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.

 elk@work wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Oh look, a Russian finding a way to link everything back to Iraq.

Anyhow, it might not have filtered in to Russia at the time but there was intense debate about the evidence claimed by Blair and Bush. Their claims were analyzed and regularly found to be false or insufficient. They went ahead with the attack anyway because that's who they were, but it wasn't because people failed to review the evidence provided.

don't get me wrong... what happened to Iraq is one of the greatest tragedies in post-WW2 period from any perspective, carrying consequences for the whole middle east region until now... and something that any responsible government in the world must learn from... that pushing ahead of evinence and refusing dialog leads to wars and people killed...
and I don't need anything to 'filter' in to Russia, I made it my principle some 20 years ago to review foreign and, where available, local data sources... hey, look, I speak and read your language )))

"Any responsible government in the world must learn from". I guess Russia skipped that lesson when it came to Assad or Eastern Ukraine

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Well NK did just develop nukes, and as people so eloquently argued that is all a country needs to be a superpower. I for one welcome our new North Korean overlords

Ha! Good point

Even the Vietnam war showed AA isn't the end all of things. Even with the most modern equipment North Vietnam didn't just blow the whole US airforce out of the sky. But for some reason AA has reduced airpower to the stereotypical bombing of tents in a desert for some?

Yeah, and that was with the US flying under very restrictive engagement rules, and planes that had nothing like the technological edge they now have.

I think maybe Iron Captain and others like him has gotten a few different things mixed up. He's seen the US lose a plane here or there in the Balkans or Afghanistan and seen at the same time those planes destroy not that much on the ground, and maybe made some conclusions about what sort of losses planes will suffer when attacking ground targets. What he's missed is that those operations were no fly ops or supporting engagements against targets that were in survival mode, scattered and in hiding. So he doesn't realize what planes can do against conventional military forces trying that have concentrated and are trying to advance.

While that is true that 160k is only the first wave and I was being a bit dismissive. Its not like European countries are going to sit on their hands. Plenty of them still have large trained reserves too like Russia. Once Russia has to rely on mobilization numbers the offensive has already been stalled. Its going into fantasy territory. Those 160k will be lucky to even make it through Germany. Are those conscipts then going to beat off the Italians, French, British, Spanish, American and Canadian proffesionals? Any significant efforts to prepare will be noted. Meanwhile Russia supporters are imagining some Barbarossa scenario.

The other factor is troop training. The NATO countries are volunteer armies, with a lot of resources put in to the training of each soldier. That level of training is extremely important in war.

In contrast, a lot of Russian troops are just doing their cycle of mandatory service. And because of the chronic corruption problems in Russia, a lot of them spend very little of their time actually training - instead they're used by generals for labour work, rented to private companies, with the generals pocketing very tidy sums of cash.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Oh I think the russians will find they'll have to beat off everyone if this scenario happens. I bet even the chinese would want for the russians to have a go at beating them off.

Even if I wasn't on a work computer there is no way I am clicking on a link for 'beat off'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 elk@work wrote:
don't get me wrong... what happened to Iraq is one of the greatest tragedies in post-WW2 period from any perspective, carrying consequences for the whole middle east region until now... and something that any responsible government in the world must learn from... that pushing ahead of evinence and refusing dialog leads to wars and people killed...

Yeah, Iraq was a huge screw up, with enormous ramifications for the region and for the basic rules and standards of international relations.

But it doesn't mean that we should adopt a stance of pretend cynicism about any and all future intelligence claims. Especially not when the claim is as straight forward as Russia & Skripal.

and I don't need anything to 'filter' in to Russia, I made it my principle some 20 years ago to review foreign and, where available, local data sources... hey, look, I speak and read your language )))

Fair enough, and full credit to you for your English.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 elk@work wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Oh look, a Russian finding a way to link everything back to Iraq.

Anyhow, it might not have filtered in to Russia at the time but there was intense debate about the evidence claimed by Blair and Bush. Their claims were analyzed and regularly found to be false or insufficient. They went ahead with the attack anyway because that's who they were, but it wasn't because people failed to review the evidence provided.

don't get me wrong... what happened to Iraq is one of the greatest tragedies in post-WW2 period from any perspective, carrying consequences for the whole middle east region until now... and something that any responsible government in the world must learn from... that pushing ahead of evinence and refusing dialog leads to wars and people killed...
and I don't need anything to 'filter' in to Russia, I made it my principle some 20 years ago to review foreign and, where available, local data sources... hey, look, I speak and read your language )))

"Any responsible government in the world must learn from". I guess Russia skipped that lesson when it came to Assad or Eastern Ukraine

well, both are far from the mark... in Syria, like it or not, Russian action was legitimate and in line with UN charter, even if it pursued goals other than those of US-led coalition - it is easily verifiable... Ukraine got itself nasty civil war and I know too well of it, as my parents were forced to move from Eastern Ukraine to Russia - wouldn't any decent nation A intervene in some form when it's neighbour B officially adopts next to faschist ideology, arms nationalistic militia and sets about harassing ethnic groups sharing nationality with A?

 elk@work wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 elk@work wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Oh look, a Russian finding a way to link everything back to Iraq.

Anyhow, it might not have filtered in to Russia at the time but there was intense debate about the evidence claimed by Blair and Bush. Their claims were analyzed and regularly found to be false or insufficient. They went ahead with the attack anyway because that's who they were, but it wasn't because people failed to review the evidence provided.

don't get me wrong... what happened to Iraq is one of the greatest tragedies in post-WW2 period from any perspective, carrying consequences for the whole middle east region until now... and something that any responsible government in the world must learn from... that pushing ahead of evinence and refusing dialog leads to wars and people killed...
and I don't need anything to 'filter' in to Russia, I made it my principle some 20 years ago to review foreign and, where available, local data sources... hey, look, I speak and read your language )))

"Any responsible government in the world must learn from". I guess Russia skipped that lesson when it came to Assad or Eastern Ukraine

well, both are far from the mark... in Syria, like it or not, Russian action was legitimate and in line with UN charter, even if it pursued goals other than those of US-led coalition - it is easily verifiable... Ukraine got itself nasty civil war and I know too well of it, as my parents were forced to move from Eastern Ukraine to Russia - wouldn't any decent nation A intervene in some form when it's neighbour B officially adopts next to faschist ideology, arms nationalistic militia and sets about harassing ethnic groups sharing nationality with A?

Not by fanning the flames and then annexing part of the country through force, no.

If it was all above board and legit, why did Russia feel the need to lie about its involvement?

 elk@work wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 elk@work wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Oh look, a Russian finding a way to link everything back to Iraq.

Anyhow, it might not have filtered in to Russia at the time but there was intense debate about the evidence claimed by Blair and Bush. Their claims were analyzed and regularly found to be false or insufficient. They went ahead with the attack anyway because that's who they were, but it wasn't because people failed to review the evidence provided.

don't get me wrong... what happened to Iraq is one of the greatest tragedies in post-WW2 period from any perspective, carrying consequences for the whole middle east region until now... and something that any responsible government in the world must learn from... that pushing ahead of evinence and refusing dialog leads to wars and people killed...
and I don't need anything to 'filter' in to Russia, I made it my principle some 20 years ago to review foreign and, where available, local data sources... hey, look, I speak and read your language )))

"Any responsible government in the world must learn from". I guess Russia skipped that lesson when it came to Assad or Eastern Ukraine

well, both are far from the mark... in Syria, like it or not, Russian action was legitimate and in line with UN charter, even if it pursued goals other than those of US-led coalition - it is easily verifiable... Ukraine got itself nasty civil war and I know too well of it, as my parents were forced to move from Eastern Ukraine to Russia - wouldn't any decent nation A intervene in some form when it's neighbour B officially adopts next to faschist ideology, arms nationalistic militia and sets about harassing ethnic groups sharing nationality with A?

Pretty funny you should mention the UN charter, because the absolute first thing it says is this:

"To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;"

Almost nothing Assad is doing is conforming with the principles of justice and international law. You simply must point out to me where in the UN charter it says you must help a murderous dictator by bombing civilians and hospitals! There are hosts of illegitimate actions in Syria that are war crimes under international law comitted by Russia. Easily verifiable indeed.

As for Ukraine, you mean that civil war lead and fought in good part by Russian nationals with ties to the Russian intelligence agencies and army? You know, in the dictionary there is a word for that, but I'm pretty sure that isn't civil war. A good neighbour wouldn't illegally annex Crimea in violation of an earlier border agreement with Ukraine and then start a conflict in the east of the country because that neighbour might have to give up on its little vassal state. But then Ukraine had the misfortune of having Russia as its neighbour. Maybe once Russia is done shooting down civilian airliners it could start working on becoming a better neighbour and finally stop letting Russians take tanks on vacation.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If it was all above board and legit, why did Russia feel the need to lie about its involvement?

sure no disrespect was meant here ))) has Russia lied about its involvement in Syria?

Does any of this dick measuring have anything to do with Russia poisoning folks in the UK?

 d-usa wrote:
Does any of this dick measuring have anything to do with Russia poisoning folks in the UK?

Well if the UK doesn't just roll over and take it Russia will destroy Europe apparently. So the dick measuring has its importance in trying to make some realize that Russia that it really isn't that big and no, that isn't because its cold in here.

 d-usa wrote:
Does any of this dick measuring have anything to do with Russia poisoning folks in the UK?

Yes, it all came about when referring to the appropriate and available responses to the Russian actions, and in some cases actually disputing it was Russia who did it at all. It is relevant in-so-far as any response against Russia has to take into account it's strengths and weaknesses, and the available evidence clearly shows Russia has deepset weaknesses that could be targeted. Russia is not in the sort of hegemonic position the USA is in (and even the USA could still be theoretically targeted with sanctions if they did something suitably wrong, they would just be much less effective than any sanctions aimed at Russia).

 elk@work wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If it was all above board and legit, why did Russia feel the need to lie about its involvement?

sure no disrespect was meant here ))) has Russia lied about its involvement in Syria?

I meant the Ukraine.

Though if we are to look at Syria, the Sarin gas attack in April last year comes to mind.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39500947

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Almost nothing Assad is doing is conforming with the principles of justice and international law. You simply must point out to me where in the UN charter it says you must help a murderous dictator by bombing civilians and hospitals! There are hosts of illegitimate actions in Syria that are war crimes under international law comitted by Russia. Easily verifiable indeed.

As for Ukraine, you mean that civil war lead and fought in good part by Russian nationals with ties to the Russian intelligence agencies and army? You know, in the dictionary there is a word for that, but I'm pretty sure that isn't civil war. A good neighbour wouldn't illegally annex Crimea in violation of an earlier border agreement with Ukraine and then start a conflict in the east of the country because that neighbour might have to give up on its little vassal state. But then Ukraine had the misfortune of having Russia as its neighbour. Maybe once Russia is done shooting down civilian airliners it could start working on becoming a better neighbour and finally stop letting Russians take tanks on vacation.

I'm not saying Assad is a good guy, certainly not... but the issue of illegitimacy of Russian action has never been even as much as brought to attention of UN security councel, which is a proof in itself... it was NATO, not UN, who was unhappy with it... you believe Assad must be replaced by western powers... UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon says "The future of Assad must be decided by the Syrian people," and "The Syrian government insists that President Assad takes part (in any transitional government) but others, especially Western countries, say there is no place for him, but because of that we have lost three years, there have been more than 250,000 dead, more than 13 million displaced within Syria... more than 50 percent of hospitals, schools and infrastructure have been destroyed. There's no time to lose."...

by the way, there are dictators and dictators... some are bombed, some are not... some are not bombed for a long time, but then suddenly bombed... some of those who are not bombed by any standards aren't better then Assad, so what's the matter?

as for Ukraine, so much depends on what sources of data you use... some of mine are still living on both sides of the red line, some of those who live in Lugansk got bombed by nationalistic militia 'battalions' with cluster bombs... they're certainly not Russian army - unless Russian army has dentist's squads under cover infiltrated in 1970's...

 elk@work wrote:

I'm not saying Assad is a good guy, certainly not... but the issue of illegitimacy of Russian action has never been even as much as brought to attention of UN security councel, which is a proof in itself...

Ehm, you do realize that Russia has a veto vote in the Security Council, yes?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 elk@work wrote:

I'm not saying Assad is a good guy, certainly not... but the issue of illegitimacy of Russian action has never been even as much as brought to attention of UN security councel, which is a proof in itself...

Ehm, you do realize that Russia has a veto vote in the Security Council, yes?

of course I do... but the issue has'n ever been even brought to the attention of the council... unlike many other nasty clashes between Russia/China and other councel members... like it or not, Russia played major role in persuading Assad to cooperate on Syrian WMD destruction... but taking into account that more then 80% of Syria was under ISIS at a certain point, and the means of warfare used by ISIS, I'd rather believe it is ISIS, not Assad, who uses it

Except for all of these occasions, which by strange co-incidences were vetoed by Russia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vetoed_United_Nations_Security_Council_resolutions_on_Syria

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Except for all of these occasions, which by strange co-incidences were vetoed by Russia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vetoed_United_Nations_Security_Council_resolutions_on_Syria

they all are on terms of settlement (but this is big politics) and WMD, not on legitimacy of Russian action...

Resolutions 2314 and 2319 concern the use of chemical weapons and the operation of the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism, which Russia obfuscated after the Sarin gas attack I mentioned a few posts ago.

 sebster wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Even the Vietnam war showed AA isn't the end all of things. Even with the most modern equipment North Vietnam didn't just blow the whole US airforce out of the sky. But for some reason AA has reduced airpower to the stereotypical bombing of tents in a desert for some?

Yeah, and that was with the US flying under very restrictive engagement rules, and planes that had nothing like the technological edge they now have.

I think maybe Iron Captain and others like him has gotten a few different things mixed up. He's seen the US lose a plane here or there in the Balkans or Afghanistan and seen at the same time those planes destroy not that much on the ground, and maybe made some conclusions about what sort of losses planes will suffer when attacking ground targets. What he's missed is that those operations were no fly ops or supporting engagements against targets that were in survival mode, scattered and in hiding. So he doesn't realize what planes can do against conventional military forces trying that have concentrated and are trying to advance.

The first Gulf War really drove home what happens to armored columns when the enemy has air superiority. That was pretty grim in outcome if he's looking for examples.

 sebster wrote:

While that is true that 160k is only the first wave and I was being a bit dismissive. Its not like European countries are going to sit on their hands. Plenty of them still have large trained reserves too like Russia. Once Russia has to rely on mobilization numbers the offensive has already been stalled. Its going into fantasy territory. Those 160k will be lucky to even make it through Germany. Are those conscipts then going to beat off the Italians, French, British, Spanish, American and Canadian proffesionals? Any significant efforts to prepare will be noted. Meanwhile Russia supporters are imagining some Barbarossa scenario.

The other factor is troop training. The NATO countries are volunteer armies, with a lot of resources put in to the training of each soldier. That level of training is extremely important in war.

In contrast, a lot of Russian troops are just doing their cycle of mandatory service. And because of the chronic corruption problems in Russia, a lot of them spend very little of their time actually training - instead they're used by generals for labour work, rented to private companies, with the generals pocketing very tidy sums of cash.

True, in professional soldiers NATO far outnumbers Russia. While people having done service will be better than pure conscipts they're never going to beat people who have been doing it actively for 5+ years. Even many of Russia's generals have accepted this and have written fascinating pieces on what the future should look like to counter NATO. Its mainly focussed on asymmetrical warfare such as Ukraine and no longer focused on conventional warfare. Meanwhile the minority that still advocates the meatgrinder approach doesn't appear to have looked out the window since 1980.

 elk@work wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Except for all of these occasions, which by strange co-incidences were vetoed by Russia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vetoed_United_Nations_Security_Council_resolutions_on_Syria

they all are on terms of settlement (but this is big politics) and WMD, not on legitimacy of Russian action...

Which means that there was a chance that a settlement could be reached with Russia, but wasn't.

What's the point in driving the Security Council to voting on whether what Russia is doing is legitimate or not when Russia can veto it? It's not like Russia's going to go out and agree that they're behaving in an illegitimate way, and there's no compromise that can be made on the subject, so it's dead before even leaving the drawing board.

 elk@work wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Almost nothing Assad is doing is conforming with the principles of justice and international law. You simply must point out to me where in the UN charter it says you must help a murderous dictator by bombing civilians and hospitals! There are hosts of illegitimate actions in Syria that are war crimes under international law comitted by Russia. Easily verifiable indeed.

As for Ukraine, you mean that civil war lead and fought in good part by Russian nationals with ties to the Russian intelligence agencies and army? You know, in the dictionary there is a word for that, but I'm pretty sure that isn't civil war. A good neighbour wouldn't illegally annex Crimea in violation of an earlier border agreement with Ukraine and then start a conflict in the east of the country because that neighbour might have to give up on its little vassal state. But then Ukraine had the misfortune of having Russia as its neighbour. Maybe once Russia is done shooting down civilian airliners it could start working on becoming a better neighbour and finally stop letting Russians take tanks on vacation.

I'm not saying Assad is a good guy, certainly not... but the issue of illegitimacy of Russian action has never been even as much as brought to attention of UN security councel, which is a proof in itself... it was NATO, not UN, who was unhappy with it... you believe Assad must be replaced by western powers... UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon says "The future of Assad must be decided by the Syrian people," and "The Syrian government insists that President Assad takes part (in any transitional government) but others, especially Western countries, say there is no place for him, but because of that we have lost three years, there have been more than 250,000 dead, more than 13 million displaced within Syria... more than 50 percent of hospitals, schools and infrastructure have been destroyed. There's no time to lose."...

by the way, there are dictators and dictators... some are bombed, some are not... some are not bombed for a long time, but then suddenly bombed... some of those who are not bombed by any standards aren't better then Assad, so what's the matter?

as for Ukraine, so much depends on what sources of data you use... some of mine are still living on both sides of the red line, some of those who live in Lugansk got bombed by nationalistic militia 'battalions' with cluster bombs... they're certainly not Russian army - unless Russian army has dentist's squads under cover infiltrated in 1970's...

On the contrary, the West brings it up all the time in the UN, but Russia keeps shooting it down, kind of like they did with MH17. Which again they kept shooting down in the UN.

Fact of the matter is that the UN is almost beholden to countries who couldn't care less if you murdered every single person until you are the only one left as long as you keep it within your borders (China). The Syrians really did want to decide on Assad's future, which is why they protested for his resignation before he started bombing them... He has no legitimacy left, he has far too much blood on his hands. The only way Assad has a future is if he murders everyone that doesn't bow down to him. That 50% of hospitals destroyed? That was Assad's airforce with some Russian help.

Well to be frank if it was up to me we would have more humanitarian interventions against people who murder hundreds of thousands. Saying what does it matter is like letting everyone get away with murder just because some don't get caught.

It doesn't depend on what sources you use. There is clear evidence Russia is the primary driver of the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. Without the Russian army the 'seperatists' didn't stand a chance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 elk@work wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 elk@work wrote:

I'm not saying Assad is a good guy, certainly not... but the issue of illegitimacy of Russian action has never been even as much as brought to attention of UN security councel, which is a proof in itself...

Ehm, you do realize that Russia has a veto vote in the Security Council, yes?

of course I do... but the issue has'n ever been even brought to the attention of the council... unlike many other nasty clashes between Russia/China and other councel members... like it or not, Russia played major role in persuading Assad to cooperate on Syrian WMD destruction... but taking into account that more then 80% of Syria was under ISIS at a certain point, and the means of warfare used by ISIS, I'd rather believe it is ISIS, not Assad, who uses it

*Clears throat*

"Russia accused of war crimes in Syria at UN security council session"

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/25/russia-accused-war-crimes-syria-un-security-council-aleppo

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Well to be frank if it was up to me we would have more humanitarian interventions against people who murder hundreds of thousands. Saying what does it matter is like letting everyone get away with murder just because some don't get caught.
...
*Clears throat*

"Russia accused of war crimes in Syria at UN security council session"

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/25/russia-accused-war-crimes-syria-un-security-council-aleppo

would you name a single successful (in humanitarian terms) humanitarian intervention? a single, ever...

as for the article, somebody saying something doesn't make it truth... it makes it politics... it takes some broader search to find out the data on what happened in Aleppo is very controversial at the least, and I'm not aware of any dependable reporting on the case... characteristically, after claims there goes 'if it is confirmed'... had it indeed been confirmed, I can think of so many countries who would have passed draft resolutions to UN councel to condemn Russia... that makes the difference... and then, if collateral casualties are war crimes, then Syrian war is led by a bunch of gangsters, Russia being only one among many, eh?

 elk@work wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Well to be frank if it was up to me we would have more humanitarian interventions against people who murder hundreds of thousands. Saying what does it matter is like letting everyone get away with murder just because some don't get caught.
...
*Clears throat*

"Russia accused of war crimes in Syria at UN security council session"

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/25/russia-accused-war-crimes-syria-un-security-council-aleppo

would you name a single successful (in humanitarian terms) humanitarian intervention? a single, ever...

Define "successful". The NATO intervention in the Yugoslav wars effectively ended the atrocities being perpetrated on all sides. Vietnam ended Pol Pot's reign of terror. That's just at the top of my head, without even bothering to look for examples.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 elk@work wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Well to be frank if it was up to me we would have more humanitarian interventions against people who murder hundreds of thousands. Saying what does it matter is like letting everyone get away with murder just because some don't get caught.
...
*Clears throat*

"Russia accused of war crimes in Syria at UN security council session"

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/25/russia-accused-war-crimes-syria-un-security-council-aleppo

would you name a single successful (in humanitarian terms) humanitarian intervention? a single, ever...

Define "successful". The NATO intervention in the Yugoslav wars effectively ended the atrocities being perpetrated on all sides. Vietnam ended Pol Pot's reign of terror. That's just at the top of my head, without even bothering to look for examples.

Vietnam?

Successful?


O-kay.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 elk@work wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Well to be frank if it was up to me we would have more humanitarian interventions against people who murder hundreds of thousands. Saying what does it matter is like letting everyone get away with murder just because some don't get caught.
...
*Clears throat*

"Russia accused of war crimes in Syria at UN security council session"

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/25/russia-accused-war-crimes-syria-un-security-council-aleppo

would you name a single successful (in humanitarian terms) humanitarian intervention? a single, ever...

Define "successful". The NATO intervention in the Yugoslav wars effectively ended the atrocities being perpetrated on all sides. Vietnam ended Pol Pot's reign of terror. That's just at the top of my head, without even bothering to look for examples.

Vietnam?

Successful?


O-kay.

Do you have any basic idea of who Pol Pot was or what he was doing?

 elk@work wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Well to be frank if it was up to me we would have more humanitarian interventions against people who murder hundreds of thousands. Saying what does it matter is like letting everyone get away with murder just because some don't get caught.
...
*Clears throat*

"Russia accused of war crimes in Syria at UN security council session"

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/25/russia-accused-war-crimes-syria-un-security-council-aleppo

would you name a single successful (in humanitarian terms) humanitarian intervention? a single, ever... andn in your logic, give a single humanitarian reason not to humanitarily intervene on, for instance, Saudi?

as for the article, somebody saying something doesn't make it truth... it makes it politics... it takes some broader search to find out the data on what happened in Aleppo is very controversial at the least, and I'm not aware of any dependable reporting on the case... characteristically, after claims there goes 'if it is confirmed'... had it indeed been confirmed, I can think of so many countries who would have passed draft resolutions to UN councel to condemn Russia... that makes the difference... and then, if collateral casualties are war crimes, then Syrian war is led by a bunch of gangsters, Russia being only one among many, eh?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 elk@work wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Well to be frank if it was up to me we would have more humanitarian interventions against people who murder hundreds of thousands. Saying what does it matter is like letting everyone get away with murder just because some don't get caught.
...
*Clears throat*

"Russia accused of war crimes in Syria at UN security council session"

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/25/russia-accused-war-crimes-syria-un-security-council-aleppo

would you name a single successful (in humanitarian terms) humanitarian intervention? a single, ever...

Define "successful". The NATO intervention in the Yugoslav wars effectively ended the atrocities being perpetrated on all sides. Vietnam ended Pol Pot's reign of terror. That's just at the top of my head, without even bothering to look for examples.

Vietnam?

Successful?


O-kay.

Do you have any basic idea of who Pol Pot was or what he was doing?

I do, yes. I think we have wildly differing definations of successful. Vietnam was at best, a Pyrrhic Victory.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 elk@work wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Well to be frank if it was up to me we would have more humanitarian interventions against people who murder hundreds of thousands. Saying what does it matter is like letting everyone get away with murder just because some don't get caught.
...
*Clears throat*

"Russia accused of war crimes in Syria at UN security council session"

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/25/russia-accused-war-crimes-syria-un-security-council-aleppo

would you name a single successful (in humanitarian terms) humanitarian intervention? a single, ever...

Define "successful". The NATO intervention in the Yugoslav wars effectively ended the atrocities being perpetrated on all sides. Vietnam ended Pol Pot's reign of terror. That's just at the top of my head, without even bothering to look for examples.

Vietnam?

Successful?


O-kay.

Do you have any basic idea of who Pol Pot was or what he was doing?

Well, he was Cambodian and not Vietnamese for one...

 d-usa wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 elk@work wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Well to be frank if it was up to me we would have more humanitarian interventions against people who murder hundreds of thousands. Saying what does it matter is like letting everyone get away with murder just because some don't get caught.
...
*Clears throat*

"Russia accused of war crimes in Syria at UN security council session"

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/25/russia-accused-war-crimes-syria-un-security-council-aleppo

would you name a single successful (in humanitarian terms) humanitarian intervention? a single, ever...

Define "successful". The NATO intervention in the Yugoslav wars effectively ended the atrocities being perpetrated on all sides. Vietnam ended Pol Pot's reign of terror. That's just at the top of my head, without even bothering to look for examples.

Vietnam?

Successful?


O-kay.

Do you have any basic idea of who Pol Pot was or what he was doing?

Well, he was Cambodian and not Vietnamese for one...

Yes. Hence why I said that Vietnam stopped him and that it was an example of a succesful humanitarian intervention (for some values of sucessful).

When you've got someone who thinks that "Skulls for the skull throne!" isn't supposed to be over-the-top hyperbole the end results of the Vietnamese-Cambodian war is much closer to a success than a failure IMO.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:


I do, yes. I think we have wildly differing definations of successful. Vietnam was at best, a Pyrrhic Victory.

I mean the very purpose of such interventions - successful for people of the land, for their wellbeing, security, rights, future...

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 elk@work wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Well to be frank if it was up to me we would have more humanitarian interventions against people who murder hundreds of thousands. Saying what does it matter is like letting everyone get away with murder just because some don't get caught.
...
*Clears throat*

"Russia accused of war crimes in Syria at UN security council session"

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/25/russia-accused-war-crimes-syria-un-security-council-aleppo

would you name a single successful (in humanitarian terms) humanitarian intervention? a single, ever...

Define "successful". The NATO intervention in the Yugoslav wars effectively ended the atrocities being perpetrated on all sides. Vietnam ended Pol Pot's reign of terror. That's just at the top of my head, without even bothering to look for examples.

Vietnam?

Successful?


O-kay.

Do you have any basic idea of who Pol Pot was or what he was doing?

Well, he was Cambodian and not Vietnamese for one...

Yes. Hence why I said that Vietnam stopped him and that it was an example of a succesful humanitarian intervention (for some values of sucessful).

When you've got someone who thinks that "Skulls for the skull throne!" isn't supposed to be over-the-top hyperbole the end results of the Vietnamese-Cambodian war is much closer to a success than a failure IMO.

After reading your post again, I’m guessing that others, like myself, read “Vietnam” and thought you meant the “Vietnam War”.