If the war is fraud...based on lies, and if Kerry is elected...

[Czar]

So...just because a country declares war on us, that is a threat?

a quote to go down in history of AT P&N

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Czar
its all about what is the best decision, going to war so hastely was obviosly not the best decision because of all the obvios hoppla and extra problems it has created, now doing what GoPackGo proposes that Kerry should do is obviosly a bad decision, best decision is to make the best of the situation and that is to stay as long as it takes.

Here is a question I pose: Thirteen years of dealing with Saddam Hussein wasn't long enough? How long then?

Using similar logic...the US SHOULD have gone to war with Japan in 1941. We were attacked.

However

We SHOULD NOT have gone to war with Germany or Italy. They did not attack and they posed no "imminent" threat. Why did so many US Soldiers die to fight that cause? Shouldnt that have been a matter for the other Europeans to deal with?

LOL, Germany declared war against us first. What should we have done, surrender?

So...just because a country declares war on us, that is a threat? What if the Congo or UAE declared war on the US? Should we launch cruise missles at them?

Since Iraq was attacked in an illegitimate war, and they were in the UN, where were the other UN Nations in coming to the aid of Iraq?

I think German UBoats sinking American Merchant ships off the Eastern Seaboard and the Gulf of Mexico can defined as a legitimate threat. Trust me, if the Congolese were attacking American Interests and Citizens we would take appropriate action.

 

[dirtboy]

I think you've got a valid point Go.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: smashp
There is no going back Because The actions We took were an extension of the Peace treaty Saddam Signed after iraq war part 1. We Were Justified, on paper atleast.

IT Was an optional War. That is the part you cannot grasp, Their is no returning Saddam to power, as he was and is a 'BAD' Man. Now if he was largely loved By his people, Their might be soom demand from Them to return their leader to power. But since the overwhelming majority of Iraqis hated him......who cares.

Yet, We Shall not let those who pulled us into this episode of american history Off easy for the manipulation of the public using Lies, fear, and patriotism to Suppress The VOICED opposition there was stating the Truth.

They must Pay the Piper and no longer deserve the power they have come so addicted to and use without moraloty or remourse.

You can't have it both ways.

You can't celebrate the ends while demonizing the means.

Who are we to judge Saddam as a "BAD" man when we can't judge our own intelligence correctly.

The war was either justified and right or illegal and wrong. Which is it?

The vocal minority hates Bush, yet what will you do if he is re-elected? Just because there is opposition to a war doesn't mean that a war should not take place.

The war was either right or it was wrong. History will ultimately decide.

Im not Celebrating the Ends. The End is a Far Far far far far ways away. no i stand by My argument. The War WAS LEGAL yet unjustified.

you can get a legal Search Warrant to Search a House for Drugs(used as Example) search the House, find no Drugs or any trace of them ever being there. This would be a unjustified search.

Capturing Saddam and his sons is like the Cops on the said above search finding an illegal automatic weapon. Yeah its illegal and you can arrest someone for it, BUT ITS NOT THE REASON YOU SEARCHED THE HOUSE.

From Websters:

Main Entry: 1le·gal
Pronunciation: 'lE-g&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin legalis, from leg-, lex law
1 : of or relating to law
2 a : deriving authority from or founded on law : DE JURE b : having a formal status derived from law often without a basis in actual fact : TITULAR <a corporation is a legal but not a real person> c : established by law; especially : STATUTORY
3 : conforming to or permitted by law or established rules
4 : recognized or made effective by a court of law as distinguished from a court of equity
5 : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of the profession of law or of one of its members
6 : created by the constructions of the law <a legal fiction>
synonym see LAWFUL
- le·gal·ly /-g&-lE/ adverb

One entry found for justify.


Main Entry: jus·ti·fy
Pronunciation: 'j&s-t&-"fI
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -fied; -fy·ing
Etymology: Middle English justifien, from Middle French or Late Latin; Middle French justifier, from Late Latin justificare, from Latin justus
transitive senses
1 a : to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable b (1) : to show to have had a sufficient legal reason (2) : to qualify (oneself) as a surety by taking oath to the ownership of sufficient property
2 a archaic : to administer justice to b archaic : ABSOLVE c : to judge, regard, or treat as righteous and worthy of salvation
3 a : to space (as lines of text) so that the lines come out even at the margin b : to make even by justifying <justified margins>
intransitive senses
1 a : to show a sufficient lawful reason for an act done b : to qualify as bail or surety
2 : to justify lines of text


You can't have it both ways....if you can't be justified, then you can't be legalized

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Czar
its all about what is the best decision, going to war so hastely was obviosly not the best decision because of all the obvios hoppla and extra problems it has created, now doing what GoPackGo proposes that Kerry should do is obviosly a bad decision, best decision is to make the best of the situation and that is to stay as long as it takes.

Here is a question I pose: Thirteen years of dealing with Saddam Hussein wasn't long enough? How long then?

Using similar logic...the US SHOULD have gone to war with Japan in 1941. We were attacked.

