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 27
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-09-17 11:47:46 AM
5 votes:

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 12:00:34 PM
3 votes:

karnal: Bold is Better when it comes for Foreign Policy


www.ushmm.orgwww.historyplace.com
2012-09-17 11:51:14 AM
3 votes:
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 11:42:55 AM
3 votes:
"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 12:28:46 PM
2 votes:
We do need another war. Just not the kind of war everyone is always harping on about.

www.infoshop.org
2012-09-17 11:55:37 AM
2 votes:

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 05:05:17 PM
1 votes:

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 02:42:56 PM
1 votes:

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 02:27:42 PM
1 votes:

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 02:02:37 PM
1 votes:

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 01:02:20 PM
1 votes:
Without all those Job Creators in government who provided those military jobs, the South would be devoid of people.
2012-09-17 12:52:55 PM
1 votes:
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 12:31:31 PM
1 votes:

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 12:19:52 PM
1 votes:

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 12:19:05 PM
1 votes:

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 12:13:39 PM
1 votes:
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 12:10:01 PM
1 votes:

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 12:08:26 PM
1 votes:

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 12:05:14 PM
1 votes:

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 12:02:17 PM
1 votes:
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 12:00:43 PM
1 votes:

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 11:57:06 AM
1 votes:
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 11:49:40 AM
1 votes:
That's an awfully anti-Semitic thing to assert Subby.
2012-09-17 10:44:14 AM
1 votes:

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 09:04:22 AM
1 votes:
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 08:20:53 AM
1 votes:
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 08:06:05 AM
1 votes:
TFA seems determined to do the "fair and balanced" dance, even though one side wants to start war with Iran and one does not.
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report