# Continue to protest while Iraqi's dance in the streets? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 9, 2003, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/continue-to-protest-while-iraqis-dance-in-the-streets/167612 "2003-04-09T18:38:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![mindmirror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bbe5ce/32.png) [@mindmirror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mindmirror)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2003, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/continue-to-protest-while-iraqis-dance-in-the-streets/167612/141 "2003-04-15T19:40:35Z")
Anti-war protestors aren’t so much saying they do not support the war against Saddam – they’re saying they do not support the war lead on by the U.S. 😉 There is a great difference. As far as the new protesting signs go, they would look something like these, I imagine: “Stop the Killing of Innocents!” “Stop the Occupation!” “Stop the Stealing of Oil!” “Get Out, U.S.!” “Leave the Iraqis Alone!” It is funny when I hear people talk about “war against terrorism” in connection with Iraq. There IS no terrorism in Iraq. And it’s already been proven (though I need to look up that source again… I kick myself all the time for not having the smarts to bookarmk it :P) that Saddam Hussein wasn’t the one to gas his own people. It was Iran. That misinformation was already fixed, but it is not internationally known, of course. That would be too inconvenient for pro-Bush enthusiasts. Although there are many Iraqis who _are_ dancing in the streets, one cannot discount the casualties and families of casualties who are cursing Bush and the US troops for being there in the first place. There are 5 million (more or less) civilians in Iraq, and one cannot generalize that they are all dancing in the streets when daily, the death count there go up by the 100s. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 10:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/continue-to-protest-while-iraqis-dance-in-the-streets/167612/142 "2003-04-17T10:25:13Z")
A point of Order or two: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > France in Chad, Cote’ d’Ivoire, Bosnia, and Kosovo, amongst others; None of the French interventions in Africa can reasonably be construed as violating UN charter. French forces were either present in country by completely legal bilateral defense treaties and asked to intervene by the government or were invited in by the government. However sketchy those governments were (or are, some were perfectly decent as comp’ed with who they were fighting), the legality of the manueuvers should not be in question. Now the morality of the French interventions up to the mid - 1990s is certainly of questionable nature, and illustrates legality and morality do not go hand in hand, ipso facto. However, in this case a wide spread sensation globally that the war was done legally (let us leave aside the ‘legal technicalities’ to admit the real issue in international law is the implicit contractual relationships between the actors, and the sense the actors are playing by the unspoken and partially defined rules) would have gone a long ways to make the unseemly mess that is Iraq more tractable. > [@](#): > > China in Vietnam; Well, given both sides were exchanging artillery fire, it is not clear who attacked who. China of course is a scofflaw when it wants to be, but that’s not news per se, now is it? I should hope, however, that we are not benchmarking behaviour off of the PRC. > [@](#): > > Britain in the Falkland Islands, Kosovo, Iraq, etc. GB was entirely justified under the self-defence clauses, nothing at all illegal about that. Kosovo etc. is another game, and bad precedent perhaps, although at the very least in those conditions there was broad international consensus ex-Russia that this was acceptable, and those interventions (Bosna, Kosovo) did occur under broadly multi-lateral conditions. Legitimacy, then, deriving from weight and breadth of support. This is indeed, as I am sure you must know, where Blair derived the unjust veto idea from, when he thought they could get a SC majority. The Russian veto threat, singular and unsupported at that time went down as unjust. > [@](#): > > The “the war is illegal” crowd is guilty of selective application and enforcement of a law. Selective application of a law is a moral no-no. Indeed, my dear Sua, which is why this war looks so bloody stupid as it is indeed selective application. Unless we shall be shortly cleaning out Tura al-Beled. Since we will not be, nor any of the other nasty places I have heard about, as those governments are ‘with us’ in the ‘war on terror’ … well I believe you see, yes? ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/continue-to-protest-while-iraqis-dance-in-the-streets/167612/143 "2003-04-17T14:23:55Z")
> [@](#): > > _by Collounsbury_ > > ## quote: > > Britain in the Falkland Islands, Kosovo, Iraq, etc. > > * * * > > GB was entirely justified under the self-defence clauses, nothing at all illegal about that. They were entirely justified **only if** one accepts Great Britain’s interpretation of international law - that the Falklands belonged to Great Britain. If one accepts the Argentinian interpretation, Great Britain was occupying Argentinian territory, and **Argentina** was acting legally pursuant to the self-defense clauses, and Great Britain had been acting illegally for decades. You see the problem? What is the correct interpretation of international law? The system has no adjudicator. > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > The “the war is illegal” crowd is guilty of selective application and enforcement of a law. Selective application of a law is a moral no-no. > > * * * > > Indeed, my dear Sua, which is why this war looks so bloody stupid as it is indeed selective application. Unless we shall be shortly cleaning out Tura al-Beled. Since we will not be, nor any of the other nasty places I have heard about, as those governments are ‘with us’ in the ‘war on terror’ … well I believe you see, yes? Your answer assumes an omnipotence on the part of the US military. The US military cannot clean up the entire world - indeed, given the long-term troop commitments in Iraq, it would be hard-pressed to engage in even one more war (something the “Syria is next” people, on both sides, ignore). Sua ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/continue-to-protest-while-iraqis-dance-in-the-streets/167612/144 "2003-04-17T15:14:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > They were entirely justified **only if** one accepts Great Britain’s interpretation of international law - that the Falklands belonged to Great Britain. > > If one accepts the Argentinian interpretation, Great Britain was occupying Argentinian territory, and **Argentina** was acting legally pursuant to the self-defense clauses, and Great Britain had been acting illegally for decades. WEll, given the Argentine claims (a) were of highly dubious nature (b) for better than a century contradicted by de facto and de jure British presence, I think we can lay that aside. > [@](#): > > You see the problem? What is the correct interpretation of international law? The system has no adjudicator. I am not looking at this as your kind of law Sua, I am looking at it in the context of a constantly negotiated set of relationships. Like my businesses, for example. The real adjudicator is the legitimacy attached to the actions by a weight of well-respected nations. > [@](#): > > Your answer assumes an omnipotence on the part of the US military. The US military cannot clean up the entire world - indeed, given the long-term troop commitments in Iraq, it would be hard-pressed to engage in even one more war (something the “Syria is next” people, on both sides, ignore). No my answer does not assume impotence, my answer assumes the consequences of using a certain kind of justification for one’s actions in a certain kind of neighborhood. Democratization and other such sentimental blither when one is not prepared to back it up further merely delegitimizes the efforts. I have seen secularization fail for similar inconsistencies and do not look forward to further discredit on ideas. Turah al-Beled will remain, and it will be filled with folks arrested and given summary “trials” by security forces the US subsidizes. It is not just a question of military forces, but the overall fabric of policy. Now I am gone for the weekend and a bit beyond. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/continue-to-protest-while-iraqis-dance-in-the-streets/167612.md?page=7)