FirmhandKY
Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote:
ORIGINAL: Owner59 I think when he killed close to two hundred Americans,gaddafi declared war on us. I`m still not getting why our "constitutionalists" have a problem waring on someone who attacked us and killed Americans. gaddafi`s victims are going to be dead a long time,but there`s no statute of limitations on murder. Unfortunately, Owner, the Pan Am 103 incident was treated as a criminal issue, not a causa belli. There`s no statute of limitaions for murder,Firm. Let`s not kid ourselves. Murder, can always be revisted. I noticed you`re one of few cons here who haven`t joined in with this loser of an argument. Smart cookie, this guy Firm. Well, I don't know if I'm really that smart. I'm not sure who is making what arguments, exactly. I thought that Heretic was basically saying that there was likely to be a bloodbath in Libya, and that the stated reason for our intervention there was to prevent such an incident. And, if preventing such a bloodbath was the reason, then we had an obligation to prevent this one as well. Which it doesn't appear that we will be doing, and therefore kinda putting into question the justifications for getting involved in the first place. My initial comment attempted to compare lib attacks against Bush in Iraq ("The WMD justification was a lie!") with the rights attacks against Obama in Libya ("The humanitarianism justification was a lie!"). In the Iraqi case, the people who defended the appropriateness of the action gave other reasons. In the case of Libya, I haven't really seen any other justification, other than "it ain't illegal!". There are other striking similarities and dissimilarities, but that was the primary. Firm
_____________________________
Some people are just idiots.
|