So we were discussing this at work lately, and we were unable to come to any sort of consensus, so I'd thought I'd see what you all seem to think.
Background;
Now we all know what has happened with Russia lately.
They were aggressive in their actions towards Ukraine, and thus the world, largely led by the UN has placed a whole lot of punitive measures against the Putin-led regime, largely in the form of trade limitations and economic sanctions.
It's hurting them, especially now the oil price has dropped.
So;
WHY is it that some countries get punished harshly for their aggressive actions, whereas others seem to get away with aggressive actions, without any ramifications (or barely any) for their actions, even when it has gone against the wishes of the UN?
And;
Why is it that quite a few leaders in history (political and military) have gotten away with what constitutes war crimes, just because they've happened to be on the winning side?
How do you punish someone if you do not have power over them?
In the context of countries i suppose it would take the form of trade embargoes, sanctions and the like, anything that technically could be considered an economic 'punishment', also condeming a countries acts may be considered as punishment since its damaging a countries image
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from »
Call me old fashioned, but an evil ascension to power just isn't the same without someone chanting faux Latin in the background.
Oreo, Glazing people better than Dunkin' Donuts since 2009
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange eons even death may die.
Why is it that quite a few leaders in history (political and military) have gotten away with what constitutes war crimes, just because they've happened to be on the winning side?
The question contains its own answer. Winners seldom punish themselves.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
In the context of countries i suppose it would take the form of trade embargoes, sanctions and the like, anything that technically could be considered an economic 'punishment'
Why is it that quite a few leaders in history (political and military) have gotten away with what constitutes war crimes, just because they've happened to be on the winning side?
The question contains its own answer. Winners seldom punish themselves.
I have to agree.
But I would argue that a war crime is a war crime is a war crime.
Even if you win a conflict, the UN should be able to pursue those who have committed war crimes and hold them accountable, even if they're an *untouchable*, like president of the united states, for example.
There are some large examples of winners that were never held accountable for their actions, despite their actions being utterly disgusting.
For example, the intentional fire-bombing of civilian targets (think Berlin, Munich) by the UK bomber command, ordered by Winston Churchill himself. At the time, this action was without equal, as the Germans had only targeted military targets up until that point. As we all know it was tit-for-tat after that.
Later in WW2, the USA bomber command fire-bombed Japanese civilian targets on the Japanese mainland, knowing most Japanese civilian area's were heavily populated and had a very large fuel load (wooden houses) so the fire would spread quickly and kill hundreds of thousands. Some texts I've read estimates the number of civilian casualties to be as high as 5 to 7 million! over the duration of the Japan-Home-Island campaign from '44 to the end of the war.
Both of these actions contradicted the rules of war at the time, and resulted in a huge loss of life, but no one ever answered for it.
And I've not even talked about nukes here.
They tend to say, "History is written by the winners" and more often than not we've all encountered example of this.
I've read a lot of history about the Middle East, and it simply astounds me the amount of bias in many of the texts. Depending on which text you read, David Ben-Gurion might be a freedom fighter beyond reproach, in other texts he could be the most successful evil-terrorist-mastermind the world has ever seen.
As far as the Middle East goes, I've found quite a few of the western texts written in the USA to be heavily biased.
But I would argue that a war crime is a war crime is a war crime.
A war crime by whose authority? Who judges whether or not someone has committed a war crime? Further, who enforces this judgment?
Even if you win a conflict, the UN should be able to
But that's just it. They're not able to. So if you're asking why people go unpunished, there's your answer. There is no one with the power to punish them.
pursue those who have committed war crimes and hold them accountable, even if they're an *untouchable*, like president of the united states, for example.
Both of these actions contradicted the rules of war at the time,
What laws of war at the time?
You quoted both Blinking's and my posts, but it doesn't seem like you understood them. Blinking's point was that winners do not tend to punish themselves for the actions they took to win. My point was that in order to punish someone, you must first have power over them, and that is difficult to do when a nation is much more powerful than other nations.
Both of which amount to the same idea, which is that ability to punish comes from being more powerful than the other person. All the sound moral arguments in the world will not bring a mugger to justice unless you back that up with the ability to physically overpower him. This is no different when applied to a global scale.
I understand the points just fine.
I even agreed with them.
You say the UN isn't able to pursue offenders. On occasion you're right.
I'm saying they should be able to. I realise this, on occasion, is unrealistic for varying reasons.
You say the UN isn't able to pursue offenders. On occasion you're right.
I'm saying they should be able to. I realise this, on occasion, is unrealistic for varying reasons.
Yes, primarily because the UN is not an entity independent of the nations that you deem offenders. Nor does the UN have any true power in and of itself.
- In a global economy every potential punitive measure is being weighed against the economic impacts it could have. The US and China are great examples of this, being so reliant on one another economically that any real fighting between the two just looks too costly for both. We saw the same thing play out wrt how Russia has been treated. We were happy to sanction them aggressively because our economic ties there are relatively limited. OTOH Europe, despite being much more threatened by their activity, was hesitant to act due to their economic/energy ties. That brings up fossil fuels, also a huge factor. Look at the world's uneven involvement in the Middle East and you will find plenty of examples of that. Regimes that threaten stability of our oil supply? Yeah, we can find a reason to take them out. OTOH a regime like the Saudis who do plenty of terrible stuff, including support terrorists who have attacked us, we turn a blind eye to because they keep the oil flowing.
- Big picture I think current leaders are very reluctant to go after former leaders because they fear setting a precedent that eventually comes back around on them. For example, you could probably argue that Bush/Cheney and the leadership in power back then were guilty of some war crimes. I know I would love to see them held accountable. But what happens in 5 years when a different person/party is in power and decides to look back unfavorably on Obama's use of drones? I think we would all be better off with more accountability among the global leaders, but realistically I think the best we can hope for is the exposure of mistakes/crimes and the learning from them.
For example, the intentional fire-bombing of civilian targets (think Berlin, Munich) by the UK bomber command, ordered by Winston Churchill himself. At the time, this action was without equal, as the Germans had only targeted military targets up until that point. As we all know it was tit-for-tat after that.
Where are you getting your history from? The early-war shift in French and British bombing strategy was a direct response to the Rotterdam Blitz (and remember, the Netherlands were neutral). Protip: don't trust any source that paints the Nazis as victims of Allied aggression.
As far as the Middle East goes, I've found quite a few of the western texts written in the USA to be heavily biased.
Have you ever read a text written in Palestine? It's surreal. The children there are steeped in anti-Semitic propaganda. And by "anti-Semitic" I don't just mean it accuses Israel of doing bad things - I mean it teaches that the Jews are a subhuman and intrinsically evil race. We're talking Protocols of the Elders of Zion here. Literally.
I understand the points just fine.
I even agreed with them.
You say the UN isn't able to pursue offenders. On occasion you're right.
I'm saying they should be able to. I realise this, on occasion, is unrealistic for varying reasons.
You asked why these things happened. We answered.
As for what the UN should be able to do, any extension of the U.N.'s power is a terrible idea until it makes fully-functional democracy a basic requirement for voting membership. Until then, it is a legitimization tool and soapbox for dictators, not the genuine voice of the people of Earth. China, Saudi Arabia, and Cuba should not be able to win seats on the Human Rights Council.
Lemme put it another way. You don't seem to like Israel very much. The United Nations created Israel. Just up and decided to give a plot of land to a bunch of people who didn't live there, and screw the people who did. You're saying that the United Nations should have more power than that.
For example, the intentional fire-bombing of civilian targets (think Berlin, Munich) by the UK bomber command, ordered by Winston Churchill himself. At the time, this action was without equal, as the Germans had only targeted military targets up until that point. As we all know it was tit-for-tat after that.
Where are you getting your history from? The early-war shift in French and British bombing strategy was a direct response to the Rotterdam Blitz (and remember, the Netherlands were neutral). Protip: don't trust any source that paints the Nazis as victims of Allied aggression.
As far as the Middle East goes, I've found quite a few of the western texts written in the USA to be heavily biased.
Have you ever read a text written in Palestine? It's surreal. The children there are steeped in anti-Semitic propaganda. And by "anti-Semitic" I don't just mean it accuses Israel of doing bad things - I mean it teaches that the Jews are a subhuman and intrinsically evil race. We're talking Protocols of the Elders of Zion here. Literally.
And there you have your answer, BS. And remember, Haj Amin al-Husseini, who collaborated with the Nazis and got the British to put a freeze on Jewish immigration to Mandatory Palestine, was venerated by Arafat. And so it continues with Palestinian groups to this day. (al-Husseini was also involved in some of the worst atrocities of the First World War, as well, such as the Ottoman massacre of Armenians. So...definitely not one of the good career politicians.)
I also wish they would stop using the word 'indigenous'...
There are concerns. Saudi oil keeps us from prosecuting their abuses, for instance. And so they get a seat on the Human Rights Council. The US was quite willing to look the other way for the grander goal of fighting communism, even if that meant unfortunate dealings with Iraq, Iran, South Africa, and...a bunch of other totalitarian states. I doubt I could list all the Faustian bargains we've made.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
So we were discussing this at work lately, and we were unable to come to any sort of consensus, so I'd thought I'd see what you all seem to think.
Background;
Now we all know what has happened with Russia lately.
They were aggressive in their actions towards Ukraine, and thus the world, largely led by the UN has placed a whole lot of punitive measures against the Putin-led regime, largely in the form of trade limitations and economic sanctions.
It's hurting them, especially now the oil price has dropped.
So;
WHY is it that some countries get punished harshly for their aggressive actions, whereas others seem to get away with aggressive actions, without any ramifications (or barely any) for their actions, even when it has gone against the wishes of the UN?
And;
Why is it that quite a few leaders in history (political and military) have gotten away with what constitutes war crimes, just because they've happened to be on the winning side?
Discuss.
Your question is one of perspective. You wish to know why sometimes punishment is meted out and sometimes not..AS SEEN FROM A CERTAIN PERSPECTIVE and exclusively identifying "offenders" from said perspective. On top of that you assume there is broad consensus that supports your appointed perspective if not near unanimity.
Not only is your premise suspect, in many cases it is so patently false that it constitutes nothing else but propaganda and enforced ideology.
For example, if Euromaidan has actually produced a Nazi junta that wants to enforce racial purity in comically absurd yet horrific ways (thus people who do not speak the language want to outlaw all other languages) coupled with all of the old murderous Nazi barbarity (burning people alive in buildings, nailing babies to crosses), then your entire narrative that begins with "we all know what has happened lately" crumbles in your hands.
You first have to tell me who "we all" is in "we all know..". Because there is no "we" that includes me and Nazi filth with swastika neck tattoos.
Where are you getting your history from? The early-war shift in French and British bombing strategy was a direct response to the Rotterdam Blitz (and remember, the Netherlands were neutral). Protip: don't trust any source that paints the Nazis as victims of Allied aggression.
I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing;
I wasn't talking not about the intended bombing of civilian operated buildings like commercial or industrial centre's that supported the war effort, therefore making your point completely valid. I was talking about the intentional bombing of high density civilian centre's with little or no strategic importance whatsoever, with the sole focus of striking fear into a populace, which didn't happen until later that year during the tail end of the Battle of Britain.
As far as the Middle East goes, I've found quite a few of the western texts written in the USA to be heavily biased.
Have you ever read a text written in Palestine?
I have. Not many I admit, hard to find one's translated to English, but of the few I have read published in the Middle East, they're interesting to say the least.
The main thing I was surprised about was such a variance in the recount of events from western texts. A very different view of history for sure...
You first have to tell me who "we all" is in "we all know..". Because there is no "we" that includes me and Nazi filth with swastika neck tattoos.
When I said, "we all know", your answer lies in the rest of the sentence > Look up Russia's involvement in Ukraine.
I didn't say anything about Nazi's in this context mate.
Lemme put it another way. You don't seem to like Israel very much.
Wow.
You guys are pretty sensitive. I'd not said anything racist.
How about a fair go Blink, before you go pointing the racist finger around?
I'm talking about War crimes here, unlawful military action that constitutes what some might think is a war crime or close to it, that kind of stuff.
Are we cool?
I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing;
I wasn't talking not about the intended bombing of civilian operated buildings like commercial or industrial centre's that supported the war effort, therefore making your point completely valid. I was talking about the intentional bombing of high density civilian centre's with little or no strategic importance whatsoever, with the sole focus of striking fear into a populace, which didn't happen until later that year during the tail end of the Battle of Britain.
Which bombing raids exactly are you talking about? Because the raid of 25 Aug 1940, the one that provoked Hitler to rescind Directive 17 and begin the terror-bombing campaign of London, was aimed at commercial and industrial centers.
Quote from Slave »
The main thing I was surprised about was such a variance in the recount of events from western texts. A very different view of history for sure...
You're avoiding the point. True or false: teaching the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as genuine is not just a "different" view of history; it is a factually and morally wrong view of history.
Quote from Slave »
Wow.
You guys are pretty sensitive. I'd not said anything racist.
How about a fair go Blink, before you go pointing the racist finger around?
What the hell? You say I'm being oversensitive? Being anti-Israel doesn't make you racist, and I never said it did. I'm anti-Israel in some respects myself. This is the second time in as many conversations that you've accused me of some outrageous affront I never gave you in order to avoid addressing what I actually said. The creation of Israel is a prime example of the UN causing tremendous problems by exercizing a power to override national sovereignty, and apparently you have nothing to respond to it.
Quote from Slave »
Are we cool?
No. Take your own advice and give me a fair go.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Why is it that quite a few leaders in history (political and military) have gotten away with what constitutes war crimes, just because they've happened to be on the winning side?
The question contains its own answer. Winners seldom punish themselves.
I have to agree.
But I would argue that a war crime is a war crime is a war crime.
Even if you win a conflict, the UN should be able to pursue those who have committed war crimes and hold them accountable, even if they're an *untouchable*, like president of the united states, for example.
There are some large examples of winners that were never held accountable for their actions, despite their actions being utterly disgusting.
For example, the intentional fire-bombing of civilian targets (think Berlin, Munich) by the UK bomber command, ordered by Winston Churchill himself. At the time, this action was without equal, as the Germans had only targeted military targets up until that point. As we all know it was tit-for-tat after that.
Later in WW2, the USA bomber command fire-bombed Japanese civilian targets on the Japanese mainland, knowing most Japanese civilian area's were heavily populated and had a very large fuel load (wooden houses) so the fire would spread quickly and kill hundreds of thousands. Some texts I've read estimates the number of civilian casualties to be as high as 5 to 7 million! over the duration of the Japan-Home-Island campaign from '44 to the end of the war.
Both of these actions contradicted the rules of war at the time, and resulted in a huge loss of life, but no one ever answered for it.
And I've not even talked about nukes here.
They tend to say, "History is written by the winners" and more often than not we've all encountered example of this.
I've read a lot of history about the Middle East, and it simply astounds me the amount of bias in many of the texts. Depending on which text you read, David Ben-Gurion might be a freedom fighter beyond reproach, in other texts he could be the most successful evil-terrorist-mastermind the world has ever seen.
As far as the Middle East goes, I've found quite a few of the western texts written in the USA to be heavily biased.
Invading another country does not make you guilty of war crimes.
Background;
Now we all know what has happened with Russia lately.
They were aggressive in their actions towards Ukraine, and thus the world, largely led by the UN has placed a whole lot of punitive measures against the Putin-led regime, largely in the form of trade limitations and economic sanctions.
It's hurting them, especially now the oil price has dropped.
So;
WHY is it that some countries get punished harshly for their aggressive actions, whereas others seem to get away with aggressive actions, without any ramifications (or barely any) for their actions, even when it has gone against the wishes of the UN?
And;
Why is it that quite a few leaders in history (political and military) have gotten away with what constitutes war crimes, just because they've happened to be on the winning side?
Discuss.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I have to agree.
But I would argue that a war crime is a war crime is a war crime.
Even if you win a conflict, the UN should be able to pursue those who have committed war crimes and hold them accountable, even if they're an *untouchable*, like president of the united states, for example.
There are some large examples of winners that were never held accountable for their actions, despite their actions being utterly disgusting.
For example, the intentional fire-bombing of civilian targets (think Berlin, Munich) by the UK bomber command, ordered by Winston Churchill himself. At the time, this action was without equal, as the Germans had only targeted military targets up until that point. As we all know it was tit-for-tat after that.
Later in WW2, the USA bomber command fire-bombed Japanese civilian targets on the Japanese mainland, knowing most Japanese civilian area's were heavily populated and had a very large fuel load (wooden houses) so the fire would spread quickly and kill hundreds of thousands. Some texts I've read estimates the number of civilian casualties to be as high as 5 to 7 million! over the duration of the Japan-Home-Island campaign from '44 to the end of the war.
Both of these actions contradicted the rules of war at the time, and resulted in a huge loss of life, but no one ever answered for it.
And I've not even talked about nukes here.
They tend to say, "History is written by the winners" and more often than not we've all encountered example of this.
I've read a lot of history about the Middle East, and it simply astounds me the amount of bias in many of the texts. Depending on which text you read, David Ben-Gurion might be a freedom fighter beyond reproach, in other texts he could be the most successful evil-terrorist-mastermind the world has ever seen.
As far as the Middle East goes, I've found quite a few of the western texts written in the USA to be heavily biased.
But that's just it. They're not able to. So if you're asking why people go unpunished, there's your answer. There is no one with the power to punish them.
And do what, exactly?
What laws of war at the time?
You quoted both Blinking's and my posts, but it doesn't seem like you understood them. Blinking's point was that winners do not tend to punish themselves for the actions they took to win. My point was that in order to punish someone, you must first have power over them, and that is difficult to do when a nation is much more powerful than other nations.
Both of which amount to the same idea, which is that ability to punish comes from being more powerful than the other person. All the sound moral arguments in the world will not bring a mugger to justice unless you back that up with the ability to physically overpower him. This is no different when applied to a global scale.
I even agreed with them.
You say the UN isn't able to pursue offenders. On occasion you're right.
I'm saying they should be able to. I realise this, on occasion, is unrealistic for varying reasons.
- Big picture I think current leaders are very reluctant to go after former leaders because they fear setting a precedent that eventually comes back around on them. For example, you could probably argue that Bush/Cheney and the leadership in power back then were guilty of some war crimes. I know I would love to see them held accountable. But what happens in 5 years when a different person/party is in power and decides to look back unfavorably on Obama's use of drones? I think we would all be better off with more accountability among the global leaders, but realistically I think the best we can hope for is the exposure of mistakes/crimes and the learning from them.
Have you ever read a text written in Palestine? It's surreal. The children there are steeped in anti-Semitic propaganda. And by "anti-Semitic" I don't just mean it accuses Israel of doing bad things - I mean it teaches that the Jews are a subhuman and intrinsically evil race. We're talking Protocols of the Elders of Zion here. Literally.
You asked why these things happened. We answered.
As for what the UN should be able to do, any extension of the U.N.'s power is a terrible idea until it makes fully-functional democracy a basic requirement for voting membership. Until then, it is a legitimization tool and soapbox for dictators, not the genuine voice of the people of Earth. China, Saudi Arabia, and Cuba should not be able to win seats on the Human Rights Council.
Lemme put it another way. You don't seem to like Israel very much. The United Nations created Israel. Just up and decided to give a plot of land to a bunch of people who didn't live there, and screw the people who did. You're saying that the United Nations should have more power than that.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
And there you have your answer, BS. And remember, Haj Amin al-Husseini, who collaborated with the Nazis and got the British to put a freeze on Jewish immigration to Mandatory Palestine, was venerated by Arafat. And so it continues with Palestinian groups to this day. (al-Husseini was also involved in some of the worst atrocities of the First World War, as well, such as the Ottoman massacre of Armenians. So...definitely not one of the good career politicians.)
I also wish they would stop using the word 'indigenous'...
There are concerns. Saudi oil keeps us from prosecuting their abuses, for instance. And so they get a seat on the Human Rights Council. The US was quite willing to look the other way for the grander goal of fighting communism, even if that meant unfortunate dealings with Iraq, Iran, South Africa, and...a bunch of other totalitarian states. I doubt I could list all the Faustian bargains we've made.
On phasing:
Your question is one of perspective. You wish to know why sometimes punishment is meted out and sometimes not..AS SEEN FROM A CERTAIN PERSPECTIVE and exclusively identifying "offenders" from said perspective. On top of that you assume there is broad consensus that supports your appointed perspective if not near unanimity.
Not only is your premise suspect, in many cases it is so patently false that it constitutes nothing else but propaganda and enforced ideology.
For example, if Euromaidan has actually produced a Nazi junta that wants to enforce racial purity in comically absurd yet horrific ways (thus people who do not speak the language want to outlaw all other languages) coupled with all of the old murderous Nazi barbarity (burning people alive in buildings, nailing babies to crosses), then your entire narrative that begins with "we all know what has happened lately" crumbles in your hands.
You first have to tell me who "we all" is in "we all know..". Because there is no "we" that includes me and Nazi filth with swastika neck tattoos.
I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing;
I wasn't talking not about the intended bombing of civilian operated buildings like commercial or industrial centre's that supported the war effort, therefore making your point completely valid. I was talking about the intentional bombing of high density civilian centre's with little or no strategic importance whatsoever, with the sole focus of striking fear into a populace, which didn't happen until later that year during the tail end of the Battle of Britain.
I have. Not many I admit, hard to find one's translated to English, but of the few I have read published in the Middle East, they're interesting to say the least.
The main thing I was surprised about was such a variance in the recount of events from western texts. A very different view of history for sure...
When I said, "we all know", your answer lies in the rest of the sentence > Look up Russia's involvement in Ukraine.
I didn't say anything about Nazi's in this context mate.
Wow.
You guys are pretty sensitive. I'd not said anything racist.
How about a fair go Blink, before you go pointing the racist finger around?
I'm talking about War crimes here, unlawful military action that constitutes what some might think is a war crime or close to it, that kind of stuff.
Are we cool?
You're avoiding the point. True or false: teaching the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as genuine is not just a "different" view of history; it is a factually and morally wrong view of history.
What the hell? You say I'm being oversensitive? Being anti-Israel doesn't make you racist, and I never said it did. I'm anti-Israel in some respects myself. This is the second time in as many conversations that you've accused me of some outrageous affront I never gave you in order to avoid addressing what I actually said. The creation of Israel is a prime example of the UN causing tremendous problems by exercizing a power to override national sovereignty, and apparently you have nothing to respond to it.
No. Take your own advice and give me a fair go.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Invading another country does not make you guilty of war crimes.