However

We SHOULD NOT have gone to war with Germany or Italy. They did not attack and they posed no "imminent" threat. Why did so many US Soldiers die to fight that cause? Shouldnt that have been a matter for the other Europeans to deal with?

LOL, Germany declared war against us first. What should we have done, surrender?

So...just because a country declares war on us, that is a threat? What if the Congo or UAE declared war on the US? Should we launch cruise missles at them?

Since Iraq was attacked in an illegitimate war, and they were in the UN, where were the other UN Nations in coming to the aid of Iraq?

I think German UBoats sinking American Merchant ships off the Eastern Seaboard and the Gulf of Mexico can defined as a legitimate threat. Trust me, if the Congolese were attacking American Interests and Citizens we would take appropriate action.

Was that before or after Dec 7,1941?

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Czar
its all about what is the best decision, going to war so hastely was obviosly not the best decision because of all the obvios hoppla and extra problems it has created, now doing what GoPackGo proposes that Kerry should do is obviosly a bad decision, best decision is to make the best of the situation and that is to stay as long as it takes.

Here is a question I pose: Thirteen years of dealing with Saddam Hussein wasn't long enough? How long then?

Using similar logic...the US SHOULD have gone to war with Japan in 1941. We were attacked.

However

We SHOULD NOT have gone to war with Germany or Italy. They did not attack and they posed no "imminent" threat. Why did so many US Soldiers die to fight that cause? Shouldnt that have been a matter for the other Europeans to deal with?

LOL, Germany declared war against us first. What should we have done, surrender?

So...just because a country declares war on us, that is a threat? What if the Congo or UAE declared war on the US? Should we launch cruise missles at them?

Since Iraq was attacked in an illegitimate war, and they were in the UN, where were the other UN Nations in coming to the aid of Iraq?

I think German UBoats sinking American Merchant ships off the Eastern Seaboard and the Gulf of Mexico can defined as a legitimate threat. Trust me, if the Congolese were attacking American Interests and Citizens we would take appropriate action.

Was that before or after Dec 7,1941?

Do they not teach history in schools anymore?

The first U boat attack against a US military ship was in April of 1941

However U boats had been harrasing merchant ships for much longer than that.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
...will he do the right thing and reinstate Saddam Hussein as Iraq's legitimate ruler.

If not...then, as president he will be perpetuating and supporting the lies.

I say President Kerry's first act as President is to announce to the Baath Party people that Saddam is returning and his country will be restored at US Expense.

Since no violations have been found...all sanctions will be lifted and all troops will be withdrawn.

This is not a joke.

If removing Saddam from power was not the just and right thing to do, then he should be restored to power as soon as possible....it would be the right, just and correct thing to do.

Then also, in all seriousness, shouldn't Bush and all senior staff members and those in power in Congress be turned over to Iraq or the World Court to be prosecuted for War Crimes?

You fail to understand that the "Lying" portion of the argument made, was our Justification of the War. Our "Credability" as a nation is on the fence. The Invasion was "Legal" as outlined within the recourse available under security council resolutions. The War is not "justified" as nessasary if we use a litmus test based on reasons givin to the public prior to the War/ The public WAS manipulated to reach the Goal of Invading Iraq. Once that deed is Done their is No going Back. What is possible is to make people aware of the power of manipulation used to acheive this goal, To learn from Mistakes.
To prevent this from happening in the Future, To REGAIN US CREDABILITY.

Since Saddam is ousted he should be tried, as he is a War criminal.


"Doesn't Saddam have any legal rights or any legal recourse if he removal from power was fraudulent?"


In What Court?

The Need and importance of this War Was not Justified. We were not under threat. We wish to remold the middle East and secure a new base of operations within. A few of the After-war results are (capture of Saddam, O and Q) perceived as justified and Normal.

Why is there no going back? Why should Saddam suffer at our mistakes? Hasn't he been exhonorated? The UN resolutions were also based on lies and so therefore the war was illegal.

So if the war was not needed, not justifed then what we did was wrong. You can't just do harm to someone that is the legitimate ruler to a sovereign nation and get away with it. He should duly be compensated...with a return to power...

Saddam is in US Custody...not Iraqi, not UN...so therefore the US should release him into the custody of his restored government.

I say we as a nation have no choice, and to regain credibility, must restore Saddam...it is the right thing to do.

LOL... Credibility has never been a hallmark of neocon decisionmaking. They could care less about credibility, otherwise they would have checked their sources before lying to America. The war was not needed, and Iraq is a sovereign nation.

If you really believed in all that justice and credibility and exhoneration and legality, then perhaps we can discuss returning Saddam in the context of an international court. But too much blood has been spilled, and it would be an acknowledgement of the worse military decision America has ever embarked upon, and no presidency would ever consider it because it betrays their credibility.

Unfortunately it's not about right and wrong. It's about who welds the stronger sword. The neocons can now justify just about anything they do, and they are well on their way in accomplishing their final objective - to take the power out of the hands of all Americans and into the hands of those that support and fund them.

LOL, how's that tin-foil hat of yours?

It's gotta be workin a little better than sticking your head in the sand... LOL. bushie's proven it over and over. Enjoy living in your little fantasy world where bush cares about your needs.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: Czar

So...just because a country declares war on us, that is a threat?

a quote to go down in history of AT P&N

LOL...

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: smashp
There is no going back Because The actions We took were an extension of the Peace treaty Saddam Signed after iraq war part 1. We Were Justified, on paper atleast.

IT Was an optional War. That is the part you cannot grasp, Their is no returning Saddam to power, as he was and is a 'BAD' Man. Now if he was largely loved By his people, Their might be soom demand from Them to return their leader to power. But since the overwhelming majority of Iraqis hated him......who cares.

Yet, We Shall not let those who pulled us into this episode of american history Off easy for the manipulation of the public using Lies, fear, and patriotism to Suppress The VOICED opposition there was stating the Truth.

They must Pay the Piper and no longer deserve the power they have come so addicted to and use without moraloty or remourse.

You can't have it both ways.

You can't celebrate the ends while demonizing the means.

Who are we to judge Saddam as a "BAD" man when we can't judge our own intelligence correctly.

The war was either justified and right or illegal and wrong. Which is it?

The vocal minority hates Bush, yet what will you do if he is re-elected? Just because there is opposition to a war doesn't mean that a war should not take place.

The war was either right or it was wrong. History will ultimately decide.

Im not Celebrating the Ends. The End is a Far Far far far far ways away. no i stand by My argument. The War WAS LEGAL yet unjustified.

you can get a legal Search Warrant to Search a House for Drugs(used as Example) search the House, find no Drugs or any trace of them ever being there. This would be a unjustified search.

Capturing Saddam and his sons is like the Cops on the said above search finding an illegal automatic weapon. Yeah its illegal and you can arrest someone for it, BUT ITS NOT THE REASON YOU SEARCHED THE HOUSE.

From Websters:

Main Entry: 1le·gal
Pronunciation: 'lE-g&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin legalis, from leg-, lex law
1 : of or relating to law
2 a : deriving authority from or founded on law : DE JURE b : having a formal status derived from law often without a basis in actual fact : TITULAR <a corporation is a legal but not a real person> c : established by law; especially : STATUTORY
3 : conforming to or permitted by law or established rules
4 : recognized or made effective by a court of law as distinguished from a court of equity
5 : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of the profession of law or of one of its members
6 : created by the constructions of the law <a legal fiction>
synonym see LAWFUL
- le·gal·ly /-g&-lE/ adverb

One entry found for justify.


Main Entry: jus·ti·fy
Pronunciation: 'j&s-t&-"fI
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -fied; -fy·ing
Etymology: Middle English justifien, from Middle French or Late Latin; Middle French justifier, from Late Latin justificare, from Latin justus
transitive senses
1 a : to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable b (1) : to show to have had a sufficient legal reason (2) : to qualify (oneself) as a surety by taking oath to the ownership of sufficient property
2 a archaic : to administer justice to b archaic : ABSOLVE c : to judge, regard, or treat as righteous and worthy of salvation
3 a : to space (as lines of text) so that the lines come out even at the margin b : to make even by justifying <justified margins>
intransitive senses
1 a : to show a sufficient lawful reason for an act done b : to qualify as bail or surety
2 : to justify lines of text


You can't have it both ways....if you can't be justified, then you can't be legalized

Thank You Captain Dictionary. I have one Too

ig·no·rant
adj.
1.Lacking education or knowledge.
2.Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3.Unaware or uninformed.

Based on Some of your lack of education on WW2 and other topics, Id say your either number 1 or number 3

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: smashp
There is no going back Because The actions We took were an extension of the Peace treaty Saddam Signed after iraq war part 1. We Were Justified, on paper atleast.

IT Was an optional War. That is the part you cannot grasp, Their is no returning Saddam to power, as he was and is a 'BAD' Man. Now if he was largely loved By his people, Their might be soom demand from Them to return their leader to power. But since the overwhelming majority of Iraqis hated him......who cares.

Yet, We Shall not let those who pulled us into this episode of american history Off easy for the manipulation of the public using Lies, fear, and patriotism to Suppress The VOICED opposition there was stating the Truth.

They must Pay the Piper and no longer deserve the power they have come so addicted to and use without moraloty or remourse.

You can't have it both ways.

You can't celebrate the ends while demonizing the means.

Who are we to judge Saddam as a "BAD" man when we can't judge our own intelligence correctly.

The war was either justified and right or illegal and wrong. Which is it?

The vocal minority hates Bush, yet what will you do if he is re-elected? Just because there is opposition to a war doesn't mean that a war should not take place.

The war was either right or it was wrong. History will ultimately decide.

Im not Celebrating the Ends. The End is a Far Far far far far ways away. no i stand by My argument. The War WAS LEGAL yet unjustified.

you can get a legal Search Warrant to Search a House for Drugs(used as Example) search the House, find no Drugs or any trace of them ever being there. This would be a unjustified search.

Capturing Saddam and his sons is like the Cops on the said above search finding an illegal automatic weapon. Yeah its illegal and you can arrest someone for it, BUT ITS NOT THE REASON YOU SEARCHED THE HOUSE.

From Websters:

Main Entry: 1le·gal
Pronunciation: 'lE-g&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin legalis, from leg-, lex law
1 : of or relating to law
2 a : deriving authority from or founded on law : DE JURE b : having a formal status derived from law often without a basis in actual fact : TITULAR <a corporation is a legal but not a real person> c : established by law; especially : STATUTORY
3 : conforming to or permitted by law or established rules
4 : recognized or made effective by a court of law as distinguished from a court of equity
5 : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of the profession of law or of one of its members
6 : created by the constructions of the law <a legal fiction>
synonym see LAWFUL
- le·gal·ly /-g&-lE/ adverb

One entry found for justify.


Main Entry: jus·ti·fy
Pronunciation: 'j&s-t&-"fI
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -fied; -fy·ing
Etymology: Middle English justifien, from Middle French or Late Latin; Middle French justifier, from Late Latin justificare, from Latin justus
transitive senses
1 a : to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable b (1) : to show to have had a sufficient legal reason (2) : to qualify (oneself) as a surety by taking oath to the ownership of sufficient property
2 a archaic : to administer justice to b archaic : ABSOLVE c : to judge, regard, or treat as righteous and worthy of salvation
3 a : to space (as lines of text) so that the lines come out even at the margin b : to make even by justifying <justified margins>
intransitive senses
1 a : to show a sufficient lawful reason for an act done b : to qualify as bail or surety
2 : to justify lines of text


You can't have it both ways....if you can't be justified, then you can't be legalized

Thank You Captain Dictionary. I have one Too

ig·no·rant
adj.
1.Lacking education or knowledge.
2.Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3.Unaware or uninformed.

Based on Some of your lack of education on WW2 and other topics, Id say your either number 1 or number 3

I guess you don't have an understanding of:

1. Playing the Devil's Advocate
2. Sarcasm

As I recall Britain and perhaps Russia, asked for help on the Nazi problem way before 1941, but the US didn't want to get involved.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: smashp
There is no going back Because The actions We took were an extension of the Peace treaty Saddam Signed after iraq war part 1. We Were Justified, on paper atleast.

IT Was an optional War. That is the part you cannot grasp, Their is no returning Saddam to power, as he was and is a 'BAD' Man. Now if he was largely loved By his people, Their might be soom demand from Them to return their leader to power. But since the overwhelming majority of Iraqis hated him......who cares.

Yet, We Shall not let those who pulled us into this episode of american history Off easy for the manipulation of the public using Lies, fear, and patriotism to Suppress The VOICED opposition there was stating the Truth.

They must Pay the Piper and no longer deserve the power they have come so addicted to and use without moraloty or remourse.

You can't have it both ways.

You can't celebrate the ends while demonizing the means.

Who are we to judge Saddam as a "BAD" man when we can't judge our own intelligence correctly.

The war was either justified and right or illegal and wrong. Which is it?

The vocal minority hates Bush, yet what will you do if he is re-elected? Just because there is opposition to a war doesn't mean that a war should not take place.

The war was either right or it was wrong. History will ultimately decide.

Im not Celebrating the Ends. The End is a Far Far far far far ways away. no i stand by My argument. The War WAS LEGAL yet unjustified.

you can get a legal Search Warrant to Search a House for Drugs(used as Example) search the House, find no Drugs or any trace of them ever being there. This would be a unjustified search.

Capturing Saddam and his sons is like the Cops on the said above search finding an illegal automatic weapon. Yeah its illegal and you can arrest someone for it, BUT ITS NOT THE REASON YOU SEARCHED THE HOUSE.

From Websters:

Main Entry: 1le·gal
Pronunciation: 'lE-g&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin legalis, from leg-, lex law
1 : of or relating to law
2 a : deriving authority from or founded on law : DE JURE b : having a formal status derived from law often without a basis in actual fact : TITULAR <a corporation is a legal but not a real person> c : established by law; especially : STATUTORY
3 : conforming to or permitted by law or established rules
4 : recognized or made effective by a court of law as distinguished from a court of equity
5 : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of the profession of law or of one of its members
6 : created by the constructions of the law <a legal fiction>
synonym see LAWFUL
- le·gal·ly /-g&-lE/ adverb

One entry found for justify.


Main Entry: jus·ti·fy
Pronunciation: 'j&s-t&-"fI
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -fied; -fy·ing
Etymology: Middle English justifien, from Middle French or Late Latin; Middle French justifier, from Late Latin justificare, from Latin justus
transitive senses
1 a : to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable b (1) : to show to have had a sufficient legal reason (2) : to qualify (oneself) as a surety by taking oath to the ownership of sufficient property
2 a archaic : to administer justice to b archaic : ABSOLVE c : to judge, regard, or treat as righteous and worthy of salvation
3 a : to space (as lines of text) so that the lines come out even at the margin b : to make even by justifying <justified margins>
intransitive senses
1 a : to show a sufficient lawful reason for an act done b : to qualify as bail or surety
2 : to justify lines of text


You can't have it both ways....if you can't be justified, then you can't be legalized

Thank You Captain Dictionary. I have one Too

ig·no·rant
adj.
1.Lacking education or knowledge.
2.Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3.Unaware or uninformed.

