PatekPhilippe
Senior Member
- Thread starter
- #281
The Battle of the Coral Sea had nothing to do with Japan's designs on NZ..
I see history wasn't your strong suit in school....fair enough.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Battle of the Coral Sea had nothing to do with Japan's designs on NZ..
There is nothing any of us can say nor any information we can provide that will get people like him to admit the US did anything illegal or immoral.
Dumbasses like him think the US was the world's savior in WW2 which is why they always refer to Germany and Japan to defend the installation of "long term" bases in Irafghaqistan. Honestly, at one time I was a Nationalist like PP and a few others so while I understand their self chosen cloak of ignorance it doesn't make it any less frustrating.

There is nothing any of us can say nor any information we can provide that will get people like him to admit the US did anything illegal or immoral.
I know, but you can live in hope....![]()
I try but man, there is some seriously nasty shit coming our way.
I have never asked "where's America"..
1. our congress can't make something legal under international law which isn't.
Therefore by passing The Iraq use of Force Resolution THE WAR WAS LEGAL!!!!!
1. our congress can't make something legal under international law which isn't.
Therefore by passing The Iraq use of Force Resolution THE WAR WAS LEGAL!!!!!
Congress is not a universal trump card. Have you ever heard of Amendments or the Supreme Court? H. J. 114 invoked the UNSC to justify authorization. As a member of the UNSC we were bound by the Charter to receive authorization from the UN. You can't say H. J. 114 trumped the UN because it did not remove us as a member of the UNSC. As long as we choose to remain a member we are bound by those international laws. Nobody is saying the US is run by international law. We are saying by US Law the US must honor all treaties it is a member of.
The opinion said all of al-Bihani's arguments "rely heavily on the premise that the war powers granted by the (congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force) and other statutes are limited by the international laws of war. This premise is mistaken. There is no indication in the AUMF, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 ... or the MCA of 2006 or 2009, that Congress intended the international laws of war to act as extra-textual limiting principles for the president's war powers under the AUMF. The international laws of war as a whole have not been implemented domestically by Congress and are therefore not a source of authority for U.S. courts. ...
Therefore by passing The Iraq use of Force Resolution THE WAR WAS LEGAL!!!!!
Congress is not a universal trump card. Have you ever heard of Amendments or the Supreme Court? H. J. 114 invoked the UNSC to justify authorization. As a member of the UNSC we were bound by the Charter to receive authorization from the UN. You can't say H. J. 114 trumped the UN because it did not remove us as a member of the UNSC. As long as we choose to remain a member we are bound by those international laws. Nobody is saying the US is run by international law. We are saying by US Law the US must honor all treaties it is a member of.
Sorry. Once again you are mistaken. The national security and interests of the United Staes takes precedence over any international law or treaty. I have a COURT CASE THAT HAS SET THE LEGAL PRECEDENCE AND FAVORS MY POSITION FOR A REFERENCE.
Here is a quote:
The opinion said all of al-Bihani's arguments "rely heavily on the premise that the war powers granted by the (congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force) and other statutes are limited by the international laws of war. This premise is mistaken. There is no indication in the AUMF, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 ... or the MCA of 2006 or 2009, that Congress intended the international laws of war to act as extra-textual limiting principles for the president's war powers under the AUMF. The international laws of war as a whole have not been implemented domestically by Congress and are therefore not a source of authority for U.S. courts. ...
...I had no idea there were multiple AUMF's with respect to Iraq...please cite their Public Law Codes.That opinion was written by a bunch of pro war freaks so it doesn't count
The Judges seated on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit are now pro war freaks are they?http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/01/10/US-Supreme-Court-In-terror-war-to-hell-with-international-law/UPI-45561263112200/A powerful federal court, ruling on broad issues, has brushed aside international law and the laws of war, saying only domestic law restricts the president's power to hold an enemy combatant.


Keep trying CurveLight...you are actually quite entertaining....I have done nothing but back up my positions with cited laws and facts...all you have done is whine, complain and present op-eds...![]()
Keep trying CurveLight...you are actually quite entertaining....I have done nothing but back up my positions with cited laws and facts...all you have done is whine, complain and present op-eds...![]()
You're absolutely correct. I must have been out of my mind to ever disagree with you. Will you please forgive me? You still coming to Boston in a couple of weeks? You seem to keep overlooking that.
Keep trying CurveLight...you are actually quite entertaining....I have done nothing but back up my positions with cited laws and facts...all you have done is whine, complain and present op-eds...![]()
You're absolutely correct. I must have been out of my mind to ever disagree with you. Will you please forgive me? You still coming to Boston in a couple of weeks? You seem to keep overlooking that.
I could care less if you disagree with me but I refuse to let you trample on the Institutions that make our country the greatest place on earth with your progressive liberal lies and anti-American opinions.
I checked my mail....nothing.
Just like Obama...all talk and no substance.
He's kind of stupid. I don't know how you put up with his stupidity. I have had him on ignore most of the time I've been on this board. I just don't do well with stupidity. My hats off to you.
You're absolutely correct. I must have been out of my mind to ever disagree with you. Will you please forgive me? You still coming to Boston in a couple of weeks? You seem to keep overlooking that.
I could care less if you disagree with me but I refuse to let you trample on the Institutions that make our country the greatest place on earth with your progressive liberal lies and anti-American opinions.
You represent the worst anti-American group in the world.
I could care less if you disagree with me but I refuse to let you trample on the Institutions that make our country the greatest place on earth with your progressive liberal lies and anti-American opinions.
You represent the worst anti-American group in the world.
Ya...the Armed Services of the United States are "anti-American" .... according to you.....and I notice how you've digressed into a submissive role in this thread as your lame rant has been shot down in flames. My itinerary hasn't changed either...right now my family and I are enjoying some down time here in beautiful San Diego...tomorrow we will go out to the amphib base in Coronado so I can look up some of my fellow "anti-American" friends and have a beer or 2 at McP's. Hope you are enjoying yourself there in Boston and freezing your ass off.....eat a bowl of beans and then lock yourself in the closet with a book of matches....that'll keep you warm.