41–47 of 47 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you check again? Where is that defined as a war crime?
The Hague Convention: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relative_to_the_Ope...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Hague Convention: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relative_to_the_Ope...
That only applies to hostilities between the Contracting Parties; most of the drone strikes haven't even been against other countries, but independent militarized groups.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Hague Convention: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relative_to_the_Ope...
That only applies to hostilities between the Contracting Parties; most of the drone strikes haven't even been against other countries, but independent militarized groups.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That only applies to hostilities between the Contracting Parties; most of the drone strikes haven't even been against other countries, but independent militarized groups.
The US and Pakistan are Contracting Parties. Carrying out drone strikes against citizens of one of those parties constitutes hostility against that nation in my book. I'd wager to say that if Pakistan would carry out drone strikes on US soil, the US would count that as an act of war on the side of Pakistan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But to what end? What is their endgame? The USSR testing boundaries in the Cold War made sense because they needed real data for their concrete plans to cross the Rhine and conquer Western Europe - that’s what the Cold War was all about! Now it’s 2018 and I know Russia has lost their designs on Germany and France and seem primarily motivated to maintain a buffer territory, but testing limits is only going to move Rus…
Again, going on the opinions of others (who are in positions such that they should know, but ultimately it's all opinion) a lot of it (by no means all) is about prestige and being seen and respected as a world power again. Which is not just for show; if people respect you as a world power, they are far more likely to do what you want. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was made a number of promises th…
For example, not expanding NATO wasn't even a promise, it was a rumour.
OTOH, Russia broke several international _agreements_ and started waging wars with their neighbours.
Can you really equal those? Waging war and ephemeral promises?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But to what end? What is their endgame? The USSR testing boundaries in the Cold War made sense because they needed real data for their concrete plans to cross the Rhine and conquer Western Europe - that’s what the Cold War was all about! Now it’s 2018 and I know Russia has lost their designs on Germany and France and seem primarily motivated to maintain a buffer territory, but testing limits is only going to move Rus…
The leadership of Russia might be worried that the same techniques used by Western NGOs to depose the leadership of the Ukraine in 2014 will be used to depose them. The endgame might be that they remain in control of the government of Russia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, going on the opinions of others (who are in positions such that they should know, but ultimately it's all opinion) a lot of it (by no means all) is about prestige and being seen and respected as a world power again. Which is not just for show; if people respect you as a world power, they are far more likely to do what you want. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was made a number of promises th…
> Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was made a number of promises that really weren't kept For example, not expanding NATO wasn't even a promise, it was a rumour. OTOH, Russia broke several international _agreements_ and started waging wars with their neighbours. Can you really equal those? Waging war and ephemeral promises?