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: 168780" data-attributes="member: 4805"><p>Canon, </p><p></p><p> You seem to be trying to confuse the issue by citing sources which are irrevelant to your original argument that there exists in International Law a set of preconditions for an occupying power to to leave the country which is the subject of it's occupation. There are none, and it's notable here by the fact that you have so far failed to provide any evidence that such a set of preconditions exist.</p><p></p><p> What Human Rights Watch says is NOT International Law.</p><p></p><p> What Amnesty International says is NOT International Law.</p><p></p><p> What the US Army field manual says...well, you get the picture.</p><p></p><p> Having said that though, not one of those sources, in any way shape or form, supports your contention that it would be a violation of International Law for us to leave Iraq. In fact they clearly contradict it.</p><p></p><p> From Amnesty International:</p><p> Once we cease to to excercise military authority over Iraq(ie, we leave), we are no longer bound by these obligations. Note that nowhere on Amnesty International's site does it say that the US is prohibited from leaving Iraq before meeting a set of preconditions. Nowhere.</p><p></p><p> You did refer to Article 6 of the Geneva Conventions (good job!), but when the text of the article didn't support your argument, you added your own little caveat to the end:</p><p> You were correct right up to the point at which you tried to insert your own precondition for leaving.</p><p>Sorry, but what Canon says is NOT International Law.</p><p></p><p> This is just hand waving, it makes no mention of any preconditions for us leaving Iraq.</p><p></p><p>More hand waving, once again there is no mention of any preconditions.</p><p></p><p> That's an <em>opinion </em>from an <em>editorial, </em>NOT International Law. You did read the article all the way to the end right?</p><p> If you had spent one tenth the time thinking about WHY there are no preconditions in International Law for an occupying power to leave the country it has occupied as you have wasted trying to find them, you would have figured it out pretty quickly (you do seem like a fairly smart fellow). I'll give you hint- noone wants to give an occupier more excuses <strong>not</strong> to leave.</p><p></p><p> Everytime Bush or Cheney defends our occupation of Iraq, they give all kinds of rationales for us not being able to leave. One thing they <strong>never</strong> do is cite International Law. Wonder why? It's because they are being advised by a legal team, not some guy on an internet message board.</p><p></p><p> Widely known by who? You? Widely known according to what? The Law according to Canon?</p><p></p><p> Current events don't even support you. You have noticed that the Brits are pulling out right? Despite the fact that the Pentagon, in its most recent quarterly report to Congress, listed Basra as one of five cities outside Baghdad where violence remained "significant," and said the region was one of only two "not ready for transition" to Iraqi authorities.</p><p> So where's the outrage? Where's the hue and cry from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and anyone else who cares about International Law that the Brits are in clear violation? They are, after all, an occupying force right?</p><p></p><p> We can leave anytime we want to Canon, it ain't hard, and it's not against the law. We just walk back out the same door we walked in. The only thing stopping us is ....us.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jones, post: 168780, member: 4805"] Canon, You seem to be trying to confuse the issue by citing sources which are irrevelant to your original argument that there exists in International Law a set of preconditions for an occupying power to to leave the country which is the subject of it's occupation. There are none, and it's notable here by the fact that you have so far failed to provide any evidence that such a set of preconditions exist. What Human Rights Watch says is NOT International Law. What Amnesty International says is NOT International Law. What the US Army field manual says...well, you get the picture. Having said that though, not one of those sources, in any way shape or form, supports your contention that it would be a violation of International Law for us to leave Iraq. In fact they clearly contradict it. From Amnesty International: Once we cease to to excercise military authority over Iraq(ie, we leave), we are no longer bound by these obligations. Note that nowhere on Amnesty International's site does it say that the US is prohibited from leaving Iraq before meeting a set of preconditions. Nowhere. You did refer to Article 6 of the Geneva Conventions (good job!), but when the text of the article didn't support your argument, you added your own little caveat to the end: You were correct right up to the point at which you tried to insert your own precondition for leaving. Sorry, but what Canon says is NOT International Law. This is just hand waving, it makes no mention of any preconditions for us leaving Iraq. More hand waving, once again there is no mention of any preconditions. That's an [I]opinion [/I]from an [I]editorial, [/I]NOT International Law. You did read the article all the way to the end right? If you had spent one tenth the time thinking about WHY there are no preconditions in International Law for an occupying power to leave the country it has occupied as you have wasted trying to find them, you would have figured it out pretty quickly (you do seem like a fairly smart fellow). I'll give you hint- noone wants to give an occupier more excuses [B]not[/B] to leave. Everytime Bush or Cheney defends our occupation of Iraq, they give all kinds of rationales for us not being able to leave. One thing they [B]never[/B] do is cite International Law. Wonder why? It's because they are being advised by a legal team, not some guy on an internet message board. Widely known by who? You? Widely known according to what? The Law according to Canon? Current events don't even support you. You have noticed that the Brits are pulling out right? Despite the fact that the Pentagon, in its most recent quarterly report to Congress, listed Basra as one of five cities outside Baghdad where violence remained "significant," and said the region was one of only two "not ready for transition" to Iraqi authorities. So where's the outrage? Where's the hue and cry from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and anyone else who cares about International Law that the Brits are in clear violation? They are, after all, an occupying force right? We can leave anytime we want to Canon, it ain't hard, and it's not against the law. We just walk back out the same door we walked in. The only thing stopping us is ....us. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Anti War Protests
Top