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.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


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.

well, Pol Pot died in peace around 1998, after all evil things he did, after brining 1to 3 mn deaths upon Vietnameese people... and if you happen to look closer into this story you'd be surprised to see no one ever suggested any interventions against him...

AdmiralHalsey wrote:


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

Walrus isn't talking about the Vietnam War. He's talking about the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia which ended the Khmer Rouge and the Cambodian genocide.

 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...

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?

Sure, Haiti, Timor, Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone and as mentioned Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia. Of course there were also a bunch that went south like a late response in Rwanda and Somalia. But then I'm not big into failing once and then never trying ever again. Still beats joining the murderers in bombing hospitals amiright?

As for the article, Russia and Russians will forever be in denial and I accept that. However, the laws of war are clear, there is a difference between collateral casualties and targetting hospitals. Some people would like to pretend there isn't, but those people should read the Geneva Convention. Very curious whataboutism by a man who started by making an appeal to the UN Charter.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Sure, Haiti, Timor, Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone and as mentioned Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia. Of course there were also a bunch that went south like a late response in Rwanda and Somalia. But then I'm not big into failing once and then never trying ever again. Still beats joining the murderers in bombing hospitals amiright?

Haiti is a single poorest country in the Western hemisphere... can't comment on Timor and Sierra Lione, never went into details on these, as those were so local and remote... Yugoslavia... complete failure - but this is too complex a story to go into detail here... Cambodia - this was appeasement in a war under UN supervision, not a humanitarian intervention

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

As for the article, Russia and Russians will forever be in denial and I accept that. However, the laws of war are clear, there is a difference between collateral casualties and targetting hospitals. Some people would like to pretend there isn't, but those people should read the Geneva Convention. Very curious whataboutism by a man who started by making an appeal to the UN Charter.

then why not go and check how exactly those 60,000 Iraqi civilians got killed, what happened to Iraqi infrastructure and how it was related to official doctrine of this war? no bombing of hospitals or power plants? no bombing of households? alas...
and in Syria, if you get to look for this data, like here https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/30/us-coalition-airstrikes-iraqi-syrian-civilians
I'm deliberately giving you this link, so that this is of at least some credibility to you... some other sources, more direct, would be harder to accept and easier to brush away...

and we haven't even scratched the surface of a question of how ISIS and their allies get arms... those arms that kill people...

 elk@work wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Sure, Haiti, Timor, Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone and as mentioned Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia. Of course there were also a bunch that went south like a late response in Rwanda and Somalia. But then I'm not big into failing once and then never trying ever again. Still beats joining the murderers in bombing hospitals amiright?

Haiti is a single poorest country in the Western hemisphere... can't comment on Timor and Sierra Lione, never went into details on these, as those were so local and remote... Yugoslavia... complete failure - but this is too complex a story to go into detail here... Cambodia - this was appeasement in a war under UN supervision, not a humanitarian intervention

It seems you're unaware of what humanitarian intervention actually means. Its not economic, its political. That Haiti still is poor has no relevance to humanitarian intervention. Lol, Yugoslavia a complete failure? Yeah I'd call stopping the worst genocide in Europe since 1945 a failure too

What war in Cambodia under UN supervision? Most countries absolutely hated Vietnam and its intervention in Cambodia. Hell Vietnam even got invaded by China over it.

 elk@work wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

As for the article, Russia and Russians will forever be in denial and I accept that. However, the laws of war are clear, there is a difference between collateral casualties and targetting hospitals. Some people would like to pretend there isn't, but those people should read the Geneva Convention. Very curious whataboutism by a man who started by making an appeal to the UN Charter.

then why not go and check how exactly those 60,000 Iraqi civilians got killed, what happened to Iraqi infrastructure and how it was related to official doctrine of this war? no bombing of hospitals or power plants? no bombing of households? alas...
and in Syria, if you get to look for this data, like here https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/30/us-coalition-airstrikes-iraqi-syrian-civilians
I'm deliberately giving you this link, so that this is of at least some credibility to you... some other sources, more direct, would be harder to accept and easier to brush away...

I'm sorry, did I imply that the US does no wrong? Russia is far worse when it comes the laws of war, as Russia actively ignores them...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/18/msf-will-not-share-syria-gps-locations-after-deliberate-attacks

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/russias-bombing-syria-has-killed-hundreds-civilians-new-report

Please note that your link mentions nothing about deliberatly targetting hospitals or breaking the laws of war. If you have been around longer you would have also seen me rejecting the current US approach under the new administration as too time focussed which inevitably causes more death. But then I'm not trying to pick sides or deflect blame. Here's a fun link:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/reality-check/2016/oct/12/reality-check-are-us-led-airstrikes-on-syrians-as-bad-as-russias


Automatically Appended Next Post:

No party to Syria’s brutal civil war has joined the conflict without killing civilians, but the scale of deaths caused by Russia’s bombing campaign is much higher than that from coalition airstrikes.

Russian attacks also appear to have deliberately targeted civilians and the infrastructure of civilian life – markets, hospitals and homes – while the coalition has been trying to avoid or limit civilian casualties, although it could do far more, human rights groups said.

"The coalition kills too many civilians but it is clear they are trying to limit those deaths, while everything we understand about the way Russia is behaving shows they are deliberately targeting civilians, civilian infrastructure,” said Chris Woods, the director of Monitoring group Airwars.

“We’d certainly agree that the solution is definitely not more bombs but … Russia and the coalition are fighting different wars when it comes to civilians.”

Airwars has recorded 3,600 civilian deaths caused by Russian bombing raids since they joined the Syrian conflict just over a year ago, a number Woods described as an “absolute minimum”.

“That means the Russians’ death rate probably outpaces the coalition by a rate of eight to one,” Woods said. 

In contrast, the coalition has caused nearly 900 civilian deaths over 26 months of bombing, 19 acknowledged by the coalition itself and another 858 recorded by monitoring groups.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 elk@work wrote:
and we haven't even scratched the surface of a question of how ISIS and their allies get arms... those arms that kill people...

Most are captured in Syria or Iraq, when they overran the Iraqi army. The conspiracy theories are just silly that go around.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

What war in Cambodia under UN supervision? Most countries absolutely hated Vietnam and its intervention in Cambodia. Hell Vietnam even got invaded by China over it.

and what exactly did they hate Vietnam for? and why they didn't hate outright faschist Pol Pot and his regime? tough questions... may be because this was a proxy war and certain powers supported Pol Pot despite whatever he did... maybe because this was Cambodia who first crossed Vietnamese border... maybe because thai, vietnamese, tyams and any other opposition to nationalistic policies of Pol Pot were just killed in masses, what western sources omit... tough questions... western sources pose it as Vietnamese intervention... other sources give it the other way - ethnic cleansings and provocations by Pol Pot regime and retaliation from Vietnam...

and hasn't Vietnam been a 'bad guy' for 'most countries' before, when its people were subjected to one of the most un-human treatment, in 60s, and they're still suffering from what was done...

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

I'm sorry, did I imply that the US does no wrong? Russia is far worse when it comes the laws of war, as Russia actively ignores them...

Please note that your link mentions nothing about deliberatly targetting hospitals or breaking the laws of war. If you have been around longer you would have also seen me rejecting the current US approach under the new administration as too time focussed which inevitably causes more death. But then I'm not trying to pick sides or deflect blame. Here's a fun link:

now... when a modern high-precision missile hits a hospital, an embassy or a residential area... does it mean anything when a party who fired it claims it was unintentional, not deliberate... no it doesn't... one doesn't cause deaths 'unintentionally' on the hemisphere opposite to where it's borders lie...

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

No party to Syria’s brutal civil war has joined the conflict without killing civilians, but the scale of deaths caused by Russia’s bombing campaign is much higher than that from coalition airstrikes.

Airwars has recorded 3,600 civilian deaths caused by Russian bombing raids since they joined the Syrian conflict just over a year ago, a number Woods described as an “absolute minimum”.

“That means the Russians’ death rate probably outpaces the coalition by a rate of eight to one,” Woods said. 

think of this...
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (also known as SOHR‎), founded in May 2006, is a UK-based information office whose stated aim is to document alleged human rights abuses in Syria... The organisation is run by Rami Abdulrahman (sometimes referred to as Rami Abdul Rahman), from his home in Coventry. He is a Syrian Sunni Muslim (does it tell you something?) who owns a clothes shop.... In 2012, Süddeutsche Zeitung described the organisation as a one-man-operation with a single permanent worker, Rami Abdulrahman... SOHR has been described as being "pro-opposition" or anti-Assad and has been criticised for refusing to share its data or methodology.... this is your source...

but look here and coalition-caused casualties may be up to 4,000...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/19/opinion/isis-syria-iraq-civilian-casualties.html

look here and US Coalition looks worse than Russia...
https://airwars.org/data/

I didn't give you Syrian or Russian sources, you won't believe anyway... what makes me believe those is that Syria-Russia do not rely that havily on air strikes, but have a solid boots-on-the-ground operation represented by Syrian army... this is a good reason to believe civil casualties are minimized to some extent, something you can't do when relying solely on air strikes

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Most are captured in Syria or Iraq, when they overran the Iraqi army. The conspiracy theories are just silly that go around.

ha ha... make some research, start here...
https://www.globalresearch.ca/logistics-101-where-does-isis-get-its-guns/5454726

and think of who exactly has been buying oil from ISIS...

Yep.

People, take note, one poster has managed to totally derail this thread by going off in to defence of irrelevant things and attacking foreign policy of other countries. Who did what in Sirya or Iraq or supported Isis through a long oil supply chain is not relativant. This is about Russia using chemical weapons in the UK. Who did what elsewhere and which country is the worst is not relevant. Civilians have been hurt by a Russian chemical weapon deployed in the UK and that is why Russia is facing sanctions now.

This name calling, deflectio and whataboutism is just following the line of the Russian propaganda top to bottom.

 Steve steveson wrote:
People, take note, one poster has managed to totally derail this thread by going off in to defence of irrelevant things and attacking foreign policy of other countries. Who did what in Sirya or Iraq or supported Isis through a long oil supply chain is not relativant. This is about Russia using chemical weapons in the UK. Who did what elsewhere and which country is the worst is not relevant. Civilians have been hurt by a Russian chemical weapon deployed in the UK and that is why Russia is facing sanctions now.

This name calling, deflectio and whataboutism is just following the line of the Russian propaganda top to bottom.

if you check the thread I was only responding to other people who introduced those themes... and there is a pattern of bullying without evidence relevant to the thread topic... and look at the thread name, there was a ? mark but it somehow got to be ignored although there have been no new official data inputs so far... no disrespect was meant, though )))

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
[
If you understand history, you also understand that ultimately all power is derived from force. Russia has more force than almost any other country in the world. Therefore Russia has more power than almost any other country in the world. The Russian Federation may not be economic superpower, but the Soviet Union and Russian Empire were even worse in that regard, and no one doubted their status as superpower. They were military superpowers, using their massively powerful militaries to forcefully project their sphere of influence. The Russian Federation is no longer projecting its sphere of influence like that, but it still has the very powerful military. It is still a superpower, because it still has the capabilities of one. If it wanted, it could go right back to projecting its power like in the old days. Russian armies would march into Eastern Europe and simply take over like they have done so many times before. The only reason that has not yet happened is because that is not what Russia wants. Russia wants peaceful cooperation and co-existence. But not in a world dominated by Western hegemony. Russia wants co-existence based on mutual respect, where one side is not dominated or dictated by the other. A bi-polar, rather than a uni-polar world. But if those efforts fail, what do you think Russia will do? What will Russia do when the choice is between attacking or fading into obscurity? If you indeed understand history, you already know the answer to that.

Honestly not all power is derived from force, you seem to have skipped a lot of history in that case, which is why the Soviet Union collapsed, the British Empire collapsed etc etc. Russia has a lot of power true, but so do countries like China, the UK and France. We might stretch to include China as a semi superpower. But Russia like the UK and France are no longer superpowers. The Russian military isn't what the Warsaw Pact was. Its cornered by two powerful blocs now in the form of NATO and China. The idea that Russia could defeat NATO is laughable, the US alone vastly outspends Russia. Russia's army is only useful in bullying the poorer countries on Russia's southern flank.

Ultimately, all power does come from force. What is power? Power, at its core, is the ability to tell others what to do. We speak of things like 'economic power' or 'cultural power', but economy or culture do not give power of themselves. They can be ways to obtain power, sure. But ultimately they only yield power when they yield the ability to purchase the force needed to enforce your will. The US is the world's powerful country not because of its great economy, but because that economy allows them to maintain the world's greatest military force. When the US is telling someone else what to do, their words are backed up by that force, and not by Apple's stock listings.
Also, if you pay attention, you will notice that while the US vastly outspends Russia, it does not actually get that much more military for its money. Stuff in Russia is cheaper than in the US, a lot cheaper. And that is even more true for military equipment. Russia pays only a fraction of the price the US has to pay for an equivalent piece of military equipment. Taking MBTs as an example, a US-made Abrams costs 8-9 million dollars, while a Russian-made T-72 costs only 1-2 million dollars. You can have almost 9 T-72s for the price of a single Abrams. That holds true not just for tanks, but for all military equipment. That is why the spending gap between the US and Russia is much smaller than it actually appears.
And the question whether Russia can defeat NATO or not is not as laughable. That just shows your ignorance of military matters. Of course, in a hypothetical, all-out war where NATO can bring its full force to bear Russia would not stand a chance. But wars aren't like that. Whether Russia can defeat NATO or not depends on what "defeat" means here. Are we talking about a full, complete defeat? Can Russia totally defeat every single NATO soldier and conquer all NATO countries? No. Or are we talking about a partial defeat? Can Russia take and hold the Baltic States? Yes.
Russia's military may only be good for bullying smaller countries, but that is the only thing a superpower needs to be good at. The US military is likewise, only good for bullying smaller countries. And that is the only thing it needs to do (beyond the obvious of defending the US and its allies of course). Because while the US may be the top dog in the world, its strength is not so great it could hope to fully defeat China or Russia, the numbers two and three of the world.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
This is what I mean by Russian delusions, the idea that they could still rule Eastern Europe by force. The idea that it can somehow stand up to US military power. The only reason it hasn't happened is that unlike most Russians, Putin doesn't suffer from the same delusions about military capabilities. Russia's polar moment has passed. The US is the unipolar power by sheer numbers alone, whether you want to accept it or not. The only shift to a bipolar world will be with China. Russia had its moment in the sun. If Russia wants to blow up the world to cling to delusions then its even more insane than the Kim family.

Oh, for the love of God, please. For the one hundred billionth time: RUSSIA DOES NOT WANT TO RULE EASTERN EUROPE. Russia is fine with just Russia. Plenty of space. They just don't want any hostile troops in their sphere of influence, okay?
And yes, Russia can easily stand up to US military power in its own region. The US does not have enough force in Eastern Europe to be effective against Russia, and it does not have the capabilitie to bring in reinforcements quickly enough before Russia takes its goals and can sit back and rely on the nuclear deterrent, offering to trade back the taken areas for concessions. The Baltics aren't afraid for nothing after all. If the Russian forces were no match for the US they wouldn't be calling for more forces in their territory all the time.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Again, the West tried appeasement but Putin thought he could get more. You can't appease those that always want more. You have to say what the lines are, enforce them and work from there. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't cooperate, it means that whatever we do there will always be a point in which we can say "either behave or we're going to cut you off again".

Putin does not want "more". Putin wants only one single thing: respect. The West has never tried appeasement. What sacrifices has the West made to appease Russia? Nothing. All of the "appeasement" the West has tried were empty words. It is no wonder that Western countries are not trusted in the rest of the world. Behave? In a relation based on mutual respect, you should not be telling the other "do what I want, or else". That is a relation between master and slave, not a relation between equals. Russia will always fight against such a relation.
The West does not desire good relations with Russia. It only desires to dominate Russia. When the West drops the "behave the way we want" part, when it drops its attempts to enforce its will on Russia, that is when a peaceful co-existence will be possible. Then there will be appeasement. Then you will be able to honestly say the West has tried to establish good relations with Russia. Not before.

Putin doesn't want more?? Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are the definition of wanting more. Putin is nibbling off what territories he can of unfriendly neighbouring states. The West doesn't have to appease Russia. Russia is not some special case that deserves preferential treatment. Yet the West is bending over backwards to restrain themselves in cases such as this and Ukraine, where sanctions were positively mild. The West could just sell arms to Ukraine or end the regime of the tin pot dictator called Assad and there would be nothing Russia could do about it. Its the type of restraint Russia has never shown towards its neighbours.

No, Putin does not want more. That is a dishonest argument. You know full well Crimea or Eastern Ukraine would never have happened under normal circumstances. It was only possible because relations between the West and Russia already were so polarised.
And Russia is a special case. Russia is not just any country. Russia demands preferential treatment, and it is not afraid to back those demands up with force. If the West desires peace in Europe, they should get smarter and treat Russia with the respect it deserves. Russia is a powerful country, and it is not a nice country. You may call that "being a 19th century bully", but Russia has always been a backwards place. The West will just have to deal with that or face the deadly consequences. Fact is that Russia is not like other European countries. Russia is an empire, with all the imperialism, militarism, and rabid nationalism that entails. No matter how much I would love for it to be different, Russia can't and won't behave like a Western democracy because it is not. That path is closed now. The rest of Europe would be wise to keep that in mind. Again, the choice is between war and peace, and sometimes it is a wise thing to make sacrifices for the greater good.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Imagine the sheer slog for Russian forces. Each European country presents another fresh army to be defeated and suffer casualties against, while having to detach soldiers for occupation. And then at the end of the line there is still France, the UK and a huge fresh and better equipped US army to desperately fend off. Its WW2 in reverse for Russia. Yes, Europe is going to suffer, but its a war Russia can't win, it would push Russia deep into third world country territory.

Wth. Why do you think Russia would try to slog all the way through Europe? It is just the Baltic States and Ukraine and that's it. Russian forces aren't going to be going much farther than that. Russia doesn't have the power to conquer all of Europe. As you say, it would be WW2 in reverse with Russia in the same position as Germany and NATO as the Soviets. That is not what Russia is going to do in a war. Conquering Europe was the dream of the Soviets. The Russian Federation has more humble goals. They don't need to conquer much, they just want a big fat buffer between themselves and hostile forces.

 Steve steveson wrote:
People, take note, one poster has managed to totally derail this thread by going off in to defence of irrelevant things and attacking foreign policy of other countries. Who did what in Sirya or Iraq or supported Isis through a long oil supply chain is not relativant. This is about Russia using chemical weapons in the UK. Who did what elsewhere and which country is the worst is not relevant. Civilians have been hurt by a Russian chemical weapon deployed in the UK and that is why Russia is facing sanctions now.

This name calling, deflectio and whataboutism is just following the line of the Russian propaganda top to bottom.

Queue complaints about the content of the discussion of this thread, saying things are becoming OT and it being locked.

I.e. any thread where Russia's portrayed in a negative light.

Russia is an empire

No, it really isn’t. And therein lies the problem, delusions of grandeur. We had an empire once, and while we don’t completely let that go, we don’t bully and threaten to bomb members of the commonwealth for not jumping to attention when we demand it.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Russia is an empire

No, it really isn’t. And therein lies the problem, delusions of grandeur. We had an empire once, and while we don’t completely let that go, we don’t bully and threaten to bomb members of the commonwealth for not jumping to attention when we demand it.

That is exactly the difference. Britain was an empire. Russia still is, and it will be until the imperial mindset finally fades. Russia has not yet let the idea of empire go, and to be honest I highly doubt they ever will, at least in the current situation. The question is how will Western countries deal with it? Russia is too big, powerful and assertive to be ignored like North Korea or Iran. Any form of confrontation just will make things worse. In my opinion, the only good option for the West to deal with the Russian problem is to make compromise and try to accommodate Russian concerns (preferably in return for some concessions as well, the Kremlin is not adverse to making deals). In combination with a cessation of hostile language towards Russia, this will soon stop Russian belligerence. Then, given time, Russia too may overcome the loss of its former territories and become part of the greater European community and hopefully transition into a proper democracy. But that is only possible if the perceived threats to Russia are removed first and if Russia is respected as a superpower. As long as the threats remain, Russia will remain belligerent, and the population will continue to rally behind strong, authoritarian and highly nationalistic leaders like Putin (or worse). And as long as such leaders are in charge, Russia will continue with destabilising actions against the West. I feel that the West should take responsibility here and break the vicious cycle. Because it was Western actions that (inadvertently) started this cycle, and because Russia simply can't back down in its current state.

This argument that it is Western nations' fault that Russia gassed people in the UK is beyond ridiculous and just drags the thread off topic by incensing those arguing sensibly. So is the fantasy of Russia being a superpower we desperately need to respect and the other side of the argument as well, wondering how an invasion would go, wondering how easily NATO would beat it etc. It's not relevant. Chill. Scale back the discussion from WW3 because it's just causing people to get aggravating and aggravated. Thanks

 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... 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."...

I can't say this more clearly, the quote you've given there has been stripped of context and modified to produce a totally different claim to what Ban actually said. It is a straight lie and whatever source gave it to you is playing you for a sucker.

"It is totally unfair and unreasonable that the fate of one person takes the whole political negotiation process hostage. It is unacceptable. The future of Assad must be decided by the Syrian people. The Syrian government insists that President Assad takes part but others say there is no place for him."

Read in context, Ban is talking about the irrationality of letting war continue and seeing many more die, because there's disagreement on one guy. And when you read the actual quote, not the deceitful version you used with 'especially Western countries' added in, you see Ban is condemning all outside powers who are delaying the peace process over the issue of Assad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 elk@work wrote:
would you name a single successful (in humanitarian terms) humanitarian intervention? a single, ever...

Sierra Leone. East Timor. Mali. Off the top of my head. There's been a lot of others. They don't get as much media attention because 'things are going okay' isn't as good a story as deaths and disaster. So people rather foolishly tend to think the only interventions are the bad ones.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 elk@work wrote:
well, Pol Pot died in peace around 1998, after all evil things he did, after brining 1to 3 mn deaths upon Vietnameese people... and if you happen to look closer into this story you'd be surprised to see no one ever suggested any interventions against him...

What? After Vietnamese intervention the Khmer Rouge was toppled and Vietnam installed a new government that didn't go about murdering a quarter of the population. Pol Pot feld, and while it would have been nice to have him face trial for his atrocities, the most important thing was to end the killings.

What's most frustrating about this is that if you wanted to take a position against Vietnamese action in Cambodia as a successful intervention there's an easy case to make that it wasn't an intervention at all. Because Vietnam started the operation not out of humanitarian concern but due to border raids by Cambodia that had killed more than a thousand Vietnamese civilians. But because you don't know any of this, instead you went with an argument that it didn't count because Pol Pot got away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
No, it really isn’t. And therein lies the problem, delusions of grandeur. We had an empire once, and while we don’t completely let that go, we don’t bully and threaten to bomb members of the commonwealth for not jumping to attention when we demand it.

To be fair, the UK took a while to finally realise it. The Suez crisis could be broadly described as Britain and France thinking they were still empires, running an operation like they were, which ended when the US turned up and said 'actually we're the empire now and you should stop this'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
That is exactly the difference. Britain was an empire. Russia still is, and it will be until the imperial mindset finally fades.

This reads like a 1990s self help book, 'if you believe it it will be'.

Seriously, stop this nonsense. You don't get to just believe you are an empire and then it becomes so. You actually have to have the economic clout to make it so. And Russia really doesn't, which is why instead of doing things that normally grow an empire, things that the US and China do daily like expand their businesses in to key market and strategic resources, instead Russia plays pretend games about being an empire with crude, cheap military ops like pushing troops across the border in to the eastern fringes of Ukraine, or murdering a spy who gave up intel on your country a decade ago.

That isn't the work of an empire. It's the work of a malevolent country with severe budget constraints. Its discount evil.

 sebster wrote:

What's most frustrating about this is that if you wanted to take a position against Vietnamese action in Cambodia as a successful intervention there's an easy case to make that it wasn't an intervention at all. Because Vietnam started the operation not out of humanitarian concern but due to border raids by Cambodia that had killed more than a thousand Vietnamese civilians. But because you don't know any of this, instead you went with an argument that it didn't count because Pol Pot got away.

again, you do me wrong... somebody (not me) suggested Vietnamese intervention as an example of a successful "humanitarian intervention"... I wrote - "Cambodia - this was appeasement in a war under UN supervision, not a humanitarian intervention"... I meant the later stage of the conflict... the point is not whether it was successful or not, but was it a "humanitarian intervention" or just a war... having read quite a lot on this, I believe it was just war... as well as any affair in which your border is crossed by an enemy and you retaliate by driving him back...

 elk@work wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

What war in Cambodia under UN supervision? Most countries absolutely hated Vietnam and its intervention in Cambodia. Hell Vietnam even got invaded by China over it.

and what exactly did they hate Vietnam for? and why they didn't hate outright faschist Pol Pot and his regime? tough questions... may be because this was a proxy war and certain powers supported Pol Pot despite whatever he did... maybe because this was Cambodia who first crossed Vietnamese border... maybe because thai, vietnamese, tyams and any other opposition to nationalistic policies of Pol Pot were just killed in masses, what western sources omit... tough questions... western sources pose it as Vietnamese intervention... other sources give it the other way - ethnic cleansings and provocations by Pol Pot regime and retaliation from Vietnam...

and hasn't Vietnam been a 'bad guy' for 'most countries' before, when its people were subjected to one of the most un-human treatment, in 60s, and they're still suffering from what was done...

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

I'm sorry, did I imply that the US does no wrong? Russia is far worse when it comes the laws of war, as Russia actively ignores them...

Please note that your link mentions nothing about deliberatly targetting hospitals or breaking the laws of war. If you have been around longer you would have also seen me rejecting the current US approach under the new administration as too time focussed which inevitably causes more death. But then I'm not trying to pick sides or deflect blame. Here's a fun link:

now... when a modern high-precision missile hits a hospital, an embassy or a residential area... does it mean anything when a party who fired it claims it was unintentional, not deliberate... no it doesn't... one doesn't cause deaths 'unintentionally' on the hemisphere opposite to where it's borders lie...

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

No party to Syria’s brutal civil war has joined the conflict without killing civilians, but the scale of deaths caused by Russia’s bombing campaign is much higher than that from coalition airstrikes.

Airwars has recorded 3,600 civilian deaths caused by Russian bombing raids since they joined the Syrian conflict just over a year ago, a number Woods described as an “absolute minimum”.

“That means the Russians’ death rate probably outpaces the coalition by a rate of eight to one,” Woods said. 

think of this...
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (also known as SOHR‎), founded in May 2006, is a UK-based information office whose stated aim is to document alleged human rights abuses in Syria... The organisation is run by Rami Abdulrahman (sometimes referred to as Rami Abdul Rahman), from his home in Coventry. He is a Syrian Sunni Muslim (does it tell you something?) who owns a clothes shop.... In 2012, Süddeutsche Zeitung described the organisation as a one-man-operation with a single permanent worker, Rami Abdulrahman... SOHR has been described as being "pro-opposition" or anti-Assad and has been criticised for refusing to share its data or methodology.... this is your source...

but look here and coalition-caused casualties may be up to 4,000...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/19/opinion/isis-syria-iraq-civilian-casualties.html

look here and US Coalition looks worse than Russia...
https://airwars.org/data/

I didn't give you Syrian or Russian sources, you won't believe anyway... what makes me believe those is that Syria-Russia do not rely that havily on air strikes, but have a solid boots-on-the-ground operation represented by Syrian army... this is a good reason to believe civil casualties are minimized to some extent, something you can't do when relying solely on air strikes

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Most are captured in Syria or Iraq, when they overran the Iraqi army. The conspiracy theories are just silly that go around.

ha ha... make some research, start here...
https://www.globalresearch.ca/logistics-101-where-does-isis-get-its-guns/5454726

and think of who exactly has been buying oil from ISIS...

You know why most countries were against Vietnam in the 70's during the Cold War, which is completely besides the point of Vietnam invading Cambodia.

There are clear differences between how the US and Russia conduct themselves in operations regarding civilians. My sources are Amnesty, Airwars and MSF amongst others, not just the SOHR. Yet you try to equate a longer US commitment in two countries to a shorter Russian one in a single country. Airwars also made the choice to focus their limited resources on the US the past 1,5 years. Meanwhile arguing about numbers does nothing to disprove Russia isn't comitting war crimea. I'm sure Syrian and Russian sources would agree with you, seeing as those sources only see terrorists everywhere, no civilians.

As you just unironically linked fething GlobalResearch, the Infowars of the left, I think were about done here.

 elk@work wrote:
again, you do me wrong... somebody (not me) suggested Vietnamese intervention as an example of a successful "humanitarian intervention"... I wrote - "Cambodia - this was appeasement in a war under UN supervision, not a humanitarian intervention"... I meant the later stage of the conflict...

But it wasn't your first post on Cambodia. Before that you posted, quite bizarrely, that despite Pol Pot killing millions no-one had ever suggested intervention against Pol Pot, seemingly oblivious that Vietnamese action had ended Pol Pot murderous rule after just three years.

the point is not whether it was successful or not, but was it a "humanitarian intervention" or just a war... having read quite a lot on this, I believe it was just war... as well as any affair in which your border is crossed by an enemy and you retaliate by driving him back...

And now you're aping the argument I said you should have made in the first place but pretending it was your opinion all along. Just admit you got caught out on this issue, mate. It's okay. We don't expect everyone to know the ins and outs of post-war SE Asian politics.



Also, you're being very dishonest in your approach in this thread. You haven't responded to the large list of successful interventions and admitted your earlier challenge has been met and your point proved wrong. And you also didn't accept the Bank-Ki Moon quote you gave was deceptively manipulated, and as a result the point you tried to make was a lie.

An honest person would admit those two things, and allow the conversation to continue. Be an honest person.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Oh, for the love of God, please. For the one hundred billionth time: RUSSIA DOES NOT WANT TO RULE EASTERN EUROPE. Russia is fine with just Russia. Plenty of space. They just don't want any hostile troops in their sphere of influence, okay?

As we have been told to drop it this is my last repy to this. You're being extremely disingenous. You attacked me for my 'Russophobia' because I said Poland and the Baltics are still scared of Russia. Besides Russian actions in Ukraine make what Russia wants pretty clear one would think. Now you're making wild claims about NATO hostile troops going to invade Russia and you conveniently ignore that just pages before you accused me of Russophobia when I mentioned something that had already happened twice in the 20th century, but something that has never happened is completely rational for Russia. Let that sink in.

 sebster wrote:


I can't say this more clearly, the quote you've given there has been stripped of context and modified to produce a totally different claim to what Ban actually said. It is a straight lie and whatever source gave it to you is playing you for a sucker.

"It is totally unfair and unreasonable that the fate of one person takes the whole political negotiation process hostage. It is unacceptable. The future of Assad must be decided by the Syrian people. The Syrian government insists that President Assad takes part but others say there is no place for him."

Read in context, Ban is talking about the irrationality of letting war continue and seeing many more die, because there's disagreement on one guy. And when you read the actual quote, not the deceitful version you used with 'especially Western countries' added in, you see Ban is condemning all outside powers who are delaying the peace process over the issue of Assad.
.

where are you citing from? because the best I managed to find was this http://washingtonsblog.com/2015/11/twice-in-one-day-ban-ki-moon-condemned-obamas-actions-on-syria.html ... the interview was taken by Spanish newspapers and I failed to find the original publication, only secondary quotations...somehow...

would you also please be more polite and not allow personal insults from the position of undisputed moral and informational superiority?

 elk@work wrote:

 sebster wrote:


I can't say this more clearly, the quote you've given there has been stripped of context and modified to produce a totally different claim to what Ban actually said. It is a straight lie and whatever source gave it to you is playing you for a sucker.

"It is totally unfair and unreasonable that the fate of one person takes the whole political negotiation process hostage. It is unacceptable. The future of Assad must be decided by the Syrian people. The Syrian government insists that President Assad takes part but others say there is no place for him."

Read in context, Ban is talking about the irrationality of letting war continue and seeing many more die, because there's disagreement on one guy. And when you read the actual quote, not the deceitful version you used with 'especially Western countries' added in, you see Ban is condemning all outside powers who are delaying the peace process over the issue of Assad.
.

where are you citing from? because the best I managed to find was this http://washingtonsblog.com/2015/11/twice-in-one-day-ban-ki-moon-condemned-obamas-actions-on-syria.html ... the interview was taken by Spanish newspapers and I failed to find the original publication, only secondary quotations...somehow...

would you also please be more polite and not allow personal insults from the position of undisputed moral and informational superiority?

Did you check that blog? Its riddled with dead links (which we need to believe actually existed in the first place, for example the El Pais link goes to Apple.com) and 'translations' by an obviously subjective writer. It doesn't have credible value.

 elk@work wrote:
where are you citing from? because the best I managed to find was this http://washingtonsblog.com/2015/11/twice-in-one-day-ban-ki-moon-condemned-obamas-actions-on-syria.html ... the interview was taken by Spanish newspapers and I failed to find the original publication, only secondary quotations...somehow...

The best you managed was a random blog, with its own translation, that put the quote up in the middle of a political screed. Suffice to say, the translation wildly misinterprets the original statement. Here's a link with a much more reliable version http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/attacks-syria-rebel-strongholds-kill-91-report-548190740

And I mean seriously, just think about it, what kind of diplomat is going to pause in the middle of a statement to add 'especially western countries', turning a neutral statement in to an overtly political attack on one side of an issue? No diplomat would do that, but you happily believed a quote that was supposedly from the senior most diplomat on the planet doing exactly that.

It shouldn't passed the giggle test, but you bought in to it. You need to seriously reconsider your critical judgement.

would you also please be more polite and not allow personal insults from the position of undisputed moral and informational superiority?

It is nothing to do with superiority. Look at all the people who got confused about the Vietnam/Cambodia thing, I didn't comment on any of that, because they got caught out not knowing about one part of mid to late 20th century SE Asian politics, it doesn't matter.

In contrast, not only is it far from your only mistake, the nature of your mistakes is quite telling. You keep just happening to make factual, logical and even comprehension errors that all somehow manage to fall in favour of the pro-Russia position you're taking. At which point we're not dealing with accidental mistakes, but an approach to debate and understanding that is all about trying to find some way, any way, of arguing for your team, with no effort put in to figuring out what the truth really is.

Yeah, I'm gonna call you out on that.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Did you check that blog? Its riddled with dead links (which we need to believe actually existed in the first place, for example the El Pais link goes to Apple.com) and 'translations' by an obviously subjective writer. It doesn't have credible value.

sure I did, I'm quite capable of it... and there are no un-biased news sources presently, it seems, so one has to work with a broader base and assess critically every piece of news... there are many other sources who reported this in the same manner, but all are secondary and are giving fragmented quotation of this part... here at least the text is more solid...

but the funny part is that I can't find the original article in El Pais, albeit there is no doubt there was this interview in October 2015... and El Pais site gives zero results on 2015... so I wonder what other sources quote and in what way those are more credible...

 sebster wrote:

The best you managed was a random blog, with its own translation, that put the quote up in the middle of a political screed. Suffice to say, the translation wildly misinterprets the original statement. Here's a link with a much more reliable version http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/attacks-syria-rebel-strongholds-kill-91-report-548190740

the article on your link also gives secondary and very fragmented quotations and doesn't provide any link to the source which is somehow so hard to find... so, in what exactly way is it 'more reliable', rich of 'context' and not 'modified'? and what if I give you links on Indian news - would they be unreliable to?

Well we went full circle on there being "no unbiased news sources" pretty fast.

The article does exist on El Pais, here is the qoute:

Preguntado por el futuro de Bachar el Asad, principal escollo en la negociación, el diplomático observa: “El futuro del presidente Asad debería decidirlo el pueblo sirio. Ahora bien, no quiero interferir en el proceso de Viena, pero creo que es totalmente injusto e irracional que el destino de una persona pueda paralizar toda esta negociación política. Esto no es aceptable. No es justo. El Gobierno sirio insiste en que El Asad debe ser parte de la transición. Muchos países occidentales se oponen. Mientras tanto, hemos perdido años. Han muerto 250.000 personas; hay 13 millones de refugiados o desplazados internos. Más del 50% de hospitales, escuelas e infraestructuras de Siria ha quedado destruida. No se puede perder más tiempo. Esta crisis ya va más allá de Siria, más allá de la región. Afecta al continente europeo. Es una crisis global”.

https://elpais.com/internacional/2015/10/30/actualidad/1446231111_709046.html

Merci google translate:

Asked about the future of Bashar al-Assad, the main obstacle in the negotiation, the diplomat observes: "The future of President Assad should be decided by the Syrian people. Now, I do not want to interfere in the Vienna process, but I think it is totally unfair and irrational that the fate of a person can paralyze all this political negotiation. This is not acceptable. It's not fair. The Syrian government insists that El Asad must be part of the transition. Many Western countries are opposed. Meanwhile, we have lost years. 250,000 people have died; there are 13 million refugees or internally displaced persons. More than 50% of hospitals, schools and infrastructure in Syria have been destroyed. You can not lose more time. This crisis is already beyond Syria, beyond the region. It affects the European continent. It is a global crisis. "

Automatically Appended Next Post:
The translation falls in favor of Sebster compared to the cut up one of yours.

 elk@work wrote:
and there are no un-biased news sources presently

And there it is, as always.

I think we're probably done here, to be honest. There's really nothing to be gained from trying to discuss things with people who reject critical judgement.

I think it would be best if everyone just put elk on ignore for the duration of this thread. So far they have done nothing to actually keep to the topic and, as mentioned earlier, have basically been following the russian state line of deflection, obfuscation and denial.

Speaking of which. Besides some Kremlin comments that it was the British who gassed Skripal its been awfully quiet these past days. Is Putin going to cut his losses for now instead of going tit for tat, I wonder.

 sebster wrote:

 elk@work wrote:
and there are no un-biased news sources presently

And there it is, as always.

I think we're probably done here, to be honest. There's really nothing to be gained from trying to discuss things with people who reject critical judgement.

again you rush ahead to judge ))) thanks Disciple for the link, but I don't find this translation to read or mean matterially far from what I originally posted on whether or not Assad must be replaced by the west... then, in your quotation you ommited 'Western contries', jumped to conclusion I'm using the quotation to put the blame solely on Western countries (which I never wrote or implied, please check) and proceeded with personal insults... so much for critical judgement )))

Can we please not get this thread locked?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Speaking of which. Besides some Kremlin comments that it was the British who gassed Skripal its been awfully quiet these past days. Is Putin going to cut his losses for now instead of going tit for tat, I wonder.

I suspect this is down to Putin having internal issues to deal with following the mall fire. There has been anti government protests and people are not happy about it. Putin has a choice to either double down on the "Oh look at how nasty the west is" to distract or find something else.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Speaking of which. Besides some Kremlin comments that it was the British who gassed Skripal its been awfully quiet these past days. Is Putin going to cut his losses for now instead of going tit for tat, I wonder.

in Russia, this temporarily receded into the background after Kemerovo tragedy... but the main line is that Kremlin waits for renewal of dialogue and something to work with - samples, OPCW analysis results...

 Steve steveson wrote:

I suspect this is down to Putin having internal issues to deal with following the mall fire. There has been anti government protests and people are not happy about it. Putin has a choice to either double down on the "Oh look at how nasty the west is" to distract or find something else.

in fact, there was a single protest on Sunday in Kemerovo, people were outraged due to a wave of fake news in social networks reporting hundreds killed in the fire... those turned out to be lies... but certain news outlets like Radio Freedom went to report rallies in memory of deceased as anti-government protests... which is not true, at leats, I can say so of one I went to here in Moscow...