[quote]bigflamer wrote:Awesome. I point out, in detail, your intellectual dishonesty, and you reply with…[b]SO?[/b]
LOL…you’re a gem. That literally made me laugh out loud, and for that…I thank you.[/quote]
Hmmm…actually, I denied being dishonest at the end of that paragraph, which is true. I keep forgetting that you’re an idiot, and you need things explained to you in excruciating detail.
What I said, though not in as many words, was this:
No, I an not dishonest, as I have shown above and previously, BUT even if I were, you would have no right to complain, because YOU are intellectually dishonest.
I hope that is clearer.
Uh, sorry on, there are no serious economists who blame the stock market bubble on the Federal Reserve. The Depression can in part be laid at their feet, for not expanding the money supply more aggressively, but this is the opposite of what you blame them for, demonstrating that you don’t even understand the debate.
Once again, here’s a hint: I’m not wrong, you simply don’t even understand the argument. You’re at a disadvantage, because you’re an idiot, but this is not my fault.
[quote]“but I don’t think they should be shot at either”
Please explain.[/quote]
Please kiss my ass. I though I made this clear: I am against the war, I don’t think they should be sent over to other countries to be shot at (and kill civilians, but that’s another post…), but no one held a gun to their head and forced them to sign up for the military, so they must accept these consequences.
Similarly, I don’t necessarily think a soldier ought to be “caught in the middle” of a big debate over that soldiers’s orders, but once again, they didn’t have to go into the military to begin with, so they must accept these consequences as well.
[quote]bigflamer wrote: So as it turns out, ryan is half right.
Follies of interventionism really.
[/quote]
No, I’m ALL right. The US set in motion a series of event which culminated in the rise of bin Laden. It’s funny how all of a sudden you want to be careful and consider lots of details, while you ordinarily just run roughshod over them.
[/quote]
What’s funny is you accusing me of running roughshod over details, when this is consistently your MO. Thanks for the laughs… [/quote]
Whatever you need to feel better about your lies, I guess. It’s palpably untrue–I provide more evidence for my claims than any other person on this forum.
But once again, the truth is less satisfying to you, so you make up your own reality.
Wrong, that’s ALL you have time for, seeing as you apparently haven’t had time to post one single lack backing up anything you say, while everything I’ve said is documented to be correct.
The fact that you have a problem with reality is not my fault, and your cowardly behavior is starting to get annoying.
You’re wrong. End of “debate.” Quit pussyfooting around this fact, man up, and admit it.
[/quote]
Another lie from you. I tore apart your global warming data claims. You linked to a website that proved what I said is correct and claimed it refuted my statements. You are a loser.
edit: You post links to websites sympathetic to your viewpoint and yet you misrepresent/misunderstand what those websites claim. You cannot argue your viewpoint factually or accurately. Any debate with you is a complete waste of time because you are too dumb and/or dishonest.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:According to court testimony Michael Corleone is an olive oil importer.
The USA did not supply OBL weapons.
They supplied many mujahadeen weapons but OBL was not one of them. It is possible he was in proximity to some US weapons but he did not want them due to his ideology.
This is well documented by all involved but you can dig up as many links as you like and it will not prove otherwise.
You need to get off the internet and read a few dozen books on the subject.[/quote]
Hmmm…I can do this too:
According to books, the earth was created in six days, and womankind was created from the rib of the first man.
Pretty much gives you license to dismiss anything that contradicts your ideolgy, doesn’t it?
You are the biggest joke on this forum, and that’s really saying something.
[/quote]
Coming from a proven liar like you, that is a compliment.
No, it does only in your deranged world. Terrorists use battle tactics that kill civilians. US uses battle tactics that kill FAR more civilians. Dance around it all you wish, it just makes it all the apparent that you are a liar.
Ha, “again.” Whenever you get the opportunity to prove me wrong, you simply equivocate and dissemble. I assume you concede the argument about CNN playing terrorist “propaganda,” and admit that you were wrong.[/quote]
No matter how much you try to spin away from the fact, The US separates itself from your terrorist friends with a clear lack of intent. The terrorists willfully and with clear intent, target civilians. The terrorists, willfully and with clear intent, place civilians in danger by hiding among them, using their homes as ammunition dumps, forcing them to fight under threat of killing their families if they resist, etc. The US military, as I have already pointed out to you in detail, goes to great lengths to try and minimize the deaths of civilians while pursuing an enemy that insists in hiding among the innocent like cowards. Stay tuned, we’re gonna talk about how intent/collateral damage factors into international law!(I’m so excited, aren’t you!!)
And w/r/t the terrorist propaganda video; no, I absolutely do not concede anything, why would I? I am clearly in the right. I gave you my list of reasons and supported them, to which you replied “bullshit! I reject your reasoning!” Okay, fine, you certainly don’t have to accept my reasoning. However. You yourself said that the goal of terrorists is also to make a statement. Clearly you can see that the video was given to CNN so that they could play it on prime time national TV for the infidels to see, so that they could make a…statement. It seems as though you and the many other extreme leftist America haters are the only ones who cannot see the video for what it was. Propaganda.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[i]KABUL (Reuters) - The commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan has issued new combat orders designed to reduce civilian casualties, especially from air strikes, underscoring new counter-insurgency tactics.]/i]
[i]The new U.S. commander in Afghanistan says he will sharply restrict the use of air strikes in an effort to reduce civilian casualties in the fight against Taliban militants.
General Stanley McChrystal has told The New York Times newspaper that in most cases, air strikes will only be used in Afghanistan to prevent U.S. and other coalition troops from being overrun by adversaries.[/i]
CIA refines methods to reduce civilian deaths in Pakistan.
The CIA is using new, smaller missiles and advanced surveillance techniques to minimize civilian casualties in its targeted killings of suspected insurgents in Pakistans tribal areas, according to according to current and former officials in the United States and Pakistan. The technological improvements have resulted in more accurate operations that have provoked relatively little public outrage, the officials said.[/i][/quote]
Wow! That’s great! Simply question though: they know these tactics kill civilians; are they still using them? If so, they’re terrorists, pure and simple. Only a brain dead right-winger trying to twist and distort logic and reality would even think to argue.
Come on, bigflamer, a child could answer this question easily. Why do you have such a problem with it?[/quote]
Sorry bro, but International humanitarian law seems to support my argument of intent very well. It seems as though it’s your opinion vs well established international law.
International humanitarian law (IHL) imposes upon warring parties legal obligations to reduce unnecessary suffering and to protect civilians and other non-combatants. It is applicable to all situations of armed conflict, without regard to the legal basis for the conflict. That is, it applies whether the conflict itself is legal or illegal under international or domestic law, and whether those fighting are regular armies or non-state armed groups…In the incidents documented in this report, Human Rights Watch found little evidence to suggest that insurgent forces were in any way seeking to minimize civilian losses. Many insurgent attacks in 2006 have unfolded in a typical way: an Afghan government vehicle or ISAF or coalition convoy is traveling through a city or village. As it passes by a set of shops or houses, a civilian car pulls into traffic alongside the convoy, and then explodes. Possibly a small number of troops or government personnel are injured and their vehicle is damaged. At the same time, a significant number of surrounding civilian buildings are destroyed, and numerous civilians are killed or injured.[163] Indeed, in many attacks, insurgents appeared to have purposefully conducted attacks in the midst of crowds to conceal their attack, itself a violation of international law.
Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[7] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv). Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are “clearly” excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was “clearly excessive” in relation to (b).
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
More intellectual dishonesty from you, big surprise.[/quote]
Sorry, employing logic properly is not intellectual dishonest. Employing double standards and clouding the issue, is, though, and I remind you, you do nothing else on this forum.
“More often than not” IS NOT the same thing as “by definition.” But furthermore, even if I ignore this, and agree with you, then the military is still the largest terrorist organization in the world.
I’m serious, you need to learn at least a little bit about logic and how facts work.[/quote]
The “facts” here, are this: Terrorists do, as you cannot deny, willfully and with clear intent, target civilians in large number to spread terror through the maximization of death. But, you’re right, on occasion they like to take a break from killing large amounts of people and make special statements through the highlighted killing of innocents. Occasionally, they like to behead contractors one at a time, and toss the video up on the internet to make their statements. Occasionally, they will even turn to major American news outlets to assist them in making their statements, when they video the sniping of American service men and give the video to CNN for some quality prime time air time.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
And yes, I do put faith into the fact that the military is absolutely bound to the rule of law through the UCMJ. The fact that that the US military is bound to this rule of law, and the terrorist organizations bind themselves to no rule of law, pretty much shits on your argument as a whole.[/quote]
No, it simply further illustrates that you lack even the rudiments of a working brain. The US military, while supposedly bound by the rule of law, illegally invades countries and starts wars. Our government, supposedly bound by the rule of law, keeps a hit list of American citizens, and sends its agents all over the world to kill with impunity.
There’s obviously no way to defeat your programming in this matter, so I won’t say much else.[/quote]
Now ryan, this is getting to be downright embarrassing on your part. The war in Iraq was never illegal, no matter how hip it as to say so. Dumb war? yes…Illegal war? no. The following is an excerpt from a very good explanation of the subject. You should read the whole thing.
[i]Acting within the scope of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and under consent of previously enforced United Nations Security Council resolutions, the Congress gave their constitutional authority to use the Armed Forces of the United States against Iraq. On October 16, 2002, the President signed what then became Public Law 107-243, which authorized the use of military force to ensure Iraqi compliance of international laws and treaties, and to enforce United States public laws and policies.
The rest, as they say, is history.
As stated at the beginning of this article, there is no basis for disputing this information. It is factual from top to bottom. There are no misinterpretations or fabrications, and there is no trickery or pretense. The texts of these resolutions and bills are an appropriate utilization of constitutional and international law. A failure to recognize the legality of our involvement in Iraq means one does not have the capacity to comprehend United States laws or international treaties. Being mired in ignorance and misinformation can no longer be an excuse if truth is what one seeks.
The Iraq war was legal, it is legal, and it will continue to be legal unless the Congress changes the law to stop it. When people use rhetoric such as, â??Bushâ??s warâ??, â??the illegal war of aggressionâ??, or â??Bush lied, people diedâ??, one will now know that they are either ignorant, stupid, or both, or that it is a disgraceful attempt to gain or regain power or relevance in the political sphere. Most of the condemnation of our President concerning going to war with Iraq - including calls for impeachment, accusations of war crimes, calling his actions unconstitutional and unjustified, and the outright fabrication and leaking of information by congressmen, journalists, and intelligence officials â?? is based on deliberate lies and propaganda and in some cases may be borderline, or actual treason.
This would be the perfect time â?? a time when we are at war - to end the senseless ridicule of the Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces.
The argument of the War Powers Resolution in this article was strictly a legal argument for the authority of the President. In no way do I believe that the Resolution properly defines Presidential or Congressional powers. It is bad law, but it is still the law.[/i]
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
So does that make Obama a war criminal for not prosecuting purported war criminals? This is an interesting line of thought, ryan. And DID Assange break the law?[/quote]
I don’t think he’s a war criminal for DECLINING to prosecute war criminals (though I think it’s a gross miscarriage of justice and a real embarrassment for this country), but I wouldn’t necessarily object if someone called him a war criminal for expanding the civilian-murdering drone strikes, and stepping up illegal capture, interrogation, rendition, and indefinite detention of “enemy combatants.”
And no, Assange is not an American citizen, so he could not possibly have broken a law.
If Australia attempted to prosecute an American living in England, for breaking an Australian law, there would be such an outcry made that Australia would immediately cease and desist, as they should in the circumstance.
But now that the exact opposite has occurred, and America is attempting to prosecute an Australian living in England (or wherever he is now) for…they don’t exactly know what, but they’ll think of something! then it’s imperative that he be brought to “justice,” while George W. Bush and John Yoo live comfortable lives. It’s an absolute outrage.[/quote]
Well, it appears as though it may not matter that Assange isn’t a US citizen. He may be tried under the Espionage act.
Here, NPR talks about how he may be talking himself into just such an indictment.
Diane Feinstein seem to think he should be prosecuted as well.
[i]When WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange released his latest document troveâ??more than 250,000 secret State Department cablesâ??he intentionally harmed the U.S. government. The release of these documents damages our national interests and puts innocent lives at risk. He should be vigorously prosecuted for espionage.
The law Mr. Assange continues to violate is the Espionage Act of 1917. That law makes it a felony for an unauthorized person to possess or transmit “information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.”[/i]
Espionage Act
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Whether or not the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are “legal” or not is a whole other discussion. My point is that every member of the US military is subject to the rule of law that is the UCMJ. Now, if you want to start another thread discussing the war powers act, the constitutionality/legality of the war, US interventionism, etc., feel free to do so. You might be surprised with my thoughts regarding this.[/quote]
No, not really–the issue is whether or not the military is more ethical than terrorists, which has nothing to do with law. [/quote]
I realize that none of the facts that I’ve provided for you, will have any effect on your retarded lines of thought, but it is fun to kick you around these forums. I do enjoy it. Your position that the US is “the greatest terrorist organization in the history of the world”, is complete garbage. No, the US is not perfect, far from it actually. But it is absolutely, 100% intellectually dishonest to try and paint it as you like to do. Sorry about your fail, bro.
Edit: Also, it’s quite hypocritical of you that, in one breath you say that laws don’t matter, and then in another you want to rail against the supposed “illegality” of the war. So, do laws matter, or not?
Also, if anyone wants to revisit the thread where Ryan was wrong about the Federal Reserve’s role in the stock market bubble w/r/t the expansion in the money supply, it’s available here.
No, it does only in your deranged world. Terrorists use battle tactics that kill civilians. US uses battle tactics that kill FAR more civilians. Dance around it all you wish, it just makes it all the apparent that you are a liar.
Ha, “again.” Whenever you get the opportunity to prove me wrong, you simply equivocate and dissemble. I assume you concede the argument about CNN playing terrorist “propaganda,” and admit that you were wrong.[/quote]
No matter how much you try to spin away from the fact, The US separates itself from your terrorist friends with a clear lack of intent. The terrorists willfully and with clear intent, target civilians. The terrorists, willfully and with clear intent, place civilians in danger by hiding among them, using their homes as ammunition dumps, forcing them to fight under threat of killing their families if they resist, etc. The US military, as I have already pointed out to you in detail, goes to great lengths to try and minimize the deaths of civilians while pursuing an enemy that insists in hiding among the innocent like cowards. Stay tuned, we’re gonna talk about how intent/collateral damage factors into international law!(I’m so excited, aren’t you!!)
[/quote]
So you say the US goes through great trouble to justify to themselves why they kill civialians whereas the insurgents just dont bother.
Yeah well, I guess it all depends how much energy you are willing to spend bullshitting yourself.
[quote]orion wrote:
So, you say the US goes through great trouble to minimize the death of civilians while in pursuit of an enemy who intentionally places said civilians at risk, whereas the insurgents just don’t give a shit about the civilians.
Yeah well, I guess it all depends how much energy I’m willing to spend bullshitting you to the contrary.[/quote]
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Also, if anyone wants to revisit the thread where Ryan was wrong about the Federal Reserve’s role in the stock market bubble w/r/t the expansion in the money supply, it’s available here.
Knock it off…if you post every thread where Ryan was wrong there’d be no room for anything else. Give him a break his Christmas vacation is coming to a close in a matter of days and he’ll be back studying under some of the slowest minds on the planet.
[quote]orion wrote:
So, you say the US goes through great trouble to minimize the death of civilians while in pursuit of an enemy who intentionally places said civilians at risk, whereas the insurgents just don’t give a shit about the civilians.
Yeah well, I guess it all depends how much energy I’m willing to spend bullshitting you to the contrary.[/quote]
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Also, if anyone wants to revisit the thread where Ryan was wrong about the Federal Reserve’s role in the stock market bubble w/r/t the expansion in the money supply, it’s available here.
