1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

President Bush and Thomas Jefferson

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by freedom's cause, Feb 19, 2007.

  1. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Thanks I'll try and look it up. International law, you know like...The Hague regulation 55.

    SOURCE
     
    #41 poncho, Feb 28, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 28, 2007
  2. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay, that's more specific and, yes, I do know some about this and related "law of war". You're referring, in this case, specificallyto the "Hague IV" convention dealing with land warfare.

    Article 55 was designed to prevent plundering the man-made and natural resources of a defeated nation by the occupying state.

    We're not in "violation" of any aspect of this or any of the subsequent protocols and amendments. There's nothing about our actions that conflict with this convention.

    If anything, America has consistently put more back into states "occupied" than any other nations. We're not into plundering.

    Now, Iraq under Saddam was a different story. They were in to plundering.
     
  3. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    SOURCE

    Bremmer's 100 orders effectively let the slave sell the masters house and belongings to his friends in violation of art 55 and the Iraqi constitution.

    "We" may not do things like this Dragoon but you and I aren't talking about people that think like us. We're talking about people that think in terms of global domination through the use of arms and military intimidation. You and I have talked enough now so that I can pretty much say that you and they don't think alike at all. You actually love your country and are willing to defend it to the death they love the power and business opportunties the country and it's military can give them and are willing to use it even to the death of the republic and our liberty that you and thousands of other vets fought hard and even died to defend to further their agenda. These people, the neocons and globalists do not represent America Dragoon they represent transnational business and banking. Period.
     
    #43 poncho, Mar 1, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 1, 2007
  4. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Take note that article 55 and it's whole parent section III of Hague IV addresses how an occupying military force is to deal with an occupied state. It was designed to prevent plundering.

    The Coalition Provisional Authority was set up as an interim government under authority of UN Resolution 1483. It was not an occupying military force but, rather, an interim government in force until such time as a properly constituted government could be set up by the people of Iraq. It was designed to do what was necessary to get Iraq back on its own. The CPA was given "... all executive, legislative and judicial authority necessary to achieve its objectives ..." by authority of the UN resolution.

    The occupying military force was then directed to "... support the CPA by deterring hostilities; maintaining Iraq’s territorial integrity and security ..." but it was not set up as a stand alone military government.

    The whole of what CPA accomplished through Paul Bremmer, its Administrator, seems completely legal, moral, and ethical. All things considered, it was a remarkable accomplishment.
     
    #44 Dragoon68, Mar 1, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 1, 2007
  5. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Where's the link to your source?
     
  6. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
  7. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
  8. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    I found some information on the Iraq hydrocarbon law Dragoon. I'm reading up on it now. The U.S Embassy Iraq website paints a flowery picture of it. So far it looks as if the multinationals will take control from the state (public owned) and put it in private hands then give back percentages of revenue to the Iraqi people. In other words they are privatizing Iraq's oil industry like they have done with most everything else there. Why am I not surpised?

    The whole of what was accomplished was to take what was once state owned (bought and paid for by the Iraq people) and turning the control of it all over to private multinational business interests. It's known as privatization. That's the same as Indiana and Texas turning over the control of their toll roads that the people of those states paid for with hard work and tax money to private foreign (in these cases Australian and Spanish) companies. Also known as "public private partnerships" or legalised theft depending on how one looks at it.
     
    #48 poncho, Mar 3, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 3, 2007
Loading...