Based on Some of your lack of education on WW2 and other topics, Id say your either number 1 or number 3

I guess you don't have an understanding of:

1. Playing the Devil's Advocate
2. Sarcasm

As I recall Britain and perhaps Russia, asked for help on the Nazi problem way before 1941, but the US didn't want to get involved.

Not militarily but we did supply them with Armaments and other supplies. I'm not sure about the Soviets prior to our entry into the war though.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: smashp
There is no going back Because The actions We took were an extension of the Peace treaty Saddam Signed after iraq war part 1. We Were Justified, on paper atleast.

IT Was an optional War. That is the part you cannot grasp, Their is no returning Saddam to power, as he was and is a 'BAD' Man. Now if he was largely loved By his people, Their might be soom demand from Them to return their leader to power. But since the overwhelming majority of Iraqis hated him......who cares.

Yet, We Shall not let those who pulled us into this episode of american history Off easy for the manipulation of the public using Lies, fear, and patriotism to Suppress The VOICED opposition there was stating the Truth.

They must Pay the Piper and no longer deserve the power they have come so addicted to and use without moraloty or remourse.

You can't have it both ways.

You can't celebrate the ends while demonizing the means.

Who are we to judge Saddam as a "BAD" man when we can't judge our own intelligence correctly.

The war was either justified and right or illegal and wrong. Which is it?

The vocal minority hates Bush, yet what will you do if he is re-elected? Just because there is opposition to a war doesn't mean that a war should not take place.

The war was either right or it was wrong. History will ultimately decide.

Im not Celebrating the Ends. The End is a Far Far far far far ways away. no i stand by My argument. The War WAS LEGAL yet unjustified.

you can get a legal Search Warrant to Search a House for Drugs(used as Example) search the House, find no Drugs or any trace of them ever being there. This would be a unjustified search.

Capturing Saddam and his sons is like the Cops on the said above search finding an illegal automatic weapon. Yeah its illegal and you can arrest someone for it, BUT ITS NOT THE REASON YOU SEARCHED THE HOUSE.

From Websters:

Main Entry: 1le·gal
Pronunciation: 'lE-g&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin legalis, from leg-, lex law
1 : of or relating to law
2 a : deriving authority from or founded on law : DE JURE b : having a formal status derived from law often without a basis in actual fact : TITULAR <a corporation is a legal but not a real person> c : established by law; especially : STATUTORY
3 : conforming to or permitted by law or established rules
4 : recognized or made effective by a court of law as distinguished from a court of equity
5 : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of the profession of law or of one of its members
6 : created by the constructions of the law <a legal fiction>
synonym see LAWFUL
- le·gal·ly /-g&-lE/ adverb

One entry found for justify.


Main Entry: jus·ti·fy
Pronunciation: 'j&s-t&-"fI
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -fied; -fy·ing
Etymology: Middle English justifien, from Middle French or Late Latin; Middle French justifier, from Late Latin justificare, from Latin justus
transitive senses
1 a : to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable b (1) : to show to have had a sufficient legal reason (2) : to qualify (oneself) as a surety by taking oath to the ownership of sufficient property
2 a archaic : to administer justice to b archaic : ABSOLVE c : to judge, regard, or treat as righteous and worthy of salvation
3 a : to space (as lines of text) so that the lines come out even at the margin b : to make even by justifying <justified margins>
intransitive senses
1 a : to show a sufficient lawful reason for an act done b : to qualify as bail or surety
2 : to justify lines of text


You can't have it both ways....if you can't be justified, then you can't be legalized

Thank You Captain Dictionary. I have one Too

ig·no·rant
adj.
1.Lacking education or knowledge.
2.Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3.Unaware or uninformed.

Based on Some of your lack of education on WW2 and other topics, Id say your either number 1 or number 3

I guess you don't have an understanding of:

1. Playing the Devil's Advocate
2. Sarcasm

As I recall Britain and perhaps Russia, asked for help on the Nazi problem way before 1941, but the US didn't want to get involved.

Not militarily but we did supply them with Armaments and other supplies. I'm not sure about the Soviets prior to our entry into the war though.

Yes, I know we provided them with Arms...but didn't they want more? America to help out in the fight?

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: smashp
There is no going back Because The actions We took were an extension of the Peace treaty Saddam Signed after iraq war part 1. We Were Justified, on paper atleast.

IT Was an optional War. That is the part you cannot grasp, Their is no returning Saddam to power, as he was and is a 'BAD' Man. Now if he was largely loved By his people, Their might be soom demand from Them to return their leader to power. But since the overwhelming majority of Iraqis hated him......who cares.

Yet, We Shall not let those who pulled us into this episode of american history Off easy for the manipulation of the public using Lies, fear, and patriotism to Suppress The VOICED opposition there was stating the Truth.

They must Pay the Piper and no longer deserve the power they have come so addicted to and use without moraloty or remourse.

You can't have it both ways.

You can't celebrate the ends while demonizing the means.

Who are we to judge Saddam as a "BAD" man when we can't judge our own intelligence correctly.

The war was either justified and right or illegal and wrong. Which is it?

The vocal minority hates Bush, yet what will you do if he is re-elected? Just because there is opposition to a war doesn't mean that a war should not take place.

The war was either right or it was wrong. History will ultimately decide.

Im not Celebrating the Ends. The End is a Far Far far far far ways away. no i stand by My argument. The War WAS LEGAL yet unjustified.

you can get a legal Search Warrant to Search a House for Drugs(used as Example) search the House, find no Drugs or any trace of them ever being there. This would be a unjustified search.

Capturing Saddam and his sons is like the Cops on the said above search finding an illegal automatic weapon. Yeah its illegal and you can arrest someone for it, BUT ITS NOT THE REASON YOU SEARCHED THE HOUSE.

From Websters:

Main Entry: 1le·gal
Pronunciation: 'lE-g&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin legalis, from leg-, lex law
1 : of or relating to law
2 a : deriving authority from or founded on law : DE JURE b : having a formal status derived from law often without a basis in actual fact : TITULAR <a corporation is a legal but not a real person> c : established by law; especially : STATUTORY
3 : conforming to or permitted by law or established rules
4 : recognized or made effective by a court of law as distinguished from a court of equity
5 : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of the profession of law or of one of its members
6 : created by the constructions of the law <a legal fiction>
synonym see LAWFUL
- le·gal·ly /-g&-lE/ adverb

One entry found for justify.


Main Entry: jus·ti·fy
Pronunciation: 'j&s-t&-"fI
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -fied; -fy·ing
Etymology: Middle English justifien, from Middle French or Late Latin; Middle French justifier, from Late Latin justificare, from Latin justus
transitive senses
1 a : to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable b (1) : to show to have had a sufficient legal reason (2) : to qualify (oneself) as a surety by taking oath to the ownership of sufficient property
2 a archaic : to administer justice to b archaic : ABSOLVE c : to judge, regard, or treat as righteous and worthy of salvation
3 a : to space (as lines of text) so that the lines come out even at the margin b : to make even by justifying <justified margins>
intransitive senses
1 a : to show a sufficient lawful reason for an act done b : to qualify as bail or surety
2 : to justify lines of text


You can't have it both ways....if you can't be justified, then you can't be legalized

Thank You Captain Dictionary. I have one Too

ig·no·rant
adj.
1.Lacking education or knowledge.
2.Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3.Unaware or uninformed.

Based on Some of your lack of education on WW2 and other topics, Id say your either number 1 or number 3

I guess you don't have an understanding of:

1. Playing the Devil's Advocate
2. Sarcasm

As I recall Britain and perhaps Russia, asked for help on the Nazi problem way before 1941, but the US didn't want to get involved.

aaahhh but we were involved. We were suppling the largely isolated British islands with much needed googs and ammunition. hence Whay germany had attacked many of our merchant ships. Conservatives at Hope argued that it Was "Europes Problem" and wnated little or no involvement by FDR in the European Theater. We were to stay neutral, but really we werent. After pearl Harbor, FDR needed not to worry about the objections of the isolationists, as he had massive Public support, anger, and revenge on his side. We could Nowgive the Brits full Support without disquising it anymore.

WE were never neutral.


AAAHHH and Get this. If were Were really neutral, Ourr shipments of goods to England was Illegal but many would argue justified.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: smashp
There is no going back Because The actions We took were an extension of the Peace treaty Saddam Signed after iraq war part 1. We Were Justified, on paper atleast.

IT Was an optional War. That is the part you cannot grasp, Their is no returning Saddam to power, as he was and is a 'BAD' Man. Now if he was largely loved By his people, Their might be soom demand from Them to return their leader to power. But since the overwhelming majority of Iraqis hated him......who cares.

Yet, We Shall not let those who pulled us into this episode of american history Off easy for the manipulation of the public using Lies, fear, and patriotism to Suppress The VOICED opposition there was stating the Truth.

They must Pay the Piper and no longer deserve the power they have come so addicted to and use without moraloty or remourse.

You can't have it both ways.

You can't celebrate the ends while demonizing the means.

Who are we to judge Saddam as a "BAD" man when we can't judge our own intelligence correctly.

The war was either justified and right or illegal and wrong. Which is it?

The vocal minority hates Bush, yet what will you do if he is re-elected? Just because there is opposition to a war doesn't mean that a war should not take place.

The war was either right or it was wrong. History will ultimately decide.

Im not Celebrating the Ends. The End is a Far Far far far far ways away. no i stand by My argument. The War WAS LEGAL yet unjustified.

you can get a legal Search Warrant to Search a House for Drugs(used as Example) search the House, find no Drugs or any trace of them ever being there. This would be a unjustified search.

Capturing Saddam and his sons is like the Cops on the said above search finding an illegal automatic weapon. Yeah its illegal and you can arrest someone for it, BUT ITS NOT THE REASON YOU SEARCHED THE HOUSE.

From Websters:

Main Entry: 1le·gal
Pronunciation: 'lE-g&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin legalis, from leg-, lex law
1 : of or relating to law
2 a : deriving authority from or founded on law : DE JURE b : having a formal status derived from law often without a basis in actual fact : TITULAR <a corporation is a legal but not a real person> c : established by law; especially : STATUTORY
3 : conforming to or permitted by law or established rules
4 : recognized or made effective by a court of law as distinguished from a court of equity
5 : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of the profession of law or of one of its members
6 : created by the constructions of the law <a legal fiction>
synonym see LAWFUL
- le·gal·ly /-g&-lE/ adverb

One entry found for justify.


Main Entry: jus·ti·fy
Pronunciation: 'j&s-t&-"fI
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -fied; -fy·ing
Etymology: Middle English justifien, from Middle French or Late Latin; Middle French justifier, from Late Latin justificare, from Latin justus
transitive senses
1 a : to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable b (1) : to show to have had a sufficient legal reason (2) : to qualify (oneself) as a surety by taking oath to the ownership of sufficient property
2 a archaic : to administer justice to b archaic : ABSOLVE c : to judge, regard, or treat as righteous and worthy of salvation
3 a : to space (as lines of text) so that the lines come out even at the margin b : to make even by justifying <justified margins>
intransitive senses
1 a : to show a sufficient lawful reason for an act done b : to qualify as bail or surety
2 : to justify lines of text


You can't have it both ways....if you can't be justified, then you can't be legalized

Thank You Captain Dictionary. I have one Too

ig·no·rant
adj.
1.Lacking education or knowledge.
2.Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3.Unaware or uninformed.

Based on Some of your lack of education on WW2 and other topics, Id say your either number 1 or number 3

I guess you don't have an understanding of:

1. Playing the Devil's Advocate
2. Sarcasm

As I recall Britain and perhaps Russia, asked for help on the Nazi problem way before 1941, but the US didn't want to get involved.

Not militarily but we did supply them with Armaments and other supplies. I'm not sure about the Soviets prior to our entry into the war though.

Yes, I know we provided them with Arms...but didn't they want more? America to help out in the fight?

If it weren't for us Britian might not have survived the Battle of Britian. While we didn't have boots on the ground fighting we definately were helping Britian with their war effort.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Not militarily but we did supply them with Armaments and other supplies. I'm not sure about the Soviets prior to our entry into the war though.

We helped them as well. At one time the Soviet Air Force was pretty much nothing but leftover P39's and P40's we sent them. Damn 39 was useless to us but damn did the Russkies make a helluva tank buster out of it. We also sent them rifles, ammo, tanks, even a couple of ships, etc...

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Not militarily but we did supply them with Armaments and other supplies. I'm not sure about the Soviets prior to our entry into the war though.

We helped them as well. At one time the Soviet Air Force was pretty much nothing but leftover P39's and P40's we sent them. Damn 39 was useless to us but damn did the Russkies make a helluva tank buster out of it. We also sent them rifles, ammo, tanks, even a couple of ships, etc...

My father who is a WWII veteran often has mentioned the Mirmansk Run were we supplied the Soviets with thiose planes and other military supplies. He was a Navy Gunner on a Merchant Marine Ship but did his duty in the Pacific were there wasn't as big a threat from the Japanese Subs as there was in the North Atlantic from the German UBoat Wolfpacks. A lot of Merchant Marines lost their lives supplying both Britian and the Soviets due to the Uboats.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: smashp
There is no going back Because The actions We took were an extension of the Peace treaty Saddam Signed after iraq war part 1. We Were Justified, on paper atleast.

IT Was an optional War. That is the part you cannot grasp, Their is no returning Saddam to power, as he was and is a 'BAD' Man. Now if he was largely loved By his people, Their might be soom demand from Them to return their leader to power. But since the overwhelming majority of Iraqis hated him......who cares.

Yet, We Shall not let those who pulled us into this episode of american history Off easy for the manipulation of the public using Lies, fear, and patriotism to Suppress The VOICED opposition there was stating the Truth.

They must Pay the Piper and no longer deserve the power they have come so addicted to and use without moraloty or remourse.

You can't have it both ways.

You can't celebrate the ends while demonizing the means.

Who are we to judge Saddam as a "BAD" man when we can't judge our own intelligence correctly.

The war was either justified and right or illegal and wrong. Which is it?

The vocal minority hates Bush, yet what will you do if he is re-elected? Just because there is opposition to a war doesn't mean that a war should not take place.

The war was either right or it was wrong. History will ultimately decide.

Im not Celebrating the Ends. The End is a Far Far far far far ways away. no i stand by My argument. The War WAS LEGAL yet unjustified.

you can get a legal Search Warrant to Search a House for Drugs(used as Example) search the House, find no Drugs or any trace of them ever being there. This would be a unjustified search.

Capturing Saddam and his sons is like the Cops on the said above search finding an illegal automatic weapon. Yeah its illegal and you can arrest someone for it, BUT ITS NOT THE REASON YOU SEARCHED THE HOUSE.

From Websters:

Main Entry: 1le·gal
Pronunciation: 'lE-g&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin legalis, from leg-, lex law
1 : of or relating to law
2 a : deriving authority from or founded on law : DE JURE b : having a formal status derived from law often without a basis in actual fact : TITULAR <a corporation is a legal but not a real person> c : established by law; especially : STATUTORY
3 : conforming to or permitted by law or established rules
4 : recognized or made effective by a court of law as distinguished from a court of equity
5 : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of the profession of law or of one of its members
6 : created by the constructions of the law <a legal fiction>
synonym see LAWFUL
- le·gal·ly /-g&-lE/ adverb

One entry found for justify.


Main Entry: jus·ti·fy
Pronunciation: 'j&s-t&-"fI
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -fied; -fy·ing
Etymology: Middle English justifien, from Middle French or Late Latin; Middle French justifier, from Late Latin justificare, from Latin justus
transitive senses
1 a : to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable b (1) : to show to have had a sufficient legal reason (2) : to qualify (oneself) as a surety by taking oath to the ownership of sufficient property
2 a archaic : to administer justice to b archaic : ABSOLVE c : to judge, regard, or treat as righteous and worthy of salvation
3 a : to space (as lines of text) so that the lines come out even at the margin b : to make even by justifying <justified margins>
intransitive senses
1 a : to show a sufficient lawful reason for an act done b : to qualify as bail or surety
2 : to justify lines of text


You can't have it both ways....if you can't be justified, then you can't be legalized

Thank You Captain Dictionary. I have one Too

ig·no·rant
adj.
1.Lacking education or knowledge.
2.Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3.Unaware or uninformed.

Based on Some of your lack of education on WW2 and other topics, Id say your either number 1 or number 3

I guess you don't have an understanding of:

1. Playing the Devil's Advocate
2. Sarcasm

As I recall Britain and perhaps Russia, asked for help on the Nazi problem way before 1941, but the US didn't want to get involved.

aaahhh but we were involved. We were suppling the largely isolated British islands with much needed googs and ammunition. hence Whay germany had attacked many of our merchant ships. Conservatives at Hope argued that it Was "Europes Problem" and wnated little or no involvement by FDR in the European Theater. We were to stay neutral, but really we werent. After pearl Harbor, FDR needed not to worry about the objections of the isolationists, as he had massive Public support, anger, and revenge on his side. We could Nowgive the Brits full Support without disquising it anymore.

WE were never neutral.


AAAHHH and Get this. If were Were really neutral, Ourr shipments of goods to England was Illegal but many would argue justified.

Illegal to who? What governing body? There was no UN.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Not militarily but we did supply them with Armaments and other supplies. I'm not sure about the Soviets prior to our entry into the war though.

We helped them as well. At one time the Soviet Air Force was pretty much nothing but leftover P39's and P40's we sent them. Damn 39 was useless to us but damn did the Russkies make a helluva tank buster out of it. We also sent them rifles, ammo, tanks, even a couple of ships, etc...

My father who is a WWII veteran often has mentioned the Mirmansk Run were we supplied the Soviets with thiose planes and other military supplies. He was a Navy Gunner on a Merchant Marine Ship but did his duty in the Pacific were there wasn't as big a threat from the Japanese Subs as there was in the North Atlantic from the German UBoat Wolfpacks. A lot of Merchant Marines lost their lives supplying both Britian and the Soviets due to the Uboats.

Everyone always forgets the Huge role Merchant Marines played in WW2. Nothing could be worse than being surrounded by enemy subs with no warning or defensive measure.

 

[shiner]

This thread is quickly turning into nested quote hell.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
This thread is quickly turning into nested quote hell.

Well it was started by a troll asking a trollish question!

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: shinerburke
This thread is quickly turning into nested quote hell.

Well it was started by a troll asking a trollish question!

Its not a trollish question..its an honest question...

one that I think should be asked in a debate.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: shinerburke
This thread is quickly turning into nested quote hell.

Well it was started by a troll asking a trollish question!

Oh..and thanks for the personal attack

 

[Gaard]

For one not willing to answer questions asked, you sure do a lot of asking yourself.

link

 

[EagleKeeper]

If you are willing to look at turning back the clock, then how far back should you go.
Blame/punish Bush, absolve Saddam of all wrongs, give back Kuwait to Iraq, restore the Taliban to power.
How much of the damage to Iraq came from it's own population.

You may be a US Citizen, therefore Bush answers to you. By inference, you are to blame.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Gaard
For one not willing to answer questions asked, you sure do a lot of asking yourself.

link

I actually did anwer the question...just had to find Kerry's testimony before congress