Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9
Send Topic Print
UN approves requiring states to justify veto. (Read 2990 times)
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 102881
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #45 - May 2nd, 2022 at 6:51pm
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 2nd, 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 83710
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male
Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #46 - May 2nd, 2022 at 8:47pm
 
thegreatdivide wrote on May 2nd, 2022 at 1:22pm:
Karnal 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...
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: 83710
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male
Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #47 - May 2nd, 2022 at 8:51pm
 
thegreatdivide wrote on May 2nd, 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.



... 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...
Back to top
« Last Edit: May 2nd, 2022 at 8:59pm by Grappler Truth Teller Feller »  

“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: 83710
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male
Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #48 - May 2nd, 2022 at 9:08pm
 
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.
Back to top
« Last Edit: May 3rd, 2022 at 2:08am by Grappler Truth Teller Feller »  

“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
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 12441
Gender: male
Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #49 - May 3rd, 2022 at 1:35pm
 
Karnal wrote on May 2nd, 2022 at 4:21pm:
[quote author=AusbetterWorld link=1651026558/42#42 date=1651461748][quote author=Karnal link=1651026558/36#36 date=1651420254]
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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 44434
Gender: male
Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #50 - May 3rd, 2022 at 2:40pm
 
thegreatdivide wrote on May 3rd, 2022 at 1:35pm:
Karnal wrote on May 2nd, 2022 at 4:21pm:
[quote author=AusbetterWorld link=1651026558/42#42 date=1651461748][quote author=Karnal link=1651026558/36#36 date=1651420254]
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.



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




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<br
/>

Posts: 12441
Gender: male
Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #51 - 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?


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11754
Gender: male
Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #52 - 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 12441
Gender: male
Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #53 - 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.


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? 
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Jake Winker Frogen
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1480
Perth WA
Gender: male
Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #54 - May 3rd, 2022 at 3:21pm
 
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.
Back to top
 

Cheese is Guud Eaten.
 
IP Logged
 
Jake Winker Frogen
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1480
Perth WA
Gender: male
Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #55 - May 3rd, 2022 at 3:22pm
 
So the real question is?

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

Cheese is Guud Eaten.
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11754
Gender: male
Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #56 - May 3rd, 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Jake Winker Frogen
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1480
Perth WA
Gender: male
Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #57 - May 3rd, 2022 at 3:33pm
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on May 3rd, 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.
Back to top
 

Cheese is Guud Eaten.
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 12441
Gender: male
Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #58 - May 3rd, 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.






Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 95238
Gender: male
Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #59 - May 3rd, 2022 at 7:17pm
 
thegreatdivide wrote on May 3rd, 2022 at 1:35pm:
Karnal wrote on May 2nd, 2022 at 4:21pm:
[quote author=AusbetterWorld link=1651026558/42#42 date=1651461748][quote author=Karnal link=1651026558/36#36 date=1651420254]
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.


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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9
Send Topic Print