6 ms·

> Should the global community have targeted all Americans for the actions of the Bush Presidency invading Iraq under false pretenses? Or how about Vietnam? Wro

> Should the global community have targeted all Americans for the actions of the Bush Presidency invading Iraq under false pretenses? Or how about Vietnam? Wrong question. Whether they "should" in any moral sense is not a useful way to think about things because geopolitics isn't a morality play. Clearly effective sanctions against USA were a non-starter because it is too big and rich a country and does a lot of trade with the outside world. > Realize that our next Iraq or Vietnam this new standard could be applied to us or any other country. Nope. Effective sanctions won't happen against big powerful countries (or coalitions of countries, e.g. EU, NATO).

ajross 5y ago
It's more the wrong question because the "international community" as such broadly supported action in Afghanistan and (to a lesser extent) Iraq. Lots of individual groups had qualms, but none rose to the level of actual policymaking in democratic governments. Obviously in hindsight (informed by the results of the occupation and the exposure of the extremely spun intelligence that was used to justify the war) lots of people would claim to have "opposed" the Iraq war, but at the time it was mostly just shrugs and silence.
- vkou 5y ago
  We don't need to go as far back as Iraq. The Saudis have been waging an offensive war for years in Yemen. Yet there hasn't been a single peep about cutting them off SWIFT, sanctioning their royal oligarchs, freezing their western assets, etc, etc. It seems to send a message that yes, repressive petrostate dictatorships can get away with waging offensive wars... Well, at least some of them can.
  - all2 5y ago
    Oil, and by proxy money, protect them from anything people might want to do to them. People want their money, want their oil, so they turn a blind eye.
    - 8note 5y ago
      It's not shielding Russia nearly as strongly. Being a friend of the US is more important than having oil. American friends and allies can do no wrong to the eyes of the western world
      - all2 5y ago
        It is in China's best interest that Russia is hostile to the US. I wonder what it would take for the US to form a military alliance with Russia?
        jl6 5y ago
        > I wonder what it would take for the US to form a military alliance with Russia? A head-and-shoulders decapitation of a regime change in Russia, Chinese irredentism over outer Manchuria, a Han-supremacist lebensraum movement targeting Asia east of the Urals…
        cabalamat 5y ago
        Once Putin is gone, it may well happen that Russia and America become friendly.
        coliveira 5y ago
        Only a government change in the US would allow an alliance with Russia. Current US government is Russophobic to the core.
- 8note 5y ago
  Afghanistan yeah, but you can tell the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan by who participated in the invasion. Lack of actual policy making to me is more that the US empire was at the peak of its power. Being punished by America at the time would be worse than trying to maintain a rules based.
- coliveira 5y ago
  There was no international support for the invasion of Iraq. The US came up with a meager "coalition" of their usual partner states only to appear they were not going alone.
- kilburn 5y ago
  Regarding the Iraq war, Wikipedia has an interesting page about protests against it [1]. > On February 15 [2003, before the invasion started], millions of people protested, in approximately 800 cities around the world. Listed by the 2004 Guinness Book of Records as the largest protest in human history, protests occurred among others in the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, Republic of Ireland, the United States, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Syria, India, Russia, South Korea, Japan, and even McMurdo Station in Antarctica. I don't think "the largest protest in human history" qualifies as "mostly shrugs and silence" ;) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War
drekk 5y ago
Wonder how commenters like this will feel when Russia/China/Iran have their own sphere with an alternative to SWIFT like CIPS. Your complete inability to be a fair global hegemon is the reason nobody respects or trusts your government. Cuba is still needing to ask Uncle Sam for permission to import syringes during a global health crisis, we're still backing a genocide in Yemen, doing all of these terrible things while acting like global arbitrage. USA isn't the global police. If you're going to undercut the WHO, the UN, etc. then you don't get to act like it's about freedom and democracy or the rule of law. Might makes right is an inane policy for Machiavellian wonks. Just because you can do whatever you want doesn't mean you should. The US imports a lot of things too, and a concerted global effort would at the very least require an isolationist USA. Where are you going to get your silicon chips from if the Republic of China reunifies with the People's Republic of China? US wants to play by different rules than everyone else, not sure that works long term. Either invasions are globally kosher or they aren't, over a million dead and 38 million displaced over a "war on terror" that didn't do shit is a war crime. If we're not going to call an invasion on false pretexts that killed and displaced millions of civilians a war crime the word has no meaning and the discussion is moot. And if the US can do war crimes but only China/Russia/Iran face consequences for them because we're a "big powerful country" I hope you're ready for the era of multiple US-hostile nuclear powers. Almost ruined the Earth when only two nuclear powers were butting heads in the 20th century and now we've got several to pick from :)
- cabalamat 5y ago
  > Wonder how commenters like this will feel when Russia/China/Iran have their own sphere with an alternative to SWIFT like CIPS. If they want to, that's up to them. It wouldn't surprise me if China did do something like this. > Your complete inability to be a fair global hegemon Hey, (1) I personally am not a global hegemon. (2) I was describing the way things are not how they ought to be. You should work on distinguishing is from ought; if you can't you'll never understand anything. FWIW I personaslly think a fair bit of US policy is both immoral and self defeating. But, again, that's irrelevant, because as I said, geopolitics isn't a morality play. > Where are you going to get your silicon chips from if the Republic of China reunifies with the People's Republic of China? I'm European and I think the EU should be self-sufficient in chips. This is because any polity that isn't won't in the long term be fully independent. > US wants to play by different rules than everyone else, not sure that works long term. "The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" is a rule thast's worked so for for all 5000 years of recorded history (with a few counterexamples). Is that lnog term enough for you? Is that just? No. Does it matter (i.e. affect the course of events)? Not usually. > I hope you're ready for the era of multiple US-hostile nuclear powers. A world with lots more nuclear powers may well happen, depending on the result of the present Russia-Ukraine war.
retrac 5y ago
> Whether they "should" in any moral sense is not a useful way to think about things because geopolitics isn't a morality play While I personally agree with this Realpolitik view, I don't believe it's actually universal among leaders. Many things that have happened historically did because leaders felt some grand moral imperative (national unification, stopping an atrocity, helping one's close ethnic allies in a defensive war, offensive "defences" when the momentum felt like it was being lost -- take your pick). A moral imperative (although one rather out of place in the 21st century) seems to be behind Putin's actions, IMO. Restore the glory of the Russian empire, practical barriers to that will be ignored. It just must be done, for the sake of itself. Righteous causes eventually sort themselves out, right? Which brings me to the sanctions. I've not actually seen much discussion on whether sanctions against Russia will achieve Western geopolitical goals. Much of the discussion is presently framed as a moral imperative. We must act to punish Putin.
- cabalamat 5y ago
  > Many things that have happened historically did because leaders felt some grand moral imperative I agree, actually. For example, the original Islamic expansion, and later the crusades that were a response to it, were both explained in moral terms. (these demonstrate how manipulating consensus reality is a core competency for rulers). And the people who fought in these wars genuinely honestly believed they were acting morally and serving a higher purpose. Or, a more recent example: part of the reason NATO intervened in Kosovo in 1999 was that they were ashamed they hadn't done so in Bosnia a few years earlier.
- cabalamat 5y ago
  > Restore the glory of the Russian empire Right now Zelinskyy and Ukraine are covering themselves in a lot more glory than Putin and Russia. > Righteous causes eventually sort themselves out, right? I think Putin psyched himself up into believing his own propaganda. He's probably surrounded by yes-men who tell him what he wants to hear, too. Oops. > Much of the discussion is presently framed as a moral imperative. We must act to punish Putin. Sure. Morality is intuitive game theory, after all.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
coliveira 5y ago
> Effective sanctions won't happen against big powerful countries The US is applying sanctions to China. The US doesn't see any limits to the target of their sanctions, as you seem to believe.
- quickthrowman 5y ago
  The sanctions aren’t effective because China is a global power. Russia is not.
  - coliveira 5y ago
    You're right about China. But people don't understand that Russia is not such a poor country as they imagine. They have oil and gas exports that can be easily sold to China and other neighbors. And the sanctions, as well as military building, are helping to propel their own industry. I wouldn't be surprised if even the heavy sanctions imposed now will prove ineffective in a few years. My opinion if that Europe will suffer most with these sanctions over the long run.

ajross 5y ago

It's more the wrong question because the "international community" as such broadly supported action in Afghanistan and (to a lesser extent) Iraq. Lots of individual groups had qualms, but none rose to the level of actual policymaking in democratic governments. Obviously in hindsight (informed by the results of the occupation and the exposure of the extremely spun intelligence that was used to justify the war) lots of people would claim to have "opposed" the Iraq war, but at the time it was mostly just shrugs and silence.

vkou 5y ago
We don't need to go as far back as Iraq. The Saudis have been waging an offensive war for years in Yemen. Yet there hasn't been a single peep about cutting them off SWIFT, sanctioning their royal oligarchs, freezing their western assets, etc, etc. It seems to send a message that yes, repressive petrostate dictatorships can get away with waging offensive wars... Well, at least some of them can.
- all2 5y ago
  Oil, and by proxy money, protect them from anything people might want to do to them. People want their money, want their oil, so they turn a blind eye.
  - 8note 5y ago
    It's not shielding Russia nearly as strongly. Being a friend of the US is more important than having oil. American friends and allies can do no wrong to the eyes of the western world
    - all2 5y ago
      It is in China's best interest that Russia is hostile to the US. I wonder what it would take for the US to form a military alliance with Russia?
      - jl6 5y ago
        > I wonder what it would take for the US to form a military alliance with Russia? A head-and-shoulders decapitation of a regime change in Russia, Chinese irredentism over outer Manchuria, a Han-supremacist lebensraum movement targeting Asia east of the Urals…
        cabalamat 5y ago
        Once Putin is gone, it may well happen that Russia and America become friendly.
      - coliveira 5y ago
        Only a government change in the US would allow an alliance with Russia. Current US government is Russophobic to the core.
8note 5y ago
Afghanistan yeah, but you can tell the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan by who participated in the invasion. Lack of actual policy making to me is more that the US empire was at the peak of its power. Being punished by America at the time would be worse than trying to maintain a rules based.
coliveira 5y ago
There was no international support for the invasion of Iraq. The US came up with a meager "coalition" of their usual partner states only to appear they were not going alone.
kilburn 5y ago
Regarding the Iraq war, Wikipedia has an interesting page about protests against it [1]. > On February 15 [2003, before the invasion started], millions of people protested, in approximately 800 cities around the world. Listed by the 2004 Guinness Book of Records as the largest protest in human history, protests occurred among others in the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, Republic of Ireland, the United States, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Syria, India, Russia, South Korea, Japan, and even McMurdo Station in Antarctica. I don't think "the largest protest in human history" qualifies as "mostly shrugs and silence" ;) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War

drekk 5y ago

Wonder how commenters like this will feel when Russia/China/Iran have their own sphere with an alternative to SWIFT like CIPS. Your complete inability to be a fair global hegemon is the reason nobody respects or trusts your government. Cuba is still needing to ask Uncle Sam for permission to import syringes during a global health crisis, we're still backing a genocide in Yemen, doing all of these terrible things while acting like global arbitrage. USA isn't the global police. If you're going to undercut the WHO, the UN, etc. then you don't get to act like it's about freedom and democracy or the rule of law. Might makes right is an inane policy for Machiavellian wonks. Just because you can do whatever you want doesn't mean you should. The US imports a lot of things too, and a concerted global effort would at the very least require an isolationist USA. Where are you going to get your silicon chips from if the Republic of China reunifies with the People's Republic of China? US wants to play by different rules than everyone else, not sure that works long term. Either invasions are globally kosher or they aren't, over a million dead and 38 million displaced over a "war on terror" that didn't do shit is a war crime. If we're not going to call an invasion on false pretexts that killed and displaced millions of civilians a war crime the word has no meaning and the discussion is moot. And if the US can do war crimes but only China/Russia/Iran face consequences for them because we're a "big powerful country" I hope you're ready for the era of multiple US-hostile nuclear powers. Almost ruined the Earth when only two nuclear powers were butting heads in the 20th century and now we've got several to pick from :)

cabalamat 5y ago
> Wonder how commenters like this will feel when Russia/China/Iran have their own sphere with an alternative to SWIFT like CIPS. If they want to, that's up to them. It wouldn't surprise me if China did do something like this. > Your complete inability to be a fair global hegemon Hey, (1) I personally am not a global hegemon. (2) I was describing the way things are not how they ought to be. You should work on distinguishing is from ought; if you can't you'll never understand anything. FWIW I personaslly think a fair bit of US policy is both immoral and self defeating. But, again, that's irrelevant, because as I said, geopolitics isn't a morality play. > Where are you going to get your silicon chips from if the Republic of China reunifies with the People's Republic of China? I'm European and I think the EU should be self-sufficient in chips. This is because any polity that isn't won't in the long term be fully independent. > US wants to play by different rules than everyone else, not sure that works long term. "The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" is a rule thast's worked so for for all 5000 years of recorded history (with a few counterexamples). Is that lnog term enough for you? Is that just? No. Does it matter (i.e. affect the course of events)? Not usually. > I hope you're ready for the era of multiple US-hostile nuclear powers. A world with lots more nuclear powers may well happen, depending on the result of the present Russia-Ukraine war.

retrac 5y ago

> Whether they "should" in any moral sense is not a useful way to think about things because geopolitics isn't a morality play While I personally agree with this Realpolitik view, I don't believe it's actually universal among leaders. Many things that have happened historically did because leaders felt some grand moral imperative (national unification, stopping an atrocity, helping one's close ethnic allies in a defensive war, offensive "defences" when the momentum felt like it was being lost -- take your pick). A moral imperative (although one rather out of place in the 21st century) seems to be behind Putin's actions, IMO. Restore the glory of the Russian empire, practical barriers to that will be ignored. It just must be done, for the sake of itself. Righteous causes eventually sort themselves out, right? Which brings me to the sanctions. I've not actually seen much discussion on whether sanctions against Russia will achieve Western geopolitical goals. Much of the discussion is presently framed as a moral imperative. We must act to punish Putin.

cabalamat 5y ago
> Many things that have happened historically did because leaders felt some grand moral imperative I agree, actually. For example, the original Islamic expansion, and later the crusades that were a response to it, were both explained in moral terms. (these demonstrate how manipulating consensus reality is a core competency for rulers). And the people who fought in these wars genuinely honestly believed they were acting morally and serving a higher purpose. Or, a more recent example: part of the reason NATO intervened in Kosovo in 1999 was that they were ashamed they hadn't done so in Bosnia a few years earlier.
cabalamat 5y ago
> Restore the glory of the Russian empire Right now Zelinskyy and Ukraine are covering themselves in a lot more glory than Putin and Russia. > Righteous causes eventually sort themselves out, right? I think Putin psyched himself up into believing his own propaganda. He's probably surrounded by yes-men who tell him what he wants to hear, too. Oops. > Much of the discussion is presently framed as a moral imperative. We must act to punish Putin. Sure. Morality is intuitive game theory, after all.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

coliveira 5y ago

> Effective sanctions won't happen against big powerful countries The US is applying sanctions to China. The US doesn't see any limits to the target of their sanctions, as you seem to believe.

quickthrowman 5y ago
The sanctions aren’t effective because China is a global power. Russia is not.
- coliveira 5y ago
  You're right about China. But people don't understand that Russia is not such a poor country as they imagine. They have oil and gas exports that can be easily sold to China and other neighbors. And the sanctions, as well as military building, are helping to propel their own industry. I wouldn't be surprised if even the heavy sanctions imposed now will prove ineffective in a few years. My opinion if that Europe will suffer most with these sanctions over the long run.