melthebell Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I think that's highly unlikely since the US objective was to overthrow the Afghan government! lmao you mean the ones they killed? of course they invited em, Saddam Hussain invited em to invade Iraq too, he fancied being hung oops I meant to quote Harvey and on mi phone so can't alter it lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommo68 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 How about not invading his country illegally, he might not want to kill you in the first place or at least stop trying to do so? :huh: Lets just get real. One country kills people, destroys stuff etc etc. in another country, it might even invade it too. This is called called war and people die. The people who actually take part run a much higher risk of dying. If you bear arms against an enemy you may die, thats it. BTW when these taliban etc take prisoners they either do so for ransom or to execute in public. They do not have PoW camps, so why should we? The only people who can say if a war legal or or otherwise are the superpowers, all wars that are not in their interest are illegal. It means nothing. What happened to being honest saying this an ujust war, this war is against our interests, this is a war on our ally.? All war is by its very nature is surely a crime against humanity. The combatants may enter into war with patriotic notions, morals and ideas of righ and wrong. Actual combatants are in it to stay alive and keep their mates alive, whatever it takes. Do not look for fault amongst the combatants, the people who sent them, who started the whole ball rolling, blame them for everthing. Better still, ignore them and don't go. . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertramp Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 BTW when these taliban etc take prisoners they either do so for ransom or to execute in public. They do not have PoW camps, so why should we? . . . Because then we'd be no better than them. It would be the stupidest thing since unsliced bread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Lets just get real. One country kills people, destroys stuff etc etc. in another country, it might even invade it too. This is called called war and people die. The people who actually take part run a much higher risk of dying. If you bear arms against an enemy you may die, thats it. That's fine, but do you expect them to greet allied forces with just harsh language? What would be your reaction if the Taliban invaded the UK? BTW when these taliban etc take prisoners they either do so for ransom or to execute in public. They do not have PoW camps, so why should we? Because we're supposedly prosecuting a war against "terror"-remember? Behaving like the enemy doesn't really imbue us with moral superiority. The only people who can say if a war legal or or otherwise are the superpowers, all wars that are not in their interest are illegal. It means nothing. What happened to being honest saying this an ujust war, this war is against our interests, this is a war on our ally.? I'd rather invasions of other countries were at least supported fully by the member states of the UN. All war is by its very nature is surely a crime against humanity. The combatants may enter into war with patriotic notions, morals and ideas of righ and wrong. Actual combatants are in it to stay alive and keep their mates alive, whatever it takes. Do not look for fault amongst the combatants, the people who sent them, who started the whole ball rolling, blame them for everthing. Better still, ignore them and don't go. . . . . I'd apply that last sentiment to the combatants who are unable to follow the rules of engagement which they agreed to on signing up for military service. ---------- Post added 07-01-2014 at 14:08 ---------- lmao you mean the ones they killed? of course they invited em, Saddam Hussain invited em to invade Iraq too, he fancied being hung oops I meant to quote Harvey and on mi phone so can't alter it lol Sleepy time melvin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I must admit that I am at a bit of a loss to understand how a country can be invaded by another country(s) with the intention of overthrowing the established government without declaring war on that country. I was under the presumption that it was against international law to overthrow the government of a foreign country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I must admit that I am at a bit of a loss to understand how a country can be invaded by another country(s) with the intention of overthrowing the established government without declaring war on that country. I was under the presumption that it was against international law to overthrow the government of a foreign country. there is no such thing as international law really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I must admit that I am at a bit of a loss to understand how a country can be invaded by another country(s) with the intention of overthrowing the established government without declaring war on that country. I was under the presumption that it was against international law to overthrow the government of a foreign country. We had a similar debate a few months ago about this. I argued that by invading a country we were declaring war. Some, well Jeffrey Shaw at least, argued that this wasn't a declaration of war because of some constitutional nicety such as the monarch having to sign a scroll in lark's blood or summat. He has also argued on here that there is no such thing as international law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 So it would appear that any country can overthrow another country's government if they wish to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 So it would appear that any country can overthrow another country's government if they wish to. ..and their balls are big enough But wars instigated by 'civilised' countries tend to have some moral imperative..usually liberation of people or protection of property but usually it's down to money and propagation of influence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommo68 Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 But wars instigated by 'civilised' countries tend to have some moral imperative..usually liberation of people or protection of property but usually it's down to money and propagation of influence. I tend to agree. If we had gone into Iraq to stop them attempting to wipe out the kurds (we dress that up now and call it ethnic cleansing..so much better it sounds like a good thing ...like spring cleaning) I for one would have been fully supportive. From what I gather all the Iraqis were really doing wrong at the time was accepting currencies other than US dollars for it's oil. As were the Iranians until November last year. Safeguard the petro-dollar at all costs. BTW. The collapse of the US dollar and all other fiat currencies is inevitable, ooops thats all of them. It is no longer a question of IF but WHEN. What that will mean in both the long and short term for all but the super rich and the chosen few that join them in the bunkers remains to be seen. When it does happen the then comparitively few that have died in the middle east over the last 30 years will seem insignificant. . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.