4 ms·

Could somebody explain me why this gets downvoted?

by yaix 15y ago

dantheman 15y ago
A lot of people don't like the UN. A lot of people don't like the ICJ. How does the UN or ICJ provide "similar important mechanisms to stop and procecute attrocities against humanity committed during war" ? The whole war crimes thing is kind of a farce, if we look at the Nuremberg counts 1 & 2; we must ask ourselves how was russia on the bench instead of in front of it? There are much better critiques than I can muster right now.
- william42 15y ago
  «how was russia on the bench instead of in front of it?» They didn't lose a war; if I recall correctly, it wasn't until Stalin died and Khrushchev gave the Secret Speech that we learned of how bad Stalinist abuses were.
  - arethuza 15y ago
    I'm pretty sure people in the West knew pretty well what was going on but largely chose to ignore it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge#Western_reactions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge#Western_reactions
  - dantheman 15y ago
    Counts: 1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace 2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace Russia & Germany planned to divide Poland; how was Russia's invasion different than the Germans? As to the comment - "They didn't lose the war" is exactly my point, that's not justice.
    - yaix 15y ago
      Your discussion goes into the completely wrong direction. And you are discussion something that happened 60 years ago. Not only the microchip, the international system too, has evolved a lot since then. A lot. >> that's not justice. Nobody ever said it was justice. The UN and the ICJ are only just a first step to finally free the international system from anarchy. Think of it as programming by punching holes in cards. There is still a long way ahead, but it is a good beginning.
- westicle 15y ago
  Or the United States under count 3 for that matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War...
- yaix 15y ago
  Well, "a lot of people" don't like courts, either. But we still have them, because its the best system we have come up with, so far, to make the world a better and more livable/secure place for everybody. Maybe there is a better way, but humanity hasn't discovered it yet. Violence and threats have, in the past, shown that they are always the worse option in the long term. Unilatral violence just looks appealing to the simple minded, because its easy to understand. I still hope that politics is not entirely many by the simple minded, though. If you want to learn about the UN or ICJ, there is a lot of academic material out there on the tubes. It is a much to complex issue to be "quickly" discussed on a hacker board. You probably would not discuss Erlang in a political science forum either ;)
  - dantheman 15y ago
    I am pretty well informed on both the UN & ICJ and while I can say I agree with what their goals are I think the means and implementation are completely incorrect. I think that not intervention and human relief/asylum/evacuation are the ways to deal with international problems. I prefer a loosely integrated system where it's hard for anyone group to gain control. This requires decentralization & a lack of strong international organizations. I'd like to note, that I'm interested in stability & corruption - worst case scenarios, etc. If you have anything you recommend that addresses those issues I'd like to read it. And lastly, I'd like to quote milton friedman: "One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results."
    - yaix 15y ago
      I agree with you view on crisis reaction, that is not intervention and hunman relief. And the UN does that most of the time. That is why Blue Helmets are usually regarded as "useless" by many, because they don't fight. Unfortunately, that leeds to bad press and public opinion. The UN is important as a mechanism of creating trust between nations, as a standardized communication platform. That is its main purpose. It publishes treaties, it has specialized forums to deal with different policy topics and create common rules, etc. A loosely integrated system leads to the most physically powerful group to control everybody else, with no rules what so ever. Then Rumsfeld's "Enemy Fighters" (for who the Genevoa Convention does not count according to the Bush Government) would be the norm, not the shameful exception. That does not sound like a good idea. I agree that the UN and the ICJ have tons of shortcomings, but its the best humanity has been ably to come up with so far to organize the international system.

Could somebody explain me why this gets downvoted?

by yaix 15y ago

Could somebody explain me why this gets downvoted?

A lot of people don't like the UN. A lot of people don't like the ICJ. How does the UN or ICJ provide "similar important mechanisms to stop and procecute attrocities against humanity committed during war" ? The whole war crimes thing is kind of a farce, if we look at the Nuremberg counts 1 & 2; we must ask ourselves how was russia on the bench instead of in front of it? There are much better critiques than I can muster right now.

william42 15y ago
«how was russia on the bench instead of in front of it?» They didn't lose a war; if I recall correctly, it wasn't until Stalin died and Khrushchev gave the Secret Speech that we learned of how bad Stalinist abuses were.
- arethuza 15y ago
  I'm pretty sure people in the West knew pretty well what was going on but largely chose to ignore it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge#Western_reactions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge#Western_reactions
- dantheman 15y ago
  Counts: 1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace 2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace Russia & Germany planned to divide Poland; how was Russia's invasion different than the Germans? As to the comment - "They didn't lose the war" is exactly my point, that's not justice.
  - yaix 15y ago
    Your discussion goes into the completely wrong direction. And you are discussion something that happened 60 years ago. Not only the microchip, the international system too, has evolved a lot since then. A lot. >> that's not justice. Nobody ever said it was justice. The UN and the ICJ are only just a first step to finally free the international system from anarchy. Think of it as programming by punching holes in cards. There is still a long way ahead, but it is a good beginning.
westicle 15y ago
Or the United States under count 3 for that matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War...
yaix 15y ago
Well, "a lot of people" don't like courts, either. But we still have them, because its the best system we have come up with, so far, to make the world a better and more livable/secure place for everybody. Maybe there is a better way, but humanity hasn't discovered it yet. Violence and threats have, in the past, shown that they are always the worse option in the long term. Unilatral violence just looks appealing to the simple minded, because its easy to understand. I still hope that politics is not entirely many by the simple minded, though. If you want to learn about the UN or ICJ, there is a lot of academic material out there on the tubes. It is a much to complex issue to be "quickly" discussed on a hacker board. You probably would not discuss Erlang in a political science forum either ;)
- dantheman 15y ago
  I am pretty well informed on both the UN & ICJ and while I can say I agree with what their goals are I think the means and implementation are completely incorrect. I think that not intervention and human relief/asylum/evacuation are the ways to deal with international problems. I prefer a loosely integrated system where it's hard for anyone group to gain control. This requires decentralization & a lack of strong international organizations. I'd like to note, that I'm interested in stability & corruption - worst case scenarios, etc. If you have anything you recommend that addresses those issues I'd like to read it. And lastly, I'd like to quote milton friedman: "One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results."
  - yaix 15y ago
    I agree with you view on crisis reaction, that is not intervention and hunman relief. And the UN does that most of the time. That is why Blue Helmets are usually regarded as "useless" by many, because they don't fight. Unfortunately, that leeds to bad press and public opinion. The UN is important as a mechanism of creating trust between nations, as a standardized communication platform. That is its main purpose. It publishes treaties, it has specialized forums to deal with different policy topics and create common rules, etc. A loosely integrated system leads to the most physically powerful group to control everybody else, with no rules what so ever. Then Rumsfeld's "Enemy Fighters" (for who the Genevoa Convention does not count according to the Bush Government) would be the norm, not the shameful exception. That does not sound like a good idea. I agree that the UN and the ICJ have tons of shortcomings, but its the best humanity has been ably to come up with so far to organize the international system.