4 ms·

And there it is. The full agenda. Blood and empire.

• ben_w 3y ago
  Only in exactly the same way that the police have the same agenda as the mafia. International bans need treaties, with agreed standards for intervention in order to not escalate to war. The argument is that if you're not willing to go all the way with enforcement, then you were never serious in the first place. Saying you won't go that far even if necessary to enforce the treaty is analogous to "sure murder is illegal and if you're formally accused we'll send armed cops to arrest you, but they can't shoot you if you resist because shooting you would be assault with a deadly weapon".
  • sgt101 3y ago
    I don't agree. The police enforce civil order by consent expressed through democracy. There is no analogy in international affairs. Who is it that is going to get bombed? I am thinking it will not be the NSA data centre's in Utah, or any data centres owned by nuclear armed states.
    • TeMPOraL 3y ago
      > The police enforce civil order by consent expressed through democracy. There is no analogy in international affairs. Which is the point exactly. All agreements in international affairs are ultimately backed by threats of violence. Most negotiations don't go as far as explicitly mentioning it, because no one really wants to go there, but the threat is always there in the background, implied.
    • ben_w 3y ago
      All policing is to a certain degree by consent, even in dictatorships which only use democratic as a fig-leaf. International law likewise. Just as the criminal justice system is a deterrent against crime despite imperfections, so are treaties, international courts, sanctions, and warfare. > I am thinking it will not be the NSA data centre's in Utah, or any data centres owned by nuclear armed states. For now, this would indeed seem unlikely. But so did the fall of the British Empire and later the Soviet Union before they happened.