There is no new discussion thread for today, mostly to allow me time to work on the Weekly piece.
Lots of things left to do with the existing discussion threads, and I'll be around to comment on them too. If that isn't enough, there is still this week's Open for you all to make your own fun.
Notices to All:
I will still be tracking comment activity this week, but not site view-counts, in an effort to judge the value of this forum for discussion.
As of now, there is only one "open" thread a week.
Again, what would help me best would be for each visitor to post at least one comment on any thread during the week, even if it is just a placekeeper to let me count you.
You may not comment on this thread. This is for administative purposes only.
Thanks!
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Russification
The latest from RFE/RL tells a predictable story...
And the ancient town of Akhalgori -- which dates back to the 2nd century BC --- is suddenly being called "Leningori" once again.
I'm not seeing an R2P explanation for Russian intervention working any more.
On the diplomatic front, Georgia has had enough (finally) of niceties. The Embassy has been recalled from Moscow, diplomatic relations are "severed" as of the 29th of August. Consular functions are still available in both countries.
The E.U. meets on Monday with Georgia at the top of the agenda.
On the Black Sea side of issues, the commercial port at Poti is back in reduced operations, but the naval harbor and considerable facilities space are not able to be used because they were mined. De-mining experts are being withheld until the Russian checkpoints are removed from the adjacent area (to prevent encounter risk). That may have to change if the Russians don't move out shortly.
Oblique note:
Looks like H. Chavez did follow the playbook after all.
Chavez supports Russian recognition of (Georgian) Rebel States
Way to go Hugo. Today... Georgia, tomorrow... Guyana.
And the ancient town of Akhalgori -- which dates back to the 2nd century BC --- is suddenly being called "Leningori" once again.
I'm not seeing an R2P explanation for Russian intervention working any more.
On the diplomatic front, Georgia has had enough (finally) of niceties. The Embassy has been recalled from Moscow, diplomatic relations are "severed" as of the 29th of August. Consular functions are still available in both countries.
The E.U. meets on Monday with Georgia at the top of the agenda.
On the Black Sea side of issues, the commercial port at Poti is back in reduced operations, but the naval harbor and considerable facilities space are not able to be used because they were mined. De-mining experts are being withheld until the Russian checkpoints are removed from the adjacent area (to prevent encounter risk). That may have to change if the Russians don't move out shortly.
Oblique note:
Looks like H. Chavez did follow the playbook after all.
Chavez supports Russian recognition of (Georgian) Rebel States
Way to go Hugo. Today... Georgia, tomorrow... Guyana.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Ok, challenge time: Who are you going to believe?
There was a recent air strike by an AC-130 in support of an ongoing joint Afghan National Army (ANA) - U.S. Army Special Operations raid on a compound in Afghanistan.
Operations day-report said: civilians fled the compound; 4 dead civilians in a crossfire; 2 more wounded and med-evac'ed by U.S. Forces; 20+ Taliban fighters dead.
Afghan local governor said: more than 60 women and children killed; He dodn't mention any Taliban.
Afghan National Government investigates by interviews in the area, and U.N. reviews of the same: 90 civilian dead, mostly children; "some" Taliban fighters killed.
U.S. DoD says: Five Civilians, Twentyfive Taliban
Please don't try to win me over to one position or the other, but feel free to validate or invalidate any or all of the claims.
If you need a hint as to my opinion, see all the press reports of mistreatment of al-qur’ān (the Koran) over the years.
edited: correction to line 1. h/t: mr. bill
Operations day-report said: civilians fled the compound; 4 dead civilians in a crossfire; 2 more wounded and med-evac'ed by U.S. Forces; 20+ Taliban fighters dead.
Afghan local governor said: more than 60 women and children killed; He dodn't mention any Taliban.
Afghan National Government investigates by interviews in the area, and U.N. reviews of the same: 90 civilian dead, mostly children; "some" Taliban fighters killed.
U.S. DoD says: Five Civilians, Twentyfive Taliban
Please don't try to win me over to one position or the other, but feel free to validate or invalidate any or all of the claims.
If you need a hint as to my opinion, see all the press reports of mistreatment of al-qur’ān (the Koran) over the years.
edited: correction to line 1. h/t: mr. bill
End-Mid-Week open
As of this week, you only get one open thread until comment rates rise.
That which is not a thread topic, goes here. Also, any topic you want to bring back from the dead or any suggestions for a new topic, goes here.
caveat: the usual rules apply.
That which is not a thread topic, goes here. Also, any topic you want to bring back from the dead or any suggestions for a new topic, goes here.
caveat: the usual rules apply.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
No Go at the SCO
It seems that even in front of "friendly" audiences, the Russians are not getting a heck of a lot of support for territorial aggrandizement.
You thought the early EU statements were weak tea, look at this
Then again, could anyone have reasonably expected countries like the PRC to sign off on forcible detatchment of integral territory when they have issues like Xinjiang?
Look, guys, Russia is hurting for moral support here. "Red Bob" Mugabe, Hugo Chavez, Ken Livingstone... Bill Ayers... come on, this is your chance to show some appreciation for all the years.
Naw, I guess that since Russia became an autocracy in function if not form, even the old school won't sign on. Silly me for even suggesting it.
You thought the early EU statements were weak tea, look at this
Then again, could anyone have reasonably expected countries like the PRC to sign off on forcible detatchment of integral territory when they have issues like Xinjiang?
Look, guys, Russia is hurting for moral support here. "Red Bob" Mugabe, Hugo Chavez, Ken Livingstone... Bill Ayers... come on, this is your chance to show some appreciation for all the years.
Naw, I guess that since Russia became an autocracy in function if not form, even the old school won't sign on. Silly me for even suggesting it.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
August 27th discussion item
On this, the 80th anniversary of the Kellogg-Briand Pact (Pact of Paris, 1928), we still find ourselves in a world with wars. Yes, in case you wondered, it is still as binding as ever (with specific exceptions) as law upon the U.S. and most other signatories.
But did this landmark effort to de-legitimize aggressive war actually matter?
Well, it was the basis for charges of "Crimes against Peace" in the post-WWII war crimes trials. It is considered the legal forerunner of the portions of the U.N. Charter (specifically Chapter 1, Article 2, Paragraphs 3 and 4) that oblige member states to foreswear the use of military force in conflict resolution.
But...
Open Ground:
This is my way of hauling out the old "It is just a piece of paper" argument that questions whether any treaty matters when leaders of a nation or group are intent upon making war. But how can a State demand compliance with one treaty or agreement (see recent discussions of Russia vs. Georgia and of North Korean negotiations) when there are lots of examples that International "Lawyers" can wave around that says the same States making demands have also ignored agreements? Or is it really such a brutish world that rules that apply to others do not apply to the Strong?
Have at it!
But did this landmark effort to de-legitimize aggressive war actually matter?
Well, it was the basis for charges of "Crimes against Peace" in the post-WWII war crimes trials. It is considered the legal forerunner of the portions of the U.N. Charter (specifically Chapter 1, Article 2, Paragraphs 3 and 4) that oblige member states to foreswear the use of military force in conflict resolution.
But...
Open Ground:
This is my way of hauling out the old "It is just a piece of paper" argument that questions whether any treaty matters when leaders of a nation or group are intent upon making war. But how can a State demand compliance with one treaty or agreement (see recent discussions of Russia vs. Georgia and of North Korean negotiations) when there are lots of examples that International "Lawyers" can wave around that says the same States making demands have also ignored agreements? Or is it really such a brutish world that rules that apply to others do not apply to the Strong?
Have at it!
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
I'm so Ronery...
What is it about Kim Jong Il that anytime world attention glances away from him and his petty fiefdom, he has to do *something* to get attention...
North Koreans not in compliance with six-nation agreement
...again.
Sheesh.
North Koreans not in compliance with six-nation agreement
...again.
Sheesh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
