Palin slams W.H. on Libya response

[ABikerSailor]

Go back and look again...what I said was IF YOU HAVE THE ABILITY, you have a responsibility.

I have a conceal carry permit, I carry a firearm every day.

If I see someone beating you with a 2 x 4....

You better hope I don't think like Biker..."Well, he didn't attack me, and I have no legal responsibility to help, in fact I could be charged with a crime and get sued...best to just let it happen".

And you'd better hope I don't think like you..."Well, these bullets cost like 75 cents apiece and then there's gun cleaner, oil and patches...it's just not worth the expense".

If you have the ability, you have a responsibility? Thank God that when Jared Laughtner pulled out his gun and started firing, the person standing close by (with a concealed weapon permit and a gun) didn't pull his, because I saw him interviewed and he said that he almost drew but didn't and if he had, he would have shot someone who was trying to STOP Laughtner.

And, your comparisons are simplistic, as well as stink on ice. People who live in the same country, under the SAME LAWS are different than one country versus another.

From the way you've been posting on this, combined with your sad lack of knowledge about the Geneva Conventions and the Rules of Engagement, I think you just said you were in the military at one time to try to get others to buy your bullshit.

Well then show me the error of my ways Biker.

Where does it say in the Geneva Convention that it is unlawful to stop the wholesale murder of Civilians.

Show me in the Rules of Engagement where it is states that military force may not be used to protect an unarmed populace.

Not your opinion.

Show me the facts, with a link.

I'll wait.

nternational law recognizes only two cases for a legitimate war:

1. Wars of defense: when one nation is attacked by an aggressor, it is considered legitimate for a nation along with its allies to defend itself against the aggressor.

1. Wars sanctioned by the UN Security Council: when the United Nations as a whole acts as a body against a certain nation. Examples include various peacekeeping operations around the world, as well as the Korean and 1st Gulf Wars.

(According to this logic, the recent 2003 US sponsored invasion of Iraq as advanced by the Bush administration was clearly illegal under international law due to the facts that the US was never actually attacked by Iraq, and also that the UN security council did not authorize this war.)

The subset of international law known as the law of war or international humanitarian law also recognises regulations for the conduct of war, including the Geneva Conventions governing the legitimacy of certain kinds of weapons, and the treatment of prisoners of war. Cases where these conventions are broken are considered war crimes, and since the Nuremberg Trials at the end of World War II the international community has established a number of tribunals to try such cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warfare

Like I said......from the fucked up way you post, you apparently know nothing about the military, even though you claim to have served.

 

[Missourian]

If you have the ability, you have a responsibility? Thank God that when Jared Laughtner pulled out his gun and started firing, the person standing close by (with a concealed weapon permit and a gun) didn't pull his, because I saw him interviewed and he said that he almost drew but didn't and if he had, he would have shot someone who was trying to STOP Laughtner.

And, your comparisons are simplistic, as well as stink on ice. People who live in the same country, under the SAME LAWS are different than one country versus another.

From the way you've been posting on this, combined with your sad lack of knowledge about the Geneva Conventions and the Rules of Engagement, I think you just said you were in the military at one time to try to get others to buy your bullshit.

Well then show me the error of my ways Biker.

Where does it say in the Geneva Convention that it is unlawful to stop the wholesale murder of Civilians.

Show me in the Rules of Engagement where it is states that military force may not be used to protect an unarmed populace.

Not your opinion.

Show me the facts, with a link.

I'll wait.

nternational law recognizes only two cases for a legitimate war:

1. Wars of defense: when one nation is attacked by an aggressor, it is considered legitimate for a nation along with its allies to defend itself against the aggressor.

1. Wars sanctioned by the UN Security Council: when the United Nations as a whole acts as a body against a certain nation. Examples include various peacekeeping operations around the world, as well as the Korean and 1st Gulf Wars.

(According to this logic, the recent 2003 US sponsored invasion of Iraq as advanced by the Bush administration was clearly illegal under international law due to the facts that the US was never actually attacked by Iraq, and also that the UN security council did not authorize this war.)

The subset of international law known as the law of war or international humanitarian law also recognises regulations for the conduct of war, including the Geneva Conventions governing the legitimacy of certain kinds of weapons, and the treatment of prisoners of war. Cases where these conventions are broken are considered war crimes, and since the Nuremberg Trials at the end of World War II the international community has established a number of tribunals to try such cases.

War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Like I said......from the fucked up way you post, you apparently know nothing about the military, even though you claim to have served.

That has nothing to do with the Geneva Convention or Rules of Engagement.

Evidently, you were full of shit.

Are you sure you were in the Navy?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Go back and look again...what I said was IF YOU HAVE THE ABILITY, you have a responsibility.

I have a conceal carry permit, I carry a firearm every day.

If I see someone beating you with a 2 x 4....

You better hope I don't think like Biker..."Well, he didn't attack me, and I have no legal responsibility to help, in fact I could be charged with a crime and get sued...best to just let it happen".

And you'd better hope I don't think like you..."Well, these bullets cost like 75 cents apiece and then there's gun cleaner, oil and patches...it's just not worth the expense".

You could twist anything into "having the ability", the US could raise my income taxes to 90% and pay for the attempt at world peace that you're pushing for, I guess they "have the ability" to do that. Just shows we have a different view of what the job of the US gov't is to do.

Apples and oranges, I don't want the people of say, Oregon, to be taxed in order to pay for your weapon to protect me if I get attacked. Wouldn't be fair to Oregonians. That's a better comparison.

Only if you are in the habit of twisting.

Let...me...break...it...down...for...you...,...and...I'll...use...small...words.

WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO PROTECT UNARMED LIBYAN CIVILIANS.

WE HAVE IT RIGHT NOW.

GET IT?

GOT IT?

Good.

