-
Re: JOE LIEBERMAN Tells it like it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
That is not what I have stated.
Really ?
it has no authority.. that is the point,
Not all that hard to understand now is it?
Quote:
Yep you have been mistaken - by confusing what I have stated for being something other then my opinion.
So is your opinion backed by fact ?If not then you opinion is worthless other than the fact that it is yours .
Much like yours - isn't? But I would wager I have a few more facts in this matter then yourself. First hand experience being one of them.
Quote:
I know you want me to respond in kind - but not today.
Ah poor Red where is your eye for comedy today ? Oh I forgot , you cannot see it when it is actually there you can only see it when it is absent .Would you like some imaginary tulips to go with your imaginary windmills ? perhaps a nice pair of imaginary clogs for good measure~D ~D ~D
Oh I see it - your rather amusing. Intermixing discussions from different threads - has led you astray.
Again name calling and bluster is the resort of a failed arguement.
Quote:
Not at all - the cease fire consisted of all countries that particapted in the collation.
And what has that got to do with the passage you quoted ? Nothing
It shows how the United Nations lacks authority, since it has no soverignty.
Quote:
Furthermore since the coilition was under the mandated authority of the UN then that is the body that has the authority , not individual members .
I didn't see a United Nations representive in the deserts of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or Iraq. THe General in charge was flying the United States Flag over his headquarters - not a UN flag.
Quote:
Though they can take action as soveriegn states they cannot take action under the mandated authority without that authorities sayso .
Reality paints a different picture - soveriegn states can do what they decide on - regardless if it has the consenus of the United Nations or not.
Quote:
So they cannot use the resolution as an excuse , and they cannot use the earlier ceasefire since they agreed to the later one which makes the earlier one redundant .
The cease fire agreement signed between nations is still valid - Resolution 687 did not void the ceasefire. At most it reinforced the ceasefire agreement.
-
Re: JOE LIEBERMAN Tells it like it is.
Ah , another returns , welcome good lady:bow:
Always game for a laugh ~D
So......
The simple facts are that the UN was in command of no troops,
True , but all the troops in the coilition were mandated under the authority of the UN to achieve objectives (by any means) specified by the UN , in a time frame set by the UN . So as I said before , it could have been Micronesian generals in command and Micronesian troops deployed , it doesn't matter , it is irrelevant . Are you tilting at windmills as well Xiahou ?
Even if the text of the cease-fire was the same as 687, word for word (it's not) it would still be an agreement between the warring parties
You are right, the text of the latter is far more comprehensive in setting the terms is it not , due to the fact that it is a full and final document making the earlier one redundant . Action could have been taken in relation to violations of the earlier agreement , and they were two days after it was signed , but once it is superceded by a more thorough agreement then it becomes redundant
And yes the earlier agreement was between the parties of the coilition involved in the mandated action UNDER U.N. AUTHORITY unless the parties involved were acting under the bi-lateral agreements , which they were not .
-
Re: JOE LIEBERMAN Tells it like it is.
I didn't see a United Nations representive in the deserts of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or Iraq. THe General in charge was flying the United States Flag over his headquarters - not a UN flag.
See earlier post Red~:rolleyes:
But I would wager I have a few more facts in this matter then yourself. First hand experience being one of them.
Yeah and I stood outside the Palace de Bourbon once so I know all there is to know about French politics:shrug:
Unless of course you mean that you were at the negotiating table drawing up the agreements and engaging in the diplomatic horse trading . Wow that would be some leap wouldn't it , Artillery officer becomes international military statesman , forget Donkey Oaty , how about Napoleon as a new name .~D ~D ~D
It shows how the United Nations lacks authority, since it has no soverignty.
Imaginary windmills again Red , who has said the UN is soveriegn ?
soveriegn states can do what they decide on - regardless if it has the consenus of the United Nations or not.
Ah yes a fundamental flaw in the UN , especially concerning the veto to afforded permanant members of the SC , and the relevance is ????
Besides which if the UN achieves consensus then the soveriegn state has to face the verdict of the UN , be that sanctions , inspection or any means neccesary .
The cease fire agreement signed between nations is still valid - Resolution 687 did not void the ceasefire. At most it reinforced the ceasefire agreement.
No it isn't , If I wrote a contract to buy all the oranges you could produce at $100 /ton , then wrote another contract stipulating that all of the oranges must be of a merchandisable quality , shall be delivered free to my warehouse , your production and delivery must not exceed 100,000 tons and all deliveries must be completed by the 10th month in a 12 month period then the earlier cntract is completely void Red , just as the earleir Iraqi agreement is .
It doesn't just reinforce the earlier agreement it completely redefines it and makes it null and void unless the articles and clauses in the first contract are identical to the second one , which they are not .
-
Re: JOE LIEBERMAN Tells it like it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Even if the text of the cease-fire was the same as 687, word for word (it's not) it would still be an agreement between the warring parties
You are right, the text of the latter is far more comprehensive in setting the terms is it not , due to the fact that it is a full and final document making the earlier one redundant . Action could have been taken in relation to violations of the earlier agreement , and they were two days after it was signed , but once it is superceded by a more thorough agreement then it becomes redundant
What agreement? Is Iraq on the security council? Did they sign 687 as an addendum to the cease-fire? I think not. It was a statement of intent- nothing more.
-
Re: JOE LIEBERMAN Tells it like it is.
Dodedodedo de dooooooo
Its on Page 1 of the resolution Xiahou .
Windmills again is it ?
Edit to add , and note Article 1 on page 4 and article 33 on page 9
So would you like some imaginary tulips as well
-
Re: JOE LIEBERMAN Tells it like it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
I didn't see a United Nations representive in the deserts of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or Iraq. THe General in charge was flying the United States Flag over his headquarters - not a UN flag.
See earlier post Red~:rolleyes:
Roll your eyes all you want - it does not change the fact that the mission was commanded under the Flag of the United States not the United Nations
Quote:
But I would wager I have a few more facts in this matter then yourself. First hand experience being one of them.
Yeah and I stood outside the Palace de Bourbon once so I know all there is to know about French politics:shrug:
Unless of course you mean that you were at the negotiating table drawing up the agreements and engaging in the diplomatic horse trading . Wow that would be some leap wouldn't it , Artillery officer becomes international military statesman , forget Donkey Oaty , how about Napoleon as a new name .~D ~D ~D
Never said I drew up the document - but I have seen a copy and noticed who signed it and with what signature block. It didn't say United Nations.
Quote:
It shows how the United Nations lacks authority, since it has no soverignty.
Imaginary windmills again Red , who has said the UN is soveriegn ?
Authority requires the ability to enforce its decisions - only soveriegn nations as a form of government currently have the ability to enforce the government's decision. The United Nations does not have any ability to insure its decisions are honored - no accountablity, no responsiblity, means you can not have authority.
Quote:
soveriegn states can do what they decide on - regardless if it has the consenus of the United Nations or not.
Ah yes a fundamental flaw in the UN , especially concerning the veto to afforded permanant members of the SC , and the relevance is ????
The point is the same as above - no ability to enforce its decisions, no means of ensuring accountablity, and no means of ensuring responsiblity means the agency has no authority.
Quote:
Besides which if the UN achieves consensus then the soveriegn state has to face the verdict of the UN , be that sanctions , inspection or any means neccesary .
And who is going to insure that this happens - not the United Nations has it has been shown over and over again.
Quote:
The cease fire agreement signed between nations is still valid - Resolution 687 did not void the ceasefire. At most it reinforced the ceasefire agreement.
No it isn't , If I wrote a contract to buy all the oranges you could produce at $100 /ton , then wrote another contract stipulating that all of the oranges must be of a merchandisable quality , shall be delivered free to my warehouse , your production and delivery must not exceed 100,000 tons and all deliveries must be completed by the 10th month in a 12 month period then the earlier cntract is completely void Red , just as the earleir Iraqi agreement is .
Again it does not make the negoatated cease fire void - its not a supply contract for a material goods - its a treaty between nations.
Quote:
It doesn't just reinforce the earlier agreement it completely redefines it and makes it null and void unless the articles and clauses in the first contract are identical to the second one , which they are not .
Actually the Resolution 687 is based completely upon the negoated cease fire - the treaty is still valid.
-
Re: JOE LIEBERMAN Tells it like it is.
Roll your eyes all you want - it does not change the fact that the mission was commanded under the Flag of the United States not the United Nations
~:rolleyes: ~:rolleyes: ~:rolleyes: There you go Red does that help ? Command and composition do not matter , they are irrelevant . Every soldier and every commander could have been Somalian for all that it matters . The issue is authority , the coilition was mandated under the authority of the UN , simple as that .
Authority requires the ability to enforce its decisions
Was Iraq ejected from Kuwait ?
only soveriegn nations as a form of government currently have the ability to enforce the government's decision.
Errr.... Is the UN a government ? No , then what are you on about ?
The United Nations does not have any ability to insure its decisions are honored - no accountablity, no responsiblity, means you can not have authority.
It does if enough of the member states agree and none of the 5 veto it , as it was in this case , so yes it does have authority when it has authority .
And who is going to insure that this happens - not the United Nations has it has been shown over and over again.
Thats really funny considering we are talking about an event where it did work
Actually the Resolution 687 is based completely upon the negoated cease fire - the treaty is still valid.
Check the wording Red , the initial ceasefire was not formalised , that means it is invalid once a formalised document is produced , which was 687 . Which is why references since then refer to 687 not to the Safwon document . Or would you like to try and trawl through all the multitude of speeches and articles by your government , or any other for that matter , and try to find any which cite the previous document instead of the later one ?
As I offered to Gawain , would you like dozens of examples where an initial ceasefire has been replaced by a full formal ceasefire ?
-
Re: JOE LIEBERMAN Tells it like it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Never said I drew up the document - but I have seen a copy and noticed who signed it and with what signature block. It didn't say United Nations.
Zing! And that as they say, is that. ~D
The really amusing thing is that even if I were to cede Tribesman's misguided view of 687 it would still be immaterial since Iraq was later found in breach of it anyhow. So even if you subscribe to his "UN model" (I dont), it really doesnt make a lick of difference- even if 687 was a legitimate cease-fire agreement. ~;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Command and composition do not matter , they are irrelevant . Every soldier and every commander could have been Somalian for all that it matters . The issue is authority , the coilition was mandated under the authority of the UN , simple as that .
Yeah, actually it does matter. If Somali troops and commanders had organized and fought the war it would've been a Somali operation. Had the Somali forces kept fighting beyond the UN goals, the UN couldve done nothing to stop them- it can give it's blessing or condemnation, but that's all it is.
-
Re: JOE LIEBERMAN Tells it like it is.
Zing! And that as they say, is that
Oh zingadedingdingzing !!!! Red has seen a copy of a redundant document .~:eek:
thats amazing .~:confused:
-
Re: JOE LIEBERMAN Tells it like it is.
Why am I still even debating this with you anyhow? You've never proven anything- instead you make cute comments or take cheapshots (forum rules anyone?). There's no point in continuing this- it'd be easier(and more productive) to explain algebra to my dog. I'm done- troll someone else.
-
Re: JOE LIEBERMAN Tells it like it is.
Why am I still even debating this with you anyhow? You've never proven anything- instead you make cute comments or take cheapshots (forum rules anyone?). There's no point in continuing this- it'd be easier(and more productive) to explain algebra to my dog. I'm done- troll someone else.
Ahhhhh poor Xiahou , in case you didn't notice , I don't have to prove anything , all the proof you need is in the wording of the resolutions and the speeches by your own leaders .
Oh but that proof doesn't agree with your stance does it , is that why you have had enough~:handball:
-
Re: JOE LIEBERMAN Tells it like it is.
[QUOTE=Tribesman]Roll your eyes all you want - it does not change the fact that the mission was commanded under the Flag of the United States not the United Nations
~:rolleyes: ~:rolleyes: ~:rolleyes: There you go Red does that help ? Command and composition do not matter , they are irrelevant . Every soldier and every commander could have been Somalian for all that it matters . The issue is authority , the coilition was mandated under the authority of the UN , simple as that .
You might want to go tell that to the North Korean's - they do not negotate their cease fire nor the attempts for a Peace Treaty with the United Nations - now do they. Presedence has been set. The United Nations mandate does not prevent individual nations from doing what serves their interests.
Quote:
Authority requires the ability to enforce its decisions
Was Iraq ejected from Kuwait ?
By a collation of nations - not by the United Nations.
Quote:
only soveriegn nations as a form of government currently have the ability to enforce the government's decision.
Errr.... Is the UN a government ? No , then what are you on about ?
So does the United Nations have authority - you have answered your own question.
Quote:
The United Nations does not have any ability to insure its decisions are honored - no accountablity, no responsiblity, means you can not have authority.
It does if enough of the member states agree and none of the 5 veto it , as it was in this case , so yes it does have authority when it has authority .
Again does the United Nations have the ability to enforce its decisions?
Quote:
And who is going to insure that this happens - not the United Nations has it has been shown over and over again.
Thats really funny considering we are talking about an event where it did work
Really now - were the Resolutions passed by the United Nations concerning Iraq enforced - specifically all of the articles of Resolution 687?
Quote:
Actually the Resolution 687 is based completely upon the negoated cease fire - the treaty is still valid.
Check the wording Red , the initial ceasefire was not formalised , that means it is invalid once a formalised document is produced , which was 687 . Which is why references since then refer to 687 not to the Safwon document . Or would you like to try and trawl through all the multitude of speeches and articles by your government , or any other for that matter , and try to find any which cite the previous document instead of the later one ?
Again Resolution 687 was based upon the negotated and signed cease fire treaty signed at Safwon - the point is valid, the treaty is valid. You can disagree with me all you want - it doesn't change the fact that the conditions of the cease fire treaty were not fulfilled.
Quote:
As I offered to Gawain , would you like dozens of examples where an initial ceasefire has been replaced by a full formal ceasefire ?
Try - use North Korea as an examble.
-
Re: JOE LIEBERMAN Tells it like it is.
Again Resolution 687 was based upon the negotated and signed cease fire treaty signed at Safwon - the point is valid, the treaty is valid.
Which treaty , the original one or the one that replaced it ?
Errrrr.... that would be the latter wouldn't it .
it doesn't change the fact that the conditions of the cease fire treaty were not fulfilled.
And the price of cheese is ? oh you are trying to change direction ..OK which conditions of which treaty , the redundant one or the new one ?
By a collation of nations - not by the United Nations.
Try and write this Red , you can type as slow as you want to make sure you don't miss anything out .....
By a coilition of nations acting under UN mandate.....
do you think you can manage that ~;)
So does the United Nations have authority
you have answered your own question.
Windmills Red you are defining authority as only belonging to nations then saying that the UN isn't a nation so it doesn't have the authority of a nation . Imaginary windmills Donkey , mount up and :charge: ~D ~D ~D
You might want to go tell that to the North Korean's
Oh yeah and the UN cannot impose its conditions eh , so do tell , how many decades of negotiations , how many violations of the terms and conditions , and what do you have , a highly militarised very expensive stalemate .
Try - use North Korea as an examble.
Well I was thinking of starting with WWI then moving on , that would be more interesting due to the number of different ceasefires and peace treaties and the various governments and countries that came and went with that conflict
-
Re: JOE LIEBERMAN Tells it like it is.
You might want to go tell that to the North Korean's - they do not negotate their cease fire nor the attempts for a Peace Treaty with the United Nations - now do they. Presedence has been set.
Oh dear Redleg , you really have made a booboo havn't you , would you like to talk about authority and prescedence ?
I wonder what this document is and I wonder what words it uses ~D ~D ~D
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/k...agr072753.html
-
Re: JOE LIEBERMAN Tells it like it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Again Resolution 687 was based upon the negotated and signed cease fire treaty signed at Safwon - the point is valid, the treaty is valid.
Which treaty , the original one or the one that replaced it ?
Errrrr.... that would be the latter wouldn't it .
The cease fire in March 1990 was a ceasefire treaty - Resolution 687 is a UN resolution based upon that ceasefire treaty. Resolution 687 is not a ceasefire treaty - it is something esle.
Quote:
it doesn't change the fact that the conditions of the cease fire treaty were not fulfilled.
And the price of cheese is ? oh you are trying to change direction ..OK which conditions of which treaty , the redundant one or the new one ?
The orginial conditions were never meet.
Quote:
By a collation of nations - not by the United Nations.
Try and write this Red , you can type as slow as you want to make sure you don't miss anything out .....
By a coilition of nations acting under UN mandate.....
do you think you can manage that ~;)
Bluster is all that is - again it distracts from your point - not mine.
Quote:
So does the United Nations have authority
you have answered your own question.
Windmills Red you are defining authority as only belonging to nations then saying that the UN isn't a nation so it doesn't have the authority of a nation . Imaginary windmills Donkey , mount up and :charge: ~D ~D ~D
Not at all - to have authority the agency must have the ability to enforce its decisions. Again namecalling and bluster does not equate to a discussion.
Quote:
You might want to go tell that to the North Korean's
Oh yeah and the UN cannot impose its conditions eh , so do tell , how many decades of negotiations , how many violations of the terms and conditions , and what do you have , a highly militarised very expensive stalemate .
Again North Korea goes to show that the United Nations has no authority and no ability to enforce what it attempts to mandate.
Quote:
Try - use North Korea as an examble.
Well I was thinking of starting with WWI then moving on , that would be more interesting due to the number of different ceasefires and peace treaties and the various governments and countries that came and went with that conflict
North Korea is one that is primarily equilivant to the discussion about Iraq. Both were United Nations sanctioned actions - both ended in the same type of ceasefire treaty.
-
Re: JOE LIEBERMAN Tells it like it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
You might want to go tell that to the North Korean's - they do not negotate their cease fire nor the attempts for a Peace Treaty with the United Nations - now do they. Presedence has been set.
Oh dear Redleg , you really have made a booboo havn't you , would you like to talk about authority and prescedence ?
I wonder what this document is and I wonder what words it uses ~D ~D ~D
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/k...agr072753.html
No error at all - I wouldn't of mentioned it if I didn't know part of the answer already.
You have answered part of it - but you have not answered the intitial question completely.
Now look at what conditions are today. Who does North Korea and China negotate for a peace treaty with - what agency is strangly absent from said negotations?
Quote:
Originally Posted by article
At the insistence of Pyongyang, the U.S. Department of State is currently negotiating an exclusive peace treaty between the United States and North Korea that would replace the existing armistice. Although peace on the Peninsula is long overdue, this is the wrong way to close the book on one of the epoch-defining events of the 20th century. A peace treaty solely between the United States and North Korea would cloud the legacy of those 37,895 soldiers who fought and died together under the U.N. flag. Although a bilateral treaty may be politically expedient, history should not be ignored for purposes of convenience.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Asi...ific/EM748.cfm
-
Re: JOE LIEBERMAN Tells it like it is.
This is ridiculous. Did the UN call for a coalition to go in and liberate Kuwait? Did the UN sign up these nations? After the war started could the UN tell the coalition to stop and would they have had to listen? The answer to these questions is no. The UN merely sanctioned the war. It has no power to declare war and no army to fight it with. Tribseman this is the worst ive ever seen you look on these boards. Your position is hopeless.
UN or no UN the same results would have happened. They merely said it was ok by them.
-
Re: JOE LIEBERMAN Tells it like it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
This is ridiculous. Did the UN call for a coalition to go in and liberate Kuwait? Did the UN sign up these nations? After the war started could the UN tell the coalition to stop and would they have had to listen? The answer to these questions is no. The UN merely sanctioned the war. It has no power to declare war and no army to fight it with. Tribseman this is the worst ive ever seen you look on these boards. Your position is hopeless.
UN or no UN the same results would have happened. They merely said it was ok by them.
A United Nations consensus is similiar to asking your over 18 years of age girlfriend's parents permission to marry their daughter - nice to have but not necessary.
-
Re: JOE LIEBERMAN Tells it like it is.
How is the document signed Red , you have gone on and on that the US signs as the US and only as the US , as it is only the US that has authority as it is a country and the UN doesn't have any authority .
What is the title given to the US General Red ? under whose authority does he appear ?
And strangely you also post an article from a conservative think tank which states the legacy of those 37,895 soldiers who fought and died together under the U.N. flag.
I thought you claimed that no one served under a UN flag , as the UN doesn't have the authority .
And note this ..... Although a bilateral treaty may be politically expedient, history should not be ignored for purposes of convenience.
Now then , a bi-lateral treaty , is this bi-lateral treaty from before or after the ceasefire ? ....After unless they are using a very strange calendar .
So America negotiates now not under the auspices of the UN ceasefire but under the bi-lateral mutual defense pact , the pact in this case is outside of the remit of the UN treaty , but the bi-lateral treaty does not supercede the earlier ceasefire and America (as are other members) is still bound by the UN document .
In the case of the Safwon agreement , that was under the auspices of the UN and was replaced by a later document under those auspices .
As the US is not acting under a seperate bi-lateral treaty in the Iraq case , neither can it act under the UN treaty . It is acting as a soveriegn nation in its own right , which means it is in violation of the Hague conventions .
It attempts to claim that it is acting under the terms of the UN treaty , but it isn't , and it attempts to claim that a redundant document gives it the right , which it doesn't as it is redundant .
So ... a violation of the Hague conventions ....would that be a war crime then?~;)
Bluster is all that is - again it distracts from your point - not mine.
~:confused: ~:confused: ~:confused:
Since my whole point has been that the treaty was under the auspices of the UN and the coilition were under the mandated authority of the UN then what are you on about Red ?
-
Re: JOE LIEBERMAN Tells it like it is.
Quote:
America (as are other members) is still bound by the UN document .
No one is bound to anything by the UN. Its a treaty. Treaties are made to be broken. Its not against the law. Once more in reality the UN has no authority of its own. The US is indeed a soveriegn nation and the UN has no authority over it. To tell the truth its become a joke. Time to rid ourselves of this corrupt organization and get a real UN made up of the free nations of the world.
-
Re: JOE LIEBERMAN Tells it like it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
How is the document signed Red , you have gone on and on that the US signs as the US and only as the US , as it is only the US that has authority as it is a country and the UN doesn't have any authority .
What is the title given to the US General Red ? under whose authority does he appear ?
And strangely you also post an article from a conservative think tank which states the legacy of those 37,895 soldiers who fought and died together under the U.N. flag.
I thought you claimed that no one served under a UN flag , as the UN doesn't have the authority .
Correct the United Nations has no authority - North Korea recongizes that and is pursueing peace only with the United States.
Quote:
And note this ..... Although a bilateral treaty may be politically expedient, history should not be ignored for purposes of convenience.
Now then , a bi-lateral treaty , is this bi-lateral treaty from before or after the ceasefire ? ....After unless they are using a very strange calendar .
So America negotiates now not under the auspices of the UN ceasefire but under the bi-lateral mutual defense pact , the pact in this case is outside of the remit of the UN treaty , but the bi-lateral treaty does not supercede the earlier ceasefire and America (as are other members) is still bound by the UN document .
Getting close - however you have missed the presedence. The United Nations does not prevent nations have acting on their own interests. If the United Nations had authority - no nation could negotated seperate settelements after particpating in a United Nations task.
Quote:
In the case of the Safwon agreement , that was under the auspices of the UN and was replaced by a later document under those auspices .
As the US is not acting under a seperate bi-lateral treaty in the Iraq case , neither can it act under the UN treaty . It is acting as a soveriegn nation in its own right , which means it is in violation of the Hague conventions .
Nope you are incorrect - as a signature nation of the cease fire the United States has the right under the Hague Conventions to return to hostilities. The United Nations charter nor the United Resolutions supercede a nations soverignity.
Quote:
It attempts to claim that it is acting under the terms of the UN treaty , but it isn't , and it attempts to claim that a redundant document gives it the right , which it doesn't as it is redundant .
The cease fire is not a redundant document - you might want to check what redundand means. The redundant document is the United Nations Resolution 687.
Quote:
So ... a violation of the Hague conventions ....would that be a war crime then?~;)
You have to prove that the United States violated the Hague Conventions in regards of initiating offense actions against Iraq for its violation of the Cease Fire.
Quote:
Bluster is all that is - again it distracts from your point - not mine.
~:confused: ~:confused: ~:confused:
Since my whole point has been that the treaty was under the auspices of the UN and the coilition were under the mandated authority of the UN then what are you on about Red ?
Figure it out Tribesman, your a smart guy. How many times have you used bluster and name calling in this thread alone.
The whole point is that the United Nations does not supercede the national authority of any nation. Once a nation committs to warfare even under the mandate of the United Nations - the United Nations does not prevent that nation from returning to warfare if the opposing side does not meet the conditions of the cease fire that all warring parties agreed to.
North Korea and the United States having seperate peace talks outside of the United Nations is proof to that point.
-
Re: JOE LIEBERMAN Tells it like it is.
North Korea recongizes that and is pursueing peace only with the United States.
Incorrect The UN terms and condition still stand , there are other negotiations taking place under the auspices of a later pact to which the UN is not a party but that is irrelevant as that is a bi-lateral treaty not a UN one .
You are trying to imply that they are one and the same , which they are not , so it is a smokescreen to hide the basic faults in your position .
however you have missed the presedence
What prescdence Red , you have used an event to try to back up your claims . The documentary evidence shows that your claims are entirely false on several counts .
as a signature nation of the cease fire the United States has the right under the Hague Conventions to return to hostilities. The United Nations charter nor the United Resolutions supercede a nations soverignity.
No since its signature was isued under the auspices of the UN mandate , if you accept the authority of that mandate , as they did , and work within the terms and conditions set by that mandate , then you are bound by your agreement to it . So is there a seperate bi-lateral treaty in this case under whose terms it can work ....NO .
The United Nations charter nor the United Resolutions supercede a nations soverignity.
Windmills again Red , has anyone made that claim ?
Once a nation committs to warfare even under the mandate of the United Nations - the United Nations does not prevent that nation from returning to warfare if the opposing side does not meet the conditions of the cease fire that all warring parties agreed to.
But it cannot use the treaty as the US has tried to do , it tried and it failed , since it cannot cite that treaty then it is in violation of the Hague conventions .
North Korea and the United States having seperate peace talks outside of the United Nations is proof to that point
No Red that is proof that seperate treaties outside of the remit of the UN can be acted upon . In the case we are talking about there is no seperate treaty outside of that remit that covers the situation is there .
Its a treaty. Treaties are made to be broken. Its not against the law.
OMG what stunning wisdom Gawain , well done...~:pat: more medication for the patient please nurse he is babbling nonsense again :nurse: .....:fainting: thats better , perhaps he will return when he is more coherent .
-
Re: JOE LIEBERMAN Tells it like it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
North Korea recongizes that and is pursueing peace only with the United States.
Incorrect The UN terms and condition still stand , there are other negotiations taking place under the auspices of a later pact to which the UN is not a party but that is irrelevant as that is a bi-lateral treaty not a UN one .
Not at all - its a peace treaty negotation dealing from the actual conflict - its all part of the same package.
Quote:
You are trying to imply that they are one and the same , which they are not , so it is a smokescreen to hide the basic faults in your position .
Not implying they are one and the same - I have demonstrated that a confict where the defense and subsequent cease fire agreed upon by all parties of the conflict under the banner of the United Nations has broken down to seperate peace negotations by four of the major parties in the conflict - even more so by two of the primariy parities of that conflict. If a nation can do this for peace negatotions - it can also do it for war.
Quote:
however you have missed the presedence
What prescdence Red , you have used an event to try to back up your claims . The documentary evidence shows that your claims are entirely false on several counts.
Not at all - Is a seperate peace treaty being pursued by North Korea with the United States? Is not then you can same my statements are entirely false - but since North Korea is attempting to negotate a seperate peace on its own, when the statements are not false.
Quote:
as a signature nation of the cease fire the United States has the right under the Hague Conventions to return to hostilities. The United Nations charter nor the United Resolutions supercede a nations soverignity.
No since its signature was isued under the auspices of the UN mandate , if you accept the authority of that mandate , as they did , and work within the terms and conditions set by that mandate , then you are bound by your agreement to it . So is there a seperate bi-lateral treaty in this case under whose terms it can work ....NO .
Again history shows that parties do indeed do things outside of the UN mandate, and its perfectably acceptable.
However here your arguement shows the fundmental failure of the United Nations to enforce its own resolutions. Again without the ability to enforce the decision - there is no authority. To have authority the agency in question must also have accountablity and responsibility.
Quote:
The United Nations charter nor the United Resolutions supercede a nations soverignity.
Windmills again Red , has anyone made that claim ?
Again with the bluster.
Not at all - the United States is a signature member of the United Nations, it was also a signature party in the initial conflict with Iraq. THe United Nations does not supercede the ability of the United States to decide which treaties it will enforce and which ones it will not.
Quote:
Once a nation committs to warfare even under the mandate of the United Nations - the United Nations does not prevent that nation from returning to warfare if the opposing side does not meet the conditions of the cease fire that all warring parties agreed to.
But it cannot use the treaty as the US has tried to do , it tried and it failed , since it cannot cite that treaty then it is in violation of the Hague conventions .
Not at all - the United States agreed to the initial terms of the cease fire and even the resolutions - Iraq broke the conditions of the cease fire. Under the Hague Conventions any of the warring parties can re-initiate hostilities if the cease fire conditions are broken. The Hague Conventions does not apply to the United Nations or its Resolutions since it is not a Nation State that has the ability to wage war.
Quote:
North Korea and the United States having seperate peace talks outside of the United Nations is proof to that point
No Red that is proof that seperate treaties outside of the remit of the UN can be acted upon . In the case we are talking about there is no seperate treaty outside of that remit that covers the situation is there .
And there you go - the cease fire signed in Sufwon is a seperate treaty and therefor the United States is allowed to act on its own accord without the United Nations consenus if it so desires.
-
Re: JOE LIEBERMAN Tells it like it is.
in a related thing,
look how mad the Dem's are at Lieberman:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051210/...lieberman_dems
-
Re: JOE LIEBERMAN Tells it like it is.
Quote:
Its a treaty. Treaties are made to be broken. Its not against the law.
OMG what stunning wisdom Gawain , well done... more medication for the patient please nurse he is babbling nonsense again ..... thats better , perhaps he will return when he is more coherent
More bluster and insults to mask your silly notions. Most rteaties winfd up either broken or recended sooner or later. The UN is a treaty bewtween nations and congress dictates what rules we follow and what treatie we will honor not the UN. No one on these boards has agreed with you. You are the one chasing windmills here.
-
Re: JOE LIEBERMAN Tells it like it is.
Not at all - its a peace treaty negotation dealing from the actual conflict - its all part of the same package.
Don't be silly Red , it is negotiations by parties to a bi-lateral agreement that only came into existance months after the ceasefire and its conditions had been set out and agreed upon .
If you think it is the same or cancel things out then why not ask your generals to move 50,000 troops to S.Korea tonight under your bi-lateral pact .
have demonstrated that a confict where the defense and subsequent cease fire agreed upon by all parties of the conflict under the banner of the United Nations has broken down to seperate peace negotations by four of the major parties in the conflict
No you have demonstrated that a seperate negotiation can be implemented under a seperate obligation .
And there you go - the cease fire signed in Sufwon is a seperate treaty and therefor the United States is allowed to act on its own accord without the United Nations consenus if it so desires.
No it isn't .
28/2 coilition declares a ceasefire as its mandated obligations have been achieved
2/3 UN passes 686 setting preliminary ceasefire conditions
3/3 Iraq agrees to preliminary ceasefire conditions .
1/4 UN passes 687 setting formal ceasefire conditions....Iraq accepts formal ceasefire conditions .
So where is this seperate treaty ? it doesn't exist .
Oh I forgot didn't I , when a US commander in a mandated operation signs anything he only signs it as a US officer doesn't he:san_wink:
Compare to
6/53UN and N.K/china agree to truce and ceasefire conditions/negotiations
The conditions still stand but the negotiations go nowhere
11/53 US and S.Korea sign bi lateral pact and start seperate negotiations
As with the UN negotiations they go nowhere
-
Re: JOE LIEBERMAN Tells it like it is.
Ah ..he has returned , are you feeling any better yet ?
You are the one chasing windmills here.
Yes Gawain ,:san_rolleyes: it is a discussion that has for a little while been focusing on treaties .
Since you have a strange notion that there is no such thing and if there was it is only there to be broken and breaking treaties is not unlawful then do you actually have anything to say ?
Because by your "reasoning" the Iraqis never did anything wrong did they , as treaties are meant to be broken aren't they , thats what they are there for , it is the law treaties must be broken .:san_shocked:
BTW any luck with finding any info on the Israel/Iraq peace treaty yet:san_grin:
-
Re: JOE LIEBERMAN Tells it like it is.
in a related thing,
Interesting Taffy , but then again they are not very good a putting forward a united front on anything much are they , I suppose that is one of the beauties of democracy , the differences of opinion .
If everyone was singing from exactly the same policy sheet , then either it would have to be an absolutely infallible policy , or they would all have to be brain dead morons .
-
Re: JOE LIEBERMAN Tells it like it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Not at all - its a peace treaty negotation dealing from the actual conflict - its all part of the same package.
Don't be silly Red , it is negotiations by parties to a bi-lateral agreement that only came into existance months after the ceasefire and its conditions had been set out and agreed upon .
If you think it is the same or cancel things out then why not ask your generals to move 50,000 troops to S.Korea tonight under your bi-lateral pact .
We used to all the time - Team Spirit and UFL are two exercises that used to happen in Korea every year until 1995.
Again it goes to show that nations can act against or with each other even with something from the United Nations being in place. The negotations between the United States and North Korea stem from the Korean War - which was done under the United Nations banner - however neither nation uses the United Nations to negotate with each other now do they.
Quote:
have demonstrated that a confict where the defense and subsequent cease fire agreed upon by all parties of the conflict under the banner of the United Nations has broken down to seperate peace negotations by four of the major parties in the conflict
No you have demonstrated that a seperate negotiation can be implemented under a seperate obligation .
You are almost correct - I have demonstrated that a seperated negotiation can be implemented and accomplished in spite of an the United Nations. Niether nation uses the United Nations for its negotations for peace - when like the document stated it was a United Nations armistice. Technically the United Nations is still at war with North Korea along with all the other warring parties of that conflict.
Quote:
And there you go - the cease fire signed in Sufwon is a seperate treaty and therefor the United States is allowed to act on its own accord without the United Nations consenus if it so desires.
No it isn't .
28/2 coilition declares a ceasefire as its mandated obligations have been achieved
2/3 UN passes 686 setting preliminary ceasefire conditions
3/3 Iraq agrees to preliminary ceasefire conditions .
1/4 UN passes 687 setting formal ceasefire conditions....Iraq accepts formal ceasefire conditions .
So where is this seperate treaty ? it doesn't exist .
Oh I forgot didn't I , when a US commander in a mandated operation signs anything he only signs it as a US officer doesn't he:san_wink:
Yes an United States Representives sign for the United States even if he is also doing it as part of the United Nations Mission. Just like the Representives at the United Nations commit their nations to the resolutions that the United Nations as a body never enforce. The United Nations is not a governing body - it has no authority other then what is granted to it by the nations involved. Iraq failed to honor its committments of the Cease Fire and the subsequent resolution, the United States has the ability to act upon that failure of Iraq's any way the United States so choses - not just the way the United Nations wanted it to be settled.
Quote:
The U.S.-led coalition began a massive air war to destroy Iraq's forces and military and civil infrastructure. Iraq called for terrorist attacks against the coalition and launched Scud missiles at Israel (in an unsuccessful attempt to widen the war and break up the coalition) and at Saudi Arabia. The main coalition forces invaded Kuwait and S Iraq on Feb. 24 and, over the next four days, encircled and defeated the Iraqis and liberated Kuwait. When U.S. President George H. W. Bush declared a cease-fire on Feb. 28, most of the Iraqi forces in Kuwait had either surrendered or fled.
Again the United Nations does not supercede the ability for any nation to act in regards to a treaty that that nation has agreed upon.
Quote:
Compare to
6/53UN and N.K/china agree to truce and ceasefire conditions/negotiations
The conditions still stand but the negotiations go nowhere
11/53 US and S.Korea sign bi lateral pact and start seperate negotiations
As with the UN negotiations they go nowhere
Oh your getting the picture. The United Nations has no authority. It can only provide an international consensus of action.
Shall we add Bosina to the discussion concerning the failures of the United Nations to act on its charter.
Another examble how the United States forced the United Nations to do its job when it failed, and here we did the right thing in spite of the United Nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by selected text
Aided by Serbian guerrillas in Croatia, Milosevic's forces invaded in July 1991 to 'protect' the Serbian minority.
The response of the international community was limited. The U.S. under President George Bush chose not to get involved militarily, but instead recognized the independence of both Slovenia and Croatia. An arms embargo was imposed for all of the former Yugoslavia by the United Nations. However, the Serbs under Milosevic were already the best armed force and thus maintained a big military advantage.
By the end of 1991, a U.S.-sponsored cease-fire agreement was brokered between the Serbs and Croats fighting in Croatia.
The actions of the Serbs were labeled as 'ethnic cleansing,' a name which quickly took hold among the international media.
Despite media reports of the secret camps, the mass killings, as well as the destruction of Muslim mosques and historic architecture in Bosnia, the world community remained mostly indifferent. The U.N. responded by imposing economic sanctions on Serbia and also deployed its troops to protect the distribution of food and medicine to dispossessed Muslims. But the U.N. strictly prohibited its troops from interfering militarily against the Serbs. Thus they remained steadfastly neutral no matter how bad the situation became.
Throughout 1993, confident that the U.N., United States and the European Community would not take militarily action, Serbs in Bosnia freely committed genocide against Muslims.
On February 6, 1994, the world's attention turned completely to Bosnia as a marketplace in Sarajevo was struck by a Serb mortar shell killing 68 persons and wounding nearly 200. Sights and sounds of the bloody carnage were broadcast globally by the international news media and soon resulted in calls for military intervention against the Serbs.
The U.S. under its new President, Bill Clinton, who had promised during his election campaign in 1992 to stop the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, now issued an ultimatum through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) demanding that the Serbs withdraw their artillery from Sarajevo. The Serbs quickly complied and a NATO-imposed cease-fire in Sarajevo was declared.
On August 30, 1995, effective military intervention finally began as the U.S. led a massive NATO bombing campaign in response to the killings at Srebrenica, targeting Serbian artillery positions throughout Bosnia. The bombardment continued into October. Serb forces also lost ground to Bosnian Muslims who had received arms shipments from the Islamic world. As a result, half of Bosnia was eventually retaken by Muslim-Croat troops.
Faced with the heavy NATO bombardment and a string of ground losses to the Muslim-Croat alliance, Serb leader Milosevic was now ready to talk peace. On November 1, 1995, leaders of the warring factions including Milosevic and Tudjman traveled to the U.S. for peace talks at Wright-Patterson Air Force base in Ohio.
http://www.historyplace.com/worldhis...ide/bosnia.htm
All of this in spite of the failure of the United Nations.
We can add Kosovo to the discussion also - if you chose - both Bosnia and Kosovo show the failures of the United Nations to enforce its own resolutions.
-
Re: JOE LIEBERMAN Tells it like it is.
We used to all the time - Team Spirit and UFL are two exercises that used to happen in Korea every year until 1995.
Look at the words I used Red , those words are chosen for a purpose .
If you think it is the same or cancel things out then why not ask your generals to move 50,000 troops to S.Korea tonight under your bi-lateral pact .
Now can you identify the clause to which I refer , and why your generals cannot move 50,000 troops to Korea tonight:san_wink:
Technically the United Nations is still at war with North Korea along with all the other warring parties of that conflict.
Hold up Red , didn't someone claim that the UN couldn't be at war , technically or otherwise ?
And wouldn't those 14 members of the coilition only be at war under the auspices of the UN mandate , same as Iraq . Unless of course N.Korea attacked and the US could then act under its bi-lateral treaty obligations .
Niether nation uses the United Nations for its negotations for peace
Correct since they are operating under the auspices of another sperate agreement , where is the seperate agreement in Iraq that is not under the auspice of the UN mandate ? There isn't one is there .
Shall we add Bosina to the discussion concerning the failures of the United Nations to act on its charter.
Are you trying to get further from the issue Red ? Is that because some basic props of your arguement are crumbling away ? Would that be a thing called misdirection:san_wink:
the United States has the ability to act upon that failure of Iraq's any way the United States so choses - not just the way the United Nations wanted it to be settled.
No since it agreed to the authority of the UN in this matter and was acting under the authority of the UN , that the UN is a failure is irrelevant .
If it does not wish to confer the authority on the UN then that is its soveriegn right , but that means that it cannot use the ceasefire that was established under UN authority as a reason .
It tried to , but it failed for many reasons .
It agreed to the soveriegnty of Iraq , and its regime (????) Therefore its violation of that soveriegnty and its aims of changing the regime through military force are a violation of the Hague conventions . It cannot claim legitimacy through the ceasefire agreement as that would mean that it would have to be a mandated action by the body under whose authority the ceasefire exists , that legitimacy was not given was it .
Interesting that you bolded this part of the passage you posted
When U.S. President George H. W. Bush declared a cease-fire on Feb. 28
And what is the relevance of that ? what documentation between parties was signed in that address ? what conditions were legally stipuated in his speech ?.....none .
The preliminary agreement was put forward as I stated in the earlier post , and agreed to on the dates I stated . But hey you were there , you should know:san_wink:
