Pakistani troops involved in skirmish with US troops

[seireikhaan]

makaikhaan, crossing the border (uninvited) with more than 10 men in uniform is called an "invasion". Are you seriosly arguing US legitimacy to invade any country they want to?

To put a stop to a group of international (war)criminals? Yes.

[Kadagar_AV]

To put a stop to a group of international (war)criminals? Yes.

So... by your logic, it is ok if some country invaded US and arrested some of your warcriminals?

Or, heck, why cant some country break your boarders just in the search of warcriminals?

...

[ICantSpellDawg]

So... by your logic, it is ok if some country invaded US and arrested some of your warcriminals?

Or, heck, why cant some country break your boarders just in the search of warcriminals?

...

They are free to try.


If a nation can't contain and control terrorism and insurgency within its borders and it is affecting the security of a neighboring country - they can expect help, whether they'd like it or not.

Let's use a hypothetical Russian-Georgian conflict as an example. If North Ossetia was in rebellion from Russia and the Russians secured North Ossetia - but South Ossetia was part of Georgia and Georgia couldn't keep South Ossetians from doing cross border raids and then returning to safety... I would have supported a Russian incursion into South Ossetia to do the job that Georgia was responsible for, but unable to accomplish.

ESPECIALLY if Russia had been giving freebies and military aid to Georgia for a decade for the expressed purpose of securing their borders.

[Kadagar_AV]

They are free to try.

So... your point is that power = right?

Did I get you right?

*again, this is a great thread to show americans who dont understand why people over the world has a problem with them*

EDIT: Oh, you added more... In that case, what is the difference between a "freedom fighter" and a terrorist?
Afghanistan has been invaded, doesnt that mean the people opposing are freedom fighters, rather than terrorists?

[ICantSpellDawg]

EDIT: Oh, you added more... In that case, what is the difference between a "freedom fighter" and a terrorist?
Afghanistan has been invaded, doesnt that mean the people opposing are freedom fighters, rather than terrorists?

I am reminded of an excellent quote by non other than the vile oppressor and former hydra head Abraham Lincoln :

"The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty."

[Kadagar_AV]

makaikhaan, US war criminals dont face international courts... why should others?
*I think all should, I am just interested in your reasoning why america should be an exception*

TuffStuffMcGruff, great quote, now if it only made sence in the current situation too...

[ICantSpellDawg]

makaikhaan, US war criminals dont face international courts... why should others?
*I think all should, I am just interested in your reasoning why america should be an exception*

TuffStuffMcGruff, great quote, now if it only made sence in the current situation too...

I used it in regards to whether or not the taliban and their supporters are terrorists or freedom fighters. I maintain that they are the wolves, seeking only the "freedom" to ravage the sheep.

[Redleg]

makaikhaan, US war criminals dont face international courts... why should others?

I dont expect others to face an international court either, the court of the nation that captures them is acceptable, or as with Saddam a trail by their own people.

*I think all should, I am just interested in your reasoning why america should be an exception*

International law is nothing other then international treaties - they are not enforcable by a soverign government hence they ebb and flow according to how nations desire to deal with each other. The United States has always mainten its national soveriegnity over its soldiers. However ask yourself why there are United States Soldiers serving time in a South Korean prison is you believe we don't allow other nations to prosecute American soldiers. Same can be said of Germany and a few other nations.

TuffStuffMcGruff, great quote, now if it only made sence in the current situation too...

As some who claims to understand the situation in Afganstan - your sadly misinformed about several things. For instance your claim is that a greater burdern is carried by other nations, or as you state "You see, USA long ago gave up on that war, and left other countries to do their dirty job of cleaning up."

Unfortunately for your comment the facts dont really hold up - the United States still has the largest committed force in Afganstan. Yes the United States has asked for help from its allies and many have agreed to assist in the effort, but your claim is in complete error.

[seireikhaan]

So... by your logic, it is ok if some country invaded US and arrested some of your warcriminals?

Or, heck, why cant some country break your boarders just in the search of warcriminals?

...

That'd be quite okay, as long as they didn't wreck the place up while they were here, and left once they got their man.

[Kadagar_AV]

That'd be quite okay, as long as they didn't wreck the place up while they were here, and left once they got their man.

What? We are not allowed to do any "collateral damage"?

Say Russian special forces blew up a house containing a warcriminal, like someone who had fought in Vietnam, and the neighbouring houses blew up too (as is often the case with US bombings, as you might know). Would that be ok?

[seireikhaan]

What? We are not allowed to do any "collateral damage"?

Say Russian special forces blew up a house containing a warcriminal, like someone who had fought in Vietnam, and the neighbouring houses blew up too (as is often the case with US bombings, as you might know). Would that be ok?

First off: if the Russians payed for the damages in the form of an international 'civil' case, then yes.

Second: Contrary to popular belief, we don't just bomb everything; rather to the contrary as of recently, as we have discovered that the only possible way to deal with terrorists in hiding is through boots on the ground, particularly in desolate, mountainous regions such as Waziristan. So the whole argument for this case is rather ineffectual.



Third, to your point on people not liking Americans: please refer to my previous 'whack-a-mole' statements. You seem to be operating under the belief that America should follow procedure to its own death when its enemies quite clearly do not. I feel that we do not 'owe' Pakistan anything: as far as I'm concerned, they're harboring terrorists, and until there is some kind of actual evidence that they're actually holding up to their end of our deal to help us out, they are simply taking advantage of the US desire for an ally somewhere in the middle east.