari, today called on the Security Council to adopt a draft resolution endorsing his interim government "as soon as necessary", supporting the ongoing political process and recognizing Iraq’s need for the continued presence of a multinational force in partnership with Iraqi authorities.

"We seek a new and unambiguous resolution that underlines the transfer of full sovereignty to the people of Iraq and their representatives", he told an open meeting of the Council. The new resolution "must mark a clear departure" from previous Council resolutions that legitimize the occupation of Iraq, he said, adding that: "By removing the label of occupation, we will deprive the terrorists and anti-democratic forces of a rallying point to foment violence in our country."

Mr. Zebari expected that the resolution would endorse a “genuine and comprehensive” transfer of power on 30 June. That meant investing full authority in the interim government to run Iraq’s affairs, make its own decisions and have authority over Iraq’s security matters. That transfer of sovereignty must also authorize the interim government to control, administer and manage Iraq’s resources and assets. Iraq must have a leading role in mechanisms to monitor disbursements of its resources that were agreed on by the Security Council.

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: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sc8111.doc.htm

I stand by my position. We'll leave when doing so doesn't cause a humanitarian nightmare. My "understanding" of international law is on par with every relief agency and UN link I posted. Our obligations extend beyond the "nominal" end to the occupation per definition. Bush could have cut and run in 04 with the declaration of Iraqi sovereignty to save his ratings. You can read the post above as to why that didn't happen.

The first British troops left recently a day after an Iraqi battalion transfered command to strictly an Iraqi commander. They left from Basra where reports were that the troops no longer even needed to wear helmets. As the situation warrants, the withdraw will happen. If done too soon, who do you think is to blame? The Iraqi govt, being sovereign and all as per your statement, is completely capable of requesting help. Especially help from the very country responsible for removing their security in the first place.
Continue to say we are accomplishing nothing there... say it long enough and we'll have them ready to defend themselves.

So, since it's no longer an "occupation" I guess you can no longer say "end the war". Or is this an attempt to play symantics for the sake of highlighting our "legal" rights to leave. Our responsibility extends to retuning Iraq back to being able to govern AND defend itself per doctrine of war on land. The label "occupation" may have disappeared, but our obligations haven't. Maybe you should be protesting the Iraqi government for asking us to stay. Or maybe the insurgents who continue to make help necessary. Our obligation to the Iraqi people continues, despite your appeals to try to win the global popularity contest.

Your understanding of International Law seems to be on a par with your understanding of the nuances of Middle Eastern culture.

I'd be willing to bet I know more about it than you think.

Thanks for weighing in with such a nasty attitude. In the future, there's nothing stopping you from simply stating your position without trying to be insulting. Welcome to the board.

 

[brazenbrown]

Well, here it goes my official first post. Hi everyone!!

Just want to say the debate on this thread has been entertaining.

I have been a long time reader and finally got down to registering so I could take part in the action.

I must say Cannon you put up one heck of a fight. I'd have to say it's the right fight too. I don't think we can leave those people until they can fend for themselves.

Unlike the other new poster "We are accomplishing nothing by being there" I support our troops. I don't agree with Bush on everything but I sure do love living in this country. Sometimes I think the people that don't seem very happy here ought to move to France.



BB

 

[tonyexpress]

Welcome to the Brown Cafe brazenbrown and Ghost who walks!! Glad you could join us.

 

[canon]

I have been a long time reader and finally got down to registering so I could take part in the action.

Welcome to the board. It's a warm and fuzzy place which invites that feeling of a quiet family discussion after dinner. Love is in the air, and sunshine creeps thru the clouds of animosity, political differences, and workplace inequalities. Mostly in the form of the moderators replacing insults with *'s.

Unlike the other new poster "We are accomplishing nothing by being there" I support our troops. I don't agree with Bush on everything but I sure do love living in this country. Sometimes I think the people that don't seem very happy here ought to move to France.
BB

I don't think that would stop the complaining... France has internet too. I once got into an argument with a lady living in Hong Kong about how dangerous it is to live in America. We only have Gore to blame for inventing the internet.

 

[Ghost Who Walks]

Canon,

The 4982nd Meeting of the Security Council took place nearly three years ago, Do you have something current? Or are the conditions in Iraq unchanged in that time?

Was I insulting? Sorry I offended you. Manning a machine gun doesn't make you a Middle Eastern expert, or a JD of International Law. I take it from you other posts that you are a truck driver for UPS.

brazenbrown,

Supporting our troops has absolutely nothing to do with supporting the War in Iraq. That is a false argument.

 

[toonertoo]

WElcome to the board brazen bown!

 

[canon]

Canon,

The 4982nd Meeting of the Security Council took place nearly three years ago, Do you have something current? Or are the conditions in Iraq unchanged in that time?

The 4982nd meeting was the official transfer of power to Iraq. You noticed it said "by removing the label of occupation", maybe you'd care to explain what that means. According to the Meeting, this was done to "deprive the terrorists and anti-democratic forces of a rallying point to foment violence in our country". Setting up the government happened faster than training an army for that government to command, but both fall under international law as being a necessary component of the occupying force. We removed their government and ability to defend or themselves, it is our duty to restore that. Our obligation was then, and still is, restoring and ensuring the safety of Iraqi civilians until such a time as the Iraqi security force can accomplish the task. We just saw British troops leaving and a battalion of Iraqi military come under sole command of Iraqi officials. I'll let you answer your own question as to whether or not conditions have changed.

Your understanding of International Law seems to be on a par with your understanding of the nuances of Middle Eastern culture.

Manning a machine gun doesn't make you a Middle Eastern expert, or a JD of International Law. I take it from you other posts that you are a truck driver for UPS.

If you scroll back, we've already addressed the issue of ad hominem and attacking the source of the statement. My current job does not prevent me from researching nor making true statements. I think you already knew that, but wanted to test the waters. They're a bit deeper than you thought.

And while manning a machine gun does not make me a Middle Eastern expert, I never said it did. From your first post you suggested I'm clueless to both international law and middle eastern culture. Manning a machine gun in a middle eastern country for six months lends a bit more weight to the topic. Your "authority" to judge my knowledge as to what I know about middle eastern culture comes from what? Reading internet articles? Gee, I only have first hand experience.

As for international law? I don't need to be an "expert" on the subject to be able to read the interpretations and judgements from those who ARE experts to know what they're saying.

Nuremberg proceedings:
“A commanding general of occupied territory is charged with the duty of maintaining peace and order, punishing crime, and protecting lives and property within the area of his command. His responsibility is coextensive with his area of command. He is charged with notice of occurrences taking place within that territory...dereliction of duty rests upon him....”

From the generals in the field to the commander in chief.. we conquered Iraq and became their government and security. Replacement of one is finished, the other is in progress. If they said tomorrow that Iraq is fully ready, I'd be the first to celebrate. But until that time, we have a job to do protecting the people we rendered defensless.

The 1949 Geneva Conventions I-IV reflected a realization that armed conflicts were no longer simply isolated contests between professional armies without direct impact upon civilian populations. They address the following categories of war victims: wounded and sick soldiers in the field; wounded, sick, and shipwrecked soldiers; prisoners of war; and civilians. Among the most significant provisions: (i) civilians and other non-combatants are entitled to respect for their lives and their moral and physical integrity; (ii) surrendering enemy soldiers are not to be killed or injured; (iii) the wounded and sick are to be collected and cared for; (iv) captured combatants, and civilians under the authority of an adverse party, are not to be subjected to physical or mental torture, corporal punishment, or cruel or degrading treatment; (v) weapons causing unnecessary loss of life or excessive suffering are prohibited; and (vi) civilian populations are not to be targeted.

Source: Globalization and Autonomy

Respecting their lives doesn't mean wiping out their government and military then leaving them to deal with the ensuing civil war or plundering from other nations. As I've stated, my "understanding" of international law is on par with organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Crimes of War Project and the UN itself. If you have a problem with how they are interpreting international law, send them an email and tell them some truck driver sent you.

 

[squash dissent]

Canon, I don't mean to keep picking, but I have yet to find in any of your links where any organization of note has stated that the U.S. is bound by international law to remain in Iraq. I have found that thought expressed by some Christian organizations, but not by an international legal body. There were certain obligations that were required post invasion, and we certainly didn't fulfill them. I agree we should be held legally responsible for those transgressions. I have found, on just about every humanitarian organizations site you listed, appeals to the U.S. to cease torture, house refugees, release unjustly held prisoners, prosecute U.S. war crimes, etc. Nothing about remaining in Iraq because we are required to. You can slice and dice it any way you want, bottom line (to use one of your pet phrases) is that the invasion was/is illegal. The U.S. was negligent in it's duties post invasion, no doubt, perhaps criminally so. Authority has been handed back to the Iraqis. Elections have been held. Our 'obligation' has ended. Anytime you want to follow through on the suggestions of "International Committee of the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Crimes of War Project and the UN" and begin holding the U.S. responsible for their derelictions, I'm with you. I can understand how we can disagree on universal medical care, social security, or taxes, but for the life of me I don't see how any American can argue about torture, habeas corpus or unjustified war. I ran across a great speech today, you should read it: Diplomacy and Empire Speech by Chas. Freeman On a personal note, I have re-read this thread, and have detected an anti-Arab slant to your posts. You lead one to believe you served in Egypt for a time. I'm guessing that would be for annual mutual war games, Bright Star, perhaps. You manned a M60 (or variant thereof) machine gun, so I'm guessing you maybe had a stripe, but just one. You found the Arabs to be a filthy people in your visit to Cairo, but on your gov't paid vacation to Israel you found everything, well, more familiar, at least. That pretty much set into stone your feelings about the region. By the time you left for your next in some war free zone (probably tropical and comfortable), you couldn't understand how anyone in Egypt actually had ancestors who designed the Pyramids, and how their Army even last 6 days against the Israelis. Somewhere in there you married your high school sweetheart, had a couple of kids(1 boy, 1 girl) and got a job at UPS. You live somewhere in middle America, KY or TN, probably near where you grew up. Your income at UPS has put you in the upper class, at least locally. You are near 40 years old. You are active in your church, a hero to your community and family, but still feel emptiness. Ghost is tired now. How close did I come?

 

[canon]

Canon, I don't mean to keep picking, but I have yet to find in any of your links where any organization of note has stated that the U.S. is bound by international law to remain in Iraq. I have found that thought expressed by some Christian organizations, but not by an international legal body. There were certain obligations that were required post invasion, and we certainly didn't fulfill them. I agree we should be held legally responsible for those transgressions. I have found, on just about every humanitarian organizations site you listed, appeals to the U.S. to cease torture, house refugees, release unjustly held prisoners, prosecute U.S. war crimes, etc. Nothing about remaining in Iraq because we are required to. You can slice and dice it any way you want, bottom line (to use one of your pet phrases) is that the invasion was/is illegal. The U.S. was negligent in it's duties post invasion, no doubt, perhaps criminally so. Authority has been handed back to the Iraqis. Elections have been held. Our 'obligation' has ended. Anytime you want to follow through on the suggestions of "International Committee of the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Crimes of War Project and the UN" and begin holding the U.S. responsible for their derelictions, I'm with you. I can understand how we can disagree on universal medical care, social security, or taxes, but for the life of me I don't see how any American can argue about torture, habeas corpus or unjustified war. I ran across a great speech today, you should read it: Diplomacy and Empire Speech by Chas. Freeman On a personal note, I have re-read this thread, and have detected an anti-Arab slant to your posts. You lead one to believe you served in Egypt for a time. I'm guessing that would be for annual mutual war games, Bright Star, perhaps. You manned a M60 (or variant thereof) machine gun, so I'm guessing you maybe had a stripe, but just one. You found the Arabs to be a filthy people in your visit to Cairo, but on your gov't paid vacation to Israel you found everything, well, more familiar, at least. That pretty much set into stone your feelings about the region. By the time you left for your next in some war free zone (probably tropical and comfortable), you couldn't understand how anyone in Egypt actually had ancestors who designed the Pyramids, and how their Army even last 6 days against the Israelis. Somewhere in there you married your high school sweetheart, had a couple of kids(1 boy, 1 girl) and got a job at UPS. You live somewhere in middle America, KY or TN, probably near where you grew up. Your income at UPS has put you in the upper class, at least locally. You are near 40 years old. You are active in your church, a hero to your community and family, but still feel emptiness. Ghost is tired now. How close did I come?

It's like a broken record. We are not "bound by international law to remain in Iraq", we are bound by international law to restore and ensure safety and security to the civilian population. See if you can find anything about that. How is it we are supposed to do that if we just leave? How is that supposed to happen if wiped out their means of defense?

And here we go with assignment of guilt. Once again, that's a topic better decided in the courts. Feel free to believe whatever you want, but that's not a point worth debating as the final outcome is the only measure of legality. I wonder how many forums filled up with "conclusions" of guilt prior to the reading of OJ's verdict. To me, it's a moot point.

Anti-Aarb? Far from it. Not sure how you came up with that just because I pin blame for unsanitary or oppressive living conditions on Islamic leaders. When you go to Egypt and walk the streets, by all means come to your own conclusions. Irregation was still drawn by mule. The rug shops still employ children of around 8-10 years old. The insignia on the police uniforms were often cardboard cutouts attached with safetypins. We were told not to offer the left hand in any handshakes because it was an insult. A lot of places don't use toilet paper, and this is the designated hand for such tasks. I liked Cairo and Memphis for the history etc, but really though improvements could be made in the standard of living and apparent number of people living in poverty.

We used to walk the 300 yards from our checkpoint down to the Egyptian checkpoint to trade small items. Very nice people and only a couple instances where we saw any anti-american sentiment. But the living conditions? True, I can only judge by which I know. Maybe I'm spoiled by a government that tries to establish a better quality of life for its citizenry. I found that to be the case in Israel too. Both are beautiful places, one seems to be committed to improving life and the other seems to be locked in history. I think your impression of me having an anti-arab slant is indicative of your attempts to discredit me and lend reason for my position on the war. Sorry, it's simply untrue.

Far from upper class, maybe upper middle. No kids. Hadn't heard of Bright Star until u mentioned it. Had four stripes lol. And I'm really not sure what all that has to do with the situation in Iraq. My guess is your return key is broken and that's why there are no paragraph breaks in your statement. Again, has little to do with the thread.


Edit: If anything, wanting to end the war before Iraq is ready to defend itself would be the ultimate in anti-arab sentiment. "Who cares about them, get our troops home." I still say we need to stay to make sure they are safe and can defend themselves appropriately.

 

[over9five]

I agree. I don't honestly care what the UN says, or what the Geneva Convention says.

We went in there and took down that government. It would be a cowardly move to just leave, and leave that country in a state of disarray. I think it is OBVIOUS that if we left, Iraq would spiral OUT OF CONTROL into lawlessness and disorder. We must take responsibility for the situation we created.

We did the right thing going in. Now we must do the right thing and stay till we can leave a stable situation.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Liberals will argue all day about this (without offering any reasonable alternative of course) and can only say "get out of Iraq now" and that sort of nonsene because that is how liberals think. Only in the short term of things. They want a quick fix and are incapable of looking forward and realizing long term goals. It's just like the whole idea of Wellfare. Instead of thinking long term and forcing people to fend for themselves and get educated and job training Liberals just want to throw money and housing at them because it is a quick fix. The same concept applies here. They don't like how things are going in Iraq, which really means things are moving fast enough for them, so they want us to get out. It makes me wonder how Liberals even have the patience to cook a steak.

 

[brazenbrown]

Supporting our troops has absolutely nothing to do with supporting the War in Iraq. That is a false argument.

That's right but not supporting the War does not mean you can't support the troops and when you say we are accomplishing nothing by being there that does not support their efforts regardless of your stance on the war.

However, I believe you would be one of the first people to wave a banner of protest in their faces upon their return. Similar to how those returning from Vietnam were treated.

You probably have no children and live alone, spend most of your time finding ways to annoy people with your intrusive behavior. One would suspect that you are a member of the Dull Star anti war games brigade. I have re-read this thread and others, and have detected an anti-conservative or liberal slant to your posts.

You lead one to believe you served in the Jimmy Carter administration. That pretty much set into stone your feelings about liberalism. By the time you left for your next assignment with Clinton you were just starting to get into your own.

Somewhere in there you decided not to get married and have no kids. Got a job at UPS and live somewhere in the south say, New Orleans. This way you could blame the current republican administration for not acting fast enough on hurricane Katrina rather than the State and local representatives.

Your income at UPS has put you in the upper class, at least locally. You are near 46 years old. You are secular humanist and feel [FONT=&quot]intellectually [/FONT] superior to anyone who might consider going to church.

So much for assumptions!!

 

[brazenbrown]

WElcome to the board brazen bown!

Thank you Tooner!!