31–40 of 65 posts
The Democrats could have won if they didn't support Israel unconditionally. Unfortunately when you claim to support human rights but also support what happens in the middle east it creates cognitive dissonance among the population.
Many American pro-Israeli's are more concerned about Iran at the moment than any of the ICE/Greenland news.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why indeed. And yet: https://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA... The new doctrine of native title replaced a seventeenth century doctrine of terra nullius on which British claims to possession of Australia were justified on a wrongful legal presumption that Indigenous peoples had no settled law governing occupation and use of lands. In recognising that Indigenous peoples in Australia had prior rig…
Did I say that? I just said no one wants to give power over their land. Countries would want international law to protect them. That's why international law exists. I don't think there is any country which explicitly mentions that international law would supersede their law.
* " Land belongs to people who can control it, and always has."
* @watwut asserted: "Nazi says that, yes."
* @YetAnotherNick expanded on that "Communist say that too as do socialist as do almost all ideology."
* @YetAnotherNick then "asked" (perhaps rhetorically) "Why do anyone want to give their power in your land to any other politically motivated entity."
* @defrost provided an example of a legal doctrine that returned significant areas of land to original first inhabitants after that land had been claimed by others with crown troops.
Now that land belongs to people that lack force to control it, and it was given to them by people that considered it their land by colonisation.
If you're interested in the answer to the question you posed "Why do anyone want to give their power in your land to any other politically motivated entity." (which isn't entirely well posed) then perhaps the reasoning of the judges in the Mabo case might give you some insight into their thinking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> International law has a number of enforcement mechanisms. That's rather naïve. How do you propose to enforce the law when the offender possesses the greatest military/economic/technological might, even compared to the rest of the (law-biding) world combined? US, for quite some time, is the international law.
> That's rather naïve. No, its factual. > How do you propose to enforce the law when the offender possesses the greatest military/economic/technological might, even compared to the rest of the (law-biding) world combined? Had you read the entire comment you were responding to, you would note that as well as pointing out that international law has enforcement mechanisms, that I pointed out how the executive part of th…
Was it you who wrote the lines for Sir Humphrey in Yes Minister?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about when a police officer gets qualified immunity after murdering someone? Does this mean the US has no enforcement mechanisms?
Didn't see that one coming. Not sure what your agenda is but that's just the law *enforcement* doing the enforcing part. You can argue that it is unjust, that's a separate issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Knowing and acting on it will have grave consequences though. The US's main allies will stop buying American military equipment for one, trade will go down and the largest economic block in the world will align itself closer to China (who does not directly threaten them with invasion). What a self own. As a European who's been as continue to be against Chinese authoritarianism, I have to admit that China looks like t…
What I find almost satisfying to watch is how the US throws away the soft power it spent nearly a century building for very little benefit in return. The thing is that soft power is extremely effective. Many other countries, including China, try hard at acquiring a fraction of the soft power US naturally had. Trumps administration, sooner or later, will pass. Whether it is voted away, or if it turns into a form of di…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did I say that? I just said no one wants to give power over their land. Countries would want international law to protect them. That's why international law exists. I don't think there is any country which explicitly mentions that international law would supersede their law.
The initial statement was: * " Land belongs to people who can control it, and always has." * @watwut asserted: "Nazi says that, yes." * @YetAnotherNick expanded on that "Communist say that too as do socialist as do almost all ideology." * @YetAnotherNick then "asked" (perhaps rhetorically) "Why do anyone want to give their power in your land to any other politically motivated entity." * @defrost provided an example o…
Can you specify which part are you disagreeing with rather than give AI powered summary of thread.
There is "international law", but no "international police". So the law only as good as long as everyone follow it - so not very good either. Then you have major power like Russia that constantly abuse it while trying to cover its ass with "internatiomal law" once they themself get hit. This is whem you get system is broken. I get it suck for people inside the US to see democracy dismantled, but honestly I dont mind…
> There is "international law", but no "international police" Yet America just bust into a sovereign nation to arrest its president
It’s a little disturbing seeing the complete lack of historical understanding in the comments here. Yeah, international law isn’t perfect and certainly wasn’t perfectly followed. But the U.S., and most other countries, did heavily constrain themselves by it, primarily for their own good. Some of this is clearly evident from the fact that many of the actions the U.S. has taken, such as kidnapping Maduro, doesn’t reall…
Africa is not represented. India is not represented. South America is not represented.
But we have the UK, which at that time included its "empire," down to two islands today.
And then someone came up with "rules based order" to replace international law. What rules? What order?
I have no respect for Trump, but give him credit for not being a complete hypocrite like his predecessors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Didn't see that one coming. Not sure what your agenda is but that's just the law *enforcement* doing the enforcing part. You can argue that it is unjust, that's a separate issue.
My point is, the powerful nations are the enforcement mechanism in international law. When they are the ones breaking the law themselves, that doesn’t mean there isn’t an enforcement mechanism, it just means it’s a possibly unjust one, just like with national enforcement mechanisms.
It’s a little disturbing seeing the complete lack of historical understanding in the comments here. Yeah, international law isn’t perfect and certainly wasn’t perfectly followed. But the U.S., and most other countries, did heavily constrain themselves by it, primarily for their own good. Some of this is clearly evident from the fact that many of the actions the U.S. has taken, such as kidnapping Maduro, doesn’t reall…
The UN is a joke. The security council consists of the five states which happened to be the winning countries post 1945. Africa is not represented. India is not represented. South America is not represented. But we have the UK, which at that time included its "empire," down to two islands today. And then someone came up with "rules based order" to replace international law. What rules? What order? I have no respect f…
I think that the UN has been pretty crap (because of the security council and hypocrisy), but like a lot of unsatisfying compromises, we'll miss it when it's gone.