4 ms·

This smacks of "we need to commit war crimes because otherwise somebody else will commit war crimes". Theoretical atrocities are never justification for actual

by jmyeet 2y ago

This smacks of "we need to commit war crimes because otherwise somebody else will commit war crimes". Theoretical atrocities are never justification for actual atrocities. The "voluntary alliances" you speak of are basically the US, Canada, Australia and Europe. Africa, the Middle East and Asia didn't sign up for the absolute devastation we've inflicted on them, first with "normal" colonialism, now with economic colonialism. I once heard it described that US foreign policy is to loot the Global South and US domestic policy is to divide up the spoils. We aren't the only perpetrators (eg [1]) but we certainly use sanctions and the IMF and World Bank to bully countries to our way of thinking. And that's before we even get started on all the coups the US has instigated, supported, backed and/or planned. [1]: https://tehrantimes.com/news/489452/How-West-Africa-s-economy-is-held-captive-by-France https://tehrantimes.com/news/489452/How-West-Africa-s-econom...

throw310822 2y ago
> Theoretical atrocities are never justification for actual atrocities. If only that were true...
cassepipe 2y ago
War crimes are the kind of thing the international is supposed to guard against. It is hard in practice because it needs to be enforced and enforcing it when there are no econimic incentives is ... unpalatable for any state. Which is why international order and US interests are generally tightly coupled. Now which war crimes are you talking about ? You need to be more specific. On the other hand, it's been a while since I have read "US marines destroy entire village killing women and children after raping them" so I guess not this kind of atrocities ? I know the history. Yes colonialism was bad was it was mostly before the post war US led world order. If anything both the US and the USSR have sped up the end of colonialism which doesn't mean they each haven't promoted their own dictatorships against one another. That is not the current world we live in though. Indeed the voluntary alliances are mostly what we call "The west" or the "global North". The "devastation" of Africa isn't the sole responsibility of colonialism. It is mostly responsible for the dumb borders but all humans find a way to war against each other along ethnic lines. It was the case in Europe before WWII and it is unsurprisingly the case in Africa now. Whatever you think about the IMF/World bank and economic colonialism, by which I take you mean any country taking advantage of its better economic position (China is also doing it) it is not the same thing as say sending your army to punish rebellion against the tax you impose on them. https://acoup.blog/2019/12/05/collections-a-trip-through-thucydides-fear-honor-and-interest/ https://acoup.blog/2019/12/05/collections-a-trip-through-thu... https://acoup.blog/2023/07/07/collections-the-status-quo-coalition/ https://acoup.blog/2023/07/07/collections-the-status-quo-coa... I am pro international order and totally for the allied nations not to follow along when the leader is abusing its power but I still think that world order is preferable to intersate anarchy. Nobody ever signed up for anything. Making the world a better place is a hard problem.

by jmyeet 2y ago

throw310822 2y ago

> Theoretical atrocities are never justification for actual atrocities. If only that were true...

cassepipe 2y ago

War crimes are the kind of thing the international is supposed to guard against. It is hard in practice because it needs to be enforced and enforcing it when there are no econimic incentives is ... unpalatable for any state. Which is why international order and US interests are generally tightly coupled. Now which war crimes are you talking about ? You need to be more specific. On the other hand, it's been a while since I have read "US marines destroy entire village killing women and children after raping them" so I guess not this kind of atrocities ? I know the history. Yes colonialism was bad was it was mostly before the post war US led world order. If anything both the US and the USSR have sped up the end of colonialism which doesn't mean they each haven't promoted their own dictatorships against one another. That is not the current world we live in though. Indeed the voluntary alliances are mostly what we call "The west" or the "global North". The "devastation" of Africa isn't the sole responsibility of colonialism. It is mostly responsible for the dumb borders but all humans find a way to war against each other along ethnic lines. It was the case in Europe before WWII and it is unsurprisingly the case in Africa now. Whatever you think about the IMF/World bank and economic colonialism, by which I take you mean any country taking advantage of its better economic position (China is also doing it) it is not the same thing as say sending your army to punish rebellion against the tax you impose on them. https://acoup.blog/2019/12/05/collections-a-trip-through-thucydides-fear-honor-and-interest/ https://acoup.blog/2019/12/05/collections-a-trip-through-thu... https://acoup.blog/2023/07/07/collections-the-status-quo-coalition/ https://acoup.blog/2023/07/07/collections-the-status-quo-coa... I am pro international order and totally for the allied nations not to follow along when the leader is abusing its power but I still think that world order is preferable to intersate anarchy. Nobody ever signed up for anything. Making the world a better place is a hard problem.