Yes we can... make more war.

Discussion in 'World Events' started by StrawDog, Mar 20, 2009.

  1. Arsalan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,432
    Funny, didnt expet you to understand what I did. Turns out I was right
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Arsalan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,432
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    ??? Then why do you keep insisting that it's the only acceptable option?

    Methinks your characterization of the Pakistani government is missing some important nuances... and is patronizing towards the Pakistani nation, to boot.

    What law are you talking about? Pakistani law? The drones are based in Pakistan, and operated with the assistance of the Pakistani government.

    That Pakistanis are uncomfortable with this arrangement, and so their leaders are happy to let them focus their displeasure on the United States instead of owning up to it, does not mean that America is breaking a law. It means that Pakistan exhibits deep political dysfunction.

    Sure. That's the way warfare is prosecuted, typically. If you've already stopped fighting, what's there to talk about in the first place?

    Why do you keep speaking of diplomacy and war as if they are somehow exclusive of one another? They're two sides of the same coin: statecraft.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. StrawDog disseminated primatemaia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,373
    War can be ended via diplomacy. Ireland, Dissolution of the Soviet Union, Bosnian war, etc.

    War can be prevented via diplomacy. Macedonia (2001), China/Taiwan. and of course, Iran (right now), where we see US diplomatic intervention in the face of a potential Israeli strike.

    See above Forrest and learn.
     
  8. StrawDog disseminated primatemaia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,373
    Sarcasm. Whoosh.

    Explain?

    Ah. Now for the nuances. According to the Pakistani government, they are based OUTSIDE Pakistan.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D94JAHPG1&show_article=1&catnum=0)

    If its RED, its RED. The US is breaking the law as per the Geneva Convention.

    The US has an atrocious track record of neglecting diplomatic channels to achieve objectives. Lets face it, the US is up to the neck in war. One of them, is PROVEN to be a grave ERROR in every conceivable way.
     
  9. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    No, that question was quite serious. Perhaps you're simply using too many pronouns or something here: I can't make sense of what you're saying. If diplomacy is impossible, why do you keep insisting that it must be pursued?

    If Pakistan were a US puppet, you'd generally expect them to be a lot more compliant with US policy preferences. Beyond simply telling the US whatever it wants to hear, that is.

    Of course, that is exactly what they would say, regardless of whether the bases are inside Pakistan or not. They face very strong incentives both to operate the bases, and to publicly deny doing so.

    Meanwhile, there is fairly convincing evidence in the public domain that the bases are, indeed, located in Pakistan, and operated with the direct assistance of the Pakistani state.

    http://www.slate.com/id/2211683/

    By colluding with Pakistan to run drone flights? How so?

    Which one is that? And why would the diplomatic disposition of the Bush administration have any bearing on the basic relationships of diplomacy and warfare to statecraft?
     
  10. StrawDog disseminated primatemaia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,373
    Because I strongly believe that this avenue is seldom honestly and sincerely pursued. Preemptive wars should be strongly condemned.

    They (the government) are all talk and no do in their anti drone US condemnations.

    Hence the political turmoil we now see.

    Hmm.

    Yes. Attacks against Pakistani territory is in contravention of the Geneva Convention, thus illegal.

    Iraq. No diplomacy, hasty invasion based on false information. Illegal.
     
  11. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Okay, but it you also believe it's impossible in this case, then you already possess an explanation for a lack of pursuit. So why the complaints?

    Also bear in mind that serious diplomacy over major issues of international security often occurs in secret, and is only publicly disclosed after it is over. The parties can have a lot to lose by being seen to talk to their adversaries, and so secrecy is often a precondition to get them to participate.

    I think you mean to say "preventative wars," rather than "preemptive wars," but what do either of them have to do with Afghanistan?

    Exactly. They are active participants in the drone operations. The condemnations are simply propaganda for public consumption. If they didn't want drone attacks to occur in these places, they wouldn't be occuring.

    I don't think the causation is quite so simple. The ongoing political turmoil in Pakistan (which has been pretty much continuous since Partition) is a big part of what created the present conditions.

    It's not as if Pakistan was a politically stable, secure entity prior to 2001 or something. Had they been, it's likely none of this would have occured in the first place.

    Hmm, indeed.

    The Geneva Conventions that I'm familiar with deal wtih treatment of prisoners and other persons during wartime. They don't say much of anything about the legality of military operations per se. Perhaps you were thinking of something else?

    Okay. I thought we were talking about Afghanistan?
     
  12. StrawDog disseminated primatemaia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,373
    I was being sarcastic. No big deal.

    Of course.

    I am referring to the drone strikes in the context of:
    from: And the drone policy continues… http://www.thenews.com.pk/editorial_detail.asp?id=159975

    Perhaps, but this is from the Pakistani media.

    (http://www.thenews.com.pk/editorial_detail.asp?id=159975)


    So interestingly, destabilization has been increasing since 2001.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Apart from the flagrant disregard for international borders, of which the drone attacks are a violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Pakistan and of principles of international law.

    I am referring to the continual civilian casualties inflicted by the drones which notwithstanding the party line that they are only targeting known Taliban positions can be considered as below, particularly those in BOLD.

    (http://www.spj.org/gc-index.asp?#indiscriminatebombing)

    My example for 'illegal" is Iraq. The same lack of sincere and exhaustive diplomacy occurred in Afghanistan.
     

Share This Page