Tbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 24
Reply 3, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1299 times:
A lot of the fire from the protests came from banned Iraqi militia as shown in the article, so the troops were right to return fire. But of course, there will be no criticism at all for the deaths of the civilians, as in the outrage we see whenever something like this happens in Israel. A real double standard, but I guess its something to get used to.
Petertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3502 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1222 times:
The Union has not got a singular foreign policy. Foreign policy is still handled at state level. Some of the larger nations may want to change it, but at the moment that change has still not been made and it looks very unlikely it will be made anytime soon.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21599 posts, RR: 53
Reply 15, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1193 times:
RONEN: the point that I was trying to make (for racko)is that a non action is just as strong as an action.
Huh? What do you mean by that?
RONEN: while there are European union members soldiers in Iraq (and rightfully so ) the occupation of Iraq is the European foreign policy and this will remain the case until-
A. The U.K and Spain is out of the union.
B. The last British and Spanish soldier leaves Iraq.
This is a completely different kind of problem.
British and spanish troops are part of an invasion army (insofar similar to the israeli case) against the wishes of the population.
The primary point about the legality (or, failing that, about the justifiability) is if the invasion was either covered by international law (it wasn´t - no direct threat, no authorization by the UNSC) or was at least immediately necessary on moral grounds (difficult to see when all the other cruel regimes still remain safe and un-invaded).
There is no binding european military policy at this time, so neither Spain nor Britain will have to fear official repercussions within the union - if there will be consequences, they´ll be delivered through
a) the electorate (as observed in Spain) and/or
b) the international institutions charged with upholding the rule of international law (the UN and the ICC, for instance).
That both the USA and Israel are happily violating international law without remorse up to now may not be a viable strategy for the long run...
Using the excuse of "Iraq having violated UNSC resolutions" for the invasion has further strengthened the case for the rule of international law, even if the exact opposite had been intended. Irony of ironies...
Krushny From Spain, joined Dec 2000, 776 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 1158 times:
19 throwing stones protesters
Ronen, Ronen, using an Spanish expression, you are trying to bring the water to your mill...
According to the Army version, in the demonstration there were members of a radical Shiite militia who were armed (with guns and grenade throwers, not stones), opened fire and were responded appropiately due to engagement rules. Apart from that, these "demonstrators" were confronted not only by the Spanish troops, there was significant US presence with Apache helis and armored vehicles. Two soldiers were killed, one USA and one Salvadorean. So you should ask explanations about this incident not only to Spain.
why is there a European occupation force in Iraq?? double standards
There is no "European" occupation force in Iraq per se, it is a coalition which includes forces from several European as well as Asian and American countries. The EU has no voice here, some countries support the occupation and some do not. And before talking of double standards, take this into consideration :
- the coalition forces do not intend to remain in Iraq forever.
- the coalition forces are not protecting Western settlers.
- the coalition does not intend to annex Iraqi territories .
The other is that Spain since the 3/11 bombings and the subsequent election is viewed as a target that is soft, and will moved if pressed long enough.
I suspect that these protests are being orgainized by a 3rd party (Al-quiche???) to apply pressure on Spain to pull it's troops from the vital peacekeeping mission they are performing.
L-188, AlQaeda organising a prostest by Shiites ??? Wrong suspicion. There are enough loose scorpions in Iraq to blame all trouble to one party...