Benghazi...oh you knew it was coming

[VictorCharlie]

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.

[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

[Kirkland Laing]

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.

[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.

[Kirkland Laing]

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

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.

[El Kabong]

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

[El Kabong]

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

[El Kabong]

Oh no....even more evidence

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


Your move genius

[El Kabong]

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

[VictorCharlie]

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.

[Gandalf]

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.

[El Kabong]

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

[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.

[Kirkland Laing]

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.

[El Kabong]

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:


Sorry, you have to watch a video




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?