"I would argue it turned out quite well. When dealing with multinational terrorism, I believe sovereignty is a secondary concern. It's something to think about, but not the be-all, end-all that some try to make it. "
so in fact, you are of the opinion that it is ok to go into someone elses country and blow things up.
Which is exactly what you think Osama did to make him a modern day Hitler. Or it is ok for you to do it, but no-one else should? Di someone mention hypocrisy in this thread?
I am at least consistant in that i condemn ALL violence, and bombing of people regardless of whether they are state actors or non-state.
And i admit, you have a point about Pakistan. That is not to say i agree, but they may have been harbouring a known terror suspect.
Last country to do this was Afghanistan, and the US decided to invade.
The consequences of invading Afghanistan have been rather bad for every other empire who tried it. Both the Brisith Empire and USSR collapsed sortly after invasions of Afghanistan. China never conquered it.
Looking back in 50 years, it may be seen as the begining of the end for the US aswell.
"But when you're talking places like Pakistan, and certainly Yemen/Afganistan/Libya/Syria, the central government fails to exercise effective control over huge swathes of territory where terrorists can easily set up shop." - countries where you don't like their sovereignty. Where the are not part of 'the west' - where i use the term to mean, the US and whoever agrees with the US at any given time.
"Nuclear weapons were used upon Japan to create enough devastation to force a surrender. The US only had 3 nuclear bombs. the first was tested in New Mexico and the other two were dropped in Japan."
it was also done to prevent your Soviet allies from invading Japan and dividing up the country like they did in germany. To prove US military might, and to save the lives of soldiers - even so, under most rules of war, this would be considered a war crime. The very notion that you're going to avoid the death of Japanese and US soldiers by killing Japanese civilians is abhorrent to most 19th century ideas of war.
"I agree the only difference between supporting Saudi Arabia over Iran is that Saudi Arabia is more cooperative to Western interests. Both support religious groups that are hostile to the West and involved in attacks on the West."
What hostile religious groupsa have IRan supported? I mean, Hezbullah and Hammas are the only ones i know about, and the former was involved in attacks against Israel - when Israel was occupying Lebannon (and is currently invovled in attacks against ISIS or to support Assad) While the latter is involved in attacks against Israel, which is currently occupying Palestine.
You could argue in both cases that these were actions of self-defence, or of freedom figthers against an occupying force.
I do not agree with violence as a means to achieve freedom from an occupying force. Ghandi demonstrated that there are alternative tactics, Martin Luther King, Jr followed Ghani's example, and lest we forget Nelson Mandela. But as far as ';attacking western interests' go, they at least have just cause. Not merely vengence (for example Hezbollah have stopped attacking Israel now that Israel has pulled out of Lebanon)
Saudi Arabia meanwhile is the home of Wahabism the branch of Islam which inspired Osama Bin Laden and his al qaeda movement. And, i believe, directly supported ISIS.
"Iraq was never about 9/11 and WMD, but about revenge for Bush I and getting control of the oil. " - well at least someone agrees with me.
Do you condemn this act of Vengance?
@KC, yes, you have a point there.
And under these new rules we're adapting to, 'enemy combatants' are kept indefinitely in guantanamo, and US citizens are summmarily executed by drone strike under orders from the president, if they are believed to be plotting terrorist action in a foreign country.
With this precedent, how long before drone strikes are used by the US police/law enforcement in situations like Wacco Texas? (i know this is a slippery slope arguement, but the principle of kill your enemies without a trial is one which has been applied beyond OSama, to US citizens... so long as they are covered by the hazy term 'Enemy Combatant')
@"I don't like the Washington comparison, as he fought battles according to European rules of engagement. So that's like saying Al Qaeda was trying to fight the US in conventional warfare."
But he was still declaring war against an enemy. Using vilence as a means to his end. My question remains, was he wrong to take up arms? And hsould the British have had him executed if they could?