Dennis Kucinich: Biden's Missile Crisis
The American people voted for Trump to end the wars. Biden apparently wants to end the world.
No President has the right to use unilateral executive authority to permit a U.S. missile strike against another nation. It invites a retaliatory attack. It is an impeachable offense.
You're viewing a single thread.
No President has the right to use unilateral executive authority to permit a U.S. missile strike against another nation. It invites a retaliatory attack. It is an impeachable offense.
And this is not happening -- the US President is telling Ukrainian forces that they no longer have limitations on targets they can use American supplied weapons on. There is no US missile strike. The US no longer owns those missiles. Ukraine plays within the rules because if it doesn't there's a chance it might not get more weapons later.
Also how was this line of argumentation applied in the last like 25 years for like:
Sure it happened, but nothing came of it, because it's just not a real argument anyway. It holds no power. It's liberal cope.
The US no longer owns those missiles.
It does insomuch as they are operated by US personnel. From what I’ve heard, Ukrainians haven’t even been given training on operating them, and they rely on US-operated targeting infrastructure to even function.
It does insomuch as they are operated by US personnel.
They aren't.
If the US pulled all support tomorrow, would Ukraine still be able to use HIMARS and ATACMS? Yes. Would they be as effective using them? No. And it's not because of a lack of training or US personel pushing the buttons. It's about the fact that US main support is providing intelligence and target selection capabilities that Ukraine cannot practically do itself.
It does insomuch as they are operated by US personnel.
They aren’t.
If you say so, boss. We’ve had troops on the ground since even before the war started.
Okay let's say you're right, the US has de facto direct involvement in the Russia-Ukraine War on the side of Ukraine.
Does that mean US currently has a valid cassus beli against North Korea?
What a weird non sequitur. The US does whatever it wants to, and everything it does is definitionally valid. The rules-based international order is: the US makes up rules and orders everyone around. Which is why the US is the greatest pariah to actual international law, and to world peace.
Sure. You're right. So you have 2 theoretical worlds
By arguing about the "realpolitik" of it and the "akshually there's direct Involvement from Americans" you're arguing in world 2. By arguing about how the US does what it wants you're arguing in world 1.
My point is that by arguing in world 2 and agreeing to the Russian points, you must also agree to their consequences in that by agreeing that America has direct involvement, and North Korea having direct involvement gives America a rightful cassus beli.
I don't disagree with your point at all. All I'm saying is that you either need to agree to a system that may have side effects you don't like / don't support, or you need to agree to might makes right and there's no real argument that America "cannot do these things".
In short, tell me why this matters, you can decide the terrain and I'll conceed a fair amount of points, but you just have to accept consequences. World 1 America does what it wants, the question doesn't matter. World 2 if we're taking your argument at face value that the Russians are right, America is actually a direct party to the war, which means America can rightfully drone strike Pyongyang tomorrow
My argument here in general is that regardless that America has the biggest swingingest dick in the room, doesn't mean that other countries aren't all also swinging their dicks, and we have to make sense of this somehow otherwise there's no point and America should just win because it's the biggest evilest guy.
agree to might makes right
I see, we’re playing word games.
I will never “agree”—in the sense of “accept as a moral truth”—that “might makes right;” I will only acknowledge that it in fact can and often does make “right.” But not “right” as in “moral” or “reasonable” or “desirable,” but “right” as in “what actually ends up happening.”
Sure but you're dodging the question now.
The point is if we want to talk about what's legal on the international stage. Russia's views have consequences. There's nothing that about US's support of Ukraine that is illegal. So Russia is saying that the US is escalating and is a direct party in the war, which I can see an argument for. Which means that because North Korea has joined the war on the side of Russia, America has a legal reason to bomb Pyongyang in the same way it bombed Bryansk (in Russia's view).
See Russia is advocating for Russia. It will throw North Korea under the bus in this scenario, the question is, is that fair to North Korea?
If I hand someone a gun, tell them who they can and cannot shoot with it, and train them on how to use it, I'm going to jail when they shoot someone.
This game of Civilization you're playing in your head is horseshit.
Yeah and a national budget is like a family budget so that's why you must do austerity.
Don't summon strawmen. You're arguing international law like we're in some kind of 4X. My analogy was an attempt to reel you back into an argumentative ethical reality.
Here's some whataboutism for you: the United States doesn't care about international law and is currently sponsoring a genocide. Why would any state be concerned about casus beli (FYI you keep misspelling it) when the big dog in the room doesn't give a shit?
Why would any state be concerned about casus beli (FYI you keep misspelling it) when the big dog in the room doesn’t give a shit?
Because international politics is still politics. Your argument doesn't make sense in the same way that "Iran's only goal ever is to wipe Israel off the map and if we don't do something right now they'll do it tomorrow" doesn't make sense. It's because every country weighs the risks and consequences of an action. These things matter in as much as the reaction to them by other states. That's literally the lynch pin of international law. There is no big mommy, the only potential mommy is a complex calculus of geopolitics.
You’re arguing international law like we’re in some kind of 4X.
If you don't understand that's what Russia (and Kuchinich) is also doing and from a point of realpolitik rather than international law then this conversation is pointless. I did not drag us to this crossroads. I merely saw some people yelling and decided to join in the fun.
If the problem Russia has is that it feels NATO is attacking it, then in reality Russia has no real leg to stand on, because it's complaints are "this is a shadow war", and a rectification of that is to just make it into a real war. They're pushing an issue they would heavily stand to lose in if they actually believed it was a real issue.
To rephrase Russia is only making the case that NATO is being unfair by playing in the shadows because it has extreme certainty that NATO is not going to enter the war over Ukraine, and it also knows that the Russian escalation that they are threatening would change that calculus for all NATO countries overnight. Also the situation that they themselves would use that escalation in, isn't happening and is not going to happen unless NATO heavily joins the war and digs into Russian territory. So it's not going to actually make good on its threats.
While I agree that NATO should not provoke Russia, understanding the motives behind these political plays and consequences of what could happen in response shows that Russia itself doesn't believe this is a provocation. What's happening right now is there's 3 kids in a back seat one is 5, one is 12, and one is 16. The 12 year old is beating the shit out of the 5 year old for agreeing with the 16 year old who goaded the 5 year old to do so. The 16 year old is doing the "I'm not touching you" to the 12 year old and the 12 year old while still beating the shit out of the 5 year old is saying "MOM HE'S TOUCHING ME".