President Bush: Is He a Liar?

Brandon9000 wrote:

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Did you even read what I said? It's one thing to try to refute my position, but another to repeat it inaccurately after it's been stated clearly.

<snip>

However, if they attempted to assasinate former president Bush, and simply were unlucky and were foiled at an early stage, then we would certainly be justified in invading them for that alone.

Nah. Just trying to understand your position. You're establishing some general rules here, and I'm trying to see what merit they have.

Okay. So let's say Cuba was justified to invade the USA. Now, let's for the sake of this discussion assume that Cuba was a military superpower with a population of 290 million, and the USA were a small but wealthy country, a democracy with a population of, uh, 15 million.

Now, if Cuba was to invade the USA - would Americans have the right to fight back, even after the goverment was toppled and a new form of government had been introduced? Would they have the right to kill Cuban soldiers? If Americans would be allowed to fight back, what means would they have the right to employ?

I refuse to allow you to evade your losing position by opening up new lines of discussion. If country X tries to kill the ruler or a past ruler of country Y, country Y is justified in attacking country X as a response. Do you agree or disagree?

It's the same line of discussion. I assume you refuse to answer the question becaus don't like the road your "moral priniciples" lead you down.

I will answer your question when you answer mine.

I am correct. If you disagree then state the flaw in my logic.

xingu wrote:

I don't care if Saddam wanted to assissnate Bush or not. That is not a reason to invade Iraq.

How many times have we tried to kill Castro? I suppose it's alright for us to try to kill other nations leaders but it's a sin if they do it to us.

If country X tries to assasinate a present or former national leader of country Y, then country Y has a perfect right to respond by going to war with country X. Whether Y has the ability to do so successfully is another matter. I believe this is true no matter which two countries are involved. I shall ignore the usual stupid questions asking me to clarify this opinion.

What about that list of targets of assassination bids by the CIA, acting on presidential orders that David wants us to insert? We could start with the bid on Chou en Lai's life after the Bandung Conference in 1954; move on to the disposal in 1960 of Iraq's Kassim by the Ba'athists helped into power by the CIA, then to the efforts, ultimately successful in 1961 to kill the Congo's Patrice Lumumba Lumumba, in which the CIA was intimately involved; to the Kennedy years saw similar implication in the murder of the Diem brothers in Vietnam and the first of many well attested efforts to assassinate Fidel Castro; almost certainly to Omar Torrijos of Panama, downed in an air crash; to the Reagan White House's the carefully planned effort to bomb Muammar Q'addafi to death in his encampment in 1986.

In his Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II Bill Blum has a long and interesting list starting in 1949 with Kim Koo, Korean opposition leader, going on to efforts to kill Sukarno, President of Indonesia, Kim Il Sung, Premier of North Korea, Mohammed Mossadegh, Claro M. Recto (the Philippines opposition leadr), Jawaharlal Nehru, Gamal Abdul Nasser, Norodom Sihanouk, José Figueres, Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier, Gen. Rafael Trujillo, Charles de Gaulle, Salvador Allende, Michael Manley, Ayatollah Khomeini, the nine comandantes of the Sandinista National Directorate, Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, Lebanese Shiite leader (80 people killed in the attempt), Mohamed Farah Aideed, prominent clan leader of Somalia, Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I am correct. If you disagree then state the flaw in my logic.

Logic? What logic?

You claim that the intention to kill one person justifies waging war and in return killing thousands of innocent people.

Is that the logic you are referring to?

(You have to be precise when using big words such as "my logic"...)

Brandon9000 wrote:

xingu wrote:

I don't care if Saddam wanted to assissnate Bush or not. That is not a reason to invade Iraq.

How many times have we tried to kill Castro? I suppose it's alright for us to try to kill other nations leaders but it's a sin if they do it to us.

If country X tries to assasinate a present or former national leader of country Y, then country Y has a perfect right to respond by going to war with country X. Whether Y has the ability to do so successfully is another matter. I believe this is true no matter which two countries are involved. I shall ignore the usual stupid questions asking me to clarify this opinion.

If that's the case then there are a lot of countries that have the "right" to attack us.

Quote:

What about that list of targets of assassination bids by the CIA, acting on presidential orders that David wants us to insert? We could start with the bid on Chou en Lai's life after the Bandung Conference in 1954; move on to the disposal in 1960 of Iraq's Kassim by the Ba'athists helped into power by the CIA, then to the efforts, ultimately successful in 1961 to kill the Congo's Patrice Lumumba Lumumba, in which the CIA was intimately involved; to the Kennedy years saw similar implication in the murder of the Diem brothers in Vietnam and the first of many well attested efforts to assassinate Fidel Castro; almost certainly to Omar Torrijos of Panama, downed in an air crash; to the Reagan White House's the carefully planned effort to bomb Muammar Q'addafi to death in his encampment in 1986.

In his Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II Bill Blum has a long and interesting list starting in 1949 with Kim Koo, Korean opposition leader, going on to efforts to kill Sukarno, President of Indonesia, Kim Il Sung, Premier of North Korea, Mohammed Mossadegh, Claro M. Recto (the Philippines opposition leadr), Jawaharlal Nehru, Gamal Abdul Nasser, Norodom Sihanouk, José Figueres, Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier, Gen. Rafael Trujillo, Charles de Gaulle, Salvador Allende, Michael Manley, Ayatollah Khomeini, the nine comandantes of the Sandinista National Directorate, Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, Lebanese Shiite leader (80 people killed in the attempt), Mohamed Farah Aideed, prominent clan leader of Somalia, Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein.

SOURCE

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I am correct. If you disagree then state the flaw in my logic.

Logic? What logic?

You claim that the intention to kill one person justifies waging war and in return killing thousands of innocent people.

Is that the logic you are referring to?

(You have to be precise when using big words such as "my logic"...)

Yes, exactly. I feel that if one country attempts to assasinate a present or former leader of another, the latter has the right to use military force in response. You do not. Enough said.

Brandon9000 wrote:

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I am correct. If you disagree then state the flaw in my logic.

Logic? What logic?

You claim that the intention to kill one person justifies waging war and in return killing thousands of innocent people.

Is that the logic you are referring to?

(You have to be precise when using big words such as "my logic"...)

Yes, exactly. I feel that if one country attempts to assasinate a present or former leader of another, the latter has the right to use military force in response. You do not. Enough said.

That directly contradicts your earlier statement. Iraq NEVER made an attempt to try to assassinate any US President. There was a plot but NO ATTEMPT.

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I am correct. If you disagree then state the flaw in my logic.

Logic? What logic?

You claim that the intention to kill one person justifies waging war and in return killing thousands of innocent people.

Is that the logic you are referring to?

(You have to be precise when using big words such as "my logic"...)

Yes, exactly. I feel that if one country attempts to assasinate a present or former leader of another, the latter has the right to use military force in response. You do not. Enough said.

Brandon9000 wrote:

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I am correct. If you disagree then state the flaw in my logic.

Logic? What logic?

You claim that the intention to kill one person justifies waging war and in return killing thousands of innocent people.

Is that the logic you are referring to?

(You have to be precise when using big words such as "my logic"...)

Yes, exactly. I feel that if one country attempts to assasinate a present or former leader of another, the latter has the right to use military force in response. You do not. Enough said.

Interesting argument. How would you apply this in the case of the successful (not merely attempted) assassination of nearly the entire leadership structure of Hamas by Israel? Palestinians would then have full justification to use military force in response?

advocate

I think you refer to Hezbollah and Lebanon. In Palestine, Israel has had a targeted assassination policy in place for some years now which has successfully eliminated many top leaders.

I was merely pointing to Brandon's simplism and inconsistency in moral argumentes...

but in my book...

Brandon9000

Quote:

but in my book...

Are your books written by the same authors as our Presidents ?

freedom4free wrote:

Brandon9000

Quote:

but in my book...

Are your books written by the same authors as our Presidents ?

A wisecrack is not an argument. I'm aware of the fact that some people try to advance their views by distractions. You have anything on topic to say?

blatham wrote:

advocate

I think you refer to Hezbollah and Lebanon. In Palestine, Israel has had a targeted assassination policy in place for some years now which has successfully eliminated many top leaders.

I was merely pointing to Brandon's simplism and inconsistency in moral argumentes...

Neither of which you've been able to demonstrate. I'll tell you what. If some country tries to assasinate your Prime Minister, you can turn the other cheek, but in my book, you'd have the right to retaliate.

Notice that fewer and fewer members are even responding to Brandon's broken record rhetoric (actually Brandon's drivel doesn't even rach the level of rhetoric.) He has lost any semblance of credibility.