The 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
Mention should be made of the 4000 civilians that were shot down into ditches during the brief occupation of Hue by the NVA.
It is a bit senseless to ever compare the war and occupation of Iraq with Vietnam. Except to state, that both were unnecessary, illegal, costly failures.
In Vietnam there was the northern border, where American troops were forbidden to cross. We did bomb North Vietnam, which did little good militarily, but it was not in any manner the situation that our troops face in Iraq. NO comparrison at all. The NVA had a well equipped military force, which was well supplied by the Chinese and Soviet Union. There is nothing to compare.
The Vietnam War and the Iraq War are exactly the same. We are fighting in a country that is in a civil war. We are backing one side against the other. The terrain and the infrastructure may be different but the same gorilla tactics are being used in both places. The VC and NVA learned early that conventional warfare was no way to face the US military. The way the war is being fought is the same.
In Vietnam they were called booby traps and they were found in the jungle and the cities. In Iraq they call them IED (or something). There were also no borders in Vietnam war. The war could and did erupt in any place in Vietnam, or in Laos and Cambodia.
The saddest part is that even the ending is going to be the same. Uncounted Iraqi losses, thousands of dead Americans, and thousands of soldiers coming home with PTSD.
Hoa binh
bligh;
Were you a captain in that conflict, perchance? How many civies did the usa kill when they retook the city? Would those people have died if the usa had honoured the pledge to allow nations of former empires their own right to self determination back in 1945 instead of transporting french troops back to their former colonies?
The only real lesson that should have been learned from the Vietnam was is that the us gov’t is not to be trusted. Lying your way into a war was a bad idea 50 years ago and it was still a bad idea in 2003.
~SINCE 1492~ Sorry to have to disagree with you bud, but since you have done so with me, let us debate the issue.
First, the only comparrison I see, is both conflicts were initiated by the United states and both were illegal acts of war. In Iraq, you do not see several aircraft carriers launching bombers 24/7 for (several years). You do not see three B-52s taking off every 15 minutes from bases in Thailand, Guam and Diego Garcia, each bomber loaded with loads such as 108 __ 500 pound bombs, bombing areas in both North and South Vietnam. That continued for several years.
In Iraq you do not see divisions of american troops shelling areas of vietnam with artillary, supported by shelling from battle ships in the Gulf and hundreds of helicoptors moving combat troops from one area to another. You do not see huge bases such as Cameron Bay and Danang, where the air traffic was heavier than Chicago’s Ohara.
You do not see six or so airfields in Thailand, where the takeoffs and landings of fighter bombers and AC-130 Spectre gunships went on for several years. You do not see over 50,000 dead American servicemen in Iraq. Dead for nothing, as are the dead servicemen in Iraq. Far less deaths so far. It is not the same, __ NO comparrison. There are hundreds of other differences.
Skippy, Same old “Devil made me do it” arguement. If it is ok to remember the U.S. atrocities, as it should be, (Mai Lai) why is it not ok to remember the single greatest shooting of civilians by the other side (Hue)? Do they not count because it was NVA bullets? Or maybe they deserved it? Or are you saying it didn’t happen at all?
Tet confronted the Johnson administration with the stark realization that even with a half a million US combat troops already in the field, the Vietnamese had the ability to suddenly, and very unexpectedly, escalate the ongoing war into the supposedly-safe, supposedly-US-allied urbanized areas of the country in truly spectacular fashion.
The startling initial success of the Tet offensive was possible chiefly because the corrupt, popularly distrusted South Vietnamese regime was riddled from top to bottom with double agents loyal to the Viet Cong insurgency.
A similar stark disparity in terms of real intelligence, and real political loyalties, exists today (and has existed for a long time) on the ground in occupied Iraq. The same potential for a shattering, coordinated upheaval against the US presence and the Maliki government also exists.
Surge or no surge, if the Anbar Sunnis re-awakened and turned their guns around at the same time that the Shiites arose en masse to isolate the Green Zone, the situation could be less like Tet, and more like Dien Bien Phu.
Setting such alarmism aside, the true significance of Tet 40 years ago was how it vividly demonstrated the claimed successes of the American military mission there was largely illusion, or more precisely, delusion. Johnson could double or triple or increase ten fold his investment in blood and treasure, but the non-Asians would still be vulnerable in Asia, and time would always be on the side of the locals.
Bitterly, LBJ folded his tent and called for bipartisan unity and a phased, negotiated withdrawal. Tricky Dick smiled gravely, and declared he was more than glad to oblige.
1968 was one of the worst years ever for American democracy, let’s hope there’s no repeat 40 years later.
Bill from Saginaw
It happened, our house maid at the ALSEE facility at the Marine airfield, was married to a lawyer who was one of the victems. She was a sweet heart too, highly educated, a college grad from Princeton.
If Iraq was divided into North and Southern areas, and our troops were not prermitted to enter the northern area. If the Northern Iraqis were supplied by China and the Soviet Union with thousands of Sam missiles, Mig-17, 19 and 21 aircraft, anti-aircraft guns, artillary and Chinese rockets (which were twenty feet long, had a warhead of eight feet of HE and could demolish a warehouse, an aircraft hanger or a barracks.) If that were the case, which it is not, then one could compare the Vietnam war with the war in Iraq.
Hell, we lost one half of the F-105 fighter bombers that were built in North Vietnam. that is a record unsurpassed in the history of war. Even the Japanese zeros did not suffer those incredible loss numbers. Vietnam was a disaterous illegal war, Iraq is a disasterous illegal war and occupation, and we are paying for the incredible stupidity of it ___ and we are gonna pay a lot more.
The Vietnam war was more like the Korean war. The Iraq war was more like Germany invading Poland, a fast blitz and then an occupation. Could our troops there now be subject to an attack such as the TET offensive? __ No way. They may suffer some suicide attacks and some mortar attacks, but NOTHING at all like the TET offensive.
bligh - the Hue massacre was spun by the media and is another example of the propaganda war the US always runs during its wars. The victims in Hue were not killed by the NVA or the VC. They were killed by American troops and American air and artillery strikes. The Hue story conveniently rose to mainstream level in order to take heat of the Mai Lai story that was beginning to break.
Kem - I don’t think we disagree. I just happen to see many many examples of our troops going through the same thing as the troops did in Vietnam. To me only the location has changed.
Hoa binh
As far as the possibility of our troops being shot or blown up by a roadside bomb, and or not knowing who the enemy is in Iraq goes, that is similar to Vietnam. We had one of our C-130s explode in flight, I switched crews at the last minute and luckily was not on it. We discovered the Vietnamese employed to fuel our aircraft at one base, were actually North Vietnamese army officers.
The man who led the night time sapper attack on the 22nd battalion Army hospital at the Cameron Bay base, was a colonel in the North Vietnamese army. He was also the head barber at the BX barber shop at Cameron. The attack came from the bay and they confused the hospital with the C-130 crews area on Herky Hill that night. We had no personal weapons like the troops at the hospital did, only two air police at our road entry gate. It would have been a slaughter, they landed a mile north of our hill. Those types of attacks could happen in Iraq. Probably will. It won’t be a TET type of offense.
When the North Vietnames attacked and occupied Hue. Indeed they did round up Vietnamese people who had been workng with and for the Americans and killed them. I never knew how many were executed, but Susanne said it was very many and her husband was included. She managed to escape that slaughter and fled to an area our Marines had taken as they fought back into the city.
I have seen her for no apparant reason, break into tears as she was dusting furniture or making coffee. Her husband was a very good man evidently. She never mentioned if they had any children. __ I never asked. The army corporal who ran the Army mess hall at Hue when I was there, went back to Vietnam after the war and he and Susanne were married. He ran the best mess hall I ever ate in during my military career, and Sue was one beautiful woman, who posessed a wonderful mind. I hope they have children.
The two wars (Vietnam vs Iraq) also differ vastly in the consequences for the US in losing them (pride vs oil).
Since 1492 The Hue massacre is an incontrovertible fact. It has been proven by hundreds of personal statements from those in the city at the time, photographs, captured NVA orders, testimonials of former NVA officers, and the fact that graves were discovered within days of the reoccupation by american forces that contained over 2000 bodies-most with their hands bound behind their backs. Sometimes the other side commits atrocities too. This is not to pardon what our side did but it is a fact-not fiction.
Bligh;
Do we condemn the massacres of collaberators who were killed or abused after the occupation forces were driven out of France and the Low Countries? We do, but usually we aren’t as hostile about it as we are about the people who invaded the country in the first place. In all cases that sort of vigelante violence kills innocents as well as those traitors who helped the invaders. In ‘Nam, and in Iraq, the usa was the invading and aggressive country. In both cases, you’re damned for it.
During WWII the usa made a heck of a lot of noise about letting the peoples of the world decide their own future. FDR and other yank leaders made an awful lot of statements about self-determination and all that rot. After the war it was business as usual, overthrow the governments that don’t pay the usa tribute (ie. let our corporations rape the people), invade countries when the overthrowing of the gov’t isn’t possible or doesn’t work. My point was that had your gov’t let the people of Vietnam, not to mention half a dozen other countries in the last 60 years, decide their own future without interference from the us state dep’t massacres like Hue wouldn’t have happened. I didn’t argue that it didn’t happen, nor did I say that the Devil made me do anything.
Iraq is yet another example of the usa doing what it wants without regard to the civilian populations of any other country. Like the Vietnamese they’d much rather have a local devil running things than an imported one.
Many of you miss the point!
All those deaths were as a result of illegal actions sold to the US citizenry by lies.
The horrors perpetrated by indiginous groups against each other are, in both cases, directly a result of illegal actions by the US - no more, no less.
When you blame the horrors on the citizens, using ‘civil war’ as a cause celebre, just remember that without the initial and ongoing illegal and unhumanitarian acts of the US miltary, these factions would not be at each other’s throats in a lawless territory.
The US is bent on destroying rule of law wherever it goes and instilling the old rule ‘Might makes Right’ as the new mantra of civilization. When you blame either side, you are blaming the victims, which is the whole population, whether it be Iraqi or was Vietnamese.
All wars are different. And the same.
The main point of the article was not to argue that Vietnam and Iraq are identical in all respects but to point to the probability that fatalities will go up even as we withdraw. I’ve read the traditional response to not enough boots on the ground is to use more airpower. We own the sky. We’ve got bases designed to handle the load for attacking Iran, a bigger country. “To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail”.
I suspect Iraqis know we’d do that to them. Iraq is also pretty fractured into clans/factions. I think it more likely the Iraq government will bear the brunt of the anger/resistance from multiple groups. No one likes a Quisling. Eventually we’ll grind Iraq down to the level of Somalia. It’ll be a long tedious process, boring by the standards of WWII or Vietnam. US historians will write we did everything possible to prevent this. Except leave.
Correct ~Uncanny~
I just hope the ‘Winter Soldier’ testimony in March goes better than that of the Vietnam Vets that tesified. Then finally the US will listen to the truth as told by military that witnessed or were ordered to take place in the atrocities.
Bernard Fall wrote in the early 60″s, ” A war of idealogy can not be won by a war of technology”
the sane is true of Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, & N Korea
“The horrors perpetrated by indiginous groups against each other are, in both cases, directly a result of illegal actions by the US - no more, no less.”
Non Sequitur. There is nothing about US military actions that *compells* the warring factions to go at each other. You would just let them off the hook like that?
“To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail”.
Ture enough, and for the man without a hammer he hopes and prays that *nothing* is a nail.
jakenewton,
without the illegal invasion and illegal destruction of civil law authority, these factions would not be at each other. The US eliminated the rule of law in both cases and instituted ‘might makes right’ social structures.
@ jakenewton
“Non Sequitur. There is nothing about US military actions that *compells* the warring factions to go at each other. You would just let them off the hook like that?”
