3 ms·

This whataboutism is as nauseating as the ignorance. Are you trying to justify what the Kremlin is doing, by blaming the U.S.? You lament the numeric deaths of

by cmurf 5y ago

This whataboutism is as nauseating as the ignorance. Are you trying to justify what the Kremlin is doing, by blaming the U.S.? You lament the numeric deaths of civilians, yet you promote the uselessness of the only things designed so far to prevent it. Whatever point you are trying to make is lost by you making excuses for Russia in 2022 while blaming the U.S. for 2003 (and not any of the other 30 member countries part of it), while proposing the latter lead to the former. If you've read the Charter, you know full well why the U.S. and Russia wouldn't ever be punished by the Security Council.

trasz 5y ago
I'm the last person to justify what Kremlin is doing. Putin should hang. But it also shows that mechanisms that attempted to prevent it - those that you're describing - simply don't work. And they didn't work for a long time, as proven by US invasion on Middle East, which didn't result in any consequences to the guilty parties. And that - US being able to commit war crimes with impunity - convinced Putin he can do it too.
- cmurf 5y ago
  >mechanisms that attempted to prevent it - those that you're describing - simply don't work Wrong. They do work. They just don't work perfectly. And even when they are working, they don't always lead to the preferred outcome. Nevertheless it is an institution we need. If we lose it, we lose all institutional mechanisms to prevent another world war. The five permanent members of the Security Council in effect have a veto. It was known at the time of adoption that should a permanent member engage in aggressive war, they would be expected to veto any enforcement action against themselves. This is the design of the Charter, the only way it could ever have been passed. None of the winners of the world wars would have willingly ceded their sovereignty so much that the entire rest of the world could have held them accountable after what had just happened. None of the five would have signed it. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Does that sound like a pretty good axiom?

by cmurf 5y ago

trasz 5y ago

I'm the last person to justify what Kremlin is doing. Putin should hang. But it also shows that mechanisms that attempted to prevent it - those that you're describing - simply don't work. And they didn't work for a long time, as proven by US invasion on Middle East, which didn't result in any consequences to the guilty parties. And that - US being able to commit war crimes with impunity - convinced Putin he can do it too.

cmurf 5y ago
>mechanisms that attempted to prevent it - those that you're describing - simply don't work Wrong. They do work. They just don't work perfectly. And even when they are working, they don't always lead to the preferred outcome. Nevertheless it is an institution we need. If we lose it, we lose all institutional mechanisms to prevent another world war. The five permanent members of the Security Council in effect have a veto. It was known at the time of adoption that should a permanent member engage in aggressive war, they would be expected to veto any enforcement action against themselves. This is the design of the Charter, the only way it could ever have been passed. None of the winners of the world wars would have willingly ceded their sovereignty so much that the entire rest of the world could have held them accountable after what had just happened. None of the five would have signed it. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Does that sound like a pretty good axiom?