Weakness INVITES aggression

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

We are NOT supposed to be a "super power".
We are ONLY supposed to just be too tough for anyone to try to invade.
But the US spends 10 times what anyone else does on military, because we are totally corrupt and are illegally extorting, invading, and murdering people all over the globe.
The Spanish American war, WWI, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc., were totally illegal.
We are totally corrupt and evil in our use of military force.

Take a Midol Sally.

 

[Rigby5]

Psst...there is literally no such thing as "inherently illegal". If there is no law against it, then it is legal by any standard.

You continue to make shit up when something doesn't fit what you want it to fit.

Wrong.
The whole point of a democratic republic is that it is enabled by and supports inherent individual rights.
And once you have a democratic republic, along with it comes inherent legal principles that are based on the defense of those inherent individual rights.
For example, rape is inherently illegal.
No legislation is needed, and no legislation can make rape legal.
Legislation has to FOLLOW inherent principle of abstract law.
It is NOT the case that legislation EVER dictates law.
And since individual rights are infinite, there can NEVER be enough legislation to explicitly protect all rights.
That is why we have collective abstract laws like assault, that can cover lots of different crimes.
And the proof that abstract legal principles have to exist first is that the SCOTUS can strike down legislation as being illegal. They could not do that is what was legal was whatever legislation arbitrarily said.

 

[Rigby5]

Bwahahaha!! You continue to make shit up. There is no such thing as "defensive military" vs. "offensive military". A missile is a missile. A fighter jet is a fighter jet. A machine gun is a machine gun.

All of them are for defense (but can of course, be used offensively as Putin has illustrated).

Wrong.
Aircraft carriers are inherently offensive, for example.
Which is why only evil aggressors have them.

 

[P@triot]

The people of Donetsk and Crimea do not speak the same language as Kyiv, and are being abused by Kyiv.

After 70 fucking years, if they didn't learn to speak the language, that is on them.

And all of this was under the former Soviet Union, which Khrushchev controlled, so everything you're saying is pure made up bullshit.

 

[P@triot]

For example, rape is inherently illegal.

No sweetie, it's not. Really. It's inherently immoral. But unless there is a law against it, it is not - and cannot be - "inherently illegal".

Which is why men in Afghanistan didn't get arrested for it under the Taliban. You continue to make shit up and embarrass yourself.

 

[P@triot]

It is NOT the case that legislation EVER dictates law.

Wrong (as always). It is 100% the case that legislation dictates law. Otherwise, law enforcement wouldn't know what to enforce and what not to and citizenry wouldn't know what was legal and what wasn't.

Are you through embarrassing yourself yet?

 

[P@triot]

That is why we have collective abstract laws like assault, that can cover lots of different crimes.

Bwahahahaha!!! You just proved yourself wrong. You admit we have laws about assault. If it was "inherent", no law would be required.

 

[Rigby5]

It was given away 70 years ago. It cannot be undone and invading under the guise of "taking back was was mine but was given away" is unimaginable corruption.

Wrong.
Putin is more than justified in invading simply by the theft of the $20 billion in oil and gas the Ukraine has been convicted in court of stealing.

Russia–Ukraine gas disputes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And you simply have not been able to absorb even the simplest of legal principles.
Putin is NOT "taking back what was mine".
He is preventing the imposition of illegal domination by force by the Ukraine, over the seceding provinces.
They likely are going to remain independent.
They likely are not going to be absorbed back into Russia.
And the ONLY corruption is from the Ukraine, like Burisma Holdings, kickbacks, bribes, extortion, etc.

 

[P@triot]

And since individual rights are infinite, there can NEVER be enough legislation to explicitly protect all rights.

Now you're just babbling incoherently.

1. Laws restrict rights - therefore are not necessary to "protect them". When the government implements a new gun law, they aren't protecting my 2nd Amendment rights. They are reducing my 2nd Amendment rights, clown.
2. Individual rights are not "infinite". You're rights end where mine begin. Anything that has an end point is not "infinite", clown.

 

[P@triot]

Putin is more than justified in invading simply by the theft of the $20 billion in oil and gas the Ukraine has been convicted in court of stealing.

Wrong. No court ruling stated "Vladimir Putin is entitled to invade Ukraine". You sound like a total clown.

 

[P@triot]

And the ONLY corruption is from the Ukraine, like Burisma Holdings, kickbacks, bribes, extortion, etc.

Invading a nation because you fear they will join the NATO, that is the epitome of corruption. And none of your nonsense changes that fact.

No oil was taken, nor did Putin even make an accusation. He has been very open about the fact that he fears Ukraine joining NATO.

 

[P@triot]

They likely are going to remain independent.

Well no shit. Russia is a paper tiger getting their asses handed to them in Ukraine. Even if they could fight worth a shit (and they can't), NATO nations would ensure that Ukraine has the weapons, tools, etc. to guarantee it doesn't happen.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong (as always). It is 100% the case that legislation dictates law. Otherwise, law enforcement wouldn't know what to enforce and what not to and citizenry wouldn't know what was legal and what wasn't.

Are you through embarrassing yourself yet?

Wrong.
The legislation said the law was slavery at one time.
We fought a civil war over legal principle, which then LATER allowed us to change the legislation.
So obviously the abstract principles are more important than the legislation.
If law enforcement understood this simple and basic principle, they would not be the criminals they are now.
Like the War on Drugs obviously is totally and completely illegal.
The principle of law is that you can write legislation when necessary to defend individual rights.
But drug laws do not protect the rights of anyone.
They are instead to impose on people who harm no one else at all.
So all drug laws are totally and inherently illegal, (in a democratic republic).

 

[Rigby5]

Bwahahahaha!!! You just proved yourself wrong. You admit we have laws about assault. If it was "inherent", no law would be required.

Wrong.
We write legislation to finish out detail on generic abstractions, in order to increase uniform awareness.
That does not mean they have to be enforce uniformly, depending on applicability on specific circumstances.

 

[Rigby5]

Invading a nation because you fear they will join the NATO, that is the epitome of corruption. And none of your nonsense changes that fact.

No oil was taken, nor did Putin even make an accusation. He has been very open about the fact that he fears Ukraine joining NATO.

Wrong.
Joining NATO means nuke on the Russian border, which is identical to the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Are you saying the US was wrong to blockade and invade Cuba like we did?

Oil was taken over a 20 year period.
The courts ruled against the Ukraine.

Russia–Ukraine gas disputes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Rigby5]

Well no shit. Russia is a paper tiger getting their asses handed to them in Ukraine. Even if they could fight worth a shit (and they can't), NATO nations would ensure that Ukraine has the weapons, tools, etc. to guarantee it doesn't happen.

Wrong.
The Ukraine lost the Donetsk and Crimea years ago.
Russia has already taken them back as well as about half the Ukraine.
They will have the rest of the Ukraine in less than a month, unless the Ukraine surrenders.
Nato is just wasting lives and stretching this out unnecessarily.
Russia is in the right, so can't do anything else but win.

 

[Rigby5]

After 70 fucking years, if they didn't learn to speak the language, that is on them.

And all of this was under the former Soviet Union, which Khrushchev controlled, so everything you're saying is pure made up bullshit.

Wrong.
The eastern provinces have no transactions with Kyiv, but only with local Russian speaking populations.
There is no reason for people in the Donetsk or Crimea to ever speak Ukrainian.
The history does not matter.
The legal principles are that of local autonomy.
These ethic Russians get to decide, not Kyiv or Moscow.

 

[Rigby5]

You continue to just make shit up. They granted Al fucking Qaeda sanctuary. We told them, "surrender Al Qaeda and we leave you alone. Don't, and you're a part of them. You're either with us or you're against us".

They chose to continue sanctuary for Al Qaeda.

It wasn't "Saudis" imbecile.

1. Where did Al Qaeda reside? Afghanistan
2. Where did Al Qaeda recruit? Afghanistan
3. Where did Al Qaeda train? Afghanistan
4. Where did Al Qaeda launch operations from? Afghanistan
5. Where were Al Qaeda bases? Afghanistan

Furthermore, at no point did the Taliban offer to "arrest" any member of Al Qaeda and "extradite" them to Saudi Arabia. The Taliban declared Al Qaeda under "Pashtunwali". It's a cultural code which means they literally must die to protect their "guests". Which is why they did die. They refused to surrender Al Qaeda.

Literally everything you say is 100% pure bullshit.

Liar.
Al Qaeda just means "home base" and was only part of the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan AFTER we insisted that the Saudis be included.
1. Al Qaeda was never in just Afghanistan, but Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Libya, and especially Saudi Arabia.
2. Al Qaeda ONLY recruited Saudis. Never any Afghans.
3. Al Qaeda trained anywhere they wanted, and the 9/11 hijackers never went to Afghanistan.
4. Al Qaeda NEVER launched anything from Afghanistan.
5. The main al Qaeda bases were in the northern no-fly-zone of Iraq, under Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and in Benghazi, Libya.

And it is a lie to claim the Taliban did not offer the extradition of bin Laden.

Taliban agreed Bin Laden handover

The Taliban leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar agreed three years ago to hand over Osama bin Laden, but changed his mind after US cruise missile attacks, the former head of Saudi Arabian intelligence said yesterday.

www.theguardian.com

{...

Taliban agreed Bin Laden handover in 1998​

Brian Whitaker
Sun 4 Nov 2001 21.26 EST

The Taliban leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar agreed three years ago to hand over Osama bin Laden, but changed his mind after US cruise missile attacks, the former head of Saudi Arabian intelligence said yesterday.
The claim, by Prince Turki al-Faisal, is likely to raise questions about whether more efforts could have been made to negotiate Bin Laden's extradition before launching the latest bombing campaign.
...}

 

[Rigby5]

No sweetie, it's not. Really. It's inherently immoral. But unless there is a law against it, it is not - and cannot be - "inherently illegal".

Which is why men in Afghanistan didn't get arrested for it under the Taliban. You continue to make shit up and embarrass yourself.

Liar.
Rape is a high offense under the Taliban.
The main problem with the Taliban is they were TOO strict, not to lax as you wrongly imply.

And you are totally wrong about morality and law.
Marrying in violation of incest is immoral, but since it harms no one else, should never be illegal.
That you do not understand the difference shows you don't know anything about either.

 

[P@triot]

The legislation said the law was slavery at one time.

And it was. And there were slaves.

We fought a civil war over legal principle, which then LATER allowed us to change the legislation.

Exactly. Once the law was changed, slavery was no longer legal.

So obviously the abstract principles are more important than the legislation.

That's not what you argued. You didn't argue which was more important. That's a completely different argument. You laughably claimed that there were "inherent legal principles" when in fact nothing is "inherent". Either a law exists or it doesn't.

Stopping digger deeper. You've humiliated yourself enough for one thread.