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: 169208" data-attributes="member: 8423"><p>It's like I have to hold your hand thru this. Thanks for the link, it does nothing to support your position:</p><p></p><p><em>In a June 1, 2004, press conference, President Bush said that he was working with various world leaders to create a U.N. Security Council resolution <span style="color: Red">endorsing the transition from the U.S.-dominated occupation to complete autonomy for Iraq</span>. <strong>Under this resolution, Coalition forces would remain in Iraq until the new government could establish security and stabilization</strong>: "There is a deep desire by the Iraqis — don't get me wrong — to run their own affairs and to be in a position where they can handle their own security measures." </em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>****</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em><strong>On June 28, 2004, the occupation was <span style="color: Red">nominally</span> ended</strong> by the CPA, which transferred limited power to a new Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. <strong>The multinational military alliance <span style="color: Red">continued to assist</span> the Allawi government in governing the Iraqis. The purpose of the Occupation of Iraq was(past tense), according to U.S. President George W. Bush, purely to bring about a transition from post-war anarchy to full Iraqi sovereignty.</strong></em></p><p><em></em></p><p></p><p>If you need help with the definition of nominally, in this context it means <em>in name only</em>. You don't think bringing about a transition from post-war anarchy to full Iraqi sovereignty has anything to do with what I've been talking about? We have a duty to the civilians. And "<em>bringing about a transition from <strong>post-war anarchy</strong> to full Iraqi sovereignty</em>" seems to be exactly what every post I've made said: It is the responsibility of the occupying power to restore and ensure the safety of the civilian population. And as we trasfered power back to Iraq, <em>they</em> declared they weren't ready for such a responibility.</p><p></p><p>Link time:</p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">Source: <a href="http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sc8111.doc.htm" target="_blank">BRIEFING SECURITY COUNCIL, IRAQI FOREIGN MINISTER CALLS FOR RESOLUTION ENDORSING INTERIM GOVERNMENT, RECOGNIZING CONTINUING NEED FOR MULTINATIONAL FORCE</a></span></p><p>As I've said, it is international law that the occupying force is responsible for reconstruction of a govt and security force prior to leaving. Once that govt is established, it is up to them as to wether or not we stay or leave. Obviously, our job there wasn't finished and leaving would have created a humanitarian crisis. Our responsibility remains.</p><p></p><p>I'm not opposed to different options, but those options just don't include leaving the iraqi civilians open for a return oppression or civil war. I'm willing to bet if we leave tomorrow and civil war ensues, you'll be the first to jump to the conclusion we violated international law.</p><p></p><p>Now, try to find something that actually supports your views. And as much as I like wikipedia, it really doesn't offer a counter view to the interpretation of international law which qualifies as a legitimate source which I requested.</p><p></p><p>I'll request once more: Post a legitimate view that refutes the role of an occupying force as defined by the UN, ICRC, HRW, Amnesty International, BBC News, etc or I'm done with you. Declare victory if you want, you've posted nothing in support of your position other than wikipedia which ended up supporting my views.</p><p></p><p>Once again, you failed to address my posts supporting my views from the UN. Support yours with something more than your rhetoric, or we're done.</p><p>I'll give you last word unless you come up with something more substantial than wikipedia or nonsensical bleating.</p><p></p><p>Proceed with your childishness, I'm sure you know no other route.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="canon, post: 169208, member: 8423"] It's like I have to hold your hand thru this. Thanks for the link, it does nothing to support your position: [I]In a June 1, 2004, press conference, President Bush said that he was working with various world leaders to create a U.N. Security Council resolution [COLOR=Red]endorsing the transition from the U.S.-dominated occupation to complete autonomy for Iraq[/COLOR]. [B]Under this resolution, Coalition forces would remain in Iraq until the new government could establish security and stabilization[/B]: "There is a deep desire by the Iraqis — don't get me wrong — to run their own affairs and to be in a position where they can handle their own security measures." **** [B]On June 28, 2004, the occupation was [COLOR=Red]nominally[/COLOR] ended[/B] by the CPA, which transferred limited power to a new Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. [B]The multinational military alliance [COLOR=Red]continued to assist[/COLOR] the Allawi government in governing the Iraqis. The purpose of the Occupation of Iraq was(past tense), according to U.S. President George W. Bush, purely to bring about a transition from post-war anarchy to full Iraqi sovereignty.[/B] [/I] If you need help with the definition of nominally, in this context it means [I]in name only[/I]. You don't think bringing about a transition from post-war anarchy to full Iraqi sovereignty has anything to do with what I've been talking about? We have a duty to the civilians. And "[I]bringing about a transition from [B]post-war anarchy[/B] to full Iraqi sovereignty[/I]" seems to be exactly what every post I've made said: It is the responsibility of the occupying power to restore and ensure the safety of the civilian population. And as we trasfered power back to Iraq, [I]they[/I] declared they weren't ready for such a responibility. Link time: [SIZE=1]Source: [URL='http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sc8111.doc.htm']BRIEFING SECURITY COUNCIL, IRAQI FOREIGN MINISTER CALLS FOR RESOLUTION ENDORSING INTERIM GOVERNMENT, RECOGNIZING CONTINUING NEED FOR MULTINATIONAL FORCE[/URL][/SIZE] As I've said, it is international law that the occupying force is responsible for reconstruction of a govt and security force prior to leaving. Once that govt is established, it is up to them as to wether or not we stay or leave. Obviously, our job there wasn't finished and leaving would have created a humanitarian crisis. Our responsibility remains. I'm not opposed to different options, but those options just don't include leaving the iraqi civilians open for a return oppression or civil war. I'm willing to bet if we leave tomorrow and civil war ensues, you'll be the first to jump to the conclusion we violated international law. Now, try to find something that actually supports your views. And as much as I like wikipedia, it really doesn't offer a counter view to the interpretation of international law which qualifies as a legitimate source which I requested. I'll request once more: Post a legitimate view that refutes the role of an occupying force as defined by the UN, ICRC, HRW, Amnesty International, BBC News, etc or I'm done with you. Declare victory if you want, you've posted nothing in support of your position other than wikipedia which ended up supporting my views. Once again, you failed to address my posts supporting my views from the UN. Support yours with something more than your rhetoric, or we're done. I'll give you last word unless you come up with something more substantial than wikipedia or nonsensical bleating. Proceed with your childishness, I'm sure you know no other route. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Anti War Protests
Top