Muzzies, Godwin's, and Liberal Media BiasFollow

Oh c'mon Joph.

Here's a map of the middle east. Here's a map of the no-fly zones in Iraq

Please point to the obvious choice of nations you'd most want to use to enforce the southern no-fly zone.

You can do it. It's really obvious. Just say it with me... Saudi... Arabia...


Lol. Do you need a map and both hands to do everything? ;)

That wasn't your original point.

Just as a doctor who's done 8 years of medecine school is "sufficently brainwashed to a particular view of medecine". He will tend to distrust the healing properties of zebra hooves, and will doubt the fact that some King in Africa can cure AIDS on Thursdays.

You're clutching at straws on this subject, and its not surprising because its a technical subject. It's not philosophy or politics, its closer to mathematics if anything. What you're saying has nothing to do with law, it's just you playing around with your everyday definitions.

And here is the proof:



In international law, a cease-fire is, precisely, a treaty. Article 2(a) of the Vienna Convention on Treaties states that:



But nice try anyway sport, can't be easy guessing your way through it.



No, by definition a cease-fire treaty is binding on teh parties involved, otherwise there would no point whatsoever in signing one, and no consequences for breaching it.







This completely ridiculous fantasy is your basis for saying the war is legal.

Under your definition, Pakistan could've gone and invaded Iraq, and occupy it, at any time between 91 and now. Or Turkey, or Saudi Arabia, or Egypt. Or any other member of that coalition. It's a complete joke, seriously.

Germany never signed a peace treaty with the Allies. India and Pakistan never signed a peace treaty. North Korea and China never signed a peace treaty after the Korean war. So, under your defeintion, the US is still at war with China, since they were in a coalition with N. Korea. In fact, according to you, the Korean war is still going on, right?

It makes no sense what so ever. According to that interpretation, half the world is currently in a state of war.

And "war" legally, has very strong implications, such as the detention of those nationals from the countries involved, or extraordinary government power, such as seizing property. "War", in a legal sense" has very strong and consequential implications.

Peace-treaties are mostly diplomatic or political tools. Which is why NK is currently pushing for one. It has nothing to do with it being at war, and everything with political bargaining.

The "default" state of nations is peace, because the UN Charter. Any dispute must be attempted to be resovled peacefully, and the only excpetions must either involve self-defence, or collective UN action. The 678 Resolution is purely concerned with the removal of Iraq from Kuwait. Once that was achieved, the whole matter was in the hands of the SC, as the SC said itself in every - single - subsequent - Resolution.

As George Bush Snr said in 91 : "The war with Iraq is over"

You don't have a clue. You're making up definitions, your only quote is a book review, and the only way you can find to say that this war is legal is by arguing that half the world is currently at war with each other.

You know, this is more true than a lot of what gbaji has said so far.

The international legal system in place today is still at its embryonic stage, and the lack of a centralised legal authority that could adjudicate authoritatively, as well as the lack of real and consistent sanctions for illegal behaviour, means that, unfortunately, military and economic might are extremely important factors in the practical application of international law.

Which, in normal English, means that no one will ever impose sanctions on the US, or Israel, despite any violation. One only has to look at the SC, one of the main instruments of international law, to see how fundamentally skewed the system is today.

It doesn't mean that it's worthless, but there is no doubt it will have to evolve to survive.

A doctor deals in physical reality. If he's wrong, it's immediately apparent as a result of his patient dying.

In the legal profession, it's about opinion. If you can convince enough people that your opinion is right, then you *are* right. They're not even remotely the same thing.



It's the opposite of a technical subject. Hence why it's subject to interpretation. Hence, why there are multiple differences of opinion over exactly what a "cease fire" is and what it means. I happen to be using a definition that I believe makes the most sense. If a cease fire is binding to all parties, then that effectively means that any conditions set within it are meaningless. Thus, we must have a distinction between the state of "not shooting at eachother", and a state at which agreed upon terms of peace have been met.

Clearly, we reached the "we'll stop shooting at eachother" staqe with Iraq (mostly), but never reached the "Ok. All parties have met the terms of the signed agreement and now we can formalize a peace".

Whatever you wish to call that in-between position is irrelevant. What matters is that it *is* what it is.



Well. Not really. Because the document in question is a "resolution", which sets forth proposed conditions for the various sides to meet. Its is not as such a "treaty". The resolution does declare the current "condition" of cease fire, but that's really not the same thing.





Lol. Um... That definition weakens your position even more though. If the cease-fire itself is both a "treaty" and "binding", then that means that the agreement only exists if both sides have already met the conditions set in the terms. Since Iraq clearly did not meet the conditions of the UN resolution in question, then we could not have been "in a cease fire". We could only have been "resolved to meet a cease fire agreement", with that agreement dependant on Iraq meeting the terms set inside the resolution.

If we used your definitions, it would mean that we weren't even in a cease fire. I'm more then happy to go that route, although I do think it's a silly way for me to win this debate...


The reality is that the "condition" of cease fire existed as a simple result of the sides of the conflict not shooting at eachother. Period. During that time, the UN resolved to reach a formal agreement between Iraq and the other parties to the conflict. The UN certainly wrote down lots of requirements that it wanted Iraq to meet, but those are *not* treaties. They are resolutions. They are written down "goals" if you will.

Had Iraq complied with the terms *then* we'd have had a true treaty establishing a specific condition of peace between the parties. Until that happened though, whether you like the term or not, we were legally "at war".


A cease fire does not end hostilities. It just means what it says. The sides stop shooting at eachother. They are *not* binding in anyway. Never have been. Not without applying an incredibly bizaare meaning to the term.




Yup.

Why is that "a joke"? Are you seriously suggesting that a party to a conflict cannot resume hostilities at any time? Of course they can. It's inherent to the sovereignity of a state that once in a state of war with another state, they can pursue that war in whatever manner they see fit. The UN cannot tell a participant to a conflict that they cannot continue fighting. The UN can attempt to negotiate a peace agreement (as it's trying to do with the various resolutions between 1991 and 2002), but that's the end of it. They can't "force" them to stop fighting. They can pursuade them. The can ask them nicely. They can even create sanctions if they want in order to obatain peace. But the nations in question at all times have the right to continue fighting if they wish.


Why on earth do you think otherwise?



Yes it did. You're kidding on this one, right?



No clue actually. If they didn't sign one, then they are still "at war". It's not a complex subject to grasp. Im just surprised that someone who claims to have a degree in internation law has never once been exposed to the relatively simple concept that if two nations go to war and never sign a peace treaty ending that war, that they are... still at war.

Strange really.




We never formally declared war against China. China was "aiding" North Korea militarily (officially anyway). And yes. We *are* currently "at war" with North Korea. Every US soldier I've ever spoken to who's been stationed there will tell you the same thing. We just don't shoot at eachother very often is all...

It makes no sense what so ever. According to that interpretation, half the world is currently in a state of war.

Quite a bit less then "half the world", but yeah. Um... Are you aware of how many armed conflicts occur around the world every year? Sitting there with the UN charter wrapped tightly over your eyes and declaring over and over that "the world is at peace!!!" doesn't make it so.

Blind ideology should not be the basis for forming rational logical arguments. What you are arguing simply makes no sense. Nations who fight eachother are in a state of conflict until they officially agree to end that conflict. Just because they aren't shooting at eachother does not mean the same thing. Someone who understands law should understand that unless it's written down and signed, it doesn't exist. So until a treaty is signed in which both parties agree to terms and those terms include the full ending of hostilities and claims against eachother (presumably whatever they were fighting over), they are still "at war".

The fact that you don't understand this makes me seriously question the creditials you claim to posses. You're either lying about them, or (as I suggested before) your education was incredibly and moronically applied. Welcome to socialized education I guess...

And "war" legally, has very strong implications, such as the detention of those nationals from the countries involved, or extraordinary government power, such as seizing property. "War", in a legal sense" has very strong and consequential implications.

Yup. Not sure what your point was. Just because you don't want to believe how many nations are "at war" with eachother, does not change the reality that around the world there are a large number of nations that are in the state "of war" right now. You can call it something else if you want, but they don't see it that way. When India and Pakistan clash over the Kashmere region, and then stop for awhile, only to resume it again a few years late, it's pretty clear that neither side believes that the issue is settled, neither side has given up claim to the issue at hand, and neither side has given up their "right" to resolve that issue via armed conflict.

If that's not "war", then what exactly is your definition?

Peace-treaties are mostly diplomatic or political tools. Which is why NK is currently pushing for one. It has nothing to do with it being at war, and everything with political bargaining.

You're kidding, right? A peace treaty, and the desire to obatain one has nothing to do with being at war? Do you just make this stuff up? There's some hidden cameras lying around somewhere, right?

The "default" state of nations is peace, because the UN Charter. Any dispute must be attempted to be resovled peacefully, and the only excpetions must either involve self-defence, or collective UN action. The 678 Resolution is purely concerned with the removal of Iraq from Kuwait. Once that was achieved, the whole matter was in the hands of the SC, as the SC said itself in every - single - subsequent - Resolution.

Well. The UN can declare that. But the reality (as any student of international law should know) the status of two nations are defined by the agreements they have together. The lack of any agreements does not mean they are "at peace". It means they have no relationship. Now, under the terms of the UN charter, you can't attack someone unless you're at war with them already, so you could say that by signing the UN charter, all members of the UN are "at peace". That's not a "default state" though. It's made that way by the nature of the treaty they've effectively signed when they sign the UN charter itself.


But that doesn't apply here. The US was "at war" with Iraq. Legally. It never ceased to be "at war" with Iraq (there was no peace treaty since Iraq never complied with the terms required of it). Thus, we were still "at war". The UN charter only prevents nations who are not at war from fighting with eachother (except in the two conditions you quoted earlier). Thus, the invasion of Iraq by the US and others was "legal".


I just don't see how I can explain this any clearer then this...

Edited, Jul 25th 2007 7:49pm by gbaji

Or, perhaps reading his fatwas in which he clearly states that US troop presense in Saudi Arabia (the land of the two holy sites) as his primary complaint...

Or, if you require someone sitting down and asking him, how about we just read the interview he gave in 1998 and read his own words:



Do *I* actually have to the the one to ask him? Or does this suffice?



Except that he was right. We removed our soldiers from Saudi Arabia shortly after invading Iraq.

Ultimately, OBL did get what he wanted. Perhaps not in the way he wanted, but he did get it. Do you really think that the Bush administration wasn't aware of OBL's statements about us being in SA? And do you really think that wasn't one of the many benefits to the idea of invading Iraq rattling around in the back of their minds? Obviously, they can't say "We need to invade Iraq so that we can comply with the wishes of Osama Bin Laden", but clearly they had to be aware that this *was* a major thorn against the US in terms of fundamentalists muslims, and that by invading Iraq they effectively killed two birds with one stone.



No. We're really not. There's no historical precident to support the idea that Islamic terrorists will be motivated to attack US targets globally as a result of the occupation or operation of our forces in any single nation (other then Saudi Arabia). Saudi Arabia is a special case due to it's special relationship with the religion of Islam itself. Iraq holds no such position.

We've certainly traded one problem for another, but the reaction to our forces being in Iraq will primarily occur in Iraq. That's an acceptable trade IMO...

500 or so military advisors/trainers is not the same as "tens of thousands".




Yup. A convenient face-saving move by the Saudi government. They get to appear to be "protesting" the US invasion, thus gaining some ground in the eyes of those who think they're too cozy with the US, and they get to remove those soldiers from their territory (it's not like they don't know why OBL's pissed at them), and they now don't have to worry about Iraq invading them, *and* they do all of this without making it appear that they're doing this to placate folks like OBL.

Same deal. They can't say "We're asking the US soldiers to leave because we want to comply with the requests of a guy we threw out of our country". But if they can do that without making it obvious that they are, then they "win" both ways.

They asked us to put those troops there during and immediately after the gulf war. They allowed us to use their bases during the gulf war to attack Iraq. What changed between the gulf war and 2003? Osama Bin Laden and his al-queda network is what changed.



More or less. Point being that a few hundred military advisors and trainers aren't likely to be viewed as an "occupying force".



Not sure why that's surprising. Qatar is an excellent point of control for access to the gulf and Iraq in particular. It's wonderful as a support point for your forces when you already are "in Iraq". It's a pretty **** poor location from which to conduct air supremacy operations on Iraq though. For that, Saudi Arabia is ideal. Once you're in Iraq with ground forces, you don't need Saudi Arabia anymore and Qatar works just fine.

Guess I'm not sure why this seems so shocking to you. Different needs at different times for different reasons is all.

Ooohhhh.... so OBL had a cap on how many American infidels were allowed in the holiest of Islamic lands before he would attack us. Well, that's good news to know!

You know, we hadn't had "tens of thousands" of troops in Saudi Arabia since mid-1991. So I have no idea who you're quoting. It certainly isn't either of the previously linked fatwas. We had about 5,000 there from Post-Gulf War One until 2002 when we drew most of them out. Your little theories would be a lot more convincing if you could get even the most basic facts correct.Speaking of little theories, that's a lovely one. It's not supported by the statements of the Saudi government, the US government, any of the actions of the other Middle Eastern nations we operated from or, well, anything really beyond your imagination but it really is a compelling argument.Point being that they're just as American and just as much soldiers as any other amount is. Sure, Gbaji... sure. Qatar was absolutely ducky for air operations. I know you can't admit to this because it'd ruin your whole previous crapfest about how it just had to be Saudi Arabia but.. well... I doubt you're going to admit to it now either. I just wanted you to know that your complete ignorance of the locations of our bases, number of troops and viability of different areas has really made you sound credible.

Firefox's word search failed me then since I scanned his document and other instances of "thousands" popped up but not that one. Or, more likely, I missed it. My mistake on that count.

I'll point out again though that we hadn't had "tens of thousands" of troops in Saudi Arabia for ten years when the 9/11 attacks occured. Pointing to an obviously dated complaint a decade obsolete as your proof is pretty sketchy. You're right, 500-odd troops isn't "tens of thousands". Neither is 5,000. You're arguing that 5,000 men mostly confined to a single patch of desert was still considered an "occupying force"?

Edited, Jul 26th 2007 7:21pm by Jophiel

Because back before you went off the deep end you were a junior staff writer at Cnn.com?

Or just exagerrating the number for dramatic effect...

Doesn't matter. There were sufficient numbers that *he* felt they represented a threat to the purity of the state of Saudi Arabia from a fundamentalist muslim perspective. While it's possible that a few hundred is *also* sufficient for him to be super angry about, there's no evidence of that in his more recent statements.



Ok. But given that SA *was* amenable, then barring say solid evidence of a massive negative response to the stationing of US soldiers in that country, do you see any reason not to take them up on their offer? I guess I'm just not sure what you think this line of reasoning proves.




Sigh. Hung up on semantics still. You keep bringing this up as though it matters. What matters is that we *did* choose to station soldiers in SA as part of the sanctions effort against Iraq.


You're trying to run the logic backwards, as though since there were other possible ways we could have dealt with Iraq without stationing soldiers in SA, that somehow this means that the situation in Iraq was not the cause of the 9/11 attacks. Historically, it was. Just as assuredly as the assassination of prince whatshisname was the "cause" of WW1. Could WW1 have been averted if people had taken different actions after he was shot? Sure. But they didn't.

Same deal here. We *could* have done things differently. But we didn't. See how that works? I'm looking at a series of "why?" questions:

Why did the 9/11 hijackers attack us? Because they were instructed to do so by OBL (more or less).

Why did OBL instruct his peole to attack us? Because the US had soldiers stationed on Saudi Soil.

Why did the US have soldiers stationed there? Because they were imposing sanctions on Iraq.


Cause and effect Joph. Playing "what if" games doesn't change the reality of what did happen and why. I just don't understand why you continue to argue this line. It makes no sense. It's like if it rained, so I brought an umbrella to work, and then accidentally poked someone in the eye with it on the elevator. It's perfectly reasonable to state that the person was poked in the eye because it rained that day. Certainly, I could have chosen not to bring an umbrella despite it raining. Certainly, I could have been more careful with it in the elevator. But it absolutely does not change the fact that had it not been raining, I would not have brought the umbrella, and would not have poked someone in the eye with it.

Same deal. Had we not kept been enforcing sanctions against Iraq, we would not have had soldiers stationed in SA, and the 9/11 attacks would not have happened. While there's certainly other combinations of factors that could also have prevented 9/11 from happening, those fall under the "what if" heading. All we can say with absolute certainty is that if the causes did not exist, the effect would not have occured as a result. Everything else is pure conjecture.

Gbaji, I get the whole "I can't be proven wrong!" thing. Really, I've dated women who suffered from that particular affliction to (almost) the same degree as yourself. In order to help you get over it, I too am going to use Osama's own words from his "Letter to America" c/o November 22nd, 2007.

Keep in mind 2 things:

1: This is PRE Iraqi Invasion, post 9/11
2: Despite what I quote, NO WHERE, in this letter, does he mention Saudi Arabia by name.

At all.



He spouts off more rhetiric if you're actually interested. But I guess you you didn't need to sit down and ask OBL himself what the "root cause". Using the definition of the word "root" along with his "Letter to America, we can surmise that the first item on his list "You attack us in Palestine" is what he feels is the "root" cause of why he attcked us on 9/11.

Oh, and the CIA disagrees with you about the war in Iraq creating more Bin Ladens (Jihadists).



And who's the CIA compared to you, Gbaji? Amateurs?

Edited, Jul 27th 2007 2:05am by Omegavegeta