tuvor
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-22-04 12:28 AM
Original message |
Strictly speaking, is it really a 'war' in Iraq? |
|
Or is it "just" an invasion?
I thought both sides had to declare war for it to be so, and I don't recall Saddam doing any such thing.
Ideally I'd be interested in an answer from a legal perspective, just for my own curiosity.
|
serryjw
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-22-04 12:33 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Sorry you got it wrong ....... |
nadinbrzezinski
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-22-04 12:34 AM
Response to Original message |
2. Ok stricktly legal it is not a war |
|
the US did not declare war either. We gave our idiot in charge the authority to pressure iraq, not invade it
Congress never declared war, and iraq never declared war either.
So legally it is not, but surely it does feel like one
|
unblock
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-22-04 12:34 AM
Response to Original message |
3. you don't need the other side to declare war |
|
why you you grant the enemy any authority at all?
you seem to imply that an invasion is not an act of, or a form of, war.
we committed an act of war by invading iraq. or, if you've partaken of the forbidden kool-aid, they created a state of war by failing to document the complete destruction of every wmd, and we responded in self-defense by invading.
legally, the iraq war resolution declared that we were at war with iraq. actually, iirc, it stated that we were at war with any country the president decides.
|
tuvor
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-22-04 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
7. Thanks for the reply, but I don't appreciate the koolaid comments. |
|
Juuuuuust asking a question.
|
unblock
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-22-04 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
11. perhaps i should have used "one" instead of "you" |
|
i meant "you" as in the impersonal third person, not "you" as in tuvor.
as in "one should not take offense at my posts, as none is intended."
|
tuvor
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-22-04 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #11 |
12. Sorry for misunderstanding. |
|
And thanks for clarifying.
|
For PaisAn
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-22-04 12:37 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Here are the Merriam-Webster definitions of war and invasion:
Main Entry: <1>war Pronunciation: 'wor Function: noun Usage: often attributive Etymology: Middle English werre, from Old North French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse Date: 12th century 1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : STATE OF WAR b : the art or science of warfare c (1) : obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) : archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war 2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease> c : VARIANCE, ODDS 3 - war·less /-l&s/ adjective
Pronunciation Key
© 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy
Main Entry: in·va·sion Pronunciation: in-'vA-zh&n Function: noun Etymology: Middle English invasioune, from Middle French invasion, from Late Latin invasion-, invasio, from Latin invadere to invade Date: 15th century 1 : an act of invading; especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder 2 : the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful
Pronunciation Key
© 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy
|
immoderate
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-22-04 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
8. OMG, "invasion" is French! |
|
Does Bush know that?:shrug:
--IMM
|
m berst
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-22-04 12:40 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Mon Nov-22-04 12:42 AM by m berst
It is an immoral and illegal war of aggression, initiated on falsified and faulty pretenses, and is in flagrant violation of international treaties as well as US law.
my .02 worth
|
immoderate
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-22-04 12:41 AM
Response to Original message |
6. Since WWII none of the wars have been declared. |
|
Maybe we should call them un-wars.
There's Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Persian Gulf, Balkans, Afganistan, Iraq. Then there's those hidden wars, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Haiti...
Help me out here I must have left something out.
That's a lot of shootin' for no wars, hey?
--IMM
|
tuvor
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-22-04 12:48 AM
Response to Original message |
|
The term 'war' to me lends some legitimacy to a conflict that there clearly isn't, here.
I thought that if we could call a spade a spade (assuming that I was right), we could hammer away that it's an invasion.
Ah, well, at least I learned something. Thanks again.
|
For PaisAn
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-22-04 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
|
"The term 'war' to me lends some legitimacy to a conflict that there clearly isn't, here"
We invaded a nation that was no threat to us and with no legitimate justification. That's an invasion, not a war as far as I'm concerned.
|
MidwestTransplant
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-22-04 12:49 AM
Response to Original message |
|
This is just an operation to clean up the dead enders and remaining regime holdouts.
|
Laelth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-22-04 01:19 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Article II of Chapter 1 of the 1st Geneva Convention, revised 12 August 1949 says the Conventions apply to the current U.S. action in Iraq.
"Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."
A number of American actions in Iraq clearly violate the Geneva Conventions. In effect, the U.S. has withdrawn from the Conventions, as several legal scholars have noted. From a legal perspective, no law now applies to the U.S. other than U.S. law. Thus, whether this "war" is "legal" is no longer a relevant question.
-Laelth
|
democracyindanger
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-22-04 01:36 AM
Response to Original message |
15. Invasion is merely a kind of war |
|
I just think calling Iraq anything but a war is like calling Vietnam a "police action." It is what it is. Calling it anything else is an attempt to hide the ugly truth.
|
timtom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-22-04 03:28 AM
Response to Reply #15 |
16. War still carries some vestige of dignity. |
|
This bullshit has no dignity whatsoever. It falls among the most vile deeds perpetrated upon any nation by another nation. And that's why the constant Hitler comparisons.
|
dbt
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-22-04 07:04 AM
Response to Reply #16 |
17. No more calls, please. We have a WINNER! |
|
Thank you, nathan hale! (I knew you were still around...)
:bounce: dbt
|
killbotfactory
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-22-04 07:07 AM
Response to Original message |
18. We starved a nation out, then invaded it over bullshit reasons |
|
What's the national-level equivilent of boxer beating up a cripple? That would be it.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon May 06th 2024, 04:57 PM
Response to Original message |