Defence - who defends Scotland?

[Whitnail]

Cool story bro. Would you like a badge for stating the blatantly obvious?

This has absolutely zero bearing on whether we should be involved in conflicts beyond our shores.

I'm masking nothing. I think we should be far less reluctant to use military force to remove dictators and secure human rights and I find isolationist posturing both widely unprincipled and either naive or indifferent to geopolitical forces that greatly, though far less directly than was historically the case, affect our security and way of life.

It entirely is. You can't spread civilised society at the barrel of a gun

It's not isolationist posturing, as I've said a pure peace keeping force that sole job is to protect civilians is fine.

You are advocating the bombing of countries under the guise of peacekeeping. This isn't peacekeeping - not in any sense of the word - and relies on our imperfect politicians picking the correct side in messy conflicts with no clear goodies and baddies.

Which they did in Syria, before later changing their mind and switching side. This isn't peacekeeping, and it is actively detrimental to the civilians of that country.

But still, sitting in your West End pad, sipping cognac and saying "I'm no interventionist, but what Syria needs is more bombs to save its civilian population".

Yer a fraud mate.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

The lightly armed Dutch peace keeping force which was there to protect the civilians in Srebrenica did a wonderful job.

I'm not in complete agreement with Ad Lib (I don't think that we should be actively seeking to remove dictators and imposing democracy on foreign countries), but there are times when there has to be a more aggressive stance from the international community. There are places we can intervene and places we can't, either practically or politically, but when you have governments or organisations who are open in their aims of wiping out entire populations, I'd hope that we would consider doing something.

[AUFC90]

The lightly armed Dutch peace keeping force which was there to protect the civilians in Srebrenica did a wonderful job.

I'm not in complete agreement with Ad Lib (I don't think that we should be actively seeking to remove dictators and imposing democracy on foreign countries), but there are times when there has to be a more aggressive stance from the international community. There are places we can intervene and places we can't, either practically or politically, but when you have governments or organisations who are open in their aims of wiping out entire populations, I'd hope that we would consider doing something.

But what is the international community ? NATO, headed by the US and the UK, bombing the shit out of people ? Doesn't matter if if it's for all the right reasons, you're never make friends or progress with that approach.

[Whitnail]

The lightly armed Dutch peace keeping force which was there to protect the civilians in Srebrenica did a wonderful job.

I'm not in complete agreement with Ad Lib (I don't think that we should be actively seeking to remove dictators and imposing democracy on foreign countries), but there are times when there has to be a more aggressive stance from the international community. There are places we can intervene and places we can't, either practically or politically, but when you have governments or organisations who are open in their aims of wiping out entire populations, I'd hope that we would consider doing something.

Scotland shouldn't bear this burden alone, a lightly armed peackeeping force from us assisted by others around the world? Yeah, think it would do a fine job.

Aggressive stance should not be adopted, this isn't a video game, discerning the right and wrong in a conflict is often muddled and difficult. It should not be left to the whim of clueless politicians. When you are solely protecting civilians you can't go wrong.

[H_B]

Scotland shouldn't bear this burden alone

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

Scotland shouldn't bear this burden alone, a lightly armed peackeeping force from us assisted by others around the world? Yeah, think it would do a fine job.

Aggressive stance should not be adopted, this isn't a video game, discerning the right and wrong in a conflict is often muddled and difficult. It should not be left to the whim of clueless politicians. When you are solely protecting civilians you can't go wrong.

Except I've given you an example of where it's gone disastrously wrong.

[Whitnail]

This is a debate about Scotlands military spending (if it had one). The other poster said a single Dutch force failed, as a single Scottish one might, which is why they wouldn't be doing it themselves.

Not sure your post warranted this reply but there you go.

Except I've given you an example of where it's gone disastrously wrong.

That was to do with the force itself rather than their intentions. They failed to protect civilians and if they aggressively attacked their opponent (pre emptive strike?) then that would have been an even bigger failing.

Impossible to prove of course. I think a multinational force could protect civilians and aggressively attacking the "bad guys" is naive and counterproductive.

An undermanned force may well fail, this will be the case regardless of their intentions.

[H_B]

When you are solely protecting civilians you can't go wrong.

An undermanned force may well fail,

[Ad Lib]

Too many mentions of moron.

Just so I can get a full disclosure of your position.

1. Are human rights abuses only carried out in countries where there are dictators, juntas and warlords?

2. Should we invade the USA to prevent the human rights abuses carried out by American forces and intelligence services? If not, why not?

3. Same as question 2 but for China?

4. How many acts of terrorism does Israel have to perform before we take them to task and ask the English Army to "bomb the f**k" out of them?

5. Given our history of interventions where, by your own admission, our foreign policy leaves much to be desired, what gives us the right to act with impunity when we violate another country's sovereignty?

6. Did you favour the invasion of Afghanistan?

7. We are a country that has been condemned by the UN Committee for Torture for our own abuses and for inserting an escape clause into the 1998 Criminal Justice Act. that prevents prosecution for state sponsored terrorism. Is this really a basis for projection of UK values onto the rest of the world?

8. Finally, provide a list of countries that we should use our military to influence, overthrow the government of, or remove a dictator. If you could list these in priority order that would be just dandy.

1. No.

2. No, because they'd destroy us and there are more effective means of changing their behaviour through diplomatic channels at the present moment.

3. See 2.

4. The Israeli army does not commit acts of terrorism. It has probably committed several war crimes in relation to the disprorportionate use of force and disregard for the loss of civilian life. There may well come a time where military intervention against them would be necessary to prevent human rights abuses, but as there is no realistic prospect of such an attack improving the human rights situation for Palestinians, it would not be a wise course of action at this moment in time. We are more likely to make progress with the Israelis through diplomatic channels with their democratically elected government.

5. Our past actions have no bearing on our moral authority to depose dictators and human rights abusers. That authority comes from two things: the fact that they are oppressing their own people without remedy through recourse to the rule of law and criminal sanction and the fact that we have the means to respond to that use of military power against civilians. Sovereignty is subordinate to human rights in international law and in any valid ethical system of relations in the international community.

6. Yes and I still think it was right to go into Afghanistan.

7. Failures of our own government to uphold human rights to the necessary standard here is not an excuse for people like ISIS or Assad to exterminate civilians en masse.

8. You're asking the wrong question. In theory, we should be prepared to use military force against any and all states on the planet. Obviously our relations with a lot of countries are very good at the moment, and a lot of them are constructive in efforts to secure and protect human rights and regional stability and respect for sovereignty. The question we should ask in each case is whether military action is necessary or more efficacious at achieving those goals than diplomatic dialogue. I take the view on balance that we should have been prepared to use miltiary force to remove Assad about 2-3 years ago. We should also be prepared to bomb the f**k out of ISIL and support Iraqi and Kurdish troops, if they ask us to, with ground forces in that struggle. I think there is room for us to use more of our military muscle in a number of conflicts in central and sub-Saharan Africa. Depending on whose support we could also marshall and how effective it would be, we should also be open to using at least the threat of force against Russia in respect of their activities in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea.

[Ad Lib]

It entirely is. You can't spread civilised society at the barrel of a gun

Yes you can. We've been doing it for centuries.

It's not isolationist posturing, as I've said a pure peace keeping force that sole job is to protect civilians is fine.

A peacekeeping force is useless if there's no peace to keep.

You are advocating the bombing of countries under the guise of peacekeeping. This isn't peacekeeping - not in any sense of the word - and relies on our imperfect politicians picking the correct side in messy conflicts with no clear goodies and baddies.

No I'm not advocating anything under the guise of peacekeeping. I'm advocating wars. Let there be no ambiguity about that. Wars are sometimes necessary to stop evil people doing evil things. Of course conflicts are complicated, but we can surely all get behind the idea that ISIL are more the bad guys in the middle east than the Kurds or the Iraqi Army. And if you can't, you probably should be sectioned under the Mental Health Act.

Which they did in Syria, before later changing their mind and switching side. This isn't peacekeeping, and it is actively detrimental to the civilians of that country.

This is bollocks. When Cameron and Obama were contemplating responding to Assad's use of chemical weapons against civilians, they were not "taking the side" of ISIL. Nor by providing aerial support to anti-ISIL forces in Iraq and Syria now, are they "taking the side of" Assad. Had we actually removed Assad from power for his egregious human rights violations, it would have actually created a window of opportunity specifically to isolate ISIL from the other rebel forces acting against his regime. This would have made it easier, not more difficult, to control the supply of arms in the region and to limit the danger ISIL posed to civilians.

But still, sitting in your West End pad, sipping cognac and saying "I'm no interventionist, but what Syria needs is more bombs to save its civilian population".

Yer a fraud mate.

I'm not drinking alcohol at the moment and I've never drank cognac. There's nothing contradictory in what I'm saying. I am an interventionist. This doesn't mean indiscriminately throwing our military weight around anywhere and everywhere. It means I think we should be proactive in our use of military force to stop some of the world's most evil people from exterminating civilians.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

This is a debate about Scotlands military spending (if it had one). The other poster said a single Dutch force failed, as a single Scottish one might, which is why they wouldn't be doing it themselves.

Not sure your post warranted this reply but there you go.

That was to do with the force itself rather than their intentions. They failed to protect civilians and if they aggressively attacked their opponent (pre emptive strike?) then that would have been an even bigger failing.

Impossible to prove of course. I think a multinational force could protect civilians and aggressively attacking the "bad guys" is naive and counterproductive.

An undermanned force may well fail, this will be the case regardless of their intentions.

The Dutch presence was an example of what you and others seem to be advocating. A small detachment of several hundred lightly armed but highly trained troops tasked with protecting a civilian area and not engaging in the wider conflict. It was a complete disaster and led to the worst atrocity in post-war European history. That situation needed either a very large and heavily armed military presence to deter the Serbian army, or the Dutch needed to be backed by bombing from the air.

There are of course many times when what you're suggesting would be perfectly adequate, and I'm not suggesting that we (or the USA/NATO/France whoever) rock up in these places with our entire armed forces at the drop of a hat, but there are times when you absolutely do need to be aggressive (France's intervention in Mali is an excellent example of this).

[AUFC90]

So what we've established is that Ad Lib is arguing for war to depose regimes and then 3 other regimes will take its place and maybe some civil sprinkled on top. Sounds sensible.

[Ad Lib]

So what we've established is that Ad Lib is arguing for war to depose regimes and then 3 other regimes will take its place and maybe some civil sprinkled on top. Sounds sensible.

At no point have I advocated wars where it is believed the likely consequence is civil war and greater violence in the long term.

[AUFC90]

At no point have I advocated wars where it is believed the likely consequence is civil war and greater violence in the long term.

But that is a likely consequence whenever you destabilize a country.

[strichener]

But that is a likely consequence whenever you destabilize a country.

Give it up, the guy is a total buffoon.

Ad Lib Summary - We should protect human rights unless the party abusing them is bigger than us, in which case we should do nothing.

[Ad Lib]

But that is a likely consequence whenever you destabilize a country.

No it isn't. It is not always a likely consequence. And not all military interventions destabilise countries. Some bring stability to them. See Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Mali.

[Ad Lib]

Give it up, the guy is a total buffoon.

Ad Lib Summary - We should protect human rights unless the party abusing them is bigger than us, in which case we should do nothing.

Wrong.

We should protect human rights wherever it is possible to do so. Where it is not possible to do so by military means we should do so by any and all other means that are possible.

[AUFC90]

No it isn't. It is not always a likely consequence. And not all military interventions destabilise countries. Some bring stability to them. See Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Mali.

Some. Most, however, do not. Especially full on blitzcreig the like of which the Americans are fond of.

[Ad Lib]

Some. Most, however, do not. Especially full on blitzcreig which the Americans are fond of.

That is a value judgment of the evidence as applied to specific situations. It does precisely nothing to undermine the position I have adopted.

[AUFC90]

That is a value judgment of the evidence as applied to specific situations. It does precisely nothing to undermine the position I have adopted.

You're position is the same position daft politicians have been adopting for years. Means nothing and won't sort out anything. Remove dictators and replace them with dictators we like. That's been British policy for god knows how long.