Printable View
Find all the clauses you like. You can even use the Santa Clause if you like as he has about the same amount of authority over our troops as the UN does. The only things stopping us are the will to do it in the first place and I dont think we have the transport capicity.Quote:
Now can you identify the clause to which I refer , and why your generals cannot move 50,000 troops to Korea tonight
Go ahead and show it, if it exists. The armistice allows certain things - which again have been changed because of agreements worked out between the United States and North Korea. All these agreements are still based upon the initial Armistice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
I did misspeak in the above quote - only one nation is fighting a declared war against North Korea. The rest are aiding South Korea in its war against North Korea. However that doesn't distract from my mine point - just a historical blunder.Quote:
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 ?
Not at all - one of those nations is just south of the DMZ.Quote:
And wouldn't those 14 members of the coilition only be at war under the auspices of the UN mandate , same as Iraq .
The bi-lateral treaty stems from the armistice - another examble that shows that nations can do what they decide to do - even with the United Nations having a part in the orginial committment.Quote:
Unless of course N.Korea attacked and the US could then act under its bi-lateral treaty obligations .
Your forgetting one thing - the United States never declared war on Korea, therefore everything done on the Korea Pensulia is part of the initial UN Security Council resolutionQuote:
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 .
The United States is not at war with North Korea - technically its just North and South Korea at war. So again why does the North Korea only go to the United States to negotate a peace treaty? A bi-lateral treaty is not the reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Not at all - look at the resolution that the United Nations passed concerning Bosina - and what actually ended up happening. The United States acted upon its national interests in spite of an alreadly in place peacekeeping resolution in Bosina that failed.Quote:
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 ceasefire was ordered by whom? It wasn't the United Nations. The Ceasefire was agreed upon in 2 March between what nations - and it was not the United Nations?Quote:
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 .
But even if I was to cede that Resolution 687 supercedes the Ceasefire argreement signed in Sufwon - which I don't believe it does - your forgetting one major thing about the Hague Conventions and the right of nations to return to hostilities.
If a nation is in an armed conflict as part of an alliance and agrees upon the ceasefire conditions - and the ceasefire is broken by the opposing side - any nation within the alliance has the ability to resume hositilies wether the other nations do so or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hague Conventions
The United Nations was not a belligerent party - the nations involved in the actual fighting were the belligerent parties. Each nation that fought has the ability to decide what it wants to do in regards to re-initiating hostilies when the armistice is broken by the opposing side. Once again the Korean War and its aftermath to present is an examble of just what I am speaking of.
You might want to read the Hague Conventions in a little more detail, especially the bolded article. The Hague Conventions do indeed allow the United States to reiniate hostilies over violations of the cease fire - weither the arguement is based upon the Ceasefire signed on 2 March 1991, or Resolution 687. Or are you attempting to state that the United States was not one of the belligerent parties.Quote:
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 .
Because there was an authorization for the use of force by the United States Congress that shows that the United States was a belligerent party in conflict.
The actions of the United States in regards to the Ceasefire conditions is allowed under the Hague Conventions regardless which Ceasefire you wish to reference. Just by the very nature of being a party to the conflict.
The revelance is that it was not the United Nations that ordered and arranged the cease fire - it was the United States.Quote:
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:
But even if I was to cede that Resolution 687 supercedes the Ceasefire argreement signed in Sufwon - which I don't believe it does
So even if you were to cede that the terms under 687 supercede the terms under 686 you.... errrr.... you what exactly ?
The Ceasefire was agreed upon in 2 March between what nations - and it was not the United Nations?
Oh dear Red , check the dates again .
Go ahead and show it, if it exists.
Do you doubt me Red :san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh:
You know it exists don't you , is that just bluster .
The bi-lateral treaty stems from the armistice
No the bi-lateral agreement is a document assuring a policy of mutual defense beween two nations , it has nothing to do with the UN truce document .
Not at all - one of those nations is just south of the DMZ.
Yes , and despite its bi-lateral treaty its troop numbers and composition and movements have to comply with the terms set out in the ceasefire document , unless it wishes to violate that agreement , be that nation S.Korea or the US.
the United States never declared war on Korea, therefore everything done on the Korea Pensulia is part of the initial UN Security Council resolution
If it never declared war as the United States then it cannot act in this instance as if it had , it is under the auspice of the UN mandate .
Red you bold article 36 of the conventions , would you care to read it again , especially the last line .
