Be nice if the US was in a position to refer on these concepts, other than for comedy.be nice if you minded your own goddamned business, too, other than the comedy.
From the mouth’s of babes. (Hi Honey).
Minding your own goddam business might of done the US a whole lot of good lately.
Just wondering out loud, does invading another nation on the pretext of its supposed participation in terrorist acts that it in fact had nothing to with, violate any concepts of civil conduct between nations?
The government of Great Britain, which had the most direct interest in the matter, apparently believed that it had a reasonable chance of obtaining the return of its sailors while neither immediately resorting to force nor capitulating to Iranian demands, and in fact was able to do so. I don’t really see what your problem is with that.
Seizing innocent people off the street in other countries, flying them to secret prisons and torturing them is of course not a violation of civil conduct.
I’m afraid that we don’t have a very good moral position anymore.
Jeebus Christmas! We have at least three actual 28%ers commenting on this thread alone!
What level of delusion do you have to be suffering from to still swallow the idea that attacking Iraq in the first place was a good thing? Or that Iran is actually the actor-by-proxy that we have to worry most about in Iraq? Or that John Bolton has any kind of realistic claim to being an expert on foreign policy?
The drums are being beaten, just like they were in 2002. And true to the call of those drumbeats, the mindless zombies of Bushdom are spreading their inane poison.
Besides the analogy with Afghanistan already mentioned, wouldn’t a better solution, much cheaper in men and casualties, is to send enough troops to protect the border? It wouldn’t be perfect, but it might keep some of the stuff out.
If support by Iran of the Shia is a surprise to the Administration, then they’re even stupider than I thought - which is pretty damn stupid.
I can see Bolton playing Risk
“It’s not fair. You’re attacking me back! I’ll turn over the board if you don’t stop!”
Yeah, Sevastopol, stop butting in with irritating references to obvious hypocrisy on an open message board of which you are a Charter Member. What right do you have?
Your opinion, of what the US might or might not have done, is worth less than zero, just so you know.
Uh… wasn´t John Malkovich on that movie?
Why have you changed the topic?
My remark was a specific response to the absurd notion that the siezure of the Brits who were seeking contraband in the Shatt al Arab was an act of war. An act of war should be sufficiently significant as to actually provoke a war. As noted, we did not consider it an act of war when the Chinese wound up with our Orion and aircrew early in 2001. (We did not even consider it an act of war when the North Koreans siezed the USS Pueblo with far less legitimacy.)
Now, if you want to change the topic to that of whether Iran is assisting in the destabilization of Iraq–and killing our troops in the process, you will need to get in line behind the people who were killed, (often murdered), in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Angola, and any number of other places by U.S. forces or weapons.
If we’re going to wander around arranging for people to die so that we can be Number 1, then we have to accept that many of those people are going to want to return the favor and many other people are going to follow the wonderful leadership we have provided to the world in that arena.
As is your opinion of pretty much any topic on which you have posted. 
So, let’s see you twist yourself to claim that it wasn’t an act of WAR? Go ahead, it should be amusing.
So when Americans arrest Iranian civil servants working in Iraq, that’s okay, because they aren’t in a uniform? I’m just trying to figure out the laws of war in your world.
Submitted before we read post #31, did we?
Iranian Civil Servants? I suppose the Nazis were just German Civil Servants, right?
**Carol ** I can’t help but notice something. Most others in this thread are posting citable facts and rational editorializing. The primary extent of your participation seems to be to make allegations you can’t back, tell other people they have no right to post or that their opinions are worthless and repetitively apply a jingoistic label to a particular occurence, with no apparent inclination to meaningfully consider whether the label is apt or meaningful.
Are you perhaps a complete fucking doofus?
I can only conclude, based on this question, that you are wholly unfamiliar with her oeuvre.
No, why do you say that?
Well, I guess you lose. Godwin and all that.
Apparently we arrested people so threatening that, after saying they worked for the Iranian Electrical Ministry, we released them and apologized. What was their crime? They were – hold on – thought to be armed. And in Iraq. I’m no fan of the Iranian government, but the fact that someone is armed in Iraq could just mean that… oh, I don’t know, they want to exercise some measure of self-defense. I know, I know, it’s wild, unfounded speculation… I just merely mean to suggest that if there’s danger about, some people like to have gun at their disposal. People like… everyone in Iraq. Or Republicans who live in suburbs.
By the way, do you think Spain and Britain are at war? Because Britain invaded a few years ago. Invasion is certainly an act of war, isn’t it?