Submitted by OceanBreeze246 t3_zv4wjg in worldnews
TheOneEyedWolf t1_j1v1897 wrote
Reply to comment by Happycamper385 in Chinese ships depart after record-long intrusion into Japanese waters by OceanBreeze246
If you look closely my comment did not criticize the USA. It questioned the credulity of the redditor who claimed that the United States held themselves to the standards of international law. Something the United States does not claim to do on an official level. The USA does not believe that they should have to be restrained from acting in their own interests by international law. Maybe they are correct. Many would say that international law is simply a tool of Europe, put in place to enforce post colonial norms in the post WWII world order.
It is easier to believe the comforting lies we tell ourselves than it is to accept complicated truths. This is not criticism - I enjoy comfort as much as anyone. However if it is truth that you after the truth is that first strike wars are illegal according to international law and the Iraq war was illegal. According to that same law anyone who prosecuted that war should be accountable for war crimes - that would include not only George Bush, but Barak Obama, and the leadership of all 49 countries that participated.
Was it the correct action? That is clearly up to debate. Was it “legal” - that answer is no.
Happycamper385 t1_j1vkhfr wrote
Huh ?
I wasn't responding to you I was responding to the person that said you can't criticise The USA here. Which you can do and you are doing.
TheOneEyedWolf t1_j1vm8gy wrote
How am I criticizing the US?
Happycamper385 t1_j1vqwlo wrote
Dude go read the thread I didn't say anything to you I responded to somebody else !
TheOneEyedWolf t1_j1vs82a wrote
You just said that I am criticizing the USA.
Happycamper385 t1_j1vtlm9 wrote
Chubbybellylover888 said:
> You can't criticise the US here. Even if its to criticise an unpopular president. Americans are the best people ever and answer to no one. The USA is the neatest country in the world. All other countries are little whiny babies who are jealous.
And I responded to that by saying: >You can criticise The USA here you are free to make any critique you like. That doesn't mean people will agree with you.
Then you chimed in completely unrelated:
>If you look closely my comment did not criticize the USA. It questioned the credulity of the redditor who claimed that the United States held themselves to the standards of international law. Something the United States does not claim to do on an official level. The USA does not believe that they should have to be restrained from acting in their own interests by international law. Maybe they are correct. Many would say that international law is simply a tool of Europe, put in place to enforce post colonial norms in the post WWII world order.
It is easier to believe the comforting lies we tell ourselves than it is to accept complicated truths. This is not criticism - I enjoy comfort as much as anyone. However if it is truth that you after the truth is that first strike wars are illegal according to international law and the Iraq war was illegal. According to that same law anyone who prosecuted that war should be accountable for war crimes - that would include not only George Bush, but Barak Obama, and the leadership of all 49 countries that participated.
Was it the correct action? That is clearly up to debate. Was it “legal” - that answer is no.
9 year old Reddit account and I'm explaining how Reddit works to you ?
Did you buy your account or something or are you confused and Chubbybellylover888 is your alt account?
Or is this some weird troll ?
TheOneEyedWolf t1_j1vvq8z wrote
Do you really not understand how conversations work? Read your above comment again and see if you can’t follow the thread that connects them. After that look a few steps after where you respond to me saying that I can and did criticize the USA. Which I did not. I merely stated that according to the UN charter, wars of aggression are illegal. The war in Iraq was a war of aggression. The war in Iraq was illegal. If you believe that legality matters and that the USA should be criticized for violating a law that is in you. If you believe that the USA is wrong to hold the position that they are not bound by international law, that is on you.
Of course I see that you weren’t responding to me - but why would that prevent me from clarifying a position further along in a conversation?
Edit: I apologize for asking if you understand how a conversation works. In reflection that was rude of me.
Happycamper385 t1_j1w3p4m wrote
You are correct I misspoke/mistyped here it should actually be:
>Huh ?
I wasn't responding to you I was responding to the person that said you can't criticise The USA here. Which you can do and you they are doing.
But I don't care about the USA or the UN or Iraq I am neither here nor there about anything you said that's why I didn't comment on it. I don't care if you critique the USA or you praise the USA the only thing I do care about is what chubbybellylover888 said which was that you can't criticise The USA here which is not true.
This comment: >"If you look closely my comment did not criticize the USA. It questioned the credulity of the redditor who......"
should have been a reply to this: >Chubbybellylover888:"You can't criticise the US here. Even if its to criticise an unpopular President...."
It shouldn't have been a response to me saying: >You can criticise The USA here you are free to make any critique you like. That doesn't mean people will agree with you.
TheOneEyedWolf t1_j1w497z wrote
I can see how you would interpret the conversation that way.
Happycamper385 t1_j1w8ceo wrote
I'm glad we both now understand each other.
Have a great day !
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments