UN approves measure requiring states to justify veto:

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/un-approves-measure-requiring-states-to-justify-veto/ar-AAWCu4v?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=bc1b57f439ff47cd8113824c6f3e0dce

"The 193 members of the United Nations General Assembly have adopted by consensus a resolution requiring the five permanent members of the Security Council to justify their use of the veto.

The push for reform, which was greeted with applause in the chamber, was revived by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The measure is intended to make veto-holders the United States, China, Russia, France and the United Kingdom “pay a higher political price” when they use the veto to strike down a Security Council resolution, said one ambassador who asked to remain anonymous".


The article shows that since 1946, Russia has used the veto 119 times; the US -  82;  UK  - 29; China - 16; France - 16.

Note the Anglo Saxons have used the veto almost as much as Russia, ie 111 times.

But the fact remains the only way to institute genuine international law is to get rid of the veto altogether.

At least members are on the road to confronting  the disastrous influence of the reptilian brain - seated in the back of all our (thick!) skulls  - on rational thought.....

"Why do you want to veto?" "Because we want to" ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I mean really? They will still maintain their veto. Whipped with a tail feather. ::)

lee wrote on Apr 27^th, 2022 at 12:34pm:

"Why do you want to veto?" "Because we want to" ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I mean really? They will still maintain their veto. Whipped with a tail feather. ::)

Quite so, for reasons I explained - which you are highly unlikely to be prepared to confront, to repeat:

"But the fact remains the only way to institute genuine international law is to get rid of the veto altogether.

At least members are on the road to confronting  the disastrous influence of the reptilian brain - seated in the back of all our (thick!) skulls  - on rational thought which by definition requires the absurd concept of "legal" war to be  abandoned, in the age of MAD".

[Borrowed from wombatwoody:"It does no good whatsoever to ignore the reptilian component of human nature, particularly our ritualistic and hierarchical behavior."
Carl Sagan, The Dragons Of Eden]

It is meaningless. The veto still stands and the justification would be a sham.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Apr 27^th, 2022 at 1:10pm:

It is meaningless. The veto still stands and the justification would be a sham.

Justification would be a sham?  Well yes, but let's
be sure we understand the issues.

Eg we must all understand  why the veto was forced onto the UNSC in 1946, against the wishes of delegates from smaller countries,  as a precondition to get the great powers, ie, US and USSR, to sign onto the proposed UN Charter. 

The very existence of the veto requires acceptance of  the absurd concept of "legal" war.

..such is the disastrous influence of the unconscious  vestigial reptilian brain on the ability to think rationally.

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 27^th, 2022 at 1:45pm:

Laugh till you cry wrote on Apr 27th, 2022 at 1:10pm: It is meaningless. The veto still stands and the justification would be a sham. Justification would be a sham?  Well yes, but let's be sure we understand the issues. Eg we must all understand  why the veto was forced onto the UNSC in 1946, against the wishes of delegates from smaller countries,  as a precondition to get the great powers, ie, US and USSR, to sign onto the proposed UN Charter.  The very existence of the veto requires acceptance of  the absurd concept of "legal" war. ..such is the disastrous influence of the unconscious  vestigial reptilian brain on the ability to think rationally.

1. Issues are never clear and unequivocal and are always preceded by mind-numbing torrents of propaganda and dogma.

2. Populations are coaxed into jingoistic fervor by instigators.

3. Understanding is meaningless in the face of lies and counter-propaganda.

4. The USA does not accept the jurisdiction of the world court and sanctions jurists who render decisions unfavorable to the USA.

5. The legality of war is irrelevant because there is no judicial power that can intervene decisively.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Apr 27^th, 2022 at 2:02pm:

5. The legality of war is irrelevant because there is no judicial power that can intervene decisively.

The point is a UNSC, minus veto, as originally conceived by Australia's 'Doc' Evatt (former High Court judge) - with 99% of the world's military force, would be able to  intervene decisively, to prevent war.

Because a reformed  UNSC would also have the surveillance capacity to observe the logistics of a nation's  preparations for war. 

As to judicial power, all nations are currently members of the UN. The next step,  ie, signing up to an ICJ, is routine, once the absurd concept of "legal" war is abandoned by all member states. 

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 27^th, 2022 at 2:12pm:

Laugh till you cry wrote on Apr 27th, 2022 at 2:02pm: 5. The legality of war is irrelevant because there is no judicial power that can intervene decisively. The point is a UNSC, minus veto, as originally conceived by Australia's 'Doc' Evatt (former High Court judge) - with 99% of the world's military force, would be able to  intervene decisively, to prevent war. Because a reformed  UNSC would also have the surveillance capacity to observe the logistics of a nation's  preparations for war.  As to judicial power, all nations are currently members of the UN. The next step,  ie, signing up to an ICJ, is routine, once the absurd concept of "legal" war is abandoned by all member states.

Not against the USA, Russia, or China. That is world war.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Apr 27^th, 2022 at 2:29pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 27th, 2022 at 2:12pm: Laugh till you cry wrote on Apr 27th, 2022 at 2:02pm: 5. The legality of war is irrelevant because there is no judicial power that can intervene decisively. The point is a UNSC, minus veto, as originally conceived by Australia's 'Doc' Evatt (former High Court judge) - with 99% of the world's military force, would be able to  intervene decisively, to prevent war. Because a reformed  UNSC would also have the surveillance capacity to observe the logistics of a nation's  preparations for war.  As to judicial power, all nations are currently members of the UN. The next step,  ie, signing up to an ICJ, is routine, once the absurd concept of "legal" war is abandoned by all member states.  Not against the USA, Russia, or China. That is world war.

You will need to clarify that statement (.....if you are interested in the  debate, not merely pushing an ideological view eg "to maintain the peace, you have to prepare for war": Peter Dutton).

A UNSC without veto, dedicated to implementing the decisions if an ICJ acting under international law (to which all nations are signed up)  implies the criminalization of war. Those 3 nations, like the c.200 others, would not be able to wage war.

[btw, recall what Einstein said about a world war after the next one (in the nuclear age):
"it will be fought with sticks and stones'].

In effect we are talking about a UNSC which speaks with one voice, to implement the judgments of an ICJ. 

There cannot possibly be ANY dispute that requires settlement by war, in the age of MAD.

LTYC,

Quote:

5. The legality of war is irrelevant because there is no judicial power that can intervene decisively.

There is only The International Court of Justice in the Hague but:
China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, the United States, and Yemen
don't recognise it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

Therefore they can get away with:

There are 11 crimes which constitute grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and which are applicable only to international armed conflicts:[100]

    Willful killing
    Torture
    Inhumane treatment
    Biological experiments
    Willfully causing great suffering
    Destruction and appropriation of property
    Compelling service in hostile forces
    Denying a fair trial
    Unlawful deportation and transfer
    Unlawful confinement
    Taking hostages

There are seven crimes which constitute serious violations of article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and which are applicable only to non-international armed conflicts:[100]

    Murder
    Mutilation
    Cruel treatment
    Torture
    Outrages upon personal dignity
    Taking hostages
    Sentencing or execution without due process


Additionally, there are 56 other crimes defined by article 8: 35 that apply to international armed conflicts and 21 that apply to non-international armed conflicts.[100] Such crimes include attacking civilians or civilian objects, attacking peacekeepers, causing excessive incidental death or damage, transferring populations into occupied territories, treacherously killing or wounding, denying quarter, pillaging, employing poison, using expanding bullets, rape and other forms of sexual violence, and conscripting or using child soldiers.[103]

Bobby. wrote on Apr 27^th, 2022 at 3:44pm:

There is only The International Court of Justice in the Hague but: China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, the United States, and Yemen don't recognise it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

Note: the ICC deals with individual criminal prosecutions, and is not an arm of the UN; whereas the ICJ adjudicates international disputes and is affiliated with the UN.


Quote:

Therefore they can get away with: There are 11 crimes which constitute grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and which are applicable only to international armed conflicts:[100]     Willful killing     Torture     Inhumane treatment     Biological experiments     Willfully causing great suffering     Destruction and appropriation of property     Compelling service in hostile forces     Denying a fair trial     Unlawful deportation and transfer     Unlawful confinement     Taking hostages

Note the idiocy of trying to define "legal" war (via the Geneva Conventions): 

"Willful killing" is what soldiers do.

"Willfully causing great suffering" and
 "Destruction and appropriation of property'  are unavoidable  conditions  of modern warfare.

"Unlawful deportation and transfer"...though civilians fleeing war zones are always a much greater catastrophe.


Quote:

There are seven crimes which constitute serious violations of article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and which are applicable only to non-international armed conflicts:[100]     Murder     Mutilation     Cruel treatment     Torture     Outrages upon personal dignity     Taking hostages     Sentencing or execution without due process

So, applicable to civil war; but of course many civil wars are proxies for international conflict. 


Quote:

Additionally, there are 56 other crimes defined by article 8: 35 that apply to international armed conflicts and 21 that apply to non-international armed conflicts.[100] Such crimes include attacking civilians or civilian objects, attacking peacekeepers, causing excessive incidental death or damage, transferring populations into occupied territories, treacherously killing or wounding, denying quarter, pillaging, employing poison, using expanding bullets, rape and other forms of sexual violence, and conscripting or using child soldiers.[103]

International war should be outlawed, via international judicial machinery; international war is insane in the age of MAD.

Whereas civil wars are trickier; can violence within a nation's borders achieve the desired goals of the respective parties?

This is what happens when the Left supports the status quo re the absurd concept of "legal" war.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10753231/Australia-election-2022-Ray-Hadley-blasts-Anthony-Albanese-boat-turn-backs.html

Hadley proves himself to be a typical  RW  'shock-jock' thug, in his interview with Albo.  (Albo kept his cool).

The issue being temporary protection visas; but as long as millions of refugees fleeing wars exist, the Left will be forced to commit to the same inhuman, self-interested, 'survival of the fittest' policies  promulgated by the Right.   

Another assault on national sovereignty - who ever said the UN had the right to demand that any nation justify itself to the UN?

Falling apart at the seams, it seems.....too much of this Neo-Stalinist Fascism with some amazing assumption that this house of discussion should now become The New World Dictator!!

Started off as a good idea...

Again I ask - how is such a body to maintain peace and law and order without exercising war and abrogating laws of individual nations????

Anyone??  It has been said by more learned personages than my good self, that everything the Nazis did in Germany was 'legal' since it was passed through their 'elected' houses....... EVEN THEN - when these 'laws' were being used to kill people and steal their property and livelihoods etc - nobody in the west declared war on Nazi Germany until it went too far and would not take a warning.... and the United States did not declare war on Germany until Germany itself declared war on the United States.

So - are we now to believe two things:-

1. That every 'law' or equivalent passed through the unelected United Nations is equally a valid 'law' etc?
2. That it is somehow the absolute right of the UN to intervene with military force to correct what is perceived as being 'wrongful' about a nation's governance?

The UN dragged its heels over Rwanda and many died..... the UN dragged its heels over Kosovo etc and many died..... the UN dragged its heels over The Congo and many died...... it took 'coalitions of the willing' to intervene actively and finally put an end to all of those areas of murder and conflict.... and that included, in some case, mercenaries, who are outlawed by the UN and receive no benefits of prisoner of war status.

Are we now to believe that an ununited United Nations will somehow become the peacemaker of Planet Earth?

Maybe when it gets off its arse on its high horse....  8-)

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 27^th, 2022 at 5:25pm:

Another assault on national sovereignty - who ever said the UN had the right to demand that any nation justify itself to the UN?

Absolute national sovereignty is obsolete, there are greater exigencies  re settlement of disputes between nations.


Quote:

Falling apart at the seams, it seems.....too much of this Neo-Stalinist Fascism with some amazing assumption that this house of discussion should now become The New World Dictator!!

Just revealing your preference for resorting to war to settle disputes between nations. 


Quote:

Started off as a good idea... Again I ask - how is such a body to maintain peace and law and order without exercising war and abrogating laws of individual nations????

By enabling virtual disarmament, since no nation has a need to wage war, now that the days of empire building are over, and "the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible", under real international law. 


Quote:

Anyone??  It has been said by more learned personages than my good self, that everything the Nazis did in Germany was 'legal' since it was passed through their 'elected' houses.......

"legal" inside Germany, but Hitler had designs OUTSIDE Germany.......


Quote:

EVEN THEN - when these 'laws' were being used to kill people and steal their property and livelihoods etc - nobody in the west declared war on Nazi Germany until it went too far and would not take a warning....

All because war was - and still is -  "legal" (according to the Geneva Conventions, even).


Quote:

and the United States did not declare war on Germany until Germany itself declared war on the United States.

Yes, that's the result of the quaint 'non-interventionist' US policy in those days, before the US became the "world policeman" (after WW2).


Quote:

So - are we now to believe two things:- 1. That every 'law' or equivalent passed through the unelected United Nations is equally a valid 'law' etc?

No, because UN 'law' re dispute settlement between nations  (actually adjudicated in an ICJ) is concerned only with said dispute settlement. 


Quote:

2. That it is somehow the absolute right of the UN to intervene with military force to correct what is perceived as being 'wrongful' about a nation's governance?

Not in a nation's internal governance as noted above; however military dictatorships like the Myanmar junta need to face an ICJ and ICC.   


Quote:

The UN dragged its heels over Rwanda and many died..... the UN dragged its heels over Kosovo etc and many died..... the UN dragged its heels over The Congo and many died...... it took 'coalitions of the willing' to intervene actively and finally put an end to all of those areas of murder and conflict.... and that included, in some case, mercenaries, who are outlawed by the UN and receive no benefits of prisoner of war status.

You have ceased dealing with the notion of war between nations, and are now dealing with civil war, in which international law may not have jurisprudence.

Note; in a more orderly world where war is outlawed, and economic prosperity is promulgated, all those conflicts you cite would be of a much smaller scale  because local militias (and the international arms trade) wouldn't legally exist.

Under effective international law,  countries only need police forces to maintain internal order, not standing armies. 


Quote:

Are we now to believe that an ununited United Nations will somehow become the peacemaker of Planet Earth?

All explained for you above.


Quote:

Maybe when it gets off its arse on its high horse....  8-)

Actually Guterrez went to Russia and Ukraine today in a (futile) attempt to show the current UN is relevant.

I am explaining how the UN can "get up of its arse" and be relevant (ie actually maintain the peace.

You? Note:

"It does no good whatsoever to ignore the reptilian component of human nature, particularly our ritualistic and hierarchical behavior."
Carl Sagan, The Dragons Of Eden

Once again - so you want UN sovereignty over everyone and everything?

How is that any different in approach?  How do you propose to being all nations into this umbrella and make them comply?

Hunger Games?

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 27^th, 2022 at 6:17pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 27th, 2022 at 5:25pm: Another assault on national sovereignty - who ever said the UN had the right to demand that any nation justify itself to the UN? Absolute national sovereignty is obsolete, there are greater exigencies  re settlement of disputes between nations. Quote: Falling apart at the seams, it seems.....too much of this Neo-Stalinist Fascism with some amazing assumption that this house of discussion should now become The New World Dictator!! Just revealing your preference for resorting to war to settle disputes between nations.  [quote]Started off as a good idea... Again I ask - how is such a body to maintain peace and law and order without exercising war and abrogating laws of individual nations????

By enabling virtual disarmament, since no nation has a need to wage war, now that the days of empire building are over, and "the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible", under real international law. 


Quote:

Anyone??  It has been said by more learned personages than my good self, that everything the Nazis did in Germany was 'legal' since it was passed through their 'elected' houses.......

"legal" inside Germany, but Hitler had designs OUTSIDE Germany.......


Quote:

EVEN THEN - when these 'laws' were being used to kill people and steal their property and livelihoods etc - nobody in the west declared war on Nazi Germany until it went too far and would not take a warning....

All because war was - and still is -  "legal" (according to the Geneva Conventions, even).


Quote:

and the United States did not declare war on Germany until Germany itself declared war on the United States.

Yes, that's the result of the quaint 'non-interventionist' US policy in those days, before the US became the "world policeman" (after WW2).


Quote:

So - are we now to believe two things:- 1. That every 'law' or equivalent passed through the unelected United Nations is equally a valid 'law' etc?

No, because UN 'law' re dispute settlement between nations  (actually adjudicated in an ICJ) is concerned only with said dispute settlement. 


Quote:

2. That it is somehow the absolute right of the UN to intervene with military force to correct what is perceived as being 'wrongful' about a nation's governance?

Not in a nation's internal governance as noted above; however military dictatorships like the Myanmar junta need to face an ICJ and ICC.   


Quote:

The UN dragged its heels over Rwanda and many died..... the UN dragged its heels over Kosovo etc and many died..... the UN dragged its heels over The Congo and many died...... it took 'coalitions of the willing' to intervene actively and finally put an end to all of those areas of murder and conflict.... and that included, in some case, mercenaries, who are outlawed by the UN and receive no benefits of prisoner of war status.

You have ceased dealing with the notion of war between nations, and are now dealing with civil war, in which international law may not have jurisprudence.

Note; in a more orderly world where war is outlawed, and economic prosperity is promulgated, all those conflicts you cite would be of a much smaller scale  because local militias (and the international arms trade) wouldn't legally exist.

Under effective international law,  countries only need police forces to maintain internal order, not standing armies. 


Quote:

Are we now to believe that an ununited United Nations will somehow become the peacemaker of Planet Earth?

All explained for you above.


Quote:

Maybe when it gets off its arse on its high horse....  8-)

Actually Guterrez went to Russia and Ukraine today in a (futile) attempt to show the current UN is relevant.

I am explaining how the UN can "get up of its arse" and be relevant (ie actually maintain the peace.

You? Note:

"It does no good whatsoever to ignore the reptilian component of human nature, particularly our ritualistic and hierarchical behavior."
Carl Sagan, The Dragons Of Eden

[/quote]


So much wrong there - I don;t have all night to argue with you - just accept you are wrong.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 27^th, 2022 at 5:25pm:

Another assault on national sovereignty - who ever said the UN had the right to demand that any nation justify itself to the UN? Falling apart at the seams, it seems.....too much of this Neo-Stalinist Fascism with some amazing assumption that this house of discussion should now become The New World Dictator!! Started off as a good idea... Again I ask - how is such a body to maintain peace and law and order without exercising war and abrogating laws of individual nations???? Anyone??  It has been said by more learned personages than my good self, that everything the Nazis did in Germany was 'legal' since it was passed through their 'elected' houses....... EVEN THEN - when these 'laws' were being used to kill people and steal their property and livelihoods etc - nobody in the west declared war on Nazi Germany until it went too far and would not take a warning.... and the United States did not declare war on Germany until Germany itself declared war on the United States. So - are we now to believe two things:- 1. That every 'law' or equivalent passed through the unelected United Nations is equally a valid 'law' etc? 2. That it is somehow the absolute right of the UN to intervene with military force to correct what is perceived as being 'wrongful' about a nation's governance? The UN dragged its heels over Rwanda and many died..... the UN dragged its heels over Kosovo etc and many died..... the UN dragged its heels over The Congo and many died...... it took 'coalitions of the willing' to intervene actively and finally put an end to all of those areas of murder and conflict.... and that included, in some case, mercenaries, who are outlawed by the UN and receive no benefits of prisoner of war status. Are we now to believe that an ununited United Nations will somehow become the peacemaker of Planet Earth? Maybe when it gets off its arse on its high horse....  8-)

Uncle Sam will never allow an authority outside its constitution to have authority over the USA for whatever reason.

The richest and most militarily powerful nations will always exert power and influence over lesser nations.

The overthrow of the Whitlam government is evidence of that.

The UN only has the money nations donate to it. It has no authority to tax any nation. It has no military force. It has no enforcement authority and never will have.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Apr 27^th, 2022 at 7:27pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 27th, 2022 at 5:25pm: Another assault on national sovereignty - who ever said the UN had the right to demand that any nation justify itself to the UN? Falling apart at the seams, it seems.....too much of this Neo-Stalinist Fascism with some amazing assumption that this house of discussion should now become The New World Dictator!! Started off as a good idea... Again I ask - how is such a body to maintain peace and law and order without exercising war and abrogating laws of individual nations???? Anyone??  It has been said by more learned personages than my good self, that everything the Nazis did in Germany was 'legal' since it was passed through their 'elected' houses....... EVEN THEN - when these 'laws' were being used to kill people and steal their property and livelihoods etc - nobody in the west declared war on Nazi Germany until it went too far and would not take a warning.... and the United States did not declare war on Germany until Germany itself declared war on the United States. So - are we now to believe two things:- 1. That every 'law' or equivalent passed through the unelected United Nations is equally a valid 'law' etc? 2. That it is somehow the absolute right of the UN to intervene with military force to correct what is perceived as being 'wrongful' about a nation's governance? The UN dragged its heels over Rwanda and many died..... the UN dragged its heels over Kosovo etc and many died..... the UN dragged its heels over The Congo and many died...... it took 'coalitions of the willing' to intervene actively and finally put an end to all of those areas of murder and conflict.... and that included, in some case, mercenaries, who are outlawed by the UN and receive no benefits of prisoner of war status. Are we now to believe that an ununited United Nations will somehow become the peacemaker of Planet Earth? Maybe when it gets off its arse on its high horse....  8-) Uncle Sam will never allow an authority outside its constitution to have authority over the USA for whatever reason. The richest and most militarily powerful nations will always exert power and influence over lesser nations. The overthrow of the Whitlam government is evidence of that. The UN only has the money nations donate to it. It has no authority to tax any nation. It has no military force. It has no enforcement authority and never will have.

Neither will most other nations.... any who thinks differently can start the list...  what about ..... 

Colombia?  Saudi Arabia? Russia?  Ukraine?  China?  Japan?  Venezuela? The Solomons?  Vietnam?  France?  Sudan?  Israel?  Somalia?  India?  Afghanistan?

Must be one in there somewhere prepared to get the ball rolling...  this is what I love about high-flying theories..... when they hit ground zero they have crashed....

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 27^th, 2022 at 6:58pm:

Once again - so you want UN sovereignty over everyone and everything?

Once again, no.

Establishment of international law to outlaw war as a means of dispute settlement between nations is not "UN sovereignty over everyone and everything" 

That's just your unconscious  reptilian brain inhibiting  your capacity for rational thought.


Quote:

How is that any different in approach?  How do you propose to being all nations into this umbrella and make them comply?

By examination of the issues involved in maintaining peace between nations, and  promoting the eventual  adoption of the necessary institutional machinery (as first conceived by 'Doc" Evatt in 1946).

Do not be alarmed by the prospect of the eradication of war between nations, your vestigial reptilian brain is only  "yanking your chain" (though you can't see it...)


Quote:

Hunger Games?

That's what we have at present, in this and all wars,  as food prices are driven beyond the reach of the poor, globally.

Ozpolitic right-wing extremists are struggling to understand the fact that the USA will never submit to be ruled by an entity that has judicial power over all nations and a means to enforce peace or prevent wars.

It is an unwritten clause in the US constitution that "there is nothing more peaceful than a dead man unless it is a foreign dead man."

Laugh till you cry wrote on Apr 27^th, 2022 at 11:49pm:

Ozpolitic right-wing extremists are struggling to understand the fact that the USA will never submit to be ruled by an entity that has judicial power over all nations and a means to enforce peace or prevent wars.

Not only right wing extremists. The modern ALP has divorced itself from 'Doc' Evatt's original no UNSC veto proposal.

Of course the US would be one of the five (or perhaps seven) nations  acting as guarantors of world peace, in a UNSC without veto. 


Quote:

It is an unwritten clause in the US constitution that "there is nothing more peaceful than a dead man unless it is a foreign dead man."

Quite so, but all constitutions (written or unwritten) are amenable to enlightenment.

Ozpolitic right-wing extremists are struggling with comprehension they should have mastered in primary school.

The USA will not submit to being commanded by a non-US entity.

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 27^th, 2022 at 4:30pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 27th, 2022 at 3:44pm: There is only The International Court of Justice in the Hague but: China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, the United States, and Yemen don't recognise it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court Note: the ICC deals with individual criminal prosecutions, and is not an arm of the UN; whereas the ICJ adjudicates international disputes and is affiliated with the UN. Quote: Therefore they can get away with: There are 11 crimes which constitute grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and which are applicable only to international armed conflicts:[100]     Willful killing     Torture     Inhumane treatment     Biological experiments     Willfully causing great suffering     Destruction and appropriation of property     Compelling service in hostile forces     Denying a fair trial     Unlawful deportation and transfer     Unlawful confinement     Taking hostages Note the idiocy of trying to define "legal" war (via the Geneva Conventions):  "Willful killing" is what soldiers do. "Willfully causing great suffering" and  "Destruction and appropriation of property'  are unavoidable  conditions  of modern warfare. "Unlawful deportation and transfer"...though civilians fleeing war zones are always a much greater catastrophe. [quote]There are seven crimes which constitute serious violations of article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and which are applicable only to non-international armed conflicts:[100]     Murder     Mutilation     Cruel treatment     Torture     Outrages upon personal dignity     Taking hostages     Sentencing or execution without due process

So, applicable to civil war; but of course many civil wars are proxies for international conflict. 


Quote:

Additionally, there are 56 other crimes defined by article 8: 35 that apply to international armed conflicts and 21 that apply to non-international armed conflicts.[100] Such crimes include attacking civilians or civilian objects, attacking peacekeepers, causing excessive incidental death or damage, transferring populations into occupied territories, treacherously killing or wounding, denying quarter, pillaging, employing poison, using expanding bullets, rape and other forms of sexual violence, and conscripting or using child soldiers.[103]

International war should be outlawed, via international judicial machinery; international war is insane in the age of MAD.

Whereas civil wars are trickier; can violence within a nation's borders achieve the desired goals of the respective parties? [/quote]


That's true - yet here we are.
Any of those nations not bound by the law can do whatever they want to.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 28^th, 2022 at 12:22am:

That's true - yet here we are. Any of those nations not bound by the law can do whatever they want to.

Oh ye of limited insight and even less understanding.

No nation is "bound by the law" at present, and in fact war is still "legal".....

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 29^th, 2022 at 1:25pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 28th, 2022 at 12:22am: That's true - yet here we are. Any of those nations not bound by the law can do whatever they want to. Oh ye of limited insight and even less understanding. No nation is "bound by the law" at present, and in fact war is still "legal".....

What makes you think it will just stop the moment it is made illegal?  There are already categories of legal and illegal war -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 30^th, 2022 at 7:54pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 29th, 2022 at 1:25pm: Bobby. wrote on Apr 28th, 2022 at 12:22am: That's true - yet here we are. Any of those nations not bound by the law can do whatever they want to. Oh ye of limited insight and even less understanding. No nation is "bound by the law" at present, and in fact war is still "legal"..... What makes you think it will just stop the moment it is made illegal?  There are already categories of legal and illegal war - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war

Because if war is criminalized, nations will not need to maintain standing militaries, except permanent UNSC members who will share the responsibility for maintaining the peace, with fail-safe mechanisms re access to any military deployment by the UNSC members.   

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 30^th, 2022 at 10:20pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 30th, 2022 at 7:54pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 29th, 2022 at 1:25pm: Bobby. wrote on Apr 28th, 2022 at 12:22am: That's true - yet here we are. Any of those nations not bound by the law can do whatever they want to. Oh ye of limited insight and even less understanding. No nation is "bound by the law" at present, and in fact war is still "legal"..... What makes you think it will just stop the moment it is made illegal?  There are already categories of legal and illegal war - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war Because if war is criminalized, nations will not need to maintain standing militaries, except permanent UNSC members which will share the responsibility for maintaining the peace, with fail-safe mechanisms re access to any military deployment by the UNSC members.

