Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Anti War Protests
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jones" data-source="post: 168835" data-attributes="member: 4805"><p>Good start.</p><p> Bad ending. Once again, that's just your <em>opinion, </em>it's NOT International Law.</p><p></p><p> They sure do, as long we are an <strong>occupying</strong> power. Refer back to your first quote for for a concise, to the point explanation of when those responsibilities end. Go ahead and scour the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Doctrine (I know you already have<img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/group1/wink.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wink:" title="Wink :wink:" data-shortname=":wink:" />) and see if you can find <strong>any </strong>preconditions for ending an occupation. We both already know that you have tried and failed. But here ya go, give it one more shot:</p><p></p><p> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090723082024/http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm" target="_blank">Geneva Conventions</a></p><p></p><p> <a href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/lawwar.asp" target="_blank">Hague Conventions</a></p><p></p><p>Like, OMG, is that yet another straw man?</p><p></p><p>It <strong>is</strong> our responsibility to protect the citizens as <strong>long we are an occupying power</strong>, I've never denied that and it is clearly part of our obligations under International Law.</p><p></p><p> And now here we go, back to you making up laws again when the the existing ones don't fit your argument. As I stated earlier, there is a very good reason that no set of International Laws includes the preconditions that you keep making up and trying to add in. Because they would give occupiers who<em> really didn't want to leave </em>an excuse not to. That's why you didn't hear Syria using International Law as an excuse to stay in Lebanon, or why you don't hear Israel citing the constraints of International Law as a reason to occupy the West Bank. It's a ludicrous argument, and the fact that you seem to</p><p>be the only one making it should tell you something.</p><p></p><p>Absolutely, that's never been in doubt.</p><p></p><p>Cripes, he's off in the corner swinging at his straw man again...</p><p></p><p> One more time for the learning impaired:</p><p></p><p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090723082024/http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm" target="_blank">Geneva Conventions</a></p><p><a href="http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm" target="_blank">http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm</a></p><p><a href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/lawwar.asp" target="_blank">Hague Conventions</a></p><p></p><p> Take care</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jones, post: 168835, member: 4805"] Good start. Bad ending. Once again, that's just your [I]opinion, [/I]it's NOT International Law. They sure do, as long we are an [B]occupying[/B] power. Refer back to your first quote for for a concise, to the point explanation of when those responsibilities end. Go ahead and scour the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Doctrine (I know you already have:wink:) and see if you can find [B]any [/B]preconditions for ending an occupation. We both already know that you have tried and failed. But here ya go, give it one more shot: [URL='https://web.archive.org/web/20090723082024/http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm']Geneva Conventions[/URL] [URL='http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/lawwar.asp']Hague Conventions[/URL] Like, OMG, is that yet another straw man? It [B]is[/B] our responsibility to protect the citizens as [B]long we are an occupying power[/B], I've never denied that and it is clearly part of our obligations under International Law. And now here we go, back to you making up laws again when the the existing ones don't fit your argument. As I stated earlier, there is a very good reason that no set of International Laws includes the preconditions that you keep making up and trying to add in. Because they would give occupiers who[I] really didn't want to leave [/I]an excuse not to. That's why you didn't hear Syria using International Law as an excuse to stay in Lebanon, or why you don't hear Israel citing the constraints of International Law as a reason to occupy the West Bank. It's a ludicrous argument, and the fact that you seem to be the only one making it should tell you something. Absolutely, that's never been in doubt. Cripes, he's off in the corner swinging at his straw man again... One more time for the learning impaired: [URL='https://web.archive.org/web/20090723082024/http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm']Geneva Conventions[/URL] [URL='http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm'][/URL] [URL='http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/lawwar.asp']Hague Conventions[/URL] Take care [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Anti War Protests
Top