Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Interesting Reading
Biggles
<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
in Zocalo v2.0
[url]http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/52/features-cooper.php[/url]
Comments
the taliban DID attack us. he must have just forgotten that little bit of history.
But i agree an interesting read. even though i tend to disagree with just about everything he said.
[B]the taliban DID attack us. he must have just forgotten that little bit of history. [/B][/QUOTE]
I was under the impression you were attacked by a terrorist group, not a country.
[B]I was under the impression you were attacked by a terrorist group, not a country. [/B][/QUOTE]
Alright boyz, time for school to open again.
first of all. Gore Vidal is a fucktard pure and simple. Frankly he's forgeting Jeffersons role in the whole Tripoli adventure which actualy oddly paralles these events. Plus his assment of things is so cloaked in left wing politics that shade his analysis to make it worthless.. Frankly FDR himself did alot of things to destroy the democratic process, americans BETTER well understand the phrase "The switch in time that saves nine") along with other acts he engaged in, oh well.
This is some obscure tennants of international law which date back a while, and due to recent political developments are not being mentioned because
1. The United States was attacked by Al Queda elements, which operate and base themselves out of Afghanistan. Thats a given.
Next we have the Afghanistan governments inability to do anything about it for one of two reasons. 1. Due to weakness in the ability to control events inside its own borders.
2. Because there was approval given either de jure or de facto into the operations of the Al Queda network
Lets address the easy one first shall we? Which would be 2. If actions are taken with even the silent approval of a government they become essentialy "Agents of the State" and thus the attack does constitute an act of war. Frankly several wars in history.. begain with non official military forces siezing shipping assesst of a third party, infact the hullabloo that led to the war of 1812 was impressment of american seamen by british (and french) warships and particuarly privateers. Any form of material support, for a group gives according to international legal tradition the victom nation the firm right to declare war on the power supporting the hostile forces.
Now onto the first point, weakness. If a government is so weak that it is completely incapable of any attempt to prevent forces operating out of its territory, it essentialy looses the status of "soverign" The nature of Soverignty is a very illusive issue but part of it is having a certain level of control over the goings on in your territory. Once I get home Ill put up some recomended readings for everyone on this issue, but frankly in order to be a government you must have the capability to act as one.
If you can not control the events in your territory, and forces there are assualting and harrasing other nations, those nations again, do have the legitimate right to invade to restore order and to eliminate those forces.
Jefferson, the "pure democrat" Authorised punative expiditions against the city state of Tripoli for its role in piracy, although it wasnt an "official" type of authorization more of a "make the problem go away" type of thing. The Tropolian government was either unwilling to or unable to prevent pirates operating from its territory from ravaging american shipping in the mediterranian, so ultimatly some marines working with barber tribes men stormed tripoli and shot the place up (with alot of other fun things happening in the process).
Oh and also according to statements comming out of the Iraqi press, and the arab press, the connection between Al Queda and Iraqi DID exist, stories about training areas being shared, and a wonderfull interview on Al Jahira with one of Bin Ladens top lieutenats talking about how he has been operating in Iraq as much as several months before the American invasion (exact time was kinda nebulous) So frankly Im for bush on this one, and becoming increasingly intollerant of opposing viewpoints because the facts are there, but people just want to deny them for political reasons.
[url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103176,00.html[/url]
First off, for BOTH wars, Bush went to congress and got permission, both wars ahd the support of the American people. I doubted we would find Nukes in Iraq, but I KNEW there were chemical weapons (He had 'em 10 years ago, should have em now) and I think Saddam needed to be taken out, pure and simple.
I mean, it sounds like this guy is just a Bush hater, OK fine, but don't force opions down my throught.
[B] Now onto the first point, weakness. If a government is so weak that it is completely incapable of any attempt to prevent forces operating out of its territory, it essentialy looses the status of "soverign" The nature of Soverignty is a very illusive issue but part of it is having a certain level of control over the goings on in your territory. Once I get home Ill put up some recomended readings for everyone on this issue, but frankly in order to be a government you must have the capability to act as one.
If you can not control the events in your territory, and forces there are assualting and harrasing other nations, those nations again, do have the legitimate right to invade to restore order and to eliminate those forces.
[/B][/QUOTE]
OK, I think the point you make parallels what I have been feeling all along. Basically since the end of WWII and the establishment of the UN, there has been this basic tenant of world law; a nation's sovereignty is absolute, until it inflicts that sovereignty upon another state. While this serves well enough to keep stronger countries from attacking weaker ones, it has also given the leaders inside of that country free reign to treat its citizens, economy and environment as the leadership pleases. There is no real control that can force that leadership to do otherwise.
I believe that this premise of absolute authority of a state within its own boarders can no longer stand if we, as humanity, are to progress. There are millions of people today who live in poverty, have no civil rights or fear for their daily survival because the leadership of that nation refuses to fill it obligation to its people.
It is at that point, when a government is no longer a mechanism of the people, when a basic level of humanity is not being met, that other "free" nations, with the correct intent and the significant support of other states, has every right to remove the leadership from power. That said, this right would include the up most obligation to restore a level of civil rights, reduce suffering and reestablish a government by the people as quickly as is practical.
What I propose is not an easy solution, and could be fraught with corruption and mal-intent, if not guided carefully. But it is time that those who live under these regimes have the real support of the outside world, instead of a token, which is given to make ourselves feel better.
Jake