Dave Smith wrote:
>
> ... but the fact remains that
> landing troops in Pakistant, getting involved in a fire fight. killing
> people and removing the body...... is an act of war.

Exactly. And as Bush said in his speech immediately after 9/11 if
you're not with us you are against us. Pakistan is free to respond by a
decalarion of war if they wish. It's okay, I'll wait. Tick, tick,
tick. Still waiting ...

Is anyone taking bets that Pakistan will respond to this act of war with
a declarion of war? Let me know the odds I might go ahead and bet
against it. I might get $1.02 out of my $1.00 bet when the time of the
bet expires and they have made no declaration of war.

Does anyone remember when the volcano went off in the Carribean in about
1994 St Julline wasn't it? US troops went in and helped UK citizens
evacuate. It turns out the UK had decided that since they had not left
at the eruption in the 1980s they were to be allowed to suffer at that
eruption. The UK ambassodor quietly informed the US that it was
technically an act of war to invade UK territory like that. Rescuing
folks from a volcano is technically an act of war when it's a
territorial violation. The UK no more declared war on the US then than
Pakistan will now.

It was equally an act of war to harbor Bin Laden in the first place.
With acts of war it doesn't matter if there was knowledge before hand.
That's why Afghanistan was invaded. The Taliban might or might not have
known but it did not matter. The attack was launched from there
territory so they were held responsible. The US is free to respond by a
declarion of war if they wish. I't's okay. I'll wait. Tick, tick ...

On 05/05/2011 1:53 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> ... but the fact remains that
>> landing troops in Pakistant, getting involved in a fire fight. killing
>> people and removing the body...... is an act of war.
>
> Exactly. And as Bush said in his speech immediately after 9/11 if
> you're not with us you are against us. Pakistan is free to respond by a
> decalarion of war if they wish. It's okay, I'll wait. Tick, tick,
> tick. Still waiting ...


Actually, what Bush said about a week and a half after, to a joint
session of Congress was "Either you are with us, or you are with the
terrorists", and he reserved the right to launch pre-emptive attacks on
potential enemies. That left places like Iran and North Korea with
justification to attack the US. Bush had clearly put them in his sights
and was threatening pre-emptive strikes. If the US is entitled to make
pre-emptive strikes, then so are those he is targetting.

Bush also used that childish logic to try to bully America's friends and
allies. Some of us did not believe that Saddam had that vast arsenal of
WMDs. Some of us thought that, as oppressive a jerk as Saddam was, he
was keeping a lid on things in Iraq, and he was a buffer against Iran.
Destabilizing Iraq would be like ripping open a hornets nest. As it
turned out, there were no WMDs, the country is a bigger mess now than it
was back before the invasion, and things are not getting any better
after all this time.


> Is anyone taking bets that Pakistan will respond to this act of war with
> a declarion of war? Let me know the odds I might go ahead and bet
> against it. I might get $1.02 out of my $1.00 bet when the time of the
> bet expires and they have made no declaration of war.


There is no bloated impression of omnipotence here is there. The US
went wading into the backward social cesspool that is Afghanistan,
already torn apart by more than 20 years of war. They expected that the
Afghan people would love to be liberated from the Taliban and leap at
the opportunity to have a western style democracy. That was almost ten
years ago. Before the mess in Afghanistan was cleaned up, the Bush
Doctrine was applied in Iraq. The plan was to hit Saddam pre-emptively
and disarm him of that vast arsenal of WMDs and bring democracy to the
people.


How are those two situations working for you? And now you want to take
on Pakistan..... and Iran..... and Libya?




>> Does anyone remember when the volcano went off in the Carribean in about
> 1994 St Julline wasn't it? US troops went in and helped UK citizens
> evacuate. It turns out the UK had decided that since they had not left
> at the eruption in the 1980s they were to be allowed to suffer at that
> eruption. The UK ambassodor quietly informed the US that it was
> technically an act of war to invade UK territory like that. Rescuing
> folks from a volcano is technically an act of war when it's a
> territorial violation. The UK no more declared war on the US then than
> Pakistan will now.
>


I don't recall that, but if it is true. the ambassador was correct. You
can't land troops on sovereign soil without permission of the government.





> It was equally an act of war to harbor Bin Laden in the first place.

Act of war? I don't think it is, but if you can find a definition of act
of war that I suppose you can try to argue the point, go for it. Just
calling it an act of war does not make it so,

> With acts of war it doesn't matter if there was knowledge before hand.
> That's why Afghanistan was invaded. The Taliban might or might not have
> known but it did not matter. The attack was launched from there
> territory so they were held responsible. The US is free to respond by a
> declarion of war if they wish. I't's okay. I'll wait. Tick, tick ..


9/11 was launched from Afghanistan???
As I recall, all four planes took off from American airports. Most of
the terrorists were Saudis, along with some Yemenis and Egyptians. No
Afghans. There were UN resolutions that could be enforced.

Dave Smith wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
>> Is anyone taking bets that Pakistan will respond to this act of war with
>> a declarion of war? Let me know the odds I might go ahead and bet
>> against it. I might get $1.02 out of my $1.00 bet when the time of the
>> bet expires and they have made no declaration of war.
>
> There is no bloated impression of omnipotence here is there. The US
> went wading into the backward social cesspool that is Afghanistan,

Exactly. Such a strategy would make no sense with an industrialized
modern county like any member of NATO or the Security Council. No way
would I want to try it with Canada either. But in a country where the
leadership can just barely stay in charge, it's ugly but it works. And
like everything else in history there will be hell to pay in a
generation or two.

> already torn apart by more than 20 years of war. They expected that the
> Afghan people would love to be liberated from the Taliban and leap at
> the opportunity to have a western style democracy. That was almost ten
> years ago.

Folks who read history knew better than that. Go in, blow up a bunch of
stuff until no one is in charge, then make no effort at being in charge
ourselves. Knowing what exit strategy was used by Alexander, Britain,
the Soviet Union, I sure wanted no such exit strategy. But just leaving
didn't work so well the last time either. No good answer of any sort.

Food - There are Pakistani places near me. The nearest Afghani place is
on the other side of the metro area. Too far for lunch. I'll make a
point of going for some goat at a local Pakistani place in the next
couple of days. Yum, goat korma and biriyani and gulab gamun.