Knock it off…if you post every thread where Ryan was wrong there’d be no room for anything else. Give him a break his Christmas vacation is coming to a close in a matter of days and he’ll be back studying under some of the slowest minds on the planet.[/quote]
Why does every political thread get way off subject and end up a regress back to basic economic/political arguments?
Are you not allowed to right-of-center AND admit that Fox is a relatively terrible source for news? Or do they take away your right-wing membership card?
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Why does every political thread get way off subject and end up a regress back to basic economic/political arguments?
Are you not allowed to right-of-center AND admit that Fox is a relatively terrible source for news? Or do they take away your right-wing membership card?[/quote]
You know, I won’t deny that FOX leans right. BUT…how many other news organizations lean left? Shall I name them?
NBC-CBS-CNN-ABC-MSNBC-The New York Times-Time Mag.-Newsweek and on and on. So forgive us our indulgence in the only TV generated news machine that leans right.
You really are shameless. You didn’t “tear apart” anything, except logic. You said the CRU worked only with tree ring data, I showed you were wrong, you pouted.
Here’s the deal shit-for-brains: you show me where I’ve misrepresented anything, and I’ll admit I’m wrong. But you can’t do it because you’re not even willing to me what exactly it is that you’ve refuted (obviously because you HAVEN’T refuted anything, you simply SAY you have, and don’t wish to be called out for your buffoonery). You just say, “You’re wrong, you’re a liar.” And I say, “About what?” And you say, “You’rea a liar.”
Ha, I can do this too: You’re a liar, and you’re going to hell for it.
Anybody can pull claims out of their ass, as you do constantly. Back it up, or it doesn’t mean shit. I’ve documented my claims, while you have yet to post anything to support you. This is why no one takes you seriously.
I’m sorry, are you under the impression that you’ve done anything else?
“I am rubber, you are glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.”
.[/quote]
If anyone on this forum reflects this…it’s you. Whenever you are backed into a corner you say “You don;t know what you are talking about”.
It’s a great “out”… and has worked for you, but you are becoming tiresome with it.
[/quote]
Haha, I guess citing multiple sources which show you to be in error is dishonest, now? You know, if you could back up even one thing you say, I would be thrilled, and might actually consider taking you seriously, but you always run off as soon as you’re challenged.
What you meant to say with this post is, “Quid posting things that I don’t know how to respond to, it makes me uncomfortable!”
[quote]Big Banana wrote:According to court testimony Michael Corleone is an olive oil importer.
The USA did not supply OBL weapons.
They supplied many mujahadeen weapons but OBL was not one of them. It is possible he was in proximity to some US weapons but he did not want them due to his ideology.
This is well documented by all involved but you can dig up as many links as you like and it will not prove otherwise.
You need to get off the internet and read a few dozen books on the subject.[/quote]
Hmmm…I can do this too:
According to books, the earth was created in six days, and womankind was created from the rib of the first man.
Pretty much gives you license to dismiss anything that contradicts your ideolgy, doesn’t it?
You are the biggest joke on this forum, and that’s really saying something.
[/quote]
Coming from a proven liar like you, that is a compliment.
[/quote]
I see you’re still not in the mood to discuss your logical fallacies. Not surprising.
Um, have you ever read a history book? A single one? I’ll take anything at this point. I guess we didn’t “mean” to kill civilians when we dropped atomic bombs on Japanese cities. It killed 200,000 of them anyway. I suppose the military didn’t really “mean” to kill civilians when it carpet-bombed Camobodia during the Vietnam War? It killed half a million of them anyway. I suppose when don’t “mean” to kill civilians when we order drone air strikes in populated areas, either. That makes everything OK!
This 3rd grade brand of logic is rapidly becoming tiresome, and it’s below even your pathetic standards. You can say all day, “I didn’t mean to!” but you are STILL DODGING the main issue: when you knowingly employ tactics that kill civilains, the question did you “mean” to becomes semantic masturbation. If you didn’t “mean” to, you wouldn’t have dropped the bomb. If you drop the bomb, knowing that civilians will die, even if it wasn’t your goal, you meant to kill those civilians.
Even if you feel like arguing this, because your programming will never allow you to acknowledge the heinous immorality of American actions (because then you’d have to change your opinions, OMG!), it’s still a pathetic defense of the fact that we have killed millions and millions more civilians than Al Qaeda could ever dream of.
I suppose that’s morally wrong, while dropping bombs on wedding parties by remote control is morally superior. Both of them are tactics that necessitate civilian deaths. You still haven’t explained how they’re any different from a moral standpoint, except to say that “Oh, the US doesn’t mean to,” but then you still haven’t explained how that can’t just as well apply to the insurgents. I’m sure they don’t really mean to kill innocent bystanders either, but it’s necessary for their strategy to work.
I also think they probably wouldn’t need to fight that way if they had their own robot planes and all the other trappings of a trillion dollar military.
Except that you have refused and continue to refuse to answer my basic questions. If you’re clearly in the right, doesn’t that mean that any question I could ask you about your logic can be answered in your favor (if you say no, then you have no consistent idea of what being “in the right” means)? And if so, shouldn’t it be easy to answer my questions? (Hint: yes). So then why have you just clammed up and avoided answering me?
That’s because you simply have no idea how to draw a logical conclusion, and you are still allowing your emotions to overcome your reason. You did respond to my initial questions, however, you have not responded to my follow-up questions which cast serious doubt on your claims. Until you at least make an attempt to answer them, you cannot claim to be in the right, let alone clearly in the right.
[quote]Sorry bro, but International humanitarian law seems to support my argument of intent very well. It seems as though it’s your opinion vs well established international law.
[i]International humanitarian law (IHL) imposes upon warring parties legal obligations to reduce unnecessary suffering and to protect civilians and other non-combatants. It is applicable to all situations of armed conflict, without regard to the legal basis for the conflict. That is, it applies whether the conflict itself is legal or illegal under international or domestic law, and whether those fighting are regular armies or non-state armed groups…
In the incidents documented in this report, Human Rights Watch found little evidence to suggest that insurgent forces were in any way seeking to minimize civilian losses. Many insurgent attacks in 2006 have unfolded in a typical way: an Afghan government vehicle or ISAF or coalition convoy is traveling through a city or village. As it passes by a set of shops or houses, a civilian car pulls into traffic alongside the convoy, and then explodes.
Possibly a small number of troops or government personnel are injured and their vehicle is damaged. At the same time, a significant number of surrounding civilian buildings are destroyed, and numerous civilians are killed or injured.[163] Indeed, in many attacks, insurgents appeared to have purposefully conducted attacks in the midst of crowds to conceal their attack, itself a violation of international law.[/i]
[i]Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[7] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur.
A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv). Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are “clearly” excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was “clearly excessive” in relation to (b).[/i]
[/quote]
And again, you gloss right over the actual debate: this discussion has nothing to do with law, and I have made the law no part of my criticism of the military. If there is a law saying that I can own slaves and boil them alive in hot grease if I so choose (a man was actually acquitted for this in the United States in the 18th century), that’s legal. And according to you, it’s also moral, since it’s not against the law. Do I have to spell this out for you?
Yes, I had better do it: just because something is legal does not mean the law itself is moral. You know this, yet you’re trying to use the law to dodge the question. I think starting the war to begin with is unquestionably immoral, since everyone knew, no matter what their opinion of the war was, that many civilians would die. And yet, we chose to do it anyway, to “fight terrorism.” But terrorism is a law enforcement problem, not a military problem. So we chose to trade the lives of many civilians and many of our own citizens for…what exactly? There’s not really even a clearly-defined goal.
Who cares? The United States has done this for years in developing countries to either overthrow their already established governments or to intimidate citizens into obediance. In doing so, it has killed FAR more people than any “proper” terrorist group (one without the endorsement of the State Department) ever has. We saw it in the Philippines: wanton targeting of civilians (“kill anyone over the age of 10”), we saw it in Vietnam, we saw it especially in many quieter conflicts where it was sometimes the CIA rather than the regular military carrying out these acts of terror. Please tell me how overthrowing democratically elected governments and assassinating foreign officials is anything but terrorism.
[quote]Now ryan, this is getting to be downright embarrassing on your part. The war in Iraq was never illegal, no matter how hip it as to say so. Dumb war? yes…Illegal war? no. The following is an excerpt from a very good explanation of the subject. You should read the whole thing.
[i]Acting within the scope of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and under consent of previously enforced United Nations Security Council resolutions, the Congress gave their constitutional authority to use the Armed Forces of the United States against Iraq. On October 16, 2002, the President signed what then became Public Law 107-243, which authorized the use of military force to ensure Iraqi compliance of international laws and treaties, and to enforce United States public laws and policies.
The rest, as they say, is history.
As stated at the beginning of this article, there is no basis for disputing this information. It is factual from top to bottom. There are no misinterpretations or fabrications, and there is no trickery or pretense. The texts of these resolutions and bills are an appropriate utilization of constitutional and international law. A failure to recognize the legality of our involvement in Iraq means one does not have the capacity to comprehend United States laws or international treaties. Being mired in ignorance and misinformation can no longer be an excuse if truth is what one seeks.
The Iraq war was legal, it is legal, and it will continue to be legal unless the Congress changes the law to stop it. When people use rhetoric such as, �¢??Bush�¢??s war�¢??, �¢??the illegal war of aggression�¢??, or �¢??Bush lied, people died�¢??, one will now know that they are either ignorant, stupid, or both, or that it is a disgraceful attempt to gain or regain power or relevance in the political sphere. Most of the condemnation of our President concerning going to war with Iraq - including calls for impeachment, accusations of war crimes, calling his actions unconstitutional and unjustified, and the outright fabrication and leaking of information by congressmen, journalists, and intelligence officials �¢?? is based on deliberate lies and propaganda and in some cases may be borderline, or actual treason.
This would be the perfect time �¢?? a time when we are at war - to end the senseless ridicule of the Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces.
The argument of the War Powers Resolution in this article was strictly a legal argument for the authority of the President. In no way do I believe that the Resolution properly defines Presidential or Congressional powers. It is bad law, but it is still the law.[/i][/quote]
Fine, I won’t even argue. But it still doesn’t even begin to excuse the interventions in Guatamala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Afghanistan (the first time), Cuba, let me know when it gets too depressing.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
So does that make Obama a war criminal for not prosecuting purported war criminals? This is an interesting line of thought, ryan. And DID Assange break the law?[/quote]
I know how they’re planning to prosecute him, but it doesn’t mean they have ANY right to. The whole notion is absurd–can Australia pass laws allowing them to prosecute Americans? If no, then what business do we have doing the same thing?
Well then please, continue to do it. It’s quite entertaining to see you quote things that have 0 relevance to the topic at hand in an attempt to avoid answering any questions. You should run for office.
I’ll admit it when you actually make any sort of specific argument why. I’ve given you only a partial list of the millions of people we’ve killed, and you’ve not addressed it at all, and now you pretend it’s not there. It was funny for a while, but it’s getting a little boring.
[quote]Edit: Also, it’s quite hypocritical of you that, in one breath you say that laws don’t matter, and then in another you want to rail against the supposed “illegality” of the war. So, do laws matter, or not?
[/quote]
Once again, you prove yourself incapable of following the argument. For a while, I just thought you were programmed like every other American, but now I’m beginning to think you really are stupid, and I need to drop it down a notch for you.
I said laws don’t matter (from the standpoint of morality) to me. Got that? Is that too hard? BUT, the United States government, on the other hand IS bound to respect the law, yet they toss it aside whenever it becomes inconvenient. So I am free to criticize THEM for not following the law, since they claim to respect it. So no hypocrisy, you just once again can’t follow a logical argument. Which is why you’re a conservative. You’ll get it someday.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Also, if anyone wants to revisit the thread where Ryan was wrong about the Federal Reserve’s role in the stock market bubble w/r/t the expansion in the money supply, it’s available here.