Latest Breaking News

The Magistrate

(96,043 posts)

68. It Is Not That Difficult, Sir

Thu Sep 11, 2014, 07:49 PM

Sep 2014

A neutral has certain obligations; its territory cannot simply be used as a safe haven or transit for belligerent forces. A neutral is supposed to intern or expel belligerents on its territory, though it may give them a short space of time to vacate in the latter response to belligerent intrusion. If a neutral fails to do, whether because it is incapable of it, or because it has no desire to do so, protections of neutrality no longer apply. The belligerent party disadvantaged by its behavior may do anything from treat the former neutral as a belligerent, to such lesser steps as it considers necessary to address the situation.

I note again the fact that, if you are going to claim the United States committed a crime by invading Cambodia to engage North Vietnamese forces there, you must acknowledge North Vietnam committed a crime by invading both Cambodia and South Vietnam.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

113 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Russia Says Air Strikes In Syria Would Be Act Of Aggression Without U.N. Vote [View all] Purveyor Sep 2014 OP

That, And a Dollar Fifty, Sir, Might Get You a Cup Of Coffee The Magistrate Sep 2014 #1

No, he has a point. rug Sep 2014 #11

Same basis as we used to get OBL in Pakistan. TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #13

I asked for the legal basis, not the jingoistic basis. rug Sep 2014 #16

It's not jingoism, it's US policy under Obama. TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #17

So, no legal basis, then, is the answer. n/t JimDandy Sep 2014 #24

What is meant by "legal basis"? You mean AUMF, or UN/international, or what? TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #38

Legal basis re U.N., as the other poster also inquired. JimDandy Sep 2014 #45

They could get a vote, Russia and China would object, and we'd do it anyway. TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #48

Right, we do what we want, they can now do whatever they want Cayenne Sep 2014 #51

We all already do what we want. The UN is toothless and meaningless. TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #52

Legal basis? We're the Goddamned United States of 'Murica. Hugabear Sep 2014 #15

It Is Not That Complicated, Sir The Magistrate Sep 2014 #20

I agree. red dog 1 Sep 2014 #32

It is also not that legal. rug Sep 2014 #61

A Thing May Be Foolish And Fail, Sir, Without Being A Crime The Magistrate Sep 2014 #63

Foolishness is a given here. rug Sep 2014 #65

It Is Not That Difficult, Sir The Magistrate Sep 2014 #68

Apparently citing the international law which holds that is that difficult. rug Sep 2014 #71

And You May Feel Free To Cite Something Establishing It Is Not Legal, Sir The Magistrate Sep 2014 #74

How about Article 39 of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations? rug Sep 2014 #76

Try Article 51, Sir The Magistrate Sep 2014 #78

That's correct. "Self"-defense is an inherent right of the state attacked. rug Sep 2014 #79

Note The Word 'Collective', Sir The Magistrate Sep 2014 #80

I did. rug Sep 2014 #83

Apparently Not, Sir, Since You Ignored Its Meaning In Your Comments The Magistrate Sep 2014 #84

You have a habit of making wrong inferences. rug Sep 2014 #85

The Iraqi Government Meets Every Standard Of Legitimacy, Sir The Magistrate Sep 2014 #87

The nation has a seat, run by this sham. rug Sep 2014 #88

None Of That, Sir, Affects The Fact That It Is Recognized As The Legitimate Government, By The World The Magistrate Sep 2014 #92

No, the point at issue is whether Russia has a point about going to the UN. rug Sep 2014 #108

And It Does Not Have A Legitimate Point Of Complaint, Sir The Magistrate Sep 2014 #109

Saying it doesn't doesn't make it so. rug Sep 2014 #110

That, Sir, Is Advice You Might Want To Take Yourself.... The Magistrate Sep 2014 #112

Oh, do go on. rug Sep 2014 #113

Please Sir 4Q2u2 Sep 2014 #106

You apparently don't know the definition of "unilateral." tabasco Sep 2014 #55

Lol, no, I didn't forget Poland. rug Sep 2014 #62

You are Right sir...only the US is "Exceptional"..sir Billy Budd Sep 2014 #54

The Fact That You Neither Know Nor Understand The Rules, Sir, Does Not Mean Someone Else Breaks Them The Magistrate Sep 2014 #59

is that the US excuse sir Billy Budd Sep 2014 #81

This is from a guy who invaded another country and took a part of its land? Iliyah Sep 2014 #2

As the "Leader of the free world" we set the standards. newthinking Sep 2014 #3

They are beheading people dvduval Sep 2014 #22

He has no room to talk. However air strikes against Islamist militants in Syria without Autumn Sep 2014 #4

I suspect Syria will give us permission....just not publicly. PragmaticLiberal Sep 2014 #19

That is the crux of it. I suspect that many, many back-channel negotiations are underway LanternWaste Sep 2014 #27

+1, n/t RKP5637 Sep 2014 #56

I suspect you are right karynnj Sep 2014 #111

Problematic DustyJoe Sep 2014 #5

Well goodness, I guess Beloved Pootie Poot should have encouraged Assad to TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #6

Because most people don't care about others until it hits close to home. Iliyah Sep 2014 #10

Actually, it's suspected that Assad and ISIS had a tacit understanding to leave each TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #12

Syria struck ISIS when they were still in Iraq KurtNYC Sep 2014 #25

Syria has not seriously fought ISIS. A token airstrike to fend off US involvement TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #39

Obviously NOTHING Assad does will "fend off US involvement" since that involvement is ongoing KurtNYC Sep 2014 #44

You seem completely confused. ISIS may have originated years ago from TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #49

It misses the forest for a couple of trees. Igel Sep 2014 #57

Well, I don't know that we forgot, so much as thought/hoped/wished that somehow TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #70

ISIS controls only the thin black bands within Syria as shown here KurtNYC Sep 2014 #60

I'm sorry, I'm trying to understand what you're saying. Are you saying that TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #73

Seeing that map makes me think, given Obama's decision to deal with ISIS davidpdx Sep 2014 #101

ISIS 4Q2u2 Sep 2014 #105

And no Syrian strikes on ISIS in Syria until last month. I wonder why. pampango Sep 2014 #46

HAHAHAHAHAHA!! B2G Sep 2014 #7

Puty pooo poop sounds like the Republicans in the US riversedge Sep 2014 #8

Personally, I think he SHOULD go to the UN B2G Sep 2014 #9

Agree on both points. riversedge Sep 2014 #36

The US can do whatever the fuck it wants, because we're the good guys. Hugabear Sep 2014 #14

We pick and choose who we fight. DocMac Sep 2014 #23

That ship has sailed... Psephos Sep 2014 #28

Danny Devito said it better in Matilda jamzrockz Sep 2014 #29

I believe this is what you call a "pot to kettle" remark. Xolodno Sep 2014 #18

That would be wonderful. I hope Russia does. Iliyah Sep 2014 #21

Oh, me too............. ballyhoo Sep 2014 #50

Well, you might have some sort of point there, if Putin didn't actually take Crimea for Russia. TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #40

quit making sense qazplm Sep 2014 #64

+ 1000. BlueCaliDem Sep 2014 #102

That may well happen. And if there is a mistaken ballyhoo Sep 2014 #47

Adding Hopes For The Death Of American Service Members, Sir, To Your Usual? The Magistrate Sep 2014 #53

Obama said last August that he would use air strikes against Assad KurtNYC Sep 2014 #26

Yes, and as a result he got Syria to surrender all of its chemical weapons. nt geek tragedy Sep 2014 #43

That fact it comes from the land of Putin the liar who does whatever he pleases makes - CentralMass Sep 2014 #30

Which U.N. vote permitted Russia to invade Ukraine? Blue_Tires Sep 2014 #31

If there was a vote in the Security Council on bombing Syria Russia would just veto it. Louisiana1976 Sep 2014 #33

and shooting down a passenger airline is ....? n/t FloriTexan Sep 2014 #34

UN vote?... KansDem Sep 2014 #35

PLEASE,... PUT YOUR THINKING HATS ON! dawn frenzy adams Sep 2014 #37

"...After all, there are Russian citizens there...." ColesCountyDem Sep 2014 #41

Excuse me? dawn frenzy adams Sep 2014 #67

You're excused. ColesCountyDem Sep 2014 #72

Ethnic Russians... BadtotheboneBob Sep 2014 #75

Which action clearly violates the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, to which Russia is a signatory. n/t ColesCountyDem Sep 2014 #77

LMAO. Putin's the one guy on the planet who cares less about international law than Cheney nt geek tragedy Sep 2014 #42

Do the Russian thing. Igel Sep 2014 #58

Well... dawn frenzy adams Sep 2014 #66

That, Ma'am, Is Incredibly Silly: It Is A Proper And Compact Usage The Magistrate Sep 2014 #69

Good catch . . . another_liberal Sep 2014 #89

"Bomb. Send in troops. Tanks. APCs." another_liberal Sep 2014 #90

He is right, and a hypocrite, too. And Syria as said the same thing. Comrade Grumpy Sep 2014 #82

Germany and UK will not join attacks on IS targets in Syria. another_liberal Sep 2014 #86

ISIS kills two spies, and Obama claims its a reason to go to war quadrature Sep 2014 #91

You Consider Those To Be Legitimate Executions Then, Sir? The Magistrate Sep 2014 #93

a much bigger issue, is that a war is starting, over the killing of 2 people quadrature Sep 2014 #95

I'm sure the thousands of Yazidis starved to death on Mt. Sinjar by IS would disagree NickB79 Sep 2014 #98

That Does Not Answer the Question, Sir: You Said Two Spies Were Killed The Magistrate Sep 2014 #103

answers ... quadrature Sep 2014 #104

In Other Words, Sir, Your Comment Was Simply Bean Breeze The Magistrate Sep 2014 #107

It should also be noted that both of the Americans had been IS prisoners for months . . . another_liberal Sep 2014 #94

there could be 'internal political' reasons for IS ... quadrature Sep 2014 #96

They were vauable just as hostages too . . . another_liberal Sep 2014 #97

excellent point.... nt quadrature Sep 2014 #99

Bad idea. We should send in an uninspected aid convoy instead. pampango Sep 2014 #100