We are still the occupiers. It is still part of our empire. And we are not there as UN peacekeepers. Our legions are there for the glory of the Empire and to protect our oil, and no other reasons.
Well, I guess that just pretty lines up your worldview, now doesn't it... You don't recognize the Iraqi government as elected. And it doesn't matter with you that all the ELECTED Iraqi government has to do is ask us to leave we'll comply... Nope we're "occupiers".
Of course, it doesn't matter that Al Qai'da foreign forces in Iraq have not pledged to leave at the government's (local or national) "invitation". In your eyes, they have a right to be there (dare I suggest you believe they even have an obligation to be there, to overthrow our "empire"?)
Everywhere we have US troops, we're occupiers. Germany, Japan, Korea, Afghanistan, Greece, Greenland, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands, UK, Spain, Kyrgyzstan, Bahrain, Belgium, Qatar, Turkey.. it doesn't matter that we have SOF agreements with those countries, we're occupying them.
No use discussing international law with you... You've created YOUR OWN INTERNATIONAL LAW...
asil.org
After June 30th, however, Coalition troops will no longer be forces of occupation. Yet, exactly what Coalition forces will be the day after the transfer of sovereignty is very much a mystery.
Not only do Coalition troops lose their status as occupying forces, they may lose their authorization to be in the country as part of a U.N. multinational force. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1511 authorized the creation of a multinational force to bring stability to Iraq. [2] However, operative paragraph 15 provides that the mandate of that force expires upon the completion of a political process that restores sovereignty to Iraqis, although it expresses readiness to consider on that occasion any future need for the continuation of the multinational force, taking into account the views of an internationally recognized, representative government of Iraq. Part of the political process outlined in Resolution 1511 included the drafting of a permanent Constitution and the holding of national elections ultimately leading to a transfer of sovereignty. Although Iraq after the handover will still have to write a permanent Constitution and hold elections, the provisions of Resolution 1511 seem to suggest a transfer of sovereignty is sufficient for the multinational's force's authorization to expire. Thus, until the transitional government gives explicit authorization for those troops to be on its soil, or unless the Security Council authorizes the continuation of the multinational force, Coalition forces would be on the territory of a sovereign state without legal justification.
As I've previously noted, UNSC 1511 has been ended by the UNSC each year, thus maintaining the UN mandate for MNF-I to remain in Iraq with the permission of the SOVEREIGN government of Iraq. The most recent mandate expires in December, 2007.
And btw, it doesn't matter whether that government is democratic, or dictatorial. THE UN RECOGNIZES ITS SOVEREIGNTY, even if you don't.
But that's alright WR.. you go ahead and write your international law.. You go ahead and believe you have the right to supercede the authority of the UNSC.
Hawk |
