Ibtl

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iraq had no connection with sept 11.

Taco Bell had no connection to Mexico.

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



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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legal or illegal, the collateral benefits are a flow of trillions in the pockets of the military-industrial complex, and out of the wallets of taxpayers. As they use to say, follow the money ...

Actually, international law overrides national laws (well, it's a bit more complicated, you have monist and dualist conceptions of the IL). BTW, the UN Charter prohibits aggression wars (Chapter VII if I recall correctly). Only attacks in self-defense or attacks that have been approved beforehand by the Security Council can be considered legal.

From a pure theoretically POV, not really. Conventions that prohibit war crimes (like the Geneva ones 1949) have been recognised by the ICJ as erga omnes. It means they must be respected by any country, whether it has ratified or not those conventions. And, the different statuses of international tribunals (like the ICC, Nuremberg tribunals, ICTY, etc) include the international penal responsibility of individuals (including head of state) when it comes to that kind of violations : war crimes, genocide, crimes against peace...

Of course, in reality, Bush and Cheney have nothing to worry about. Unlike African or Eastern Europe dictators.

That's the way it is.