Well, if you have faith that such a treaty would work, I cannot contradict opinion, but just look how dismal the UN is at achieving anything. Countries disarming would be vulnerable just as Ukraine was when its sovereignty was supposed to be guaranteed by Russia among others. If a government thinks it is strong enough to invade another country, the only thing that will prevent it doing so is a transparent foreign policy within a strong democracy that includes multiple un-intimidated opposition parties. And even that won't work sometimes.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 30^th, 2022 at 7:54pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 29th, 2022 at 1:25pm: Bobby. wrote on Apr 28th, 2022 at 12:22am: That's true - yet here we are. Any of those nations not bound by the law can do whatever they want to. Oh ye of limited insight and even less understanding. No nation is "bound by the law" at present, and in fact war is still "legal"..... What makes you think it will just stop the moment it is made illegal?  There are already categories of legal and illegal war - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war

War will never stop because some countries are prepared
to go rogue as Putin has done.
Even the war in Iraq in 2003 was illegal but justified
as a form of self defense.

In March 2003, U.S. forces invaded Iraq vowing to destroy Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
and end the dictatorial rule of Saddam Hussein.

issuevoter wrote on May 1^st, 2022 at 5:46am:

Well, if you have faith that such a treaty would work, I cannot contradict opinion, but just look how dismal the UN is at achieving anything.

The UN "can't achieve anything" because it was crippled at its inception (in 1946), when the US and USSR demanded the right to a veto, in the UNSC.

Stop and think: why did they demand the right to a veto?


Quote:

Countries disarming would be vulnerable just as Ukraine was when its sovereignty was supposed to be guaranteed by Russia among others.

Addressed above, and in post #25. 


Quote:

If a government thinks it is strong enough to invade another country, the only thing that will prevent it doing so is a transparent foreign policy within a strong democracy that includes multiple un-intimidated opposition parties. And even that won't work sometimes.

No kidding....the whole world protested against the Bush/Blair/Howard illegal invasion of Iraq, to no avail....

Bobby. wrote on May 1^st, 2022 at 6:37am:

War will never stop because some countries are prepared to go rogue as Putin has done. Even the war in Iraq in 2003 was illegal but justified as a form of self defense.

Correct; did you read my proposal for the criminalization of war, via establishment of real  international law?

namely: " ..... if war is criminalized, nations will not need to maintain standing militaries, except permanent UNSC members which will share the responsibility for maintaining the peace, with fail-safe mechanisms re access to any military deployment by the UNSC members".   


Quote:

In March 2003, U.S. forces invaded Iraq vowing to destroy Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and end the dictatorial rule of Saddam Hussein.

Indeed, and the UN sec. general  himself (Kofi Annan) declared this to be an "illegal" war....but the UN itself is complicit in war so long as the absurd doctrine of "legal" war stands.

The Iraq war admittedly occurred on legally ambiguous grounds. It is also fair to acknowledge, even among those of us who accepted the logic of risking war to ensure Iraq’s verifiable disarmament, that its basic desirability and benefits can be debated. Indeed, while not my view, it can reasonably be argued the war was a strategic mistake, as it may foster more anti-U.S. terrorism and risk leaving Iraq in chaos.

But it was not illegal. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, passed by unanimous vote in November 2002, made it clear the then status quo in Iraq was what was illegal. Saddam had already violated some 17 previous resolutions demanding his verifiable disarmament. He was put on notice by Resolution 1441 that continuing this was emphatically unacceptable.

...
Saddam may have been contained at the time, more or less, but no one could confidently argue he did not pose a structural threat to regional peace and stability over the longer term.

Kofi Annan is understandably frustrated and even angered by conditions in Iraq today—which categorically are not good, despite White House claims to the contrary.

He also is on reasonable grounds in wishing the Bush administration had done more to be explicitly multilateral and legal in approaching any war to unseat Saddam.

But it is a much different thing, and a mistake, to deem illegal the use of force to overthrow a brutal dictator who had systematically and dangerously defied official demands made of him by the entire international community.

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/why-the-war-wasnt-illegal/

Frank wrote on May 1^st, 2022 at 12:03pm:

But it is a much different thing, and a mistake, to deem illegal the use of force to overthrow a brutal dictator who had systematically and dangerously defied official demands made of him by the entire international community.

A case for general disarmament?   

The idea that the only way to deal with "brutal dictators" is to wage a "legal" war - with its massive human and property costs -  against the entire nation is absurd.

If war was criminalized, then the underlying causes of economic and ideological  dysfunction which maintain brutal dictators  could be addressed by the relevant national and global institutions.


Quote:

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/why-the-war-wasnt-illegal/

I haven't read it yet, but I'll bet it doesn't consider my above propositions, to outlaw war (and dispose of the absurd notion of "legal" war).

thegreatdivide wrote on May 1^st, 2022 at 12:01pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 1st, 2022 at 6:37am: War will never stop because some countries are prepared to go rogue as Putin has done. Even the war in Iraq in 2003 was illegal but justified as a form of self defense. Correct; did you read my proposal for the criminalization of war, via establishment of real  international law? namely: " ..... if war is criminalized, nations will not need to maintain standing militaries, except permanent UNSC members which will share the responsibility for maintaining the peace, with fail-safe mechanisms re access to any military deployment by the UNSC members".    Quote: In March 2003, U.S. forces invaded Iraq vowing to destroy Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and end the dictatorial rule of Saddam Hussein. Indeed, and the UN sec. general  himself (Kofi Annan) declared this to be an "illegal" war....but the UN itself is complicit in war so long as the absurd doctrine of "legal" war stands.

What about war for self defense?

Bobby. wrote on May 1^st, 2022 at 1:35pm:

What about war for self defense?

Bobby's bogus war against blacks who have never attacked Bobby?

Laugh till you cry wrote on May 1^st, 2022 at 2:04pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 1st, 2022 at 1:35pm: What about war for self defense? Bobby's bogus war against blacks who have never attacked Bobby?

Blacks never needed any help attacking themselves..... still don't..... all the 'violence against Blacks' is from other Blacks, same as the 'violence against gays' - other gays... and even the figure of one woman a week exterminated does not mention those killed by other women or that the majority are Blacks killed by Blacks...

Truth telling, you know.... not the bullsh1t about how they were dispossessed and suffer generational disadvantage..... plenty of 'em have lifted themselves out of that trap.... anyone who lives out bush without any work etc is disadvantaged... as are many people in cities..... they ain't Robinson Crusoe's Man Friday...

Bobby. wrote on May 1^st, 2022 at 1:35pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on May 1st, 2022 at 12:01pm: Bobby. wrote on May 1st, 2022 at 6:37am: War will never stop because some countries are prepared to go rogue as Putin has done. Even the war in Iraq in 2003 was illegal but justified as a form of self defense. Correct; did you read my proposal for the criminalization of war, via establishment of real  international law? namely: " ..... if war is criminalized, nations will not need to maintain standing militaries, except permanent UNSC members which will share the responsibility for maintaining the peace, with fail-safe mechanisms re access to any military deployment by the UNSC members".    Quote: In March 2003, U.S. forces invaded Iraq vowing to destroy Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and end the dictatorial rule of Saddam Hussein. Indeed, and the UN sec. general  himself (Kofi Annan) declared this to be an "illegal" war....but the UN itself is complicit in war so long as the absurd doctrine of "legal" war stands. What about war for self defense?

divide simply will not see that making war illegal and having all these tame and unarmed countries sitting around is just the thing for a group which doesn't give a damn about legality and just sees the opportunity to take something for nothing.... his naivety knows no bounds.

Putin attacked Ukraine because he thought it would be easy .... he didn't care what the UN said and if it was legal or not... and the exact same thing will happen if nations disarm and surrender their sovereignty to the UN - some jerk will see the opportunity and think it  easy - and what will the UN do then?

divide still can't/won't answer how he would enforce his law...... well... obviously by using armed force!  Equals war ..... but only the UN has the Entitlement™ to make war and to decide when, where and how and against whom.... a sure recipe for disaster and tyranny.

So then he simply will not see that in order to enforce his no war law, his way will just be a perpetuation of war in many ways.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 1^st, 2022 at 12:35pm:

Frank wrote on May 1st, 2022 at 12:03pm: But it is a much different thing, and a mistake, to deem illegal the use of force to overthrow a brutal dictator who had systematically and dangerously defied official demands made of him by the entire international community. A case for general disarmament?    The idea that the only way to deal with "brutal dictators" is to wage a "legal" war - with its massive human and property costs -  against the entire nation is absurd. If war was criminalized, then the underlying causes of economic and ideological  dysfunction which maintain brutal dictators  could be addressed by the relevant national and global institutions. Quote: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/why-the-war-wasnt-illegal/ I haven't read it yet, but I'll bet it doesn't consider my above propositions, to outlaw war (and dispose of the absurd notion of "legal" war).

Sorry, Great, are you saying invading Taiwan should not be legal?

Cheers.

Mattyfisk wrote on May 2^nd, 2022 at 1:50am:

thegreatdivide wrote on May 1st, 2022 at 12:35pm: Frank wrote on May 1st, 2022 at 12:03pm: But it is a much different thing, and a mistake, to deem illegal the use of force to overthrow a brutal dictator who had systematically and dangerously defied official demands made of him by the entire international community. A case for general disarmament?    The idea that the only way to deal with "brutal dictators" is to wage a "legal" war - with its massive human and property costs -  against the entire nation is absurd. If war was criminalized, then the underlying causes of economic and ideological  dysfunction which maintain brutal dictators  could be addressed by the relevant national and global institutions. Quote: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/why-the-war-wasnt-illegal/ I haven't read it yet, but I'll bet it doesn't consider my above propositions, to outlaw war (and dispose of the absurd notion of "legal" war). Sorry, Great, are you saying invading Taiwan should not be legal? Cheers.

Careful - ease it into him slowly or he'll buck..... just a little bit at a time.... eventually he'll accept the whole thing....

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 2^nd, 2022 at 11:37am:

Mattyfisk wrote on May 2nd, 2022 at 1:50am: thegreatdivide wrote on May 1st, 2022 at 12:35pm: Frank wrote on May 1st, 2022 at 12:03pm: But it is a much different thing, and a mistake, to deem illegal the use of force to overthrow a brutal dictator who had systematically and dangerously defied official demands made of him by the entire international community. A case for general disarmament?    The idea that the only way to deal with "brutal dictators" is to wage a "legal" war - with its massive human and property costs -  against the entire nation is absurd. If war was criminalized, then the underlying causes of economic and ideological  dysfunction which maintain brutal dictators  could be addressed by the relevant national and global institutions. Quote: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/why-the-war-wasnt-illegal/ I haven't read it yet, but I'll bet it doesn't consider my above propositions, to outlaw war (and dispose of the absurd notion of "legal" war). Sorry, Great, are you saying invading Taiwan should not be legal? Cheers. Careful - ease it into him slowly or he'll buck..... just a little bit at a time.... eventually he'll accept the whole thing....

Oh, I don't know. I think Great has a ready-made response: how can China invade itself? The West once had a one-China policy, yes?

If the Security Council issues any pesky resolutions, China can just veto them.

Cunning, no?

Bobby. wrote on May 1^st, 2022 at 1:35pm:

What about war for self defense?

When it comes to national "self-defence",  war is insane, as we are seeing in Ukraine.

"Self defense", at the cost of trillions in property damage, collapsed national production, and millions displaced  as refugees.   And this proxy war is only benefiting the US military-industrial complex,  which international law would put out of business.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 2^nd, 2022 at 12:49am:

Blacks never needed any help attacking themselves..... still don't..... all the 'violence against Blacks' is from other Blacks, same as the 'violence against gays' - other gays... and even the figure of one woman a week exterminated does not mention those killed by other women or that the majority are Blacks killed by Blacks... Truth telling, you know.... not the bullsh1t about how they were dispossessed and suffer generational disadvantage..... plenty of 'em have lifted themselves out of that trap.... anyone who lives out bush without any work etc is disadvantaged... as are many people in cities..... they ain't Robinson Crusoe's Man Friday...

Blacks are caught up in violence the way all disadvantaged groups are, ie by fighting among themselves because of the dysfunctional economic  system which most negatively affects the most disadvantaged. 

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 2^nd, 2022 at 12:53am:

divide simply will not see that making war illegal and having all these tame and unarmed countries sitting around is just the thing for a group which doesn't give a damn about legality and just sees the opportunity to take something for nothing.... his naivety knows no bounds.

I already established Bobby's idea of war for national self-defense is insane, for reasons I have explained many times already.

Individuals of course will have to take their chances when defending themselves against direct attack by another (criminal) individual   (though the US  system of allowing every individual to arm himself to the teeth with guns  for 'self-defense',  is obviously problematic...)

Difficult to get past the reptilian brain to appeal to the rational brain,  with you lot.   


Quote:

Putin attacked Ukraine because he thought it would be easy ....

Correct, and because he thought he has a 'right' to ensure the security of Russians in Ukraine, while NATO was encroaching ever closer to the Russian border, and some Ukrainians want to join NATO .

(NATO should have been disbanded with the demise of the Warsaw Pact)

Solution: a UNSC without veto, to back the decision of an ICJ who can adjudicate on such issues. It's called rule of law, which the reptilian brain of  you neanderthals prevents you from accepting: better dead than living under rule of law.


Quote:

he didn't care what the UN said and if it was legal or not...

Correct, because there is no international court to adjudicate the dispute, only resort to war...because war between nations is still - insanely - "legal".


Quote:

and the exact same thing will happen if nations disarm and surrender their sovereignty to the UN - some jerk will see the opportunity and think it  easy - and what will the UN do then?

Look how easily Bobby led you astray...as soon as he mentioned the  word 'self-defense', your instinctive reptilian brain immediately asserted sovereignty over your rational brain....and confused defense of your own sorry ass with the survival of your nation..... 


Quote:

divide still can't/won't answer how he would enforce his law...... well... obviously by using armed force!

You aren't reading my posts, I will take a note of this one. By disarming the standing militaries of non UNSC nations, who under international law will be protected by the UNSC, which itself will subject to fail-safe mechanisms re any necessary deployment of military force, to maintain international security.   



Quote:

Equals war .....

And unarmed nation can't make war with a reformed UNSC (as described many times).


Quote:

but only the UN has the Entitlement™ to make war and to decide when, where and how and against whom.... a sure recipe for disaster and tyranny.

The UN under international law (as outlined) is the necessary  institution to maintain the peace.  Spot the difference? (Difficult for you  I know, given your hyper-active reptilian brain...). 


Quote:

So then he simply will not see that in order to enforce his no war law, his way will just be a perpetuation of war in many ways.

Comprehensively addressed and refuted, above.

Mattyfisk wrote on May 2^nd, 2022 at 1:50am:

Sorry, Great, are you saying invading Taiwan should not be legal?Cheers.

Er... Taiwan is part of China under the internationally accepted  'One China -2 systems' principle. You can't invade your own territory.

China tolerates it...but  beware the red line, which even Biden observes - he isn't prepared to say Taiwan is an independent nation.




   

thegreatdivide wrote on May 2^nd, 2022 at 1:22pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on May 2nd, 2022 at 1:50am: Sorry, Great, are you saying invading Taiwan should not be legal?Cheers. Er... Taiwan is part of China under the internationally accepted  'One China -2 systems' principle. You can't invade your own territory.

Told you.


Mattyfisk wrote on May 2^nd, 2022 at 12:07pm:

Oh, I don't know. I think Great has a ready-made response: how can China invade itself? The West once had a one-China policy, yes?

When China invades Taiwan, Great will declare a security operation.

When the world complains, China will issue its veto in the Security Council.

Great will then give up his lofty plans for a peaceful global order in favour of Chinese military hegemony.

Told you.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 2^nd, 2022 at 1:22pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on May 2nd, 2022 at 1:50am: Sorry, Great, are you saying invading Taiwan should not be legal?Cheers. Er... Taiwan is part of China under the internationally accepted  'One China -2 systems' principle.

OH??  Spell that out, bozo, there's a good CCP operative.

The principle and the international acceptance of it.  Go on.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 2^nd, 2022 at 12:53am:

Bobby. wrote on May 1st, 2022 at 1:35pm: What about war for self defense? divide simply will not see that making war illegal and having all these tame and unarmed countries sitting around is just the thing for a group which doesn't give a damn about legality and just sees the opportunity to take something for nothing.... his naivety knows no bounds. Putin attacked Ukraine because he thought it would be easy .... he didn't care what the UN said and if it was legal or not... and the exact same thing will happen if nations disarm and surrender their sovereignty to the UN - some jerk will see the opportunity and think it  easy - and what will the UN do then? divide still can't/won't answer how he would enforce his law...... well... obviously by using armed force!  Equals war ..... but only the UN has the Entitlement™ to make war and to decide when, where and how and against whom.... a sure recipe for disaster and tyranny. So then he simply will not see that in order to enforce his no war law, his way will just be a perpetuation of war in many ways.

It's the underlying fault in the UN system which gives the 5 major powers a veto -
in this case if one of those powers goes rogue a war can't be stopped.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 2^nd, 2022 at 1:22pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on May 2nd, 2022 at 1:50am: Sorry, Great, are you saying invading Taiwan should not be legal?Cheers. Er... Taiwan is part of China under the internationally accepted  'One China -2 systems' principle. You can't invade your own territory. China tolerates it...but  beware the red line, which even Biden observes - he isn't prepared to say Taiwan is an independent nation.

I say Taiwan is an independent nation....... it has a totally different approach to governance to the mainland and is a totally autonomous state...

thegreatdivide wrote on May 2^nd, 2022 at 1:04pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 2nd, 2022 at 12:53am: divide simply will not see that making war illegal and having all these tame and unarmed countries sitting around is just the thing for a group which doesn't give a damn about legality and just sees the opportunity to take something for nothing.... his naivety knows no bounds. I already established Bobby's idea of war for national self-defense is insane, for reasons I have explained many times already. Individuals of course will have to take their chances when defending themselves against direct attack by another (criminal) individual   (though the US  system of allowing every individual to arm himself to the teeth with guns  for 'self-defense',  is obviously problematic...) Difficult to get past the reptilian brain to appeal to the rational brain,  with you lot.    Quote: Putin attacked Ukraine because he thought it would be easy .... Correct, and because he thought he has a 'right' to ensure the security of Russians in Ukraine, while NATO was encroaching ever closer to the Russian border, and some Ukrainians want to join NATO . (NATO should have been disbanded with the demise of the Warsaw Pact) Solution: a UNSC without veto, to back the decision of an ICJ who can adjudicate on such issues. It's called rule of law, which the reptilian brain of  you neanderthals prevents you from accepting: better dead than living under rule of law. [quote]he didn't care what the UN said and if it was legal or not...

Correct, because there is no international court to adjudicate the dispute, only resort to war...because war between nations is still - insanely - "legal".


Quote:

and the exact same thing will happen if nations disarm and surrender their sovereignty to the UN - some jerk will see the opportunity and think it  easy - and what will the UN do then?

Look how easily Bobby led you astray...as soon as he mentioned the  word 'self-defense', your instinctive reptilian brain immediately asserted sovereignty over your rational brain....and confused defense of your own sorry ass with the survival of your nation..... 


Quote:

divide still can't/won't answer how he would enforce his law...... well... obviously by using armed force!

You aren't reading my posts, I will take a note of this one. By disarming the standing militaries of non UNSC nations, who under international law will be protected by the UNSC, which itself will subject to fail-safe mechanisms re any necessary deployment of military force, to maintain international security.   



Quote:

Equals war .....

And unarmed nation can't make war with a reformed UNSC (as described many times).


Quote:

but only the UN has the Entitlement™ to make war and to decide when, where and how and against whom.... a sure recipe for disaster and tyranny.

The UN under international law (as outlined) is the necessary  institution to maintain the peace.  Spot the difference? (Difficult for you  I know, given your hyper-active reptilian brain...). 


Quote:

So then he simply will not see that in order to enforce his no war law, his way will just be a perpetuation of war in many ways.

Comprehensively addressed and refuted, above.
[/quote]


... and I have established many times that your concept of a disarmed earth and all power in the hands of an unelected body, the UN - which can declare war any time it wishes without a chance of a veto, and for any reason it wishes - is purest insanity leading to dictatorship and despotism by the UN (unelected) and will never work - apart from the simple reality that you will never get all nations to abide by your idea of law, and rogue nations will wreak havoc on all the others while your UN sits and debates what it will do in response.

UN = Hunger Games for real, with all power and force vested in a central and unelected body.  I panned Hunger Games as a silly girl show, but it has its points.....

By the time the UN get to an agreement, let alone sending warmaking forces to control war, the dead will be in the many thousands or more.

If, for instance, an Islamic nation goes to war with someone non-Islamic - how many of the Islamic nations will vote to stop them?  And how many will withdraw from the United Nations if it tries to over-ride them and their beliefs?  Same with the other religions such as Communism, Xi-ism, Putinism, and so forth.... the demi-gods of the proletariat ....

No, thank you.  You plan is a sure recipe for disaster on many fronts.

Your failure to make any definitive statement on culpability or otherwise of Putin's actions is noted................. did he have some right to attackl Ukraine because some Russians living in a foreign nation wanted it to be part of Russia, or because some Ukraines wanted to join NATO? ...  so if some Islamists in Australia want  it to be part of ISInt, they are entitled to invade us to enforce that... or some Pacific Islanders want to be part of Oceania The Great, they should be entitled to invade us??? ...and again - no veto was used since the issue did not come up.... and if it had, Russia has a veto.... your point is moot...

What the UN should have been doing - IF it had been an elected body governed by democratic rules, which it is not - was remove the power of veto from a nation that has initiated war without a valid reason... and remove such a nation from the Security Council since it has proven itself to not be worthy of that position.

It's called impeachment.......

The UN is NOT a democratic institution, its national representatives are not democratically elected, they are appointed, and therefore the UN is fatally flawed as any form of body that can make law and enforce it.  IF it were permitted to wage war to control war, it would inevitably become the very problem it is setting out to resolve.

That is what happens every time, and history will bear me out on this., both on the national and the international stage.  Every time force has been applied to resolve an issue of force, the problems have exploded, not been resolved.

Mattyfisk wrote on May 2^nd, 2022 at 4:21pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on May 2nd, 2022 at 1:22pm: Mattyfisk wrote on May 2nd, 2022 at 1:50am: Sorry, Great, are you saying invading Taiwan should not be legal?Cheers. Er... Taiwan is part of China under the internationally accepted  'One China -2 systems' principle. You can't invade your own territory. Quote: Told you. No you didn't. The acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible.  But if the territory is already yours, you can't invade it...by definition. Now, you have to deal with a different circumstance, namely, the ability of a portion of the nation to unilaterally declare independence. Does the KMT want independence? Meanwhile  'One China' policy still exists in the UN. Will the US abandon that policy? [quote]When China invades Taiwan, Great will declare a security operation. China doesn't have to invade Taiwan, because according to Biden (still), Taiwan is Chinese territory. (Notice how the US is involved in most wars by proxy, including Ukraine).  Of course as the need to contain China grows ever more urgent in the US, Biden (or possibly Trump) might simply abandon the 'One China' principle. In that case a nuclear war between two giants is possible.  And note: whereas some Russians are anti-war and anti-Putin in the case of the Ukraine invasion, all 1.4 billion Chinese on the mainland would be pro-war and  pro CCP,  to defend Chinese sovereignty.  Meanwhile, you asserted what I would do; in fact I am anti-war FULL-STOP, regardless of ideology and national territorial claims. So you should know my preference (which you erroneously presumed to know, above) , namely, adjudication by an ICJ backed by a reformed UNSC without veto. (Hey who gives a s**t if Taiwan remains democratic, while the mainland is leading the world into a new age of common prosperity which puts the chronic, evasive and generational poverty of the deluded "individual freedom"  democracies to shame?       [quote]When the world complains, China will issue its veto in the Security Council.

Yes, so now can you see the advantage of outlawing war, with security guaranteed by a unified UNSC?


Quote:

Great will then give up his lofty plans for a peaceful global order in favour of Chinese military hegemony.

Addressed and refuted above.


Quote:

Told you.

I accept your apology.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 3^rd, 2022 at 1:35pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on May 2nd, 2022 at 4:21pm: thegreatdivide wrote on May 2nd, 2022 at 1:22pm: Mattyfisk wrote on May 2nd, 2022 at 1:50am: Sorry, Great, are you saying invading Taiwan should not be legal?Cheers. Er... Taiwan is part of China under the internationally accepted  'One China -2 systems' principle. You can't invade your own territory. Quote: Told you. No you didn't. The acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible.  But if the territory is already yours, you can't invade it...by definition. Now, you have to deal with a different circumstance, namely, the ability of a portion of the nation to unilaterally declare independence. Does the KMT want independence? Meanwhile  'One China' policy still exists in the UN. Will the US abandon that policy? [quote]When China invades Taiwan, Great will declare a security operation. China doesn't have to invade Taiwan, because according to Biden (still), Taiwan is Chinese territory. (Notice how the US is involved in most wars by proxy, including Ukraine).  Of course as the need to contain China grows ever more urgent in the US, Biden (or possibly Trump) might simply abandon the 'One China' principle. In that case a nuclear war between two giants is possible.  And note: whereas some Russians are anti-war and anti-Putin in the case of the Ukraine invasion, all 1.4 billion Chinese on the mainland would be pro-war and  pro CCP,  to defend Chinese sovereignty.  Meanwhile, you asserted what I would do; in fact I am anti-war FULL-STOP, regardless of ideology and national territorial claims. So you should know my preference (which you erroneously presumed to know, above) , namely, adjudication by an ICJ backed by a reformed UNSC without veto. (Hey who gives a s**t if Taiwan remains democratic, while the mainland is leading the world into a new age of common prosperity which puts the chronic, evasive and generational poverty of the deluded "individual freedom"  democracies to shame?       [quote]When the world complains, China will issue its veto in the Security Council. Yes, so now can you see the advantage of outlawing war, with security guaranteed by a unified UNSC? [quote]Great will then give up his lofty plans for a peaceful global order in favour of Chinese military hegemony.

Addressed and refuted above.


Quote:

Told you.

I accept your apology.
[/quote]


The Taiwanese do not want to be part of Red China.

Frank wrote on May 3^rd, 2022 at 2:40pm:

The Taiwanese do not want to be part of Red China

But some of them want to be part of China?

thegreatdivide wrote on May 3^rd, 2022 at 3:00pm:

Frank wrote on May 3rd, 2022 at 2:40pm: The Taiwanese do not want to be part of Red China But some of them want to be part of China?

They can always take the next boat out.

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 3^rd, 2022 at 3:01pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on May 3rd, 2022 at 3:00pm: Frank wrote on May 3rd, 2022 at 2:40pm: The Taiwanese do not want to be part of Red China But some of them want to be part of China? They can always take the next boat out.

True, but 1.4 billion mainlanders  also think the island is part of China.

Are 330 million Americans ready to cross that 'red-line', in the age of MAD? 

The UN just reflects how the world has and always will work.

The powerful can act and veto actions and the weak endure what they must.

It is this way, this way and no other way.

So the real question is?

How does a nation, ideology, culture or people become powerful?

thegreatdivide wrote on May 3^rd, 2022 at 3:09pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 3rd, 2022 at 3:01pm: thegreatdivide wrote on May 3rd, 2022 at 3:00pm: Frank wrote on May 3rd, 2022 at 2:40pm: The Taiwanese do not want to be part of Red China But some of them want to be part of China? They can always take the next boat out. Are 330 million Americans ready to cross that 'red-line', in the age of MAD?

I reckon they are.

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 3^rd, 2022 at 3:25pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on May 3rd, 2022 at 3:09pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on May 3rd, 2022 at 3:01pm: thegreatdivide wrote on May 3rd, 2022 at 3:00pm: Frank wrote on May 3rd, 2022 at 2:40pm: The Taiwanese do not want to be part of Red China But some of them want to be part of China? They can always take the next boat out. Are 330 million Americans ready to cross that 'red-line', in the age of MAD?  I reckon they are.

America is.

They have to.

If the US allowed an invasion of Taiwan it would end it as a Pacific power, the alliances she has would fracture, the American empire would fall apart.

America will intervene in a Taiwan fight directly, unlike Ukraine.

Jake Winker Frogen wrote on May 3^rd, 2022 at 3:33pm:

America is. They have to. If the US allowed an invasion of Taiwan it would end it as a Pacific power, the alliances she has would fracture, the American empire would fall apart. America will intervene in a Taiwan fight directly, unlike Ukraine.

Well then China -with cool heads in the defense dept-  will have to bide their time...until China's size - soon to be double and more than that of US GDP, will persuade the US it doesn't NEED to be a 'western Pacific power', because China is not interested in expansionism.

And at that time, mainland Chinese will be able to laugh at Taiwan with its democracy...who cares, when China becomes the largest, most cohesive,  and prosperous nation in the world.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 3^rd, 2022 at 1:35pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on May 2nd, 2022 at 4:21pm: thegreatdivide wrote on May 2nd, 2022 at 1:22pm: Mattyfisk wrote on May 2nd, 2022 at 1:50am: Sorry, Great, are you saying invading Taiwan should not be legal?Cheers. Er... Taiwan is part of China under the internationally accepted  'One China -2 systems' principle. You can't invade your own territory. Quote: Told you. No you didn't. The acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible.  But if the territory is already yours, you can't invade it...by definition. Now, you have to deal with a different circumstance, namely, the ability of a portion of the nation to unilaterally declare independence. Does the KMT want independence? Meanwhile  'One China' policy still exists in the UN. Will the US abandon that policy? [quote]When China invades Taiwan, Great will declare a security operation. China doesn't have to invade Taiwan, because according to Biden (still), Taiwan is Chinese territory. (Notice how the US is involved in most wars by proxy, including Ukraine).  Of course as the need to contain China grows ever more urgent in the US, Biden (or possibly Trump) might simply abandon the 'One China' principle. In that case a nuclear war between two giants is possible.  And note: whereas some Russians are anti-war and anti-Putin in the case of the Ukraine invasion, all 1.4 billion Chinese on the mainland would be pro-war and  pro CCP,  to defend Chinese sovereignty.  Meanwhile, you asserted what I would do; in fact I am anti-war FULL-STOP, regardless of ideology and national territorial claims. So you should know my preference (which you erroneously presumed to know, above) , namely, adjudication by an ICJ backed by a reformed UNSC without veto. (Hey who gives a s**t if Taiwan remains democratic, while the mainland is leading the world into a new age of common prosperity which puts the chronic, evasive and generational poverty of the deluded "individual freedom"  democracies to shame?       [quote]When the world complains, China will issue its veto in the Security Council. Yes, so now can you see the advantage of outlawing war, with security guaranteed by a unified UNSC? [quote]Great will then give up his lofty plans for a peaceful global order in favour of Chinese military hegemony.

Addressed and refuted above.


Quote:

Told you.

I accept your apology.
[/quote]

Sorry, Great, are you saying you would NOT call the Chinese invasion of Taiwan a "security operation"?

I say, what on earth will you call it? It can't be called an invasion because you're anti-war FULL STOP.

Would you call it a  sincere gesture of friendship, perhaps? An invitation to join the great People's Republic of China? An act of goodwill?

We'll need an answer ASAP, I fear. There may not be not much time. Xi's already been testing missiles and getting the planes ready.

Mattyfisk wrote on May 3^rd, 2022 at 7:17pm:

Sorry, Great, are you saying you would NOT call the Chinese invasion of Taiwan a "security operation"?

China will not invade Taiwan, so long as the One China principle is respected by the rest of the world.


Quote:

I say, what on earth will you call it? It can't be called an invasion because you're anti-war FULL STOP.

That's right: an invasion would be a costly mistake.

Better for China to achieve the most prosperous, socially-cohesive society on the planet, and then the Taiwanese will be falling over themselves to acknowledge their Chinese nationality, while the world's biggest democracies devolve into hyper-partisan rabbles. 


Quote:

Would you call it a  sincere gesture of friendship, perhaps? An invitation to join the great People's Republic of China? An act of goodwill?

I would call falling for the war-mongering US empire's tricks a catastrophe, at this time. "The best victories  are achieved  without firing a shot": Chinese proverb. 


Quote:

We'll need an answer ASAP, I fear. There may not be not much time. Xi's already been testing missiles and getting the planes ready.

Xi only needs to spend enough on the military to finally  bankrupt, or at least deter the paranoid US, whose fake financial economy will soon be no match  for the productive capacity of China's real economy.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 3^rd, 2022 at 7:16pm:

Jake Winker Frogen wrote on May 3rd, 2022 at 3:33pm: America is. They have to. If the US allowed an invasion of Taiwan it would end it as a Pacific power, the alliances she has would fracture, the American empire would fall apart. America will intervene in a Taiwan fight directly, unlike Ukraine. Well then China -with cool heads in the defense dept-  will have to bide their time...until China's size - soon to be double and more than that of US GDP, will persuade the US it doesn't NEED to be a 'western Pacific power', because China is not interested in expansionism. And at that time, mainland Chinese will be able to laugh at Taiwan with its democracy...who cares, when China becomes the largest, most cohesive,  and prosperous nation in the world.

So, Herr Goebbels, all those little island built up and fortified are for tourists?  All the deals to install functionaries all over the Pacific are just good will visits?

Every economy has its limits.... China is far wiser to play a soft game and simply trade with the rest of the world without all this grumbling over Taiwan and without its clear expansionism going on as we speak.

Only a foolish man runs around kicking sleeping dragons...

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 3^rd, 2022 at 9:31pm:

So, Herr Goebbels, all those little island built up and fortified are for tourists?

No, they are to deter the US empire's adventures in China's back yard. (Much better if the UN could guarantee the peace, but the reptilian brains are still in charge at the UN).   


Quote:

All the deals to install functionaries all over the Pacific are just good will visits?

Oz failed to train Pacific islands' police to provide security in the business districts; China has signed a deal to do just that.  But of course the paranoia behind the China "threat" theory sees all sorts of scary things where none exist.


Quote:

Every economy has its limits.... China is far wiser to play a soft game and simply trade with the rest of the world without all this grumbling over Taiwan and without its clear expansionism going on as we speak.

I agree (except I don't see the 'expansionism', given Taiwan is part of China in Chinese eyes); yet difficult, when the US empire and its agencies (the IMF and World Bank) continues to bully its competitors all around the globe. 


Quote:

Only a foolish man runs around kicking sleeping dragons...

Haven't you got that back to front? ....  Napoleon: "beware the sleeping dragon" (or similar)

Quote:

That's right: an invasion would be a costly mistake. Better for China to achieve the most prosperous, socially-cohesive society on the planet, and then the Taiwanese will be falling over themselves to acknowledge their Chinese nationality, while the world's biggest democracies devolve into hyper-partisan rabbles.

Ah. So you want Taiwan to ask China to invade, eh?

Sorry, declare a "security operation". I see.

So when would you like Taiwan to ask? Before or after Chairman Xi invades?

Mattyfisk wrote on May 4^th, 2022 at 1:04am:

Quote: That's right: an invasion would be a costly mistake. Better for China to achieve the most prosperous, socially-cohesive society on the planet, and then the Taiwanese will be falling over themselves to acknowledge their Chinese nationality, while the world's biggest democracies devolve into hyper-partisan rabbles. Ah. So you want Taiwan to ask China to invade, eh?

No, read what I wrote, again.


Quote:

Sorry, declare a "security operation". I see.

You didn't read what I wrote, nor did you reply to #60 (which speaks volumes by your omission).


Quote:

So when would you like Taiwan to ask? Before or after Chairman Xi invades?

As I said, the Taiwanese will be asking for Chinese sovereignty, without an invasion from the mainland. 

thegreatdivide wrote on May 4^th, 2022 at 12:58pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on May 4th, 2022 at 1:04am: Quote: That's right: an invasion would be a costly mistake. Better for China to achieve the most prosperous, socially-cohesive society on the planet, and then the Taiwanese will be falling over themselves to acknowledge their Chinese nationality, while the world's biggest democracies devolve into hyper-partisan rabbles. Ah. So you want Taiwan to ask China to invade, eh? No, read what I wrote, again. [quote]Sorry, declare a "security operation". I see.

You didn't read what I wrote, nor did you reply to #60 (which speaks volumes by your omission).


Quote:

So when would you like Taiwan to ask? Before or after Chairman Xi invades?

As I said, the Taiwanese will be asking for Chinese sovereignty, without an invasion from the mainland. 
[/quote]

Look, let's cut the CCP kool-aid krap. Taiwan will never ask the CCP to invade, you know that. Never ever.

Why can't you just be straight for once?

Mattyfisk wrote on May 4^th, 2022 at 2:29pm:

Why can't you just be straight for once?

Ask him to mention laowhy86 and/or serpentza in one of his posts.

See what happens.

Mattyfisk wrote on May 4^th, 2022 at 2:29pm:

Look, let's cut the CCP kool-aid krap. Taiwan will never ask the CCP to invade, you know that. Never ever. Why can't you just be straight for once?

You aren't reading my posts. I can't help that.


Meister suggests:


Quote:

Ask him to mention laowhy86 and/or serpentza in one of his posts.

I'm flat out trying to get you lot to use your god-given brains.....or rather, the non-reptilian bit capable of rational analysis; I certainly don't need to read more delusional "freedom" nonsense from people I can't respond to. 

thegreatdivide wrote on May 4^th, 2022 at 3:36pm:

Meister suggests: Quote: Ask him to mention laowhy86 and/or serpentza in one of his posts. I'm flat out trying to get you lot to use your god-given brains.....or rather, the non-reptilian bit capable of rational analysis; I certainly don't need to read more delusional "freedom" nonsense from people I can't respond to.

That's what happens!

You're not permitted to mention their names.

Cue some spam from the bots to try to bleach the posts.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 3^rd, 2022 at 3:00pm:

Frank wrote on May 3rd, 2022 at 2:40pm: The Taiwanese do not want to be part of Red China But some of them want to be part of China?

What proportion?

14%.

But fom the gruesome Chinkie-poo commies, the people's will is anathema. Communist ideology uber alles.

Death to 'sovereign individuality' and all that western rot. Flied lice, you must learn to like it.

Foook orf, bozo, you are a tiresome demagogue, like your commie masters.

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 4^th, 2022 at 3:39pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on May 4th, 2022 at 3:36pm: Meister suggests: Quote: Ask him to mention laowhy86 and/or serpentza in one of his posts. I'm flat out trying to get you lot to use your god-given brains.....or rather, the non-reptilian bit capable of rational analysis; I certainly don't need to read more delusional "freedom" nonsense from people I can't respond to.  That's what happens! You're not permitted to mention their names. Cue some spam from the bots to try to bleach the posts.

That must hurt......

thegreatdivide wrote on May 4^th, 2022 at 3:36pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on May 4th, 2022 at 2:29pm: Look, let's cut the CCP kool-aid krap. Taiwan will never ask the CCP to invade, you know that. Never ever. Why can't you just be straight for once? You aren't reading my posts. I can't help that. Meister suggests: Quote: Ask him to mention laowhy86 and/or serpentza in one of his posts. I'm flat out trying to get you lot to use your god-given brains.....or rather, the non-reptilian bit capable of rational analysis; I certainly don't need to read more delusional "freedom" nonsense from people I can't respond to.

Thanks, Great. Given you won't answer the other questions, would you care to mention laowhy86 and/or serpentza in one of your posts?

Cheers.

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 4^th, 2022 at 3:39pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on May 4th, 2022 at 3:36pm: Meister suggests: Quote: Ask him to mention laowhy86 and/or serpentza in one of his posts. I'm flat out trying to get you lot to use your god-given brains.....or rather, the non-reptilian bit capable of rational analysis; I certainly don't need to read more delusional "freedom" nonsense from people I can't respond to.  That's what happens! You're not permitted to mention their names. Cue some spam from the bots to try to bleach the posts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiOOC1Exk7o

SerpentZA, Laowhy 86, The LIES and the Truth.

Not permitted to mention their names?

I accept your concession.

Meanwhile you delusional "freedom" ideologues blinded by your unconscious reptilian brain and hence unable to think rationally, chafe against outlawing war under  international law, making you complicit in the Ukraine catastrophe.  Hence that horrible Ursula der Leyen  prolonging the war from the comfort and security of her home.

And ignore my post #60.

And as for Taiwan:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/china-communique/

"Yet once the Shanghai Communiqué was issued, the writing was on the wall. As journalist and China scholar James Mann has written, " . . . Nixon’s initiative conveyed America’s acceptance, for the first time, of the outcome of the Chinese civil war and the defeat of Chiang Kai-shek. The United States stopped challenging the Chinese Communist Party’s authority to rule the country. . . . The American acceptance (in the communiqué) and, indeed, its embrace (in Nixon’s private talks) of a one-China policy was to govern American conduct from that point onward."

Now of course  US hawks backed by their evil profit-seeking military industrial complex want to unilaterally withdraw from the  Shanghai Communiqué, and to end the US policy of "strategic ambiguity" altogether, in the hope of getting the two Chinese sides to destroy one-another, with Taiwan using US-made weapons.... good for US business.....  

So you want plain talking.

I'm anti war (in the age of MAD), FULLSTOP. 

If the US forced the issue, and abandoned the One China principle on ideological grounds (ie your deadly and  delusional "freedom" ideology) I would advise China to refrain from being enticed into war by the US, in the Taiwan Straits.

Until  such time as international law is created, to adjudicate on the matter.....or until such time China's power is sufficient to deter the US from firing the first shot....

thegreatdivide wrote on May 5^th, 2022 at 1:35pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 4th, 2022 at 3:39pm: thegreatdivide wrote on May 4th, 2022 at 3:36pm: Meister suggests: Quote: Ask him to mention laowhy86 and/or serpentza in one of his posts. I'm flat out trying to get you lot to use your god-given brains.....or rather, the non-reptilian bit capable of rational analysis; I certainly don't need to read more delusional "freedom" nonsense from people I can't respond to.  That's what happens! You're not permitted to mention their names. Cue some spam from the bots to try to bleach the posts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiOOC1Exk7o SerpentZA, Laowhy 86, The LIES and the Truth. Not permitted to mention their names? I accept your concession.

Now watch videos directly from laowhy86 (not laowhy 86) and serpentza as opposed to those from Lee or Oli Barrett.

There are some good ones detailing how Oli's and Lee's content is directed and scripted by the CCP.

Russian state TV threatens
nuclear strike on UK

Many people say that if Russia wipes out Great Britain, all wars in the world will disappear forever,
and even animals will stop attacking each other.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4eJvwtQJu4

https://youtu.be/VQ4TVvliPIE?t=123

Freediver. Can the mods here prevent spam and repeat posts?

Everyone is talking about Canadian NATO General Trevor Cadieu, who was involved in the development
of biochemical weapons and was captured in Azovstal and taken to Moscow.
Moscow has just confirmed that.
:)

The UN does not matter.

Other than as a humanitarian aid organization, and not an effective one at that.

The UN is a human fiction.

Just like an internet forurm.

It does not matter.

Jake Winker Frogen wrote on May 5^th, 2022 at 3:55pm:

The UN does not matter. Other than as a humanitarian aid organization, and not an effective one at that. The UN is a human fiction. Just like an internet forurm. It does not matter.

Many think that if Russia wipes out Great Britain, all wars in the world will disappear forever,
and in this case, the world will no longer need the UN.
:)

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 5^th, 2022 at 3:30pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on May 5th, 2022 at 1:35pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on May 4th, 2022 at 3:39pm: thegreatdivide wrote on May 4th, 2022 at 3:36pm: Meister suggests: Quote: Ask him to mention laowhy86 and/or serpentza in one of his posts. I'm flat out trying to get you lot to use your god-given brains.....or rather, the non-reptilian bit capable of rational analysis; I certainly don't need to read more delusional "freedom" nonsense from people I can't respond to.  That's what happens! You're not permitted to mention their names. Cue some spam from the bots to try to bleach the posts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiOOC1Exk7o SerpentZA, Laowhy 86, The LIES and the Truth. Not permitted to mention their names? I accept your concession. Now watch videos directly from laowhy86 (not laowhy 86) and serpentza as opposed to those from Lee or Oli Barrett. There are some good ones detailing how Oli's and Lee's content is directed and scripted by the CCP.

The video of Oli Barrett you posted above; He appears often for the CCP on white monkey clips directed and scripted by the CCP. His son, Lee, does the same. One video shows Lee in an advert for a state-run pharmaceutical company promoting traditional Chinese medicine as a cure for covid.

Anyway, the video below shows Oli and Lee Barrett (and two other white monkeys) with Liu Xin. Her slip-up after a technical fault: 'I'm very sorry about that. Obviously Beijing isn't Very Savvy at Pushing out its Propaganda'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSeQGZq9668

As a free thinker, you'd want to watch this.

athos wrote on May 5^th, 2022 at 3:49pm:

Everyone is talking about Canadian NATO General Trevor Cadieu, who was involved in the development of biochemical weapons and was captured in Azovstal and taken to Moscow. Moscow has just confirmed that. :)

Congrats! You surpassed morty on being the biggest dumbf-k on here.

Marla wrote on May 6^th, 2022 at 8:08am:

athos wrote on May 5th, 2022 at 3:49pm: Everyone is talking about Canadian NATO General Trevor Cadieu, who was involved in the development of biochemical weapons and was captured in Azovstal and taken to Moscow. Moscow has just confirmed that. :) Congrats! You surpassed morty on being the biggest dumbf-k on here.

Please explain?

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 5^th, 2022 at 3:30pm:

Now watch videos directly from laowhy86 (not laowhy 86) and serpentza as opposed to those from Lee or Oli Barrett. There are some good ones detailing how Oli's and Lee's content is directed and scripted by the CCP.

So you cannot debate my anti-war posts eg #60, and the essence of #72, and now you are insisting I watch videos supporting your pro war "freedom" ideology.

At least have the integrity to present the arguments presented in the videos yourself...but you are aware I will demolish them for the reptilian-brain-based irrationality they represent. 

Jake Winker Frogen wrote on May 5^th, 2022 at 3:55pm:

The UN does not matter. Other than as a humanitarian aid organization, and not an effective one at that. The UN is a human fiction. Just like an internet forurm. It does not matter.

Life matters. Outlawing war in the age of MAD matters.

At least attempt to use the powers of analysis residing in your cortex brain, to overcome the instinctive reactions to perceived 'threats',  arising from your unconscious reptilian brain.

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 6^th, 2022 at 7:31am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 5th, 2022 at 3:30pm: thegreatdivide wrote on May 5th, 2022 at 1:35pm: Now watch videos directly from laowhy86 (not laowhy 86) and serpentza as opposed to those from Lee or Oli Barrett. I googled those 2 names you said, and those youtube videos came up. Quote: There are some good ones detailing how Oli's and Lee's content is directed and scripted by the CCP. Wait...are you saying google directed me to the wrong videos? [quote]The video of Oli Barrett you posted above; He appears often for the CCP on white monkey clips directed and scripted by the CCP. His son, Lee, does the same. One video shows Lee in an advert for a state-run pharmaceutical company promoting traditional Chinese medicine as a cure for covid. Hooookeeey.... [quote]Anyway, the video below shows Oli and Lee Barrett (and two other white monkeys) with Liu Xin. Her slip-up after a technical fault: 'I'm very sorry about that. Obviously Beijing isn't Very Savvy at Pushing out its Propaganda'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSeQGZq9668

As a free thinker, you'd want to watch this.
[/quote]

A lot of huffing and puffing by Chinese haters about the politics of covid lockdowns. Recall  the days of empty shelves in Western supermarkets?

And as for government propaganda, the idea that democracy is 'values-based' on 'human rights' is the supreme example. Talk to the poor souls sleeping on city streets in Oz capital cities in winter.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 7^th, 2022 at 1:33pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 6th, 2022 at 7:31am: MeisterEckhart wrote on May 5th, 2022 at 3:30pm: thegreatdivide wrote on May 5th, 2022 at 1:35pm: Now watch videos directly from laowhy86 (not laowhy 86) and serpentza as opposed to those from Lee or Oli Barrett. I googled those 2 names you said, and those youtube videos came up. Quote: There are some good ones detailing how Oli's and Lee's content is directed and scripted by the CCP. Wait...are you saying google directed me to the wrong videos? [quote]The video of Oli Barrett you posted above; He appears often for the CCP on white monkey clips directed and scripted by the CCP. His son, Lee, does the same. One video shows Lee in an advert for a state-run pharmaceutical company promoting traditional Chinese medicine as a cure for covid. Hooookeeey.... [quote]Anyway, the video below shows Oli and Lee Barrett (and two other white monkeys) with Liu Xin. Her slip-up after a technical fault: 'I'm very sorry about that. Obviously Beijing isn't Very Savvy at Pushing out its Propaganda'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSeQGZq9668 As a free thinker, you'd want to watch this.

A lot of huffing and puffing by Chinese haters about the politics of covid lockdowns. Recall  the days of empty shelves in Western supermarkets?

And as for government propaganda, the idea that democracy is 'values-based' on 'human rights' is the supreme example. Talk to the poor souls sleeping on city streets in Oz capital cities in winter.
[/quote]
So you googled those two names and an Oli Barrett video was the only result, eh!

Try these:

Serpentza : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl7mAGnY4jh4Ps8rhhh8XZg

Laowhy86: https://www.youtube.com/c/laowhy86/videos

Their joint channel : https://www.youtube.com/c/ADVChina/videos

These came up as the first results when googling their names.

They have an interesting one this week with regard to CCP bots and wumao instruction.

I can forward the link to you if you can't find it via a google. I will timestamp it to the reporting of the wumao training and the use of prisoners as internet trolls to make it easier for you.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 7^th, 2022 at 1:33pm:

A lot of huffing and puffing by Chinese haters about the politics of covid lockdowns. Recall  the days of empty shelves in Western supermarkets?

Whataboutism again! Prostitutes and whataboutism - go together like bacon and eggs, it seems.

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 7^th, 2022 at 3:43pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on May 7th, 2022 at 1:33pm: A lot of huffing and puffing by Chinese haters about the politics of covid lockdowns. Recall  the days of empty shelves in Western supermarkets? Whataboutism again! Prostitutes and whataboutism - go together like bacon and eggs, it seems.

A lot of huffing and puffing about real empty shelves, which happened everywhere - and perceived ideological  "government propaganda", as if that's confined to the CCP.

Fact is deluded ideologues like yourself cannot see the problems facing all forms of government.

End the homelessness in OZ if you want any credibility, while bleating about "freedom".

thegreatdivide wrote on May 7^th, 2022 at 4:04pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 7th, 2022 at 3:43pm: thegreatdivide wrote on May 7th, 2022 at 1:33pm: A lot of huffing and puffing by Chinese haters about the politics of covid lockdowns. Recall  the days of empty shelves in Western supermarkets? Whataboutism again! Prostitutes and whataboutism - go together like bacon and eggs, it seems. A lot of huffing and puffing about real empty shelves, which happened everywhere - and perceived ideological  "government propaganda", as if that's confined to the CCP.

Liu Xin was forced to retract her comments on empty shelves in Beijing shops which included her at a Beijing supermarket featuring empty shelves. Seems the CCP knee-jerked on it.

Check out laowhy86's and serpentza's video on it:

Also, they have an interesting expose this week on CCP bots and wumao instruction, including the great Chinese translation website.

I can forward the link to you if you can't find it via a google. I will timestamp it to the reporting of the wumao training and the use of prisoners as internet trolls to make it easier for you.

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 7^th, 2022 at 4:17pm:

Liu Xin was forced to retract her comments on empty shelves in Beijing shops which included her at a Beijing supermarket featuring empty shelves. Seems the CCP knee-jerked on it.

And your rejection of international law to outlaw war is not a "kneejerk" reaction?

Apparently you think I will defend the CCP's every move - you are mistaken.   

otoh, I WILL demolish your delusional and deadly "freedom" ideology,  at all times.


Quote:

Check out laowhy86's and serpentza's video on it: Also, they have an interesting expose this week on CCP bots and wumao instruction, including the great Chinese translation website.

The sad fact is the current state of international relations is like the Wild West, based on the lawlessness of self-interested  "freedom" ideologues. The CCP has to deal with that reality, while ensuring the survival of its collective well-being  ideology, against the attacks of deadly "freedom" ideologues.   


Quote:

I can forward the link to you if you can't find it via a google. I will timestamp it to the reporting of the wumao training and the use of prisoners as internet trolls to make it easier for you.

What's wrong with providing the link here?

thegreatdivide wrote on May 7^th, 2022 at 6:01pm:

Quote: I can forward the link to you if you can't find it via a google. I will timestamp it to the reporting of the wumao training and the use of prisoners as internet trolls to make it easier for you. What's wrong with providing the link here?

Yes. That's what I meant.

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 7^th, 2022 at 6:23pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on May 7th, 2022 at 6:01pm: Quote: I can forward the link to you if you can't find it via a google. I will timestamp it to the reporting of the wumao training and the use of prisoners as internet trolls to make it easier for you. What's wrong with providing the link here? Yes. That's what I meant.

I already googled the names you erroneously said I can't mention.

Then you claimed those google-selected links  were fake Chinese propaganda. 

Hint: I am not as good as the world's best search engine, google,  when it comes to finding links to the names you said I can't mention.

And another hint: I am residing in a Western country....

So show us how much better you are than google, to provide the link you say I need to study.   

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8^th, 2022 at 12:23am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 7th, 2022 at 6:23pm: thegreatdivide wrote on May 7th, 2022 at 6:01pm: Quote: I can forward the link to you if you can't find it via a google. I will timestamp it to the reporting of the wumao training and the use of prisoners as internet trolls to make it easier for you. What's wrong with providing the link here? Yes. That's what I meant. I already googled the names you erroneously said I can't mention. Then you claimed those google-selected links  were fake Chinese propaganda.  Hint: I am not as good as the world's best search engine, google,  when it comes to finding links to the names you said I can't mention. And another hint: I am residing in a Western country.... So show us how much better you are than google, to provide the link you say I need to study.

Excuse I, Great, why are you living in a Western country?

We're curious.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8^th, 2022 at 12:23am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 7th, 2022 at 6:23pm: thegreatdivide wrote on May 7th, 2022 at 6:01pm: Quote: I can forward the link to you if you can't find it via a google. I will timestamp it to the reporting of the wumao training and the use of prisoners as internet trolls to make it easier for you. What's wrong with providing the link here? Yes. That's what I meant. I already googled the names you erroneously said I can't mention. Then you claimed those google-selected links  were fake Chinese propaganda.  Hint: I am not as good as the world's best search engine, google,  when it comes to finding links to the names you said I can't mention. And another hint: I am residing in a Western country.... So show us how much better you are than google, to provide the link you say I need to study.

You could have been more succinct by using the names laowhy86 and serpentza in your post above.

You know and I know when you googled those names, you did not just get an Oli Barrett video.

Collectively laowhy86's and serpentza's channels have over 2 million subscribers, they have a large following on Instagram, twitter, substack; not to mention their wikipedia pages, along with thousands of other mentions across multiple sites. It's not possible that google returned only one result for them.

Lee and Oli Barrett are well known CCP white monkeys, along with others (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYTUHlKr_-0); the bot, Athos, often spams this site with them.


Anyway, watch the clip below; it's about the likes of yourself and the bot Athos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPir-AX2pKo&t=2500s

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 8^th, 2022 at 7:18am:

You could have been more succinct by using the names laowhy86 and serpentza in your post above. You know and I know when you googled those names, you did not just get an Oli Barrett video.

We both know that? Google directed me to a  youtube video; of course there are always a million other results from a google search, I took the 1st....

I watched the video. Lot's of huffing and puffing about empty shelves, and Chinese govt. propaganda. 


Quote:

Collectively laowhy86's and serpentza's channels have over 2 million subscribers, they have a large following on Instagram, twitter, substack; not to mention their wikipedia pages, along with thousands of other mentions across multiple sites. It's not possible that google returned only one result for them.

Well you have all the 'facts' about them.


Quote:

Lee and Oli Barrett are well known CCP white monkeys, along with others (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYTUHlKr_-0); the bot, Athos, often spams this site with them.

Oh...so Lee and Oli are fake laowhy86 and serpentza...obviously silly google didn't know that.


Quote:

Anyway, watch the clip below; it's about the likes of yourself and the bot Athos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPir-AX2pKo&t=2500s

At last - your preferred link , the one google wasn't smart enough to supply in the first place....

But frankly a nonsensical  discussion about how someone's voice sounded such and such is of no interest to me.

My job is to expose the delusional, instinct-based  nature of the West's "freedom"/'individual rights"  ideology, and its disastrous consequences for collective well-being in the world. 

Mattyfisk wrote on May 8^th, 2022 at 2:06am:

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8th, 2022 at 12:23am: MeisterEckhart wrote on May 7th, 2022 at 6:23pm: thegreatdivide wrote on May 7th, 2022 at 6:01pm: Quote: I can forward the link to you if you can't find it via a google. I will timestamp it to the reporting of the wumao training and the use of prisoners as internet trolls to make it easier for you. What's wrong with providing the link here? Yes. That's what I meant. I already googled the names you erroneously said I can't mention. Then you claimed those google-selected links  were fake Chinese propaganda.  Hint: I am not as good as the world's best search engine, google,  when it comes to finding links to the names you said I can't mention. And another hint: I am residing in a Western country.... So show us how much better you are than google, to provide the link you say I need to study.    Excuse I, Great, why are you living in a Western country? We're curious.

He's been deployed here. Tsk, tsk   ::) ::)

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8^th, 2022 at 12:00pm:

My job is to expose the delusional, instinct-based  nature of the West's "freedom"/'individual rights"  ideology, and its disastrous consequences for collective well-being in the world.

To call this moronic is to talk it up.

What makes up a 'collective' of human beings?  And can there be a 'collective wellbeing' without the wellbeing of the... er.... individuals who make up any group, collective, society.

How can you have 'collective wellbeing' without individual rights and freedoms?



It is totally moronic, totally off the wall Bbwianesquely moronic to put individual freedom and rights AGAINST the freedom and rights of a group of individuals, as if the two things were antithetical.

Frank wrote on May 8^th, 2022 at 12:25pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8th, 2022 at 12:00pm: My job is to expose the delusional, instinct-based  nature of the West's "freedom"/'individual rights"  ideology, and its disastrous consequences for collective well-being in the world.  To call this moronic is to talk it up.

Not a promising start, but let's read on...


Quote:

What makes up a 'collective' of human beings?

A group, from the local to the global. And the natural (instinctive) competitive self-interest of individuals within the group - local or global (the collective) - requires rule of law to adjudicate between those self-interests (aka national sovereignty, at the global level). 


Quote:

And can there be a 'collective wellbeing' without the wellbeing of the... er.... individuals who make up any group, collective, society.

There most certainly can be: individual  billionaires co-exist in a sea of collective poverty, in many nations.


Quote:

How can you have 'collective wellbeing' without individual rights and freedoms?

By instituting functional government which establishes 'common prosperity'.


Quote:

It is totally moronic, totally off the wall Bbwianesquely moronic to put individual freedom and rights AGAINST the freedom and rights of a group of individuals, as if the two things were antithetical.

Rights of individuals are delusional and do not exist in the natural world. Only desires of individuals  - for freedom and "rights" - exist.

So, the collective well-being of the group of individuals with their own desires,  can only be achieved by functional government with that goal.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8^th, 2022 at 12:00pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 8th, 2022 at 7:18am: You could have been more succinct by using the names laowhy86 and serpentza in your post above. You know and I know when you googled those names, you did not just get an Oli Barrett video. We both know that? Google directed me to a  youtube video; of course there are always a million other results from a google search, I took the 1st.... I watched the video. Lot's of huffing and puffing about empty shelves, and Chinese govt. propaganda.

I suggested you look up laowhy86 and serpentza.

If you'd googled laowhy86 you have got about 152,000 results.

If you'd googled serpentza you have got about 133,000 results.

I also gave you their respective Youtube channel links.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8^th, 2022 at 12:00pm:

But frankly a nonsensical  discussion about how someone's voice sounded such and such is of no interest to me. My job is to expose the delusional, instinct-based  nature of the West's "freedom"/'individual rights"  ideology, and its disastrous consequences for collective well-being in the world.

Your job eh! As a wumao - a CCP prostitute.

I noted the tactics the CCP teach their prostitutes. It mirrors your tactics here and even more so that of the bot, Athos.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8^th, 2022 at 12:00pm:

Quote: Lee and Oli Barrett are well known CCP white monkeys, along with others (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYTUHlKr_-0); the bot, Athos, often spams this site with them. Oh...so Lee and Oli are fake laowhy86 and serpentza...obviously silly google didn't know that.

Lee and Oli Barrett are a British father and son who live in China (although they cannot speak or read Mandarin) and are employed by the CCP to promote CCP propaganda including, laughably, setting off to Xinjiang to find the slave labour camps, seemingly without Security Bureau interference.

In one of their videos, they said they left 'no stone unturned' to find the camps but couldn't. Of course they did not leave the tourist areas and route as directed by their CCP handlers.

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 8^th, 2022 at 2:06pm:

Lee and Oli Barrett are a British father and son who live in China (although they cannot speak or read Mandarin) and are employed by the CCP to promote CCP propaganda including, laughably, setting off to Xinjiang to find the slave labour camps, seemingly without Security Bureau interference. In one of their videos, they said they left 'no stone unturned' to find the camps but couldn't. Of course they did not leave the tourist areas and route as directed by their CCP handlers.

Well, let's see what the UN's Michelle Batchelet discovers:

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/un-rights-boss-bachelet-says-china-visit-agreed-may-including-xinjiang-2022-03-08/

Chen said: "We welcome the High Commissioner's visit to Xinjiang in this May. And China will work together with (her office) to make good preparation for this visit."

Of course:

"Blinken said at the time: "In China, the government continues to commit genocide and crimes against humanity in Xinjiang against predominantly Muslim Uyghurs and other minority groups, and we urge the High Commissioner to release without delay her report on the situation there."

Spoken by an ideologue whose own nation prefers to bomb Islamic terrorists into submission...the ultimate hypocrite when it comes to "human rights". 

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8^th, 2022 at 2:28pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 8th, 2022 at 2:06pm: Lee and Oli Barrett are a British father and son who live in China (although they cannot speak or read Mandarin) and are employed by the CCP to promote CCP propaganda including, laughably, setting off to Xinjiang to find the slave labour camps, seemingly without Security Bureau interference. In one of their videos, they said they left 'no stone unturned' to find the camps but couldn't. Of course they did not leave the tourist areas and route as directed by their CCP handlers. Well, let's see what the UN's Michelle Batchelet discovers: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/un-rights-boss-bachelet-says-china-visit-agreed-may-including-xinjiang-2022-03-08/ Chen said: "We welcome the High Commissioner's visit to Xinjiang in this May. And China will work together with (her office) to make good preparation for this visit."

Yes! Let's see what the CCP means by 'good preparation', eh!

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 8^th, 2022 at 2:40pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8th, 2022 at 2:28pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on May 8th, 2022 at 2:06pm: Lee and Oli Barrett are a British father and son who live in China (although they cannot speak or read Mandarin) and are employed by the CCP to promote CCP propaganda including, laughably, setting off to Xinjiang to find the slave labour camps, seemingly without Security Bureau interference. In one of their videos, they said they left 'no stone unturned' to find the camps but couldn't. Of course they did not leave the tourist areas and route as directed by their CCP handlers. Well, let's see what the UN's Michelle Batchelet discovers: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/un-rights-boss-bachelet-says-china-visit-agreed-may-including-xinjiang-2022-03-08/ Chen said: "We welcome the High Commissioner's visit to Xinjiang in this May. And China will work together with (her office) to make good preparation for this visit." Yes! Let's see what the CCP means by 'good preparation', eh!

In my book, education is a better approach to Islamic terrorism than eradication of the offending Islamist ideologues in war, US style.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8^th, 2022 at 3:26pm:

In my book, education is a better approach to Islamic terrorism than eradication of the offending Islamist ideologues in war, US style.

Educate them to death, eh!

Good for organ harvesting.

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 8^th, 2022 at 3:31pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8th, 2022 at 3:26pm: In my book, education is a better approach to Islamic terrorism than eradication of the offending Islamist ideologues in war, US style. Educate them to death, eh!

No,  educate them to live.


Quote:

Good for organ harvesting.

You mean like people living in poverty forced to sell kidneys to rich people? Happens everywhere. 

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8^th, 2022 at 3:50pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 8th, 2022 at 3:31pm: thegreatdivide wrote on May 8th, 2022 at 3:26pm: In my book, education is a better approach to Islamic terrorism than eradication of the offending Islamist ideologues in war, US style. Educate them to death, eh! No,  educate them to live. Quote: Good for organ harvesting. You mean like people living in poverty forced to sell kidneys to rich people? Happens everywhere.

Whataboutism (again).

People living in poverty choosing to sell a kidney to live is not the same as having your organs forcibly removed by state authority while still alive.

'Common prosperity' CCP-style?

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8^th, 2022 at 1:36pm:

Frank wrote on May 8th, 2022 at 12:25pm: thegreatdivide wrote on May 8th, 2022 at 12:00pm: My job is to expose the delusional, instinct-based  nature of the West's "freedom"/'individual rights"  ideology, and its disastrous consequences for collective well-being in the world.  To call this moronic is to talk it up. Not a promising start, but let's read on... Quote: What makes up a 'collective' of human beings? A group, from the local to the global. And the natural (instinctive) competitive self-interest of individuals within the group - local or global (the collective) - requires rule of law to adjudicate between those self-interests (aka national sovereignty, at the global level).  [quote]  And can there be a 'collective wellbeing' without the wellbeing of the... er.... individuals who make up any group, collective, society.

There most certainly can be: individual  billionaires co-exist in a sea of collective poverty, in many nations.


Quote:

How can you have 'collective wellbeing' without individual rights and freedoms?

By instituting functional government which establishes 'common prosperity'.


Quote:

It is totally moronic, totally off the wall Bbwianesquely moronic to put individual freedom and rights AGAINST the freedom and rights of a group of individuals, as if the two things were antithetical.

Rights of individuals are delusional and do not exist in the natural world. Only desires of individuals  - for freedom and "rights" - exist.

So, the collective well-being of the group of individuals with their own desires,  can only be achieved by functional government with that goal.

[/quote]

Collective well-being doesn't exist in the natural world. Governments do not exist in the natural world. Bbwianesque morons abound in the natural world and you are one. 

You are employing psittacism - you repeat crap, regardless.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8^th, 2022 at 3:50pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 8th, 2022 at 3:31pm: thegreatdivide wrote on May 8th, 2022 at 3:26pm: In my book, education is a better approach to Islamic terrorism than eradication of the offending Islamist ideologues in war, US style. Educate them to death, eh! No,  educate them to live. Quote: Good for organ harvesting. You mean like people living in poverty forced to sell kidneys to rich people? Happens everywhere.

So..... what happened to 'common prosperity under CCP", then?

If you have to sell your kidney in china, Africa, US - what's the positive about CCP??


You ARE truly a complete idiot.

Bbwianesque - you say something and it proves you are a complete idiot. You just CANNOT say anything intelligent.  You try but it's always a confirmation of your stupidity.

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 8^th, 2022 at 4:15pm:

Whataboutism (again).

Says he whose mirror cracked into a 1000 pieces ages ago, when he last looked at it....


Quote:

People living in poverty choosing to sell a kidney to live is not the same as having your organs forcibly removed by state authority while still alive.

BS. There is no "choice" in either case.


Quote:

'Common prosperity' CCP-style?

Like the style of aboriginals drinking themselves to death on a Broome beach, surrounded by broken grog bottles, in a most egregious example of state genocide in a "first world" country. 

thegreatdivide wrote on May 9^th, 2022 at 11:51am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 8th, 2022 at 4:15pm: Whataboutism (again). Says he whose mirror cracked into a 1000 pieces ages ago, when he last looked at it.... Quote: People living in poverty choosing to sell a kidney to live is not the same as having your organs forcibly removed by state authority while still alive. BS. There is no "choice" in either case. [quote]'Common prosperity' CCP-style?

Like the style of aboriginals drinking themselves to death on a Broome beach, surrounded by broken grog bottles, in a most egregious example of state genocide in a "first world" country. 
[/quote]
More endless whataboutism.

So you agree with me.

But at the end of it, you're no less a prostitute.

Frank wrote on May 8^th, 2022 at 6:16pm:

Collective well-being doesn't exist in the natural world.

.

Good to see you make a correct statement, at least occasionally.


Quote:

Governments do not exist in the natural world.

Blimey, 2 correct statements in a row...remarkable.



Quote:

Bbwianesque morons abound in the natural world and you are one.

The point is "natural individual rights" don't exist in the natural world, either.

Which is why men make laws, to bring some order to the chaos of the survival of the fittest predation of the natural world.


Quote:

You are employing psittacism - you repeat crap, regardless.

Interesting word, but it won't save you from having to confront the awful truth about the murderous nature of your delusional "freedom"/'natural individual rights' ideology .....which is why the international community hasn't outlawed war yet.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 9^th, 2022 at 12:04pm:

The point is "natural individual rights" don't exist in the natural world, either.  Which is why men make laws, to bring some order to the chaos of the survival of the fittest predation of the natural world.

the supreme leadership of thd CCP and it's great helmsman Xi Ping Pong do not exist in nature. Common prosperity under the leadership of the CCP and Xi do not exist in nature.

Predations and loss of liberty do exist under the CCP and Xi, as do corruption, oppression, incompetence, ideological bastardy etc. UNCHECKED, as a matter of CCP policy, in fact.

Any country called a 'People's Republic" is guaranteed to be anything but the people's republic. They are oppressive ideological dictatorship under the heel of Marxist-Leninist gangsters and their servile eunuchs. China is a supreme illustration of that.

The CCP loves 'the people'; it's people the CCP can't stand.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8^th, 2022 at 3:50pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 8th, 2022 at 3:31pm: thegreatdivide wrote on May 8th, 2022 at 3:26pm: In my book, education is a better approach to Islamic terrorism than eradication of the offending Islamist ideologues in war, US style. Educate them to death, eh! No,  educate them to live. Quote: Good for organ harvesting. You mean like people living in poverty forced to sell kidneys to rich people? Happens everywhere.

Doesn't happen here in Western Sydney, Great, but we're working on it.

We just need the Ethics Committee to sign off on it and we'll be away.

You?

Frank wrote on May 8^th, 2022 at 7:50pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8th, 2022 at 3:50pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on May 8th, 2022 at 3:31pm: thegreatdivide wrote on May 8th, 2022 at 3:26pm: In my book, education is a better approach to Islamic terrorism than eradication of the offending Islamist ideologues in war, US style. Educate them to death, eh! No,  educate them to live. Quote: Good for organ harvesting. You mean like people living in poverty forced to sell kidneys to rich people? Happens everywhere.  So..... what happened to 'common prosperity under CCP", then? If you have to sell your kidney in china, Africa, US - what's the positive about CCP??

Sorry, you're right, old boy. Ours have to travel to China to sell their kidneys, but that doesn't mean we're not free to donate them to rich people.

Happens all the time, no?

Frank wrote on May 9^th, 2022 at 2:04pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on May 9th, 2022 at 12:04pm: The point is "natural individual rights" don't exist in the natural world, either.  Which is why men make laws, to bring some order to the chaos of the survival of the fittest predation of the natural world. the supreme leadership of thd CCP and it's great helmsman Xi Ping Pong do not exist in nature.

It's interesting how you sometimes begin with a correct statement, but soon go off the rails....


Quote:

Common prosperity under the leadership of the CCP and Xi do not exist in nature.

That is a confused statement: common prosperity is a goal of the CCP, unlike cynical individual freedom Western leaders who say its impossible.

But indeed common prosperity does not exist in nature. 


Quote:

Predations and loss of liberty do exist under the CCP and Xi, as do corruption, oppression, incompetence, ideological bastardy etc. UNCHECKED, as a matter of CCP policy, in fact.

Now you have resorted to ideological nonsense, based on your delusional "freedom" ideology,  re "loss of liberty", when of course collective well-being requires some regulation of the personal liberty of instinctively greedy individuals.   
I already explained  your confusion re collective and individuals: the collective is composed of individuals with widely differing capacities to successfully compete in life.   


Quote:

Any country called a 'People's Republic" is guaranteed to be anything but the people's republic.

The name suggests the desired goal, as opposed to "Republic of Greedy Rent-seekers" (which China is currently addressing, with its "houses are for living in" corrective). 


Quote:

They are oppressive ideological dictatorship under the heel of Marxist-Leninist gangsters and their servile eunuchs. China is a supreme illustration of that.

Ideological narrative from a delusional "freedom" ideologue. Your democracy has too many severe problems of its own  to worry about the CCP.

Mattyfisk wrote on May 9^th, 2022 at 3:10pm:

Sorry, you're right, old boy. Ours have to travel to China to sell their kidneys, but that doesn't mean we're not free to donate them to rich people. Happens all the time, no?

Oz is a rich country....though content with state genocide (see aborigines drinking themselves to death on Broome beaches, surrounded by broken plonk bottles).

Rich countries, like rich individuals, have many more choices.   

thegreatdivide wrote on May 9^th, 2022 at 3:27pm:

Frank wrote on May 9th, 2022 at 2:04pm: thegreatdivide wrote on May 9th, 2022 at 12:04pm: The point is "natural individual rights" don't exist in the natural world, either.  Which is why men make laws, to bring some order to the chaos of the survival of the fittest predation of the natural world. the supreme leadership of thd CCP and it's great helmsman Xi Ping Pong do not exist in nature. It's interesting how you sometimes begin with a correct statement, but soon go off the rails.... Quote: Common prosperity under the leadership of the CCP and Xi do not exist in nature. That is a confused statement: common prosperity is a goal of the CCP, unlike cynical individual freedom Western leaders who say its impossible. But indeed common prosperity does not exist in nature.  [quote]Predations and loss of liberty do exist under the CCP and Xi, as do corruption, oppression, incompetence, ideological bastardy etc. UNCHECKED, as a matter of CCP policy, in fact.

Now you have resorted to ideological nonsense, based on your delusional "freedom" ideology,  re "loss of liberty", when of course collective well-being requires some regulation of the personal liberty of instinctively greedy individuals.   
I already explained  your confusion re collective and individuals: the collective is composed of individuals with widely differing capacities to successfully compete in life.   


Quote:

Any country called a 'People's Republic" is guaranteed to be anything but the people's republic.

The name suggests the desired goal, as opposed to "Republic of Greedy Rent-seekers" (which China is currently addressing, with its "houses are for living in" corrective). 


Quote:

They are oppressive ideological dictatorship under the heel of Marxist-Leninist gangsters and their servile eunuchs. China is a supreme illustration of that.

Ideological narrative from a delusional "freedom" ideologue. Your democracy has too many severe problems of its own  to worry about the CCP.

[/quote]


The peoples of western liberal democracies are far, far more cooperative, friendly and helpful than the people under the heel of the CCP gangsters.

The peoples of Western liberal democracies INVENTED free and voluntary cooperation, came together to build civil societies free from government ukaze. In China and other 'people's republics' on the other hand, everything is organised and overseen by the Communist Party and no spontaneous civil society exists or is allowed to exist.
The alpha and omega of everything is the supremacy of the CCP.  It's the commie version of the absolutism of the Sun King: 'l'etat, c'est moi".

thegreatdivide wrote on May 9^th, 2022 at 3:36pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on May 9th, 2022 at 3:10pm: Sorry, you're right, old boy. Ours have to travel to China to sell their kidneys, but that doesn't mean we're not free to donate them to rich people. Happens all the time, no? Oz is a rich country....though content with state genocide (see aborigines drinking themselves to death on Broome beaches, surrounded by broken plonk bottles). Rich countries, like rich individuals, have many more choices.

The CCP has murdered 100 million of its own people; and counting.

As for people drinking themselves to death; alcoholism is rife throughout China. Most Chinese have little to live for.

Frank wrote on May 9^th, 2022 at 3:40pm:

The peoples of western liberal democracies are far, far more cooperative, friendly and helpful than the people under the heel of the CCP gangsters.

The reports of nightly police pursuits of out-of-control youth in stolen cars would suggest otherwise. 


Quote:

The peoples of Western liberal democracies INVENTED free and voluntary cooperation,

....free to own slaves....


Quote:

came together to build civil societies free from government ukaze.

rather, to free themselves from arbitrary rule by 'divine right of kings'. 


Quote:

In China and other 'people's republics' on the other hand, everything is organised and overseen by the Communist Party and no spontaneous civil society exists or is allowed to exist.

Well you have conflated the time of Western invention of liberal democracies in the 18th century, with the current one-party meritocracy in China; the two system have advantages and disadvantages. 


Quote:

The alpha and omega of everything is the supremacy of the CCP.  It's the commie version of the absolutism of the Sun King: 'l'etat, c'est moi".

Except the goal of the CCP is achievement of common prosperity, the Sun King only had to look to his own aggrandizement.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 9^th, 2022 at 3:58pm:

Frank wrote on May 9th, 2022 at 3:40pm: The peoples of western liberal democracies are far, far more cooperative, friendly and helpful than the people under the heel of the CCP gangsters. The reports of nightly police pursuits of out-of-control youth in stolen cars would suggest otherwise.  Quote: The peoples of Western liberal democracies INVENTED free and voluntary cooperation, ....free to own slaves.... [quote]came together to build civil societies free from government ukaze.

rather, to free themselves from arbitrary rule by 'divine right of kings'. 


Quote:

In China and other 'people's republics' on the other hand, everything is organised and overseen by the Communist Party and no spontaneous civil society exists or is allowed to exist.

Well you have conflated the time of Western invention of liberal democracies in the 18th century, with the current one-party meritocracy in China; the two system have advantages and disadvantages. 


Quote:

The alpha and omega of everything is the supremacy of the CCP.  It's the commie version of the absolutism of the Sun King: 'l'etat, c'est moi".

Except the goal of the CCP is achievement of common prosperity, the Sun King only had to look to his own aggrandizement.
[/quote]

Bbwianesque psittacism - you repeat the same crap in response to everything. Denigrate the West and individual freedom, integrity, self-reliance; talk up Chinese communist dictatorship as benevolent, honest.

Who is that reminding me of? Oh, yes!


Fascists condemned liberal democracy for placing the rights of the individual above the needs of the Volk, encouraging “divisiveness” (i.e., political pluralism), tolerating “decadent” values, and limiting the power of the state.

Frank wrote on May 9^th, 2022 at 4:27pm:

Bbwianesque psittacism - you repeat the same crap in response to everything.

That's because you keep posting assertions based on flawed  "freedom" ideology.   


Quote:

Denigrate the West and individual freedom, integrity, self-reliance; talk up Chinese communist dictatorship as benevolent, honest.

Like I said, there are advantages and disadvantages to either system.  I'm prepared to live and let live, I'm not prepared to suck up your delusional "freedom" ideology while the world is being torn by war and poverty. 


Quote:

Who is that reminding me of? Oh, yes! Fascists condemned liberal democracy for placing the rights of the individual above the needs of the Volk, encouraging “divisiveness” (i.e., political pluralism), tolerating “decadent” values, and limiting the power of the state.

The CCP is happy to let you have your 'liberal democracy'; but the CCP rejects the liberal democracy  as its own preferred model of governance, because it places the natural greed of individuals above collective well-being. 

thegreatdivide wrote on May 9^th, 2022 at 10:09pm:

Frank wrote on May 9th, 2022 at 4:27pm: Bbwianesque psittacism - you repeat the same crap in response to everything. That's because you keep posting assertions based on flawed  "freedom" ideology.

You are an idiot. If your freedom to spout this shite was curtailed you would protest like a stuck pig.

You are a moron of Bbwianesque proportions.  You have no intellect, no mind, reason, insight, no articulation, no sense.

You are a moron, like  Bbbwian, like turdy, like duckwit. An automaton moron.

Frank wrote on May 9^th, 2022 at 10:40pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on May 9th, 2022 at 10:09pm: Frank wrote on May 9th, 2022 at 4:27pm: Bbwianesque psittacism - you repeat the same crap in response to everything. That's because you keep posting assertions based on flawed  "freedom" ideology.    You are an idiot. If your freedom to spout this shite was curtailed you would protest like a stuck pig. You are a moron of Bbwianesque proportions.  You have no intellect, no mind, reason, insight, no articulation, no sense. You are a moron, like  Bbbwian, like turdy, like duckwit. An automaton moron.

Er..Frank, you know the drill: that's not debate.

Stop your paranoid nonsense about the CCP, you have to deal with far greater problems  of democratic governance - I think you yourself referred to it as "a crisis of democracy".

So much so that Steve Grumbine and Michael Hudson see a US collapse within 50 years. 

Frank wrote on May 9^th, 2022 at 4:27pm:

Who is that reminding me of? Oh, yes! Fascists condemned liberal democracy for placing the rights of the individual above the needs of the Volk, encouraging “divisiveness” (i.e., political pluralism), tolerating “decadent” values, and limiting the power of the state.

Careful, old boy, there's the L word again. Worse, you've even gone and inserted the P.

We know you can get a little over-excited fleshing things out, as it were, but we don't want to encourage any unnecessary freedom of expression, okay? Good heavens, you'll be mentioning tolerance next.

Don't celebrate any freedoms you'll come to regret. Moan about colonialism ending far too soon and try to move on, yes?

"... only in a society and culture protected by the very things that it claims to be destroying can any dissenting view become dominant and then become the very thing it claimed to be destroying ... while yet proclaiming that it is the way of freedom itself" ....

- Professor Rastus Xavier, Haitian disaster survivor and Professor at Grappler U - the REAL U!

That is the way of all things, Grasshoppers... and that is why we must be careful not to destroy first without thought.... you must learn to differentiate between what is good and what is bad...... and remember always that when you install some good - you are doing bad to some, and must seek balance for the good of all living things....

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 10^th, 2022 at 10:38pm:

"... only in a society and culture protected by the very things that it claims to be destroying can any dissenting view become dominant and then become the very thing it claimed to be destroying ... while yet proclaiming that it is the way of freedom itself" .... - Professor Rastus Xavier, Haitian disaster survivor and Professor at Grappler U - the REAL U! That is the way of all things, Grasshoppers... and that is why we must be careful not to destroy first without thought.... you must learn to differentiate between what is good and what is bad...... and remember always that when you install some good - you are doing bad to some, and must seek balance for the good of all living things....

Cut through the words, Graps.

Eradicating war and poverty is not a question of "balance"; only the comfortably well-off would suggest doing good for some is bad for others, and then sneakily conclude "good for all living things" is a question of balance.

Pathetic to see a Palestinian rep. pleading for assistance from the UN, today.

The UN was rendered - from its inception - unable to maintain the peace, because paranoid might-is-right delegates from the US and USSR  demanded absolute national sovereignty and the power of veto in the proposed UNSC.

And so res. 181 and 242 were ignored by Israel ages ago.

Res. 242:"Israel will withdraw from territories occupied" (in the '67 war)....apparently the word "the" (implied, in front of "territories") was deliberately omitted by clever draftsmen to allow the Israelis to bicker forever about what territories they were required to withdraw from...not that the SC could have implemented  a UN resolution in any case.