Some Europeans No Longer Submitting to New Barbarian Hordes

[untermensche]

Where would you want me to go?

US aggression directly led to the military leadership of ISIS and a lot of it's weapons.

It wasn't the aggression.

The WHOLE thing was aggression.

Nuremberg principles; Those that carry out aggression are responsible for ALL crimes that arise out of that aggression.

And the US invasion as soon as it encountered the least resistance moved into a regime of torture, with random roundups imprisonment and abuse. These are crimes directly attributable to the US, and who knows how many terrorists they created.

Where should I move?

Into lies?

How about out of the land of hyperbole-ville and into the land of pragmatic understanding.

Those that talk of "hyperbole-ville" without any evidence of it are the ones polluting the discussion.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It wasn't the aggression.

The WHOLE thing was aggression.

The number of Iraqi civilians killed in the Occupation >>> the number killed during the invasion and overthrow of Hussein. The later was the aggression part. What was to follow would be referred to as one of the greatest political follies in American History if not for the grave consequences that came of it. Made Bay of Pigs look like a Python sketch. But that wasn't aggression, it was a failure to properly occupy and settle the nation they just took over.

Nuremberg principles; Those that carry out aggression are responsible for ALL crimes that arise out of that aggression.

You are hanging everything on a single word, the worst word you can find. You were calling it terrorism at one point.

And the US invasion as soon as it encountered the least resistance moved into a regime of torture, with random roundups imprisonment and abuse. These are crimes directly attributable to the US, and who knows how many terrorists they created.

Regime of torture? This is the hyperbole-ville thing I was talking about. Yes, there was torture, yes there was abuse, but "regime of torture"? What in the world do we call what Hussein was running then?

 

[untermensche]

The WHOLE thing was aggression.

The number of Iraqi civilians killed in the Occupation >>> the number killed during the invasion and overthrow of Hussein. The later was the aggression part. What was to follow would be referred to as one of the greatest political follies in American History if not for the grave consequences that came of it. Made Bay of Pigs look like a Python sketch. But that wasn't aggression, it was a failure to properly occupy and settle the nation they just took over.

What do you not understand about ALL crimes that arise after an act of aggression?

Taking your military into another nation to remove it's government IS an act of aggression. Nothing can justify it.

Nuremberg principles; Those that carry out aggression are responsible for ALL crimes that arise out of that aggression.

You are hanging everything on a single word, the worst word you can find. You were calling it terrorism at one point.

To achieve the truth you have to start by calling things what they are.

Invading another nation that has not attacked you to change it's government IS terrorism. Why you want to pretend it is something else is your issue.

And the US invasion as soon as it encountered the least resistance moved into a regime of torture, with random roundups imprisonment and abuse. These are crimes directly attributable to the US, and who knows how many terrorists they created.

Regime of torture? This is the hyperbole-ville thing I was talking about.

You simply don't like calling things what they are.

Rounding up people and abusing them without a shred of evidence on a fishing expedition IS a regime of torture.

If you were on the receiving end you would have no difficulty understanding.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The number of Iraqi civilians killed in the Occupation >>> the number killed during the invasion and overthrow of Hussein. The later was the aggression part. What was to follow would be referred to as one of the greatest political follies in American History if not for the grave consequences that came of it. Made Bay of Pigs look like a Python sketch. But that wasn't aggression, it was a failure to properly occupy and settle the nation they just took over.

What do you not understand about ALL crimes that arise after an act of aggression?

Taking your military into another nation to remove it's government IS an act of aggression. Nothing can justify it.

But the deaths of Iraqis and the instability didn't come from the aggression, but from the vacuum created with the Occupation.

Invading another nation that has not attacked you to change it's government IS terrorism. Why you want to pretend it is something else is your issue.

That isn't what terrorism is. What you just described is more like colonialism. The US came in and changed the guard. The US didn't go into Iraq because of political differences with Hussein. I'm not certain if we'll ever officially know the true reasons, but revenge has to be up there. Additionally, the attack was upon the Government itself, not the people.

And the US invasion as soon as it encountered the least resistance moved into a regime of torture, with random roundups imprisonment and abuse. These are crimes directly attributable to the US, and who knows how many terrorists they created.

Regime of torture? This is the hyperbole-ville thing I was talking about.

You simply don't like calling things what they are.

It is called perspective.

Rounding up people and abusing them without a shred of evidence on a fishing expedition IS a regime of torture.

If you were on the receiving end you would have no difficulty understanding.

No, a regime of torture is North Korea. Yes, the US is guilty of some bad stuff in Iraq, but "regime of torture" is hyperbole.

 

[ksen]

What do you not understand about ALL crimes that arise after an act of aggression?

Taking your military into another nation to remove it's government IS an act of aggression. Nothing can justify it.

But the deaths of Iraqis and the instability didn't come from the aggression, but from the vacuum created with the Occupation.

The deaths and instability would not have occured without the initial aggression. That's untermensche's point.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But the deaths of Iraqis and the instability didn't come from the aggression, but from the vacuum created with the Occupation.

The deaths and instability would not have occured without the initial aggression. That's untermensche's point.

He is trying to paint the US as the source of the violence, of the 100,000+ Iraqi civilians killed: "regime of torture", "terrorism", "aggression".

There is no guarantee that such an outcome would have occurred due to the invasion and removal of Hussein from power. The violence that followed was a result of the Occupation not Invasion. It wasn't American aggression that killed the Iraqis.

 

[untermensche]

The deaths and instability would not have occured without the initial aggression. That's untermensche's point.

He is trying to paint the US as the source of the violence, of the 100,000+ Iraqi civilians killed: "regime of torture", "terrorism", "aggression".

There is no guarantee that such an outcome would have occurred due to the invasion and removal of Hussein from power. The violence that followed was a result of the Occupation not Invasion. It wasn't American aggression that killed the Iraqis.

You just refuse to apply Nuremberg principles to the situation.

Those were the standards the US said should be enforced after WWII.

You invade Iraq and create a power vacuum filled by ISIS you are responsible for everything ISIS does.

 

[ksen]

The deaths and instability would not have occured without the initial aggression. That's untermensche's point.

He is trying to paint the US as the source of the violence, of the 100,000+ Iraqi civilians killed: "regime of torture", "terrorism", "aggression".

Sure, his language is passionate but the central point is correct. The US invasion of Iraq was the catalyst that led to the events that resulted in 100,000+ Iraqi civilians killed and the rise of ISIS.

It's just a fact of history that really shouldn't be disputable.

There is no guarantee that such an outcome would have occurred due to the invasion and removal of Hussein from power.

But there is a guarantee that if the invasion didn't occur and Hussein was left in power that outcome would not have happened.

The violence that followed was a result of the Occupation not Invasion. It wasn't American aggression that killed the Iraqis.

Trying to separate the Occupation from the Invasion seems a little silly to me. Yes, the violence was a result of the Occupation. But the Occupation was a result of the Invasion. It was American aggression that brought about the circumstances that led to the 100,000+ Iraqi deaths.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

He is trying to paint the US as the source of the violence, of the 100,000+ Iraqi civilians killed: "regime of torture", "terrorism", "aggression".

There is no guarantee that such an outcome would have occurred due to the invasion and removal of Hussein from power. The violence that followed was a result of the Occupation not Invasion. It wasn't American aggression that killed the Iraqis.

You just refuse to apply Nuremberg principles to the situation.

Those were the standards the US said should be enforced after WWII.

You invade Iraq and create a power vacuum filled by ISIS you are responsible for everything ISIS does.

How do you get from A to Z there? Principle VI talks about a war of aggression, it doesn't talk about consequences from said action 10 years down the road. It says wars of aggression are against International Law. But was the invasion of Iraq to overthrow a dictator a War of Aggression? Iraq is not a US territory.

 

[ksen]

But was the invasion of Iraq to overthrow a dictator a War of Aggression?

Yes. Why wouldn't it be considered one?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Because it was about overthrowing a dictator... at least, that is the argument that would be used in court. It isn't like the invasion of Poland or Belgium (the whole context of the principles in the first place) where some asshole wanted to build an empire.

More so, the war targeted the Iraqi leadership, coordinated with the Iraqi military itself to step down, and involved almost no civilian deaths. Shall we consider the whole Manuel Noriega thing to have been a War of Aggression as well?

 

[ksen]

Because it was about overthrowing a dictator... at least, that is the argument that would be used in court. It isn't like the invasion of Poland or Belgium (the whole context of the principles in the first place) where some asshole wanted to build an empire.

More so, the war targeted the Iraqi leadership, coordinated with the Iraqi military itself to step down, and involved almost no civilian deaths.

So? Iraq had done nothing to us. We attacked them for no valid reason, and even invented some reasons that had no bearing on reality.

That sounds like a war of aggression to me.

Shall we consider the whole Manuel Noriega thing to have been a War of Aggression as well?

The acts in Panama at least had the cover of the Panama Canal treaty and was against Noriega who had just perpetrated a coup. Panam and Iraq really aren't that comparable.

Although at the time the UN voted in favor of considering the US invasion of Panama as a violation of international law so there's that.

 

[Jayjay]

So? Iraq had done nothing to us. We attacked them for no valid reason, and even invented some reasons that had no bearing on reality.

That sounds like a war of aggression to me.

Or a continuation of the 1991 War of aggression that Saddam started. After all, if one thinks that US invading Iraq in 2003 is inseparable from ISIS aggression twelve years later, why exclude Iraqi aggression against Kuwait 12 years prior? Everything happens in a continuum. And that's why untermensche's absolutists, yet arbitrary application of "Nuremberg principles" to blame America for everything that happen since 2003 is nothing but special pleading.

To comment on your earlier post that the occupation was a result of the invasion, that's true, but the occupation as it happened was not a necessary result of the invasion. There is no reason why the US should have bungled the occupation, and the rise of ISIS has much more to do with poor choices and mismanagement during the occupation, rather than the invasion.

 

[untermensche]

Because it was about overthrowing a dictator... at least, that is the argument that would be used in court. It isn't like the invasion of Poland or Belgium (the whole context of the principles in the first place) where some asshole wanted to build an empire.

More so, the war targeted the Iraqi leadership, coordinated with the Iraqi military itself to step down, and involved almost no civilian deaths. Shall we consider the whole Manuel Noriega thing to have been a War of Aggression as well?

Red Herrings and hand waving.

It matters not what government exists, invasions against nations that have not attacked you are acts of aggression.

The people ordering them are deserving the death penalty.

If we are not hypocrites and apply the same principles we applied to the Germans.

 

[ksen]

So? Iraq had done nothing to us. We attacked them for no valid reason, and even invented some reasons that had no bearing on reality.

That sounds like a war of aggression to me.

Or a continuation of the 1991 War of aggression that Saddam started. After all, if one thinks that US invading Iraq in 2003 is inseparable from ISIS aggression twelve years later, why exclude Iraqi aggression against Kuwait 12 years prior? Everything happens in a continuum.

Well, Desert Shield and Desert Storm were over. They had been concluded so there's nothing really connecting them to GWB's Iraq war. In fact GWB didn't even mention Desert Storm or Kuwait as excuses to reinvade Iraq. Actually Bush Sr. didn't send troops into Iraq if I'm remembering correctly.

And that's why untermensche's absolutists, yet arbitrary application of "Nuremberg principles" to blame America for everything that happen since 2003 is nothing but special pleading.

I might not agree with his point but I can see his line of reasoning and it's really not that specious.

To comment on your earlier post that the occupation was a result of the invasion, that's true, but the occupation as it happened was not a necessary result of the invasion. There is no reason why the US should have bungled the occupation, and the rise of ISIS has much more to do with poor choices and mismanagement during the occupation, rather than the invasion.

I agree that there's no reason the occupation should have been bungled. But it was and here we are.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Where would you want me to go?

US aggression directly led to the military leadership of ISIS and a lot of it's weapons.

