Whatever they may 'feel' does not negate the reality that the muslims dominated their own territories, established their own economies, printed their own currencies, created their own governmental institutions, and perpetuated their own cultures. They have all the visible trappings of sovereign nation-states. They control their own media and if they are incompetent at presenting their own viewpoints on any issue, that is not the fault of those who criticized them.
That by no means indicate that they are not sovereign nations.
The competence of otherwise is not material to their sovereignty.
At this rate if those who control their media are not sovereign, then China by that definition is not sovereign. Try telling that to China.
What has the viewpoint projected by the Muslim countries got to do with violation of their sovereignty?
The General Assembly members agreed that for inter-states issues that may create tensions that may escalate into armed conflicts, the Security Council should be the final arbiter of those issues. You need to study up on how the UN operate.
Security Council may feel that they are the final arbiter, but they are not. The US did not care what the UNSC had said and went right ahead in Iraq as they interpreted what was right for them!
I don't have to study how the UN operate, because I was with the UN itself!
Neither was the Kuwait invasion by Iraq. Neither was the Soviet invasions of assorted Eastern European countries that created the once Soviet empire. I did not bring those up to justify US actions in Pakistan but to point out the truth that when nation-states are in conflicts that could threaten their existence, UN blessings are irrelevant. Certainly al-Qaeda did not seek UN sanctions. But your entire argument still does not explain how Pakistan is not a sovereign nation-state.
On the one hand, you state that the UNSC is the final arbiter and in the same breath, you claim
when nation-states are in conflicts that could threaten their existence, UN blessings are irrelevant.
AQ is not a nation state and so your using the AQ, as if it were a nation state, is flawed.
For any country to be in conflict, one has to declare openly a war. Is the US and Pakistan at war?
My entire argument was that Pakistan is a sovereign state and thus any offensive action by a foreign country is violation of its territorial integrity and sovereignty. Therefore, your contention -
your entire argument still does not explain how Pakistan is not a sovereign nation-state - is an attempt to obfuscate the issue in a disingenuous manner.
Are you really that naive? But let us grant that Pakistan really does not know Osama was living in comfort right next a Pakistani military academy...
No, I am not naive. Not at all. In fact I don't even buy your contention that the Kakul Academy which trains cadets and has merely demonstration troops are hardly geared or trained for anti Heliborne operations. I wonder if you know these are troops who have been turned over after a hard operational posting and they psychologically are attuned to take a well deserved break, by doing routine duties like demonstrations for Section and Platoon tactics.
Normal troops are not intelligence gathering outfits that they would know who all are in town, more so, chaps who do not show their faces in the neighbourhood or the market.
First...When we use the word 'United States of America' we do not restrict that label to the US government but also include the recognized borders that indicate to us the cartographic 'United States of America'.
- Nation: A group of people who shares a common bond.
- State: A political body that governs the nation.
- Country: A geographical locale.
Second...Before the establishment of Israel, world Jewry is a nation, in effect a people without a government and a territory. Today, we have something similar with the Gypsies in Europe. The American Indian tribes are highly autonomous nation-states but they are without territories. The reservations are only parceled out for them and their rule over the reservations are at the convenience of the US government. The word 'country' has at least dual meanings, a distinct region such as Africa or America or Asia, and to mean a territory that is claimed by a nation-state. In other words, Africa is a country that contains many 'countries' or 'nation-states'. Same for Asia or Europe or America.
Third...In inter-states relations, the response by one nation-state to a crime committed against it that harmed that nation-state in some ways is preferably proportionate to the crime itself. For example, we do not go to war against France if a Frenchman swindled an American bank out of some money. We would prefer to let our respective law enforcement agencies apprehend the criminal in a collaborative manner. However, if we look at Mexico and the internal turmoil that threatens US citizens on American soil, then the Mexicans should be glad that they are not living next to the Russians for the Russians would have invaded and established control of parcels of Mexican territory a long time ago.
We are not talking about a con man out for some money. We are talking about someone who claimed to speak for a nation -- the muslims -- and who declared that a state of warfare exists between the US and this nation. One country or nation-state -- Afghanistan -- sponsored this non-state organization in this war. The organization is al-Qaeda and its moral leader is Osama bin Laden. His charismatic hold over this nation is good enough that many members of the nation became active sympathizers. The muslim nation transcends political borders such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Europe and even America. Many of them acted on their own as we have recently seen with the many al-Qaeda 'franchises' in many countries, like a fast food franchise. Its greatest combat action was the attack on US soil on Sept. 11, 2001 that netted the organization nearly 3000 enemy killed-in-action (KIA). Osama bin Laden did not do it for monetary but political gains.
