That's a brilliant farking answer, right there.

Zing!

roflcopter

Who else went in with Russia? Very unilateral huh? How many nations continue to prop Iraq to be its own soverign nation?

not even a valid comparison.

Unless unilateral action is now smiled upon.

[inept and frivolous attempt at distinguishing situations]

They are working on their time horizon.

inebriated brain: Very unilateral huh?

As opposed to the coalition of the countries that want to suck off the US teat so they'll go into any war with a thousand or less troops to make it appear multilateral.

As opposed to the coalition of the countries that want to suck off the US teat so they'll go into any war with a thousand or less troops to make it appear multilateral

Appearance of? The numbers they send are irrelevant. When a country sends 10 troops it is an acknowledgment by their government that the leader ( USA ) is just in its action. I don't see anyone coming to help russia beat down this 'rouge' nation, quite the contrary.

So you guys think the invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Georgia equate with the U.S in Iraq. I think your history teachers should be fired for malpractice.

inebriated brain: it is an acknowledgment by their government that they have something to gain by giving the appearance of support

inebriated brain: it is an acknowledgment by their government that the leader ( USA ) is just in its action.

Ahhhaaaahahaaahaahaaa! Did you have trouble typing that. I would have.

it is an acknowledgment by their government that they have something to gain by giving the appearance of support

Imagine that. Free nations supporting the cause of freedom. Your right they are selfish bastards.

bearsfolks: So you guys think the invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Georgia equate with the U.S in Iraq.

Howdy troll. Here's something for you to munch on. Those things you're talking about happened quite a while ago. What were talking about now isn't the same thing.

inebriated brain: Imagine that. Free nations supporting the cause of freedom. Your right they are selfish bastards.

You're either naive or deliberately obtuse. Your choice.

inebriated brain: Free nations supporting the cause of freedom.

Oops. Pushed it a little too far. Only a troll would think that all the nations that helped us in the Iraq invasion/occupation were free.

inebriated brain: As opposed to the coalition of the countries that want to suck off the US teat so they'll go into any war with a thousand or less troops to make it appear multilateral

Appearance of? The numbers they send are irrelevant. When a country sends 10 troops it is an acknowledgment by their government that the leader ( USA ) is just in its action. I don't see anyone coming to help russia beat down this 'rouge' nation, quite the contrary.

You dangle a few billion in foreign aid in front of some broke-ass countries, and all they have to do is send a few guys who do nothing but wander around the PX at LSA Liberty all day trying on Oakleys.

We would have been better off buying some magic beans from them.

/Btw, it's "rogue."

verbal_jizm: Only a troll would think that all the nations that helped us in the Iraq invasion/occupation were free.

I was just looking at the list of : nations (new window)

I didn't do research on everyone of them, but I don't see anything but democratic nations. Could be wrong. Not going to take the time.

inebriated brain: I didn't do research on everyone of them, but I don't see anything but democratic nations. Could be wrong. Not going to take the time.

I'm right, but I'm not going to take the time to prove it. I have a phrase for you:

Okay having taken the time. ALL nations are democratic republics in some fashion. Therefore all forces in Iraq are indeed fighting in the name of freedom of the Iraqi people.

thanks GAT_00 but I have plenty of beer :)

inebriated brain: Okay having taken the time. ALL nations are democratic republics in some fashion. Therefore all forces in Iraq are indeed fighting in the name of freedom of the Iraqi people.

You're another person who needs to learn what "therefore" means.

Oi.

therefore -adverb
in consequence of that; as a result; consequently: I think; therefore I am.

Consequently in doing said research, you can shove it.

Just checked the list, and yes, the UK is on there. We have democracy as an illusion only here, and little freedom.

inebriated brain: Consequently in doing said research, you can shove it.

Oh, see, here you were using it to mean, "In my own insane delusions."

Oh, see, here you were using it to mean, "In my own insane delusions."

lol. Of course.

Similar to the delusions that Iraq and Georgia have any valid comparison whatsoever.

inebriated brain: Similar to the delusions that Iraq and Georgia have any valid comparison whatsoever.

anyone who believes this, let me know. I have a bridge I need to sell:

inebriated brain: Similar to the delusions that Iraq and Georgia have any valid comparison whatsoever.



you're right. georgia actually attacked south ossetia.

*snerk* Much as I am against violence in most of its forms (pie-throwing is still acceptable, as is naked jell-o wrestling), that was a pretty good response.

Norad: That's a brilliant farking answer, right there.

No, it's really not. The world is clearly better off without Saddam and with a secure Iraq. Georgia's government has not been toppled, and it can maintain peace and security on its own.

So...

Well, splendid. No longer can we cite international norms like sovereignty or perhaps humane treatment of prisoners.

Thanks a pile, G. W. I wouldn't waste the shiat it'd take to shiat on a turd that someone else had wasted their shiat shiatting on you with.

.

uatuba: No, it's really not. The world is clearly better off without Saddam and with a secure Iraq.

Remind me who Saddam blew up in the last, say, 16 years.

kronicfeld: Remind me who Saddam blew up in the last, say, 16 years.

Clearly, the only way one can be a threat to the world is to blow someone up.

uatuba: Clearly, the only way one can be a threat to the world is to blow someone up.

Well, doing something aggressive within a baker's decade is certainly evidence.

kronicfeld:

Remind me who Saddam blew up in the last, say, 16 years.

Year 2008 -16 years = 1992 - present. 1991-2003 Iraq under UN security council enforcement of north and south no fly zones. 2003 to present.. well we all know.

you can argue if that containment policy could have continued, but that statement is just idiocy. We have been on Iraq's soil and airspace for over 17 years.

Funny how people forget that. Same people claim that WMD is the only reason why we went in the first place.

Bookmarking before the post count hits four digits. Marvelous trolling in here.

inebriated brain: you can argue if that containment policy could have continued, but that statement is just idiocy.

Why? It was working pretty well, what with him having been neutered for over a decade. But tell me again how he was a "threat." Should be a god for a laugh.

This reminds me of that one episode of Fraggle Rock where Mokey campaigned to have all the Fraggles desist from eating the Doozer constructions because the Doozers work so hard on them. Before long, the entire Fraggle world was covered in Doozer architecture because the symbiotic relationship between Fraggles and Doozers was destroyed. The Doozers were going to have to move away but then Mokey got all the Fraggles to chow down and it was a happy ending.

Georgians have a Southern withdrawl?

inebriated brain: Who else went in with Russia? Very unilateral huh? How many nations continue to prop Iraq to be its own soverign nation?

not even a valid comparison.

Unless unilateral action is now smiled upon.

Technically, the Russians went in because of the agreement that OSCE helped oversee--in accordance to the 1992 ceasefire. In a lot of ways, the Russians had more legal authority than the US.

I know that sort of sucks, seeing as folks would really love to say, "Evil Empire" but the Russians actually had treaty authorization--signed by both the parties in the conflict.

So, you're right, it's not really the same as the Iraq-US situation.

This situation does suck, and there are NO good guys in this. Not the Ossetians, not the Russians, and certainly not the peace loving peoples of Georgia who used a ceasefire and promises of putting independence on the table as cover for moving in tanks and artillery.

Which folks seem to keep forgetting. Or that Georgia tried to get us to come bail them out from their own lack of prudence, knowing that they had a treaty which authorized the Russians to come across their border to restore peace, and knew that the Russians had a mechanized force on their border--and who have been pretty much at the ready to hop in. Rather than calm things down and discuss things with the separatists, they instead decided to ramp things up further--knowing that the Russians were on their border.

Essentially, the Georgians tried to call the Russians' bluff, and then found out the hard way, that the Russians weren't bluffing. Which, I suppose, means that Saakashvili makes a terrible card player--and that he was really hoping the US was his ace in the hole.

hubiestubert: I know that sort of sucks, seeing as folks would really love to say, "Evil Empire" but the Russians actually had treaty authorization--signed by both the parties in the conflict.

If you're going to so loosely use the term "authorization," then I can say the U.S. had U.N. "authorization" to invade Iraq because of the various resolutions passed prior to invasion.

uatuba: I can say the U.S. had U.N. "authorization" to invade Iraq because of the various resolutions passed prior to invasion.

Sure, if you want to ignore the substance of what he actually wrote.

hubiestubert:

Also to the point is the Russians' fooling around once in there, and doing lots of stuff that probably wasn't necessary, and of course the foot-dragging about getting out.

We like the idea of the Georgian pipeline because it means the West in general can buy energy from the Caspian region without having to do business with the Russians--and that the Russians can't arbitrarily cut it off, which they do to Ukraine when it doesn't play by their rules.

What the Russians are saying is that they can indeed cut off exports via Georgia, with the same caprice and impunity that Bush exercised with just about every legal norm imaginable while in office, and all they gotta do when questioned about it is draw a parallel to something Dear Leader did.

.

kronicfeld: Why? It was working pretty well, what with him having been neutered for over a decade

you obviously forget when they kicked inspectors out in 1998. Yeah wingnuts will call it wagging the dog, but Clinton's response was not harsh enough. So from 1998 to 2002, Saddam had free reign to do whatever.

Should W have let the inspections play out longer under 1441. No. The end result would have been the same, war. We allowed way to much time to pass as it was since he kicked the inspectors out.

And under UN SC resolutions and the cease fire that Iraq signed, we had EVERY right and obligation to kick Saddams ass.

uatuba: If you're going to so loosely use the term "authorization," then I can say the U.S. had U.N. "authorization" to invade Iraq because of the various resolutions passed prior to invasion.

Save that Russia was technically treaty bound by the agreement from 1992--the last time that the Georgians attacked the South Ossetians--to hop on whoever broke the truce.

Considering that there are arguments on both sides at who broke that truce--Georgia cites the separatists attacks, the Ossetians cite the crackdown on smugglers and others as a screen for oppression of their independence movement, which actually voted and tried to get government recognition through legal means and was rejected out of hand as a "political absurdity"--the Russians could have hopped into this a year ago.

I'm not defending the action as the action of a compassionate nation, but from the standpoint of folks who supposedly love freedom and the democratic process, one might think that the Georgians denying the vote of the Ossetians, and the subsequent break of a ceasefire to get their tanks into position, I'm just saying that maybe the reaction by a good many folks is a bit knee jerk to support the peace loving people of Georgia--you know, the ones who got caught with their tanks on the field, breaking their own ceasefire...

So..they're gonna be there for years controlling the oil and gas pipelines and the trade routes to not just Georgia, but Azerbaijan and the 5 "Stans". They took that place, cast all those countries into darkness and they're gonna keep it.

Nice. You're next Ukraine, buckle in.