Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Why can't we phase out NATO and superimpose it onto the UN, the Security Council.  War crimes are war crimes, countries being unfairly attacked are countries being unfairly attacked.  Why are we picking favorites.  It seems that if all countries would be assured that we would come to their aid if they needed it, regardless who they are, it would be a beautiful thing.  Apply the same standards and criteria to everyone.  More consistency.  More accountability.  That's what we shoudl be moving toward.

Uhh, I hesitate to call you stupid.
Just look at Darfur in Sudan.
Let me just mention that Russia or China might have a different definition of war crimes.
Not to mention that each of the five basic security council member countries have their own security needs.

Simply put, this or a new security council wouldn´t intervene unless all them agreed. Being my cynical self, I just don´t see it.  

by Detlef (Detlef1961_at_yahoo_dot_de) on Sat Jul 22nd, 2006 at 04:41:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Let me just mention that Russia or China might have a different definition of war crimes.

No, I think they use the same definition: nasty acts committed by people we don't like much. They just like different people. If they're nasty acts committed by allies you call them "unfortunate necessities" or something.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Sat Jul 22nd, 2006 at 04:53:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Given that most NATO members won't act without a UNSC resolution, NATO can only act assuming China and Russia don't oppose. The US acts regardless, as do Russia and China [and France and the UK: that's what UNSC veto allows you to do]
Uhh, I hesitate to call you stupid.
Have a 2.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jul 22nd, 2006 at 04:56:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series