Australian Politics Forum - UN approves requiring states to justify veto.

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 44409
Gender: male

Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #30 - May 1^st, 2022 at 12:03pm

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/

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12439
Gender: male

Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #31 - May 1^st, 2022 at 12:35pm

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).

Back to top

IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 102862
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #32 - May 1^st, 2022 at 1:35pm

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

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.

What about war for self defense?

Back to top

IP Logged

Laugh till you cry Gold Member Offline Posts: 16620 In your happy place Gender:	Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto. Reply #33 - May 1^st, 2022 at 2:04pm 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?
Back to top	Please don't thank me. Effusive fawning and obeisance of disciples, mendicants, and foot-kissers embarrass me. IP Logged

Grappler Truth Teller Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 83705
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male

Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #34 - May 2^nd, 2022 at 12:49am

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

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?

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...

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Grappler Truth Teller Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 83705
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male

Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #35 - May 2^nd, 2022 at 12:53am

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

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

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.

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.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 95219
Gender: male

Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #36 - May 2^nd, 2022 at 1:50am

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

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).

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

Cheers.

Back to top

IP Logged

Grappler Truth Teller Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 83705
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male

Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #37 - May 2^nd, 2022 at 11:37am

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

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

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).

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....

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 95219
Gender: male

Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #38 - May 2^nd, 2022 at 12:07pm

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

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

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

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).

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?

Back to top

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12439
Gender: male

Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #39 - May 2^nd, 2022 at 12:27pm

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12439
Gender: male

Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #40 - May 2^nd, 2022 at 12:31pm

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12439
Gender: male

Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #41 - May 2^nd, 2022 at 1:04pm

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.

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 2^nd, 2022 at 1:13pm by thegreatdivide »

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12439
Gender: male

Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #42 - May 2^nd, 2022 at 1:22pm

Karnal 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 95219
Gender: male

Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #43 - May 2^nd, 2022 at 4:21pm

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

Karnal 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.

Told you.

Karnal 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 44409
Gender: male

Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #44 - May 2^nd, 2022 at 6:33pm

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

Karnal 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.

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

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

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged