Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[LordSlowpoke]

I dont see how the US could bypass it.

iraq was kind of a thing

you may be riffing on russia, but don't forget basic facts, tia

(edit: though everyone including Russians themselves have known that since like 4 days after the incident, when the first photos became public)

propaganda is a thing m8, some people legit believe it's the reptilians/ukrainians/ancient island slavs/angry, confused argentinians lost when sailing to the malvinas/etc.

[Sheb]

In Iraq it was a case of ignoring the UN. So a tribunal or not wouldnt matter.

[Guardian G.I.]

Yeah, if we want a CB, we can just have Ukraine ask us for troops. Plus, this whole Chapter only refer to the UNSC, I dont see how the US could bypass it.

Where there's a will, there's a way.
When it was clear that Russia would veto the UN resolution on Yugoslavia in 1999, the US and NATO started the war without the UNSC mandate. Should the US want a war that would contravene the UN charter in some way, no one will be able to stop them.

My point is, there was no way in hell Russia would approve a resolution that could possibly lead to several UNSC members ganging up on it. It would be like proudly placing a "Kick me" sign on yourself.

[Erkki]

(edit: though everyone including Russians themselves have known that since like 4 days after the incident, when the first photos became public)

propaganda is a thing m8, some people legit believe it's the reptilians/ukrainians/ancient island slavs/angry, confused argentinians lost when sailing to the malvinas/etc.

Aye, though I was thinking more about the leading Russian politicians and their diplomats, generally people in deicision making or other influential positions, rather than the main populace

[Sheb]

Guardian GI, I dont really get your argument. Russia doesnt want to have something which could lead to a UNSC resolution blaming it, because the US and the West might just ignore the UNSC entirely?

[Erkki]

My point is, there was no way in hell Russia would approve a resolution that could possibly lead to several UNSC members ganging up on it. It would be like proudly placing a "Kick me" sign on yourself.

Then "we" need to take away Russia's veto right. UN is unfunctional in many ways as the deciding nations can stop it and its suborganizations from making decisions and acting.

See? 

[LordSlowpoke]

a good solution would be to dissolve the un entirely, everyone ignores it anyway

right guys?

[Helgoland]

And institute a better pan-national institution, yes.

[LordSlowpoke]

like the eu, except we'd have to rename it to something like the world union or something

it's not like all these nations need sovereignity or anything, it's just a big waste of time and resources
weak lw bait deployed, please hold
and brussels as capital of a non-country deserves to be the world capital, no doubt

[Guardian G.I.]

Guardian GI, I dont really get your argument. Russia doesnt want to have something which could lead to a UNSC resolution blaming it, because the US and the West might just ignore the UNSC entirely?

It could lead to a really undesirable confrontation with the US and NATO, that could eventually turn into a war. No Russian diplomatic effort would be strong enough to deter US and NATO's hostile acts if things get really bad. If Russia decides to obstruct American hostile (military) actions against it in the UNSC, America and its allies would simply ignore the UNSC and go on anyway.

[Erkki]

a good solution would be to dissolve the un entirely, everyone ignores it anyway

right guys?

We would never! 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR9N3NOutaQ

[Sergarr]

Ok, Guardian, your logic here is: US and NATO want to attack Russia, so that's why they want this tribunal resolution to pass, and if Russia vetos the tribunal results, they'll ignore it and attack anyway.

The logical question here is: why would they even bother with "tribunals" and stuff, if they wanted to attack Russia? Wouldn't they just do it already, like in 1999 and 2003, if they really wanted it? And if they don't want it, then why do you think that this tribunal will result in something as drastic as de-facto declaration of war?

[NJW2000]

On a different topic, you guys remember how a day or two ago David Cameron apologised to all the British holidaymakers who had been delayed after hundreds of refugees tried to force their way into the country via the channel tunnel?

I'm glad we can see what's really at stake with this immigration/refugee issue

[Loud Whispers]

Cameron is good at setting priorities

[smjjames]

Oh come on, we (as in the US) aren't that stupid to suddenly go to war with Russia, much less just because Russia vetoed a memorial. With a Democrat as president anyway, most of the Republican candidates seem far more willing to go to war, and IMO, we need to stop getting ourselves into wars. Aside from the whole MidEast clusterfuck.

And yeah, Guardian, your logic sounds like what Sergarr says sometimes, but he's being logical here.