Would more U.S. troops help stop Iraq violence?

[Calax]

I personally fail to see how the collapse of two towers with a death toll of 3 odd thousand, could the death of... How many servicemen and civilians? AND the toppeling of not one but TWO governments.

 

(yes meta... I suck when it comes to grammer, get over it)

Edited January 12, 2007 by Calax

[metadigital]

It's not one for one.

 

If the US didn't retaliate against al-Quaeda, it would be a starter's pistol telling every nutjob to attack the US without fear of retaliation.

[Calax]

It's not one for one.

 

If the US didn't retaliate against al-Quaeda, it would be a starter's pistol telling every nutjob to attack the US without fear of retaliation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thats not what I was lead to believe by our beloved government... They INSISTED that Iraq was connected to Al Queda and that going into Iraq was another way to keep WMD's out of terrorist hands. Then the reneged on Al Queda and have failed to find any trace of the WMD's since we've been there.

[Volourn]

" failed to find any trace of the WMD's "

 

False.

[Calax]

" failed to find any trace of the WMD's "

 

False.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

so they found the remains of his old stockpile of germ warfare equipment from the Iraq Iran war... It's not like we weren't expecting that. What we didn't find was the Anthrax we were promised or the Nukes.

[Gorgon]

"How can you have an "illegal war"?"

 

 

The US and UK both are signitaries to the UN treaty, they weren't strictly allowed to invade other countries without the sayso of the security council.

 

That makes it an 'illegal war', which Khoffi Anan agreed it was.

Now of course the adherence to the UN treaty falls to the individual countries, and there aren't any means to make them comply.

[Walsingham]

Hmm...I don't really have much to say other than more troops=more violence=more needless death.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Given my fondness for weasels it pains me to say this, but I don't follow you. You mean more troops means more violence, as in the same way having no troops would mean no violence?

 

Eddo, I know you're not daft, so what are you waffling on about? There ARE mass graves in Iraq. We simply haven't found them all yet.

 

EDIT: Gorgon, you are allowed to have a legal war, at least according to the advice of the attorney general. The UN is one way, an immediate threat to national security is another. The third and final way, established by precedent in Bosnia, Somalia, etc, is where intervention is required to avoid a 'humanitarian disaster'. It's amusing to note that whenever the AG is quoted in anti-war sites they conveniently leave out that page!

[Gorgon]

How about a bull**** story about WMDs ;P

 

The US tried to make it a 'legal war' by attemping to discredit Hans Blix, and then presenting their case to the council and calling for a resolution. When that failed they demonstrated their utter contempt for the process by invading anyway.

 

National interests always trumph these ceremonial international treaties, legality would have been nice for the US to have had, but it was hardly required.

Edited January 12, 2007 by Gorgon

[SteveThaiBinh]

OK, so Bush was on TV last night talking about a 'surge', and of course I switched my brain off defensively, as you do, but I think he mentioned something about how these new troops will succeed where other troops have failed because they will be doing something different. Did anyone catch what that different thing was? And, indeed, why they haven't been doing it before...

[metadigital]

"How can you have an "illegal war"?"

 

 

The US and UK both are signitaries to the UN treaty, they weren't strictly allowed to invade other countries without the sayso of the security council.

 

That makes it an 'illegal war', which Khoffi Anan agreed it was.

Now of course the adherence to the UN treaty falls to the individual countries, and there aren't any means to make them comply.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Garbage.

 

Kofi Annan couldn't even make the Sudanese government stop their Janjaweed genocidal attacks in the Darfur. Let alone tell China to get out of Tibet.

 

The UN has no authority, besides that which is given to it by the countries of the world. And that is nothing.

 

I say again, there is no such thing as an "illegal war".

 

Talk all you want about ethics and morals, but the legal "arena" is a combative one.

[Gorgon]

Non sequitur.

 

 

Who said I was talking about morality, or that I disagree that the UN has no authority or enforcement other than what the strong members can impose upon others and themselves.

 

The US and the UK signed, into law, that they would not go invade without UN aproval. The rest is excuses. In the case of Iraq, a pathetic one.

Edited January 12, 2007 by Gorgon

[metadigital]

You were talking about "illegal wars" which is like talking about the immorality of a preying mantis killing a spider.

[Gorgon]

When did abstracts like good and evil come into the discussion ?, but since we are in that territory ; It's not a bad thing at all to make an effort to limit wars by signing such agreements since people periodically seem to forget the destuction and the sacrifices war brings with it.

[metadigital]

Yes it wouldbe lovely if psychopathic meglomaniacs kept their word of honour, ... like, say, Hitler and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact with Stalin. "

[Gorgon]

As bad as Bush is I believe the rule is you can't compare him to Hitler. ;D

Edited January 12, 2007 by Gorgon

[Blank]

So, we know there aren't and weren't weapons of mass destruction. But I can't remember, did Saddam allow U.S. weapons inspectors to investigate?

[213374U]

When did abstracts like good and evil come into the discussion ?, but since we are in that territory ; It's not a bad thing at all to make an effort to limit wars by signing such agreements since people periodically seem to forget the destuction and the sacrifices war brings with it.

So you actually promote having an organism that decides when it's "okay" to have a war, and when it isn't? A set of "laws" that would turn wars into the legal equivalent of mass executions. So, who's going to decide, and on what criteria?

 

It would be funny if it wasn't so absurd.

[Gorgon]

It already is funny if it wasen't so absurd, but it's better than nothing. It does keep some small check on would be conquerers.

[Calax]

So, we know there aren't and weren't weapons of mass destruction. But I can't remember, did Saddam allow U.S. weapons inspectors to investigate?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

US or UN?

 

US never sent any inspectors except as part of the group from the UN.

 

and I think that any leader would act similar to saddam when told "Open up that armory that's supposed to contain high level research projects." Imagine some random squad of guys from arabia showing up at the front door of the NSA and demanding entry because we might be housing biological weapons in the basement.

[SteveThaiBinh]

The UN has no authority, besides that which is given to it by the countries of the world. And that is nothing.

Well, countries that have signed the UN charter have agreed to the conditions for a legal war that Walsingham referred to. Isn't that legally binding? I don't think the UN has sole authority over deciding whether or not those conditions were met, though its voice should carry weight. In the absence of a formal court that we can take the US and UK to in order to test the legality of the war under those conditions, I think a conensus among international lawyers is the best we can manage. The system isn't perfect - far from it.

I say again, there is no such thing as an "illegal war".

I'm surprised to hear you say that. Most supporters of the war that I know believe there are legal and illegal wars, but that the invasion of Iraq was a legal war. Expert international lawyers are on BBC World endlessly arguing about whether the war was legal or not, implicitly acknowledging that wars can be legal or illegal. What's caused you to come to the conclusion that there are no illegal wars?

 

I still don't know what these extra troops are going to be doing in Iraq. They're what, a 20% increase in US strength, or something like that? It's hard to see how that would transform that situation.

Edited January 13, 2007 by SteveThaiBinh

[Calax]

Steve, given your current location Geographically, have there been any changes given that Iraq decended into a full scale anarky/civil war?

 

Also: welcome back, haven't seen you in a while.

[213374U]

It already is funny if it wasen't so absurd, but it's better than nothing. It does keep some small check on would be conquerers.

Does it? I don't think so, just look around. Maybe one day humankind will be advanced enough that laws can be passed to effectively govern war (I'm not even going to get into the moral implications of that), but then again, the same can be said for say, gravity itself.

 

 

Well, countries that have signed the UN charter have agreed to the conditions for a legal war that Walsingham referred to.  Isn't that legally binding?  I don't think the UN has sole authority over deciding whether or not those conditions were met, though its voice should carry weight.  In the absence of a formal court that we can take the US and UK to in order to test the legality of the war under those conditions, I think a conensus among international lawyers is the best we can manage.  The system isn't perfect - far from it.

What do you mean "legally binding"? As you said, there's no formal court where the US can be taken to answer for their ignoring and bypassing the UN. That's as binding as me telling you I'll be mailing you $1M next friday. A law that can't be enforced is not a law, it's a joke.

 

 

I'm surprised to hear you say that.  Most supporters of the war that I know believe there are legal and illegal wars, but that the invasion of Iraq was a legal war.  Expert international lawyers are on BBC World endlessly arguing about whether the war was legal or not, implicitly acknowledging that wars can be legal or illegal.  What's caused you to come to the conclusion that there are no illegal wars?

It all comes down to this: in international politics the strong do as they please, and the weak get the raw end of the deal. This is the way it always has been, even before there was such a thing as "international law". So, in the end, it is all just a farce to have the masses sleep at ease. "International law" is not only vague and inefficient (being dependent on what international lawyers happen to agree upon from time to time), it's not legitimate (veto power?) nor enforceable. Edited January 13, 2007 by 213374U

[SteveThaiBinh]

Steve, given your current location Geographically, have there been any changes given that Iraq decended into a full scale anarky/civil war?

 

Also: welcome back, haven't seen you in a while.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks. )

 

It's been quieter and relatively safer here in Saudi Arabia, say the expats who've lived here a long time, because all the troublemakers have crossed the border to join the 'struggle' in Iraq. The Saudi government is building a massive wall along their Iraq border (or say they plan to, at least) because they're terrified that when the situation in Iraq is finished, however it plays out, experienced guerrilla terrorists will flood back across the border and create merry hell. Egypt and others are scared, too.

 

This is one of the more frightening aspects of the whole thing. Everyone's desperately trying to achieve a 'win' in Iraq, with little thought to how even the best-case scenario 'win' for Iraq is deeply problematic for the stability of the region.

[metadigital]

The UN has no authority, besides that which is given to it by the countries of the world. And that is nothing.

Well, countries that have signed the UN charter have agreed to the conditions for a legal war that Walsingham referred to. Isn't that legally binding? I don't think the UN has sole authority over deciding whether or not those conditions were met, though its voice should carry weight. In the absence of a formal court that we can take the US and UK to in order to test the legality of the war under those conditions, I think a conensus among international lawyers is the best we can manage. The system isn't perfect - far from it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, but that is precisely the problem. The courts of a country don't exist outside of that country: they are interpreting the law as written by the (elected) government and passing judgment and sentence. The UN is just a club put together to try to get the countries to talk to each other: it's a completely different configuration. There is no UN goverment that writes international law, and no UN prison to lock offenders up in.

I say again, there is no such thing as an "illegal war".

I'm surprised to hear you say that. Most supporters of the war that I know believe there are legal and illegal wars, but that the invasion of Iraq was a legal war. Expert international lawyers are on BBC World endlessly arguing about whether the war was legal or not, implicitly acknowledging that wars can be legal or illegal. What's caused you to come to the conclusion that there are no illegal wars?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because there is no authority for a legal judgment. As it was, the UK Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, just rubberstamped the Tony Blair's policy (the fact that they were flatmates at university had nothing to do with it, I'm sure!).

 

It's a feeble, flaccid and even dangerous conceit. For example, how legal is China's annexation of Tibet? Is it even relevant? What about Taiwan?

[taks]

it is actually illegal via the constitution of the US to hand over sovereignty to any body other than the US government. no matter what treaty is signed, ultimately, the US government answers to the people of the US ONLY. that is a fundamental concept of "sovereign."

 

taks