Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The betting edges a notch away from Trump completing his first

124»

Comments

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited April 2018

    State-sponsored Russian hackers are actively seeking to hijack essential internet hardware, US and UK intelligence agencies say.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43788338

    It's a pretty safe bet that the Pentagon and GCHQ are also building capability in this area (they'd be negligent not to). That in turn leads to the questions what that capability in practice is, and how do they practise in the wild? And, indeed, what are they doing now?
    They've targeted Iran and North Korea before.

    Otherwise I assume it is wargamed.
    Its a good job the Israelis are on our side...they are among the best of the best when it comes to this stuff via Unit 8200. Both offense and defense.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    justin124 said:

    kle4 said:

    justin124 said:

    Whilst I share the revulsion at the Syrian atrocities and the apparent complicity of Putin's despotic Russian regime, I do have difficulty in accepting that the effective impotence of the UN bestows an a priori authority on the US, UK and France to act as self-appointed international policemen when it suits them.These states had no more authority to intervene in this way than any of the Scandinavian countries or Spain, Portugal & Turkey.There is the potential for a dangerous precedent being set here - to be used in the future by other states with more malign intent.

    I'm not in favour of strikes as I don't see what it will achieve (though I hope to be proven wrong in that), but I hardly think what is going on here is so unique as to be setting a precedent. Nations act as it suits them all the time, if they can get away with it, I cannot see that we are setting something here.
    But the hypocrisy of it all is so striking - and deprives those states which embark on such action of moral authority. Whilst International Lawyers hold different opinions on these issues, it is not unreasonable for some to argue that Assad's breach of an international agreement has been followed by the US, Britain and France doing likewise by breaking the UN Charter.Many will seize on that to say such states are little better than Russia et al in that they ignore the rule of law when it suits them.
    I don't think anyone comes out of these things with unimpeachable moral authority, to be sure, but while it will open to claim that we must be just as bad as them, I think it is more complicated. Certainly, while I have misgivings here, hand wringing about trying to retain moral authority when the UNSC route is so often completely untenable, is not much useful.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    Whilst I share the revulsion at the Syrian atrocities and the apparent complicity of Putin's despotic Russian regime, I do have difficulty in accepting that the effective impotence of the UN bestows an a priori authority on the US, UK and France to act as self-appointed international policemen when it suits them.These states had no more authority to intervene in this way than any of the Scandinavian countries or Spain, Portugal & Turkey.There is the potential for a dangerous precedent being set here - to be used in the future by other states with more malign intent.

    Rowan Williams made much the same point over Iraq, which is where the precedent dates from.

    The real story surrounding your point however is that the UN Security Council isn't fit for purpose. It would be far, far more effective as an organisation if there were a mechanism for overriding a permanent member's veto - say a two thirds majority of the full assembly.
    I don't disagree with that at all - but where is there any sign of the Permanent Security Members agreeing to such a mechanism being developed? Should we contemplate winding up the United Nations as not fit for purpose in the same way that the League of Nations was disbanded following World War 2? Perhaps we could then start afresh!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    The cyberwar between the west and Russia has escalated after the UK and the US issued a joint alert accusing Moscow of mounting a “malicious” internet offensive that appeared to be aimed at espionage, stealing intellectual property and laying the foundation for an attack on infrastructure.

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/16/us-and-uk-blame-russia-for-malicious-cyber-offensive

    And Jezza will say he isn't believe it until he gets absolute proof....which must involve video of Putin personally operating the PC involved in the hacking.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768
    edited April 2018
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    Whilst I share the revulsion at the Syrian atrocities and the apparent complicity of Putin's despotic Russian regime, I do have difficulty in accepting that the effective impotence of the UN bestows an a priori authority on the US, UK and France to act as self-appointed international policemen when it suits them.These states had no more authority to intervene in this way than any of the Scandinavian countries or Spain, Portugal & Turkey.There is the potential for a dangerous precedent being set here - to be used in the future by other states with more malign intent.

    Rowan Williams made much the same point over Iraq, which is where the precedent dates from.

    The real story surrounding your point however is that the UN Security Council isn't fit for purpose. It would be far, far more effective as an organisation if there were a mechanism for overriding a permanent member's veto - say a two thirds majority of the full assembly.
    I thought there was such a mechanism? Although clearly it is a high barrier.

    And of course removing the veto altogether would require us to give up ours, so we aren't going to be the ones to propose that.
    No. There is a mechanism (Resolution 377a) for overriding them on procedural matters - that is, to put down a motion condemning something or someone - but no way of overriding a veto on a resolution that requires positive action, as would be required in this case for investigation and/or punitive action.

