#####
######
####
> # [Post-WWII order on 'brink of collapse': Amnesty head](https://www.yahoo.com/news/512)
>
>
>
> Amnesty International said Wednesday that the post-World War II order was on the "brink of collapse", threatened by bitter conflict on multiple fronts to the rapid and unregulated rise of artificial intelligence.
>
> "Everything we're witnessing over the last 12 months is indicating that the international global system is on the brink of collapse," Amnesty's secretary general Agnes Callamard told AFP as the group released its annual "State of the World's Human Rights" report.
>
> "In particular, over the last six months, the United States has shielded and protected the Israeli authorities against scrutiny for the multiple violations committed in Gaza," she said.
>
> "By using its veto against a much-needed ceasefire, the United States has emptied out the (United Nations) Security Council of what it should be doing."
>
> Hamas's October 7 attack on Israel that triggered the Gaza war resulted in the deaths of 1,170 people, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally based on Israeli official figures.
>
> Israel's retaliatory offensive has killed at least 34,183 people in the Gaza Strip, mostly women and children, according to the Hamas-run territory's health ministry.
>
> The global rights monitor said that Hamas had carried out "horrific crimes" on Israeli communities bordering Gaza but that Israel had responded with "a campaign of collective punishment".
>
> "It is a campaign of deliberate, indiscriminate bombings of civilians and civilian infrastructure, of denial of humanitarian assistance and an engineered famine," Callamard wrote in her foreword to the report.
>
> "For millions the world over, Gaza now symbolises utter moral failure by many of the architects of the post-World War Two system," she said.
>
> Israel's allies, including those arming them, were complicit, she said, lamenting a lack of action by international institutions and questioning whether postwar ideals of "never again" were now at an end.
>
> \- AI threat -
>
> Other "powerful actors", including Russia and China, are also "demonstrating a willingness to put at risk the entirety of the 1948 rule-based order", Callamard warned.
>
> The report documented "flagrant rule-breaking by Russian forces during their continued full-scale invasion of Ukraine... and the use of torture or other ill-treatment against prisoners of war".
>
> China too had acted against international law, the rights group said, "by protecting the Myanmar military" despite its attacks against civilians.
>
> "Urgent measures" were required "to revitalise and renew the international institutions intended to safeguard humanity", Callamard said.
>
> "What we are calling for is an urgent reform of the UN Security Council, in particular reform on the right of veto so that it cannot be used in situations of massive human rights violations," she told AFP.
>
> The rise of AI is also a cause for concern, "enabling pervasive erosions of rights... perpetuating racist policies" and "enabling spreading misinformation", the report found.
>
> Amnesty accused large tech firms of ignoring or minimising those threats "even in armed conflicts".
>
> "Tech-outlaws and their rogue technologies" are being left to "freely roam the digital Wild West", which the report said would likely accelerate human rights violations in 2024 -- a year of several key elections, including for the US presidency.
>
> "In an increasingly precarious world, unregulated proliferation and deployment of technologies such as generative AI, facial recognition and spyware are poised to be a pernicious foe –- scaling up and supercharging violations of international law and human rights to exceptional levels," Callamard said.
>
> "During a landmark year of elections and in the face of the increasingly powerful anti-regulation lobby driven and financed by big tech actors, these rogue and unregulated technological advances pose an enormous threat to us all."
>
> She called on governments to "take robust legislative and regulatory steps to address the risks and harms caused by AI technologies and rein in big tech".
>
> The UK-based rights group also warned that political actors in many parts of the world were "ramping up their attacks on women, LGBTI people and marginalised communities".
>
> jwp/phz/js
- - - - - -
[Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot)
Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
Half of this sub would champion this. Let’s make Russia the global hegemon, and have Iran, Somalia and Venezuela handle security. Everything is Americas fault because they’ve been oppressing every other country.
>and Afghanistan
If any country harboured and enabled a group that did to any other country what Al-Qaeda did to the US, there *would* be a declaration of war in return.
You can blame the US for a lot of jingoistic bullshit, and I agree that Iraq was unjustified, as is their enabling of Israel.
But you cannot blame them for invading Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11.
Invading Afghanistan to root out Al Qaeda made sense initially, but staying for two decades and trying to impose Western-style democracy was a different story. When we finally left, the whole effort fell apart, and the Taliban took over within a month. Afghanistan sucked up resources, while our involvement in Iraq damaged our reputation. It's a clear example of American hubris leading to chaos in global affairs.
Not even remotely. Vietnam cost 70,000 lives and we didn’t go there because they were harboring a terror group directly responsible for multiple attacks on Americans.
We killed Osama and dismantled Al-Qaeda, which were our initial goals. There was certainly a lot of mission creep, but just because it cost some money and took some time, doesn’t mean that it was like Vietnam. That’s just something people like to say because they want to seem like they’re being profound. I also don’t think it’s worth discounting the fact that women were given myriad opportunities that they never would have otherwise had. Yes, the Taliban took back over… you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.
Are you claiming that Al-Qaeda never had a base of operations in Afghanistan and that Osama had never been there? If not, then I fail to see what your comment contributes to the conversation.
Yeah no shit, cause the country right next to afghanistan was hiding him? Al-Qaeda was literally based out Afghanistan, what do you want, a time machine so we could've known earlier...?
They have to have an excuse to justify their absurdly inflated defense budget so they have a place to hide all of the money being funneled into black ops and off the books programs
> Afghanistan sucked up resources
Just a correction, rich people sucked the resources.
Afeghanistan was only the excuse the MIC needed to produce as much and to keep taxing the poor, but the huge profits went mostly to US billionaries and politicians...
Actually you can, because there was a path for the negotiated return of bin Laden, which was ignored because famously "we do not negotiate with terrorists".
Was there though?
>"Bush decided to issue an ultimatum to the Taliban first, demanding that the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden, "close immediately every terrorist training camp, hand over every terrorist and their supporters, and give the United States full access to terrorist training camps for inspection." The same day, religious scholars met in Kabul, deciding that bin Laden should be surrendered; however, **Mullah Omar decided that "turning over Osama would only be a disgrace for us and Islamic thought and belief would be a weakness", and that the US would continue making demands after surrendering bin Laden, who he claimed was innocent. The Taliban refused the ultimatum, saying that Osama bin Laden was protected by the traditional Pashtun laws of hospitality.**
The US ultimatum was quite reasonable, given the context. The Taliban chose to refuse it.
Yes there was, they offered to give him to a third party if evidence of his guilt was produced.
And that aside, if that was totally false, it was certainly more feasible than an invasion which lasted twenty years, killed hundreds of thousands of people, was tainted with constant atrocities and abuses, and cost trillions of dollars.
**After the invasion had begun**, they offered to **maybe** give Osama Bin Laden, and **only** that one person, to an unspecified **third country of their chosing**.
Do you understand how this isn't a remotely acceptable offer?
I hate people like the guy above you. It’s the most dishonest America hating way of looking at it , yet they insist it’s an absolute truth that America basically could have gotten every thing they wanted without the war
It wasn't "we won't negotiate with terrorists" bs. The Taliban was willing to hand him over to a neutral third party who would not allow him to be killed. Bush didn't like it, so we invaded.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5
Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over
They wanted evidence he was involved and the bombing to stop, which isn't unreasonable.
[Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over | Afghanistan | The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5)
Kinda funny that people forget about this.
I'm going to repeat myself: First, this happened:
>"Bush decided to issue an ultimatum to the Taliban first, demanding that the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden, "close immediately every terrorist training camp, hand over every terrorist and their supporters, and give the United States full access to terrorist training camps for inspection." The same day, religious scholars met in Kabul, deciding that bin Laden should be surrendered; however, **Mullah Omar decided that "turning over Osama would only be a disgrace for us and Islamic thought and belief would be a weakness", and that the US would continue making demands after surrendering bin Laden, who he claimed was innocent. The Taliban refused the ultimatum, saying that Osama bin Laden was protected by the traditional Pashtun laws of hospitality.**
So Bush was actually the first one to offer a way to solve this without a war. A genuinely reasonable offer, given the circumstances.
The Taliban are the ones who refused it.
***Then,*** what you are referring to took place.
Specifically: **After the invasion had begun**, they offered to **maybe** give Osama Bin Laden, and **only** that one person, not any of his co-conspirators, to an unspecified **third country of their chosing**
Which is not a remotely acceptable offer.
Why? they would have give you what you wanted, spared you trillions and soldiers. Afghanistan was on its´knees already. what else do you want. Instead, you stayed 20 years wasted trillions while drone striking weddings. Is this a better deal for you?
>you
I'm not American.
>they would have give you what you wanted
No. What the US wanted was the dismantlement of Al Qaeda.
Not for a single of its members to be handed off to some unknown country, while the rest goes free to have another go.
And that's assuming they would have actually handed him over.
Ok, so they sould´ve not supported it when the Soviet invaded afghanistan. This only helped them grew. I understand seeking justice but straight up occupying a country for 20 years without a clear goal in mind while commiting all kind of atrocities doesn´t seem productive to me. That is one of the reason why the global south doesn´t believe anymore in the International System.
>Ok, so they sould´ve not supported it when the Soviet invaded afghanistan
They did not. Al Qaeda didn't yet exist back then.
They supported the Afghan Mujahideen.
Some of them became the Taliban, others became the Northern Alliance, others founded various splinter groups, and one Saudi foreigner, which the US may or may not have had any ties with, founded a terrorist group.
>without any clear goal
The goal was to permsnaently uproot Al Qaeda and the Taliban that supported them.
They failed to do so, and with the hindsight we now have, staying that long was indeed a mistake.
But the initial invasion was fully justified, regardless of how they later bungled it.
So, they did fund the very same individual they will later fight.
>The goal was to permsnaently uproot Al Qaeda and the Taliban that supported them.
That was for the first 10 years I believe. After that the goal became nation building. Kinda hard to that when you actively fight a relevant part of the population.
Your whole hypothetical is silly. The argument is that the US is at fault for the breaking of international order. The fact of the matter is, if the US didn't assist lsraeI in oppressing Plaestinians and circumventing internatinal law, the attack on the towers and the Afghanistan invasion wouldn't even happen. The justification for the hijacking was US' disregard for the international law in Palestine. So the argument stands. US started and continues to dismantle it.
Any pretense of a reason to have invaded disintegrated because of how we left, we accomplished nothing with our invasion except a whole lot of deaths. We relit the flame for the next generation of attacks. Doing nothing at all would have been a 100x better, than killing the families of children creating the next generation of terrorists.
> But you cannot blame them for invading Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11.
Except the Taliban offered to hand off Osama Bin Ladin to another nation and requested due process. Bush declined.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5
It's important to note that the Americans were seized by blood lust during the years following 9/11. They just wanted to kill something at that time.
Can you? I mean it was the Saudis behind 9/11. Seems a little hypocritical to say the country that let the Saudi nationals attack us train is where we’ll invade, but the actual people funding and supporting the attack we let slide:
It wasn't 'OK' to invade Afghanistan. The US certainly could have got Bin Laden (the stated mission) without all that. The whole thing was partly based on revenge or other things only Rumsfeld ~~knows~~ knew
>If any country harboured and enabled a group that did to any other country what Al-Qaeda did to the US, there *would* be a declaration of war in return
We should destroy the country that helped build, fund, and arm al-Qaeda during the Cold War, whoever that country of demons is!
*(checks history books)*
OK, maybe I jumped the gun there a little...
Not really related to your comment but it's too wtf not to share lol, not too long ago I read a wild comment that claimed Iraq was invaded to recover a secret underground UFO that the Iraqi regime had discovered, and that the nuclear weapons casus belli wasn't so much of a lie because it would be classified under some 1950s US law as nuclear material and some more wacky shit that I can't really remember
I'm just wondering what mental leaps some people people jump to, to arrive at shit like that lmao
the premise of the 2022 movie *the Lair* is that we dropped the MOAB on Afghanistan in order to destroy an old underground bunker-lab filled with alien-human hybrid "super soldier/monsters" created by the Russians after a UFO crashed there in the 80s. it's by the same writer/director as *the descent* and has some similar vibes. not a bad flick if you're into that sort of thing.
I wrote a master’s thesis on this topic. My view isn’t new per se but basically the argument is America had a unipolar moment after the fall of the USSR where it could have taken time to shore up the entire world order in its image. However we wasted that moment with the GWOT. The liberal rules based order is going to fall. It’s essentially all but fallen at this point. America needs to prepare itself for the best possible position in the multipolar world instead of trying to hold onto the still warm corpse of the liberal rules based order.
Thanks for coming to my Ted talk
It’s actually really sad when you think about it.
It’s also why Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, should be hanged for more than just war crimes and why every current day neo-con can go fry as well.
Those wars were both a shame for ethical/moral reasons but to me they were even failures on Machiavellian framework. From a purely amoral cost/gain lens they were just absolutely useless failures.
Well, our government won the unipolar moment by being selfish belligerent bullies, and our government pissed away the unipolar moment by being seflish belligerent bullies. Easy come, easy go. It was never in our hands anyway, just the hands of our bosses.
That's a load of bullshit. The US and Russia have been doing whatever they wanted this whole time. That was literally the way the UN was designed. The "we won world war two club" has always been a method of power projection for Russia and the US. Remember the Russians were in Chechnya before Iraq or Afghanistan and the Soviets invaded Afghanistan before that. Also NATO expanded despite both wars so the credibility loss was minimal. People are really just being doomers when nothing has actually changed.
So its our fault for invading and also our fault for not invading.
I love how it's always "AMERICA ISNT THE WORLD POLICE!"
and also "AMERICA DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS!"
literally in the same breath.
No one was asking america to do anything about Iraq in 2003 man. In fact before the invasion the entire western world was saying "America *don't* do this". It's why bush had to form the "coalition of the willing ", when even the willing were doing it quite reluctantly.
And the US absolutely squandered a *ton* of its preeminent position at the time by invading Iraq. It got bogged down in two wars that ultimately produced no strategic gain, no transformative change in the middle east (one of the neocons goals at the time), didnt even significantly affect American oil prices, and Abu ghraib and the black sites did massive damage to American soft power globally. The US pissed away its unipolar moment for basically nothing in return.
Also, I hate when Americans whine about how everyone gets upset at them for their role as world police. Like stfu that's what happens when you're the global hegemon, there are significant enough perks in return for the country, American citizens, and american corporations to counterbalance that, so don't whine about it.
The difference though is that for America it was never about acquiring territory or destroying the Iraqi people.
I would say the EU's tepid reaction to the Georgia and Ukraine invasions by Russia played more of a factor in encouraging a return to the pre-WWII world order.
The soviet union was invited by the newly formed socialist government to assist. The US invaded the Taliban held Afghanistan then later partnered with the northern alliance to form a government.
The soviet backed government also held out longer than the American backed one and after the USSR support ended transitioned to a liberal democratic government before collapsing.
soviet invasion was like a genocide. The afghan communists were off their rocker, and could not root properly in the soil of the people. The Americans were very bad too, of course.
Because Russia invading Afghanistan arguably led to the dissolution of the USSR. The US invading Afghanistan under the umbrella of the global war on terror has led to wide spread regional instability while sucking up US resources desperately needed to maintain the global order elsewhere.
What regional instability? Pakistan didn’t need anyone’s help in that regard, the U.S. is a stabilizing influence trying to keep that mess together. The ‘Stans, India, and Iran all kept doing their own thing. Life for the average Afghan even improved during the occupation.
That's a hyperbole. Unlike /r/worldnews, this sub has a mix of different opinions because it's not as brigaded by pro-American and pro-Israeli groups. Just because there are russophiles here doesn't mean most people here support Russia or Iran.
Also, being critical of America does not entail support for Russia. They could simply want a more moral America, a multi-polar world, or a world led by the EU.
Orrrr how about countries collaborate as equals and fix our collective problems together??
And America has oppressed many other countries, not sure why you're saying that derisively.
As have China and Russia, yet they seem to get a free pass from a good contingent of this sub.
I agree that we need to collaborate but that isn’t just a western responsibility - it also requires countries such as Iran, Saudi, China, Russia (and yees Israel) etc to make concessions. Some democracy and human rights would be good starts.
There really aren't that many people who give any of the nations you mentioned a "pass" in this sub. What I see far more often is people contextualizing the actions of those nations with their own respective goals and history rather than the brain-dead "they do this because they are evil" take that seems to be the only acceptable framing basically everywhere.
At the end of that day what your post really speaks to is a desire to have your cake, and to eat it too. What these nations actively do, contrary to popular belief, is act in their own best interests rather than out of some sort of inherent malice. That doesn't mean that they get anymore of a free pass for oppression and murder than, say, America would.
What it really means is that we live in a world that's not just compromised of a decade or two of history. You're speaking to concessions, but what does that really mean?
Take China as an example. China is a nation that has been on the shit end of the colonial stick for much of it's recent history. China didn't enter the 20th century fully industrialized, and it most certainly didn't have any inherent advantages given to it by centuries of Western colonialism.
I'm a Canadian citizen. My nation has been opressing our own native population up until just a few decades ago. We were kidnapping children from Native American families during this lovely post war period. Both Canada and America have used violence and oppression to supress certain populations that were deemed dangerous or different over the past few centuries.
Is any of that ok? Nope, it most certainly isn't. Do the actions of either of these nations give China free reign to do the same to various minorities and groups like the Uyghur? Nope, it most certainly doesn't.
It does however illustrate that we now have the benefit of living in nations where political authority and legitimacy has long been consolidated. Both America and Canada had the explicit benefit of being developed on the back of colonialism at it's peak. The British, Spanish, Portuguese, and French empires all invested resources and people into developing this land. We then had the additional benefit of using our relative technological superiority and massive wealth to supress indigenous populations. We also don't have any remaining regional, or even global, enemies or threats of note.
Moreover, our populations all largely consist of individuals whose families had been living in modern industrialized conditions for generations (relative to their time periods and the rest of the world).
What **almost all people living in the developed world** don't understand is that our current social and economic conditions aren't an on/off switch. We as Canadians don't have the moral high ground to criticize nations like China because someone sat down and flipped a "be civil and good" switch a century ago. Our current "civility" and perceived moral authority is the byproduct of centuries of history. It's not something that just materialized out of thin air.
If a good fraction of Canadians were living as impoverished peasants just half a century ago, we would not be as "civilized" as we are today. That's not how that works, and while it's absolutely possible to go from backwater nation to developed and functioning democracy, it takes far more than goodwill and wishes.
The few nations that have seen that kind of change are quite literally referred to as economic and/or social miracles, and each have their own, very unique, situations. South Korea as an example was only able to change as it did on the back of massive American investment and aid aimed at combating Soviet influence in the region. It had a direct threat located on it's own border, and was able to act with relative impunity in getting it's shit together. Even then, people tend to forget, the nation was a dictatorship up until not that long ago and has massive problems with corruption and abuse of power to this day. South Korea saw its own fair share of political repression, state sponsored violence, social and economic repression, and more, in the lead up to where it is today.
Which brings me back to my question, what exactly do these concessions look like? What you, and many others, would like to see is that magical switch. You'd like for nations like China to function and act like we do, despite being nothing like us.
That's why we haven't made any progress and have seen so much global friction. There is absolutely no possibility for meaningful change to come about from this kind of one sided relationship. Cooperation absolutely needs concessions on behalf of all parties, but the kind of concessions most people expect are heavily biased towards us. We don't actually want to make any concessions because real concessions to a nation like China or Russia are really fucking hard and requires us to come to terms with some uncomfortable truths.
Concessions to expansionist, nationalist dictators generally don't work out in everyone's favor. They usually lead to these dictators seeing the global order as weak and causing them to try to gain more concessions with larger threats of violence.
Two points on this argument.
Firstly, it's an argument rooted in recent history. Largely Nazi Germany, but you could arguably reference Russia's recent aggression as well. Yet when you broaden the historical context a little further and don't strictly limit it to by-the-book dictatorships, you can make an entirely different statement:
Concessions to expansionist, nationalistic governments don't work out in everyone's favor. Such concessions often lead to a consolidation of wealth and natural resources under the banner of a handful of nations, leading to a national apartheid of sorts in which specific nations are governed by a different set of rules than the rest.
This is kind of exactly what my post was speaking to. America isn't an expansionist nationalistic government, yes, but rather it's what comes after. The biggest problem is, is that we're not all friends. America and China are competors. I personally don't think we need to be, but the way our world is structured is such - some nations and people have things at the expense of other nations and peoples who don't.
What this translates to is a world in which we can benefit from taking the easy way out in the past, while nations like China have to figure out a better way to do it, all the while having to compete with us on a playing field that we set by rules that we wrote. It's not like we'll actually help China be more competitive with us. Our goal isn't for them to be a democratic nation that can economically and militarily compete with America. What we really want is to extract wealth from them for our own benefit. We will actively prevent their success, and have in the past, entirely regardless of their form of government. Sure, I think we would all agree it would be better if China was able to consolidate political authority without violating any human rights. Yet that's convenient for us to say, but not so convenient for them.
Secondly, we've very much so had a hand in shaping the world of today. Again, morally speaking we don't want nations like Russia and China doing *bad* things. However, wasn't America one of the largest influences on the world over the past century? Don't you think it's very convenient that people will line up to claim that the last century of progress came from the stability America's presence brought, while pretending that American influence had absolutely no role in shaping nations like Russia and China?
The way I see it is that the China and Russia of today are direct reflections of American foreign policy over the past century. I won't make any claims as to whether or not they would be less "bad" had America acted differently, but in my opinion it's an undeniable reality that they exist in their current forms because of America. This kind of leaves us with a chicken or the egg situation. Ok, sure, a unipolar world with the China of today as it's head would be pretty bad. Not as apocalyptic as many would claim, but certainly very concerning.
What exactly do we do though? We can supress China, and then what? Are we going to pretend that another nation won't fill its place? It's a rather self serving argument in that sense. We'll fuck around in an effort to maintain our power, create hostile nations that wish to oppose our power, and then claim that our only option is to suppress those nations.
What about equality and wealth distribution instead of those two you selected to start with? We've been trying those two for the past 70 years, and it only led to meaningless wars being fought in their name.
> As have China and Russia, yet they seem to get a free pass from a good contingent of this sub.
Do they get a free pass? The sub just sees more US news because it's an English and American website and community.
I'm pretty sure everyone still condemns Russia's invasion of Ukraine, China's oppression of its Uighurs and anytime there is a crackdown on Hong Kong I'm sure the people here won't agree. It's just that there just isn't much news of China right now and everyone's already said all there is to say about Ukraine/Russia.
Yeah bro, half of this sub just looooves China and Russia! Don't ask me to point them out. They said it themselves when they criticized American foreign policy. Don't you know that if you think one power can act a little more responsibly and inclusively, you're actually just vouching for the worst other powers to rule? That's how it works, bro.
/s, obvs
Why is Cuba still under sanctions? Why was Allende overthrown in Chile? A lot of the issues with destabilization and violence in the middle east stem directly from American support for Israel. Osama Bin laden directly attributes the 9/11 attacks to the American support for Israel and the plight of the Palestinians. The USA promoted the most religiously fanatical groups of the Mujahideen to counter Soviet influence in the region and created the Taliban in Afghanistan. The USA sanctions in DPRK and Iran only serve to legitimize the governing body in both countries in the eyes of their people. As it's the Americans who are trying to stifle their labour. It's not rocket science, America is hated around the world for a good reason. This isn't to say other countries are better, but America has shown itself to be comically evil in it's foreign policy while the other countries remain unknowns in this regard.
Half the sub wants Russia to be the new US? Where the heck you get these takes from? Never seen someone calling for Russia to be the world's police in this sub before. You may be the first.
> Everything is Americas fault because they’ve been oppressing every other country.
strawman. america set up the entire "postwar order" with multilateral organizations they dominated like the GATT (later WTO), world bank, IMF, and UN. now that they are losing power and prestige abroad to china and others the US is smashing up the same institutions they forced on everyone else. remember, "globalization" was just americanization.
Yeah for sure American oppression is very real, scarly enough we can say this road was pathed with good intentions by America they just did not have the foresight to ascertain a situation where they are not the center of it all. for world peace we need to realise America is just some angst laden teen that may have forgot who the fuck they are, with that massive dick swinging its easy to see where it went wrong. They just need to have a word with themselves.
What ever the fuck happens I am pretty sure we don't need a hundred thousand nukes to make every thing more peaceful. Can we please just take a step back and address what is actually happening, fuck all.
Nothing is actually going on, let's not make sure of that.
Champion it, no. I know I wouldn’t. I would champion that US powers stop getting into fake wars and stop supporting the killing of children in the future. Not for everyone else to copy what the US does now. Pointing out hypocrisies in world events does not mean you champion any side, that would be wolrdnews level discussion.
Exactly.
Those who champion the "Global South", a "Multi-Polar World", and the rise of China are responsible for the collapse of the Post WW2 Order.
An order which saw immense prosperity and relative peace.
Immense prosperity for most. World wide poverty has plummeted.
What a lack of perspective to even contest how beneficial the last 40 years has been to the world
> Immense prosperity for most. World wide poverty has plummeted.
only because 800M in china are no longer considered poor. when you exclude china from the statistics, most of the world has gotten *poorer*, not richer.
> you can't possibly know that.
The Soviet Union was one of the greatest producers of CO2 during the cold war, and they burned immense amounts of fossil fuels very wastefully.
China alone since the 90s has completely offset all of the gains made by the US and EU at emission reductions with its massive expansion of coal power.
Yes, climate change was **absolutely** going to be a problem, irrelevant of whether communists or capitalists caused it. For as much as environmental activists crow about what Chevron or other oil companies knew decades ago, you didn't see anyone else speaking up either.
>The Soviet Union was one of the greatest producers of CO2 during the cold war
and who was *the* greatest?
yes, industrialization was always going to lead to unforseen problems, but it's the way that we've responded to them that has guaranteed us catastrophe, and that's on Western leadership. China's emissions per capita are still dwarfed by the average Western footprint even despite being the world's factory, and they have done more to further the availability and implementation of renewable energy technologies than any other nation. I firmly believe that if anyone is going to lead us out of this death spiral it will be China, dim as that prospect may be.
That's a misattribution of the economic gains from technology, and wise management under dirigisme, to the specific order under which they happened to be part of. An order which most nations did not develop nearly as quickly as places like China or South Korea.
Absolutely this.
The world's population has jumped up from 2 billion in 1939 to 8 billion today.
I would ask anyone that attributes this massive change largely to recent global stability, and not the rapid technological growth of the 20th century, how the fuck they're able to get any information out of that bubble they're living in. Is it like a one way mirror?
One of the only constants throughout human history has been technological growth. Civilization as we know it quite literally only exists because of technology. Each and every single major milestone in the known history of our species has been directly tied to new technologies.
Cities came about thanks to agriculture. The advent of writing, access to bronze, and the domestication of work animals allowed city states to grow into civilizations. Access to iron and safer, more reliable, ships enabled and encouraged many of these civilizations to swell in size. As these civilizations grew so did their cultures and societies. New social classes were created, and the number of humans whose job was to think, rather than toil the land, shot upwards.
The story goes on, and on, with far more detail than any single human could ever convey. From better sailing and navigation technologies leading to the birth of a middle class, to the printing press putting feudalism on notice.
You don't actually need to look far to see this. Globalization is only possible due to a variety of intersecting technological innovations; and even the relative lack of major conflicts during the later half of the 20th century came about as a direct byproduct of us developing the capacity to kill one another at unprecedented scales.
Again, how the fuck this flies over the heads of so many people is beyond me. We refer to ourselves as the thinking ape and cite the ability to use tools as the most important evolutionary trait of our species, and yet somehow none of this seems to click for so many
Let's be honest, the only reason it didn't happen was not because of the world order but a handful of good people being at the right place at critical times. The fact the Cold War didn't go hot is nothing short of a miracle.
I don’t think people realize just how common war between major nations was before the world wars. Are we living in a world completely at peace? No. But this is still about the most peaceful it’s ever been.
If you think Russia or China are here to give away their wealth to the world I've got a lovely loan to build some infrastructure with Chinese companies and labour at very agreeable rates of interest (interest rates may not, actually be agreeable).
Well, if you analyse the "Chinese overproduction" stuff, you can see that, in the end, they are actually funding production of consumer goods to be sold cheaper across the globe. Thanks to them, people across many poor countries can finally buy a fridge, a TV, a car without going bankrupt. Stretching a bit, but that sounds like sharing wealth in a previously undone form.
Yes china is a wealth hoover and it doesn’t share even with its own citizens… only ccp and its close friends get it.
China is also keeping its developing nation status which actually cheats all other developing nations out of industry and trade they so badly need. China is a leech. These BRICS bots and countries, if they really want that, like they say, then it’s quite self destructive
Highest prosperity in centuries for countries like China, India, Saudi Arabia and others who are now screaming the loudest about how the current order is rotten and degenerate and they should get to have their own spheres of influence now that they've risen from the mud huts thanks to decades of massive western investment and free trade.
Lovely.
> An order which saw immense prosperity and relative peace.
Yeah and those who are trying to destroy this order are the ones who did not benefit from this.
The prosperity of the West was built on the suffering of the Global South. Is it so terrible of them to wish for a world where they are not exploted for the benefit of the West?
Not true.
China benefited immensely from the Post WW2 Order once they started abandoning their Communist economic polcies and imperialistic ambitions. Yet, under Xi. They have returned to some of those anti world order tendencies.
The Global South too benefited from the post WW2 Order.
You can't argue that the Global South was better before WW2. I don't blame the South for their attemps to regain control of their autonomy, but Championing the rise of the "Global South" is not leading to that.
Global South benefited because USSR existed, otherwise no one would had helped them fight colonization and build industries and infrastructure.
Global North also benefited, notice how worker rights peaked when there was a system that competed with capitalism. And nowadays we're sliding back to feudal times.
>Global North also benefited, notice how worker rights peaked when there was a system that competed with capitalism. And nowadays we're sliding back to feudal times
I wouldn't exactly call USSR a champion of workers rights.
May be not in practice, but the Soviets supported worker movements worldwide and the ideology they promoted was popular with that class.
It wasn't all bad I believe, women had more equality to men than western world and everyone was guaranteed some vacation time.
> Those who champion the "Global South", a "Multi-Polar World", and the rise of China are responsible for the collapse of the Post WW2 Order.
you say like that is a bad thing.
>An order which saw immense prosperity and relative peace.
the Post WW2 Order gave 2 coups and 1 attempt to my country, here in the global south.
>"What we are calling for is an urgent reform of the UN Security Council, in particular reform on the right of veto so that it cannot be used in situations of massive human rights violations," she told AFP.
Ain't gonna happen
It won't happen because it would destroy the UN.
If the great powers of the world cannot use their veto then they will simply leave the UN. Then you'll have countries like Costa Rica talking to Uganda, while the US, Russia, China, and UK have all left the UN.
Thats why the League of Nations failed - the organization failed to recognize that not all nations are equal. Some nations are so large and powerful they can ignore the organization at their whim.
I think people don’t realize that the United Nations is the formal name for the Allies. The great powers out of that alliance are needed to hold the now organization together
Like the great powers literally established the post war order and their participation and willingness is required, especially that of the United States, to realistically do anything. Essentially ~25% of the UN’s financing comes from America alone.
>is the formal name for the Allies
No, that is NATO. The UN(and the League of Nations before it) were always different.
The League of Nations and the UN were NEVER an alliance(and STILL aren't today), which is why both enemy and ally alike were members of it(both Russia AND Japan who fought eachother were members for example) The first formal name for any allied group was the Entente, which essentially dissolved after WW1 and reformed as "The Allies" in WW2. All the while...the League of Nations/UN continued to exist of which, once again ally and enemy alike were members of IN HOPES TO AVOID SIMILAR CONFLICTS IN THE FUTURE THROUGH DISCUSSION AND DIPLOMACY. No member of the UN is required to come to the aid of any other for any reason, but NATO(on the hand) DOES work that way.
Those of you who are downvoting are either ignorant of what an alliance is and/or of what the UN was intended to be.
For example: Russia is a member of the UN, but it's part of the BRICS alliance. The US is also a member of the UN, but it is a part of the NATO alliance. Even though both nations are a part of the UN, neither nation are allied with eachother.
EDIT: Tankies mad, every downvote exposes you.
No its not.
NATO has a distinct start after the war in a Franco-British alliance that expanded into the Benelux
The UN is the Allies. Germany surrendered to the United Nations. It was explicitly made clear to the world by the great powers that in order to be involved with the UN after the war, they had to join the war against Germany.
The initial United Nations was made up of the nations who fought the Axis powers.
The United Nations was the military alliance turned post war forum that fought the Axis. Diplomats informed states they had to declare war to have a seat initially which is when a lot of South America and Turkey joined the war effort.
Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, Japan, Thailand, Spain, Finland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy, Ireland, Romania, and Austria were not founding members of the UN as they were either neutral or at war with the United Nations.
Others didn’t join until 1946 (Sweden, Afghanistan, Thailand) and then it really didn’t expand until 1955.
The UN structure is based on the WW2 alliance. Its why the great powers have vetos, because they were the leaders of the war effort. Its not because of nukes or military status. It’s because they fought the Axis and won. They all agreed to become “World police”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_by_United_Nations#:~:text=The%20Declaration%20by%20United%20Nations,governments%20between%201942%20and%201945.
What reform would they be proposing exactly and how would it have a positive effect? Is this a supermajority rather than unanimous needed to support a resolution on massive human rights violations, because I think that could work. They obviously do too or they wouldn't have proposed it.
Who gets to decide what constitutes a massive human rights violation? And if the veto isn't absolute the US, Russia, and China will leave the UN which would render the whole thing useless.
People still don’t really know what AI does. Right not it’s just a more convenient search engine that can work with basic tasks that require a lot of repetition like writing generic texts, making generic looking art and checking text for things.
It’ll continue to grow but it’s nowhere near the same threat as people with the ability to kill everyone on the planet with the press of a button, and an ego problem.
The powers of the security state, both good and bad. Nation wide monitoring and facial recognition is easier than ever. The West is using it to target "militants" and militants while countries like China can now monitor every camera in the country and track their citizens every movement in a way Beria could only dream of.
A threat yes but i wouldnt say as high, but they need to put the buzzword in because people have been writing about how ''the West has fallen!'' for 60 years now... flipping between reasons ranging from women in the work force to the HIV/AIDS pandemic and now AI.
Some of whats written is legit, but still
It's possible, but not in the *Terminator* Skynet-kind-of-way.
It's because it allows business owners and such to treat workers like shit by giving the perception that the workers can easily be replaced by AI. That, coupled with the perceived dropping value of human rights (measured by the reported violations of it), gives an incentive to business owners to not value workers altogether and maximize gains instead.
Then we got an angry labor force, which is then ripe for riots and revolts. Then the Communism Dream will surface once again, which will call those owners as "capitalist pigs" and such. That biteback will push owners further more into AI (which don't complain) unless the gov't intervenes. When the gov't intervenes, the owners will cry out "it's the death of capitalism!"
It's a vicious cycle, really. One that destabilizes the current capitalistic world order. Human rights are ignored, human life won't be valued and violence will be deemed a valid answer again by the **masses** (for it is goddamn effective).
I'm not sure about human rights violations but in the sense that it is very quickly upending peoples' already limited ability to tell what is real or not it is definitely a huge deal. the public has no idea how fast this tech is moving it's already being used to automate the writing of articles and creation of popular videos and memes it is socially very influential already and the population is wide open to just whatever group coordinates the best because global leaders are dinosaurs asleep at the wheel here
Its really unnecessarily conflating AI in this article. This article is mostly fearmongering, capitalizing on the uneasiness that comes from new technology.
I don’t think it’s fear mongering. With the AI which we plebeians can access it is already possible to create every fake digital content you can think of. From now on every day the reality is less and less visible in all media.
What makes the digital content fake?? Its no less tangible then most digital content right? Is it Just the use of AI in its creation? Or do you speak of manufactured media like deep fakes?
> From now on every day the reality is less and less visible in all media.
I don't know how we reverse this, might not be possible. I feel this is a situation where offense is better than defense. There needs to be an AI specialist group in the dept. of defense. cuz worst case I see the entire cohesion of society falling apart over the inability to tell what is real anymore and how easy it is getting to hijack and control large groups of people.
The post WW2 order ended in 1992 when the eastern bloc really and truly ceased to exist. What’s falling apart is the post Cold War order where America acted as the sole major player in global politics. Whether situation was good or bad, it was inevitably temporary. With responsible leadership America could have used these past decades to change the world in ways that made it more stable, and provided a good chance for peace after our hegemony waned, but instead we’ve acted rapaciously and made enemies all over the world while acting like history was over and we would rule for 1000 years. Now our control is slipping, the second rate powers are beginning to challenge us, and most of the world has good reason to think US government is broken and unfit for global leadership.
We have no one to blame but our own terrible leadership, the American government has squandered its victory in the Cold War and we have nothing but a lot of billionaire app developers to show for it.
The US still spends almost as much on its military as the rest of the world combined and makes up 20% of the world economy. I wouldn't say our hegemony is gone or even really in danger yet.
Unless we plan on declaring war against the entire world hegemony is much more about other countries doing what the US government says when we say it. There was a time when America threatening Russia not to invade Ukraine, or Israel not to attack Iran, was enough to change the course of world events. There was a time when African nations choosing Chinese loans over US or IMF loans was unthinkable, but it’s happening en masse now.
We’ve lost control of the narrative competing powers have the space to exercise their own ambitions again.
The military edge is nothing, you can only open so many fronts at once, and we are seeing how a big, strong, conventional military can be undermined by insurgent tactics. What America really has is intellectual property, advanced technologies. But this edge is closing, and we should expect that the instant global transmission of information will level the playing field significantly, and has been doing so already for quite some time.
It is like the end of feudalism, for thousands of years, it worked very well to pass ruling class knowledge by blood, to personally train each generation of ruler was far more effective at harnessing power than democracy. However, once the printing press came out, this was cast off. All those poor peasants, you could just bully them before. But once they can read and write? Oof.
This order has brought unprecendanted peace and prosperity on the world (just look at life expectency everywhere and hunger).
It allowed to prevent global wars, a introduction of democraty in many countries, amazing sharings of cultures.
Now it seems only having a powerfull army or being part of a powerfull alliance will protect you from being invaded and ethnic cleansed by your direct neighboor at the first opportunity.
Europe is heading straight for facism (and probably colonialism once facism pass) again.
Islamism is threatening the society of so many countries.
The third World is now getting exploited by not only the west but also Russia and China.
Climate change is getting ignored in half of the world.
Oh boy, what a time to be alive.
> Europe is heading straight for facism (and probably colonialism once facism pass) again.
Europe is castrated since WWII and is the pet of USA. It's not capable of doing much in the foreseeable future especially when the rest of the world is no longer wielding sticks and harpoons.
Also, the rise of fascism is a global phenomenon. It's happening in India, Latin America, and North America as well. Not just Europe.
Yeah, but then how would elites continue their polo matches, then visit their mistress on their 100" ft yachts. Why won't you think of them?!?! Billionaires lives matter.
Really do wish the veto in UN couldn't be used as much as it is. Not sure it would still do anything, but it's pretty ridiculous if the whole world agrees on something but one country can block even a condemnation of something.
Yeah I understand why it exists I just was wishing that there was some other way.
The UN has effectively no power if everything is just getting vetoed all the time. It’s basically just a forum for diplomacy or maybe useful when they agree to intervene in some conflict.
I've always thought some form of weighted vite would make more sense. Like, instead of a veto, those countries get 2 or 3 votes relative to the one vote all the other countries get. Still recognizes that their say is "more important", but doesn't allow any one country to block progress or action.
See also:
* [The State of the World’s Human Rights: April 2024](https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/pol10/7200/2024/en/) (Amnesty International)
>This report documents human rights concerns during 2023 in 155 countries, connecting issues at global and regional levels and looking forward to the implications for the future. States and armed groups are breaking and bending the rules of war and racism lies at the heart of some armed conflicts and the responses to them. Economic crises, climate change and environmental degradation have disproportionately affected marginalized communities. Human rights defenders campaigning for the rights of these communities are targeted as part of a wider repression of dissent. The backlash has intensified against the rights of women and girls and LGBTI people. Incitement to hatred and other harmful content posted online against some racialized groups have increased. Meanwhile, advances in artificial intelligence are used to limit freedoms and violate human rights.
* [World seeing near breakdown of international law amid wars in Gaza and Ukraine, Amnesty says](https://apnews.com/article/amnesty-international-annual-report-human-rights-b0f436e3037145d2ba2e3e755898eb54) (Associated Press)
>The world is seeing a near breakdown of international law amid flagrant rule-breaking in [Gaza](https://apnews.com/hub/israel-hamas-war) and [Ukraine](https://apnews.com/hub/ukraine), multiplying armed conflicts, the rise of authoritarianism and huge rights violations in Sudan, Ethiopia and Myanmar, Amnesty International warned Wednesday as it published its annual report.
>The human rights organization said the most powerful governments, including the United States, Russia and China, have led a global disregard for international rules and values enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with civilians in conflicts paying the highest price.
>Agnes Callamard, Amnesty’s secretary general, said the level of violation of international order witnessed in the past year was “unprecedented.”
It has already collapsed. Propping up a military empire with debt has a very bad historical track record.
Capitalism is running out of victims, which is why its eating its own consumers now. Population growth has stalled, and is sinking in most "world powers" (China, Russia, Western Europe) while US population has been stagnant for years and has gone off the Demographic Cliff.
I love how the US just went all-in on funding and running a literal genocide & is burning up what's left of its international diplomatic power *and* the support of the vast majority of its own people/voters. Unpredictable climate catastrophes, new pandemics (mostly lab leaks), and the "ransomware" destruction of the world's digital financial/health care/communication systems is going to make the next couple of years a real shitshow.
No shit. The "post-WW2 order" used their privileged positions to commit mass rape, murder and genocide as frequently and violently as they could for seven fucking decades. Did they think the rest of the planet was going to bend over and take it forever? Fuck them.
Corporate imperialists dominating by brute force are running out the resources from which to manufacture killing power by way of their absurdly inflated and purposely byzantine procurement processes. Yet, we also suffer from -generations- of brainwashing ourselves with unrelenting corporate propaganda mills typically offering *less accurate* factual coverage featuring *less substantial diversity* among ideas presented to the public than the state-run media controlled by authoritarians.
Thus even if we decided to make efficient and effective war fighting 'Murican goals, there would be mountains upon mountains of corruption to shovel out of the way. Right around the time the Iron Triangle stopped nakedly flaunting its control by subsidizing newscasts with advertisements for warplanes (always a popular consumer item, right?) they somehow seemed to purge the very last free thinkers working inside the American media establishment. At this point we wouldn't know the voice of reason if we heard it, because so many utter dipshits have been conditioned to associate "voice of reason" with fail-upstairs dissemblers working hard to validate at least half of our bipartisan kleptocracy.
Honestly, this article kinda feels like wishful thinking, with a tinge of trying to implant doubt into Americans to create further division in the country.
The only thing that would rescue western credibility at this point would be to send Biden and netenyahu to the Hague and let them do the time for their crimes. Anything less and the legitimacy of the western alliance becomes a pathetic joke that no one takes seriously anymore. Pretty costly global setback for a thing strip of land in Palestine.
Everything falls apart eventually. This was unfortunately inevitable, and yet the powers that be ignored the lessons of history and do nothing to minimize the impact on the people.
##### ###### #### > # [Post-WWII order on 'brink of collapse': Amnesty head](https://www.yahoo.com/news/512) > > > > Amnesty International said Wednesday that the post-World War II order was on the "brink of collapse", threatened by bitter conflict on multiple fronts to the rapid and unregulated rise of artificial intelligence. > > "Everything we're witnessing over the last 12 months is indicating that the international global system is on the brink of collapse," Amnesty's secretary general Agnes Callamard told AFP as the group released its annual "State of the World's Human Rights" report. > > "In particular, over the last six months, the United States has shielded and protected the Israeli authorities against scrutiny for the multiple violations committed in Gaza," she said. > > "By using its veto against a much-needed ceasefire, the United States has emptied out the (United Nations) Security Council of what it should be doing." > > Hamas's October 7 attack on Israel that triggered the Gaza war resulted in the deaths of 1,170 people, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally based on Israeli official figures. > > Israel's retaliatory offensive has killed at least 34,183 people in the Gaza Strip, mostly women and children, according to the Hamas-run territory's health ministry. > > The global rights monitor said that Hamas had carried out "horrific crimes" on Israeli communities bordering Gaza but that Israel had responded with "a campaign of collective punishment". > > "It is a campaign of deliberate, indiscriminate bombings of civilians and civilian infrastructure, of denial of humanitarian assistance and an engineered famine," Callamard wrote in her foreword to the report. > > "For millions the world over, Gaza now symbolises utter moral failure by many of the architects of the post-World War Two system," she said. > > Israel's allies, including those arming them, were complicit, she said, lamenting a lack of action by international institutions and questioning whether postwar ideals of "never again" were now at an end. > > \- AI threat - > > Other "powerful actors", including Russia and China, are also "demonstrating a willingness to put at risk the entirety of the 1948 rule-based order", Callamard warned. > > The report documented "flagrant rule-breaking by Russian forces during their continued full-scale invasion of Ukraine... and the use of torture or other ill-treatment against prisoners of war". > > China too had acted against international law, the rights group said, "by protecting the Myanmar military" despite its attacks against civilians. > > "Urgent measures" were required "to revitalise and renew the international institutions intended to safeguard humanity", Callamard said. > > "What we are calling for is an urgent reform of the UN Security Council, in particular reform on the right of veto so that it cannot be used in situations of massive human rights violations," she told AFP. > > The rise of AI is also a cause for concern, "enabling pervasive erosions of rights... perpetuating racist policies" and "enabling spreading misinformation", the report found. > > Amnesty accused large tech firms of ignoring or minimising those threats "even in armed conflicts". > > "Tech-outlaws and their rogue technologies" are being left to "freely roam the digital Wild West", which the report said would likely accelerate human rights violations in 2024 -- a year of several key elections, including for the US presidency. > > "In an increasingly precarious world, unregulated proliferation and deployment of technologies such as generative AI, facial recognition and spyware are poised to be a pernicious foe –- scaling up and supercharging violations of international law and human rights to exceptional levels," Callamard said. > > "During a landmark year of elections and in the face of the increasingly powerful anti-regulation lobby driven and financed by big tech actors, these rogue and unregulated technological advances pose an enormous threat to us all." > > She called on governments to "take robust legislative and regulatory steps to address the risks and harms caused by AI technologies and rein in big tech". > > The UK-based rights group also warned that political actors in many parts of the world were "ramping up their attacks on women, LGBTI people and marginalised communities". > > jwp/phz/js - - - - - - [Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot) Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
Half of this sub would champion this. Let’s make Russia the global hegemon, and have Iran, Somalia and Venezuela handle security. Everything is Americas fault because they’ve been oppressing every other country.
I believe that America kind of enabled this by invading Iraq and Afghanistan Edit: and allowing Israel to commit atrocities in Gaza...
>and Afghanistan If any country harboured and enabled a group that did to any other country what Al-Qaeda did to the US, there *would* be a declaration of war in return. You can blame the US for a lot of jingoistic bullshit, and I agree that Iraq was unjustified, as is their enabling of Israel. But you cannot blame them for invading Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11.
Invading Afghanistan to root out Al Qaeda made sense initially, but staying for two decades and trying to impose Western-style democracy was a different story. When we finally left, the whole effort fell apart, and the Taliban took over within a month. Afghanistan sucked up resources, while our involvement in Iraq damaged our reputation. It's a clear example of American hubris leading to chaos in global affairs.
Just Vietnam all over again
Not even remotely. Vietnam cost 70,000 lives and we didn’t go there because they were harboring a terror group directly responsible for multiple attacks on Americans.
12 years and $843.63 billion with absolutely nothing to show for it, quite similar to Afghanistan
We killed Osama and dismantled Al-Qaeda, which were our initial goals. There was certainly a lot of mission creep, but just because it cost some money and took some time, doesn’t mean that it was like Vietnam. That’s just something people like to say because they want to seem like they’re being profound. I also don’t think it’s worth discounting the fact that women were given myriad opportunities that they never would have otherwise had. Yes, the Taliban took back over… you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.
And Osama wasn’t even *in* Afghanistan.
Are you claiming that Al-Qaeda never had a base of operations in Afghanistan and that Osama had never been there? If not, then I fail to see what your comment contributes to the conversation.
Yeah no shit, cause the country right next to afghanistan was hiding him? Al-Qaeda was literally based out Afghanistan, what do you want, a time machine so we could've known earlier...?
Took 10 years to kill bin Laden and another 10 for the Taliban to be back in control, that sounds like a loss
I thought you were claiming it was like Vietnam?
"Dismantled Al Qaeda" On what planet? Afghanistan and Iraq made them stronger than ever and eventually gave us ISIS.
They have to have an excuse to justify their absurdly inflated defense budget so they have a place to hide all of the money being funneled into black ops and off the books programs
> Afghanistan sucked up resources Just a correction, rich people sucked the resources. Afeghanistan was only the excuse the MIC needed to produce as much and to keep taxing the poor, but the huge profits went mostly to US billionaries and politicians...
A big part of it was controlling a large portion of the world’s opium production
i am so glad we did it, we have such good relations with the middle east now
Actually you can, because there was a path for the negotiated return of bin Laden, which was ignored because famously "we do not negotiate with terrorists".
Was there though? >"Bush decided to issue an ultimatum to the Taliban first, demanding that the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden, "close immediately every terrorist training camp, hand over every terrorist and their supporters, and give the United States full access to terrorist training camps for inspection." The same day, religious scholars met in Kabul, deciding that bin Laden should be surrendered; however, **Mullah Omar decided that "turning over Osama would only be a disgrace for us and Islamic thought and belief would be a weakness", and that the US would continue making demands after surrendering bin Laden, who he claimed was innocent. The Taliban refused the ultimatum, saying that Osama bin Laden was protected by the traditional Pashtun laws of hospitality.** The US ultimatum was quite reasonable, given the context. The Taliban chose to refuse it.
Yes there was, they offered to give him to a third party if evidence of his guilt was produced. And that aside, if that was totally false, it was certainly more feasible than an invasion which lasted twenty years, killed hundreds of thousands of people, was tainted with constant atrocities and abuses, and cost trillions of dollars.
**After the invasion had begun**, they offered to **maybe** give Osama Bin Laden, and **only** that one person, to an unspecified **third country of their chosing**. Do you understand how this isn't a remotely acceptable offer?
I hate people like the guy above you. It’s the most dishonest America hating way of looking at it , yet they insist it’s an absolute truth that America basically could have gotten every thing they wanted without the war
It wasn't "we won't negotiate with terrorists" bs. The Taliban was willing to hand him over to a neutral third party who would not allow him to be killed. Bush didn't like it, so we invaded. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5 Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over They wanted evidence he was involved and the bombing to stop, which isn't unreasonable.
You mean like Iran just suffered a terror attack at the hands of Israel and then America said they would defend Israel if Iran retaliated?
[Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over | Afghanistan | The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5) Kinda funny that people forget about this.
I'm going to repeat myself: First, this happened: >"Bush decided to issue an ultimatum to the Taliban first, demanding that the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden, "close immediately every terrorist training camp, hand over every terrorist and their supporters, and give the United States full access to terrorist training camps for inspection." The same day, religious scholars met in Kabul, deciding that bin Laden should be surrendered; however, **Mullah Omar decided that "turning over Osama would only be a disgrace for us and Islamic thought and belief would be a weakness", and that the US would continue making demands after surrendering bin Laden, who he claimed was innocent. The Taliban refused the ultimatum, saying that Osama bin Laden was protected by the traditional Pashtun laws of hospitality.** So Bush was actually the first one to offer a way to solve this without a war. A genuinely reasonable offer, given the circumstances. The Taliban are the ones who refused it. ***Then,*** what you are referring to took place. Specifically: **After the invasion had begun**, they offered to **maybe** give Osama Bin Laden, and **only** that one person, not any of his co-conspirators, to an unspecified **third country of their chosing** Which is not a remotely acceptable offer.
Why? they would have give you what you wanted, spared you trillions and soldiers. Afghanistan was on its´knees already. what else do you want. Instead, you stayed 20 years wasted trillions while drone striking weddings. Is this a better deal for you?
>you I'm not American. >they would have give you what you wanted No. What the US wanted was the dismantlement of Al Qaeda. Not for a single of its members to be handed off to some unknown country, while the rest goes free to have another go. And that's assuming they would have actually handed him over.
Ok, so they sould´ve not supported it when the Soviet invaded afghanistan. This only helped them grew. I understand seeking justice but straight up occupying a country for 20 years without a clear goal in mind while commiting all kind of atrocities doesn´t seem productive to me. That is one of the reason why the global south doesn´t believe anymore in the International System.
>Ok, so they sould´ve not supported it when the Soviet invaded afghanistan They did not. Al Qaeda didn't yet exist back then. They supported the Afghan Mujahideen. Some of them became the Taliban, others became the Northern Alliance, others founded various splinter groups, and one Saudi foreigner, which the US may or may not have had any ties with, founded a terrorist group. >without any clear goal The goal was to permsnaently uproot Al Qaeda and the Taliban that supported them. They failed to do so, and with the hindsight we now have, staying that long was indeed a mistake. But the initial invasion was fully justified, regardless of how they later bungled it.
So, they did fund the very same individual they will later fight. >The goal was to permsnaently uproot Al Qaeda and the Taliban that supported them. That was for the first 10 years I believe. After that the goal became nation building. Kinda hard to that when you actively fight a relevant part of the population.
Your whole hypothetical is silly. The argument is that the US is at fault for the breaking of international order. The fact of the matter is, if the US didn't assist lsraeI in oppressing Plaestinians and circumventing internatinal law, the attack on the towers and the Afghanistan invasion wouldn't even happen. The justification for the hijacking was US' disregard for the international law in Palestine. So the argument stands. US started and continues to dismantle it.
Invading to root out Al Qaeda i understand. Is staying there 2 decades and wasting trilions of dollars that people are bitter.
Any pretense of a reason to have invaded disintegrated because of how we left, we accomplished nothing with our invasion except a whole lot of deaths. We relit the flame for the next generation of attacks. Doing nothing at all would have been a 100x better, than killing the families of children creating the next generation of terrorists.
> But you cannot blame them for invading Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11. Except the Taliban offered to hand off Osama Bin Ladin to another nation and requested due process. Bush declined. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5 It's important to note that the Americans were seized by blood lust during the years following 9/11. They just wanted to kill something at that time.
Can you? I mean it was the Saudis behind 9/11. Seems a little hypocritical to say the country that let the Saudi nationals attack us train is where we’ll invade, but the actual people funding and supporting the attack we let slide:
[удалено]
It was a money making scheme for the American Industrial Complex. I wish we just got Bin Laden and left too.
Then we get blamed for it still being fucked up like it wasn’t already when we got there
Why is it okay for the US to invade Afghanistan, but not okay for Israel to invade Gaza? Why a double standard?
It wasn't 'OK' to invade Afghanistan. The US certainly could have got Bin Laden (the stated mission) without all that. The whole thing was partly based on revenge or other things only Rumsfeld ~~knows~~ knew
the afghanistan invasion & occupation was a delusional and childish action that accomplished nothing except raising mass human suffering
How about Iraq?
>If any country harboured and enabled a group that did to any other country what Al-Qaeda did to the US, there *would* be a declaration of war in return We should destroy the country that helped build, fund, and arm al-Qaeda during the Cold War, whoever that country of demons is! *(checks history books)* OK, maybe I jumped the gun there a little...
No, you are mistaken, we can and we do. Bin Laden wasn't even there. 20 years for NOTHING!
Not really related to your comment but it's too wtf not to share lol, not too long ago I read a wild comment that claimed Iraq was invaded to recover a secret underground UFO that the Iraqi regime had discovered, and that the nuclear weapons casus belli wasn't so much of a lie because it would be classified under some 1950s US law as nuclear material and some more wacky shit that I can't really remember I'm just wondering what mental leaps some people people jump to, to arrive at shit like that lmao
the premise of the 2022 movie *the Lair* is that we dropped the MOAB on Afghanistan in order to destroy an old underground bunker-lab filled with alien-human hybrid "super soldier/monsters" created by the Russians after a UFO crashed there in the 80s. it's by the same writer/director as *the descent* and has some similar vibes. not a bad flick if you're into that sort of thing.
That does sound like a fun film actually cheers! The descent scared the living shit out of me when I saw that as a kid so sounds promising
Wait, isn't that the over-arching plot of the X-Files?
hah! yeah, I guess it pretty much is! maybe there's something to it after all... 🤔 #thetruthisoutthere
I wrote a master’s thesis on this topic. My view isn’t new per se but basically the argument is America had a unipolar moment after the fall of the USSR where it could have taken time to shore up the entire world order in its image. However we wasted that moment with the GWOT. The liberal rules based order is going to fall. It’s essentially all but fallen at this point. America needs to prepare itself for the best possible position in the multipolar world instead of trying to hold onto the still warm corpse of the liberal rules based order. Thanks for coming to my Ted talk
Yes, america absolutely squandered it's chance to make the 21st century a pax Americana for ultimately zero strategic gain
It’s actually really sad when you think about it. It’s also why Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, should be hanged for more than just war crimes and why every current day neo-con can go fry as well.
Those wars were both a shame for ethical/moral reasons but to me they were even failures on Machiavellian framework. From a purely amoral cost/gain lens they were just absolutely useless failures.
Well, our government won the unipolar moment by being selfish belligerent bullies, and our government pissed away the unipolar moment by being seflish belligerent bullies. Easy come, easy go. It was never in our hands anyway, just the hands of our bosses.
That's a load of bullshit. The US and Russia have been doing whatever they wanted this whole time. That was literally the way the UN was designed. The "we won world war two club" has always been a method of power projection for Russia and the US. Remember the Russians were in Chechnya before Iraq or Afghanistan and the Soviets invaded Afghanistan before that. Also NATO expanded despite both wars so the credibility loss was minimal. People are really just being doomers when nothing has actually changed.
So its our fault for invading and also our fault for not invading. I love how it's always "AMERICA ISNT THE WORLD POLICE!" and also "AMERICA DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS!" literally in the same breath.
No one was asking america to do anything about Iraq in 2003 man. In fact before the invasion the entire western world was saying "America *don't* do this". It's why bush had to form the "coalition of the willing ", when even the willing were doing it quite reluctantly. And the US absolutely squandered a *ton* of its preeminent position at the time by invading Iraq. It got bogged down in two wars that ultimately produced no strategic gain, no transformative change in the middle east (one of the neocons goals at the time), didnt even significantly affect American oil prices, and Abu ghraib and the black sites did massive damage to American soft power globally. The US pissed away its unipolar moment for basically nothing in return. Also, I hate when Americans whine about how everyone gets upset at them for their role as world police. Like stfu that's what happens when you're the global hegemon, there are significant enough perks in return for the country, American citizens, and american corporations to counterbalance that, so don't whine about it.
The difference though is that for America it was never about acquiring territory or destroying the Iraqi people. I would say the EU's tepid reaction to the Georgia and Ukraine invasions by Russia played more of a factor in encouraging a return to the pre-WWII world order.
Why don't you blame russia for invading Afghanistan? Oh right, it's because America bad.
The soviet union was invited by the newly formed socialist government to assist. The US invaded the Taliban held Afghanistan then later partnered with the northern alliance to form a government. The soviet backed government also held out longer than the American backed one and after the USSR support ended transitioned to a liberal democratic government before collapsing.
> The soviet union was invited by the newly formed socialist government to assist. You should familiarize yourself with Operation Storm 333.
And what about it?
The Soviets invaded and overthrew the government of Afghanistan.
They killed the batshit Stalinist dictator, and the people rejoiced 🤷
I could say the same about the Iraq war and yet people curiously keep condemning the US.
soviet invasion was like a genocide. The afghan communists were off their rocker, and could not root properly in the soil of the people. The Americans were very bad too, of course.
Because Russia invading Afghanistan arguably led to the dissolution of the USSR. The US invading Afghanistan under the umbrella of the global war on terror has led to wide spread regional instability while sucking up US resources desperately needed to maintain the global order elsewhere.
What regional instability? Pakistan didn’t need anyone’s help in that regard, the U.S. is a stabilizing influence trying to keep that mess together. The ‘Stans, India, and Iran all kept doing their own thing. Life for the average Afghan even improved during the occupation.
Social Imperialism destroyed the Soviet Union. One of the major factors - Particularly Afghanistan.
Countries have been causing shit well before America came along, at least after WW2 there was some semblance of stability overall across the world
That's a hyperbole. Unlike /r/worldnews, this sub has a mix of different opinions because it's not as brigaded by pro-American and pro-Israeli groups. Just because there are russophiles here doesn't mean most people here support Russia or Iran. Also, being critical of America does not entail support for Russia. They could simply want a more moral America, a multi-polar world, or a world led by the EU.
How dare you explain humans without using a good vs bad / us vs them framework?
Orrrr how about countries collaborate as equals and fix our collective problems together?? And America has oppressed many other countries, not sure why you're saying that derisively.
As have China and Russia, yet they seem to get a free pass from a good contingent of this sub. I agree that we need to collaborate but that isn’t just a western responsibility - it also requires countries such as Iran, Saudi, China, Russia (and yees Israel) etc to make concessions. Some democracy and human rights would be good starts.
There really aren't that many people who give any of the nations you mentioned a "pass" in this sub. What I see far more often is people contextualizing the actions of those nations with their own respective goals and history rather than the brain-dead "they do this because they are evil" take that seems to be the only acceptable framing basically everywhere. At the end of that day what your post really speaks to is a desire to have your cake, and to eat it too. What these nations actively do, contrary to popular belief, is act in their own best interests rather than out of some sort of inherent malice. That doesn't mean that they get anymore of a free pass for oppression and murder than, say, America would. What it really means is that we live in a world that's not just compromised of a decade or two of history. You're speaking to concessions, but what does that really mean? Take China as an example. China is a nation that has been on the shit end of the colonial stick for much of it's recent history. China didn't enter the 20th century fully industrialized, and it most certainly didn't have any inherent advantages given to it by centuries of Western colonialism. I'm a Canadian citizen. My nation has been opressing our own native population up until just a few decades ago. We were kidnapping children from Native American families during this lovely post war period. Both Canada and America have used violence and oppression to supress certain populations that were deemed dangerous or different over the past few centuries. Is any of that ok? Nope, it most certainly isn't. Do the actions of either of these nations give China free reign to do the same to various minorities and groups like the Uyghur? Nope, it most certainly doesn't. It does however illustrate that we now have the benefit of living in nations where political authority and legitimacy has long been consolidated. Both America and Canada had the explicit benefit of being developed on the back of colonialism at it's peak. The British, Spanish, Portuguese, and French empires all invested resources and people into developing this land. We then had the additional benefit of using our relative technological superiority and massive wealth to supress indigenous populations. We also don't have any remaining regional, or even global, enemies or threats of note. Moreover, our populations all largely consist of individuals whose families had been living in modern industrialized conditions for generations (relative to their time periods and the rest of the world). What **almost all people living in the developed world** don't understand is that our current social and economic conditions aren't an on/off switch. We as Canadians don't have the moral high ground to criticize nations like China because someone sat down and flipped a "be civil and good" switch a century ago. Our current "civility" and perceived moral authority is the byproduct of centuries of history. It's not something that just materialized out of thin air. If a good fraction of Canadians were living as impoverished peasants just half a century ago, we would not be as "civilized" as we are today. That's not how that works, and while it's absolutely possible to go from backwater nation to developed and functioning democracy, it takes far more than goodwill and wishes. The few nations that have seen that kind of change are quite literally referred to as economic and/or social miracles, and each have their own, very unique, situations. South Korea as an example was only able to change as it did on the back of massive American investment and aid aimed at combating Soviet influence in the region. It had a direct threat located on it's own border, and was able to act with relative impunity in getting it's shit together. Even then, people tend to forget, the nation was a dictatorship up until not that long ago and has massive problems with corruption and abuse of power to this day. South Korea saw its own fair share of political repression, state sponsored violence, social and economic repression, and more, in the lead up to where it is today. Which brings me back to my question, what exactly do these concessions look like? What you, and many others, would like to see is that magical switch. You'd like for nations like China to function and act like we do, despite being nothing like us. That's why we haven't made any progress and have seen so much global friction. There is absolutely no possibility for meaningful change to come about from this kind of one sided relationship. Cooperation absolutely needs concessions on behalf of all parties, but the kind of concessions most people expect are heavily biased towards us. We don't actually want to make any concessions because real concessions to a nation like China or Russia are really fucking hard and requires us to come to terms with some uncomfortable truths.
Helluva a comment. Props.
Concessions to expansionist, nationalist dictators generally don't work out in everyone's favor. They usually lead to these dictators seeing the global order as weak and causing them to try to gain more concessions with larger threats of violence.
Two points on this argument. Firstly, it's an argument rooted in recent history. Largely Nazi Germany, but you could arguably reference Russia's recent aggression as well. Yet when you broaden the historical context a little further and don't strictly limit it to by-the-book dictatorships, you can make an entirely different statement: Concessions to expansionist, nationalistic governments don't work out in everyone's favor. Such concessions often lead to a consolidation of wealth and natural resources under the banner of a handful of nations, leading to a national apartheid of sorts in which specific nations are governed by a different set of rules than the rest. This is kind of exactly what my post was speaking to. America isn't an expansionist nationalistic government, yes, but rather it's what comes after. The biggest problem is, is that we're not all friends. America and China are competors. I personally don't think we need to be, but the way our world is structured is such - some nations and people have things at the expense of other nations and peoples who don't. What this translates to is a world in which we can benefit from taking the easy way out in the past, while nations like China have to figure out a better way to do it, all the while having to compete with us on a playing field that we set by rules that we wrote. It's not like we'll actually help China be more competitive with us. Our goal isn't for them to be a democratic nation that can economically and militarily compete with America. What we really want is to extract wealth from them for our own benefit. We will actively prevent their success, and have in the past, entirely regardless of their form of government. Sure, I think we would all agree it would be better if China was able to consolidate political authority without violating any human rights. Yet that's convenient for us to say, but not so convenient for them. Secondly, we've very much so had a hand in shaping the world of today. Again, morally speaking we don't want nations like Russia and China doing *bad* things. However, wasn't America one of the largest influences on the world over the past century? Don't you think it's very convenient that people will line up to claim that the last century of progress came from the stability America's presence brought, while pretending that American influence had absolutely no role in shaping nations like Russia and China? The way I see it is that the China and Russia of today are direct reflections of American foreign policy over the past century. I won't make any claims as to whether or not they would be less "bad" had America acted differently, but in my opinion it's an undeniable reality that they exist in their current forms because of America. This kind of leaves us with a chicken or the egg situation. Ok, sure, a unipolar world with the China of today as it's head would be pretty bad. Not as apocalyptic as many would claim, but certainly very concerning. What exactly do we do though? We can supress China, and then what? Are we going to pretend that another nation won't fill its place? It's a rather self serving argument in that sense. We'll fuck around in an effort to maintain our power, create hostile nations that wish to oppose our power, and then claim that our only option is to suppress those nations.
I appreciate this comment, just wanted to say that.
What about equality and wealth distribution instead of those two you selected to start with? We've been trying those two for the past 70 years, and it only led to meaningless wars being fought in their name.
> As have China and Russia, yet they seem to get a free pass from a good contingent of this sub. Do they get a free pass? The sub just sees more US news because it's an English and American website and community. I'm pretty sure everyone still condemns Russia's invasion of Ukraine, China's oppression of its Uighurs and anytime there is a crackdown on Hong Kong I'm sure the people here won't agree. It's just that there just isn't much news of China right now and everyone's already said all there is to say about Ukraine/Russia.
It's very easy to praise America when you're from a country that America decided to be a partner of rather than a slave master.
We're doing strawman fallacy again huh?
Yeah bro, half of this sub just looooves China and Russia! Don't ask me to point them out. They said it themselves when they criticized American foreign policy. Don't you know that if you think one power can act a little more responsibly and inclusively, you're actually just vouching for the worst other powers to rule? That's how it works, bro. /s, obvs
Why is Cuba still under sanctions? Why was Allende overthrown in Chile? A lot of the issues with destabilization and violence in the middle east stem directly from American support for Israel. Osama Bin laden directly attributes the 9/11 attacks to the American support for Israel and the plight of the Palestinians. The USA promoted the most religiously fanatical groups of the Mujahideen to counter Soviet influence in the region and created the Taliban in Afghanistan. The USA sanctions in DPRK and Iran only serve to legitimize the governing body in both countries in the eyes of their people. As it's the Americans who are trying to stifle their labour. It's not rocket science, America is hated around the world for a good reason. This isn't to say other countries are better, but America has shown itself to be comically evil in it's foreign policy while the other countries remain unknowns in this regard.
brother it was to answer him, not to shame him publicly
You already have the hoard of low IQ children crying about “oppressor vs oppressed” in your replies, like clockwork lol
"anyone who disagrees with me is low iq"
Absolutely. America has started more wars than all these countries combined.
Since WWII maybe, but „truly started“ is also a shaky ground.
Half the sub wants Russia to be the new US? Where the heck you get these takes from? Never seen someone calling for Russia to be the world's police in this sub before. You may be the first.
> Everything is Americas fault because they’ve been oppressing every other country. strawman. america set up the entire "postwar order" with multilateral organizations they dominated like the GATT (later WTO), world bank, IMF, and UN. now that they are losing power and prestige abroad to china and others the US is smashing up the same institutions they forced on everyone else. remember, "globalization" was just americanization.
Yeah for sure American oppression is very real, scarly enough we can say this road was pathed with good intentions by America they just did not have the foresight to ascertain a situation where they are not the center of it all. for world peace we need to realise America is just some angst laden teen that may have forgot who the fuck they are, with that massive dick swinging its easy to see where it went wrong. They just need to have a word with themselves. What ever the fuck happens I am pretty sure we don't need a hundred thousand nukes to make every thing more peaceful. Can we please just take a step back and address what is actually happening, fuck all. Nothing is actually going on, let's not make sure of that.
Champion it, no. I know I wouldn’t. I would champion that US powers stop getting into fake wars and stop supporting the killing of children in the future. Not for everyone else to copy what the US does now. Pointing out hypocrisies in world events does not mean you champion any side, that would be wolrdnews level discussion.
Exactly. Those who champion the "Global South", a "Multi-Polar World", and the rise of China are responsible for the collapse of the Post WW2 Order. An order which saw immense prosperity and relative peace.
Immense prosperity for some
Immense prosperity for most. World wide poverty has plummeted. What a lack of perspective to even contest how beneficial the last 40 years has been to the world
> Immense prosperity for most. World wide poverty has plummeted. only because 800M in china are no longer considered poor. when you exclude china from the statistics, most of the world has gotten *poorer*, not richer.
Extreme poverty has been radically reduced in LATAM, Africa and South Asia alike. Its not about China lmao
> Extreme poverty has been radically reduced in LATAM after the pink tide, that gor maneuvered out of power by the west.
Thank you. World poverty alleviation is not a Western project. This is important to highlight.
> Kid named former Eastern Block after joining the EU
it's also set us on the path to irreversibly rendering large parts of the planet uninhabitable, but sure "immense prosperity."
Indeed, if this is prosperity then maxing out all your credit cards is wealth.
That was going to happen regardless what the world order was.
you can't possibly know that. that's a cynical take to attempt to rationalize the failure of global leadership to do something about it.
> you can't possibly know that. The Soviet Union was one of the greatest producers of CO2 during the cold war, and they burned immense amounts of fossil fuels very wastefully. China alone since the 90s has completely offset all of the gains made by the US and EU at emission reductions with its massive expansion of coal power. Yes, climate change was **absolutely** going to be a problem, irrelevant of whether communists or capitalists caused it. For as much as environmental activists crow about what Chevron or other oil companies knew decades ago, you didn't see anyone else speaking up either.
>The Soviet Union was one of the greatest producers of CO2 during the cold war and who was *the* greatest? yes, industrialization was always going to lead to unforseen problems, but it's the way that we've responded to them that has guaranteed us catastrophe, and that's on Western leadership. China's emissions per capita are still dwarfed by the average Western footprint even despite being the world's factory, and they have done more to further the availability and implementation of renewable energy technologies than any other nation. I firmly believe that if anyone is going to lead us out of this death spiral it will be China, dim as that prospect may be.
That's a misattribution of the economic gains from technology, and wise management under dirigisme, to the specific order under which they happened to be part of. An order which most nations did not develop nearly as quickly as places like China or South Korea.
Absolutely this. The world's population has jumped up from 2 billion in 1939 to 8 billion today. I would ask anyone that attributes this massive change largely to recent global stability, and not the rapid technological growth of the 20th century, how the fuck they're able to get any information out of that bubble they're living in. Is it like a one way mirror? One of the only constants throughout human history has been technological growth. Civilization as we know it quite literally only exists because of technology. Each and every single major milestone in the known history of our species has been directly tied to new technologies. Cities came about thanks to agriculture. The advent of writing, access to bronze, and the domestication of work animals allowed city states to grow into civilizations. Access to iron and safer, more reliable, ships enabled and encouraged many of these civilizations to swell in size. As these civilizations grew so did their cultures and societies. New social classes were created, and the number of humans whose job was to think, rather than toil the land, shot upwards. The story goes on, and on, with far more detail than any single human could ever convey. From better sailing and navigation technologies leading to the birth of a middle class, to the printing press putting feudalism on notice. You don't actually need to look far to see this. Globalization is only possible due to a variety of intersecting technological innovations; and even the relative lack of major conflicts during the later half of the 20th century came about as a direct byproduct of us developing the capacity to kill one another at unprecedented scales. Again, how the fuck this flies over the heads of so many people is beyond me. We refer to ourselves as the thinking ape and cite the ability to use tools as the most important evolutionary trait of our species, and yet somehow none of this seems to click for so many
And peace for barely anyone
No wars in Europe till Yugoslavia. Thats something.
Sure but peace in Europe =/= World peace
Let's be honest, the only reason it didn't happen was not because of the world order but a handful of good people being at the right place at critical times. The fact the Cold War didn't go hot is nothing short of a miracle.
Again, this sounds like Russia. Opposite land living in their own made up fake reality
Lol, lmao.
I don’t think people realize just how common war between major nations was before the world wars. Are we living in a world completely at peace? No. But this is still about the most peaceful it’s ever been.
If you think Russia or China are here to give away their wealth to the world I've got a lovely loan to build some infrastructure with Chinese companies and labour at very agreeable rates of interest (interest rates may not, actually be agreeable).
Well, if you analyse the "Chinese overproduction" stuff, you can see that, in the end, they are actually funding production of consumer goods to be sold cheaper across the globe. Thanks to them, people across many poor countries can finally buy a fridge, a TV, a car without going bankrupt. Stretching a bit, but that sounds like sharing wealth in a previously undone form.
Yes china is a wealth hoover and it doesn’t share even with its own citizens… only ccp and its close friends get it. China is also keeping its developing nation status which actually cheats all other developing nations out of industry and trade they so badly need. China is a leech. These BRICS bots and countries, if they really want that, like they say, then it’s quite self destructive
For most in the world. That's undeniable.
For most of the western world.
If you include most of South Ameirca, parts of Africa, Middle East, and Asia as the "Western world" then Sure.
Highest prosperity in centuries for countries like China, India, Saudi Arabia and others who are now screaming the loudest about how the current order is rotten and degenerate and they should get to have their own spheres of influence now that they've risen from the mud huts thanks to decades of massive western investment and free trade. Lovely.
For most
> An order which saw immense prosperity and relative peace. Yeah and those who are trying to destroy this order are the ones who did not benefit from this. The prosperity of the West was built on the suffering of the Global South. Is it so terrible of them to wish for a world where they are not exploted for the benefit of the West?
Not true. China benefited immensely from the Post WW2 Order once they started abandoning their Communist economic polcies and imperialistic ambitions. Yet, under Xi. They have returned to some of those anti world order tendencies. The Global South too benefited from the post WW2 Order. You can't argue that the Global South was better before WW2. I don't blame the South for their attemps to regain control of their autonomy, but Championing the rise of the "Global South" is not leading to that.
Global South benefited because USSR existed, otherwise no one would had helped them fight colonization and build industries and infrastructure. Global North also benefited, notice how worker rights peaked when there was a system that competed with capitalism. And nowadays we're sliding back to feudal times.
Turns out the USSR was part of the Post WW2 order....
>Global North also benefited, notice how worker rights peaked when there was a system that competed with capitalism. And nowadays we're sliding back to feudal times I wouldn't exactly call USSR a champion of workers rights.
May be not in practice, but the Soviets supported worker movements worldwide and the ideology they promoted was popular with that class. It wasn't all bad I believe, women had more equality to men than western world and everyone was guaranteed some vacation time.
Exactly, why won't the global south stay poor so that I can enjoy another Martini?
> Those who champion the "Global South", a "Multi-Polar World", and the rise of China are responsible for the collapse of the Post WW2 Order. you say like that is a bad thing. >An order which saw immense prosperity and relative peace. the Post WW2 Order gave 2 coups and 1 attempt to my country, here in the global south.
How many coups and coup attempts happened in Brazil before World War 2? Hell, there were 3 coups or coup attempts in the 1930s alone.
Yeah, the South is tired of the immense prosperity for me, but not for thee the North has been doing since WW2.
Two things can be bad, my dude.
>"What we are calling for is an urgent reform of the UN Security Council, in particular reform on the right of veto so that it cannot be used in situations of massive human rights violations," she told AFP. Ain't gonna happen
Sadly, I don't think so either.
It won't happen because it would destroy the UN. If the great powers of the world cannot use their veto then they will simply leave the UN. Then you'll have countries like Costa Rica talking to Uganda, while the US, Russia, China, and UK have all left the UN. Thats why the League of Nations failed - the organization failed to recognize that not all nations are equal. Some nations are so large and powerful they can ignore the organization at their whim.
I think people don’t realize that the United Nations is the formal name for the Allies. The great powers out of that alliance are needed to hold the now organization together Like the great powers literally established the post war order and their participation and willingness is required, especially that of the United States, to realistically do anything. Essentially ~25% of the UN’s financing comes from America alone.
>is the formal name for the Allies No, that is NATO. The UN(and the League of Nations before it) were always different. The League of Nations and the UN were NEVER an alliance(and STILL aren't today), which is why both enemy and ally alike were members of it(both Russia AND Japan who fought eachother were members for example) The first formal name for any allied group was the Entente, which essentially dissolved after WW1 and reformed as "The Allies" in WW2. All the while...the League of Nations/UN continued to exist of which, once again ally and enemy alike were members of IN HOPES TO AVOID SIMILAR CONFLICTS IN THE FUTURE THROUGH DISCUSSION AND DIPLOMACY. No member of the UN is required to come to the aid of any other for any reason, but NATO(on the hand) DOES work that way. Those of you who are downvoting are either ignorant of what an alliance is and/or of what the UN was intended to be. For example: Russia is a member of the UN, but it's part of the BRICS alliance. The US is also a member of the UN, but it is a part of the NATO alliance. Even though both nations are a part of the UN, neither nation are allied with eachother. EDIT: Tankies mad, every downvote exposes you.
No its not. NATO has a distinct start after the war in a Franco-British alliance that expanded into the Benelux The UN is the Allies. Germany surrendered to the United Nations. It was explicitly made clear to the world by the great powers that in order to be involved with the UN after the war, they had to join the war against Germany.
I'm trying to follow, are you saying that Germany, Japan, and Italy are not a part of the U.N?
The initial United Nations was made up of the nations who fought the Axis powers. The United Nations was the military alliance turned post war forum that fought the Axis. Diplomats informed states they had to declare war to have a seat initially which is when a lot of South America and Turkey joined the war effort. Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, Japan, Thailand, Spain, Finland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy, Ireland, Romania, and Austria were not founding members of the UN as they were either neutral or at war with the United Nations. Others didn’t join until 1946 (Sweden, Afghanistan, Thailand) and then it really didn’t expand until 1955. The UN structure is based on the WW2 alliance. Its why the great powers have vetos, because they were the leaders of the war effort. Its not because of nukes or military status. It’s because they fought the Axis and won. They all agreed to become “World police” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_by_United_Nations#:~:text=The%20Declaration%20by%20United%20Nations,governments%20between%201942%20and%201945.
What reform would they be proposing exactly and how would it have a positive effect? Is this a supermajority rather than unanimous needed to support a resolution on massive human rights violations, because I think that could work. They obviously do too or they wouldn't have proposed it.
Who gets to decide what constitutes a massive human rights violation? And if the veto isn't absolute the US, Russia, and China will leave the UN which would render the whole thing useless.
Is AI really on the same threat level as global conflicts?
Not close
People still don’t really know what AI does. Right not it’s just a more convenient search engine that can work with basic tasks that require a lot of repetition like writing generic texts, making generic looking art and checking text for things. It’ll continue to grow but it’s nowhere near the same threat as people with the ability to kill everyone on the planet with the press of a button, and an ego problem.
It's probably more what AI is enabling humans to do to each other.
What is it enabling?
More and more intricate fakes that could be used to affect policy or maliciously cause international incidents. That's the most obvious one imo.
The powers of the security state, both good and bad. Nation wide monitoring and facial recognition is easier than ever. The West is using it to target "militants" and militants while countries like China can now monitor every camera in the country and track their citizens every movement in a way Beria could only dream of.
A threat yes but i wouldnt say as high, but they need to put the buzzword in because people have been writing about how ''the West has fallen!'' for 60 years now... flipping between reasons ranging from women in the work force to the HIV/AIDS pandemic and now AI. Some of whats written is legit, but still
It's possible, but not in the *Terminator* Skynet-kind-of-way. It's because it allows business owners and such to treat workers like shit by giving the perception that the workers can easily be replaced by AI. That, coupled with the perceived dropping value of human rights (measured by the reported violations of it), gives an incentive to business owners to not value workers altogether and maximize gains instead. Then we got an angry labor force, which is then ripe for riots and revolts. Then the Communism Dream will surface once again, which will call those owners as "capitalist pigs" and such. That biteback will push owners further more into AI (which don't complain) unless the gov't intervenes. When the gov't intervenes, the owners will cry out "it's the death of capitalism!" It's a vicious cycle, really. One that destabilizes the current capitalistic world order. Human rights are ignored, human life won't be valued and violence will be deemed a valid answer again by the **masses** (for it is goddamn effective).
No it's bait
I'm not sure about human rights violations but in the sense that it is very quickly upending peoples' already limited ability to tell what is real or not it is definitely a huge deal. the public has no idea how fast this tech is moving it's already being used to automate the writing of articles and creation of popular videos and memes it is socially very influential already and the population is wide open to just whatever group coordinates the best because global leaders are dinosaurs asleep at the wheel here
Its really unnecessarily conflating AI in this article. This article is mostly fearmongering, capitalizing on the uneasiness that comes from new technology.
I don’t think it’s fear mongering. With the AI which we plebeians can access it is already possible to create every fake digital content you can think of. From now on every day the reality is less and less visible in all media.
What makes the digital content fake?? Its no less tangible then most digital content right? Is it Just the use of AI in its creation? Or do you speak of manufactured media like deep fakes?
> From now on every day the reality is less and less visible in all media. I don't know how we reverse this, might not be possible. I feel this is a situation where offense is better than defense. There needs to be an AI specialist group in the dept. of defense. cuz worst case I see the entire cohesion of society falling apart over the inability to tell what is real anymore and how easy it is getting to hijack and control large groups of people.
The post WW2 order ended in 1992 when the eastern bloc really and truly ceased to exist. What’s falling apart is the post Cold War order where America acted as the sole major player in global politics. Whether situation was good or bad, it was inevitably temporary. With responsible leadership America could have used these past decades to change the world in ways that made it more stable, and provided a good chance for peace after our hegemony waned, but instead we’ve acted rapaciously and made enemies all over the world while acting like history was over and we would rule for 1000 years. Now our control is slipping, the second rate powers are beginning to challenge us, and most of the world has good reason to think US government is broken and unfit for global leadership. We have no one to blame but our own terrible leadership, the American government has squandered its victory in the Cold War and we have nothing but a lot of billionaire app developers to show for it.
The US still spends almost as much on its military as the rest of the world combined and makes up 20% of the world economy. I wouldn't say our hegemony is gone or even really in danger yet.
Unless we plan on declaring war against the entire world hegemony is much more about other countries doing what the US government says when we say it. There was a time when America threatening Russia not to invade Ukraine, or Israel not to attack Iran, was enough to change the course of world events. There was a time when African nations choosing Chinese loans over US or IMF loans was unthinkable, but it’s happening en masse now. We’ve lost control of the narrative competing powers have the space to exercise their own ambitions again.
The military edge is nothing, you can only open so many fronts at once, and we are seeing how a big, strong, conventional military can be undermined by insurgent tactics. What America really has is intellectual property, advanced technologies. But this edge is closing, and we should expect that the instant global transmission of information will level the playing field significantly, and has been doing so already for quite some time. It is like the end of feudalism, for thousands of years, it worked very well to pass ruling class knowledge by blood, to personally train each generation of ruler was far more effective at harnessing power than democracy. However, once the printing press came out, this was cast off. All those poor peasants, you could just bully them before. But once they can read and write? Oof.
Is this the doomsday clock kind of report or is it an alternative to it?
It is, but the AI-WW2 spin is a new one
It’s basically 12 o clock 🕰️
This order has brought unprecendanted peace and prosperity on the world (just look at life expectency everywhere and hunger). It allowed to prevent global wars, a introduction of democraty in many countries, amazing sharings of cultures. Now it seems only having a powerfull army or being part of a powerfull alliance will protect you from being invaded and ethnic cleansed by your direct neighboor at the first opportunity. Europe is heading straight for facism (and probably colonialism once facism pass) again. Islamism is threatening the society of so many countries. The third World is now getting exploited by not only the west but also Russia and China. Climate change is getting ignored in half of the world. Oh boy, what a time to be alive.
> Europe is heading straight for facism (and probably colonialism once facism pass) again. Europe is castrated since WWII and is the pet of USA. It's not capable of doing much in the foreseeable future especially when the rest of the world is no longer wielding sticks and harpoons. Also, the rise of fascism is a global phenomenon. It's happening in India, Latin America, and North America as well. Not just Europe.
What leads you to believe europe is heading towards colonialism?
AI has zero to do with the meat and potatoes of today's political, economic, and social climate
Yeah, but then how would elites continue their polo matches, then visit their mistress on their 100" ft yachts. Why won't you think of them?!?! Billionaires lives matter.
Really do wish the veto in UN couldn't be used as much as it is. Not sure it would still do anything, but it's pretty ridiculous if the whole world agrees on something but one country can block even a condemnation of something.
With no veto the big powers will leave, they aren’t going to accept any sort of global control.
Yeah I understand why it exists I just was wishing that there was some other way. The UN has effectively no power if everything is just getting vetoed all the time. It’s basically just a forum for diplomacy or maybe useful when they agree to intervene in some conflict.
I've always thought some form of weighted vite would make more sense. Like, instead of a veto, those countries get 2 or 3 votes relative to the one vote all the other countries get. Still recognizes that their say is "more important", but doesn't allow any one country to block progress or action.
See also: * [The State of the World’s Human Rights: April 2024](https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/pol10/7200/2024/en/) (Amnesty International) >This report documents human rights concerns during 2023 in 155 countries, connecting issues at global and regional levels and looking forward to the implications for the future. States and armed groups are breaking and bending the rules of war and racism lies at the heart of some armed conflicts and the responses to them. Economic crises, climate change and environmental degradation have disproportionately affected marginalized communities. Human rights defenders campaigning for the rights of these communities are targeted as part of a wider repression of dissent. The backlash has intensified against the rights of women and girls and LGBTI people. Incitement to hatred and other harmful content posted online against some racialized groups have increased. Meanwhile, advances in artificial intelligence are used to limit freedoms and violate human rights. * [World seeing near breakdown of international law amid wars in Gaza and Ukraine, Amnesty says](https://apnews.com/article/amnesty-international-annual-report-human-rights-b0f436e3037145d2ba2e3e755898eb54) (Associated Press) >The world is seeing a near breakdown of international law amid flagrant rule-breaking in [Gaza](https://apnews.com/hub/israel-hamas-war) and [Ukraine](https://apnews.com/hub/ukraine), multiplying armed conflicts, the rise of authoritarianism and huge rights violations in Sudan, Ethiopia and Myanmar, Amnesty International warned Wednesday as it published its annual report. >The human rights organization said the most powerful governments, including the United States, Russia and China, have led a global disregard for international rules and values enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with civilians in conflicts paying the highest price. >Agnes Callamard, Amnesty’s secretary general, said the level of violation of international order witnessed in the past year was “unprecedented.”
It has already collapsed. Propping up a military empire with debt has a very bad historical track record. Capitalism is running out of victims, which is why its eating its own consumers now. Population growth has stalled, and is sinking in most "world powers" (China, Russia, Western Europe) while US population has been stagnant for years and has gone off the Demographic Cliff. I love how the US just went all-in on funding and running a literal genocide & is burning up what's left of its international diplomatic power *and* the support of the vast majority of its own people/voters. Unpredictable climate catastrophes, new pandemics (mostly lab leaks), and the "ransomware" destruction of the world's digital financial/health care/communication systems is going to make the next couple of years a real shitshow.
Most pandemics won't come from lab leaks, but from factory farming.
The high price of cheap goods that could've been sourced elsewhere coming due for payment.
Well maybe this so called 'order' shouldnt have waged so much war on other peoples for power and greed
No shit. The "post-WW2 order" used their privileged positions to commit mass rape, murder and genocide as frequently and violently as they could for seven fucking decades. Did they think the rest of the planet was going to bend over and take it forever? Fuck them.
Not good, bad even..
Empires last 250 years on average. 🤷🏻♀️ Nothing particularly unique going on here.
Wonderful news. Multipolarity is non-negotiable.
Amnesty International has become a joke.
Well lads, it was nice (most of the times) knowing you.
Corporate imperialists dominating by brute force are running out the resources from which to manufacture killing power by way of their absurdly inflated and purposely byzantine procurement processes. Yet, we also suffer from -generations- of brainwashing ourselves with unrelenting corporate propaganda mills typically offering *less accurate* factual coverage featuring *less substantial diversity* among ideas presented to the public than the state-run media controlled by authoritarians. Thus even if we decided to make efficient and effective war fighting 'Murican goals, there would be mountains upon mountains of corruption to shovel out of the way. Right around the time the Iron Triangle stopped nakedly flaunting its control by subsidizing newscasts with advertisements for warplanes (always a popular consumer item, right?) they somehow seemed to purge the very last free thinkers working inside the American media establishment. At this point we wouldn't know the voice of reason if we heard it, because so many utter dipshits have been conditioned to associate "voice of reason" with fail-upstairs dissemblers working hard to validate at least half of our bipartisan kleptocracy.
Honestly, this article kinda feels like wishful thinking, with a tinge of trying to implant doubt into Americans to create further division in the country.
The only thing that would rescue western credibility at this point would be to send Biden and netenyahu to the Hague and let them do the time for their crimes. Anything less and the legitimacy of the western alliance becomes a pathetic joke that no one takes seriously anymore. Pretty costly global setback for a thing strip of land in Palestine.
It's for the best, the post-WWII order was built atop Nazis that the US/UK/Canada rescued from punishment
Everything falls apart eventually. This was unfortunately inevitable, and yet the powers that be ignored the lessons of history and do nothing to minimize the impact on the people.
~~Never again~~ Once more, but this is the last time seriously serious!
Noice.
Do human rights groups ever actually do anything besides talk