Why does it come as a surprse to the 'American people' that prisoners under the supervision of the US military are being abused (sexually and otherwise)? The Red Cross and Amnesty International have been accusing the US of human rights abuses for the best part of a year. The perpetrators are merely a manifestation of an aberration that wants to maraud its supposed military might across the globe. For a country without a health care system and who turns sick kids and the poor away (of which there are plenty, believe me) why is what 'these people' do surprising? The abusers should be draped in US flags, taken for a trip on the space shuttle and shot out somewhere in the cosmos where the s*** gets left.
Hopefully soon an investigation into the myriad wrongful deaths in Iraq will become top priority. I haven't seen Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell, et al. ad nauseum and their wives and kids lying in their blood splattered entrails, the unfortunate victims of the USAF 'kill box' I wonder why? :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Well it would be nice to live in a perfect world wouldn`t it...

Tell me this.. if you were out there not knowing if the next civilian that you talk to is packing explosives..

You had just seen one of your best mates shot to sh*t in front of you..

Or your enemy is using an innocent families house as a shield..

How much respect would you have for your foe ?

It is very easy to watch the news and pass judgement whilst shouting pro-life over your coffee and jam on toast!

So does this justify the US / UK abuse of prisoners?

And try looking at things this way - if some heavilly armed superpower invaded your country, deposed your govenment and pretty much ran roughshod over you wouldnt you back the freedom fighters and resistance movement that wanted to get rid of them? Theres two sides to every fight and one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter...

I don't think that the majority of Iraqis were particularly enamoured of Saddam, and it is only a minority who are resisting the 'occupation'.

Abuse of prisoners is completely unaccepatble by either side. If the US or the UN can identify individuals they should be prosecuted in the hague for war crimes.

Fortunately it appears that the pictures of british troops engaging in the same were a hoax.

Originally posted by venger

Tell me this.. if you were out there not knowing if the next civilian that you talk to is packing explosives..
You had just seen one of your best mates shot to sh*t in front of you..
Or your enemy is using an innocent families house as a shield..
How much respect would you have for your foe ?


The US and UK have invaded a sovereign country contrary to International Law and are maintaining control in breach of the Geneva convention on a daily basis.
Coalition soldiers are volunteers (they don't have to be there) and any Iraqi is entitled to resist all forces of occupation ....
(How would you feel about Indonesia invading the UK on the grounds that we have WMD? indescriminately bombing Firth Park, Wincobank , raping the man/woman next door, shooting anyone who sticks a head out of the window, abducting and torturing civilians.
Presumably any British citizens engaged in resistance would deserve the ultimate punishment and too bad if a few hundred other "innocent" ones paid the same price because they were in the general vicinity ie in the same town?)

And let us not forget with all this talk of "dirty bombs" that we have plastered civilian areas of Iraq with depleted Uranium...you can't get much dirtier than that.

We invaded legally under a mandate from the UN.
We are maintaining control until a functioning iraqi government can be set up and the infrastructure is repaired.
Non of our soldiers are volunteers, they weren't drafted if that's what you mean, but they didn't get asked if they wanted to go.
Indonesia would need to go through the UN as we did in order to invade. And we aren't in ongoing breach of any UN resolutions regarding the development of WMD's or the presence of inspectors searching for those WMD's. Nor did we start the whole debacle by invading a neihbouring country in 1990. And finally, we are not in breach of the non-proliferation treaty to which we and Iraq are signatories.

Originally posted by Cyclone
"We invaded legally under a mandate from the UN."

Erm... no we didn't. They asked us *very* specifically not to. I don't remeber them ever condoning the 'invasion' - they only provided assistance after the war was declared over.

the resolution that allowed us to use force in 1990 had never been withdrawn and had provisions for the ongoing use of force if iraq did not comply with inspections mandates, which they did not.

It doesn't matter whether it was legal or not Cyclone, the fact is that Iraqi people are being tortured and abused by U.S & British soldiers in their own country.
The original excuse to go in was to find WMD, they didn't. Then the story was changed to Find Saddam, they did. Now what do they want??
Whats the excuse now? with all the evidence of abuse emerging.

They should get their fat-ass doughnut eating American backsides back to America where they belong and stop destroying other countries. As for that lesbian in the photo's with the leash around a prisoner - she makes my blood boil everytime i see her!!

Originally posted by Cyclone
the resolution that allowed us to use force in 1990 had never been withdrawn and had provisions for the ongoing use of force if iraq did not comply with inspections mandates, which they did not.
The mandates you refer to meant the UN could legally have used force to make Iraq comply with UN resolutions. However, the US and the UK are NOT the UN and did not act with the blessing of the UN - far from it. Therefore, we had no mandate to invade Iraq and the war is illegal.

As for the photo of UK soldiers torturing, well they may be fake. But I think the many, many stories coming out now show that there is abuse going on including the murder of civillians. If they weren't illegal in someone elses country then they wouldn't be able to "accidently" shoot civillians would they?

Originally posted by Lestat
It doesn't matter whether it was legal or not Cyclone, the fact is that Iraqi people are being tortured and abused by U.S & British soldiers in their own country.
The original excuse to go in was to find WMD, they didn't. Then the story was changed to Find Saddam, they did. Now what do they want??
Whats the excuse now? with all the evidence of abuse emerging.

They should get their fat-ass doughnut eating American backsides back to America where they belong and stop destroying other countries. As for that lesbian in the photo's with the leash around a prisoner - she makes my blood boil everytime i see her!!

How do you know she's a lesbian?

i'm glad somebody bought this thread back on track - the legalities of going to war is another thread
i'm with you Lestat - those pictures make me very angry and i don't give a f*** on the context or whatever excuse is made for them

It's not the foot soldiers you should be directing your anger at, it's those at the top who legitimise these techniques. Iraq is turning into a moral abyss, which certainly puts our "moral justification for war" under ever-increasing scrutiny. Um, where are those WMDs again?

Originally posted by venger
Well it would be nice to live in a perfect world wouldn`t it...

Tell me this.. if you were out there not knowing if the next civilian that you talk to is packing explosives..

You had just seen one of your best mates shot to sh*t in front of you..

Or your enemy is using an innocent families house as a shield..

How much respect would you have for your foe ?

It is very easy to watch the news and pass judgement whilst shouting pro-life over your coffee and jam on toast!

I agree with you, however, I do feel for the poor unfortunate victims of this war started by terrorists. In a war people do get abused, tortured, killed, I lived through the second World War and there were millions destroyed because we were fighting for survival.

