Weakness INVITES aggression

[P@triot]

Like the War on Drugs obviously is totally and completely illegal.

Actually, it is 100% totally and completely legal right now. You may not like it. But it's definitely legal.

 

[P@triot]

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).

Seriously man, you're ignorance is truly astounding. And the fact that you just make shit up to cover for you ignorance is really ridiculous.

Drug laws were in fact implemented because of the crimes committed by drug addicts. Drug deals would often end in a murder, with one side taking both the drugs and the money. Drug addicts would steal (and even murder) for the money to get more drugs.

The same exact thing occurred with gambling. There were lots of debts not paid, bones broken for not paying, murders, etc. Outlawing gambling was designed to prevent all of that (and largely has).

Please stop talking. I'm saying this to you as your friend. Stop talking. You have thoroughly humiliated yourself here.

 

[P@triot]

We write legislation to finish out detail on generic abstractions, in order to increase uniform awareness.

Nice 180° after you were proven wrong yet again. Legislation is written because without it, there is absolutely no legality to stand up. Law enforcement cannot enforce a law that is not written and a citizenry cannot obey a law that doesn't exist.

 

[P@triot]

Joining NATO means nuke on the Russian border, which is identical to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Wrong. Yet again, astounding ignorance. Ukraine would not be given nuclear weapons. In fact, they had them and surrendered them under the promise that the United States and England would protect them.

Three decades ago, the newly independent country of Ukraine was briefly the third-largest nuclear power in the world.

Thousands of nuclear arms had been left on Ukrainian soil by Moscow after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. But in the years that followed, Ukraine made the decision to completely denuclearize.

In exchange, the U.S., the U.K. and Russia would guarantee Ukraine's security in a 1994 agreement known as the Budapest Memorandum.

Serious question: do you ever get tired of being wrong or do you enjoy it? In one thread alone, you've been dead-wrong more than 3 dozen times already.

Are you saying the US was wrong to blockade and invade Cuba like we did?

Did we invade Cuba, clown?!?

You prove yourself wrong so much, I don't even have to do it!

 

[P@triot]

Russia is in the right, so can't do anything else but win.

Nazi Germany won over Poland, France, Denmark, Norway, and more. Are you saying Nazi Germany was "in the right"?

Russia has gotten their asses handed to them for 3 weeks now by a small, weak nation

 

[P@triot]

Nato is just wasting lives and stretching this out unnecessarily.

It's never a "waste" to fight against the dictators your dumb ass worships.

 

[P@triot]

There is no reason for people in the Donetsk or Crimea to ever speak Ukrainian.

Sure there was, clown, They were part of the Ukrain.

Your excuses are as weak as your mind.

The history does not matter.

Oh good. Then it doesn't matter that Khrushchev didn't have authority to give it away.

The legal principles are that of local autonomy.

It's not a "legal principle" right now. Please stop using words you don't know the meaning of just because you're desperate to sound like you know what you're talking about. It's having the opposite effect.

These ethic Russians get to decide, not Kyiv or Moscow.

So once again you're contradicting yourself. Moscow is trying to decide everything by invading a nation (which is the epitome of immoral). Sit the fuck down, clown.

 

[DBA]

Wrong.
The way to deter aggression is defensive universal weapons ownership and training.
A strong offensive military causes the Domino Theory effect where countries become forced to be more aggressive, proactively.

I think most Republicans are all for spending money on technology to defend our country. Democrats don’t want to spend money on defense or offense. In their minds, if we give all our adversaries leaders Apple Store gift cards, a strong military is unnecessary. They are adolescent minded adults with a child like naiveté.

 

[P@triot]

1. Al Qaeda was never in just Afghanistan

Bold faced lie from a desperate asshole. Al Qaeda's entire operations were in Afghanistan

In 1999-2001, al-Qaida expanded its training activities in Afghanistan. The main training sites were the al-Faruq camp outside Kandahar, a special facility at Kandahar Airport, and facilities in and near Kabul.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/alqaida-in-afghanistan/training-under-the-taliban/99A763DD39B2A78A61F6BD3DFEBE869

 

[P@triot]

1. Al Qaeda was never in just Afghanistan

Al Qaeda's entire operations were in Afghanistan

Although Afghanistan is the base for al-Qaeda

Timeline: U.S. War in Afghanistan

The Taliban surged back to power two decades after U.S.-led forces toppled their regime in what led to the United States’ longest war.

www.cfr.org

 

[P@triot]

1. Al Qaeda was never in just Afghanistan

Al Qaeda's entire operations were in Afghanistan

At various times from at least as early as 1989, Usama Bin Laden, and others known and unknown, provided training camps and guesthouses in Afghanistan,

How does it feel to be my bitch? Asking for friend!

Al Qaeda - Background - Al Qaeda | Inside The Terror Network | FRONTLINE | PBS

 

[P@triot]

1. Al Qaeda was never in just Afghanistan

Al Qaeda's entire operations were in Afghanistan

Indeed, Afghanistan became an important base for al-Qaeda well before Sept. 11, and high-profile terrorist attacks were only one element of the danger posed as a result. As long as al-Qaeda enjoyed a base in Afghanistan, it could convene planning sessions and generate new plots

How does it feel to be my bitch? Asking for friend!

Remembering the Gains of the Afghanistan War

It’s hard to imagine a successful counterterrorism campaign in the years that followed Sept. 11 without the invasion of Afghanistan, which played a decisive role in dismantling what had become a major and persistent threat to American lives.

www.lawfareblog.com

 

[P@triot]

1. Al Qaeda was never in just Afghanistan

Imagine the profound ignorance required to think that Al Qaeda was never in Afghanistan, but the United States went into Afghanistan anyway after 9/11, for absolutely no reason at all. Not only ignoring Al Qaeda, but just randomly picking a country to "invade".

It's the kind of stupid that could only come you.

dozens of cruise missiles at an al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan

America bombs Islamic State. Once it quits Afghanistan, can it still?

Over-the-horizon counter-terrorism is a thorny intelligence and military problem

www.economist.com

 

[P@triot]

Al Qaeda just means "home base"

Literally everyone on the planet has known that for decades and decades. Going all the way back to the first WTC bombing in (1993?). You Google it, just learn it now, and then act like you're dropping knowledge on people.

You're such a disingenuous clown.

 

[Rigby5]

And it was. And there were slaves.

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

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.

But the point is that the real legal authority is an abstraction based on the defense of inherent individual rights, IF you believe in a democratic republic.
Only if you believe in Might Makes Right, or Divine Right, can legal authority be based on anything else or be arbitrary.
So then just as the American colonists had the inherent right to rebel over injustices like "taxation without representation", then slavery was ALWAYS inherently wrong and illegal.
The fact legislator were too corrupt to understand or act on that obvious fact, is irrelevant.
All that did was make legislators complicit with the inherent crime of slavery.
There is no way slavery could ever have been "legal" in a democratic republic.
It is an inherent contradiction.

Again, you have to be wrong to claim that legality is based merely on legislation, because then the SCOTUS could not rule against particular legislation on high abstract principles.

Legislation that is not based on inherent abstract legal principles is wrong and must be eradicated, in a democratic republic.

If you do not accept that simple principle, then you empower those would enact corruption based on Might Makes Right or Divine Right, and clearly that would destroy any hope of a democratic republic, leading to utter tyranny.

 

[Rigby5]

Imagine the profound ignorance required to think that Al Qaeda was never in Afghanistan, but the United States went into Afghanistan anyway after 9/11, for absolutely no reason at all. Not only ignoring Al Qaeda, but just randomly picking a country to "invade".

It's the kind of stupid that could only come you.

America bombs Islamic State. Once it quits Afghanistan, can it still?

Over-the-horizon counter-terrorism is a thorny intelligence and military problem

www.economist.com

Al Qaeda did not attack the US.
Al Qaeda is a Saudi organization that we an ally of the US since at least 1979, and was requested by the CIA to join the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, against the Soviets.
Osama bin Laden was NOT the founder of al Qaeda and did not lead it then.
He was just a kid, around 18 back then.
And almost no one in al Qaeda knew about the secret activities of Osama bin Laden, against the US.
Certainly the Taliban did not know.

The US invaded Afghanistan for the same reason it lied and invaded Iraq.
Wars mean munitions and oil profits for a few.

It should be obvious the US was lying about invading Afghanistan in order to get bin Laden, because we attack Iraq first, ignored Afghanistan for years, when we did attack Afghanistan Kabul was targeted even though we knew bin Laden was across the country in Tora Bora. We NEVER tried to attack bin Laden, and likely we knew he was hiding in Pakistan all along.

 

[Rigby5]

Literally everyone on the planet has known that for decades and decades. Going all the way back to the first WTC bombing in (1993?). You Google it, just learn it now, and then act like you're dropping knowledge on people.

You're such a disingenuous clown.

The POINT is there is no organization known as al Qaeda.
And the people we did attack were innocent.
It was only Osama bin Laden and a few others who were corrupt, and we did not even try to attack them until 2011.
The people in the Mujahideen were the most honest people in the whole world.
It is the US government that was corrupt, lied, murdered, etc.

 

[Rigby5]

Actually, it is 100% totally and completely legal right now. You may not like it. But it's definitely legal.

There is not and never can be any legal authority to demand what one does or nor not does to themselves.
The only basis for legal authority in a democratic republic is from the defense of the inherent rights of others.
All drug laws are offensive and not defensive, so are inherently illegal.
Just like Prohibition was inherently illegal, so had to be rescinded.

 

[Rigby5]

Nazi Germany won over Poland, France, Denmark, Norway, and more. Are you saying Nazi Germany was "in the right"?

Russia has gotten their asses handed to them for 3 weeks now by a small, weak nation

Wrong.
Germany lost in WWII.
So it did not win over anyone.
Its successes were only temporary.

The Ukraine is not beating anyone.
They are losing, and only doing that well because of huge US expenditures.

 

[Circe]

There is not and never can be any legal authority to demand what one does or nor not does to themselves.
The only basis for legal authority in a democratic republic is from the defense of the inherent rights of others.
All drug laws are offensive and not defensive, so are inherently illegal.
Just like Prohibition was inherently illegal, so had to be rescinded.

But all drug laws and Prohibition and motorcycle helmet laws and gun laws and lots of others like mask mandates always, always SAY they are laws to protect OTHER PEOPLE.

And there is something to that sometimes. Take alcohol: drunk men constantly beat up women and children and drive drunk and kill people. Everyone knows that. Prohibition was because of that. And to stop the Europe-like explosion of saloons on EVERY block in EVERY city because of the big influx of European immigrants at that time.

It's a puzzlement.