Biko
I am just moving this to the top so you can find it.
4 US soldiers (rightfuly) abducted
Moderators: Moderators, Junior Moderators
Forum rules
This General Forum is for general discussions from daily chitchat to more serious discussions among Somalinet Forums members. Please do not use it as your Personal Message center (PM). If you want to contact a particular person or a group of people, please use the PM feature. If you want to contact the moderators, pls PM them. If you insist leaving a public message for the mods or other members, it will be deleted.
This General Forum is for general discussions from daily chitchat to more serious discussions among Somalinet Forums members. Please do not use it as your Personal Message center (PM). If you want to contact a particular person or a group of people, please use the PM feature. If you want to contact the moderators, pls PM them. If you insist leaving a public message for the mods or other members, it will be deleted.
Biko
We can choose to disagree on whether the war was illegal or not. But frankly, that does not change the fact that the conduct of the insurgents IS ILLEGAL. The legal status of the war is irrelevent to that point, whether you choose to admit it or not.
_____________________________________________________________
am i crazy or am i missing something here?...if the war is ilegal then you cannot complain about the conduct of the insurgence. i dont understand this constance fuss you make about the insurgence not fallowing laws of land warfare. in my opinion the legality of the war changes everything and also legitimize the insurgence.
....do you think your country should have invaded Iraq, (or to use bush's language) liberated Iraq?
We can choose to disagree on whether the war was illegal or not. But frankly, that does not change the fact that the conduct of the insurgents IS ILLEGAL. The legal status of the war is irrelevent to that point, whether you choose to admit it or not.
_____________________________________________________________
am i crazy or am i missing something here?...if the war is ilegal then you cannot complain about the conduct of the insurgence. i dont understand this constance fuss you make about the insurgence not fallowing laws of land warfare. in my opinion the legality of the war changes everything and also legitimize the insurgence.
....do you think your country should have invaded Iraq, (or to use bush's language) liberated Iraq?
-
Steeler [Crawler2]
- SomaliNet Super
- Posts: 12405
- Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2001 7:00 pm
Woof, Woof - appreciate it. Don't have to go hunting for the thread.
"in my opinion the legality of the war changes everything and also legitimize the insurgence."
God damn it, how many ways do I have to explain it? The legality of the war itself, and the conduct of the same, are TWO SEPERATE THINGS. Your opinion apparently conflicts with the laws of land warfare. Just as I do not agree with the concept of proportionality. But whether or not I agree with it, it is part of the law of land warfare. But just because in your opinion the insurgents should not be constrained by law, doesn't make it so. They are guilty as hell, and I hope their leaders are eventually caught and executed (to the extent that hasn't already happened).
The war itself was stupid. Thought so then, think so now. Was it illegal? I agree with the basic principal that if a country is a threat to our interests then we reserve the right to use military force to neutralize that threat. I would say this would not apply if the world were not anarchic. But since it is, if we don't protect our interests no one will. The problem with the Iraqi case, is Iraq was contained. There were other reasons why the administration wanted Iraq to go. But frankly, resorting to large scale military campaigns should be reserved for clear threats, not ambiguous political ends. And for this reason, I thought it was poor strategy.
I am not a moralist. So I will leave the moral debate to others who give a shit.
"in my opinion the legality of the war changes everything and also legitimize the insurgence."
God damn it, how many ways do I have to explain it? The legality of the war itself, and the conduct of the same, are TWO SEPERATE THINGS. Your opinion apparently conflicts with the laws of land warfare. Just as I do not agree with the concept of proportionality. But whether or not I agree with it, it is part of the law of land warfare. But just because in your opinion the insurgents should not be constrained by law, doesn't make it so. They are guilty as hell, and I hope their leaders are eventually caught and executed (to the extent that hasn't already happened).
The war itself was stupid. Thought so then, think so now. Was it illegal? I agree with the basic principal that if a country is a threat to our interests then we reserve the right to use military force to neutralize that threat. I would say this would not apply if the world were not anarchic. But since it is, if we don't protect our interests no one will. The problem with the Iraqi case, is Iraq was contained. There were other reasons why the administration wanted Iraq to go. But frankly, resorting to large scale military campaigns should be reserved for clear threats, not ambiguous political ends. And for this reason, I thought it was poor strategy.
I am not a moralist. So I will leave the moral debate to others who give a shit.
But whether or not I agree with it, it is part of the law of land warfare. But just because in your opinion the insurgents should not be constrained by law, doesn't make it so. They are guilty as hell, and I hope their leaders are eventually caught and executed (to the extent that hasn't already happened).
_____________________________________________________________
so basicaly, regardless of the fact that the war is eligal the law of land war fare should aply?
it seem to me that my initial suspicion was correct. and you just proved it again whit the contradiction you just made below...in one hand you accept that iraq wasnt a serious thread but since your administration had their own reasons you dont mind. and the best thing you can come up with is that it was a poor strategy. not a war crime, but simply a poor strategy. eventhough a whole nation that never harmed the US in anyway has been bombed back to the stone age. and thats exactely why i said to you before that america and americans dont respect no laws if it aint effecting them directly.
and yet, you get all worked up because the insurgence dont follow the laws of land war fare. i mean nevermind a whole country been destroyed; nevermind women and children have been blown to pieces daily in their hundreds. but you do expect them (insurgence) to stick to the laws of land war fare.
am honnestly trying to get my head round this one, so work with me mac. you might not be a moralist but am sure you do have morals, so make me understand where you are coming from. at least on this.
_____________________________________________________________
The war itself was stupid. Thought so then, think so now. Was it illegal? I agree with the basic principal that if a country is a threat to our interests then we reserve the right to use military force to neutralize that threat. I would say this would not apply if the world were not anarchic. But since it is, if we don't protect our interests no one will. The problem with the Iraqi case, is Iraq was contained. There were other reasons why the administration wanted Iraq to go. But frankly, resorting to large scale military campaigns should be reserved for clear threats, not ambiguous political ends. And for this reason, I thought it was poor strategy."
_____________________________________________________________
so basicaly, regardless of the fact that the war is eligal the law of land war fare should aply?
it seem to me that my initial suspicion was correct. and you just proved it again whit the contradiction you just made below...in one hand you accept that iraq wasnt a serious thread but since your administration had their own reasons you dont mind. and the best thing you can come up with is that it was a poor strategy. not a war crime, but simply a poor strategy. eventhough a whole nation that never harmed the US in anyway has been bombed back to the stone age. and thats exactely why i said to you before that america and americans dont respect no laws if it aint effecting them directly.
and yet, you get all worked up because the insurgence dont follow the laws of land war fare. i mean nevermind a whole country been destroyed; nevermind women and children have been blown to pieces daily in their hundreds. but you do expect them (insurgence) to stick to the laws of land war fare.
am honnestly trying to get my head round this one, so work with me mac. you might not be a moralist but am sure you do have morals, so make me understand where you are coming from. at least on this._____________________________________________________________
The war itself was stupid. Thought so then, think so now. Was it illegal? I agree with the basic principal that if a country is a threat to our interests then we reserve the right to use military force to neutralize that threat. I would say this would not apply if the world were not anarchic. But since it is, if we don't protect our interests no one will. The problem with the Iraqi case, is Iraq was contained. There were other reasons why the administration wanted Iraq to go. But frankly, resorting to large scale military campaigns should be reserved for clear threats, not ambiguous political ends. And for this reason, I thought it was poor strategy."
mac malab -
Steeler [Crawler2]
- SomaliNet Super
- Posts: 12405
- Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2001 7:00 pm
"so basicaly, regardless of the fact that the war is eligal the law of land war fare should aply?"
No, not SHOULD apply, DOES apply.
"it seem to me that my initial suspicion was correct. and you just proved it again whit the contradiction you just made below...in one hand you accept that iraq wasnt a serious thread but since your administration had their own reasons you dont mind. and the best thing you can come up with is that it was a poor strategy. not a war crime, but simply a poor strategy."
It seems to me, you are looking for judgement. I don't do judgement.
Beyond that, how did you conclude that "I didn't mind"??? I did mind. But I didn't get a vote.
As I have articulated, I don't think it was "a war crime". Going to war on false pretext is not a "war crime." You need to be more careful with your terminology.
"eventhough a whole nation that never harmed the US in anyway has been bombed back to the stone age. and thats exactely why i said to you before that america and americans dont respect no laws if it aint effecting them directly."
Indirectly, the Hussein regime was clearly a problem for the US. Now, does that justify the invasion? I don't think so. But so what? Again, the world is anarchic. You can go to the UN with a complaint and the UN can pass a resolution, and then.........nothing. The UN has no capacity to enforce anything. It's just a venue for states to express themselves. IT has a few programs, but it has no power to police.
"and yet, you get all worked up because the insurgence dont follow the laws of land war fare. i mean nevermind a whole country been destroyed; nevermind women and children have been blown to pieces daily in their hundreds. but you do expect them (insurgence) to stick to the laws of land war fare."
And why are people get blown to pieces daily? Exactly who is doing the blowing to pieces. I'll let you in on a little secret. Occupation forces are legitimate governing bodies. I know you don't like that. But in accordance with international law, it is so. And insurgencies are not legitimate. I know you don't like that, but it is so. Furthermore, insurgents, like regular armies, are required to follow the laws of land warfare. I know you don't like that, but it is so.
"am honnestly trying to get my head round this one, so work with me mac. you might not be a moralist but am sure you do have morals, so make me understand where you are coming from. at least on this."
I am a professional soldier. So for me, what this means is that I will deploy where I am told. I don't concern myself much with the why. I am usually concerned about where, sometimes about when, always about how much I will make.
Would I deploy to Iraq if requried? Absolutely. Do I think the Army should be there at all? No.
No, not SHOULD apply, DOES apply.
"it seem to me that my initial suspicion was correct. and you just proved it again whit the contradiction you just made below...in one hand you accept that iraq wasnt a serious thread but since your administration had their own reasons you dont mind. and the best thing you can come up with is that it was a poor strategy. not a war crime, but simply a poor strategy."
It seems to me, you are looking for judgement. I don't do judgement.
Beyond that, how did you conclude that "I didn't mind"??? I did mind. But I didn't get a vote.
As I have articulated, I don't think it was "a war crime". Going to war on false pretext is not a "war crime." You need to be more careful with your terminology.
"eventhough a whole nation that never harmed the US in anyway has been bombed back to the stone age. and thats exactely why i said to you before that america and americans dont respect no laws if it aint effecting them directly."
Indirectly, the Hussein regime was clearly a problem for the US. Now, does that justify the invasion? I don't think so. But so what? Again, the world is anarchic. You can go to the UN with a complaint and the UN can pass a resolution, and then.........nothing. The UN has no capacity to enforce anything. It's just a venue for states to express themselves. IT has a few programs, but it has no power to police.
"and yet, you get all worked up because the insurgence dont follow the laws of land war fare. i mean nevermind a whole country been destroyed; nevermind women and children have been blown to pieces daily in their hundreds. but you do expect them (insurgence) to stick to the laws of land war fare."
And why are people get blown to pieces daily? Exactly who is doing the blowing to pieces. I'll let you in on a little secret. Occupation forces are legitimate governing bodies. I know you don't like that. But in accordance with international law, it is so. And insurgencies are not legitimate. I know you don't like that, but it is so. Furthermore, insurgents, like regular armies, are required to follow the laws of land warfare. I know you don't like that, but it is so.
"am honnestly trying to get my head round this one, so work with me mac. you might not be a moralist but am sure you do have morals, so make me understand where you are coming from. at least on this."
I am a professional soldier. So for me, what this means is that I will deploy where I am told. I don't concern myself much with the why. I am usually concerned about where, sometimes about when, always about how much I will make.
Would I deploy to Iraq if requried? Absolutely. Do I think the Army should be there at all? No.
now its all clear to me and for a minute you gave the impresion that there was something i was missing. but its finaly cristal clear that my initial suspicion about about america was correct.
you as a soldier and the US army are nothing but a bunch of criminals.
and as for the terminology i used about the war in iraq, it was the right terminology. A WAR CRIME!
you have no leg to stand on when it comes denying the true and all along thats what you have been doing. eventhough you try to sound rational and love discussion, at the end of the day your argument doesnt hold water. and thats the botom line.
you as a soldier and the US army are nothing but a bunch of criminals.
and as for the terminology i used about the war in iraq, it was the right terminology. A WAR CRIME!
you have no leg to stand on when it comes denying the true and all along thats what you have been doing. eventhough you try to sound rational and love discussion, at the end of the day your argument doesnt hold water. and thats the botom line.
-
Steeler [Crawler2]
- SomaliNet Super
- Posts: 12405
- Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2001 7:00 pm
Biko
The problem is you want to take YOUR MORAL COMPASS and draw LEGAL CONCLUSIONS from it. This doesn't work anywhere except on the internet.
"now its all clear to me and for a minute you gave the impresion that there was something i was missing. but its finaly cristal clear that my initial suspicion about about america was correct."
What do you mean "about America"? You think America functions differently than other states? It's just a question of capacity. America's foreign politcy is the same as everyone elses.
"you as a soldier and the US army are nothing but a bunch of criminals."
The Army is an instrument of foreign policy. Not a maker of policy. Was the Wehrmacht of WW II a bunch of criminals We didn't think so. And we fought them.
"and as for the terminology i used about the war in iraq, it was the right terminology. A WAR CRIME!"
No, you are using the wrong terminology. War crimes are very specific and laid out in treaty. There is no way the invasion of Iraq in and of itself can be considered a war crime - although to be fair to you, that terminology is thrown around an awful lot by the uneducated. It MIGHT be an "unlawful war", although, again, this isn't clear.
"you have no leg to stand on when it comes denying the true and all along thats what you have been doing. eventhough you try to sound rational and love discussion, at the end of the day your argueement doesnt hold water. and thats the botom line."
Of course all my arguments hold water, or I wouldn't make them. You just refuse to understand.
The insurgents are committing war crimes, both against coalition forces and their own people. Daily. Maybe you think the crimes are justified, but they are still crimes.
The problem is you want to take YOUR MORAL COMPASS and draw LEGAL CONCLUSIONS from it. This doesn't work anywhere except on the internet.
"now its all clear to me and for a minute you gave the impresion that there was something i was missing. but its finaly cristal clear that my initial suspicion about about america was correct."
What do you mean "about America"? You think America functions differently than other states? It's just a question of capacity. America's foreign politcy is the same as everyone elses.
"you as a soldier and the US army are nothing but a bunch of criminals."
The Army is an instrument of foreign policy. Not a maker of policy. Was the Wehrmacht of WW II a bunch of criminals We didn't think so. And we fought them.
"and as for the terminology i used about the war in iraq, it was the right terminology. A WAR CRIME!"
No, you are using the wrong terminology. War crimes are very specific and laid out in treaty. There is no way the invasion of Iraq in and of itself can be considered a war crime - although to be fair to you, that terminology is thrown around an awful lot by the uneducated. It MIGHT be an "unlawful war", although, again, this isn't clear.
"you have no leg to stand on when it comes denying the true and all along thats what you have been doing. eventhough you try to sound rational and love discussion, at the end of the day your argueement doesnt hold water. and thats the botom line."
Of course all my arguments hold water, or I wouldn't make them. You just refuse to understand.
The insurgents are committing war crimes, both against coalition forces and their own people. Daily. Maybe you think the crimes are justified, but they are still crimes.
[quote="MAD MAC"]Biko
The problem is you want to take YOUR MORAL COMPASS and draw LEGAL CONCLUSIONS from it. This doesn't work anywhere except on the internet.
.[/quote]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and i can easily acuse you of the same thing. only you want to use YOUR SOLDIERING COMPASS and draw AMERICAN conclusion.
one doesnt have to be a rocket scientist to understand what we are talking about here.
The problem is you want to take YOUR MORAL COMPASS and draw LEGAL CONCLUSIONS from it. This doesn't work anywhere except on the internet.
.[/quote]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and i can easily acuse you of the same thing. only you want to use YOUR SOLDIERING COMPASS and draw AMERICAN conclusion.
one doesnt have to be a rocket scientist to understand what we are talking about here.
-
Steeler [Crawler2]
- SomaliNet Super
- Posts: 12405
- Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2001 7:00 pm
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 0 Replies
- 537 Views
-
Last post by Deqa111
-
- 11 Replies
- 687 Views
-
Last post by waayeel101
-
- 41 Replies
- 1603 Views
-
Last post by abdi ilyas
-
- 22 Replies
- 1626 Views
-
Last post by Kamal35
-
- 0 Replies
- 176 Views
-
Last post by Daanyeer
-
- 2 Replies
- 275 Views
-
Last post by Transformer
-
- 6 Replies
- 471 Views
-
Last post by Gen.Aideed