Split From Corbyn did win/The War On Terrorism

[Craig B]

The problem is, Bin Laden had deep connections with the ISI and Afghan government, to the point that military occupation was necessary to dislodge him. And thank you for the hilarious image of PC plod being sent to Afghanistan to give Bin Laden a clip on the ear.

That said, Corbyn's foreign policy would be like that of another English leader: Ethelred the Unready. He preferred to have diplomacy with the men who travelled in funny boats and there was a mutual arrangement for peace, unliek the evil Militaristic Byzantine Empire, who sought to use force.

Is the USA at war with Afghanistan, then? It can't be "at war" with a gang of criminals. So is it at war with Afghanistan, the casus belli being that Afghanistan harbours the criminals? If not: with what state is the USA "at war"?

Your Ethelred stuff is simple rubbish. Corbyn has not suggested paying anyone to abstain from invading England.

The Militaristic Byzantine Empire, by the way, paid tribute to a very significant extent to secure peace with its enemies, even during its most flourishing periods.

Nevertheless, Justinian I had little money left towards the end of his reign partly because of the Justinian Plague, and the Roman–Persian Wars (Justinian spent large amounts of money in annual subsidies to the Sassanian Empire), which both harmed the economy. In addition to these expenses, the rebuilding of Hagia Sophia cost 20,000 pounds of gold. Subsidies to enemy states were also paid by Justinian's successors: Justin II was forced to pay 80,000 silver coins to the Avars for peace; his wife Sophia paid 45,000 solidi to Khosrau I in return for a year's truce, and then Tiberius II Constantine gave away 7,200 pounds of gold each year for four years.​

 

[Ziggurat]

It can't be "at war" with a gang of criminals.

You keep declaring this to be so, but this position has no actual basis in fact or law. You're essentially declaring that you won't accept a definition of "war" which includes non-state actors, but why should we care about what amounts to nothing more than a semantic objection?

 

[The Atheist]

Your Ethelred stuff is simple rubbish. Corbyn has not suggested paying anyone to abstain from invading England.

I cannot tell you funny it is from 20,000 km away to watch most of Pommyland in a tizz over whether Corbyn should/would/could have the change strategic alliances and UK foreign & defence policies as David Cameron and Buck House open their legs doors for the boss of one of the most evil and corrupt regimes on the planet.

Doublethink in action.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

I cannot tell you funny it is from 20,000 km away to watch most of Pommyland in a tizz over whether Corbyn should/would/could have the change strategic alliances and UK foreign & defence policies as David Cameron and Buck House open their legs doors for the boss of one of the most evil and corrupt regimes on the planet.

Doublethink in action.

China isn't really that different from the west during our own industrial era (it's just playing catchup after such fun as the Opium Wars, Unequal Treaties, Boxer Rebellion, Civil Wars, Mao). Too often, especially when China is discussed, i find that "human rights" is a dog whistle for "we should only trade with good (read: white) nations".

 

[Ziggurat]

China isn't really that different from the west during our own industrial era (it's just playing catchup after such fun as the Opium Wars, Unequal Treaties, Boxer Rebellion, Civil Wars, Mao). Too often, especially when China is discussed, i find that "human rights" is a dog whistle for "we should only trade with good (read: white) nations".

I'm not sure China is who he means by "one of the most evil and corrupt regimes on the planet."

 

[The Atheist]

I'm not sure China is who he means by "one of the most evil and corrupt regimes on the planet."

I have no idea how wouldn't be sure, but I was most definitely referring to China

China isn't really that different from the west during our own industrial era (it's just playing catchup after such fun as the Opium Wars, Unequal Treaties, Boxer Rebellion, Civil Wars, Mao).

Really? Ok then.

I was always under the misapprehension that the Industrial Revolution was paralleled [belatedly] by a wave of human rights, brought about mostly by workers.

I'll go and note this new history that the Industrial Revolution ushered in a wave of oppression of voices who might speak against the government.

And who torture members of harmless religious sects.

Damn those European industrialists!

Too often, especially when China is discussed, i find that "human rights" is a dog whistle for "we should only trade with good (read: white) nations".

Lucky that demonstrably doesn't apply here, since I'm at least as critical of USA as China, but for different reasons.

I just find it amusing that China is a pal to the Tories while Corbyn is anathema because he loves Hamas.

My guess is that China kills almost infinitely more people than Hamas, but they have money, so it's ok.

 

[Craig B]

I cannot tell you funny it is from 20,000 km away to watch most of Pommyland in a tizz over whether Corbyn should/would/could have the change strategic alliances and UK foreign & defence policies as David Cameron and Buck House open their legs doors for the boss of one of the most evil and corrupt regimes on the planet.

Doublethink in action.

I'm not sure I fully understand that. But not understanding a text containing the words "Pommyland" and "tizz" may not be a serious matter.

 

[theprestige]

It can't be "at war" with a gang of criminals.

Why not? The way I see it, the US is at war any time it uses military force, and it's at war with whoever it's using that military force against.

Specifically, the US is at war any time the President exercises his constitutional authority to use military force against someone, with the explicit or implicit consent of Congress. For example, the President has a standing authorization to use limited amounts of military force for short periods of time. This is to allow him to respond promptly to an emerging crisis while Congress takes time to deliberate on long-term policy.

When the President sends Navy SEALs to shoot pirates and rescue ship crews, that's war.

And specifically, when Congress explicitly authorizes the President to use military force against a group--any group--then the US is at war with that group, even if the group isn't a nation-state, and even if the President does not act on that authorization.

Not all wars are world wars, or global thermonuclear wars. Sometimes they're just a short, sharp conflict between a sniper and a pirate. Sometimes it's just a bunch of drone strikes an the occasional special forces raid.

 

[Craig B]

Why not? The way I see it, the US is at war any time it uses military force, and it's at war with whoever it's using that military force against.

Specifically, the US is at war any time the President exercises his constitutional authority to use military force against someone, with the explicit or implicit consent of Congress. For example, the President has a standing authorization to use limited amounts of military force for short periods of time. This is to allow him to respond promptly to an emerging crisis while Congress takes time to deliberate on long-term policy.

When the President sends Navy SEALs to shoot pirates and rescue ship crews, that's war.

And specifically, when Congress explicitly authorizes the President to use military force against a group--any group--then the US is at war with that group, even if the group isn't a nation-state, and even if the President does not act on that authorization.

Not all wars are world wars, or global thermonuclear wars. Sometimes they're just a short, sharp conflict between a sniper and a pirate. Sometimes it's just a bunch of drone strikes an the occasional special forces raid.

Tosh.

 

[theprestige]

Tosh.

You know, that's actually an interesting point. I hadn't really thought of it that way before. Do you have an argument along those lines, that you'd like me to consider?













If it helps, my starting assumption is that warfare is defined by the use of military power (which is distinct from the other powers authorized to the Executive), not by the object of that use of power.

 

[Ambrosia]

You know, that's actually an interesting point. I hadn't really thought of it that way before.

War is a position held between 2 countries, in which they pledge to use military force to achieve their aims.

An act of war is the military action that is used to prosecute the war.

Calling special forces raids "war" is incorrect. They might cause a state of war to be declared, and it could be described as an act of warfare, but it's not actually a war.

Declaring "war on xyz" is technically OK by the definition of war, but in reality it's just cheap rhetoric that politicians use to justify spending lots of money on 'defense'.



If you ask me and I have my practical head on, it's a lot better for everyone that OBL was killed rather than captured. The circus surrounding his trial and obvious execution would have been awful.

If I have my 'things should be done right' head on, then they should have captured him and put him on trial.

You certainly couldn't accurately call his death a tragedy.

Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians being killed as part of the war, tragedy.

Many coalition forces being killed in the war, tragic.

OBL being shot dead by special forces troops in a 'neutral' country, probably better than he deserved.

 

[WildCat]

War is a position held between 2 countries, in which they pledge to use military force to achieve their aims.

According to what definition?