Defensive war - especially pertaining to the Middle East. Cases and criteria?

Your whole argument is little more than special pleading; why do you persist with such fallacy for your cause?
It really is that simple.

 

Only if you don't have a clue or a Cause. We have the terms, common defense and general welfare, not, common offense or general warfare. See the difference?

 

Which I do

This is still an irrelevance.

 

No, you don't.

Dude, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws.

 

Now you're being rude as I do have a cause and clue as you put it.

Don't call me dude

I wasn't appealing to ignorance of your laws. In fact I would say that you've done exactly that considering that you've cited several amendments which don't pertain to war at all.

 

No; you just proved to me you don't have a clue or a Cause. There is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws. There is no common Offense clause nor any general Warfare clause. It really is that simple.

 

Where?

Which I haven't and would I have to make this appeal to you considering the ignorance on your part?

You've just invalidated your own argument.

 

You really don't understand the concepts, do you.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws.

There is no common Offence clause nor any general Warfare clause. It really is that simple.

 

Yes I do. I know them very well. I even know how to spell and use grammar to a much higher standard than yourself.

You know repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't make any brighter.
I mean why do you persist with such fallacy for you cause?

That doesn't matter.
1. Its up to the government as to how money is spent
2. There is not such thing as "general warfare"
3. There doesn't need to be an "offence clause"
4. Even an offensive operation can be classed as being in defence of the nation.

 

Only if you believe words don't mean what they say or say what they mean.

 

Really? Coming from you that's hypocritical.
And no it doesn't mean that the words" don't mean what they say or say what they mean".

 

Not at all, unless you don't have a problem saying what you don't mean or not meaning what you say. Why do you believe it is hypocritical of me, and not yourself?

 

I don't have a problem with saying anything. I've made it clear as to why your argument is invalid.

Because of your abysmal use and understanding of English.

 

Non sequiturs don't count. Besides, I believe my English is better than yours, especially since you are the one resorting to fallacies.

 

In my opinion, the common Defense must be distinguishable from the common Offense or general Warfare.

 

Only in your view

Really so why is it that you keep making up words like "commone" or "judicrature"? And I haven't used any fallacies unlike yourself.
Ergo your English isn't better than mine.

 

Not in philosophy either since they are errors in reasoning regardless of punctuation.

 

Oh finally you admit it. "In my opinion" that's right in your opinion and not in law which is exactly what you've used to base this vague and abstruse contention of yours.

 

Philosophy is an irrelevant subject when discussing either law or international relations and irrespective of whether you say they were errors or not, you did write them intentionally.
And then of course there's whole nature of your writings which are poorly formatted and chronically vague.

 

Did you know that appeals to igorance (of the law) is no excuse?

Are you claiming Terms in a social Contract (An agreement creating obligations enforceable by law.) do not need to mean what they say or say what they mean?

The common Defense must be distinguishable from the common Offense or general Warfare.

Is this easier?

 

Then don't do it.
I see you can't even spell ignorance.

No I didn't say that. How many times do I have to tell you?

Nowhere is that written.

It would be easier if you actually had an education.

 

I am not using a spell checker. Thanks for reminding me.

It Only requires a clue and perchance a Cause.

Are you claiming Terms in a social Contract (An agreement creating obligations enforceable by law.) do not need to mean what they say or say what they mean? The common Defence must be distinguishable from the common Offence or general Warfare since they are not the same Terms.

 

You can't read either. And the difference between you and me is that I don't need a spell checker.

I've already told you

And again I've also told you.

 

non sequiturs only count if you don't have a clue or a Cause. is that easier?

 

Stop dodging the point.
I've already told why your contention doesn't work and I've told you that I do have clue and cause as you put it.
That is to say I have both the knowledge and intent which you have yet to demonstrate.

You haven't once showed me where it says that the "common offence" or "general warfare" must be separate and that these terms actually exist in your laws.