What does 'chose his own court' mean? That if you take on the US, you should be expected to be killed without trial? The point is that America presented no clear evidence of his guilt and yet they invaded a country to get him and entered another one to kill him.
If you want to play this game of 'if a court didn't try them so they can't be acting illegally' then it works both ways.
Actually, I meant, if you fire on Armed Forces, you can expect them to fire back.
What does 'chose his own court' mean? That if you take on the US, you should be expected to be killed without trial? The point is that America presented no clear evidence of his guilt and yet they invaded a country to get him and entered another one to kill him.
If you want to play this game of 'if a court didn't try them so they can't be acting illegally' then it works both ways.
In a war should you expect the enemy to capture you alive or should you understand it's a war?
In a war should you expect the enemy to capture you alive or should you understand it's a war?
No real conclusive proof was ever provided that Bin Laden was the man to go to war with. But even with that, a dangerous precedent is set. Is the US at war with Afghanistan? Is it at war with Iraq? No, it's at war with 'terror,' which is rather abstract to say the least. This means that the war can be extended to anyone who fits the bill of 'terrorist' wherever they are on the planet. So does that mean killing anyone, anywhere is justified? It is war after all.
The UN Security Council is not the only international court and no court has ruled that the 3 resolutions were invalid.
The British (supported by the US) actively asked for a new resolution because they did not feel that they had the authority to invade. When this was refused they then fudged an excuse based on previous resolutions.
Even the most pro Iraq war opinions I have seen accept this to be true.
If the three existing resolutions where valid there would be no need to go for a new one.
And to repeat a previous point.
There was no hard evidence that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. Even that argument stands up for invading Iraq, the argument for invading Afghanistan would no longer stand up.
Comments
Actually, I meant, if you fire on Armed Forces, you can expect them to fire back.
In a war should you expect the enemy to capture you alive or should you understand it's a war?
No real conclusive proof was ever provided that Bin Laden was the man to go to war with. But even with that, a dangerous precedent is set. Is the US at war with Afghanistan? Is it at war with Iraq? No, it's at war with 'terror,' which is rather abstract to say the least. This means that the war can be extended to anyone who fits the bill of 'terrorist' wherever they are on the planet. So does that mean killing anyone, anywhere is justified? It is war after all.
The British (supported by the US) actively asked for a new resolution because they did not feel that they had the authority to invade. When this was refused they then fudged an excuse based on previous resolutions.
Even the most pro Iraq war opinions I have seen accept this to be true.
If the three existing resolutions where valid there would be no need to go for a new one.
And to repeat a previous point.
There was no hard evidence that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. Even that argument stands up for invading Iraq, the argument for invading Afghanistan would no longer stand up.