Alcibiaties of Athenae
Imperator
No UN people are saying that.
About overflights of Austria, I'm not familiar with that, so I won't comment on it.
About overflights of Austria, I'm not familiar with that, so I won't comment on it.
Powell's case to the UN
- Thread starter SirJethro
- Start date
- Status
test_specimen
hope lost
- Joined
- May 20, 2002
- Messages
- 2,200
My source is an article of "Die Presse" (www.diepresse.at), about three days ago. They interviewed UN officials who were observing Iraq and the no-flight zone.
The President can sign all the treaties he wants; they have no effect until Congress ratifies them. Every President knows this, and everyone the President signs treaties with knows this.
As for the Kyoto Treaty, and the International Criminal Court, Clinton signed on to them to put his successor in a hard place. He knew better than to try to get Congress to ratify either of them, so he left it to Bush to take the "reputation hit" for them.
(BTW, the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty was never broken. It specifically included language that said either party could cancel the treaty with six months notice. That is what we did. Never mind that the other party to the treaty (USSR) no longer existed....
)
Alcibiaties of Athenae
Imperator
Test, could you post the article so I could run it through a translator?
My German isn't very good.
My German isn't very good.
test_specimen
hope lost
- Joined
- May 20, 2002
- Messages
- 2,200
erwischt.
The archive is only accessible if you pay and I don't have the paper version anymore. But I look if I find it elswhere.
The archive is only accessible if you pay and I don't have the paper version anymore. But I look if I find it elswhere.
test_specimen
hope lost
- Joined
- May 20, 2002
- Messages
- 2,200
I might have been wrong there. In the link below, it is stated, that the no flight zone is not from a specific UN resolution. My fault. The UN officials only said that the US is flying over Iraq, not whether this was illegal.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/international/gulfwar5.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/international/gulfwar5.shtml
Alcibiaties of Athenae
Imperator
No big deal Test.
I'm more interested in the over-flights of Austria, that seems to be from the mid 1990s.
Can you tell us more about that?
I'm more interested in the over-flights of Austria, that seems to be from the mid 1990s.
Can you tell us more about that?
Sultan Bhargash
Trickster Reincarnated
Or was it because he knew his unbelievably hostile congress wouldn't pass them and he wanted these crucial treaties to have a chance?
Either way, you have to admire the political genius of it!
At this point, I'd like to commend AoA for handling a dogpile with aplomb. Richard III refered to his "critics" and what I saw from them was surprisingly unadult. This thread has basically (with acknowledgement of the efforts of Sir Jethro and others) become AoA against everyone arguing the merits of a war. After nearly ten pages of going over it, I understand completely what both sides are saying, why they believe as they do, and why a war with Iraq is either necessary and just or utterly wrong and bogus. Am I the only person here with that capacity to see both sides? Arguing further seems pointless. You are all right. Ahmad said it in these forums in December- there is no good answer for Iraq. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Unless either side has something new to add, why don't we call it a day?
You keep asking me to post this!
1441:
"10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA; "
The United States has been in noncompliance with this particular section from the beginning. Additionally, US statements, demands, and ultimatums have often been contrary to the inspection process and timelines, and official US statements (lately, Powell's presentation) have directly contradicted or ignored the findings of the UN weapons inspection team. Despite US attempts to hijack and manipulate the team's findings, they report many successes and will, given time, fully accomplish their mandate.
The team is doing its job. The job is not to prove Iraq's guilt by hook or by crook, nor to prove Iraq's innocence, but to gather and verify all information relating to banned weapons in Iraq. Those who would twist this resolution to other ends attack the credibility of the UN.
The US drafted this resolution; now they will stick to it.
...or face serious consequences!
test_specimen
hope lost
- Joined
- May 20, 2002
- Messages
- 2,200
http://www.bundesheer.at/cms/artikel.php?ID=333
Sorry this took a long time, but I had to go yesterday. The last flight was January. They had longer explanations on radio, where I heard it, since they want those new planes.
I agree with Sultan. No progress to be made here on either side.
Alcibiaties of Athenae
Imperator
IF I read the correctly test, it was a civillian plane flying food to Baku, not a military aircraft.
The Hercules is USUALLY a military type, but that one seems to be a civillian plane.
The Hercules is USUALLY a military type, but that one seems to be a civillian plane.
Alcibiaties of Athenae
Imperator
Sean, REQUESTS.
Inteligence sorces sometimes have to be gaurded lest they be lost.
IMO, he knew the only way they would pass would be if Gore won the Presidency and Congress was swept very strongly by the Democrats. Not a likely scenario. Indeed, he didn't sign the ICC until after the election was over, knowing it would never be passed. So he was obviously just leaving them as "stumbling blocks" for the next administration.
But you're right, Clinton was a political genius.
(Although, if anything, that just lowers my already low opinion of him.)In any case, I agree with you that nobody is going to change anybody's mind, here. I understand both sides of the argument. I just don't understand how some of the "anti-war" side can believe some of the things they are saying. Not *all* of them, of course, because some have provided very good, well-thought-out arguments. In those cases, I acknowledge the reasoning, and their right to hold those thoughts. To them, all I can say is I followed a different thought process, and came to a different conclusion.
Alcibiaties of Athenae
Imperator
Sultan, it seems many people here are rather narrow minded, they believe because I am forum moderator, I should not have an opinion.
They also (you have done this yourself, long ago) accuse me of "censoring" them, as they don't understand that rants are NOT permitted, it wasn't the content, it was how it was presented.
I was MUCH more lenient on these topics then normal, because I know it's a heated subject, but it seems a number of people are now trying to play a little game here, and I won't have it.
If you can't behave and follow site rules, you will be removed.
I ban nobody who disagrees with me, but be disrespectful, try to circumvent site rules, that is another story.
They also (you have done this yourself, long ago) accuse me of "censoring" them, as they don't understand that rants are NOT permitted, it wasn't the content, it was how it was presented.
I was MUCH more lenient on these topics then normal, because I know it's a heated subject, but it seems a number of people are now trying to play a little game here, and I won't have it.
If you can't behave and follow site rules, you will be removed.
I ban nobody who disagrees with me, but be disrespectful, try to circumvent site rules, that is another story.
Sir John
The evil one...
just asking....
when you circumvent a rule, you dont break the rule.. right??
so why is circumventing illegal??
when you circumvent a rule, you dont break the rule.. right??
so why is circumventing illegal??
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
Sultan, I was re-reading parts I'd missed to see if onejayhawk had answered my question, and found your post responding to mine on "imperialist invasions."
FYI, the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia I was referring to was not the 1971-72 incursions by US/RSVN forces, but invasion by the united Vietnam that deposed Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. A spectacular campaign, actually, and understudied in the west.
Like the 1978-1979 Tanzanian invasion/liberation of Uganda, Vietnam's 1978-1979 invasion of Cambodia was motivated by a strange mix of self-defence and something close to altruism. Vietnam's invasion was a pre-emptive strike on the assumption that Pol Pot's agitation against Vietnam over some border issues would lead to a larger war. The Vietnamese attacked on Christmas Day in '78, quickly pushing Khmer forces back to an arbitrary "safety line" that seemed far enough from the disputed territory for comfort. Once it was clear that they could overthrow Pol Pot's genocidal regime with ease, the Vietnamese kept going west and drove the Khmer Rouge into the hills along the Thai border.
Tanzania was provoked by a small incursion by Amin's troops, but Nyerere thought it would be better for everybody if he just ended Uganda's pain and tossed Amin out, which Tanzanian forces managed to do without difficulty.
Arguably, the Indian invasion of East Pakistan in 1971 falls into the same category.
I suppose I should have explained it better, but I'd included the Allied Invasion of Europe in reference to the situation with France, since the Allies were - under a strict view of international law - effectively deposing the lawful government of France and installing another in its place by doing so. But that's a b*tch of a tortured debate that I won't get into, partly because it was a throwaway line and not actually something I beleive is comparable...
R.III
FYI, the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia I was referring to was not the 1971-72 incursions by US/RSVN forces, but invasion by the united Vietnam that deposed Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. A spectacular campaign, actually, and understudied in the west.
Like the 1978-1979 Tanzanian invasion/liberation of Uganda, Vietnam's 1978-1979 invasion of Cambodia was motivated by a strange mix of self-defence and something close to altruism. Vietnam's invasion was a pre-emptive strike on the assumption that Pol Pot's agitation against Vietnam over some border issues would lead to a larger war. The Vietnamese attacked on Christmas Day in '78, quickly pushing Khmer forces back to an arbitrary "safety line" that seemed far enough from the disputed territory for comfort. Once it was clear that they could overthrow Pol Pot's genocidal regime with ease, the Vietnamese kept going west and drove the Khmer Rouge into the hills along the Thai border.
Tanzania was provoked by a small incursion by Amin's troops, but Nyerere thought it would be better for everybody if he just ended Uganda's pain and tossed Amin out, which Tanzanian forces managed to do without difficulty.
Arguably, the Indian invasion of East Pakistan in 1971 falls into the same category.
I suppose I should have explained it better, but I'd included the Allied Invasion of Europe in reference to the situation with France, since the Allies were - under a strict view of international law - effectively deposing the lawful government of France and installing another in its place by doing so. But that's a b*tch of a tortured debate that I won't get into, partly because it was a throwaway line and not actually something I beleive is comparable...
R.III
Alcibiaties of Athenae
Imperator
In this insatance it's the same as breaking it.
Sultan Bhargash
Trickster Reincarnated
Munzy I haven't laughed that hard that long in months.
AoA- I definitely understand the difference between Moderating and censorship (though there are a couple of photo-related threads I wish you would censor!). I admired your tenacity dealing with this thread yesterday.
@Padma, others who've come to the war conclusion- these forums are for debate and discussion, and the fact that we have an international audience has provided us with some wonderful insights from around the world. I'm for disarming Saddam, removing him from power, but against USUKUN playing kingmaker again as they did in Afghanistan. For all the trouble in Iraq, there are a lot of areas (women's rights, capitalism, etc.) where they are actually decades ahead of their eastern and southern neighbors.
I just can't get past the aftertaste of GUlf War one. Even today, Bush insists "we will lead a coalition to disarm him"; I can picture another incursion that ends with Saddam still hidden in his throne bunker.
AoA- I definitely understand the difference between Moderating and censorship (though there are a couple of photo-related threads I wish you would censor!). I admired your tenacity dealing with this thread yesterday.
@Padma, others who've come to the war conclusion- these forums are for debate and discussion, and the fact that we have an international audience has provided us with some wonderful insights from around the world. I'm for disarming Saddam, removing him from power, but against USUKUN playing kingmaker again as they did in Afghanistan. For all the trouble in Iraq, there are a lot of areas (women's rights, capitalism, etc.) where they are actually decades ahead of their eastern and southern neighbors.
I just can't get past the aftertaste of GUlf War one. Even today, Bush insists "we will lead a coalition to disarm him"; I can picture another incursion that ends with Saddam still hidden in his throne bunker.
Alcibiaties of Athenae
Imperator
I wouldn't be so fast to laugh at ol Munzy, I consider that a personal insult, and he's gone untill it is.
- Status
