Germany to join French mission against ISIS

[Dartzap]

The thing is, I vividly remember 2003, as the year a million people marched into London and shouted 'No war in Iraq!' Those protests meant nothing in the end, which led us to this omnishambles. Why rush rush into a 3rd Clusterfuck with no plan?

We may not be be bombing much, but you can be damn well sure that the SAS/SBS have been in the general vicinity calling in the drone strikes. One can also assume that there has been some success with that approach, as Special Forces recently got given a 10 billion quid war chest, and permission to expand numbers again.

[Simon_Jester]

The problem is that when someone has just revealed themselves as a threatening enemy, you have to make some kind of moves against them even if you lack the means to defeat them immediately.

With the second Iraq War, there wasn't really any threat, so it was perfectly reasonable to say "why bother fighting Hussein without a plan for victory?" Because leaving Hussein alone wouldn't put the citizens of any coalition nation in danger, because the whole war was based on a farce and a delusion.

But with this war, the answer may well be "because if this particular enemy is not fought, it will actually do something harmful." Sitting there taking hits because they don't have a good enough plan to win the war is not something governments can get into the habit of doing.

I don't know. Just as a hypothetical scenario, suppose the Serbs started being really shitty to everyone around them. Would that draw Western military intervention?

It did before back in the '90s.

[TimothyC]

Apparent we have 'specialist capabilities our allies need'. No idea what they might be.

Sentinel R.1 mostly.

[Channel72]

I don't know. Just as a hypothetical scenario, suppose the Serbs started being really shitty to everyone around them. Would that draw Western military intervention?

It did before back in the '90s.

Yeah, I mean... could you (Kingmaker) have possibly picked an easier example here to refute? I guess maybe you are too young to remember Milosevic and his genocide against Bosnian Muslims? The US/NATO intervened with military operations including thousands of ground troops.

Of course, it was all an excuse to distract us from Monica Lewinsky. (Stupid 90s joke)

Anyway, if anything, this shows that if any racism is involved here, it's the fact that we're not intervening enough to prevent ISIS from continuing their genocide of "brown people" (or really, like... um, everyone who's not them.) Before the Paris attacks became the focus of everyone's attention, the initial US airstrikes against ISIS happened in response to the Yazidi massacre, if you recall, and in terms of saving the Yazidis, the intervention helped to the extent that they now have their territory back, after the Kurds kicked ISIS out of Sinjar with the help of airstrikes. In my opinion, the biggest crime here is that the US even let this happen. Even taking the Iraq war and the 2011 US withdrawl as a given, Obama really just fucked up big time in terms of blatantly ignoring major warnings about ISIS' impending invasion, and then not responding immediately as soon as they crossed the border/overran Mosul.

[Welf]

I think Kingmaker was sarcastic.

@Kingsmaker
And that is why you always include the post you are reacting to as a quote.

[Kingmaker]

I don't know. Just as a hypothetical scenario, suppose the Serbs started being really shitty to everyone around them. Would that draw Western military intervention?

It did before back in the '90s.

Yes, that was the joke. We bombed the shit out of the Serbs despite them being God-fearing white Christians fighting the good fighting against nefarious Muslim Bozniaks and Kosovars. If we're bombing 'brown people' more often, it's probably because European conflicts have been far less frequent and far less severe than conflicts in Africa or the Middle East rather than racist foreign policy (plus European nations are generally better situated to oppose intervention - no one was going to get overtly involved in NI without the thumbs up from Britain). If anything, I find Channel72's argument that racism led to apathy more compelling than Vendatta/Gandalf's theory. Though I don't find either particularly compelling, since I don't think you actually need to invoke anything other than inattention or feeling burned from previous experiences to explain apathy towards horrible events in distance countries.

[Metahive]

Except the Balkan people in general and Serbs in particular have a long history of being whipping boys for the rest of Europe. Westfalen never arrived for that region so it's invalid as a counter example.

[Metahive]

Eck, missed the editing window.

Anyway, can anyone tell me why the Middle East is just like the Balkans not considered Westfalen-worthy? See, the planner of the Paris attacks was a Belgian, yet Hollande is clearly not considering airstrikes on immigrant ghettoes in Brussels, now is he? Also, many of the attackers were from France, so why isn't Obama ordering signature strikes on French soil to get all those dangerous, violent youths cleared away? Instead it's attack the Middle East, which will do nothing whatsoever to actually solve the issues behind the attacks, but also once again show that the West only considers itself worthy of that thing called national sovereignty.

[Dartzap]

Because Might makes Right, and our Right is Might......?

Not overly complicated, I'm sure.

[Channel72]

^ Because the police in Brussels and Paris are going after the attackers locally. There's no need for military. But since we know the attackers receive resources and support from a city in Syria, and we can't send French police forces over there, we use military action.

I mean, if Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi was hiding out in some stronghold in Marseille, instead of Raqqah, the French police would have already stormed in there and killed/arrested him.

Honestly guys, yeah racism is a major problem, but it's not necessarily a primary motivating factor in every single interaction with the Middle East, you know... I mean, really, the accusation is usually the other way around anyway. The West is accused of racially-motivated indifference when we don't interfere in ongoing genocides in the MENA region. Now we're actually doing that, and people detect still detect racist motivations, but this time it's because we are interfering.

Yes, that was the joke

Christ... well, time to recalibrate my sarcasm detector.

[Channel72]

Anyway, can anyone tell me why the Middle East is just like the Balkans not considered Westfalen-worthy? See, the planner of the Paris attacks was a Belgian, yet Hollande is clearly not considering airstrikes on immigrant ghettoes in Brussels, now is he? Also, many of the attackers were from France, so why isn't Obama ordering signature strikes on French soil to get all those dangerous, violent youths cleared away? Instead it's attack the Middle East, which will do nothing whatsoever to actually solve the issues behind the attacks, but also once again show that the West only considers itself worthy of that thing called national sovereignty.

Come on man... you can't really think this argument holds any water. In the case of the Balkans, a foreign government was committing the genocide. And in the case of ISIS, they are a hybrid militia/foreign government that holds territory well outside of Paris. But the "immigrant ghettoes" in Brussels are well within the reach and jurisdiction of local police forces who cooperate 100% with France, so of course nobody is ordering airstrikes. Airstrikes are used specifically for situations where we want to reach remote enemies, but don't want to spend the money and political-capitol to deploy soldiers. I mean seriously, if Osama Bin Laden was hanging out in an apartment in the Bronx after 9/11, you can be sure the NYPD would have got to him well before Seal Team 6.

As for respecting Westphalian sovereignty, please... when a nation starts committing genocide they forfeit that right or expectation. Regardless, the US is inconsistent in its application of respecting foreign sovereignty not along racial lines per se, but along lines of alliances, i.e. we won't invade, bomb or interfere with allies like Saudi Arabia or the UAE, no matter what sort of insane human rights violations they pull.

[Simon_Jester]

Except the Balkan people in general and Serbs in particular have a long history of being whipping boys for the rest of Europe. Westfalen never arrived for that region so it's invalid as a counter example.

If the argument involves racism, then your argument does nothing to invalidate the argument. Serbs are generally regarded as 'white' by other whites. If racism were leading the US or France or Germany to bomb 'brown' people but not 'white' people, then the Serbs would not have been touched.

The argument you're making is totally unrelated, apparently, having to do with Westphalian concepts of the sovereign nation-state. The trouble is, Da'esh is not a nation-state. It is a group of rebels who are currently fighting open warfare against the national government of Iraq (a US client, but still an internationally recognized government with sovereignty in its own territory, with the right to seek help fighting its enemies). And who are also fighting open warfare against... whatever government now exists in Syria. If you acknowledge Assad as the legitimate government of Syria, well, Assad is fighting Da'esh and it is hardly a violation of his sovereignty to attack his enemies.

So precisely what is the problem here? What is happening, that you oppose, that somehow respecting Westphalian norms would have prevented?
__________

Actually, Metahive... who DO you acknowledge as the legitimate government of Syria? I'd like to know.

As I see it, either you have to think Assad is legitimate, that Da'esh is legitimate, that some pitiful little remnant is legitimate despite being comically tiny compared to the size of the Syrian nation, or that there is NO legitimate government and that Syria is in a state of anarchy. All those conclusions have logical implications that would be worth following up on.

Eck, missed the editing window.

Anyway, can anyone tell me why the Middle East is just like the Balkans not considered Westfalen-worthy? See, the planner of the Paris attacks was a Belgian, yet Hollande is clearly not considering airstrikes on immigrant ghettoes in Brussels, now is he?

Because he does not have to, and you know it perfectly well, you dishonest little shit.

There is literally no reason why any nation would ever mobilize its military to deal with a problem it can solve with an extradition request. Belgium can arrest anyone in Belgium, and will cooperate fully with the French in rolling up any terrorist networks on Belgian soil.

The Syrian government (which one?) can't arrest members of Da'esh, and the dominant armed forces of large parts of the country will refuse to cooperate in fighting terrorist networks because they are the terrorists.

When a foreign nation becomes a safe haven for criminals attacking your territory and citizens, and when extradition will not work either because the foreign government colludes with the criminals or because they lack the power to enforce their own laws...

Such a situation is totally different from what you get in a stable, orderly, law-abiding country where the government has the power and willingness to pursue terrorists.

Also, many of the attackers were from France, so why isn't Obama ordering signature strikes on French soil to get all those dangerous, violent youths cleared away?

Because again, it doesn't need to, you dishonest little shit. If any 'signature' were identified in France that Obama deemed a threat, all he would have to do is present the evidence to the French. If the French are satisfied that this individual is a terrorist, they will use their own law enforcement to arrest and secure the suspect.

But Obama (or Hollande, or anyone else) cannot do this for a terrorist hiding in Yemen or Syria.

Instead it's attack the Middle East, which will do nothing whatsoever to actually solve the issues behind the attacks, but also once again show that the West only considers itself worthy of that thing called national sovereignty.

National sovereignty is both a set of rights and a set of responsibilities. A sovereign government has the right to be the sole enforcer of law and order within its own borders... precisely because a sovereign government is capable of enforcing law and order within its borders. An entity that cannot enforce the law has no right to demand that outsiders refrain from trying to enforce it themselves.

Western nations routinely honor the sovereignty of non-Western nations that fulfill the obligations associated with sovereignty. But since Syria is in a state of civil war and has no government capable of enforcing law and order and of arresting international criminals on its soil... what are other countries to do except attack those criminals themselves?

[Thanas]

Am I really seeing arguments here that claim that one should not act against ISIS and that obviously any attempt to do so is partially fuelled by racism?

Really?

What nonsense.

[Metahive]

Am I really seeing arguments here that claim that one should not act against ISIS and that obviously any attempt to do so is partially fuelled by racism?

Really?

What nonsense.

Not from me. My argument that I find it rather questionable that every Tom, Dick and Harry with an army feels he's justified to march into another country in the Middle East and wreck shit for whatever reason and with 0.0% chance of actually improving things. I mean, just looking at the long history of failed interventions in the region here.

The Middle East is the Balkan of the 21st century. And just like with the Balkan, no good will come out of fooling around there.

----

If the argument involves racism, then your argument does nothing to invalidate the argument. Serbs are generally regarded as 'white' by other whites. If racism were leading the US or France or Germany to bomb 'brown' people but not 'white' people, then the Serbs would not have been touched.

O me o my. I like that simple world of yours. Mind if I borrow it for a weekend? Unfortunately here in reality racism doesn't work as black and white like that. But since I made no argument pertaining to racism anyway, I don't feel obliged to indulge you in this.

The argument you're making is totally unrelated, apparently, having to do with Westphalian concepts of the sovereign nation-state.

Bravo, Mr. Simon! Five points to Griffinjester! Why then did you bring up a completely superfluous racism tangent anyway?

Actually, Metahive... who DO you acknowledge as the legitimate government of Syria? I'd like to know.

Assad.

What, think he doesn't qualify because he's a bad man who comitted atrocities against his own people? Pfft, so were Stalin and Mao, yet no one felt free to violate their respective country's sovereignty on a constant basis.

Also, it's funny that you use the "legitimacy" tack on this because that's possibly the worst suitable road to take for your argument.

There is literally no reason why any nation would ever mobilize its military to deal with a problem it can solve with an extradition request. Belgium can arrest anyone in Belgium, and will cooperate fully with the French in rolling up any terrorist networks on Belgian soil.

OK, so then why bomb the Middle East if France can already get the guys responsible without doing so, you dishonest little shit?

The Syrian government (which one?) can't arrest members of Da'esh, and the dominant armed forces of large parts of the country will refuse to cooperate in fighting terrorist networks because they are the terrorists.

Who cares about Da'esh? The guys responsible were of European stock. Europeans also coincidentally make up quite a sizable number of Da'esh recruits. So what does bombing Syria accomplish? Shit all, that's what.

When a foreign nation becomes a safe haven for criminals attacking your territory and citizens, and when extradition will not work either because the foreign government colludes with the criminals or because they lack the power to enforce their own laws...

A yes, so the Royal Navy should have bombarded New York back when the US harbored all those IRA supporters which they didn't give up, huh? Also, seeing as how the US is also enganging in regular war crimes and totally unwilling to hand anyone of those over to justice, bombing the US is therefore a legitimate act, huh? Just applying Jester logic here.

Such a situation is totally different from what you get in a stable, orderly, law-abiding country where the government has the power and willingness to pursue terrorists.

Well, I don't see how "bomb shit in Syria with the usual Western diligence (IE none) will somehow root out all those vile Da'esh criminals instead of simply making it easier for them to perpetuate their eternal war paradigm and find more willing recruits (especially from the West).

Because again, it doesn't need to, you dishonest little shit. If any 'signature' were identified in France that Obama deemed a threat, all he would have to do is present the evidence to the French. If the French are satisfied that this individual is a terrorist, they will use their own law enforcement to arrest and secure the suspect.

But Obama (or Hollande, or anyone else) cannot do this for a terrorist hiding in Yemen or Syria.

Eh, you remember that signature strikes are actually not aimed at any specific person but at people who "look like trouble", right? I mean, there are probably quite a number of disaffected, angry youths who might cause trouble running through the streets of Paris right now and I don't think Hollande feels obliged to hand any of them over to Obama for processing in Gitmo, so better kill them off before they can do something, right?

In short, you so far have utterly failed to explain the very obvious double standard here WRT national sovereignty. You also failed to demonstrate how bombing the Middle East will somehow improve this. Your harping about the "legitimacy" of the Syrian government also makes me wonder what kind of future you actually envision for the country. I mean, unless you want it to become a failed state in a constant state of civil warfare like Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia...y'know, all country's who were at one point or another subject to generous Western "developmental" aid.

An entity that cannot enforce the law has no right to demand that outsiders refrain from trying to enforce it themselves.

O my. Really? Y'know, that's actually anti-Westfalen because that's the very excuse the French, Danes, Swedes and Spanish used to march into the HRE and meddle the shit out of it.

[Metahive]

---and for the final nail in the coffin of Simon's misapprehension of Westfalen, the HRE post the peace conferences had a weaker central authority, engaged in more particularism and was harder to govern to the point that the Emperor de facto gave up on claiming sovereign control over the whole construct and concentrated on the Habsburgian holdings almost exclusively. But the overt meddling ceased for the most part until the time of the French Revolution which ended up in the dissolution of it.
So no, national sovereignty doesn't come with any sort of responsibility, that's the whole point of it.

[Vendetta]

Am I really seeing arguments here that claim that one should not act against ISIS and that obviously any attempt to do so is partially fuelled by racism?

Really?

What nonsense.

You're certainly seeing arguments that the specific actions planned against ISIS are incorrect and will be ineffective, and that they are being used because they make a certain demographic of western populations feel like something is being done, no matter what their cost in foreign civilian lives will be.

ISIS will not be materially affected by whatever campaign of bombing France, Germany, and the UK together can concoct unless their regional and international lines of supply are closed. That means engagement with Turkey and Saudi Arabia to close off supply lines and sources of funding and to create some kind of solution between Turkey and the PKK (Turkey is defacto protecting some of ISIS' supply lines because they don't want Kurdish held territory on or close to their border), a real regional ground force able to hold ground and provide stability for the people there (which despite Shiny Dave's claims of a "Free Syrian Army" is actually a disparate set of militant groups with different backers and not necessarily wholly overlapping goals except "make Assad go away", and a real plan for regional stability and governance when ISIS are finally defeated (remember that they only exist because of intervention and supply of rebels in Syria and northern Iraq in the absence of such a plan beyond "maybe make Assad go away".

"Bomb some thing in Raqqa, hope they belonged to ISIS" as the whole of our strategy is only ever going to produce a successor to ISIS even if it does defeat this particular incarnation, the same way ISIS was produced as a successor to Al Qaeda in Iraq.

[Thanas]

Total Numbers for the German contingent has been released: A total of 1200 soldiers will be sent. But no ground troops or forces that can actually do something besides recon and coordination + air defence.

[Channel72]

ISIS will not be materially affected by whatever campaign of bombing France, Germany, and the UK together can concoct unless their regional and international lines of supply are closed.

They'll certainly be materially affected to an extent. I mean, they lost an entire city (Sinjar) due, in part, to airstrikes. But your overall sentiment is correct, which is why airstrikes alone aren't enough. However, the point I keep reiterating, is that they're not useless. In other words, they do actually help, even if they don't provide 100% of the solution. They help by essentially "quarantining" ISIS in a few cities, and also by targeting their supply lines/sources of revenue, which you mentioned as a necessary element of any strategy to eliminate them. Many of these airstrikes are not just "hit something in Raqqah and hope for the best". Recent airstrikes just blew up like 200+ oil trucks believed to be involved with ISIS' oil trade. These things help, even if they don't get us to a 100% ISIS-free world.

As for the long-term, I mean, of course you're right that there are many underlying political forces that feed into groups like ISIS - Saudi Arabia being really the primary culprit here. But saying that attacking ISIS now is useless unless we address longterm issues first is also missing the point. That's kind of like saying we shouldn't bother with chemotherapy until we can figure out a complete 100% cure for cancer.

The point is, short-term measures are needed to (A) prevent ISIS from committing further genocide (which, if you guys recall, is the reason we started these airstrikes in the first place... the Yazidis were targeted for genocide by ISIS!) and (B) resolve the current political situation in Syria, which requires that ISIS be removed from the equation, either by being destroyed by a Western invasion (my preference), or being "degraded" (an Obama administration weasel word) until they collapse internally or splinter due to lack of funds/support.

[jwl]

Am I really seeing arguments here that claim that one should not act against ISIS and that obviously any attempt to do so is partially fuelled by racism?

Really?

What nonsense.

You're certainly seeing arguments that the specific actions planned against ISIS are incorrect and will be ineffective, and that they are being used because they make a certain demographic of western populations feel like something is being done, no matter what their cost in foreign civilian lives will be.

ISIS will not be materially affected by whatever campaign of bombing France, Germany, and the UK together can concoct unless their regional and international lines of supply are closed. That means engagement with Turkey and Saudi Arabia to close off supply lines and sources of funding and to create some kind of solution between Turkey and the PKK (Turkey is defacto protecting some of ISIS' supply lines because they don't want Kurdish held territory on or close to their border), a real regional ground force able to hold ground and provide stability for the people there (which despite Shiny Dave's claims of a "Free Syrian Army" is actually a disparate set of militant groups with different backers and not necessarily wholly overlapping goals except "make Assad go away", and a real plan for regional stability and governance when ISIS are finally defeated (remember that they only exist because of intervention and supply of rebels in Syria and northern Iraq in the absence of such a plan beyond "maybe make Assad go away".

"Bomb some thing in Raqqa, hope they belonged to ISIS" as the whole of our strategy is only ever going to produce a successor to ISIS even if it does defeat this particular incarnation, the same way ISIS was produced as a successor to Al Qaeda in Iraq.

ISIS isn't just a successor to Al-Qaeda in Iraq, ISIS is Al Qaeda in Iraq under a new name.

[Simon_Jester]

I am genuinely shocked anyone can seriously say that. That's just not how it works on so many levels. People who are born in your country and are citizens are your people. Your country has an obligation to them by virtue of that citizenship. You don't just throw out your own people like that. These migrants meanwhile are not your citizens and thus your country has no such obligation.

My argument is one of consistency. Once we start banning immigrants because of loathsome political views, how do we justify NOT deporting citizens because of equally loathsome views?

Or worse yet, more loathsome views.

If there is a cutoff point, beyond which we say "your opinions are so rotten you can never enter our country," then there has to be some other cutoff point beyond which you would say "your opinions are so rotten you must leave and never return."

But there is, for civilized nations these days, NOT a second cutoff like that. You can theoretically get deported for a short list of actions, but you can't lose your citizenship for having the wrong opinion even if it's a horrible opinion.

If it is a top priority to make sure that no refugees who have anti-semitic opinions enter Canada...

Doesn't it follow that Canada (and other nations) should be deporting any of their own citizens who have anti-semitic opinions? Because if we're going to express such tremendous security concerns over the refugees, doesn't that mean we also need to vet our own citizens?

No, because it should be pretty obvious that allowing nations to send their citizens into exile is a bad thing in and of itself, while refusing entry to foreigners merely fails to mitigate bad things caused by other countries to people who are not your nation's responsibility the same way its own residents are.

I would argue that such a policy is hypocritical.

Sure, the refugees might be a bigger security threat on a percentage basis, but they're being admitted in tiny tiny numbers. Which is a bigger threat: one percent of 25000 refugees, or 0.01% of thirty-five million citizens?

The former. The alternative is obviously absurd - if John Q. Asshole murders 100 people, while everyone who isn't John Q. Asshole murders 200 people, then John Q. Asshole's per capita murder rate obviously makes him the bigger threat whom it is more important to control, even though his actions are smaller in pure numbers.

Thing is, John Q. Asshole is one man, easily restrained once we locate and arrest him.

If we enacted a massive federal manhunt for John, though, while not even trying to punish or prevent other murders, that would suggest hypocrisy. One could look at us and say "murder is okay, unless you're John, in which case it isn't."

In real life that doesn't normally apply in countries that abide by the rule of law- but it would in this hypothetical case. Because in real life we DO punish other murderers, even if we don't work as hard to catch them as we would to catch John who killed 100 people.

But when it comes to anti-Semitic Syrians, IF we're doing this kind of ideological background check, THEN the argument becomes true. We are literally saying "any amount of anti-Semitic views are okay, as long as you aren't a Muslim Syrian, in which case we want you to stay out of our country."

Am I really seeing arguments here that claim that one should not act against ISIS and that obviously any attempt to do so is partially fuelled by racism?

Really?

What nonsense.

Not from me. My argument that I find it rather questionable that every Tom, Dick and Harry with an army feels he's justified to march into another country in the Middle East and wreck shit for whatever reason and with 0.0% chance of actually improving things. I mean, just looking at the long history of failed interventions in the region here.

The Middle East is the Balkan of the 21st century. And just like with the Balkan, no good will come out of fooling around there.

Thing is, like the Balkans, actions taken by Middle Eastern countries can have consequences for the rest of the world. It is therefore understandable that major nations may want to try and 'police' conflicts in the Balkans or the Middle East. Because even if this does not end the conflict, it allows you to suppress specific parties in the conflict who have decided to attack you as a tactical maneuver associated with their own conflict.

Since we're explicitly referencing the Balkans, let me refer back to the history of the Balkans as an analogy...

It's all very well to tolerate the Serbs believing all ethnic Serbs should be part of Greater Serbia. It is not appropriate to demand that someone continue to tolerate the Serbs' behavior when, in an attempt to make sure Greater Serbia is created, the Serbian intelligence agency funds a terrorist group to assassinate a political figure within your nation who is advocating for greater rights and privileges for the Serbian minority in your nation.

And once that has happened, once such an attack is launched, having other people go up to defend Serbia's "sovereign" right to assault other nations through deniable terrorist assets is not helping. Indeed, it is very likely to bring about large-scale chaos.

This is how World War One started- with the Russians declaring their intent to 'defend' Serbia from an Austro-Hungarian attack that the Serbians themselves provoked by the actions of a terrorist group funded and backed by their own government. Once that happened, the chain of events leading to continent-wide warfare became vastly more difficult to stop, because now it was triggering the large-scale alliances between the great powers.

If the argument involves racism, then your argument does nothing to invalidate the argument. Serbs are generally regarded as 'white' by other whites. If racism were leading the US or France or Germany to bomb 'brown' people but not 'white' people, then the Serbs would not have been touched.

O me o my. I like that simple world of yours. Mind if I borrow it for a weekend? Unfortunately here in reality racism doesn't work as black and white like that. But since I made no argument pertaining to racism anyway, I don't feel obliged to indulge you in this.

The argument you're making is totally unrelated, apparently, having to do with Westphalian concepts of the sovereign nation-state.

Bravo, Mr. Simon! Five points to Griffinjester! Why then did you bring up a completely superfluous racism tangent anyway?

Because other people were talking about the racism issue before you spoke, and you presented your argument in such a way that in context, it appeared to be an attempt to refute their argument.

And see, you didn't bother to explain why in your mind "the Balkans are a Westphalia-free zone" is a counterargument to "intervening in Serbia proves that Western nations are willing to intervene to stop atrocities by 'white' people as well as 'brown' ones." You still haven't. You just asserted that it makes the latter claim invalid.

Actually, Metahive... who DO you acknowledge as the legitimate government of Syria? I'd like to know.

Assad.

Okay, fine- in which case the logical course of action would be to assist Assad in the suppression of Da'esh, which is hardly a violation of Syrian sovereignty.

Just as it isn't a violation of Iraqi sovereignty to attack Da'esh targets in Iraq, when the Iraqi Army is itself engaged in battle with them and has explicitly brought in foreign support.

What, think he doesn't qualify because he's a bad man who comitted atrocities against his own people? Pfft, so were Stalin and Mao, yet no one felt free to violate their respective country's sovereignty on a constant basis.

Also, it's funny that you use the "legitimacy" tack on this because that's possibly the worst suitable road to take for your argument.

Ha! You don't even know what my argument is!

The point is that you can't have it both ways- an action cannot simultaneously be and not be a violation of sovereignty. Actions taken in support of a legitimate government are not violations of sovereignty.

There is literally no reason why any nation would ever mobilize its military to deal with a problem it can solve with an extradition request. Belgium can arrest anyone in Belgium, and will cooperate fully with the French in rolling up any terrorist networks on Belgian soil.

OK, so then why bomb the Middle East if France can already get the guys responsible without doing so, you dishonest little shit?

The logical motive for such an action would be... because France cannot get at the network which is behind the guys responsible?

I mean, the US had no trouble arresting the one surviving man of the twenty 9/11 hijackers. That doesn't mean that the problem was in any sense 'solved,' because those twenty men were part of a larger organization which was based on foreign soil. Just arresting the men who specifically participated in an attack, plus one or two masterminds, doesn't mean you've solved the problem if the organization behind them is untouched.

The Syrian government (which one?) can't arrest members of Da'esh, and the dominant armed forces of large parts of the country will refuse to cooperate in fighting terrorist networks because they are the terrorists.

Who cares about Da'esh? The guys responsible were of European stock. Europeans also coincidentally make up quite a sizable number of Da'esh recruits. So what does bombing Syria accomplish? Shit all, that's what.

If Da'esh is organizing attacks on French soil, then bringing about the defeat of Da'esh will neutralize a proven threat to France.

If Da'esh is NOT the source of attacks on French soil, then defeating Da'esh will not have this effect. It depends on the extent to which Da'esh is the source of the recent Paris attacks.

However, the theoretical grounds for France to attack Da'esh are simple: if Da'esh attacked them, and if no existing government can actually exercise its 'sovereign' right to arrest Da'esh leaders and extradite them to France, then France's only option is ultima ratio regum.

When a foreign nation becomes a safe haven for criminals attacking your territory and citizens, and when extradition will not work either because the foreign government colludes with the criminals or because they lack the power to enforce their own laws...

A yes, so the Royal Navy should have bombarded New York back when the US harbored all those IRA supporters which they didn't give up, huh? Also, seeing as how the US is also enganging in regular war crimes and totally unwilling to hand anyone of those over to justice, bombing the US is therefore a legitimate act, huh? Just applying Jester logic here.

Actually, yes, I agree.

In practice it is unwise for anyone to declare war on the US over the US government's willingness to harbor terrorists and the supporters and organizers of terrorist operations. Just as it would be unwise to declare war on Russia, China, or any other nation with a large conventional military and a arnuclear arsenal.

But in theory... I think that several countries would be within their rights to do so.

It is wrong to commit an act of war against a foreign country without provocation.

Willfully harboring terrorists who attack and kill citizens of another country is an act of war against that country.

Did you really think I wouldn't apply this consistently?

Such a situation is totally different from what you get in a stable, orderly, law-abiding country where the government has the power and willingness to pursue terrorists.

Well, I don't see how "bomb shit in Syria with the usual Western diligence (IE none) will somehow root out all those vile Da'esh criminals instead of simply making it easier for them to perpetuate their eternal war paradigm and find more willing recruits (especially from the West).

The point is that France has valid grounds to wage war against Da'esh, and that this is not a violation of the sovereignty of the nations which have declared Da'esh to be an illegal rebel group.

Whether France fights the war competently or incompetently is a totally separate question.

Eh, you remember that signature strikes are actually not aimed at any specific person but at people who "look like trouble", right? I mean, there are probably quite a number of disaffected, angry youths who might cause trouble running through the streets of Paris right now and I don't think Hollande feels obliged to hand any of them over to Obama for processing in Gitmo, so better kill them off before they can do something, right?

To do so against the wishes of the French government would be an act of war against France, on top of being an atrocity. Likewise, launching such an attack in Yemen or Sudan or wherever would be the same thing.

In short, you so far have utterly failed to explain the very obvious double standard here WRT national sovereignty.

The double standard comes about because governments are hypocrites (gee, big surprise there!)

However, there being a double standard does not automatically, retroactively take a legitimate action and make it illegitimate.

SOME attacks by large countries against small countries (or guerilla movements) are legitimate. That does not mean ALL such attacks are legitimate, or that every time such an attack would be legitimate, the attack actually occurs.

An entity that cannot enforce the law has no right to demand that outsiders refrain from trying to enforce it themselves.

O my. Really? Y'know, that's actually anti-Westfalen because that's the very excuse the French, Danes, Swedes and Spanish used to march into the HRE and meddle the shit out of it.

Was the law in question "don't invade France, Denmark, Sweden, and Spain?

Because if that was the justification given for the repeated invasions of Germany in the Thirty Years' War... If those nations were saying "we invaded Germany because Germans crossed our borders and attacked us..."

Hm. That isn't the version of the Thirty Years' War I remember learning about, but maybe I just didn't learn all the details. Am I mistaken?

[Lonestar]

Is this of significance? I mean 6 planes and one ship...

When Germany sent Recon Tornados to Afghanistan, they turned out to be so useless that they were instructed to stay grounded and let the other Coalition forces use the airspace. This was because they used actual film cameras. IIRC the Luftwaffe did a rush modernization on the jets sent there so they would be up to Spec for the French and Anglo countries participating.

I wonder if these are those same airframes sent there.

[salm]

Is this of significance? I mean 6 planes and one ship...

When Germany sent Recon Tornados to Afghanistan, they turned out to be so useless that they were instructed to stay grounded and let the other Coalition forces use the airspace. This was because they used actual film cameras. IIRC the Luftwaffe did a rush modernization on the jets sent there so they would be up to Spec for the French and Anglo countries participating.

I wonder if these are those same airframes sent there.

Lol, really? They ususally hype the awesome reconnaissance capabilities of the Tornados whenever they send them to wherever.
So six planes one ship is going to be a shit show like two girls one cup.

[Thanas]

Apparently they have updated the systems.

[Dartzap]

Tomorrow sees the MP's of Westminster voting on weather to join France in bombing the bits Russia and the Yanks have missed. It's highly likely Labour will vote for it en mass. No doubt Devonport and Portsmouth will be busy tonight. There was a small (200+) antiwar protest in Exeter this evening.

[Crazedwraith]

Tomorrow sees the MP's of Westminster voting on weather to join France in bombing the bits Russia and the Yanks have missed. It's highly likely Labour will vote for it en mass. No doubt Devonport and Portsmouth will be busy tonight. There was a small (200+) antiwar protest in Exeter this evening.

And no doubt as much as the coverage will be on Corbyn's woes as anything else.