Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Normal ceasefires are like that, but not with the UN. It's very bureaucratic by nature, and requires a great deal of deliberation in order to make any action. If a ceasefire is broken, then the UN creates another resolution to deal with it. They don't fall back on the previous agreement, which was finished once the ceasefire started.
|
Well, thats not how a ceasefire works, any ceasefire, and waving a wand and making vague statements about bureaucracy won't change that. If the previuos agreement was over once it had taken effect, then why were there specific terms attached to it for the continuation? This is a ceasefire:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cease-fire
Pronunciation: 'sEs-'fi(-&)r
Function: noun
1 : a military order to cease firing
2 : a suspension of active hostilities
|
Quote:
|
That article is written by professional lawyers who deal with this type of law. Everything I've read confirms what they postulate and conclude. I'm a layman, of course, but I cannot find an error in their letter.
|
The only relevent part of your 5 year old letter is the following:
Quote:
Despite U.S. claims over the years that resolutions subsequent to Resolution 687 have provided the basis for U.S. use of force against Iraq, the Bush administration is now seeking a new resolution authorizing use of force should Iraq continue to fail to comply with Security Council requirements. Practically speaking, then, the Bush administration accepts that existing resolutions do not authorize use of force.
|
Which offers no legal basis for the position, only an issue of public perception. If the US had not gone to the UN in 2002 you would have no argument at all in this case. Again, (and I don't think you are interested in changing your mind, but I'll try nonetheless) 678 allowed us to fight Iraq, 687 temporarilly lifted that authority, then 1441 reinstated that authority by affirming the Iraq was in material breach of 687.
It looks something like this:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 678
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 687
8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:
(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;
(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities; (We know Iraq was in violation herebecause we kept the reciepts.)
12. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material or any subsystems or components or any research, development, support or manufacturing facilities related to the above; to submit to the Secretary-General and the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution a declaration of the locations, amounts, and types of all items specified above; to place all of its nuclear-weapons-usable materials under the exclusive control, for custody and removal, of the International Atomic Energy Agency, with the assistance and cooperation of the Special Commission as provided for in the plan of the Secretary-General discussed in paragraph 9 (b) above; to accept, in accordance with the arrangements provided for in paragraph 13 below, urgent on-site inspection and the destruction, removal or rendering harmless as appropriate of all items specified above; and to accept the plan discussed in paragraph 13 below for the future ongoing monitoring and verification of its compliance with these undertakings;
13. Requests the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, through the Secretary-General, with the assistance and cooperation of the Special Commission as provided for in the plan of the Secretary-General in paragraph 9 (b) above, to carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's nuclear capabilities based on Iraq's declarations and the designation of any additional locations by the Special Commission; to develop a plan for submission to the Security Council within forty-five days calling for the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless as appropriate of all items listed in paragraph 12 above; to carry out the plan within forty-five days following approval by the Security Council; and to develop a plan, taking into account the rights and obligations of Iraq under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968, for the future ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's compliance with paragraph 12 above, including an inventory of all nuclear material in Iraq subject to the Agency's verification and inspections to confirm that Agency safeguards cover all relevant nuclear activities in Iraq, to be submitted to the Security Council for approval within one hundred and twenty days of the passage of the present resolution; (Both 12 and 13 were violated by Iraqs lack of cooperation with IAEA inspectors.)
32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism; (Iraq was in breach of this article when they offered to pay Palestinian suicide bombers families.)
33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);
|
Honestly a good case could be made that the ceasefire was never truely in effect, since Iraq never complied fully with the terms of 687. But just in case you feel it was:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1441
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
|
And so you see, or maybe not...
Quote:
|
That hardly explains how Gitmo was allowed happen in the first place. I'm not even sure how we can have a military base on the land of an unfriendly country. Is it simply because the Cubans can't do shit? If that's the case (you're going to love this), the base is there illegally.
|
Cuban-American Treaty of 1903
Proletariat.
Quote:
|
I'm sure you're familiar with Homeland Security's policies when it comes to racial profiling Arab Americans. There have bee stories about it on and off since 9/11. It's racist. A terrorist can be of any race, gender, or creed.
|
True, but the ones we are concerned with at present tend to be muslim males, and generally of arabic descent. But I guess out of fairness we should give equal time to 80year old black grandmothers, right? Again, the guidline given out by the Stasi, oops, Homeland Security have been quashed. It is now up to the discretion of the individual officer to pay more attention to the shifty guy with the coat on in summer.
Quote:
|
Murder? 600,000-1,000,000 people are dead in Iraq since the 2003 invasion. Many, many of those are civilians (60,000-750,000, depending on who you ask). There have been interviews with soldiers coming back from Iraq where they've described being ordered to shoot at unarmed cars. There was one such interview on Democracy Now about a year back.
|
Hell, I've shot at unarmed cars. The thing is that when they are accelerating toward your checkpoint at night it is pretty fucking hard to tell if they are unarmed or not. I suppose the proper thing to do is wait to see if they are going to blow us limb from limb, and once they do then return fire?
And as for murder, how dare you suggest that the US is responsible for that hienous act. It is war, and people get killed in war. Our military is the most careful in the world regarding civilian casualties. Mistakes happen, but every attempt is made to minimize civilian deaths. It is a major portion of the planning process for any mission.
Now you could point your finger at the savage thugs who are cutting off heads and murdering upwards of a 100 people a day in Bagdad as part of a bloody sectarian civil war, but I suppose that is the US's fault as well, isn't it? If we had put our boot on the peoples throat like Saddam had they wouldn't be fighting now, would they?
You need to wake up to the realities of Iraq. The only semblence of stability in that country at all is the American and British presence there.
Quote:
|
Presidents have not always fought for more power. Bad president have fought for more power. Washington, Adams, Jefferson; I could name plenty of presidents who didn't fight for more power. Shoot, Carter didn't fight for more power.
|
Except for two new cabinet positions...
Quote:
|
Compare the likely death toll in Iraq had we not invaded with the numbers now. Saddam was an evil son of a bitch, but there's no way he had the means to start a civil war that would have resulted in the deaths of a million Iraqis. Why would he have wanted to?
|
No he was killing an equal amount of people to prevent a civil war. Perhaps if we started strapping explosives to people or throwing them off bridges things would calm down, huh?
Quote:
|
I'm sure that the previous inhabitants of Diego Garcia would love for you to explain to them why that's true.
|
ROTFLMAO, and you had the gall to call my argument a strawman...
You'll have to ask the British about DG, will. They are the ones who closed the plantations there.
Quote:
I'll give you links to reading on this subject below. Both elections were stolen for him.
This is an amazing article from Rolling Stone that will either convince you, or put you into denial. Most people I've shown the article to have come away with the understanding that the election was stolen.
Check out "unprecedented: the 2000 presidential election" on youtuve. It's an interesting video.
|
Well, as interesting as Mr. Kennedys article is, it doesn't offer any substantial proof. He uses statistical chicanery to throw doubt on the process nation wide, then talks about GOP intimidation through the use of "goon squads" and even law enforcement agencies. The only part of it I can't figure is why niether I nor any of my aquaintences observed any of this in our experience at the polls.
I supervised they first two democratic elections in Iraq. I know what intimidation and ballot stuffing looks like. I didn't see anything in Iraq that even comes close to the lawlessness described in the Rolling Stone article. If this is the case, wouldn't someone have spoken up? Wouldn't Kerry have had the guts to pursue a legal challenge in Ohio? If you truly believe it, why isn't there a rifle in your hands as you storm Capitol Hill?
Tin foil hats? Indeed.