Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Rebels targeting christian priests and kidnapping for ransoms.
http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Italian-journalist-Domenico-Quirico-freed:-Betrayed-by-the-Syrian-revolution-28953.html

Italian journalist claims he overheard rebels admitting the gas attack while being held captive.
http://www.lastampa.it/2013/09/09/esteri/quirico-it-is-madness-to-say-i-knew-it-wasnt-assad-who-used-gas-FjJDJ8oeEI19AZbyKIVBHJ/pagina.html




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

It only "bit us in the ass" because we embargoed Japan. Left well enough alone and we could have been friends with everyone. imagine all the stuff we could have sold! B17s to the Germans, trucks to the Russians, oil and proper aircraft carriers to the Japanese...

Frazz, minor point, at the beginning of the war Japanese Aircraft carriers were more advanced than the US. It was Radar that gave the US it's advantage, not the quality, or even initially the quantity of their carriers.

Both Hitler and the Kaiser before him drew up plans to strike the North American mainland. Considering that part of Hitler's plan was to subvert the Mexican government, you might have had the Das Reich division rolling across the Rio Grande.

You mean Americans would have had to learn German instead of Spanish? Oh my! I imagine if the Germans had invaded they would have done that standby tactic of supporting the oppressed peoples of the land they were attacking. The slaves were promised freedom in both the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, the abolitionists lost the Revolutionary one though. That would be a strange twist in history though, black americans fighting for the nazis to overturn Jim Crow laws.
Remember what Jessie Owens said? He was treated better in Nazi run Berlin than he was at home where segregation was common and while Hitler never publically shook his hand, Roosevelt didn't either.
Trivia, a reporter witnessed Hitler shaking hands with Owens later but the act was never published at the time because of the anti-nazi sentiment.

Owens, who felt the newspapers of the day reported 'unfairly' on Hitler's attitude towards him, tried to get Mischner and his journalist colleagues to change the accepted version of history in the 1960s.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1205572/Hitler-shook-hands-black-1936-Olympic-hero-Jesse-Owens.html#ixzz2eXTGvmLv
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

cadbren wrote:

Italian journalist claims he overheard rebels admitting the gas attack while being held captive.
http://www.lastampa.it/2013/09/09/esteri/quirico-it-is-madness-to-say-i-knew-it-wasnt-assad-who-used-gas-FjJDJ8oeEI19AZbyKIVBHJ/pagina.html

“I don’t know if any of this is true and I cannot say for sure that it is true because I have no means of confirming the truth of what was said. I don’t know how reliable this information is and cannot confirm the identity of these people. I am in no position to say for sure whether this conversation is based on real fact or just hearsay and I don’t usually call conversations I have heard through a door, true,” Quirico said. "

At least he's honest.

Domenico Quirico fell into the hands of an ostensibly Islamist group who has been ransoming people. It's not exactly uncommon for fifth column groups to do that sort of thing to get money, you see it a lot in South America.

He knows what he heard, but isn't prepared to say that what he heard was accurate which is exactly how you want a journalist to behave. It's also why I posted a link to that site rather than the other sites who are simply claiming what he heard was solid evidence for rebel culpability.
Similarly the US government and others have been using hearsay to determine/excuse their cource of action.
Thankfully the Russians appear to have come up with a peaceful solution - talk about role reversal.

cadbren wrote:

You mean Americans would have had to learn German instead of Spanish? Oh my!

On the up side, one can only imagine the Nazi's method of dealing with the cartels.

"Heads, spikes, walls."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cadbren wrote:

Thankfully the Russians appear to have come up with a peaceful solution - talk about role reversal.

The Status Quo is the only solution the Russians are interested in. Assad gives them Tartus, and they give him the power to oppress.


LOL now that's shocking:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24039309#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa

Seems AN treats their prisoners better than random bandits pretending to be revolutionaries do.


Also seems Syrians are getting frustrated with the West's indecisiveness.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24037091

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Just to add to your statement, what real knowledge of democracy do people that live under a feudal or tribal system have? It's like giving a sports car to someone who has only handled Ox carts all their life.

Wow. You'd never know Damascus has been a center of civilization and trade since they paid tribute to Thutmose III, Pharaoh of Egypt in the 15th Century BC...


You do know that there are no fewer than four accredited universities, six museums, and a sizable educational system there, right? I'll throw in that Aleppo is hardly a bunch of mud and grass huts either.

It appears all of that education isn't doing them much good since they seem to be fighting along tribal lines.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/25/syria-tribal-rivalries-shape-future


http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/tribalism_and_the_war_in_syria.html


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/25/syria-oil-assad-rebels-tribes

Rebel fighters have used the village as a base in the past and the government has repeatedly attacked it.

"Before this strike they'd shell us with missiles and artillery, for no reason, there are only civilians here," he said

Hmmm, I think being a rebel base might be reason to be targeted by the government. You don't set up bases in areas where you don't have local support.

cadbren wrote:
Thankfully the Russians appear to have come up with a peaceful solution - talk about role reversal.

I don't think you can really consider it a peaceful solution when the war has been going on for over two years now, and what the Russians are proposing isn't going to end the fighting.

 Hordini wrote:

cadbren wrote:
Thankfully the Russians appear to have come up with a peaceful solution - talk about role reversal.

I don't think you can really consider it a peaceful solution when the war has been going on for over two years now, and what the Russians are proposing isn't going to end the fighting.

Expanding the war wasn't going to help matters though, so the Russians are helping to bring peace. Meanwhile the guy who campaigned on bringing the troops home and change (and got a peace prize before he'd even had time to warm the presidential chair) is going cap in hand trying to find people to support his desire to attack a country on the far side of the world with no endgoal in sight.

cadbren wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

cadbren wrote:
Thankfully the Russians appear to have come up with a peaceful solution - talk about role reversal.

I don't think you can really consider it a peaceful solution when the war has been going on for over two years now, and what the Russians are proposing isn't going to end the fighting.

Expanding the war wasn't going to help matters though, so the Russians are helping to bring peace. Meanwhile the guy who campaigned on bringing the troops home and change (and got a peace prize before he'd even had time to warm the presidential chair) is going cap in hand trying to find people to support his desire to attack a country on the far side of the world with no endgoal in sight.

If anything the Russian plan prolongs the war and ensures no peace. It leaves Assad in power and free to do whatever he wants short of gassing his enemies.

For the record, regarding Obama trying to start a war. He has said he supports the Russian plan and wants to see how it will play out. The man can hardly be called a hawk, his hand was forced by the undisputable use of chemical weapons (with slightly more dispute as to who did the using), he's made it pretty clear he wants to avoid getting the US entangled in this bloody mess. Mind you, the world (esp. France and David Cameron, but also our own little Mr. Harper up here) have been demanding he do SOMETHING, after all that is what we espect of America, so that's pretty obviously the reason for all the tough talk he was spouting a few weeks before this fiasco.
Between Obama delaying the vote and Britain opting out, even France has made it clear they're not going in alone, it's looking more like the whole world's just giving this a "tet's wait and see how this goes."

 BaronIveagh wrote:
It's hard to when you keep inflating the number. I said 10,000, and Iraq, not Syria. Going back I might point out that I simply mentioned that Irish mercenaries were there, training Syrians, not that there were vast numbers of them there atm.. But please, continue to try and build your straw man, by all means.

And, they still swear an oath to a country not their own in exchange for pay. You can dress it up all you like, but it's still working as a mercenary. After all, if all it took was an oath to not be a mercenary, there wouldn't be any mercenaries. Indeed, I'll point out that many of the mercenaries that Machiavelli mentioned swore oaths to nations and or powerful nobles as part of the terms of their employment.

Also, that quote you got came not from Le Mond but from Global Research, who make Fox News look 'fair and balanced' since the hysterical title of it is 'Irish Mercenaries Training Syrian Death Squads'.

LeMond wrote:In the basement of a cave, the camp also features an holding cell "for unruly rebels," the commander said. "We wanted to form a real army with rules, order, discipline, " he recounted there. Three former Irish elite soldiers who became independent mercenaries gave a helping hand. "Out of sympathy," says Abu Mahmoud.

My apologies for the extra 0. A simple, one time error that could easily happen to anyone, no need to simply infer the worst, or claim that I "keep inflating the number" so you can cry victim and attempt to paint me in the worst possible light.

You keep (willfully) missing the point about the difference between serving a nation's standing army in a sworn capacity, in their uniform, following the law of war, under the control of that country's leader, and not those engaged in war for hire employed by private individuals. You are willfully ignoring and distorting my arguments to suit yourself, then have the audacity to claim that a simple error on my part is an attempt to strawman.

Could you please provide a link to the Le Mond article you are referencing? But it is nice to see that for all your complaints about the quote that I provided that your quote substantiates the figure that I provided

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Yeah, I did. Because the relationship between government and mercenary has changed a good deal since Machiavelli, where as the idea that getting an enemy to switch sides is better than wiping them out is still relevant. (Further, Machiavelli was clearly writing for the benefit of his sponsors, the Borgias, in that entry, as he particularly brings up the Sforza's failed use of mercenaries in Milan against the French [both sides hired the same mercenaries, who took the money and left both sides to sort out their own problems], without mentioning that the same Swiss mercenaries later came back and restored Milan to the Sforza afterward.)

Machiavelli wrote 'The Prince' (and dedicated it to) Lorenzo di Piero de' Medici, it was originally intended for Giuliano di Lorenzo de' Medici as a way of currying favour to have Machiavelli returned from exile. It was not written for the Borgias.
Would you care to elaborate on how the relationship between the government and the mercenary has changed so much as to make 'The Prince' obsolete?

Speaking of changing times, the US won the Cold War, but that does not mean that we should engage in actions that are not measured, effective and have specific goals that enhance our own security. Jumping into the middle of a three way shooting war with plenty of outside players does none of the above. Winning the Cold War proved our dominance on the global stage militarily, politically, and economically. Ironically you tell me to join the 21st century while ignoring the changing realities since the end of the Cold War and how the US and the West appear to be suffering from intervention fatigue.

For the record, regarding Obama trying to start a war. He has said he supports the Russian plan and wants to see how it will play out. The man can hardly be called a hawk, his hand was forced by the undisputable use of chemical weapons (with slightly more dispute as to who did the using), he's made it pretty clear he wants to avoid getting the US entangled in this bloody mess. Mind you, the world (esp. France and David Cameron, but also our own little Mr. Harper up here) have been demanding he do SOMETHING, after all that is what we espect of America, so that's pretty obviously the reason for all the tough talk he was spouting a few weeks before this fiasco.
Between Obama delaying the vote and Britain opting out, even France has made it clear they're not going in alone, it's looking more like the whole world's just giving this a "tet's wait and see how this goes."

OK one could look it that way. One could also look at it that Obama just got rolled...by himself.

 Username Invalid wrote:
For the record, regarding Obama trying to start a war. He has said he supports the Russian plan and wants to see how it will play out. The man can hardly be called a hawk, his hand was forced by the undisputable use of chemical weapons (with slightly more dispute as to who did the using), he's made it pretty clear he wants to avoid getting the US entangled in this bloody mess. Mind you, the world (esp. France and David Cameron, but also our own little Mr. Harper up here) have been demanding he do SOMETHING, after all that is what we espect of America, so that's pretty obviously the reason for all the tough talk he was spouting a few weeks before this fiasco.
Between Obama delaying the vote and Britain opting out, even France has made it clear they're not going in alone, it's looking more like the whole world's just giving this a "tet's wait and see how this goes."

please don't tell me that you mean that Obama cannot be called a hawk. The POTUS is at the forefront of the calls for military action after he drew a red line in the sand, and was attempting to build a coalition of partners for support. Something that the majority of the US people don't want. Had this been the previous Administration the cries of "COWBOY!!!" would have been deafening

Image of Obama on a horse with a wide brimmed hat is...disconcerting

 Frazzled wrote:
Image of Obama on a horse with a wide brimmed hat is...disconcerting

What about the image of Biden accompanying him with his trusty double barreled shotgun, blasting it off every time he thinks there is a threat?

 Frazzled wrote:
Image of Obama on a horse with a wide brimmed hat is...disconcerting

Best I could do for ya.

Uh Oh, freed journalist hostages say they overheard rebels discussing the chemical attacks and that they weren't done by the Assad regime.

http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/09/10/freed-hostages-reveal-information-on-chemical-attacks-in-syria

They also denote how they were beaten and subject to mock executions by the rebels. What a delightful bunch.

Relapse wrote:
It appears all of that education isn't doing them much good since they seem to be fighting along tribal lines.

In Eastern Syria this is true. However, this is not the majority of the population (Syria's two largest cities are in the west of the country)

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
My apologies for the extra 0. A simple, one time error that could easily happen to anyone, no need to simply infer the worst, or claim that I "keep inflating the number" so you can cry victim and attempt to paint me in the worst possible light.

Normally I wouldn't have commented, but you have a track record of inflating my statements to try and straw man me or provoke me into saying something to get me banned so you can win by default, and jumping on any such mistake I make myself. So, no, apology not accepted.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
You keep (willfully) missing the point about the difference between serving a nation's standing army in a sworn capacity, in their uniform, following the law of war, under the control of that country's leader, and not those engaged in war for hire employed by private individuals.

Who do you think are the number one clients of both PMCs and straight up mercenaries? Governments.

Dictionary wrote:mercenary
adj.
1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2. Hired for service in a foreign army.

Article 47 wrote:
2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is especially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

England and France demanded that E be added before they would sign to give them a loop hole to keep hiring mercenaries for their armies, because otherwise the FFL, Gurkhas, and recruits from the Commonwealth would all qualify as mercenaries under the GC.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Could you please provide a link to the Le Mond article you are referencing? But it is nice to see that for all your complaints about the quote that I provided that your quote substantiates the figure that I provided

I didn't say that it had not. Though I find your reading habits, if you're reading the source of the article you quoted, appalling.

http://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2013/03/08/a-atme-entre-revolution-et-desenchantement_1845325_3210.html

Dreadclaw69 wrote:Would you care to elaborate on how the relationship between the government and the mercenary has changed so much as to make 'The Prince' obsolete?

Well, to start with, there's the Geneva Conventions. That changed the game rather significantly. To operate legally, you have to have some form of sponsorship by a party to a conflict other than strictly financial. Usually you're attached to the closest thing they have to a military command. I don't know where you get the idea that working for a government's military is not being a mercenary, as most governments hiring them set up a sort of umbrella 'mercenary command' in their army, if only so they can coordinate your actions with everyone else. And I use the term 'governments' loosely here, as 'governments in exile', rebel commands, and all sorts of other dubious military enterprises can qualify as 'parties to a conflict'. You also run into situations where you work for a government but the paycheck comes from somewhere else. Debeers tends to use that one to prop up governments friendly to their corporate interests.


There's also the fact that most governments now maintain (occasionally large) standing armies. When Machiavelli was writing, this was not the case, thus his admonishment that competent mercenary captains would seek the overthrow of the prince who hired them. In the Italian Wars from the period that Machiavelli was writing, mercenaries made up a very large proportion of the troops employed compared to the 'regular' army. Further, remember that the military parts of the Prince are written in the context of Conquest. Machiavelli based these parts off Caesar Borgia and, to a lesser degree, Louis XI of France. By and large, most modern governments do not use mercenaries as the bulk of their forces (there have been exceptions to this). They have however used them as cats paws in wars they did not wish to commit their 'regular' troops to, in rear echelon duties, drug interdiction, and as garrison troops.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Speaking of changing times, the US won the Cold War, but that does not mean that we should engage in actions that are not measured, effective and have specific goals that enhance our own security. Jumping into the middle of a three way shooting war with plenty of outside players does none of the above.

I don't deny that the West is suffering from 'intervention fatigue', though, frankly, the issue with your assertion about it doing none of the above can only actually be determined after the fact, particularly the 'effective' part. Based on the article I posted earlier about Syrians becoming frustrated with the West's indecisiveness. The huge numbers of refugees pouring into neighboring countries due Syria, and this is my personal opinion, create a bigger risk of endangering the US security by doing nothing than trying to force a end to the conflict does. Refugee camps are prime recruiting ground for terrorist organizations, and this conflict is creating a gigantic number.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Uh Oh, freed journalist hostages say they overheard rebels discussing the chemical attacks and that they weren't done by the Assad regime.

http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/09/10/freed-hostages-reveal-information-on-chemical-attacks-in-syria

They also denote how they were beaten and subject to mock executions by the rebels. What a delightful bunch.

You're a little slow Frazz. The freed hostages have already denied this article. They can't confirm or deny it as fact because they have no idea if it was just a bunch of rebels sitting around speculating about what happened. And mock executions are pretty standard for jihadists.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Normally I wouldn't have commented, but you have a track record of inflating my statements to try and straw man me or provoke me into saying something to get me banned so you can win by default, and jumping on any such mistake I make myself. So, no, apology not accepted.

An outright lie, but please feel free to play the victim card.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Who do you think are the number one clients of both PMCs and straight up mercenaries? Governments.

Dictionary wrote:mercenary **snip**

Article 47 wrote:**snip

England and France demanded that E be added before they would sign to give them a loop hole to keep hiring mercenaries for their armies, because otherwise the FFL, Gurkhas, and recruits from the Commonwealth would all qualify as mercenaries under the GC.

Still missing the point and trying to obfuscate? Soldiers swear an oath, form part of the standing armed force of a country, they serve that country and that country alone, are subject to control from a government. They are not employed by private entities. It is nice though that Article 47 supports my argument though
At this point I'm inclined to think that you just don't want to get the distinction.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I didn't say that it had not. Though I find your reading habits, if you're reading the source of the article you quoted, appalling.

http://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2013/03/08/a-atme-entre-revolution-et-desenchantement_1845325_3210.html

Thank you for the link. It is a shame that you had to stoop to personal slights though, sort of undermines your attempt to claim the victim You can of course blame Google for the link I provided. When you Google " Irish mercenaries Syria" that is the first result.

In any event its nice to see that you (a) can't substantiate your claim of 10K Irish mercenaries in Iraq (especially as the standing army of the Irish republic is less than 8K), (b) your tried so hard to show that the actions of a minority of private individuals employed in no official capacity were somehow a yardstick for an entire country.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Well, to start with, there's the Geneva Conventions. That changed the game rather significantly. To operate legally, you have to have some form of sponsorship by a party to a conflict other than strictly financial. Usually you're attached to the closest thing they have to a military command. I don't know where you get the idea that working for a government's military is not being a mercenary, as most governments hiring them set up a sort of umbrella 'mercenary command' in their army, if only so they can coordinate your actions with everyone else. And I use the term 'governments' loosely here, as 'governments in exile', rebel commands, and all sorts of other dubious military enterprises can qualify as 'parties to a conflict'. You also run into situations where you work for a government but the paycheck comes from somewhere else. Debeers tends to use that one to prop up governments friendly to their corporate interests.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl/WebART/470-750057
Really?

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
Article 47 [ Link ] -- Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;

(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;

(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and

(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Mercenary_Convention

At the 72nd plenary meeting on 4 December 1989 the United Nations General Assembly passed resolution 44/34, the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries. It entered into force on 20 October 2001 and is usually known as the UN Mercenary Convention.

1. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar rank and functions in the armed forces of that party;
(c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict;
(d) Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and
(e) Has not been sent by a State which is not a party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.
2. A mercenary is also any person who, in any other situation:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad for the purpose of participating in a concerted act of violence aimed at:
(i) Overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State; or
(ii) Undermining the territorial integrity of a State;
(b) Is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material compensation;
(c) Is neither a national nor a resident of the State against which such an act is directed;
(d) Has not been sent by a State on official duty; and
(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of the State on whose territory the act is undertaken.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
There's also the fact that most governments now maintain (occasionally large) standing armies. When Machiavelli was writing, this was not the case, thus his admonishment that competent mercenary captains would seek the overthrow of the prince who hired them. In the Italian Wars from the period that Machiavelli was writing, mercenaries made up a very large proportion of the troops employed compared to the 'regular' army. Further, remember that the military parts of the Prince are written in the context of Conquest. Machiavelli based these parts off Caesar Borgia and, to a lesser degree, Louis XI of France. By and large, most modern governments do not use mercenaries as the bulk of their forces (there have been exceptions to this). They have however used them as cats paws in wars they did not wish to commit their 'regular' troops to, in rear echelon duties, drug interdiction, and as garrison troops.

So you were still wrong about who Machiavelli wrote 'The Prince' for
And the various conflicts in Africa that used mercenaries to supplement their forces, or the US use of mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan don't show that the role of mercenaries is still much as it ever was?

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I don't deny that the West is suffering from 'intervention fatigue', though, frankly, the issue with your assertion about it doing none of the above can only actually be determined after the fact, particularly the 'effective' part. Based on the article I posted earlier about Syrians becoming frustrated with the West's indecisiveness. The huge numbers of refugees pouring into neighboring countries due Syria, and this is my personal opinion, create a bigger risk of endangering the US security by doing nothing than trying to force a end to the conflict does. Refugee camps are prime recruiting ground for terrorist organizations, and this conflict is creating a gigantic number.

So because Assad is killing his own people, and is being aided and abetted by Russia and Iran the US, which is taking no part in this, is somehow at risk...... yeah there is a substantial gap in your logic there as the majority of the world is not involved in Syria yet you don't seem to think that they are also somehow at risk.

And launching cruise missiles at a few targets weeks after an attack when the stockpiles have been moved, and the conflict drags on, with Assad still in power, and no real change to the facts on the ground is effective?
Or how about we put boots on the ground and get into a three way shooting match as we get lambasted for invading yet another Muslim country, and get involved in business that is clearly not our own, and give AQ a real recruiting boost especially when the inevitable collateral damage happens. Is that effective?

Obama the cowboy, that is an awesome mental picture, the bicycle doesn't quite live up the expectations

As to my comment about Obama not being a war hawk. I admit that any theoretical missile bombardment would most certainly be a violation of Syria's sovereignty and could easily be seen as an act of war. But Assad would have to be more than completely barking mad to try and retaliate against the US over the loss of a few artillery units and maybe a bit of his air defense network, after all, he has more pressing matters to deal with.
I just have trouble thinking of a missile bombardment lasting a few days as being the same thing as a full scale invasion and occupation lasting for years. Assuming Obama was going to keep his word about limited operations (he'd be out of his mind not to, unless he wanted to guarantee the Dems loose the next election) there wouldn't even be any American lives at risk at all, unless you're planning on starting to hand out citizenships to cruise missiles.
As far as I can see, this would be no different than the now familiar, sovereignty mocking, drone operations America now conducts in a few different countries (except this time the shots will be aimed at military units instead of insergents).
As to the "Red Line" talk, I see it as him banking on a provable attack never occuring, and taking a hard line so people think he looks tough on human rights or some such and then having it all backfire, forcing his hand. I hope he learned his lesson.

If this Russian plan works out, it will all be academic anyways, fingers crossed.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

At this point I'm inclined to think that you just don't want to get the distinction.

I'd say the same thing about you. You're trying hard to create an artificial difference between foreign fighters who take payment and says some words to cover their ass legally and ones who just take the payment.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Really?

Yes, really. You bring up article 47, but fail to understand that ALL of those points must apply for them to be a 'mercenary' under it. Thus if article e does not apply, they're not a mercenary. This is how quite a few countries get around it. You don't have to swear an oath or be a citizen, you just have to be a recognized part of their military.

You also bring up the UN Mercenary convention, but leave out that only 32 counties ever agreed to it (and not a single major power signed it other than Germany), and of those 4 only implemented part of it, and ten are known to have violated it since signing.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

And the various conflicts in Africa that used mercenaries to supplement their forces, or the US use of mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan don't show that the role of mercenaries is still much as it ever was?

No, it isn't. Mercenaries at the time of Machiavelli were (mostly) seen as expendable shock troops. Thus Machiavelli's complaint about Sforza's mercenaries not taking the forefront in sieges, which at the time where where the heaviest casualties were to be expected. The current preferred system is to use them to free up regular troops from things like security details, additional firepower for drug interdiction, etc. Very few countries employ mercenaries as shock troops or a large percentage of their army any more, but tha'ts probably going to change following Iraq and the explosion of PMCs.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

... the US, which is taking no part in this, is somehow at risk.....

Because that's not how they see it. The US has spent years cultivating a mythology of itself as a friend and ally to all who (supposedly) embrace democracy, and sadly, a lot of Syrians have bought into this, thanks in no small part to president big mouth and the CIA funneling arms to Syrian rebels.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

And launching cruise missiles at a few targets weeks after an attack when the stockpiles have been moved, and the conflict drags on, with Assad still in power, and no real change to the facts on the ground is effective?

Personal opinion, I don't agree that air strikes targeted at their CW ability will do anything at all. I think that the air strikes instead should be a decapitation attack on Assad's military (preferably on him personally as well) combined with neutralizing their air force. This would be both more effective at 'sending a message' to Assad, as well a being seen in a positive light by the Syrian opposition.

 CptJake wrote:


If anything the Russian plan prolongs the war and ensures no peace. It leaves Assad in power and free to do whatever he wants short of gassing his enemies.

Handing the country over to the "rebels" who have no goals, don't even seem to be a functional group but disparate anti-Assadists made up of foreign jihadists and god knows who else, is no solution.
Given that the rebels are the likely culprits for the gas attack, by allowing Assad to bring stability back to the country will benefit the masses. Current US policy supports the really bad guys because America's allies in the region don't like Assad. It is foreign governments feeding the rebel forces that are prolonging the war.

cadbren wrote:

Handing the country over to the "rebels" who have no goals, don't even seem to be a functional group but disparate anti-Assadists made up of foreign jihadists and god knows who else, is no solution.
Given that the rebels are the likely culprits for the gas attack, by allowing Assad to bring stability back to the country will benefit the masses. Current US policy supports the really bad guys because America's allies in the region don't like Assad. It is foreign governments feeding the rebel forces that are prolonging the war.

Well, the chemical weapons report isn't in, but the other war crimes reports are, and they are damning.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/11/us-syria-crisis-warcrimes-idUSBRE98A0D520130911

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/09/201391181352433623.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/syrian-violence-is-getting-worse-says-un-massacre-report-8810221.html

They do not, however, say anything not already known. The Syrian government is massacring entire towns, and the opposition is taking hostages and shelling indiscriminately.

For being a heavy burden, Mr Ban Ki Moon, why is nothing done about it?

Because in the end no one gives a feth.

To quote Eddie Izzard:

And, um, but there were other mass murderers that got away with it! Stalin, killed many millions, died in his bed, well done there. Pol Pot killed 1.7 million Cambodians, died under house arrest, age 72. Well done indeed. And the reason we let it – them get away with it is because they killed their own people. And we’re sort of fine with that. Ah, help yourself, you know. We’ve been trying to kill you for ages! So kill your own people, ohh, right on there. Seems to be, Hitler killed people next door – awwww stupid man. After a couple of years, we won’t stand for that, will we?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Relapse wrote:
It appears all of that education isn't doing them much good since they seem to be fighting along tribal lines.

In Eastern Syria this is true. However, this is not the majority of the population (Syria's two largest cities are in the west of the country)
.

You were pretty much saying in your earlier quote that it was a silly statement to say tribalism exists in Syria and now you're saying it's true, but only for part of the country.


Just to clear things up a bit, here is a map outlineing various areas of control, tribal and otherwise:

http://www.fragilestates.org/2012/02/20/syrias-ethnic-and-religious-divides/



Automatically Appended Next Post:
It looks like tribes in the south are in on the fun as well:

http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/middle-east/tribal-justice-blamed-for-deaths-of-120-syrian-police-and-soldiers#page2


According to this, tribes are playing a far greater role throughout Syria and the rebellian than you credit:


http://www.fairobserver.com/article/tribal-factor-syria-rebellion

More information on tribalism in Syria:

http://www.opendemocracy.net/haian-dukhan/tribes-and-tribalism-in-syrian-revolution

 d-usa wrote:
To quote Eddie Izzard:

And, um, but there were other mass murderers that got away with it! Stalin, killed many millions, died in his bed, well done there. Pol Pot killed 1.7 million Cambodians, died under house arrest, age 72. Well done indeed. And the reason we let it – them get away with it is because they killed their own people. And we’re sort of fine with that. Ah, help yourself, you know. We’ve been trying to kill you for ages! So kill your own people, ohh, right on there. Seems to be, Hitler killed people next door – awwww stupid man. After a couple of years, we won’t stand for that, will we?

Ah yes, thank you Eddie Izzard. Since other mass murderers have gotten away with things in the past, that means we should never do anything about mass murder ever again, ever. And nobody better dare to pick just one mass murderer or genocide to do something about, because then everyone will point out all the other mass murderers who got away with genocide and ethnic cleansing.

No, no. If you can't stop all bad things happening everywhere, the only possible moral thing is to do nothing. Some mass killings have been ignored in the past, so we must continue to turn a blind eye to all of them. It's the only way to make the world a better place.

Relapse wrote:


You were pretty much saying in your earlier quote that it was a silly statement to say tribalism exists in Syria and now you're saying it's true, but only for part of the country.

Well, two things: one, no, I was talking about the tribe on tribe violence, which is primarily happening in the East of Syria, currently (the article you posted on the south is actually rather old at this point, being from 2011 and talking about the locals starting reprisals against the government for shooting the demonstrators) Secondly, I was pointing out that your assumption that tribal = ignorant has no basis in fact. Culture and ethnicity does not equate education or the ability to understand various forms of government. (And if anyone tells you otherwise, you might check them for pointy white hats.)

Also, to be blunt I see this less being along tribal and more being along ethnic and religious lines. A lot of the violence in the east is between ethnically kurdish tribes fighting ethnically Arab tribes in a bid to expand or regain control of property shuffled around by Assad (particularly fertile land and oil and gas fields). If you look at the current hotspots, they're generally around the cities and in areas where Assad practiced 'kurdish relocation'.

Hmm.... fascism... persecuting ethnic groups.... forcing them to hand over their property and be forcibly relocated... poison gas... it sound so familiar, somehow...

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Relapse wrote:


You were pretty much saying in your earlier quote that it was a silly statement to say tribalism exists in Syria and now you're saying it's true, but only for part of the country.

Well, two things: one, no, I was talking about the tribe on tribe violence, which is primarily happening in the East of Syria, currently (the article you posted on the south is actually rather old at this point, being from 2011 and talking about the locals starting reprisals against the government for shooting the demonstrators) Secondly, I was pointing out that your assumption that tribal = ignorant has no basis in fact. Culture and ethnicity does not equate education or the ability to understand various forms of government. (And if anyone tells you otherwise, you might check them for pointy white hats.)

Also, to be blunt I see this less being along tribal and more being along ethnic and religious lines. A lot of the violence in the east is between ethnically kurdish tribes fighting ethnically Arab tribes in a bid to expand or regain control of property shuffled around by Assad (particularly fertile land and oil and gas fields). If you look at the current hotspots, they're generally around the cities and in areas where Assad practiced 'kurdish relocation'.

Hmm.... fascism... persecuting ethnic groups.... forcing them to hand over their property and be forcibly relocated... poison gas... it sound so familiar, somehow...

I'm not saying that tribal equals ignorant, just that the tribal system you initialy denied existed at all is very much in play here.

Relapse wrote:

I'm not saying that tribal equals ignorant, just that the tribal system you initialy denied existed at all is very much in play here.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Just to add to your statement, what real knowledge of democracy do people that live under a feudal or tribal system have? It's like giving a sports car to someone who has only handled Ox carts all their life.

Wow. You'd never know Damascus has been a center of civilization and trade since they paid tribute to Thutmose III, Pharaoh of Egypt in the 15th Century BC...


You do know that there are no fewer than four accredited universities, six museums, and a sizable educational system there, right? I'll throw in that Aleppo is hardly a bunch of mud and grass huts either.

I'd say that was exactly what you implied and exactly what I rebutted was that they were ignorant and had no grasp of what 'democracy' meant. I went back and looked and at no point in any of my posts on this subject do I say that there are no tribal groups in Syria, or even that there is not inter tribal violence in eastern Syria. My assertion was, however, that this violence was more ethnic in nature as opposed to tribal and that the players were far from being ignorant savages who had no grasp of what 'democracy' was. If you might look at the maps you posted links to, and Assad's history of repartitioning land, you might see why.