Italy unearths large Iraq arms deal

[trobinett]

The question has been asked twice now and you wont answer it, why not? Lets try again. Do Iraqis have a right to fight off foreign invasion and occupation?

ABSOLUTLY!!!

They just don't do a very good job of it.

Oh, and in case YOU missed it, the coalition defeated the OLD Saddam lead Iraqi government.

As the way things are NOW, the coalition is HELPING the Iraqi government fight off foreign invasion, and occupation.

The Iraqis haven't even tried to create a vote on that, lets not be naive and pretend the US would welcome such a thing or even allow it.

And YOU know all this how?

Lets also stop trying to divert attention from the real issue here. It seems that those trying to get weapons via black market avenues were Iraqis, and it seems they were headed for Iraqi resistance.

Using YOUR logic, ANYONE of United States background who takes up arms, or trys to buy arms, would be a resistance fighter, not just an ordinary CRIMINAL?

How do we view Iraqi resistance to our occupation of their country?

Minimal, and more foreign than Iraqi.

How shall we view and treat Iraqi resistance?

Misguided.

Is there some reason you just keep dodging those issues and questions?

Is there some reason you failed reading comprehension?

 

[ReillyT]

I think its a fair question. Just because they were too weak to repel the invasion dosent strip them of their rights of self defense or to resist an ongoing occupation.

An election held by an occupying force cant even be viewed as valid. It may provide us some shallow sort of relief from any guilt we have and some of the responsibility, but it isnt really valid. Its not about completely fair either, its beyond "unfair" when its held after invasion by occupiers.

I am not asserting people go violent when they dont agree with their govt, thats getting many miles away from the point that they have a right to RESIST FOREIGN invasion and occupation.

It is not getting many miles away from the point. The crux of the issue is whether any election can be relatively fair when conducted under occupation. You state that it can't be fair at all. I understand why one would think that it is unlikely to be completely fair, but I don't see that it can't be as fair as elections in places like the Congo, Nigeria, or Thailand (which just toppled (in a military coup) and indicted its formerly elected president). If we accept that governments such as those in these places have some legitimacy, and that citizens shouldn't have the "right" to resort to open arms when they disagree with government policy, then why should Iraqis have any more "right" to resort to open arms against policies of their government - including the Iraqi government's desire to maintain a US presence at this particular moment?

 

[maineman]

"Minimal, and more foreign than Iraqi."

bullshit. Hannity might sell that to HIS lapdog listeners, but it is not true. Foreign fighters are in the minority in Iraq.... indigenous sunnis and shiites make up the lion's share of the insurgents attacking us and attacking one another.

 

[Ruby]

Uh trobinett, its odd you claim that american is helping the Iraqi govt fight off foreign invasion and occupation when no other foreign nation is invading or occupying them. I think that really does pretty much sum up your "knowledge on things'. You call resisting invasion "misguided"....so if the US were invaded you would call the americans who resisted "misguided"? Thats odd and I hope there arent many americans that share your feelings, I would like to think we would fight.

 

[Ruby]

It is not getting many miles away from the point. The crux of the issue is whether any election can be relatively fair when conducted under occupation. You state that it can't be fair at all. I understand why one would think that it is unlikely to be completely fair, but I don't see that it can't be as fair as elections in places like the Congo, Nigeria, or Thailand (which just toppled (in a military coup) and indicted its formerly elected president). If we accept that governments such as those in these places have some legitimacy, and that citizens shouldn't have the "right" to resort to open arms when they disagree with government policy, then why should Iraqis have any more "right" to resort to open arms against policies of their government - including the Iraqi government's desire to maintain a US presence at this particular moment?

Well we arent even talking about them resisting their govt....we are talking of them resisting FOREIGN invasion and occupation so you are comparing people rebelling against their govt and people resisting foreign occupation. They are two different things, but people do have a right to engage in both.

People in a nation are the ones who have to dismantle a govt themselves if they dont want it representing them and ruling over them, otherwise that govt will be accepted by the world as legitimate. The problem is that the first obstacle is a foreign occupier who is protecting that govt, providing them legitimacy against the peoples will and they must first remove that obstacle and then go on to dismantle and unwanted govt and replace it with one they do want.

 

[Ruby]

I wonder how we actually distinguish those who are "planning" something and use their "plans" as rationale for slaughtering them. That is an interesting moral dilemma, is it not? You suggest that we have the right to massacre any group of muslims because we thought that they were planning something - especially when we thought they are planning to do something against Americans in America.

How many of the young Iraqis fighting the invader/conquerer/occupier of their own country do you think fit that description?

Those are questions I just dont think we are asking enough, we arent challenging ourselves enough at all. Its a bit frightening that we arent thinking too hard here about what we are doing and its implications.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Iraqis targeting each other is because now a civil war will commence to fill a power vaccuum the foreign invasion and occupation have created. We triggered that and we cant fix that either. They have a right to self-determine and hopefully it could be done without bloodshed, but since this whole thing was shoved onto them shock and awe style and they must try to do it in the midst of chaos and rubble means it wont be without bloodshed.

We abandoned our responsiblity when we brought this down on them and its our responsibility to be honest with ourselves and know that we cant fix it because it interferres with their very basic right to self determine and that by intereferring, we cause MORE harm.

Dont like the word occupier? It bug you or somthing? Its the truth.

Bullshit. An occupying force is required by Geneva conventions to safeguard an occupied nation. When sects and factions start targetting civilian populations, they lose their status as being part of a resistance. If the US decided to let hundred of thousands die purposefully in a Civil War, while acting as the occupying force, people like you would be crying about war crimes.

I use the term "occupier" because we are a de-facto occupier. The US's role in Iraq is transitional.

 

[ReillyT]

Well we arent even talking about them resisting their govt....we are talking of them resisting FOREIGN invasion and occupation so you are comparing people rebelling against their govt and people resisting foreign occupation. They are two different things, but people do have a right to engage in both.

People in a nation are the ones who have to dismantle a govt themselves if they dont want it representing them and ruling over them, otherwise that govt will be accepted by the world as legitimate. The problem is that the first obstacle is a foreign occupier who is protecting that govt, providing them legitimacy against the peoples will and they must first remove that obstacle and then go on to dismantle and unwanted govt and replace it with one they do want.

If an election is not completely fair, do you feel that the people of the country have the "right" (which I don't even believe in, in this context) to resort to open warfare against it? If your answer is yes, and people responded in the manner in which you believe they have the right, then governments all over the world would be destabilized, and likely hundreds of thousands would die in the ensuing rebellions (Congo, Egypt, Nigeria, etc.)

If you believe that a government can still have some legitimacy to rule if it was elected in an imperfect manner, then why is Iraq's government less legitimate than that of the Congo, or Thailand, or Egypt? Each of these countries have governments that were not elected by any means western democracies would tolerate.

If Iraq's government has some intrinsic legitimacy as a result of the election (which I admit, wasn't perfectly fair), then doesn't it have the authority to request/allow the US forces to remain in the country?

If it does, is it fair to compare what is occuring in Iraq to the resistance movement in France in WWII (cognizant of the fact that the Vichy were a French government, but that the degree of influence of Nazi Germany far exceeded our influence during the Iraqi election)?

 

[Ruby]

Bullshit. An occupying force is required by Geneva conventions to safeguard an occupied nation. When sects and factions start targetting civilian populations, they lose their status as being part of a resistance. If the US decided to let hundred of thousands die purposefully in a Civil War, while acting as the occupying force, people like you would be crying about war crimes.

I use the term "occupier" because we are a de-facto occupier. The US's role in Iraq is transitional.

An occupying force has duties and responsibilities yes, but those werent designed to lend crediblity to occupations that are result of an unjustified aggressive war.

The US shouldnt be in there at all is the point. It is an aggressive invasion and occupation, they have a right to continue to resist that and fight us off and then they have a right to self determine. Lets not pretend to care about the bloodshed after supporting invading and supporting continued occupation, its far too dishonest.

I also dont think the US is caring much about things like the duties and rules upon an occupying force nor the geneva conventions. We create new terms so we can operate outside these. Its pretty disingenuous to use the premise of rules we dont even abide by to try and boost crediblity for an occupation.

 

[Ruby]

If an election is not completely fair, do you feel that the people of the country have the "right" (which I don't even believe in, in this context) to resort to open warfare against it? If your answer is yes, and people responded in the manner in which you believe they have the right, then governments all over the world would be destabilized, and likely hundreds of thousands would die in the ensuing rebellions (Congo, Egypt, Nigeria, etc.)

If you believe that a government can still have some legitimacy to rule if it was elected in an imperfect manner, then why is Iraq's government less legitimate than that of the Congo, or Thailand, or Egypt? Each of these countries have governments that were not elected by any means western democracies would tolerate.

If Iraq's government has some intrinsic legitimacy as a result of the election (which I admit, wasn't perfectly fair), then doesn't it have the authority to request/allow the US forces to remain in the country?

If it does, is it fair to compare what is occuring in Iraq to the resistance movement in France in WWII (cognizant of the fact that the Vichy were a French government, but that the degree of influence of Nazi Germany far exceeded our influence during the Iraqi election)?

Yes people have a right to wage open warfare against a govt they believe has not been voted in by their will. They either have a right to CHOOSE their govts or they dont, there isnt an in between. If a govt will not accept the will of the people and force themselves upon the people, yes the people have a right to revolt. It must be up to each nation on their own to decide, and they do decide.

People will decide on their own according to how strongly they feel, how much of a crisis it presents. Not many nations would rebel in such violent fashion if they feel that while their govt didnt play fair, it would cause more problems to remove than to accept. Then they make a choice to accept.

I always advocate peaceful measures, but that dosent negate the RIGHT to remove by force those they truly dont want ruling over them.


Of course again, this goes beyond a peoples dispute with their govt, its also about their right to resist outside invasion, occupation and govts that are installed via invasion and occupation. There isnt some magic loop hole that will change it. Its like we are dodging around the fact that we invaded and occupied under no legal or moral right and that they have a right to resist it. We cant pretend the occupation is ok because a govt that was installed after invasion and during occupation says its ok (but is also buying weapons secretly to arm the resistance to that same occupation).

Would you forgo your right to resist invading chinese because after they invaded and during occupation of us they held elections and elected in a govt that you feel you dont want and was not legitimately elected by americans free from duress...you feel options were purposely kept OUT by the occupying force. Would you feel that you must abide by that govts public decree to ask the chinese to stay and occupy america? Would you feel those who resist are not within their rights to do so?

 

[Dirt McGirt]

An occupying force has duties and responsibilities yes, but those werent designed to lend crediblity to occupations that are result of an unjustified aggressive war.

The US shouldnt be in there at all is the point. It is an aggressive invasion and occupation, they have a right to continue to resist that and fight us off and then they have a right to self determine. Lets not pretend to care about the bloodshed after supporting invading and supporting continued occupation, its far too dishonest.

I also dont think the US is caring much about things like the duties and rules upon an occupying force nor the geneva conventions. We create new terms so we can operate outside these. Its pretty disingenuous to use the premise of rules we dont even abide by to try and boost crediblity for an occupation.

Stop dancing and presuming to think you know what I believe. I do care about the bloodshed. Saying the US shouldn't be there isn't the reality of the situation- the reality of the situation is that 250 people in Northern Iraq died yesterday because of some truck bombs. And your response to the situation in Iraq:

"The US shouldnt be in there at all."

 

[Ruby]

Stop dancing and presuming to think you know what I believe. I do care about the bloodshed. Saying the US shouldn't be there isn't the reality of the situation- the reality of the situation is that 250 people in Northern Iraq died yesterday because of some truck bombs. And your response to the situation in Iraq:

"The US shouldnt be in there at all."

Well we arent going to change the reality if we wont face the truth about all this and we are bound to repeat the mistake and create more bloodshed if we dont. The truth is we didnt have a right to do this. The truth is they have a right to resist us and we have no moral basis to try and strip them of that right....but then again we also dont have a right to feed our soldiers to them and their death, we have a duty to protect their lives as well.

The reality is that this is the pretzel position WE put ourselves and the Iraqi people in, should we not think about it and not learn from it and not fix it by ceasing the actions deemed wrong?

 

[ReillyT]

Yes people have a right to wage open warfare against a govt they believe has not been voted in by their will. They either have a right to CHOOSE their govts or they dont, there isnt an in between. If a govt will not accept the will of the people and force themselves upon the people, yes the people have a right to revolt. It must be up to each nation on their own to decide, and they do decide.

People will decide on their own according to how strongly they feel, how much of a crisis it presents. Not many nations would rebel in such violent fashion if they feel that while their govt didnt play fair, it would cause more problems to remove than to accept. Then they make a choice to accept.

I always advocate peaceful measures, but that dosent negate the RIGHT to remove by force those they truly dont want ruling over them.


Of course again, this goes beyond a peoples dispute with their govt, its also about their right to resist outside invasion, occupation and govts that are installed via invasion and occupation. There isnt some magic loop hole that will change it. Its like we are dodging around the fact that we invaded and occupied under no legal or moral right and that they have a right to resist it. We cant pretend the occupation is ok because a govt that was installed after invasion and during occupation says its ok (but is also buying weapons secretly to arm the resistance to that same occupation).

Would you forgo your right to resist invading chinese because after they invaded and during occupation of us they held elections and elected in a govt that you feel you dont want and was not legitimately elected by americans free from duress...you feel options were purposely kept OUT by the occupying force. Would you feel that you must abide by that govts public decree to ask the chinese to stay and occupy america? Would you feel those who resist are not within their rights to do so?

I think that I agree with pretty much everything you say. My initial concern was that you were breaking down the argument in too simplistic a fashion in focusing on whether people of a country have a "right" to resist occupation. After these additional posts, I think I understand where you are coming from better.

I don't think that there is such a thing as a "right" to resist. There is no higher authority that can tell us when resistance is proper and when it is isn't. There is only the choice to resist. In that vein, I can understand why some Iraqis view us as occupiers, and why they choose to resist our presence. I might feel the same were I in their shoes.

All the same, not all occupations (or governments) are the same. Some have greater legitimacy than others, and this factors into whether each of us determines resistance is necessary or advisable. I think many on this board would say that the choice to resist the American occupation is a poor one, and unwarranted. You may disagree (taking the perspective of Iraqis), and I don't really know where I stand on the issue. With the caveat that I don't think there is any external standard of legitmacy for a resistance movement, I believe that I understand and appreciate where you are coming from.

Note: I am in the UK and it is a little late in the day so I have had a couple of glasses of wine, and my posts may become less and less coherent. Je suis desole.

 

[Ruby]

I think that I agree with pretty much everything you say. My initial concern was that you were breaking down the argument in too simplistic a fashion in focusing on whether people of a country have a "right" to resist occupation. After these additional posts, I think I understand where you are coming from better.

I don't think that there is such a thing as a "right" to resist. There is no higher authority that can tell us when resistance is proper and when it is isn't. There is only the choice to resist. In that vein, I can understand why some Iraqis view us as occupiers, and why they choose to resist our presence. I might feel the same were I in their shoes.

All the same, not all occupations (or governments) are the same. Some have greater legitimacy than others, and this factors into whether each of us determines resistance is necessary or advisable. I think many on this board would say that the choice to resist the American occupation is a poor one, and unwarranted. You may disagree (taking the perspective of Iraqis), and I don't really know where I stand on the issue. With the caveat that I don't think there is any external standard of legitmacy for a resistance movement, I believe that I understand and appreciate where you are coming from.

Note: I am in the UK and it is a little late in the day so I have had a couple of glasses of wine, and my posts may become less and less coherent. Je suis desole.

Nothing is ever really that simple, not even the simple things!

I do think we have a standard for legitimacy on resistance from OUTSIDE forces, I think it is recognized that wars of aggression are wrong and people have a right to defend themselves against aggression. I think its a premise that is widely held and serves very much our standards when determining legitimacy.

I think the global scale down on colonization affirms this really. It was a recognition that no foreign entity should rule over others and that the people of the nation have the right to resist, reject and expell them. It seems we now favor a new model, one of propped up, installed govts that favor our "wishes and needs". We are attempting to put a new "face" on an old concept that has been judged to be immoral, unethical and a violation of somthing we hold sacred...our soveriegnty and our sovereign rights.

I do think we probably agree on many things and disagree on some aspects, but I do think you bring a new angle to view it from and certainly pushed the questions further, I really do respect that quite a bit.

 

[dilloduck]

Nothing is ever really that simple, not even the simple things!

I do think we have a standard for legitimacy on resistance from OUTSIDE forces, I think it is recognized that wars of aggression are wrong and people have a right to defend themselves against aggression. I think its a premise that is widely held and serves very much our standards when determining legitimacy.

I think the global scale down on colonization affirms this really. It was a recognition that no foreign entity should rule over others and that the people of the nation have the right to resist, reject and expell them. It seems we now favor a new model, one of propped up, installed govts that favor our "wishes and needs". We are attempting to put a new "face" on an old concept that has been judged to be immoral, unethical and a violation of somthing we hold sacred...our soveriegnty and our sovereign rights.

I do think we probably agree on many things and disagree on some aspects, but I do think you bring a new angle to view it from and certainly pushed the questions further, I really do respect that quite a bit.

Saddam didn't see his attack on Kuwait as a war of aggression so maybe these "standards" of yours are pretty subjective.

 

[Ruby]

Saddam didn't see his attack on Kuwait as a war of aggression so maybe these "standards" of yours are pretty subjective.

It was considered a war of aggression by all in the international community. It wasnt controversial by any means. Are you saying that we are now using Saddam as our measuring stick? Since when did we start using Saddam to form our standards or to define "war of agression" for us?

I had no idea you held Saddam in such high esteem.

 

[dilloduck]

It was considered a war of aggression by all in the international community. It wasnt controversial by any means. Are you saying that we are now using Saddam as our measuring stick? Since when did we start using Saddam to form our standards or to define "war of agression" for us?

I had no idea you held Saddam in such high esteem.

I was trying to impress upon you the fact that not everyone sees things in the same light. Would you label China attacking Taiwan as a war of aggression ? International community---spare me. There is no international community.

 

[Ruby]

Here you go, a standard and war of aggression.

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/GAres3314.html

Considering also that, since aggression is the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force, being fraught, in the conditions created by the existence of all types of weapons of mass destruction, with the possible threat of a world conflict and all its catastrophic consequences, aggression should be defined at the present stage,


Reaffirming the duty of States not to use armed force to deprive peoples of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence, or to disrupt territorial Integrity,

Reaffirming also that the territory of a State shall not be violated by being the object, even temporarily, of military occupation or of other measures of force taken by another State in contravention of the Charter, and that it shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from such measures or the threat thereof

and they define aggression

Adopts the following Definition of Agression:[FN3]


Article I


Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.

We waged a war of aggression. There is an international standard and we violated it.

BTW, I didnt see any mention of using Saddam as a standard in there.

 

[Ruby]

I was trying to impress upon you the fact that not everyone sees things in the same light. Would you label China attacking Taiwan as a war of aggression ? International community---spare me. There is no international community.

Yes China attacking Taiwan would be a war of aggression and a violation of their rights to determine their own lives, their own govt, their sovereignty. Just because China wishes to deny them this right dosent mean that it IS right.

We do have standards, the US signed onto them and was part of drafting them. We AGREED to these standards and even helped create them...any way you slice it, we waged a war of aggression.

 

[dilloduck]

Here you go, a standard and war of aggression.

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/GAres3314.html



and they define aggression



We waged a war of aggression. There is an international standard and we violated it.

BTW, I didnt see any mention of using Saddam as a standard in there.

Screw the UN. It's consists of some of the most corrupt people on earth.