Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by EarthSky, Feb 2, 2019.
What's laughable is that you think making such enormous decisions can be made on a "gut reaction" and not in consideration of the myriad complexities, dependencies, and assessing potential outcomes.
It cones down to this: You don't like Trump, so you don't like his decisions, even when you admit it may have been the right decision.
I said it amounts to the same thing in the end.
But it negates your claim that Trump broke the treaty, which he did not.
Soundly argue that it was "illegal".
Russia is now poised to plant intermediate range nuclear warheads capable of hitting European targets in minutes. They are using the excuse to do so because Trump pulled out of the treaty. If that isn't being a Russian puppet I don't know what is. Sanctions have also been lifted on Russian oligarchs against the wishes of the U.S. intelligence agencies. These are just two examples of Trump acting against U.S. interests. I can name more if you want.
The reason the pullout from the treaty is that Russia was ignoring it anyway and pulling out now allows the US to act in their own interests.
Would you like to give me some evidence that Assad asked you to help him out?? I understood that you gathered up your poodles - France and the UK - around you then went into Syria with all guns blazing. And as usual made everything worse than it already was!
In fact Trump made the situation in Syria better than ever.
Seems a lot of Syrians owe their lives to Donald Trump.
Yes I don't like trump, just like I don't like anyone who lacks character and ethics. He can make right decisions (a broken clock is right twice a day) but that doesn't detract from the fact he is unfit for the office and an incompetent leader.
I granted you the point from a semantic perspective, but the result is exactly the same, ain't it?
I picked one - it was Syria. There was also Iraq, and arguably Vietnam.
I'm cynical enough to take numbers like that with a great big pinch of salt, because when it's impossible to identify combatants from civilians, true casualty figures can only be guessed at. The fact is though, Trump authorised illegal entry into a sovereign country without a request to do so.
Now, soundly argue that these "invasions" were "illegal".
No, it's not. The Russians broke the treaty; we withdrew. The difference is hardly semantic.
1. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.
That deals with the invasion bit - the illegal bit was because the act was unwanted and unasked for, not only by the elected leader of a sovereign country, namely president Assad, but by the populace as well?
We "invaded" Syria to "conquer" it?
That's laughable - was the invasion of Germany, 1944-45 "illegal"?
What "law" did the US violate in their "invasion" of Syria?
Check back on my definition above, then tell me if a) Assad requested the west's support against global jihadists, and b) did the UN or did it not authorise entry into Syria?
Was the invasion of Germany, 1944-45 "illegal"?
Did the UNSC declare the US involvement in Syria an illegal invasion?
I totally understand how you cant see it any other way.
As for stupidity in confronting Russian aggression, perhaps a history lesson might be in order.
OTOH, stupid dangerous irresponsibility is a hallmark of Trump's tenure so far. He didn't even consult with his commanding generals before declaring ISIS defeated and ordering troops to be pulled out.
Meanwhile he has "legitimized" Putin's cheating on an international agreement. Another nuclear arms race is of course entirely intelligent, safe and responsible.
But you can't see that for what it is, since apparently trump can do no wrong in trumpland.
I don't see russia as some great threat. Not like they are an economic powerhouse. And I don't see them conquering other nations. But that view has nothing to do with Trump land.
I also figure NATO trying to surround the is making them nervous.
We seem to think that russia is interested in conquering her neighbors. And is some great threat to the West. I find it absurd.
so you don't see an organized strategy of Putin trying to reclaim the Russian Empire? Perhaps you aren't looking in the right places.
NATO has made Russia nervous since its inception, nothing new there. why would Putin NOW think that NATO is a bigger threat than it was before?
I've never said it was.
Well, so far as I know it sure didn't approve of, and sanction it?
According to your definition, it certainly was.
If the UNSC did not declare the 'invasion' illegal - that is, in violation of the UN charter - then the UN does not consider the 'invasion' illegal.
-You- might, but your opinion means nothing.
Way to squirm out of a lost argument!
-You're- the one arguing "illegal".
How are these invasions supposedly illegal?
Who determines if an action is "illegal" in relation to the UN charter?
Has the UNSC declared -any- of the invasions you cited as "illegal"?
Your argument has no merit.
I'm sorry you don't like the truth.
Might you soundly and persuasively argue that they were legal? Is there some international law that allows military aggression?
Might you soundly and persuasively argue that they were legal?
No need - the claim was they were illegal.
I proved this claim unsound.
Is there some international law that allows military aggression?
LOL, you style is typical but seems to be dishonest. What law allows military aggression?
LOL, you style is typical but seems to be dishonest.
In disproving said premise I need not in any way show the negative of premise is true.
That is, if someone claims all cars are blue, I need not show that all care are not blue to disprove the claim.
What law allows military aggression?
- Any treaty between two states where the rights under said treaty may, de jure or de facto be defended with force.
- Any occasion where international law, derived from treaty or custom, where the rights of a state may be defended with force.
See, international law neither begins nor ends with the UN nor some international court.
What part of the UN charter authorizes military aggression?
Glad to see you agree I need not argue the 'invasions' he mentioned were legal.
Nothing in the UN charter impairs a nation's right to act in its own self-defense.