(The last part was really quite amazing; under two decades after the French had helped the US become an independent democracy, the US sided with the European royalists to try and destroy the French democratic revolutionary forces, so they could avoid paying the money they owed for that help.)
And on the other side
Irish revolutionaries
Denmark-Norway
Sweden
Polish
Kingdom of Mysore
And that's just a list of countries with fighting forces involved.
In Mexico president Diaz was strongly backed by Germany and Great Britain (funny how often those guys are on the wrong side of history), while the revolutionaries were backed by at least the U.S. and France.
Spanish civil war was possibly the most complicated clusterfrak of the three considering how mixed groups both the nationalists and the republicans were, but at least Soviet Union and Mexico officially backed the republicans and Nazi Germany, Italy and Portugal supported the nationalists. And of course unofficially the UK was on Franco's side, helping them with shipping and air support, because that's just how they roll.
And that's skipping the estimated 30,000+ volunteers from 50+ countries that took part.
Why not disarm the entire area? Why try to arm one side or the other? Kind of along the same lines of CC's idea, you would have to have a large force encompassing a "world" army structure to enforce and disarm the region. Force them to come to diplomatic solutions without the bloodshed. There is really no reasons to be firing anything at anyone.
Then just smash any piece of artillery or aircraft or military unit on either side that looks at cities funny.
And the second part, that's the idea.
To me the security of the civillians should be the top priority. Who cares about the government or the rebels.
Personally another solution would be to use Nato or UN troops with actual fighting units to carve out a civilian safe spot.
I always stated that the concept of Peace Keeping is dead, its the era of peace enforcement. Give the UN actual heavy units instead of the B.S. of soldiers riding around in under armored tanks with light infantry with no mandate to do anything but right a report.
Set up a UN unit with a heavy tank unit from the States, one from Russia, maybe one of the infantry divisions from China. A airforce comprised of strike planes and helicopters and strike aircraft. give them transports and logistics from another country. Maybe cut lose some naval assets from the States and Rusia. (of course we'd have to paint the helicopters black to satisfy the conspiracy nuts)
boom you suddenly have a peace enforcement military with teeth
They have the mandate to go into a country and separate fighting sides. With the mandate to destroy the side that breaks the peace.
I love your vision of the U.N. That's the one I want to see too. We absolutely need a U.N. with teeth.
It was more like that in past years I think. But how do we get back.
Again I like point 3, but not sure how to get there from one.
We are missing the step where we create this magical organization.
This is the crux of the problem with international law - a lack of enforcement. You create a treaty or convention (law) with provisions for inspections, verification and the like, but without the ability to enforce said treaty or convention. Someone is found to be in violation of their treaty obligations (ie. USSR and Sverdlovsk 1979) and what is done about it? Nothing, because there is no enforcement protocol.
This is why in terms of the CWC and BWC many people agree with Rafsanjani in that the treaties are merely "drops of ink on paper."
This is the crux of the problem with international law - a lack of enforcement. You create a treaty or convention (law) with provisions for inspections, verification and the like, but without the ability to enforce said treaty or convention. Someone is found to be in violation of their treaty obligations (ie. USSR and Sverdlovsk 1979) and what is done about it? Nothing, because there is no enforcement protocol.
This is why in terms of the CWC and BWC many people agree with Rafsanjani in that the treaties are merely "drops of ink on paper."
It's pretty bad and is a fundamental flaw with the UN. Veto holding security council members hold absolute power over the process and there isn't any way to override the veto once in place. There really needs to be some kind of general assembly override of vetos or some other kind of check for enforcement to start having any teeth. NBC warfare can really continue otherwise. Cost problem is another issue who shoulders the cost of enforcement? UN won't always have the budget for that.
It's pretty bad and is a fundamental flaw with the UN. Veto holding security council members hold absolute power over the process and there isn't any way to override the veto once in place. There really needs to be some kind of general assembly override of vetos or some other kind of check for enforcement to start having any teeth. NBC warfare can really continue otherwise. Cost problem is another issue who shoulders the cost of enforcement? UN won't always have the budget for that.
There's a solid reason of international politics that the superpowers have the power they have.
What is a UN decision worth that doesn't have the backing of the superpowers? What happens to the credibility of UN resolutions if they start regurarly going against them? What can the UN do if that happens? If the UN made a resolution to punish one of these countries, who would uphold them?
Those kinds of decisions would over time only risk creating more conflict and tension.
The big bullies on the playfield need to play nice for anything to get done. It's the way the world is, and it's not going to change by changing UN rules.
I love your vision of the U.N. That's the one I want to see too. We absolutely need a U.N. with teeth.
It was more like that in past years I think. But how do we get back.
Again I like point 3, but not sure how to get there from one.
We are missing the step where we create this magical organization.
The step to create this is a chasm 50 miles across filled with acid and occupied by some kind of acid proof dino shark with a laser beam welded to its head.
If you have a leadership that doesn't have consensus you end up not only burying a lot of young men and woman in the military group. But you tend to make things worse.
The bottom line is that the UN tie up combined with the fragile coalition of nations that Obama hoped to build to stop Syria falling apart is going to embolden any tin pot dictator to use these terror weapons knowing that there will be next to no result.
At the same time the poor #######s who lose their family and friend to these chemical weapons will become the next anti-west fanatic who is easily recruited because the West and the UN stood aside and did next to nothing.
At some point decisions have to be made.
Right now Western influence and the ability to respond to crisis in the middle east is near zero. There's no leadership in the West, we're seeing the decline of the American and Western empire in a shockingly rapid slide. Maybe its time for America to stop doing business in the middle east, and withdraw their influence behind a isolationist curtain.
Let the league of Arab States take care of those security issues, and if China and Russia want to become the preeminant powers in that mess, god bless him. We can wait for people to start complaining with the punitive actions of China and Russia over there.
Withdraw or demand heavy reforms in the UN. Its become about as useless and stupid as the league of nations. Right now the veto system doesn't work at all. There's no consensus and national goals come ahead of international benefit. On top of that the UN is corrupt, and weak and indecisive.
America needs to buy its resources from firm friends. And start to reduce its trade deficit. Sure the Middle East would probably crash, China and Russia would be heavily effected as markets to their finished goods would sharply reduce. But at least the U.S. would have a few levers that they don't have now.
On top of that the American's need to enact a isolationist doctrine of nation states are responsible for terrorism. An attack by a terrorist group funded in lets say Saudi Arabia is a attack by Saudi Arabia and treated as such.
The globe has gotten too big and too fractured for the concept of America world police. The UN who's supposed to be the world cop, is the drunken fat rent a cop who dozes away all day and couldn't fire his gun if his life counted on it.
Its time for America to simplify itself and its role in the world.
just a ramble
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Right now Western influence and the ability to respond to crisis in the middle east is near zero. There's no leadership in the West, we're seeing the decline of the American and Western empire in a shockingly rapid slide. Maybe its time for America to stop doing business in the middle east, and withdraw their influence behind a isolationist curtain.
The reason Saudi Arabia isn't providing the FSA the heavy weaponry they are asking for is because the US has specifically asked them not to do that. (That is from a Saudi quote in an article somewhere in this thread.)
The US is more concerned with the safety of their soldiers in possible future conflicts than Syrian civilians.
Quote:
Let the league of Arab States take care of those security issues
They would propably do a lot more if outside countries wouldn't keep telling everyone what everyone should do.
Quote:
Withdraw or demand heavy reforms in the UN. Its become about as useless and stupid as the league of nations. Right now the veto system doesn't work at all. There's no consensus and national goals come ahead of international benefit. On top of that the UN is corrupt, and weak and indecisive.
UN is no more corrupt than the countries it collects together. It's no more divided than the world.
Typically American really, to demand that every international organization work the way you want to and start throwing fits when they don't. Besides, UN has never has been that important for the major powers. It's important for the little countries that can't afford to do diplomacy everywhere at once, and have trouble getting themselves heard under the best of circumstances. The UN does help there.
Besides, what exactly would be the benefit of withdrawing? What good does it do if there's one less forum for diplomacy?
