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: 169609" data-attributes="member: 8423"><p>So you think it's a lack of fortitude that is keeping us there? Wouldn't be the humanitarian disaster that would follow a withdraw before Iraq is ready? </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">http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sc8111.doc.htm</a></span></p><p></p><p>I stand by my position. We'll leave when doing so doesn't cause a humanitarian nightmare. My "understanding" of international law is on par with every relief agency and UN link I posted. Our obligations extend beyond the "nominal" end to the occupation per definition. Bush could have cut and run in 04 with the declaration of Iraqi sovereignty to save his ratings. You can read the post above as to why that didn't happen. </p><p></p><p>The first British troops left recently a day after an Iraqi battalion transfered command to strictly an Iraqi commander. They left from Basra where reports were that the troops no longer even needed to wear helmets. As the situation warrants, the withdraw will happen. If done too soon, who do you think is to blame? The Iraqi govt, being sovereign and all as per your statement, is completely capable of requesting help. Especially help from the very country responsible for removing their security in the first place.</p><p>Continue to say we are accomplishing nothing there... say it long enough and we'll have them ready to defend themselves. </p><p></p><p>So, since it's no longer an "occupation" I guess you can no longer say "end the war". Or is this an attempt to play symantics for the sake of highlighting our "legal" rights to leave. Our responsibility extends to retuning Iraq back to being able to govern AND defend itself per doctrine of war on land. The label "occupation" may have disappeared, but our obligations haven't. Maybe you should be protesting the Iraqi government for asking us to stay. Or maybe the insurgents who continue to make help necessary. Our obligation to the Iraqi people continues, despite your appeals to try to win the global popularity contest.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'd be willing to bet I know more about it than you think.</p><p><img src="http://www.pbase.com/kuru/image/74463655.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p>Thanks for weighing in with such a nasty attitude. In the future, there's nothing stopping you from simply stating your position without trying to be insulting. Welcome to the board.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="canon, post: 169609, member: 8423"] So you think it's a lack of fortitude that is keeping us there? Wouldn't be the humanitarian disaster that would follow a withdraw before Iraq is ready? [SIZE="1"]Source: [url]http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sc8111.doc.htm[/url][/SIZE] I stand by my position. We'll leave when doing so doesn't cause a humanitarian nightmare. My "understanding" of international law is on par with every relief agency and UN link I posted. Our obligations extend beyond the "nominal" end to the occupation per definition. Bush could have cut and run in 04 with the declaration of Iraqi sovereignty to save his ratings. You can read the post above as to why that didn't happen. The first British troops left recently a day after an Iraqi battalion transfered command to strictly an Iraqi commander. They left from Basra where reports were that the troops no longer even needed to wear helmets. As the situation warrants, the withdraw will happen. If done too soon, who do you think is to blame? The Iraqi govt, being sovereign and all as per your statement, is completely capable of requesting help. Especially help from the very country responsible for removing their security in the first place. Continue to say we are accomplishing nothing there... say it long enough and we'll have them ready to defend themselves. So, since it's no longer an "occupation" I guess you can no longer say "end the war". Or is this an attempt to play symantics for the sake of highlighting our "legal" rights to leave. Our responsibility extends to retuning Iraq back to being able to govern AND defend itself per doctrine of war on land. The label "occupation" may have disappeared, but our obligations haven't. Maybe you should be protesting the Iraqi government for asking us to stay. Or maybe the insurgents who continue to make help necessary. Our obligation to the Iraqi people continues, despite your appeals to try to win the global popularity contest. I'd be willing to bet I know more about it than you think. [IMG]http://www.pbase.com/kuru/image/74463655.jpg[/IMG] Thanks for weighing in with such a nasty attitude. In the future, there's nothing stopping you from simply stating your position without trying to be insulting. Welcome to the board. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Anti War Protests
Top