5 ms·

Perhaps people forget that countries are sovereign and can do whatever they want. The "global order" has always been based on strength: the stronger do what the

Perhaps people forget that countries are sovereign and can do whatever they want. The "global order" has always been based on strength: the stronger do what they want and the weaker do what they can. What the US have just done is not something new because of Trump. We are told about "international law" and "norms" so much that we perhaps forget that this is mostly BS.

vaylian 10mo ago
People commit crimes despite it being illegal. That doesn't make laws "BS". And yes, this is not something new. It is something old. It is something that we have left behind us and Donald Trump should therefore be condemned.
- mytailorisrich 10mo ago
  You and I are subject to the law. This is not voluntary and it will be enforced against us by the state. On the other hand, countries are sovereign. They are not subject to "laws", and if they do it is on a voluntary basis. Ultimately it boils down to military and economic strength for a country to be able to stand its ground and do what it wants. We never left this behind, this has always been the case. From the replies it seems that commenters believe that countries are subject to "laws" the same way that they are...
  - nemomarx 10mo ago
    The goal of the rules based international order was to subject countries to laws, yes. Those laws could have been (and were various times in the past) enforced by larger organizations in the same way the state acts on citizens. Westphalian Sovereignty is not any more real than the rules based international order - clearly Venezuela's sovereignty did nothing for them here.
    - mytailorisrich 10mo ago
      There was never any "larger organizations", only the larger, more powerful countries that enforced the "international order" that suited them.
      - jacquesm 10mo ago
        There was a time when Germany thought just like that. In the aftermath we decided that maybe it's not such a good idea, this might-makes-right thing and we strove for a world where transitions are peaceful because we realized that our power to kill had grown to proportions unseen in our history and because some of us - rightly, in my view - felt that the human race itself was now in the balance. If you toss that out you have to at least acknowledge all possible outcomes. People - even powerful people, and powerful countries too - should be subject to the law because no single person and no single country stands above all the others.
        mytailorisrich 10mo ago
        Actually, what has happened to Germany is exactly an expression of what I described in my previous comments. > powerful countries too - should be subject to the law Perhaps so but that is idealistic. Again, countries are sovereign, there is no such things as "laws" in the sense that applies to individuals that apply to them, only voluntary agreements. Practically you would also need a level above countries with its own overwhelming force to enforce it, and that simply does not exist. I am trying to discuss the world as it is, including indeed in the legal sense, not as it might be in dreams because that's pie in the sky and totally unbounded in scope.
        jacquesm 10mo ago
        Yes, you're pretending to be a 'realist' who is wise because of your grounded worldview, but you totally miss the forest for the trees: if we don't want to end with blowing ourselves up then we have to depart from the might is right and 'how the world is' mentality because that stops us from changing into a future where we will not blow ourselves up. Your worldview is essentially a pessimistic one, mine an optimistic one: I think we are capable of change. We just make the stupid mistake of putting egomaniacs in positions of power all the time and then we are surprised by the outcomes. Some of the most powerful words ever spoken in American history were 'I have a dream'. Dreams are good, especially if they are dreams of a better world and we all should strive to create that world, not to declare it a pipe dream and get on with the business of raping each other.
bloppe 10mo ago
This is the attitude that permits world wars. In the aftermath of WW2, a lot of people genuinely believed in the power of international law to prevent WW3. Now, it seems like a ton of people think that's just BS, and the fact that so many people think that is what makes it BS. If a strong majority of people actually believed in international law, it would be "real". I guess sometimes you just need WW3.
- mytailorisrich 10mo ago
  It is not an attitude. It is a statement of fact. "International law" are voluntary agreements but countries remain sovereign. The only way to force something is to have bigger guns and/or more economic power than the other countries and, as it happens, the US are #1 on both. Edit: The best protection we have against WWIII is not "international law", it's that the big guys can instantly nuke each others.
  - bloppe 10mo ago
    I don't think you're wrong, but it's one of those facts that's basically a self-fulfilling prophecy, like "the bank is failing" (which, if people think is true, quickly becomes true) or "money has value". The US is a superpower of course, but world wars are multilateral, and US alliances are not what they were just a year ago.
- iamflimflam1 10mo ago
  "It's in your nature to destroy yourselves" The people who actually experienced (either directly fighting in, or living through it) have already died or are rapidly dying out. We have no concept of just how horrifying a world war would be.
  - jacquesm 10mo ago
    I do. I've visited countries that were at war and I have my grandmothers diaries. Everybody that is cheering this on has a significant gap in their education.
Braxton1980 10mo ago
The conversation is about what's right
jopsen 10mo ago
You forget that the cold war wasn't won by the US alone. But by the alliance systems which centered around the US. The US is no longer a credible partner, and without coalition forces the recreational wars in the 2000s would have been a lot less "fun". I'm not so sure you want a global order based on strength. You don't want small countries with little to loose arming do with nukes. But voting for it is suddenly very attractive.
- mytailorisrich 10mo ago
  That's interesting because the post-WWII Western alliance system at large is largely born of the US military and economic might: most of those countries were invaded by the US and then helped economically by the US. Obviously a commom adversary (the communists) helped but it was, and still is "led" by the US for a reason. The global order is based on strength, both military and economic strength. I am just stating the obvious here.
  - jopsen 10mo ago
    Countries that joined NATO did so voluntarily. The pressure to join NATO was never from the US, it was always from Russia. > The global order is based on strength, To an extend yes, but small countries wouldn't be as eager or willing to play with the US, if the rules weren't largely followed.

