4 ms·

History will remember Obama as the weak President who did nothing to stop Russia from destroying the one principle that held the world back from territorial war

by anatoly 13y ago

History will remember Obama as the weak President who did nothing to stop Russia from destroying the one principle that held the world back from territorial wars ever since WWII. As we enter the new era of land grabs and might-makes-right, history shall record that what the American President did to stop it was order travel bans on a few minor flunkeys.

happyscrappy 13y ago
While foreign policy is definitely a weak spot for Obama, but the real reason the US will do nothing is Europe, and Putin's follies actually make Europe more dependent on the US and seeking to limit dependence on Russia. Obama's biggest screw up IMO is the healthcare changeover which has been an unmitigated disaster.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
waqf 13y ago
Sorry, what was the one principle? The US certainly didn't stop randomly invading countries after WWII.
- masklinn 13y ago
  Neither did the USSR for that matter. And both significantly interfered with the running of many countries they did not outright invade.
- anatoly 13y ago
  The principle of territorial integrity, enshrined among other things in Chapter 1 of the UN Charter. The US didn't stop invading, and neither did the USSR. But the one principle was that waging war for territorial gain is no longer acceptable. After WWII, the major countries understood that while it's impossible to completely outlaw war - states will find real or imagined reasons to attack each other - if we agree to freeze borders, most of the motivation for waging war will go away. And it worked. After 1945, no developed country started a war against a peaceful neighbour to perform a land grab. The very few exceptions where annexations did happen were in the context of pre-existing state of war, and even so were not recognized by the international community (e.g. the Golan Heights). But actually invading a country which doesn't threaten you and annexing part of its territory? Didn't happen after 1945. Until 2014. Welcome to the new era.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - not_paul_graham 13y ago
    > "the one principle was that waging war for territorial gain is no longer acceptable." Why is this the only one principle that is relevant? Doesn't grabbing natural resources & other assets [1] constitute as a kind of territorial gain? Why is anything UN related relevant now when it wasn't relevant when the United States was invading Iraq? >"But actually invading a country which doesn't threaten you and annexing part of its territory? Didn't happen after 1945." At least the first part of this statement is factually incorrect. I can't think of how Iraq that is nowhere close to the United States was a threat to it. Doesn't destroying an independent country's government and installing your own chosen leaders count as some kind of territorial grab? Sure that isn't the definition of annexing, but if I'm ruling your country and calling it by its old name, what is the difference? [1] O&G in Iraq :: most lucrative contracts to American O&G giants. Similar for some other industries in the country.
    - gretful 13y ago
      No, it does not count as a territorial grab. Our citizens will not be settling in Iraq any time soon. Big difference.
  - ThomPete 13y ago
    The coalition of the willing didn't have the UNs approval when they went in to Iraq. They got it retroactively. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council... On September 16, 2004 Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."[1]
    - anatoly 13y ago
      Again, I'm talking about territorial wars, which the Iraq invasion was not. The Iraq invasion is relatively mundane on the scale of things that happened in the last 60 years. Do you think the USSR ever got the UN approval for invading Afghanistan in the 80s? Territorial wars, not just any invasion or a military op or a coup or installing a friendly regime. The very fact that you don't see much difference shows that the world has forgotten how terrible they used to be.
znowi 13y ago
I'm sorry to clip your rebel wings, but the US isn't going to start a new Cold War on account of a coup in some Eastern European country. You drastically overestimate the importance of this event for an average American. It's just another popcorn moment on TV. Remember Egypt? No? Well, no one does now.
- anatoly 13y ago
  You're not saying anything new to me. I realize the average American doesn't care. The average American (or Briton) didn't care when Hitler carved up Czechoslovakia either. Nobody cared about some Eastern European country back then. And that's why history judges Chamberlain the way it does, and that's why history will judge Obama. (I'm not saying the outcome will be the same. Nothing repeats exactly. We might not get WW3. Maybe we'll get lots of local territorial wars slowly ramping up, as the international order that held firm through the worst years of the Cold War broke down in the time of stupid, lazy, weak US and European leadership. Circa 2014 is when it started, the books will say).
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

by anatoly 13y ago

happyscrappy 13y ago

While foreign policy is definitely a weak spot for Obama, but the real reason the US will do nothing is Europe, and Putin's follies actually make Europe more dependent on the US and seeking to limit dependence on Russia. Obama's biggest screw up IMO is the healthcare changeover which has been an unmitigated disaster.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

waqf 13y ago

Sorry, what was the one principle? The US certainly didn't stop randomly invading countries after WWII.

masklinn 13y ago
Neither did the USSR for that matter. And both significantly interfered with the running of many countries they did not outright invade.
anatoly 13y ago
The principle of territorial integrity, enshrined among other things in Chapter 1 of the UN Charter. The US didn't stop invading, and neither did the USSR. But the one principle was that waging war for territorial gain is no longer acceptable. After WWII, the major countries understood that while it's impossible to completely outlaw war - states will find real or imagined reasons to attack each other - if we agree to freeze borders, most of the motivation for waging war will go away. And it worked. After 1945, no developed country started a war against a peaceful neighbour to perform a land grab. The very few exceptions where annexations did happen were in the context of pre-existing state of war, and even so were not recognized by the international community (e.g. the Golan Heights). But actually invading a country which doesn't threaten you and annexing part of its territory? Didn't happen after 1945. Until 2014. Welcome to the new era.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- not_paul_graham 13y ago
  > "the one principle was that waging war for territorial gain is no longer acceptable." Why is this the only one principle that is relevant? Doesn't grabbing natural resources & other assets [1] constitute as a kind of territorial gain? Why is anything UN related relevant now when it wasn't relevant when the United States was invading Iraq? >"But actually invading a country which doesn't threaten you and annexing part of its territory? Didn't happen after 1945." At least the first part of this statement is factually incorrect. I can't think of how Iraq that is nowhere close to the United States was a threat to it. Doesn't destroying an independent country's government and installing your own chosen leaders count as some kind of territorial grab? Sure that isn't the definition of annexing, but if I'm ruling your country and calling it by its old name, what is the difference? [1] O&G in Iraq :: most lucrative contracts to American O&G giants. Similar for some other industries in the country.
  - gretful 13y ago
    No, it does not count as a territorial grab. Our citizens will not be settling in Iraq any time soon. Big difference.
- ThomPete 13y ago
  The coalition of the willing didn't have the UNs approval when they went in to Iraq. They got it retroactively. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council... On September 16, 2004 Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."[1]
  - anatoly 13y ago
    Again, I'm talking about territorial wars, which the Iraq invasion was not. The Iraq invasion is relatively mundane on the scale of things that happened in the last 60 years. Do you think the USSR ever got the UN approval for invading Afghanistan in the 80s? Territorial wars, not just any invasion or a military op or a coup or installing a friendly regime. The very fact that you don't see much difference shows that the world has forgotten how terrible they used to be.

znowi 13y ago

I'm sorry to clip your rebel wings, but the US isn't going to start a new Cold War on account of a coup in some Eastern European country. You drastically overestimate the importance of this event for an average American. It's just another popcorn moment on TV. Remember Egypt? No? Well, no one does now.

anatoly 13y ago
You're not saying anything new to me. I realize the average American doesn't care. The average American (or Briton) didn't care when Hitler carved up Czechoslovakia either. Nobody cared about some Eastern European country back then. And that's why history judges Chamberlain the way it does, and that's why history will judge Obama. (I'm not saying the outcome will be the same. Nothing repeats exactly. We might not get WW3. Maybe we'll get lots of local territorial wars slowly ramping up, as the international order that held firm through the worst years of the Cold War broke down in the time of stupid, lazy, weak US and European leadership. Circa 2014 is when it started, the books will say).

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]