View Poll Results: What's worse...

Voters
45. You may not vote on this poll
  • European imperialism

    11 24.44%
  • Islamic imperialism

    15 33.33%
  • Both are roughly equivalent

    12 26.67%
  • Other - please specify

    7 15.56%
Page 15 of 17 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 163

Thread: What's worse European Imperialism or Islamic Imperialism?

  1. #141
    Banned Iriemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    12-19-15 @ 09:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,405

    Re: What's worse European Imperialism or Islamic Imperialism?

    Quote Originally Posted by RightOfCenter View Post
    I mean if I were to give someone a gun so they could and say "kill this person if you need to" would it not be possible to charge me with murder?
    Depends on the circumstances, doesn't it? If you give it to a cop who is authorized to use deadly force if conditions warrant, it is not murder at all to give him a gun.

  2. #142
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 10:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: What's worse European Imperialism or Islamic Imperialism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Iriemon View Post
    Another long standing Tot position that has been repeatedly debunked, but he keeps repeating it - that the Oct 2002 authorization to use force issued by Congress, at the time leverage was needed to get inspectors back into Iraq, is the same as a declaration of war.

    Not by a long shot. The president was authorized to use force only if he determined that diplomacy would not work. The Bush administration made that determination and rushed to war, even though after months of blind inspections of hundres of places where the WMD were supposed to be, the inspectors had found virtually nothing.

    Congress gave the president a gun, but it was the Bush administration that pulled the trigger.
    Another of the many Liberal myths that you continue to blather the forum with:

    " that the Oct 2002 authorization to use force issued by Congress, at the time leverage was needed to get inspectors back into Iraq, is the same as a declaration of war"

    What part of Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq do you not comprehend?

    What part of this section do you not get?

    Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

    What part of this section do you not get?

    Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

    What part of this authorization do you not get?

    (a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

    (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
    (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.


    One of these days you should attempt some intellectual honesty and actually read the damned report so that you can be INFORMED:

    Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

    Now to address the continual lies and distortions that "The Bush administration made that determination and rushed to war"

    What rush to war?

    This issue began in 1998 when During the Clinton Administration, Saddam kicked the UN inspectors out of the country and Clinton nor the UN did nothing; and ended in the invasion of Iraq in March 19, 2003.

    This is a timeline of over FIVE years; what rush would you be desperately attempting to suggest? Are you suggesting that five years is too soon to enforce resolutions defied by Saddam for over a decade? Only partisan hacks can suggest such nonsense.

    Disarming Saddam-A Chronology of Iraq and UN Weapons Inspections From 2002-2003 | Arms Control Association

    In addition, the partisan hacks on this forum suggest that it is wrong to legally depose a despot and institute a democratically elected Government. These same partisan hacks also suggest that this was a worse situation than allowing a despot like Saddam to stay in power.

    I'm sorry, but this is beyond turning logic on its head, it is just plain unintelligent.

    As for this analogy; "Congress gave the president a gun, but it was the Bush administration that pulled the trigger," once more you would be WRONG.

    The UN coalition gave the gun to Saddam and he aimed it at his own head and pulled the trigger. In order to fall for this mythical false analogy, one has to presume that Saddam's defiance was LEGAL and the Coalitions enforcement ILLEGAL; but that would require the willing suspension of disbelief and that is the realm of partisan hacks who continue wanting to defend a rogue regime like Saddam's and impugn the Bush administration for doing the RIGHT thing.

    It is quite telling when you see such rabid lapses in common sense and good judgment, but then when it comes to rabid Liberalism, truth, common sense and logic are not part of their vocabulary.

  3. #143
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    01-12-09 @ 06:40 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    441

    Re: What's worse European Imperialism or Islamic Imperialism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Iriemon View Post
    Another long standing Tot position that has been repeatedly debunked, but he keeps repeating it - that the Oct 2002 authorization to use force issued by Congress, at the time leverage was needed to get inspectors back into Iraq, is the same as a declaration of war.

    Not by a long shot. The president was authorized to use force only if he determined that diplomacy would not work. The Bush administration made that determination and rushed to war, even though after months of blind inspections of hundres of places where the WMD were supposed to be, the inspectors had found virtually nothing.

    Congress gave the president a gun, but it was the Bush administration that pulled the trigger.
    What a bunch of revisionist tripe, if what you say is true then why don't you go ahead and explain to the rest of us why the Congress didn't support the Levin Amendment instead?

  4. #144
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    01-12-09 @ 06:40 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    441

    Re: What's worse European Imperialism or Islamic Imperialism?

    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinghour View Post
    For the record, I didn't seek out new definitions. I literally did a search and stayed on the first page of results. Also, I agree with you we are not an old world empire, and I have never said we are.
    These new definitions of empire don't comport with any empire in history and for a good reason, they were crafted by ideologs with the specific intent of labeling the U.S. as an empire, is it just a coincidence that all empires of the past fall into the traditional definition of empire whereas only the so called U.S. empire falls into the second definition? I think not.

  5. #145
    User rightwinghour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    04-10-09 @ 04:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    143

    Re: What's worse European Imperialism or Islamic Imperialism?

    Quote Originally Posted by jin1776 View Post
    These new definitions of empire don't comport with any empire in history and for a good reason, they were crafted by ideologs with the specific intent of labeling the U.S. as an empire, is it just a coincidence that all empires of the past fall into the traditional definition of empire whereas only the so called U.S. empire falls into the second definition? I think not.
    That sounds a bit kooky. Actually it sounds alot like a conspiracy theory with no traction. So is it a vast left wing conspiracy to hijack our reference books or what?