If, in a confict of this nature, you are not prepared to do what the enemy will do, you have lost, tragic, but true, human beings were, are, and always will be evil and nothing is too bad for them to do.

Us soldiers already treating people thsi way in the occupied Cuba territories, so am I suprised by the situation in Irak............NO!

Originally posted by halevan
I agree with you, however, I do feel for the poor unfortunate victims of this war started by terrorists. In a war people do get abused, tortured, killed, I lived through the second World War and there were millions destroyed because we were fighting for survival.

If, in a confict of this nature, you are not prepared to do what the enemy will do, you have lost, tragic, but true, human beings were, are, and always will be evil and nothing is too bad for them to do.
When you say the war was started by terrorists, I assume you mean the Americans? Iraq has no history of terrorist acts against the west or any links to terrosit groups.

As you say, during WWII we were fighting for survival. Survival from an imperialist country that was invading others. Ring any bells?

There can be no excuse for torturing and killing civillians. All the time it is going on the harder and more dangerous it is going to get for British soldiers out there. Think about it. If you were Iraq then you might be glad to see the back of Saddam but any goodwill towards your "liberators" is soon going to turn to hate and resistance if your friends and family are being killed, injured, made homeless, imprisoned and even torutured.

ITS A WAR..

What do people expect?? Why are people suddenly shocked and saddened?? Why are all the leaders pretending to be surprised?

ITS A WAR, bad things happen.. it's just previously we did not get to see so much of it, it's only due to the stupidity of these soldiers that we see it this time.. And as for Bush being shocked and horrified. Ha! It was him that decided that many of these people are not prisoners of war so do not have the same rights! Good job he has God on his side!!

PEOPLE DIE, GET BEATEN, RAPED, TORTURED, TORMENTED...

What I find surprising is that people are surprised by this, what? They would expect if from the Iraqi people when our side get captured but not from us??? Hmmm.

Originally posted by Cyclone
We invaded legally under a mandate from the UN.
.
Strange that Kofi Annan the U.N. Secretary General thinks the invasion was illegal under International Law (as do the majority of independent experts on International Law) Of course the US knew his views beforehand 'cos they had his office bugged!

Fact is the US have hardly changed their attitude to other races since the days the 7th Cavalry mounted Indian womens' sexual organs on their saddle pommels as trophies...not exactly glorious John Wayne stuff is it? This yawning gap between myth and reality still exists today...Donald Rumsfeld no doubt sees himself much like Big John, whereas the truth is that he is probably involved in the decison making which has approved these abuses.

His claims of shock and disgust relate to the fact that someone has "blabbed" about it, he finds that very disgusting. We can expect to see coalition troops having their cameras confiscated as much as anything else.

There's a large element of racism in all this. The frequently reported pre-war quotes from many in the US military, as they prepared for invasion, of " I'm going out there to get me some ragheads" sums it all up really.

Originally posted by neeeeeeeeeek
ITS A WAR..

What do people expect?? Why are people suddenly shocked and saddened?? Why are all the leaders pretending to be surprised?

<snip>

What I find surprising is that people are surprised by this, what? They would expect if from the Iraqi people when our side get captured but not from us??? Hmmm.

Yes n^k, war is nasty stuff (one of the reasons I was against it) but what is especially disturbing is that the American soldiers performing these gruesome acts are the ones that Mr Bush promised would help, liberate and free the Iraqi people.

Originally posted by Cyclone
We invaded legally under a mandate from the UN.

No, this invasion was illegal under international law.

I thought Richard Perle, Pentagon Hawk and senior advisor to Rusmfeld cleared that up when he said:

said by Richard Perle in London 2003
"I think in this case (invasion of Iraq) international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."


Unusually he found himself partly in agreement with Dr Hans Blix who also cites the war as illegal. Oh and Kofi Annan. Oh and the British commanders on the ground who
...refused to go to war in Iraq amid fears over its legality just days before the British and American bombing campaign was launched...refusing to commit troops already stationed in Kuwait, senior military leaders were adamant that war could not begin until they were satisfied that neither they nor their men could be tried.
Without this legal reassurace, military leaders and their troops could have laid themselves open to charges of war crimes. At the time, UK troops were already in Kuwait poised for an invasion.


Justification for war?
If you are talking about 1441, then that SCR decided to reconvene in the face of serious material breaches of previous disarmament resolutions, not invade without further ado.

Additionally the resolution is "owned" by the UNSC not the US or UK. If then US/UK are using 1441 or even 687 and 687 to justify war then they should be wearing the Blue Helmets of the UN.

Likewise, if you are referring to the ceasefire, then that agreement was signed with the security council and not the US/UK forces - i.e UK and US are not parties to the ceasefire, so are in no position to conveniently restart hostilities when they feel like it.

Not that the US/UK ever stopped bombing Iraq in the intervening 10 years and an estimated 3000 civilians have been killed by allied bombing raids during "peacetime". (including sheep herders whose water trough was mistaken for a missile launcher on satellite images)


We are maintaining control until a functioning Iraqi government can be set up and the infrastructure is repaired.

Maintaining control? The situation now looks as if the US are rapidly trying to extricate themselves (you seriously believe that everything will be nice and stable in 2 months when they intend to ship out?) when all other indications seem to point at requiring a long term international security solution, much like Kosovo or Cyprus.

I predict that in 5 years Iraq will not exist as a country, but will be split into Shia, Sunni and Kurdish Regions. The Shias will inevitable ally themselves with Iran, and the Kurds will either fall under the Turkish jackboot or end up fighting the Turks in a protracted guerilla war. The Sunnis will just end up wondering what happend to their sea access as they get stranded in the middle.

Non of our soldiers are volunteers, they weren't drafted if that's what you mean, but they didn't get asked if they wanted to go.
They gave up the right to decide if they are sent to war when they joined the Army of their own free will - maybe seduced by the words "In Defence of the Realm" as opposed to the more apposite "in Defence of American Business Interests".

Indonesia would need to go through the UN as we did in order to invade.

Ok we covered that above. The US/UK did NOT go in with a UN mandate to use military force to topple the regime - the whole thrust of the UNSCRs was disarmament. And didn't Tony Blair say:

Tony Blair , speaking to BBC news
Saddam can keep his armies and navies providing he disarms his WMD and long range missiles

So even if they had had a mandate from the UN which they didn't the mandate would have been the forcible destruction on the WMDs that they, er, couldn't find.


And we aren't in ongoing breach of any UN resolutions regarding the development of WMD's or the presence of inspectors searching for those WMD's. Nor did we start the whole debacle by invading a neihbouring country in 1990. And finally, we are not in breach of the non-proliferation treaty to which we and Iraq are signatories.

When did Iraq break the NPT? Pakistan has, but Iraq? When the Osirak reactor was taken down by the Israelis, the Iraqi nuke program died. Post 1991, the NBC weapons programme was effectively ended.

I would be more worried by non-signatories to the NPT and IAEA inspection regimes (i.e the US and Israel) who both have sizeable NBC arsenals.

It took the amassed forces of the allies on the border to force Iraq to comply, but comply they did. And as the UN chief weapons inspector pleaded with UN for more time to complete the inspections, he had to leave in a real hurry as the US/UK bombs and cruise missiles began to rain down on Bagdhad.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Maintaining control? The situation now looks as if the US are rapidly trying to extricate themselves (you seriously believe that everything will be nice and stable in 2 months when they intend to ship out?) when all other indications seem to point at requiring a long term international security solution, much like Kosovo or Cyprus.


Sadly enough this was pretty obvious from the outset to everyone apart from (apparently) the US and UK. Basically they seem to be producing themselves another Afganistan - though with even more scope for bloodshed.


So even if they had had a mandate from the UN which they didn't the mandate would have been the forcible destruction on the WMDs that they, er, couldn't find.


WMD were always a stalking horse - and pretty poor one at that. Given the US administrations pathological fear of loosing men in their 'police actions' does anyone really think they would have put them on the ground if they honestly thought there was even the remotest chance thet Sadam had any active WMD to use against them?


I would be more worried by non-signatories to the NPT and IAEA inspection regimes (i.e the US and Israel) who both have sizeable NBC arsenals.


Not to mention North Korea who have backed out of the NNPT - a pretty sure sign they have / are very close to having nuclear weapons!

How about that use of quotes in agreement - hows that for a rarity!!!

Well some of the soldiers excuse was: " wew didnt know what the Geneva convention was"
well i am not a soldier, wasn't paid to be trained as one, wont be paid after half the years of service that other people do with a pension, but i watch films and , I HAVE COMMON HUMAN SENSE!
dont need to know the exact words of the geneva convention to know how prisoners should be treated !!!!!
So dont give these excuses.
As for military or civil enquiry, it should be civil: these guys (and unfortunately these women as well) are supposed to represent us...........
I am definitely not proud of that.

okay, legal or not, the war has happened.

Apart from some mocked up photo's there is no evidence of UK troops perpetrating war crimes. If evidence does come to light the people and commanders involved should all be prosecuted, up to and including the PM if it can be proven he had knowledge.

As for the Americans, I hope the entire chain of command up to Bush are all prosecuted and sent down. It won't happen, but that's what should happen.

If the troops pull out now, it will leave absolute chaos and anarchy, so why have the UN not put together this peace keeping force yet to allow all the indignant people to stop shouting illegal war.

Re: our troops. They did not join the forces to invade iraq and had any individually refused they would have been court martialled. So how did they volunteer for this specific action they are involved in? They are supposed to use their own judgement if they believe an order to be illegal, but to declare the entire war to be illegal would simply land them in jail.

Originally posted by Cyclone
[Apart from some mocked up photo's there is no evidence of UK troops perpetrating war crimes. If evidence does come to light the people and commanders involved should all be prosecuted, up to and including the PM if it can be proven he had knowledge.


Not according to Amnesty - http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040511/323/et96b.html and http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040511/140/et8qz.html


If the troops pull out now, it will leave absolute chaos and anarchy, so why have the UN not put together this peace keeping force yet to allow all the indignant people to stop shouting illegal war.


This is deffinately the case - now troops are there I would be surprised if they arent there for years - or if they arent I can see Iraq imploding into a bloodbath as different faction struggle for controll killing even more innocent citizens. I think going into Iraq was stupid, illegal and politically motivated but now troops are there they should at least be kept around as long as is needed. However they do need to under UN control and auspices not to stop people yelling illegal war (it was and nothing can change that) but to minimise the political motivation of the occupying troops. However I would also argue that the costs of the UN peace keepers should be met by the US!

Originally posted by Cyclone
okay, legal or not, the war has happened.
On that we agree at least :)

International law, at this level, resolves down to who has the biggest guns.

Apart from some mocked up photo's there is no evidence of UK troops perpetrating war crimes. If evidence does come to light the people and commanders involved should all be prosecuted, up to and including the PM if it can be proven he had knowledge.

The Mirror photographs are unproven and quite probably dodgy mockups, but the MOD has been investigating isolated incidents of abuse since last year - only no-one saw fit to inform the Secretary of State or his ministers.

However, any abuses by British forces pale into insignificance against the revelations of systematic and calculated abuse of iraqi prisoners by US MPs and soldiers.

As the man from the washington post, who broke the story said, and I paraphrase
The G.I.s don't know anything about how to best humiliate an arab man, and yet here they are doing textbook interrogation softening tactics as outlawed internationally.

These methods (pictured in the press) of psychosexual humiliation are carefully calculated to offend, debase and humiliate in order that the victim be more amenable to answering questions. It works, so it's no surprise to find anyone using it.

But when you take the ICRC estimate that 9 out 10 prisoners in iraq are innocent then you get a picture of the hatred and revulsion that the "west", and the USA in particular, is storing up for itself in the coming generations.

This is hardly the sort of behaviour that is going to lead to peace and stability everywhere.
As for the Americans, I hope the entire chain of command up to Bush are all prosecuted and sent down. It won't happen, but that's what should happen.

Interesting note - at last count there were 25,000 people detained directly by the US Central Intelligence Agency, in camps from Afghanistan to Pakistan, Iraq, to Cuba and an even an undeclared camp in Diego Garcia. Does this qualify for the term 'Gulag Archipelago' anyone?

If the troops pull out now, it will leave absolute chaos and anarchy, so why have the UN not put together this peace keeping force yet to allow all the indignant people to stop shouting illegal war.

The UN should have been in from the moment Saddam fell. This is what Tony Blair stipulated in a letter to Clare Short when she had one of her hissy fits.

I'm not indignant, I'm apalled and disgusted that a government I certainly didn't vote for has spent (and is spending) a sizeable chunk of my income tax on prosecute an illegal, ill-judged, and dangerously destabilising war. A war that was driven by a political timetable within the US (where the economy is picking up nicely thank you Mr Rumsfeld, Cheney et al) - a war which ****** away any globally significant sympathy for the US post 11/09/01. A war which could not even be delayed a few weeks against a country with heavily degraded defence systems. Heavily degraded after 10 years of weekly bombing raids.

Re: our troops. They did not join the forces to invade iraq and had any individually refused they would have been court martialled. So how did they volunteer for this specific action they are involved in? They are supposed to use their own judgement if they believe an order to be illegal, but to declare the entire war to be illegal would simply land them in jail.

Several Muslims soldiers have asked to be returned from active duty and any soldier has the right to object to orders for conscientious reasons. That was settled at the nuremburg trials, where "I was only obeying orders from a superior officer" did not constitute a defence.

However, the British Army were careful to demand an absolute assurance that the war was indeed legal in the eyes of international law - which The government duly provided - by leaning very heavily on the Attorney General, who has to date still refused to reveal the basis of his judgement, in even the most general terms.

This does exonerate the Military from being indicted over the war, but does not, of course, exempt them from international conventions on treatment of detainess and PoWs.

Addendum-
Originally posted on the BBC
In a remarkable series of interviews in the Washington Post, senior American army officers have openly expressed doubts about whether the United States will win.

Major General Charles Swannack, commander of the 82nd Airborne Division which was in western Iraq for much of the past year, said that tactically the US was winning but when asked if overall it was losing, replied: "I think strategically we are."

Colonel Paul Hughes, the first director of strategic planning in Iraq after the war, whose brother died in Vietnam said: "Here I am, 30 years later, thinking we will win every fight and lose the war, because we don't understand the war we are in."

We should be proud of the men and women out there that are risking their lives on a daily basis just so the Iraqi people can be free from tyrany. Not all of the forces out in Iraq practice ill treatment and torture of Iraqi civilians/prisoners so we shouldn't tar them all with same brush (like some have done in this thread). For the few that have committed any crime then they should be dealt with harshly so they are made an example of.

I think the whole issue of Iraq will look very different in a few years time. When the country is rebuilt and democratic and members of the old ragiem have been either executed or serving long prison sentences most people will see the war in a good light.

Now just to chear everybody up read the following and see how sweet the words are:

"Saddam Hussain, the sentence of this court is that you be taken from here to the place from whence you came; and from there to a place of lawful imprisonment, where you shall be kept for three clear sundays. Then, upon a date to be decided, you shall be taken to a place of execution where you shall be hanged by the neck until you are dead. May the Lord have mercy upon your soul".

I understand that capital punishment is against the Iraqi constitution (Sadaam didn't appear to know that:()
In years to come Bush and Blair will be remembered with astonishment and contempt........look at Anthony Eden's reputation after Suez. At least he had the "provocation" of Nasser nationalising the canal. Ironic to think that on that occasion the Americans told us and the French to cut out the Imperialist crap and clear off out of Egypt and pretty damn quick about it.
Don't hold your breath about rebuilding, it'll get done if the Iraqis do it and pay for it themselves.
With a future epidemic of cancers and birth defects due to the presence of depleted uranium not many will be seeing the war in a good light, in fact they may not be seeing it in any light if the electricity isn't restored.

How do you do those quote boxes?

Originally posted by slimsid2000
I think the whole issue of Iraq will look very different in a few years time. When the country is rebuilt and democratic and members of the old ragiem have been either executed or serving long prison sentences most people will see the war in a good light.

Not wishing to be too cynical but I'm sure similar things were said about Vietnam, Korea, Cuba and Afganistan...

Evilneil. I agree with you. It's not something new. It's always happened and probably always will. We have the media now though who propell these things to greater heights.

I think the only thing is to have hope that the human race will still retain an amount of common sense across the board.

Iraq is a problem that has been created over time and how will the US get out of there now. I'm not sure it will be solved. I reckon everything will end in Palestine where the trouble satrted hundreds of years ago, which is basically a lot to do with us setting boundaries for Israel.

S*d the oil, if it runs out we already have alternative means that are at the moment not being considered. You can bet your life they will be common place straight away when the oil does dry up.

Originally posted by bonny
Evilneil. I agree with you. It's not something new. It's always happened and probably always will. We have the media now though who propell these things to greater heights.

I think the only thing is to have hope that the human race will still retain an amount of common sense across the board.

Iraq is a problem that has been created over time and how will the US get out of there now. I'm not sure it will be solved. I reckon everything will end in Palestine where the trouble satrted hundreds of years ago, which is basically a lot to do with us setting boundaries for Israel.

S*d the oil, if it runs out we already have alternative means that are at the moment not being considered. You can bet your life they will be common place straight away when the oil does dry up.

You only have to look back at the fuel crisis of September 2000 to see how important oil is. Thank goodness (or perhaps thank Bush/Blair) that a man like Saddam no longer has any control over any of it.

Just a quick word for those who talk of 'Imperialism' in a dismissive way; in the 19th century when Britian had a large empire there were far less people killed in wars than in the 20th century when we started to loose our power. Imperialism is not always bad. There is such a thing as benign imperialism.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
You only have to look back at the fuel crisis of September 2000 to see how important oil is. Thank goodness (or perhaps thank Bush/Blair) that a man like Saddam no longer has any control over any of it.

Just a quick word for those who talk of 'Imperialism' in a dismissive way; in the 19th century when Britian had a large empire there were far less people killed in wars than in the 20th century when we started to loose our power. Imperialism is not always bad. There is such a thing as benign imperialism.

The fuel crisis was very temporary and everyone went into panic mode. My point was that if the oil ran out point blank, the world would certainly not end. It would probably be a much cleaner place too after some time.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
Just a quick word for those who talk of 'Imperialism' in a dismissive way; in the 19th century when Britian had a large empire there were far less people killed in wars than in the 20th century when we started to loose our power. Imperialism is not always bad. There is such a thing as benign imperialism.

Not entirely sure I agree with this - we were still well into Imperialism during WW1 and 2 - and just how much of the post Imperialist warfare and destruction is a hangover from Imperialist days when the enlightened west would arbitarily divide up the lands we liberated with no thought to the tribal and cultural sensibilities of the people living there?

Originally posted by slimsid2000
You only have to look back at the fuel crisis of September 2000 to see how important oil is. Thank goodness (or perhaps thank Bush/Blair) that a man like Saddam no longer has any control over any of it.

Just a quick word for those who talk of 'Imperialism' in a dismissive way; in the 19th century when Britian had a large empire there were far less people killed in wars than in the 20th century when we started to loose our power. Imperialism is not always bad. There is such a thing as benign imperialism.


Hmmmm benign imperialism. Wouldn't that involve conquering everyone and making them accept your rules? Can't see that happening peacefully.

Originally posted by evildrneil
Not entirely sure I agree with this - we were still well into Imperialism during WW1 and 2 - and just how much of the post Imperialist warfare and destruction is a hangover from Imperialist days when the enlightened west would arbitarily divide up the lands we liberated with no thought to the tribal and cultural sensibilities of the people living there?

My point exactly, such as Palestine and Israel. We had a hand in dividing this and look at the problems now!!!!!

For those who don't believe that the UN sacntioned the occupation of Iraq, have a read of the following:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/may2003/un-m23.shtml

Lickszz, that article was written on May 23rd 2003, referring to events of that week.

The war started on March the 20th, two months earlier.

Resolution 1483 was passed lifting sanctions on Iraq and recognising that Iraq remained a sovereign state under foreign occupation.

Whether the UN were endorsing the invasion or not is a matter of interpretation, something taken to the extreme by the WSWS.

Even Perle, former Rumsfeld boot boy, has admitted the invasion was illegal.

Just found this on Yahoo today:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040521/140/eu5lm.html

<bitter sarcasm>A whole year in prison for the one person who has so far pleaded guilty to abuse - nice to see the Americans are taking the seriously</bitter sarcasm>

The abuse is systematic and comes from the top. A few high profile prosecutions of fall guys isn't going to hide that.
The former commander at Guantanammo Bay, General Baccus was sacked for being soft.
You could question whether anyone holding prisoners in open cages is soft but apparently he was in constant conflict with military intelligence because he wouldn't allow physical abuse of his detainees. He even disciplined his own men if they were guilty of verbal abuse (it's said)
Anyway he was sacked and he's not been re-assigned by the Pentagon. Miller was brought into Guantannamo and the abuse started big time and now he's in Baghdad to "put things right" which means that he'll be confiscating all cameras. so that future tales of abuse don't leak out!

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Lickszz, that article was written on May 23rd 2003, referring to events of that week.

The war started on March the 20th, two months earlier.

Resolution 1483 was passed lifting sanctions on Iraq and recognising that Iraq remained a sovereign state under foreign occupation.

Whether the UN were endorsing the invasion or not is a matter of interpretation, something taken to the extreme by the WSWS.

Even Perle, former Rumsfeld boot boy, has admitted the invasion was illegal.

Hi Phan.

The cloak of 'Legality' for coalition forces DOES now exist (And has done for almost a year) in international law.

The invasion and occupation are fruits of the same tree. There could not be an occupation without an invasion.

Originally posted by bonny
Hmmmm benign imperialism. Wouldn't that involve conquering everyone and making them accept your rules? Can't see that happening peacefully.

Well the Romans managed it quite successfully. Well apart from the peacefully bit! :)

Originally posted by Lickszz
Hi Phan.

The cloak of 'Legality' for coalition forces DOES now exist (And has done for almost a year) in international law.

The invasion and occupation are fruits of the same tree. There could not be an occupation without an invasion.

Lickszz, are we still talking about the WSWS article that points to resolution 1483 as proof of legality of the invasion?

That resolution in no way states that the invasion was legal or justified.

Or where else are you deriving the status of the invasion occupation under international law?

That the UK and USA have responsibilities under international law as occupying nations is not the UN endorsing them, but recognising the extant circumstances.

The WSWS makes a poor show of using this resolution to lump the UN in with the UK and the US as agressors in this war.

The UN may not be perfect (far from it as Kosovo reveals), but it could have delayed, if not prevented this war entirely.

Sadly, the USA drove the policy right round the UN, choosing to particpate until it was inconvenient to do so, and then dragged the UK into this murky, economically motivated war.

That the US and UK have now been seen to be not only an illegal occupying army in Iraq, but a corps of sexually deviant sadists and murdering thugs is a further blow to an ill thought out and poorly planned military misadventure.

The fact that it is likely to be only a few of the estimated half a million allied personnel in Iraq that are responsible for these acts, is irrelevant. What is relevant is the huge exposure these abuses are getting.

When you go in to oust a murdering, torturing and abusive dictator - you should yourself avoid murduring, torturing and abusing people, because you know how bad it will look if it gets out. Not to mention the reputation you will get with the people you are 'liberating'.

The US and the UK adminstrations have also completely mishandled the conflict in the media by jumping from one leaky post hoc rationalisation to another. Its WMD, It's Saddam, It's terrorists.

Both administrations have been constantly on the back foot, reacting to news reports. It is as if they have no idea what is happening out there until they see it on 60 minutes/Newsnight or read about it in the Washington Post/Times.

Not one senior member of either adminstration has ever said that the whole war is predicated on economical grounds, not moral grounds, or security grounds.

Which is, of course the unstated but bleedingly obvious truth to anyone with eyes in their head. Follow the money.

If Iraq wasn't the only secular arab republic sitting on the worlds largest untapped reserves of oil discovered so far, then our interest in the plight of the iraqi people would be greatly diminished.

Or as I heard one US serviceman say "If the Eye-rak only had pumpkin fields, we wouldn't be there"

Also interesting to note is the post war mini-boom in the US as firms get chunky contracts for rebuilding the bits of Iraq that the US army blew up with expensive missiles that have to be replaced from, er, US arms manufacturers.

Oh and the man who gave the Pentagon all their juicy intelligence about Iraq, Ahmed Chalabi (A British Subject!) of the Iraqi National Congress? Turns out he was a lying b****** all along, telling the US what they wanted to hear about WMD, elite republican guard units, NBC weapon factories etc. so they would invade and he could be Prez. They are very, very angry with him now, as they stand in the smoking ruins looking for excuses.

Well, the holiday is over for him it seems. They said the raid on his house and offices was an iraqi civilian matter, but I wonder...The Pentagon is notoriously capricious with her lap dogs (Osama for one) especially when they misbehave...

Hi Phan, forgive my editing your post.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
[B]Lickszz, are we still talking about the WSWS article that points to resolution 1483 as proof of legality of the invasion?

That resolution in no way states that the invasion was legal or justified.


By Peter Schwarz

23 May 2003

The United Nations Security Council on Thursday sanctioned the military occupation of Iraq by the United States and Great Britain. With the votes of 14 of its 15 members, the Security Council decided to immediately lift sanctions against Iraq and accord effective governmental power and unlimited control of the country’s oil wealth to the occupying forces.

This declaration of a ‘Legal occupation quite clearly indicates that although the United Nations prevaricated over endorsing the war in Iraq at the behest of Germany France and Russia, now by agreeing that the military occupation IS legal, quite plainly acknowledges that the prior military action that lead to the occupation to be now legitimised in international law!!


As I said, the occupation is fruits of the tree of the military invasion. You cannot have an occupation without an invasion. The overriding factor here is to emphasise that the coalition troops DO have a LEGAL mandate from the UN for their actions and occupation within Iraq!

Neither 'Your' nor 'Journalistic' opinion can alter that simple fact! Either BOTH are legal or NEITHER is legal! History shows THE UN Security Council ruling on this issue!

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
The WSWS makes a poor show of using this resolution to lump the UN in with the UK and the US as agressors in this war.

The UN may not be perfect (far from it as Kosovo reveals), but it could have delayed, if not prevented this war entirely.

Sadly, the USA drove the policy right round the UN, choosing to particpate until it was inconvenient to do so, and then dragged the UK into this murky, economically motivated war.


Even taking into consideration your 'objections' which I mean no offence by terming as 'Unsubstantiated', as I said the cloak of 'Legality' for coalition forces now exists.

Here is another quote to help you understand better:

The outcome became clear on Wednesday evening when, following a meeting in Paris, the foreign ministers of France, Russia and Germany declared they were prepared to support the resolution. All three emphasised this did not mean “retrospective legitimacy for the war”—a ludicrous claim that could not disguise the extent of their capitulation.

Surely you can't dispute this evidence?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
That the US and UK have now been seen to be not only an illegal occupying army in Iraq, but a corps of sexually deviant sadists and murdering thugs is a further blow to an ill thought out and poorly planned military misadventure.

The fact that it is likely to be only a few of the estimated half a million allied personnel in Iraq that are responsible for these acts, is irrelevant. What is relevant is the huge exposure these abuses are getting.

When you go in to oust a murdering, torturing and abusive dictator - you should yourself avoid murduring, torturing and abusing people, because you know how bad it will look if it gets out. Not to mention the reputation you will get with the people you are 'liberating'.

The US and the UK adminstrations have also completely mishandled the conflict in the media by jumping from one leaky post hoc rationalisation to another. Its WMD, It's Saddam, It's terrorists.

Both administrations have been constantly on the back foot, reacting to news reports. It is as if they have no idea what is happening out there until they see it on 60 minutes/Newsnight or read about it in the Washington Post/Times.

Not one senior member of either adminstration has ever said that the whole war is predicated on economical grounds, not moral grounds, or security grounds.

Snipped


I do agree with some of that but it's drifting away from the point I was trying to make (which may not affect you).

Much prior emphasis by those in opposition to the military action that was taken against Iraq was based upon the lack of international authority from the UN. Now this ‘Authority’ has been established will those that opposed the actions of the coalition on the grounds of ‘International law’ recant their opinions?

The Security Council resolution awards the powers that carried out the war absolution for their past, present and future crimes. The resolution annuls all “previous, relevant resolutions” of the Security Council and concedes unlimited power over Iraq to the US and its allies. There is no stipulation of a time limit for US political rule and economic control over the country’s resources. Demands for such a limit on the part of France and Russia were rejected by the American government

Which I maintain CONCLUSIVELY not only legitimises the occupation of Iraq under international law but the war that resulted in the occupation!

Originally posted by Lickszz
Hi Phan.

The cloak of 'Legality' for coalition forces DOES now exist (And has done for almost a year) in international law.

The invasion and occupation are fruits of the same tree. There could not be an occupation without an invasion.

I've just read that article a couple of times and can't see anything in there saying that the invasion was in any way justified. It looks more like its something that the US/UK has put forward to effectively give them power of government over Iraq and sell off its oil reserves without running foul of the sanctions imposed on the country? It certainly doesnt look like it ligitimises the invasion in the first place?

evildrneil, these are your opinions not facts

That there could not be an 'Occupation' of Iraq without there first having been an Military 'Invasion' to place coalition troops there is such a basic concept that I am amazed to find you unable to grasp it? How do 'You' think that coalition forces came to be in Iraq? The PURPOSE of the invasion IS still identical to the PURPOSE of the occupation, The ongoing war against terrorism! As already stated - Fruits of the same tree.

Originally posted by Lickszz
evildrneil, these are your opinions not facts

That there could not be an 'Occupation' of Iraq without there first having been an Military 'Invasion' to place coalition troops there is such a basic concept that I am amazed to find you unable to grasp it? How do 'You' think that coalition forces came to be in Iraq? The PURPOSE of the invasion IS still identical to the PURPOSE of the occupation, The ongoing war against terrorism! As already stated - Fruits of the same tree.
I thought the reason for the war was:

Liberate Iraqi People/Disarm Iraq of massive WMD stockpile/Stabilise the Middle east *


*delete as applicable


Quoting the article on the world socialist web site is not a subsitute for the actual resolution 1483 to which they are referring.

What is your opinion of 1483 and where does it cede control to the US/UK forces the oil reserves etc?

lol

Stabilize the Middle east is a new one on me.

:o

Originally posted by Lickszz
evildrneil, these are your opinions not facts

That there could not be an 'Occupation' of Iraq without there first having been an Military 'Invasion' to place coalition troops there is such a basic concept that I am amazed to find you unable to grasp it? How do 'You' think that coalition forces came to be in Iraq? The PURPOSE of the invasion IS still identical to the PURPOSE of the occupation, The ongoing war against terrorism! As already stated - Fruits of the same tree.

Hmmm nope re-read it and it still legitimises the occupation but not the invasion. As stated before in order for the US/UK to use the wealth of Iraq they would require governmental powers and that is what has been given. There is certainly nothing in there legitimising an invasion. Saying its OK for troops to be there now (and saying its not OK would cause major problems - imagine what would happen if the occupying troops pulled out - can you say bloodbath?) does not imply it was OK for the troops to go in in the first place - thats inferral on your behalf rather than implication or outright statement.

Oh and the stated reason for the war was to remove 'weapons of mass destruction' - the 'war on terrorism' is a neat soundbite and flag waving oportunity with apparently bog all real meaning...

Please forgive my editing your post.

Originally posted by evildrneil
Hmmm nope re-read it and it still legitimises the occupation but not the invasion.

Could you please state how it is possible to have occupation without an invasion?


Originally posted by evildrneil
There is certainly nothing in there legitimising an invasion. Saying its OK for troops to be there now (and saying its not OK would cause major problems - imagine what would happen if the occupying troops pulled out - can you say bloodbath?) does not imply it was OK for the troops to go in in the first place - thats inferral on your behalf rather than implication or outright statement.

Again this represents your opinion.

The article is almost 1 year old. It is not something that has only just been sanctioned.

Originally posted by evildrneil
Oh and the stated reason for the war was to remove 'weapons of mass destruction' - the 'war on terrorism' is a neat soundbite and flag waving oportunity with apparently bog all real meaning...

What do you think the potential possibilites were for WMD?

Who might have used them and for what reason?

Originally posted by Lickszz
Could you please state how it is possible to have occupation without an invasion?


I didn't say it was possible - what I DID say is it is possible to legitimise the occupation WITHOUT legitimising the invasion. In fact as stated legisitimising the occupation is neccesary to give the occupying forces govenmental powers. Yes it is my oppinion but it looks far more like a political move to allow the US/UK to sell oil etc rather than anything else...

[qote]
Again this represents your opinion.
[/quote]

Nope - re-read it and you are definately inferring the legitimisation of the invasion - legitimisation of the invasion is neither implied or stated...


The article is almost 1 year old. It is not something that has only just been sanctioned.


Ermmm don't really understand the reason for this...


What do you think the potential possibilites were for WMD?
Who might have used them and for what reason?

Why do we have WMD - and in far greater abbundance than Iraq? Does our possession of them immediately make us a terrorist state? It's fairly clear that Iraq doesnt have a current stockpile of WMD but the reason for them is I would have though fairly obvious - the recent end of the Iran-Iraq war and the general instability of the region would be enough to make any country there want to arm its self to the teeth - for an example of this you only have to look to Israel - but they are friendly so we will ignore their WMD, contraventions of UN resolutions and the fact they have invaded and occupied neighboring countries...

http://www.counterpunch.org/reed05212004.html continuing a long tradition of abuse and degredation ............

Forgive my editing your post

Originally posted by evildrneil
I didn't say it was possible - what I DID say is it is possible to legitimise the occupation WITHOUT legitimising the invasion. In fact as stated legisitimising the occupation is neccesary to give the occupying forces govenmental powers. Yes it is my oppinion but it looks far more like a political move to allow the US/UK to sell oil etc rather than anything else...


Which represents ‘Your opinion’. [Even though against the logic of the situation!]

Try reading the original UN security council Document and you will find that the argument that I have given you that it does by virtue of 'The fruits of the tree' give legitimate reasons to legalise the original conflict!

Originally posted by evildrneil
Nope - re-read it and you are definately inferring the legitimisation of the invasion - legitimisation of the invasion is neither implied or stated...

Then lets not keep running around in circles, YOU show me WHERE in the text of the statute it specifies the military action taken for the occupation to be illegal? [A web link will suffice].

Originally posted by evildrneil
Ermmm don't really understand the reason for this...

I was of the understanding that you were implying the sanctioning had only just come about.

Originally posted by evildrneil
Why do we have WMD - and in far greater abbundance than Iraq? Does our possession of them immediately make us a terrorist state? It's fairly clear that Iraq doesnt have a current stockpile of WMD but the reason for them is I would have though fairly obvious - the recent end of the Iran-Iraq war and the general instability of the region would be enough to make any country there want to arm its self to the teeth - for an example of this you only have to look to Israel - but they are friendly so we will ignore their WMD, contraventions of UN resolutions and the fact they have invaded and occupied neighboring countries...

Although this is going totally away from the point, which is the article and legal occupation. I'm not about to digress and go into Iraqs or Israels past/intentions.

After all this diatribe it remains quite clear, that this administration made a major blunder when they invaded Iraq. They are now completely out of control and have no idea what to do next.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I
Quoting the article on the world socialist web site is not a subsitute for the actual resolution 1483 to which they are referring.

What is your opinion of 1483 and where does it cede control to the US/UK forces the oil reserves etc?

Almost missed that last paragraph because of delayed edit.

Wriggle all you like Phan that does NOT alter the facts of the United nations Security Councils sanction! THAT is not a matter of 'Journalistic opinion'! Do you wish to 'Arrogantly' claim' that you are better informed than an acredited political journalist? If so then please do present your credentials to show why 'Your' judgement should be taken over Peter Schwarz.

thanks for the link irishguy.

The invasion of Iraq cannot be based on un security council resolution 1441 - as neither its text, nor any of the earlier resolutions to which it refers, authorized the use of military force. 60% of the Security Council membership rejected the proposition that 1441 authorises military force.

Nor can the invasion of Iraq be based on any precedent in international law. Why? Because there is no precedent for a pre-emptive strike doctrine in international law.

Nor can the invasion of Iraq be justified on moral grounds. The war violates moral standards that are the backbone of many religious belief systems. All of the major world religions preach a strong message of the sacred and inviolable nature of human life in particular.

Looking at the cost of this war, in terms of human death and misery, not to mention the increased tension and violence that ripples out from this debacle - the moralistic argument of a war to end a greater evil is baseless.

The utter PR disaster unfolding right now is actually the only thing either administration is concerned about - because it will dramatically affect their respective election campaigns, both due soon. Bush and Blair want to forget Iraq as quickly as possible and point to domestic triumphs.

They don't seem to care less that the worldwide perception of Allied troops is now of rampaging sexual deviants and necrophiles who delight in sadistic humiliation rituals before presumably beating their charges to death....

Originally posted by Lickszz
Almost missed that last paragraph because of delayed edit.

Wriggle all you like Phan that does NOT alter the facts of the United nations Security Councils sanction! THAT is not a matter of 'Journalistic opinion'! Do you wish to 'Arrogantly' claim' that you are better informed than an acredited political journalist? If so then please do present your credentials to show why 'Your' judgement should be taken over Peter Schwarz.


Lickszz, you know that the resolution in question is about the lifting of sanctions on Iraq and has nothing actually to do with the UN sanctioning actions by US/UK military forces, don't you?

I'm not wriggling here, I've read the whole convoluted 7 pages of it.

The fact that the article on WSWS is headed "Paris, Berlin, Moscow sanction US occupation of Iraq" would lead one to believe that somehow the UN had passed a resolution resoundingly endorsing the invasion and the occupation.

As far as handing over oil to the US/UK (which the article uses as a pillar of its argument "...and accord effective governmental power and unlimited control of the country?s oil wealth to the occupying forces." - Well Peter Schwarz can't be much of a Journalist IMO.

resolution 1483
20. Decides that all export sales of petroleum, petroleum products, and natural gas from Iraq following the date of the adoption of this resolution shall be made consistent with prevailing international market best practices, to be audited by independent public accountants reporting to the International Advisory and Monitoring Board referred to in paragraph 12 above in order to ensure transparency, and decides further that, except as provided in paragraph 21 below, all proceeds from such sales shall be deposited into the Development Fund for Iraq until such time as an internationally

Phan,

You failed to mention.

1483 Also Recognises UK and the United States as occupying powers 'The Authority', and calls on them to attempt to improve security and stability, and provide opportunities for the Iraqis to determine their political future.

As you must be aware the article is a mixture of the personal jounalistic views and facts. Peter Schwarz obviously is of the opinion that the oil money is not been deposited for Iraq.

The oil has never been my point. My point is the occupation.

Originally posted by Lickszz
Which represents ?Your opinion?. [Even though against the logic of the situation!]


Your trying to apply logic to this situation!?!? I'm pointing out that it is perfectly possible to raise the sanctions on Iraq and give governmental powers to the controlling force so it can negotiate/buy oil etc. WITHOUT legitimising how they got there in the first place. I'm afraid I think its a rather politically niave viewpoint to think that this can't - or indeed in this case is unlikely to - happen.


Then lets not keep running around in circles, YOU show me WHERE in the text of the statute it specifies the military action taken for the occupation to be illegal? [A web link will suffice].


I'm not saying it says that it does - you are the one saying that the legitimisation of one event legitimises the other - do you have a part of part of the statute that says that?


I was of the understanding that you were implying the sanctioning had only just come about.


Nope - were I the invading forces one of the first things I would do is get sanctions lifted and myself seen as effective governmental power - even if only so I could sell all that lovely oil I had just swiped.


Although this is going totally away from the point, which is the article and legal occupation. I'm not about to digress and go into Iraqs or Israels past/intentions.

Ermmmm you were the one who bought it up! I was merely pointing out that a sovereign country (which Iraq was) in a very unstable area (which it is) surrounded by potentialy hostile nations (which it also is) would have a perfectly valid reason for holding WMD for defence/deterence value - far more so than say the UK with its vast stocks of WMD which is neither in an unstable area nor surrounded by potentially beligerent nations - unless of course you count France!

Originally posted by Lickszz
1483 Also Recognises UK and the United States as occupying powers 'The Authority', and calls on them to attempt to improve security and stability, and provide opportunities for the Iraqis to determine their political future.


Yes as pointed out this gives them Governmental powers (required for many reasons already outlined in other posts) - it DOES not directly or by implication say that the original invasion was a legitimate or legal thing to do...

Originally posted by Lickszz
Phan,

You failed to mention.

1483 Also Recognises UK and the United States as occupying powers 'The Authority', and calls on them to attempt to improve security and stability, and provide opportunities for the Iraqis to determine their political future.


lets all read the whole resolution - Please note the so-called journalist Peter Schwarz doesn't even mention which resolution it is.

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions03.html

The resolution notes that the US and the UK are occupying powers and have responsibilities under the Hague and Geneva accords as such.

This is not an endorsement it is a statement of fact.

Nowhere does the resolution implicitly or explicitly ratify the invasion or occupation as legitimate - in fact it side steps the whole issue as a diplomatic hot potato

As you must be aware the article is a mixture of the personal jounalistic views and facts. Peter Schwarz obviously is of the opinion that the oil money is not been deposited for Iraq.

The oil has never been my point. My point is the occupation.

You did ask my why my judgement should be taken over Peter Schwarz's. I'm not sure what his opinion is, but the articles is a confection of anti UN polemic and ill informed reading of the resolution.

All I am saying is people should use their own judgement in interpreting the resolution, rather than his. I have still not heard your interpretation and why you think it endorses and ratifies the invasion or occupation.

Peter Schwarz did not even give us that opportunity and we had to go and hunt out which resolution he was talking about.

I refer you to my previous comments on why the invasion and occupation is illegal under any standard of international law you wish to apply.

Originally posted by Lickszz
lol

Stabilize the Middle east is a new one on me.

:o

President Bush is on record as having stated that the establishment of Democracy in Iraq would bring peace to Israel and help establish a Palestinian nation.

Does this sound familiar?

Quote:

'Of course the people don't want war. But after all it's the leaders of the country who determine policy and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice the people can be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell the people that they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger. It works in any country'.

Forgive my editing your post.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Please note the so-called journalist Peter Schwarz doesn't even mention which resolution it is.

Noted, but not too much of a problem to match date/content of article with corresponding resolution. I presume this is what you did?


Originally posted by Phanerothyme
The resolution notes that the US and the UK are occupying powers and have responsibilities under the Hague and Geneva accords as such.

This is not an endorsement it is a statement of fact.

Nowhere does the resolution implicitly or explicitly ratify the invasion or occupation as legitimate - in fact it side steps the whole issue as a diplomatic hot potato

I'm afraid I don't interprete as solely a fact. It's not common protocol to state a fact followed by instructions/responsilities attached.

Why would the UN recognize specific occupying forces and state responsibilites if none of this was authorised? Don't you find it strange that it's not mentioned?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
You did ask my why my judgement should be taken over Peter Schwarz's. I'm not sure what his opinion is, but the articles is a confection of anti UN polemic and ill informed reading of the resolution.

Many of Schwarz's opinions can be found in the article. From which standpoint do you claim the article Anti UN?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
All I am saying is people should use their own judgement in interpreting the resolution, rather than his. I have still not heard your interpretation and why you think it endorses and ratifies the invasion or occupation.

I thought I'd made this clear. In recognising UK & US forces as the occupying authority and listing responsibilties it is to me as good as accepting/allowing/sanctioning. As I already stated you cannot have an occupation without a prior invasion, they are fruits of the same tree.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I refer you to my previous comments on why the invasion and occupation is illegal under any standard of international law you wish to apply.

Do you have a weblink with a corresponding ruling?