Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,586 Year: 2,843/9,624 Month: 688/1,588 Week: 94/229 Day: 5/61 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Only have ourselves to blame" NO!
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 76 of 112 (163455)
11-27-2004 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by nator
11-27-2004 8:25 AM


Well, I certainly agree that Iraq was not an imminent threat, and IMHO Iraq was not even a major threat. I believe invading Iraq was dumb, stupid, counter productive, reduced our national security, increased our risk and exposure and was immoral, but I don't think it was illegal.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by nator, posted 11-27-2004 8:25 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Silent H, posted 11-27-2004 6:14 PM jar has not replied
 Message 80 by contracycle, posted 11-29-2004 5:25 AM jar has replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4540 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 77 of 112 (163457)
11-27-2004 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by nator
11-27-2004 8:25 AM


quote:
I believe that the Iraq invasion was illegal.
Iraq was not an imminent threat.
It's not even a matter of belief. It is clear that the decision to invade was made long before it was announced, and that all the actions leading up to it were simply for the sake of generating enough popular support to get things rolling. Once it began and we were committed, you could watch the whole ball of lies fall to pieces with every new press release, because the facade couldn't be maintained any longer. Nor did it matter - our hat was over the fence, for better or for worse.
The problem is that international law is very much a might-makes-right arena. Our leaders chose to play judge, jury, and executioner, and who was going to stop us? Even now, we seem to feel that we can act with impunity, that our blundering and callous arrogance will never come back to us. In the long run we will be proven wrong, but I doubt those alive today will see the worst of it.
(edited for stupid typo)
This message has been edited by zephyr, 11-27-2004 09:30 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by nator, posted 11-27-2004 8:25 AM nator has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 78 of 112 (163557)
11-27-2004 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by jar
11-27-2004 9:22 AM


I don't think it was illegal.
It was illegal. There is really no way to get around that fact. I believe I posted a link or two before or shortly after the invasion began, where "experts" in international law discussed its legal status as well as what it takes to "legally" attack another nation.
Kofi Anan pointed out its illegal nature once again just within the last month or so.
As Zephyr rightfully pointed out though, this is pretty much a might makes right scenario. While it was unquestionably illegal, and if it had been commited by any other nation (except perhaps Israel) the US would have condemned them for it, in this case nothing is going to happen.
There is no group powerful enough to bring us to justice... or willing to risk what that would take over an invasion, however illegal, which toppled someone that was not anyone's friend.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by jar, posted 11-27-2004 9:22 AM jar has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 112 (163814)
11-29-2004 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Silent H
11-26-2004 3:17 PM


quote:
What I said is that the US is better than many nations when it comes to human rights. There are a heck of a lot of countries out there and the US is better than many.
The last figures I saw gave the US the same Human Rights rating as Pakistan, below all other OECD nations.
quote:
I'm not leaping to an assumption of hyperbole. Your comments regarding what life is like and what citizens are like in the US are patently hyperbolic.
Yes, you ARE leaping to an assumption of hyperbole. You are ASSUMING it cannot possibly be true. On what basis? Why do you discount peoples actual experiences?
quote:
The portrait of the US that you paint is not just incongruous with how US citizens see themselves (which I agree is distorted, especially in the media), but it is incongruous with reality.
Why? You keep making this claim; no matter what evidence is presented of the hyper-nationalistic near-fascism of the US you simply refuse to acknowledge it. Click on CNN - find adverts for American flags. Why must nationalism be hammered home with such extreme vigour?
Van you please explain how this state, if it is not completely insane, has managed to turn the Kyoto treaty into an Us vs. Them struggle? Or how some republicans are now going round accusing the UN of harbouring terrorists becuase it fails to fall slavishly into line behind the US, and are calling for its expulsion? These are all the hallmarks of national absolutism, not a country that is even at the average level of self-awareness.
Well then - if you refuse to heed my advice, do not be surprised that the US is so hated for its brutality and hypocrisy, and do not be surprised when I describe the US in an unflattering light. I will most certainly NOT be held to your self-delusiosn, and if I see the US as an oligarchy and a grave terrorist state, I will describe it as both of those and not be blackmailed into watering down that analysis merely becuase you affect to find them offensive or hyperbolic.
I do not call for the US president and serving soliders in Iraq to be brought before the Hague Tribunal or the ICC to make a hyperbolic point, but because I think that is necessary for the stability of the world and its justice systems. And I'd be willing to bet there are many times more people in the world who share my view of the US than yours.
As I have already said, you must deal with the reality. The USA is hateful place that spreads death and destruction around the g

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Silent H, posted 11-26-2004 3:17 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Silent H, posted 11-29-2004 8:36 AM contracycle has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 112 (163815)
11-29-2004 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by jar
11-27-2004 9:22 AM


quote:
Well, I certainly agree that Iraq was not an imminent threat, and IMHO Iraq was not even a major threat. I believe invading Iraq was dumb, stupid, counter productive, reduced our national security, increased our risk and exposure and was immoral, but I don't think it was illegal.
Well fore those of us who are slow, would you care to explain what legal basis it had? Becuase there is absolutely none in international law, and direct proscriptions against invading soverign states. So on what basis can it possibly be legal?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by jar, posted 11-27-2004 9:22 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by jar, posted 11-29-2004 7:50 AM contracycle has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 112 (163818)
11-29-2004 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by zephyr
11-27-2004 8:00 AM


quote:
That is a separate issue. We're talking about combatants and non-combatants.
No, we are tooking about US soldiers (un)familiaroty with the laws of war. I remind you that "following orders" is not a viable defence. The invasion of Iraq was illegal. The order to invade Iraq was illegal. Therefore, those who did so are culpable for their actions.
[quote] I'm only pointing out that we do not institutionalize violations of human rights and in fact train people to recognize and avoid them.[/quote
]
I'm afraid I vigorously disagree. In every single conflict in which I have seen the US operate it routinely kills civilians and then gives the most ineffectual and inadequate of explanations and apologies. This ranges from "we had to destroy the village in order to save it" to "we guessed wrong". What is clearly NOT happening is that taking of due care to avoid civilian casualties as laid out in the Geneva Conventions.
A point to bear in mind here is that infantry are much more able to distinguish actual conditions on the field than any other arm. But the doctrine of overwhelming force, and force preservation, means that when confronted by enemy action the first response is almost always to call in close air or artillery support that cannot so distinguish. If you want to really fulfill your legal obligations, you will have to forego this safety and take more risiks with the lives of your troops by deploying infantry directly and without such early and vigorous use of heavy fire support.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by zephyr, posted 11-27-2004 8:00 AM zephyr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by zephyr, posted 11-29-2004 6:38 AM contracycle has replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4540 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 82 of 112 (163822)
11-29-2004 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by contracycle
11-29-2004 5:50 AM


Can you explain the fact that I have personally been in a place that takes rocket and mortar fire and, in my assessment, retaliates less than half the time due to the proximity of the launch site to a village or farm? It is a glaring contradiction. So is the fact that we allow civilians to carry out daily activities right up to the fence line despite the threat to ourselves.
Again, I am not claiming that every one of us is without blame, or that we have necessarily done everything we could. I am pointing out that we: 1)spend time and money avoiding LOAC violations, and 2)voluntarily take actions which reduce the safety of our troops in order to avoid civilian casualties. We do in fact forego the safety of which you speak and send patrols out instead.
If you want to talk about the inclinations of some of our leaders, I will agree that they don't give a flying f*ck about human life, and their choices are reprehensible. Yes, the invasion itself was justified by lies and IMO (as a layman) violated international law, but the troops on the ground generally did not have the information to know that, and are trained simply to make legitimate choices of targets within the context of ongoing hostilities.
Yeah, our record isn't great. But we make more of an effort than most, and the better part of the people that compose this force are personally opposed to human rights violations. Those who oppose us have no problem with the use of human shields, feigned surrenders-turned-ambushes, and numerous other dishonorable tactics that blur the lines of combatants and endanger civilians. Again, this does not mean we are blameless. It simply means that singling us out as the Great Satan of war crimes is misguided and unjustified.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by contracycle, posted 11-29-2004 5:50 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by contracycle, posted 11-29-2004 7:28 AM zephyr has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 112 (163830)
11-29-2004 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by zephyr
11-29-2004 6:38 AM


quote:
retaliates less than half the time due to the proximity of the launch site to a village or farm? It is a glaring contradiction.
I really don't understand why you find this such a contradiction. I could find similar acts of restraint amongst any army of the world, including those we stereotype as relentlessly evil such as the Germans during WW2. But these local events do not make for the general case.
quote:
2)voluntarily take actions which reduce the safety of our troops in order to avoid civilian casualties. We do in fact forego the safety of which you speak and send patrols out instead.
No, you don't. Becuase despite the best efforts of the British to advise you on how to do this, you continue to insist that force protection takes priority. Thus the British have advised since the beginning that you do foot patrols unhelmeted and without sunglasses, for example, but the US forces have never carried this out. When civil order collapsed after the iunvasion, US forces refused to police the streets because it placed them at risk. And thats quite apart from the us of grossly excessive force such as airstrikes and artillery in cities. The US military is manifestly contemptuous of the lives of Iraqi civilians, and its solipsism has alienated it from the local populace. Just as it did in Vietnam, of which Irtaq is now a bad rerun.
quote:
Those who oppose us have no problem with the use of human shields, feigned surrenders-turned-ambushes, and numerous other dishonorable tactics that blur the lines of combatants and endanger civilians.
Because civilian status affords no protection against a Paveway or a Maverick.
quote:
It simply means that singling us out as the Great Satan of war crimes is misguided and unjustified.
But I never said that - I have only asked that you take realistic stock of the situation instead of constantly assuming your own innocence when accused. I have only asked that you take reposnsibility for your actions. It is not adequate that you simultaneously spurn good and sound advice on how to work in these situations and then claim you are "better than most". You are not. I don't think you're even average.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by zephyr, posted 11-29-2004 6:38 AM zephyr has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 84 of 112 (163834)
11-29-2004 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by contracycle
11-29-2004 5:25 AM


If the President and Congress believed that Iraq was a threat then they had the right under law to invade. The fact that I don't believe there was a threat or that anyone else did not believe Iraq was a threat is not the issue. It is whether the President and Congress believed it.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by contracycle, posted 11-29-2004 5:25 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Silent H, posted 11-29-2004 8:25 AM jar has replied
 Message 90 by contracycle, posted 11-29-2004 10:19 AM jar has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 85 of 112 (163840)
11-29-2004 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by jar
11-29-2004 7:50 AM


If the President and Congress believed that Iraq was a threat then they had the right under law to invade.
Not really. There must be more than just a general threat, otherwise every single other nation can be invaded at any moment.
There is a level of "imminence" to a threat which is necessary to take action. This increases when one moves into international law.
If you believe that possible permutations of US law take precedence over international law, and so makes us not criminal where we would be otherwise, then there simply is no such thing as international law or crime. Might makes right.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by jar, posted 11-29-2004 7:50 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by jar, posted 11-29-2004 8:32 AM Silent H has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 86 of 112 (163842)
11-29-2004 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Silent H
11-29-2004 8:25 AM


Not really. There must be more than just a general threat, otherwise every single other nation can be invaded at any moment.
But every other nation was not invaded therefore something more than just a general threat was used to make the decision.
If you believe that possible permutations of US law take precedence over international law, and so makes us not criminal where we would be otherwise, then there simply is no such thing as international law or crime. Might makes right.
There is one area where even International Law agrees that a Nation State does have rights above International ones and that is self defense. If, as I said, the President and Congress believed that there was a threat, the the invasion of Iraq was legal.
Please don't missunderstand me. I think the invasion was stupid, counter productive and that it will hurt the US in the long run.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Silent H, posted 11-29-2004 8:25 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Silent H, posted 11-29-2004 8:44 AM jar has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 87 of 112 (163843)
11-29-2004 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by contracycle
11-29-2004 5:24 AM


The last figures I saw gave the US the same Human Rights rating as Pakistan, below all other OECD nations.
I have not seen that, and I would view it with some suspicion. Based on what criteria?
Yes, you ARE leaping to an assumption of hyperbole. You are ASSUMING it cannot possibly be true. On what basis? Why do you discount peoples actual experiences?
Hahaha. You said you have never been to the US and then ask how I (who come from the states) can discount people's actual experiences?
I am not assuming your statements can't be true, I am saying straight out that they are not true... from experience.
no matter what evidence is presented of the hyper-nationalistic near-fascism of the US you simply refuse to acknowledge it. Click on CNN - find adverts for American flags. Why must nationalism be hammered home with such extreme vigour?
Uh... I never bought a flag. No one I knew went out and bought flags. I saw a bunch of flags go up after the US was attacked. Perhaps being attacked had something to do with the rise in nationalism.
I am uncertain how flags on CNN allow you to claim your statements about life in the US, or about US citizens are in any way accurate.
Van you please explain how this state, if it is not completely insane, has managed to turn the Kyoto treaty into an Us vs. Them struggle? Or how some republicans are now going round accusing the UN of harbouring terrorists becuase it fails to fall slavishly into line behind the US, and are calling for its expulsion?
Politics. Not everyone agrees with those in charge.
The USA is hateful place that spreads death and destruction around the g
You really ought to go see Taste of Chicago, not a lot of hate there.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by contracycle, posted 11-29-2004 5:24 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by contracycle, posted 11-29-2004 10:25 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 88 of 112 (163845)
11-29-2004 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by jar
11-29-2004 8:32 AM


But every other nation was not invaded therefore something more than just a general threat was used to make the decision.
You are joking right? We weren't invaded either. We had a terrorist attack occur. That is the same thing that has happened in other nations, and just because some have been better in foiling plots (where we failed) would not change the fact that they are under the same threat.
This is not to mention that we were not "invaded" by Iraq. It pose no real threat to the US. It was at most a vagure future threat, that could only "gather" if we allowed it to strengthen.
There is one area where even International Law agrees that a Nation State does have rights above International ones and that is self defense. If, as I said, the President and Congress believed that there was a threat, the the invasion of Iraq was legal.
Wow this is unimpressive. Merely repeating your refuted claim is not going to make it any more correct.
In international law a state can act in self defense and thet requires that an attack has occured or is imminent, or perthaps that there was such a great breach of law that it becomes a vital threat to a nation. The Iraq War in no way shape or form fit into that standard.
This has been explained publically by diplomats and international law scholars. It was just repeated recently by Kofi Anan.
If you think all of them are incorrect, then I would like to see something more concrete than "there was a threat, therefore it was legal."
Do you really believe a guy like Kofi Anan would throw that around lightly?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by jar, posted 11-29-2004 8:32 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by jar, posted 11-29-2004 8:47 AM Silent H has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 89 of 112 (163846)
11-29-2004 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Silent H
11-29-2004 8:44 AM


Do you really believe a guy like Kofi Anan would throw that around lightly?
Well, in a word, yes.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Silent H, posted 11-29-2004 8:44 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Silent H, posted 11-29-2004 12:06 PM jar has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 112 (163862)
11-29-2004 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by jar
11-29-2004 7:50 AM


quote:
If the President and Congress believed that Iraq was a threat then they had the right under law to invade.
Then Germany had the right to invade France in WW2, and we should all apologise for objecting.
quote:
It is whether the President and Congress believed it.
No it isn't. There is no provision for the wholesale invasion of a country from a standing start. There is the right to react preemptively to immedieate threats, not potential threats. It was illegal.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 11-29-2004 10:19 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by jar, posted 11-29-2004 7:50 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by jar, posted 11-29-2004 10:26 AM contracycle has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024