WWIII placeholder thread.

Seems to me that you and Rick are the guys engaging in a binary analysis. You know Afghanistan and Iraq were different but then present a criteria that requires us to evaluate them in the same fashion. If they are different, they are different.

The Taliban sealed their fate when they decided to claim sovereignty over a fundamentally lawless region. And because they used brutal and illegitimate means, they don't get to hem and haw about whether they can find Obama. They turn him over or step out of the way.

And while there may or may not have been an air tight court case on Obama's culpability, there was enough evidence to justify acting. Sorry, but you will not convince me otherwise, especially when you acknowledge it was justified.

You've lost me.

Nope. Civilians. Military personnel by the nature of their job have a reasonable expectation that they could be killed by a foreign power. Civilians don't, that's why they have a government and a military. Killing a few soldiers (or even civilians) isn't justification for going to war. Killing large numbers of civilians (or military personnel) on their home soil (whatever country that might be) in a short period of time, is justification for war. Killing large numbers of civilians or military personnel on foreign soil (i.e. not their home country) may, or may not be justification for war, depending upon the specific circumstances.

Actually, 14th Doctor first brought the subject up when he said that Putin was as justified as the US was. I agreed with him that the US had no business invading Iraq, but disagreed with him on Afghanistan. And thus did the hijack begin.

Again, its an internal matter, and until people are being killed by the thousands or pushed out of the country, then watching is what's called for. Having the Security Council drafting a resolution to authorize UN troops to go in, isn't a bad idea. If people want to bitch that the US violated US law, they need to remember that Putin's little action in the Crimea has done so as well. Not only is it an invasion of a foreign nation, its also being done in a manner to attempt to deny responsibility.

Your position that the rule of law should be abandoned as soon as you are met with someone who commits a serious crime is palpably absurd. The "rules of the game" exist specifically to deal with these situations.

In the absence of an extradition treaty where you were liable to be exectuted - are you kidding? Not a chance.
Besides, I daresay that if the Irish asked for evidence, the Zimbabweans would provide it. Unless, that is, the request was merely part of a pretext for a war that they were bent on.

Never watched either, actually.

I say that you were rewriting history because that's what you did. I think I've demonstrated it pretty conclusively at this point by pointing out what actually happened.

Rick, i'm curious as to what law you think even applies. An act of war was committed against the United States. The laws regarding such things are pretty clear that a country attacked mat defend itself, even pursuing the enemy back across the border.

Indeed. IIRC it is even in the UN Charter that nations have such a right. Which makes sense as few nations would ever join the UN in the absence of such assurances.

The law allows for defense against armed attack in the interim period before the matter is brought before the UNSC. "Pursuing an enemy across the border" could be debated, but it's a risible contortion to say that that's what the invasion of Afghanistan amounted to.

The problem with your reasoning is that the invasion of Afghanistan made the invasion of Iraq inevitable. You've got to remember who the President and Vice-President at the time were; their goal was Iraq all along, and they never really did anything to hide it.

The invasion of Afghanistan could have been justified had it been handled by people not intent on doing absolutely the wrong thing. Under President Gore it would have been entirely appropriate. Under President tiny-dick, who had a desperate need to splatter bad guys to make himself feel like a manly man, not so much so.

We are the UN. So fuck that. And I'm pretty sure US law says if you fuck with us we will fuck you up harder. It's not a difficult thing to understand.

US law says that international treaties such as the UN Charter are the supreme law of the land, actually.

So you are saying that

a)invading Afghanistan would've been completely appropriate for President Gore

but

b) invading Afghanistan was inappropriate for President Bush?

That makes no sense at all.

And we are the UN so case fucking closed.

Ooo, look who suddenly went all Right Wing...

Whether or not Bush/Chenney saw Afghanistan only as a way to justify Iraq (an assertion I don't support) is irrelevant. It was the appropriate course of action. That's all that is relevant. Iraq was wrong, I said so at the time, and I haven't changed my mind on that. But some people can't seem to separate the two.

He claims bullshit he gets bullshit for a reply.

Wow. So basically you're so hyper partisan you can't even think clearly and shouldn't be taken seriously.

You're learning and on the right track here.

Except you believe that you know what those rules actually are, but you don't. Do you know what the CEO of GM said at the outbreak of WWII in Europe? That he wasn't bothered by it, since multinational corporations like GM were "above the petty squabbles of nations." That's the law. You can do whatever you want, but you make things bad for business, and suddenly shit gets real. Remember, everybody was perfectly content to sit in their seats and do what the hijackers wanted, because up until 9/11, we all knew that the worst that could happen was that some passengers would die, but the vast majority of them would live. After 9/11, we realized that, no, there's a good chance that not only would all the passengers die, but so would lots of people on the ground. That changes things. If you notice, the number of hijackings since 9/11 has plunged dramatically, and the few that have occurred have not involved people with weapons.

9/11 changed the equation. If the hijackers had continued the pattern done prior to this of holding people hostage, demanding money, and/or the release of Palestinians, we wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan. We might not even have bothered sending cruise missiles at them.

So, tell me, how good is Ireland at turning over pedophile priests to legal authorities so they can be prosecuted? Hell, how good is the Catholic Church in general? Let's face it, there's nothing new about accusations of Catholic priests diddling little boys, but the number of them who've gotten away with it is pretty large. What does Ireland have to lose by turning over a pederast priest? A lot. What do they have to lose by turning over an unknown American to an African nation led by a man who's compared himself to Hitler (as in, "Hitler was a pussy compared to me.") on the basis of no evidence? Not a goddamned thing. I doubt if even you'd be out in the streets holding up a sign in protest.

Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to present you with the only man to have a larger stick up his ass than either Poodle or Rick Santorum.

You know, even I don't believe that what I post here has any meaning, the fact that you do, just shows what a sad, pathetic little man you really are.

Gul has turned neo-con on us!!!!

I don't trust him. I think he's a plant.

That's a very strange post. You have just repeated my own opinion back to me, and ended by threatening that I won't convince you otherwise, esp since you know it is my opinion, as I have told you so.

So we're agreed the invasion of Afghanistan was justified. I said as much from the start. However, it was justified for the reasons you gave in this post, whereas the reasons given previously in this thread are inaccurate: those things didn't happen. And not only are they false, but they continue the same falsehoods that lead to the catastrophe in Iraq, and the subsequent failures in Afghanistan. That's worth pointing out, since even a justified military campaign is better when it succeeds -- indeed, unneeded failure pretty much removes justification.

You seem to feel the same by reverse, otherwise you wouldn't have emphasised the false reasons before falling back, surprisingly grudgingly, on what really happened.

Wait a minute. Are you saying that if a Russian commits a terrorist attack on China, and somehow managed to hide on US territory against the US' explicit wishes, China is justified to invade the US and replace its government?

They would if they could, wouldn't they?

No, I don't think so. I think there is a chance they would realize in time that the results wouldn't be what they wanted, just as the US eventually realized in Afghanistan.

You know, I usually like you as a poster, even when we strongly disagree. The resort to personal abuse is disappointing.

Last time I checked, the US is still refusing to hand over the former president of Bolivia to face charges of genocide.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/09/america-refusal-extradite-bolivia

Then you've got Luis Posada Carilles, who the US is refusing to extradite in relation to his masterminding the bombing of a Cuban jetliner in the 70's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles#United_States_.282005.E2.80.93.29

The best part of that?

Do you think there would be any credibility to the idea that China could do it if we couldn't? We're dealing with scenarios that don't fit the clean mold of international relations theory. In the end, what matters is power. Hopefully that is exercised in a just manner, as it was in Afghanistan, rather than in a thoughtless and dangerous manner as it was in Iraq.

The argument in this thread is a bit bizzare. Rick and seemingly you, are trying to dance on a legal pin head when there is no relevant legal code.

That's an interesting statement. If you look up the original neo-cons, not the guys parroting them in the Bush admin, but the group involving Daniel Patrick Moynihan, you'll find a lot of things with which I agree. Bush and his group were a bunch of idiots who thought any aggressive foreign policy position was both justified and wise. I'll often agree with justified, but many times justified does not support the conclusion that we should act.

If China demanded that we extradite him and our reply was "go fuck yourselves," yes. Absolutely.

Yes. In a world in which China can invade and replace the US government, I think it is also possible to assume their greater military power means they can perhaps oust the terrorist when the US government can't. No guarantees, just as the US eventually failed to arrest bin Laden through Afghanistan, but a similarly plausible better chance at trying.

So in that parallel scenario, would the Chinese invasion of America be justified in your view?

To stay in parallel, the US doesn't say "Fuck you." The US says "We've cut ties with him, have told him to leave our country, and are trying to force him to do so."

So? Invasion justified, or not?