Benghazi...oh you knew it was coming

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

My feelings are not hurt in the slightest, but I just think you have acted poorly. I will not act for the Mods nor ask for their help. They can see and do as they see fit.

You though should know better and I hope everyone that reads this thread just sees you a little more as the sly weasel that that you are.

I raised a number of points in this thread and you answered none. It is because you couldn't. You are a silly young man who pretends to know something about the world, but has never lived beyond his own home state. You haven't a clue.

---

Points like what? Citizens in other nations being killed in a WAR ZONE? Yeah that has NEVER happened before :rolleyes:. "Illegal wars"...VC just nailed you on that bullshit!...What do you want to ask me miles, go ahead....I'm listening

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

Quote:

---

I also find VC quite hilarious with his pompous spiel about there being no
such thing as an illegal or legal war. So American. Of course it cannot be illegal if it is us doing it! Just as the lunatic Israeli's believe settlement building is nothing more than putting up trees in the park, it is America's god given right to inflict manifest destiny upon any nation should the whim to do so set in. 'Legality, no such thing'. Invade who you want when you want and see how that plays out if you are not of the annointed nations.

---

There isn't anything pompous about my post. There is not a legal precedent for when war is allowed or not. I think you confuse international law on how war is conducted with a non-existant legal basis to go to war. This is true for all countries not just the US and I never said different if you had any ability at objectivity you'd have realized that. We've had this conversation before and you were never able to provide the international legal binding document that prescribed when military action is "legal" or the legal body that rules on such things and typically resorted to threatening me with bodily harm. The act of going to war is a lot of things but it is not a matter of legality.

---

Oh dear. Typical American again.

A war of aggression is illegal post WW2. Vietnam was illegal, Iraq was certainly illegal. America does not have the right to leave all rulings meaningless just because US lawyers say it is so. It is an absurd notion though Van Childs clearly studied at an American University and thus America should have a free pass here on after. I imagine Van Childs studied at a good wholesome US university.

I see Lyle is now telling me to go to school. Told by a SOLDIER that AMERICA can basically do what it wants. Oh, I am so schooled by world opinion. Erm, in my face!

Lyle of course, never had a word to say back to me at any point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Oh dear. Typical American again.

A war of aggression is illegal post WW2. Vietnam was illegal, Iraq was certainly illegal. America does not have the right to leave all rulings meaningless just because US lawyers say it is so. It is an absurd notion though Van Childs clearly studied at an American University and thus America should have a free pass here on after. I imagine Van Childs studied at a good wholesome US university.

I see Lyle is now telling me to go to school. Told by a SOLDIER that AMERICA can basically do what it wants. Oh, I am so schooled by world opinion. Erm, in my face!

Lyle of course, never had a word to say back to me at any point.

---

Ooooh miles, you're sooo unbiased

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

My feelings are not hurt in the slightest, but I just think you have acted poorly. I will not act for the Mods nor ask for their help. They can see and do as they see fit.

You though should know better and I hope everyone that reads this thread just sees you a little more as the sly weasel that that you are.

I raised a number of points in this thread and you answered none. It is because you couldn't. You are a silly young man who pretends to know something about the world, but has never lived beyond his own home state. You haven't a clue.

---

Points like what? Citizens in other nations being killed in a WAR ZONE? Yeah that has NEVER happened before :rolleyes:. "Illegal wars"...VC just nailed you on that bullshit!...What do you want to ask me miles, go ahead....I'm listening

---

He didn't nail anything. All you have done is an ice skating job. For the first time in a while I am smiling. I am shocked at your cheek. VC has studied at an American University and paid for by the military, he is paid for and bought. The man will kill on request and will drum up a few pages from his muscular tomes, but really American history is false history as Norman Finklestein has proven.

Again Miles, provide the legally binding document that spells out the criteria of when a military operations are legal/illegal and what legal court rules on such matters. Something can't have a legal basis w/o a spelled out law and body that rules on such matters. Even things like the Geneva Convention accords are not internationally binding b/c not all countries signed all of them. I'll say again since you can't help but make this about your ignorant bigotry towards America. I don't hold the concept of war and legality only true for the US. I'm not sure how where I went to college has any bearing on this topic. It is part of my job to have a thorough understanding of the Law of Landwarfare. Particularly to keep myself and my subordinates out of prison. Needless to say I think I have a much better understanding of these issues than you. But hey bro if it makes you feel like you are sticking it to the bid bad US by using made up phrases like "illegal war" you right ahead. The educated and informed folk will continue to laugh at you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

Yes, Bush was a bad President can we now over 4 years since he left office talk about the current President on his own right. I did not say that the President is personally responsible for what happened in Benghazi and had the official statement been that it was a coordinated AQ attack that was successful do to negligent planning and reaction furthermore the responsible parties have been relieved of their jobs then we wouldn't be talking about this. I often tell my children that lying only makes it worse and my Soldiers that bad news doesn't get better with time. Someone should remind all of DC of this. If all you can offer in this discussion is to point to Bush and how Obama is not quite as bad then you are really just making Lyle's points for him.

---

So it's OK to talk about Nixon and Watergate but not Bush ? I ask because I am a little unclear on the rules of engagement here.

GB we can talk about King Tut if you want but I don't think it is relevant to the attack on Benghazi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

Again Miles, provide the legally binding document that spells out the criteria of when a military operations are legal/illegal and what legal court rules on such matters. Something can't have a legal basis w/o a spelled out law and body that rules on such matters. Even things like the Geneva Convention accords are not internationally binding b/c not all countries signed all of them. I'll say again since you can't help but make this about your ignorant bigotry towards America. I don't hold the concept of war and legality only true for the US. I'm not sure how where I went to college has any bearing on this topic. It is part of my job to have a thorough understanding of the Law of Landwarfare. Particularly to keep myself and my subordinates out of prison. Needless to say I think I have a much better understanding of these issues than you. But hey bro if it makes you feel like you are sticking it to the bid bad US by using made up phrases like "illegal war" you right ahead. The educated and informed folk will continue to laugh at you.

---

Nobody laughs, you silly servant of a corrupt global super power.

A war of aggression, as defined by Nuremburg is illegal. You are NOT an expert, others are and you have a serious agenda. You are tool within a superpower, and want to pay for your life. Your moral concerns are irrelevant. You want to pay for your children to do well and protecting your interests is a primary concern. You are not an expert on anything, you are an agent of a superpower.

Nobody is laughing at me as I have no vested interest. I don't work for the military, I don't pretend to justify invasions of nations, or kill others to secure the welfare of my children. You do and that is why you are not to be trusted. You are the problem. You will NEVER admit that your nation is sick and is the problem and makes all of this happen.

People like Finklestein and Chomsky are Jews working in the system and telling truth, but you are not on that level and so I laugh at you with your military background, delusion, and pretence at being a lawyer. Dershowitz is a lawyer and if you are like that then you clearly went to Harvard, but no you didn't, and you not an expert in anything whence the way you think. Real thinkers laugh at people like you. People that joined the military in the first place. You couldn't do anything else.

Oh we are back to me just being a dumb sheep of a Soldier that couldn't do anything else are we? When in doubt Ad Hominem right? I don't have any agenda here. I don't really care what you and others think about the US and of course my children are my primary concern. What a silly statement to make.

Nuremberg gets you close but really is just more of a declarative statement about aggression and lets face it was very much a winners getting to write history moment. Article 39 of the UN Charter provides that the UN Security Council shall determine the existence of any act of aggression and "shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security". But again that isn't a definition of legal vs illegal only stating that the UN can vote on an act and how to bring peace back. I think even you can agree that if the US gets a vote then the whole concept of legality is a sham.

What you are really looking for is the Rome Statutes that actually have an international criminal court that rules on aggression with codified law but it only has jurisdiciton over state parties and the US is not one.

See Miles I wasn't just being obtuse there was an actual answer to the question you just didn't know it. Thankfully despite being a full blown retard that should be lucky there is a military to employ me I somehow figured it out. Must have been that lousy American education I got.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

He didn't nail anything. All you have done is an ice skating job. For the first time in a while I am smiling. I am shocked at your cheek. VC has studied at an American University and paid for by the military, he is paid for and bought. The man will kill on request and will drum up a few pages from his muscular tomes, but really American history is false history as Norman Finklestein has proven.

---

And if he hadn't gone to school at all you would have complained all the same of the ignorance you ASSUME VC has because you just want to be contrarian because well fuck I don't even know....you don't like Obama, you don't like America, why are you being so difficult on this issue miles? Do you even know or is it just a habit????

Greenbeanz we're talking specifically about Benghazi here but I'll be glad to answer other questions on various politicians here or in other threads. W wasn't the best President ever, but he was better than Obama I can tell you that much just having lived through both. W took more shit and was held accountable for his actions....still waiting for Obama to be held accountable for anything...anything

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrcsB...layer_embedded

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

What did the Obama administration do or not do that's getting you so exercised?

---

They left Americans under attack there to be killed. They lied about who did the attacking, why the attacking happened, they left Amb. Stevens vulnerable knowing full well it wasn't safe to be there. They drew down his security detail. They kept the armed forces from retaliating or saving lives.

This is bigger than Watergate, people died, moves weren't made that could have been made and as a citizen I want to know why.

Sure attacks happen from time to time, usually bombs with nothing else after them, but this was a terrorist military style attack which could have been stopped. Fly a C-130 over or a F-117 and people would scatter, that's all it would have taken, forces were in the area ready to go and were told not to....why?

---

You need to ask the people in charge of the forces. That's the actual military commanders. It's nothing to do with the Obama administration. There is absolutely zero evidence that you can show that says Obama personally prevented help from getting there. This is just another load of nonsense. This is probably the fourth or fifth "bigger than Watergate" event of the Obama administration and it's as bullshit as the rest of them were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

#3 The Benghazi attacks were long and drawn out, the United States had significant information and resources in the area to prepare for & limit the damage of those attacks and instead of allowing the military to do their job somebody, somewhere in the Administration said "No, stand down"

---

They did actually manage to get one team there. Two of them were killed if I remember correctly. There was another special forces team in Tripoli but they were only armed with hanguns and were kept in Tripoli in case things got worse there.

There is zero evidence anywhere to suggest the White House told anybody to stand down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

You need to ask the people in charge of the forces. That's the actual military commanders. It's nothing to do with the Obama administration. There is absolutely zero evidence that you can show that says Obama personally prevented help from getting there. This is just another load of nonsense. This is probably the fourth or fifth "bigger than Watergate" event of the Obama administration and it's as bullshit as the rest of them were.

---

@VictorCharlie, your thoughts? I mean I'd explain BUT nothing I say is ever taken seriously

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

Quote:

---

I also find VC quite hilarious with his pompous spiel about there being no
such thing as an illegal or legal war. So American. Of course it cannot be illegal if it is us doing it! Just as the lunatic Israeli's believe settlement building is nothing more than putting up trees in the park, it is America's god given right to inflict manifest destiny upon any nation should the whim to do so set in. 'Legality, no such thing'. Invade who you want when you want and see how that plays out if you are not of the annointed nations.

---

There isn't anything pompous about my post. There is not a legal precedent for when war is allowed or not. I think you confuse international law on how war is conducted with a non-existant legal basis to go to war. This is true for all countries not just the US and I never said different if you had any ability at objectivity you'd have realized that. We've had this conversation before and you were never able to provide the international legal binding document that prescribed when military action is "legal" or the legal body that rules on such things and typically resorted to threatening me with bodily harm. The act of going to war is a lot of things but it is not a matter of legality.

---

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

You need to ask the people in charge of the forces. That's the actual military commanders. It's nothing to do with the Obama administration. There is absolutely zero evidence that you can show that says Obama personally prevented help from getting there. This is just another load of nonsense. This is probably the fourth or fifth "bigger than Watergate" event of the Obama administration and it's as bullshit as the rest of them were.

---

@VictorCharlie , your thoughts? I mean I'd explain BUT nothing I say is ever taken seriously

---

You need to try and write something sensible then people willhave no excuse not to take you seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

Quote:

---

I also find VC quite hilarious with his pompous spiel about there being no
such thing as an illegal or legal war. So American. Of course it cannot be illegal if it is us doing it! Just as the lunatic Israeli's believe settlement building is nothing more than putting up trees in the park, it is America's god given right to inflict manifest destiny upon any nation should the whim to do so set in. 'Legality, no such thing'. Invade who you want when you want and see how that plays out if you are not of the annointed nations.

---

There isn't anything pompous about my post. There is not a legal precedent for when war is allowed or not. I think you confuse international law on how war is conducted with a non-existant legal basis to go to war. This is true for all countries not just the US and I never said different if you had any ability at objectivity you'd have realized that. We've had this conversation before and you were never able to provide the international legal binding document that prescribed when military action is "legal" or the legal body that rules on such things and typically resorted to threatening me with bodily harm. The act of going to war is a lot of things but it is not a matter of legality.

---

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan

---

The UN is impotent, corrupt, and more inept than the Obama Administration


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr0QbotOwCc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

Quote:

---

I also find VC quite hilarious with his pompous spiel about there being no
such thing as an illegal or legal war. So American. Of course it cannot be illegal if it is us doing it! Just as the lunatic Israeli's believe settlement building is nothing more than putting up trees in the park, it is America's god given right to inflict manifest destiny upon any nation should the whim to do so set in. 'Legality, no such thing'. Invade who you want when you want and see how that plays out if you are not of the annointed nations.

---

There isn't anything pompous about my post. There is not a legal precedent for when war is allowed or not. I think you confuse international law on how war is conducted with a non-existant legal basis to go to war. This is true for all countries not just the US and I never said different if you had any ability at objectivity you'd have realized that. We've had this conversation before and you were never able to provide the international legal binding document that prescribed when military action is "legal" or the legal body that rules on such things and typically resorted to threatening me with bodily harm. The act of going to war is a lot of things but it is not a matter of legality.

---

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan

---

The UN is impotent, corrupt, and more inept than the Obama Administration


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr0QbotOwCc

---

It's impotent because motheruckers like George Bush ignore the will of its members and do what the fuck they want.As far as corruption goes the UN is a vestal virgin compared to the American political system.

Anyway, Benghazi! All it took was a few facts to shut you up. Never mind, I'm sure the next scandal really will be bigger than Watergate. That'll be the one thatg ets Obama, you just wait.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

It's impotent because motheruckers like George Bush ignore the will of its members and do what the fuck they want.As far as corruption goes the UN is a vestal virgin compared to the American political system.

---

It's impotent because they rely all too heavily on the United States doing the heavy lifting and because the UN "leaders" are corrupt, Kofi Annan among them

As Iraq's interim defense minister Hazem Sha'alan remarked, "Where was Kofi Annan when Saddam Hussein was slaughtering the Iraqi people like sheep?"

The UN has bungled mission after mission and been slow to react examples: Rwanda, Bosnia, Sudan

Kofi Annan's Legacy of Failure

You didn't watch the videos apparently

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

Quote:

---

I also find VC quite hilarious with his pompous spiel about there being no
such thing as an illegal or legal war. So American. Of course it cannot be illegal if it is us doing it! Just as the lunatic Israeli's believe settlement building is nothing more than putting up trees in the park, it is America's god given right to inflict manifest destiny upon any nation should the whim to do so set in. 'Legality, no such thing'. Invade who you want when you want and see how that plays out if you are not of the annointed nations.

---

There isn't anything pompous about my post. There is not a legal precedent for when war is allowed or not. I think you confuse international law on how war is conducted with a non-existant legal basis to go to war. This is true for all countries not just the US and I never said different if you had any ability at objectivity you'd have realized that. We've had this conversation before and you were never able to provide the international legal binding document that prescribed when military action is "legal" or the legal body that rules on such things and typically resorted to threatening me with bodily harm. The act of going to war is a lot of things but it is not a matter of legality.

---

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan

---

The UN doesn't create international law on the legality of war that all nations must follow. No one does. Annan said "I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time - without UN approval and much broader support from the international community," So he can say illegal but what he means is acts of aggression are ok if you get enough votes in the UN.

Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference - ABC News

Hmmmm....curious, why ever would the Obama Administration do that? I mean what is the benefit of playing down terrorism....and doing that isn't that kind of like lying? I mean A actually happened but you go on tv and tell the American people that B happened, that's kind of like lying isn't it?

The significant edits – deleting references to al Qaeda and the CIA’s warnings – came after a White House meeting on the Saturday before Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday shows.


Just curious is all...I mean it's not likely to have affected the election or anything :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

Quote:

---

I also find VC quite hilarious with his pompous spiel about there being no
such thing as an illegal or legal war. So American. Of course it cannot be illegal if it is us doing it! Just as the lunatic Israeli's believe settlement building is nothing more than putting up trees in the park, it is America's god given right to inflict manifest destiny upon any nation should the whim to do so set in. 'Legality, no such thing'. Invade who you want when you want and see how that plays out if you are not of the annointed nations.

---

There isn't anything pompous about my post. There is not a legal precedent for when war is allowed or not. I think you confuse international law on how war is conducted with a non-existant legal basis to go to war. This is true for all countries not just the US and I never said different if you had any ability at objectivity you'd have realized that. We've had this conversation before and you were never able to provide the international legal binding document that prescribed when military action is "legal" or the legal body that rules on such things and typically resorted to threatening me with bodily harm. The act of going to war is a lot of things but it is not a matter of legality.

---

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan

---

The UN doesn't create international law on the legality of war that all nations must follow. No one does. Annan said "I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time - without UN approval and much broader support from the international community," So he can say illegal but what he means is acts of aggression are ok if you get enough votes in the UN.

---

The US is a signatory to the UN charter. The US acted against the wishes of the Security Council and the vast majority of the world's countries in invading Iraq. America had no legal sanction to invade. How the UN defines whether acts of aggression are OK or not is up to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

It's impotent because motheruckers like George Bush ignore the will of its members and do what the fuck they want.As far as corruption goes the UN is a vestal virgin compared to the American political system.

---

It's impotent because they rely all too heavily on the United States doing the heavy lifting and because the UN "leaders" are corrupt, Kofi Annan among them

As Iraq's interim defense minister Hazem Sha'alan remarked, "Where was Kofi Annan when Saddam Hussein was slaughtering the Iraqi people like sheep?"

The UN has bungled mission after mission and been slow to react examples: Rwanda, Bosnia, Sudan

Kofi Annan's Legacy of Failure

You didn't watch the videos apparently

---

The UN is only as good as its members can let it be. When you have rogue nations like America doing whatever they want it's very difficult to be effective. The UN is at best an imperfect setup and often worse than that but it's the best multilateral conflict/problem resolver we have and it would work much better if its most powerful members all stuck to the rules they signed up to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference - ABC News

Hmmmm....curious, why ever would the Obama Administration do that? I mean what is the benefit of playing down terrorism....and doing that isn't that kind of like lying? I mean A actually happened but you go on tv and tell the American people that B happened, that's kind of like lying isn't it?

The significant edits – deleting references to al Qaeda and the CIA’s warnings – came after a White House meeting on the Saturday before Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday shows.


Just curious is all...I mean it's not likely to have affected the election or anything :rolleyes:

---

So we've gone from "he left them there to die!" to "somebody altered some talking points for administration talking heads to say on TV!".

Fantastic. Never mind Lyle, here's Benghazi explained in eight funny minutes by the Daily Show. Even English peeps can watch this video :

Stewart Tears Into the 'Denizens of Bullsh*t Mountain' for Benghazi Fearmongering | Video Cafe

Don't forget Lyle, the Daily Show is where morons go to get their news.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

So we've gone from "he left them there to die!" to "somebody altered some talking points for administration talking heads to say on TV!".

Fantastic. Never mind Lyle, here's Benghazi explained in eight funny minutes by the Daily Show. Even English peeps can watch this video :

Stewart Tears Into the 'Denizens of Bullsh*t Mountain' for Benghazi Fearmongering | Video Cafe

Don't forget Lyle, the Daily Show is where morons go to get their news.

---

You get your news there so point proven, thanks for providing that clarification for anyone paying attention to this argument.

Is there anything you won't be contrarian about? Anything at all? How about the fact that Obama was M.I.A for damn near 8 hours added to which somebody gave 2 orders to stand down....there's only 1 person legally capable of giving those orders and that's the Commander-in-Chief, President Barack Hussein Obama.

So you see 0 problem in the Obama Administration changing the story of what happened in Benghazi 12 times? 1, 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11....12 times? If W changed his story once you'd have been up his ass howling about impeachment!


http://www.whitehousedossier.com/201...clinton-obama/ Internal Benghazi Review Ignored Clinton, Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NgJJ-01nE14

Here's the video if you care to watch one sometime...I know its difficult for you to get your ass kicked YET AGAIN by me in a debate....it's ok that you lost....again......it's ok....there there little Kirkland

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCSB-Mj7PgA

Oh no....even more evidence

Critical High Threat level and Sec. of State Hildebeast Clinton denied more security for Amb Stevens.


Your move genius

Holy monkey nuts....BBC News - After Benghazi revelations, heads will roll


Direct from your pals at the BBC

This is now very serious, and I suspect heads will roll. The White House will be on the defensive for a while.

- North American Editor Mark Mardell

Quote:

---

The US is a signatory to the UN charter. The US acted against the wishes of the Security Council and the vast majority of the world's countries in invading Iraq. America had no legal sanction to invade. How the UN defines whether acts of aggression are OK or not is up to them.

---

The UN charter isn't binding international law nor does it define what legal war is and if world history shows us anything, sanction or no sanction, nations do what they want. You can call the Iraq war unnecessary, immoral, stupid etc and I'll generally agree with you but if at the end of the day it is all whether or not you won a popularity contest that decides if it is "legal" then we should agree that isn't how the "law" works. I'll pose to you the same thing I did to Miles: provide me the codified document that spells out for the entire world what makes the use of military operations legal and the legal body that rules on them and I will concede and sincerely apologize. The only court I'm aware of that rules on "crimes of aggression" is the International Criminal Court and its jurisdiction is only for crimes committed in the territory of a state party or if they are committed by a national of a state party. So they have jurisdiction over 100 or so nations (the US isn't a state party) on this topic but not the whole world.

The UN is the best of what we have and as has been argued, only rogue states prevent it from working effectively. The worlds sole superpower is the leading rogue state and only academia in that environment would seek to justify it. The same thing happened with Israel in 1967, American academia was suddenly awash with literature telling us why The Holocaust was unique and interestingly it paralleled with Israel being a leading client terrorist state. Likewise, with America rejecting the UN, we are now being told that America can do what it likes and that Nuremburg and the UN, don't/didn't matter. There is no such thing as illegal or legal! This kind of line blurring is incredibly dangerous. Again, it is largely language coming from people educated in America in fields of politics, history etc and in the last decade or so. We have seen much the same with the Chicago school of economics in that double speak is used to basically say US corporations have a right to do anything anywhere. Academia by people who have to justify power and to spread the gospel of power as they are entrenched within.

To argue that something is illegal or not ends up being something that lawyers will dance around. To say that historical precedents have no meaningful factor upon the now is dismissive and something that would only be ever said by someone entrenched within a system and indoctrinated that way. Most rational people would argue that the UN should matter and that the only ones who dislike it would be rogue states such as Israel and America. It is no accident that everyone is wrong all the time and only they are in the right and yet are always a tiny minority and far more than US media sources would ever let on to their public.

The US in particular hates the UN because it shows them that the world disagrees with them on a wide range of issues. This information is never revealed in the media and anything that does is painted into an anti UN story. Sadly, most of those that read papers like to think truth must come from within. This just isn't the case. And then you have absurdist legalese talking about legality of wars and posters on here taking such stances seriously. Law is simply what is permitted in a particular environment and unfortunately we are living in a lawless planet largely due to America. Who needs law when you have a country that pretends such things don't exist with wars and torture and Kafka torture camps and it extends to the homeland too with homeland security etc.

To argue that a war is truly illegal, you would be asking for a paper from God and he doesn't exist, so we operate here on earth with what we have and they are legal precedents as they were settled in courts of law. We just choose to ignore them because the superpower is acting how it wants and most media and academic types just want to justify the system that is.

so you don't have documentation then and your argument is moot?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

So we've gone from "he left them there to die!" to "somebody altered some talking points for administration talking heads to say on TV!".

Fantastic. Never mind Lyle, here's Benghazi explained in eight funny minutes by the Daily Show. Even English peeps can watch this video :

Stewart Tears Into the 'Denizens of Bullsh*t Mountain' for Benghazi Fearmongering | Video Cafe

Don't forget Lyle, the Daily Show is where morons go to get their news.

---

You get your news there so point proven, thanks for providing that clarification for anyone paying attention to this argument.

Is there anything you won't be contrarian about? Anything at all? How about the fact that Obama was M.I.A for damn near 8 hours added to which somebody gave 2 orders to stand down....there's only 1 person legally capable of giving those orders and that's the Commander-in-Chief, President Barack Hussein Obama.

So you see 0 problem in the Obama Administration changing the story of what happened in Benghazi 12 times? 1, 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11....12 times? If W changed his story once you'd have been up his ass howling about impeachment!


Internal Benghazi Review Ignored Clinton, Obama | The Blog on Obama: White House Dossier Internal Benghazi Review Ignored Clinton, Obama

---

What do you mean Obama was m issing for eight hours? From what? Who gave two orders to whom to stand down? Provide facts and evidence Lyle.

And there was a fight between the State Department and the CIA over what they were going to say about the incident. There were twelve revisions to the eventual statement. I'm surprised it wasn't 112. That's just normal for two departments in any big company or small government, never mind the US government. So so far there's evidence of an argument between two government depatments over how the response statement should be worded. And that's the entire scandal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

Quote:

---

The US is a signatory to the UN charter. The US acted against the wishes of the Security Council and the vast majority of the world's countries in invading Iraq. America had no legal sanction to invade. How the UN defines whether acts of aggression are OK or not is up to them.

---

The UN charter isn't binding international law nor does it define what legal war is and if world history shows us anything, sanction or no sanction, nations do what they want. You can call the Iraq war unnecessary, immoral, stupid etc and I'll generally agree with you but if at the end of the day it is all whether or not you won a popularity contest that decides if it is "legal" then we should agree that isn't how the "law" works. I'll pose to you the same thing I did to Miles: provide me the codified document that spells out for the entire world what makes the use of military operations legal and the legal body that rules on them and I will concede and sincerely apologize. The only court I'm aware of that rules on "crimes of aggression" is the International Criminal Court and its jurisdiction is only for crimes committed in the territory of a state party or if they are committed by a national of a state party. So they have jurisdiction over 100 or so nations (the US isn't a state party) on this topic but not the whole world.

---

But Bush asserted UN resolutions as the justification for his invasion of Iraq. Either the UN resolutions are binding international law or they're not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

What do you mean Obama was m issing for eight hours? From what? Who gave two orders to whom to stand down? Provide facts and evidence Lyle.

And there was a fight between the State Department and the CIA over what they were going to say about the incident. There were twelve revisions to the eventual statement. I'm surprised it wasn't 112. That's just normal for two departments in any big company or small government, never mind the US government. So so far there's evidence of an argument between two government depatments over how the response statement should be worded. And that's the entire scandal.

---

I mean exactly what I said, Obama's whereabouts on the night of the Benghazi attacks (plural) are unknown/not specified.....

THE PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT A:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=weq7hY0OhKs#!

Sorry, you have to watch a video :eek:




Do you get tired of being wrong & losing these arguments? How will you defend Obama for the IRS scandal??? Sicking the IRS on your enemies is very "Nixonian", things don't look good for YOUR BOY now do they?

I don't understand. How can Kelly Ayotte a Republican Senator be trusted to have an unbiased view of the situation ? Is this a review, an enquiry or a desperate attempt to throw mud at someone that has already been elected because their guy didn't win ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greenbeanz

I don't understand. How can Kelly Ayotte a Republican Senator be trusted to have an unbiased view of the situation ? Is this a review, an enquiry or a desperate attempt to throw mud at someone that has already been elected because their guy didn't win ?

---

Soooooo you don't think Republicans should be able to ask questions relevant to the Benghazi attacks because you assume they might be biased?

They are holding bipartisan hearings, the Democrats are refusing to cooperate and/or participate in except for a very few members who are constantly trying to cover the asses of Obama & Hillary. If the media actually did its fucking job these hearings would have more support, but nah don't take their eyes off the prize that is the Jodi Arias trail :vd:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greenbeanz

I don't understand. How can Kelly Ayotte a Republican Senator be trusted to have an unbiased view of the situation ? Is this a review, an enquiry or a desperate attempt to throw mud at someone that has already been elected because their guy didn't win ?

---

Soooooo you don't think Republicans should be able to ask questions relevant to the Benghazi attacks because you assume they might be biased?

They are holding bipartisan hearings, the Democrats are refusing to cooperate and/or participate in except for a very few members who are constantly trying to cover the asses of Obama & Hillary. If the media actually did its fucking job these hearings would have more support, but nah don't take their eyes off the prize that is the Jodi Arias trail :vd:

---

No I don't think Politicians should be involved in a political enquiry from either party. It should be open, transparent and run by independent experts.

Yeah....well good luck with that

In Britain such an idea would not be seen as so preposterous. Ambassadors, Diplomats,high ranking Civil Servants, Military Historians and possibly one cross bencher would be used to ensure the truth was arrived at. An enquiry chaired by Politicians is hardly going to be objective.