|
Cat Mattress posted:The League of Nations didn't have veto power for the Big Kids. quote:As a result, the USA and the USSR didn't join, and we've seen how well the LN worked out from not having them onboard.
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 13:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 09:11 |
|
|
The LN was proposed by then-POTUS Woodrow Wilson, among other people. The USSR did join, eventually, but then got expelled shortly afterwards over their invasion of Finland. And then WW2 happened anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Reducing the total amount of war and genocide is a good thing, you lunatic. It's the complete opposite. It's disgusting that they are repeatedly given a free pass, and by not applying a proportionality standard, you are giving them a free pass. Cat Mattress posted:It doesn't seem inconsistent to me. There's limp-wristed international condemnation but no real plan to put an actual end to the occupation. Just like in Israel! What's the comparative focus on Israel over Ukraine? 10-fold? 100-fold? Angry Salami posted:Literally no country other than Turkey recognizes Turkish Cyprus. Only a handful of countries have recognized Russia's annexation of Crimea, mostly close Russian allies, and the majority of the UN General Assembly voted in favor of a resolution supporting Ukrainian territorial integrity, while the US and EU imposed sanctions on Russia in response. Then where's the international day of solidarity with Cyprus? Where's the spending the majority of their agenda on Cyprus? Where's derailing unrelated organizations like UNESCO or conferences on child slavery or feminism into condemnations of Turkey? Futuresight posted:Oh, so you want the international community to treat Israel the way they treated Russia over things like Crimea? Really? That seems weird because you get all upset over a private entity with literally no power calling for a boycott of Israel, but now you think Israel should have official sanctions from the global community? Or did you forget that the world sanctioned the gently caress out of Russia and it's actually Israel getting preferential treatment that is the difference? Where was the punishment for Transnistra or Georgia? Russia still got off comparatively light for Ukraine, and is using its leverage to avoid further sanctions. The fact is there are thousands of tankies arguing that Russia's punishment was unfair and is US imperialism, Europe is consistently undermining the sanctions because they want to buy natural gas, and large parts of the world are ignoring them entirely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:The problem is it's not applied consistently, if you look at Russia in multiple cases, the most recent being Ukraine, Turkey in Cyprus, etc... Nor is that fair to Kurds, Uyghurs, and other groups, whose marginalization is somehow okay because it magically happened pre-1948. That means in practice we have a standard that's only applied to nations that aren't a global power, or can fall back on a bloc of votes in the international community to stave off censure. I agree with you that annexation of territory by force by Russia and Turkey is wrong. Do you agree with me that annexation of territory by force by Israel is equally wrong? I very much agree with you that applying different standards to countries based on their ability to exert force is wrong. I also don't think oppressed minorities founding their own states is the same as existing states forcefully annexing territory. If possible oppressed minorities should form new states without use of force, though on account of them being oppressed in the first place, some uses of force can be justified as self-defense in these instances. Ideally no minorities would be oppressed in the first place and for that we'd have to reach the ideal of self-determination for everyone which you speak of. So I'm happy we can agree on that being a worthwhile goal as well. Charlz Guybon posted:Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. Do you think the state of affairs you sketch out here is an acceptable standard of behaviour?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:The LN was proposed by then-POTUS Woodrow Wilson, among other people. loving lmao at the idea that future presidents not picking up exactly where previous presidents left off necessitates some sort of conspiracy as to why ~the US~ changed it's mind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:The LN was proposed by then-POTUS Woodrow Wilson, among other people. Edit - also, the LN basically had to vote unanimously to take any meaningful action, so you meant to say "reserve veto power for the big kids" to begin with. Xander77 fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Dec 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:loving lmao at the idea that future presidents not picking up exactly where previous presidents left off necessitates some sort of conspiracy as to why ~the US~ changed it's mind. The LN was established on January 10, 1920. Woodrow Wilson was in office until March 4, 1921. Xander77 posted:Was that an attempt at rebuttal? Because... it missed the whole "rebuttal" angle. Point is that the UN allows some countries to basically be "above the law" and that's what's needed to entice fiercely isolationist countries like the United States of "UN is a reptilian globalist conspiracy to steal are freedums!" America because they would never have joined otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:The LN was established on January 10, 1920. Woodrow Wilson was in office until March 4, 1921. Why don't you flip back to the tab you have open from when you just googled whether or not the soviet union ever joined the league of nations and look up the the US vote on the treaty of Versailles. But for future reference, we do our research of the most basic facts before we draw conclusions and make theories, not afterwards. Easy to forget, I know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Why don't you flip back to the tab you have open from when you just googled whether or not the soviet union ever joined the league of nations and look up the the US vote on the treaty of Versailles. But for future reference, we do our research of the most basic facts before we draw conclusions and make theories, not afterwards. Easy to forget, I know. The entire point is that the USA didn't want to lose any part of its sovereignty to a supranational authority. The power of veto lets it avoid that. Are you seriously suggesting that the USA would have joined the UN without getting to have veto power? Or that they wouldn't get out if it was somehow stripped from them?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:The entire point is that the USA didn't want to lose any part of its sovereignty to a supranational authority. The power of veto lets it avoid that. Are you seriously suggesting that the USA would have joined the UN without getting to have veto power? Or that they wouldn't get out if it was somehow stripped from them? Anyway the veto exists because the Security Council needs to be talking shop for the most powerful countries on earth. It is there to keep the lines of communication open and forces negotiation of at least some type to happen even if it ends in screaming and a veto. Also, even if you somehow stripped Russia of a veto the Chinese would also have to be stripped of one, and then you made the entire thing moot. (Also, a big issue with uniquely the Palestinian issue is that the population itself overwhelmingly wants the occupation to end and the occupying force has to routinely put "rebellions" down. Maybe Xinjiang might be comparable but even so that goes back all the way to the Qing dynasty.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Then where's the international day of solidarity with Cyprus? Where's the spending the majority of their agenda on Cyprus? Where's derailing unrelated organizations like UNESCO or conferences on child slavery or feminism into condemnations of Turkey? See, the problem is that a reasonable thing to do would be to just bring this up in its own context. As is, you're just doing a textbook example of whataboutism. You can say that more needs to be done about these other situations or criticize others for not doing more for them, but it's completely unrelated to the topic of Israel doing bad things and doesn't somehow serve as a defense against criticism. Also, an important factor you seem to be ignoring is that, while there's a lot of public opinion against Israel, actual action against them by the US and other powerful entities is less than that levied against, say, Russia for Crimea. The main reason it comes up so much in discussion is also because there's a prominent "other side" willing to debate about it. A discussion about something like Cyprus would fizzle out fast since most people would agree from the beginning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
The entertaining, relatable conflicts will always get the most international interest. It ultimately comes down to what everyday powers or bloc citizens will care about. Child slavery and women abuse not entertaining or fun to think about. East Ukraine is just slavs killing slavs for some reason. Yemen is probably a place on a map or something, who knows. A Cyprus is a kind of tree. Starving kids in African civil wars are sometimes worth helping, but only if they send thank-you letters with cute pictures  I/P is a really clear, polarized conflict where it's easy for spectators to pick, and want to support, a side. The sides are distinct and sometimes separated by a literal wall. The venue is the literal Holy Land. Clashes are spectacular and eye-catching. The score is easy to assess from statistics and territory changes, which gives a feeling of accomplishment to sponsors. It's polarized in so many ways that anyone can relate/rage/bleed heart/prosthelytize somehow. You got: Rich/poor United/fragmented Strong/weak Order/chaos White-ish/brown Jew/Muslim Secular/nutso Cosmopolitan/local concern West sponsors/middle east sponsors They're basically opposing Warhammer races. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:I agree with you that annexation of territory by force by Russia and Turkey is wrong. Do you agree with me that annexation of territory by force by Israel is equally wrong? Largely yes and I've advocated for strict adherence to the two state solution with territory swaps, but you have problem cases. Arabs ethnically cleansed Jerusalem's Jewish quarter in 1948, just as Israelis ethnically cleansed Lod, etc.. Is the Jewish quarter illegally occupied when it was only in Palestinian hands for 19 years? You can play this game forever, which is why the standard should be what maps actually work in 2017 and can super tactically end the conflict as fast as possible with the best outcomes possible for the most people. Anything else like challenging the legitimacy of Israel itself, which is a fight a strong plurality of the anti-Zionist movement wants to have, allows the Netanyahus of the world to dismiss all legitimate criticism, and make it that much harder to actually end the occupation and get to a