The revelance is that it was not the United Nations that ordered and arranged the cease fire - it was the United States.
No , Bush made a statement that the mandated terms of the coilition had been achieved and they had ceased their advance , the UN representatives drafted and arranged a preliminary document to be agreed upon , then the drafted and arranged a formal document to be agreed upon . Nowhere is there a seperate document between the US and Iraq in this matter
Find all the clauses you like. You can even use the Santa Clause
Ah yes treaties don't have any legal standing do they Gawain , they only exist so they can be broken .
Nurse increase the dosage :nurse: :nurse:
ITs easy enough to understand what I stated. Tsk Tsk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Tsk tsk - your not countering the arguement - your attempting bluster once again.Quote:
The Ceasefire was agreed upon in 2 March between what nations - and it was not the United Nations?
Oh dear Red , check the dates again .
Again show it if it exists - you mentioned it - its your postion to prove not mine. Copying my terms is nothing but flattery.Quote:
Go ahead and show it, if it exists.
Do you doubt me Red :san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh:
You know it exists don't you , is that just bluster .
Read what you just stated - the United States does not have a defense treaty with North Korea - it has a defense pack with South Korea. The negotations for peace are a result of the Korean War - not the defense pact.Quote:
The bi-lateral treaty stems from the armistice
No the bi-lateral agreement is a document assuring a policy of mutual defense beween two nations , it has nothing to do with the UN truce document .
Notice what you stated here also - care to guess how many times Team Spirit and UFL happened and what it caused to happen to the armistice. All goes to show something about UN documents now doesn't.Quote:
Not at all - one of those nations is just south of the DMZ.
Yes , and despite its bi-lateral treaty its troop numbers and composition and movements have to comply with the terms set out in the ceasefire document , unless it wishes to violate that agreement , be that nation S.Korea or the US.
And your begining to see the point. A mandate of the United Nations has no authority, other then what the nations wish to grant it.Quote:
the United States never declared war on Korea, therefore everything done on the Korea Pensulia is part of the initial UN Security Council resolution
If it never declared war as the United States then it cannot act in this instance as if it had , it is under the auspice of the UN mandate .
The United Nations does not negotate nor will North Korea negotate with the United Nations for peace.
So the United Nations was the only beligerent party?Quote:
Red you bold article 36 of the conventions , would you care to read it again , especially the last line .
Because that would be incorrect - the United Nations did not fight in the desert.
The ceasefire was between all nations involved in the operation. IT was signed by the United States amoung other and Iraq. What you are calling the preliminary document is the ceasefire agreement.Quote:
The revelance is that it was not the United Nations that ordered and arranged the cease fire - it was the United States.
No , Bush made a statement that the mandated terms of the coilition had been achieved and they had ceased their advance , the UN representatives drafted and arranged a preliminary document to be agreed upon , then the drafted and arranged a formal document to be agreed upon . Nowhere is there a seperate document between the US and Iraq in this matter
Its really not a hard thing to understand - the United Nations does not have any authority, it does not have the power to enforce its decision, it does not take the responsiblity to enforce its decisions, and it does not even accept the accountablity for its decisions.
Going to the United Nations for anything- to use the same analogy again - is like going to your over 18 years of age girl friend's parents to ask for her hand in marriage, nice to have but not necessary.
Well you seem to quite well medicated here. Tell me if the British hadnt honored their treaty to defend Poland would that have been ilegal? Who would punish them.? What court or body has the authority . Treaties are only good as long as both sides decide to honor them. Their not the same as the laws of a soverign nation, The US can withdraw from any treaty it likes with no legal ramifications. Same for every other nation on the face of the earth.Quote:
Find all the clauses you like. You can even use the Santa Clause
Ah yes treaties don't have any legal standing do they Gawain , they only exist so they can be broken .
Nurse increase the dosage
Again show it if it exists - you mentioned it - its your postion to prove not mine.
But Red I have already posted it havn't I , didn't you notice ?
It is back in#105 .
Notice what you stated here also - care to guess how many times Team Spirit and UFL happened and what it caused to happen to the armistice.
But in those cases it is done in compliance with the terms of the armistice Red .
Look again at the wording I used why your generals cannot move 50,000 troops to Korea tonight
ITs easy enough to understand what I stated.
Yes I understand that you do not like calling a document by its proper name do you , since it invalidates the point you are trying to make .
What you are calling the preliminary document is the ceasefire agreement.
No the preliminary ceasefire agreement is exactly what it says it is, and a formal ceasefire agreement is exactly what it says it is .
A formal agreement by the same parties over the same issue makes a preliminary one redundant .
your not countering the arguement - your attempting bluster once again.
Not at all , check the dates , member states apart from Iraq agreed to the terms on the 2nd , Iraq agreed to the terms on the 3rd .
Back to the last line of article 36 Red .
Where is there any term within any of the documents that allows for unitaleral resumption without approval of the body whose authority the document was produced under ?
There is none .
In exactly the same way as America can not legally justify its action under 1441 neither can it under 687 .... or as you are trying to do under 686 , which is redundant anyway (though you try and avoid using that title as you have a strange aversion to it) .
Hows the medication going Tribesman.? I see it hasnt worn off yet. Come on reply to my post on treaties. Here Ill give you a little more meat to chew on.The UN has no independant legal standing (neither do the Hague Conventions). Both are at best treaties and can only be understood legally along those lines. Nothing the UN puts forward can trump the Constitution and/or the nation's necessary freedom of action. A couple simple judicial examples: Reid v. Covert. 1957, "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." the Cherokee Tobacco 1871, "an act of Congress may supersede a prior treaty." Chae Chan Ping v. U.S 1889.: "whilst it would always be a matter of the utmost gravity and delicacy to refuse to execute a treaty, the power to do so was prerogative, of which no nation could be deprived without deeply affecting its independence." these are three simple judicial illustrations of the point. An analytical cutting to the quick would be: all treaties are dependent on a ratifying authority to have any force. This necessarily means any treaty is beholden to that ratifying authority. In this case, that would be Congress as charged by the Constitution. Does that make sense? By stressing National sovereignty (which is what the Constitution and Congressional acts are all about) you can undercut any and all extra-national ties
Right Gawain so no treaty is valid and when America or any other nation says it is complying with a treaty then it isn't actually complying with a treaty , when Condi said the other day that they are bound and in compliance they were not bound and didn't have to be in compliance anyway , and America cannot claim that Iraq violated a treaty because it is only a treaty and Iraq does not have to comply with treaties as it is a nation .
Yeah riggght ..... Keep it up Gawain it is hilarious .
By stressing National sovereignty (which is what the Constitution and Congressional acts are all about) you can undercut any and all extra-national ties
But if you under cut and reject the treaty , you cannot use that treaty as a justification . If you cannot use the treaty as a justification then you are in violation of the Hague conventions , has America rejected that treaty as well ? :san_shocked: oh but that wouldn't matter as they would be bound by the earlier treaty , it says so in the conventions, oh but they cannot be bound can thay so that treaty goes out the window as well , luckily there is an earlier one to which any country which rejects the 2nd last one is also bound .
So have they passed a congressional act rejecting all these treaties ? No ...so what are you on about ?
Oh but they could couldn't they ....if they were really dumb:san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh:
Noticed and its not proving the point in which you are wanting it to prove.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Again they can if the resources are there - nothing in the armistice prevents joint training exercises from happening. Like I said Team Spirit and UFL were exambles of just that.Quote:
Notice what you stated here also - care to guess how many times Team Spirit and UFL happened and what it caused to happen to the armistice.
But in those cases it is done in compliance with the terms of the armistice Red .
Look again at the wording I used why your generals cannot move 50,000 troops to Korea tonight
Since when is a cease fire document not a cease fire document.Quote:
ITs easy enough to understand what I stated.
Yes I understand that you do not like calling a document by its proper name do you , since it invalidates the point you are trying to make .
Not at all - the second one is the redundant article - the first one is the primary article, which is what Resolution 687 is based upon.Quote:
What you are calling the preliminary document is the ceasefire agreement.
No the preliminary ceasefire agreement is exactly what it says it is, and a formal ceasefire agreement is exactly what it says it is .
A formal agreement by the same parties over the same issue makes a preliminary one redundant .
Since the ceasefire was announced on the 28th of February, the ceasefire is a valid condition.Quote:
your not countering the arguement - your attempting bluster once again.
Not at all , check the dates , member states apart from Iraq agreed to the terms on the 2nd , Iraq agreed to the terms on the 3rd .
And there is no statement that says that it is illegal either. It states clearlyQuote:
Back to the last line of article 36 Red .
Where is there any term within any of the documents that allows for unitaleral resumption without approval of the body whose authority the document was produced under ?
There is none .
Answer the question - was the United States a belligerent party in the operation? The answer provides the solution according the Hague Conventions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Article 36
Again the United States can indeed re-initated hostilites with Iraq for the violation of the ceasefire treaty or United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 by the simple reasoning that it was a belligerent party in the conflict - as Article 36 of the Hague Conventions clearly state. The only way that the United States could not is if it gave up its soverignity to the United Nations, which it hasn't.Quote:
In exactly the same way as America can not legally justify its action under 1441 neither can it under 687 .... or as you are trying to do under 686 , which is redundant anyway (though you try and avoid using that title as you have a strange aversion to it) .
The United Nations does not have the authority to wage war, nor can it direct a nation to wage war.
PS: (edit) Also waiting for you to explain the illegality of the United States going into Bosina against the initial desires of the United Nations. You know when President Clinton ordered NATO to intervene into the conflict without the express approval of the United Nations where their Peacekeeping Mandate that was not working.
Heres a new avatar for you Tribesman
http://gevorgart.com/prints_pic/400/10.jpg
:san_lipsrsealed:
WTF? Korea? Movement of trooops? Etc, etc.,etc.
Carter, during his administration deminished the number of U.S. troops there in 1978 - by half. I always felt it was a mistake; but, he did it at the bequest of the ROK (Republic of Korea) government in their first attempts to normalize relations with their brothers to the north. It never had a damn thing to do with the UN.
Thing is, had Carter been re-elected? Who knows. Jimmy was trusted by the world (something Ronny never was) and his word meant something - truth, honesty, equality of minds rather than power. Regardless, it was Jimmy that drew the troops down in Korea - and elsewhere (forcing those nations to stand up - sorta like what Bushy says he's doing ... yuck yuck).
Still, I'm not sure having read all this what it has to do with Joe?
Joe, maybe he'll be the next Republican candidate for VP? God, I hope so.
Even I wouldnt mind that :san_laugh: In fact I might have voted for him last election if the dems had the sense to nominate him.Quote:
Joe, maybe he'll be the next Republican candidate for VP? God, I hope so.
nothing in the armistice prevents joint training exercises from happening.
As long as they are conducted within the terms as set down by the document covering troop movements .
Since when is a cease fire document not a cease fire document.
When it is a preliminary document that has been superceded by a formal agreement it no longer has any relevance except as a historical interest.
Since the ceasefire was announced on the 28th of February, the ceasefire is a valid condition
No that announcment became invalid on the 2nd and 3rd which in turn became invalid the next month .
Again the United States can indeed re-initated hostilites with Iraq for the violation of the ceasefire treaty or United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 by the simple reasoning that it was a belligerent party in the conflict - as Article 36 of the Hague Conventions clearly state.
No it cannot ...in accordance with the terms of the armistice....the United states signed as a soverign nation under the mandated authority of the UN so in accordance with the terms of the armistice it must act under the mandated authority , it hasn't , it tried but it failed .
Or are you trying to say that the US doesn't sign under the mandate of the UN and didn't give the UN the authority that it had given it .
Hey as a soverieng nation you can do whatever you want , but you cannot claim the authority provided by a document unless you act in accordance with the terms of the document , which means acting under the UN , which America is not .
Not at all - the second one is the redundant article - the first one is the primary article, which is what Resolution 687 is based upon.
Red , that is like saying the first draft of the US Constitution is the real Constitution and the actual agreed constitution and all its appended amendments are redundant as the first draft is the primary article .:san_laugh:
You asked the question was answered - we can if we so desire...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
A ceasefire is a standing agreement until its broken or a peace treaty is signed,,,Quote:
Since when is a cease fire document not a cease fire document.
When it is a preliminary document that has been superceded by a formal agreement it no longer has any relevance except as a historical interest.
Not at all - it was valid on the 28th of February - except for when my unit almost violated it. It remained valid until the Division left Iraq - the ceasefire argreements only formalized it.Quote:
Since the ceasefire was announced on the 28th of February, the ceasefire is a valid condition
No that announcment became invalid on the 2nd and 3rd which in turn became invalid the next month .
Within the aspice of the Hague Treaty - it does not matter if the nation is part of an alliance or not - it clearly states Belligerent Party.Quote:
Again the United States can indeed re-initated hostilites with Iraq for the violation of the ceasefire treaty or United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 by the simple reasoning that it was a belligerent party in the conflict - as Article 36 of the Hague Conventions clearly state.
No it cannot ...in accordance with the terms of the armistice....the United states signed as a soverign nation under the mandated authority of the UN so in accordance with the terms of the armistice it must act under the mandated authority , it hasn't , it tried but it failed .
The United Nations does not give the United States the authority to go to war - only the United States congress can do that. Congress cheated by authorizing the use of force..Quote:
Or are you trying to say that the US doesn't sign under the mandate of the UN and didn't give the UN the authority that it had given it.
Sure we can - the fact that we fought in the gulf gives us that ability.Quote:
Hey as a soverieng nation you can do whatever you want , but you cannot claim the authority provided by a document unless you act in accordance with the terms of the document , which means acting under the UN , which America is not .
Sure that is exactly what the word means - redundant is all others that reinforce the initial. The laugh is on you with the use of the word redundant - superceded or antiquated is the correrct term for what your attempting to prove.Quote:
Not at all - the second one is the redundant article - the first one is the primary article, which is what Resolution 687 is based upon.
Red , that is like saying the first draft of the US Constitution is the real Constitution and the actual agreed constitution and all its appended amendments are redundant as the first draft is the primary article .:san_laugh:
You asked the question was answered - we can if we so desire...
Yes within the terms set out by the treaty . Unless you wish to violate the treaty .
A ceasefire is a standing agreement until its broken or a peace treaty is signed,,,
Which one ? a preliminary one no longer stands once a formal one is complete .
A formal one was completed wasn't it .
it does not matter if the nation is part of an alliance or not - it clearly states Belligerent Party.
And it clearly states "in accordance with the terms" Now show me where the US signed as a soveriegn nation in its own right and not under the mandated authority ...it didn't did it ....so acting outside of that authority is not in accordance with the terms is it .
The laugh is on you with the use of the word redundant
Soooooo ....you come down to silly word games again red , so do tell how many definitions does redundant have ??????
The fifty thousand soldier question would not be violating the treaty, since the levels of troops in Korea are far below those of the armistice states. Again the United States can do exactly what it states.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
A cease fire is a cease fire - as simple as that.Quote:
A ceasefire is a standing agreement until its broken or a peace treaty is signed,,,
Which one ? a preliminary one no longer stands once a formal one is complete .
A formal one was completed wasn't it .
What authority - the United Nations does not have the authority to wage war - only soveriegn nations do. That is what the Hague Conventions address.Quote:
it does not matter if the nation is part of an alliance or not - it clearly states Belligerent Party.
And it clearly states "in accordance with the terms" Now show me where the US signed as a soveriegn nation in its own right and not under the mandated authority ...it didn't did it ....so acting outside of that authority is not in accordance with the terms is it .
Silly word games is all you have been playing since this discussion has started - so don't get upset when one is done back.Quote:
The laugh is on you with the use of the word redundant
Soooooo ....you come down to silly word games again red , so do tell how many definitions does redundant have ??????
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
A cease fire is a cease fire - as simple as that.
A redundant (oh no wrong word....oh , but that is the correct word) Ceasefire is redundant , superfluous , irrlevant , invalid , void , worthless once it is replaced by a formal ceasefire that supercedes it .
The fifty thousand soldier question would not be violating the treaty, since the levels of troops in Korea are far below those of the armistice states.
The introduction of 50,000 troops overnight , or over a period of less than one month would be a violation of the treaty .
It is in there between the bit where the US general is not described as a commander of UN forces and the bit where he has not signed as a UN representative:san_laugh:
so don't get upset when one is done back.
Well Red I would normally expect you to actually know the meaning of a word before you try and claim its incorrectness , are you slacking a little:san_wink:
sploiler eh
Oh and BTW I was complaining about Kosovo since the introduction of martial law which was a hell of a lot earlier than any of that wider conflict . Soooo your point there is ?????
Tribe'
Gawain's recurrent point about treaties boils down to this:
Absent a "third party" powerful enough to enforce compliance, treaties are only valid up to the extent that the parties to such a treaty (agreement, cease-fire etc.) are willing to honor them.
The government of a Western nation, with their tradition of the rule of law, does run the risk of losing international support and respect, or sometimes even domestic support, for failing to live up to a treaty -- and this can be a point of considerable importance -- but there is usually no independent sanction to curtail their action one way or the other. I do not know enough about the conditions that obtain for an African, Middle Eastern or Asiatic government to evaluate this issue in those contexts.
To some extent, the UN was designed to be a fulcrum for the leverage of world opinion to be brought to bear in such cases, but it has generated only mixed results in this role thus far.
Seamus , I understand Gawains point well enough , but the fact is that the Administration does not reject the treaty , it can but it didn't , it has tried to justify itself by citing the treaty .
That it cannot do , it must either reject it or work within its terms .
The reason that it will not reject it is because if it does it sets the precedence that Americas signature on a treaty is worthless , the American government spends bilions on treaties and trying to get other people to agree to them .
What nation will sign anything with America if they believe that what they are signing is worthless .
Now there is historical precedence of countries issuing worthless treaties , or ignoring International bodies because they had the military might to do so . And that didn't work out very well did it .
You just dont get it do you. We can obey or ignore any part of any treaty we like. We dont have to renounce it. Why hasnt the UN or anyone else brought us up on charges? Were not trying to use the UN as the main justification for the war but as a secondary reason. The fact that we want to do is all thats need here. UN approval once more is merely a nice thing to have. When the UN approved that didnt give them any authority over any of the troops involved in that war or the nations that were involved.. Their only authority lies in your head. If we violated all these treaties why dont the other signatorys throw us out or bring charges against us. There is no power on the face of gods green earth that can tell the US what to do as of today other than the Congress and government of the United States of America. Thats whats meant by a Soverign nation.Quote:
Seamus , I understand Gawains point well enough , but the fact is that the Administration does not reject the treaty , it can but it didn't , it has tried to justify itself by citing the treaty .
That it cannot do , it must either reject it or work within its terms .
So you do agree that a ceasefire is a ceasefire, The United Nations does not enforce ceasefires - only the nations involved can settle the ceasefire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Actually it would not be - again UFL and Team Spirit are exambles of that.Quote:
The fifty thousand soldier question would not be violating the treaty, since the levels of troops in Korea are far below those of the armistice states.
The introduction of 50,000 troops overnight , or over a period of less than one month would be a violation of the treaty .
It is in there between the bit where the US general is not described as a commander of UN forces and the bit where he has not signed as a UN representative:san_laugh:
Actaully it is you who need to look up the word, reduntant implies something else besides a document superceding a previous document. So I am well aware of what reduntant means since most fire direction systems use a reduntant system for backup computations. Most safety systems have a reduntant system to provide additional protection.Quote:
so don't get upset when one is done back.
Well Red I would normally expect you to actually know the meaning of a word before you try and claim its incorrectness , are you slacking a little:san_wink:
Provide proof if you can - LOLQuote:
sploiler eh
Oh and BTW I was complaining about Kosovo since the introduction of martial law which was a hell of a lot earlier than any of that wider conflict . Soooo your point there is ?????
The point is that you avoided the comparision - I see you are still avoiding Bosnia. :san_shocked: Both are instances where the United States superceded the authority of the United Nations to do what it wanted to do. Shows plently of presedence now doesn't. Korea also shows where the United States has removed the authority of the United Nations and has taken over the mission completely.
Now what to you have verus the reality of the situation - only opinion - which is about as valid as my own. However continue with your petty namecalling and attempts at insulting others because they do not agree with your opinion.
The reality is that the United Nations failed to enforce its own resolutions, the reality is that the United States decided to enforce the ceasefire conditions that were orginally established and agreed upon. Did the United States do this with the best motives in place for the world - or course not it did it with the motives and interests of the United States first and foremost.
The United Nations failed in its responsiblities and its accountablity for the little authority it has - and has marginalized itself by its own inaction.
Was the Bush Adminstration seemed a little eager for a shooting war with Iraq, Yes indeed - but the violations of the ceasefire existed from the get-go and the United Nations as a body failed to uphold its responsibilities. With authority comes responsibility and accountablity. The United Nations fails on all counts in maintaining those aspects.
It has shown that in Bosnia
It has shown that in Kosovo
It has shown that in Rawanda
It has shown that inability in a host of countries and failures.
Now continue with your poor attempts at saying I am tilting at windmills - since that is really all you do in posting is to attempt to belittle those who disagree with you. It smacks of nothing other then being a bully and a misrable human being. You have done this consently in every post in this thread - and it has been ignored for the most part - but it seems that you can not move past belittling those who disagree with you. Have a nice life Tribesman - I know I have.
Actually it would not be - again UFL and Team Spirit are exambles of that.
Yes Red , some mighty big exersises , it is so much easier now to do it with computer simulations and a few thousand actual troops isn't it . So pray tell how many of the troops in these big exercises came from outside of Korea .
So you do agree that a ceasefire is a ceasefire,
A ceasefire is a ceasefire , only until it is replaced by another ceasefire or peace treaty , upon which it becomes redundant , a piece of history , nothing more , unless of course the later ceasefire contains terms that do not invalidate it , so where are those terms ? They are absent .
Actaully it is you who need to look up the word
Would you like to add a dictionary to your christmas list , though you could save some money by using one of the many free online ones .
It isn't very wise to calll someone foolish over the use of a word , if you do not know the uses of that word yourself , it may even make you look foolish .
Were not trying to use the UN as the main justification for the war but as a secondary reason.
Really Gawain , and what was this main reason ?
We wanted to and thats all there is to it. You dont like it either lump it or do something about it. We are beholding to no one but ourselves. Why is this so hard for you to understand? There is no legal body in the world that can tell us what to do but our own government. There is no organization with the power or authority to declare aything we do illegal and make it stick. Once more the only power the UN has is in your head. You can coplain and make blustery statement like we are doing this and that illegal thing but theres no authority to back up your claims. Im sure Axis powers would decalre a lot of what we did in WW2 as illegal. Its only ilegal if you lose. When the UN can enforce some kind of law or policy upon the US then they wiil have somekind of authority over us and not until then. Treaties can be ignored or revoked by congress at anytime. If we choose to ignore part or all of them thats our bussiness. We dont have to withdraw from them because someone named Tribesman says so. Again if were in such violation why dont the rest of you throw us out. Now that would be a laugh. The UN without the US.Quote:
Really Gawain , and what was this main reason ?
We wanted to and thats all there is to it. You dont like it either lump it or do something about it.
So there we have it in a nutshell , so Iran can build nukes because it can as no one can do anything about it , and N.Korea can do whatever the hell it likes .
Might is right .:san_shocked:
'Its about time you started coming to your senses. I never said no one can do anything about. I saidQuote:
So there we have it in a nutshell , so Iran can build nukes because it can as no one can do anything about it , and N.Korea can do whatever the hell it likes .
N Korea and Iraq were doing nothing "illegal" They just arent dong what we want.If you think the US is doing something illegal then do something about it or go away.Quote:
You dont like it either lump it or do something about it.
When all is said and done this is so. Might makes authority, The UN has neither might nor authority unless we say so.Quote:
Might is right
.If you think the US is doing something illegal then do something about it or go away.
Yoy repeatedly try and justify the governments actions , but you cannot so your position boils down to ....errr..we got bigger guns .
:san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh:
I ain't going anywhere Gawain , I will continue to criticise the US government or that of any other country , and you cannot do anything about it can you , you just have to either reply or ignore , so whats it gonna be ?
Look if we are indeed doing something illegal and against the UN charter and they have authority over us how is it we arent being brough up on some sort of charges. It seems that either the UN has no such authority or they dont agree with you.Quote:
Yoy repeatedly try and justify the governments actions , but you cannot so your position boils down to ....errr..we got bigger guns .
Yup and what you do is not illegal and I have no more authority over you than the UN has over the US.Quote:
I ain't going anywhere Gawain , I will continue to criticise the US government or that of any other country , and you cannot do anything about it can you , you just have to either reply or ignore , so whats it gonna be ?
Sorry to be on topic but...
Lieberman isn't the only Democrat to say progress is being made in Iraq- many House Democrats are too- like Georgia Rep. Jim Marshall...
linkQuote:
Rep. Jim Marshall, D-Ga., a member of the House Armed Services Committee who just returned from a visit to Iraq, said he was encouraged by what he saw there.
"There's clearly progress being made," said Marshall, a former Army Ranger and a Vietnam veteran. "We can expect some setbacks. That's only natural. The progress that's most encouraging is that Iraqi security forces are now taking over responsibility for policing large areas of their country. (During the next year) I think we'll see substantial numbers of U.S. troops drawing down, really."
However, he warned that American efforts in Iraq still could fail if support for the war declined in the United States.
I'm pretty sure he's not Jewish, btw- so you'll have to think of another way to discredit him. :wink:
so you'll have to think of another way to discredit him.
Well , he is a member of the democratic party , is that enough to destroy his credibility :san_wink: