Now THIS is the definition of true solidarity with Muslim women

[Monty92]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/marine-le-pen-lebanon-grand-mufti-sheikh-abdel-latif-derian-refuse-headscarf-meeting-walk-out-fn-a7591141.html

[Pat Vegas]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/marine-le-pen-lebanon-grand-mufti-sheikh-abdel-latif-derian-refuse-headscarf-meeting-walk-out-fn-a7591141.html

Yeah but now there is no meeting. Causing a waste of everywons time

[Sir C]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/marine-le-pen-lebanon-grand-mufti-sheikh-abdel-latif-derian-refuse-headscarf-meeting-walk-out-fn-a7591141.html

Hmm. I'm a bit troubled by that one. Presumably she would have known that before meeting such a mufti she would be expected to do the medieval thing? So why go? (For the publicity, obviously)

It's a matter of poiliteness, isn't it? When in Rome and all that?

[Monty92]

Yeah but now there is no meeting. Causing a waste of everywons time

But what stronger message could you send to the muslim world than a potential world leader refusing in a strong but respectful way that she will not participate in such an oppressive practice?

[Monty92]

Hmm. I'm a bit troubled by that one. Presumably she would have known that before meeting such a mufti she would be expected to do the medieval thing? So why go? (For the publicity, obviously)

It's a matter of poiliteness, isn't it? When in Rome and all that?

Yeah perhaps it was a publicity stunt. Although she does claim in the video that she met with the highest sunni authority in the world and wasn't required to cover up.

As to your point about politeness. Sure, perhaps she should have allowed the Allan fella to rape her too? That would have been the culturally sensitive thing to do.

[Sir C]

Yeah perhaps it was a publicity stunt. Although she does claim in the video that she met with the highest sunni authority in the world and wasn't required to cover up.

As to your point about politeness. Sure, perhaps she should have allowed the Allan fella to rape her too? That would have been the culturally sensitive thing to do.

Yes, to a degree, I think she should have. The point is that when you choose to visit someone's country, you play by their rules, don't you? If you don't like their rules, don't go. :shrug: If you really don't like their rules, you have the option of campaigning for regime change and so on, but going, and then refusing to play by your host's rules, is rude.

[Sir C]

But what stronger message could you send to the muslim world than a potential world leader refusing in a strong but respectful way that she will not participate in such an oppressive practice?

You don't think you're pushing the meaning of 'potential', there? I'm about as likely as she is to be French president.

[World's End Stella]

Yes, to a degree, I think she should have. The point is that when you choose to visit someone's country, you play by their rules, don't you? If you don't like their rules, don't go. :shrug: If you really don't like their rules, you have the option of campaigning for regime change and so on, but going, and then refusing to play by your host's rules, is rude.

It's also political opportunism, which is I think what really happened here.

She's fully within her rights to not wear the headscarf, of course. But let's not portray this as a shining example to Muslim women around the world, that's just naïve.

[Monty92]

You don't think you're pushing the meaning of 'potential', there? I'm about as likely as she is to be French president.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBlt15IcNYk

[Pokster]

Yes, to a degree, I think she should have. The point is that when you choose to visit someone's country, you play by their rules, don't you? If you don't like their rules, don't go. :shrug: If you really don't like their rules, you have the option of campaigning for regime change and so on, but going, and then refusing to play by your host's rules, is rude.

It's like complaining that you are required to wear a suit when visiting the palace.... or in Monty's case, no trainers in Stringfellows

[Monty92]

Yes, to a degree, I think she should have. The point is that when you choose to visit someone's country, you play by their rules, don't you? If you don't like their rules, don't go. :shrug: If you really don't like their rules, you have the option of campaigning for regime change and so on, but going, and then refusing to play by your host's rules, is rude.

Oh, ok, yes, it was rude. Very rude. Most impertinent of her.

But as you well know, there are bigger issues at stake here than social airs and graces.

[Monty92]

It's also political opportunism, which is I think what really happened here.

She's fully within her rights to not wear the headscarf, of course. But let's not portray this as a shining example to Muslim women around the world, that's just naïve.

Oh it was brazenly opportunistic (assuming it was planned), but could it not also be seen as setting an example as well?

[Pat Vegas]

Yeah perhaps it was a publicity stunt. Although she does claim in the video that she met with the highest sunni authority in the world and wasn't required to cover up.

As to your point about politeness. Sure, perhaps she should have allowed the Allan fella to rape her too? That would have been the culturally sensitive thing to do.

It's like the bloke who ate the pie on Monday night.

[Burney]

Yeah perhaps it was a publicity stunt. Although she does claim in the video that she met with the highest sunni authority in the world and wasn't required to cover up.

As to your point about politeness. Sure, perhaps she should have allowed the Allan fella to rape her too? That would have been the culturally sensitive thing to do.

Rather him than me, to be fair.

[Monty92]

Rather him than me, to be fair.

Have you seen her daughter? Yummy.

[Burney]

Yes, to a degree, I think she should have. The point is that when you choose to visit someone's country, you play by their rules, don't you? If you don't like their rules, don't go. :shrug: If you really don't like their rules, you have the option of campaigning for regime change and so on, but going, and then refusing to play by your host's rules, is rude.

Well I think the larger point is that we don't actually have to keep kowtowing. The cultural cringe of just accepting the barbarism of other nations as though it's OK has become a given and it really oughtn't to be.

[World's End Stella]

Oh it was brazenly opportunistic (assuming it was planned), but could it not also be seen as setting an example as well?

Not really, there are rather a lot of Muslim women who don't cover up in any way, Monty. I would expect that in the UK the majority don't although I might be wrong.

If a Muslim woman in the UK is uncomfortable with covering up I think she has plenty of examples she could follow to not do so, I doubt she will know or care what Marie Le Pen does. In more conservative Islamic countries where virtually all women cover up I doubt many see it as oppressive and if they did they would look for leadership within their own community, not from a right wing, Christian politician in France.

[Burney]

Have you seen her daughter? Yummy.

Niece, I think. And are you asking me whether I'd rather rape her? :-(

[Sir C]

Well I think the larger point is that we don't actually have to keep kowtowing. The cultural cringe of just accepting the barbarism of other nations as though it's OK has become a given and it really oughtn't to be.

But I haven't suggested kowtowing in any way. I'm suggesting that if you don't like a country's customs and culture and/or are prepared to abide by same, don't go. As a politician you have a further option: gather your military strength and change the regime, cultures and customs to something more suitable to the 21st century :shrug:

[Pokster]

Niece, I think. And are you asking me whether I'd rather rape her? :-(

With your looks and personailty b she wouldn't say no

[Monty92]

Not really, there are rather a lot of Muslim women who don't cover up in any way, Monty. I would expect that in the UK the majority don't although I might be wrong.

If a Muslim woman in the UK is uncomfortable with covering up I think she has plenty of examples she could follow to not do so, I doubt she will know or care what Marie Le Pen does. In more conservative Islamic countries where virtually all women cover up I doubt many see it as oppressive and if they did they would look for leadership within their own community, not from a right wing, Christian politician in France.

But we live in a political era in which such barbaric practices are actively endorsed and promoted by liberal democracies. Do you not consider it important that there are high-profile politicians and public figures helping to kick back against this trend?

Of course, there will be some Muslims who consider it further proof that the West hates muslims. But I do not believe the answer is to indulge this fantasy.

[Burney]

But I haven't suggested kowtowing in any way. I'm suggesting that if you don't like a country's customs and culture and/or are prepared to abide by same, don't go. As a politician you have a further option: gather your military strength and change the regime, cultures and customs to something more suitable to the 21st century :shrug:

Well that's all very well, but do they do that here? No, they do not. Instead they bring their cultural practices in terms of dress and attitudes here and expect us to be OK with that. So which is it? Do we all abide by 'When in Rome' or do none of us?

[Sir C]

Well that's all very well, but do they do that here? No, they do not. Instead they bring their cultural practices in terms of dress and attitudes here and expect us to be OK with that. So which is it? Do we all abide by 'When in Rome' or do none of us?

A gentleman is not polite and correctly behaved because other people are, b. He simply behaves well because he is a gentleman.

I'd have expected you to be familiar with the correct form, to be honest.

[Monty92]

Well that's all very well, but do they do that here? No, they do not. Instead they bring their cultural practices in terms of dress and attitudes here and expect us to be OK with that. So which is it? Do we all abide by 'When in Rome' or do none of us?

Did you see that London Fashion Week has introduced a spin-off called London Modest Fashion Week, featuring head coverings?

The corollary of this obviously being that all other clothing is immodest. Lovely stuff.

[Monty92]

A gentleman is not polite and correctly behaved because other people are, b. He simply behaves well because he is a gentleman.

I'd have expected you to be familiar with the correct form, to be honest.

It's an absurd argument. So a gay politician visiting Lebanon who was carted off to jail should accept his or her fate, as to not do so would be culturally insensitive?

[Burney]

A gentleman is not polite and correctly behaved because other people are, b. He simply behaves well because he is a gentleman.

I'd have expected you to be familiar with the correct form, to be honest.

Were we gentlemen when we stopped suttee, the cult of the thugee or stopped female infanticide?

[Sir C]

It's an absurd argument. So a gay politician visiting Lebanon who was carted off to jail should accept his or her fate, as to not do so would be culturally insensitive?

You no read too good, huh?

I'm suggesting that a gay politician, aware that he would be jailed in Lebanon, should not visit Lebanon.

[Sir C]

Were we gentlemen when we stopped suttee, the cult of the thugee or stopped female infanticide?

You no read too good neither.

I have already pointed out that, as a politician, you have the further option of gathering your military forces and changing things if you perceive them as incompatible with decency. I've already said that.

[Burney]

You no read too good, huh?

I'm suggesting that a gay politician, aware that he would be jailed in Lebanon, should not visit Lebanon.

Can they lock them up just for being gay or do they have to do gay things while in Lebanon?

[Sir C]

Can they lock them up just for being gay or do they have to do gay things while in Lebanon?

I have no idea, I was replying to Monty's somewhat hypothetical question.

Were I gay, and on the verge of visiting Lebanon, you may rest assured I would check the detail.

[Burney]

You no read too good neither.

I have already pointed out that, as a politician, you have the further option of gathering your military forces and changing things if you perceive them as incompatible with decency. I've already said that.

So the options are complete cultural submission or complete cultural domination? No middle ground as far as you're concerned?

[Monty92]

You no read too good, huh?

I'm suggesting that a gay politician, aware that he would be jailed in Lebanon, should not visit Lebanon.

Well I don't agree. I think a gay politician should visit Lebanon, attempt to engage with them, and if they cart him off to jail it would simply shine a light on their barbarity and perhaps even knock some sense of reality and urgency into the west's assorted apologists.

Just as the Allan fella insisting on Le Pen wearing a headscarf shined a light on his barbarity.

[Burney]

I have no idea, I was replying to Monty's somewhat hypothetical question.

Were I gay, and on the verge of visiting Lebanon, you may rest assured I would check the detail.

Well things have changed a bit, haven't they? The only westerners who ever used to go to these places at all used to be homos.

[Sir C]

So the options are complete cultural submission or complete cultural domination? No middle ground as far as you're concerned?

I don't understand what you mean by 'cultural submission'. If you mean respecting local custom, I don't really know why you choose such an emotive term.

Would you visit a Muslim country during ramadan and drink water from a bottle in public during the day? To do so would be offensive to local people. If you were determined so to do, you would be visiting a foreign country intent on causing offence. This seems to me odd.

On the other hand, if you truly believe that everyone should be able to drink during daylight hours, nuke the fúckers. That's not rude, that's Realpolitik.

[Pokster]

Well I don't agree. I think a gay politician should visit Lebanon, attempt to engage with them, and if they cart him off to jail it would simply shine a light on their barbarity and perhaps even knock some sense of reality and urgency into the west's assorted apologists.

Just as the Allan fella insisting on Le Pen wearing a headscarf shined a light on his barbarity.

I don't think he would be carted off to jail for being gay, wouldn't he have to do a gay act?

[Ash]

But I haven't suggested kowtowing in any way. I'm suggesting that if you don't like a country's customs and culture and/or are prepared to abide by same, don't go. As a politician you have a further option: gather your military strength and change the regime, cultures and customs to something more suitable to the 21st century :shrug:

So not wearing a headscarf is rude, but regime change, which invariably means destroying the country, unleashing chaos and extremism worse than the regime being changed, up to hundreds of thousands of deaths plus millions of refugees is ok?

Regime change policy in Iraq, Libya and Syria has been catastrophic in every case.

"First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye."

[Sir C]

So not wearing a headscarf is rude, but regime change, which invariably means destroying the country, unleashing chaos and extremism worse than the regime being changed, up to hundreds of thousands of deaths plus millions of refugees is ok?

Regime change policy in Iraq, Libya and Syria has been catastrophic in every case.

"First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye."

It worked ok in Germany and Japan in 1945 :shrug:

[Burney]

I don't understand what you mean by 'cultural submission'. If you mean respecting local custom, I don't really know why you choose such an emotive term.

Would you visit a Muslim country during ramadan and drink water from a bottle in public during the day? To do so would be offensive to local people. If you were determined so to do, you would be visiting a foreign country intent on causing offence. This seems to me odd.

On the other hand, if you truly believe that everyone should be able to drink during daylight hours, nuke the fúckers. That's not rude, that's Realpolitik.

No, I think there is a reasonable halfway house whereby we are given a pass by virtue of the fact that we are not of the culture or the religion and therefore should - within reason - have some of our cultural norms tolerated (not adopted or assimilated, but tolerated) accordingly. I don't think that is an unreasonable suggestion, not least because it is what we do when people from those cultures visit us.

[Sir C]

No, I think there is a reasonable halfway house whereby we are given a pass by virtue of the fact that we are not of the culture or the religion and therefore should - within reason - have some of our cultural norms tolerated (not adopted or assimilated, but tolerated) accordingly. I don't think that is an unreasonable suggestion, not least because it is what we do when people from those cultures visit us.

Yes, that is what we do, and that is what they don't do for us. Big News! Western liberal democracy is more polite, well mannered and far less barbaric than benighted Islamic ****holes! SOMEONE INFORM THE BBC!

We are better than them. Demanding that they play to the same standards is, well, a little rude. Best just to avoid them, really.

[Monty92]

Yes, that is what we do, and that is what they don't do for us. Big News! Western liberal democracy is more polite, well mannered and far less barbaric than benighted Islamic ****holes! SOMEONE INFORM THE BBC!

We are better than them. Demanding that they play to the same standards is, well, a little rude. Best just to avoid them, really.

That, I believe, is a fine example of what George W Bush rather neatly described as the soft bigotry of low expectations.

[Ash]

It worked ok in Germany and Japan in 1945 :shrug:

Not so well for the countries of Eastern Europe, but that is beside the point. Germany and Japan were superpowers on the rampage seeking to establish vast empires of neighbouring territory. Germany certainly was defeated in an existential struggle for survival. No comparison with destroying small, weak, Arab states.

[Sir C]

That, I believe, is a fine example of what George W Bush rather neatly described as the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Yes, or as we know it, 'realism'.

[Burney]

Yes, or as we know it, 'realism'.

Or 'appeasement'?

[Sir C]

Not so well for the countries of Eastern Europe, but that is beside the point. Germany and Japan were superpowers on the rampage seeking to establish vast empires of neighbouring territory. Germany certainly was defeated in an existential struggle for survival. No comparison with destroying small, weak, Arab states.

And how might it have worked out better for the countries of Eastern Europe? Why, if we had pushed on through Berlin to Moscow!

The problem with regime change in small, weak Arab states is that whilst we have the military power to change the government, we lack the political will to continue to use that military power to stop said bloody Arabs slaughtering each other.

[Burney]

And how might it have worked out better for the countries of Eastern Europe? Why, if we had pushed on through Berlin to Moscow!

The problem with regime change in small, weak Arab states is that whilst we have the military power to change the government, we lack the political will to continue to use that military power to stop said bloody Arabs slaughtering each other.

This is correct. There's nothing wrong with using our military capability to bring these people to heel. What is wrong is then leaving the job half-done because our politicians are pussies.

[Ash]

This is correct. There's nothing wrong with using our military capability to bring these people to heel. What is wrong is then leaving the job half-done because our politicians are pussies.

So you are advocating a return to complete 19th century colonial rule? And who will be in charge? Tony Blair?

[Sir C]

So you are advocating a return to complete 19th century colonial rule? And who will be in charge? Tony Blair?

Like we did with Germany and Japan, you mean?

Sort the problem. Kill the baddies. Once the local population has demonstrated that they have learnt to live in a civilised manner, allow them to elect their own leaders.

[Burney]

So you are advocating a return to complete 19th century colonial rule? And who will be in charge? Tony Blair?

Are you denying that a world run according to western ideals, values, laws and mores would be a better place?

[Luis Anaconda]

Like we did with Germany and Japan, you mean?

Sort the problem. Kill the baddies. Once the local population has demonstrated that they have learnt to live in a civilised manner, allow them to elect their own leaders.

Are you saying the Germans have demonstrated that they have learnt to live in a civilized manner?

[Burney]

Are you saying the Germans have demonstrated that they have learnt to live in a civilized manner?

American spelling, la? :cry:

[Sir C]

Are you saying the Germans have demonstrated that they have learnt to live in a civilized manner?

Well, for a start they probably refrain from ghastly Americanisms :civilization be damned:

Anyway. Beer, Wurst, Schweinshaxe. Sounds pretty civilised.

[Luis Anaconda]

American spelling, la? :cry:
:( ******* autocorrect. Which is weird as I just copied and pasted Sir C's line :rubchin:

[Ash]

Like we did with Germany and Japan, you mean?

Sort the problem. Kill the baddies. Once the local population has demonstrated that they have learnt to live in a civilised manner, allow them to elect their own leaders.

Attempting to depict every conflict as an equivalent of WW2 is basically the same tactic as those who call everyone to their right as 'fascist'. Godwinisation.

And 'baddies'. Who were the baddies on the Eastern Front?

[Burney]

Well, for a start they probably refrain from ghastly Americanisms :civilization be damned:

Anyway. Beer, Wurst, Schweinshaxe. Sounds pretty civilised.

Yes, but they still merit watching, I think. You can't cause the deaths of 100 million people in the space of 30-odd years and get away with it because you have nice pork products.

[Burney]

Attempting to depict every conflict as an equivalent of WW2 is basically the same tactic as those who call everyone to their right as 'fascist'. Godwinisation.

And 'baddies'. Who were the baddies on the Eastern Front?

They were all baddies. That's why it's a shame the US didn't nuke Russia when it had the chance. :-(

[Ash]

Are you denying that a world run according to western ideals, values, laws and mores would be a better place?

So I'll take that as a yes, then. :hehe:

Though, are these the same Western ideals that you rail against all the time as 70 years of socialism?

[Sir C]

Yes, but they still merit watching, I think. You can't cause the deaths of 100 million people in the space of 30-odd years and get away with it because you have nice pork products.

I'm relatively sanguine at the moment; they have achieved their long term goal of European hegemony via the economic route and may be sated on the misery of Greek and Italian peasants for a while.

Eventually, of course, they will look east; that is inevitable. But I'm hopeful it will take a few years yet.

[Sir C]

Attempting to depict every conflict as an equivalent of WW2 is basically the same tactic as those who call everyone to their right as 'fascist'. Godwinisation.

And 'baddies'. Who were the baddies on the Eastern Front?

The baddies are the chaps doing things you don't want them to do shrug:

[Burney]

So I'll take that as a yes, then. :hehe:

Though, are these the same Western ideals that you rail against all the time as 70 years of socialism?

And I will take that as a 'no' in answer to my question. :-)

No. I mean the good ones that socialism has tried and failed to destroy - rule of law, freedom of speech, guaranteed property rights, equality before the law, that sort of thing.

[Ash]

They were all baddies. That's why it's a shame the US didn't nuke Russia when it had the chance. :-(

Don't worry, much of the US political class is still hoping to do this, it seems.

[Burney]

I'm relatively sanguine at the moment; they have achieved their long term goal of European hegemony via the economic route and may be sated on the misery of Greek and Italian peasants for a while.

Eventually, of course, they will look east; that is inevitable. But I'm hopeful it will take a few years yet.

I don't think Ivan will ever take his eye off that particular ball again.

[Burney]

Don't worry, much of the US political class is still hoping to do this, it seems.

Yeah, but back then they had the chance to put Stalin back in his box with no danger of nuclear retribution. Missed opportunity imo. Think of all the misery it could have spared the people of the Soviet Bloc.

[Sir C]

I don't think Ivan will ever take his eye off that particular ball again.

Ivan is skint though, and will be getting skinter as reliance on his gas diminshes.

Anyway, there's Poland and Czecho and so on to be gobbled into Fuhrerin Merkel's maw first, as a sort of appetiser.

[Burney]

Ivan is skint though, and will be getting skinter as reliance on his gas diminshes.

Anyway, there's Poland and Czecho and so on to be gobbled into Fuhrerin Merkel's maw first, as a sort of appetiser.

True. At the end of the day, Russia is just remarkably shît at everything, isn't it? Autocracy was a failure, communism was a failure and now they've even failed at capitalist democracy. They are ultimately rubbish.

[Sir C]

True. At the end of the day, Russia is just remarkably shît at everything, isn't it? Autocracy was a failure, communism was a failure and now they've even failed at capitalist democracy. They are ultimately rubbish.

A simple rule; draw a line connecting Hamburg to Stuttgart and then carry it on down to Rome. Anywehere east of this line is barbarous territory populated by savages.

[Burney]

A simple rule; draw a line connecting Hamburg to Stuttgart and then carry it on down to Rome. Anywehere east of this line is barbarous territory populated by savages.

That is pretty much what the Romans did, to be fair. Sharp lads, those.

[Luis Anaconda]

A simple rule; draw a line connecting Hamburg to Stuttgart and then carry it on down to Rome. Anywehere east of this line is barbarous territory populated by savages.
Hang on - Prague has a Marks & Spencer food store. Isn't that the very definition of civilisation?

[redgunamo]

Hang on - Prague has a Marks & Spencer food store. Isn't that the very definition of civilisation?

Obviously a Roman Empire leftover

http://www.aveleyman.com/Gallery/ActorsM/12148-2991.jpg

[Ash]

And I will take that as a 'no' in answer to my question. :-)

No. I mean the good ones that socialism has tried and failed to destroy - rule of law, freedom of speech, guaranteed property rights, equality before the law, that sort of thing.

Ah, so before we embark upon another era of colonialism we have to agree exactly which values we will be imposing on the shattered ruins of the countries and peoples we are going to destroy. Actually I would answer 'yes' to your question, for my version of western values, which I would roll back to broad enlightenment values, (themselves subject to discussion, of course) but I expect there would be substantial overlap with yours.

Where our values do not overlap, for example, is on the whole business of kicking someone's head in until they do what they're told. See above: beams, eyes, specks etc.

[Sir C]

Ah, so before we embark upon another era of colonialism we have to agree exactly which values we will be imposing on the shattered ruins of the countries and peoples we are going to destroy. Actually I would answer 'yes' to your question, for my version of western values, which I would roll back to broad enlightenment values, (themselves subject to discussion, of course) but I expect there would be substantial overlap with yours.

Where our values do not overlap, for example, is on the whole business of kicking someone's head in until they know how to behave. See above: beams, eyes, specks etc.

So you don't believe in the rule of law, then?

[Sir C]

Hang on - Prague has a Marks & Spencer food store. Isn't that the very definition of civilisation?

That is to cater to English stag groups when they need a sandwich.

See our civlising effect in action, la.

[Ash]

So you don't believe in the rule of law, then?

Did I say that?

[SWv2]

I may get shouted at for asking this question but what’s the story with this desire to show solidarity with Muslim women???

[Sir C]

Did I say that?

Yes. Because you reject 'kicking someone's head in until they know how to behave' is what the rule of law is.

Politicians make laws. If we don't follow them, a policeman comes along and tells you that you must go to the jail and be locked up. If you refuse to go he will lay hands upon you and physically force you to comply with the rule of law.

Without the threat of physical coercion there is no law.

[Luis Anaconda]

That is to cater to English stag groups when they need a sandwich.

See our civlising effect in action, la.

If only they had reached here :(

[Ash]

Yes. Because you reject 'kicking someone's head in until they know how to behave' is what the rule of law is.

Politicians make laws. If we don't follow them, a policeman comes along and tells you that you must go to the jail and be locked up. If you refuse to go he will lay hands upon you and physically force you to comply with the rule of law.

Without the threat of physical coercion there is no law.

Actually I edited that sentence immediately after posting, and before reading your reply, to convey a different nuance.

But besides, there is no law that says that country X must comply with your expectations or get its head kicked in. I am not talking about the law of the land, be it democratic or sharia. If there is such a thing as international law (and not all agree that it exists), the nearest thing we have is that you are not allowed to invaded other countries at will.