Re: EU and Canadian militaries lag behind US and UK militari
I think not said:
Machjo said:
But I do believe in consistency. Until the UN approves actions against the US, we have no right to take action unless allowed to do so in full accordance with international law.
As for Bosnia, if it was in fact in violation of international law, then yes, I do oppose it. In the same manner, if a person should steal my money, I catch him, but he poses no immediate danger to me, I have no right to take the law into my own hands and bash his head in. The most I could do is make a citizen's arrest. Unless he poses an immediate threat of course, in which case I then have the right to do what I must to stay alive.
Well I have read most of your posts over the past couple of months and I admit you are consistent and appear to be fair across the board, so I tip my hat to you in that regard, that isn't common lately.
But I have a hypothetical question for you. Lets say for example, China has enough reason to believe Taiwan poses a threat to China. Asks for UN approval for a pre-emptive strike against Taiwan. The UN says, nuh uh. What do you believe China should do? Wait to be attacked or attack and save Chinese lives?
Well, I'm not sure of the laws on this one. On the one hand, I'm aware that international law does recognize Taiwan as being a part of China. But what that means exactly, in terms of the nitty gritty details of it all, I don't know. I'd assume there must be other laws which recognize Taiwan's independent administration or something of the sort, I honestly don't know and would need to look up the details on that.
So let's suppose that, according to international law, China does not need UN approval to strike Taiwan as it would be regarded as part of its territory, then I guess it would be free to do as it pleases from a strictly legal standpoint. If, on the other hand, there are laws restricting such action, and requiring the mainland to respect Taiwan's administrative independence from the mainland, then I would suppose that, if the mainland does in fact have enough reason to be concerned, then certainly it would have something to show the international community, no? Now if the UN still doesn't see enough evidence that Taiwan poses a legitimate threat to the mainland, then I would advise the mainland continue to abide within international law. It could continue searching for further evidence, or discuss the situation further with the international community. But in the end, if the UN still says no, and assuming international laws do not allow China to strike pre-emptively, then it ought to relinquish any ideas of attacking Taiwan.
If it does so anyway, then it would be in violatin of internatinal law, not to mention that it becomes less predictable to the rest of the international community.
