Did you read much German history or are you just making shit up? Your asserted conclusions aren't very well thought out.
Hitlers rise to power was complex and VERY well-documented. He seized opportunities but cannot be said to have been in any way "created" by the Allies. The Allies didn't create the internal German opponents he was popular for fighting. The cause of the NSDAP wasn't remotely guaranteed to have gone further without Adolf's particular talent for leadership.
Key to his success was the natural German reaction to BOLSHEVISM, which reared its head with the Spartakist revolt. Bolsheviks require killing and Hitler aligned himself with the mix of Imperialists, other nationalists, capitalists (who would have been disposed of by Bolsheviks in Germany as they were in Russia), Freikorps veterans and so forth.
" If you could time travel, you would have assassinated Hitler?"
No, the net result of WWII was of great advantage to the West. The net effect was to break down rotten systems, bleed the Communist Soviet Union (which would otherwise have prospered) and in general move mankind forward. The human drama wasn't the result, just part of the process. I'm delighted with the NET result of the Second World War. That result is the magnificent society we have today.
Alternate answer:
Sure, in 1910, by discreet poison, after which I'd be a prolific and very rich inventor!
"Why wouldn't you go to Versailles while they were negotiating the end of WWI and tell them of the terrible consequences of oppressing the Germans to the point of economic collapse?"
In what alternate universe would a sole interloper with no political power have even been given a platform to speak?
I don't consider Muslims to be "U.S. citizens" or worthy of any protection whatever. Their superstition negates any obligation I might otherwise have to them.
It was "made of wars", even if one calls them "conflicts", "police actions" or "amusing squabbles".
It was composed of hot and warm wars with many shades of conventional war, OOTW (Operations Other Than War), insurgencies, revolutions, and all sorts of military and guerrilla and partisan and government military engagements.
That's why we have WAR to decide such things, so don't advocate reducing the US options in hope our enemies are too stupid to take advantage of our SELF-imposed limitations.
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
"The official status of Claire L. Chennault in China prior to 1942 was always a subject of speculation. Chennault himself states that he was a civilian advisor to the Secretary of the Commission for Aeronautical Affairs, first Madame Chiang and later T.V. Soong. Until he returned to active duty with the United States Army in the spring of 1942, four months after Pearl Harbor, he had no legal status as a belligerent and held no rank other than retired captain in the United States Army. Even while he commanded the American Volunteer Group in combat, his official job was adviser to the Central Bank of China, and his passport listed his occupation as a farmer."
That doesn't refer to ENEMY personnel, which definition in no logical or legal way excludes "citizenship".
No one doubts Awlaki was participating in actions against the US as a member of an enemy combatant organization. One can lawfully destroy supply and support personnel just as one may strike an armed force moving towards ones tactical position.
Under your definition, one couldn't shoot at Confederate soldiery because they hadn't been detained and tried first!
"A war is between two governments and involves armies."
Do words mean anything to you or do you just "make shit up" ?
Asymmetric unconventional warfare by non-state actors is old news (for example the old worldwide Communist revolutionary movement) and is much more than "crime".
Attacking external combatants who happen to hold an own-side passport is well within the accepted law of war.
No one seriously argues that Awlaki wasn't an enemy actor, therefore there is zero logical argument against killing him. His citizenship couldn't be less relevant because the rules of war apply in war.
He was an active member of a hostile force.
He demonstrated hostile intent.
Attacking him was a "necessity" because there was no other way to interdict his activities.
Force used was "proportional" because it was sufficient to decisively counter a hostile act or hostile intent, but reasonable in intensity, duration and magnitude.
"Actually, a lot of people do seriously argue that point" all of who are enemies of the US and de-facto supporters of Jihad or just being contrarian for domestic political reasons.
It was reasonably likely that the target and associates were enemy personnel. An enemy propagandist is no different than a conventional psyops operative. Incitement to warfare against the US clearly made him a combatant.
There is no logical reason to risk US forces in combat to capture such an enemy live. The value of own-side forces is customarily considered greater than that of an enemy.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you read much German history or are you just making shit up? Your asserted conclusions aren't very well thought out.
Hitlers rise to power was complex and VERY well-documented. He seized opportunities but cannot be said to have been in any way "created" by the Allies. The Allies didn't create the internal German opponents he was popular for fighting. The cause of the NSDAP wasn't remotely guaranteed to have gone further without Adolf's particular talent for leadership.
Key to his success was the natural German reaction to BOLSHEVISM, which reared its head with the Spartakist revolt. Bolsheviks require killing and Hitler aligned himself with the mix of Imperialists, other nationalists, capitalists (who would have been disposed of by Bolsheviks in Germany as they were in Russia), Freikorps veterans and so forth.
" If you could time travel, you would have assassinated Hitler?"
No, the net result of WWII was of great advantage to the West. The net effect was to break down rotten systems, bleed the Communist Soviet Union (which would otherwise have prospered) and in general move mankind forward. The human drama wasn't the result, just part of the process. I'm delighted with the NET result of the Second World War. That result is the magnificent society we have today.
Alternate answer:
Sure, in 1910, by discreet poison, after which I'd be a prolific and very rich inventor!
"Why wouldn't you go to Versailles while they were negotiating the end of WWI and tell them of the terrible consequences of oppressing the Germans to the point of economic collapse?"
In what alternate universe would a sole interloper with no political power have even been given a platform to speak?
I don't consider Muslims to be "U.S. citizens" or worthy of any protection whatever. Their superstition negates any obligation I might otherwise have to them.
