|
|
Post by thomas on Sept 3, 2023 15:20:06 GMT
youve been given examples of where. Re read my previous posts. If you are talking about Syria, the US went in there to fight Isis and had the support of the UN. Sanctioning the US for fighting terrorism is not a policy that you are going to find much support for. Furthermore, Western media reports rarely consider whether the U.S. occupation is legal, even though their presence is opposed by the Syrian government and not authorized by the U.N.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Sept 3, 2023 15:23:07 GMT
Re: Obama. I never viewed his Brexit comments as any sort of pressure or threat. In response to the expectations of a post-Brexit free trade agreement, Obama was clarifying US trade priorities so that Westminster and voters would know that in leaving the EU, Britain could not expect priority trade status over the much larger EU market. He was imparting information that needed to be taken into account in the Brexit decision. Post-Brexit, though the US and UK still have a very robust trade relationship, the expected free trade agreement has never occurred, because the more lucrative EU market necessarily takes precedence. Obama was just telling the truth about market realities. I think that US presidents like to exert influence where they can, but at the same time, where their allies are concerned, they know they have no actual power to bring about change where it isn't wanted. thanks for your reply ripley.
i voted remain ripley , but i didnt like one little bit obamas comments and interference on brexit. I can assure you it was taken as a veiled threat by many over here. There was a lot of uproar about it.
dont agree with you ripley , and i think this is a bit of a cop out. Obama had already interfered previously regarding the demcoratic vote on brexit prior to these further comments regarding being at the back of the queue. It was often pointed out by many that his comments actually helped piss off the electorate in england so much they went out to vote for brexit to spite american interference. We discussed this many a time on various forums.
Seriously? People voted for Brexit to tick off the Americans? spying on the german chancellor , threatening the british over northern ireland . interfereing in both uk and scottish domestic politics? When russia tries to exert its influence in say africa asia or elsehwere , the americans are first to scream reds under the beds and demand zero cooperation ?
What's the actual threat over N.I.? the current usa president was a massive political supporter of ira suspects and demanded they shouldnt be extradited to the uk in the eighties. The billions americans sent across in funding , as well as arms , to help terrorists throughout the long war years casued mayhem death and destruction of both irish and uk citizens. You most definetly tried to bring change where at the time it wasnt wanted.
Sorry ripley , but the idea the united states , especially under the democrats in the modern era , is some benign friendly influence gently chivvying countires in the direction of travel they want is laughable.
It could be argued that change most definitely was wanted by some, as well as by the Irish in America, who were the source of a lot of the funding.
Even if I accept your view that the US is a bad actor in the world, what are Europe's other practical options at this point? To align with Russia or China instead?
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Sept 3, 2023 15:27:29 GMT
Seriously? People voted for Brexit to tick off the Americans? according to what i heard many people , especially in england took umbrage at the yank president obama interfereing in uk domestic politics and voted out .
its more that they have made a threat and given warnings over northern ireland than what the actualy threat is that is surely the point?
White House warns Truss over efforts to ‘undo’ Northern Ireland protocol
Biden administration says undoing the protocol would not be ‘conducive’ to a trade deal between the UK and US
The Biden administration has sent Liz Truss a message on her second day in office warning against “efforts to undo the Northern Ireland protocol”.
The warning came from the lectern in the White House briefing room, where spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre was asked about new British prime minister Truss’s first phone call with Joe Biden and whether a US-UK trade deal was discussed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 3, 2023 15:31:12 GMT
If you are talking about Syria, the US went in there to fight Isis and had the support of the UN. Sanctioning the US for fighting terrorism is not a policy that you are going to find much support for. Furthermore, Western media reports rarely consider whether the U.S. occupation is legal, even though their presence is opposed by the Syrian government and not authorized by the U.N.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Sept 3, 2023 15:43:05 GMT
thanks for your reply ripley.
It could be argued that change most definitely was wanted by some, as well as by the Irish in America, who were the source of a lot of the funding.
Even if I accept your view that the US is a bad actor in the world, what are Europe's other practical options at this point? To align with Russia or China instead?
dont agree. I have been very vocal in my condemnation of northern ireland all my life , but nationalists were a minority in the years of the long war which ended in the late nineties , and it can be argued unionism only lost their political majority in 2017.
You cant have democracy by bomb and gun and foreign interference. That is exactly putins argument regarding ukrainian regions like the donbass and crimea. minorities dont call the shots in a civilsed democracy , and they certainly arent justified killing their way to victory with american help.
thats a false dichotomy. Why do we europeans have to align with either of the three?
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Sept 3, 2023 15:49:11 GMT
Furthermore, Western media reports rarely consider whether the U.S. occupation is legal, even though their presence is opposed by the Syrian government and not authorized by the U.N.
the united nations hasnt sanctioned the american occupation of syria which is ilegal.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Sept 3, 2023 15:54:20 GMT
US bombs Syria in defense of its illegal occupation
it was only earlier this year the yanks were denying any presence on the ground in syria , never mind justifying illegal bases and an illegal occupation of part of syria.
Damascus,SANA – Syria strongly condemned the illegal visit of the US military official to an illegal US military base in the northeastern Syria, calling the visit a flagrant violation of the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Sept 3, 2023 16:12:39 GMT
according to what i heard many people , especially in england took umbrage at the yank president obama interfereing in uk domestic politics and voted out .
If true, the phrase 'cutting off their nose to spite their face' comes to mind.
its more that they have made a threat and given warnings over northern ireland than what the actualy threat is that is surely the point?
White House warns Truss over efforts to ‘undo’ Northern Ireland protocol
Biden administration says undoing the protocol would not be ‘conducive’ to a trade deal between the UK and US
The Biden administration has sent Liz Truss a message on her second day in office warning against “efforts to undo the Northern Ireland protocol”.
The warning came from the lectern in the White House briefing room, where spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre was asked about new British prime minister Truss’s first phone call with Joe Biden and whether a US-UK trade deal was discussed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Sept 3, 2023 16:21:29 GMT
dont agree. I have been very vocal in my condemnation of northern ireland all my life , but nationalists were a minority in the years of the long war which ended in the late nineties , and it can be argued unionism only lost their political majority in 2017.
You cant have democracy by bomb and gun and foreign interference. That is exactly putins argument regarding ukrainian regions like the donbass and crimea. minorities dont call the shots in a civilsed democracy , and they certainly arent justified killing their way to victory with american help.
thats a false dichotomy. Why do we europeans have to align with either of the three?
You don't have to align with any of the three. Britain could cut ties with the US any time it wants, but that would be insanely impractical given that currently, Britain has a nuclear stockpile of 260 warheads, which is no match for Russia's 5889. (Europe is much better off, but still at risk from Russian aggression). It's absolutely in Britain's best interest to maintain ties with the US. Who do you think foots the lion's share of the NATO bills? It's not the country most at risk from Russian aggression. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 3, 2023 16:58:28 GMT
I think Thomas was talking about Europe, rather than the UK on its own.
My view is Europe got a bit of 'free-ride'in that many European countries were relieved of having to shoulder the full cost of their own defence and so, they could concentrate on social programs and similar. As the saying goes, there is no such thing as a free ride/lunch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 3, 2023 18:34:01 GMT
Peering through the other end of the telescope it could be said that the military-industrial complex, which consumes over 20% of federal budget, was very happy that the cost of social welfare programmes was passed onto the states.
That way the federal government could focus its efforts on military expenditure and delegate to the states the full cost of social programs and similar. As we are all aware, the performance of individual states is extremely variable in that respect.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Sept 4, 2023 1:30:04 GMT
I only sneer at fake news and the sad people that post it. you...the guy who ran around the old forum for years spreading fake news russian conspiracy theories about brexit , on how the russians had brainwashed alf garnett and his mates in england into voting brexit , as well as cheering on fake news journalists like carolle cadwalladr .....now trying to restyle yourself as a champion of truth and light?
What a pile of made up BS. You so need to get back on your trolley |
|
|
|
Post by Tinculin on Sept 4, 2023 10:30:51 GMT
I'll reply to your post later, but right now Thomas, I'm going to say reading through this thread I'm very disappointed at the number of times you are lashing out at other posters. For someone who claims at least im trying to have a debate sheepwash, which is after all what a forum is all about ...conflicting views To then make posts like these, is not acceptable: - billy no mates trying to be relevant in yet anbother thread with his limp wristed attempts at a put down. The adults are talking steve . Run along now dear. - is this you projecting supposed tantrums onto forum members once again to make puerile points? - thank god we have you here steve to keep us all informed and on the straight and narrow. I dont think i have ever come across a more pointless forum member than you in my time posting on interwebby forums - I wouldn't bother, Steve is so out of his depth it is rather laughable, not the sharpest cookie in the jar. Read Rule 3 here: ukpoliticsdebate.boards.net/thread/30/forum-rules-readIf personal attacks are what you consider 'debate', I'd rather you not post here at all. Moving forward, make of that what you will. |
|
|
|
Post by Tinculin on Sept 4, 2023 10:59:57 GMT
You accused me (and others), of:
This is clearly a strawman position because numerous times I have repeatedly stated my position to be the opposite and that I hold the position that it's not acceptable for anyone to break the UN Charter and invited them to create a post to discuss US hypocrisy and it's questionable foreign policy stances.
To disregard the UN Charter when it suits, undermines it, and, as the most powerful nations on Earth militarily, the US, Russia, China, UK & France, have a moral obligation to see it is upheld.
When any of these nations (and of course, all others), disregard the UN Charter, then they are bringing everyone closer to conflict.
Territorial sovereignty is a principle that is recognised by all members of the United Nations, therefore, it's not acceptable for any nation to instigate regime change within a nation off its own back - which Russia and the USA both are guilty of.
There clearly are going to be times in history when regime change needs to come from outside, let's say for instance, a government begins to enact a genocide against it's own people. However, in such times, the decision for outside involvement needs to come from the UNSC.
I also understand the problem the UNSC has, with its "veto" votes and I'd also argue that the UNSC needs reform to replace the "veto" with some other form of rules, because when you have permanent members who are in disagreement, then very quickly the UNSC becomes impotent, which leads to members like the US / Russia etc, to just do what they want anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Sept 6, 2023 6:53:21 GMT
You accused me (and others), of: This is clearly a strawman position because numerous times I have repeatedly stated my position to be the opposite and that I hold the position that it's not acceptable for anyone to break the UN Charter and invited them to create a post to discuss US hypocrisy and it's questionable foreign policy stances. To disregard the UN Charter when it suits, undermines it, and, as the most powerful nations on Earth militarily, the US, Russia, China, UK & France, have a moral obligation to see it is upheld. When any of these nations (and of course, all others), disregard the UN Charter, then they are bringing everyone closer to conflict. Territorial sovereignty is a principle that is recognised by all members of the United Nations, therefore, it's not acceptable for any nation to instigate regime change within a nation off its own back - which Russia and the USA both are guilty of. There clearly are going to be times in history when regime change needs to come from outside, let's say for instance, a government begins to enact a genocide against it's own people. However, in such times, the decision for outside involvement needs to come from the UNSC. I also understand the problem the UNSC has, with its "veto" votes and I'd also argue that the UNSC needs reform to replace the "veto" with some other form of rules, because when you have permanent members who are in disagreement, then very quickly the UNSC becomes impotent, which leads to members like the US / Russia etc, to just do what they want anyway. I stand by eveything i have said.
What you have done continuously on ukraine threads , is to attempt to clear the field of debate , place two simplistic parties in opposition to each other ukraine (good guys) russia ( bad guys) and refuse to acknowledge the wider implications players and nuance of the war. This is done deliberately so you can stack each ukraine thread in favour of ukrainian virtue signalling , where the thread essentially becomes nothing more than some partisan russophobic rant often degenerating down to low watt lightbulb comments like "kill the invader" or kill putin dictator".
It cannot be strawman to bring the united states into a ukraine war discussion. ?The united states is the biggest player , and interlocutor , on the ukraine side. Its arguable without the obama democrat regimes interference in ukraine , the war perhaps may never have began , but even without that, the united states has supplied $71 billion in military , humanitarian and financial aid since the beginning of 2022. Not to mention some $46 billion since 2014.
Its arguable that ukraine could not have stood against the russian federation without the united states assistance , and as we see across europe , many countires like GErmany have been "forced" by reports somewhat reluctantly to also supply aid as well.
So it is a nonsense to say any mention of the united states is a strawman. You do indeed briefly when dragged kicking and screaming , say the usa behaviour is at times unacceptable , before lurching back to your strawman position of any mention of them.
This isnt debating. Its an attempt to shut down debate to stack the argument in favour of ukraine , in some simplistic fairytale of good versus evil when the war itself is vastly overcomplicated and far far more nuanced.
...but the reality is they dont. The united nations is basically a toothless organisation that the major powers use to further their agendas when it suits , and ignores when it suits. Thats why in reality it is a nonsense to hold russia or even china to account under these toothless rules when the yanks and others violate those selfsame rules on a daily basis. Using loosely and selectively applied rules against russia which the USA and its puppets rarely abide by is a strawman argument in itself.
aye. Thats my position whcih i have said numerous times. The behaviour of the american demcorats is bringing the world into a new cold war , and closer to military conflict on a nuclear scale. That is why on ukraine , there can be no military solution , and eventually , however much you dont want to discuss the wider implications and the nuance of the debate , eventually negotiations will resume to end the conflict.
so why bring it up? Many nations including the uk are guilty of ignoring territorial sovereignty. To me , it seems you are merely throwing in a moot point .Russia is doing no differnt to many others.
eh? you are all over the palce. You demand territorial sovereignty is respected ,then say regime change sometimes has to come from outside. Thats not respecting territorial sovereiengty , and the rights of nations to elect or implement people and governments others dont agree with .
did i miss the point in history where the usa and its puppets were elected by the worlds majority as the policeman judge and jury of the planet or soemthing?
how many times has that happened over the last 75 years?
its become a joke .You not only have the problem of permanent members arguing and in almost permanent disagreement , you also have the fallacy of France and britian , two small and insignificant regional powers who once had vast empires being permanent members. The world has moved on , but these relics from the past are still given power at the security council not because they are regarded as world superpowers , but merely to prop up american arguments.
That how pathetic the security council has become.
|
|
