Was gadhafi really a threat to National Security

[ARogueTrader]

Quote from hapaboy:

This is the flaw in your rhetoric: You are willing to WAIT UNTIL WE ARE ATTACKED AGAIN before taking action. In case you haven't noticed, we are no longer in the stone age. If our enemies ever get their hands on nukes or bio/chemical weapons, the loss in life to our fellow citizens will be enormous. You may be willing to wait until a mushroom cloud or ten mark the destruction of our major cities, but fortunately we have a president who is willing to try and get to our enemies before they can get to us, and sees Iraq as an opportunity to democratize and, hopefully, stabilize the region.

The flaw in your logic, if it is actually logic and not emotionalism, is that it is considered wrong to attack without evidence of an immediate, clear and present threat.

In case you haven't noticed, we are not primitive creatures who need to destroy people and countries because we are afraid of what they might do.

If people of your mentality were in power, we would have had nuclear war with Russia or China a long time ago.

We no longer have the luxury of a wait-and-see attitude. Didn't 9/11 teach you anything?

9/11 revealed how weak a society we are. How reactionary we are. How unprepared to deal with life we are. How poor in our internal security we are. How far away from trust in God we are.

9/11 occurred, yet we have still now taken the steps to secure our own borders, rather spending billions to attack a country that had nothing directly to do with 9/11.

And it's a sad thing, since certain human beings are more vicious than any animal. Besides, Saddam Hussein will be tried and be given due process, unlike the hundreds of thousands who perished under his rule without the benefit of either.

You can rationalize Saddam will be given a "fair" trial, even though his "arrest" took place under false pretenses, many of your ilk live with an end justifies the means approach. I prefer rule of law.

The "rules" under the UN resolutions called for harsh penalties if Saddam did not comply. He did not comply for over a decade. What good are rules if they are not enforced?

What good are rules if they are broken? Where was the US authorized to use force unilaterally in the UN resolutions if the security council did not authorize such actions?

If you don't "get" that the US must NEVER cede its sovereign right to protect itself without the approval of a hollow and castrated institution like the UN, I'm afraid it is you who is hopeless.

Our efforts of self defense in Afghanistan were not questioned, as they were deemed reasonable by nearly all. Iraq is a different matter. What don't you "get" about that?

That you can't see the differences relegates you to the realm of the hopeless.

Well, I must say this is a more reasonable response from you than the usual sarcastic Alcoholics Anonymous mantra. May you do the same. In the interim I suppose we shall both continue to debate these issues here on ET.

Free speech within the laws of King Baron here at ET.

Alert! Alert! Alert! Typical Colmes knee-jerk reaction! Mention Clinton and the defenses come up faster than a Randy Johnson fastball. I was actually praising Clinton in my post! Hilarious.

The logical fallacy is the same in both cases, using Clinton to support or attack Bush is the same fallacious process.

 

[ElCubano]

Quote from TriPack:

As is the case with Saudi Arabia, a sneaky cooperative government is better than a sneaky uncooperative/defiant one.

sneaky is sneaky.....at least with the defiant one we know where they stand and we can act accordingly..

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

The flaw in your logic, if it is actually logic and not emotionalism, is that it is considered wrong to attack without evidence of an immediate, clear and present threat.

In case you haven't noticed, we are not primitive creatures who need to destroy people and countries because we are afraid of what they might do.

If people of your mentality were in power, we would have had nuclear war with Russia or China a long time ago.

A simplistic argument from a simplistic mentality. Very Colmes. Don't agree with A? Make a leap of the imagination and jump to B. Since it has to be explained to you (again), fighting terrorists is an altogether different thing than fighting nations like Russia or China. Mutual Assured Destruction kept the USSR from launching their nukes, and it most assuredly does the same with China.

9/11 revealed how weak a society we are. How reactionary we are. How unprepared to deal with life we are. How poor in our internal security we are. How far away from trust in God we are.

9/11 occurred, yet we have still now taken the steps to secure our own borders, rather spending billions to attack a country that had nothing directly to do with 9/11.

Ah, so if we trust in God more, everything would be fine. Interesting - that is the same mindset the 9/11 terrorists and their brethren possess.

Our nation's security requires more than fatalistic wishing for all mankind to hug one another. If people like you were in power, the US would have handed the keys over to Hitler, Tojo, and Stalin decades ago.

You can rationalize Saddam will be given a "fair" trial, even though his "arrest" took place under false pretenses, many of your ilk live with an end justifies the means approach. I prefer rule of law.

Yes, you would sacrifice millions of your fellow citizens in your dedication to the pursuit of following protocol.

What good are rules if they are broken? Where was the US authorized to use force unilaterally in the UN resolutions if the security council did not authorize such actions?

What good are rules if they are not enforced? And again, the US took action to protect itself without the sanction of a laughable international body. Thank goodness.

Our efforts of self defense in Afghanistan were not questioned, as they were deemed reasonable by nearly all. Iraq is a different matter. What don't you "get" about that?

That you can't see the differences relegates you to the realm of the hopeless.

What is unreasonable about cutting off the head of a snake before it strikes? If there is a loaded gun pointed at your head, and you have the opportunity to remove the bullets, wouldn't you do so? Obviously not. You would wait for the trigger to be pulled and then, if you're still alive, pray for the shooter to stop.

The logical fallacy is the same in both cases, using Clinton to support or attack Bush is the same fallacious process.

LOL! I'll remember that next time you mention the two of them in the same sentence.

 

[axeman]

To use your own bent logic: Your obvious emotional reaction
speaks volumes of your position

Your use of mega fonts clearly shows your complete lack
of self control Poor ART. Salpped down left and right
and then he CRACKS for all to see


You truly are one of the most logically impaired
people I have come across. But then again, I don't need
to point this out to anyone here



peace

axeman

Quote from ARogueTrader:

Now you compare yourself to an attorney in a court of law?

BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAH

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOO

Maybe an attorney in a courtyard of plants....too much, too much.

 

[axeman]

ART: The flaw in your logic, if it is actually logic and not emotionalism...

ART:BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAH
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOO


You guys are wasting your time arguing with a completely inconsistent hypocrite like ART.


peace

axeman

 

[ARogueTrader]

That is the evidence to support your conclusion?

You are like Pavlov's dog then.

Ding, Ding, Ding!!!

Amazing that it is so easy to get you to reach false conclusions. Oh, and according to your logic dogs are atheists too....

Now it all makes perfect sense.

Quote from axeman:

ART: The flaw in your logic, if it is actually logic and not emotionalism...

ART:BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAH
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOO


You guys are wasting your time arguing with a completely inconsistent hypocrite like ART.


peace

axeman

 

[axeman]

Wow... more giant fonts, and even blue
Your uncontrollable emotional response speaks volumes

Of course dogs are atheists. They do not posses a belief
in god or gods and therefore perfectly fit the definition.

For some strange reason, you are completely incapable
of grasping such a simple and concise concept.

This is why people should not argue with you.
You prove time and time again you are not even
capable of LEARNING anything.

You are so obviously emotional attached to your flawed
arguments (notice the giant blue fonts), that you are
incapable of even conceding the obvious, such as the
definition of atheism which is widely accepted by experts
in the field (Leading atheistic writers, philosophers, etc).

But of course... ART is right. Everyone else is wrong.
The theist claims he has the authority to define what atheism is.
How absolutely absurd.

For the last time: A-theism = without theism.
It's as simple as that. Do dogs posses theism? Of course not.

Why do I ever bother? Clearly you are wrong and reality
slaps you in the face. Unfortunately, not even reality can
get through to someone who is incapable of learning.

How pathetic. Off the deep end you go again.
It's fun watching everyone on this thread shred your
silly arguments to pieces.

How many times will you dodge TM?
Are you gonna check on that cease fire agreement?
Of course not... because then it would make it incredibly
clear that we had every right to go back in and enforce it

I leave you with your shattered splinters of your pathetic position. Truly logically impaired.



peace

axeman

Quote from ARogueTrader:

That is the evidence to support your conclusion?

You are like Pavlov's dog then.

Ding, Ding, Ding!!!

Amazing that it is so easy to get you to reach false conclusions. Oh, and according to your logic dogs are atheists too....

Now it all makes perfect sense.

 

[ARogueTrader]

Quote from axeman:

Wow... more giant fonts, and even blue
Your uncontrollable emotional response speaks volumes

So easy to pimp you, like Pavlov's dog.

Of course dogs are atheists. They do not posses a belief
in god or gods and therefore perfectly fit the definition.

So you have more in common with Pavlov's dog than I thought.

For some strange reason, you are completely incapable
of grasping such a simple and concise concept.

I grasp the concept of intellectual dishonesty quite well, as I see you practice it voraciously.

This is why people should not argue with you.
You prove time and time again you are not even
capable of LEARNING anything.

Hard to learn from people who think plants and dogs are atheists.

You are so obviously emotional attached to your flawed
arguments (notice the giant blue fonts), that you are
incapable of even conceding the obvious, such as the
definition of atheism which is widely accepted by experts
in the field (Leading atheistic writers, philosophers, etc).

Not obvious to the unemotional detached. Atheists are not the leading experts in atheism, any more than a KKK member is the leading expert in civil rights. Just because a person self defines does not mean the definition conforms to reality or societal norms.

But of course... ART is right.

Thank you for your admission of being wrong.

Everyone else is wrong.

No, while the majority agree with me, there are those who stubbornly choose to hold onto their being wrong.

The theist claims he has the authority to define what atheism is.

The theist claims as much authority to define atheism as an atheist has to define Theism.

How absolutely absurd.

Absurd is thinking a plant and a dog are atheists.

For the last time: A-theism = without theism.

For the last time, Atheist is who who practices atheism, and you cannot practice something that does not exist. Belief in God exists, and can be practiced or not. Plants and dogs don't have the capacity for belief in God to the best of our understanding.

When there is choice to be atheist or not, there is sentience of that level. To any reasonable level of intelligence, plants and dogs lack that choice.

It's as simple as that. Do dogs posses theism? Of course not.

Dogs lack the ability of choice to be atheist or not. Therefore, they cannot practice atheism, nor can they be atheists.

Why do I ever bother?

Why do you like to be proven wrong and lose arguments? Who can say.

Clearly you are wrong and reality
slaps you in the face.

Clearly you have a reality that differs from society.

Unfortunately, not even reality can get through to someone who is incapable of learning.

Someone who cannot learn will stay fixed in the thought that dogs and plants are atheists.

How pathetic. Off the deep end you go again.

Deep end would be believing that dogs and plants are atheists.

It's fun watching everyone on this thread shred your
silly arguments to pieces.

Psychologists have similar fun when they watch people say dogs and plants are atheists.

How many times will you dodge TM? Are you gonna check on that cease fire agreement? Of course not... because then it would make it incredibly clear that we had every right to go back in and enforce it

Unless the agreement grants the US specific authority to use force without the security council's approval, the US doesn't not have the right under international law to act in a unilateral manner.

The agreement in question was a UN agreement, not a US agreement. I would think you would at least be smart enough to know the difference.

I leave you with your shattered splinters of your pathetic position. Truly logically impaired.

Truly delusional, but we have come to know that anyone who thinks plants and dogs are atheists is delusional.

 

[axeman]

Lets try this again... Atheists define themselves
as I define them. Philosophy professors have the same
definition. Leading atheistic writers agree on the definition.
The word itself defines its precise meaning.
a-thiesm: A = without, theism=theism... direct
translation: "without theism". Just like agnosticism.
"without knowledge". But nooooooo.... we are all wrong
and 777 (the theist) knows the only real definition
of atheism. LOL! How delusional.

Do you realize how completely stupid you sound?
Your wrong. Plain and simple. How many times must I prove this?
Doesn't matter. You prove again your incapable of learning.


Poor 777. He continues to claim that dogs and plants
are not atheists when its so obviously true by DEFINITION.

That my friends... is a perfect example of delusion.
You only think otherwise because you don't want to admit
your a failed atheist, since everyone is born an atheist.
(without knowledge of god).

You sound like such a complete idiot stating what is
obviously wrong.

You think dogs are not atheists because they cant choose it?
LOL. Sooooooooooooo clueless. Are you really this dense??

I guess so
I'll prove it yet another way.


Tell me... have you chosen to be an a-blorpian ???

NO. You dont even know what an a-blorpian is now do you?

So by your flawed logic, you cannot be an a-blorpian because
you are not even capable of choosing to be one or not.

But the fact is... you do not posses a belief in blorpianism,
and are THEREFORE an a-blorpian.

See how easy that was? Totally debunked again.
Your too easy ART. Your arguments are so pathetically weak
and obviously wrong.

Let me clue you in here.... BY DEFINITION everyone who has
no knowledge of blorpianism is an a-blorpian, and yet
that includes plants and dogs because CHOICE is irrelevant
to the definition.

Your lack of logical reasoning capability is quite astounding.

Poor poor ART. He is just mad that he was born an ATHEIST
and is now a FAILED atheist. LMAO

peace

axeman