hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 1465 of 1675 FirstFirst ... 4659651365141514551462146314641465146614671468147515151565 ... LastLast
Results 29,281 to 29,300 of 33498

Thread: (UK EURO WAFFLE) Limey Civil War

  1. #29281
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    13,412
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post


  2. #29282
    Super Chillerator Global Moderator teds :D's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 9, 2011
    Posts
    8,069
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zekk Pacus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by teds :D View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Let the poor dumb twat back

    where else is he gonna go?
    Well since we have no way of knowing how long he was banned for I guess we just have to wait

    anyway, I'm enjoying Corbwyn's response to the whole Syria debacle tbh, really shows his merit as a leader
    what, his reluctance to even acknowledge that gassing your own population is a bad thing?
    "I'm not entirely sure the answer to gassing people is to blow some more of their land up" = "gassing people isn't all bad you guys"?
    apparently. Politicians that want to investigate global issues before just sending missiles in are also bad apparently, we prefer bomb first question later tactics of the wild west.
    bomb first? we waited almost a week. france and the US say they have evidence and the UK struck one site with 8 missiles. not sure how that's a) blowing their land up or b) bomb first ask later

  3. #29283
    NoirAvlaa's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Location
    Liverpool, laaaa
    Posts
    4,939
    Quote Originally Posted by teds :D View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zekk Pacus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by teds :D View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Let the poor dumb twat back

    where else is he gonna go?
    Well since we have no way of knowing how long he was banned for I guess we just have to wait

    anyway, I'm enjoying Corbwyn's response to the whole Syria debacle tbh, really shows his merit as a leader
    what, his reluctance to even acknowledge that gassing your own population is a bad thing?
    "I'm not entirely sure the answer to gassing people is to blow some more of their land up" = "gassing people isn't all bad you guys"?
    apparently. Politicians that want to investigate global issues before just sending missiles in are also bad apparently, we prefer bomb first question later tactics of the wild west.
    bomb first? we waited almost a week. france and the US say they have evidence and the UK struck one site with 8 missiles. not sure how that's a) blowing their land up or b) bomb first ask later
    thinking more of the lack of any debate in parliament to do it, but #yolo i guess

  4. #29284

    Join Date
    November 5, 2011
    Posts
    11,281
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    It works so beautifully for so many politicians though?

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

  5. #29285

    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    1,346
    Quote Originally Posted by teds :D View Post
    bomb first? we waited almost a week. france and the US say they have evidence and the UK struck one site with 8 missiles. not sure how that's a) blowing their land up or b) bomb first ask later
    Babies thrown out of incubators.
    Yellow cake uranium.
    Aluminium tubes.
    Mobile chemical weapons labs.
    We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
    Iraq has weapons of mass destruction (based on secret evidence that I wont elaborate on).
    We care about the Libyan people so much we have to overthrow the government and turn half the country over to ISIS.

    So I think maybe, just maybe, a bit of skepticism is warranted before blindly believing evidence free claims from those pillars of competence and probity... May and Donald fucking Trump?

  6. #29286
    Malcanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    14,474
    Quote Originally Posted by helgur View Post
    He was given a 7 (now 6) day timeout
    Oh fair enough then
    Quote Originally Posted by Keieueue View Post
    I love Malcanis!

  7. #29287
    Malcanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    14,474
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    It's literally UKIP's campaign platform though.
    Quote Originally Posted by Keieueue View Post
    I love Malcanis!

  8. #29288

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    4,621
    From The Grauniad's live feed...
    Tom Watson, the deputy Labour leader, has released a five-page legal opinion has has received arguing the Syria air strikes were illegal. It is from Dapo Akande, professor of public international law at Oxford University.

    Here is Akande’s summary of his conclusions.

    In the opinion I reach the following conclusions:

    1. Contrary to the position of the government, neither the UN Charter nor customary international law permits military action on the basis of the doctrine of humanitarian intervention. There is very little support by states for such an exception to the prohibition of the use of force. The UK is one of very few states that advocates for such a legal principle but the vast majority of states have explicitly rejected it.

    2. The legal position advanced by the government ignores the structure of the international law rules relating to the use of force, in particular, because a customary international law rule does not prevail over the rule in the United Nations charter prohibiting the use of force. To accept the position advocated by the government would be to undermine the supremacy of the UN charter.

    3. Even if there was a doctrine of humanitarian intervention in international law, the strikes against Syria would not appear to meet the tests set out by the government. The action taken by the government was not directed at bringing “immediate and urgent relief” with regard to the specific evil it sought to prevent, and was taken before the inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons were able to reach the affected area.

    4. If the position taken by the government were to be accepted by states globally, it would allow for individual assessments of when force was necessary to achieve humanitarian ends, with the risk of abuse. It is because of the humanitarian suffering that will ensue from such abusive uses of force, that other states and many scholars have been reluctant to endorse the doctrine of humanitarian action.

  9. #29289

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    6,548
    Risky business from Labour. Following that legal reasoning would invalidate almost any authorization of force, regardless of whether or not parliament approved.

    Well, that's if we accept international law to be binding on our government. Which it isn't.

  10. #29290
    Djan Seriy Anaplian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,761
    International law hehe

  11. #29291
    NoirAvlaa's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Location
    Liverpool, laaaa
    Posts
    4,939
    yes but have you considered the following:

    INGERLUNNNNNNNND! BRITANNIA RULES THE WAAAAAVES!

  12. #29292
    XenosisMk4's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 13, 2017
    Location
    More turbo-lightspeed neoliberal platitudes/virtue signaling/misplaced priorities on full display.
    Posts
    4,860
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Risky business from Labour. Following that legal reasoning would invalidate almost any authorization of force, regardless of whether or not parliament approved.

    Well, that's if we accept international law to be binding on our government. Which it isn't.
    Corbwyn wants to have his pacifist delusion cake and eat it too.

  13. #29293

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    4,621
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Risky business from Labour. Following that legal reasoning would invalidate almost any authorization of force, regardless of whether or not parliament approved.

    Well, that's if we accept international law to be binding on our government. Which it isn't.
    If international law isn't binding, then the logical conclusion would be that Syria was within its rights to gas its own people.

    Or are you saying that it's binding on countries we don't like, but not on us?
    Last edited by Rodj Blake; April 16 2018 at 01:05:33 PM.

  14. #29294
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    16,859
    Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

    Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

    Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  15. #29295
    Djan Seriy Anaplian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,761
    There's always an interesting academic argument for the applicability of international law, but to suggest it is in practice binding because it's applicable is lazy and wrong.

  16. #29296

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    6,548
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodj Blake View Post
    If international law isn't binding, then the logical conclusion would be that Syria was within its rights to gas its own people.
    Did you seriously just whatabout between legitimate armed forces bombing legitimate targets in a warzone and a fascist dictator gassing civilians?

    Go outside, sit down, have a breath of fresh air and think about that for a while.

  17. #29297

    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Pizza delivery van
    Posts
    6,148
    USA and UK, bombing for peace without the proper authorizations for such operations (otherwise known as acts of war, and pretending they aren't such things...) since the invention of a bomb. Working just as well as any other such intervention.

  18. #29298

    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Pizza delivery van
    Posts
    6,148
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodj Blake View Post
    If international law isn't binding, then the logical conclusion would be that Syria was within its rights to gas its own people.
    Did you seriously just whatabout between legitimate armed forces bombing legitimate targets in a warzone and a fascist dictator gassing civilians?

    Go outside, sit down, have a breath of fresh air and think about that for a while.
    Actually, both the said things are just as illegal when it comes to the international law... Such intervention would require the UN security council to authorize it (which it never will due to the permanent members)

  19. #29299

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    4,621
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodj Blake View Post
    If international law isn't binding, then the logical conclusion would be that Syria was within its rights to gas its own people.
    Did you seriously just whatabout between legitimate armed forces bombing legitimate targets in a warzone and a fascist dictator gassing civilians?

    Go outside, sit down, have a breath of fresh air and think about that for a while.
    My point was that under international law they quite possibly weren't legitimate armed forces bombing legitimate targets in a warzone.

  20. #29300
    James Snowscoran's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    668
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodj Blake View Post
    If international law isn't binding, then the logical conclusion would be that Syria was within its rights to gas its own people.
    Did you seriously just whatabout between legitimate armed forces bombing legitimate targets in a warzone and a fascist dictator gassing civilians?

    Go outside, sit down, have a breath of fresh air and think about that for a while.
    It's not whataboutery. You asserted that the UK is unconstrained by international law, and it follows naturally that so are everyone else.

    You're confusing the moral argument (we're shooting missiles at Syria because they're evil) with the legal one (we're shooting missiles at Syria because they're violating international law).

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •