The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


International Law

Everything related to politics in Cyprus and the rest of the world.

Re: International Law

Postby Londonrake » Mon Mar 13, 2023 6:17 pm

I don’t have time to research right now but - how do you define a war? And, clearly, you’re talking about Communist China.

The Chinese annexed another nation - Tibet - back in the 50s. They fought in the Korean War and - IIRC - invaded Vietnam at one point. They’ve had serious, and in some cases ongoing, clashes with India and - wait for it - Russia. Plus many others. Taiwan has never been ruled by China but has existed as a nation since before I was born.

I posted in the Ukraine thread - but it’s moved on a few volumes since. :lol:
Londonrake
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 5788
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2015 6:19 pm
Location: ROC

Re: International Law

Postby Lordo » Mon Mar 13, 2023 6:28 pm

Robin Hood wrote:Believe it or not there is no such thing as ‘International’ Law!

People assume that a Nation is ruled by a higher authority, just we as residents of a Nation are. In other words WE do as we are told to do according to rules (Laws) imposed on us ....... our consent is not required, we have no choice in the matter.

International Law is applied by agreement!

.......... a body of rules established by custom or treaty and recognized by nations as binding in their relations with one another.

This is how the US can refuse to recognise the authority of the ICC but will use it to punish others, because they have unilaterally declared themselves The Exceptional Nation. Only those ‘Laws’ the US agrees with are valid and only then if it suits the US. The idea of a Rules based society applies only to the rules the US signs up to ...... until it no longer suits them to do so and then they cancel any agreements they no longer want or agree with.

This is why the US (and their Allies) recognises Taiwan’s claims to be an independent Nation and reject the idea it is part of China, but when it comes to Donbas declaring they do not want to be part of Ukraine ...... the US concept of International Law changes.

When the US declares we need a ‘rules based Global society’ they are referring to THER rules.

No wonder we have wars! :roll:

Did you know that since the creation of the PRC, China has never been at war? On the other hand, since the US declaration of Independence it has only had five (?) years where it has NOT been at war, and most of them have been fought on lands belonging to others, simply to impose US 'International' Law on those that disagree with the US version! :o

Yep to impose American economic and military Interests.

But the original comment was the fact that I mentioned Britain under the Swine government is about to break the ECHR which they have signed up and are one of the original members.
User avatar
Lordo
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 21531
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:13 pm
Location: From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. Walk on Swine walk on

Re: International Law

Postby Pyrpolizer » Mon Mar 13, 2023 11:04 pm

Londonrake wrote:
Pyrpolizer wrote:
Londonrake wrote::lol: :lol: :lol:

Can always tell when it’s “back of the net”. You feel compelled to raise a thread on the matter (it’s called digging a bigger hole). Just like the 2019 UK election debacle. You know, when you disappeared for a year. Until the months of dust you’d kicked up before it settled. One of your first efforts after you quietly slipped back on the forum late one night was to raise a thread on it. :lol:

It’s simple really. You can’t lecture piously about International Law, in relation to the UK migrant issue, whilst glibly cheering the Russians on in Ukraine - and retain credibility. :wink:

All of your Whataboutism doesn’t cloud the hypocrisy involved.


Here we go again. All about persona analysis...
And your comment on the issue ISSSSS??????


My comments are valid. International Law it seems is a subjective thing, in some cases (Russia’s intervention in Syria, here UK migration policy) it’s sacrosanct. In others - Ukraine, China’s actions in the South China Sea, US activities - not so. Depending apparently upon a person’s POV.

If Lordo wants to broadcast his, often erroneous, views without my commenting I invite him to cut out the racism. Which to him also seems to be a subjective matter.

It’s been going on for 20 months and had he been talking about Cyprus as Swineland and the Cypriot people as Swine for that long I’m sure you’d feel pretty much the same.


I actually warned Lordo that Cyprus is worse of a Sineland than the UK, so I wouldn't mind. But if you can't stand what he says, I can understand it.

The point is you have this passion of diverting every topic out of the issue, concentrating on who the person is, what he said before, how bad of a character is, how much of a hypocrite he is and all that stuff.
User avatar
Pyrpolizer
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 12892
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 11:33 pm

Re: International Law

Postby Lordo » Mon Mar 13, 2023 11:16 pm

Pyrpolizer wrote:
Londonrake wrote:
Pyrpolizer wrote:
Londonrake wrote::lol: :lol: :lol:

Can always tell when it’s “back of the net”. You feel compelled to raise a thread on the matter (it’s called digging a bigger hole). Just like the 2019 UK election debacle. You know, when you disappeared for a year. Until the months of dust you’d kicked up before it settled. One of your first efforts after you quietly slipped back on the forum late one night was to raise a thread on it. :lol:

It’s simple really. You can’t lecture piously about International Law, in relation to the UK migrant issue, whilst glibly cheering the Russians on in Ukraine - and retain credibility. :wink:

All of your Whataboutism doesn’t cloud the hypocrisy involved.


Here we go again. All about persona analysis...
And your comment on the issue ISSSSS??????


My comments are valid. International Law it seems is a subjective thing, in some cases (Russia’s intervention in Syria, here UK migration policy) it’s sacrosanct. In others - Ukraine, China’s actions in the South China Sea, US activities - not so. Depending apparently upon a person’s POV.

If Lordo wants to broadcast his, often erroneous, views without my commenting I invite him to cut out the racism. Which to him also seems to be a subjective matter.

It’s been going on for 20 months and had he been talking about Cyprus as Swineland and the Cypriot people as Swine for that long I’m sure you’d feel pretty much the same.


I actually warned Lordo that Cyprus is worse of a Sineland than the UK, so I wouldn't mind. But if you can't stand what he says, I can understand it.

The point is you have this passion of diverting every topic out of the issue, concentrating on who the person is, what he said before, how bad of a character is, how much of a hypocrite he is and all that stuff.

As it can be seen though, he is not having any effect. He is an amateur in these things. He has no character or personality to speak of and he is an old boring fart that does not even smell.

I am under no illusion what life in Cyprus is like. The appeal is not just the fact that it is Cyprus. The appeal is to return to the very soil and even very room where you were born and make a difference there to the people who live there.

Sit in the kavene with some of your primary school friends an play chess and tavla and snooker. Have Kleftigo too.

Now that is the life.

What the pezzevengies do elsewhere has nothnong to do with it.
User avatar
Lordo
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 21531
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:13 pm
Location: From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. Walk on Swine walk on

Re: International Law

Postby Lordo » Mon Mar 13, 2023 11:58 pm

Anywaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaays
Back to the subject in hand

President John F. Kennedy meeting with Cheddi Jagan in October 1961. The trip was a political disaster for Jagan, who failed to sooth the suspicions of Kennedy and Congress by equivocating on Cold War issues.

At the end of the Eisenhower administration, a campaign was initiated to deny Cheddi Jagan power in an independent Guyana. This campaign was intensified and became something of an obsession of John F. Kennedy, because he feared a "second Cuba". By the time Kennedy took office, the United Kingdom was ready to decolonize British Guiana and did not fear Jagan's political leanings, yet chose to cooperate in the plot for the sake of good relations with the United States.

The CIA cooperated with AFL–CIO, most notably in organizing an 80-day general strike in 1963, backing it up with a strike fund estimated to be over $1 million. The Kennedy Administration put pressure on Harold Macmillan's government to help in its effort, ultimately attaining a promise on July 18, 1963, that Macmillan's government would unseat Jagan.

This was achieved through a plan developed by Duncan Sandys whereby Sandys, after feigning impartiality in a Guyanese dispute, would decide in favor of Forbes Burnham and Peter D'Aguiar, calling for new elections based on proportional representation before independence would be considered, under which Jagan's opposition would have better chances to win.

The plan succeeded, and the Burnham-D'Aguiar coalition took power soon after winning the election on December 7, 1964. The Johnson administration later helped Burnham fix the fraudulent election of 1968—the first election after decolonization in 1966. To guarantee Burnham's victory, Johnson also approved a well-timed Food for Peace loan, announced some weeks before the election so as to influence the election but not to appear to be doing so.

U.S.–Guyanese relations cooled in the Nixon administration. Henry Kissinger, in his memoirs, dismissed Guyana as being "invariably on the side of radicals in Third World forums."
User avatar
Lordo
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 21531
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:13 pm
Location: From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. Walk on Swine walk on

Re: International Law

Postby Robin Hood » Tue Mar 14, 2023 8:34 am

Londonrake wrote:I don’t have time to research right now but - how do you define a war? And, clearly, you’re talking about Communist China.

The Chinese annexed another nation - Tibet - back in the 50s. They fought in the Korean War and - IIRC - invaded Vietnam at one point. They’ve had serious, and in some cases ongoing, clashes with India and - wait for it - Russia. Plus many others. Taiwan has never been ruled by China but has existed as a nation since before I was born.

I posted in the Ukraine thread - but it’s moved on a few volumes since. :lol:


"........how do you define a war?"

It's a bit like asking how do you define 'international law? You can't ....... using just factual references .... so it comes down to opinion!

I see the war in Ukraine as Russia defines it .....a Special Military Operation to deter aggression against Donbas by the Kyiv regime because they have made the choice they do not want to be part of Ukraine and they have to be made to understand Donbas is owned by Kyiv.

You no doubt see it as an unprovoked war of aggression by Russia against a peaceful and democratic Ukraine just because Russia wants to expand to recreate the Soviet Empire?

So we will agree it is a war situation but............. disagree on the justification. :roll:
Robin Hood
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: Limassol

Re: International Law

Postby Pyrpolizer » Tue Mar 14, 2023 9:55 am

Lordo wrote:
Pyrpolizer wrote:
Londonrake wrote:
Pyrpolizer wrote:
Londonrake wrote::lol: :lol: :lol:

Can always tell when it’s “back of the net”. You feel compelled to raise a thread on the matter (it’s called digging a bigger hole). Just like the 2019 UK election debacle. You know, when you disappeared for a year. Until the months of dust you’d kicked up before it settled. One of your first efforts after you quietly slipped back on the forum late one night was to raise a thread on it. :lol:

It’s simple really. You can’t lecture piously about International Law, in relation to the UK migrant issue, whilst glibly cheering the Russians on in Ukraine - and retain credibility. :wink:

All of your Whataboutism doesn’t cloud the hypocrisy involved.


Here we go again. All about persona analysis...
And your comment on the issue ISSSSS??????


My comments are valid. International Law it seems is a subjective thing, in some cases (Russia’s intervention in Syria, here UK migration policy) it’s sacrosanct. In others - Ukraine, China’s actions in the South China Sea, US activities - not so. Depending apparently upon a person’s POV.

If Lordo wants to broadcast his, often erroneous, views without my commenting I invite him to cut out the racism. Which to him also seems to be a subjective matter.

It’s been going on for 20 months and had he been talking about Cyprus as Swineland and the Cypriot people as Swine for that long I’m sure you’d feel pretty much the same.


I actually warned Lordo that Cyprus is worse of a Sineland than the UK, so I wouldn't mind. But if you can't stand what he says, I can understand it.

The point is you have this passion of diverting every topic out of the issue, concentrating on who the person is, what he said before, how bad of a character is, how much of a hypocrite he is and all that stuff.

As it can be seen though, he is not having any effect. He is an amateur in these things. He has no character or personality to speak of and he is an old boring fart that does not even smell.

I am under no illusion what life in Cyprus is like. The appeal is not just the fact that it is Cyprus. The appeal is to return to the very soil and even very room where you were born and make a difference there to the people who live there.

Sit in the kavene with some of your primary school friends an play chess and tavla and snooker. Have Kleftigo too.

Now that is the life.

What the pezzevengies do elsewhere has nothnong to do with it.


There is nothing better than been among people with whom we can communicate and understand each other.

As far as LondonRocky's passion is concerned, it's OK to do some character judging from time to time to add some spice to the discussions, problem is if that's what one exclusively does , then the forum becomes a bunch of "dedikoduler"/old women gossiping about everybody in the neighborhood.
User avatar
Pyrpolizer
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 12892
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 11:33 pm

Re: International Law

Postby Londonrake » Tue Mar 14, 2023 9:59 am

Robin Hood wrote:
Londonrake wrote:I don’t have time to research right now but - how do you define a war? And, clearly, you’re talking about Communist China.

The Chinese annexed another nation - Tibet - back in the 50s. They fought in the Korean War and - IIRC - invaded Vietnam at one point. They’ve had serious, and in some cases ongoing, clashes with India and - wait for it - Russia. Plus many others. Taiwan has never been ruled by China but has existed as a nation since before I was born.

I posted in the Ukraine thread - but it’s moved on a few volumes since. :lol:


"........how do you define a war?"

It's a bit like asking how do you define 'international law? You can't ....... using just factual references .... so it comes down to opinion!

I see the war in Ukraine as Russia defines it .....a Special Military Operation to deter aggression against Donbas by the Kyiv regime because they have made the choice they do not want to be part of Ukraine and they have to be made to understand Donbas is owned by Kyiv.

You no doubt see it as an unprovoked war of aggression by Russia against a peaceful and democratic Ukraine just because Russia wants to expand to recreate the Soviet Empire?

So we will agree it is a war situation but............. disagree on the justification. :roll:


Ahh, you’ve gone off at a tangent. :D Neither my response above, nor the post (yours) it referred to mentioned Ukraine. So your “you no doubt see it as………. “ isn’t really the issue here. Whether China has ever been involved in a war is. My assertion’s they aren’t lily white and have had more than their share of conflicts of one type or another. The Chinese certainly invaded and annexed another nation - Tibet - within our lifetimes. Anyway, thus my question - how do we define war?

As far as the US is concerned, I haven’t looked it up but am sure you’re right. Perpetual conflict. Although - and you’ll certainly correct me if I’m wrong I know :wink: - whilst the US has done quite a bit of it’s own in the way of invading, I don’t think they’ve annexed a country. At least not since the original formation of the US (19th century?).

It always struck me that they’re not dissimilar to the Roman Empire in certain respects. And let’s face it, what did the Romans ever do for us? Then - again using that historical analogy - if we’ve got to have a big fish eat small fish world (that’s always been the case and ain’t going to change). Is it preferable to live in the shadow of Constantine or Ghengis Khan? :?
Londonrake
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 5788
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2015 6:19 pm
Location: ROC

Re: International Law

Postby Pyrpolizer » Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:22 am

Robin Hood wrote:
Londonrake wrote:I don’t have time to research right now but - how do you define a war? And, clearly, you’re talking about Communist China.

The Chinese annexed another nation - Tibet - back in the 50s. They fought in the Korean War and - IIRC - invaded Vietnam at one point. They’ve had serious, and in some cases ongoing, clashes with India and - wait for it - Russia. Plus many others. Taiwan has never been ruled by China but has existed as a nation since before I was born.

I posted in the Ukraine thread - but it’s moved on a few volumes since. :lol:


"........how do you define a war?"

It's a bit like asking how do you define 'international law? You can't ....... using just factual references .... so it comes down to opinion!

I see the war in Ukraine as Russia defines it .....a Special Military Operation to deter aggression against Donbas by the Kyiv regime because they have made the choice they do not want to be part of Ukraine and they have to be made to understand Donbas is owned by Kyiv.

You no doubt see it as an unprovoked war of aggression by Russia against a peaceful and democratic Ukraine just because Russia wants to expand to recreate the Soviet Empire?

So we will agree it is a war situation but............. disagree on the justification. :roll:


It's much more than that imo. Obviously the people in Donbas been the 70% majority constitute "a people" with clear right to self determination under UN charter. Similarly Crimea (95% Russians) And these are people who were deprived their basic human rights including the right of life, under the fictitious Nazi state called Ukraine.
Other than that it's also the security of Russia and the expansion of Nato eastwards (Ukraine itself has 1375 Km long borders with Russia. What makes Russia a superpower is their nuclear power, which gets nullified when someone may launch an attack at such proximity. They would only have a couple of minutes to respond which equals to no response at all.
User avatar
Pyrpolizer
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 12892
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 11:33 pm

Re: International Law

Postby Pyrpolizer » Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:44 am

Londonrake wrote: whilst the US has done quite a bit of it’s own in the way of invading, I don’t think they’ve annexed a country. At least not since the original formation of the US (19th century?).


What do you mean formation of the US?? The declaration of independence was in 1746 and ever since they annexed most of Mexico including Texas, California and many other of their current states, then Hawaii, and just recently they wanted to buy Iceland. Buy from who??
It makes no sense for the US to annex countries they invaded recently e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan etc while it makes perfect sense to steal their resources via other methods.
User avatar
Pyrpolizer
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 12892
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 11:33 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Politics and Elections

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests