h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

What international law did the US violate by invading Iraq? Just because the UN refused to sponsor the attack does not mean it was illegal. A war does not have to have UN participation to make it legal.

I could go on about how the French and Russians have been proved to have ulterior motives in blocking the UN resolution, but it would just be immoderated away. I can say only that they're scrambling around right now trying to restore some relevance to a UN body they disabled themselves, and probably just to get a share of the rebuilding contracts.

The law that says you don't send your troops across the borders of another country without being invited to do so by the head of state or the government of that country. That's an open declaration of war and has been for a very long time. There's so much I'd like to say on that matter but it would be moderated. However, I did set up this group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/h2g2wd to discuss what we can't discuss here. So far it seems to be mostly people with similar points of view who've signed up, which is a pity - it means there's not much debate going on, just the rest of us reinforcing each other's views

I'd be happy to talk about it with you there

Well, of course it was an open declaration of war. They certainly weren't headed in for a keg party. I don't recall there being a lot of surprise involved... this wasn't 1939 Poland here.

The question is whether or not they had legal right to declare war. I'm interested in hearing how it was not.

I don't see how we can discuss that without moderation.

Blatherskate:

*You never know where you might need a base, or why you might use it.*

So put it wherever you need it and damn the consequences? I am not talking about military expediency here, have you forgotten the reason for the *liberation*? Or is the country in question now just a protectorate? As to my *paranoia*, if you remember my original post on this matter, I merely stated that it would be no surprise if it happened, even though it would be an outrage. Your response was simply that not only would it not be an outrage, but be welcomed. I subsequently questioned who would welcome it and why. If you think that is paranoia I would ask which thread you have been looking at.

Regime change begins at home.

*Regime change begins at home.*







birth partially agrees : Underwear change begins at home.

I never said it would be welcomed. The gist of what I said was that it would not be an unreasonable request, and it would not be unreasonable to think the new government might grant that request.

By contrast, your tone seems to imply many things that a possession of a military base in a foreign country does not necessarily involve. Do Britain, Italy, and Germany consider themselves to be protectorates of the United States? Of course not. Neither does Turkey, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, or the United Arab Emirates. And yet all of these places, as I have mentioned before, have US bases (or in the case of the UAE, host US forces)on them.

Neither did I imply that the US should force the Iraqi government into conceding rights to bases. That is your assumption.

We are talking about a government which will be imposed upon the populace, since democratic elections are still a long way away. This will be a semi-autonomous group of a loose coalition of traditional enemies. If this group choses a US military base it will neither be at the behest of the populace or it's religious leaders. That makes it a non-democratic political decision. And that makes it wrong.

The decisions of the governments in these (or any) countries do not always represent the wishes of their people.

I wonder not only if a certain country will end up with a US military base on it, but whether it will end up with its major industries dominated by US & UK companies, and whether it will somehow end up with rather large debts to those countries. As for whether the people will be any better off, history will judge as always.

With regard to the "rules of war" discussion, even if I'm a little late, there has been a pervasive attitude that war should affect civillians as little as possible for a long time now. For instance, there was international outcry at the bombardment of Paris by the Prussians (or were they the Empire of Germany by then?) in 1870 (or was it 1871).

I expect this is based on: you don't shoot civillians because they're the people that feed your armies. You don't shoot medics because they're the people who heal your armies. You do shoot politicians because everyone hates them, so they make great scape goats. You don't shoot reporters because then you get bad press.

I honestly think this situation has gotten better over time, and I don't see that these rules have been abused by western forces in recent times any more than they were in the past, or any more than their opponents. Probably less, because the west is generally not that desperate.

zoomer: It's not unreasonable for the US to ask the interim government for temporary rights to bases, which they would need anyway to protect the peace until the interim government has put a police force together. It would also not be unreasonable for the US government to ask for a more lasting agreement from the permanent government of Iraq, once that transition has completed.

It would be very unreasonable and impolitic of the US to ask for lasting use of bases from a government that, in itself, will not last. If the US were silly enough to ask, and the interim government silly enough to accede, then the permanent government would be fully within its rights to review the agreement at a later date and cancel it. Since the new government was not signatory to it, they are not necessarily bound by it.

I agreee, but let us see. The original post was the result of 'net rumours and a quote in Drudge that indicated that the plans were well underway to the point of planners being in Kuwait vying for the contract in Iraq.

I had some pretty tasty turtle once on Grand Cayman - yes, it's legal, they raise turtles there.

Reminds me of the story about the trial of a guy in south Texas convicted of eating a Whooping Crane, the highly protected bird that migrates back and forth to Canada from the Texas refuge on the Gulf Coast of Texas. The judge said, "I have to ask, did it taste like chicken?" The guy responded, "No, more like spotted owl."

.....ah...cough...yes.....the fate of the turtle, whopping crane, and spotted owl in the current conflict cannot be ignored....

Hmmm ... Not that anyone could tell, but FWIW, I was responding to this, regarding the topic "What's wrong with the French":

QUOTE

Subject: It's Saddam, it's Bush
Posted Feb 18, 2003 by AlecTrician...[**=] [>+<] just part of the weitverzweigteswurzelwerk
This is a reply to this Posting.
Post: 19


This could be a very long list, so i will definitely start that thread

1. They EAT horses.

alec.


Subject: It's Saddam, it's Bush
Posted Feb 18, 2003 by Egon, "Och, they're nae gonnae git us, nae gonnae git us, nae now I love ye, they're nae gonnae get us!"
This is a reply to this Posting.
Post: 20


So, we eat chickens, cows and pigs, and I once had a rather tasty roast kangaroo.

END QUOTE

Sorry about the confusion.

birth needs more sssplanation

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

>>I never said it would be welcomed. The gist of what I said was that it would not be an unreasonable request, and it would not be unreasonable to think the new government might grant that request.<<





Blatherskite, you seem naively to believe that the new masters of Iraq would be making a 'request' and would permit refusal of that request! Don't try to tell me that any Iraqi leader by the name of Chalaby would actually have any more freedom of action, than Hamid Karzai has!

*The happy smiling Iraqis you see on ABC or Fox News represent about 0.5% of the population, and the Iraqis that the Americans are 'establishing cooperative roles' with, are the opportunistic exiles who naively believe they'll have *genuine* power now! *

*
orning bright and hot broke like a flower blooming in a fragrant garden. The stale air scented by the fragrance rising from the markets. The Waning daYS OF winter brought with them a change that a
seemed to hang over th ancient lands. Geo-political change had come to a land were even its mention a few weeks before would end in death. 0.5 % of the population according to one estimate 'danced in the streets. All the while the dastardly americans plotted.