If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Russia, on Georgia withdrawl: "If I would ask you in response to the same question how fast the American forces can leave Iraq, for example, the answer would be as soon as we have guarantees for peace and security there"   (cnn.com) divider line 340
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

7444 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Aug 2008 at 5:04 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



340 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
rka
2008-08-17 08:02:17 PM
Inflatable Rhetoric: It's no longer up to the US. We're out of ammo, unless we can use Rice's ugliness as a weapon.

It was never up to us and never would have been up to us, even if we weren't involved in Iraq/Afghanistan.

If we weren't in Iraq, Georgia wouldn't be. If Georgia's not in Iraq, this isn't even a debate for US interests.

Let Europe face down Russia if they want their natural gas on the cheap. Let them propose some sort of sanctions or military action. Maybe we'll participate, maybe we won't.
 
2008-08-17 08:06:44 PM
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.


The problem with your argument is that you yourself are a complete idiot.
 
2008-08-17 08:06:50 PM
stpickrell: All right. Let us pretend we do nothing and stand down, as the Russophiles here wish. Georgia will lose its breakaway provinces and will 'convince' Georgians to accept someone other than Shevardnadze or Saakashvili.

Oh, nobody's talking about "standing down". It's just some gallows humor about Bush's chickens coming home to roost.
 
2008-08-17 08:08:14 PM
I think our bigger problem is Russian reaction to the missle defense sheild we are setting up in Poland. We have Russia outright saying they are revamping their nuclear capability and not afriad to use it.

Combine that with U.S. gov telling the Russians that they have no right to do the exact same bullshiat we are currently doing and you have the catalyst that just made our international relations situation ten times worse.

Grand job you did there, George and Company. These hacks should be kicked out of office TOMORROW.
 
2008-08-17 08:11:12 PM
RobertBruce: mouell: A smart answer for retards who have no actual grasp of reality/history.

Forgot the 17 UN resolutions or the condition(s) of a ceasefire in 1992 (Gulf war I)? I thought so.

You can now continue watching the rest of 'Jackass The Movie XXX'.

That was my point. thank you, you're a lot more succinct than I was.


Let me write this big, so you won't miss it: You're both morons. Seriously, asshole, are you ACTUALLY trying to use U.N. Resolutions to explain why the Russian attack on Georgia is "different" than the American attack on Iraq? THE GODDAMN U.N. OPPOSED THE AMERICAN INVASION OF IRAQ! Are you really so frikkin' stupid that you don't remember that?
 
2008-08-17 08:11:57 PM
Wait til they start waterboarding.
 
2008-08-17 08:12:17 PM
stpickrell: All right. Let us pretend we do nothing and stand down, as the Russophiles here wish. Georgia will lose its breakaway provinces and will 'convince' Georgians to accept someone other than Shevardnadze or Saakashvili.

What then? What is the 'ideal' Russia policy -- should we focus on Russia and ignore the former Soviet satellites as Russia (theoretically) can do more for us viz a viz Iran, Iraq, North Korea, etc.?


Ideally? We need to think about what is going to profit us best with our trading partners.

Trade has been the best tactic with the former Soviet states. All of them. And China as well. We sort of backed off this route a while back.

That doesn't mean helping install corrupt regimes in former Soviet territories. The concerns with Kosovo are somewhat valid. Rather than looking at every situation and taking the opposite position than Russia, we might consider what might actually benefit us both? Would that be crazy? Much like we do when we consider policy with our NATO allies.

As opposed to looking at Russia policy as an US vs Them sort of game, we might do better to bring them into the community of nations by helping establish them as legitimate trade partners.

We are doing so with China, though we are having some difficulty in that they feel perfectly within their rights to flout labor standards as well as international copyright. But we are making inroads.

Ideally, we might look to trying to take less of an adversarial stance for the sake of saying, "You're wrong Ivan!" and see where we actually might have grounds for working together. As opposed to "appeasement" it might be better to look at where our interests actually lie, as opposed to taking a knee jerk stance that if Russia wants something, we have to oppose it, and visa versa.

Hardly means agreeing on every damn thing, but a fundamental shift in our approach of opposing them because they say they want one thing, and standing for the other, might be more in order.

And right now, because of that stance, we have the Russians often doing the same damn thing. They oppose us, because we want something, they have to shiat in our farina as well.

It's not appeasement if we just stop playing the stupid ass game.
 
2008-08-17 08:13:28 PM
inebriated brain: And under UN SC resolutions and the cease fire that Iraq signed, we had EVERY right and obligation to kick Saddams ass.

Kick his ass yes. Move in and totally take control of the goverment and make beds for our own private contractors? Not so much.
 
2008-08-17 08:19:44 PM
If the U.S. were to, say, offer up that they would not try to install the so-called "missile defense shield" in countries closer to Russia's borders, Russia might be willing to lay off the pressure on some of their nearest neighbors in return. (With appropriate guarantees, of course, lest the word "unicorns" creep into this discussion.)

The grounds for reasonable negotiation are there, it's just that the current crop of cowboys (U.S.) and Mafia (Russia) are not precisely the negotiating types. It's not like the U.S. would lose much by the arrangement, since there's no indication that a "missile defense shield" would actually work under the conditions of a real attack. Some contractors wouldn't get paid still more of our tax dollars for the Son of Star Wars fiasco, that's all. Russia, for their part, could potentially relax a bit at the concept that the rest of the world isn't intent anymore on reducing them to a powerless sub-nation.

Then we might actually be able to pursue important questions like, where is all that nuclear material these days, and how do we make sure it doesn't end up in the hands of still crazier people?
 
2008-08-17 08:24:26 PM
Lusiphur

Or let me present it to you in an example, since you clearly lack the ability to follow basic inferences: You're walking along, minding your own business, and a guy jumps out of an ally and says "You have a choice: You can kick this guy over here in the nuts, and maybe 10 years from now, I'll send you a check for $100. Or you can kick that guy over there in the nuts, and if you don't, I'm going to take $50 from you." Which one are you going to moralize about and which one will you pick?

Oh my! Lol hahahhahahahahahahaha!!!! This is priceless. I'd kick the guy in the nuts who was offering the choice. Thank you for that laugh. That was hilarious to anyone but you.

When you wanna talk about what is going on today without these dumb as shiat infantile asides, you let someone know, ok cupcake? You're an insulting child who likes to stamp his feet when he has no point to make.
 
2008-08-17 08:29:23 PM
Burn98: The only way I can think of for Russia to avoid protest would be if they manage to completely control the information people get.

that's part of it. Another part is patriotism. they haven't had a lot to cheer about in a couple decades. this invasion has given them pride, and there aren't enough pacifist lefties to organize.
 
2008-08-17 08:30:02 PM
upload.wikimedia.org

www.bloggerheads.com

Have you won their hearts and minds yet, America? (you homoerotic psychopaths)
 
2008-08-17 08:31:12 PM
But Germany's stance on Georgia becoming a NATO member seems to have changed, from a rather witholding position to an outreach (so says the news).

So I guess if Georgia, small as it is, becomes NATO, consequences of parking a Russian tank or two on the odd weekdays on some Georgian soil could get them in pretty much trouble?


How fast could this process of joining go? months/years ?
 
2008-08-17 08:33:24 PM
The guy at the end of the thread: Have you won their hearts and minds yet, America? (you homoerotic psychopaths)

See you Tuesday night. That post will be good for a 48 hour ban.
 
2008-08-17 08:34:28 PM
SlothB77: Burn98: The only way I can think of for Russia to avoid protest would be if they manage to completely control the information people get.

that's part of it. Another part is patriotism. they haven't had a lot to cheer about in a couple decades. this invasion has given them pride, and there aren't enough pacifist lefties to organize.


Russia and Putin don't give a rat's ass about protests. Dubya has trampled his dick wearing spikes.
 
2008-08-17 08:35:08 PM
Norad: The guy at the end of the thread: Have you won their hearts and minds yet, America? (you homoerotic psychopaths)

See you Tuesday night. That post will be good for a 48 hour ban.


It's worth it.
 
2008-08-17 08:40:29 PM
FTFA: "...the answer would be as soon as we have guarantees for peace and security there..."

Correction: "...the answer would be as soon as we have guarantees for peace and security there can refuel the tanks that have run out of gas and finish stripping Georgian equipment for spare parts that have broken on our equipment...."

Russia is lousy at projecting force.
 
2008-08-17 08:41:02 PM
Norad:
See you Tuesday night. That post will be good for a 48 hour ban.


Really? That was some of the more "tame" pics I could find via Google Image Search (no gore, no genitalia, etc.)...

Maybe if you treated your prisoners as human beings, there wouldn't be anything to be offended at.
 
2008-08-17 08:42:19 PM
bookman: FTFA: "...the answer would be as soon as we have guarantees for peace and security there..."

Correction: "...the answer would be as soon as we have guarantees for peace and security there can refuel the tanks that have run out of gas and finish stripping Georgian equipment for spare parts that have broken on our equipment...."

Russia is lousy at projecting force.


I think you missed the point.
 
2008-08-17 08:43:24 PM
The guy at the end of the thread: Norad:
See you Tuesday night. That post will be good for a 48 hour ban.

Really? That was some of the more "tame" pics I could find via Google Image Search (no gore, no genitalia, etc.)...

Maybe if you treated your prisoners as human beings, there wouldn't be anything to be offended at.


Maybe it's not his decision.
 
2008-08-17 08:43:37 PM
Corpus Delecti: RobertBruce: mouell: A smart answer for retards who have no actual grasp of reality/history.

Forgot the 17 UN resolutions or the condition(s) of a ceasefire in 1992 (Gulf war I)? I thought so.

You can now continue watching the rest of 'Jackass The Movie XXX'.

That was my point. thank you, you're a lot more succinct than I was.

Let me write this big, so you won't miss it: You're both morons. Seriously, asshole, are you ACTUALLY trying to use U.N. Resolutions to explain why the Russian attack on Georgia is "different" than the American attack on Iraq? THE GODDAMN U.N. OPPOSED THE AMERICAN INVASION OF IRAQ! Are you really so frikkin' stupid that you don't remember that?


You're just plain lying now. thanks for trying.
 
2008-08-17 08:45:39 PM
Norad: See you Tuesday night. That post will be good for a 48 hour ban.

Why's that?
 
2008-08-17 08:48:18 PM
Hmm, how many UN resolutions were there against Georgia?http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl#b
Fixed font/code
 
2008-08-17 08:51:23 PM
Inflatable Rhetoric: Maybe it's not his decision.

Touché!

/ ducks out of thread before my (presumptive) bannation.
 
2008-08-17 08:52:53 PM
I don't know how I screwed that up.
 
2008-08-17 08:56:05 PM
I wonder how national security and foreign policy expert McCain will respond to this.
 
2008-08-17 08:56:13 PM
The guy at the end of the thread: Inflatable Rhetoric: Maybe it's not his decision.

Touché!

/ ducks out of thread before my (presumptive) bannation.


I think Dubya is the one looking at being banned. Forever.
 
2008-08-17 08:56:48 PM
Bucky Katt: I wonder how national security and foreign policy expert McCain will respond to this.

I doubt he knows about it.
 
2008-08-17 09:01:02 PM
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.


Formally, the Warsaw Pact intervened in Czech and Hungary at the invitation of those countries, which meets the conditions you prescribe. I think the formal pretext for intervention in Czech and Hungard was full of shiat, but then the invasion of Iraq by the Coalition of the Willing is ok since we're the good guys, right?
 
2008-08-17 09:04:05 PM
inebriated brain: 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.


Ukraine and Thailand aren't particularly democratic right now. At least you admit that a lack of knowledge hasn't stopped you from pontificating on the subject.
 
2008-08-17 09:07:41 PM
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.

thanks GAT_00 but I have plenty of beer :)


Thailand and Japan are republics? You didn't really take the time to look it up. Liar, liar pants on fire!
 
2008-08-17 09:10:20 PM
i knew the reach comparing this to iraq would be made, but i didn't think it was going to be so poorly done

you're comrades thank you for your support
 
2008-08-17 09:12:20 PM
BooRabideau: i knew the reach comparing this to iraq would be made, but i didn't think it was going to be so poorly done

you're comrades thank you for your support


I think we're all waiting to see what Bush, or that dufus Rice, have to say about this.
 
2008-08-17 09:13:05 PM
BooRabideau: i knew the reach comparing this to iraq would be made, but i didn't think it was going to be so poorly done

you're comrades thank you for your support


you are comrades... ???
 
2008-08-17 09:14:28 PM
yeah, i thought it worked both ways . . . wasn't sure which way i wanted to go with it

either way, it works
 
2008-08-17 09:15:31 PM
BooRabideau: yeah, i thought it worked both ways . . . wasn't sure which way i wanted to go with it

either way, it works


almost.
 
2008-08-17 09:19:02 PM
BooRabideau: i knew the reach comparing this to iraq would be made, but i didn't think it was going to be so poorly done

you're comrades thank you for your support


It's not much of a reach. There's sufficient similarity to make it awkward for us in the states, at least at the rhetorical level.

Bush has farked us up.
 
2008-08-17 09:23:27 PM
pvd021: Bush put America in a really shiatty situation on an international level. And when those Rednecks say, "fark the opinions of the rest of the world." I wonder how they would respond if Russia showed the same approach, which by the way they did with that whole radioactive poisoning incident.

Look back at all the votes of all the people who voted for Bush, then send them to the front lines of Iraq and Georgia, and see how much of a difference they can make.


Russia has been waiting for this moment since Kosovo, consider it payback. Why don't we send everyone who voted for Clinton to the front lines in Georgia? That would be more appropriate.

There are no front lines in Iraq.
 
2008-08-17 09:26:07 PM
Guess_Who: pvd021:

Look back at all the votes of all the people who voted for Bush, then send them to the front lines of Iraq and Georgia, and see how much of a difference they can make.

Russia has been waiting for this moment since Kosovo, consider it payback. Why don't we send everyone who voted for Clinton to the front lines in Georgia? That would be more appropriate.

There are no front lines in Iraq.


Why don't we send Bush and Clinton to the front lines in Iraq and Georgia, respectively? Sounds like a win-win to me.
 
2008-08-17 09:33:31 PM
Magnanimous_J: I know Georgia only has the pipeline, it's what I meant. Next time I'm be more specific. Xanax is your friend.

Agreed. It was an overreaction.

But your premise that the United States is partnering with Georgia because of oil is dead wrong. If that were the case, we'd be making a partnership with Russia. They have far more resources and have far more partner benefits.

Georgia is a partner with the US because of their strategic location. Turkey is already a partner, and Georgia is a natural location for a strategic partner.

Russia is still ran by Putin and their constitution is essentially worthless now. He is a complete thug and murders those who even speak out against him.

Even in the cold war, they would never have brazenly murdered someone in London in such an obvious manner.
 
2008-08-17 09:38:17 PM
Aaaawwwwww, DIP!
 
2008-08-17 09:52:38 PM
Guess_Who: pvd021: Bush put America in a really shiatty situation on an international level. And when those Rednecks say, "fark the opinions of the rest of the world." I wonder how they would respond if Russia showed the same approach, which by the way they did with that whole radioactive poisoning incident.

Look back at all the votes of all the people who voted for Bush, then send them to the front lines of Iraq and Georgia, and see how much of a difference they can make.

Russia has been waiting for this moment since Kosovo, consider it payback. Why don't we send everyone who voted for Clinton to the front lines in Georgia? That would be more appropriate.

There are no front lines in Iraq.


Yea, Clinton's involvement here is obvious. And Truman.
 
2008-08-17 09:53:43 PM
thought this was an interesting read (http://talkspot.ktlkfm.com/forums/thread/3305911.aspx>

here are some key points . . . discuss:


1. Was Georgia a State-Sponsor of Terrorism?
2. Was Georgia actively engaged in providing shelter & protection for any International Terrorists?
3. Was Georgia actively engaged in the training and/or supplying of any International Terrorists?
4. Was Georgia known to have recently attempted to assassinate any other countries Government Leaders?
5. Was Georgia under any UN Mandates demanding that it disarm or else?
6. Was Georgia under a Treaty that suspended a previous conflict, which it then violated?
7. Was Georgia secretly trying to develop, or hide any efforts to develop, any WMD's or other weapons systems banned to it by International Treaty or UN Security Council resolutions?
8. Was Georgia secretly trying to stymie any International Weapons Inspectors?
9. Was Georgia led by a democratically elected Govt?
10. Had Georgia just recently attempted to invade & conquer a neighboring country?


To add to this, I was listening to Rush and he mentioned that Georgia is a country, where as when we started the war with Iraq in 2003, it was not a soverign country. His logic was that during the first gulf war, we were begged by Sadam and his army not to march into Bagdad which we didnt.
We set up a case-fire which basically said that Iraq would follow the mandates set up by the UN Security Council or we could go back in and blow them to hell. (paraphrasing of course).
Sadam and his regime did not follow the mandates, in fact they broke the mandates 15 times and the Security Council itself voted to have some sort of action taken against Iraq.
There has been nothing like this concerning Georgia and Russia. So this seems like a completely different set of circumstances.


I think you are right tere. Georia (if I remember the report I heard last night right) has the only pipeline that is not owned by Russia running through it heading toward the west. Therefore, if Russia owns Georgia, they own that pipeline, and therefore owns that oil.


1.) On March 31, 1990, months prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, The Post-Standard (Syracuse, NY) reported that five people were indicted for illegally exporting nuclear warhead triggering devices to Iraq. The article reported, "Hussein is one of the world's foremost sponsors of terrorism. Numbered among his clients are a varied assortment of highjackers, bombers and kidnappers around the world."
2.) During the first Gulf War, on February 4, 1991, the Washington Times wrote an article titled, "Terrorist Camps Deserted in Iraq." The article reported that several terrorist camps inside Iraq were abandoned shortly after the start of the allied bombing campaign. One camp in the western desert was operated by the terrorist Abu Nidal for weapons and explosives training. A terrorist camp near Bagdad was operated by Abu Ibrahim, leader of the Arab Organization May 15. And another terrorist camp near Bagdad was occupied by terrorists of unknown affiliation. Later, after the war, the Washington Times wrote another article dated November 24, 1992 reporting that terrorists were once again training at a camp near Bagdad in violation of the cease-fire terms that ended the Gulf War.
3.) On February 4, 1992, The Canadian Press reported, "A Palestinian ex-businessman said Tuesday he was sent on a bombing mission to Europe in 1982 by an Iraqi-based guerrilla group whose leader had close connections with the Baghdad government. Adnan Awad told a U.S. Senate hearing he took a sophisticated briefcase bomb to Switzerland where he was to blow up either an Israeli or an American installation but could not bring himself to do it." Awad said the leader of the group, Abu Ibrahim, had an "open and clear" relationship with the Iraqi government and enjoyed special privileges "like any big officer in Iraq."
4.) On June 6, 1992, the Associated Press reported that, "U.S. officials knew Palestinian terrorists were finding a safe haven in Baghdad, newly declassified documents show." A July 1, 1986 memo to then-Secretary of State George Shultz said, "The Iraqis initially endeavored to preserve their terrorist assets, resorting to subterfuge to divert attention from their continued support for terrorist groups." The memo was declassified by the State Department at the request of Rep. Sam Gejdenson, D-Conn.
5.) During the 1992 presidential campaign, Al Gore criticized the first Bush administration for its "blantant disregard" of Iraq's ties to terrorism. On September 29, 1992 Al Gore said, "The Reagan-Bush administration was also prepared to overlook the fact that the terrorists who masterminded the attack on the Achille Lauro and the savage murder of American Leon Klinghoffer, fled with Iraqi assistance. Nor did it seem to matter that the team of terrorists who set out to blow up the Rome airport came directly from Baghdad with suitcase bombs."
6.) Throughout the 1990's the U.S. Department of State listed Iraq as a country known to sponsor international terrorism. The Department of State's 1994 Patterns of Global Terrorism report stated, "Since 1991, in violation of UN Security Council resolutions, the Government of Iraq has obstructed the international community's provision of humanitarian assistance. We believe that Iraq is responsible for more than 100 attacks on relief personnel and aid convoys over the past four years. Moreover, the Government of Iraq has offered monetary 'bounties' to anyone who assassinates UN and other international relief workers."
7.) On January 17, 1995 the Boston Globe reported possible Iraqi involvement in the World Trade Center bombing. "I believe the totality of the evidence points toward Iraqi involvement," said James Fox, former special agent in charge of the FBI's New York office and the man credited with solving the bombing case. "I should say, I arrived at that conclusion after not believing it at first," he added. Fox explained that an eight-page State Department analysis that was classified but made available to him suggested that Iraqi sponsorship of the World Trade Center bombing was the "most likely scenario."
8.) On January 27, 1999 an article in the New York Times titled "A Much-Shunned Terrorist Is Said to Find Haven in Iraq" stated that "Abu Nidal, one of the world's most infamous terrorists, moved to Baghdad late last year and obtained the protection of President Saddam Hussein, according to intelligence reports received by United States and Middle Eastern government officials." The article quoted a counterterrorism expert who said that, regarding Abu Nidal, "Osama bin Laden is a student by comparison."
9.) On October 14, 2001, a former Iraqi army captain named Sabah Khodada granted an interview to the PBS television program "Frontline" in which he talked about a terrorist training camp in Iraq called Salman Pak. During this interview Khodada stated, "This camp is specialized in exporting terrorism to the whole world."
10.) Before the rise of Usama bin Laden, Abu Nidal was widely regarded as the world's most ruthless terrorist. The Associated Press reported on August 22, 2002 that Nidal entered Iraq during the late 1990's "with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities." He lived there until August, 2002 when he died of between one and four gunshot wounds. It is believed by many that Abu Nidal was killed on the orders of Saddam Hussein although the Iraqi government claimed that Nidal had committed suicide.
11.) On February 13, 2003, the Philippine government expelled Iraqi diplomat Hisham al Hussein, the second secretary at Iraq's Manila embassy. Cell phone records indicated that the Iraqi diplomat had spoken with Abu Madja and Hamsiraji Sali, leaders of Abu Sayyaf, just before and just after this Al-Qaeda allied Islamic militant group conducted an attack in Zamboanga City. Abu Sayyaf's nail filled bomb exploded on October 2, 2002, injuring 23 individuals and killing two Filipinos plus killing U.S. Special Forces Sergeant First Class Mark Wayne Jackson, age 40.
12.) After the fall of Saddam's government, coalition forces found & destroyed a terrorist training camp located near Baghdad called Salman Pak. This terrorist training camp featured an airplane fuselage where Iraqi defectors had earlier reported foreign terrorists were being trained in hijacking aircraft.
13.) On April 7, 2003, Agence France Presse reported that US Marines discovered a terrorist training camp operated by the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF). The complex featured bomb-making facilities and pictures of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and PLF faction leader Abu Abbas. Other pictures included the terrorist leader Abu Abbas posing with a Republican Guard brigadier general inside the camp.
14.) On April 14, 2003, Abu Abbas was captured by U.S. Special Forces during a raid near Baghdad. Abbas had lived in Baghdad since 1994, where he was living under protection of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
15.) Khala Khadr al-Salahat, accused of designing the bomb that destroyed Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988, also lived in Iraq. He surrendered to U.S. Marines in Baghdad on April 18, 2003.
16.) On September 18, 2003, USA Today ran an article with the headline "U.S. says Iraq sheltered suspect in '93 WTC attack." The article reported that U.S. authorities have evidence Saddam Hussein's regime gave money and housing to Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. Military, intelligence and law enforcement officials reported finding a large cache of Arabic-language documents in Tikrit, Saddam's political stronghold. Analysts translated the documents and have concluded that the documents show Saddam's government provided monthly payments and a home for Yasin.
 
2008-08-17 10:00:08 PM
For those of you Americans who supported the Iraq war, who still support it, and cannot understand why others are opposed, we feel much the same way about Iraq as you feel (and we feel) about Georgia.

Science Farktion: What amuses me in a twisted way is the heaping, steaming piles of hypocrisy that recent events have shown form all players....

U.S. on Russia: How dare you invade a smaller nation in the name of protecting an ethnic minority?!
U.S. on Iraq: (Reason #351) We must protect our allies, the Kurds, even if they are technically Iraqi citizens!


What I don't understand about the Russian logic, is whether they implying that their actions are wrong and that that justifies them doing wrong, or that their war is ritious because Iraq was ritious. Ether way, they are wrong.
 
2008-08-17 10:00:24 PM
I'm an American and I thought it was freaking hilarious.
 
2008-08-17 10:02:07 PM
Mr Logo: For those of you Americans who supported the Iraq war, who still support it, and cannot understand why others are opposed, we feel much the same way about Iraq as you feel (and we feel) about Georgia.

Science Farktion: What amuses me in a twisted way is the heaping, steaming piles of hypocrisy that recent events have shown form all players....

U.S. on Russia: How dare you invade a smaller nation in the name of protecting an ethnic minority?!
U.S. on Iraq: (Reason #351) We must protect our allies, the Kurds, even if they are technically Iraqi citizens!

What I don't understand about the Russian logic, is whether they implying that their actions are wrong and that that justifies them doing wrong, or that their war is ritious because Iraq was ritious. Ether way, they are wrong.



right or wrong, that's the double-standard sticking out in my mind as well . . .
 
2008-08-17 10:05:50 PM
Mr Logo: What I don't understand about the Russian logic, is whether they implying that their actions are wrong and that that justifies them doing wrong

What I don't understand about the Russian logic, is whether they implying that their
[Americas's] actions are wrong and that that justifies them doing wrong
 
2008-08-17 10:46:19 PM
It's apples and oranges, but that is a pretty farking funny comeback.
 
2008-08-17 11:06:03 PM
inebriated brain: kronicfeld: And he apparently didn't do shiat

yeah okay.


they hid fighter jets in the desert, why in gods name would he hide or move WMDS?

I must be some kind of idiot. >:/


Absence of evidence is not evidence.
 
2008-08-17 11:11:34 PM
BooRabideau

WALL OF TEXT

TLDR. Except this part:

To add to this, I was listening to Rush and he mentioned that Georgia is a country, where as when we started the war with Iraq in 2003, it was not a soverign(sic) country. His logic was that during the first gulf war, we were begged by Sadam(sic) and his army not to march into Bagdad(sic) which we didnt(sic).
We set up a case-fire which basically said that Iraq would follow the mandates set up by the UN Security Council or we could go back in and blow them to hell. (paraphrasing of course).
Sadam(sic) and his regime did not follow the mandates, in fact they broke the mandates 15 times and the Security Council itself voted to have some sort of action taken against Iraq.
There has been nothing like this concerning Georgia and Russia. So this seems like a completely different set of circumstances.


Wait, Iraq ceased to be a sovereign country because a UN mandated cease-fire was in place? What does that make Korea? What does that make various Balkan states over the last 15 years?

Also, if simply breaking the cease fire was enough to roll in, why did the Security Council have to vote for action to take place before the 2003 invasion?

In summation, why is the UN a horribly ineffective, sovereignty-stealing entity run by despots when (typically right-leaning) people don't want to abide by it's decisions and then those same (typically right-leaning) people will gladly trot out UN Security Council Resolutions when they agree with them? And still use said Resolutions as justification for actions taken when a Resolution wasn't made in 2003 for invasion?

Your post belongs back in 2003 when that argument was done to death.

To boot, both Russia and Georgia had signed an international agreement to have Russian soldiers enforce a cease-fire between the separatists and Georgia. Why are some international agreements (like the Iraq ones) useful to you while others (Georgia and Russia's) aren't?

/quite stunned to hear that Rush believes the UN can remove sovereignty from nations
//oh wait, no I'm not, that farking hack has always been a hypocrite
 
Displayed 50 of 340 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report