Saddam's On the Clock
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Monday, January 5, 2026 22:02
VIEWED: 13324
PAGE 8 of 16
Quote:Very apt, if you were a law student conducting a law exercise in 16th century England. Unfortunatly you are not, perhaps you should remove your confusion to the correct meaning of the words you use before using them, thus removing any possibillity of confusion by those who properly use the Queens English, eh old chap. Thanks ever so.
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
It is moot, because moot means debatable, not inconsequential or wrong as you'd like it too mean I suspect, and in that case you're point is also moot, that is open to debate.
Sorry citizen, this is how I was using the word:
moot:
1. Law. Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled.
2. Of no practical importance; irrelevant.
Hope any confusion on your part is cleared up.
I also notice the somewhat convient forgetting of a link, here I'll add one for you:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moot
which includes the meaning of the word in the contexual arrangment that you used:
1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.
Open to discussion or debate. As I said.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Clinton?
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Where, exactly, in your world, AU, does the buck stop? Who is the person in charge of what happens in the White House, or is it no-one?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Heh, Citizen. Good one.
GWB could have directly said "imminent threat," hell, could have said "Saddam will kill us all tomorrow" while clubbing baby seals with burning redwood branches and it somehow would have been all Clinton's fault.
It's sad that after all this crap since GWB took office that there are still some folks who think that way.
------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:AURaptor, if we acted (i.e.: went to war) BEFORE Iraq became an "imminent threat," then we went to war in violation of interantional law. Either the Bush Admin. claimed Iraq was an imminent threat, falsely, to goad us into war, or they did not, and the war in Iraq was pure adventurism.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
...what he really said is that we must act BEFORE Iraq becomes one.
It is against international law to attack a sovereign nation that is NOT an "imminent threat" to your own. Either we went to war under the false pretenses of Iraq being an "imminent threat" (it was not) or we went to war without proper provocation. Either way, Rap, the war was illegal. Either the Congress is at fault for giving Bush permission to wage his unjustified war, or the Bush Admin. is at fault for promoting a lie--or both!
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Thanks HK, that was precise, and incontrovertible, except that logic and facts have no place when peeps are defending their ideas of reality. They will find some way to distract from what you said, or twist it, or question your patriotism or whatever.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
It is against international law to attack a sovereign nation that is NOT an "imminent threat" to your own. Either we went to war under the false pretenses of Iraq being an "imminent threat" (it was not) or we went to war without proper provocation. Either way, Rap, the war was illegal. Either the Congress is at fault for giving Bush permission to wage his unjustified war, or the Bush Admin. is at fault for promoting a lie--or both!
Happy New Year, btw!!!!
*New Year's resolution to self: Talk to AURaptor only about Buffy and Angel, we agree in fantasy worlds
*Happy New Year to everyone Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Either the Congress is at fault for giving Bush permission to wage his unjustified war, or the Bush Admin. is at fault for promoting a lie--or both!
Lets not forget the UN. They used ambiguous language in that last resolution that could be interpreted as authorization to use force.
We said we'd attack, they said we could "act" they knew and chose not to proscribe the acts they did or didn't approve of. I'd say it all falls on them...and France.
I think we can all agree that France is the real problem here.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Wrong. You're forgetting the UN sanctions, as well as the cease fire agreement with Iraq, from the 1st Gulf war.
AURaptor, if we acted (i.e.: went to war) BEFORE Iraq became an "imminent threat," then we went to war in violation of interantional law.
Quote:It didn't, and the fact is that Iraq failed to live up to its obligations, per the UN and said cease fire agreements.
Either the Bush Admin. claimed Iraq was an imminent threat, falsely, to goad us into war, or they did not, and the war in Iraq was pure adventurism.
Quote:As far as it was the UN is concerned, it was legal. Has there been any sanctions against the US for the war w/ Iraq? No.
It is against international law to attack a sovereign nation that is NOT an "imminent threat" to your own. Either we went to war under the false pretenses of Iraq being an "imminent threat" (it was not) or we went to war without proper provocation. Either way, Rap, the war was illegal. Either the Congress is at fault for giving Bush permission to wage his unjustified war, or the Bush Admin. is at fault for promoting a lie--or both.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The US is a permenant member of the UN council. How, pray tell is it supposed to put sanctions on one of it's permenant members. I doubt the UN could put effective sanctions on the US if you guys dropped a Nuclear weapon on Paris.
As far as it was the UN is concerned, it was legal. Has there been any sanctions against the US for the war w/ Iraq? No.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So Auraptor, who makes international law? The UN? The USA?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I doubt the UN could put effective sanctions on the US if you guys dropped a Nuclear weapon on Paris.
C'mon, even you'd like it if we did that !
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME