Where the heck is everybody?

[Prince of Spires]

There is no mandate for military action. There is possibility of military action, but "such action as it deems necessary" may also mean good advice to give up and save civilian lives.

Correct. And a treaty is only as good as the people honoring it. However, the NATO is a bit different from a treaty that the other parties had probably already forgotten ever existed (as was probably the case with the ukranian one).

You are incorrect however that there is no mandate for military action. It's not a requirement, but the mandate is there. And under the article 51 of the UN mentioned and the wording of article 5, the other member states can provide aid without any interference of the UN, since an attack on one is an attack on all. Which is exactly what happened when the NATO took action in Afganistan, which was a mission not sanctioned by the UN.

So while perhaps military action is not a given in this situation, it would be a huge gamble for Poetin to take against probably the strongest defense alliances currently around (strongest both in strength in arms and in political support).

Another thing you're overlooking (and I overlooked as well) is that the baltic states are part of the EU. And part of the set of EU treatise is the Treaty of Lisbon, which contains the mutual defence clause (http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/ ... nce_en.htm), which states

If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States
shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power

And the wording "by all the means in their power" leaves no room for argument regarding what member-states have committed themselves to realy.

Rod

[Shannar, Sealord]

it would be a huge gamble for Poetin to take against probably the strongest defense alliances currently around (strongest both in strength in arms and in political support).

Yes, which is why he'll likely nibble around the edges some more first. But, if I'm putin I'm very encouraged by what I've seen so far. And the risk isn't that huge really. There will be a period of a ton of "talk" where he can back down if he decides he needs to. And he'll loose none of the previous gains. He'll probably even manage some kind of concession where NATO agrees to no farther expansion or the like.

As for the forgetting about the Ukraine treaty, I really hope that it takes more than 20 years before we just completely forget something like that.

[Loflar]

There is no mandate for military action. There is possibility of military action, but "such action as it deems necessary" may also mean good advice to give up and save civilian lives.

Correct. And a treaty is only as good as the people honoring it. However, the NATO is a bit different from a treaty that the other parties had probably already forgotten ever existed (as was probably the case with the ukranian one).

You are incorrect however that there is no mandate for military action. It's not a requirement, but the mandate is there. And under the article 51 of the UN mentioned and the wording of article 5, the other member states can provide aid without any interference of the UN, since an attack on one is an attack on all. Which is exactly what happened when the NATO took action in Afganistan, which was a mission not sanctioned by the UN.

I see the treaty more like protection against local attack by managable enemy. Like, hypothetically, if Morocco decided to attack British land on Gibraltar, NATO would come at Morocco in full force. Morocco knows it, so it will not attack. But Russian quick action against, say, Latvia, in a situation when USA has armies spread in several wars, and refocusing to Pacific ocean, while most of European armies are reduced to small expedition forces, that is something different.

Regarding Afganistan, I still don't see how can kidnapping of several airplanes by Egyptian and Saudi terrorists and crashing them into US buildings constitute an act of war of Afghanistan government against USA. Which means that attack on Afghanistan was not only against rules of UN, but also against rules of NATO.

Another thing you're overlooking (and I overlooked as well) is that the baltic states are part of the EU. And part of the set of EU treatise is the Treaty of Lisbon, which contains the mutual defence clause (http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/ ... nce_en.htm), which states

If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States
shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power

And the wording "by all the means in their power" leaves no room for argument regarding what member-states have committed themselves to realy.

Hmm, yes, I did not know about it. Interesting. From mutual help point of view, this is much better than NATO. In fact, I would say that from EU members point of view, this makes NATO obsolete.

As for the forgetting about the Ukraine treaty, I really hope that it takes more than 20 years before we just completely forget something like that.

And there is yet another detail. The treaty guarantees that parties involved will respect Ukraine borders. However, before Russian soldiers came to Crimea, Crimean parliament declared independence from Ukraine, and then made a formal request to join Russian Federation. Which would mean, that by entering Crimean (no longer Ukrainean) territory, Russian forces did not breach the treaty. And of course, this leads to all the debate about legitimity of declaring independence, comparisons with Kosovo, and so on. And behind all this is the basic rule of international diplomacy, which Putin clearly knows very well: Might makes right.

[Shannar, Sealord]

I see the treaty more like protection against local attack by managable enemy.

Well, that's kind of an odd position to take. All you have to do is look to the time when the treaty was made and the point becomes pretty clear.

Regarding Afganistan, I still don't see how can kidnapping of several airplanes by Egyptian and Saudi terrorists and crashing them into US buildings constitute an act of war of Afghanistan government against USA. Which means that attack on Afghanistan was not only against rules of UN, but also against rules of NATO.

There are a few additional details there that you don't seem to quite fully understand. In many cases that's willful ignorance, if so I'll leave you to it. It's impossible to change minds that are already made up. If not let me know and I'd be happy to fill you in.

Hmm, yes, I did not know about it. Interesting. From mutual help point of view, this is much better than NATO. In fact, I would say that from EU members point of view, this makes NATO obsolete.

Except a large portion of NATOs capability would be lacking. Remember when the US wasn't going to get involved in Libya? Turns out there were some assets that even the more capable EU airforces hadn't figured on needing. Personally I'd rather leave Europe's wars to the the Europeans. But Europe has had other ideas a few times, and starting in the 20th century we couldn't figure out how to stay out. After World War Two we decided we might as well make it official.

[Loflar]

I see the treaty more like protection against local attack by managable enemy.

Well, that's kind of an odd position to take. All you have to do is look to the time when the treaty was made and the point becomes pretty clear.

Well, at the time, cold war was beginning, and USSR was rebuilding itself after war (cities bombed to pieces or burned down etc.). And other countries as well, for example Warsaw had to be built almost completely anew. In such situation, creation of NATO looks like a political declaration clearly separating "western club" from USSR and its satellites.

Regarding Afganistan, I still don't see how can kidnapping of several airplanes by Egyptian and Saudi terrorists and crashing them into US buildings constitute an act of war of Afghanistan government against USA. Which means that attack on Afghanistan was not only against rules of UN, but also against rules of NATO.

There are a few additional details there that you don't seem to quite fully understand. In many cases that's willful ignorance, if so I'll leave you to it. It's impossible to change minds that are already made up. If not let me know and I'd be happy to fill you in.

Yes, what details?

Hmm, yes, I did not know about it. Interesting. From mutual help point of view, this is much better than NATO. In fact, I would say that from EU members point of view, this makes NATO obsolete.

Except a large portion of NATOs capability would be lacking. Remember when the US wasn't going to get involved in Libya? Turns out there were some assets that even the more capable EU airforces hadn't figured on needing. Personally I'd rather leave Europe's wars to the the Europeans. But Europe has had other ideas a few times, and starting in the 20th century we couldn't figure out how to stay out. After World War Two we decided we might as well make it official.

Since Libya involvement was against the terms of UN resolution, I don't blame USA for staying aside. After WWII, creation of NATO was understandable, but after dissolution of Warsaw Alliance, its main job is handing contracts to weapon manufacturers and bullying non-member countries into submiting to requirements of international business. So IMHO world would be better without NATO. I don't think that Europe without US would be much weaker. US army is strong, but mostly tied up in its many conflicts around the world. With functioning OCSE we might prevent many conflicts and for the rest, there is duty of mutual help stated in Lisbon treaty.

[Shannar, Sealord]

Since Libya involvement was against the terms of UN resolution, I don't blame USA for staying aside.

We didn't though. That's the annoying part.

Yes, what details?

The attack was planned, financed, and carried out by an organization that the Taliban (afgan government) knowingly and willingly allowed to operate in their country. And then they chose to protect that organization rather than do anything about it.

If I were to go join a Basque separatist group and they gave me a bomb and told me to go blow it up in a market in Madrid it would not be just "an American" who was responsible for that attack.

Well, at the time, cold war was beginning, and USSR was rebuilding itself after war (cities bombed to pieces or burned down etc.). And other countries as well, for example Warsaw had to be built almost completely anew. In such situation, creation of NATO looks like a political declaration clearly separating "western club" from USSR and its satellites.

If you look at what was going on at that point the USSR was not simply rebuilding itself and it's "satellites". It was acquiring said satellites. Warsaw is an excellent example of this, do not think for a second that Poland wanted to affiliate itself with the USSR. The Russians were just as bad (maybe worse) than the Germans when it comes to what they did in Poland. But the USSR had troops (and not just a few) everywhere in Poland, and there wasn't much else to say about it.

[RE.Lee]

True words about Poland, Shannar!

I think Russia's determination to not allow countries (Ukraine at the moment, but it was the same thing when it was Poland back in the day) to join NATO is a very strong statement about the importance of the organization. The US army is still the only one that can intervene without support from others (and it can do so all around the world) and the fact that they rely less heavily on trade with Russia than the UE, makes any commitment easier. If things get messy I'd feel much safer with Uncle Sam covering me.

[Loflar]

Yes, what details?

The attack was planned, financed, and carried out by an organization that the Taliban (afgan government) knowingly and willingly allowed to operate in their country. And then they chose to protect that organization rather than do anything about it.

From what I remember, USA asked Taliban to hand over Osama (and, as I now found on Wikipedia, other leaders), and Taliban refused to give them to USA, but offered to hand them for trial in independent islamic country. Considering US rhetorics at the time, which certainly díd not create impression of willingness to grant these people fair trial and due process, and considering fundamentalist nature of Taliban, this seems to me like a reasonable compromise.

I understand the need to shut the Al-Qaeda training bases, but that ought to be done on UN basis.

Well, at the time, cold war was beginning, and USSR was rebuilding itself after war (cities bombed to pieces or burned down etc.). And other countries as well, for example Warsaw had to be built almost completely anew. In such situation, creation of NATO looks like a political declaration clearly separating "western club" from USSR and its satellites.

If you look at what was going on at that point the USSR was not simply rebuilding itself and it's "satellites". It was acquiring said satellites. Warsaw is an excellent example of this, do not think for a second that Poland wanted to affiliate itself with the USSR. The Russians were just as bad (maybe worse) than the Germans when it comes to what they did in Poland. But the USSR had troops (and not just a few) everywhere in Poland, and there wasn't much else to say about it.

I never said that Poland was happy about that. Polish-Russian rivality has deep historical roots. However, Poland was given to USSR at Yalta conference and there was not much to do about it later.

I think Russia's determination to not allow countries (Ukraine at the moment, but it was the same thing when it was Poland back in the day) to join NATO is a very strong statement about the importance of the organization. The US army is still the only one that can intervene without support from others (and it can do so all around the world) and the fact that they rely less heavily on trade with Russia than the UE, makes any commitment easier. If things get messy I'd feel much safer with Uncle Sam covering me.

The reason, why Russia does not want its former satellites to enter NATO is quite clear - it sees NATO as its adversary, and so far was not given a reason to change this view. US army really can intervene and is very good at bombing, but as Afghanistan and Iraq showed, it is not able to control conquered territory, and its ability to defend territory against army on similar level was not tested since Vietnam. Uncle Sam might send you rockets and airplanes, but they will not help in defending your land, and whether they are better or worse then Russian arsenal is not known. What is known is, that Russian land with all its resources (not just military bases) is much closer.

However, I have recently read, that Poland is slowly building quite strong army of its own, so relying on that might be better for you then relying on help from a state on the other side of the globe, with armies located in many exotic and, more importantly, distant, places.

[RE.Lee]

Poland does have a decent army I guess - the special operation units (GROM) particularly notable, but its still nothing compared to the Russians. We need allies in case of an escalation of conflict and the US have so far been pretty reliable. Keeping a contingent on Polish soil would be the best possible deterrent against Putin, IMO.

[Prince of Spires]

I understand the need to shut the Al-Qaeda training bases, but that ought to be done on UN basis.

You do have to see the situation in the light of the moment though. From US perspective they had just been under attack on US soil by a foreign entity (something that hadn't happened since their independence I think). They couldn't accept this or let it go unpunished.

As for a trial by an independent islamic nation, I wouldn't put my faith in that either if I was the US. To much chance of it going wrong so to speak, and the chain of evidence is pretty hard (especially without compromising whatever intelligence agents they had). At least to directly pin it on Osama instead of just the organization.

As for the UN, per article 51 of the UN charter (which was mentioned before in the NATO treaty), attacks on a sovereign nation are a national affair. There wasn't any need to involve them from a legal point of view. The US had the right to defend themselves. And if you are at war, you do not want to wait on a large bureaucratic organization to come up with some half-assed resolution which in the end achieves very little.

US army really can intervene and is very good at bombing, but as Afghanistan and Iraq showed, it is not able to control conquered territory, and its ability to defend territory against army on similar level was not tested since Vietnam. Uncle Sam might send you rockets and airplanes, but they will not help in defending your land, and whether they are better or worse then Russian arsenal is not known. What is known is, that Russian land with all its resources (not just military bases) is much closer.

This has more to do with the kind of enemy and current reality of war then with the US military. You can't defeat an army if there is no army to defeat. If each and every member of a nation is potentially your enemy then there is no way to defeat them (at least no legal way). The Russian army had exactly the same experience when they tried to invade Finland early in WW2. Large pieces of inhospitable country where people can hide everywhere. Guerrilla tactics and everyone a potential enemy. And in that light the US actually did pretty well in both afganistan and Iraq.

Also, at least the US army has been tested in the past 60 or so years. Several wars and large scale skirmishes. Compare that to the russian army, which has mainly relied on bullying its smaller neighbors without doing any actual fighting. Very little on the scale of Afganistan or even Kosovo.

Rod

[Prince of Spires]

Just after my previous post, I read a dutch newspaper article reporting on this subject. The NATO is actually increasing its military presence in eastern europe and even Ukraine is going to house American soldiers. So while this doesn't change the situation of the Krim region, it does indicate the commitment the NATO has on the subject. Of course a bunch of fighter planes patrolling the sky is not going to stop a russian invasion. But russia shooting them down is bound to have far more serious consequences then the current slap on the fingers and visum ban for some russian leaders.

Rod

[Shannar, Sealord]

As for a trial by an independent islamic nation, I wouldn't put my faith in that either if I was the US. To much chance of it going wrong so to speak, and the chain of evidence is pretty hard (especially without compromising whatever intelligence agents they had). At least to directly pin it on Osama instead of just the organization.

Add to this a couple other factors. What jurisdiction would said nation actually have? And secondly, who would take him? Who is going to define "independent"? Should he have been tried in Iran? Iraq? Syria? Don't forget reaction in many of these places was the celebrate the attacks, even if some of the official statements were more diplomatic. Heck, given what I've learned from hard earned experience many of these countries could have faced internal problems and violence just by agreeing to hosting the trial.

[Aicanor]

Well, this matter is extremely complicated to judge. Al Quaeda was the organisation instrumental in Afghanistan war with Russia (so are the Russians... so completely untested?), of course they were reluctant to hand them over. So instead of any trial, good or not, we do not know to this day whether Al Quaeda was solely responsible for the attacks. If USA & co. had any reaon to invade Afghanistan (all right, they had someone who probably had a hand in the attack on their ground), there was no legal reason at all to invade Iraq. They used outright lies to justify it, at least formally and publicly. Both were bound to end in the distaster they did from the get go, so no surprise there (for the reasons Rod mentioned - we didn't make any friends in those lands). But it sure benefits someone or it wouldn't be done.

Russia, on the other hand, plays a game on its own, but it still has more to lose than to gain by alienating the west completely. It is just trying the ground, but its true ambitions still lies to the east, not west. Of course they need to see some response from NATO et EU. Well, at least our gloried airforce got some kerosene so the pilots can finally get some flight hours in those good looking Gripen planes. And all is good... ... ... *which, of course, is a sarcasm*

[Shannar, Sealord]

They used outright lies to justify it, at least formally and publicly.

That's not quite fair. They were "lies" that the entire world believed to be true. It's just some believed action was required to do something about it, and others didn't. Even the Iraqi army was surprised when they never used chemical weapons to slow the attack.

(so are the Russians... so completely untested?)

That's about 30 years ago now. I'm going to hazard a guess that there are about zero NCOs from that time still in uniform. And lets not forget the major cuts to the armed forces following the breakup of the USSR. There were times when guys were going over a year without pay. That's not a way to keep quality people. They've since made it a bit of a priority again, but that experience is largely lost.

I'd also trust the Russians for putting down an insurgency far more than anyone in the west. They've managed quite well against the Chechens recently. Though they use methods that would have gotten me court marshaled and executed without doubt. Please note that I'm not really condemning the Russians here, the next time there is a major conflict I'm guessing the west will rethink some of it's more modern ideals about war simply out of necessity.

we didn't make any friends in those lands

This one is a bit more complex. The Kurds are probably now friends for life. In the rest of Iraq we always had more friends in private than in public, but as soon as it was clear that we were leaving friends of any sort were hard to find. Add to it an inability to protect those who had publicly been helpful and it's not good. When I left things looked really good long term for parts of Iraq (and possibly still do for those parts that aren't making news). But there is to much history and to much desire for revenge and power both on tribal lines and sect of Islam lines. And much like Lebanon and Syria I don't see them figuring it out any time soon.

Afghanistan is similar, now that it's clear we are leaving people who were helpful while I was there no longer are. But, if they can do enough to keep the Taliban from regaining power nation wide then at least some parts (and it's always been far more of a collection of tribes within a boundary than a nation anyway) will be much better off. Just the fact that women now have rights again (that they lost when the taliban came to power) will see to that. Hopefully once all US forces are gone the Taliban won't be able to recruit anymore, but I'm not going to hold my breath. The theory was that's how things would go in Iraq, and it hasn't really worked out.

Pakistan is where I know we made zero friends. I don't fully buy into the theory that we made tons of enemies either however, simply because we didn't exactly have a ton of "fans" in that area area anyway.

In the end I think the biggest mistake the US made was thinking it was a good idea to stay and "rebuild" the countries. It changed us from "liberators" to "occupiers". It was well intended but was never going to work. A majority of Iraqis were ecstatic that Hussain was gone, and even bigger majority wanted us to leave as soon as that was done. In Afghanistan a bigger majority wanted the Taliban out, but even there most now want us to leave. Could either country have rebuilt without the help? I don't know, but since we were never going to make them into colonies at some point they were going to have to. Would it have have ended up with a civil war if we didn't stay? Clearly, because that's essentially what's happened anyway.

[Aicanor]

They used outright lies to justify it, at least formally and publicly.

That's not quite fair. They were "lies" that the entire world believed to be true. It's just some believed action was required to do something about it, and others didn't.

No, what I mean really is that they used lies, identifiable as false at the moment and if anyone believed them it was becasude they chose to. I will even give them the benefit of doubt and say they may have used those statements because they believed they were, in effect, backed by facts they couldn't give to the public as they didn't have evidence, but pious lies are still lies.

That's about 30 years ago now. I'm going to hazard a guess that there are about zero NCOs from that time still in uniform. And lets not forget the major cuts to the armed forces following the breakup of the USSR. There were times when guys were going over a year without pay. That's not a way to keep quality people. They've since made it a bit of a priority again, but that experience is largely lost.

It was a response to Rod or whoever said "in the last sixty years".

I'd also trust the Russians for putting down an insurgency far more than anyone in the west. They've managed quite well against the Chechens recently. Though they use methods that would have gotten me court marshaled and executed without doubt. Please note that I'm not really condemning the Russians here, the next time there is a major conflict I'm guessing the west will rethink some of it's more modern ideals about war simply out of necessity.

Democracy is not the best system when it comes to keeping unwilling people (even if not all of them are unhappy with the new situation, as happened in Iraq and elsewhere) in line. Unfortunately you are most likely perfectly right here. This is something Russians have much more experience with. I still prefer democracy.

... In the rest of Iraq we always had more friends in private than in public, but as soon as it was clear that we were leaving friends of any sort were hard to find. Add to it an inability to protect those who had publicly been helpful and it's not good.
... Afghanistan is similar... Hopefully once all US forces are gone the Taliban won't be able to recruit anymore, but I'm not going to hold my breath. The theory was that's how things would go in Iraq, and it hasn't really worked out.
Shortened - read the full account in Shannar's post above

This is mostly what I meant by the forseeable disaster. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. (I write we because we have/had some troops there and it would be hypocritical to just point fingers at someone else.)

In the end I think the biggest mistake the US made was thinking it was a good idea to stay and "rebuild" the countries. It changed us from "liberators" to "occupiers". It was well intended but was never going to work.

I do not think that was an option. I think that leaving immediately would probably be worse than it is now. At least for the region. It was either go there and stay and take responsibility or leave it alone (or take another course of action).

As you see, we actually agree on most things. You have better understanding of situation there as you were there, I can only see the patterns, but this is exactly what I thought would happen as I watched preparations for this war. It was predictable but only time will tell how it will sort itseld out. Let us hope not too badly.

[Shannar, Sealord]

I do not think that was an option. I think that leaving immediately would probably be worse than it is now. At least for the region. It was either go there and stay and take responsibility or leave it alone (or take another course of action).

In the world court of public opinion it never was. We've forgotten how to fight (to win), and more importantly how to win- it's not by trying to make everyone happy. As to would things have been worse for the region- possibly. But they might well be just as bad if we'd never done it. Have a look at Syria.

Democracy is not the best system when it comes to keeping unwilling people (even if not all of them are unhappy with the new situation, as happened in Iraq and elsewhere) in line.

You are on to more than you think here. For the most part the people in Afghanistan respected strength. They didn't really care who they followed, as long as they were strong. The tribal areas of Iraq were the same. Your more educated or older (as in the ones who were around pre Sadam) Iraqis were very excited about the potential for democracy. I think the rest would have been just as happy to have their choice of dictator in power so that they didn't have to worry about going to prison for being part of the wrong tribe. What the American Numbskulls did at Abu Grab was unforgivable, but I can tell you that most Iraqis did not understand the fuss. Because compared to what Sadams people had done there it was positively humane. And now the other sect has power, and rather than let it go the are getting even for years of abuse. And many are more interested in revenge than in the future.

It's sad, but you can't force people to accept democracy, and thinking we could was our failure.

[Loflar]

Poland does have a decent army I guess - the special operation units (GROM) particularly notable, but its still nothing compared to the Russians. We need allies in case of an escalation of conflict and the US have so far been pretty reliable. Keeping a contingent on Polish soil would be the best possible deterrent against Putin, IMO.

Well, of course Russia has bigger army, but it cannot commit it all against Poland. The preparations would be visible in advance, not mentioning that they would have to get through other countries first (which is an argument for cultivating neutrality of Ukraine and Byelorussia).

BTW, I have read, that according to old Soviet archives made public, one of reasons for Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty and division of Poland was, that USSR was afraid of possibility of Poland allying with Germany against USSR. So don't underestimate Polish military potential

You do have to see the situation in the light of the moment though. From US perspective they had just been under attack on US soil by a foreign entity (something that hadn't happened since their independence I think). They couldn't accept this or let it go unpunished.

I know they were shocked, but compare it to Palestinians, who get bombed quite regularly, and still try to seek diplomatic solution.

As for a trial by an independent islamic nation, I wouldn't put my faith in that either if I was the US. To much chance of it going wrong so to speak, and the chain of evidence is pretty hard (especially without compromising whatever intelligence agents they had). At least to directly pin it on Osama instead of just the organization.

Yes, the case was weak. And insistence to carry it "so it could not go wrong" proves that USA was not after justice, but blood.

Add to this a couple other factors. What jurisdiction would said nation actually have? And secondly, who would take him? Who is going to define "independent"? Should he have been tried in Iran? Iraq? Syria?

Iraq? Why not? At the time Saddam was not friend of USA and he was no friend of religious fanatics either. Iran? Similar. IIRC Syria at the time was secular and religiously tolerant regime. Jurisdiction would be created by mutual agreement of involved governments.

As for the UN, per article 51 of the UN charter (which was mentioned before in the NATO treaty), attacks on a sovereign nation are a national affair. There wasn't any need to involve them from a legal point of view. The US had the right to defend themselves.

We are probably using different definitions of "war". When talking about war, I imagine uniformed soldiers following orders ultimately coming from their government.

Also, at least the US army has been tested in the past 60 or so years. Several wars and large scale skirmishes. Compare that to the russian army, which has mainly relied on bullying its smaller neighbors without doing any actual fighting. Very little on the scale of Afganistan or even Kosovo.

The reason I was criticizing US army was not to argue, that Russians are better, but to say that over the years it has evolved into effective raiding force, which is different kind of involvement then defense of territory against another strong army. About a year ago, I have read an article comparing current US army to army of British empire in the end of 19th century, which was also powerful and highly mobile strike force, spending most of the time by suppressing "insurgencies" in British colonies. Then, in WWI, with French help, they were not able to defeat Germans.

The NATO is actually increasing its military presence in eastern europe and even Ukraine is going to house American soldiers.

If USA sends 10000 soldiers, as Poland(?) asked, it is a deterrent. If it sends 500 soldiers, it is a provocation. If it promises to send 10000 soldiers and takes time to do it, Russia might decide to take initiative. After all, if USA can make preemptive attacks, why not Russia, right?

They were "lies" that the entire world believed to be true. It's just some believed action was required to do something about it, and others didn't. Even the Iraqi army was surprised when they never used chemical weapons to slow the attack.

Not exactly entire world. But mainstream was happily parroting them, while people, who questioned them, were labeled "conspiracy theorists" (sometimes also antiamerican). There were cases of journalists losing jobs because of publishing dissenting articles. But yes, I was also surprised when no chemical weapons were found, because it was widely known, that Iraq got them from USA in 80's for war with Iran. So they probably managed to use them all.

What the American Numbskulls did at Abu Grab was unforgivable, but I can tell you that most Iraqis did not understand the fuss. Because compared to what Sadams people had done there it was positively humane.

Just to be sure that I understand. You are saying, that according to Iraqis, US army brought positive change because it does not torture as many people as Saddam did?

[Shannar, Sealord]

I know they were shocked, but compare it to Palestinians, who get bombed quite regularly, and still try to seek diplomatic solution.

Do they though? Look at the terms they demand, all the while insisting the Israel should not exist. Sitting down at the table and agreeing to nothing unless you get everything is not a diplomatic solution. I also notice you make no mention of rocket attacks and bus bombings the other way either. There is no diplomatic solution to be had there.

Just to be sure that I understand. You are saying, that according to Iraqis, US army brought positive change because it does not torture as many people as Saddam did?

No, I'm saying that what happened there didn't even rise to the level of torture as most Iraqis would define it. But either way less bad is better than more bad. All that event really was is a recruiting opportunity for those that wanted to be sure Iraq remained a war zone. And they used it, who wouldn't?

But yes, I was also surprised when no chemical weapons were found, because it was widely known, that Iraq got them from USA in 80's for war with Iran. So they probably managed to use them all.

Not exactly right, but whatever. You forget that he also used them against the Kurds in his own country in the 90s. That at the end of the first war he still had them (because he used them after for revenge on the kurds as mentioned), and that he went to great lengths to make it seem that he still had them. Even the UN weapons inspectors were pretty sure he did if you read the reports. And he did his best to make it look like he was hiding things. My guess is he thought he needed his neighbors and other factions in Iraq to think he had them in order to hold onto power, and he thought the US was all bluster. He'd been getting away with violating UN sanctions for years at that point, so why not think it could continue?

If USA sends 10000 soldiers, as Poland(?) asked, it is a deterrent. If it sends 500 soldiers, it is a provocation.

And massing troops on the boarder isn't?

About a year ago, I have read an article comparing current US army to army of British empire in the end of 19th century, which was also powerful and highly mobile strike force

We have evolved at bit to fight what will soon be "the last war" (until it isn't). However the russians have done the same. And we do still train for the more traditional battle field. While I'd personally rather leave Europe to Europe as long as we choose to be fully committed I've no doubt to the outcome. However, under current leadership it's likely that we'd do just enough to "look good". Also, for the love of God, don't try to go into Russia itself and try to hang out for awhile- that never works.

BTW, I have read, that according to old Soviet archives made public, one of reasons for Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty and division of Poland was, that USSR was afraid of possibility of Poland allying with Germany against USSR. So don't underestimate Polish military potential

To the extent that is actually true and not simply justification and bluster it's mostly paranoia. But earned paranoia. Russia has had to face European armies on it's own soil a few times. And while they win, it's costly. The more realistic rational is that they realized Germany was going to take Poland, and that it was likely they would have to fight Germany eventually. Why not start that fight halfway into Poland rather than at your own boarder? The strategy was (for a long time before even) use space to buy time, stretch the enemy supply lines and then counter attack. Same story after the war, the warsaw pact wasn't a master plan to spread socialism, it was simply a buffer zone so that is their was another Napolian or Hitler people other than Russian could bare the brunt.

[Teledor]

You do have to see the situation in the light of the moment though. From US perspective they had just been under attack on US soil by a foreign entity (something that hadn't happened since their independence I think). They couldn't accept this or let it go unpunished.

I know they were shocked, but compare it to Palestinians, who get bombed quite regularly, and still try to seek diplomatic solution.

I have to disagree here. While Palestinians have certainly gotten the shit end of the stick, so to speak, they are not solely pursuing a diplomatic solution. Rockets, suicide bombings, and refusing to recognize Israel's right to exist aren't exactly seeking diplomacy. They've committed just as many terrorist acts as Israel have against just as innocent people as Israel have. Unless you're suggesting that Israeli citizens are somehow not innocents - which I guess you could try to argue that they're complicit, but then again, that means Palestinian civilians are complicit as well, and you're now back at square one. Unfortunately the Palestinian-Israeli situation is so complicated and muddled with a history stretching back at least a century, if not further, that it is never going to be as simplistic as Israel bad, Palestinians good, or vice versa. Both sides have committed some heinous acts against each other, and both sides have the memories of elephants - ie they remember every slight and injury.

As for a trial by an independent islamic nation, I wouldn't put my faith in that either if I was the US. To much chance of it going wrong so to speak, and the chain of evidence is pretty hard (especially without compromising whatever intelligence agents they had). At least to directly pin it on Osama instead of just the organization.

Yes, the case was weak. And insistence to carry it "so it could not go wrong" proves that USA was not after justice, but blood.

So, what's justice? Not to get philosophical, but justice is often some form rehabilitation or retribution. Do you really believe that a group like Al Qaeda could be reformed? They were/are willing to kill themselves to effectuate a war against America and western civilization. If not rehabilitation, then it's retribution which sounds an awful lot like "blood". The American (and NATO) effort in Afghanistan, while I would think it is now going to go down as a failure, was not just out to drive up a body count. The goals were to remove the Taliban which harbored terrorist groups who attacked and who continue to plan attacks against the West; and attempt to capture/decapitate the leadership of Al Qaeda. Now have innocents been killed. Yes. Is that unfortunate and do we have the right to criticize the US military? Yes. But to say we were just out there to drive up a body count, purely to kill is way beyond what actually happened and inaccurate.

Add to this a couple other factors. What jurisdiction would said nation actually have? And secondly, who would take him? Who is going to define "independent"? Should he have been tried in Iran? Iraq? Syria?

Iraq? Why not? At the time Saddam was not friend of USA and he was no friend of religious fanatics either. Iran? Similar. IIRC Syria at the time was secular and religiously tolerant regime. Jurisdiction would be created by mutual agreement of involved governments.

Iraq - Saddam likely would've loved a show trial and acquitted Al Qaeda. At that point Saddam thumbing his nose at the USA and the West. Iran - even more so. They still use the "death to America" in major speeches, etc. Syria - Syria was never a secular or religiously tolerant regime. They were allied with Iran and Hezbollah and as a minority sect of an offshoot from Shiite Muslims, they oppressed the Sunni majority and didn't allow them into government power structures or the military. The last thing Syria likely would've wanted was a bunch of Sunni terrorist on trial for attacking the USA.

Also, at least the US army has been tested in the past 60 or so years. Several wars and large scale skirmishes. Compare that to the russian army, which has mainly relied on bullying its smaller neighbors without doing any actual fighting. Very little on the scale of Afganistan or even Kosovo.

The reason I was criticizing US army was not to argue, that Russians are better, but to say that over the years it has evolved into effective raiding force, which is different kind of involvement then defense of territory against another strong army. About a year ago, I have read an article comparing current US army to army of British empire in the end of 19th century, which was also powerful and highly mobile strike force, spending most of the time by suppressing "insurgencies" in British colonies. Then, in WWI, with French help, they were not able to defeat Germans.

I'm not sure how to approach this. I think you're correct in part and incorrect in part. The US has been more attuned to "asymetric" warfare for about the last decade because they've been involved in occupying and police actions (Afghanistan and Iraq) which is far different from defeating a standing enemy army. The first Iraq war and the first phase of the second show that when taking on a standing army, it is still probably the most capable force in the current geopolitical climate. Now would a slug fest against the Russians be as one sided? No way. It would be thoroughly bloody on both sides, but I still would give the US better odds of defeating a Russian army as vice versa. The US still trains it's forces to fight these kinds of battles. That being said, defending a territory and not taking the initiative is much different than the US is used to. So that may make it more complicated and you're right in that.

However, I don't think the WWI analogy is correct, or at least it over simplifies why WWI played out the way it did. You have to remember when WWI broke out, there hadn't been a major war on the continent of Europe since the Franco-Prussian war in 1870-71. Nearly a half century. The technological innovations between 1870 and 1914 in terms of military technology were significant. The machine gun, hydro-pnuematic recoiling artillery (French 75), rifles with magazines, airplanes, photography, telegraph and wireless communication, etc. Also, all the European powers were fighting colonial battles. Few, if any nation, were prepared tactically to confront another European/modern army. All the armies of Europe employed tactics essentially similar to that of Napolean at the beginning of the war. Just looked at the head gear both sides wore at the beginning - German's were leather and French and British were cloth. Nobody expected the trench warfare, nor had tactics to address modern weaponry.

Germany also never managed to defeat the UK & French. It was a stalemate for four years. Germany also was the dominate land power of the age and the British were the dominant sea power. They focused on different elements of military power. However, by the end, with US reinforcements, the Allies did force the Germans to capitulate. Was it a victory on the battlefield? No. It was multifaceted through a blockade, starvation, and internal political collapse as well as military fatigue to continue.

They used outright lies to justify it, at least formally and publicly.

That's not quite fair. They were "lies" that the entire world believed to be true. It's just some believed action was required to do something about it, and others didn't.

No, what I mean really is that they used lies, identifiable as false at the moment and if anyone believed them it was becasude they chose to. I will even give them the benefit of doubt and say they may have used those statements because they believed they were, in effect, backed by facts they couldn't give to the public as they didn't have evidence, but pious lies are still lies.

I'm not sure if lies are accurate. Negligent intelligence gathering or wanting to read into inconclusive evidence what they wanted would probably be more accurate statements. I remember when I was in London in the summer of 2003 reading a Guardian article that the British report/intelligence the US so heavily leaned on was full of inaccuracies. The most glaring was the uranium yellow cake from Nigeria, or wherever, and the supposed contact in the country of origin working with the Iraqis to sell it had been deceased for around a decade IIRC. How'd the journalists discover this - a google search. So while I wouldn't say it was intentional misrepresentation, I believe the hawks discounted evidence to prove a lack of WMDs.

Anyways, fun discussion as always.

[Loflar]

I know they were shocked, but compare it to Palestinians, who get bombed quite regularly, and still try to seek diplomatic solution.

Do they though? Look at the terms they demand, all the while insisting the Israel should not exist. Sitting down at the table and agreeing to nothing unless you get everything is not a diplomatic solution. I also notice you make no mention of rocket attacks and bus bombings the other way either. There is no diplomatic solution to be had there.

AFAIK, they refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, i.e. they want non-Jews, currently living on Israel territory (i.e. inside borders recognized by UN resolution of 1967), to have the same rights as Jews. But yes, Palestinian representation doesn't have full control of its population and terrorism does happen. However to take the analogy further, if a group of private US citizens travelled to Afghanistan to assasinate Taliban leaders to take revenge for 9/11 and succeeded, no one would blame USA for agression. And while it would be act of terrorism, we would probably even sympathise with them.

But yes, I was also surprised when no chemical weapons were found, because it was widely known, that Iraq got them from USA in 80's for war with Iran. So they probably managed to use them all.

Not exactly right, but whatever. You forget that he also used them against the Kurds in his own country in the 90s. That at the end of the first war he still had them (because he used them after for revenge on the kurds as mentioned), and that he went to great lengths to make it seem that he still had them. Even the UN weapons inspectors were pretty sure he did if you read the reports. And he did his best to make it look like he was hiding things. My guess is he thought he needed his neighbors and other factions in Iraq to think he had them in order to hold onto power, and he thought the US was all bluster. He'd been getting away with violating UN sanctions for years at that point, so why not think it could continue?

Yes, I forgot about the Kurds. (BTW, I found it strange that you say that they are friends now. Because I remember, that in first Iraq war, they were promised their own country if they rise against Saddam. So they did and later UN betrayed them by letting Saddam stay in power and in control of Iraqi Kurdistan, which allowed the revenge you mention.) I did not notice that Saddam insisted he still has them, but it is possible. In Syrian context, I have read that chemical weapons are "poor man's nukes" - invasion deterrent.

If USA sends 10000 soldiers, as Poland(?) asked, it is a deterrent. If it sends 500 soldiers, it is a provocation.

And massing troops on the boarder isn't?

Yes. But provocation from both sides are much worse in their potential to lead to hot war.

BTW, I have read, that according to old Soviet archives made public, one of reasons for Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty and division of Poland was, that USSR was afraid of possibility of Poland allying with Germany against USSR. So don't underestimate Polish military potential

To the extent that is actually true and not simply justification and bluster it's mostly paranoia. But earned paranoia. Russia has had to face European armies on it's own soil a few times. And while they win, it's costly. The more realistic rational is that they realized Germany was going to take Poland, and that it was likely they would have to fight Germany eventually. Why not start that fight halfway into Poland rather than at your own boarder? The strategy was (for a long time before even) use space to buy time, stretch the enemy supply lines and then counter attack. Same story after the war, the warsaw pact wasn't a master plan to spread socialism, it was simply a buffer zone so that is their was another Napolian or Hitler people other than Russian could bare the brunt.

Yes, I know that in Warsaw alliance strategy, its western members were considered a battlefield. And yes, it is possible that Russians decided to give Germany half of Poland instead of waiting for it to take all, but I would not refuse my explanation either. While Germany and Italy are famous for their fascist government at the time, the ideology itself was popular around the world (including, as I have read, Poland) and Polish, as mentioned earlier, never liked Russians, so alliance against common enemy would not be out of question.

So, what's justice? Not to get philosophical, but justice is often some form rehabilitation or retribution.

Yes, but after an independent court decides, whether the charged party is actually guilty.

Syria was never a secular or religiously tolerant regime.

Then how is it possible that 10 - 15% of Syrian citizens are Christian? Could that happen in Saudi Arabia? I know that Wikipedia is not fully reliable, but anyway: "[Syria] is home to diverse ethnic and religious groups, including Alawite, Sunni and Christian Arabs, Armenians, Assyrians, Druze, Kurds, and Turks. Sunni Arabs make up the largest population group in Syria." I know about the division of governing Alawite versus majority Sunni, but is the primary division religious or tribal? Anyway, I have responded to offered alternatives, but they were not the only ones. For example, Egypt at the time was US friendly.

You have to remember when WWI broke out, there hadn't been a major war on the continent of Europe since the Franco-Prussian war in 1870-71. Nearly a half century. The technological innovations between 1870 and 1914 in terms of military technology were significant. The machine gun, hydro-pnuematic recoiling artillery (French 75), rifles with magazines, airplanes, photography, telegraph and wireless communication, etc. Also, all the European powers were fighting colonial battles

Yes, but there was Russian-Japan war in 1905 where at least Britain had its military observers, and where trenches, machine guns and modern artillery were used.

Few, if any nation, were prepared tactically to confront another European/modern army.
...
Germany also never managed to defeat the UK & French.

Yes, and what is important to my argument (where the point is that UK, as a world superpower, could not defeat local power even with help),
the side which brought such tactics was not the mighty British empire, but Germany, followed by French and Russians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormtrooper

[Prince of Spires]

I'm just going to ignore the whole Israel debate, since that will just muddy the whole discussion...

Do you really believe that a group like Al Qaeda could be reformed?

It's happened in the past. Remember that the US is not the only country to suffer from terrorists (and actually suffers very little from them on the scale of things). Both the IRA in Northern Ireland and ETA in Spain have over the years reformed and are now political organizations instead of terrorist ones. So Reform is definitely possible.

Do I think it likely that (in the short term) Al Qaeda would reform, especially under its then leadership? No, definitely not. But that does not mean it can't happen.

As for Iraq, there was no reason at all to invade. And if the country doing the invading had been any other then the US, they would probably have been slapped with international sanctions and military intervention. The intel used was false. Someone somewhere knew that. In hindsight, the US lied to its allies to get support.

Another issue I have with the invasion is that the whole reason for the invasion (if it had been real) was just silly. I personally find it strange that the country with the most weapons of mass destruction in the world accuses another country of either having them or wanting to make them. And then sees this as a good reason to invade said country. To me, that just doesn't add up. Add in that Sadam was just minding his own business and besides some rhetoric in speeches was behaving decently (as far as dictators can behave decently of course), and even if he had had WOMD there was no reason to invade at all.

Rod

[Shannar, Sealord]

Palestinian representation doesn't have full control of its population and terrorism does happen. However to take the analogy further, if a group of private US citizens travelled to Afghanistan to assasinate Taliban leaders to take revenge for 9/11 and succeeded, no one would blame USA for agression. And while it would be act of terrorism, we would probably even sympathise with them.

These attacks happen from their own soil. Those in charge do nothing to stop them, and in the past have even encouraged them, and still do if you don't just rely on what they say when there is a translator around.

Also, the whole "right of return" argument is at this point bunk. It's been over 50 years. Is it "fair" no? But life isn't. And asking people to just give up property they've had for 40 years so the decedents of someone who claimed to own it 50 years ago isn't "fair" either. People lose things in wars. It stinks, but if you really want a diplomatic solution you have to let go of things that happened 50 years ago.

Yes, I forgot about the Kurds. (BTW, I found it strange that you say that they are friends now. Because I remember, that in first Iraq war, they were promised their own country if they rise against Saddam. So they did and later UN betrayed them by letting Saddam stay in power and in control of Iraqi Kurdistan, which allowed the revenge you mention.) I did not notice that Saddam insisted he still has them, but it is possible. In Syrian context, I have read that chemical weapons are "poor man's nukes" - invasion deterrent.

And now they essentially do have their own region. And it's quite safe and stable compared to the rest of Iraq. Also, they are friends to the US, and to the Brits so a smaller degree (as they were in the South, not the North, but there is a smaller population of Kurds there as well) they don't think much at all of the UN. Most places where the UN has been counted on don't.

[Giladis]

Also, the whole "right of return" argument is at this point bunk. It's been over 50 years. Is it "fair" no? But life isn't. And asking people to just give up property they've had for 40 years so the decedents of someone who claimed to own it 50 years ago isn't "fair" either. People lose things in wars. It stinks, but if you really want a diplomatic solution you have to let go of things that happened 50 years ago.

Yet at the same time you can't expect those that lost that land in the first place to just forget it. Me and my clan still lay claim to the land we lost to the Turks 535 years ago and each adult takes a vow to do what is in his might to further our cause in resoring the lands of our ancestors into our possession.

[Shannar, Sealord]

Also, the whole "right of return" argument is at this point bunk. It's been over 50 years. Is it "fair" no? But life isn't. And asking people to just give up property they've had for 40 years so the decedents of someone who claimed to own it 50 years ago isn't "fair" either. People lose things in wars. It stinks, but if you really want a diplomatic solution you have to let go of things that happened 50 years ago.

Yet at the same time you can't expect those that lost that land in the first place to just forget it. Me and my clan still lay claim to the land we lost to the Turks 535 years ago and each adult takes a vow to do what is in his might to further our cause in resoring the lands of our ancestors into our possession.

That's fine, but it's not a way to find peace. There isn't a scrap of land anywhere in the world that hasn't been taken from someone at some time. I'm sure someone else lost it to you clan before that, do they still have a claim?

[Aicanor]

And so we get back to Crimea crisis, because this is ecactly how problematic parts of USSR were secured in the past and why most of the people there want to be part of Russia. Get loyal citizens in these parts, drive as many as the old ones as possible away, profit. Because the "new" ones will more likely than than not never be able to feel secure there without support because of the instilled enmity. And so it can go on for centuries.

They used outright lies to justify it, at least formally and publicly.

That's not quite fair. They were "lies" that the entire world believed to be true. It's just some believed action was required to do something about it, and others didn't.

No, what I mean really is that they used lies, identifiable as false at the moment and if anyone believed them it was because they chose to. I will even give them the benefit of doubt and say they may have used those statements because they believed they were, in effect, backed by facts they couldn't give to the public as they didn't have evidence, but pious lies are still lies.

I'm not sure if lies are accurate. Negligent intelligence gathering or wanting to read into inconclusive evidence what they wanted would probably be more accurate statements. I remember when I was in London in the summer of 2003 reading a Guardian article that the British report/intelligence the US so heavily leaned on was full of inaccuracies. The most glaring was the uranium yellow cake from Nigeria, or wherever, and the supposed contact in the country of origin working with the Iraqis to sell it had been deceased for around a decade IIRC. How'd the journalists discover this - a google search. So while I wouldn't say it was intentional misrepresentation, I believe the hawks discounted evidence to prove a lack of WMDs.

They used unproved evidence for the sole reason to justify invasion that was decided beforehand. Including absolutely ridiculous thingsd like claiming they obtained passports of the terrorists from the ruin of the Towers (and in other cases), asked allies to lie about secret meetings that never happened (Prague), employing another age old tactic of escalating demands on Iraq. I will never forget US government members' ridiculous waving around ampules of supposedly Iraqui anthrax. Sorry, but it was all a play to justify a means. I call it lies. You can call it whatever you want, but this is the core of it - using false intelligence to justify the invasion.

[Teledor]

They used unproved evidence for the sole reason to justify invasion that was decided beforehand. Including absolutely ridiculous things like claiming they obtained passports of the terrorists from the ruin of the Towers (and in other cases), asked allies to lie about secret meetings that never happened (Prague), employing another age old tactic of escalating demands on Iraq. I will never forget US government members' ridiculous waving around ampules of supposedly Iraqui anthrax. Sorry, but it was all a play to justify a means. I call it lies. You can call it whatever you want, but this is the core of it - using false intelligence to justify the invasion.

Look, both you and Rod are right that the Iraq invasion was ridiculous and done on incredibly shoddy evidence. I would love, love, LOVE for there to be some kind of smoking gun - an email, letter, secretly recorded statement, or anything - that would show that the Bush Administration knowingly and intentionally lied about the possibility of Iraqi WMDs. I never supported the idea of invading Iraq and it was easily the greatest foreign policy blunder made by the US since Vietnam. Basically we forgot all of the lessons we learned in Vietnam - disregarded the culture and history of the conflict region - and invaded a country with complex cultural, religious and ethnic problems due to lines on a map drawn by British and French diplomats after agreeing to carve up the old Ottoman Empire prior to the end of WWI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%8 ... _Agreement It was complete and utter folly and a waste of over a trillion dollars and American and Iraqi lives lost.

However, hindsight is 20/20. The Bush Administration, I would argue, verged on criminal negligence on the way they interpreted and gathered the intelligence used to support the case for invading Iraq. But lies require intent to misrepresent not just being grossly incompetent or myopic. Without some kind of actual evidence that they knew and actively deceived with the evidence, it's difficult to say conclusively that they lied. Can you believe they lied? Sure. Would I be shocked later if evidence came out as true that they conclusively knew and lied? Nope. But as of now, they just seemed to be monumentally stupid and suffering from cognitive dissonance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance Remember a lot of the evidence was coming from Iraqi ex-patriots who desperately wanted Saddam out of power. One guy completely lied about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_%28informant%29 But the Bush Administration gleefully believed everything they read that justified their desire to invade and fit within their narrative. That's cognitive dissonance, not lying.

I'm just going to ignore the whole Israel debate, since that will just muddy the whole discussion...

Do you really believe that a group like Al Qaeda could be reformed?

It's happened in the past. Remember that the US is not the only country to suffer from terrorists (and actually suffers very little from them on the scale of things). Both the IRA in Northern Ireland and ETA in Spain have over the years reformed and are now political organizations instead of terrorist ones. So Reform is definitely possible.

Do I think it likely that (in the short term) Al Qaeda would reform, especially under its then leadership? No, definitely not. But that does not mean it can't happen.

I don't think either the ETA, IRA or even FARC in Colombia are reasonable comparisons to Al Qaeda. These groups sought political and/or territorial gains or separatist goals. AL Qaeda doesn't seek some kind of territory or political recognition. They just seek to sow chaos and anarchy in the West and knock civilization back to the time of the Caliphates. Could they soften their stance in the coming years? I guess anything is possible. But I would put it at the same odds of a Putin led Russia becoming a member within the EU.

So, what's justice? Not to get philosophical, but justice is often some form rehabilitation or retribution.

Yes, but after an independent court decides, whether the charged party is actually guilty.

I guess, but you have to get them into Court, unless you would try in absentia. I seriously have my doubts that any Muslim nation would've wanted to take on the responsibility of trying any Al Qaeda members captured. Their populace likely would've protested violently and been seen as pawns of the US. I really think the Taliban offer to expel Al Qaeda to a Muslim country for trial was likely a rouse for support from other Muslim countries. I highly doubt it was anything more than an empty offer.

Syria was never a secular or religiously tolerant regime.

Then how is it possible that 10 - 15% of Syrian citizens are Christian? Could that happen in Saudi Arabia? I know that Wikipedia is not fully reliable, but anyway: "[Syria] is home to diverse ethnic and religious groups, including Alawite, Sunni and Christian Arabs, Armenians, Assyrians, Druze, Kurds, and Turks. Sunni Arabs make up the largest population group in Syria." I know about the division of governing Alawite versus majority Sunni, but is the primary division religious or tribal? Anyway, I have responded to offered alternatives, but they were not the only ones. For example, Egypt at the time was US friendly.

The current Syrian regime has included minorities within the government not as tolerance but as means to an end to maintain power and control. I guess including groups to keep yourself in power could be seen as tolerance - but I think the current situation on the ground and in their past proves the current Syrian regime isn't really interested in tolerance, they're interested only in preserving their power and any means is justified. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre

You have to remember when WWI broke out, there hadn't been a major war on the continent of Europe since the Franco-Prussian war in 1870-71. Nearly a half century. The technological innovations between 1870 and 1914 in terms of military technology were significant. The machine gun, hydro-pnuematic recoiling artillery (French 75), rifles with magazines, airplanes, photography, telegraph and wireless communication, etc. Also, all the European powers were fighting colonial battles

Yes, but there was Russian-Japan war in 1905 where at least Britain had its military observers, and where trenches, machine guns and modern artillery were used.

