3 ms·

Being a “war criminal” isn’t mutually exclusive with being “the greatest statesman who ever lived”, one doesn’t require the negation of the other, especially am

Being a “war criminal” isn’t mutually exclusive with being “the greatest statesman who ever lived”, one doesn’t require the negation of the other, especially among the fans of a realist, balance of power type. Indeed, many would probably argue it’s a requirement.

thundergolfer 6y ago
If we were having a conversation, I think I'd say "do you hear what you're saying here?" People who genuinely think that being a war criminal is a requirement for great statesmanship are functionally supporting psychopathy. What nutcase political realist is going to say enacting atrocities like the Rape of Nanjing is a requirement for greatness in political affairs?
- readarticle 6y ago
  For context, war crime includes everything from sinking merchant ships to My Lai, my statement (mostly) leaned toward the former. Generally, it’s deviation from the agreed upon rules, and you’ll find no shortage of people with boats named Richelieu believing greatness synonymous with the successful pursuit of interest, ideally done intelligently within the rules of course, ideally.
- parsimo2010 6y ago
  This is not my actual viewpoint but for arguments sake: a realist would argue that Kissinger’s responsibility was to the citizens of the USA only, not to anyone else in the world. If he thought he could make the USA more powerful by killing foreigners, then he should. Any foreigner’s life is less valuable than America, even if they are innocent. He acted according to his responsibilities. Not holding him accountable should be seen as a failure of the federal government, and possibly the international community. If the government wants their leaders to also follow a moral code, they could do so with a few laws and would stop shielding people from international prosecution. But the government shows that they are okay with people like Kissinger because he produced good results for the country (most of the time). This is similar to people that claim a company’s responsibility is to maximize shareholder value, and if do that by polluting, operating sweatshops, or treating employees unfairly, then they should. It should be seen as a failure of the regulatory system if they are allowed to get away with it. I’m not in agreement with the argument I just made, but I understand that people who have an “America first/only” mentality can overlook some pretty bad things. I don’t think that war crimes are a prerequisite for being an effective statesman, but I would say that war crimes might be tolerable for leaders trying to project strength. Other countries are less likely to call a bluff if the lives of innocent people aren’t a an effective shield.
  - Aerroon 6y ago
    >operating sweatshops Economists usually consider sweatshops to be good. It helps impoverished countries. For the workers these sweatshops usually pay better or have better working conditions than the alternatives.[0] [0] https://web.northeastern.edu/econsociety/why-the-world-needs-sweatshops/ https://web.northeastern.edu/econsociety/why-the-world-needs...

thundergolfer 6y ago

If we were having a conversation, I think I'd say "do you hear what you're saying here?" People who genuinely think that being a war criminal is a requirement for great statesmanship are functionally supporting psychopathy. What nutcase political realist is going to say enacting atrocities like the Rape of Nanjing is a requirement for greatness in political affairs?

readarticle 6y ago
For context, war crime includes everything from sinking merchant ships to My Lai, my statement (mostly) leaned toward the former. Generally, it’s deviation from the agreed upon rules, and you’ll find no shortage of people with boats named Richelieu believing greatness synonymous with the successful pursuit of interest, ideally done intelligently within the rules of course, ideally.
parsimo2010 6y ago
This is not my actual viewpoint but for arguments sake: a realist would argue that Kissinger’s responsibility was to the citizens of the USA only, not to anyone else in the world. If he thought he could make the USA more powerful by killing foreigners, then he should. Any foreigner’s life is less valuable than America, even if they are innocent. He acted according to his responsibilities. Not holding him accountable should be seen as a failure of the federal government, and possibly the international community. If the government wants their leaders to also follow a moral code, they could do so with a few laws and would stop shielding people from international prosecution. But the government shows that they are okay with people like Kissinger because he produced good results for the country (most of the time). This is similar to people that claim a company’s responsibility is to maximize shareholder value, and if do that by polluting, operating sweatshops, or treating employees unfairly, then they should. It should be seen as a failure of the regulatory system if they are allowed to get away with it. I’m not in agreement with the argument I just made, but I understand that people who have an “America first/only” mentality can overlook some pretty bad things. I don’t think that war crimes are a prerequisite for being an effective statesman, but I would say that war crimes might be tolerable for leaders trying to project strength. Other countries are less likely to call a bluff if the lives of innocent people aren’t a an effective shield.
- Aerroon 6y ago
  >operating sweatshops Economists usually consider sweatshops to be good. It helps impoverished countries. For the workers these sweatshops usually pay better or have better working conditions than the alternatives.[0] [0] https://web.northeastern.edu/econsociety/why-the-world-needs-sweatshops/ https://web.northeastern.edu/econsociety/why-the-world-needs...