state. The UN has no authority as an honest broker when they have been an inherently politicized body not applying the proportionality standard. Ytlaya posted:See, the problem is that a reasonable thing to do would be to just bring this up in its own context. As is, you're just doing a textbook example of whataboutism. You can say that more needs to be done about these other situations or criticize others for not doing more for them, but it's completely unrelated to the topic of Israel doing bad things and doesn't somehow serve as a defense against criticism. Claims of "Whataboutism" are both a poor argument (as hypocrisy is a legitimate charge), and not relevant in this case. I have not only not defended the actions, but I've explained how this lack of proportionality destroys their credibility and allows them to be completely ignored. If the UN was calling out all of those cases, then their words would actually mean something instead of being dismissed as a pathetic joke.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:which is why the standard should be what maps actually work in 2017  Israel will insist that every illegally settled part that allows to completely disconnect a Palestinian area from another is non-negotiable. As are the areas that connect Israeli settlements together, obviously. What kind of monsters would disconnect people from their country? Also all the area around the Jordan border, for strategic depth reasons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:The entire point is that the USA didn't want to lose any part of its sovereignty to a supranational authority. The power of veto lets it avoid that. Are you seriously suggesting that the USA would have joined the UN without getting to have veto power? Or that they wouldn't get out if it was somehow stripped from them? It doesn't really matter. Official veto or not, the UNSC isn't sending troops anywhere against the US's will. The veto is a recognition of simple reality, because it's seen as better to hand out get-out-of-rules-free cards to certain nations rather than not do it and simply have them openly flaunting the rules instead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
There is no UN without the Powers. The Powers created it, and the Powers are needed to give it relevance, guidance and funding. It is an instrument of global domination thinly obfuscated by the fact that loser country leaders can rant at the podium of the general assembly once in a while. A UN without the Powers is like a bajillion hobos fighting over a sandwich. One of them will get it and the others will go home (lol). Or worse, it would be like forums.somethingawful.com. The permanent members don't go to jail because they built and own and are the jail's keepers. Anything to keep down the browns. And the niggers. gently caress you. Fin. All able bodied humans should, at this moment, pick up a weapon and travel to Donald J Trump and murder him in cold blood. Don't worry if he screams or shudders, the pain he feels is infinitesimal compared to the pain you will prevent. Someone will probably shoot you, but bullet wounds are usually not immediately incapacitating so long as you are determined to complete your task. Selfie yourself while you tea-bag the corpse and send it to pantsbird@yahoo.com. I would do it myself but I am too weak and broken down. We need a hero. We're holding out for a hero till the end of the night. This rather brief act will get you immense fame like nothing else could, for relatively little effort. It will fix your childhood and refute all the haters. You can't find a better deal than this, act now. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:
It is the most famous quote in political science, written by Thucydides 2400 years ago. It accurately described world affairs then. It accurately describes world affairs now. And it accurately describes world affairs 2400 years from now. That's just the way it is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:
No it's not. Tu quoque is a logical fallacy for a reason. Only a psychopath would argue that because Duterte is murdering thousands of people it's only fair that you have a turn too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
edit: wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 07:51
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:It is the most famous quote in political science, written by Thucydides 2400 years ago. It accurately described world affairs then. It accurately describes world affairs now. And it accurately describes world affairs 2400 years from now. That's just the way it is. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 10:37
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Largely yes and I've advocated for strict adherence to the two state solution with territory swaps, but you have problem cases. Arabs ethnically cleansed Jerusalem's Jewish quarter in 1948, just as Israelis ethnically cleansed Lod, etc.. Is the Jewish quarter illegally occupied when it was only in Palestinian hands for 19 years? You can play this game forever, which is why the standard should be what maps actually work in 2017 and can super tactically end the conflict as fast as possible with the best outcomes possible for the most people. Anything else like challenging the legitimacy of Israel itself, which is a fight a strong plurality of the anti-Zionist movement wants to have, allows the Netanyahus of the world to dismiss all legitimate criticism, and make it that much harder to actually end the occupation and get to a state. The UN has no authority as an honest broker when they have been an inherently politicized body not applying the proportionality standard. I feel like the question I asked is pretty yes or no and based on your qualifications ("largely" yes) it seems like what you're actually saying here is that you find annexations of territory by force by Israel acceptable. This is reinforced by you wanting to use "maps that work in 2017", which inherently must mean recognizing forceful annexations of territory as acceptable. So let's return to my first question. Do you not worry that finding forceful annexations of territory acceptable in this instance helps set a dangerous precedent? For example a precedent that can then be used by Russia and Turkey in the very conflicts you yourself brought up as examples of unacceptable behaviour by those states to justify their actions? Do you not see a precedent like that as a potential danger for the continued existence of the state of Israel in the long term? Charlz Guybon posted:It is the most famous quote in political science, written by Thucydides 2400 years ago. It accurately described world affairs then. It accurately describes world affairs now. And it accurately describes world affairs 2400 years from now. That's just the way it is. I've already told you I don't give a gently caress about what people did or thought 2000 years ago. Could you answer my question? Orange Devil fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Dec 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
I/P thread... I/P thread never changes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
It looks like most of the protests have fallen off, so the question is how much of that is the Palestinian Authority vs. the actual, organic reaction? And at least the Israeli security services were smart not to be heavy handed this weekend.VitalSigns posted:No it's not. Tu quoque is a logical fallacy for a reason. They're only fallacies when they're not relevant (there are real slippery slopes all of the time for instance), not directly pertinent to the argument at hand. Actions by X don't make actions by Y ok. Saying Y's actions make X's actions worse, or they should be called out equally, is not fallacious. Orange Devil posted:I feel like the question I asked is pretty yes or no and based on your qualifications ("largely" yes) it seems like what you're actually saying here is that you find annexations of territory by force by Israel acceptable. This is reinforced by you wanting to use "maps that work in 2017", which inherently must mean recognizing forceful annexations of territory as acceptable. I don't think it's possible to reverse the majority of them, and the international consensus on the two state solution, including the Palestinian Authority, includes land swaps. Palestinians don't have leverage, so the choice is either go with the maps that Olmert was offering a decade ago, or receive increasingly less over time. It doesn't set a precedent in the sense that the UN and Geneva Conventions have already proven largely toothless in preventing annexation by war. The precedent is etched in stone, it's continued unabated and to pretend otherwise is silly. We should be asking the inverse question, whether the ineffectiveness of international governing bodies encouraged the Israeli right post-1967, and I think the answer is almost certainly yes. They proved they wouldn't stop other countries, and they destroyed their credibility by questioning Israel's right to exist at all, giving cover for more egregious actions because they could be correctly dismissed as a dishonest broker. I'm against these policies. I have said repeatedly that Israel needs final, stable, permanent borders. We need to stop this echo chamber where anti-Zionists keep enabling the Israeli right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Then where's the international day of solidarity with Cyprus? Where's the spending the majority of their agenda on Cyprus? What's the basis of the Annan plan? What's the difference between Cyprus pre- and post-referendum? What's the first principle of the 2014 Joint Declaration, and how does that contrast to position of the negociants in Israel and the Occupied Territories? What territorial facts on the ground have been altered since 1974? Hell, what's UNFICYP, in this cracked analogy you're trying to make to Israel? All of these are things that you could, assuming you were arguing in good faith, have tried to address, while advancing your argument, in a way that made it clear that you knew that your comparison was flawed, but that you were advancing it for discussion with caveats. But, clearly, you're not. You poo poo it out, to convince the ignorant, and waste the time of everyone else, by inverting the burden of effort with another lovely, lovely, Kim Jong Il analogy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:the Netanyahus of the world It's really obvious that you're trying to agree with basic theoretical principles of decency in order to not come off as a monster, but at the same time you squirm every time you're prompted to actually apply those principles to reality. Which is how you end writing up absurd posts like this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
Cefte posted:I don't normally get irritated by anything much on these forums any more, but for some reason this rubbed me the wrong way. It's not so much the fact that you reach immediately for the entirely non-parallel tu quoque, because that's been your stock in trade for close on a decade now, but the sheer lack of effort that you put into it This is 100% hand waiving, as you're not remotely addressing the core issue being discussed that a principle inconsistently allows some territory gained by war to be conquered but not others is incoherent. Anyone who isn't a loving idiot knows that not every situation is 100% analogous, so that point doesn't need to be explicitly stated. There have been a series of post-WW2 international conflicts that roughly fall into the same class, and one has attracted the overwhelmingly majority of the attention, and this has a plethora of negative effects. Anti-Zionists would throw a fit if the equivalent of the Annan plan was enacted in the West Bank, allowing the settlers to stay and keep the majority of their gains. ANIME AKBAR posted:You realize you're referring to yourself, right? You either have no reading comprehension or are deliberately lying. There's a wide swath between parties like Likud/Jewish Home and Yesh Atid/Labor, and I have consistently argued in favor of the policies of the latter. How am I squirming? I've bitten the bullets that other people won't. Ma'ale Adumim and Gush Etzion should stay permanently part of Israel, and this is a 100% defensible position, and is wholly consistent with Israel should end the occupation and withdraw from the majority of the West Bank, including Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. This is the position of the international community, but they either won't state it explicitly in these terms to avoid the backlash from the Middle East, or twist themselves in pretzels to avoid reaching. There's no chance that any other deal could ever possibly be implemented.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:They're only fallacies when they're not relevant (there are real slippery slopes all of the time for instance), not directly pertinent to the argument at hand. Actions by X don't make actions by Y ok. No there are no valid slippery slope arguments, by definition, because if you can logically show that an undesirable or contradictory conclusion can be deduced from a given set of premises then you have some type of valid argument (proof by contradiction, or reduction ad absurdum or something). Slippery slope refers to merely asserting the undesirable conclusion without any valid argument to back it up. You're bad at reasoning. Likewise there is no valid tu quoque, because the truth of a proposition doesn't change based on whether the person you're talking to is a hypocrite. Nor does any rigorous ethical theory say that morality changes based on who you happen to be talking to. It doesn't become okay for me to murder just because OJ Simpson is the one telling me not to do it and only a psychopath would argue otherwise. Kim Jong Il posted:Saying Y's actions make X's actions worse, or they should be called out equally, is not fallacious. That aint the argument you're making though, you are specifically making the argument that it is right for Israel to expand by conquest and ethnic cleansing right here in the very same post! Kim Jong Il posted:I don't think it's possible to reverse the majority of them, and the international consensus on the two state solution, including the Palestinian Authority, includes land swaps. Palestinians don't have leverage, so the choice is either go with the maps that Olmert was offering a decade ago, or receive increasingly less over time. Like you understand that I can read the whole post right. Like just because you quote someone else that doesn't turn it into a DM that I can't see, you know that yes? So there is no point trying to tell me you're just calling for more scrutiny on Turkey while you defend Israel's conquests to someone else, because I can see both so I know you are lying to me about what you believe because I can see you saying the exact opposite in the very next paragraph.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:
That's the first time we've interacted, so no, you didn't tell me that. Not sure where the hostility is coming from. Are you mistaking me for someone else? It's kind of a weird question. quote:Do you think the state of affairs you sketch out here is an acceptable standard of behaviour? It's like asking whether it's acceptable that Earthquakes or Tsunamis destroy cities. Well, no, but it's something whose affects can at best be mitigated rather than prevented. Human nature is not going to change, nor will power dynamics between states/orginazations of unequeal power. Charlz Guybon fucked around with this message at 07:43 on Dec 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
Crime will always exist, so why try to prevent it. Can't change human nature. Just grin and bear it everyone, just like the weather.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Crime will always exist, so why try to prevent it. Can't change human nature. or antisemitism. Some people just think that the presence of jews ruins everything, whatcha gonna do really.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 06:37
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:or antisemitism. well, the Likud-endorsed solution is "murder palestinians until morale improves" doesn't seem to be panning out thus far
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 06:49
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:It's like asking whether it's acceptable that Earthquakes or Tsunamis destroy cities. Well, no, but it's something that's affects can at best be mitigated rather than prevented. Human nature is not going to change, nor will power dynamics between states/orginazations of unequeal power. Something changed in South Africa to put an end to its similar policies, so clearly it's possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Something changed in South Africa to put an end to its similar policies, so clearly it's possible. What changed in South Africa was a well funded and armed insurgent movement backed by tens of thousands of Cuban troops and air support
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:What changed in South Africa was a well funded and armed insurgent movement backed by tens of thousands of Cuban troops and air support
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:It's like asking whether it's acceptable that Earthquakes or Tsunamis destroy cities. Well, no, but it's something whose affects can at best be mitigated rather than prevented. Human nature is not going to change, nor will power dynamics between states/orginazations of unequeal power. Are states inherently part of human nature or are you just throwing out a bunch of poo poo here to see what sticks? You appear to be trying to argue one of two possible positions: 1. That the forceful annexation of territory is an inherent part of human nature and thus unchangable. A dubious assertion given how many other terrible things humans used to structurally do to eachother but which are now much, much less common as more of us have come to accept higher standards of decency towards one another. 2. That the forceful annexation of territory is an inherent part of power dynamics between states and thus unchangable. A dubious assertion given that there are plenty of examples of states coexisting peacefully for very extensive periods of time plus there exists the possibility of abolishing states. Note also the absurdity of conflating questions about the morality of actions by human beings with the morality(???) of natural disasters. You're making very little sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Really? I know that the Cubans supported communists in Angola and helped defeat the SA intervention, but did they actually support anti-apartheid forces within SA? With training and funding outside the country yes. Not with direct military intervention (or an air campaign) within South Africa itself like that guy was claiming, no. I've been reading the memories of one of the progressive party politicians from the era (Van Zyl Slabbert) and he does credit the defeat in Angola with playing a large part in convincing the military and security establishment that no "military solution" to the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa was possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
Kind of related to my point though. You've got this result you want ("Israel should be legally obliged to withdraw from the territory it seized in 1967, but I'm not quite comfortable publicly calling for its annihilation, so I have to rationalize it existing on territory seized in 1947/48") and are trying to back a legal justification onto it, except there is no coherent or logical way to draw that distinction.Futuresight posted:But something being not okay after a certain date is how laws work everywhere. It's not a strange and alien concept to we decide at some point that a thing is no longer okay going forward.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 10:01
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You can't really frame it as a moral issue then. And if you're going with the notion that "all seizure of territory is wrong unless it was before 1949 or one of the many modern examples I will say was wrong but will not agree that we should use force to roll back" then you should at least be prepared to defend how you are drawing those distinctions. It was always wrong from my perspective. And I morally condemn each and every conflict borne of territorial conquest. When you say "what about these people who conquered" yes, they were morally wrong, absolutely. But we can't act legally against people who break our moral standards. To act legally we have to first make the law and then enforce it going forward. If Israel did nothing morally wrong then most of the left would just ignore what they are doing because they're much more interested in morality than legality. If they did something morally wrong but not legally wrong we'd still complain but we'd have no legal standing to make demands, and our demands would have to be to the international community getting those laws enshrined. The morality defines position on the subject, the law defines what can be done from that position.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 10:24
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning: Are you arguing that it would be morally okay to reduce Israel back to its pre-1967 borders as long as it's done the manly way through superior force of arms and not cravenly at the negotiate table because the conqueror is always right. Or are you arguing that if conquest is wrong it must always be wrong and therefore the only morally consistent solution is a one state solution on the borders of Mandatory Palestine?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 10:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 09:11 |
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Are states inherently part of human nature or are you just throwing out a bunch of poo poo here to see what sticks? Pre-state civilizations were incaple of logistically supporting prolonged military campaigns or occupations. Once states arose, so too did the practices of conquest, colonialism, enforcing tribute, etc. My thoughts on the matter have been shaped by War Before Civilization by Keeley.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 10:39
|
|