If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   This might be a good time to point out that pre-emptive wars are expressively forbidden by international law   (latimes.com) divider line 148
    More: Scary, international laws, United States, guerrilla war, wars, foreign policy, Mitt Romney  
•       •       •

4233 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Sep 2012 at 11:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



148 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-17 01:40:05 PM

Dr Dreidel: Am I wrong?


Only when you use "genociding" which is not a word. Otherwise you are spot on.
 
2012-09-17 01:42:42 PM

Dr Dreidel: Am I wrong?


Only for arguing with an obvious idiot troll, otherwise an excellent analysis.
 
2012-09-17 01:43:09 PM

red5ish: Dr Dreidel: Am I wrong?

Only when you use "genociding" which is not a word. Otherwise you are spot on.


Grammar fascist.
 
2012-09-17 01:44:29 PM

Rich Cream: Hear that sound? It's the sound of a mind closing.


I love when Republican trolls get upset when they get put on ignore. As if they die a little inside if no one reads their derp.
 
2012-09-17 01:46:56 PM

timujin: Holocaust Agnostic: timujin: beta_plus: Preemptive wars are completely legal when Democrats wage them.

When did we go to war with Libya? Here I thought we merely supported the UN resolution to protect the Libyan citizens, support that didn't require we put a single boot on the ground. Unlike, say, those "police actions" in the mid-20th... interesting definition for war, you have there.

Protecting the citizens from the horror of having water treatment plants and the waking nightmare of not facing genocide.

and, again, I thought it was protecting citizens from the horror of having airstrikes directed against them and the waking nightmare of having troops invading their homes and killing them... still, your comment doesn't address the question of whether this was either "pre-emptive" or "war".


Not sure what it could possibly be pre-empting.
 
2012-09-17 01:58:46 PM

Dr Dreidel: red5ish: Dr Dreidel: Am I wrong?

Only when you use "genociding" which is not a word. Otherwise you are spot on.

Grammar fascist.


You're the one who started defining words to mean what they actually mean in a preemptive fashion. I merely intervened in an attempt to save genocide from being viciously verbed.
 
2012-09-17 02:01:21 PM
Seems to me that March 19, 2003 would have been a better time to point it out
 
2012-09-17 02:01:23 PM

red5ish: Dr Dreidel: red5ish: Dr Dreidel: Am I wrong?

Only when you use "genociding" which is not a word. Otherwise you are spot on.

Grammar fascist.

You're the one who started defining words to mean what they actually mean in a preemptive fashion. I merely intervened in an attempt to save genocide from being viciously verbed.


And YOU'RE the one who can't see a tongue poking through a cheek, even when it licks your eyeball. Making you a BLIND grammar fascist pescetarian festizio!

// good DAY, sir
 
2012-09-17 02:02:37 PM

NateGrey: Rich Cream: Hear that sound? It's the sound of a mind closing.

I love when Republican trolls get upset when they get put on ignore. As if they die a little inside if no one reads their derp.



Please, there's no need to go over the top like that. 

/if I ain't with ya, I'm against ya. You know who that sounds like, right?
 
2012-09-17 02:05:12 PM

Dr Dreidel: Pre-emption: Group A attacks Group B to prevent Group B from attacking Group A first.


How is that not intervening?

/i really need to go get my car from the garage, it was ready 26 minutes ago 
 
2012-09-17 02:19:01 PM
FTFA: Depending on your politics, President Obama showed himself to be a weak and cowering apologist, or Mitt Romney revealed himself to be an inexperienced, reactive hawk.

It's a floor polish and a dessert topping.

Also: Isn't Obummer taking heat for arming the Libyan Jihadis with the weapons that killed the ambassador?

Two-faced retards.
 
2012-09-17 02:19:25 PM
International law only applies if you don't have nukes.
 
2012-09-17 02:20:30 PM

Rich Cream: Dr Dreidel: Pre-emption: Group A attacks Group B to prevent Group B from attacking Group A first.

How is that not intervening?

/i really need to go get my car from the garage, it was ready 26 minutes ago


Because to intervene, the intervening party must not already be involved. If they already are involved, they're not "inter"vening, they're just..."vening"? If you're breaking up a fight between two other people, are you fighting? Maybe "involved in" the fight, or some other euphemism, but referees and mediators (like judges, who also have to dispense punishment) aren't generally thought of as fighters.

It might be a pedantic difference, but an important one. If you're not a party to the conflict, and you step in specifically to end the overarching debate/conflict, you're "intervening". If you're a party to the conflict, and your attack is specifically to head off a yet-unmade enemy attack (planned or not), you're "pre-empting" the other side's attack.
 
2012-09-17 02:26:33 PM

red5ish: You're the one who started defining words to mean what they actually mean in a preemptive fashion. I merely intervened in an attempt to save genocide from being viciously verbed.


I can see "genociding" as an adjective, such as "Goddamn fascist genociding dictator!", but that would mean it's a gerund form of the verb "genocide". Since "genocide" isn't a verb, is it possible to gerundize it as an adjective?

How would that work?
 
2012-09-17 02:27:42 PM

chachi88: Also: Isn't Obummer taking heat for arming the Libyan Jihadis with the weapons that killed the ambassador?


Not unless they give Reagan heat for arming the Taliban mujahadeen in Afghanistan.
 
2012-09-17 02:31:48 PM

ox45tallboy: chachi88: Also: Isn't Obummer taking heat for arming the Libyan Jihadis with the weapons that killed the ambassador?

Not unless they give Reagan heat for arming the Taliban mujahadeen in Afghanistan.


Actually the GOP is giving Obama heat. The question was rhetorical.

Good point with the Taliban and Reagan though. The best laid plans ...
 
2012-09-17 02:34:39 PM

ox45tallboy: red5ish: You're the one who started defining words to mean what they actually mean in a preemptive fashion. I merely intervened in an attempt to save genocide from being viciously verbed.

I can see "genociding" as an adjective, such as "Goddamn fascist genociding dictator!", but that would mean it's a gerund form of the verb "genocide". Since "genocide" isn't a verb, is it possible to gerundize it as an adjective?

How would that work?


Sheesh, it's something I tend to do, conjugating words that have no business being so conjugated. I guess part of my frustration in technical writing is that I have to use real words. I do this a lot on Fark - I often refer to what doctors do as "docting" (as in, "let's get government out of the business of deciding what procedures doctors can or cannot perform - let doctors actually, you know, doct").

// I didn't expect the Third Grammatical Reich all up in my business, man
 
2012-09-17 02:40:42 PM

Dr Dreidel: I often refer to what doctors do as "docting"


You're making that word up, aren't you?

Dr Dreidel: // I didn't expect the Third Grammatical Reich all up in my business, man


Welcome to Fark? 

/Since "doctoring" means "altering in an illicit manner", I guess "docting" is as good a word as any for what doctors do
 
2012-09-17 02:42:56 PM

chachi88: Actually the GOP is giving Obama heat. The question was rhetorical.

Good point with the Taliban and Reagan though. The best laid plans ...


And wasn't it cheaper to keep Iran in line the way Reagan did, by selling chemical weapons to Iraq?
 
2012-09-17 02:45:41 PM

Dr Dreidel: If they already are involved, they're not "inter"vening, they're just..."vening"?



I had looked up "emptive" which means "to buy something". Thought that was interesting. Was hoping for something I could actually use to start trouble but no.

"Preemptive" means "to take control of something before someone else". Not quite what you guys are saying it means.

But yeah, I know. Common usage and all that.
 
2012-09-17 03:10:55 PM
Voters must choose between a president who wants a cautious policy of alliance building and one who rejects that risk-averse approach for a bolder U.S. role.

THIS SENTENCE SHOULD NOT FARKING EXIST.

/When did acting like human beings become seen as weak by we Americans?
 
2012-09-17 03:15:38 PM

chachi88: FTFA: Depending on your politics, President Obama showed himself to be a weak and cowering apologist, or Mitt Romney revealed himself to be an inexperienced, reactive hawk.

It's a floor polish and a dessert topping.

Also: Isn't Obummer taking heat for arming the Libyan Jihadis with the weapons that killed the ambassador?

Two-faced retards.


Please name the time and place that the US supplied Libyan rebels with weapons.
 
2012-09-17 03:31:36 PM

chachi88: FTFA: Depending on your politics cognitive ability, President Obama showed himself to be a weak and cowering apologist (incorrect), or Mitt Romney revealed himself to be an inexperienced, reactive hawk (correct).


/fix'd
//both sides got suckered by republican policy
///so vote for more republican policy
 
2012-09-17 03:37:44 PM
This might be a good time to point out that pre-emptive wars are expressively forbidden by international law

Wait, they are forbidden expressively? As in, they are forbidden in works of prose using many adjectives or in an interpretive dance?
 
2012-09-17 03:38:52 PM

PsiChick: Voters must choose between a president who wants a cautious policy of alliance building and one who rejects that risk-averse approach for a bolder U.S. role.

THIS SENTENCE SHOULD NOT FARKING EXIST.

/When did acting like human beings become seen as weak by we Americans?


When a party gets elected by convincing its voting base that all conflict is exactly like the first Gulf War.
 
2012-09-17 03:42:10 PM
This is why you attend your intel meetings. ESPECIALLY the ones where you are requested to be in person. Instead of doing late night tv. Because if a person HAD gone to their intel meetings then the person would have known and been able to evacuate our people before they were dragged and beaten to death.
Also to note. Attacking an embassy and killing an official is an act of war. So once a group is storming an embassy - it is legal to use weapons.
Apparently the LA Times is not familiar with how international war law works?
 
2012-09-17 03:45:07 PM

AcneVulgaris: International law only applies if you don't have nukes.


What "international law" was violated?
 
2012-09-17 03:48:19 PM
Why is it that Republicans always seem to create wars to solve recession?
 
2012-09-17 03:54:36 PM

readymix: beta_plus: Preemptive wars are completely legal when Democrats wage them.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x315]

So, Libya was a pre-emptive war started by Democrats? I thought it was a UN Resolution imposing a no-fly zone and a "by any means necessary" order to protect civilians from a crackdown by a dictator who was arming militias to kill protestors.

beta_plus

OH, nevermind. Continue with your alternate reality.


We attacked a country that had not attacked us to interfere with their internal matters. That's a pre-empitve war. Just because the UN violated its own rules does not make it any less illegal.

" to protect civilians from a crackdown by a dictator who was arming militias to kill protestors."

Didn't do a very good job, did we?

sfbayview.com
 
2012-09-17 04:16:11 PM

beta_plus: Just because the UN violated its own rules does not make it any less illegal.


What law was broken?
 
2012-09-17 04:16:46 PM

Epoch_Zero: This might be a good time to point out that pre-emptive wars are expressively forbidden by international law

Wait, they are forbidden expressively? As in, they are forbidden in works of prose using many adjectives or in an interpretive dance?


dudespaper.com


/does not approve
 
2012-09-17 04:25:20 PM

timujin: beta_plus: Just because the UN violated its own rules does not make it any less illegal.

What law was broken?


Hey, timujin, the echo chamber only works if there's nothing blocking it...what I'm saying is, you make a better door than a window. Let the kid have his fun, he isn't hurting anyone.

Tell us more about the UN's lawbreaking, beta_plus. I come to Fark comment threads because I'm in my 30's now, and I miss the days when my dad would make up fantasy stories to tell at bedtime. I've already got my cup of coffee and a warm bagel, and a nice cozy fleece blanket and I'm curled up on the couch...anxiously waiting the next installment.  Should I set out some candles to set the mood? Or is this tale better told with the lights out and nothing but a flashlight to illuminate the space under the blanket?
 
2012-09-17 04:31:01 PM

chachi88: ox45tallboy: chachi88: Also: Isn't Obummer taking heat for arming the Libyan Jihadis with the weapons that killed the ambassador?

Not unless they give Reagan heat for arming the Taliban mujahadeen in Afghanistan.

Actually the GOP is giving Obama heat. The question was rhetorical.

Good point with the Taliban and Reagan though. The best laid plans ...


They can always try to lay that at the feet of Rep. Charlie Wilson (D-Texas)
 
2012-09-17 05:05:17 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: They can always try to lay that at the feet of Rep. Charlie Wilson (D-Texas)


Thing is, he had a valid point in supporting the only country actively fighting the Soviets. The money that the USSR poured into Afghanistan is a significant part of what lead to the fall of Communism and lost the Cold War for the Russians.

It was our follow-up that led to the rise of the Taliban from the ashes of the mujahadeen. Reagan and Bush Sr. could have done so much more there to organize the rebel forces into something resembling a government, but they chose not to. This is the problem when you use the religion of the people to fight the "godless communists" the way we did in the 80's - the most religious of the people will rise to the top as leaders, and then good luck influencing them more than their God.
 
2012-09-17 05:14:03 PM

karnal: Bold is Better when it comes for Foreign Policy


...you're part of the problem.

/you're forgetting the "speak softly" part and aren't just holding one big stick.
 
2012-09-17 05:21:16 PM

readymix: timujin: beta_plus: Just because the UN violated its own rules does not make it any less illegal.

What law was broken?

Hey, timujin, the echo chamber only works if there's nothing blocking it...what I'm saying is, you make a better door than a window. Let the kid have his fun, he isn't hurting anyone.

I'm honestly curious what law he's thinks has been broken.

Tell us more about the UN's lawbreaking, beta_plus.


So... you say I shouldn't ask him the question that you then turn around and ask him?
 
2012-09-17 05:29:08 PM

ox45tallboy: Epoch_Zero: This might be a good time to point out that pre-emptive wars are expressively forbidden by international law

Wait, they are forbidden expressively? As in, they are forbidden in works of prose using many adjectives or in an interpretive dance?

[dudespaper.com image 188x240]

/does not approve


Wow, Pete Rose has really let himself go.
 
2012-09-17 05:35:42 PM

armoredbulldozer: EyeballKid: If only there were some way Obama could have reminded people of that when he came into office...if only there had been some domestic war criminals in the White House prior...oh, but what would have been the odds of that happening?

The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers violated the War Powers Act. (Libya)


You mean by assisting NATO and the UN, as we are obligated to do by our treaties with those groups?
 
2012-09-17 06:06:40 PM

Dr Dreidel: ox45tallboy: red5ish: You're the one who started defining words to mean what they actually mean in a preemptive fashion. I merely intervened in an attempt to save genocide from being viciously verbed.

I can see "genociding" as an adjective, such as "Goddamn fascist genociding dictator!", but that would mean it's a gerund form of the verb "genocide". Since "genocide" isn't a verb, is it possible to gerundize it as an adjective?

How would that work?

Sheesh, it's something I tend to do, conjugating words that have no business being so conjugated. I guess part of my frustration in technical writing is that I have to use real words. I do this a lot on Fark - I often refer to what doctors do as "docting" (as in, "let's get government out of the business of deciding what procedures doctors can or cannot perform - let doctors actually, you know, doct").

// I didn't expect the Third Grammatical Reich all up in my business, man


I can see the cromulence of 'docting' but not the possibleness of genociding: that shall not stand.
imageshack.us
 
2012-09-17 06:27:47 PM

timujin: AcneVulgaris: International law only applies if you don't have nukes.

What "international law" was violated?


Your mom.
 
2012-09-17 06:52:27 PM
No, let's be honest. The only international law is Might Makes Right.
 
2012-09-17 07:01:48 PM

AcneVulgaris: timujin: AcneVulgaris: International law only applies if you don't have nukes.

What "international law" was violated?

Your mom.


well, that would be technically correct, at least in any country where necrophilia is illegal...

/and... eww
 
2012-09-17 07:07:29 PM
Uh, yeah there is no such thing as international law.

It exists only for those who choose to support it or give up sovereignty to it
 
2012-09-17 07:30:48 PM

timujin: readymix: timujin: beta_plus: Just because the UN violated its own rules does not make it any less illegal.

What law was broken?

Hey, timujin, the echo chamber only works if there's nothing blocking it...what I'm saying is, you make a better door than a window. Let the kid have his fun, he isn't hurting anyone.

I'm honestly curious what law he's thinks has been broken.

Tell us more about the UN's lawbreaking, beta_plus.

So... you say I shouldn't ask him the question that you then turn around and ask him?


The difference as I see it, is that you were asking him to backup his claims with facts...I just wanted him to keep spilling his fantasy stories for my entertainment.
 
2012-09-17 07:37:08 PM

Rich Cream: KellyX: beta_plus: Preemptive wars are completely legal when Democrats wage them.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x315]

Funny since that was authorized by the United Nations


How does that make it legal?


Well, you're totally going to ignore it, but it was requested by NATO, was not a war but merely provided assistance to the Libyan rebels who requested it through France, and was not "pre-emptive" in that nobody in NATO unilaterally declared war on Libya in the absence of hostilities. And the President did not wage war on behalf of America but merely honored our treaty with NATO, much like we demanded they do when we waged our somewhat more preemptive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I know that's probably too much information for you, but that's why it was legal.

A preemptive war is engaging in hostilities against a nation that has not threatened your interests, has made no aggressive actions, and is still apparently amenable to negotiations; and yet you go to war against that nation anyway because they "might" someday be aggressive in the future. Is that simple enough for you?
 
2012-09-17 07:56:35 PM

Gyrfalcon: And the President did not wage war on behalf of America but merely honored our treaty with NATO, much like we demanded they do when we waged our somewhat more preemptive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.


For the record, Obama decided what to do and then sought the legal justification for doing it from the UN, just like Bush did in Iraq.

I'm not at all saying Obama should have done anything differently; I agree with his actions, I just don't think it's okay to believe that the US took action in Libya because we were obligated to by NATO or any other treaty. The US did what it did because it was the right thing to do. Frankly, I'm surprised the UN allowed us to do so after W's Iraq misadventures.
 
2012-09-17 08:21:19 PM
I thought most threads that touch on international law on Fark were bad.

Then, there's this thread.
 
2012-09-18 08:14:05 AM

Seth'n'Spectrum: I thought most threads that touch on international law on Fark were bad.

Then, there's this thread.



Flush twice.
 
Displayed 48 of 148 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report