Syrian civil war (22 Viewers)

[Zacheryah]

Right wing politics lives for just that, Zach. Reagan, Bush, Bush Jr...

So Obama and Miss Clinton were rightwing ?
But thats besides the point.


If this happens, you tell a country to handle their shit. If they dont, ban their entry into yours.



France didnt invade Belgium after the second paris attacks either

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[IliveForJuve]

Human rights > sovereignty

 

[Zacheryah]

Human rights > sovereignty

I disagree, unless you sign a law that allows it



But when did occupying a nation cause it had a dictator ever worked ?

 

[IliveForJuve]

I disagree, unless you sign a law that allows it



But when did occupying a nation cause it had a dictator ever worked ?

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/editorial/world-issues/2012/03/06/333658/Tyranny-lies.htm

I'll just leave that article cause I have to work on my thesis

 

[GordoDeCentral]

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/editorial/world-issues/2012/03/06/333658/Tyranny-lies.htm

I'll just leave that article cause I have to work on my thesis

The accusations levied by Hitchens apply more to the US than they do Iraq. The little taiwanese lapdogs doing their best to please their masters/sustainers.

 

[Seven]

SO, if you suffer a terrorist attack, you should just go forth and invade a sovereign country ?

If that country supports or makes that terrorism possible? Yes.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn A0001 met Tapatalk

- - - Updated - - -

Right wing politics lives for just that, Zach. Reagan, Bush, Bush Jr...

Sovereignty is just one principle in international law. And like almost any law principle it lives at odds with other principles. I hate it when people, as Zach is doing in this case, try to oversimplify matters. There will always be circumstances when invading a country is justified.

Besides.. I know there are a billion things going on and most of the time an attack on a foreign country does not just happen because of humanitarian reasons. I doubt Trump is all that concerned about poor little Syrian children. And the hypocrisy of both the USA and Europe can be sky high. But if it helps people in the long run? Yeah, I'm all for saying some things are not okay and you will be held responsible when you commit those atrocities.

- - - Updated - - -

France didnt invade Belgium after the second paris attacks either

No one has claimed France aided and abetted terrorists. In fact, the military actions of France are one of the prime excuses terrorists have pointed to.

There are also no human rights violations happening in France on a scale that is even remotely comparable to Syria.

I don't know why you brought this up tbh.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

If that country supports or makes that terrorism possible? Yes.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn A0001 met Tapatalk

- - - Updated - - -



Sovereignty is just one principle in international law. And like almost any law principle it lives at odds with other principles. I hate it when people, as Zach is doing in this case, try to oversimplify matters. There will always be circumstances when invading a country is justified.

Besides.. I know there are a billion things going on and most of the time an attack on a foreign country does not just happen because of humanitarian reasons. I doubt Trump is all that concerned about poor little Syrian children. And the hypocrisy of both the USA and Europe can be sky high. But if it helps people in the long run? Yeah, I'm all for saying some things are not okay and you will be held responsible when you commit those atrocities.

- - - Updated - - -



No one has claimed France aided and abetted terrorists. In fact, the military actions of France are one of the prime excuses terrorists have pointed to.

There are also no human rights violations happening in France on a scale that is even remotely comparable to Syria.

I don't know why you brought this up tbh.

The US drops more bombs and killed more people than any regime in the region. Also being part of the UN makes any unilateral military action without security council illegal.

What is really scary here, is that russia of all countries, is the one acting in the most legal way in this affair.

 

[Seven]

The US drops more bombs and killed more people than any regime in the region. Also being part of the UN makes any unilateral military action without security council illegal.

What is really scary here, is that russia of all countries, is the one acting in the most legal way in this affair.

Sure. It's one of the many examples of the USA grossly misbehaving in international affairs. But people who are simply pointing towards sovereignty and saying that this makes any sort of attack illegal are oversimplifying things. And given the importance and complexity of the subject, that is downright criminal.

As for Russia. Maybe. To be honest you never really know what Russia is doing.

 

[duranfj]

SO, if you suffer a terrorist attack, you should just go forth and invade a sovereign country ?

Is Syria a sovereign country? Putin is the only one who think that

 

[Seven]

Is Syria a sovereign country? Putin is the only one who think that

It's from Wikipedia, but this is generally seen as the definition of statehood: "A sovereign state is, in international law, a nonphysical juridical entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area[/U]. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.".

I believe most would argue Syria can still be considered a state.

 

[Zacheryah]

If that country supports or makes that terrorism possible? Yes.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn A0001 met Tapatalk

- - - Updated - - -



Sovereignty is just one principle in international law. And like almost any law principle it lives at odds with other principles. I hate it when people, as Zach is doing in this case, try to oversimplify matters. There will always be circumstances when invading a country is justified.

Besides.. I know there are a billion things going on and most of the time an attack on a foreign country does not just happen because of humanitarian reasons. I doubt Trump is all that concerned about poor little Syrian children. And the hypocrisy of both the USA and Europe can be sky high. But if it helps people in the long run? Yeah, I'm all for saying some things are not okay and you will be held responsible when you commit those atrocities.

- - - Updated - - -



No one has claimed France aided and abetted terrorists. In fact, the military actions of France are one of the prime excuses terrorists have pointed to.

There are also no human rights violations happening in France on a scale that is even remotely comparable to Syria.

I don't know why you brought this up tbh.

If your Country supports or makes it happen, you ban the country. Think Trump's extreme vetting. This would actually be a good reason to use it.


Terrorists of the french attack resided in Molenbeek. Belgian shitcunt politicians allowed this situation to totally run out off controll in that region for electorial gain. One could say we absolutely didnt do shit. "a police officer shot with an AK-47 is a fait divers, remember that one ?

He originally said "if a terrorist attack occurs, you need permission from Russia/China to do something".


A terrorist attack occured in Paris. The nest of the radical filth is in Molenbeek. Belgium is doing jack shit about it for 2 decades and will continue to do so.


Pakistan had taliban. The US forced its way in there to root it out and hunt in afghanistan.




See where i'm going ? France could just have said "Belgium, your lazy as fuck approach has caused this mess, we are bombing molenbeek and send troops to root out the filth".



lets be honest. That is exactly what the US did in both aghanistan and pakistan.

- - - Updated - - -

What does Israel do ?
Hamas shoots a rocket, they carpet bomb some city

What does the US do
"our intel says there is a taliban/al quaida high ranked person in this hospital, they carped bomb the hospital

 

[Seven]

If your Country supports or makes it happen, you ban the country. Think Trump's extreme vetting. This would actually be a good reason to use it.


Terrorists of the french attack resided in Molenbeek. Belgian shitcunt politicians allowed this situation to totally run out off controll in that region for electorial gain. One could say we absolutely didnt do shit. "a police officer shot with an AK-47 is a fait divers, remember that one ?

He originally said "if a terrorist attack occurs, you need permission from Russia/China to do something".


A terrorist attack occured in Paris. The nest of the radical filth is in Molenbeek. Belgium is doing jack shit about it for 2 decades and will continue to do so.


Pakistan had taliban. The US forced its way in there to root it out and hunt in afghanistan.




See where i'm going ? France could just have said "Belgium, your lazy as fuck approach has caused this mess, we are bombing molenbeek and send troops to root out the filth".



lets be honest. That is exactly what the US did in both aghanistan and pakistan.

You could do that. You could also say that you think their responsibility is so big you simply decide to nuke the country. Both are legal possibilities. Frankly I think the biggest problem here is that no one is able to hold the US accountable. They couldn't care less, because they know no one is going to do jackshit about it. But that's simply a reality of international law. Countries that represent a strong economic and military power, will simply get away with a whole lot more.

Neither France nor Belgium are compareable to Afghanistan though. That's a completely different level we're talking about.

 

[IliveForJuve]

One of the noteworthy things about eliminationism, or even just mass slaughter, that has occurred is that the locus has shifted from the international realm, or greatly from the international realm, to being within states.

So in 1900 or the early part of the 20th century a lot of eliminationism was conducted by states in other countries or other territories. The shift now is such that it's almost always domestic. All the more reason that we have to think very seriously about sovereignty.

Of course sovereignty has been historically a useful concept in trying to help promote interstate peace. But as it has been understood historically, and to the present day, I think the concept is no longer valuable or needs to be amended quite seriously.

Sovereignty is not about people, but it's about states. It's the sovereignty of states over their territory, the right to not have other states or countries interfere within your territory.

It seems to me to be almost ludicrous in our democratic age to say that there is such a thing as state sovereignty, as opposed to having the people be sovereign of countries, and to say that if the people are not actually governing themselves, that the state that is governing them is not only unprotected by this principle of sovereignty—and when I say the people governing themselves that means democratically—but in fact such states are illegitimate.

This is one of the problems with the United Nations. The United Nations harbors and has as a large percentage of its members quite obviously illegitimate states.

So sovereignty needs to be amended. We need to reconceptualize what it is. And, whatever we end up with, there is no way that I think a principle of sovereignty can be used to legitimize and justify and enable the slaughter of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people.

And so sovereignty, whatever the definition, even if it does afford states some protection, must be abridged by certain kinds of acts. We can define those acts quite clearly—eliminationist acts can be defined clearly—and that's when the protection sovereignty provides will be lifted.

To me that seems like an easy move. I'm not saying politically it's easy, but conceptually and legally it should be quite an easy thing to do, and it seems to me also the only defensible way and set of principles to use to think about what sovereignty should be.

 

[Seven]

I'm not saying politically it's easy, but conceptually and legally it should be quite an easy thing to do

I wouldn't say it's easy. Especially because defining a what a 'state' should be opens up existing states to problems. In Europe the biggest problem is that you have many smaller regions who are, even under the current concept of statehood, able to claim they're a state in theory. I think of Catalonia in Spain, the Flanders in Belgium as two big examples. If we are to discuss what a state should be, this might mean trouble for Spain and Belgium.

 

[Maddy]

Enron made a comment about Europe doing something. Europe is world class at doing nothing. Thats all i'm saying. Wether we should or shouldt do something, you can bet your house we wont do it. Except talking and hoping we can follow the US

How can someone from a European country be this ignorant about Europe.

 

[Seven]

How can someone from a European country be this ignorant about Europe.

Zach is unable to realise that most things exist on a scale and that there are always competing intrests and rights. There are no absolutes when it comes to international law or international politics.

But because Zach has majored in science and has no qualifications, skills or degrees relevant to the debate, he completely disregards all complexity and nuance, instead opting to become a prime example of my much beloved Dunning Kruger effect.

 

[IliveForJuve]

Europe takes refugees like crazy and Zach says they do nothing

 

[GordoDeCentral]

One of the noteworthy things about eliminationism, or even just mass slaughter, that has occurred is that the locus has shifted from the international realm, or greatly from the international realm, to being within states.

So in 1900 or the early part of the 20th century a lot of eliminationism was conducted by states in other countries or other territories. The shift now is such that it's almost always domestic. All the more reason that we have to think very seriously about sovereignty.

Of course sovereignty has been historically a useful concept in trying to help promote interstate peace. But as it has been understood historically, and to the present day, I think the concept is no longer valuable or needs to be amended quite seriously.

Sovereignty is not about people, but it's about states. It's the sovereignty of states over their territory, the right to not have other states or countries interfere within your territory.

It seems to me to be almost ludicrous in our democratic age to say that there is such a thing as state sovereignty, as opposed to having the people be sovereign of countries, and to say that if the people are not actually governing themselves, that the state that is governing them is not only unprotected by this principle of sovereignty—and when I say the people governing themselves that means democratically—but in fact such states are illegitimate.

This is one of the problems with the United Nations. The United Nations harbors and has as a large percentage of its members quite obviously illegitimate states.

So sovereignty needs to be amended. We need to reconceptualize what it is. And, whatever we end up with, there is no way that I think a principle of sovereignty can be used to legitimize and justify and enable the slaughter of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people.

And so sovereignty, whatever the definition, even if it does afford states some protection, must be abridged by certain kinds of acts. We can define those acts quite clearly—eliminationist acts can be defined clearly—and that's when the protection sovereignty provides will be lifted.

To me that seems like an easy move. I'm not saying politically it's easy, but conceptually and legally it should be quite an easy thing to do, and it seems to me also the only defensible way and set of principles to use to think about what sovereignty should be.

Most people in the US voted for Hillary yet trump is the president, does that mean its sovereignty is illegitimate?

 

[Maddy]

Zach is unable to realise that most things exist on a scale and that there are always competing intrests and rights. There are no absolutes when it comes to international law or international politics.

But because Zach has majored in science and has no qualifications, skills or degrees relevant to the debate, he completely disregards all complexity and nuance, instead opting to become a prime example of my much beloved Dunning Kruger effect.

He's even Belgian. Is there a more political complex country than your flemish/walloon-escapades? Italy perhaps. But dats it.

- - - Updated - - -

Europe takes refugees like crazy and Zach says they do nothing

No. Some European countries take close to 0, others take in millions. Exactly like some European countries are deeply engaged in Syria, while others are staying the hell out of that shithole.

 

[campionesidd]

Sickening to see how the political establishment is fapping over these pointless airstrikes. I hated it when Obama tried to meddle in Syria, and I hate it when Trump is doing the same thing.

- - - Updated - - -

Bringing regime change to secular countries only causes endless grief for everyone around the world, but neocons and neoliberals only see those juicy donations aka legal bribes from defense contractors.

- - - Updated - - -

Right wing politics lives for just that, Zach. Reagan, Bush, Bush Jr...

I despise Republicans, but Obama was just as bad in this regard, and Clinton would've been too.