Korea Threatens Attack

Superfreak said:
yes, it is all there in black and white. Showing you creating your straw man, showing you valiantly wailing away at your straw man. I never said 'any action' would not be pre-emptive. You simply said I did. I said it could not be a preemptive WAR if the WAR never ended. Which is correct.
Click to expand...

Could you split that hair any finer?

If we're still "at war," then what, pray tell, could we do with our military that would be separate from that war?

You are really reminding me of the poster who must not be named (starts with "Y", rhymes with flirt).
 
Thing1 said:
You seem confused on the concept of a "straw man." The argument you were making is what I repeated - and I bumped the post that made that as clear as day.
Click to expand...

I bumped the entire conversation. You did create a straw man. I stated, clearly... both times... that it cannot be a preemptive WAR. It cannot.

YOU stated (this is the straw man) that I had said there could be no preemptive action of any kind. Which I never stated. Hence it is a straw man.

Your only real thought when you hopped on this thread was to try to make a fool out of Jarod with some absurd parsing. It didn't work. I'm so sorry about that.

So sorry.
Click to expand...

Actually it did work. Jarod was an idiot for making both statements. It actually worked even better than I planned for you jumped on and I made a fool out of you as well.
 
Superfreak said:
I bumped the entire conversation. You did create a straw man. I stated, clearly... both times... that it cannot be a preemptive WAR. It cannot.

YOU stated (this is the straw man) that I had said there could be no preemptive action of any kind. Which I never stated. Hence it is a straw man.



Actually it did work. Jarod was an idiot for making both statements. It actually worked even better than I planned for you jumped on and I made a fool out of you as well.
Click to expand...

No it really made you look like a fool.
 
Thing1 said:
Could you split that hair any finer?
Click to expand...

It isn't splitting hairs, it is reality. It is the factual accounting of where things stand. There cannot be a preemptive war with someone who you are already at war with. It is not possible. You simply wish it was not the case.

If we're still "at war," then what, pray tell, could we do with our military that would be separate from that war?
Click to expand...

There is NO 'if'... we have been at war since the beginning. That is a fact. The hostilities ended with the cease fire agreement. There was no end to the war. That is an historical fact.
 
Jarod said:
No it really made you look like a fool.
Click to expand...

LMAO... sorry Jarod... but any history student can tell you the Korean War never ended. You yourself made the comment correctly on that point... which proves even idiots know that war never ended.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... sorry Jarod... but any history student can tell you the Korean War never ended. You yourself made the comment correctly on that point... which proves even idiots know that war never ended.
Click to expand...

It never ended you are correct.... but going to war now, 55 years later, over this pittafull leader's silly words would be pre-emptive. You can play semantics all day if it makes you feel good. You look silly and its obvious you are grasping at straws simply to try to say I was wrong.

You are a little, little man.
 
Last edited:
Jarod said:
It never ended you are correct.... but going to war now, 55 years later, over this pittafull leader's silly words would be pre-emptive. You can play semantics all day if it makes you feel good. You look silly and its obvious you are grasping at straws simply to try to say I was wrong.

You are a little, little man.
Click to expand...

Jarod, you poor idiot... It is not semantics. It is reality. It is a fact. You could have simply acknowledged your error and moved on. But instead you now play the stupid little game Lorax began.

There is no grasping at straws. Legally I am correct am I not mr. lawyer?

You have been lawyered.
 
Superfreak said:
Jarod, you poor idiot... It is not semantics. It is reality. It is a fact. You could have simply acknowledged your error and moved on. But instead you now play the stupid little game Lorax began.

There is no grasping at straws. Legally I am correct am I not mr. lawyer?

You have been lawyered.
Click to expand...

He told me he didn't feel a thing.
 
Superfreak said:
Jarod, you poor idiot... It is not semantics. It is reality. It is a fact. You could have simply acknowledged your error and moved on. But instead you now play the stupid little game Lorax began.

There is no grasping at straws. Legally I am correct am I not mr. lawyer?

You have been lawyered.
Click to expand...

Legally you have no leg to stand on... What law are you claiming makes you correct, legally?
 
Superfreak said:
Seriously... you are a lawyer?

Did the war end? Yes or no?
Click to expand...

Practically or technically? Are people fighting? Is our involvement in the war over? Is North Korea in a State of War against the United States? What does this have to do with lawyering?

You are the one who said you were "legally" correct, I am simply asking what law makes you legally correct?
 
Jarod said:
Supercandy is pretending that the pissant leader of NK has ended the truce by the words and threats he has uttered.
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/11/n-korea-ends-cease-fire-during-us-s-korea-military/

http://www.latimes.com/news/world/w...ine-ceasefire-drills-20130311,0,4458378.story

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/north-korea-ending-ceasefire_n_2818515.html

Not pretending anything Jarod... or are all of the above 'pretending' as well?

At this point, that alone is not cause to renew hostilities. That said, the missile movements further add to the concern. But even then, unless we see troop buildup, there isn't like a reason to go in. Unless we believe he is capable of delivering the nukes to SK or Japan... which currently we don't think NK possesses the accuracy with their missiles... then there is no reason to advance this unless we also see troop movement.

Also Jarod... calling him a 'pissant leader' does nothing but display the arrogance so many Europeans and others see in us.
 
Jarod said:
Practically or technically? Are people fighting? Is our involvement in the war over? Is North Korea in a State of War against the United States? What does this have to do with lawyering?

You are the one who said you were "legally" correct, I am simply asking what law makes you legally correct?
Click to expand...

Did the war end Jarod? It is a simply question. I did not ask you if hostilites ended. I asked you if the War had legally ended.
 
Superfreak said:
Did the war end Jarod? It is a simply question. I did not ask you if hostilites ended. I asked you if the War had legally ended.
Click to expand...

Go back to the beginning of this thread and look at what you did. You jumped on a post jarod made, and have argued a technicality for seven pages now, destroying this thread. I have actually been very busy and would like to FUCKING LEARN SOMETHING about this situation, instead I got seven pages of a fucking PISSING CONTEST.

Yours is bigger! Happy? Now stfu, and let's see if the thread can get back on track.
 
Howey said:
Actually, he has, Jarod.

Just nobody believes him.

Boy who cried wolf and all that...
Click to expand...

So, his "threats" end the armistice? What about the military exercises of the US and South Korea? Could they be perceived the same way then?

I, like you, feel this is for the benefit of Kim Jong to establish he is a brave leader like his father, just silly posterturing, must have had one internal troubles or needs more money! Lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top