Was gadhafi really a threat to National Security

"illogical supposition on your part, naturally.

All lawless people justify crime.
Bob justifies what he does.
Therefore Bob is a criminal???"


Hello. Can you read??? It was a QUESTION not a statement.
This is what YOU were implying, and now pretending not to.
So the "illogical supposition on your part, naturally" CLEARLY
applies to YOU. LOL! :D

"I didn't imply anything at all about the justifications of the war beyond the fact that they have something in common with the lawless...i.e. rationalization and justification of their actions in the face of strong criticism.......but if you feel like a criminal, or if you see their violation of International law as the implication of a crime, fine by me....no argument here."

Oh I see... we are to believe that your flawed correlation
between people who justify things and CRIMINALS who
do the same HAD NO IMPLICATIONS whatsoever? LOL.

Dude... get real. You got caught making a silly statement
since you were totally incapable of attacking my position.
My analogy with the drug dealer stands, and your weak
reply is to correlate justification and criminal behavior.
What a joke :D


"See, when you can't make a case on principles or law, you have no choice but to justify. "

Ive made a perfectly strong case without all the bullshit spin,
and redefining that litters your posts.
You failed to address it. Now you prove you cant by throwing
out silly comments you cant defend and then PRETEND that
you didn't have a purpose for. Whatever.

More typical ART word games and stupid tricks due to his
inability to defend his position. How typical.


peace

axeman
 
Spin, spin, spin and distraction, tools of the trade for Axeman. Axeman is a plant.....err....whatever.

Get back to the salient points, is that possible?

1. International law was broken by Bush. (Think Bush would be willing to go to international court and present his case? Not a chance....he knows he would lose.)

2. The war was pre-emptive, as no Iraqi citizens flew planes into buildings, nor has a iron clad case been made that Saddam supported the terrorist efforts in the USA. The war was designed to stop Iraq from attacking the USA, or supporting an attack against the USA, this is know as pre-emptive.

3. The war was elective, as no evidence gathered can prove that it was necessary for national security.

4. The war violated the UN resolutions, the UN charter, and the spirit of that body. There was no specific wording that granted unilateral military authority to the US, nor was there any indication that the US were the designated enforcement arm or police department of the UN.

You can rationalize all you want, justify all you want, but fact is fact.

It is one argument to make that we "should" ignore the UN, that it was right to ignore the UN, but quite another to say that we had a "right" to do so under the terms fo the "contract" or the bylaws that govern the body that wrote and the spirit of the membership that agreed upon the contract.

After the fact arguments in favor of past irrevocable action, fall into the justification category. Criminals too spend a lot of time in justification.

Whhhhhooooosh, no net!!!!


Quote from axeman:

"illogical supposition on your part, naturally.

All lawless people justify crime.
Bob justifies what he does.
Therefore Bob is a criminal???"


Hello. Can you read??? It was a QUESTION not a statement.
This is what YOU were implying, and now pretending not to.
So the "illogical supposition on your part, naturally" CLEARLY
applies to YOU. LOL! :D

"I didn't imply anything at all about the justifications of the war beyond the fact that they have something in common with the lawless...i.e. rationalization and justification of their actions in the face of strong criticism.......but if you feel like a criminal, or if you see their violation of International law as the implication of a crime, fine by me....no argument here."

Oh I see... we are to believe that your flawed correlation
between people who justify things and CRIMINALS who
do the same HAD NO IMPLICATIONS whatsoever? LOL.

Dude... get real. You got caught making a silly statement
since you were totally incapable of attacking my position.
My analogy with the drug dealer stands, and your weak
reply is to correlate justification and criminal behavior.
What a joke :D


"See, when you can't make a case on principles or law, you have no choice but to justify. "

Ive made a perfectly strong case without all the bullshit spin,
and redefining that litters your posts.
You failed to address it. Now you prove you cant by throwing
out silly comments you cant defend and then PRETEND that
you didn't have a purpose for. Whatever.

More typical ART word games and stupid tricks due to his
inability to defend his position. How typical.


peace

axeman
More...
 
Nice dodge. You never addressed my argument.
Because you cant.

Then you post and entire reply full of nothing but empty assertions.
You truly are delusional.


Now run off and go communicate with your mythical
god using your magical powers which only you posses. LMAO :D

Tell ya what ART. Why dont you use those magical powers
RIGHT NOW and ask your god if Bush did the right thing.
Then let us know the answer, ok? :p


peace

axeman


Quote from ARogueTrader:

Spin, spin, spin and distraction, tools of the trade for Axeman. Axeman is a plant.....err....whatever.

Get back to the salient points, is that possible?

1. International law was broken by Bush. (Think Bush would be willing to go to international court and present his case? Not a chance....he knows he would lose.)

2. The war was pre-emptive, as no Iraqi citizens flew planes into buildings, nor has a iron clad case been made that Saddam supported the terrorist efforts in the USA. The war was designed to stop Iraq from attacking the USA, or supporting an attack against the USA, this is know as pre-emptive.

3. The war was elective, as no evidence gathered can prove that it was necessary for national security.

4. The war violated the UN resolutions, the UN charter, and the spirit of that body. There was no specific wording that granted unilateral military authority to the US, nor was there any indication that the US were the designated enforcement arm or police department of the UN.

You can rationalize all you want, justify all you want, but fact is fact.

It is one argument to make that we "should" ignore the UN, that it was right to ignore the UN, but quite another to say that we had a "right" to do so under the terms fo the "contract" or the bylaws that govern the body that wrote and the spirit of the membership that agreed upon the contract.

After the fact arguments in favor of past irrevocable action, fall into the justification category. Criminals too spend a lot of time in justification.

Whhhhhooooosh, no net!!!!
More...
 
Quote from Cutten:

Gadaffi hasn't been a threat to national security since his palace was bombed by Reagan. In order to be a threat you need not only weapons, but the will to use them. The prospect of a nation state being vaporized within minutes of any WMD attack on the US means that no country poses a credible threat to America. The Soviets and the Chinese didn't attack the west during the cold war, so a weak middle eastern country which lacks even the delivery systems to launch a nuclear attack is hardly anything to worry about.

It is terrorist groups who pose the real threat, since they can attack without being subject to nuclear strikes in reprisal. If such a group were to vaporise a major US city, it would not be clear what the US could do to stop another attack. That is the real threat, not a country which has been a harmless bit player for the last decade and a half. Therefore I would much rather see Bush pressure Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran and Pakistan so that they are no longer funding terrorism, and are in fact rounding up the more radical groups. The news from Libya sounds good but is strategically pretty unimportant.
More...

Here's the rub Cutten. Saddam was squelching the same type of potential terrorists that have infected your list of problem nations. That persecution of course inflames Western civil libertarians. Then insurgents threaten those ruling governments, causing those governments to stockpile WMD's for self protection. Consequently someone then makes the claim, "well what happens to Pakistan's nukes if the fundamentalists gain control." It's really a never ending cycle. What's needed, and I hate advocating this cause it can be futile, is for U.S. sponsored tyrants ala' the Shah to be placed all over the region. Too bad Saddam didn't work out because he was prototypical. So is Mubarek. The clear reason that the Saudi's etal are "friendly' to terrorists is out of self preservation. Everyone seeks appeasement. Particularly those nation's who are vulnerable to inside rebellion. Iraq had the answer. as i've often said, in a perfect world, rather than fight him, I wish we could have unleashed him.
 
When you address my argument, I will address you dodges.

You are the most delusional being I have met....second only to a ridiculous atheist turnip plant who tried to make a linguistic argument.

Quote from axeman:

Nice dodge. You never addressed my argument.
Because you cant.

Then you post and entire reply full of nothing but empty assertions.
You truly are delusional.


Now run off and go communicate with your mythical
god using your magical powers which only you posses. LMAO :D

Tell ya what ART. Why dont you use those magical powers
RIGHT NOW and ask your god if Bush did the right thing.
Then let us know the answer, ok? :p


peace

axeman
More...
 
LOL! The guy who thinks he can talk to all powerful beings
using his personal magical powers dares label ME delusional?
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

I rest my case.


peace

axeman



Quote from ARogueTrader:

When you address my argument, I will address you dodges.

You are the most delusional being I have met....second only to a ridiculous argument with an atheist turnip plant.
More...
 
Loozers always need to make a pronouncement that they "rest their case" because the audience hasn't seen enough of a case to come to that conclusion on their own.




Quote from axeman:

LOL! The guy who thinks he can talk to all powerful beings
using his personal magical powers dares label ME delusional?
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

I rest my case.


peace

axeman
More...
 
Oh yes your right.... every attorney in the world who
says "I rest my case" at the end of his summary is
a loser......lmaoo.... off the deep end you go.


peace

axeman



Quote from ARogueTrader:

Loozers always need to make a pronouncement that they "rest their case" because the audience hasn't seen enough of a case to come to that conclusion on their own.
More...
 
Quote from ARogueTrader:

Spin, spin, spin and distraction, tools of the trade for Axeman. Axeman is a plant.....err....whatever.

Get back to the salient points, is that possible?

1. International law was broken by Bush. (Think Bush would be willing to go to international court and present his case? Not a chance....he knows he would lose.)

ANSWER: WOOOaaaa NELLY!!!!! DO NOT QUOTE INTERNATIONAL LAW UNLESS YOU KNOW IT OR MEAN IT.....HOW MANY TIMES WAS SADDAM AND IRAQ IN NON COMPLIANCE OF THE ' CEASE FIRE' NOT SURRENDER, 'CEASE FIRE' THEY NEGOTIATED AND AGREED TO? HE BROKE EVERY SINGLE rule OF " INTERNATIONAL LAW " THAT HE AGREED TO...IN FACT, PRESIDENT CLINTON IN A SPEECH SET OUT THE CASE AGAINST HIM IN VERY CLEAR AND CONCISE TERMS....WAS CLINTON LYING? YES OR NO? THE BOTTOM LINE IS , PLEASE DO NOT quote AN INTERNATIONAL LAW THAT WAS BROKEN ON ABOUT 100 occasions BY IRAQ...THEY failed TO COMPLY. THERE IS NO DENYING THIS.

2. The war was preemptive, as no Iraqi citizens flew planes into buildings, nor has a iron clad case been made that Saddam supported the terrorist efforts in the USA. The war was designed to stop Iraq from attacking the USA, or supporting an attack against the USA, this is know as preemptive.

ANSWER: TRUE....HOWEVER...PLEASE quote ON HERE WITH ONE OF YOUR CUT AND PASTE ARTICLES THE REACTION AND QUOTES OF HUSSEIN FOLLOWING THE ATTACKS......DID YOU READ THEM
? ALSO, THE MAN WAS GIVING 50K TO THE FAMILY OF ANY SUICIDE BOMBER IN ISRAEL.....IS THIS SUPPORTING TERRORISM? YES OR NO? YOU BELIEVE HE WOULD ONLY SUPPORT TERRORISM against ISRAEL BUT NOT THE USA?

3. The war was elective, as no evidence gathered can prove that it was necessary for national security.

ANSWER: SEE ABOVE....IF HE WOULD WILLINGLY PAY $$ TO ATTACK ISRAEL....DO YOU really BELIEVE THAT HE wouldn't;T PAY FOR THE USA???

4. The war violated the UN resolutions, the UN charter, and the spirit of that body. There was no specific wording that granted unilateral military authority to the US, nor was there any indication that the US were the designated enforcement arm or police department of the UN.

ANSWER: VERY NAIVE .....PLEASE LIST THE UN VIOLATIONS AND CEASE FIRE violation THAT IRAQ COMMITTED? THEY CHOOSE TO INVADE A COUNTRY ( KUWAIT) THEY SENT SKUD missiles INTO ISRAEL ( unprovoked) WE drove THEM OUT...THEY SURRENDERED UNDER STRINGENT CONDITIONS...PLEASE FEEL FREE TO LIST THE condition FOR SURRENDER...I DARE YOU...YOU WILL FEEL FOOLISH IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THEY WERE STILL UNDER A CEASE FIRE AND UN SANCTIONS YET THE UN DID NOTHING TO ENFORCE THEIR " RESOLUTIONS"...BTW...THE UN DID vote FOR HARSH consequences IF THEY DID NOT COMPLY

You can rationalize all you want, justify all you want, but fact is fact.
ANSWER: EXACTLY...YOU NEED TO READ UP ON THE SURRENDER OF THE GULF WAR AND THE UN RESOLUTIONS DRAFTED FOR 10 YEARS...ALSO, READ PRESIDENT Clinton speech ABOUT WHY HE BOMBED IRAQ......

THIS MAN WAS A THREAT TO THE WORLD AND THE USA AND ANYONE WHO THINKS OTHERWISE PROBABLY NEEDS TO HAVE THEIR HEAD EXAMINED...PLEASE GIVE ME A LIST OF THREE ( 3) THINGS THAT HE DID TO HELP THE COUNTRY OF IRAQ AND THE MIDDLE EAST IN GENERAL? ARE YOU SAYING YOU WANT HIM BACK?....YES OR NO? SHOULD SADDAM BE PUT BACK IN POWER?
More...
 
Quote from TM_Direct:



1. International law was broken by Bush.

ANSWER: TRUE.

I agree with your response. International law was surely broken.

SHOULD SADDAM BE PUT BACK IN POWER?

Justification response. Should we violate law because the end justifies the means? Why have laws at all, why follow procedures of law, all we need is a justification lynch mob mentality, right? Judge, jury and prosecutioner all wrapped up in one.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top