From: "Paul" Date: Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:58 pm Subject: Re: More challenges on Iraq for Paul Ireland to duck LOL!!! Brian you should look into comedy. You're much better at it than you'll ever be at debate. Your claims of "traps" are so ridiculous; I had to step away from my keyboard to laugh. I knew you'd be dishonest and not back up your promise to give money to the LP in my name. This is why I said I wouldn't hold my breath. Why should you be honest now when dishonesty has always been your game? The 5 questions you asked were never asked of me before so answering them with answers to different questions is irrelevant and absurd…just like all of your arguments. Why would someone quote answers I've made before to completely unrelated questions you're posting now? All of your lies about your posting the questions earlier, or about you not promising to pay the LP only re-enforce and prove everything I've always said about you. You're a dishonest little weasel caught up in his own pseudo-intellectual self-absorbed nonsense. You asked "As a Sovereigntarian, you should also consider it an initiation of force for a state to violate its contractual agreements with other states". Not being a "sovereigntarian" I can't answer that question or those for "non-coercitarians". I can only answer it as a libertarian, which is what I am, and what you are not. Once again, I have answered all of your questions and slammed the door on any claims of yours that the war in Iraq has any legitimate justification from a libertarian perspective. Nothing I've ever said is absurd. It's you who keeps bringing up incredibly stupid things like conjoined twins, airplanes, Iraqi government paychecks, etc. which have nothing to do with the topic at hand. You didn't like it when I accurately restated question number one because you claim "it invokes extra-legal vigilantism in the context of a force-wielding authority already charged with preventing and punishing the aggression of bullies" but this is exactly what you support. I've already proven the war in Iraq is unconstitutional so it actually is outside the law. It is not within the scope or authority of the United States to intervene when one nation is bullying a country other than our own. I could care less about what YOUR definition of libertarianism is because you aren't one. Though in your dishonesty, you took an oath and violated it. Your oath says that you don't support the initiation of force for political gain or social engineering and this most certainly applies to starting wars with foreign nations who have not attacked ours because your political gains are to "liberate" foreign oppressed people. You claim that your love of liberty and hatred of aggression is what drives you to start unprovoked aggression. This is like saying your desire to preserve virginity is what makes you want to have sex with as many virgins as you can. Starting aggression does not lower the amount of aggression, period. End of story. It doesn't matter who your aggression is directed at or how aggressive that person is. Your aggression adds to the total amount of aggression and does not eliminate any. I do care about reducing the overall amount of aggression and the first place to start is with the aggression on the part of our own government. It doesn't matter if aggression on the part of the U.S. Military would lead to less aggression elsewhere; all that matters in our country is that we minimize the aggression on the part of our own government in our own country. You don't care about reducing tyranny, oppression, or aggression more than I do; in fact you want to take part in those things under the guise of policing the world or being a good guy. Hitler thought he was a good guy too. He thought his aggression would make the world a better place too. Yours is no different than his. (Here's where you predictably link to wikipedia or some other worthless source of non-reference and mention Godwin's Law…which is itself irrelevant and bogus) I have never once said that I care less than you about minimizing the overall amount of tyranny, oppression, or aggression in the world; quite the contrary. I say, the best way to stop aggression is to stop being aggressive. You support contributing to aggression rather than eliminating it and I care far more about reducing the overall amount of aggression than you or your incredibly stupid ilk ever will. So once again your lies shine through. Let's move on to your next completely bogus claim. America may enter into any treaty it wants with any nation or group of nations it wants as long as that treaty never promises to use the U.S. military to defend any nation other than our own or to use the U.S. military to intervene in disputes. The United Nations has absolutely no authority what-so-ever over any nation on earth including those who signed the charter. The United Nations is nothing more than a forum for nations to gather for diplomatic discussions to avoid conflict. No nation who has ever signed the UN charter answers to the UN or any group of nations in the UN. Your so-called trap #4, like everything else you've said, is completely worthless and stupid. You have never "trapped" me, and you never will. You are my intellectual inferior and always will be. If Cuba started slaughtering Americans and America issued letters of marquis and reprisal, it would allow any private force to invade Cuba, and do anything they wanted without fear of recrimination. Whether it was a yacht club, or a well armed and trained militia, they could go into Cuba and kill Castro, and loot his gold and come to America without fear of jail time. So much for your traps. It was extremely wise of me to accept your so-called challenge because you've made yourself look like even more of a fool. As far as your laughable challenge to show the 9/11 commission said Iraq posed no credible threat, I've already done so. I did it in my last post when I showed that they said there was no credible relationship with Al Queda, and no collaborative relationship between them. Iraq never helped Al Queda, and never attacked us. That means they weren't a threat to us. Feel free to describe how a nation that has been victimized, starved to death, scrutinized, and occupied by American troops for 12 years was suddenly a threat to America without any nukes, without any plans for nukes or supplies to build nukes, without any connection to those who have attacked America, and without any means of attacking America was a threat. This should be amusing. I've already described the limits on the war making powers of Congress on many occasions, so I'll recap. Congress alone can make war. Congress can only do this through a declaration of war. Congress can only declare war in the defense of AMERICAN ships and soil. Congress may only declare war against those who have attacked us or are currently attacking us because this is the definition of DEFENSE. These are facts you can't escape from. I've answered every reasonable question you've answered, and I refuse to dignify your absurdly stupid questions with a response. You're not worthy of any response from me at all, but I do it only to show everyone what a moron you really are.