Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 33 to 41 of 41

Thread: Military Intervention - When to die and when not to?

  1. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,567
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked
    179 times in 134 posts

    Re: Military Intervention - When to die and when not to?

    Quote Originally Posted by peterb View Post
    I'm not quite sure who you are aiming this post at, or is it just an indiscriminate use of 'posts of mass derision"? Whatever - tone it down or the HEXUS peacekeepers and insulting post inspectors might be taking a closer look... OK?
    maybe you need to look at the political persuasion of some of your own admin team, seems to be someone is leaning far too much to the right....

  2. #34
    Moderator chuckskull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The Frozen North
    Posts
    7,713
    Thanks
    951
    Thanked
    690 times in 463 posts
    • chuckskull's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z77-D3H
      • CPU:
      • 3570k @ 4.7 - H100i
      • Memory:
      • 32GB XMS3 1600mhz
      • Storage:
      • 256GB Samsung 850 Pro + 3TB Seagate
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA GTX 980Ti Classified
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic M12 700W
      • Case:
      • Corsair 500R
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Asus VG278HE
      • Internet:
      • FTTC

    Re: Military Intervention - When to die and when not to?

    Quote Originally Posted by HalloweenJack View Post
    maybe you need to look at the political persuasion of some of your own admin team, seems to be someone is leaning far too much to the right....
    If your biggest criticism of the Admin team is that you disagree with their political opinions, then they are doing an admirable job.

    People of all political stripes are welcome here on HEXUS so long as they obey the rules. Be they left, right, up, down or anything else.

    This part of the forum exists specifically for people of differing political opinions to debate them, hence the name.

  3. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,567
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked
    179 times in 134 posts

    Re: Military Intervention - When to die and when not to?

    that I agree with - but a tacit threat because I vocally disagree - especially in this part of the forum? no , that's not on at all.

  4. #36
    Moderator chuckskull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The Frozen North
    Posts
    7,713
    Thanks
    951
    Thanked
    690 times in 463 posts
    • chuckskull's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z77-D3H
      • CPU:
      • 3570k @ 4.7 - H100i
      • Memory:
      • 32GB XMS3 1600mhz
      • Storage:
      • 256GB Samsung 850 Pro + 3TB Seagate
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA GTX 980Ti Classified
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic M12 700W
      • Case:
      • Corsair 500R
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Asus VG278HE
      • Internet:
      • FTTC

    Re: Military Intervention - When to die and when not to?

    Quote Originally Posted by HalloweenJack View Post
    that I agree with - but a tacit threat because I vocally disagree - especially in this part of the forum? no , that's not on at all.
    That tacit threat, I'm assuming you mean Peter's post. Was in response to your post which could very easily be construed as a accusation of racism.

    lets carry on with this since you seem to support the use of WMD`s - but only when they are used on `rag heads`.
    For reference the rule on these matters;

    Threatening, insulting and abusive posts will not be tolerated. Please treat other members courteously and respectfully.
    That post could be considered an insult, in fact if you'd said it to me, I would of been insulted and it certainly wasn't courteous or respectful.

    Hence you were asked to tone it down and even then given the benefit of the doubt that you weren't in fact calling Saracen a racist.

    I think also there is some misunderstanding of our methods. What you consider 'threats' are our attempts to exercise a light hand and allow discussion to flourish even between those with the strongest and strongly differing opinions. A simple request rather than using the mod tools.

    If you genuinely believe you have been mistreated I can have this reviewed by an uninvolved Admin or even the site owner. Again, as per the rules;

    If you feel you are being treated unfairly by a Mod or Admin, please refer it to another Admin. The final decision lies with the forum owner.
    Otherwise I consider the issue closed and request we all get back to the discussion at hand.

  5. #37
    LUSE Galant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gibraltar
    Posts
    3,018
    Thanks
    431
    Thanked
    486 times in 293 posts

    Re: Military Intervention - When to die and when not to?

