3 ms·

I strongly disagree: it's not ridiculous at all when it comes to war crimes or crimes against humanity. Also, Iran was one example, the list of U.S. aggression

I strongly disagree: it's not ridiculous at all when it comes to war crimes or crimes against humanity. Also, Iran was one example, the list of U.S. aggressions against sovereign nations without U.N. mandate goes on up to very recent times (Syria).

bayesian_horse 10y ago
The system of getting UN mandates has become useless because Russia is both on the security council and an offender of the rules it was supposed to defend. By all rights, there should be a UN mandate to fight IS in Syria. There should have been a UN mandate to fight the Assad regime, for that matter. Not intervening did not lead to less destabilization, just to more war crimes by the original regime.
- jacobush 10y ago
  Make that Russia and the US. Still, it's better that they divide at least some spoils at the table in the UN. The alternative could be on the battlefield :-/
  - bayesian_horse 10y ago
    The US isn't getting any "spoils" from the wars it fought. At best they are keeping trade lines open. In no sense did they profit from their actions. Russia, maybe. The invasion of Crimea may have been profitable, if it weren't for the sanctions. Which is one of the best arguments in favor of these sanctions.
    - jacobush 10y ago
      I did not mean literally spoils in the form of land. I meant in the form of influence, economy or whatever is at stake. And that if you have two opponents, it's at least better that they communicate over a conference table than over the battlefield, proxy wars for instance. The UN voting process and security council may seem unpalatable, but it's better to have it than not having it. At least it is more transparent and on record what the various powers that be want. (I agree with what you said above. These sanctions are good. Crimea is the only conquered territory.)
- paulmd 10y ago
  The point of the UN has always been - since its establishment - to keep the nuclear powers from going all-out on each other (and the rest of the world). You may not like the UN, you may not think it fulfills the mandate that the General Audience gives it (it doesn't). But it keeps the Security Council from nuking each other. And in this case - that's the design criteria. No nuclear wars, not ever. Nothing more, nothing less. This is in no way a moral judgement on either Russia or the US's activities in the Syrian-Iraq-Saudi-Iran quadrangle. Or any of the other players involved.

bayesian_horse 10y ago

The system of getting UN mandates has become useless because Russia is both on the security council and an offender of the rules it was supposed to defend. By all rights, there should be a UN mandate to fight IS in Syria. There should have been a UN mandate to fight the Assad regime, for that matter. Not intervening did not lead to less destabilization, just to more war crimes by the original regime.

jacobush 10y ago
Make that Russia and the US. Still, it's better that they divide at least some spoils at the table in the UN. The alternative could be on the battlefield :-/
- bayesian_horse 10y ago
  The US isn't getting any "spoils" from the wars it fought. At best they are keeping trade lines open. In no sense did they profit from their actions. Russia, maybe. The invasion of Crimea may have been profitable, if it weren't for the sanctions. Which is one of the best arguments in favor of these sanctions.
  - jacobush 10y ago
    I did not mean literally spoils in the form of land. I meant in the form of influence, economy or whatever is at stake. And that if you have two opponents, it's at least better that they communicate over a conference table than over the battlefield, proxy wars for instance. The UN voting process and security council may seem unpalatable, but it's better to have it than not having it. At least it is more transparent and on record what the various powers that be want. (I agree with what you said above. These sanctions are good. Crimea is the only conquered territory.)
paulmd 10y ago
The point of the UN has always been - since its establishment - to keep the nuclear powers from going all-out on each other (and the rest of the world). You may not like the UN, you may not think it fulfills the mandate that the General Audience gives it (it doesn't). But it keeps the Security Council from nuking each other. And in this case - that's the design criteria. No nuclear wars, not ever. Nothing more, nothing less. This is in no way a moral judgement on either Russia or the US's activities in the Syrian-Iraq-Saudi-Iran quadrangle. Or any of the other players involved.