Al68 said:
No, it certainly doesn't, that's faulty logic. The fact that sovereignty could be a basis for a lack of equality doesn't mean it is the only possible basis, or the particular basis being referred to by another.
It's analogous to claiming that since poodles are dogs, and you claim to have a dog, then that's the same thing as your claiming to have a poodle, even after you point out that your dog is a greyhound. Because poodles are dogs, dammit, and you said you had one.
That's not analogous. You are either shifting your point now or didn't mean what you wrote first. On its own soil, a country has sovereignity if it is a sovereign country, and that means exactly that: no other country has the right to raise their values, laws etc. over theirs. The case was different with the Nazis, because they violated the sovereignity of others and threatened the sovereignity of others in the incarnation of a state. If Pakistan did not authorize the US mission to kill UBL, it was an act of war. I understand your point as that it was not an act of war because the US is allowed to do so no matter what the Pakistani say, and that other countries are not allowed the same regarding the US. This is hypocritical viewed from a neutral stance. It is only not hypocritical from US point of view if you define that US law has superiority over foreign law on the soil of the foreign state. However you open yourself to the idea that you legitimate other countries, or, as happens more often, individuals or individual organizations (= terrorism) to the same thought.
To clarify,
I say that no state is allowed to do this without authorization, and this is also what most of the sovereign world says, too, which is the reason that wars are seldomly started by countries in a legitimate organization without authorization.
russ_watters said:
While directed at you, my last response was as much a response to others who said similar things a couple of weeks ago that I never responded to. I meant to, I just never got around to it. I realize you weren't arguing against me except coincidentally. I do believe the US has a moral superiority over most nations. As it applies to this case, it includes Afghanistan and Pakistan. But to analyze the common phrase "might makes right", I wouldn't say that our might makes us right but rather gives us the ability to act based on our judgement of the morality of a situation. Might makes right in a practical sense, but not in a moral sense: true moral superiority is not arbitrary, it comes from a highly developed set of moral principles that are arrived at by logic and practice (testing). That we also have that actual "right" (high quality morality) is just coincidental - and frankly, fortunate for the world. If the US had failed and the USSR was the only superpower today, the world would be a dark place. The US takes a lot of flak, for sure, but I think that's just backlash against the guy in charge. People always complain about the boss, even if he really is a great boss. There's always someone who thinks the boss is an arrogant jerk who thinks he's better than me but isn't. I'd never claim the US is perfect or the best possible sole superpower (or even the most moral nation on Earth or best potential world leader given the existing choices), I merely believe we're the best world leader the world has ever seen.
Well, I'll take a pragmatic stance here and say yes, the US is the best world leader we have seen so far, judging from the historically long period of peace with regards to the amount of nations involved.
What makes me sad is that the US
was the greatest leader in history and together with the European Age of Enlightment, shaped our free society, in which I like to live. I feel however that the US is shifting away from this target of greater good for all towards more and more individual, economic and power-oriented motivations. And, mind you, not only internationally!
@DR13: please, this argument you make is just childish, because you only see your position. What about innocent people who never had anything to do with AQ etc. getting killed as "collateral damage"? How do those people think?
You are allowed to kill enemy combatants, yes. You are not, however, allowed to do it outside of a war or, as folllows, declare a war on a concept and then just treat anything and any region of the world as a war zone. Also, at the time UBL was killed he was a living human. Dehumanization of the enemy is the basis for the most gruesome massacres of human history.
How hard is it to see that when even I who I am the direct victim of a war and closely related to fatalities of a war on exactly this basis, can see that - that even my worst enemy is a human and is entitled to the same basic human rights (even though my personal opinion might be more violent, I wouldn't act on it)? What does the number of victims have to do with this? Look up the number of victims of the Balkans war. If not anything else, think about this: someday, someone else with enough power might regard YOU as the enemy. You certainly want him to treat you like a human!
