Have people forgotten about 9/11?

[kai]

If a policeman sees a felon fleeing a serious crime, he is legally allowed to use a gun to stop the perpetrator. However, if the criminal is running through a crowd, the lawman may not shoot, because it is not legal to endanger civilians in pursuit of a criminal. I agree
Likewise, if a certain apartment in a block of flats is known to be a manufacturing and distribution site for illegal drugs, it is not considered acceptable to bomb it, knowing that adjacent flats, if not the whole building, wil be destroyed. I agree



Why the double standard? Why is it OK to do exactly these things in Baghdad but not in New York? well these things in particular? or do you mean firing back at insurgents who are in say an apartment block firing rocket propelled grenades and machine gun fire, the alternative would be retreat i suppose, you dont get that very often in New York i am not sure what the reaction would be and i hope i never find out. but i am sure they wouldnt just leave them to it.

I think the 9/11 attack on the WTC should have been handled the same way the previous WTC attack was handled.
The fact is, the 9/11 attack was merely a convenient excuse for implementing a larger, imperialistic agenda. ok i take it you mean an American Imperialistic agenda?

As far as the British vs the American approach to both 'peacekeeping' and law enforcement, I would say the current American strategy is one of hyper-aggressiveness, AKA: Shock and Awe.
This is not just a military strategem. It permeates the whole society. One only has to watch a few episodes of American reality cop shows like "Cops" to see that hyperaggressive overkill is the order of the day.
Compare Cops to arrest scenes in old movies and the new approach is clear.

I tend to agree, but american lifestyle is different than ours, in respect of criminals and police and firearms etc. just one more point that might be relevent, US troops have amazing amounts of ordinance, where as we have on occasion to beg borrow and steal.

 

[Alceste]

i believe the twin towers were not targeted for any other reason than being a very large symbol , they were targeted by criminals with the intention of murder, answer me this if they failed do you agree they should have been arrested for hijack? if they had killed a passenger do you think they should have been apprehended and charged with murder?

the pentagon could be considered a military target if it was targeted by the armed forces of somebody? rather than a suicide murderer egged on by a phenomenally rich bandit for his own ends. again if they had failed should they have answered to the law?

the battles for fallujah were long and fierce, authorized by the Iraqi government and carried out with the assistance of the Iraqi forces.
civilian deaths are of course regrettable but insurgents tend to operate from behind and among civilians, they very rarely engage head on in their quests for martyrdom. We operate as part of a coalition called the Multi National force-Iraq(MNF-Iraq) alongside troops from 25 other nations. The coalition remains at the formal request of the Iraqi Government, under a mandate from the United Nations, as set out in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1790.

there is my basis for the moral difference.

you don't really come across as a conscientious objector to war in general but a critic of coalition forces in general, in all the posts we have argued over never once have you mentioned the murders and bombings of civilians deliberately targeted by insurgents. we are all aware of war being ugly but there are two sides in this war with as usual civilians stuck in the middle.

Hi, kai, thanks for explaining your position.

My criticism is geared toward interventionist foreign policy, as I believe people have the right to self-determination. Government-sponsored violent intervention is the most despicable of all possible crimes against humanity, IMO. So that would be why I am coming off as a critic of the "coalition" forces in this case. In Iraq, two governments have pooled their resources and at least in the case of the UK, violated their own people's right to self-determination (90% of the population wanted no involvement without UN sanctions and the UN has deemed this war illegal).

So the reason I don't lose too much sleep over religious wackos blowing themselves up in public squares is that they don't do very much damage compared to government sponsored violence. Also, not being members of the ruling class, guerilla fighters are subject to the rule of law. Aggressors who are not members of the ruling class can be captured and prosecuted for their crimes, and I am generally comfortable with that process. I very much doubt we will ever see Bush and Blair prosecuted for theirs.

Yes, war is ugly, so WHY START WARS? Regime change would have happened inevitably. Nothing has been accomplished by the slaughter of half a million innocents that could not have been accomplished by other means, including just waiting around to see what happens over there and minding our own damn business.

To be clear, I was in favor of some form of international, cooperative police operation to bring the perpetrators of the attack on the US to justice. I am always opposed to blowing up foreign grannies and babies, whatever the perceived benefits.

 

[kai]

Hi, kai, thanks for explaining your position.

My criticism is geared toward interventionist foreign policy, as I believe people have the right to self-determination. Government-sponsored violent intervention is the most despicable of all possible crimes against humanity, IMO. So that would be why I am coming off as a critic of the "coalition" forces in this case. In Iraq, two governments have pooled their resources and at least in the case of the UK, violated their own people's right to self-determination (90% of the population wanted no involvement without UN sanctions and the UN has deemed this war illegal). thats fine you are entitled to your opinio just remember this war is in fact sanctioned by the UN resolution 1790
http://www.uniraq.org/FileLib/misc/Resolution1790.pdf
So the reason I don't lose too much sleep over religious wackos blowing themselves up in public squares is that they don't do very much damage compared to government sponsored violence. Also, not being members of the ruling class, guerilla fighters are subject to the rule of law. Aggressors who are not members of the ruling class can be captured and prosecuted for their crimes, and I am generally comfortable with that process. I very much doubt we will ever see Bush and Blair prosecuted for theirs.
well if those wackos werent blowing themselves up in public squares our troops would be home by now

Yes, war is ugly, so WHY START WARS? Regime change would have happened inevitably. Nothing has been accomplished by the slaughter of half a million innocents that could not have been accomplished by other means, including just waiting around to see what happens over there and minding our own damn business. well regime change would have happend Uday and Qusay hussien would have inherited their savage garden, and i am of the opposite opinion that more should be done in places around the world where people are oppressed and facing genocide.i dont beleive the free nations can mind their own business while others suffer

To be clear, I was in favor of some form of international, cooperative police operation to bring the perpetrators of the attack on the US to justice. I am always opposed to blowing up foreign grannies and babies, whatever the perceived benefits.

me too, but i am just as opposed to blowing up domestic grannies and babies for twisted religious or idealistc goals.

Peace Kai

 

[Alceste]

opinio just remember this war is in fact sanctioned by the UN resolution 1790
http://www.uniraq.org/FileLib/misc/Resolution1790.pdf

Hmmm - that has to be the first time in the history of the UN that a war was "sanctioned" 4 years after the fact, and proponents pretended this somehow made the whole adventure "legal".

You should read the document you linked to. I'm very interested to see which part of the 2007 resolution (which recognizes the sovereignty of Iraq and denounces violence) you feel authorizes the invasion in 2003.

In fact, considering the fact the UN plainly deemed the invasion a violation of its charter, and has routinely called for the abolition of the coalition's rendition and torture programs, this part even reads like more of an indictment than a sanction:

Affirming the importance for all parties, including foreign forces, promoting the maintenance of security
and stability in Iraq to act in accordance with international law, including relevant obligations under
international humanitarian law, human rights law and refugee law, and to cooperate with the relevant
international organizations, welcoming their commitments in this regard, and underscoring that all parties,
including foreign forces, should take all feasible steps to ensure the protection of affected civilians

This document is an affirmation that the government is legal and that the occupying forces are there at the request of the government they installed. It does not make the invasion legal.

Compare this with the below from 2004:

"I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time - without UN approval and much broader support from the international community," he (Kofi Annan) added.
He said he believed there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections.
And it should have been up to the Security Council to approve or determine the consequences, he added.
When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

 

[kai]

Hmmm - that has to be the first time in the history of the UN that a war was "sanctioned" 4 years after the fact, and proponents pretended this somehow made the whole adventure "legal".
Our attorney general declared our part in it legal
You should read the document you linked to. I'm very interested to see which part of the 2007 resolution (which recognizes the sovereignty of Iraq and denounces violence) you feel authorizes the invasion in 2003. I have read it and i am not concerned with the leglaities of the invasion only the mission at hand,
In fact, considering the fact the UN plainly deemed the invasion a violation of its charter, and has routinely called for the abolition of the coalition's rendition and torture programs, this part even reads like more of an indictment than a sanction:

This document is an affirmation that the government is legal and that the occupying forces are there at the request of the government they installed. It does not make the invasion legal. indeed, who said it did?

Compare this with the below from 2004:

whats the point in comparing a UN resolution and the opinions of Cofe Anan he was bloody useless. and the fact remains however distastefull to you that the coalition is there at the request of a democratically elected government under sanction of the UN.

 

[Alceste]

whats the point in comparing a UN resolution and the opinions of Cofe Anan he was bloody useless. and the fact remains however distastefull to you that the coalition is there at the request of a democratically elected government under sanction of the UN.

Yes, I can see that the government the invading armies has installed has asked them to stay, and that the UN accepts the legitimacy of the installed government and recognizes their request for invading armies to remain in the short term. I can also see plainly, as can just about everyone else in the western world except about a third of of americans and one in ten brits, that they got there illegally, without UN sanction.

 

[Scuba Pete]

that they got there illegally, without UN sanction.

Illegalities are mere nuisances for some Alceste. They love to fracture the laws of this world in search of war and mayhem. Sad that.

 

[Alceste]

Illegalities are mere nuisances for some Alceste. They love to fracture the laws of this world in search of war and mayhem. Sad that.

Yeah, sad and true. It seems that in the brave new world of neo-con hegemony, "legal" is anything you can bribe a lawyer into writing an argument for.

 

[kai]

Yeah, sad and true. It seems that in the brave new world of neo-con hegemony, "legal" is anything you can bribe a lawyer into writing an argument for.

are you accusing our attorney general Lord Goldsmith of being bribed now.

careful thats libel !and i happen to know he is a religious man with an Internet connection

 

[kai]

Yes, I can see that the government the invading armies has installed has asked them to stay, and that the UN accepts the legitimacy of the installed government and recognizes their request for invading armies to remain in the short term. I can also see plainly, as can just about everyone else in the western world except about a third of of americans and one in ten brits, that they got there illegally, without UN sanction.

thanks for your opinion on that, i have taken it on board and thought long and hard for about a minute and decided i don't agree, but you carry on with the illegal baby killer jibes its a free country, thanks to some heavy bombing and a lot of US troops about 60 years ago.

i take it you don't think the election was real or that its all a lie then, those Yankee imperialist dogs made that up did they?

Oh i forgot your Canadian but thats still a free country so "as you were"

 

[Alceste]

thanks for your opinion on that, i have taken it on board and thought long and hard for about a minute and decided i don't agree, but you carry on with the illegal baby killer jibes its a free country, thanks to some heavy bombing and a lot of US troops about 60 years ago.

i take it you don't think the election was real or that its all a lie then, those Yankee imperialist dogs made that up did they?

Oh i forgot your Canadian but thats still a free country so "as you were"

Well, you can disagree with Kofe Annan's pronouncement on the legality of the war if you wish. I assume he knows more about the UN charter than I do, being the former secretary-general of the organization, so I'm happy to accept his opinion. Especially since it agrees with mine.

I think the election was real but the candidates were hand-picked by the baby-killing invaders, in part for their willingness to cooperate with the US agenda, and also (especially) for their willingness to agree to oil trading policies that benefit US and UK corporate interests.

In a democracy, ideally, the candidates would need to rise to the position of running in a national election on their own merits, through winning over the hearts and minds of the people with sound and fair policies. A foreign country wiping out a government and hundreds of thousands of civilians, selecting the candidates and saying to the people "Now pick one of these guys so we can pretend it's a triumph of democracy. Be sure to get your fingers stained for the photo-ops later!" - is not democracy in action.

It appears to be a cheap, cynical pantomime of democracy for PR purposes, like everything else in this war.

 

[kai]

watch your blood pressure there Alceste! that was a mighty fine speech, yep mighty fine! are you sure you dont have a long beard and live in a cave?

 

[Alceste]

watch your blood pressure there Alceste! that was a mighty fine speech, yep mighty fine! are you sure you dont have a long beard and live in a cave?

I'll take that as a compliment. Some of the world's best advice comes from bearded (or not) fellas living in caves.

 

[kai]

I'll take that as a compliment. Some of the world's best advice comes from bearded (or not) fellas living in caves.

as long as your not a bearded women living in a cave, i hate arguing with bearded women

 

[Hanslope]

About 80% of U.S. casualties are due to Sunni "insurgents".

What percentage of Iraqis have been killed by Sunni insurgents - 80% - 90%?

 

[islamcity]

About 80% of U.S. casualties are due to Sunni "insurgents".

What percentage of Iraqis have been killed by Sunni insurgents - 80% - 90%?

What is your point?

 

[McBell]

What is your point?

Seems to me he was asking a question, not making a point?
Though he was likely going to make a point with your answer, though two things have prevented that.
One, he has been banned.
Two, you never answered the question....

 

[JMorris]

as far as iraq goes, the invasion was obviously wrong. supporting Hussein in the 80s was wrong. giving him chemical weapons in the 80s was wrong (the one's he used on the Kurds). i dont believe in regime change, its a countries citizens responsibility to overthrow dictators. all america should do is support them and not dictator. unfortuanately we do the oppposite too often

 

[ladyace]

i think people have forgot why we are at war my family was hit right in the heart bout 9/11 i dunno though if we are winning in iraq but i do know that we have made progress but why are we rebuiling them when things in america need to be rebuilt and rebuilt right????

 

[ladyace]

yes we shouldnt of gave hussein the chemical weapons and we do get our nose out of countries that we dont need anything from or have anything to do the people in there country should over throw the there own dictator if they want a change