Why the US and coalition should declare victory in Iraq...

Lancer · May 1, 2003, 00:26

Because we won!

orange · May 1, 2003, 00:29

deep

Shi Huangdi · May 1, 2003, 00:37

well true. but i worry if we did that it might encourage people to stop thinking about iraq; claiming victory might make people think it is over by extension.

Lancer · May 1, 2003, 00:39

Well I was just watching, you know who, on TV and Pres Bush is going to give a speach from a carrier returning from the Gulf tomorrow, but he's not going to declare victory yet.

Well why not? What's left to take?

Lancer · May 1, 2003, 00:40

No way the media, starved for real news is going to forget Iraq any time soon Shi, whether Bush declares victory or not...

Lord Merciless · May 1, 2003, 01:28

We have only won the Phase 2, and we lost Phase 1.

Lancer · May 1, 2003, 01:36

Phase 1 is still happening. It's now out of the realm of politics and into the realm of citizen boycotts. The French will see if its ok to force their will on the US using the UN.

GePap · May 1, 2003, 18:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Lancer
Well I was just watching, you know who, on TV and Pres Bush is going to give a speach from a carrier returning from the Gulf tomorrow, but he's not going to declare victory yet.

Well why not? What's left to take?

If you declare victory, then you must be saying the War is over: if the war is over, you have no legal recourse to hold prisoners of war (after all, the war is over), and you would have no legal authority to keep searching for the members of the previous government to make war prisoners (cause the war is over) and you would have to somehow come up with another reasonf ro why you think you have the right to detain them.

So we won;t declare the war over until we have gotten what we want out of being in a state of war.

GePap · May 1, 2003, 18:52

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Lancer
Phase 1 is still happening. It's now out of the realm of politics and into the realm of citizen boycotts. The French will see if its ok to force their will on the US using the UN. [/QUOTE

Its so cute how you think this will make a difference. hey Lancer, do you watch anything put out by Universal? you do know they are owned by the French, right?

yaroslav · May 1, 2003, 18:53

Can I ask if victory has been declared for Afganisthan War?

GePap · May 1, 2003, 18:57

Not yet, though they said the same thing: the end of Major combat action.

yaroslav · May 1, 2003, 18:59

Then I guess there will be a lot of time before the declaration of V-I day (Victory on Irak)...

Agathon · May 1, 2003, 19:18

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
Not yet, though they said the same thing: the end of Major combat action.

In other words they just want an open licence to arrest and detain people for whatever reason they seem fit.

Kick them out of the UN I say.

Lancer · May 1, 2003, 19:24

GePap, yes I know about Universal. I do watch their stuff if it comes on TV, but I would not rent it or buy it or go to the movies to see a film made by Universal.

Oerdin · May 1, 2003, 19:29

Ahh, heck. Why not? Just remember that declaring it over doesn't mean it really is over.

GePap · May 1, 2003, 19:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Lancer
GePap, yes I know about Universal. I do watch their stuff if it comes on TV, but I would not rent it or buy it or go to the movies to see a film made by Universal.

So basically you support putting thousand of Americans out of work because their corporation was bought by the French...wow, you are a true Patriot! I say more Americans need to loose thier jobs thanks to people like you!

And while we are at it, lets end the global financial markets and put up huge trade barriers so that dirty French capital doesn't infect our shores!!

Lancer · May 1, 2003, 19:39

GePap, I'm not for the trade barriers that you suggest.

Also, do you honestly believe that thousands of Americans will lose their jobs because I and a few others stop watching movies made by Universal? I would be happy if Universal lost value and was sold off to a non French buyer at dirt cheap prices.

MichaeltheGreat · May 1, 2003, 19:43

Declaring an end to hostilities doesn't require a release of all prisoners, and a lot of POW's have already been released. Prisoners who are held for suspected war crimes or other reasons may be detained well beyond declaring an end to hostilities.

The problem is that once you do declare an end to hostilities, all sorts of pesky, inconvenient international law obligations are triggered - things like the fact you have no authority to set up a form of government, you have no authority to make up or issue a constitution or to change the structure of government, stuff like that. Oh, and occupying powers obligations.

There's all sorts of inconvenience in "declaring victory" because then you have to start getting the **** out and letting the locals run their country as they see fit. (remember folks, it's their country, not yours.

)

So keeping a pretense of war going on when you have limited civil resistance allows you to do anything, and cynically claim that you don't have many of those international law obligations that so unfortunately "limiting."

uh Clem · May 1, 2003, 23:38

When you refuse to state exactly what it is you intend to accomplish, it's impossible to determine whether you succeeded or not.

Democratic, stable government in Iraq (and we know what a high priority that was

)? Might be years away, if ever.

Those WMD? Jury's still out.

Eliminate terrorist threat? Remains to be seen.

Eliminate Iraqi "threat" to neighbors? With an army that wasn't capable of mounting a coherent defense of its own country? Some threat.

Bring Saddam to justice? Yeah, right.

The Bush administration gave so many reasons to justify the attack that at least some of them must have been accomplished, but that doesn't necessarily translate into "victory."

To ask the most important question in a capitalist order, what's in it for me? Aside from massively greater deficits and domestic assaults against civil liberties, I don't see that I've gained much by this "vistory."

Of course, there was one pretext for war that was vigorously denied: Gain control of Iraqi oil. Hmmmm....

PLATO · May 2, 2003, 01:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon

In other words they just want an open licence to arrest and detain people for whatever reason they seem fit.

Kick them out of the UN I say.

Exactly. Those poor little murderers. We really should protect them.

It is probably better to let the UN handle things. They did such a good job in Bosnia.

We sure don't want the bad ole USA going around and preventing the terrorist their right to free access to come and fly planes into buildings.

Oh and please, Please, PLEASE let us stay in the UN. It means soooooo much to us. Such a worthwhile organization.

Nubclear · May 2, 2003, 01:44

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO1003

Exactly. Those poor little murderers. We really should protect them.

It is probably better to let the UN handle things. They did such a good job in Bosnia.

We sure don't want the bad ole USA going around and preventing the terrorist their right to free access to come and fly planes into buildings.

Oh and please, Please, PLEASE let us stay in the UN. It means soooooo much to us. Such a worthwhile organization.

Eat my smiley attack

PLATO · May 2, 2003, 01:45