quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Repeat Point

Yes, we knew this 50 pages ago.

If everyone stops encouraging him maybe he will go back to his Mortal Kombat game and we won't have to listen to 50 more pages of his drivel.

Repeat Point

No, you assumed that then, based solely on your disagreement with my assessment, and on my refusal to "give up." You need to do what you preach before you tell someone not to do something. This is just one more response that I was "encouraged" to make. Again, I've never played Mortal Combat. My "video game" consist of destroying people like you on these forums, an easy task as you seem to type as if your one brain celled operation is too focused on trying to take you over rather than generating something intelligent for you to say.

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

thompsonx: I find your reading of the ucmj articles on mutiny to extend to violence against the opposition to be pretty funny especially for one who claims to be part of the military.

My reading of the UCMJ is spot on. You have to read the article, which is a LAW with the intent of the law. Interpreting that intention, based on COMMON LAW, will give you a very good indication as to what that article meant. It's nothing like what you do, where you take their article on mutiny out of context. My using the violence against the hadji was my poking fun at your line of reasoning.

Your lack of military experience painfully shows with that statement.

So in your military it is ok for enlisted men to punch out officers as long as they actually follow his orders and punching out the enemy is prohibited?
You do not seem to know very much about how the military really works.

thompson: It addresses your contention that it is ok for enlisted men to assault officers. REPEAT POINT + RED HERRING + STRAW MAN

This is both a repeat point, and a red herring statement. You attempted to use the "mutiny" article to argue against the scenario that I mentioned, where an officer got knocked on his ass for people getting killed/hurt as a result of a stupid order he gave. The mutiny article addresses people that 'refused' to follow orders. In my scenario, people followed orders. The later is a key ingredient that was needed for the scenario to play out.

It's also a strawman argument. This is where you're claiming that I'm arguing something, then turning around and arguing against what you think I'm arguing, rather than what I'm actually arguing.

You should see your antiques for what they are: You being unable to argue against my argument; so you take my argument out of context, claim that I made a "certain" argument, then argue against what you thought I said... as this is "easier" for you to do, and it gives you a false sense of "still" being in the fight.

Your arguement seems pretty clear...you believe that enlisted men have a right to beat up officers with impunity.

thompson: No it speaks volumes about your lack of knowledge of how the military works. Do you really expect anyone on the boards who has been in the military to believe that you can punch out an officer and not find out what the inside of the brig looks like? REPEAT POINT

WRONG! Your failure to accept my challenge speaks volumes about your lack of confidence of what you say.

Again, what you're describing only happens in the PERFECT WORLD. Something else happens in the real world:

Things like that happen, and whether this ends up through the legal channels or not is up to the chain of command. But there are other ways to instill discipline, they work from informal verbal, serious verbal, written, corrective training, and so on. Depending on the situation, taking the UCMJ route is an option when all other methods failed. In many of these cases, going straight to taking UCMJ action reflects a failure in leadership.

THAT'S how the REAL military works. If you were a veteran, you'd know that.

Only the millitary that exists in your mind

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

The United Nations was created to address symmetrical warfare, NOT asymmetrical warfare. The United Nations had no laws that addressed asymmetrical warfare. Our removing Saddam Hussein was an act of asymmetrical warfare. Since the United Nations didn't have any rules covering asymmetrical warfare, there were no rules for us to break; HENCE, we didn't commit an outlaw act.

Contrary to your puerile opinion of the purpose of the u.n.
This is from their charter.


The Purposes of the United Nations are:
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

We all realize how important you think you are as a member of your high school debate team but you really need to address facts and not your opinion of what is and is not.

AGAIN, their charter addresses symmetrical warfare, NOT asymmetrical warfare.


That is clearly your opinion but could you please show us just where in the u.n. charter it speaks of "symetrical warfare"? Just because you choose to see a difference you expect everyone else to agree with you.


What you quoted was said in context of a symmetrical war, like World War II, not an asymmetrical war, like what we're involved with now.

The facts, quoted in blue within your quote, still stands, despite your opinion that it isn't.

They are your opinions not anyone's facts




Nowhere in what you quoted, from the United Nations, did I see something that addressed an asymmetrical warfare issue. Not only am I addressing the facts, I'm also giving you the facts.

Your "facts" are simply your opinion.

The only thing you've done here is continue your straw man, red herring tactics and shoot move tactics... you're constantly shifting your topic and addressing what you THINK I'm addressing rather than what I'm actually addressing.


I have addressed your contention that it is ok for enlisted men to punch out officers as long as they actually follow the officers orders.
I have addressed your contention that your squid daddy spent six years in country as bullshit.
I have addressed your contention that there were weapons of mass destruction based on your contention that two ieds which did not work had some degraded bio-agent.
I have addressed your contention that the anglo-amerikan bombing actually caused damage to the iraqi infrastructure and that it was not falling down from lack of maintainence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

My dad did six combat tours in Vietnam. He started as UDT, then became one of the original SEALS.

Of course he did just like jessie ventura.

Unlike my dad's service, your service is as phony as your arguments here.

quote:

Is it your position that halliburton is not in iraq or afghanistan and is not making any money there?

What I'm saying here is that you're wrong in your assumptions that Halliburton is conducting reconstruction in Iraq. They're an oil/energy company, they're not in the business of providing logistics services to the military, or to reconstruct countries. They're in the business of working with energy sources. They sold KBR on the account that it wasn't doing much in bringing revenues to their coffers from Iraq. THAT'S the CRUXS of our argument with regards to Halliburton, as related to your claims that I was doing good for your "Halliburton Stocks." You insinuate that Halliburton is involved with wholesale reconstruction, and I've argued... based on their website, that they're an energy company, and that they're not involved with Iraq the way you say they are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

thompsonx: and the destruction of billions of dollars of infrastructure for REPEAT POINT

The vast majority of the infrastructure decay took place as a result of decades of neglect, not because of the US invasion of Iraq. Our entry into Iraq resulted in reversing that trend, and in rebuilding their infrastructure. Though some of their cities have power outages, these outages don't last long. They spend more time with electricity than without... something that couldn't have been said for these same towns prior to the invasion.

Is it your position that iraq's infrastructure was falling down and the bombing was just a form of urban renewal?

I was countering your drivel about our invasion destroying Iraq, when most the decay people see in its infrastructure resulted from the fact that Iraq went through decades of infrastructure decay. Our attacks were precision, we didn't destroy indiscriminately, just what was needed to take our target out. Iraq's infrastructure was in a serious state of disrepair long before we invaded. I've also argued that after we invaded, we did a lot more in building that country up than what we destroyed going after our targets.


Who did that building?

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

-- thank god we are at war- we preserve that Detroit quality of life.

We want to preserve Detroit- and those other people are a threat to our Detroit way of life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

-- thank god we are at war- we preserve that Detroit quality of life.

We want to preserve Detroit- and those other people are a threat to our Detroit way of life.

Get some help.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

FFS 

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

Well he is patriotic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

Well he is patriotic.

Patriotic and moronic are not synonyms.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

Well he is patriotic.

Patriotic and moronic are not synonyms.

So do you see how he is a JPM asset?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

Jesus, you guys.  You're just arguing in circles.  You will never, ever agree with each other.

Can't you take it to a chat room?  With a video chat room you could even see the size of each other's appendages.

I would much rather look at your appendages than his...care to share

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

Jesus, you guys.  You're just arguing in circles.  You will never, ever agree with each other.

Can't you take it to a chat room?  With a video chat room you could even see the size of each other's appendages.

I would much rather look at your appendages than his...care to share