Now, the law does not say who gets to decide whether something is a coup or not, so by default that gets left up to the prez. But any plain reading of the text will say: no aid for Egypt. Some people, it would seem, have not concern about the rule of law as long as “their guy” is the one not following it. Frankly, I find that disturbing, at best, and down right frightening at worst. When we lose respect for the rule of law, relying instead on the rule of man, then we betray what it means to be country governed by and for the people.
If you want to take that up start a new thread or add to an existing one. Dont hijack this one. You have committed a gross error to claim that I have claimed the 2002 Iraq AUMF did not authorize Bush to wage war. It did authorize war to enforce UN Security Resolutions regarding Iraq. I won’t respond further in this thread, but your error cannot be left without correction.
I hope it is noted who brought this up.
Translation: I’m going to take my ball and go home!
Eh. The last few pages have been nothing but a hijack of the thread’s original topic.
But it’s fine with me to drop the discussion about your “unique” reading of the AUMF. Any one interested in the truth (and I doubt anyone is) can go back through your train wreck of a thread from last year.
Where has Obama not followed the rule of law?
Nope. J.Mace made a statement about me that is not supportable by any facts or quotes from me. He has decided to run from his claim because he cannot post, on a new thread or an old thread. a quote from me where I state what he says I stated.
I wont respond to John Mace in this thread and I won’t respond to you beyond this point on this thread. But if you think what J.Mace said I have claimed is a fact, then have at it, find the cite and post it on an Iraq war thread and I will respond.
This thread is about whether civil war has been averted because of the vote for the new constitution. A discussion about the continuation of US aid to Egypt’s militarily and the people is relevant to the topic of a civil war being probable or improbable. Calling this sub-plot a hijack of this thread is silly.
It’s all lawful. What are you talking about -some people having no respect for the law- ? Where do you get your silly arguments?
You see civil war is averted and Morsi begins rotting his Islamist
Butt in jail. Good for him. I love the Mulligan and we are aiding the one’s who put him in jail:
!!“US Congress makes $1.3bn in military aid available in 2014. !!” Joel Gulhane / January 14, 2014 / - See more at: http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2014/01/14/us-congress-makes-1-3bn-in-military-aid-available-in-2014/#sthash.BU8fVHKA.dpuf
Of course it is. In a world where facts take a back seat to one’s pre-conceived ideas.
Show me a fact that I’ve put in a back seat. You argue in generalities with a dash of cliche. What are you talking about - facts in the backseat?
Already done in spades. I have no interest in repeating myself. Anyone reading this thread can see it, as several have already noted.
You said you didn’t view the coup as a coup. Which is either meaningless gibberish, or an assertion that the coup wasn’t a coup, in your view. Or both.
Actually it is quite understandable because [list=A][li]Your posts are badly spelled gibberish []You repeatedly deny having said what you said []You are one of the rare posters who can say two diametrically opposed things and be wrong both times.[/list][/li]
My point is that you did, in fact, advocate that Obama violate the oath he swore to faithfully execute the laws of the US.
We can run thru it quickly again, just to rub your nose in it.
[ul][li]It is against US law to give aid to a country who has had a coup.[/li][li]Egypt had a coup.[]Obama wants to give them aid.[]You want him to give them aid.[/ul]You want Obama to violate his oath. QED.[/li]
Regards,
Shodan
To be fair, NFBW has stated that Morsi was elected by fraud. He knows that because someone posted it on the internet.
Never mind (again). He’ll just deny having said it.
Regards,
Shodan
That is false. Therefore The rest of your unsubstiated accusations are without merit. If you cannot quote me directly to show what your gross and inept error is based, you are accepting that you know there is no quote by me stating that.
I have specifically reposted for you my statement about the coup being a coup. You have continued to ignore it so as to go on with your erroneous ways.
I view it as a military coup and always have. My argument works on that definition of Morsi being forced to resign, step down, give up the presidency, surrender to the military.
You confusion apparently comes from your refusal to acknowledge my point that Morsi had not in reality taken control of real power from the military during his brief period as president. That matters because the military leadership in Egypt never really surrendered authority to the Morsi regime. The military coup of the Morsi regime was also a continuation of the revolt by he secular people that ended Mubarak’s reign when he handed power to the military because he was forced to resign.
So in the context of the revolution taking place in Egypt there was a coup of the first elected civilian government but it took place as the revolution continued. The same revolutionaries that forced Mubarak to quit also revolted and forced Morci to quit. The revolutionaries in Egypt had there reasons to dump Morsi and try again.
I commend the revolutionaries and the military for cracking down on an elected government that had ties to terrorist elements in their nation. Good for them. If you think the distinction between a military coup and second revolt matters all that much go ahead and think it. But don’t tell me I didn’t say it was a coup, because I didnt.
Was the vote for the new constitution was fair?
[QUOTE=NotFooledbyW]
I view it as a military coup and always have.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=NotFooledbyW]
I have not viewed the coup
As a coup for two main reasons.
[/QUOTE]
Just as predicted.
:shrugs:
Maybe if I have some energy later I will Pit you and I can characterize you as having done what you just did.
Regards,
Shodan
Again, to be fair, when one assumes that “A is not A”, one can prove anything. Which can be very convenient in certain situations.
NotfooledbyW, do you consider yourself pro-democracy?
I was not referring to election fraud. I was referring to the fraud of lying to get the moderate vote and then turning extremist after the votes were counted.
I explained that in the post above and the John Mace could not respond to it.