America: License to Kill

**Quirinus** · 02-28-2008, 13:05

Haha, not entirely crap.... I thought the first two parts of the article was pretty valid. It only fell apart in the third part.

**Husar** · 02-28-2008, 13:24

It's entirely completely true, just look at our American orgahs, they're all smelling evil barbarians and if Tosa wasn't a dutch admin, we europeans would have to be cavity-searched before posting and be tortured instead of getting warning points etc.

Yes, the article had a point about Castro but I too see politics in a comicky way often because if you always see reality is as it is then you could be tempted to send yourself to heaven before the americans can even attempt it. But then life, when you ignore politics, can be quite nice.

**InsaneApache** · 02-28-2008, 15:52

I'm going to tell my mom about this.

**CountArach** · 02-28-2008, 22:34

Originally Posted by Quirinus

Haha, not entirely crap.... I thought the first two parts of the article was pretty valid. It only fell apart in the third part.

Yeah I won't deny that the ending was entirely BS.

I think the main point of the article is the inherent hypocriscy in USA foriegn policy, USA ignores (or eloquently avoids) international law when it stops them from doing something,but if they want to get something done then they are only to happy to use international law to beat the enemy over the head with.

Spot on.

**KukriKhan** · 02-29-2008, 06:00

Originally Posted by CountArach

Yeah I won't deny that the ending was entirely BS.

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

I think the main point of the article is the inherent hypocriscy in USA foriegn policy, USA ignores (or eloquently avoids) international law when it stops them from doing something,but if they want to get something done then they are only to happy to use international law to beat the enemy over the head with.

Spot on.

Let me ask ya'll this*:

If "America: License to Kill" is a fact,

and hey, count me as the first Yank in line to say Li'lG's observation looks accurate to me too

who gives that 'license'? And who, then, can revoke that license, and why hasn't it been done?

The US is one of more than 193 nations on earth. 300 Million out of 7 Billion people.

I repeat Mister Ellis' question:

Why do we believe it?

What hobbles the rest of the world, or even just the western world... what prevents that world from stopping such a horrible evil's continuing to have its way?

Complacency? Fear of retribution?

I mean even the radical Islamic 'community' has found the wherewithall to mount a formidable opposition to america's alleged hegemony/disregard for cultural and (Islamic) legal sensitivities.

Anything else seems to this observer to fall flat as annoying but ineffectual sniping from the flanks. Self-important screeds of an impotently frustrated wanna-be powerbroker.

*I had a few beers before posting this, so apologize for any offense given. None was intended.

**ajaxfetish** · 02-29-2008, 09:58

The part I find interesting in the slavery section is where he says "300 years of unpaid labour that helped it to its present enormous wealth." If my history classes were of any value, slavery did very little to move America towards its present enormous wealth, but was an outdated system superseded by the industrial power more prevalent in the north. If anything, slavery was holding the south back economically.

But the more important issue I have is this: why is it illegal by international law to assassinate a national leader if one feels what they are doing is unjust, yet it is legal to go to war with their nation and kill thousands of their citizens, including civilians and conscripted soldiers, in order to bring down that individual's unjust regime? Wouldn't it make more sense to directly attack those responsible for atrocities and the like than to indirectly attack them by killing innocents they control? If they're really such a bad guy, how much do you think they care about the average Joe soldier who is dying for them, especially if they have an escape plan for just before it all comes crashing down?

Ajax

**CountArach** · 02-29-2008, 11:03

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

But the more important issue I have is this: why is it illegal by international law to assassinate a national leader if one feels what they are doing is unjust, yet it is legal to go to war with their nation and kill thousands of their citizens, including civilians and conscripted soldiers, in order to bring down that individual's unjust regime? Wouldn't it make more sense to directly attack those responsible for atrocities and the like than to indirectly attack them by killing innocents they control? If they're really such a bad guy, how much do you think they care about the average Joe soldier who is dying for them, especially if they have an escape plan for just before it all comes crashing down?

Ajax

Actually neither of those situations are legal. The second one is considered by the UN to be an unwarranted breach of a Nation's Sovereignty.

**ajaxfetish** · 02-29-2008, 11:10

Originally Posted by CountArach

Actually neither of those situations are legal. The second one is considered by the UN to be an unwarranted breach of a Nation's Sovereignty.

I apologize for making the statement so generally. I assume there are situations where the UN would recognize invasion of another nation as justified. Is this incorrect? If so, and the reasons were caused by the actions of the nation's leader, is it more just to target that leader or their citizens?

Ajax

**HoreTore** · 02-29-2008, 11:11

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

But the more important issue I have is this: why is it illegal by international law to assassinate a national leader if one feels what they are doing is unjust, yet it is legal to go to war with their nation and kill thousands of their citizens, including civilians and conscripted soldiers, in order to bring down that individual's unjust regime?

Because that's not legal either, perhaps?

EDIT: saw your last post; basically, there is no legal way to invade someone. The only wars permitted are defensive wars.

**ajaxfetish** · 02-29-2008, 11:30

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Because that's not legal either, perhaps?

EDIT: saw your last post; basically, there is no legal way to invade someone. The only wars permitted are defensive wars.

Well, that's interesting. What, I wonder, justifies placing national sovereignty as the highest international virtue? Does that mean that, for a situation like Darfur, economic sanctions are the biggest stick the international community can legally wave? Now I'm having trouble respecting the international law this whole thing's about in the first place.

Ajax

**Fragony** · 02-29-2008, 11:32

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Because that's not legal either, perhaps?

EDIT: saw your last post; basically, there is no legal way to invade someone. The only wars permitted are defensive wars.

That would mean allowing aggresive ones.

**Tribesman** · 02-29-2008, 13:08

Does that mean that, for a situation like Darfur, economic sanctions are the biggest stick the international community can legally wave?

Well that situation doesn't really fit , Khartoum can reasonably claim that it is an internal domestic matter so international legality isn't appropriate or alternatively it can claim that it is the victim of a war of agression by Uganda Ethiopia and Chad and international legality should be on its side .