[engels_gibs]

"autoritarian regimes"

"Rules based international order"

This guy has the mind so brainwashed by western media talking points he cannot even understand the propaganda he cheerfully chews on.

Poor innocent 'rules based' order :(. I am sure the "rules based international order" prevented the USA from invading Iraq based on lies, right? Oh wait, the rules didnt work that time. But at least they are preventing Israel of massacring thousands of babies and toddlers in Gaza! Wait, also no. But at least they stopped the USA from deploying a mass surveillance system to spy on every citizen of the world, like Snowden revealed. Uhm, also no. The "rules based international order" is for suckers.

[brazzy]

Please read the article again, all of it. Maybe this time you will be able to understand that it actually addresses your points (which are just propaganda of a different source, with certainly no better aims).

[engels_gibs]

Yaya, I read how he "addressed" my points. "It isnt perfect but is the best we got" yadayada. "Rules based international order" never existed. It's just a buzzword promoted by NATO apologists to defend their imperialist expoliation. It never existed. There are no "international rules" for the powerful, the Hague was created to persecute poor third-world warlords or at best the enemies of NATO. It was not created to persecute Bush, Obama or Netanyahu. The WTO was created to sustain american capitalism and benefit american interests, when China started outgrowing american influence then suddenly the WTO is the enemy. There are no rules at all that stopped NATO to bomb Yugoslavia, Lybia, Syria, Yemen, Iraq or Afghanistan.

Its just a buzzword, a talking point parroted by american apologists. Never existed in the past and it certainly doesnt exist now. "Rules based international order" in practice means: NATO gets to do whatever the shit they want, as they have always done. That's it. That's the whole rules in actual practice.

And regarding the supposed reduction in warfare after WWII:

You can thank the existence of the Soviet Union, which united much of the western imperialist powers (Europe, America and its vessel states like Japan, Australia or South Korea) against the first real menace against capitalism in history. That's pretty much the reason why inter-european warfare stopped after WWII. And they focused on warfare against the third world (Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, South America, Central America, etc.) They function as an imperialist block with the same interests. It has little to do with the supposed existence of "rules" or an imaginary "order".

[tim333]

The "rules based international order" isn't perfect but better than what went before it. The percentage of the population killed in warfare has gone from like 15% in the ancient world, 2 or 3% in Napoleon/Hitler times and maybe 0.1% in the modern world (numbers approx).

[engels_gibs]

Is not that "it isnt perfect". It never existed. The Hague was created to persecute backwater third world shithole warlords or at best the enemies of NATO. Not to persecute Bush, Obama or Netanyahu.

You can thank the reduction in warfare killing to the existence of the Soviet Union, which united much of the western imperialist powers (Europe, America and its vessel states like Japan, Australia or South Korea) against the first real menace against capitalism in history. That's pretty much the reason why inter-european warfare stopped after WWII. They function as an imperialist block with the same interests. It has little to do with the supposed existence of "rules" or an imaginary "order".

[tim333]

Personally I put quite a lot in the long term reduction in killing down to tech improving with things like the printing press, the internet and such like.

[throw-the-towel]

Citation very much needed. If anything, I'm afraid that the internet will eventually spark wars, with all the polarisation it encourages.