Jump to content

International thread 2


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So, sanctions are off the table in your view when dictatorial regimes behave like dictatorial regimes?  When dictatorial regimes arise how do you propose to treat with them?

There are countless dictatorial regimes across the globe. Some of them are your closest allies. And even those who are not your allies, what right has the US got to impose sanctions upon any of them? 

I mean you're not exactly the last bastion of Law & Order and Human Rights, are you? What gives the US to be the moral arbiter of, well, fucking anything at all?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Spockydog said:

There are countless dictatorial regimes across the globe. Some of them are your closest allies. And even those who are not your allies, what right has the US got to impose sanctions upon any of them? 

I mean you're not exactly the last bastion of Human Rights, are you? What gives the US to be the moral arbiter of, well, fucking anything at all?

 

 

And we should be more moral.  Last time I checked I was not in direct control of the US Government and its actions.  I want us to stop supporting murderous regimes like those in Saudi Arabia and other places.  

Because we cannot be perfectly consistent is it wrong to act at all or support actions where I believe actions are proper?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I want us to stop supporting murderous regimes like those in Saudi Arabia and other places.  

LOL. I think you need to come to terms with the fact that the USA is, and has been for quite some time, the most murderous regime on earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

LOL. I think you need to come to terms with the fact that the USA is, and has been for quite some time, the most murderous regime on earth.

That would be the Soviet Union and People’s Republic of China. How far back do you want to go?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello? The US was doing genocide and regime change in favor of white capitalists long before the Soviet Union ever existed.

When it comes to China, of course, the history of conquest and oppression goes back far longer, of course, because so does their civilization.

And here again -- we have Whataboutism!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

Hello? The US was doing genocide and regime change in favor of white capitalists long before the Soviet Union ever existed.

When it comes to China, of course, the history of conquest and oppression goes back far longer, of course, because so does their civilization.

And here again -- we have Whataboutism!

Whataboutism can be applied to almost anything. 

To be fair, I do think that using death toll as a singular benchmark raises a lot of problems in discussions. Applying that logic will lead to the conclusion that North Korea is better than Japan because it committed less atrocities. 

All 5 members of the U.N. security council have a dark history and continue to compete with one another at the expense of smaller nations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

scot--

certainly economic sanctions are consistent with the UN charter, and states retain discretion set policy regarding commerce--though one might imagine their internal rightwings will scream about purported totalitarianism if it is their own account that is afflicted by the sanction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Kind of insane who up in the air things appear to be in Venezuela.  It is sounding like there are some really high up people who are leaking stuff against Maduro, so he's in the enviable position of knowing that some of his most trusted people are turning on him but probably isn't 100% sure who it is.  

It is because Maduro is a crazyman who is hurting the people of Venezuala.  I sincerely hope the people of Venezuala are able to ride themselves of Maduro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/4/2019 at 8:13 PM, Spockydog said:

There are countless dictatorial regimes across the globe. Some of them are your closest allies. And even those who are not your allies, what right has the US got to impose sanctions upon any of them?

Conceptually, the bolded lacks anything resembling logic whatsoever.  Of course there's context, and you can whine about the impact of US clandestine activities all you want even though no one reading this really has any idea about the extent of that in Venezuela (and if they did they wouldn't say), but how does a state not have a right to impose sanctions on another state?  That's the entire idea of sovereignty.  How a state decides to interact with another state - without infringing on the latter's ability to self-govern through violence - is the very basis of international relations.  I don't agree with (all) the sanctions the US has imposed on Venezuela, but saying they don't have a "right" to do whatever the hell they want in terms of how they approach their commercial relationship is unequivocal bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So as a matter of opinion, are there any circumstances in which collective international intervention is acceptable? 

I think it's interesting that we've moved on from the 'End of History' era where mostly we were ok with intervening in other countries. I don't believe all of those interventions in the past 20 years were purely about Oil or Money, I do genuinely think there was a view by major western nations that they were trying to improve the world and could go in transform countries and turn them around. It's become clear that it's far more difficult to do that in such a short timescale and most of these interventions have created far worse situations. 

So are we now at the point where we're holding our hands up and saying that the only thing the international community can do is sit back and watch and hope that nothing worse happens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DMC said:

Conceptually, the bolded lacks anything resembling logic whatsoever.  Of course there's context, and you can whine about the impact of US clandestine activities all you want even though no one reading this really has any idea about the extent of that in Venezuela (and if they did they wouldn't say), but how does a state not have a right to impose sanctions on another state?  That's the entire idea of sovereignty.  How a state decides to interact with another state - without infringing on the latter's ability to self-govern through violence - is the very basis of international relations.  I don't agree with (all) the sanctions the US has imposed on Venezuela, but saying they don't have a "right" to do whatever the hell they want in terms of how they approach their commercial relationship is unequivocal bullshit.

You're correct, in that the US can choose to trade with whomever it chooses. But the Americans have been throwing their weight around, bullying other nations for decades. And the current situation around Iran completely negates everything you just said. Because Trump decides he wants to go to war, he first tears up the nuclear deal then imposes sanctions. But not content with just stopping business between Iran and the US, the Americans decree that nobody else is allowed to trade with Iran. What right have you got to do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of Iran...

*cues Imperial March music*

US deploys aircraft carrier and bombers after 'troubling indications' from Iran

Quote

 

The US is sending an aircraft carrier and a bomber task force to the Middle East in response to a “number of troubling and escalatory indications and warnings” from Iran, the national security advisor John Bolton has said.

It was unclear on Sunday night what Iranian actions Bolton was referring to. 

 

Looks like the Iranians' 'freedom' is incoming. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spockydog said:

But not content with just stopping business between Iran and the US, the Americans decree that nobody else is allowed to trade with Iran. What right have you got to do that?

I mean, surely this is quite obvious?

If a nation has the right not to trade with Iran, it also has the right not to trade with countries who do trade with Iran. It's the same right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mormont said:

I mean, surely this is quite obvious?

If a nation has the right not to trade with Iran, it also has the right not to trade with countries who do trade with Iran. It's the same right.

Yeah, like I said, the US has been bullying other nations for decades now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Yeah, like I said, the US has been bullying other nations for decades now.

Without going down the whatabout route too heavily, do you imagine it’s possible for large countries to NOT bully smaller ones? Isn’t that the way the world works and always has?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Without going down the whatabout route too heavily, do you imagine it’s possible for large countries to NOT bully smaller ones? Isn’t that the way the world works and always has?

Of course it's fucking possible. I mean, the US has never bullied Israel, has it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Of course it's fucking possible. I mean, the US has never bullied Israel, has it?

Where I’m going with this is that we aren’t living in some after brightly coloured care bear episode, world politics is about the use of power to maintain ones own position. While it’s nice to imagine we would all just get on clearly there’s no evidence that would happen.

Clearly the USAs goal is to remain the hegemon and primary global power and it uses its influence to maintain its political power. This isn’t simply bullying for the sake of it, it’s about maintaining political power in regions around the world in competition with other state actors.

If it didn’t do that then someone else will simply step in and take up the reigns. I would rather have the US in charge than Russia, Autocratic China or any number of Islamic regimes. 

Your example of Israel for instance, what happens if the US stops protecting Israel tomorrow? A number of countries have threatened to wipe it from the face of the earth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When was the last time Russia or China sent an immense army to the other side of the world and invaded a sovereign nation?

And Israel doesn't need anyone's protection. They have nukes. And, tbh, it seems to me the best way to ensure Middle East stability is to let Iran have its own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...