[quote]Sloth wrote:
Are you serious? The US has been restrained from killing him specifically. The bastard still gives sermons out in the open for crying out loud. [/quote]
I’m not saying the current Iraqi military and police force is illegitimate, but I would understand someone questioning it. After all, it’s been created under occupation and trained by the occupying forces.
When you wage an unnecessecary war, most of the blame lies on you. That said, of course all sides should respect international law.
So, what you’re suggesting is that they go into unpopulated areas and wave a bomb me! flag so that you could send a drone to obliterate them?
I can see why you’d find that an attractive alternative to guerilla warfare.
True. And that brings us back to the original point of the thread, and the degree of legitimacy of Al-Maliki’s request. I say this is a too important issue to be decided by one (easily influenced and manipulated) man. Feel free - nay, encouraged - to disagree.
I’ll question the motives and legitimacy of any authority. That includes those who rally up people under the guise of resistance only to further their own agenda. That is the reason I am reluctant to name an “organized” group that could qualify for a “legitimate” label. I’ll try to illustrate what I’ll view as a member of the legitimate resistance: Someone who went out for a pack of smokes and on his/her way home saw planes dropping bombs where his/her whole family was. That person then grabs an AK-47 and decides to liberate the country.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Are you serious? The US has been restrained from killing him specifically. The bastard still gives sermons out in the open for crying out loud.
Iraqis have a military and police force. Sadr’s death squads, as much as it pains you, are neither of those. He, and the non-elected terrorist goons, aren’t entitled to make these decision, for the country.
I’m not saying the current Iraqi military and police force is illegitimate, but I would understand someone questioning it. After all, it’s been created under occupation and trained by the occupying forces.
Oooooh, so the US must be bound by laws of war, but your murderous resistance, should not? Even if they’d fall under PoW status, or “Protected Person,” they are responsible for any crimes of war they commit. You know, like DEATH SQUADS, hiding amongst non combatant civilian populations, collective punishment (death squads again), no military insignias, etc.
When you wage an unnecessecary war, most of the blame lies on you. That said, of course all sides should respect international law.
Oh, but even civilians who organize as militias are bound by the laws of war. Militias must bear a distinct insignia. The point is to clearly define who the combatants are, and further spare civilian populations. Your murderous thugs don’t. Yet, you rush to their defense, knowing they are intentionally using a tactic which will inflict greater loss of civilian life. It is deliberate and calculated.
So, what you’re suggesting is that they go into unpopulated areas and wave a bomb me! flag so that you could send a drone to obliterate them?
I can see why you’d find that an attractive alternative to guerilla warfare.
No, it is not THEIR freakin’ country, it is the country of all Iraqis. And the Iraqi government (elections, remember) has not asked for Sadr and his ilk to plunge their country into chaos. Meanwhile, the UN has recognized the Iraqi government’s request for the continued presence of US/coalition troops. Get over it!
True. And that brings us back to the original point of the thread, and the degree of legitimacy of Al-Maliki’s request. I say this is a too important issue to be decided by one (easily influenced and manipulated) man. Feel free - nay, encouraged - to disagree.
No sir, I’m asking you, in your own words, which groups you’ve identified as “legitimate.” It could prove enlightening.
I’ll question the motives and legitimacy of any authority. That includes those who rally up people under the guise of resistance only to further their own agenda. That is the reason I am reluctant to name an “organized” group that could qualify for a “legitimate” label. I’ll try to illustrate what I’ll view as a member of the legitimate resistance: Someone who went out for a pack of smokes and on his/her way home saw planes dropping bombs where his/her whole family was. That person then grabs an AK-47 and decides to liberate the country.
Hope you get the point.[/quote]
Once cannot describe the U.S.'s presence as “occupation.” They were asked to stay by the duly elected government. Said government sent representatives to lobby the weenie democrats recently.
Therefore, the U.S. may be many things, but, they are not “occupying” Iraq. They are there by invitation.
[quote]lixy wrote:
When you wage an unnecessecary war, most of the blame lies on you. That said, of course all sides should respect international law.
[/quote]
And if they don’t obey international law, Lixy’ solution, of course, is to treat them as if they had.
Unsurprisingly, Lixy is double-speaking like his buddy Arafat here. “Well of course we should obey the rules of war. But if we don’t, we’ll let violations of every code of warfare and human decency slip by with a wink – it’s not our fault after all! If THEY weren’t here we wouldn’t have to nailbomb the ice cream shops!”
This is the delusional, hysterical, self-indulgent, ultraviolent, blame-others mythical world that Arab culture has invented rather than dealing with its own collapse and the causes. It’s much easier than taking the hard look.
Lixy said:
It’s not like you didn’t try multiple times to kill him. But you failed, and in doing so, blew any chance of him ever trusting you or even considering to negotiate. Nice going!
According to a segment I saw on 60 minutes, when the Marines invaded Sadr City, they let Sadr escape. They had orders not to touch him. I saw it on video. Him running down the street away from advancing US forces.
Multiple times to kill him? Isn’t, or wasn’t his group part of the elected government of Iraq? If we wanted him dead, why let his group become part of the government? We could have done what HH said and carpet bomb the place if we really wanted him dead.
[quote]Sloth:
Iraqis have a military and police force. Sadr’s death squads, as much as it pains you, are neither of those. He, and the non-elected terrorist goons, aren’t entitled to make these decision, for the country.
Lixy:
I’m not saying the current Iraqi military and police force is illegitimate, but I would understand someone questioning it. After all, it’s been created under occupation and trained by the occupying forces.[/quote]
Ah, so you can’t even call the Iraqi security forces illegitimate? Of course you can’t, because it operates under a government ELECTED by the Iraqi people. There has been no government body, elected into power, that has tasked your “legitimate fighters” with it’s mission. The Iraqi security forces are the only legitimate Iraqi force.
Nope, sorry. Your legitimate resistance is solely responsible for their crimes. They have the option of conducting their actions within law.
Too bad, Lixy. No matter the disparity of power, they’re still bound. Your response has been extremely telling, for a “pacifist.” You have just argued the legitimacy of tactics which intentionally use noncombatant civilians as shields. You may want to refrain from quoting civilian casualties as an indictment against the US. I’m sorry, but after this justification, you’ll never convince me of your sincerity. And again, disparity of power is irrelevant.
[quote]
Sloth:
No, it is not THEIR freakin’ country, it is the country of all Iraqis. And the Iraqi government (elections, remember) has not asked for Sadr and his ilk to plunge their country into chaos. Meanwhile, the UN has recognized the Iraqi government’s request for the continued presence of US/coalition troops. Get over it!
Lixy:
True. And that brings us back to the original point of the thread, and the degree of legitimacy of Al-Maliki’s request. I say this is a too important issue to be decided by one (easily influenced and manipulated) man. Feel free - nay, encouraged - to disagree.[/quote]
[b][i]Responding to a request by the Iraqi Prime Minister, the Security Council today extended the mandate of the multinational force in Iraq until the end of next year, deciding that it should be reviewed at the request of that country?s Government or no later than 15 June 2007. The Council also declared that it would terminate the mandate earlier if requested by the Government of Iraq.
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, the Council unanimously adopted resolution 1723 (2006) – submitted by Denmark, Japan, Slovakia, United Kingdom and United States -? which also extended through the end of 2007 the arrangements for depositing proceeds from export sales of petroleum, petroleum products, and natural gas into the Development Fund of Iraq, as well as the arrangements for monitoring the Fund by the International Advisory and Monitoring Board. Also by the text, the arrangements for the monitoring of the Development Fund by the International Advisory and Monitoring Board would be reviewed at the request of the Government or no later than 15 June 2007.
Annexed to the resolution was a letter containing Iraq?s request, as well as a letter from the United States Secretary of State, who confirmed the force?s readiness to continue to fulfil its mandate as set out in Security Council resolution 1546 (2004) and extended by resolution 1637 (2005).[/b][/i] http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8879.doc.htm
[quote]
Sloth:
No sir, I’m asking you, in your own words, which groups you’ve identified as “legitimate.” It could prove enlightening.
Lixy:
I’ll question the motives and legitimacy of any authority. That includes those who rally up people under the guise of resistance only to further their own agenda. That is the reason I am reluctant to name an “organized” group that could qualify for a “legitimate” label. I’ll try to illustrate what I’ll view as a member of the legitimate resistance: Someone who went out for a pack of smokes and on his/her way home saw planes dropping bombs where his/her whole family was. That person then grabs an AK-47 and decides to liberate the country.
Hope you get the point.[/quote]
I hoped that you could at least name one “legitimate resistance” group. I’ll take this response to mean that you can’t.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Lixy said:
It’s not like you didn’t try multiple times to kill him. But you failed, and in doing so, blew any chance of him ever trusting you or even considering to negotiate. Nice going!
According to a segment I saw on 60 minutes, when the Marines invaded Sadr City, they let Sadr escape. They had orders not to touch him. I saw it on video. Him running down the street away from advancing US forces.
Multiple times to kill him? Isn’t, or wasn’t his group part of the elected government of Iraq? If we wanted him dead, why let his group become part of the government? We could have done what HH said and carpet bomb the place if we really wanted him dead. [/quote]
Heh, common sense is enough to answer this. After all, he is preaching openly in Iraq. He could have been dead umpteen million times.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Once cannot describe the U.S.'s presence as “occupation.” They were asked to stay by the duly elected government. Said government sent representatives to lobby the weenie democrats recently. [/quote]
Sorry. When you bomb the hell out of a country, proceed to invade it, build a few bases around the place, get your corporations to make money in it, AND NEVER LEAVE, that sounds awfully close to an occupation.
[quote]ChuckyT wrote:
Unsurprisingly, Lixy is double-speaking like his buddy Arafat here. “Well of course we should obey the rules of war. But if we don’t, we’ll let violations of every code of warfare and human decency slip by with a wink – it’s not our fault after all! If THEY weren’t here we wouldn’t have to nailbomb the ice cream shops!”
This is the delusional, hysterical, self-indulgent, ultraviolent, blame-others mythical world that Arab culture has invented rather than dealing with its own collapse and the causes. It’s much easier than taking the hard look. [/quote]
That you would deduce all this from my post is surreal.
I’ll simplify what I said for you since you seem too riled up to read my posts without bursting: When you break the door of a house, part of the blame for the ensuing theft lies on you. Can we agree on that?
When you have the speaker of the Iraqi parliament say such things as ?I personally think whoever kills an American soldier in defense of his country would have a statue built for him in that country.? you know there’s a big problem.
I won’t address your heinious comment on Arab culture. I might start calling you names…
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Multiple times to kill him? Isn’t, or wasn’t his group part of the elected government of Iraq? If we wanted him dead, why let his group become part of the government? [/quote]
Let’s see. How about because his party represents a substantial proportion of the Iraqi public? How about because 67% of Iraqis support him?
In theory, yes. In practice, you’d have had all your embassies attacked by torch and pitchfork carrying mobs around the world. That much I can guarantee.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
If you read that article, it is the opinion of one man. Why should we take his word? If it was you, would we take your word?[/quote]
Because it makes sense.
Sadr is not an ally of yours there. He’s aligned with Iran and his militia shoots on sight at Americans. Need more reasons?
[quote]ChuckyT wrote:
This is the delusional, hysterical, self-indulgent, ultraviolent, blame-others mythical world that Arab culture has invented rather than dealing with its own collapse and the causes. It’s much easier than taking the hard look.
Lixy:
I won’t address your heinious comment on Arab culture. I might start calling you names…[/quote]
And once finished with the name calling, would you compose your next “look at the wrongs of the US” post? Too funny.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Nope, sorry. Your legitimate resistance is solely responsible for their crimes. They have the option of conducting their actions within law. [/quote]
Again, I’ll come back to the door breaking analogy. If you tear down my house’s door, I’ll get to blame you for the stuff that gets stolen.
In Iraq, you created chaos and destroyed the securitary backbone. Ensuing deaths are not entirely your fault, but you can’t just shake your head and say that you are in no way responsible for them.
I don’t know a single example of a country that was liberated by a bunch of people that wore distinctive uniforms and made sure to waive their insignia when facing the tanks with their rifles.
What I’m trying to say is that guerilla warfare is the only way for an exponentially weaker party to win in a conflict against a heavily armed military. They wouldn’t stand a chance and you know it.
So, seriously now, what are you suggesting they do? That they ask their wives to make them matching uniforms? That they don’t come home at night for fear of reprisals on their families? I don’t get it. You want a bunch of farmers and what-not to organize themselves and face the greatest army the world has ever seen. Shit, if the armies of half the world (the bottom half) united against the US, they wouldn’t stand a chance.
Man, it’s not like ten people who want a free Iraq can’t come together to resist US presence. Do you think they make up a name for their alliance?
[quote]Sloth:
Nope, sorry. Your legitimate resistance is solely responsible for their crimes. They have the option of conducting their actions within law.
Lixy:
Again, I’ll come back to the door breaking analogy. If you tear down my house’s door, I’ll get to blame you for the stuff that gets stolen.
In Iraq, you created chaos and destroyed the securitary backbone. Ensuing deaths are not entirely your fault, but you can’t just shake your head and say that you are in no way responsible for them.[/quote]
No, the individuals responsible for choosing to commit the crimes are responsible. Make as many analogies as you want, it doesn’t change anything.
[quote]Sloth:
Too bad, Lixy. No matter the disparity of power, they’re still bound. Your response has been extremely telling, for a “pacifist.” You have just argued the legitimacy of tactics which intentionally use noncombatant civilians as shields. You may want to refrain from quoting civilian casualties as an indictment against the US. I’m sorry, but after this justification, you’ll never convince me of your sincerity. And again, disparity of power is irrelevant.
Lixy:
I don’t know a single example of a country that was liberated by a bunch of people that wore distinctive uniforms and made sure to waive their insignia when facing the tanks with their rifles.
What I’m trying to say is that guerilla warfare is the only way for an exponentially weaker party to win in a conflict against a heavily armed military. They wouldn’t stand a chance and you know it.
So, seriously now, what are you suggesting they do? That they ask their wives to make them matching uniforms? That they don’t come home at night for fear of reprisals on their families? I don’t get it. You want a bunch of farmers and what-not to organize themselves and face the greatest army the world has ever seen. Shit, if the armies of half the world (the bottom half) united against the US, they wouldn’t stand a chance. [/quote]
Fine, continue to justify the deliberate use of non-combatant civilians as human shields. But, I’ll make sure to remind you of this whenever you attempt to criticize heavy-handed acts committed by US soldiers and intelligence services. Oh, and I’ll bring this up the next time you wave Iraqi casualty figures around as an indictment of the US.
One other point. If, a disparity in military might justifies an almost total departure from laws of war, why not other justifications? Why must the mightier force continue to operate constrained by laws? If the weaker opposition is fighting unhindered, while relying on the restraints placed upon the mightier force, why shouldn’t the mightier force also cast off rules/laws?
Examine the tactic of fighting while blended in with non-combatant civilians, which you’ve justified. Well, why shouldn’t the mightier force carpet bomb civilian areas infested with combatants? You can no longer argue that it would be out of concern for non-combatant deaths, because you’ve justified using non-combatants as shields.
[quote]Sloth:
I hoped that you could at least name one “legitimate resistance” group. I’ll take this response to mean that you can’t.
Lixy:
Man, it’s not like ten people who want a free Iraq can’t come together to resist US presence. Do you think they make up a name for their alliance?[/quote]
Well, whenever you’re ready to, please name one. I’ll be interested.
I won’t address your heinious comment on Arab culture. I might start calling you names…[/quote]
You know what? I’ll take whatever names you throw at me. It is a step up for 21st century Arab debate, which would normally involve a bunch of cowards blowing up my daughter’s schoolbus.
As to my “heinous” comment about Arab culture, give me a break. A society which used to lead the world in science, literature, miltary science, and trade now has two main exports – Oil and bodies. The traditional Arab response in the last 50 years is to blame the rest of the world for all their problems, which is totally delusional.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
We could have done what HH said and carpet bomb the place if we really wanted him dead.
In theory, yes. In practice, you’d have had all your embassies attacked by torch and pitchfork carrying mobs around the world. That much I can guarantee.[/quote]
And then what? Say the embassies go down in a blaze. Does that quench the flame? Does it make any difference? No. One wrong does not nullify the first wrong. So why do it? Justice? Revenge? Satisfaction?
Ah, that’s the answer. That feeling of satisfaction at striking back is empty, lixy. Pointless. A global moratorium on the USA would get the message across. Anything short is impotence.
For a pacifist, you sure do revel in the hopes of armed (with pitchforks and torches) global uprising against the USA. Perhaps because your self-proclaimed status as pacifist is nothing but lies. Your layers peel as if an onion. Acrid.
[quote]ChuckyT wrote:
You know what? I’ll take whatever names you throw at me. It is a step up for 21st century Arab debate, which would normally involve a bunch of cowards blowing up my daughter’s schoolbus. [/quote]
Are you by any chance Israeli? I’ll take that as a yes.
I agree with your disgust at Palestinians harming civilians, but how do you suggest they resist the occupier? Pray?
You can accuse them many things (criminals, barbarious, etc…) but you certainly can’t say they’re cowards. A coward wouldn’t exchange lead for rocks.
Consider two thing, the majority of Arab countries just came out of occupation in said period, and Arab nationalism was smuthered in the egg by said colonialists.
Israel is to blame for a lot of the trouble in the M.E. That’s not to say the Arab didn’t act like jerks and were short-sighted, but you can’t claim that it’s got nothing to do with, say the situation in Lebanon.
When the colonial powers left, it was up to the Arabs to reclaim their lands and start working for a more prosperous future.
I’ll totally agree with you. Instead, what happened was that a handful of dictators (and yes, the majority of them were backed by Western powers) took control, and drove the countries into the ground. So, while the Arabs are ultimately to blame for their plight, the West and Israel surely held them back.
[quote]lixy wrote:
…what happened was that a handful of dictators (and yes, the majority of them were backed by Western powers) took control, and drove the countries into the ground. So, while the Arabs are ultimately to blame for their plight, the West and Israel surely held them back.[/quote]
Why? Because it was the quickest and easiest way to ensure that they didn’t fall into Communism. Back then, it was a threat. Care to imagine what those countries would be like had they fallen into Communist regimes? Yes, yes. I’m sure you’d say “peachy.”
If only we could have insulated the ME from the rest of the world back then. Do you think they’d emerge today as a shining example of grace and tolerance?
I am amused how you make victim out of every Middle Easterner. Even the murders they perpetrate on each other, you blame a foreign entity. You’d blame them if they were isolated, too. Self responsibility is anathema, isn’t it?
There comes a time when you, who do nothing, are as responsible as those that screw it all up. Your inaction and blaming serve to propel these very events to continue.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Are you by any chance Israeli? I’ll take that as a yes.
[/quote]
I’m not Israeli. In case you haven’t noticed Middle Eastern fools have brought their way of “war” outside the region.
Maybe fight the occupiers? The guys with guns? Stop hiding behind their women’s skirts after they snipe at soldiers? The war would be over with shortly. Man for man, Arabs would get crushed.
Actually their MO has been blowing up people in church, attacking people at the market, blowing up schools, and running and hiding behind women and children. This is the essence of cowardice.
[quote] As to my “heinous” comment about Arab culture, give me a break. A society which used to lead the world in science, literature, miltary science, and trade now has two main exports – Oil and bodies. The traditional Arab response in the last 50 years is to blame the rest of the world for all their problems, which is totally delusional.
Consider two thing, the majority of Arab countries just came out of occupation in said period, and Arab nationalism was smuthered in the egg by said colonialists. [/quote]
Well, I hate to tell you, but much of the Middle East was occupied by other Muslims – the Turks – for centuries. I don’t know if you missed that half millenia in history class, but there you go. That kind of puts a crimp on the “evil imperialist West” argument.
Israel is to blame for the problems with societies that devalue women, concentrate power and massive oil wealth in the hands of autocrats, haven’t grasped a separation between theology and political science, devalue learning, encourage religious intolerance, etc.? Israel is in many ways flawed, but you cannot blame it for the larger Arab world’s inability to grasp these ideas.
[quote] When the colonial powers left, it was up to the Arabs to reclaim their lands and start working for a more prosperous future.
I’ll totally agree with you. Instead, what happened was that a handful of dictators (and yes, the majority of them were backed by Western powers) took control, and drove the countries into the ground. So, while the Arabs are ultimately to blame for their plight, the West and Israel surely held them back.[/quote]
If I buy your argument, then the reason that Syria and Libya couldn’t advance into the 17th century was because their dictators were being propped up by the USSR. It’s been 20 years… So now what’s the excuse?
[quote]kroby wrote:
Why? Because it was the quickest and easiest way to ensure that they didn’t fall into Communism. Back then, it was a threat. [/quote]