THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

ican wrote :

Quote:

OK! America is the principal occupying force in Iraq and is therefore responsible for aiding the Iraqis in their own self-defense.

remember what i wrote about the situation in germany after WW II ?
is the U.S. LESS responsible for security in iraq than it was in germany after WW II ?
the allies didn't "aid" the german security forces (unarmed police) - they PROVIDED the security !


as the professor said : "one could argue that the U.S./coalition forces revert to being an army of occupation," in which case the Fourth Geneva Convention and the responsibilities that go with that would apply. "

has anything changed re. the responsibility of the occupier to PROVIDE security for civilians ?
hbg

cyclo :
i imagine looking back more than 60 years is clouding my view just a bit .
one thing i can say with certainty : germans did not have to fear for their security under the western occupation (things were different in soviet occupied germany) .
the american and british governments at that time - and their officials - seemed to understand a lot more about what to do in the occupied countries after the "military" war ended than today's governments .
to paraphrase : "it's the security , stupid !" .
hbg

Were there a lot of German suicide bombers? I don't recall reading much about them or their tactics of mass murdering the German civilians or destroying their own infrastructure.

Were there a lot of German suicide bombers? I don't recall reading much about them or their tactics of mass murdering the German civilians or destroying their own infrastructure.

ican wrote :

Quote:

OK! America is the principal occupying force in Iraq and is therefore responsible for aiding the Iraqis in their own self-defense.

remember what i wrote about the situation in germany after WW II ?
is the U.S. LESS responsible for security in iraq than it was in germany after WW II ?
the allies didn't "aid" the german security forces (unarmed police) - they PROVIDED the security !


as the professor said : "one could argue that the U.S./coalition forces revert to being an army of occupation," in which case the Fourth Geneva Convention and the responsibilities that go with that would apply. "

has anything changed re. the responsibility of the occupier to PROVIDE security for civilians ?
hbg

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Britain's prime minister announced plans Tuesday to withdraw more than 1,000 troops from Iraq by year's end, and Iraq said it will take over security from British forces in the southern Basra province within two months.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown was on an unannounced visit, which also was to include a session with U.S. Commander David Petraeus before the British leader flies to Basra to meet with his forces and military leaders in the oil-rich region in the deep south of Iraq.

U.S. and Iraqi authorities have aired concerns that a British drawdown could jeopardize the region's rich oil resources and the land supply routes from Kuwait to Baghdad.

But Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said his forces "are prepared to take over security of Basra within two months and we will."

I don't understand why you think the US responsibility for AIDING the Iraqis defend themselves until they are able to do that without US AID, is LESS responsibility for security in Iraq than was the US responsibility for security in Germany after WWII when the US provided security for Germans until the German government provided that security without US AID.

ican wrote :

Quote:

I don't understand why you think the US responsibility for AIDING the Iraqis defend themselves until they are able to do that without US AID, is LESS responsibility for security in Iraq than was the US responsibility for security in Germany after WWII when the US provided security for Germans until the German government provided that security without US AID.

let me restate - using slightly different language :

the day WW II ended and the allied ocupation of germany was completed , the allies provided security for the civilian population of germany until such security operations could be handled by various german authorities .

RESULT : NO CIVILIAN DEATHS !

the day the war in iraq ended and the ocupation of iraq was complete , the U.S. was UNABLE to provide for the security of the iraqi civilian population - and this situation has NOT changed .
security operations CANNOT be handled by iraq authorities .

RESULT : MANY CIVILIAN DEATHS - STILL CONTINUING TODAY !

is there anything i said unclear ?
hbg

Why you would make a comparison between a country completely ravaged by years of war with a country barely touched by weeks of war. Why you would compare a country with little religious strife with a country wrought with it.

(was there religious strife BEFORE the ocupation ? hbg)

Why you think a comparison with post WWII Germany would have any similarities with post GWII Iraq.

(i would think that if the allies were able to provide security for civilians on the large scale needed after WW II , it should not have presented any great difficulties to the U.S. to provide security for the much smaller population of iraq . hbg)
I think that is a little unclear.

ican wrote :

Quote:

I don't understand why you think the US responsibility for AIDING the Iraqis defend themselves until they are able to do that without US AID, is LESS responsibility for security in Iraq than was the US responsibility for security in Germany after WWII when the US provided security for Germans until the German government provided that security without US AID.

let me restate - using slightly different language :

the day WW II ended and the allied ocupation of germany was completed , the allies provided security for the civilian population of germany until such security operations could be handled by various german authorities .

RESULT : NO CIVILIAN DEATHS !

the day the war in iraq ended and the ocupation of iraq was complete , the U.S. was UNABLE to provide for the security of the iraqi civilian population - and this situation has NOT changed .
security operations CANNOT be handled by iraq authorities .

RESULT : MANY CIVILIAN DEATHS - STILL CONTINUING TODAY !

is there anything i said unclear ?
hbg

mcg wrote :

Quote:

Why you would make a comparison between a country completely ravaged by years of war with a country barely touched by weeks of war. Why you would compare a country with little religious strife with a country wrought with it.

(was there religious strife BEFORE the ocupation ? hbg)

Why you think a comparison with post WWII Germany would have any similarities with post GWII Iraq.

(i would think that if the allies were able to provide security for civilians on the large scale needed after WW II , it should not have presented any great difficulties to the U.S. to provide security for the much smaller population of iraq . hbg)
I think that is a little unclear.

it is my understanding that the geneva convention does NOT make a distinction between various occupied countries but simply states that "security for the civilian population is the responsibility of the occupying forces " .
to the best of my knowledge , there was never an attempt to provide an acceptable level of security for the civilian population .
do you think that is acceptable ?
should the geneva convention re. security for civilians NOT apply in the case of iraq ?
hbg

hamburger wrote:

mcg wrote :

Quote:

Why you would make a comparison between a country completely ravaged by years of war with a country barely touched by weeks of war. Why you would compare a country with little religious strife with a country wrought with it.

(was there religious strife BEFORE the ocupation ? hbg)

Why you think a comparison with post WWII Germany would have any similarities with post GWII Iraq.

(i would think that if the allies were able to provide security for civilians on the large scale needed after WW II , it should not have presented any great difficulties to the U.S. to provide security for the much smaller population of iraq . hbg)
I think that is a little unclear.

it is my understanding that the geneva convention does NOT make a distinction between various occupied countries but simply states that "security for the civilian population is the responsibility of the occupying forces " .
to the best of my knowledge , there was never an attempt to provide an acceptable level of security for the civilian population .
do you think that is acceptable ?
should the geneva convention re. security for civilians NOT apply in the case of iraq ?
hbg

Sure it should apply! Despite USA efforts to secure the population, the USA has thus far been unable to secure the population of Iraq from some members of Iraq's population and from some members of the populations of neighboring states.

What do you infer from that?