Are you for or against intervening in Syria?

[VictorCharlie]

The President will take credit for the diplomatic results but lets be honest, he got his hand forced to not use military force by overwhelming public opinion in the US and being out maneuvered by Putin/Assad. If the administration had gotten their way we would be engaged militarily in the Syrian civil war.

On a side note, what is a rogue nation? This sounds like another one of your made up terms like illegal war.

[Gandalf]

The President will take credit for the diplomatic results but lets be honest, he got his hand forced to not use military force by overwhelming public opinion in the US and being out maneuvered by Putin/Assad. If the administration had gotten their way we would be engaged militarily in the Syrian civil war.

On a side note, what is a rogue nation? This sounds like another one of your made up terms like illegal war.

Illegal wars are those of aggression and moreso based upon outright fraud and lies. Rogue nation fits nations that routinely ignore international law. The US, Britain and Israel are the obvious examples. Only they can get away with the outrageous time and time again.

Many nations in the world are rogue, but some have a lot of influence. Rogue is forcing a state to give up weapons whilst having them too and never discussing removing them.

[Gandalf]

VanChild's you seldom fail to come across like a soldier who has studied at an American University. Any sensible person rejects all of that bullshit. Maybe you need time.

The Iraq war was illegal and still you went there. You didn't give a hoot about this stuff then. The illegality was obvious. A war of agression, based on what were complete lies. You were there, and you always get shirty when questioned on these terms.

Nobody wants to be accused of being a blind follower of the orders of Cheney and Bush, but that is what it was. You took part in an act of aggression and dislike hearing about rogue states.

You should have chosen your profession more carefully. My rhetoric is fine and is the same as always. Unlike yours in Iraq which finally you agreed was a mess after all your defending.

[VictorCharlie]

Finally agreed? I've always maintained we shouldn't have gone to Iraq. You on the other hand have never been able to explain how/when war is legal or illegal. So again what legal document dictates when war is legal or illegal for the world and what legal body rules on these things? Mind you we've already covered that the UN charter is not international law. Act of aggression? That describes all war. The UN does nothing more than take a popularity vote and even then the security council simply votes against each other. The whole thing is a farce. You pick and choose when you want to champion the UN but since that is the standard you want to go buy according to the UN, Saddam and Iraq violated multiple resolutions passed post Gulf War 1, namely they violated the no-fly zone and fired on US aircraft patrolling the no fly zone. I personally don't think either of these justify OIF and obviously GW provided these in conjunction w/poorly vetted intelligence on WMD. I don't call you on using silly phrases b/c I'm defensive about my participation but b/c your arguments are intellectually dishonest. I don't feel any need to apologize or defend my time in Iraq b/c unlike you who does nothing more than provide your faux outrage on the internet I spent most of my time in Iraq providing humanitarian aid.

So with that handled, again what is a rogue state?

[Gandalf]

Finally agreed....but you went there. And all to help the people apparently. Interesting.

I see nothing intellectually dishonest in what I say, unless you have studied in an American University. Your country is intellectually dishonest, I am the least of the troubles.

I don't do any of the things that you have acted on behalf of. I merely sit from a distance and tell the truth about what I see.

It's called getting a real job. Unlike all this 'let's join the military and invade a weak country' bullshit.

[VictorCharlie]

Cool story, now what is a rogue nation?

[Kirkland Laing]

The President will take credit for the diplomatic results but lets be honest, he got his hand forced to not use military force by overwhelming public opinion in the US and being out maneuvered by Putin/Assad. If the administration had gotten their way we would be engaged militarily in the Syrian civil war.

On a side note, what is a rogue nation? This sounds like another one of your made up terms like illegal war.

A rogue nation is a nation that ignores the will of the international community and continues to do something the international community considers illegal. Like invading Iraq for instance.

[VictorCharlie]

A rogue nation is a nation that ignores the will of the international community and continues to do something the international community considers illegal. Like invading Iraq for instance.

So when a nation does what it thinks is in its best interest regardless of a international popularity contest its "rogue". Got it. Rogue nation is a dumb term. Iran, NK, Israel, Syria, China, US, UK and Russia aren't "rogue". They (or I should say their leaders) do what they think is in their best interests. Iran/NK think they should have nuclear capabilities, frankly I don't care nor do I blame them. Israel is surrounded by nations that would and have previously attacked them so I don't blame them for ensuring their own continued existance. China/US/Russia are all world powers that whether correctly or not believe they need to have hegemony over their proxies in order to prosper. There is nothing rogue about doing what we all do as humans every day and that is look out for #1.

[VictorCharlie]

I got a chuckle out of this.

[Gandalf]

A rogue nation is a nation that ignores the will of the international community and continues to do something the international community considers illegal. Like invading Iraq for instance.

So when a nation does what it thinks is in its best interest regardless of a international popularity contest its "rogue". Got it. Rogue nation is a dumb term. Iran, NK, Israel, Syria, China, US, UK and Russia aren't "rogue". They (or I should say their leaders) do what they think is in their best interests. Iran/NK think they should have nuclear capabilities, frankly I don't care nor do I blame them. Israel is surrounded by nations that would and have previously attacked them so I don't blame them for ensuring their own continued existance. China/US/Russia are all world powers that whether correctly or not believe they need to have hegemony over their proxies in order to prosper. There is nothing rogue about doing what we all do as humans every day and that is look out for #1.

America is rogue because of its foreign policy shockers largely executed in the past 50 years. You could argue that America is acting in its own interests and of course any nation would argue that. However, going off to Vietnam for instance and slaughtering 2 million people based upon lies is clearly leaning towards not only rogue, but plain demented. You see it in dozens of countries right across the globe be it invasion, leader assassination, arming of terrorists etc etc. America being a rogue state is putting it nicely, it is far worse than a rogue state I am sure in the eyes of the vast bulk of the world that has suffered at its hands.

Does Denmark behave like America? Does Switzerland? Does Canada? America is completely out of synch with relatively normal nations. Also you seem to understand the term rogue due to the types of nations you listed. Countries like Syria and Iran are nothing compared to the genocide nations like North Korea, America or those who still think concentration camps and apartheid are fashionable. There are plenty of rogue nations, but the leader is obviously America. I would imagine the numbers of people killed either directly or indirectly by America is greater than all those other countries you suggested combined. It is numerically even worse when you factor in how the place was created too. North Korea kills millions domestically, but the US did the same in its early years and then it went on to carry out the murder spree internationally. North Korea is relatively benign except for the occasional missile launch. Now the same could not in a million years be suggested of America.

America being angry with Syria or Iran is an absurdity considering everything that it is. It chooses to be rogue, it could always choose to be a normal nation, but instead it chooses exceptionalism, which is another word to describe an out of control psychopath.

[VictorCharlie]

America is rogue because of its foreign policy shockers largely executed in the past 50 years. You could argue that America is acting in its own interests and of course any nation would argue that. However, going off to Vietnam for instance and slaughtering 2 million people based upon lies is clearly leaning towards not only rogue, but plain demented. You see it in dozens of countries right across the globe be it invasion, leader assassination, arming of terrorists etc etc. America being a rogue state is putting it nicely, it is far worse than a rogue state I am sure in the eyes of the vast bulk of the world that has suffered at its hands.

Does Denmark behave like America? Does Switzerland? Does Canada? America is completely out of synch with relatively normal nations. Also you seem to understand the term rogue due to the types of nations you listed. Countries like Syria and Iran are nothing compared to the genocide nations like North Korea, America or those who still think concentration camps and apartheid are fashionable. There are plenty of rogue nations, but the leader is obviously America. I would imagine the numbers of people killed either directly or indirectly by America is greater than all those other countries you suggested combined. It is numerically even worse when you factor in how the place was created too. North Korea kills millions domestically, but the US did the same in its early years and then it went on to carry out the murder spree internationally. North Korea is relatively benign except for the occasional missile launch. Now the same could not in a million years be suggested of America.

America being angry with Syria or Iran is an absurdity considering everything that it is. It chooses to be rogue, it could always choose to be a normal nation, but instead it chooses exceptionalism, which is another word to describe an out of control psychopath.

All of western Europe was sitting with their hands out post WWII and was pretty happy for a US policy that supported intervention. They were pretty happy to let their defense capabilities atrophy and have the US do the heavy lifting for 50 years during the cold war and still depend on US military support. Again when the European nations wanted to intervene in Libya they were sitting hat in hand for US assistance b/c even the UK didn't have the capability to neutralize out of date Libyan air defense w/o a large loss of life. The world has been very grateful when there have been humanitarian disasters and US service men and women are the first their to provide support. Personally I'd let the world go it alone and not lift a finger to help but for 60+ years American presidents have more than obliged the world to be its police. The world doesn't get to have it both ways. You can't ask for a nation to fund the rebuilding of your continent, secure it for half century, settle your internal conflicts and be the #1 contributor to humanitarian assistance then bitch and complain b/c you don't always like the way they go about it.

[Kirkland Laing]

A rogue nation is a nation that ignores the will of the international community and continues to do something the international community considers illegal. Like invading Iraq for instance.

So when a nation does what it thinks is in its best interest regardless of a international popularity contest its "rogue". Got it. Rogue nation is a dumb term. Iran, NK, Israel, Syria, China, US, UK and Russia aren't "rogue". They (or I should say their leaders) do what they think is in their best interests. Iran/NK think they should have nuclear capabilities, frankly I don't care nor do I blame them. Israel is surrounded by nations that would and have previously attacked them so I don't blame them for ensuring their own continued existance. China/US/Russia are all world powers that whether correctly or not believe they need to have hegemony over their proxies in order to prosper. There is nothing rogue about doing what we all do as humans every day and that is look out for #1.

Not an international popularity contest, an international treaty. Like the UN treaty. If you sign the UN treaty and then go off invading another country without agreement from the UN Security Council then you're going against the will of the international community and breaking the treaty you signed up to.

Or if you don't sign treaties that everybody else has signed up to like the chemical weapons treaty. Look at the small list of countries that haven't signed and you see the usual suspects when it comes to ignoring international law.

[VictorCharlie]

Not an international popularity contest, an international treaty. Like the UN treaty. If you sign the UN treaty and then go off invading another country without agreement from the UN Security Council then you're going against the will of the international community and breaking the treaty you signed up to.

Or if you don't sign treaties that everybody else has signed up to like the chemical weapons treaty. Look at the small list of countries that haven't signed and you see the usual suspects when it comes to ignoring international law.

Please name the specific treaty that the US signed that stipulates what makes a military action legal. Mind you we've previously pointed out that the UN Charter is not binding international law. Outside of the US Congress and President there isn't any other legal process for American military action. End of story. Call it immoral, unpopular, etc but trying to apply a legal basis to war is plain absurd.

[Kirkland Laing]

Not an international popularity contest, an international treaty. Like the UN treaty. If you sign the UN treaty and then go off invading another country without agreement from the UN Security Council then you're going against the will of the international community and breaking the treaty you signed up to.

Or if you don't sign treaties that everybody else has signed up to like the chemical weapons treaty. Look at the small list of countries that haven't signed and you see the usual suspects when it comes to ignoring international law.

Please name the specific treaty that the US signed that stipulates what makes a military action legal. Mind you we've previously pointed out that the UN Charter is not binding international law. Outside of the US Congress and President there isn't any other legal process for American military action. End of story. Call it immoral, unpopular, etc but trying to apply a legal basis to war is plain absurd.

I'll leave it to one of the world's foremost international lawyers to answer this :


BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan

[El Kabong]

I'll leave it to one of the world's foremost international lawyers to answer this :


BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan

Yeah Mr. "Food for Oil" is well beyond reproach.

You're an ignorant cunt, Saddam didn't abide by the rules and guidelines laid out for him by the UN post-Persian Gulf War, you know it, I know it, Kofi dumbass Annan knows it....ergo the war was good to go based on that alone. Go be a jackass elsewhere, I'm tired of your constant bellyaching you stupid twat