3 ms·
Do you think letting ISIS operate freely in the region is better than the speculative notion that building debris will cause cancer someday? Do you think the US
by newdayrising 9y ago
Do you think letting ISIS operate freely in the region is better than the speculative notion that building debris will cause cancer someday? Do you think the US should merely inform the local governments and hope they will do something?
Regardless, I agree that the US should never get involved in the Middle East militarily. There is NO way to prevent civilian deaths, there is no way to prevent people on the Left from reducing ALL military action to American imperialism.
- boomboomsubban 9y agoI didn't realize dropping this bomb or doing nothing were the only possible options, the whole 26 day campaign with two wounded US soldiers they did last year led me to believe there may be more options. What reason is there for a war of aggression beyond imperialism?
- gozur88 9y agoI don't think it's reasonable to characterize the war in Afghanistan as "imperialism".
- boomboomsubban 9y agoSo what do you call a war who's aim is to install a friendly government and take over some amount of the nation's sovereignty?
- gozur88 9y agoI suppose I would call it that if that were the aim of the war.
- boomboomsubban 9y agoOur goal was removing the Taliban, and taking the right to police residents of the country, particularly Bin Laden, without the need of jurisprudence. Set up a friendly government, take over sovereign right. What am I missing here?
- gozur88 9y agoOkay. What does that have to do with "war of aggression" and "imperialism". We weren't there on a lark.
- boomboomsubban 9y agoStarting the war for those aims is a war of aggression, removing the Taliban is setting up a friendly government, removing their right to police is a removal of sovereignty. Really confused what you're going on about, you keep saying I'm wrong but don't try to say why.
- gozur88 9y ago>Starting the war for those aims is a war of aggression... No it isn't. That's not at all true.
- boomboomsubban 9y agoYeah, it is. There's millennia of precedent here and I'm not going any further to argue against "nuh-uh."
- gozur88 9y agoPrecedent? This isn't a court case. I begin to see the problem here: You're misapplying a historical template. This isn't 19th Century British Empire - the US had an iron-clad casus belli in Afghanistan, and to ignore that is to completely mischaracterize the situation.
- boomboomsubban 9y ago"This isn't a court case, they had an iron-clad case for war." The only point of a cassus belli is to justify your war of aggression, if someone declares war on you the case for it is clear. And no, the cassus belli was not iron-clad. There are only three legal ones under current law. Defense, defense of an ally, and a UN approval. First two don't work, Afghanistan hadn't declared any wars, and the third never happened.