Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

is the war in Afghanistan consider a crime

suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 10:35:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I mean it is waged undeclared isn't it, is that the same cause that the ICC charged all the Axis powers for crime against peace?
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 10:41:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Don't you know? War is only a crime if you are on the losing side.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 10:47:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/5/2014 10:41:22 PM, HPWKA wrote:
Don't you know? War is only a crime if you are on the losing side.

and you need an accountable law if you are on the ruling side.
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 11:51:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/5/2014 10:35:22 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I mean it is waged undeclared isn't it,

No because we are not "technically" at war nor are we at war with the nation of Afghanistan so no declaration of official war is necessary.

Is that the same cause that the ICC charged all the Axis powers for crime against peace?

They are no where near the same. In the case of the Axis powers it was because they aggressively and completely unprovoked attacked, conquered and absorbed peaceful sovereign nations as well as the whole Holocaust issue. Where as in the afghan wars case while the US was indeed the invading force we were however provoked prior to the invasion and were acting in the interest of the defense of the our nation. According to the Charter nations are authorized under Article 51 to use defensive military action without UN approval. Here is a full view of article 51.

"An important exception to the foregoing are defensive military actions taken under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Such defensive actions are subject to immediate Security Council review, but do not require UN permission to be legal within international law. "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations." (UN Charter, Article 51) The Security Council will determine if the action is legally the "right of individual or collective self-defence", or it may appoint another UN organ to do this."

It is under this article that the US launched the invasion of Afghanistan and thus had every right and every legal right to do so. All the people that try and claim that the invasion was illegal or that the US has committed a crime by invading are dead wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt and the reason is why is right there in black and white. Article 51.

The only way that the invasion could have been considered illegitimate would have been if the UN Security Council deemed it such. Please note that this would have done nothing to prevent the invasion since it would have had to already take place in order for the UNSC to convene on the matter and only would have served to determine of the invasion was in fact legitimate. However this is all irrelevant since on the 20th of December, 2001 the UNSC unanimously approved the Security Council Resolution 1386 giving full approval of the war. Sooooo... Yeah.

Any more questions?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 3:15:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/5/2014 10:41:22 PM, HPWKA wrote:
Don't you know? War is only a crime if you are on the losing side.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 4:55:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/5/2014 10:35:22 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I mean it is waged undeclared isn't it, is that the same cause that the ICC charged all the Axis powers for crime against peace?

Yes Al-Qaeda committed a war crime when they waged war on us without a declaration of war.

As far as an impeachable offense goes, the President can only use military force without a declaration of war, or other authorization from congress, when there is "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." 9/11 being one of those national emergencies.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 5:00:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Also war on terror is more akin to a war on piracy than it is a war waged against a sovereign state.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 11:01:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 11:51:55 AM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 2/5/2014 10:35:22 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I mean it is waged undeclared isn't it,

No because we are not "technically" at war nor are we at war with the nation of Afghanistan so no declaration of official war is necessary.

Is that the same cause that the ICC charged all the Axis powers for crime against peace?

They are no where near the same. In the case of the Axis powers it was because they aggressively and completely unprovoked attacked, conquered and absorbed peaceful sovereign nations as well as the whole Holocaust issue. Where as in the afghan wars case while the US was indeed the invading force we were however provoked prior to the invasion and were acting in the interest of the defense of the our nation. According to the Charter nations are authorized under Article 51 to use defensive military action without UN approval. Here is a full view of article 51.

"An important exception to the foregoing are defensive military actions taken under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Such defensive actions are subject to immediate Security Council review, but do not require UN permission to be legal within international law. "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations." (UN Charter, Article 51) The Security Council will determine if the action is legally the "right of individual or collective self-defence", or it may appoint another UN organ to do this."

It is under this article that the US launched the invasion of Afghanistan and thus had every right and every legal right to do so. All the people that try and claim that the invasion was illegal or that the US has committed a crime by invading are dead wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt and the reason is why is right there in black and white. Article 51.

The only way that the invasion could have been considered illegitimate would have been if the UN Security Council deemed it such. Please note that this would have done nothing to prevent the invasion since it would have had to already take place in order for the UNSC to convene on the matter and only would have served to determine of the invasion was in fact legitimate. However this is all irrelevant since on the 20th of December, 2001 the UNSC unanimously approved the Security Council Resolution 1386 giving full approval of the war. Sooooo... Yeah.

Any more questions?

Hmm.. that's remind me, how about the Austro-Hungary during the world war I? They also waged war on a charge of terrorist attack, yet I don't remember their war being treated as legitimate.

or is it? I am not so sure myself.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 11:09:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 4:55:05 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/5/2014 10:35:22 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I mean it is waged undeclared isn't it, is that the same cause that the ICC charged all the Axis powers for crime against peace?

Yes Al-Qaeda committed a war crime when they waged war on us without a declaration of war.

As far as an impeachable offense goes, the President can only use military force without a declaration of war, or other authorization from congress, when there is "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." 9/11 being one of those national emergencies.

The war is waged on Taliban not Al-Qaeda isn't it. If I remember correctly the Taliban is not exactly cooperative with Bin Laden until they are overthrown.

Anyway, I am not going to go any further on moral high ground or security issue (I would have do it too if I were you) more like is it technically legal because there is no clear connection between the Taliban and 9/11 attack. I remember reading from some sources that they never know about the attack until it was carried out.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 2:39:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 11:01:12 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 2/6/2014 11:51:55 AM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 2/5/2014 10:35:22 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I mean it is waged undeclared isn't it,

No because we are not "technically" at war nor are we at war with the nation of Afghanistan so no declaration of official war is necessary.

Is that the same cause that the ICC charged all the Axis powers for crime against peace?

They are no where near the same. In the case of the Axis powers it was because they aggressively and completely unprovoked attacked, conquered and absorbed peaceful sovereign nations as well as the whole Holocaust issue. Where as in the afghan wars case while the US was indeed the invading force we were however provoked prior to the invasion and were acting in the interest of the defense of the our nation. According to the Charter nations are authorized under Article 51 to use defensive military action without UN approval. Here is a full view of article 51.

"An important exception to the foregoing are defensive military actions taken under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Such defensive actions are subject to immediate Security Council review, but do not require UN permission to be legal within international law. "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations." (UN Charter, Article 51) The Security Council will determine if the action is legally the "right of individual or collective self-defence", or it may appoint another UN organ to do this."

It is under this article that the US launched the invasion of Afghanistan and thus had every right and every legal right to do so. All the people that try and claim that the invasion was illegal or that the US has committed a crime by invading are dead wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt and the reason is why is right there in black and white. Article 51.

The only way that the invasion could have been considered illegitimate would have been if the UN Security Council deemed it such. Please note that this would have done nothing to prevent the invasion since it would have had to already take place in order for the UNSC to convene on the matter and only would have served to determine of the invasion was in fact legitimate. However this is all irrelevant since on the 20th of December, 2001 the UNSC unanimously approved the Security Council Resolution 1386 giving full approval of the war. Sooooo... Yeah.

Any more questions?

Hmm.. that's remind me, how about the Austro-Hungary during the world war I? They also waged war on a charge of terrorist attack, yet I don't remember their war being treated as legitimate.

or is it? I am not so sure myself.

Hmmm...interesting.

On ararmer's assertion, I'm not a legal expert, nor have I looked at this matter specifically in detail. I simply recall a fairly decent debate I read here that the US simply did not wait for UN approval before going to war (http://www.debate.org...).

Then, there's also UN Secretary General Kofi Annan explicitly saying "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal." (http://news.bbc.co.uk...)

Given legitimacy is strictly bound by legality, I would most definitely say that per international law, the war was illegal and thus illegitimate. Of course, does international law actually carry any weight? Only if its constituents enforce the law, and the US is the primary constituent that would do so. In that sense, given the US's prodigious military domination post-WWII, what matters more is whether or not the US was consistent with its own laws. I do believe it largely was, except for the occupation. (video)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 2:40:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/7/2014 2:39:40 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/6/2014 11:01:12 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 2/6/2014 11:51:55 AM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 2/5/2014 10:35:22 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I mean it is waged undeclared isn't it,

No because we are not "technically" at war nor are we at war with the nation of Afghanistan so no declaration of official war is necessary.

Is that the same cause that the ICC charged all the Axis powers for crime against peace?

They are no where near the same. In the case of the Axis powers it was because they aggressively and completely unprovoked attacked, conquered and absorbed peaceful sovereign nations as well as the whole Holocaust issue. Where as in the afghan wars case while the US was indeed the invading force we were however provoked prior to the invasion and were acting in the interest of the defense of the our nation. According to the Charter nations are authorized under Article 51 to use defensive military action without UN approval. Here is a full view of article 51.

"An important exception to the foregoing are defensive military actions taken under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Such defensive actions are subject to immediate Security Council review, but do not require UN permission to be legal within international law. "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations." (UN Charter, Article 51) The Security Council will determine if the action is legally the "right of individual or collective self-defence", or it may appoint another UN organ to do this."

It is under this article that the US launched the invasion of Afghanistan and thus had every right and every legal right to do so. All the people that try and claim that the invasion was illegal or that the US has committed a crime by invading are dead wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt and the reason is why is right there in black and white. Article 51.

The only way that the invasion could have been considered illegitimate would have been if the UN Security Council deemed it such. Please note that this would have done nothing to prevent the invasion since it would have had to already take place in order for the UNSC to convene on the matter and only would have served to determine of the invasion was in fact legitimate. However this is all irrelevant since on the 20th of December, 2001 the UNSC unanimously approved the Security Council Resolution 1386 giving full approval of the war. Sooooo... Yeah.

Any more questions?

Hmm.. that's remind me, how about the Austro-Hungary during the world war I? They also waged war on a charge of terrorist attack, yet I don't remember their war being treated as legitimate.

or is it? I am not so sure myself.

Hmmm...interesting.

On ararmer's assertion, I'm not a legal expert, nor have I looked at this matter specifically in detail. I simply recall a fairly decent debate I read here that the US simply did not wait for UN approval before going to war (http://www.debate.org...).

Then, there's also UN Secretary General Kofi Annan explicitly saying "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal." (http://news.bbc.co.uk...)

Given legitimacy is strictly bound by legality, I would most definitely say that per international law, the war was illegal and thus illegitimate. Of course, does international law actually carry any weight? Only if its constituents enforce the law, and the US is the primary constituent that would do so. In that sense, given the US's prodigious military domination post-WWII, what matters more is whether or not the US was consistent with its own laws. I do believe it largely was, except for the occupation. (video)



rofl, whoops, my bad. I just realized that I'm talking about the wrong war. Carry on...=)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 6:10:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/7/2014 2:40:15 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/7/2014 2:39:40 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/6/2014 11:01:12 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 2/6/2014 11:51:55 AM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 2/5/2014 10:35:22 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I mean it is waged undeclared isn't it,

No because we are not "technically" at war nor are we at war with the nation of Afghanistan so no declaration of official war is necessary.

Is that the same cause that the ICC charged all the Axis powers for crime against peace?

They are no where near the same. In the case of the Axis powers it was because they aggressively and completely unprovoked attacked, conquered and absorbed peaceful sovereign nations as well as the whole Holocaust issue. Where as in the afghan wars case while the US was indeed the invading force we were however provoked prior to the invasion and were acting in the interest of the defense of the our nation. According to the Charter nations are authorized under Article 51 to use defensive military action without UN approval. Here is a full view of article 51.

"An important exception to the foregoing are defensive military actions taken under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Such defensive actions are subject to immediate Security Council review, but do not require UN permission to be legal within international law. "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations." (UN Charter, Article 51) The Security Council will determine if the action is legally the "right of individual or collective self-defence", or it may appoint another UN organ to do this."

It is under this article that the US launched the invasion of Afghanistan and thus had every right and every legal right to do so. All the people that try and claim that the invasion was illegal or that the US has committed a crime by invading are dead wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt and the reason is why is right there in black and white. Article 51.

The only way that the invasion could have been considered illegitimate would have been if the UN Security Council deemed it such. Please note that this would have done nothing to prevent the invasion since it would have had to already take place in order for the UNSC to convene on the matter and only would have served to determine of the invasion was in fact legitimate. However this is all irrelevant since on the 20th of December, 2001 the UNSC unanimously approved the Security Council Resolution 1386 giving full approval of the war. Sooooo... Yeah.

Any more questions?

Hmm.. that's remind me, how about the Austro-Hungary during the world war I? They also waged war on a charge of terrorist attack, yet I don't remember their war being treated as legitimate.

or is it? I am not so sure myself.

Hmmm...interesting.

On ararmer's assertion, I'm not a legal expert, nor have I looked at this matter specifically in detail. I simply recall a fairly decent debate I read here that the US simply did not wait for UN approval before going to war (http://www.debate.org...).

Then, there's also UN Secretary General Kofi Annan explicitly saying "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal." (http://news.bbc.co.uk...)

Given legitimacy is strictly bound by legality, I would most definitely say that per international law, the war was illegal and thus illegitimate. Of course, does international law actually carry any weight? Only if its constituents enforce the law, and the US is the primary constituent that would do so. In that sense, given the US's prodigious military domination post-WWII, what matters more is whether or not the US was consistent with its own laws. I do believe it largely was, except for the occupation. (video)



rofl, whoops, my bad. I just realized that I'm talking about the wrong war. Carry on...=)

Lol I had a feeling you were talking about Iraq there. But just incase there was any misunderstanding as I stated under article 51 if the charter the UN can not prevent a member nation from acting in self defense, which afghan clearly was.

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations." (UN Charter, Article 51)"

Iraq of course was a completely different beast all together and I lean more towards your view of the matter on that subject.
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 6:15:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 11:01:12 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 2/6/2014 11:51:55 AM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 2/5/2014 10:35:22 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I mean it is waged undeclared isn't it,

No because we are not "technically" at war nor are we at war with the nation of Afghanistan so no declaration of official war is necessary.

Is that the same cause that the ICC charged all the Axis powers for crime against peace?

They are no where near the same. In the case of the Axis powers it was because they aggressively and completely unprovoked attacked, conquered and absorbed peaceful sovereign nations as well as the whole Holocaust issue. Where as in the afghan wars case while the US was indeed the invading force we were however provoked prior to the invasion and were acting in the interest of the defense of the our nation. According to the Charter nations are authorized under Article 51 to use defensive military action without UN approval. Here is a full view of article 51.

"An important exception to the foregoing are defensive military actions taken under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Such defensive actions are subject to immediate Security Council review, but do not require UN permission to be legal within international law. "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations." (UN Charter, Article 51) The Security Council will determine if the action is legally the "right of individual or collective self-defence", or it may appoint another UN organ to do this."

It is under this article that the US launched the invasion of Afghanistan and thus had every right and every legal right to do so. All the people that try and claim that the invasion was illegal or that the US has committed a crime by invading are dead wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt and the reason is why is right there in black and white. Article 51.

The only way that the invasion could have been considered illegitimate would have been if the UN Security Council deemed it such. Please note that this would have done nothing to prevent the invasion since it would have had to already take place in order for the UNSC to convene on the matter and only would have served to determine of the invasion was in fact legitimate. However this is all irrelevant since on the 20th of December, 2001 the UNSC unanimously approved the Security Council Resolution 1386 giving full approval of the war. Sooooo... Yeah.

Any more questions?

Hmm.. that's remind me, how about the Austro-Hungary during the world war I? They also waged war on a charge of terrorist attack, yet I don't remember their war being treated as legitimate.

or is it? I am not so sure myself.

So glossing over the fact that you completely ignored everything I said to make some random and irrelevant remark about WW1 I'll take more time out of my life to address this question. Wasn't that the time before there was or ever had been anything close to a UN? Or League of Nations? Or Geneva convention? Or international law? Or what... ?
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 6:17:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 11:09:45 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 2/6/2014 4:55:05 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/5/2014 10:35:22 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I mean it is waged undeclared isn't it, is that the same cause that the ICC charged all the Axis powers for crime against peace?

Yes Al-Qaeda committed a war crime when they waged war on us without a declaration of war.

As far as an impeachable offense goes, the President can only use military force without a declaration of war, or other authorization from congress, when there is "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." 9/11 being one of those national emergencies.

The war is waged on Taliban not Al-Qaeda isn't it. If I remember correctly the Taliban is not exactly cooperative with Bin Laden until they are overthrown.

Anyway, I am not going to go any further on moral high ground or security issue (I would have do it too if I were you) more like is it technically legal because there is no clear connection between the Taliban and 9/11 attack. I remember reading from some sources that they never know about the attack until it was carried out.

This is an extremely common misunderstanding people have with the war and if you would like I would be happy to explain it to you. It's a favorite topic of mine.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 8:02:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 11:09:45 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 2/6/2014 4:55:05 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/5/2014 10:35:22 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I mean it is waged undeclared isn't it, is that the same cause that the ICC charged all the Axis powers for crime against peace?

Yes Al-Qaeda committed a war crime when they waged war on us without a declaration of war.

As far as an impeachable offense goes, the President can only use military force without a declaration of war, or other authorization from congress, when there is "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." 9/11 being one of those national emergencies.

The war is waged on Taliban not Al-Qaeda isn't it. If I remember correctly the Taliban is not exactly cooperative with Bin Laden until they are overthrown.

The war in Afghanistan was both against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The Taliban Emirate supported Al-Qaeda training camps as well as training camps for other terrorist organizations within Afghanistan. After 9-11 the Taliban Emirate went even further to protect Osama Bin laden from both the US and the international community.

Anyway, I am not going to go any further on moral high ground or security issue (I would have do it too if I were you)
Yeah, because what you are suggesting is immoral. To allow any tyrannical state to not only abuse and torture their own citizens, but to protect a mass-murder who killed thousands of Americans is at its very core an immoral proposal.

more like is it technically legal because there is no clear connection between the Taliban and 9/11 attack. I remember reading from some sources that they never know about the attack until it was carried out.

As far as I'm concerned there is no such thing as "international law". Unless a treaty was signed by the President, ratified by congress, and is allowed by our constitution, the US cannot be legally held to an "international standard"; if all 3 criteria were met, the international standard was simply adopted on a national level.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 12:43:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/7/2014 6:17:17 AM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 2/6/2014 11:09:45 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 2/6/2014 4:55:05 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/5/2014 10:35:22 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I mean it is waged undeclared isn't it, is that the same cause that the ICC charged all the Axis powers for crime against peace?

Yes Al-Qaeda committed a war crime when they waged war on us without a declaration of war.

As far as an impeachable offense goes, the President can only use military force without a declaration of war, or other authorization from congress, when there is "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." 9/11 being one of those national emergencies.

The war is waged on Taliban not Al-Qaeda isn't it. If I remember correctly the Taliban is not exactly cooperative with Bin Laden until they are overthrown.

Anyway, I am not going to go any further on moral high ground or security issue (I would have do it too if I were you) more like is it technically legal because there is no clear connection between the Taliban and 9/11 attack. I remember reading from some sources that they never know about the attack until it was carried out.

This is an extremely common misunderstanding people have with the war and if you would like I would be happy to explain it to you. It's a favorite topic of mine.

sure, go on, I don't know so I ask anyway :D
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 12:48:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/7/2014 8:02:53 AM, DanT wrote:
At 2/6/2014 11:09:45 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 2/6/2014 4:55:05 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/5/2014 10:35:22 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I mean it is waged undeclared isn't it, is that the same cause that the ICC charged all the Axis powers for crime against peace?

Yes Al-Qaeda committed a war crime when they waged war on us without a declaration of war.

As far as an impeachable offense goes, the President can only use military force without a declaration of war, or other authorization from congress, when there is "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." 9/11 being one of those national emergencies.

The war is waged on Taliban not Al-Qaeda isn't it. If I remember correctly the Taliban is not exactly cooperative with Bin Laden until they are overthrown.


That is after the war has been carried out isn't it? Initially the Taliban did agree to disband Mr. Bin's training camp and the man himself went underground, otherwise my sources may be wrong, if you have any more detail I am all ears.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 1:09:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/7/2014 12:48:34 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 2/7/2014 8:02:53 AM, DanT wrote:
At 2/6/2014 11:09:45 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 2/6/2014 4:55:05 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/5/2014 10:35:22 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I mean it is waged undeclared isn't it, is that the same cause that the ICC charged all the Axis powers for crime against peace?

Yes Al-Qaeda committed a war crime when they waged war on us without a declaration of war.

As far as an impeachable offense goes, the President can only use military force without a declaration of war, or other authorization from congress, when there is "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." 9/11 being one of those national emergencies.

The war is waged on Taliban not Al-Qaeda isn't it. If I remember correctly the Taliban is not exactly cooperative with Bin Laden until they are overthrown.


That is after the war has been carried out isn't it? Initially the Taliban did agree to disband Mr. Bin's training camp and the man himself went underground, otherwise my sources may be wrong, if you have any more detail I am all ears.

Your source is dead wrong. Bin Laden arrived in Afghanistan in 1994, and The Taliban and Al-Qaeda became strong allies shortly after. Al-Qaeda helped the Taliban fight the Northern Alliance, and the Taliban helped fund Al-Qaeda training camps. Both in 1998 and after 9-11 the US and UN requested that the Taliban turn over Osama Bin Laden, and both times they refused. They are just as responsible for 9-11 as Al-Qaeda, because their drug money helped fund the Al-Qaeda Jihadists' training, and after 9-11 they gave refuge to Osama.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 1:30:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/7/2014 12:43:40 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 2/7/2014 6:17:17 AM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 2/6/2014 11:09:45 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 2/6/2014 4:55:05 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/5/2014 10:35:22 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I mean it is waged undeclared isn't it, is that the same cause that the ICC charged all the Axis powers for crime against peace?

Yes Al-Qaeda committed a war crime when they waged war on us without a declaration of war.

As far as an impeachable offense goes, the President can only use military force without a declaration of war, or other authorization from congress, when there is "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." 9/11 being one of those national emergencies.

The war is waged on Taliban not Al-Qaeda isn't it. If I remember correctly the Taliban is not exactly cooperative with Bin Laden until they are overthrown.

Anyway, I am not going to go any further on moral high ground or security issue (I would have do it too if I were you) more like is it technically legal because there is no clear connection between the Taliban and 9/11 attack. I remember reading from some sources that they never know about the attack until it was carried out.

This is an extremely common misunderstanding people have with the war and if you would like I would be happy to explain it to you. It's a favorite topic of mine.

sure, go on, I don't know so I ask anyway :D

DanT beat me to it :( Frankly our war with the Taliban was a war of association. The Taliban were AQs primary ally and supporter and Afghanistan was the main hub of AQ operations, training and recruiting. As DanT said earlier the primary reason we began fighting the Taliban was because they refused to hand over Bin Laden after 9/11 and they defended AQ. The truth is that had they accepted our requests we could have waged this war without the conflict between the US and the Taliban ever accruing, much like how we fight AQ in Pakistan along side their government, for the most part. We were attacked. We wanted justice and revenge, those responsible were in Afghanistan. Those who were in charge of Afghanistan refused to hand over those responsible. And so we attacked them as well. That about sum it up?

And yes your source was absolutely wrong.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 3:58:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
DanT beat me to it :( Frankly our war with the Taliban was a war of association. The Taliban were AQs primary ally and supporter and Afghanistan was the main hub of AQ operations, training and recruiting. As DanT said earlier the primary reason we began fighting the Taliban was because they refused to hand over Bin Laden after 9/11 and they defended AQ. The truth is that had they accepted our requests we could have waged this war without the conflict between the US and the Taliban ever accruing, much like how we fight AQ in Pakistan along side their government, for the most part. We were attacked. We wanted justice and revenge, those responsible were in Afghanistan. Those who were in charge of Afghanistan refused to hand over those responsible. And so we attacked them as well. That about sum it up?

War of association is another way of saying, we have no good reason to invade this country, so let's make up some nifty sounding pretext. We were attacked by what was essentially a gang, and responded by invading, destroying, and occupying two countries.

Both the Taliban and affiliated Afghan officials agreed to hand Bin-Ladin and associates to the US, if the US provided their government/group with evidence that the accused were guilty of the crime. (Remember, post 9/11, the US was one of the only, if not only, country in the world who believed these radical Jihadist groups were behind the attack-via polls). The US refused, so the Afghan's/Taliban refused, and the US attacked.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 6:11:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/7/2014 3:58:51 PM, HPWKA wrote:
DanT beat me to it :( Frankly our war with the Taliban was a war of association. The Taliban were AQs primary ally and supporter and Afghanistan was the main hub of AQ operations, training and recruiting. As DanT said earlier the primary reason we began fighting the Taliban was because they refused to hand over Bin Laden after 9/11 and they defended AQ. The truth is that had they accepted our requests we could have waged this war without the conflict between the US and the Taliban ever accruing, much like how we fight AQ in Pakistan along side their government, for the most part. We were attacked. We wanted justice and revenge, those responsible were in Afghanistan. Those who were in charge of Afghanistan refused to hand over those responsible. And so we attacked them as well. That about sum it up?


War of association is another way of saying, we have no good reason to invade this country, so let's make up some nifty sounding pretext. We were attacked by what was essentially a gang, and responded by invading, destroying, and occupying two countries.

Both the Taliban and affiliated Afghan officials agreed to hand Bin-Ladin and associates to the US, if the US provided their government/group with evidence that the accused were guilty of the crime. (Remember, post 9/11, the US was one of the only, if not only, country in the world who believed these radical Jihadist groups were behind the attack-via polls). The US refused, so the Afghan's/Taliban refused, and the US attacked.

At first I had a strong objection to your post, but after looking into this a bit, I find it difficult to disagree. I however would appreciate it if you have evidence of the underlined. For an American like myself, it's much harder to reach your underlined conclusion, because the news here was inundated with bin Laden and Al Qaeda almost immediately following 9/11.

I would also add that legality is built upon the foundation of warfare, and not the other way around. There are those that would disagree, and then there's the cold, hard reality - that wars will occur regardless of legality, and laws alone are powerless to stop them.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 8:04:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/7/2014 1:09:38 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/7/2014 12:48:34 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 2/7/2014 8:02:53 AM, DanT wrote:
At 2/6/2014 11:09:45 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 2/6/2014 4:55:05 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/5/2014 10:35:22 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I mean it is waged undeclared isn't it, is that the same cause that the ICC charged all the Axis powers for crime against peace?

Yes Al-Qaeda committed a war crime when they waged war on us without a declaration of war.

As far as an impeachable offense goes, the President can only use military force without a declaration of war, or other authorization from congress, when there is "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." 9/11 being one of those national emergencies.

The war is waged on Taliban not Al-Qaeda isn't it. If I remember correctly the Taliban is not exactly cooperative with Bin Laden until they are overthrown.


That is after the war has been carried out isn't it? Initially the Taliban did agree to disband Mr. Bin's training camp and the man himself went underground, otherwise my sources may be wrong, if you have any more detail I am all ears.

Your source is dead wrong. Bin Laden arrived in Afghanistan in 1994, and The Taliban and Al-Qaeda became strong allies shortly after. Al-Qaeda helped the Taliban fight the Northern Alliance, and the Taliban helped fund Al-Qaeda training camps. Both in 1998 and after 9-11 the US and UN requested that the Taliban turn over Osama Bin Laden, and both times they refused. They are just as responsible for 9-11 as Al-Qaeda, because their drug money helped fund the Al-Qaeda Jihadists' training, and after 9-11 they gave refuge to Osama.

DanT beat me to it :( Frankly our war with the Taliban was a war of association. The Taliban were AQs primary ally and supporter and Afghanistan was the main hub of AQ operations, training and recruiting. As DanT said earlier the primary reason we began fighting the Taliban was because they refused to hand over Bin Laden after 9/11 and they defended AQ. The truth is that had they accepted our requests we could have waged this war without the conflict between the US and the Taliban ever accruing, much like how we fight AQ in Pakistan along side their government, for the most part. We were attacked. We wanted justice and revenge, those responsible were in Afghanistan. Those who were in charge of Afghanistan refused to hand over those responsible. And so we attacked them as well. That about sum it up?

War of association is another way of saying, we have no good reason to invade this country, so let's make up some nifty sounding pretext. We were attacked by what was essentially a gang, and responded by invading, destroying, and occupying two countries.

Both the Taliban and affiliated Afghan officials agreed to hand Bin-Ladin and associates to the US, if the US provided their government/group with evidence that the accused were guilty of the crime. (Remember, post 9/11, the US was one of the only, if not only, country in the world who believed these radical Jihadist groups were behind the attack-via polls). The US refused, so the Afghan's/Taliban refused, and the US attacked.

And this is what I've heard. I don't have English language source for the moment (and it is a book on top of that) so I can't really show you. It practically the same as what this guy said.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 8:05:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 6:11:21 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/7/2014 3:58:51 PM, HPWKA wrote:
DanT beat me to it :( Frankly our war with the Taliban was a war of association. The Taliban were AQs primary ally and supporter and Afghanistan was the main hub of AQ operations, training and recruiting. As DanT said earlier the primary reason we began fighting the Taliban was because they refused to hand over Bin Laden after 9/11 and they defended AQ. The truth is that had they accepted our requests we could have waged this war without the conflict between the US and the Taliban ever accruing, much like how we fight AQ in Pakistan along side their government, for the most part. We were attacked. We wanted justice and revenge, those responsible were in Afghanistan. Those who were in charge of Afghanistan refused to hand over those responsible. And so we attacked them as well. That about sum it up?


War of association is another way of saying, we have no good reason to invade this country, so let's make up some nifty sounding pretext. We were attacked by what was essentially a gang, and responded by invading, destroying, and occupying two countries.

Both the Taliban and affiliated Afghan officials agreed to hand Bin-Ladin and associates to the US, if the US provided their government/group with evidence that the accused were guilty of the crime. (Remember, post 9/11, the US was one of the only, if not only, country in the world who believed these radical Jihadist groups were behind the attack-via polls). The US refused, so the Afghan's/Taliban refused, and the US attacked.

At first I had a strong objection to your post, but after looking into this a bit, I find it difficult to disagree. I however would appreciate it if you have evidence of the underlined. For an American like myself, it's much harder to reach your underlined conclusion, because the news here was inundated with bin Laden and Al Qaeda almost immediately following 9/11.

I would also add that legality is built upon the foundation of warfare, and not the other way around. There are those that would disagree, and then there's the cold, hard reality - that wars will occur regardless of legality, and laws alone are powerless to stop them.

The book I read also indicated this so it probably true to some level.