Yep, and Chuck wasn't complacent about the killing of civilians, recognizing that both sides committed atrocities.

I'm not sure if it could be classed as a replacement. Traditional imperialism, with settler colonialism and all that, was still fundamentally tied to the nation-state, and perhaps it's the same now. In any case no, I don't think it works well.

I've been thinking about this some more, and I think that when the US acts as part of a coalition, it would seem to be a pure ideological movement. And spreading democracy is a far cry from colonialism. Again it is just spreading the ideology of freedom.

Do you have any issue with ECOWAS liberating Gambia?

Would you be more ready to liberate other places (like Iran) if it was an ECOWAS-led operation? Or Philippines-led? Or Australian-led?

Maybe we can negotiate a solution.

This is confused on various levels. If war is amoral, what were the Nazis guilty of? — Benkei

Who's confused!? The Nazis - so far as I know - were not prosecuted for war, but for war crimes and crimes against humanity. It is absolutely unfathomable that someone as smart as you - and Netherlander to boot! - fails to make this distinction.

The 1907 The Hague Convention stipulates clearly civilian targets were off limits. — Benkei

You need to figure out what you're thinking - in any case, the issue of civilian targets was not what it became during and after WWI. What we're about is this:

Anyway, the details don't matter so much as long as everybody understands Churchill was a war criminal too. — Benkei

A lawyer (you yes?) says the details don't matter? It's details all the way down, not so? In order to be criminal, you have to commit a crime, yes? What crime did Churchill commit? He presumably signed off on the bombing of cities? Under what law was that a crime, and who was subject to that law? And when and under what circumstances? Given the rightness of his goal (which you grant, yes?), what law constrains his pursuit of the goal? Would it have been nice to not bomb cities? Of course. Was it a nice war? Of course not!

Were the bombings a considered attempt to both shorten and win the war and at the same time achieve a net savings of life? Yes. Or perhaps you would have had sent to Berlin an unarmed London Bobby to arrest the entire German high command.

Was Churchill a hero? I submit he was. He took on, on behalf of the British, the moral burden of the war. Something he could do and did, and that no German or Italian or Japanese either did or could do. (Maybe Hirohito, a conjecture.)

To throw Churchill into the same pot as Stalin and Hitler is grotesque. When a smart man is stupid, though, one must suspect a motive. What's yours?

My motive is that nobody is above the law and that includes Churchill, therefore he's a war criminal. The UK freely submitted itself to the Hague and Geneva Conventions. Pacta sunt servanda. And yes, Truman and Churchill should be thrown in exactly the same pile as Hitler and Stalin - the pile of war criminals. That Hitler and Stalin were worse is no defense of Churchill's action.

And the "details" I was referring to was how bombing worked in WWII, which is irrelevant if we have documented evidence that the decision to bomb Dresden was to attack civilians in hopes of weakening morale and causing an uprising against Hitler.

But you've made it abundantly clear you think he's a hero, which is the same type of moral blindspot neo-nazi's have with regards to Hitler. Hitler was just defending a down trodden nation and people who were unjustly extorted by their neighbours after WWI. Poland had stolen land, the French had stolen land and the reparation pays were devastating. Hitler was a hero! Never mind he gassed millions of Jews because he stood up for his people!

And yes, Truman and Churchill should be thrown in exactly the same pile as Hitler and Stalin - the pile of war criminals. That Hitler and Stalin were worse is no defense of Churchill's action. — Benkei

Just curious, would you include FDR in this list? The war in the Pacific was absolutely brutal and the soldiers and high command for all intents and purposes operated under a "take no prisoners" attitude for much of the war. On the other hand the Japanese were known for fake surrendering.

The Nazis - so far as I know - were not prosecuted for war, but for war crimes and crimes against humanity. — tim wood

Also, lest I forget, a war of aggression is also a war crime. So in fact they were prosecuted for war.

I don't know enough about that part of the war to tell you. I have to look up the rules for POWs again to see if there's any exceptions possible. I can't imagine that you're obligated to take prisoners in the middle of an assault.

Morally I think it would depend if the Japanese fake surrendered first and "take no prisoners" was a reaction to that. I don't see a moral imperative in that scenario to take prisoners if that means seriously risking the lives of US soldiers. If fake surrendering was a reaction to take no prisoners, then I don't see any fault with the Japanese. It also depends on what he knew and what he ordered to do.

If the US disappeared today, the reality is that China and Russia will terrorize the world into submission whilst Europe cowers in a corner. The US is a necessary nuisance and for this reason its imperialism should be maintained, but not accelerated.

The way that POWs were treated on both sides of that conflict would be completely inexcusable in 2020/according to modern conventions. There was just very bad blood on both sides - both sides were fed vicious propaganda about the other and the horrific Japanese treatment of prisoners was well known to the Americans. Only around 60% of Americans survived Japanese captivity.

My point is while the way that the Japanese treated their POWs and captured civilian populations was obviously inexcusable and no one tries to defend that, the way the Americans dealt with the Japanese could quite brutal as well and cannot be justified according to modern standards of morality. I think it's a mistake to try.

If we are to hold our leaders during that time period to modern standards virtually all of them fall gravely short. I'm not entirely sure what the upshot of that is though: Does it mean that they're monsters? How harshly should we judge them?

EDIT: My understanding with the killing of POWs was that it was often just inconvenient/annoying to transport and keep watch over them, not that they were really a threat.

But you've made it abundantly clear you think he's a hero, which is the same type of moral blindspot neo-nazi's have with regards to Hitler.... — Benkei

And how does that work? You border here on the disgusting. What moral blind-spot do I exhibit with attributing to Churchill the kind of heroism I mentioned above, and on what planet or in what deranged sensibility does that equate in any way with any kind of nazism or neo-nazism? In case you cannot tell, I am calling you out. Make your case.

....Hitler was just defending a down trodden nation and people who were unjustly extorted by their neighbours after WWI. Poland had stolen land, the French had stolen land and the reparation pays were devastating. Hitler was a hero! Never mind he gassed millions of Jews because he stood up for his people!

And yes, Truman and Churchill should be thrown in exactly the same pile as Hitler and Stalin - the pile of war criminals. That Hitler and Stalin were worse is no defense of Churchill's action. — Benkei

You do not distinguish between attacker and defender, and the respective truth and lies they told. Can you really not tell the difference between the persons and situations of FDR, Truman, Churchill, v. Hitler and Stalin?

If the US disappeared today, the reality is that China and Russia will terrorize the world into submission whilst Europe cowers in a corner. The US is a necessary nuisance and for this reason its imperialism should be maintained, but not accelerated. — The Opposite

Likely not.

There just is going to be many regional power plays as basically old allies (and rivals) of the US would start shuffling their cards to the new reality. Simply the large vacuum left from retreating Uncle Sam just by momentum has to be filled.

Just like, uh, already is happening in the Middle East. Because let's face it, the last US President that had control of the Middle East was the older George Bush. Getting countries like Syria to be on the side of the US alliance (when Syria had shot down US Navy jets just some years earlier) is a feat a genuine Superpower can pull off. From there it has been downhill. So don't be too melodramatic about it.

Bye bye!

And yes, [***EDIT***] Roosevelt and Churchill should be thrown in exactly the same pile as Hitler and Stalin - the pile of war criminals. That Hitler and Stalin were worse is no defense of Churchill's action. — Benkei

In a response I was writing in another thread I was going to compare Stalin, Churchill, Hitler, and Roosevelt, drawing the conclusion that Hitler was categorically worse than Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt. I changed my mind because I figured that someone like you would say they were all guilty. Which, of course, they were -- just not of the same crimes and not under the same circumstances. I've read about Stalin's various crimes, and can think of several things for which FDR could be found guilty. But Churchill? I'd appreciate your pointing out his crimes. The books I've read and the films I've seen about Churchill were all pretty positive. I admit a bias from insufficient study.

While granting the Big Four were all guilty, I'm not willing to concede that their crimes were all equal. Stalin has crimes to his credit that happened before Operation Barbarossa, and continued after WWII came to an end. What are the major counts against Roosevelt? The Manhattan Project (atomic bomb)? Japanese Internment? What? Churchill?

As for "Joe Biden: Accelerated Liberal Imperialism" hasn't imperialism, liberal or otherwise, been US policy, more or less, since the get go? (Earlier eras of imperialism maybe shouldn't be described as "liberal".)

Imperialism tends to be such a good thing for the imperialists, be they Belgian, Dutch, German, Russian, English, French, Italian, American, Spanish, Japanese or Chinese--whosever--it's hard to imagine potential imperialists foregoing the opportunities. If they could be imperialists, why wouldn't they?

Since the beginning, has any country's leadership ever said: "We could become fabulously rich by taking over and exploiting those shit hole territories over there; but, you know, imperialism is just wrong, and we wouldn't want to become wealthy by doing something that moralists would consider distasteful." ????

I don't think so. (We can exclude countries from consideration that lack/ed the wherewithal to conquer Monaco, let alone seize a large slice of a continent.)

the US almost had the Taliban/Al Qaeda beat in Afghanistan. Withdrawing now could have grave (and melodramatic) consequences. Although it is said Afghanistan is the 'graveyard of empires'...

Withdrawing now could have grave (and melodramatic) consequences — The Opposite

So long as the funding to the ANA is not cut, they should be able to manage with or without international boots on the ground. It would be good if the Afghan Air Force could go to somewhere like Turkey to be trained though, in the absence of foreign trainers in Afghanistan.

It will be interesting to see if the Taliban has increased difficulty getting recruits because they can no longer claim there is a non-Muslim occupier.

I hope that if something goes wrong and the ANA need external assistance again, that the coalition will come back instead of standing idly by watching the Taliban beating women with sticks.

The coalition has already done something miraculous - installed democracy by force of arms in a place that has no history of democracy. There were plenty of people who said that was physically impossible. The hard work has already been done. All that is required now is money to the Afghan government so that they can afford their huge security forces.

Note that the "peace conference" currently taking place in Qatar is a debate between Muslims over what "Islam" even means, and is a very appropriate response to 9/11. There is probably not going to be any agreement and we will have Sunni Muslims fighting Sunni Muslims for the foreseeable future. But thanks to the withdrawal agreement they are verbalizing the debate instead of it just being an obscure military conflict. It is unclear if the Taliban are going to argue for a "right" to hit women with sticks. And actually being willing to die for that "right" is beyond comprehension.

But the "modern" standards of treating POWs existed already in treaties from 1907 and 1929. I'm judging it by the standards of that time. Japan never ratified 1929 Geneva Convention in the treatment of POWs but did say in 1942 it would follow the 1907 Hague rules.

And how does that work? You border here on the disgusting. — tim wood

Exactly. I made my case and you continue to hero worship a war criminal. Just like neo-nazis do with Hitler.

You do not distinguish between attacker and defender, and the respective truth and lies they told. Can you really not tell the difference between the persons and situations of FDR, Truman, Churchill, v. Hitler and Stalin? — tim wood

This is a misrepresentation obviously but requires you to read carefully. I'm not going through the motions again, it's all in my previous posts.

I said before that I subscribe to NATO's ideology of "freedom", but "freedom" is quite vague. Some people think "freedom" is "communist dictator". So I'd like to give my interpretation which I believe matches NATO, in the form of a universal pledge:

"I pledge allegiance to use my brain to fight subjugation of my species - do you?"

In a response I was writing in another thread I was going to compare Stalin, Churchill, Hitler, and Roosevelt, drawing the conclusion that Hitler was categorically worse than Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt. I changed my mind because I figured that someone like you would say they were all guilty. Which, of course, they were -- just not of the same crimes and not under the same circumstances. I've read about Stalin's various crimes, and can think of several things for which FDR could be found guilty. But Churchill? I'd appreciate your pointing out his crimes. The books I've read and the films I've seen about Churchill were all pretty positive. I admit a bias from insufficient study. — Bitter Crank

All guilty but that doesn't make them equally bad. I'm not sure Hitler was categorically worse than Stalin. But that has more to do with the sheer number of deaths Stalin caused and how to weigh that against attempted genocide. Also, as far as I know (and I just googled it) it was Truman who ordered the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which are clear cases of war crimes. Roosevelt was President until april 1945. Roosevelt can join the list though considering his involvement in the Dresden bombing.

The best example of Churchill's war crimes is the Dresden bombing. The internal RAF memo:

“Dresden, the seventh largest city in Germany and not much smaller than Manchester, is also far the largest unbombed built-up the enemy has got. In the midst of winter with refugees pouring westwards and troops to be rested, roofs are at a premium. The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most, behind an already partially collapsed front, to prevent the use of the city in the way of further advance, and incidentally to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do. — RAF

While Dresden had a few weapons factories, there was no attempt at precision bombing but instead they purposefully and indiscriminately attacked civilians. Moreover, the industrial sites and military barracks were outside the city centre. Those and important bridges weren't even targeted (not missed, really not targeted), which gives the lie to the ex post facto defenses of Dresden being a military target. It was already clear the Germans were losing against the Russian advance so the bombing was also unnecessary. Churchill and Roosevelt had already concluded that Stalin would become a problem and this is what informed the "show the Russians" what we can do. Based on The Hague and Geneva conventions the US and UK had signed up to, this was a war crime.

Cartoonish, pretty much everything. Mainly, the idea that Putin is merely a gangster out for himself, bleeding the people dry so he can build more palaces for himself. It's simplistic and a bit ignorant, I think. — jamalrob

You've yet to explain Putin's vast wealth. Please proceed to do so.

The label "cartoonish" is an attempt to fool readers, or perhaps just yourself, that characterizing a claim is equivalent to defeating that claim. Such an effort is fairly labeled "high schoolish", and unsuitable for the owner of a philosophy forum, who one would think might be making an attempt to model the kind of thinking and writing one would like to see more of.

I didn't say that "Putin is merely a gangster out for himself". You said that, and then attributed the claim to me. His regime is bleeding the Russian people dry, and he is building more palaces for himself, but we agree that's not the only thing he's doing. He's invading his neighbors for example, which as best I can tell you've expressed no complaint with.

Here's the core problem of this thread. A number of members wish to present themselves as sophisticated commentators on the geo-political situation, but they don't even know the difference between the good guys and the bad guys, thus rendering all the rest of their blabber without any credibility at all.

This is a common problem in philosophy. Immature thinkers will often feel their value can be measured by how complex and sophisticated their statements are. In time they hopefully learn that the point of this process is to get to the simplest possible bottom line by the shortest path possible.

PLEASE NOTE: I said nothing about perfect guys, as there has never been such a thing and most likely never will be. Good guys and bad guys is a relative concept, as it always is when describing any human beings.

The question is, who is most likely to assist in building peace and freedom, and who is least likely to do so?

America invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, invested huge amounts of money in to the attempt to make these better places, and now we are voluntarily leaving.

Putin invaded Ukraine, is doing nothing to improve what he has stolen, and he ain't leaving until somebody kicks him out.

The failure of so many members of this philosophy forum to grasp the overwhelmingly obvious difference between such good guys and bad guys is truly pathetic. It makes me embarrassed to have invested so much time in such a juvenile operation.

The failure of so many members of this philosophy forum to grasp the overwhelmingly obvious difference between such good guys and bad guys is truly pathetic. It makes me embarrassed to have invested so much time in such a juvenile operation. — Hippyhead

You couldn't stay away though, could you? :rofl:

But you managed it for a week, which is more than I can do, so well done. Now see if you can manage a month, or even a year! I for one will be praying for your success, and I'm not even religious.

