So your point is that Hitler was intent on following international law, and to that end, he made sure everything he did was legal? — frank

Where did I say that? Read this again:

No country is going to say "because I can" because you don't want to create the precedent among a group of peers where the power relations shift over time that you can always do whatever you want because might makes right. At some point whether it's 10 years away or a 100, you're going to be on the receiving end if you don't watch out. As a consequence, even when a country breaches international law they tend to reinforce it at the same time. — Benkei

And while rare, the international community does sometimes act to use force and it does so based on established principles of international law either customary law or the UN Charter.

Meanwhile, you shouldn't forget that inviolability of embassy personnel is just international law or the prohibition on the death penalty for juvenile offenders (see Michael Domingues v. United States). The universal jurisdiction courts have established to persecute torturers. These are a few examples of ius cogens.

No country is going to say "because I can" because you don't want to create the precedent among a group of peers where the power relations shift over time that you can always do whatever you want because might makes right. At some point whether it's 10 years away or a 100, you're going to be on the receiving end if you don't watch out — Benkei

A famous example of this would be Assyria. They were relentlessly aggressive and cruel. Eventually Persia organized a coalition to permanently smash them flat. Is that the sort of thing you mean?

If not, could you give an example?

I think the Allies committed war crimes regularly. Carpet bombing was a UK invention. That's one. Purposefully targetting civilian centers another. Fire bombing cities (made mostly of wood). Nuking cities. So a just war in my view needs to be both waged for the right reasons (which WWII was where the Allies were concerned) but also with respect to the means employed. So I wouldn't qualify it as a just war but a war for just reasons.

That's a time period well before they started to really think about the concept of a just war so it's difficult to say it applies.

But imagine if Iraq had invaded Kuwait but for decades before that many other countries had regularly invaded ME countries and the reason they'd given was "we want their resources". That would make "taking a country's resources" a valid ground for war. Do you think a coalition would've been formed to oust Iraq from Kuwait if that was a regularly touted justification? Probably not.

I once saw a man and a woman fighting (physically) in a public place, and out of concern for the woman I stepped in to ask her if she was okay or needed help. They both stopped fighting and explained that it was play fighting and she said she was fine and didn’t need any help, in a believable manner. I’m glad I didn’t just assume she needed my help and wade in punching the guy.

I hope this analogy is clear (True story, FWIW).

What was cartoonish, or wrong or mistaken, in Hippyhead's post that you refer to?

Strangely enough, Saddam asked the American ambassador what the US's response would be to Iraq's invading Kuwait. No coherent message was delivered back to him, so he invaded believing the US would accept it. Saddam was trying to follow the law of the jungle, he was just dealing with an oblivious gorilla.

Volatile behavior undermines cohesion, as we've seen with Trump. Fear of instability is bad for business, IOW, if relations between the EU, Russia, China, and the US deteriorated too much, the global economy would start contracting, so everyone has a stake in stability.

Would you say that international law is rooted in something basic about human nature? That we're socializing mammals, hardwired to need one another?

I once saw a man and a woman fighting (physically) in a public place, and out of concern for the woman I stepped in to ask her if she was okay or needed help. They both stopped fighting and explained that it was play fighting and she said she was fine and didn’t need any help, in a believable manner. I’m glad I didn’t just assume she needed my help and wade in punching the guy. — Pfhorrest

The same thing happened to me. I was bitter about the experience.

I hope this analogy is clear — Pfhorrest

Yes, in fact it's a nicely concise way of saying what Marchesk and I subsequently said, about the messy and disastrous realities of intervention.

But obviously I was looking for a clear-cut case: wouldn't you agree that there are cases that are clear-cut enough for pacifism to be morally reprehensible, even without an explicit call for help?

But obviously I was looking for a clear-cut case: wouldn't you agree that there are cases that are clear-cut enough for pacifism to be morally reprehensible, even without an explicit call for help? — jamalrob

I guess the analogy wasn’t clear enough then, because the point of it was that we can (and should) intervene just enough to find out if our help is welcome by the people we think are in need, even without it being explicitly called for. If the apparent victims want us to butt out, we should. We shouldn’t just assume that they want us to, and go headlong into attacking their apparent enemies.

I guess the analogy wasn’t clear enough then, because the point of it was that we can (and should) intervene just enough to find out if our help is welcome by the people we think are in need, even without it being explicitly called for. If the apparent victims want us to butt out, we should. We shouldn’t just assume that they want us to, and go headlong into attacking their apparent enemies. — Pfhorrest

Right, fair enough. I thought the analogy was designed just to show that reality is messier than we can know from the outside, and that your own intervention was misjudged, but yes, that makes sense. But crucially, you did intervene, and in the case of humanitarian intervention it may be impossible to draw a line between tentative and full-on intervention (in the analogy, the man attacks you just for butting in where you're not welcome, you defend yourself, etc). And taking your analogy further, the woman may have been too fearful of the man's reprisals to admit that she needed help.

What was cartoonish, or wrong or mistaken, in Hippyhead's post that you refer to? — tim wood

Cartoonish, pretty much everything. Mainly, the idea that Putin is merely a gangster out for himself, bleeding the people dry so he can build more palaces for himself. It's simplistic and a bit ignorant, I think.

To be fair, I hear it from Russians as well sometimes. I disagree with them too.

Would you say that international law is rooted in something basic about human nature? That we're socializing mammals, hardwired to need one another? — frank

I doubt it. Too abstract and we'll probably end up committing the naturalistic fallacy if we'd try to ground it in human nature. I think in the end morality is mostly grounded in empathy, which is why the more abstract a situation becomes the more people disagree on the right course of action.

Not a gangster, or just no mere gangster? Admittedly "gangster" is maybe not exactly the right word - or maybe in a sense it is exactly the right word. Putin seems to me the near perfect predator. No doubt rich enough to not want any more things large or small.

But he does appear to want a security that even a Tsar would envy. How would you characterize him and his. And how do you suppose he might die? Of old age?

I believe Biden will be just a figurehead for the same technocratic foreign policy we’ve seen before, where the government’s actions will be set in motion by the will of career advisors, intelligence officials and bureaucrats instead of his constituents. Expect drone strikes, foreign meddling, the arming of opposition forces, information and cyber warfare, sweeping counter-intelligence powers—“counter-terrorism plus”—while at the same time hiding behind the US government’s massive PR machine and media allies.

Ukraine, Libya, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq—almost everything Biden touches turns to instability, poverty and rubble.

Cartoonish, pretty much everything. Mainly, the idea that Putin is merely a gangster out for himself, bleeding the people dry so he can build more palaces for himself. It's simplistic and a bit ignorant, I think. — jamalrob

That description is bang on. I would supplement it with the fact that he's a murderer and loves a bit of plastic surgery.

Is there any way I can bypass giving money to this site by subscribing and just giving it to directly to other, non-putin-backing mods instead?

How would you characterize him and his — tim wood

Putin is a ruthless authoritarian who (1) sincerely believes that what he's doing is best for Russia and is dedicated to the Russian state, which he sees as a continuous and almost unbroken line of strong rulers going back centuries (this is not necessarily a recommendation, but it's far from mere gangsterism), (2) is genuinely popular, because (2i) he brought stability, security, and some economic improvement following the traumatic disaster of shock therapy in the nineties, and (2ii) he prevented the breakup of Russia by making an example of Chechnya.

But obviously I was looking for a clear-cut case: wouldn't you agree that there are cases that are clear-cut enough for pacifism to be morally reprehensible, even without an explicit call for help?

As an aside, here are some great arguments against pacifism written during times when such an ideology would have been disastrous.

Orwell wrote a great article against pacifism called Pacifism and the War.

CS Lewis makes a great argument against pacifism in Why I am not a pacifist.

some economic improvement — jamalrob

Year over year 7% in the early 2000s + law and order. Weird thing is almost nobody expected him to last. That he controls the MSM and "tutored" half the political class helps too.

sincerely believes that what he's doing is best for Russia and is dedicated to the Russian state, which he sees as a continuous and almost unbroken line of strong rulers going back centuries — jamalrob

This is expressed quite clearly in his/Russia's goal to be or maintain its position as a global superpower.

yeah putin's such a great guy and should definitely be lauded over on a philosophy forum to almost slavaboo-ish levels.

Don't act like a moron and put words in people's mouths that have nothing to do with what they said. Nobody is lauding Putin and it doesn't help to draw a caricature. If you don't know who he is and where he's coming from and why his approval rating has been what it was then you won't know how to deal with Russian interference, breaches of air space by Russians, their bellicosity or cyber warfare. Know your enemy.

alright MI5 agent. 'Better the devil you know' is a bullshit retort.

I just told you not to act like a moron and you just do it again? Do you have reading comprehension problems? Maybe autistic, illiterate or non-native speaker? Or are you just trolling?

Someone painted a caricature. A Westerner living in Russia clarifies why its a caricature and provides some much needed facts and colour. I add a dash more. And your take away is that Putin is being "lauded"?

Maybe autistic — Benkei

Now you're insulting people with developmental issues to defend your own ego. Rather moronic I must say.

I don't need to defend my ego as it's already impervious to troll attacks. It's been fun. Tata.

ttyl. Just be a bit more careful in the future of how you paint putin and differently-abled people. :up:

Biden Policy on Turkey

The concern is reasonable and l expect that his administration will be very aggressive. I fear greater foreign intervention in the future. Take for example, Turkey. His policy is quite clear and he is willing to support an opposition party against the current government. In other words ,he wants to install a puppet government.

The USA has a history of replacing popular democratically elected government with puppet government through various overt and covert approaches. Long ago, it even supported capitalist dictatorships against socialist democracy. War crimes committed during invasion of Iraq are enough to disqualify US from being a global moral authority. Frankly speaking, no one is above other in terms of moral authority and every country is sovereign. How can Americans trust their government after reading the history behind foreign intervention in the interest of Democracy. Since Russia and China won't stop playing such games, the lobby and bureaucracy will force Biden to adopt an aggressive policy. I don't even think that he is in control. I wish Bernie was in charge instead of Biden.

I think the Allies committed war crimes regularly. Carpet bombing was a UK invention. That's one. Purposefully targetting civilian centers another. — Benkei

This isn't true, actually.

The theory of strategic bombing as a war winning strategy was made famous by the Italian general Giulio Douhet in the 1920's and you should remember that the first example of concentrated aerial bombardment of a city happened during the Spanish war, which was made famous by Pablo Picasso's famous painting, Guernica.

(Theories put into action for the first time: Guernica)


Then the Germans had their famous London Blitz, where (thanks to Hitler) the focus was shifted to bomb London and other cities from the more smarter strategy of bombing RAF fields, radar stations and airplane manufacturing plants. The Germans failed to produce a heavy bomber and had to rely on medium bombers, so this really isn't something that the Allies invented. Had they had an bomber capable of crossing the Atlantic, American memoirs of WW2 would be different.

Not to say that war crimes were done by both sides, yet some nations did commit far more than others and few didn't do much.

What's the difference between Putin and Erdogan? Both are corrupt, both harbour imperialistic ambitions based on past glories, both suppress their own people, both advocate traditional religious values. We're talking about billions of dollars being embezzled here, he has a net worth of at least $70 billion US which makes him the most corrupt politician in the world. The media is controlled, free speech curtailed, it's an authoritarian state as you said, how much does his popularity at home matter? He has crafted laws that grant past presidents immunity from prosecution from any crimes committed during or after office. I guess the Russian economy isn't too bad, if you're comparing them to former USSR states, certainly not the best or second-best though, despite their natural resources. Russia is spending a huge amount on their defence because Putin wants to hold onto a bygone age, trying desperately and ruthlessly to hold onto influence that Russia is clearly not going to be able to maintain. No need to refer directly to his PR campaign as a strongman and credit him with doing Russia any favours.

edit: I am actually not sure about whether Putin or his friends got any of their billions from embezzlement, I am not sure what means he used to acquire all his wealth.

You list some truths, but your comments about Russia's "imperialistic ambitions" and defence spending don't fit my understanding at all, and your last sentence is just silly. So you've nailed your colours to the mast. Well, okay, but that's not what this discussion is for.