General Petraeus has scored some victories. But the United States is still far closer to having created another failed state than a functioning democracy. Surge or no surge, it’s extremely doubtful the U.S. occupation can ultimately produce a successful Iraq—a stable, unitary, democratizing state at peace with its neighbors.
read more | digg story
.gif)
24 comments:
"...it’s extremely doubtful the U.S. occupation can ultimately produce a successful Iraq—a stable, unitary, democratizing state at peace with its neighbors."
as your post was worded I don't think anyone of any intelligence would disagree. but this conclusion is illogical on its premise.
we are not "an occupation force". that is a fact by the poltical and military meaning of the phrase.
and until you realize this there is no purpose in trying to argue the rest of the article cited.
The point really doesn't rest on the words "occupying force," but on the likelihood of success of the mission, however it's characterized, or whatever it's called. I think it unwise to dismiss the point of the article over two words with which one disagrees, but your milage may vary...
Whenever we leave--1 year, 5 years, 10 years, 100 years--the place is likely to erupt into a civil war, just as it has for many, many, many years... The only solution is either to let it play out, or to allow the country to be ruled by a ruthless, dictatorial somebitch... ...one like Saddam, fer'instance...
All this was known before we ever invaded--Hell, this is the reason the elder Bush chose not to take Saddam out at the end of the Gulf war--and the younger Bush and the cabal behind this fiasco refused to see it or plan for it.
All that said, when we go into a country uninvited, topple the leader, and are instrumental in installing the new leadership, it's an occupation. The majority of Iraqis don't want us there, anymore. (Of course, some of the government does, but we're what's keeping them in power, so that isn't all that surprising...)
Having been to Iraq and back twice, I can say that we are definitely an "occupying force."
jd,
ok, then you must have a better definition of the meaning of "occupation force" than I do. would you be kind enough to provide it for me?
repsac,
"The point really doesn't rest on the words "occupying force," but on the likelihood of success of the mission"
i referred to that in previous comment in my last sentence.
repsac,
but to address your response more specifically
"All that said, when we go into a country uninvited,"
the word is "invaded", repsac, and everyone knows it was for the specific purpose of toppling the government. and i have never heard of a country ever inviting an invasion.
who is suppose to do the inviting? the government that is to be toppled? the people who no one can ask and get a truthful answer from out of fear?
"and are instrumental in installing the new leadership"
the word is "government", repsac, and of course we was instrumental. that is the responsibility of an invading force that was responsible for overthrowing the previous government. and we let the Iraqi people choose their leaders.
and whether you like it or not and whether or not it fits your political ideology, governments speak for the people in regards to foreign affairs and that includes whether a foreign military force is permitted in a country or not.
if this was not true then the UN is a body that has no legitimacy at all. and the letter of declaring the approval of the Iraqi government of our being there has no basis.
and until your ideological viewpoint of how governments are suppose to be become fact you have no claim.
i referred to that in previous comment in my last sentence.
Last Sentence: we are not "an occupation force". that is a fact by the poltical and military meaning of the phrase.
and until you realize this there is no purpose in trying to argue the rest of the article cited.
I can appreciate your not wanting to argue the point of the article, but I question the number of posts it takes for you to say so...
the word is "invaded", repsac, and everyone knows it was for the specific purpose of toppling the government. and i have never heard of a country ever inviting an invasion.
One invites an invasion by attacking us, or by having a significant number of it's citizens as refugees who yes, do actually, verbally ask for our help.
the word is "government", repsac, and of course we was instrumental. that is the responsibility of an invading force that was responsible for overthrowing the previous government. and we let the Iraqi people choose their leaders.
A government that is installed from without, rather than created from within, seldom stands. The biggest responsibility an invading country has is to know when not to invade in the first place.
and whether you like it or not and whether or not it fits your political ideology, governments speak for the people in regards to foreign affairs and that includes whether a foreign military force is permitted in a country or not.
As I've said before, under my ideology, any legitimate government is made up of the people, or soon perishes in favor of one that is. We are stuck in this mess as long as those who support it, both here and there, remain in power. But I don't suspect that that is going to be much longer. Even Maliki's government has already come out against the latest Petreus plan for "pausing" the withdrawal. I wonder what your reaction will be when our next leader or theirs puts an end to our occupation of Iraq and a substantial number of our troops come home. Given the tenor of your posting here, I'm hoping you'll support that government decision made on your behalf as willingly and happily as you expect me to support the current occupation.
and until your ideological viewpoint of how governments are suppose to be become fact you have no claim.
Again, we'll soon see how you respond when the shoe's on the other hand, as it were...
if the government of Iraq tells us to leave then i have no bone with that. it is their right to do so. and the US government agreed to that. if obama or clinton wins the presidency and pulls the troops that is their right also as the President and CiC of the armed forces. my reaction to it will depend upon the circumstances if obama or clinton pulls them.
but one thing you won't hear me do is call them traitors to the country. you won't hear me call for an impeachment on that basis. and you won't hear me demeaning them for simply doing that because to do that is to demean the office of the Presidency also.
and refugees don't necessarily represent the thoughts of the population. in fact they represent only a small portion of it. by the terms of your ideology that would be like 30% of this country calling for war when 70% is against it and you declaring that 30% the voice of the people. so, that argument fails.
as for your example for "asking",,i don't know where you get your definitions from but that example would be a dare not a request. they may be daring us to invade but not asking us to.
"any legitimate government is made up of the people, or soon perishes in favor of one that is."
the government of Iraq was made up of the people. the leaders came from the people of Iraq and voted in by Iraqis.
besides, since when is your ideology the determinant of legitimacy? as i said in previous comment when your ideology becomes fact then you have an argument and until then all you are doing is making an unprovable assertion. in fact your whole argument is one big assrtion that necessitates proof. and those are your rules of argument, repsac.
"Whenever we leave--1 year, 5 years, 10 years, 100 years--the place is likely to erupt into a civil war, just as it has for many, many, many years... The only solution is either to let it play out, or to allow the country to be ruled by a ruthless, dictatorial somebitch... ...one like Saddam, fer'instance..."
an assertion not fact.
"All that said, when we go into a country uninvited, topple the leader, and are instrumental in installing the new leadership, it's an occupation."
an assertion not fact.
"some of the government does, but we're what's keeping them in power, so that isn't all that surprising...)"
an assertion not fact.
"The majority of Iraqis don't want us there, anymore."
an assertion not fact.
"A government that is installed from without, rather than created from within, seldom stands."
an assertion not fact
" As I've said before, under my ideology, any legitimate government is made up of the people, or soon perishes in favor of one that is."
an assertion not fact.
i can continue but my hand is tired from cuttinand pasting.
"if the government of Iraq tells us to leave then i have no bone with that."
The government of Iraq is a puppet of the United States. Better that we should listen to the people of Iraq. They don't want US there. Our presence does NOTHING to enhance our own security posture or national defense. The argument can be made that maintaining our occupation force in Iraq actually degrades our ability to defend ourselves in the event of a national emergency. The fake war on terror is one of many lame excuses for keeping our forces deployed to a nation where they are unwelcome.
Much of what we post on our blogs are assrtions, rather than facts...
I have no problem with that... Here on my blog, I say what I believe, just as you do on yours...
I fail to see the point of your pointing that out, as though it actually means anything... (Just imagine if I responded to one of your posts in the same way...)
Yes, I believe that Iraq is destined to fail unless & until THEY decide to get together and make it work. Volumes of past history suggests that the odds are not in their favor, but I'll be quite happy should I be proved wrong...
But whether they do or do not succeed, it will be their success or failure, and not ours. We cannot impose a stable government from above. It is all up to them.
As far as out differing political/government philosophies, that's what makes our government so powerful. I believe that if everyone agreed with either one of us, this country would crumble. It takes the differing political philosophies of us Americans to keep us on a nice even keel.
Yes, some on this side & on that one have called those who disagree with 'em traitors. It's the nature of the debate, these days... As far as I'm concerned, it's a tiny fraction of either side, and I don't take any who engage in that kinda rhetoric all that seriously... It doesn't represent all war supporters when one on that side does it, and it doesn't represent all war resisters when some ass on this side does it, either...
Of course, you're welcome to think differently, if you happen to believe otherwise... (And whatever you think, it'll only be your assertion, and not fact... ...for whatever that's worth...)
"I have no problem with that... Here on my blog, I say what I believe, just as you do on yours..."
except a while back we had a big discussion about the use of assertions, that's why. and you said that unprovable assertions should not be used. then you turn right around and use them and say it is no problem, that's why.
you made a big deal about someone else stating an unprovable assertion while debating him and you were on his blog too. then turn around and make a post on it just because he couldn't prove his assertion.
now, either you believe unprovable assertions are logical to use in a debate or you don't. you can't have it both ways by declaring others should not use them on their blogs but you can on yours while in debate.
Well, unprovable assertions shouldn't be mistaken for facts, that's for sure...
If you'd care to be more specific (what was the assertion s/he made, and where it was), I'll be glad to revisit it.
I can call Cheney (or some other blogger, or anyone else I've ever known or even heard of) an ass. I can list reasons why I believe it, and comparisons between that person & others who've done similar things and are widely regarded by the general populus as asses. But that still doesn't literally make that person an ass. It's still just my assertion, no matter how good I believe my reasoning on the subject happens to be.
By the same token, no matter how vociferously you defended that person against my calling him or her an ass, all your defenses would boil down to assertions by you, no more or less conclusive or persuasive than mine. That person still could be an ass, even if you didn't believe it.
Applied here, I believe that our troops can legitimately be called an occupying force, as the author of the original article says. You disagree, and state--as a fact, by the way--that they are not. You further believe that until I (& presumably the author and all others who agree with us, as well) am willing to accept your "fact," the rest of the article--including it's main point--isn't worth discussing.
Now, I happen to think that the "occupying force" line is insignificant to the main point, which is that, no matter what one calles them, our troops, the occupying force, those men & women in desert camo sent by our President, are NOT going to be able to install a a stable, unitary, democratizing state onto the Iraqi people. Democracy is never achieved at the business end of a gun; the people of the state must be the ones behind the guns, and ultimately, must put the guns down to make democracy happen.
I know... That's just an assertion, too... But to me, it's far more important a thing to discuss than debating the finer points of who can & cannot be considered an occupying force.
And by the way...
"Whenever we leave--1 year, 5 years, 10 years, 100 years--the place is likely to erupt into a civil war, just as it has for many, many, many years... The only solution is either to let it play out, or to allow the country to be ruled by a ruthless, dictatorial somebitch... ...one like Saddam, fer'instance..."
an assertion not fact.
If you read the interviews with those responsible for the Gulf War (including some of the same folks responsible for this war) you'll see that this waas once their assertion, as well. They did not invade Baghdad & topple Saddam to avoid years and years of sectarian violence and avert the possibility that an even less friendly power could take his place.
Read for yourself: frontline: the gulf war: oral history
"All that said, when we go into a country uninvited, topple the leader, and are instrumental in installing the new leadership, it's an occupation."
an assertion not fact.
Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–present - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "The post-invasion period in Iraq, also known as the Occupation of Iraq,[24] followed the 2003 invasion of Iraq by a multinational coalition led by the United States, which overthrew the Ba'ath Party government of Saddam Hussein. This article covers the period starting May 1, 2003, after United States president George W. Bush officially declared the end of major combat operations."
"The majority of Iraqis don't want us there, anymore."
an assertion not fact.
Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout, Polls Show - washingtonpost.com
Press TV - Petraeus's Iran Gaffe: "Iraq indeed has 'no desire to be the 51st state of…' any country and that's why according to a recent poll conducted by The British ORB/Channel 4 News survey, more than two-thirds of Iraqis believe US-led occupation forces should leave their country; A stunning mirror figure of Americans who want their troops back home."
The rest are closer to assertions... (Besides, it's time I start my day...)
number one- the newspaper poll you cited is two years old.
the other is not a news story but an opinion written by someone who does not know the difference between a news story and an opinion piece.
that invalidates those two pieces of evidence.
as for your wikipedia resource. i never denied the fact that during a period of time we could be considered as an occupation force. in fact i acknowledge the fact in one of my earlier posts on my site.
post-invasion means after the invasion not after the occupation. so your own citation belies you. and there is a big difference in the meaning of post-invasion and post-occupation.
one suggestion for you when presenting an argument. don't use generalities to try to prove a specific. it doesn't work. most people might not know the difference and accept it but i do and i won't.
number one- the newspaper poll you cited is two years old.
Yes, it is... ...& I bet I can find polls saying the same from longer ago & earlier this year, as well... That only means that the Iraqi objection to our occupation is not a new phenominon.
the other is not a news story but an opinion written by someone who does not know the difference between a news story and an opinion piece.
I bet you're actually serious about that...
Amazing...
Now, watch carefully...
