'It Is Futile To Send '150,000 U.S. Soldiers' To Defend An Unreformed Iraq

Yep. The UNSC did little to stop Nasser from throwing UNEF out, closing the Strait of Tiran, massing a quarter million hostile Arab troops along Israel's borders so article 51 rings true in it's entirety;

""Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. ""

Uh huh. And of those figures only 15,000 were, as I said, attributed to the US with the remaining deaths being Iraq on Iraqi deaths.

 

According to the GV, the occupying power is obligated to ensure the safety of the civilian population. That is their responsibility. And knowing how many civilians died when the US occupied it,... it's blood on their hands for failing to provide adequate lvl of safety in the country.

 

Quote the applicable portion of the Fourth GC please.

 

War of aggression, remember?
"The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg held following World War II that the waging of a war of aggression is:
essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
The US invasion of Iraq was a supreme international crime containing within itself the accumulated evil of the whole. All Iraqis who've died violent deaths since March 2003 are another example of "Mission Accomplished."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War#War_of_aggression

 

And that is exactly what Iraq did when it invaded Kuwait, a war of aggression. The US and coalition acted under the authorization of UNSC Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 to force Iraq to adhere to it's broken ceasefire conditions in order to correct that war of aggression.

Iraq is in full compliance with those ceasefire terms now by the way.

 

The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.
https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/634kfc.htm

I will settle what the international red cross claims about it.
It claims it's said in the GC yada yada yada.
Can't bother to do more, since I'm not here to educate anybody.

 

Iraq was in full compliance of those ceasefire terms with Kuwait when the US invaded Iraq in 2003,.. the year george philip mentions.

 

And so your contention is the US didn't try to stop insurgents from killing Iraqis. I believe that was their main goal after the regime was changed.

Obviously you are not here to factually back up your contention either as it's not my point to prove rather ask you to prove yours.

In any case, IRC states that the US was responsible for 15,000 Iraqi deaths and the remainder were the result of Iraqi on Iraqi deaths, deaths that the US attempted to stop fulfilling their GC obligation.

 

UNSC Res 1441 Nov 2003

Strange then that the UNSC states that Iraq was still in violation of all of those terms;

"" Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance, ""

 

Knowing the estimated numbers of people who got slaughtered,... it doesn't look much like a try.

Your rant of basically saying the international red cross is untrustworthy,... is a joke.

The IRC doesn't dismiss the idea that 250,000 people died in Iraq due to war.

 

This part does not say at all that Iraq violets a thing. It just reaffirms what it needs to uphold.

Do note that the US picked up people, detained and tortured them extensively. And turned the repression of civilians into a massacre of civilians,.... at least 80 times bigger than 911. That, besides the entire war was illegal. Nothing says the US was allowed to start one. That makes the US a bunch of baby killing torturing terrorists.

 

Judging by the losses the US endured they tried pretty hard.

It sure would be if I had said that which I didn't.

I'd like to correct my typo, it should read 'IBC' (Iraqi Body Count) not IRC (International Red Cross)

No, and either do I however, the US killed less than 20,000, the remaining two hundred thousand were killed by other Iraqis with the US doing what it could to stop it.

This part, right in the beginning it says so;

""Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687""

687 lays out the terms of the ceasefire.

The US was directly responsible for 15,000 deaths, almost all of them being in the regime change portion of the action.

15,000 deaths is not 80 times 911 and wondering, what on earth does 911 have to do with this?

UNSC resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 all authorize the US to use all necessary means to get Iraq to adhere to the ceasefire conditions it had been and continued to violate. That by the way makes the invasion quite legal.

OMG I'm discussing Iraq with Jane Fonda LOL.

 

The US was not facing an imminent threat from Iraq in 2003, and it had no UNSC authorization to use force; hence, the US invasion in 2003 was also a war of aggression. Virtually all violent deaths in Iraq since that time above the level reported in 2002 are part of the accumulated evil of the whole.

 

Knowing the losses of civilians are 80 times more than the 911,... it's obvious a huge failure.

You basically doubt the IRC about their knowledge of the Geneva Conventions,...
even though it is totally logical that they know who is responsible for the safety of civilians in a warzone,
since they work in warzones giving aid to civilians.

Do note the IBC only takes into account the deaths that hit the news and/or governmental data. They admit they are missing many civilian deaths, just because they are not documented. It is at best, the absolute minimum. Do take into account the absolute chaos in the country and things like dysfunctional morgues, since the US removed the entire government. Thats why others take their refuge in mathematical estimations. The UN estimates it to be around 500,000. Some say it might be over 1 million.

The US, as occupying power is responsible for the safety of those civilians,.. and they failed 200,000 times as an absolute minimum.
That is a total failure. 911 was rather a failure of the US for being unable to stop it. Iraq was 80 times worse.

They are also responsible for the safety of the civilian population according to the GC, since they are the occupying force.
Don't like the terms, don't be the occupying force.

That is only the version of the truth according to the people who started that illegal war.
Kofi Annan disagrees and says it's illegal and a violation of the UN Charter.
No country can determine what the consequences of the violations would be. That is up to the UN SC to determine.
Obviously,.. Annan is right. While the US/UK act like jailed criminals claiming they are innocent and not impartial at all.

 

I'll let the UNSC tell you how it was authorized ;

UN FAQ ""14. What kind of measures involving the use of armed force has the Security Council imposed in the past?

Article 42 of the United Nations Charter gives the Security Council the authority to take action by air, sea or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Furthermore, it has authorized the use of “all necessary means” or “all necessary measures” by multinational forces (such as in Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda, Eastern Zaire, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, East Timor, Bunia in the DRC, Liberia and Iraq.



Here's how it went down;

UNSCR 678 ""2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area; ""

687 states the use of force is still authorized;

UNSCR 687 (spells out the ceasefire conditions Iraq was to adhere to ) ""1. Affirms all thirteen resolutions noted above, except as expressly changed below to achieve the goals of this resolution, including a formal cease-fire; ""

UNSCR 1441 states this is still in effect;


UNSCR 1441 November 2002 ""Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area, ""

So, can you explain to us all what the limitations to "all necessary means" are when a member state coalition with a quarter million troops poised to invade has been authorized to use this and back this up with the applicable UNSC documentation please.

 

We can agree with that however, they tried pretty hard and that is all that is expected of them. Your contention that they are responsible for every death is wrong.

No, I doubt your interpretation of the GC as nowhere does it state ""you as the occupier are responsible for the safety of the citizens. That makes the US responsible for the massacres.""

Uh huh. 15,000 directly attributed to the US and coalition forces. I said under twenty thousand which is pretty close to what they confirm and there is a 25% margin of error permitted to boot.

Nope. The GC states;

""The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.""

The US took measures as far as possible losing 4,000 of their own people in the process.

Not according to the GC which states;

""The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.""

So you are going to tell us that the US did nothing at all to stop insurgent activity? That they took no measures at all to slow it or impede it in any way?

Sorry but those are the actual resolutions authorizing force, not an opinion.

How many votes did he hold on the Security Council?

And they did, they authorized the US to use all necessary means to ensure Iraq complied with it's ceasefire obligations. They did it in UNSCR 678, 687 and 1441 as you have been shown.

Once again, the UNSC authorized the use of force, Annan is not a member of the UNSC. If he was right then somebody would have at the very least brought forth a condemnation in the UNSC as they did with the US invasion of Panama but not a peep. Want to know why?

The UNSC voted unanimously for the use of force in the above resolutions.

 

The soldiers who were there tried hard. But the US failed, and is responsible for about 500.000 civilians who got massacred. I mean... people are outraged over the massacre of Srebrenica where 8000 people died. This is just off the scale.

The word responsibility is even mentioned.

They clearly did not do enough by a longshot. 500.000 people got slaughtered.

It does not mention the US got the authority to be the prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner.
That all lies at the UNSC. Annan is right.

The credibility of Annan, his impartial attitude and his knowledge of the UNSC, the UN, and the UN Chater... is sky high.
That you attack the messenger is quiet hilarious.

 

"Many of the political leaders of the US and UK have argued the war was legal[citation needed], while many legal experts[who?] and other international leaders[who?] have argued that it was illegal[citation needed]. US and UK officials have argued that existing UN Security Council resolutions related to the 1991 Gulf War and the subsequent ceasefire (660, 67, and to later inspections of Iraqi weapons programs (1441), had already authorized the invasion.[3]

"Critics of the invasion have challenged both of these assertions, arguing that an additional Security Council resolution, which the US and UK failed to obtain, would have been necessary to specifically authorize the invasion."

Iraq posed no threat to the US or its neighbors in 2003. Without a UNSC resolution authorizing the invasion, every one of the millions of Iraqis who have been maimed, murdered, and displaced since 2003 has been victim of a war crime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War

 

That's nice. Anything there to refute the fact that the UNSC authorized force in 678, reinforced it as still being in effect for the purpose of enforcing the ceasefire conditions in 687 and recalling it still in effect in 1441?

Strange that the UNSC had over a dozen resolutions pertaining to Iraq stating that it was a danger. Where on earth are you getting your disinformation from?

Ie: 1441 ""Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security, ""

So the UNSC authorizing force is not legal?

""Article 42 of the United Nations Charter gives the Security Council the authority to take action by air, sea or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Furthermore, it has authorized the use of “all necessary means” or “all necessary measures” by multinational forces (such as in Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda, Eastern Zaire, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, East Timor, Bunia in the DRC, Liberia and Iraq. ""

Yep. So it was legal until an authorized body rules that the UNSC authorization to use all necessary means was not in effect . As I explained earlier, no authorized body has even condemned the action much less ruled it illegal so, the authorization to use force as explained in my earlier posts and above remains the legal basis despite Wikipedia postulations.

 

Strange, you keep saying that but when asked to prove they were responsible according to the GC you fail as it only states """"The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.""

The US took measures so they are well within the GC requirements.

That is your quote you wrote yourself in post #43 LOL. The GC doesn't say that as you embellished their requirement when you wrote that.

Golly lol.

""The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.""

Well, they took measures to restore and ensure as far as possible losing 4,000 of their own troops in the process. Sorry you don't think they tried hard enough but nothing illegal about it. as it falls well within the GC.

No, it states the US can use whatever means they wish. I don't believe there is a limit to what that allows and if there is, you certainly haven't brought it forward. The means they chose was regime change and voila! Iraq is now, after over a decade of being non compliant with all of it's ceasefire conditions ..... in compliance.

LOL not attacking the messenger, just stating that the UNSC granted authorization to use whatever means the US deemed necessary and unless they issued an illegal authorization it's legal.

Now, is Annan a member of the Security Council who has voted this authorization by the Security Council was illegal?

No he is not, he is the head of the UN and has no vote on either the GA or the SC thus, his opinion is only that.

 

It is obvious public order before the invasion was on a rather acceptable level.
When the US was responsible, 500.000 people died.
That doesn't look like the US took enough measures to restore public order by a longshot.
That number is off the scale.

Not enough to restore the public order and safety.

Irrelevant. The only thing that counts is what level of public order it was when the US was responsible for it.
And it was really really really low.

It does not state anywhere that the US may be the judge, jury, and executioner all on their own ignoring the entire world.

You don't need to be a member to know how it functions. And if anybody that is impartial on this matter knows how this functions,.. it's Annan.
So far you're just a parrot the propaganda of the impartial people who attacked Iraq illegally.

 

Your rules not the GC which states they have to take measures as much as possible. As I pointed out they did that at great cost. See, they went to conduct regime change, while doing so, they granted freedom to Iraq rather than install a dictator, what Iraq did with that freedom is heinous and, the US did what they could to keep order. Nowhere in the GC does it state that it is the occupiers responsibility to bring light and joy to all but rather to ensure as much as possible that order is maintained. Now, you feel different so what in your opinion should the US have done for the year they were occupying Iraq?

Up until they ended their occupation on June 30, 2004 they did what they could.

They adhered to your Geneva Convention article 4 up until the Iraqi government took over June 30, 2004.

Sure does as there is no limit to 'all necessary means.' If there is I'm sure you will cite the applicable ruling won't you?

Actually no, you say it's illegal yet show no ruling which states it is. Annan never said it was illegal rather that in his view it was. He is not the UNSC rather he is the head administrator of the UN. He makes no rulings, brings forth no sanctions, petitions, resolutions and has no power to determine what is and what is not legal or illegal.

Like you though, he has an opinion and like many of those who bark like a pack of pekinese can state till the cows come home that it is in his opinion illegal but it does not make it so as the US had the authorization to use all necessary means to get Iraq to comply with it's broken ceasefire conditions.

Here, if you wish you may look over this article and see if there is anything in there that backs up your contention that he can make rulings on what is legal or illegal. I couldn't find anything but maybe you can;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary-General_of_the_United_Nations#Role

 

You only point out how many US soldiers died. That is rather irrelevant, since this is about the civilians lives, not the invading army lives. And 500.000 civilians died. That is just way off the scale to call it sufficient protected.

Which makes it an illegal war.

Half a million people got slaughtered because there was no order installed by the most well trained army of the world in a 3rd world country.

In no way was iraq a full sovereign nation in 2004.

Annan did say it.

He is the expert in how the UN functions. While the US has no authority to single handily be the judge, jury and the executioner on UNSC resolutions. And Annan as an expert of the UN, is able to judge that perfectly fine.

 

Actually I stated the US tried very hard and to do this was their main mission once regime change was completed. As you know it cost over a trillion dollars and occupied the entire resources of the US forces in Iraq above and beyond the lives of those four thousand men. For a breakdown you can google but the purposes of our discussion the GC states they only have to “”take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.””

I’ve asked you what, on top of what they did, they might have done to improve on this but you have dodged this question. In any case however, they did make an obvious effort and that is all that the GC requires.

Hardly. They were authorized by the UNSC “”to use all necessary means”” to enforce the broken ceasefire conditions that Iraq was in violation of so it was quite legal.

They chose regime change and look, Iraq is now in complete compliance.

They tried as was required of them by the Geneva Convention. I’ve asked you to tell us what they should have done instead after they used their legal authorization to get Iraq to begin to comply with the ceasefire conditions but you have as yet, not responded.

Better tell these guys then as they seem to think your opinion means squat over their rulings.

SECURITY COUNCIL ENDORSES FORMATION OF SOVEREIGN INTERIM GOVERNMENT IN IRAQ; WELCOMES END OF OCCUPATION BY 30 JUNE, DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS BY JANUARY 2005

He says couched terms such as in his “”point of view”” it is but never states that it is in fact illegal. Here is the applicable interview where he never states it is in fact illegal (as he knows he is not qualified to determine if it is or is not, you can tell me where he states this as a determined fact.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661640.stm

LOL, he is the Secretary of the UN. I provided the UN page where it states his duties and challenged you to show us where he is able to supersede the decisions of the UN bodies that make these determinations and you have not shown us proof or your contention. Once again, the duties and responsibilities of the Secretary-General of the United Nations

In any case, you have so far been wrong about the GC stating the US was responsible for everything that occurred in Iraq, wrong about Iraq not being in violation of it's ceasefire terms, wrong about Annan stating the invasion was illegal and wrong about the US occupation ending in 2004 and are still lacking in proving you are not wrong about the invasion which was authorized by UNSCR 678, 687 and 1441 being illegal.