Go Back   Professional Soldiers > At Ease > The Early Bird

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-21-2020, 11:31   #1
Fonzy
Guerrilla
 
Fonzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Virginia
Posts: 147
Trump administration to withdraw from Open Skies

See link:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...8e1_story.html
Fonzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 12:02   #2
Joker
Quiet Professional
 
Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tampa
Posts: 2,263
Good, I always thought that is was a bogus deal. They intercepted and escorted our planes but they then had access to our airspace.
Joker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 12:12   #3
Box
Quiet Professional
 
Box's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NC
Posts: 4,139
pelosi will be squealing about it by COB friday
__________________
Opinions stated in this post are solely those of the author, and in no way reflect the opinions or policies of The Department of Defense, The United States Army, or The 1st Special Forces Regiment. These opinions are provided purely as social commentary and are not meant to be used for mission planning or navigation.

...Hillary Klint0n is NOT my president


"Make sure your own mask is secure before assisting others"
-Airplane Safety Briefing
Box is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 13:19   #4
Badger52
Area Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western WI
Posts: 5,197
Flow charts for all COA's end at the same place because:

OrangeManBad
__________________
"Civil Wars don't start when a few guys hunt down a specific bastard. Civil Wars start when many guys hunt down the nearest bastards."

The coin paid to enforce words on parchment is blood; tyrants will not be stopped with anything less dear. - QP Peregrino
Badger52 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 16:53   #5
Airbornelawyer
Moderator
 
Airbornelawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,845
I have said it before, most notably in the context of the sentimental and narcissistic decision to extend the protections of the Geneva Convention to non-party unlawful combatants, and I will say it again. Under international law, a party not only has the right to deny treaty protections or withdraw from a treaty if the other party is not in compliance, it has the obligation to do so. International relations work as much, if not more, on the basis of negative reciprocity (the stick) as they do on the basis of positive reciprocity (the carrot). A party which can gain the benefits of a convention without entering into or complying with that convention on its own part, has no incentive to enter into or comply with the convention. You weaken the carrot (whatever benefits compliance brings) if you abandon the stick (penalizing non-compliance).

I apply this to international relations, where there are fewer outside forces to influence the actions of sovereign parties, but it also applies in domestic relations. We see it when Republican politicians refuse to get down and dirty in response to the Left's tactics, on the basis of maintaining the moral high ground. If the other side incurs no penalty for its underhanded tactics, it has no incentive to stop.

I described the conventional wisdom above as "sentimental and narcissistic" because while taking the moral high ground may make you feel better about yourself, if it does not in fact result in a better situation, it is not the moral high ground at all.
__________________
Give a man a fish and you will feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you will feed him for the rest of his life.

Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
Airbornelawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 17:48   #6
Ret10Echo
Quiet Professional
 
Ret10Echo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Occupied America....
Posts: 4,361
I just love history.... It's a MF'r

Quote:
Terminating Treaties

The Constitution is silent about how treaties might be terminated. The breaking off of two treaties during the Jimmy Carter administration stirred controversy. In 1978 the president terminated the U.S. defense treaty with Taiwan in order to facilitate the establishment of diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. Also in 1978 the new Panama Canal treaties replaced three previous treaties with Panama. In one case, the president acted unilaterally; in the second, he terminated treaties in accordance with actions taken by Congress. Only once has Congress terminated a treaty by a joint resolution; that was a mutual defense treaty with France, from which, in 1798, Congress declared the United States "freed and exonerated." In that case, breaking the treaty almost amounted to an act of war; indeed, two days later Congress authorized hostilities against France, which were only narrowly averted
__________________
"There are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations"

James Madison
Ret10Echo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2020, 05:31   #7
Badger52
Area Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western WI
Posts: 5,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbornelawyer View Post
I have said it before, most notably in the context of the sentimental and narcissistic decision to extend the protections of the Geneva Convention to non-party unlawful combatants, and I will say it again. Under international law, a party not only has the right to deny treaty protections or withdraw from a treaty if the other party is not in compliance, it has the obligation to do so. International relations work as much, if not more, on the basis of negative reciprocity (the stick) as they do on the basis of positive reciprocity (the carrot). A party which can gain the benefits of a convention without entering into or complying with that convention on its own part, has no incentive to enter into or comply with the convention. You weaken the carrot (whatever benefits compliance brings) if you abandon the stick (penalizing non-compliance).

I apply this to international relations, where there are fewer outside forces to influence the actions of sovereign parties, but it also applies in domestic relations. We see it when Republican politicians refuse to get down and dirty in response to the Left's tactics, on the basis of maintaining the moral high ground. If the other side incurs no penalty for its underhanded tactics, it has no incentive to stop.

I described the conventional wisdom above as "sentimental and narcissistic" because while taking the moral high ground may make you feel better about yourself, if it does not in fact result in a better situation, it is not the moral high ground at all.
Very eloquent.
__________________
"Civil Wars don't start when a few guys hunt down a specific bastard. Civil Wars start when many guys hunt down the nearest bastards."

The coin paid to enforce words on parchment is blood; tyrants will not be stopped with anything less dear. - QP Peregrino
Badger52 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 13:39.



Copyright 2004-2019 by Professional Soldiers
Site Designed, Maintained, & Hosted by Hilliker Technologies