Japan threatens Korea with pre-emptive strike

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Has it been formally adopted by the UN?

It's a customary part of international law. It doesn't have to be adopted by the UN.

[DuncanK]

Gepap is going to think that France is a good ally, because he agrees more with their politics I guess. I think any unbiased person would clearly see that France tend to make friends easily, but then tends to have no real loyalty to those friends what so ever. All the while expecting support from those friends when they need it. It's a very bad thing for them, and I'm glad America does not have such a reputation.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


You yourself said that Iraq was violating the ceasefire. NOWHERE in the ceasefire agreement did Iraq agree to the No-Fly Zones. The U.S. unilaterally imposed them on Iraq without UN sanction. They weren't part of the deal, to be blunt. So the U.S. VIOLATING Iraqi airspace was a de facto violation of the ceasefire, as violating another nation's airspace and then FIRING on their defensive measures is considered a hostile act.



I'm going to make it simple for you as I did above: The No-Fly Zones weren't agreed to by Iraq, they weren't part of the ceasefire. The U.S. had no right under the UN-sanctioned ceasefire to establish them. They did so unilaterally, without Iraqi consent, after the ceasefire was signed. So here's option 3: Don't go violating another country's airspace.

Had Iraq agreed to the No-Fly Zones in the ceasefire, it wouldn't be an issue. But since they did not, it is clearly the U.S. that violated the ceasefire.

Hey Boris,

So you agree that it's okay for Saddam to exterminate the Kurds via helicopter gunship?

And the rival Muslims in the South?

That's okay with you?

[Drake Tungsten]

You yourself said that Iraq was violating the ceasefire. NOWHERE in the ceasefire agreement did Iraq agree to the No-Fly Zones.

No ****. I said Iraq violated the ceasefire by refusing to disarm, which was part of the UN-brokered ceasefire. You're the one who brought the no-fly zones into play. If you want to keep beating on your own strawman, go right ahead. Just don't expect me to play.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DuncanK
Gepap is going to think that France is a good ally, because he agrees more with their politics I guess. I think any unbiased person would clearly see that France tend to make friends easily, but then tends to have no real loyalty to those friends what so ever. All the while expecting support from those friends when they need it. It's a very bad thing for them, and I'm glad America does not have such a reputation.

You are correct that I support the French view. BUt as for France making enemies easily: lets review the alst 100 years: france and England had been enemies for 500 years or more, yet by 1905 were allies. Germans and French were bitter enemies form 1870 to 1945, yet by 1956 they burried the hatchet, and now are very close allies, sharing the same money.In just the last 100 years the French have been able to forge extremely close ties to its neihbors, neighbors it has centuries of bad history with. As for giving friends support "when they need it": why exactly do we need it? We, the US, has decided to attack Iraq, not the other way around. france did not need our help in going into Ivory Coast and doing what it did, and it did not ask the US for any help then, now did they? If we don';t need french military support, and we don';t need French money (as you all say), and can do this all with the friends we got, and the deed is so obviously right..why in HELL do we demand the French rubber stamp a policy they don;t agree with?

Over the next 100 years the ties in the Eu will only get stronger. The UK, Spain, Poland and all thsoe toher will only get closer to the French,not farther. And currently the Chinese and Russians gree with them. If any state is currently doing things that may endanger long-term friendships for the foreseable future it is the US administration. Various governments in Euope may back us, but not the people of Europe, and Europe is full of democracies.

[DinoDoc]

How the hell did we get to France from Japan? Don't we have enough threads "Frog talk" already?

[Drake Tungsten]

How the hell did we get to France from Japan?

Don't ask me. I'm a little pissed about it, actually. There aren't many good East Asia-related threads on Poly to begin with, so it's really bad when one gets jacked to talk about the same old **** as every other thread...

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
How the hell did we get to France from Japan? Don't we have enough threads "Frog talk" already?

Somewhere down the line someone commented on how the Japanese government was supportive of the US in Iraq (I think DanS) and someone else called Japan a good ally, as compared to France.. hence, we got back to france.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by GePap


You are correct that I support the French view. BUt as for France making enemies easily: lets review the alst 100 years: france and England had been enemies for 500 years or more, yet by 1905 were allies. Germans and French were bitter enemies form 1870 to 1945, yet by 1956 they burried the hatchet, and now are very close allies, sharing the same money.In just the last 100 years the French have been able to forge extremely close ties to its neihbors, neighbors it has centuries of bad history with. As for giving friends support "when they need it": why exactly do we need it? We, the US, has decided to attack Iraq, not the other way around. france did not need our help in going into Ivory Coast and doing what it did, and it did not ask the US for any help then, now did they? If we don';t need french military support, and we don';t need French money (as you all say), and can do this all with the friends we got, and the deed is so obviously right..why in HELL do we demand the French rubber stamp a policy they don;t agree with?

Over the next 100 years the ties in the Eu will only get stronger. The UK, Spain, Poland and all thsoe toher will only get closer to the French,not farther. And currently the Chinese and Russians gree with them. If any state is currently doing things that may endanger long-term friendships for the foreseable future it is the US administration. Various governments in Euope may back us, but not the people of Europe, and Europe is full of democracies.

I didn't say they couldn't make friends. I said they aren't very good friends. I don't think the British and Germans think of them the way you do.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I'm going to make it simple for you as I did above: The No-Fly Zones weren't agreed to by Iraq, they weren't part of the ceasefire. The U.S. had no right under the UN-sanctioned ceasefire to establish them. They did so unilaterally, without Iraqi consent, after the ceasefire was signed. So here's option 3: Don't go violating another country's airspace.

Had Iraq agreed to the No-Fly Zones in the ceasefire, it wouldn't be an issue. But since they did not, it is clearly the U.S. that violated the ceasefire

One of the great things about being the victor is you get to impose what ever you wish upon the defeated and they get to take it with a smile. If you read any of the dozens of books about the gulf war you will find that the only type of flights which the cease fire allowed we're "diplomatic flights" Powell said he adreed with this during negotiations because he thought the Iraqis would really only use it to transport government diplomats. Saddam however took it to mean he could opporate military combat flights and began attacking the Kurds and Shiites.

Since Saddam blatantly lied about the nature of the flights the U.S./U.K. decided to disallow all flights. Saddam intially accept this, since Bush 1 said the cease fire would be off if he didn't, but then he changed his mind as soon as the troops were brought home.

The bottom line is it was diplomatically agreed to by the Iraqi government and so is legal. Even if Saddam changes his mind since the treaty stated it could only be modified if both parties agreed. The U.S. has never agreed to removing the no fly zones so Iraqis change of heart isn't legal.

[Drake Tungsten]

someone else called Japan a good ally, as compared to France..

That was me.

hence, we got back to france.

That was Boris and you. I guess it's my fault for letting you guys drag me off course...

I killed my pretty little pet.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by GePap
france did not need our help in going into Ivory Coast and doing what it did, and it did not ask the US for any help then, now did they?

Interestingly enough nor did they, to my knowledge, get a UNSC resolution. Neither was a resolution made in Bosnia, Kosovo, or Somalia. So it seems hyprocritical for certain states to demand still more UNSC resolutions now.

This thread is about Korea and Japan though so I'll try to get back on topic.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I killed my pretty little pet.

Yes, you are responsible.

Interestingly enough nor did they, to my knowledge, get a UNSC resolution. Neither was a resolution made in Bosnia, Kosovo, or Somalia. So it seems hyprocritical for certain states to demand still more UNSC resolutions now.

Hey, the admin. didn't have to go to the UN at all. Maybe they should have followed Clinton's procedure.

[DinoDoc]

Personally, the attempted jacking by UR was more interesting.

[Drake Tungsten]

Personally, the attempted jacking by UR was more interesting.

What topic did he try to get us onto? I forget...

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by muxec
N. Korea must be unarmed, and if UN can not unarm it peacefully Japan and USA must unarm it.

Who says they 'must' anything?

They have every right to do as they wish, as long as they don´t attack anybody, or break a treaty.

And as they have a few 'devices', anybody telling them they 'must' do as he wishes is risking a few of his cities...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Oerdin
One of the great things about being the victor is you get to impose what ever you wish upon the defeated and they get to take it with a smile. If you read any of the dozens of books about the gulf war you will find that the only type of flights which the cease fire allowed we're "diplomatic flights" Powell said he adreed with this during negotiations because he thought the Iraqis would really only use it to transport government diplomats. Saddam however took it to mean he could opporate military combat flights and began attacking the Kurds and Shiites.

Nowhere in the terms of the UN ceasefire agreement are any such restrictions on flights mentioned, at all. The UN does not recognize the no-fly zones as legitimate, and Koffi Annan himself said last year that Iraq was NOT inviolation of the ceasefire for firing upon U.S. planes in Iraqi airspace.

Iraq did NOT agree to the no-fly zones. They were imposed, AFTER the ceasefire, by the U.S. And Iraq has persistently, since their imposition, argued they were illegal, and they are correct.

Ted Striker:

You didn't read my post to you or ignored it, which answered the question. Such a course of action should have been UN-sanctioned. It was not. Ergo the U.S. violated the ceasefire first by invading Iraqi airspace. Had we gone through the UN, it wouldn't be an issue.

Drake:

No ****. I said Iraq violated the ceasefire by refusing to disarm, which was part of the UN-brokered ceasefire. You're the one who brought the no-fly zones into play. If you want to keep beating on your own strawman, go right ahead. Just don't expect me to play.

And I was pointing out the U.S. violated it, too, and did so in April of 1991. So I'd say we were first to violate it. You can't criticize Iraq for violating a ceasefire that we ourselves are violating, duh.

[Ted Striker]

Such a course of action should have been UN-sanctioned. It was not. Ergo the U.S. violated the ceasefire first by invading Iraqi airspace. Had we gone through the UN, it wouldn't be an issue.

Go through the UN my ass. People are being slaughtered by helicopter gunship and you want to wait on a ****ing UN Resolution.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Go through the UN my ass. People are being slaughtered by helicopter gunship and you want to wait on a ****ing UN Resolution.

Slaughtering Iraqis by helicopter gunship is assuredly a privilege only the US should have.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Go through the UN my ass. People are being slaughtered by helicopter gunship and you want to wait on a ****ing UN Resolution.

Oh please.

Your emotional indignity doesn't matter to anyone here, because it's a load of hot air.

First, engaging in military aggression against another country should always be with the sanction of the international community. The U.S. didn't even try to bring the question to the UN, they just did it.

Second, as the WP reported back in 2000, the U.S. concern for the welfare of Kurds is dubious at best. There was the non-existant help in a revolution to oust Saddam, after all. And then there was our little matter of appeasing Turkey. Wouldn't want to stop them from killing Kurds, would we? See:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...0/1025nfly.htm

Some choice quotes:

The Turkish government has interrupted the flying schedule several times, sometimes to bomb Kurdish villages in Iraq and sometimes to protest America's refusal to sell Turkey certain precision-guided bombs.

U.S. aircraft mistakenly bombed and strafed a group of Iraqi shepherds last year because intelligence analysts misinterpreted satellite imagery and thought a water trough for sheep was a missile launcher.

As the United States enters its 10th year of confronting Hussein, military strategists are frustrated, too. "I no longer have any sense of what the 'containment' of Iraq is all about," said retired Army Col. Andrew Bacevich, now a military expert at Boston University. "We just fly missions and drop bombs from time to time because we've been doing it for 10 years and no one can stop us from doing so."

In early 1999, said Mike Horn, who flew F-15s in two tours of duty in Northern Watch, "sometimes we flew in such a way that we provoked them to shoot at us." Under the operation's rules of engagement, they could not bomb unless the Iraqis fired upon them first.

Still, some are dismayed by what they have seen. Horn said that on more than one occasion he and his comrades received a radio message that "there was a TSM inbound"--that is, a "Turkish Special Mission" heading into Iraq. Following standard orders, the Americans turned their planes around and flew back to Turkey.

"You'd see Turkish F-14s and F-16s inbound, loaded to the gills with munitions," he said. "Then they'd come out half an hour later with their munitions expended."

When the Americans flew back into Iraqi airspace, he recalled, they would see "burning villages, lots of smoke and fire."

Those are from American pilots.

[DuncanK]

Boris,

When Iraq lost the war they had nothing to bargain with. The deal we offered them was, among other things, destroy all WoD, and we will stop the war. The US has been a bully, because we can. The aim though is to disarm Saddam, and to prevent him from being a threat in the region. I think the whole thing has been handled horribly, and that is mostly daddy Bush's fault. But to go on and say that the US is breaking the cease fire is not productive, except to demonstrate how poorly we have handled the situation. It doesn't matter too much for what is happening now.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Some choice quotes

Maybe you forgot this one:

The Turkish and U.S. militaries last year established separate air lanes so that U.S. aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone would not cross paths with Turkish planes bombing alleged Kurdish terrorist bases. Turkey has been fighting for years against the PKK, a Kurdish group seeking an independent homeland in the border region between Iraq, Iran and Turkey.

Yes, the PKK makes up the entire population of the Kurds. Brilliant.

I think you are right though, the US should pull out of the no fly zone and not go back until we can push a unanimous UN resolution to patrol the no-fly zone through. I wholeheartedly trust Saddam to behave himself, don't you?

"Hey officer, this man over here is raping me."

"Even though this guy is raping you, and just got done raping the woman down the street, I'll need to go back to headquarters and fill out the appropriate paperwork and then if my boss, his boss, and rape intervention committee agrees, then I'll come back and help you. Hopefully you won't be dead by then."

Please.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DuncanK
Boris,

When Iraq lost the war they had nothing to bargain with. The deal we offered them was, among other things, destroy all WoD, and we will stop the war. The US has been a bully, because we can. The aim though is to disarm Saddam, and to prevent him from being a threat in the region. I think the whole thing has been handled horribly, and that is mostly daddy Bush's fault. But to go on and say that the US is breaking the cease fire is not productive, except to demonstrate how poorly we have handled the situation. It doesn't matter too much for what is happening now.

That's not accurate. The U.S. accepted a UN-brokered ceasefire, it did not impose (at first) unilateral peace terms, and Iraq only accepted the UN terms. The US didn't got to war unilaterally in 1991--it went in under the aegis of a UN coalition. For the US to then unilaterally impose the no-fly zones was certainly an aggressive act against Iraq, which would qualify as a violation of the ceasefire.

Bottom line: The no-fly zones aren't legal under international law. That's why Annan said Iraq had the right to fire on U.S. planes in Iraqi airspace.

I think you are right though, the US should pull out of the no fly zone and not go back until we can push a unanimous UN resolution to patrol the no-fly zone through. I wholeheartedly trust Saddam to behave himself, don't you?

Considering even U.S. pilots think the no-fly zones aren't doing much of anything, I think it would be more than reasonable to take the matter to the UN security council for a vote.

Your "analogy" (I use quotes) is pretty piss-poor, considering a police officer has all the authority he needs to stop a crime in commission. And the U.S. isn't the police officer of the world, IIRC.

Besides, once again, if we care so much about the Kurds, why do we let the Turks bomb them? Oh right--those are terrorist villages in flames. Yeah, entire villages of terrorists.

And if we really cared about the lives of Iraqis, maybe we'd ease the sanctions to allow more humanitarian aide...

You know, If Nkor, pissed China off, and China jumped down their collective throats, this discussion would not be happening.

What makes you think you can change the USA's mind anymore than you could change China's mind in the same situation?