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.
No, it's quite accurate. China may become a superpower some day, but it's very far from being so currently. It still has a lot of economic and military development to do before it can claim that title.
Seaward wrote:
I disagree. Profoundly, in fact, but I'm not sure it's worth arguing over. If you think you're seeing the US unleashed and acting with indifference towards its ideals, I don't really know what to tell you.
I can provide multiple examples of the US helping to overthrow democratically elected governments, we've just seen the US sending in small teams to abduct people in other nations in breach of law and correct protocol, the US has refused to sign many interesting and potentially good pieces of legislation brought before the UN, and I'm pretty certain that nobody can argue Guantanamo Bay is anything but 'acting with indifference towards its ideals'.
In short, I'm not just coming up with this on the cuff, or out of some bizare irrational dislike of America. I can provide evidence and substantiation for each and every opinion I have expressed so far. Truthfully? I don't like or dislike America really, any more than I do the French or the Germans. I certainly 'like' (for a given value) it more than the Chinese and Russians.
I also make a strong distinction between the actions of the American people and the American Government (I'm actually quite fond of you guys on a personal level ).
Pretending that the choice doesn't often come down to a decision between 'bad' and 'worse' is a luxury that just doesn't occur in the real world when your reach is as long as ours and your interests as extended.
The problem is that America claims that interfering with the entire world and its business, is in the American interest. Which is how a global superpower works(and indeed, is what makes it global). The British did it, and now you're following in our footsteps to an extent.
I've always found this to be one of the weakest arguments of the anti-war folks. It's shorthand. It's a war on organizations and individuals engaged in terrorist plots against us or our allies. That's a mouthful, however, so "war on terror" is easier to say.
I'm hardly anti-war as a military historian!
I still think that the phrase 'war on terror' is a daft political phrase though, and was simply invented to justify hostile acts against whoever the American Government judges as being against them with a minimum amount of substantiation or evidence required. Labelling someone a 'terrorist' before dragging them off to waterboard them in a cell means that everybody knows they don't get human rights! Lobbing bombs at them and their families? We're at war on 'terror'! We don't need evidence in a courtroom before executing them!
'War on terror' excuses a multitude of sins(metaphorically speaking). It also means that you're not forced to confront what might have turned them into terrorists in the first place (in some cases, it turns out be things like having bombs lobbed at the house next door because the government said they were terrorists, and your sister got killed).
What I mean is that we only know about all of this gak because of some douchebag leaking it. Claiming that the British or the French or whoever are above it all is nice, but until you get your own Snowden, it's not really evident that there's a factual basis for such a claim.
I'm not sure if it's that they're above such things. I'm not trying to paint our secret services as 'nicer' for a given value. It's entirely possible that if they could do the same, they would. But as things stand, they don't. Whether that's because they're not physically capable of it, because they hold foreign relations as more important, because they value human rights more, or whatnot, I don't know, wouldn't care to speculate, and think the reason would be different for each nation.
All I can say, is that America regularly goes much further and is far more blase about these sort of things than anyone in Europe. Which is more or less the case and pretty self-evident to anyone who reads the news. As I said, we're not chucking drones about/abducting foreign nationals yet. America though, does such things regularly.
Ketara... isn't the US's action really stems from that fact that we're practically the lone superpower at the moment?
Possibly. But the US need fear no serious retaliation by the opponents it has selected. You'll note that when Russia flexed over Southern Ossetia, America stayed well away from it. I severely doubt that if China started hosting Taliban, the US would start lobbing in drones as well.
I get the impression that the US Government respects military might past a certain level, and then when it faces something one that scale, it falls back on the same games we in Europe do ( namely hacking, and photographs).
The thing is though, acting in a high-handed manner and committing atrocities/causing deaths and mayhem simply because it's in your own interest and nobody can stop you? The ideals preached by America and believed in by the majority of its citizens are totally against such things. But the American Government works on the lines of some of the most ruthless Realpolitik I've ever seen.
I believe that the American populace is ill served by those it raises up.
China is a superpower
Hardly.
and it is now flexing its muscles, and the US is backing away.
Again, nope. If there's one thing the Americans are almost psychologically incapable of doing, it's backing away.
The Chinese dont vocalise things the same way as the Cold War adversaries did.
That's because the Chinese relations with the West are completely different to those of the Soviet Union. As are its goals.
China has been a superpower for awghile now, but until recently they prefered to hide and pretend they were not, mostly to keep America asleep,
Just...no. Chinese cultural psychology and form of Government the yhave is responsible for the way they behave. They're not sitting in chairs with white fluffy cats in secret underwater bases cackling and saying, 'Soon, those filthy Westerners will pay!'
some still are even now China is doing frankly very agrssive moves like claiming all ocean territory (and offshore resources) in the South China sea, regardless of who it actually belongs to in international law.
International law applies to those who dare not break it (as the US, and many others have frequently demonstrated over the years). But the Chinese are hardly subtle in this case.
Russia is still a nuclear superpower, if never an economic one
Theirt economic muscle has been rebuilding steadily for a while now. They're not the US, but not doing badly.
anytime they fancy playing hardball they can.
In what way? Militarily? Politically? Economically?
If anything whembly the NSA are flexing their muscles because the US has fewer muscles than it had
Again, hardly. The internet and modern technology is a godsend for intelligence. Now they don't just have to squint at satellite photography and hope they can get someone close enough to physically wiretap a phonline.
A bit like post war Britain in the early 50's.
Inaccurate.
Unlike the Uk America will remain powerful because of its natural size, but the US Empire days are drawing to their close very rapidly. It's China's world now.
No. Just no.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/10/26 15:11:25
Everybody knows everybody spies on each other - the NSA have probably got guys spying on other NSA guys!
But the impression is that the NSA is out of control. I seriously doubt that Obama gave the go-ahead for spying on Merkel, but this wild west attitude amongst American intelligence is the problem. Whatever your views, Snowden was a low-level guy who was able to walk away with a ton of stuff. The consensus is that this could happen again because so many people and so many agencies have access to data.
I wish the NSA would find my missing phone before the battery goes!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/26 15:11:12
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Ketara wrote: I can provide multiple examples of the US helping to overthrow democratically elected governments, we've just seen the US sending in small teams to abduct people in other nations in breach of law and correct protocol, the US has refused to sign many interesting and potentially good pieces of legislation brought before the UN, and I'm pretty certain that nobody can argue Guantanamo Bay is anything but 'acting with indifference towards its ideals'.
What laws are breached by sending special operations forces into Pakistan, Somalia, and Libya, out of curiosity?
The US has refused to sign most things brought up in the UN that would limit US sovereignty. That, hopefully, is something that will never change.
And as far as Gitmo goes...well, you want to compare it with others' attempts at similar set-ups? Guys captured in the field who aren't lawful combatants have come up in history before, and frequently they were simply executed. That's a far cry from what we're doing. And truly, we'd be happy to release quite a few of them, the problem is their countries of origin don't want them back.
The problem is that America claims that interfering with the entire world and its business, is in the American interest. Which is how a global superpower works(and indeed, is what makes it global). The British did it, and now you're following in our footsteps to an extent.
That's a bit of an exaggeration.
I'm hardly anti-war as a military historian!
I still think that the phrase 'war on terror' is a daft political phrase though, and was simply invented to justify hostile acts against whoever the American Government judges as being against them with a minimum amount of substantiation or evidence required. Labelling someone a 'terrorist' before dragging them off to waterboard them in a cell means that everybody knows they don't get human rights! Lobbing bombs at them and their families? We're at war on 'terror'! We don't need evidence in a courtroom before executing them!
'War on terror' excuses a multitude of sins(metaphorically speaking). It also means that you're not forced to confront what might have turned them into terrorists in the first place (in some cases, it turns out be things like having bombs lobbed at the house next door because the government said they were terrorists, and your sister got killed).
I don't know. I personally think it's rather doubtful that any but a very small minority of radicalization occurs due to drone strikes or whatever else. The twin terror of poverty and radical religion's the driving factor for most of your line grunts.
I'm not sure if it's that they're above such things. I'm not trying to paint our secret services as 'nicer' for a given value. It's entirely possible that if they could do the same, they would. But as things stand, they don't. Whether that's because they're not physically capable of it, because they hold foreign relations as more important, because they value human rights more, or whatnot, I don't know, wouldn't care to speculate, and think the reason would be different for each nation.
How do you know what all European NSA analogues are getting up to, is my point. All that we're finding out about PRISM and listening to Merkel trying to flog BMWs we're finding out solely because of Snowden.
All I can say, is that America regularly goes much further and is far more blase about these sort of things than anyone in Europe. Which is more or less the case and pretty self-evident to anyone who reads the news. As I said, we're not chucking drones about/abducting foreign nationals yet.
And that is, almost entirely, because we're doing it for you. We get an awful lot of information turned over to us from the Europeans, especially from the Brits, and they know precisely what we're doing with it. Collusion would be an accurate term, I think. There were plenty of SAS/SBS guys running around with the various HVT task forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I'd wager a guess - and it's officially a guess, NSA, nothing more - that there are plenty still doing so in the Horn of Africa and elsewhere.
I think standing back and claiming no part of it isn't accurate.
What laws are breached by sending special operations forces into Pakistan, Somalia, and Libya, out of curiosity?
Generally speaking, the countries in question have laws against being kidnapped. Be it by rapists, people traffickers, foreign powers or anybody else. And y'know, it being their country, those laws are in effect.
The US has refused to sign most things brought up in the UN that would limit US sovereignty. That, hopefully, is something that will never change.
Alright. How about the Kyoto protocol? If I recall, Bush pulled out at the very last second because it would increase the domestic power costs of the average US consumer by about 5%. And hacked off just about every other signatory in the process.
And as far as Gitmo goes...well, you want to compare it with others' attempts at similar set-ups? Guys captured in the field who aren't lawful combatants have come up in history before, and frequently they were simply executed. That's a far cry from what we're doing. And truly, we'd be happy to release quite a few of them, the problem is their countries of origin don't want them back.
Distraction.
Ketara wrote:when these things get caught and picked up upon by the international community, the average American response is, 'Eh. We're the good guys. Innocent people have nothing to fear/everyone else does the same thing/it helps keep us secure/It's necessary for our national security'.
The US is abducting and torturing people. What other people do or have done is neither here or there. The fact remains that America as is currently does this, and it is morally questionable at absolute best, and downright condemned by the American espoused sense of ethics at worst.
I don't know. I personally think it's rather doubtful that any but a very small minority of radicalization occurs due to drone strikes or whatever else. The twin terror of poverty and radical religion's the driving factor for most of your line grunts.
That was just a single example. The point I was attempting to drive home was that just labelling people 'terrorists' means that you don't have to consider why they might hate the US, or what might have driven them to it. You just put them in this nice little box marked 'enemy of the state', and lo and behold, you don't have to apply your own system of ethics/morality to them. You can torture them, shoot them, abduct them, kill their families around them, and that's all okay because you're engaged in a 'war on terror', and they are 'terrorists'. It's tapping into that very basic us vs them mentality all humans have. And it requires no justification/substantiation beyond the fact that you've delineated them as 'enemies'.
How do you know what all European NSA analogues are getting up to, is my point. All that we're finding out about PRISM and listening to Merkel trying to flog BMWs we're finding out solely because of Snowden.
I've deliberately not mentioned the latest NSA shennanigans in making my points here. Like I said, if France was running a Gitmo equivalent, we'd know about it. The fact is though, that they're not. And Russian soldiers aren't picking off 'terrorists' in Finland, and Britian did not lob drones into Pakistan.
And that is, almost entirely, because we're doing it for you.
No. Equivocation I'm afraid(from the perspective of Europe as a whole). You don't see many muslim terrorists blowing up parts of Switzerland to promote the Jihad. And I daresay if Gitmo got shut down and you stopped throwing drones into Pakistan, Switzerland would continue to not have muslim terrorists blowing things up.
We get an awful lot of information turned over to us from the Europeans, especially from the Brits,
Sure. We made the mistake of going into Iraq and Afghanistan, so like it or not, we're somewhat in the same boat now.
and they know precisely what we're doing with it. Collusion would be an accurate term, I think. There were plenty of SAS/SBS guys running around with the various HVT task forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I'd wager a guess - and it's officially a guess, NSA, nothing more - that there are plenty still doing so in the Horn of Africa and elsewhere.
If it turns out that the British have HVT squads abducting people and bringing them back to Britain, please show it to me. That would be something that I would rather disapprove of, and would probably write to my MP about.
To my knowledge though, America more or less calls the shots on those sorts of ops. And even if we just take the premise that Britain was doing exactly the same thing on every single score, and imagine a world where we also lob drones about and whatnot, at best that establishes moral equivalency in the mud.
I think standing back and claiming no part of it isn't accurate.
I'm not claiming no part. As I keep saying, everyone engages in these things to an extent. But America seems (judging by the news over the last few years) to take it further than anybody else does. Which is surprising, considering the values America usually claims to be upholding in the process.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/10/26 16:21:25
Ketara wrote: Generally speaking, the countries in question have laws against being kidnapped. Be it by rapists, people traffickers, foreign powers or anybody else. And y'know, it being their country, those laws are in effect.
Ah, a shame. I was really hoping you'd point to international law.
Anyway, yes. I'm sure Somalia does have nominal laws against kidnapping. If you're functionally unable to police your own, however, it's not unreasonable to find someone else doing it for you.
Alright. How about the Kyoto protocol? If I recall, Bush pulled out at the very last second because it would increase the domestic power costs of the average US consumer by about 5%. And hacked off just about every other signatory in the process.
That's not at all how that went, no. Clinton signed it, but we didn't ratify it, because it never would have gotten through Congress. I'm also a little unsure what that has to do with world peace.
Distraction.
Hardly.
The US is abducting and torturing people. What other people do or have done is neither here or there. The fact remains that America is currently do this, and it is morally questionable at absolute best, and downright condemned by the American espoused sense of ethics at worst.
We're not torturing anybody. And as far as "abduction" goes, I haven't heard a proposed alternative. Pakistan harbored Osama bin Laden for years, and one of the many wonders of Wikileaks is the revelation of just how many Pakistani government officials knew about it for the majority of that time. Relying on local authorities in places like Pakistan, Somalia, Libya, Yemen, and Afghanistan to enforce their own laws against individuals that threaten the safety and security of the United States is not an option. We've tried it. It doesn't work.
That was just a single example. The point I was attempting to drive home was that just labelling people 'terrorists' means that you don't have to consider why they might hate the US, or what might have driven them to it. You just put them in this nice little box marked 'enemy of the state', and lo and behold, you don't have to apply your own system of ethics/morality to them. You can torture them, shoot them, abduct them, kill their families around them, and that's all okay because you're engaged in a 'war on terror', and they are 'terrorists'. It's tapping into that very basic us vs them mentality all humans have. And it requires no justification/substantiation beyond the fact that you've delineated them as 'enemies'.
I'm generally pretty indifferent to the argument that 9/11, or the thousands of attempts to kill Americans since, wouldn't have happened if only we understood the people responsible. You try and kill American civilians or service members, we're not going to simply let you amble about the world if we can help it. If you choose to utilize human shields in an attempt to deter retaliation, it's ultimately not going to work. I realize the image that gets portrayed is that we simply Hellfire anything moving regardless of the potential for non-combatant casualties, but I can tell you, from experience, that isn't the case.
I've deliberately not mentioned the latest NSA shennanigans in making my points here. Like I said, if France was running a Gitmo equivalent, we'd know about it. The fact is though, that they're not. And Russian soldiers aren't picking off 'terrorists' in Finland, and Britian did not lob drones into Pakistan.
Before using Russia as an example, you might want to consider Chechnya and South Ossetia. As far as Britain and France go...again, you're making some weird distinction between being the guys who say, "Hey, here's a target," and the guys who actually pull the trigger.
No. Equivocation I'm afraid(from the perspective of Europe as a whole). You don't see many muslim terrorists blowing up parts of Switzerland to promote the Jihad. And I daresay if Gitmo got shut down and you stopped throwing drones into Pakistan, Switzerland would continue to not have muslim terrorists blowing things up.
Pointing to a country that decided neutrality in the face of unquestioned evil was the way to go as an example to follow is pretty questionable. You're absolutely right, though, the Swiss won't have anybody blowing anything up in their cantons, because they'll happily allow atrocities to occur next door without ever considering lifting a finger to stop them. If the national equivalent of the guy who sees a pregnant woman getting beaten up across the street and keeps on walking is your ideal, fair enough, but it's not mine, and I doubt it's most Americans'.
If it turns out that the British have HVT squads abducting people and bringing them back to Britain, please show it to me. That would be something that I would rather disapprove of, and would probably write to my MP about.
Why would they bring them back to Britain? They turn them over to us. It works out better for everybody. We get what we want - intel - and the Brits get what they want - an illusory higher ground their citizens can occupy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/26 16:39:05
Ah, a shame. I was really hoping you'd point to international law.
I couldn't point to anything the US has signed about not abducting the citizens of other countries. Mainly because the US would never sign anything like that. Which was kind of one of the later points.
Anyway, yes. I'm sure Somalia does have nominal laws against kidnapping. If you're functionally unable to police your own, however, it's not unreasonable to find someone else doing it for you.
'Police your own'. As in, 'if you're unable to stop people America thinks you should be stopping, it's not unreasonable to send our military in to do whatever we like'.
Alright. How about the Kyoto protocol? If I recall, Bush pulled out at the very last second because it would increase the domestic power costs of the average US consumer by about 5%. And hacked off just about every other signatory in the process.
That's not at all how that went, no. Clinton signed it, but we didn't ratify it, because it never would have gotten through Congress. I'm also a little unsure what that has to do with world peace.
George Bush, 2005 wrote:"Kyoto would have wrecked our economy. I couldn't in good faith have signed Kyoto,"
And as far as "abduction" goes, I haven't heard a proposed alternative.
Do what everybody else does, and accept that 'being designated a threat to the US by the US' is not an offence on the soil of another country?
Pakistan harbored Osama bin Laden for years, and one of the many wonders of Wikileaks is the revelation of just how many Pakistani government officials knew about it for the majority of that time. Relying on local authorities in places like Pakistan, Somalia, Libya, Yemen, and Afghanistan to enforce their own laws against individuals that threaten the safety and security of the United States is not an option. We've tried it. It doesn't work.
This is the thing I'm talking about though. The US Government arbitrarily decides that somebody else somewhere else on the globe is a threat. And so they send in the military to kill/abduct them. There is no courtroom, no respect of the sovereignty of other nations, and no respect for their laws either. Unless those countries possess the military power to be able to fight off US incursions, the US ignores them, their laws, and their mandates. Conveniently though, American laws and rights (the constitution), are also deemed to not apply.
I'm generally pretty indifferent to the argument that 9/11, or the thousands of attempts to kill Americans since, wouldn't have happened if only we understood the people responsible.
The thing is, the US has been meddling in the Middle East, and metaphorically kicking down doors and burning bridges there in pursuit of its own self-interest for the last sixty years. 9/11 wasn't a single nutter, it was a culmination of consequences from earlier foreign policy. \And the bizare thing is that the US continues the same policy that continually spawns more enemies. And then the US shrugs its shoulders and wonders why people dislike them in the Middle-East.
You try and kill American civilians or service members, we're not going to simply let you amble about the world if we can help it.
Even if the reason they hate America is because a) America upheld a government that killed their relatives, b) was a citizen in a country invaded by the US, c) their relatives were killed by the US military, and so on. So you take out the next guy, and then his son hates you as well. It's a vicious never-ending self-perpetuating cycle.
If you choose to utilize human shields in an attempt to deter retaliation,
aka, you're a civilian living in an area with civilians
it's ultimately not going to work.
Because the US genuinely doesn't overly care if they kill civilians in taking you out. They just say, 'Anyone standing within ten foot must also have been an enemy of the US! And a terrorist! And a threat!
I realize the image that gets portrayed is that we simply Hellfire anything moving regardless of the potential for non-combatant casualties, but I can tell you, from experience, that isn't the case.
If Osama Bin Laden had been standing surrounded by a hundred innocent virgins, the US would have gladly blown up every last one to get him too. Although on that front, I'm a bit more understanding. It is Osama after all, and he occupies a unique space in American psychology.
I'm not actually claiming that you guys just sit in a control room high fiving each other and drinking kool-aid whilst piloting drones about and killing civilians. But if there's a guy you reckon is an important chap you need to kill, the US military does have a habit of going, 'Oh well.' and killing his entire family and everyone in the three houses next to them.
Unfortunately, that ties into the cycle mentioned above,
Before using Russia as an example, you might want to consider Chechnya and South Ossetia. As far as Britain and France go...again, you're making some weird distinction between being the guys who say, "Hey, here's a target," and the guys who actually pull the trigger.
I tell you where someone is you want to kill. You kill him.
I mean, sure, its morally questionable on one side. But as I keep saying, we do all do the same stuff to an extent, and have never denied it. America just goes slightly further than everybody else does, and tries to tell everyone that they're the good guys for doing it (even though they're totally motivated by self interest).
Pointing to a country that decided neutrality in the face of unquestioned evil was the way to go as an example to follow is pretty questionable. You're absolutely right, though, the Swiss won't have anybody blowing anything up in their cantons, because they'll happily allow atrocities to occur next door without ever considering lifting a finger to stop them. If the national equivalent of the guy who sees a pregnant woman getting beaten up across the street and keeps on walking is your ideal, fair enough, but it's not mine, and I doubt it's most Americans'.
