The 'Putinization' of US Foreign Policy

"invading a foreign country"

Republicans can't talk about that.

It's like a fifteen year old girl trying to talk to Trump about consent.

Remember this?
" Biden Raises Bounty for Nicols Maduro to $25 Million"
www.nytimes.com
#25 | Posted by BellRinger

Trump gets to claim the $25 million bounty, is that your point?

And, it was okay to try and outsource this but to do it ourselves is bad?
#32 | Posted by BellRinger

You keep saying you don't support this.
Now, you're asking why it's bad.
You aren't very good at lying.
But that makes sense, since you are very good at being a Deplorable.

"None of these had congressional approval."

Was that bad?

Take a bit of time to look to history and look up the word precedent'.
#34 | Posted by BellRinger

We're aware of the history.

We're curious why you bring it up.

If there's history, and there is precedent, does that mean it can't be bad?

If not, just tell us the meaning of history and precedent.

You're not afraid because you know Trump is not a fascist dictator, otherwise you would be stupid to post all the anti-Trump garbage.
#16 | Posted by visitor_

There's lots of us who would rather die on our feet, than life on our knees.

Maybe you could go talk to a grown-up about it?

"People keep calling it illegal. Its not. I've provided historical evidence to shut down that claim."

I haven't seen this "historical evidence" that these interventions are legal.

Since you have, please provide links.

From
www.nationalreview.com
"That may describe President Donald Trump's order to execute the astounding snatch-and-grab of Nicols Maduro, the leader of Venezuela. But it also describes President Barack Obama's 2011 campaign to bring down the Libyan regime of Moammar Qaddafi. Or President Bill Clinton's 2000 air war against Serbia, which stopped its invasion of Kosovo and led to the overthrow and trial of Slobodan Miloevi. Or, in the example most similar to today's, President George H. W. Bush's 1989 decision to invade Panama, arrest its military leader Manuel Noriega, and try him for drug-trafficking."

That is all false.

The only one it comes close to describing is Panama.

Libya and Serbia had NATO approval and UN approval. Libya was led by NATO.

And, we also didn't set "snatch and grab" as the metric of success in either of those interventions.

And as for Panama, nothing remotely resembling this happened: "Following the declaration of a state of war between Panama and the United States passed by the Panamanian general assembly"

I will close with this, JeffJ:

If you can't argue using your own words, then you can't argue.

"I'm not sure it's possible to prove something is legal anyway."

You're never sure of anything when it comes to what might be legal for your country to do.

Wanna know why?

As a Republican, you have adopted, or perhaps more accurately found common cause with the moral underpinning of fascism -- that even the truth is not fixed. The truth can be coerced to serve the interests of the State.

This is why Republicans have endorsed "Alternate Facts" and been "Doing Their Own Research" for the past decade.

The burden is to prove it to be illegal.
Has anyone bothered to do that?
#50 | Posted by eberly

You two dopes are just lazy.

academic.oup.com

Abstract
This chapter describes Art 2 (4) of the UN Charter. Article 2 (4) provides that all Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations'. The chapter outlines pre-Charter rules against force, highlighting that Art 2 (4) marked a new beginning, and summarizes the drafting history of the provision. It also analyses the scope and normative context of Art 2 (4). This attempt must remain selective, but it covers three central aspects: the relationship between the ban on force and its exceptions; the status of the ban as a customary rule of jus cogens; and core features of the legal regime governing breaches of Art 2 (4).

"Since you have, please provide links."

Fair point.

Since you can't explain it yourself:

Find me the link which explains why this is legal under the UN Charter.

Something to explain how it's legal, despite this:
academic.oup.com

This chapter describes Art 2 (4) of the UN Charter. Article 2 (4) provides that all Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations'. The chapter outlines pre-Charter rules against force, highlighting that Art 2 (4) marked a new beginning, and summarizes the drafting history of the provision. It also analyses the scope and normative context of Art 2 (4). This attempt must remain selective, but it covers three central aspects: the relationship between the ban on force and its exceptions; the status of the ban as a customary rule of jus cogens; and core features of the legal regime governing breaches of Art 2 (4).

We are a sovereign nation and are not governed by the UN charter.
#58 | Posted by BellRinger

The United States created the United Nations.
The United States signed the UN Charter.
The United States Senate ratified it.

But it doesn't bind us?
Now that is some first rate Republican logic!

Putinization

Is the right word for what's happened to JeffJ, and Eberly, and the rest of the Republican Party.

We are a sovereign nation and are not governed by the UN charter.
#58 | Posted by BellRinger

The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.

What can the UN do? What would he the consequences the UN can dispense to the US for this?
#67 | Posted by eberly

Practically, not much, with the US having a permanent seat on the council.

Theoretically, anything from economic sanctions to military intervention, as we've done with the UN blessing when it suits us.

The difference JeffJ can't address, and you don't seem to want to address either, is Libya and Kosovo had the UN's blessing.

Panama we went in alone, and Congress eventually told the President he had to pull back, which he did.

Nope.

Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you, Eberly, that the end of Pax Americana is a bigger deal than the President raping teenage girls.

-We are a belligerent on the world stage

That you think automatically resets when the party in the WH changes.
#77 | Posted by eberly

It tracks pretty well.

Bush invaded Panama and got his hand slapped by Congress and even The Vatican for blasting music at the Papal Nuncio 24x7.

W. fabricated a reason to invadeq Iraq.

W., as an afterthought, invaded Afghanistan, when as Trump and Obama showed, we could have just grabbed OBL, right Boaz?

Trump withdrew from Afghanistan, left Biden holding the bag, and then Trump attacked Venezuela and promises to run it like W. promised to run Iraq.

And if we ever have another elections, Democrats will be holding the bag for that too.

Military action spawned by Democrats looks like the international consensus driven approach in Libya and Kosovo.

So yeah. The United States proclivity to be belligerent goes waaay up when Republicans are in charge.

Go on, deny it, you prancing little faggot.

It was an good accurate post until that.
#85 | Posted by Alexandrite

And if that parts keeps Eberly from playing his deer in the headlights game at us that that part was also good and accurate.

But you raise a valid point.

Perhaps you believe Eberly's comments in this thread are truly born of his ignorance and his willingness to learn and understand.

I think that's the shtick he uses when he's smoke screening for Republicans.

Thanks for reading and understanding.

"Apparently, according to JPW and Laura Mohr the UN gets to dictate our foreign policy."

According to the United States Constitution, yes this is true.

We signed the treaty, and thus we are bound by our oath.

Do you disagree with that, child?

it didn't come close to refuting what I posted.
#90 | Posted by eberly

Sure it did.

Whose invocation of the military has cost more in your lifetime, in either blood or treasure?

Military action undertaken by a Republican President, or military action undertaken by a Democrat President.

You know it's Republicans, by a country mile.

Translation: the UN is both toothless and irrelevant in this circumstance.
#87 | Posted by BellRinger

Our promise to behave in accord with the treaty we wrote and signed is irrelevant?

Only if you believe our word means nothing.

Which, obviously, you do.

Congratulations, Republicans.
You Built That.

"You think the world cares about Stormy Daniels?"

You think the world cares that the United States broke the promises it made in the United Nations Charter?

I do.

"the UN is both toothless and irrelevant in this circumstance."

If the UN is toothless here, it is only because the United States wishes it to be so.

It's not irrelevant that the post war hegemony ushered in, while the United States adhered to the UN charter, is drawing to a close under Republican leadership.

Nor is this turn of events toothless.

If is the end of the era of mutual cooperation, which has spread democracy and brought billions out of poverty in the past eighty years.

That is the real issue in play here. Unless "you're inside a very narrow minded bubble."

"My point is that you childishly believe the world cares about what you care about."

If you don't think the world cares about Trump violating the UN Charter, you just might be a Republican!

Try not to melt down quite so easily.
#104 | Posted by eberly

The president told The Atlantic that Delcy Rodrguez needs to comply with U.S. wishes -- or else.
#105 | Posted by Alexandrite

Hahaha!!

Breaking UN and Constitutional norms is irrelevant.
-eberly the drunk dipshit.
#109 | Posted by BellRinger

You're right.
Eberly didn't say that stuff.
You did.