A Tale of Two Surges

[geauxtohell]

You're the one making things up. Iraq was in material breach of many resolutions, many of them threatening military action. We simply acted on that when the UN proved too gutless to enforce their own resolutions. That and the fact Kofi Annan was sucking Saddam's dick for money.

LMAO.

The UN did not support us going into Iraq in any way. We did not have a "mandate" in any shape or form.

And, the last time I checked, it wasn't the job of the United States to unilaterally enforce UN resolutions. That's what the security council is for.

Are you always this dishonest?

Are you always this ignorant?
Here's part of Resolution 1441:

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Looks like authorization to me. The U.S ambassador to the UN at the time thought so too.

Then why didn't the UN enforce it?

I don't know if you are ignorant or deliberately obtuse, but the United States is not in the business of enforcing UN mandates.

 

[geauxtohell]

Here you go, Rabbi.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtNMly0aDUk&feature=related[/ame]

 

[Full-Auto]

I didnt know the answer but I knew Obama would do exactly the wrong thing. And I wasn't disappointed.
What do you think he ought to do, since you seem to know everything about everything?

Funny, I remember when people on the left were saying similar things about Iraq and douchebags on the right were calling them un-American, cowards, and all sorts of other things.

Just be glad Iraq had a shit ton of oil money to finally let the dust settle.

At any rate, it doesn't matter what Obama does. By your own admission, you are going to oppose it. So what is the point?

I think we should reduce our footprint, start subsidizing the massive governmental infrastructure we have set up with taxpayers money (because the government will collapse otherwise) indefinitely, open up a trade route into Lahore if Pakistan will play ball (doubtful), and let the Afghans have their own country back.

At this point it is doubtful it would work, as the Afghans have had five years of empty promises from us.

Bush dicked up Afghanistan. We lost our momentum there years ago.

Then you should also remember the lefts actions that prompted the calls of cowardess.

Like the left putting up a website that called for troops deaths, or maybe you would like the quotes from your leaders.

 

[rdean]

I love the way the right says we "WON" something in Iraq. I don't know how many times I have heard them say, "We liberated Iraq and it's now a democracy".

When I point out, "No, Iraq is a hard right Islamic Theocracy", they laugh and point and say, "How idiotic". Then, when I quote the Iraqi Constitution:

Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:

A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

Full Text of Iraqi Constitution - washingtonpost.com

They come back with, "Oh, that's the OLD constitution".

Then I point out, "No, Iraq was a secular country".

Then they say, "But Saddam was a bad man".

Then I say, "Yea, we always knew that, but now it's worse".

Then they say, "No, Iraq is now free".

Then I point out that, "Women are now in burkas and are pretty much slaves".

Then they say, "So were women under Saddam".

Then I say, "No, women under Saddam were able to attend school, divorce, wear western clothes, have a job and go out alone".

Then they say, "But Democrats didn't like Saddam either".

Then I say, "Yes, but they didn't invade Iraq. In fact, Bush's FATHER didn't invade Iraq".

That's where those on the right lose it. When their delusions are threatened, they start calling you names.

Remember, even George Bush thought the Iraqi's were "ungrateful". After all he did for them. And they didn't even ask for his help.

i think you are more describing iran. iraq is a better place, because the free world helped them out. we could have helped iran, but obama blew it. why people continue to defend saddam is amazing

Article 5: The law is sovereign. The people are the source of authorities and its legitimacy, which the people shall exercise in a direct general secret ballot and through their constitutional institutions.

Unfortunately, that shows how little you know. They vote in Iran, the same as Iraq. In fact, the reason the countries are so close now is because they are nearly mirror images.

You can pull any quote out of the Iraqi constitution, but this is the only one that matters:

Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:

A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

Try to figure out why. Think, "Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation". No where in Islam does it say you can't vote.

Now, think about the Christian population in Iraq. It used to be around 1.4 million. Current estimates are 3 to 4 hundred thousand. The Republican Party is 90% white and mostly Christian. Have they made a mistake and supported the genocide of Iraqi Christians? If not, how has the population dropped by a million? That never would have happened without the American Right wing's involvement in Iraq.

Now the two most important questions:

"Where are those people now"?

"Who is responsible for them"?

 

[washamericom]

There is no solution for Afghanistan.


shoot karzai and the other castro brother

 

[The Rabbi]

LMAO.

The UN did not support us going into Iraq in any way. We did not have a "mandate" in any shape or form.

And, the last time I checked, it wasn't the job of the United States to unilaterally enforce UN resolutions. That's what the security council is for.

Are you always this dishonest?

Are you always this ignorant?
Here's part of Resolution 1441:

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Looks like authorization to me. The U.S ambassador to the UN at the time thought so too.

Then why didn't the UN enforce it?

I don't know if you are ignorant or deliberately obtuse, but the United States is not in the business of enforcing UN mandates.

I told you: Annan, the French and the Germans were all sucking Saddam's dick for money.

Guess that exchange didn't work out too well. I established the UN sanctions did authorize force, that Bush went in with the authorization fo the UN and Bush 1 did not enter Iraq precisely because he did not have UN authorization.
Game, set, match.

 

[The Rabbi]

I didnt know the answer but I knew Obama would do exactly the wrong thing. And I wasn't disappointed.
What do you think he ought to do, since you seem to know everything about everything?

Funny, I remember when people on the left were saying similar things about Iraq and douchebags on the right were calling them un-American, cowards, and all sorts of other things.

Just be glad Iraq had a shit ton of oil money to finally let the dust settle.

At any rate, it doesn't matter what Obama does. By your own admission, you are going to oppose it. So what is the point?

I think we should reduce our footprint, start subsidizing the massive governmental infrastructure we have set up with taxpayers money (because the government will collapse otherwise) indefinitely, open up a trade route into Lahore if Pakistan will play ball (doubtful), and let the Afghans have their own country back.

At this point it is doubtful it would work, as the Afghans have had five years of empty promises from us.

Bush dicked up Afghanistan. We lost our momentum there years ago.

Quit putting words in my mouth.
Obama was bound to do the wrong thing. He picked the strategy with the least chance of winning, compounded his mistake by announcing a withdrawal date, and has lost the confidence of his own general, McChrystal.
So your solution is to ship tons of money to Afghanistan and hope that helps? Are you crazy? There are many problems there. Lack of U.S. money isn't one of them.
And blaming Bush is soooo last year. The place was fucked up long before Bush was even born.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Now there's a fascinating concept.

Yeah, it's called gutless demagoguery. The Dems opposed Bush's policies and voted against them many times but refrained from actually taking action, like ending funding, which would make them take responsibility.

Just for the record:

Did you support the Iraq surge? Did you support the Afghanistan surge?

Was this too difficult a question for the Rabbi? Or would answering undermine the Rabbi's game here?

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah, it's called gutless demagoguery. The Dems opposed Bush's policies and voted against them many times but refrained from actually taking action, like ending funding, which would make them take responsibility.

Just for the record:

Did you support the Iraq surge? Did you support the Afghanistan surge?

Was this too difficult a question for the Rabbi? Or would answering undermine the Rabbi's game here?

Is reading too difficult for you? I answered the question Post 66, which is more than you ever do, you ignorant dipshit.

 

[geauxtohell]

I told you: Annan, the French and the Germans were all sucking Saddam's dick for money.

Guess that exchange didn't work out too well. I established the UN sanctions did authorize force, that Bush went in with the authorization fo the UN and Bush 1 did not enter Iraq precisely because he did not have UN authorization.
Game, set, match.

Please show me the constitutionality of using our military to enforce the mandates of an outside body. In this case; the UN. We both know this is a bunch of bullshit.

It's even more ironic considering that you guys try and play both sides of the fence. You hate the UN and claim they are an illegitimate governing body, until you need their mandates to support Bush's idiotic wars.

The UN sure as hell didn't support us "enforcing their mandates", but that was all a conspiracy, huh?

This is just fucking comical.

So, now that we are in the business of enforcing UN mandates, what about all those UN mandates directed at Israel that we don't bother to enforce for them?

 

[geauxtohell]

Just for the record:

Did you support the Iraq surge? Did you support the Afghanistan surge?

Was this too difficult a question for the Rabbi? Or would answering undermine the Rabbi's game here?

Is reading too difficult for you? I answered the question Post 66, which is more than you ever do, you ignorant dipshit.

So where do we go from here in Afghanistan, Raffi?

Or does it even matter just so long as Obama looks bad?

You fucking ghoul.

 

[The Rabbi]

Was this too difficult a question for the Rabbi? Or would answering undermine the Rabbi's game here?

Is reading too difficult for you? I answered the question Post 66, which is more than you ever do, you ignorant dipshit.

So where do we go from here in Afghanistan, Raffi?

Or does it even matter just so long as Obama looks bad?

You fucking ghoul.

I've already been asked that and given my answer, dumbfuck. Obama doesn't need my help looking bad. He does it quite well himself.
You have any ideas? I mean other than going for lunch.

 

[The Rabbi]

I told you: Annan, the French and the Germans were all sucking Saddam's dick for money.

Guess that exchange didn't work out too well. I established the UN sanctions did authorize force, that Bush went in with the authorization fo the UN and Bush 1 did not enter Iraq precisely because he did not have UN authorization.
Game, set, match.

Please show me the constitutionality of using our military to enforce the mandates of an outside body. In this case; the UN. We both know this is a bunch of bullshit.

It's even more ironic considering that you guys try and play both sides of the fence. You hate the UN and claim they are an illegitimate governing body, until you need their mandates to support Bush's idiotic wars.

The UN sure as hell didn't support us "enforcing their mandates", but that was all a conspiracy, huh?

This is just fucking comical.

So, now that we are in the business of enforcing UN mandates, what about all those UN mandates directed at Israel that we don't bother to enforce for them?

Article II, Section 2. What a moron.

 

[geauxtohell]

Is reading too difficult for you? I answered the question Post 66, which is more than you ever do, you ignorant dipshit.

So where do we go from here in Afghanistan, Raffi?

Or does it even matter just so long as Obama looks bad?

You fucking ghoul.

I've already been asked that and given my answer, dumbfuck. Obama doesn't need my help looking bad. He does it quite well himself.
You have any ideas? I mean other than going for lunch.

Really? I must have missed it. What is your answer?

I've stated mine on here earlier.

 

[The Rabbi]

So where do we go from here in Afghanistan, Raffi?

Or does it even matter just so long as Obama looks bad?

You fucking ghoul.

I've already been asked that and given my answer, dumbfuck. Obama doesn't need my help looking bad. He does it quite well himself.
You have any ideas? I mean other than going for lunch.

Really? I must have missed it. What is your answer?

I've stated mine on here earlier.

I'm not here to do your reading for you. Look for it yourself.

 

[geauxtohell]

Article II, Section 2. What a moron.

Yeah, still not seeing anything about the UN in there.

 

[geauxtohell]

I'm not here to do your reading for you. Look for it yourself.

You don't have a solution, do you?

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm not here to do your reading for you. Look for it yourself.

You don't have a solution, do you?

No. Because there is no solution.

 

[geauxtohell]

I'm not here to do your reading for you. Look for it yourself.

You don't have a solution, do you?

No. Because there is no solution.

So, basically, you want to watch us fail and Americans get killed, because it will make Obama look bad?

In other words if, God forbid, you were the POTUS what would you do in regards to Afghanistan?

Simply saying: "There isn't a solution" will not be sufficient.

 

[The Rabbi]

You don't have a solution, do you?

No. Because there is no solution.

So, basically, you want to watch us fail and Americans get killed, because it will make Obama look bad?

In other words if, God forbid, you were the POTUS what would you do in regards to Afghanistan?

Simply saying: "There isn't a solution" will not be sufficient.

I'll tell you when I'm POTUS.
What is clear is that the present policy is a failure.