What's the Difference between Russia's Attack on Georgia and the U.S. Invasion of Ira

[JustChristian]

Who says that cease-fire agreements are only temporary and do not last for 10 years? The bottom line is the fact that on March 3, 1991 - Iraq accepted the terms of a ceasefire between U.S. led coalition forces and the Iraqi government. The terms of this cease-fire were incorporated into the primary ceasefire resolution UNSCR 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq to end its weapons of mass destruction programs, recognize Kuwait, account for missing Kuwaitis, return Kuwaiti property and end support for international terrorism. Iraq was also required to end repression of its people. Source: http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/iraq_timeline.shtml

So there are two treaties or agreements in play here. The first between the U.S. and Iraq. The second between Iraq and the UN. Saddam's Iraq broke both of the treaties/agreements. Just because the Clinton Administration failed to enforce the terms of the original U.S./Iraqi treaty/agreement and a period of time elapsed does not mean that the original treaty/agreement is now invalid (or invalid as of March 2003). Take a close look at the time-line linked above and see all the ways that Saddam's government violated the terms of both of these (US & UN) treaties/agreements.

I do and you just did. The cease fire was temporary. It was replaced by a lasting U.N. Resolution which is comparable to a peace treaty.

 

[Bible-boy]

I do and you just did. The cease fire was temporary. It was replaced by a lasting U.N. Resolution which is comparable to a peace treaty.

Nope. You'd be wrong in that assumption and I said nothing of the kind.

The UN Security Council Resolution did not "replace" the original cease-fire agreement between the US and Iraq. The UN Security Council Resolution simply incorporated the same terms. Just because the UN Security Council incorporated the same terms as the original US/Iraqi agreement into its resolution does not mean that the US gave up or yielded its sovereignty regarding the original agreement to the UN.

Again:

Here is an article about UN cease-fire agreement that ended the hostilities in the Korean War: http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=3324

Note: The presence of U.S. Troops in South Korea helps to enforce the terms of this cease-fire agreement to this day.

Here is an article about the cease-fire agreement that ended U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War: http://www.mishalov.com/Vietnam_peacepact.html

Would you say these cease-fire agreements are temporary? Haven't these cease-fire agreements lasted more than 10 years?

 

[Revmitchell]

I do and you just did. The cease fire was temporary. It was replaced by a lasting U.N. Resolution which is comparable to a peace treaty.

Where do you get this "definition" of a UN resolution.

 

[JustChristian]

Where do you get this "definition" of a UN resolution.

I didn't say it was a general definition but dependent on the wording. This one seemed to be a long term resolution.

 

[JustChristian]

Nope. You'd be wrong in that assumption and I said nothing of the kind.

The UN Security Council Resolution did not "replace" the original cease-fire agreement between the US and Iraq. The UN Security Council Resolution simply incorporated the same terms. Just because the UN Security Council incorporated the same terms as the original US/Iraqi agreement into its resolution does not mean that the US gave up or yielded its sovereignty regarding the original agreement to the UN.

Again:

You're claiming that nations don't ever comply with UN resolutions because if they did it would give up their national sovereignty? I suppose that's the way Iraq looked at the UN resolution since they didn't comply with it. If the US doesn't comply I suppose nobody has to comply.

 

[Revmitchell]

I didn't say it was a general definition but dependent on the wording. This one seemed to be a long term resolution.

Why did it seem to be a "long term reosluton"? It was soley dependent an the cooperaton of Saddam. Time wasn't a factor.

 

[Bible-boy]

You're claiming that nations don't ever comply with UN resolutions because if they did it would give up their national sovereignty?

Nope. I never said any such thing. I said that the US and Iraq signed an agreement on March 3, 1991. Then one month later (April 3, 1991) the Iraqi government signed a UN Security Council resolution that incorporated the same terms as the original US/Iraqi agreement. Just because Iraq signed the UN Security Council resolution it does not mean that a similar previously signed agreement between two sovereign nations is now null and void.

I suppose that's the way Iraq looked at the UN resolution since they didn't comply with it. If the US doesn't comply I suppose nobody has to comply.

Your first statement here is incorrect because it is based on flawed reasoning due to your apparent misunderstanding of something I said. Your second statement here is flawed because neither the US/Iraqi cease-fire agreement, nor the UNSC resolution had requirements with which the US had to comply. Generally, the victors in war do not make concessions to which they must comply. All the US had to do was enforce the terms of the agreement if Iraq failed to comply.

Again, would you say the cease-fire agreements that ended the Korean War and the Vietnam War are temporary? Haven't these cease-fire agreements lasted more than 10 years?

 

[JustChristian]

Nope. I never said any such thing. I said that the US and Iraq signed an agreement on March 3, 1991. Then one month later (April 3, 1991) the Iraqi government signed a UN Security Council resolution that incorporated the same terms as the original US/Iraqi agreement. Just because Iraq signed the UN Security Council resolution it does not mean that a similar previously signed agreement between two sovereign nations is now null and void.

Your first statement here is incorrect because it is based on flawed reasoning due to your apparent misunderstanding of something I said. Your second statement here is flawed because neither the US/Iraqi cease-fire agreement, nor the UNSC resolution had requirements with which the US had to comply. Generally, the victors in war do not make concessions to which they must comply. All the US had to do was enforce the terms of the agreement if Iraq failed to comply.

Again, would you say the cease-fire agreements that ended the Korean War and the Vietnam War are temporary? Haven't these cease-fire agreements lasted more than 10 years?

Perhaps I did misunderstand your statement. You seemed to say that if America abided by the UN Resolution it represented a loss of national sovereignty. I agree that all countries, Iraq, Iran and the United States should abide by UN resolutions. A cease fire is signed by two parties, correct. Both parties are saying that they will abide by its conditions. This may not mean concession by the victor but it might. It doesn't really make any difference does it? The important thing is an agreement has been reached which all signatories are agreeing to comply.

You refer to the Korean war and the Viet Nam war. The Korean War was ended by an armistice.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/korea/kwarmagr072753.html

This sounds more like a treaty than a cease fire to me but you can make your own determination.

The Viet Nam war was never really a war. There never was a declaration of war. It was a police action. Wikopedia characterized it as:

Many times, the United States has engaged in extended military engagements that were explicitly authorized by Congress, short of a formal declaration of war.

On March 29, 1973, the last U.S. troops left Vietnam. The Paris peace treaty did little to end the bloodshed for the Vietnamese, however. Problems arose immediately, primarily over the delineation of two separate zones, as required by the agreement, and the mutual withdrawal of troops to these respective zones.

 

[Bible-boy]

Perhaps I did misunderstand your statement. You seemed to say that if America abided by the UN Resolution it represented a loss of national sovereignty.

No that is not what I said and it is not what I was trying to imply. My point was that just because Iraq entered into an agreement with the UNSC, by signing a Resolution on April 3, 1991, it in no way negates, replaces, or supersedes the agreement signed by the US and Iraq on March 3, 1991. The agreement signed between two sovereign nations is still binding regardless of whether or not Iraq later entered into some other agreement with the UNSC or any other nation.

I agree that all countries, Iraq, Iran and the United States should abide by UN resolutions.

Okay, but do you agree that Iraq should have abided by the terms of the Cease-fire Agreement which it signed with the US on March 3, 1991, and if Iraq failed to abide by those terms according to the agreement, the US had the right to return to a state of hostilities with Iraq?

A cease fire is signed by two parties, correct. Both parties are saying that they will abide by its conditions. This may not mean concession by the victor but it might. It doesn't really make any difference does it?

It makes a difference if, as you seemed to imply, that the US failed to comply with the cease-fire agreement because it returned to a state of hostilities with Iraq (without acknowledging that Iraq first broke the agreement and the consequence of Iraq's failure to comply meant that the US was free to use military force to enforce Iraq's compliance).

You refer to the Korean war and the Viet Nam war. The Korean War was ended by an armistice.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/korea/kwarmagr072753.html

This sounds more like a treaty than a cease fire to me but you can make your own determination.

The Viet Nam war was never really a war. There never was a declaration of war. It was a police action. Wikipedia characterized it as:

Many times, the United States has engaged in extended military engagements that were explicitly authorized by Congress, short of a formal declaration of war.

On March 29, 1973, the last U.S. troops left Vietnam. The Paris peace treaty did little to end the bloodshed for the Vietnamese, however. Problems arose immediately, primarily over the delineation of two separate zones, as required by the agreement, and the mutual withdrawal of troops to these respective zones.

First, don't tell a Vietnam Vet that it was not really a war. Second, the fact that there was not a formal declaration of war (with that exact phrase in the document) in no way means that the US was not engaged in war. The US Congress approved a Resolution allowing the Commander-in-Chief to engage US military forces in Vietnam just like it did for the Gulf War in 1991 and for the current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. There is strong historical precedent for the US going to war based on a Congressional Resolution going back as far as 1798.

Finally, let’s address the semantics we have been engaged in on the last few posts:
“Cease-fire agreement marks the end of the Korean War on July 27, 1953.”
HistoryLink.org Essay 3324 Source: http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=3324

“TEXT OF THE KOREAN WAR ARMISTICE AGREEMENT”
July 27, 1953 Source: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/korea/kwarmagr072753.html

So here we have two references to the document that ended the hostilities in the Korean War. One (yours) cited the actual text of the document. The other (mine) an on-line historical encyclopedia article refers to that same document as a “Cease-fire agreement.” So what do we learn from this? We learn that some authors may be rather loose with the technical terms they use when addressing some very specific documents.

The same holds true with respect to the wikipedia article regarding the Vietnam War. We see this same loose use of terms.

Many times, the United States has engaged in extended military engagements that were explicitly authorized by Congress, short of a formal declaration of war. On March 29, 1973, the last U.S. troops left Vietnam. The Paris peace treaty (emphasis yours) did little to end the bloodshed for the Vietnamese, however. Problems arose immediately, primarily over the delineation of two separate zones, as required by the agreement, and the mutual withdrawal of troops to these respective zones.

See the wiki author called the document that ended the hostilities between the US and North Vietnam the "Paris Peace Treaty" (which you sought to emphasize), when in fact, The official title of the text is "Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam." Source: http://www.mishalov.com/Vietnam_peacepact.html This same document is widely referred to as the “Paris Peace Accords.” Source: http://vietnam.vassar.edu/doc16.html (Or do a google search on the phrase “Paris Peace Accords” and see what all comes up). Note that Article 2 of this document is the Cease-fire Agreement.

So what do we learn from all these sources and references? We learn that the idea, which you suggested, “Cease-fire agreements are temporary” is not accurate nor a valid argument in the current debate because we just end up playing a game of semantics.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Typical liberal blah!!!

USA bad!! Everybody else good!!

Who has asserted this, j-w-p?
Since you made the accusation, show us who has made such a claim.

We all know that Georgia is blameless in this whole ordeal, right?

BiR