Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Apr 11
th, 2022 at 12:55am:
Let's just hold it right there, Pilgrim.
Your kind despise 'colonialism' and all it brought to a very dark world;
Incorrect: I accept the fact of history as it has 'unwound'.
Quote:then you despise 'neo-colonialism' by whatever means - economic of military -
I can't address that because I don't know what you mean by it (is it a reference to Taiwan?).
Quote: yet you advocate a form of neo-colonialism yourself in your advocacy that the there be an 'international force' to keep order - meaning invasion and was.
International law is the
sine qua non of international security. You are confusing establishment of law with the practice of force.
Unlike individuals, nations can be disarmed by agreement, without force.
Quote:So dumb it isn't even funny.
Refuted above. Doc Evatt, a former high court judge who worked to
establish international law in 1946, proposed (correctly) a UNSC without veto; if the judges in a court have a veto, there is no law. Pity for you the rationality of that statement is irrefutable.
Quote:Let us look at Somalia....
oh god, if you insist...
Quote: the US went in on a mission to keep order and guarantee relief supplies flowing to the people it was intended for.
Why was there disorder in Somalia?
Answer: economic dysfunction and corruption, which as a matter of fact has much to do with the US-imposed
debt-money system maintained by the IMF (a US stooge); see the discussion in the MMT thread which freediver hijacked to his "privatization" thread because he can't tolerate exposure of the current evil debt money system, and its responsibility for global poverty.
Quote:This was a multi-national force including Pakistanis - a group of whom, fellow Muslims, were massacred by Somalis before 'Black Hawk Down', thus leading to a reluctance of the Pakistanis to effectively support the US action to bring order (your entire purported aim here) by removing one of the major players in the Warlords scenarios which was destroying the ability of relief organisations to get relief to those in the most need - the ordinary people.
Addressed above.
Economic dysfunction, maintained by the post WW2 US-led "Bretton Woods"
debt-money system, has been breeding economic hardship everywhere , with especially disastrous outcomes in the 3rd world.
But this issue (like the one you cited in Somalia) is separate from the possibility of disarming all nations, under international law with dispute settlement backed by a UNSC minus veto.
Quote:Now this raises two things:-
1. The fundamental inability of any international force to operate as a cohesive whole, and actually do the job they are there for.
Addressed above. Fix economic dysfunction, and disarm war lords/nations.
Quote:2. The lack of a fully integrated command and control mechanism meant that each nation's individual commander could decide when and how his people would operate in relation to any given mission.
That's because you insist on the "right" of warlords and nations to wage war, irrational and absurd in the age of MAD.
Quote:Do you really expect that an international force cobbled together will suddenly abandon its own personal and national sovereignty and operate as a cohesive whole?
That's what international law is - outlawing war.
Quote:Somalia is perfect for this discussion:
Refuted above;
perfect for you because it enables to you conflate economic, ethnic and political issues which combined disastrously in Somalia , in a world without international law and a functional economic system capable of creating economic security for all (as was being discussed in the MMT thread until it was highjacked by freediver, a conservative fraud who disabled the 'quote' function in the MMT thread, to divert the debate to 'privatization' thread ...which duly attracted your attention.
Note: the only way freediver can avoid being forever exposed as a fraud is to reinstate the 'quote' button in post #125 in the MMT thread.
Quote:- each player functioned with his own personal and national and religious sovereignty during the whole thing - and after - so no result was ever going to come from an attempt at inserting an international force without cohesive leadership and command and control into such a turbulent situation.
all demonstrating the need for international law, via an ICJ backed by a UNSC minus veto (to outlaw war), and a functioning international economy which promotes prosperous development in all nations.
Quote:No international force has EVER managed to restore order in a given situation - take Rwanda, Congo, Yugoslavia that was - and EVERY time such a force has been advocated by the UN, the burden has fallen to a few major players - ALL functioning within their own national sovereignty.
National sovereignty needs to be restricted, to enable
international law (via judges in an ICJ) to manage dispute settlement between nations without resorting to war.
Quote:You can talk and talk about your airy-fairy ideas and 'ideals' - But It Will Never Work!
Depends on how much ongoing slaughter in endless wars you want to tolerate, in the name of 'national sovereignty' .
Forum
Pages: 
Ukraine, Russia, Putin – So how does it all end? (Read 43668 times)
