|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
Saturday, May. 10, 2008 Is it Time to Invade Burma? By Romesh Ratnesar The disaster in Burma presents the world with perhaps its most serious humanitarian crisis since the 2004 Asian tsunami. By most reliable estimates, close to 100,000 people are dead. Delays in delivering relief to the victims, the inaccessibility of the stricken areas and the poor state of Burma's infrastructure and health systems mean that number is sure to rise. With as many as 1 million people still at risk, it is conceivable that the death toll will, within days, approach that of the entire number of civilians killed in the genocide in Darfur. So what is the world doing about it? Not much. The military regime that runs Burma initially signaled it would accept outside relief, but has imposed so many conditions on those who would actually deliver it that barely a trickle has made it through. Aid workers have been held at airports. UN food shipments have been seized. US naval ships packed with food and medicine idle in the Gulf of Thailand, waiting for an all-clear that may never come. Burma's rulers have relented slightly, agreeing Friday to let in supplies and perhaps even some foreign relief workers. The government says it will allow a US C-130 transport plane to land inside Burma Monday. But it's hard to imagine a regime this insular and paranoid accepting robust aid from the US military, let alone agreeing to the presence of US Marines on Burmese soil — as Thailand and Indonesia did after the tsunami. The trouble is that the Burmese haven't shown the ability or willingness to deploy the kind of assets needed to deal with a calamity of this scale — and the longer Burma resists offers of help, the more likely it is that the disaster will devolve beyond anyone's control. "We're in 2008, not 1908," says Jan Egeland, the former U.N. emergency relief coordinator. "A lot is at stake here. If we let them get away with murder we may set a very dangerous precedent." That's why it's time to consider a more serious option: invading Burma. Some observers, including former USAID director Andrew Natsios, have called on the US to unilaterally begin air drops to the Burmese people regardless of what the junta says. The Bush Administration has so far rejected the idea — "I can't imagine us going in without the permission of the Myanmar government," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday — but it's not without precedent: as Natsios pointed out to the Wall Street Journal, the US has facilitated the delivery of humanitarian aid without the host government's consent in places like Bosnia and Sudan. A coercive humanitarian intervention would be complicated and costly. During the 2004 tsunami, some 24 US ships and 16,000 troops were deployed in countries across the region; the mission cost the U.S. $5 million a day. Ultimately, the US pledged nearly $900 million to tsunami relief. (By contrast, it has offered just $3.25 million to Burma.) But the risks would be greater this time: the Burmese government's xenophobia and insecurity make them prone to view US troops — or worse, foreign relief workers — as hostile forces. (Remember Black Hawk Down?) Even if the U.S. and its allies made clear that their actions were strictly for humanitarian purposes, it's unlikely the junta would believe them. "You have to think it through — do you want to secure an area of the country by military force? What kinds of potential security risks would that create?" says Egelend. "I can't imagine any humanitarian organization wanting to shoot their way in with food." So what other options exist? Retired General William Nash of the Council on Foreign Relations says the US should first pressure China to use its influence over the junta to get them to open up and then supply support to the Thai and Indonesian militaries to carry out relief missions. "We can pay for it — we can provide repair parts to the Indonesians so they can get their Air Force up. We can lend the them two C-130s and let them paint the Indonesian flag on them," Nash says. "We have to get the stuff to people who can deliver it and who the Burmese government will accept, even if takes an extra day or two and even if it's not as efficient as the good old US military." Egeland advocates that the UN Security Council take punitive steps short of war, such as freezing the regime's assets and issuing warrants for the arrest of individual junta members if they were to leave the country. Similar measures succeeded in getting the government of Ivory Coast to let in foreign relief teams in 2002, Egelend says. And if that fails? "It's important for the rulers to know the world has other options," Egeland says. "If there were, say, the threat of a cholera epidemic that could claim hundreds of thousands of lives and the government was incapable of preventing it, then maybe yes — you would intervene unilaterally." But by then, it could be too late. The cold truth is that states rarely undertake military action unless their national interests are at stake; and the world has yet to reach a consensus about when, and under what circumstances, coercive interventions in the name of averting humanitarian disasters are permissible. As the response to the 2004 tsunami proved, the world's capacity for mercy is limitless. But we still haven't figured out when to give war a chance. link
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 218
Practice Squad
|
|
Practice Squad
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 218 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 26
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 26 |
LOL Looch....that's funny. You can bet if they did contingency plans would be being drawn up as we speak.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,404
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,404 |
I have to be fair here. While it seems that oil has been an incentive for US invasion, the US military has often provided a great amount of humanitarian effort to lots of countries.
I used to think the numbers were skewed towards petroleum countries, but after my International Law competition this year, I learned that it's a lot wider.
After looking at Iraq and Afghanistan, one could argue that the U.S. cares less about violating sovereignty of states when it is on a personal level conflict, but invading a country based solely on humanitarian efforts seems a bit stupid.
I do think that a Red Warrant should be put out for the arrests of the junta as they have violated multiple Human Rights conventions at this point. If they end up in another country, they should go before the Hague.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
but invading a country based solely on humanitarian efforts seems a bit stupid.
So, you disagreed with Bill Clinton's bombing of Yugoslavia then?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,865
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,865 |
Quote:
do they have oil?
LOL.. pretty funny. But it did bring up a good question. We basically freed the Iraqi people... we've spent billions upon billions of our taxpayer money to do so..
So, you tell me, what's wrong with bringing home a couple hundred million barrels of oil at no charge.? Kinda repaying us so to speak....
As for burma,,
"chump don't want no help, chump don't get no help"
(barbara billingslys character in the movie Airplane)
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,561 |
Well said.
In a way one could look at this as a genocide of sorts.
The military leaders don't really care if a few hundred thousand more people perish.
That means that many fewer people to uprise somewhere down the road as well as leaves that many fewer mouths to feed in the short term.
I think they see this as a means to consolidate their power further.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 468
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 468 |
Exactly !....As for invading Burma IMHO , No Way !....We have stuck our nose where it doesn't belong to much already....Let the U.N. deal with it and those countries who care to contribute pay for it....
The Mammal
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
We basically freed the Iraqi people...
...from a leader who we supported for decades.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800 |
We supported Bin Laden as well, people do this when it benefits their cause and in both situations we had something to gain. Are you saying that we shouldn't be going after him as well? I have to say your not making too much sense right now, it sounds like your reaching to validate whatever point your trying to get across. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349 |
Quote:
LOL Looch....that's funny. You can bet if they did contingency plans would be being drawn up as we speak.
Plans?? what are those??
KING
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
We supported Bin Laden as well, people do this when it benefits their cause and in both situations we had something to gain. Are you saying that we shouldn't be going after him as well? I have to say your not making too much sense right now, it sounds like your reaching to validate whatever point your trying to get across.
I'm saying that I'm appalled at how people act like the nation of Iraq owes us something. It's an entirely absurd premise. We invaded their country unprovoked and overthrew a dictator who we supported for years. And we're supposed to get thanked for blowing up their infrastructure and getting rid of the bad guy we propped up? 
If anything, we owe them. Big time.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,404
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,404 |
Quote:
Quote:
but invading a country based solely on humanitarian efforts seems a bit stupid.
So, you disagreed with Bill Clinton's bombing of Yugoslavia then?
I should clarify. There are some KEY differences between the two situations.
In the case of the former Yugoslavia, Kosovo was a specific, zoned-off region, just like Croatia and Slovenia that broke away by asserting its right to self-determination. The Serbs retaliated with genocide.
Moreover, this article, and my initial response, focused on unilateral action by the United States. In the case of Yugoslavia, it was a coalition effort backed by both NATO and the United Nations.
The UN Security Council afterwards even created an International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia where they stripped head of state immunity away from people, like Milosevic, and tried them for Crimes Against Humanity. However, he died before prosecution could happen.
Ergo, the situation is totally different. If Burma/Myanmar had a specific region seeking autonomy through self-determination, and the UN recognized that region's right to autonomy, then I would support a coalition effort by more than just the United States to invade.
As it is now, that is most definitely not the case. The two situations are completely different.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,404
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,404 |
Quote:
Well said.
In a way one could look at this as a genocide of sorts.
The military leaders don't really care if a few hundred thousand more people perish.
That means that many fewer people to uprise somewhere down the road as well as leaves that many fewer mouths to feed in the short term.
I think they see this as a means to consolidate their power further.
You know it man. State inaction is not the same as state action as I'm sure you know well more than I do. It just sucks how much something so horrible plays right into their advantage.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102 |
Invading Burma is totally insane. Our children and grandchildren haven't even paid off the cost of our war in Iraq yet.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
In the case of the former Yugoslavia, Kosovo was a specific, zoned-off region, just like Croatia and Slovenia that broke away by asserting its right to self-determination. The Serbs retaliated with genocide.
So, your claim is that it isn't worth going to war for humanitarian reasons except when you think it is alright to go to war for humanitarian reasons. Please make a case that "stopping genocide" isn't a humanitarian reason.
However, even the United Nations, I'd like to remind you that they were no friends of the Serbs, concluded that "genocide" was NOT committed in Kosovo. It was completely a creation of the media hype, based on the Clinton administration's case for going to war against Yugoslavia.
Your claim of it being a "zoned-off region" is ludicrous! It was an integral part of the Serbia, pure and simple. It would be the same as you stating that Alaska is a "zoned-off region". Completely irrational and ignorant of the facts. But, we wouldn't want to let the facts get in the way of propoganda, would we? 
Quote:
In the case of Yugoslavia, it was a coalition effort backed by both NATO and the United Nations.
Another complete falsehood. I won't call it an outright lie because I don't think you know what you're posting about. The United Nations (and I'm no friend of theirs) did not endorse or back the war against Yugoslavia. It was a mostly a NATO affair (except for the Albanian and KLA, a terrorist organization, involvement) and the UN had nothing to do with it. As for NATO, the act itself violated the NATO charter, which only allows the use of force in defense of its members.
Quote:
The UN Security Council afterwards even created an International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia where they stripped head of state immunity away from people, like Milosevic, and tried them for Crimes Against Humanity. However, he died before prosecution could happen.
Indeed. He was on trial but it was a complete farce of a trial as he wasn't given the opportunity to bring defense witnesses. And, as you stated, he was stripped of state immunity. Now, for sure, the actions he was accused of were outside of their jurisdiction anyway. They occurred completely within the borders of his nation. In fact, the war perpetrated by the NATO nations (in violation of the NATO charter) also occurred completely within the borders of Yugoslavia.
Quote:
Ergo, the situation is totally different. If Burma/Myanmar had a specific region seeking autonomy through self-determination, and the UN recognized that region's right to autonomy, then I would support a coalition effort by more than just the United States to invade.
So, you would support going to war against Turkey/Iraq/Iran to establish a Kurdish homeland? With people like you, it is no wonder I have a dreadful outlook for this nation (specifically) and for humanity (in general).
The difference that I see is that Clinton was in office for Yugoslavia.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,404
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,404 |
Wow, no need for personal attacks, man. This is something that needs intelligent discussion. I'd like to think my background and experience with international law is pretty deep, and that I know very much what I'm talking about. If you'd like to know why, I'll tell you.
You bring up some good points and I'll get back to them later as my fiancee is beckoning to go get dinner.
If you have any free time, I'd look up some of the things written by Antonio Cassese who was the presiding Justice at the ICTFY.
Take care, man.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
Let the U.N. deal with it ....
Yeah right! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
LOL Looch....that's funny. You can bet if they did contingency plans would be being drawn up as we speak.
If that's the case, then why haven't we invaded Darfur or Venezula?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Wow, no need for personal attacks, man.
Saying you're ignorant of the facts isn't a personal attack.
Quote:
This is something that needs intelligent discussion.
If I was to personally attack you on this subject it would be to ask you why you're here discussing this... but I won't do that.
Quote:
I'd like to think my background and experience with international law is pretty deep, and that I know very much what I'm talking about. If you'd like to know why, I'll tell you.
Please do tell me. I would like to know why you think your background and experience means more than anyone else's view or has more validity to it. Apparently Jimmy Carter, former president, thinks he can still speak for the United States government.
You bring up some good points and I'll get back to them later as my fiancee is beckoning to go get dinner.
Quote:
If you have any free time, I'd look up some of the things written by Antonio Cassese who was the presiding Justice at the ICTFY.
I don't care what a presiding judge for the International Court Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia says. His authority was given to him by powers that also had no authority. In short, it doesn't mean squat.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Quote:
LOL Looch....that's funny. You can bet if they did contingency plans would be being drawn up as we speak.
If that's the case, then why haven't we invaded Darfur or Venezula?
As far as the latter - and I'm not insinuating that all conflicts are the result of oil, just dealing with the proposed question - as much as Bush can't stand Chavez, he has a lot of American business interests on pins and needles. There is a large number of people on Wall Street who watch his moves closely, because he has many lucrative ties and his moves mean something to people. He's an important player, and he won't be messed with because of it. "Oil" is not the cause of most conflicts...I'd say it's corporate business interests, both American and abroad.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
I hope Chavez tries such a stunt. The Citgo stations across the country would dry up overnight and those who fight drilling in the ANWR and other places off-shore might change their tunes and begin allowing it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349 |
Quote:
I hope Chavez tries such a stunt. The Citgo stations across the country would dry up overnight and those who fight drilling in the ANWR and other places off-shore might change their tunes and begin allowing it.
What is the other gas stations that have been popping up because many refuse to buy fuel from Citgo. Is it Valero or something like that??
KING
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,404
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,404 |
While the chicken is in the oven, I will respond to your first post. By the way, can you let me know what view you're coming from, so I can get a better sense of who I'm responding to? Quote:
So, your claim is that it isn't worth going to war for humanitarian reasons except when you think it is alright to go to war for humanitarian reasons. Please make a case that "stopping genocide" isn't a humanitarian reason.
If that's all you got out of my post, then it would be hypocrisy to call me ignorant. There is a difference between the United States acting unilaterally vs. a coalition force and UN authorization. There is no claim for self-determination in Myanmar. There is nothing that currently allows for a breach of the UN Charter Article 2(4) at this point. Please tell me how the U.S. acting unilaterally to invade Myanmar would be just the same as the actions in Kosovo. You originally brought it up.
Quote:
However, even the United Nations, I'd like to remind you that they were no friends of the Serbs, concluded that "genocide" was NOT committed in Kosovo. It was completely a creation of the media hype, based on the Clinton administration's case for going to war against Yugoslavia.
Haha, thanks for reminding me. Now, let me remind you, this was a court of international judges that was under the supervision of the United Nations. You tell me that the ICTFY doesn't matter in your latest post, but you count the opinion of this court? Hmm... And I do think that the opinion of this court is shaky at best.
Here is what the 1948 Geneva Conventions dictates about Genocide:
Genocide is described as a specific act (killing, serious bodily or mental harm, etc.) “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a NATIONAL, ethnical, religious or racial group, as such.
I firmly believe that there was genocide as seen through the hundreds found in mass graves. Apparently, from that article, other UN delegates agree with me. On the international level, there is no stare decisis. One court's decision, even the ICJ, is not conclusive upon an issue.
I could argue with you until the end of time about genocide, but I'll point out two more points that are detrimental to your argument:
1. The article that you provided admits that there were crimes against humanity (which includes genocide) and war crimes. Both of which violate the International Bill of Human Rights, and various treaties. Therefore, the issue is moot on whether there were humanitarian violations.
2. You use the word "completely" which is often a hard word to overcome in a debate. Please tell me how genocide was a COMPLETE creation of hype on behalf of the United States.
Quote:
Your claim of it being a "zoned-off region" is ludicrous! It was an integral part of the Serbia, pure and simple. It would be the same as you stating that Alaska is a "zoned-off region". Completely irrational and ignorant of the facts. But, we wouldn't want to let the facts get in the way of propoganda, would we?
How is it ludicrous? How is it irrational? How is it ignorant of the facts? Do you know what self-determination is? Or what the elements of claiming it are?
You need to have a specific region, set apart region that is claiming it's own autonomy in order for there to be self-determination. Kosovo, as seen throughout its new recognition as a separate nation, ultimately met those requirements. If we all of a sudden began suppressing people in Alaska, then you can damn well bet they'd have a good chance of self determination.
A different situation would be racism against blacks before the Civil Rights era. As horrible as it was, they could not assert a right to self-determination because they did not control a "specific region" that could be partitioned from the rest of the United States.
Quote:
Another complete falsehood. I won't call it an outright lie because I don't think you know what you're posting about. The United Nations (and I'm no friend of theirs) did not endorse or back the war against Yugoslavia. It was a mostly a NATO affair (except for the Albanian and KLA, a terrorist organization, involvement) and the UN had nothing to do with it. As for NATO, the act itself violated the NATO charter, which only allows the use of force in defense of its members.
There you go using "complete" again. I agree that it was mostly a NATO, affair, but to say that the United Nations had "nothing to do with it" is shaky at best. The Security Council issued, I believe, at least 3 resolutions made under their Chapter 7 authorities dealing with the situation in Kosovo. These were violated. Now you may make the point that the UNSC permanent members are comprised of a majority of the chief NATO parties, which is correct, but the UN did indeed play a role.
As far as the NATO charter, NATO is not restricted to perform just the duties of its charter. It also upholds the objectives of the UN Charter. In this case, there is a case to be made for NATO upholding Article 51 of the UN Charter, which exists as an exception to Article 2(4). There was an armed conflict between the KLA and Serb forces. Therefore, there must have been an armed attack. Ergo, there is a collective right to self defense which ceased upon resolution and the takeover by the UNSC.
Quote:
Indeed. He was on trial but it was a complete farce of a trial as he wasn't given the opportunity to bring defense witnesses. And, as you stated, he was stripped of state immunity. Now, for sure, the actions he was accused of were outside of their jurisdiction anyway. They occurred completely within the borders of his nation. In fact, the war perpetrated by the NATO nations (in violation of the NATO charter) also occurred completely within the borders of Yugoslavia.
Let's see, how did you phrase it to me...that's a complete falsehoold. I wouldn't say lie because I don't think you know what you're posting about.
web page
If he committed crimes against humanity, it DOESN'T MATTER where he committed them...even if it was in his own territory. Read the International Bill of Human Rights Conventions, which allow for universal jurisdiction.
Furthermore, even when a head of state commits acts within his own territory, if there is an international tribunal created, it doesn't have to acknowledge his head of state immunity, which in this case it didn't. Before such a tribunal, you have to atone for whatever gross violations of international law you committed, regardless of where they took place. Of all your arguments, this was by far the worst.
Quote:
So, you would support going to war against Turkey/Iraq/Iran to establish a Kurdish homeland? With people like you, it is no wonder I have a dreadful outlook for this nation (specifically) and for humanity (in general).
The difference that I see is that Clinton was in office for Yugoslavia.
First off, if you think I like Clinton, you're dead wrong.
You made the same blunder here, as well. If there was a coalition force set up to invade the country pursuant to UNSC resolutions in response to an ongoing situation, I would favor such an action more than unilateral action by the United States.
In the case of grave violations against the Kurds, I think that all who violated those rights should be subject to a Red Warrant and stand before the ICC for Crimes Against humanity. They would probably just stay in their own country until they rot, but I would at least like to see such an action take place.
I mean, hell, you don't have to go invading everywhere. That's not my goal. Sheesh! But countries can bring action against criminal heads of state like Pinochet among all the others.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,404
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,404 |
Quote:
If I was to personally attack you on this subject it would be to ask you why you're here discussing this... but I won't do that.
Classy.
Quote:
Please do tell me. I would like to know why you think your background and experience means more than anyone else's view or has more validity to it.
When did I say that? Please, show me. You called me ignorant. I told you I wasn't. So now when I defend myself and the years I've spent studying the subject, I'm automatically saying that my view means more than anyone else's?
Quote:
I don't care what a presiding judge for the International Court Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia says. His authority was given to him by powers that also had no authority. In short, it doesn't mean squat.
The Security Council has no authority? Umm...it's arguable to say that the Security Council is the only international body that has ANY authority.
He's written countless articles on hot topics for international law. His latest definition of terrorism has even been acknowledged to rise to the level of customary international law, but hey, if you don't want to at least educate yourself, that doesn't bother me one bit.
I tried to initiate with a thought-provoking, open-minded, and peaceful conversation with you, but you pretty much crapped on that idea.
Regardless, I appreciate your contributions in the other forums and I truly hope that you have a nice evening.
Take care.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 468
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 468 |
That is Funny !....My main concern is that we are keep our nose out of other nations business....If other nations in want to let them get involved and pay for it  ....
The Mammal
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
There is a difference between the United States acting unilaterally vs. a coalition force and UN authorization.
The UN never authorized (not that it was needed) any military action against Yugoslavia. However, NATO violated its own charter by going into an offensive mode. I think the cause for going to war (casus belli) was non-existent. Essentially, it boiled down to a "Wag the Dog" scenario but "genocide against the Kosovar Albanians" was given as the reason. This has been completely shown to be baseless. Whatever floats your boat. In the long run, it won't matter.
Quote:
There is no claim for self-determination in Myanmar.
Every claim for "self-determination" isn't valid. The American Civil War was fought over that more than 140 years ago. All I have to say is, I thank God for Abraham Lincoln and not "dawglover05" being president.
Quote:
Please tell me how the U.S. acting unilaterally to invade Myanmar would be just the same as the actions in Kosovo.
I don't want us invading Burma (Myanmar). I also didn't want us to attack Yugoslavia. As for telling you how, both of them are (or were) none of our business.
Actually, I never stated anything about attacking Burma or anywhere else.
Quote:
Haha, thanks for reminding me. Now, let me remind you, this was a court of international judges that was under the supervision of the United Nations. You tell me that the ICTFY doesn't matter in your latest post, but you count the opinion of this court? Hmm... And I do think that the opinion of this court is shaky at best.
Just the same, the court had no authority. I don't count the opinion of the ICTFY. I dismiss it completely. The ICTFY had no authority, under the supervision of the UN or not. The UN had no authority, except insofar as the complaints provided to them by Yugoslavia against the participating NATO nations who were committing war against them. In my opinion, the inability of the UN to do anything to stop the warfare proves its uselessness as an organization.
Quote:
Here is what the 1948 Geneva Conventions dictates about Genocide:
Genocide is described as a specific act (killing, serious bodily or mental harm, etc.) “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a NATIONAL, ethnical, religious or racial group, as such.
Kosovo isn't a nation. It isn't an ethical, religious or racial group either. Nice try but it doesn't hold any water either. You're reaching for some serious straws. Even to this day, Kosovo is not recognized by the United Nations as anything but an integral part of Serbia.
Quote:
1. The article that you provided admits that there were crimes against humanity (which includes genocide) and war crimes. Both of which violate the International Bill of Human Rights, and various treaties. Therefore, the issue is moot on whether there were humanitarian violations.
2. You use the word "completely" which is often a hard word to overcome in a debate. Please tell me how genocide was a COMPLETE creation of hype on behalf of the United States.
I never stated anything about humanitarian violations, although "humanitarin violations" should NEVER be used as a casus belli for war.
Genocide was used by the Clinton administration as the reason that the United States needed to provide military action against Yugoslavia. See this link where Defense Secretary William Cohen states the following:
Our military goal of degrading the Yugoslav army and special police is a response to the unspeakable brutality that has been inflicted on the Kosovar Albanians by President Milosevic and his hooded thugs. The appalling accounts of mass killing in Kosovo and the pictures of refugees fleeing Serb oppression for their lives makes it clear that this is a fight for justice over genocide; for humanity over inhumanity; for democracy over despotism; for freedom from fear; and for a future of hope instead of a past of hatred.Sounds like a proper use of the word "genocide" as a cause for war. The word was so heavily used to describe the killing in Kosovo that the word itself was degraded. Real genocide was actually occurring in Rwanda and nothing was ever done. Quote:
How is it ludicrous? How is it irrational? How is it ignorant of the facts? Do you know what self-determination is? Or what the elements of claiming it are?
It is ludicrous because it Kosovo is an integral part of Serbia. It isn't like some state within a nation. It already had semi-autonomous status within Serbia. Currently, Serbia currently has UN troops in that part of its territory to keep the peace. It doesn't have self-determination. It wouldn't have taken NATO (and now the UN KFOR force) military force to implement "self-determination" for them.
I guess the more than 200,000 Serbs and Gypsies that fled to Serbia and unable or unwilling to return (link) don't have the right for self-determination. Truth is, your mind is filled with the propaganda that was provided to you. Goebbels would have been proud of the effort put forth by NATO.
Quote:
Kosovo, as seen throughout its new recognition as a separate nation, ultimately met those requirements.
Only a handful of nations recognize the independence claim and no organization such as the EU, UN or even NATO recognizes it as such.
Quote:
...but to say that the United Nations had "nothing to do with it" is shaky at best. The Security Council issued, I believe, at least 3 resolutions made under their Chapter 7 authorities dealing with the situation in Kosovo.
Provide links to such resolutions authorizing military force against Yugoslavia. I think it is you feeling the shaking, not me.
Quote:
but the UN did indeed play a role.
I never said that the UN didn't play a role. I recalled that the UN never authorized the use of military force against Yugoslavia. If you can provide proof to the contrary, please provide it. Otherwise, it will just reinforce my belief that you don't know that you're talking about in regards to the subject. I challenge you to provide a link. A link to a resolution urging Yugoslavia to stop its actions in Kosovo doesn't provide proof. Give me specific UN authorization. Truth is that you can't and that the claim that NATO was acting under the unauthorized auspices of the UN is completely foolish. As stated, the UN did not give military authorization. NATO did and carried out the action, in opposition to its own charter. This only strengthens my view that both the UN and NATO should be dissolved.
Quote:
Let's see, how did you phrase it to me...that's a complete falsehoold. I wouldn't say lie because I don't think you know what you're posting about.
From the link you provided comes this little snippet.
Today, Milosevic, who says he is able to conduct his own defense, blasted presiding Judge Patrick Robinson's refusal to let him question the witness, retired Serbian law professor Smilja Avramov.
Yeah. You read that right. Was this a really a "defense" witness? Come on! Do you really expect me to accept this crap? The defense witnesses that would be called for a legitimate defense were being sought for trial themselves.
You will have to better than that.
Quote:
If he committed crimes against humanity, it DOESN'T MATTER where he committed them...even if it was in his own territory. Read the International Bill of Human Rights Conventions, which allow for universal jurisdiction.
Never heard of it, maybe you can provide a link to it.
For the time-being, I will presume that you are referring to the Fourth Geneva Convention, which deals with the treatment of civilians during wartime. Unfortunately, this conflict prior to NATO involvement didn't apply in Kosovo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,654
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,654 |
Quote:
Quote:
Let the U.N. deal with it ....
Yeah right!
In this case I agree, The purpose of the UN is to be a global force, so individual countries are not exposed.
After Iraq, I thought that America would have learned not to overextend itself.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,404
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,404 |
I will continue this conversation if you wish, and answer all your questions. But if you are calling for the dissolution of NATO and the UN, and therefore the heart of everything we're talking about, isn't it futile? Just so you know, this would be an outline of how I would answer what you said: Article 51 Your claim about self-determination is irrelevant You did put Myanmar and Yugoslavia together when you asked me, after I did not support a unilateral invasion of Myanmar, if I also did not support the strike against Yugoslavia. This draws a comparison. I showed the differences. I'll agree with you that the UN is pretty much useless. Very useless except for maybe the UNSC. But for the sake of our conversation, I don't think it's sufficient to say that you dismiss it completely. If that's the case, I dismiss the court's opinion that stated there was no genocide. Speaking of genocide, Kosovo is a separate region composed of Albanians. Albanians were targeted. That was the point I was trying to make. I'm sorry about the NATIONAL part, but believe it or not, it was capitalized when I quoted it from a Jessup Brief. I don't think humanitarian efforts should be a casus belli, but I also think that a valid article 51 claim can be made. In this case, there was already an armed conflict. Where did I say that the UN authorized military force? I think there was a valid case of "acquiescence approval" since the UNSC was supposed to remain actively seized of the matter, but the claim I made is that the UN was definitely involved, which apparently you agree with. Moreover, a Security Council resolution made under the UNSC's Ch. 7 authorities provides a jus cogens and erga omnes obligation. When a party violates this, it creates more of a sense of urgency and further justifies a compromise in that nation's sovereignty One more thing, KOSOVO IS NOT AN INTEGRAL PART OF SERBIA! Is that you, Slobodan? web page You said he wasn't allowed to call his own defense witnesses. He was. As far as his rights during the trial, I'll admit I don't know much there, but apparently you don't either. For the last part, read the Arrest Warrant case, or the Pinochet case.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Is it time to invade Burma?
(Article)
|
|
