Author Topic: Attack on Iraq Imminent  (Read 1864 times)

Offline Ping

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 957
Attack on Iraq Imminent
« Reply #45 on: March 28, 2002, 05:04:09 AM »
Naitve american,slavery comment was made only to illustrate the time involved in dealing with it. It is still being argued be some.
 This was only made to show how deep the racial hatred or feelings of injustice can run.
 Should we be held accountable for actions our forefathers commited? No.
 Should current injustices be corrected? Yes.
 The Facts remain, Both sides in the Middle East are commiting crimes, who started it really is moot. The killings have to stop and both sides have to be willing to sit down and talk. Both sides have shown that they are quite capable of refusing that option.
 And therin lies my comparison to other Long standing issues, Its not going to go away any time soon. The Hatred is being carried by individuals on both sides.
 All the mediation in the world will not help untill both sides actually listen to the mediator. Hell...This reminds me of My Divorce. :eek:


As stated before I support neither side in their actions. Both are commiting crimes as far as I am concerned.
I/JG2 Enemy Coast Ahead


Offline Hortlund

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4690
Attack on Iraq Imminent
« Reply #46 on: March 28, 2002, 05:32:35 AM »
When discussing things like these, you should first decide whether you want to argue around the moral aspects of it or the legal aspects of it. Doing both at once will only lead to complete confusion.

Lets start with the legal aspects of this issue.

Before we can do anything about the conflict in Israel, we need to define it, or "put a label on it". Is this a war, a civil war, or just internal unrest? The difference is enormous when it comes to possible outside involvement.

Lets start with civil wars. A civil war can be defined as a war between two or more groups of inhabitants of the same states one of which may be the government. It may be fought for the control of the government of a state or it may be caused by the desire of part of the population to secede and form a new state. There are however other types of civil wars. For example, a rebelling group may simply try to force the government to make concessions (grant regional autonomy), a civil war may even be fought between parties while the government remains passive and neutral (Lebanon 1975-76).

The problem of civil wars have grown in the last years, since states seldom attack other states in order to enlarge their territory. Instead they increase their influence by encouraging factions sharing their own ideology to seize or retain power in other states.

So what does international law have to say about civil wars?

There is no rule in international law against civil wars. Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter prohibits the use or threat of force in international relations only. There is however one rule that might apply here. The use of force to frustrate the exercise of a legal right to self-determination is generally regarded as illegal, but such wars (wars of national liberation) are classified as civil wars. More about that later.

So between the two fighting sides in a civil war international law is not applicable. In such a situation the conduct of the fighting forces are ruled by other laws, such as the Geneva conventions on the laws of war.

Participation by outsiders? As a general rule, foreign states are forbidden to give help to insurgents in a civil war. General assembly rule 2131 (XX) declares that "no State shall organize, assist, foment, finance, incite or tolerate subversive, terrorist or armed activities directed towards the violent overthrow of the regime of another state, or interfere in civil strife in another State"

On a sidenote, Nicaragua took the US to the International court of Justice in the case Nicaragua vs USA ICJ Rep. 1986 The US refused to accept the jurisdiction of the court, and thus the courts findings in the case were null and void. It is also kinda amusing that the US, being a permanent member of the security counsel has a permanent right to have one judge in the court, and the US uses this right…but she still refuses to accept the jurisdiction of the court.

Moreover, to send troops to the territory of a state without the consent of the government of that state is invasion which is listed in article 3(a) of the General assembly's definition of aggression, as a form of aggression, and therefore a form of armed attack. Thus giving the government in the state the right to self defence. (Compare with the situation in Kosovo if you will).

To supply insurgents with weapons does not constitute an armed attack, but it is nevertheless illegal, and it gives the injured state the right to adopt proportionate countermeasures against the wrongdoing state.

Self-determination and the use of force...this is where it gets interesting

The principle of self-determination refers to the right of a people living in a territory to determine the political and legal status of that territory. This right is explicitly mentioned in the UN Charter in article 1(2) and in Article 55. Problem is that these provisions are vague, and it is doubtful whether they lend themselves to establishing specific rights and duties. Basically the articles tells us that there is such a thing as a right to self-determination, but they fail to tell us how this right is exercised, and what duties the surrounding or controlling states have towards the people wanting to express their rights.

If a people of a particular territory are regarded by international law as possessing a legal right to self-determination but the state administering the that territory refuses to let them exercise that right, they may need to fight a war of national liberation in order to achieve self-determination in practice. Such a war would be a civil war, and all the laws regarding civil wars would apply. This is one of the rare cases where a war of aggression (against the government) is lawful. The situation gets very complicated very fast however. It is clear that international law is not applicable on a civil war, but it is also clear that there is a general consensus that any state trying to prohibit one peoples right to self-determination is in violation of international law.

So what happens if one state (lets take Israel as the hypothetical example here) uses force to prevent a people (and lets take the Palestinian people here, just for arguments sake) from exercising their right to self-determination? Well, first, lets establish the ground rules here. The General assembly of the United Nations has declared that the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination. Problem is that the General assembly did not specify in which area the Pals had this right. Were they talking about the Gaza strip and the west bank (which would be most logical) or the entire area of present day Israel? (which would of course lead to the conclusion that the Israelis would have to move somewhere else). Anyway, lets continue in our hypothetical example. While it is true that violation of the right to self-determination is a violation of international law, this doesnt really mean that much. Because breaches of one state of international rules are not treated as justifying other states to breach international law too. See above regarding helping insurgents in a civil war.

So what does this all tell us? Well, basically it says that the Israelis are breaking international law when they are preventing the Pals from excercising their right to self-determination. It also tells us that the Pals have the right to self-determination. But it doesnt say where the pals have the right to self determination. The situation can be compared to that one of the Kurds. Having the right to self determination is not the same thing as the right to an independent nation. One must remember that. It also tells us that it is illegal for any state to help the Pals in any way, with either military force or the supply of arms. What is required here? Yup..a resolution from the security counsel ordering Israel to stop their actions against the Pals, after that the security counsel can decide on embargoes or even war against Israel…after that, and only after that, can any other country come to the aid of the Pals…

Does anyone think that will ever happen?

So, where does all this leave us?
The conflict in Israel today can be described as internal unrest, or a civil war (if you are stretching it) In neither of these cases is international law applicable. That leaves us with Israeli national law, and some general rules of warfare etc. It is not against the rules of war to assassinate valid military targets. Terrorist leaders, members of the Palestine security staff, members of the Palestinian police force are all considered combatants, and thus valid military targets. It is however, against both national law, as well as the general rules of warfare to use suicide bombers to blow up children. You have your three typical groups of palestinian "freedom fighters", first there are the stoneheads. They take to the streets throwing rocks at Israeli police and military, now there is a smart move right there, "lets see, I'll throw this big rock at that tank, that'll scare them off". Then you have the second group, strapping bombs on themselves to take out busses, cars and airplanes filled with people. They just want to kill civilians, as many as possible. Then you have a third group who snipes at 10 months old babies, drive their busses into busstops crowded with people or lay outside jewish settlements at night sniping at lit windows. All of these guys are in violation of either national law, or the laws of war.

As for the child throwing rocks. There is a very very easy way for him to escape injury STAY AT HOME instead of running around in the street hurling rocks at every Israeli soldier. If it were your 10 yr old son, would you allow him to do that?

"-Dad, today I want to be with my friends to throw rocks at the Israeli tanks. They will probably shoot at us, but all my friends are going, can I go too?". -Sure son, just make sure your home before supper"

Let me ask you, what could they possibly hope to achieve by throwing all those rocks? Do they think that if they throw enough rocks then the Israeli government will finally surrender? "Well, yesterday 4000 rocks were thrown at our checkpoint, that brings the total up to 190.000, better surrender the west bank to the arabs"? If they want media attention, well, there are better ways of achieving that. Blow up a buss, and every tv station in the world will cover it.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2002, 05:38:45 AM by Hortlund »

Offline Hortlund

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4690
Attack on Iraq Imminent
« Reply #47 on: March 28, 2002, 06:27:26 AM »
Hrm..It seems I drifted a bit off subject there. My point was this:

Israel is not in violation of international law. It requires a resolution from the security counsel stating that Israel is violating the pal right to self determination for that.

The conflict between Israel and the pals is not an international conflict because there has to be two countries involved for that.

Israeli law and general rules of warfare is applicable on the situation. Israel has not broken these laws (I can go into detail here if you want), because (to my knowledge) every Israeli action has been within the boundaries of Israeli law.

The Palestinians on the other hand, are in violation of both Israeli law, and the general rules of warfare.

Offline batdog

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1533
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com/
Re: Yeah......
« Reply #48 on: March 28, 2002, 07:09:36 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by weazel
Turn a blind eye to what the israeli animals have been doing since 1947...that's the ticket. :rolleyes:

If they keep doing it,they`ll have to be done away with.
But I wouldn`t mind them being anywhere if they behaved as humans should.

I do not hate or judge anyone by their origins,only by their deeds.


So the 9/11 tribute brought a tear to your eye?

That's good, it upset me to watch it again, but it also PISSED ME OFF to know that my government supports a piss ant little country like israel and realize that support was a direct cause of 9/11.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.  :mad:





 Well..actualy our government supports Isreal due to the fact that is a clear PRO-western government. It has clear ties w/the West on many fronts...economic, social, even religous.

 The terrorism that we watched on 9-11 didnt have any thing to do w/Isreal. Thats the face they WANT you to see but its simply not true. These indiv's see our very WAY OF LIFE as being something they find offensive. They feel we have alot of influnce and thus are SPREADING our way of life...and this is abhorent to them. They there fore plot to cease our influnece. HOW...well they see us as being weakling, fat merchants that will bow over when they hit our finacial backbone and cripple our economy.

There are forces at work in the middle-east that simply have NO desire for peace. The feed off the misery of the Palastiens/Israelies. The get the power and influnce FROM this dispute. If this dispute is resolved in some form... they LOSE that power and influnce or it is at least dimished in some form.

There business is killing..and business is good eh? They want to keep it that way.

xBAT
Of course, I only see what he posts here and what he does in the MA.  I know virtually nothing about the man.  I think its important for people to realize that we don't really know squat about each other.... definately not enough to use words like "hate".

AKDejaVu

Offline Wotan

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7201
Attack on Iraq Imminent
« Reply #49 on: March 28, 2002, 07:51:58 AM »
well his dad is starving to death in a camp in lebanon. So I guess m16s are the correct response to rocks thrown at a apc and tanks.

Its not just kids with stones who are getting shot.

I dont need international anything to show that israelis are animals equal to the palestinians in their bloodlust.

You brought the "legal" arguement into no one else. Ofcourse resistance is illegal. Ofcousre the Israelis use "law" to justify their position. Zionism and Nazism both do that.

No one here has called for any sort of trial. But Caligula came here with tears in his eyes over 9/11 and tried to insert the look at the poor israelis. Well they get what they deserve, They are getting in return what they dish out. Its them that call for peace all they while stomping on innocent palestinians. When the palestinians dare raise a hand in opposition they want the world feel guilty and aid them against those "terrorists".

The Israelis push for this type of reponse. They know first hand that rolling tanks over pal cars and property and killing them doesnt bring "peace". As for the pals theres no peace until they wrestle a way from the isrealis the right to self determination.

No one in this thread really made any mention of the arguement you have made.

The response has been let the animals fight it out. And stop the US arms and cash to israel.

Something in the water in that area of the world it makes you all crazy.

Your long winded arguement may be correct but its hardly the point.

A man may beat his dog all he wants but when the dog bites him back dont go around crying that we need to get rid of all dogs.

Seems to me if I order the shelling of pal and they respond by filling a suit case full of c4 or a nail bomb strapped to them and blow up my people up I would rethink my strategy. They dont care if they die, look at the life they have ahead. So killing them back only ensures more of my own will die in the future.

The israelis created the conditions that have lead to what they have now. No court need tell me that.

They simple get what they deserve. They have the power to end it but they shift the blame to fat bellybutton arafat. I doudt he could stop the Hamas or the others. Whether he agrees with them or not is irrelevant.

Replying bomb with bomb just leads to a lot of mess and some of it spills over to the truly innocent like 9/11.

Even some jews in israel itself are starting to get it. So is a lot of the world.

In the mean rime I wish my country would just leave Israel to itself. But the israelli lobby and religous nuts in this country prevent that.

And they get no sympathy here especially since what guides them is their Zionist dilusion that God told them they could do what ever they want after all they are chosen.........

Batdog israel is only pro western as long as the check dont bounce......Our relationship with israel has always been a oneway street.

As for the Europeans I dont think Israel could do anything that would upset their guilt. Imagine an anti Israeli german government ....lol doudt it.

Offline Sikboy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6702
Wow More like Arab/Israeli flamefest imminent
« Reply #50 on: March 28, 2002, 08:08:41 AM »
:eek:
You: Blah Blah Blah
Me: Meh, whatever.

Offline batdog

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1533
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com/
Attack on Iraq Imminent
« Reply #51 on: March 28, 2002, 08:16:22 AM »
Personaly Wotan i wish we'd wash our hand of the entire middle east. Become energy self suffecient and basicly tell them..have at it. BUT if you mess w/us we'll obliterate you.


xBAT
Of course, I only see what he posts here and what he does in the MA.  I know virtually nothing about the man.  I think its important for people to realize that we don't really know squat about each other.... definately not enough to use words like "hate".

AKDejaVu

Offline Voss

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1261
      • http://www.bombardieraerospace.com
Attack on Iraq Imminent
« Reply #52 on: March 28, 2002, 09:24:07 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Ping

 As for Iraq, Of what benefit would there be in taking out Iraq?
 World opinion seems to be Dont go there. The Arab league should be given the power to Police their own Rogue Nations.
 Seems that Saudi Arabia has put forward a reasonable peace plan, did it not?

 Of course all this relies on Everyone using common sense and then abiding by International Law :rolleyes:


Iraq is on the side of terrorism and thus oppose us in the fight against terrorism. Iraq will be a great first step toward eliminating terrorism.  You could name a dozen countries engaged in the same sort of support as Iraq.

I think it all comes down to oil. Bush Sr. didn't finish the job, so Bush Jr. will. I don't see it happening, but if turmoil in the region were eliminated, then oil production costs would be reduced. How the two are related would require too much explanation.

We probably won't stop in Iraq, but that depends on the American people. You can already see the resolve from 9/11 slipping. So, there's no telling where we'll end up, or how far the public will allow the fight to go.

It's going to be a long fight.

Offline Lance

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1316
Attack on Iraq Imminent
« Reply #53 on: March 28, 2002, 09:47:10 AM »
Man, I don't have any clue as to what the answer is to the mess in the middle east.  It almost seems like events are speeding along to some foregone conclusion that isn't very rosy.  There is going to have to be a sudden outbreak of wisdom, tolerance, understanding and generosity among everyone involved for this to work out without eventually turning into a fight between nations and/or religions for survival.  

Maybe a world-altering cataclysm is necessary for there to eventually be an outcome that all sides will accept.  If you think about it, most of the overt agression in the past 30 years has been carried out by nations that were not players in the last world war.  If such an outcome is inevitable, lets get it over with before everyone has nukes to toss around.  

Here's to hoping I am 100% completely wrong, heh.

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27260
Attack on Iraq Imminent
« Reply #54 on: March 28, 2002, 09:53:55 AM »
Saddam just upped the anty, he now pays $25,000 to any immediate family that sacrifices a son or daughter to blow themselves up to kill infidels.  yep, we're going in to clean that cess pool out.

Offline Wotan

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7201
Attack on Iraq Imminent
« Reply #55 on: March 28, 2002, 10:25:02 AM »
mid east oil or oil in general isnt just an energy source. Everything from your clothes to your keyboard were developed from patroleum products. Theres no escaping the need for oil.

It easy to say let umm keep their oil but the impact on the world economy would be devastating/ We have to be there. We have to keep it flowing or far worse unrest could be the result.

oil is the life blood of the world economy. It is in our interest to stay engaged with that part of the world. The problem is our 1 sided relationship with israel does nothing to preserve our interests.

The japaneese and the germans have always had good relationships with the arabs. Our problems there arent limited to our support of israel. The cold and interference by both us and the russians and a whole host of other things strain our relationship with the islamic people. Then to support Jews the arch enemies of islam at the expense of the palestinians simple reinforces what they already suspect.

It would never be enough for the us just to cut off relations with israel. The arabs will always have suspicion about our motives. We can never disengage from the middle east.

Now to get on topic would toppling Sadam be of any benefit to the us? Most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis. Do we occupy Iraq indeffinately? I dont know.

But we should leave poor Israel to fend for its self. Piss on the animals let umm go at it.

Offline Voss

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1261
      • http://www.bombardieraerospace.com
Attack on Iraq Imminent
« Reply #56 on: March 28, 2002, 10:37:27 AM »
Yeah, toppling Saddam will prove to otehrs in the area that we are serious in our endeavour against terrorism. We've made so many promises in the past that we didn't follow through with (well, our government did, anyway), just ask any Kurd you can find still standing.

Blast Saddam and if we don't get cooperation then attack Iran. If that doesn't work then turn on the next country supporting terrorism. This is a can-of-worms that has been ignored since the 1800's, and it's high time we get serious with it.

Didn't Heinlein write about this?

Offline UserName

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 266
Attack on Iraq Imminent
« Reply #57 on: March 28, 2002, 10:57:08 AM »
There have been reports that any attack on Iraq isn't going to come this summer. The military "d00dz" state that the mid summertime temperature (up to +50'C) in Iraq would not be conducive to military operations, as it would wreak havoc with machines and man alike.

When on August 2  Iraq invaded Kuwait, it was 3 days later that Prez. Bush Sr. said that the invasion would not stand. If you remember, it was on January 12 that Congress authorized use of force in the Gulf war, and January 17 marked the first attacks.

Whether it was planned (to avoid summer temps) or simply good timing (6 months to get war machine into action, transport equipment, etc.) I'll never know.

Offline ~Caligula~

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 613
Attack on Iraq Imminent
« Reply #58 on: March 28, 2002, 02:52:00 PM »
In 1948 when the state of Israel was declered the arabs attacked and tried to destroy it.One in every 10 jews died in the fighting,and when it was over they had to be rounded up and made sure they are no treat to the israeli people anymore.Eversince than they showed no signs of them wanting to accept the existence of israel,so that`s why they are kept the way they are.It has nothing to do with them not being the "chosen people" or any other racial or national reasons.
As far as terror attacks go,the israeli groups like Irgun and Hagana targeted military targets,and they allways gave a fair warning before those bombs went off.In the case of Hotel king David something went wrong,and that`s why all those people had to die,but still it was a center of brit military.

I want the palestinians to live well and prosperous,but as long they won`t accept the jews` right to live there ,they won`t have the same rights in that country as the jews.It`s that simple.

And Wotan: stop using the bible to prove your points,It only shows You have no idea what You`re talking about.
BTW I`m not even religious,and I don`t belive the reason for Israel`s existence is that God gave it to the jews.
The reason is:jews need a home,just like any other nation.

Offline babek-

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 459
      • http://members.tripod.com/KG51EDELWEISS
Attack on Iraq Imminent
« Reply #59 on: March 28, 2002, 03:58:16 PM »
To create the state of Israel after WW2 was a terrible fault.

It causes much hate - even between people and nations who didnt knew each other before in their history.

One of the results of this stupid policy was the also very stupid and barbaric attack against the WTC by arabs against americans - two nations who didnt know each other 50 years ago.
But only half a century after the creation of Israel enough arab fanatics were produced to make such a devestating terroristic suicide attack against US-americans.

The so called war against terrorism cant have any success. Even if the anti-terrorism-nations conquer and occupy or install a puppet regime in Iraq, Iran, Korea and all the other nations who are called terroristic they will not be able to stop a single terroristic counterattack.
In contrary: They will only produce the next generation of fanatics who are ready to sacrifice themself for bigger suicide attacks.

Just see what happens in these days in Israel: Under the mad dog Sharon who sends out his military for new nazi-like massacres against the palestines - he is not able to avoid the next suicide terror-attack of a palestine fanatic.

The solution can only be done by politicians and surely not by military.

Even if the military wins 1000 battles - they cant win the war.

So its not important when or if the USA attacks Iraq - it will bring nothing and surely it will not reduce terrorism.