2
   

"Bush falls victim to a bad new argument for the Iraq war."

Forums: Politics, Iraq, Fallacies
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 02:46 pm
Brandon: Do you believe that the laws of nations applies equally to all nations? If so, when, in your opinion, does an assassination attempt on a head of state justify war against the assassin's country?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 02:49 pm
OH MY GOD . . . we bombed Lybia, and targeted Mallomar Got-Daffy's residence . . . what if the Lybians join the Venezuelans, Chileans and Cubans ? ! ? ! ?


The sky is falling, the sky is falling ! ! !

-- C. Little, date of attribution unknown




Damn, i crack me up . . .
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 02:54 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Well, then we simply have differring positions. I believe that an attempt to assassinate our president gives us the right to take military action against another country and you do not. Enough said.

Then you won't mind when Iran invades the US, right?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 02:55 pm
The Iranians, too ? ! ? ! ?

Where will it all end ? ! ? ! ?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 03:01 pm
I've heard that Mexican troops are already on US soil .... but you really should fear Grenada (and don't forget Honduras - 5 times!)
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 03:05 pm
Thomas wrote:
Brandon: Do you believe that the laws of nations applies equally to all nations? If so, when, in your opinion, does an assassination attempt on a head of state justify war against the assassin's country?

Yes. How could it possibly be thought to not justify armed response? Whether someone can accomplish such a counter attack or not is a separate question. I should add that merely talking about assassinating some leader does not justify such retaliation, but actually attempting the assassination does.

That buzzing sound you hear is various people asking me whether I think this or that country has the right to invade the US. They are, it seems to me, rendering their own opinion that an attempt to assassinate our president does not, in fact, justify us, in attacking the responsible country. I find that to be a completely absurd position.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 03:12 pm
Yes what? Do you mean: "Yes, the law of nations applies equally to all nations"?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 03:17 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Brandon: Do you believe that the laws of nations applies equally to all nations? If so, when, in your opinion, does an assassination attempt on a head of state justify war against the assassin's country?

Yes. How could it possibly be thought to not justify armed response? Whether someone can accomplish such a counter attack or not is a separate question. I should add that merely talking about assassinating some leader does not justify such retaliation, but actually attempting the assassination does.

That buzzing sound you hear is various people asking me whether I think this or that country has the right to invade the US. They are, it seems to me, rendering their own opinion that an attempt to assassinate our president does not, in fact, justify us, in attacking the responsible country. I find that to be a completely absurd position.


Remember when I mentioned "proportionality" earlier.

Don't you think the response should be proportional to the provocation?

A response...retaliation....seems reasonable.

But AN INVASION????

C'mon Brandon. You are smarter than this.

You overstated the case...but by now you must see that "invasion" considering the provocation involved...is way out of the question.

And I suspect that is one of the reasons we seldom (perhaps never) heard it mentioned as one of the reasons we were mounting our invasion. (Not that you have inferred that it was a reason.)
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 05:31 pm
bm
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 07:58 pm
Lol they'll be lining up to invade the US if trying to, or helping to, assassinate leaders is a justifiable criterion for invasion. In fact, if the US really believes that, then you should simply surrender now.


Cuba, Chile, the Congo, Iran, a goodly portion of the rest of South America....that's just off the top of my head as countries where the US is guilty in various degrees re assassination of leaders.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Sep, 2005 02:08 pm
A quite new side of Brandon. He actually argues that numerous countries around the world would have the RIGHT to invade the US...

Better not let the DHS notice that, Brandon.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Sep, 2005 02:18 pm
old europe wrote:
A quite new side of Brandon. He actually argues that numerous countries around the world would have the RIGHT to invade the US...

Better not let the DHS notice that, Brandon.

Yes, certainly any attempt by one nation to assassinate the leader of another justifies military retaliation. How could anyone think otherwise? This is elementary.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Sep, 2005 02:23 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
old europe wrote:
A quite new side of Brandon. He actually argues that numerous countries around the world would have the RIGHT to invade the US...

Better not let the DHS notice that, Brandon.

Yes, certainly any attempt by one nation to assassinate the leader of another justifies war. How could anyone think otherwise? When we invaded Japan in WW2, they were justifed in trying to invade us back; they were simply unable. When the prison guards take a death row inmate who is guilty as sin to the execution chamber, he certainly has the right to fight back to try to preserve his life. This is elementary.


Of course you pull out the old WWII scenario. You refuse to adress issues like, e.g., the assassination of Chile's democratically elected leader by the US government.

On the other hand, Chile was unable to fight back. So I guess your point is "Might Makes Right"?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Sep, 2005 02:24 pm
Oh, I see you edited your post after I replied. Sorry for that. Want to address the topic, though?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Sep, 2005 02:25 pm
old europe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
old europe wrote:
A quite new side of Brandon. He actually argues that numerous countries around the world would have the RIGHT to invade the US...

Better not let the DHS notice that, Brandon.

Yes, certainly any attempt by one nation to assassinate the leader of another justifies war. How could anyone think otherwise? When we invaded Japan in WW2, they were justifed in trying to invade us back; they were simply unable. When the prison guards take a death row inmate who is guilty as sin to the execution chamber, he certainly has the right to fight back to try to preserve his life. This is elementary.


Of course you pull out the old WWII scenario. You refuse to adress issues like, e.g., the assassination of Chile's democratically elected leader by the US government.

On the other hand, Chile was unable to fight back. So I guess your point is "Might Makes Right"?

Thanks for putting words in my mouth which I totally disagree with. My point should be quite obvious. I will try to express it with a question to you. Country A attempts to assassinate the leader or country B. Are you actually maintaining that country B then does NOT possess the right to respond militarily?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Sep, 2005 02:26 pm
old europe wrote:
Oh, I see you edited your post after I replied. Sorry for that. Want to address the topic, though?

I edited my post before you replied as far as I knew.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Sep, 2005 02:30 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Thanks for putting words in my mouth which I totally disagree with. My point should be quite obvious. I will try to express it with a question to you. Country A attempts to assassinate the leader or country B. Are you actually maintaining that country B then does NOT possess the right to respond militarily?


Wait. You say "country B HAS the right to invade country A", yet you said "alas, they (Japan) didn't have the means to fight back". Sounds like "Might Makes Right" to me.

Nevertheless, assuming you disagree with that position, your argument is that Chile totally has the right to invade the US?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Sep, 2005 02:32 pm
old europe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Thanks for putting words in my mouth which I totally disagree with. My point should be quite obvious. I will try to express it with a question to you. Country A attempts to assassinate the leader or country B. Are you actually maintaining that country B then does NOT possess the right to respond militarily?


Wait. You say "country B HAS the right to invade country A", yet you said "alas, they (Japan) didn't have the means to fight back". Sounds like "Might Makes Right" to me.

Nevertheless, assuming you disagree with that position, your argument is that Chile totally has the right to invade the US?

Why are you afraid to answer my question? It is a yes or no question.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Sep, 2005 02:38 pm
bm
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Sep, 2005 02:49 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
old europe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Thanks for putting words in my mouth which I totally disagree with. My point should be quite obvious. I will try to express it with a question to you. Country A attempts to assassinate the leader or country B. Are you actually maintaining that country B then does NOT possess the right to respond militarily?


Wait. You say "country B HAS the right to invade country A", yet you said "alas, they (Japan) didn't have the means to fight back". Sounds like "Might Makes Right" to me.

Nevertheless, assuming you disagree with that position, your argument is that Chile totally has the right to invade the US?

Why are you afraid to answer my question? It is a yes or no question.


Because I didn't realize you had already answered my question, but again:

I you're saying that the assassination (or even attempted assassination) of one's country's leader is justification for invasion, would that apply to all countries, and if yes, would that specifically apply to the case of e.g. Chile? Or would it only theoratically justify invasion, in a Darwinist way, provided the attacked country had to means to invade the attacking country?

But to answer your question and stop you whining: Yes, I believe a response would be appropriate. A military response? Not necessarily. An invasion and occupation of the attacking country? I don't think so. By doing so, you value the the life of one person (assassinated head of state) higher than the lifes of all the innocent people that would die in the course of an invasion.

Your turn, Branny. Awaiting your answers, and no sorry "you didn't answer my questions" games, if I may say so.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND - Discussion by Foxfyre
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night? - Question by maxdancona
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
What should be first on the agenda of the winner in November? - Discussion by Frank Apisa
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » "Bush falls victim to a bad new argument for the Iraq war."
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/10/2025 at 12:10:15
▲ ▼