• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

A response to the Bush is War Criminal Claim

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
First of all when making such a serious accusation against a U.S. president during wartime I would hope that the author would have a bit more evidence than the three vacant and non descript statements which had been mentioned in the post. That being said the war was not illegal because by all rights we could have invaded Iraq after Hussein violated the first of the U.N. resolutions, keep in mind that we were in a state of war with Iraq since 1991 and that the armistice was signed based on the contingent of Saddam's good behavior. Oh, and as far as war criminals are concerned let us consider old uncle Saddam's gassing of the Kurds, as well as, his illegal invasions of both Kuwait and Kurdistan. Furthermore, let us, for the sake of argument, say that the sovereignty of Iraq had been violated without just cause and was infact a violation of international law (big hypothetical here o.k.). Now, sovereignty and international law is much kinder to tyrants and despots than it is to democracies, probably due to the authors of the aforementioned International Law, the U.N., being an organization which is dominated by tyrants and despots, so that being said Saddam Hussein took power by force and for his entire reign he ruled by force and intimidation, so, by what moral right did he have to rule Iraq? None! So how would it be possibly considered a crime by any rational observer that the U.S. or any outside power remove Saddam from power by force?
 
Last edited:

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by Trajan Octavian Titus:
First of all when making such a serious accusation against a U.S. president during wartime I would hope that the author would have a bit more evidence than the three vacant and non descript statements which had been mentioned in the post. That being said the war was not illegal because by all rights we could have invaded Iraq after Hussein violated the first of the U.N. resolutions, keep in mind that we were in a state of war with Iraq since 1991 and that the armistice was signed based on the contingent of Saddam's good behavior. Oh, and as far as war criminals are concerned let us consider old uncle Saddam's gassing of the Kurds, as well as, his illegal invasions of both Kuwait and Kurdistan. Furthermore, let us, for the sake of argument, say that the sovereignty of Iraq had been violated without just cause and was infact a violation of international law (big hypothetical here o.k.). Now, sovereignty and international law is much kinder to tyrants and despots than it is to democracies, probably due to the authors of the aforementioned International Law, the U.N., being an organization which is dominated by tyrants and despots, so that being said Saddam Hussein took power by force and for his entire reign he ruled by force and intimidation, so, by what moral right did he have to rule Iraq? None! So how would it be possibly considered a crime by any rational observer that the U.S. or any outside power remove Saddam from power by force?
Did you happen to catch the CNN report last night on the lies Bush told leading up to the war? Don't you think attacking a country, that did nothing to us, is wrong? You ought to know about being wrong, here's what the UN has to say regarding your comments on the UN Resolutions:

Iraq War was Illegal and Breached U.N. Charter, Says Annan
By Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger
The Guardian U.K.

Thursday 16 September 2004

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.

Mr. Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."


http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/091704D.shtml
The Kuwait monarchy is no democracy either. They are an oppresive regime that we fought to put back in power. So why are there some tyrannical dictators that are OK, and some that are not? And do we have the sole right to make the decision on how they should be treated?
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
To Billo

The soul choice should not be ours alone to make but yes we do have the right to act unnilaterally should it be in our nations best interests! Why?, because as the worlds soul super power we have the moral obligation to kill genocidal maniacs, such as, Saddam Hussein. Is it our job to police the world? Unfortunately, I will have to give a large unapologetic yes to that question. I'm a firm believer in American exceptionalism, there is no moral equivalency b/w the U.S. and rogue states led by tyrants, we have the moral high ground and with such we have the right, nay, the obligation to remove tyrants like Saddam from power. I believe also in the Wilsonian principles that are the basis of the supra national organization now known as the U.N. These Wilsonian principles which state that corrupt institutions are the problem and not the people that reside under said institutions but when the U.N. is dominated by the very despots who embody these corrupt institutions and when their views and actions differ from ours is it not then our responsibility to act unilaterally?
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I am still unclear here. Someone explain to me what the president did that makes him a war criminal? Other then getting bad data, and moving on it. Or is that the entire complaint?
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Calm2Chaos said:
I am still unclear here. Someone explain to me what the president did that makes him a war criminal? Other then getting bad data, and moving on it. Or is that the entire complaint?

Knee-jerk reactions...nothing more....

When Clinton lied to a grand jury and got himself in trouble, some took it as "open season" to attack anybody for anything...

It's "you put our guy in a world of crap, so were going to put your guy in a world of crap"...:roll:
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
cnredd said:
Knee-jerk reactions...nothing more....

When Clinton lied to a grand jury and got himself in trouble, some took it as "open season" to attack anybody for anything...

It's "you put our guy in a world of crap, so were going to put your guy in a world of crap"...:roll:

Isn't that pretty much par for the course with the dems these days. Don't who, how or why let just get the president. Thought there was an actual reason. I think this fall into the same pathetic pile as the "illegal war" :rofl
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Calm2Chaos said:
Isn't that pretty much par for the course with the dems these days. Don't who, how or why let just get the president. Thought there was an actual reason. I think this fall into the same pathetic pile as the "illegal war" :rofl

REPORTER: Why do you think about the color of the sky?
DEMOCRAT: What did President Bush say about it?
REPORTER: He said it's "blue".
DEMOCRAT: Well then I'll say "green"
 

sargasm

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
63
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
cnredd said:
REPORTER: Why do you think about the color of the sky?
DEMOCRAT: What did President Bush say about it?
REPORTER: He said it's "blue".
DEMOCRAT: Well then I'll say "green"

hahaha what a brilliantly funny political satire
 

americanwoman

dangerously addictive
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
28,439
Reaction score
22,382
Location
Somewhere over the rainbow
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Re:

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Why?, because as the worlds soul super power we have the moral obligation to kill genocidal maniacs, such as, Saddam Hussein. Is it our job to police the world? QUOTE]


Umm --shouldn't we be in Africa then??
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re:

americanwoman said:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Why?, because as the worlds soul super power we have the moral obligation to kill genocidal maniacs, such as, Saddam Hussein. Is it our job to police the world? QUOTE]


Umm --shouldn't we be in Africa then??

OOOOO so if you can't do everything all at once don't do anything at all. I see how it works. So it's isolationism or nothing. We could be a lot of place, but we can't be in al of them at the same time
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by Trajan Octavian Titus:
The soul choice should not be ours alone to make but yes we do have the right to act unnilaterally should it be in our nations best interests! Why?, because as the worlds soul super power we have the moral obligation to kill genocidal maniacs, such as, Saddam Hussein. Is it our job to police the world? Unfortunately, I will have to give a large unapologetic yes to that question. I'm a firm believer in American exceptionalism, there is no moral equivalency b/w the U.S. and rogue states led by tyrants, we have the moral high ground and with such we have the right, nay, the obligation to remove tyrants like Saddam from power. I believe also in the Wilsonian principles that are the basis of the supra national organization now known as the U.N. These Wilsonian principles which state that corrupt institutions are the problem and not the people that reside under said institutions but when the U.N. is dominated by the very despots who embody these corrupt institutions and when their views and actions differ from ours is it not then our responsibility to act unilaterally?
I respect your right to have your own opinion. And I have no intention of argueing against someone's belief system. But I will say, I don't agree with you. And as you surf some of these threads, you will see why.
 

santini63

New member
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think removing Saddam was the right thing to do. I do think that the President was wrong for going to war with him because of WMD's. Was there some there when we invaded? I think it is possible but who knows. I think the President was wrong in the way he appealed to the American people to take out Saddam. He should have said we are doing it to stop him because he is a tyrant and because of WMD's. I think wmd's was over played. Yet, I am happy that we are there.

Ok, the idea that why are we in Iraq and not another 10+ countries is simple. As someone stated before we do not have the resources. Look at China and North Korea. They both have wmd's and their leaders are tyrants. Ok, so if someones principal is why Iraq and not them then I say you are right. They are just as bad as Saddam. Now since we can agree on that issue, lets go and invade their country and over throw them. Wait, you will more than likely not want to go and fight because a lot of Americans will die and that is not worth it to you. I think people need to find better reasons than to say, hey, what about the other counries. Whose to say we are not headed that way?

Ask yourself this. If you were driving home today from work and you see someone getting assaulted would you continue to drive and say, well that's not my fight, or it doesn't effect me? If you are like me, you will call the police and stop and do somethin to help another person. Iraq is really not that much different. People try to complicate things. There are rules that go for everyone no matter what your ethnicity or religion. You kill or hurt innocent people you will have to face the consequence.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Re:

americanwoman said:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Why?, because as the worlds soul super power we have the moral obligation to kill genocidal maniacs, such as, Saddam Hussein. Is it our job to police the world? QUOTE]


Umm --shouldn't we be in Africa then??

Which country is the only one who has recognized what is going on in the Sudan as genocide? I'll give you a hint it wasn't the French LMFAO! It wasn't your beloved U.N. which has been overrun by the same sort of genocidal maniacs that now control the African continent and the Mid-East! The only country to recognize the horrible death in Sudan as genocide is the U.S. Powell said it . . . Powell the man who should be the next president of the U.S. And ya we should go in their but not while the libs are making us fight the war on terror with one hand tied behind our backi! G.D. right that's terrorism and we should send in a peace keeping force . . . laughing at myself now " a peace keeping force," that's an oxy moron if I've ever heard one.
 

ban.the.electoral.college

Progressive, Green
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
998
Reaction score
0
Location
Maryland, U.S.A.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: To Billo

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
The soul choice should not be ours alone to make but yes we do have the right to act unnilaterally should it be in our nations best interests! Why?, because as the worlds soul super power we have the moral obligation to kill genocidal maniacs, such as, Saddam Hussein. Is it our job to police the world? Unfortunately, I will have to give a large unapologetic yes to that question. I'm a firm believer in American exceptionalism, there is no moral equivalency b/w the U.S. and rogue states led by tyrants, we have the moral high ground and with such we have the right, nay, the obligation to remove tyrants like Saddam from power. I believe also in the Wilsonian principles that are the basis of the supra national organization now known as the U.N. These Wilsonian principles which state that corrupt institutions are the problem and not the people that reside under said institutions but when the U.N. is dominated by the very despots who embody these corrupt institutions and when their views and actions differ from ours is it not then our responsibility to act unilaterally?

If you believed in Wilsonian Principles & The U.N., Then you would believe in multilateral intervention rather than unilateral.

Bush is a criminal, and war criminal, not to mention a disgrace to our nation.


Feast for a moment, on this brief timeline:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
- Dick Cheney, August 26 2002

"If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world."
- Ari Fleischer, December 2 2002

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
- Ari Fleischer, January 9 2003

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."
- Colin Powell, February 5 2003

"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes."
- Ari Fleischer, March 21 2003

"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them."
- Gen. Tommy Franks, March 22 2003

"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."
- Donald Rumsfeld, March 30 2003

"I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found."
- Ari Fleischer, April 10 2003

"There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country."
- Donald Rumsfeld, April 25 2003

"I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction."
- Colin Powell, May 4 2003

These are the words of administration officials who were following orders and the party line. It has been axiomatic for quite a while now that the people behind the scenes, and not the Main Man Himself, are running the ways and means of this administration. Harken back to the campaign in 2000, when the glaring deficiencies in ability and experience displayed by George W. Bush were salved by the fact that a number of heavy hitters would be backstopping him. Yet a Democrat named Harry Truman once said, "The buck stops here." What did the man in receipt of said stopped buck have to say on the matter?

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
- George W. Bush, September 12 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
- George W. Bush, State of the Union address, January 28 2003

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
- George Bush, February 8 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
- George Bush, March 17 2003

"We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them."
- George Bush, April 24 2003


"We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so."
- George Bush, May 3 2003


"I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program."
- George W. Bush, May 6 2003
SOURCE
 
Last edited:

ban.the.electoral.college

Progressive, Green
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
998
Reaction score
0
Location
Maryland, U.S.A.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re:

americanwoman said:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Why?, because as the worlds soul super power we have the moral obligation to kill genocidal maniacs, such as, Saddam Hussein. Is it our job to police the world? QUOTE]


Umm --shouldn't we be in Africa then??

Absolutely. Among other places.
 

ultra conservative

New member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You Are Right, I Have An Example To Add To Yours.
A Little Boy Notices That His Friend Next Door Goes To School With A Black Eye And His Father Tells Him Not To Worry Abut It. He Sees His Friend Get Hit By His Father In A Drunken Rage,he Tells His Father But His Father Tells Him Not To Worry About It. He Sees His Friends Mother Get Kicked By His Friends Father,he Tells His Dad And Again He Says Not To Worry About. Later That Day He Hears Several Gun Shots Coming From His Friends Houde And His Father Again Says,don't Worry About It. This Is The Same Attitude That Un Patriotic Liberals Have.
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by santini63:
I think removing Saddam was the right thing to do.
It was also the illegal thing to do. Don't you believe in obeying the law?
 

ban.the.electoral.college

Progressive, Green
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
998
Reaction score
0
Location
Maryland, U.S.A.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
ultra conservative said:
You Are Right, I Have An Example To Add To Yours.
A Little Boy Notices That His Friend Next Door Goes To School With A Black Eye And His Father Tells Him Not To Worry Abut It. He Sees His Friend Get Hit By His Father In A Drunken Rage,he Tells His Father But His Father Tells Him Not To Worry About It. He Sees His Friends Mother Get Kicked By His Friends Father,he Tells His Dad And Again He Says Not To Worry About. Later That Day He Hears Several Gun Shots Coming From His Friends Houde And His Father Again Says,don't Worry About It. This Is The Same Attitude That Un Patriotic Liberals Have.

Do not confuse dissent with lack of patriotisim. For that is what this nation was founded on.

"It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad." James Madison

"Distrust and caution are the parents of security" Ben Franklin
 

kal-el

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Am I unpatriotic because I question the acts of our leader? The fact is this Administration's policies have left America more isolated and less secure, our public finances crippled, our people less secure financially and less healthy, our children poorly educated, our scientific progress stunted, our wealth in fewer hands (the rich are getting richer, the poor getting poorer), our federal courts are packed with right-wing judges, not to mention our corporations are free to excape taxation, while they are free to polute the air and water, and lie to consumers. And all this for decades to come.
 
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
394
Reaction score
0
Yep concidering the past of American there support of hussien and other opressive regimes. The he was a bad guy thing is just laughable. Like all wars this is about money.
 
R

rees

santini63 said:
I think removing Saddam was the right thing to do. I do think that the President was wrong for going to war with him because of WMD's. Was there some there when we invaded? I think it is possible but who knows. I think the President was wrong in the way he appealed to the American people to take out Saddam. He should have said we are doing it to stop him because he is a tyrant and because of WMD's. I think wmd's was over played. Yet, I am happy that we are there.

Ok, the idea that why are we in Iraq and not another 10+ countries is simple. As someone stated before we do not have the resources. Look at China and North Korea. They both have wmd's and their leaders are tyrants. Ok, so if someones principal is why Iraq and not them then I say you are right. They are just as bad as Saddam. Now since we can agree on that issue, lets go and invade their country and over throw them. Wait, you will more than likely not want to go and fight because a lot of Americans will die and that is not worth it to you. I think people need to find better reasons than to say, hey, what about the other counries. Whose to say we are not headed that way?

Ask yourself this. If you were driving home today from work and you see someone getting assaulted would you continue to drive and say, well that's not my fight, or it doesn't effect me? If you are like me, you will call the police and stop and do somethin to help another person. Iraq is really not that much different. People try to complicate things. There are rules that go for everyone no matter what your ethnicity or religion. You kill or hurt innocent people you will have to face the consequence.


I agree.

nefarious_plot "Yep concidering the past of American there support of hussien and other opressive regimes. The he was a bad guy thing is just laughable. Like all wars this is about money."

for example, i think that the U.S president is no different then most poeple who won't let an innocent woman being held at gunpoint,...no matter the distance... it may be true for certain wars in the long history of wars that it may be about money, but i highly doubt Bush for example, went to war on Iraq because of the money...if you saw an innocent woman at gunpoint, would you ignore it?...even if you had the power to stop it? its only natural to want to help strangers, even if they are in other countries, if they were being oppressed etc.. atleast natural for a person with good morals.

all about the money?

from what i understand, having a war costs serious amount of money....certain wars even caused inflation, depression..etc in their own country while trying to help another...
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally Posted by santini63
I think removing Saddam was the right thing to do. I do think that the President was wrong for going to war with him because of WMD's. Was there some there when we invaded? I think it is possible but who knows. I think the President was wrong in the way he appealed to the American people to take out Saddam. He should have said we are doing it to stop him because he is a tyrant and because of WMD's. I think wmd's was over played. Yet, I am happy that we are there.
You seem to have a little more introspection ability than the average neo. However, regime change is against International Law. So the invasion was an illegal act of aggression by this country.

Originally Posted by santini63
Ok, the idea that why are we in Iraq and not another 10+ countries is simple. As someone stated before we do not have the resources. Look at China and North Korea. They both have wmd's and their leaders are tyrants. Ok, so if someones principal is why Iraq and not them then I say you are right. They are just as bad as Saddam. Now since we can agree on that issue, lets go and invade their country and over throw them. Wait, you will more than likely not want to go and fight because a lot of Americans will die and that is not worth it to you. I think people need to find better reasons than to say, hey, what about the other counries. Whose to say we are not headed that way?
Are you saying we are going to invade China? Do you know that if it wasn't for the fact that they are holding billions of US dollars this economy would be in serious trouble? I'm not even going to argue how wrong the notion of American Empire is.

Originally Posted by santini63
Ask yourself this. If you were driving home today from work and you see someone getting assaulted would you continue to drive and say, well that's not my fight, or it doesn't effect me? If you are like me, you will call the police and stop and do somethin to help another person. Iraq is really not that much different. People try to complicate things. There are rules that go for everyone no matter what your ethnicity or religion. You kill or hurt innocent people you will have to face the consequence.
There's a big difference. This mugging is in our country, not there's.
 

thoracle

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2005
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re:

americanwoman said:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Why?, because as the worlds soul super power we have the moral obligation to kill genocidal maniacs, such as, Saddam Hussein. Is it our job to police the world? QUOTE]


Umm --shouldn't we be in Africa then??
Hey, I'm on your side, Trajan, but that's a good damn point.
 

thoracle

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2005
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Billo_Really said:
You seem to have a little more introspection ability than the average neo. However, regime change is against International Law. So the invasion was an illegal act of aggression by this country.

Are you saying we are going to invade China? Do you know that if it wasn't for the fact that they are holding billions of US dollars this economy would be in serious trouble? I'm not even going to argue how wrong the notion of American Empire is.

"There's a big difference. This mugging is in our country, not there's.
"You seem to have a little more introspection ability than the average neo. However, regime change is against International Law. So the invasion was an illegal act of aggression by this country."

You know International law doesn't apply to us.

"Are you saying we are going to invade China? Do you know that if it wasn't for the fact that they are holding billions of US dollars this economy would be in serious trouble? I'm not even going to argue how wrong the notion of American Empire is."

No, we're going to Nuke bomb China, when it comes down to it. Ground invasion would be stupid, too costly. They just hold paper. Our wealth is this country, this Army and that new oil spiggot we just bought in the middle east. Someone is going to run all of this ***** someday in the not-too-distant future. I unabashedly vote for us, not any of the thems.

"There's a big difference. This mugging is in our country, not there's."

That is the triple-Lundy of evasive answers.
 
Top Bottom