The Raw Story | Seven out of 10 Iraqis want foreign forces to leave: poll
AFP is one of the largest media conglomerates in Europe. (Here we have the Associated Press, there, they have AFP.) The original story I quoted--an opinion piece that appeared on the Press TV website--quoted the ORB/Channel 4 (English TV) survey results. The survey was done in late March of THIS year.
You can choose not to believe what your eyes are telling you, but please don't pretend you cannot see. It's a poll taken less than a month ago, and indicates that among Iraqis, the urge to get foreign troops out of Iraq is stronger than it was two years ago, though a majority of Iraqis wanted us out then, as well.
The Wikipedia reference is also more clear than you're trying to make it. The post invasion period, starting from the time Bush declared major hostilities over AND CONTINUING TO THIS VERY DAY, is commonly known as & referred to as the Occupation of Iraq. Just because YOU don't refer to it that way, and don't believe it is an actual honest to gosh occupation, doesn't make the fact that many folks call it an occupation any less true. You might want to ask yourself, since most folks are calling this period the occupation of Iraq, and you're among the few who're refusing to, whether it's all of us or the few of you who're bending the facts to fit a preconcieved ideology...
number one, your news story does not inicate when they want withdrawlal there is no word in there that would even imply the word "immediate" as you used. and the fact that it says that 40% says they want more involvement of US troops would imply that while they want troop withdrawal they do not want it to be immediate as you declared for us. don't read more into polls than it actually says. and one more thing. the poll shows that the iraqi people have a better opinion of their future than you do.
and if you read your wikipedia reference with understanding you'll see that it says that it no longer is considered as an "occupation"
and as i have already admitted yes it was considered an occupation force under the CPA. so it is not just a matter of belief on my part.
and your reference acknowledges that foreign troops can occupy a country without being designated as an occupation force. so, from that we can know it takes more than that to be declared an occupation force. it can be there at the invitation of the government of that nation.
and it is a fact that the nation making that invitation must be from the legal and soveriegn government as recognized by the intrnational community. and that has been declared and established whether you want to believe it or not. so, it is not belief that drives my argument but facts in accordance to your own reference.
and it is a fact that the international community recognizes that invitation along with the coalition. and the coalition recognizes that it must leave when that government asks it to.
so if you are going to base your argument upon a source then i can too. and you either accept it or not. you can't just take part of it and reject the rest.
number one, your news story does not inicate when they want withdrawlal there is no word in there that would even imply the word "immediate" as you used.
Ummm... I never used the word immediate. The first news article (the one from 2006) did, in the headline of the article itself. If you read back to the original comment I made (& everything I wrote subsequently, for that matter), all I said is "The majority of Iraqis don't want us there, anymore." (April 15th, 6:59 am), and when you objected, saying that was an assertion, not a fact (April 16th, 6:27 pm), I provided you with two sets of polling data showing that the majority of Iraqis indeed do not want us there, anymore. I never used the word immediate, or suggest that there was any time frame, aside the obvious--they were of that opinion at least two years ago, so whether or not it was immediate then, those Iraqis who thought so then probably believe they have waited long enough... (Of course, that's only a guess...)
and the fact that it says that 40% says they want more involvement of US troops would imply that while they want troop withdrawal they do not want it to be immediate as you declared for us.
Here's what that sentence actually says:
Yet some 40 percent of the 4,000 people surveyed said they wanted the United States to play a bigger role in rebuilding Iraq and 36 percent wanted more British involvement.
You might wish to explain where you see American troops, rather than American & British construction, electrical, ...etc. contractors in that sentence... While troops are capeable of building things, that is not their primary occupation. I think you're reading what you wish to see into the poll.
don't read more into polls than it actually says.
Wonderful advice... (See above)
and one more thing. the poll shows that the iraqi people have a better opinion of their future than you do.
Yes, they do. I'm glad they do, and I fervently hope they are correct in believing that. But until it actually happens, I'll remain suspicious...
and if you read your wikipedia reference with understanding you'll see that it says that it no longer is considered as an "occupation"
One must have your understanding, I suppose... Because it seems pretty clear to me what it says, as well... ...and I still don't come away understanding what you understand.
The heading is:
"Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–present" (That's now)
and the first sentence says:
"The post-invasion period in Iraq, also known as the Occupation of Iraq,[24] followed the 2003 invasion of Iraq by a multinational coalition led by the United States, which overthrew the Ba'ath Party government of Saddam Hussein."
If the post invasion period is the period between the end of major combat operations in 2003 therough the present, and the post invasion period is also known as the occupation of Iraq, it kinda stands to reason that we're still in the occupation period. But you're welcome to believe whatever your ideology demands of you...
