A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

EU as joke (modified)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 9th 03, 02:24 PM
BUFDRVR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I'm not talking about violations per se -- there is a
difference between voting "no, we don't agree" as opposed
to veto something, knowing well it will torpedo what other
nations has agreed on.


That's laughable coming from someone in Europe. The "coalition of the willing"
assembled against Iraq last year was nearly twice the size as the coalition in
'91, yet France, Germany and Russia were ready to veto; "what other nations has
agreed on". If you don't like the whole UN veto system write your ambassador to
the UN and complain, but don't claim the US is a sinister, evil nation for
working with the construct of the UN Charter.

You took that statement out of context and you changed the
words to try to make it look like a black and white issue.


It is a black and white issue. Either the US respects the UN or it doesn't. You
argue it doesn't, I argue it does, at least as much as European nations.

WRT the Paliestine issue it has failed so far.


Ohh, so the US has failed on the Palistinean issue huh? Well, then I suggest
the EU step in and pick up where the US failed. The US has taken more of an
interest in helping the Palistineans than Egypt, Jordon, Saudi Arabia and most
definitely the EU combined. The EU contibution to helping the mid-east crisis
is to bitch at the US when we support Isreal. Way to go, that'll help make
progress.


I won't pretend to be an expert,
I can only comment what I've seen brought up in the newsmedia,
but, for instance, it seems to me the US is violating UN
General Assembly resolution 377, which decleares that it
is to meet to resolve any possible threats to or breach of
the peace if the UNSC fails to maintain peace because of a
lack of unanimity.


There was unanimity, the last UN resolution (sorry, we made so many against
Iraq I've ignored the resolution numbers) on Iraq threatened; "severe
consequences" should Iraq not fully cooperate with inspectors. The UN reported
Iraq was being deceptive and to the US "severe consequences" meant war. We're
sorry if it meant another UN resolution to France and stern words of
admonishment from Germany. The US acted with the authority of the last UN
resolution.

Thus it also violates UN Article 1 and 2


Wrong, "severe consequences" were promised by UN resolution and delivered by
the "coalition of the willing".

It also violates Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter which
declears that no member state has the authority to enforce
any resolution with armed force on its own and also that the
UNSC -must- authorize the use of military force.


Number one, we weren't on our own, number two the UNSC authorized the use of
force when they threatened "severe consequences". Additionally, older UNSC
resolutions also threatened Iraq with armed reprisal should they violate any
one of the *two dozen* resolutions regarding them.

"The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as
crimes under; international law: Planning, preparation,
initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war
in violation of international treaties, agreements
or assurances"


Not applicable due to UNSC resolutions authorizing force.

therefor any violation of International Laws
agreed upon by treaty, is a violation the supreme Law of
the Land. Thus, isn't the US in violation with its own
Constitution?


Uhh, no. US involvement in the United Nations was not part of a treaty ratified
by congress, it is an international organization and US involvement with said
organization has nothing to do with US Constitution any more or less than our
involvement in the WTO.

By the way, what's your opinion the Guantanamo prison
issue? Do you accept the "unlawful combatants" claim,
or do you feel the US is in violation of the Geneva
convention?


Anyone who's familar with the Geneva Accords knows full well that any Taliban
fighters captured in other than an *officially recognized* military uniform and
all Al Queda captured were, by definition, unlawful combatants. With that
being said, I think the Afghani's captured as part of the Taliban without an
"officially recognized" uniform, that we cannot directly tie to Al Queda should
be released. Afghanistan was a fourth world country, holding a man as an
unlawful combatant simply because he did not have an "officially recognized"
uniform under those conditions seems unfair.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"
  #2  
Old November 10th 03, 01:51 AM
Bjørnar Bolsøy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

I'm not talking about violations per se -- there is a
difference between voting "no, we don't agree" as opposed
to veto something, knowing well it will torpedo what other
nations has agreed on.


That's laughable coming from someone in Europe.


Glad I can make someone smile. :^)


The "coalition
of the willing" assembled against Iraq last year was nearly
twice the size as the coalition in '91, yet France, Germany and
Russia were ready to veto; "what other nations has agreed on".
If you don't like the whole UN veto system write your ambassador
to the UN and complain, but don't claim the US is a sinister,
evil nation for working with the construct of the UN Charter.


The US is much criticised for following its own policy
in many issues. There is no secret in that.

But yes I do feel the basic UN system is ready for restructuring.
After all the world has changed since 1945.


You took that statement out of context and you changed the
words to try to make it look like a black and white issue.


It is a black and white issue. Either the US respects the UN or
it doesn't. You argue it doesn't, I argue it does, at least as
much as European nations.


Then perhaps it should be time for the US to pay it's $2BN
debt to the UN. Lack of money and resources is an contributing
factor why the UN has trouble fulfilling its obligations
and goals.


The US has vetoed 26 of the last the Palestine/Israel issue
I think. Russia has vetoed two I believe. If you look at
this table you can see that of the 254 vetos in the UNSC
since 1946, the US alone accounts for 78 of them.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/data/vetotab.htm



WRT the Paliestine issue it has failed so far.


Ohh, so the US has failed on the Palistinean issue huh? Well,
then I suggest the EU step in and pick up where the US failed.


As I pointed out early in this discussion, it's a team-effort,
the EU -or anyone else- relys on the US as much as the other
way around.

The US has taken more of an interest in helping the Palistineans
than Egypt, Jordon, Saudi Arabia and most definitely the EU
combined. The EU contibution to helping the mid-east crisis is
to bitch at the US when we support Isreal. Way to go, that'll
help make progress.


Tee bitching probably goes both ways.


I won't pretend to be an expert,
I can only comment what I've seen brought up in the newsmedia,
but, for instance, it seems to me the US is violating UN
General Assembly resolution 377, which decleares that it
is to meet to resolve any possible threats to or breach of
the peace if the UNSC fails to maintain peace because of a
lack of unanimity.


There was unanimity, the last UN resolution (sorry, we made so
many against Iraq I've ignored the resolution numbers) on Iraq
threatened; "severe consequences" should Iraq not fully
cooperate with inspectors.


That's UN Resolution 1441, of november 8th 2002.

The UN reported Iraq was being
deceptive and to the US "severe consequences" meant war. We're
sorry if it meant another UN resolution to France and stern
words of admonishment from Germany. The US acted with the
authority of the last UN resolution.


No it didn't, Iraq accepted and complied five days after
the resolution was passed through, on nov 13th, and the
SC did not automaticly authorize the use of force, which
is why China, France and Russian added a Proviso which
stated that they do not understand it to authorize
"automaticity in the use of force."


It also violates Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter which
declears that no member state has the authority to enforce
any resolution with armed force on its own and also that the
UNSC -must- authorize the use of military force.


Number one, we weren't on our own, number two the UNSC
authorized the use of force when they threatened "severe
consequences".


Again, Iraq complied. Did the SC decide there had been
a material breach of the resolution? Had all nonmilitary
means of enforcement have been exhausted? Article 41/42
states that it must.

In addition, Article 51 restricts the use of the force
to cases of self-defense and only in response to an
"armed attack." I think you are going to have a tough
time showing that Iraq posed an imminant offensive threat.


Additionally, older UNSC resolutions also
threatened Iraq with armed reprisal should they violate any one
of the *two dozen* resolutions regarding them.


That's a much better argument, Iraq has a long history
of noncompliance with the demands of the UN. But what
was the US and UK official reasons for going to war?


therefor any violation of International Laws
agreed upon by treaty, is a violation the supreme Law of
the Land. Thus, isn't the US in violation with its own
Constitution?


Uhh, no. US involvement in the United Nations was not part of a
treaty ratified by congress, it is an international organization
and US involvement with said organization has nothing to do with
US Constitution any more or less than our involvement in the
WTO.


Professor Marjorie Cohn of Thomas Jefferson School
of Law seems to disagree:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew58.php


Dr. Matthew B. Robinson of Appalachian State
University too:

http://www.justiceblind.com/iraq.htm


By the way, what's your opinion the Guantanamo prison
issue? Do you accept the "unlawful combatants" claim,
or do you feel the US is in violation of the Geneva
convention?


Anyone who's familar with the Geneva Accords knows full well
that any Taliban fighters captured in other than an *officially
recognized* military uniform and all Al Queda captured were, by
definition, unlawful combatants.


I don't think the convention makes such a distinction.
Article 4 of the third convention sates that any indiviudual,
militia or voulenteer corps engaged in war is regarded a POW
when captured.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/2f681b...563cd0051aa8d?
OpenDocument



With that being said, I think
the Afghani's captured as part of the Taliban without an
"officially recognized" uniform, that we cannot directly tie to
Al Queda should be released. Afghanistan was a fourth world
country, holding a man as an unlawful combatant simply because
he did not have an "officially recognized" uniform under those
conditions seems unfair.


We agree on that.


Regards...
  #3  
Old November 10th 03, 02:08 PM
BUFDRVR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The US is much criticised for following its own policy
in many issues. There is no secret in that.


The question you need to ask yourself is; why? Why are France, Russia,
Belgium, etc. free to persue their own national policies without drawing
criticism but the US cannot?

Then perhaps it should be time for the US to pay it's $2BN
debt to the UN.


If we pay our debt, will the UN begin paying the State and City of New York the
billions they pay every year for hosting the United Nations. Everything from
additional police to sanitation removal are not paid for by the UN. We could
probably pay off some of that in parking tickets if UN members ever paid them,
but they flaunt their diplomatic immunity pretty good in downtown Manhatten.
Tell you what, why don't we move the UN to your country? I think that's a
solution that at least every American (definitely every "New Yorker") would
agree to.

Lack of money and resources is an contributing
factor why the UN has trouble fulfilling its obligations
and goals.


$$ has nothing to do with the fact that the international politics in this
multi-polar world have rendered the UN unable to act.

The US has vetoed 26 of the last the Palestine/Israel issue
I think.


You keep dredging this up as if to prove this represents US violation of UN
resolutions. It doesn't and for the fifth or sixth time, US vetos since 1991
are based on the simple *fact* that the UN has *never* admonished Isreal's
enemies and from the looks of things never plans to. Furthermore, no other
nation or organization has made progress (in some cases temporary, yet progress
none-the-less) between the Isreali's and their Arab counterparts like the US.

If you look at
this table you can see that of the 254 vetos in the UNSC
since 1946, the US alone accounts for 78 of them.


And this proves what?


As I pointed out early in this discussion, it's a team-effort,
the EU -or anyone else- relys on the US as much as the other
way around.


Wrong. The US has begged the EU to get involved in a substantive way for the
last 5 years, their biggest contibution is to approve UN resolutions
admonishing Isreal and leaving the PA blameless and to whine that the US has
vetoed the resolution. The US does not rely on the EU in the middle east.

Iraq accepted and complied five days after
the resolution was passed through, on nov 13th, and the
SC did not automaticly authorize the use of force


Partially correct. There was no wording automatically authorizing force, but
then again there was no wording not authorizing force. Its called diplomatic
ambiguity, its in nearly ever international agreement since the Magna Carta.
The US choose to assume past resoltions authorizing force and the current
resolution threatening "severe consequences" was authority enough.

Did the SC decide there had been
a material breach of the resolution?


Yes. UNSCOM reported the Iraqi's were being "deceptive". This was a material
breech.

Had all nonmilitary
means of enforcement have been exhausted?


Probably by around 1995.

In addition, Article 51 restricts the use of the force
to cases of self-defense and only in response to an
"armed attack." I think you are going to have a tough
time showing that Iraq posed an imminant offensive threat.


Potential chemical and biological weapons and known ties to international
terrorists was more than enough "proof".

But what
was the US and UK official reasons for going to war?


Iraq was still developing chemical and biological weapons and had known ties to
international terrorists.

I don't think the convention makes such a distinction.


It absolutely does. You can't engage in armed conflict in jeans and a T-shirt
and expect to be recognized as a legal armed combatant. The convention not only
says you must be a uniform, but an "officially recognized" uniform.

Article 4 of the third convention sates that any indiviudual,
militia or voulenteer corps engaged in war is regarded a POW
when captured.


Correct, if wearing a uniform identifying themselves as such.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"
  #4  
Old November 10th 03, 06:34 PM
Roman J. Rohleder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(BUFDRVR) schrieb:

Then perhaps it should be time for the US to pay it's $2BN
debt to the UN.


If we pay our debt, will the UN begin paying the State and City of New York the
billions they pay every year for hosting the United Nations. Everything from
additional police to sanitation removal are not paid for by the UN. We could
probably pay off some of that in parking tickets if UN members ever paid them,
but they flaunt their diplomatic immunity pretty good in downtown Manhatten.


Come on... hardly an argument, since the current total debt on parking
tickets et al. runs at about 22 million Dollar. The top ranking
violators are Kuwait and (IIRC) Morocco, their debt is subtracted from
the US financial aid given to them....

Isn´t it simple - you join the club, you pay the admission fee?

Potential chemical and biological weapons and known ties to international
terrorists was more than enough "proof".


(...)

Iraq was still developing chemical and biological weapons and had known ties to
international terrorists.


It doesn´t get truer by repetition.. reminds me of the slogan
"Marxismus ist richtig, weil er wahr ist.". :-(

I don't think the convention makes such a distinction.


It absolutely does. You can't engage in armed conflict in jeans and a T-shirt
and expect to be recognized as a legal armed combatant. The convention not only
says you must be a uniform, but an "officially recognized" uniform.

Article 4 of the third convention sates that any indiviudual,
militia or voulenteer corps engaged in war is regarded a POW
when captured.


Correct, if wearing a uniform identifying themselves as such.


And if not they should be regarded as POW until proven of different
status..I stumbled across an item by "The Guardian" dealing with that
as a side-topic.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...921192,00.html

To quote:

"The US government claims that these men are not subject to the Geneva
conventions, as they are not "prisoners of war", but "unlawful
combatants". The same claim could be made, with rather more justice,
by the Iraqis holding the US soldiers who illegally invaded their
country. But this redefinition is itself a breach of article 4 of the
third convention, under which people detained as suspected members of
a militia (the Taliban) or a volunteer corps (al-Qaida) must be
regarded as prisoners of war.

Even if there is doubt about how such people should be classified,
article 5 insists that they "shall enjoy the protection of the present
convention until such time as their status has been determined by a
competent tribunal". But when, earlier this month, lawyers
representing 16 of them demanded a court hearing, the US court of
appeals ruled that as Guantanamo Bay is not sovereign US territory,
the men have no constitutional rights."

BUFDRVR


Gruss, Roman
  #5  
Old November 11th 03, 03:34 AM
Michael Williamson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Roman J. Rohleder wrote:
(BUFDRVR) schrieb:


I don't think the convention makes such a distinction.


It absolutely does. You can't engage in armed conflict in jeans and a T-shirt
and expect to be recognized as a legal armed combatant. The convention not only
says you must be a uniform, but an "officially recognized" uniform.


Article 4 of the third convention sates that any indiviudual,
militia or voulenteer corps engaged in war is regarded a POW
when captured.


Correct, if wearing a uniform identifying themselves as such.



And if not they should be regarded as POW until proven of different
status..I stumbled across an item by "The Guardian" dealing with that
as a side-topic.


Well, since by definition conducting military operations without
such a uniform (or if not possible, then typically a "distinctive
marking" is considered adequate) specifically disqualifies one as
a legal combatant, then the determination doesn't take too long.
If, as a military member, I were captured taking potshots at
someone while wearing jeans and a T-shirt, then I would quite
likely not be entitled to combatant status.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...921192,00.html

To quote:

"The US government claims that these men are not subject to the Geneva
conventions, as they are not "prisoners of war", but "unlawful
combatants". The same claim could be made, with rather more justice,
by the Iraqis holding the US soldiers who illegally invaded their
country. But this redefinition is itself a breach of article 4 of the
third convention, under which people detained as suspected members of
a militia (the Taliban) or a volunteer corps (al-Qaida) must be
regarded as prisoners of war.


First, there is no legal distinction between whether a military
act is considered illegal in defining a legal combatant, so a uniformed
soldier engaging in any conflict is a legal combatant, period. They
could possibly be tried for carrying out illegal acts (invasion isn't
one of them) before their capture, but by convention only after the
end of the conflict (some countries hold exceptions to this, North
Vietnam was one of them, IIRC). The uniform issue applies even
if one IS a recognized member of an armed force- operating out of
uniform for the purpose of carrying out military activity (blowing
up a fuel depot for example) is prohibited, and marks you as
an illegal combatant- specifically, a spy, for which you may
legally be executed. Note that JUST being out of uniform
doesn't count, as you may be disguised if not carrying out
military activities- escaping from a POW camp in civilian
clothes doesn't make you an illegal combatant (or evan
a combatant, for that matter), but blowing up that fuel
depot while escaping would.

BTW, al-Quaeda isn't considered a volunteer organization, since
they don't operate under the direction of a national command
structure, nor are they fighting for a specific nation
(fighting AGAINST someone isn't enough). More importantly,
perhaps, is that no nation has claimed that al-Quaeda is working
FOR them- quite understandable, given that a) no one wants to
openly side with them, because b) no one wants to openly declare that
they consider themselves to be an appropriate target of the US and
other NATO forces (note the previous invocation of the mutual
defense clause of the NATO alliance by the NATO council on
12 September, 2001).


Even if there is doubt about how such people should be classified,
article 5 insists that they "shall enjoy the protection of the present
convention until such time as their status has been determined by a
competent tribunal". But when, earlier this month, lawyers
representing 16 of them demanded a court hearing, the US court of
appeals ruled that as Guantanamo Bay is not sovereign US territory,
the men have no constitutional rights."


The "competent tribunal" in this case rested with the US military,
which took the prisoners- note that not all prisoners were labelled
illegal combatants.

Also note that the ruling by the Court of Appeals was based on
a 50+ year old Supreme Court ruling, but that the US Supreme Court
has now apparently agreed to hear a case on that very point- guess
we'll see how it goes. Pretty much only the Supreme Court has
the luxury of overturning one of its previous rulings- lower courts
are bound by the previous precedent.

Mike

  #6  
Old November 11th 03, 01:23 PM
BUFDRVR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Isn´t it simple - you join the club, you pay the admission fee?

Then why not move the UN to Berlin and allow the German government to pay all
the "slack". The UN is a financial drain on both the City and State of New
York. This is an unarguable fact.

Iraq was still developing chemical and biological weapons and had known ties

to
international terrorists.


It doesn´t get truer by repetition.. reminds me of the slogan
"Marxismus ist richtig, weil er wahr ist.". :-(


So you're arguing that the US (and the UN) didn't believe Hussain was hiding an
iilegal weapons program? Or are you denying Iraq's ties to international
terrorism?

And if not they should be regarded as POW until proven of different
status..


First of all, the detainees at Gitmo have been treated as POWs from the moment
they were captured. Both the Red Cross and Red Cresent have been allowed to see
them, they have been treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention. The only
differance between these detainees and POWs is that they have not been released
with the defeat of their government....*however*, one could argue that the
conflict is still on going and they have no legal right to be released.

"The US government claims that these men are not subject to the Geneva
conventions, as they are not "prisoners of war", but "unlawful
combatants". The same claim could be made, with rather more justice,
by the Iraqis holding the US soldiers who illegally invaded their
country.


It's good to see that not only US media outlets are completely uninformed. The
above quote is ridiculous and shows no understanding of the Laws of Armed
Conflict or the Geneva Convention Accords.

But this redefinition is itself a breach of article 4 of the
third convention, under which people detained as suspected members of
a militia (the Taliban) or a volunteer corps (al-Qaida) must be
regarded as prisoners of war.


*If they are properly identified by recognized uniform and insignia*! Damn why
do you keep ignoring that part?

Even if there is doubt about how such people should be classified,
article 5 insists that they "shall enjoy the protection of the present
convention until such time as their status has been determined by a
competent tribunal".


For 95% of the detainees, there is no doubt. They were illegal immigrants in
Afghanistan, fighting for a non-governmental organization, wearing no uniform.
In other words an unlawful combatant.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The joke called TSA Spockstuto Instrument Flight Rules 58 December 27th 04 12:54 PM
Sick Boeing Joke. plasticguy Home Built 0 April 1st 04 03:16 PM
On Topic Joke Eric Miller Home Built 8 March 6th 04 03:01 AM
Europe as joke Cub Driver Military Aviation 165 November 8th 03 10:45 PM
American joke on the Brits ArtKramr Military Aviation 50 September 30th 03 10:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.