U.S. Vows "Revenge"?

bonkey

Memnoch....calm down.

Okay are you purposefully ignorant or do you just pretend to be?

You know the rules. Attack the post......

Ping Chow Chi

Wrong. If the coalition is in Iraq illegally then why arent the cops arresting the various coalition administrations? The obvious conclusion is that it is not illegal.

you mean the police force set up by the coalition? If so your logic is so warped it is scary. Either that or it is a deliberate troll ....

Memnoch

Originally posted by Ping Chow Chi
you mean the police force set up by the coalition? If so your logic is so warped it is scary. Either that or it is a deliberate troll ....

which is why i lost my temper... sorry anyways

bonkey

Originally posted by Ping Chow Chi
Either that or it is a deliberate troll ....

Please read our forum rules before posting here again.

jc

sovtek

Originally posted by pork99
Besides which the people opposing the US invasion are either

1) Al Qaeda terrorists from all over the Moslem world

2) Criminal elements who were favoured by Saddams regime - which was a criminal regime (how can it be illegal to invade and overthrow an illegal regime?*)

3) Religious fanatic elements from among the Shi'tes

You need to preface that with "According to the Pentagon...".
Of course I've read about commanders on the ground saying that they've no evidence of Al Quaeda, foreign fighters and some are Saddam loyalists.

Villain

Just caught a bit of the last word on Today FM this evening.

One good quote

It was meant to be about liberisation not occupation!

mr_angry

Would anybody be surprised if it came out that the US had supplied arms to these people during the war itself, in return for their support for overthrowing Saddam? This is what happens when you arm millitant groups. It happened in the seventies and the eighties with the Mujjer-hadin (Sorry, I have no idea how to spell that), and its where Osama Bin Laden got his training. Seems like the US are happy to repeat the tactic regardless of previous outcomes.

This is all beginning to sound like another Mazzer-e-sharif, except their performing this operation in the middle of a civilian city. What will the death toll be this time?

vorbis

johnmb, I believe that you don't have the interests of the Iraqis at heart at all. All that bothers you is the Americans. I'm amazed that you find no issues with the atrocity that took place in Falujah. If the Americans withdraw now (as you so obviously wish), then the situation would get even worse.

Eventually, they will get rid of the occupying forces, and they will sort things out amoung themselves (probably via civil war). When all is said and done, the Iraqi people will decide their own future, not George Bush and his big business financiers.

This seems to me that you don't mind the idea of countless innocent civilians dying in a civil war so long as it is Iraqis doing the killing.:rolleyes:
So asking you a simple question, would you prefer greater civilian casualties (as would inevitability result from a full scale civil war) or the continued occupation by coalition forces until a government is established?
Trite answers such as as Iraqis governing themselves are useless unless you indicate how such a scenario would occur.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

mr_angry

I think we're thinking along the same lines here, daveirl, except I believe that an appropriate response is possible. Surely the US military have more resources at their disposal than the Gardai? Why then would it not be possible to carry out a proportional operation aimed at achieving justice, and not revenge?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Villain

Originally posted by daveirl

If it happened in Cork or Dublin, a reaction similar to the US' would be to call out the Irish Army, surround the city, seal it off and effectively declare martial law, pending a military incursion which will take unspecified steps to achieve revenge. Not justice. Revenge.

daveirl,

The Us are illegally occupying Iraq and the Iraqi people, you cannot compare it to crimes carried out here and inforced by the Gardai or Irish army

mr_angry

Hold on. Are you or are you not arguing that:

the Iraqi do not have a fully functional police force, so the most appropriate response is simply not an option

?

In my opinion, it is still an option. And I'm not criticising the US for responding, but merely for over-reacting.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

Originally posted by daveirl

Originally posted by daveirl
I'd really like to believe that this is what the thread is about but most of the interaction I've had with people is due to my comment that I believe the perpetrators should be brought to justice,

That may be what you meant your comment to say, but it most certainly is not what it did say...unless you believe there are exactly two options - the storming of Fallujah following a declaration of martial law, or nothing.

Because what you asked was :

Would doing absolutely nothing and letting the criminals go unchallenged be better?

Nowhere did you mention in that post about bringing them to justice...and as you'll note from the content of the thread that not one person had suggested doing nothing before you - they had simply suggested that the chosen action was not a good one. From what I can see, that criticism mostly stems from the use of "revenge" instead of "justice".

So, your post would seem to have been asking whether or not doing nothing would be preferable to seeking revenge...not whether or not it would be preferable to seeking justice.

In terms of whether or not the following couple of pages were on- or off- topic.....

I believe that there are multiple facets to the issue.

Whether or not the US was right to go into Iraq, and consequently whether it is an illegal occupier or a liberating force is relevant, as the legitimacy of the killings and the response both hinge on whichever perspective you choose to take.

Incidentally, the deliberate desecration of the dead, IMHO, should not depend on that...there is no excuse for it, only precedent.

How the US react to it is also highly pertinent. Even if one feels the killings were a crime, do they - and the ensuing desecrations - warrant "revenge" over "justice"??? And how about the manner in which that revenge is to be carried out, and its impact on both the innocent civilians who will undoubtedly be caught in the crossfire (and who can't escape it with the city sealed), and on the pro/anti-US sentiment in the region and nation in general.

Villain

Originally posted by daveirl
Remember I don't think the war was right, I think that Iraq was more stable under Saddam, that doesn't mean that I think we should cut and run now and leave a mess behind.

I agree to some extent, but I don't think using raw violence and getting revenge will help, I think it will do the exact opposite!!

bonkey

Originally posted by irish1
The Us are illegally occupying Iraq and the Iraqi people

Are they? Could you show me the conviction against them? Could you explain to me why the UN is supporting them, rather than opposing them - especially when it is the body responsible for the poarticular articles of International Law which would be what make the occupation illegal???

No, didn't think so.

Also, regardless of whether or not it is illegal, the US occupation is currently the best chance the average Iraqi citizen has of achieving anything short of ending up under the thumb of another oppressor....probably after a long and bloody war, possibly with some neighbours deciding to take a part of the nation while they're at it.

So even if you want to stand on morals rather than law, perhaps you could spare practicality a moment of consideration?

jc

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Johnmb

Originally posted by bonkey
Are they? Could you show me the conviction against them?
I could show you the UN Charter which explicitely states that any attack on a sovereign state is an illegal act unless it is in self defence, or has the explicit consent (read, a resolution) from the Security council. Not being convicted does not make the act legal, and any implication that it does is just daft.

Could you explain to me why the UN is supporting them,
Since when has the UN supported the occupation? Can you give a reference to back up this claim?

rather than opposing them - especially when it is the body responsible for the poarticular articles of International Law which would be what make the occupation illegal???
The UN has opposed them, and criticised them many times. Have you not read anything that the Secretary General has had to say on the invasion over the last year or so?

No, didn't think so.
Ditto.

Also, regardless of whether or not it is illegal, the US occupation is currently the best chance the average Iraqi citizen has of achieving anything short of ending up under the thumb of another oppressor....probably after a long and bloody war, possibly with some neighbours deciding to take a part of the nation while they're at it.
The Iraqis are currently under the thumb of an oppressor, and are in the middle of a long and bloody war. The fact that the oppressor is a western country doesn't make the oppression any better.

So even if you want to stand on morals rather than law, perhaps you could spare practicality a moment of consideration?
I'd be happy to deal with both the law and morals, because either way the Iraqi people have a right to defend themselves by any means necessary, just as the Irish would do in the same situation.

Villain

Originally posted by bonkey
Are they? Could you show me the conviction against them? Could you explain to me why the UN is supporting them, rather than opposing them - especially when it is the body responsible for the poarticular articles of International Law which would be what make the occupation illegal???

No, didn't think so.

Can you show me where it is legal??

As for the UN supporting them, well I don't see any UN troops there do you??

Originally posted by bonkey

Also, regardless of whether or not it is illegal, the US occupation is currently the best chance the average Iraqi citizen has of achieving anything short of ending up under the thumb of another oppressor....probably after a long and bloody war, possibly with some neighbours deciding to take a part of the nation while they're at it.

So even if you want to stand on morals rather than law, perhaps you could spare practicality a moment of consideration?

jc

I never said they should just abandon them now that they have created a mess, but is Revenge the best policy?

IMHO I think it will cause more problems then it will solve and not just in Iraq either, would Spain have such terror problems if they didn't send troops to Iraq??

Johnmb

Originally posted by vorbis
johnmb, I believe that you don't have the interests of the Iraqis at heart at all. All that bothers you is the Americans.
Where did I say that? Show me one place where I have said that on any thread. I can show you a previous post of mine on this thread where I specifically stated that the specific people involved is not an issue, the issue is an occupied country fighting for their freedom.

I'm amazed that you find no issues with the atrocity that took place in Falujah.
I find no issues with the attack because I'm honest enough to admit that I would probably do the exact same thing if it was Ireland that had been invaded and occupied for foreign forces. Given that, it would be damn hypocritical of me to criticise the Iraqis for doing it, wouldn't it.

If the Americans withdraw now (as you so obviously wish), then the situation would get even worse.
The situation is going to get worse regardless, all the Americans can do is milk the country for as much as they can before that happens.

This seems to me that you don't mind the idea of countless innocent civilians dying in a civil war so long as it is Iraqis doing the killing.:rolleyes:
At least the Iraqis will eventually sort the problem, the Americans won't. At least the Iraqis will fight on behalf of fellow Iraqis, foreign powers only fight on their own behalf.

So asking you a simple question, would you prefer greater civilian casualties (as would inevitability result from a full scale civil war) or the continued occupation by coalition forces until a government is established?
And how do you think that government will stay in power? As soon as the US withdraws, there will be a civil war, no matter how long it takes. The only way the US can impose a government that will last is if the US also arm that government to the teeth so that they can put down any rebellions.

Trite answers such as as Iraqis governing themselves are useless unless you indicate how such a scenario would occur.
The only way they will do that is if they split into at least three different countries. That is the best long term outcome for the Iraqis, but the US doesn't want that to happen, so the Iraqi people are being forced into a war with the US before they can begin to sort themselves out. If there was no pressure to keep Iraq as a single country, there might not even be a full scale civil war, just minor battles over disputed borders.

bonkey

Originally posted by Johnmb
I could show you the UN Charter which explicitely states that any attack on a sovereign state is an illegal act unless it is in self defence, or has the explicit consent (read, a resolution) from the Security council.

Yup. And I would then show you the countless statements made by the US government etc. about how Hussein posed a clear and immediate threat to them.

While we may know in hindsight that these allegations are false, the simple fact is that we have not yet proven that they were known to be false at the time that their veracity is relevant to the discussion at hand.

So, in actual fact, you are supplying the very UN article which legitimises the US attack. They publically stated that he had WMDs, that every reasonable effort had been tried and failed, that he posed a clear and present threat to the well-being of the United States.....therefore legalising their act as precipitative self-defence, even in the absence of a UN resolution.

Now, morally, or with hindsight, I'm the first to object to how shallow the US argument was. Indeed, the fact that it was quickly abandoned after the fact for the more media-friendly humanitarian argument is telling. However, the simple fact remains that the US did everything required of it to meet the requirements for your allegations regarding the UN charter not to work.

Since when has the UN supported the occupation? Can you give a reference to back up this claim?

Certainly. The UN has repeatedly asked the US to allow it to have a greater hand in affairs. One most recent example of this was when the UN sent in a team to do its own fact-finding mission regarding election plausibility, the results of which they shared with the US.

If you look at the UN's dealings with the US since the invasion, you will find nothing but requests for more involvement, more co-operation, and suggestions of ways in which it can help. That is what I meant by support. If you want to look at it as no more than "supporting it to bring it to an end as quickly as possible", then go right ahead, but if you take a support/oppose balance, and put the UN's position on it....they most certainly do not oppose the US occupation.

The UN has opposed them, and criticised them many times. Have you not read anything that the Secretary General has had to say on the invasion over the last year or so?

Yup. I haven't seen a single call from him that the US should leave the nation, nor that they have no right to do anything there. I have seen him encourage them to involve more international parties (so Annan wants more illegal occupiers, using your logic!). I have seen him criticise them when they drag their heels on issues. I have seen him applaud them for doing things in a manner he approves of.

The Iraqis are currently under the thumb of an oppressor, and are in the middle of a long and bloody war.

Yes yes. Just like Northern Ireland. A centuries-long war which will never end....right?

The fact that the oppressor is a western country doesn't make the oppression any better.

What oppression?

Working towards elections? Restoring more than was damaged a year ago? trying to put in place a national system which will prevent minorities from being discriminated against by larger cultural groups?

Or is it just oppression because while all of this is in an interim stage, the Iraqi people have no say?

I'm not saying that the US is without fault in all of this, but they are most certainly not an oppressor of the Iraqi people.

I'd be happy to deal with both the law and morals, because either way the Iraqi people have a right to defend themselves by any means necessary, just as the Irish would do in the same situation. [/QUOTE]
Rubbish. They do not have a right to do anything "by any means necessary". No-one does.

jc

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Villain

Originally posted by bonkey

Rubbish. They do not have a right to do anything "by any means necessary". No-one does.

jc

Says who?

bonkey

Originally posted by irish1
Can you show me where it is legal??

Anything which does not contravene law is, by extension, legal.

I've just explained in my previous post why the only law which would make the occupation illegal has not been clearly contravened.

As for the UN supporting them, well I don't see any UN troops there do you??

Troops are only way to support the occupation???

So you believe Ireland truly was neutral in the invasion of Iraq, then? After all, I didn't see any Irish troops there.

The UN is collaborating with the US in terms of how the occupation should be run. It has sent one fact-finding misssion regarding elections there already, in order to advise the US of its findings.

I'd call that supporting it, yes.

I never said they should just abandon them now that they have created a mess, but is Revenge the best policy?

I've never suggested it is. I think revenge is a terrible policy, and that even using the word was a massive error on the part of some media-happy politician.

I was simply addressing this constantly-stated belief that the occupation is illegal, and the ensuing conclusion that results which is that no-one opposing the US* can do any wrong while the US can do no right (except leave).

I hesitate to say "Iraqis" in the above, because there are apparently some non-Iraqis in Iraq opposing the US for the benefit of their own aims and goals, not those of any significant amount of Iraqi people. I'm wondering if johnmb and the likes support the rights of these people to do what htey want as well, simply because "America is wrong".

You know what really cracks me up....that people can't see the parallel between the extremism of the various factions which cause so much of this strife in the world, and their own views (which they no doubt consider moderate and enlightened) which are taking an "anything is fair game" attitude against the US.

At least...I hope they can't see it. If they can see it and just ignore it (or worse...), then it doesn't crack me up. It scares me.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by irish1
Says who?

Do you believe that if an Iraqi had his hands on a fusion bomb, he/she would be perfectly justified to set it off in the centre of a US city ?

Unless your answer is yes, then I think the answer to your question is at least : "the two of us". All we differ on may be where the line is drawn.

If your answer is yes....well....sorry...but I see no point in trying to have a discussion with anyone who can honestly hold such an extremist point of view.

jc

naitkris

Originally posted by daveirl
IMHO it doesn't matter, the US are the only force in the country that could possibly preform some sort of justice which I believe is preferable to none. You're more than entitled to feel that the war being illegal is enough reason for crime to run rampant. I don't.

Remember I don't think the war was right, I think that Iraq was more stable under Saddam, that doesn't mean that I think we should cut and run now and leave a mess behind.

well said daveirl!!! finally someone i agree 100% with.

it seems there are some people posting in this thread that are defending what happened to the 4 civililians brutally murdered in Iraq and saying they deserved it as they were American blah de blah (dont forget the 2 Finns and 2 German civilians also murdered recently). i'll put it to the guess that Fallujah has a high internet take-up and there are lots of people there posting like mad in forums like this one.

Villain

Originally posted by Johnmb
I could show you the UN Charter which explicitely states that any attack on a sovereign state is an illegal act unless it is in self defence, or has the explicit consent (read, a resolution) from the Security council. Not being convicted does not make the act legal, and any implication that it does is just daft.

Bonkey;
I think that statement explains why it could be seen as illegal, they can't claim self defense Iraq didn't attack the US???