It wasn't the aggression. It was the failure to command an occupation in Iraq that led to the issue. The United States, I'm sorry, the "Coalition" drove through Iraq so quickly. Almost island hopped like WWII, but the problem was people were between the islands they were hopping. The US then installed a bunch of recent college grad yes-men in charge of the nation and things went to hell quick. In fact, there wasn't much aggression with the invasion. The invasion itself went quick and was quite successful in removing the leader of the nation. It was a failure in securing the nation as a whole. And the operation of the Occupation that failed dreadfully and contributed to easily over 100,000 dead, and a boat load more displaced.

Where should I move?

Into lies?

How about out of the land of hyperbole-ville and into the land of pragmatic understanding.

The US removed all civil servants, and anyone who was in the Army and police forces as they were Ba'ath Party members; formally a prerequisite for government employment. Thus as well as creating dislike from those who lost their jobs, Naturally there was a power vacuum which was filled not only by those extremists Saddam kept in check, but now a series of pockets of resistance by those who lost their jobs.
Also for months there was a lack of power supplies, (water, electricity) and poorly run public services (if any at all). Protections for minorities such as the Christians no longer exist in some parts of Iraq.

 

[whichphilosophy]

So? Iraq had done nothing to us. We attacked them for no valid reason, and even invented some reasons that had no bearing on reality.

That sounds like a war of aggression to me.

Or a continuation of the 1991 War of aggression that Saddam started. After all, if one thinks that US invading Iraq in 2003 is inseparable from ISIS aggression twelve years later, why exclude Iraqi aggression against Kuwait 12 years prior? Everything happens in a continuum. And that's why untermensche's absolutists, yet arbitrary application of "Nuremberg principles" to blame America for everything that happen since 2003 is nothing but special pleading.

To comment on your earlier post that the occupation was a result of the invasion, that's true, but the occupation as it happened was not a necessary result of the invasion. There is no reason why the US should have bungled the occupation, and the rise of ISIS has much more to do with poor choices and mismanagement during the occupation, rather than the invasion.

The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait did not create a power vacuum for ISIS et al to flourish in uncontrolled areas. No one can deny that the bungled occupation allowed ISIS et all to flourish in uncontrolled areas.

 

[Jayjay]

Or a continuation of the 1991 War of aggression that Saddam started. After all, if one thinks that US invading Iraq in 2003 is inseparable from ISIS aggression twelve years later, why exclude Iraqi aggression against Kuwait 12 years prior? Everything happens in a continuum. And that's why untermensche's absolutists, yet arbitrary application of "Nuremberg principles" to blame America for everything that happen since 2003 is nothing but special pleading.

To comment on your earlier post that the occupation was a result of the invasion, that's true, but the occupation as it happened was not a necessary result of the invasion. There is no reason why the US should have bungled the occupation, and the rise of ISIS has much more to do with poor choices and mismanagement during the occupation, rather than the invasion.

The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait did not create a power vacuum for ISIS et al to flourish in uncontrolled areas. No one can deny that the bungled occupation allowed ISIS et all to flourish in uncontrolled areas.

Yes, of course. The point is that the US invasion of Iraq didn't create the power vacuum either. The US occupation did that, as you yourself pointed out.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait did not create a power vacuum for ISIS et al to flourish in uncontrolled areas. No one can deny that the bungled occupation allowed ISIS et all to flourish in uncontrolled areas.

Yes, of course. The point is that the US invasion of Iraq didn't create the power vacuum either. The US occupation did that, as you yourself pointed out.

The occupation stemmed from the invasion. However in the event of an invasion, where the military and police presences are removed lawlessness will prevail. These factors overlapped each other. If one invades another country they are occupying it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But the deaths of Iraqis and the instability didn't come from the aggression, but from the vacuum created with the Occupation.

The deaths and instability would not have occured without the initial aggression. That's untermensche's point.

A much more proximate cause is the Iranian intervention.

Our invasion simply set up a situation in which they could intervene.

Why do you blame the US for leaving the door open rather than Iran for coming in the open door?