3 ms·

US: actively developing weapons of mass destruction. Has committed several war crimes and illegally occupied territories in the middle east. Actively funded and

US: actively developing weapons of mass destruction. Has committed several war crimes and illegally occupied territories in the middle east. Actively funded and continues to fund international terrorism. Israel: ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories in Palestine. Yet Crimea, Syria and Iran are the bad guys (btw Iran was funded by the US - yes same regime that now the US cries against).

sethammons 7y ago
Ignorant here; how has the US illegally occupied territories in the middle east? Illegal under which jurisdiction? For an invading force, there would be only potential jurisdictions, no? International and/or their own. If it were International, the US would face sanctions. If it were illegal under US law, how could it persist?
- stenl 7y ago
  For example, the Iraq war was not approved by the UN Security Council, which is the only forum that can approve the use of force between (UN member) countries, apart from self defence. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War for more details.
  - meddlepal 7y ago
    The UN doesn't have any legal authority and even if it did it wouldn't be able to enforce it without the US and it's allies. Remember, international "law" doesn't exist. There is no legal/illegal. It's all governered by treaties and gentlemen's agreements between nation's.
    - stenl 7y ago
      International law definitely exists. In fact, Wikipedia has a whole long and interesting article about it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law Another example: international law bans torture, enforceable under ”universal jurisdiction”. That might be one reason why Bush and Cheney haven’t been to Europe since their days in office.
- Fnoord 7y ago
  I suppose because there was no UN mandate for it, and the reason for going into Iraq (WMDs) turned out to be false ie. propaganda.
- pelario 7y ago
  > If it were International, the US would face sanctions. Not an expert neither but to my understanding, there is no real "democracy" in the international law scenario, and the US has the capacity to veto any UN resolution. If you notice, the sanctions that states like Syria, Cuba or Venezuela have faces are just a decission of the US. No wonder so many people talks about "US imperialism"...
  - mendelmaleh 7y ago
    is UN imperialism better?
- reallydontask 7y ago
  This is all related to non-existent WMDs in Iraq and UN resolution 1441. TLDR; It's dubious that resolution 1441 provided legal cover for the invasion of Iraq. See this[1] for a discussion [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destr...
- image72834 7y ago
  Start by reading some history. You can watch some of Noam Chomsky's lectures about US and its role in the Middle East and other parts of the world. US has the upper hand in many political matters, and they force their allies to agree with them, even if they don't want to, (of course they benefit from it too). Why do they have the upper hand? Because of their technological advantages and resources. Since you are an ignorant, you'd probably say, of course, US is advanced and they do good and bad with it. Of course, but then read a bit more and you arrive at one of the very dark corners of history, slavery. Then, apply your logic, "how has the US illegally took so many people as slave in all over the world? Illegal under which jurisdiction? For that being consider as slavery, there would be only potential jurisdictions, no? International and/or their own. If it were International, the US would face sanctions. If it were illegal under US law, how could it persist?" (Quoting you while adjusting your logic to slavery) Ok, now draw an example from today's world. Just look at the current Iran's deal and how US is ignoring the rest of the world. As far as I know, this is the first time that EU ever slightly has decided to -- publicly -- face US and stick to the deal. This is an exception only because Trump is _Trump_ and doesn't seem to respect anything, including EU, and EU had enough of him (and worked hard for the deal). However, if Trump was not as blunt about the whole situation and would have approached it differently, both EU and US probably dismantle the deal and escalate everything easily. Why? Because EU would have been convinced/forced, by a rather more rational US president, to get out of the deal. Again, look back at history, and you'll see that's what happened at Afghanistan and Iraq wars too. Long story...
chucksmash 7y ago
Github (and Microsoft) are US companies, not disinterested arbiters of good and bad who have come down on the side of the US.

sethammons 7y ago

Ignorant here; how has the US illegally occupied territories in the middle east? Illegal under which jurisdiction? For an invading force, there would be only potential jurisdictions, no? International and/or their own. If it were International, the US would face sanctions. If it were illegal under US law, how could it persist?

stenl 7y ago
For example, the Iraq war was not approved by the UN Security Council, which is the only forum that can approve the use of force between (UN member) countries, apart from self defence. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War for more details.
- meddlepal 7y ago
  The UN doesn't have any legal authority and even if it did it wouldn't be able to enforce it without the US and it's allies. Remember, international "law" doesn't exist. There is no legal/illegal. It's all governered by treaties and gentlemen's agreements between nation's.
  - stenl 7y ago
    International law definitely exists. In fact, Wikipedia has a whole long and interesting article about it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law Another example: international law bans torture, enforceable under ”universal jurisdiction”. That might be one reason why Bush and Cheney haven’t been to Europe since their days in office.
Fnoord 7y ago
I suppose because there was no UN mandate for it, and the reason for going into Iraq (WMDs) turned out to be false ie. propaganda.
pelario 7y ago
> If it were International, the US would face sanctions. Not an expert neither but to my understanding, there is no real "democracy" in the international law scenario, and the US has the capacity to veto any UN resolution. If you notice, the sanctions that states like Syria, Cuba or Venezuela have faces are just a decission of the US. No wonder so many people talks about "US imperialism"...
- mendelmaleh 7y ago
  is UN imperialism better?
reallydontask 7y ago
This is all related to non-existent WMDs in Iraq and UN resolution 1441. TLDR; It's dubious that resolution 1441 provided legal cover for the invasion of Iraq. See this[1] for a discussion [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destr...
image72834 7y ago
Start by reading some history. You can watch some of Noam Chomsky's lectures about US and its role in the Middle East and other parts of the world. US has the upper hand in many political matters, and they force their allies to agree with them, even if they don't want to, (of course they benefit from it too). Why do they have the upper hand? Because of their technological advantages and resources. Since you are an ignorant, you'd probably say, of course, US is advanced and they do good and bad with it. Of course, but then read a bit more and you arrive at one of the very dark corners of history, slavery. Then, apply your logic, "how has the US illegally took so many people as slave in all over the world? Illegal under which jurisdiction? For that being consider as slavery, there would be only potential jurisdictions, no? International and/or their own. If it were International, the US would face sanctions. If it were illegal under US law, how could it persist?" (Quoting you while adjusting your logic to slavery) Ok, now draw an example from today's world. Just look at the current Iran's deal and how US is ignoring the rest of the world. As far as I know, this is the first time that EU ever slightly has decided to -- publicly -- face US and stick to the deal. This is an exception only because Trump is _Trump_ and doesn't seem to respect anything, including EU, and EU had enough of him (and worked hard for the deal). However, if Trump was not as blunt about the whole situation and would have approached it differently, both EU and US probably dismantle the deal and escalate everything easily. Why? Because EU would have been convinced/forced, by a rather more rational US president, to get out of the deal. Again, look back at history, and you'll see that's what happened at Afghanistan and Iraq wars too. Long story...

chucksmash 7y ago

Github (and Microsoft) are US companies, not disinterested arbiters of good and bad who have come down on the side of the US.