Re: [eia] limited access revisions

[Joel Uckelman <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thus spake Michael Gorman:
> 
> >
> >     The basic problem is that not restricting the exit path would allow 
> > the country that is supposed to be withdrawing from FET to abuse the 
> > rules and hunt down allies of the previous enemy.  This new rule that I 
> > am proposing would allow forces in FET to exit by whichever path they 
> > choose while also reducing the incentive to abuse the limited access rules.
> >
> >What do the rest of you think?
> >
> >kdh
>          I think that since making peace with an enemy while an ally 
> remains at war with them is grounds to allow the still belligerent ally to 
> force the now non-belligerent ally break the alliance means that the rules 
> expect that doing so can screw over your ally.  In that light, I think we 
> don't need to restrict such impolite behavior as attacking forces in the 
> lands you have made peace with.
> 
>          Another way to look at it is that while Spain is no longer at war 
> with France, in the example of interest to Kyle, it is not neutral.  As 
> Spain has granted access to British forces to use Spain as a base of 
> operations to attack France, Spain is at best a non-belligerent and at 
> worst an undeclared belligerent.  As such, France would be justified in 
> striking at Spanish assets to the extent that they are supporting the 
> British military.  Thus, if Spain lets the British troops shelter in her 
> cities, and the British choose to retire into a city and put at risk the 
> Spanish civilian population, France should be allowed to attack them with 
> the forces allowed to be in Spain.
>          This isn't to say that there wouldn't be political fallout from 
> doing so, but France would have some justification in its actions.
> 
>          Yeah, it's annoying to the nation hosting the battles and the 
> inability of Spain to do anything about it still bugs me some, but I think 
> restricting attack options seems the more troublesome path in the long run.
> 
> Mike

A few real examples of this, plus a related example:

1. While not at war with Syria and Lebanon, Israel frequently attacks
targets there held by forces that are at war with it.

2. That Cambodia and Laos were not at war with South Vietnam did not stop
US and ARVN forces from attacking Viet Cong that were based there.

3. Lots of the 30 Years War took place in territories that were not active
participants.

4. Though Vichy France was not at war with Britain following the French
surrender in 1940, Britain was not especially scrupulous about respecting
VF neutrality. E.g., the RAF bombed the French fleet at Oran to prevent it
from being used by the Axis.

_______________________________________________
eia mailing list
eia@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia