IVAW’s Kokesh on the war path
My buddy, Robin, at Chickenhawk Express (actually my alter-ego according to the rocket scientists at Sir! No, Sir!) emailed me last night about the mighty Adam Kokesh bullying a new blogger at Blog 1. I lent my support to the blogger, gabe (whom I don’t know – but he seems to have his head screwed on right) and I wrote in his comments section that basically, Kokesh is a lot of hot air and his threat to “stomp” gabe “into the sidewalk” was merely bluster.
As you can read at the link, I also mentioned some of Kokesh’s more disingenuous moments including the fact the he still calls himself “Sergeant Kokesh” even though he’s been busted to LANCE corporal (that’s an E-3, by the way in the Army an E-3 is a PRIVATE First Class). Kokesh shot back in his reply that he’s never called himself “Sergeant Kokesh” since he joined the IVAW in the comment section of Blog 1;
Ya mean like this, Adam;
Or, like this;
And how would others get the idea you’re a sergeant when you haven’t called youself one since you joined IVAW?
I took this picture;
I took this picture – when you purposely averted your eyes as soon as you recognized me;
And I took this picture (seein’s how everyone in the room knew who the two “milbloggers” were – you knew who I was)
When I stood up to talk to you in the hallway of the Congressional hearings, and our eyes locked, you scurried away. Still want to talk about the truth?
I used to have a whole Adam Kokesh category here (you know that because you clicked on it plenty of times last year), but I trashed it because you’re not all that important. And now I have a record of your lies. If I’d had the foresight, I would have got a screen shot of your blog when you named it “Sergeant Kokesh Goes to Washington” before you named it “Revolutionary Patriot”. I’m sure I’ll turn up a cached copy of that sooner or later – you’ll be the first to know, count on it.
Give it up, kiddo, you’re out of your class here. That’s OK, you can pretend you never read this post, Adam and pretend to not know me when next our paths cross – and they will.
And my name is spelled J-O-N-N – how many times do I have to tell you guys?
UPDATE: TSO at “The Sniper” finds Kokesh threatening to use force against LEOs who come to apprehend a deserter they’re “hiding” at the IVAW “safe house”.
Category: Iraq Veterans Against the War
I’d offer another ‘well done’ if you weren’t having so much fun.
Problem is… his sycophants will condemn you and the truth be damned. Chris Hill shoulda taken the challenge and beat him to a pulp.
Er, um, maybe not. He must have PTSD, so it’d simply feed the fire.
Jonn wrote: It really IS fun, ya know, Zero.
What I don’t get is why he would say something so transparently a lie, when it can be rebutted in about 4 mins of Teh Google?
Probably the same reason Hurd talks about racism in the military when they have him on tape using the N word.
Jonn wrote: Well, he’d scrubbed his site – I had to get a couple of those from cache copies.
Jonn – have I told you lately how much I love you? (in a brother-sister sort of way) Let’s see how much that stirs up the crazies at Sir No Sir.
Great follow-up on Kokesh the bloviator. IVAW should have gotten a clue a long time ago about that “wayback machine” thing. What a maroon!
Jonn wrote: Well, especially since he called his blog “Sergeant Kokesh Goes to Washington” last year. I remember the email I got from you when he changed it to “Revolutionary Patriot”. Does he think we were all born yesterday?
Oh, and that brother-sister love thing goes both ways, dear. Keep those tips coming.
Your name is spelled J-O-N-N? Sorry, I’ve always spelled it ‘Jonn’. Okay, note taken.
This is funny! However, TSO’s post on Saturday’s rally was a shade funnier 🙂
well that was a delicious read! and thanks for smacking his weasly butt with all that good evidence.
good job J-O-N-N. 🙂
Jonn,
Kokesh once threatened Chris Hill. Something to the effect that “Heaven help him if I ever met this guy” on a thread where Elvis put a bunch of propoganda about the Carlos incident.
One day Hill comes across Elvis sitting in Union Station, walks up and asks Elvis, “OK, here I am, you want to do this here or outside?”
Elvis’ answer was “Neither”.” It was all rhetorical Elvis claimed.
From Elvis’ account of it, they became best buds on the train ride north, but that’s typical of bullies.
Just so everybody knows, the IVAW and anti-war types are little ducks that wake up to a whole new world everyday as if the past never existed and there is no future, so say what you feel, say how you wish it happened, say it without thinking about anyone else because it’s all about you.
robin,
“Mister Smith Goes To Washington” starred James Stewart, who beacme a General.
I don’t see that in Elvis’s future, do you?
Jonn,
Yuo have to post a photo of Elvis’ at Winter Soldier 2.1 walking that beagle using a retractable lease. It was SO adorable.
I said adorable instead of fabulous because there’s already two guys on the web that think Elvis is fabulous.
Skye has the links.
Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1381 – “Enticing desertion and harboring deserters.” Three year felony. Like so many other federal laws, I doubt that the U.S. Attorney’s Office would prosecute, but there’s always Hope! Sorry, no Change, though.
Guys,
Go to www’blip.tv and search for “VFP Salutes Chavez”.
Just be patient and you’ll see one of Kokesh’s VVAW mentors hiding out as VFP as a guest on Hugo’s 7 hour, 45 minute show that day.
Notice how John Grant goes to salute Chavez and then catches himself in mid-stream.
The IVAW safe house is in the 700 block of Princeton Pl.
Why didn’t they just move into the Code Pink House so they’d have free laundry and hot meals?
Raoul,
Are you the same guy who gave it to the Pinkies at the GOE 3?
“Ladies, the summer of love and sex is over…all you’ve got left is Geritol?” It’s gotta be, I would know your humor anywhere… and how many Raouls do people actually know? 🙂
J-o-n-n…
Okay, I won’t forget from here on out.
On the “Inevercalledmyselfsargeant”-
Way to go. Nothing like a little truth for a liar and a BF-er. That’s what he is. People like Kokesh blame others for the mistakes they made instead of owning up to it. And I detest that more than anything.
Maybe a recruiter should be required to ask the question: Do you understand that at any time you may be called up to actually support and defend this Country by being put in harm’s way? If you do not agree that you will do what is asked of you for your Country, turn your sorry asss around and don’t let the door hit you!” We wouldn’t have all this bs to deal with then.
Whatever Chris Hill- or Kokesh, for that matter- may have said about their confrontation at Union Station, all they did was speak politely to each other and agree to have some kind of charity amateur boxing match to benefit some cause or another.
I guess they’re not going to have it.
Having boxed since I first learned how while stationed in Korea in ’95, where I was Iron Brigade’s middleweight champ, I’d take that action. Were I to win the bout, I’d give the purse to IVAW. If my tentative opponent were to win, he’d be free to give it to whomever he chose.
If anyone’s interested- and if you don’t mind being the intermediary, Jonn- just ask that party to email me at the army-dot-mil account I’ve signed in with here.
Be well,
Jon
Jonn wrote: Yeah, I know, now you’re a peacemaker, Jon. I’ll keep you in mind.
Haha, very clever. I still have never said, “I am a Sergeant” in any form since joining IVAW. I WAS a Sergeant, and I WAS a Sergeant the whole time I was in Iraq. A lot of radio show hosts introduce me as “Sergeant Kokesh” and it kind of pisses me off. I usually correct them and say that I’m not in the military any more, and thus don’t have a rank. Even on the KPFA site that you have a shot of, it says, “Former Marine Corps Sergeant.” Even when my blog was “Sergeant Kokesh Goes to Washington” it was always clear that I was a VETERAN! Sorry if you couldn’t figure that out. In fact, it even said “veteran” in the subtitle, and nowhere on the blog indicated in any way that I was still on active duty. You’ve never introduced yourself to me, so IF you took those photos that you’ve posted, I wouldn’t know it was you who was taking them. Next time you see me, get your knuckles off the ground for a hand shake, and maybe you can tell me who you are. Now that I proudly hold the rank of PFC (Proud Fucking Civilian) it’s irrelevant to me, but you used to say that I was downgraded to Private, now you’re saying Lance Corporal. Which one is it in your twisted little mind? I know you must be thinking about me a lot, but please at least keep your fantasies straight. Jonn wrote: Well, at least you came forward and verified everything I’ve been saying – even though you don’t admit I’ve been right all along. A Lance Corporal (pay grade E-3) isn’t a Corporal (pay grade E-4), and calling yourself Sergeant Kokesh is calling yourself Sergeant Kokesh – no matter what disclaimer you attach to it. The whole world knows you’re veteran because you made such a big, stupid stink when you were discharged. You are “Former High School Student”, too, why didn’t the press use that? You don’t get to call yourself Sergeant Kokesh anymore because you disgraced the rank and… Read more »
I just also have to point out, because this is hilarious too: You no longer have any grounds to attack our position on the war itself and have to resort to personal attacks! You are so wrong on the issues, that the only way to give yourself any relevance is to attack the people that disagree with you. How is that working? Are you winning back support for the war? No, looks more like a circle jerk of monkeys f’ing footballs.
Jonn wrote: I didn’t attack you, Adam, I attacked your lies. There’s a difference. If I can’t point out your shortcomings, that’s makes you…well…Obama. You were the one who first threatened another blogger with physical violence – how does that make you better than what you accuse me of doing? You’re the one who called me knuckledragger, I don’t think I’ve called you anything of the sort thus far, have I?
Hey Jonn… NOW it’s fun!
I wonder if Chris Hill would take Kokesh and De Wald on simultaneously for charity?
First image that popped into my head was a cage match. [grin]
Here we go again.
The date started so well, and then there were fisticuffs and assinine statements flying everywhere.
Is it now considered “attacking” when you point out that in various forums these people make mutually exclusive comments? Very odd, very odd indeed.
Actually, it was E-4. Nice try.
Jonn wrote: Lance Corporal is an E-3;
I really would like to continue this, but I’m going to dinner with my one-year-old grandson in a few minutes Feel free to leave something intelligent for me to answer when I get back. By the way, just saying I’m wrong on the issues isn’t very convincing.
J-O-N-N give the little fella a hug for me (and I don’t mean Kokesh or DeWald)
Ponsdorf – cage match… i like it.
Ha! “I WAS a Sergeant the whole time I was in Iraq.”
That’s like a bank robber saying that, since he wasn’t arrested while committing the robbery, he isn’t a bank robber! You can’t rely on that bank surveillance video camera picture that caught my whole face BEFORE I put the mask on!
Also, DISREGARD the fact that I (civilian Koki) have published my membership in a conspiracy to commit a federal felony, I (civilian Koki) don’t REALLY mean it! [BTW, there are certain legal steps widely recognized to prove a withdrawal from a criminal conspiracy, but hanging out with a one-year-old isn’t one of them.]
What a loser.
Jonn wrote: That was me going to have dinner with my grandson, Bob.
Sorry, Jonn. I kind of wondered about someone as young as Koki having a grandson. I hope you enjoyed your dinner!
Jonn wrote: Thanks. I always enjoy my time with the littlest guy.
defendUSA,
yep, fresh batteries in the hailer too.
Elvis,
You need to start putting more “Former Marine Corps Sergeant” stuff in place of ““Marine Corps Sergeant” in your writings so these misunderstandings don’t happen.
So how’s things at the IVAW tree fort? Got Pam Africa advising you on improvised field fortifications in an urban environment?
Your planned “resistance” against polic action didn’t go over too well when MOVE tried it on Osage Ave in Philly.
Make sure everybody pronounces your name clearly so that Wesley Clark don’t mistake Kokesh for Koresh and drive down to Princeton Place in a tank.
And be absolutely sure not to tell Clark “We Ain’t Coming Out” (WACO).
Elvis,
Confession is good for the soul.
Tell us all about the gun that got you cashiered.
Feel free to explore that here.
It amazes me how many of these anti-war veteran protesters are found to have had a run-in with miltary authorities. I saw Kokesh near a VFF event last September and only have to say what is it with wearing cammies and protesting. Good grief, why is that since Vietnam, protesters whether veteran or not need to wear cammies or fatigues. Thanks Jonn for keeping us informed on what we called in the Corps that “10%”.
Raoul Says: “Why didn’t they just move into the Code Pink House so they’d have free laundry and hot meals?”
Maybe the VVAW/VFP/Looney tunes crowds don’t want to run the risk of cross breeding?? Like them pitbulls that have those stripe markings?? Just a thought……
I’m wondering what all this squabbling accomplished?
truthseeker,
Take notes, or keep up. You’er holding everybody else back.
Don’t worry about the rest of us, we get it.
It’s OK, it’s alright if you don’t understand. In life that happens, so don’t feel too bad about yourself. Accept it, embrace it, feel free to explore your feelings of negative selfworth.
Oh, how I hesitate to even address you, but… I don’t believe I’m holding anyone back by pointing out the fact that this petty nitpicking is a waste of all of your energy. I just wonder what it accomplishes, this obsession, this all consuming fascination you seem to have with Mr. Kokesh. Don’t you see by constantly discussing him, you are undoubtly showing how much his existence is tied to your self-worth? Only by trying to show him up, can you feel inflated and superior in your existence. You must prove your wit, and say look at me, look at me, aren’t I cool? Hmm, perhaps you should look within and explore how your ‘feelings of negative selfworth’ got you to this place in life. But of course, I know I’ll only get hate mail in return for bothering to enter this conversation.
Jonn wrote: I suppose you’d be more pleased if we just left poor Adam to lie unopposed. Petty nit-picking? Petty nit-picking is calling the war against terror an “illegal war” with no basis. Petty nit-picking is calling for the impeachment of the administration when they’ve done nothing worthy of impeachment. Petty nit-picking is you wasting your time telling me how to run my blog. If we weren’t doing damage to your movement, none of you would have showed up here and this blog post would still be listed at the IVAW OneStop.
Hi Jonn, first, I’m not telling you how to run your blog, just making an observation and bothering to add my opinion. Your blog was open to public commenting, so I did.
Second, you don’t have to let anything unopposed if you wish, it’s just that I think Adam has addressed this issue here and many times before to set the record straight.
Third, it definetly isn’t nit-picking to discuss the whether this war is legal or not, when it affects the lives of so many people, and it has resulted in the deaths of thousands. That is a rather heavy subject if you ask me.
And I would add that thetopic of impeachment is also not a petty subject, whether you agree with its legitimacy or not, I think whether or not the President has broken the laws of our country is pretty important.
Plus, you haven’t done any damage, sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
The basis for believing (I’m not presenting this as some kind of gospel; I grapple with the legality issue quite a bit) the invasion of Iraq has no legal justification can be found, among other places, in our obligations under Chapter VII of the UN Charter; it prohibits any other member state, like us, from attacking another sovereign member nation without first allowing the UN Security Council (UNSC) opportunity to “determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression” which would then necessitate action, perhaps ultimately militarily but first relying upon negotiation and sanction, to “restore international peace and security.” This is exactly the same template President Bush (the Elder) used in prosecuting the first Gulf War: Saddam Hussein was given months to vacate Kuwait without condition. He failed to do so, resulting in UN Security Council Resolution 678, permitting “member states… to use all necessary means to [expel Iraq from Kuwait]”, an operation I believe you participated in alongside 54 other UN member state combatant armies, including France and Syria. Along with the Korean War and that nonsense in the Congo sometime thereafter, this was the only time the UN had a straight-up war without any blue helmets or berets or white vehicles. We’re- arguably, sure- bound to the terms of the Charter by Article 6 of the Constitution, which states ” … all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” It seems to me the UN Charter is such a treaty. Only a court could make that kind of judgment, in a final sense. I’m really hoping a federal court takes the issue up. Complicating the argument that the war is illegal is, oddly enough, another series of UN Security Council Resolutions, particularly number 1637, which “extend[s] the mandate of the multinational force in Iraq”, demonstrating that a previous resolution had… Read more »
Jonn,
truthseaker (how sactimonious is that for a name?) must really be PO’ed by your posts. The game he’s playing on you is a variation on, “I don’t get it” by the moonbats.
They are so invested in being accepted, a member of the group that they’ll sell themselves out because of low esteem.
Good forbid you should have something the group doesn’t comprehend.
They’ll do that when you have a sign that really irks them. They walk up, study your sign and go…”I don’t get it” hoping you’ll put it away.
Remarkable how many moonbats do that and think they’re smarter than the average bear.
So I counter “I don’t get it” with “That’s OK”
Hippie: But you don’t understand, I don’ get it.
Me: No problem.
Hippie: People won’t understand what your sign is saying.
Me: Yes they do.
Hippie: I don’t get it.
Me: That’s OK, most people do.
Hippie: What about those who don’t?
Me: If they can’t get it, they don’t count anyway.
At about that point their heads explode…
[The basis for believing (I’m not presenting this as some kind of gospel; I grapple with the legality issue quite a bit) the invasion of Iraq has no legal justification can be found, among other places, in our obligations under Chapter VII of the UN Charter; it prohibits any other member state, like us, from attacking another sovereign member nation without first allowing the UN Security Council (UNSC) opportunity to “determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression” which would then necessitate action, perhaps ultimately militarily but first relying upon negotiation and sanction, to “restore international peace and security.”]
Oh geez Louise, what was it 17 UN resolutions or so against Iraq?
Reminds me of my kids when they were smaller and tried to talk “adult”.
Example: “It seems to me the UN Charter is such a treaty.”
deWald doesn’t understand that a Charter is not a Treaty.
Go to http://www.dictionary.com and compare definitions.
Jonn,
IVAW is a WTI endorser and the WTI declaration cited the UN Charter and International Law as reasons to call the killing of US troops and Iraqis via acts of terror legitimate and justified.
That terrorist attacks on civilians are illegal under that other hobby horse peace wackos like to rides, the Geneva Convention, doesn’t seem to matter.
Like I said, they want to talk “adult” so they mindlessly qoute the UN Charter, “international law” (whatever that is), the Geneva Convention and best of all, the Consitution.
We have rules for removing people from office, let’s call the wackos’ “Citizen Arrest” wet dream what it is, a coup, and they what they are, domestic enemies of the United States for staging a coup attempt.
If their hanging at Leavenworth is on Pay Per View, I’ll pay. You bring the popcorn, I’ll supply the beer.
Hey Kokesh,
Give it up. You’ve been completely outed as a fraud and a phony. You’ve hit rock bottom with your pathetic excuses but you keep digging.
We have lots of grounds to attack your behavior and your imbecilic stance on the war. It must suck to know that the war on Islamofascism in Iraq and Afghanistan has been so successful that the MSM was forced to go from pro-terrorist/defeatist propaganda to scant coverage, to lame excuses, and finally, grudging respect. A war against modern day Ottomans hell bent on a world Caliphate, should not need to “win support”. After 9/11, it’s self explanatory. Newsflash: We know the issues. We know you’re full of crap.
Hey “truthseeker”,
Nitpicking….like all the inane BS the left spews about “illegal war”?
I’m just wondering myself, what dog you have in this fight besides feeling sorry for Kokesh and his IVAW buddies?
Those of us who not only confront Kokesh over his fabulist stories, but have been to Iraq(like myself)don’t need your mealy-mouthed input on ‘self worth’. I earned my worth by serving as a United States Soldier, in peace and war, for three decades. I don’t need your validation.
I’m sure that the IVAW has an “auxilliary” for sympathizers like you.
GI JANE,
I suspect “truthseeker” may be one of the VVAW types that control IVAW.
Talk about a puppet government. VVAW pulls all the IVAW strings.
VFP (the rock under which the despised VVAW cock roaches hide under) provides IVAW use of VFP’s tax free status. Why should my taxes pay for their trason!!!
GI JANE,
The “auxillary” is VFP’s Associate member catagory. You don’t have to have served to be a VFP member and not all VFP “veterans” have paperwork on file. And thare are those without “verified” papperwork on file.
Not many returning Iraq vets want to join VFP, even the IVAW types who they set up. Not all long ago, and may not have changed, you could count Iraq vets in VFP on two hands and have enough fingers to fondle a good cigar.
Right now, to try and snag some members, all IVAW traitors get to be VFP traitors free for a year.
“17Adam Kokesh Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Actually, it was E-4. Nice try.”
“Jonn wrote: Lance Corporal is an E-3;”
Incredible. Kokesh doesn’t even know the proper ranks of his former branch of service.
Raoul,
“Veterans For Peace”….what a joke. If these ‘veterans’ were for peace, they should have convinced the Islamofascists not to start this war.
What a motley crew.
As I read it, it was “This Constitution… and all treaties made… shall be the supreme law of the land”, with the assumption that, of course, any pursuant law and treaty is subordinate to and therefore in compliance with the Constitution. My guess is, as in this similar but entirely hypothetical instance, if the Justice Department thought the Energy Department was somehow violating American obligations to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, they’d seek redress in the federal courts, much like the EPA has sued other government agencies and departments for violating the Montreal Protocol (the ozone layer thing). So if I for instance refused reactivation from the IRR or something similar on these “Article 6/Chapter VII” grounds, was tried at court-martial and my case ended up at the (civilian) United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, or even the Supreme Court (who admittedly will rarely review courts-martial) then federal judges may hear and rule on that line of defense- if they chose to permit the argument. I’m only saying that I have a prima facie argument, not that I’m dead certain I’m right. Raoul – the UN Charter is indeed a treaty, at least as one is legally defined. This type of treaty is known as a “constituent treaty” as it charters a constituency from sovereign, independent bodies and places legally binding conditions upon them, much like our since-discarded Articles of Confederation and indeed our current Constitution. Further, treaties require signature, ratification and deposition of the instruments of ratification to carry any validity, while simple charters don’t; this was something the United States gladly and wisely did at the the United Nations Conference on International Organization in San Francisco in 1945, along with 49 other founding members (it would’ve been 50 but Poland’s government was still reconstituting itself), just a few months after the Charter itself was written during a process dominated by Undersecretary (later full Secretary) of State Edward Reilly Stettinius at the Dumberton Oaks Conference and then further negotiated at Yalta. Sure, many simple charters don’t, under any body of law I’m aware of, require that manner… Read more »
Now for something entirely different…NOT
More military bashing by Socilaist Worker and IVAW…
http://socialistworker.org/2008/06/06/winter-soldiers-next-chapter
At the Seattle Town Hall, approximately 800 people gathered to hear the testimonies of veterans from Iraq. The event was sponsored by the Northwest Regional Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW), and endorsed by dozens of local and regional antiwar groups like Veterans for Peace, the International Socialist Organization and Students for a Democratic Society.
“I watched Iraqi police bring in someone to interrogate,” Seth Manzel, a vehicle commander and machine gunner in the U.S. Army, told the audience. “There were four men on the prisoner…one was pummeling his kidneys with his fists, another was inserting a bottle up his rectum. It looked like a frat house gang-rape.
FRAT HOUSE? Where did Manzel go to college? Penn State or State Pen?
deWald,
You a Paulistinian by chance?
No, Norwegian and Danish.
I referenced 687 earlier as well; it pertains only to restoring Kuwaiti sovereignty as outlined in UNSC Res. 660 and couldn’t be construed as authorizing the use of force to displace Saddam Hussein in 2003, if that’s in fact what you’re suggesting.
Our links to the State Department’s roster of UNSC resolutions which Iraq had chronically and seriously flouted were the same; I included it to demonstrate how seriously our foreign service takes the edicts of the Council, in particular because the United States is a permanent member with absolute veto authority.
Maybe I should’ve used different language, but what I’m trying to express about Chapter VII of the UN Charter is, if it could be interpreted as proscribing our actions in Iraq in 2003, it only carries- in our country- the legal weight the Constitution affords it. In other words, it has no intrinsic value. Should a judge at some federal level decide that this is an argument with teeth, assuming it ever got there- to say nothing of how, it would be an issue of what Constitutional authority the judiciary has to compel the executive to abide by treaties to which the U.S. is a state party and a judge has found the government to be in violation of.
Wow, isn’t this a fun blog? First, Raoul, just so you know, I’m not with the IVAW and I’m a woman, not a man. And there is nothing in your post or any other post here that I do not comprehend. And I’m not P’OD by any of the posts here, I was just reading and thought I’d add my opinion.
Hi, GI JANE, I wasn’t refering to your self worth in my comments as that comment was directed towards Raoul, who opened that can of worms. And if want to know why I care, I’m simply a citizen of this country and anything that happens in my name as an American concerns me, i.e. the war in Iraq. I believe in what the veterans of the IVAW are standing up for, and though they don’t need me to defend them, I wanted to add my thoughts regardless.
By the way, there can be alot of arguements given as to why the war in Iraq is illegal, but it seems most here would rather the conversation devolve into childish remarks then truly debate or listen to each other.
If it makes all of you feel better, and able to stay in your ‘comfort zone’ I doubt I will be posting here again.
Jon de Wald –
Actually, UNSCR 687 addresses much more than the restoration of Kuwaiti sovereignty – it also addresses the deployment of UN observers, Iraq’s WMD programs, the establishment of UN sanctions regimes and the cessation of Iraq’s support of international terrorist organizations.
More importantly, in section I of the resolution, the United Nations
Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990)
In other words, what we have in UNSCR 687 is a simple ceasefire agreement, and what is implicit in any and all ceasefire agreements? That a violation of the treaty by either party constitutes an act of war that nullifies the cessation of hostilities. I will also point out that there is no language in this document that exempts either party from the consequences of violating the ceasefire upon and beyond any specified date.
Incidentally, the UN has a responsibility to enforce its own resolutions, and the international community is not beholden to Turtle Bay’s negligence.
truthseeker –
Are you familiar with the term “logical fallacy”.
It is not up to us to disprove a negative.
Point of clarification —
The U.S. Constitution remains the ultimate law of the land (depending upon what the deranged Supreme Court says about Habeas Corpus at the moment).
Treaty Provisions are treated exactly the same as federal laws passed by Congress (not Quite in the same league as the Constitution). Many of which are un-Constitutional on their face.
Just thought that people might want to know.
That is partially correct, Mike. Among other things, 687 provides for the establishment of UNIKOM and other measures to reestablish and protect Kuwait’s sovereignty- the point of the resolution- to include agreeing upon an already agreed-upon border, to wit: “Demand[ing] that Iraq and Kuwait respect the inviolability of the international boundary and the allocation of islands set out in the ‘Agreed Minutes Between the State of Kuwait and the Republic of Iraq Regarding the Restoration of Friendly Relations, Recognition and Related Matters,’ signed by them in the exercise of their sovereignty at Baghdad on 4 October 1963.” The word “cease-fire” is actually mentioned just once, in operational clause 33, which is also the only clause mentioning a cessation of hostilities:
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm
However, and probably because aggressive acts and the modalities for dealing with them are already covered in the UN Charter quite specifically, there is no mention of any member state being granted license for retaliatory or preemptive measures in the event of a potential or perceived infraction of 687.
Mike,
It’s kind of like Buonomo’s “scathing” indictments of US “Imperialism”… more marxist BS, consider the source…
VPW + VVAW + IVAW = marxist tools
And what’s this about John Grant kissing Dictator Chavez’s behind???
WTF were you doing there???
Here’s the link to their marxist lovefest:
Veterans For Peace Salutes Venezuelan Dicator Hugo Chavez
What a bunch of butt chompers! 🙂