Things Noticeable this week

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by palo5

Not exactly. You have to understand that the UNSC veto was designed to keep the major powers from fighting each other, and so far it's worked. None of us want WW3

But it has weaknesses to be sure, and it means the UN are powerless to stop absurd illegality if one permanent member is "bought" by an outsider, and can veto any action against it

Veto right is undemocratic. It's the way to keep privileges.
Another observation, why two now weak countries like France or UK still get the Veto right ? Why not giving the Veto right to Pakistan, India or now... North Korea ?
So... why not giving veto right to all the nations ?

My questions seem borderline, but they are not. They are questions that I'd find legitimate if I was an Indian, Brazilian or a South African citizen (as example)

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by palo5

The problem is that Israel is a serial international law breaker, which almost every country on earth acknowledges. Only the USA is worse

But as America's share of world trade diminishes, larger trade blocs will find it easier to impose sanctions on them. When that happens, Israel will also diminish

I won't go there - Whataboutery is not a very profitable conversation style. I merely point out that attacking Israel by violent means nearly always earns repayment plus compound interest. Anyone who doesn't know this really really really has not been paying attention and deserves the nice little surprise coming to them.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Veto right is undemocratic. It's the way to keep privileges.
Another observation, why two now weak countries like France or UK still get the Veto right ?

I agree. France & UK no longer merit a permanent seat with veto rights, because their influence is vastly diminished from 70 years ago. I would like to see them replaced by the EU, a S. American group, and possibly two Asian groups -- preferably one, but it would be hard to get India & Pakistan under one umbrella

The difficulty would be in getting France & UK to admit they're not as important as they were a gazillion years ago, and to retire. After all, they could veto it

[palo5]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

I won't go there - Whataboutery is not a very profitable conversation style. I merely point out that attacking Israel by violent means nearly always earns repayment plus compound interest. Anyone who doesn't know this really really really has not been paying attention and deserves the nice little surprise coming to them.

Actually, the opposite is true, and you ought to know it. If your land has been illegally attacked and occupied, you have the right under the UN Charter to fight against it

What happens if parts of England were occupied, settlements built on it, and you could do nothing because the USA vetos your complaints? You wouldn't have a problem with that?

Come on, we weren't born yesterday

[Puhbear69]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

[...]
I am certainly not in love with Israel or what she stands for (Zionism).

However, it is no secret that Israel uses deadly force when she is attacked. If you attack Israel the rules are well known, so don't cry foul.

Historical revision:
About 78 years ago in the Warsaw Ghetto, as some German SS-Man has been attacked by Jewish freedom fighters: was it a "foul" or was it more or less an act of self defence ? Just remember what's going on in it in this; I think I mustn't explain.

I don't like so much double standards !

BTW: attacked by Palestinian kids at at least one baby ?

So actually 355 (!) Israeli settlements & surroundings (Outposts not includet !!) on the West Bank is a word or isn't it ?
Admitted, the West Bank is a bigger "jail" but there are living 2,3 million inhabitants, with the luxurious hourly water and electrical power.
And not talking of the Gaza Strip .... !

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by palo5

I agree. France & UK no longer merit a permanent seat with veto rights, because their influence is vastly diminished from 70 years ago. I would like to see them replaced by the EU, a S. American group, and possibly two Asian groups -- preferably one, but it would be hard to get India & Pakistan under one umbrella

The difficulty would be in getting France & UK to admit they're not as important as they were a gazillion years ago, and to retire. After all, they could veto it

Not at least an African group ?

[DudleyTog]

Originally Posted by Dr Pepper

If he wanted to end his life-fine-but he chose to travel halfway round the world to do so-and ensure massive media coverage-it WAS all about him-and that equals narcissist in my book.

Alternatively, he may have wanted to highlight the idiocy of most countries denying individuals the right to assistance to die when they have had enough of life, for whatever reason.

[rotobott]

Originally Posted by palo5

Actually, the opposite is true, and you ought to know it. If your land has been illegally attacked and occupied, you have the right under the UN Charter to fight against it

What happens if parts of England were occupied, settlements built on it, and you could do nothing because the USA vetos your complaints? You wouldn't have a problem with that?

Come on, we weren't born yesterday

You mean like Ukraine ?

[palo5]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Not at least an African group ?

Yes, I would like an African group, but without Ghadaffi, it's hard to see how they can work together

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by palo5

Actually, the opposite is true, and you ought to know it. If your land has been illegally attacked and occupied, you have the right under the UN Charter to fight against it

What happens if parts of England were occupied, settlements built on it, and you could do nothing because the USA vetos your complaints? You wouldn't have a problem with that?

Come on, we weren't born yesterday

If I conceive myself to be at war with a foreign power, what I won't do is wail, moan and complain when acts of war take place. In the case you describe, the decision to go to war will have been my own country's and mine, no crying foul and no crying for mummy. If I as a neutral observer am expected to feel indignant about Israel firing on attacking mobs violating her border with Gaza, should I not be equally indignant about the incitement of Hamas, about the firing of explosive rockets at Israeli civilians and so on?

Truthfully, I am bored with it and totally indifferent. These two groups deserve each other and are each on earth to be a just punishment for the other. I no longer care about anything they do. But I do note the silly hypocrisy of complaining because people who attack Israel come unstuck.