Bergdahl Charged With Desertion

[Rich]

I saw the movie Stripes several times, and I have no doubt there were several recreational vehicles in Iraq at the time of the invasion, so it was definitely Party Time, Camel-Jockey Style!!

According to www.therewerenorecreationalve hiclesiniraqatthetimeoftheinv asion.com, you have your facts wrong.

[Sunstroke]

According to www.therewerenorecreationalve hiclesiniraqatthetimeoftheinv asion.com, you have your facts wrong.

I avoid those untrustworthy right-wing RV websites...

[bsmooth]

http://www.nlgmass.org/2011/02/war-on-afghanistan-is-illegal Ok there's more, just because the New York Times tells you it's legal doesn't mean so either, you asked where the argument for it being illegal was and I gave you several.

And Dolphster, Iraq is Illegal and deliberate lies not "faulty intel". I'm sure you tell yourself that to help you sleep at night since you were there, but it was nothing but bull shit.

Since you are incapable of thinking for yourself, let me show how wrong your source is.
First of all the author is wrong about Article 2 and 51. Article 51 allows for individual or collective self-defense. There is no wording about their having to be an immediate attack, but there is wording about already suffering an attack.

"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, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."

As you can see, your source is wrong. The U.S. was attacked, and the Security Council had undertaken any steps to deal with it. This was the third successful attack against the U.S. and its territories in three years. This meant there was a high probability of another attack. Since Article 51 nullifies Article 2, there is no violation of Article 2.

The author does not list what violations of the Geneva Conventions took place. The I.C.C. and Rome Statute do not apply to the U.S. as they have not been ratified by our Congress( a necessary component of a state being held accountable to international treaties, is that they have to be legally binding and ratified by the state in question).

So it is now blatantly obvious that you have a child's grasp of both international law and geopolitics, and blindly follow the poorly reasoned and argued logic of some random "guild" of lawyers. I can assure you that there are highly qualified and knowledgeable lawyers and judges who would agree with your "sources" legal understanding of the U.N. Charter and how Article 51 applies to Afghanistan... and they are not GOP hacks.

The U.S. would not meet the legal standards required for genocide, ethnic cleansing, or other offenses listed under War Crimes in Afghanistan. Due to the ability to argue self-defense under Article 51, the U.S. would not meet the criteria of aggression.

On a side note, have you been to either Iraq or Afghanistan? Have you talked to people living there?

[DenverFinFan]

Whatever dudes. You experts on geopolitics and international law have done a bang up job. I mean the way you spread radicalism throughout the middle east. Good job in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and Syria, fantastic work.

[Rich]

Whatever dudes. You experts on geopolitics and international law have done a bang up job. I mean the way you spread radicalism throughout the middle east. Good job in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and Syria, fantastic work.

Yep, radical Islam did not exist until we stuck our noses in the Middle East. Brilliant!

[Cathal]

Yep, radical Islam did not exist until we stuck our noses in the Middle East. Brilliant!

Not to be nit-picky, but he said "spread" not "create". 

[Rich]

Not to be nit-picky, but he said "spread" not "create". 

Yep, but also, not to be nitpicky either, but Iran is really the one that started the spread of radical Islam in the Middle East back in the 70s when the ayatollahs took over. That spurred the Sunnis to respond to a Shiite theocracy.

I know there isn't a huge difference between Iran and the US, but it is important to make that slight, nuanced distinction.

[DenverFinFan]

Yep, but also, not to be nitpicky either, but Iran is really the one that started the spread of radical Islam in the Middle East back in the 70s when the ayatollahs took over. That spurred the Sunnis to respond to a Shiite theocracy.

I know there isn't a huge difference between Iran and the US, but it is important to make that slight, nuanced distinction.

And the Ayatollahs came to power why? As a response to the US overthrowing Mossadeq in 50's and installing the Shah.

Al-Qaeda comes from Saudi sunni theology that the US props up, no Al-Qaeda in Iraq until the US showed up, it was contained in Libya until we assassinated Qadaffi.

I'm sure you're terrified of Iran as well, and that "bomb" the Israelis claim they've been building since 92 haha.

[Rich]

And the Ayatollahs came to power why? As a response to the US overthrowing Mossadeq in 50's and installing the Shah.

Al-Qaeda comes from Saudi sunni theology that the US props up, no Al-Qaeda in Iraq until the US showed up, it was contained in Libya until we assassinated Qadaffi.

I'm sure you're terrified of Iran as well, and that "bomb" the Israelis claim they've been building since 92 haha.

You're right. Actually, when the United States started the Crusades, that's when this shit really got started.

[bsmooth]

And the Ayatollahs came to power why? As a response to the US overthrowing Mossadeq in 50's and installing the Shah.

Al-Qaeda comes from Saudi sunni theology that the US props up, no Al-Qaeda in Iraq until the US showed up, it was contained in Libya until we assassinated Qadaffi.

I'm sure you're terrified of Iran as well, and that "bomb" the Israelis claim they've been building since 92 haha.

Nope. Iran is engaged in a proxy war with Saudi Arabia over who will control the region. They are seeking the bobb to prevent the U.S. from invading, or Israel from launching attacks against them. This is because no country that possesses nuclear weapons has been invaded. It is the ultimate trump card. Even Pakistan, which has fucked us over and betrayed us does not fear us invading, because they have nuclear weapons. I do not fear Iran giving the bomb to Hamas or other terror groups.
Zawahari did split off and form his own Al Qaeda group in Iraq. They were so violent, that they were rejected by everyone, and quickly eliminated. Al Qaeda has not had a real presence since then.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

The war in Afghanistan was more than justified.  Arguing against it you might as well make the case for why the US was not justified in entering wwii after pearl

iraq on the other hand was a war of agression by bush

[Rich]

iraq on the other hand was a war of agression by bush

Not so fast... all intelligence indicated that Iraq still had WMDs in their possession. Iraq had violated UN requirements by kicking out inspectors. Iraq had also violated no fly zones and other conditions that were fallout from their invasion of Kuwait and attacks on Israel and Saudi Arabia in the 90s. Both sides of the aisle strongly supported the invasion. You can pull up quotes from every notable politician, from John Kerry to Hillary Clinton on and on and on saying Iraq's WMD program was a threat and needed to be dealt with. The threat of Iraq's WMD program was not a fabrication of the Bush Administration. It was something that was discussed before he even became president.

And as it turns out, American and Iraqi troops did find thousands of chemical weapons in Iraq, mostly containing mustard gas and sarin, from 2004 to 2011. These discoveries were kept secret by the Army, primarily because the encounters, especially more recent ones, were deemed worrisome given the activities of Al Qaeda in Iraq early on and then the Islamic State. This information was published in the New York Times, just in case anyone wants to refer to it as a right wing media fabrication.

To be fair, the program that was described leading up to the Iraq War and the program we've discovered since are not the same, but the fact remains that Saddam Hussein's government was still in possession of stockpiles of WMDs.

[bsmooth]

To be fair, the program that was described leading up to the Iraq War and the program we've discovered since are not the same, but the fact remains that Saddam Hussein's government was still in possession of stockpiles of WMDs.

That is the major issue now. We were sold that they had a modern and active WMD program. We knew they had WMD's from the past...but there is little to no evidence of the active program that the public was sold on.