The World Is Now A Safer Place

@sh76 said
While I don't necessarily disagree with any of that, as you implied, no President has given a damn about the WPR or its central idea since long before it was passed.

The WPR also needs to be updated for the modern world. Sometimes the President may need to take out a threat before it can be made public. If we get word that a group of nuclear terrorists is massing in North Hea ...[text shortened]... th a request to declare war on Canada.

Where to draw the line is an extremely difficult question.

International law already covers preemptive military action in such circumstances:

"Preemptive military action is undertaken to eliminate an immediate and credible threat of grievous harm. Those acting preemptively believe that an adversary is about to attack, that the assault is inevitable, and that a preemptive strike can eliminate the threat or at least reduce the harm that the anticipated assault would cause. Just war theory and international law grant the legitimacy of self-defence in response to an armed attack, and if preemption is self-defence against imminent assault, it is legitimate. Thus, Michael Walzer argues, ‘states may use military force in the face of threats of war, whenever the failure to do so would seriously risk their territorial integrity or political independence’. Preemption may only be considered justified if one has a justified fear of imminent attack, where the potential attacker has a clear intent to cause injury, is actively preparing to do so, and when waiting until the threat is realised greatly increases the risk."

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/just-war-theory/justice-of-preemption-and-preventive-war-doctrines/47F1910349EE5637234D4E282013BEAC

Rather clearly, these conditions were not met here.

EDIT: Of course the source cited is a restatement of the Caroline Test" which is the accepted rule reaffirmed at Nuremberg:

"the necessity for preemptive self-defense must be "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation."

"Secretary of State Daniel Webster argued that a self-defense claimant would have to show that the:

necessity of self-defense was instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation ..., and that the British force, even supposing the necessity of the moment authorized them to enter the territories of the United States at all, did nothing unreasonable or excessive; since the act, justified by the necessity of self-defense, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it.[2]".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_test

@no1marauder said
International law already covers preemptive military action in such circumstances:

"Preemptive military action is undertaken to eliminate an immediate and credible threat of grievous harm. Those acting preemptively believe that an adversary is about to attack, that the assault is inevitable, and that a preemptive strike can eliminate the threat or at least reduce the h ...[text shortened]... d by that necessity, and kept clearly within it.[2]".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_test

You are WRONG about this just as you were WRONG about Trump using the NG in california

@no1marauder said
International law already covers preemptive military action in such circumstances:

"Preemptive military action is undertaken to eliminate an immediate and credible threat of grievous harm. Those acting preemptively believe that an adversary is about to attack, that the assault is inevitable, and that a preemptive strike can eliminate the threat or at least reduce the h ...[text shortened]... d by that necessity, and kept clearly within it.[2]".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_test

As z trump often says, we will wait and see. You do have AOC backing you up.

Also Jasminecrockett, who wears a WIG! You align with a wiggedperson! A real secure person! You and Jasmine! Sittin in a tree 🎵🎶🎼🎶

https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/jasmine-crockett-wigs.5731142/

@no1marauder said
International law already covers preemptive military action in such circumstances:

"Preemptive military action is undertaken to eliminate an immediate and credible threat of grievous harm. Those acting preemptively believe that an adversary is about to attack, that the assault is inevitable, and that a preemptive strike can eliminate the threat or at least reduce the h ...[text shortened]... d by that necessity, and kept clearly within it.[2]".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_test

I don't think that whether something is justified under international law directly impacts whether it requires Congressional approval. When declaring war is justified under IL, it still has to be Congress who declares it. And what Congress says can still be against IL.

@AverageJoe1 said
Shav is upset. He was NOT upset when Obama attacked Lybia, Syeria, Pakistan and Yemen. He did NOT call for impeachment.
But his friends today want us to impeach Trump for his presidential action. He acted Under Article 2. All legal, constitutional. And there are 700,000 people living in Israel, and he mihgt have been thinking, hell, Iran is attacking Americans.

Shav needs to write a nice clear post for us all to understand.

I opposed the US attacking all those countries.

@AverageJoe1 said
This one is saying that ridding the #1 Terrorist State of Nukes will not make the world a safer place.
But he stops with that. Libs never close their posts. Next he will be a one-liner like the effervescent Suzianne.
We have to figure out what he means, I guess. Does he mean the world will be a more dangerous place?

Israel and the US are terrorist states.

@shavixmir said
Israel and the US are terrorist states.

Israel and the US are not terrorist states.

One person has no duty to another to provide housing.

Differences flourish on the Forum.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Good morning, trash. 🙂 Your first para makes no sense, but, no problem.

I have always said to bomb them like I loved bombing Hiroshima. What position you talkinbout?

Trump someone's B? ha, anyone else here think he would be that?

@AverageJoe1 said
Israel and the US are not terrorist states.

One person has no duty to another to provide housing.

Differences flourish on the Forum.

Both murder civilians, even without provocations.
Both bomb other countries without declaring war.
Both assassinate people they don’t like.

You are a supporter of terrorism.

@no1marauder said
International law already covers preemptive military action in such circumstances:

"Preemptive military action is undertaken to eliminate an immediate and credible threat of grievous harm. Those acting preemptively believe that an adversary is about to attack, that the assault is inevitable, and that a preemptive strike can eliminate the threat or at least reduce the h ...[text shortened]... d by that necessity, and kept clearly within it.[2]".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_test

Would you please answer my question about 5 guys building a bomb to bring Death To Your Town"? I have asked Sonhouse the question, and he is dancing around it. If you would do that, it would give him a reference point with which to form his answer.

If you do not answer, it will be quite a testament to the difference between conservatives and liberals, with regard to being straightforward debaters.

@shavixmir said
Both murder civilians, even without provocations.
Both bomb other countries without declaring war.
Both assassinate people they don’t like.

You are a supporter of terrorism.

Incorrect use of the word murder.
We did not murder the japanese civilians. It would be to say that they murdered Pearl Harbor sailors. That doesn't wash. Anyway, tit for tat, so you make no point.
Where does it say that a 'war' must be declared when an entity, a country, a town, is threatened with death? And must the threatened wait until a bomb hits the town? Geez

And, get this,... Whether or not they LIKE the aggressors, the threateners, the bomb-makers, is absolutely irrelevant. The Reason to do so is self-preservation, little feller, it is not that they don't like them. Geez

Go get some air, maybe a bit of cycling

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You have no idea how peace is achieved

@shavixmir said
Both murder civilians, even without provocations.
Both bomb other countries without declaring war.
Both assassinate people they don’t like.

You are a supporter of terrorism.

Murder is a premeditated intent to kill someone. Intent to kill people.

This is hardly that, because these people were told they had 60 days to surrender, and to do whatever they wanted to do. That, we INTENDED to blow up their facilities. IF they were still there, after 60 days, was it not suicide??
Our intent was to kill no one, or we would not have given them a chance.

When we dropped leaflets in WWII, that they were in harms way, it was not about murdering them. It was to tell them to get the hell out of the way of some incoming bombs. Marauder's friends have maniac minds and love death, so OF COURSE they stuck around. For suicide.

@AverageJoe1 said
Would you please answer my question about 5 guys building a bomb to bring Death To Your Town"? I have asked Sonhouse the question, and he is dancing around it. If you would do that, it would give him a reference point with which to form his answer.

If you do not answer, it will be quite a testament to the difference between conservatives and liberals, with regard to being straightforward debaters.

No, I don't feel required to respond to every stupid, off-topic hypothetical you come up with.

If you had read my post, you'd understand the circumstances where pre-emptive self defense is allowed.