Feeling belligerent today!Follow

You should listen to Mr Rangel's views on that subject, darkuwa.

Of course it wont come to that. The entire point of bringing up the draft in the first place is to use the fear of the draft to convince more Americans to oppose the war.

Oh. And for the record, a cease-fire agreement does not remove a state of war. It never has. Until a formal peace treaty is signed, the parties involve are still "at war". Not sure why this is confusing for some people...

It seems to me that the fact that most Americans are NOT being directly affected by the war, (unless you count Bush's opinion that the "Amehcun People are sacrificing their peace of mind every time they see the news from Iraq on television", as being directly affected) is the main reeason that the actively antiwar folk are so few and so relatively quiet.

If the draft was re-instated, and there was a chance that 'anyone' (in theory) was at risk of being sent to Iraq, I would imagone that the 'antiwar crowd' would recieve a fairly hefty boost in its numbers.

As long as supporting the troops means 'bumper stickers' and watching the news while shaking your head at the loss of your personal peace of mind, then theres no real reason to worry that other peoples kids are dying in an illegal and unjustified war in another peoples country.

Bit hipocritical in my mind, all those war supporters sitting around at home, 'supporting the troops' and 'the mission', safe in the knowledge that the draft would be political suicide, and therefore unlikely in the extreme.

Why have a draft when you can keep lowering the entry standards to the forces. A few more boots on the ground is far more important than who is actually wearing the boots. Probably keep the numbers up until Bush is out of office anyway. Then it will be someone elses problem.

Now now Moe, where did I say that I have any tactical military knowledge? Or make any comment about the validity of the operations?

I too have family there, so you can't tell me that some of the talk about cutting funding, etc.. Doesn't **** you off, when you know they don't really have all the things they need. I have helped my brothers squad upgrade their equipment by sending them civilian items that upgraded the equipment provided by the military. It was such a big thing that several of the magazines, printed a list and contact information for suppliers to help the troops upgrade their equipment.

I don't know if the Bush plan is right or not, I just know that I don't want us to half-*** the situation. Either commit to the end, or bring everyone home. This ******** about resolutions not supporting the current plan or reducing funding, only sends the message to me that we aren't behind the troops!!
I don't want the last thing my brother reads to be some article about congress trying to stop funding the money that provides the weapons and supplies he needs! Or that most Americans don't support the war! Whether it is intended to or not, these things send a message that we are not with the troops!!

I have already essentially lost one brother, so you are damm right this is personal to me! If you don't think that having several people you love on the front lines gives you a vested interest, You can kiss my ***!

F'uck you.

People like Darkuwa need to be lined up and shot. Straight between their beady little eyes. Nothing pisses me off more than ignorant fuCktwats like this that have no idea how a dishonorable discharge can affect someone's life.

And you need to read Moebius' post, since you're obviously completely clueless.

The only "treaty" that matters is between Iraq and Kuwait. All the other nations were acting in collective self-defense under the SC. There was no need for a bi-lateral peace-treaty between Iraq and all the other 20 countries that took part in this collective self-defense.

Seriously, you need to use your brain once in a while. Imagine that, 5 years ago, Egypt decide to invade Iraq unilaterally, for exactly the reasons the US gave. One day, they send the tanks and the helicopters into Iraq, invade the place, sack all the army and the civil servants, use their firms for reconstruction and oil extraction, let Iraqis loot and burn their own country without any protection, and after, 4 years, start to leave.

Do you really think anyone would have said this was "legal" under international law?

Apart from a few "lawyers" paid by the Egyptian government, I highly doubt it.

bah

Edited, Jan 22nd 2007 10:04am by Atomicflea

See, I have no problem with people who disagree with the war. It's the ones who blame the troops and dont respect these men and women for the job they are doing that I have a problem with. I dont think war protesters should be shot, I think people who degrade the troops, spit on them and their families (yes this has become an issue again) should be lined up and shot. Protest the war, speak your voice. It's part of being an American. Dont be an asshat like Darkuwa.

Errr? Did he post something about the definition and international meaning of "cease fire"? Cause I missed it...

There is a huge difference between a cease fire agreement and a formal peace treaty. The specific difference is that until that formal peace agreement is reached any party of the conflict may resume hostilies and it's still the same war.

What part of this is confusing to you? Did you know that we did not formally declare a peace between ourselves and Germany until 1951? Why do you suppose that was? Could it be to ensure that they met the terms of the cease fire *first*? Clearly, we felt there was a need 6 years later to formally declare peace when we did not in 1945. Think about it. It's really not that complicated. A cease fire and a peace treaty are two different things. A cease fire *may* lead to a peace treaty. But it may not. That's the whole point. The cease fire sets the terms that must be met to achieve a peace. The peace treaty is the reward for meeting those terms. Failure to do so assumes that conflict can resume until both parties can resolve the issues preventing a full peace from being achieved.

That's how war works. Even if you desperately want it to be different, it does not work the way you seem to think it does. Otherwise, there would be no purpose to ever signing a cease fire but not a peace treaty. Sheesh. You'd think I was explaining calculus to a 2 year old...



Wrong. By that logic, there was no need for any form of treaty between the US and Germany after WW2. Afterall, Germany didn't invade us, right? We attacked them in defense of France, England, and a whole bunch of other European nations.

Yet clearly we *did* have a cease fire, and later did sign a peace treaty. If it was so unecessary, why did we bother?

You're not just a little bit wrong, you're so incredibly wrong it's funny. It's frankly hard for me to believe that someone actually serious about this.



If Egypt did so for exactly the reasons the US gave, it would be "legal". I'm not sure what your point is. Assuming that they were a combat participant in the 91 Gulf war and a party to the cease fire, then they most certainly have the right to resume hostilities if they feel that Iraq has not complied sufficiently with the terms of that cease fire.

I would expect that Egypt would need to take responsiblity for what it had done though. Exactly as I expect the US to do so. Which is why I cringe when I hear some members of our congress talking about "redeployment" of troops in Iraq to other locations. Look. If you can show me how we're going to resolve the violence in Iraq by moving our troops out, then I'm all for it. But so far, no one has done that.

Um. But in either case, it's "legal". A cease fire is *not* a peace treaty. Period. I'm not sure why you're still confused about the difference. They mean different things, and require different conditions. A cease fire does not end a war. It's just an agreement for the sides to halt direct action.


Let me give you another example. Can you guess under what justification Clinton ordered "Operation Desert Fox" back in 1998 (including a whole bunch of bombing and yes, even some civilian casualities)? Could it be? Why yes! The fact that we were still in a "state of war" with Iraq, and Iraq was in blatant violation of the terms of the cease fire agreement.


Would you not agree that bombing a nation would constitute an act of war if the nations involved were at "peace"? How then was it ok for Clinton to do this? In case you're still confused, it's because there was no state of peace. Thus, bombing Iraq is "legal". Invading Iraq is equally legal. One cannot be legal and the other illegal, right?


The question you really should be asking is "Why weren't I outraged at Clinton's action, but I am at Bush's?". If both are "illegal", should not both deserve outrage? So, it's ok to illegally bomb a nation, but it's not ok to illegally invade the same nation and end 10 years of stalemate and rising threat?

Hmmm... Odd set of morals you've got there. I'd think that there's a legitimacy to either attacking a nation all the way, or not. Half-*** stuff like bombing targets in a country IMO is *worse* then invading and removing the despot currently in power. All we ever accomplished with the sanctions and bombings through the 90s was to kill a whole bunch of civilians and strengthen Saddam's position in Iraq. Bush changed the playing game and took away Saddam's toys. You're free to disagree with that choice of action, but don't pretend that it was any more or less "legal" then the bombings conducted by his predecessor.



Or maybe the International Criminal Court, which has to date refused to find the US's action in Iraq "illegal", despite dozens of claims submitted to them on the issue.

Calling something illegal because you don't agree with it doesn't actually make it illegal. Funny that...

Edited, Jan 22nd 2007 6:23pm by gbaji

Are you seriously trying to argue that since some comapanies in the business of selling weapons to the military do some things that are ethically questionable (and members of the government reciprocate), that this somehow magically means that no military action can ever be legitimate/legal?

Or are you just randomly inserting an utterly irrelevant bit into the discussion?


Look. Let me make an even easier analogy:

We recieved an unconditional surrender from Japan in 1945. However, we did not reach a formal peace agreement with Japan until 1952. We were under a state of "cease fire" during that time period. That cease fire existed until the terms of the surrender had been met (terms which we set in this case).

Now. What if Japan for some reason had decided not to withdraw it's forces from China? What if it had not released the POWs it was holding? What if it had not disarmed itself as required by the terms of the agreement?

Now. What if we tried to use diplomacy and economic sanctions to force them to comply with those terms they agreed to back in 1945? What if they didn't work? What if 10 years later, they still had not complied, and we still had not signed a formal peace with them as a result? Would you not argue that we had a right to resume hostilities?


If not. Why? Under what possible legal rule can you justify a nation retaining it's position/weapons/prisoners/whatever after losing a war, purely because after a cease fire agreement was signed they refused to honor the terms they agreed to?

If a cease fire agreement was binding in the way you seem to think it is, then Japan could have done this and kept China, and no one could have done anything about it because then we'd have been starting a "war of agression". After all, apparently in your mind the status quo at the time of the cease fire is all that matters...


Sorry. Your position is ludicrous. It does not even remotely match international laws regarding warfare. I can only assume you've plucked it out of some random location and placed believe in it solely because by doing so you can continue to bash a political ideology that you disagree with. Whatever. You're wrong. I know it and everyone who's read this far into the thread knows it. I suspect somewhere deep down, you know it too...

No, he posted something about shuting the fUck up when you have no idea what you're on about. An advice that, on this subject, you should heed.



Fine. You want a legal debate, here it comes:

First of all, this situation doesn't apply the case in question, but we'll go back to that later on.

Second, and forgetting for one second that the conflict was not a bi-lateral one between the US and Iraq, there are different kind of breaches with regards to cease-fires anyway. Some are important (material) and some are not. Any breach does not give the right to resume hostilities. The breach must be material, meaning it must be important. It must be a key part of the terms of the cease-fire.

So even in your simplified exemple, it's not so simple, and you are innaccurate.



Ok, dim-wit, you needed a cease-fire because the Second World War was not conducted under a mandate of the Security Council which decided to remain "seized of the matter". It is that simple.

WWII was before modern interntional law. Before the UN. Before the Security Council. You can bang on about the peace-treaty in the hundred years war,or about how 500 years ago rape was legal, it's completely irrelevant to the law TODAY.

Get it? Not in the 1940's, but today.

And the 91 Gulf war was conducted under a UN mandate. It wasn't a war between the US and Iraq. It was between the forces under UN mandate and Iraq.





First of all, the legality of these actions are highly doubtful. The matter was debated at the 3930th meeting of the Security Council on 23 September 1998, when the majority of states speaking in the debate argued that the use of force by the United Kingdom and the United States under the purported authorisation of Resolutions 678, 1154 and 1205 was unlawful.

Second, their justifications at the time show it: On the one hand, they tried to argue "self-defense" (as in "they were shooting at us in no-fly zones, so we defended ourselves"), and then they argued that they were enforcing a term of the cease-fire, namely the compliance of no-fly zones.

It had NOTHING to do with the War being declared again. Did Clinton declare war on Iraq when he ordered the bombings? Did Congress pass a resolution declaring war on Iraq? did they declare the cease-fire to be null and void?

No. But anyway, this is a completely diffferent topic, since it was argued under humanitarian law. I'm more than happy to discuss this in another thread if you want. In this one, it's out of place since the problem is different.



So, even we do imagine for a second, purely for the fun of speculative law excerice that the cease-fire was between Iraq and the US.

Resolution 678, at paragraph 2, authorised Member States ‘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.’

Resolution 660 had the sole aim of restoring the sovereignty of Kuwait. After that had been achieved, Resolution 687 imposed a formal cease-fire. That cease-fire was conditional on Iraq’s acceptance of certain terms. It did accept those terms. The Security Council’s current requirements of Iraq are contained in
Resolution 687 and subsequent resolutions.

Now, I'm guessing the "breach of the cease-fire" you talk about has to do with weapons, right?

The requirements include the destruction of all chemical and biological weapons and all ballistic missiles (with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres), the unconditional agreement not to acquire or develop nuclear
weapons (Resolution 687, paras 8(a), 8(b), and 12), and full co-operation with the UN-appointed weapons inspectorate. Such inspections were initially the
responsibility of the Special Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency, and were then to be carried out by the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established by Resolution 1284 (1999). So in that sense, there was no material breach.


In Resolution 949, it stressed again that "Iraq’s acceptance of resolution 687 (1991) adopted pursuant to Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations forms the basis of the cease-fire" and that "any hostile or provocative action directed against its neighbours by the Government of Iraq constitutes a threat to peace and security in the region", while ‘underlining that it will consider Iraq fully responsible for the serious consequences of any failure to fulfil the demands in the present resolution.’ These include, at paragraph 5, full co-operation with the Special Commission.

Resolution 686, para 4, which marked the provisional cessation of hostilities, expressly preserved the right to use force under Resolution 678. However, Resolution 687, which marked the permanent ceasefire, uses no such
terms ("all necessary means"). This demonstrates a clear recognition that the right to use force requires express terms if it is to be continued.
The absence of any clear terms in any resolution after 686 leads us to the conclusion that no such use of force was authorised.

Finally, even under US domestic law, US officials gave evidence to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs that the military incursions into Iraq were authorised only because they were ‘pursuant to the liberation of Kuwait,
which was called for in the UN resolution’, and the United Kingdom declared that the sole purpose of the operationwas to liberate Kuwait.

I can even quote another opinion regarding a similar matter:

When the Security Council imposed a cease-fire on the parties to the conflict between Israel and various Arab governments in 1948, Count Bernadotte, the UN mediator,instructed that the UN cease-fire resolution was to mean that:

‘(1) No party may unilaterally put an end to the truce.

(2) No party may take the law into its own hands and decree that it is relieved of its obligations under the resolution of the Security Council because in its opinion the other party has violated the truce.’ The Security Council then reiterated that ‘no party is permitted to violate the truce on the ground that it is undertaking reprisals or retaliations against the other party.’


There. I've quoted extensively from the SC Resolution concerned. I have even quoted academics, and other similar decisions. There is no doubt that this invasion was illegal under International law today.

Your arguments are not supported by any Interntional Law treaty, or decisions. Merely by ficticious comparaisons that you drew.

You give no Resolutions, no precedents, nothing.

Your knowledge of International Law is quite laughable. However, I'd be more happy to give you the 1.01 if you decided you wanted to learn about something before giving your opinion on the subject.

Edited, Jan 23rd 2007 9:12am by RedPhoenixxx