Quote:
America needs to buy its resources from firm friends.
Everybody would love doing that.
Quote:
On top of that the American's need to enact a isolationist doctrine of nation states are responsible for terrorism. An attack by a terrorist group funded in lets say Saudi Arabia is a attack by Saudi Arabia and treated as such.
Nah. If they'd just stop funding and training dictators and terrorists, that would be a start. While they're at it, they could stop terrorizing the civilian population of Pakistan with their drone bombings.
Oh I'm sorry, that's supposedly counter-terrorism. War is peace.
Quote:
The UN who's supposed to be the world cop, is the drunken fat rent a cop who dozes away all day and couldn't fire his gun if his life counted on it.
No wonder your dissatisfied, if you want a diplomatic organization to be a world cop. Seriously, 'muricans sometimes. Everything is about not enough people shooting other people.
Interesting old gem came across twitter today from an American friend - he posted this with the question of why the US population isn't having this debate.
Personally, I think that if this ever was the goal of US leadership, it has since gone stale, but it is sure difficult to disagree that it looks as though it was. If the balls were set in motion to disrupt the soviet regimes in the Middle East before (presumably China) rose as the next superpower, how could one "stop it"? Does the US want to continue pushing this idea especially now that Iran has become a nuclear power? Does the US have the capabilities domestically anymore to out-produce and distribute war materiel the way that once enabled them to become the world's sole super power to begin with? I think that distinction now belongs to China, which is truly concerning.
This could be interesting. High level defector from Syrian Army. Maybe some confirmation on Chemical Weapons use ??
@THE_47th: Exclusive: The Syrian Coalition have just secured a major military defection from Syria. Top ranking officer said to have a LOT of evidence.
@jenanmoussa: Source tells me: V. high up Syrian army officer defected. 2mrrw official announcement w/name &details. Threat of intervention having effect.
@jenanmoussa: Source tells me: Since West threatened to intervene, 400 #Syria army personnel defected from regime. @akhbar
@jenanmoussa: The official announcement of the high level Syrian officer will be from #Istanbul tomorrow according to my source.@akhbar
@RSyrianCivilWar: Unconfirmed reports that Abdel Tawwab Shahrou, head of medical services in Chemical Warfare Branch has defected. http://t.co/4aVnnCstVW
@Brian_Whit: Syria regime seems to be having problems paying for food imports -- Reuters http://t.co/NYPfc4Uvx7
@crispiandjb: Obama says confident Congress will vote 'yes', adds U.S. has a broader strategy to allow upgrading of help to Syrian opposition @Reuters
@MahirZeynalov: Blast in southern Turkey on the Syrian border, at least six killed.
@Brown_Moses: BBC News - Israel missile test amid fear of Syria escalation http://t.co/kMotTCX4lK
The Following User Says Thank You to Knut For This Useful Post:
Okay, you’re asking here about the Obama administration’s not-so-subtle signals that it wants to launch some cruise missiles at Syria, which would be punishment for what it says is Assad’s use of chemical weapons against civilians.
It’s true that basically no one believes that this will turn the tide of the Syrian war. But this is important: it’s not supposed to. The strikes wouldn’t be meant to shape the course of the war or to topple Assad, which Obama thinks would just make things worse anyway. They would be meant to punish Assad for (allegedly) using chemical weapons and to deter him, or any future military leader in any future war, from using them again.
Last edited by Vulcan; 09-03-2013 at 04:40 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Vulcan For This Useful Post:
I've always been oppossed to the whole lets just shoot a bunch of cruise missiles as a punitive strike only. Its incredibly ineffective, rarely punishes the person that its supposed to punish, and it comes across as a weak response. When Bill Clinton fired a bunch of cruise missiles into the Sudan and Afghanistan in retaliation for embassy bombings it actually emboldened terrorist groups because they saw if for what it is. A weak response.
Unfortunately the american's and French have cornered themselves on this with the whole, no regime change dictate.
Its just going to piss off the innocent citizens who are getting nerve gassed. The Syrian government recently held a press conference where they spent 15 minutes laughing at the States while making dry humping motions and flashing their middle fingers at the cameras.
Its a weak military strategy that in the end will infuriate the wrong people and embolden the wrong people.
The real endgame should have been the removal of the chemical weapons before they were deployed instead of making the whole red line speech a year ago or whatever it was and doing nothing.
They should have basically stated that regime change could be on the book since Asaad is a genocidal creep.
Now all of the jihadist rebels are going to have great recruiting options because people are going to be broken over a weak American response and nobody coming to save them.
Asaad doesn't care if they bomb palaces and military bases it doesn't effect his strength and doesn't put the fear of god into him.
This weak response will also embolden the Russians and Chinese who have effectively backed the American's into a corner.
Personally a year ago. They should have dropped seals in to take out weapon depots and storage sites.
When Asaad used the chemical weapons they should have fired a cruise missile through his front door. Or killed one of his advisors to make him feel unsafe.
But at the end of the day this cruise missile stuff isn't going to stop him from using these weapons. That Pandora's box is already open and they know the American's are pretty much a paper tiger here.
And when he does, and with the limited help the rebels are getting from the West they're going to slide further and further down the Jihad trial.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
German intelligence is now supporting what Syrian army defectors, British, French and American intelligence is telling us: Assad was responsible for the Sarin attack against his people. http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-920123.html
I've always been oppossed to the whole lets just shoot a bunch of cruise missiles as a punitive strike only. Its incredibly ineffective, rarely punishes the person that its supposed to punish, and it comes across as a weak response. When Bill Clinton fired a bunch of cruise missiles into the Sudan and Afghanistan in retaliation for embassy bombings it actually emboldened terrorist groups because they saw if for what it is. A weak response.
Unfortunately the american's and French have cornered themselves on this with the whole, no regime change dictate.
Its just going to piss off the innocent citizens who are getting nerve gassed. The Syrian government recently held a press conference where they spent 15 minutes laughing at the States while making dry humping motions and flashing their middle fingers at the cameras.
Its a weak military strategy that in the end will infuriate the wrong people and embolden the wrong people.
The real endgame should have been the removal of the chemical weapons before they were deployed instead of making the whole red line speech a year ago or whatever it was and doing nothing.
They should have basically stated that regime change could be on the book since Asaad is a genocidal creep.
Now all of the jihadist rebels are going to have great recruiting options because people are going to be broken over a weak American response and nobody coming to save them.
Asaad doesn't care if they bomb palaces and military bases it doesn't effect his strength and doesn't put the fear of god into him.
This weak response will also embolden the Russians and Chinese who have effectively backed the American's into a corner.
Personally a year ago. They should have dropped seals in to take out weapon depots and storage sites.
When Asaad used the chemical weapons they should have fired a cruise missile through his front door. Or killed one of his advisors to make him feel unsafe.
But at the end of the day this cruise missile stuff isn't going to stop him from using these weapons. That Pandora's box is already open and they know the American's are pretty much a paper tiger here.
And when he does, and with the limited help the rebels are getting from the West they're going to slide further and further down the Jihad trial.
I don't disagree that sending cruise missiles is a weak response, but getting rid of all of the chemical weapons in Syria is a little easier said than done. Firslty, Assad has a lot of them and they are all over. Secondly, one thing Syria does have a lot of is air defence.
It's not just a simple case of bombing a warehouse or two.
The resolution, which limits the authorization to 60 days with an option for an additional 30 days, was revised to address some of the concerns expressed during a Senate committee hearing Tuesday.
At the hearing, top U.S. officials faced tough questions from senators about plans for military strikes as House leaders lined up behind President Barack Obama's call to punish Syria for an August poison gas attack near Damascus.
Afterward, Foreign Relations Chairman Robert Menendez, D-New Jersey, said he and the committee's ranking Republican, Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker successfully negotiated a revised bill.
According to a copy of that text, provided to CNN by a legislative source, the bill limits the authorization to 60 days with an option for an additional 30-day deadline. It also makes clear there would be no U.S. boots on the ground.
