Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Rethinking the rules of war


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Rethinking the rules of war Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/22/2012 8:53:05 AM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Yanno DS, if we were to refrain from making a law because someone is likely to break it, we would never introduce any laws anywhere for anything. Because laws will always be broken by someone or other. But that has never stopped us introducing them in the past, it doesn't stop us today nor will it ever stop us in the future


So, you're taking the Burger King approach (ie. Rules are meant to be broken)?


No. She was pointing out the fact that that's what your premise was based upon.

Please read more carefully.


quote:

It's not that there is always someone that is going to break it that I'm most concerned with. I'm much more concerned that it's going to increase the odds of it being broken.


While I am well aware of the 'unintended consequences' thing, as some of us are, I'm not sure as to the extent that international laws of whatever sort concerning warfare, genocide, improper raising of hostilities, etc, ever have or ever would result in increase in such actions.

This is not to say that some belligerents are not so expert at deftly stepping their way around the law as to invoke whatever artifice to claim this that or another international law, if properly misinterpreted or conveniently misapplied, or whatever falsehoods required, justifies or rationalizes their otherwise inescapably improper actions.





< Message edited by Edwynn -- 11/22/2012 9:07:12 AM >

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 121
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/22/2012 9:07:44 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

No question, white man's slaughter is much more civilized than non-white man's slaughter...

Well if that's the way you feel, by all means don't hold it in.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

If the world could just find a way to deal with that ever-present 'uppity negro' syndrome, we would be so much better off.

Oops, sorry, I spoke too soon. You didn't.

K.

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 122
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/22/2012 9:55:53 AM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

Your 'interpretational skills' are ...

stunning, to put it one way.

Almost as impressive as your overwhelming mastery at forming a complete sentence.

Again, impressive.



(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 123
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/22/2012 8:01:13 PM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
Thank you Aswad for an incisive analysis of the military situation.

As an analysis of the military situation, I can't find fault with it. From where I sit, regarding the conflict as an "insurgency" is the only perspective that allows an intelligent explanation of the all the actors and their actions. However as someone once said, 'War is politics carried on by other means', to understand the situation fully we must overlay the political realities on top of the military realities.

In particular, there are a number of political realities that render the option: 'Insurgency has only one resolution: leave.' out of the question. Among them are:
* Israel has a perfect legal right to exist;
* Israeli citizens have no other place to go to;
* The balance of military forces in the region as a whole make Israelis leaving a theoretical possibility only;
* Israel has nuclear weapons and only a fool would discount them using these weapons if Israeli survival was under real threat; and
* Israeli security is guaranteed by the USA.
'
So while I can't fault your analysis within its goal of being an analysis of which party is primarily responsible for terror in the region, and which party is suffering the most by having to live in terror, there is more work to be done to integrate this analysis with the political realities.

However your analysis leaves little room for doubt that 'terrorism' is a convenient but ultimately meaningless complaint for the Israeli Govt. It's main use is to keep its citizens in the kind of permanent state of fear deemed appropriate by a Govt for citizens of a modern national security/surveillance State, to divert attention from Govt policies elsewhere that the Israeli Govt would prefer were conducted without any media attention and at election times, a vote winning strategy.

In this particular instance, we might also note that Netanyahu made a serious miscalculation in supporting Romney during the recent US election, and that a few border incidents were required to put the US-Israeli relationship back onto its traditional and time-tested basis, where the US enthusiastically supplies the weapons of war to the Israelis, the diplomatic cover to ensure Israel escapes any international accountability and then looks the other way as Israel does what it has always done.




< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 11/22/2012 8:05:14 PM >


_____________________________



(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 124
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/22/2012 8:53:38 PM   
YN


Posts: 699
Status: offline
They proper way to deal with the matter is to reproach the violence and encourage any reproachment or conciliation.

Partisanship, especially be foreigners, is counterproductive.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 125
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/22/2012 10:03:06 PM   
JeffBC


Posts: 5799
Joined: 2/12/2012
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Yanno DS, if we were to refrain from making a law because someone is likely to break it, we would never introduce any laws anywhere for anything.

Yeah... but that's not my concern. My concern isn't that some would break the law. My concern is that NOBODY would follow it. Please tell me which nation it is right now that you think plays even remotely fair and according to any known rule set on the international stage? The big kids on the block don't need to follow rules so they don't.


_____________________________

I'm a lover of "what is", not because I'm a spiritual person, but because it hurts when I argue with reality. -- Bryon Katie
"You're humbly arrogant" -- sunshinemiss
officially a member of the K Crowd

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 126
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/22/2012 11:28:07 PM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Yanno DS, if we were to refrain from making a law because someone is likely to break it, we would never introduce any laws anywhere for anything.

Yeah... but that's not my concern. My concern isn't that some would break the law. My concern is that NOBODY would follow it. Please tell me which nation it is right now that you think plays even remotely fair and according to any known rule set on the international stage? The big kids on the block don't need to follow rules so they don't.


Aswad has posted here many times about the ethical standards and professionalism of the Norwegian military. I would imagine this standard is reasonably common across the liberal democracies of Europe. My guess is that the political will to bring about changes in the laws of war would originate in the same places, along with non-aligned countries across the world.

What will make or break the changes we are discussing is ensuring the integrity of jurisdiction, investigation, prosecution and trials. Currently these powers lie mainly in the hands of individual Nation States. For me the critical change would be establishing an impeccably reputable independent body to handle these matters, hardly an insuperable problem. .

Once such a body is established, States would then be obliged to ensure that these standards at taught at Military Colleges, and maintained by their armed forces. States would forego their current power to shield war criminals from investigation prosecution and punishment. Once the power to investigate and prosecute is taken out of individual States' hands and given to an independent legal authority, States will be far more enthusiastic about following the relevant laws

_____________________________



(in reply to JeffBC)
Profile   Post #: 127
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/22/2012 11:37:08 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

the critical change would be establishing an impeccably reputable independent body to handle these matters, hardly an insuperable problem.

That is possibly the best exemplar of optimism I've ever seen.

K.





< Message edited by Kirata -- 11/22/2012 11:39:39 PM >

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 128
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/23/2012 12:53:15 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Aswad has posted here many times about the ethical standards and professionalism of the Norwegian military. I would imagine this standard is reasonably common across the liberal democracies of Europe.



Most politicians are without a conscience.

However that may be, I do applaud your initiative and recommend that you start lobbying various organizations and people. Start the ball rolling.


_____________________________

"I tend to pay attention when Rule speaks" - Aswad

"You are sweet, kind, and ever so smart, Rule. You ALWAYS stretch my mind and make me think further than I might have on my own" - Duskypearls

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 129
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/23/2012 9:31:38 AM   
JeffBC


Posts: 5799
Joined: 2/12/2012
From: Canada
Status: offline
tweak... I say this in a not mean-spirited way but I gotta tell you that you seem hopelessly naive to me.

Aswad's Norwegian military can have all the standards they want. Those standards will go right out the freakin window when they are involved in an actual war that actually threatens their lives, freedom, or sovereignty. The existing standards are, in fact, common across all signatories to the treaty... including the US. That doesn't stop the US and others from breaking those rules when they want to. In the US's case it doesn't even bother to be covert about it. That shouldn't be a surprise. We have, by far, the most powerful military in the world. What use could we possibly have with rules? We have POWER. We use it as we see fit. Really, much as folks may or may not like this, in the end might really does make right -- or close enough to it that it hardly matters.

Stop to think about it a second. You're thinking of war as some far off, distant, optional thing that happens when some country wants to be a bully. But reconsider how interested you personally would be in "rules" when your husband and children are dead or being tortured and the enemy tanks are rolling through the streets of Sydney. In other words, try to imagine a real war where you are really imperilled. Now... try to imagine some politician in Australia who is powerful and would like to retain that power and, like politicians everywhere, is pretty much willing to do ANYTHING to hold onto it. You probably have substantially stronger ethics than any elected official.

Now consider the realities of modern warfare. Given the incredible imbalance in military powers across the globe asymmetric warfare is pretty much mandatory. Heck, we don't even bother to declare war nowadays. By definition, a weaker force taking on a stronger force cannot fight "by the rules" and have any hope of winning. Conversely, the more powerful force would very much LIKE to fight by the rules since the rules were written by them and favor them strongly.

In other words, the thing you are wishing for is a wonderful thing and I wish for it also. I just recognize that reality prevents it from being possible.

_____________________________

I'm a lover of "what is", not because I'm a spiritual person, but because it hurts when I argue with reality. -- Bryon Katie
"You're humbly arrogant" -- sunshinemiss
officially a member of the K Crowd

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 130
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/23/2012 9:42:16 AM   
SimplyMichael


Posts: 7229
Joined: 1/7/2007
Status: offline
Most dont know why the US stopped biological warfare work (for the most part)..

It wasnt for moral reasons! They realized it was cheap. Which means small countries could do it.

Landmines...lots want to ban them but they work...ban has gone nowhere.

Genocide is illegal. How many genocides after WWII? Lots...

You want to change things? Work for economic prosperity, solves all this crap.

(in reply to JeffBC)
Profile   Post #: 131
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/23/2012 10:19:08 AM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline
The truth From the USA today:





Butch



< Message edited by kdsub -- 11/23/2012 10:20:26 AM >


_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 132
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/23/2012 10:28:24 AM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline
quote:

long standing war that Israel started


This one statement makes all further comments suspect in my view.

Butch

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 133
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/23/2012 11:59:12 AM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

tweak... I say this in a not mean-spirited way but I gotta tell you that you seem hopelessly naive to me.


I always thought that was one of her more enamoring qualities, reminiscent of someone sitting in the couch next to me.

quote:

Those standards will go right out the freakin window when they are involved in an actual war that actually threatens their lives, freedom, or sovereignty.


Dude, you're comparing force projection to national defense. Those are two very different situations, and Israel is in the former situation, as per my analysis, while Palestine is in the latter situation, again as per the same. In the course of national defense, Palestine is lobbing glorified fireworks at Israel, whereas if this had been an actual national defense situation, the IDF would have invoked national defense in fact and not words. I'm assuming you're familiar with IDF doctrine on actual national defense of the sort you're referring to.

Iron Dome priority sorts incoming ordnance on the basis of asset loss weighting scores for the projected point of impact, which basically comes down to probable casualties from a successful hit. This has to do with its real military function, in which a barrage may outstrip the available intercept capacity and so require the most important ordnance to be stopped. To conserve capacity, anything that doesn't run a risk of causing casualties is flagged as below threshold and no intercept attempt is made. Actual intercept efficiency is exceedingly high.

I mention this to point out that the conclusion supported by the IDF's own data is that one third of the attacks from Gaza constitute a small risk of casualties, while the remaining two thirds constitute no risk whatsoever. If we have a look at the casualty figures, it's clear that the drawing used by kdsub is precisely the opposite of the real situation.

quote:

Really, much as folks may or may not like this, in the end might really does make right -- or close enough to it that it hardly matters.


No argument there.

«Those who beat their swords to ploughshares will farm for those who don't.»

quote:

You're thinking of war as some far off, distant, optional thing that happens when some country wants to be a bully.


Arguably, it sometimes is optional, like in Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza and so forth.

quote:

Conversely, the more powerful force would very much LIKE to fight by the rules since the rules were written by them and favor them strongly.


Which is what is so perverse about the conflict down there.

That Hamas ignores the rules is a given, because (a) they're defending, (b) they're weaker, (c) they've nothing to lose, (d) they've nowhere to go, (e) they're not a party to the rules, (f) Palestine as a nation is denied the national equivalent of nationhood. That the IDF ignores the rules, on the other hand, costs them and doesn't work in their favor in any way, unless they go for genocide, which they have been unwilling to do. Essentially, it's turned upside down.

quote:

In other words, the thing you are wishing for is a wonderful thing and I wish for it also. I just recognize that reality prevents it from being possible.


More like reality prevents it from happening on a regular basis.

Properly defined, what we're talking about is maintaining morality in the presence of violent conflict, which is arguably hard, but arguably also not impossible. It comes down to doing the job (e.g. suppressing the Taliban) in a manner that doesn't needlessly fuck up everything else (e.g. maintaining a requirement of reasonably certain positive identification, porportionality and so forth).

I've not claimed Norway has some "high" standard for national defense. Indeed, if necessary, the entire civilian population is considered to be expendable toward the goal of restoring territorial sovereignty, as noted in "the poster on the wall". The same goes for making the prospect of incursion as costly as possible, with as little potential gain as possible.

I've stated that we have a standard for force projection, and abide by that.

"Just because we're killing them doesn't mean we can't be civilized."

IWYW,
— Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do.
" -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to JeffBC)
Profile   Post #: 134
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/23/2012 12:09:29 PM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

long standing war that Israel started


This one statement makes all further comments suspect in my view.

Butch

Well, when you can demonstrate that the Palestinians started the war by occupying Israel, maybe you'll be able to debunk that comment?

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 135
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/23/2012 12:31:18 PM   
JeffBC


Posts: 5799
Joined: 2/12/2012
From: Canada
Status: offline
My entire post wasn't focused on Isreal & Palestine. Honestly that situation is so messed up that I have no idea what to do with it. I mean seriously, we came in and took over someone's land and gave it to someone else -- a particularly blood thirsty someone else. Oh... and then we gave those blood thirsty invaders nuclear weapons. If there's some path out of that mess then I sure as heck don't know what it is.

My comments were about rewriting the rules of war at large. I agree that nowadays most of the wars that the major powers get involved in are totally optional. Unless, of course, you're a politician and you need to keep your citizenry in line. The easiest thing to do about that is to simply stop doing it but then how would those in power retain their power?

_____________________________

I'm a lover of "what is", not because I'm a spiritual person, but because it hurts when I argue with reality. -- Bryon Katie
"You're humbly arrogant" -- sunshinemiss
officially a member of the K Crowd

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 136
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/23/2012 12:46:49 PM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline
quote:

Well, when you can demonstrate that the Palestinians started the war by occupying Israel, maybe you'll be able to debunk that comment?


If you would read the history of the area you would know who betrayed who and started the war.

But in a capsule... An Arab agreement in 1919 was made and signed that gave Israel autonomy. Then they withdrew the agreement saying they did not sign it. From then on agreements were made by the Arabs and British and broken time again until the UN partitioning.

The Jews accepted even though they lost areas around Jerusalem where they were the majority…But the Arabs rejected the agreement.

The Arab league then started the war to rid Palestine of Jews to continue the hidden war by Arab irregulars that had been waged before Israel’s independence.

The war has been waged ever since with provocations and retaliations.


Butch

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 137
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/23/2012 12:49:09 PM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
But in a capsule... An Arab agreement in 1919 was made and signed that gave Israel autonomy. Then they withdrew the agreement saying they did not sign it. From then on agreements were made by the Arabs and British and broken time again until the UN partitioning.

None of which had anything to do with the present country of Israel, which was invented by those evil UN world federalists in '47.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 138
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/23/2012 12:51:26 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Ah, the Balfour declaration.......

aint that cut and dried butch.....

http://www.ijs.org.au/The-Balfour-Declaration/default.aspx

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 139
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/23/2012 12:51:58 PM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline
Yes it does HERE is the agreement

Butch

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 140
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Rethinking the rules of war Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109