Making something illegal doesn't stop it happening. Organisations like the UN Security council were created to do just that, but obviously where it falls down is that the US & UK have permanent seat on the security council so they aren't going to take action against themselves. Kofi Annan in 2004:
Not Russia and China? Edit: I mean to agree with you but hit the reply button accidently. ...the veto is always one of self interest..it's why "conflict" is always going to be legal in a global strategy...self defence morphs into defence of interests "vital to the state".....it's how we got our nuclear deterrent off the Yanks...
Russia, China & France also have permanent seats on the council. Basically the only countries that could go to war and make some damage are 'regulating' themselves, leading to wars like the Iraq war. The permanent members can choose to veto something and the vote wouldn't go through even if 14/15 had voted for it. So, you can see how hard it is for the council to take action against one of the permanent members, they'd have to vote to take action against themselves. Not happening.
Its the whole "who polices the police " question. Can't copy the kofi anann quote but any way yes we should certainly take his view as definite and unchallengable. This is especially true given how impartial he is towards conflict and that he was laying down his verdict as part of a judicial process. Oh erm.......
yeah cos no other countries have gone to "war" in the last 70 years apart from off the top of my head Iraq , Iran , Israel ,Argentina , Serbia , Croatia , Bosnia Herzogovina , N Korea , S Korea , Azerbaijan , Armenia , Syria , Lebanon , etc
Although it's one I've wondered about..take energy independence...if we developed something that meant we didn't have to maintain dialogue with the likes of Russia, China, the US or the middle east? Would that make a safer UK or world..? Would energy or resource independence mean we could then call it like it is with these states actually be a good thing...sometimes when I hear of the human rights abuse these states commit or we commit to maintain influence in the area I think independence is the goal...but then does that actually make a scenario where conflict is more likely?
the point of the european court of human rights... well this was founded BEFORE the EEC in 1959. 47 states all sign up and the hawks of the tories are now deciding to throw it out. its important to realise what may is trying to do. they will tell you its to just get rid of one or two articles that don't suit. https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ion-on-human-rights-theresa-may-eu-referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights I quote: “The ECHR can bind the hands of parliament, adds nothing to our prosperity, makes us less secure by preventing the deportation of dangerous foreign nationals – and does nothing to change the attitudes of governments like Russia’s when it comes to human rights,” she said. May just wants to use "terrorists" to make inferior human rights the norm so the rich can exploit the poor
John Prescott who supported the war at the time now agrees with Kofi Annan that it was illegal Its not as if Kofi Annan is a lone voice calling the war illegal, most legal experts also agree with him that there was no legal basis for the war in Iraq.
oh i missed Pakistan and India off the list which means at least 3 of them are nuclear equipped powers and since your original post referred to the only countries able to do damage and never mind the others who can do dreadful damage those 3 can seriously compromise the viability of the human race
Aye, true. The facts are though if any one of those countries stepped out of line the likes of Russia, USA, UK, France & China have the firepower to shut them down immediately. There is no one that can stop Russia, USA, UK, China etc apart from themselves, which is when a world war starts.
We all knew it was legally wrong...Tony had to invoke his faith to carry it through ffs. But I'll respect (christ) Blair in his delusion more than two jags who now uses hindsight when he was elected and paid to use foresight...(not just him obviously)
Anyway, I'm off out. Was a very interesting debate. Enjoy your night Frankie boy And you @terrifictraore @Solid_Air 2 *through gritted teeth*
Roll on monday when we have a common enemy to focus our group hate against. PS our group hate will last at least 90minutes plus whoever long utd want to be added on.
