EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 915
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9165 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22071 Posts
On March 02 2014 03:59 itsjustatank wrote: UNSC won't go very far. Russia is a veto-holder. I assume Russia doesnt get to vote when it is the subject of the meeting. Would make it more then a tiny tiny bit useless wouldnt it. "I veto this war you wish to declare on me." 'no shit you do' | ||
|
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9165 Posts
For reference, the Korean War would have been vetoed by the Soviet Union if they weren't, at the time (very stupidly), boycotting it. | ||
|
Twoflowers
Germany241 Posts
On March 02 2014 04:06 Gorsameth wrote: I assume Russia doesnt get to vote when it is the subject of the meeting. Would make it more then a tiny tiny bit useless wouldnt it. "I veto this war you wish to declare on me." 'no shit you do' Actually, that's exactly how it works. If russia is not accidentally absent, the UNSC can't do shit. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On March 02 2014 04:06 Gorsameth wrote: I assume Russia doesnt get to vote when it is the subject of the meeting. Would make it more then a tiny tiny bit useless wouldnt it. "I veto this war you wish to declare on me." 'no shit you do' That is exactly how it works and why giving countries veto power was dumb in the first place. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22071 Posts
/facepalm | ||
|
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9165 Posts
The United Nations is not an over-arching and powerful anti-state construct that can regulate the relations between states. | ||
|
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9165 Posts
Sarah Palin is saying “Told-Ya-So” on the rising tensions in Ukraine, writing in a Facebook post that she predicted in 2008 Russia would invade the country. “Yes, I could see this one from Alaska. I’m usually not one to Told-Ya-So, but I did,” Palin wrote Friday. In the post, Palin says that in 2008, following Russia’s invasion of Georgia, she criticized then-Sen. Barack Obama whose reaction she said “was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that for indecisiveness that would only encourage Russia’s [Vladimir] Putin to invade Ukraine next.” http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/sarah-palin-ukraine-russia-104110.html I will say that there is a tendency here in the West that has existed over the past decade or so to think that the Cold War is over, despite indications that decision makers in Russia decidedly believe and act like it isn't. | ||
|
Kamille
Monaco1035 Posts
The UNSC is actually worse than I imagined. They can't even agree to fake a meeting and veto any actions. Lithuania is invoking article 4 of NATO. How does NATO's structure work? For instance, how much individual power does a country in NATO have to veto any intervention? | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On March 02 2014 04:38 itsjustatank wrote: Well, at least that something like a new Cold War couldn't possibly ever exist again. Wishful thinking about international partnerships, globalization, other stabilizing influences necessarily trumping big nation-state power struggles.With the usual tenor of reposts in this thread, I can't resist pasting this: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/sarah-palin-ukraine-russia-104110.html I will say that there is a tendency here in the West that has existed over the past decade or so to think that the Cold War is over, despite indications that decision makers in Russia decidedly believe and act like it isn't. "After the Russian army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama's reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence – the kind of response that would only encourage Russia's Putin to invade Ukraine next," she said in Reno, Nevada on October 21, 2008. So rich, I love it. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On March 02 2014 05:14 Kamille wrote: https://twitter.com/sangwonyoon/status/439853968219324416 The UNSC is actually worse than I imagined. They can't even agree to fake a meeting and veto any actions. Lithuania is invoking article 4 of NATO. How does NATO's structure work? For instance, how much individual power does a country in NATO have to veto any intervention? Here is article 4 word for word: Article 4 The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened. Basically article 4 is about them first agreeing to talk when one of the member states feels there peace is threatened (note not an attack which would invoke article 5) and would trigger an immediate world war. However article 5 is much more direct and fairly long to quote so I will basically say it means an attack against 1 is an attack against all and there is no wiggle room in that. If any nation in NATO is attacked (it does not actually specify a country even it merely states "an armed attack")then every nation in NATO is at war. | ||
|
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9165 Posts
Article four invocation here is expected to raise allied troop levels and move equipment to the states who will request it, much like with Turkey when they asked for and received missile-defense systems from the other member-states. In recent times NATO has been seen as sort-of outdated since "the Cold War is over" and "Russia is an ally." Recent events should change that idiotic and complacent worldview very quickly. In addition, while the European Union is not currently a military alliance (being, rather, an economic and political one, of sorts), I suspect that it will move to become one as well. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On March 02 2014 06:45 itsjustatank wrote: Well article five has been invoked, once, and it didn't lead to world war. Of course that was right after the World Trade Center bombings, and it was invoked by the United States. Article four invocation here is expected to raise allied troop levels and move equipment to the states who will request it, much like with Turkey when they asked for and received missile-defense systems from the other member-states. In recent times NATO has been seen as sort-of outdated since "the Cold War is over" and "Russia is an ally." Recent events should change that idiotic and complacent worldview very quickly. In addition, while the European Union is not currently a military alliance (being, rather, an economic and political one, of sorts), I suspect that it will move to become one as well. It was invoked against a group though but not against a country. Since it was invoked against a group it did not lead of course to world war but the obvious statement is that the US is never going to war against Russia and invoking NATO in that regard would lead to a world war. | ||
|
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9165 Posts
| ||
|
HellRoxYa
Sweden1614 Posts
On March 02 2014 06:45 itsjustatank wrote: Well article five has been invoked, once, and it didn't lead to world war. Of course that was right after the World Trade Center bombings, and it was invoked by the United States. Article four invocation here is expected to raise allied troop levels and move equipment to the states who will request it, much like with Turkey when they asked for and received missile-defense systems from the other member-states. In recent times NATO has been seen as sort-of outdated since "the Cold War is over" and "Russia is an ally." Recent events should change that idiotic and complacent worldview very quickly. In addition, while the European Union is not currently a military alliance (being, rather, an economic and political one, of sorts), I suspect that it will move to become one as well. It seems very likely to move towards that after the current crisis dies down. A united EU military alliance would be harder for Putin to deal with right now, and would make it easier for the EU leaders to respond in a timely and effective manner. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On March 02 2014 04:15 Adreme wrote: That is exactly how it works and why giving countries veto power was dumb in the first place. Sidebar: It was dumb if you take it in a vacuum. If you look at what the US got in return, most notably a dollar-denominated postwar global economy (including basing the two major levers of recovery in the IMF and World Bank in the US), closing the book on European imperialism, and getting a foothold in Asia by cutting Korea in half instead of Japan, then the US has been a huge net beneficiary. If there was a major blunder, it was not realizing that the Nationalists in China were losing the war to Mao. | ||
|
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9165 Posts
On March 02 2014 08:21 HellRoxYa wrote: It seems very likely to move towards that after the current crisis dies down. A united EU military alliance would be harder for Putin to deal with right now, and would make it easier for the EU leaders to respond in a timely and effective manner. It's been my opinion that the current European Union is pretty much the United States under the Articles of Confederation, and that they need to move to an actually-viable federal system or scrap the pretense entirely. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
| ||
|
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9165 Posts
On March 02 2014 08:44 FallDownMarigold wrote: USA stormed into Iraq in '03 without UNSC blessing. I can't really take Obamanator seriously when scold Russia for storming into Ukraine... The United States upheld UN Security Council resolution 1441 in its invasion of Iraq in 2003. That resolution was enacted and agreed to previously. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1441 In addition, the Gulf War only ended with a ceasefire. The no-fly zones that followed were a continuation of the mission. So was the invasion in 2003. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On March 02 2014 08:47 itsjustatank wrote: The United States upheld UN Security Council resolution 1441 in its invasion of Iraq in 2003. That resolution was enacted and agreed to previously. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1441 In addition, the Gulf War only ended with a ceasefire. The no-fly zones that followed were a continuation of the mission. So was the invasion in 2003. https://twitter.com/myroslavapetsa/status/439910881963831296 Shit, you're right. There was a point when USA was ready to invade w/o consulting the UN, though. Could've happened...  Also, I believe there is at least a bit of uncertainty with regard to whether that resolution sufficiently justified the decision to invade. It's clearly not the same as Russia's situation with Ukraine though, so my apologies. | ||
| ||
