Geopolitics

maniak said:
imagine the line thinking for other things. I have no idea when rape was introduced as an official law in the UK, but surely no one would argue that women weren't raped before that date because it wasn't illegal.
Click to expand...

No - but when the non consensual penetration took place it wasn't a crime. That doesn't mean you can't view it as abhorrent but it's not a crime.

Marital rape was only outlawed in the last 40 years. You can look back and think it was terrible and repugnant and abusive but it wasn't a crime.

A crime is something that is against the law. If the law does not in someway prohibit an act or omission then it isn't a crime.
 
maniak said:
Mate, I'm not going back to the vandals or the macedonians. The concept of war crime was well known in 1945.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_1907
Click to expand...

I suggest you actually read those definitions.

Hint: the allies tried to put German leaders on trial for war crimes in 1919 and got absolutely nowhere because the actual definitions were so vague and open ended.

You expect nations to follow The Hague conventions of 1907 on the topic of strategic bombing based on definitions made prior to the invention of commercial flight?
 
As I said before, semantics and technicalities is all you have left.

Imagine wasting your time online trying to convince people that an obvious war crime was in fact a humane and merciful action.

I'm out.
 
maniak said:
As I said before, semantics and technicalities is all you have left.

Imagine wasting your time online trying to convince people that an obvious war crime was in fact a humane and merciful action.

I'm out.
Click to expand...
Thank god for that.
 
Its incredible how long and convuluted a discussion can become over the semantics of a word. Ww2 is pretty much pretty much a lesson in lesser evils. It's easy over 80 years later to surmise what may have been done differently. For everyone who got a nuclear bomb dropped on their head this doesn't matter. As an objective for ending the worst war of all time it worked. And yeah through terror. Its not nice or cuddly but neither was Ww2 or imperialist Japan. All of this was to force into the japanese psyche that they stood no chance in the face of new type of bomb that was so destructive that it was hard to understand at all. A mercy, no, a lesser evil to a prolonged invasion of Japan probably yes.
 
Last edited:
Gehrman said:
Its incredible how long and convuluted a discussion can become over the semantics of a word. Ww2 is pretty much pretty much a lesson in lesser evils. It's easy over 80 years later to surmise what may have been done differently. For everyone who got a nuclear bomb dropped on their head this doesn't matter. As an objective for ending the worst war of all time it worked. And yeah through terror. Its not nice or cuddly but neither was Ww2 or imperialist Japan. All of this was to force into the japanese psyche that they stood no chance in the face of new type of bomb that was so destructive that it was hard to understand at all. A mercy, no, a lesser evil to a prolonged invasion of Japan probably yes.
Click to expand...

I think part of the issue is people attempting to impose cultural and moral norms of the present onto scenarios of the distant past where norms were quite different.
 
What I don't understand is the incessant need to excuse, gloss over or straight up ignore all the clearly problematic, unethical and even straight up evil acts committed by the US over the last 80 years. There are millions of innocent people that have been directly or indirectly affected by these acts. And a lot of them are still alive today.

It should be OK to bring this up these acts without having "but what about XYZ" tossed right back at you. Just because other brutality has happened elsewhere under other leaders, it doesn't excuse the US in any way.
 
Scandi Red said:
What I don't understand is the incessant need to excuse, gloss over or straight up ignore all the clearly problematic, unethical and even straight up evil acts committed by the US over the last 80 years. There are millions of innocent people that have been directly or indirectly affected by these acts. And a lot of them are still alive today.

It should be OK to bring this up these acts without having "but what about XYZ" tossed right back at you. Just because other brutality has happened elsewhere under other leaders, it doesn't excuse the US in any way.
Click to expand...

But nobody is doing that. Nobody is excusing the US.

The main point here is: "We know the West have done fecked up things, but soon you're going to have to pick a side, and frankly the side opposing the west is worse"
 
Scandi Red said:
What I don't understand is the incessant need to excuse, gloss over or straight up ignore all the clearly problematic, unethical and even straight up evil acts committed by the US over the last 80 years. There are millions of innocent people that have been directly or indirectly affected by these acts. And a lot of them are still alive today.

It should be OK to bring this up these acts without having "but what about XYZ" tossed right back at you. Just because other brutality has happened elsewhere under other leaders, it doesn't excuse the US in any way.
Click to expand...

I frankly don't believe anyone has been glossing up the misdeeds of US over the past 80 years.
 
Gehrman said:
I frankly don't believe anyone has been glossing up the misdeeds of US over the past 80 years.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I'm pretty sure this whole thing kicked off by someone describing the nukes as a mercy. But I don't want to take part in that discussion again.
 
Gehrman said:
Its incredible how long and convuluted a discussion can become over the semantics of a word. Ww2 is pretty much pretty much a lesson in lesser evils. It's easy over 80 years later to surmise what may have been done differently. For everyone who got a nuclear bomb dropped on their head this doesn't matter. As an objective for ending the worst war of all time it worked. And yeah through terror. Its not nice or cuddly but neither was Ww2 or imperialist Japan. All of this was to force into the japanese psyche that they stood no chance in the face of new type of bomb that was so destructive that it was hard to understand at all. A mercy, no, a lesser evil to a prolonged invasion of Japan probably yes.
Click to expand...
It can't really be known whether alternative methods would have worked, though. That's the main point - were they necessary? And this is not purely some 80 years later exercise, as there were plenty of high-ranking politicians and officers that were against it both pre- and post-bombing, and didn't consider it necessary to force a surrender, chief among them William Leahy, Truman's Chief of Staff, and Dwight Eisenhower.

There was certainly also more going on than simply forcing the surrender of Japan - the US wanted to end the war before the Soviet Union got in on it, so there was one less player at the table during the aftermath (simply put). It was already agreed at the Yalta conference that the Soviet Union would enter the war against Japan no later than three months after the defeat of Nazi Germany, but then Roosevelt died and Truman took a different line towards the Soviets. In the end the first bomb was dropped before the Soviet Union invaded Manchuria. Notably the Japanese leadership was long (and stupidly) hoping that the Soviet's would help them out diplomatically, so their declaration of war was another major contributing factor to the surrender, but it came after Hiroshima. Similarly, the Allies didn't give any assurances about the future of the Emperor in the Potsdam Declaration - probably the single most important point for the Japanese - and continued to push for unconditional surrender, but in the end they effectively agreed that he could stay in power anyway. These assurances were actually in some of the earlier drafts, but were removed. So we never saw a scenario, where Japan faced a declaration of war from the Soviets and also had assurances about the Emperor. The US arguably used the bombs in an effort to force an ending to the war, a) Before the Soviets got too involved, and b) To force a fully unconditional surrender.

Of course, it goes without saying that the Japanese leadership also acted naively and with complete disregard for their own people. But it also seems clear that there were other options that could have been exhausted before dropping the bomb, which just didn't align with US interests.
 
AfonsoAlves said:
But nobody is doing that. Nobody is excusing the US.

The main point here is: "We know the West have done fecked up things, but soon you're going to have to pick a side, and frankly the side opposing the west is worse"
Click to expand...

An apt analogy would be a prison yard with psycho gang leaders wreaking havoc. You may be forced to side with the psycho that is marginally more palpable than the others and the least likely to stab you. But have you really "picked their side" then? I guess that would be another discussion about semantics.

Personally I dream about democratic socialism. The keyword being 'dream'.
 
Scandi Red said:
An apt analogy would be a prison yard with psycho gang leaders wreaking havoc. You may be forced to side with the psycho that is marginally more palpable than the others and the least likely to stab you. But have you really "picked their side" then? I guess that would be another discussion about semantics.

Personally I dream about democratic socialism. The keyword being 'dream'.
Click to expand...

It's not "marginally" better though. I was born in the Soviet Union - it was a shithole and many parts of it unfortunately has still not ascended from that status. The Soviets had everything to make their nation prosperous and their people have dignity in their lives and they instead decided to push for a dystopic hellhole.
 
Scandi Red said:
An apt analogy would be a prison yard with psycho gang leaders wreaking havoc. You may be forced to side with the psycho that is marginally more palpable than the others and the least likely to stab you. But have you really "picked their side" then? I guess that would be another discussion about semantics.

Personally I dream about democratic socialism. The keyword being 'dream'.
Click to expand...
Yeah, in your analogy that is picking a side surely?
 
DanH said:
Yeah, in your analogy that is picking a side surely?
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's because I'm not a native speaker, but to me the word "pick" makes it sound like opting out is a viable option without severe downsides. It's kind of like how ruthless factory owners back in the day justified their abhorrent working conditions by stating that all workers are free to leave.

Also, what does it actually mean to "pick the US"? Do you need to be in an alliance with them? Are all liberal democracies de facto on their side?
 
Scandi Red said:
Perhaps it's because I'm not a native speaker, but to me the word "pick" makes it sound like opting out is a viable option without severe downsides. It's kind of like how ruthless factory owners back in the day justified their abhorrent working conditions by stating that all workers are free to leave.

Also, what does it actually mean to "pick the US"? Do you need to be in an alliance with them? Are all liberal democracies de facto on their side?
Click to expand...

Do we actually know any liberal democracies who are not economically, politically or militarily tied to the US?

The bloc isn't really just US either, its basically Europe + US
 
AfonsoAlves said:
Do we actually know any liberal democracies who are not economically, politically or militarily tied to the US?
Click to expand...

Anyone partaking in world trade are economically tied to the US, no? And what do you mean by politically tied?
 
Scandi Red said:
Perhaps it's because I'm not a native speaker, but to me the word "pick" makes it sound like opting out is a viable option without severe downsides. It's kind of like how ruthless factory owners back in the day justified their abhorrent working conditions by stating that all workers are free to leave.

Also, what does it actually mean to "pick the US"? Do you need to be in an alliance with them? Are all liberal democracies de facto on their side?
Click to expand...

Hi, in the prison yard analogy a choice is being made to act in your own self interests. There is a viable option to not take part or lend your support anywhere but that choice would lead to negative consequences you are not willing to accept. So even though you may disagree/dislike with the person you end up supporting, you do so anyway because you consider it better for you than the alternative. I think the factory owner thing would only really be analogous in a situation where there was another factory owner you could go to but with slightly worse working conditions.

I haven't said anything about picking the US so others who have brought that up will be better placed to answer.
 
AfonsoAlves said:
But nobody is doing that. Nobody is excusing the US.

The main point here is: "We know the West have done fecked up things, but soon you're going to have to pick a side, and frankly the side opposing the west is worse"
Click to expand...
You alluded to this earlier too, what makes you say we're going to need to pick a side soon? And what does picking a side mean in reality?
 
Scandi Red said:
What I don't understand is the incessant need to excuse, gloss over or straight up ignore all the clearly problematic, unethical and even straight up evil acts committed by the US over the last 80 years. There are millions of innocent people that have been directly or indirectly affected by these acts. And a lot of them are still alive today.

It should be OK to bring this up these acts without having "but what about XYZ" tossed right back at you. Just because other brutality has happened elsewhere under other leaders, it doesn't excuse the US in any way.
Click to expand...

a bit of context no one was trying to excuse USA from the brutalities it has committed.
if you scroll back a few pages, we were debating whether some countries are relatively more moral than others (some members here do not think so, as a matter of fact). I used an example that POWs held by USA/UK had a very small death rate (0.1%) while POWs held by USSR/Germany/Japan had a high death rate of 30-50%, and that USA's 20 years invasion of Afghanistan caused around 50k civilian deaths (a sin it was) while USSR's invasion of the same country caused 2 million civilian deaths in 9 years - to demonstrate that some countries try, at least, to be more moral than the others. then a member (Pav1878) threw in "really? what about nuking japan?" to spark the debate here.
 
JeffFromHK said:
a bit of context no one was trying to excuse USA from the brutalities it has committed.
if you scroll back a few pages, we were debating whether some countries are relatively more moral than others (some members here do not think so, as a matter of fact). I used an example that POWs held by USA/UK had a very small death rate (0.1%) while POWs held by USSR/Germany/Japan had a high death rate of 30-50%, and that USA's 20 years invasion of Afghanistan caused around 50k civilian deaths (a sin it was) while USSR's invasion of the same country caused 2 million civilian deaths in 9 years - to demonstrate that some countries try, at least, to be more moral than the others. then a member (Pav1878) threw in "really? what about nuking japan?" to spark the debate here.
Click to expand...
America definitely appear to be more moral than some others, but I don't think they actually are.
 
Glorio said:
America definitely appear to be more moral than some others, but I don't think they actually are.
Click to expand...

then what in your opinion caused POWs held by USA had 99.9% less like to be subject to tortures than those held by USSR and Germany and so on? and what caused USA invading and fighting in a country (for 20 years) causing 97%+ less civilian casualties than when USSR invaded the same country for 9 years?
 
JeffFromHK said:
then what in your opinion caused POWs held by USA had 99.9% less like to be subject to tortures than those held by USSR and Germany and so on? and what caused USA invading and fighting in a country (for 20 years) causing 97%+ less civilian casualties than when USSR invaded the same country for 9 years?
Click to expand...
The USA causes a lot more civilian casualties than recorded, just not directly.
The Kissinger report being a prime example, so I have no clue how many casualties they've enabled in developing nations across the globe. It's just as I said, they appear better, but it doesn't make them so.
 
Glorio said:
The USA causes a lot more civilian casualties than recorded, just not directly.
The Kissinger report being a prime example, so I have no clue how many casualties they've enabled in developing nations across the globe. It's just as I said, they appear better, but it doesn't make them so.
Click to expand...

So USSR does not cause a lot more civilian deaths than recorded?

For your information the part between two red lines was the population trend of Afghanistan during Soviet-Afghan war. and the part between green lines was the population trend during USA's invasion and occupation of Afghanistan

image.png


well, when you throw in "in my opinion" you got the trump card and no one can technically prove you wrong. You can say that "Justin Bieber is a better pop musician than Prince was" and I can throw in all "the greatest pop musicians of all time" lists, album sales figures and expert reviews and you can counter me with one single argument "these list and stats are all rigged and fake, I think Justin is more talented" and I can no longer do nothing to your argument.

I can show you 100 more stats related to USA vs like of USSR/China and those will still be useless for you. It is the sad story of debating online in the post-modern age of 2020s - I reckon Redcafe is a much better place than like of X though
 
Last edited:
Glorio said:
America definitely appear to be more moral than some others, but I don't think they actually are.
Click to expand...
I think of it like america has generally had some form of self regulation or cultural structure that limits their ambitions. It’s not that they are perfect or faultless and they certainly are not a philanthropic leader of the free world, but if Putin or China or Middle East religious extremists or whatever , were “the big boy in the playground” I don’t fancy things being better or more balanced.

I’ve always thought of them as the probable best bully, humanity could hope for. Partially because I have absolutely no faith in humanity or our capacity for having a relatively fair and balanced society. There will always be people who want more money, resources and more power (the same thing really at this stage) and they will always f**k over others to get it.

And there will always be a section of society paying dearly for mistakes/dysfunction of others , who can be exploited and enrolled in following extreme leaders/groups.

I also think people are really bad at objective observations of human behaviour. USA is bad. China is bad. Religion is bad etc. People are corrupted easily and modern society in general is by default corrupted by principles of more is good. People do bad things , the medium used (religion , politics etc) is just humans corrupting it for personal gain.

Consumerism is now a religion, people addicted to more sh*# and the entire financial system we rely on to live, needs constant growth and us to consume more.

I feel like alot of debating these kinds of things is arguing over who moved the deck chairs where on the titanic. Some people are more complicit, but at the end of the day, the ship is still gonna sink.
 
JeffFromHK said:
then what in your opinion caused POWs held by USA had 99.9% less like to be subject to tortures than those held by USSR and Germany and so on? and what caused USA invading and fighting in a country (for 20 years) causing 97%+ less civilian casualties than when USSR invaded the same country for 9 years?
Click to expand...

Well, 1.7% of Japanese in interment camps died in WWII (from all causes, but the point is that Japanese Americans should not have been there in the first place). Which is why I say it's a matter of perspective.

Also, I love the premise of this topic. "You should be grateful we invaded, imagine if we were Russia!!!" Ermm, how about none of you invade us?

There are plenty of countries were Russia weren't involved at all and the US was directly or indirectly involved in a lot of deaths.
 
hasanejaz88 said:
Well, 1.7% of Japanese in interment camps died in WWII (from all causes, but the point is that Japanese Americans should not have been there in the first place). Which is why I say it's a matter of perspective.

Also, I love the premise of this topic. "You should be grateful we invaded, imagine if we were Russia!!!" Ermm, how about none of you invade us?

There are plenty of countries were Russia weren't involved at all and the US was directly or indirectly involved in a lot of deaths.
Click to expand...

you are playing strawman, please stop those imaginary "you should be grateful we invaded"
btw who is the "you" and "us" you are talking about? Cant you see I am a Chinese? Are you an Afghan/Japanese?
 
JeffFromHK said:
you are playing strawman, please stop those imaginary "you should be grateful we invaded"
btw who is the "you" and "us" you are talking about? Cant you see I am a Chinese? Are you an Afghan/Japanese?
Click to expand...

Well obviously HK points to Hong Kong but Jeff throws you off.
 
JeffFromHK said:
you are playing strawman, please stop those imaginary "you should be grateful we invaded"
btw who is the "you" and "us" you are talking about? Cant you see I am a Chinese? Are you an Afghan/Japanese?
Click to expand...

First off, how man I playing strawman? You mentioned how less POWs died under the US and I pointed to a case where a larger percentage of, completely innocent, people died in interment camps they shouldn't have been in the first place.

You said the USSR killed more innocent people in Afghanistan, I simply mentioned that plenty of people have been killed, or helped to be killed, by the US in countries that Russia had nothing to do with.

I wasn't directing any of the comments to you, I know you're from HK, I'm neither Japanese or Afghan, I was merely trying to write from their POV.
 
hasanejaz88 said:
First off, how man I playing strawman? You mentioned how less POWs died under the US and I pointed to a case where a larger percentage of, completely innocent, people died in interment camps they shouldn't have been in the first place.

You said the USSR killed more innocent people in Afghanistan, I simply mentioned that plenty of people have been killed, or helped to be killed, by the US in countries that Russia had nothing to do with.

I wasn't directing any of the comments to you, I know you're from HK, I'm neither Japanese or Afghan, I was merely trying to write from their POV.
Click to expand...

I never think @JeffFromHK was making the point that any country should be grateful that the US invaded them he only made comparisons in regards to adhering to stricter codes in rules of war in those comparisons that can be made with other powers like the soviets in Afghanistan etc.
 
Gehrman said:
I never think @JeffFromHK was making the point that any country should be grateful that the US invaded them he only made comparisons in regards to adhering to stricter codes in rules of war in those comparisons that can be made with other powers like the soviets in Afghanistan etc.
Click to expand...

Yes, that was exactly what I meant, and a stricter compliance with rules of war doesn't necessarily mean a full compliance either.
 
hasanejaz88 said:
First off, how man I playing strawman? You mentioned how less POWs died under the US and I pointed to a case where a larger percentage of, completely innocent, people died in interment camps they shouldn't have been in the first place.

You said the USSR killed more innocent people in Afghanistan, I simply mentioned that plenty of people have been killed, or helped to be killed, by the US in countries that Russia had nothing to do with.

I wasn't directing any of the comments to you, I know you're from HK, I'm neither Japanese or Afghan, I was merely trying to write from their POV.
Click to expand...
And this right here is the point I'm making
 
JeffFromHK said:
How A doing something bad B never did make A as bad/worse than B? Keeping in mind that B also did things bad A didn't do as well.

@hasanejaz88 I wonder if you would choose living in the West Germany or East Germany during the Cold War?
Click to expand...
I never said one was worse than the other, that is in fact the notion (that one side are the good or better guys) that I'm debating against.
 
Glorio said:
I never said one was worse than the other, that is in fact the notion (that one side are the good or better guys) that I'm debating against.
Click to expand...

It is impossible to prove who is the "good guy" or "bad guy" since everything is subjective as I said (just like no one can prove that Paul McCartney or Prince are better pop musicians than like of Justin Bieber, as I said as well) but I would like to ask if you can have a choice and forced to have a choice, would you live in (a) North Korea or South Korea (b) East Germany or West Germany; (c) USA or USSR?
 
JeffFromHK said:
would you live in (a) North Korea or South Korea (b) East Germany or West Germany; (c) USA or USSR?
Click to expand...

How is this relevant? Just because a worse alternative exists it doesn't excuse abhorrent acts. If someone pisses on my leg I'm not gonna be cool with it because they could have shat in my mouth instead.
 
Scandi Red said:
How is this relevant? Just because a worse alternative exists it doesn't excuse abhorrent acts. If someone pisses on my leg I'm not gonna be cool with it because they could have shat in my mouth instead.
Click to expand...

It is so tiring that people here keep playing strawman.

Please point out which message did I say that the abhorrent acts of USA could be excused?

if you think that there are "worse alternatives" than USA then you are with me and not with the like of @Pav1878 or @Glorio indeed, whom I have spent a dozen replies to refute.
 
Scandi Red said:
How is this relevant? Just because a worse alternative exists it doesn't excuse abhorrent acts. If someone pisses on my leg I'm not gonna be cool with it because they could have shat in my mouth instead.
Click to expand...

Because the conversation keeps going in circles

1) USA has done horrible things but alternative is worse
2) Points out alternative.
3) how is this relevant? Why are you excusing bad things!!?!?!?!

This is absolutely frustrating.

Would you rather someone piss on your leg or shit in your mouth? Because that was quite literally the binary choice faced by many people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.