Utopia Talk / Politics / UK strategic military wafflebollocks pt2

NeverWoods Member	Thu Oct 21 14:36:40 Continue
Seb Member	Thu Oct 21 14:38:38 It's clear that Mavl wanted to run away, so I don't see any need to persue him for a routing. If Nimatzo has more to say, I'd be interested.
NeverWoods Member	Thu Oct 21 14:45:23 Mavl is like a smarter version of Hot rod, he really knows how to side track issues.
Mavl Member	Thu Oct 21 14:48:11 I'm here, Seb. No need to engage in self glorification of your hypocritical arguments.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 21 14:55:02 Oh no Mavl, you don't get to prematurely end a thread with a no text post and then come back from the dead and claim it was all a mistake. That would be hypocritical.
Mavl Member	Thu Oct 21 14:55:56 If you want to think that what happened in Kosovo was a genocide against KLA freedom fighters by evil Milosovic that wanted to kill all Albanians, sure, but as I said, third graders know better when they study history by something other than Bush TV. Of course, you could bring proof that Milo wanted to exterminate all Albanians, but you will not do that, because 1) there is none and 2) that is not required when you could play a demagogue. As for the initial argument: Yes, breaking into someone's house makes you an aggressor if you weren't involved in that conflict before by agreement or by action. No matter what you do, if you interfere YOU start a war.
Mavl Member	Thu Oct 21 14:57:34 "Thu Oct 21 14:55:02 Oh no Mavl, you don't get to prematurely end a thread with a no text post and then come back from the dead and claim it was all a mistake. That would be hypocritical. " More like tired of empty talk with a politically biased demagogue.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 21 15:06:40 Mavl: Can you give me a good reason why I should respond to someone who so clearly just wants to run away from a conversation? It would be a complete waste of time as you are were clearly not interested in a response then, and are now just trying to save face. Ask nicely, I'll be happy to respond, but this looks suspiciously like threatre.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 21 15:10:02 *in another thread too, this is off topic.
Mavl Member	Thu Oct 21 15:15:20 If I wanted to run away from a conversation I would have never joined it in the first place. But I was waiting for a response for a number of posts now but you just keep on jumping from how noble the KLA were to how you are justified in bombing weddings in Afghanistan. So far you've backtracked your argument that what happened in Kosovo was a genocide. This brings us back to the post where you claimed your act of war in Serbia and support of KLA was justified.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 21 15:30:03 "But I was waiting for a response for a number of posts now" If you wanted a responce, you wouldn't fill the last post of a thread with a period to end it.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 21 15:32:16 BTW, I have not backtracked from Genocide as I clearly stated. But if you want a response, ask for one properly in an appropriate thread.
Mavl Member	Thu Oct 21 15:34:55 "If you wanted a responce, you wouldn't fill the last post of a thread with a period to end it. " I'm truly sorry if it hurt your feelings, Seb, but it sometimes happens. It's just the way nature works, old threads die so new ones could take their place. But nothing in the universe ever truly dies. Everything is just transformed.
Mavl Member	Thu Oct 21 15:36:34 "BTW, I have not backtracked from Genocide as I clearly stated. But if you want a response, ask for one properly in an appropriate thread. " Well, in that case you should have proof that Milosevic wanted Albanians exterminated as an ethnic group. A hard thing to do since most of them live in separate Albania.
jergul Member	Thu Oct 21 15:49:35 Does not really matter for the purposes of this thread. In retrospect there is wide support for a fuller intervention than what took place and thus it is usable as an example for why force projection is needed.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 21 15:50:28 "I'm truly sorry if it hurt your feelings, Seb" It didn't, but it did make me realise there is no point discussing something with someone who is not actually interested in a repose. Particularly as it implies you are playing to a non-existant audience which makes me doubtful of your santiy. "Well, in that case you should have proof that Milosevic wanted Albanians exterminated as an ethnic group." 1. Kosovan Albanians are an Ethnia, or arguably a nationality, in international law. 2. Even if you reject this argument and insist that there are only Albanians, then trying to kill only those in Albania would be an attempt to kill all that part. The reason for the "in part" is pretty obvious when you think about it... it would suggest that merely trying to kill all European Jews, while not making an attempt to kill those in the Americas demonstrates the NAZIs were not genocidal. As for only the KLA, theres stackloads of documentary evidence of the Serb paramilitaries burning villiages, mass graves full of unarmed civies etc. and these were not isolated incidents. Either way, the point is really not terribly important. Genocide is appropriate (particularly in light of the Serb proxies in Bosnia), but if you insist it was "merely" ethnic cleansing, both are equal crimes against humanity under the Rome statutes and I am willing to waive the point simply to move forward: there is a duty under international law to take action to prevent crimes against humanity. That is the last I am interested in discussing here. If you want to rehash Kosovo and how terribly unfair the whole collapse of the Soviet Union was, start another tread. I can't guarnatee I'll be interested enough to post though, because frankly your boring as hell and insist everyone else is brainwashed.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 21 15:51:01 Jergul is more concise.
Mavl Member	Thu Oct 21 16:10:49 "It didn't, but it did make me realise there is no point discussing something with someone who is not actually interested in a repose. Particularly as it implies you are playing to a non-existant audience which makes me doubtful of your santiy. " I'm always interested in n objective response. Unfortunately that has been a problem lately, Seb. ""Well, in that case you should have proof that Milosevic wanted Albanians exterminated as an ethnic group." 1. Kosovan Albanians are an Ethnia, or arguably a nationality, in international law. 2. Even if you reject this argument and insist that there are only Albanians, then trying to kill only those in Albania would be an attempt to kill all that part. The reason for the "in part" is pretty obvious when you think about it... it would suggest that merely trying to kill all European Jews, while not making an attempt to kill those in the Americas demonstrates the NAZIs were not genocidal. " So are you trying to say that Milosevic's policy was rounding all Albanians, young and old, into concentration camps with a clear and only purpose to exterminate them all? Are you aware of the population part Albanians constitute in Kosovo? "As for only the KLA, theres stackloads of documentary evidence of the Serb paramilitaries burning villiages, mass graves full of unarmed civies etc. and these were not isolated incidents. " Link to the stack loads of documentary evidence please from a trustworthy source. And since I do not hear any genocide claims at present, evidence that this outweighs the policy of ethnic cleansing by the KLA. "Either way, the point is really not terribly important. Genocide is appropriate (particularly in light of the Serb proxies in Bosnia), but if you insist it was "merely" ethnic cleansing, both are equal crimes against humanity under the Rome statutes and I am willing to waive the point simply to move forward: there is a duty under international law to take action to prevent crimes against humanity." Genocide and ethnic cleansing are no equal by no means. An act of ethnic cleansing can be an isolated incident by a rogue military commander while genocide is a general policy towards another ethnos. "That is the last I am interested in discussing here. If you want to rehash Kosovo and how terribly unfair the whole collapse of the Soviet Union was, start another tread. I can't guarnatee I'll be interested enough to post though, because frankly your boring as hell and insist everyone else is brainwashed. " Kosovo has nothing to do with Soviet Union. Infact, it has much do to with the western imperialist policies. Take a strong ally of your opponent, divide it, and set small pieces against eachother. "Does not really matter for the purposes of this thread. In retrospect there is wide support for a fuller intervention than what took place and thus it is usable as an example for why force projection is needed. " "Force projection" is just another word for "aggression potential". Whether it is needed at all is a subject for debate.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 21 16:20:21 "So are you trying to say that Milosevic's policy was rounding all Albanians, young and old, into concentration camps with a clear and only purpose to exterminate them all?" Ah, so you must be saying that genocide can only occur in death camps? "from a trustworthy source." You don't believe such a thing exists. "Genocide and ethnic cleansing are no equal by no means." In international law, both are defined as crimes against humanity, and there is no legal difference between them. In fact, the correct legal figure is "crime against humanity" which can take several forms, smilar to how poisoning and stabbing are both murder, and not ranked in order. "Kosovo has nothing to do with Soviet Union." The fact you think Kosovo was really all about Russia is very telling, don't you think. One has to say, if you think Slobodan Milosovec was a friend worth having (or that Yougoslavia, a country that failed to hold itself together, was strong) speaks volumes. I think we have covered everything here.
Mavl Member	Thu Oct 21 16:35:47 "Ah, so you must be saying that genocide can only occur in death camps?" That is usually what you have to do to keep those you kill from running away. So yes or no? "You don't believe such a thing exists. " I didn't ask you to declare my beliefs for me, I asked you clearly for a source. "In international law, both are defined as crimes against humanity, and there is no legal difference between them. In fact, the correct legal figure is "crime against humanity" which can take several forms, smilar to how poisoning and stabbing are both murder, and not ranked in order. " You are wrong. There are 3 categories. Genocide, crime against humanity and war crime. All treated differently. http://www.slate.com/id/1008071/ "The fact you think Kosovo was really all about Russia is very telling, don't you think. One has to say, if you think Slobodan Milosovec was a friend worth having (or that Yougoslavia, a country that failed to hold itself together, was strong) speaks volumes. " Kosovo has nothing to do with Russia, it has everything to do with Serbia though, which was a main Russian ally in the region which automatically made them a primary target for you. I don't care which volumes it speaks for you Seb.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 21 16:49:07 Mavl: "That is usually what you have to do to keep those you kill from running away." So, the Rwandan Genocide was not genocide, because there were no camps? "I asked you clearly for a source." No, you asked me for a trustworthy source, which I suspect involves a tiresome game that goes like: Media is propoganda, transcripts from trials at the Hague are victors justice, etc. etc. I don't provide sources for "the world is round". The only way you can seriously ask for such proof is you have already discounted it all as not trustworthy, which just demonstrates you are a crank. Sure it is possible to dispute sources but if you are in doubt over something so well covered as Kosovo, we are into "moon landings never happened" territory. "There are 3 categories" Re-reading, you are correct. The punishment, jurisdiction and obligations under international law however are the same, so the point still stands. "Kosovo has nothing to do with Russia" ... "Take a strong ally of your opponent, divide it, and set small pieces against eachother." Apparantly, Kosovo was all about Russia, namely, depriving it of an ally, and not at all about Serbia filling pits with dead bodies.
jergul Member	Thu Oct 21 17:42:22 There is the issue of bedfellows. Militia groups did displace populations, but there is not particular reason I know of that the genocidal nature inherent to a number of incidents can be linked to the Serbian Republic proper...but we do have the: "In February 2007, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) cleared Serbia of genocide, but ICJ's president stated that MiloÅ¡eviÄ? was aware of the risk of massacres occurring and did not act to prevent them.[143]" Which pretty much clears the former president of the Genocide charges too even if the trial ended on his death.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 21 18:20:46 Milosovec was only charged with crimes against humanity in Kosovo due to the use of paramilitaries, the relatively poor documented proof abailable, and the difficulty of proving that he knowingly gave orders to that effect. As you note, he was charged with warcrimes and genocide in Bosnia (for which he was cleared as you note), but even the blatant genocide at Srebrenicia couldn't be proved for him in specific due to keeping himself at arms length. The clearing on that charge rested on the inability to adequately link the paramilitaries and Bosnian Serbs were acting on orders from Serbia, and does not at all suggest that genocide wasn't happening. The court definitely ruled that a genocide occured in Bosnia, because Serbia was explicitly found guilty in the same ruling of failure to prevent Genocide with respect to Srebrenica. Something that could not be the case if Genocide didn't occur! Failure to convict anyone for perpetrating the genocide neither demonstrates that the crime wasn't happening, nor that there were no grounds for intervention. That no charges laid against Serbia for failure to prevent genocide in Kosovo is partly explained by the fact that the majority of the genocidal acts of the paramilitaries occured after intervention began as an effort to establish hard facts on the ground, and Serbias conventional military had no freedom to act (had they wanted to), making it very difficult to convict. Taken together: 1. Slobdoan and Serbia were not cleared of Genocide in Kosovo, only in Srebrenicia, the case of their culpability for comissioning it. Very difficult to prove! This does not mean that genocide was not occuring in Kosovo. 2. Serbia was convicted of failing to prevent genocide in the case of Srebrenicia. The failure to prevent genocide or crimes against humanity if you must, in Kosovo demonstrates the need for intervention. 3. The fact that most of the worst abuses occured during the intervention due to the over-reliance on air power in part due to Americas reluctance to put boots on the ground and the time required to politicaly and logistically organise a credible European one demonstrates the need for improved force projection in future to prevent escalation of crimes against humanity and enforce the obligation to protect.
kindfluffysteve Member	Thu Oct 21 20:41:42 i wonder if there is an opportunity for britain to really go for a common european defence force - be the lead nation in command of, but with responsibility to defend europe waters, and project european naval power with the combined assets of our new republic? make the case correctly and we can possibly negotiate significant concessions on funds that go to the european union in exchange for maintaining an enhanced naval capability. this might work because 1) britain likes the idea of having a navy. 2) britain can then afford to have airplanes for its carriers 3) britain gets the glory of its ships being the flagships of any european task force, or of the power to delegate. or something that makes us big on the world stage again. 4) for the european nations. they can feel confident that with the royal navy as the backbone of our combined fleet, that the reputation is pretty solid. 5) it is desirable for europe to have a naval task force capability. we have lots of small nations which could never do what we can give them a say in.
kindfluffysteve Member	Thu Oct 21 20:46:08 and its almost there now. the eu has 3 large carriers. and numerous small ones only the USA has the power projection. the usa has better carriers and more of them, but the EU has better aircraft to launch from them? thinking of, the rafale and navalised eurofighters.
Nimatzo Member	Thu Oct 21 23:39:13 The posts get far too long far comfort. Here is my argument condensed. I do not think we should intervene to help anywhere until we know what the fuck we are doing, which is basically never. I do not buy into collective global security and I think your arguments are founded upon false dichotomies. There is no either or. We are perfectly fine with military as a deterrence towards external enemies. Which is a rapidly decreasing list, if any. If this means dead people in Africa, ME or Asia, I can live with that. Because the alternative as seen in history is that increasingly ambitious people start using the capability to project force for more sinister and morally questionable missions. If there is no umbrella to take cover under people are forced to deal with their shit or die. I say this because we have tried the alternative you speak of, intervening for the greater good for more than half a century, I am less than pleased with the results. Let's try, not fucking with people, but lets not go to the other extreme either, isolationism.
killten Member	Thu Oct 21 23:47:32 U.S. Navy uses legacy Hornets and Super Hornets now, with the F-14 and A-6 having been phased out. They also have Marine Corps Harriers. There's just no comparing to the U.S. Navy in terms of raw power, so it kinda makes sense to go for helicopter assault ships and let the U.S. handle the fast jet arena. Assault ships also have a very relevant application in disaster relief, so it would be easier to justify them as being both a humanitarian as well as defense based asset. Though it would probably be wise to maintain at least one or two fixed-wing carriers for the EU, so that they're not bound to the U.S. entirely. Navalized Typhoons are still in the design process at best, and Rafales are few and far in between. Having not won a single export contract yet, France has been forced to cut down on their Rafale orders due to the economies of scale. There's also a thing about the Rafales being slightly smaller and having slightly less powerful engines than the Typhoon. What I'd like to see is the U.S. giving some military aid to Canada so that we can buy some Mistrals. :P I find it ridiculous that we're supposed to be one of the U.S.'s closest allies and major peacekeepers when we don't even have our own naval aviation capability. We're still using those lovely Sea Kings from the 1960s too.
jergul Member	Fri Oct 22 00:37:40 Seb I am not undermining the need for force projection. That is firmly established by the overwhelming sentiment that in retrospect, more should have been done. Genocide is actually a crime though - and as with most crimes a court rules on the status. The ICJ has cleared Serbia of Genocide.
kindfluffysteve Member	Fri Oct 22 04:17:36 >>Navalized Typhoons are still in the design process at best, and Rafales are few and far in between.<< the french have what? 120 Rafale's with hundreds more on order. spread between 2 or 3 carriers thats some survivability with a lot of punch. more punch than most national air forces.
kindfluffysteve Member	Fri Oct 22 04:19:29 navalised euro fighter, no clear call for them. as i understand it, the main design issue, is strengthened under carriage.
Seb Member	Fri Oct 22 09:39:44 Nim: "basically never" Well, thank fuck the Americans didn't think that during WWII, or we would have one of two rather unpleasant outcomes. BTW, given a war with three participants (Russia, Britain, and the Axis), one of which has nearly no hope of winning on the continent, how the hell does that ammount to a false dichotomy? "I do not buy into collective global security" Then what's all this "we will nuke it busines" for the dark clouds (should they gather). You'll spin on a penny if any of the problems that afflict the insecure parts of the world threaten to descend. Sorry, I just simply can not respect a position as callous as to condemn victims of genocide and crimes against humanity in the Balkans, Africa and anywhere else they might happen as "tough luck, darkie, should've been born in Europe", and the rank hypocrisy of having been pulled out of such darkness by foreign intervention (like it or not) and then acting like such intervention was a morally dubious thing. "I am less than pleased with the results." Then you need your head examined. There is a reason Toniblare is a popular name for kids in Kosovo. "but lets not go to the other extreme either, isolationism." Mhmm, yes, let all get together and talk while the murderers and rapists get on with their job. I'm sure they will listen to harsh words that are unenforceable. Kilten: "and let the U.S. handle the fast jet arena." The problem is then that you have no second axis and we are back to the problems that led to the present conditions in the middle east. If you are beholden on the US to provide air cover, then in the end it puts everything onto a US decision to go in or not. This is not a great idea, we need more degrees of freedom. jergul: ICJ cleared Serbias government of commiting genocide at Srebrenicia. It wasn't prosecuted for others. The real relevant point is genocide was going on (ruled so in the case of the Balkans, but also in Kosovo) and it was Serbias duty to prevent it from happening. Of course, though we can not meet the high burden of proof, anyone sane knows that Milosovec actually ordered the militas in.
jergul Member	Fri Oct 22 09:47:03 Seb Sort of have to meet the high burden to use the legal term. We have been OJ'd :). But it is beside the point as sentiment hugely favours force projection capability to meet similar circumstances in the future. Its pretty much an indisputable backdrop for military capability discussions.
jergul Member	Fri Oct 22 10:05:40 Back on topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Astute_%28S119%29 And the laughter continues. What else is there to do?
killten Member	Fri Oct 22 10:07:13 Seb: 'The problem is then that you have no second axis and we are back to the problems that led to the present conditions in the middle east. If you are beholden on the US to provide air cover, then in the end it puts everything onto a US decision to go in or not.' Yup. I acknowledged this in my post. :) >>(Though it would probably be wise to maintain at least one or two fixed-wing carriers for the EU, so that they're not bound to the U.S. entirely.)<< In relation to the thread, I would suggest that the UK and France go ahead with their carrier purchases and utilize them for fixed-wing operations in order to give the EU their fast jet capability. If it's too much for any one nation to afford, I wonder if they could get some of the other big European powers (Germany, Spain) to somehow help out with the costs.
Seb Member	Sat Oct 23 09:28:54 kilten: oops, my bad. "If it's too much for any one nation to afford, I wonder if they could get some of the other big European powers (Germany, Spain) to somehow help out with the costs." I've been thinking about that, but the problem is that sharing military assets is hard... it does give everyone the option of, say, ignoring Rwanda and blaming everyone else.
jergul Member	Sat Oct 23 09:36:32 The UN actually does have the formal mechanisms in place...
Seb Member	Sat Oct 23 09:59:03 jergul: Yes, but strangely vetoing intervention to stop crimes against humanity attracts less opprobrium, and the process allows politicians to fob off the electorates desire to act when it may not be in the strict national interest in the time honoured manner of Yes, Minister. (Can't on our own, need to secure resolution, goddamit the UN!).
killten Member	Sat Oct 23 11:01:19 Seb: 'I've been thinking about that, but the problem is that sharing military assets is hard...' Not to mention agreeing on standard equipment and manufacturers. There have been many collaboration attempts in the past within the EU (Queen E/Porte Avions 2, Eurofighter, Horizon frigate, FREMM frigate) and that's already a huge stumbling block. One of the reasons this new UK/French carrier is taking so long is that their requirements are different: UK wants VTOL, France wants CATOBAR. The French were also intending on going nuclear again like the Charles de Gaulle, but decided to go conventional partly to stay in commonality with the UK design. Deciding on work share is what split the Typhoon/Rafale into two projects, and what split the Type 45/Horizon projects as well.
Seb Member	Sat Oct 23 11:12:13 Killten: Ironically, the whole CATOBAR debate was pointless... MoD naval procurements wanted VTOL to save money on length. That was entirely wiped out by procuring VTOL varients of F35. Now we are modifying at least one carrier to CATOBAR (the one we keep, presumably, but at this point one has to seriously wonder), so we can buy conventional F35's and co-operate with American and French naval aviation. Of course now it costs more to fit a CATOBAR than would have been saved by a greater commonality of design straight throughoutt. (The noise you can here getting louder and louder in the background is Entry of the Gladiators). This of course makes the decision to split Rafale and Typhoon redundant, as the only reason for doing that is because the French wanted a CATOBAR compatible carrier version. The T45 could have been ok if not for the cuts to it required to secure the carriers. Now we clearly need a lot more frigate to escort said carrier.
jergul Member	Sat Oct 23 11:47:11 Seb The UN has mechanisms in place for military interventions. The Military Command and attendant force assignment principles. Which are based on voluntary participation backed by expectations - just like any military intervention must be. Even Bush did not go further than so in his coalition of willing concept. To be clear. Interventions do not have my support without a UN mandate and I rather suspect force projection need be based on such a mandate if an overwhelming consensus is to rest at the basis for there being a need at all. I think inventing a EU type force to replace waning US capabilities is rather optimistic and not really a way to control the growing military potential of eastern powers.
Mavl Member	Sat Oct 23 12:07:01 Seb "So, the Rwandan Genocide was not genocide, because there were no camps? " There were camps - refugee camps where people were killed. Anyway, you are now starting to attack specific words to ignore the overall point. "No, you asked me for a trustworthy source, which I suspect involves a tiresome game that goes like: Media is propoganda, transcripts from trials at the Hague are victors justice, etc. etc. I don't provide sources for "the world is round". The only way you can seriously ask for such proof is you have already discounted it all as not trustworthy, which just demonstrates you are a crank. Sure it is possible to dispute sources but if you are in doubt over something so well covered as Kosovo, we are into "moon landings never happened" territory. " If you can't provide a source just say "I can't do it", no need to panic. "Re-reading, you are correct. The punishment, jurisdiction and obligations under international law however are the same, so the point still stands. " The point was that there was no difference, there is. The punishment is decided by the court if the subject is found guilty. Was the subject found guilty btw? "Apparantly, Kosovo was all about Russia, namely, depriving it of an ally, and not at all about Serbia filling pits with dead bodies. " One doesn't exclude the other. As I already said, all sides were filling pits with bodies in that war (and one is still doing it under NATO supervision), the fact that you only concentrate your attention on the one side deemed by yourself a Russian ally only proves my point. You don't seem to react this way to about a hundred thousand civilians killed in Iraq as a result of western aggression. Nimatzo is correct, having expeditionary capability only gives you a capability to conduct major aggression, and with your ability to cover it up it is a very dangerous destabilization factor. Already many small nations are planning to arm themselves or get strategic weapons to defend their countries in case of an aggression. As the Iraq war showed only a couple of hand drawn slides are needed for you country to become a battlefield in the name of "freedom". After all someone would need only an excuse to intervene in some random conflict and turn it to a geopolitical profitable enterprise at a cost of native blood. When someone wants to defend themselves they buy a gun, but an ability to fly to another town and shoot someone you don't like is not something you require for safety. Iraqi civilians tortured and killed and Serbia torn apart in violation of a UN resolution are a testament to this.
Mavl Member	Sat Oct 23 12:12:03 US ignored torture in Iraq: http://eng...0/10/20101022184243877818.html Al Jazeera's access to leaked documents reveals secret US military order not to investigate Iraqi torture. For the past ten weeks Al Jazeera has had complete access to those files. As part of our forthcoming coverage, we reveal how the US military gave a secret order not to investigate torture by Iraqi authorities discovered by American troops.
OsamaIsDaWorstPresid Member	Sat Oct 23 12:25:49 pretie funie of malv 2 b sukin ragi cok wen his contrie is killin ragis in mass 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_graves_in_Chechnya Dozens of mass graves containing hundreds of corpses have been uncovered since the beginning of the Chechen wars in 1994. As of June 2008, there were 57 registered locations of mass graves in Chechnya.[1] According to Amnesty International, thousands may be buried in unmarked graves including up to 5,000 civilians who disappeared since the beginning of the Second Chechen War in 1999.[2] In 2008, the largest mass grave found to date was uncovered in Grozny, containing some 800 bodies from the First Chechen War in 1995.[1] Russia's general policy to the Chechen mass graves is to not exhume them.[3]
OsamaIsDaWorstPresid Member	Sat Oct 23 12:26:54 gj malv ur contrie deserfs a medal http://upl...en/f/f3/Massgrave_chechnya.jpg
Mavl Member	Sat Oct 23 12:47:38 "gj malv ur contrie deserfs a medal http://upl...en/f/f3/Massgrave_chechnya.jpg" Yes, it does. Let's hope more of your fellow Muslim freedom fighters end that way.
jergul Member	Sat Oct 23 12:49:18 I think Nimi and Mavl both underline the point I am trying to make. There is no consensus for force projection based on the perceptions of nation states or blocks of nation states. That picture does however change within the framework of a UN mandate. Since either the EU or the UN need be used and the EU has significant shortcoming, then perhaps it is time to activate UN infrastructure. Kilten's point re interoperability is valid, but remember that the main issue is actually US limitations on weapon use and system interoperability with third countries. Generally, the trend in weapon systems is interoperability with various other standards, with the world's largest weapon producer being the gaping exception and that in any event sells subpar systems outside of its borders. The reasons for why this is done are pretty straightforward - but is a clear signal that alternate weapon producers provide better products if interoperability is a goal on a global scale. All tied to laughter. The UK is buying us all time for a dramatic rethink on what we want to do with the 2% of global gdp that goes to armed forces.
