This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
something to realize is that modern people have dramatically much less willingness to accept civilian casualties than our great grandparents did. This constraint causes dramatic shifts in how war is fought in strange ways.
I admit that this is mostly secondhand from reading ROEs but like if we fought wars like we did back in the 40s and 50s the outcry's would be insane
The falklands war had the UK basically do everything in a respectable way, and the most controversial incident from my grandfather's perspecictive (RIP) was like "wow this even caused any controversy at all?" When he saw and read about it. To the old people wars are dramatically crazier than modern day wars. Vietnam Veterans I talk to describing the vietnam war show things that I personally consider abhorrent as just "lol that's war".
We (the average american young person) are soft and that's a good thing! (it makes us less willing to accept wars)
I don't think that's necessarily true. If a bad actor knows (or at least perceives) that you are unwilling (or less willing) to go to war, he is more likely to engage in bad behavior against you or your allies.
To be sure, the United States has the luxury of being a large, wealthy country in a very defensible location. But we do (arguably) have interests overseas and there are definitely people who are tempted to interfere with those interests.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think it's about being old or young. The wars of our great-grandparents' day were existential, at least if you were in Europe. And notably the one party in the Iran conflict for whom this stuff is - rightly or wrongly - somewhat existential is Israel and they are ultimately pretty accepting of casualties. Likewise Ukraine.
If you are American of course it's a bit more complicated, but I still think that WW2 was visibly more urgent from an American POV in ways that created greater tolerance for large-scale casualties. Japan attacked the US; and the Nazi regime were very powerful, very dangerous genuine racial supremacists who had taken over France and Poland, presided over mass bombing and mass executions, and had the explicit goal of ethnic cleansing Eastern Europe for German expansion. Putin just isn't in the same league, and neither is Iran.
The war is obviously more existential for Iran than it is for any of the aggressors. The destruction of the Iranian state is a plausible outcome, indeed it may be Netanyahu's goal. And a million excess deaths (mostly due to starvation and disease) is a reasonable estimate of the likely human cost of a failed state in Iran.
To be clear, Iran IS the aggressor -- certainly with respect to Israel. People seem to forget the facts that (1) for many years, Iran has been relentlessly attacking Israel by means of its proxies; (2) Iran's leadership has openly threatened to wipe Israel off the map; and (3) Iran's leadership has prioritized building a nuclear bomb.
I agree that at the moment, Iran has a lot more to lose than Israel or the United States. Probably Iran's leadership should have thought about that before engaging in its aggressive behavior.
Talking smack about an unfriendly country doesn't constitute waging war against them. Building nukes may justify a pre-emptive war as a matter of sound policy, but it doesn't as a matter of international law, and it certainly doesn't make you the aggressor if someone does wage a pre-emptive war against you - as a matter of ordinary English meanings of words, building nukes does not constitute aggression unless they are used.
You have a better case on point (1) - Iran is indeed supporting proxies which are attacking Israel (and indeed committing war crimes against Israeli civilians). But they are not an aggressor here - they skate on two technicalities.
I wasn't aware that you were using the word "aggressor" as a legal term of art. And assuming that the word is in fact such a term, I am extremely skeptical of your claim that proxy attacks do not count.
Please provide cites and links to support your claim. TIA.
Separately, since you have used the phrase "Palestinian Territories," can you please tell me (1) which land areas constitute "Palestinian Territories" (e.g. do they include Ramallah, Gaza City, Hebron, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, etc.); and (2) how those areas came to be "Palestinian Territories"? TIA
It seems extraordinarily obvious that proxies do not count, based on common international practice. Russia isn't nuking NATO over Ukraine, and in Vietnam and Korea the US didn't nuke the USSR or China.
I believe this is just convenience, not because of some iron rule of civilization - if you are aiding one side (even with simply intelligence or war material) then you have violated the duty of neutrality. I'm sure you can marshal many counter-examples in international practice - for instance, Hitler cited US violations of neutrality in his speech declaring war on the United States.
Citing Hitler in international law precedent is kinda iffy, as the modern international order is essentially built on a repudiation of Hitler and Imperial Japan. The starting postulate of modern international law is: "Hitler was bad, don't be Hitler."
See my longer reply below to omw for more detail, but this is a long running position in the American approach to international law and morality, especially illustrated by the two World Wars. The Lusitania was attacked, and that was a national tragedy and an affront to American sovereignty, there's no question that Germany would not have been seen as justified if they attacked a gun works in Missouri. Pearl Harbor was a "day that will live in infamy," it was a bad thing that Japan did that, despite the United States taking explicitly anti-Japanese policy positions in the Pacific prior Pearl Harbor.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In your view, does the US control the Ukrainian military the way that Iran has in the past with Hezbollah?
If you believe that the US does exercise that level of control, if the US ordered the Ukrainian military to start attacking Russian villages, do you believe that Russia would have any justification to retaliate directly against the United States?
Yes, if not more-so, though I think it's better framed as "NATO" or "The Western Bloc" more broadly than just the U.S.A as countries like the UK, France, Poland and Germany have also played important roles in the process. Significant numbers of volunteers/mercenaries from western countries have fought on the Ukrainian side, and no effort has been made to prevent them from transiting to Ukraine. The U.S.A. has provided targeting information, restrained Ukraine from hitting certain targets at certain times and given the green light at others, provided training, and encouraged them to continue fighting. Russia has covertly attempted to hit shipments in Europe, and I'm still not convinced Russia wasn't involved in destroying a Tennessee munitions plant that killed sixteen people, but Russia has stopped short of bombing shipments across the Ukrainian border.
Historically, no, that has not been considered a justification for direct action against a state sponsor. Rumors of Russian arms and intelligence supplied to the Taliban did not lead to strikes against Russia. Chinese "Volunteers" in Korea did not lead to bombing of Red China in the Korean War, nor did we strike against the major Communist bloc nations during Vietnam, nor did the USSR strike America during their own Afghan adventure. The major powers have mostly agreed that they are all allowed to sell weapons and give equipment and information to proxy fighters, even if those proxy fighters are in direct conflict with another major power, without it igniting a major power conflict.
Now, the operative point there doing a lot of heavy lifting is that we're mostly talking about "major powers," and Iran may or may not qualify. Right now Iran is fighting for its sovereignty, trying to avoid becoming a fake country like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, or Lebanon where everyone (USA, Israel, Iran itself) has agreed that everyone can launch limited bombing campaign on occasion without it qualifying as a "war." Sovereignty and the laws of war have degraded, there's a big list of countries that lack the kind of sovereignty where the international community appear to have decided that a limited bombing campaign is allowed whenever another country judges it necessary.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Ultimately wars don't start when the leader of a formerly peaceful nation wakes up and decides to kill some people, they are an escalation of a violent and hostile relationship. If invading Iranian territory and killing its head of state doesn't make A+I the aggressors, probably aggressor/defender is the wrong way to look at this conflict.
For example, if Iran had nuked America six months ago, I think people would call them the aggressor even though America was imposing heavy sanctions i.e. blockades on them, had multiple times threatened/attempted to/historically actually achieved regime change, was attacking them via regional proxies (Israel) and had already bombed them.
Perhaps, but it's pretty clear that if anyone is the "aggressor," it's Iran.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link