Science Undecided on Room Temperature Superconductors

[pErvinalia]

Once again - " Saddam being an arse" is not legal justification for invasion. It's patently simple.

Strawman fallacy.

Oh, and if "don't be an arse" is one of the provisions of the cease fire agreement then his being an arse is most certainly justification for resumption of military action.

Nup. That's the exact quality of argument that Jim and Pisci are making. Saddam cracked down on his own people. That is not a trigger for invasion. Even a mad psychopath like you should understand that.

Go fuck yourself rEv.

If you'd just read the fucking thread you are commenting on, we wouldn't have to keep having these idiotic interactions.

Anyway, it wasn't Saddam's cracking down on his own people that triggered our resumption of military action, it was his violations of the cease fire agreement. But, if not cracking down on his own people were one of the requirements of the cease fire agreement, then his violation of that provision would be justification for resuming military actions.

A cease fire agreement is an agreement, and whatever is agreed to, no matter how much you might think it's not important or justifiable, is what is agreed to and is therefore an enforceable provision. If the agreement says Saddam shall walk through Baghdad on weekend afternoons wearing a clown suit and a red nose while chanting "I'm a despotic tyrant" that's what Saddam would damned well have to do to avoid us ramming a Hellfire up his ass.

Doesn't matter what you think about it, all that matters is what Saddam agreed to do and then repeatedly failed and refused to do.

All that matters in the context of this conversation is what Jim and Pisci said. Anything more than that is red herring nonsense.

[Seth]

All that matters in the context of this conversation is what Jim and Pisci said. Anything more than that is red herring nonsense.

Mendacious diversionary attempt. You are once again, as per usual, trying to deflect the discussion away from what was actually being discussed into some side issue so that you can evade the consequences of being proven to be absolutely and ignorantly wrong about everything.
I'm not letting you get away with it.

[pErvinalia]

As I said, if you'd just read the thread, you'd understand what is being discussed. With you and Pisci I was discussing legality, and with Pisci and Jim they were making the argument that illegality is specious coz Saddam was a cunt. You responded to the latter thread most recently, and that is what we are discussing. Anything else is the usual red herring nonsense from you.

[piscator]

As I said, if you'd just read the thread, you'd understand what is being discussed. With you and Pisci I was discussing legality, and with Pisci and Jim they were making the argument that illegality is specious.

Fixed.

[pErvinalia]

quote mine. You said invasion was justified because Saddam was a cunt. There's lots of cunts around the world. Best get your world police uniform on then...

[Hermit]

It was linked little more than a page or two ago. Why does this site attract so many dumb cunts?

You mean this one?

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441

Resolution 1441 was not an authorisation to wage war. The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said:

[T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.

Negroponte was not the only one to say words to that effect. In fact, not a single nation that voted to adopt the resolution regarded it as a trigger for war.

Not that the legal aspect matters. Nations will always start a war if they regard it as advantageous to themselves and they think they will get away with it. Everything else is nothing better than yapping points.

What does matter, is the outcome. In my opinion the net result globally is worse than if Saddam Hussein, regardless of the wars he initiated, the thousands of Kurds he killed, the personal and political opponents he executed et cetera, had been left in place. Looking at you, JimC.

[Seth]

As I said, if you'd just read the thread, you'd understand what is being discussed. With you and Pisci I was discussing legality, and with Pisci and Jim they were making the argument that illegality is specious coz Saddam was a cunt. You responded to the latter thread most recently, and that is what we are discussing. Anything else is the usual red herring nonsense from you.

I believe the "Saddam was a cunt" comment was little more than shorthand sarcasm that you took as gospel. More likely you are trying to argue that they genuinely meant that the only reason we deposed Saddam was because he was a "cunt." This of course is, as I said, nothing more than a diversionary tactic you often use to get your nut-sack out of the cleft stick you've put it in.

[Seth]

It was linked little more than a page or two ago. Why does this site attract so many dumb cunts?

You mean this one?

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441

Resolution 1441 was not an authorisation to wage war. The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said:

[T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.

Negroponte was not the only one to say words to that effect. In fact, not a single nation that voted to adopt the resolution regarded it as a trigger for war.

Not that the legal aspect matters. Nations will always start a war if they regard it as advantageous to themselves and they think they will get away with it. Everything else is nothing better than yapping points.

What does matter, is the outcome. In my opinion the net result globally is worse than if Saddam Hussein, regardless of the wars he initiated, the thousands of Kurds he killed, the personal and political opponents he executed et cetera, had been left in place. Looking at you, JimC.

Shit happens. It doesn't always work out like you thought it would, but that's no reason to be paralyzed with indecision, which is something the UN is world-famous for being.

[pErvinalia]

As I said, if you'd just read the thread, you'd understand what is being discussed. With you and Pisci I was discussing legality, and with Pisci and Jim they were making the argument that illegality is specious coz Saddam was a cunt. You responded to the latter thread most recently, and that is what we are discussing. Anything else is the usual red herring nonsense from you.

I believe the "Saddam was a cunt" comment was little more than shorthand sarcasm that you took as gospel. More likely you are trying to argue that they genuinely meant that the only reason we deposed Saddam was because he was a "cunt." This of course is, as I said, nothing more than a diversionary tactic you often use to get your nut-sack out of the cleft stick you've put it in.

That's exactly what they said. They never referred to any threat to the outside world. They only brought up the well known atrocities of Saddam against his own people. They explicitly said that "legality" was not well defined (to outright bollocks, according to Pisci) and it was immaterial to whether the US should kick some sand nigger arse. Instead of badly inferring what everyone's intentions were, why don't you READ THE FUCKING THREAD FOR A CHANGE, and you can see for yourself exactly what everyone's intentions were?

[pErvinalia]

It was linked little more than a page or two ago. Why does this site attract so many dumb cunts?

You mean this one?

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441

Resolution 1441 was not an authorisation to wage war. The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said:

[T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.

Negroponte was not the only one to say words to that effect. In fact, not a single nation that voted to adopt the resolution regarded it as a trigger for war.

Not that the legal aspect matters. Nations will always start a war if they regard it as advantageous to themselves and they think they will get away with it. Everything else is nothing better than yapping points.

What does matter, is the outcome. In my opinion the net result globally is worse than if Saddam Hussein, regardless of the wars he initiated, the thousands of Kurds he killed, the personal and political opponents he executed et cetera, had been left in place. Looking at you, JimC.

Shit happens. It doesn't always work out like you thought it would, but that's no reason to be paralyzed with indecision, which is something the UN is world-famous for being.

Moving the goal posts. You claimed that 1441 was a trigger for invasion. It wasn't. Stop making shit up and then pretending you didn't say it.

[piscator]

quote mine. You said invasion was justified because Saddam was a cunt.

Plenty good enough.

There's lots of cunts around the world. Best get your world police uniform on then, because I'm certainly not capable of responsibility.

Fixed.

[piscator]

What does matter, is the outcome. In my opinion the net result globally is worse than if Saddam Hussein, regardless of the wars he initiated, the thousands of Kurds he killed, the personal and political opponents he executed et cetera, had been left in place. Looking at you, JimC.

Hypothetical. Next question please.

[rainbow]

What does matter, is the outcome. In my opinion the net result globally is worse than if Saddam Hussein, regardless of the wars he initiated, the thousands of Kurds he killed, the personal and political opponents he executed et cetera, had been left in place. Looking at you, JimC.

Hypothetical. Next question please.

Has anyone wondered why germanium based superconductors have never really shown the promise of working at room temperature?

[pErvinalia]

quote mine. You said invasion was justified because Saddam was a cunt.

Plenty good enough.

There's lots of cunts around the world. Best get your world police uniform on then, because I'm certainly not capable of responsibility.

Fixed.

More red herrings. You've swallowed the neocon cool aid. When swallowed, please seek medical advice.

[pErvinalia]

What does matter, is the outcome. In my opinion the net result globally is worse than if Saddam Hussein, regardless of the wars he initiated, the thousands of Kurds he killed, the personal and political opponents he executed et cetera, had been left in place. Looking at you, JimC.

Hypothetical. Next question please.

So there's no analysis which you would consider reasonable that would suggest that the US fucked up majorly in taking down Saddam? Or is it that Merkans can't be subject to analysis because Merkan exceptionalism?