You’re wrong. It is not a non sequitur. It is a well known doctrine in international law. Those who started the war of aggression are ultimately responsible for every atrocity committed in that war. Many Nazis were executed after WW2 following this principle. Even those who never fired a bullet.
Not to mention that your statement that US military has nothing to do with “factional” slaughter is the dumbest thing I read on this page.
“without the illegal invasion and illegal destruction of civil law authority, these factions would not be at each other. ”
Wrong, it is the actions of the factions themselves that are the direct cause. The could have remained passive but they didn’t. The burden is on you to demonstrate that the US invasion was the direct cause of their actions, and did not merely creaet an anvironment where it was possible.
“You’re wrong. It is not a non sequitur. It is a well known doctrine in international law. Those who started the war of aggression are ultimately responsible for every atrocity committed in that war. ”
Total BS. You just made that up didn’t you? No organization is responsible for atrocites comitted by members of some other organization There is no such tenet of international law whatsoever.
“Not to mention that your statement that US military has nothing to do with “factional” slaughter is the dumbest thing I read on this page.”
The truth is that the *slaughteres* in those factions are responsible, not the US. Wise up.
The fact is that after the US invasion, these factions *chose* themselves to begin fighting, and were not compelled to do that in any way whatsoever except by their own initiative. *They could just as well have gone about their lives peacefully but did not.* This should not be that hard to understand, and you shouldn’t give them a free pass just because you disagree with the invasion, which itself is a legitimate position to have.
The mind of empire does not sanction alternative viewpoints. There are one billion Moslems in the Middle East, one billion!
Our continued presence there is patently unacceptable to them.
Now that Bin Laden has the nuclear raw material for a series of nukes, a Tet like offensive is possible. The offensive however will likely take place in the U.S. The idea of world dominion that is so deeply rooted in Christian ideology may ultimately destroy us at home.
I believe Iraq and Viet Nam represent the same thing: military adventurism with a gloss of “national security” pap. Neither had/has the slightest potential of improving anything in the aggressor nation (USA) or the victim nation (Viet Nam/Iraq). Neither Viet Nam nor Iraq prior to the USA attacking them had the slightest ability to do anything at all to harm the USA and its citizens (I was going to add “national interests” but, then, security and citizen well-being cover that, or used to).
I bet that someday, some really smart person will write a PhD. dissertation which makes clear that the Iraq war is a natural result of the failed policies known as “Reaganomics”.
~DOM 11~ You may be unfamiliar with JAKENEWTON. He is a clone of Dick Cheney, or he may be Dick Cheney for all we know, or one of his speech writers. He writes the same spin that Bush and the other personnel of the White house staff put out. Jake is obviously intellgent, in the respect that he writes well and if one is not paying close attention, his arguments MAY sound plausable.
He also takes umbridge when someone replys to hin in a rude fashion, claiming he is being short changed and people shoudn’t stoop to rudeness. He ignores the fact THAT he often starts such types of mud slinging debates, by writing things in reply and ending it with put down words such as the “wise up” he gave to you, or some other degrading remark, as if he is writing to an ignorant child.
Arguing with Jakenewton is useless, for he will just come back with the Bushism spin and you or any another sensible person will be wasting their time. He is neither fair, honest or sensible with his comments.
Jake, if the factions you’re talking about went after each other without the presence of the united states, then you would be correct. However, when a nation like the usa invades a country they - you included - are responsible for all of the results of that invasion.
(long quote)
“You’re wrong. It is not a non sequitur. It is a well known doctrine in international law. Those who started the war of aggression are ultimately responsible for every atrocity committed in that war. ”
Total BS. You just made that up didn’t you? No organization is responsible for atrocites comitted by members of some other organization There is no such tenet of international law whatsoever. (unquote)
Not BS at all. Do some research on the Nurenburg trials. The usa, France, England and the USSR hanged the Nazi leaders for actions they committed as well as for actions taken by others. C. Powel recognised that principle of international law when he quoted the pottery barn rule “you break it you own it.”
Fact is, when -not if, when - the usa leaves Iraq you and your countrymen will be held responsible for the killings of the collaborators in Iraq. Even if you never voted for the bushitter, even if you protested against every action of his leadership, people in other countries will look on you as if you’re bush himself.
Yep WISHFUL THINKER, a good deal of the world’s pepper corns are grown in Vietnam. If you check the history, there were many areas of Vietnam where our military was not allowed to spray agent orange. Almost every aircraft flight over there was closley monitored by the Pentagon and rules of engagement were decided in the dark and lower debths of that complex.
There have been more wars fought on this planet over control of pepper, than for any other reason, even oil or gold. That is what it was all about, __ pepper plantations.__ Seriously, __ check it out.
“You may be unfamiliar with JAKENEWTON. He is a clone of Dick Cheney,”
*Blush* Hey KEM, nice job on debunking the Iraq is Vietnam theories, I’m with you on that.
“Jake, if the factions you’re talking about went after each other without the presence of the united states, then you would be correct.”
Thay have, for centuries. Duh. The fact that there was a short lull during Saddam’s reign only attests to the brutality of his regime.
“However, when a nation like the usa invades a country they - you included - are responsible for all of the results of that invasion.”
Utter crap. The atrocities are not a result of the invasion. They had other choices, do nothing, negotiate through legal political means, etc. But instead they *chose* to commit violent acts. Got that? It’s real sinple, they chose to commit violence when in fact they did not have to.
Once more: They chose to commit violence when in fact they did not have to. Your letting them off the hook for the free choices they make is dispicable and idiotic.
Can you make a case that that they were forced to commit violence? Of course you cannot, so therefore you are wrong.
“Do some research on the Nurenburg trials.”
No one was punished at Nurenburg for actions taken by individuals not acting as a part of their own organization. The US is not responsible for the acts of insurgent groups, It’s a Non Sequitur arguement, you should look that up.
“when - the usa leaves Iraq you and your countrymen will be held responsible for the killings of the collaborators in Iraq.”
Only by idiots. There is absolutely no moral or legal grounds, and you have not and will not demonstrate that it is so.
Thanks for the tip KEM PATRICK.
The guy’s mind is like a closed fist. Closed empty fist.
I tried to follow his train of thought but it seems it never left the station.
Oh well…
Some links:
Was The Iraq War Legal, Or Illegal, Under International Law:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6917.htm
Supreme crime:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_crime
Aggressive War - Supreme International Crime:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/110904A.shtml
War of aggression
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression
Excerpt from the last link:
“Waging a war of aggression is a crime under customary international law and refers to any war not out of self-defense or sanctioned by Article 51 of the UN Charter.
The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war “essentially an evil thing…to initiate a war of aggression…is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”"
@ jakenewton
Please don’t respond to this message. I have nothing to discuss with you.
Gee Kem, wish I had read your post before hitting the submit. My bad, should have at least refreshed so I could have read your post and decided not to argue with the delusional one.
That doesn’t make you any less wrong Skippy. Anyone else?
Well ~Skippy~, your reply was appropriate.
~Jakenewton~, you say there are no moral or legal grounds for the the citizens of Iraq or other countries, to blame all Americans for the disaster we created in Iraq. I don’t know about the legal, but morally we are shamed or should be.__ Guilty.
Legally, Bush and Cheney are both guilty for the lies which proceeded the illegal acts, which led us into that war and occupation. For just some examples, they told us and the world, that our intelligence proved that Saddam did have WMDs, and Saddam had purchased uranium from Africa. That was a lie, not a mistake, an outright lie. When George Tennant, the director of the CIA, told Bush and Cheney what the NIE report would read, “that Saddam had NO WMDs and he had NEVER purchased uranium from anyone, Bush forced Tennant to alter the NIE report. That sir Jake, is a crime, perhaps the crime of the century.
Based upon that altered NIE report, Congress voted with 77 yes votes, to give Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq, but only as a last resort, and only after Hans Bliss and his UN team had finished their inspections, which Saddan was allowing. Instead, Bush pulled Hans Bliss out of Iraq and invaded the country as soon a he had the necessary Senate votes. There was no last resort, Senator Kerry was correct about that issue.
There is no argument that Saddam was a dictatorial madman, there is on argument he had used poisonous gas against the Kurds. Gas supplied by the United States BTW. that does not give us the right to attack the country and depose their leader. We can do it, and we did,___ who’s next?
If we do such a thing, we must then be ‘well prepared’ to maintain order in the entire country, and help to restore the infastructures WE destroyed. WE, we must insure civil war or anarchy does NOT break out. There is where WE are doubly guilty Jake. First we destroy their cities and farms, kill over a million people, insure another four million have to flee their homeland and then we use borrowed money to build a monstrous embassy complex. Why? How did we ever survive so long with no embassy in Iraq?
Are we the American people morally guilty? __ We did electe Bush as our president whle he was beating the war drums. The argument that he stole the Florida and Ohio votes does not wash, he recieved far enough of our electorial votes in the 48 other states to gain the office. As dad always said when I was punished and was only a by-stander to a mess done by my friends. “If you live in a shit house Kem, you smell like shit.” __ Guilty!
KEM, are rival insurgent groups culpable for their violent actions or not? Are their violent actions caused by the US in any way? Skippy and curmudgeon say yes without properly supporting these beliefs, I say no. That is the only issue I am interested in here.
Yes JAKE, they are culapable for their acts. What you fail to acknowlege is, we invaded that country, for no llegal reason, which at the time had a stable government, regarless of their presidents methods of insuring peace and stability. By so doing, as Colin Powell advised Bush on numerous occasions, “If you invade Iraq, you will own it.” We own it and Bush should have insured there was no civil war or anarchy. He failed to plan for, or to do that. __ It is our fault, __ we are guilty,__ Bush is our president.
” they are culapable for their acts. ”
Good. We agree on something, how about that.
“We own it and Bush should have insured there was no civil war or anarchy. He failed to plan for, or to do that.”
Is it even possible to insure no civil war or anarchy? I don’t think it is. Utimately it’s up to the Iraqi people to decide not to murder each other, I don’t care how many troops you commit. And if they do decide to murder one another, it is not the fault of the US, because they *choose* to act as such when there are alternative ways to behave. That is the crux of the matter, the Iraqi people have free will to choose among various possible ways to act, and the presense of the US has nothing to do with that choice.
Jake, if, IF, if the usa had not invaded Iraq, then any internal mass murdering would be their own business and responsibility. However, your nation invaded. Your nation is the occupying power in Iraq, thus you are responsible for law and order in that country until you leave. That has been part of the law of war since before the first world war in 1914-18.
The yank media likes to put the blame of what’s going on in Iraq solely on the shoulders of the people of Iraq, they accept with not a shred of proof that all of the killings (except of course for those where Blackwater and the us army take responsibility) are the result of the ‘terrorists’. It’s just as likely that the CIA is planting bombs that kill civvies in Iraq as it is that the insurgents are doing it.
The more you argue, Jake, the more you sound like one of my godfathers. He was in the Hitler Youth during the 40s, today he admires GW Bush.
Jake sez
“And if they do decide to murder one another, it is not the fault of the US, because they *choose* to act as such when there are alternative ways to behave”
Really??? What fucking alternative do the people of an occupied country have? Carrying protest signs? You expect them to stick flowers in the gunbarrels of soldiers and mercenaries who’d open fire if they approached them? Write letters to yank congressmen who’d ignore them as they are ignoring their own constituents… You demonstrate a total lack of empathy for the situation of other human beings. Do you expect me to believe that you’d be content if Mexico’s army was able to occupy your state? You really expect me to think you would not shoot someone who collaborated with an army that was occupying your own state? You are evil.
We didn’t have any problems like that in Japan or Germany after WW 2 Jake. There were tons of ammo and weapons left unattended after we took Iraq. We allowed each household to have one AK-47. You are wrong Jake. When we made that fateful and immoral decision to invade Iraq, we could have and should have controlled the country, declared martial law and had a Governor in charge, just as we did in Japan. You have gone from arguing several points here to just one BTW and you are losing your arguments.
One very good thing about you Jake, is because of you, we get some good information from other debators who reply to your one sided, neo-con style comments. Your presence here at CD is similar to, when our bodies are invaded by a bacteria, our immune system fights it off and strengthens.
@ KEM PATRICK
I agree with you on all points except these two:
1) “Based upon that altered NIE report, Congress voted with 77 yes votes, to give Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq, but only as a last resort…”
Absolutely correct. However, the fact is that even with 777 votes, US president had no authority to invade anyone. Under international law, no country can declare war unless they’re attacked (Iraq?) or without UN sanction.
2) “If we do such a thing, we must then be ‘well prepared’ to maintain order in the entire country, and help to restore the infrastructures WE destroyed. WE, we must insure civil war or anarchy does NOT break out.”
“We break it - We own it” idea seems ridiculous to me. It is not a peace of pottery we’re talking about here.
By the same token, you could argue that Nazi Germany should have kept their occupied territories until all the fighting ceased (faction vs. faction, resistance vs. occupiers, collaborators vs. resistance).
If that was implemented, we would all be speaking German now.
US army must get out ASAP, pay reparations and prosecute the war criminals. Iraq would definitely experience certain level of bloodshed. This is unavoidable. It happened in every country after liberation. Collaborators would be worst hit but I must say that I have no sympathy for them.
“Really??? What fucking alternative do the people of an occupied country have?”
We were talking about rival insurgent groups, groping for power, remember? Not groups fighting the US directly. They can use diplomacy and other political methods as they attempt to vie for power.
“if the usa had not invaded Iraq, then any internal mass murdering would be their own business and responsibility. However, your nation invaded. Your nation is the occupying power in Iraq,”
Right, then you say:
“thus you are responsible for law and order ”
It’s impossible to fully prevent the wanton crimes of criminals who are bent on fighting each other. You seem want to excuse the behaviour of rival factions commiting violent acts, as if they were merely animals or children and not, for the most part, adults. Why?
“You really expect me to think you would not shoot someone who collaborated with an army that was occupying your own state?”
The rival insurgents who fight each other are not collaborating with the US.
“You are evil.”
\m/
The insurgents who *choose* to use violent acts against rivals are evil, and you are evil for giving them a free pass to do so when you think you can just blame the US for it. You can’t.
“We didn’t have any problems like that in Japan or Germany after WW 2 Jake. ”
Yes KEM, I agree with you that Iraq is not like Germany, Japan, or Vietnam. Iraq is an artificial country that contains at least three disparite groups that have a long history of rivalry all around.
“You have gone from arguing several points here to just one BTW and you are losing your arguments. ”
Nope, just one point KEM: The rival insurgent factions in Iraq are alone responsible for their insurgent acts, and not the US. The fact that CD readers seem to want to excuse them for this is extremely perplexing.
If we’re going to talk about the laws of warfare…
THE UNITED STATES ARMY FIELD MANUAL
The Law of Land Warfare, 1956
2. Purposes of the Law of War
The conduct of armed hostilities on land is regulated by the law of land warfare which is both written and unwritten. It is inspired by the desire to diminish the evils of war by:
a. Protecting both combatants and non-combatants from unnecessary suffering;
(this part would suggest that preventing civies from slaughtering each other is legally binding.)
b. Safeguarding certain fundamental human rights of persons who fall into the hands of the enemy, particularly prisoners of war, the wounded and sick, and civilians; and
(don’t torture, don’t pull shit like abu grab, don’t deny that former soldiers of the iraqi army are not pows….)
c. Facilitating the restoration of peace….
(don’t argue for indefinate occupation.)
3. Basic Principles
a. Prohibitory Effect. The law of war places limits on the exercise of a belligerent’s power in the interests mentioned in paragraph 2 and requires that belligerents refrain from employing any kind or degree of violence which is not actually necessary for military purposes and that they conduct hostilities with regard for the principles of humanity and chivalry.
(Fallujah.)
The prohibitory effect of the law of war is not minimized by “military necessity” which has been defined as that principle which justifies those measures not forbidden by international law which are indispensable for securing the complete submission of the enemy as soon as possible. Military necessity has been generally rejected as a defense for acts forbidden by the customary and conventional laws of war inasmuch as the latter have been developed and framed with consideration for the concept of military necessity.
b. Binding on States and Individuals. The law of war is binding not only upon States as such but also upon individuals and, in particular, the members of their armed forces….
501. Responsibility for Acts of Subordinates
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. Thus, for instance, when troops commit massacres and atrocities against the civilian population of occupied territory or against prisoners of war, the responsibility may rest not only with the actual perpetrators but also with the commander. Such a responsibility arises directly when the acts in question have been committed in pursuance of an order of the commander concerned. The commander is also responsible if he has actual knowledge, or should have knowledge, through reports received by him or through other means, that troops or other persons subject to his control are about to commit or have committed a war crime and he fails to take the necessary and reasonable steps to insure compliance with the law of war or to punish violators thereof….
(oi, jack, remember you said something about the above, seems you’re wrong.)
THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS ON THE LAWS OF WAR, 1949
Article 3: In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religion, or faith, sex, birth, or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
Well ~DOM~, we broke it, but we don’t actually OWN it, that’s just word usage. We should be, and legaly are, FULLY responsible for what we created there, that is the context of those three word and are the exact words Colin Powell used. After all, he was talking to a deranged child. You have to speak to their level of understnding. Unfortunantly, that level was way above Bush’s head.
I do believe that Bush did have the authority to use military force after the Senate gave him the necessary votes, under the UN resolution. That of course was how Bush and his legal advisors interripted the UN resolution. However that UN resolution also stated, “Not until Hans Bliss had completed his inspections. Well, Bush got around that provision, by pulling Bliss out, therefore the inspection indeed were completed.
Jake, if you whack a hornets nest you’re to blame for getting stung. You’re also responsible when those hornets sting other people. Interesting edit you made, would you care to provide proof that the acts of various factions in Iraq are indeed committed by the Iraqies and not by neocon members of the CIA?
” if you whack a hornets nest you’re to blame for getting stung. ”
LOL! Hornets are insects. If you wish to equate the minds of members of the rival insurgent groups to the brains of insects I would say you are way off base. I see this as proof that you want to give them a free pass. Who is evil, Skippy?
Uhhh ~Jake~ you certainly did have other arguments there, one for example is you stated that Saddam ruled with brutality, implying it was acceptable to take him out. You then argued there are three seperate faction in Iraq. Yes indeed there are and Bush should have been aware of that before he invaded their country.
Then you argued the Nurenberg trials, and offered some rather ignorant comments about that issue. After being shut down on those arguments, by some very astute and intelligent bloggers, you claim you only have one argument. Actually Jakie, you don’t have any that make a lick of sense.
Again, as on other issues, you just continue to make yourself appear foolish and very ignorant and you are not stupid. That statment is not intended to be mean spirited on my part Jake, your bizzaire comments and arguments are self evident to any who have any common sense. I don’t bleieve you are evil, I believe you are a bull headed, pitiful soul, who may be very sad and lonely. perhaps you were molested as a child? I dunno, but you should maybe consider seeking treatment with a good call girl, or just soak your head. __ Drink a quart of prune juice.
“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.
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.
“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*.
“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.
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.
“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.
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.
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~
“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?
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.?
“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.
~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~
“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.
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.
“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?
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 .
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?
“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?
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.
Still not able to back your claims KEM?
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.~
“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.
~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~.
KEM, did you forget what point I was agrguing against? I think you did.
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?
“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.
“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.
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.”
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.
I’ll plead insanity ~Skippy~, even though I never voted for our crazy president.
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.
“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.
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…
“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 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?
“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.
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?
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.
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…
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.
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.
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 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.
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!
” 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…
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.
~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.
ROTFLMAO! I would love him to be the other guy’s lawyer…
“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?
“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.
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] Ver