Dear Sarah Palin; The Death Panel Already Exists and People Have Already Been Judged,

[Keith_J_Lemire]

oh fuck, not the illegal war bullshit again

Can you disprove Pinky the cat?

 

[veritas]

oh fuck, not the illegal war bullshit again

You weren't here when K Street had a collective fainting spell. It was pretty major.

 

[DiveCon]

oh fuck, not the illegal war bullshit again

You weren't here when K Street had a collective fainting spell. It was pretty major.

uh, i've been here longer than you

 

[DiveCon]

oh fuck, not the illegal war bullshit again

Can you disprove Pinky the cat?

only fools attempt debate with cartoons

 

[veritas]

oh fuck, not the illegal war bullshit again

You weren't here when K Street had a collective fainting spell. It was pretty major.

uh, i've been here longer than you

er......I'm here.......near K Street.......you're in uppermost yankeestan.

 

[DiveCon]

You weren't here when K Street had a collective fainting spell. It was pretty major.

uh, i've been here longer than you

er......I'm here.......near K Street.......you're in uppermost yankeestan.

ah, my bad, i had no idea you were talking about physical location, since yours isnt listed

and, i suppose you have problems with the liberal special interest groups lobbying as well?

and i still dont see how that proves any war is either legal or illegal

 

[DiveCon]

was thw war for independence a legal war?
how about the civil war?
spanish-American?
WWI, WWII, Korea, Veitnam, Grenada, Panama, Hati, Kuwait, Afgahnistan, Iraq?
and what about the UK, Agentina war over the Faulklands
the Iran/Iraq war?
any of those legal or illegal?

 

[veritas]

It definitely was illegal, and in contravention of the Constitution and eleventy skillion international laws and treaties. And NO I'm not going on a hunt for the pertinent citations for you. One per annum is all you're gonna get out of me, if that. K Street is where all the international lawyers hang their shingles.

 

[DiveCon]

It definitely was illegal, and in contravention of the Constitution and eleventy skillion international laws and treaties. And NO I'm not going on a hunt for the pertinent citations for you. One per annum is all you're gonna get out of me, if that. K Street is where all the international lawyers hang their shingles.

sorry, but the claim that any war is either legal or illegal is BULLSHIT

 

[Keith_J_Lemire]

was thw war for independence a legal war?
how about the civil war?
spanish-American?
WWI, WWII, Korea, Veitnam, Grenada, Panama, Hati, Kuwait, Afgahnistan, Iraq?
and what about the UK, Agentina war over the Faulklands
the Iran/Iraq war?
any of those legal or illegal?

was thw war for independence a legal war? - yes, if you ask us, no if you ask king george
how about the civil war? - yes.
spanish-American? - started on false pretense, but yes.
WWI - yes, WWII - yes, Korea - yes, Veitnam - yes, Grenada - idk, Panama - yes, Hati - idk, Kuwait - yes, Afgahnistan - yes, Iraq - NO, it was not self defense, and we did not get permission from the UN security counsel, which we are required to do under both international, and constitutional domestic law.
and what about the UK, Agentina war over the Faulklands - idk
the Iran/Iraq war? - Iraq broke international law, Iran had the right to self defense.
any of those legal or illegal?

*idk = I don't know

Watch the damn cat video, it's laid out so nice a simple, anyone can understand.

 

[DiveCon]

was thw war for independence a legal war?
how about the civil war?
spanish-American?
WWI, WWII, Korea, Veitnam, Grenada, Panama, Hati, Kuwait, Afgahnistan, Iraq?
and what about the UK, Agentina war over the Faulklands
the Iran/Iraq war?
any of those legal or illegal?

was thw war for independence a legal war? - yes, if you ask us, no if you ask king george
how about the civil war? - yes.
spanish-American? - started on false pretense, but yes.
WWI - yes, WWII - yes, Korea - yes, Veitnam - yes, Grenada - idk, Panama - yes, Hati - idk, Kuwait - yes, Afgahnistan - yes, Iraq - NO, it was not self defense, and we did not get permission from the UN security counsel, which we are required to do under both international, and constitutional domestic law.
and what about the UK, Agentina war over the Faulklands - idk
the Iran/Iraq war? - Iraq broke international law, Iran had the right to self defense.
any of those legal or illegal?

*idk = I don't know

Watch the damn cat video, it's laid out so nice a simple, anyone can understand.

not gonna watch that stupid video

but damn, you just proved the legal/illegal is a subjective term
LOL

 

[Keith_J_Lemire]

was thw war for independence a legal war?
how about the civil war?
spanish-American?
WWI, WWII, Korea, Veitnam, Grenada, Panama, Hati, Kuwait, Afgahnistan, Iraq?
and what about the UK, Agentina war over the Faulklands
the Iran/Iraq war?
any of those legal or illegal?

was thw war for independence a legal war? - yes, if you ask us, no if you ask king george
how about the civil war? - yes.
spanish-American? - started on false pretense, but yes.
WWI - yes, WWII - yes, Korea - yes, Veitnam - yes, Grenada - idk, Panama - yes, Hati - idk, Kuwait - yes, Afgahnistan - yes, Iraq - NO, it was not self defense, and we did not get permission from the UN security counsel, which we are required to do under both international, and constitutional domestic law.
and what about the UK, Agentina war over the Faulklands - idk
the Iran/Iraq war? - Iraq broke international law, Iran had the right to self defense.
any of those legal or illegal?

*idk = I don't know

Watch the damn cat video, it's laid out so nice a simple, anyone can understand.

not gonna watch that stupid video

but damn, you just proved the legal/illegal is a subjective term
LOL

Of course the terms legal, and illegal are subjective. They are dependent on the law, and according to both the UN charter that the US signed as a treaty.

The United Nations Charter

The relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations mentioned in the RSICC article 5.2 were framed to include the Nuremberg Principles. The specific principle is Principle VI.a "Crimes against peace", which was based on the provisions of the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal that was issued in 1945 and formed the basis for the post World War II war crime trials. The Charters provisions based on the Nuremberg Principle VI.a are:

* Article 1:

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

* Article 2, paragraph 4

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

* Article 33

The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.

* Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

And our own constitution.

Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

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.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

The Iraq war was illegal.

 

[DiveCon]

was thw war for independence a legal war? - yes, if you ask us, no if you ask king george
how about the civil war? - yes.
spanish-American? - started on false pretense, but yes.
WWI - yes, WWII - yes, Korea - yes, Veitnam - yes, Grenada - idk, Panama - yes, Hati - idk, Kuwait - yes, Afgahnistan - yes, Iraq - NO, it was not self defense, and we did not get permission from the UN security counsel, which we are required to do under both international, and constitutional domestic law.
and what about the UK, Agentina war over the Faulklands - idk
the Iran/Iraq war? - Iraq broke international law, Iran had the right to self defense.
any of those legal or illegal?

*idk = I don't know

Watch the damn cat video, it's laid out so nice a simple, anyone can understand.

not gonna watch that stupid video

but damn, you just proved the legal/illegal is a subjective term
LOL

Of course the terms legal, and illegal are subjective. They are dependent on the law, and according to both the UN charter that the US signed as a treaty.

The United Nations Charter

The relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations mentioned in the RSICC article 5.2 were framed to include the Nuremberg Principles. The specific principle is Principle VI.a "Crimes against peace", which was based on the provisions of the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal that was issued in 1945 and formed the basis for the post World War II war crime trials. The Charters provisions based on the Nuremberg Principle VI.a are:

* Article 1:

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

* Article 2, paragraph 4

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

* Article 33

The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.

* Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

And our own constitution.

Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

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.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

The Iraq war was illegal.

except they HAD the authority to enforce the UN SC resolutions
they did NOT violate the UN charter of the US constitution

and also, the war was a continuation of desert storm
that war never ended it was only a ceasefire that Saddam had broken multiple times and we could have resumed it at any time

 

[Keith_J_Lemire]

not gonna watch that stupid video

but damn, you just proved the legal/illegal is a subjective term
LOL

Of course the terms legal, and illegal are subjective. They are dependent on the law, and according to both the UN charter that the US signed as a treaty.



And our own constitution.

Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

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.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

The Iraq war was illegal.

except they HAD the authority to enforce the UN SC resolutions(1)
they did NOT violate the UN charter of the US constitution

and also, the war was a continuation of desert storm(2)
that war never ended(3) it was only a ceasefire that Saddam had broken multiple times(4) and we could have resumed it at any time(5)

1. No we didn't. Powell went before the UN presented the "evidence" of violations, and the UN denied our request for permission to engage in military action.

2. No it wasn't.

3. Yes it did.

4. It was still a treaty, and when did he break it? Because I googled "Saddam breaks cease fire" and the only stuff I got was from 1980's, and the Iran/Iraq war.

5. Then why did we bother trying to get permission? Why didn't the cease fire violations get brought up as a valid reason?

 

[DiveCon]

Of course the terms legal, and illegal are subjective. They are dependent on the law, and according to both the UN charter that the US signed as a treaty.



And our own constitution.



The Iraq war was illegal.

except they HAD the authority to enforce the UN SC resolutions(1)
they did NOT violate the UN charter of the US constitution

and also, the war was a continuation of desert storm(2)
that war never ended(3) it was only a ceasefire that Saddam had broken multiple times(4) and we could have resumed it at any time(5)

1. No we didn't. Powell went before the UN presented the "evidence" of violations, and the UN denied our request for permission to engage in military action.

2. No it wasn't.

3. Yes it did.

4. It was still a treaty, and when did he break it? Because I googled "Saddam breaks cease fire" and the only stuff I got was from 1980's, and the Iran/Iraq war.

5. Then why did we bother trying to get permission? Why didn't the cease fire violations get brought up as a valid reason?

wrong on all counts


every time saddam fired on one of our aircraft he violated the cease fire

 

[Keith_J_Lemire]

except they HAD the authority to enforce the UN SC resolutions(1)
they did NOT violate the UN charter of the US constitution

and also, the war was a continuation of desert storm(2)
that war never ended(3) it was only a ceasefire that Saddam had broken multiple times(4) and we could have resumed it at any time(5)

1. No we didn't. Powell went before the UN presented the "evidence" of violations, and the UN denied our request for permission to engage in military action.

2. No it wasn't.

3. Yes it did.

4. It was still a treaty, and when did he break it? Because I googled "Saddam breaks cease fire" and the only stuff I got was from 1980's, and the Iran/Iraq war.

5. Then why did we bother trying to get permission? Why didn't the cease fire violations get brought up as a valid reason?

wrong on all counts


every time saddam fired on one of our aircraft he violated the cease fire

In what way shape of form? What is the wording of the cease fire? Was it the only treaty we signed between the end of the Gulf war, and the start of the Iraq war? It's your turn to put up some evidence.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No international court would buy your specious reasoning, divecon. In arguing this the way you have, you could be charged for war crimes for fomenting war against humanity. Why do you think major figures of the last administraiton can no longer travel overseas in fear of being arrested as war criminals.

You should go back to bagging others' groceries at King Soopers.

 

[DiveCon]

No international court would buy your specious reasoning, divecon. In arguing this the way you have, you could be charged for war crimes for fomenting war against humanity. Why do you think major figures of the last administraiton can no longer travel overseas in fear of being arrested as war criminals.

You should go back to bagging others' groceries at King Soopers.

fuck off asswipe

 

[DiveCon]

1. No we didn't. Powell went before the UN presented the "evidence" of violations, and the UN denied our request for permission to engage in military action.

2. No it wasn't.

3. Yes it did.

4. It was still a treaty, and when did he break it? Because I googled "Saddam breaks cease fire" and the only stuff I got was from 1980's, and the Iran/Iraq war.

5. Then why did we bother trying to get permission? Why didn't the cease fire violations get brought up as a valid reason?

wrong on all counts


every time saddam fired on one of our aircraft he violated the cease fire

In what way shape of form? What is the wording of the cease fire? Was it the only treaty we signed between the end of the Gulf war, and the start of the Iraq war? It's your turn to put up some evidence.

nope, nothing i could put up will change any of you morons minds
you will still think war can be either legal or illegal
thats such a fucking riot