Japan threatens Korea with pre-emptive strike

[DinoDoc]

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

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

[DuncanK]

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

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


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



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

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

Hey Boris,

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

And the rival Muslims in the South?

That's okay with you?

[Drake Tungsten]

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

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

[GePap]

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

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

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

[DinoDoc]

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

[Drake Tungsten]

How the hell did we get to France from Japan?

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

[GePap]

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

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

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by GePap


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

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

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

[Dinner]

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

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

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

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

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

[Drake Tungsten]

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

That was me.

hence, we got back to france.

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

I killed my pretty little pet.

[Dinner]

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

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

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

[GePap]

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

Yes, you are responsible.

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

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

[DinoDoc]

Personally, the attempted jacking by UR was more interesting.

[Drake Tungsten]

Personally, the attempted jacking by UR was more interesting.

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