"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! "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 "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!!!!
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 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? peace axeman
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.
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
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.
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