4 ms·

Can we distinguish between the prerogative of a state to wage an offensive war against another state (eg., US vs Iraq) from a state engaged genocide of its o

Can we distinguish between the prerogative of a state to wage an offensive war against another state (eg., US vs Iraq) *from* a state engaged genocide of its own people? When a state attacks, on-mass, its own citizens it's essentially failed. Absent a functioning state, any outsider can do what they want here: invade, preferably. The "whataboutism" here isn't solved with yet more whataboutism. Every state today and in all of history has waged war, and holds itself to low standards on non-citizens. There is nothing exceptional in the US having Guantanamo; it is a world-wide exception not to have one! (And I agree, incidentally, that there shouldnt be one). A genocide isn't part-and-parcel of the nature of states; it is the opposite. An exceptional event which represents a profound failure of the state. It was the genocidal conditions of slavery which caused the US federal state to fail: civil war.

barry-cotter 5y ago
> When a state attacks, on-mass, its own citizens it's essentially failed. Absent a functioning state, any outsider can do what they want here: invade, preferably. A failed state isn't one that does thngs you don't like. China doesn't like that there are many, many countries where you can say bad things about China. It's one that can't control very large parts of its territory or get things done. Being evil and failing are separate concepts. The Qing killed the Dzhungars. They eradicated an entire ethnic group. That was a strong state, not a failed one. And of course outsiders can invade if they're willing to put up with the consequences. International law is and always has been a farce, from Grotius making up the law of the sea to protect Dutch weakness in Northern European waters when they were abusing all round them in the East Indies, to the victor's "justice" of the Nuremberg trials to the differing treatments of genocide depending on great power sponsorship. At its most farcical you have puppet regimes of the "international community" like the Somali or Afghan puppets. You can invade if you're willing to pay for it.
- asimpletune 5y ago
  What was wrong with Nuremberg?
  - lostlogin 5y ago
    The section titled ‘Criticism’ in the Wiki is a good starting point. The allied victors made laws then retroactively applied them. Why was there so little reflection, consequence or punishment for allied murders, rapes and killings? Why were these new laws only applied to the loser? The Nuremberg trials have been described as show trials and organised lynching by the victors. The Soviets provided a judge who had helped oversee purges in the ‘30s where hundreds of thousands were murdered by the Soviet state. While the defendants perhaps got what they deserved, they did not get a fair trial or the opportunity to voice inconvenient truths. The sentencing was unequal and illogical - why did Speer get the sentence he got? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials
    - asimpletune 5y ago
      Thanks for taking the time to write that, looks super interesting. I will definitely check it out.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    I think the argument here is “not enough governments were put on trial”.
pjc50 5y ago
> world-wide exception not to have one The US having a place under its control yet where federal law and its own rights laws do not apply is exceptional. The whole point of it is to be a place of exception from scrutiny. Few countries have such a place - certainly few democratic countries.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  > Few countries have such a place There are 7bn people on the planet, how many do you think are under a jurisdiction with "human rights" ? Not many.
- rich_sasha 5y ago
  The exception of Guantanamo is that it is geographically exterritorial. I’m sure other countries have intelligence and counterintelligence operations where you can be tortured and held without basic rights, just possibly not on a Caribbean island.
trasz 5y ago
tl;dr USA killing a million random people in Middle East is ok, because they are not American citizens. I’m still somewhat surprised how anyone can claim that and still be considered not a nazi.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  I'm surprised by how peoples ideological commitment to hating specific policies of their own country blinds them from making any objective comparison to other countries. Nothing I said here said any war is justified. My comment is to compare the US with other countries, rather than with its own internal standards of right-and-wrong. Whataboutism fails to be objective, in turning common properties of every state (eg., waging war) into grave sins of one's own -- and then actually grave sins of other states into trivialities. The states holding themselves to the highest moral standards in the world are western. Russians feel no sin to have invaded ukraine. The idea that whataboutism even has two legs to stand on in the west is a symptom of how poorly people understand other countries.
  - trasz 5y ago
    It’s only because American “moral standards” don’t care about slaughtering millions, as long as the victims are not Americans. Regarding Russia: remember what happened when Russians downed an airliner in Ukraine? They “disappeared” the perpetrators. Remember what happened when Americans downed an airliner in Iran? They decorated the perpetrators. This is some difference in moral standards indeed.
wwtrv 5y ago
Well according to you the invasion of Iraq was actually legitimate because Iraq was a “state engaged genocide of its own people”. Of course when most of this was happening right after the first Gulf War ,when Sadam was killed ten of thousands of Kurds using both conventional and chemical weapons US sat idly completely ignoring it. And this is basically why the 1st Gulf war was considered a success compared to the second one.

Can we distinguish between the prerogative of a state to wage an offensive war against another state (eg., US vs Iraq) *from* a state engaged genocide of its o

barry-cotter 5y ago

> When a state attacks, on-mass, its own citizens it's essentially failed. Absent a functioning state, any outsider can do what they want here: invade, preferably. A failed state isn't one that does thngs you don't like. China doesn't like that there are many, many countries where you can say bad things about China. It's one that can't control very large parts of its territory or get things done. Being evil and failing are separate concepts. The Qing killed the Dzhungars. They eradicated an entire ethnic group. That was a strong state, not a failed one. And of course outsiders can invade if they're willing to put up with the consequences. International law is and always has been a farce, from Grotius making up the law of the sea to protect Dutch weakness in Northern European waters when they were abusing all round them in the East Indies, to the victor's "justice" of the Nuremberg trials to the differing treatments of genocide depending on great power sponsorship. At its most farcical you have puppet regimes of the "international community" like the Somali or Afghan puppets. You can invade if you're willing to pay for it.

asimpletune 5y ago
What was wrong with Nuremberg?
- lostlogin 5y ago
  The section titled ‘Criticism’ in the Wiki is a good starting point. The allied victors made laws then retroactively applied them. Why was there so little reflection, consequence or punishment for allied murders, rapes and killings? Why were these new laws only applied to the loser? The Nuremberg trials have been described as show trials and organised lynching by the victors. The Soviets provided a judge who had helped oversee purges in the ‘30s where hundreds of thousands were murdered by the Soviet state. While the defendants perhaps got what they deserved, they did not get a fair trial or the opportunity to voice inconvenient truths. The sentencing was unequal and illogical - why did Speer get the sentence he got? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials
  - asimpletune 5y ago
    Thanks for taking the time to write that, looks super interesting. I will definitely check it out.
- ben_w 5y ago
  I think the argument here is “not enough governments were put on trial”.

pjc50 5y ago

> world-wide exception not to have one The US having a place under its control yet where federal law and its own rights laws do not apply is exceptional. The whole point of it is to be a place of exception from scrutiny. Few countries have such a place - certainly few democratic countries.

mjburgess 5y ago
> Few countries have such a place There are 7bn people on the planet, how many do you think are under a jurisdiction with "human rights" ? Not many.
rich_sasha 5y ago
The exception of Guantanamo is that it is geographically exterritorial. I’m sure other countries have intelligence and counterintelligence operations where you can be tortured and held without basic rights, just possibly not on a Caribbean island.

trasz 5y ago

tl;dr USA killing a million random people in Middle East is ok, because they are not American citizens. I’m still somewhat surprised how anyone can claim that and still be considered not a nazi.

mjburgess 5y ago
I'm surprised by how peoples ideological commitment to hating specific policies of their own country blinds them from making any objective comparison to other countries. Nothing I said here said any war is justified. My comment is to compare the US with other countries, rather than with its own internal standards of right-and-wrong. Whataboutism fails to be objective, in turning common properties of every state (eg., waging war) into grave sins of one's own -- and then actually grave sins of other states into trivialities. The states holding themselves to the highest moral standards in the world are western. Russians feel no sin to have invaded ukraine. The idea that whataboutism even has two legs to stand on in the west is a symptom of how poorly people understand other countries.
- trasz 5y ago
  It’s only because American “moral standards” don’t care about slaughtering millions, as long as the victims are not Americans. Regarding Russia: remember what happened when Russians downed an airliner in Ukraine? They “disappeared” the perpetrators. Remember what happened when Americans downed an airliner in Iran? They decorated the perpetrators. This is some difference in moral standards indeed.

wwtrv 5y ago

Well according to you the invasion of Iraq was actually legitimate because Iraq was a “state engaged genocide of its own people”. Of course when most of this was happening right after the first Gulf War ,when Sadam was killed ten of thousands of Kurds using both conventional and chemical weapons US sat idly completely ignoring it. And this is basically why the 1st Gulf war was considered a success compared to the second one.