Jump to content

The morality of war - Man's inhumanity to man


Which Tyler

Recommended Posts

 

2 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Because a foreign criminal was hiding in a distant corner there? One about which few in the government and almost none of the civilian population knew about or had any say in?

Killing a bunch of citizens of a country to save them from their oppressive government is a dubious enough moral position with virtually no successful track record. Doing so because a few members of that oppressive government agreed to let a criminal hide there is even worse. 10’s to hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians we know to be oppressed by their government had to die so the US could kill one foreign resident of that oppressive regime? Really? Moreover legally it was a clear violation of international law and the UN charter (which the US signed).

To continue the discussion from the other thread.

First, can you elaborate on your argument about violation of international law and the UN charter? The Taliban were never an internationally recognized legitimate government. At the time, this was the Northern Alliance, which held Afghanistan's UN chair and which invited the coalition forces into the country.

Second, if you host a terrorist group, you are responsible for their actions. NATO attacked the Taliban under the exact same casus belli which caused Austria-Hungary to declare war on Serbia at the beginning of WWI. And the Franz Ferdinand assassination was a far less destructive event than 9/11.

Finally, there was absolutely no profit for the West in Afghanistan, and a huge amount of loss. The Bush administration viewed at as an irritating distraction from the real target they wanted to focus on, Iraq. The war was undertaken to stop Al Qaeda from continuing to organize murders of western civilians from a safe base, and that goal was accomplished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

I have similar thoughts about my own country. Never gonna happen, though.

This is the frustrating part about reading this thread and in a prior post you acknowledged the hypocrisy. How is the average person in the U.S. expected to know everything about their country's foreign policy when the same average adult cannot even identify the three branches of our federal government, pathetic as it is? But it's also okay for people in other countries to inaccurately compare Russia's actions to the U.S. invading Iraq? The double standards are pretty glaring. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

This is the frustrating part about reading this thread and in a prior post you acknowledged the hypocrisy. How is the average person in the U.S. expected to know everything about their country's foreign policy when the same average adult cannot even identify the three branches of our federal government, pathetic as it is? But it's also okay for people in other countries to inaccurately compare Russia's actions to the U.S. invading Iraq? The double standards are pretty glaring. 

Who are you saying is being held to a double standard here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Who are you saying is being held to a double standard here?

Multiple posters have said flatly the average American should have know a lot more than they actually did 20 years ago ignoring that we can look at recent events where people are still equally uninformed despite having even greater ease of access to information. Obviously not the same subject, but just take Brexit for example. People in the UK had all the information in the world just a few key strokes away to inform them that it was a terrible idea based on a bunch of lies, but a majority still went along with it and have only further entrenched the party that lied to them. Point is the average citizen in every country is likely uninformed about most of the actions their governments are taking even when it should be obvious. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Multiple posters have said flatly the average American should have know a lot more than they actually did 20 years ago ignoring that we can look at recent events where people are still equally uninformed despite having even greater ease of access to information. Obviously not the same subject, but just take Brexit for example. People in the UK had all the information in the world just a few key strokes away to inform them that it was a terrible idea based on a bunch of lies, but a majority still went along with it and have only further entrenched the party that lied to them. Point is the average citizen in every country is likely uninformed about most of the actions their governments are taking even when it should be obvious. 

How is that a double standard? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Yes… I get that.  Do you want the “America First” crowd in control of the US?  This is a sincere question.

You keep asking us to look at the facts on the ground in Russia regarding the Horseshit rationalizations Putin is offering and the consequences that flow therefrom.  Why isn’t that logic just as cutting and cogent regarding the political facts on the ground in the US?

I would be ecstatic if the US could take a rational and eyes open hard look at our history of intervention and white supremacy.  Can (I use “can” deliberately) that be done without empowering the very forces we seek to remove from positions of power in the US?

About America First, I take your point, but in the meantime the reality we are left with is the greatest military power on the planet which is unable to even think of being accountable for what it does to others, that routinely seeks to control/project power into the outside world but is so inward looking it has little to no interest in or understanding of that world. And, as a consequence, rejects opinions on it’s actions, internally and externally, from anyone else, leaving itself prone to enormous blind spots about itself and it’s actions.
 

 Is that not already the greatest threat to world peace? How much worse would an American First America be, or more accurately a more America First America since you are yourself saying that their presence already determines major things like being able to be accountable?

Re: facts on the ground, I need you to expand on that point, as the only things I have stated as facts are a) that there is a double standard and b) that that double standard helps Putin make his case to his people and c)both Iraq and Ukraine were unjustified, illegal wars. I’m not sure how this ties into America First et al. Unless you are saying America will never be able to hold itself accountable because of the presence of people like that, in which case we should just enshrine Jaehaerys’ Doctrine of Exceptionalism, America will go where it pleases and do what it pleases and everyone else better just learn to shut up and take it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

How is that a double standard? 

Expecting Americans to know a lot more about their government's actions 20 years ago than citizens of other nations should know right now about theirs is an obvious double standard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

About America First, I take your point, but in the meantime the reality we are left with is the greatest military power on the planet which is unable to even think of being accountable for what it does to others, that routinely seeks to control/project power into the outside world but is so inward looking it has little to no interest in or understanding of that world. And, as a consequence, rejects opinions on it’s actions, internally and externally, from anyone else, leaving itself prone to enormous blind spots about itself and it’s actions.
 

 Is that not already the greatest threat to world peace? How much worse would an American First America be, or more accurately a more America First America since you are yourself saying that their presence already determines major things like being able to be accountable?

Re: facts on the ground, I need you to expand on that point, as the only things I have stated as facts are a) that there is a double standard and b) that that double standard helps Putin make his case to his people and c)both Iraq and Ukraine were unjustified, illegal wars. I’m not sure how this ties into America First et al. Unless you are saying America will never be able to hold itself accountable because of the presence of people like that, in which case we should just enshrine Jaehaerys’ Doctrine of Exceptionalism, America will go where it pleases and do what it pleases and everyone else better just learn to shut up and take it?

You are saying Putin’s home rhetoric is aided by US actions in Iraq.  That he is able, at home, to claim a moral high ground because “American did it first”

Is that correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You are saying Putin’s home rhetoric is aided by US actions in Iraq.  That he is able, at home, to claim a moral high ground because “American did it first”

Is that correct?

Not a moral high ground…or possibly including that, I suppose, but more to build the argument that the west/NATO/the US means Russia harm and will even do moral gymnastics of hypocrisy to further that end. Remember, the most essential aspect of getting a people to support a war is to make them believe they are being attacked. 
 

But is that the only aspect of my post you’re going to address?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Expecting Americans to know a lot more about their government's actions 20 years ago than citizens of other nations should know right now about theirs is an obvious double standard. 

Are you talking about Iraq? Because if so the obvious rebuttal is that Americans then had access to the exact same information as everyone else on the planet. 
 

edit: and, further, I’d argue that when yours is the country proposing invading another country, it kinda behooves you to at least know as much as all the people not proposing said invasion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Expecting Americans to know a lot more about their government's actions 20 years ago than citizens of other nations should know right now about theirs is an obvious double standard. 

Lol who's doing that?

Eta:

Oh wait are you arguing that Russians are getting some kind of a break here?  If the US was rounding up protesters and disappearing them or conscripting them maybe you'd have a point, but I'm not seeing anywhere near the levels of ignorant pro-war jingoism coming out of Russia that we saw in the US in the early 2000's.

Eta2: plus, the US had a 'free' press at the time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, re: the Brexit comparison, I find a lot of Americans discussing American foreign policy miss this important distinction: the principle victims of Britons choosing Brexit were Britons. The principle victims of Americans choosing to invade other countries are the people of those countries who get no say in the whole affair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Not a moral high ground…or possibly including that, I suppose, but more to build the argument that the west/NATO/the US means Russia harm and will even do moral gymnastics of hypocrisy to further that end. Remember, the most essential aspect of getting a people to support a war is to make them believe they are being attacked. 
 

But is that the only aspect of my post you’re going to address?

Incrementally.  My point is that what is at play in the US and Russia are the same tendencies.  To overlook out absolutely real and significant failures of morals and integrity.  

You are saying, if I understand you correctly, that a political realist should recognize that US moral failings have, rightly or wrongly, given Putin political capital he can spend to retain political support from the Russian people and that realism should temper US actions moving forward and create a desire to recognize and account for US failings and evils of the past.

I get that.

What I’m saying is that doesn’t happen in a vacuum.  That US domestic politics create difficulties for such a process.  That US domestic politics make it dangerous to walk that road and that the benefits from such a journey may not outweigh the liabilities.  

That losing the US to “America First” is worse than any benefit a profound and serious national introspection will bring and I don’t see how the former can be accomplished without the latter being the end result.  It is a cynical and sad state of affairs, but, so is Putin claiming US evils justify and excuse his evils.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Incrementally.  My point is that what is as play in the US and Russia are the same tendencies.  To overlook out absolutely real and significant failures of morals and integrity.  

You are saying, if I understand you correctly, that a political realist should recognize that US moral failings have, rightly or wrongly, given Putin political capital he can spend to retain political support from the Russian people and that realism should temper US actions moving forward and create a desire to recognize and account for US failings and evils of the past.

I get that.

What I’m saying is that doesn’t happen in a vacuum.  That US domestic politics create difficulties for such a process.  That US domestic politics make it dangerous to walk that road and that the benefits from such a journey may not outweigh the liabilities.  

That losing the US to “America First” is worse than any benefit a profound and serious national introspection will bring and I don’t she how the former can be accomplished without the latter being the end result.  It is a cynical and sad state of affairs, but, so is Putin claiming US evils justify and excuse his evils.

I get you, I think. But I’ll ask you to think of this issue from a non-American pov: if the presence of the AF contingent already pushes for expansionism and already makes accountability impossible, how is that distinguishable from an America First status quo in any way that affects non-Americans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Incrementally.  My point is that what is as play in the US and Russia are the same tendencies.  To overlook out absolutely real and significant failures of morals and integrity.  

You are saying, if I understand you correctly, that a political realist should recognize that US moral failings have, rightly or wrongly, given Putin political capital he can spend to retain political support from the Russian people and that realism should temper US actions moving forward and create a desire to recognize and account for US failings and evils of the past.

I get that.

What I’m saying is that doesn’t happen in a vacuum.  That US domestic politics create difficulties for such a process.  That US domestic politics make it dangerous to walk that road and that the benefits from such a journey may not outweigh the liabilities.  

That losing the US to “America First” is worse than any benefit a profound and serious national introspection will bring and I don’t she how the former can be accomplished without the latter being the end result.  It is a cynical and sad state of affairs, but, so is Putin claiming US evils justify and excuse his evils.

I think you're overselling this.  Obama got elected with one of his selling points being that he wasn't involved in the Iraq War.   The media and the MIC are bigger obstacles to changing US foreign policy than the America First freaks. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I get you, I think. But I’ll ask you to think of this issue from a non-American pov: if the presence of the AF contingent already pushes for expansionism and already makes accountability impossible, how is that distinguishable from an America First status quo in any way that affects non-Americans?

Because “America First” will pull the US out of all international comitments. And the US will only engage internationally to lash out in anger and aggression.  That is much worse.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

I think you're overselling this.  Obama got elected with one of his selling points being that he wasn't involved in the Iraq War.   The media and the MIC are bigger obstacles to changing US foreign policy than the America First freaks. 

 

Obama was elected in 2008 and 2012.  Pre-Trump and the fascist swing of the Republican Party.  We are in a different world in the US than we were in 6 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Obama was elected in 2008 and 2012.  Pre-Trump and the fascist swing of the Republican Party.  We are in a different world in the US than we were in 6 years ago.

Those elements existed and were building their influence -- i.e. Tea Party and Alex Jones&9/11 Truthers have direct descendants in the Freedom Caucus, Qanon, and MAGA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Obama was elected in 2008 and 2012.  Pre-Trump and the fascist swing of the Republican Party.  We are in a different world in the US than we were in 6 years ago.

Trump ran on Iraq being a mistake.  The Republican party has been fascist for a lot longer than that.  This is a sorry excuse for whatever kind of war apologism is going on here 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Week said:

Those elements existed and were building their influence -- i.e. Tea Party and Alex Jones&9/11 Truthers have direct descendants in the Freedom Caucus, Qanon, and MAGA.

Yes… and now they have significant political power, a significant political following, and the tacit endorsement of a major political party.  That wasn’t true before 2016.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...