in some unspecified way

:ok:

Also, continuously demanding more evidence while simultaneously refusing to take it seriously is exactly the type of dishonesty I'm talking about.

... the US then in some unspecified way caused the Arab spring... — Echarmion

:chin:

Again, in what part of the informed world is the US role in the Arab Spring even remotely controversial?

The fact that the US jumped at the opportunity to secure its own interests isn't even up for debate. That's established fact. Whether it knowingly or unknowingly caused the Arab Spring is contested, but not really part of my argument.

To answer your question, clearly there is evidence supporting my position. The fact that you're not even willing to look at it is your problem, not mine - your knee-jerk "CONSPIRACY!" reaction tells me all I need to know.

Are you an American?

check your confirmation bias — Echarmion

He said while dismissing all evidence and arguments as "conspiracy theories". :lol:

What is sad is how intent you are on wasting other people's time.

There's no point in conversation, because evidently you are only interested in affirming your own world view. That much is clear by the way you've handled the information I've presented to you.

One more for the list of clowns.

The problem is that R2P is not part of the rules based order, is not widely accepted as a principle and is not part of international law. — Echarmion

State practice, and thus R2P, is part of international law, and thus of the rules-based order.

Literally the only clear, unequivocal justification for the use of force under international law is irrelevant according to you? — Echarmion

Of course. The US sought an excuse to invade Libya for reasons that had nothing to do with the humanitarian situation. Shame on the international community for going along with it, and in essence proving my point.

US resolutions get vetoed in the SC all the time, before and after 2011. This is 100% bullshit. — Echarmion

No idea what this is even a response to.

But this is supposed to be about the US abusing the international system, not just directly using it's power. — Echarmion

And clearly the US abused the UN to provide a casus belli for an unjust invasion and coup.


You can stick your head in the sand all you like. There's no shortage of information about why the US invaded Libya (and they all have to do with Gaddafi's resistance to, you guessed it, the American led "rules-based" order). I could link you articles, books, but you've already made up your mind, and such would be a waste of time on my part.

There's no point in trying to educate the willfully ignorant.

So it was in accordance with the "rules based order". — Echarmion

The point is that the 'rules-based order' is not an instrument for peace and stability, but an instrument the US uses to pursue its own objectives. In this case, it used R2P as a casus belli to invade.

The fact that there was a security council resolution changes nothing about that. Sometimes the US plays according to the rules of the game, but the game was rigged from the start. What nation is going to stick their neck out for poor ol' Libya and invite Washington's ire?

We can look at Gaddafi to see what happens to people who make that mistake.

Just a small world on the "gold backed alternative to the USD": There's not a single source on this from any official channel, not even statements by Gaddafi himself. It seem like a conspiracy theory invented entirely from an offhand mention in an email allegedly from Hillary Clinton's server. — Echarmion

The fact that Gaddafi sought to establish the gold dinar as a new African currency is not a 'conspiracy' - it's common knowledge.

I think we're mostly in agreement - there are notable shifts going on and the Persian Gulf is moving away from the US, though how fast and how far remains to be seen.

One thing in your comment I would put a serious question mark under though, is the the assertion that the US is no longer dependent on Saudi (or lets say, foreign) oil.

The US doesn't possess that much oil.

This matters very little in peace time, but in war it is crucial. This is why the Persian Gulf has been the most important area to the US outside the western hemisphere after Europe.

Sure.

For example, the US carried out its 2011 invasion of Libya under the banner of R2P, even though its goal was to despose Muammar Gaddafi - a person they themselves had helped to power in 1969 - for his ambitions to create a gold-backed alternative to the dollar.

US history is rampacked with examples like these, where the US pretends to uphold principles of international law, but is in fact itself the worst perpetrator of international crime and goes around invading sovereign nations whenever it pleases: "Rules of thee, but not for me."

But these systems largely don't originate from the "unipolar" phase (I.e. post 1990) but from the Cold war, mostly the 70s. — Echarmion

During the unipolar moment the US used many of these systems to instate the so-called 'rules based international order', which in the case of the US usually meant: "Rules for thee, but not for me."

Before that, the US had to contend with the Soviet Union as a counterbalancing force. If the US misbehaved too much, countries would instead align with the Soviet Union. That counterbalance disappeared during the unipolar moment.

It's not like the US somehow tricked everyone into accepting their leadership role. — Echarmion

Trickery, but mostly coercion. That pretty much sums it up.

Much of the world is incredibly naive when it comes to accepting US "leadership". Especially Europe.

Everyone wants to be the leader and set the rules to their advantage. But noone is there yet. I see little reason to suspect India would grant China the privilege or vice versa. Neither Brasil nor Russia are serious contenders. — Echarmion

We are not moving to a new unipolar system. We're moving towards multipolarity (in fact, we are already quite a ways there) which functions completely differently.

But hasn't the war - or rather the sanctions - also shown that the importance of that depends on your economic enmeshment with the US?

It seems to me that de-dollarization has a hen-and-egg problem. The more you export to the US, the more USD you hold and the more vulnerable you are to devaluation or straight up freezing of assets. But at the same time the less room to maneuver you have for de-dollarization. — Echarmion

The problem isn't necessarily US imports and exports. It's the petrodollar, the dollar as world reserve currency, the various global financial institutions created by the US, etc.

It's essentially a system of special 'privileges' the US has created for itself during the unipolar moment, which provide it with a slew of instruments to economically pressure other nations.

This is the system much of the world is trying to subtract itself from, not in the least because the US tends to function on a "rules for thee, but not for me" basis.

The economic incentive right now is just not there. — Echarmion

The economic incentive is certainly there.

The Ukraine war signaled to a lot of non-western countries that their money is not safe with the US dollar financial system, expediating de-dollarization.

Saudi-US relationship has been quite firm. — ssu

Yet, it's been shaky of late: 'There is only so much patience one can have’: Biden appears to back off vow to punish Saudi Arabia

It's quite clear Saudi Arabia, just like countries like India and Brazil, is also shaking off the US yoke and steering a more independent course. Independence, to the US, is belligerence.

Israeli Jews are in no sense foreign occupiers. — BitconnectCarlos

What can I say? The UN Security Council disagrees and has disagreed since 1967.

And now as BRICS has Saudi-Arabia, UAE, Egypt (and Ethiopia) as it's new members, it's obvious that these countries (except Ethiopia) are seen as allies of the US. — ssu

I think their becoming a part of BRICS indicaters that they're not US-aligned any longer. They were never allied to the US to begin with, but I assume 'aligned' is what you meant.

What unites all BRICS countries is their effort to shake off the yoke of the US-led financial system.

As you correctly point out, this doesn't mean that they all take an overtly hostile stance towards the US. It is not an anti-US military alliance. It's an anti-US (Dollar) economic bloc.

However, at the same time it's clear that multiple countries within BRICS (Russia, China and Iran most notably) are working together geopolitically and militarily to pressure the US.

In other words, I think you're downplaying its importance.

I think it's US society as a whole, through its Constitution. — Relativist

What part of the constitution?

U.S. Society, through the Constitution. — Relativist

In other words, people who vote for Trump provide him the privilege to run for president, or am I understanding this wrong?

Running for President is a privilege, not a "basic human right". — Relativist

A privilege granted by whom?

I think it's quite clear that the BRICS is the center of a markedly anti-US economic coalition, and that some of the more influential countries inside BRICS are working together geopolitically to pressure the US in other areas, including military.

Of course, these countries have interests tying into the US to various degrees, which is why some of them are more careful than others.

In the end, nations acting independently is already a threat to the US-led global system (or what's left of it), which is what countries like Brazil and India are doing.


It is no coincidence in my view that we see dangerous flashpoints popping up all over the world, all of which are tied to BRICS nations.

The Ukraine war was the catalyst, then came the 7th October attack and the ensuing Gaza war plausibly orchestrated by Iran. The Houthi rebels attacking shipping in the Red Sea (a major development, by the way), which are also backed by Iran.

Israel and global shipping - two major US weaknesses.

Now we have North Korea stating that they believe war between North and South Korea is inevitable (after a period of relative stability between the two nations) and China emphasizing reunification.

This is a coordinated strategy of systemic pressure. And it seems to me the current US administration has absolutely no idea how to deal with it.


Russia has taken a lead role, because escalation between Russia and Europe is very unlikely, whereas escalation in the Middle-East or the South China Sea is way more of a risk and no country wants to end up in a full-scale war with the US.

No nuclear weapons have been deployed in new NATO members: — Jabberwock

This is blatantly an incorrect statement.

So at least know your history if you are going to attack others on not knowing theirs.

So much for your knowledge of history. — Jabberwock

If you're going to take this kind of attitude you should at least be aware that the Cuba Crisis erupted over Jupiter missiles being stationed in Turkey.

I should check out Fukuyama's book. But I may like Derrida's criticism of it even more. — Vaskane

If you're looking for philosophical insight, Fukuyama's book isn't worth reading. The long and short of it is that he believed the American empire constituted peak humanity.

I'm not sure how someone remotely intelligent and well-informed could view the American empire as anything more than the regurgitation of humanity's past mistakes in a new dress. I would sooner view his work as being a deliberate work of propaganda to promote American hegemony as it appeared after the end of the Cold War.

It's honestly so shallow that even reading a critique about it is something I would consider a waste of time.

So I guess we should send the Palestinians back to Saudi Arabia or whichever surrounding Arabic nation they came from. — BitconnectCarlos

Really? :brow:

a glorious Victory to Vladimir Putin!!! — ssu

And the West served it to him on a silver platter. This is a worse strategic failure than Vietnam.

anti-left, anti covid — unenlightened

Oh, the horror!

How is Ukraine completely lost?

Seems that you are living in your own bubble or something.... — ssu

The balance of power being heavily in favor of the Russians is completely obvious, and nothing short of a miracle will change it because neither the US nor Europe is willing to stick their neck out.

The only question now is how much more punishment Ukraine will receive before it finds an off-ramp, and the sooner people understand the reality of this situation, the more lives can be spared.

If it appears I am "living a bubble" it is only by one's lack of insight.

Not sure how many warnings Merkwurdichliebe received in order to be banned, but I feel like some leniency is in order with regards to heated topics like Israel-Palestine.

Russia is not conducting classic highly mobile offensives that rely on airpower, but uses grinding attrition warfare making use of drones and artillery.

A no-fly zone would be costly and bring with it a high risk of escalation, while not significantly altering the balance of power.

Besides, the US is not looking to get further embroiled in Ukraine and is actually looking for an exit strategy. Ukraine is a senseless project that needlessly created tensions between Russia and the West, while in the rest of the world flashpoints are threatening to boil over which have actual strategic importance for the US.

The neocons shot themselves in the foot in Ukraine in a big way.

This makes absolutely no sense to me. If your insurgency is about setting up something like an Isis or death squads or any pretty much dysfunctional or evil or totalitarian or fundamentalist society, the moral justification for that insurgency becomes suspect or negated. — schopenhauer1

It's up to people themselves how they want to govern their state. The United States has proven how futile the attempt is to decide for other people how they should govern themselves. The US wanted to turn the Middle-East into a sea of democracy, and instead turned it into a sea of Muslim fundamentalism.

But moreover, occupation and oppression breed extremism, and certainly in the case of Hamas it is a direct result of how the Palestinians were treated by Israel over the course of decades.

If Israel wants to get rid of Hamas, it should end the occupation. Hamas' reason for existence disappears, and moderates will take their place.

Of course, this is fundamentally incompatible with the goals of the Israeli right-wing political establishment, and that is the problem.

Perhaps. And it is this is why I bring it up. The arguments should be made for how hard one should use military force, not other issues that are not the case, like "this is a genocide", which again given the history of actual genocides, seems like a cynical ploy. I think the inaccuracy of that framing, means it should be dropped for a more apt argument about how war is to be conducted. — schopenhauer1

Why is calling Israel's conduct in Gaza a genocide a cynical ploy or inaccurate framing?

It fits the IHL definition of a genocide.

Israeli officials themselves are busying overtly genocidal language.

I think Netanyahu would be found guilty of genocide if he were put infront of an impartial international court.

As I've noted before, several Bosnian Serbs were convicted for the crime of genocide by an international tribunal for their roles in the Srebrenica massacre. What Israel is doing today in Gaza and has done over the course of several decades is of a scale far greater.

As such, jurisprudence supports my argument that what Israel is doing today falls within the realm of a genocide.

This isn't an exaggeration on my part at all.

I would say that there is a middle ground where "War is never justified", and "Maximum force is necessary to achieve objective". — schopenhauer1

My view of what constitutes acceptable use of force and civilian casualties correspond roughly with the guidelines IHL provides. Israel is blatantly ignoring IHL and committing war crimes.

Sorry, but I cannot accept your position as a middleground. If you believe what Israel is doing today is justified I think your views are at the extreme end of the spectrum.

On what basis can you condemn Hamas for its attacks if you see no problem with what Israel is doing today? They're simply using "maximum force necessary to achieve objectives" as well.

But this again assumes EVERY insurgency is morally justified. That is a ridiculous notion. "You represent the underdog, and are willing to fight for a cause, and do so using terrorism, therefore your cause is right". That doesn't make sense. Just because, for example, Isis, or the Lord's Resistance Party, or Islamist insurgency in the Sahel, or the Sandinistas, or Contras, or the Shining Path, or the represents an "insurgency" or some "underdog" doesn't mean they are morally justified to carry on with their operations. — schopenhauer1

I think every insurgency fought against a foreign occupation can be justified. That doesn't mean the insurgents are the 'good guys', but a foreign occupier has no right to be there in the first place and are by definition in the wrong.

:up:

But I also think there is a sort of naivete of how warfare manifests. — schopenhauer1

For example, destroying Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan probably needed massive amounts of force. — schopenhauer1

It did, but despite not a single German city being left standing, the Germans fought on until the bitter end. The mass killing of civilians did not cause a surrender or a breaking of the will of the population. It was military action, taking place overwhelmingly on the eastern front, that decided that war.

Similarly for Japan, Japanese resistance was not broken by bombing but by their political leadership understanding the futility in carrying on the fight. They were ready to sue for peace before the Allies nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Strategic bombing as a means to a decisive victory is understood to be wrong in military academic circles. Given that fact, I think the intentional mass murder of civilians can't be justified even in these wars in which much was at stake, thus I view them all as war crimes and morally abject.

What Western countries have always had a hard time figuring out is how to conduct asymmetrical warfare whereby the enemy hides amidst the population, uses tunnels, and in the case of groups like Isis and Hamas, use a variety of barbaric terrorist methods, no matter the cost to their own people. — schopenhauer1

Certainly. However, there is a crucial element that shouldn't be overlooked.

An insurgency can only be undertaken against an occupier.

So when Western countries are facing stubborn insurgencies that don't allow themselves to be rooted out, the first question should be: why are we there as the occupier in the first place?

Once people finally acknowledge Ukraine is militarily completely lost, perhaps their next steps can be chosen more rationally. There's nothing 'pro-Russian' about that. In fact, it will benefit Ukraine to make decisions based on reality.

Additionally, framing the other side as partisan is intellectual poverty. Lets keep things civil.

Just curious when is there a distinction between genocide and simply the consequences of war itself? Was the carpet bombing of North Vietnam genocide or bad war policy? Was the bombing of Berlin genocide or how the strategic goals of the war were carried out in order to gain unconditional surrender. — schopenhauer1

The distinction is the element of intent, as per the relevant article of legislature that has already been quoted. In the case of Israel, several Israeli politicians including Netanyahu himself have busied overtly genocidal language and thus established intent.

In the case of the bombing of Germany during WWII, I think it is fair to say the Allies had no genocidal intentions. Still, the intentional massacring of huge numbers of civilians is a war crime and morally abhorrent.

In the case of the various different kinds of bombings of Vietnam and Cambodia (including chemical ones), I think this may qualify as genocide given the sheer scale of mass killings and the decades-long impact of the atrocities. That impact is still felt today. Was the mass killing of civilians intentional? In the case of the Vietnam war, I think so. It's a typical phenomenon seen during counterinsurgencies, where the conventional force grows frustrated with its inability to break the resistance, and turns on the civilian population out of frustration.

Rather, the framing of the question should be whether this is the right military strategy, and overall approach to resolving this issue — schopenhauer1

In all situations I've named; the Allied bombing of Germany and Japan, Vietnam, and the Israel-Gaza war, the bombings did not have a decisive impact on the war.

Many of these "strategies" were based on pre-WWII conceptions of airpower, that hypothesized that mass killings among the civilian population could "break" the receiving nation's will to fight.

This is completely unproven. There's not a single instance in history where this was the case, in fact bombing civilians often times strengthens the resolve of the target nation, especially in the case of insurgencies - that's something witnessed during almost every insurgency where mass killings of the civilian population took place.

However, the reason nations still choose this approach is because, especially during insurgencies, airpower brings the promise of low casualties to the own side. It's wishful thinking. All the airpower in the world couldn't bring the US victory in the Middle-East for example, and instead turned it into a nation of war criminals.

I think rather Hanover is suggesting that rather than dealing in the substance this is using cynical ploys at terminology by so framing this “hypocritical and ironic narrative of moral equivalence”, as he put it. — schopenhauer1

There's nothing cynical about pointing out that Israel's actions in Gaza fit the criteria for genocide. As I've noted before, individuals have been convicted of genocide for actions that did not reach the scale of what is taking place in Gaza today. (for examples, look at the ICTY)

I think if Netanyahu were put before an impartial international court, there's enough evidence to convict him of genocide.

That's not a semantical game I'm playing. That's my (in this case educated) opinion.

This is nonsense.

Israel can't draw the Holocaust card to excuse its own genocidal behavior.

is exactly right. Israel's behavior fits the IHL definition of genocide, and as I have pointed out before, there are examples of people who were convicted for the crime of genocide (for example, during the ICTY) that are much smaller in scale in comparison to what Israel is doing today in Gaza (and what it has subjected the Palestinian people to over the course of decades).

In short, an unsuccessful genocide is still a genocide, and just because the Jewish people were subjected to genocide in the past, does not give them a right to commit the same crime onto others.

Weren't you the guy predicting Ukraine's offensive was going to push the Russians out of Crimea? :lol:

The West wasn't willing to stick its neck out for Ukraine when Ukraine was still in decent shape. It sure as hell won't risk a war with Russia now that Ukraine is lost.

The West will do everything it can to avoid a humiliating defeat for themselves, by throwing Ukraine under the bus militarily and politically and ultimately putting the blame for this disaster on Ukraine. Just like it has used Ukraine as a patsy for the NordStream bombings which were obviously planned (and probably carried out) by the US.

Zelensky is already under heavy pressure to start talks with the Russians, even though it was the West that told him to block the negotiations that took place in March/April 2022. (Which is why Zelensky isn't budging now)

If I were in Ukraine's shoes, I'd try to find a way to dangle said humiliating defeat over the West's head (before the 2024 US election) and thereby force them to come with solutions. The best way to do this is to start talks with the Russians behind the West's back. Even if nothing comes from the talks, this is sure to ring alarm bells in the West.

But this assumes Ukraine has any political agency left to speak of, which is something I'm skeptical about.

Yet you repeat their propaganda verbatim. — Mikie

Oh yea? Give an example.

What the oil companies believe or say has nothing to do with my views. But a cute attempt.

But it’s funny to have such doubts about science, yet repeat wholesale the demonstrable propaganda of oil companies. Apparently they’re trustworthy. Keen judgment. — Mikie

Some low-brow attempt to shove me into the camp of the oil companies? :brow:

Sea level rise may show up much more in low-lying areas for obvious reasons, but also it has to be taken into account that it is understood not to be uniform over the planet, so what you observe locally may indeed not exhibit the more radical changes being experienced elsewhere. — Janus

I'm just making the point that ultimately I'm having to trust other people's word for it, and I'm increasingly seeing problems within academia that make me unwilling to extend that trust.