What people forget is that the majority of the nations on this planet and the majority of people on this planet do not live in societies even remotely free. Since the founding of the nation state, the vast majority of human history has been a story of dictatorship with intermittent periods of freedom. For anyone that even does a cursory study of history with emphasis on government form and actions taken to control the populace, this is basic information and none of what is happening today is a surprise. Governments always end up becoming bloated bureaucracies that then overreach and clamp down on the populace. This has happened to every free nation in history; if it wasn't destroyed by a barbarian invasion first. There is a reason why America's founding fathers created the Bill of Rights and especially the Second Amendment; with out it, freedom is nothing more than an illusion. Obama often complains about how much the Constitution constricts his actions.
Noam Chomsky once said that every U.S. president since the 80s have been in effect war criminals, and if they were given a fair trial would face life in jail. Obama's use of UAVs is nothing short of criminal, and this is an action directly against almost every international agreement.
The whole idea of the 'war criminal' was nothing more than a way to make a public spectacle of German leadership after WWII. They were never actually put on trial for the real atrocities of the Second World War; the 'war criminal' was just the guy that lost. It took decades before they began trying people for the Holocaust, and only after Eichmann was brought to justice in Israel. There really is no such thing as a 'war criminal', in my opinion. Frankly, I think the utopian idea of war without atrocity is why we are incapable of winning wars anymore. That requires its own thread to explain, however.
I've lived in the US for some time, and also a few other countries too. What surprised me most about what I saw in America (and, by extension, what I often see online) is how Americans have an inherent distrust and aversion to government or federal control over, well, pretty much anything. I understand why though, I am also a student of US history, the political and social development of the country, and the role of states, and the things that the settlers were escaping. All of these things lead to this perception, and taking all that into account, it's quite understandable why Americans feel the way they do about their notion of "freedom". However, that species of freedom, defined by a lack of government control/intervention/involvement is a predominantly American notion, and borne from that distrust of government that American history has engendered. Other peoples, my own included, as well as other countries where I've lived, do not have that same distrust in government. Maybe because they have a different kind of distrust, or maybe the distrust is not as acute. Because of this the notion of "freedom" is a bit different. Often, too, freedom may be subservient to other values, like say, accountability or stability. It may not mean there is no freedom, but freedom may have a different meaning. I only say this to bring attention to the fact that words like "freedom" need to be viewed in a variety of senses, and that it often has different meanings to different people. NB: A great comparative study between my own country and the US which explores this issue is Freedom and Fairness by David Fischer [http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-02-17/entertainment/35445751_1_british-folkways-fairness-societies6] for anyone interested.
It's like when people say things like 'there are rules of war', as if modern warfare is this honorable, knightly, chivalric thing. Despite the fact that landmines are still used, and civilians are still targeted for casual bombing just to reduce the moral of the enemy. I always can't help but think something like 'Have you been living on this planet?' As you say, the one in the right is the one who wins. That's always been the case, throughout history.
I understand your point (especially in your second para), but respectfully disagree. War criminals are those who breach universally agreed upon rules, which are designed - in theory - to reduce suffering in times of war. No one really believes that they will be complied with all the time, of course not. We have no world police. But enforcement of law should not be equated with law itself. War crimes are a legal standard, and they are enforceable because no side wants their POWs massacred by the other side. So, in a time where there is a little less urgency, countries said "ok, we won't do that, because none of us want that". It's about reciprocity. Most of the time, it is complied with. Like plane crashes: we only hear about when it isn't complied with, and then we hear it over, and over, even though its the exception (especially when it's the US who breaches it). And yes, victors justice is a big problem. We we will never see Bush or Cheney in front of a tribunal, and in one sense that is unjust, but that is one case of many (and from a legal stand point, its also a highly complicated case that is far from clear-cut). The Yugoslavian War Crimes Tribunal has heard cases and made war criminals of Bosnians and Serbs and Croats alike. The Rwandan Tribunal too, has hit participants on both sides of the war. Nuremberg, an excellent example, was the first, and it was a pretty shaky start. It was one sided, absolutely. We've moved on. We learn from our mistakes, and continue, slowly, to do so. No system is perfect and we can always do better... I hope I'm not thread-jacking here
To be clear, I'm Canadian with neo-libertarian leanings tempered by my support for conservationism. Regardless, I use freedom in the democratic sense, not the American sense. While I certainly prefer American freedom (though not their style of government), I classify a 'free' country as a nation with universal suffrage and a 'not free' country as one without. Even using this liberal interpretation, free countries are still the minority today. Prior to universal suffrage, I base it on the Roman Republic as a bare minimum. And contrary to popular belief today, that was not very free.
Sorry, I wasn't suggested you were American, I was just making a general observation after you used Obama as an example. I think we differ in our interpretation of freedom; I tend to use the Rawlsian concept, rather than a test of characteristics of a political system, but thanks for clarifying.
From what I've read, Rawlsian is a principle of Justice, not freedom. The two don't have to go together. A free system is not necessarily a just one, and a just system is not necessarily a free one. The difference is, one only exists in theory. Rawl even admitted that his system of justice was entirely hypothetical.
That's an amazing concept. Very British - "Let right be done." How do you describe 'right'? How do you measure 'victory? Would you say the US won the latest Iraq war? Ar they winning in Afghanistan? Is it a case of just toppling the existing govt/leader or is it leaving a company in peace. What exactly is 'winning' a war?
The right is just who wins by default, since the loser cannot speak (because they are dead) they are 'wrong'. Does this make, say, the Roman in the right because they bested Gaul? No, of course not, neither was right and wrong, and Rome's 'civilizing' is now being exposed for the shallow pandering to pretense that it actually was. A quick reading of history has shown that the winner gets to decide what's right, and if you don't think this you are either not a student of history or an idiot. I don't think 'right' and 'wrong' are objective anyway, but I suspect that's too ... metaphysical for this point of time. How do I measure victory, when someone loses the other doesn't. The one that doesn't lose is the one who wins. That is the definition of a victory the last time I checked. I think you have my post by the wrong end, and need to re-read that post again. I don't think you understand what I was actually saying. Edit: I'd say the US won the Iraq war, and only made things marginally better by removing a mass murderer. Didn't do a lot since they put in place a rather puppet government that still has major problems, but with a country acting as the United States has been doing you expect everything to be so much better or so much worse? No, of course not, they'll act in their own self interest. The coalition ripped that country apart and then only gave them the foundations, and it's pretty telling how the Iraqi Communist party hasn't had much of a voice despite a huge amount of support, bet you didn't hear about those guys. And what about the people of Kurdistan? They got nothing for helping the allies, it's a disgrace. I suspect, though, by the US's own plans they are 'winning' though what exactly this means I don't really know. What exactly is winning a war? It's a very good question, I don't know, and I don't happen to think their are rules in barbarity. Why did you bring up Iraq? Forgive me I was just taken aback by that.
Unless your 'winners' totally annihilate a whole population I would say there are lots of people left to speak up. Being dead doesn't make you 'wrong'. I totally agree that history is written by the victor so your 'idiot' remarks are unhelpful. You brought it up That's ok for a football match, not an International conflict. As has been said here many times, it is up to skill of the writer to ensure his point is cohesive and understandable. Really don't wish to go off topic and discuss the workings of any particular War They basically own the country so yeah they probably won that battle. Did they win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people or even those of the rest of us, I doubt it. They certainly didn't win mine. I'm trying to think of any instance where a war was 'won'. When a country was actually liberated without adverse repercussions on those freed. Anybody? The post had nothing at all to do with Iraq, just using it as a recent example that's still fresh in the memory if not ongoing.
My 'being dead' thing was just to say the losers are never heard over the yelling and shouting and parading of the victors. And history is often rewritten. For example, if it wasn't for archaeology we wouldn't know very much about peoples like the Gauls, or the Britanni at the time of Roman conquest outside of Roman sources (at least, I'm unaware of any writings left by them, but I'm not interested in checking at the moment, that's not my point). We don't have much, if anything, from the Aztec's side of the Spanish conquest aside from mostly very bigoted and subjective Spanish accounts. Sure there are descendants of the Aztecs left but they've only just began to speak out, and if there is one thing people are good at it is rewriting history. This is why we need to study it. I wasn't calling you directly an idiot, it was a general comment. Please don't take it as antagonistic, I honestly didn't mean it that way. Yes. I did. I agree with you in practice but not in theory, but the second part of the quoted post, post-edit explains why. Well, the meaning was clear in the context of the conversation. You didn't quote the whole post as I had the words 'As you say,' before that, referring to another users post about the Allies branding of the German higher command being sentenced for 'War-Crimes' was mostly for show as the allies also perpetrated terrible war crimes. What you did is called 'quote-mining', and it's a logical fallacy. Fair enough. Nor mine. I don't think they care all that much about our two opinions either. From your tone it seems you think I support pro-western influences on the middle east, countries that can't even uphold the ideals on which they are based. People in glass houses and all that - yes I'm calling the US and UK hypocritical. Just because I happen to not be a pacifist doesn't mean I'm in favor of all wars. If you can assimilate a point as simple as that, and you appear intelligent enough to do that, then my own position should appear not worlds away from your own. I can't think of one if we just go off a better/worse dichotomy. I've said elsewhere that I don't think life is as simple as 'better vs. worse'. I find this style of thinking extremely reductionist to be honest. If not ahistorical. Ah, fair enough.
Thanks for posting the links, erebh. I had not known about the facebook shadow accounts, although I am glad I never gave them permission to access my contacts from my email.
Like they need permission for anything... Google's motto - Don't do evil. MS's, - Your privacy is our priority Apple's - More power, thinly disguised Facebook's - Move fast and break things they're definitely laughing at us...
The fact that companies are storing your info doesn't bother me as much. By using their site or services, you are consenting to all that. But it's different when it comes to the government. They are collecting and analyzing your data without your consent, and there's no way you can back out of it.
I just made that point on a different thread that's getting confused with this one. Amazon knowing I just bought an external hard drive is no harm and I didn't mind this morning when they offered me a case for it at half price. By buying that from them I am volunteering info. Facebook building shadow profiles and actually trawling the web looking for info on me to compile a comprehensive profile is scary - US govt I worse again.
