OT; afghan war illegal?

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by Oldschool61

Bush and Cheney should have been arrested for war crimes!!

Seems like an odd statement

[Nephris]

Iraq was an attack war on wrong arguments (nuclear weapons ...) give nto the public. Thus the war in Iraq was and is in general understoodment and due the rights of Den Haag (?) an illegal movement towards an independant state (one can think about Iraq and Saddam what ya want).

For the same reason Serbia was called guilty and its leaders were arrested.
In a perfect world Bush & Cheyney should be send to the court in Den Haag.
For the same reason Wehrmacht generals like Manstein were send for 10 yrs to prison, although this last comparison is a kind of flawed, as several other
charges were made also, next for leading the attack war ( imho it was a preventive attack into the east, but my opinion doesnt count here)


At the end a reason for the antipathie towards US in the past years compared to the years before.

My opinion:
Hang the cowboy high.

[Wolf_Rider]

Well, some could see it as "illegal" and some don't, but correct me if I am wrong; the US Constitution does allow for The US to defend against any attack on her, perceived or otherwise, on her soil or overseas.
Soveriegn law overirides international law.

Anyways though, this topic really can't be discussed without going deeply into politics.

[Oldschool61]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Well, some could see it as "illegal" and some don't, but correct me if I am wrong; the US Constitution does allow for The US to defend against any attack on her, perceived or otherwise, on her soil or overseas.
Soveriegn law overirides international law.

Anyways though, this topic really can't be discussed without going deeply into politics.

I am reffering to the approval of waterboarding aka torture. Illegal and a war crime. Bush administration approved of torture.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Ibtl

[Sternjaeger II]

As usual AOA had to come and pi$$ on some wall to leave his stain

it is a very delicate topic, there's no question that one can't fully justify the invasion of Iraq nor Afghanistan: the former was based on nothing, and as it turned out was managed in the most incompetent and sinister of ways
(if you're never watched it, have a go at this http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0912593/)

the invasion of Afghanistan didn't bring the hoped results, and it still remains that it's likely that Bin Laden spent most of his time in Pakistan than Afghanistan. The sad truth is that as usual the collateral damage caused to the civilians was dramatic: 10 years on in the occupation, there are around 30k civilian casualties, not to mention the various war crimes that have been committed over the years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilia...%80%93present)). You can appreciate why the Islamic world is not too impressed with this, and I really think we don't get an understanding of what it really means to be occupied by a military force for a decade and risking your life daily because of the ongoing conflict..

food for thought, but truth is that few or little things have changed, the only thing raising is the death toll and the costs for us all.

[Wolf_Rider]

The former was to protect the "petrodollar" (the US dollar "reserve currency/ Fiat" that never sees home) and yes, it was conducted very poorly... sure the "shock and awe" was there, but that was let down by only half the number of troops/ assets being in place for after the shock and awe circus passed on by.

They should have locked down each town on their way in, instead of just running shielding... it was akin to a gridiron play.

[chantaje]

i dont present my point very well at all. ill try again:



The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the United States and thus part of US law. Under the charter, a country can use armed force against another country only in self-defense or when the Security Council approves. Neither of those conditions was met before the United States invaded Afghanistan. The Taliban did not attack us on 9/11. Nineteen men – 15 from Saudi Arabia – did, and there was no imminent threat that Afghanistan would attack the US or another UN member country. The council did not authorize the United States or any other country to use military force against Afghanistan. The US war in Afghanistan is illegal.
— Marjorie Cohn, professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, president of the National Lawyers Guild


also, bin laden (he was in pakistan all the time like you said) is dead now.
i thought that was the main "reason" to ocuppy afghanistan.

to put it in perspective it would be the same situation if usa invades mexico becouse of the drugs cartels with no connections at (at least oficcials) with the gob of mexico.
or if china invade usa couse of the chinese mafia operating in usa.

ps. i think that we can mantain this civ enougth to keep it open.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/

[smokincrater]

Do you really think that the Terrorist oraganisation that was responsible, which was in Afghanistan was not going to be attacked after 9/11?

Do you think the most powerful military force on the planet was going to ask for a resoltuion after being humbled in such a way?

What was the United Nations going to do about a US war that was illegal? Declare war on the US! With what? Pull dirty faces?

As Darth Sidous said `I will make it,legal`.

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Well, some could see it as "illegal" and some don't, but correct me if I am wrong; the US Constitution does allow for The US to defend against any attack on her, perceived or otherwise, on her soil or overseas.
Soveriegn law overirides international law.

.

No idea about the legal mumbo jumbo but regardless that only works for Afghanistan.

Iraq had no connection with sept 11.