vaylian 10mo ago

People commit crimes despite it being illegal. That doesn't make laws "BS". And yes, this is not something new. It is something old. It is something that we have left behind us and Donald Trump should therefore be condemned.

mytailorisrich 10mo ago
You and I are subject to the law. This is not voluntary and it will be enforced against us by the state. On the other hand, countries are sovereign. They are not subject to "laws", and if they do it is on a voluntary basis. Ultimately it boils down to military and economic strength for a country to be able to stand its ground and do what it wants. We never left this behind, this has always been the case. From the replies it seems that commenters believe that countries are subject to "laws" the same way that they are...
- nemomarx 10mo ago
  The goal of the rules based international order was to subject countries to laws, yes. Those laws could have been (and were various times in the past) enforced by larger organizations in the same way the state acts on citizens. Westphalian Sovereignty is not any more real than the rules based international order - clearly Venezuela's sovereignty did nothing for them here.
  - mytailorisrich 10mo ago
    There was never any "larger organizations", only the larger, more powerful countries that enforced the "international order" that suited them.
    - jacquesm 10mo ago
      There was a time when Germany thought just like that. In the aftermath we decided that maybe it's not such a good idea, this might-makes-right thing and we strove for a world where transitions are peaceful because we realized that our power to kill had grown to proportions unseen in our history and because some of us - rightly, in my view - felt that the human race itself was now in the balance. If you toss that out you have to at least acknowledge all possible outcomes. People - even powerful people, and powerful countries too - should be subject to the law because no single person and no single country stands above all the others.
      - mytailorisrich 10mo ago
        Actually, what has happened to Germany is exactly an expression of what I described in my previous comments. > powerful countries too - should be subject to the law Perhaps so but that is idealistic. Again, countries are sovereign, there is no such things as "laws" in the sense that applies to individuals that apply to them, only voluntary agreements. Practically you would also need a level above countries with its own overwhelming force to enforce it, and that simply does not exist. I am trying to discuss the world as it is, including indeed in the legal sense, not as it might be in dreams because that's pie in the sky and totally unbounded in scope.
        jacquesm 10mo ago
        Yes, you're pretending to be a 'realist' who is wise because of your grounded worldview, but you totally miss the forest for the trees: if we don't want to end with blowing ourselves up then we have to depart from the might is right and 'how the world is' mentality because that stops us from changing into a future where we will not blow ourselves up. Your worldview is essentially a pessimistic one, mine an optimistic one: I think we are capable of change. We just make the stupid mistake of putting egomaniacs in positions of power all the time and then we are surprised by the outcomes. Some of the most powerful words ever spoken in American history were 'I have a dream'. Dreams are good, especially if they are dreams of a better world and we all should strive to create that world, not to declare it a pipe dream and get on with the business of raping each other.

bloppe 10mo ago

This is the attitude that permits world wars. In the aftermath of WW2, a lot of people genuinely believed in the power of international law to prevent WW3. Now, it seems like a ton of people think that's just BS, and the fact that so many people think that is what makes it BS. If a strong majority of people actually believed in international law, it would be "real". I guess sometimes you just need WW3.

mytailorisrich 10mo ago
It is not an attitude. It is a statement of fact. "International law" are voluntary agreements but countries remain sovereign. The only way to force something is to have bigger guns and/or more economic power than the other countries and, as it happens, the US are #1 on both. Edit: The best protection we have against WWIII is not "international law", it's that the big guys can instantly nuke each others.
- bloppe 10mo ago
  I don't think you're wrong, but it's one of those facts that's basically a self-fulfilling prophecy, like "the bank is failing" (which, if people think is true, quickly becomes true) or "money has value". The US is a superpower of course, but world wars are multilateral, and US alliances are not what they were just a year ago.
iamflimflam1 10mo ago
"It's in your nature to destroy yourselves" The people who actually experienced (either directly fighting in, or living through it) have already died or are rapidly dying out. We have no concept of just how horrifying a world war would be.
- jacquesm 10mo ago
  I do. I've visited countries that were at war and I have my grandmothers diaries. Everybody that is cheering this on has a significant gap in their education.

Braxton1980 10mo ago

The conversation is about what's right

jopsen 10mo ago

You forget that the cold war wasn't won by the US alone. But by the alliance systems which centered around the US. The US is no longer a credible partner, and without coalition forces the recreational wars in the 2000s would have been a lot less "fun". I'm not so sure you want a global order based on strength. You don't want small countries with little to loose arming do with nukes. But voting for it is suddenly very attractive.

mytailorisrich 10mo ago
That's interesting because the post-WWII Western alliance system at large is largely born of the US military and economic might: most of those countries were invaded by the US and then helped economically by the US. Obviously a commom adversary (the communists) helped but it was, and still is "led" by the US for a reason. The global order is based on strength, both military and economic strength. I am just stating the obvious here.
- jopsen 10mo ago
  Countries that joined NATO did so voluntarily. The pressure to join NATO was never from the US, it was always from Russia. > The global order is based on strength, To an extend yes, but small countries wouldn't be as eager or willing to play with the US, if the rules weren't largely followed.