The General Political Thread

[StevenChilton]

Even more reason why an integrated EU military cannot work as it relies too much on Germany. Come back in 50+ years when Germans are less ashamed of 1914-1918 and 1933-1945.

1914-18, nothing to be ashamed of really except a not very bright emperor.

Given Germany was constantly stirring things up in the run up to 1914 and desired a war before the Russians fully modernised, they are mostly to blame for WWI. German High Command even sabotaged the Kaiser's peace efforts when he wobbled and began to think war was a bad idea.

[Toffee]

To be fair to Germany, Britain and France had been stiring up war across the entire world for hundreds of years. I'd say Imperialism was the main cause of WW1 and not just Germany's.

[StevenChilton]

Germany went to great lengths to ensure a war in 1914 whilst the other main powers in Europe didn't much want a conflict.
-It was Germany who gave Austria-Hungary a blank cheque
-It was Germany who ensured Austro-Hungarian demands on the Serbs were enormous in the deliberate hope they'd be rejected and thus be a cause for war
-It was Germany who was surprised when the Serbs largely accepted those demands, and was then furious to learn Austria-Hungary was tempted to go for a diplomatic solution
-It was Germany who then forced Austria-Hungary to go for a military solution
-Germany was the only country which rejected the (extremely reasonable) British peace plan in July
 
 You can make a case it wasn't Germany's fault but I find it a rather weak argument. Most historians assign Berlin the majority of the blame:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26048324

[Toffee]

So did the treaty of Versailles, which could be a argued to be a cause of WW2. Swings and roundabouts

[Duuring]

This isn't a historical discussion-thread.

[Riddlez]

I wish the EU would focus more on economic cooperation and interfere less with politics of individual member states. That is kind of what it was founded for, and "peace in Europe" of course.

Pretty much all the EU has focused on is economy-related and they haven't really meddled directly with national politics... because they can't. Of course they have made comments about it in parliament but nobody really listens to that. The only thing they've begun to really interfere with is Poland, adn that shit is from last week.

[MrTiki]

Wait so remind me again why we don't want the people in charge of military intervention to be cautious?
I seem to recall something involving Iraq a little while ago?

[Toffee]

This isn't a historical discussion-thread.

We're discussing something which directly relates to the reasons behind Germany's political motivations in modern-day Europe. Not like it's off topic.

[StevenChilton]

Wait so remind me again why we don't want the people in charge of military intervention to be cautious?
I seem to recall something involving Iraq a little while ago?

There's cautious and then there's German level cautious-even when they get deployed the kind of restraints they're under makes it pointless them being there (in Afghanistan they weren't allowed to pro-actively engage the enemy and had to wait to be shot at first).

I wish the EU would focus more on economic cooperation and interfere less with politics of individual member states. That is kind of what it was founded for, and "peace in Europe" of course.

Pretty much all the EU has focused on is economy-related and they haven't really meddled directly with national politics... because they can't. Of course they have made comments about it in parliament but nobody really listens to that. The only thing they've begun to really interfere with is Poland, adn that shit is from last week.

The EU is constantly interfering in national politics what are you talking about? They're currently demanding Eastern Europe takes in significant numbers of economic migrants after Merkel's fuck up.

[Duuring]

Then they are free to leave. Nobody forces membership upon anyone.

[Edwin]

Lol, if EU bureaucrats shared your naive attitude the EU wouldn't last until Christmas.

[Von Bergen]

Wait so remind me again why we don't want the people in charge of military intervention to be cautious?
I seem to recall something involving Iraq a little while ago?

There's cautious and then there's German level cautious-even when they get deployed the kind of restraints they're under makes it pointless them being there (in Afghanistan they weren't allowed to pro-actively engage the enemy and had to wait to be shot at first).

Yeah because that is how you Work in a guerilla war man. We are Not Back in fucking Vietnam where you Just Napalm the Shit Out of a Village because you suspect enemys in there. In most cases you can Not Tell one of the afghans is a Taliban because they Look the Same Like civilians apart from theire AK-47. So If you dont See a weapon you cant Just shoot them. And that is Just for the people without weapons. When i was in the army our Sarge, who has been to Afghanistan several Times, showed us a Video he filmed on a patrol: Because it is a Civil/Guerilla war Most of the people there carry weapons with them to protect themself in a dailly Routine (remembers me of some big Nation in the northern Part of the American continent eh?).
So the conclusion is: Shooting people only after they attack you is the only sane conclusion in a country Like Afghanistan.
You need to Interpret facts, Just reproducing them is the Work of a child.
 

[Riddlez]

(in Afghanistan they weren't allowed to pro-actively engage the enemy and had to wait to be shot at first).

This was the ROE for all the countries almost all the time. Only in pre-planned assualts the ROE is different.

Mandates are constricted in different ways. Being the kind of missions you want to go on, the type of gear you are allowed to bring, what weapons you can use at what time, etc.
THere's a lot more to mandate than ROE and the ROE is determined theatre-wide. In Afghanistan (as with every insurgency) the ROE is based upon international law. When you are not fighting a state, you do not have a clearly marked and uniformed enemy. So the only people you can engage are combatants. Civilians are only combatants during and only for the time they are taking part in hostilities. After that you are not allowed to engage them, only to apprehend and arrest them for terrorism/murder. Rules the U.S. breaks often and it is the basis of why Gitmo is illegal. The U.S. claims the prisoners there are POWs, but they can't be because they're not uniformed enemy combatants) So Germany's ROE was the same as ours, or the English. For lack of German mandate, Afghanistan is a bad example, they were reasonably sorted at the time. The Kurd training mission is a far better example:

- Americans/Brits: no limitations, were active on front line
- Italians: not allowed to come within 15km from front line, even for supllies, they had to make a 40km detour in logistical lines.
- Dutch: were not allowed to take heavy weapons (.50 machine guns, anti-armour weapons) because of the training nature of the mission, even though this was request by mission commander.
- Germans: were not allowed to leave their compound on the airport. They served only a training purpose there and deplpyed no other actions where every other nation did.
- French: did whatever they wanted, but chose not to go to the front too much.

We are Not Back in fucking Vietnam where you Just Napalm the Shit Out of a Village because you suspect enemys in there.

False, this actually did happen, just not with napalm.

And not to bitch too much, it's an insurgency, not a civil war.

[Von Bergen]

@Riddlez my Point was that in Vietnam bombing a whole town Just because of a few suspects was a dailly Basic while in Afghanistan its Seen as a war crime mostly

[StevenChilton]

Yeah my bad, got that bit wrong. Still stands that they were barred from engaging in offensive operations and limited to little more than peacekeeping.

Then they are free to leave. Nobody forces membership upon anyone.

So it's Merkel's way or the highway?