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


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:


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).

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


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

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



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.

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



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

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


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 12:53am:


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:


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:


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

Quote:


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:


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:


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

Quote:


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:


Comprehensively addressed and refuted, above.

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


Told you.

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


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.