Even the rest of what you wrote (which I'll not bother to quote, if that's ok with you) is from the section that's telling you it is STILL an occupation.
Under Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–present - (subsection): Legal status of the coalition presence it describes the Hague convention law on occupation, and then refers to the "International Humanitarian Law Research Initiative" which states that "In this context, it is in the interest of all the parties involved to maintain a clear regime of occupation until the conditions for stability and peace are created allowing the re-establishment of a legitimate national government. A post-occupation military presence can only be construed in the context of a viable, stable and peaceful situation."
As Iraq is not a viable, stable, peaceful situation as yet (according to the latest Petraeus/Crocker testimony), the occupation still continues, even though there is a legit government at this point, which fulfills the Hague requirements.
To me, it seems pretty clear what both the title and that section are saying...
alright, i'll admit that you did not use the word immediate. i was using your word "anymore" as being synomonous with immediate. and i believe that could be considered as a legitimate assumption, give your stance on the issue unless you are willing to say that your stance is not for immediate withdrawal.
" A post-occupation military presence can only be construed in the context of a viable, stable and peaceful situation."
the key word in that statement is "construed
construe- to analalyze
in other words to analyze a now existing situation in the context of a viable, stable situation
to ascertain whether or not it is considered an "occupation force" it has to be analyzed from the viewpoint of that context.
and analyzing from that viewpoint it is no longer considered a military occupation. it doesn't need to be under those conditions only analyzed from that condition. in fact you can have a military occupation even under those conditions. but it is only in the context of those conditions it can be analyzed for determination of whether or not it can be defined as such.
and viewing it in that context it was determined that it is no longer a military occupation but that the coalition are there by invitation. thus making this a period of post-occupation.
proof of that are the two signed letters of invitation and acceptance of the invitation given to the UN Security Counsil who has the authority to make that determination. if it still was considered an occupation force those letters would have no meaning.
plus the condemnation of the insurgents by the Security Counsil which is the reason for the invitation.
so, unless you want to deny that the UN has the authority to make that determination which that entry was talking about, i don't think i need to defend my position any longer.
i believe that could be considered as a legitimate assumption, give your stance on the issue unless you are willing to say that your stance is not for immediate withdrawal.
I've said many times that I really don't know what the US should do now that we're stuck in it, but I'm inclined to believe those who think it'll end badly, whether we leave today or 100 years from now. Whenever we pull out, the sectarian violence will erupt soon after. I believe that it won't be the withdrawal that causes it, but the ill-conceived invasion/occupation, that removed the cork & lit the fuse on this centuries old powderkeg... ...but of course it'll be the withdrawal, & whoever actually does it, that gets the blame. And meanwhile, Americans will continue to die needlessly, while waiting on the Magic Pony that'll make it all work out.
to ascertain whether or not it is considered an "occupation force" it has to be analyzed from the viewpoint of that context.
I'm sorry, Griper, but that's not what that piece is saying... It's saying that, whatever one wishes to call it, it's widely considered an occupation under the International Humanitarian Law Research Initiative as long as an outside force from another country is providing the security & maintaining the peace, rather than the government of the country in question. As long as we are required for them to function as a government & as a country, it continues to be an occupation situation.
Again, here's what the article actually says:
"the wording of Security Council resolution 1546 . . . indicates that, regardless of how the situation is characterized, international humanitarian law will apply to it."
There may be situations... where the former occupier will maintain a military presence in the country, with the agreement of the legitimate government under a security arrangement (e.g., U.S. military presence in Japan and Germany). The legality of such agreement and the legitimacy of the national authorities signing it are subject to international recognition, whereby members of the international community re-establish diplomatic and political relations with the national government. In this context, it is in the interest of all the parties involved to maintain a clear regime of occupation until the conditions for stability and peace are created allowing the re-establishment of a legitimate national government. A post-occupation military presence can only be construed in the context of a viable, stable and peaceful situation.
The key words regarding what we're saying here are "regardless of how it's characterized..." and "A post-occupation military presence can only be construed in the context of a viable, stable and peaceful situation."
Call it whatever you wish... To most of us, it's called an occupation.
And then there's this:
On May 10, 2007, 144 Iraqi Parliamentary lawmakers signed onto a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal. On June 3, 2007, the Iraqi Parliament voted 85 to 59 to require the Iraqi government to consult with Parliament before requesting additional extensions of the UN Security Council Mandate for Coalition operations in Iraq. The current UN mandate expired in December 2007.
The way I read it, we have no UN mandate to be there anymore...
yes, it expired on that date but if you'd have checked further you'd have found out that the Counsil was to meet then to see if an extention was needed and a new mandate was given.
here is a story declaring that the concept of occupation taken away.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/08/un.iraq/
(Iraqi official: Measure removes 'concept of occupation')
here is story declaring a mandate for 2008
http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=204110
"Call it whatever you wish... To most of us, it's called an occupation"
it is not me who determined it so don't say it is what i call it and what you say is an unprovable assertion of what you claim and by your own words;
"If one will not or cannot to offer proof of what they claim, there is no reason for anyone to give the claim serious attention."
so this proves you place ideology above facts if you continue to claim it is an occupation.
yes, it expired on that date but if you'd have checked further you'd have found out that the Counsil was to meet then to see if an extention was needed and a new mandate was given.
I think what I wrote was pretty clear, Griper. From December, 2007 and continuing to this day, there is no mandate for our continued presence from the UN Security council.
If you're saying there is a current UN mandate in effect, you'll have to show it, because I can't find any record of it.
here is a story declaring that the concept of occupation taken away
No, that is a story saying that one Iraqi official believed that in 2004. Perhaps he still believes it today, but even if he does, that only makes two of you...
here is story declaring a mandate for 2008
http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=204110
No, Griper, that story is about the Iraqi PM SAYING 2008 will be the last year his country will NEED a UN mandate... The Iraqi PM cannot declare a UN mandate all by himself. In fact, at the end of the article, it says:
The new pact assumes that the UN Security Council will renew for another year its mandate for US forces to stay in Iraq, before it is replaced by a US-Iraq arrangement, Lute said. The current mandate expires on December 31.
That news story was from November 2007. The mandate expired in December. I can find no record of a new mandate being approved by the UN between November 2007 and today. From what I can tell, THERE IS NO MANDATE IN FORCE CURRENTLY. That's what I posted, and that's still what I'm saying...
I'm not going 'round the mullberry bush with you on the word "occupation," anymore... It's a pointless exercise... I've explained that that is the word of choice among most who discuss the issue. You're welcome to continue tilting at windmills and complaining about ideology whenever someone uses the term, but I promise you; it's a losing proposition, and a profound waste of your time...
Right usage or wrong, the world is saying our troops are occupying Iraq... ...and all the arguing you can muster isn't going to change that...
ok, repsac,
renewal of mandate:
"
18 December 2007 – The Security Council today extended the mandate of the United States-led multinational force (MNF) in Iraq by another year, until the end of 2008, after a formal request from the Government of the Middle East country.
The 15-member body unanimously approved the renewal in a resolution in which it noted that the MNF’s mandate can be terminated earlier if desired by the Iraqi Government"
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=25122&Cr=iraq&Cr1=
occupation;
"“The Security Council,
“Welcoming the beginning of a new phase in Iraq’s transition to a democratically elected government, and looking forward to the "end of the occupation" and the assumption of full responsibility and authority by a fully sovereign and independent Interim Government of Iraq by 30 June 2004,"
"http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sc8117.doc.htm"
now,, you used this body as an attempt to prove your position in your wikipedia source, so, if you consider that source valid to use to try to prove your point then you have to accept that same source as valid for my point.
you're arguing out of desperation now, persac.
you sat there and tried to use a story declared by one man and expected me to accept it,,but then you turn right around and deny my use of the same thing. only i provided two that was only repeating what was already declared by the body who has authority to determine it. either you recognize that the UN has the authority to make that determination or not. if you deny it, prove to me that the body you think has that authority has that authority or else it is nothing but an assertion and to quote you "If one will not or cannot to offer proof of what they claim, there is no reason for anyone to give the claim serious attention".
and that applies to you also.
renewal of mandate:
Ok then...
I was wrong. I looked, but didn't find anything saying that the mandate had been renewed. What I did have said it had expired.
(Of course, I'd feel far worse about that if you hadn't agreed with me right up until this last message... On the 19th, you also said the mandate had expired, which it obviously did not, having been renewed before the expiration date of the previous one.)
occupation;
now,, you used this body as an attempt to prove your position in your wikipedia source,
Actually, I believe I used "Article 42 of the Hague Convention" and "The International Humanitarian Law Research Initiative," which discussed the wording of Security Council resolution 1546. The UN Security council was incidental, and in fact, I don't believe that the UN is the one true arbiter in defining an occupation one way or the other, though they--either as a whole or as a collection of separate countries--certainly may express an opinion. When looking at international incidents, I look to international law for definitions and opinions.
so, if you consider that source valid to use to try to prove your point then you have to accept that same source as valid for my point.
But supposing I didn't use the UN as a source in the first place?
I accept that the UN expressed the opinion that the occupation would end by June 30th, 2004 with the formation of the interm government. I disagree with that opinion, and agree with the the International Humanitarian Law Research Initiative, which said that Resolution 1546 is not inconsistent with international law, and thus
"In this context, it is in the interest of all the parties involved to maintain a clear regime of occupation until the conditions for stability and peace are created allowing the re-establishment of a legitimate national government. A post-occupation military presence can only be construed in the context of a viable, stable and peaceful situation."
And I still contend that Iraq isn't there, yet, at least if one believes Petreaus/Crocker.
you sat there and tried to use a story declared by one man and expected me to accept it
If you're referring to this: Press TV - Petraeus's Iran Gaffe, I did not expect you to accept anyof that commentator's opinions, but I did expect you to accept that there was in fact a poll where 70% of Iraqis want the US military out of Iraq. That was the only reason I posted it, because at the time, you were doubting my statement that "The majority of Iraqis don't want us there, anymore." My posting of that article proved that there was in fact a poll saying exactly what I stated. (one of two, over two years apart, and showing that the sentiment is growing, not diminishing.)
but then you turn right around and deny my use of the same thing.
No, Griper, I don't believe I denied your using the same thing...
I proved the existence of a poll, by providing an opinion piece that cites that poll. I didn't ask you to agree with the opinions in the piece, or suggest that those opinions were fact just because they appeared on a news source. All I asked you to do, is to accept that the poll existed. That was all I was trying to prove, and I think I did.
You on the other hand, asked me to accept that there is no occupation because one Iraqi official said the occupation was over. All that proved is that there is at least one guy in an official position in Iraq who thinks so... I bet he isn't the only one. Hell, 30% of the Iraqi people may even agree with him... But that guy (or even that whole 30%) doesn't make it so. As far as I can tell (& correct me if I'm wrong), you were offering this guy's statement as evidence that the occupation was over. I content that this guy's statement doesn't prove that.
only i provided two that was only repeating what was already declared by the body who has authority to determine it. either you recognize that the UN has the authority to make that determination or not. if you deny it, prove to me that the body you think has that authority has that authority
I can't prove that any body has the authority to declare that one place is occupied and another place isn't. I really don't believe such a body exists.
It's more of a definition and usage thing. Some look to the UN, some look to the Hague, some look to those situations that have been called "occupations" throughout history, and compare them to this situation... There is no one governing or defining body that renders judgement from on high, declaring occupations.
For whatever reason, and whether or not you happen to agree, many people believe we are occupying Iraq to this day. The word "occupation" is commonly used in conversation on the subject.
If I had to name one governing, defining body who makes these determinations, I guess I'd say it's the people here & throughout the world, through our usage. And like it or don't, we have spoken...
repsac, now you are really arguing from desperation.
"If I had to name one governing, defining body who makes these determinations, I guess I'd say it's the people here & throughout the world..."
that is an assertion, prove it or as you say it is a claim not worth anyone paying attention to and that includes you.
declaring that the Security Counsil's declaration is just an opinion is foolish.
the Security Counsil is the enforcement arm of the UN and if it just declared "opinions" it could not enforce any of their resolutions. it could not have sanctioned the gulf war without the authority and power to declare a country as being occupied. it could not have sanctioned the Korean war without that power and authority. it has the authority to make those determinations and the word "determination" is not synomynous with the word "opinion".
if you insist on using the word opinion then define it in the same sense as the Supreme Court uses it. anyone can have an opinion on any of their determinations but only its opinion is the determinant of the interpreptation of the Constitution. and the reasoning is the same. only it has the power and authority to make such decisions.
you can't extend a mandate without it expiring first. there may be an agreement to extend it prior to expiration but it still needs to expire before the extension can take effect.
your arguement only reveals your thoughts about who you believe should have that authority and power not who actually has that authority and power. and it is only your political ideology that allows for that not reality.
repsac, now you are really arguing from desperation.
I"m sorry, Griper, but despite your pronouncements to the contrary, I'm not feeling the least bit desperate. But thank you for caring enough to inquire...
"If I had to name one governing, defining body who makes these determinations, I guess I'd say it's the people here & throughout the world..."
that is an assertion, prove it or as you say it is a claim not worth anyone paying attention to and that includes you.
It's an assertion of opinion, not fact, which is why your repeated quoting of my admonition to NeroCon makes little sense. HE was creating facts to fit his argument, and I was asking that he prove them. I fully admit that the statement you quote above is simply my opinion.
declaring that the Security Counsil's declaration is just an opinion is foolish.
I'd ask you to prove that assertion, if I didn't recognize it as simply a statement of your opinion...
the Security Counsil is the enforcement arm of the UN and if it just declared "opinions" it could not enforce any of their resolutions. it could not have sanctioned the gulf war without the authority and power to declare a country as being occupied. it could not have sanctioned the Korean war without that power and authority. it has the authority to make those determinations and the word "determination" is not synomynous with the word "opinion".
A fair point, that. Perhaps the UN can declare occupations. But as long as other organizations and individual people can disagree with their determinations, they are not the one & only final say on such matters.
While you are citing the UN, I am citing "Article 42 of the Hague Convention" and "The International Humanitarian Law Research Initiative," both of which define & further elucidate the definition of "occupation," and suggest to me & others that what's going on in Iraq can still be called an occupation. That's what I said in my previous message; you have your source(s), and I have mine, and I don't think one is better, "more right" or "better able to judge" than the other.
if you insist on using the word opinion then define it in the same sense as the Supreme Court uses it.
Um... I think I'll use it in the sense that any good dictionary defines it, and not be cowed into only accepting that one small piece of the definition that fits your argument, thankyouverymuch...
anyone can have an opinion on any of their determinations but only its opinion is the determinant of the interpreptation of the Constitution. and the reasoning is the same. only it has the power and authority to make such decisions.
I disagree that the UN is the only body that has the power or the authority to make determinations about "occupations," and I disagree that other bodies (like the governments of the individual member states, for instance) are necessarily beholden to whatever the UN says. A simple look at how many places are in violation of UN mandates, & how seldom such mandates lead to any sanction, punishment or armed conflict, suggests that the power of the UN to make declarations or enforce them only goes so far...
you can't extend a mandate without it expiring first. there may be an agreement to extend it prior to expiration but it still needs to expire before the extension can take effect.
While any new agreement to extend a mandate (law, statute, ...) does not go into effect until the old mandate technically expires, the act of extending a mandate before it's expiration date prevents it from actually expiring at all.
(Are you really trying to suggest that you knew there was an extension in place before the end of December, and you just chose not to bring it up until your last post? I'm not saying it isn't possible, but I am saying that a fair reading of your posts suggests that it isn't likely, and that you made the very same mistake I did in believing that the mandate did actually expire...)
your arguement only reveals your thoughts about who you believe should have that authority and power not who actually has that authority and power. and it is only your political ideology that allows for that not reality.
I believe this argument in general reveals that we are talking past one another. While you're trying to define an occupation as being one thing that only the UN can define, I'm saying that common usage of the word in connection with Iraq already has defined the word, and that that definition doesn't match yours. (It's like the Israeli "occupied territory." While it may not fit your narrow definition, "occupied territory" is what that area has come to be known as, like it or not. The UN didn't decide to call it that, the people did.) Calling Iraq "occupied" is common usage, whether the UN says it is or isn't actually, technically an occupation.
Add to that the fact that The International Humanitarian Law Research Initiative gives credence to the idea that until Iraq's government is in a position to sustain and defend itself, the occupation continues, and I believe my use of the word makes sense, even beyond the "common usage" argument.
As far as what my argument reveals about me, I'd prefer to avoid the whole " psych diagnosis over internet" phenomenon so popular on the right of late... It's quackery, plain & simple.
I don't believe that the UN is the one true organization able to define occupations. I believe that even when they do declare something or other, they are sometimes wrong. I don't believe that you, me, the whole US, or any other country is required to accept whatever the UN says as gospel truth from which we may not deviate and about which we may not disagree.
I suppose I'm just more libertarian than you, because I don't choose to grant power & authority to other men & organizations quite so often as you seem willing to do. While I believe the UN is generally a force for good in the world, I'm not a citizen of the United Nations, and am not beholden to their every word.
Post a Comment