EU as joke (modified)

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 08:22:29 +0000, "Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Alan Minyard
writes
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 17:16:12 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:
Like the "strong navy" they didn't need in 1939?

Too much of the world's resources *have* to be moved by sea, and if you
have no real deepwater navy, you can end up on the short end of the
stick in short order.

Europe, other than the Nazis, was not preparing for war, they were
preparing to surrender.

Just as a quick look for 1939, the Royal Navy launched two battleships,
three aircraft carriers and ten cruisers; the Royal Air Force was
trading biplanes for Spitfires and building up its bomber force while
completing the world's first radar-directed integrated air defence
system; and the Army was expanding and re-equipping at a furious rate.

A rather strange process of "preparing to surrender", unless one expects
that all this equipment was being produced so it could be handed over to
Germany...

Sorry, but I was not including the UK in "europe". I should have been more
explicit. The UK was, indeed, preparing for war, and did quite well when
said war occurred.

Al Minyard

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 20:51:59 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

That was his point, mine was "Europe tend to respect UN
resolutions".


Ahhh, now we're getting specific. Europe respects resolutions.
OK, can you name the last time the US violated a UN resolution?

I'm not talking about violations per se -- there is a
difference between voting "no, we don't agree" as opposed
to veto something, knowing well it will torpedo what other
nations has agreed on.

"What other nations has agreed on" is often and overt attack
on the US. Other nations on the Security Counsel veto
resolutions, but it is only "bad" when the US does it?

You took that statement out of context and you changed the
words to try to make it look like a black and white issue.
To me it isn't, I know fully well that the US has played
a vital role in UN history. WRT the Paliestine issue
it has failed so far.

And Norway has done exactly what?

As for US violation? Would you care to look a bit closer
on the Iraqi conflict? I won't pretend to be an expert,
I can only comment what I've seen brought up in the newsmedia,
but, for instance, it seems to me the US is violating UN
General Assembly resolution 377, which decleares that it
is to meet to resolve any possible threats to or breach of
the peace if the UNSC fails to maintain peace because of a
lack of unanimity.

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/852...5340060479d/55
c2b84da9e0052b05256554005726c6%21OpenDocument


Thus it also violates UN Article 1 and 2 (which the US partly
formed and signed in 1945) which require that:

"All Members shall settle their international disputes by
peaceful means in such a manner that international peace
and security, and justice, are not endangered".

The UN is a sad joke, and sometimes must be treated
as such.

It also violates Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter which
declears that no member state has the authority to enforce
any resolution with armed force on its own and also that the
UNSC -must- authorize the use of military force.

And the former Soviet Union and the PRC followed this?
The fact that your country is of no military value does
not mean that the US should not act in our National
interests.

It violates Principle IV of the Nuremberg Charter which
states that:

"The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as
crimes under; international law: Planning, preparation,
initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war
in violation of international treaties, agreements
or assurances"


Not a factor. Your support of Saddam is despicable, not
the US action which deposed him.

According to Article VI of the US Constitution both the UN
and Nuremberg Charters is part of "the supreme Law of the
Land", and therefor any violation of International Laws
agreed upon by treaty, is a violation the supreme Law of
the Land. Thus, isn't the US in violation with its own
Constitution?


No, we will defend ourselves where ever we have to. Military
action in self-defense is explicitly allowed under
international law.

By the way, what's your opinion the Guantanamo prison
issue? Do you accept the "unlawful combatants" claim,
or do you feel the US is in violation of the Geneva
convention?


Not at all. The prisoners are illegal combatants, and are
regularly visited by the International Red Cross.

If you believe some of the press reports coming out of Iraq, it
appears both France and Germany much more recently than the
US....

Well naturally, the US had no justified reason for going to war
on Iraq. France, Germany and others could see that.


No, they were too cowardly to act, as was Norway.

Again, diverting the subject. The subject is; Europe always
obeys the UN and the US doesn't.

That was your subject, not mine.

I'm sorry, I've got it clarified now. Europe respects UN
resolutions and the US does not. That's your point. I'll be
waiting while you tell me the last UN resolution the US
violated.

I'm sure you realize the difference between "tend to" and
"always".


The US hasn't had a live test in over 25 years.

That the US won't ratify CTBT seems to indicate they will.

That is idiotic. We will not ratify treaties that are designed to
destroy our military power, having said that, we have no need
to perform such tests and no plans to conduct them.

(snip)
IOM it's also a good example of how the US feels it's in a
position to dominate the decitions and will of other nations.

In some issues it's seems quite difficult for the US to come
to realize that its national interests does not go before the
interests of the rest of the world. In particular the UN
wasn't created as a benefitial body for the US, but for
the entire international community. You might argue that it's
far from perfect, but what better choices are available?


The national interests of the US definitely come before the
interests of the "rest of the world". The UN is a joke, and
not a very good one at that.

(snip)

Of course that's easy for me to say, having grown up in the
most secure, wealthy and stable part of the world.

Secure? Wealthy? are you kidding? The US is far more secure
and wealthy than Scandinavia ever was or ever will be.


Quick question; was there a UN resolution
condeming Egypt for their attack on Isreal during the Yom Kippur
War in 1973? Was one even seriously debated in the security
council?

There wasn't a resolution to my knowledge. I don't think
there was a UN resolution condeming Israel in 1967, 1956
or 1947 either.


Regards...


As I said, the UN is a sad joke

Al Minyard

"BUFDRVR" a écrit dans le message de
...

I'm just telling you what I saw reported around four years ago. You
obviously
have better information than a Libyan defector.

No, I just don't buy it. And do "I doubt" and "I think" sound too
presumptuous to you?

Well, in the case of Libya (a US unilateral strike), it was easier to draw
direct paralells. Libya was not being bombed by a coalition, only the US,
what
effect did it have? No further terrorist attacks against US citizens
(depending
on how you look at Lockerbie.)

Well, I'd like to know how *you* look at Lockerbie. That's precisely the
part I don't understand in your reasoning. If it was not a terrorist attack
against US citizens (200 casualties) and assets (a PanAm B747), how do you
qualify it? El Dorado Canyon operation's military efficiency can be
discussed (I see it more as both a display of long-range strike capability
and a signal of resolution sent to *all* the rogue nations) but, according
to me, it was not the reason that made Libya change its policy about
terrorism, not even regarding the US (once again, I don't believe the
"sorry, we would have cancelled it if it had been possible, for real, but it
was already too late and we had lost our men in the wild" argument about
Lockerbie).

The fact that France denied the US overflight
rights really makes it difficult for any sympathy to to be shared with
that
country if they suffered casulties inflicted by Libya.


No offense intended but it's a pretty lame comment. What were the victims
responsible for? Oh, and there were "only" 54 French citizens out of the 170
passengers from 18 nationalities aboard the UTA flight.
As for the overflight rights, you easily forget that along with France,
Germany, Spain and Italy also refused to cooperate. I guess this fact does
not plead for the "Old Europe" though... :-)


ArVa

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 23:52:07 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
wrote:

"tadaa" wrote in :

If you expect a ground war, building ships would be kinda
stupid.

...with 2/3 of the Earth's surface being under water, expecting
*only* a "ground war' is a good way to get into trouble for
most countries...

Well it seems that USA with it's navy is quite capable of
getting into trouble . Quite frankly i don't see a point of
maintaining a strong navy if you are preparing to fight off
horde of tanks. How large navy should Austria have? Or Swiss? Or
from those countries that have shoreline Finland or Sweden?
Those large ships would just have been targets in the Baltic.
The point is that USA needs to have a navy to be able to project
force, but the Europeans were preparing for a war in Europe so
they didn't need that strong navy.

Norway and Turkey share a natural strategic role that way,
both having a millirary force designed not only for combating
an invation force, but also halting that invation force
from building forward airbases and a foothold for marching
throught to the rest of europe.

In fear of sounding overly patriotic, what makes for
instance Norway interesting is that just about the only way
you are going to get a large enough number of troops to
barricade against Nato mobilisation is to invade by sea.
Even though it's a 20,000km coastline (one of the longest
in the world) that's a very difficult task due to the broken
and rugged nature of the coast. There are only a few places
where such a landing of force is possible.


The Nazis did not have much trouble invading in WWII, I doubt
that the minuscule Norwegian armed forces would be much
more effective today than they were then.

The Nazis had quite a lot of trouble invading. ISTR they lost a few ships
and took heavy casualties from shore-based defences.

The Navy is under a heavy restructuring and modernisation
programme, new frigats (about friggin' time), helicopters,
ultramodern fast attack boats and minesweepers and a
new hard-hitting commando force. Up until now we've based
much of our invation defence of these tactical points on
fixed 127/150mm coast artillery with underwater torpedo
and mine batteries. As an example, one medium fort is
expected to stop an invation force of about 30,000 troops.

Forts have done sooo well against modern armies. Remember
their inability to stop an invasion in WWII? Remember the
Maginot Line?

See above.


We used to have 40 or so of these forts of varying sizes
in operation, many of them German relics of WW2 (though
modernised of course). In later years their tactial
value came under heavy attack themselves and only a
handful remain. Not in full operation but maintaned as
part of a reserve. They have been replaced to a great
part with a special commando force with small and agile
attack boats and commando teams with the Hellfire missle.
It's all part of the new, modern (so they say at least)
doctrine of a highly mobile and agile defence force -- one
you won't see until it's too late.

It's also part of Norways will to having a closer
participation in conflicts around the world -- units
which can be sent anywhere.


Regards...

The successful defense of Oslo would be a major
accomplishment for the current Norwegian
armed forces, the rest of the country would be
taken quite easily. Norway, not unrealistically,
counts on the US for its defense.

Norway is a member of an organisation called NATO which boasts several other
members besides the US of A. All are pledged to help one another in the
event of outside attack.

John

"John Mullen" wrote in
:
"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 23:52:07 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"

wrote:

In fear of sounding overly patriotic, what makes for
instance Norway interesting is that just about the only way
you are going to get a large enough number of troops to
barricade against Nato mobilisation is to invade by sea.
Even though it's a 20,000km coastline (one of the longest
in the world) that's a very difficult task due to the broken
and rugged nature of the coast. There are only a few places
where such a landing of force is possible.


The Nazis did not have much trouble invading in WWII, I doubt
that the minuscule Norwegian armed forces would be much
more effective today than they were then.

It's a whole different story today. The Nazis invaded from
the south, not from the north like the Soviets would have.
We are only to halt an invation long enough for NATO to
mobilise and send reinforcements, a task I think we are
more than capabale of. Our best allie is our rugged
terrain and artic winter, and there is really noone who
beats us at this game.


The Nazis had quite a lot of trouble invading. ISTR they lost a
few ships and took heavy casualties from shore-based defences.

The 15,000 ton cruiser Blucher, most notably, which halted
the Germans long enough for the goverment and king to escape
from Oslo.

But the Germans vere actually very lucky. They were counting
their success on poor weather and the poor intelligence
information of the Norwegians. Confusion as to whether the
ships were friendly or not and heavy fog in the outer Oslo
fjord meant that the entire invation fleet (10,000 troops,
three cruisers and supportships) sailed right past the outer
three batteries with nine guns (mix between 305mm howitzers
and 150mm guns). Had they been able to react earlier the
outcome would have been grim for the Germans.

Here is the story if anyone is interested in reading a bit
of WW2 history:

http://www.feldgrau.com/norwegian.html


Of course it's a whole different world today. The coastal
forts have been deemed very effective in postwar time, but
part of the arguments against it today is that presicion
delivered hard-hitting weapons would greately reduce the
effectiveness of the natural protection of the guns -- the
granite mountain rock. Besides they are fixed installations
and very expensive to operate.


We used to have 40 or so of these forts of varying sizes
in operation, many of them German relics of WW2 (though
modernised of course). In later years their tactial
value came under heavy attack themselves and only a
handful remain. Not in full operation but maintaned as
part of a reserve. They have been replaced to a great
part with a special commando force with small and agile
attack boats and commando teams with the Hellfire missle.
It's all part of the new, modern (so they say at least)
doctrine of a highly mobile and agile defence force -- one
you won't see until it's too late.

It's also part of Norways will to having a closer
participation in conflicts around the world -- units
which can be sent anywhere.


Regards...

The successful defense of Oslo would be a major
accomplishment for the current Norwegian
armed forces, the rest of the country would be
taken quite easily.

Defence of Oslo isn't as high priority as you think.
There are very few tactical milletary installations,
as with the south in general. The war is fought up
north, the south is protected by the NATO forces
around the Baltic and Skagerak and the east by two
neutral countries, Finland and Sweden, which an
invation force would have to fight its way through
first.

Norway, not unrealistically,
counts on the US for its defense.

NATO. Actually in case of war the first to arrive would be
British RAF figher and strike units, followed by USAFE.



Regards...

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

"John Mullen" wrote in
:
snip
Norway, not unrealistically,
counts on the US for its defense.

NATO. Actually in case of war the first to arrive would be
British RAF figher and strike units, followed by USAFE.

Also, isn't AMF(A) still committed to the defence of northern Norway
if the fit hits the shan?
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

Alan Minyard wrote in
news
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 20:51:59 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
wrote:
(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:


I'm not talking about violations per se -- there is a
difference between voting "no, we don't agree" as opposed
to veto something, knowing well it will torpedo what other
nations has agreed on.

"What other nations has agreed on" is often and overt attack
on the US. Other nations on the Security Counsel veto
resolutions, but it is only "bad" when the US does it?

Of course not.

You took that statement out of context and you changed the
words to try to make it look like a black and white issue.
To me it isn't, I know fully well that the US has played
a vital role in UN history. WRT the Paliestine issue
it has failed so far.

And Norway has done exactly what?

Perhaps most notably the Oslo agreement, which was a
breakthrough and laid the fundament for a Palestine self
rule. Ever since the foundation of the Israel state Norway
has had strong collaborational bonds to both the Irsaelis
and Palestinians. In 1989 we initiated oficial talks with
Yassir Arafat, which signaled an understanding of fundamental
palestine demands at a time when most western countries
still were keeping its distance to the PLO.

Sharon, with the apparent support of the US, has compromised
much of the work and progress we had accomplished in recent
years.

Thus it also violates UN Article 1 and 2 (which the US partly
formed and signed in 1945) which require that:

"All Members shall settle their international disputes by
peaceful means in such a manner that international peace
and security, and justice, are not endangered".

The UN is a sad joke, and sometimes must be treated
as such.

Sadly that's a typical arrogant posture by some, perhaps
who sees the world as their own personal playing ground.


According to Article VI of the US Constitution both the UN
and Nuremberg Charters is part of "the supreme Law of the
Land", and therefor any violation of International Laws
agreed upon by treaty, is a violation the supreme Law of
the Land. Thus, isn't the US in violation with its own
Constitution?


No, we will defend ourselves where ever we have to. Military
action in self-defense is explicitly allowed under
international law.

That's a no-argument. There was no self-defence, Iraq
was not a millitary threath to the US and there were
no Iraqi indications for war against either the US nor
its neightbours. This is soely something the US made
up for itself.


By the way, what's your opinion the Guantanamo prison
issue? Do you accept the "unlawful combatants" claim,
or do you feel the US is in violation of the Geneva
convention?


Not at all. The prisoners are illegal combatants, and are
regularly visited by the International Red Cross.

You might find this article from the Guardian interesting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...921192,00.html



If you believe some of the press reports coming out of Iraq,
it appears both France and Germany much more recently than the
US....

Well naturally, the US had no justified reason for going to war
on Iraq. France, Germany and others could see that.


No, they were too cowardly to act, as was Norway.

It has nothing to do with braveness, ot lack of, it's a
matter of telling right from wrong.


(snip)

Of course that's easy for me to say, having grown up in the
most secure, wealthy and stable part of the world.

Secure? Wealthy? are you kidding? The US is far more secure
and wealthy than Scandinavia ever was or ever will be.

You have a very blunt way of interpereting what I write.
I don't think I ever meant the above statement to
indicate world domination in that particular areas.

Though we are a socialdemocracy. The Nordic countries have
a crimerate and soical welfare system decades ahead of the
US, and most of the world. We grow up in a sequre,
stable, stimulating and predominantly classless society
and equality between the sexes far more developed than
most parts of the world. Albeit it can makes us naive.
Overprotected some will say, and sometimes we do get
embarrased over the thoughtlessness of our own countrymen
(and women).

We also tend not to wage in wars around the world which
makes us a target for international terrorism, or other
nations guns.




Regards...

Alan Minyard wrote in
:
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 03:36:31 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
wrote:

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02040207.htm

"Rumsfeld Thanks Norway for "Wonderful" Anti-terror Support

In response to a question, Devold revealed that Norway
has offered F-16 fighter jets for Operation Enduring
Freedom, and it "plans to be able to go together with
Denmark and Netherlands with a deployment of F-16s if
we are needed later on this year."

[..]


Latter on this year??

No, last year as you might notice. The operation ended in
april this year. Our 6 F-16s flew 488 missions and spent
3000hrs in the air. We even dropped bombs, which marks
the first time we've ever engaged in air combat since WW2.

Looking back at 5o years of a purely defensive policy it
was a very important milestone for us to even send
weaponsystems to an offensive campaign in the first place,
one which naturally caused a heavy national debate.


Oh, you mean after there is no need for
them, and no threat to them.

The way it works is that we offer our support, usually of
defensive form, to our allies. Then we -migth- be put into
the plan and called when we are needed.

In this case the US accepted and we were later called in
as part of the EPAF (European Participating Air Forces).




Regards...

I don't think that they had a crystal ball to see the future. There
was
no
reason to expect the fast fall of France and BEF.

Except for looking at what had happened in Spain a few years earlier.

Ah, the blitzkrieg of Spain is it?

No, the use of airpower and other tactics. Spain was a warmup for
German techniques a few years later.

Read up on the Spanish Civil War.

The Spanish civil war lasted years 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939. New equipment and
tactics were tested, but it was a long war. I wouldn't say that that Spanish
civil war was a direct indication that France and British troops would be so
quickly overrun.

So how about that navy question, what European nations could have used a
larger navy?

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

I'm not talking about violations per se -- there is a
difference between voting "no, we don't agree" as opposed
to veto something, knowing well it will torpedo what other
nations has agreed on.


That's laughable coming from someone in Europe.

Glad I can make someone smile. :^)


The "coalition
of the willing" assembled against Iraq last year was nearly
twice the size as the coalition in '91, yet France, Germany and
Russia were ready to veto; "what other nations has agreed on".
If you don't like the whole UN veto system write your ambassador
to the UN and complain, but don't claim the US is a sinister,
evil nation for working with the construct of the UN Charter.

The US is much criticised for following its own policy
in many issues. There is no secret in that.

But yes I do feel the basic UN system is ready for restructuring.
After all the world has changed since 1945.


You took that statement out of context and you changed the
words to try to make it look like a black and white issue.

It is a black and white issue. Either the US respects the UN or
it doesn't. You argue it doesn't, I argue it does, at least as
much as European nations.

Then perhaps it should be time for the US to pay it's $2BN
debt to the UN. Lack of money and resources is an contributing
factor why the UN has trouble fulfilling its obligations
and goals.


The US has vetoed 26 of the last the Palestine/Israel issue
I think. Russia has vetoed two I believe. If you look at
this table you can see that of the 254 vetos in the UNSC
since 1946, the US alone accounts for 78 of them.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/data/vetotab.htm



WRT the Paliestine issue it has failed so far.

Ohh, so the US has failed on the Palistinean issue huh? Well,
then I suggest the EU step in and pick up where the US failed.

As I pointed out early in this discussion, it's a team-effort,
the EU -or anyone else- relys on the US as much as the other
way around.

The US has taken more of an interest in helping the Palistineans
than Egypt, Jordon, Saudi Arabia and most definitely the EU
combined. The EU contibution to helping the mid-east crisis is
to bitch at the US when we support Isreal. Way to go, that'll
help make progress.

Tee bitching probably goes both ways.


I won't pretend to be an expert,
I can only comment what I've seen brought up in the newsmedia,
but, for instance, it seems to me the US is violating UN
General Assembly resolution 377, which decleares that it
is to meet to resolve any possible threats to or breach of
the peace if the UNSC fails to maintain peace because of a
lack of unanimity.

There was unanimity, the last UN resolution (sorry, we made so
many against Iraq I've ignored the resolution numbers) on Iraq
threatened; "severe consequences" should Iraq not fully
cooperate with inspectors.

That's UN Resolution 1441, of november 8th 2002.

The UN reported Iraq was being
deceptive and to the US "severe consequences" meant war. We're
sorry if it meant another UN resolution to France and stern
words of admonishment from Germany. The US acted with the
authority of the last UN resolution.

No it didn't, Iraq accepted and complied five days after
the resolution was passed through, on nov 13th, and the
SC did not automaticly authorize the use of force, which
is why China, France and Russian added a Proviso which
stated that they do not understand it to authorize
"automaticity in the use of force."


It also violates Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter which
declears that no member state has the authority to enforce
any resolution with armed force on its own and also that the
UNSC -must- authorize the use of military force.

Number one, we weren't on our own, number two the UNSC
authorized the use of force when they threatened "severe
consequences".

Again, Iraq complied. Did the SC decide there had been
a material breach of the resolution? Had all nonmilitary
means of enforcement have been exhausted? Article 41/42
states that it must.

In addition, Article 51 restricts the use of the force
to cases of self-defense and only in response to an
"armed attack." I think you are going to have a tough
time showing that Iraq posed an imminant offensive threat.


Additionally, older UNSC resolutions also
threatened Iraq with armed reprisal should they violate any one
of the *two dozen* resolutions regarding them.

That's a much better argument, Iraq has a long history
of noncompliance with the demands of the UN. But what
was the US and UK official reasons for going to war?


therefor any violation of International Laws
agreed upon by treaty, is a violation the supreme Law of
the Land. Thus, isn't the US in violation with its own
Constitution?

Uhh, no. US involvement in the United Nations was not part of a
treaty ratified by congress, it is an international organization
and US involvement with said organization has nothing to do with
US Constitution any more or less than our involvement in the
WTO.

Professor Marjorie Cohn of Thomas Jefferson School
of Law seems to disagree:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew58.php


Dr. Matthew B. Robinson of Appalachian State
University too:

http://www.justiceblind.com/iraq.htm


By the way, what's your opinion the Guantanamo prison
issue? Do you accept the "unlawful combatants" claim,
or do you feel the US is in violation of the Geneva
convention?

Anyone who's familar with the Geneva Accords knows full well
that any Taliban fighters captured in other than an *officially
recognized* military uniform and all Al Queda captured were, by
definition, unlawful combatants.

I don't think the convention makes such a distinction.
Article 4 of the third convention sates that any indiviudual,
militia or voulenteer corps engaged in war is regarded a POW
when captured.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/2f681b...563cd0051aa8d?
OpenDocument



With that being said, I think
the Afghani's captured as part of the Taliban without an
"officially recognized" uniform, that we cannot directly tie to
Al Queda should be released. Afghanistan was a fourth world
country, holding a man as an unlawful combatant simply because
he did not have an "officially recognized" uniform under those
conditions seems unfair.

We agree on that.


Regards...