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: 168926" data-attributes="member: 8423"><p>Yeah, I made it up. Right after reading it in the Hague doctrine. Come on now, that's my favorite definition and one I've been posting the whole time. From your link to the definition of Military Occupation:</p><p></p><p></p><p>You intentionally left that part out when you posted the definition of the nations army taking control of the land. You need to know, that once they have taken control, <em>they are the authority and responsible for keeping international law.</em> If conflict comes to a cease fire or withdrawl of troops, the responsibility of the citizens returns to the still-existing govt. This wasn't possible in Iraq.</p><p></p><p>I want you to scroll up and count the number of times I've posted this, and how many times I've said the exact same thing. I'm glad you're posting links now, but your argument suffers for it. The Lebonese govt invited the syrians to help protect the christians (as per your link), the syrians changed their position and were booted out (as per your link). Now, for them to have been considered an Occupying Power, they would have to be the official authority in Lebanon. They weren't. America IS in Iraq. Untangle those noodles.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yeah, that was a tough one. From your link, first lines:</p><p></p><p>"The Syrian occupation of Lebanon is one of several terms for the period 1976-2005 when Syria had a military presence in and significant control over Lebanon.[1] <strong>Some dispute the term "occupation", especially since Syria originally entered the country <span style="color: Red">at the request</span> of the Lebanese government</strong>.</p><p>During the Lebanese Civil War, <strong>Lebanon requested Syrian assistance as an Arab peacekeeping force</strong>. The Arab League agreed to send a peacekeeping force mostly formed by Syrian troops. <strong>Initially Syria's mission was to protect the Christians; two years later, in 1978, <span style="color: Red">Syria changed its position and sided with the PLO</span></strong>."</p><p></p><p></p><p>By your definition, Iraq occupied Kuwait. Your example still doesn't fit. Syria ceased to be a "peacekeeping" force and therefore violated the terms of their invitation.</p><p></p><p></p><p>We know why they left... they stopped being a peacekeeping force. Or do you now want to retract your link?</p><p></p><p> </p><p>Again, apples and oranges to Iraq. From your link:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You claim international law does not establish rules for becoming an occupying power. All the links I've posted support my claims based on the interpretation of the geneva conventions and hague doctrine. And now, you show up with your handful of wikipedia links which only further support mine. Once again, you need to show something a bit more substantial before you discredit the sources I've posted and their interpretations. I suspect you can't because international law is interpreted and used by the very organizations I listed. </p><p></p><p>You're in check... post your next move to actually counter interpretations of international law and the very laws themselves as stated in Hague IV, Section III, Articles 42 and 43 or admit checkmate.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="canon, post: 168926, member: 8423"] Yeah, I made it up. Right after reading it in the Hague doctrine. Come on now, that's my favorite definition and one I've been posting the whole time. From your link to the definition of Military Occupation: You intentionally left that part out when you posted the definition of the nations army taking control of the land. You need to know, that once they have taken control, [I]they are the authority and responsible for keeping international law.[/I] If conflict comes to a cease fire or withdrawl of troops, the responsibility of the citizens returns to the still-existing govt. This wasn't possible in Iraq. I want you to scroll up and count the number of times I've posted this, and how many times I've said the exact same thing. I'm glad you're posting links now, but your argument suffers for it. The Lebonese govt invited the syrians to help protect the christians (as per your link), the syrians changed their position and were booted out (as per your link). Now, for them to have been considered an Occupying Power, they would have to be the official authority in Lebanon. They weren't. America IS in Iraq. Untangle those noodles. Yeah, that was a tough one. From your link, first lines: "The Syrian occupation of Lebanon is one of several terms for the period 1976-2005 when Syria had a military presence in and significant control over Lebanon.[1] [B]Some dispute the term "occupation", especially since Syria originally entered the country [COLOR="Red"]at the request[/COLOR] of the Lebanese government[/B]. During the Lebanese Civil War, [B]Lebanon requested Syrian assistance as an Arab peacekeeping force[/B]. The Arab League agreed to send a peacekeeping force mostly formed by Syrian troops. [B]Initially Syria's mission was to protect the Christians; two years later, in 1978, [COLOR="Red"]Syria changed its position and sided with the PLO[/COLOR][/B]." By your definition, Iraq occupied Kuwait. Your example still doesn't fit. Syria ceased to be a "peacekeeping" force and therefore violated the terms of their invitation. We know why they left... they stopped being a peacekeeping force. Or do you now want to retract your link? Again, apples and oranges to Iraq. From your link: You claim international law does not establish rules for becoming an occupying power. All the links I've posted support my claims based on the interpretation of the geneva conventions and hague doctrine. And now, you show up with your handful of wikipedia links which only further support mine. Once again, you need to show something a bit more substantial before you discredit the sources I've posted and their interpretations. I suspect you can't because international law is interpreted and used by the very organizations I listed. You're in check... post your next move to actually counter interpretations of international law and the very laws themselves as stated in Hague IV, Section III, Articles 42 and 43 or admit checkmate. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Anti War Protests
Top