The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
The UK and France have secret military doctrine for war on each other?
No. I can't see how you can parse that out of what I have written, but no. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
these two nations ... have a responsibility to have ... rules of engagement which will govern any military intervention in Europe
A military conflict between France and the UK being certainly among the least plausible cases; notably because of the relative symmetry of their forces (not to mention their nuclear arms [because I forbid you to mention them]). It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
Now, I'm still puzzled because you seem to think that this blind spot is a good thing; i.e. that you don't seem willing to envisage any circumstances in which it would be better for an EU nation to intervene militarily rather than see a war worsen. Perhaps the subtlety of your irony escapes me. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
Tell me why that is a bad plan while intervention by the central EU powers in a civil war they mostly caused is a good plan.
Well, that depends on who the police are, obviously. The majority opinion here appears to be convinced that, if there is war within the EU, it will be because the elite in the central EU powers want it, and could gain some sort of advantage from provoking, then intervening in it. That proposition merits a bit of explaining, to put it mildly. Who's up for it? It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
Which they are, so there will be.
when you see someone being raped, don't call the police
If you see the government starving people to death, do you call the cops?
When the starving people start raping each other, it's scant consolation that the right hand of the government will mete out punishment in the communities destroyed by the left hand. I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS
Well, that depends on who the police are, obviously.
The right analogy is if you see someone being raped, call in drone strikes. Which seems to be sbout the direction that law enforcement is going, with rumours that US police departments are looking into using drones. I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS
No. What I see is the European welfare states being burned down in a conflagration of misanthropy and stupidity. That leads me to the assumption that any war run by them will be equally stupid and misanthropic if not more so. In fact stopping them from destroying Europe's economy seems the easier task compared to keeping an humanitarian intervention humanitarian. And up till now we are failing quite hard at it.
As a recovering liberal interventionist (and there are a number of us on the blog), I simply don't see the obvious benefits of intervention. My point is, by the time intervention becomes your best policy option, the European project is a failure. So you're no longer debating from the point of view of the European interest. I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS
If we have war, then the European project is a failure. But the continent and its people continue to exist, regardless of institutional structure, so the question of the European interest is still pertinent. The EU, or its constituents, had no institutional obligation to intervene in Yugoslavia in 1991. Is that a valid excuse for not doing so? Do you think any such intervention would have made things worse? It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
There's one thing worse that either military intervention or no intervention: incompetent military intervention. I am confident the EU won't disappoint. I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS
If we have war, then the European project is a failure. But the continent and its people continue to exist, regardless of institutional structure, so the question of the European interest is still pertinent.
In the event of a war in Europe, the entities which are able to put boots on the ground will be, at best, acting in their own national interest (and more probably in the narrow special interests of a certain slice of their oligarchy). In terms of pertinence, the European interest is located somewhere slightly below the interests of the people being intervened in. The latter can, at least, shoot back.
The EU, or its constituents, had no institutional obligation to intervene in Yugoslavia in 1991. Is that a valid excuse for not doing so? Do you think any such intervention would have made things worse?
In practice, given that the same countries who were going to be intervening had been the loudest cheerleaders for starting the civil war they were intervening into in the first place, yes.
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
Perhaps the subtlety of your irony escapes me
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 10 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 1 6 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 3 19 comments
by Oui - Sep 6 3 comments
by gmoke - Aug 25 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 21 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 22 56 comments
by Oui - Aug 18 8 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 103 comments
by Oui - Sep 10
by Oui - Sep 9
by Oui - Sep 8
by Oui - Sep 81 comment
by Oui - Sep 7
by Oui - Sep 63 comments
by Oui - Sep 54 comments
by gmoke - Sep 5
by Oui - Sep 41 comment
by Oui - Sep 47 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 319 comments
by Oui - Sep 211 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 16 comments
by Oui - Sep 114 comments
by Oui - Sep 193 comments
by Oui - Sep 11 comment
by gmoke - Aug 29
by Oui - Aug 2818 comments