Is Violence Ever Necessary?

[Goobieman]

This isn't the issue. Were not talking about when and how the Supremacy Clause was used. Were talking about a treaty we broke that we had ratified.

And YOU are arguing that through the supremacy clause, the Federal gvmnt is bound to that treaty.

For your argument to stick, you need to show where the SC has ever been held to be a restriction on the actions of the Fed gvmnt.

I see your point and I am not going to dispute the validity of it.

Because you cannot.
Your argument is fatally flawed, and you do not have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

 

[MSgt]

Because you cannot.
Your argument is fatally flawed, and you do not have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

See what I mean Billo? There's no need to "prove" anything. Enough people have encountered your posts and your inconsistencies. It's more of an expectation anymore.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Goobieman
And YOU are arguing that through the supremacy clause, the Federal gvmnt is bound to that treaty.

For your argument to stick, you need to show where the SC has ever been held to be a restriction on the actions of the Fed gvmnt.

I take it your not someone who stands by their word. And you think agreements are made to be broken. That's the kind of reputation you want this country to have.

I don't appreciate you trying to change the subject because you have an agenda and you care what others have to say. This isn't about the supremacy clause. I used that as an example to show the the GC was just as much our law as it is International Law. But you seem to want to advocate picking and choosing just what laws are convenient to follow. It doesn't work that way.

Originally posted by Goobieman
Because you cannot.
Your argument is fatally flawed, and you do not have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

Why don't you have the intellectual honesty to see my point. Your whole premise is flawed because your trying to turn this into an issue that we were not discussing.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GySgt:
See what I mean Billo? There's no need to "prove" anything. Enough people have encountered your posts and your inconsistencies. It's more of an expectation anymore.

Why do you think they are inconsistant if you can't state how you came to this conclusion?

 

[Goobieman]

I take it your not someone who stands by their word. And you think agreements are made to be broken. That's the kind of reputation you want this country to have.

This is completely irrelevant when discussing your clain that the war is illegal because of the supremacy clause. You are diverting and deflecting the issue because you know your original point has been broken and you do not have the imtelectual honesty to admit it.

I don't appreciate you trying to change the subject because you have an agenda

As the desert said to the grain of sand.
First, you argue that the war is illegal because of Article VI of the US Constitution.
When that doesnt work, you try to change the subject to "reputation".

This isn't about the supremacy clause. I used that as an example to show the the GC was just as much our law as it is International Law.

And you are wrong, as has been demonstated by your complete inability to show how the supremacy clause has ever been held to mean what you say it means.

But you seem to want to advocate picking and choosing just what laws are convenient to follow.

Again:
Your interpretation of Article VI is unsupportable -- and yet you absolutely refuse to admit it, and continue to try to make your argument stick.

Why don't you have the intellectual honesty to see my point.

Because you dont have a leg to stand on.

Your whole premise is flawed because your trying to turn this into an issue that we were not discussing.

YOU claimed that the war was illegal according to US law, not me.
Now that you have been called on it, you;re doing everything you can to keep from having to admit that YOU ARE WRONG.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Goobieman:
YOU claimed that the war was illegal according to US law, not me.
Now that you have been called on it, you;re doing everything you can to keep from having to admit that YOU ARE WRONG.

Does the Constitution say that any treaty we ratify is to be treated just as much as law as the Constitution itself? Does it say this or not? I'm not wrong, but you are ridiculous.

 

[Goobieman]

Does the Constitution say that any treaty we ratify is to be treated just as much as law as the Constitution itself?

AS APPLIED TO THE STATES. THEIR LAWS, CONSTITUTIONS AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS.

The Supremacy Clause creates a limitation on the actions of the states, not the Fed gvmnt.

AGAIN:
I DEFY you to show where there supremacy clause has been held to be a limitation on federal actions. Unless you can show this to be the case, your argument here holds NO water.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Goobieman:
AS APPLIED TO THE STATES. THEIR LAWS, CONSTITUTIONS AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS.

The Supremacy Clause creates a limitation on the actions of the states, not the Fed gvmnt.

AGAIN:
I DEFY you to show where there supremacy clause has been held to be a limitation on federal actions. Unless you can show this to be the case, your argument here holds NO water.

So by your train of thought, we would not have had to repeal prohibition back in the early thirties. All we would have had to do is just start drinking again. Is this how you view a law? Whichever one you deem inconvenient, you just stop obeying it without any fanfare.

I never said Congress didn't have the power to change the status of a treaty. But once it was ratified, they would have to officially repeal it before they stopped complying with it.

 

[Lizai]

Here is an interesting, simple poll I thought of. Is violence ever necessary? When would it be necessary?

Simple questions are often the most thought-provoking. That being said, I think there are definitely some situations in which violence is necessary. I mean, just to come up with an example, if someone comes after you in a dark alley, it's not going to do you much good to try and convince them to calm down and talk about this rationally; there won't be time. Your throat would most likely be slit before you get the chance to complete your thought.

 

[Goobieman]

So by your train of thought, we would not have had to repeal prohibition back in the early thirties. All we would have had to do is just start drinking again. Is this how you view a law? Whichever one you deem inconvenient, you just stop obeying it without any fanfare.

I never said Congress didn't have the power to change the status of a treaty. But once it was ratified, they would have to officially repeal it before they stopped complying with it.

Translation:
You cannot show that the Supremacy Clause limits the actions of the fed Gvmnt; because you canmnot show this, your claim that the war in Iraq is illegal is WRONG. You know this and you simply do not have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Gooberman:
Translation:
You cannot show that the Supremacy Clause limits the actions of the fed Gvmnt; because you canmnot show this, your claim that the war in Iraq is illegal is WRONG. You know this and you simply do not have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

You need to stop dropping acid and get back on topic.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Meh......Your whines and lies are numerous and scattered throughout the site. On eonly has to look where you claimed American victims in Iraq numbered 100,000. Then 50,000. Then 30,000. "

I must admit I don't know how many we've killed in Iraq. I've heard all three of those figures from different , fairly reliable, sources. It's just an educated estimate since we don't count enemy and civilian casualties.

 

[DeeJayH]

I must admit I don't know how many we've killed in Iraq. I've heard all three of those figures from different , fairly reliable, sources. It's just an educated estimate since we don't count enemy and civilian casualties.

swallow that kool-aid all day long
it is nothign more than the bs of the anti war left
throw out a number and see if it sticks

 

[Goobieman]

You need to stop dropping acid and get back on topic.

Translation:
You're wrong.

Thanks for the admission.
Understand that every time I see you talk about the "illegal" war in Iraq I will remind you how wrong you are.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Goobieman:
Translation:
You're wrong.

Thanks for the admission.
Understand that every time I see you talk about the "illegal" war in Iraq I will remind you how wrong you are.

I disagree. In fact, you can't find one international lawyer that will come out and say this war is legal. Not one.

 

[Goobieman]

I disagree. In fact, you can't find one international lawyer that will come out and say this war is legal. Not one.

Tell us, again:

When has the Supremacy Clause been held to restrict the actions of the Fed Gvmnt?

Thanks.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Goobieman:
Tell us, again:

When has the Supremacy Clause been held to restrict the actions of the Fed Gvmnt?

Thanks.

I'm not going to let you change the subject. The issue is not the Supremacy Clause. The issue is that the US violated the law by attacking a country that was not a threat. Your whole arguement is flawed by the plain text in the Constitution. However, you can't see that because you got a head as big as a basketball to try and hold that immense ego of yours. Even the example your trying to use is bullshit because the authorization came 1) after Bush had started bombing Iraq and 2) faulty intel was used to obtain permission.

We violated Article 51 of the UN Charter and the basic principles of the Nuremburg tribunals.

before the end of 1946, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted Resolution 95 (1), affirming “the principles of International Law recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the judgment of the Tribunal.” And, of course, the United Nations Charter forbids armed aggression and violations of the sovereignty of any state by any other state, except in immediate self defense (Article 2, Sec. 4 and Articles 39 and 51).

Invoking the precedent set by the United States and its allies at the Nuremberg trial in 1946, there can be no doubt that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a war of aggression. There was no imminent threat to U.S. security nor to the security of the world. The invasion violated the U.N. Charter as well as U.N. Security Council Resolution #1441.

The Nuremberg precedent calls for no less than the arrest and prosecution of those individuals responsible for the invasion of Iraq, beginning with President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

Those who still justify the invasion of Iraq would do well to remember the words of Justice Jackson: “Our position is that whatever grievances a nation may have, however objectionable it finds the status quo, aggressive warfare is an illegal means for settling these grievances or for altering these conditions.”

And, for those who have difficulty visualizing American leaders as defendants in such a trial, Justice Jackson’s words again: “...(L)et me make clear that while this law is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose it must condemn, aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in judgment...This trial represents mankind’s desperate effort to apply the discipline of the law to statesmen who have used their powers of state to attack the foundations of the world’s peace and to commit aggression against the rights of their neighbors.”

 

[Goobieman]

I'm not going to let you change the subject. The issue is not the Supremacy Clause. The issue is that the US violated the law by attacking a country that was not a threat.

What law did the US violate?

Your whole arguement is flawed by the plain text in the Constitution.

Wait... I thought this wasn't about the supremacy clause?
The plain text you refer to does not limit the actions of the Federal gvmnt.

However, you can't see that because you got a head as big as a basketball to try and hold that immense ego of yours.

Pot, meet kettle.

We violated Article 51 of the UN Charter and the basic principles of the Nuremburg tribunals.

\
According to you. That doesnt mean much.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Goobieman:
What law did the US violate?

This is encouraging, now were having a conversation. The answer is in the link below.

Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan

Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday September 16, 2004
The Guardian

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.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1305709,00.html

Originally posted by Goobieman:
Wait... I thought this wasn't about the supremacy clause?
The plain text you refer to does not limit the actions of the Federal gvmnt.

Again, the issue is not about the supremacy of the federal government over states. It is about the fact that we broke a treaty that we ratified. Which makes it a law that we broke. We didn't repeal the law before we broke it. Which is really a minor issue when compared to the fact that we cannot be trusted on the subject of treaties anymore. No more moral high ground for us.

Originally posted by Goobieman:
Pot, meet kettle.

I'll be pot, you be kettle.

Originally posted by Goobieman:
According to you. That doesnt mean much.

Nor would it if you just so happened to agree with me.

 

[dragonslayer]

I do believe that sometimes there is no alternative but violence, not just on a national level, but on community and even personal level. If I was in situation where I needed to use violence to protect my children and grandchildren. I am capable of using extreme, even lethal violence to protect them. Same for my country and community. I am a gun owner and very loyal and hard working democrat. I am also a christian. Bush and NeoCons are abominations that beckons back to Hitler, Stalin, Sadam Hussein and Idi Amin.

HEY WORLD LOOK WHAT I AM BRINGING YOU ON THE POINT OF MY BAYONET. ===== DEMOCRACY. AND GREED.

 

[Goobieman]

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

The US gonvernment decalres that it is legal.
So what?
If the war is illegal, where is/was the push for a UNSC resolution condeming it?
Like when Iraq invaded Kuwait?
Oh, there isnt one?
So much for your argument.

Again, the issue is not about the supremacy of the federal government over states. It is about the fact that we broke a treaty that we ratified. Which makes it a law that we broke.

Treaties are not law.
They are agreements, contracts if you will, between states.
You arent breakng the law if you break one of these contracts, as these contracts do not create law.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Goobieman:
The US gonvernment decalres that it is legal.
So what?
If the war is illegal, where is/was the push for a UNSC resolution condeming it?
Like when Iraq invaded Kuwait?
Oh, there isnt one?
So much for your argument.

I have asked myself this question many times. In my opinion, this is the only valid example that the war is legal. Although it doesn't prove it, it does make things more convoluted.

Originally posted by Goobieman:
Treaties are not law.
They are agreements, contracts if you will, between states.
You arent breakng the law if you break one of these contracts, as these contracts do not create law.

Can you read? What does this say? I'll tell you I don't see the word "agreement" anywhere in this text.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

How can you possibly interpet this any other way? This says it's a law! Not an "agreement", a law.

 

[Goobieman]

I have asked myself this question many times. In my opinion, this is the only valid example that the war is legal. Although it doesn't prove it, it does make things more convoluted.

I'll tell you why:
The war isnt illegal.
At least not according to the UN, the body that you say says its illegal.

Can you read? What does this say? I'll tell you I don't see the word "agreement" anywhere in this text.

Laws are greated by legislation or by decree.
Treaties are neither. They are agreements. They are not law.

How can you possibly interpet this any other way? This says it's a law! Not an "agreement", a law.

Until you can show that the Supremacy clause has ever been heed to limit the actions of the federal gvmnt, your argument here is meaningless.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Goobieman:
Until you can show that the Supremacy clause has ever been heed to limit the actions of the federal gvmnt, your argument here is meaningless.

At least you have finally admitted to seeing my point. Even though it is meaningless in your eyes, you had to understand, it in order to assign some value to it. I'll leave it there, for now.

 

[Goobieman]

At least you have finally admitted to seeing my point. Even though it is meaningless in your eyes, you had to understand, it in order to assign some value to it. I'll leave it there, for now.

What an idiotic response. I've been hammering you on your unsupportable interpretation of the Supremacy Clause for weeks.

You cannot support ytour argument in the face of directed, reasoned criticism. Your argument is unsound.