    As the OP let me try to rally this one in a bit.

    Whilst the events in Syria are present in everyone's thoughts, and it offers plenty of material for case studies and examples, the main subject of the thread is when to make use of military intervention outside of direct attack's on one's own country, property or personnel.

    Can we carry on with that?

    We've got people who, it seems, would rather never see any military action apart from defense against direct attacks - ie. no policing.

    Then there's the other end who are happy to use the military in any measured way as long as it's in the country's interests.

    There's also plenty of room in between.

    Personally, the events in Syria have had me change from my initial feeling that foreign countries should all leave it well enough alone and that international statements like those from the UK and USA were more to do with foolish promises made earlier. The more I've learned, about the Syrian situation and way in which things have progressed and the UN has called for help, the more I'm convinced some sort of action needs to be taken but with clear purpose and a clear means to achieve that purpose.

    With a long term view to always punish the use of chemical weapons to prevent/reduce remove their future usage, I think measured strikes might be a useful tool properly applied.

    Any hypocrisy on this point is serious and should be dealt with but doesn't detract from the basic argument that something should be done to limit the use of such weapons.

    As for WMD's, it's the same. I reckon they have a place in this discussion as far as being a possible motive for military action, but that's about it.

    Of course this all just CW and WMD's. Are those the only reasons we're not comfortable with as far as motivating military action?

    I've often think about the Congo, the massive suffering there, and how a UN or other military presence could a have a real positive impact on that situation which, in the long term, could be of massive benefit to the planet. Truly. Yet few get involved despite the fact that the rest of the world has more responsibility there than in places like Syria and Egypt.

    Is it (should it be?) really true that the west only get's involved when it is of direct benefit to itself or its allies, or should countries get involved when the benefits are only indirect and the main motives are to help?
    No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.

  6. Received thanks from:

    chuckskull (01-09-2013)

  7. #38
    Bows out! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Hopefully somewhere less backstabby
    Posts
    28,789
    Thanks
    3,203
    Thanked
    4,456 times in 3,442 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: Military Intervention - When to die and when not to?

    Quote Originally Posted by Galant View Post
    Is it (should it be?) really true that the west only get's involved when it is of direct benefit to itself or its allies, or should countries get involved when the benefits are only indirect and the main motives are to help?
    But again the question is are we helping in a positive or negative way and for whose benefit??

    We have interfered many times without truly understanding the people or the history of the country properly,especially those with long cultural memories. We apply our on judgements on peoples hasterly(which is not helped by the fact our politics is very short term in thinking),while at the same time being too proud to admit when we have made things worse or screwed up,and even when we do it is usually too late. A combination of this judgemental arrogence,and massive military power is dangerous,while often doing the same things we tell others not to do while hiding behind fancy talk and other distractions.

    You only have to look at the damage done when the US instigated regime change in Iran nearly 50 years ago,and the pain many people in that country have needed to endure for generations. The Angolan civil war where we interfered on the side of UNITA?? The list goes on and on where we have effed up big time,and yet we forget so quickly the next time. Its so easy.

    These are not the only times,as we have been doing it for hundreds of years,and we still think we have a right to do what we want,and force the rest of the world along with us, according to OUR rules for the rest of the world. Over time those rules have changed to the point they have contradicted themselves within a few decades.

    What gives less than 20% of the population of the world to dictate what the billions of others do?? Nuclear weapons?? Massive militaries?? World financial systems which we have strong control off??
    Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 01-09-2013 at 02:41 PM.


    Those despicable Elk,stealing the pond weed!

  8. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    821
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked
    32 times in 29 posts
    • flearider's system
      • Motherboard:
      • asrock taichi x370
      • CPU:
      • ryzen 1700@4ghz
      • Memory:
      • 16gb gskill flare cl14 3200
      • Storage:
      • 500mb 850 evo + 1tb hd space
      • Graphics card(s):
      • gigabyte r9 290
      • PSU:
      • evga 850
      • Case:
      • LD PC-V8 ATX/HPTX Red 2xtripple 1xquad rads
      • Operating System:
      • win 7 ulti
      • Monitor(s):
      • toshiba 32"
      • Internet:
      • 65 d/30 up ee

    Re: Military Intervention - When to die and when not to?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgxzpQrqSkg think he has it right ...
    both sides are as bad as each other .. but who do we back and what will it lead to ... Russia will not let anyone go in ..and if they do it will be met with equal force ..i'm thinking another cuba but this time I think it's wrong ...
    What does it matter now if men believe or no?
    What is to come will come. And soon you too will stand aside,
    To murmur in pity that my words were true
    (Cassandra, in Agamemnon by Aeschylus)

    To see the wizard one must look behind the curtain ....

  9. #40
    Kai
    Kai is offline
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    A Cave
    Posts
    261
    Thanks
    40
    Thanked
    6 times in 6 posts

    Re: Military Intervention - When to die and when not to?

    Quote Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH View Post
    But again the question is are we helping in a positive or negative way and for whose benefit??

    We have interfered many times without truly understanding the people or the history of the country properly,especially those with long cultural memories. We apply our on judgements on peoples hasterly(which is not helped by the fact our politics is very short term in thinking),while at the same time being too proud to admit when we have made things worse or screwed up,and even when we do it is usually too late. A combination of this judgemental arrogence,and massive military power is dangerous,while often doing the same things we tell others not to do while hiding behind fancy talk and other distractions.

    You only have to look at the damage done when the US instigated regime change in Iran nearly 50 years ago,and the pain many people in that country have needed to endure for generations. The Angolan civil war where we interfered on the side of UNITA?? The list goes on and on where we have effed up big time,and yet we forget so quickly the next time. Its so easy.

    These are not the only times,as we have been doing it for hundreds of years,and we still think we have a right to do what we want,and force the rest of the world along with us, according to OUR rules for the rest of the world. Over time those rules have changed to the point they have contradicted themselves within a few decades.

    What gives less than 20% of the population of the world to dictate what the billions of others do?? Nuclear weapons?? Massive militaries?? World financial systems which we have strong control off??
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/30/us-syria-crisis-oil-idUSBRE97T00K20130830

    Even though the United States is in the midst of its biggest oil drilling boom in decades, with production at the highest level since 1997, prices would still likely spike if there was a major supply disruption in the Middle East.

    The North Sea Brent crude benchmark that helps set the majority of world oil prices traded around $114 per barrel on Thursday, near the $120 level that analysts say could push the White House to begin considering using the SPR.

    An administration official, speaking on background, declined to comment specifically on how closely it was watching oil prices.

    "We are continuously monitoring the global oil supply and demand situation," the official said.

  10. #41
    LUSE Galant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gibraltar
    Posts
    3,018
    Thanks
    431
    Thanked
    486 times in 293 posts

    Re: Military Intervention - When to die and when not to?

    Points taken. Specifically considering the Congo though, it has been called the battle for the heart of Africa. One of the richest countries on the planet in terms of resources and yet often the poorest economically. 'The West' is already involved in terms of digital devices being produced on the back of ColTan often coming from there. It's been labelled the most dangerous place on earth for women with many thousands raped through each year by rogue armies. Could not military intervention help to set up safe areas while looking at forcing out foreign armies like the formerly Ugandan LRA? Stability in the Congo is beneficial for Africa and potentially the planet. The hydro-electric capacity of the Congo alone, if it could be harnessed in a safe and prospering Congo, could do much to improve life in many parts of Africa. Of course, the road to a healthier Congo is a long one, and no doubt there are plenty of opportunities for error, but I just wonder if there isn't some scope for genuinely useful military support in some scenarios. The question is, how do we measure that, or do we, the UK, the UN, really only engage militarily when directly opposed?
    No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •