About time. Fascist dictatorships and genocidal states should have no say in our involvement in peacekeeping missions.
So we’ll be just a nato appendage so..
About damn time
Well it’s not before it’s time.
Good.
There have been no new peacekeeping missions approved by the Security Council in the last decade. 26 draft resolutions were vetoed at the Security Council across that period, with Russia using its veto 23 times. The Security Council was unable to even issue a condemnation of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine due to Russia vetoing it.
If you believe the defence forces can actually do good in the world as part of peacekeeping missions, it’s nonsensical to allow countries like Russia to have a veto over their deployment when their geopolitical interests are so explicitly divergent from our own.
Good. Tying our policy into the whims of russia or China is insane
Right decision.
The triple lock was reasonable and effective when there was some level of sanity on the UN Security Council.
As this is no longer the case, it is no longer fit for purpose.
Why China, Russia, US, UK, France have any say in our armed forces is beyond me
I like the triple lock. I don’t think we should be sending defence forces to fight in other countries.
The triple lock is a great excuse. Our hands are tied. We cant be drawn into conflicts by our allies. And all our allies are aware of the triple lock. It ensures our neutrality without putting our leaders in an awkward positions where they have to refuse the request of an ally.
what are the advantages to getting rid of the triple lock?
All I can see is disadvantages. We can send our forces to fight in foreign wars. Our allies will become aware of our ability to fight in foreign wars and may try to pressure us to join their wars. more potential to piss off allies if we refuse to help when they know we could if we wanted.
9 comments
About time. Fascist dictatorships and genocidal states should have no say in our involvement in peacekeeping missions.
So we’ll be just a nato appendage so..
About damn time
Well it’s not before it’s time.
Good.
There have been no new peacekeeping missions approved by the Security Council in the last decade. 26 draft resolutions were vetoed at the Security Council across that period, with Russia using its veto 23 times. The Security Council was unable to even issue a condemnation of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine due to Russia vetoing it.
If you believe the defence forces can actually do good in the world as part of peacekeeping missions, it’s nonsensical to allow countries like Russia to have a veto over their deployment when their geopolitical interests are so explicitly divergent from our own.
Good. Tying our policy into the whims of russia or China is insane
Right decision.
The triple lock was reasonable and effective when there was some level of sanity on the UN Security Council.
As this is no longer the case, it is no longer fit for purpose.
Why China, Russia, US, UK, France have any say in our armed forces is beyond me
I like the triple lock. I don’t think we should be sending defence forces to fight in other countries.
The triple lock is a great excuse. Our hands are tied. We cant be drawn into conflicts by our allies. And all our allies are aware of the triple lock. It ensures our neutrality without putting our leaders in an awkward positions where they have to refuse the request of an ally.
what are the advantages to getting rid of the triple lock?
All I can see is disadvantages. We can send our forces to fight in foreign wars. Our allies will become aware of our ability to fight in foreign wars and may try to pressure us to join their wars. more potential to piss off allies if we refuse to help when they know we could if we wanted.