|
![]() ![]() ![]() |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » General Discussion |
![]() |
stevenleser
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 09:24 AM Original message |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
patricia92243
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 09:30 AM Response to Original message |
1. Good, clear articulate writing and thinking. K&R |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mmonk
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 09:32 AM Response to Original message |
2. There are no false moral equivalencies or hand wringings on his death |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PCIntern
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 09:32 AM Response to Original message |
3. Excellent post although there are quite a few around who |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bonobo
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 10:01 AM Response to Reply #3 |
27. Wild accusation and almost certainly wrong. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cherchez la Femme
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 12:06 PM Response to Reply #3 |
57. Prove your contentions |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EFerrari
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 09:33 AM Response to Original message |
4. Once you accept Bush's proposition that the entire planet is a war zone |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
stevenleser
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 09:34 AM Response to Reply #4 |
8. I don't accept that proposition. That is a straw man. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EFerrari
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 09:37 AM Response to Reply #8 |
9. Not at all. It's the basic premise of the War on Terror. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
stevenleser
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 09:38 AM Response to Reply #9 |
10. I never asserted there is a war on terror and certainly not a global one. You are altering my |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EFerrari
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 09:42 AM Response to Reply #10 |
14. So in your war between the US and Al Qaida, what is the battlefield? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
stevenleser
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 09:46 AM Response to Reply #14 |
16. Generally, Afghanistan and Pakistan. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EFerrari
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 10:00 AM Response to Reply #16 |
25. The thing is, unless you accept the WOT's premise |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
stevenleser
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 10:03 AM Response to Reply #25 |
28. No, that is not correct. International law has considered situations like this before |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EFerrari
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 10:24 AM Response to Reply #28 |
36. In your example, the non-state territories had no sovereignty to violate |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
stevenleser
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 10:26 AM Response to Reply #36 |
37. You are now completely outside the premises of the OP with your comments. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EFerrari
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 10:29 AM Response to Reply #37 |
38. Not at all. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 03:17 PM Response to Reply #38 |
79. You incorrectly assume that a state of war can only exist between two states. Correcting for that |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sabrina 1
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 04:32 PM Response to Reply #79 |
157. So, does Cuba have the right to come here and go after |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cherchez la Femme
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 12:13 PM Response to Reply #16 |
60. Not Yemen? Not Saudi Arabia? Not Sudan? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PufPuf23
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 10:12 AM Response to Reply #8 |
31. That the world is a war zone is the national military policy. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
stevenleser
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 10:15 AM Response to Reply #31 |
32. That is outside of what I am arguing in the OP. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Gormy Cuss
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 11:49 AM Response to Reply #32 |
53. Don't be obtuse. It is critical to your argument that bin Laden's death was a product of war. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cherchez la Femme
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 12:09 PM Response to Reply #4 |
59. Didn't you know? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
JoePhilly
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 09:33 AM Response to Original message |
5. Great post. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sufrommich
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 09:34 AM Response to Original message |
6. Great post. K&R. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Little Star
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 09:34 AM Response to Original message |
7. Well said. k&r |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ilsa
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 09:38 AM Response to Original message |
11. Thank you for your thoughtful post. K&R nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
phleshdef
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 09:39 AM Response to Original message |
12. Excellent Steven. Kicked, Rec'ed and Bookmarked. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jaxx
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 09:40 AM Response to Original message |
13. K&R |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ikonoklast
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 09:43 AM Response to Original message |
15. Agree; well written, thought out and concise post. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tammywammy
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 09:48 AM Response to Original message |
17. Accidentally unrecced. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
coalition_unwilling
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 09:49 AM Response to Original message |
18. Glenn Greenwald has said it best: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
stevenleser
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 09:53 AM Response to Reply #18 |
19. Its not a bin Laden exception. It is a war exception. International law is clear on this |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
coalition_unwilling
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 11:32 AM Response to Reply #19 |
49. Aside from the niggling little technicality ( so quaint and obsolete now as |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 03:21 PM Response to Reply #49 |
83. Congress did pass the AUMF almost unanimously. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dionysus
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 10:35 PM Response to Reply #49 |
115. keep sailing that failboat all over the ocean of bitter. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SDuderstadt
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 04:31 PM Response to Reply #115 |
156. Why, dionysus! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hack89
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 10:36 AM Response to Reply #18 |
41. America has no problem treating terrorism as a police problem |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cherchez la Femme
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 12:54 PM Response to Reply #41 |
62. So our CIA, and other approved contractors, aren't in the countries |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hack89
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 01:05 PM Response to Reply #62 |
65. I would hope they are crawling all over those countries... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cherchez la Femme
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 03:35 PM Response to Reply #65 |
91. Your contention is |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EFerrari
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 02:58 PM Response to Reply #41 |
74. If Yemen doesn't have a functioning government, who is Obama giving all that |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hack89
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 03:08 PM Response to Reply #74 |
76. The Tribal areas of Pakistan are not governed by the national government |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EFerrari
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 03:17 PM Response to Reply #76 |
80. I think you are mistaken on both counts. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hack89
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 03:24 PM Response to Reply #80 |
84. But the Pakistan government exerts no control over the area |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EFerrari
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 03:32 PM Response to Reply #84 |
88. Um, the default for international law is not to ignore it when it suits you. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hack89
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 05:41 PM Response to Reply #88 |
109. The default is not to let evil prevail |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 03:26 PM Response to Reply #80 |
85. Congress passed the Authorization to use Military Force almost unanimously. Not only did Obama |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DirkGently
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 11:36 AM Response to Reply #18 |
50. Indeed. No one else seems to see these easy analogies supposed to make this killing lawful. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hack89
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 01:17 PM Response to Reply #18 |
68. It's easy to confine the issue |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
coalition_unwilling
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 02:35 PM Response to Reply #68 |
72. Care to cite the U.S. statute (or statute in any body of international law) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hack89
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 03:06 PM Response to Reply #72 |
75. Self defense is a legitimate right under International law |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
coalition_unwilling
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 04:09 PM Response to Reply #75 |
98. "There is no evidence . . . " - ah, evidence, that quaint and obsolete |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cherchez la Femme
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 04:32 PM Response to Reply #98 |
101. Not enough evidence to indict but |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
coalition_unwilling
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 04:42 PM Response to Reply #101 |
102. Just so you know I'm not making this up, the following quotation |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cherchez la Femme
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 04:53 PM Response to Reply #102 |
104. I never doubted you |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 03:31 PM Response to Reply #72 |
87. You act like Greenwald's essay is any more accurate than Bush's view on "enhanced interrogation." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bonobo
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 09:54 AM Response to Original message |
20. Actually for many I think it is not "hand-wringing" over his death percee... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cherchez la Femme
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 12:49 PM Response to Reply #20 |
61. President Obama |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
peacetalksforall
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 09:55 AM Response to Original message |
21. Your efforts are admirable. I don't buy it. 9-11 was a |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
stevenleser
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 09:56 AM Response to Reply #21 |
23. International law's rules on war are not dependant on congress declaring war |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
peacetalksforall
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 11:56 AM Response to Reply #23 |
56. Your wrong. US comes first and the two are attempted simultaneously. There would |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cherchez la Femme
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 01:00 PM Response to Reply #23 |
63. No but |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 03:33 PM Response to Reply #63 |
89. Authorization for Use of Military Force September 18, 2001 Public Law 107-40 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cherchez la Femme
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 03:39 PM Response to Reply #89 |
92. Jeebus, this has been gone over & over again |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 03:40 PM Response to Reply #92 |
94. It should be gone over and over again until you and others who deny its existance return to reality. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cherchez la Femme
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 04:09 PM Response to Reply #94 |
99. I listened. I researched. I stil do not agree. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 11:54 PM Response to Reply #99 |
118. Yes, the joint resolution was done after the 9/11 attacks. Do you really think that supports your |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
KittyWampus
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 09:58 AM Response to Reply #21 |
24. Rhetorical war? You either live in a bubble or ignore all evidence that doesn't fit into your box. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
peacetalksforall
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 11:39 AM Response to Reply #24 |
51. Yes, there is a war of words and threats. There is NO OFFICIAL war. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cherchez la Femme
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 01:02 PM Response to Reply #24 |
64. Agreed, but feasibility wasn't even considered. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cherchez la Femme
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 05:21 PM Response to Reply #24 |
106. Qualification: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pintobean
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 09:55 AM Response to Original message |
22. That just flat out kicks ass. Very well done. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Mosby
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 10:01 AM Response to Original message |
26. Great post |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
WinkyDink
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 10:08 AM Response to Original message |
29. Why, do you think, the Nuremburg Trials were held, rather than summary executions? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
stevenleser
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 10:11 AM Response to Reply #29 |
30. The answer is so simple. I am surprised you dont see it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DirkGently
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 11:25 AM Response to Reply #30 |
46. No Rules of Engagement permit shooting an unarmed enemy at point-blank range. Nor would the U.S. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
coalition_unwilling
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 11:56 AM Response to Reply #46 |
55. Thank you. It was a 'hit job' and its defenders are really |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bvar22
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 03:10 PM Response to Reply #46 |
77. Recommending Post #46 by DirkGently ^^^ |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hack89
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 03:14 PM Response to Reply #46 |
78. You are wrong |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EFerrari
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 03:34 PM Response to Reply #78 |
90. Could you please cite the legal authority that allows the United States |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 03:39 PM Response to Reply #90 |
93. Authorization to use military force, passed 9/18/01. As for international law, if you are asserting |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DirkGently
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 01:35 PM Response to Reply #93 |
147. Burden of proof for killing is not the same as bike riding. Again, what will WE say when another |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hack89
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 05:39 PM Response to Reply #90 |
108. Lets flip the question |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EFerrari
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 12:49 PM Response to Reply #108 |
146. The answer is there is no legal authority that allow the United States to do that. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hack89
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 01:59 PM Response to Reply #146 |
148. Pakistan has the sovereign right to harbor and support terrorist |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EFerrari
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 03:28 PM Response to Reply #148 |
149. You are jumbling up what is legal, what is expedient and what is right. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hack89
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 03:33 PM Response to Reply #149 |
150. You have yet to show the law that permits Pakistan |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EFerrari
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 03:47 PM Response to Reply #150 |
151. I don't have to prove Pakistan is a sovereign nation, it is self evident. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hack89
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 04:14 PM Response to Reply #151 |
152. So sovereign nations can wage proxy war with impunity? Interesting. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EFerrari
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 04:30 PM Response to Reply #152 |
155. You're shifting the goal posts again. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hack89
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 05:22 PM Response to Reply #155 |
161. No - you seem intent on making it impossible |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Zax2me
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 10:22 AM Response to Reply #29 |
34. Because Eichmann wasn't running active Jihad |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cherchez la Femme
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 01:13 PM Response to Reply #34 |
67. Still, they captured him |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hack89
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 03:20 PM Response to Reply #67 |
82. Only because it was easy to track and kidnap him |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cherchez la Femme
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 03:45 PM Response to Reply #82 |
95. We had OBL's mansion under surveillance for months |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 03:48 PM Response to Reply #95 |
96. You are confusing two entirely separate situations. Eichmann was not at the time of capture a |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cherchez la Femme
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 04:47 PM Response to Reply #96 |
103. *I'm* confused?! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
coalition_unwilling
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 10:54 PM Response to Reply #103 |
117. With all due respect, I think your confusion may be a mock or |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 12:00 AM Response to Reply #117 |
120. The only people that need to stretch ingenuity beyond its natural limits are the people claiming it |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cherchez la Femme
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 12:00 PM Response to Reply #117 |
145. The second |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 11:57 PM Response to Reply #103 |
119. Yes, that was my point. You (not me) are confused. Not sure how I could have been more clear. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hack89
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 05:42 PM Response to Reply #95 |
110. In the age of sucide bombers |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Scurrilous
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 10:21 AM Response to Original message |
33. K & R |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Peacetrain
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 10:24 AM Response to Original message |
35. K&R!,,, good insight |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
gratuitous
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 10:30 AM Response to Original message |
39. There are always excellent reasons for the empire |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
stevenleser
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 10:33 AM Response to Reply #39 |
40. I am happy to address any arguments that directly refute any of my premises. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
gratuitous
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 05:13 PM Response to Reply #40 |
105. Done and done |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NNN0LHI
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 10:42 AM Response to Original message |
42. I don't know one single progressive/liberal in real life who is hand wringing over this |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EFerrari
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 10:59 AM Response to Reply #42 |
44. Well, the UN has asked for a run down of the facts on this execution. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NNN0LHI
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 11:49 AM Response to Reply #44 |
54. I don't recall any UN investigation into the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EFerrari
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 01:46 PM Response to Reply #54 |
70. The UN is a highly politicized body and I wouldn't trust them with my laundry. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
L0oniX
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 01:07 PM Response to Reply #42 |
66. +10000000000000000000000 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cherchez la Femme
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 01:34 PM Response to Reply #42 |
69. So are you for it or against it? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NNN0LHI
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 01:51 PM Response to Reply #69 |
71. Read this |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cherchez la Femme
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 04:02 PM Response to Reply #71 |
97. Thank you |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
coalition_unwilling
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 05:33 PM Response to Reply #42 |
107. How many progressives\liberals do you know in 'real life'? I have |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 12:19 AM Response to Reply #42 |
125. Exactly. It's a point scoring troll. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Keith Bee
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 10:43 AM Response to Original message |
43. K&R to THAT! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
themadstork
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 11:00 AM Response to Original message |
45. If they surrender it is a war crime to slaughter them anyway. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Zorra
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 11:27 AM Response to Original message |
47. +1 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Puregonzo1188
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 11:30 AM Response to Original message |
48. It's not coming from just progressive, but those versed in international law. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
backscatter712
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 11:41 AM Response to Original message |
52. K&R! We were indeed at war with Al Qaeda. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
uppityperson
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 12:08 PM Response to Original message |
58. k&r |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
alarimer
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 02:44 PM Response to Original message |
73. It isn't if we believe in true justice and not just vengeance. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bluestate10
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 03:17 PM Response to Original message |
81. bin Laden was planning killing of innocent people right up to his death. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EFerrari
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 03:26 PM Response to Reply #81 |
86. Most career criminals don't stop until their careers are over. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
JoePhilly
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 05:46 PM Response to Reply #86 |
111. So the SEALs, who dropped in via Helicopter, not knowing |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EFerrari
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 12:08 AM Response to Reply #111 |
122. Its interesting. Obama uses McChrystal's JSOC assassiantion program |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dionysus
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 10:40 PM Response to Reply #86 |
116. i'm glad people with your views are far, far away from the levers of power in the democratic party. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EFerrari
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 12:11 AM Response to Reply #116 |
123. Yes, because due process of law is to toxic to our culture. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 12:15 AM Response to Reply #123 |
124. The process guaranteed by law (domestic and international) to Bin Laden was a bullet to the head, in |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 12:32 AM Response to Reply #124 |
126. +1 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
billh58
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 04:19 PM Response to Original message |
100. Thank you for |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
lib2DaBone
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 05:47 PM Response to Original message |
112. No hand wringing.. just tired of hearing is name... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Flatulo
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 10:09 PM Response to Original message |
113. Outstanding. Thanks for this. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MadHound
![]() |
Sun May-08-11 10:18 PM Response to Original message |
114. We shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan with massive military force, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
grahamhgreen
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 12:05 AM Response to Original message |
121. I'm still waiting for a clear explanation. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SoDesuKa
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 02:39 AM Response to Original message |
127. A Fatwa Is Not a Declaration of War |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
coalition_unwilling
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 02:54 AM Response to Reply #127 |
129. I wish I could recommend this response. I hope you will consider |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 02:59 AM Response to Reply #127 |
130. "Only a state can declare war." False. Once you correct for that false statement, your argument |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Rex
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 02:51 AM Response to Original message |
128. Your comparison to Yamamoto is inaccurate. Not quite the same thing. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 03:04 AM Response to Reply #128 |
131. But that assumes one can't go to war against a non-state actor, and that is a false assumption. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Rex
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 03:07 AM Response to Reply #131 |
132. No that doesn't. One was the military head of state during wartime. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 03:09 AM Response to Reply #132 |
133. That's like saying we couldn't have legally killed Hitler because he wasn't the head of Japan. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Rex
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 03:12 AM Response to Reply #133 |
134. Wrong. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 03:14 AM Response to Reply #134 |
135. Says the person who cannot marshal one section of a single law that proves his argument. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Rex
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 03:17 AM Response to Reply #135 |
136. You fail to grasp the facts in this matter. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 03:17 AM Response to Reply #136 |
137. The fact that you can't identify a SINGLE law to support your argument is your fault, at least if |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Rex
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 03:20 AM Response to Reply #137 |
138. LOL. I stand by what I said that Yamamoto and OBL are two different |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 03:22 AM Response to Reply #138 |
139. Yes, you essentially quote yourself because you can't identify a single law that depends on the |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Rex
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 03:24 AM Response to Reply #139 |
140. Between a head of state and a citizen of a country? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 03:28 AM Response to Reply #140 |
141. The question is not whether there is a distinction (there is). The question is whether the |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Rex
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 03:29 AM Response to Reply #141 |
142. You are rambling. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 03:30 AM Response to Reply #142 |
143. If I were making an incorrect statement about the relevancy of a distinction, I would also find |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
stevenleser
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 11:37 AM Response to Original message |
144. Kicked for the Monday crowd n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
meow mix
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 04:16 PM Response to Original message |
153. k&r |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
elias49
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 04:27 PM Response to Original message |
154. You MUST have better things to do than start another devisive thread! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
stevenleser
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 04:56 PM Response to Reply #154 |
158. Well, I can correct the spelling of people who don't have much to offer in the way of debate... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EFerrari
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 04:58 PM Response to Reply #158 |
159. I actually thought that yours was the best thought out |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
elias49
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 06:38 PM Response to Reply #158 |
162. Meh. When I see a thread like this in the G/D forum |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PassingFair
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 05:10 PM Response to Original message |
160. Please define "Progressive" as you use the term in the OP please. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
stevenleser
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 07:13 PM Response to Reply #160 |
163. You only had to read the first sentence. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PassingFair
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 07:19 PM Response to Reply #163 |
164. Check your OP again. You contradict yourself. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
stevenleser
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 07:25 PM Response to Reply #164 |
165. Keep telling yourself that. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
quaker bill
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 07:47 PM Response to Original message |
166. Well said and thanks |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
upi402
![]() |
Mon May-09-11 08:47 PM Response to Original message |
167. i'm as liberal as they come -here. i'm also good with OBL getting whacked |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Fri Feb 15th 2019, 09:02 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » General Discussion |
![]() |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC