The American (USA) 2016 presidential elections thread?

[TheDemonLord]

Seriously?

Are you telling me you don't recognise the difference between a peacekeeping mission and the act of going to war?

Both are backed by a principle of Force.

A Principle that you've shied away from applying.

A Military intervention is based on the actual application of that Force.

A Peacekeeping mission is based on the threat of applying that Force.

The difference between the 2 is that with a sufficiently antagonistic opponent, one has to become the other. And that is the part I'm critiquing you on.

Now - in our multiple dalliances, you've never accepted any reason or rational for any Armed intervention. I've maintained that sometimes, even with all the collateral damage, loss of life and suffering, that an Armed Intervention is/was necessary.

You're somewhat changing your tune here - it seems to me, that you are happy with the Threat of Force, but unhappy with the conclusion of that Threat - the application.

If that's your position, that's fine - I obviously disagree with it, but I understand the moral principles that underline it.

[Katman]

You're somewhat changing your tune here - it seems to me, that you are happy with the Threat of Force, but unhappy with the conclusion of that Threat - the application.

If that's your position, that's fine - I obviously disagree with it, but I understand the moral principles that underline it.

I've not changed my tune at all. Perhaps you're simply starting to gain a slightly clearer understanding of my point of view - which I suppose should be seen as some form of progress.

And surely one of the principle differences between peacekeeping and the act of going to war is that the peacekeeping mission is applied in a non partisan manner while the other is an active participation on one particular side of a conflict.

[oldrider]

US-made weapons, Israeli medicines left behind by terrorists found in Southern region:- https://www.sana.sy/en/?p=154082 - Yeah right.

[pritch]

And surely one of the principle differences between peacekeeping and the act of going to war is that the peacekeeping mission is applied in a non partisan manner while the other is an active participation on one particular side of a conflict.

Problems can arise when peacekeepers are sent to a situation where there is no real peace to keep as has happened more than once. The "peace" existing mainly in the minds of overly optimistic politicians.

[pritch]

This could give rise to a sense of unease.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/y...we-are-coming/

[oldrider]

The US is at war with Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, Russia, All to protect the Petrodollar https://steemit.com/petrodollar/@fre...he-petrodollar - interesting article in hindsight?

[husaberg]

Ah Yes,

Peacekeeping Troops, with peacekeeping rifles, that fire peacekeeping bullets...




Here's a question then: You've opposed Military interventions in other areas - and now you are claiming that you don't oppose peacekeeping missions.

What philosophically is the difference?

From my Point of view - It's Soldiers, Armed with Guns (and some cases, bigger guns, backed up by larger military assets) in a Foreign land, using Force (or implied force). Putting aside the RoE (Rules of Engagement, because the Military could adopt the Peacekeepers RoE and vice versa) - I see very little difference between the two.

The UN peace keeping missions didn't stop genocide in the Balkans either.
Ya wasting your Time with the Taupo troll he didnt even realise there were peace keeping troops in Rwanda in the firat place otherwise he wouldn't have said if they were deployed there.
Remember this all startyed with him butting in saying it wasnt a no win situation for the US to act to deploy or not deploy force in situations and has spent the last 4 pages proving it was a no win situation with his utter beligerence.



Also consider the rules of engagement that kaftan would consider being required as from past arguments Kaftan has said even if a person shoots a rifle and points it at you in a civilian situation surrounded by civilians and refuses to drop his weapon or surrender that still doesn't mean the police could shoot him or run into him with a car.

http://www.ktvq.com/story/28813119/o...ied-chief-says


Robbery with a weapon, arson, home invasion, grand theft auto, more robbery (a gun and ammo), failing to follow police instructions (didn't put the gun down), pointing the gun at police (which he was fucking lucky he wasn't shot for) all in the space of a couple of hours. Maybe the cops should have let him shoot someone before stopping him....

Fifteen charges
Valencia faces 15 charges, including three counts of aggravated assault, three counts of armed robbery and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited possessor (that means he is a convicted felon and convicted felons are not allowed to possess firearms). Cohen-Metzger said he had a prior record.

Fuck him, the cop should have reversed over the cunts head and finished the job.

Okay Katman - I have a question for you:

At what point(s) are the Police justified to use Deadly force (in your opinion)?

and

based on your answer to the above, what is it in this incident that in your opinion means that Deadly force wasn't justified?

It's justified when other means of resolution have been exhausted.

Also remember he is ot only opposed to military interventions (unless they are Russian)
Hes opposed to the UN intervening
Hes opposed to the US in any situation (unless they dont act) in which case their not acting is enough to be repugnant.
Hes opposed to trade restrictions.
Hes opposed to sanctions.
But then claims these could have prevented conflicts, but also claimed they cause them depending on his mood.
Hes opposed to interference in any Dictatorship no mater what they do to their innocent civilians, (Unless they are backed by Russian then its all good.)
Hes against weapons being made in the west that might get to Africa or the middle east but not those made in China or Russia and sold to Africa and the middle east. ie the overwelming vast majority of weapons.
Lastly no mater what the conflict like Alzheimerno motorbike oldrider he beliefs its caused by Jews even though he has no actual evidence.
Speaking of proof his burden of proof is 100 million times higher to prove he is mistaken than a court would accept.
Yet he willingly accepts information however tenuous or flimsy even if that that has been proven to be categorically false as being evidence that he is right.


Hes is the very epitome of a no win situation

[TheDemonLord]

I've not changed my tune at all. Perhaps you're simply starting to gain a slightly clearer understanding of my point of view - which I suppose should be seen as some form of progress.

I'm so glad you've agreed with that - Because there was a rather carefully laid fallacy in there.

In order for the Threat of Force to work, we have to be willing to use it. Your philosophical viewpoint works right up until someone calls your bluff.

If you want me to believe your initial statement (which FYI - I'm still skeptical of) that you don't oppose the sending in of Peacekeeping Troops - Simply articulate the situation where the use of Force (with the associated innocent civillians killed, wounded maimed etc.) is warranted.

I don't think you can/will.

And surely one of the principle differences between peacekeeping and the act of going to war is that the peacekeeping mission is applied in a non partisan manner while the other is an active participation on one particular side of a conflict.

Possibly, but consider this - keeping the Status Quo invariably helps one side more than the other. Furthermore, in order to complete their task, they must actively oppose one or more factions - and thus in a manner of speaking they become an active participant.

[Katman]

If you want me to believe your initial statement (which FYI - I'm still skeptical of) that you don't oppose the sending in of Peacekeeping Troops - Simply articulate the situation where the use of Force (with the associated innocent civillians killed, wounded maimed etc.) is warranted.

The rules regarding the use of force in a peacekeeping mission are quite specific.

https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/princ...f-peacekeeping

[TheDemonLord]

The rules regarding the use of force in a peacekeeping mission are quite specific.

https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/princ...f-peacekeeping

I didn't ask for what the rules say.

I asked for YOU to articulate when it's okay.

And then pointed out that I didn't think you'd be able to - and your attempted dodge was Textbook.





For Bonus points though - Going back to the Rwandan Massacre - those rules require the Consent of both parties to deploy - and I'm hazarding a guess that if you are intent on comitting a Genocide, then you aren't going to give consent for a Peacekeeping mission...

[Katman]

I didn't ask for what the rules say.

I asked for YOU to articulate when it's okay.

And then pointed out that I didn't think you'd be able to - and your attempted dodge was Textbook.

If, in your role as a peacekeeper, you had someone advancing on you with the clear intent of harming you or people you have been assigned to protect, then it is clearly permissible for you to use appropriate (but measured) force to remove that threat.

It would probably be considered bad form to shoot the innocent person behind him as well, in the hope you could just shrug it off as collateral damage, though.

[Katman]

For Bonus points though - Going back to the Rwandan Massacre - those rules require the Consent of both parties to deploy - and I'm hazarding a guess that if you are intent on comitting a Genocide, then you aren't going to give consent for a Peacekeeping mission...

Well there were some peacekeepers there so I'm assuming that they had some form of consent.

There just weren't anywhere near enough of them.

[Katman]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/19...9/theobserver3

[husaberg]

The rules regarding the use of force in a peacekeeping mission are quite specific.

https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/princ...f-peacekeeping

Not true the rules of engagement are actually specific to each mission carried out.
The outcome of the failure of the Rwandian mission was the rules of engagement were that far removed from the actual situation that they didn't allow the peace keepers to even protect themselves let alone the civilians that were being targeted.

The same thing occurred in the Balkans but the result was worse in Somalia

The independent report, commissioned by Secretary-General Kofi Annan, showed a UN peacekeeping mission in Rwanda doomed from the start by an insufficient mandate and later destroyed by the Security Council's refusal to strengthen it once the killings began. And it showed UN officials - Annan and then-Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali among them - unable or unwilling to act on information from the field that a massive slaughter was occurring and that they needed to do something to stop it.

Coupled with another self-critical analysis of the UN role in the fall of Srebrenica during the Bosnian war, the report is sure to fuel the growing international debate about the imperative of the United Nations and its member governments to stop grave violations of human rights.

In a statement, Annan acknowledged the systematic failure of the United Nations and expressed his "deep remorse" on behalf of the organization. Annan, who was head of UN peacekeeping operations during the genocide, commissioned the report to find out the truth about the UN role in the massacre and to learn from the mistakes. He appointed a three-man team to conduct the 6-month-long analysis, and turned over UN files, cables and archives as well as UN personnel for testimony.

Former Swedish Prime Minister Ingvar Carlsson led the team and was joined by former South Korean Foreign Minister Han Sung-Joo and Maj. Gen. Rufus Modupe Kupolati of Nigeria. "Our conclusion is there is one overriding failure which explains why the UN could not stop or prevent the genocide, and that is a lack of resources and a lack of will - a lack of will to take on the commitment necessary to prevent the genocide," Carlsson said at a press conference Thursday.

The United Nations launched its peacekeeping mission for Rwanda in October 1993 to monitor a cease-fire agreement between the Rwandan Hutu government and the rebel Rwandese Patriotic Front. The mission, which was not allowed to use military force to achieve its aims, was limited to investigating breaches in the cease-fire, helping humanitarian aid deliveries and contributing to the security of the capital, Kigali. The mission proved insufficient after the government launched the slaughter of an estimated 800,000 minority Tutsis and moderate Hutus following the downing of the Rwandan president's plane on April 6, 1994.

The report faulted the United Nations in several key areas leading up to that date, including its failure to act on a now-famous cable sent by the force commander, Canadian Lt. Gen. Romeo Dallaire on Jan. 11, 1994 warning of the risk of genocide. The cable was received by Annan and wasn't shared with the Security Council and didn't receive the follow-up such an important piece of evidence deserved, the report said. In addition, the United Nations and Security Council virtually ignored a groundbreaking assessment by the UN human rights investigator for Rwanda who raised the possibility in August 1993 that a genocide might occur.

It was not just a lack of number that didn't prevent the slaughter it was lack of ROI that was suitable to the situation.


Note out of the link.

3. Non-use of force except in self-defence and defence of the mandate

UN peacekeeping operations are not an enforcement tool. However, they may use force at the tactical level, with the authorization of the Security Council, if acting in self-defence and defence of the mandate.
In certain volatile situations, the Security Council has given UN peacekeeping operations “robust” mandates authorizing them to “use all necessary means” to deter forceful attempts to disrupt the political process, protect civilians under imminent threat of physical attack, and/or assist the national authorities in maintaining law and order.

Some actual real rules of engagement and how it actually works or doesn't.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a284086.pdf

[TheDemonLord]

If, in your role as a peacekeeper, you had someone advancing on you with the clear intent of harming you or people you have been assigned to protect, then it is clearly permissible for you to use appropriate (but measured) force to remove that threat.

Measured? Does that include Suppressive Machinegun fire? Artillery? Airstrikes? Drone Strikes? If we are talking about a mob of Machete wielding killers - how do you evaluate Measured?

It would probably be considered bad form to shoot the innocent person behind him as well, in the hope you could just shrug it off as collateral damage, though.

Indeed, Collateral Damage is always 'bad form', but it's inevitable. So, I'll ask again - what is YOUR scenario where it is Justified?

Again - I don't think you have a scenario where you'll accept any form of it.

Well there were some peacekeepers there so I'm assuming that they had some form of consent.

There just weren't anywhere near enough of them.

The people that invited them were the first ones killed, that sparked the Genocide (if memory serves)