Do those who send people off to war

[JW Frogen]

We didn’t kill off Iraqis the insurgents did, indeed intentionally targeted Iraqi civilians as a strategy to incite civil war. Many of these were former Baithist who mass killed under Saddam and continued thus when he was removed.

The was no future under Saddam.

The only way decades of mass killing could end in Iraq is with his removal and self determination, Iraqis would not settle for your slower rate of killing and calling it peace.

Vietnam was unnecessary in that the North could have accepted the independence of the South, she would not, indeed she would not even accept the neutrality of Laos and Cambodia, so destabilized the entire region killing millions.

Now it could be argued that it was not in US strategic interest to help these people from being assaulted by a fanatical and murderous Communist tyranny, that the US could have drawn the line at Thailand and played the Chinese off the Vietnamese, but certainly the moral argument is on the side of US intervention. The Northern Communists immediately upon driving out the French and taking control of the North purged political opposition, placed tens of thousands in concentration camps, drove perhaps a million dissenters out of the country, excited prominent dissents and created a classic communist tyranny. One that lasted for decades and then brutalized their neighbors in Laos and Cambodia.

The South, though not perfect at least slowly evolved into a weak democracy, if South Korea be our guide they would have become a prosperous thriving democracy had the US won, instead the North violated the Paris Peace accords, invaded the South after the US left, established the same oppressive government they had in the north, purged political opposition and sent them to concentration camps and dove another million people into the open sea and destroying the economy for over a decade with their failed collectivist policies.

The victory of the North Vietnamese was a tragedy for Vietnam.

[Rainbow Moonlight]

If one country invades and occupies another one, "frogen" what legal responsibilities does the invading country bear to the civilian population of the invaded country?

[TomB]

If one country invades and occupies another one, "frogen" what legal responsibilities does the invading country bear to the civilian population of the invaded country?

Those responsibilities are defined by international law, not Frogen's opinion. But regardless, those laws will be ignored if it's expedient to do so.

[JW Frogen]

If one country invades and occupies another one, "frogen" what legal responsibilities does the invading country bear to the civilian population of the invaded country?

First and foremost for a UN recognized occupation (this one was and is) is the need to remain in occupation until there is relative stability unless the government of that country asks it to leave. They have not.

So all the calls from the peace-at-any-price crowd on this forum for the US to just leave before the insurgents (who were violating EVERY aspect of international law) are defeated or the democratic government of Iraq can control them is a violation of international law.

[Jovial Monk]

Umm I think they have firmly asked "Yankee go home."

[JW Frogen]

Umm I think they have firmly asked "Yankee go home."

No, the elected government has signed a SOFA with extended time lines to stay even allowing for a residual force after that time line if the security situation requires it, some like the Kurds have asked for a permenent US presence.

[Jovial Monk]

Bush wanted a much bigger US presence there, but was told "Yankee go home."

[Roger Mellie]

(this war having one of the lowest death rates for a war of this duration ever)

Yes body armour and fast evacuations to forward hospitals have certainly helped. Though this war also has the highest severe injury rate of any war as a consequence of those advances. The vets hospitals and the bills will be going for another 50 years.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

[Rainbow Moonlight]

I know that "Tom." Thanks. So does "Frogen" I suspect.

Interesting stats. Hadn't seen them. Thanks.

[JW Frogen]

(this war having one of the lowest death rates for a war of this duration ever)

Yes body armour and fast evacuations to forward hospitals have certainly helped. Though this war also has the highest severe injury rate of any war as a consequence of those advances. The vets hospitals and the bills will be going for another 50 years.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

One would think you were good conduct medal 20-year corporal Scorpy you are such a crybaby. Waaaaaaa people have been wounded in this war, all is lost, waaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Even the wonded not mortal causualty numbers for this war are lower than WW2, Korea and Vietnam, only Vietnam lasting longer than this war. This is hardly the toughest ask the US has been required to endure; the US dealt with greater numbers of wounded returning home in all three wars rendering the chanting of defeat throughout this war as cowardly and self-indulgent.

WW2 671,846
Korea 103,284
Vietnam 153,303
Iraqi war according to your table 31,102

http://www.history.navy.mil/library/onl ... sualty.htm