Ukraine

[Scouse]

Afghanistan was a staging area for terrorist activity

Think you're talking about Pakistan there.

the logic for attacks on Afghanistan in 2003 were sound

Disagree.

Ukraine isn't doing anything to anyone outside its own borders so the situation is utterly different.

I don't think Afghanistan was either tbh. But either way:

if you'd said Iraq, you'd have been entirely correct.

Was saving that in case Embattle went further than the disagree button, as I agree that it's a much more compelling argument than Afghanistan

 

[Raven]

Might work out that we can help Syria and tell Russia to fuck off.

 

[DaGaffer]

Think you're talking about Pakistan there.

Attacks on Pakistan to root out Al-Qaeda bases were also justified, but unlike in Afghanistan, there were diplomatic alternatives available to get Pakistan to police itself. At least in theory.

Disagree.

It doesn't really matter if you disagree, the training bases were there, and there was no likelihood of the Taliban-run government at the time doing anything about them (quite the reverse in fact). So at a minimum, attacks on the bases were justified, and the logic of toppling the sponsors of said bases (the Taliban government) was also sound. But, 200 years of Imperial adventures in Afghanistan also tells us the place is basically ungovernable and will revert to tribal nutjob status ten minutes after you leave.

I don't think Afghanistan was either tbh. But either way:

Except they blatantly were.

Was saving that in case Embattle went further than the disagree button, as I agree that it's a much more compelling argument than Afghanistan

Indeed it is. I still find it amazing that no-one in the US or UK government has gone on trial over this. And it is entirely situations like Ukraine where the spectre of Iraq will bite the west on the arse. How can the US or UK have any moral argument against the Russians, when in fact the Russians have FAR more justification to intervene in Ukraine than we ever had in Iraq.

 

[BloodOmen]

John Kerry quote is so funny....

"You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th-century fashion by invading another country on a completely trumped-up pretext"

*Cough* let's not point out the obvious here John!

 

[Scouse]

200 years of Imperial adventures in Afghanistan also tells us the place is basically ungovernable and will revert to tribal nutjob status ten minutes after you leave.

That argument alone makes the "justification" a joke - as you know that ten minutes after you leave they'll be up to their old tricks.

Makes our invasion a jihad-maker rather than a jihad-destroyer.


Edit: And I still don't buy that Afghanistan was worth it or that they were even particularly damaging. Excess death every year from atmospheric pollution is more important and less well funded than us tooling halfway round the world to bomb people who's military threat to the UK from a technological standpoint is zero.

 

[Scouse]

Aw @Embattle. why not enter the discussion instead of hiding behind ratings buttons eh, coward

 

[Hawkwind]

The population of Ukraine has had a significant Russian element for over 100 years. By your logic we should be worried about a rising from the Irish about now.

Very true about time we had another Catholic purge, also fill the CoE coffers again

 

[Hawkwind]

The Russian attitude is hilarious, we have a right to put our troops there to protect our people. So basically using this logic any country can invade and station troops in a country where some of its subjects are based. UN, US and EU needs to stop this shit quickly. Full economic and trade embargo until they leave.

 

[DaGaffer]

That argument alone makes the "justification" a joke - as you know that ten minutes after you leave they'll be up to their old tricks.

Makes our invasion a jihad-maker rather than a jihad-destroyer.


Edit: And I still don't buy that Afghanistan was worth it or that they were even particularly damaging. Excess death every year from atmospheric pollution is more important and less well funded than us tooling halfway round the world to bomb people who's military threat to the UK from a technological standpoint is zero.

In the context of post-911 politics, the Americans needed a response to Al-Qaeda (letting 3000 dead on US soil go unanswered was never going to happen). Problem is that I don't think any military adventure in Afghanistan was going to be a long-term success (I'm pretty sure I said so at the time), but on the other hand we don't know what would have happened without an invasion; there is a strong argument that its better to fight the nutjobs on their own territory rather than your own. You may not ultimately "win", but that's not actually the point of the exercise. Maybe Afghanistan is one of those places that we just have to suppress every couple of decades because we're not allowed to just nuke the place and be done with it.

 

[Scouse]

In the context of post-911 politics, the Americans needed a response to Al-Qaeda (letting 3000 dead on US soil go unanswered was never going to happen). But in the absence of any actual guilty party to punish maybe our justified answer was the invasion, subjugation and murder of innocents. If we could just nuke the lot we'd definitely get the bad guys (well, the ones who happened to be there at the time), but our pesky ethics of not just murder, but mass-murder of innocents being a "bad thing" does get in the way somewhat

Not loving yer intellectual dismissal of the realities of the situation.

If we could bang to rights those who carried out attacks then I've been with ya. But we can never justify going to war against a people because of the suspicion that a tiny percentage of them may have been involved.

We killed way more innocents in Afghanistan and Iraq than were killed in America. We've left a legacy of death and disease and continuing conflict especially in Iraq. And we knew we would before we went in.

That makes us worse IMO.

 

[DaGaffer]

The Russian attitude is hilarious, we have a right to put our troops there to protect our people. So basically using this logic any country can invade and station troops in a country where some of its subjects are based. UN, US and EU needs to stop this shit quickly. Full economic and trade embargo until they leave.

Its a bit more complicated than that though. 20% of ethnic Russians is a significant minority, and you've also got quite a complicated situation in the Crimea. The Russians still operate the Black Sea Fleet out of bases in the Crimea (the lease runs out in 2017), so you actually have a massive Russian military presence based on Ukrainian territory, with around 25,000 personnel (plus support, families etc.) based in Sevastapol. It isn't actually unreasonable for the Russians to want to protect a significant Russian asset from a potential Ukrainian civil war.

 

[Embattle]

Aw @Embattle. why not enter the discussion instead of hiding behind ratings buttons eh, coward

In essence it avoids another Scouse lecture, the evils of what the West did and why it justifies someone else doing what they think is the same....no thanks.

Its a bit more complicated than that though. 20% of ethnic Russians is a significant minority, and you've also got quite a complicated situation in the Crimea. The Russians still operate the Black Sea Fleet out of bases in the Crimea (the lease runs out in 2017), so you actually have a massive Russian military presence based on Ukrainian territory, with around 25,000 personnel (plus support, families etc.) based in Sevastapol. It isn't actually unreasonable for the Russians to want to protect a significant Russian asset from a potential Ukrainian civil war.

Think you'll find it is more to do with the risk of the lease not being renewed, the base has always been some what of a contentious issue.

Russia has plenty of wiggle room, the USA and co aren't likely to do much other than make it uncomfortable economically unless Russia does something really silly.

 

[Scouse]

It isn't actually unreasonable for the Russians to want to protect a significant Russian asset from a potential Ukrainian civil war.

Defend the bases you're in then? You know, the bases your troops already very securely occupy?

Or spread out into the country a bit more, handing out Russian passports (which you've been doing for ten years anyway) and generally looking like an opportunist taking advantage of political turmoil to carve out a bit of land for yourself...

 

[DaGaffer]

Not loving yer intellectual dismissal of the realities of the situation.

If we could bang to rights those who carried out attacks then I've been with ya. But we can never justify going to war against a people because of the suspicion that a tiny percentage of them may have been involved.

We killed more innocents in Afghanistan and Iraq than were killed in America. And we knew we would before we went in.

That makes us worse IMO.

Nonsense. The Government of Afghanistan at the time of the invasion operated and supplied the training camps. You can argue in any military situation that only a tiny percentage of people involved are actually pulling the trigger, but so what? It doesn't alter the requirement to protect yourself from that tiny percentage, and that often means decapitating a lot more than the people doing the shooting. This is reality. Like I said, I completely agree about Iraq, but Afghanistan is a much more complex issue.

 

[Scouse]

In essence it avoids another Scouse lecture, the evils of what the West did and why it justifies someone else doing what they think is the same....no thanks.

To me it looks like you "feel" a certain way but lack the gumption to argue your case cogently. Smacks of cowardice - you're not exactly sure of your own position and don't want to expose it in case it's laughable.

 

[Raven]

I wonder what Israel's stance on the situation is.

 

[Scouse]

It doesn't alter the requirement to protect yourself from that tiny percentage, and that often means decapitating a lot more than the people doing the shooting.

So, Israel would be completely justified in bombing the shit out of the West Bank then.

I mean, lets face it, the Palestinians actively hate Israel and would contribute to its downfall a lot more than the vast majority of Afghans - who'd remain resolutely disinterested in the affairs of the west if only they'd be allowed.

Go go Israel. Blow them to shit, right?

 

[Scouse]

I wonder what Israel's stance on the situation is.

Lol

Yep, hadn't seen that Raven.

 

[DaGaffer]

Think you'll find it is more to do with the risk of the lease not being renewed, the base has always been some what of a contentious issue.

Russia has plenty of wiggle room, the USA and co aren't likely to do much other than make it uncomfortable economically unless Russia does something really silly.

Yanukovych did a deal to extend the lease in exchange for gas supplies; the Russians think its a done deal but its possible the Ukrainians will renege on anything Yanukovych signed. Once again, I can see where the Russians are coming from. I'm not saying the Russians are justified in an invasion, but they're a lot more justified than countless western "interventions" over the last few decades.

Defend the bases you're in then? You know, the bases your troops already very securely occupy?

Or spread out into the country a bit more, handing out Russian passports (which you've been doing for ten years anyway) and generally looking like an opportunist taking advantage of political turmoil to carve out a bit of land for yourself...

Defending yourself from within your bases is militarily unsound. You're a static target. I'm sure the Russians are being opportunistic; I'm also sure there's absolutely fuck all we can do about it.

 

[DaGaffer]

So, Israel would be completely justified in bombing the shit out of the West Bank then.

I mean, lets face it, the Palestinians actively hate Israel and would contribute to its downfall a lot more than the vast majority of Afghans - who'd remain resolutely disinterested in the affairs of the west if only they'd be allowed.

Go go Israel. Blow them to shit, right?

Better example would be the Israeli response to the rocket attacks from the Lebanon. Yes, they were justified. As for the West Bank, it would depend on the situation.

 

[Gwadien]

the USSR allowed the eastern block states become independent with the intention of them becoming buffer states and therefore loyal to the Russian Federation, I think they'll be a bit annoyed if those states become loyal to the west, and rightly so, look how close Moscow is to their borders, America doesn't have to make their safety heard because they have a huge fuck off ocean protecting them, but instead, they're attacked by terrorists, so they attacked them back where their training camps are, Russia is doing the same, under the guise of protecting Russians.

Difference is, we listen to the UN and their false sense of power, Russia doesn't give a shit, they're not scared, but we're scared of them, they're basically being the Japan with the League of Nations.

Also RE: @old.Tohtori's post about the Winter War,Russia was a little bit preoccupied to deal with little Finland

 

[DaGaffer]

the USSR allowed the eastern block states become independent with the intention of them becoming buffer states and therefore loyal to the Russian Federation, I think they'll be a bit annoyed if those states become loyal to the west, and rightly so, look how close Moscow is to their borders, America doesn't have to make their safety heard because they have a huge fuck off ocean protecting them, but instead, they're attacked by terrorists, so they attacked them back where their training camps are, Russia is doing the same, under the guise of protecting Russians.

The Baltic states are already in the EU and are just as close to Moscow as Ukraine. I really don't think physical geography is an issue anymore (the EU is no position to send tank divisions into Russia, even if every state on Russia's western border was an EU member). Besides, most of Russia's security problems come from within its own borders (e.g. Chechens and other minorities). This is as much about perceived prestige as practicality. Its not like the biggest and most resource-rich country in the world actually needs the territory.

 

[Chilly]

Arnt the Russians just making absolutely sure their military assets (which are not insignificant) in Crimea are safe? If I had a Naval base in a country that was undergoing an effective civil war I'd beef security up bigtime. Especially since they've probably got some properly hardcore weaponry down there.

 

[fettoken]

Arnt the Russians just making absolutely sure their military assets (which are not insignificant) in Crimea are safe? If I had a Naval base in a country that was undergoing an effective civil war I'd beef security up bigtime. Especially since they've probably got some properly hardcore weaponry down there.

Yeah, you don't want any rebel scum wandering down there getting his hands on a chopper or some such.

 

[Chilly]

Yeah, you don't want any rebel scum wandering down there getting his hands on a chopper or some such.

Or nukes or chemical weapons, more to the point. Russia (along with the US) continue to manufacture and sell shit like nerve gas and cluster bombs to all sorts.

 

[caLLous]

Yeah, you don't want any rebel scum wandering down there getting his hands on a chopper or some such.

All protesters against an installed government are rebel scum? Nice.

 

[Raven]

There are plenty of far right nutjobs in the Ukraine that you wouldn't want getting their hands on stuff.

 

[Gwadien]

All protesters against an installed government are rebel scum? Nice.

Aye in all fairness, there are some people you wouldn't want taking over the Ukraine on the run around right now, Russia could have asked the Ukraine if the new Government could have dealt with it but it could have been too late.

 

[fettoken]

All protesters against an installed government are rebel scum? Nice.

Just a reference from Tropico, not my personal opinion on every Rebel.

 

[Job]

Did you know Sarah Palin predicted all this years ago.