First off, it was a general comment. I have heard many people break out the sovereignty argument when defending Israel. I have heard many of those same people defend the removal of the Iraqi government and occupation of Iraq. I find that to be rather ironic. These things are true whether or not you personally fall into the category.
What "things" are true? That "many people break out the sovereignty argument" and "many of those same people defend the removal of the Iraqi government and occupation of Iraq"?
Okay, no argument from me...all sorts of people say all sorts of things.
I just don't see the irony that you expressed qhen directly addressing my comment.
Secondly, it's not that war isn't justifiable (this is a rather large leap in logic here as well. I don't think you really considered my words before jumping on the attack). It's that this particular one was not.
Opinions vary, of course.
To understand that base of what sovereignty is, one could not accept the Iraq war as justifiable. Iraq was a sovereign nation which in no way threatened the sovereignty of the United States.
In your opinion.
Thus, when we go in on an undeclared war and remove the government of a sovereign state;
That it was declared would have mattered at all I this analysis? Of course not. Congress authorized this war, period.
that is infringement of the sovereignty of that land.
Any war constitutes an infringement of a nation's sovereignty. Whether it is declared or otherwise and whether the nation attacked constitutes a threat or otherwise. No matter the circumstances, the introduction of foreign troops over another's border constitutes a violation of sovereignty.
War is sometimes justifiable, and can be perfectly within the lines of sovereignty.
Huh? Whether a war is justifiable is pointless relative to whether a nation's sovereignty has been violated. Despite a declaration of war, Japan's sovereignty was violated when the US bombed Japanese cities.
But I think your little response there proved my point. Some don't take it for the whole of what it is. Rather they'll use the term and use sovereignty to defend some positions, but will conveniently sweep it under the rug for other arguments.
My "little" response? :roll:
My response conveyed my point. That I believe that you can advocate strong control of your own borders as required by a nation's sovereignty and advocate for war in some instances. There is no irony.
Citing a sovereign's obligation and responsibility for its borders has nothing to do with one's position justifying war.
Now, had I argued that a nation's borders are not to be violated under any circumstances then argued that the US has a right to violate those borders at will, you'd have a point.
As for my head being on straight, it is. I know well the concepts of soveriegnty and argue on the side of it oft.
If your head was on straight you wouldn't have attributed some bogus irony to my comments.