Let Freedom Reign!


 
HomeHome  PublicationsPublications  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 No comment necessary

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
AuthorMessage
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5966

PostSubject: Re: No comment necessary   8/25/2011, 10:49 am

Heretic wrote:
happy jack wrote:
I never said that there was evidence of a possible invasion of Libya.

You said:

Quote :
So, no, we’re not ‘invading’ Libya – yet.
And we are not not invading Libya, either, but we are most definitely laying the groundwork for such a contingency.
It remains to be seen.

I was simply trying to figure out if you had any actual proof of "such a contingency" or actual planning thereof. All this talk of "laying groundwork" made me think I missed a news story. Glad to know I didn't.
Aerial bombardment is groundwork for nearly any modern-day invasion. How many ways, and in how many languages, do I need to say this?
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3095

PostSubject: Re: No comment necessary   8/25/2011, 11:31 am

Holy f u c k. RELAX. I simply thought I missed a "They're gettin' on the boat and heading over" news story.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5966

PostSubject: Re: No comment necessary   8/25/2011, 11:48 am

Heretic wrote:
Holy f u c k. RELAX. I simply thought I missed a "They're gettin' on the boat and heading over" news story.
No, you missed nothing.
And I'm always relaxed.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9362

PostSubject: Re: No comment necessary   8/25/2011, 5:11 pm

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:

Then why the use of the word "yet"?
Because I have no foreknowledge of the future, and don't pretend to.
Then why use the term "yet" as if you know an invasion is coming?
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5966

PostSubject: Re: No comment necessary   8/25/2011, 9:31 pm

Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:

Then why the use of the word "yet"?
Because I have no foreknowledge of the future, and don't pretend to.
Then why use the term "yet" as if you know an invasion is coming?
I use the word 'yet' because I don't have the slightest idea if an invasion is coming. As I said, I have no foreknowledge of future military operations.
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1898

PostSubject: Re: No comment necessary   8/26/2011, 2:02 pm

happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:


Yeah, well I guess I'll "spin" it this way then...

We are not invading Libya. We are setting up a no fly zone. If you really are hell bent on parallels, a better one would be when this country imposed a no fly zone in Northern Iraq, which protected the Iraqi Kurds. IIRC, that wasn't exactly a controversial policy.

Get the difference? Just to recap.... invasion vs no fly zone
Any modern-day invasion is nearly always prefaced by a softening-up bombardment and the dismantling of the air, and other defenses, of the ‘invadees’.
So, no, we’re not ‘invading’ Libya – yet.
And we are not not invading Libya, either, but we are most definitely laying the groundwork for such a contingency.
It remains to be seen.

Yeah, well I guess nothing "remains to be seen" at this point, does it?
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5966

PostSubject: Re: No comment necessary   8/26/2011, 3:00 pm

Scorpion wrote:

Yeah, well I guess nothing "remains to be seen" at this point, does it?

My goodness.
6 billion posts dedicated to my use of the word 'yet', all in the interest of avoiding the actual topic of this thread.
To wit:




To attack or not to attack wasn't my purpose in starting this thread. The purpose was to illuminate the vast difference in outrage over two morally indistinguishable international incidents.
Iraq and Libya are both countries whose leaders were killing their own citizens en masse; they are also countries which allegedly posed no threat to the U.S. but which were nevertheless attacked by the U.S..
Hence, morally indistinguishable.
Libya poses no credible threat whatsoever to the United States, does it?


MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...


MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...



Both situations involved attacks on sovereign nations which were purportedly no threat to the United States. (You may call one situation “the imposition of a no-fly zone” and the other an “invasion” – fine. But hopefully you will, at the very least, be honest enough to admit that the United States is attacking Libya, a sovereign nation that poses no threat to the United States.)
There are no differences – none – in the above justifications set forth for these attacks, justifications which were not taken out of context.
Which U.S. interests are affected, and are the interests sufficiently crucial to justify a military attack on a sovereign nation which poses no military threat to the U.S.?



Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1898

PostSubject: Re: No comment necessary   8/26/2011, 3:18 pm

happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:

Yeah, well I guess nothing "remains to be seen" at this point, does it?

My goodness.
6 billion posts dedicated to my use of the word 'yet', all in the interest of avoiding the actual topic of this thread.

Hardly. I specifically addressed the "topic of this thread" from the outset. You're the poster who has chosen to avoid having a discussion regarding the events between the AUMF resolution on Iraq and the actual invasion of Iraq. I invited you to start a thread regarding it twice already, and both times you ignored the request.

Once again, if you want to have a discussion regarding those events, which is the only way to understand why the Bush Administration lost the trust of the American people during the run-up to the invasion in Iraq, then start a frickin' thread and we'll discuss it.

I can't speak for the other posters here, but in my eyes, it's time for you to either accept the invitation, or STFU about it once and for all.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5966

PostSubject: Re: No comment necessary   8/26/2011, 3:33 pm

Scorpion wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:

Yeah, well I guess nothing "remains to be seen" at this point, does it?

My goodness.
6 billion posts dedicated to my use of the word 'yet', all in the interest of avoiding the actual topic of this thread.

Hardly. I specifically addressed the "topic of this thread" from the outset. You're the poster who has chosen to avoid having a discussion regarding the events between the AUMF resolution on Iraq and the actual invasion of Iraq. I invited you to start a thread regarding it twice already, and both times you ignored the request.

Once again, if you want to have a discussion regarding those events, which is the only way to understand why the Bush Administration lost the trust of the American people during the run-up to the invasion in Iraq, then start a frickin' thread and we'll discuss it.

I can't speak for the other posters here, but in my eyes, it's time for you to either accept the invitation, or STFU about it once and for all.
No matter how many threads you demand that I start will change this:

Iraq and Libya are both countries whose leaders were killing their own citizens en masse; they are also countries which allegedly posed no threat to the U.S. but which were nevertheless attacked by the U.S..
Hence, morally indistinguishable.

And no, I will not STFU - but thanks for asking!
Back to top Go down
UrRight



Posts : 3993

PostSubject: Re: No comment necessary   8/26/2011, 4:34 pm

BigFan wrote:
I believe Bush misled this country that Iraq possessed wmd as a reason to invade. No such tactic has been employed by the current administration. If Obama declares mission accomplished shortly after invading Libya, then start drawing the similarities. Outrage against bush was well deserved. The president lied through his teeth for years and we are far worse off because of it.

And THIS president pretends he knows more than he knows.

Always has a plan, right? His plans right after vacation is to campaign to win again only to tell you about his new plans.

Bush was an idiot, so is Obama. Bush lied; Obama makes up excuses only to execute another "I have a plan..."

Why do you think everyone from Valarie Jarrett on down jumped ship? Because they didn't know what the hell they were doing and knew POTUS wasn't going to get re-elected, because he doesn't know what the heck he is doing.

He has a jazzy smile, but that's only good for Hollywood, though.

As far as wars. the U.S. is no longer in any financial condition to get involved. By this time next year foreclosures will be even more on the rise. We will have already entered a double-dip recession and people think the politicians are going to create jobs?

The billionaires/millionaires are building their own little "cities" on stilts in the ocean, and no taxes, no government intrusion.

Our kids - the bright ones that were fortunate enough to have made it through college without getting shot at, will be speaking Chinese, etc., and will be working overseas.

The U.S. eventually be so in debt, war will be the least on the minds of Americans.

There is NO LONGER such things as having a job for life with a savings nest and medical benefits from a job. There is NO LONGER job security.

It's never coming back.

But you guys are arguing over what?


Last edited by UrRight on 8/26/2011, 4:45 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1898

PostSubject: Re: No comment necessary   8/26/2011, 4:43 pm

happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
happy jack wrote:


My goodness.
6 billion posts dedicated to my use of the word 'yet', all in the interest of avoiding the actual topic of this thread.

Hardly. I specifically addressed the "topic of this thread" from the outset. You're the poster who has chosen to avoid having a discussion regarding the events between the AUMF resolution on Iraq and the actual invasion of Iraq. I invited you to start a thread regarding it twice already, and both times you ignored the request.

Once again, if you want to have a discussion regarding those events, which is the only way to understand why the Bush Administration lost the trust of the American people during the run-up to the invasion in Iraq, then start a frickin' thread and we'll discuss it.

I can't speak for the other posters here, but in my eyes, it's time for you to either accept the invitation, or STFU about it once and for all.
No matter how many threads you demand that I start will change this:

Iraq and Libya are both countries whose leaders were killing their own citizens en masse; they are also countries which allegedly posed no threat to the U.S. but which were nevertheless attacked by the U.S..
Hence, morally indistinguishable.

And no, I will not STFU - but thanks for asking!


Yeah, whatever. As I said early in this thread....

Scorpion wrote:
We are not invading Libya. We are setting up a no fly zone. If you really are hell bent on parallels, a better one would be when this country imposed a no fly zone in Northern Iraq, which protected the Iraqi Kurds. IIRC, that wasn't exactly a controversial policy.

Get the difference? Just to recap.... invasion vs no fly zone...

If you can't see the difference between an invasion and the imposition of a no-fly zone, then I can't help you.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3095

PostSubject: Re: No comment necessary   8/26/2011, 9:08 pm

Scorpion wrote:
I can't speak for the other posters here, but in my eyes, it's time for you to either accept the invitation, or STFU about it once and for all.

Seconded.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9362

PostSubject: Re: No comment necessary   8/27/2011, 11:37 am

Heretic wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
I can't speak for the other posters here, but in my eyes, it's time for you to either accept the invitation, or STFU about it once and for all.

Seconded.

The ayes have it. Motion passes on a unanimous vote.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5966

PostSubject: Re: No comment necessary   8/27/2011, 1:41 pm

Scorpion wrote:
.... STFU about it once and for all.
Heretic wrote:

Seconded.
Artie60438 wrote:

The ayes have it. Motion passes on a unanimous vote.

The three self-proclaimed members of Mensa, combined, can’t seem to break this argument ….


To attack or not to attack wasn't my purpose in starting this thread. The purpose was to illuminate the vast difference in outrage over two morally indistinguishable international incidents.
Iraq and Libya are both countries whose leaders were killing their own citizens en masse; they are also countries which allegedly posed no threat to the U.S. but which were nevertheless attacked by the U.S..
Hence, morally indistinguishable.
Libya poses no credible threat whatsoever to the United States, does it?



…. so the best they can do is band together to tell me to shut up.
How nice.
And how amusing.

Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1898

PostSubject: Re: No comment necessary   8/28/2011, 11:13 am

happy jack wrote:

To attack or not to attack wasn't my purpose in starting this thread. The purpose was to illuminate the vast difference in outrage over two morally indistinguishable international incidents.
Iraq and Libya are both countries whose leaders were killing their own citizens en masse; they are also countries which allegedly posed no threat to the U.S. but which were nevertheless attacked by the U.S..
Hence, morally indistinguishable.

Exactly which part of Invasion NOT EQUAL TO No Fly Zone don't you understand? If we had invaded Libya, then perhaps your "argument" might be worth pursuing.

But that's simply not the case.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5966

PostSubject: Re: No comment necessary   8/28/2011, 2:05 pm

Scorpion wrote:
happy jack wrote:

To attack or not to attack wasn't my purpose in starting this thread. The purpose was to illuminate the vast difference in outrage over two morally indistinguishable international incidents.
Iraq and Libya are both countries whose leaders were killing their own citizens en masse; they are also countries which allegedly posed no threat to the U.S. but which were nevertheless attacked by the U.S..
Hence, morally indistinguishable.

Exactly which part of Invasion NOT EQUAL TO No Fly Zone don't you understand? If we had invaded Libya, then perhaps your "argument" might be worth pursuing.

But that's simply not the case.
What part of attack EQUAL TO attack don't you understand?
Bombs are bombs are bombs.
They know no rationale.
They neither know nor care whether they are being employed as part of an 'invasion' or as part of an 'attack'.
They just know how to explode and kill people.
And they were used in both cases against sovereign nations which allegedly posed no threat to the U.S., but whose leaders were killing their own citizens en masse.
Hence, morally indistinguishable.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9362

PostSubject: Re: No comment necessary   8/28/2011, 5:18 pm

happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
.... STFU about it once and for all.
Heretic wrote:

Seconded.
Artie60438 wrote:

The ayes have it. Motion passes on a unanimous vote.

[b]The three self-proclaimed members of Mensa, combined, can’t seem to break this argument ….
I hate to break it to you but you lost the argument the day you started comparing the events in Libya to Iraq..
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5966

PostSubject: Re: No comment necessary   8/29/2011, 6:57 am

Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
.... STFU about it once and for all.
Heretic wrote:

Seconded.
Artie60438 wrote:

The ayes have it. Motion passes on a unanimous vote.

The three self-proclaimed members of Mensa, combined, can’t seem to break this argument ….
I hate to break it to you but you lost the argument the day you started comparing the events in Libya to Iraq..

I hate to break it to you, but it looks as if I'll have to repeat myself yet again for the benefit of the slow-witted among us:


To attack or not to attack wasn't my purpose in starting this thread. The purpose was to illuminate the vast difference in outrage over two morally indistinguishable international incidents.
Iraq and Libya are both countries whose leaders were killing their own citizens en masse; they are also countries which allegedly posed no threat to the U.S. but which were nevertheless attacked by the U.S..
Hence, morally indistinguishable.
Libya poses no credible threat whatsoever to the United States, does it?


