Question for the left and right:

If the Right cannot define victory in Iraq because victory is such a vague concept, how is defeat not equally a vague concept, i.e., something that the Left cannot define?

Quote:

You must have missed this the first time I wrote it:

The only "victory" that is both possible and favorable, then, would be for the US to withdraw its forces from Iraq immediately and attempt to repair the damage for which it is responsible. Any other outcome would be a defeat.

In other words you define defeat by the simple fact that we are in Iraq in the first place- just like I said.

Who's to say that your interpretation of the case law is the correct interpretation?

Care to give some examples as to when, where and why international disputes were settled by arbitration before 1787?

And if submitting a dispute to international arbitration was our only recourse for dealing with foreign nations, we could not be a sovereign nation because we would have always been dependent upon and subject to the whims of other nations.

Yes it does. By definition crimes committed on the high seas are not committed within the jurisdiction of any nation since no nation has sovereignty over the high seas. Thus piracy has nothing to do with statutory international law. But Article I gives the Congress the power to make statutory international law.

Even if this is true, the Constitution does not limit offenses against the law of nations to piracy and felonies committed on the high seas. Congress can and does decide what other actions violate the law of nations.

I don't see where the Constitution denies such power to other nations. Every nation must have this power in order to maintain their individual sovereignty. But then the idiots on the Left don't want the U.S. to have any sovereignty.

As an interesting aside, I ran across an article on what race the ancient Egyptians were... seems they were a melting pot, too: http://www.catchpenny.org/race.html

flaja wrote:

If the Right cannot define victory in Iraq because victory is such a vague concept, how is defeat not equally a vague concept, i.e., something that the Left cannot define?

I never said the Right couldn't define "victory." I said that the Bush administration has been unable to define "victory."

dagmaraka wrote:

As an interesting aside, I ran across an article on what race the ancient Egyptians were... seems they were a melting pot, too: http://www.catchpenny.org/race.html

Meaning that they were not all black Africans as the Left would have us believe.

Meaning that they were not all black Africans as the Left would have us believe.

Foofie wrote:

The need to retort on every thought, including whether "I get out much" is beyond my level of comfort.

Then stop telling lies and partial truths. You give the impression that no Protestant has ever had both German and British ancestry. This is absolutely untrue.

I have German and British ancestry and I am a Protestant.

My mother's father had German and British ancestry and his family were Protestants.

H. Norman Schwarzkopf is Protestant, but his mother was a descendant of Thomas Jefferson, thus H. Norman Schwarzkopf has both German and British ancestry.

Dwight Eisenhower had German ancestry on his father's side and partial British ancestry on his mother's side, but Eisenhower was Protestant.

The Queen of England has both British and German ancestry, but she's a Protestant.

Quote:

I retract everything I've posted in this thread. But you should agree that if you believe the "Moses story," he was raised in the Royal Court of the Pharohs who were Black Africans at that time.

Your documentation for these black-African Egyptians is what?

Quote:

Hebrews were a people of color at that point in history. And, they lightened up somewhere, but let's not argue that point, since I don't want to offend any of your Teutonic sensitivities.

The Jews are a subset of Israelites, since not all of the descendants of Jacob are Jews. When King Solomon died his son and successor raised taxes to the point that 10 of the tribal components of his kingdom rebelled and created their own kingdom. This new kingdom was known as Israel, while the original kingdom became the Kingdom of Judah. Judah consisted of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin with a portion of the Levites. The people of the Kingdom of Judah became the Jews.

Furthermore, the Israelites were likely a subset of the Hebrews so not ever Hebrew has been an Israelite or a Jew.

And the Israelite tribes stemmed from at least 4 different women and only two of these tribes came from full-blooded brothers- Joseph and Benjamin, who were both sons of Rachel. The other Israelite tribes came from Rachel's sister Leah and an assortment of surrogate mothers drawn from the two sisters' handmaids. And then Joseph's two sons were born of an Egyptian mother and they each became separate tribes in their own right- there was no tribe of Joseph when it came time to distribute the land of Canaan to the Israelites.

dagmaraka wrote:

As an interesting aside, I ran across an article on what race the ancient Egyptians were... seems they were a melting pot, too: http://www.catchpenny.org/race.html

Meaning that they were not all black Africans as the Left would have us believe.

What the hell does all this ancestry stuff have to do with victory in Iraq. Are we not all basically the same.

But, victory in Iraq may be beyond anyone's capabilites, since Iraqis are having the same problem as this thread.

So let me see if i've got this right: Ancient Egyptian black Africans have had a leftwing conspiracy, literally for millennia, to ship your children to the West Coast of North America to be indoctrinated as homosexuals? Did i leave anything out?

flaja wrote:

dagmaraka wrote:

As an interesting aside, I ran across an article on what race the ancient Egyptians were... seems they were a melting pot, too: http://www.catchpenny.org/race.html

Meaning that they were not all black Africans as the Left would have us believe.

How can you seriously type something like this?

Is 'the left' a boogeyman, which represents all that you don't like or agree with?

Cycloptichorn