Right of conquest? What century do you live in? I cannot imagine how such a concept is compatible with the UN Charter and modern international law. Conquest is no longer considered a legitimate way to gain power over territories.
Under international law, the United States is defined as an occupying power whose duties are outlined in the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Hague Convention. As the occupying power, the United States can issue decrees, and the fact that the war was blatantly illegal does not change that. The illegality of the war makes attacks on U.S. forces by Irqais legal and justified and could justify an attack on the United States by third-party states. However, as long as there is no sovereign authority in Iraq, the United States has the power to make the rules.
By the way, that is not a good use of the words “sovereignty” and “sovereign authority.” “Sovereign” generally means “independent” in this context. See the last sentence of the previous paragraph for an example.
No, ‘carpetbomb first’ is more of the wild bullshit you tend to pull from your nether regions. As I didn’t say anything of the kind, so whats the point of talking to you about any of this?
:rolleyes:
Be sure to pull the tinfoil up tight while you wait for the carpetbombing in LA this New Years. I hear it helps deflect shrapnel as well as harmful mind control rays…
On what grounds is the “Coalition” sovereign? And what do you mean “never heard anyone question its sovereignty?” People have been questioning it since it was PROPOSED, not only Americans, but also those little people you seem to think don’t have a say in the matter, the Iraqis.
You mean like with the prisoner abuses where they have **all** the information but do nothing about it ? Its pretty dangerous to give them the "benefit of the doubt" when they have more firepower and supossedly more information than insurgents. Not that the media are good examples of reporting stuff... but the military have hardly been angels. Yep we don't have much info ourselves... but we can think for ourselves and judge for ourselves.
I can’t believe that nobody has pointed out how brilliant this analogy is. Why can the military get away with destroying property, calling it a regretful mistake, and just continue to go about their business?
Still, I believe it is a mistake at this point to assume that in this particular circumstance, the air strike was not directed at a legitimate target.
The Pentagon says it was. People who were there say that it wasn’t. The circumstances of the wedding were odd at the very least, and downright suspicious when considered all together. The “innocent celebration” explanation just doesn’t add up when you consider that the wedding was 80 miles from the closest city and 10 miles from the border of a country that a large portion of the foreign fighters in Iraq come from, and that “numerous” weapons were found, along with 2 million Iraqi dinar, sattelite communications equipment, and passports.
I know that if I had 2 million units of currency, I would definitely not decide to have my wedding in a war zone located in the most inconvenient spot possible.
So weddings only take place in cities, and never near borders? WTF? Maybe they were having a wedding in their home village?!?! And big numbers mean nothing - the money found was the equivalent of about US$1000.
Oh, hang on, now I google around I see you’re lifting words straight from a military spokesman: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42537-2004May20.html
So you think there’s an efficient local police service in rural Iraq? Can YOU give any evidence of this?
Given that this is 15 miles from the border, I’d presume that there should be some sort of local authority present, correct?
In any case, the CPA/US military is currently the “authority” responsible for police work. The military doesn’t have MPs or soldiers who could peacefully enter and investigate?
If there is really no police force anywhere in the region, is that not a failing of the CPA in providing security and enforcing laws?
Actually, it could be made brilliant by adding a few relevant touches. Such as:
[ul][li]The people inside the car are shooting out the windows[/li][li]There is a war going on outside[/li][li]The people inside have been warned not to shoot off guns[/li][/ul]
This is idiotic.
What is the basis for your assertion that the terrorists (I thought they were just innocent wedding guests, but never mind) should get all the benefits of the Geneva Convention without incurring any of the obligations?
Suppose they put a line of children in the front of their army and re-invaded Kuwait. Would you argue that the rest of the world should surrender because they cannot fire on civilians?
One of the first actions of the American occupation was the disbandment of the existing police force. Training a new one is taking time, made worse by being under constant attack. They’re only just getting onto the streets of Baghdad and Basra, and it’ll be a long time before they’re controlling remote desert regions. This is one of many many areas which were not planned properly before the invasion, and it’s now Iraqis who are paying the price.
Proximity to the border means little - much of it is completely unguarded and unprotected.
Why in holy hell would I provide a cite for this?? Its YOUR ridiculous assertion that they could/should have simply whistled up police support in the middle of the desert. Even if true, its a ridiculous assertion. As I said, is it your contention that the US forces REALLY knew it was simply a wedding? You didn’t answer. Do you?
Because I see no evidence this is the case. And if its NOT the case, sending in police where its suspected there are either terrorist or insurgents opperating is a stupid fucking thing to even suggest. If you DO think that the US military knew all along it was a wedding, then you have a point about the police. Of course, in that case, you need to back that assertion up. Get it? Understand the rolley eyes now? Sheesh…
No, I made my contention already. Here’s an idea…why not debate THAT? Instead of trying to shoehorn me into YOUR fantasy world? Leave off the whole stupid ‘carpetbombing’ bullshit retoric. You know as well as I do what carpetbombing REALLY means, and what effect it would REALLY have…and that the US hasn’t used such techniques since, what? Vietnam? So, instead of waving your hands about and spewing retoric out your ass, just tell me in plain non-colorful language exactly whats wrong with my assertions, and why its not reasonable to look at it that way. Don’t be snide, don’t try (and fail) to be funny…just make counter arguements. THEN maybe we could, you know, debate it. What a concept…
Yea, there are obviously no police anywhere near a town next to the border with Syria. Why in Allah’s name would anyone consider a CITY having POLICE next to an INTERNATIONAL BORDER? Why, that’s just silly, isn’t it?
No, my contention is that they could have bothered to find out before opening fire.
So you think a perfectly rational response to reports of people shooting guns into the air is to level the general area? Because ,yea, Muslims have NEVER been known to shoot guns into the air to celebrate things. Oh, wait…
That whenever they hear gunfire, they should lob a few missiles at the area without asking questions?
Ever seen a large scale map of the US? All those huge tracts of land west of the Mississippi are lawless wasteland now?
This is an area so remote as to where US military troops are able to send people to look, find nothing, and leave, but there is no local law enforcement?
Please. Obviously, the US has a military presence there already.
Fine…its your contention, prove it. And you can also prove that the normal (we won’t even get into whether its ‘rational’) response in the war zone thats Iraq is to send in the police to investigate gunfire at 3 am in an area suspected of having terrorists and/or insurgents. Here’s your big chance…
I see. And how exactly would you propose doing this, in the future? Every time US forces hear gunfire in Iraq we should call in the police to investigate first to make sure it isn’t that OTHER kind of gunfire…as opposed to the kind of gunfire trying to kill our soldiers? Should we have a peace officer go out with each patrol then and send him in whenever gunfire is encountered to save time? Or should we just sit back and wait until the police arrive, so that that one time in a hundered they can indeed find out that it was a wedding. Of course its going to be kind of hard on those copper the OTHER 99 times, but what the hell…thats why they make the big bucks, right?
I think a perfectly rational response would be for you to more closely read the article. Our troops were in the area already. They SAW the gunfire and had no idea if it was directed at them or not. Not knowing, they called in air support. Is this a rational response at 3 am in the middle of nowhere, with reports of terrorists/insurgents in the area? Ya, I think it is. It turns out to be the WRONG response in this case, but that doesn’t make it irrational. War is like that…sometimes people die for all the wrong reasons.
Oh ya…Muslims have NEVER been known to fire on US troops either… (Do you ever run dry of these stupid snide comments that are all bark and no substance?)
You’ve basically said the same thing over and over again. Is this your idea of a debate? But I’ll answer again, in the same tired way as you asked…if you are in a war zone and you hear gunfire, and you are unsure if its directed at you, the prudent thing to do is to respond as if it WERE a threat.
You have still not put forth a reasonable way the troops or the police COULD just go ask questions without putting themselves at undue risk. Should we order our troops in a war zone not to respond to fire until they have throughly checked out the situation to make sure there isn’t a muslim wedding going on before they can respond? Does this make sense to you? How is this more reasonable than asking civilian non-combatants who don’t wish to be killed accidently by US forces to simply restrain from firing automatic weapons randomly into the air when they are in a war zone?
“(Dr. Salah al-Ani, who works at a hospital in Ramadi) said people at the wedding fired weapons in the air, and that American troops came to investigate and left. However, al-Ani said, helicopters attacked the area at about 3 a.m. Two houses were destroyed, he said.”
So, apparently your above arguments (that I’m sure you spent a lot of time typing, sorry for that loss) about how it is utterly impossible and unlikely for the US to investigate every incident in rural, backwater, lawless, anarchial Iraq are based on… what?
