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="canon" data-source="post: 168848" data-attributes="member: 8423"><p>Jones, let's approach this one more time.</p><p>You agree there are rules of war. </p><p></p><p>You agree we have to protect the people.</p><p></p><p>By law, when we remove the country's ability to protect their people, it becomes the responsibility of the occupying country to fill that position <em>and continue to do so until the conquered nation <strong>can</strong></em>. If we leave <em>before</em> they can provide security, we have failed to protect the people. It IS international law. It is derived from hague doctine and geneva conventions.<span style="color: Red"> If you can't see that, or if you can't post a reference which offers a <strong>CONTRARY INTERPRETATION to international law which contradicts sources I draw from such as Human Rights Watch, International Red Cross, Amnesty International, Jurist (thats slothrops link), Crimes of War Project, American Society of International Law</strong></span>.... <em>then you lose</em>.</p><p></p><p>You're right... the links to geneva convention and hague doctrines support my position on international law. In agreement with me are the sources above. You have yet to post <em>any</em> in support of your position.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="canon, post: 168848, member: 8423"] Jones, let's approach this one more time. You agree there are rules of war. You agree we have to protect the people. By law, when we remove the country's ability to protect their people, it becomes the responsibility of the occupying country to fill that position [I]and continue to do so until the conquered nation [B]can[/B][/I]. If we leave [I]before[/I] they can provide security, we have failed to protect the people. It IS international law. It is derived from hague doctine and geneva conventions.[COLOR="Red"] If you can't see that, or if you can't post a reference which offers a [B]CONTRARY INTERPRETATION to international law which contradicts sources I draw from such as Human Rights Watch, International Red Cross, Amnesty International, Jurist (thats slothrops link), Crimes of War Project, American Society of International Law[/B][/color].... [I]then you lose[/I]. You're right... the links to geneva convention and hague doctrines support my position on international law. In agreement with me are the sources above. You have yet to post [I]any[/I] in support of your position. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Anti War Protests
Top