RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty

RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Vendaval -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/16/2009 12:19:07 PM)
You nailed it, Panda. quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Oh, yeah, no question about that. Pakistan is fucked either way. All they get to choose is which dick, and when. I think it's very likely that the issue of Pakistan's stability will be by far the biggest foreign policy crisis Obama's administration will have to deal with in his first term, and probably his second as well. Nuclear weapons + Al Qeada + unstable government + pro-Islamist military = world's worst nightmare.

subrob1967 -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/16/2009 1:00:18 PM)
None of the 9/11 attackers were Pakistani's... Remember that argument?

rulemylife -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/16/2009 2:34:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf I didn't read anything about it then, and I may not have mentioned it because it would not be surprising that Bush did it. quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Uh......well..............This whole thing with the attacks into Pakistani territory started under Bush. Did you hear anything being shouted from the rooftops then? Pakistan Raid Start Of Concerted Bid To Hit Al-Qaida : NPR NPR.org, September 12, 2008 · NPR has learned that the raid by helicopter-borne U.S. Special Operations forces in Pakistan last week was not an isolated incident but part of a three-phase plan, approved by President Bush, to strike at Osama bin Laden and top al-Qaida leadership. The plan calls for a much more aggressive military campaign, said one source, familiar with the presidential order, which gives the green light for the military to take part in the operations. The plan represents an 11th-hour effort to hammer al-Qaida until the Bush administration leaves office, two government officials told NPR. "Definitely, the gloves have come off," said a source who has been briefed on the plan. "This was only Phase 1 of three phases." Pentagon and White House officials have declined to discuss the new plan. The intelligence community already had approval from the president to carry out operations inside Pakistan, which included attacks by Predator drones, which can carry 100-pound Hellfire missiles. Additional authority came from the president just recently that allowed incursions by U.S. Special Operations forces, the source said. Bush approved secret orders for Pakistan raids: report \| Reuters WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush secretly approved orders in July allowing U.S. special forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without approval from the Pakistan government, the New York Times reported on Thursday.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/16/2009 2:55:08 PM)
What can I say that I already haven't? 1) I never read those links or recall those topics. 2) It was not that surprising if Bush did it. 3) Obama is supposed to be different than Bush, ala Change. When is it okay to violate the sovereignty of another nation? By some of the responses it seems it is okay when we feel that what we are doing is morally superior to international law. I do not see any change in that. I do believe that a back door cooperation is occuring, with public condemnation by Pakistan, as Sanity mentioned. That makes sense, and makes it so the violation is staged.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/16/2009 3:02:27 PM)
I still do not understand this reasoning because ...... " PAKISTAN is to extend its war on the Taliban beyond Swat into the fiercely independent tribal areas bordering Afghanistan where Osama Bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda leadership are believed to be hiding. " http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6301815.ece This offensive has been going on since recent pressure was put on Pakistan. quote: ORIGINAL: Louve00 I would have to agree with Owner and Panda, here. I used to feel like you do about it, Orion. I used to think in our fight for the war on terrorism, we are going to go about bombing all sorts of countries where terrorists are suspected of being. But if those countries are harboring terrorists, hiding them, not confronting them, enabling them in any way...then yes, they are not for our cause. Terrorist cells have been found all over the world. It's not where they're found that we look to bomb. It's where those cells are accepted and enabled to organize, grow and plot.......ultimately, against us! editted to add...or maybe I should say...It's not where they're found that we're looking to bomb...Now. Iraq was bombing because we wanted to bomb...and trumped up reasons to justify it. Pakistan has the choice to be a terrorist country or not. Its their choice. We're not making it for them. We are just ensuring (or trying to ensure) our own American safety.

Ialdabaoth -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/16/2009 3:04:43 PM)
Henry Kissenger, where are you now?

JonnieBoy -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/16/2009 3:15:24 PM)
Violating other nations sovereignty is (like it or not) warmongering, simply presuming that said nation will accept some sort of warped explanation and that there will be no serious reaction is fantasy. If the US cannot gain the full support of Pakistan (which as yet it clearly does not have) for it's actions there, then there will be repercussions, not short term ones either. If one nation goes around throwing it's presumed weight in this way and it's not the US, the US would be calling for sanctions and making threats it can't back up (again) I'm not prejudging anyones view in particular in stating that anyone who thinks this unilateral interpretation is a good idea would be sensible not to start bleating as the US casualties increase. It surprises me how many rules some people will approve of being broken and then bemoan the loss of their sons and daughters. Can the US really afford (in more ways than one) more of this kind of investment? Pirate

rulemylife -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/16/2009 3:53:51 PM)
Can we afford not to? Why did we have the support of the world in our invasion of Afghanistan? Was that war-mongering? Or should we have just said oh well, the Taliban government is ruling a sovereign nation, so we'll just try not to worry about those 3200+ innocent people that died at the hands of the terrorist group they were harboring. What happens if a nuclear-armed Pakistan falls under Taliban rule? My guess is those repercussions would not be too good either. And I agree with what Sanity said earlier, I believe there is a tacit approval of our actions by the Pakistan government but they are in a shaky position themselves and cannot afford to publicly voice support for the U.S. actions.

JonnieBoy -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/16/2009 5:04:28 PM)
If the US had the support of the world over the invasion of Afghanistan, it would not have been a US invasion. Has the US actual evidence of a group in Afghanistan responsible for the deaths you relate to? (granted there have been a good many applauding it since, but that's not the same thing at all) I also agree with Sanity about the Pakistani government.may have "involvements" with the US and that it is in a no win situation in terms of world opinion.It is not only out of concern over the Taliban/US headache though and I do not for one moment think that they are volunteering any complicity at all, I think if there is any it is a bow to intimidation. What happens if (well, you started it) Pakistan falls under Taliban rule then? Pirate

popeye1250 -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/16/2009 5:39:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf What can I say that I already haven't? 1) I never read those links or recall those topics. 2) It was not that surprising if Bush did it. 3) Obama is supposed to be different than Bush, ala Change. When is it okay to violate the sovereignty of another nation? By some of the responses it seems it is okay when we feel that what we are doing is morally superior to international law. I do not see any change in that. I do believe that a back door cooperation is occuring, with public condemnation by Pakistan, as Sanity mentioned. That makes sense, and makes it so the violation is staged. Orion, I couldn't care less about that "morally superior" crap as long as we're killing taliban and al qeada members. They could shoot them down right in front of my condo everyday and I'd gladly go out with the hose and wash away blood and body parts into the sewer. P.S. Jonnie, no-one gives a shit about "world opinion." What do I care what some cab driver in Poland "thinks" about the U.S.? What someone else "thinks" doesn't pay the bills does it? I certainly wouldn't change what I do or say based on what I "think" someone else might "think!" That kind of "thinking" is really fucking neurotic, don't you "think?"

JonnieBoy -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/16/2009 6:06:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Orion, I couldn't care less about that "morally superior" crap as long as we're killing taliban and al qeada members. They could shoot them down right in front of my condo everyday and I'd gladly go out with the hose and wash away blood and body parts into the sewer. P.S. Jonnie, no-one gives a shit about "world opinion." I know that the US does not give a shit about world opinion Popeye, I can get where you're coming from too, it seems there are a lot of folks over there that just can't get their heads around the fact that war is what it is. I'm surprised that Pakistan was not on the list of strategic places to invade until now! (It was Pakistan's position in relation to world opinion I meant though) Pirate

Owner59 -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/16/2009 6:54:13 PM)
What we`re talking about is a mountain range dividing the two countries that bin-laden and co. hides in. It`s not like were invading a whole nation with troops to topple the government or make war on them. , We`re sending missiles,those armed un-manned air-craft and doing long range howitzer shelling, with spotters. It`s part of the old bush strategy of low man power-long range-high power bombing.Works great in a war zone w/ just soldiers around.Horrible in populated areas. Those methods have been killing Afghan civilians by the hundreds since we toppled the Taliban. In spite of sanity`s whines,there has been plenty of coverage about the collateral deaths there.It`s been quite tragic.There have been instances of "collaborators" giving us coordinants of villages and even once,a wedding party w/ hundreds of civvies there,on purpose,knowing what would happen. Remember during the presidential campaign, when the republicans foamed at the mouth when Obama said we were killing to many civilians in Afghanistan? "Asked whether he would move U.S. troops out of Iraq to better fight terrorism elsewhere, he brought up Afghanistan and said, "We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293187,00.html Saying that Obama was dissing our troops.Calling him naive.Claiming he was wrong to say he`d kill bin-laden no matter where he was,even in Pakistan.McPalin even criticized Obama for that statement,like it was a big big deal. [image]http://www.collarchat.com/micons/m21.gif[/image] The bomb from afar methods are going to be scaled way back,from what I`ve heard.And replaced we a man to man, close range-in your face fighting strategy.I think that`s what was behind the replacing of the commander there. It`s going to get more of our troops killed and injured(as well as our NATO allies there) but will kill many less innocent civilians.We are also going to be more affective in fighting the bad guys. I expect whines and recriminations from the right over this,when it happens.Crying over imagined lack of coverage/attention or saying we don`t care.But we`re learning that it`s politics over country with neo-cons.

Louve00 -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/16/2009 7:51:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf I still do not understand this reasoning because ...... " PAKISTAN is to extend its war on the Taliban beyond Swat into the fiercely independent tribal areas bordering Afghanistan where Osama Bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda leadership are believed to be hiding. " http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6301815.ece This offensive has been going on since recent pressure was put on Pakistan. quote: ORIGINAL: Louve00 I would have to agree with Owner and Panda, here. I used to feel like you do about it, Orion. I used to think in our fight for the war on terrorism, we are going to go about bombing all sorts of countries where terrorists are suspected of being. But if those countries are harboring terrorists, hiding them, not confronting them, enabling them in any way...then yes, they are not for our cause. Terrorist cells have been found all over the world. It's not where they're found that we look to bomb. It's where those cells are accepted and enabled to organize, grow and plot.......ultimately, against us! editted to add...or maybe I should say...It's not where they're found that we're looking to bomb...Now. Iraq was bombing because we wanted to bomb...and trumped up reasons to justify it. Pakistan has the choice to be a terrorist country or not. Its their choice. We're not making it for them. We are just ensuring (or trying to ensure) our own American safety. If Pakistan is to extend its war on terrorism, and has put up with the terrorism and injustice that the taliban has had them living under, then I'm unclear where the problem is. We are not going against international law, in my eyes. And I have yet to hear of America breaking any international laws. America has declared war on terrorism when bin-laden toppled the twin towers in NYC. War is legal. We didn't want those towers to tumble...or the thousands of American people to die in that terror act either. Do we not have the right to defend ourselves? Or is it too politically incorrect?

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/16/2009 9:12:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 What we`re talking about is a mountain range dividing the two countries that bin-laden and co. hides in. It`s not like were invading a whole nation with troops to topple the government or make war on them. , We`re sending missiles,those armed un-manned air-craft and doing long range howitzer shelling, with spotters. It`s part of the old bush strategy of low man power-long range-high power bombing.Works great in a war zone w/ just soldiers around.Horrible in populated areas. Those methods have been killing Afghan civilians by the hundreds since we toppled the Taliban. It is still technically a violation of their sovereignty, and what you are giving is an excuse for it. If there are back door agreements fine, but it appears that a nation of laws (The US), which is now under a different President, is still breaking those laws. This is kind of where I have a problem. quote: In spite of sanity`s whines,there has been plenty of coverage about the collateral deaths there.It`s been quite tragic.There have been instances of "collaborators" giving us coordinants of villages and even once,a wedding party w/ hundreds of civvies there,on purpose,knowing what would happen. Remember during the presidential campaign, when the republicans foamed at the mouth when Obama said we were killing to many civilians in Afghanistan? "Asked whether he would move U.S. troops out of Iraq to better fight terrorism elsewhere, he brought up Afghanistan and said, "We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293187,00.html Saying that Obama was dissing our troops.Calling him naive.Claiming he was wrong to say he`d kill bin-laden no matter where he was,even in Pakistan.McPalin even criticized Obama for that statement,like it was a big big deal. [image]http://www.collarchat.com/micons/m21.gif[/image] The bomb from afar methods are going to be scaled way back,from what I`ve heard.And replaced we a man to man, close range-in your face fighting strategy.I think that`s what was behind the replacing of the commander there. Actually what you hear is incorrect, as it has been stated that the US will not rule out the use of any force it seems necessary. " However, President Barack Obama's national security adviser said Sunday the United States would not end airstrikes. Retired Gen. James Jones refused to rule out any action because "we can't fight with one hand tied behind our back." http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hvWEqwq3CrRvaQCmt21MfoYhjZJQD983U0RG0 quote: It`s going to get more of our troops killed and injured(as well as our NATO allies there) but will kill many less innocent civilians.We are also going to be more affective in fighting the bad guys. I expect whines and recriminations from the right over this,when it happens.Crying over imagined lack of coverage/attention or saying we don`t care.But we`re learning that it`s politics over country with neo-cons. When it happens? It is currently not hapening and this happened recently: " Eighty five of the 140 civilians killed on th 4th and 5th May by U.S. bombing in western Afghanistan were minors (under 18 years), announced Wednesday a local official investigation of the Afghan government. " http://www.ennaharonline.com/en/international/1181.html Also: " KABUL (AP) — Human Rights Watch accused the U.S. military of not doing enough to reduce civilian casualties during battles in Afghanistan and called Friday for "fundamental changes" to prevent civilian deaths like those during an airstrike this month. New York-based Human Rights Watch said its preliminary investigation into a May 4-5 clash that killed scores of people, including many women and children, found that measures put in place by the U.S. military to safeguard civilians were "inadequate." " http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hvWEqwq3CrRvaQCmt21MfoYhjZJQD986Q03O0 I hold Bush accountable for the things he did while he was President, and I hold Obama accountable for the things occuring now. What about you?

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/16/2009 9:18:04 PM)
War is legal? Uhhhh. You need to do some checking on when a war is consider legal by the UN. We signed treaties with other nations in the UN. We either honor those treaties, or withdraw from them. Now onto your issue about defending ourselves. I do not disagree in principle but I do in application. Taking the idea that "we are going after the bad guys" is the same premise that has led us to some huge mistakes in the past. This has not a fucking thing to do with being politically correct, it has to do with whether we are law abiding or hypocritical. Your emotional response is the kind of thing that drove us into an unprovoked war in Iraq, and leads us into many blunders. I will let someone else do a point by point education of what you have stated if they wish. quote: ORIGINAL: Louve00 If Pakistan is to extend its war on terrorism, and has put up with the terrorism and injustice that the taliban has had them living under, then I'm unclear where the problem is. We are not going against international law, in my eyes. And I have yet to hear of America breaking any international laws. America has declared war on terrorism when bin-laden toppled the twin towers in NYC. War is legal. We didn't want those towers to tumble...or the thousands of American people to die in that terror act either. Do we not have the right to defend ourselves? Or is it too politically incorrect?

popeye1250 -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/16/2009 9:51:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf War is legal? Uhhhh. You need to do some checking on when a war is consider legal by the UN. We signed treaties with other nations in the UN. We either honor those treaties, or withdraw from them. Now onto your issue about defending ourselves. I do not disagree in principle but I do in application. Taking the idea that "we are going after the bad guys" is the same premise that has led us to some huge mistakes in the past. This has not a fucking thing to do with being politically correct, it has to do with whether we are law abiding or hypocritical. Your emotional response is the kind of thing that drove us into an unprovoked war in Iraq, and leads us into many blunders. I will let someone else do a point by point education of what you have stated if they wish. quote: ORIGINAL: Louve00 If Pakistan is to extend its war on terrorism, and has put up with the terrorism and injustice that the taliban has had them living under, then I'm unclear where the problem is. We are not going against international law, in my eyes. And I have yet to hear of America breaking any international laws. America has declared war on terrorism when bin-laden toppled the twin towers in NYC. War is legal. We didn't want those towers to tumble...or the thousands of American people to die in that terror act either. Do we not have the right to defend ourselves? Or is it too politically incorrect? Jeeze Orion, nobody gives a shit about the "U.N." either! If the American People could vote on it we'd be out of it tommorow morning! WHEN are they going to kick us out for not paying our dues and raise that eyesore on the East River? The few times I've been by there I've wanted to pull out my knife and slash a bunch of tires.

NorthernGent -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/17/2009 1:17:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Are we justified in violating Pakistan's sovereignty? Violating Pakistan's sovereignty is underpinned by the same logic that has underpinned every revolution and despotic regime. "We know best, and because of this we have the 'right' to impose our will. They'll thank us for it later; let's not worry about the destruction we'll cause in the meantime".

Louve00 -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/17/2009 4:46:42 AM)
Ok, you may have gotten me on not being PC, but there are rules of war and I have read them in the Charter of the United Nations. http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.shtml Maybe I misunderstood something. But for a war that has been declared in 2001, and is still going on (discounting Iraq, of course, which is a bungle of war, if you ask me). War is war. Yes, its going to be tragic to have civilians killed and injured in the course of it all, but that is why the Charter was formed to begin with. In an effort to avoid war. It will never discount the innocent lives lost...but they're lost at the cost of war. And war doesn't just happen unless you have a damn good reason for it. Why do you think Bush had to press so hard for Iraq hiding MWD to get the war going? From what I read those civilians in Pakistan have been given a chance to evacuate. And we will war with the talibans. Is it our fault Pakistan gave safe haven to them in the past, so now, thats where they are? Seems to me like sometimes we are trying to be soooooo darn tootin fair to the other guys, that we forget about whats fair to us. Call is emotional, I call it believing and standing for our own....under provisions that allow us to, whether you call it a legal war, or not.

NorthernGent -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/17/2009 4:59:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Louve00 War is war. Yes, its going to be tragic to have civilians killed and injured in the course of it all, but that is why the Charter was formed to begin with. Really. War may be war and civilians being killed may be tragic from the comfort of pontificating on a message board from your arm chair. Try having your village obliterated, or watching children scavenging for food because both parents have been killed, or a Mother having her children killed.....and then quote your bollocks about charters and conventions and what exactly you think you're entitled to do. quote: ORIGINAL: Louve00 And war doesn't just happen unless you have a damn good reason for it. Read your own history. The United States government has form for making up any old bollocks to meet their ends. And, before you blather on about anti-Americanism and how it's not fair, do some reading.

Louve00 -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/17/2009 5:05:20 AM)
I am fully aware spitting on a forum board isn't the same thing as war. The war on terrorism was declared because of what terrorists did in NYC. They did in fact terrorize the whole city of NY...not to mention the fireman and policeman suffering from lung disease/problems right now from the actual disintegration of those skyscrapers. I do thank the heavens the terrorists went after a hugely populated area instead of a little country bumpkin area like the one I live in. It spared me and mine. But I do remember. And am not going to be so quick to forget.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625