A declaration of war on who Botox? We declare war on al liby?

@those who answered - So you don't support the idea that the ICC should have precedence over the sovereignty of a nation? Or that the UN should have any governing authority. Because basically you said "Well, I'd be okay with it but only if that country's government approved and its troops were involved" That statement right there shows you don't believe in bringing someone to justice until it is politically convenient for the country in question to hand the person over. I mean, based on that logic so long as a country votes against a UN Resolution, it doesn't have to abide by said resolution.

Actually, I said they had to be a *member* of the UN. Not necessarily vote for it. I then said they should have someone along from the country, but they could be acting on behalf of the country to report if the ICC/UN mandate was overstepped by the unit in question. Either way, their sovereignty rules and they can choose to withdraw from the organization in question should a mandate they disagree with involving their sovereignty come down, thereby neutering the ICC/UN mandate as they would be an independent state with no governing body having authority over them.

So Draug I would take it that you do not support an eventual subversion of the concept of sovereignty by the UN? I would look forward to the day when the UN can unilaterally take action against any country. The whole one world government idea really appeals to me.

See, in my eyes, the "sovereignty" argument is almost always done for political reasons, because most nations don't give a crap about the concept. Their constituents do, but do the politicians and elites? Not really. Pakistan bleated the sovereignty issue over and over again with the US drone strikes, but did they actually do anything about it? No. Purely political maneuvering. That's what is being done in Libya right now. In Somalia, they don't care about politics at the moment (because they're in a civil war) so they just said thank you. Libya should do the same.

Goldfinger, in my opinion you are dumber than dirt. Anyone who thinks that "one world government" is any kind of reasonable type of government simply lacks touch with reality of humanity sprawled across the globe and even worse has no real understanding of the corruptibility and malice of power possessed by human beings.

You are a fool.

I hate the one world, one country concept. It reeks of socialists trying to enforce their view on me and I pray to God I dead long before it happens.

"Pakistan bleated the sovereignty issue over and over again with the US drone strikes, but did they actually do anything about it? No. Purely political maneuvering."

Actually, they did. They voted the pro-Taliban PML into power. But really, what leverage does a country completely dependent on US have to "do" anything about repeated violations of Pakistani sovereignty?

"In Somalia, they don't care about politics at the moment (because they're in a civil war) so they just said thank you"

They (Mogadishu) said thank you because they're once again completely dependent on US and international aid for existing as a government, and the attack hurt the people they ousted from power.

Countries who fought desperately to achieve nominal sovereignty aren't going to applaud when the US willy nilly bombs or attacks somebody because they feel like it. So don't expect it.

If the US tried that in India or China, you can damn well bet there would be hell to pay.

"The strong do as they will and the week do as they must"

@Emac - how am I out of touch? Regional integration is happening all over the world. ASEAN is talking about economic union, MERCOSUR is talking about economic union, the eurozone has survived and a third of the countries in Africa are set to form a single currency in the next 5 years. Isn't the logical step after regional integration global integration?

@Draug - how is that a socialist idea?

@Putin - there's been a lot of research on the fact that the more aid a country receives, the less dependent upon the giver of aid it is (and it makes sense intuitively). So Pakistan could have done a lot of things, and done them a lot earlier than they ended up doing (closing off supply routes, shutting down US bases, severing aid ties).

And then there's the fact that Libya is more dependent upon the US than Pakistan. In fact, the current Libyan government would not exist if it were not for the US government. So based upon what you just said shouldn't they have just bowed meekly like Somalia did?

@Draug - I think that would highly depend upon who we targeted. If we raided someone who was already wanted by the Chinese government, I'm sure they'd ask for us to transfer him. But would they object? I'm not too sure.

Goldfinger, could you imagine giving one corporation complete control of the world's business? Government isn't any different than a corporation- secretive, exploitive, and run by self-interested, greedy, corruptible human beings.
Concentrating power on a global scale is a fool's errand, and anyone who advocates such irrationality should be denounced immediately and severely.

Where do you draw the line though, Emac? Is a continent too large? A country? How much power is too much? I also think a government is fundamentally different than a corporation (though I used to think as you do)

And depending upon the industry, corporations for the most part are well governed and not run by self-interested, greedy, secretive people.

"So Pakistan could have done a lot of things, and done them a lot earlier than they ended up doing (closing off supply routes, shutting down US bases, severing aid ties)."

The US leased one airfield and were, in fact, ordered to leave it by the Zardari government. As for closing off supply routes, Pakistan only has nominal control over FATA bordering Afghanistan. Last, the PPP/ANP/MQM that came to power in the aftermath of Bhutto's assassination and the uprising against Musharraf (who never complained about violations of Pakistan's sovereignty) were hostile to the Taliban and the pro-Taliban parties (chiefly the PML-N, but also the PTI and the religious parties), so weakening the Taliban helped them (at least in the short term).

So no they really couldn't have done anything to retaliate. If the US pulled the rug from under the PPP there would have been another political crisis, and Pakistan has only gotten through an electoral term one time in its entire history (and that's this recent 2008-2013 term). Pakistan is in a very weak position to do anything to the US. It took Pakistan all they could just to get from underneath the sanctions implemented against them in the aftermath of the nuclear tests of 98, which brought Pakistan to the brink of bankruptcy.

As for aid making a country more independent, that absolutely hasn't been the case with Pakistan. Aid was cut off during the '65 with India. It hurt Pakistan immensely. Aid was cut off again during the '71 war with India. It hurt Pakistan immensely. Aid suspensions in the 90s led to a financial meltdown which led to Musharraf's military coup.

By contrast, when aid was generous - as in the late 50s/early 60s and throughout the 1980s, Pakistan was America's "most allied ally".

I'd like to see the research on this.

"n fact, the current Libyan government would not exist if it were not for the US government. So based upon what you just said shouldn't they have just bowed meekly like Somalia did?"

Yes, but the Libyan government also wouldn't be in power without the fighting prowess of the LIFG, so abducting an Al Qaeda leader in Libya isn't making them any friends with the people who got them in power and who are actually can make trouble for them on the ground. This is in contrast to the government in Somalia, who is absolutely at odds with Al Shabaab.

"Goldfinger, in my opinion you are dumber than dirt."
Now there was no need for that from Emac, the man with a brain bigger than a beach ball ...... sorry, not brain, ego !!

People aren't self-interested, greedy, and secretive? They don't breathe air either.
Monte Carlo is doing just fine FYI.

Baby, I guess the laser removal of "hypocrite" from your forehead didn't go so well.

@Emac - I can name quite a few titans of industry who weren't. Milton Hershey, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, JP Morgan....I mean, I could find more. Compared to the number of corporations out there, there aren't really that many corporate governance issues.

And I would know. I was there a few months ago.

@Putin - I can dig for the research if you want, but it was mostly directed at the US-Israel bilateral relationship, and postulating why the US doesn't have more control over what Israel does. The reason being is that the more military tech you give a nation, the less of an incentive they have to pander for more. Intuitively, this makes sense. If you give me a shipment of 30 F-15s, I would pander to you significantly less.

And you make really good points regarding Libya and Pakistan. But doesn't that go back to my original point that the sovereignty issue is only raised when it is politically beneficial?

Hmm, maybe the key difference is comparative military balance. Israel can exercise independence because any kind of US withdrawal of aid wouldn't tip the balance in favor of Israel's main historic military rivals who are striking distance of Israel - Egypt & Syria. Whereas a withdrawal of US aid to Pakistan annihilates any chance of military parity with India. So maybe it's a matter of military technology having to reach a certain critical threshold.

And yes I agree that sovereignty is raised when politically beneficial (in the sense that they are raised when the attack causes serious domestic problems for the government), although I think these political concerns are legitimate and shouldn't be disregarded if the US has any hope of keeping these governments on their side. If you're targeting a group that the target country is trying to mollify in order to avoid civil unrest as Pakistan is trying to do with the TTP and Libya is trying to do with the Islamists in that country, then that's going to cause serious problems for those governments and they're going to raise objections. I also don't think that these particular governments (Somalia, Libya, Pakistan) have much capacity to retaliate vs violations of sovereignty. So I don't think their complaints are mere posturing, there is substance to them.

"Whereas a withdrawal of US aid to Pakistan"

"Aid", good one Putin. I certainly hope they don't "aid" me any time soon.

I mean, billions of dollars sounds like aid to me. Military technology sounds like aid to me too. Not sure what you're getting at, SYnapse.

I think he's talking about the numbers of Pakistani civilians the US keeps killing. But hey it's only a little bit of collateral damage, right?

I really think they are two separate issues...

Especially considering Pakistan has been receiving aid for far longer than the War on Terror existed.

I was just explaining what he appeared to be getting at since it seemed clear to me but you said you couldn't see what he meant.

Communism killed 100 million people in the 20th century. Pakistani's thank God every day they don't have a communist regime governing them.

Ask the CMKP about that.