NATO encroachent in Russian Black Sea waters is a war waiting to happen

The TPP, which most didn't think was good for the USA....... But I think it should have been given more work~ keeping China out was in everyone's long term interest IMHO...

Not even sure what the "Asian Pivot" was suppose to be or if biden is even playing along as he continues to fuck around in the middle east in shit that isn't our problem..

Let the Arabs, Persians, Israelis, Pushtuns fight their own wars...
Biden is clueless. they are still at the "strategic patience" phase like Obama was with North Korea.
Meaning it's not going to get confrontational with China ( and I dont lay all the blame on Biden -but look how Trump approached malign China trade - COVID and his losing the re-election lost it all though)

I hear these clueless hawks saying "we need a presence in Syria" we need a base in Afghan"
like we are still supposed to be the 'world's policeman'
 
doubt that would stop China from annexation Tibet

I think it would have done back then. China was weak and the architects of the United Nations - WW2 winners- were powerful. Further they were still on a war footing and a Chinese invasion of a UN-protected Tibet would have been an invitation to the allies to impose Chapter 7 retribution on such a Chinese move. We'll never know, of course, but calling the possibility ' bullshit ' is characteristic of ignorant fools.
 
If you read up on it some I would like to hear your thoughts on it

Consider this scenario:

You are an experienced Secret Service agent with a wife and three kids and armed with a SIG-Sauer P229. You are guarding the President, a fucking moron, who decides he doesn't like current events and wants to order a nuclear strike on a major nuclear nation.

Obviously it's global suicide if he accomplishes his desire. What do you do?

It's a good college ethics question. :)
 
Will it be stopping the ccp rape of it's neighbors & their rights, livelihood etc??

International law is not going to restore Tibetan sovereignty, nor is it going to recommend Kurdish autonomy.

On the flipside, Post-WW2 international law has served humanity in profound and numerous ways, but I do not think it ever promised to end all war, abuse, and torture.

I would be curious if you know anyone who is advocating dismantling the U.N. charter, the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, arms control treatises, human rights treaties, etc.? We can certainly improve them, but the international law system we have now is certainly substantially better than what existed in 1910.
 
Last edited:
International law is not going to restore Tibetan sovereignty, nor is it going to recommend Kurdish autonomy.

On the flipside, Post-WW2 international law has served humanity in profound and numerous ways, but I do not think it ever promised to end all war, abuse, and torture.

I would be curious if you know anyone who is advocating dismantling the U.N. charter, the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, arms control treatises, human rights treaties, etc.? We can certainly improve them, but the international law system we have now is certainly substantially better than what existed in 1910.
yes you called it a "canon" -and after 2 world wars they needed to be formally institutionalized

My opinion though is nations invariably act in their own best interest -no mater what international law
So states have to practice realpolitik - or be in some fashion be disadvantaged if they do not
 
International law is not going to restore Tibetan sovereignty, nor is it going to recommend Kurdish autonomy.

On the flipside, Post-WW2 international law has served humanity in profound and numerous ways, but I do not think it ever promised to end all war, abuse, and torture.

I would be curious if you know anyone who is advocating dismantling the U.N. charter, the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, arms control treatises, human rights treaties, etc.? We can certainly improve them, but the international law system we have now is certainly substantially better than what existed in 1910.
Mankind's brutality to fellow man is well known.

Finger-pointing only maintains distrust but as you pointed out, international groups have done a lot to maintain the peace.
 
yes you called it a "canon" -and after 2 world wars they needed to be formally institutionalized

My opinion though is nations invariably act in their own best interest -no mater what international law
So states have to practice realpolitik - or be in some fashion be disadvantaged if they do not

Agreed. That said, in this day and age, when has going to war been in a nation's best interests?
 
Russia is prepared to target intruding warships if they fail to heed warnings, a senior Russian diplomat said Thursday in a tough statement in the wake of a Black Sea incident in which a British destroyer sailed near Crimea in an area that Russia claims as its territorial waters.

Russia said one of its warships fired warning shots and a warplane dropped bombs in the path of British destroyer Defender on Wednesday to drive it away from the area near Sevastopol. Britain denied that account, insisted its ship wasn’t fired upon and said it was sailing in Ukrainian waters.

The incident marked the first time since the Cold War that Moscow acknowledged using live ammunition to deter a NATO warship, underlining the rising threat of military collisions amid Russia-West tensions.

Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said Thursday that "the inviolability of the Russian borders is an absolute imperative," adding that it will be protected "by all means, diplomatic, political and military if needed."

He sarcastically suggested that the British navy should rename its destroyer from Defender to Aggressor and warned that "those who try to test our strength are taking high risks."

Asked what Russia would do to prevent such intrusions in the future, Ryabkov told reporters it would stand ready to fire on targets if warnings don't work.

RUSSIAN SHIP FIRES WARNING SHOTS AT UK WARSHIP IN BLACK SEA

"We may appeal to reason and demand to respect international law," Ryabkov said, according to the Interfax news agency. "If it doesn’t help, we may drop bombs and not just in the path but right on target if colleagues don’t get it otherwise."

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov deplored what he described as a "deliberate and well-prepared provocation" by Britain and seconded the tough warning.

"If unacceptable provocative actions are repeated, if those actions go too far, no options to legitimately protect the borders of the Russian Federation could be excluded," Peskov said in a call with reporters.

RUSSIAN DEFENSE MINISTRY SUMMONS BRITISH DEFENSE ATTACHE OVER BLACK SEA 'WARNING SHOTS' DISPUTE

On Wednesday, the Russian Defense Ministry said a patrol ship fired warning shots after the HMS Defender had ignored a notice against intrusion and sailed 3 kilometers (1.6 nautical miles) into Russia’s territorial waters near Sevastopol, the main Russian naval base in Crimea. It said a Russian Su-24 bomber also dropped four bombs ahead of the vessel to persuade the Defender to change course. Minutes later, the Defender left Russian waters, the ministry said.

Britain denied the Defender had been fired on or that bombs were dropped in its path. It insisted that the ship was making a routine journey through an internationally recognized travel lane and remained in Ukrainian waters. The U.K., like most of the international community, recognizes Crimea as part of Ukraine despite the peninsula's 2014 annexation by Russia.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson would not say whether he had personally approved the Defender’s voyage but suggested the Royal Navy was making a point by taking the route it had.

"The important point is that we don’t recognize the Russian annexation of Crimea, this is part of a sovereign Ukrainian territory," Johnson told reporters Thursday during a visit to an army barracks in England. "It was entirely right that we should vindicate the law and pursue freedom of navigation in the way that we did, take the shortest route between two points, and that’s what we did.
https://www.foxnews.com/world/russia-next-time-may-fire-hit-intruding-warships

How's about Russia and its sold out repukes' encroachment on the 2016 election in order to lawlessly hacked a sewer conspiring tRump tyrant and goon squad in there that resulted in a monumental fuk up and a curse of untold atrocities on humanity?
 
How's about Russia and its sold out repukes' encroachment on the 2016 election in order to lawlessly hacked a sewer conspiring tRump tyrant and goon squad in there that resulted in a monumental fuk up and a curse of untold atrocities on humanity?

Shiva-the-Destroyer-800x450.jpg

Shiva the Destroyer of Worlds
 
yes you called it a "canon" -and after 2 world wars they needed to be formally institutionalized

My opinion though is nations invariably act in their own best interest -no mater what international law
So states have to practice realpolitik - or be in some fashion be disadvantaged if they do not

There have been many civil wars and regional wars since the 1940s.

But there has not been a major war between nation states in Europe since 1945. Prior to then, war between nation states was routine.

There has not been a major war between nation states in South America since the 1930s.

There has not been a major war between nation states in East Asia since 1953, and North Korea was severely punished for their naked aggression in violating the UN charter.

South Asia had some dust ups after the British left, but that was more or less a civil war between Muslims and Hindus.

The Middle East is a powder keg, but let's not forget Iraq was severely punished for naked aggression against Kuwait.

Africa has seen a plethora of civil wars, but large scale open war between nation states is rare or almost unheard of.

It was a major advance for humanity to collectively, and by consensus, commit to the principle that offensive war between nation states is illegal.

It took ten thousand years of human history to reach that statement of principle as an international consensus.

And I have not even mentioned nuclear non proliferation, nuclear test ban treaties, arms control, human rights, land mine convention, environmental treaties, etc.

You have spent a message board career advocating naked self interest, and laughing off international law and norms of conduct. But it looks like you have nor really thought about how the world has benefited from international law and cooperation, even as we acknowledge there is room for lots of improvement.
 
Shiva-the-Destroyer-800x450.jpg

Shiva the Destroyer of Worlds

Is that tRump in particular? Fortunately the historical will of the over 81 million voter that got threw and aside from democratic votes that were purged as a result of repuke sedition threw the 45 devil and destroyer out of the White House. Now its a matter of cleaning up the residual atrocities of the tRump tyrant's deplorable influence on humanity.
 
There have been many civil wars and regional wars since the 1940s.

But there has not been a major war between nation states in Europe since 1945. Prior to then, war between nation states was routine.

There has not been a major war between nation states in South America since the 1930s.

There has not been a major war between nation states in East Asia since 1953, and North Korea was severely punished for their naked aggression in violating the UN charter.

South Asia had some dust ups after the British left, but that was more or less a civil war between Muslims and Hindus.

The Middle East is a powder keg, but let's not forget Iraq was severely punished for naked aggression against Kuwait.

Africa has seen a plethora of civil wars, but large scale open war between nation states is rare or almost unheard of.

It was a major advance for humanity to collectively, and by consensus, commit to the principle that offensive war between nation states is illegal.

It took ten thousand years of human history to reach that statement of principle as an international consensus.

And I have not even mentioned nuclear non proliferation, nuclear test ban treaties, arms control, human rights, land mine convention, environmental treaties, etc.

You have spent a message board career advocating naked self interest, and laughing off international law and norms of conduct. But it looks like you have nor really thought about how the world has benefited from international law and cooperation, even as we acknowledge there is room for lots of improvement.

The bottom line is no nation wants to go MAD. Nukes aren't for offense, they're for defense. It's why Israel has them, why Iran wants them and North Korea has a rudimentary device.

Any power which employs nukes is committing suicide.
 
The bottom line is no nation wants to go MAD. Nukes aren't for offense, they're for defense. It's why Israel has them, why Iran wants them and North Korea has a rudimentary device.

Any power which employs nukes is committing suicide.

Too right you are.

The League of Nations was ineffective because there was no buy in from the USA, and only partial buy in from others.

Whatever it's flaws are, the U.N. framework is the most robust international organization in human history, and that is attributable to an international consensus and a collective buy in on a simple set of foundational principles.

If the world had not experienced the conflagrations we saw from 1914 to 1945, I doubt we would have a relatively robust framework of international law to the extent we do.
 
Too right you are.

The League of Nations was ineffective because there was no buy in from the USA, and only partial buy in from others.

Whatever it's flaws are, the U.N. framework is the most robust international organization in human history, and that is attributable to an international consensus and a collective buy in on a simple set of foundational principles.

If the world had not experienced the conflagrations we saw from 1914 to 1945, I doubt we would have a relatively robust framework of international law to the extent we do.

Europe had seen almost constant war in the centuries leading up to the 20th century. It was then that human military tech became too powerful to use. Hence, as you pointed out, the necessity for a global organization to resolve disputes.
 
Europe had seen almost constant war in the centuries leading up to the 20th century. It was then that human military tech became too powerful to use. Hence, as you pointed out, the necessity for a global organization to resolve disputes.

Thumbs up
 
Biden is clueless. they are still at the "strategic patience" phase like Obama was with North Korea.
Meaning it's not going to get confrontational with China ( and I dont lay all the blame on Biden -but look how Trump approached malign China trade - COVID and his losing the re-election lost it all though)

I hear these clueless hawks saying "we need a presence in Syria" we need a base in Afghan"
like we are still supposed to be the 'world's policeman'

Well I hope he is confrontational: A phrase he likes to use "eating our lunch"... They have been doing so for several years now, Joe's Mom packs an extra sandwich & snack for them in his lunch every day.......:rolleyes: .................................... :palm:

Yep, they need to give that shit up, let them work it out... China is slowly absorbing central Asia & the Russians, Persians & Turks are watching, sitting on their hands as their largest trading partner gobbles it all up~let them be the policeman & fight the terrorist for us for a change
 
Last edited:
International law is not going to restore Tibetan sovereignty, nor is it going to recommend Kurdish autonomy.

On the flipside, Post-WW2 international law has served humanity in profound and numerous ways, but I do not think it ever promised to end all war, abuse, and torture.

I would be curious if you know anyone who is advocating dismantling the U.N. charter, the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, arms control treatises, human rights treaties, etc.? We can certainly improve them, but the international law system we have now is certainly substantially better than what existed in 1910.

I know this & agree, I am merely pointing to the facts of USA & west allies abuse of it................:|
 
yes you called it a "canon" -and after 2 world wars they needed to be formally institutionalized

My opinion though is nations invariably act in their own best interest -no mater what international law
So states have to practice realpolitik - or be in some fashion be disadvantaged if they do not

I believe that is true, but for most only partially as their "actions" are subject to the will of other nations, nations more powerful..

Another Thucydides quote:"The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must" Thucydides
 
I believe that is true, but for most only partially as their "actions" are subject to the will of other nations, nations more powerful..

Another Thucydides quote:"The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must" Thucydides
yes of course there are constraints to just doing what you want to,
but the driving force of states actions are self interest -which is why it's so important to practice realpolitik
It's practical and not based on abstractions - makes it workable at all times
 
Back
Top