Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Ominous Lesson of Tet
The Vietnamese death toll after America's defeat 40 years ago is a terrifying pointer for the Iraq retreat
Next week marks the 40th anniversary of an event that seemed to turn the world upside down. In the early hours of January 31 1968, soldiers of the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam and the army of North Vietnam launched what came to be known as the Tet offensive (it coincided with Tet Nguyen Dan, the lunar new year) against the US military and its local allies.
The insurgents struck simultaneously across the country, targeting more than 100 cities and towns in what the historian Stanley Karnow describes as an offensive "of extraordinary intensity and astonishing scope ... audaciously shifting the war for the first time from its rural setting to a new arena - South Vietnam's supposedly impregnable urban areas". Military installations, police stations, prisons, government offices and radio stations came under attack. Most spectacularly, a group of 19 commandos fought their way into the US embassy compound in Saigon, where they held out for six-and-a-half hours - long enough for the images of defiance to be broadcast around the world.
Hue, the ancient capital and the south's third-largest city, was only recaptured by the US after 25 days of house-to-house fighting. Atrocities against the civilian population were committed by both sides, and by the battle's end 116,000 of the city's population of 140,000 were homeless.
NLF and North Vietnamese casualties reached terrifying proportions. Perhaps a half - 45,000 - of the soldiers engaged in the initial offensive were killed. What is more, they were unable to hold any of the ground they had seized. The aim had been to spark a popular uprising in the South. When that did not materialise, partly because the communist party was weak among urban workers, the US's superior armaments prevailed.
The US counter-offensive was ferocious and indiscriminate. Urban areas held by the NLF were pulverised. Within two weeks, 630,000 civilians had been made refugees. On February 7, when the US recaptured the charred wasteland of what had been the town of Ben Tre, a US major told the press: "It became necessary to destroy the town in order to save it." Soon after, in the course of flushing out alleged collaborators in Saigon, the chief of South Vietnam's national police was filmed calmly shooting a bound prisoner in the head. This image also went round the world, further eroding US claims to moral purpose.
Years later, General Tran Do, one of the architects of the offensive, commented: "In all honesty, we didn't achieve our main objective, which was to spur uprisings throughout the South. Still, we inflicted heavy casualties on the Americans and their puppets, and this was a big gain for us. As for making an impact in the United States, it had not been our intention - but it turned out to be a fortunate result."
For an American public reared on a belief in US supremacy, Tet was a shock. For three years they had been assured that the war in Vietnam was being won. Now the disparity between US government claims and the reality on the ground became untenable. The antiwar movement was vindicated. In the New Hampshire primary, held on March 12, President Lyndon Johnson was embarrassed by the strong showing of antiwar candidate Eugene "Gene" McCarthy. On March 31, two months after Tet, he announced that he would not seek re-election and offered to open negotiations with the North Vietnamese, who accepted on April 3.
Tet caused fear and trembling in the corridors of power, but in the wider world the spectacle of the greatest power on earth defeated by an army of poor people inspired millions. The student revolts for which 1968 is famous took off in the wake of Tet, first in Germany and Italy, spreading subsequently to the US, France, Mexico and Pakistan.
However, the US war in Vietnam was to continue in its destructive fury for another four years. US policy did change after Tet - towards "Vietnamisation", in which reliance on air power increased. US casualties fell, from 16,000 killed in 1968 to 600 in 1972. On the other side the toll rose. Perhaps half the 5 million killed in the war, according to Vietnam government figures, perished during these post-Tet years.
Here is the ominous lesson for Iraq. There are few things as dangerous as an imperial power in retreat. Yes, the war is discredited and the major presidential candidates promise to reduce US troop numbers. None, however, seems prepared to abandon the mission in Iraq, which is also propped up by an array of corporate interests. As Vietnam showed, the alternative to a prompt and complete withdrawal is not a happy compromise, but prolonged devastation.
Mike Marqusee is the author of Redemption Song: Muhammad Ali and the Spirit of the Sixties
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2008
138 Comments so far
Show AllHoly shit, I read that logic book ~Skip~. Jake WAS right all along. Those big round turds are horse shit. It's a great book, it changes your perspective on every subject.
"You've proved the point that arguing on usenet is like competing in the special olympics. Even when you win, you're still a moron."
I'm just stunned by this Skippy. Real classy.
KEM and Skippy both, it's just as well by me that you would bow out, your continuous contentions that you posted what you were supposed to when you in fact didn't was getting just a little too cute for me to take.
4thefuture, thanks for your thoughtful post. Your analysis on what is happening in Iraq, while I don't agree with each step as to what you say happened, correctly touches on the chaotic and nebulous nature of what is happening, as opposed to simple cause and effect.
You are also correct with what you state about emotion. Ultimately it is all about emotion for anyone, but it is in the synchronization between the emotional and the intellectual where we operate most effectively, including I think regarding opinions about complex issues where there are many facts and considerations, some not well known. I have no problems with the various *honest* disagreements that arise
However, when there is an issue around simple basic facts that would underly what is ultimately ones emotionally held reasons for beleiving something, I feel that *someone* ought to bring the challange to the point, and I don't mind doing that. My motives are as simple as that.
In this discussion, I think I have affected two people regarding their thoughts about what international law does or does not say at least, not that it is always so simple with law.
I have *never* been comfortable with the idea of invading Iraq. I said before the invasion and continue to say "I just hope they know what they are doing".
Thanks for the tip on the book about the pepper trade, Kem, I'll look for it. I'm not the prior hopeforthefuture, but perhaps you can wish me well anyway.
My take on the question Jakenewton asked, is that the Shia have been the majority in Iraq for sometime, but were controlled by a minority Sunni government, with often brutal methods. When the US came in, they talked about democracy and encouraged, if not incited, the Shia to believe that they would finally gain political power, while playing rival Shia groups against each other. The Sunni were removed from power and thrown out of jobs. People on both sides were impoverished, without electricity or enough food, education was curtailed, civil life was destroyed and massive violence was perpetrated against all sides by the occupying army and others, many Iraqis, no doubt, being unsure who was responsible. In such a situation, it is not an unreasonable nor uncommon reaction to start fighting against perceived and traditional enemies, especially when the alternative might just seem to be, to sit back and get killed anyway.
So, Jakenewton, you are right, on one level, each of us are free to choose our own course of action, but on another, most people, including Americans and Iraqis are not saints, and picking up a gun, when you have one, might seem like the right thing to do when you perceive you are in a perilous situation.
If this sounds like I am excusing people of responsibility for their criminal acts, I would have to ask; excuse them from what? Punishment or guilt or shame? As judged by whom?
I, as an American, would have no legitimate or moral standing to be the one to either accuse or excuse. And, in fact, as an American, one might be suspicious of your motives for making this an issue, as one might think you are trying to draw attention away from, or lessen the seriousness of, the war crimes and atrocities the US is committing in Iraq. Otherwise, some of us, including me, really don't understand the point of your questions, especially when put in such an implacable manner.
As for Jakenewton, the person, my hard won understanding of someone who is unable to recognize when your arguments have merit, and instead continue on with theirs undiminished, as if you had not addressed their concern, is that you haven't addressed their concerns. That is because there is something sub-rational going on. The issue is at the emotional level and there is nothing, not one single thing, you can do about that unless you can address the underlying emotional issue.
Yep, congrats jake, I'm done too.
You've proved the point that arguing on usenet is like competing in the special olympics. Even when you win, you're still a moron.
JAKE I concede, I surrender, you win. You may go nitey nite with the thought, you have beat Kem Patrick ____ because, I will argue no more on this thread with you __ forever.
Sorry, I wrote "legal" opinion, because what we have done in Iraq was and is is illegal. And yes, I meant one of the ammendments to the forth.
"read section four of the Geneva conventions. "
Did you mean the Fourth Geneva Conventions?
"you wrote that there is NOTHING the United States did to "compel" waring factions to attack one another. "
There is no specific reason for me to believe it. Correlation is not causation. As soon as someone can make a specific case that the invasion *caused* or *compelled* the rival insurgent groups to act up, I will consider it. I freely concede that the invasion may have created an environment that would allow for it to happen, as compared to the environment just before the invasion, but this is not the same thing.
"Cite us where you garner that legal opinion."
That was not a legal opinion. It was in the realm of logic. Regarding the idea that there is a law that addresses this, I will beleive it if someone can show it is true. OTOH, there is no burden on me to prove that such a specific law does not exist, because that is logically impossible to do. Proving a Negative.
Common Sense does.
Jake I don't really care what you do, or what you believe. However, read section four of the Geneva conventions. There is a paragraph that specifies that by International Law, if a nation invades another and occupies it, they are fully responsible for the (health, welfare and the safety) of the citizens of that occupied country. In other words, if you invade it, you bought it.
I will not re-print the Geneva Conventions here, if you Jake, or anyone else, wish to argue that, they will have to argue with the Geneva Conventions, which are readily available to read here on the internet. If you disagree, cite the paragraph you disagree with.
In your first post here JAKE, you wrote that there is NOTHING the United States did to "compel" waring factions to attack one another. Your point is, the civil war is the perogitive of the citizens of Iraq and the United States had nothing to do with that or any individuals actions. We disagree with that point of yours. You brought that point up first and so prove your point Jake. Cite us where you garner that legal opinion.
"jake it's your assertion that your country isn't responsible for the violence which is plaguing Iraq. The onus is for you to prove your point. "
Nice try Skippy, but I never said that first off. They are, I beleive, responsible for some of the violence obviously. Then you show that are misunderstanding Burden of Proof. Your assertion was a very specific, positive assertion of fact. In doing so, the Burden of Proof is squarely on your shoulders, not mine. OTOH, when I said no, you are wrong, I was not positively asserting anything. In logic, only facts are in play, not non facts. In asking me to prove the US is *not* legally responsible for violent acts commited, you are asking me to Prove a Negative. This is another Fallacy of Logic that you have commited.
It looks likes you have more reading to do. That will be good for you in the long run though.
Are you paying attention here KEM?
"I, Kem, and others have asserted our points, it's time for you to prove us wrong. Not to simply assert that we are wrong, prove it."
Nope, see above, by attempting to shift Burden of Proof to me you are asking me to Prove a Negative. Logic does not deal in negatives.
Do you believe the Earth is round Jake? Every photograph I've ever seen of it, __ it's a flat circle.
No no no, jake it's your assertion that your country isn't responsible for the violence which is plaguing Iraq. The onus is for you to prove your point. I, Kem, and others have asserted our points, it's time for you to prove us wrong. Not to simply assert that we are wrong, prove it. Why isn't it your country's responsibility that people are dying right now in Iraq?
Try this Skippy: Go back to one of those mass pastings you did that you claim included the relevent information about US responsibilities. You, know, the one where I was going through and showing how parts of it were irrelevent, in an effort to show that it was all irrelevent. Go back to that, and cull out all the irrelevent stuff, and you should be left with what you were challenged to produce. That shouldn't be too hard. If you are right that is.
And your proof that the usa is not responsible for the deaths of Iraqi civies is where?
"you might also want to consider how to prove that the people behind the suicide bombings are not in the CIA. "
That's quite an imagination you have there Skippy, but a little bit distasteful considering how the victims were innocent.
"it's been posted."
You posted everything but. I went through some of the irrelenet parts, posted them myself, to show you how they were irrelevent. It way *easy* to do that. The only reason you don't indicate the relevent part is because you can't. It does not exist. It would be the easiest thing to do if you were if you were right, but you are wrong.
" I have no intention of posting it all here."
Because you can't. You are wrong.
You are both wrong. It's that simple. And you know it. You are both being obtuse.
Jake, you might also want to consider how to prove that the people behind the suicide bombings are not in the CIA. You claim that they're Iraqi, but offer no proof. It's not like there's any sort of free press in Iraq which can back up your claim.
While you're at it perhaps you can justify the Vietnam war, and explain that the usa wasn't responsible for any deaths their either.
How many times must jake be hit with the frying pan before he realises it's a freakin fryin pan he's been looking at. Jake, it's been posted. Don't believe us, fine.
Would you care to present your case for the usa being blameless in the deaths of the people in Iraq?
Just Goolge the Geneva Conventions and read the entire thread Jake. I have no intention of posting it all here.
KEM, I guess you aren't going to find the relevent passage from the Geneva Conventions and post it here? You could take the time then to read about the logical fallacies. You commit them all the time. When did we first go down this road with you, 2-3 months ago?
Twelve people, all of above average intelligence are studying a prize bull, which is penned up in a 12 by 24 foot pen. The people all notice that there are 12 rather flat and rouund pie shaped piles of dung on the ground inside the bull's pen.
One of the twelve says, while pointing at one of the bullpies, "Wow, I wonder where all of that horse shit came from". The other eleven asssure him that it is not horse shit, ___ it's bull shit. The assumed intelligent fool disagrees, and asks for proof of their opinion, reminding them all, that none had seen the bull,__ shit.
Thee others in turn reminded the over-educated idiot, that no one there had seen any horse shit either. Again they assured the man named Jake, that indeeed the piles of crap in the bull's pen were all bull shit. Jake wasn't assured of anythning of the sort, still insisting the dung was horse shit and it didn't matter if he was outnumbered 11 to 1 on the horse shit issue, because a majority of any number didn't mean shit, that argument was bull shit. Their argument demonstrated a lack of basic logic, it's termed "an appeal to popularity". "No shit", they all exclaimed in amazed wonderment.
"Logical falacies" is well named for your type Jakenewton. I'd bet, that the auther had no idea, that someone with your aptitude for sheer stupidity and bull headedness, would ever offer his book to others for a good read on logic. You must have mis-read the book as badly as you have mis-read the blogs offered by others here on this thread. This has been fun Jake, __ keep it up and throw some more bull shit. __Oops, I meant horse shit. Personaly, I don't throw either and can also see Skip doesn't.
Common Dreams is a left wing site? I'd never have guessed that based on the name of the site. but of course I'm a clueless lefty aren't I...
Jake, it's amazing what one can find by using google to search for your name and this site. On every issue you've debated you're on the side of the right wingers, evidence, science, reason and humanity are things that are totally lacking in your posts. You argue like you're a right wing escapee from free republic. Go back to freeperville, they'll appreciate your arguements there.
Bloody broken record. Show me proof! show me proof! when shown you argue it's not proof.
Another thing Skippy. I'm not sure if you noticed this but Common Dreams is pretty much a left wing site. The idea that the US is responsible for everything in Iraq is very popular among left wingers, even though there is no legal, moral, or logical basis to support the idea.
"Hey ~Kem~ I'm not sure but has anyone else on this thread agreed with anything Jake has said? For that matter has anyone ever agreed with what Jake has said on any other thread he's participated in?"
This is a perfect demonstration of your lack of knowledge of basic logic. The above is called "Appeal to Popularity", which is a basic Fallacy of Logic. Just like "Non Sequitur" that you commited earlier. Anyone who knows anything about this understands that the popularity of something has no relevance whatsoever to it's veracity.
You should do yourself a favor Skippy and google "logical fallacies" and do some reading. There's another concept called "Burden of Proof" that states that the person who claims something is true is responsible to demonstrate that it is true.
"I would honestly hate to ever have to fight you in a brawl Jake"
You would have to use strategy KEM.
Hey ~Kem~ I'm not sure but has anyone else on this thread agreed with anything Jake has said? For that matter has anyone ever agreed with what Jake has said on any other thread he's participated in?
"the Geneva Conventions state exactly what we have been arguing "
Please demonstrate this claim. See below. I have already shown at least twice why thge conventions don't apply anyway but let's just pretend they do.
"It states, that if a country invades another, the invading government is then FULLY responsible for everything that tanspires. "
Rather then just author a sentence like the above using your own words KEM, why not instead go to the Geneva Conventions, find the *actual* relevent words used, and paste them here. Would you please do that KEM?
"[missed the part where the report dealt with the usa funding the various insurgent groups, eh? Yah, your reading skills are impressive; not.]"
On the introductory page, under the heading "Coalition-Sponsored Militias, Commandoes, and Death Squads " It says :"The US had also armed, trained and funded a sizeable militia of the Iraq National Congress under the leadership of Ahmad Chalabi, an Iraqi exile who was a Pentagon favorite and tipped as a future prime minister. This militia, called the "Free Iraq Forces," was set up in 2002 and enjoyed multi-million dollar funding by the Pentagon."
But no where does the report make the case that the above group is the same as any of the insurgent groups we are talking about, as you claim.
"already there, you won't read it, "
Where Skippy, where? You are an expert cut and paster. I challenge you to cut and paste the relevent chapter in the next post you make. Don't make a mass cut and paste, just the contenet germaine to the challenge.
"If you claim that something is irrelevant you are ignoring it."
That's just stupid Skippy, stating that something is irrelevent is a specific acknowlegement of that thing. Acknowlegement of something is not ignoring it. Ergo, you are wrong once again. Relevence is a separate issue altogether. It would have been better if I said the Conventions "don't apply". They only apply when the army of a signatory nation is fighting another signatory nation. The insurgent groups are not representative of any nation. Therefore, the conventions don't apply.
Once again Skippy, try and prove that you are right. It should be easy. Demonstrate the legal responsibility of the US for violent acts committed by rival insurgent groups fighting each other, by quoting relevent information in your next post. *Don't* keep saying you did when you did not. Think you can do it Skippy?
I would honestly hate to ever have to fight you in a brawl Jake, The only winner would have to kill the other.
It is plain as day Jake, the Geneva Conventions state exactly what we have been arguing and are totally in disagreement with your POINT. It states, that if a country invades another, the invading government is then FULLY responsible for everything that tanspires. Do you understand the word "everything"?
You scanned it? You need a scan Jake.
jakenewton February 1st, 2008 4:17 pm
Nothing in your mass cut and pastes addresses the challange I put to you Skippy. Nothing. I scanned the report
[ie did not read nor understood]
and found nothing about international law stating that the US is responsible for the violent acts of rival insurgent groups.
[missed the part where the report dealt with the usa funding the various insurgent groups, eh? Yah, your reading skills are impressive; not.]
Such language would only be a few sentences Skippy. You didn't read the report either. The challenge to you still stands, are you going to post the relevent legal passages or not?
[already there, you won't read it, nor do you wish to understand what is written. Willfully ignorant fool that you are.]
""the Geneva Conventions". You have never answered that, __ you totally ignore it. "
When I mentioned that they are irrelevent, I was *not* ignoring them. They don't address the specific challenge to you either.
[and there we go, proof that jake doesn't understand the English language. If you claim that something is irrelevant you are ignoring it.]
By the way, the Nazi's and the Empire of Japan also considered the rules of war to be irrelevant.
Do you see the patttern Skippy? Your quotes bring up a lot of interesting issues, but the one thing they don't address is the one thing that you were challenged to address: To demonstrate the legal responsibility of the US for violent acts committed by rival insurgent groups fighting each other.
I did scan the report, looking hor chapter and section headings that looked like they would demonstrate the legal responsibility of the US for violent acts committed by rival insurgent groups fighting each other. There is none, the report does not address the issue.
See that Skippy? I don't think you read the report either, else you would have pasted the relevent passages. Instead, you just cut and pasted quotes that were completely irrelevent to the point you were supposed to address.
Let me show you a few things about what you posted here Skippy, so that you can see that your mass cut and pastes are irrelevent:
"Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died and large numbers have been wounded and maimed. More than four million have been displaced, including over two million that have fled the country. Poverty is widespread, illness and mortality of children exceptionally high, and food insecurity rising steadily."
Interesting but irrelevent. The quote does not demonstrate the legal responsibility of the US for violent acts committed by rival insurgent groups fighting each other.
"Iraqis vigorously oppose the long-term bases that the US is constructing and the enormous embassy complex that symbolizes long-term US hegemony in the country."
Interesting but irrelevent. The quote does not demonstrate the legal responsibility of the US for violent acts committed by rival insurgent groups fighting each other.
"In the counter-insurgency campaign, Coalition commanders have established permissive "rules of engagement" to insure a swift and unhesitating use of force and to minimize their own casualties."
Interesting but irrelevent. The quote does not demonstrate the legal responsibility of the US for violent acts committed by rival insurgent groups fighting each other.
"• The international community should fully acknowledge and address Iraq 's humanitarian crisis. "
Interesting but irrelevent. The quote does not demonstrate the legal responsibility of the US for violent acts committed by rival insurgent groups fighting each other.
"• US Coalition forces should fully respect international law during any period they remain in Iraq . "
Interesting but irrelevent. The quote does not demonstrate the legal responsibility of the US for violent acts committed by rival insurgent groups fighting each other.
"• No new oil laws and contracts should be adopted until peaceful, post-occupation conditions guarantee a full and democratic national debate about the future of Iraq 's most important natural resource.
Interesting but irrelevent. The quote does not demonstrate the legal responsibility of the US for violent acts committed by rival insurgent groups fighting each other.
Given how fast jake replyed to my earlier posts it's obvious that he didn't read the full website I pointed him to. I doubt he read what I quoted.
Jake you're nothing more than a petulant child who refuses to see that their hero is human.
The only way for you to insist that the usa is not culpable for the violence in Iraq is to claim that the rules of war do not apply to the usa, but only to its enemies.
Nothing in your mass cut and pastes addresses the challange I put to you Skippy. Nothing. I scanned the report and found nothing about international law stating that the US is responsible for the violent acts of rival insurgent groups. Such language would only be a few sentences Skippy. You didn't read the report either. The challenge to you still stands, are you going to post the relevent legal passages or not?
""the Geneva Conventions". You have never answered that, __ you totally ignore it. "
When I mentioned that they are irrelevent, I was *not* ignoring them. They don't address the specific challenge to you either.
In the counter-insurgency campaign, Coalition commanders have established permissive "rules of engagement" to insure a swift and unhesitating use of force and to minimize their own casualties. At checkpoints and roadblocks, during house-searches and other operations, these rules allow troops to open fire with little hesitation or restraint. Increasing use of air power, notoriously indiscriminate, has further escalated the casualties. Commanders have seen the killing of Iraqi non-combatants in military operations as regrettable but unavoidable "collateral damage." This environment of extreme violence has produced a rising number of killings, murders and even atrocities, committed by Coalition forces against Iraqi civilians.
[clip]
The United States and its allies claim they do everything in their power to prevent civilian casualties. Yet, there are many accounts of Coalition forces opening fire and killing Iraqi civilians in circumstances where there was no imminent threat. This is in clear breach of international human rights standards. In many cases of patrols, house searches, and relentless bombing campaigns, military personnel have used lethal force in absolutely unjustified circumstances. Studies of civilian mortality in Iraq suggest that tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed in this way since the occupation began. [75]
Murders and atrocities are the extreme form of the daily deadly violence. In Iraq , where Coalition forces see every man of military age as a potential fighter, and where fear and anger affect the behavior of troops, events like the Haditha massacre are all too likely to occur. According to US Major General Eldon A. Bargewell, "all levels of command [tend] to view civilian casualties, even in significant numbers, as routine and as the natural and intended result of insurgent tactics." "Statements made by the chain of command (…), taken as a whole, suggest that Iraqi civilian lives are not as important as US lives, their deaths are just the cost of doing business, and that the Marines need to get 'the job done' no matter what it takes," he concluded. [76]
This environment of extreme violence and impunity paves the way for murder, rape and atrocities. These acts are absolutely prohibited by The Hague Conventions and the Geneva Conventions and they constitute serious war crimes.
[cut to conclusion]
This report has shown how Washington and London presented exaggerated, misleading and clearly false information to the public and to the United Nations and how they launched a war without Security Council authorization, in violation of the UN Charter. In military operations, the US used indiscriminate and especially injurious weapons. Early on, the Coalition destroyed the Iraqi state and allowed looting, arson and violence to demolish Iraq 's hospitals, universities, libraries, museums and virtually all national institutions. A "reconstruction" program has squandered billions of dollars through corruption, fraud and gross malfeasance.
The report has also shown how the Coalition used massive military might that largely destroyed a dozen of Iraq 's cities. Coalition forces have held thousands of Iraqis in unlimited detention without charge or trial, subjecting many to abusive interrogation and torture. Coalition troops routinely kill Iraqi civilians at checkpoints, during house searches, and during military operations of all kinds. Coalition troops have also committed murder and atrocities. And they have set up Iraqi militias, commando units and death squads that bring violence and mayhem to the country.
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died and large numbers have been wounded and maimed. More than four million have been displaced, including over two million that have fled the country. Poverty is widespread, illness and mortality of children exceptionally high, and food insecurity rising steadily.
