After Years Of the Libs Denigrating Canadians & Our Culture, Why Would Canadians Trust Them to Protect This "post-national state"?

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Where is this codified?

United Nations Charter Article 51

if you claim sovereignty over territory, go ahead and invoke your right to defend it,

if you are not capable of defending it, that is not an invasion, that is a default

 

[TreeBeard]

2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

United Nations Charter Article 51

if you claim sovereignty over territory, go ahead and invoke your right to defend it,

if you are not capable of defending it, that is not an invasion, that is a default

 

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.

 

[Dougie93]

8 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

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.

who says it has to be an armed attack to impair your sovereignty ?

for example, Canada claims sovereignty over the Northwest Passage,

but other states, particularly America & China assert that it is international waters beyond the 12 mile limit,

so when American or Chinese vessels exercise their freedom of navigation, let Canada try to stop them

go ahead and invoke Article 51, Canada

if Canada is not willing to do so, then the claim is null & void, since nobody actually tried to stop them

 

Edited March 23 by Dougie93

[TreeBeard]

2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

so when American or Chinese vessels exercise their freedom of navigation, let Canada try to stop them

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. 

[Dougie93]

16 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Where does Article 51 say that a nation loses its sovereign territory if it can’t defend itself? 

the nation loses its sovereignty when it is not prepared to invoke Article 51,

Canada is not going to declare Article 51 against America for example,

America is literally threatening to annex Canada as we speak,

did I miss Canada declaring war by order in council therein ?

obviously not, since Canada is not actually sovereign, but rather an American vassal state,

America is openly engaging in aggression against Canada, yet Canada does not invoke Article 51

since Canada obviously can't got to war against the very state which is propping Canada up,

when you are totally reliant upon another country for your security, even if that country is hostile ;

to the threshold wherein you wouldn't dare invoke Article 51 against them,

that's how you know ; you're not sovereign

Edited March 23 by Dougie93

[TreeBeard]

5 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

the nation loses its sovereignty when it is not prepared to invoke Article 51,

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.  
 

12 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Canada is not going to declare Article 51 against America for example

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. 

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Why do we need to if it is against international law to annex another country in the first place? 

 it's only against the law if the country under threat invokes Article 51 in the face of it,

case in point, America has declared that it plans to annex Canada, makes no bones about it,

yet Canada has not invoked Article 51,

so there is no legal standing to Canada's claims to sovereignty, again, by default

 

[Dougie93]

8 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Your assertion that a country loses its sovereignty if they can’t defend itself is asinine. 

except Canada wont defend itself,

that's the difference, if the country refuses to defend itself, then there is no claim to sovereignty

[TreeBeard]

5 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

except Canada wont defend itself,

that's the difference, if the country refuses to defend itself, then there is no claim to sovereignty

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

Edited March 23 by TreeBeard

[Dougie93]

9 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

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

a foreign power declaring that it intends to annex you meets the threshold

they are heavily armed, and they openly state that they intend to attack you ;

you don't have to wait until they actually roll over your border to invoke Article 51,

not every armed attack is an invasion, in many cases it is simply a blockade,

yet a blockade is still an act of war,

or if a foreign power declares that it will use economic force to annex you, same same;  act of war

that's the dictionary definition of a blockade

Edited March 23 by Dougie93

[Michael Hardner]

19 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

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.  
 

 

https://legal.un.org/repertory/art51.shtml

 

Article 51 says that country has the right to self-defense, not that failure to defend oneself results in loss of sovereignty legally speaking.

[TreeBeard]

10 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

a foreign power declaring that it intends to annex you meets the threshold

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.

 

 

Edited March 24 by TreeBeard

[Dougie93]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

Article 51 says that country has the right to self-defense, not that failure to defend oneself results in loss of sovereignty legally speaking.

failure to invoke Article 51 in the face of acts of war by a foreign power results in loss of sovereignty by default

3 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

 

Yes, I know.  I mentioned that. 

but Canada is already faced with a foreign power openly engaging in acts of war against Canada,

yet Canada declines to invoke Article 51,

Article 51 doesn't defend you if you never invoke it

Edited March 24 by Dougie93

[TreeBeard]

2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

but Canada is already faced with a foreign power openly engaging in acts of war against Canada,

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. 

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

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.

this is literally what America is imposing upon Canada right now,

the White House has not even ruled out the use of military force to achieve its aims,

a heavily armed foreign power has declared its intent to annex you, backed up by military force as necessary,

at this juncture, America is already engaged in acts of war against Canada

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

“Armed attack” is defined.

no it's not, there's nothing in Article 51 which explicitly defines what "armed attack" means

[TreeBeard]

4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

this is literally what America is imposing upon Canada right now,

the White House has not even ruled out the use of military force to achieve its aims,

a heavily armed foreign power has declared its intent to annex you, backed up by military force as necessary,

at this juncture, America is already engaged in acts of war against Canada

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.  

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

no it's not, there's nothing in Article 51 which explicitly defines what "armed attack" means

Please link to the legal definition of an armed attack then.

I linked to one above. 

Edited March 24 by TreeBeard

[Dougie93]

Just now, TreeBeard said:

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.  

Article 51 does not define what an "armed attack" consists of,

for example, if the positions were reversed, America would have already invoked it and be bombing you by now

[TreeBeard]

2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Article 51 does not define what an "armed attack" consists of,

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.
 

 

Edited March 24 by TreeBeard

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

The pigeon has knocked over the pieces and is strutting about declaring victory! 

never declared a victory,

merely pointed out that Canada is so weak and incapable of defending itself,

that even when a foreign power openly declares war against Canada,

Canada declines to invoke self defence in the face of it,

never mind defending itself from America,

Canada is still buying weapons from America when America has declared its intent to crush Canada by force

[Dougie93]

Just now, TreeBeard said:

So no where in international law is “armed attack defined”?

not explicitly,

I just checked with ChatGPT to confirm ;

"No, there is no explicit definition of "armed attack" in Article 51 of the UN Charter"

[Army Guy]

4 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Poilievre is running on increased government funding and hiring more government workers?  🤪

 

 

Ummmm….  he’s gone.  😂 

Thats not PP policy , try again...

He may be gone but his cabinet is still here , do you really want us to think Justin was smart enough to screw the nation up by himself... No he had plenty of help 

[Dougie93]

8 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Then why is there an entire paper written by international legal experts on this subject that goes into what specifically it means? 

none of which comes to any conclusions,

but no doubt that Canada would employ all sorts of legal experts declaring why Canada can't defend itself,

that is literally Canada in a nutshell

[TreeBeard]

3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

No, there is no explicit definition of "armed attack" in Article 51 of the UN Charter"

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.  
 

 

3 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Thats not PP policy , try again...

You’re the one who said PP meant departments are underfunded and understaffed when he said everything in Canada is broken.  

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

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? 

the ICJ makes no ruling as to the situation of a foreign power declaring that it intends to annex you,

with the nation under threat failing to invoke Article 51 therein,

it makes no ruling as to a foreign power actually declaring your country to be illegitimate,

for example, what Trump is claiming is that the border negotiated between America & Britain does not apply,

since Canada is not Britain anymore