Five Swedish soldiers wounded in Afghanistan

[victor]

Yes, but it's difficult to weigh that with just cutting down on army spending and saving money now. Sweden has been brownnosing the US for a while now, and so far I haven't really seen any results, other than us growing dangerously closer to NATO. Like that big exercise this summer, "Loyal Arrows". Really, seeing those F-16s lined up at the airport was kind of cool at first, I guess, but you have to consider the implications.

Are we giving a lot without receiving enough back? Or are we just trying to survive by picking sides?

 

[TheWesDude]

hey victor, what would say if a tribe in kenya decided they didnt have enough territory... so they get some guns and weapons. and start attacking parts of uganda and congo?

of course the tribes they are attacking have barely any weapons because they are so poor so cannot fight very well...

so after the kenyan tribe takes over a couple tribes, taking their territory, slaughtering the men and children and raping and taking the women as slaves.

would you intervene?

what if they decided to attack other tribes in kenya, doing the same?

would you intervene?

now this kenyan tribe has taken over part of the congo, half to 3/4 of ethiopia, would you get involved?

so now this tribe has taken over a lot of area. they decide to be ballsy and attack Sudan and they have great success, and kill lots of people.

would you get involved?

how far do you let this tribe expand their territory and control?

now lets say this tribe wants to keep other countries on their toes. so they send people with sniper weapons and explosive devices and have them attack randomly in neighboring countries. killing thousands.

would you get involved?

how far along would you let this tribe go killing people and taking over land before you were willing to intervene?

based on your statements, there is no benifit to you to stop them because they are only fighting in africa, and that has no impact on you. so you wouldnt stop them even if they went and attacked egypt. then spreading west to the sahara border and south to south africa.

so because it doesnt benifit you to stop them because it has no effect on you at all, you would let a tribe in kenya take over all of africa. so now they decide to start moving north and taking out millions of people.

based on your statements, you would not do anything untill their actions directly affect you. that is horribly short-sighted.

you do know that germany taking over europe didnt affect the US, but we still joined in during WW2. based on your statements, we shouldnt have.

i can certianly respect your opinion, you are just proving how stupid you really are though.

 

[Sander]

you do know that germany taking over europe didnt affect the US, but we still joined in during WW2. based on your statements, we shouldnt have.

The US only got involved when Germany declared war on you, which is exactly when it did influence the US, ya smartass.

Also, losing a major market certainly does affect the US.

i can certianly respect your opinion, you are just proving how stupid you really are though.

Don't do this. Don't go about randomly insulting people.
And going "I can respect your opinion" right before you insult someone only makes you look worse, not better.

 

[victor]

TheWesDude, by directly comparing Sweden to the US in non-interventionist policies you inherently fail. I specifically asked any poster to refrain from this comparison in my first post, but I guess you didn't read that. It's a straight-on logical fallacy to compare the two, and I shouldn't really have to explain why.

It's also obvious to me that you didn't read my post about how what's happening in Africa really is none of Sweden's business, as our role in exploiting that continent fades away completely when comparing to mainly France, Belgium, Portugal and Great Britain, who should be held accountable for most of the crap going on there today (I know, it's an oversimplification, but that discussion is rather off topic).

And I really enjoyed your demented tirade on how a single Kenyan tribe (what?) military invades most of Eastern Africa. Very Command & Conquer.

But unfortunately, over in the real world, things aren't that simple. You're driving the point in absurdum, please stop. If you had an apparent age over 14 I might want to keep discussing this with you, but with a final ad hominem concluding what could be interpreted as one of the worst trolls here lately, I'm not going to bother beyond this post. If you want to post relevant arguments in the future, be my guest.



Keep to the point here; why should a tiny, pretty insignificant country like Sweden that has in earlier times been praised for its neutrality (again, debatable, but not here) suddenly go all out and join what is basically a NATO military action?

I'm trying to weigh the benefits of abolishing the armed forces (and try to get over what is basically a huge cultural bias) versus aiding in military operations abroad and gathering goodwill, mainly from the US and EU. I like to think budget-wise, here. Should Sweden just become an isolationist nationstate on the borders of Western Europe? I doubt we have the means to become that self sufficient, but I honestly wouldn't mind. As it is now, we're just poking a hornet's nest without much protective gear.

 

[Dragula]

First off all, who cares about Africa? Second of all, who cares about Asia? Third of all, who cares about the limited interventionist policy we adapted due to coordinating training with NATO? They just had an exercise in Boden with a live nuke for preparations against an eventual Russian assault. Come on, what's up with that?

 

[victor]

Actually, it was in Luleå as well. The fighter squadrons roaring over my apartment were interrupting my Family Guy marathons, and I didn't take too kindly to it.

And yeah, I really feel this NATO cooperation was forced upon us without any form of popular vote or referendum. Talk about democracy (membership in the EU was a tight one, too, but I guess the politicians would've made Sweden join either way).

The problem here is people are too comfortable, too lenient. Sweden is practically a member of NATO now, and I REALLY don't want that.

 

[Dragula]

Could be that they started out in Boden and then moved towards here. Anyhow it's still bad fucking news practising so close to Russia with a live nuke, seriously.

 

[victor]

Yeah, I didn't sign up for this shit. At the first sign of war, I'm bailing the fuck out.

 

[TheWesDude]

The US only got involved when Germany declared war on you, which is exactly when it did influence the US, ya smartass.

oh yea, a country declaring war on the US who is embroiled in conflict with their neighbors and constantly being attacked is such a threat to the US on the other side of the ocean...

its not a threat, its a joke. germany did not have a direct way to strike at the US at the time. they were too busy fighting wars with their neighbors.

Don't do this. Don't go about randomly insulting people.
And going "I can respect your opinion" right before you insult someone only makes you look worse, not better.

i didnt randomly insult someone. i specifically insulted someone.

so you are saying if you do not agree with someones opinion, you dont respect someone for having one?

i dont agree with that family that goes to soldier funerals and protests, but i recognize and respect their right to have one. i wish they wouldnt but there is no law against it.

its called "maturity" sander. just because i do not agree with someones opinion, i can certianly respect their opinion. it is theirs to have. to say that you neither agree with nor respect their opinion is to deem their opinion not worth having and inferior. that is extermely childish.

TheWesDude, by directly comparing Sweden to the US in non-interventionist policies you inherently fail. I specifically asked any poster to refrain from this comparison in my first post, but I guess you didn't read that. It's a straight-on logical fallacy to compare the two, and I shouldn't really have to explain why.

it is completely appropriate. you compare and contrast other countries non-interventionist policies to the US policies and history, and then demand others do not do the same? that is horribly biased of you.

It's also obvious to me that you didn't read my post about how what's happening in Africa really is none of Sweden's business, as our role in exploiting that continent fades away completely when comparing to mainly France, Belgium, Portugal and Great Britain, who should be held accountable for most of the crap going on there today (I know, it's an oversimplification, but that discussion is rather off topic).

what happens in any country in the world is every other countries business. chances are your country deals with a neighbor or has relations with them. to say what happens in africa concerns sweeden for naught is horribly short-sighted. and then blaming other countries for what they did decades to centuries ago for whats happening now is just as bad.

while it may not affect you directly right now, chances are if left unchecked, it could come to bite you in the ass later.

if austrailia started buying and then dumping toxic waste into the ocean, it doesnt directly affect you now, so you would be ok with that right... of course eventually it will spread and affect you, but by then its too late.

And I really enjoyed your demented tirade on how a single Kenyan tribe (what?) military invades most of Eastern Africa. Very Command & Conquer.

yes, because in the history of the world, there was not a tribe in mongolia that attacked their neighbors, and then their neighbors, and spread all the way from mongolia to central europe did it?

oh wait, that was the mongol horde...

and i guess there was never a country that fortified its eastern border, and focused on aquiring power and influence and making the govts on their western fronts puppet governments? oh wait, that was russia...

there are lots of occurances of that happening in history. those who do not remember history, repeat it.

and of course germany had ZERO success taking over their neighbors territory.

Keep to the point here; why should a tiny, pretty insignificant country like Sweden that has in earlier times been praised for its neutrality (again, debatable, but not here) suddenly go all out and join what is basically a NATO military action?

Sweden is part of the NATO PfP program, has military training centers where they train NATO troops, and have joined numerous military actions with NATO. while they are not a member of NATO, they do a lot with it.

And yeah, I really feel this NATO cooperation was forced upon us without any form of popular vote or referendum. Talk about democracy (membership in the EU was a tight one, too, but I guess the politicians would've made Sweden join either way).

from what i read in a quick perusal on the subject, for sweden to join in on a military action with NATO requires permission from your parliment.

 

[Sander]

oh yea, a country declaring war on the US who is embroiled in conflict with their neighbors and constantly being attacked is such a threat to the US on the other side of the ocean...

its not a threat, its a joke. germany did not have a direct way to strike at the US at the time. they were too busy fighting wars with their neighbors.

You don't just ignore declarations of war from world superpowers, especially not when those superpowers have allies that are attacking you. The US's sovereignty was threatened, and that requires a response. Whether or not they were a realistic threat at that exact point in time is also less relevant than whether or not they could become one over time, which they certainly could.

And again, the US had a lot to gain by seeing Nazi Germany gone from the world's stage and seeing Europe change into a relatively peaceful market.

i didnt randomly insult someone. i specifically insulted someone.

so you are saying if you do not agree with someones opinion, you dont respect someone for having one?

i dont agree with that family that goes to soldier funerals and protests, but i recognize and respect their right to have one. i wish they wouldnt but there is no law against it.

its called "maturity" sander. just because i do not agree with someones opinion, i can certianly respect their opinion. it is theirs to have. to say that you neither agree with nor respect their opinion is to deem their opinion not worth having and inferior. that is extermely childish.

Calling someone an idiot does not fall under "maturity" no matter how you disguise it. Especially not when it's completely separate from any argument you're making.

And no, "I respect your opinion" does not ring true when you then, in the same exact sentence, show that you do not "respect" that opinion because you associate that opinion with stupidity.

Respecting freedom of speech is not the same as respecting someone's opinion.

Also, look at what that sentence does? You're trying to make yourself look better by going "at least I respect your right to talk" while at the same going for a silly little stupid remark.

Hey, no offense, but you're a dick!

it is completely appropriate. you compare and contrast other countries non-interventionist policies to the US policies and history, and then demand others do not do the same? that is horribly biased of you.

You cannot take situations out of context, especially in a complex global political system, and then expect to be able to compare the situations sensibly.

what happens in any country in the world is every other countries business. chances are your country deals with a neighbor or has relations with them. to say what happens in africa concerns sweeden for naught is horribly short-sighted. and then blaming other countries for what they did decades to centuries ago for whats happening now is just as bad.

while it may not affect you directly right now, chances are if left unchecked, it could come to bite you in the ass later.

Yes, which is why you weigh the pros and cons. Not every violent conflict is going to have an impact on Sweden, and they can't intervene in every one of them because it would represent a huge cost and very little gain. Add to that that any military repercussions from letting this go unchecked will be handled by nations more powerful and closer to the action than Sweden as well.

Also, Africa is the ass end of the world right now and isn't looking much better in the near future. The loss in market from letting a conflict go on is rather negligible, and the loss in potential market isn't all that great if you look at the economic development of more peaceful African nations (hint: shitty).

Welsh should be able to tell you a lot more about that, though.

if austrailia started buying and then dumping toxic waste into the ocean, it doesnt directly affect you now, so you would be ok with that right... of course eventually it will spread and affect you, but by then its too late.

There are a lot of fundamental differences between Australia and Africa you fail to take into account.

yes, because in the history of the world, there was not a tribe in mongolia that attacked their neighbors, and then their neighbors, and spread all the way from mongolia to central europe did it?

oh wait, that was the mongol horde...

and i guess there was never a country that fortified its eastern border, and focused on aquiring power and influence and making the govts on their western fronts puppet governments? oh wait, that was russia...

there are lots of occurances of that happening in history. those who do not remember history, repeat it.

and of course germany had ZERO success taking over their neighbors territory.

Yet these situations are all incomparable to what you are talking about. Those who don't learn from the mistakes of the past, are the ones who continually misapply them.
For every nation that went from tiny to huge through a series of wars there are thousands upon thousands of nations who failed pretty quickly and never got it off the ground. Pointing at outliers and saying "this might happen" might be true, but isn't a sensible or relevant conflict.

But there are a lot of differences between the things you mention and the situation in Africa. For one, all those nations were largely producing their weapons internally and were exploiting significant technology advantages. The Mongols were able to create such a vast empire largely because of their military technological advantage: no one could match their cavalry and few had an adequate answer to it. Although that cavalry probably would have presented a big limitation later on

Similarly, Germany pressed their technological advantage, manpower and strategic advantages.