Seb Member	Sat Oct 23 12:52:43 jergul: " Interventions do not have my support without a UN mandate" So, Kosovo was wrong then, because Russia wouldn't permit one with UN sanction? Mavl: "Anyway, you are now starting to attack specific words to ignore the overall point." What, words like "genocide"? "If you can't provide a source" Gave two right there. Don't need to bother more, no point arguing with someone who disregards all source as part of a nefarious conspiracy. "there is." Not in terms of punishment or obligation. "Was the subject found guilty btw?" Yes, of failure of the obligation to prevent Genocide in it's jurisdiction as per obligations, and several other crimes against humanity. "As I already said, all sides were filling pits with bodies in that war" You can mumble it the Serb Parlimitaries had no connection to Slobodan at all (which is a joke franky), but Serbia had a duty to intervene and showed no interest in doing so. "deemed by yourself a Russian ally" Excuse me, but you were the one that accused NATO of going in to weaken a Russian ally. Russia being an ally of Serbia had no bearing at all on the motivation for intervention. The track record of Serbia in Bosnia, and then doing the same thing in Kosovo, was what motivated. The fact that Russia and Serbia are allied is a matter of record though. "You don't seem to react this way to about a hundred thousand civilians killed in Iraq" Because the coallition didn't go into Iraq with the intention of wiping out Iraqis just for the sake of them being Iraqis. "Nimatzo is correct, having expeditionary capability only gives you a capability to conduct major aggression" So why is Russia buying three or four (I forget) Mistral amphibious assault ships? "Serbia torn apart" Serbia and Yougoslavias disintegration is a direct consequence of Milosovecs "Greater Serbia" ethnocentric policies, which you seem very eager to defend. This thread is not about Kosovo, it is about intervention in Gerneral. If you want to join with Nimatzo and say that actually, contrary to the general opinion that the words failure to stop the genocide in Rwanda was not perhaps the most shameful event since WWII, but in fact was a wise and prudent act worthy of praise, be my guest. But few people would agree... Not relevant to this discussion.
Seb Member	Sat Oct 23 12:58:14 jergul: "There is no consensus for force projection based on the perceptions of nation states or blocks of nation states" So, you can commit genocide and crimes against humanities provided you can get one of the P5 or enough of the rest to block an SC resolution. And, therefore, Kosovo was bad (no consensus), Rwanda was good (or there would have been consensus). This is a great argument for smug people living in security and wealth, but sucks bad time. Lets at least recognise that blocking intervention can be for the same, narrow and selfish interests that you can condemn non UN sanction intervention. And just as bloody. That does not seem satisfactory to me at all, nor massively worthy of respect. N.B. Iraq was not an example of "liberal Interventionism", the criteria as generally espoused were not met. Iraq was a case of Realpolitik for most of the coalition of the willing, but the fundamental causes again stem from the fact that the so called collective system of security is actually Pax Americana, and without the political and material support it's impossible to maintain Pax American and the fig leaf of a UN system without something like 9/11 happening in the end.
jergul Member	Sat Oct 23 13:17:42 Seb The key word is "retrospect" in terms of the consensus. Involvement in Kosovo at the time did not have my support. The UN treaty does allow for immediate action without UNSC ruling - and amazingly - that also goes for the UN command. That can act without a UNSC mandate. The mechanism involved allows for post fact sanction to put it simply. The problem involved with using the mechanism is that it invokes a world order where the UN is the ultimate arbitrator of scale and duration of military action. In reality, the only thing blocking military interventions under the UN banner is the unwillingness to give the UN the authority to be the final arbitrator in the use of force. Much more a US problem than it is one for the EU.
jergul Member	Sat Oct 23 13:23:44 But it really is a pragmatic question first and foremost. I do have high handed principles and my national politicians do not. So if you get a nice EU structure set up, then you can probably intervene without my support. My personal view is that an effective intervention force is only possible with close to a universal consensus on the need. Or - you will not be able to set up an effective EU force capable of doing what you want because such a force lacks the consensus it needs to overcome a huge number of barriers. I think the UN command is an alternative worth exploring on that basis. It could very well be the only way you can get what you want.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Sat Oct 23 13:57:33 "I think the UN command is an alternative worth exploring on that basis. It could very well be the only way you can get what you want." the UN needs to be impartial. it ain't. the rules are not enforced.
jergul Member	Sat Oct 23 14:07:33 Swordtail I may be many things, but unsophisticated is not one of them :) The clue is understanding that the UN Command can intervene immediately and independently before getting post action sanction from the UNSC. All signing nations agreed to that principle.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Sat Oct 23 14:15:28 sure,but certain nations run the UN. these certain nations will make sure that UN Command only intervenes when and in whatever measure they feel is warranted.
The Children Member	Sat Oct 23 14:19:28 Uk selling furniture to cut expenses. Meanwhile Rooney signing new contract for 250k pounds a WEEK.
jergul Member	Sat Oct 23 14:28:39 Swordtail Project 20 years. The world is changing in character and it will take time to implement such a system anyway. The laughter provided by the UK buys us all time for a rethink on what we want military spending to be able to do. The main problem is actually being able to bypass a UNSC veto. Which the Command can do for immediate and short terms interventions. An practically, a post fact veto is significantly less likely - the effort then more likely directed towards shaping the form of mandate with pressure on everyone to find a consensus. I am resting these thoughts on my belief that economic power is rapidly being redistributed - and that this forms the basis for multilateralism in military affairs. The second assumption being that over time, there is a connection between economic bases and military capabilities.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Sat Oct 23 14:44:48 jergul i hear ya loud and clear. i'm just saying that some, want to maintain the status quo. they feel they have too much to lose. instead of seeing a relatively smooth transition,relatively being the relative word,they are doing all they can either on purpose or because of misguided nationalistic views to make the inevitable change as something bad and evil even.
Nimatzo Member	Sat Oct 23 14:46:09 >>Well, thank fuck the Americans didn't think that during WWII, or we would have one of two rather unpleasant outcomes. BTW, given a war with three participants (Russia, Britain, and the Axis), one of which has nearly no hope of winning on the continent, how the hell does that ammount to a false dichotomy?<< Because you falsely assume that these were the only two possible outcomes. That either Hitler would have prevailed or the Soviets would have invaded. You also assume that these two scenarios would have lasted for a very long time. >>Then what's all this "we will nuke it busines" for the dark clouds (should they gather). You'll spin on a penny if any of the problems that afflict the insecure parts of the world threaten to descend.<< That is the defense of me and my allies. >>Sorry, I just simply can not respect a position as callous as to condemn victims of genocide and crimes against humanity in the Balkans, Africa and anywhere else they might happen as "tough luck, darkie, should've been born in Europe"<< And I can not respect the position of intervening everywhere because we don't like the outcome. I am sorry but there is no consistency and chances are good the it is done because of self-interest than goodness of our heart. There is a reason most countries in the world are still run by dictators, because we do not have an interest in most countries. Or they are the way they are because we did intervene and fucked it up for the foreseeable future. You seem to conveniently forget that "intervention" for the last 60 years meant SUPPORTING dictators. >>and the rank hypocrisy of having been pulled out of such darkness by foreign intervention (like it or not) and then acting like such intervention was a morally dubious thing.<< And you keep bringing it up, even though I have rejected the premise of your arguments. WTF? Where the fuck is the hypocrisy? I never asked for foreign intervention and whether or not things are the way they are today BECAUSE of said intervention, I STILL reject the concept. >>Then you need your head examined. There is a reason Toniblare is a popular name for kids in Kosovo.<< And for every Kosovo, there are 10 operation Ajax Vietnam, Iraq wars. You think this is a fair trade, we fuck up 10 places and create future problems so we can save ONE, obviously I nor any sane person feel the same way.
jergul Member	Sat Oct 23 15:00:29 Swordtail hrhr, I think the certain nation you are referring to would be primarily pissed of with my pointing out the quest to monopolize military power by way of crap contracts with customers. It has long since reached a point were the US is an extremely unreliable arms provider that really should not even be used as a last resort. The UN Command thing is small potatoes by comparison.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Sat Oct 23 15:15:38 while the US might be the loudest proponent for the status quo,they aren't the only ones. as for "the quest to monopolize military power by way of crap contracts with customers.",yes that's a pretty accurate description of the US m.o.
killten Member	Sat Oct 23 17:41:53 I agree. One major reason why I don't support the JSF program is because it's delivering an inferior/low value-high cost product that will kill the competition simply due to agreements between allies, with less respect than to the suitability of the product to each individual buying nation. The JSF has a planned lifetime of up to the year 2050, which would mean a lot of aerospace companies will be shut out of doing business with no one to sell their products to. Unless they have a lot of side projects/diversity like Boeing, they're going to wither and die with no sources of income. I don't know how far off I might be, but I am assuming that defense companies need a steady stream of income much like oil majors in order to cover their high operating and research costs. And as mentioned, the very real issue of the U.S. controlling other nations' military thru equipment is worrisome. Just as an example: in the 1970s, Iran bought F-14s from the U.S., then one of the most advanced aircraft in the world. Soon after, the U.S. and Iran's relations soured, and the U.S. cut off parts and support for the craft. What's to say that in the future, some ally will balk at doing as the U.S. wants and the U.S. then decides to hamstring that nation's JSF fleet? They're already refusing to release the software source codes to the U.K., arguably the U.S.' closest ally and the second largest contributor to the JSF program after the U.S. itself. I would think (correct me if I'm wrong) that having a more diverse supplier (such as Eurofighter Consortium) would make it more difficult for any one nation to hold the keys to another nation's defense assets, and would thus be a wiser choice than the monopolizing JSF program.
Seb Member	Sun Oct 24 01:33:30 Nim: "That either Hitler would have prevailed or the Soviets would have invaded." That is a pretty reasonable assumption. Before America intervened, Germany was well into Russia and already had the rest of Western Europe that wasn't already fascist. Either it ends with a stalemate, or one of them victorious. "You also assume that these two scenarios would have lasted for a very long time" 1. Soviet domination of Eastern Europe lasted 60 years, and part of the reason for the collapse was the fact there was a comparison. Look at North Korea, totalitarian regimes can last for a very long time indeed. 2. Look what the NAZI's managed to do in five years... 3. A great deal of the dammage already done by the point of divergence of our hypothetical scenario was only undone due to post war re-construction paid for by... you know who. It is epic wishful thinking to imagine that, absent forces outside of the continent, that anything like our present state of affairs globally would have come about. "That is the defense of me and my allies." Well nim, why should the Yanks, Brits and French care about you more than Africans? As, basically under your policies, perpetual free riders in a global security system, what exactly is the basis for demanding that the security providers should look to you to tell them when to intervene in other situations? "the it is done because of self-interest than goodness of our heart." I don't care about the possible self interests that might arise. That people engaged in the Balkans in part because the consequences to Europe were not ignorable, compared to Rwanda, that is not a bad thing. That is a good thing. The fact that Saddam was repulsed from Kuwait in part because countenencing a mad dictator taking over the worlds oil supplies was a bad thing does not mean it was the wrong thing to do. "You seem to conveniently forget that "intervention" for the last 60 years meant SUPPORTING dictators." Intervention can mean many things, it's kind of like saying breathing is bad because criminals breathe. Lets restrict ourselves to humanitarian intervention then. More damage (as you note) has been done in sustaining dictators and looking away when genocides and crimes against humanity are committed than the reverse. " even though I have rejected the premise of your arguments." Firstly, you have not rebutted the premmis to my satisfaction. You just said "that's a false dichotomy" (but it's not: in 1940 Russia and Germany were at war, Germany had already won in western Europe, and the damage already inflicted was in the event only repaired rapidly by injection of capital from the US after the war, and there is simply no credible scenario that this would lead to a democratic Europe, let alone the kind of post war global norms for international relations you are taking for granted now), so I'll keep brining it up. Moreover, you didn't reject it, you accepted the basic point when you said "and if dark clouds gather we'll nuke them". If we take your "no-intervention because we don't know what we are doing" and "collective security is meaningless", which nukes are you going to be using? Because within the west, there are only three nuclear powers and there is absolutely no reason for them to intervene if we take your argument at face value, unless we presuppose that somehow it's different for some countries. If dark clouds gather and threaten Sweden, for example, the Nimatzo doctrine dictates France and Britain and America should shrug, confess they don't know what they are doing, and offer kind words at the UN but no actual military clout. "You think this is a fair trade, we fuck up 10 places" Firstly, do you think it is necessary to have your Iraqs to have your Kosovos? Who's offering the false dichotomy there? Iraq is as much a result of the abject failure of the rest of the rich world to contribute to global security as anything else.
Nimatzo Member	Sun Oct 24 02:38:40 >>That is a pretty reasonable assumption. Before America intervened, Germany was well into Russia and already had the rest of Western Europe that wasn't already fascist. Either it ends with a stalemate, or one of them victorious.<< Or the loose! Or they win and then after a few years the Nazi German empire crumbles. Surely you can come up with MORE reasonable scenarios? >>1. Soviet domination of Eastern Europe lasted 60 years, and part of the reason for the collapse was the fact there was a comparison.<< You ever think that part of the reason they were so hostile and lasted so long in the shape they did was because there was a comparison, that was equally hostile towards it? >>2. Look what the NAZI's managed to do in five years...<< Yes I think we both agree, war is a bad thing. >>3. A great deal of the dammage already done by the point of divergence of our hypothetical scenario was only undone due to post war re-construction paid for by... you know who.<< Their intervention efforts in Europe was really minuscule in comparison. The entire western front was dwarfed by the Soviet front. >>It is epic wishful thinking to imagine that, absent forces outside of the continent, that anything like our present state of affairs globally would have come about.<< Oh no, we agree here. I just think we could have done better without the cold war. >>Well nim, why should the Yanks, Brits and French care about you more than Africans?<< Because we share common values, culture and ideals. And it's not a question whether they do or not either, it is a fact. >>I don't care about the possible self interests that might arise.<< Yes I know, I try to tell you that this is your main flaw. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is quite fucking important. Because the "fun" starts when you have done that "right thing" and now you can mess it up with the reasons you did it in the first place. >>The fact that Saddam was repulsed from Kuwait in part because countenencing a mad dictator taking over the worlds oil supplies was a bad thing does not mean it was the wrong thing to do.<< But not giving a fuck when he was killing HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Iranians and Kurds. But ONCE HE FUCKED WITH OUR OIL!!! Surely you must see what a retarded position you have taken? You understand right? When I say we are inconsistent? That we do not know what the fuck we are doing and as such should refrain from trying to "help"? >>Lets restrict ourselves to humanitarian intervention then.<< Let's not, because part of my argument has been the inconsistency with which we intervene and how self-interest hijacks the effort over long periods of time. >>and there is simply no credible scenario that this would lead to a democratic Europe<< Yes because the principles of democracy were so foreign to Europe even in the 1940! The Sovietunion would have WIPED it out of everyone heads. See you are operating under the assumption that Nazi or Soviet, that these Empires would have ruled all of Europe for a long time. That is the premise I reject, it would have crumbled down without a cold war. >>Moreover, you didn't reject it, you accepted the basic point when you said "and if dark clouds gather we'll nuke them"<< I reject your premise on the outcome of WW2 without US intervention. Which wasn't even an intervention btw, Germany declared war on them. This has nothing to do with defending oneself with nuclear weapons. >>If dark clouds gather and threaten Sweden, for example, the Nimatzo doctrine dictates France and Britain and America should shrug<< Shared values, cultures, etc. etc. etc. >>Firstly, do you think it is necessary to have your Iraqs to have your Kosovos? Who's offering the false dichotomy there?<< It is INEVITABLE. And no, it is not a false dichotomy, it is a true one. And it is not based on an assumption, but historical records. While yours regarding the fate of Europe after WW2 is conjecture. >>Iraq is as much a result of the abject failure of the rest of the rich world to contribute to global security as anything else.<< Iraq is the direct result of Western intervention in the ME, since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, with the fragmentation of the ME to Operation Ajax, to support for Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. Are you really that blind?
jergul Member	Sun Oct 24 03:03:15 I think we can sum up Nimi's position with the claim that "Interventions are too important to be left in the hands of nation-states or blocks of nation-states". Its actually a pretty reasonable point and any attempt to overcome huge barriers when creating a EU based military will ultimately ground on that shoal. Too many people believe the EU should not have the kind of power you want it to have. So there is a very strong chance you need to find an alternate structure on which to base force projection if you doubt the anglo-sphere axis is viable for the tasks that may arise. I would strongly suggest checking up on what countries have amphibious assault ship and better capability today compared to how you expect it to look in 25 years. A strong western bias in force projection capability is fast changing - a fact compounded by this threads general assumption that the US cannot be trusted to do the right thing, so need be discounted as a power basis to rely on.
Nimatzo Member	Sun Oct 24 03:43:17 Oh I am aware that my position is a dream. Too many different powers and interests who want more power and to protect their interest. It is inevitable that people will project their force into other peoples backyard. What I do not understand and can not respect are people who think that this is a good thing and support it. Well I understand people like Sam, they are evil scum, but I do not understand people like Seb. Given the track record of trying to intervene for some greater good or "global security" while failing miserably and having the consistency of a drunken senile.
jergul Member	Sun Oct 24 03:49:54 Nimi Its not so much a dream as you might think. The main thread point is how in God's name to establish force projection without reliance on the US. The EU very unlikely to build up the effective means simply because there is no consensus that the EU should have such a power structure.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 25 00:47:52 Nim: "Or the loose!" Both? To whom? We both know Russia is capeable of getting to Berlin by itself. Why would it stop? "Or they win and then after a few years the Nazi German empire crumbles." Right, leaving a massive power vacuum, no institutions, every country outside of Germany stripped of it's industry, and ravaged by war. "Surely you can come up with MORE reasonable scenarios?" Sorry, you are the one hypothesising that one of the two victors suddenly and rapidly implodes (though Soviet Russia took sixty years to do so) and somehow Europe rebuilds itself as rapidly as it did with massive support from the US. How on earth is that reasonable. Reasonable is simply to take the state at the point of divergence: a holocaust, Europe outside Germany in ruined by war, with what industrial base remaining stripped away, and two totalitarian regimes in place. "You ever think that part of the reason they were so hostile and lasted so long in the shape they did was because there was a comparison" I think their initial peace time posture has a lot to do with Stalin more than anything else. "war is a bad thing." It also has consequences, lasting stuff that does not magically repair itself if the regime falls appart. Indeed, if we look around the world, a terrible regime falling appart after a war does not mean a rapid reconstruction. Normally it means more coups, more corruption, and ultimately more conflict. If neither NAZI Germany or Soviet Russias totalitarians managed to keep a grip on Europe, then rather than something like the EU forming, rather you are more likely to get endemic corruption, and a series of coups and fragmentations. Nothing at all like the kind of post war re-construction everything we know today is predicated on. "I just think we could have done better without the cold war." The cold war is not an inevitable consequence of foreign intervention into WWII. "Because we share common values," Do we though... and so what? Why should sharing common values mean that you get to be saved from dark clouds but the others get to be thrown to the wolves? If it is wrong for us to intervene to protect them (and it's pretty fair to say that the most important ideal shared between Bosnian Serbs at Srebrenicia and Christian Americans etc. is that in principle, they shouldn't be butchered) it's wrong to intervene to protect you. It is monstrous, absolutely inhumanly monstrous, to tell Rwandan Tutsis or Bosnian Muslims "sorry, we don't really share the same values, so, fuck it, to the gallows with you, but hey, we'll save the Sweedes because they subscribed to our wish list of values". "Their intervention efforts in Europe was really minuscule in comparison." Decsive in effect though: they ensured half of Germany and everything west got to be democratic, rather than soviet, that anyone not suitably supportive of totalitarians did not end up in a gulag (small consolation if the soviet union collapsed after five years, purges can be so quick), and that western Europe got reconstructed and did not end up like Eastern Europe sixty years later on. " I try to tell you that this is your main flaw." Well, I'm affraid you are wrong on this point. We can second guess motives till the cows come home. What matters is the effect. " Because the "fun" starts when you have done that "right thing" and now you can mess it up with the reasons you did it in the first place." As I am sure you are aware, this is a false dichotomy. If you have done the right thing for the wrong reasons, it does not follow that you then have to do the wrong thing for the wrong reasons too. "But not giving a fuck when he was killing HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Iranians and Kurds." So, because we didn't do anything to save hundreds of thousands of Iranians and Kurds, it was BAD to save some Kuwaitis? I guess this would have to be one of the strange instances where two wrongs do in fact make a right. Now, part of the problem with delegating the entire system of collective security to the US is that they are only going to act when it is in their interest, because they can't afford to save the world all the time. Which brings us back to square one. The ideal solution (I hope you agree) is not that if we didn't wave the Iranians then we must let the quota of Kuwaitis die for fairness sake, rather it is that we don't in future allow people to die through lack of intervention. This is what I meant when I said that more people have died though failure to uphold collective security by force. We need more interventions, spread over a wider number of parties, not less interventions in pursuit of some moronic idea of fairness. "The Sovietunion would have WIPED it out of everyone heads" There were large communist sympathies across the continent (and Fascists for that matter). Italy, Germany, Portugal and Spain were totalitarian on their own account, and France (whisper it) was actually quite comfortuble under a Vichy regime, and Quisling has become a term of abuse. Whenever people talked about democracy in Eastern Europe, they got shot. Indeed, the first thing Russia did on getting it's hands on Poland was take the political elites, intelligentsia and other people likely to provide a nucleus for institutions, take them out into a forest, and shoot them. What, exactly, is so magical about Western Europeans that makes you think they would be so different to the Eastern ones? Are we supermen? The fact is, had Soviet Russia ended up the victor, it would take them less than a month to remove all the institutions of democracy, round up the people that would actually make such a thing work, take them off into forests and shoot them, and set up a client state dependent on hand-picked locals that were enthusiastic totalitarians to provide much needed things like shelter and food (well, perhaps not enough, but the ones that die, they die). Ravages of war create a dependency culture, the only requirement to leverage that into total control is to remove any organised alternative, which is piss easy when you have an army with several million men stamping all over Europe as the only organised institution of note. This is not an extrapolation. This is Stalins MO before the war and before our point of divergence. "it would have crumbled down without a cold war." Why? You think Stalins going to get dewey eyed if the French organise a mass strike? You think he's relaxed about bourgoisee etc. if there is no ideological conflict? Are you nuts? The man systematically trashed his ideological allies if they represented a scintilla of independent thought. Even if somehow we skip from Stalin to Gorbachev, remember that only happened after the difference between eastern and Western Europe in terms of living standards made it totally clear sovietism had failed, and even then transitioned though a military coup before ending up with Yeltsin. But we're probably talking about, institutionally speaking, starting from scratch. The judges, magistrates, lawyers, politicians, philosophers, academics... Stalins taken them out to the forest and shot them two months after the end of the war. " Which wasn't even an intervention btw," Remind me, was it German tanks in New York, of American Tanks in France? The reason for the intervention are not that relevant. America could have ignored the German declaration of war entirely. Again, your obsession with motivation over material has blinded you to basic reality of the situation: there was a massive transfer of military and economic material to provide physical and economic security to Europe for sixty years... irrespective of who declared war on whom first. "Shared values, cultures, etc. etc. etc." Again, so what? Why should I give a shit if we share cultures or not... perhaps that is a reason you might think I sympathise more with you... actually I sympathise with anyone being subjected to crimes against humanity. What it doesn't explain is why I'm obligated to defend you, but prohibited (or ought to be, according to you), defending anyone you deem not to have the same culture. Also, clearly we don't share the same culture: I'm happy to fork out my tax money to provide the mainstay of your security, because I think it is a global public good and a moral obligation, you think I shouldn't lest I foolishly extend it to people you think are a bit too.... foreign. That is a pretty huge cultural difference if you ask me. "It is INEVITABLE" It is in CAPS, but it is not inevitable. "since the fall of the Ottoman Empire" Well, you know, the Ottoman empire was not exactly known for not dicking around in the Wests affair, and everything kind of flows from that... jergul: I think we can see that Nimis objections go way beyond nation sates. He's objections can be extended from a nation state to the EU level.
jergul Member	Mon Oct 25 02:34:40 Hence my careful use of the terms "nation states or blocks of nation states".
Mavl Member	Mon Oct 25 18:01:25 "Then you need your head examined. There is a reason Toniblare is a popular name for kids in Kosovo. " Indeed, about the same reason the name Adolf was popular in Germany at a certain point in time.
Mavl Member	Mon Oct 25 18:05:33 "That picture does however change within the framework of a UN mandate. Since either the EU or the UN need be used and the EU has significant shortcoming, then perhaps it is time to activate UN infrastructure. " Indeed, that is a possibility. The problem is US and UK will veto or campaign against any action by this UN infrastructure that goes against their interests, just like they did on the first day of Georgian-Ossetian war of 080808 when the declaration calling Saakashvili to stop using military force was blocked by the US/UK camp.
jergul Member	Mon Oct 25 18:43:13 Mavl Both you and Seb are ignoring the finer point on that issue. Military intervention by the UN does not require immediate UNSC approval.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 26 00:19:15 jergul: I am pretty sure the secretariat can't do that without a mandate from the SC. Mavl: "when the declaration calling Saakashvili to stop using military force was blocked by the US/UK camp." Well, there is the interesting fact that South Ossetian rebels fired artillery rounds at the Georgians on the 7th, and the Russian General of the supposed peacekeeping force stated that Russian forces could not stop the South Ossetian attacks, Georgia may have responded rashly to provocation, but you should not be portraying yourself as the poor little victims here, because Russia was quite happy to ignore possibilities of mediation prior to the conflict (or at least support South Ossetias refusal to even maintain a ceasefire). As for blocking a UN resolution, that simply isn't true. UN resolutions were not tabled until after Russia had won, and the block I believe you are referring to was largely because the draft resolution tabled by Russia did not reflect the commitement to Georgian territorial integrity that was part of the French brokered peace agreement. Excuse me, but that is not the case.
jergul Member	Tue Oct 26 01:23:51 Seb The Command can. Collective self-defence; duty to protect. Immediate action is quite allowable, though a report need presented the UNSC and a mandate required for sustained intervention. A lot stronger a legal basis than the current status of a unified EU Army.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 26 01:40:01 jergul: The command can't, legally, act without a mandate. That's why Dalliare ended up under a park bench. The legality of acting without a specific mandate, or beyond the mandate. Koffi Annan (Then head of peacekeeping) and Dalliare were both for intervention in Rwanda, and was widely discussed at the time. While it would be nice if commanders on the ground or the secretariat could order actions beyond the mandate, they can not. What can happen is a UN force with a pre-existing and robust mandate can take actions in persuit of the objectives, but that requires that there be a UN force and a fairly open ended mandate pre-existing the situation they are responding too, which is not often the case.
jergul Member	Tue Oct 26 03:05:19 The mandate is codified under the right to self defence as applied to collective self defence and the duty to protect. Not only does the UN treaty allow for immediate action on that basis, the treaty specifically states that no other part of its wording can cross that fundamental right. The Command of which I speak is not activated.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 26 09:51:22 " the treaty specifically states that no other part of its wording can cross that fundamental right" By nations. Not by UN forces. The whole reason for duty to protect recently, was because as it currently stands, the Westphalian principles that underpin the UN mean that if the recognised government of a country starts to organise (or fails to prevent) crimes agaisnt humanity within it's borders, without an appropriate UNSC Chapter VII resolution there is actually no basis for foreign powers or the UN to intervene. Now, what can happen is if the legitimate government of a country is attacked, others can get involved at their request without the slightest reference to the UN. Legally, the kind of automatic response by a UN command would require a change in that current framework. The whole duty to protect business is really Blair's legacy. Often overlooked in the Bush-poodle-Iraq business is that of the Wests leaders, he has actually been the one that has most coherently laid out the framework for a proactive approach that puts prevention of crimes against humanity above state sovereignty.
jergul Member	Tue Oct 26 10:34:59 Seb The Force is contingent based and every single member is also a citizen of some nation. In fact, it would be breach of the treaty to not allow allocated forces to be used in immediate collective defence; duty to protect - as the contingents are national and the UN is bound by treaty not to block their usage in self-defence. You do need a change in framework - you need to activate the command. The force then able to operate in the limbo between UN sanction and national government sanction. In other words react immediately and get sanction after the fact. The duty to protect is a firmly established principle - actually based on customary law more than a Blair inheritance. Which is why it could be established so quickly. The EU model is flawed not only for being unrealistic, but because unilateral multi-lateralism is not really a desirable outcome. We are not far off quite a number of nations being able to project force to one degree or another. Do you really want a whole bunch of nations using their own unique understanding of duty to protect going about knocking out critical infrastructure in various target nations?
Seb Member	Tue Oct 26 11:29:52 jergul: "The Force is contingent based and every single member is also a citizen of some nation." Yes, but that doesn't confer the right to act. Without a chapter VII mandate, there is no basis for forces of another nation to act counter to the forces of the recognised government of another country on it's own soil if that governments activities are restricted to it's own soil. So far, the UN system only recognises legitimate governments and is constructed in terms of state actor versus state actor. There simply is not coherent legal framework for, say, Kosovo or Rwanda, outside of the Security Council. There has been a shift since the end of the cold war towards a more proactive approach that subordinates Westphalian principles of sovereignty on issues of crimes against humanity, but it's still not accepted as customary law because there are statutes and frameworks that explicitly contradict it. "he duty to protect is a firmly established principle -" Not in the sense of a basis for, say, a unilateral intervention in Kosovo. Kosovo, like Iraq, remains fundamanetally an illegal operation. The post war involvement of the UN, like the brief post war involvement of the UN in Iraq, does not constitute a retrospective endorsement of the operation. The whole point of the recent conferences is that legally speaking, it is not enough to point at human rights abuses being committed by a government, and the fact that it has become more common to have interventions without mandate or exceeding mandate, the actual statutes are explicit in that only the SC can trump state sovereignty, and retroactive endorsement isn't something there is much of a basis for at the moment. Ultimately, we do actually need a formal convention enshrining the duty to protect both as a peg to hang Chapter VII interventions on (note, Serbia was convicted for failure to prevent genocide in the Balkans, but there isn't actually a proper "failure to prevent crimes against humanity" crime.), and IMO that should extend to an *obligation* (though most of the liberal interventionist governments would probably stop at "basis") for third parties to intervene against state perpetrators of, or states failing to, prevent serious crimes against humanity on their territory or territory under their control. Most of the worlds autocrats oppose both of these of course. "is not really a desirable outcome." On the other hand unanimous multilateralism doesn't seem to work either. Very few OECD countries could not have stopped the genocide in Rwanda had they wanted to (largely because the logistics for the existing UN mission were in place, the methods of the Hutu power so anaemic), yet no one did. The UN system provided the perfect system to justify inaction. The worst offender in that case has to be the US, but only because by default we expect the US to do something. Realistically though, Russia, Britain, France, Belgium, Canada, Holland, Germany, Sweeden, Denmark... etc. etc. any one of them could have stopped provided a force to stop the genocide unilaterally (and a mandate would have been forthcoming). In many of those countries, the electorate would even have supported such a move in principle. Yet governments don't necessarily like running around Africa because the electorates while enthusiastic about preventing genocides divorce that from dissatisfaction of longer term costs, and if you do it once then you have to do it next time etc. etc. But did any government tellit's electorate "No, we don't want to do this, this is bad for our country, so fuck the Tutsis?", no what they said was "terrible UN procedures, ineffective, indecisive..." blah blah blah. The UN as a purely consensus oriented process is less of a font of legitimisation and more a method to defer action that high levels of Government think are superfluous to national interest, or in the case of democracy, the grubby mechanics of the electoral cycle. This is as big a flaw in the system as unilaterialism... indeed, Nimatzo was railing against interventions because they imply the necessity and inevitability of Iraq style wars. Well, in those terms, Iraq has a death count all in that is about a quarter of the Rwandan holocaust. That comparison matters: a system that easily facilitates ostrich behaviour is every bit as undesirable (and arguably more so) than the feared unilateral multilaterialsim. So, no, I don't really want a whole bunch of nations knocking holes in the walls based on unique understandings of duty to protect, but neither do I want a system where everyone gets to blame failure to reach a consensus as an excuse for letting 800 thousand people get butchered with machetes because nobody would send in 5000 soldiers and spend 10 million on blocking radio broadcasts.
jergul Member	Tue Oct 26 12:15:18 Seb Yes there is. Under collective self-defence; duty to protect. A firmly established principle. Nothing in the UN treaty can block that right - including lack of resolutions from the UNSC. Human right abuses are not enough to trigger the duty to protect right to act. As you know, and I was not suggesting this either. The examples you used of cases of when to act included Kosovo, Rwanda, Nazi Germany. Serbia and proxies walked the line and probably would not have triggered a duty to protect either. I was not suggesting a unanimous consensus. I am suggesting the UN Command use its rights as both a UN organization and a contingent based entity to operate in the void between UNSC resolutions and national sanctions so as to act immediately when faced with duty to protect roles. An autonomous role for emergency reaction with relevant sanctions granted after the fact as per normal mechanisms for such things. The Rwandan example a typical duty to protect role where limited action would have greatly curbed the atrocities to a level where duty to protect criteria would no longer apply. I think it damned sure that if a UN command had existed, the radio stations would have ceased to exist. Damned straight I think that would have been a straight forward situation where a UN command could have operated in the void and done so effectively. With national contigent and UNSC sanction for actions granted after the fact.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 26 12:43:39 jergul: "Under collective self-defence;" Self defence is something one state can do to another state. It doesn't extend to protecting the citizens of one state against their own government. So, great for Kuwait, crap for Rwandans, Kosovans and Bosnian muslims.
jergul Member	Tue Oct 26 13:09:18 Seb Yes it does against certain kinds of crimes. Or rather, the UNSC can make that call after the UN Command has presented its report justifying its immediate intervention. The thresh-hold is high, but would certainly have covered Rwanda. The real point is after the fact sanction. My argument is that UNSC members would not be able to wield a veto effectively and would tend towards influencing policy instead of blocking it. I have little doubt that China, Russia, India, Indonesia etc will be able to use the duty to protect as they see it if you run with unilateral multi-lateralism. I do have problems imagining a EU army. The barriers too great and the consensus behind creating such a force too small. I would suggest running with a UN framework.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 26 13:11:09 jergul: "he UN Command has presented its report justifying its immediate intervention" The UN command is either the command of a force established with a mandate. No C VII resolution, no mandate. To exceed mandate is illegal. Again, if you are Dalliare, your stuffed.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 26 13:12:40 (and more so if the situation is emergent and there is not already a UN force on site). Basically, in the absense of a mandate, the commander of a UN force on the scene (if there is one) will defer to national chain of command.
jergul Member	Tue Oct 26 13:19:43 Nope. The UN has mechanisms for a standing force consisting of national contingents. As such, is free to act in immediate collective self-defence; duty to protect. The Treaty is very specific in stating numerous times that nothing in it blocks the right to immediate self-defence, though a report must be presented to the UNSC to rule on after the fact. The UN command draws its authority to act on behalf of contingent providers on the one side, while is a UN organization acting outside nation-state control on the other. Hence the term void I have used numerous times. The critical legal factor is really nation-state contributors allowing the command to act on their behalf when the need for immediate intervention arises. A contractual issue. The intervention is a stop measure of short duration and subject to forthcoming UNSC rulings and further mandate. Here in effect, a veto would allow the UN command to continue its operations until the UNSC could provide clear instructions in the form of a ruling. It really is a rather elegant concept. Stronger I think than that of a EU Army.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 26 13:19:59 Ah... I think I understand you now, to mean by UN command not the current command structure of the branch of the secretariat and then military command donated to operate under the secretariat, but something more like a standing UN general headquarters?
Seb Member	Tue Oct 26 13:25:37 jergul: "immediate self-defence," Yes, but the part you are not taking into account is that the way self defence is defined is narrowly the state defending itself from external agressors. Built into the whole UN structure is a hard defence of sovereignty of states, not individuals. When it comes to military matters, without a UNSC vote, it is assumed that there is no right for third parties to defend the citizens of a state against their own government. That's the whole reason for needing a duty to protect convention: self defence currently applies to states, not individuals. If state A wants to use military force against state B which isn't currently using or preparing to use force against A or any other state, it needs an SC resolution. It isn't enough to say "they were attacking their own citizens so we stepped in to give them self defence." This is the current problem.
jergul Member	Tue Oct 26 13:43:50 Has nothing to do with the current organization and should not have anything to do with it either. A rapid reaction force capable in all senses of immediate intervention. Glad you clarified, I was starting to wonder. I am arguing that self-defence extending to "duty to protect" is already defacto international law. But with a high threshold. Rwanda. Holocaust. Kosovo unlikely. Technically the UNSC would need rule on the matter in a case by case basis after the command presented is justification for intervention. As per treaty wording. Intervention is only possible when governments or entities are committing certain crimes. With a high threshold as mentioned. I rather expect most efforts would be spent on humanitarian relief. With actual interventions say every 25 years or so. Ball park number. There are not really too many incidents that would trigger immediate interventions. But key is understanding that such a command would act in a void and have the UNSC define legal content after the fact.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 26 14:36:16 jergul: "is already defacto international law" Sadly, that is not the case. You are largely presenting an innovation here: there should be a standing UN RRF, with a command that can act and then seek ex-post facto justification. There is the small matter of a standing UN force... delegated UN commanders from contributing nations will just be proxies for that nation.
jergul Member	Tue Oct 26 15:13:28 Seb Rwanda a case in point. No one challenges the duty to protect there. The issue stranded on practicalities. High threshold. Kosovo would likely not have qualified for emergency intervention. The structure is there. The innovation bit rests in identifying and using the void. I disagree firmly with the proxy argument for a UN Command. Additionally, that argument would be equally valid for a EU Army if we were to accept it.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 26 16:56:49 jergul: The issue stranded not on practicalities, it stranded on a lack of will and an easy method for dodging responsibility and pass the buck onto "the UN processes" not working. "I disagree firmly with the proxy argument for a UN Command" Do you seriously think that General Joe Blogs will launch an operation when his government tells him expressly not to do so? Generally, military is known for adhering to the chain of command. " that argument would be equally valid for a EU Army if we were to accept it." The point is, the will has to come from the governments, and a less multilateral and consensus orientated process makes it harder for a government to tell it's citizens "we are doing something, but it's taking a long time because we have to get agreement from the UN/entire EU". You hope that we can avoid this by having enlightened military commanders grasp the nettle and drag governments along who will rubber stamp the decision after the fact. That seems dangerous in many other ways.
jergul Member	Tue Oct 26 17:17:45 Those were the practicalities I was referring to. I seriously think that the military follows the chain of command ending at the UN Command. Nothing revolutionary about that at all. There are politics involved of course. Perhaps there is an immediate genocide taking place that a contingent country feels so strongly about not participating in that they order their contingent not to participate. Fair enough and a force should have the redundancy to deal with that. But not having anything to do with the UN Command and the staff officers running that show. They are not on loan. Its dangerous only from a low threshold perspective. The duty to protect has to be clear and immediate. Its not something that can be used simply because a massacre is taking place in a village or a refugee camp. I indicated interventions to be low probability events - perhaps once every 25 years or so. Most of the operational work would likely be emergency humanitarian aid.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 26 19:00:44 jergul: "ending at the UN Command" Against the wishes of their real boss?
Seb Member	Tue Oct 26 19:48:28 jergul: How long was the period between Rwanda, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Bosnia and Kosovo?
jergul Member	Wed Oct 27 10:19:28 To the UNSC. The point is that it can use a vacuum to act immediately, then submit its report justifying action for post defacto approval. Last question goes to what is a main disagreement I think: Rwanda is the only case that clearly qualifies for immediate intervention without pre approval by the UNSC. Protective humanitarian relief might cover a few others.
seb Member	Wed Oct 27 13:13:07 You are going to have to be clearer than you are, because in certain aspects you are comming across as very vague. Are we assuming that, as currently is the case, the actual soldiers are provided by contributing nations, with the UN secretariat taking over a command role? Currently, the SC would issue a resolution under chapter VII, contributing nations would be found, one of whom provides the overall military command, and they are duly dispatched. I do not at all see how your pre-resolution intervention would occur if there was not already a force with a more limited mandate (either not chapter VII, or who's remit under Chapter VII did not preclude actions necessary to stop whatever it is we are interested about). The military men are not going to take it upon themselves to escalate the intervention on the say so of the secretariat: they wear their blue berets only within the framework of the mandate. Nor are they likely to take the initiative without first checking with their own governments. Ultimately, this requires the donor governments taking upon themselves to second guess the UNSC, not generals. Either way you have a discussion between governments before you get your effective boots on the ground, and the whole point about Rwanda (and others) is that this consensus laden system provides a lot of cover for apathy and scape goating. "Rwanda is the only case that clearly qualifies for immediate intervention without pre approval by the UNSC." Why? Because of the scale? Intervention should have taken place very early on, in which case it might look less problematic than, say, Kosovo. The criteria you are applying for pre-aprooval have not been expressed, so it looks somewhat arbitrary at the moment.
jergul Member	Wed Oct 27 13:43:08 The criteria for pre-approval are those used today. Which are rather arbitrary. Yes, the scale. Military men are quite able to act independently within a framework allowing them to act independently; specifically, yes they can respond immediately to high threshold threats prior to political involvement. Actually, all of the UNSC members dispatch the brass according to the treaty. The vital point being that a single nay voice will not block action. Its not the Secretariat. Its the Military Staff Committee. Acting on behalf of the UNSC, but forbidden by treaty to inaction while awaiting a political process in the face of certain crimes invoking a high threshold duty to protect.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 27 14:04:10 jergul: That's simply not true. Reacting to a threat to themselves, yes. But Srebrenicia, Sierra Leone, Rwanda all had troops that would not excede mandates or rules of engagement without reference to their superiors in either the national or international chain of command. I seriously doubt you would find, say, a French general willing to commit his forces in theatre to combat in a manner outside the specified rules of engagement without reference to his political superiors in France. Ditto for any other nation. The military staff committee is dormant, I don't believe it has actually functioned in the manner you suggest, rather peacekeeping ops go through the secretariat (e.g. Koffi Annan in the case of Rwanada). Even if it were dusted down, being nothing more than the reps of the Chief of staff of the p5 it's not really politically independent as the members will refer constantly to their respective governments, so offers no improvement on the normal SC deliberations. Unless we think the chiefs of staff will take military actions without orders from their respective governments.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 27 14:06:25 In addition, in principle what happened in Rwanda could happen in a situation where there is not a pre-existing UN force. It's difficult to see how an MPC operating as you would like would be able to do anything other than table an operational plan to the SC... the actual provision of boots on the ground requires a political decision by the various members either at a national level, or multinationally. My contention is that the UN bodies for these decisions more often facilitate apathy than action.
jergul Member	Wed Oct 27 14:58:24 I have always been speaking about it Seb. The UN Command referred to the MSC. It requires a political decision by contingent providers to put forces at the disposal of the MSC. After that the MSC operates in the void to act immediately when required and to act according to UNSC decisions otherwise. There are barriers, but to me they are lower than barriers blocking the EU having a similar tool - and that model represents unilateral multilateralism; where each its own will determine when a duty to protect applies.
Mavl Member	Wed Oct 27 17:03:45 Seb "Well, there is the interesting fact that South Ossetian rebels fired artillery rounds at the Georgians on the 7th, and the Russian General of the supposed peacekeeping force stated that Russian forces could not stop the South Ossetian attacks, Georgia may have responded rashly to provocation, but you should not be portraying yourself as the poor little victims here, because Russia was quite happy to ignore possibilities of mediation prior to the conflict (or at least support South Ossetias refusal to even maintain a ceasefire). " Both sides fired at eachother. Even more interesting and carefully prepared machine gun emplacements were found on the georgian side of the line overlooking ossetian villages. One has to be a total douchebag here to call a direct attack on the legally stationed in the region foreign servicemen (an act of war) in a clear violation of a previously signed agreement a "harsh responce". I could only imagine the hysteria if those were your troops in Kosovo. "As for blocking a UN resolution, that simply isn't true. UN resolutions were not tabled until after Russia had won, and the block I believe you are referring to was largely because the draft resolution tabled by Russia did not reflect the commitement to Georgian territorial integrity that was part of the French brokered peace agreement. " The UNSC session I am talking about was called at Russian request at about 4:30 am in the morning of the 8th of August as the Georgian tanks were rolling towards Tskhinval and before the 58th army moved through the Roki tunnel to relieve the trapped peacekeepers. At 4:30 am in the morning of the 8th of August. Yes, that same famous day your media became magically silent just as Saakashvili's generals declared Tskhinvali "under georgian control". "...Georgian territorial integrity..." You mean UNSC resolution 1244 style territorial integrity? jergul "Both you and Seb are ignoring the finer point on that issue. Military intervention by the UN does not require immediate UNSC approval. " There has to be a consensus in the UN for the intervention to happen, has it not?
Seb Member	Wed Oct 27 18:10:00 jergul: It seems slightly odd to refer to the MSC as the UN command when actually, no UN military operation has actually been run through the MSC AFAIK, ever. Indeed, the body was conceived more as a longer term strategic advice to the SC on issues like arms control rather than an operational command. The functional UN command for all UN military operations ever undertaken has been the Special Representative of the Secretary General, and the Force Commander (A senior military officer from the nation committing the most troops to the operation).
	show deleted posts