The world is a far more dangerous place

Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by EarthSky, Feb 2, 2019.

  1. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    31,774
    Likes Received:
    9,384
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It cones down to this: You don't like Trump, so you don't like his decisions, even when you admit it may have been the right decision.
    But it negates your claim that Trump broke the treaty, which he did not.
     
  2. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    31,774
    Likes Received:
    9,384
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pick a US invasion.
    Soundly argue that it was "illegal".
     
  3. Fred C Dobbs

    Fred C Dobbs Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    16,861
    Likes Received:
    7,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks for the post.

    The reason the pullout from the treaty is that Russia was ignoring it anyway and pulling out now allows the US to act in their own interests.

    This news report, seemingly ignored by the MSM, explains what's happening. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/...ican-commandos-russian-mercenaries-syria.html

    Here's a list of Trump's response to Russia. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/orde...rd-the-u-s-administrations-actions-on-russia/
     
  4. Fred C Dobbs

    Fred C Dobbs Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    16,861
    Likes Received:
    7,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In fact Trump made the situation in Syria better than ever.

    2013 52,290 killed
    2012: 49,294 killed[29]
    2013: 73,447 killed[29]
    2014 25,160 killed 32,726 killed 17,790 killed 76,021 killed[30]
    2015 17,686 killed 24,010 killed 13,249 killed 55,219 killed[31]
    2016 14,192 killed 21,467 killed 13,617 killed 49,742 killed[32]
    2017 8,813 killed 13,955 killed 10,507 killed 33,425 killed[33]
    2018 4,549 killed 8,599 killed 6,482 killed 19,799 killed[34]
    2019 96 killed 594 killed 188 killed 891 killed[35]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War

    Seems a lot of Syrians owe their lives to Donald Trump.
     
    Merwen likes this.
  5. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    37,533
    Likes Received:
    7,735
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes I don't like trump, just like I don't like anyone who lacks character and ethics. He can make right decisions (a broken clock is right twice a day) but that doesn't detract from the fact he is unfit for the office and an incompetent leader.

    I granted you the point from a semantic perspective, but the result is exactly the same, ain't it?
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  6. cerberus

    cerberus Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    25,553
    Likes Received:
    5,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I picked one - it was Syria. There was also Iraq, and arguably Vietnam.
     
  7. cerberus

    cerberus Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    25,553
    Likes Received:
    5,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm cynical enough to take numbers like that with a great big pinch of salt, because when it's impossible to identify combatants from civilians, true casualty figures can only be guessed at. The fact is though, Trump authorised illegal entry into a sovereign country without a request to do so.
     
  8. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    31,774
    Likes Received:
    9,384
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Uh huh.
    Now, soundly argue that these "invasions" were "illegal".
     
  9. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    31,774
    Likes Received:
    9,384
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, it's not. The Russians broke the treaty; we withdrew. The difference is hardly semantic.
     
  10. cerberus

    cerberus Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    25,553
    Likes Received:
    5,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    in·va·sion
    (ĭn-vā′zhən)
    n.
    1. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.

    That deals with the invasion bit - the illegal bit was because the act was unwanted and unasked for, not only by the elected leader of a sovereign country, namely president Assad, but by the populace as well?

    https://www.thefreedictionary.com/invasion
     
  11. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    31,774
    Likes Received:
    9,384
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We "invaded" Syria to "conquer" it?
    That's laughable - was the invasion of Germany, 1944-45 "illegal"?
    What "law" did the US violate in their "invasion" of Syria?
     
  12. cerberus

    cerberus Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    25,553
    Likes Received:
    5,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Check back on my definition above, then tell me if a) Assad requested the west's support against global jihadists, and b) did the UN or did it not authorise entry into Syria?
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2019
  13. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    31,774
    Likes Received:
    9,384
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You avoided the question:
    Was the invasion of Germany, 1944-45 "illegal"?
    Did the UNSC declare the US involvement in Syria an illegal invasion?
     
  14. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    16,858
    Likes Received:
    5,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't see russia as some great threat. Not like they are an economic powerhouse. And I don't see them conquering other nations. But that view has nothing to do with Trump land.

    I also figure NATO trying to surround the is making them nervous.

    We seem to think that russia is interested in conquering her neighbors. And is some great threat to the West. I find it absurd.
     
  15. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    37,533
    Likes Received:
    7,735
    Trophy Points:
    113
    so you don't see an organized strategy of Putin trying to reclaim the Russian Empire? Perhaps you aren't looking in the right places.

    NATO has made Russia nervous since its inception, nothing new there. why would Putin NOW think that NATO is a bigger threat than it was before?
     
  16. cerberus

    cerberus Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    25,553
    Likes Received:
    5,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've never said it was. [​IMG]

    Well, so far as I know it sure didn't approve of, and sanction it?
     
  17. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    31,774
    Likes Received:
    9,384
    Trophy Points:
    113
    According to your definition, it certainly was.
    If the UNSC did not declare the 'invasion' illegal - that is, in violation of the UN charter - then the UN does not consider the 'invasion' illegal.
    -You- might, but your opinion means nothing.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2019
  18. cerberus

    cerberus Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    25,553
    Likes Received:
    5,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Way to squirm out of a lost argument!
     
  19. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    31,774
    Likes Received:
    9,384
    Trophy Points:
    113
    -You're- the one arguing "illegal".

    How are these invasions supposedly illegal?
    -They violate the UN charter
    Who determines if an action is "illegal" in relation to the UN charter?
    -The UNSC
    Has the UNSC declared -any- of the invasions you cited as "illegal"?
    -No.
    Your argument has no merit.

    I'm sorry you don't like the truth.
     
  20. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,780
    Likes Received:
    2,383
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Might you soundly and persuasively argue that they were legal? Is there some international law that allows military aggression?
     
  21. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    31,774
    Likes Received:
    9,384
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No need - the claim was they were illegal.
    I proved this claim unsound.
    Yes.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2019
  22. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,780
    Likes Received:
    2,383
    Trophy Points:
    113
  23. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    31,774
    Likes Received:
    9,384
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Simple logic
    You state premise X.
    In disproving said premise I need not in any way show the negative of premise is true.
    That is, if someone claims all cars are blue, I need not show that all care are not blue to disprove the claim.
    - The UN charter.
    - Any cease-fire agreement between two states
    - Any treaty between two states where the rights under said treaty may, de jure or de facto be defended with force.
    - Any occasion where international law, derived from treaty or custom, where the rights of a state may be defended with force.

    See, international law neither begins nor ends with the UN nor some international court.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2019
  24. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,780
    Likes Received:
    2,383
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What part of the UN charter authorizes military aggression?
     
  25. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    31,774
    Likes Received:
    9,384
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Glad to see you agree I need not argue the 'invasions' he mentioned were legal.
    Learning experience, eh?

    Article 51.
    Nothing in the UN charter impairs a nation's right to act in its own self-defense.
     

Share This Page