|
|
#81
04-23-2007, 10:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: <Sigh> Please Take a Class in Basic Civics
[ QUOTE ]
Oh? Please cite the portion of the treaty where the USA sign away their sovereign right to deploy they military. Hint: You will not be able to find anything that remotely says this. [/ QUOTE ] Lol, wow, you should join Bush's PR office. A treaty is EXACTLY a sovereign signing away its rights to use military force under explicit conditions. Seriously though, I applaud your efforts. 
|
|
#82
04-23-2007, 10:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: \"This war is lost\" - no it\'s not! - question for war supporters
[ QUOTE ]
bison - it seems that you are changing the definition of a word to what you want it to be to fit your argument [/ QUOTE ] Let me guess, the "right" definition conveniently fits your argument instead.
|
|
#83
04-23-2007, 10:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: \"This war is lost\" - no it\'s not! - question for war supporters
it seems that you are changing the definition of a word to what you want it to be to fit your argument
How so? I've used it the same way in both of my posts here. The war is lost insofar as: 1. What we call the Iraq war has actually been < 2 months of invasion + ~4 years of occupation. 2. Because it's an occupation and not a war, there's no "we lost the battle of Stalingrad" moment. There's no standing enemy army we can destroy or attrit. We lose no pitched battles, but that doesn't mean we win. 3. The occupation has failed to achieve its stated goals of stopping sectarian or terrorist violence and allowing an independent Iraqi government to police and defend itself and its citizenry. The violence isn't stopping, it's worsening, and the government isn't stabilizing, it's falling apart. 4. Neither the Iraqi nor American people want the occupation to continue, damn the aftermath.
|
|
#84
04-23-2007, 10:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: <Sigh> Please Take a Class in Basic Civics
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Oh? Please cite the portion of the treaty where the USA sign away their sovereign right to deploy they military. Hint: You will not be able to find anything that remotely says this. [/ QUOTE ] Lol, wow, you should join Bush's PR office. A treaty is EXACTLY a sovereign signing away its rights to use military force under explicit conditions. Seriously though, I applaud your efforts. [/ QUOTE ] The legal argument for saying the Iraq War is illegal under international law is extremely weak and is yours to make if you wish. However, remember that the UN Charter does allow for preemptive attacks and the Iraq was already in violation of the treaties and UN resolutions of the war. Have fun.
|
|
#85
04-23-2007, 10:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: \"This war is lost\" - no it\'s not! - question for war supporters
[ QUOTE ]
it seems that you are changing the definition of a word to what you want it to be to fit your argument How so? I've used it the same way in both of my posts here. The war is lost insofar as: 1. What we call the Iraq war has actually been < 2 months of invasion + ~4 years of occupation. 2. Because it's an occupation and not a war, there's no "we lost the battle of Stalingrad" moment. There's no standing enemy army we can destroy or attrit. We lose no pitched battles, but that doesn't mean we win. 3. The occupation has failed to achieve its stated goals of stopping sectarian or terrorist violence and allowing an independent Iraqi government to police and defend itself and its citizenry. The violence isn't stopping, it's worsening, and the government isn't stabilizing, it's falling apart. 4. Neither the Iraqi nor American people want the occupation to continue, damn the aftermath. [/ QUOTE ] OK. Lets say I agree with you about the current status (if you read my post above you'l see we agree on numerous things). Now what's your proposed solution? Surely, "Damn the aftermath" isn't reasonable. I see a lot of "we've lost," "we're losing," "pull out now," but I don't see any proposed methods for withdrawal or dealing with/containing the situation post withdrawal.
|
|
#86
04-23-2007, 10:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: \"This war is lost\" - no it\'s not! - question for war supporters
[ QUOTE ]
it seems that you are changing the definition of a word to what you want it to be to fit your argument How so? I've used it the same way in both of my posts here. The war is lost insofar as: 1. What we call the Iraq war has actually been < 2 months of invasion + ~4 years of occupation. 2. Because it's an occupation and not a war, there's no "we lost the battle of Stalingrad" moment. There's no standing enemy army we can destroy or attrit. We lose no pitched battles, but that doesn't mean we win. 3. The occupation has failed to achieve its stated goals of stopping sectarian or terrorist violence and allowing an independent Iraqi government to police and defend itself and its citizenry. The violence isn't stopping, it's worsening, and the government isn't stabilizing, it's falling apart. 4. Neither the Iraqi nor American people want the occupation to continue, damn the aftermath. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not making a case that we've won or that things are going well, I'm saying that the war or occupation is lost only when we choose to leave because our government decides that the costs are no longer worth the benefit. You are saying that the occupation isn't going well and it is unlikely that we will succeed, therefore it is lost. Presumably, there is some chance of success if the US was willing to stay in Iraq for an indefinite period of time right? Maybe not large, probably not worth it, but a chance nevertheless. That's why I say the war/occupation isn't lost until we leave.
|
|
#87
04-23-2007, 10:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: \"This war is lost\" - no it\'s not! - question for war supporters
Now what's your proposed solution?
Partition. From my first post: "We need to aggressively pursue a partition of the country with Iran and Saudi Arabia publicly playing the roles of sponsors they play covertly now." Despite the current tension with Turkey, Iraqi Kurdistan has been remarkably stable since the end of the gulf war. An independent Iraqi Kurdistan may be a lot to work out, but it makes sense. So, how do you partition the rest of Iraq, given that Iraqi shiites and sunnis are reprisaling the ever-living crap out of each other? I don't know, but it doesn't work unless you get Iran and Saudi Arabia and Syria to the table to act as guarantors of their co-religionist Iraqi populations.
|
|
#88
04-23-2007, 10:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: <Sigh> Please Take a Class in Basic Civics
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Oh? Please cite the portion of the treaty where the USA sign away their sovereign right to deploy they military. Hint: You will not be able to find anything that remotely says this. [/ QUOTE ] Lol, wow, you should join Bush's PR office. A treaty is EXACTLY a sovereign signing away its rights to use military force under explicit conditions. Seriously though, I applaud your efforts. [/ QUOTE ] The legal argument for saying the Iraq War is illegal under international law is extremely weak and is yours to make if you wish. However, remember that the UN Charter does allow for preemptive attacks and the Iraq was already in violation of the treaties and UN resolutions of the war. Have fun. [/ QUOTE ] I don't know anything about the UN charters or resolutions, so that is for others to argue. I merely pointed out that a treaty essentially IS what Felix says this treaty doesn't "cite".
|
|
#89
04-23-2007, 10:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: <Sigh> Please Take a Class in Basic Civics
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Oh? Please cite the portion of the treaty where the USA sign away their sovereign right to deploy they military. Hint: You will not be able to find anything that remotely says this. [/ QUOTE ] Lol, wow, you should join Bush's PR office. A treaty is EXACTLY a sovereign signing away its rights to use military force under explicit conditions. Seriously though, I applaud your efforts. [/ QUOTE ] The legal argument for saying the Iraq War is illegal under international law is extremely weak and is yours to make if you wish. However, remember that the UN Charter does allow for preemptive attacks and the Iraq was already in violation of the treaties and UN resolutions of the war. Have fun. [/ QUOTE ] I don't know anything about the UN charters or resolutions, so that is for others to argue. I merely pointed out that a treaty essentially IS what Felix says this treaty doesn't "cite". [/ QUOTE ] You are even wrong about your definition of a treaty BTW. A treaty is nothing but an agreement between two countries over many different possible issues. Also, the fact a treaty is signed does not revoke a countries sovereignty, as they have a right to void the agreement.
|
|
#90
04-23-2007, 11:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: \"This war is lost\" - no it\'s not! - question for war supporters
[ QUOTE ]
Now what's your proposed solution? Partition. From my first post: "We need to aggressively pursue a partition of the country with Iran and Saudi Arabia publicly playing the roles of sponsors they play covertly now." Despite the current tension with Turkey, Iraqi Kurdistan has been remarkably stable since the end of the gulf war. An independent Iraqi Kurdistan may be a lot to work out, but it makes sense. So, how do you partition the rest of Iraq, given that Iraqi shiites and sunnis are reprisaling the ever-living crap out of each other? I don't know, but it doesn't work unless you get Iran and Saudi Arabia and Syria to the table to act as guarantors of their co-religionist Iraqi populations. [/ QUOTE ] This idea has definite merits. Coupled with my proposal for a US Forces withdrawal from the populated areas into isolated military bases, we could be onto something here.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
