.
Countries are entitled to defend themselves against aggression, that's universally accepted international law and almost everyone (exceptions include some particularly dumb Germans who apparently like to give BJs to Putin) gets and respects that.
The application in practice isn't without issues, though. Those issues go beyond 'false flag' actions and lying about who started the shooting.
Suppose there's a country A and a country B. They've been at each others' throats for decades. Maybe four decades, maybe eight. Maybe it's possible to tell who did start it originally, maybe not. Maybe the conflict escalated through non-warfare hostilities such as sponsoring terrorism and sabotage/assassination campaigns, maybe not.
Is there still a right to self-defence in such a permaconflict? And if yes - who has it if the origin is unclear?
Even more troublesome: What if the originator of the conflict is known, but the origin has been many decades ago and both sides were actively hostile to each other (albeit not waging open warfare) for a long time? Suppose we agree that if country A was the original culprit then country B has the right to self-defence. When does this right end? Does it ever end? Can A be blamed for not quitting the permaconflict even if it gets harrassed by below-warfare level hostilities of B? It's human nature to NOT show the other cheek for decades. Suppose we say B loses the right to self-defence in response to below warfare level hostilities if A shows the other cheek. For how long does A have to show the other cheek, or how much punishment does it have to endure while showing the other cheek until B loses the right to kill citizens of country A and destroy things in it (or possibly maintain a naval blockade)?
Personally, I believe there are seemingly perpetual conflicts in which I stop caring about who started it. I transition to looking who does much more damage and then am convinced it's appropriate to demand an end to lopsided killing and damage as a step towards getting out of the vicious circle of violence. That demand is easier to meet than a demand for showing the other cheek for a long time.
S O
.
I didn't just stop caring who started it, I stopped caring period. The people of the middle-east, and the levant in particular (I assume thats what you're alluding to), have been at each others throats since long before I was born, and will still be happily slaughtering each other long after we're all dead and buried. If there was some magical solution that would get them to all get along that would be great, but this is the real world not phantasyland. I'm tired of people in europe all freaking out because the people who've been at it for generations are at it again.
ReplyDeleteMy response is the same it's been for years, something along the lines of "Oh look, there they go again.", and then to ignore it. We have our own problems (and a war) right here at home to deal with.
It's not just relevant in one area of the globe.
DeleteSeemingly perpetual conflicts exist in many places, including state vs. state level conflicts. There are people who claim North Korea is fair game to bomb because it attacked in 1950, for example. Some Americans don't mind bombing Iran because many Americans are still deranged about the embassy crisis 1979/81.
Fair enough, though anyone who says South Korea (or the US) should seek a confrontation with North Korea is obviously not well mentally.
DeleteAnd US-Iran is just one hydrahead of the Americans neverending involvement in the middle-east. I hope that I will live to see the day when fossil fuels are obsolescent and we can all ignore the region without consequences ^^
But to address your point about the right to self-defense, I broadly agree, at some point the whole "who started it" becomes pointless, bad things happened in the past, doesn't mean the descendents should suffer punishment for all time.
Though I would disagree on just looking at who does more damage, if I were to care about random conflicts on other continents I'd also look at motives. Taking Iran-Israel as the obvious current example, if Iran stopped funding terrorists, threatening Israel with destruction every other week and just decided to focus inwards rather than on a country they don't even border, the conflict would be essentially over. So if the Iranians get their teeth kicked in it's basically a case of "play stupid games, win stupid prizes".
It's the same with the Korean peninsular, there is clearly one side which is keeping the conflict going while the other would be fine with just getting along.
Or is my opinion a product of where I grew up, sometimes I do wonder...
Than maybe the Americans should back off than and stop supporting Zionist geo political goals.
DeleteThe ongoing conflicts in the ME have nothing to do with oil and everything to do with securing and expanding the Jewish state.
DeleteOil could easily be replaced by nuclear power in most applications, should a political will exist to do so.
America wouldn't be dedicating her entire foreign policy towards defending the one shithole with little to no oil if that was case.
When will the US stop funding Zionist terrorists in the ME?
DeleteReading Western analysis has become intolerable, you will go through whatever mental gymnastics needed to support the Zionists.
ReplyDeleteAnyhow, Iran is being attacked by the US along with it's vassals, it is impossible to confirm or deny direct US involvment given the nature of the conflict.
It's funny watching Germans denounce Hitler one day while cheering for Zionists the other.
You are incapable of consistency at this point, I could NEVER de with such intense cognitive dissonance myself, I guess all the brainwashing done by the Americans and Brits after WWII has worked quite well.