The Iraq War - Legal or Illegal

jeffbr

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Then you're opining blindly for what reasons specifically???

Not blindly opining. I was specifically opining about someone who though FFG was afraid to debate. I did not opine about the video or the topic because I haven't watched the video.

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

slap...

Please don't hurt yourself.

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

if you actually looked you would have already saved yourself time whining about it....Mr no time..

Check again. I didn't say I didn't have time to watch your videos. I merely have no desire to click your links. I do admit I was intrigued enough last month to break my rule (the silly thread linking Columbine and Israel), but it only reinforced why I made my rule in the first place.

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

your logic is frightening.

Thank you. I'm not entirely sure what logical fallacy you're trying to highlight, though.

Urban Hiker

I can't watch the whole video without patience beyond my capabilities at this time. I swear it's like I'm on dial up.

Anywho - ILLEGAL!!!!

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jeffbr wrote:

Not blindly opining. I was specifically opining about someone who though FFG was afraid to debate. I did not opine about the video or the topic because I haven't watched the video.


Please don't hurt yourself.



Check again. I didn't say I didn't have time to watch your videos. I merely have no desire to click your links. I do admit I was intrigued enough last month to break my rule (the silly thread linking Columbine and Israel), but it only reinforced why I made my rule in the first place.



Thank you. I'm not entirely sure what logical fallacy you're trying to highlight, though.

Yet you have time to waste your time complain and fanning your farts... yes I can see that much.

You have no point except hot air, I can see that also.

your logic is stunning once again

edit: and out of all my threads you focus on the bad ones and hold them up like a shiny turd you pulled from your butt...congratulations.

sorry for not being flawlessly perfect and to your most gracious supreme liking..

what-fucking-ever..

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Urban Hiker wrote:

I can't watch the whole video without patience beyond my capabilities at this time. I swear it's like I'm on dial up.

Anywho - ILLEGAL!!!!

maybe they're still on dial up...

That would explain it.

searchlightsoul

farfromglorified wrote:

If you're going to try to count the weak links in the UN, you best be prepared to make a bigger list.

Certainly in many cases the US has served to undermine, subvert, and generally derail the UN, but we are far from alone. As it stands today, the UN is a body of convenience, not a body of sovereign principle. And that's much bigger than "the US".

Specifically I was referring to the veto power of the US. It means that even if the UN was to bring some motion against the US for its actions obviously the US would veto it, hence the UN becomes essentially powerless in all areas which the US does not agree. So it pisses me off no end when the UN is characterised as 'powerless' because this reflects largely the US's obstructive perogative. You only have to look at the number of resolutions vetoed by the US (and supported by Australia, much to my disgust) regrding the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Collin

farfromglorified wrote:

If you're going to try to count the weak links in the UN, you best be prepared to make a bigger list.

Certainly in many cases the US has served to undermine, subvert, and generally derail the UN, but we are far from alone. As it stands today, the UN is a body of convenience, not a body of sovereign principle. And that's much bigger than "the US".

He/she said weakest

farfromglorified

searchlightsoul wrote:

Specifically I was referring to the veto power of the US. It means that even if the UN was to bring some motion against the US for its actions obviously the US would veto it, hence the UN becomes essentially powerless in all areas which the US does not agree. So it pisses me off no end when the UN is characterised as 'powerless' because this reflects largely the US's obstructive perogative. You only have to look at the number of resolutions vetoed by the US (and supported by Australia, much to my disgust) regrding the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Obviously this is not unique to the US, as the US is not the only nation with veto power. Regardless, the UN could bring forward such a resolution vis a vis the Iraq War even if the US would veto it. That would make a strong statement, at the least.

farfromglorified

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Prove it.

I already have, if one accepts the assumption that you are real. To be real is to occupy space and time and, as such, have a non-zero effect on objects around you as a direct results of one's existence. And since you responded to my post, I had some measurable affect on you.

Or, I could just use the word "floccinaucinihilipilification", which is a word that has both an objective meaning and is a word you've likely never heard, which largely demonstrates that I'm likely not a figment of your imagination. But even if I was, I could still be classified as "real".

Abookamongstthemany

farfromglorified wrote:

I already have, if one accepts the assumption that you are real. To be real is to occupy space and time and, as such, have a non-zero effect on objects around you as a direct results of one's existence. And since you responded to my post, I had some measurable affect on you.

Or, I could just use the word "floccinaucinihilipilification", which is a word that has both an objective meaning and is a word you've likely never heard, which largely demonstrates that I'm likely not a figment of your imagination. But even if I was, I could still be classified as "real".

There's no way you're real.

polaris

is the war illegal? yes
is the US solely to blame? no

just goes to show economic exploitation transcends political boundaries ... the US (as powerful as they seem) cannot do what they are doing in iraq without complicity from other nations ...

Pacomc79

farfromglorified wrote:

I already have, if one accepts the assumption that you are real. To be real is to occupy space and time and, as such, have a non-zero effect on objects around you as a direct results of one's existence. And since you responded to my post, I had some measurable affect on you.

Or, I could just use the word "floccinaucinihilipilification", which is a word that has both an objective meaning and is a word you've likely never heard, which largely demonstrates that I'm likely not a figment of your imagination. But even if I was, I could still be classified as "real".

could you use that word in a sentence please and spell it phonetically.

Thanks. Just curious, I don't even know how to say it.

farfromglorified

Pacomc79 wrote:

could you use that word in a sentence please and spell it phonetically.

It's a noun that refers to the act of judging something to be completely worthless:

"When you didn't even bother to reply to that ridiculous argument, you made a floccinaucinihilipilification."

(flok-suh-naw-suh-nahy-hil-uh-pil-uh-fi-key-shuhn)

Pacomc79

farfromglorified wrote:

It's a noun that refers to the act of judging something to be completely worthless:

"When you didn't even bother to reply to that ridiculous argument, you made a floccinaucinihilipilification."

(flok-suh-naw-suh-nahy-hil-uh-pil-uh-fi-key-shuhn)

Thanks, I was having a rough time with that one. Of a trifiling value. I think I learn something new everyday