Master Of Puppets

If you invaded my country, killed my kids with your bombs, occupied my land, I'd saw off your fucking head too.

Henry-Finland

Well, Finland was never a country before 1917. We did not have any thoughts about beeing an own country as long as some other nation protected us. Mostly Sweden protected us against Russia.

The national ideas begun to grow sometimes about 1860 an onwards, but really 1905 and onwards.

When the Swedes "found us" some 800 years ago, we were quite a wild bunch. Or in reality some 6 - 9 tribes.
When Russia got us from Sweden 1908, they gave us autonomy, which altered depending on who sat on the Russian throne.
At on point there was a severe Russification period, ut one guy Eugen Schaumann killed the bastard Bobrikov, that was the highest Russian hen in Finland. (Our first terrorist, this Schaumann, was a national hero!!! See how streched our moral is ).

1905 Lenin promised us independency, if he comes to power.

6th of December 1917 our parliament declared that Finland is independent.
The problem was that no nation wanted to recognise us as an independent country.
Everyone told us to ask Russia about it.

So the delegation went.
On New Years evening 1917, Stalin signed, because Lenin told him to do so, the paper that we are independent. A few days later all the other nations also recognised us as an independent state.



Well, as far as I know, USA never declared war against Iraq.
That would have meant that the congress had something to say about something. It was explained in some thread, but I do not remember the whole story.

Anyhow, therefore there is no peace made between parties either.

And Bush, when he spoke on that air-craft carrier, said something like: "Mission accomplished..." or something like that.
He could not say that the war was over, because there is not an official war at all.

I hope some of the guys that knows these things, could clare it out for me once more.


Now, I think there is another important thing:
In WWII the governments of different countries fled to England, so that Hitller had no-one to make, (or press to make), an official peace.

Now if and when, Bush attacks Iran or Syria, if he declares a war, and the legally elected 'democratic institutions' gets out of the country, it will be quite interesting in that aspect that Bush is at two unfinished "wars" from of one is not an official war.

I think, the right solution for the Iraqis would have been to give an ultimatum, like:
We will not fight before the election, but if the Coalition will not leave during _____ months after that, we do not guarantee anything.
And then pointed out according to which international laws they have the right to do what.

As the Colaition has and is acting now and earlier, I think the Iraqi has the right to fight.
On the other hand, they should clearly tell, why and what they want to achieve.

I am little pressed with time justt now, but I'll be back on these questions.


Henry

Henry-Finland

You are right brother! :notworthy

I see it like this, if I may use Your elganant words, Master:

If you invaded my country, I'd saw off your fucking head too.

If you killed my kids with your bombs, I'd saw off your fucking head too.

If you, occupied my land, I'd saw off your fucking head too.

So let's put it this way:
You are always welcomed to come and fish with me, into my country!
The other guys also, just leave the guns at home, You need them there, if someone is attacking You!

Have a good day! :wave:


Henry

Norseman

International law is like custom between street gangs. The only thing stopping one country from making nukes is the other countries, as they have to be able to carry out that law. Because of that, America could, and quite easily I might add, take over the whole fucking world and nuke anybody that doesn't like it. All it would take is someone pulling the reigns the right way and controlling the media so that no one's the wiser (or at least those few who are would be so small in number they'd be almost insignificant).

The Patriot Act took us one step closer to that possibility. Label any group that doesn't like the government terrorists anc you can capture as many "suspects" as you want and hold them for as long as you want.

As the Iraq war demonstrated, it's very possible to go to war without the consent of congress. It takes just one psychopath claiming he's a devout Christian (thereby gaining massive support) to pull this off.

I don't think Bush is quite that insane, but I think he's desensitizing us, a lot. Every war that the American public allows without its consent is another war that will leave people feeling of helpless, an inability to be heard. When coupled with the threat of terrorism, and your own personal safety, it doesn't take much convincing to let the government do whatever it wants to "protect you".

It's happened before, just never on a worldwide scale. All it would take is a working missile defense system to be installled in America, and victory could be had at no cost.

I don't want to be Mr. Worst Case Scenario, but this is a very real threat, and we all need to be aware of what's going on and whether or not we agree with it.

J-D

I don't think any of this changes the basic point I was making: so far as the legalities go, even if it is legal for Iraqis to shoot at US troops, it's probably going to be equally legal for the US troops to shoot back.

Henry-Finland

Of course.

Henry

Tsurmon

In the Crito, Socrates debates whether or not it is just to obey the law even when the law is wrong. He was senteneced to death for corrupting the minds of the youth--what? there might not be a God?!--and while in jail was given a chance to escape.

However, Socrates did not escape. He considered the form of the law. True, the charges were false and the jury had made the mistake of convicting him. However, although they had acted unjustly it did not make it right for him to. Had a person been tried on the same charges and been convicted, but actually been guilty, he would have no right to break from his prison. Simply put, two wrongs do not make a right.

However--bah, use however way too much in my writings...--the crucial matter is that Socrates should obey the law. If had been charged with being old and bald for example, this would be contrary to the Law. And since it didn't follow the form of a Law, it wouldn't be a bad law, but rather not a law at all and Socrates couldn't disobey it.

So, does the Law created by the Iraqi government follow the form? If not, they'd be perfectly justified in defying it. If so, eh...not so much.

Considering that the US forces are not their at the request of the Iraqi people and that the Iraqi people do not think they are there to serve their best interests, it's logical to assume that any law they create would be just.

So, to answer your question of whether it is illegal to resist the occupying army:

No.