Printable View
Notice how the United States General had his name written on the document.
So they don't enforce the ceasefire in Korea as it is up to the UN to enforce it ?
Yet they decide to enforce it in Iraq even though it is up to the UN to enforce it ?
So that calls into question the whole legality of the invasion , which you repeatedly state is because of ceasefire violations , the coilition partners do not have that authority , the authortiy lies with the Security council .
Care to explain why the United States still has troops in Korea and is still in charge of the United Nations Combined Command.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Maybe its because the United Nations decided they no longer wanted to enforce the treaty?Quote:
Yet they decide to enforce it in Iraq even though it is up to the UN to enforce it ?
the United Nations does not surpass the soveriegnity of the nation. The initial cease fire was not a treaty by the United Nations to Iraq - but at the direction of President Bush in a confernce at the Safwon Airfield held by the United States and negotated by the United States to Iraq.Quote:
So that calls into question the whole legality of the invasion , which you repeatedly state is because of ceasefire violations , the coilition partners do not have that authority , the authortiy lies with the Security council .
The United Nations confirmed the treaty 6 days latter with a resolution.
I should know - I pulled security detail at the airfield and watched them all come in. Did not see one United Nations flag or officer representing the United Nations. I saw generals for the United States, Britian, France, Saudia Arabia, and a few other countries - but no one was flying the United Nations flag - nor did I wear a United Nations flag on my uniform.
So the Safwan conference dealt with the ranges of ballistic missiles , nuclear and chemical developments and disclosure did it ?~;)
Maybe its because the United Nations decided they no longer wanted to enforce the treaty?
Excuse me Redleg , but the United States was in violation of its obligations under the treaty and had been for years .
Care to explain why the United States still has troops in Korea
Care to explain why it is not enforcing the terms of the ceasefire ?
I should know
Why ? Because you stood outside ?
It dealt with the returning of the citizens of Kuwait that were removed by Iraq. It dealt with the return or accounting of all soldiers of taken by Iraq. It dealt with the reprations to Kuwait for the destruction by Iraq - and a host of other things. The violation of any of those conditions by the Hague Treaty of 1907 allows the United States to re-start hostilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
LOL - which treaty. The United States had no obligations under the cease fire treaty with Iraq - only Iraq had obligations. As for Korea - all parties have made several violations of the cease fire. And if either side wanted they would be justified under international law to restart the conflict. You might actually want to read Resolution 687 also. Here I will help you out there also.Quote:
Maybe its because the United Nations decided they no longer wanted to enforce the treaty?
Excuse me Redleg , but the United States was in violation of its obligations under the treaty and had been for years .
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm
Oh but they are - have you ever read the cease fire treaty? Be very careful in saying that the terms are not being enforced - if you don't know what the treaty actually states. A samble.Quote:
Care to explain why the United States still has troops in Korea
Care to explain why it is not enforcing the terms of the ceasefire ?
This actually has been done several times since the armistice has been signed - however it not completely settled yet either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Korean Armistice
Or how about this one
Its definetly there - been there and seen the DMZ once or twice myself. Can you say the same.Quote:
1. A military demarcation line shall be fixed and both sides shall withdraw two (2) kilometers from this line so as to establish a demilitarized zone between the opposing forces. A demilitarized zone shall be established as a buffer zone to prevent the occurrence of incidents which might lead to a resumption of hostilities.
Which is probably more then you did.Quote:
I should know
Why ? Because you stood outside ?
Again the Safwon ceasefire argeement was not the United Nations agreement - it was directed by President Bush to the Military Commanders and negotated with Iraq. The United Nations had absolutely no control on that one. Unless of course your wanting to stated that the United Nations is subordinate to the United States.
Here's what I'm talking about:
http://proliberty.com/observer/20030706.htm
If that is what they truly believe is the number, then I will bow my head. But to me it really isn't that hard to hit groups of civilians with bombs. That seems to be the preferred tactic now. Why? Because apparently the others were not effective enough, or perhaps downright bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Appleton
Also what are the requirements to be considered an insurgent? Is it enough not to tell where they are? Or do you have to be directly part of it? If it is the first then most countries during the German occupation in WWII could top that, if it is the second then I wonder how it is that most countries (the same again) had figures running far far lower (most had but a few thousand active members, yes even in France).
40000 dedicated fighters could 'easily' ambush even American convoys. Yes I know that they can't all be in the same spot, but a few hundred can hide almost anywhere. And don't tell me that a semi-effective attack on an American convoy wouldn't be seen in the media as a daring attack or something like that. Like Tet it would be seen as an insurgent victory. So the gains are rather high even if most of the men involved get either killed or captured. A coup of PR to say the least.
For that very reason we should see failed attacks of fairly large scale once each month or so. It would be worth the attempts.
But it doesn't happen. Either that is because they don't have the numbers to keep up the effort, or because they know that they can't hide effectively (civilians ratting out on them).
Good or good really. Well, bad for the civilians as they are now the targets.
Perhaps I'm looking at it the wrong way, and in fact the insurgents have seen a switch of the watch. One grouping trying to fight the Americans directly, taking their attention and getting more or less wiped out, and another grouping that has slowly emerged because less attention was paid towards them, and they are now waging a war on the rest of Iraq rather than the Americans themselves.
Yep some of the statements are damaging on their face after the fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
Kraxis, I am not puzzled by the reluctance of the insurgents to attack US military convoys. They are hard targets and unlike the VC, the insurgents are not part of a very centralised system of command, so one attack would lead to a wipeout of the groups involved in the attack. Of course, there is a steady stream of US (and to a lesser extent UK) casualties, so they are targeting them but it seems that is mainly by low risk attacks such as roadside bombs. By contrast, hitting recruits to the Iraqi security forces seems a horribly effective strategy for destabilising Iraq, as does trying to incite sectarian conflict. It's textbook asymmetric conflict.
The analogy with the Tet offensive may be telling, as the (South) Vietnam conflict was fuelled by military support from outside (North Vietnam, ultimately USSR and China). My understanding is that offensive did great damage to the homegrown southern VC and afterward, fighters from the north had to take over much of the fighting. I don't see the equivalent of a North Vietnam, a USSR or a China in Iraq. Syria seems most often indicted, but I am sure it gives only a tiny fraction of what was given to the VC. Iran meddles, but is against the most active (Sunni) insurgents. I really doubt the individual Jihadis from Saudi Arabia etc could operate without local support from Iraqis. The insurgency is homegrown and is trying to build up its strength, while weakening that of the Iraqi government. Unfortunately, it seems to be doing rather well.
Well, my take is that the Sunni population for the most part is looking the other way, but aren't active. They might not exactly like what the insurgents do but at the same time they do not like what is going on the the government. And then they have that superiority complex, and can't stand that they are now equal to all others. So looking the other way seems a prfect way of supporiting yet not supporting the insugents.
Again I will refer to the European resistance movements. They were small and few, simply because most people chose to not se anything.
I lived close to one of the leaders of the Danish movement and I got a chance to talk with him when I was younger, before the old man died. Nice fellow...
He kept saying that the population in general was positive but didn't do anything actively, not even sheltering them. He also made certain that I remember that the population's part in the resistance was looking the other way.
I think we are seeing much the same here.
Again the Safwon ceasefire argeement was not the United Nations agreement - it was directed by President Bush to the Military Commanders and negotated with Iraq. The United Nations had absolutely no control on that one.
Ah yes silly me , I remember it now , how could I have forgotten .
Bush mentioned it regularly , as did Powell and Rummy , Cheney was always dropping that line into his speeches Tony Blair was a great one for mentioning it , all the governments , all the military , all the NGOs and international bodies and all the media were talking about the Safwan ceasefire , it was really a hot topic . You know , enforcing it , stopping non-compliance of it , abiding by its conditions , full dislosure under its obligations....not a mention of the UN resolution at all in the slightest .
Oh dear , is that the wrong way round Red .~:confused:
So once again , Rubbish ~:cheers:
Back to Korea
Care to state which parts of the cease fire are being violated on a continuing basis.
5,6,7,8,9,12,13(abcdef),14,15,16,17,18 ....want to carry on?
50 years of failed diplomacy , they have WMDs and have threatened to turn America into a sea of fire , where is this oh so important pre-emptive invasion then .
Again its not rubbish since the United Nations does not supercede the sovernity of any nation. No wonder why your so confused.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Oh you make it so easy - your wanting to compare the two situations like they are the one and the same. The two conflicts are not the same - But don't let that confuse you or distract from your arguement.Quote:
Back to Korea
Care to state which parts of the cease fire are being violated on a continuing basis.
5,6,7,8,9,12,13(abcdef),14,15,16,17,18 ....want to carry on?
50 years of failed diplomacy , they have WMDs and have threatened to turn America into a sea of fire , where is this oh so important pre-emptive invasion then .
For one, WMD is not mentioned in the cease fire agreement with North Korea - nor was North Korea told in the armistice that it could not arm itself. Those issues are seperate negotations between the three nations involved in signing the armistice and South Korea which did not sign the armistice. Then one must look at South Korea - a nation that did not sign the armistice - and could attack North Korea anytime it so desires. Hince the some of the conditions speficied in the armistice only are revelant between North Korean, China, and the United States. While violations by the North Koreans into South Korea violate the armistice, the failure of the South Korean government to sign the armistice has to be taken into consideration. There is an ongoing peace settlement conference in which the 6 nation talks are part of, which is the negotation that matters between the two Koreas at this time.
Then one must look at who the cease fire was signed with also - Invading North Korea gives China the same ability as the United States. You pretend to understand international treaties but statements like the above lead me to conclude something else.
Sure the United States could use the violations of the Armistice to justify an invasion of North Korea if that is what is required. But why should we - the United States periodically buys off the NOrth Korea
Are you attempting to say that the Han River is not open to civil shipping? Since that would run counter to all current reports coming out of Korea that I have access to. Has the Han River periodically been shut down to shipping - now that would indeed be a true statement. But who shuts the Han River down - its not the United States and its often not the North Koreans.Quote:
5. The waters of the Han River Estuary shall be open to civil shipping of both sides wherever one bank is controlled by one side and the other bank is controlled by the other side. The Military Armistice Commission shall prescribe rules for the shipping in that part of the Han River Estuary indicated on the attached map. Civil shipping of each side shall have unrestricted access to the land under the military control of that side.
Are you attempting to say that the Han River is not open to civil shipping?
When was the last gunfight in the estuary ? 6 years ago or is there another more recent , two vessels were sunk in that incident , so no it is not open .
It is not open as it is disputed , or more precisely islands in the estuary and their surrounding waters are disputed .
Again its not rubbish since the United Nations does not supercede the sovernity of any nation.
The United States and all the other members of the coilition were operating under UN authority , if they are under something then that takes precedence, hence all the referrals to the UN resolutions by your government , not to the conference .
Place your bets for a succesful Iraq .
Show your confidence and make a fortune~;)
http://www.betoniraq.com/
Disputed does not negate the ability for civil shipping to use the water ways. Do they use it at risk sometimes - sure it is, but again do you care to explain why shipping is still going on throught the Han River Tributary system. I have been on the Han River back in 1994-1995 and watched civil shipping go up and down the river. Your mixing your apples and oranges together.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
The Safwon conference and the initial cease fire agreement that was signed at that location is what all the subsequent UN resolutions are based upon, that ceasefire agreement ordered not by the United Nations but President Bush Sr. President Bush also refered to about 10 other points of violations that are all based upon that cease fire agreement. Again claims of violation of international law seem to want to negate that and the Hague Treaty of 1907.Quote:
Again its not rubbish since the United Nations does not supercede the sovernity of any nation.
The United States and all the other members of the coilition were operating under UN authority , if they are under something then that takes precedence, hence all the referrals to the UN resolutions by your government , not to the conference .
Again the United Nations does not supercede a nations sovereignty . No matter how much you wish it to - it does not.
But all this is a distraction from the progress in Iraq - the legality of the issue will not be settled in a discussion between you and I.
Posts: 7,008
Okay, Redleg...
How is that humanly possible? LOL, nice contribution!~:cheers:
The Safwon conference and the initial cease fire agreement that was signed at that location is what all the subsequent UN resolutions are based upon,
So the resolutions supercede the conference , America amongst others passed the resolutions which replaced the original , which means the original is null and void .
Disputed does not negate the ability for civil shipping to use the water ways.
It does when they are fired upon and sunk .
Civil shipping of each side shall have unrestricted access to the land under the military control of that side.
Shooting , sinking and blockading does not=unresricted access does it:dizzy2:
Actually it could or could not depending on the legality of the initial cease fire agreement and the subsequent resolutions by the United Nations. When the resolutions follow the exact measures from the orginal agreement - it does not make the initial agreement null and void - it adds on to the conditions by another body. Again your argueing that the United Nations supercedes the sovereignty of the nations that signed the charter. Show me where in the charter of the United Nations supercedes the sovereignty of my nation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
And neither is it what you initially attempted to state either. So periodically shooting over disputed border does not necessarily equate to a violation of the armistice when you add one additional fact which again has been mentioned but ignored by you. Plus one that I haven't mentioned but I will let you figure it out. THe clue is that the dispute is not over the banks of the River but something else.Quote:
Disputed does not negate the ability for civil shipping to use the water ways.
It does when they are fired upon and sunk .
Civil shipping of each side shall have unrestricted access to the land under the military control of that side.
Shooting , sinking and blockading does not=unresricted access does it:dizzy2:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon
The Han River is navigatable in many places near the coast - all it takes is a boat with a propeller to go up the river - or many strong backs with oars to row the boat up. Not all that hard if you think about it.
Civilians traveled up and down the river during my tour in Korea.
Ehmm am I missing your point here Redleg, or didn't you get that he asked for your ability to post so many posts?~:confused:
Must of not gotten his jest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
~:cool: