Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Coaltion soldiers dead in Iraq...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Yes, that's right, I agree. But what I said was that from a legal point of view the USA is an agressor, and thus any Iraqi has a right to defend himself and his country.
    Actually, that is incorrect. From a "legal" point of view the US have the backing of the United Nations and have a legal right to be in the country (and that's not to say I agree, but as you quoted legalities I thought i'd address that).

    Even if that were not the case, the only persons considered to be lawful combatants would be the iraqi military and clearly these people are not the iraqi military so I would suggest that these people have no legal standing in the eyes of the United Nations.

    I'm pretty sure Iraq is a member of the UN and I know it is a signatory of the Geneva Convention so sorry, I believe you are incorrect in your statement.

    It might seem wrong to us, but it's no crime (i.e. he couldn't be convicted for that), whatever his religious orientation and thoughts might be.
    Actually, I suspect they are considered terrorists and can be tried and convicted as such.

    Well, THEIR fact is the one that I mentioned above. And actually it's up to the Iraqis to decide ON THEIR OWN if they want to be governed by "some religious nut and his loony followers or other".
    Incorrect. That would condone rule of the gun which contradicts democracy. Fact is that the Iraqis do have a right to choose their leaders and it's my understanding that's what the coalition is working towards, self rule in July. Seems to me that these terrorist insurgents are doing everything in their power to stop that occuring.

    I myself don't like it, but that's how it is supposed to be. Basically I agree with what you say, but what really matters is what THEY (those Iraqis) think, and we can forget about changing their thoughts with guns (which is causing just the opposite, since in the current situation, i.e. the USA having "attacked" and invaded Iraq, those "rebels" have a lot of favourable points to gain support).
    Again i'd have to disagree. Fact is that the coalition did invade (not the US, but the COALITION) and they did invade without due cause, but they are there now and there is a chance to ensure the next leader of Iraq isn't some nasty loonie religious freak and I can't see how that can be anything but good! There is nothing you can say that would have me agree that some lunatic shiite cleric who's solution to everything is to kill people should be given the chance of taking over the country. They are not freedom fighters, fighting for a free iraq. If they were they wuoldn't be murdering their own people!

    Btw: the formation of a new Iraqi state is mainly obstructed by the dissent of ethnic representatives. It's not that much based on religion as many people might think, much more on power and longlived mutual hate.
    All hiding behind religion. I'm aware of that, true religious believers wouldn't wage war.





    ADG
    ADG
    No makeovers please .....

    Comment


    • #32
      The best way to stop this s**t is staring us all in the face, and that is to throw gorge the filthy filthy animal in a cage. When is the next election in america anyways? I support the war in Iraq, but i feel Gorge has gone about it all in the wrong ways, he's such a loonitic. I bet given the same situation President Bill would have done things right and not let his testosterone get in the way.

      BTW why doesn't gorge write the letters personally to the deceased soldiers families? he's such a coward!

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by steve181
        I bet given the same situation President Bill would have done things right and not let his testosterone get in the way.
        Yep, he would have probably sent over a few cruise missiles, killed lots of civilians and then it would have all been forgotten, go clinton.

        Comment


        • #34
          I honestly don't think that this should be a political discussion.

          However, my sympathies to the families for their loss. And I am thankful each day for men and women like these who have come years before us.
          CheckSix

          Equipment: A camera (who gives a rip about the brand?)

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by ADG
            Actually, that is incorrect. From a "legal" point of view the US have the backing of the United Nations and have a legal right to be in the country (and that's not to say I agree, but as you quoted legalities I thought i'd address that).
            That's new to me. Could you point out which Secuirity Coucil resolution allows the Coalition to ivnvade Iraq?

            Even if that were not the case, the only persons considered to be lawful combatants would be the iraqi military and clearly these people are not the iraqi military so I would suggest that these people have no legal standing in the eyes of the United Nations.

            I'm pretty sure Iraq is a member of the UN and I know it is a signatory of the Geneva Convention so sorry, I believe you are incorrect in your statement.
            Well, at least in my country, this is incorrect. It's said so in its Constitution, which is partly based on the one of the USA. Every citizen of this country has the right to defend it's country if invaded. It doesn't make any distinction between soldiers and civilians in that point. I think it would bequite weird if in Iraq only the military could do that. Moreover, if it's in their constitution, the Geneva Convention is not above it (btw, does it really state that civilians are NOT allowed to defend their country from invasion?).

            Actually, I suspect they are considered terrorists and can be tried and convicted as such.
            Yes, they can be convicted as terrorists. But it's not their "armed defense of their mother land" that makes them terrorists.

            Incorrect. That would condone rule of the gun which contradicts democracy. Fact is that the Iraqis do have a right to choose their leaders and it's my understanding that's what the coalition is working towards, self rule in July. Seems to me that these terrorist insurgents are doing everything in their power to stop that occuring.
            Yes, I will rephrase that. Who says that Iraqis need to have a democracy, who says it is what's good for them? Who says they have a right to determine their leader? In our eyes it would be nice if Iraqis could elect their own leaders. Doesn't mean we have any right to go there and impose it (and less so if it isn't even said in their current constitution). The UN charter may give incentives to democracy or free determination, but their members are not obligated to have a democracy in their country (just as no international treaty Iraq might have signed expects them to have a democracy). Each society has to go it's own way through political evolution, even it costs live. There is no other way to go. Name one country that hasn't gone thorugh one or several civil wars before defining its future.

            Again i'd have to disagree. Fact is that the coalition did invade (not the US, but the COALITION) and they did invade without due cause, but they are there now and there is a chance to ensure the next leader of Iraq isn't some nasty loonie religious freak and I can't see how that can be anything but good!
            Good for whom? It might be good for us (I wouldn't like to have a religious head of state in my country), but these are Iraqis. It's another culture, another mentality, with a different history, a different religion, totally different values, etc. So if it's good for us, that doesn't mean it's good for them, just as us not wanting to be governed by a religious leader doesn't imply they don't want it either.

            There is nothing you can say that would have me agree that some lunatic shiite cleric who's solution to everything is to kill people should be given the chance of taking over the country. They are not freedom fighters, fighting for a free iraq. If they were they wuoldn't be murdering their own people!
            The point is, nobody should really care if you or me agree. It's the Iraqis that have to agree. And if they themselves really wanted a democracy, or disliked religious people as its leaders, than they will do their own revolution. That's the way of history. And the Coalition's interference in such a process won't safe any lifes.

            Well, my final point is...we are nobody to judge what is good for another country. And we can condemn their practices, which may be authoritarian, barbaric, or whatever, but as long as we ourselves are not harmed, nothing gives us the right to interfere on our own.

            Comment


            • #36
              And we can condemn their practices, which may be authoritarian, barbaric, or whatever, but as long as we ourselves are not harmed, nothing gives us the right to interfere on our own.
              I guess we should have stood idly by while Hitler gassed millions of Jews during WW2 then? Japan attacked us...no Germany...

              -Clovis

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Leftseat86
                And we can condemn their practices, which may be authoritarian, barbaric, or whatever, but as long as we ourselves are not harmed, nothing gives us the right to interfere on our own.
                I guess we should have stood idly by while Hitler gassed millions of Jews during WW2 then? Japan attacked us...no Germany...

                -Clovis
                First, it is new to me that the USA entered WWII because Hitler was "gassing" millions of Jews.

                Second, Iraq hasn't been invading other countries as Germany in that time.

                Comment


                • #38
                  That's new to me. Could you point out which Secuirity Coucil resolution allows the Coalition to ivnvade Iraq?
                  I'm sure the Americans can tell you which resolution it was .. but they did have one, and they do have the UN support (sans germany & france).

                  Well, at least in my country, this is incorrect.
                  Is your country a signatory of the Geneva Convention? If so you are incorrect, if not they should be a signatory. Regardless, go read it, it's interesting.

                  It's said so in its Constitution, which is partly based on the one of the USA. Every citizen of this country has the right to defend it's country if invaded.
                  It's irrelevant if your country is a signatory of the Geneva Convention which states clearly what is "legal combatant' and what is not.

                  It doesn't make any distinction between soldiers and civilians in that point. I think it would bequite weird if in Iraq only the military could do that. Moreover, if it's in their constitution, the Geneva Convention is not above it (btw, does it really state that civilians are NOT allowed to defend their country from invasion?).
                  I am not saying I agree with the convention but it's there and it does outweigh your constitution with regards to issues such as this because your constitution only applies to your citizens whereas the Geneva Convention applies to countries at war.

                  Yes, they can be convicted as terrorists. But it's not their "armed defense of their mother land" that makes them terrorists.
                  Incorrect. It really is clear to anyone with 1/2 a brain (sorry) that they are not "fighting in defence of their mother land". I don't believe they are freedom fighters and everything they have done (killing iraqi police, killing civilians etc backs up this belief. IF they were only attacking coalition soldiers I might agree with you, but they are not.

                  Yes, I will rephrase that. Who says that Iraqis need to have a democracy, who says it is what's good for them?
                  I think that given the history of Iraq and the varied religious factions etc that democracy would be good for them. I don't agree with the reason for this war and I don't really agree with the coalition being there, but I do agree that they should now follow this through to it's completion.

                  Who says they have a right to determine their leader?
                  Again, I believe that the UN do. It's clear from what has been going on in Iraq for many years (over 20) that someone has to determine their future as they've been incapable of doing so themselves.

                  In our eyes it would be nice if Iraqis could elect their own leaders. Doesn't mean we have any right to go there and impose it (and less so if it isn't even said in their current constitution).
                  Incorrect. It IS our right (the United Nations) to assist people who are being opressed and murdered.

                  The UN charter may give incentives to democracy or free determination, but their members are not obligated to have a democracy in their country (just as no international treaty Iraq might have signed expects them to have a democracy).
                  I don't believe that a democracy is a necessity in a country, however if that country uses military power to opress their people, to allow them to starve and worse still, to kill their own people then the rest of the world should step up to the plate and take over.

                  This is the only reason why I am not a vocal advocate for pulling the troops out of Iraq.

                  Each society has to go it's own way through political evolution, even it costs live.
                  I absolutely disagree with this. I don't think we should sit back and watch people lose their lives over greed and nepotism. This attitude is WRONG. It's to easy to make statements such as yours when living in a country where you are free to do so. But who speaks for the people of Iraq and countries like that? (Zimbabwe etc).

                  Very, very wrong.

                  There is no other way to go. Name one country that hasn't gone thorugh one or several civil wars before defining its future.
                  Australia.

                  New Zealand

                  Good for whom? It might be good for us (I wouldn't like to have a religious head of state in my country), but these are Iraqis. It's another culture, another mentality, with a different history, a different religion, totally different values, etc. So if it's good for us, that doesn't mean it's good for them, just as us not wanting to be governed by a religious leader doesn't imply they don't want it either.
                  But we can see this plainly in the media reports etc. The various factions are fighting for control. There isn't a single person/group who everyone is happy to have in control. With all due respect, your statement shows you need to spend a little more time getting familiar with Iraq. Others within this forum can tell you about what they call my 'anti-american' stance on issues such as this, but even I can see the only course for the Iraqi people is to have a leader/leadership that represents ALL the people of the country.

                  I can say without a doubt that Iraq needs to move to democratic self rule, and I believe that we are in a position to say that.

                  The point is, nobody should really care if you or me agree. It's the Iraqis that have to agree. And if they themselves really wanted a democracy, or disliked religious people as its leaders, than they will do their own revolution. That's the way of history. And the Coalition's interference in such a process won't safe any lifes.
                  Again that's incorrect. How do they revolt when the leadership is so rich and so well protected? They cannot. They have tried and they have died. Isn't that enough of a message to send to the rest of us?

                  You only need to see what's going on there now to know that they need a strong UN presence in their country and they need assistance at regaining control of othe country and getting the various factions under control.

                  I don't know about you, but i'm sick to death of the continued reports of murder/death coming in from around the world. I live in one of the few truly peaceful countries in this world, and I wish that upon others.

                  Well, my final point is...we are nobody to judge what is good for another country.
                  Absolutely incorrect.

                  And we can condemn their practices, which may be authoritarian, barbaric, or whatever, but as long as we ourselves are not harmed, nothing gives us the right to interfere on our own.
                  Again incorrect. We have *interfered* on a number of occasions, with or without the agreement of the people and we have improved the lives of the citizens.

                  Go read up about East Timor and tell me we were wrong to go in there. A full 1/3 of their population murdered in the 25 year rule of the Indonesians. You really think (as you seem to be inferring) that we should sit back and let their whole population be wiped out in factional fighting? I feel quite confident that you are wrong.

                  Your statement could be twisted quite badly .. 5 million jews were murdered during WW2, that didn't affect me at all .. I wasn't *harmed* over that .. were we wrong to go in there, fight and die to release the jews? Your statement infers that.

                  I come from a country who's citizens CHOSE to join up and go fight wars in foreign lands, they did this of their own free will knowing that they may not return. My country forged a legend on the backs of these diggers, fighting for causes they felt were worth dying for.

                  My country does not condone sitting back and doing nothing, and we never will. I wish we'd be a little more circumspect when deciding when to attend conflicts but I think i'd prefer the way we are than the way you appear to be.





                  ADG
                  ADG
                  No makeovers please .....

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    First, it is new to me that the USA entered WWII because Hitler was "gassing" millions of Jews
                    We didn't, we entered the war because of Pearl Harbor. Incidentally, since Japan happened to be an ally of Germany, we made the decision to enter the European theatre as well. Germany never attacked us, we could have simply concentrated our military resources on Japan...

                    -Clovis

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X