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  
•       •       •

4234 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Sep 2012 at 11:39 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-09-17 08:06:05 AM
TFA seems determined to do the "fair and balanced" dance, even though one side wants to start war with Iran and one does not.
 
2012-09-17 08:20:53 AM
Romney about Obama: "he insists that Obama's 21st century thrift is a terrible mistake."


Would any Romney supporters here care to explain?
 
2012-09-17 09:02:31 AM
Romney's Campaign: Obama Bad!

Romney's Foreign Policy: Russia Bad!

So you see there is consistency here.
 
2012-09-17 09:04:22 AM
FTFA: Romney's convictions are quite different, as is his approach to foreign policy. He wants to increase defense spending significantly - by almost $2 trillion over 10 years, according to one estimate

That's ONE EIGHTH of our current national debt.

What's this shiat about debt reduction and the economy again?

/horse hockey!

hinten: Would any Romney supporters here care to explain?


Heh. Good luck with that.

I'm all for a strong national defense, but we can maintain significant military hegemony without ramping up our debt by $2T. Cut waste in the MI complex, for starters...
 
2012-09-17 09:11:01 AM
upload.wikimedia.org

R.I.P DECLAN MACMANUS
 
2012-09-17 09:19:29 AM

xanadian: I'm all for a strong national defense, but we can maintain significant military hegemony without ramping up our debt by $2T.


Pentagon budgets escape public scrutiny because the things they spend money for are secret.

Romney wants to open government coffers for things like the F22. In his defense (pun intended) Lockheed hasn't given him any more money like he needs it... but they do tend to shovel money into cong(R)ess where any sort of oversight committee may live.
 
2012-09-17 09:19:37 AM
bmj2k.files.wordpress.com

R.I.P Popeye Doyle
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-17 09:32:03 AM

Because People in power are Stupid: Romney's Campaign: Obama Bad!

Romney's Foreign Policy: Russia Bad!

So you see there is consistency here.


You mean the "Soviet Union Bad!"
 
2012-09-17 09:36:04 AM
Insert "Bomb bomb bomb - bomb bomb Iran" reference from a senile old skid mark of a man here.
 
2012-09-17 09:39:04 AM

vpb: Because People in power are Stupid: Romney's Campaign: Obama Bad!

Romney's Foreign Policy: Russia Bad!

So you see there is consistency here.

You mean the "Soviet Union Bad!"


Can you see it from your house? -No?
 
2012-09-17 10:44:14 AM

hinten: Romney about Obama: "he insists that Obama's 21st century thrift is a terrible mistake."


Would any Romney supporters here care to explain?


I think he's simultaneously bashing Obama for running deficits while bashing him for not spending enough.

Basically, he's throwing every piece of shiat he can.
 
2012-09-17 11:42:55 AM
"Rejects a risk-averse approach" has to be the nicest way anyone's ever said "explicitly has stated his intention to do something incredibly stupid and illegal."
 
2012-09-17 11:43:24 AM
Bold is Better when it comes for Foreign Policy
 
2012-09-17 11:45:03 AM
Preemptive wars are completely legal when Democrats wage them.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-09-17 11:46:33 AM
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?
 
2012-09-17 11:47:46 AM

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
 
2012-09-17 11:49:40 AM
That's an awfully anti-Semitic thing to assert Subby.
 
2012-09-17 11:50:47 AM
No, 2003 would have been a good time to mentn it.

The reality of it is that international law is not enforced against nations with nuclear weapons, or against nations with no resources to be exploited economically. The axiom "Might makes right" has remained true since prehistoric times.
 
2012-09-17 11:50:59 AM
Oh no! Not international law! I'm literally shaking in my boots.
 
2012-09-17 11:51:14 AM

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?
 
2012-09-17 11:51:14 AM
Hey, how about we regain the moral high ground on this one? You know, and not get a bunch of people needlessly killed at great political and economic cost?

How about we try that for a change?
 
2012-09-17 11:53:28 AM

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

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x315]


That's because Democrats know the UN is our tool, and not the other way around (as the Rederplicans believe).
 
2012-09-17 11:53:34 AM
PanicMan

Hey, how about we regain the moral high ground on this one? You know, and not get a bunch of people needlessly killed at great political and economic cost?

How about we try that for a change?


Sir - what you are suggesting is preposterous!
 
2012-09-17 11:54:01 AM
One problem is that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is extremely generous when it comes to "research". You can do practically anything and claim it's research. I think it must have been written by the same guy as the anti-whaling treaties.
 
2012-09-17 11:55:37 AM

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.
 
2012-09-17 11:55:38 AM
The GOP is too immersed in the military industrial complex. This group profits when world diplomacy is in chaos...
 
2012-09-17 11:56:37 AM

poot_rootbeer: No, 2003 would have been a good time to mentn it.

The reality of it is that international law is not enforced against nations with nuclear weapons, or against nations with no resources to be exploited economically. The axiom "Might makes right" has remained true since prehistoric times.


not going to defend that invasion/occupation but we weren't exactly at peace with Iraq before 2003, enforced no-fly zones, 1998 baghdad airstrikes, military support for internal uprisings, etc. aren't exactly peaceful negotiation material
 
2012-09-17 11:57:06 AM
Remember, Romney has vowed to:
Invade Iran
Invade Iraq
Bomb the Soviet Union
Reinstall Qaddafi
Bomb Syria
Not bomb Pakistan any more
Bomb Afghanistan more

Notice North Korea is left out of this.
 
2012-09-17 11:57:16 AM

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

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x315]


I just do not understand the Republican thing with Libya. Republicans were saber-rattling and desperate to go after Libya, until Obama decided to do it. Same with Afghanistan and Iraq - we absolutely had to fight those wars, until Obama was elected, and suddenly he's keeping us in two useless wars. The cognitive dissonance amazes me.

As for pre-emptive wars, technically speaking we weren't fighting in Libya to prevent them from attacking us; we were fighting in Libya to aid our new "allies" in their civil war.
 
2012-09-17 11:57:39 AM
skepticultist

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

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x315]

That's because Democrats know the UN is our tool, and not the other way around (as the Rederplicans believe).


The real tools are the ones who have faith in the UN - they serve no real purpose and have become inefficient and ineffective.
 
2012-09-17 12:00:34 PM

karnal: Bold is Better when it comes for Foreign Policy


www.ushmm.orgwww.historyplace.com
 
2012-09-17 12:00:43 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?


I dunno, Authorized by the world body that represents almost all nations on the planet with the majority agreeing on the actions and none of the permanent members with veto power vetoing it? I reckon that made it legal.
 
2012-09-17 12:02:17 PM
Aren't all wars started preemptively? You have to have someone be the aggressor. Otherwise we'd just have a bunch of Cold Wars, which are only useful if you want to build a Military Industrial Complex.
 
2012-09-17 12:02:24 PM
Evil men rule the world, period.
 
2012-09-17 12:03:05 PM

hinten: Romney about Obama: "he insists that Obama's 21st century thrift is a terrible mistake."

Would any Romney supporters here care to explain?


Not a Romney supporter, but he means tax cuts for the people, my friends.
 
2012-09-17 12:03:49 PM

ArkPanda: One problem is that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is extremely generous when it comes to "research". You can do practically anything and claim it's research. I think it must have been written by the same guy as the anti-whaling treaties.


Well, to get it signed by anyone outside the current nuclear powers, it could hardly put many restrictions on them given how little they got in return (especially in practise, given that the assurances of the nuclear powers not to use their nuclear arsenal to bully the non-nuclear nations was fairly obviously going to ring pretty hollow, as we see with the US repeatedly leaking plans to nuke Iran during Bush's administration).
 
2012-09-17 12:04:40 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Reinstall Qaddafi


I suppose the details of how he means to accomplish this are something we're not allowed to ask about?
 
2012-09-17 12:05:14 PM

Cymbal: Aren't all wars started preemptively?


No.

The term 'preemptive war' used in this context is describing the Bush invasion rationale of 'Well, they were sort of bad, and not a threat, but could possibly become a threat, so boom' - not 'We got tanks on the border, you got tanks on the border; give me a reason'.
 
2012-09-17 12:06:12 PM
B- B- B-
 
2012-09-17 12:06:35 PM
"International Law" is only as powerful as the "International Police" willing and capable of enforcing it. When the police are outgunned by the criminals, there is no law
 
2012-09-17 12:07:07 PM

KellyX: 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?

I dunno, Authorized by the world body that represents almost all nations on the planet with the majority agreeing on the actions and none of the permanent members with veto power vetoing it? I reckon that made it legal.



If it's illegal it's illegal, whether or not the people perpetrating the crime believe otherwise. How the hell does that work?
 
2012-09-17 12:07:26 PM

MooseUpNorth: Satanic_Hamster: Reinstall Qaddafi

I suppose the details of how he means to accomplish this are something we're not allowed to ask about?


You don't have to reinstall him, just reboot him into safe mode and run sfc /scannow. You'll have to rerun your updates, though.
 
2012-09-17 12:08:26 PM

Lost Thought 00: "International Law" is only as powerful as the "International Police" willing and capable of enforcing it. When the police are outgunned by the criminals, there is no law


When the Police are the criminals there is no law. Just empire.
 
2012-09-17 12:10:01 PM

KellyX: 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?

I dunno, Authorized by the world body that represents almost all nations on the planet with the majority agreeing on the actions and none of the permanent members with veto power vetoing it? I reckon that made it legal.


When the international community endorses it it sounds pretty damn legal to me. So much herp and so much derp. And what the hell does this have to do with the Democrats anyway? OH thats right Republicans never wage war.
 
2012-09-17 12:10:21 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Lost Thought 00: "International Law" is only as powerful as the "International Police" willing and capable of enforcing it. When the police are outgunned by the criminals, there is no law

When the Police are the criminals there is no law. Just empire.


When the empire is law, deals are altered.
 
2012-09-17 12:10:53 PM

Lost Thought 00: "International Law" is only as powerful as the "International Police" willing and capable of enforcing it. When the police are outgunned by the criminals, there is no law


The police are not outgunned by the criminals. The criminals are the police who decided to not obey or enforce their own laws.
 
2012-09-17 12:11:30 PM

MooseUpNorth: Satanic_Hamster: Reinstall Qaddafi

I suppose the details of how he means to accomplish this are something we're not allowed to ask about?


I think it's more along the lines of reinvading Iraq. Since Obama did it it's bad and should be completely reversed even through it's either impossible to reverse it or retarded to do so.
 
2012-09-17 12:12:51 PM

Baby Face Fister: When the international community endorses it it sounds pretty damn legal to me.



Not sure if serious but we're supposed to be a nation of laws, not a nation of men. This is corruption.
 
2012-09-17 12:12:55 PM

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.
 
2012-09-17 12:13:11 PM
Romney's a chicken-hawk and his advisers are the same guys who brought us the preemptive invasion of Iraq, a move that has been dubbed "The Bush Doctrine". Remember how that war paid for itself and how our troops were greeted as liberators? The same guys that were behind that fiasco.

* * *
Is the headline some sort of joke (that I don't get) or has the subby mistakenly written expressively instead of expressly?

/still on first cup of coffee.
 
2012-09-17 12:13:28 PM

Rich Cream: KellyX: 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?

I dunno, Authorized by the world body that represents almost all nations on the planet with the majority agreeing on the actions and none of the permanent members with veto power vetoing it? I reckon that made it legal.


If it's illegal it's illegal, whether or not the people perpetrating the crime believe otherwise. How the hell does that work?


Shut the fark up Donny, you're out of your element.
 
2012-09-17 12:13:39 PM
The GOP is fighting to maintain/increase DoD spending and at the same time advocating a foreign policy to intentionally piss off any nation they can.

/They really are trying to repeat Bush Jr.'s legacy.
 
2012-09-17 12:14:28 PM

Rich Cream: KellyX: 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?

I dunno, Authorized by the world body that represents almost all nations on the planet with the majority agreeing on the actions and none of the permanent members with veto power vetoing it? I reckon that made it legal.


If it's illegal it's illegal, whether or not the people perpetrating the crime believe otherwise. How the hell does that work?


Then I guess we really have nothing to discuss. So let's just end the conversation because you're right, I'm wrong, and there is no middle ground to debate.

I imagine since the United Nations being decided on by the world governments to issue orders and such they all agree to follow, that that then makes it the law of the world at the time. Isn't that how it usually works, those in power make the laws, until such time as someone else decides those laws are illegal?
 
2012-09-17 12:14:43 PM

MooseUpNorth: Satanic_Hamster: Reinstall Qaddafi

I suppose the details of how he means to accomplish this are something we're not allowed to ask about?


He needs to borrow the keys to Obama's time machine for that one. It's going to be a tough ask.
 
2012-09-17 12:15:55 PM

Dwight_Yeast: MooseUpNorth: Satanic_Hamster: Reinstall Qaddafi

I suppose the details of how he means to accomplish this are something we're not allowed to ask about?

He needs to borrow the keys to Obama's time machine for that one. It's going to be a tough ask.


That's socialism.
 
2012-09-17 12:19:03 PM

Rich Cream: Baby Face Fister: When the international community endorses it it sounds pretty damn legal to me.


Not sure if serious but we're supposed to be a nation of laws, not a nation of men. This is corruption.


Not sure if serious either. Men make the laws it's up to men to enforce such laws for the greater good of humanity. We should thank our lucky stars that GWB didn't get us all blown to hell and now the GOP wants to put this war monger in charge so he and his buddies can make a few bucks?
 
2012-09-17 12:19:05 PM

vernonFL: [bmj2k.files.wordpress.com image 300x372]

R.I.P Popeye Doyle


Oh please don't make me block you. Please no...

/HATES that STUPID RIP MEME
 
2012-09-17 12:19:15 PM

Dogfacedgod: Shut the fark up Donny, you're out of your element.


Can a group of politicians rob a bank if they decide to agree it's not illegal to do so?


KellyX: Isn't that how it usually works, those in power make the laws, until such time as someone else decides those laws are illegal?


Not arbitrarily. They didn't vote to change the law, they voted to ignore it, or consider it moot "in this case".
 
2012-09-17 12:19:52 PM

MooseUpNorth: Satanic_Hamster: Reinstall Qaddafi

I suppose the details of how he means to accomplish this are something we're not allowed to ask about?


Just squish him onto a big golden throne and throw some glitter on him. No one will be able to tell the difference. He'll just be quieter than usual.
 
2012-09-17 12:19:56 PM

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)
 
2012-09-17 12:21:20 PM

CheetahOlivetti: Just squish him onto a big golden throne and throw some glitter on him. No one will be able to tell the difference. He'll just be quieter than usual.


Might need a little Old Spice[tm], too.
 
2012-09-17 12:21:27 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?


Perhaps because the law that makes it internationally illegal is the treaty that signs a nation into the UN?

Basically its illegal UNLESS the UN decides to do it.
 
2012-09-17 12:21:27 PM

Rich Cream: Dogfacedgod: Shut the fark up Donny, you're out of your element.

Can a group of politicians rob a bank if they decide to agree it's not illegal to do so?


If they pass a law making it legal, absolutely.
 
2012-09-17 12:24:52 PM

Rich Cream: KellyX: 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?

I dunno, Authorized by the world body that represents almost all nations on the planet with the majority agreeing on the actions and none of the permanent members with veto power vetoing it? I reckon that made it legal.


If it's illegal it's illegal, whether or not the people perpetrating the crime believe otherwise. How the hell does that work?


http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/
 
2012-09-17 12:25:48 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Perhaps because the law that makes it internationally illegal is the treaty that signs a nation into the UN?

Basically its illegal UNLESS the UN decides to do it.



Basically it isn't illegal for anyone who isn't a signatory to the UN's charter. It's especially illegal when the body that created the law breaks it.

Philip Francis Queeg: If they pass a law making it legal, absolutely.


That's my point. They didn't change the law, they decide when to obey and when not to obey. That means there is no point to having any laws at all if they can be ignored at whim.

/I can't believe I'm on this side of "obeying the law" argument. Wow.
 
2012-09-17 12:26:16 PM
Subby, it's not that republicans are unaware that preemptive wars are illegal; it's just that they can't resist the idea of killing brown people.
 
2012-09-17 12:26:31 PM

msimon8: http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/



Basically it isn't illegal for anyone who isn't a signatory to the UN's charter. It's especially illegal when the body that created the law breaks it.
 
2012-09-17 12:26:54 PM
Awww, subby is so cute
 
2012-09-17 12:27:23 PM

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


Are you posting this line every day as a test to see if anybody notices or are you off your meds and don't remember doing this yesterday? I'm curious because it sounds like you're quoting something but out of context it doesn't make sense.
 
2012-09-17 12:28:46 PM
We do need another war. Just not the kind of war everyone is always harping on about.

www.infoshop.org
 
2012-09-17 12:31:31 PM

Epoch_Zero: Philip Francis Queeg: Lost Thought 00: "International Law" is only as powerful as the "International Police" willing and capable of enforcing it. When the police are outgunned by the criminals, there is no law

When the Police are the criminals there is no law. Just empire.

When the empire is law, deals are altered.


Empire, you say . . . .

jameswood.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-09-17 12:34:56 PM
No problem we'll have a pre-emptive police action instead. Ta Da!
 
2012-09-17 12:39:10 PM

Baby Face Fister: We should thank our lucky stars that GWB didn't get us all blown to hell



Made me dig deep into the archive.
imageshack.us
 
2012-09-17 12:40:03 PM
No problem subby, we'll just launch a "pre-emptive overseas contingency operation." problem solved or dare I say "mission accomplished?"
 
2012-09-17 12:42:13 PM

Rich Cream: msimon8: http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/


Basically it isn't illegal for anyone who isn't a signatory to the UN's charter. It's especially illegal when the body that created the law breaks it.


God damn you are an ignoramus...

Aaaaaaand you're blocked.
 
2012-09-17 12:44:09 PM

MooseUpNorth: Satanic_Hamster: Reinstall Qaddafi

I suppose the details of how he means to accomplish this are something we're not allowed to ask about?


Romney must have Qaddafi's nose stashed somewhere.
 
2012-09-17 12:44:49 PM

Rich Cream: msimon8: http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/


Basically it isn't illegal for anyone who isn't a signatory to the UN's charter. It's especially illegal when the body that created the law breaks it.


For UN states parties, it's unlawful to engage in international armed conflict without UN approval. In Libya there was UN approval.
 
2012-09-17 12:45:16 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?


Because it wasn't a pre-emptive war. It was an multinational sanctioned defense/assistance in an internal armed conflict.
 
2012-09-17 12:48:40 PM

Epoch_Zero: Philip Francis Queeg: Lost Thought 00: "International Law" is only as powerful as the "International Police" willing and capable of enforcing it. When the police are outgunned by the criminals, there is no law

When the Police are the criminals there is no law. Just empire.

When the empire is law, deals are altered.


Pray they are not altered further.
 
2012-09-17 12:49:33 PM
As anti-War as the Republicans seem lately, can we just start calling them hippies?
 
2012-09-17 12:52:55 PM
Having promised to "cleanse" Libya house-by-house the US could have let Qaddafi go ahead and exterminate hundreds of thousands of Libyan citizens through inaction (Republicans were screaming for the US to intervene).
Making the choice to intervene with the consent of the UN, thus bringing world consensus into the mix, that genocide was averted (Republicans were screaming about "Obama's illegal war" at the time).
Bottom line: The Republicans are not helping and nothing Obama does will make them happy.
 
2012-09-17 12:54:16 PM

brianbankerus: Aaaaaaand you're blocked.


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

Ignore lists are for little girls who are being harassed by obnoxious people. Not for putting on blinders so you won't see things that displease you, or other points of view, regardless of validity.

/I am flattered tho.


msimon8: For UN states parties, it's unlawful to engage in international armed conflict without UN approval. In Libya there was UN approval.


Ok, they wrote in a loophole for whatever purposes they deem worthwhile. It was written in preemptively.


Mi-5: Because it wasn't a pre-emptive war. It was an multinational sanctioned defense/assistance in an internal armed conflict.


Ok ok, "in this case".
 
2012-09-17 12:57:04 PM

KellyX: As anti-War as the Republicans seem lately, can we just start calling them hippies?


Republicans are only anti-war when they may have some of their own skin in the game and not just some poor cannon/campaign fodder they'll never see above ground (see: George W. Bush's successful campaign to the keep the Viet Cong out of Alabama, Mitt Romney's sons deciding working on their dad's failed campaigns was just as much "serving their country" as what those guys in Iraq and Afghanistan were doing; Mitt Romney's excursion to France to promote both the Mormon Church and the Vietam War rather than fight in the Vietnam War, Dick's 5 deferments). I believe the term you're looking for is "scared little pussies." That's what they are.
 
2012-09-17 01:02:20 PM
Without all those Job Creators in government who provided those military jobs, the South would be devoid of people.
 
2012-09-17 01:04:37 PM

Rich Cream: msimon8: For UN states parties, it's unlawful to engage in international armed conflict without UN approval. In Libya there was UN approval.

Ok, they wrote in a loophole for whatever purposes they deem worthwhile. It was written in preemptively.


It's the entire raison d'être for the UN, and the League of Nations before it. So one state can't go in and start wars as they please purpose of gaining territories. They wanted an international agreement for any international intervention. The UN has always acknowledged the necessity of armed conflict in certain situations.
 
2012-09-17 01:07:17 PM

Generation_D: TFA seems determined to do the "fair and balanced" dance, even though one side wants to start war with Iran and one does not.


[citation needed] on some side not wanting war wit Iran.
 
2012-09-17 01:09:41 PM
The emperor of Earth will not let this stand!
 
2012-09-17 01:10:15 PM

msimon8: It's the entire raison d'être for the UN, and the League of Nations before it. So one state can't go in and start wars as they please purpose of gaining territories. They wanted an international agreement for any international intervention. The UN has always acknowledged the necessity of armed conflict in certain situations.



I get a little crazy when I see the term "pre-emptive war". And then I conflated that with the Libya thing. And then somehow I was arguing for law and order. I don't know. It all happened so fast. It was a blur.
 
2012-09-17 01:10:34 PM

Rich Cream: msimon8: http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/


Basically it isn't illegal for anyone who isn't a signatory to the UN's charter. It's especially illegal when the body that created the law breaks it.


Try reading rticle 42.
 
2012-09-17 01:11:54 PM

Rich Cream: I get a little crazy when I see the term "pre-emptive war". And then I conflated that with the Libya thing. And then somehow I was arguing for law and order. I don't know. It all happened so fast. It was a blur.


Need a hug?
 
2012-09-17 01:18:10 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: Generation_D: TFA seems determined to do the "fair and balanced" dance, even though one side wants to start war with Iran and one does not.

[citation needed] on some side not wanting war wit Iran.


Not a "side", per se, but how about majorities of polled citizens, both here and in Israel?
 
2012-09-17 01:18:20 PM

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.
 
2012-09-17 01:21:01 PM

give me doughnuts: Rich Cream: msimon8: http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/


Basically it isn't illegal for anyone who isn't a signatory to the UN's charter. It's especially illegal when the body that created the law breaks it.

Try reading rticle 42.



Intervention does not equal pre-emption.

Got it. 

/on a roll
 
2012-09-17 01:24:17 PM
herpa derpa doo!!!!
 
2012-09-17 01:24:49 PM

Rich Cream: msimon8: It's the entire raison d'être for the UN, and the League of Nations before it. So one state can't go in and start wars as they please purpose of gaining territories. They wanted an international agreement for any international intervention. The UN has always acknowledged the necessity of armed conflict in certain situations.


I get a little crazy when I see the term "pre-emptive war". And then I conflated that with the Libya thing. And then somehow I was arguing for law and order. I don't know. It all happened so fast. It was a blur.


That'll happen. I think the problem lies in everybody throwing around of the term "preemptive war." It's not a legal term of art and doesn't really have any relevance in the discussion of what is and isn't legal under international law. However, preemptive wars are generally frowned upon by the UN. Peacekeeping operations, on the other hand, they love those. Libya was a peacekeeping operation.
 
2012-09-17 01:33:20 PM
Gadhafi vowed in a televised speech to cling to power with "the last drop of blood."

The erratic 69-year-old leader lashed out at enemies far and wide, accusing the United States, Britain, Italy of secretly bankrolling the drug-addled "rats and mercenaries" of the uprising. He pledged to "cleanse Libya house by house" or "die here as martyr" trying.
 
2012-09-17 01:33:35 PM

msimon8: Rich Cream: msimon8: It's the entire raison d'être for the UN, and the League of Nations before it. So one state can't go in and start wars as they please purpose of gaining territories. They wanted an international agreement for any international intervention. The UN has always acknowledged the necessity of armed conflict in certain situations.


I get a little crazy when I see the term "pre-emptive war". And then I conflated that with the Libya thing. And then somehow I was arguing for law and order. I don't know. It all happened so fast. It was a blur.

That'll happen. I think the problem lies in everybody throwing around of the term "preemptive war." It's not a legal term of art and doesn't really have any relevance in the discussion of what is and isn't legal under international law. However, preemptive wars are generally frowned upon by the UN. Peacekeeping operations, on the other hand, they love those. Libya was a peacekeeping operation.


It stopped being a peacekeeping operation about 36 hours in when the transitional council declined a ceasefire and NATO didn't start bombing them(or even cease helping them).
 
2012-09-17 01:34:13 PM

Rich Cream: Intervention does not equal pre-emption.


Intervention: preventing Group A from genociding Group B (and vice-versa; we'd also allow "preventing Groups A & B from genociding Groups C & D". Correct for the number of antagonizing/victimized groups as appropriate). (cf. US/Libya, ca 2012)
Pre-emption: Group A attacks Group B to prevent Group B from attacking Group A first. (cf US/Iraq, ca 2003)

I thought this was basic English. Am I wrong?
 
2012-09-17 01:35:57 PM

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".
 
2012-09-17 01:38:01 PM
Shoot first!

Then aim...
 
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 148 of 148 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report