Iraqis Agree With Me

[Brassmask]

I stated recently that a slow withdrawal would see a concurrent slowing of violence in  Iraq.  This was of course, and as usual met with the standard "you're crazy"-type comments that always following something I say which is eventually borne out as prescience if not prophecy.  While what I advocated has yet to happen, it is only a matter of time till I am proven right AGAIN.

The Iraqis hate us.  They want us out and they want us out NOW.  People who don't believe in a phased withdrawal are putting American soldiers in danger for no reason whatsoever other than pure and simple EGO.  If we don't start leaving, look for the Iraqis to join up with the Iranians and the Syrians and completely kick the shit out of America outright.  The intelligent would pull out now in order to save some modicum of dignity.

http://thinkprogress.org/

Iraqis Believe A Timetable Would Decrease Violence. 58 percent of Iraqis believe that if U.S.-led forces withdrew in the next six months violence in Iraq would decrease. Also, 61 percent of Iraqis say their day-to-day security would increase.

Iraqis Believe A Timetable Would Strengthen Iraqi Government. 53 percent of Iraqis said a timetable for withdrawal would strengthen the Iraqi government; only 23 percent said it would weaken it, as Lieberman claims.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_rpt.pdf

Do you want Americans to have died for having gotten rid of Hussein or because you wanted to "win" and wound up losing completely?

[Brassmask]

I guess no one likes it when I'm proven to be right AGAIN.

[Lanya]

My only quibble, I believe, was with the "slow" part.   Ok, Ok, you're right AGAIN. ;0)

[Amianthus]

I guess no one likes it when I'm proven to be right AGAIN.

Once you're proven to be right, it will be acknowledged.

[sirs]

I guess no one likes it when I'm proven to be right AGAIN.

Once you're proven to be right, it will be acknowledged.

Bingo.  As of yet we still have no rational explaination of how such a "scenario" of decreased violence with Coalition withdrawl is to be achieved.  Sounds more like wishful thinking at this point

[Michael Tee]

I think as long as your argument is based on "what-ifs," you'll never win it because nobody knows what if.  Just a lot of hot air on both sides.  "Violence will increase."  "No, violence will decrease."  Who the hell knows?  But that argument serves the purposes of the war-mongering bastards who started the war in the first place.  WTF do they care if violence increases or decreases?  If they were so worried about violence in the first place, they wouldn't have invaded a country that posed absolutely no threat to them.  BUT: they can play your game and justify the continuing occupation of Iraq and the continuing slaughter of its people by saying - - with just as much authority as you - - that violence will increase if they pull out now.

That is a bullshit argument.  It is not the function of the U.S.A. to regulate the levels of violence inside any other sovereign country.  If the Iraqis choose to have one helluva drag-down, knock-out, no-holds-barred civil war, that is their prerogative and their right.  They will settle their affairs their own way without your "help" - - which, BTW, has already cost the lives of 600,000 Iraqis. 

The invasion and occupation of Iraq was a flagrantly illegal violation of international law, it was wrong in every respect, and it has to stop NOW - - not because that's the way to decrease the internal violence there, but because it's the rightful and lawful course of action to take.  The ONLY rightful and lawful course, as it happens.

[BT]

They will settle their affairs their own way without your "help"

Glad to hear Darfur is off the table.

Does that go for natural disasters, too?

[Amianthus]

The invasion and occupation of Iraq was a flagrantly illegal violation of international law,

Which law?

[Michael Tee]

<<Glad to hear Darfur is off the table. >>

Not really.  Perfect case for UN intervention. 

<<Does that go for natural disasters, too?>>

That'd depend on whether the sovereign country afflicted chooses to ask for help or not.  Always did.

[Michael Tee]

<<Which law?>>

Charter of the United Nations. 

[Amianthus]

Charter of the United Nations. 

That's a pretty long document. Which section did the US violate?

And why haven't we been removed from the UN if we violated the "law"? The UN Charter allows for that.

[Xavier_Onassis]

And why haven't we been removed from the UN if we violated the "law"? The UN Charter allows for that.

===================================================================
No country has ever been removed from the UN for violation of the charter, though certainly a large number have been eligible for removal.

Taiwan was replaced as representative for the China seat, but that is hardly the same.

[Michael Tee]

<<That's [the UN Charter] a pretty long document. >>

It's actually not.

<<Which section did the US violate?>>

I dunno, Article 4 or maybe it was 9 - - it's the one that prohibits aggression and the exceptions are stated pretty clearly - - there's no exception for "possible threats" and the bullshit that the U.S. used to justify immediate threat wouldn't stand up in any American court, let alone the International Court of Justice.

<<And why haven't we been removed from the UN if we violated the "law"? >>

That's kinda like asking why isn't O.J. strapped down to a gurney somewhere in a California prison while a state employee tries to find a good vein in his arm.

<<The UN Charter allows for that.>>

That's a pretty long document. Which section allows for that?  ;-)

[Amianthus]

It's actually not.

Well, I guess it depends on your definition of "long". It's about 3 times the length of the US Constitution, so I would consider it long.

I dunno, Article 4 or maybe it was 9 - - it's the one that prohibits aggression and the exceptions are stated pretty clearly - - there's no exception for "possible threats" and the bullshit that the U.S. used to justify immediate threat wouldn't stand up in any American court, let alone the International Court of Justice.

Article 4 or 9 of which chapter?

If you mean chapter instead of article, then Chapter IV governs admission of states to the UN, and Chapter IX covers economic and social cooperation.

That's kinda like asking why isn't O.J. strapped down to a gurney somewhere in a California prison while a state employee tries to find a good vein in his arm.

He would be if the LA Prosecutors' Office and the Criminalistics Lab hadn't screwed up so badly, so often.

That's a pretty long document. Which section allows for that?  ;-)

Chapter II, Article 6