It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Did the United States require UN approval before President Obama sent in the team of Navy Seals to take out Osama bin Laden? Nope.
Art 47. Mercenaries
1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.
2. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) is especially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.
Instead of breaking the law, they should act as an example and abide by it at all times.
Sometimes, it's simply not feasible to following politically correct avenues, which often lead to stalemate and indecision, with no action being taken at all.
I think that druid won the debate though.
He is absolutely right in the fact that it is usually US troops and technology, which in turn puts the burden on the backs of the US taxpayer. RationalDespair also has an excellent point that the US is rather selective, but tell me that rich neighborhoods don't get more police coverage than poor ones, in any country.
Both debaters argued their points well, however my vote must go to Druid as RationalDespair fell into the one trap that makes their argument futile, they agreed with their opponent's major argument in the end.
The debate of whether the United States is the world's police force is an interesting one, and I think that the result comes down to the legal definition and which fighter makes a better case that his definition is the correct one.
Druid42 makes an odd opening statement, citing the war on terror, a legitimate point, but then veering off into a discussion of military sizes in the world, a direction which doesn't seem germane to the topic, and which is unceremoniously dropped. His second argument gets things back on track, noting the flexibility and capability of the US military is sufficient to enforce laws, but also makes a solid case for those laws being the United States', rather than the world's. Bin Laden may have been a world criminal, but he'd been on the FBI 10 Most Wanted list for over a decade when killed.
RationalDespair counters with a strong argument that the United States frequently acts of its own accord, ignores the popular world opinion when its own interests are in conflict, and apparently violates a number of international treaties and laws -- actions which are hardly exemplary of a global police force. The validity of those claims may be called into question, but they are effective arguments in this debate.
In his closing argument, rather than bolstering his earlier points regarding the US' role in supporting United Nations ordered actions of actually policing (Bosnia comes to mind, among others,) Druid42 argues a point of ethics and the role of American action that is another instance of American instigation, Afghanistan. RationalDespair, however, sums up his earlier made points cleanly and, as a result, in my opinion, is the winner of this debate.