yahoo news:
I don't feel it's right for the U.S. troops to keep on dieing like this i think it'l be right if they are with thier family or back in the States, where thier fellow citizens are.
What do you feel.
| Quote: |
Suicide bombings killed nearly 50 people and wounded dozens in two Shite villages north of Baghdad, including a large truck explosion Saturday that ripped through through an outdoor market and buried victims in rubble.
Eight American troops and a British soldier were killed in fighting over two days.THe blasts suggested that Sunni militants are regrouping to launch thier deadliest form of attack-suicide explosions,often against shiites in regions further away from Baghdad,beyond the edges of a three week old U.S offensive on the capital northern flank.
Violence continued in Baghdad, though at a lower level. A suicide bomber detonated an explosives-packed vehicle near an Iraqi army patrol in an eastern district of the capital, and there were reports of casualties, but the Interior Ministry could not immediately confirm the number.
The truck bombing Saturday morning ripped through a market in the village of Armili north of Baghdad, destroying mud-brick homes and setting cars on fire. Farmers' pickup trucks took the dead and wounded to the nearest health facility, in Tuz Khormato, nearly 30 miles to the north, said Capt. Soran Ali of the Tuz Khormato police.
Police said one man fled the truck before it detonated with another man still inside.
Saleh Ali, a medic at Tuz Khormato hospital, said 25 dead and 100 wounded were brought to the facility.
"Some are still under the rubble with no one to help them. There are no ambulances to evacuate the victims," said Haitham Hadad, a resident who evacuated his wounded cousin in his car to to Tuz Khormato hospital. Dozens of weeping relatives of victims crowded the hospital, searching for loved ones.
At the market, "I saw destruction everywhere, dozens of cars destroyed, about 15 shops and many houses," said Haitham Yalman, whose daughter and sister were wounded.
The village 100 miles north of Baghdad is mainly made up of Shiite Turkomen, an ethnic minority that is spread across north-central Iraq, though most of its members are Sunni Muslim.
The night before, a suicide bomber detonated a boobytrapped car at a funeral in the Shiite Kurdish village of Zargosh, in the Sadiya region of Diyala province about 75 miles northeast of Baghdad, police said.
The blast killed 22 people and wounded 17, said the head of Diyala provincial council, Ibrahim Bajilan, and a police official in the provincial capital of Baqouba, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the press. The village is home to about 30 Kurdish families who had been expelled under Saddam Hussein and returned after his fall.
Initial reports from officials had suggested two suicide bombings took place in the area — the one against the funeral and a second in another Kurdish Shiite village called Ahmad Marif. Officials later said it was the same village, which goes by several names.
"There was a suicide attack against a funeral in the Sadiya area in Diyala," Interior Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf in Baghdad told the Associated Press. "We had no other suicide attacks in Diyala."
Since mid-June, U.S. forces have been waging an offensive in and around Baqouba, part of a stepped-up U.S. crackdown seeking to bring calm to the capital. It aims to uproot al-Qaida fighters and other Sunni insurgents who use the Baqouba region — and another part of Diyala province on Baghdad's southestern edges — as a staging ground for attacks in the capital.
American commanders acknowledge many insurgent leaders fled Baqouba just ahead of the U.S. assault there.
The new back-to-back bombings could mean the militants have moved a step away from the capital.
"Because of the recent American military operations, terrorists found a good hideout in Salahuddin province, especially in the outlying areas where there aren't enough military forces," said Ahmed al-Jubouri, an aide of the province's governor.
The U.S. military on Saturday announced the deaths of eight U.S. servicemembers in combat, most in the Baghdad area.
Four soldiers were killed in two roadside bomb attacks on their patrols, both in the capital, the military said. A U.S. soldier and an Iraqi interpreter were killed Friday when an explosively formed penetrator exploded near their patrol in southeastern Baghdad. Explosively formed penetrators are high-tech bombs that the U.S. believes are provided by Iran, a charge denied by Tehran.
On Thursday, two Marines were killed in western Anbar province and a soldier died in Baghdad, the latest military statement said.
Another soldier died Friday of non battle-related cause and his death is under investigation, the military said without giving further details.
In the far south of Iraq, British troops came under heavy attack by militants in Basra, killing one soldier and wounding three, the British military said Saturday.
Britain has withdrawn hundreds of troops from Iraq, leaving a force of around 5,500 based mainly on the fringes of Basra, Iraq's second-largest city, 340 miles southeast of Baghdad. British bases come under frequent mortar attacks from Shiite militias. The U.S. currently has about 155,000 troops in Iraq.
|
Well, do you have any more advanced theories about why it is right or not other than that they should be home with their families....
What about the people in Iraq for example. Do you in any way feel that their fate is a factor in deciding your opinion?
Sure it would be nice if they could be home with there families, but do you think it is right to just abandon the Iraqis and let the extreme islamists/terrorists to just take control and kill whomever they please.
Yes, the problem is that the USA leaving would not stop the violence.
Unfortunately, if you take away the common enemy, they fight each other.
It seems to me that the only way to keep them in line is to suppress them with an extremely harsh government. (Such as Saddam's)
The old crap about how only the US presence is preventing a civil war has got to dry up soon. The US caused a civil war. It's happening now.
If the invaders leave things may get worse for a while, but they will never get better while an evil presence remains camped in the middle of the country.
Well I don't know anyone that has been/is in that war, so I guess that you maybe kind of care more about this then I do. Of course I feel sorry for all the families that has lost their dear ones in the war... Another reason why I dont support this war.
So no, I dont support this war.
What bothers me is that no one really cares. Sure, people have their opinions and fears, but few people actually have any idea what is going on.
Throwing around 'civil war' and other media words displays this fact.
Precedence for this situation can be found in the Soviet Afghan war. Here, the Soviets invaded in support of the Marxist Afghan government against the Mujahideen. Once the soviets, not before 1 million Afghans where killed http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm#Afghanistan, left the civil war continued.
Like Afghanistan, Iraq would likely break out into war, produce millions of refugees (all the smart people Iraq needs), leaving only the criminals and war lords to run the country.
Regardless of the popularity of the current Iraq war, a full scale Iraq civil war will be less popular and require the US to move back in; possibly right away to prevent genocide, or certainly when the herds of fascist Islamists move in and hatch new attacks on the free world.
The US has troops everywhere. They are needed especially in Iraq. Bringing the troops home essentially throws Iraq to the wolves. It would also stop the re-build projects that will eventually save Iraq. | Bru, stuffce wrote: |
| an evil presence |
So these people (some of them my friends and family, mind you) are 'an evil presence'?
Interesting...
Just out of curiosity, why do you describe them as 'evil'?The Iraq situation is a real catch 22. We've stayed in too long to pull out immediately, cause if we do Iraq will probably plunge into anarchy and chaos without a US presence. BUT if we stay more US soldiers' lives will be wasted in an endless war for oil. Definitely a pickle.
I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of what a soldier is. Arguing that the US should leave Iraq so the soldiers can be home with their families is asinine on so many levels. What about the soldiers risking their lives who are not in Iraq? What about the soldiers that will have to protect the US in the future if current forces leave Iraq?
A soldier essentially replaces numerous warriors. In the old days, every young man and often woman would be on constant alert for hostilities from surrounding ‘tribes.’ This includes attacking neighbors when they become week – if you don’t they will when you are….
So, a soldier is a professional warrior. Just like a farmer with his tractor replaces numerous field hands, today’s professional warrior replaces numerous part-time warriors, including all the men you know.
Their job is to kill and risk their lives. They are an instrument of our governments. They are the muscle that enforces the policies that maintain our freedoms and opportunities.
They can’t do this rotting at home with their families. These men and women aren’t built for that life anyway.
This whole argument for leaving Iraq is illogical. Iraq is at a point where it could finally control its own destiny and we have politicians in the US claiming they speak for the people and will bring the troops home.
Good grief. We don’t hire politicians to count up our opinions. We hire them to figure out what's going on and deal with it properly. I'm afraid Iraq has become a button issue. The arguments like that above can apply to most every war and nearly every country US troops are stationed.
Well.....
No
Because I live in Iran and it's between Iraq and afghanistan. Maybe someday US wants to attak Iran after that 2 countries.
Some of you said that US is controling the violence in Iraq. Isn't it violence that there are a lot of them killed everyday???
Well, rabbani
If your people don't get its government under control an attack on Iran may be the case. It's clean a nuclear Iran isn't something the free world is comfortable with. Not US troops though. More likely air strikes and special forces to dismantle any long range missile instillations.
Personally, I think the Iranian people will deal with the problem its self in good time.
I don’t know who is saying the US is preventing all violence in Iraq. The US troops ARE there preventing violence though. That’s how their getting killed.
From what I understand, one of the entities the US troops are fighting are people coming from Iran. Do you know if this is the case?
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of what a soldier is. Arguing that the US should leave Iraq so the soldiers can be home with their families is asinine on so many levels. What about the soldiers risking their lives who are not in Iraq? What about the soldiers that will have to protect the US in the future if current forces leave Iraq?
A soldier essentially replaces numerous warriors. In the old days, every young man and often woman would be on constant alert for hostilities from surrounding ‘tribes.’ This includes attacking neighbors when they become week – if you don’t they will when you are….
So, a soldier is a professional warrior. Just like a farmer with his tractor replaces numerous field hands, today’s professional warrior replaces numerous part-time warriors, including all the men you know.
Their job is to kill and risk their lives. They are an instrument of our governments. They are the muscle that enforces the policies that maintain our freedoms and opportunities.
They can’t do this rotting at home with their families. These men and women aren’t built for that life anyway.
This whole argument for leaving Iraq is illogical. Iraq is at a point where it could finally control its own destiny and we have politicians in the US claiming they speak for the people and will bring the troops home.
Good grief. We don’t hire politicians to count up our opinions. We hire them to figure out what's going on and deal with it properly. I'm afraid Iraq has become a button issue. The arguments like that above can apply to most every war and nearly every country US troops are stationed. |
let us be clear. The job of a soldier is to fight for his/her country BUT the job of a soldier is never to follow illegal orders.
By serving their country does not make them immune from immorality like we saw at Abu Ghraib prison. | ThePolemistis wrote: |
| horseatingweeds wrote: | I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of what a soldier is. Arguing that the US should leave Iraq so the soldiers can be home with their families is asinine on so many levels. What about the soldiers risking their lives who are not in Iraq? What about the soldiers that will have to protect the US in the future if current forces leave Iraq?
A soldier essentially replaces numerous warriors. In the old days, every young man and often woman would be on constant alert for hostilities from surrounding ‘tribes.’ This includes attacking neighbors when they become week – if you don’t they will when you are….
So, a soldier is a professional warrior. Just like a farmer with his tractor replaces numerous field hands, today’s professional warrior replaces numerous part-time warriors, including all the men you know.
Their job is to kill and risk their lives. They are an instrument of our governments. They are the muscle that enforces the policies that maintain our freedoms and opportunities.
They can’t do this rotting at home with their families. These men and women aren’t built for that life anyway.
This whole argument for leaving Iraq is illogical. Iraq is at a point where it could finally control its own destiny and we have politicians in the US claiming they speak for the people and will bring the troops home.
Good grief. We don’t hire politicians to count up our opinions. We hire them to figure out what's going on and deal with it properly. I'm afraid Iraq has become a button issue. The arguments like that above can apply to most every war and nearly every country US troops are stationed. |
let us be clear. The job of a soldier is to fight for his/her country BUT the job of a soldier is never to follow illegal orders.
By serving their country does not make them immune from immorality like we saw at Abu Ghraib prison. |
Correct. Nor does it give them the ability to see the future or turn stone into gold.
I'm not sure if my writing failed here but I'm not sure how this has to do with that. Abu Ghraib was victim of two criminals who recruited other would be-s. They shamed their rank, corp, country, parents, society, and what ever else. They also get to be in jail....
But on the question of morality and a soldier's choice to follow orders - he has no choice. (if you're about to quote this think it through first, I'm not going to answer any half-thoughts or witty phrases)(not directed to you ThePolemistis, just in general) | horseatingweeds wrote: |
Correct. Nor does it give them the ability to see the future or turn stone into gold.
I'm not sure if my writing failed here but I'm not sure how this has to do with that. Abu Ghraib was victim of two criminals who recruited other would be-s. They shamed their rank, corp, country, parents, society, and what ever else. They also get to be in jail....
But on the question of morality and a soldier's choice to follow orders - he has no choice. (if you're about to quote this think it through first, I'm not going to answer any half-thoughts or witty phrases)(not directed to you ThePolemistis, just in general) |
The illegality wasen't simply limited to the Abu Ghraib incident.
The entire war was illegal.
These soldiers now know it is illegal. Therefore they should stop fighting for an illegal cause. They are following illegal orders until then.
I think it is wrong for you to say these soldiers have no choice. These men are humans, they are not robots following orders. Their duty is to serve their country, and at the same time, in a manner that is morally perceived as acceptable in the law of the War (ie. the abu ghraib incident was wrong).
All men have choices. It is not treason for you to not fight when it you know your country has done wrong. If your career is lost over it, then it shows the lack of true freedom in America. and finally, I would liek to quote you a statement made by Presidents Adam cousin Samuel Adams:
(this quote is aimed at the American generals who encouraged war for the sake of capitalism)
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
This is what America and her constitution was founded on. Your forefathers would be ashamed of the state of America today. You no longer abide by the very ideas on which America was founded - one the worlds best written constitutions.Going home not as war heroes but as family heroes that want to raise their children and have normal lives.
Going home because none sane wants to die stupidly, nor want to kill people or make people suffer.
Going home because of unclear reasons for being there.
I think the solution is to divide the country by three: the Kurds would have part of the north of Iraq, the other parts for Sunits and ... (can't remember the other ones: the ones that had the power). If they can't have an understanding and the civil war remains the best way will be to divide them.
But there's a problem here: UN must be stronger to force the division. UN must be different, with a different internal structure. The old UN needs to be revised and Iraquis need UN help.
Imagine a football game. The Iraqi teams are playing football but a lot of fouls are happening. The crowd isn't happy with that. The referee, called UN, is letting all this happen. Things get more confused when some tourists invade the field. Now the game isn't football anymore, there are too many teams on the field. The referee seems to have forgotten the yellow and red cards. The tourists also make fouls. And the game doesn't change.
ThePolemistis, don't you ever feel silly speaking authoritatively with such poor understanding? Illegal war you say? Why is it illegal?
Also, reply with the context of your quote. It may change its meaning…. Your reference to Abu Ghraib has nothing to do with Iraq but does allude to your understanding of the situation.
In what other empire as strong as the US throughout history would reveal such a crime and punish its servants? This is due to freedom, the freedom of US citizens to hold their leaders accountable. The freedom the rest of the world deserves.
Romaop, the soldiers are their to prevent just that. Splitting the country seems like an easy rout, but it would weaken the country significantly. The US once warred over a similar split as you propose.
Major US forces will be out soon enough. Forces should hopefully remain for the security of the world and the sake of Iraqi people. Don’t listen to the clamoring ignoramuses in the US wanting the soldier to be back ‘with their families.’ These people are entitles to their opinion but they take little time to understand ramifications. The argument for removing troop in the US only considers the US, not Iraq.
Iraq could as easily plunge into civil war or flourish as a gem of the mid-east. The fulcrum is currently held by strong brave men. This is not a war for money or oil. The money spent on military forces compared to possible oil does not support this.
I think your opinion is too much pro american. I think I understand it but it has several weak points. The problem is that a lot of killings is happening. You may say that: that's the cost for a better future Iraq and a better world. Are you sure about that? Vietnam, Korea, ... also were fights for a better world? I think that, when looking back, history tells that wars have got many different sides and points of view.
About the division of Iraq in 3: It's the only way I can see if civil war endures for a long time. Let each culture have its place. If it weakens the area, it's good. Problems should be weakened.
See what happened in Yugoslavia. There was a division and war stopped.
Well, in this case it would be more difficult to divide. It would be hard to satisfy all three new nations. Terrorists would keep undermining peace. But not only them: weapon industry, strategic influence.
The world needs a good referee. USA hasn't got a good ranking for that. UN is better but still not enough. That's why I think UN should revise their internal structure to become a more balanced and acceptable referee of the world.
Hi romaop,
Here is how I see it. Iraq is vastly different from Vietnam and Korea. However, Korea is better off, yes. Had the US not intervened, Crazy Kim would be running the who place.
Vietnam has a complicated history with the west so I won’t go into it here. However, it is poorly comparable to Iraq – especially in its political aspects.
In Iraq we have sectarian criminals, foreign insurgents, an Al Qaeda group, and I’ve heard of some Sadam loyalists. These are the idiots doing the killing. We also have in the political ring, three distinct groups viding for power over the emerging Iraq.
If the US leaves, Iraqi forces will have to deal with the above fighters on their own. I seriously doubt the fighters would quite just because the US leaves…. So, the US presence is preventing killing, not causing it. It is true, if the US never invaded and never removed Sadam, there would not be this killing. However, how will Iraq see this 50 years from now if they manage to get through this stage and become a thriving state comparable to UAE or France or Germany? Personally, I would gladly give my own life to free my children and grand children from an oppressive leader.
Splitting Iraq will weaken it as a country; it will not weaken its violent nature. Do you think the sectarian criminal will stop killing just because there is a political line in the dirt?
Also, a weakened split-up Iraq will be threatened more easily by its neighbors and the main resource, oil, is not equally distributed. I don’t think three Iraqs will prevent civil war. More likely it will cause war between the split states.
The only way to referee is to keep strong forces present, like they are now. The best referee would be a strong Iraqi government.
I think the key to a peaceful Iraq will essentially be found in employing the young men. Currently, fighters are easily recruited among the poor and board. A young man frustrated and unable to provide for his family can easily blame his problems of this or that. An employed young man with his children walking to school every day will virulently appose violence even against a group he hates.
The UN will never be what it was expected to be. It has no credibility. An effective UN would be willing to use force. The UN has shown that its members are more concerned with keeping their jobs than preventing world strife.
The U.S. shouldv'e pulled out of IRAQ back when they caught Saddam. theres just no reason to keep the troops in IRAQ and its certain that they're not welcomed there by all the things you hear about suicide bombers, car bombs, mortar attacks, etc. against U.S. soldiers.
Recently: the U.S. congress has passed a bill that would bring the troops back on October, but the president will VETO it anyways. 
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
Correct. Nor does it give them the ability to see the future or turn stone into gold.
I'm not sure if my writing failed here but I'm not sure how this has to do with that. Abu Ghraib was victim of two criminals who recruited other would be-s. They shamed their rank, corp, country, parents, society, and what ever else. They also get to be in jail....
But on the question of morality and a soldier's choice to follow orders - he has no choice. (if you're about to quote this think it through first, I'm not going to answer any half-thoughts or witty phrases)(not directed to you ThePolemistis, just in general) |
The illegality wasen't simply limited to the Abu Ghraib incident.
The entire war was illegal.
These soldiers now know it is illegal. Therefore they should stop fighting for an illegal cause. They are following illegal orders until then. |
That is your opinion. And I have never met any service member who believes the war to be illegal, although I am sure there are some. However I’d argue that they represent a very, very small minority.
But soldiers can’t disobey an order simply because they think it illegal. They must know that it is illegal. And I do not mean that in their hearts or in their mind they know they are in the right legally. The reason for their disobedience must hold up in a court of law. For some orders, that is simple. An order to murder someone would obviously be illegal, as would an order to torture. However your argument for not serving in Iraq period would not succeed.
To my knowledge, no court has declared the U.S. action in Iraq illegal. Therefore no soldier, sailor, marine, or airman can use that argument as a reason for not serving in that theater of operations. Any service member who attempted to use that argument, while I am sure they would receive a huge amount of support from anti-war groups and leftists, would find themselves, at best, discharged under other than honorable conditions. Their worst-case scenario would find them in a military prison for a period of time before being dishonorably discharged.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| I think it is wrong for you to say these soldiers have no choice. These men are humans, they are not robots following orders. Their duty is to serve their country, and at the same time, in a manner that is morally perceived as acceptable in the law of the War (ie. the abu ghraib incident was wrong). |
Yes, and people were punished for it. I would have proverbially chopped off a few more heads had I been in a position to do so, but that was the army’s call.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| All men have choices. It is not treason for you to not fight when it you know your country has done wrong. If your career is lost over it, then it shows the lack of true freedom in America. |
So you are arguing that in a military service, every member should be able to pick and choose which orders to obey and which ones not to obey based upon their own personal beliefs or feelings at that moment? A military like that would be grossly ineffective, undisciplined and useless! The U.S. military serves a republic, but a democracy it is not. Freedoms taken for granted by civilians do not necessarily exist in the military. Even the rules of law are different. For example in a civilian court a person can only be convicted if the prosecution proves a case beyond a shadow of a doubt. In a military court, the prosecution must only show that a preponderance of the evidence would lead a reasonable person to believe that the accused is guilty. One can have a shadow of a doubt or even several on a military jury and still vote “guilty” if you think the preponderance of the evidence supports it.
If I order someone to do something that has a greater than 90% chance of getting them killed, it’s not natural to say “Aye, sir” and do it. However, men and women must be willing to do so in order for a military to function. I can think of situations where I might order someone to do something that I and they know for a fact will mean their death. And as long as they understand the reason for it, or trust in my judgment and the fact that I would only give that order if there were no other options, they’d do it.
Men and women do have choices. But they also must live with the consequences of those choices. If a service member chooses to disobey an order, they must live with the consequences if the court decides that the order was legal. Likewise, if a person obeys an order that was illegal (even if they believed it to be legal) they must suffer the consequences (e.g. Mai Lai).
Now, if you disobey an order because you believe you are morally right even though legally wrong, then suffering those legal ramifications, even prison time, would be acceptable to you for the sake of your personal honor.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
and finally, I would liek to quote you a statement made by Presidents Adam cousin Samuel Adams:
(this quote is aimed at the American generals who encouraged war for the sake of capitalism)
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. |
First of all, U.S. generals and admirals do not make nor are they allowed to interfere in policy making. Try to find a clip of a general or admiral prior to the invasion arguing before the UN, or the senate, or the congress on why we need to go to war. You won’t, I don’t think. There is a strict separation between the military and civilian authority in the U.S. for a very good reason. Only civilians can make the decision to go to war. Military leaders will argue over how to prosecute a war or even try to dissuade civilian authority from going to war based upon the military scenarios, but you will never see a U.S. military leader arguing for a war unless he or she doesn’t value his or her career (such as General George S. Patton Jr.).
The only way I would apply the Adams quote would be to the Iraqi people. Adams is speaking to those unwilling to fight for freedom and liberty, people who’d rather live under (British) tyranny and enjoy the tranquility of peace no matter what the circumstances rather than fight for what is right and suffer for the cause of liberty.
The people to whom Adams refers would be those Iraqis who look back on Saddam’s rule as better than today. Yes, they love wealth greater than liberty, they prefer the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom. They are fit only to crouch down and lick the hands that feed them. And hopefully Iraqi posterity will forget that they were ever Iraqis.
I’d also apply the quote to those here in America who think as you do, who’d rather the troops come home so we can have peace here in the U.S. They’d rather have comfort, tranquility, and wealth here than do the hard job of what is right, of helping those struggling to secure their own freedoms lest they fall back into tyranny. Furthermore, many of them would rather just stop fighting the Global War on Terror period because it is too hard. They prefer the idea of peace at any cost. They care more about their own comfort and tranquility than they do about what is right.
Yes, you may say that the problems in Iraq exist only because we overthrew Saddam in the first place. That is true. But what we did was good in that we lifted a heavy yoke from the Iraqi people and have given them a chance to breathe the free air. Furthermore, because of our invasion, I think we have a moral obligation to do everything within our power, even sacrifice lives, to help them in their struggle (militarily, socially, and economically). To abandon them before they can secure their own freedom would be dishonorable, disgraceful, and far more immoral than the invasion itself even if it was illegal. We’d simply be adding insult to injury, twisting the knife in the wound.
If they choose to fail after we leave, it must not be because we set them up to fail by leaving them in tatters. We must give them every opportunity to succeed, even if it means U.S. troops in Iraq at some level for the next twenty years. To do less would be a betrayal.
| J-Evil wrote: |
The U.S. shouldv'e pulled out of IRAQ back when they caught Saddam. theres just no reason to keep the troops in IRAQ and its certain that they're not welcomed there by all the things you hear about suicide bombers, car bombs, mortar attacks, etc. against U.S. soldiers.
Recently: the U.S. congress has passed a bill that would bring the troops back on October, but the president will VETO it anyways. |
The senate rejected a bill that would bring the troops home within a specified time frame regardless of conditions in Iraq. Thus the president need not veto anything (and you need not role your eyes). The U.S. Senate already did the right thing.
Respectfully,
M | horseatingweeds wrote: |
ThePolemistis, don't you ever feel silly speaking authoritatively with such poor understanding? Illegal war you say? Why is it illegal?
|
It is not simply my words, It is the words of Kofi Annan, the sec-general of UN.
His words when posed if the US-led invasion was illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."
And certainly the reasons posed by our governments justifying the war, make it no more legal.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
Also, reply with the context of your quote. It may change its meaning…. Your reference to Abu Ghraib has nothing to do with Iraq but does allude to your understanding of the situation.
|
I have picked one atrocity out of many. But the overlying theme is that, the war is illegal.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
In what other empire as strong as the US throughout history would reveal such a crime and punish its servants? This is due to freedom, the freedom of US citizens to hold their leaders accountable. The freedom the rest of the world deserves.
|
Times change. 100 years ago, America did not allow Blacks in her army and now she does. The world has changed since then. America is not simply any other nation, but the only nation which was first founded to be the best democracy in the world, and subsequently it is their duty to therefore to make such freedoms vivid so that they live up to their words.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
Romaop, the soldiers are their to prevent just that. Splitting the country seems like an easy rout, but it would weaken the country significantly. The US once warred over a similar split as you propose.
|
I would agree with you horseatingweeds for a change. By splitting the country, you will be left with more wars in the region and not less. In the long run, this will never yield fruitful and only destabalise further what is already a unstable region.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
Major US forces will be out soon enough. Forces should hopefully remain for the security of the world and the sake of Iraqi people. Don’t listen to the clamoring ignoramuses in the US wanting the soldier to be back ‘with their families.’ These people are entitles to their opinion but they take little time to understand ramifications. The argument for removing troop in the US only considers the US, not Iraq.
|
But just like the invasion, the war against Iraq considered American interests first and not the Iraqis. America is deciding what is best in their interests first, just like any other country would.
The argument for removing troops in Iraq is because of America's failure. More dead Iraqis are dying under American occupation than under Saddams. America is fast becoming the most hated nation of the world, even among affluent nations and her allies.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
Iraq could as easily plunge into civil war or flourish as a gem of the mid-east. The fulcrum is currently held by strong brave men. This is not a war for money or oil. The money spent on military forces compared to possible oil does not support this.
|
The money is not entriely received from oil. It is American companies beenfiting as well that work in Iraq such as those managing mega projects such as contruction, maintaining countries water supplies, building machineries etc etc.
The income is not only through oil, but oil is a part of it. Oil export is the highest it has ever been even under Saddam, and there are plans to increase production. | moonspider wrote: |
That is your opinion. And I have never met any service member who believes the war to be illegal, although I am sure there are some. However I’d argue that they represent a very, very small minority.
|
Thats because theirs is not to reason why, theirs is but to do and die (tennyson), or thats what they're told anyways.
| moonspider wrote: |
But soldiers can’t disobey an order simply because they think it illegal. They must know that it is illegal. And I do not mean that in their hearts or in their mind they know they are in the right legally. The reason for their disobedience must hold up in a court of law. For some orders, that is simple. An order to murder someone would obviously be illegal, as would an order to torture. However your argument for not serving in Iraq period would not succeed.
|
Kofi Annan called for it as illegal. What better authority figure you want to tell the American soldiers that they are fighting a war that is illegal, and now one that was founded on a pack of lies.
I think, by the International organisation such as the UN to call it illegal, would hold value in an independant court of law.
| moonspider wrote: |
To my knowledge, no court has declared the U.S. action in Iraq illegal. Therefore no soldier, sailor, marine, or airman can use that argument as a reason for not serving in that theater of operations. Any service member who attempted to use that argument, while I am sure they would receive a huge amount of support from anti-war groups and leftists, would find themselves, at best, discharged under other than honorable conditions. Their worst-case scenario would find them in a military prison for a period of time before being dishonorably discharged.
|
Like I said, the UN call is sufficient. Further, many MPs in Britain such as former Defence secretary Robin Cook and MP Claire Short called for it to be illegal and subsequently resigned from parliament. MP George Galloway also profoundly calls for it to be illegal.
Any human rights organisation would also call for it to be illegal.
The only people not calling it illegal are the ones that wage war.
| moonspider wrote: |
So you are arguing that in a military service, every member should be able to pick and choose which orders to obey and which ones not to obey based upon their own personal beliefs or feelings at that moment? A military like that would be grossly ineffective, undisciplined and useless! The U.S. military serves a republic, but a democracy it is not. Freedoms taken for granted by civilians do not necessarily exist in the military. Even the rules of law are different. For example in a civilian court a person can only be convicted if the prosecution proves a case beyond a shadow of a doubt. In a military court, the prosecution must only show that a preponderance of the evidence would lead a reasonable person to believe that the accused is guilty. One can have a shadow of a doubt or even several on a military jury and still vote “guilty” if you think the preponderance of the evidence supports it.
|
I did not say that. Every service men should follow orders. But none should follow "ILLEGAL" orders that are deemed to be illegal by the International community, just like the Iraq war was.
| moonspider wrote: |
If I order someone to do something that has a greater than 90% chance of getting them killed, it’s not natural to say “Aye, sir” and do it. However, men and women must be willing to do so in order for a military to function. I can think of situations where I might order someone to do something that I and they know for a fact will mean their death. And as long as they understand the reason for it, or trust in my judgment and the fact that I would only give that order if there were no other options, they’d do it.
Men and women do have choices. But they also must live with the consequences of those choices. If a service member chooses to disobey an order, they must live with the consequences if the court decides that the order was legal. Likewise, if a person obeys an order that was illegal (even if they believed it to be legal) they must suffer the consequences (e.g. Mai Lai).
Now, if you disobey an order because you believe you are morally right even though legally wrong, then suffering those legal ramifications, even prison time, would be acceptable to you for the sake of your personal honor.
|
Again, I iterate, that the calls by the wider and international community should be more binding than those from home. Your American soldiers may have obeyed American orders, but they have ignored the calls of the international community. Tell me which is more important, a biased call by the imperlialist power of war, or the call for war deemed to be illegal by the international community (not to be biased).
| moonspider wrote: |
First of all, U.S. generals and admirals do not make nor are they allowed to interfere in policy making. Try to find a clip of a general or admiral prior to the invasion arguing before the UN, or the senate, or the congress on why we need to go to war. You won’t, I don’t think. There is a strict separation between the military and civilian authority in the U.S. for a very good reason. Only civilians can make the decision to go to war. Military leaders will argue over how to prosecute a war or even try to dissuade civilian authority from going to war based upon the military scenarios, but you will never see a U.S. military leader arguing for a war unless he or she doesn’t value his or her career (such as General George S. Patton Jr.).
|
To say civilians decide on going to war is false. In Britain, we saw the biggest demonstration in Britsh history, larger than the demonstration agianst thatcher. 2 million marched the streets of London in protest against war in Iraq. The British public did not want war. And as I said before, the dossier was sexed up so war was acceptable in the eyes of parliament. parliament decided to take action against Iraq, and not the British people.
| moonspider wrote: |
The only way I would apply the Adams quote would be to the Iraqi people. Adams is speaking to those unwilling to fight for freedom and liberty, people who’d rather live under (British) tyranny and enjoy the tranquility of peace no matter what the circumstances rather than fight for what is right and suffer for the cause of liberty.
|
But the underlying theme of that is that is choice should be made upon moral judgement and not a materialistic one. You should not fight in the name of nationalism, ie. because your country says you shoudl fight, but you should fight in the name of morality, justice and freedoms. The quote also quite easily can be applied to the media, i.e. those who views are corrupted by the U.S. media whos hands are in a few men or those who challenge the media.
However, the quote best serves the very people who went to Iraq to profit from it.
| moonspider wrote: |
The people to whom Adams refers would be those Iraqis who look back on Saddam’s rule as better than today. Yes, they love wealth greater than liberty, they prefer the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom. They are fit only to crouch down and lick the hands that feed them. And hopefully Iraqi posterity will forget that they were ever Iraqis.
|
No one is saying that Saddam's regime was ever good, and to compare that with the current American occupation which is shameful to say the least, and two categories that the Iraqis do not deserve to be classifed under.
No Iraqi and just as equally any other law abiding citizen would like to live under occupation, whether it be under Saddams or even Americans. All people of all creeds want democracy, all want liberty and all prefer the love of freedom for all than the full-hearted service to few.
Hopefully, Iraqis would never like to be attributed to the era of Saddam nor of Americans. Neither of two created liberty for the people or even wealth for the people. Both regimes created poverty and nothing more, a word that cannot fit Adams quote. But the fact is that, America have created a greater poverty for the Iraqi people than Saddam did. And to deduce that the Iraqi people to therefore support Saddam as oppose to Americas is a conclusion made by you without a single understanding of the Iraqi situation.
To be out of poverty is not to be in a state of wealth. The Wealth in Adams quote is one regarding excessive wealth, not the wealth that Iraqis had which sufficed them on their daily bread like in the era of Saddams. Adam's quote does not touch on security: the majority of Iraqis were secure under Saddam (in terms of job and law and order), that is not the case today.
70% Iraqis want American forces out of Iraq, but that does not mean they prefer to live under Saddam. What that means is that they are the very people in which the quote of Samuels does not fit under. They want liberty, and not occupation. Freedom and not dictatorship. Obedience to divine law, and not to kings or puppets.
| moonspider wrote: |
I’d also apply the quote to those here in America who think as you do, who’d rather the troops come home so we can have peace here in the U.S. They’d rather have comfort, tranquility, and wealth here than do the hard job of what is right, of helping those struggling to secure their own freedoms lest they fall back into tyranny. Furthermore, many of them would rather just stop fighting the Global War on Terror period because it is too hard. They prefer the idea of peace at any cost. They care more about their own comfort and tranquility than they do about what is right.
|
Nothing about Iraq has been right, from the initial proposals right to the very conduct in the war, America has not done a single thing right. You put the quote for use with the Americans who did not support war, but the fact is the opposite is true.
By invading Iraq, America has gotton richer. By invading Iraq, America has less freedom (Patriotic Act which goes against Constitution - what America was founded on). By invading Iraq, the few (ie. Congress and media) have deceived the world that war was right, but it turned out to be wrong.
These are the facts, and now the ordinary Americans are paying (through lives), because of how much the few people people deceived them.
| moonspider wrote: |
Yes, you may say that the problems in Iraq exist only because we overthrew Saddam in the first place. That is true. But what we did was good in that we lifted a heavy yoke from the Iraqi people and have given them a chance to breathe the free air. Furthermore, because of our invasion, I think we have a moral obligation to do everything within our power, even sacrifice lives, to help them in their struggle (militarily, socially, and economically). To abandon them before they can secure their own freedom would be dishonorable, disgraceful, and far more immoral than the invasion itself even if it was illegal. We’d simply be adding insult to injury, twisting the knife in the wound.
|
Like I said, no one would say Saddam was a nice guy. And there are plenty other rulers worse than Saddam, whose your administration does not speak about, and some even supports.
Of course, it now becomes compulsory for you, since you waged war against iraq, to help their struggle for militarily, socially, and economically. You promised to liberate the people of Iraq. Now you must fulfil your promise.
If you abandon them now, would be wrong. The best thing America can do is first to ensure than a proper government elected by the people is established. A government that adheres to its people and not to Washington. Not a puppet government like in Afghanistan. A government elected by the people. If that means a Hamas like government then so be it. We can not say what is democracy and what is not, if they were to follow the democractic election ways.
If you give them this, then you can leave that very night and you have done your job, or better said, the best you can possibly do given the current state.
If you stay there like you are now, and install a puppet regime, like you have done so, then you have yourselves to blame. If you want them to succeed, then give them democracy, ie. power to the people, and not power to the puppets.Hi ThePolemistis,
Here is how a good democracy works:
Let's start with a bad or full democracy. MAJORITY RULES This is how the US started out. Right away, the MAJORITY, debtors, rules that all loans should be dissolved. It happened. This showed a weakness in democracy so the US built democratic mechanisms to ensure minority writes.
So, in a good democracy, the majority has a say and the minority is protected, like Moonspider’s sig says.
Further, government is complicated. Deciding to go to war often needs a quick decision. Passing laws can involve hundreds of pages of legislation. So in the US the majority elects representatives and takes indirect part in electing officers who choose other officers and make these tough decisions.
Civilians DO decide to go to war in the US, not military. This is a fundamental mechanism. Thousands of people protesting a war does not negate this. The president and congress, all civilians, make these decisions. The populous hired them to make such decisions.
The US did not go to Iraq for profit nor is the US profiting. That’s just silly.
Also, the war is not illegal. Every war is called illegal by someone. Calling illegal now is only destructive. The US citizens who call is so are entitled to their opinion but they are wrong, in my opinion. I believe they simply choose not to understand what ‘bring the troops home’ will cause.
Also, calling Abu Grab annoys me. It was a crime. The criminals where punished. Abu Grab is an example of freedom, not US atrocities. If it where an atrocity, you wouldn’t have heard about it and it still would be happening.
http://costofwar.com/ Despite the contrary to belief "We don't belong there and BUSH knows that"
My g/f just heard the news today about her now DOA husband
My friends have past.
Heart goes out the families. Too many people getting hurt over nothing. Yes, I know revenge on 911 that was a [STATE SPONSERED ATTACK - OUR COUNTRY / GOVERNMENT WAS BEHIND THOSE ATTACK] doesn't take BRAINS to figure that out. Then you have those who are BRAINWASHED from the NEWS.
If you Watch V for Vendetta [ PRIME EXAMPLE to make the country a POLICE STATE by a STATE SPONSERED ATTACK] | ThePolemistis wrote: |
Kofi Annan called for it as illegal. What better authority figure you want to tell the American soldiers that they are fighting a war that is illegal, and now one that was founded on a pack of lies.
I think, by the International organisation such as the UN to call it illegal, would hold value in an independant court of law.
Like I said, the UN call is sufficient. Further, many MPs in Britain such as former Defence secretary Robin Cook and MP Claire Short called for it to be illegal and subsequently resigned from parliament. MP George Galloway also profoundly calls for it to be illegal.
Any human rights organisation would also call for it to be illegal.
The only people not calling it illegal are the ones that wage war.
I did not say that. Every service men should follow orders. But none should follow "ILLEGAL" orders that are deemed to be illegal by the International community, just like the Iraq war was. |
The opinions of the president of the United Nations, members of parliament, or anyone else outside the United States have no legal precedent inside the U.S. (or any other country for that matter). I don’t know where you get the notion that it matters. The president of the UN can say whatever he wants, but his opinion is no more a basis for U.S. legality than the 85 year old widow who lives next door to me here in California. That’s just silly. The only precedents regarding law in the U.S. are laws passed by the federal governments and various states and the decisions of judges. The U.S. (or any other country) is not subject to any other entity. There is no entity greater than the sovereignty of a nation. The U.N. is not a governing authority, and Americans decided in the 18th Century not to regard Britain as one.
So, in short, unless the U.S. Supreme Court rules it illegal, it is legal. Furthermore, the only court that can rule a military order illegal is a military court. So any soldier who disobeys an order must rely on a military court to decide if he or she was in the right to do so.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| Again, I iterate, that the calls by the wider and international community should be more binding than those from home. Your American soldiers may have obeyed American orders, but they have ignored the calls of the international community. Tell me which is more important, a biased call by the imperlialist power of war, or the call for war deemed to be illegal by the international community (not to be biased). |
U.S. soldiers answer only to U.S. officers unless part of an agreed joint command. Thus they do not, will not, and should never care what the international community thinks! That is ludicrous. They swore an oath to the U.S. constitution. They owe no allegiance to or are obligated by duty or law in any way except to the authorities appointed over them by the President of the United States. That is true of any country’s military forces! What you argue would be considered treasonous.
A citizen of any country that has a greater loyalty to some other country or super-national authority is traitorous and cannot be entrusted with national duty, IMHO.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| To say civilians decide on going to war is false. In Britain, we saw the biggest demonstration in Britsh history, larger than the demonstration agianst thatcher. 2 million marched the streets of London in protest against war in Iraq. The British public did not want war. And as I said before, the dossier was sexed up so war was acceptable in the eyes of parliament. parliament decided to take action against Iraq, and not the British people. |
No, it is not false. As horseeatingweeds already pointed out, the House of Representatives and the Senate are civilians, as is the President of the United States. Thus, civilians decide whether or not to go to war. The military simply carries out policies and decisions made by the National Command Authority (NCA, the president and the SECDEF) both civilians. And war can only be decided upon by congress (civilians).
As for public opinion, I don’t know about you but I don’t elect people because I want them to try and follow the majority in every poll taken by Tom, Dick, and Harry. I vote for people to lead. I haven’t the time to sit through hours of testimonies and read volumes of material on matters of national and international policy, interstate laws, farm subsidies, welfare, healthcare, tariffs, education, commerce, intelligence, go through multi-billion dollar budgets, meet with people at the State Department, Defense Department, CIA, FBI, cabinet members, etc., etc. That is what I elected them to do! I vote for people whom I believe probably think along the same wavelength as me and will thus make decisions similar to what I’d decide if given the same information. I have no respect for a politician who follows polls! They are wasting my money and are unfit for office. If they want to simply follow public opinion they can get a job counting heads in a movie theatre and let someone willing to take some responsibility and lead sit in congress or the White House.
Unfortunately, I must sign off. But I must add that I don’t know where you get the idea that the United States is profiting from this war. It is costing us billions of dollars a month, as well as the lives of men and women. Sure, individuals and individual companies will make money off of the war. Some people always profit in a war, always have. (A company manufacturing tanks or bullets isn't going to be in business long if they can't turn a profit! The same goes for coffee companies that are doing well because of shipping to Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, etc.) But the nation as a whole is not.
Respectfully,
MWe need to stay there until the threat of the radical Islamic Muslims using it as a base to spread more terror is gone.
Period. 
Definately the war was illegal. We were sold this lemon by being lied to about hte capability of WMD on the part of IRAQ. I also heard somewhere that 35% of Americans beleive that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9.11 when in fact, he and bin laden were ideologically opposed.
That said, the past not being able to be undone, it strikes me as really odd that a country thats supposedly under control of a western-friendly government, that so much military hardware is being smuggled in for hte purposes of sniper attacks and bombing.
One would assume that the country has strict border patrols If I were in charge of Iraq the first thing I would do would be to limit and audit the military hardware that's in the country having very tight border controls on what's coming into the country, rather than trying to fight off and kill the insurgents. The latter will always be there, as Iraq is factionalised and won't wear any of the 3 possible regimes.
Starving them of the means for terror attacks would be the most effective weapon against them.
To both of Moonspider and horseatingweed:
Firstly, I would like to say that when it comes to international condemnation, the UN is the best organisation we have. The role of the UN in deciding whether a war is illegal or not, is independently governed in accordance with international laws.
Under international law, the war in Iraq was illegal
Moonspider states that it has no effect under the US system. Of ocurse it won't. The US court looks at the criminal activities under American soil. That is why we cannot trial the Guantanamo detainees in America or Britain, because under British law, I know, interegation of detainees is illegal. Why do you think the detainees are in prisons in Cuba when they are "supposedly" convicted of crimes on Pakistani, Afghanistani or American soil.
Similarly, when the notion of war is called, the US supreme court decides the legality of war for American citizens or on American soil with American intelligience services. But as we both know, a war is not between one nation, but two or more. So the only valid organisation is an international one, and the UN is the best example.
Whether the UN has precedence over American laws is besides the issue, but for your information, in some cases it does (e.g. under a UN Security resolution). However, UN's decision is based on fairness. So in terms of morality-- I think the UN decision is much heavier than that of a US one.
Any nation that is an aggressor would never call a war that it has waged as illegal, except in perhaps extreme circumstances, but taht would be in the interest of American citizens and not the innocent ones they are killing. Your idea that the war is thus legal shows an obtuse view. The UN views are in accordance to International Law. America's war is illegal under international law.
If you think it is acceptable to violate International Law, then so be it. International Law purpose calls for morality in warfare. If America cannot even abide by this, it shows that America is not the country it was founded on, but a country that has no value and no concerns for the innocent people outside her boundries.
America supports democracy around the world, but it cannot give democracy and the right to a fair trial to the prisoners of gunatanamo bay, or even respond to the International call for an end of the illegal war in Iraq.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
To both of Moonspider and horseatingweed:
Firstly, I would like to say that when it comes to international condemnation, the UN is the best organisation we have. The role of the UN in deciding whether a war is illegal or not, is independently governed in accordance with international laws.
Under international law, the war in Iraq was illegal
Moonspider states that it has no effect under the US system. Of ocurse it won't. The US court looks at the criminal activities under American soil. That is why we cannot trial the Guantanamo detainees in America or Britain, because under British law, I know, interegation of detainees is illegal. Why do you think the detainees are in prisons in Cuba when they are "supposedly" convicted of crimes on Pakistani, Afghanistani or American soil.
Similarly, when the notion of war is called, the US supreme court decides the legality of war for American citizens or on American soil with American intelligience services. But as we both know, a war is not between one nation, but two or more. So the only valid organisation is an international one, and the UN is the best example.
Whether the UN has precedence over American laws is besides the issue, but for your information, in some cases it does (e.g. under a UN Security resolution). However, UN's decision is based on fairness. So in terms of morality-- I think the UN decision is much heavier than that of a US one.
Any nation that is an aggressor would never call a war that it has waged as illegal, except in perhaps extreme circumstances, but taht would be in the interest of American citizens and not the innocent ones they are killing. Your idea that the war is thus legal shows an obtuse view. The UN views are in accordance to International Law. America's war is illegal under international law.
If you think it is acceptable to violate International Law, then so be it. International Law purpose calls for morality in warfare. If America cannot even abide by this, it shows that America is not the country it was founded on, but a country that has no value and no concerns for the innocent people outside her boundries.
America supports democracy around the world, but it cannot give democracy and the right to a fair trial to the prisoners of gunatanamo bay, or even respond to the International call for an end of the illegal war in Iraq. |
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I ever called the war "legal." That is a seperate argument. I was only arguing your notion that a U.S. service member has grounds to disobey an order to serve as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom because they believe the war, and therefore the orders, are illegal. I cannot see any legal basis or precedent for a service member to make that argument.
Respectfully,
M It must be a horrible feeling for our troops in Iraq. you have a country filled with people that want to kill you! The psycholoigcal effects of these living condiitons will stay with those soldiers for life. Talk about post traumatic stress disorder...
If the majority of Iraqi's greeted the troops with flowers and sex, like the french did when we liberated them from the nazi's I would support the cause. They were greeted with Ied's and suicide bombers. We now know the truth about why we invaded, it's time we leave and admit all our soldiers have died in vain, just like we did in vietnam.
Of course not !
The longer American stays in Iraq, The more dangerous the army will have !
| Moonspider wrote: |
| ThePolemistis wrote: | To both of Moonspider and horseatingweed:
Firstly, I would like to say that when it comes to international condemnation, the UN is the best organisation we have. The role of the UN in deciding whether a war is illegal or not, is independently governed in accordance with international laws.
Under international law, the war in Iraq was illegal
Moonspider states that it has no effect under the US system. Of ocurse it won't. The US court looks at the criminal activities under American soil. That is why we cannot trial the Guantanamo detainees in America or Britain, because under British law, I know, interegation of detainees is illegal. Why do you think the detainees are in prisons in Cuba when they are "supposedly" convicted of crimes on Pakistani, Afghanistani or American soil.
Similarly, when the notion of war is called, the US supreme court decides the legality of war for American citizens or on American soil with American intelligience services. But as we both know, a war is not between one nation, but two or more. So the only valid organisation is an international one, and the UN is the best example.
Whether the UN has precedence over American laws is besides the issue, but for your information, in some cases it does (e.g. under a UN Security resolution). However, UN's decision is based on fairness. So in terms of morality-- I think the UN decision is much heavier than that of a US one.
Any nation that is an aggressor would never call a war that it has waged as illegal, except in perhaps extreme circumstances, but taht would be in the interest of American citizens and not the innocent ones they are killing. Your idea that the war is thus legal shows an obtuse view. The UN views are in accordance to International Law. America's war is illegal under international law.
If you think it is acceptable to violate International Law, then so be it. International Law purpose calls for morality in warfare. If America cannot even abide by this, it shows that America is not the country it was founded on, but a country that has no value and no concerns for the innocent people outside her boundries.
America supports democracy around the world, but it cannot give democracy and the right to a fair trial to the prisoners of gunatanamo bay, or even respond to the International call for an end of the illegal war in Iraq. |
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I ever called the war "legal." That is a seperate argument. I was only arguing your notion that a U.S. service member has grounds to disobey an order to serve as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom because they believe the war, and therefore the orders, are illegal. I cannot see any legal basis or precedent for a service member to make that argument.
Respectfully,
M |
I think by International Law calling for a war to be illegal, makes those who created punishable by war crimes. Further, it is moral duty of every and any soldier, to fight in accordance to International Law.First of all: Welcome to the Discuss World News section of Frihost. Please read the rules relating to citing sources.
| Quote: |
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-6378.html
QUOTE YOUR SOURCES OR YOUR POST WILL BE REMOVED! |
Particularly about these, um, opinions which you are trying to pass off as fact...
| j_f_k wrote: |
| Definately the war was illegal. |
| Quote: |
| We were sold this lemon by being lied to about hte capability of WMD on the part of IRAQ. |
...so I can show you evidence that counters those (amusing) fallacies. Mkthks.
Also:
| Quote: |
If I were in charge of Iraq the first thing I would do would be to limit and audit the military hardware that's in the country having very tight border controls on what's coming into the country, rather than trying to fight off and kill the insurgents. The latter will always be there, as Iraq is factionalised and won't wear any of the 3 possible regimes.
Starving them of the means for terror attacks would be the most effective weapon against them. |
Yeah. Sure you would, kid.
You'd control the endless hundreds of miles of hellish terrain in those mountains. You'd find every single thing that could be used to make an IED. You'd obviously do better than the thousands of commanders that are trained for this very purpose but hare having their hands tied by bureaucrats who are doing everything they can to make one man look bad.
Sure, kid. Sure. | Billy Hill wrote: |
First of all: Welcome to the Discuss World News section of Frihost. Please read the rules relating to citing sources.
| Quote: | http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-6378.html
QUOTE YOUR SOURCES OR YOUR POST WILL BE REMOVED! |
Particularly about these, um, opinions which you are trying to pass off as fact...
| j_f_k wrote: | | Definately the war was illegal. |
| Quote: | | We were sold this lemon by being lied to about hte capability of WMD on the part of IRAQ. |
...so I can show you evidence that counters those (amusing) fallacies. Mkthks.
Also:
| Quote: |
If I were in charge of Iraq the first thing I would do would be to limit and audit the military hardware that's in the country having very tight border controls on what's coming into the country, rather than trying to fight off and kill the insurgents. The latter will always be there, as Iraq is factionalised and won't wear any of the 3 possible regimes.
Starving them of the means for terror attacks would be the most effective weapon against them. |
Yeah. Sure you would, kid.
You'd control the endless hundreds of miles of hellish terrain in those mountains. You'd find every single thing that could be used to make an IED. You'd obviously do better than the thousands of commanders that are trained for this very purpose but hare having their hands tied by bureaucrats who are doing everything they can to make one man look bad.
Sure, kid. Sure. |
The illegality of war can be seen by the Kofi Annan statement in which I have already cited before, read previous comments. I don't think j_f_k would need to re-iterate sources I have already given.
Regarding No WMD being found: This is as common as telling me to provide evidence for proof of Nazi losing WWII. Again, I do not think j_f_k would need to provide evidence for it. But if you are not aware, then check out http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm where it clearly states "Iraq had no stockpiles of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons before last year's US-led invasion, the chief US weapons inspector has concluded. "
So my final word: American soldiers are dying for a war that was based on a pack of lies. I feel sorry that they were deceived into believing that they came to bring democracy into a region that had much more democracy than it does today. All Americans should wake up and stand against the tyrannical Bush. | ThePolemistis wrote: |
| Moonspider wrote: |
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I ever called the war "legal." That is a seperate argument. I was only arguing your notion that a U.S. service member has grounds to disobey an order to serve as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom because they believe the war, and therefore the orders, are illegal. I cannot see any legal basis or precedent for a service member to make that argument.
Respectfully,
M |
I think by International Law calling for a war to be illegal, makes those who created punishable by war crimes. Further, it is moral duty of every and any soldier, to fight in accordance to International Law. |
To what body are you referring when you say, “by International Law calling for a war to be illegal?”
Yes, there are numerous international laws and treaties, and I agree whole heartedly that the member nations, including the United States, should abide by those laws and treaties to which they are signatories.
However, I know of no law or resolution which states that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was illegal. The opinion of the UN president carries no more legal weight with regard to international law than the opinion of the US president in the United States does to U.S. federal law.
Here are a couple of links to websites which I often use. Please let me know if you are able to cite a specific law or resolution that labels the US-led invasion of Iraq illegal. Without it, a U.S. service member is in no legal position to disobey an order to deploy to the Iraq AO.
http://www.un.org/law/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/un/index.html
Respectfully,
M | Moonspider wrote: |
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | Moonspider wrote: |
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I ever called the war "legal." That is a seperate argument. I was only arguing your notion that a U.S. service member has grounds to disobey an order to serve as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom because they believe the war, and therefore the orders, are illegal. I cannot see any legal basis or precedent for a service member to make that argument.
Respectfully,
M |
I think by International Law calling for a war to be illegal, makes those who created punishable by war crimes. Further, it is moral duty of every and any soldier, to fight in accordance to International Law. |
To what body are you referring when you say, “by International Law calling for a war to be illegal?”
Yes, there are numerous international laws and treaties, and I agree whole heartedly that the member nations, including the United States, should abide by those laws and treaties to which they are signatories.
However, I know of no law or resolution which states that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was illegal. The opinion of the UN president carries no more legal weight with regard to international law than the opinion of the US president in the United States does to U.S. federal law.
Here are a couple of links to websites which I often use. Please let me know if you are able to cite a specific law or resolution that labels the US-led invasion of Iraq illegal. Without it, a U.S. service member is in no legal position to disobey an order to deploy to the Iraq AO.
http://www.un.org/law/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/un/index.html
Respectfully,
M |
Firstly, what Kofi Annan stated is not his opinion, to state his quote again he says (underlining keypoints): "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal. "
Also, to supplicate that, I provide you with this statement:
| http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2006/0825bushstandtrial.htm wrote: |
A chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg has said George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein. Benjamin Ferenccz, who secured convictions for 22 Nazi officers for their work in orchestrating the death squads that killed more than 1 million people, told OneWorld both Bush and Saddam should be tried for starting "aggressive" wars - Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.
"Nuremberg declared that aggressive war is the supreme international crime," the 87-year-old Ferenccz told OneWorld from his home in New York. He said the United Nations charter, which was written after the carnage of World War II, contains a provision that no nation can use armed force without the permission of the UN Security Council. |
Emphasising: He said the United Nations charter, which was written after the carnage of World War II, contains a provision that no nation can use armed force without the permission of the UN Security Council. | ThePolemistis wrote: |
| Moonspider wrote: | To what body are you referring when you say, “by International Law calling for a war to be illegal?”
Yes, there are numerous international laws and treaties, and I agree whole heartedly that the member nations, including the United States, should abide by those laws and treaties to which they are signatories.
However, I know of no law or resolution which states that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was illegal. The opinion of the UN president carries no more legal weight with regard to international law than the opinion of the US president in the United States does to U.S. federal law.
Here are a couple of links to websites which I often use. Please let me know if you are able to cite a specific law or resolution that labels the US-led invasion of Iraq illegal. Without it, a U.S. service member is in no legal position to disobey an order to deploy to the Iraq AO.
http://www.un.org/law/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/un/index.html
Respectfully,
M |
Firstly, what Kofi Annan stated is not his opinion, to state his quote again he says (underlining keypoints): "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal. "
Also, to supplicate that, I provide you with this statement:
| http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2006/0825bushstandtrial.htm wrote: |
A chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg has said George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein. Benjamin Ferenccz, who secured convictions for 22 Nazi officers for their work in orchestrating the death squads that killed more than 1 million people, told OneWorld both Bush and Saddam should be tried for starting "aggressive" wars - Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.
"Nuremberg declared that aggressive war is the supreme international crime," the 87-year-old Ferenccz told OneWorld from his home in New York. He said the United Nations charter, which was written after the carnage of World War II, contains a provision that no nation can use armed force without the permission of the UN Security Council. |
Emphasising: He said the United Nations charter, which was written after the carnage of World War II, contains a provision that no nation can use armed force without the permission of the UN Security Council. |
My first argument is the same I made earlier, the opinion of the UN president has no legal bearing. His opinion is simply how he interprets the application of a law or an agreement. In legal terms, the only opinions in a governmental entity with a judiciary system separate from other governing authority are that of judges. In a dictatorship, yes the opinion of the president, king, queen or what have you does have the weight of law. Not in the United States and certainly not in the United Nations.
Even a supreme court justice in the U.S. can state how he/she feels a law should be applied without it meaning anything legally until the supreme court rules on it. That justice may even have the minority opinion once the decision is made, making his/her legal opinion moot.
As for Mr. Ferenccz’s statement regarding Nuremberg and “aggressive war,” the term is taken entirely out of context and is thus not applicable to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.
At Nuremberg, the first count was “Conspiracy to Wage Aggressive War.” This count was designed to address crimes committed before the opening of hostilities in 1939. Specifically, it demonstrated that prior to the war Hitler and others planned to commit crimes during the war.
Count Two was the one to which I am sure Ferenccz indicted the United States for its 2003 invasion. It accused the Axis defendants of “Waging Aggressive War.” “Waging Aggressive War” was defined as “the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances.” This primarily applied to the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact, which renounced war as an instrument of international policy. This treaty is still in effect and includes the United States as a signatory. We are therefore legally bound by it according to Article 6 of the United States Constitution.
It applies to nations attacking other nations for national gain, such as the acquisition of territory. The pact does not prevent a nation from acting in self-defense. One can argue, as I would in accordance with the laws governing war, that this includes anticipatory self-defense. Anticipatory self-defense was the argument used by the United States and her allies for the invasion of Iraq. Therefore, to prove that the US acted illegally in a war of aggression, one must prove that the US intended to gain territory, which it did not, or that the US simply attacked for some other reason than anticipatory self-defense.
Secondly, according to Article 39 of the UN Charter, it is the UN Security Council that determines if an act of aggression occurred.
Since the entire Bush Doctrine is based upon the legal notion of anticipatory self-defense, one cannot use U.S. public policy or any documents that I know to exist to defend an indictment against the administration. There’s no proverbial “smoking gun” that says, “We are invading Iraq to make money, for revenge, etc. This whole WMD thing is a ruse.”
The only way one could legally prove wrong-doing with regard to the Iraq invasion would be to prove that the intelligence was not simply wrong, but that all involved knew that no WMDs or any other such threat existed, had no fear that any weapons technology or assistance of any kind to U.S. enemies would occur, and thus knew for a fact that Hussein posed no threat to the security of the United States. Furthermore, one would have to prove that all the evidence used to justify the war was fabricated or “sexed-up” as you have put it with the full knowledge that, as I said, no such threat existed.
I don’t think this is a legal measure that any prosecutor could meet. There are too many UN resolutions, claims of lack of cooperation by inspectors, evidence of Hussein attempting to hide his true capabilities, concerns by other intelligence agencies, etc. Any defense lawyer could easily use these as a basis for the Bush Administration feeling obligated to act in self-defense. It is not as if the U.S. came up with these intelligence claims in a vacuum.
Ferenccz's last statement which you emphasized at the end only summarizes a portion of UN Charter Article 51. 51 does allow states to act in self-defense, which many interpret to include anticipatory self-defense.
All that being said, I can argue the Iraq war as legal or illegal with equal vehemence using the exact same evidence and laws, and am therefore not interested in debating it. I personally feel it to be legal, however.
Yet, like I said above, I don't think any prosecutor could win a war-crimes case except in the most sympathetic and biased of courtrooms. And therefore, to the point of the whole argument, since there has been no legal decision calling the war illegal, no US service member has a legal leg to stand on if they choose to disobey a deployment order to Iraq.
Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928): http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/kbpact/kbmenu.htm
Nuremberg References:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/v1menu.htm
UN Charter: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
Respectfully,
MMoonspider, you're doing great --but why not include specific reference to UN SC resolutions, starting with Desert Storm in 1991, after Saddam attacked and occupied Kuwait? Then there were some 15 additional UN SC resolutions condeming various acts and non-compliance issues of Saddam. With, 1641 (?) in October, 2002, requiring Saddam to document his WMD compliance.
I remember the Feb. 2003 Blix report to the UN, where the UN investigators were supposed to explain how Saddam had disposed of his prior weapons, and documented that disposal.
The burden of proof was on Saddam.
He failed. Blix did not find WMDs, but also did not find evidence that Saddam had gotten rid of everything.
There is not any UN SC resolution declaring the US liberation as illegal. At the UN, the closes to a legally binding decision is a UN SC resolution.
That said, the US should stay until the Iraqi people elect politicians able to work with each other. But they should reduce their "aid", and replace it with loans to cities, so the local city politicians can solve their own local problems.
Should have never went, now you are stuck.
You probably need to stay and finish the job now, as best as you can.
Good Luck!
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Bru, stuffce wrote: | | an evil presence |
So these people (some of them my friends and family, mind you) are 'an evil presence'?
Interesting...
Just out of curiosity, why do you describe them as 'evil'? |
Soory I took so long to reply.
The answer is that I tend to judge by acts rather than words. If someone, anyone, comes into a foreign country on a pretext and kills or allows/causes to be killed hundreds of thousands of that country's people, mainly civilians, they are evil. I don't care if the stated objective was to give everyone a fluffy bunny and a $1,000 note, the end result is a lot of dead Iraqi civilians.
Think about your own country; if an army of, let's say Chinese, came to your country proposing to kill your Prime Minister and free you by destroying your infrastructure and killing you by the thousands, leaving around a third of the country starving and poor. Would you:
A. Oppose them
B. Fight them
C. Despise them
D. All of the above
I would answer D. And I consider it perfectly normal for ordinary Iraqis to do the same. | LumberJack wrote: |
Should have never went, now you are stuck.
You probably need to stay and finish the job now, as best as you can.
Good Luck! |
Rhyming debate? Excellent.
You started a war on the word of an arse,
In order to enrich the US upper class.
Now loads of children and women are dead,
What's going on in your president's head? | TomGrey wrote: |
Moonspider, you're doing great --but why not include specific reference to UN SC resolutions, starting with Desert Storm in 1991, after Saddam attacked and occupied Kuwait? Then there were some 15 additional UN SC resolutions condeming various acts and non-compliance issues of Saddam. With, 1641 (?) in October, 2002, requiring Saddam to document his WMD compliance.
|
Sure. I think I've posted this link before (possibly elsewhere). This should be an exhaustive list.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/un/index.html
Respectfully,
Mlol.... damn... wrote it... had to sign in again to submit it... and theb it lost it all... 
I will write a response again once I have time,, soon hopefully!!
sory about that | ThePolemistis wrote: |
lol.... damn... wrote it... had to sign in again to submit it... and theb it lost it all...
I will write a response again once I have time,, soon hopefully!!
sory about that |
lol. That's why I usually write mine in MS Word, save them, and then copy and paste it into the post. At least for the long ones!
MBru, you talk about:
| Quote: |
| kills or allows/causes to be killed |
as if they're the same.
They are not, and not even so close. Killing involves pulling the trigger, using the knife. Allowing others to kill involves NOT killing or using violence to stop these others.
No other country's soldiers can liberate a people and, without those people's active cooperation, stop terrorists among the people. Terrorists kill, and kill those who oppose them, and even those who the terrorists think oppose them. Easier, and safer, to do what the terrorists say and do nothing against the terrorist.
If you can think of some non-evil way for a humane army to stop terrorism, "we'd all love to hear the plan."
I don't think the US is evil in allowing the Janjaweed in Darfur to murder thousands, and make perhaps a million be homeless. I think the world, and Darfur, would be a much better place if the US military took over in Sudan and instituted regime change, but it's not evil that the US gov't (we?) allows an evil Sudanese gov't to kill its own people.
It wasn't evil for the US, and the Dem Party, to make a 1973-74 law restricting the ability of the US president to send troops back to Vietnam after the Paris Peace; it wasn't evil to cut funding for the S. Viet allies. It WAS evil when the commies took over and killed so many, and sent so many to re-education camps; and the commie Killing Fields of Cambodia, allowed by the Dems, was evil by the commies.
Allowing evil people to do evil is bad policy, but not evil itself. Of course, it seems you'd be happy to allow the evil Iraqis to murder the non-evil ones as long as the US leaves, or do I misunderstand you? Even with the US gone from Iraq, there will still be continued violence for a long long time. They can't even live in peace among themselves with all the sectarian violence long before the war started. It's true that no one likes to feel 'occupied' but what they are doing to their own country will not help one bit to make it a better place to live. They continue to destroy their own infrastructure and kill their own people. Very sad indeed... 
On the "not wanting to be occupied" -- why not leave Germany and Japan (after 60+ years) before leaving Iraq? Two of the 10 richest countries, surely they don't need to free ride on US defense.
Comparing the US Army presence in Germany, where it is almost useless, with Iraq, where it truly protects those Iraqis who are pro-US, pro-democracy, the good being done seems a lot more in Iraq.
Plus the Surge is working! To help Iraqis finally start fighting, and killing terrorists, themselves.
