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: 168871" data-attributes="member: 8423"><p>I could have left it alone, but felt like dragging you thru the mud a bit more. You are confusing "occupiers" with conflicts. By definition, when a country is occupied, the Occupying Power serves as government and security because they've defeated/overthrown the existing one.</p><p></p><p>Jones, did Syria "conquer" Lebanon, or was there a military withdrawl leaving the military and government intact?</p><p></p><p>Jones, did Israel "conquer" Palestine, or was there a military withdrawl leaving Palestinian security forces and government intact? </p><p></p><p>Jones, did America "conquer" Iraq, leaving the country without a military or a government?</p><p></p><p>If you're going to draw a parallel, draw from one that resembles the current situation. I suspect there is a reason you omitted Afghanistan. Had either one of those situations resulted in being "conquered" and left without govt or security, yes, they would be required to follow international law. Don't make me school you on the logical fallacy of False Analogy.</p><p></p><p>Incidently, this is also why we didn't need to stay after the first war in Iraq. We didn't conquer them. Only expelled them from Kuwait as per UN resolutions. It would have been quite different had we knocked out their military and unseated the government.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="canon, post: 168871, member: 8423"] I could have left it alone, but felt like dragging you thru the mud a bit more. You are confusing "occupiers" with conflicts. By definition, when a country is occupied, the Occupying Power serves as government and security because they've defeated/overthrown the existing one. Jones, did Syria "conquer" Lebanon, or was there a military withdrawl leaving the military and government intact? Jones, did Israel "conquer" Palestine, or was there a military withdrawl leaving Palestinian security forces and government intact? Jones, did America "conquer" Iraq, leaving the country without a military or a government? If you're going to draw a parallel, draw from one that resembles the current situation. I suspect there is a reason you omitted Afghanistan. Had either one of those situations resulted in being "conquered" and left without govt or security, yes, they would be required to follow international law. Don't make me school you on the logical fallacy of False Analogy. Incidently, this is also why we didn't need to stay after the first war in Iraq. We didn't conquer them. Only expelled them from Kuwait as per UN resolutions. It would have been quite different had we knocked out their military and unseated the government. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Anti War Protests
Top