Sure. But since when has american foreign policy ever been to stop atrocities? Mugabe is still around last I looked, along with many other dictators. And a lot of dictators live off US aid and support. This is the whole, 'We're the good guys' mentality I'm talking about. The US regularly help support people who quite happily kill and oppress other people. They run on realpolitik. America is perfectly happy to kick back and watch atrocities, so long as it doesn't impinge on their interests. Just like everybody else.
If it turns out that the British have HVT squads abducting people and bringing them back to Britain, please show it to me. That would be something that I would rather disapprove of, and would probably write to my MP about.
Why would they bring them back to Britain? They turn them over to us. It works out better for everybody. We get what we want - intel - and the Brits get what they want - an illusory higher ground their citizens can occupy.
That's the bizare thing I'm commenting on though. Because the illusory higher ground seems to be the one the US consistently attempts to colonise, when committing acts of a very interesting moral calibre.
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2013/10/26 17:09:48
In principle it goes against what allies and democracies stand for, and violates trust between partners.
In practical terms it is business as usual. Everyone spies on everyone else because that's what intelligence agencies do. They want to know what their enemies are planning, and they want to know whether what their allies are doing are in line with their own interests.
The only reason that this is getting any reaction from the political leaders of other countries is because of the media attention. Soon it'll be business as usual.
Ah, a shame. I was really hoping you'd point to international law.
Which would have been your hope because...?
We're not torturing anybody.
Ketara probably forgot that torture is not torture if you call it "enhanced interrogation techniques". That silly Brit!
And as far as "abduction" goes, I haven't heard a proposed alternative. Pakistan harbored Osama bin Laden for years, and one of the many wonders of Wikileaks is the revelation of just how many Pakistani government officials knew about it for the majority of that time. Relying on local authorities in places like Pakistan, Somalia, Libya, Yemen, and Afghanistan to enforce their own laws against individuals that threaten the safety and security of the United States is not an option. We've tried it. It doesn't work.
This is actually a point that I can buy. Still, that doesn't make it legal, even if it might be the "right" thing to do from your perspective.
All in all: If the US want to be pragmatic, they should be pragmatic, it's certainly not the worst attitude in the world. But claiming that all the US does is legally sound is exactly the kind of hypocrisy Ketara mentioned before. Accept the heroic vigilante role and be done with it.
Oaka wrote: It's getting to the point where if I see Marneus Calgar and the Swarmlord in the same unit as a Riptide, I probably won't question its legality.
Ketara wrote: I couldn't point to anything the US has signed about not abducting the citizens of other countries. Mainly because the US would never sign anything like that. Which was kind of one of the later points.
We've signed quite a few extradition treaties. The problem is that they generally require the national government in question to be functionally capable of enforcing its own laws.
'Police your own'. As in, 'if you're unable to stop people America thinks you should be stopping, it's not unreasonable to send our military in to do whatever we like'.
No. As in, "If you're unable to stop your citizens from committing acts of terrorism against us, we will utilize extraordinarily limited, precise-as-possible force." Should someone be free to plant bombs all over London as often as they like simply because the 'government' of Somalia is incapable of stopping them? Your argument in that scenario is that Britain has to just keep on letting them do it.
"Kyoto would have wrecked our economy. I couldn't in good faith have signed Kyoto,"
Yes. He didn't support it, but it was signed long before he took office. That's why he's speaking in the past tense.
Oh, well then it must be true. It also turns out I was tortured. Who knew?
Do what everybody else does, and accept that 'being designated a threat to the US by the US' is not an offence on the soil of another country?
And again we're back to, "Sorry, Yemen doesn't care that this dude planned a terror campaign, Britain. You just have to suck it up."
This is the thing I'm talking about though. The US Government arbitrarily decides that somebody else somewhere else on the globe is a threat.
No. It's not arbitrary. We don't pick names out of a hat. We don't open up the local phone book.
And so they send in the military to kill/abduct them. There is no courtroom, no respect of the sovereignty of other nations, and no respect for their laws either. Unless those countries possess the military power to be able to fight off US incursions, the US ignores them, their laws, and their mandates. Conveniently though, American laws and rights (the constitution), are also deemed to not apply.
Because American laws do not, in fact, apply outside of America.
The thing is, the US has been meddling in the Middle East, and metaphorically kicking down doors and burning bridges there in pursuit of its own self-interest for the last sixty years. 9/11 wasn't a single nutter, it was a culmination of consequences from earlier foreign policy. \And the bizare thing is that the US continues the same policy that continually spawns more enemies. And then the US shrugs its shoulders and wonders why people dislike them in the Middle-East.
And we're back to the assertion that the root of all radicalization is drone strikes, without any merit. Islamic radicalism is nothing new. It didn't start with the United States.
Even if the reason they hate America is because a) America upheld a government that killed their relatives, b) was a citizen in a country invaded by the US, c) their relatives were killed by the US military, and so on. So you take out the next guy, and then his son hates you as well. It's a vicious never-ending self-perpetuating cycle.
I'd buy that if there was any evidence to show that took place on a widespread scale. There isn't.
Because the US genuinely doesn't overly care if they kill civilians in taking you out. They just say, 'Anyone standing within ten foot must also have been an enemy of the US! And a terrorist! And a threat!
There's really no way I can respond genuinely to this without getting banned. So I'll simply say you're wrong, and have trod well over the line into accusing me and a hell of a lot of guys like me of not giving a gak as to what they throw ordnance at. You're going to want to rethink that tack.
If Osama Bin Laden had been standing surrounded by a hundred innocent virgins, the US would have gladly blown up every last one to get him too.
Pretty strange that we sent in a team to get him rather than just bombing the house then, huh? Would have been a hell of a lot easier to just strike the place.
I'm not actually claiming that you guys just sit in a control room high fiving each other and drinking kool-aid whilst piloting drones about and killing civilians. But if there's a guy you reckon is an important chap you need to kill, the US military does have a habit of going, 'Oh well.' and killing his entire family and everyone in the three houses next to them.
And you know this from...what, exactly? Plenty of sorties flown? Extensive work in Predator Bay?
I tell you where someone is you want to kill. You kill him.
No. You want to kill him, too.
Sure. But since when has american foreign policy ever been to stop atrocities?
The former Yugoslavia, Haiti, Somalia, and Libya spring readily to mind.
Da Boss wrote: Meh. Though my flag is German, the only people who ever spy on my home country are the British, and that's because we kept putting bombs in all their bins.
And under their cars, and on their buses, and in their shopping malls. and their hotels, and there are some occasionally thrown at Police and Security Services. I'm probably missing a few though
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: The British, despite having been deployed in Afghanistan alongside the US, have yet to resort to lobbing drone bombs over at people they spot through satellite images.
UK drone strikes in our list: 113 (112 from RAF operation updates; 1 reported by Guardian/ISAF)
Total UK drone strikes at 31/10/12 according to MoD: 349
Total UK drone strikes at 31/10/12 according to MoD: 349
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: If Osama Bin Laden had been standing surrounded by a hundred innocent virgins, the US would have gladly blown up every last one to get him too. Although on that front, I'm a bit more understanding. It is Osama after all, and he occupies a unique space in American psychology
And yet after learning where Bin Laden was the US sent in SEAL Team Six on a risky cross border operation rather than flatten his compound with precision munitions that Pakistan would have been unable to intercept
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/10/26 17:47:13
We've signed quite a few extradition treaties. The problem is that they generally require the national government in question to be functionally capable of enforcing its own laws.
There was no extradition treaty between Libya and the US.
No. As in, "If you're unable to stop your citizens from committing acts of terrorism against us, we will utilize extraordinarily limited, precise-as-possible force." Should someone be free to plant bombs all over London as often as they like simply because the 'government' of Somalia is incapable of stopping them? Your argument in that scenario is that Britain has to just keep on letting them do it.
It happened. It was called the IRA. Notably, we did not invade Ireland.
"Kyoto would have wrecked our economy. I couldn't in good faith have signed Kyoto,"
Yes. He didn't support it, but it was signed long before he took office. That's why he's speaking in the past tense.
Ah, fair does. Just dug a bit deeper. Fair enough.
Nevertheless, the point stands. Bush pulled out of Kyoto in 2001, four years before it was about to come into force. Because he felt it would damage American interests (and his possibility of re-election).
Oh, well then it must be true. It also turns out I was tortured. Who knew?
.....So please clarify this for me. Are you saying that inmates are Guantanamo Bay are treated humanely and fairly, and nothing that could be considered to be abuse or torture takes place there?
And again we're back to, "Sorry, Yemen doesn't care that this dude planned a terror campaign, Britain. You just have to suck it up."
You'll note we didn't send in the bombers to Dublin.
No. It's not arbitrary. We don't pick names out of a hat. We don't open up the local phone book.
Arbitrary
adjective
1.
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
"an arbitrary decision"
2.
(of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.
I meant the second one.
Because American laws do not, in fact, apply outside of America
Like I said, conveniently. So the US says that US laws do not apply because they're not in America. And local laws don't apply, just because.
Whelp. Nice to know how easy it is for me as a foreign national to lose all human rights in the eyes of the US Government.
And we're back to the assertion that the root of all radicalization is drone strikes, without any merit. Islamic radicalism is nothing new. It didn't start with the United States.
That is not even remotely close to what I said. I did not specify drone strikes, nor Islamic radicalism beginning with the US. Read again:
The thing is, the US has been meddling in the Middle East, and metaphorically kicking down doors and burning bridges there in pursuit of its own self-interest for the last sixty years. 9/11 wasn't a single nutter, it was a culmination of consequences from earlier foreign policy. \And the bizare thing is that the US continues the same policy that continually spawns more enemies. And then the US shrugs its shoulders and wonders why people dislike them in the Middle-East.
See the complete disconnect with the answer you gave?
I'd buy that if there was any evidence to show that took place on a widespread scale. There isn't.
Mate, human beliefs tend to have causes. People aren't born hating the US. They're not raised hating the US just for fun. There are root causes, and being a muslim is not one of them usually. There's no chapter in Q'uran saying, 'America sucks, you must oppose them at every turn'. And even if there was, 99.9% of muslims would ignore it, like most Christians do Leviticus's statement on mixed fabrics.
You will get nutters, but a lot of people across the middle-east have been disenfranchised by America and its actions there.
There's really no way I can respond genuinely to this without getting banned. So I'll simply say you're wrong, and have trod well over the line into accusing me and a hell of a lot of guys like me of not giving a gak as to what they throw ordnance at. You're going to want to rethink that tack.
Read closer. I'm not throwing it at the pilots. Or even the army in general. More at the justification the US Government as a whole gives for killing people out there, and their seeming response to the continual (and they crop up pretty regularly) reports of civilian casualties from drone strikes.
Pretty strange that we sent in a team to get him rather than just bombing the house then, huh? Would have been a hell of a lot easier to just strike the place.
I did actually read an account from one of the chaps instrumental in deciding that one, and he basically said it was actually considered, but if they just did that, they thought it would a) mean they would never be 100% sure, b) lead other people to announce they hadn't got him, and c) not look nearly as good to the American public.
And you know this from...what, exactly? Plenty of sorties flown? Extensive work in Predator Bay?
Those sources available for public consumption, naturally. I could be wrong. But I recall reading a statement from one US official about how terrorists are bound to have their families and friends close by, and the US can't allow such considerations to deter them from taking action.
I tell you where someone is you want to kill. You kill him.
No. You want to kill him, too.
Alright. Is intent equivalent to doing the deed?
Sure. But since when has american foreign policy ever been to stop atrocities?
The former Yugoslavia, Haiti, Somalia, and Libya spring readily to mind.
No. Those were atrocities it was politically expedient for the US to try and stop. That does not make it american foreign policy.
Seaward, I'm not saying the things I'm saying out of some irrational hatred for the states or any such. I'm genuinely sorry if my views might upset or offend you, as that's really not my intent here. I'm just defending my perception of American foreign policy over the last fifty odd years, and as you can see, I do believe I can substantiate it.
And Dreadclaw? You'll note those drone strikes were targeted within Afghanistan, which is an active combat zone. I would personally judge that acceptable in an area on a war footing. You can also scroll down, and you'll see the majority of them are identified in hostile acts, and if there is a risk of civilian casualties, we choose not to take the shot.
However, as I'm a consistent man, if you can link me to an American set of similar reports, then I would judge those acceptable as well. I would still be shaky on the ones fired into Pakistan, as that is a separate sovereign territory.
EDIT:-
This, in a nutshell, with the insertion of 'and morally right' after 'legally sound'.
All in all: If the US want to be pragmatic, they should be pragmatic, it's certainly not the worst attitude in the world. But claiming that all the US does is legally sound is exactly the kind of hypocrisy Ketara mentioned before. Accept the heroic vigilante role and be done with it.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2013/10/26 18:31:07
Ketara wrote: There was no extradition treaty between Libya and the US.
Indeed. Which limits the choice to, "do nothing, and allow the targeted individual to continue to wage a terror campaign," or "go in and get him." You'd opt for the former. I'd opt for the latter.
It happened. It was called the IRA. Notably, we did not invade Ireland.
You did not. You certainly didn't scrupulously avoid doing anything at all someone else in the world might care to criticize, though, did you? You were also dealing with a state that had a functional government capable of actually detaining terrorists when given proof of their activities.
Ah, fair does. Just dug a bit deeper. Fair enough.
Nevertheless, the point stands. Bush pulled out of Kyoto in 2001, four years before it was about to come into force. Because he felt it would damage American interests (and his possibility of re-election).
No. He didn't pull out of Kyoto, because we were never in Kyoto. Clinton signed it, but it was never ratified.
.....So please clarify this for me. Are you saying that inmates are Guantanamo Bay are treated humanely and fairly, and nothing that could be considered to be abuse or torture takes place there.
Nothing I'd consider torture, no.
You'll note we didn't send in the bombers to Dublin.
See above.
Whelp. Nice to know how easy it is for me as a foreign national to lose all human rights in the eyes of the US Government.
It would be remarkably difficult.
And we're back to the assertion that the root of all radicalization is drone strikes, without any merit. Islamic radicalism is nothing new. It didn't start with the United States.
That is not even remotely close to what I said. I did not specify drone strikes, nor Islamic radicalism beginning with the US. Read again:
Mate, human beliefs tend to have causes. People aren't born hating the US. They're not raised hating the US just for fun. There are root causes, and being a muslim is not one of them usually. There's no chapter in Q'uran saying, 'America sucks, you must oppose them at every turn'. And even if there was, 99.9% of muslims would ignore it, like most Christians do Leviticus's statement on mixed fabrics.
So what you're actually advocating is complete disengagement from the Middle East. American military presence, American corporate presence, American investment, American alliance with Israel - all of it, gone. Because that's the demand.
Beliefs have causes, indeed. When you have a core of radicalized individuals who have a poverty-stricken, frequently ill-informed populace to recruit from, backed by a twisted interpretation of a religion, it's not terribly difficult to find people willing to commit atrocities for the cause. The assumption that it all leads back to America is based on the notion that the movement is rational, that it has no wider goals beyond simple vengeance for perceived crimes. That's not how it works.
Read closer. I'm not throwing it at the pilots. Or even the army in general. More at the justification the US Government as a whole gives for killing people out there, and their seeming response to the continual (and they crop up pretty regularly) reports of civilian casualties from drone strikes.
Those sources available for public consumption, naturally. I could be wrong. But I recall reading a statement from one US official about how terrorists are bound to have their families and friends close by, and the US can't allow such considerations to deter them from taking action.
Because we cannot. You cannot commit acts of terrorism consequence-free simply because you hang out around your wife.
The key point, however, is that incidental casualties are minimized as much as possible because, contrary to your assertion, it's not our policy to kill any number of people we choose on a given day.
If nothing else, this conversation's really helping me understand Israeli frustration. If some nutbag sets up a missile battery on top of his house and starts lobbing gak into my neighborhood, I can't bomb it, because you'll scream bloody murder about civilian casualties. I can't go in and get just him, because then you'll scream bloody murder about illegal abductions.
Alright. Is intent equivalent to doing the deed?
That's a remarkably fine hair you're splitting. Jim and Bob both want Steve dead. Jim finds Steve and then tells Bob where he is so Bob can kill him. Jim is somehow morally superior.
No. Those were atrocities it was politically expedient for the US to try and stop. That does not make it american foreign policy.
It does. That we cannot stop them all is an unfortunate reality. Conflict fatigue sets in just as easily here as elsewhere. Triage is required.
Seaward, I'm not saying the things I'm saying out of some irrational hatred for the states or any such. I'm genuinely sorry if my views might upset or offend you, as that's really not my intent here. I'm just defending my perception of American foreign policy over the last fifty odd years, and as you can see, I do believe I can substantiate it.
There's a Tom Hanks movie coming out at some point called Captain Phillips. It's about the hijacking of the Maersk Alabama by Somali pirates that famously ended when a couple SEALs shot some of said Somalis. These were Somali citizens in, if memory serves, Somali waters at the time, killed by the American military in order to preserve the life of an American citizen. They weren't given a trial. The Somali government was incapable of resolving the situation.
The reason I bring it up is because nobody said that the violation of Somali sovereignty was intolerable, that the pirates' human rights were violated, or that we brought it on ourselves by sailing a boat around the Horn. I'd be curious if you thought any of that, though. Maybe one of these guys' dads caught a bullet in Mogadishu during Gothic Serpent. Maybe we should have let the Somali government handle it. Maybe we shouldn't have intervened and just tried to arrest them when they set foot in the States.
Indeed. Which limits the choice to, "do nothing, and allow the targeted individual to continue to wage a terror campaign," or "go in and get him." You'd opt for the former. I'd opt for the latter.
It's remarkably difficult to wage a terror campaign against someone from a country. Unless you're a computer hacker.
What most countries do in such a situation Seaward, is simply wait for them to emerge from their hidey-hole, and put pressure on the local government to do something. If the local government refuses, then that action has diplomatic ramifications. The US alternatively, sends in special forces to kick his door down.
That's the difference I'm talking about, when it comes to European nations and America.
You did not. You certainly didn't scrupulously avoid doing anything at all someone else in the world might care to criticize, though, did you? You were also dealing with a state that had a functional government capable of actually detaining terrorists when given proof of their activities.
Being capable of it does not indicate being willing, alas.
I would also postulate that the offences committed by the IRA were infinitely more numerous and widespreadthan those committed by muslims against the US, and the threat level comparatively greater.
Make no mistake, we were engaged in a siege with terrorists on our home soil there. Like with Pakistan and the Taliban, the enemy kept dodging over the border to get home.
And yet we refrained from declaring war on the Republic of Ireland. Or lobbing bombs over it.
No. He didn't pull out of Kyoto, because we were never in Kyoto. Clinton signed it, but it was never ratified.
Okay. Dragging the point laboriously backward, I was merely pointing out the US often does not participate in globally beneficial initiatives, to which you responded about ones that infringed on US Sovereignty. I provioded Kyoto as an example of one that did not do so in any way, shape, or form.
.....So please clarify this for me. Are you saying that inmates are Guantanamo Bay are treated humanely and fairly, and nothing that could be considered to be abuse or torture takes place there.
Nothing I'd consider torture, no.
Okay. I disagree. We'll leave that one there I think.
Whelp. Nice to know how easy it is for me as a foreign national to lose all human rights in the eyes of the US Government.
It would be remarkably difficult.
I don't know. I seem to remember a Mr McKinnon.
Beliefs have causes, indeed. When you have a core of radicalized individuals who have a poverty-stricken, frequently ill-informed populace to recruit from, backed by a twisted interpretation of a religion, it's not terribly difficult to find people willing to commit atrocities for the cause. The assumption that it all leads back to America is based on the notion that the movement is rational, that it has no wider goals beyond simple vengeance for perceived crimes. That's not how it works.
It's easier to hate America when America wades into the Middle-East every ten years, removing countries, backing dictators, supports Israel, and generally stomps around doing whatever it likes.
Because we cannot. You cannot commit acts of terrorism consequence-free simply because you hang out around your wife.
Reading those drone strikes giving by dreadclaw, the British strikes seem to operate under a different principle for the most part.
The key point, however, is that incidental casualties are minimized as much as possible because, contrary to your assertion, it's not our policy to kill any number of people we choose on a given day.
If that's the impression I gave, that wasn't what I intended.
I believe that the US does not want civilian casualties on the whole. They cause problems. But ultimately, when it gets down to it, there's a tipping point for the US. If there's a terrorist they really want, and he's surrounded by fifteen other people who's occupations/motivations are uncertain, the US will ultimately go for it and nail him. They'd rather not kill others. They might even watch him for a bit first, to wait for him to move to a less populated area. But if they think they might lose him, and they want him badly enough? They'll suck up the civilian casualties as collateral damage.
If that's incorrect, then please educate me otherwise. I'd like to be wrong. But that's the impression I have.
If nothing else, this conversation's really helping me understand Israeli frustration. If some nutbag sets up a missile battery on top of his house and starts lobbing gak into my neighborhood, I can't bomb it, because you'll scream bloody murder about civilian casualties. I can't go in and get just him, because then you'll scream bloody murder about illegal abductions.
Horribly unfair isn't it?
Truthfully, if there's a chap taking potshots at a passing copter, nail the fecker. But if he's sitting at home in another country? I don't believe you can justify the civilian casualties when he's currently not an active threat.
That's a remarkably fine hair you're splitting. Jim and Bob both want Steve dead. Jim finds Steve and then tells Bob where he is so Bob can kill him. Jim is somehow morally superior.
Hardly fine. In a court of law, intent does not equal the deed. Collusion, perhaps. But even then, let's expand the analogy to make it more accurate.
Jim and Bob want Steve dead. Jim finds Steve and then tells Bob where he is so Bob can kill him. Bob finds Steve there, and whilst killing him, also kills Kate, Dianne, Paul, Pete, and Kim.
So. Jim colluded in Steve's death. Is he also responsible for the deaths of everyone else?
It does. That we cannot stop them all is an unfortunate reality. Conflict fatigue sets in just as easily here as elsewhere. Triage is required.
Sorry. US foreign policy is not based on goodwill to all men. Here's one historical example, others can be provided:-
In an explosive report released on February 25 by the United Nations' Historical Clarification Commission (CEH), the US government and several American corporations were accused of complicity in the genocide of nearly 200,000 Mayan people during Guatemala's bloody 36-year civil war.
The final 3,600-page CEH report clearly places the blame for most of the 200,000 deaths on the "racist" policy of the Guatemalan government and holds the country's military and paramilitary forces responsible for the actual killings, tortures and disappearances. However, it accuses the US of directly and indirectly supporting a "fratricidal confrontation" by providing sustained training, arms and financial aid. The US role peaked in the 1981-1983 period, but did not end until the peace accords were signed in 1996.
The report is based on the testimony of 9,200 people from all sides of the conflict. The three commission members had an international staff of 272 workers, who spent 18 months assembling the report and who made extensive use of declassified US documents. The CEH investigated 42,000 human rights violations, 29,000 of which resulted in deaths or disappearances.......
The US Role
Commission chairman Christian Tomuschat, a respected German lawyer and human rights expert, stated that the US was responsible for much of the bloodshed. "The United States government and US private companies exercised pressure to maintain the country's archaic and unjust socioeconomic structure." He noted that the CIA and other US agencies "lent direct and indirect support to some illegal state operations." The support consisted of advising, training, arming and financing the overall operation.
The commission listed the American training of the Guatemalan officer corps in counter-insurgency techniques, including torture, as a key factor "which had a significant bearing on human rights violations during the armed confrontation." The US Army School of the Americas (SOA) in Fort Benning, Georgia, was singled out for its role.
Specifically named was Guatemalan Military Intelligence (Ml) as the primary organizer of illegal detentions, torture, forced disappearances and executions. The report noted that most Ml officers were graduates of the SOA and maintained close and frequent contact with their US counterparts.........
There's a Tom Hanks movie coming out at some point called Captain Phillips. It's about the hijacking of the Maersk Alabama by Somali pirates that famously ended when a couple SEALs shot some of said Somalis. These were Somali citizens in, if memory serves, Somali waters at the time, killed by the American military in order to preserve the life of an American citizen. They weren't given a trial. The Somali government was incapable of resolving the situation.
The reason I bring it up is because nobody said that the violation of Somali sovereignty was intolerable, that the pirates' human rights were violated, or that we brought it on ourselves by sailing a boat around the Horn. I'd be curious if you thought any of that, though. Maybe one of these guys' dads caught a bullet in Mogadishu during Gothic Serpent. Maybe we should have let the Somali government handle it. Maybe we shouldn't have intervened and just tried to arrest them when they set foot in the States.
I certainly don't think so.
See, Somalia is a country where there basically is no government. I suppose you could argue southern Pakistan is the same. Certainly I'd have some sympathy for such a perspective. And if it could be shown that drone strikes were used only in such areas with maximum restraint, I could be brought around to thinking that it would be justifiable.
It happened. It was called the IRA. Notably, we did not invade Ireland.
.....So please clarify this for me. Are you saying that inmates are Guantanamo Bay are treated humanely and fairly, and nothing that could be considered to be abuse or torture takes place there?
No, you didn't invade. You did set up kangaroo courts and prisons with prisoner of war camp like conditions. Does the Long Kesh detention facility (aka: The Maze) ring a bell ? Easy on the high and mightyness. Your nation has dirty laundry too.
For those that aren't up on their Irish revolutionary history, the Long Kesh was the british version of Guantanamo, where special cell blocks were built to hold IRA and other political dissidents. It was known for it's brutal conditions, guards, and being an all around fairly decent comparison to Hell on Earth.
It was the same place that was responsible for sparking the Bobby Sands Hunger Strike, where ten people eventually starved themselves to death over the conditions of the prison.
You'll note we didn't send in the bombers to Dublin.
Bomb ? No. Shoot 26 unarmed protesters ? Yes. Again, your credibility on the whole IRA front as a shining example of British restraint is highly questionable.
Note, five victims shot in the back. As in, were running away, or not facing their attackers.
I could literally spend ten minutes and link you several dozen more examples. It's well known that in the 1970's and 80's, torture of known and suspected IRA members and affiliates was not only commonplace, but encouraged. Ten seconds of google searching brings up a half dozen examples of news articles proving the same.
Britain has just as checkered a history of dealing with terrorism as the United States does. Easy on your righteous indignation.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2013/10/27 09:55:34
My dear Haight, why stop there? One could also go back to the Boer War, if we really want to pull out all the stops in trying to misdirect the issue. You could even invoke Godwin's Law!
these things get caught and picked up upon by the international community, the average American response is, 'Eh. We're the good guys. Innocent people have nothing to fear/everyone else does the same thing/it helps keep us secure/It's necessary for our national security'.
I mean, heaven forbid one should actually pay attention to the context I might have used those examples (psst. It wasn't re Guantanamo Bay).
Seaward wrote:No. As in, "If you're unable to stop your citizens from committing acts of terrorism against us, we will utilize extraordinarily limited, precise-as-possible force." Should someone be free to plant bombs all over London as often as they like simply because the 'government' of Somalia is incapable of stopping them? Your argument in that scenario is that Britain has to just keep on letting them do it.
Ketara wrote:It happened. It was called the IRA. Notably, we did not invade Ireland.
Note that the issue in which the IRA example was used, was to refer to foreign terrorists fleeing across the border into another country and you running into legal difficulties with regards to extracting them.
Haight wrote:No, you didn't invade. You did set up kangaroo courts and prisons with prisoner of war camp like conditions.
This answer refers to domestic issues and responses. And is very heavily rooted in the 'NO U SUK' camp of responses, if slightly more eloquently. Guantanamo is not populated with people seized within US borders, and the British didn't particularly kidnap IRA members across the Middle East to bring them to Long Kesh.
The IRA was a long and convoluted issue. I think the British acted abominably in some cases, understandably in others, and abominably understandably in others still. By all means, bring them up if you're going to argue a point properly. But if you're just planning on wading in and dropping, 'You did torture once too! You're just as bad as we are, so shut up!' then okay. Point taken on board, and it will be duly thrown over the side as soon as the ship leaves harbour.
If you want to argue it sensibly, you'll see from my last response on Seaward's point about Pakistan was amicable, thoughtful, and I showed that I am willing to be talked around if logic and examples can be provided. Some things he and me will probably not agree on, such is the way of things. But reasoned discussion is never wasted. Whilst I might not agree with some things he says, the fact that he can put his views across articulately and defend them means that I will at the very least listen to, and respect those opinions. I'm more than happy to engage with you in the some way, but please, don't start pulling points out of context, or I just won't bother.
If Britain's response to the IRA is a domestic issue, how is it Amerca's response to 9/11 was not ?
Not that agree with that logic, but that's essentially what you are arguing with your IRA comments. That's my point.
I mostly agree with you on your side of the issue, mind you, but your IRA examples are just flatly, absolutely, dead wrong.
Also you say Long Kesh wasn't like Guantanamo bay. Many, many people would argue differently. The Long Kesh H Blocks were studied as a possible example to emulate when determining where and how to house the people that would eventually become the gitmo prisoners. It's as brutal a prison example as you can offer in modern penology of the last 50-75 years in a western democratic country.
People sent there with absolutely no evidence tying them to the IRA, but domestic intelligence agencies knew them to be - like Sands. He was imprisoned on possession of a firearm. This would normally not land you in the highest security block of a prison known to be a place to stick political prisoners and terrorists - it was the British "Troubles" version of Chateau D'if.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/10/27 19:11:32
Haight wrote: If Britain's response to the IRA is a domestic issue, how is it Amerca's response to 9/11 was not ?
Not that agree with that logic, but that's essentially what you are arguing with your IRA comments. That's my point.
Your point is incorrect, as I am arguing no such thing. To reiterate, with a slight modification to help with clarity:
Note that the issue in which the IRA example was used, was to refer to foreign terrorists fleeing across the border into another country and America running into legal difficulties with regards to extracting them.
I am not comparing it to Guantanamo Bay. Nor to 9/11. I'm using it as a point of comparison for abducting terrorists hiding out in Libya, or Taliban fleeing across the border to bases in Pakistan. Because the IRA used to have bases across the border in the Republic of Ireland, and like in Pakistan, the local Government was less than keen to confront the problem, and often supported the terrorists is several subtle ways.
As a result, I am comparing the American response to that scenario (namely lobbing missiles over the border or sending in teams to abduct people), to the British response to that problem (basically leaving them alone once they're over the border). Long Kesh is really ultimately neither here nor there, and I'm really quite uncertain as to why you keep bringing it up. It's about as relevant as the treatment of prisoners in the Boer War as regards the point that I was making.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/10/27 19:35:33
Ketara... isn't the US's action really stems from that fact that we're practically the lone superpower at the moment?
This is far from the truth.
China is a superpower, and it is now flexing its muscles, and the US is backing away. The Chinese dont vocalise things the same way as the Cold War adversaries did.
China has been a superpower for awghile now, but until recently they prefered to hide and pretend they were not, mostly to keep America asleep, some still are even now China is doing frankly very agrssive moves like claiming all ocean territory (and offshore resources) in the South China sea, regardless of who it actually belongs to in international law.
The difference being that China is only extending its military power within its immediate vicinity.
China has much less of a history of overseas expedition and military projection/imperialism, even going back hundreds of years, and I think it's incorrect to apply a Western-centric point of view to their ambitions.
I would agree with Whembly that the US is the only super-power in terms of projection of power, at least in a military sense. As I once heard it put, the US is the hammer and everyone else nails; the difference being that Russia and of later years China is the kind of wonky nail that has been hit at an angle and is going to be a PITA to get straightened out.
Oaka wrote: It's getting to the point where if I see Marneus Calgar and the Swarmlord in the same unit as a Riptide, I probably won't question its legality.
Well, they do have a carrier, but they bought it from the Russians, and the Russians never figured out how to build carriers right. Naval air power is the cornerstone of modern day force projection, and it's something they're just learning how to do, while we have 80 years' worth of experience.
Seaward wrote: Well, they do have a carrier, but they bought it from the Russians, and the Russians never figured out how to build carriers right. Naval air power is the cornerstone of modern day force projection, and it's something they're just learning how to do, while we have 80 years' worth of experience.
Allod wrote: And that is exactly why China is a Great Power, but not a Super Power.
The United States can project their power in any way they please - China can't.
If we are talking about purely military power then yes.. although you could make the argument that the kind of investment China is making in the African sub-continent and South America (actually, pretty much everywhere) is also changing the balance of power around the world. There are various ways to get 'country x' to give you their resource, which is really what it's all about, and having a military presence is only one of those.
One good thing I suppose however is that when you have powers complementing each other's wealth, and with so much mutual gain from trade, it makes cold-war scenarios and potential MAD between them that much less likely (certainly compared to the 50's-1989)
I think a lot of people are missing a key disctinction in all of this - of course the nations of the world are spying on each other. But there is in place an unwritten rule about that spying - that it focuses on institutions and not on the leaders themselves. It is important to understand that these are not abstract leaders we're talking about here, but actual people who in large part set their international policy through the personal relationships they develop with other world leaders.
It isn't nice to think that the policies that impact our lives our based in large part on whether one world leader likes and trusts another, but that's how it is.
And now the US has been caught tapping the private phone of another world leader. It isn't hard to figure out the effect that will have on the next round of trade negotiations.
Now, am I personally morally outraged about this? Not at all, if anything it just shows up the hypocrisy of world leaders like Merkel who were happy to monitor the rest of us while assuming that only enemies would be tempted to monitor them. But I do think it was a boneheaded move from the US intelligence services, with little gain relative to the considerable fallout if it was uncovered.
Ketara wrote: And if a new world rival is to arise out of Europe over the next century, Germany is where the power will be, both economically and industrially. France is too internally weak,
Actually, thanks to the relative birth rates of the two countries and the effect that will have on demographics and then in turn on GDP, France will be the larger power within a couple of generations.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I seriously doubt that Obama gave the go-ahead for spying on Merkel, but this wild west attitude amongst American intelligence is the problem.
The spying on Merkel began in 2002. The US is currently claiming that Obama didn't even know it was going on, but I'm sure if anyone believes that.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/10/29 05:57:15
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Ketara... isn't the US's action really stems from that fact that we're practically the lone superpower at the moment?
This is far from the truth.
China is a superpower, and it is now flexing its muscles, and the US is backing away. The Chinese dont vocalise things the same way as the Cold War adversaries did.
China has been a superpower for awghile now, but until recently they prefered to hide and pretend they were not, mostly to keep America asleep, some still are even now China is doing frankly very agrssive moves like claiming all ocean territory (and offshore resources) in the South China sea, regardless of who it actually belongs to in international law.
The difference being that China is only extending its military power within its immediate vicinity.
China has much less of a history of overseas expedition and military projection/imperialism, even going back hundreds of years, and I think it's incorrect to apply a Western-centric point of view to their ambitions.
I would agree with Whembly that the US is the only super-power in terms of projection of power, at least in a military sense. As I once heard it put, the US is the hammer and everyone else nails; the difference being that Russia and of later years China is the kind of wonky nail that has been hit at an angle and is going to be a PITA to get straightened out.
I think China's goal is to project power by becoming the world's economic powerhouse. The military side will fall into place when they become the world's number one economy.
I wonder what the USA's reaction will be to this?
Will they do a Britain in the 19th Century (faced with the rise of Germany and Russia) and fight them (probably wiping out the world in the process if there is a third world war) or will they innovate and go back to their roots - land of the free and ending restrictions on personal liberty? Interesting times.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Hopefully the latter. I think we should all start talking with French accents myself. That'll teach 'em.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
).
5000(7 drop-pods)pts (15/10/4)
200pts(lol)
1500pts (10/0/0)