I've already expressed that our current budget is too high and you didn't only say Libyan civilians initially, you can pretend you did, but you didn't. You said murder should be stopped if you have the ability, hence my income tax example that must have went over your head.

I hear the same thing to justify the crazy spending on welfare and social security, "it helps the innocent poor civilians and we're able to do it now", yep if you think our current spending and taxing now is easily able to be continued and we should in fact continue, than you'll support the current system.

I'm a fiscal conservative, you're a bleeding heart world peace liberal who doesn't mind out of control spending, that's why we don't see eye to eye.

 

[Missourian]

From the way you've been posting on this, combined with your sad lack of knowledge about the Geneva Conventions and the Rules of Engagement, I think you just said you were in the military at one time to try to get others to buy your bullshit.

Here is the post right here.

The Geneva Conventions only covers the humanitarian treatment of victims of war...it has no bearing on who may wage war against who.

The running joke when I was in the Army was "According to the Geneva Convention an M-2 .50 caliber machine gun may not be used against enemy combatants, only equipment...so if you fire at an enemy combatant...aim for his canteen."

Using fighter against fighter is in no way covered by the Geneva Conventions.

Rules of Engagement are issue as guidelines to commanders during war and military operations other than war (MOOTW).

If the President authorized a humanitarian mission to protect civilians in Libya, the ROE for that operation would be drafted. It also has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the US can defend unarmed Libya civilians.


The question is, why are you throwing these terms around without any understanding of what they mean?

 

[WillowTree]

Who gives a flying fuck what she thinks about Libya? She knows jack shit about foreign policy.

The saddest thing about Sarah Palin is she's better then most of the politicians in DC. Hmm...maybe that's the saddest thing about most of the politicians in DC, they're even worse then Sarah Palin...

Sarah Palin will tell you the truth. demonRats will look you in the eye and lie through their gold capped teeth.

 

[uscitizen]

Go back and look again...what I said was IF YOU HAVE THE ABILITY, you have a responsibility.

I have a conceal carry permit, I carry a firearm every day.

If I see someone beating you with a 2 x 4....

You better hope I don't think like Biker..."Well, he didn't attack me, and I have no legal responsibility to help, in fact I could be charged with a crime and get sued...best to just let it happen".

And you'd better hope I don't think like you..."Well, these bullets cost like 75 cents apiece and then there's gun cleaner, oil and patches...it's just not worth the expense".

You could twist anything into "having the ability", the US could raise my income taxes to 90% and pay for the attempt at world peace that you're pushing for, I guess they "have the ability" to do that. Just shows we have a different view of what the job of the US gov't is to do.

Apples and oranges, I don't want the people of say, Oregon, to be taxed in order to pay for your weapon to protect me if I get attacked. Wouldn't be fair to Oregonians. That's a better comparison.

Only if you are in the habit of twisting.

Let...me...break...it...down...for...you...,...and...I'll...use...small...words.

WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO PROTECT UNARMED LIBYAN CIVILIANS.

WE HAVE IT RIGHT NOW.

GET IT?

GOT IT?

Good.

We have the ability to invade yet another sovern nation?
I doubt that especialy as far as paying for it.
We are cutting out money for poor childrens baby formula.

 

[Missourian]

You could twist anything into "having the ability", the US could raise my income taxes to 90% and pay for the attempt at world peace that you're pushing for, I guess they "have the ability" to do that. Just shows we have a different view of what the job of the US gov't is to do.

Apples and oranges, I don't want the people of say, Oregon, to be taxed in order to pay for your weapon to protect me if I get attacked. Wouldn't be fair to Oregonians. That's a better comparison.

Only if you are in the habit of twisting.

Let...me...break...it...down...for...you...,...and...I'll...use...small...words.

WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO PROTECT UNARMED LIBYAN CIVILIANS.

WE HAVE IT RIGHT NOW.

GET IT?

GOT IT?

Good.

I've already expressed that our current budget is too high and you didn't only say Libyan civilians initially, you can pretend you did, but you didn't. You said murder should be stopped if you have the ability, hence my income tax example that must have went over your head.

I hear the same thing to justify the crazy spending on welfare and social security, "it helps the innocent poor civilians and we're able to do it now", yep if you think our current spending and taxing now is easily able to be continued and we should in fact continue, than you'll support the current system.

I'm a fiscal conservative, you're a bleeding heart world peace liberal who doesn't mind out of control spending, that's why we don't see eye to eye.

I refuse to look the other way while unarmed civilians are murdered.

You may hear the same things to justify welfare and social security, but that doesn't make it in any way the same.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Only if you are in the habit of twisting.

Let...me...break...it...down...for...you...,...and...I'll...use...small...words.

WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO PROTECT UNARMED LIBYAN CIVILIANS.

WE HAVE IT RIGHT NOW.

GET IT?

GOT IT?

Good.

I've already expressed that our current budget is too high and you didn't only say Libyan civilians initially, you can pretend you did, but you didn't. You said murder should be stopped if you have the ability, hence my income tax example that must have went over your head.

I hear the same thing to justify the crazy spending on welfare and social security, "it helps the innocent poor civilians and we're able to do it now", yep if you think our current spending and taxing now is easily able to be continued and we should in fact continue, than you'll support the current system.

I'm a fiscal conservative, you're a bleeding heart world peace liberal who doesn't mind out of control spending, that's why we don't see eye to eye.

I refuse to look the other way while unarmed civilians are murdered.

You may hear the same things to justify welfare and social security, but that doesn't make it in any way the same.

Yeah, your example is worse. I'm being taxed to give money to other americans, I hate it but at least they're american, you want me to be taxed to provide security guards for foreign civilians who already have their own government and military.

If you're truly worried about innocent civilians being killed I would think your first concern would be fixing that issue here, rather than abroad.