Rules Of War

[ToadBrother]

That's a very good observation....such complexities are often resolved with "illegal" solutions. For instance, NATO's actions against Serbia (Kosovo War 1999) were technically "illegal". The invasion of Iraq in 2003 had firmer legal ground because of Gulf War surrender instruments and UN resolutions.

The Kosovo Campaign is still a matter of debate. As much as anything in international law, it matters who is backing an action, and how many. Going back to the example of Mers-al-Kabir attack, the British Empire committed a blatant act of war and blatant violation of the rules of international conduct even by the standards of the early and mid-20th century. One could certainly argue that it violated international law, and even the rules of naval warfare (the deaths of 1300 sailors), and by some strict definition that might be true, but it was still the right think for Britain to do, better than having those ships fall into German hands. But it does demonstrate the underlying principle, so eloquently stated by Isaac Asimov, that one should never let one's sense of morality prevent one from doing what's right.

[ToadBrother]

The US has signed into all sorts of international law and rules of war and international relations. That's why it's a rogue state actor. It has little to no regard for these laws/rules they have bound themselves to when it doesn't suit them.

But to be clear, I'm not saying the US is the only rogue state.

If you can call the US a rogue state, then just about every other state out there, with the possible exception of a few places like Switzerland and Guatemala and most of the microstates are rogue states. In other words, the very phrase loses all meaning.

For c---sakes, China is building artificial islands in the China Sea, despite rules on what constitutes "land" for the purposes of determining territorial waters that China is a signatory to. Russia has sent in soldiers out of uniform to foment a civil war in Ukraine. Australia keeps refugees in what most consider overly harsh conditions.

Edited April 10, 2015 by ToadBrother

[Moonlight Graham]

If you can call the US a rogue state, then just about every other state out there, with the possible exception of a few places like Switzerland and Guatemala and most of the microstates are rogue states. In other words, the very phrase loses all meaning.

For c---sakes, China is building artificial islands in the China Sea, despite rules on what constitutes "land" for the purposes of determining territorial waters that China is a signatory to. Russia has sent in soldiers out of uniform to foment a civil war in Ukraine. Australia keeps refugees in what most consider overly harsh conditions.

No other country in the world militarily attacks other countries illegally and undermines their territorial sovereignty at the rate the US does, the NUMBER ONE rule in international relations. Very few countries show such a blatant disregard for the laws they've signed up for and in many instances created. They help create the UN and international law, then they ignore it at whim. The US is completely out of control in the international realm like no other country in the world. Israel isn't far behind. We know the typical baddies like N.Korea.

If a country breaks a bunch of international laws that doesn't necessarily make them a rogue state since as you say most countries do this. A rogue state does whatever it wants whenever it wants in the international realm with little to no regard of international law.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Moonlight Graham

[bush_cheney2004]

...If a country breaks a bunch of international laws that doesn't necessarily make them a rogue state since as you say most countries do this. A rogue state does whatever it wants whenever it wants in the international realm with little to no regard of international law.

This is weak...if it shows any regard for international law then it is not a "rogue state". Most nations act in their best interests alone or in concert with other nations regardless of "international law".

[ToadBrother]

No other country in the world militarily attacks other countries illegally and undermines their territorial sovereignty at the rate the US does, the NUMBER ONE rule in international relations. Very few countries show such a blatant disregard for the laws they've signed up for and in many instances created. They help create the UN and international law, then they ignore it at whim. The US is completely out of control in the international realm like no other country in the world. Israel isn't far behind. We know the typical baddies like N.Korea.

If a country breaks a bunch of international laws that doesn't necessarily make them a rogue state since as you say most countries do this. A rogue state does whatever it wants whenever it wants in the international realm with little to no regard of international law.

In other words, you define "rogue state" by some subjective measure of "does lots of things", as opposed to any objective standard.

[Moonlight Graham]

In other words, you define "rogue state" by some subjective measure of "does lots of things", as opposed to any objective standard.

"Does lots of things" is subjective. "Does lots of things that are against international law including militarily attacking other countries much more often than other states" is objective.

[Derek 2.0]

The Americans' argument wasn't that they should have seats at Westminster, but rather that the British Government should recognize their own colonial legislatures as having similar powers to Parliament; that taxation shouldn't be imposed upon the colonists without some form of representation.

Said legislatures functioned much like most Commonwealth Governments today, with a Governor appointed by the Crown and legislators elected by the colonists, which wrote and passed local governing laws, from everything to laws, taxes and control of the militia........of course the colonists had little control over tariffs on (international) trade, trade protected by the Royal Navy (paid for by British taxpayers) in a time of war, nor "international" treaties made with North American natives....

And really, sea voyages in the 18th century didn't take months to cross the Atlantic, but weeks (3-6 weeks depending upon direction and prevailing winds). Even after the War of Independence, the US was able to have ambassadors in Britain, France and other important states, so I'm not sure that seats at Westminster would have been totally unworkable, though I agree not ideal. More sensible would have been to grant the colonial governments similar powers as were granted to Nova Scotia in 1848. For all the high minded rhetoric, what the American colonies were asking for was responsible government.

If a vote were to come up in Westminster, and the Right Honorable Member for Stillwater-Saratoga desired to consult with his constituents, the Trans-Atlantic exchange of ideas would be measured in months.......inversely ambassadors and envoys of the day weld considerable power and influence......because of the lack of communications.

[Derek 2.0]

No other country in the world militarily attacks other countries illegally and undermines their territorial sovereignty at the rate the US does, the NUMBER ONE rule in international relations. Very few countries show such a blatant disregard for the laws they've signed up for and in many instances created.

I'd assume the PRC's neighbors would disagree, likewise those bordering European Russian......funny enough, most turn to the United States to safeguard their sovereignty.......

[Derek 2.0]

"Does lots of things" is subjective. "Does lots of things that are against international law including militarily attacking other countries much more often than other states" is objective.

Like the Spratly Islands and Tibet, or Georgia and the Ukraine..........

[Moonlight Graham]

Like the Spratly Islands and Tibet, or Georgia and the Ukraine..........

I'm not saying China or Russia are or aren't rogue states. They certainly aren't bastions of international law. But please, they don't even compare to the US.

[Moonlight Graham]

I'd assume the PRC's neighbors would disagree, likewise those bordering European Russian.

Disagree about what?

[Derek 2.0]

I'm not saying China or Russia are or aren't rogue states. They certainly aren't bastions of international law. But please, they don't even compare to the US.

Right, as historically they're far worse........

[Derek 2.0]

Disagree about what?

That the United States is the baddest of the bad.........

[bush_cheney2004]

That the United States is the baddest of the bad.........

Yep...bad to the bone !

How did this small collection of backward colonies go on to become the baddest global hegemon ?

And why do they brag about war in their national anthem ?

Barbarians !

Edited April 11, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[Derek 2.0]

Yep...bad to the bone !

How did this small collection of backward colonies go on to become the baddest global hegemon ?

And why do they brag about war in their national anthem ?

Barbarians !

Clearly....

So when are you guys going to give us the Ukrainian or Tibetan treatment? And can I run the provisional government?

Edited April 11, 2015 by Derek 2.0

[Bryan]

How did this small collection of backward colonies go on to become the baddest global hegemon ?

Because they are the best in the world at force and violence.

[bush_cheney2004]

Because they are the best in the world at force and violence.

Thank you...your British Empire was a tough act to follow.

[jacee]

Thank you...your British Empire was a tough act to follow.

The oppressed become the oppressors.

.

[Moonlight Graham]

A heartfelt congrats to the U.S., they're massive hypocrites for clearly becoming, on a global scale, the imperial tyranny they fought against that is the very reason for their existence as "the United States of America".

[bush_cheney2004]

A heartfelt congrats to the U.S., they're massive hypocrites for clearly becoming, on a global scale,...

Indeed...far better to cut through all that crown and throne bullcrap for what really matters...on a global scale.

[GostHacked]

In other words, you define "rogue state" by some subjective measure of "does lots of things", as opposed to any objective standard.

I would not say specifically the USA is a rogue state, but the CIA is definitely a rogue element within the US. As their primary job is to FSU overseas.

[ToadBrother]

I would not say specifically the USA is a rogue state, but the CIA is definitely a rogue element within the US. As their primary job is to FSU overseas.

Virtually every major power since the dawn of the Modern Age has had some variant on the CIA. I'm not going to defend all their conduct, any more than I would defend all the conduct of the other major powers in this regard, but this is the game of nations, and it has been played by these rules for centuries.

Edited April 12, 2015 by ToadBrother

[Moonlight Graham]

I would not say specifically the USA is a rogue state, but the CIA is definitely a rogue element within the US. As their primary job is to FSU overseas.

The White House FSU overseas. They've waged war on no less than 7 different countries since 9/11, most of them illegally. 3 US-led regime changes (Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan), and a fourth failed attempt (Syria). No doubt they'd do it to Iran too if it were as easy as Libya was. Not to mention torturing and rendering people from many of these countries (remember Abu Ghraib?). They do all this with impunity. They're completely out of control. State sovereignty is meaningless to them...and we complain about Russia in Ukraine...HA! How are they not a rogue state? And the Harper gov likes to pretend to be like them...

[bush_cheney2004]

.... They do all this with impunity. They're completely out of control. State sovereignty is meaningless to them...and we complain about Russia in Ukraine...HA! How are they not a rogue state? And the Harper gov likes to pretend to be like them...

Impunity...yes, out of control...no.

Focusing on Harper just confirms a political bias, as Canada's Liberal party was certainly complicit in many of America's "rogue" actions.

[On Guard for Thee]

Impunity...yes, out of control...no.

Focusing on Harper just confirms a political bias, as Canada's Liberal party was certainly complicit in many of America's "rogue" actions.

Just not the illegal ones.