(February 26, 2022 at 1:22 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(February 26, 2022 at 1:08 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Firstly, it wasn’t a blockade. Second - and more importantly - the US did not invade Cuba (you know, that time). Even though some of his advisors urged an immediate attack on Cuba to destroy the missiles and missile sites, Kennedy opted for the more prudent course.

I find it interesting that you’re excusing Putin for invading a sovereign nation, while excoriating Kennedy for not doing so.

Boru

No, learn to read.

No, I am not excoriating Kennedy.

Yes, Kennedy did not invade as his opening move. but was ready to invade if Russia did not come to terms and withdraw the missiles.   In fact, all invasion forces were full embarked and stood in readiness to sail on 90 minute notice as he sent his brother to talk to Khrushchev’ s embassador.

Yet what he did was against all international law and norm.  Quibbling whether a blockade is a blockade when it interferes with, what’s our favorite term now, freedoms is navigation? Is meaningless.    He may not have invaded yet, but what he did was an act of war against cuba.

But what he did was fully justified, because Soviet nuclear weapons in cuba greatly reduce the credibility of US nuclear deterrence because it makes it plausible for the Soviets to launch a preemptive decapitating strike against Washington DC.    Eliminating that degradation to America’s freedom of action trumps any international law and norm.

The difference between then an now, is then, both US and USSR tried to tone down the temperature, both want to not burn bridges and be able to negotiate and deal with each other afterwards.   The Soviets could have done what the US is doing now in an effort to make Russia look bad for defending her core interest.   They could have dared us to invade a sovereign cuba, and the made propaganda hay out of it after we do, and leave the nuclear weapons to the Cubans to make it really bloody for us.  They didn’t.

So Noblesse oblige, we offered to not make them look bad by pulling out of cuba, by also pulling strategic nuclear weapons out of Turkey.

That’s how civilized adversaries conduct business.

Since the end of Cold War, especially since 2001, face it, we are the crude brutal savages of the world, who think who owe nothing to any one whom we do not approve.   We fabricate excuses to invade other countries, think we are so tough we can trample major power’s core interests at will.

It’s not a quibble, it’s an important legal distinction. A blockade is an act of war, because it prevents ALL trade. A quarantine (which is what Kennedy did) is targeted to specifics, in this case was military matériel. Not only is a quarantine not an act of war, it isn’t even illegal.

Boru

(February 26, 2022 at 12:23 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(February 26, 2022 at 11:07 am)Deesse23 Wrote: Is that all you have? Or do you have actual arguments as to why invading a sovereign state is a-ok, under some very specific conditions, or for very special people?

Like if it weren’t ok that means Russia would be worse than the US?  We Who made up bullshit to invent the necessity of invading Iraq?

But as it were real Necessity does trump OKness.   A nuclear state intending to maintain its ability  to pursue independent foreign policy has the necessity of protecting the credibility of nuclear arsenal.   That is a ground reality that trumps any arbitrary perception of OKness.   Ask why Kennedy thought it was ok to prepare to invade cuba if the Soviets didn’t move nuclear weapons out of three?  Cuba was a sovereign state too and Cubans wanted them there, wanted them more than the Soviets did. 

You might as well ask if it is ok for gravity to pull a falling virtuous person, virtuous in your eyes but perhaps not in eyes of other by the way, to his death. 

It is not as if Russia was closed to any other means to address this this necessity short of an invasion.   

They made their concern clear, and it wasn’t for the first time when they did so in the immediate month before this invasion,    It was we who willfully closed off every option short of war because it would look bad for NATO, and we though there is an off chance that Russia might back down and thus stop being able to pursue an independent foreign policy, which is what we wanted all along.     We did those knowing this will leave war and invasion Russia’s only real option other than giving up its ability to conduct independent foreign policy.

We basically treated Ukraine as an expendable pawn to see if we can use it to largely eliminate the credibility of Russia’s land based nuclear deterrence and with it Russia’s ability to act as an international play not susceptible to our nuclear blackmail.

We are now alternating between whining and rage because they were not susceptible to our blackmail.

This is exactly the answer i expected. No, literally no, argument why what Putin did was not to be condemned, but a bunch of apologetic BS and whataboutism.

