Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati
J, I'm the same guy thinking the same way. The only real change is that I meet silliness with silliness more than I did when trying to enforce up2date's vision of WS.
And no, I wouldn't say the same of you. I always have seen you as a decent fellow who feeds himself junk (AT and such) and often reasons poorly. I wish you would try to understand more and seek sterotypical nonsense to excuse your errors less.
I tried.
Now, this is you dodging the point. Going with the personal attack as opposed to assessing the accuracy of the point. As no one has every claimed we be subserviant to the UN, you merely throw up a strawman. there is little other word for it.
No, I am dodging nothing. And I didn't personally attack you so much as call out your method of answering my post. All you did is turn it around on me rather than address the concern. That is what I called out. You say no one has claimed that we be subservient to the UN, however at the same time point to agreements that may not be in our best interests, as iron clad. To me it would be foolish to continue to bend to the UN's will blindly without a review of the bigger picture.
You used a car purchase earlier, and I would just say that if you did purchase that auto, and at the end of your term paying it off, something happened where the finance company said that they had to tack on an extra 6 months of payments, and in the fine print you agreed to that, I'd suspect you'd fight it.
yes, there is recourse. But ignoreing it and pretending it doesn't exist isn't one of them. And no one says we answer to the UN. We answer to our agreements, our word, or signed agreements. Agian, you're failing to address the point and instead want to throw up something easier to beat. This is the very definition of strawman.
Ok, if that be the case, then would you, could you point out which agreement, and specific language says that we, the US must answer a call from the UN to provide man power, equipment, and everything that goes along with that, based on a call from this body to support one side in a civil war?
No one said you couldn't interject. Only noted that you did jump in. As someone jumping in, there is an expectation that your discussion is in that context.
Why don't you lay out in black and white the Boo Radley rules for debate for me so I know what I can, and can not do....Also be prepared to adhere to them yourself.
Which is quite proper. But until the proper recourse has occured, we're obligated to our agreements. Pretending that they don't exist is not proper recourse.
So, do you agree then that the UN is a feckless org, that is meaningless, and should be removed from US soil, and our involvement ended?
j-mac