Iraqis vigorously oppose the long-term bases that the US is constructing and the enormous embassy complex that symbolizes long-term US hegemony in the country. By an overwhelming majority, Iraqis want the Coalition to withdraw, as repeated public opinion polls show. A growing majority of the public in the United States favors withdrawal as well, as does the public in the United Kingdom . Coalition governments must recognize reality. It is time for them to accede to the will of their people and to desist from a process that daily violates the law.
The United States has established broad legal immunity in Iraq for its military forces, for private security personnel, for foreign military and civilian contractors, and even for the oil companies doing business with Iraq. No matter what crimes the Coalition commits, Iraqis now or in the future face legal barriers if they seek accountability. US Presidential Executive Order 13303, O rder 17 of the Coalition Provisional Authority, Security Council Resolution 1546, and other official acts, shield Coalition personnel from arrest, detention, prosecution or punishment. While the US and its allies have applied limited legal reckoning in a few flagrant cases, punishment has been light. Those with command responsibility have remained beyond the law. Such impunity cannot be allowed to continue. The international community must enforce the laws and insure that justice is served.
The road ahead is very difficult. Iraq will not easily recover and achieve stability. But there are clear steps that can begin a resolution of the conflict. The United Nations and the international community must end the complicity of silence and they must vigorously address the Iraq crisis. The Security Council must assume its responsibilities and consider alternatives for the future. The US Congress must heed and act on the wishes of the electorate. And courts worldwide must act to promote justice and accountability.
The following policy recommendations suggest an immediate path forward:
• The international community should fully acknowledge and address Iraq 's humanitarian crisis.
• The Security Council should end the Coalition mandate at the earliest opportunity and plan for a stable transition in Iraq , respecting international law.
• The US Coalition must promptly and speedily withdraw all its forces from Iraq .
• Withdrawal must be governed by a clear and speedy timetable and it must be complete, with no residual forces or bases and with no conditions.
• A UN peacekeeping force, clearly distinct from the Coalition, could assist with the transition, by monitoring the ceasefire, strengthening local police forces and the judicial system, and organizing fully-credible elections.
• US Coalition forces should fully respect international law during any period they remain in Iraq .
• US Coalition forces and the Iraqi government should speedily release all "security detainees" who have not been charged with a crime; an amnesty of others being held in connection with the post-invasion conflict should also be considered.
• Iraqis should engage in comprehensive and broadly-inclusive negotiations to arrive at a plan for security and peaceful government of the national territory. The United Nations could provide assistance for this process.
• All armed groups and militias must agree to a ceasefire and a disarmament process. Iraqi government forces should act with restraint and with full respect for the rule of law. As Coalition forces withdraw, irregular forces should turn in their weapons and disband, as part of the national peace and reconciliation process.
• New elections should be held in Iraq after the withdrawal of occupation forces, based on international electoral standards and subject to international observers; a new (or revised) constitution would be a necessary part of the reconciliation process.
• No new oil laws and contracts should be adopted until peaceful, post-occupation conditions guarantee a full and democratic national debate about the future of Iraq 's most important natural resource.
• The international community should assist with reconstruction and rebuilding of Iraq 's infrastructure and badly-damaged cities, as well as the speedy resettlement (and guaranteed security) of those who have been displaced.
• Courts, both national and international, should pursue those with command responsibility, to hold them accountable for the many grave violations of international humanitarian and human rights law.
I fail to see why I should continue to post things that you will not read, nor do you wish to understand. You ~jake~ remind me of someone who blames the rape victim for being raped. The usa has a duty to comply with the terms of the Geneva Conventions, your government has failed to do so. Like bush you are drenched in the blood of the innocent, and claim that it's not your fault.
"you'll find the legal sources you repeatedly ask for, yet fail to see."
LOL! Correction Skippy, *you* failed to find the reletive passages, else you would have posted it here. Post the relevent passages, Skippy. The passages that make the legal basis that the US is responsible for the violent actions of insurgent groups that operate independently and with their free will. That is your simple challange. Cut the relevent language, and paste it here in the in the CD public area. Do that, and you will finally prove that you are right about something. Or you do it KEM.
Hey Jake, you keep insisting we have not given support for our opinions. Yet indeed we have, "the Geneva Conventions". You have never answered that, __ you totally ignore it.
Since the leaders of most of the world's nations and the thousands of members of the UN have for many years all agreed, that the Geneva Conventions are just laws or rules, and those rules or laws are in total disagreement with your opinions; why do you insist you alone are correct on this issue?
Will you debate what the Geneva Convention resolutions state on this issure, which you disagrre upon JAKE? __ No? __ why not? Can't you see how obstinate and totallly ignorant you are? __ Of course you cannot, but you really are, both a strange and a amusing person Jake. __ Pitiful actually.
An interesting report from
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/occupation/report/1introduction.htm
On March 20, 2003 , the United States , the United Kingdom and a Coalition of allies invaded Iraq and overthrew the government of Saddam Hussein. They claimed to bring peace, prosperity and democracy. But ever since, violence, civil strife and economic hardship have wracked the land. Thousands of innocent people are now dead and wounded, millions are displaced, several of Iraq 's cities lie in ruins, and enormous resources have been squandered.
Much has been written about the war and occupation, but there is little available that presents a comprehensive picture and an assessment of the responsibility of the Coalition. Most public discussion of Iraq today – especially in the United States – focuses on inter-ethnic conflict among Iraqis, the "civil war," ethnic cleansing, terror bombings and the like. Commentators often blame these tragedies on flawed concepts such as Iraqis' age-old ethnic hatreds, the extremism of Islam, or the meddlesome impulses of neighboring countries. Anything but the occupation itself.
Although the occupation is the central political reality in Iraq , Coalition influence and Coalition violence too often fade into the background of Western political discourse. When Interior Ministry forces commit yet another atrocity, for instance, few mention that a hundred US advisors work in the ministry and heavily influence its every move. [2] Amazingly, some commentators and political leaders have re-branded Coalition forces as humanitarian agents who must be allowed to continue their work to promote peace and stability in the unruly country. The Iraq Study Group presented such a perspective, as do the major media and many leading political figures.
This report assesses the war and occupation after the passage of four years. It considers the evidence from the vantage point of international law. It draws extensively on information in the public domain – reports by governments, the United Nations, human rights organizations, and other NGOs, as well as journalists' accounts. The report considers the role of the United Nations, the legality of the occupation in action, and the human consequences of the conflict. The information assembled presents an argument for a swift end to the occupation and groundwork for a peaceful post-occupation Iraq .
This report considers above all the actions and the responsibility of the United States and the United Kingdom . The US and the UK are powerful nations that claim to defend and promote the global rule of law. As permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, they present themselves as the guardians of order and justice in the world, insisting on the "rule of law," and chastising others for violations of law and breaches of the peace. They should be held to the highest standards, since they constantly and vigorously apply such standards to others.
Certainly, there are various kinds of responsibility for the Iraq tragedy. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who left behind a fractured and badly weakened society. The terrible long-lasting war with Iran (1980-88) and the punishing thirteen years of UN sanctions unquestionably took their toll. Yet the US and UK governments supported Saddam for many years with arms and aid, even while he was carrying out his worst excesses. [3] And they authored the thirteen years of comprehensive UN economic sanctions, which harmed the Iraqi people and left Saddam in power. [4]
While the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are innocent victims of the bloodshed and violence, some Iraqis share responsibility for recent events. Some have participated in reprehensible acts – by setting off bombs in crowded city streets, attacking religious shrines, killing innocent civilians, and operating gangs for robbery, kidnapping, extortion and murder. Iraqis in and out of the government have been implicated in sectarian strife, militias, assassinations, bombings, and death squads, as well as massive corruption.
But none of these acts by Iraqis can justify the wrongdoing of the Coalition. Those who started the war and occupation, particularly the US and the UK, must take responsibility for the death and destruction they have wrought, as well as the breakdown of public order, the rise of sectarianism and the economic chaos that their rule has provoked. They destroyed the Iraqi state and now are reaping the consequences. They must also take responsibility for the erosion of international law and the undermining of international cooperation that the war and occupation has created.
