Iraq - Still, In Fact, Going On

craner

Beast of Burden
I have written a rather nuanced assessment (I think) of Rice and the Bush Administrations' culpability regarding the tragedy of post-war Iraq here, and I do think I make some pertinent points that are not often aired in this, my favorite, "chat" forum.
 
D

droid

Guest
You need to familiarise yourself with this:

The Crime of Aggression is a crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The definitions and the conditions for the exercise of jurisdiction over this crime was adopted by consensus at the 2010 Kampala Review Conference by the States Parties to the Court...

...Under the Statute, the definition of "crime of aggression" is stated as follows:
[edit]Article 8bis
1. For the purpose of this Statute, “crime of aggression” means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.

2. For the purpose of paragraph 1, “act of aggression” means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, qualify as an act of aggression:

(a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof;

(b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State;

(c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State;

(d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State;

(e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement;

(f) The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State;

(g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_aggression
 
D

droid

Guest
Desmond Tutu wrote that Tony Blair should be treading the path to The Hague, he de-normalised what Blair has done. Tutu broke the protocol of power – the implicit accord between those who flit from one grand meeting to another – and named his crime. I expect that Blair will never recover from it.

The offence is known by two names in international law: the crime of aggression and a crime against peace. It is defined by the Nuremberg principles as the "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression". This means a war fought for a purpose other than self-defence: in other words outwith articles 33 and 51 of the UN Charter.

That the invasion of Iraq falls into this category looks indisputable. Blair's cabinet ministers knew it, and told him so. His attorney general warned that there were just three ways in which it could be legally justified: "self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UN security council authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case." Blair tried and failed to obtain the third.

His foreign secretary, Jack Straw, told Blair that for the war to be legal, "i) there must be an armed attack upon a state or such an attack must be imminent; ii) the use of force must be necessary and other means to reverse/avert the attack must be unavailable; iii) the acts in self-defence must be proportionate and strictly confined to the object of stopping the attack." None of these conditions were met. The Cabinet Office told him: "A legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to law officers' advice, none currently exists."

Without legal justification, the attack on Iraq was an act of mass murder. It caused the deaths of between 100,000 and a million people, and ranks among the greatest crimes the world has ever seen. That Blair and his ministers still saunter among us, gathering money wherever they go, is a withering indictment of a one-sided system of international justice: a system whose hypocrisies Tutu has exposed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/03/tony-blair-the-hague-iraq-war
 

craner

Beast of Burden
Implications of current events, with the Peshmerga and other Kurdish militias and units the only forces left standing and defending their territory in front of ISIS (currently onto Tikrit in their lightning advance south towards the Shia cities).

1) The end of Iraq.
2) The end of al-Qaeda.
3) The decleration of Kurdistan

This could be quite a massive day, when we look back.

Basically, today the Kurds did three things:

1) They offered their fighters and hardware to defend the Iraqi state, and are still waiting for a reply from the Maliki regime.

2) They welcomed refugees from Mosul into Kurdish territory, where Mosul citizens instinctively fled, instead of other central government controlled areas, because they knew they would at least be physically protected there.

3) The set up massive cannons to protect the Kurdish borders against ISIS advance.

I would be happy to see these fuckers demolished by the Peshmerga, I can't lie. My heart was pounding for the Kurds today and will be tomorrow.
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
Friend of mine's been working out there a bit of late. A few weeks back she told me opinion was divided between those who thought Maliki was the new Saddam and those who thought Iraq was heading for civil war. Looks like this has now been settled :(

Craner, what's wrong with the Iraqi army? Channel 4 News hinting at a conspiracy last night, said the withdrawal might be down to ISIS-sympathetic elements within.
 

craner

Beast of Burden
I don't know, but I suspect two things: it's always been something of a sham ever since the early Coalition start-up, and then it became riven with sectarianism, mainly during the Maliki era. The Iraqis wanted America out, but then they always expected them to be there in some form too, indulging and underwriting their feuds and power-plays for the sake of stability. Well, that didn't happen. They appear to be fleeing, rather than withdrawing.

What is either interesting, ironic or an important factor, is that Mosul used to be the city that supplied the bulk of the officer class for Saddam's military.
 

craner

Beast of Burden
Now ISIS have Samarra.*

I'm not sure you can call what is about to happen a civil war: ISIS are a trans-national jihadi organisation who explicitly repudiate nationalism (which is one of the beefs they had with Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria last year, and which spurred al-Zawhiri's censure of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and therefore, in a roundabout way, the slow eclipse of al-Qaeda in the Jihadi universe).

Edit: * ...although not according to the Mayor!
 
Last edited:

droid

Well-known member
A new era of stability and democracy they said... Forging allies and alliances in an unstable region they said... Freeing a people from terror they said...
 

droid

Well-known member
iraq_isis_tikrit2.svg
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
Now ISIS have Samarra.*

I'm not sure you can call what is about to happen a civil war: ISIS are a trans-national jihadi organisation who explicitly repudiate nationalism

But is that ISIS army sweeping Iraq full of Sunni Iraqis who'll drop them (a la Sunni Awakening) once they've used them to put the shits up Maliki?
 

craner

Beast of Burden
The Kurds have basically secured their borders and are on the brink of declaring independence. Will probably only happen if the Maliki government falls, or he declares a state of emergency. The Kurdish areas in Syria are de facto autonomous now (and have routed ISIS once already), although the main Syrian Kurdish party is PKK off-shoot and feuds with the powerful Barzani/KDP clan, who effectively own Iraqi Kurdistan.
 

craner

Beast of Burden
But is that ISIS army sweeping Iraq full of Sunni Iraqis who'll drop them (a la Sunni Awakening) once they've used them to put the shits up Maliki?

It's possible. ISIS are being aided by other groups like the Ba'athist al-Naqshabandia. I don't think they have non-jihadi Sunni tribesmen in their rank and file. Ceding major cities to "put the wind up" Maliki seems like an insane strategy. But I really don't know, to be honest. I'm just watching, like you are.
 
Top