Iraq, Kennedy, Cuba, someone being  a nuclear power, and ultimately the color of my pants are completely irrelevant to the point of "at what point should it be legal under international law to invate another sovcereign state"?

---

(February 26, 2022 at 1:22 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Since the end of Cold War, especially since 2001, face it, we are the crude brutal savages of the world, who think who owe nothing to any one whom we do not approve.   We fabricate excuses to invade other countries, think we are so tough we can trample major power’s core interests at will.

...which is utterly irrelevant to the invasion of the Ukraine, like literally everything you said in order to defend your position.

when a another power adopts a position that threaten a nuclear power’s nuclear deterrence, and will not change it for reasons short of war, then there is no longer an issue of whether it is ok to invade it.   it will be invaded.

International law overreaches itself it it thinks it could second guess actions to meet genuine necessities of a major power trying to preserve its existent ability to pursue independent foreign policy,   just as criminal law would overreach itself it it criminalizes gravity for pulling people to their deaths.

genuine national core security interests is not legislated in courts of law.  it is protected through negotiation, horse trading, and war.

we willfully closed off negotiation abs horse trading routes, so there is now war.

(February 26, 2022 at 1:56 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: International law overreaches itself it it thinks it could second guess actions to meet genuine necessities of a major power trying to preserve its existent ability to pursue independent foreign policy,   just as criminal law would overreach itself it it criminalizes gravity for pulling people to their deaths.

You just equivocated a force of nature (gravity) with the "necessities of a major power".
Let that sink in....

But thanks for making clear that you think international law does not apply to "major powers". But why all this back and forth just to admit that you think "might makes right"?

No, international law does not apply to existential necessities of any power,  not just the great powers.   only relative strength, negotiation, horse trading and war applies.    


sorry to burst your bubble, but when someone brings up international law in circumstances where a major power’s core existential interests are really threatened, there are two possible reasons:

1.  he is a naive delusional fool
2.  he has no interest whatsoever in really solving the problem and doesn’t mind if there is war


It is not might makes right.   It is necessities of survival makes right.     Don’t get in people’s way if he is going there to ensure his own survival, unless you think you can kill him. 

We have a vague notion that as the lone superpower we can kill anyone, even though we did rather badly when put to the test.     so we got in Russia’s way as she acted to keep Ukraine out of NATO,  now we are apoplectic because russia failed to keel over and die.

(February 26, 2022 at 2:31 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: No, international does not apply to existential necessities of any power,  not just the great powers.   only relative strength, negotiation, horse trading and war applies.    


sorry to burst your bubble, but when someone brings up international law in circumstances where a major power’s core existential interests are really threatened, there are two possible reasons:
1.  he is naive delusional fool
2.  he has no interest whatsoever in really solving the problem and doesn’t mind if there is war


It is not might makes right.   It is necessities of survival makes right.     Don’t get in people’s way if he is going there to ensure his own survival, unless you think you can kill him. 

We have a vague notion that as the lone superpower we can kill anyone, even though we did rather badly when put to the test.     so we got in Russia’s way to keep Ukraine out of NATO,  now we are apoplectic because russia failed to keel over and die.

(February 26, 2022 at 1:39 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(February 26, 2022 at 1:37 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: It must be amazing to be so impressed with yourself.

I always thought I was just a average Joe until I realized how much you guys all sucked compared to me

Well that explains why I think you are a self-important jerk.

(February 26, 2022 at 2:45 pm)arewethereyet Wrote:

(February 26, 2022 at 1:39 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: I always thought I was just a average Joe until I realized how much you guys all sucked compared to me

Well that explains why I think you are a self-important jerk.

I only seem important because you are so unimportant compared to me.   But trust me, I am not important at all in grand scheme of things, and I say so from the perspective of a very self important jerk.

Tell me how do Putin's balls taste 

(February 26, 2022 at 2:55 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: a very self important jerk.

...sitting behind the safety of his desk, somewhere in the US, telling why some people halfway across the globe should just shrug off to be invaded by a criminal and be complacent to be led by a puppet regime. A guy who is probably enjoying all the advantages of law and order, including free elections, telling some random Europeans why he thinks it aok for their right to vote to be taken away in the name of "necessities of a major power".