RE: Impeachment?

RE: Impeachment? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 7:07:28 PM)
quote: That's exactly the point. Thank you for making my argument for me. Under international law, Iraq's fictitious WMD program was the sole justification for invading Iraq. Arguing that Bush invaded Iraq for reasons other than their non-existent WMDs is admitting that he lied, and launched illegal and unprovoked war of aggression. Are you saying he lied? Or he didnt lie? Im confused again.

Sanity -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 7:07:41 PM)
This is an interesting post, and dead on topic as well, so thank you iso for posting it. It raises a few more questions in my mind. During the Bush years, remember the 'we broke it we bought it' mantra? And the tar baby analogy we were treated to every time we sat down to discuss politics on discussion boards such as this one? Well, who is going to rebuild Libya. France? Nobody? Or why are we breaking it, destroying the government there. Do we have even the first clue who is going to fill the power vacuum there? Is this something like Carters Afghanistan, are we inviting Al-Qaeda into a new playground with all of this? Im not pretending I have any of the answer here, these are just some questions that this post raised in my mind. quote: ORIGINAL: isoLadyOwner Why are the people in other African states less worthy of protection. We're going into the Sudan next right? Even the "Decider" got Congressional approval for his idiocy. The rebels sure look inherently trustworthy. If they turn out to be the mean kind of AK 47 toting Muslim rebels then propping up a stable puppet government will require the USA to put boots on the ground. I'm sure the French will stick around to help, except they won't. Every $400,000 + cruise missile we drop would pay to employ a soccer mom possibly two but they might struggle on such a meager salary. Obama isn't apt to get Congressional approval as only neo con sociopaths, Obama Kool-Aide idealogues, Muslim rebels with AK 47s in Libya, and those with oil interests in said country seem to support funding another boneheaded military misadventure in the Middle East. The US Constitution trumps the UN Charter but to true hypocrites (Obama idealogues fit the bill perfectly), warmongering is ok as long as Obama does it. Team America F**k Yeah.

TreasureKY -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 7:09:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY There was much more to this than many here would like to remember. While concern over WMDs played a key role in being the "straw that broke the camel's back", there was much more to this invasion... That's exactly the point. Thank you for making my argument for me. Under international law, Iraq's fictitious WMD program was the sole justification for invading Iraq. Arguing that Bush invaded Iraq for reasons other than their non-existent WMDs is admitting that he lied, and launched illegal and unprovoked war of aggression. Sorry, but that type of logic is flawed. Besides, the world is not quite so black and white. If you'd read what I linked to, that would have been apparent to you.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 7:10:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: That's exactly the point. Thank you for making my argument for me. Under international law, Iraq's fictitious WMD program was the sole justification for invading Iraq. Arguing that Bush invaded Iraq for reasons other than their non-existent WMDs is admitting that he lied, and launched illegal and unprovoked war of aggression. Are you saying he lied? Or he didnt lie? Im confused again. He did lie about WMD, but for the purposes of Treasure's argument, we don't even need to prove that. She admits that he lied about his reasons for launching a war.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 7:14:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY There was much more to this than many here would like to remember. While concern over WMDs played a key role in being the "straw that broke the camel's back", there was much more to this invasion... That's exactly the point. Thank you for making my argument for me. Under international law, Iraq's fictitious WMD program was the sole justification for invading Iraq. Arguing that Bush invaded Iraq for reasons other than their non-existent WMDs is admitting that he lied, and launched illegal and unprovoked war of aggression. Sorry, but that type of logic is flawed. Besides, the world is not quite so black and white. If you'd read what I linked to, that would have been apparent to you. If it's flawed, please point out how. I don't need to read the link, because it's completely irrelevant. Bush's sole legal justification for invading Iraq was that they possessed WMD and were a grave and imminent threat to us and to their neighbors. If we invaded for any reason other than that - any reason at all - then we lied about our reasons for invading Iraq. Period. It's very simple, and the history of Saddam's regime has absolutely no bearing on the matter.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 7:16:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Under international law, Iraq's fictitious WMD program was the sole justification for invading Iraq. You will have to source this claim for me, panda, as I seem to remember other valid reasons. And, if that assertion fails, this one ... quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Arguing that Bush invaded Iraq for reasons other than their non-existent WMDs is admitting that he lied, and launched illegal and unprovoked war of aggression. ... is invalid and your entire argument fails on the logic. Firm

TreasureKY -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 7:17:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: That's exactly the point. Thank you for making my argument for me. Under international law, Iraq's fictitious WMD program was the sole justification for invading Iraq. Arguing that Bush invaded Iraq for reasons other than their non-existent WMDs is admitting that he lied, and launched illegal and unprovoked war of aggression. Are you saying he lied? Or he didnt lie? Im confused again. He did lie about WMD, but for the purposes of Treasure's argument, we don't even need to prove that. She admits that he lied about his reasons for launching a war. Kindly do not put words into my mouth. I've presented no argument, merely a concise historical overview. How you try to spin that into support for your argument is not my responsibility, but it is yours. People here are not stupid... they can read just as easily as you can. Do them the honor of not trying to insult their intelligence, as well as attempt to ensnare me into your corner.

Lucylastic -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 7:20:37 PM)
Sure he is, and to be honest? I knew you couldnt wait to post..I for one am sick of his lies and bullshit, you ignore it until he gets called on it, then out you come out trying to be condescending, to those who are sick of being lied to. oh nit picking is so immmature, but more than me mike and panda are capable of that eh dear chap?? Just to finish my derail, he gave me permission to post it... Panda asked quote:ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda And exactly how many times did Clinton invade Iraq? Got even a rough estimate, for that matter? End Quote...its still posted on his post 131 at the end of the article Here was his initial post after Pandas [image]http://www.lucylasticslair.com/test/Sanitypart1.png[/image] Which to normal people would mean..... that he was responding with an article clinton explaining a strike...not an invasion Then mike posted post 132 and sanity went back and added this quote: No one has tried to claim anything like Clinton invaded Iraq, panda, I have no idea where you pulled that out of. However Clinton was very clear that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States and the entire world One minute after mikes post, [image]http://www.lucylasticslair.com/test/Sanitypart1.png[/image] Right now, yes if I get moderated so be it, but I am more than sick of him changing and doing everything he can to make out other people are lying or stoopid. He changed his reply and then denied it, I just happen to be downloading porn and playing with the screen snip Persnikety? yes, pissed off, yes, laughing at the twattery and the hippocrisy, even my own YES Utter bitch, sometimes level of caring at the moment? zero Goodnight

Sanity -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 7:27:43 PM)
Lucy, the facts are as yet unchanged. As Ive stated numerous times now there is no claim on my part that Bill Clinton invaded Iraq in any of that. May we resume discussing the topic now?

TreasureKY -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 7:28:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda If it's flawed, please point out how. I don't need to read the link, because it's completely irrelevant. Bush's sole legal justification for invading Iraq was that they possessed WMD and were a grave and imminent threat to us and to their neighbors. If we invaded for any reason other than that - any reason at all - then we lied about our reasons for invading Iraq. Period. It's very simple, and the history of Saddam's regime has absolutely no bearing on the matter. For one thing, I believe it is what is called "Ad Hominem Tu Quoque"... a logical fallacy. As for not bothering to read the link... I'm afraid it just demonstrates arrogance on your part. Pity.

cuckoldmepls -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 7:29:35 PM)
Even the national news asked today 'why aren't we defending the protestors of Bahrain and Yemen if the basis of our attack in Libya is to defend citizens?' I't's impeachment time folks. Obama didn't even check with Congress first and last time I checked, bombing another country unprovoked was an act of war which requires Congress to support.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 7:30:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Under international law, Iraq's fictitious WMD program was the sole justification for invading Iraq. You will have to source this claim for me, panda, as I seem to remember other valid reasons. And, if that assertion fails, this one ... quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Arguing that Bush invaded Iraq for reasons other than their non-existent WMDs is admitting that he lied, and launched illegal and unprovoked war of aggression. ... is invalid and your entire argument fails on the logic. Firm You guys must be out of practice. You.re usually not this easy. Under international law, the sole legal justification for invading Iraq was UN Resolution 1441, which basically authorized use of military force of Iraq failed to demonstrate that they did not possess WMD. If you're aware of some other legal justification for the invasion, please post it. I'm sure we'd all find it quite fascinating.

TreasureKY -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 7:32:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda If you're aware of some other legal justification for the invasion, please post it. I'm sure we'd all find it quite fascinating. You refused to read the link I posted. Sorry... can't help you any more than that.

slvemike4u -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 7:32:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Don't forget the lovely Lucy....and perhaps the "silent majority" of sensible ,intelligent thread readers that are at this moment laughing their damm asses off at your frantic backpedaling.Who knows how many that group might include. Mike, I hate to say it, but reading the thread it is apparent that you, Lucy and some others are intentional mis-stating his positions and then attacking those mis-statements as if they are his. You are all straw-manning him, in other words. He isn't the one who looks "strange" to the "silent majority of sensible intelligent thread readers". Firm "straw manning" sanity....I guess we will have to disagree on that.Sanity hangs himself with his own keyboard. As to me looking "strange"...I'm cool with that,hell I've been called worse.....and from folks that weren't twisting logic to defend an idiot. As I said I'm alright with my reading of sanity's posts

Lucylastic -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 7:33:24 PM)
Your post WAS your claim that he invaded ..however many times you deny it, until you changed it, that was your response to the question...that is your claim, which you are denying, the facts you didnt type the actual word invade is beside the point straw man my arse go ahead, Ive said my piece. spin spin

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 7:33:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Whats the supposed delusion mike (other than pandas asserting that I claimed that Clinton invaded Iraq) I never said that. You're lying again.

Sanity -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 7:37:16 PM)
In the initial post the article stood alone lucy, there was no claim anywhere that Clinton invaded Iraq. Under an article that someone has edited it states that its been edited for the world to see, your pointing out that there has been an edit isnt really necessary as everyone already has the means to see that for themselves. So are you quite finished with your derail yet? quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Your post WAS your claim that he invaded ..however many times you deny it, until you changed it, that was your response to the question...that is your claim, which you are denying, the facts you didnt type the actual word invade is beside the point straw man my arse go ahead, Ive said my piece. spin spin

slvemike4u -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 7:39:12 PM)
No Panda......I said he said it...or at the least implied it...as Lucy so nicely demonstrated above(thanks Lucy)....."straw-manning" my ass.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 7:40:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY Kindly do not put words into my mouth. I've presented no argument, merely a concise historical overview. How you try to spin that into support for your argument is not my responsibility, but it is yours. People here are not stupid... they can read just as easily as you can. Do them the honor of not trying to insult their intelligence, as well as attempt to ensnare me into your corner. Really! quote: sighs Here's a very good primer on Iraq for anyone who thinks they have all the answers. Marine Corp Institute - Iraq: An Introduction to the Country and People An overview of the rise to power and reign of Saddam Hussein starts on page 19. A breakdown of the International response to Saddam's oppression begins on page 31. Coverage of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM starts on page 53. There was much more to this than many here would like to remember. While concern over WMDs played a key role in being the "straw that broke the camel's back", there was much more to this invasion... and some serious history leading up to it. There was a reason this operation was named as it was. I won't say I like everything about the war on Iraq nor do I agree with how everything happened. I'm not fond of politicians of any flavor, and I have no special affinity for George Bush or distaste for President Obama. I will say that I'm open-minded enough to realize there's a lot more going on than some would like people to believe. Sounds like an argument to me. You stated a position and supported that position with a link. I don't know about you, but where I grew up, that was called making an argument. Why are you weaseling away from it now and pretending that you weren't? Maybe you should think these things through a little more thoroughly before making such brash statements and backing yourself into these sticky corners.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 7:43:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda If you're aware of some other legal justification for the invasion, please post it. I'm sure we'd all find it quite fascinating. You refused to read the link I posted. Sorry... can't help you any more than that. So you've got nothing, then? Pity. As i said, you guys didn't used to be so easy. You were more fun when you were good at this.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875