No President has the right to use unilateral executive authority to permit a U.S. missile strike against another nation. It invites a retaliatory attack. It is an impeachable offense.
No President has the right to use unilateral executive authority to permit a U.S. missile strike against another nation. It invites a retaliatory attack. It is an impeachable offense.
And this is not happening – the US President is telling Ukrainian forces that they no longer have limitations on targets they can use American supplied weapons on. There is no US missile strike. The US no longer owns those missiles. Ukraine plays within the rules because if it doesn’t there’s a chance it might not get more weapons later.
Also how was this line of argumentation applied in the last like 25 years for like:
Sure it happened, but nothing came of it, because it’s just not a real argument anyway. It holds no power. It’s liberal cope.
If I hand someone a gun, tell them who they can and cannot shoot with it, and train them on how to use it, I’m going to jail when they shoot someone.
This game of Civilization you’re playing in your head is horseshit.
Yeah and a national budget is like a family budget so that’s why you must do austerity.
It does insomuch as they are operated by US personnel. From what I’ve heard, Ukrainians haven’t even been given training on operating them, and they rely on US-operated targeting infrastructure to even function.
They aren’t.
If the US pulled all support tomorrow, would Ukraine still be able to use HIMARS and ATACMS? Yes. Would they be as effective using them? No. And it’s not because of a lack of training or US personel pushing the buttons. It’s about the fact that US main support is providing intelligence and target selection capabilities that Ukraine cannot practically do itself.
If you say so, boss. We’ve had troops on the ground since even before the war started.
Okay let’s say you’re right, the US has de facto direct involvement in the Russia-Ukraine War on the side of Ukraine.
Does that mean US currently has a valid cassus beli against North Korea?
What a weird non sequitur. The US does whatever it wants to, and everything it does is definitionally valid. The rules-based international order is: the US makes up rules and orders everyone around. Which is why the US is the greatest pariah to actual international law, and to world peace.
Sure. You’re right. So you have 2 theoretical worlds
By arguing about the “realpolitik” of it and the “akshually there’s direct Involvement from Americans” you’re arguing in world 2. By arguing about how the US does what it wants you’re arguing in world 1.
My point is that by arguing in world 2 and agreeing to the Russian points, you must also agree to their consequences in that by agreeing that America has direct involvement, and North Korea having direct involvement gives America a rightful cassus beli.
I don’t disagree with your point at all. All I’m saying is that you either need to agree to a system that may have side effects you don’t like / don’t support, or you need to agree to might makes right and there’s no real argument that America “cannot do these things”.
In short, tell me why this matters, you can decide the terrain and I’ll conceed a fair amount of points, but you just have to accept consequences. World 1 America does what it wants, the question doesn’t matter. World 2 if we’re taking your argument at face value that the Russians are right, America is actually a direct party to the war, which means America can rightfully drone strike Pyongyang tomorrow
My argument here in general is that regardless that America has the biggest swingingest dick in the room, doesn’t mean that other countries aren’t all also swinging their dicks, and we have to make sense of this somehow otherwise there’s no point and America should just win because it’s the biggest evilest guy.
I see, we’re playing word games.
I will never “agree”—in the sense of “accept as a moral truth”—that “might makes right;” I will only acknowledge that it in fact can and often does make “right.” But not “right” as in “moral” or “reasonable” or “desirable,” but “right” as in “what actually ends up happening.”
Sure but you’re dodging the question now.
The point is if we want to talk about what’s legal on the international stage. Russia’s views have consequences. There’s nothing that about US’s support of Ukraine that is illegal. So Russia is saying that the US is escalating and is a direct party in the war, which I can see an argument for. Which means that because North Korea has joined the war on the side of Russia, America has a legal reason to bomb Pyongyang in the same way it bombed Bryansk (in Russia’s view).
See Russia is advocating for Russia. It will throw North Korea under the bus in this scenario, the question is, is that fair to North Korea?