"The Cold War was definitely not a war."
It was "made of wars", even if one calls them "conflicts", "police actions" or "amusing squabbles".
It was composed of hot and warm wars with many shades of conventional war, OOTW (Operations Other Than War), insurgencies, revolutions, and all sorts of military and guerrilla and partisan and government military engagements.
That's why we have WAR to decide such things, so don't advocate reducing the US options in hope our enemies are too stupid to take advantage of our SELF-imposed limitations.
He had the option to surrender long ago. He refused.
The President won't order my death because I'm not a Jihadist. One thing is not like the other.
The only good Jihadist is a dead one, no matter whose passport it holds.
Some context:
JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Approved September 18, 2001.
AUMF for reference:
JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Approved September 18, 2001.
The AUMF was authorized BY CONGRESS, not the fucking press:
http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html
JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Approved September 18, 2001.
"What is so special about this particular case?"
Anti-US nerd rage. Yes, really.
The US didn't make war against Yemen.
Yemen has had a warrant for Awlaki "dead or alive" since 2010.
"may we put out the equivalent of a "Wanted, Dead or Alive" poster? "
Our ally, Yemen, indeed had a warrant for him dead or alive.
Jihadists already do that very thing. Have a nice fatwa.
In what way does "citizenship" exclude being a "troop"?
Examples please or shut the fuck up.
Two historic examples of US "civilians" joining foreign forces and serving in war:
Americans in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade were US citizens AND "troops" in the Republican forces during the Spanish Civil War.
http://www.alba-valb.org/
The Flying Tigers were US citizens AND "troops" (to be precise, mercenaries!) in the Nationalist Chinese air force.
http://www.flyingtigersavg.com/tiger1.htm
"The official status of Claire L. Chennault in China prior to 1942 was always a subject of speculation. Chennault himself states that he was a civilian advisor to the Secretary of the Commission for Aeronautical Affairs, first Madame Chiang and later T.V. Soong. Until he returned to active duty with the United States Army in the spring of 1942, four months after Pearl Harbor, he had no legal status as a belligerent and held no rank other than retired captain in the United States Army. Even while he commanded the American Volunteer Group in combat, his official job was adviser to the Central Bank of China, and his passport listed his occupation as a farmer."
"It doesn't matter because Yemen had no grievances toward the guy. "
Liar. Yemen had a warrant for Awlaki "dead or alive" since 2010.
http://www.aknews.com/en/aknews/8/193964/
Peace is peace and asymmetric war is war.
Earnestly pretending that the US is not at war with Jihadists who make no such pretense that they are not at war with the US is absurdly silly.
Read Awlaki's speech "Constants on the Path of Jihad" and decide for yourself.
The Yemeni government wanted him too. We didn't attack Yemen, we attacked an enemy located in Yemen.
In war, combatant forces and leadership decide who to target. If this offends you, join the fight on your side of choice.
That doesn't refer to ENEMY personnel, which definition in no logical or legal way excludes "citizenship".
No one doubts Awlaki was participating in actions against the US as a member of an enemy combatant organization. One can lawfully destroy supply and support personnel just as one may strike an armed force moving towards ones tactical position.
Under your definition, one couldn't shoot at Confederate soldiery because they hadn't been detained and tried first!
You know going after Awlaki wasn't some random act like Calley turning his troops loose on Son My.
One doesn't waste extremely expensive mission resources plinking J. Random Jihadist.
A YEMENITE judge BTW ordered he be captured "dead or alive", so local due process was indeed followed.
"Wow, when did advocating decent into fascism become "insightful"?"
"Fascism" as you use the term is merely name calling.
"Note that in 2006, approximately 200 people in the US were killed by police. In the same year, zero people were killed by terrorists."
Cute. You thereby equate all police use of force with murder and don't distinguish between lawful, reasonable use of violence.
"A war is between two governments and involves armies."
Do words mean anything to you or do you just "make shit up" ?
Asymmetric unconventional warfare by non-state actors is old news (for example the old worldwide Communist revolutionary movement) and is much more than "crime".
Attacking external combatants who happen to hold an own-side passport is well within the accepted law of war.
No one seriously argues that Awlaki wasn't an enemy actor, therefore there is zero logical argument against killing him. His citizenship couldn't be less relevant because the rules of war apply in war.
He was an active member of a hostile force.
He demonstrated hostile intent.
Attacking him was a "necessity" because there was no other way to interdict his activities.
Force used was "proportional" because it was sufficient to decisively counter a hostile act or hostile intent, but reasonable in intensity, duration and magnitude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare#Definition_and_differences
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-state_actor
"child-tradings"
Please elaborate.
"There is no war."
Organized violence of both symmetric and asymmetric varieties by both sides for geopolitical purposes over time is war.
"Actually, a lot of people do seriously argue that point" all of who are enemies of the US and de-facto supporters of Jihad or just being contrarian for domestic political reasons.
It was reasonably likely that the target and associates were enemy personnel. An enemy propagandist is no different than a conventional psyops operative. Incitement to warfare against the US clearly made him a combatant.
There is no logical reason to risk US forces in combat to capture such an enemy live. The value of own-side forces is customarily considered greater than that of an enemy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
This was merely "precise warfare", not "murder".
The target was an enemy troop who repeatedly and thoroughly demonstrated hostile intent. The force use was proportional.
The citizenship of the enemy soldier was not relevant.
Targeting enemy troops in war has always been legitimate.
This is no different than the SOE sending Czech partisans after Reinhard Heydrich in WWII.