Geopolitics
- Thread starter Mciahel Goodman
- Start date
Shouldn't the Israeli leader be the one claiming that to the US President? The obsession with Israel by both parties is bizarre. It's like they see Israel as part of the US.
Not sure if it warrants its own thread yet, something to keep an eye on:
Recently Russia was bombing civilian infrastructure such as power lines, leading to blackouts in parts of Ukraine, and it was being called a war crime.
I then remembered the US intentionally destroyed Iraqi water treatment plants, leading to unsafe drinking water in the country and kids dying from disease, no one called those war crimes or arrested those involved.
I then remembered the US intentionally destroyed Iraqi water treatment plants, leading to unsafe drinking water in the country and kids dying from disease, no one called those war crimes or arrested those involved.
I don't remember how widespread it was but I do remember Bush and Rumsfeld being called war criminals, not only because Iraq was seen as a strange target in the context of 9/11 but also due to actions that you described. And from what I can see time has only cemented that view.
So, it is not fair that Putin and co being accused of committing war crimes?
This is actually referring to the Gulf War when they hit their treatment plants and then put in sanctions that prevented import of medical supplies to help people bring effected by the unclean water.
It's fine being called war criminals but no one has been jailed for those crimes.
It's definitely fair and should be said as such, but hypocritical given other war criminals from the US aren't criticized and roaming free.
You specifically mentioned how people called Russia's actions, the US actions have been called similarly in the past. Now regarding your second point which goes further than your former point, the US are without a doubt the strongest military power in the world and they don't recognize the ICC, so who is supposed to put these leaders on trial and jail them? It won't be the US themselves the same way Russia aren't jailing their own leaders unless it serves their interests.
So is the point that western media is hypocritical? Because yep that is clearly the case.
But I don't really understand your point about jail and walking free. Unless I've missed something, Putin isn't in jail. No major politician (Pro the war) has been jailed in Russia. And this war isn't going to end with Putin in a Ukrainian or international jail either.
It's going to end with Putin still in power after losing the war, Putin still in power after somehow winning the war or Putin dead, most likely deposed internally.
He just isn't going to end up in a non Russian jail though.
The world is not fair and never was, its about time you realised that. The american way is to bomb the essential infrastructure and then roll in, they spin it by saying its collateral damage.
You pointing out their hypocracy won't change there ways.
The american mainstream media is calling for putin to be tried and jailed for war crimes.
@hasanejaz88 is asking that they should do the same for bush and since bush is in america whats stopping them from putting him on trial ? After all the rule of law prevails in america, does it not ?
What about the second part of the post, which has been the bloody point from the start.
I can't understand the point being made that US would never try their own leaders for war crimes or change anything because they are the strongest military in the world, so there isn't any point in discussing this.
Well, by that argument, why don't we stop discussing other brutal regimes like Saudi? Why should they suddenly stop the dictatorship of their people and have democracy? Or stop the brutal bombing of Yemen, and sponsorship of Sunni terror, given they still hasn't vast influence over the West, who are actively arming them at the same time? I mean, they assassinated an American citizen and the US won't do anything about it.
So we just end these type of discussions all together?
Of course Kazakhstan doesn't support the annexation of Donbas, considering they also have Russian speaking areas in their country.
A few thoughts occurred to me while reading your post and that other post.
1). Why do you (and the other guy) appear so agitated?
2). I never said you couldn't discuss it; it was just a question. You answered it, and I left it there.
3. Am I being mistaken for someone who would defend some of the hypocrisy of what US leaders have done in the past?
Bizarre ranting.
The Cafe geopol hands need to up their game:
Post soviet countries duking it out now that Russia has been largely demilitarized. How long until Moldova and Georgia decide to reclaim lost territories? How long until it spills in Russia proper?
This has good info on the seven Tajik and Uzbek enclaves surrounded by Kyrgyzstan. This round of clashes seems to have started on the border of the Vorukh enclave and subsequently spread -https://caravanistan.com/kyrgyzstan/south/ferghana-valley-enclaves/
I see Italy has decided to shit the bed again
This happening just as sco summit about to begin, then large protests happening in iran just as they shipped drones to russia.
Coincidence ? I think not. The world powers are making chess moves trying to weaken the other.
most of his speeches function as a kind of summary. formed of historical narrative, the events depicted are truthful but you can make obvious allowances for the narrative focus.
1. he traces the colonial legacy of the west.
2. the downfall of the ussr.
3. the downfall of western hegemony.
his own embedded rhetorical manipulation is at work, too, as how can you criticize all the things the west has done and continues to do yet replicate that same colonial policy in ukraine? his speeches are clever whatever you think of them in terms of truth value. they are clever because there is a lot of truth in them, in fact, but also because it distorts some of this truth to mount an offense. he doesn't waste words. a lot of what he says will resonate beyond europe and america and even within. it's the colonial stuff and the very real promise of multipolarity and the end of unipolarity that will resonate mostly beyond europe and america, and it's the criticisms of the ruling classes of these two continents which will resonate within. on this second group, putin's style is "something for everyone". targets both left and right, through conservatism and anti-imperialism at the same time.
1. he traces the colonial legacy of the west.
2. the downfall of the ussr.
3. the downfall of western hegemony.
his own embedded rhetorical manipulation is at work, too, as how can you criticize all the things the west has done and continues to do yet replicate that same colonial policy in ukraine? his speeches are clever whatever you think of them in terms of truth value. they are clever because there is a lot of truth in them, in fact, but also because it distorts some of this truth to mount an offense. he doesn't waste words. a lot of what he says will resonate beyond europe and america and even within. it's the colonial stuff and the very real promise of multipolarity and the end of unipolarity that will resonate mostly beyond europe and america, and it's the criticisms of the ruling classes of these two continents which will resonate within. on this second group, putin's style is "something for everyone". targets both left and right, through conservatism and anti-imperialism at the same time.
Last edited:
Not sure when this was produced but FT has an interesting podcast series on Xi Jinping: https://www.economist.com/theprincepod
By American media? They have to start with their own war criminals first. You just can't cherry pick war criminals according to your agenda.
No, you don't have to clean hands to make an accurate observation, that's a logical fallacy. The character of the speaker is irrelevant to the validity of the argument. That is, if it's a good argument, being spoken by an unreliable person doesn't make it false.
US officials should be tried for war crimes. So should Russian officials.
I would not take the word of US media tool on any political subject. Anything coming out from their mouths is agenda driven. There are multiple more trustworthy media outlets that I would rather listen too.
So, it is not fair?
Well put, if wasted.
Fair if a Swedish or a Norwegian media call for it. American media calling for it is just hypocrisy.
Do you think Arab states, whose governments are increasingly friendlier with the Israelis and increasingly indifferent to the Palestinian issue, will go for this ?
Don't bring politics into sport.
Also I doubt they'll do it since they are getting very chummy with Israel lately and wouldn't want to anger them.
I am not sure to be honest.
Agree, the same thing can be said about the Ukraine armbands though.
That's much more straightforward as Russia isn't that liked or needed as a partner as Israel is in that region.
Well I was joking about the politics thing, it's just funny that when it comes to Palestine it is 'don't bring politics etc etc' but when it's Ukraine there is no argument.
But yea I don't see the Arab countries showing any solidarity with Palestine, I doubt any of them care to be honest. That is a big problem within the Muslim world, half hate the other half.