For instance, if Osama bin Laden were hiding out in a country that we could trust to duo the right thing (e.g. Canada), then we'd probably allow Canada's interest in sovereignty to trump our own interest in ensuring his capture by way of commando raid. But when you're talking places like Pakistan, and certainly Yemen/Afganistan/Libya/Syria, the central government fails to exercise effective control over huge swathes of territory where terrorists can easily set up shop. Their government's claim to "sovereignty" in such areas is aspirational at best and a legal fiction at worst.

Nuclear weapons were used upon Japan to create enough devastation to force a surrender. The US only had 3 nuclear bombs. the first was tested in New Mexico and the other two were dropped in Japan. There was a discussion about using number 2 on a deserted island as a demonstration to show Japan, but the fear was if they weren't convinced, then there was only one left and if like after Hiroshima they didn't surrender then it was a landing on the main islands as the only option.

The nuclear option is less useful now because Syria is decentralized. You can be just as effective using conventional bombs and no fallout. Nuclear only now works as a terror weapon or against a conventional opponent with major targets.

I agree the only difference between supporting Saudi Arabia over Iran is that Saudi Arabia is more cooperative to Western interests. Both support religious groups that are hostile to the West and involved in attacks on the West. The Saudi monarchy is more pragmatic than the Irani theocracy in making changes to keep Western support whereas Iran is convinced that eventually they will win so delay will work in their favor.

The biggest thing to hurt Iran was not the boycott, but the drop in oil prices so they couldn't buy what they needed and fund terror groups. A couple more years of low oil prices and there will be another Iranian Revolution from the people no longer getting subsidized essential goods. That's why Iran is pushing to expand support into neighboring countries before it runs out of money.

Iraq was never about 9/11 and WMD, but about revenge for Bush I and getting control of the oil. US forces went to the known nuclear materials location and left without taking them or leaving behind guards. Then they had to recover materials taken afterwards by local pillagers. The failure to keep up oil production and profit from it is what hurt the US plans.

orathaic - I don't like the Washington comparison, as he fought battles according to European rules of engagement. So that's like saying Al Qaeda was trying to fight the US in conventional warfare.

A better comparison would be Daniel Morgan, who fought the British with asymmetric tactics. And he was hunted in the same way the US hunted Osama.

Once again ora, Bin Laden was an enemy combatant. At least, that argument can be made. This doesn't exactly fall under typical rules of engagement, because we haven't adapted strategically/legally/morally to this type of warfare.

"I would argue it turned out quite well. When dealing with multinational terrorism, I believe sovereignty is a secondary concern. It's something to think about, but not the be-all, end-all that some try to make it. "

so in fact, you are of the opinion that it is ok to go into someone elses country and blow things up.

Which is exactly what you think Osama did to make him a modern day Hitler. Or it is ok for you to do it, but no-one else should? Di someone mention hypocrisy in this thread?

I am at least consistant in that i condemn ALL violence, and bombing of people regardless of whether they are state actors or non-state.

And i admit, you have a point about Pakistan. That is not to say i agree, but they may have been harbouring a known terror suspect.

Last country to do this was Afghanistan, and the US decided to invade.

The consequences of invading Afghanistan have been rather bad for every other empire who tried it. Both the Brisith Empire and USSR collapsed sortly after invasions of Afghanistan. China never conquered it.

Looking back in 50 years, it may be seen as the begining of the end for the US aswell.

"But when you're talking places like Pakistan, and certainly Yemen/Afganistan/Libya/Syria, the central government fails to exercise effective control over huge swathes of territory where terrorists can easily set up shop." - countries where you don't like their sovereignty. Where the are not part of 'the west' - where i use the term to mean, the US and whoever agrees with the US at any given time.

"Nuclear weapons were used upon Japan to create enough devastation to force a surrender. The US only had 3 nuclear bombs. the first was tested in New Mexico and the other two were dropped in Japan."

it was also done to prevent your Soviet allies from invading Japan and dividing up the country like they did in germany. To prove US military might, and to save the lives of soldiers - even so, under most rules of war, this would be considered a war crime. The very notion that you're going to avoid the death of Japanese and US soldiers by killing Japanese civilians is abhorrent to most 19th century ideas of war.

"I agree the only difference between supporting Saudi Arabia over Iran is that Saudi Arabia is more cooperative to Western interests. Both support religious groups that are hostile to the West and involved in attacks on the West."

What hostile religious groupsa have IRan supported? I mean, Hezbullah and Hammas are the only ones i know about, and the former was involved in attacks against Israel - when Israel was occupying Lebannon (and is currently invovled in attacks against ISIS or to support Assad) While the latter is involved in attacks against Israel, which is currently occupying Palestine.

You could argue in both cases that these were actions of self-defence, or of freedom figthers against an occupying force.

I do not agree with violence as a means to achieve freedom from an occupying force. Ghandi demonstrated that there are alternative tactics, Martin Luther King, Jr followed Ghani's example, and lest we forget Nelson Mandela. But as far as ';attacking western interests' go, they at least have just cause. Not merely vengence (for example Hezbollah have stopped attacking Israel now that Israel has pulled out of Lebanon)

Saudi Arabia meanwhile is the home of Wahabism the branch of Islam which inspired Osama Bin Laden and his al qaeda movement. And, i believe, directly supported ISIS.

"Iraq was never about 9/11 and WMD, but about revenge for Bush I and getting control of the oil. " - well at least someone agrees with me.

Do you condemn this act of Vengance?

@KC, yes, you have a point there.

And under these new rules we're adapting to, 'enemy combatants' are kept indefinitely in guantanamo, and US citizens are summmarily executed by drone strike under orders from the president, if they are believed to be plotting terrorist action in a foreign country.

With this precedent, how long before drone strikes are used by the US police/law enforcement in situations like Wacco Texas? (i know this is a slippery slope arguement, but the principle of kill your enemies without a trial is one which has been applied beyond OSama, to US citizens... so long as they are covered by the hazy term 'Enemy Combatant')

@"I don't like the Washington comparison, as he fought battles according to European rules of engagement. So that's like saying Al Qaeda was trying to fight the US in conventional warfare."

But he was still declaring war against an enemy. Using vilence as a means to his end. My question remains, was he wrong to take up arms? And hsould the British have had him executed if they could?

"My question remains, was he wrong to take up arms? And should the British have had him executed if they could? "

No. Yes. He would've been hung like any other traitor to the crown. The only difference, which I was pointing out, is that they would capture him rather than killing him on the spot, since he fought by European rules.

There's also the point that Washington was not a non-state actor for the majority of the war. The colonists fairly quickly declared independence and created a country that was recognized by the international community at large.

And ISIS has also declared a state/caliphate.

May not have recognition if anyone, but that could take years, and them proving they can survive.

These are the comparisons of the madhouse. At the time of the War of Independence (aka First American Civil War) there was very little to choose between the sides in terms of what we might loosely describe as human rights. Does anyone seriously think that is the case now? If so they need to buy a compass, preferably one that is calibrated in units of morality.

Oh, the British were actually the more liberal in the War of Independence. Britain had banned slavery; the American slaveholders wanted to keep their free labour.

Yes I have been reading about the Black loyalist community of Halifax, Nova Scotia; interesting stuff. However, unfortunately when it came down to it there was little to choose between the two sides on this score. We are starting from a very low base.

Ora: Exactly how meek are you? Would you fight to save your own life? Your family? Friends? Neighbors? Countryman? If you're the type of creature that is so poor of spirit that you wouldn't even fight for yourself, you really should do the gene pool a favor and go kill yourself.

Are you comparing the US today (which is not at war in Syria) to ISIS? Because that is not what i was doing at all.

If anythign, you should be comparing the Assad Regime to ISIS...
A civil war between the British and rebellious Colonial forces, compared to the war between Syria's Assad and ISIS's Caliphate forces.

Also, what problem have you got with my morals? That i criticise all butchers at once, instead of thinking the one's on 'my side' are better?

Because you aren't aware that people exhibit the morals the they can afford at the time, and that morals change throughout time. You have no sense of human nature or the reality of how things work in this world.

You do excel at jumping up and down and pointing fingers, for whatever that's worth.

Well, I wouldn't say that killing Osama was bad per se (we'd need to enter a complex discussion about the morality of killing people and death penalty, in general, not Osama in particular), but I certainly agree that capture him alive would have been much better, even for US interests.

No matter how vile his views are to you, it is unacceptable to tell someone to kill themselves. You should apologize.

yeah, in any case go and kill him...

Ghandi, MLK, and Mandela achieved much in their times, but nonviolent resistance is totally inappropriate as a counterterrorism tool. It would be interesting to see how they would have gone after bin Laden (or not), but they weren't presented with theissue. You could argue Ghandi wasn't even that effective, given that India didn't achieve independence until after WWII (when Britain was ready to be done with the place anyway), and the Partition of India and Pakistan went ahead despite Ghandi's strong objections.

Sorry for going off topic so much, but I can't let some of these ridiculous arguments go unrebutted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XXUZjyZVj6s

This guy perfectly describes the 'peaceful' way of combatting ISIS. Seriously.

"Because you aren't aware that people exhibit the morals the they can afford at the time, and that morals change throughout time. You have no sense of human nature or the reality of how things work in this world."

You know, you have a point. But i'm nowhere near claiming that this isn't true, I am trying to show that we are capable of evil, and justifyig that capability doesn't make it any better.

Sure there are barbaric people in the world, and to hear some of the people in this thread, that's fine (Saudi Arabia) so long as the don't end their sentences with 'Death to America, Death to the West'.

If you only give a shit about your morales when it is easy. If you only call for the removal of dictators when it is convienant, then you're just a bullshit artist, like most of our politicians.

Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq, at a time when the American people were calling for blood. Because he could. He could get away with it.

And I imagine Obama is little better.

"You could argue Ghandi wasn't even that effective, given that India didn't achieve independence until after WWII (when Britain was ready to be done with the place anyway), and the Partition of India and Pakistan went ahead despite Ghandi's strong objections."

Fair enough; but as the model of peaceful resistance, he showed that you can distrupt a power system without resorting to violence. The kind of peaceful resistance which the Occupy movement tried, or Nelson Mandela followed.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - is a great quote. If you disrupt a system, you force compromise at the very least.

French farmers protest by slowly driving their tractors to Paris; causing chaos on the roads. Completely shutting down huge amounts of economic activity... This is peaceful action.

Anyone here remember the genocide of the Yazidis?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WBbIA20eE4

Peaceful action in this context?

Don't sell weapons to the middle east in the first place... Don't invade Iraq and destabilise the region. Don't use violence as a means to your own ends so that others copycat you.

Do send in Transport helicoptors to save the Yazidis.

@ Gobble: I was making a point, not telling ora to off himself. Being that he realized that, as I hope most adults would, I see no need to apologize to him.

"Don't use violence as a means to your own ends so that others copycat you."

Do you mean like the practice of convert or die that the Christian Spaniards used in the new world and adopted from the Muslims who used it when they invaded Spain?

trip, in Andalucia muslims lived peacefully with christians and jews for over 500 years, and new world evangelization was not a convert or die (they relied in other resources for persuation and punishment)

Yeah, that was after they invaded Spain and had grown as far as they could.

"Do you mean like the practice of convert or die that the Christian Spaniards used in the new world and adopted from the Muslims who used it when they invaded Spain?"

Sure, if that happened it would be a perfect example. I'm not familiar with the details of the history.

But people do tend to copy what the see as successful. Whatever the context happens to be which defines what success means.