"Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified." Agree or Disagree?

[Still-alive]

another political compass test question

Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Undecided

[nightdrot]

Voted "strongly agree," though this not ought to suggest that military action ought be undertaken frivolously or easily. That said, international law is honored only in the breech. While it would be nice were the world so orderly, the truth is that the international arena is the realm of power, not principle. Of Machiavelli and not Mother Teresa.

Indeed, the following quotes define the world as it is:

From Theodore Roosevelt: "World peace comes not from human kindness or moral restraint, but from balanced power; equilibriums of force restraining the selfish aims of nation-states."

From Lord Palmerston: "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

From John Quincy Adams: "Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

From Camillo di Cavour: "Astonish them with my ingratitude." (His response when asked by a reporter what he would do for the Italian liberals who helped him unite Italy.)

From Victor Davis Hanson (paraphrasing Thucydides): "Power, not justice... is always the final arbiter of state relations; self-interest, not morality, is what guides and must guide the behavior of states. Appeals to mercy or hope for reprieve are misguided, not rooted in logic or a realistic understanding of human behavior."

... or to sum up, in the words of Machiavelli, "Lie down with the devil and achieve your goals."

We may wish the world were not so, and democracies - given their belief, rooted in the principles of the Enlightenment, in human goodness, the rule of law and the rationality of man - are especially so prone to belief it is not so. They have faith that law can lasso the energy of human power and ambition and restrain it to the common good, but history conclusively demonstrates otherwise.

Most famously, Hitler and Mussolini ignored international law. Chamberlain and Daladier relied upon it. World War II to follow. Indeed, it was because Woodrow Wilson, after World War I, sought to replace the global balance of power with a system based on international law, collective security, and a "parliament of man" that the stage was set for World War II.

The great powers adopted the forms of international law but not its substance. The "parliament of man," a. k. a. the League of Nations, became merely another arena where the contest of interests was played out. Indeed, as with the case of Japan in 1937, when it no longer served the national interests, the Japanese simply walked out.

This is not to say that international law has no value. It can work where it more or less conforms to broad national interests or where the great power are agreed and have the power to impose it on lesser powers who may not otherwise obey it.

However, at the end of the day, the power of law rests upon agreed upon moral and ethical principles. This international law does not have. It is, rather, a grand quid pro quo - "we won't do it to you, if you won't do it to us." It endures, to the extent it endures, because the states that abide by it choose to do so because it conforms to their national interests.

Where it conforms to such interests, it is invoked. Where not, it is brushed aside and there is no overriding common authority with the power to apply and enforce it - disinterestedly or otherwise, That being the case, no state would dare, in the global arena, dare relinquish its power, military or otherwise, to act. To do so being - as Czechoslovakia circa 1938 can attest - to national suicide.

[HiveBee]

I found out recently that some American soldiers after finding out the atrocities with the Jews in concentration camps in ww2 committed war crimes.

The military looked past those war crimes against German soldiers. The atrocities of the germans drove the American soldiers to retaliate illegally. Driven by the sheer shock of what horrible things the germans did.

I think it was fully justified andexcusable. 100%.

[Daniela1982]

How can military action that kills civilians, including blacks, be justified yet if a cop kills a black all hell breaks loose?

[purplepoppy]

If you win it's justified. If you lose it's a war crime.

[Jesus_is_the_guey]

Looks like someone paid attention in history class

[razelove]

Who cares about international law? You have to agree to be beholden to it first. As long as you have a strong military and never sign treaties like NATO, Geneva, IAEA, so on and so forth, you can gas your enemies, light them on fire, hell, you can with those on the books, hire civilian contractors.

There is no international court unless it is convened because of genocide or something similar. To simply hire people to gas, burn, and have an ROE that kills everything down to the grass is pretty simple, often cheaper than formal military logistics and troop movements as well.

If you ever get caught, you're guilty of war crimes... in a country you're never going to return to, and are unlikely to be caught in, as you're tearing into them for pay from someone else. You just never go back to that country alone, or overthrow their government and execute everyone who was in charge to erase any ideas about who did what. That one might get an investigation from the Hague, so you need countries to overthrow themselves by and large. Or at least have the appearance of that happening. Those farmers and their C4...

[Aethereal]

Strongly disagree. It allows the aggressor to define what it believes is a justifiable reason whenever it wants to take military action (usually for its own interests). Allowing such behaviour just sets a dangerous precedent for others to also take military action in the same way. It renders international law worthless, because everyone may now be engaged in warfare for noble reasons that the rest just don't understand yet.

The world is however, very fortunate that many countries show restraint in the face of this dangerous precedent provided by certain other countries who like to invade others for their own "noble" reasons.

[ChrisMaster69]

To a point, unfortunately international law is only followed by mainly Western countries and democracies, no one else really gives a fuck.

this means the likes of NATO are on the back foot from the start, also democracies allow demonstrations.

The Chinese could carpet bomb Hanoi or any other city and there would be zero public protesting.

also at the UN majority of actions will be vetoed etc.

you simply cannot wait for the UN to approve something, especially if it’s secret or has mission time against it.

The French and the UK will I put money on it, carry out cross border raids at some point while operating in Mali (Africa), however waiting for fuckwits in the UN to approve is pointless.

[NikolaiIvanov]

Do these laws apply to unconventional armed forces like the IRA, Liberation army of the donetsk peoples or the Nordic resistance?

[NikolaiIvanov]

I would like to why were war crime allegations pressed against Serbian civilian militias and none against NATO for bombing civilians in 1999. Why was mladic found guilty of war crimes when there was no official declaration of war?

[ChrisMaster69]

@NikolaiIvanov what Nordic resistance?

[NikolaiIvanov]

Responsible for the norweigan mosque shooting, lynching of terrorists (refugees) basically patriots.

[NikolaiIvanov]

The norweigan patriot Anders Behring Breivik was also a member.

[ChrisMaster69]

@NikolaiIvanov I will let you off with the Serbian one due to your age, trust me the response would be different.
However when you have a country carrying out genocide against a people, then that’s war crimes.
When you have Serbian militias deliberately placing mines and other devices under dead bodies of children, when you have them deliberately starving them shooting unarmed civilians, then that’s a war crime.
The bombing campaign was very limited and very targeted.

The United Nations were who put the twat on trial for crimes against humanity

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia

Defending a country that was actively pursuing a genocide against ethnic Albanians will put you firmly in the camp of supporting genocide.

[ChrisMaster69]

@NikolaiIvanov basically terrorists.

That twat deserved to be fed his own testicles along with any fuckwit that supported him

[NikolaiIvanov]

Do you think that the IRA's disarmament by Bill Clinton has now been let down after Brexit?

[ChrisMaster69]

@NikolaiIvanov Bill Clinton, what’s he got to do with the price of eggs, he’s just some American cock

[NikolaiIvanov]

It was he who ended the "troubles' wasn't he.

[ChrisMaster69]

@NikolaiIvanov nope

[NikolaiIvanov]

'95 Belfast?

[NikolaiIvanov]

It's so depressing to see the once greatest empire now having referendums to break away from rule brittania to this?

[ChrisMaster69]

@NikolaiIvanov nope cock all to do with GFA

[NikolaiIvanov]

The treatment to Serbia was biased , support to Croatia from the Vatican and Germany was because of religious reasons same in the case of Bosnia by Turks and Arabs which was made it the terror capital of Europe. I think of Srebrenica as a crusade.
https://youtu.be/-7_FYq2VXwQ

Bosnians used child soldiers that fought alongside NATO and the UN. Un troops raped Bosnian children as well. Only case Serbia was ravaged because they resisted against losing their sovereignty.

[ChrisMaster69]

@NikolaiIvanov there was no rape of people by NATO troops and it was only NATO involved.

You are simply backing and promoting both genocide and terrorism.

That very much sums you up.

Considering your other threads on owning weapons and killing people.
And now your backing of genocide and terrorism.
You should be on a watch list.

[NikolaiIvanov]

I've lost my belief in the police and the armed forces that's why personal protection matters to me.

[NikolaiIvanov]

I repeat the words of mladic "War against terror is not genocide."

[ChrisMaster69]

@NikolaiIvanov as I said you back genocide, having a conversation with you is akin to a person that backed not just Hitler but also Himmler.

[NikolaiIvanov]

Also excluding the ethical aspects should these laws be applied to private contractors.

[jgokgotit]

The goal of the military of any nation is to protect its home nation's interests, not those of the entire world. There really are no such things as "international" laws. The things people mistake for international laws are actually just agreements and treaties that any nation can disregard at any time. To have international law, you would have to have a supreme ruler of the world, rather it be a person, a court or some other system. This is simply not a good idea because wherever this entity is physically located would be seen as being arrogant enough to believe they can rule the entire world. Nobody with any sense would accept that. International agreements and treaties are great peace keeping measures, but they are not really binding. However, any nation that does break them must be prepared for any retaliation that comes their way.

[have_a_good_day]

Ten years ago a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum-security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem... if no one else can help... and if you can find them... maybe you can hire... The A-Team.

[DaveToo]

I can't say one way or the other. There could be a situation that demands a unilateral response and immediate, for the protection of American and Allied lives.

On the other hand, any action taken has consequences on the world stage, and we would have to justify our actions in a world court.

[Avicenna]

Can you be a little more specific as to the circumstances of this hypothetical military action?

[Still-alive]

for instance drone or air strikes because a country decided to use chemical weapons on its own people (Syria or Iraq)

[Avicenna]

So the question is whether the humanitarian action in this case would require UN Security Council authorization to be legal? Or if there’s a humanitarian exception in the case of war crimes against civilians, as your example indicates. If the attack had occurred on another country, there would have clearly been a right to self-defense on the part of the attacked country.

[Still-alive]

ok sorry i misread my own question... so its just asking if for instance chemical warfare-which is banned by the geneva conventions-- can sometimes be justified if circumstances were right for it?

Like

[Avicenna]

It’s a good question. I suspect that under the letter of international law, no, but a war crime like that can gegersllynonku be prosecuted with outside involvement.

[Avicenna]

* generally only be

[Agape93]

Nope. If I walked up and shot my ex, would it be objectively a good thing for the world? Yes. Am I justified? Yes. Is it legal? No. Would I end up in prison? Oh most definitely, unfortunately.

[BCA6010]

"International law" is a joke. Only a handful of countries actually care about upholding such agreements, and only a few are even capable of attempting to enforce them.

[Kaneki05]

Nah not realy. But maybe if it was to take out hitler or something. But we don't get many hitlers. More just small groups and trading wars so... Shrugs.

[NathanDavis]

Just sometimes, it is quite needed, by one side... so that nullifies the need for a <<legal>> justification, that's just how this stuff is.

[pokerbot]

I can't think of an instance where it would be justified. International law exists for a reason. If everyone complied with it, it would solve a lot of problems. Unfortunately it's not really a law if it can't be enforced.

[Dargil]

Was war on Japan justified after they attacked Pearl Harbor? Of course it was.

[Gwenhwyfar]

In theory yes but such occasions would be rare. Comity is important.

[andreasderjuengere]

Why does one make agreements - only to find justifications to bypass them?

[juliusgreye]

Is it justified for me to break the law because it's in my own interest? No. Do people do it anyway? Oh, absolutely. The same applies to large groups of people like corporations and governments.

[crmoore]

Not to say that is had been, but it theoretically CAN be.

[crmoore]

It has been*

[Anonymous]

GOD Christ is above the dome
would not recommend it

https://www.youtube.com/embed/LMr6Qb0_5kM

[Bellatris]

That was the point at which it ran out of fuel. If it had hit some kind of 'dome', don't you think it would have been totally destroyed, and simple blackness would have ensued because the camera would have been destroyed as well? There is no 'dome' above Earth, because the Earth ISN'T FLAT!

[Opinion Owner]

@Bellatris

that;s like a slow moving paper plane
hitting a fish tank not much will happen

remember it doesn't hit it in a few seconds
which means its to slow

TAKES A WHILE
also there is a giant snake circling the earth wanna see it

[Bellatris]

It's NOTHING like a paper plane hitting a fish tank! At the velocities that rockets need to attain in order to reach orbit (and yes they do reach orbit, because the Earth isn't flat but a sphere and space is real), hitting a solid object would result in the total obliteration of the rocket, because it would be travelling at between approx 9.3 to 11 km/s, the latter of which is escape velocity. Using the simple kinetic energy formula Ek=1/2mv^2, it's easy to see how completely wrong you are about it being comparable to a "paper plane hitting a fish tank"!
Anyway, that's your homework for today. From the mass of the rocket (which isn't stated in the video, so you'll have to do a bit of research on this to find its value) and the velocity at which it's travelling, work out the kinetic energy using the formula I gave. It's ridiculously easy, it's just rocket science for God's sake!
Now I don't want to hear any more about your silly 'dome'! The Earth is an oblate spheroid, it orbits the sun which is at the centre of the solar system, and the Bible is BULLSHIT!
A giant snake? You're either a complete and utter idiot, or you're just trolling. Which is it?

[Opinion Owner]

@Bellatris

think about it
from GODS point of view
he can see the rocket from the out side
of the dome moving slowly to hit it
IN OUR EYES IT'S MOVING FAST
but it's actually super slow

and yes there is a giant snake circling the earth
here let me show you
WATCH THE WHOLE THING

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH1uylyEnLU&t=6s

[Bellatris]

Two facts can be deduced from your latest reply:
1. You're a complete and utter moron.
2. You're far too young to be using GAG, because you're clearly under 13.
By the way, 'God' doesn't exist. Stop believing in fairy tales, and stay in school, because you need all the education you can possibly receive.

[Opinion Owner]

@Bellatris

you believe the core of the earth exist stop talking
you believe in fairy tales

and if you think science is not a fairy tale

PROVE THE CORE OF THE EARTH EXIST
where is the 4000 mile hole in the ground to prove it?

[Bellatris]

Was that you on the phone with Matt Delahunty making a complete fool of yourself?

[Opinion Owner]

@Bellatris

watch the whole thing

[Bellatris]

I don't need to watch the whole thing, because if you aren't being a troll and genuinely believe this rubbish, then any 'evidence' you present will be as atrocious as your arguments.

[Opinion Owner]

@Bellatris

ok then
you won't see the snake
I tried to show you

but you would rather stay blind

[Bellatris]

I just had a look at it. Is this your idea of 'evidence'? Are you really that f**king retarded?

[Opinion Owner]

@Bellatris

good luck inside outer darkness hun
its gonna hurt

[Bellatris]

A geological formation. So what? Do you see a snake's head here? That's called paradoleia, seeing patterns and purpose in nature where none exist. You are a FOOL.

[007kingifrit]

no such thing as "international law"

[Still-alive]

Uhhh there is

legal.un.org/.../book_1.pdf

www.findlaw.com/.../international-law.html

[007kingifrit]

nope. those are fictions made to make the optimistic among us feel relevant. not real laws

[Still-alive]

K go argue that elsewhere

[007kingifrit]

why? its already the global norm, we do what we want and ignore silly laws we didn't agree to. the united stats has never agreed to any international courts

why should i go argue something i've already won on?

[Still-alive]

Because you’re simply wrong. Sure we ignore it but that doesn’t mean it doesn't exist. you're just being a smart ass on purpose or think you're clever. So yeah go somewhere else and argue this

[007kingifrit]

it doesn't exist, its not law. its suggestions at best

you can't have law without order, and is there an international order? no

[Still-alive]

And you're blocked see ya

[karaspara]

Agree to a point