[wapo] U.S. strikes within Pakistan — without notice

insane man needs a good waterboardin'.

 

If a group of terrorists were living in the U.S. and we weren't going after them, and the nation they attacked came and took them out, I would be grateful they did us a favor.

The bottom line is they should take care of it internally, but if they don't, then we are within our rights to do so.

 

So you think it is within Iraqis' rights to assassinate Bush & Co.?

Having said that I do support taking out bad guys in foreign countries without foreign consent because I am of the school that it is a dog-eat-dog world out there in international politics, so it is perfectly ok for us to break international laws. But I just don't like that we are being a hypocrite and says that what we do is within international laws.

 

a) You wouldn't claim so if that country is Russia, instead of Parkistan

b) You wouldn't claim so if that country is Saudi

c) You wouldn't claim so if US isn't the sole super power in the world

d) You know no country would be able to do that to US, even if US hides Bin Laden and Hitler together.

What's the purpose of posing like this?

 

Very well said. I totally agree with you!

 

I disagree. If any nation is not taking care of known terrorists inside it's borders and a separate nation which lost 3000 lives because of those terrorists takes out the terrorists, then I don't have a problem.

I don't care what nation it is that has the terrorists, and isn't taking care of them even though they know where they are. If a nation won't deal with it, then I don't have a problem with the attacked nation helping them out.

 

What acts of terrorism is Bush guilty of? I am supportive of Iraqis pursuing war criminal charges against Bush and Co. I absolutely am in support of that, if they choose to.

Did the U.S. declare war on Afghanistan?

 

What about assassinaton? Will you support? What we are doing is assassination without a trial. Why should the Iraqis even let Bush & Co to stand for trials?

 

this happened almost a full month ago, obviously the pakistanis had no problem with it.

 

Their government of course is ok with that because we gave them money.

But I am sure their people don't like what we did.

 

really? what about all the political aslyum that is given to leaders of the third world that end up in england and the US?

im sorry. some of us are civilized and care about law and order. care to join us in a post-might is right world?

 

it absolutely should have.

secondly your argument is similar to the hypocrisy from this administration about international law. we should enforce international law by breaking international law (UN resolutions via attacking unilaterally).

here you are ok with the US breaking international law to attack pakistan but iraqis should abide by international norms and pursue war crimes? perhaps the US should go to the UN and various other legal channels that civilized nations partake in in order to press pakistan to capture those it deems to be terrorists.

 

thanks for playing the patriotism and hating terrorist card. do you also have a yellow ribbon on your car? and a flag lapel on your suit jacket?

but attacking another nation does not only include its government but also its territory. duh.

see previous. and let me know since when we considered 'attackcing a nation' simply to mean unseating its government. i think the terrorists attacked our 'nation' on september 11th. not just the world trade centers and the pentagon. (and no attacking the pentagon is not analogous to unseating the US government...if that was going to be the reply)

 

the terrorists attacked a bunch of innocent people. you're making this too easy, you obama haters are in such a tizzy you just compared the us to a bunch of 9-11 terrorists. keep the hate train rolling, i used to get upset, now i just laugh.

 

Assassination? No I don't believe in assassinating leaders of other nations. But the terrorists are not another nation. What we are doing is killing the terrorists. I'm happy when we catch them and take them alive, and try them. These terrorists, though, are not U.S. citizens. They do not live in the U.S. They are not entitled to the trial by law.

The U.S. has been attacked, and going after the ones who did the attacking is a matter of self defense. If we catch them and put them on trial, great.

 

pray tell where i said the terrorists didn't attack a bunch of innocent people. and show me where i hated on obama. i actually think fairly highly of obama though im a little concerned about some of his domestic policy. and i certainly trust him a lot more than any other viable candidate on foreign policy.

it has nothing to do with hating on him. and i didn't compare us to terrorists. i said the notion that we didn't attack the 'nation' because we didn't attempt to unseat its government is absurd since we consider the attack on september 11th to be against our 'nation' even though it likewise was not an attempt to unseat our government.

but since i apparently am an obama hater i'll apologize for trying to use logic and substance in an argument instead of empty rhetoric.

 

I didn't say one thing about patriotism. We didn't attack a nation, we attacked terrorists inside that nation.

Pakistan had ample opportunity to prevent even us doing that, if they'd gone after the terrorists themselves. They didn't.

 

you're comparing attacking the terrorists in the pakistan mountains to the 9-11 attack. no matter how you spin, that's the analogy you make, don't hate me because I pointed out its absurdity

and i never said you didn't say the terrorists attacked a bunch of innocent people, I was pointing out the obvious hole you forgot to qualify along with the others you had to in the analogy

 

I don't believe the U.S. violated the law in going after the terrorists. By international law nations have the right to defend themselves.

It has nothing to do with might=right.

 

we attacked inside the sovereign territory of pakistan without international law on our side and without declaring war. that is illegal. what part of that is so difficult? why can't you admit it that our actions were contrary to the norms of international law. the same norms that the left accuses george bush of not following.

question to folks on this side. was this illegal or not? and if not...on what legal basis? and again if not...how was iraq also not legal?