Military Events in Syria and Iraq Thread #4

[Schmelzer]

An argument that as easily applied to that silly fear of yours about a US-Russia nuclear war to be started by Clinton, back when - you rejected it then, explicitly.

Yes, I rejected it, because the application to the US is much more problematic. There are enough sufficiently stupid US politicians who think they could win a nuclear war against Russia. See all these guys here in the forum who like to associate any Russian weapons with the attribute "rusty". You think US politicians are somehow better informed, in the age of Trump? Lol. Note also that a nuclear war will be preceded by a conventional war, and it was a conventional war with Russia which was in Clinton's election program (shooting a Russian aeroplane because of some no-fly zone in Syria would start only a conventional war). Would Israel start a conventional war with Russia? No, because this would be clear enough a suicide too. Would the US start such a war? A very different question.

Another difference: We are not talking about some Israeli politician who had, as part of his political program, actions of war against Russia, the actual leader of Israel has, instead, recently participated together with Russia in a political demonstration.

So, my conclusions are different, because the situation is very different. You prefer to simplify things, I don't. So, no wonder why you fail all the time interpreting what I think - the result is something oversimplified, and this is never true.

Your justification for that is world government's law - world government is something you favor, when it favors Russia - under which these attacks are ok because they are retaliations. The extra risk of nuclear war is no longer important to you - obedience to world government is your new criterion of highest priority.

Complete nonsense. What I favour is certainly not some "world government's law", there is, fortunately, no such law because there is no world government, what I favour is libertarian law, and this is something between moral law and common law. It is also in agreement with international law, which is contract law. I do not favour any world government at all, because I think that it leads, in very short time, into a totalitarian world.

And I favour the international law, as contract law (contract law has no conflict with the libertarian law) in comparison with a lawless situation which is what happens once the strongest nation accepts no legal restrictions at all, which is the actual state of the world.

 

[iceaura]

Yes, I rejected it, because the application to the US is much more problematic. There are enough sufficiently stupid US politicians who think they could win a nuclear war against Russia.

The US has no monopoly on stupid politicians. Russia has them, Syria has them, Israel has them, - everybody involved here has them.

Note also that a nuclear war will be preceded by a conventional war, and it was a conventional war with Russia which was in Clinton's election program

There already is a conventional war in progress, and Russia is participating, along with at least two other nuclear powers: US and Israel. Russian proxies in this war are attacking Israel, now, with your blessing.

Nuclear war is most likely to start by accident or blunder - that's why Trump was so much greater a risk for it than Clinton - and the stage is set for that in Syria. It's not that dire or critical yet, maybe, but attacking Israel does take it up a notch.

Another difference: We are not talking about some Israeli politician who had, as part of his political program, actions of war against Russia

All you are talking about there is which propaganda efforts you got suckered by, and which you didn't. We can certainly find some propaganda for you that tries to claim some important Jewish politicians in Israel are promoting actions of war against Russia - will you believe it? Why not?

Complete nonsense. What I favour is certainly not some "world government's law", there is, fortunately, no such law because there is no world government, what I favour is libertarian law, and this is something between moral law and common law.

What you are on record as relying on, for your justifications of the extra risk of nuclear war you now support, is "international law". That is world government law, by definition.

And I favour the international law, as contract law (contract law has no conflict with the libertarian law)

At some point that kind of stuff stops being innocent and becomes ignorant.
Libertarians would be much easier to forgive in their willful naivety, their carefully defended cocoon of ignorance, if they were not adults.

 

[Schmelzer]

The US has no monopoly on stupid politicians. Russia has them, Syria has them, Israel has them, - everybody involved here has them.

No doubt. But the US market share would be a reason to worry for an antitrust agency if it would happen in another domain.

There already is a conventional war in progress, and Russia is participating, along with at least two other nuclear powers: US and Israel. Russian proxies in this war are attacking Israel, now, with your blessing.

No, "Russian proxies" are not attacking Israel, but retaliating against Israeli attacks. Retaliation against an aggressor has my blessing. If you have a problem with this, so what.

Nuclear war is most likely to start by accident or blunder - that's why Trump was so much greater a risk for it than Clinton - and the stage is set for that in Syria.

I have recognized this point. But I think that nonetheless, Clinton would be a greater danger.
It's not that dire or critical yet, maybe, but attacking Israel does take it up a notch.

All you are talking about there is which propaganda efforts you got suckered by, and which you didn't.

No. This is only your cheap try to distort the discussion away from content to personal attacks. I know already a lot about the propaganda efforts you got suckered by, but I don't talk about this, for the simple reason that this would not be helpful but a meaningless flamewar, except that in this case, it would be me who looks as stupid and arrogant as you look now.

We can certainly find some propaganda for you that tries to claim some important Jewish politicians in Israel are promoting actions of war against Russia - will you believe it? Why not?

Once you are so certain, find and present it. Then I will answer you if I believe it or not, with an explanation why.

What you are on record as relying on, for your justifications of the extra risk of nuclear war you now support, is "international law". That is world government law, by definition.

No. You obviously have no idea about international law. It is the law of contract and customary law. There is no world government to define any laws or to enforce them. That is your uneducated statist fantasy that law requires some government.

 

[pjdude1219]

No doubt. But the US market share would be a reason to worry for an antitrust agency if it would happen in another domain.

No, "Russian proxies" are not attacking Israel, but retaliating against Israeli attacks. Retaliation against an aggressor has my blessing. If you have a problem with this, so what.

I have recognized this point. But I think that nonetheless, Clinton would be a greater danger.
It's not that dire or critical yet, maybe, but attacking Israel does take it up a notch.

No. This is only your cheap try to distort the discussion away from content to personal attacks. I know already a lot about the propaganda efforts you got suckered by, but I don't talk about this, for the simple reason that this would not be helpful but a meaningless flamewar, except that in this case, it would be me who looks as stupid and arrogant as you look now.

Once you are so certain, find and present it. Then I will answer you if I believe it or not, with an explanation why.

No. You obviously have no idea about international law. It is the law of contract and customary law. There is no world government to define any laws or to enforce them. That is your uneducated statist fantasy that law requires some government.

your a hoot and half.
first ice leans toward your conspiracy theories about authortarianism.
secondly as a person defending naked aggression and unilateral annexation(crimea) you really are in no place to attack anyones understanding of international law. its been against customary international law to wage wars of conquest and unilateral annexation for around a century at least
thirdly law requires government anything else is just thugs enforcing their will......which when you think of it is basicly what libertarianism wants.

 

[iceaura]

No. You obviously have no idea about international law. It is the law of contract and customary law. There is no world government to define any laws or to enforce them.

To that extent there is no law. What has no enforcement and no way to define its terms does not exist as a contract, what is custom only is not law.

The establishment of international law - its enforcement, say - requires the formation of rudimentary international government. To the extent no such government has been formed, the ostensible "law" is freely and routinely broken by the powerful - as we saw with Trump's repudiations of contracts with N Korea, Iran, Mexico, Canada, France, Germany, and the other signatories of the various treaties he has decided to renege on.

I think you have no idea what a government is, essentially. They all look basically the same, to you. You can't tell different kinds apart, because you have only one kind in the category.

No, "Russian proxies" are not attacking Israel, but retaliating against Israeli attacks. Retaliation against an aggressor has my blessing. If you have a problem with this, so what.

I never had a problem with it.
You used to, if it threatened nuclear war - now you don't.
Instead you argue that "retaliations" are therefore not "attacks" - which is something you would need to persuade Israel of, not me. You would also need to persuade Israel that its actions in Syria are not themselves retaliations, and therefore justified - nothing on Israel's "borders" started last week.

Nuclear war is most likely to start by accident or blunder - that's why Trump was so much greater a risk for it than Clinton - and the stage is set for that in Syria.
I have recognized this point.

No, you haven't. I have found that same hole every single time you have ventured into the subject on this forum - it's always there.

No. This is only your cheap try to distort the discussion away from content to personal attacks

The content of your post was the silly-ass agitprop you suckered for regarding Clinton (how else would you have Clinton launching nuclear war with Russia?). You compared it with your lack of similar gullibility regarding the often-maligned Jewish political figures of Israel. That was content - your content, that you provided.

Meanwhile, the sight of the self-proclaimed libertarian once brandishing the threat of nuclear war as their major worry and world government as their bete noir, now defending the Russian-backed Syrian regime's military attacks against Israeli occupied territory, speaking favorably about Syria bombing Israel (those would be Russian bombs and delivery craft. no?), and justifying it all by appealing to United Nations edicts and ukases, is at least entertaining.

 

[Schmelzer]

To that extent there is no law. What has no enforcement and no way to define its terms does not exist as a contract, what is custom only is not law.

Ok, according to your understanding there is no international law. Fine. I have a different opinion, so according to my understanding, there is international law, which is a contract law. That means, it is illegal to violate contracts which you have signed volitionally and not abrogated, even if there is no institution which enforces this contract.

To the extent no such government has been formed, the ostensible "law" is freely and routinely broken by the powerful - as we saw with Trump's repudiations of contracts with N Korea, Iran, Mexico, Canada, France, Germany, and the other signatories of the various treaties he has decided to renege on.

That law may be freely and routinely broken happens also with the law as imposed by a government.

I think you have no idea what a government is, essentially. They all look basically the same, to you. You can't tell different kinds apart, because you have only one kind in the category.

Of course, my ideas about what a government is is very different from what you think about it, and we all know that this would be your (arrogant and nonsensical) way to express this.

You used to, if it threatened nuclear war - now you don't.

Which is, as usual, your fantasy, not supported by any quote or so.

Instead you argue that "retaliations" are therefore not "attacks" - which is something you would need to persuade Israel of, not me. You would also need to persuade Israel that its actions in Syria are not themselves retaliations, and therefore justified - nothing on Israel's "borders" started last week.

Israel does not even claim that their attacks are a retaliation. They say these are reactions to things which they think may somehow endanger Israel. Namely, Iranian bases in Syria, or Iranian delivery of weapons to Hisbollah. And Israel knows very well the difference between an attack and a retaliation, they don't need me to explain them elementary things.

No, you haven't. I have found that same hole every single time you have ventured into the subject on this forum - it's always there.

I have recognized it as a meaningful argument, but not accepted it as a decisive argument. We can simply agree to disagree about how decisive the argument is.

The content of your post was the silly-ass agitprop you suckered for...

You think an even more excessive personal attack is a counterargument against my point that your point was a cheap personal attack? Lol.

Meanwhile, the sight of the self-proclaimed libertarian once brandishing the threat of nuclear war as their major worry and world government as their bete noir, now defending the Russian-backed Syrian regime's military attacks against Israeli occupied territory, speaking favorably about Syria bombing Israel (those would be Russian bombs and delivery craft. no?), and justifying it all by appealing to United Nations edicts and ukases, is at least entertaining.

What is entertaining here is only in how many ways you distort my position.
Distortion 1: The threat of nuclear war is not my major worry. (It is only the major point in the Trump vs. Clinton debate, that's all.)
Distortion 2: I do not defend "attacks against Israeli occupied territory", or "speaking favorably about Syria bombing Israel", I only defend retaliation against Israeli attacks. Once these attacks consist of bombing Syrian territory, such retaliation may contain bombing Israeli territory as well as bombing Israeli occupied territory.
Distortion 3: "justifying it all by appealing to United Nations edicts and ukases". I haven't done this.
The guy who has done this argues in an even more primitive way:

a person defending naked aggression and unilateral annexation(crimea)

I do not defend any naked aggression or annexation, and what happened on Crimea was none. Neither in anything what happened in reality (all that Russian soldiers did was the protection of various buildings to prevent some actions of supporters of the coup in Kiev) nor from a legal point of view. Once the legal, elected president was overturned, he had any right to ask foreign powers to help him against the coup, even with military force, and he did this. And the legal government of Crimea had any right to secede and did this.

 

[iceaura]

Ok, according to your understanding there is no international law.

No, according to my understanding there is a rudimentary world government.

Israel does not even claim that their attacks are a retaliation. They say these are reactions to things which they think may somehow endanger Israel. Namely, Iranian bases in Syria, or Iranian delivery of weapons to Hisbollah.

And they claim the right of self defense - which is ok with you, right?

I have recognized it as a meaningful argument, but not accepted it as a decisive argument.

It's not an argument. It's a factor in the risk of nuclear war - the major factor, if we take your word for it that only the suicidally psychotic would engage in one on purpose (I agree).
You have omitted it, every time. I have had to supply it, every time I involved myself.

That means, it is illegal to violate contracts which you have signed volitionally and not abrogated, even if there is no institution which enforces this contract.

There is no such real world thing as illegality, let alone a contract, without an institution that determines when signing, abrogation, violation, etc, have taken place, and what consequences are appropriate - thereby triggering the consequences we label "enforcement", likewise institutionalized.

Contract law without a government is a paper entity - like a drawing of a house, with nothing built.

Distortion 1: The threat of nuclear war is not my major worry. (It is only the major point in the Trump vs. Clinton debate, that's all.)
Distortion 2: I do not defend "attacks against Israeli occupied territory", or "speaking favorably about Syria bombing Israel", I only defend retaliation against Israeli attacks. Once these attacks consist of bombing Syrian territory, such retaliation may contain bombing Israeli territory as well as bombing Israeli occupied territory.
Distortion 3: "justifying it all by appealing to United Nations edicts and ukases". I haven't done this.

1) You said it was, in all contexts - such as the nature of allies or the form of government, as came up specifically - of international military involvement and the US. Now you say different.
2) Those retaliations you describe as justified and appropriate are attacks. Whether they are in retaliation for something doesn't change that - and is unlikely to modify Israel's behavior, Russia's behavior, the US's behavior, etc. That used to be your primary concern - nuclear powers behaving badly, feeling attacked, etc. - according to you.
3) You have. You label them "international law", and you invoke them frequently - it's one of your more frequent references in defending Putin's behavior in Syria, and condemning Israel's and the US's.

I do not defend any naked aggression or annexation, and what happened on Crimea was none.

But you do defend aggression and annexation - as happened to Crimea - when clothed in the bogus excuses you find persuasive when Russia presents them. The Russian emperor is always clothed, even the Russian-favored Trump parades in dignity pants, when you are viewing the scene.

 

[pjdude1219]

I do not defend any naked aggression or annexation, and what happened on Crimea was none. Neither in anything what happened in reality (all that Russian soldiers did was the protection of various buildings to prevent some actions of supporters of the coup in Kiev) nor from a legal point of view. Once the legal, elected president was overturned, he had any right to ask foreign powers to help him against the coup, even with military force, and he did this. And the legal government of Crimea had any right to secede and did this.

my point made your defending aggression and illegal annexation.

votes at gun point are coercion.

 

[CptBork]

Distortion 3: "justifying it all by appealing to United Nations edicts and ukases". I haven't done this.

So when talking about Assad as the legal governing authority of Syria, and discussing his alleged legal right to recapture rebellious territories and invite foreign invaders to help him do this, what set of laws were you specifically referencing?

 

[Schmelzer]

No, according to my understanding there is a rudimentary world government.

Ok, your opinion. I think differently, an international law based on contract as well as custom is compatible with libertarian principles and has nothing to do with a world government.

And they claim the right of self defense - which is ok with you, right?

They have a right of self-defence, and this is ok with me. But this right of self-defence does not justify their attacks on other states.

It's not an argument. It's a factor in the risk of nuclear war - the major factor, if we take your word for it that only the suicidally psychotic would engage in one on purpose (I agree).
You have omitted it, every time. I have had to supply it, every time I involved myself.

It is a factor. Your argument is that this factor is much higher with Trump in comparison with Clinton, because of the different psychological properties of these types. This is already a hypothesis. And there are opposite tendencies which you ignore. Namely that what increases this danger of accidental war is the general climate, in a situation of cooperation the risk is much lower than in a climate of confrontation. Who stands for the confrontation with Russia, Clinton or Trump?

There is no such real world thing as illegality, let alone a contract, without an institution that determines when signing, abrogation, violation, etc, have taken place, and what consequences are appropriate - thereby triggering the consequences we label "enforcement", likewise institutionalized.
Contract law without a government is a paper entity - like a drawing of a house, with nothing built.

Contracts work even without such government-like institutions. Contracts work also on the base of trust. Why do the Clintonoids cry so much about the foreign policy of Trump being bad? They recognize that breaking all these contracts destroys the international power of the US. Which is the power they need, they want to have back, and they know that once destroyed, winning the next elections will not give it back, because what is destroyed is the worldwide trust that the US foreign policy remains essentially unchanged by any election results and that one can trust in American foreign policy. Empires depend on trust that they follow their own laws.

1) You said it was, in all contexts - such as the nature of allies or the form of government, as came up specifically - of international military involvement and the US. Now you say different.

If you think so, present quotes (with links, of course) to statements where you see a difference. Then I can, I think, easily clarify my position. Claims about what I think without quotes have been often enough identified as clear lies. So, they are already, independent of their particular content, suspect to be lies. And the aim is obviously a cheap personal attack. There is no longer any reason to suspect a misunderstanding on your side or real contradictions in my position.

2) Those retaliations you describe as justified and appropriate are attacks. Whether they are in retaliation for something doesn't change that - and is unlikely to modify Israel's behavior, Russia's behavior, the US's behavior, etc.

I don't use the word "attack" for something which is a retaliation. To do so is clearly misleading. And intentionally misleading, in particular, given the accusations that I "support attacks" when I support only retaliation. And, of course, everybody knows the moral difference between an attack and a retaliation. This includes also the governments of Israel, Russia and even the US.

That used to be your primary concern - nuclear powers behaving badly, feeling attacked, etc. - according to you.

Such claims without quotes are defamations.

3) You have. You label them "international law", and you invoke them frequently - it's one of your more frequent references in defending Putin's behavior in Syria, and condemning Israel's and the US's.

In this context, I have not referred to them. In general, the member states of the UN have signed the UN conventions, so, it is international law in the form of contract law.

But you do defend aggression and annexation - as happened to Crimea - when clothed in the bogus excuses you find persuasive when Russia presents them. The Russian emperor is always clothed, even the Russian-favored Trump parades in dignity pants, when you are viewing the scene.

I defend what you, and other NATO propagandists (or propaganda victims) who believe in "votes at gunpoint" or so in Crimea, name aggression and annexation. This is something very different. That you name the Russian position bogus, without any arguments supporting this point, is what one expects from Western propagandists. They have no arguments, so nothing else remains.

So when talking about Assad as the legal governing authority of Syria, and discussing his alleged legal right to recapture rebellious territories and invite foreign invaders to help him do this, what set of laws were you specifically referencing?

Customary international law, following the Peace of Westphalia tradition of 1648. But, of course, given that the UN members have signed the UN conventions, they have to follow them too, contract law. (My point was that in this context I have not used this as an argument. Even if I would accept the argument, and could use it myself too if necessary, the "justifying it all by appealing to United Nations edicts and ukases" is nonetheless a distortion.)

 

[pjdude1219]

I defend what you, and other NATO propagandists (or propaganda victims) who believe in "votes at gunpoint" or so in Crimea, name aggression and annexation.

the vote happened with foreign(russian) troops in the territory presiding over the vote. it was literally held at gun point. to claim and believe otherwise is to be delusional, stupid, dishonest, or some combination of thereof. this is simple fact. that you think its ok is rather telling.

This is something very different. That you name the Russian position bogus, without any arguments supporting this point, is what one expects from Western propagandists. They have no arguments, so nothing else remains.

i could explain it to you but you dont give a shit your ok with russian aggression and violence.

Customary international law, following the Peace of Westphalia tradition of 1648. But, of course, given that the UN members have signed the UN conventions, they have to follow them too, contract law. (My point was that in this context I have not used this as an argument. Even if I would accept the argument, and could use it myself too if necessary, the "justifying it all by appealing to United Nations edicts and ukases" is nonetheless a distortion.)

customary international law disallows waging war solely to gain or even regain territory. the montevideo convention which is part of customary international law says so. this came about due in part to revanchism in france[/QUOTE]

 

[iceaura]

I think differently, an international law based on contract as well as custom is compatible with libertarian principles and has nothing to do with a world government.

And is accordingly a fantasy, on a par with anti-gravity boots and self-stabilizing free markets.

But this right of self-defence does not justify their attacks on other states.

It apparently justifies other State's attacks on them - in their view.

I don't use the word "attack" for something which is a retaliation.

Literate speakers of English do.
I realize it's not your native language, but you are singularly unwise to attempt to base a moral position on a question of semantics in a foreign language.
You are also unwarranted in your attempt to start the history of the Israeli/Syrian hostilities a few months ago - the people you are addressing were not born yesterday.

Contracts work even without such government-like institutions.

No, they don't. They don't even exist.

I defend what you, and other NATO propagandists (or propaganda victims) who believe in "votes at gunpoint" or so in Crimea, name aggression and annexation.

Are you denying the annexation?

Then I can, I think, easily clarify my position.

Your position then was clear. So is your position now.

 

[CptBork]

Customary international law, following the Peace of Westphalia tradition of 1648. But, of course, given that the UN members have signed the UN conventions, they have to follow them too, contract law. (My point was that in this context I have not used this as an argument. Even if I would accept the argument, and could use it myself too if necessary, the "justifying it all by appealing to United Nations edicts and ukases" is nonetheless a distortion.)

Well the Treaty of Westphalia says nothing about Bashar Assad, so you must be appealing to UN law on that account. UN law also says you're not allowed to butcher your own citizens, and that international investigators must be given open access to areas where chemical attacks are suspected, so why don't you respect those "contracts" too?

Also, you seem to think Israel refrains from attacking Russian interests for fear of committing national suicide by doing so, and yet Russia only refrains from attacking Israel because it doesn't care to do so at this time. If Russia decided to fire off nukes at Israel, how many Russians do you expect to survive the counter-attack? You don't think it would be suicide for Russians just the same? If the usual rumours are true, Israel has almost as many active, functional warheads and missiles as Russia does at this point, does Russia have magic Goldeneye and Icarus satellites to shoot them all down?

 

[Schmelzer]

the vote happened with foreign(russian) troops in the territory presiding over the vote. it was literally held at gun point.

Feel free to believe this nonsense, who cares. There were Russian troops in the country, they played a role for security of the elections, that's all. In the Donbass, a similar voting about independence was attacked at several places by fascists, with some dead voters as the result. This was prevented in Crimea. Beyond this, they played no role. And there was no necessity for this, every opinion poll, even by pro-Western organizations, and all subsequent elections have given quite similar results for pro-Russian forces.

customary international law disallows waging war solely to gain or even regain territory. the montevideo convention which is part of customary international law says so. this came about due in part to revanchism in france

Indeed, but irrelevant, because there was no war waged. The legal government of Crimea was supported against supporters of an illegal coup in Kiev, in full agreement with the legal president of Ukraine.

And is accordingly a fantasy, on a par with anti-gravity boots and self-stabilizing free markets.

Who cares what you think are fantasies, given that you don't have arguments?

It apparently justifies other State's attacks on them - in their view.

Of course, there may be disagreement if there was an attack or not. In the particular case, there clearly was an Israeli attack against Syrian territory. And this attack was not claimed to be a retaliation.

Literate speakers of English do.

If they want to defame somebody, may be.

I realize it's not your native language, but you are singularly unwise to attempt to base a moral position on a question of semantics in a foreign language.

I see a big moral difference between a retaliation and an attack which cannot be justified in such a way. If one uses "attack" without specification, everybody will presuppose that it was an unprovoked attack, not a justified retaliation. So, if one uses "attack" in a situation when it is clear that it is a case of retaliation, one defames. This is not an issue of language, but about the information provided by the language. The information that there exists a justification for this attack, namely an unjustified attack by the other side, is omitted, with the obvious aim of defamation.

You are also unwarranted in your attempt to start the history of the Israeli/Syrian hostilities a few months ago - the people you are addressing were not born yesterday.

I know something about this history, don't worry, but it does not justify the Israeli attack. So, the Syrian retaliation is justified.

No, they don't. They don't even exist.

LOL

Are you denying the annexation?

Of course.

Your position then was clear. So is your position now.

Fine. Then quote them with links and show the contradiction you see. You have misinterpreted me so many times in so obvious ways that what you think does not matter at all. Present the facts, with links.

Well the Treaty of Westphalia says nothing about Bashar Assad, so you must be appealing to UN law on that account.

The classical international law is sufficient for this.

UN law also says you're not allowed to butcher your own citizens, and that international investigators must be given open access to areas where chemical attacks are suspected, so why don't you respect those "contracts" too?

Of course, these are contracts. Whatever the UN decides is relevant only for UN member states, and whatever the chemical weapons convention says is relevant only for those who have signed it. So, up to 2013 Assad has owned chemical weapons in a completely legal way. Then he has signed the convention and given his chemical weapons to specialists to destroy them.

Also, you seem to think Israel refrains from attacking Russian interests for fear of committing national suicide by doing so, and yet Russia only refrains from attacking Israel because it doesn't care to do so at this time.

You seem to have even more strange fantasies than Iceaura. Russia does not start any aggression.

If Russia decided to fire off nukes at Israel, how many Russians do you expect to survive the counter-attack? You don't think it would be suicide for Russians just the same?

A completely irrelevant question, because Russia does not have such plans. But, no, I don't think so. MAD exists between Russia and US, and almost certainly also between US and China. Israel does not have comparable abilities. If Russia would attack, they would know before where the rockets dangerous for Russia would be located (don't forget that Israel is full of Jews with Russian origin, so that Russia has no problem at all to find there a lot of spies) and they would not survive the first strike.

If the usual rumours are true, Israel has almost as many active, functional warheads and missiles as Russia does at this point

I don't believe such nonsense.

 

[CptBork]

Indeed, but irrelevant, because there was no war waged. The legal government of Crimea was supported against supporters of an illegal coup in Kiev, in full agreement with the legal president of Ukraine.

The legal government of Crimea had no legal authority to separate from the rest of Ukraine without an elected federal government to approve it. Sending soldiers to grant them this illegal power is an example of what's typically known in the English language as an invasion, which constitutes an act of war.

I see a big moral difference between a retaliation and an attack which cannot be justified in such a way. If one uses "attack" without specification, everybody will presuppose that it was an unprovoked attack, not a justified retaliation. So, if one uses "attack" in a situation when it is clear that it is a case of retaliation, one defames. This is not an issue of language, but about the information provided by the language. The information that there exists a justification for this attack, namely an unjustified attack by the other side, is omitted, with the obvious aim of defamation.

Iran is officially at war with Israel and spares no effort to remind the world that this is the case, including the annual Al Quds Day parades. Permitting this country to station its military forces and affiliated militias on Israel's Syrian border, with weapons intended for unprovoked attacks on Israeli populations, is in itself an act of war which legitimizes Israeli retaliation, nearly all of which has come against those same forces.

Of course, these are contracts. Whatever the UN decides is relevant only for UN member states, and whatever the chemical weapons convention says is relevant only for those who have signed it. So, up to 2013 Assad has owned chemical weapons in a completely legal way. Then he has signed the convention and given his chemical weapons to specialists to destroy them.

But not all of the weapons were destroyed, many of their production facilities remain, and independent investigators are denied access to most alleged weapons sites. Why do you insist on a certain narrow segment of international law being enforced with regards to Assad's legitimacy, but don't care to see it thoroughly enforced and monitored with regards to how he treats his own people, his prisons, starvation sieges and barrel bombs, etc.?

You seem to have even more strange fantasies than Iceaura. Russia does not start any aggression.

They've waged aggression against other countries dozens of times of the last couple of centuries without any significant provocation to justify it. If they're not afraid to take on US allies and priorities, why don't they go invade Kosovo?

A completely irrelevant question, because Russia does not have such plans. But, no, I don't think so. MAD exists between Russia and US, and almost certainly also between US and China. Israel does not have comparable abilities. If Russia would attack, they would know before where the rockets dangerous for Russia would be located (don't forget that Israel is full of Jews with Russian origin, so that Russia has no problem at all to find there a lot of spies) and they would not survive the first strike.

Israel reportedly has deep underground silos designed to withstand a first strike, plus several missile subs that could be anywhere in the world at this very moment, and possibly other long-range strike capabilities which aren't even known to the general public. There's no reason to think Israel wouldn't detect all those missiles coming in advance and be launching its response before they hit, and it has by far the best missile defense coverage per square kilometre of any nation on the planet. For every Russian immigrant spying on Israel, there's a Jewish citizen in Russia capable of doing the same, so how do you derive an advantage there? How many simulations of nuclear war between Russia and Israel have you conducted to arrive at your conclusions?

I don't believe such nonsense.

Ok, so then why does Russia act like it's mortally threatened by a rudimentary system which would only be able to shoot down a few dozen standard missiles in a fairy tale best-case scenario?

 

[Schmelzer]

The legal government of Crimea had no legal authority to separate from the rest of Ukraine without an elected federal government to approve it.

As long as the constitutional order existed, yes. But the constitutional order was destroyed by the military coup in Kiev. So, there was no legal federal government anymore. So, the highest constitutional authority in Crimea was the government of Crimea.

Iran is officially at war with Israel

No.

But not all of the weapons were destroyed, many of their production facilities remain, and independent investigators are denied access to most alleged weapons sites.

No.

Why do you insist on a certain narrow segment of international law being enforced with regards to Assad's legitimacy, but don't care to see it thoroughly enforced and monitored with regards to how he treats his own people, his prisons, starvation sieges and barrel bombs, etc.?

International law tells essentially nothing about prisons and so on. Barrel bombs are quite harmless, and play a role in Western propaganda only. The starvation sieges are also Western propaganda. Anyway, both would be irrelevant in relation to international law.

They've waged aggression against other countries dozens of times of the last couple of centuries without any significant provocation to justify it.

Under Marxist control over Russia, some Georgian and Ukrainian leaders have waged some wars of aggression. Russia does not start wars, it ends them.

Israel reportedly has ... How many simulations of nuclear war between Russia and Israel have you conducted to arrive at your conclusions?

Reportedly Israel is the only military superpower on this planet and everybody is afraid of them. Ok, be happy with this. Of course, I have not cared about this question at all, because I know neither Russia nor Israel has such plans, so there is no reason to care at all.

Ok, so then why does Russia act like it's mortally threatened by a rudimentary system which would only be able to shoot down a few dozen standard missiles in a fairy tale best-case scenario?

It acts like this only in your fantasy world, so the answer is simple - because in your fantasy world it is afraid of Israel. LOL.

 

[iceaura]

Who cares what you think are fantasies, given that you don't have arguments?

Just pointing out the obvious, to someone who has yet to post an actual argument for any of the stuff they claim, or recognize a single argument from me on any topic.

Literate speakers of English do.
If they want to defame somebody, may be.

And any other time they wish to communicate via the meaning of that word. It's just a word in English whose meaning you have mistaken.
And, as always, mistaken in a way familiar to those familiar with a particular set of propaganda sources.

If one uses "attack" without specification, everybody will presuppose that it was an unprovoked attack, not a justified retaliation.

No, they won't. Other people often use English words for their meanings, and read them the same way.
But if you are worried, just use "retaliation" - no sense in passing up a propaganda opportunity, and the missing justification is no big deal in your world (you have Syria justified in bombing Israel itself, after all). You can pretend that all retaliations are justified when responding to arguments later - that'll work as well as anything else you post on the topic.
Just don't try to build an entire moral argument on semantics in a foreign language you seem to have learned from rightwing propaganda sources. It doesn't work.

I know something about this history, don't worry, but it does not justify the Israeli attack. So, the Syrian retaliation is justified.

Other people disagree with you, pointing to the history you claim to know but have chosen to omit. In particular, Israel has nuclear weapons backing its interpretations of Russian proxy assault on its occupied territories. That used to be a concern of yours - the risk of nuclear war involving Russia.

- - - MAD exists between Russia and US, and almost certainly also between US and China. Israel does not have comparable abilities.

Israel has MAD capabilities, according to standard unofficial estimates. They don't need to be "comparable".
It also has a nuclear armed ally.

If Russia would attack, they would know before where the rockets dangerous for Russia would be located (don't forget that Israel is full of Jews with Russian origin, so that Russia has no problem at all to find there a lot of spies) and they would not survive the first strike.

The amusing obliviousness of the reference to Jews who fled Russian persecution being a source of friendly information for Russia aside (they are far more likely to be good sources of information for Israel about Russian weapons and targets), the problem all such presumptions face (and the reason MAD works) is that one has to be sure.
That's why accident, mishap, escalation from error, and so forth, are the likely instigations of nuclear exchange between nuclear powers.

Which is something you never have acknowledged - not even when your top priority was avoiding all risk of nuclear war, especially involving Russia, and you favored handing the US military to a fascist demagogue on a fantasy of his lower risk.

 

[Schmelzer]

But if you are worried, just use "retaliation" - no sense in passing up a propaganda opportunity, and the missing justification is no big deal in your world (you have Syria justified in bombing Israel itself, after all).

This is already an open lie. I have justified this only in the context of a retaliation, and a retaliation for Israel bombing Syrian territory. So I have justified this only in a situation where a justification exists.

No, they won't. Other people often use English words for their meanings, and read them the same way.
[...] Just don't try to build an entire moral argument on semantics in a foreign language you seem to have learned from rightwing propaganda sources. It doesn't work.

I know that arguments don't work in discussions with you. But, given the much more serious open lie here, there is already no need to argue about your theories of the use of English which contradicts your own moral accusations against me like "Russian proxies in this war are attacking Israel, now, with your blessing".

That's why accident, mishap, escalation from error, and so forth, are the likely instigations of nuclear exchange between nuclear powers.
Which is something you never have acknowledged - not even when your top priority was avoiding all risk of nuclear war, especially involving Russia, and you favored handing the US military to a fascist demagogue on a fantasy of his lower risk.

First, as usual for your claims about me, they are wrong. I have acknowledged that. See above "It is a factor". The disagreement is about what increases this factor. You seem to think that all what matters here are the personal qualities of the president. I think the general climate in society, which in particular is also the general climate among the military, among those who have to decide if there actually is an attack or not, is much more important. And, of course, the closeness of the general situation to a war. And where this general situation will be more dangerous, with a president who is known to hate Russia, and openly wants to start a conventional war with Russia, like Clinton, and who started after the loss of the election a hysterical anti-Russian media campaign "Russia has distorted the elections", or a guy who wanted to improve the relations with Russia, and is now prevented to do this mainly because of this campaign?

 

[iceaura]

"and the missing justification is no big deal in your world (you have Syria justified in bombing Israel itself, after all). "
This is already an open lie. I have justified this only in the context of a retaliation, and a retaliation for Israel bombing Syrian territory. So I have justified this only in a situation where a justification exists.

So it's not a lie, and you and I are in perfect agreement.

I know that arguments don't work in discussions with you.

Try one sometime. You might be surprised.

You seem to think that all what matters here are the personal qualities of the president.

I don't. I seem to think that you claimed the personal qualities of the president were overriding, and Hilary's were psychotic and much worse than Trump's. I seem to think that because that's what you posted, and your posting is where I got that thinking.

I think the general climate in society, which in particular is also the general climate among the military, among those who have to decide if there actually is an attack or not, is much more important. And, of course, the closeness of the general situation to a war.

That's not what you posted back then. And it changes nothing - Trump has brought us closer to mistaken nuclear reaction, the major risk, from incompetence and belligerence in managing the "general climate among the military" as well as encouraging military escalation including potential use of tactical nuclear weapons. We're already in three wars in the area, remember. The "general situation" is in combat now.

And where this general situation will be more dangerous, with a president who is known to hate Russia, and openly wants to start a conventional war with Russia, like Clinton, and who started after the loss of the election a hysterical anti-Russian media campaign "Russia has distorted the elections", or a guy who wanted to improve the relations with Russia, and is now prevented to do this mainly because of this campaign?

So back to the personal qualities - that was a quick flip.
Answer: With Trump of course, as predicted and as has become obvious since. He's incompetent and belligerent, the demagogue of a fascistic government. Clinton is competent and calculating, a policy wonk and State Department figure.

First, as usual for your claims about me, they are wrong. I have acknowledged that. See above "It is a factor".

But not the factor. And not on your own.
That was in response to my once again reminding you that you had once again left it out, as always before - left out the major risk factor for nuclear war involving Russia, the factor that all informed people lose sleep over whenever a nuclear power is under attack and feeling threatened, the factor that has brought us to the brink of heavy nuclear exchange several times already.

And the factor that was supposed to be your priority, earlier - not which of the illegitimate and objectionable governments in some mess was least justified in their latest bad behavior, because you don't care about any of them supposedly, but how to best assure avoidance of nuclear war.

It turns out that now you do have a favored government - Russia's - and are willing to risk nuclear war to further its interests.

 

[Schmelzer]

So it's not a lie, and you and I are in perfect agreement.

It is a lie. "and the missing justification is no big deal in your world (you have Syria justified in bombing Israel itself, after all)" clearly says that the justification is missing, despite the fact that I have given one.

Try one sometime. You might be surprised.

I try all the time. I know it is only for the occasional accidental reader, for you it would be worthless.

I seem to think that you claimed the personal qualities of the president were overriding, and Hilary's were psychotic and much worse than Trump's.
I seem to think that because that's what you posted, and your posting is where I got that thinking.

That psychotic point I have mostly taken back after I have learned about that strange medical condition of her eyes. Of course, some sort of psychosis is there (I would not really wonder if behind all that body count talk is some truth), but not as much as I thought looking at her facial expression in the videos.

But the main argument was not some hypothetical psychosis, these are minor points, but her record as a war criminal, and her program for more war crimes.

That's not what you posted back then. And it changes nothing - Trump has brought us closer to mistaken nuclear reaction, the major risk, from incompetence and belligerence in managing the "general climate among the military" as well as encouraging military escalation including potential use of tactical nuclear weapons. We're already in three wars in the area, remember. The "general situation" is in combat now.

And you are in all three wars thanks to Obama. A guy who was, in comparison with Clinton, more peaceful, and has fired her afaiu because of this. And, no, what has brought us closer to nuclear war is the anti-Russian hysteria in the US, and this is combined with the anti-Trump hysteria.

But not the factor. And not on your own.

Of course not. Starting a conventional war with Russia, as Clinton has promised, would have been more important than her qualities as a policy wonk. I see no reason to repeat points which I recognize exist, but are not that important.

And the factor that was supposed to be your priority, earlier - not which of the illegitimate and objectionable governments in some mess was least justified in their latest bad behavior, because you don't care about any of them supposedly, but how to best assure avoidance of nuclear war.

It was my priority in the question of the American elections.

It turns out that now you do have a favored government - Russia's - and are willing to risk nuclear war to further its interests.

Big surprise. I have never claimed to be neutral, I favour Russia in comparison with America, because America is a danger for the whole planet, and Russia and China are what is necessary to stop this danger. Not submitting to the US blackmail is, indeed, something dangerous, and you can afford it only if you are powerful enough. Russia is now powerful enough for this.