[quote]Originally posted by Goldstein:We are talking about the intent to settle the score with Iraq, a country with which the U.S.A. is still in a state of war (unless they signed a peace treaty while I was asleep). Those things have happened before:I recall one fine sunny morning in October 1973, and nobody said Egypt or Syria were committing a "crime against peace", "illegal use of force", or any other grandiloquent phrasings.
While there are many reasonable critiques which can be leveled at the planned attack of the U.S. , "illegality" not being one of them.
Whatever the faults of the U.S.' planned war against Iraq, it is more legitimate than the ongoing existence of the Saddam Hussain regime.
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>The war of 1973 is hardly comparable. What part of the US is Iraq occupying?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The war of 1973 is an example of a clear violation of a treaty of cease-fire. Yet since Syria and Egypt were already in a state of war with Israel, there were no claims of their attack being a "crime against peace" of any other such big words.
The U.S. is already in a state of war with Iraq, qhich it sees as failing to comply to its conditions of surrender of twelve years ago, that is certainly as much a Casus Belli as having been defeated in the last war, and lost some territory, fair and square, in the course of it.
[quote]<strong>Jimmy Carter one of many reasonable people highly qualified to have an opinion on this, who thinks there is a question of breach of international law here.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Mr. Carter is not an authority on international law. He has a right to his opinion.
An attack against a country with which one is still at war, on the claim that it fails to comply to its terms of surrender to one's own country, is certainly neither unprecedented, nor so much unjust. That's my opinion.
[quote]<strong>I really don't see you backing up you claims with any qualified expertise, other than your own opinion.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I generally avoid making what is called an appeal to authority. Not being an authority myself, I make the effort to illustrate my opinion with widely known details.
[quote]"Illegal occupation" means the act of occupying in itself is illegal as such. One can address the unlawful nature of the unilateral annexation form the POV of international law, that's another thing; otherwise violations, crimes, excesses, misdemeanors, occuring since the conquest of 1967, are other things yet. Yet these don't make the act of military occupation illegal, therefore, they don't make the occupation illegal.
[quote]<strong>So if the americans started settling Hamburg after world war two, this wouldn't be a misuse of their right to occupy Germany?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Had U.S. some civilians willingly moved to somewhere the U.S. occupation zone in Germany, say Frankfurt, (Hamburg being in the British-occupied territories), it would have hardly been unlawful. Had the U.S. had n organised policy of helping them moving there and living there as if on U.S. national soil (something similar to settlement policies of several Israeli governments), it would have been unlwaful it itself, but it wouldn't have made the act of occupation itself illegal.
Loke every period of occupation, that of Germany by the Allies also had its shares of irregularities (of other kinds of course) but it never undermined their right to occupy their enemy till it signed a peace treaty.
[quote]The overwhelming majority of the settlements were built in uninhabited areas, which have been on state lands since Ottoman times.
[quote]<strong>Are you saying no palestinians have been forcefully removed?
And study the map. It can't be that overwhelming. And it is illegal, even in uninhabited areas.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The act of building a lodging in an uninhabitaed place and having an Israeli Jew live there is not in itself illegal. There may be irregularities, form both the perspectives of Israeli and intenrational law, in the fact of a government policy to that effect and of that Israeli Jew living there as if under Israeli civil rule.
The land on which settlementswere built, save exceptional cases, is either state land (since Ottoman times) or land legally purchased by the settlers themselves.
My own opinion is one of opposition to the settlemtns polcies since their inception, but my case is hardly served by an inaccurate description of it.
[quote]In comparison with Putin's and Chirac's records they certainly seems lofty and laudable. These two make Bush II look like a boy scout.
[quote]<strong>He is a boy scout compared to those two. But he is making rapid progress. Guess who will be remembered most by history?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't make such wild guesses.
[quote]It's not so much about Saddam's arse, as it is about preserving the interests invested in his presidential posterior. A Saddam-less Iraq opens too many undertainties for them.
[quote]<strong>Saying that Russia and France is working to keep Sadam in power is naive. Everybody knows that Saddam will never make a comeback as one of the "good guys". Clearly this is about the US dictating the actions of the UN.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As stated previously, this isn't about "good guys", its about influencial countries preserving regimes in which they have a substantial stake. Russia and France, like many others, have done this before. They have such stake in the current Iraqi regime beyond the actual contracts signed with, due to the long years of partnership and cooperation.
[quote]yet you wouldn't find there (on the "proche-orient.info" site) any reflections of views of such AI pundits and experts as New or Mika.
[quote]<strong>Gee, thanks for the confidence man.
I wouldn't place in you the same confidence I would in Mika, happy?
Anyway, I was describing a certain French-language information website about the Middle-East, whose editorials, as a matter of fact, while diverse in the opinions expressed, are more moderate than the views expressed by either of you on this board.
[ 03-12-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>