1,200 -- November 16, 2004 -- 608th day

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
That's not what I said Charlie. I said a free nation has a imperative to protect its morally superior principles and way of life against a dictatorship.

We are not killing people so we can liberate them. We are killing people because we're trying to destroy an enemy. Don't put the cart before the horse... it's ugly (and doesn't work).

I believe that the widely held western universals, best emboddied by the USA, are the best and most moral principles and beliefs known to man. Your paraphrasing of my thoughts sucks.

Just like we did in Chile and Iran

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: charrison<blather snipped>

ah heck off, Mr. Snipe-and-run. Your vapid input is unwanted.

Only a liar would find the truth vapid.


And please point out any instance where I have committed a snipe and run.

crickets.....

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
conjur - try thinking for once. You made a claim that gets repeated here often. It is a false claim. There were many justifications for taking action against Saddam - not just one "sole justification", and as I said - many of those justifications can stand on their own.

You can try to quote whatever you wish - it doesn't change the facts.

CsG

More bleating and obfuscating from King Obfuscator.

You can't handle the fact that I'm right and you're 100% wrong on this. The sole justification given to the Senate and the UN for invading Iraq was the known stockpiles of WMDs. Saddam being a dictator was not sufficient reason to invade Iraq. The humanitarian crisis was not justification for invading Iraq. Iraq being a state sponsor of terror (very tenuous claim, at best) was not justification for invading Iraq.

But, go ahead bleating your Bush-God fanboi talking points and living with your head in the sand. You'll lead a very blissful life that way.

How about you start accepting some truth for a change, CsG, and stop with your incessant, unproven bleating?

Why don't you start by re-reading what I posted earlier. Here I'll help you remember since I know you're out of marbles...

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Moral right to invade? WTF?


Uh....WMDs? Where are they?

Those were the sole justification given for the invasion. Why do you chickenhawks keep forgetting that?

There was nothing to forget. You and others seem to be obsessed with the idea that WMDs were the only justification for acting against Saddam. That would be factually incorrect as shown by legislation passed giving President Bush the authority to use force as he saw fit.

But hey - keep telling yourself whatever you wish...

CsG

Now then - tell me how that squares with THIS.

Meh - I'm sure you and the other rage-blinded leftists will continue to bleat your nonsense -but it doesn't mean it's the truth.

CsG

 

[cwjerome]

Kibbo says, "Prove to me that a democratic country is in a moral position to determine the future of all or any non-democratic country."

There is no "proof".. only evidence arrived at by sound reasoning. I have to get some sleep, so I'll write more later... but let me say this: The right of a nation to determine its government and policies does not include the right to establish a slave society where individual rights are not recognized and the government holds virtually unlimited power over people. There is no such thing as "the right to destroy rights." A nation CAN do it, just as a man CAN become a criminal- but neither can do it by right.

A nation that violates the rights of its own citizens cannot claim any rights whatsoever. Just as an individual's rights do not include the "right" to commit crimes (ie. the right to violate the rights of others), a government cannot do so either. In the issue of rights, as in all moral issues, there can be no double standard. Pretending that a slave pen like North Korea is on equal terms with the USA is an abomination of rights, and moral treason.

Goodnite.

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
That's not what I said Charlie. I said a free nation has a imperative to protect its morally superior principles and way of life against a dictatorship.

We are not killing people so we can liberate them. We are killing people because we're trying to destroy an enemy. Don't put the cart before the horse... it's ugly (and doesn't work).

I believe that the widely held western universals, best emboddied by the USA, are the best and most moral principles and beliefs known to man. Your paraphrasing of my thoughts sucks.

OK, fine, I'll go back to an old argument that your language has actually made stronger. Prove that anything Iraq could have done could have done anything to would have destryed your freedom. Anything.

Even assuming that by being an enemy they could destroy "your freedom," were they the biggest threat to you? If they were not the biggest threat to you, you have a moral imperative to deal with the biggest threat first. And even if they were the biggest threat to you, since there are many threats out there, you have a moral imperative to do so in the most resource-efficient way reasonably possible, or else leave yourself vulnerable to threat #2. (Yes, this means that if you are using WMDs as a justification, you had a moral imperative to use inspections until you had no other option.)

Not to mention that practicing on the basis of this vaunted moral superiority means that you have an obligation to act in such a manner that remains true to your ethics, or lose the legitimacy of your moral superiority. That means doing everything in your power to maintain peace and order in post-invasion Iraq. And don't go saying that Bushie couldn't have known what was going to happen, according to a talk I heard from Reagan's former Head of the Joint Chiefs of staff, they were told and chose to ignore.

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Kibbo says, "Prove to me that a democratic country is in a moral position to determine the future of all or any non-democratic country."

There is no "proof".. only evidence arrived at by sound reasoning. I have to get some sleep, so I'll write more later...

Proof: The stages in the resolution of a mathematical or philosophical problem; an argument, in other words
Evidence: facts,. . . supporting (or refuting) a belief, proposition etd; facts supporting your proof.
Considering you don't understand the terminology involved in reason, I'm guessing you're not that experienced with it. Still, if it is as absolute as you say, it should stand on its own.

let me say this: The right of a nation to determine its government and policies does not include the right to establish a slave society where individual rights are not recognized and the government holds virtually unlimited power over people. There is no such thing as "the right to destroy rights." A nation CAN do it, just as a man CAN become a criminal- but neither can do it by right.

Okay, I'll take that, and even help you by saying you should have phrased it as "the right to violate rights." Rights are inalienable, which means they can't be destroyed, only recognized and protected or not.

A nation that violates the rights of its own citizens cannot claim any rights whatsoever. Just as an individual's rights do not include the "right" to commit crimes (ie. the right to violate the rights of others), a government cannot do so either.

Umm, that doesn't follow.

The proposition "Just as an individual's rights do not include the 'right' to commit crimes (ie. the right to violate the rights of others), a government cannot do so either. " does not mean that they forgo their rights.

You have to prove to me that violating the rights of another means that you forgo your rights. In this case you would have to say that you forgo any and all of your rights. You would, in essence, have to prove that an act of vandalism (a violation of property rights) means that you forgo the right to oxygen. Or the right to not be tortured. If you don't have that proof at the ready, or (most likely) you are not prepared to pull it out ('cause it could so easily lead to bad stuff) then you must admit that these discussions of rights are not as absolute or simple as you would like to believe. There are matters of degees, and of weighing one right against another. This means that there must be ways determined to weigh these rights against one another, and to find out when those rights are waived on the part of the rights violators. It's a toughie.

And then you would also have to contend with the consequentialists, who would say that you have a moral imperative to take no action that would leave the Iraqis worse off. With civilian casualties quickly mounting, you would have to prove that recognizing these rights will be "worth" these 15000+ lives. Who weren't consulted regarding your actions. And this is assuming that your adventure in Iraq is going to be successful. What happens if it is no longer in the United State's self-interest to stay there? What happens if you leave and it falls into civil war? And emerges with a dictator who is worse than Saddam would have been in his last years? Remember that since shortly after Gulf War I, he hadn't commited any of his greatest atrocities. There had been a decade of relative peace in Iraq. Not a great place to live, I agree, but not a warzone with bombs raining on urban populated areas.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Kibbo says, "Prove to me that a democratic country is in a moral position to determine the future of all or any non-democratic country."

There is no "proof".. only evidence arrived at by sound reasoning. I have to get some sleep, so I'll write more later... but let me say this: The right of a nation to determine its government and policies does not include the right to establish a slave society where individual rights are not recognized and the government holds virtually unlimited power over people. There is no such thing as "the right to destroy rights." A nation CAN do it, just as a man CAN become a criminal- but neither can do it by right.

A nation that violates the rights of its own citizens cannot claim any rights whatsoever. Just as an individual's rights do not include the "right" to commit crimes (ie. the right to violate the rights of others), a government cannot do so either. In the issue of rights, as in all moral issues, there can be no double standard. Pretending that a slave pen like North Korea is on equal terms with the USA is an abomination of rights, and moral treason.

Goodnite.

I don't think anyone is trying to make the argument you seem to be refuting (That NK, Saddam's Iraq, etc are on equal moral terms with the US). My only question is whether or not we have any sort of argument that supports determining the direction of a country when our security was not threatened. I'm not arguing a specific instance either, so let's ignore "Iraq was going to attack us" sorts of arguments. I'm simply asking whether or not we are acting in a right, moral way if we determine the direction of another country JUST because we think our way is better for them.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Take away the WMD claim, we would not be in Iraq right now. Nobody can refute this, thus all the right's arguments for the war fall apart. None of the other reasons combined would have brought us to war, only WMD's have got us here.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
I said a free nation has a imperative to protect its morally superior principles and way of life against a dictatorship.

We are not killing people so we can liberate them. We are killing people because we're trying to destroy an enemy. Don't put the cart before the horse... it's ugly (and doesn't work).

I believe that the widely held western universals, best emboddied by the USA, are the best and most moral principles and beliefs known to man. Your paraphrasing of my thoughts sucks.

1,200, 120,000 1.2 Million, 12 Million, 120 Million it don't matter right as long as the U.S. controls the world.

:roll:

 

[Klixxer]

The justification was that Iraq was a credible and great threat to the US.

That was it, now, i want to see some evidence that this was the truth.

Us Europeans get hatred while people like me are in Afghanistan (something that united the world), for what? I'll tell you why, the arrogant idiots who cannot stand being wrong will lay blame anywhere they can to deflect from reality, the reality is that Iraq was NO threat to anyone.

It takes an utter moron to try to justify the Iraq war.

Congrats CsG and company, you will swallow anything, maybe you could be used as wastebaskets because politiclly that is what you are, human wastebaskets who will accept any garbage anyone throws at you.

 

[sandorski]

The mind boggles.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
conjur - try thinking for once. You made a claim that gets repeated here often. It is a false claim. There were many justifications for taking action against Saddam - not just one "sole justification", and as I said - many of those justifications can stand on their own.

You can try to quote whatever you wish - it doesn't change the facts.

CsG

More bleating and obfuscating from King Obfuscator.

You can't handle the fact that I'm right and you're 100% wrong on this. The sole justification given to the Senate and the UN for invading Iraq was the known stockpiles of WMDs. Saddam being a dictator was not sufficient reason to invade Iraq. The humanitarian crisis was not justification for invading Iraq. Iraq being a state sponsor of terror (very tenuous claim, at best) was not justification for invading Iraq.

But, go ahead bleating your Bush-God fanboi talking points and living with your head in the sand. You'll lead a very blissful life that way.

How about you start accepting some truth for a change, CsG, and stop with your incessant, unproven bleating?

Why don't you start by re-reading what I posted earlier. Here I'll help you remember since I know you're out of marbles...

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Moral right to invade? WTF?


Uh....WMDs? Where are they?

Those were the sole justification given for the invasion. Why do you chickenhawks keep forgetting that?

There was nothing to forget. You and others seem to be obsessed with the idea that WMDs were the only justification for acting against Saddam. That would be factually incorrect as shown by legislation passed giving President Bush the authority to use force as he saw fit.

But hey - keep telling yourself whatever you wish...

CsG

Now then - tell me how that squares with THIS.

Meh - I'm sure you and the other rage-blinded leftists will continue to bleat your nonsense -but it doesn't mean it's the truth.

CsG

It fits perfectly.

Again, Powell's testimony before the Senate:

SEN. SARBANES: Fine. All right. Now, I want to take you through the rest of them. Do you want authority to go to war in order to accomplish compliance with those resolutions --

SEC. POWELL: The president hasn't asked for any authority -- the president has not linked authority to go to war to any of the elements.

Do you understand what that means, CsG? It seems you don't.

The Senate was convinced by Powell that WMDs were the sole justification. Whatever else was in that resolution didn't matter. Without the claim that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMDs, the vote would never have passed.

 

[TheNoblePlatypus]

It's sad to think that these people arguing for the current administration aren't even on the payroll either. There seems to be a lot of hard work being put into supporting Bushs' lies.

I haven't really seen any of them beat back Conjur's actual facts with anything yet. Except one of them did say "These are facts you cannot change.", without providing any facts or evidence of the "facts". I don't know if that counts or not.

 

[BBond]

1,200 -- November 16, 2004 -- 608th day
All due to Bush's lies...

Keep making excuses for Bush and American troops will just keep on dying.

A monumental disaster, born of the ideas of madmen and perpetuated through the aid of the mindless.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Moral right to invade? WTF?


Uh....WMDs? Where are they?

Those were the sole justification given for the invasion. Why do you chickenhawks keep forgetting that?

There was nothing to forget. You and others seem to be obsessed with the idea that WMDs were the only justification for acting against Saddam. That would be factually incorrect as shown by legislation passed giving President Bush the authority to use force as he saw fit.

But hey - keep telling yourself whatever you wish...

CsG

No, conjur is exactly right here. WMD was 99% of the reason for going into Iraq. Belief of otherwise is ignorant.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TheNoblePlatypus
It's sad to think that these people arguing for the current administration aren't even on the payroll either. There seems to be a lot of hard work being put into supporting Bushs' lies.

I haven't really seen any of them beat back Conjur's actual facts with anything yet. Except one of them did say "These are facts you cannot change.", without providing any facts or evidence of the "facts". I don't know if that counts or not.

It most certainly does not. CsG is the king of obfuscation and ambiguity and holds everyone to a higher standard than himself.

It's a pity that people like him have no problem with 1,200 American soldiers having lost their lives for a lie.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TheNoblePlatypus
It's sad to think that these people arguing for the current administration aren't even on the payroll either. There seems to be a lot of hard work being put into supporting Bushs' lies.

I haven't really seen any of them beat back Conjur's actual facts with anything yet. Except one of them did say "These are facts you cannot change.", without providing any facts or evidence of the "facts". I don't know if that counts or not.

It most certainly does not. CsG is the king of obfuscation and ambiguity and holds everyone to a higher standard than himself.

It's a pity that people like him have no problem with 1,200 American soldiers having lost their lives for a lie.

It's a pity that so many Americans continue to make excuses for the people who misled us to war, refuse to recognize the truth and hold George Bush and his neocon maniacs accountable.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TheNoblePlatypus
It's sad to think that these people arguing for the current administration aren't even on the payroll either. There seems to be a lot of hard work being put into supporting Bushs' lies.

I haven't really seen any of them beat back Conjur's actual facts with anything yet. Except one of them did say "These are facts you cannot change.", without providing any facts or evidence of the "facts". I don't know if that counts or not.

It most certainly does not. CsG is the king of obfuscation and ambiguity and holds everyone to a higher standard than himself.

It's a pity that people like him have no problem with 1,200 American soldiers having lost their lives for a lie.

It's a pity that so many Americans continue to make excuses for the people who misled us to war, refuse to recognize the truth and hold George Bush and his neocon maniacs accountable.

agreed, it's sad to see people still trying to justify the reasons for going into this war at this point. it's also interesting to note how CAD and others got real quiet. kinda hard to argue against the facts isn't it?

 

[BBond]

Maybe they're all coincidentally off line.

 

[shurato]

You can argue semantics all you want but we were all duped into thinking WMD's were the main reason for invading Iraq. If some of you honestly want to play these games then it's pretty sad it's come to this. I don't know about the people on here who seemed fairly self sufficient in their thoughts without having to make decisions solely on what they watch on the evening news whethers its Fox, CNN, BBC, or etc..., but I'd wager that most Americans saw the justifications of war based on what the President and his cabinet presented to us in speeches, news reports and what have you. I don't know about you but all I remember was smoking gun in the form of mushroom clouds, mobile weapons labs, weapons of mass destruction mentioned AD NAUSEUM, and so forth.... I supported this president after 9/11 and was fully supportive of the efforts in Afghanistan. I was also duped into thinking this Iraq war was just with the so called evidence presented to me by this President. I've now realized I've been lied to and young men and women are dying over there... for what?

Some may call it for "Freedom" or whats "Moral"... give me a fvckin break. I trusted the president and was supportive of him until I found pretty much everything he was saying was a crock of sh!t. So go ahead and divert the attention from the real issue that he lied to us and try to play these games of semantics and conjecture. It's obvious some will never open their eyes whether their on the left or right because they always have to tote the party line at every turn. And to the person who was attemping to compare the casualties now with the ones back in World War 2, where does it end? Should I start comparing casulaties to the days of the Civil War and how less people are dying now? Listen you scum, a life is a life, and for you to make those stupid comparisons obviously shows that the many that are dead now are just a statistical number to you. I'd like to see how you feel if someone you loved was over there and died or came near to close it...you wouldn't be so callous in your thinking.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TheNoblePlatypus
It's sad to think that these people arguing for the current administration aren't even on the payroll either. There seems to be a lot of hard work being put into supporting Bushs' lies.

I haven't really seen any of them beat back Conjur's actual facts with anything yet. Except one of them did say "These are facts you cannot change.", without providing any facts or evidence of the "facts". I don't know if that counts or not.

It most certainly does not. CsG is the king of obfuscation and ambiguity and holds everyone to a higher standard than himself.

It's a pity that people like him have no problem with 1,200 American soldiers having lost their lives for a lie.

It's a pity that so many Americans continue to make excuses for the people who misled us to war, refuse to recognize the truth and hold George Bush and his neocon maniacs accountable.

agreed, it's sad to see people still trying to justify the reasons for going into this war at this point. it's also interesting to note how CAD and others got real quiet. kinda hard to argue against the facts isn't it?

And we have the UK's legal justification for invading Iraq:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/.../17/sprj.irq.uk.legal/

"Authority to use force against Iraq exists from the combined effect of resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. All of these resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter which allows the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security:

"1. In resolution 678 the Security Council authorised force against Iraq, to eject it from Kuwait and to restore peace and security in the area.

"2. In resolution 687, which set out the ceasefire conditions after Operation Desert Storm, the Security Council imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international peace and security in the area. Resolution 687 suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force under resolution 678.

"3. A material breach of resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under resolution 678.

"4. In resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of resolution 687, because it has not fully complied with its obligations to disarm under that resolution.

"5. The Security Council in resolution 1441 gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" and warned Iraq of the "serious consequences" if it did not.

"6. The Security Council also decided in resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach.

"7. It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach.

"8. Thus, the authority to use force under resolution 678 has revived and so continues today.

"9. Resolution 1441 would in terms have provided that a further decision of the Security Council to sanction force was required if that had been intended. Thus, all that resolution 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraq's failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force.

"I have lodged a copy of this answer, together with resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 in the Library of both Houses."

It was all about the WMDs.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TheNoblePlatypus
It's sad to think that these people arguing for the current administration aren't even on the payroll either. There seems to be a lot of hard work being put into supporting Bushs' lies.

I haven't really seen any of them beat back Conjur's actual facts with anything yet. Except one of them did say "These are facts you cannot change.", without providing any facts or evidence of the "facts". I don't know if that counts or not.

It most certainly does not. CsG is the king of obfuscation and ambiguity and holds everyone to a higher standard than himself.

It's a pity that people like him have no problem with 1,200 American soldiers having lost their lives for a lie.

It's a pity that so many Americans continue to make excuses for the people who misled us to war, refuse to recognize the truth and hold George Bush and his neocon maniacs accountable.

agreed, it's sad to see people still trying to justify the reasons for going into this war at this point. it's also interesting to note how CAD and others got real quiet. kinda hard to argue against the facts isn't it?

And we have the UK's legal justification for invading Iraq:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/.../17/sprj.irq.uk.legal/

"Authority to use force against Iraq exists from the combined effect of resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. All of these resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter which allows the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security:

"1. In resolution 678 the Security Council authorised force against Iraq, to eject it from Kuwait and to restore peace and security in the area.

"2. In resolution 687, which set out the ceasefire conditions after Operation Desert Storm, the Security Council imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international peace and security in the area. Resolution 687 suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force under resolution 678.

"3. A material breach of resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under resolution 678.

"4. In resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of resolution 687, because it has not fully complied with its obligations to disarm under that resolution.

"5. The Security Council in resolution 1441 gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" and warned Iraq of the "serious consequences" if it did not.

"6. The Security Council also decided in resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach.

"7. It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach.

"8. Thus, the authority to use force under resolution 678 has revived and so continues today.

"9. Resolution 1441 would in terms have provided that a further decision of the Security Council to sanction force was required if that had been intended. Thus, all that resolution 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraq's failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force.

"I have lodged a copy of this answer, together with resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 in the Library of both Houses."

It was all about the WMDs.

exactly, the point we are trying to make is that the JUSTIFICATION for this war was based solely on WMD's. NONE of the other claims combined could stand-alone and none of those claims would have brought us to war. Even Republicans on Capitol Hill acknowledge this.

 

[BBond]

1,200 -- November 16, 2004 -- 608th day

All due to Bush's lies...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TheNoblePlatypus
It's sad to think that these people arguing for the current administration aren't even on the payroll either. There seems to be a lot of hard work being put into supporting Bushs' lies.

I haven't really seen any of them beat back Conjur's actual facts with anything yet. Except one of them did say "These are facts you cannot change.", without providing any facts or evidence of the "facts". I don't know if that counts or not.

It most certainly does not. CsG is the king of obfuscation and ambiguity and holds everyone to a higher standard than himself.

It's a pity that people like him have no problem with 1,200 American soldiers having lost their lives for a lie.

It's a pity that so many Americans continue to make excuses for the people who misled us to war, refuse to recognize the truth and hold George Bush and his neocon maniacs accountable.

agreed, it's sad to see people still trying to justify the reasons for going into this war at this point. it's also interesting to note how CAD and others got real quiet. kinda hard to argue against the facts isn't it?

No, troll, I didn't get real quiet if you are trying to insinuate that I tucked tail and ran. Some of us WORK for a living during the day, but hey - you can be my guest if you want to build and program these panels for me.

Anyway, if you rabid Bush haters want to keep telling yourself that it was the sole justification - go ahead but it shows your willing ignorance if you do.

CsG

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Anyway, if you rabid Bush haters want to keep telling yourself that it was the sole justification - go ahead but it shows your willing ignorance if you do.

CsG

The only willing ignorance is your own hiding from the truth. What proof do you have that all of us are wrong?