  6. #146
    Banned Iriemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    12-19-15 @ 09:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,405

    Re: What's worse European Imperialism or Islamic Imperialism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Another of the many Liberal myths that you continue to blather the forum with:

    " that the Oct 2002 authorization to use force issued by Congress, at the time leverage was needed to get inspectors back into Iraq, is the same as a declaration of war"

    What part of Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq do you not comprehend?

    What part of this section do you not get?
    I comprehend it fine.

    What I don't get is how you can say that is the same as a declaration of war.

    Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

    What part of this section do you not get?
    The part where you say it says it's a declaration of war.

    Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

    What part of this authorization do you not get?
    The part where you say it says it's a declaration of war.

    (a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

    (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
    (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.


    One of these days you should attempt some intellectual honesty and actually read the damned report so that you can be INFORMED:

    Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
    Please cite the language that indicates it is a declaration of war on Iraq or it approves the US going to war against Iraq.

    If you can't do that, you're the one that needs to be INFORMED and get some intellectual honesty.

    Now to address the continual lies and distortions that "The Bush administration made that determination and rushed to war"

    What rush to war?
    Mar 2003. The inspectors were not finding WMDs. The Bush administration was losing its excuse. They either had to go in then, or risk losing their excuse.

    This issue began in 1998 when During the Clinton Administration, Saddam kicked the UN inspectors out of the country and Clinton nor the UN did nothing; and ended in the invasion of Iraq in March 19, 2003.

    This is a timeline of over FIVE years; what rush would you be desperately attempting to suggest? Are you suggesting that five years is too soon to enforce resolutions defied by Saddam for over a decade? Only partisan hacks can suggest such nonsense.

    Disarming Saddam-A Chronology of Iraq and UN Weapons Inspections From 2002-2003 | Arms Control Association
    Who cares if it was 5 years or 50? If there was no "urgent threat" from Iraq, there was no reason to start a war becaus Iraq had not attacked us or its neighbors in 2003.

    In addition, the partisan hacks on this forum suggest that it is wrong to legally depose a despot and institute a democratically elected Government. These same partisan hacks also suggest that this was a worse situation than allowing a despot like Saddam to stay in power.

    I'm sorry, but this is beyond turning logic on its head, it is just plain unintelligent.
    It's previously been explained to you.

    As for this analogy; "Congress gave the president a gun, but it was the Bush administration that pulled the trigger," once more you would be WRONG.

    The UN coalition gave the gun to Saddam and he aimed it at his own head and pulled the trigger. In order to fall for this mythical false analogy, one has to presume that Saddam's defiance was LEGAL and the Coalitions enforcement ILLEGAL; but that would require the willing suspension of disbelief and that is the realm of partisan hacks who continue wanting to defend a rogue regime like Saddam's and impugn the Bush administration for doing the RIGHT thing.
    No, Bush pulled the trigger. In Mar 2003, Iraq had attacked no other nation justifying a war.

    That is why the Bush administration had to misrepresent that Iraq was an urgent threat, see? That is why the message of WMDs and Iraqs collaboration with AQ had to be emphasized, see?

    If Iraq was not an urgent threat to the US, there would be no jusitication for starting a war.

    It is quite telling when you see such rabid lapses in common sense and good judgment, but then when it comes to rabid Liberalism, truth, common sense and logic are not part of their vocabulary.
    Big surprise you'd say so.

  7. #147
    Banned Iriemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    12-19-15 @ 09:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,405

    Re: What's worse European Imperialism or Islamic Imperialism?

    Quote Originally Posted by jin1776 View Post
    What a bunch of revisionist tripe, if what you say is true then why don't you go ahead and explain to the rest of us why the Congress didn't support the Levin Amendment instead?
    Repetive argument Tot.

    You raised this ame silly argument here (among serveral other times) where it was debunked.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/archiv...tml#post618431 (The War on Error: The Ridiculous Claim that 'The Left' wants us 'To Lose') post #26.

  8. #148
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    01-12-09 @ 06:40 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    441

    Re: What's worse European Imperialism or Islamic Imperialism?

    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinghour View Post
    That sounds a bit kooky. Actually it sounds alot like a conspiracy theory with no traction. So is it a vast left wing conspiracy to hijack our reference books or what?
    All right then sport you can shut me up right now if you can name a single empire in the history of the world which falls into your parameters for empire except for the United States. You can't because there is no other empire which fits with that definition and not the traditional one, because it is a definition intended for only a single country IE the U.S.. This is not a conspiracy theory, your definition is contrived from the bull**** definition for imperialism first given by Lenin to explain why the capitalist countries did not fail and turn to communism.

  9. #149
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    01-12-09 @ 06:40 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    441

    Re: What's worse European Imperialism or Islamic Imperialism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Iriemon View Post
    Repetive argument Tot.

    You raised this ame silly argument here (among serveral other times) where it was debunked.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/archiv...tml#post618431 (The War on Error: The Ridiculous Claim that 'The Left' wants us 'To Lose') post #26.
    It's actually a rather famous rebuttal towards the lies regarding the Democrats vote for the AUMF, I see that you refused to explain it in that thread too though, perhaps because it proves everything you said regarding the AUMF as completely false? Could be. Oh and FYI *reported for trolling* and *ignore*.

  10. #150
    Banned Iriemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    12-19-15 @ 09:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,405

    Re: What's worse European Imperialism or Islamic Imperialism?

    This thread is kind of special. I'm arguing with two generations of the gang of five at the same time. I'll remember it always. : )

    Who will carry the banner better? Tot (posing as Jin1776) demonstrating the awesome techniques that made the gang of five a legend in the first place? Or Truth Dectector, trying to show that the new gang is just as bad as the old one?


Page 15 of 17 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •