Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (27837)	4/18/2008 12:41:53 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

Re: "...we aren't an occupying power in Iraq." You still have failed to make ANY CASE AT ALL for why you contend that we are 'not an occupying power in Iraq'.... What we are dealing with is the formal (legally recognized under international law) definition of the term 'occupier'. (Not politically correct feel-good word-play.) Responsibilities apply under international law (that the US helped to write, and formally ratified, bringing it into force in our nation....) The US has accepted that legal labeling with regard to our status in Iraq (& the obligations connected to it). We have not disputed it. And... as I was trying to make clear, a foreign power can only NOT be formally regarded as an 'occupier' when and if they have formal, legal permission and approval from the locals. And, (bit of a Catch 22 here), the locals are only SOVEREIGN... or they are NOT. (If sovereign, then they can give legally give permission for basing of foreign troops. If not sovereign, then they have no legal authority to do that.) So, if government of Iraq is 'sovereign' then they can give internationally recognized approvals. (But... if 'sovereign', then they have the requirement of following their own laws. Just as we do of following our laws. :-)