Ciao, and good luck!

The failure of so many members of this philosophy forum to grasp the overwhelmingly obvious difference between such good guys and bad guys is truly pathetic. — Hippyhead

Seeing the world in good and bad is the actual philosophical failure here, allowing for no nuance or reflection.

Ok, that's cute, and just another way of obscuring that you can't keep up, on this particular topic. On other topics I've found your commentary interesting and constructive, the "you can't die because you don't exist" thread for example, that was good.

Paul Edwards seems a good example of someone qualified to discuss this particular topic. Paul clearly understands that there are good guys and bad guys, and that the bad guys represent a clear threat to everything we hold dear. Paul is not at all confused about any of this, and the intellectual and moral clarity he demonstrates makes the rest of what he has to say worth considering.

Please note that I've been happy to disagree with Paul on tactical issues (in the Iraq war thread he started), and he has agreeably accepted such challenges and replied with his own. Such debate is entirely constructive. Paul doesn't know an air war against the Iranian regime would work, and I don't know that it wouldn't. So it's good to have opposing notions come in to constructive conflict so that additional light might be shed upon the options. Neither of us are afraid to be challenged.

My point is that it's not possible to have constructive debate with anyone who can't tell the difference between good guys and bad guys. And when when such ignorance is being hard sold by the mod team, the supposed "leaders" of the forum, we are traveling beyond the absurd. To the degree I've attempted to engage in such a ridiculous process, that's my own typoholic disease speaking, which I can blame on no one else of course.

traveling beyond the absurd — Hippyhead

I like it. If I could do that, maybe I wouldn't be here.

Seeing the world in good and bad is the actual philosophical failure here, allowing for no nuance or reflection — Benkei

Plenty of nuance and reflection is possible once one has reached clarity on the bottom line. The problem with your posts is that you offer lots of nuance and reflection etc built upon a foundation of a fundamental confusion. That is, on this particular topic, you are an immature thinker, confusing a big pile of data, nuance and reflection etc with clarity.

If your ego wasn't so wound up in fantasy moral superiority poses you would likely be able to see the simplicity of such clarity. If Saddam moves in next door to you and screams start coming from the house, Saddam is the bad guy, and you are the good guy, the civilized neighbor. And as the good guy you would immediately call the police, knowing as you do that the police are imperfect human beings carrying guns.

Paul gets this. You don't.

When you do get it, you might become an interesting commentator on such subjects.

Paul gets this. You don't. — Hippyhead

Hi Hippyhead. Thanks for the kind words. Like someone else said, we should start a website together. But you haven't responded to my PM.

But the "modern" standards of treating POWs existed already in treaties from 1907 and 1929. I'm judging it by the standards of that time. Japan never ratified 1929 Geneva Convention in the treatment of POWs but did say in 1942 it would follow the 1907 Hague rules. — Benkei

I don't really care about the agreements. I'm talking about the actual treatment of POWs. The "standards of the time" was the actual treatment, not whatever legal standards states happened to sign or whatever standards were outlined in legal documents. I understand that the US and Germany had legitimate POW agreements that were by and large followed, but this was not the case in the Pacific.

The conduct in the Pacific Theater would never, ever fly today.

You've yet to explain Putin's vast wealth. Please proceed to do so. — Hippyhead

Take away eleven zeros and he is just an ordinary man: 1. He will be first ever to take it all with him. 2. His family are big spenders. 3. He plans to give it all back

The subject of foreign intervention and territorial expansion by Russia has come up a few times in this thread, with a few of the usual suspects frothing at the mouth about Putin's evil designs, or some such caricature. But it is an interesting topic in relation to the OP, because what we are seeing is a clash between competing visions of how to do foreign policy, with Western liberals and neocons in favour humanitarian intervention and spreading democracy, against Russian realpolitik.

Kadri Liik of the ECFR explains this from, I think it's fair to say, a basically EU and NATO perspective:

What Russia truly wants in terms of territory is a sphere of control in its neighbourhood – mainly, the six countries that lie between the EU and Russia and comprise what the EU calls its Eastern neighbourhood: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. Moscow expects these countries to be sensitive to Moscow’s wishes; it wants to have the ability to manage, arbitrate, and veto their relations with the West, and to prevent the expansion of Western organisations into that part of the world, based on the assumption that any Western actions there should have Russia’s approval. What Moscow wants to avoid is the emergence of direct links and true closeness between the region’s countries and the West: that is why it bent over backwards in 2013 to prevent the association agreements with the EU from being signed.

And this is where the clash between Russia and Europe becomes fundamental and paradigmatic: it is impossible for the West to grant Russia such a sphere of control. The countries either have the right to choose their own arrangements and alliances, or they do not – there is no space in between, and this is not a question that can be managed with a wise compromise.

However, it is rarely understood that this paradigmatic disagreement extends far beyond this territory. What Russia really wants is a new international order, and new global – or at least European – rules of the game. It wants to do away with many of the basic concepts of what has been called the post-cold war liberal order: the emphasis on human rights, the possibility of regime changes and humanitarian interventions.

[...]

Russia’s view of the new world order that it desires is admittedly neither very developed nor sophisticated. But in essence, Moscow wants the West to give up on its vision of liberal international order and to return to conducting international affairs based on realpolitik. And because of this, the West and Russia are again locked in a conceptual standoff, not unlike that of the Cold War – this time, not over domestic models, but over the international order. — Kadri Liik

https://ecfr.eu/article/commentary_what_does_russia_want_7297/

I no more approve of Russian realpolitik than I do of what I've been calling "liberal imperialism"--between Russia and the West I haven't taken sides and I don't feel compelled to do so--but I think this basic incompatibility of foreign policy aims is useful as a frame.

I think one also has to keep in mind Russia's habitual and well-known defensiveness, otherwise one will never understand that its actions in Ukraine and Crimea are largely a response to the encroachments of NATO and the provocations of the US. This is not to justify those actions, but to understand them.

Incidentally, there's an interesting paper that posits a domestic defensiveness--wielding the concept of defensive realism in international relations--to explain Putin's increasing authoritarianism at home:

During the 17 years that Vladimir Putin has ruled Russia, the country has become increasingly authoritarian. However, I argue that this rollback of democracy has not been motivated by Putin's blind desire to maximize his political power, as many have assumed. Rather, his anti-democratic policies have responded to perceived specific threats to his control. In applying theories originally developed in the field of international relations to individual leaders, we can understand Putin as a “defensive realist” who balances against threats in order to maintain security rather than maximize power. This is an essential distinction that produces important conclusions about what motives lie behind the increasingly authoritarian character of the Russian state and gives insights into the possible future trajectory of the regime. — Robert Person (Associate Professor of International Relations at the United States Military Academy in West Point, New York)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1879366516300239

What Russia truly wants in terms of territory is a sphere of control in its neighbourhood – mainly, the six countries that lie between the EU and Russia and comprise what the EU calls its Eastern neighbourhood: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. — Kadri Liik

This is super interesting. I was thinking about something along these lines today while daydreaming - that I seriously give very little shits about Russia as any kind of major world-level threat because at most - or rather, as it's overriding geopolitical ambition - it seems that they want to just secure their control over the old soviet bloc countries and ensure that they have a direct pipeline for oil into Western Europe without being undercut by intermediaries.

I was thinking in particular about a comparison to China - with Belt and Road making itself felt in every other country in the global south, and Chinese investment flooding the global north, coupled with a massive dispersal of actual Chinese people across the globe in a way that Russia can only dream of - like... Russia is small fry. It has nothing even close to that. The prominence of coverage that it gets over its actions is markedly outsized with respect to its ambition and capacity to actually project power outside a very limited geographic zone to it's west.