201
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 19:
Line 19: + + + +
Debate:Should U.S. troops be subject to Iraqi law if that allows our continued presence there? (view source)
Revision as of 22:29, July 14, 2008
, 22:29, July 14, 2008Commented.
:: You are absolutely correct in your last statement concerning the differences between a military and a police force. But, I would follow with our current situation requires a police force that adheres to the law of the nation, as opposed to a military force--at least the size that we have in there currently. If we were to have a minor military force, then I could understand your reasoning. But the majority of the occupation time-wise has been engaged in police force activities for which they are NOT trained. That is yet one more reason for anti-american sentiment. Ergo, I would argue for a transition in forces and an abiding by Iraqi law. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:13, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
:: You are absolutely correct in your last statement concerning the differences between a military and a police force. But, I would follow with our current situation requires a police force that adheres to the law of the nation, as opposed to a military force--at least the size that we have in there currently. If we were to have a minor military force, then I could understand your reasoning. But the majority of the occupation time-wise has been engaged in police force activities for which they are NOT trained. That is yet one more reason for anti-american sentiment. Ergo, I would argue for a transition in forces and an abiding by Iraqi law. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:13, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
:::The sooner they get their own police force working well enough to stop their citizens slaughtering each other, the sooner we can withdraw our own troops. Until that point comes, marshal law rules. - NewCrusader
== No ==
== No ==
This is an unacceptable condition, and while the Iraq government has good reason to insist on it in order to maintain sovereign control of what happens within their nation, our military cannot operate on that basis. We are better off leaving if we can't agree on a waiver of immunity. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:29, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
This is an unacceptable condition, and while the Iraq government has good reason to insist on it in order to maintain sovereign control of what happens within their nation, our military cannot operate on that basis. We are better off leaving if we can't agree on a waiver of immunity. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:29, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
And let the Iraqis who dislike America harass our troops with frivilous legal actions and false accusations? No. Out troops went there for one reason: To kick a part of the anatomy of our enemies which I would be banned for naming. Let them do their jobs. They beat the sand out of Saddam's army, they are doing the same to the reminants of Al Quaida right now, and to be un-PCly honest I don't care how many Muslims they kill if they are defending America and it's allies. They are not our citizens, we have no duty to protect them. Our own safety and interests have to come first. -- [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]