Don't think we (Americans) would be happy if another country invaded and started capturing people to face trial in their country.

Osama Bin Laden wasn't the leader of Pakistan, he was just hiding there.

Capturing the de facto leader (elected or dictator) of a country is an act of war.

You could argue the war is justified, or that this dictator was bad for both his country and the US, but it's still an act of war.

How come the US can engage in acts of war without legally declaring it? Shouldn't congress be involved?

We all mocked Putin's "special military operation", why are we not accusing the US of doing the same thing?

> It's not a war they were just capturing someone to face charges.

Invading a foreign country with military force is a war even if the purpose is to effect an arrest. And when the President claims that the intent is also that the US will run the country afterwards, its even more clearly a war.

> In the same way we didn't need to declare war against Pakistan to go in and get Osama

Congress had already exercised its power to declare war with an open-ended declaration almost immediately after the 9/11 attacks, which covered the operation direct against the head of al-Qaeda.

https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ40/PLAW-107publ40.pdf

charges for what? he is a Venezuelan in Venezuela. You can't say "he broke our laws" and take him to fucking New York.

Bombing a capital city and kidnapping its political leader and hijacking its oil tankers is not the same thing at all. Not to mention Pakistan was and is officially an ally of America, and despite them harboring terrorists, officially Osama was a criminal there too.

Still waiting for the shoes to drop on Osama and Saddam.

Who is "we"?

[dead]