Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The United States, and most of the world for that matter recongized the Republic of China government in Taipei as the legal government of both Taiwan and mainland China until about the 1970s. A bit more reading for you.

And, by your standing, the US had no right to oust Sadaam, and couldn't recognize the new government until Sadaam stepped down....which is obviously not the case. Once the US had de facto control of Iraq, they recognized whoever they wanted as in charge.

Bakerofish wrote:
ack dude stop.

the US refused to recognize CHINA? what parallel universe are you talking about here?

the US had no legal reason to oust Saddam? what the heck was that WMD hullaballoo about?

seriously Chris im sorry but you're misinformed on all counts here.

There are two countries that can be called "China": the PRC (mainland China) and the RoC (Taiwan). The RoC was the government of China that emerged following a civil war, only for their opponents, the communists led by Mao, to oust them when the civil war started again following WWII. The US sided with the RoC, and recognized them as the legitimate government of China, with the mainland, under the PRC, effectively a rebel holding. Later, the US decided it would be more lucrative to recognize the PRC as the legitimate government, and thus stopped recognizing the RoC, in addition to pressuring other countries to do the same.


The US also had no legal authority to invade either Iraq or Afghanistan. They just said "I'ma do this now" and went and did it, and nobody important (who had the power to do anything about it) cared enough to do anything about it. Legality means nothing when you have the power to do what you're trying to do without retribution.


That said, why on Earth should the US intervene in Libya, on either side? It will be resolved, one way or another, and is currently heavily in favor of the revolutionaries. If the US intervenes on their behalf, it casts into doubt their legitimacy as an independent movement. Not to mention the cost in lives, ordnance, maintenance, and fuel that it would cost to intervene. Much better just to let it burn itself out on its own, and be in a position to take advantage of whoever won for all their worth.

Man, this thread was way more fun when it was about Fraz trying to claim the US should be isolationist, and pretending that it used to be such.


Bakerofish, just give it up dude. There is probably a decent argument to be made for foreign intervention, but you're not making it. From this point you've argued yourself into such a weak position you're really best off just calling it a day.

oh boy - we're debating this kerfuffle?

okidokie. first and foremost this mess started when the ROC claimed sovereignity based on documents like the japanese instrument of surrender and the cairo declaration. this was not seen as relevant by other factions in the country so there was dissent and civil war.

the ROC LOST the civil war and fled to Taiwan and the islands near it. The PRC was then established to govern the mainlands.

the ROC was using international law to hold claim to its sovereignity. This was not an outright rebellion as there are legal international treaties that awarded them the right to govern.

the ROC was then recognized as the government of china due to them actively making democratic relations with the other nations. te PRC then established its own relations and now there are two: Taiwan and China...and the sovereignity of Taiwan is being scrutinized to date.

now the Libyan rebels do not have anything that supports them yet as a legitimate government. If you think the international community is going to recognize the rule they established just because they popped up is absurd. The current Libyan government still holds treaties and relationships with other governments and may call on those later on to contest the right of the rebels to rule.

Power is transferred over or destroyed. In order to establish a new government the old one must either abdicate or be eradicated.

The Iraq invasion was and still is controversial because the impetus for it was WMD and terrorism of which there were still contentions. The US had to PLEAD their case to international councils (plural) and make their case because otherwise they wont have the right to invade. Their main angle was that Iraq was breaking UN resolutions on WMDs. Thanks to a number of factors they went ahead with the invasion. Not all countries supported this and there are those that can still claim that the invasion was unjust and in violation of several international laws

now your opinion on the justness Iraq invasion is irrelevant. Whats relevant here is that for good or ill the US still had to follow international protocol and make their case.

they didnt invade just because they want to. they had to convince the world that it was the right thing to do.

international laws matter Chris...thats why were not seeing any concrete actions made by any country in Libya because one misstep and they can give Libya a reason to plead to the international community for protection.

'International Law' is whatever the powerful countries say it is, and if no one else powerful enough cares than it sticks. The international system is fundamentally anarchic, and it's essentially might makes right. If the US says 'Libya is blockaded' and backs it up...whose going to stop them? No one wants to, and so no one will. But when Libya says 'The Gulf of Sidra belongs to us', and the US say "Ummm, no. It doesn't,' then guess what happens? If you need a clue, look up the Gulf of Sidra incidents.... Your view of the international system is an idealistic one, that just like in a nation state there are laws imposed from above....however, the reality of the situation is, unlike in a state, there's no one to enforce those laws, so if people want to ignore them, they can.

ANd your history of the RoC and the PRC is flat out wrong. The RoC was defeated and fled to Taiwan. The United States and other Western powers refused to recognize the PRC as the new government of China, and kept the RoC delegation sitting in the spot labeled 'China' in the UNSC. Later on, in the 1970s, it became politically expedient for the US to ally itself more closely with the PRC, and so switched its recognition to the Beijing government, and gave the PRC China's seat on the UNSC.

As far as both states are concerned, and most of the world is concerned, there are not 'two Chinas' most nations pay lip service to the PRCs claim that it owns Taiwan, because they wish to trade with the PRC, and can't if they recognize Taiwan. However, Taiwan is often looked upon as a seperate entity, and dealt with as such.

The Libyan rebel government has the claim to sovereignty in that they claim to represent the people of Libya. They can also claim internal sovereignty, as most people in Libya recognize them as the new authority, not Gadaffi. Power is transferred, but it does not always have to transfer willingly. In Libya, the power was ripped out of Gadaffi's hands and given to the new government by virtue of the fact that they exist.

As for Iraq...well the US didn't do a very good job of persuading the rest of the world that it was right, did they? The point remained, the US said it was going to invade Iraq, and no one important enough or powerful enough to influence their decision said, 'No you're not.' That's how international relations works. There is no law imposed from above, because there is no power above the state.

@ chris

taiwan issue: i dont see the diff between what you said and what i said. take it up with me in pm if you want so we can avoid derailing this further

as for : 'International Law' is whatever the powerful countries say it is, and if no one else powerful enough cares than it sticks"

wow. thanks for marginalizing the contributions of every country, every soldier and person who fought for those laws. I believe your own country has numerous contributions to those international laws as well. Nice to know you think that the UK will just roll over and "drop trou" when the US finally decides to be a d!ck.

eesh.

to everyone else:

my stance is NOT pro or anti foreign intervention. My stance is stay out or go all out. I can and may well be wrong but it is an opinion.

what ive been doing thus far though is trying to counter the following damaging mindsets:

The rebels are winning/ will win: cant know for sure until they do. we hope they do

Gaddafi is losing/will lose: cant know for sure till he does. we hope he croaks

Facts: Gaddafi gained power through a military coup and has extensive military experience. Gaddafi has access to the Libyan arsenal which is not insignificant. The Rebels are mainly composed of civilians and have no chain of command as of yet.

No fly zone = Rebels win: cant say for sure. Gaddafis guns, tanks and goons definitely have a say in the matter.

Consider the ff: Guns tanks and goons have killed more people than bombing runs in Libya. No fly zone will only prevent air based offensives. No fly zone means that tanks and troops can move unmolested

Gaddafi is no longer the head of his country: Umm no. Because otherwise his son's presence in the UN will not have any weight if they dont hold the Libyan government. The UN still recognizes Gaddafi as the head of state and the rebels as...well...rebels.

A "good chunk" of the military has defected: whats a good chunk? so far confirmed details give disappointing numbers for a "good chunk"

i guess i make people uncomfortable that im going against the popular "yay rebels!" mindset. Im rooting for them too if youve been reading my posts. Im just not going to let optimism cloud my assessment of the situation.

Bakerofish wrote:

halonachos wrote:
In relation to the farmers fighting the government, the rebels do have weapons like anti-aircraft but not mush in terms of heavy artillery. They have shot down one or two loyalist bombers already but they need help. Its also important to remember history. Look up the reason for celebrating Cinco De Mayo.

cinco de mayo? the "unlikely" victory of the mexicans against the french? the reason it being remarkable because it came out of left field?

for every underdog victory in history there are dozens of victories brought about superior numbers, positioning, supplies and firepower.

you guys make it sound like winning a war is easy. What legal basis would there be for putting an embargo on Libya? And if you do find one, will every country FOLLOW suit? Just because the US declares embargo doesnt mean Libya cant trade with anyone else.

you cannot tell me the military is leaving gaddafis side just because one or two bombers decided to defect. or a unit. seriously. There are defectors but the actual numbers arent enough to call this cut and dry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karon wrote:No, because a No-Fly-Zone is enough. We don't need to do anything else. We don't need to get involved here.

We don't need troops there, we don't need to bomb gaddaffi, we don't need to do anything but take away their single largest advantage.

okay understood that you feel that way. i can respect that

but also respect that taking away the air advantage doesnt mean sure victory. a lot of folks here are acting like thats all it takes.

But why the feth should we care? The U.S. isn't Libya, we are tied up in our own conflicts right now. We can help the rebels, and show them we are on their side (moral booster, big deal)

And, it wouldn't just be us, this would be a U.N. decision to put up a no-fly zone. It would make Gaddaffi (if he isn't completely insane) realize that he is completely alone.

Gaddaffi will lose if a no-fly-zone is erected sooner. Gaddaffi will lose eventually if it isn't. We don't need troops there because this isn't directly effecting us in a serious enough matter that we need to put troops there.

Bakerofish wrote:
as for : 'International Law' is whatever the powerful countries say it is, and if no one else powerful enough cares than it sticks"

wow. thanks for marginalizing the contributions of every country, every soldier and person who fought for those laws. I believe your own country has numerous contributions to those international laws as well. Nice to know you think that the UK will just roll over and "drop trou" when the US finally decides to be a d!ck.

eesh.

It may not be nice, but it's how the International System works. No one fought and died for 'international law' people have fought and died for the 'national interest' or 'national security' or even more simply 'revenge', but no one has ever fought for 'intenrational law'. The closes ever was the Korean War, but even that was more a war for the national interest of the United States and its western allies than for 'international law'.

There really isn't any international law that anybody stands up to. No body is above the individual states as far as IR is concerned, and while they agree on a lot of things (thus creating 'international law'), if the US says 'nah, I don't think so', no one is going to want to or be able to stop them. Look at the Suez Crisis. The UK and France decided they wanted to do something that was ostensibly illegal under your vaunted 'international law'. What stopped them? The US and the Soviet Union (both countries more powerful, and important to their security) saying 'Hey wait a second! You can't do that!' If they hadn't said anything, or had reserved themsels to going. 'Naughty, naughty! ' Then the UK and France would have gottent away with it.

You're an idealist, and while that's respectable, we also have to obey the reality of the world, which is that if you're a powerful enough state, then you can ignore international law until a more powerful/important enough state decides to stand up and get annoyed with you.

Laws have no power beyond the presence of someone to enforce them. A sufficiently powerful and influential country can just run roughshod over them if they so choose, though it's more common that they manipulate them and do other things to try to assuage anyone who's annoyed by their actions.

Qaddafi is an unhinged loon whose own military has deserted him beyond a small core of loyalists. He has already lost most of the country, and cannot win whether he manages to deal with the well armed revolutionaries, a significant portion of which are military deserters, or not, simply because he has made himself into a pariah in the international community. He might have the legal right to the country in such a case, but that won't make anyone deal with him.

Karon wrote:
But why the feth should we care? The U.S. isn't Libya, we are tied up in our own conflicts right now. We can help the rebels, and show them we are on their side (moral booster, big deal)

this has been debated earlier. not adding anything to it now. i do respect that mindset.

Karon wrote:
And, it wouldn't just be us, this would be a U.N. decision to put up a no-fly zone. It would make Gaddaffi (if he isn't completely insane) realize that he is completely alone.

the UN has an army? they dont. they rely on the resources of the member countries to supply the muscle. The UN is not a military organization.

Karon wrote:Gaddaffi will lose if a no-fly-zone is erected sooner. Gaddaffi will lose eventually if it isn't.

you sure about this? or is this something you predict will happen? Predictions have a funny way of going belly up.

Bakerofish wrote:

Karon wrote:
And, it wouldn't just be us, this would be a U.N. decision to put up a no-fly zone. It would make Gaddaffi (if he isn't completely insane) realize that he is completely alone.

the UN has an army? they dont. they rely on the resources of the member countries to supply the muscle. The UN is not a military organization.

Exactly, so who enforces the UNs decisions? The member nations that have the military muscle to do so. And what happens when they decide they don't want to do what the UN says?

In the words of President Andrew Jackson, "John Marshall [the UN] has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"

lol.

If those statements about international law are true my country wouldve been a US annex a long time ago. God knows the US government at the time wanted it that way. I mean they liberated us they should keep what they save right? Nah they let us have our country though the sheer goodness of their heart.

the only reason the US is getting a lot of leeway is that generally speaking the rest of the world benefits from what theyre doing. The moment the US does something that encroaches on a nations rights overtly and puts everyone else in a worse situation then the rest of the world will speak up. Im sure the EU, China and the rest can give the US a good staredown. Dont think the US can just bully everyone they want.

The UN is the collection of nations.

So, if the UN made the decision to put up the No-Fly-Zone, then nobody would be on Gaddaffi's side. I mean, nobody is, but Gaddaffi is half-insane right now, so you would hope he would realize it then.

The Phillippines was a US colony for about 50 years. I know, my entire maternal half of the family still lives in Quezon City. And more importantly, you're ignoring an entire war fought between the United States and the Phillippines to try and keep the Phillippines as an American colony. It was kinda a big deal. The US gave the Phillippines independence not out of the goodness of its heart, but for the simple reason that it was no longer necessary for the US's national interest. Why spend the money keeping a colony, if that colony isn't helping you in anyway?

You're partially right in that the US has a lot of leeway, but they have a lot of leeway in that the EU, China and Russia don't care enough to go through the trouble of strongly protesting what the US does. It's not worth it. If you protest too strongly, you get a war between two great powers, that could lead to a nuclear exchange. No, it's easier to stay silent, or just wag your finger at them.

Look at it this way, during the Cold War, the US intervened all around the world, the rest of the world stayed silent. The US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and the rest of the world stayed silent.

You are clearly an idealist, and while this is not bad, your idealism is making you look at the world through rose tinted glasses. Things aren't as simple or as dramatic as you'd like to beleive.

You think Obama is a coward for not starting a third war? Are you stupid?

Karon wrote:The UN is the collection of nations.

So, if the UN made the decision to put up the No-Fly-Zone, then nobody would be on Gaddaffi's side. I mean, nobody is, but Gaddaffi is half-insane right now, so you would hope he would realize it then.

not all countries are a part of the UN.

@ chris

youre talking about the US colonization after the US-Spanish war. Yes we revolted because we wanted our freedom. what im talking about here is when the US helped us with our Japanese problem. You can be sure that during that time a lot of people had a different mindset about the US colonizing the philippines. However treaties have been made and the rest is history.

youre calling me an idealist as an easy way to dismiss what im saying. Not everyone stays silent when the US commits an error. There are currently tribunals on whether the US owes certain countries dues from War Crimes. Look up Mai Lai, Agent Orange and Abu Ghraib. These cases are being deliberated in an international court and if the US is found guilty then theyre expected to make amends. The process takes YEARS but it doesnt mean that its not happening.

what do you mean the world stayed silent during the cold war? the cold war happened because the soviets didnt like what the us was doing! The US pleaded their cases in international councils to take on Iraq and Afghanistan. look them up.

if international laws arent in place what the heck keeps China (they dont get any bigger folks) from just claiming the spratly's as their own? what keeps them from just expanding as theyve done for millenia and retake a good part of asia? they certainly have the machinery to do so.

international laws enforced by countries that agreed on the laws in the first place.

First of all, the UN has a military force comprised of willing countries. This is similar to the COALITION forces in Iraq and Afghanistan right now, the forces are made up of bits from willing nations.

We don't have to go all in or all out, that's black and white thinking which indicates idealism. There are gray areas that fill the space between the two options. These gray areas being limited military support, this military support usually bites us in the rear end anyways. As for the Phillipines, sorry but you guys were never really an economic necessity for us.

Going all in means an invasion with the full brunt of the US military, now is your country going to aid us in that invasion? The answer is most likely not, the English, Germans, Canadians, and French are most likely to help us in the chance that we do invade Libya. Japan may aid us, but China and Russia will stay out of it.

So in fact you are saying that if the western powers are invading something they should go all in or stay out while avoiding the middle ground that keeps our people alive and does good.

In a final statement, you do realize that the US wasn't 'all-in' so to speak in the Pacific Theater right? There were islands that we completely bypassed because we didn't need them even though the japanese fortified them heavily. We like to take out what needs to be taken out and leave the unnecessary behind.

If we aid the rebels it'll be with air and naval power, we'll say that there's a no fly zone. Ghadafi will challenge us because he's a delusional dingbat and we'll shoot some of his planes out of the sky. His forces will lose moral and the rebels will gain moral.

You're forgetting the most important part of the war and that's the disposition of the enemy. An enemy with low morale is more willing to succumb to surrender or defection, in fact the German commanders would tell their fighters to take out American supply convoys. This wasn't to starve the Americans it was to prevent them from getting letters from their loved ones, care packages, chocolate, and even cake. All of these may not be necessary but they can cause troops to lose hope in their fight and that may be enough to win. Ask any soldier what the most important thing they received while on deployment and they'll most likely say something related to family or something that kept their morale up.

The US helped the Phillippines during WW2 not out of some moral responsibility, but out of military necessity, combined with MacArthur's sense of honor. Nimitz wanted to bypass the Phillippines...no need to waste the material recaptureing the islands when we already had the Marianas as a bomber base. MacArthur managed to make his case, and he went on his little liberation spree.

We have a different definition of staying silent. The world waggingin its finger and saying 'bad [insert country here]' is different from standing up and opposing a nation. The world will always wag its finger at a nation that was doing something they don't like, but it's not easy to do more than that. Note that the US refuses to recognize the ICC.

Yes the Cold War was because the Soviet Union and the US had an ideological conflict, but look at the history books. THe Soviets wagged their fingers at us for Korea and Vietnam, and we wagged our fingers at them for Hungary and Afghanistan. Thats how the system works. It really is almost never worth it to stand up and openly fight another great power.

What keeps the Chinese from taking the Spratleys by military force? Fear. Fear that if they're too agressive they'll spark a war and ruin their own economy. Sure the Spratlys have oil and natural gas, but it's not worth fighting a war with the US over. Deterrence is what keeps them from expanding. They very well good declare that they're going to take over SIberia, Japan, Korea and all of Asia....and then the US, Russia and India would retaliate. The balance of power is what keeps them in check, not international law.

And its enforced by countries that agreed on the law...so what happens when the enforcers decide that its in their interests to break the law? Who watches the watchers? In IR terms...no body.

@halo

the "all in" stance is an opinion. disagreeing with it is all well and good. i note your other points as well. as far as the philippines not being an economic necessity *shrugs* does everything have to be about economics? and my country has expressed willingness to help in Libya. We have a few of our civilian people trapped there.

what irks me is the "sure win" attitude when the reality of the situation still leaves it up in the air.

@chris

youre ignoring my point. my point here is that the US liberated the Philippines and if it were not for international considerations, were well in their power to keep us as a colony. The philippines was in no mind set and position to resist as vigorously as we did in the earlier war. there would be no reason to let us go. there are several strategic reasons to keep the philippines. there are several economic reasons as well.

the concept of checks and balances ensure the application of international law. one super power's agenda is not going to concide with the others. Do you think the US isnt afraid of going against other countries too? International law was put in place to keep the big guys from killing each other and trampling the little guys underfoot

if it wasnt for international law there wouldnt be a diplomatic way of settling disputes. *rubs forehead* everyone would be at war. its not all about military might. international law allows for talks and agreements to be made without resorting to bombs.

this isnt idealism. the laws are there. whether you think they work or not is irrelevant.

No, even without international law, deterrence would still work. People are afraid of war now...especially with the consequences a nuclear exchange between great powers could have for the whole world. International law as you describe it does not exist. Big countries don't murder each other, because they fear the retaliation they would garner in return. Smaller nations either slip beneatht the radar completely, band together to form alliances that can hold off a superpower, or they DO get crushed by the bigger powers. Case in point, Hungary, Poland, Czechslovakia, Panama, Nicaragua, Iraq, Afghanistan (twice)...need I go on?

International law didn't lead to diplomacy, diplomacy led to a generally accepted standard that became known as international law. Peace is not kept by law, but by fear of what would happen if we weren't at peace.

tl;dr: International Law as you describe it does not exist. Peace is kept through the Balance of Terror/Power that would be created if there was international law or not.

ChrisWWII wrote:No, even without international law, deterrence would still work. People are afraid of war now...especially with the consequences a nuclear exchange between great powers could have for the whole world. International law as you describe it does not exist. Big countries don't murder each other, because they fear the retaliation they would garner in return. Smaller nations either slip beneatht the radar completely, band together to form alliances that can hold off a superpower, or they DO get crushed by the bigger powers. Case in point, Hungary, Poland, Czechslovakia, Panama, Nicaragua, Iraq, Afghanistan (twice)...need I go on?

International law didn't lead to diplomacy, diplomacy led to a generally accepted standard that became known as international law. Peace is not kept by law, but by fear of what would happen if we weren't at peace.

tl;dr: International Law as you describe it does not exist. Peace is kept through the Balance of Terror/Power that would be created if there was international law or not.

ah i get it now. youre mixing opinion with fact so ill drop the topic as i know now i cant convince you otherwise.

your mindset was pretty prevalent during the Reagan era btw.

The Balance of Power is considered a factual thing, not just an opinion. MAD is widely accepted as a defining thing of the Cold War, so I don't know where your opinion claim is coming from.

Is the Reagan jibe supposed to be an insult?

the opinion that international law exists and enforced solely due to the balance of power is opinion.

and no thats not an insult. its just an observation. the mindset was definitely applicable back then

Are you a 'baker of ish', and if so is 'ish' some kind of bread product? Or are you a 'baker o fish', where 'o' implies some kind of jolly colloquialism, much like McDonald's famous 'fillet o fish' burger?

Inquring minds need to know.




I agree with you on internation law, by the way. Or at least I agree with you in that there's more to it than simply the force of might, simply because the leaders of nations don't consider themselves amoral forces desiring to that take whatever they can, held back only by the threat of retaliation.

If there is nothing solid to force someone into acting in a fair or just manner, there is no guarantee that they will do so. Especially not when you're talking about the kind of person that ends up in power in the first place. There is more to geopolitics than brute force, though. Even if you're on the top, it's not smart to openly run roughshod over established conventions, because it makes the whole game of diplomacy harder if everyone hates and mistrusts you. So the big players ignore what they want to, when they can't force the law to be what they want in the first place, while their diplomats scramble to assuage the concerns of anyone who might be a problem, if for no other reason than resorting to violence is expensive and unpopular.

I would say it's nothing near that black and white. No, the leaders of nations are not amoral arses trying to gain whatever they can, only held back by the threat of force. They are intelligent human beings (or so we hope). My point in arguing with bakerofish was that he was being too idealistic with his interpretation of international law.

Namely, that there is no such thing as international law. There are a series of conventions and treaties that most nations have signed to ang agreed to, and most of them follow those conventions fairly well. However, there is no true 'enforcement mechanism' for these conventions, especially if your one of the countries the world turns to to be an enforcer in the first place. Is there some kind of international law? Yes. But is it anywhere near as binding as the laws that exist within states? Not at all.

Remember, the argument that led to this tangent was that the world couldn't recognize the rebel government in Benghazi as the government of Libya because Gadaffi is still in charge under 'international law'. My point was that, it doesn't matter what the law says, if the world recognizes the Beenghazi government, then they're the ones in charge, no matter what Gadaffi says or claims.

