3 ms·

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 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.
      - mytailorisrich 10mo ago
        I am not "pretending" anything. That's quite a personally aggressive term and I don't know what your beef against me is. I don't have anything against what you wrote but I think that it has no discussion value in context and probably in general.
        snowbantrobus 10mo ago
        I would suggest that you take a look at the "Politics and the English Language" essay by Orwell. The person you are responding to is making a fair point that this is well trodden ground, albeit not in the most diplomatic terms. It would be helpful to engage with the arguments presented, otherwise we are just spinning our wheels here unconsciously relitigating issues from the 1930s.
        mytailorisrich 10mo ago
        Strange oblique accusation as neither Venezuela nor my comments have anytging to do with the "the 30s" or even politics (or Germany's past). Perhaps there is a lack of perspective and indeed realism in the reply or a Pavlovian reaction to "Trump" conditioned by some media (Trump is a fascist, Musk a Nazi, etc). As said there were no arguments presented nor anything to discuss about the geopolitical situation so I don't know what to engage with. An interesting discussiin might be about the reasons for the US' actions and their reasons for this course of action (capture) vs more classic coup.
  - terminalshort 10mo ago
    Germany was right about that. They were catastrophically wrong about who was the biggest kid on the playground, though.
    - jacquesm 10mo ago
      No, at the time they were the biggest kid on the playground, their mistake was to think that the playground would be a constant. If Germany had just taken over Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland they might have gotten away with it too. The lack of consolidation and Hitler being drunk on power caused them to continue to set higher goals. Then once the theater of the war shifted to Global and Japan brought the USA into the war things changed rapidly.

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.
    - mytailorisrich 10mo ago
      I am not "pretending" anything. That's quite a personally aggressive term and I don't know what your beef against me is. I don't have anything against what you wrote but I think that it has no discussion value in context and probably in general.
      - snowbantrobus 10mo ago
        I would suggest that you take a look at the "Politics and the English Language" essay by Orwell. The person you are responding to is making a fair point that this is well trodden ground, albeit not in the most diplomatic terms. It would be helpful to engage with the arguments presented, otherwise we are just spinning our wheels here unconsciously relitigating issues from the 1930s.
        mytailorisrich 10mo ago
        Strange oblique accusation as neither Venezuela nor my comments have anytging to do with the "the 30s" or even politics (or Germany's past). Perhaps there is a lack of perspective and indeed realism in the reply or a Pavlovian reaction to "Trump" conditioned by some media (Trump is a fascist, Musk a Nazi, etc). As said there were no arguments presented nor anything to discuss about the geopolitical situation so I don't know what to engage with. An interesting discussiin might be about the reasons for the US' actions and their reasons for this course of action (capture) vs more classic coup.
- terminalshort 10mo ago
  Germany was right about that. They were catastrophically wrong about who was the biggest kid on the playground, though.
  - jacquesm 10mo ago
    No, at the time they were the biggest kid on the playground, their mistake was to think that the playground would be a constant. If Germany had just taken over Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland they might have gotten away with it too. The lack of consolidation and Hitler being drunk on power caused them to continue to set higher goals. Then once the theater of the war shifted to Global and Japan brought the USA into the war things changed rapidly.