Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Given that the Security Council is the only UN organ qualified to allow war, and considering that this Council has five countries with veto rights, do you think the Security Council will ever allow a declaration of war against any of those five countries or their allies? .
    Since the 5 countries have veto powers, how could that happen?

    (Original post by Douglas)
    Since the 5 countries have veto powers, how could that happen?
    I think that's his point...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by phillipsm)
    Perhaps you place too much faith in the democratic process than is due.
    You wish to place it elsewhere?

    Before we proceed, are you not one of the two individuals to vote that the Kosovo war was unjust? How then, do you logically bring the Darfur situation into this argument?
    The war in Darfur was just, but I dont think we needed the UN to tell us that before we decided to do anything about it.

    Further, you are inferring that we should support "unauthorised action" in Dafur (i.e. without UN sanction). But does this not go against your principle of national interest? - or surely there would have been action by now?
    It would be just to take action in Darfur. I believe we should be free to choose whether we take this action or not, with other nations or not. Those who believe that UN authorisation is required do not have that choice, as Chinese oil interests made clear.

    Amazing that you find the latter favourable with this quote in your signature,

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    No to necessity of UN. UN Security Council is hardly going to agree to a humanitarian conflict (in the rare cases where it may just be possible to have one)

    No Kosovo was not just. It was about destroying the last vestiges of Socialism in that region as well as showing off new weaponry.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    No Kosovo was not just. It was about destroying the last vestiges of Socialism in that region as well as showing off new weaponry.
    Do you actually believe that? :eek:

    (Original post by Vienna)
    You wish to place it elsewhere?
    Not as much faith as you, obviously.

    The war in Darfur was just, but I dont think we needed the UN to tell us that before we decided to do anything about it.
    I never said it needed the UN to tel us that it was just. More often than not, however, widespread UN member support is indactive, at the least, of a war/action being legitimate and justified.

    It would be just to take action in Darfur. I believe we should be free to choose whether we take this action or not, with other nations or not. Those who believe that UN authorisation is required do not have that choice, as Chinese oil interests made clear.
    Again, more often than not, however, widespread UN member support is indactive, at the least, of a war/action being legitimate and justified.

    Amazing that you find the latter favourable with this quote in your signature,

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
    I never said the latter was ultimately preferable, for the reasons outlined in this satement:

    "I do not believe unconditionally that the UN would support a war that was truly both just and legitimate - that is not the way the UN works. Indeed this is why I am so reluctant to grant it sole legitimacy or sole moral authority on this issue. But I am far, far more reluctant to grant that legitimacy or moral authority to any nation state. If the UN lacks legitimacy because it acts in the interests of its Security Council governments, it follows that those governments themselves have even less legitimacy.

    [...]

    If we can't, where does this place the concept of a legitimate and just war? Surely not with individual nation-states, whose very interests were those that made the UN an illegitimate arbitrator."


    The issue I was raising was that you support action in Darfur, yet are one of only two people to vote that the Kosovo war was unjust.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    No Kosovo was not just. It was about destroying the last vestiges of Socialism in that region as well as showing off new weaponry.
    Weaponry: So you would have used Vietnam era bombing raids risking casualties to our own troops and unnecessary civilian casualites.

    Socialism: If socialism means authoritarian rule, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing (against Muslims you must remember), then i'd be happy to see the back of it
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The UN should have power over all foreign policy, though should be made more democratic and accountable before this would happen.

    We left Kosovo in an awful state and its on the brink of civil war although the media ignores it.

    We live in an interdependent world and issues such as climate change can not be tackled alone. There should be a federal world eventually, though this wont happen for ages if at all!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Weaponry: So you would have used Vietnam era bombing raids risking casualties to our own troops and unnecessary civilian casualites.
    That's not what I said.

    Socialism: If socialism means authoritarian rule, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing (against Muslims you must remember), then i'd be happy to see the back of it
    Socialism doesn't mean that, no ifs about it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by phillipsm)
    Not as much faith as you, obviously.
    Where else does one place faith?

    I never said it needed the UN to tel us that it was just. More often than not, however, widespread UN member support is indactive, at the least, of a war/action being legitimate and justified.
    Being indicative is not the same as legal justification.

    I never said the latter was ultimately preferable, for the reasons outlined in this satement:

    "I do not believe unconditionally that the UN would support a war that was truly both just and legitimate - that is not the way the UN works. Indeed this is why I am so reluctant to grant it sole legitimacy or sole moral authority on this issue. But I am far, far more reluctant to grant that legitimacy or moral authority to any nation state. If the UN lacks legitimacy because it acts in the interests of its Security Council governments, it follows that those governments themselves have even less legitimacy.

    [...]

    If we can't, where does this place the concept of a legitimate and just war? Surely not with individual nation-states, whose very interests were those that made the UN an illegitimate arbitrator."
    It would be just to take action in Darfur. I believe we should be free to choose whether we take this action or not, with other nations or not. Those who believe that UN authorisation is required do not have that choice, as Chinese oil interests made clear.

    If you place more legitimacy in the hands of the UN than free nation states, then you evidently do support the latter.

    The issue I was raising was that you support action in Darfur, yet are one of only two people to vote that the Kosovo war was unjust.
    How do you know how everybody voted?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    That's not what I said.

    Socialism doesn't mean that, no ifs about it.
    If a bombing raid was going to take plac, aren't you glad that we minimised civilian casualties by employing the most technical and expensive means at our disposal. Clinton got badly criticised over the huge cost of saving human life but he still pushed for great care to be taken over what should be made a target.

    Socialism: From the writings of Marx and his followers you can draw almost any fish. Just so happened Slobodan used socialist principles as the benal excuse for all manner of crimes a la Stalin. Surely you are happy to see such a *******isation of Marxim removed in order to give your ideology more credibility.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)

    How do you know how everybody voted?
    its a public poll :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    its a public poll :rolleyes:
    Oh, I didnt notice. It appears I ticked the wrong box because I believe the intervention was just.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    If a bombing raid was going to take plac, aren't you glad that we minimised civilian casualties by employing the most technical and expensive means at our disposal. Clinton got badly criticised over the huge cost of saving human life but he still pushed for great care to be taken over what should be made a target.
    What are you talking about? I don't believe the war was just, so what weapons wer used doesn't come into whether it was just or not for me. And we hit a maternity hispital and a certain embassy amongst other things.

    Surely you are happy to see such a *******isation of Marxim removed in order to give your ideology more credibility.
    I am not a marxist nor do I believe in any set, rigid socialist system. But the war was not about human rights at all. I thought people would have learnt by now that Imperialism doesn't work that way.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    No Kosovo was not just. It was about destroying the last vestiges of Socialism in that region as well as showing off new weaponry.
    Is this the position of RESPECT or just your personal opinion?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Why should the UN have any say if we go to war? It is the decision of each sovereign nation whether it is in its national interests and security to go to war. The UN is alright as a forum to resolve quarrels, but when this involves the national security of a state then it should step aside. I see no reason why the French or Chinese should determine our foreign policy. Because the UN did not authorise a war doesn't make the said war illegal or unjust. The only states that should have any say in whether a nation goes to war is the state itself, with the advice of its allies.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    I see no reason why the French or Chinese should determine our foreign policy.
    Because our foreign policy indirectly affects them both.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speleo)
    Because our foreign policy indirectly affects them both.
    Your actions indirectly affect me. Should I have control over your actions?
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by Lord Waddell)
    The only states that should have any say in whether a nation goes to war is the state itself, with the advice of its allies.
    Advice, yes, consent, no.

    As for the security council vote on Kosovo, the U.S. should have abstained, and stayed out of the conflict.....the "just" thing to do.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    What are you talking about? I don't believe the war was just, so what weapons wer used doesn't come into whether it was just or not for me. And we hit a maternity hispital and a certain embassy amongst other things.

    I am not a marxist nor do I believe in any set, rigid socialist system. But the war was not about human rights at all. I thought people would have learnt by now that Imperialism doesn't work that way.
    1) I know u don't think the war was just, but stuck between a rock and a hard place i'm sure any idealist would choose to use costly yet accurate weaponry.

    2) Imperialism. Please. If America was bent on toppling every left wing government that may be at odds with its interest or in other words it was an EMPIRE or so desired to be- What's Cuba doing there.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,999

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.