27 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358If you're going to quote international law, please cite the provision of IL that states a nation state can be in a state of war with an organization.
[/b]When Turkey or Switzerland interned belligerents during WWII, neither side made any attempts on those persons because they were "out for the war".
The US is at war with al-Quaida. Therefore:
"A neutral state may not give armed assistance to any belligerent, or lend money, or guarantee a loan to either side, or permit its territory to become a ...[text shortened]... ia can bluster all they want, but Syria is in the wrong. So is Pakistan for the same reason.
Thank you.
27 Oct 08
Originally posted by no1marauderNot only that, but congress never declared war so they can aide whoever they durn well please.
If you're going to quote international law, please cite the provision of IL that states a nation state can be in a state of war with an organization.
Thank you.
28 Oct 08
Originally posted by EladarThe US has not declared war therefore they cannot go attacking anybody they want do no good reason other than a country is supplying a faction, whom the US is not even at war with, with needed items!
They can get attacked accordingly.
You can choose to help those who wish to kill our troops, but you can also suffer the consequences.
28 Oct 08
Originally posted by EladarSo let me get this straight:
They can get attacked accordingly.
You can choose to help those who wish to kill our troops, but you can also suffer the consequences.
If you believe that a country is helping an organization you don't like, then you can illegally enter that country and kill anyone in the vicinity of said organizations 'employees'?
28 Oct 08
Originally posted by shavixmirAny warrior knows he is a target 24/7. He knows that when he sits next to a child, he puts that child at risk.
Isn't the US in the same situation then for backing a million different regimes all over the world?
And are the agreements still the same as before WWII?
And what the hell did those 4 dead children have to do with anything?
Are you seriously justifying the murder of children???
American soldiers would never place children at risk by hanging out next to them. They are far more professional and care far more about kids than that.
Some of the scum we are fighting may have other ideas. That's unfortunate for those kids. If I were the parent of such a kid, I would be outraged at those scum and would move my kid away from them as quickly as possible.
28 Oct 08
Originally posted by tomtom232I think we have the Japanese to thank for the downfall of the notion of formal "declarations of war".
Not only that, but congress never declared war so they can aide whoever they durn well please.
Similarly, Israel did not declare war before attacking Egypt in 1967.
The declaration of war was probably getting outmoded anyway -- a fairly Victorian notion in an age where surprise and remote airstrikes are key.
Warfare evolves like anything else. Time was, you lined your men up, saluted the enemy, and invited him to fire first (18th century). Imagine.
28 Oct 08
Originally posted by spruce112358Bull!
Any warrior knows he is a target 24/7. He knows that when he sits next to a child, he puts that child at risk.
American soldiers would never place children at risk by hanging out next to them. They are far more professional and care far more about kids than that.
Some of the scum we are fighting may have other ideas. That's unfortunate for those k ...[text shortened]... I would be outraged at those scum and would move my kid away from them as quickly as possible.
These american 'warriors' (aka murderers) are not being hunted down and killed in their homes by soldiers with far superior technology and total disregard for civilian life, so your points are moot.
28 Oct 08
Originally posted by CrowleyI think you are confusing the people who have a total disregard for human life. It is almost certainly not American soldiers, but more likely those who detonate suicide bombs in heavily crowded markets.
Bull!
These american 'warriors' (aka murderers) are not being hunted down and killed in their homes by soldiers with far superior technology and total disregard for civilian life, so your points are moot.