[clip]
The US had also armed, trained and funded a sizeable militia of the Iraq National Congress under the leadership of Ahmad Chalabi, an Iraqi exile who was a Pentagon favorite and tipped as a future prime minister. This militia, called the "Free Iraq Forces," was set up in 2002 and enjoyed multi-million dollar funding by the Pentagon. [43] Very shortly after the invasion, the US air force flew Chalabi and 600 of his militia into Nasiriya in the South. [44] A multi-million dollar CPA contract (nominally to guard oil installations), later reportedly bankrolled the militia, as did a stipend to the INC/Chalabi from the Pentagon of $342,000 a month. [45] Chalabi's forces fought pitched battles with rivals in Baghdad . Many accused them of car theft, fraud, illegal seizure of assets of former Baathists, and outright murder.
[you payed for the suicide bombers, the Iraqi's are the victims.]
A Landscape of Massive Illegality
In the chapters that follow, this report examines the tragic landscape of the occupation. It shows in detail how US forces used indiscriminate and especially injurious weapons and how the Coalition failed to act to prevent the destruction of Iraqi institutions and cultural heritage, including hospitals, universities, libraries, museums and archeological sites. The report also shows how the Coalition used massive military might that badly damaged or destroyed a dozen of Iraq 's cities, displacing hundreds of thousands of people.
Coalition forces have held thousands of Iraqis in unlimited detention without charge or trial, subjecting many to abusive interrogation and torture. Coalition troops routinely kill Iraqi civilians at checkpoints, during house searches, and during military operations of all kinds and Coalition troops have committed murder and atrocities. A "reconstruction" program has squandered billions of dollars in Iraqi funds through theft, fraud and gross malfeasance.
The report documents how hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died. More than four million have been displaced, including over two million that have fled the country. Poverty is widespread, illness and mortality of children exceptionally high, and food insecurity rising steadily. Iraqis vigorously oppose the long-term bases that the US is constructing and the enormous embassy complex that symbolizes hegemony. By an overwhelming majority, Iraqis want the Coalition to withdraw, as repeated public opinion polls show.
For some readers, the broad themes of the report will be familiar. But the chapters seek a deeper and more complete picture than has previously been available. The report describes a landscape of massive illegality and violence. Documenting the many gross violations of international law, the report calls on the international community to address the Iraq crisis and find alternatives for the future. Peace cannot return to Iraq as long as the occupation continues.
The report continues, and should you read it ~jake~ you'll find the legal sources you repeatedly ask for, yet fail to see. Should you read that report, or others, you might begin to see that what the usa has wrought is a crime the likes of which haven't been seen in years. You have violated almost every term in the Geneva Conventions, yet ~jake~ insists that it's not the fault of the usa.
You could also look at a report from human rights watch
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/ihlfaqoccupation.htm
"LOL."
"ROTFLMAO!"
Snicker all you like, it's a poor substitute for properly supporting your opinion. I am *still waiting* for the relevent passages for your legal basis. Will you *ever* post that? No you won't because you can't.
"Perhaps one of the most dishonest debaters I've ever read "
Why? Because I demand that you back up your asserted opinion with facts and reasoning? Or is it simply because I disagree with you? I'm not the only one who feels your position is tripe.
"You ignore what I and others have posted about the laws of war, and the responsibilities of the occupying power."
Another false claim. Not only did I not ignore them, I pointed out that they did *not* provide support for your claim that the occupying forces are responsible for the actions of people not under their control. I am *still waiting* for the relevent passages you think make that case, but I predict you will never post them.
"Neither Kem, nor I nor others have argued that the insurgents who kill each other are utterly without blame for those actions,"
Thank you for *finally* clarifying that.
"we have said, and continue to say that the usa _by invading_ is also responsible for their behaviour. "
Without providing any legal, logical, or moral argement to support what you say. It's not true simply because you "say" it is so.
"Indeed, by invading your country is more responsible for their behaviour. Your country has committed what one of the heros of conservatism called the Supreme War Crime. "
You can argue that the invasion with wrong, but you cannot make them responsible for the insurgents behaviour. The insurgents are solely responsible, You can think anything you want, but your opinion is worthless when you don't back it up with *facts*. You made a very specific claim as to a legal basis for your position, and utterly failed to back it up.
"(to steal the oil), "
No one has "stolen" oil. Iraq is a member of OPEC and collects the same customery concession fee on every barrel they *sell*. They *sell* the oil. That means it is *paid* for. No one has "stolen" oil, get it? You will try in vain to show that anyone has taken oil without paying for it.
"and so you are responsible for the deaths that occur in the country you invaded."
Not just because you say so.
"anarchy ruled."
Anarchy is not a license to behave badly, neither is it a case for assigning any responsibility for bad behaviour other than those behaving badly.
"Your government set the stage for what inevitably followed."
Here is your probleM: The bad behaviour was *not* inevitable. It was a choice made freely. They could have just as easily chosen to behave lawfully. By claiming the behaviour was inevitable, you liken those people to something more like animals than responsible adults.
"Yes, when the usa is kicked out you will be responsible for the deaths that occur amongst the collaborators. "
Oh really? For how long? A hundred years? Five hundred? What's the Statuate of Limitations on this responsibility you claim? You can't just make up stuff and claim it to be true.
"Just as the Nazi's were responsible for what happened to the French and Dutch who collaborated with the Nazi's during WWII. "
Utter nonsense! The individual collaborators were responsible for their actions! Again, can you make any specific legal, logical, or moral argument to support this?
Today in Iraq, many innocent civilians were killed by two homocide bombers. They were in a crowded marketplace, shopping. Collaborators? The US is responsible right?
ROTFLMAO! I would love him to be the other guy's lawyer...
~Skip~ Your last post could not have been written better by anyone. __ Perfect. I have nothing more to say now.
How would you like to have Jakenewton as your lawyer for any type of a case? If he were fighting this issue in a court of law, I fear the judge and jury would become so angry, they would gang up on him and have him tarred and feathered.__ Maybe worse. __ LOL.
Jake, you're out to lunch. Perhaps one of the most dishonest debaters I've ever read on the internet, and I remember arguing with idiots from a.p.w.p back in the day when the internet was called usenet. I'll try to avoid using analogies as you deliberatly misunderstand them.
You say the conflicts in Iraq are centuries old, and then deny that the us has done anything to flame the fires of hate. You ignore what I and others have posted about the laws of war, and the responsibilities of the occupying power. Neither Kem, nor I nor others have argued that the insurgents who kill each other are utterly without blame for those actions, we have said, and continue to say that the usa _by invading_ is also responsible for their behaviour. Indeed, by invading your country is more responsible for their behaviour. Your country has committed what one of the heros of conservatism called the Supreme War Crime. Had you not invaded, had you instead waited for Saddam to die or be assissinated by whoever, you would not be responsible for the deaths that are occurring in Iraq today. But you did invade, you did launch a war of agression (to steal the oil), and so you are responsible for the deaths that occur in the country you invaded.
When your country invaded Iraq, you kicked the dominate group out of power - the Sunni's - in favour of rule by the shi'ites, your government subverted the loyalty of the shia's and turned some of their leaders into modern day versions of Vidkun Quisling. Needless to say, there were people in Iraq who viewed that as treason in wartime, in any country, treason is punishable by death -even Canada, which has abolished the death penalty has that sanction on the books for times of war. From their point of view, killing traitors is acceptable. Needless to say, innocents get caught up in that kind of violence as the 'traitors' who are killed have families who want vengence. What happened to the police who would normally arrest the killers, stop thieves or keep some form of order? Oh, right, they were sacked by Bremer and the CPA. What happened to the courts, again, you fired the sunni judges and installed judges who your gov't thought would see things your way. During the first weeks post conquest, the usa did nothing to secure the civilian population, looting did not result in getting shot by the soldiers nor by what was left of the police forces. The message was given by the usa that the civies were on their own, anarchy ruled. Your government set the stage for what inevitably followed.
I'm not the only one who thinks that the Iraqi's were better off under Saddam, most Iraqi's share that opinion, even the people who were tortured by the bastard think you fucked up by kicking him out.
Yes, when the usa is kicked out you will be responsible for the deaths that occur amongst the collaborators. Just as the Nazi's were responsible for what happened to the French and Dutch who collaborated with the Nazi's during WWII. Just as responsible for the deaths that occured in Vietnam due to your illegal invasion of that country. I have not given the Iraqi's, French, Dutch nor the Vietnamese any sort of 'free pass', I can, however, understand why the people of France, Vietnam and eventually Iraq will kill those they consider to be traitors.
" It's kind of interesting to note what he will and will not respond to, or what he doesn't quote compared to what he does. "
I quote what is germain to the discussion. I do *not* cut and paste verbage from other sites that only muddies the water. What I find interesting is your complete inability to make a logical, legal or moral case that the US is responsible for the violent acts of rival insurgents fighting each other. You and KEM have both claimed it's a tenet of international law, and both failed to post relevent passages to demonstrate your claim.
"he won't reply when it is obvious to evenhimself that he has lost a point. "
Still waiting for the relevent passages KEM. Still waiting...
Maybe he's gone back to freeperville for a bit. I should have said in my last bit that all I did was to summerize what has been said before. I think your arguements on this and other threads have been much better than my own offerings. You're much more consistant and more able to suppress the fustration that comes with arguing with others.
You notice he did not respond to my last post to him, and if he does, it will be the same tired refrain, he won't address an entire paragraph, he's a nit-picker, like a monkey grooming its fur.
Oh, it can go to the archives and he will continue. __ Me too.
I used to do that and then I looked bad. They won't ban you here though. Sometimes they delete a post. Probably should delete some too.
As I stated previously, I believe if Jake hadn't been here, a lot of good information by others would never have been posted. Even bedbugs and gnats have a purpose.
Hey you insurgents fighting each other! Skippy has a message for you! You are helpless to control your actions, your violent acts and their consequences are all the fault of the evil US! That means you can just double your efforts! Hell, just increase your violence tenfold, it doesn't matter because that will all be the fault of the US too!
"YOU THOUGHT INVADING IRAQ WAS A GOOD IDEA!"
"YOU THOUGHT INVADING IRAQ WAS A GOOD IDEA! "
WHen did I say that? Stop making up stuff!
"the insurgents target those people they consider to be cooperating with your invading forces."
This "analysis" is pretty incomplete. That may account for a very small part of the violence. The majority of it is settling old scores, some centuries old.
"Your government has set up a situation where the people of Iraq are ethnically cleansing areas of their country. "
You are back to the Non Sequitur I see. Our government has *not* set up an "ethnically cleansing" situation. The *ethinic cleansers* have set up the situation. What evil in your heart insists on giving them a free pass for that? There is nothing that says they must choose to be acting this way and youu *know* that.
There is no moral, legal. or logical basis for the above statement, and you have simply repeated it over and over without providing any.
"That was not what they were doing when Saddam was in power. "
What an incredibly naive analysis. There was a short lull in the ongoing rivalries only. There is nothing that says Saddam would have been able to continue to prevent it, or that they wouldn't have deposed him themselves.
Then you say:
"They are human beings,"
And then:
"damn right they're going to be killing each other, when they can't shoot at us forces."
Sounds more like insects. Hornets maybe.
"You cannot separate the act of agressive war from the actions of those people "
*You* cannot link the two with the faulty logic of the Non Sequitur. Did you look up that term and study as to what it means like I suggested earlier?
"Without your act of agression against the people of Iraq, the factions in Iraq wouldn't be killing each other right now. Why is that concept so hard for you to understand?"
Because it's completely illogical. There is nothing about the invasion that *compells* them to fight each other. They do so of there own free will.
Once more: There is nothing about the invasion that *compells* them to fight each other. They do so of there own free will. Why is that concept so hard for you to understand?"
Getting back to the main topic of the article, yes, this kind of violence will increase when the US is gone. That will all be the fault of the US too, right? You will give them a free pass to kill each other then too, right? How evil of you.
Thanks ~Kem~ I did notice his behaviour, he's either arguing for the fun of it or I'd say a willful idiot. It's kind of interesting to note what he will and will not respond to, or what he doesn't quote compared to what he does. If it continues much longer tho, I'll start to use language I learned in CFRS Cornwallis. I'm reluctant to do it as I'm not sure that I wouldn't be banned for emulating the language of my old drill instructors. They did encourage creative cursing...
Because he is a very unfair and stubborn person, who loves to argue with anyne who will argue with him and he is intelligent.
You may have noticed ~Skippy~, that he won't reply when it is obvious to evenhimself that he has lost a point. He is either playing games, or he really is an intelligent, over educated idiot. It is not just this issue he does this on. He's a lonely and a sad person,who could be fun if he tried. But I fear he's gone over the edge.
BTW, your last blog said it all. Very good Skip.
THEY'RE FIGHTING EACH OTHER BECAUSE IDIOTS LIKE YOU THOUGHT INVADING IRAQ WAS A GOOD IDEA!
When the yank troops are hiding in their camps, the insurgents target those people they consider to be cooperating with your invading forces. Your government has set up a situation where the people of Iraq are ethnically cleansing areas of their country. That was not what they were doing when Saddam was in power. When Saddam was in power, the women weren't wearing burkas, the sunni's were marrying shiites or kurds; not killing them. There was electricity, there was safe drinking water, they had jobs and could buy enough food for their families, the schools and hospitals were fully staffed and functioning. Now they're not.
Don't you think the people in your own hometown would be behaving just like the citizens of Baghdad if they had no power, the water wasn't drinkable and an occupying army was jailing the men; raping the women and killing the children? Are the citizens of your hometown killing each other by the hundreds in the absence of such an occupying army?
They are human beings, damn right they're going to be killing each other, when they can't shoot at us forces. Damn right your country is responsible for that behaviour. You cannot separate the act of agressive war from the actions of those people who are under occupation. Waging agressive war is the supreme war crime, from which all others follow. Without your act of agression against the people of Iraq, the factions in Iraq wouldn't be killing each other right now. Why is that concept so hard for you to understand?
"They are fighting each other. "
To be clear: I don't deny that some insurgents are fighting the US, but I wasn't talking about them, I was talking, from the beginning, of the ones fighting each other.
Why cite what you will not - and have not - read nor understood. It's almost a shame that this topic will drop from the main page tomorrow or the next day. Then again, if you want to make more of an annoyance of yourself I'm sure we'll see you on another thread.
By the way, I'm not the person who said that the Iraqi's are insects, that was all you. I used an analogy, you took it literally. Perchance are you a fundy type of xtian?
"Why are there rival insurgent groups?"
The reasons are complex and centuries old.
"Couldn't possibly be because their country was invaded ..."
Yes, the recent invasion is pretty much irrelevant. The rivalries have been established for centuries.
"Your arguement is based on the idea that the insurgents are not lawfully resisting the occupying forces. "
They aren't. They are fighting each other.
"you deny that the usa, by invading and then subverting the three major ethnic groups in Iraq is responsible for stirring the pot."
Demonstrably untrue. You will search in vain for anything I have stated that supports this. In fact, I specifically acknowledged this, and then asked if this meant that the insurgents had the mental capacity of insects, since the metaphor was specifically a "hornets nest" as compared to a "pot".
"just like the guy who drives the getaway car is charged with murder even tho he didn't touch the gun or pull the trigger."
Better still, stick with the subject and cite any kind of law that would make the US responsible for the violent acts of rival insurgent groups in Iraq.
Why are there rival insurgent groups?
Couldn't possibly be because their country was invaded by a nations of barbarians, could it? Nah of course not.
You ~jake~ argue that they are acting independently of the usa's invasion of their country. Your arguement is based on the idea that the insurgents are not lawfully resisting the occupying forces. They are fighting each other partly because of historical issues, but mostly because the ethnic and religious groups of Iraq have been subverted by and are now working for the usa. Albeit in a passive-agressive way.
Again and again you deny that the usa, by invading and then subverting the three major ethnic groups in Iraq is responsible for stirring the pot. Your idiot presidunce has tried to emulate the old British Empire's policy of divide and rule, he got it half right - which is real gud for that critter - Iraq is divided, but no one rules nor shall anyone rule until your armies are kicked out. After your armies are kicked out, the collaborators will be killed.
Your refusal to accept them as refugees means that your country will be responsible for their deaths, just like the guy who drives the getaway car is charged with murder even tho he didn't touch the gun or pull the trigger.
At least you've given me the opportunity for laughing at you. My country right or wrong; my mother drunk or sober...
"Refuses to think that the usa could possibly be responsible for any bad thing that happens."
Never said that Skippy, wise up: The US is not responsible for violent acts comitted by rival insurgent groups. How hard is that for you to understand?
"It doesn't matter to jake what evidence is presented,"
There was none. Do try yourself.
I'll cop the same plea ~Kem~ even tho I can't vote in the usa. I'm just as nuts, I love the USA, but I hate the usa. If that makes any sense whatsoever.
I'll plead insanity ~Skippy~, even though I never voted for our crazy president.
Sweet fuck. Like a mad energiser bunny jakenewton keeps on tappin on keys. Refuses to think that the usa could possibly be responsible for any bad thing that happens. Jake, you're a classic Y.A.N.K. Yet Another Nutty Kook. My country always right, never wrong! We only wanted to make the village safe for democracy, too bad everyone living there had to die for that goal to be achieved. Obviously, it was their fault for living in the village that we had to destroy. If the village was destroyed because the people living there were cooperating with the occupation forces and the patriots of that country killed them, it could not ever be the fault of the people who invaded and subverted the inhabitants of that village.
It doesn't matter to jake what evidence is presented, nor would he care if Kem and others proved their point beyond any doubt whatsoever. The fact that his country took the lid of the pressure cooker that was Saddam's Iraq means that it's the pot's fault for exploding in violence. Not ever could the 'city on the hill' ever be responsabile for its own actions.
The criminals responsible for the chaos in Iraq, who are very well motivated and equipped happen to be the president of the usa, the leaders of the army and the citizens of the usa who supported the idea that invading a soverign nation based on obvious lies. No sane thinking individual outside of the governments believed bush when he came up with the wmd and terrorist lie. Whatever you choose to believe jakie poo, in the end the Iraqi people will hold you and your country responsible for all of their ills.
You write, "I will concede that point if you can say why?"
One more time JAKE. READ the Geneva Conventions. It is plainly clear and the United States agreed fully with the convention's provisions which state: If a country is going to take the responsibility of invading anothers, they MUST take FULL responsibility for EVERYTHING that transpires. ___ The civil war and and anarchy in Iraq was not an issue until AFTER we took over their country. We are fully 'responsible' for the civil war and many other things that are now a disaster in Iraq.
The first law of good management is: "You can delegate authority, __ but you cannot an dmust never delegate responsibility." That same principal applies to good government.
The LA. riots are a good example, they occurred, they were rather quickly quelled. If the rioting had continued for months or years, then our government would be faulty,__ responsible __ and guilty, __ just as we are for the civil war and disturbances in Iraq.
Nope, it was not salt, it was pepper most wars in history were fought over, even though salt was once used to pay the Roman troops. Their troops were paid once a year in salt. There-by came the quote: "He is not worth his salt."
"But this is not to say that such a force is mandated to actually prevent violence. "
To be clear: When criminals or insurgents are well motivated and equipped, it does not matter how much security you provide they will be successful in killing people. No one has shown how the occupying force would be "responsible" for such acts in any case.
"JAKE, you are contagious, sort of like a horrible disease. "
*blush*
" if any country invades another, THEY ARE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT TRANSPIRES AfTER THEY OCCUPY THAT COUNTRY. "
I'll concede this point only if you can say why.
"No one is arguing the point that EVERY human is responsilbe for their own actions Jake. "
Yes, you specifically acknowledged this before and we agree.
"However, civil nations governments, must have laws and must enforce the laws. Once we took it upon ourself to invade and take over iraq, we had the duty and a legal responsibility, to insure that civil disobedience, and or anarchy did not surface, nor to allow it to continue if it did surface. "
I'd be willing to bet you could find some verbage that mandated an invading and occupying force would have to earmark resources to security. The current mission in Iraq is mostly that, a police action. But this is not to say that such a force is mandated to actually prevent violence. Can you imagine charging that police departments in the US are responsible for the murders committed by criminals?
"For one example. If we had continual riots in one of our cities and we did not have our police control it, and or military forces if necessary and requested by a governor, or have effective laws to prevent it from occurring in the first place, then our governments have failed to protect the citizens properly."
Let's use the LA riots following the Rodney King verdict specifically. Yes, there was no universal protection available to peoples lives limbs and property, but that doesn't mean it was the fault of the police or govenment. The ultimate blame lies squarley on the rioters. That's my view, you may disagree, but I don't know of any laws that would decree anything different.
"Do you like the pepper issue?"
I wasn't acutely aware of it. I had thought perhaps salt was a bigger cause for war. I just finished an interesting book called "Food in History" that touched on conflicts around salt and spices. Stanley Karnow's "Vietnam: A History" touched on general conflicts in the area I think with Spain, Portugal, and the Dutch involving trade which certainly included spices.
I lied. __ Not intentionally. Here I am again JAKE, you are contagious, sort of like a horrible disease.
You missed the big point, JAKENEWTON. Dom's, mine and others point. Not only was the Iraqi war unjust and illegal, the point is, to debate yours', if any country invades another, THEY ARE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT TRANSPIRES AfTER THEY OCCUPY THAT COUNTRY.
No one is arguing the point that EVERY human is responsilbe for their own actions Jake. However, civil nations governments, must have laws and must enforce the laws. Once we took it upon ourself to invade and take over iraq, we had the duty and a legal responsibility, to insure that civil disobedience, and or anarchy did not surface, nor to allow it to continue if it did surface.
We failed miseralbly in that respect and yes, we ARE fully responsible for the killings and civil war going on in Iraq. We did not insure that such would not be prevelent. That is our fault.
For one example. If we had continual riots in one of our cities and we did not have our police control it, and or military forces if necessary and requested by a governor, or have effective laws to prevent it from occurring in the first place, then our governments have failed to protect the citizens properly. That is what we have done in Iraq, by negligence on our part, civil disorder erupted after WE Americans took control of the country. We deposed their government, their president and we didn't adequately plan for the anarchy which resulted from our illegal interferance. Your argument is nonsense. ___ You lose. Live with it. Do you like the pepper issue?
KEM, did you forget what point I was agrguing against? I think you did.
"Don't have to, __ DOM II did here with his post and the offered links at 3:05pm 29 Jan."
Demonstrably false. His links describe whether it was an illegal war of aggression, and did not address the point of whether the US is responsible for the violent acts of rival insurgents whatsoever. I never argued about whether the war was legal or aggressive.
"You lost."
Nope, my position is unscathed and remains on the table. Maybe someone else can try.
Don't have to, __ DOM II did here with his post and the offered links at 3:05pm 29 Jan. Your pitiful argument has been adequately answered and you are wrong. __ You lost. Now this is a goodby to you and your nonsense here Jake. ~BYYYYYYYYYYYYYY-by.~
~4thefuture~ If you are actually interested in the pepper war issue, look up this title.
The South China Sea and the Marinetime Nature of War for 20th Century. It tells how the Viet-Mein generated billions from their pepper trade with the Chinese after 1945, thru the battles and war with the French and then our war with Vietnam.
Big money in pepper, __ ~red and black gold~.
Still not able to back your claims KEM?
4the future, you evidently also percieved that Jake obviously didn't bother to read or if so didn't comprehend the information in the links posted by others, nor did he bother to honestly ponder their arguments and debate their opinions. Jake is a closed minded soul, but beneficial none the less. In nature, even weeds, slugs, flies, bull shit and rodents have a purpose, likewise in the masses of humanity, even the bores and insane serve a purpose.
"What was your main argument? Do you remember? "
How many times do I have to repeat it KEW!?!? it was in my first post! Here:
The rival factions chose to commit violence when in fact they did not have to. The US is not responsible for their actions.
Again:
The rival factions chose to commit violence when in fact they did not have to. The US is not responsible for their actions.
Got it KEM?
"Do not expect me to return here to reply to anything you may write on this thread."
Translation, you can't support your claims to the contrary. No one else can either. Just like your refusal to cite applicable codes of conduct or law. You didn't because you can't.
"Wooooooooo, woooooooooooo, Aieeeeeee "
*Who* is insane?
I want to get to the war for pepper corns issue but first I just have to say that Jakenewton doesn't sound insane to me, he sounds 13.
Now for that quote from, I think Kem - "That is what it was all about, __ pepper plantations.__ Seriously, __ check it out.": I won't argue that there was no pepper in the mix, but there were other, more strategic resources that were mentioned by name by Eisenhower when asked about the importance of Vietnam. Those were wolfram, or tungsten, and tin. Both of these were mentioned by name. Perhaps the pepper corns information was in the classified portion?
I do believe you are insane Jake.
What was your main argument? Do you remember?
Do not expect me to return here to reply to anything you may write on this thread. I do feel sorry for you, but am not going to lose a seconds sleep over it. Bye-bye, am sure you will show up somewhere else on this site.
Wooooooooo, woooooooooooo, Aieeeeeee .
JAKE, some other exceptions are, Germany's invasion of Poland, Belgium, Holland, France and Norway. America's "D" day, MacArthur's Island hoping march to Okinawa. The Aroostook War, Midway, The battle of Britian, There were many well planned wars in Rome's conquests, Genghis Kahn's Wars. The English fleets against the Spanish and French. The North Vietnamese against France and the United States, Fidel Castro against Batista, Cortez against the Inca Nation, Chief Joseph of the Nez Pierce tribe against the US Army. Geranimo against the US Army, he was never defeated, he just finally surrendered, tired of fighting. There were many well planned wars, far too many to mention.
The Bush Iraq war was not well planned JAKE, nothng to argue there. It could have been, it never should have been.
Read the passages yourself JAKE, another blogger gave you the links and other info and sources to read on the subject. ___ Or, bang your head against the wall, you can burn up to 150 calories an hour doing that.
"us in the instance of Iraq, have taken over the government and are FULLY respnsible for everything, crime, disorder, anarchy, control of weapons, laws, rules, infastructers, schools, food, health and medical care, EVERTHING."
Please cite the applicable passages they say all that you claim above.
"The first Gulf War was very well planned."
A good example of the exception I spoke of.
"Read the passages yourself JAKE, another blogger gave you the links and other info"
Translation: There are no passages that support your claims.
Here's an idea: The rival factions also know that they aren't toblame for their acts, that only the US is. Knowing this, they can just act out anyway they feel, right?
~JAKE~ The Geneva conventions state an invading force MUST insure civil disorder does not occur. In other words, the invading forces, us in the instance of Iraq, have taken over the government and are FULLY respnsible for everything, crime, disorder, anarchy, control of weapons, laws, rules, infastructers, schools, food, health and medical care, EVERTHING. If they cannot do that they should not invade. If they do invade, they "own" it. If they set up a government, then they should leave and go home.
The first Gulf War was very well planned. Bush's war was poorly planned. The First Gulf War was to evict Saddam's army from Kuwait, it was a total success. This war was to take control of the government, oust Saddam and destroy his WMDs. It is a disaster. I am finsished here. ~Bye~
"the Geneva Conventions. And then our own military regulations,"
KEM, if you could show me where in theses regulations ( the Geneva Conventions would *not* apply) that explicitly state how US commanders could be held liable for the conduct of insurgents not in their control in any way, that would be great.
"do you believe the war and occupation of Iraq, was adequately planned and successfully conducted.?"
Regarding planning, I would ask you what wars or battles were *ever* adequately planned for. The examples thereoff would be exceptions, not the rule. As to success, that is a matter of on going debate that is largely political, I am not sure myself the best way to measure success in the specific case of Iraq.
Taking out Saddam specifically JAKENEWTON? Like our presidents planned and or attempted to take out Fidel Castro several times, have him murdered and have done the same with other world leaders, and then conspire to set up our own puppet governments. __ That type of conduct you are unsure of JAKE?
You know, if Hitler had been assinated in 1940, a Nazi controlled Germany probably would have ruled Europe, and very possibly the entire world now. There are many good reasons to understnd why that statement makes good sense.
Sources? How about the Geneva Conventions. And then our own military regulations, which are not accepted by the entire world, but legal rules we must obey. How about common decency, what's right is right. We are supposed to be a nation of laws. What decent person would need a source anyway? Lead by example is a true rule of leadership and managment.
We Americans should attempt to have some credence and attempt to garner respect from the world communities. If we do things that are as bad as Saddam did, how can we display to anyone we are better than his type? Are you aware that at the present time, most foreigners despise and fear the American government? Some quietly and many openly. __ That's us Jake we the people rule here. _ Ha.
Finally Jake, even though Bush led us into an illegal war in Iraq, lied repeatedly to garner support for his inflamed ego and power pumped machoism and his criminal acts, do you believe the war and occupation of Iraq, was adequately planned and successfully conducted.?
"You are not sure we have no right to force ourselves on other nations, "
I wasn't clear, I was refering to taking out Saddam specifically.
"By world accepted laws and signed by the United States president, we had to insure, we did not allow a civil war or anarchy to develop after we invaded Iraq. "
Source?
You are not sure we have no right to force ourselves on other nations, use military force to promote democracy JAKENEWTON?
Your main point JAKE has been well argued by several others. By world accepted laws and signed by the United States president, we had to insure, we did not allow a civil war or anarchy to develop after we invaded Iraq. We not only failed miserabley in that regard, we assisted it, by not securing weapons of war in that country after the "mission was accomplished".
The entire Iraq war and occupation has been an expensive disaster in both resources and lives that never should have happened. We will pay dearly for it when our depression hits and the depression will arrive because of our crumbling economy, primarily due to the war with Iraq. __ Karma does rule.
I have to sign out now. ~Bye~
It did not require 20-20 hindsight JAKE. Powell warned Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld of what would transpire if we invaded Iraq, and they did not accept either his or many others wisdom and advice, including that of Bush SR.
The truth is, the invasion was about billions of money for Halliburton, and control of the Iraqi oil. It was greed and that is the bottom line. Bush did not give a rip about the citizens of Iraq then, nor does he now. He also does not give a rip about the citizens of America, that is self evident. And we are screwed and Congress proved it last night, when they gave Bush several standing ovations, as he once again defended his policies. I could not believe my ears and eyes.
"My comment was to remind you that you wrote, you only had one argument here, and that is not so."
OK, I'll concede it. I made other *minor* points. But let me repeat my main point: The rival insurgent factions in Iraq are alone responsible for their insurgent acts, and not the US.
"Since you asked me about Saddam's brutality, yes indeed he was not only a brutal dictator, he was a madman, a demon, who ruled by the motivation of fear."
OK, I agree with this.
"That is no excuse or any legal reason for us to take him out. America has no right to attempt to rule the world. "
Not sure this but it's beside the main point.
If you read my other posts Jake, you will see what I thought of Saddam. My comment was to remind you that you wrote, you only had one argument here, and that is not so. You don't even remember what you say, from one half hour to the next.
Since you asked me about Saddam's brutality, yes indeed he was not only a brutal dictator, he was a madman, a demon, who ruled by the motivation of fear. That is no excuse or any legal reason for us to take him out. America has no right to attempt to rule the world. If what was happening in Iraq because of Saddam was undesirable to the world, then it was up to the United Nations to take action.
"stated that Saddam ruled with brutality, "
Are you saying he did not?
"Then you argued the Nurenberg trials, and offered some rather ignorant comments about that issue."
I said that no one was punished at Nuremberg for acts commited by someone who was not working on behalf of their organization, are you saying that is not true?
"That statment is not intended to be mean spirited on my part Jake,"
Well thanks.
"your bizzaire comments "
I think it's bizzare to attribute blame to "the US" for violent acts by Iraq insurgents that include individuals with *free will*.
The whackng a hornet's nest was an excellent analogy Jake, and instead of understnding it's meaning and significance and learn from it, you mock the writer.
You do not accept others opinions at all. Never. You need help Jake. __ Seek it before you are to old for any. Never mind, I believe it is already far too late for you, you is what you is and I for one am delighted to see you post here, Your comments bring out some useful informatin from others who are well informed and have good common sense. Thank you Jakenewton.
"You do not accept others opinions at all."
Why should I accept opinions that are lousy?
"The whackng a hornet's nest was an excellent analogy Jake"
It was OK to a point. Here is what I am more than willing to concede: Taking out Saddam created a power vacumn. With the clarity of 20-20 hindsight, we could say that those in charge should have anticipated that the traditional rival groups of the area would exhibit the mental faculties of insects rather than that of mature, human adults. Indeed, it appears that they miscalculated on that point. I fully concede that, and think it's great that we seem to agree on something once again.
"In some cases, military commanders may be responsible for war crimes committed by subordinate members of the armed forces, or other persons subject to their control. "
Obviously, US military commanders are in no control *whatsoever* of the actions of the rival insurgent groups.
"(oi, jack, remember you said something about the above, seems you're wrong.)"
LOL! Yeah right.
"THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS ON THE LAWS OF WAR, 1949"
The rival insurgent groups are not signatories to the Geneva Conventions, and therefore do not enjoy any of the considerations thereof, nor should anyone expect that they would comply to the conventions. Duh.