War, what is it good for?

Forum rules
1.) No personal threats.
2.) No doxxing/revealing personal information.
3.) No spam.
4.) No circumventing press restrictions.
5.) No racism, sexism, homophobia, or derogatory posts.

Post a reply

Confirmation code
Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive.
Smilies
:points: :-D :eyeroll: :neutral: :nmr: :razz: :raging: :-) ;) :( :sick: :o :? 8-) :x :shock: :lol: :cry: :evil: :?: :smirk: :!:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is OFF
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

If you wish to attach one or more files enter the details below.

Expand view Topic review: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Esquire Bertissimmo » Thu Mar 28, 2024 5:49 pm

CaptainFritz28 wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2024 5:32 pm
I agree, but I'm surprised that you are shocked to see that war in the 21st century is just as uncivilized as in any other time. War will always be uncivilized; there is no civilized way to go about killing people on a massive scale. Humanity has not progressed, we've just found different ways to do the same thing and call those new ways "civil."

Also, I'm in agreement with Jamie that it's a war crime, as I have concurred previously.
I think there were good reasons to believe the world really was improving along this axis.

We've never had a period without war crimes, but we really did see improvements to war-related humanitarian efforts, peacekeeping, etc., following WW2. NATO really does restrain its tactics and heavily invest in better targeted weapons. Obviously NATO's conduct is far from perfect, but it is an historical miracle that the world's preeminent military force even tries.

I'm certainly not resigned to the idea that war will always be maximally bad. We really could have had a functioning ICJ if there were political will. We really could have a broader and more consistent regime of sanctions against human-rights abusing nations. Wars really can be conducted in a manner that limits civilian casualties and hardship.

I don't think that we're unable to make progress on these issues, so it remains disheartening to see what looks like backsliding.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by CaptainFritz28 » Thu Mar 28, 2024 5:32 pm

I agree, but I'm surprised that you are shocked to see that war in the 21st century is just as uncivilized as in any other time. War will always be uncivilized; there is no civilized way to go about killing people on a massive scale. Humanity has not progressed, we've just found different ways to do the same thing and call those new ways "civil."

Also, I'm in agreement with Jamie that it's a war crime, as I have concurred previously.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Esquire Bertissimmo » Thu Mar 28, 2024 5:10 pm

Totally agree that Israel blocking humanitarian aid for Gaza is criminal. Israel's realistic concern that aid flows will be abused by Hamas is, at this point, totally outweighed by the gravity of the humanitarian crisis. It's embarrassing that the US has resorted to dropping aid out of airplanes.

I've been a reluctant Ronald about applying the word "genocide" to this war, but if Israel creates a massive man-made famine when the aid is just sitting on the other side of the border there won't be any excuses left. War crimes like this aren't even plausibly contributing to Israel's stated goal of eliminating Hamas; in fact, they're almost certainly counter productive to that goal.

I've been thinking about the parallel to Japan in WW2. Japan was so obstinate in the face of certain defeat that the US resorted to fire bombing, and ultimately nuking, civilian centers to force their hand. It wasn't the only option to achieve a US victory - the US would have certainly defeated Japan even without resorting to these tactics - but the alternative was killing many thousands more US conscripts and prolonging the war. It's extremely sad to see that war in the 21st century is no more civilized than it was in the 20th century.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Jamiet99uk » Thu Mar 28, 2024 1:08 pm

Senior UN officials say there is evidence that Israel is using famine and starvation as a weapon of war - a clear war crime.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68679482

Re: War, what is it good for?

by CaptainFritz28 » Wed Mar 20, 2024 12:52 am

I heartily agree.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Jamiet99uk » Wed Mar 20, 2024 12:27 am

War is ignorant and stupid. Those who wage it rarely have the people's interests at heart.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by CaptainFritz28 » Tue Mar 19, 2024 11:19 pm

It' almost as if it is human nature to fight over what we cannot agree about.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Pennsta7 » Tue Mar 19, 2024 9:24 pm

Op-ed today in LeMonde
'[C]onflicts taking hold at the edges of [the European] continent bear witness not so much to the return of war as to its permanence as an accepted mode of conflict resolution.'