To date, not a single poster has broken these statements.
Would you like another crack at it, Artie?
You may make all the apologies and excuses you wish in order to make sure our 44th white president won't look bad, but it won't make a bit of difference.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9362

PostSubject: Re: No comment necessary   8/29/2011, 7:29 am

happy jack wrote:

[b]To date, not a single poster has broken these statements.
Would you like another crack at it, Artie?
Nope. Scorpion has previously destroyed your argument. The fact that you can't accept that is sad.
Quote :
You may make all the apologies and excuses you wish in order to make sure our 44th white president won't look bad, but it won't make a bit of difference.
Look bad? HaHaHa! President Obama has completely destroyed the old wingnut talking point of "we'll keep you safe and the Democrats won't". His foreign policy successes are killing you guys.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5966

PostSubject: Re: No comment necessary   8/29/2011, 5:49 pm

Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:

To date, not a single poster has broken these statements.
Would you like another crack at it, Artie?
Nope. Scorpion has previously destroyed your argument.
Really?
I've been watching for it, but I still haven't seen it.
Did he destroy my argument on a different thread, or something?
Because I sure haven't seen it for myself.
Could you direct me to his destruction of my argument, please?
Thanks in advance!
Back to top Go down
board monkey

avatar

Posts : 496

PostSubject: Re: No comment necessary   8/29/2011, 6:26 pm

Happy jack, according to the Bush administration, Iraq was a threat to the US with their storage of WMDs. That is why Bush ordered the invasion. Obama just answered the call of an international force to help protect innocent people that were being slaughtered by the military. No one has accused Gadhafi of having WMDs and there has been no invasion of Libya, just the enforcement of the UN mandated no fly zone.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5966

PostSubject: Re: No comment necessary   8/29/2011, 6:58 pm

board monkey wrote:
Happy jack, according to the Bush administration, Iraq was a threat to the US with their storage of WMDs. That is why Bush ordered the invasion. Obama just answered the call of an international force to help protect innocent people that were being slaughtered by the military. No one has accused Gadhafi of having WMDs and there has been no invasion of Libya, just the enforcement of the UN mandated no fly zone.
Once again:

Iraq and Libya are both countries whose leaders were killing their own citizens en masse; they are also countries which allegedly posed no threat to the U.S. but which were nevertheless attacked by the U.S..
Hence, morally indistinguishable.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5966

PostSubject: Re: No comment necessary   8/29/2011, 7:46 pm

Artie60438 wrote:
President Obama has completely destroyed the old wingnut talking point of "we'll keep you safe and the Democrats won't".
So we're safe from Libya?
Phew!!!
Maybe now I can get some sleep.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9362

PostSubject: Re: No comment necessary   8/29/2011, 9:12 pm

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
President Obama has completely destroyed the old wingnut talking point of "we'll keep you safe and the Democrats won't".
[b]So we're safe from Libya?
Phew!!!
Maybe now I can get some sleep.
I apologize if that went over your head. I'm referring to the killing of Osama Bin Laden,the fact that there have been no attacks in the US since Obama took office,and the marginalizing of Al-Quada. In fact,on Sunday we just killed their #2 guy in Pakistan. Very Happy
Back to top Go down
board monkey

avatar

Posts : 496

PostSubject: Re: No comment necessary   8/29/2011, 11:19 pm

happy jack wrote:
board monkey wrote:
Happy jack, according to the Bush administration, Iraq was a threat to the US with their storage of WMDs. That is why Bush ordered the invasion. Obama just answered the call of an international force to help protect innocent people that were being slaughtered by the military. No one has accused Gadhafi of having WMDs and there has been no invasion of Libya, just the enforcement of the UN mandated no fly zone.
Once again:

Iraq and Libya are both countries whose leaders were killing their own citizens en masse; they are also countries which allegedly posed no threat to the U.S. but which were nevertheless attacked by the U.S..
Hence, morally indistinguishable.

Like I said, Bush claimed they were a threat that they had WMDs and that was why he ordered the invasion of Iraq. Now, after many years, we found out Bush lied was mistaken and misled, which doesn't change the reasoning.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: No comment necessary   

Back to top Go down
 
No comment necessary
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 4 of 5Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Let Freedom Reign! :: Nation/Other :: Nation/World-
Jump to: