Jesus Christ if this was Saudi agents, it has to be it right? If the Saudis can kill people on US soil surely not even trump and their strongest supporters in the right wing can defend them. How come this isn't a bigger deal so far? Is the press waiting for a stronger confirmation, is it known whether they have any family members who could have done this?
Stronger confirmation? There is no confirmation of anything right now, except that two girls are dead. If the girls really did apply for asylum, there will be records of that. Let the detectives work before jumping too far ahead.
The Trump administration has announced the re-imposition of pre-2015 sanctions against Iran with temporary exemptions for at least eight countries when it comes to Iranian oil imports. Iran is said to be bracing for some decent sized domestic fallout.
I did not know that NYT has been recording and publishing war casualties in Afghanistan for the last couple of months. I give props to the Times for continuing to report on Afghanistan long after nearly everyone else stopped caring. It paints a bleak picture.
Beginning in September, the Times bureau in Kabul mobilized all of its stringers and Afghan reporters to record every attack on the Afghan security forces that they could find, as a daily chronicle of the war. This first entry goes back to the week of Sept. 6, a period when 400 Afghan soldiers and police officers were reportedly killed, a record number. The average this year, officials say, is between 30 and 40 deaths per day. [and that's just security forces, never mind civilian and Taliban deaths - at least I think that's what they mean] Many local Afghan officials say they have been told not to cooperate with the press in reporting casualties, so this accounting is necessarily incomplete.
In the past week, the Times confirmed that 118 members of the security forces were killed, a significant increase over the previous week, but, unusually, there were no confirmed deaths of civilians. Fighting spread to nine provinces, but the emphasis shifted to the south as cold weather intensified in the north. An entire battalion of Afghan border soldiers was wiped out in western Farah Province, and the Taliban tried — unsuccessfully so far — to take over Jaghori District in Ghazni, an anti-insurgent stronghold.
It sort of seems like the more bloody this war gets, the more silent the rest of the world becomes.
I did not know that NYT has been recording and publishing war casualties in Afghanistan for the last couple of months. I give props to the Times for continuing to report on Afghanistan long after nearly everyone else stopped caring. It paints a bleak picture.
Beginning in September, the Times bureau in Kabul mobilized all of its stringers and Afghan reporters to record every attack on the Afghan security forces that they could find, as a daily chronicle of the war. This first entry goes back to the week of Sept. 6, a period when 400 Afghan soldiers and police officers were reportedly killed, a record number. The average this year, officials say, is between 30 and 40 deaths per day. [and that's just security forces, never mind civilian and Taliban deaths - at least I think that's what they mean] Many local Afghan officials say they have been told not to cooperate with the press in reporting casualties, so this accounting is necessarily incomplete.
In the past week, the Times confirmed that 118 members of the security forces were killed, a significant increase over the previous week, but, unusually, there were no confirmed deaths of civilians. Fighting spread to nine provinces, but the emphasis shifted to the south as cold weather intensified in the north. An entire battalion of Afghan border soldiers was wiped out in western Farah Province, and the Taliban tried — unsuccessfully so far — to take over Jaghori District in Ghazni, an anti-insurgent stronghold.
It sort of seems like the more bloody this war gets, the more silent the rest of the world becomes.
Tragedy versus statistics. It's easy to look away and just view it as numbers.
Big things happening in Gaza. This is all on the eve of a peace deal. The shooting started because of some Israeli op that went south. Why there were special forces in the strip nobody yet knows, but one of them was killed and they ended up getting air support. Several Palestinians, including a senior Hamas commander, were killed. It's been escalating these past 24 hours or so.
Some 300 Gaza Rockets Launched at Israel; IDF Strikes Strip
Iron Dome intercepts 60 rockets ■ Sirens sound as far as Dead Sea ■ Eight Israelis wounded, one of whom seriously ■ IDF strikes 60 Gaza targets ■ Three Palestinians killed
It is generally not acceptable to put your military forces in a sovereign territory without being invited, no, so it hinges on "is Palestine part of Israel or is it sovereign territory?"
It is generally not acceptable to put your military forces in a sovereign territory without being invited, no, so it hinges on "is Palestine part of Israel or is it sovereign territory?"
Both, depending on whatever the fuck the Israelis want at the time.
You're not sovereign if a foreign military controls your sea and air space and borders.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
You're not sovereign if a foreign military controls your sea and air space and borders.
Whether or not this is legal has more to do with the de jure situation than the de facto reality - plenty of countries do things in violation of international law because even if caught there's essentially zero chance of being meaningfully punished
They've been in violation since 1967. Its not really a new thing. International law has no teeth in most cases, and its not like Israel is the only one that violates it. The US isn't supposed to be building bases in Syria either, Russia shouldn't annex Crimea, etc.
The important thing here is that this is a major escalation at an unexpected time. Its really open how this goes down since (probably) neither side anticipated this. With all the violence it puts the peace deal on very shaky ground.
NYT journalists visit Jaghuri, a Hazara (Afghan Shia minority, very bad history vis a vis the Taliban) stronghold in Ghazni Province and district of 600,000 people. They were expecting to cover the successful defense of the district by the dozens of US-trained commandos sent to reinforce it against a Taliban assault. Instead, the commando units were decimated by the Taliban, as were scores of local militia and police. Now the neighboring district has fallen, Jaghuri is on the verge of falling, and NYT's journalists had to flee the area with the desperate civilians.
But the district is famous for how peaceful it had been. Most people say they cannot remember the last time there was a murder or serious robbery. And the district’s education record is aspirational for the rest of the country: Schooling is nearly universal among girls, and much higher than the Afghan average for boys.
Many of Afghanistan’s most prominent women are from Jaghori, where the sight of girls riding bicycles and even driving vehicles — virtually unknown in major Afghan cities — is common.
...
By late Sunday night, reports came that Hotqol was now undefended, and families were fleeing from there and the next town as well. Panic set in amid rumors that the Taliban were only an hour away from Sang-e-Masha.
Governor Sharif went into hiding.
We fled, too, along mountain tracks barely visible in the darkness. Nearly all of the traffic was one way, cars and even dump trucks packed with families escaping Afghanistan’s latest catastrophe.
The citizens of Jaghuri want the government to help them arm militias. However, a government official told the Times “If we do that here, they will want it in Badghis Province and Kandahar, Nangahar and all over the country." So the government doesn't want to give locals the power to defend themselves, as it undermines their already deteriorating authority, but also cannot adequately protect the countryside from the Taliban.
I'm considering a subscription to the Times for the first time. My opinion of the paper has kind of waffled over the years but from what I've seen they're really the only remaining US news agency taking these kind of risks to report on Afghanistan.
They've been in violation since 1967. Its not really a new thing. International law has no teeth in most cases, and its not like Israel is the only one that violates it. The US isn't supposed to be building bases in Syria either, Russia shouldn't annex Crimea, etc.
The important thing here is that this is a major escalation at an unexpected time. Its really open how this goes down since (probably) neither side anticipated this. With all the violence it puts the peace deal on very shaky ground.
The NATO invasion of the Iraq violating international law by the American (and NATO...) definition of what constitutes international law. To start, it deliberately ignored several UN Resolutions. The sitting Secretary General, Annan, not to mention other international nobodies such as the president of Russia and the deputy prime minister of the United Kingdom noted it was directly contrary to the United Nations Charter.
International laws are basically suggestions, whether applied outside to a nation acting within its own recognized territory (say, Syria), or even more so, nation or nations acting outside of their own recognized territory (NATO in Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc.). You could say that international "space" is basically like national space where nominal rule of law doesn't exist for lack of enforcement (Afghanistan comes to mind, though that might be an unfair assumption).
"Coalition", principally led by three NATO member states. I still find "Coalition" to be kind of a awkward, ill-defined term, so I use NATO.
NATO member invasion of Iraq, if you'd prefer.
That just raises the question of why the NATO part is even relevant then.It wasn't a NATO op. NATO treaties weren't invoked and many of us NATO countries gave it the old "Fuck No".
"Coalition", principally led by three NATO member states. I still find "Coalition" to be kind of a awkward, ill-defined term, so I use NATO.
NATO member invasion of Iraq, if you'd prefer.
That just raises the question of why the NATO part is even relevant then.It wasn't a NATO op. NATO treaties weren't invoked and many of us NATO countries gave it the old "Fuck No".
Might as well call it a UN invasion since all the members of the coalition are part of the UN.
"Coalition", principally led by three NATO member states. I still find "Coalition" to be kind of a awkward, ill-defined term, so I use NATO.
NATO member invasion of Iraq, if you'd prefer.
That just raises the question of why the NATO part is even relevant then.It wasn't a NATO op. NATO treaties weren't invoked and many of us NATO countries gave it the old "Fuck No".
Might as well call it a UN invasion since all the members of the coalition are part of the UN.
The World's inavsion of Iraq, as we are all members of the world.
"Coalition", principally led by three NATO member states. I still find "Coalition" to be kind of a awkward, ill-defined term, so I use NATO.
NATO member invasion of Iraq, if you'd prefer.
That just raises the question of why the NATO part is even relevant then.It wasn't a NATO op. NATO treaties weren't invoked and many of us NATO countries gave it the old "Fuck No".
The Iraq invasion does not happen without the logistical support of NATO allies, especially Germany. We staged the invasion from NATO bases, operated over NATO countries, supported and administered operations from NATO bases, and shipped our wounded to NATO facilities. This help includes those who didn't directly participate in the invasion. The alliance directly and indirectly supports American interventions in the Middle East and Africa, many of which could not be carried out without the forward basing in allied nations.
In actual news, Israel is going ahead with a cease-fire in Gaza (though not calling it that, saying they retain the right to act). There's other countries like Qatar involved that apparently helped smooth over this latest spat.
One interesting consequence though is that Lieberman has resigned as defense minister over this. Lieberman is a far-right and super-hawk that leads his own political party that is currently in a coalition with Netenyahu. So Lieberman isn't really going anywhere, he clearly thinks he can gain politically from this.
"Coalition", principally led by three NATO member states. I still find "Coalition" to be kind of a awkward, ill-defined term, so I use NATO.
NATO member invasion of Iraq, if you'd prefer.
That just raises the question of why the NATO part is even relevant then.It wasn't a NATO op. NATO treaties weren't invoked and many of us NATO countries gave it the old "Fuck No".
The Iraq invasion does not happen without the logistical support of NATO allies, especially Germany. We staged the invasion from NATO bases, operated over NATO countries, supported and administered operations from NATO bases, and shipped our wounded to NATO facilities. This help includes those who didn't directly participate in the invasion. The alliance directly and indirectly supports American interventions in the Middle East and Africa, many of which could not be carried out without the forward basing in allied nations.
It involves some of the member countries of NATO, yes. But not NATO itself or all it's members.
Anything the american military does, by this definition, is a NATO operation.
"Coalition", principally led by three NATO member states. I still find "Coalition" to be kind of a awkward, ill-defined term, so I use NATO.
NATO member invasion of Iraq, if you'd prefer.
That just raises the question of why the NATO part is even relevant then.It wasn't a NATO op. NATO treaties weren't invoked and many of us NATO countries gave it the old "Fuck No".
The Iraq invasion does not happen without the logistical support of NATO allies, especially Germany. We staged the invasion from NATO bases, operated over NATO countries, supported and administered operations from NATO bases, and shipped our wounded to NATO facilities. This help includes those who didn't directly participate in the invasion. The alliance directly and indirectly supports American interventions in the Middle East and Africa, many of which could not be carried out without the forward basing in allied nations.
Yes, and we say "gave it a 'fuck no'," it was a very mixed "fuck no." Italy and Spain politically supported the war (Spain stopped after the new social government in 2004, though it's hard to call the PSOE that opposed to NATO itself). After making a fuss, Schroeder stated he intended to "bury the hatchet" and pursue a rapprochement when meeting with Collin Power, not surprisingly. France actually mounted the most strenuous objection, threatening to use its veto at the UN. Turkey was actually labeled part of the "Coalition" by Pres. Bush himself. They were as much "fuck no" as "Well, maybe yes."
In actual news, Israel is going ahead with a cease-fire in Gaza (though not calling it that, saying they retain the right to act). There's other countries like Qatar involved that apparently helped smooth over this latest spat.
One interesting consequence though is that Lieberman has resigned as defense minister over this. Lieberman is a far-right and super-hawk that leads his own political party that is currently in a coalition with Netenyahu. So Lieberman isn't really going anywhere, he clearly thinks he can gain politically from this.
"Coalition", principally led by three NATO member states. I still find "Coalition" to be kind of a awkward, ill-defined term, so I use NATO.
NATO member invasion of Iraq, if you'd prefer.
That just raises the question of why the NATO part is even relevant then.It wasn't a NATO op. NATO treaties weren't invoked and many of us NATO countries gave it the old "Fuck No".
The Iraq invasion does not happen without the logistical support of NATO allies, especially Germany. We staged the invasion from NATO bases, operated over NATO countries, supported and administered operations from NATO bases, and shipped our wounded to NATO facilities. This help includes those who didn't directly participate in the invasion. The alliance directly and indirectly supports American interventions in the Middle East and Africa, many of which could not be carried out without the forward basing in allied nations.
Yes, and we say "gave it a 'fuck no'," it was a very mixed "fuck no." Italy and Spain politically supported the war (Spain stopped after the new social government in 2004). After making a fuss, Schroeder stated he intended to "bury the hatchet" and pursue a rapprochement when meeting with Collin Power, not surprisingly. France actually mounted the most strenuous objection, threatening to use its veto at the UN. Turkey was actually labeled part of the "Coalition" by Pres. Bush himself. They were as much "fuck no" as "Well, maybe yes."
So NATO members ran the gamut on their opinions and support for the issue. It's almost like the Iraq War as an operation did not have any correlation with NATO membership or the organization.
They were as much "fuck no" as "Well, maybe yes."
is a description you can apply to literally every country on this issue.
"Coalition", principally led by three NATO member states. I still find "Coalition" to be kind of a awkward, ill-defined term, so I use NATO.
NATO member invasion of Iraq, if you'd prefer.
That just raises the question of why the NATO part is even relevant then.It wasn't a NATO op. NATO treaties weren't invoked and many of us NATO countries gave it the old "Fuck No".
The Iraq invasion does not happen without the logistical support of NATO allies, especially Germany. We staged the invasion from NATO bases, operated over NATO countries, supported and administered operations from NATO bases, and shipped our wounded to NATO facilities. This help includes those who didn't directly participate in the invasion. The alliance directly and indirectly supports American interventions in the Middle East and Africa, many of which could not be carried out without the forward basing in allied nations.
Yes, and we say "gave it a 'fuck no'," it was a very mixed "fuck no." Italy and Spain politically supported the war (Spain stopped after the new social government in 2004). After making a fuss, Schroeder stated he intended to "bury the hatchet" and pursue a rapprochement when meeting with Collin Power, not surprisingly. France actually mounted the most strenuous objection, threatening to use its veto at the UN. Turkey was actually labeled part of the "Coalition" by Pres. Bush himself. They were as much "fuck no" as "Well, maybe yes."
So NATO members ran the gamut on their opinions and support for the issue. It's almost like the Iraq War as an operation did not have any correlation with NATO membership or the organization.
They were as much "fuck no" as "Well, maybe yes."
is a description you can apply to literally every country on this issue.
If you ignore the major role of three NATO members actively engaged in combat, their use of NATO infrastructure, and the role in NATO in facilitating American military projection worldwide, of which Iraq became a huge focal point for a time. I wouldn't argue that the invasion of Iraq didn't lead to a serious cleavage in NATO, but that's still a substantial side that engaged directly in combat, and joined by further political support for it. NATO is more than just treaties--Article 5 has been evoked once in history, if I'm remembering correctly. I'm not aware of any treat provisions that were evoked in Libya in 2011, was NATO "irrelevant" to that campaign as well?
"Coalition", principally led by three NATO member states. I still find "Coalition" to be kind of a awkward, ill-defined term, so I use NATO.
NATO member invasion of Iraq, if you'd prefer.
That just raises the question of why the NATO part is even relevant then.It wasn't a NATO op. NATO treaties weren't invoked and many of us NATO countries gave it the old "Fuck No".
The Iraq invasion does not happen without the logistical support of NATO allies, especially Germany. We staged the invasion from NATO bases, operated over NATO countries, supported and administered operations from NATO bases, and shipped our wounded to NATO facilities. This help includes those who didn't directly participate in the invasion. The alliance directly and indirectly supports American interventions in the Middle East and Africa, many of which could not be carried out without the forward basing in allied nations.
Yes, and we say "gave it a 'fuck no'," it was a very mixed "fuck no." Italy and Spain politically supported the war (Spain stopped after the new social government in 2004). After making a fuss, Schroeder stated he intended to "bury the hatchet" and pursue a rapprochement when meeting with Collin Power, not surprisingly. France actually mounted the most strenuous objection, threatening to use its veto at the UN. Turkey was actually labeled part of the "Coalition" by Pres. Bush himself. They were as much "fuck no" as "Well, maybe yes."
So NATO members ran the gamut on their opinions and support for the issue. It's almost like the Iraq War as an operation did not have any correlation with NATO membership or the organization.
They were as much "fuck no" as "Well, maybe yes."
is a description you can apply to literally every country on this issue.
If you ignore the major role of three NATO members actively engaged in combat, their use of NATO infrastructure, and the role in NATO in facilitating American military projection worldwide, of which Iraq became a huge focal point for a time. I wouldn't argue that the invasion of Iraq didn't lead to a serious cleavage in NATO, but that's still a substantial side that engaged directly in combat, and joined by further political support for it. NATO is more than just treaties--Article 5 has been evoked once in history, if I'm remembering correctly. I'm not aware of any treat provisions that were evoked in Libya in 2011, was NATO "irrelevant" to that campaign as well?
Yeah, but also a whole bunch of non-NATO nations were involved too. There was, very specifically, a reason why the coalition that went into Iraq was called the "coalition of the willing" - Bush et al. hoped to get support from NATO for political cover, couldn't, but then figured that they had enough NATO and non-NATO nations to cobble together into something else entirely, slapped a made-up name on it, and rolled forward.
From Wikipedia:
Members of the Coalition included Australia: 2,000 invasion, [Poland]: 200 invasion—2,500 peak, Spain: 1,300 invasion United Kingdom: 46,000 invasion, United States: 150,000 to 250,000 invasion. Other members of the coalition were Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, the Philippines, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.[202] At least 15 other countries participated covertly.
Saudi Arabia Accused of Torturing Women’s-Rights Activists in Widening Crackdown on Dissent
Detainees have been lashed and given electric shocks in prison; at least one tried to commit suicide
Saudi security officers have tortured jailed women’s-rights activists as part of a government campaign to squelch criticism of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman that began before last month’s killing of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi, according to people familiar with the situation.
As long as criticism of the leader is not allowed, any supposed reform is a meaningless joke.
Reform just means to change the structure, and he has done that in some areas, such as consolidation of political power to himself and pushing other princes out of the system. It's not a synonym for liberalisation.
However it is definitely true that any supposed liberalisation of MBS' Saudi Arabia is a hollow gesture at best and an outright deception the rest of the time.
Par for the course with Saudia Arabia. Trump, Obama and Bush all turned a blind eye to this and shit like the murder of Khashoggi.
Uh what? Wasn't Obama notoriously frostier with Saudi Arabia than any other president? He made specific points to court Iran, Egypt, and Qatar, all regional rivals to the Saudis.
Man, Yemen has sure caused a whole lot of historical revisionism on Obama.
"Coalition", principally led by three NATO member states. I still find "Coalition" to be kind of a awkward, ill-defined term, so I use NATO.
NATO member invasion of Iraq, if you'd prefer.
That just raises the question of why the NATO part is even relevant then.It wasn't a NATO op. NATO treaties weren't invoked and many of us NATO countries gave it the old "Fuck No".
The Iraq invasion does not happen without the logistical support of NATO allies, especially Germany. We staged the invasion from NATO bases, operated over NATO countries, supported and administered operations from NATO bases, and shipped our wounded to NATO facilities. This help includes those who didn't directly participate in the invasion. The alliance directly and indirectly supports American interventions in the Middle East and Africa, many of which could not be carried out without the forward basing in allied nations.
Yes, and we say "gave it a 'fuck no'," it was a very mixed "fuck no." Italy and Spain politically supported the war (Spain stopped after the new social government in 2004). After making a fuss, Schroeder stated he intended to "bury the hatchet" and pursue a rapprochement when meeting with Collin Power, not surprisingly. France actually mounted the most strenuous objection, threatening to use its veto at the UN. Turkey was actually labeled part of the "Coalition" by Pres. Bush himself. They were as much "fuck no" as "Well, maybe yes."
So NATO members ran the gamut on their opinions and support for the issue. It's almost like the Iraq War as an operation did not have any correlation with NATO membership or the organization.
They were as much "fuck no" as "Well, maybe yes."
is a description you can apply to literally every country on this issue.
If you ignore the major role of three NATO members actively engaged in combat, their use of NATO infrastructure, and the role in NATO in facilitating American military projection worldwide, of which Iraq became a huge focal point for a time. I wouldn't argue that the invasion of Iraq didn't lead to a serious cleavage in NATO, but that's still a substantial side that engaged directly in combat, and joined by further political support for it. NATO is more than just treaties--Article 5 has been evoked once in history, if I'm remembering correctly. I'm not aware of any treat provisions that were evoked in Libya in 2011, was NATO "irrelevant" to that campaign as well?
Yeah, but also a whole bunch of non-NATO nations were involved too. There was, very specifically, a reason why the coalition that went into Iraq was called the "coalition of the willing" - Bush et al. hoped to get support from NATO for political cover, couldn't, but then figured that they had enough NATO and non-NATO nations to cobble together into something else entirely, slapped a made-up name on it, and rolled forward.
From Wikipedia:
Members of the Coalition included Australia: 2,000 invasion, [Poland]: 200 invasion—2,500 peak, Spain: 1,300 invasion United Kingdom: 46,000 invasion, United States: 150,000 to 250,000 invasion. Other members of the coalition were Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, the Philippines, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.[202] At least 15 other countries participated covertly.
That's a fuckload of non-NATO countries.
Wow, Mongolia sent troops to Iraq? Was it just for old times sake or what?
Posts
Stronger confirmation? There is no confirmation of anything right now, except that two girls are dead. If the girls really did apply for asylum, there will be records of that. Let the detectives work before jumping too far ahead.
If so, what are the repercussions for not returning when summoned?
I can imagine anything from asset siezure to kidnapping at this point.
The Trump administration has announced the re-imposition of pre-2015 sanctions against Iran with temporary exemptions for at least eight countries when it comes to Iranian oil imports. Iran is said to be bracing for some decent sized domestic fallout.
Trump might be using it as mid-term propaganda.
It is referencing Game of Thrones and "winter is coming."
As we all know, Game of Thrones is about how great winter is.
Republicans are White Walkers, it's only natural that they would think Starks words is a prophecy of good and not an omen of death.
It sort of seems like the more bloody this war gets, the more silent the rest of the world becomes.
Tragedy versus statistics. It's easy to look away and just view it as numbers.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/palestinians/breaking-news-israel-and-gaza-exchange-fire-palestinians-killed-bus-destroyed-1.6650643
Here's the Hamas TV station being blown up:
Both, depending on whatever the fuck the Israelis want at the time.
Like, blatantly, caught in the act illegal
That hasn't stopped the IDF before.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Edit: wait, no, fixed that. Sorry for that error.
They generally attempt to at least have the most basic plausible deniability though
Not really?
Hell, they were just outright bombing Syrian forces recently. No, oh we thought these guys were ISIS, or they were threatening Israel, or whatever. They were just flying sorties and bombing Syrian bases, and openly admitted it: https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-says-it-has-carried-out-over-200-strikes-in-syria-since-2017/
Whether or not this is legal has more to do with the de jure situation than the de facto reality - plenty of countries do things in violation of international law because even if caught there's essentially zero chance of being meaningfully punished
They've been in violation since 1967. Its not really a new thing. International law has no teeth in most cases, and its not like Israel is the only one that violates it. The US isn't supposed to be building bases in Syria either, Russia shouldn't annex Crimea, etc.
The important thing here is that this is a major escalation at an unexpected time. Its really open how this goes down since (probably) neither side anticipated this. With all the violence it puts the peace deal on very shaky ground.
The citizens of Jaghuri want the government to help them arm militias. However, a government official told the Times “If we do that here, they will want it in Badghis Province and Kandahar, Nangahar and all over the country." So the government doesn't want to give locals the power to defend themselves, as it undermines their already deteriorating authority, but also cannot adequately protect the countryside from the Taliban.
I'm considering a subscription to the Times for the first time. My opinion of the paper has kind of waffled over the years but from what I've seen they're really the only remaining US news agency taking these kind of risks to report on Afghanistan.
The NATO invasion of the Iraq violating international law by the American (and NATO...) definition of what constitutes international law. To start, it deliberately ignored several UN Resolutions. The sitting Secretary General, Annan, not to mention other international nobodies such as the president of Russia and the deputy prime minister of the United Kingdom noted it was directly contrary to the United Nations Charter.
International laws are basically suggestions, whether applied outside to a nation acting within its own recognized territory (say, Syria), or even more so, nation or nations acting outside of their own recognized territory (NATO in Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc.). You could say that international "space" is basically like national space where nominal rule of law doesn't exist for lack of enforcement (Afghanistan comes to mind, though that might be an unfair assumption).
NATO member invasion of Iraq, if you'd prefer.
That just raises the question of why the NATO part is even relevant then.It wasn't a NATO op. NATO treaties weren't invoked and many of us NATO countries gave it the old "Fuck No".
Might as well call it a UN invasion since all the members of the coalition are part of the UN.
The World's inavsion of Iraq, as we are all members of the world.
The Iraq invasion does not happen without the logistical support of NATO allies, especially Germany. We staged the invasion from NATO bases, operated over NATO countries, supported and administered operations from NATO bases, and shipped our wounded to NATO facilities. This help includes those who didn't directly participate in the invasion. The alliance directly and indirectly supports American interventions in the Middle East and Africa, many of which could not be carried out without the forward basing in allied nations.
One interesting consequence though is that Lieberman has resigned as defense minister over this. Lieberman is a far-right and super-hawk that leads his own political party that is currently in a coalition with Netenyahu. So Lieberman isn't really going anywhere, he clearly thinks he can gain politically from this.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-46207094
It involves some of the member countries of NATO, yes. But not NATO itself or all it's members.
Anything the american military does, by this definition, is a NATO operation.
Yes, and we say "gave it a 'fuck no'," it was a very mixed "fuck no." Italy and Spain politically supported the war (Spain stopped after the new social government in 2004, though it's hard to call the PSOE that opposed to NATO itself). After making a fuss, Schroeder stated he intended to "bury the hatchet" and pursue a rapprochement when meeting with Collin Power, not surprisingly. France actually mounted the most strenuous objection, threatening to use its veto at the UN. Turkey was actually labeled part of the "Coalition" by Pres. Bush himself. They were as much "fuck no" as "Well, maybe yes."
Some US outlets are really suggesting this could bring down Netanyahu's government. I really doubt it though.
So NATO members ran the gamut on their opinions and support for the issue. It's almost like the Iraq War as an operation did not have any correlation with NATO membership or the organization.
is a description you can apply to literally every country on this issue.
If you ignore the major role of three NATO members actively engaged in combat, their use of NATO infrastructure, and the role in NATO in facilitating American military projection worldwide, of which Iraq became a huge focal point for a time. I wouldn't argue that the invasion of Iraq didn't lead to a serious cleavage in NATO, but that's still a substantial side that engaged directly in combat, and joined by further political support for it. NATO is more than just treaties--Article 5 has been evoked once in history, if I'm remembering correctly. I'm not aware of any treat provisions that were evoked in Libya in 2011, was NATO "irrelevant" to that campaign as well?
Yeah, but also a whole bunch of non-NATO nations were involved too. There was, very specifically, a reason why the coalition that went into Iraq was called the "coalition of the willing" - Bush et al. hoped to get support from NATO for political cover, couldn't, but then figured that they had enough NATO and non-NATO nations to cobble together into something else entirely, slapped a made-up name on it, and rolled forward.
From Wikipedia:
That's a fuckload of non-NATO countries.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-arabia-accused-of-torturing-women-activists-in-widening-crackdown-on-dissent-1542743107 As long as criticism of the leader is not allowed, any supposed reform is a meaningless joke.
However it is definitely true that any supposed liberalisation of MBS' Saudi Arabia is a hollow gesture at best and an outright deception the rest of the time.
Uh what? Wasn't Obama notoriously frostier with Saudi Arabia than any other president? He made specific points to court Iran, Egypt, and Qatar, all regional rivals to the Saudis.
Man, Yemen has sure caused a whole lot of historical revisionism on Obama.
Wow, Mongolia sent troops to Iraq? Was it just for old times sake or what?