CH86 wrote:You might not like it, but that IS how the law has been traditionally interpreted. Globalists have always been lawless, however. Globalists ideologues need to understand that their doctrine is NOT the culmination of humanity's intellectual efforts.
You have a habit of calling you opinion "the law." Humanity has several thousand years of tradition of nations intervening in the affairs of other nations: from when Israelites conquered Canaan to expunge the evil of the Ammorites, to when Pompay invaded Judea to solve a civil war among Hasmoneans, to when the United States supported a rebellion of Texans within the recognized borders of Mexico. You can argue the particulars of any of these cases, but it is impossible to support your argument that international intervention in the internal affairs of other nations is a new thing or that it was invented by Boomers.
The United States has never signed a treaty that says, "We will never intervene in the internal affairs of other nations." The UN Charter does not say this either and many UN members, including SC permanent members have conducted such intervention. The US Constitution doesn't require the US to wait until it is actually attacked: it only says, "Congress shall have the power ... To declare War;" and, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." This leaves ambiguity of what requires a declaration of War and what is simply a command decision of the President (I think that the Syrian intervention should have required a declaration of War by congress). But the US Constitution has never been and cannot be interpreted to mean that the US may not conduct military intervention until an international attack.
CH86 wrote:You might not like it, but that IS how the law has been traditionally interpreted. Globalists have always been lawless, however. Globalists ideologues need to understand that their doctrine is NOT the culmination of humanity's intellectual efforts.
You have a habit of calling you opinion "the law." Humanity has several thousand years of tradition of nations intervening in the affairs of other nations: from when Israelites conquered Canaan to expunge the evil of the Ammorites, to when Pompay invaded Judea to solve a civil war among Hasmoneans, to when the United States supported a rebellion of Texans within the recognized borders of Mexico. You can argue the particulars of any of these cases, but it is impossible to support your argument that international intervention in the internal affairs of other nations is a new thing or that it was invented by Boomers.
The United States has never signed a treaty that says, "We will never intervene in the internal affairs of other nations." The UN Charter does not say this either and many UN members, including SC permanent members have conducted such intervention. The US Constitution doesn't require the US to wait until it is actually attacked: it only says, "Congress shall have the power ... To declare War;" and, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." This leaves ambiguity of what requires a declaration of War and what is simply a command decision of the President (I think that the Syrian intervention should have required a declaration of War by congress). But the US Constitution has never been and cannot be interpreted to mean that the US may not conduct military intervention until an international attack.
You are not the law.
Countries test the limits of the law all the time, especially major powers like the US, Russia and China. That still does not change how the law itself has usually been interpreted.
CH86 wrote:
> You might not like it, but that IS how the law has been
> traditionally interpreted. Globalists have always been lawless,
> however. Globalists ideologues need to understand that their
> doctrine is NOT the culmination of humanity's intellectual
> efforts.
Guest wrote:
> You have a habit of calling you opinion "the law." Humanity has
> several thousand years of tradition of nations intervening in the
> affairs of other nations: from when Israelites conquered Canaan to
> expunge the evil of the Ammorites, to when Pompay invaded Judea to
> solve a civil war among Hasmoneans, to when the United States
> supported a rebellion of Texans within the recognized borders of
> Mexico. You can argue the particulars of any of these cases, but
> it is impossible to support your argument that international
> intervention in the internal affairs of other nations is a new
> thing or that it was invented by Boomers.
> The United States has never signed a treaty that says, "We will
> never intervene in the internal affairs of other nations." The UN
> Charter does not say this either and many UN members, including SC
> permanent members have conducted such intervention. The US
> Constitution doesn't require the US to wait until it is actually
> attacked: it only says, "Congress shall have the power ... To
> declare War;" and, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of
> the Army and Navy of the United States." This leaves ambiguity of
> what requires a declaration of War and what is simply a command
> decision of the President (I think that the Syrian intervention
> should have required a declaration of War by congress). But the
> US Constitution has never been and cannot be interpreted to mean
> that the US may not conduct military intervention until an
> international attack.
> You are not the law.
There are some points that have to be made here:
As I keep pointing out, al-Assad has driven millions of
refugees into neighboring countries, destabilizing the entire region.
This is by no means an "internal Syria war," when millions of
refugees are being inflicted on the entire region. Syria has an
obligation to control its own population and, when it can't, affected
nations have a right to respond.
Syria has now enacted "Decree #10" which makes it impossible for
refugees to return to their homes, even after the war ends, indicating
that the weaponizing of refugees was done on purpose with specific
objectives in mind. If that's not an act of war, I don't know what
is.
The U.S. is not fighting Syria -- i.e., it's not fighting
regime forces (except in self-defense), it's not fighting to
kill al-Assad, and it's not fighting to defend the anti-Assad
rebels in Eastern Ghouta.
The US has mainly been fighting ISIS. Al-Assad has an
obligation to keep ISIS under control, but has been unwilling or
unable to do so, and ISIS has been free to use Syria as a base
to launch attacks against Western targets. The US has a perfect
right to fight ISIS in its own self-defense.
Under the ceasefire agreement worked out last year by Turkey, Iran
and Russia, and approved by Syria, the US is responsible for
maintaining the ceasefire in some of the de-confliction zones
including, I believe, the one in Daraa. So the US military has, in
fact, been invited into Syria, albeit for a limited reason.
The US warning to Syria over Daraa is at least partially in
defense of Israel, since Hezbollah could use Daraa as a launching pad
for an attack on Israel. Israel is an ally with which we have a
mutual defense agreement. If al-Assad were allowed to take control of
Daraa, then Israel might get involved, and start a larger war. This
justifies the warning to Syria.
Last edited by John on Mon May 28, 2018 1:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:x
Its well known that globalists in the US, Britain and France, do not want the western role in Syria to be limited to the fight against ISIS. Time and time again they attempt various excuses for a military campaign against the Assad regime, which is contrary to the limits of the mandate authorized by the UN. For that reason Russia watches the western forces like a hawk.
The Extreme selfishness and narcissism of the boomers is obvious. Boomers support international intervention to prevent genocides that are confined within another country's national borders; yet refuse to allow proactive US military action against North Korea, instead deferring command decisions to the South Koreans even though America is the stronger country. Boomers refuse to allow the young to make their own decisions. Unlike boomers the young can envision lining up women, Children and POWs and mowing them down and still afterwards declaring that it had to be done; while at the same time retaining the belief of manifest destiny and beacon of freedom. These concepts are not mutually exclusive to us. Boomers keep trying to preserve the "innocence" of the young, however that choice is NOT up to the boomer, it is the millennial that is supposed to make that choice, not the boomer.
CH86 wrote:The Extreme selfishness and narcissism of the boomers is obvious. Boomers support international intervention to prevent genocides that are confined within another country's national borders; yet refuse to allow proactive US military action against North Korea, instead deferring command decisions to the South Koreans even though America is the stronger country. Boomers refuse to allow the young to make their own decisions. Unlike boomers the young can envision lining up women, Children and POWs and mowing them down and still afterwards declaring that it had to be done; while at the same time retaining the belief of manifest destiny and beacon of freedom. These concepts are not mutually exclusive to us. Boomers keep trying to preserve the "innocence" of the young, however that choice is NOT up to the boomer, it is the millennial that is supposed to make that choice, not the boomer.
I can summarize everything you have ever said on this form:
1) Boomers are bad.
2) Genocide is okay as long as it is in another country.
Cynic Hero 86 wrote:Countries test the limits of the law all the time, especially major powers like the US, Russia and China. That still does not change how the law itself has usually been interpreted.
This so-called law you keep talking about doesn't exist. It isn't in the US constitution, any treaty of the United States (including the UN Charter), or any law passed by congress. You are making it up.
I find it truly fascinating the CH describes "the young" (millenials?) as psychopaths, and "boomers" as "overprotective parents",.. and then chooses the "overprotective parents" as the more evil of the two!
FishbellykanakaDude wrote:I find it truly fascinating the CH describes "the young" (millenials?) as psychopaths, and "boomers" as "overprotective parents",.. and then chooses the "overprotective parents" as the more evil of the two!
..as Spock would say,.. Fascinating!
But wait.... The whole generation cannot be overprotective parents. Most boomers are parents, but at worst (and best) they are average-protective parents. Also psychopathy is a clinical diagnosis that very few millenials (or anyone) have.
CH86 wrote:An established principle of international relations is that no nation has the right to dictate how another nation conducts business within their own borders.
So according to you Hitler and his band of Nazis should have been allowed to exterminate all the Jews, Gypsies, blind, deaf, crippled, and other undesirables in Germany as long as they didn't invade any other country. According to you also, any nation should be allowed to commit any measure of brutality, atrocity, or genocide as long as it doesn't cross international borders.
I disagree. It is the right and duty of a free nation to intervene in the affairs of another nation to prevent or end a clear and great evil. It is not only Boomers that say this: I am Gen X.
We went to war with Nazi Germany and Japan historically because Japan attacked us at pearl harbor and then Hitler's Germany declared war on us several days later and sent the U-Boats fleet to sink as many American Ships as possible with some ships being sunk within sight of New York Harbor.
If Hitler had merely did his actions (the holocaust) within Germany itself while having a benign attitude toward the US and granting American businesses trade favoritism within Germany, then yes we should maintain peace and good relations with the Nazis. In this scenario they are not killing Americans or threatening us, why would we go to war with Germany in this hypothetical scenario?