Article 45.1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Can you refrain from bigotted hatespeak language, I'm trying to not puke, thanks!

Don't worry, if fudgepacking doesn't make you puke nothing will. Furthermore how is this hatespeech ? I just prefer not to discuss a vile and disguisting subject while eating. See I am a normal man.
 
Originally posted by Sir Evil
My postion is clear - you are not posting anything factual here, merely stating what you consider war to be!

I've been trying to get you to tell me what exactly I am posting that is not factual, but you refuse to tell me. I'll make it easy on you, just pick one or more of the following by letter:

A) Bombs kill people

B) People live in cities

C) We dropped bombs on cities

What do I have wrong here?
 
All I am suggesting is that to think that we are somehow not responsible for the deaths of those we kill is foolish.

No, you are suggesting that our President be impeached, not just accept responsibility. No backpeddling now !
 
Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
When have I ever badmouthed the USA? Would you mind pointing that out? Thanks Rambo!

HOLY SHIT! You are reality challenged Jethro. I do not have the time nor the patience to pick out the 3 or 4 dozen instances of badmouthing the country in which you make a living, or do you? Go back and review your posts then tell me that calling Bush a criminal without any factual backup, no Guantanamo isn't a criminal act, isn't badmouthing the USA.
 
Originally posted by OCA
HOLY SHIT! You are reality challenged Jethro. I do not have the time nor the patience to pick out the 3 or 4 dozen instances of badmouthing the country in which you make a living, or do you? Go back and review your posts then tell me that calling Bush a criminal without any factual backup, no Guantanamo isn't a criminal act, isn't badmouthing the USA.

wow you were generous for stating that he only has 3 or 4 dozens. i would have guessed more by now.
 
Originally posted by eric
Don't worry, if fudgepacking doesn't make you puke nothing will. Furthermore how is this hatespeech ? I just prefer not to discuss a vile and disguisting subject while eating. See I am a normal man.

He is obviously gay cause hes loving the ass-raping he's getting here. He cant get enough.
 
Originally posted by Avatar4321
Sighs. im tired of people trying to site international law. They just go to show you they dont understand it. International law isnt binding at all. thats part of the problem with it. So it doesnt really matter if we violate "international law" Because all we have to do to make it void is not want to follow it to begin with.

That's where you are wrong. You should read Article 6 paragraph 2 of the Constitution:

Article VI Paragraph 2

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

It is not my position that international law be enforcible on the citizens of the US by other nations, that is a clear violation of our sovereignty and is not my position.

However, I believe Article 6 makes clear violations of treaties which we have ratified by a citizen of the US is prosecutable just the same as if that citizen violated US law. Am I misreading Article 6? Therefore it is my position that Shrub's violation of international law by enforced by our own government, not by a foreign government, just as Article 6 provides.
 
Originally posted by Sir Evil
You really have a set of nads spidey! you are moronic in your views on this. if you dont like war and the outcome I am sorry, but to state that we are purposely killing innocent civilians makes me wonder if you are not Baghdad Bob!

Your refusal to answer tells me all I need to know.
 
Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
I've been trying to get you to tell me what exactly I am posting that is not factual, but you refuse to tell me. I'll make it easy on you, just pick one or more of the following by letter:

A) Bombs kill people

B) People live in cities

C) We dropped bombs on cities

What do I have wrong here?

An analogy: if the roles were reversed and the war was over here in America, considering the fact that the Pentagon is the command and nerve center of all branches of the military but because its in an urban area where any attack on it is sure to kill civilians, that it should not be considered a target? What should they bomb the fucking Grand Canyon?

All 3 of those things you listed are legitimate facts of war and in no way constitute any criminal act by anybody. Unless of course you have irrefutable proof of intentional civilian targeting?
 
Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
I've been trying to get you to tell me what exactly I am posting that is not factual, but you refuse to tell me. I'll make it easy on you, just pick one or more of the following by letter:

A) Bombs kill people

B) People live in cities

C) We dropped bombs on cities

What do I have wrong here?

that would hold true if we were just arbitrarily dropping bombs. All targets have been military targets INCLUDING that TV station. When they incite people to attack the Coalition and that they are here, here and here then they have become a military target. Also you still cant admit that no one was killed in that attack because even your links said the place was closed and all 3 links reported no casualties.

Your whole logic is flawed because you base it on the fact that your intelligent.
 
Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
You don't argee with the Constitution?

I do through and through despite your dislike for it. But have you ever read it? There is nothing in the constitution about International law. The highest law of the land is Federal law.
 
Oh and if you are going to bring up the treaties, nice try but treaties can be made and broken. Sorry
 
Originally posted by insein
He is obviously gay cause hes loving the ass-raping he's getting here. He cant get enough.

Dammit why didn't I think of that! Jethro do you suck cock down in the French Quarter?
 
Originally posted by OCA
An analogy: if the roles were reversed and the war was over here in America, considering the fact that the Pentagon is the command and nerve center of all branches of the military but because its in an urban area where any attack on it is sure to kill civilians, that it should not be considered a target? What should they bomb the fucking Grand Canyon?

All 3 of those things you listed are legitimate facts of war and in no way constitute any criminal act by anybody. Unless of course you have irrefutable proof of intentional civilian targeting?

Of course they should bomb the grand canyon then no one gets hurt.
 
An excerpt from the "Just War Theory", commonly held as the unofficial rules of war.

Warfare sometimes unavoidably involves civilians. Whilst the principle of discrimination argues for their immunity from war, the practicalities of war provoke the need for a different model. The doctrine of double effect offers a justification for killing civilians in war, so long as their deaths are not intended but are accidental. Targeting a military establishment in the middle of a city is permissible according to the doctrine of double effect, for the target is legitimate. Civilian casualties are a foreseeable but accidental effect. Whilst the doctrine provides a useful justification of ‘collateral damage’ to civilians, it raises a number of issues concerning the justification of foreseeable breaches of immunity, as well as the balance to strike between military objectives and civilian casualties.

Another problem arises in defining who is a combatant and who is not. Usually combatants carry arms openly, but guerrillas disguise themselves as civilians. Civilians are just as necessary causal conditions for the war machine as are combatants, therefore, they claim, there is no moral distinction in targeting an armed combatant and a civilian involved in arming or feeding the combatant. The distinction is, however, not closed by the nature of modern economies, since a combatant still remains a very different entity from a non-combatant, if not for the simple reason that the former is presently armed (and hence has renounced rights or is prepared to die, or is a threat), whilst the civilian is not. On the other hand, it can be argued that being a civilian does not necessarily mean that one is not a threat and hence not a legitimate target. If Mr Smith is the only individual in the nation to possess the correct combination that will detonate a device, then he becomes not only causally efficacious in the firing of a weapon of war, but also morally responsible; reasonably he also becomes a legitimate military target. His job effectively militarizes his status. The underlying issues that ethical analysis must deal with involve the logical nature of an individual’s complicity, or aiding and abetting the war machine, with greater weight being imposed on those logically closer than those logically further from the war machine in their work. At a deeper level, one can consider the role that civilians play in supporting an unjust war; to what extent are they morally culpable, and if they are culpable to some extent, does that mean they may become legitimate targets?
 
Way to go Eric. You might have broken his Shield of Retardness with your post there.

More than likely he had to get to bed because its a school night, but hey we can dream can't we.
 
Originally posted by eric
You got all that out of one statement, no wonder you are so misguided.



Now isn't this a stupid statement, all acts of war are willful. Whether justifiable or not is another issue.





A Question as an answer to a question, please at very least try and sound somewhat intelligent. These kinds of things bother us people with real educations.



The Japanese started WWII ? I must have missed something in history. Furthermore when did Germany pose a direct threat to America. Why did we not just defeat the Japanese, instead of fighting a country (Germany), which did not directly threaten the USA ?


As if I'm the only one that replies to questions with questions. The most popular warmonger reply on this thread for the first few pages was "What about Slick Willie?"

So are you saying that if I willfully drop bombs I know will kill civilians and it is not justifyable, I have intentionally killed civilians, but if I willfully drop bombs I know will kill civilians and it is justified, I have not intentionally killed civilians? You seem to think I believe that dropping bombs can never ever be justified. That is not so. I merely believe that pretending that willfully killing civilians isn't willfully killing civilians is foolish.

And the Japanese did start WW II, if you consider the invasion of Manchuria in 1931 to be the start of WW II. You could equally consider, however, the invasion of Poland by Germany in 1939 the start of WW II. It's not like the leaders of the world got together and decided "OK, now, this is WWII," its really subjective as to deciding which belligerant act started WWII, though I believe the invasion of Poland is the most popular answer. Some historians would go so far as to say WWII began when WWI began.

And to answer you question about Germany, they posed a direct threat to us when on December 11th, 1941, the issued a declaration of war on the United States. Later that day we responded in kind. Either you were not aware of that fact or you do not believe a formal declaration of war to be a threat, either way it is ironic you would call me uneducated when you lack basic knowledge of history. I have a bachelor's degree in physics. I know bachelor's degrees aren't worth as much as they used to be, but what does it take be considered educated around here?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top