3 ms·

Yeah. It seems to me that it's not so much that "war is illegal" as "certain countries have declared a monopoly on force and have the means to enforce it." Or a

Yeah. It seems to me that it's not so much that "war is illegal" as "certain countries have declared a monopoly on force and have the means to enforce it." Or at least try to. That's probably a good thing, but it seems useful to me to approach it with a more accurate perspective.

dfmooreqqq 9y ago
"It seems to me that it's not so much that war "is illegal" as "certain countries have declared a monopoly on force and have the means to enforce it."" In some lines of thought, that's the definition of illegal...
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  OK, but even by that definition, it's not the UN that has made it illegal. The UN is pretty toothless. I mean, yes, they have peacekeeping forces. Those forces are not keeping the peace by force. In fact, there have been times when they have stood aside while one side violated the peace, because the UN force's rules of engagement didn't allow them to use force to prevent one side from starting the war back up.
  - simonh 9y ago
    It can be pretty toothless, but the mere fact that it exists as a platform for discussion, expression if views and the firmation if consensus is a huge improvement compared to nothing. I think the experience nations get of working together on issues is also pretty valuable.
    - jessriedel 9y ago
      AnimalMuppet isn't making a general criticism of the UN, he's arguing that the UN isn't responsible for war being illegal under dfmooreqqq's operational definition.
mcguire 9y ago
The "Pax Americana". That term isn't right, since there are a few other countries involved, but it brings to mind the right associations.
- NoGravitas 9y ago
  If you interpret "the UN" in this context as "the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council", it's pretty much the same thing as you're saying.
  - sooheon 9y ago
    Yes, but being explicit and acknowledging the concentration of power is better than saying pithily "war is illegal", as if it were shoplifting or loitering.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

dfmooreqqq 9y ago

"It seems to me that it's not so much that war "is illegal" as "certain countries have declared a monopoly on force and have the means to enforce it."" In some lines of thought, that's the definition of illegal...

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
OK, but even by that definition, it's not the UN that has made it illegal. The UN is pretty toothless. I mean, yes, they have peacekeeping forces. Those forces are not keeping the peace by force. In fact, there have been times when they have stood aside while one side violated the peace, because the UN force's rules of engagement didn't allow them to use force to prevent one side from starting the war back up.
- simonh 9y ago
  It can be pretty toothless, but the mere fact that it exists as a platform for discussion, expression if views and the firmation if consensus is a huge improvement compared to nothing. I think the experience nations get of working together on issues is also pretty valuable.
  - jessriedel 9y ago
    AnimalMuppet isn't making a general criticism of the UN, he's arguing that the UN isn't responsible for war being illegal under dfmooreqqq's operational definition.

mcguire 9y ago

The "Pax Americana". That term isn't right, since there are a few other countries involved, but it brings to mind the right associations.

NoGravitas 9y ago
If you interpret "the UN" in this context as "the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council", it's pretty much the same thing as you're saying.
- sooheon 9y ago
  Yes, but being explicit and acknowledging the concentration of power is better than saying pithily "war is illegal", as if it were shoplifting or loitering.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]