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 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.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by orathaic » Fri Feb 16, 2024 9:19 am

But you are right, we should also criticise the Chinese treat of Uighars and Tibetans and anyone other 'unruly' group within their borders, the genocidal Russia behaviour (stealing children, changing their dates of birth, and giving them to Russian families for adoption - which entirely fits the definition of genocide, as it is an attempt to wipe out a culture) and the treatment of indigenous peoples in Russian treatment, whether that be the Chechens in previous wars, or so many others being used as meat wave attacks in Ukraine. Or the war in Yemen and both the Iranian and Saudi governments for their parts in that conflict, with millions of children at risk of starvation. Or the Sudanese conflict, and the lack of attention paid to it, towards supporting African attempts to resolve it. Or the Ethiopian conflict, and the treatment of different ethnic groups within Ethiopian (which was itself an empire until 1939, when Italy invaded, and reasserted its independence in 1944 when the British helped kick the Italian out - but like most Empires is composed of multiple different ethnic groups, not all of which are equal).

I don't know that recognising the historical part played by western nations (in dividing up former colonies - usually in ways which would not make strong nation states with a single ethnicity, but rather conflcited boundaries which typically needed or were at least offered Western assistance in controlling their own populations...) in African conflicts is particularly useful, except in noting that we can't just wash our hands of it and let them fight it out amongst themselves.

We should be supporting peace efforts, banning arms exports, and trying to help the AU resolve conflicts on its own.

And I could go on, US Imperialist behaviour, Indian Hindu nationalism, the list of oppressors is long. So who should I spend my time criticizing, if I can't even list all of the problems in the world?

Re: War, what is it good for?

by orathaic » Fri Feb 16, 2024 9:06 am

The second argument is weaker here, but it is a responce which Chomsky often uses as to why he criticised the US more than the abused of (say) China.

As a US citizen living in a fairly democratic country, his voice can actually make a difference by criticizing American policy, while he can't make a difference criticizing China.

If you don't buy that argument the weaker case with Israel will not convince you.

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.

Other Westerners could likewise criticise their arms trade and technology trade with Israel - which is a vital part of the Israeli military and intelligence apparatus.

Seperately, we know from the closest comparison (Apartheid South Africa) that international pressure can help change things. Boycott Israeli goods, put more pressure on the powerful state actor in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to help end the conflict.

Finally, Israel has been invaded by its neighbours, and it best them every time. This was not just because of having advanced weapons gifted by the US, but because of leadership and fear. If Israeli troops lost then their homes, lives and loved ones were at risk. Thus the leaders of the Israeli government could trust their troops with power and weapons systems.

Their opponents were almost exclusively undemocratic nations whose leaders would fear a coup and thus has to have all actions approved at the highest levels of the chain of command (where loyalty could be bought, or family members appointed) these authoritarian militaries do not trust the troops on the ground and don't want a powerful military feeling like they can do anything, because 'anything' in this case would include overthrowing the monarchy which the serve.

Israel's "liberal" values are actually a strength, because when you can vote out the government, you don't need a coup, so the military is less likely to organise one.

But the fact remains, their neighbours lacked the fear of their enemy (front line troops likely fearing more their leadership and what would happen if the disobeyed than fear for their lives if they lost). They lacked the confidence and independence of decision making. And they lacked the same technical capabilities US military aid granted Israel.

I don't think this is some International Jewish influence. Yes, there is an influential Jewish lobby in Washington, but that is nothing particularly nefarious or particularly anti-semetic to say. Of course their is an influential lobby group in Washington, that is where you would send your lobbiests if you wanted to access the most powerful nation in the world.

But I can see how an anti-semetic meme would spread about that lobby, how they would twist the facts towards their racist ends. When in reality their is a goe-polictical reason for Israel and the US to be allies, even if prong the cultural links and many American Jewish people who do support Israel and whose support/votes matter when it comes to fundraising for US elections... (Though I suspect most American Jews who believe in Israel have moved there, so a large number of Jews still living in American are likely not supporters of Israeli government or right wing religious extremists illegally occupying the West Bank, for example)

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Esquire Bertissimmo » Thu Feb 15, 2024 6:36 pm

orathaic wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2024 6:07 pm
There is a good reason to hold Israel to close scrutiny, A) as a relatively liberal country, they may be more likely to be affected by what we say. B) among the most advanced weapon systems in the World, Israel has more power, and thus capacity to abuse that power, so should be called to account.

I in particular abhore the treatment of women by the Taliban, but I doubt anything I say will sway them. And lacking decades of development, they are not going to be launching any nuclear weapons at their neighbours any time soon.
I don't really buy this argument. Israel's "power" is regularly overstated in a way that fits other inaccurate tropes about undue Jewish influence. Israel accounts for 0.5% of global GDP. It's not even a clear military hegemon in its own region and would probably be successfully invaded by its neighbours if it didn't have nuclear weapons. It's a critical exporter of some military technology, but is nowhere near the most important arms or intelligence exporter.

I also don't buy that Israel deserves additional scrutiny for being democratic or most western-seeming, beyond some surface level discomfort with the hypocrisy. What does it say about our views of for example Pakistanis (who are ejecting 1.7 million Afghan migrants) or other human-rights abusing countries if we don't think their societies can be held to account for human-rights abuses on an objectively larger scale? Israel's relative affluence can't buy them a durable solution to the conflict they face, their liberal values probably hurt more than help in a conflict like this, so why do these factors lead to greater scrutiny?

Again I'm not saying don't condemn Israel. It's just weird that there is a near-mainstream argument positing that Israel doesn't deserve to exist due to its war crimes that doesn't seem to apply to China, Saudi, Pakistan, etc. with the same force.

Top