• DragonTypeWyvern
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    UN law. Oh, look, turns out those don’t apply to Security Council members if they don’t want them to, weird.

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      The UN is a forum for diplomacy to happen. It’s not the fucking world police LOL.

      International law is just a collection of treaties that countries may or may not have signed on to. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine could be considered an illegal invasion because it violated treaties.

      There was no such treaty prohibiting the US from invading Afghanistan, in fact there were UN security council resolutions in support of it, here’s some light reading for you on the UN supporting combating terrorism in Afghanistan after 9/11: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1386

      While there isn’t actually a world police, NATO is the closest thing to it. 9/11 triggered Article 5 of NATO, so basically Al Qaeda punched the world police in the face and the Taliban tried to protect their Al Qaeda buddies.

      Also remember the Taliban wasn’t recognized as the government by the UN. So in “UN law” terms, NATO was going into Afghanistan to support the UN recognized government (The Northern Alliance, previously called the Mujaheddin) against a terrorist group (al Qaeda) and their allies (Taliban). This was done with explicit endorsement by the UN security council.

      Maybe you should read up on international law, it’s a little more complex than you’re assuming it to be. There are actually justifications for military action, like when a terrorist group attacks another country. Afghanistan also may be more complicated than you think with all the various factions within the country.

      • JTskulk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        The big thing I remember hearing at the time was that it was an illegal war because Congress didn’t declare war and only they can. I thought the Russians calling their invasion of Ukraine a special military operation was a slightly tongue in cheek jab at the US since that’s basically what we called the invasion of Afghanistan.

        • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          The big thing I remember hearing at the time was that it was an illegal war because Congress didn’t declare war and only they can.

          That’s just internet nonsense. Nobody declares war anymore, because it’s going from zero to a hundred in an instant and it’s difficult to back down from. Which is something that could lead to World War 3 which is widely seen to be a bad thing. It’s all about escalation so there can be de-escalation if things seem like it’s getting out of hand.

          Post-WWII, congress does what’s called an Authorization of Use of Force. Which is effectively the same thing if you’re worried about upsetting the dead slave masters that wrote the constitution. And there was an authorization for use of force for Afghanistan.

          I thought the Russians calling their invasion of Ukraine a special military operation was a slightly tongue in cheek jab at the US since that’s basically what we called the invasion of Afghanistan.

          Nope, it was called the “Global War on Terror” from the very beginning. The US did not avoid the use of the word war. The “special operation” bullshit is just a Putin propaganda thing.