The Russo-Japanese war was no where near the scale or mobilization of WWI. It was largely viewed as a localized conflict. Did it have elements of WWI? Yes. Also, the Europeans were largely shocked by Russia's defeat. To say that a small, localized conflict over a colony should adequately prepare countries for an all out war of attrition is stretching it a bit too far.

Few, if any nation, were prepared tactically to confront another European/modern army.
...
Germany also never managed to defeat the UK & French.

Yes, and what is important to my argument (where the point is that UK, as a world superpower, could not defeat local power even with help), the side which brought such tactics was not the mighty British empire, but Germany, followed by French and Russians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormtrooper

[/quote]

Germany was not some local, back water country. Germany at the time had the preeminent army of all the European powers. While Britain had the most powerful Navy. These two countries had strengths in different realms. Oddly enough, Germany couldn't defeat British Navy. See Battle of Jutland. Also, I think tanks played a role in the defeat of Germany as much as a borrowed tactic did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_I_tank#Mark_I

Anyways, I guess I don't really see what the point of your argument was? That the US can't beat the Russians by themselves? If that was your point, then I would say you're probably right. It would likely be a stalemate, or the advantage given to the aggressor. I don't think it would ever happen, a mono y mono style conflict between just Russia and the US, so this is all completely hypothetical.

[Aicanor]

They used unproved evidence for the sole reason to justify invasion that was decided beforehand. Including absolutely ridiculous things like claiming they obtained passports of the terrorists from the ruin of the Towers (and in other cases), asked allies to lie about secret meetings that never happened (Prague), employing another age old tactic of escalating demands on Iraq. I will never forget US government members' ridiculous waving around ampules of supposedly Iraqui anthrax. Sorry, but it was all a play to justify a means. I call it lies. You can call it whatever you want, but this is the core of it - using false intelligence to justify the invasion.

Look, both you and Rod are right that the Iraq invasion was ridiculous and done on incredibly shoddy evidence. I would love, love, LOVE for there to be some kind of smoking gun - an email, letter, secretly recorded statement, or anything - that would show that the Bush Administration knowingly and intentionally lied about the possibility of Iraqi WMDs. I never supported the idea of invading Iraq and it was easily the greatest foreign policy blunder made by the US since Vietnam. Basically we forgot all of the lessons we learned in Vietnam - disregarded the culture and history of the conflict region - and invaded a country with complex cultural, religious and ethnic problems due to lines on a map drawn by British and French diplomats after agreeing to carve up the old Ottoman Empire prior to the end of WWI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%8 ... _Agreement It was complete and utter folly and a waste of over a trillion dollars and American and Iraqi lives lost.

However, hindsight is 20/20. The Bush Administration, I would argue, verged on criminal negligence on the way they interpreted and gathered the intelligence used to support the case for invading Iraq. But lies require intent to misrepresent not just being grossly incompetent or myopic. Without some kind of actual evidence that they knew and actively deceived with the evidence, it's difficult to say conclusively that they lied. Can you believe they lied? Sure. Would I be shocked later if evidence came out as true that they conclusively knew and lied? Nope. But as of now, they just seemed to be monumentally stupid and suffering from cognitive dissonance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance Remember a lot of the evidence was coming from Iraqi ex-patriots who desperately wanted Saddam out of power. One guy completely lied about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_%28informant%29 But the Bush Administration gleefully believed everything they read that justified their desire to invade and fit within their narrative. That's cognitive dissonance, not lying.

You are right that it is really possible they just ignored all the data they had to the contrary and decided to believe it because they wanted to as it suited their intentions. Which would be a criminal incompetence in politicians, as it was really hard to believe at the time and they no doubt had access to better intelligence than the public. It was very painful for me to watch at the time it happened and destroyed quite a few of my idealistic views of the world, which shows in my comments even to this day, I am afraid.

[Shannar, Sealord]

You are right that it is really possible they just ignored all the data they had to the contrary and decided to believe it because they wanted to as it suited their intentions. Which would be a criminal incompetence in politicians, as it was really hard to believe at the time and they no doubt had access to better intelligence than the public. It was very painful for me to watch at the time it happened and destroyed quite a few of my idealistic views of the world, which shows in my comments even to this day, I am afraid.

It's really not quite simple. Intel is never such that you know anything for sure. It's all best guesses, and what the annalists tell you. At the time there wasn't an intel agency in the world that didn't think it more likely than not that he had the weapons. He would not give the weapons inspectors full access. They never concluded that he didn't have weapons either (in fact most thought he did) they simply were asking for more time to try to get access (which was never going to happen). In addition Saddam had been thumbing his nose at a whole list of UN sanctions for years, with no consequence. There was even an assassination attempt on a former president on a visit to Kuwait, that got little attention and a littler response. It's not hard to see why they thought he was a threat in the hyper paranoid/frightened days after 9/11. Anyone who doesn't live here cant fully appreciate the effect it had.

In the end it was a very bad idea, but not because of "lies" or anything like that. It simply wasn't winnable under the mission we took on. And even if everything had gone easily, it still left chemical and even nuclear weapons in the hands of many despots that were as big of a threat or worse than Saddom. What was the end game supposed to be, to invade every one of those countries as well? It's just to big of a mission to ever hope to succeed. And that's before you add in trying to bring democracy to people who've not had it in years, many of whom don't want it.

[Aicanor]

This is not how I remember it. Yes, Saddam ignored the sanctions for years before and they were very ineffective. Yes, he was reluctant to let the UN inspectors in at first, but I believe he got scared pretty quickly. Then he let them search. They found nothing. Then someone (or better, several 'someones') who had a say in UN was dissatisfied with the proceeding sand he was asked to do more. He did in the end. Repeat a few times. That is where the strategy of escalating demands was applied. The irony is that taken to the extreme, Saddam could have been better off if he had some chemical weapons to show to the inspection and then shown willingness to dispose of them. But as it turned out, he just didn't.

Edit: As far as I know, the war was never even close to being sanctioned by U.N., which also tells something about results of thr mission of U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq.

[Shannar, Sealord]

This is not how I remember it. Yes, Saddam ignored the sanctions for years before and they were very ineffective. Yes, he was reluctant to let the UN inspectors in at first, but I believe he got scared pretty quickly. Then he let them search. They found nothing. Then someone (or better, several 'someones') who had a say in UN was dissatisfied with the proceeding sand he was asked to do more. He did in the end. Repeat a few times. That is where the strategy of escalating demands was applied. The irony is that taken to the extreme, Saddam could have been better off if he had some chemical weapons to show to the inspection and then shown willingness to dispose of them. But as it turned out, he just didn't.

Go back and check the reports. Seriously. He never did give full access. We also found plenty of supplies and equipment that could have been turned into chemical weapons in about a month (heck, for a crude one we could have done it on the spot.) But since those all came from western countries (France and Germany mostly of the ones we found) it doesn't get talked about much. As to the "he would have been better off bit", he didn't think anyone would ever actually act. It didn't help that the French spent the entire lead up telling him we'd never act without the UN.

Edit: As far as I know, the war was never even close to being sanctioned by U.N., which also tells something about results of thr mission of U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq.

I guess you can look at it that way. But I don't think the UN would have sanctioned it even if he'd used them the day before. See Syria for example. The UN is a body of inaction and grid lock. The way the security council is set up that was pretty much guaranteed from day 1. Honesty that's fine, because I don't think an "internationally acceptable" is any better, and would likely have even less clear/achievable objectives.