Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Golan Heights move UN headquarters

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by m a x View Post

    .........., it is exactly the lack of legal justification that brought the devastating consequences on and beyond the region, with spread of terrorism, continuing instability and countless number of lost lives.
    Very well stated point!

    There's no real credibility in claiming that the UN is useless, outdated, irrelevant, etc., when the US depends so heavily on receiving it's blessings, and is so politically damaged when denied the blessing. Your statement got right to the point.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
      Israel is proof enough that such efforts are a waste of time and money.

      UNSCR 1441 states that Iraq is in violation of the Terms of Surrender from the Kuwait War. The UNSC has not found Iraq has return to compliance with as demanded by 1441. As such, a State of War was returned. However, there was no authorization to enforce 1441. By the same token, enforcement of 1441 was also not prohibited. Was it legal? I don't know but I do know it is NOT illegal? Why? Because the UNSC has not found the US wrong in enforcing 1441 (hint: US veto).

      Toilet Paper
      True enough, but US arrogance doesn't stand the test in the rest of the world's opinion. And the non-legitimacy of the Iraq war is no longer up for debate.

      The cost of US/Nato aggression is much higher now that Russia is back. And China is being recognized as a player!

      You can consider Russia's and China's influence as the reason why the US hasn't walked right into Venezuela back in Hugo's time.
      Last edited by montgomery; 04 Apr 19,, 01:03.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
        .. Was it legal? I don't know but I do know it is NOT illegal? Why? Because the UNSC has not found the US wrong in enforcing 1441 (hint: US veto).

        Toilet Paper
        Unauthorized use of force against territorial integrity or political independence of any state is illegal under the Charter of UN -- https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-ch...rter-full-text . Would you claim it is toilet paper too

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by m a x View Post
          Unauthorized use of force against territorial integrity or political independence of any state is illegal under the Charter of UN -- https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-ch...rter-full-text .
          That's just it. It is NOT UNAUTHORIZED. How do we know this? Because the UNSC has NOT said it is UNAUTHORIZED. Only the UNSC has the authority to determine if the force used is authorized or not ... and they have not say and they will never say. Why? US veto.

          Originally posted by m a x View Post
          Would you claim it is toilet paper too
          When the executive, legislature, and judical is the same freaking body (UNSC), yes it's damned well toilet paper.
          Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 04 Apr 19,, 15:47.
          Chimo

          Comment


          • #50
            It seems to me clear that the Israeli occupation of Golan is illegal by international law. It is however necessary by de facto law on the ground - and there Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah operation in Syria remember. For them to give it up would invite invasion and is not rational from their point of view. The UN cannot itself cannot decide who a piece of land belongs to - only the members concerned can. Israel handed back the whole Sinai peninsula after the peace agreement with Egypt - now a major tourist income earner for them and it would take something similar (and the expelling of the Iranians and their proxies) for Syria to regain the Golan and have peace with it's Israeli neighbour.

            Syria and Israel are technically still "at war"; there have I think been armistices but no peace agreement has ever been reached. You can hardly ask a country still at war with it's neighbour to return strategic high ground from which it was previously attacked.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by m a x View Post
              Unauthorized use of force against territorial integrity or political independence of any state is illegal under the Charter of UN -- https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-ch...rter-full-text . Would you claim it is toilet paper too
              Regardless of the US attempts to destroy any effectiveness of the UN and the UNSC, as is explained by WABS, it is still effective in meeting it's mandate. And of course the US continues to benefit immensely with it being a permanent member of the UNSC.

              And of course Trump had no understanding of that basic concept when he threatened to withdraw the US from the UN, etc., blah, blah.

              Since then Trump has been tuned up and now knows better.

              I think that WABS' dislike of the UN is in the fact that the UNSC members have the ability to veto US aggression. Any time that Russia or China has used their power of veto would be times that WABS would have seen as obstruction of US good. I would say that's the popular opinion of this board's members. Of course I disagree.

              That's the point of disagreement and where the rubber meets the road on the UN.

              Comment


              • #52
                The problem is what UN Security Council we have, after one of its permanent members has started expressive repeated violation of UNSC resolutions /?!/. Member who had taken full part in adoption of these resolutions and moreоver whose homeland is accepted to host the UN headquarters on constant, not rotational basis

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                  UNSCR 1441 states that Iraq is in violation of the Terms of Surrender from the Kuwait War. The UNSC has not found Iraq has return to compliance with as demanded by 1441. As such, a State of War was returned. However, there was no authorization to enforce 1441. By the same token, enforcement of 1441 was also not prohibited. Was it legal? I don't know but I do know it is NOT illegal? Why? Because the UNSC has not found the US wrong in enforcing 1441 (hint: US veto).

                  Toilet Paper
                  That bolded bit is one of your classics i've reused several times on this subject since you first mentioned it as far back as 2004 : )

                  People do not appreciate that there is this space between legal & illegal. A grey area if you will.

                  Had this very argument few months back with some one here, just linked to that old thread and it was so funny how you addressed all his arguments fourteen years earlier in the first page of the thread. Guy wouldn't listen. Kept disagreeing. Told him it was a settled issue in this place. Done & dusted.

                  I particularly remember getting skewered on this one by a cousin at a family gathering back in 2003. Illegal, illegal she kept saying. Russia's arguments get repeated in India too.
                  Last edited by Double Edge; 05 Apr 19,, 00:48.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    deleted

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                      That bolded bit is one of your classics i've reused several times on this subject since you first mentioned it in 2004 : )

                      People do not appreciate that there this space between legal & illegal. A grey area if you will.
                      Legality is a political consideration which can be spun and counterspun by all countries.

                      Might makes right, at least up to a point. Then the buck stops with the threat of MAD.

                      It will quite likely determine the fate of Venezuela, Syria, Iran, and any others on the US/Nato hitlist.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                        As for proof, could we 100% verify that Assad did use chems? No but this is not a court of law. It is the best decision possible based on the best intel available.
                        This is another line i've used recently on the local opposition when proof is demanded wrt to our airstrikes
                        Last edited by Double Edge; 05 Apr 19,, 00:29.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          i would love for UNHQ move out of NYC. they need to be where there is a need for them, and it's not in NYC, maybe Africa would be much better place, so they can see real world situation in front of them, i agree with ooe UN has little to no use.
                          "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                            This is another line i've used recently on the local opposition when proof is demanded wrt to our airstrikes
                            That sort of rhetoric, in both cases, can be used to good effect in military circles. It's clearly a demonstration of an attitude of 'fu-k you', we'll do as we like. And I have no difficulty with it in the least because I understand it and it's also acceptable and popular on this forum.

                            Just don't try to pass it off as acceptable with an audience that expects much more.

                            For example: It's like me saying, 'fu-k you', Pakistan will nuke India's ass off if India resorts to nukes. That would be up to the standard you wish to set on this forum but it wouldn't pass muster in the real world.

                            In the real world, I would suggest something like, a peace deal is going to have to be worked out between the sides because nuclear war is unacceptable and unthinkable.

                            Do you see how that all applies to your proclamation that Assad did use chem weapons? I'll just say that he didn't and leave it at that. Would you like to take this to a real world discussion?

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by omon View Post
                              i would love for UNHQ move out of NYC. they need to be where there is a need for them, and it's not in NYC, maybe Africa would be much better place, so they can see real world situation in front of them, i agree with ooe UN has little to no use.
                              And you're wrong of course on the UN having no use. That's proven by the insistence of the US to keep it in NY and the US paying the lion's share for it. One would think the US/Trump would just stop paying the bills! LOL

                              That which you're all trying to say about the UN is that if the power of the veto of Russia/China, and other dissenters is kept intact then it isn't a ready and willing tool of the US.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by montgomery View Post
                                And you're wrong of course on the UN having no use. .
                                thank you for your opinion, but real world events prove you wrong on pretty much all counts.
                                it does seem like you may be affected by TDS as well,
                                "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X