I'm sorry, I was confused. I don't consider myself to be on a faction on adventurism. I am just going to tolerate geo-political realism first; and then any moral impious as a added bonus if it's right.
Is waging wars of aggression for Israel and for the deep state neocons "realism" now?
I don't remember saying that to you. I just, genuinely, don't see the kind of Paul Wolfowitz style Neo-Con regime change plans here. I don't see ambition of a Neo-Liberal Empire to change a people, just effect a policy and geo-political maneuvering. I don't see the same thing.
Ah, so that is why you framed "Libya" as an attempt to create a neoliberal whatever, because you wanted to dissociate it from very similar actions now. Truth is, that was the same, and don't go around telling me that the coordinates in spacetime are different.
Well, that's where the WW3 refrain came from is all, and that's what I've seen criticized the most. I'm not really talking about anyone here in particular, or conversations that took place here.
You've "seen" it criticized the most, so you bring it up to people who haven't made that argument? When I see a strawman, I don't bring it up to you when you haven't advocated for it.
Blowback is different from Quagmire.
Quagmire is a subset of blowback.
But the Philippines never became a quagmire.
Wasn't there an insurgency? What qualifies as a quagmire?
Even in the event that something went bizarre, and the Philippines decided to go to a hot-war with the Americans at some point; the quagmire would not have been a result of the initial conquest, but in response to the Philippines aggression at that point in time.
So... when they try to take their own country back, you go "you're trying to take what I've rightfully stolen"?
All of this makes no sense, and I can't believe you're actually making these arguments with a straight face. It's just so absurd. Of course taking other people's lands, even if they later "aggress" in trying to take it back, is the ultimate cause of the initial aggression. If I kick you out of your home, and you lived with it for a year, and then tried to kick me out... then it's not your aggression.
Americans pretend to believe in all sorts of things, but ultimately, it's just "might makes right".
I don't consider that to be a failure because it was never about drugs or killing nuns. It was about one man jeopardizing shipping in the most important canal in the world.
The first part is definitely true, but under the pretexts sold to Americans, it was a big, fat failure.
Well, in that case, I'm from Buenos Ares, and I say kill 'em all!
FYI: there is no Buenos Aires in Guadalajara.
I'aware you're talking about Europe, and that was my point. There was no ME refugee crisis in Europe. That was merely an excuse to import them. No one had to let them in, and hardly any of them were Syrian or Iraqi.
We're run by traitors, and America gave them a casus belli to take in people ruining our countries.
The Cologne Rape Riot wasn't the result of George Bush, it was the result of Angela Merkel. If the Iraq War or Syrian Civil War had never happened, the Rape Riot would have still happened because Merkel would have found warm bodies to rape women and children.
Nope. She wouldn't have been able to. I do agree that it's not solely the fault of George Bush and Obama's dirty war in Syria. Merkel, Obama ans Bush are all 100% responsible as far as I'm concerned.
I can't believe you're actually making these arguments with a straight face. It's just so absurd. Of course taking other people's lands, even if they later "aggress" in trying to take it back, is the ultimate cause of the initial aggression. If I kick you out of your home, and you lived with it for a year, and then tried to kick me out... then it's not your aggression.
Yes it is. The initial conflict ended, and I lost. I now, regardless of justification, would have to aggress upon you to take it away from you. It's not "in the process of being stolen", it's actually stolen. Even if you took my house from me, I have to attack you to get it back. I'm not defending against you because the defense failed.
Traitors don't need causus belli from someone else. They already have it for themselves.
It isn't convoluted, it's very clear, to the point that US law isn't all that different. In US law, I'm only allowed to use ordinary force to get it back in the moment.
If you steal my wallet, I can grab it back from you.
If you steal my wallet, and I punch you to get it back, I'm probably in the clear as long as I don't go too far, or use 'deadly weapons'. (like a gun or brass knuckles)
If you punch me in the face and steal my wallet, and I punch you in the face and get it back; I'm fine.
If you point a gun at me and steal my wallet, and I punch you in the face and get it back; I'm fine.
If you point a gun at me and steal my wallet, and I point a gun at you and take it back; I'm fine.
If you point a gun at me and steal my wallet, and I shoot you in the process of having my wallet taken from me; I'm fine.
If you point a gun at me and steal my wallet, and I wait until you've put the gun away and are walking away, and I shoot you in the back; I'll be lucky if I don't go to jail for aggravated battery.
If you point a gun at me and steal my wallet, and I show up to your house 5 days later and shoot you and take my wallet back; it is very likely I'm going to prison a hell of a lot longer than you, and for more charges.
If you point a gun at me and steal my wallet, and I sneak into your house, take it back, and sneak out, I'm actually in the clear as far as a robbery is concerned; but not for trespassing.
When it comes to self defense, imminence is a major factor here. Time changes the situation. As does proportionality and reasonableness. The most I can really do is try to steal it back as long as I don't break the law. But I can't invoke a right to use force against you simply because it's in your possession.
Similarly, what I'm saying is that when you can't appeal to The Law (and no one in international politics can), then I believe that there are times when you have to accept that you lost something, and a reprisal against someone who caused that loss is wholly inappropriate. Especially if that reprisal is disproportionate, and there is no longer an imminent and lethal threat to you.
But in the Philippines case, you framed their resistance as 'aggression' once the conquest was accomplished. So by that logic, you punching me in the face to get your wallet back is your aggression.
Similarly, what I'm saying is that when you can't appeal to The Law (and no one in international politics can), then I believe that there are times when you have to accept that you lost something, and a reprisal against someone who caused that loss is wholly inappropriate. Especially if that reprisal is disproportionate, and there is no longer an imminent and lethal threat to you.
Extraordinary. You're actually arguing that people who are occupied should 'accept' that and that 'reprisals' (i.e, trying to drive occupiers out) are not legitimate.
I guess this is 'informed' by the fact that your country normally is the occupying power. I'm pretty sure that you were not picketing screenings of Red Dawn. That was US doing it.
Is waging wars of aggression for Israel and for the deep state neocons "realism" now?
Ah, so that is why you framed "Libya" as an attempt to create a neoliberal whatever, because you wanted to dissociate it from very similar actions now. Truth is, that was the same, and don't go around telling me that the coordinates in spacetime are different.
You've "seen" it criticized the most, so you bring it up to people who haven't made that argument? When I see a strawman, I don't bring it up to you when you haven't advocated for it.
Quagmire is a subset of blowback.
Wasn't there an insurgency? What qualifies as a quagmire?
So... when they try to take their own country back, you go "you're trying to take what I've rightfully stolen"?
All of this makes no sense, and I can't believe you're actually making these arguments with a straight face. It's just so absurd. Of course taking other people's lands, even if they later "aggress" in trying to take it back, is the ultimate cause of the initial aggression. If I kick you out of your home, and you lived with it for a year, and then tried to kick me out... then it's not your aggression.
Americans pretend to believe in all sorts of things, but ultimately, it's just "might makes right".
The first part is definitely true, but under the pretexts sold to Americans, it was a big, fat failure.
FYI: there is no Buenos Aires in Guadalajara.
We're run by traitors, and America gave them a casus belli to take in people ruining our countries.
Nope. She wouldn't have been able to. I do agree that it's not solely the fault of George Bush and Obama's dirty war in Syria. Merkel, Obama ans Bush are all 100% responsible as far as I'm concerned.
Yes it is. The initial conflict ended, and I lost. I now, regardless of justification, would have to aggress upon you to take it away from you. It's not "in the process of being stolen", it's actually stolen. Even if you took my house from me, I have to attack you to get it back. I'm not defending against you because the defense failed.
Traitors don't need causus belli from someone else. They already have it for themselves.
If I snatch your wallet, and you "attack me" by snatching it back, that's not aggression because it's YOURS.
Hard to believe the kind of convoluted justifications you're making. Or maybe you just like esoteric arguments about minutiae that don't matter.
It isn't convoluted, it's very clear, to the point that US law isn't all that different. In US law, I'm only allowed to use ordinary force to get it back in the moment.
When it comes to self defense, imminence is a major factor here. Time changes the situation. As does proportionality and reasonableness. The most I can really do is try to steal it back as long as I don't break the law. But I can't invoke a right to use force against you simply because it's in your possession.
Similarly, what I'm saying is that when you can't appeal to The Law (and no one in international politics can), then I believe that there are times when you have to accept that you lost something, and a reprisal against someone who caused that loss is wholly inappropriate. Especially if that reprisal is disproportionate, and there is no longer an imminent and lethal threat to you.
But in the Philippines case, you framed their resistance as 'aggression' once the conquest was accomplished. So by that logic, you punching me in the face to get your wallet back is your aggression.
Extraordinary. You're actually arguing that people who are occupied should 'accept' that and that 'reprisals' (i.e, trying to drive occupiers out) are not legitimate.
I guess this is 'informed' by the fact that your country normally is the occupying power. I'm pretty sure that you were not picketing screenings of Red Dawn. That was US doing it.