NFL kneelers

[Harpy Eagle]

When dealing with two nations, who decides what is "legal"? Was it legal for us to invade Iraq? Some think so.

Legal has no real meaning when dealing with separate nations unless you think someone like the UN has power over all nations.

Moral? Well I guess I see ending slavery as a moral plus, so I would say they had the moral right to do what they did. perhaps you see slavery different than I do.

1. The difficulty of international law is real. But that is not a reason to not discuss it. These questions are still relevant, as noted by how upset some of the people in this thread have gotten over them.

2. FUCK THE UN.

3. Slavery? Funny, Lincoln's stated reason for the war was to preserve the Union.

1. So, did the US have the legal and moral right to invade Iraq?

2. Something we agree on!

3. And it was the stated reason for the south to leave the union.

1. Yes, of course, based on failure to comply withe the peace agreement from the FIrst Gulf War.

2. Thank you.

3. But not the legal justification for secession. THe SOuth's claim was that they had a right to secede. If you have a right to do something, you have the right to do it, and asking why is moot.


YOU agree with them on that.

1. Could not disagree more.

3. I agree they had the right to leave and I agree the Union had the right to stop them. Not unlike the British empire trying to stop the 13 colonies from leaving.

1. What legal problem to you see in the Iraqi War?

3. Your Justification for the actions of the Union seem thin.

1. There is no legal problem because legal does not exit if you do not agree with the UN.

On the moral side, we invaded a sovereign nation that was zero threat to this nation at the cost of more than 4000 American lives, 30,000 plus wounded ,more than 200,000 brain injuries and more than 2.4 million dollars and counting. That does not even touch the more than 30,000 Iraqi civilians and the troops from the other nations we bullied into joining us.

And the end result was a region worse off than before we invaded and the rise to power of ISIS, which is directly linked to our invasion of Iraq

There is nothing to justify, they won. Every nation on the planet took their land form someone else, that is the way it works

 

[Correll]

1. The difficulty of international law is real. But that is not a reason to not discuss it. These questions are still relevant, as noted by how upset some of the people in this thread have gotten over them.

2. FUCK THE UN.

3. Slavery? Funny, Lincoln's stated reason for the war was to preserve the Union.

1. So, did the US have the legal and moral right to invade Iraq?

2. Something we agree on!

3. And it was the stated reason for the south to leave the union.

1. Yes, of course, based on failure to comply withe the peace agreement from the FIrst Gulf War.

2. Thank you.

3. But not the legal justification for secession. THe SOuth's claim was that they had a right to secede. If you have a right to do something, you have the right to do it, and asking why is moot.


YOU agree with them on that.

1. Could not disagree more.

3. I agree they had the right to leave and I agree the Union had the right to stop them. Not unlike the British empire trying to stop the 13 colonies from leaving.

1. What legal problem to you see in the Iraqi War?

3. Your Justification for the actions of the Union seem thin.

1. There is no legal problem because legal does not exit if you do not agree with the UN.

On the moral side, we invaded a sovereign nation that was zero threat to this nation at the cost of more than 4000 American lives, 30,000 plus wounded ,more than 200,000 brain injuries and more than 2.4 million dollars and counting. That does not even touch the more than 30,000 Iraqi civilians and the troops from the other nations we bullied into joining us.

And the end result was a region worse off than before we invaded and the rise to power of ISIS, which is directly linked to our invasion of Iraq

There is nothing to justify, they won. Every nation on the planet took their land form someone else, that is the way it works

The UN is not a governing nor controlling Authority over nations, and it is not the beginning nor the end of International law.


We had an agreement with Iraq to end the last conflict, which they started with their invasino of kuwait.

They broke the terms of the ceasefire.

Resuming hostilities is called for at that point.


Whether is was a success is a different discussion than whether it was legal.

 

[oreo]

And your causative evidence here is-----?

Trump is a traitor, he's no Patriot of this country, and is the very last person in tthis galaxy that should be remarking on anyone

I'll give you a week so you can see your proctologist to help find it.

In your case, that's your primary care physician.

What difference does it make if the kneeling is televised or not? NFL customers are offended.

I was about to ask what makes you think you can stage political protests at work. Then I remembered you're fake news. Never mind ...

I don't buy that all NFL customers are offended. If Trump would have kept his f....ing mouth shut this wouldn't be going on today. Trump pulls this crap all of the time to distract you from what is really going on. And let's face it, a Trump supporter is easily distracted by anything Trump tweets or says. You bit into it again. What President in the past ever inserted a negative opinon into the most popular game in this country? Now you can't even enjoy your Sunday football. Trump is all about division, not unity and reconciliation. He'll do or say anything to keep his ANGRY base of support fired up and in lockstep with him.

If Trump thinks you're spending too much time and or it's taking too much attention away from him & his White House T.V. reality show--look the hell out. He's all about ratings. How many times have you heard him bring up T.V ratings in the last 2 years?-- What past President ever talked about T.V. ratings on a Presidential platform? You might want to actually read this article.
A neuroscientist explains: Trump has a mental disorder that makes him a dangerous world leader

Click this link on this thread for an explanation of it, along with a video from a sports announcer out of Dallas, Texas and his take on all of this, plus a lot more.
NFL kneelers

Strawman. No one said "all" NFL customers are offended. It's the idiotic polar extreme that leftists constantly go to. It's a football game. Businesses don't want to offend any of their customers. You just like going to a football game and turning into a hate America moment. Of course you do, you're a leftist.

As for the rest, it's just more of your butt hurt hate Trump bull shit. This is about players disrespecting the country. But of course everything to you is about your agonizing butt hurt searing you hate Trump pain. Let it out, guy, let it out.

About right now everyone that is a Patriot of this country should be hating Trump. He's a traitor. You supported and voted for the Russian manchurian candidate. He has not earned the respect nor the right to comment on others patriotism.

There's lot of evidence to prove that, that I just gave you, at this link. Since you're a Trump tard you just don't want to read an article that was confirmed by James Clapper under sworn testimony over a year ago, watch 2 FOXNEWS video's and another of Trump admitting to Obstruction of Justice on Natiional T.V. Nor do you want review the classified information that Trump has already given to Vladimir Putin. There is a reason that this administration has a turn over rate that beats Der Weinersnitchel. All you need to do is click this link and it will take you right to the post on this thread, which (by clicking other links on that post) will redirect you to other posts on this board that proves he's a traiter, and that Vladimir Putin has him by the cohones. They don't play football in Russia.
NFL kneelers

While Donald Trump was running for president in late 2015 and early 2016, his company was pursuing a plan to develop a massive Trump Tower in Moscow, according to several people familiar with the proposal and new records reviewed by Trump Organization lawyers.

Trump’s business sought deal on a Trump Tower in Moscow while he ran for president

Gary Johnson is the Russian Manchurian candidate? WTF are you talking about? I don't think so.

As for the rest of your Trump butt hurt, let it out, let it out ...



And leftists claiming to be the ones who appreciate the military is your most stupid crap yet

Name another President that wrote in his book, that his personal Viet Nam was avoding sexually transmitted diseases. Only one has done that, and it's the Ass Clown that sits in the Oval office while lashing out at others, in his early morning tweety news feeds-- That's not respecting of the military-in fact quite a slap in the face to anyone that wears a military uniform and to those that sacrified their lives. This is a red state link so it's safe for you to read it.
Trump's Vulgar Admission: Avoiding STDs was "my personal Vietnam" with "few uninfected" women

You have elected a traitor to this country, and there's plenty of proof of that.

For what happened in the Oval office with the Russians and classified information click this link.
Do You Believe Based on Evidence, Russia Changed Outcome of 2016 Election

The collusion evidence. Here you can read one article that was confirmed by James Clapper under sworn testimony over a year ago, watch 2 FOX NEWS video's and another of Trump admitting to Obstruction of Justice On National T.V.
Do You Believe Based on Evidence, Russia Changed Outcome of 2016 Election

And for how Vladimir Putin actually did change the outcome of the election go to this link.
Do You Believe Based on Evidence, Russia Changed Outcome of 2016 Election

(3 different links to 3 different posts on this board.) When you get through it, make certain to come back on here to tell me of how PROUD you are to have this Russian Manchurian (patriotic) candidate as your President-

 

[Harpy Eagle]

1. So, did the US have the legal and moral right to invade Iraq?

2. Something we agree on!

3. And it was the stated reason for the south to leave the union.

1. Yes, of course, based on failure to comply withe the peace agreement from the FIrst Gulf War.

2. Thank you.

3. But not the legal justification for secession. THe SOuth's claim was that they had a right to secede. If you have a right to do something, you have the right to do it, and asking why is moot.


YOU agree with them on that.

1. Could not disagree more.

3. I agree they had the right to leave and I agree the Union had the right to stop them. Not unlike the British empire trying to stop the 13 colonies from leaving.

1. What legal problem to you see in the Iraqi War?

3. Your Justification for the actions of the Union seem thin.

1. There is no legal problem because legal does not exit if you do not agree with the UN.

On the moral side, we invaded a sovereign nation that was zero threat to this nation at the cost of more than 4000 American lives, 30,000 plus wounded ,more than 200,000 brain injuries and more than 2.4 million dollars and counting. That does not even touch the more than 30,000 Iraqi civilians and the troops from the other nations we bullied into joining us.

And the end result was a region worse off than before we invaded and the rise to power of ISIS, which is directly linked to our invasion of Iraq

There is nothing to justify, they won. Every nation on the planet took their land form someone else, that is the way it works

The UN is not a governing nor controlling Authority over nations, and it is not the beginning nor the end of International law.


We had an agreement with Iraq to end the last conflict, which they started with their invasino of kuwait.

They broke the terms of the ceasefire.

Resuming hostilities is called for at that point.


Whether is was a success is a different discussion than whether it was legal.

Did Iraq agree we had the legal right to invade and remove their government and kill their citizens?

 

[kaz]

In your case, that's your primary care physician.

What difference does it make if the kneeling is televised or not? NFL customers are offended.

I was about to ask what makes you think you can stage political protests at work. Then I remembered you're fake news. Never mind ...

I don't buy that all NFL customers are offended. If Trump would have kept his f....ing mouth shut this wouldn't be going on today. Trump pulls this crap all of the time to distract you from what is really going on. And let's face it, a Trump supporter is easily distracted by anything Trump tweets or says. You bit into it again. What President in the past ever inserted a negative opinon into the most popular game in this country? Now you can't even enjoy your Sunday football. Trump is all about division, not unity and reconciliation. He'll do or say anything to keep his ANGRY base of support fired up and in lockstep with him.

If Trump thinks you're spending too much time and or it's taking too much attention away from him & his White House T.V. reality show--look the hell out. He's all about ratings. How many times have you heard him bring up T.V ratings in the last 2 years?-- What past President ever talked about T.V. ratings on a Presidential platform? You might want to actually read this article.
A neuroscientist explains: Trump has a mental disorder that makes him a dangerous world leader

Click this link on this thread for an explanation of it, along with a video from a sports announcer out of Dallas, Texas and his take on all of this, plus a lot more.
NFL kneelers

Strawman. No one said "all" NFL customers are offended. It's the idiotic polar extreme that leftists constantly go to. It's a football game. Businesses don't want to offend any of their customers. You just like going to a football game and turning into a hate America moment. Of course you do, you're a leftist.

As for the rest, it's just more of your butt hurt hate Trump bull shit. This is about players disrespecting the country. But of course everything to you is about your agonizing butt hurt searing you hate Trump pain. Let it out, guy, let it out.

About right now everyone that is a Patriot of this country should be hating Trump. He's a traitor. You supported and voted for the Russian manchurian candidate. He has not earned the respect nor the right to comment on others patriotism.

There's lot of evidence to prove that, that I just gave you, at this link. Since you're a Trump tard you just don't want to read an article that was confirmed by James Clapper under sworn testimony over a year ago, watch 2 FOXNEWS video's and another of Trump admitting to Obstruction of Justice on Natiional T.V. Nor do you want review the classified information that Trump has already given to Vladimir Putin. There is a reason that this administration has a turn over rate that beats Der Weinersnitchel. All you need to do is click this link and it will take you right to the post on this thread, which (by clicking other links on that post) will redirect you to other posts on this board that proves he's a traiter, and that Vladimir Putin has him by the cohones. They don't play football in Russia.
NFL kneelers

While Donald Trump was running for president in late 2015 and early 2016, his company was pursuing a plan to develop a massive Trump Tower in Moscow, according to several people familiar with the proposal and new records reviewed by Trump Organization lawyers.

Trump’s business sought deal on a Trump Tower in Moscow while he ran for president

Gary Johnson is the Russian Manchurian candidate? WTF are you talking about? I don't think so.

As for the rest of your Trump butt hurt, let it out, let it out ...



And leftists claiming to be the ones who appreciate the military is your most stupid crap yet

Name another President that wrote in his book, that his personal Viet Nam was avoding sexually transmitted diseases. Only one has done that, and it's the Ass Clown that sits in the Oval office while lashing out at others, in his early morning tweety news feeds-- That's not respecting of the military-in fact quite a slap in the face to anyone that wears a military uniform and to those that sacrified their lives. This is a red state link so it's safe for you to read it.
Trump's Vulgar Admission: Avoiding STDs was "my personal Vietnam" with "few uninfected" women

You have elected a traitor to this country, and there's plenty of proof of that.

For what happened in the Oval office with the Russians and classified information click this link.
Do You Believe Based on Evidence, Russia Changed Outcome of 2016 Election

The collusion evidence. Here you can read one article that was confirmed by James Clapper under sworn testimony over a year ago, watch 2 FOX NEWS video's and another of Trump admitting to Obstruction of Justice On National T.V.
Do You Believe Based on Evidence, Russia Changed Outcome of 2016 Election

And for how Vladimir Putin actually did change the outcome of the election go to this link.
Do You Believe Based on Evidence, Russia Changed Outcome of 2016 Election

(3 different links to 3 different posts on this board.) When you get through it, make certain to come back on here to tell me of how PROUD you are to have this Russian Manchurian (patriotic) candidate as your President-

Gotcha, if you can't dazzle them with your wit, baffle them with your bull shit

 

[Redfish]

yes, the states of the CSA wanted to establish a new country when the northern states tried to impose their will on them and destroy the economy of the south, it was not about slavery, it was about a central government trying to take away states rights. Its you who does not know history, dude, and its you who is displaying partisan stupidity here. BTW, Lincoln was a republican and Jeff Davis was a democrat, just for shits and giggles, because it actually means nothing

Oh shit --- this dood bought the whole Lost Cause textbook and swallowed whole. We did this to death in the Lost Cause threads but since you're in the right place why don't you tell the class about that obelisk at the foot of Canal Street that stood there for decades commemorating white supremacy and the White League? Why don't you post Mitch Landrieu's commentary on removing it and the other markers? Why don't you meet us in those Lost Cause threads and try to sell it there? I'll give you a link.

90% of the people demanding the removal of statues in NOLA do not even know who these people were, what they did, or what the believed. BTW, now that the statues are down, crime is still rampant and the mayor and city council remain incompetent.

just to show the ignorance of this, they wanted to take down Andrew Jackson in Jackson square. They didn't know that he had nothing to do with the civil war and was a hero of the revolutionary war against King George. But he was an old white guy so "take him down". downright stupid.

Haha. Links?

Is that Civil War submarine still there btw?

don't think so. where was it?

Used to be right in front of the Cabildo.

gone

 

[Redfish]

Kneeling is so dumb.

Rather than kneeling and pissing off all of your customers, hold signs up for the issue you are supporting.

and do it on your own time, not while you are being paid to play a game.

And let that game BE a game without the intrusions of fake-patriotism puppet shows.

why is it fake? No one in the stands is required to stand--------but they do. What exactly do you find offensive about patriotism? Why is it wrong to show respect for your country and pledge your loyalty to it?

 

[Redfish]

View attachment 211270

what injustice are they protesting? That they are being paid millions? that black rappers are paid millions for rapping about bitches and hos? that black unemployment is at all time lows? Or are they protesting the welfare system that causes 70% of black babies to be born to single women and never know their fathers?

this whole thing is misplaced bullshit.

 

[Redfish]

1. The difficulty of international law is real. But that is not a reason to not discuss it. These questions are still relevant, as noted by how upset some of the people in this thread have gotten over them.

2. FUCK THE UN.

3. Slavery? Funny, Lincoln's stated reason for the war was to preserve the Union.

1. So, did the US have the legal and moral right to invade Iraq?

2. Something we agree on!

3. And it was the stated reason for the south to leave the union.

1. Yes, of course, based on failure to comply withe the peace agreement from the FIrst Gulf War.

2. Thank you.

3. But not the legal justification for secession. THe SOuth's claim was that they had a right to secede. If you have a right to do something, you have the right to do it, and asking why is moot.


YOU agree with them on that.

1. Could not disagree more.

3. I agree they had the right to leave and I agree the Union had the right to stop them. Not unlike the British empire trying to stop the 13 colonies from leaving.

1. What legal problem to you see in the Iraqi War?

3. Your Justification for the actions of the Union seem thin.

1. There is no legal problem because legal does not exit if you do not agree with the UN.

On the moral side, we invaded a sovereign nation that was zero threat to this nation at the cost of more than 4000 American lives, 30,000 plus wounded ,more than 200,000 brain injuries and more than 2.4 million dollars and counting. That does not even touch the more than 30,000 Iraqi civilians and the troops from the other nations we bullied into joining us.

And the end result was a region worse off than before we invaded and the rise to power of ISIS, which is directly linked to our invasion of Iraq

There is nothing to justify, they won. Every nation on the planet took their land form someone else, that is the way it works

We also lost Kennedy and Johnson's viet nam war. Taking Saddam out could have been done covertly at a much lower cost in lives and dollars.

 

[Redfish]

1. Yes, of course, based on failure to comply withe the peace agreement from the FIrst Gulf War.

2. Thank you.

3. But not the legal justification for secession. THe SOuth's claim was that they had a right to secede. If you have a right to do something, you have the right to do it, and asking why is moot.


YOU agree with them on that.

1. Could not disagree more.

3. I agree they had the right to leave and I agree the Union had the right to stop them. Not unlike the British empire trying to stop the 13 colonies from leaving.

1. What legal problem to you see in the Iraqi War?

3. Your Justification for the actions of the Union seem thin.

1. There is no legal problem because legal does not exit if you do not agree with the UN.

On the moral side, we invaded a sovereign nation that was zero threat to this nation at the cost of more than 4000 American lives, 30,000 plus wounded ,more than 200,000 brain injuries and more than 2.4 million dollars and counting. That does not even touch the more than 30,000 Iraqi civilians and the troops from the other nations we bullied into joining us.

And the end result was a region worse off than before we invaded and the rise to power of ISIS, which is directly linked to our invasion of Iraq

There is nothing to justify, they won. Every nation on the planet took their land form someone else, that is the way it works

The UN is not a governing nor controlling Authority over nations, and it is not the beginning nor the end of International law.


We had an agreement with Iraq to end the last conflict, which they started with their invasino of kuwait.

They broke the terms of the ceasefire.

Resuming hostilities is called for at that point.


Whether is was a success is a different discussion than whether it was legal.

Did Iraq agree we had the legal right to invade and remove their government and kill their citizens?

I agree with most of what you are saying, however, there is no body of international law that applies here or in any other international dealings. there are no international courts to enforce violations even if there was a body of international law. Claiming legality or illegality regarding wars is stupid.

 

[Redfish]

THey have the power to do so, they did not have the legal, or moral right to do so.

When dealing with two nations, who decides what is "legal"? Was it legal for us to invade Iraq? Some think so.

Legal has no real meaning when dealing with separate nations unless you think someone like the UN has power over all nations.

Moral? Well I guess I see ending slavery as a moral plus, so I would say they had the moral right to do what they did. perhaps you see slavery different than I do.

1. The difficulty of international law is real. But that is not a reason to not discuss it. These questions are still relevant, as noted by how upset some of the people in this thread have gotten over them.

2. FUCK THE UN.

3. Slavery? Funny, Lincoln's stated reason for the war was to preserve the Union.

1. So, did the US have the legal and moral right to invade Iraq?

2. Something we agree on!

3. And it was the stated reason for the south to leave the union.

1. Yes, of course, based on failure to comply withe the peace agreement from the FIrst Gulf War.

2. Thank you.

3. But not the legal justification for secession. THe SOuth's claim was that they had a right to secede. If you have a right to do something, you have the right to do it, and asking why is moot.


YOU agree with them on that.

1. Could not disagree more.

3. I agree they had the right to leave and I agree the Union had the right to stop them. Not unlike the British empire trying to stop the 13 colonies from leaving.

when part of a country secedes, legality is not the criteria, the physical means to secede is the criteria. Secessions don't take place in court, they take place on the battlefield. in the case of the civil war, the CSA lost, its part of our history.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

When dealing with two nations, who decides what is "legal"? Was it legal for us to invade Iraq? Some think so.

Legal has no real meaning when dealing with separate nations unless you think someone like the UN has power over all nations.

Moral? Well I guess I see ending slavery as a moral plus, so I would say they had the moral right to do what they did. perhaps you see slavery different than I do.

1. The difficulty of international law is real. But that is not a reason to not discuss it. These questions are still relevant, as noted by how upset some of the people in this thread have gotten over them.

2. FUCK THE UN.

3. Slavery? Funny, Lincoln's stated reason for the war was to preserve the Union.

1. So, did the US have the legal and moral right to invade Iraq?

2. Something we agree on!

3. And it was the stated reason for the south to leave the union.

1. Yes, of course, based on failure to comply withe the peace agreement from the FIrst Gulf War.

2. Thank you.

3. But not the legal justification for secession. THe SOuth's claim was that they had a right to secede. If you have a right to do something, you have the right to do it, and asking why is moot.


YOU agree with them on that.

1. Could not disagree more.

3. I agree they had the right to leave and I agree the Union had the right to stop them. Not unlike the British empire trying to stop the 13 colonies from leaving.

when part of a country secedes, legality is not the criteria, the physical means to secede is the criteria. Secessions don't take place in court, they take place on the battlefield. in the case of the civil war, the CSA lost, its part of our history.

That is what I have been trying to tell Correll, "legal" is a meaningless term in such a discussion.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

1. Could not disagree more.

3. I agree they had the right to leave and I agree the Union had the right to stop them. Not unlike the British empire trying to stop the 13 colonies from leaving.

1. What legal problem to you see in the Iraqi War?

3. Your Justification for the actions of the Union seem thin.

1. There is no legal problem because legal does not exit if you do not agree with the UN.

On the moral side, we invaded a sovereign nation that was zero threat to this nation at the cost of more than 4000 American lives, 30,000 plus wounded ,more than 200,000 brain injuries and more than 2.4 million dollars and counting. That does not even touch the more than 30,000 Iraqi civilians and the troops from the other nations we bullied into joining us.

And the end result was a region worse off than before we invaded and the rise to power of ISIS, which is directly linked to our invasion of Iraq

There is nothing to justify, they won. Every nation on the planet took their land form someone else, that is the way it works

The UN is not a governing nor controlling Authority over nations, and it is not the beginning nor the end of International law.


We had an agreement with Iraq to end the last conflict, which they started with their invasino of kuwait.

They broke the terms of the ceasefire.

Resuming hostilities is called for at that point.


Whether is was a success is a different discussion than whether it was legal.

Did Iraq agree we had the legal right to invade and remove their government and kill their citizens?

I agree with most of what you are saying, however, there is no body of international law that applies here or in any other international dealings. there are no international courts to enforce violations even if there was a body of international law. Claiming legality or illegality regarding wars is stupid.

Yes, I agree

 

[Pogo]

1. So, did the US have the legal and moral right to invade Iraq?

2. Something we agree on!

3. And it was the stated reason for the south to leave the union.

1. Yes, of course, based on failure to comply withe the peace agreement from the FIrst Gulf War.

2. Thank you.

3. But not the legal justification for secession. THe SOuth's claim was that they had a right to secede. If you have a right to do something, you have the right to do it, and asking why is moot.


YOU agree with them on that.

1. Could not disagree more.

3. I agree they had the right to leave and I agree the Union had the right to stop them. Not unlike the British empire trying to stop the 13 colonies from leaving.

1. What legal problem to you see in the Iraqi War?

3. Your Justification for the actions of the Union seem thin.

1. There is no legal problem because legal does not exit if you do not agree with the UN.

On the moral side, we invaded a sovereign nation that was zero threat to this nation at the cost of more than 4000 American lives, 30,000 plus wounded ,more than 200,000 brain injuries and more than 2.4 million dollars and counting. That does not even touch the more than 30,000 Iraqi civilians and the troops from the other nations we bullied into joining us.

And the end result was a region worse off than before we invaded and the rise to power of ISIS, which is directly linked to our invasion of Iraq

There is nothing to justify, they won. Every nation on the planet took their land form someone else, that is the way it works

We also lost Kennedy and Johnson's viet nam war.

In a parallel universe we also lost Eisenhower's and Nixon's Vietnam war.

Musta been four wars.

(/WAYTHEFUCK off topic)

 

[Pogo]

View attachment 211270

what injustice are they protesting? That they are being paid millions? that black rappers are paid millions for rapping about bitches and hos? that black unemployment is at all time lows? Or are they protesting the welfare system that causes 70% of black babies to be born to single women and never know their fathers?

this whole thing is misplaced bullshit.

Sure is ---------

..... say, ain't that your own team?

Sorry about the word "ain't"....

 

[Pogo]

Kneeling is so dumb.

Rather than kneeling and pissing off all of your customers, hold signs up for the issue you are supporting.

and do it on your own time, not while you are being paid to play a game.

And let that game BE a game without the intrusions of fake-patriotism puppet shows.

why is it fake? No one in the stands is required to stand--------but they do. What exactly do you find offensive about patriotism? Why is it wrong to show respect for your country and pledge your loyalty to it?

Why do you find it necessary to edit what I just posted and thereby LIE?

 

[kaz]

1. Yes, of course, based on failure to comply withe the peace agreement from the FIrst Gulf War.

2. Thank you.

3. But not the legal justification for secession. THe SOuth's claim was that they had a right to secede. If you have a right to do something, you have the right to do it, and asking why is moot.


YOU agree with them on that.

1. Could not disagree more.

3. I agree they had the right to leave and I agree the Union had the right to stop them. Not unlike the British empire trying to stop the 13 colonies from leaving.

1. What legal problem to you see in the Iraqi War?

3. Your Justification for the actions of the Union seem thin.

1. There is no legal problem because legal does not exit if you do not agree with the UN.

On the moral side, we invaded a sovereign nation that was zero threat to this nation at the cost of more than 4000 American lives, 30,000 plus wounded ,more than 200,000 brain injuries and more than 2.4 million dollars and counting. That does not even touch the more than 30,000 Iraqi civilians and the troops from the other nations we bullied into joining us.

And the end result was a region worse off than before we invaded and the rise to power of ISIS, which is directly linked to our invasion of Iraq

There is nothing to justify, they won. Every nation on the planet took their land form someone else, that is the way it works

We also lost Kennedy and Johnson's viet nam war.

In a parallel universe we also lost Eisenhower's and Nixon's Vietnam war.

Musta been four wars.

(/WAYTHEFUCK off topic)

You don't know that Johnson was the President who got us into Vietnam? Seriously? Kennedy made the treaties and sent the first troops, Johnson escalated it. I can't believe you don't know that. Incredible. Johnson also was the one who engaged in limited warfare where we didn't try to win.

Wow, you are one dumb, ignorant hillbilly ...

 

[Pogo]

Oh shit --- this dood bought the whole Lost Cause textbook and swallowed whole. We did this to death in the Lost Cause threads but since you're in the right place why don't you tell the class about that obelisk at the foot of Canal Street that stood there for decades commemorating white supremacy and the White League? Why don't you post Mitch Landrieu's commentary on removing it and the other markers? Why don't you meet us in those Lost Cause threads and try to sell it there? I'll give you a link.

90% of the people demanding the removal of statues in NOLA do not even know who these people were, what they did, or what the believed. BTW, now that the statues are down, crime is still rampant and the mayor and city council remain incompetent.

just to show the ignorance of this, they wanted to take down Andrew Jackson in Jackson square. They didn't know that he had nothing to do with the civil war and was a hero of the revolutionary war against King George. But he was an old white guy so "take him down". downright stupid.

Haha. Links?

Is that Civil War submarine still there btw?

don't think so. where was it?

Used to be right in front of the Cabildo.

gone

Was there a massive butthurt protest when it was taken out?

Then again I don't think it was put there by the UDC. But actually I'm not sure.

In a related story the same UDC put up (in 1917) a plaque on the building at 205 West Madison Street in Pulaski Tennessee commemorating the founding in that building of the (original) Ku Klux Klan heralding the names of its founders. When that building was sold in the 1990s the new owner had the plaque taken off, turned backward and put back up so that it shows a blank surface.

Was that "erasing history"? Same thing -- property owner didn't want that shit on his property. He described it as the town of Pulaski "turning its back on" that history, and if anyone's curious why there's a blank plaque, there's a story to explain it.

And you know what --- nobody complained about that plaque reversal except some Klanners who went there annually as a worship ritual. And you know what --- fuck them.

In a related related story, the site where the second, revival, much-bigger Klan was founded, Stone Mountain in Georgia, was supposed to be decorated by an infamous sculptor who was a staunch white supremacist and klansman (and asshole). His project never completed, but he did get another project completed that is somewhat famous. It's called "Mount Rushmore".

Fun facts.

 

[Pogo]

1. Could not disagree more.

3. I agree they had the right to leave and I agree the Union had the right to stop them. Not unlike the British empire trying to stop the 13 colonies from leaving.

1. What legal problem to you see in the Iraqi War?

3. Your Justification for the actions of the Union seem thin.

1. There is no legal problem because legal does not exit if you do not agree with the UN.

On the moral side, we invaded a sovereign nation that was zero threat to this nation at the cost of more than 4000 American lives, 30,000 plus wounded ,more than 200,000 brain injuries and more than 2.4 million dollars and counting. That does not even touch the more than 30,000 Iraqi civilians and the troops from the other nations we bullied into joining us.

And the end result was a region worse off than before we invaded and the rise to power of ISIS, which is directly linked to our invasion of Iraq

There is nothing to justify, they won. Every nation on the planet took their land form someone else, that is the way it works

We also lost Kennedy and Johnson's viet nam war.

In a parallel universe we also lost Eisenhower's and Nixon's Vietnam war.

Musta been four wars.

(/WAYTHEFUCK off topic)

You don't know that Johnson was the President who got us into Vietnam? Seriously? Kennedy made the treaties and sent the first troops, Johnson escalated it. I can't believe you don't know that. Incredible. Johnson also was the one who engaged in limited warfare where we didn't try to win.

Wow, you are one dumb, ignorant hillbilly ...

Eisenhower. Too uninvolved to control Dulles.

Look it up.

 

[kaz]

1. What legal problem to you see in the Iraqi War?

3. Your Justification for the actions of the Union seem thin.

1. There is no legal problem because legal does not exit if you do not agree with the UN.

On the moral side, we invaded a sovereign nation that was zero threat to this nation at the cost of more than 4000 American lives, 30,000 plus wounded ,more than 200,000 brain injuries and more than 2.4 million dollars and counting. That does not even touch the more than 30,000 Iraqi civilians and the troops from the other nations we bullied into joining us.

And the end result was a region worse off than before we invaded and the rise to power of ISIS, which is directly linked to our invasion of Iraq

There is nothing to justify, they won. Every nation on the planet took their land form someone else, that is the way it works

We also lost Kennedy and Johnson's viet nam war.

In a parallel universe we also lost Eisenhower's and Nixon's Vietnam war.

Musta been four wars.

(/WAYTHEFUCK off topic)

You don't know that Johnson was the President who got us into Vietnam? Seriously? Kennedy made the treaties and sent the first troops, Johnson escalated it. I can't believe you don't know that. Incredible. Johnson also was the one who engaged in limited warfare where we didn't try to win.

Wow, you are one dumb, ignorant hillbilly ...

Eisenhower. Too uninvolved to control Dulles.

Look it up.

No shit. But you said that Eisenhower was as much to blame as Kennedy and Johnson, which is just retarded. It really was Johnson's war the way it was fought. Eisenhower was only involved in sending in training troops.

I don't have any issue with what either Eisenhower or Kennedy or what they did. Nixon was handed a tough situation given that when he got the war was when the press and the country turned against it. He then went on to botch it further. He should have either won the war or left immediately.

But it was clearly Johnson's war. Johnson sent in the first US troops to actually fight (Eisenhower, Kennedy only sent in troops to train), Johnson escalated it to be a major war. Johnson set the rules of engagement that the troops were prohibited from winning the war. It was Johnson's war