Police agencies responds to crimes that are of monetary gains in natures. Nation-states responds not to crimes but to acts of warfare that threatens its citizens and even existence.
So when we say that Pakistan harbored Osama we do not need to specifically mean the Pakistani government but to include the Pakistan territory itself where members of the muslims nation, civilian and military, in Pakistan and Afghanistan, actively assisted Osama to elude US pursuit of an enemy combatant. Allowing that the Pakistani government did not know Osama was living inside Pakistani territory for the last several years and free enough to send his followers moral and spiritual exhortations to continue the war, we can say that this is a clear case of incompetence on the part of the Pakistani government. Incompetence by one nation-state to enforce its rule over its territory justify sovereignty violations by another nation-state when an act of war was committed and a threat continue to exist.
I thought both Bush and Obama stated that the War on Terror is NOT a War Against Islam!!
While on the other hand, you make out a case, without copious examples which can be demolished, that the war is Against Islam!
Either you know better than the Presidents of the US or there is a serious disconnect between the Presidents and you! I would shudder to think the the Presidents of the US did not know what they talk about and claim to be the national policy.
By your logic, the Central American countries would be right to attack the US just because Col Oliver North organised the Contras to devastate their countries. One would wonder how many Central Americans were killed by the paid mercenaries of Oliver North, even if the US did not tacitly OK the ops!!
Never denied it. But it is curious that you and others continue to avoid the justification issue. A firefighter is fully justified in seriously damaging a car that is in his way. A damaged car can be repaired or replaced in short order but not a destroyed neighborhood or even a city. Do we prosecute the firefighter? No. We excuse his action as fully justifiable in the face of the greater threat and the insurance company will pay for the damages to the car or even replace it. Even though there was no higher authority to sanction the US raid into Pakistani territory, no country that has ever suffered a war can legitimately condemn said US action. Yes...They will know and say it was a violation of sovereignty, but that it was fully justified by either Pakistani convenient ignorance or incompetence.
It appears that firefighters in the US are some type of heroes in the US since they seem to hog the limelight. In other countries, they are just doing their duty. Tough and dangerous their duty maybe, but nonetheless it remains just a duty. No one forces them to join as no one forces people to join the Armed Forces. Therefore, this example does not excite one to nod in appreciation or in affirmation of your contention.
How many 'wars', terrorist actions etc has the US has condemned? The US which shouts to the rooftops about Freedom and Democracy has not recognised the Hamas which won an election fairly and legitimately. How many dictators who carry out atrocities are supported by the US? While the US legitimises the air assault in Libya, they conveniently forget the atrocities done by the Sultan of Bahrain over the majority Shias.
So, please do not hector on morality and right to carry out raids and justify the violation of sovereignty of Pakistan.
It is merely another attempt to twist issue to justify the unjustifiable.
If the US has carried out a raid to kill OBL, so be it. If it has violated international niceties, so be it. Why justify? Since when has the US cared for international opinion? They do not even recognise the International Court of Justice!!
Absurd. There are many rights and their corresponding responsibilities. For this discussion, some of them I have outlined. For your argument to be valid for this discussion, you must show how the US have been negligent in exercising authority over US territories and corrective actions when proved incompetent. You must show how the US was either negligent or refused or incapable of exercising authority over a parcel of US territory when that territory was illegally used in a war that the US has no interests in.
You are obfuscating.
Read this part again and correlate how the US has flung all responsibilities as a nation state in the comity of nations and flouted at will the territorial integrity and sovereignty of other nations.
I have not denied that the US violated Pakistani sovereignty, but you and the others have refused to acknowledged Pakistani responsibilities.
You have throughout tried to justify the US action and thus not acknowledging the violations of the US of the internationally recognised principles.
There is no doubt that Pakistan has failed to keep terrorists in check, and if what they claim is right that they did not know that OBL is in Pakistan, they have proved their incompetence.
Everyone is delighted that OBL has been killed, but one cannot pretend that there has been no violation of international niceties.
There has been violations and I would say - Take it or Leave it. The task had to be done and it was done, with or without help!
There is no requirement for the US or anyone to act smug and cover it with disingenuous attempts at morality.
Oh yes, I am here.
I know about Geneva Conventions, if that helps matters.
I had to operate with that as one of the guidelines.