Sanctions and Embargoes should be illegal

What about Iran? Would they have negotiated without sanctions? How do you suggest we deal with nations that go against international norms? Also if your against embargoes does that include ones on arms?

We don't deal with nations that go against international norms, it didn't work on Japan, Italy and Nazi Germany, and today look at Russia and Cuba. Has it worked? No. It's making them and their people worse.

We need a more effective way to combat international aggression, possibly an International Armed Forces that consists of all members of the UN.

We don't deal with nations that go against international norms, it didn't work on Japan, Italy and Nazi Germany, and today look at Russia and Cuba. Has it worked? No. It's making them and their people worse.

We need a more effective way to combat international aggression, possibly an International Armed Forces that consists of all members of the UN.

There is absolutely no evidence these things lead to positive change in the countries that are effected, on the contrary when sanctions and embargoes are placed on countries the majority of the population suffer from an increasingly repressive regime who use the sanctions as justification for their nationalist rhetoric of self-sufficiency.

We don't deal with nations that go against international norms, it didn't work on Japan, Italy and Nazi Germany, and today look at Russia and Cuba. Has it worked? No. It's making them and their people worse.

We need a more effective way to combat international aggression, possibly an International Armed Forces that consists of all members of the UN.

While i agree with the need for a proper coalition i can't say that it should involve the UN which gives a voice to ~30%+ of members who are not free and fair democracies and has Russia and China on the UNSC. I'd much rather that the USA, France and UK (plus whoever else like Japan) got together and contributed x carriers, x planes and x army personnel and then maintained this as one single force. In instances like Syria we could then say that if all members agree unanimously then it would be deployed.

We already do its called NATO

It wouldn't work because Russia and China would keep vetoing us, if we got them on board it might reduce suspicion.

Yes, but NATO itself rarely acts even though NATO members often do. What i'm proposing is that rather than having the current setup where everybody contributes what they like from their own forces, we have all the countries that want to be involved (say the UK, France and USA) each contribute 10,000 troops, 100 planes and 10 ships to a single combined task-force. That task force would be independent of their normal armed forces.

If we are being honest then China (and India in future decades) are too big to ignore so ideally we'd have them join.. as for Russia i tend to believe that we should not need UN approval to act. The UN is a great forum for creating treaties but it is toothless and our foreign policy in Libya ect.. should certainly not be decided by their veto.

What if we contribute towards a stateless army, all soldiers will renounce their citizenship and become members of the UN forces, when they have finished their term (or want to eventually leave) they'll be given free pick out of all countries.

So say, Russian guy joins the International Army. He's no longer Russian, he's UN and has the choice of any country after completing his service.

There is absolutely no evidence these things lead to positive change in the countries that are effected, on the contrary when sanctions and embargoes are placed on countries the majority of the population suffer from an increasingly repressive regime who use the sanctions as justification for their nationalist rhetoric of self-sufficiency.

I'd tend to be opposed to that. While it could potentially be effective, our interests are not always aligned with the UN as a whole and i don't want non-western countries having a say.

Are you a communist? Only communists would support Cuba. Communist.

Lol

In terms of civil and political rights Cuba is a disgusting mess. In terms of social rights its a disgusting mess. In terms of economic rights its a disgusting mess. It does have a few social benefits (like health care) but that's counteracted by its disgusting treatment of homosexuals etc.

And I never said I supported Cuba, I support the Cuban people not the government.

communist

We castrated our homosexuals.

Absolutely not. Communism is holding the Cuban people backwards, once the embargo is lifted the conditions will hopefully improve enough for the emerging middle classes to kick the tossers out.

You are a communist

Also we castrated our homosexuals

This mentality is probably going to get us screwed again y'know that right lol. We need integration not nationalism, nationalism has failed twice already.

Only if you take the position that the 'west' can't expand it's norms. Over time i'm very much open to the likes of China becoming much more integrated. Since the Asian Tigers are intergrated while having a distinct separate culture (we still share important values and don't have religious problems with them), i don't see why it can't happen with China once the US and China settle into a power dynamic they are both fine with.

Plus to be honest you underestimate the importance of the west even through the next century. By the end of the century, the US and EU will be at worst the 3rd and 4th most powerful. It's not like the Africans are going to catch up to us in any way and we can put off the odd problem with nations like Russia.