    There is logic to having the five members with veto power. We are the world's five largest military powers, the world's largest arms traders and between us cover a large chunk if not perhaps the majority of the world's GDP. We therefore hold the de facto whip hand on these matters anyway. However, is it right that we hold the rest of the world to ransom using that muscle for our own convenience?I would say no.

    The override mechanism should be extended to cover substantive motions too.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    Crickey...

    A former police detective has told the court hearing into Sir Cliff Richard’s damages case against the BBC that he had feared an investigation into the singer would be compromised by a report from one of the corporation’s journalists.

    Matthew Fenwick, who was a detective superintendent with South Yorkshire police, said it had been clear the BBC reporter Dan Johnson knew the force was investigating an allegation of child sexual abuse against Richard, because he described the singer as a “celebrity paedo” during a meeting in July 2014.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/16/cliff-richard-damages-case-high-court-bbc-reporter

  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387

    State-sponsored Russian hackers are actively seeking to hijack essential internet hardware, US and UK intelligence agencies say.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43788338

    It's a pretty safe bet that the Pentagon and GCHQ are also building capability in this area (they'd be negligent not to). That in turn leads to the questions what that capability in practice is, and how do they practise in the wild? And, indeed, what are they doing now?
    They've targeted Iran and North Korea before.

    Otherwise I assume it is wargamed.
    Its a good job the Israelis are on our side...they are among the best of the best when it comes to this stuff via Unit 8200. Both offense and defense.
    Clearly the Israelis are good. The question is what the other western powers could do, if they wanted to. I do wonder how much of it is the Coventry problem.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited April 2018
    I see that the CND is suffering from extreme mission creep.

    Inasmuch as they might be expected to have an opinion on something which has got precisely zero to do with nuclear disarmament, you'd have thought they'd be rather keen on measures to deter the development and use of other very nasty weapons. But no, they want Assad to be given a free hand.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    DavidL said:

    justin124 said:

    Whilst I share the revulsion at the Syrian atrocities and the apparent complicity of Putin's despotic Russian regime, I do have difficulty in accepting that the effective impotence of the UN bestows an a priori authority on the US, UK and France to act as self-appointed international policemen when it suits them.These states had no more authority to intervene in this way than any of the Scandinavian countries or Spain, Portugal & Turkey.There is the potential for a dangerous precedent being set here - to be used in the future by other states with more malign intent.

    I’m afraid that just recognises the reality, that international law is a chocolate fire guard which protects no one. Major powers will act in their interests as they perceive them. Pretending otherwise is childish and leaves others in control of the field.

    The idea that these other countries need a precedent is naive.
    But the tyrants of the recent past - such as Hitler - could defend their acts of aggression on the basis of their national interests. If the international organisations established to prevent a repetition of such action are now judged to be largely impotent , what is the point of them?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768

    Crickey...

    A former police detective has told the court hearing into Sir Cliff Richard’s damages case against the BBC that he had feared an investigation into the singer would be compromised by a report from one of the corporation’s journalists.

    Matthew Fenwick, who was a detective superintendent with South Yorkshire police, said it had been clear the BBC reporter Dan Johnson knew the force was investigating an allegation of child sexual abuse against Richard, because he described the singer as a “celebrity paedo” during a meeting in July 2014.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/16/cliff-richard-damages-case-high-court-bbc-reporter

    Unless the BBC's lawyer is an actual alchemist, they look set to be stung harder and more painfully than a man who sticks his todger in a hornet's nest.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited April 2018
    ydoethur said:

    Crickey...

    A former police detective has told the court hearing into Sir Cliff Richard’s damages case against the BBC that he had feared an investigation into the singer would be compromised by a report from one of the corporation’s journalists.

    Matthew Fenwick, who was a detective superintendent with South Yorkshire police, said it had been clear the BBC reporter Dan Johnson knew the force was investigating an allegation of child sexual abuse against Richard, because he described the singer as a “celebrity paedo” during a meeting in July 2014.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/16/cliff-richard-damages-case-high-court-bbc-reporter

    Unless the BBC's lawyer is an actual alchemist, they look set to be stung harder and more painfully than a man who sticks his todger in a hornet's nest.
    I can't get my head around the decision to go to court in the first place (win or lose). If they had apologized, paid a modest settlement, it would have all been forgotten about by the time the evening news came about.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    ydoethur said:

    Crickey...

