Off Topic Paris (again)

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
petersaxton said:
So you are saying that military intervention should never include an invasion of a sovereign territory? The Allies should never have invaded Iraq? They should have stopped as soon as they had removed Iraqi military from Kuwait. There should have been no invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11?
There should have been no invasion of Germany in the first world war or second world war? No invasion of Iwo Jima or Okinawa in the second world war?
I disagree with you completely.
Click to expand...

Germany wasn't invaded in the first world war.
 
Fez said:
Bloody hell, Peter! There is a massive difference between working to convince others and being the Policemen of the World.

You made it a west vs east matter, which is bordering on the insane. It is not about us being policemen, it is about us helping to educate and assist their policemen; work with the elements who need help, support them, don't overwhelm them. Any sanctions should be the withdrawal of something we are entitled to withdraw, that might be diplomatic relations, trade - in and out, the sharing of sporting competitions, etc. Military intervention (when appropriate) should be a united, international strike at the core issue, the IS leadership and culture, not an invasion of a sovereign territory as that is war - is that what you are advocating, Peter, WAR?
Click to expand...

Is Islamic State a sovereign country we have diplomatic relations and trade with and share sporting competitions with? Which sports do they do best in against us? What do we buy off them? Where is their embassy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bengals Tiger and petersaxton
Clovis Iscariot said:
Germany wasn't invaded in the first world war.
Click to expand...
Germany was invaded in the first world war.
The first world war formally ended with the Treaty of Versailles on 28 June 1919.
By this time the Allies had occupied the Rhineland.
You are thinking that the first world war ended with The Armistice on 11 November 1918.
Besides the occupation of the Rhineland there was still the Allied naval blockade of Germany in force.
 
petersaxton said:
Germany was invaded in the first world war.
The first world war formally ended with the Treaty of Versailles on 28 June 1919.
By this time the Allies had occupied the Rhineland.
You are thinking that the first world war ended with The Armistice on 11 November 1918.
Besides the occupation of the Rhineland there was still the Allied naval blockade of Germany in force.
Click to expand...

There you go talking absolute nonsense again - Germany was occupied not invaded -and please dont suppose you purport to know what I was thinking.
 
Clovis Iscariot said:
There you go talking absolute nonsense again - Germany was occupied not invaded -and please dont suppose you purport to know what I was thinking.
Click to expand...
So the Allies occupied the Rhineland but didn't invade it? They went into the Rhineland due to the agreement of 11/11/18. This was during the first world war.
What were you thinking?
 
Sterling Archer said:
I was talking more about the moron on the first page who chucked these extremists in with the refugees.
Click to expand...
it's very difficult to keep this thread from having an element of politics and religion.
I think OLM is right to want to keep it going until it is dominated by politics and religion.
 
This thread is about showing respect and condolences.

It's an important and significant event, so is an exception to the normal 'no politics and no religion' rule for this board, which is after all a football forum. There are other forums for anyone that wants to debate it more deeply.

Please show respect and tolerance to other board users, including those reading but not posting.

It would be a shame, but if people, can't do that, the thread will be closed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bunkers, dennisboothstash, Qatartiger Cambridgetiger and 5 others
petersaxton said:
So you are saying that military intervention should never include an invasion of a sovereign territory? The Allies should never have invaded Iraq? They should have stopped as soon as they had removed Iraqi military from Kuwait. There should have been no invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11?
There should have been no invasion of Germany in the first world war or second world war? No invasion of Iwo Jima or Okinawa in the second world war?
I disagree with you completely.
Click to expand...

No, that isn't what I mean at all and it isn't what I've said.

Firstly we should not operate in isolation, as this is an international issue and we belong to both the United Nations and NATO. Any military intervention, outside of a declaration of war, should be carried out with the full and proper authority of international law behind it. Any action on foreign soils would not be classified as an invasion (unless you wish to be pedantic), as that would be an international policing action - close to what you alluded to, but without the arrogance of the western dominance.
Someone else tried to remind you that IS is a terrorist organisation and not a sovereign state, so declaring their actions as acts of war is nothing more than a statement of intent to follow them with similar reprisals. It also makes it clear that, should a sovereign nation be proven to be supportive of IS and collaborate with them, then that country could find themselves at war with France and, as it follows, NATO and/or its allies.
 
Castro's Coffin said:
Is Islamic State a sovereign country we have diplomatic relations and trade with and share sporting competitions with? Which sports do they do best in against us? What do we buy off them? Where is their embassy?
Click to expand...

Mine was a general point, I only mentioned IS in regard to military intervention.
 
Fez said:
No, that isn't what I mean at all and it isn't what I've said.

Firstly we should not operate in isolation, as this is an international issue and we belong to both the United Nations and NATO. Any military intervention, outside of a declaration of war, should be carried out with the full and proper authority of international law behind it. Any action on foreign soils would not be classified as an invasion (unless you wish to be pedantic), as that would be an international policing action - close to what you alluded to, but without the arrogance of the western dominance.
Someone else tried to remind you that IS is a terrorist organisation and not a sovereign state, so declaring their actions as acts of war is nothing more than a statement of intent to follow them with similar reprisals. It also makes it clear that, should a sovereign nation be proven to be supportive of IS and collaborate with them, then that country could find themselves at war with France and, as it follows, NATO and/or its allies.
Click to expand...
So it seems like the differences we have are to do with whether it's the West or the UN who decides. The problem with the UN is that Russia seems one of the more aggressive countries and them and China can easily block anything. Russia seems to hate homosexuals and China executes more countries than the rest of the world put together. I'm more than happy to have more than the West involved but usually Russia and China block any meaningful action. There has to be an organisation that can't be impotent because of the actions of one or two rogue states.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bengals Tiger
Just a point about the bombing outside the Stade de France, do you think they botched this as the crowd were all inside and they blew themselves up 15 mins into the game, considering the slaughter elsewhere were they late to cause maximum carnage? Is it the first terrorist attack on a football match?
 
originalminority said:
Just a point about the bombing outside the Stade de France, do you think they botched this as the crowd were all inside and they blew themselves up 15 mins into the game, considering the slaughter elsewhere were they late to cause maximum carnage? Is it the first terrorist attack on a football match?
Click to expand...
Maybe they couldn't get inside because of the security.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back