Mitt Romney wants to turn over power to the Taliban?

[pocketfullofshells]

Actually, no. Hawaii was not a State during WWII, and battles at sea do not qualify as an attack on the US, IMO. If you broaden your definition to that extent, then the attack on the USS Cole would fall into the category of attack on the US.

And blowing up a passenger plane over Scotland is not an attack either. Attack means somebody sends a significant fighting force destroy property within the borders of the US. For example, NATO attacks Libya. That is an attack.

so bombing Pearl harbor not a attack on the US, targeted killing of Americans on commercial planes, is not a attack...and you are free to attack ships on the sea and not have it count as a attack on us?

 

[Hobo1]

I was not referring to Pearl Harbor, and I already addressed the fact that the bombing of a commercial jet over Scotland does NOT constitute an "attack" on U.S. soil (refer to one of my previous postings).

I was referring to the Japanese launching bomb-laden balloons from Japan, and some of those balloons actually reaching the U.S. mainland and crashing in (thankfully) unpopulated areas in the western U.S.

I was also referring to Japanese submarines patrolling in U.S. waters off the California coast, and firing on civilian entities with their deck guns.

I was also referring to German U-boats sinking dozens of U.S. merchant ships off of eastern U.S. coastal waters and in the Gulf Of Mexico.

I was also referring to German "terrorists" who landed on Long Island with the intent of bombing several targets in New York City, and who were (thankfully) apprehended before they could carry out their mission.

Ok, I concede. Those were part of an organized attack. But Pacho Villa was the last man to actually have "boots on the ground" attack. The others were just "special ops"

 

[Hobo1]

so bombing Pearl harbor not a attack on the US, targeted killing of Americans on commercial planes, is not a attack...and you are free to attack ships on the sea and not have it count as a attack on us?

Hey, an attack on America means that someone wants to conduct a military operation on American soil. The US controlled what we call "insular areas" or "territories" (actually colonies), all over the Pacific Ocean. Most significantly was not Hawaii, but the Philippines with several very sizable US bases. They were physically attacked in December, 1941. MacArthur (along with other American generals) made some very bad tactical decisions and the Japanese completely conquered the Philippine Islands. The Japanese took revenge on the American and Philippine troops who inhabited the islands.

But today the attack on the Philippines is not considered an attack against American soil.

Then what happens if al-Qaeda or the Taliban attempted as terrorist operation against American Samoa? I wonder if the news would even mention such an event against the unincorporated territory of the US.

 

[BigRob]

Actually, no. Hawaii was not a State during WWII, and battles at sea do not qualify as an attack on the US, IMO. If you broaden your definition to that extent, then the attack on the USS Cole would fall into the category of attack on the US.

According to international law, an American ship technically counts as American soil. Therefore an attack on American vessels (regardless of their location) is legally an attack on the United States itself.

And blowing up a passenger plane over Scotland is not an attack either. Attack means somebody sends a significant fighting force destroy property within the borders of the US. For example, NATO attacks Libya. That is an attack.

An attack can be more limited than you are envisioning.

 

[Hobo1]

An attack can be more limited than you are envisioning.

The use of the word attack is a matter of semantics. Obviously an attack by a ferocious dog is different than Libya attacking America. We all have different understandings of the word depending on the context.

I guess the lesson is to use a more specific word, or clearly state the context. Libyan supported terrorists detonated an bomb on an aircraft carrying American citizens. Different than Iran launched a missile carrying a nuclear bomb against Israel.

Both may be considered "attacks", but the diplomatic question is quite different. Does blowing up an airplane justify military action to force a regime change? Probably not. Is forcing a regime change sufficient punishment for using a nuclear-warhead missile. Definitely not!

 

[BigRob]

The use of the word attack is a matter of semantics. Obviously an attack by a ferocious dog is different than Libya attacking America. We all have different understandings of the word depending on the context.

I guess the lesson is to use a more specific word, or clearly state the context. Libyan supported terrorists detonated an bomb on an aircraft carrying American citizens. Different than Iran launched a missile carrying a nuclear bomb against Israel.

Both may be considered "attacks", but the diplomatic question is quite different. Does blowing up an airplane justify military action to force a regime change? Probably not. Is forcing a regime change sufficient punishment for using a nuclear-warhead missile. Definitely not!

If we wanted to enact regime change after Libyan supported terrorists blew up an aircraft, we legally would have a pretty good argument for doing so.

As for "punishment" if someone used a nuclear device...what would you view as an adequate response?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The use of the word attack is a matter of semantics. Obviously an attack by a ferocious dog is different than Libya attacking America. We all have different understandings of the word depending on the context.

I guess the lesson is to use a more specific word, or clearly state the context. Libyan supported terrorists detonated an bomb on an aircraft carrying American citizens. Different than Iran launched a missile carrying a nuclear bomb against Israel.

Both may be considered "attacks", but the diplomatic question is quite different. Does blowing up an airplane justify military action to force a regime change? Probably not. Is forcing a regime change sufficient punishment for using a nuclear-warhead missile. Definitely not!

if a leader sends blows up a civilian airliner to attack you...do you realy think that he is just going to sit back and not step it up more if you don't do something? you may say turn the cheek...but I say b**** slap them and put them in there place...without going overboard.

 

[Hobo1]

if a leader sends blows up a civilian airliner to attack you...do you really think that he is just going to sit back and not step it up more if you don't do something? you may say turn the cheek...but I say b**** slap them and put them in there place...without going overboard.

The problem, as I see it, is a matter of never ending, tit for tat retribution. Surely you remember on August 19, 1981, U.S. planes based on the carrier U.S.S. Nimitz shot down two Libyan jets over the Gulf of Sidra. One of the Libyan jets had fired a heat seeking missile.

The United States was holding a "freedom navigation exercises" in the the Gulf of Sidra, which was claimed by Libya as territorial waters. Of course, the United States considered the Gulf of Sidra international waters. Let's look at the map and take a see where Gulf of Sidra is located:

Looks an awfully like places like Biscayne Bay or Santa Barbara Bight. Imagine some country sending an aircraft carrier close to the California coast and saying, "this is international waters".

That is only one of scores of incidents where the US and Libya came to blows. The evidence implicated the Gaddafi government in the bombings of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 but was never proved conclusively.

Are we now just getting around to punishing a man for some accusation made 25 years ago? Maybe we can spit on Ronald Reagan's grave because he gave the order to attack Libya in 1981?

My point is the world is filled with bad men, all doing bad things. On the other hand, only the US has hundreds of military bases scattered around the world. Plus, we have a full on nuclear arsenal, 11 aircraft carriers, etc. etc.

Do you think we are a peaceful nation? Do we look and act like a peaceful nation? No! We are viewed as a big bully who spends more money on the military than the rest of the world combined. We can fight a war in Afghanistan - which is one of the most primitive and remote countries in the world. Yet, our President is too weak to settle the Israeli - Palestine issue.

That may seem all very logical in your eyes, but you can't blame some poor guy who gets pretty PO when missiles crash into his front door from an unmanned drone misses its target. Oops! Sorry. Who is attacking whom? And who has a right to be angry?

 

[TruthSeeker]

if a leader sends blows up a civilian airliner to attack you...do you realy think that he is just going to sit back and not step it up more if you don't do something? you may say turn the cheek...but I say b**** slap them and put them in there place...without going overboard.

Now, all of a sudden you are a war hawk? What an amazing transformation! You criticize Bush for the Iraq War, even though Bush sought and received Congressional approval, but you are "General George Patton" when Obama orders military operations against Libya, without Congressional approval. Hypocrisy, again.