Russia is different. Its conquests were de facto consequences of their war with Germany, as they simply never relinquished the territory they had 'liberated' from the Germans. And to gain this territory the Russians pressed their biggest advantage: manpower.

Now note a similarity between those examples: their empires didn't last.

And now look at those African wars. Do some tribes have advantages over others? Sure. They could take over and expand a ways. But what are the odds that one nation would take over a significant enough part of Africa to pose a threat to Europe? What are the odds one nation could sustain peace amongst the vast amount of different tribes in Africa, one of the principal reasons why Africa is still such a difficult part of the world is its tribalism.
Hell, what are the odds that an African nation would even want to aspire to that?

 

[JayGrey]

Prehaps there are a no benifits what so ever for Sweden to continue to have a miliatry, nor for them to take part in the International community outside of basic trade among neighbours.

Last I heard it has given Canada nothing, despite the slew of peace keeping missions over the years. Some internataional recognition for the alturistic death of its soliders. Some sense of national pride, maybe. Along with a potent political weapon: "Vote for us! We'll make sure no Canadian military personnel die over-seas again!"

Reasons to keep a military involve security and the ability to keep some sense of order if a national emergency occurs -- be it an act of terrorism, environmental catastrophe, or internal military conflict; as well as, recession-proofing: The military, like public healthcare, is one of those institutions that can lose money in order to keep people employed. Is the amount of money we pour into it worth it though? It gives people jobs. The only loss in money is in terms of equipment purchases. Salaries are more-or-less rolled back into local economies, are they not?

My mother, a non-commissioned officer in the air force, wishes to take a tour in Afganistan, as she believes the mission is to assist in the rebuilding (and protection) of the Afgan state. In essence to keep the tribes from open conflict. However, the Afgan mission seems poorly defined here and it is viewed with great skeptism as a single road-side bomb has a habit of taking out 3-6 troopers.


The only real reason of any value that comes to mind is to generate a sense of community and cooperation through sacrifice. Take it as you will.


(By the by, didn't the US only come to be involved in the war against Germany after the attack of Pearl Harbor by Japan? A full 4 years after the World war broke out? My history may be marred with error.)

 

[Dragula]

Well, the US was already working for China against Japan, but yes they only got involved in the European war after Pearl Harbour.

 

[aenemic]

(By the by, didn't the US only come to be involved in the war against Germany after the attack of Pearl Harbor by Japan? A full 4 years after the World war broke out? My history may be marred with error.)

no, that is pretty much correct.

I'm sick and tired of the US pretending they single-handedly stopped WW2 and did so only out of selflessness.

I'm also ashamed that Sweden kissed political ass back then too. would Germany have won the war, we would all have been proud nazis by now.

 

[SuAside]

(By the by, didn't the US only come to be involved in the war against Germany after the attack of Pearl Harbor by Japan? A full 4 years after the World war broke out? My history may be marred with error.)

no, that is pretty much correct.

I'm sick and tired of the US pretending they single-handedly stopped WW2 and did so only out of selflessness.

bullshit.

americans were involved way before Pearl Harbor. just not overtly.

they had been supplying the allied forces with weapons, munitions and other goods throughout the entire conflict. they only reason they were not militarily involved sooner was because there was no public backing to do so (yet).

as such, propaganda against germany and japan flooded the american media and operations were undertaken to turn public opinion against the axis forces (in the end this took such proportions that once american troops were faced with captured germans, american troops often performed executions of the devilish germans, whereas the british hardly held any ill will against their german adversaries).
to speed up the hostilities, american merchant ships loaded with goods AND passengers were sent into waters where the germans had long warned them that they would be seen as hostile supplying the allies with materials. such ships were sunk and suddenly there was a huge outrage against the germans, they killed so many civilians in sinking those boats.

as for Pearl Harbor? US military command and even the president KNEW it was going to happen. hell, they were counting on it. they purposefully sacrificed Pearl Harbor for the sake of being able to gather public support for the war. they had been bullying and pestering Japan (embargo, disrespect, taunting...) for quite some time before the Japanese saw their chance to strike a decisive blow.

saying that the US was uninvolved before the war was publicly delcared is total and utter nonsense. they had been involved all along, and they knew they had to get in to it. however politically they couldn't do anything military-wise until public support was on their side (and how right they were, look at how many volunteered).


(note that i think the americans did the right thing, even if it meant sacrificing their own to get going, but lets not be naive in thinking the americans didn't have a hand in triggering these events)

 

[JayGrey]

To continue to go off-topic for a moment . . .

I now understand why people think the World Trade Centre was an inside job.

Assuming this grand conspiracy/political manuvering/public swaying you meantion to be true and not an attempt to reason why a merchantman/passenger liner got sunk, or the US navy got caught offguard.

Can't you say this, lack of "overt" involvmenet, of any supplier? Any country that allowed exports to the enemies of germany, be it it weapons, food, or passenger?

To Wes, like it or not, when the US forces finally became involved, they were the necessary addition to end the war. At least, that's how i see it. Again, history is a bit hazy.

 

[SuAside]

JayGrey, it's also no secret that US industry kept supplying oil, metal, chemicals etc to Germany throughout most of the war. these were often the same industrials that were also supporting the US & allied warmachine.

doubledealing is so profitable.

as for what i mentioned above, quite prominent military and government officials have been cited in asserting these beliefs.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_debate for examples.
there is a same controversy about the merchantships & civilian cruise ships ordered into hostile waters.

 

[Crni Vuk]

oh yea, a country declaring war on the US who is embroiled in conflict with their neighbors and constantly being attacked is such a threat to the US on the other side of the ocean...

its not a threat, its a joke. germany did not have a direct way to strike at the US at the time. they were too busy fighting wars with their neighbors.

Thats what we know today. Cause after 50 years, we always know it better. In that time it might have been that obvious for everyone (except the crazy Churchill ). One might remember that till 1944 the German Warmachine managed to keep almost all of its enemies pretty engaged. In the time of 1942 and 43 the US had to learn a few tough lessons in africa as they lacked the experience in armored warefare unlike to the brittish which knew Rommel and the German army already.

In that time directly in the confrontations and fightings it might have not been always that obvious that Germany would be loosing. It was clear they will not gain a totall victory. But even a big nation like the US can defintly start to become war-weary (see Vietnam) and thus forced to retreat..

There are many more operations that have shown that you never should understimate your enemy. Market garden, the Ardenes, Kasserine Pass etc.

...
its not a threat, its a joke. germany did not have a direct way to strike at the US at the time. they were too busy fighting wars with their neighbors.

They had. See here :
Attacks on North America during World War II

The Atlantic Ocean was a major strategic battle zone (Second Battle of the Atlantic) and when Germany declared war on the U.S., the East Coast of the United States offered easy pickings for German U-Boats (referred to as the Second Happy Time). After a highly successful foray by five Type IX long-range U-boats, the offensive was maximized by the use of short-range Type VII U-boats, with increased fuel stores, replenished from supply U-boats called Milchkühe (milk cows). From February to May 1942, 348 ships were sunk, for the loss of 2 U-boats during April and May. U.S. naval commanders were reluctant to introduce the convoy system that had protected trans-Atlantic shipping and, without coastal blackouts, shipping was silhouetted against the bright lights of American towns and cities such as Atlantic City until a dim-out was ordered in May.[15]

The cumulative effect of this campaign was severe; a quarter of all wartime sinkings – 3.1 million tons. There were several reasons for this. The naval commander, Admiral Ernest King, was averse to taking British recommendations to introduce convoys, U.S. Coast Guard and Navy patrols were predictable and could be avoided by U-boats, poor inter-service co-operation, and the U.S. Navy did not possess enough suitable escort vessels (British and Canadian warships were transferred to the U.S. east coast).

its a urban myth to believe the US would have been all invincible during WW2. Particiularly when it comes to tactical decisions.

At some point there was even a few concerns in the US high command Japanese ground troops might have been able to attack US soil and reach in a short time a few major cities cause they have been hit rather hard in pearl harbor and that from a situation they expected as impossible. A attack was much more expected in the philipines or other isles closer to the Japanese ships. It was a luck for the US they loost only ships and not the base of operations pearl harbor itself since those could be relatively easy relapaced while pearl harbor was in that time the only station in the pacific with a harbor to repair, maintain and refuel large vessels Pearl Harbor was a major storage for ammunition and fuel which was left almost untouched by the japanese attack since the 2 attack waves only concentrated on the ships and planes (the Japanese General refused a third attack which was usualy dedicated to attack the fuel and ammunition which is seen today as a major tactical failure). The next position if pearl harbor would have been loost as base would have been 4000 miles away on the US coast.

JayGrey, it's also no secret that US industry kept supplying oil, metal, chemicals etc to Germany throughout most of the war. these were often the same industrials that were also supporting the US & allied warmachine.

doubledealing is so profitable.

Indeed Henry Ford got even a medal from the German Reich for opening factories in Germany producing Trucks for the Wehrmacht. And this factories remained in action till the end of the war and misteriously enough any kind ofbombing on this factories was very small.

as for Pearl Harbor? US military command and even the president KNEW it was going to happen. hell, they were counting on it. they purposefully sacrificed Pearl Harbor for the sake of being able to gather public support for the war. they had been bullying and pestering Japan (embargo, disrespect, taunting...) for quite some time before the Japanese saw their chance to strike a decisive blow.

Thats a very debatable point. And I think you know that. The US could not have afforded the loos of Pearl Harbor thus its probably out of question they would have "sacrificed" such a important base of operations. Without Pearl Harbor the US military would have need a substantiall amount of more time to start any serious counter operation against the Japanese ships.

The loos of ships inside of Pearl Harbor would be no problem (as it clearly was only for a short time a issue in the war). But in the pacific Pearl Harbor as base was one of the most important if not the important harbor for fuel and maintenance for the Navy which was seen as the way to counter the agressive Japanese expansion. For a willing sacrifice the US command would have to knew BEFORE the attack that Pearl Harbor would stay untouched, as base but only the ships damaged which is impossible since the Japanese General decided not to start a third wave of attack (in fear of American preperations and cause the returning planes would have to do a night landing which was at that time unusual and usualy always caused great damage to pilots and planes).

Of course the US knew about a Japanese attack. Hell that was obvious for anyone with military knowledge in that time. But actualy a attack on Pearl Harbor was unexpected.

 

[Sander]

JayGrey, it's also no secret that US industry kept supplying oil, metal, chemicals etc to Germany throughout most of the war. these were often the same industrials that were also supporting the US & allied warmachine.

doubledealing is so profitable.

as for what i mentioned above, quite prominent military and government officials have been cited in asserting these beliefs.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_debate for examples.
there is a same controversy about the merchantships & civilian cruise ships ordered into hostile waters.

All of these things are based solely on circumstantial evidence, none of it very convincing, yet you're pretending they're established facts.

In the case of Pearl Harbor, simple incompetence is a more likely and simpler explanation than wilful destruction of a major naval installation. Yes, the US would probably need a foreign attack to be dragged into the war, but that does not mean that the government actually orchestrated such a thing.

And in the case of the merchant marine, it is more probably simply a case of commercial interests.

 

[SuAside]

the fact they knew about Pearl Harbor in specific is moot. they had been pushing for a conflict for months. it played right into their hands. the information on wikipedia is of course more than lacking as usual, but it does lay out the circumstances.

the american fleet actually even lied about the location of the imperial japanese fleet and the carriers. you can mistake them once, but the fleet of McArthur had made 3 confirmed sightings in the South China Sea. how the fuck do you mistake the 6 largest aircraft carriers and 22 ships in the japanese fleet for some merchant liners?

not to mention that numerous quotes from military, politicians and journalists that indicate that they all knew damn well where the fleet was and that war was imminent. hell, even both the british and dutch navy radioed warnings, they were all disregarded...

as for your downplaying of the socalled 'merchant' marine as purely economically minded dealings, those were NOT allowed by international law and were stipulated to be interpreted as an act of war...

 

[Sander]

the fact they knew about Pearl Harbor in specific is moot.

No, that's not moot. In fact, that's the ony thing that's in contention here. Because there being an atmosphere and threat of war was well-established and widely known. There's a rather humongous difference between waiting for any aggression before being capable of doing anything, and wilfully letting a major naval base be destroyed.

as for your downplaying of the socalled 'merchant' marine as purely economically minded dealings, those were NOT allowed by international law and were stipulated to be interpreted as an act of war...

The US didn't give a shit about international law when it didn't serve them, as was (and arguably is) the case with any country.