A whole new war, a dazzling hate I never knew
POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Friday, January 30, 2009 20:59
VIEWED: 6353
PAGE 7 of 10
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Good point. Though Russia and I think one other country recognized S. Ossetia and Abkhazia, the UN did not. The Govt. of Georgia did not. I guess this falls under meddling in the inside affairs of another member state.
...
Did Russia seek a UN resolution against Georgia for cutting off supplies to S. Ossetia?
That was essentially my take. As far as the UN is concerned Russia invaded sovereign territory. Russia did attempt to get a resolution, but they didn't get one. Off hand I forget if they waited for a vote or not.
Quote:
I suspect that the war was a PR stunt. Russia had been sort of dismissed by other world powers as an ex-superpower, and afterwords, they were back on the superpower list.
I think Putin, sorry Medvedev, wanted to flex his muscle, he's doing it a lot in all sorts of ways. Holding Europe to ransom over fuel supplies, and sending Aircraft close to British airspace, so they have to be warned away by the RAF for instance. If the UN hadn't been ignored by the allies when invading Iraq I don't think he'd have gone ahead with the invasion, but the UN has been shown to be something only 'lesser' states have to listen too recently.
Quote:
The same argument could be made for Kosovo, the war has NATO backing, I'm not sure it had UN backing, but there was a UN condemnation of Serbia.
It had Security Council backing, which is UN military backing.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Off hand I forget if they waited for a vote or not.
Learning from us :) Why bother to wait for the results? Bush tried to get a second Iraq resolution with explicit language allowing the use of force, but it failed. He had to resort to just stretching the interpretation of the first.
Quote:
I think Putin, sorry Medvedev
lol
Quote:
Re: Kosovo
It had Security Council backing, which is UN military backing.
I couldn't find it. Link?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
HERO
This is one of my brother's areas. He says that since the UN basically outlawed war, war had to evolve.
The UN has no legal authority over its member states.
The US can choose to go to war. The UN can complain...but it cannot act. The only body through which action can be taken is the Security Council. That means that so long as the US has an ally such as Britain (who would likely support US action in Iran), then the UN cannot make any sort of a finding as to the nature of the conflict.
The UN has only the power we choose to give it. No other nation has ever shown the will to be the UN's backbone. Iran could bluster and complain...but it would amount to nothing. Only the crazy-talker peace community would even notice...and they would be out in the streets talking about 'making love not war' regardless of the circumstances.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I am hugely disappointed. While I never thought Obama would be perfect (since he's bound to be under pressure from all the militants and power-mongers)I at least thought he was decent and honest and would get away from Bush's approach. I'm a liberal, I want to believe Obama's good man, but I can't deny the evidence of my eyes. This flies in the face of so much Obama claims to stand for. This is a man who has openly condemned the over-use of airstrikes due to civilian fatalities and promised to restructure the US military accordingly. He has also just days ago extended an olive branch to all America's former enemies. I sincerely hope this isn't a sign of things to come, because if it is then Obama has done a complete 360 within days of being sworn in, which would make him the most dishonest politician in history, rather than the most honest.
"Gorramit Mal... I've forgotten my line."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I couldn't find it. Link?
Quote:
The parties agreed to a ceasefire, which had begun in October 1995, withdrawal of UNPROFOR and deployment of a NATO-led multinational Implementation Force, to be known as IFOR. On 15 December, the Security Council endorsed the establishment of a High Representative by the London Peace Implementation Conference to mobilize, guide and coordinate the activities of the civilian organizations and agencies involved with the civilian aspects of the Peace Agreement. On 20 December, IFOR took over from UNPROFOR, and on 21 December, the Council decided to establish the United Nations International Police Task Force (IPTF) and a United Nations civilian office, brought together as the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH).
http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/pressrels/2001/sc7150.html
Sorry, it occurs that we maybe talking at crossed wires. The Security Council did authorise some action in Bosnia, other wise there wouldn't be any possibility of UN peacekeepers. It didn't authorise air-strikes which were undertaken by NATO, partly using the defence of the UN Peacekeepers as a reasoning. In fact that's another reason why Russia may have gone into Georgia, they didn't like NATO's attacks at all.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The UN has no legal authority over its member states.
No, like mcdonalds, the only thing that they can do is kick you out.
Of course, the US govt is run by globalists and some well intentioned internationalists, and they want to stay in. A smarter customer might go to a different restaurant.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
CORNCOBB
I am hugely disappointed. While I never thought Obama would be perfect (since he's bound to be under pressure from all the militants and power-mongers)I at least thought he was decent and honest and would get away from Bush's approach. I'm a liberal, I want to believe Obama's good man, but I can't deny the evidence of my eyes. This flies in the face of so much Obama claims to stand for. This is a man who has openly condemned the over-use of airstrikes due to civilian fatalities and promised to restructure the US military accordingly. He has also just days ago extended an olive branch to all America's former enemies. I sincerely hope this isn't a sign of things to come, because if it is then Obama has done a complete 360 within days of being sworn in, which would make him the most dishonest politician in history, rather than the most honest.
That last part, I think there's some very tough competition for.
He did a 360 on his cabinet. He said during the campaign "my cabinet will be this, [suggested names], it will definitely be made up of the best people for the job, and people who will disagree with me, challenge me, not a crew of yes men" and then, here came the crew of crooked yes men. But we all were willing to bend a little bit to say "well, he didn't have all the power, the Clintonistas pulled the strings."
On this one, I have to agree. The defense, when it comes at all, which is pretty rare, seems to be "well, Bush did stuff like this." And I have to say "Is this our goal? To have another G.W. Bush? Four more years, is that what the people voted for, is that change they can believe in?"
I can also get the possibility of this was a screw up by someone in his administration, but I can't that on faith. If that's the case, or even if it isn't, any non-evil politician, (and even a few evil ones) would have the common decency to make a public apology. It's gotta start out with "This is a tragedy, and a terrible mistake, and it's my mistake. Here's what I'm going to do so that it doesn't happen again." If he comes out with a "we thought there were terrorists there" hell, throw him to the wolves. If he says nothing, then its four more years guys, get ready.
This is where Clinton totally lost any chance of redemption for me. He came back after the Waco thing. At the time, supposedly Al Gore was in charge, but the testimony said Hillary gave the green light, and Reno gave the order, Wesley carried it out. But Clinton's first words should have been "This is my mistake, the buck stops here, I set a policy, I didn't see oversee its execution, and tragedy resulted, and the blame belongs right here." Instead, he opened with "We have reason to believe that these children [whom he had just killed] were being abused." At that point I said, f^&k him. Hang him high, impeach him. Hell, that would have saved millions of lives. By the Ford rule it would have been say hello to President Paul Tsongas, maybe Jerry Brown.
I don't think this is an impeachable offense, whether or not it's forgiveable depends on whether or not he asks for it, and admits it.
Otherwise I'm forced to conclude that he's just the charismatic frontman for the next Clintonista regime, which is no better than the Bushes, I'm not even sure it's not the same thing.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Sorry, it occurs that we maybe talking at crossed wires. The Security Council did authorise some action in Bosnia, other wise there wouldn't be any possibility of UN peacekeepers. It didn't authorise air-strikes which were undertaken by NATO, partly using the defence of the UN Peacekeepers as a reasoning. In fact that's another reason why Russia may have gone into Georgia, they didn't like NATO's attacks at all.
That's what I thought. They authorized the partitioning of Bosnia and the arms embargo, but not the Kosovo operation or the airstrikes on serbia. The difference being that Bosnia was an independent recognized nation, and Kosovo was a province of Serbia. Attacking Serbia itself was more questionable, like the bombing of Baghdad, particularly targeting civilian populations. There was an outroar at the time from some of the anti-milosevic civilian areas which were hit in both Serbia proper and Kosovo. We can claim this was an error, but war crimes are there to say "hey, err on the side of caution. If you're sure it's the enemy, then don't bomb it."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Agreed, agreed, agreed and agreed.
I see several possible expalantions, which I'll split into those I thik would be good (or acceptable), and those that would make me worry about Obama, who up until now i had a lot of respect for.
The Good:
1. This was a mistake, or some order left over from Bush, he'll apologise and correct policies.
2. This was a one off surgical strike, to prevent an imminent disaster, and all due care was taken to make sure no innocents would be harmed. I'm not sure I'd buy this if he made such a claim though, unless there was good evidence.
The Bad:
1. He's a puppet, or at least under pressure from the same section of the Democrats who made sure hundreds of thousands of children died in Iraq during clinton's era.
2. He's trying to prevent bipartisanship by taking a 'strong' stance against terror. Even though I could see his thinking on this, and it wouldn't be entirely against the ideas he's expressed (in The Audacity of Hope for example), it would still be a bad move, and probably the first step on a slippery slope.
The Ugly:
He's as bad as Bush, and all this 'I respect human life and want an end to war' stuff was a long con.
"Gorramit Mal... I've forgotten my line."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
No. The legal use of military power outside a formal Declaration of War has been well established..."since the 1940's".
Korea, Vietnam, Libya, Kuwait, etc.
Doesn't prove war can constitutionally be declared by an entity other than Congress, just that war has been declared. Though of course most of the above weren't 'wars' they were 'police actions'.
No, but it does establish the precedent that military power can be used absent a Declaration of War...just as the founders intended. (...to the shores of Tripoli; We will fight our country's battles...)
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME