Libya

[Walsingham]

I would very much like to hear how you think an international order is supposed to function without preference for the powerful.

It's not supposed to work, because the UN was never intended as the World Sheriff's Office -- it was meant to be a forum to give diplomacy a chance, to avert a very likely WWIII. NATO was formed as the military arm of the American containment policy. But you know that. However, with the dissolution of the Eastern Bloc, both organizations lost their raison d'

[213374U]

What are you talking about? Does the judiciary need to have direct control over carrier groups and tank armies to prosecute a member of the executive? It's called checks and balances. Unfortunately, such a scheme doesn't work in the international arena because, to begin with, people in a country aren't going to be very happy about their leaders being tried by a foreign power.

 

So essentially we are back to dog eat dog and the old adage of "don't mess with someone that is likely to beat you to a pulp". So can we just stop pretending that we have a monopoly on the moral high ground just because we ****ing say so?

Edited May 3, 2011 by 213374U

[Orogun01]

What are you talking about? Does the judiciary need to have direct control over carrier groups and tank armies to prosecute a member of the executive? It's called checks and balances. Unfortunately, such a scheme doesn't work in the international arena because, to begin with, people in a country aren't going to be very happy about their leaders being tried by a foreign power.

 

So essentially we are back to dog eat dog and the old adage of "don't mess with someone that is likely to beat you to a pulp". So can we just stop pretending that we have a monopoly on the moral high ground just because we ****ing say so?

No we can't, because the fragile moral minds of the Americans won't allow it. Justification it's one paintjob away from an excuse, we don't say so because we want to believe the lie. Even though that sounds to radical for my tastes it's the only reason I can see, the other would be that the entire world it's filled with idiots that take everything to face value. I like to give mankind a little bit more credit.

 

Besides the enforcing apparatus of international law has always been military might, the basis of diplomacy.

[Walsingham]

What are you talking about? Does the judiciary need to have direct control over carrier groups and tank armies to prosecute a member of the executive? It's called checks and balances. Unfortunately, such a scheme doesn't work in the international arena because, to begin with, people in a country aren't going to be very happy about their leaders being tried by a foreign power.

 

So essentially we are back to dog eat dog and the old adage of "don't mess with someone that is likely to beat you to a pulp". So can we just stop pretending that we have a monopoly on the moral high ground just because we ****ing say so?

 

I'd suggest that where we are is a world where doing right shouldn't wait on the frankly impossible job of convincing the entire world that something is right.

 

I take your point about checks and balances, but observe that this mirrors your earlier historical observation about the importance of the Cold War. That served to immobilise a lot of action. It didn't stop the key players from being arseholes.

 

Of course, my view on moral relativism is that it's a fine intellectual debate, but if applied to practical situations results in a total absence of morality.

[pmp10]

What are you talking about? Does So can we just stop pretending that we have a monopoly on the moral high ground just because we ****ing say so?

Why should we in the first place?

Propaganda has proved itself to be a invaluable tool in directing policies and attitudes of other people so giving up on it for the sake of moral standard seems rather unwise.

[Monte Carlo]

It is an interesting moral question. Should one man, who is culpable for many crimes and the deaths of innocents, be denied due process and assassinated in order to save the life of many tens of thousands?

 

Of course the answer is yes. Seal Team Six (yay!) should go visit the colonel next, and save us all a lot of trouble.

[Hildegard]

It is an interesting moral question. Should one man, who is culpable for many crimes and the deaths of innocents, be denied due process and assassinated in order to save the life of many tens of thousands?

 

Of course the answer is yes. Seal Team Six (yay!) should go visit the colonel next, and save us all a lot of trouble.

 

And when the due process can't be achieved by a special forces raid but with a use of an entire military and in process be directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. But hey, they are better off now so it's ok to do such things because man in power was eviiiiiiiiiilllll.

 

And why then doesn't the SEAL team go kill the rulers of Syria and Bahrain? They did the same thing to their people just like Colonel.

[Zoraptor]

For some reason the quote attributions are getting deleted from this post- to avoid confusion first quote is from Wals, second from pmp10

 

But accountability has to have a ceiling. Some ultimate authority. So does that mean that all authority is automatically corrupted? If so, very deep. Not going to lose any sleep over it.

I did suggest a UN 'Supreme Court' as a balance some time back. It would get ignored by the really big players (anything inconvenient gets ignored by them anyway) but it would stop those who have invested lots in the UN as the sole remaining bastion of their relevance- France and the UK- from dressing anything they like up in a facade of legitimacy. Personally I have a very strong antipathy towards the idea of the UN as any sort of actual world government as it would inevitably end up like the EU, nice theory, crap implementation with decrees and levies issued from on high with little regard for reality.

 

What are you talking about? Does So can we just stop pretending that we have a monopoly on the moral high ground just because we ****ing say so?

Why should we in the first place?

Propaganda has proved itself to be a invaluable tool in directing policies and attitudes of other people so giving up on it for the sake of moral standard seems rather unwise.

In this case there was a bit more at stake than just propaganda for domestic consumption. It may be far more difficult to get the BRIC types on board for (or at least not actively oppose) further actions if they think that their forbearance has been abused and that the resolution sponsors cannot be relied upon to do what they say.

 

There's also the issue that the longer propaganda runs the more difficult it is to sustain and the potential for collapse under its own weight. Gulf War II for example, the propaganda did its basic job fine but the blowback from all the WMD/ AlQ links/ Mission Accomplished rubbish left a whole lot of stink in its wake which still hasn't fully cleared.

Edited May 3, 2011 by Zoraptor

[GreasyDogMeat]

And when the due process can't be achieved by a special forces raid but with a use of an entire military and in process be directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. But hey, they are better off now so it's ok to do such things because man in power was eviiiiiiiiiilllll.

 

And why then doesn't the SEAL team go kill the rulers of Syria and Bahrain? They did the same thing to their people just like Colonel.

Called casualties of war. And where the hell did you pull 'hundreds of thousands of civilians'? I'm assuming it is your ass. 14,000 to 34,000 Afghanistan civilians have been killed.

[213374U]

I'd suggest that where we are is a world where doing right shouldn't wait on the frankly impossible job of convincing the entire world that something is right.

Replace the "right" there with "convenient for us", and we may be in agreement.

 

 

I take your point about checks and balances, but observe that this mirrors your earlier historical observation about the importance of the Cold War. That served to immobilise a lot of action. It didn't stop the key players from being arseholes.

 

Of course, my view on moral relativism is that it's a fine intellectual debate, but if applied to practical situations results in a total absence of morality.

The Cold War wasn't a check on anything. The period saw the greatest buildup of armaments -both conventional and nuclear- in history, and a lot of those weapons got used in the end, through proxies. The UN served its purpose as a venue to solve conflicts without resorting to the red button, but that's it. In fact, what I've been saying in the last few posts is that checks and balances do not work at the supranational level, and so I don't see how we can have a (self-)appointed international constable that won't end up abusing his power. I say get rid of the constabulary so it can't abuse its power; you say the constabulary is teh shiznit, and let's hope its abuses will be offset by the "order" it brings. Take a look at the world. It doesn't look very orderly to me.

 

And I don't very well see how moral relativism is relevant here. Please elaborate.

 

 

in order to save the life of many tens of thousands?

You got it backwards, Monte, old chap. He has killed many tens of thousands in the past, and so the US murdered him right back. No lives were "saved" with this op.

[Walsingham]

This is utterly pointless. What you are suggesting is a metric for policy which relies on only killing bad guys if we kill every single bad guy, regardless of any practical constraints caused by economy or foreign powers. Worse, you refuse to accept that bad guys plan and are responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people, and that they can't plan anything if they are dead.

 

This may strike you as sensible from the ivory tower of academic endeavour. But translated into the real world the upshot would be a paralysis of action of precisely the kind which enable massacres that are happening right now as I type this.

 

You may find that the satisfaction of abstract logic helps you ignore suffering, I don't.

[Hildegard]

Called casualties of war. And where the hell did you pull 'hundreds of thousands of civilians'? I'm assuming it is your ass. 14,000 to 34,000 Afghanistan civilians have been killed.

 

I'm talking about Iraq. And how convinient is to put all the civilian deaths in Iraq under the carpet of collateral damage and terrorist actions. But who gives a **** hey? They are away in some country where everybody rides camels and after all they are better off now since they have democracy. Nice pat on your own back.

Edited May 4, 2011 by Hildegard

[Walsingham]

Called casualties of war. And where the hell did you pull 'hundreds of thousands of civilians'? I'm assuming it is your ass. 14,000 to 34,000 Afghanistan civilians have been killed.

 

I'm talking about Iraq. And how convinient is to put all the civilian deaths in Iraq under the carpet of collateral damage and terrorist actions. But who gives a **** hey? They are away in some country where everybody rides camels and after all they are better off now since they have democracy. Nice pat on your own back.

 

A key ***ing differnce is that coalition operations are constrained by law and by massive layers of supervision to ensure that minimal civilian casualties occur. Terrorist attacks are specifically designed to cause maximum civilian casualties. I used to respect your brains, you know. What the hell happened?

[Hildegard]

A key ***ing differnce is that coalition operations are constrained by law and by massive layers of supervision to ensure that minimal civilian casualties occur. Terrorist attacks are specifically designed to cause maximum civilian casualties. I used to respect your brains, you know. What the hell happened?

 

What happened? I have a difference of an opinion, that's all. I'm not saying terrorist attacks aren't gruesome, because they target civilians on purpose. What is gruesome for me is state-level terrorism and civilian deaths that go under the disguise of unfortunate collateral damage. For me the invasion of Iraq is nothing but state-level terrorism committed by one country, the US, against another, at the expense of its civilians. Done so on the pretext of lies and deception, for the sole reasons of those that are geostrategic and economic, 'justified' that the other side (Saddam) has done much worse things and that the people now have democracy so it's fine. For me that is ****ing gruesome and the even worse thing is that concept has passed in the so called free world as something acceptable and alright. The only reason it has passed as such it's because the entity that has committed that act is the most powerful country in the world, if any other country A did the same thing to the country B things would have been much different. When one invades a country for its own self-interest while fully aware it will result in massive civilian casualties for me is nothing else but terrorism. But such terrorism is a lot less awful because it is done by MLRS 270, Paladins and laser guided bombs, not suicide bomber and IED. Terrorists blow up a market place killing civilians, US forces shelling a city, in their campaign of achieving the goals of the Bush administration which are anything but altrustic, kill a bunch of civilians while fighting resistance. Looking at these two examples of course they are different, primarily in their initial intent but then again much more similar then different because the end game is the same, deaths of innocent civilians caught up in power struggles of those who don't give a rats ass about them.

[Walsingham]

So you're calling it terrorism because you don't like it? That's not very helpful in communicating your point. I think you can see why I was confused.

 

Whether your perception is accurate or not is something we've discussed already ad nauseam.

[Zoraptor]

Well, since you brought up Chechnya elsewhere a nice explanation of why Chechnya/ Grozny = horrible crime against humanity by bestial russian savages while Iraq/ Fallujah = wonderful restrained terrorism fighting by apple pie eating blue eyed liberators which doesn't rely on some sort of "it's OK that we did it, we're the good guys" as a justification might be in order.

[Orogun01]

Well, since you brought up Chechnya elsewhere a nice explanation of why Chechnya/ Grozny = horrible crime against humanity by bestial russian savages while Iraq/ Fallujah = wonderful restrained terrorism fighting by apple pie eating blue eyed liberators which doesn't rely on some sort of "it's OK that we did it, we're the good guys" as a justification might be in order.

Moral relativism doesn't really apply to this case, we are fighting Jihadists. These men believe with all of their hatred that we are the enemy, they go to superhuman lengths to cause harm, all because of their extremists views. There is no reconcile here, we are may or may not be the good guys. But we sure are the sane ones.

[Zoraptor]

Doesn't answer the question, unless you're saying that while the Fallujani were (all) jihadists* (and thus Got Wot They Deserved) the Chechens weren't and didn't.

 

Strip out the rather obvious hyperbole and the question comes down to: Why is the US use of MLRS/ Shake 'n' Bake/ Bombing etc in Fallujah OK, yet the Russkies doing the same in Grozny is not?

 

I ain't really expecting an answer anyway, I'm just amused by the double standards from the Moral Clarity brigade.

 

*they weren't, Fallujah was such a hot spot because the US killed a bunch of people there under very dubious circumstances about as soon as they arrived, and it all went downhill from there.

Edited May 5, 2011 by Zoraptor

[Wrath of Dagon]

I have to think you don't know much about Russian behavior in Chechnya. Yes, US does use deadly force, but only when necessary and always trying to minimize civilian casualties. If you don't believe it, you're not well informed and there's no point of arguing with you.

[obyknven]

I have to think you don't know much about US behavior in Fallujani . Yes, Russia does use deadly force, but only when necessary and always trying to minimize civilian casualties. If you don't believe it, you're not well informed and there's no point of arguing with you.

Edited May 5, 2011 by obyknven

[Walsingham]

I have to think you don't know much about US behavior in Fallujani . Yes, Russia does use deadly force, but only when necessary and always trying to minimize civilian casualties. If you don't believe it, you're not well informed and there's no point of arguing with you.

 

War goes bang, and as much as I'd like it not to civilians get hurt. However, I doubt whether there has ever been a war machine that makes as much effort to avoid hitting civilians as the NATO pact. That is tactically in terms of the soldiers and airmen, operationally in terms of the planning and approval of attacks, or strategically in terms of the precision and design of the munitions. I was trained as a signaller, and so was exposed to a lot of HQ shenanigans even in my brief stint.

 

If the output of that process does not meet your personal moral standards then I congratulate you on having high standards. But your lofty moral perch should not render the distance nil between our efforts and those of organisations whose entire raison d'etre is murdering civilians.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Russian army horribly brutalizes even its own new recruits, to say nothing of the enemy. The Russian record in Afghanistan and Chechnya is well known, no matter how much internet trolls try to deny it.

[Monte Carlo]

I have to think you don't know much about US behavior in Fallujani . Yes, Russia does use deadly force, but only when necessary and always trying to minimize civilian casualties. If you don't believe it, you're not well informed and there's no point of arguing with you.

 

Ha ha ha ha ha. Seriously, the trollistical force is strong in this one.

[obyknven]

There are no good or bad guys there. It's a War! The only good ones are the children.

 

http://www.thelibertyunderground.net/2011/...ng-in-iraq.html

 

 

[Walsingham]

There are no good or bad guys there. It's a War! The only good ones are the children.

 

Nice segue into maudlin hippy glibness from testosterocious fighter jets, and saying that Chechens enjoy fighting.

 

At least Onur the Courageous' threads were funny.