@pseudo

youre talking like there arent other ways to make the big boys dance. The Saudis and Switzerland, while not being military powers on their own have been making the superpowers dance their tune

Singapore and the Vatican hold a considerable amount of clout. amazing since these countries are smaller than most major cities.

and believe it or not, goodwill is a valid reason for laws to be enforced. otherwise the Red Cross and Unicef would be paddling uphill moreso than they already are.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
@chris

your error here is that youre thinking the will of the people of a nation decides who should be in power. even if the rebels become the defacto leaders of Libya, if Gaddafi is still alive and still holds the military theres no reason to recognize the rebels as other than being rebels. to do so gives logical reason for every rebel group to start declaring ownership of their respective territories and demanding sovereignity.

you claim i see things black and white when you refuse to see how youre simplifying the process of being a recognized country to a dangerous level. Heck if your idea of being recognized as your own government is true, the red states can declare cecession from the United States right now if they wanted to. It would also be easy for Ireland to seperate themselves from UK as well.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:If there is nothing solid to force someone into acting in a fair or just manner, there is no guarantee that they will do so. Especially not when you're talking about the kind of person that ends up in power in the first place. There is more to geopolitics than brute force, though. Even if you're on the top, it's not smart to openly run roughshod over established conventions, because it makes the whole game of diplomacy harder if everyone hates and mistrusts you. So the big players ignore what they want to, when they can't force the law to be what they want in the first place, while their diplomats scramble to assuage the concerns of anyone who might be a problem, if for no other reason than resorting to violence is expensive and unpopular.

Yes, there are consqeuences for breaching international law even if they are unlikely to be direct action. More than that, though, there are the limits we place on ourselves, because we want to see ourselves as good people. Even power hungry do this (at least most of them do).

Bakerofish wrote:@pseudo

youre talking like there arent other ways to make the big boys dance. The Saudis and Switzerland, while not being military powers on their own have been making the superpowers dance their tune

Saudi Arabia only exists as it is because the rulers play nice for the west (read: only "secretly" back violent opposition to their interests, while keeping oil flowing) in exchange for not having been deposed and replaced by someone more palatable, and Switzerland is only allowed to openly facilitate tax evasion because enough people in power rely on it in order to evade taxes. Neither holds any sway over global geopolitics.

Singapore and the Vatican hold a considerable amount of clout. amazing since these countries are smaller than most major cities.

No, they don't. Singapore is a regional power, but irrelevant on the global scale, and the Vatican only holds a small degree of PR power over largely irrelevant countries.

and believe it or not, goodwill is a valid reason for laws to be enforced. otherwise the Red Cross and Unicef would be paddling uphill moreso than they already are.

Right, diplomacy and PR, etc. Both of which are also great ways to change laws to be what you want them to be, or to convince no one to care/convince them that you're "totally not breaking them" when you break them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:If there is nothing solid to force someone into acting in a fair or just manner, there is no guarantee that they will do so. Especially not when you're talking about the kind of person that ends up in power in the first place. There is more to geopolitics than brute force, though. Even if you're on the top, it's not smart to openly run roughshod over established conventions, because it makes the whole game of diplomacy harder if everyone hates and mistrusts you. So the big players ignore what they want to, when they can't force the law to be what they want in the first place, while their diplomats scramble to assuage the concerns of anyone who might be a problem, if for no other reason than resorting to violence is expensive and unpopular.

Yes, there are consqeuences for breaching international law even if they are unlikely to be direct action. More than that, though, there are the limits we place on ourselves, because we want to see ourselves as good people. Even power hungry do this (at least most of them do).

It's not just a matter of being power hungry. A country has a responsibility to protect its citizens and advance their interests. Even if that means breaking international laws when they can get away with it. If the US government were, say, to illegally pressure another country into releasing an American citizen who was on trial, or set to be on trial, for some crime, the diplomats involved in such a crime wouldn't be acting out of greed, but out of their responsibility to protect American citizens, nor would either they or the US face any penalty beyond a few publicity hungry pundits or minor politicians complaining about it to get mentioned on the news.

@pseudo

you sure you know what youre talking about? you know Saudi is where the Hajj is right? ya know...Mecca? not every country will fight for oil...but yeah im sure a good number of folks will fight to keep Mecca safe.
Switzerland has non neutral countries pledging to defend its neutrality
singapore is a regional power yes thats true but thats still power. singapore is a hub for sea based trading. Cripple that and a lot of commodities even in the west will go up.
Vatican has small degree of pr? really? you really want me to name every country that will raise hell if the vatican is threatend? Spain, Italy, Columbia, Argentina etc etc?