    A former police detective has told the court hearing into Sir Cliff Richard’s damages case against the BBC that he had feared an investigation into the singer would be compromised by a report from one of the corporation’s journalists.

    Matthew Fenwick, who was a detective superintendent with South Yorkshire police, said it had been clear the BBC reporter Dan Johnson knew the force was investigating an allegation of child sexual abuse against Richard, because he described the singer as a “celebrity paedo” during a meeting in July 2014.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/16/cliff-richard-damages-case-high-court-bbc-reporter

    Unless the BBC's lawyer is an actual alchemist, they the tax payer look set to be stung harder and more painfully than a man who sticks his todger in a hornet's nest.
    Fixed that for you.
  • OMG.

    Also as the son/grandson of Doctors all I can say is Harold Shipman.

    You really need to watch the video of this woman.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/985941991203790848
  • So now what for the pb stance on this?

    https://news.sky.com/story/poll-nearly-half-of-britons-support-uk-taking-part-in-airstrikes-11333862

    Corbyn also getting flayed alive by his own backbenchers.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited April 2018

    OMG.

    Also as the son/grandson of Doctors all I can say is Harold Shipman.

    You really need to watch the video of this woman.

    twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/985941991203790848

    That will be one of the 14%....he is a nice man, a very nice man...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cypq7HOfZ0E
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    OMG.

    Also as the son/grandson of Doctors all I can say is Harold Shipman.

    You really need to watch the video of this woman.

    twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/985941991203790848

    She looks crazed.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    RobD said:

    OMG.

    Also as the son/grandson of Doctors all I can say is Harold Shipman.

    You really need to watch the video of this woman.

    twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/985941991203790848

    She looks crazed.
    Whatever drugs she is on, I don't want any thanks.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,776

    ydoethur said:

    Crickey...

    A former police detective has told the court hearing into Sir Cliff Richard’s damages case against the BBC that he had feared an investigation into the singer would be compromised by a report from one of the corporation’s journalists.

    Matthew Fenwick, who was a detective superintendent with South Yorkshire police, said it had been clear the BBC reporter Dan Johnson knew the force was investigating an allegation of child sexual abuse against Richard, because he described the singer as a “celebrity paedo” during a meeting in July 2014.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/16/cliff-richard-damages-case-high-court-bbc-reporter

    Unless the BBC's lawyer is an actual alchemist, they look set to be stung harder and more painfully than a man who sticks his todger in a hornet's nest.
    I can't get my head around the decision to go to court in the first place (win or lose). If they had apologized, paid a modest settlement, it would have all been forgotten about by the time the evening news came about.
    Absolutely. I really cannot believe that any half competent trial lawyer has let their clients get in this position. I can only infer that some self important bureaucrat in the BBC decided this was a matter of principle.

    Clients like that are extremely trying but they sure help pay the school fees!
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 2,038

    God knows I've taken the piss out of Lammy plenty of times on here, but he was excellent asking about Windrush: https://order-order.com/2018/04/16/rudd-attacks-home-office/

    I'm very conflicted about Lammy. He can speak very eloquently and intelligently about certain topics, and obviously cares deeply about others. And then he says stuff that makes me thing "whaaaaat the f****k?"
    Here's another point in favour of Lammy.

    Lammy went to the trouble of finding out about the huge Oxbridge bias against, amongst other things, Welsh students.

    In 2016, Cambridge accepted just 57 Welsh students. There are schools in London that -- alone -- sent more to Oxbridge than this.

    The only reason data like this -- the overwhelming Oxbridge bias to London, the South and the East -- is more widely known is because of David Lammy.

    Labour have tonnes of vacuous, space-wasting Welsh MPs.

    None of them have ever managed to raise this issue, which has persisted for decades. It was left to David Lammy to make the running.

    I've got a lot of time for David Lammy.
    Thanks for that info - I hadn't heard of it.
    Thanks also. What an extraordinary fact. I wasn't aware of it either.

    Wales is now a very poor region, on a par with Cornwall and also with parts of eastern Europe. Probably students and schools both have low expectations too. If students don't apply to the top institutions, I don't blame Oxbridge, UCL, Imperial or Kings College (five of the best) for being unable to consider their application.
    Are you saying that the Labour run administration perhaps isn't doing a great job in terms of education, health, business investment...
    Not really. I don't think Cornwall's been Labour-run.

    I'm just going on the stats. for EU regions. London, Surrey, Berks, Oxon and Bucks seem to be the main only UK region comparing well with the wealthiest areas of Europe.

    There's been a very long-term all-party failure to govern the UK so that it pays its way in the world. Instead, it has a permanent current account deficit. The only 'industry' that partly bails out other regions is money shuffling.
  • So I've been in a meeting for the last 5 hours (thank you Brexit), have I missed much?
  • RobD said:

    OMG.

    Also as the son/grandson of Doctors all I can say is Harold Shipman.

    You really need to watch the video of this woman.

    twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/985941991203790848

    She looks crazed.
    That's what happens when you eat too much pineapple on pizza and listen to Radiohead.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited April 2018
    I was watching an old podcast with spoken word artist David Meads the other day and he was suggesting that in order to vote you should have to take a test in order to prove your knowledge of the issues and that you weren't absolutely bonkers.

    The "he's a very nice man" lady is rather strong evidence why this idea isn't without merit.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,776
    RobD said:

    OMG.

    Also as the son/grandson of Doctors all I can say is Harold Shipman.

    You really need to watch the video of this woman.

    twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/985941991203790848

    She looks crazed.
    400k dead Syrians since 2011.

    @MalcolmG used to use the phrase that there was a village missing its idiot but what sort of village would you wish her on?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768
    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    Whilst I share the revulsion at the Syrian atrocities and the apparent complicity of Putin's despotic Russian regime, I do have difficulty in accepting that the effective impotence of the UN bestows an a priori authority on the US, UK and France to act as self-appointed international policemen when it suits them.These states had no more authority to intervene in this way than any of the Scandinavian countries or Spain, Portugal & Turkey.There is the potential for a dangerous precedent being set here - to be used in the future by other states with more malign intent.

    Rowan Williams made much the same point over Iraq, which is where the precedent dates from.

    The real story surrounding your point however is that the UN Security Council isn't fit for purpose. It would be far, far more effective as an organisation if there were a mechanism for overriding a permanent member's veto - say a two thirds majority of the full assembly.
    I don't disagree with that at all - but where is there any sign of the Permanent Security Members agreeing to such a mechanism being developed? Should we contemplate winding up the United Nations as not fit for purpose in the same way that the League of Nations was disbanded following World War 2? Perhaps we could then start afresh!
    Strangely they're not keen at all. I can't think why.

    The League didn't die in 1947 following World War 2 remember -that was only when it was actually wind up. It died in the mid-1930s over first Manchuria and then Abyssinia, when it was proved to be more impotent than a eunuch. Its most remarkable expression of this was surely when during a session in September 1939 the only reference by any official of the league to the German invasion of Poland is in the private diary of the Deputy Secretary General. It somehow eluded all official debates.

    I wonder if the UN will go the same way. Hopefully if it does it will not do so quite so catastrophically.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    State-sponsored Russian hackers are actively seeking to hijack essential internet hardware, US and UK intelligence agencies say.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43788338

    It's a pretty safe bet that the Pentagon and GCHQ are also building capability in this area (they'd be negligent not to). That in turn leads to the questions what that capability in practice is, and how do they practise in the wild? And, indeed, what are they doing now?
    They've targeted Iran and North Korea before.

    Otherwise I assume it is wargamed.
    Its a good job the Israelis are on our side...they are among the best of the best when it comes to this stuff via Unit 8200. Both offense and defense.
    Clearly the Israelis are good. The question is what the other western powers could do, if they wanted to. I do wonder how much of it is the Coventry problem.
    As a Coventry lad can you explain this problem to me ? :)
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited April 2018

    So I've been in a meeting for the last 5 hours (thank you Brexit), have I missed much?

    Jezza hinting that the chemical attack was faked....
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,776
    justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    justin124 said:

    Whilst I share the revulsion at the Syrian atrocities and the apparent complicity of Putin's despotic Russian regime, I do have difficulty in accepting that the effective impotence of the UN bestows an a priori authority on the US, UK and France to act as self-appointed international policemen when it suits them.These states had no more authority to intervene in this way than any of the Scandinavian countries or Spain, Portugal & Turkey.There is the potential for a dangerous precedent being set here - to be used in the future by other states with more malign intent.

    I’m afraid that just recognises the reality, that international law is a chocolate fire guard which protects no one. Major powers will act in their interests as they perceive them. Pretending otherwise is childish and leaves others in control of the field.

    The idea that these other countries need a precedent is naive.
    But the tyrants of the recent past - such as Hitler - could defend their acts of aggression on the basis of their national interests. If the international organisations established to prevent a repetition of such action are now judged to be largely impotent , what is the point of them?
    That, as they say, is a rather different question.

    I think the thinking was that the Permanent 5 were not only the most powerful militarily but also serious countries that would operate in a serious way. The drafters of the UN Conventions did not contemplate Russia becoming a gangster state run by a cartel of crooks. But that is where we are.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768
    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Crickey...

    A former police detective has told the court hearing into Sir Cliff Richard’s damages case against the BBC that he had feared an investigation into the singer would be compromised by a report from one of the corporation’s journalists.

    Matthew Fenwick, who was a detective superintendent with South Yorkshire police, said it had been clear the BBC reporter Dan Johnson knew the force was investigating an allegation of child sexual abuse against Richard, because he described the singer as a “celebrity paedo” during a meeting in July 2014.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/16/cliff-richard-damages-case-high-court-bbc-reporter

    Unless the BBC's lawyer is an actual alchemist, they the tax payer look set to be stung harder and more painfully than a man who sticks his todger in a hornet's nest.
    Fixed that for you.
    All taxpayers do not pay the licence fee, and there are licence fee payers who do not pay taxes.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,037

    OMG.

    Also as the son/grandson of Doctors all I can say is Harold Shipman.

    You really need to watch the video of this woman.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/985941991203790848

    Jesus Christ.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    Whilst I share the revulsion at the Syrian atrocities and the apparent complicity of Putin's despotic Russian regime, I do have difficulty in accepting that the effective impotence of the UN bestows an a priori authority on the US, UK and France to act as self-appointed international policemen when it suits them.These states had no more authority to intervene in this way than any of the Scandinavian countries or Spain, Portugal & Turkey.There is the potential for a dangerous precedent being set here - to be used in the future by other states with more malign intent.

    Rowan Williams made much the same point over Iraq, which is where the precedent dates from.

    The real story surrounding your point however is that the UN Security Council isn't fit for purpose. It would be far, far more effective as an organisation if there were a mechanism for overriding a permanent member's veto - say a two thirds majority of the full assembly.
    I don't disagree with that at all - but where is there any sign of the Permanent Security Members agreeing to such a mechanism being developed? Should we contemplate winding up the United Nations as not fit for purpose in the same way that the League of Nations was disbanded following World War 2? Perhaps we could then start afresh!
    Strangely they're not keen at all. I can't think why.

    The League didn't die in 1947 following World War 2 remember -that was only when it was actually wind up. It died in the mid-1930s over first Manchuria and then Abyssinia, when it was proved to be more impotent than a eunuch. Its most remarkable expression of this was surely when during a session in September 1939 the only reference by any official of the league to the German invasion of Poland is in the private diary of the Deputy Secretary General. It somehow eluded all official debates.

    I wonder if the UN will go the same way. Hopefully if it does it will not do so quite so catastrophically.
    Indeed - though we still had League of Nations Commissioners etc until it was formally wound up. I am a little surprised that we have not seen states - or indeed blocks of states - not withdrawing - or threatening to withdraw -from the UN over the years as happened in the 1930s re- the League of Nations. Its authority would be much weakened were 30 or 40 countries to leave.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768

    OMG.

    Also as the son/grandson of Doctors all I can say is Harold Shipman.

    You really need to watch the video of this woman.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/985941991203790848

    Also Crippen, Mengele, Ley...
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274

    OMG.

    Also as the son/grandson of Doctors all I can say is Harold Shipman.

    You really need to watch the video of this woman.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/985941991203790848

    Jesus Christ.
    I doubt she will be that keen on him, it is another JC that she will worship.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    New thread
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    OMG.

    Also as the son/grandson of Doctors all I can say is Harold Shipman.

    You really need to watch the video of this woman.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/985941991203790848

    With friends like these..
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768
    edited April 2018
    DavidL said:

    justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    justin124 said:

    Whilst I share the revulsion at the Syrian atrocities and the apparent complicity of Putin's despotic Russian regime, I do have difficulty in accepting that the effective impotence of the UN bestows an a priori authority on the US, UK and France to act as self-appointed international policemen when it suits them.These states had no more authority to intervene in this way than any of the Scandinavian countries or Spain, Portugal & Turkey.There is the potential for a dangerous precedent being set here - to be used in the future by other states with more malign intent.

    I’m afraid that just recognises the reality, that international law is a chocolate fire guard which protects no one. Major powers will act in their interests as they perceive them. Pretending otherwise is childish and leaves others in control of the field.

    The idea that these other countries need a precedent is naive.
    But the tyrants of the recent past - such as Hitler - could defend their acts of aggression on the basis of their national interests. If the international organisations established to prevent a repetition of such action are now judged to be largely impotent , what is the point of them?
    That, as they say, is a rather different question.

    I think the thinking was that the Permanent 5 were not only the most powerful militarily but also serious countries that would operate in a serious way. The drafters of the UN Conventions did not contemplate Russia becoming a gangster state run by a cartel of crooks. But that is where we are.
    Two of the five countries in question were led by Stalin and Chiang Kai-Shek. Admirable though your theory is, it is also clearly insupportable.

    They were purely and simply the most significant of the Allied military powers involved in the defeat of Germany and Japan. No other reason need be sought.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    DavidL said:

    justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    justin124 said:

    Whilst I share the revulsion at the Syrian atrocities and the apparent complicity of Putin's despotic Russian regime, I do have difficulty in accepting that the effective impotence of the UN bestows an a priori authority on the US, UK and France to act as self-appointed international policemen when it suits them.These states had no more authority to intervene in this way than any of the Scandinavian countries or Spain, Portugal & Turkey.There is the potential for a dangerous precedent being set here - to be used in the future by other states with more malign intent.

    I’m afraid that just recognises the reality, that international law is a chocolate fire guard which protects no one. Major powers will act in their interests as they perceive them. Pretending otherwise is childish and leaves others in control of the field.

    The idea that these other countries need a precedent is naive.
    But the tyrants of the recent past - such as Hitler - could defend their acts of aggression on the basis of their national interests. If the international organisations established to prevent a repetition of such action are now judged to be largely impotent , what is the point of them?
    That, as they say, is a rather different question.

    I think the thinking was that the Permanent 5 were not only the most powerful militarily but also serious countries that would operate in a serious way. The drafters of the UN Conventions did not contemplate Russia becoming a gangster state run by a cartel of crooks. But that is where we are.
    Back in 2003 many viewed the US and the UK as the gangster states - so the label can change hands over time.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    OMG.

    Also as the son/grandson of Doctors all I can say is Harold Shipman.

    You really need to watch the video of this woman.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/985941991203790848

    Jesus Christ.
    Try watching with the sound off!
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,541
    justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    justin124 said:

    Whilst I share the revulsion at the Syrian atrocities and the apparent complicity of Putin's despotic Russian regime, I do have difficulty in accepting that the effective impotence of the UN bestows an a priori authority on the US, UK and France to act as self-appointed international policemen when it suits them.These states had no more authority to intervene in this way than any of the Scandinavian countries or Spain, Portugal & Turkey.There is the potential for a dangerous precedent being set here - to be used in the future by other states with more malign intent.

    I’m afraid that just recognises the reality, that international law is a chocolate fire guard which protects no one. Major powers will act in their interests as they perceive them. Pretending otherwise is childish and leaves others in control of the field.

    The idea that these other countries need a precedent is naive.
    But the tyrants of the recent past - such as Hitler - could defend their acts of aggression on the basis of their national interests. If the international organisations established to prevent a repetition of such action are now judged to be largely impotent , what is the point of them?
    That, as they say, is a rather different question.

    I think the thinking was that the Permanent 5 were not only the most powerful militarily but also serious countries that would operate in a serious way. The drafters of the UN Conventions did not contemplate Russia becoming a gangster state run by a cartel of crooks. But that is where we are.
    Back in 2003 many viewed the US and the UK as the gangster states - so the label can change hands over time.
    Then the 'many' were being silly. Just look at what is currently going on in Russia, both internally and externally. If we were bad in 2003, then they are currently an order of magnitude worse.

    As ever, watch out for when people start clamping down on the free media (cough)Leveson(cough).
  • nunuonenunuone Posts: 1,138
    Charles said:

    OMG.

    Also as the son/grandson of Doctors all I can say is Harold Shipman.

    You really need to watch the video of this woman.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/985941991203790848

    Jesus Christ.
    Try watching with the sound off!
    Many Syrians believe this. There are two sides, and one side genuinely believes Assad is a force for good.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,037
    Charles said:

    OMG.

    Also as the son/grandson of Doctors all I can say is Harold Shipman.

    You really need to watch the video of this woman.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/985941991203790848

    Jesus Christ.
    Try watching with the sound off!
    Doesn’t get any better, does it ?!
This discussion has been closed.