News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on US drops 'largest non-nuclear bomb' in Afghanistan. Parent comment

Re:US drops 'largest non-nuclear bomb' in Afghanistan by boomboomsubban on Saturday April 15, 2017 @11:35PM (#14124195)
Our goal was removing the Taliban, and taking the right to police residents of the country, particularly Bin Laden, without the need of jurisprudence. Set up a friendly government, take over sovereign right. What am I missing here?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:US drops 'largest non-nuclear bomb' in Afghanistan by gozur88 on Sunday April 16, 2017 @03:01PM (#14126968)
Okay. What does that have to do with "war of aggression" and "imperialism". We weren't there on a lark.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:US drops 'largest non-nuclear bomb' in Afghanistan by boomboomsubban on Sunday April 16, 2017 @05:27PM (#14127621)
Starting the war for those aims is a war of aggression, removing the Taliban is setting up a friendly government, removing their right to police is a removal of sovereignty.

Really confused what you're going on about, you keep saying I'm wrong but don't try to say why.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:US drops 'largest non-nuclear bomb' in Afghanistan by gozur88 on Sunday April 16, 2017 @06:42PM (#14127971)
>Starting the war for those aims is a war of aggression...

No it isn't. That's not at all true.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:US drops 'largest non-nuclear bomb' in Afghanistan by flukus on Monday April 17, 2017 @08:56PM (#14135730)
So you wouldn't classify Napoleons invasion and the creation of Westphalia as a war of aggression?

How about Ceasars invasion of Gaul? He had a casus belli.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:US drops 'largest non-nuclear bomb' in Afghanistan by boomboomsubban on Sunday April 16, 2017 @11:19PM (#14129030)
Yeah, it is. There's millennia of precedent here and I'm not going any further to argue against "nuh-uh."
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:US drops 'largest non-nuclear bomb' in Afghanistan by gozur88 on Monday April 17, 2017 @07:13PM (#14135241)
Precedent? This isn't a court case. I begin to see the problem here: You're misapplying a historical template. This isn't 19th Century British Empire - the US had an iron-clad casus belli in Afghanistan, and to ignore that is to completely mischaracterize the situation.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:US drops 'largest non-nuclear bomb' in Afghanistan by boomboomsubban on Monday April 17, 2017 @08:51PM (#14135698)
"This isn't a court case, they had an iron-clad case for war." The only point of a cassus belli is to justify your war of aggression, if someone declares war on you the case for it is clear.

And no, the cassus belli was not iron-clad. There are only three legal ones under current law. Defense, defense of an ally, and a UN approval. First two don't work, Afghanistan hadn't declared any wars, and the third never happened.

[ Parent | on HN ]