TreeBeard

I will go by the legal experts opinion on the definition, rather than your whacky assertions. For the purpose of Article 51, an armed attack includes not only an attack against the territory of the State, including its airspace and territorial sea, but also attacks directed against emanations of the State, such as its armed forces or embassies abroad. An armed attack may also include, in certain circumstances, attacks against private citizens abroad or civil ships and airliners. An ‘armed attack’ therefore is an intentional intervention in or against another state without that state’s consent or subsequent acquiescence, which is not legally justified. An armed attack involves the use of armed force and not mere economic damage. Economic damage, for example, by way of trade suspension, or by use of a computer virus designed to paralyse the financial operations of a state’s stock exchange or to disable the technology used to control water resources, may have a devastating impact on the victim state but the principles governing the right to use force in self-defence are confined to a military attack. A purely ‘economic’ attack might however give rise to the right of self-defence if it were the precursor to an imminent armed attack. An armed attack means any use of armed force, and does not need to cross some threshold of intensity. Any requirement that a use of force must attain a certain gravity and that frontier incidents, for example, are excluded is relevant only in so far as the minor nature of an attack is prima facie evidence of absence of intention to attack or honest mistake. https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/International Law/ilpforce.doc#:~:text=For the purpose of Article,armed forces or embassies abroad.

When he is Prime Minister with a majority government and PP is ousted as leader due to the epic meltdown of support, do you think he’ll worry about if the remaining Conservative partisans are screeching on Repolitics that he stole his ideas from PP? where did you get that I support the Liberal Party?

So how can international law experts define it in a paper? You think they’re just making it up, or do you think there is International Court of Justice precedent? Hint: there’s precedent. Read the article I linked. You’re the one who said PP meant departments are underfunded and understaffed when he said everything in Canada is broken.

So nowhere in international law is “armed attack” defined? This is another asinine assertion by yourself. Now the pigeon has shit on the board! Then why is there an entire paper written by international legal experts on this subject that goes into what specifically it means? PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ON THE USE OF FORCE BY STATES IN SELF-DEFENCE. https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/International Law/ilpforce.doc#:~:text=For the purpose of Article,armed forces or embassies abroad.

The pigeon has knocked over the pieces and is strutting about declaring victory! Article 51 doesn’t say what you said it does and an armed attack is not defined how you say it is. Please link to the legal definition of an armed attack then. I linked to one above.

No, it isn’t. Nothing the USA has done is an act of war. “Armed attack” is defined. Trump saying things does not raise to that level, like you claimed it does.

This is like playing chess with a pigeon You knock over pieces, shit on the board and strut around like you won the game. Article 51 doesn’t say what you said and an “armed attack” is defined as use of force, while you claim just merely uttering that Canada shouldn’t be sovereign is enough. Here’s a hint: it’s not. You’re wrong again. For the purpose of Article 51, an armed attack includes not only an attack against the territory of the State, including its airspace and territorial sea, but also attacks directed against emanations of the State, such as its armed forces or embassies abroad. An armed attack may also include, in certain circumstances, attacks against private citizens abroad or civil ships and airliners. An ‘armed attack’ therefore is an intentional intervention in or against another state without that state’s consent or subsequent acquiescence, which is not legally justified. An armed attack involves the use of armed force and not mere economic damage. https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/International Law/ilpforce.doc#:~:text=For the purpose of Article,armed forces or embassies abroad.

So there has been an armed attack against Canada by America?

You quote one section of the UN Charter to justify taking territory but another article explicitly states that territorial disputes (which is your example) must not be settled through use of force. Why do we need to if it is against international law to annex another country in the first place? Your assertion that a country loses its sovereignty if they can’t defend itself is asinine.

Where does Article 51 say that a nation loses its sovereign territory if it can’t defend itself? I’m thinking you’re just not equipped with the intelligence to interpret or understand these things. You really do believe them though. Apologies that I thought you might be lying. It’s clearly ignorance.

I’m not sure if you’re dishonest or just really stupid….? “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.” Where does it state that if you can’t defend yourself then your sovereignty doesn’t mean anything? Article 51 gives nations the right to defend themselves in case of attack. It doesn’t say you lose your sovereignty if you can’t defend yourself.

Where is this codified?

You think it’s legitimate for more powerful nations to invade weaker ones? So it was legitimate for Hitler to invade France? That’s quite the worldview. Immoral, and not sustainable.

You think it’s legitimate to remove the sovereignty of another Canada because of what certain media report Trudeau says?

Conservative governments don’t do this?

Poilievre is running on increased government funding and hiring more government workers? 🤪 Ummmm…. he’s gone. 😂

He stole it to take away every PP talking point, and to make this about his Trump-like rhetoric and not actual platforms. Thats good politics. Bad policy, in my opinion, but probably good politics. You should be praising him for his good policy, but it’s not really about policy with you partisans. How is that rhetoric working for the Cons? Is it giving them the rebound they need? 😂

Where is policy mentioned? “Everything in Canada is broken” is not a useful policy critique.

Thanks!!

What do you think will get us there?

They will cut waste. Isn’t that what Conservatives want to hear? Why don’t you want Canadians to have dental care?

It was Trudeau's unpopularity working for PP, not his platform. That’s the obvious thing. People were waiting for someone else to vote for, and they jumped on the first viable option.

The only ones who wonder about things like this are…. racists.

No. People who hate Trudeau hate him for being “woke”. Beyond that, the Libs and Cons aren’t very different.

Trump wants to sell his allies jets that are “dumbed down”. https://calgaryherald.com/news/braid-trump-wants-to-sell-us-fighter-jets-that-cant-fight-no-thank-you