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2024/03/19/france-s-chief-of-army-staff-the-french-army-is-ready_6634225_23.html

Re: War, what is it good for?

by orathaic » Mon Feb 19, 2024 12:59 am

Octavious wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2024 3:34 am
No one? That seems odd in itself. You do not get to be a prominent Russian politician by being nice. He may well have been a better man than Putin (which is a very low bar) and he was certainly charismatic, but I struggle to believe fully in the saint like champion of western style democracy narrative we're being fed in the West. He will have built up a lot of enemies along the way aside from Putin and elements of the regime.
Champion of western democracy? No, I doubt it. I don't think I would like his politics at all, I fully believe how ever that he actually opposed Putin and wanted to take the country in a different direction, and was popular enough to he seen as a threat.

Not sure what other enemies you think would have the capacity to kill someone in a remote prison...
If you were looking for possible suspects on a traditional "follow the money" style of investigation, then an obvious first port of call would be the $60 billion worth of funding that this death will make far harder for Republicans to oppose. The timing of his death is very fortunate from that perspective.
The best explaination i have seen is the Putin was timing it to coincide with the Ukrainian defeat in Avdiivka, burying it in better news.
I'm not saying that Putin is innocent. Indeed, he's certainly very much at the top of a list of suspects. But we should at least acknowledge that there is a list.
You can build a list of possible motives, but I'm not sure about anyone else with the means.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Octavious » Sat Feb 17, 2024 3:34 am

orathaic wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2024 1:23 am
Octavious wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2024 11:19 pm
I don't for a moment believe that the powers that be in Russia would think twice about murdering Navalny if it was in their best interests, but I'm not at all convinced that it was. The timing of his death, if it was murder, seems a little odd. Why now? It's not as if he's been a threat recently. That many Western leader seems to have jumped on the murder bandwagon when they almost certainly don't actually know one way or the other is a little depressing
From the little Youtube commentary i have heard on the issue, it sounds like it was not in Putin's best interests, but most are assuming it was vengeful.

There is some question as to whether it will appear as a sign of weakness (that Putin felt the need to kill him) or strength (that Putin could afford to execute him despite knowing it would make a martyr of him).

But no-one (apart from you) I have seen is doubting who is responsible. Accidentally/unintentional death is possible. Being jumped on and used by western politicians as a reason to act seems good.
No one? That seems odd in itself. You do not get to be a prominent Russian politician by being nice. He may well have been a better man than Putin (which is a very low bar) and he was certainly charismatic, but I struggle to believe fully in the saint like champion of western style democracy narrative we're being fed in the West. He will have built up a lot of enemies along the way aside from Putin and elements of the regime.

If you were looking for possible suspects on a traditional "follow the money" style of investigation, then an obvious first port of call would be the $60 billion worth of funding that this death will make far harder for Republicans to oppose. The timing of his death is very fortunate from that perspective.

I'm not saying that Putin is innocent. Indeed, he's certainly very much at the top of a list of suspects. But we should at least acknowledge that there is a list.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by orathaic » Sat Feb 17, 2024 1:43 am

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2024 4:32 pm
I totally agree that we have a special obligation to speak out about our own country's misdeeds
like I said, Chomsky's argument there.
I would suggest this argument should apply beyond just military aid - we are heavily complicit in the crimes of Saudi Arabia and China by maintaining deep trade and investment linkages with these regimes and I wish this were perceived to be as scandalous as uncritical military aid for Israel.
I would agree.
I don't know why we selectively apply this approach to only those few sanctioned nations (Venezuela, Russia) or what the argument is for targeting Israel with this approach and not also Saudi, China, etc., other than that we're unwilling to face the economic blowback in these other cases. If that's the only reason, we should be careful to moralize about the need to blockade Israel.
The reason we do behave the way we do (rather than the way I believe we should) is that states tend not to act as moral agents. It is not fair to presume that one individual politician does/doesn't care. But if they can readily be replaced, then it doesn't matter what their personal opinion is, it matters what institutional role they play. That role will often find someone to fill itself, so why would the individual in it not simply do the job and act in their own best interests...

But more generally, "we" don't have the power to end all evils in the world with boycotts or sanctions alone. Russia has gone almost two years now as the most sanctioned country in the world, and things seem to be tipping along just fine.

But the US or Western powers don't act as forces for good. The relationship with the Saudis is the clearest example of this. And I am usually much more critical of them, but because I believe in opposing Imperial, and Russian actions have been explicitly that, I have found myself arguing for military support to Ukraine for, wow has it been two years. But it seems like a fairly unique case.

I'm not even sure I feel the same about Russian intervention in the Sahel region. Like it is had, but would French military action be any better?

I don't really buy that Israel's neighbours are weaker because they're autocracies. This point is actually very strange to me - we should care less about the crimes of autocracies because they're more fragile to coups?
I don't see why you think we should care about their crimes less.

The specific weakness of their militaries does not prevent them using military force for policing within their own borders. And that seems fairly consequential. Relative weakness against well trained and equipped Israeli troops doesn't make a jot of difference to their victims.
That doesn't even seem true in some relevant cases (MBS will be around for a while) and, even if it were
what is true is that they don't trust their militaries, and this ccripple themselves. That doesn't necessarily make them more vulnerable to a coup. Since the point of making your own military much weaker than it should be is to make it harder to organise a coup...

How effective this is may be open to debate, and I think of Israel's enemies , Hezbollah does not fit these criteria. I mean, the Lebanese government might want to cripple them (and make them actually subservient to the civilian govt...) But they are more a paramilitary anyway...

Re: War, what is it good for?

by orathaic » Sat Feb 17, 2024 1:23 am

Octavious wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2024 11:19 pm
I don't for a moment believe that the powers that be in Russia would think twice about murdering Navalny if it was in their best interests, but I'm not at all convinced that it was. The timing of his death, if it was murder, seems a little odd. Why now? It's not as if he's been a threat recently. That many Western leader seems to have jumped on the murder bandwagon when they almost certainly don't actually know one way or the other is a little depressing
From the little Youtube commentary i have heard on the issue, it sounds like it was not in Putin's best interests, but most are assuming it was vengeful.

There is some question as to whether it will appear as a sign of weakness (that Putin felt the need to kill him) or strength (that Putin could afford to execute him despite knowing it would make a martyr of him).

But no-one (apart from you) I have seen is doubting who is responsible. Accidentally/unintentional death is possible. Being jumped on and used by western politicians as a reason to act seems good.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Esquire Bertissimmo » Fri Feb 16, 2024 11:46 pm

Octavious wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2024 11:19 pm
Esquire Bertissimmo wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2024 9:00 pm
Pivoting a bit in response to the news: Navalny's been murdered.

Anyone have thoughts on whether this is an important development? Does it say anything meaningful about what's going on inside Russia? Maybe it's not substantively different than the recent status quo (i.e., him being locked away indefinitely), but certainly it's a huge blow to the extremely faint glimmer of hope that there could be real political opposition to Putin.
I don't for a moment believe that the powers that be in Russia would think twice about murdering Navalny if it was in their best interests, but I'm not at all convinced that it was. The timing of his death, if it was murder, seems a little odd. Why now? It's not as if he's been a threat recently. That many Western leader seems to have jumped on the murder bandwagon when they almost certainly don't actually know one way or the other is a little depressing
He died in their custody. All this happened in the immediate aftermath of an assassination attempt on him. He was 47 years old.

I'm curious what you think the alternative cause of his death was? In my view, the next most likely scenario is that he succumbed to illness he acquired from his previous poising, or that he died from intentional neglect in their prison system, both of which feel akin to murder.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Octavious » Fri Feb 16, 2024 11:19 pm

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2024 9:00 pm
Pivoting a bit in response to the news: Navalny's been murdered.

Anyone have thoughts on whether this is an important development? Does it say anything meaningful about what's going on inside Russia? Maybe it's not substantively different than the recent status quo (i.e., him being locked away indefinitely), but certainly it's a huge blow to the extremely faint glimmer of hope that there could be real political opposition to Putin.
I don't for a moment believe that the powers that be in Russia would think twice about murdering Navalny if it was in their best interests, but I'm not at all convinced that it was. The timing of his death, if it was murder, seems a little odd. Why now? It's not as if he's been a threat recently. That many Western leader seems to have jumped on the murder bandwagon when they almost certainly don't actually know one way or the other is a little depressing

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Esquire Bertissimmo » Fri Feb 16, 2024 9:00 pm

Pivoting a bit in response to the news: Navalny's been murdered.

Anyone have thoughts on whether this is an important development? Does it say anything meaningful about what's going on inside Russia? Maybe it's not substantively different than the recent status quo (i.e., him being locked away indefinitely), but certainly it's a huge blow to the extremely faint glimmer of hope that there could be real political opposition to Putin.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by CaptainFritz28 » Fri Feb 16, 2024 8:38 pm

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2024 3:29 pm
CaptainFritz28 wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2024 12:41 pm
But for Israel, criticism of US military aid to Israel is a valid concern. If you are an American and don't think the US should fund genocidal regimes, then you should criticised Israel as a way to affect US foreign policy.
Personally, I don't think the U.S. should be funding any wars, so I agree on this point (though i still hold that Israel, while comitting war crimes, is not genocidal). Our aid to any nation should be predicated on their upholding our values and seeking peace.
Financing a foreign war can be the best or even only way to achieve your goals.

I hate that Israel recieves no-strings-attached military aid while committing war crimes. But a total pull back of military aid and security guarantees for Israel would mean allowing Iran to push every last Middle Eastern Jew into the Mediterranean.

Reconstruction aid for Ukraine isn't a substitute for military aid for Ukraine, since withou the military aid there will be no Ukraine to reconstruct.

That old "if you want peace, prepare for war" cliche captures the tragic reality that total neutrality means ceding the advantage to your most dangerous and ambitious opponents.
I suppose I mean that we should be a lot more careful with our funding of wars. Perhaps my original statement was too strong, or a bit idealistic.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Esquire Bertissimmo » Fri Feb 16, 2024 4:58 pm

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2024 4:32 pm
orathaic wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2024 9:19 am
placeholder to save space, gesturing broadly at your two posts above
On the question of where to focus our efforts in a world full of conflict and evil, I don't have a clear answer for myself. I think the appropriate unit of moral concern is the individual and so I get suspicious when we put lots of attention on issues that affect relatively few people. When there are arguments like "but we can influence this conflict more" or "but we have an historical responsibility to care about this one because of the specifics of colonialism" I worry that we're giving ourselves a pass on what is a real obligation to get involved to prevent other evils. East Africa conflicts seem to always fall through the cracks no matter how many are affected or how serious the situation is. Groups that have been stably oppressed for a long time in a definitive way (Uyghurs, Kashmiris) get too little attention and support. This makes me uncomfortable.
Following some further research, I see now how the Gaza situation really is a candidate for top importance by my own criteria given the numbers killed and displaced. I definitely use this as a point against myself - I was mistaken about the relative magnitude of death and destruction in some of these other cases, and I view this as a solid reason to give Israel-Gaza disproportionate attention.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Esquire Bertissimmo » Fri Feb 16, 2024 4:32 pm

orathaic wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2024 9:19 am
placeholder to save space, gesturing broadly at your two posts above
Orathaic, thank you for your details posts above, I found them very insightful and I agreed with most of what you said.

I totally agree that we have a special obligation to speak out about our own country's misdeeds and, to the extent we're all from countries that are provided essentially no-strings-attached support to Israel, we do have a special obligation to be unusually vocal about Israel's conduct. That said, I would suggest this argument should apply beyond just military aid - we are heavily complicit in the crimes of Saudi Arabia and China by maintaining deep trade and investment linkages with these regimes and I wish this were perceived to be as scandalous as uncritical military aid for Israel.

I agree the example of South Africa shows what's possible when the international community decides certain actions are beyond the pale. Given that, I don't know why we selectively apply this approach to only those few sanctioned nations (Venezuela, Russia) or what the argument is for targeting Israel with this approach and not also Saudi, China, etc., other than that we're unwilling to face the economic blowback in these other cases. If that's the only reason, we should be careful to moralize about the need to blockade Israel.

I think we're just doing to disagree about Israel's military strength. Israel is a military power *because* it is menaced by its neighbours. Israel's success in previous wars came at an unbelievable cost and was in no way guaranteed. Israel's continued existence remains at stake, it is vulnerable today to an attack on multiple fronts that could end the state, and the near-term prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran will greatly shift the balance against Israel.

Likewise, I don't really buy that Israel's neighbours are weaker because they're autocracies. This point is actually very strange to me - we should care less about the crimes of autocracies because they're more fragile to coups? That doesn't even seem true in some relevant cases (MBS will be around for a while) and, even if it were, I'm not sure why it means I should give them a pass - if anything, this weakness a reason to agitate for their overthrow in response to war crimes, human rights abuses, etc..

On the question of where to focus our efforts in a world full of conflict and evil, I don't have a clear answer for myself. I think the appropriate unit of moral concern is the individual and so I get suspicious when we put lots of attention on issues that affect relatively few people. When there are arguments like "but we can influence this conflict more" or "but we have an historical responsibility to care about this one because of the specifics of colonialism" I worry that we're giving ourselves a pass on what is a real obligation to get involved to prevent other evils. East Africa conflicts seem to always fall through the cracks no matter how many are affected or how serious the situation is. Groups that have been stably oppressed for a long time in a definitive way (Uyghurs, Kashmiris) get too little attention and support. This makes me uncomfortable.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Esquire Bertissimmo » Fri Feb 16, 2024 3:29 pm

CaptainFritz28 wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2024 12:41 pm
But for Israel, criticism of US military aid to Israel is a valid concern. If you are an American and don't think the US should fund genocidal regimes, then you should criticised Israel as a way to affect US foreign policy.
Personally, I don't think the U.S. should be funding any wars, so I agree on this point (though i still hold that Israel, while comitting war crimes, is not genocidal). Our aid to any nation should be predicated on their upholding our values and seeking peace.
Financing a foreign war can be the best or even only way to achieve your goals.

I hate that Israel recieves no-strings-attached military aid while committing war crimes. But a total pull back of military aid and security guarantees for Israel would mean allowing Iran to push every last Middle Eastern Jew into the Mediterranean.

Reconstruction aid for Ukraine isn't a substitute for military aid for Ukraine, since withou the military aid there will be no Ukraine to reconstruct.

That old "if you want peace, prepare for war" cliche captures the tragic reality that total neutrality means ceding the advantage to your most dangerous and ambitious opponents.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by CaptainFritz28 » Fri Feb 16, 2024 12:41 pm

But for Israel, criticism of US military aid to Israel is a valid concern. If you are an American and don't think the US should fund genocidal regimes, then you should criticised Israel as a way to affect US foreign policy.
Personally, I don't think the U.S. should be funding any wars, so I agree on this point (though i still hold that Israel, while comitting war crimes, is not genocidal). Our aid to any nation should be predicated on their upholding our values and seeking peace.

Top