4 ms·

Am I the only person who reads this and thinks maybe random private citizens shouldn't be playing at soldier in foreign sovereign countries? A bunch of people e

Am I the only person who reads this and thinks maybe random private citizens shouldn't be playing at soldier in foreign sovereign countries? A bunch of people extra-judicially with no legal standing or authority invaded another country, did God knows what and left. And thats a good thing. Would this be covered in a similar way if a bunch of heavily armed Taliban members invaded Texas to extract some people who had given them intelligence and worked for them, I seriously doubt it. Even if they saved some pregnant members of their group and cradled a few children. I know "we" are the good guys and they are the bad guys (sarcasm there folks) but this is weird. I feel there is some crazy mind control weirdness going on. I know thats what propaganda is but the level of group think on Afghanistan is impressive. Maybe countries should have some right to run their own shit free from other countries, maybe we should call it self determination or something.

fastball 5y ago
I think the key differentiator here is "sovereign nation" – Afghanistan does not have a stable leadership at all, so it certainly seems acceptable to question their sovereignty. And a nation without sovereignty is very different from a bunch of Taliban members in Texas, as least as far as most of the world's geopolitical dealings are concerned. e.g. look at how the world just kinda let China obliterate Hong Kong's freedom – HK was never a sovereign nation state separate from China so there never was going to be much anyone could do.
- da39a3ee 5y ago
  > Afghanistan does not have a stable leadership at all Because your country invaded their country.
  - fastball 5y ago
    Afghanistan was a demonstrably "sovereign nation" before the US invaded?
    - da39a3ee 5y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states UN member state No sovereignty disputes Just because America doesn't like a country, does not mean it has a justification to invade that country. I thought people from all countries understood that by now.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    It didn't have a stable leadership before that, either.
    - reillyse 5y ago
      The pretext for invading was that the Taliban were in power and were hiding Osama Bin Laden. Let's get our stories straight. They can't be hiding Osama Bin Laden if they aren't in control of the country.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > The pretext for invading was that the Taliban were in power and were hiding Osama Bin Laden. The pretext for waging war on the Taliban, who had the upper hand in th ongoing civil war, was that they existed and were harboring Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders, sure. It wasn't that a stable government of Afghanistan existed and the Taliban were, or were part of, it. > They can't be hiding Osama Bin Laden if they aren't in control of the country. People shelter fugitives without being a stable government all the time. They generally are limited in their ability to do so if a stable effective government exists and opposes them, but that one faction is not a stavle government does not suggest that anyone else is.
- reillyse 5y ago
  "Stable leadership" has never been a precondition for sovereignty. That sounds like an easy excuse to invade whenever you think another countries leadership isn't doing the things you want it to. Hong Kong was leased from China to Britain on a 99 year lease, it was always part of China, so it was never a sovereign nation. That is the "international law" angle on Hong Kong, the lease expired and China got their Hong Kong back. Btw, I'm not sure the initial leasing of Hong Kong was overly legal in the first place, seems to have been a lot of duress in play.
  - fastball 5y ago
    I'm happy to use some other precondition for sovereignty, but unless you deliberately construct a definition to include Afghanistan, something tells me sovereignty won't apply.
    - reillyse 5y ago
      So, I'm curious. Do you think a nation ceases to be sovereign when it's in civil war or if there is some conflict over the government. E.g. in the US, when Trump was claiming he was elected President, did the US become less sovereign? (From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan) Afghanistan became something that looks like a modern sovereign state sometime in the 18th century and continued on from then. You seem to think that if there is some conflict over government it ceases to be sovereign, I'm pretty sure that is not how that works. On a side note, I'm genuinely happy to be able to have a conversation with someone about it, it seems most people are more happy on here to downvote opinions they don't agree with and that challenge their world views.
      - fastball 5y ago
        I think when a nation is in a civil war other nations can pick a side and they are not violating sovereignty. Also random individuals can pick a side and also not be violating sovereignty. Knowing what is allowed behavior is predicated on their being some clear central entity to dictate it. If there is none, then...

fastball 5y ago

I think the key differentiator here is "sovereign nation" – Afghanistan does not have a stable leadership at all, so it certainly seems acceptable to question their sovereignty. And a nation without sovereignty is very different from a bunch of Taliban members in Texas, as least as far as most of the world's geopolitical dealings are concerned. e.g. look at how the world just kinda let China obliterate Hong Kong's freedom – HK was never a sovereign nation state separate from China so there never was going to be much anyone could do.

da39a3ee 5y ago
> Afghanistan does not have a stable leadership at all Because your country invaded their country.
- fastball 5y ago
  Afghanistan was a demonstrably "sovereign nation" before the US invaded?
  - da39a3ee 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states UN member state No sovereignty disputes Just because America doesn't like a country, does not mean it has a justification to invade that country. I thought people from all countries understood that by now.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  It didn't have a stable leadership before that, either.
  - reillyse 5y ago
    The pretext for invading was that the Taliban were in power and were hiding Osama Bin Laden. Let's get our stories straight. They can't be hiding Osama Bin Laden if they aren't in control of the country.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > The pretext for invading was that the Taliban were in power and were hiding Osama Bin Laden. The pretext for waging war on the Taliban, who had the upper hand in th ongoing civil war, was that they existed and were harboring Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders, sure. It wasn't that a stable government of Afghanistan existed and the Taliban were, or were part of, it. > They can't be hiding Osama Bin Laden if they aren't in control of the country. People shelter fugitives without being a stable government all the time. They generally are limited in their ability to do so if a stable effective government exists and opposes them, but that one faction is not a stavle government does not suggest that anyone else is.
reillyse 5y ago
"Stable leadership" has never been a precondition for sovereignty. That sounds like an easy excuse to invade whenever you think another countries leadership isn't doing the things you want it to. Hong Kong was leased from China to Britain on a 99 year lease, it was always part of China, so it was never a sovereign nation. That is the "international law" angle on Hong Kong, the lease expired and China got their Hong Kong back. Btw, I'm not sure the initial leasing of Hong Kong was overly legal in the first place, seems to have been a lot of duress in play.
- fastball 5y ago
  I'm happy to use some other precondition for sovereignty, but unless you deliberately construct a definition to include Afghanistan, something tells me sovereignty won't apply.
  - reillyse 5y ago
    So, I'm curious. Do you think a nation ceases to be sovereign when it's in civil war or if there is some conflict over the government. E.g. in the US, when Trump was claiming he was elected President, did the US become less sovereign? (From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan) Afghanistan became something that looks like a modern sovereign state sometime in the 18th century and continued on from then. You seem to think that if there is some conflict over government it ceases to be sovereign, I'm pretty sure that is not how that works. On a side note, I'm genuinely happy to be able to have a conversation with someone about it, it seems most people are more happy on here to downvote opinions they don't agree with and that challenge their world views.
    - fastball 5y ago
      I think when a nation is in a civil war other nations can pick a side and they are not violating sovereignty. Also random individuals can pick a side and also not be violating sovereignty. Knowing what is allowed behavior is predicated on their being some clear central entity to dictate it. If there is none, then...