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.

(Fox News)   GOP: OMG, Obama, you're a dictator who's taking ar freedoms and killing us with drones. Obama: OK, fine, how about I repeal the law that gives me that power? GOP: OMG, Obama, you're so weak on terrorists it's like you're surrendering ar freedoms   (foxnews.com) divider line 150
    More: Stupid, President Obama, GOP, Republican, John McCain, warrantless wiretapping  
•       •       •

2310 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 May 2013 at 2:06 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



150 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-24 05:54:01 PM  

ManRay: You want me to repeal the law?
Yeah, sure.
Oh, I can't. Bazinga!


More like:

Sheldon: It's dangerous for you to have such power, no one should have it.
Leonard: I agree, I'm actually able to do what I need to with more conventional tools if necessary.
Sheldon: Nope, we want that power the next time we're in power, so keeping that law we're criticizing you for. Bazinga!
 
2013-05-24 05:54:11 PM  

vygramul: whether something is WISE and whether something is justified under International Law are two distinct things.I might be convincable on the wisdom aspect, but as far as the legalities are concerned, this was pretty clear-cut.



Please. Afghanistan didn't attack us. And it was just as sovereign a country as Iraq. There was no justification to use force there.
 
2013-05-24 06:02:32 PM  

Corvus: Cletus C.: Corvus: Cletus C.: It was surreal almost. Like Obama was saying "Stop me before I kill again."

I see so believing in limiting executive powers is evil when Obama does it. Got it.

I don't think so. It was just weird is all.

Maybe he should wave a fully automatic rifle around the Capitol while pushing for sane gun laws.

No I think it's weird Republicans going "We don't trust you Obama but instead of passing a law so you can't do what we say we don't want you to do we instead want to just criticize you for it." And it was a law that most of them passed in the first place and still support.

Isn't that more weird?


Not really. Seems like business as usual.
 
2013-05-24 06:06:17 PM  

Car_Ramrod: To be specific, here's Randy saying someone carrying cash, who is exercising their Second Amendment rights, can be drone-killed and he's totally fine with that:

"If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash. I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him."


That will never stop being hilarious.
 
2013-05-24 06:06:41 PM  

Corvus: Right it's the libertarian "I only wish politicians would be for X" You point out democrats that are doing X and they do the "Well that doesn't count because they are Democrats so I am just going to fabricate some excuse to say it doesn't count."


What are you on about? I am a democrat. Recognition of the fact that we are in one military action after another, without debate or vote, does not make me a fark independent. If Obama wasn't complicit, he certainly could do something about it, namely, stop starting new military adventurism.
 
2013-05-24 06:14:26 PM  
"But this war, like all wars, must end. That's what history advises. That's what our democracy demands."

History also advises, and democracy demands, the end of the War On DrugsTM, too. Which you talked about starting to do prior to your first term and then back-peddled very hard on once you got you ass in that seat.

Guantanamo bay is a military, not civilian, facility. If he can't close it as President why can't he close it as Commander in Chief?

/who is john galt?
 
2013-05-24 06:15:30 PM  

whidbey: vygramul: whether something is WISE and whether something is justified under International Law are two distinct things.I might be convincable on the wisdom aspect, but as far as the legalities are concerned, this was pretty clear-cut.


Please. Afghanistan didn't attack us. And it was just as sovereign a country as Iraq. There was no justification to use force there.


That's not how it works. International law has long recognized that providing protection is choosing a side and therefore becoming a belligerent. Throughout history, for example, it was recognized that neutral ports could allow warships from countries at war, but could not let them stay indefinitely. They had to either expel the ship, impound it, or become a belligerent. Afghanistan, but not even trying to interfere with bin Laden but allowing him to operate from their territory is not magically immune from belligerency. They chose a side. If the U.S. were to allow British skinheads to come here and conduct raids into Mexico, the U.S. would be committing an act of war. If we weren't, we could make tons of money on white supremacist tourism as they come here, get armed by the border-state Tea Partiers, and get let loose into Mexico to beat up on the brown-skinned people and the U.S. would be totally immune to reprisals? Nonsense.
 
2013-05-24 06:16:23 PM  

DigitalCoffee: History also advises, and democracy demands, the end of the War On DrugsTM, too. Which you talked about starting to do prior to your first term and then back-peddled very hard on once you got you ass in that seat


The War on Drugs=The DEA

We are talking about the AUMF. This is a completely separate issue.
 
2013-05-24 06:16:50 PM  

DigitalCoffee: "But this war, like all wars, must end. That's what history advises. That's what our democracy demands."

History also advises, and democracy demands, the end of the War On DrugsTM, too. Which you talked about starting to do prior to your first term and then back-peddled very hard on once you got you ass in that seat.

Guantanamo bay is a military, not civilian, facility. If he can't close it as President why can't he close it as Commander in Chief?

/who is john galt?


He can close it, but what can he do with the prisoners? Presidential Pardon? Maybe on his way out, if he wants a GOP president to follow him.
 
2013-05-24 06:25:31 PM  

vygramul: whidbey: vygramul: whether something is WISE and whether something is justified under International Law are two distinct things.I might be convincable on the wisdom aspect, but as far as the legalities are concerned, this was pretty clear-cut.


Please. Afghanistan didn't attack us. And it was just as sovereign a country as Iraq. There was no justification to use force there.

That's not how it works. International law has long recognized that providing protection is choosing a side and therefore becoming a belligerent.,


That also does not justify attacking a country that didn't attack us. I mean, really, it's clear cut we took Internat ional Law to mean what we wanted it to mean.. Article 51 does not cover what we did.

Also, much like Iraq, no security council resolution to authorize force was passed


Throughout history, for example, it was recognized that neutral ports could allow warships from countries at war, but could not let them stay indefinitely. They had to either expel the ship, impound it, or become a belligerent. Afghanistan, but not even trying to interfere with bin Laden but allowing him to operate from their territory is not magically immune from belligerency.

While there were intelligence reports that Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan, there was no due process other than the US announcing to the rest of the world that it was going to do what it wanted no matter what.

They chose a side. If the U.S. were to allow British skinheads to come here and conduct raids into Mexico, the U.S. would be committing an act of war. If we weren't, we could make tons of money on white supremacist tourism as they come here, get armed by the border-state Tea Partiers, and get let loose into Mexico to beat up on the brown-skinned people and the U.S. would be totally immune to reprisals? Nonsense.

They didn't "choose" anything. They were already a blown-out war-torn country. We only made it worse.

The right thing to do was pursue other courses of action because of these accentuating circumstances.

Bush and Cheney both used the 9/11 attack as leverage to basically commit a war crime.

Again, this has been hashed out here over and over.
 
2013-05-24 06:53:35 PM  

gimmegimme: Cletus C.: It was surreal almost. Like Obama was saying "Stop me before I kill again."

I wonder what would happen if  Republican did an honest self-examination.


Unpossible. Violates at least *half* the laws of physics, and would cause the time-space continuum to collapse in upon itself from the massive contradictons involved in such an endeavour.
 
2013-05-24 06:59:57 PM  

whidbey: vygramul: whidbey: vygramul: whether something is WISE and whether something is justified under International Law are two distinct things.I might be convincable on the wisdom aspect, but as far as the legalities are concerned, this was pretty clear-cut.


Please. Afghanistan didn't attack us. And it was just as sovereign a country as Iraq. There was no justification to use force there.

That's not how it works. International law has long recognized that providing protection is choosing a side and therefore becoming a belligerent.,

That also does not justify attacking a country that didn't attack us. I mean, really, it's clear cut we took Internat ional Law to mean what we wanted it to mean.. Article 51 does not cover what we did.

Also, much like Iraq, no security council resolution to authorize force was passed


Throughout history, for example, it was recognized that neutral ports could allow warships from countries at war, but could not let them stay indefinitely. They had to either expel the ship, impound it, or become a belligerent. Afghanistan, but not even trying to interfere with bin Laden but allowing him to operate from their territory is not magically immune from belligerency.

While there were intelligence reports that Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan, there was no due process other than the US announcing to the rest of the world that it was going to do what it wanted no matter what.

They chose a side. If the U.S. were to allow British skinheads to come here and conduct raids into Mexico, the U.S. would be committing an act of war. If we weren't, we could make tons of money on white supremacist tourism as they come here, get armed by the border-state Tea Partiers, and get let loose into Mexico to beat up on the brown-skinned people and the U.S. would be totally immune to reprisals? Nonsense.

They didn't "choose" anything. They were already a blown-out war-torn country. We only made it worse.

The right thing to do was pursue other courses o ...


They did choose - when they said, "No, we won't hand him over, and no, you can't come after him."

It doesn't matter if it's been hashed over and over, the international law justifications are completely on the U.S.' side on that. Not even a question. For the same reason police can't ask you interrogate someone without mirandizing them and then use the evidence in court - you become an agent for the police. Al Qaeda became an agent of Afghanistan when they lent them protection. You can't offer to let Jeffrey Dahmer a place to crash and then tell police they can't come onto your property to get him because YOU didn't commit a crime. Not only will they come get him, they will then arrest YOU.
 
2013-05-24 07:05:18 PM  

DigitalCoffee: History also advises, and democracy demands, the end of the War On DrugsTM, too. Which you talked about starting to do prior to your first term and then back-peddled very hard on once you got you ass in that seat.


1) Do you get that the War on Drugs is a rhetorical flourish for aggressive law enforcement activity, while the the war on Al-Qaeda is an actual, lawfully declared war?

2) Do you understand the constitutional difference between a rhetorical flourish, and an actual, lawfully declared war?

3) Do you understand that by proposing to repeal the AUMF, Obama is talking about a massive reduction in the federal government's power?

If the answer to any of these questions is "yes," please explain. I'm eager to read.
 
2013-05-24 07:52:13 PM  

bugontherug: DigitalCoffee: History also advises, and democracy demands, the end of the War On DrugsTM, too. Which you talked about starting to do prior to your first term and then back-peddled very hard on once you got you ass in that seat.

1) Do you get that the War on Drugs is a rhetorical flourish for aggressive law enforcement activity, while the the war on Al-Qaeda is an actual, lawfully declared war?

2) Do you understand the constitutional difference between a rhetorical flourish, and an actual, lawfully declared war?

3) Do you understand that by proposing to repeal the AUMF, Obama is talking about a massive reduction in the federal government's power?

If the answer to any of these questions is "yes," please explain. I'm eager to read.


1. It's been called 'The War On Drugs' for quite a few decades now. And even been referred to as such by the President (and predecessors). A president that did state, prior to election, his intentions on lightening up on such 'war' once in office but then reneged on once elected. And your 'rhetorical flourish' applies just the same to ' War on Terror' as it does 'War on Drugs'.

2. As for your 'Lawfully Declared Wars'; No, they are (and were) not. Only Congress has the power to declare actual war and they did not. Neither in the case of Iraq nor in the case of Afghanistan. They were illegal police actions begun by the former president, his staff, and backed by members of his own party in congress.

3. I never stated that I was against the repeal of the AUMF. In fact, I never mentioned it at all in my post. But since you bring it up, YES I agree with the repeal. But that was not the point that I was trying to make. A point that you obviously missed as well.
 
2013-05-24 08:41:26 PM  
The most recent declaration of war, by the United States Congress,was on... June 5, 1942.
 
2013-05-24 10:32:00 PM  
Anyone who has been decrying the use of drones--for any reason, on either side of the aisle--should meet this call for the repeal of AUMF with cries of joy and dancing in the street. And anyone who has leveled criticism against Obama for the strikes and does NOT support  repeal of the AUMF should be instantly denounced as a hypocrite and rank political poseur of the lowest sort.

The only reason for drone strikes outside combat areas is the need implicit in the AUMF, which necessitates a "war on terror" and by implication, terrorists wherever they may be, including non-hostile countries who cannot or will not extradite suspect individuals or refuse to allow US forces to do the same. The only other way to eliminate such individuals is via drones. Repealing or revising the AUMF would obviate the need to go after such individuals, since they would no longer need to be classed as clear and present dangers to US interests needing military response.

It should be obvious to anyone with more than three brain cells that there is no ongoing organized terrorist threat; and any disorganized threat (like Boston and London) are more due to continued Western interference in the Middle East and NOT due to coordinated efforts by a monolithic "militant Islam" if there ever was one. Anyone opposed to dropping the war on terror may as well just admit that they like war, want to keep being at war, and love sending soldiers out to die because it's fun as long as it's not them. Stop pretending there is any other reason.
 
2013-05-24 10:49:31 PM  
Car_Ramrod:
New Gingrich two weeks ago: Obama should do something about Libya, I would. Newt today: Obama shouldn't have done anything about Libya, I know I wouldn't have

New Gingrich? :shudder:

Didn't we already learn our lesson with New Coke?
 
2013-05-24 11:00:30 PM  
Obama needs to come out as a rabid NASCAR fan, and proclaim his love for football and apple pie, just to watch the ensuing butthurt and the proclamations of these obviously socialist institutions that have wormed their way into America...
 
2013-05-24 11:06:52 PM  

Gyrfalcon: there is no ongoing organized terrorist threat; and any disorganized threat (like Boston and London)


I think to be considered an "Act of Terror", the terrorist should at least have some stated demands. A mission statement if you will. Bin Laden plainly stated that 9/11 was about our meddling in Saudi Arabia and our support of Israel. Every single act of violence isn't automatically a terrorist attack, despite what the media says.
 
2013-05-24 11:19:57 PM  

Mugato: Gyrfalcon: there is no ongoing organized terrorist threat; and any disorganized threat (like Boston and London)

I think to be considered an "Act of Terror", the terrorist should at least have some stated demands. A mission statement if you will. Bin Laden plainly stated that 9/11 was about our meddling in Saudi Arabia and our support of Israel. Every single act of violence isn't automatically a terrorist attack, despite what the media says.


I said that a couple days ago and was either loudly ignored or loudly shouted down by people who equate Muslim with terrorism. But yes, what happened in Boston and London should be considered crimes, not terrorism, no matter what the motives of their perpetrators were. It may be a wiggly line sometimes, but the line CAN, and should, be drawn.
 
2013-05-25 12:14:06 AM  
FTA: "And since it's widely believed that these would-be Medicaid recipients probably don't vote or, if they do vote, they vote for Democrats, there's no political price to pay for snubbing them."

This has got to be the saddest observation ever. "You don't vote for me, so I don't have to care if you die."
 
2013-05-25 12:31:07 AM  

relcec: that explains why he had the NDAA expanded just a couple years ago so he could detain american citizens indefinetly.
just another in a long line of examples when he hopes you listen to his lies and ignore his actions like most of the idits on fark do.


Obama's signing statement "Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people."

Truly, history's greatest monster.
 
2013-05-25 01:42:43 AM  

lockers: Corvus: Right it's the libertarian "I only wish politicians would be for X" You point out democrats that are doing X and they do the "Well that doesn't count because they are Democrats so I am just going to fabricate some excuse to say it doesn't count."

What are you on about? I am a democrat. Recognition of the fact that we are in one military action after another, without debate or vote, does not make me a fark independent. If Obama wasn't complicit, he certainly could do something about it, namely, stop starting new military adventurism.


So you are saying unless a president promises never to ever have a war under any circumstances then you are on a "permanent war footing"? That's bullshiat.
 
2013-05-25 01:44:56 AM  

lockers: Corvus: Right it's the libertarian "I only wish politicians would be for X" You point out democrats that are doing X and they do the "Well that doesn't count because they are Democrats so I am just going to fabricate some excuse to say it doesn't count."

What are you on about? I am a democrat. Recognition of the fact that we are in one military action after another, without debate or vote, does not make me a fark independent. If Obama wasn't complicit, he certainly could do something about it, namely, stop starting new military adventurism.


You should read this:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/05/23/prepared-text-obamas-speech -o n-terrorism/

He was saying everything you seem to be complaining about but have not actually looked into what Obama has actually said.
 
2013-05-25 01:51:44 AM  

relcec: that explains why he had the NDAA expanded just a couple years ago so he could detain american citizens indefinetly.
just another in a long line of examples when he hopes you listen to his lies and ignore his actions like most of the idits on fark do.


Nope the AUMF allowed that under Bush. In fact the NDAA that was past the year you are talking specifically states it gives NO ADDITIONAL POWERS TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. (I can tell you have never actually read it)

You have been duped.

Being able to hold American indefinitely happened under Obama? Maybe you should tell this guy that:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-05-25 02:09:54 AM  

Corvus: So you are saying unless a president promises never to ever have a war under any circumstances then you are on a "permanent war footing"? That's bullshiat.


Actually, we are and have been in a state of war/semi-war for a very long time. Turn of the last century we were involved in the Philippines, then WWI, WW2, Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq 1, and now currently Iraq 2 and  Afghanistan. That doesn't count the Cold War, booting Noriega out of Panama, The Contra affair, The botched coup in Chile by the CIA, keeping select warlords armed in Africa, the bit with the Shah of Iran and the rise of Khomeini, and all the other dick waving we've done just in the past 113 years. The real bullshiat is our inability to come to terms with the fact that we are NOT a peaceful nation. Perhaps it's time that we did some serious naval gazing like Japan was forced to do after WW2 before someone manages to do their own version of Hiroshima on us.
 
2013-05-25 02:24:17 AM  

Biological Ali: Car_Ramrod: To be specific, here's Randy saying someone carrying cash, who is exercising their Second Amendment rights, can be drone-killed and he's totally fine with that:

"If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash. I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him."

That will never stop being hilarious.


Death penalty for petty robbery.. I really can't get behind that.
 
2013-05-25 02:36:13 AM  

vygramul: They didn't "choose" anything. They were already a blown-out war-torn country. We only made it worse.

The right thing to do was pursue other courses o ...

They did choose - when they said, "No, we won't hand him over, and no, you can't come after him."


Which again, does not justify any sort of attack. You're basically giving the US more power than any other nation on the planet. Why?

It doesn't matter if it's been hashed over and over, the international law justifications are completely on the U.S.' side on that. Not even a question.

Dude, bullshiat . There is more than just a "question" as to the nature of the very real war crimes that were committed against the Afghani people. I love it. The similarities which made Iraq a war crime are conveniently forgotten for what reason, now? Don't make me ask you to quote chapter and verse. You're making shiat up much in the same fashion the neocons did. Again, puzzling.


For the same reason police can't ask you interrogate someone without mirandizing them and then use the evidence in court - you become an agent for the police. Al Qaeda became an agent of Afghanistan when they lent them protection. You can't offer to let Jeffrey Dahmer a place to crash and then tell police they can't come onto your property to get him because YOU didn't commit a crime. Not only will they come get him, they will then arrest YOU.

Also, if you're going to pursue this line of reasoning? Find better examples. The skinhead one and this one sucks. :)

The two known uses of the AUMF are both un-Constitutional for the very specific reasons I mentioned. They are blatant violations right out of the book, practically verbatim.

And Obama bats a .1000 if he actually manages to get this alarming Constitutional by-pass repealed.
 
2013-05-25 02:49:04 AM  

whidbey:
Also, much like Iraq, no security council resolution to authorize force was passed.


WTF is this historical revisionism!?
The UN Security Council unanimously voted for resolution 1386 in December 2001, authorizing force by invoking Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
 
2013-05-25 02:51:52 AM  

vygramul: They did choose - when they said, "No, we won't hand him over, and no, you can't come after him."


I remember the Afghan government saying that the 9/11 attacks were a terrible crime, and if we provided proof that OBL was involved, they'd hand him over.  At that point, I fully expected the proof to be provided.. and was surprised when Bush got all ultimatumy instead.

Now, perhaps the Afghan government didn't have the ability to hand him over.. but they didn't seem that unwilling.
 
2013-05-25 03:05:40 AM  

Dansker: whidbey:
Also, much like Iraq, no security council resolution to authorize force was passed.

WTF is this historical revisionism!?
The UN Security Council unanimously voted for resolution 1386 in December 2001, authorizing force by invoking Chapter VII of the UN Charter.


The resolution didn't authorize the invasion. It was enacted later as damage control for the US's "cowboy diplomacy."

As for the so-called international support, the truth is that the Bush administration used the 9/11 tragedy to allow for an attack on a sovereign nation that didn't attack us. The initial attacks were led by the US and England, much the same as Iraq.

The parallels between Afghanistan and Iraq are totally obvious. It's not a question of whether the act was wise, it's a statement that the act was criminal, and only served to further devastate an already socially-collapsed nation.

The proper thing to do would have been to keep a cool head and not call for meaningless action based on flimsy justification that wouldn't even hold up in court.
 
2013-05-25 03:47:30 AM  

whidbey: vygramul: They didn't "choose" anything. They were already a blown-out war-torn country. We only made it worse.

The right thing to do was pursue other courses o ...

They did choose - when they said, "No, we won't hand him over, and no, you can't come after him."

Which again, does not justify any sort of attack. You're basically giving the US more power than any other nation on the planet. Why?

It doesn't matter if it's been hashed over and over, the international law justifications are completely on the U.S.' side on that. Not even a question.

Dude, bullshiat . There is more than just a "question" as to the nature of the very real war crimes that were committed against the Afghani people. I love it. The similarities which made Iraq a war crime are conveniently forgotten for what reason, now? Don't make me ask you to quote chapter and verse. You're making shiat up much in the same fashion the neocons did. Again, puzzling.


For the same reason police can't ask you interrogate someone without mirandizing them and then use the evidence in court - you become an agent for the police. Al Qaeda became an agent of Afghanistan when they lent them protection. You can't offer to let Jeffrey Dahmer a place to crash and then tell police they can't come onto your property to get him because YOU didn't commit a crime. Not only will they come get him, they will then arrest YOU.

Also, if you're going to pursue this line of reasoning? Find better examples. The skinhead one and this one sucks. :)

The two known uses of the AUMF are both un-Constitutional for the very specific reasons I mentioned. They are blatant violations right out of the book, practically verbatim.

And Obama bats a .1000 if he actually manages to get this alarming Constitutional by-pass repealed.


I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong when it comes to International Law. To maintain neutrality, according to the Hague Convention, you must inter the non-wounded enemy forces until the end of hostilities. Failure to do so makes you a belligerent. Since Al Qaeda declared war, and since we delivered the ultimatum in accordance with the Hague Convention, Afghanistan had only one option to remain inviolate and they did not take it.

Feel free to peruse articles V and XIII to get the gist of what a neutral may or may not do, and article III for what International Law says about ultimata. (BTW: International Law gives fark all about what our internal mechanisms for DoW are.)

If the neocons were making that argument, then they were right.
 
2013-05-25 03:50:02 AM  

Alphax: vygramul: They did choose - when they said, "No, we won't hand him over, and no, you can't come after him."

I remember the Afghan government saying that the 9/11 attacks were a terrible crime, and if we provided proof that OBL was involved, they'd hand him over.  At that point, I fully expected the proof to be provided.. and was surprised when Bush got all ultimatumy instead.

Now, perhaps the Afghan government didn't have the ability to hand him over.. but they didn't seem that unwilling.


Since Al Qaeda had publicly declared war on the U.S., the issue of proof is irrelevant. They declared themselves belligerents. We declared ourselves belligerents. Afghanistan had no authority to act as arbiter. Their obligations were not to provide protection for one belligerent and deny access to the other.
 
2013-05-25 03:50:12 AM  

whidbey: Dansker: whidbey:
Also, much like Iraq, no security council resolution to authorize force was passed.

WTF is this historical revisionism!?
The UN Security Council unanimously voted for resolution 1386 in December 2001, authorizing force by invoking Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

The resolution didn't authorize the invasion. It was enacted later as damage control for the US's "cowboy diplomacy."

As for the so-called international support, the truth is that the Bush administration used the 9/11 tragedy to allow for an attack on a sovereign nation that didn't attack us. The initial attacks were led by the US and England, much the same as Iraq.

The parallels between Afghanistan and Iraq are totally obvious. It's not a question of whether the act was wise, it's a statement that the act was criminal, and only served to further devastate an already socially-collapsed nation.

The proper thing to do would have been to keep a cool head and not call for meaningless action based on flimsy justification that wouldn't even hold up in court.


Yes, but see we had neo-cons running shiat back then and a population that wanted blood.  The VP being a former exec at the "only" contractor big enough to support our adventure certainly didn't hurt either.
 
2013-05-25 03:57:31 AM  

vygramul: Alphax: vygramul: They did choose - when they said, "No, we won't hand him over, and no, you can't come after him."

I remember the Afghan government saying that the 9/11 attacks were a terrible crime, and if we provided proof that OBL was involved, they'd hand him over.  At that point, I fully expected the proof to be provided.. and was surprised when Bush got all ultimatumy instead.

Now, perhaps the Afghan government didn't have the ability to hand him over.. but they didn't seem that unwilling.

Since Al Qaeda had publicly declared war on the U.S., the issue of proof is irrelevant. They declared themselves belligerents. We declared ourselves belligerents. Afghanistan had no authority to act as arbiter. Their obligations were not to provide protection for one belligerent and deny access to the other.


What does that have to do with anything I said?
 
2013-05-25 04:03:12 AM  

Alphax: vygramul: Alphax: vygramul: They did choose - when they said, "No, we won't hand him over, and no, you can't come after him."

I remember the Afghan government saying that the 9/11 attacks were a terrible crime, and if we provided proof that OBL was involved, they'd hand him over.  At that point, I fully expected the proof to be provided.. and was surprised when Bush got all ultimatumy instead.

Now, perhaps the Afghan government didn't have the ability to hand him over.. but they didn't seem that unwilling.

Since Al Qaeda had publicly declared war on the U.S., the issue of proof is irrelevant. They declared themselves belligerents. We declared ourselves belligerents. Afghanistan had no authority to act as arbiter. Their obligations were not to provide protection for one belligerent and deny access to the other.

What does that have to do with anything I said?


You added information, and I made the clarification that the additional details you provided do not impact the greater point under discussion.

That's what it has to do with what you said.
 
2013-05-25 04:09:55 AM  

vygramul: Alphax: vygramul: Alphax: vygramul: They did choose - when they said, "No, we won't hand him over, and no, you can't come after him."

I remember the Afghan government saying that the 9/11 attacks were a terrible crime, and if we provided proof that OBL was involved, they'd hand him over.  At that point, I fully expected the proof to be provided.. and was surprised when Bush got all ultimatumy instead.

Now, perhaps the Afghan government didn't have the ability to hand him over.. but they didn't seem that unwilling.

Since Al Qaeda had publicly declared war on the U.S., the issue of proof is irrelevant. They declared themselves belligerents. We declared ourselves belligerents. Afghanistan had no authority to act as arbiter. Their obligations were not to provide protection for one belligerent and deny access to the other.

What does that have to do with anything I said?

You added information, and I made the clarification that the additional details you provided do not impact the greater point under discussion.

That's what it has to do with what you said.


There's an obligation to defend someone who is considered your guest, an ancient tradition going back thousands of years.  Not always practiced anymore, and no doubt not considered part of international law, but there it is.
 
2013-05-25 04:12:13 AM  
But anyway, the larger point was that just a touch of patience/diplomacy, and either the Afghans would have either handed Bin Laden over.. or admitted that they couldn't find him to do so themselves.  Virtually every nation condemned the 9/11 attack.
 
2013-05-25 08:03:07 AM  
if God was black, they'd be biatching about what God does.    (assuming God exists)
 
2013-05-25 10:26:34 AM  

Linux_Yes: if God was black, they'd be biatching about what God does.    (assuming God exists)


Ever ask a Christian why they believe a dude born in the Middle East 2100 years ago was white?
 
2013-05-25 10:45:45 AM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Linux_Yes: if God was black, they'd be biatching about what God does.    (assuming God exists)

Ever ask a Christian why they believe a dude born in the Middle East 2100 years ago was white?


It wasn't some dude. It was GOD. And God would, of course, come down as a cool kid. The Jews there only killed him because he was white, dontcha know?

/Moses was white. Didn't you see the Ten Commandments?
 
2013-05-25 12:08:26 PM  

Alphax: Biological Ali: Car_Ramrod: To be specific, here's Randy saying someone carrying cash, who is exercising their Second Amendment rights, can be drone-killed and he's totally fine with that:

"If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash. I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him."

That will never stop being hilarious.

Death penalty for petty robbery.. I really can't get behind that.


It's not even that. The funniest part is that he apparently "doesn't care" whether this suspected robber is killed by a policeman with (presumably) small arms fire, or with a drone shooting (presumably) a missile with a significantly larger damage radius.
 
2013-05-25 01:37:44 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Linux_Yes: if God was black, they'd be biatching about what God does.    (assuming God exists)

Ever ask a Christian why they believe a dude born in the Middle East 2100 years ago was white?


no.  but i intend to start asking.  it'll be fun watching the look of confusion on their faces.   ((::
 
2013-05-25 01:38:34 PM  

vygramul: Don't Troll Me Bro!: Linux_Yes: if God was black, they'd be biatching about what God does.    (assuming God exists)

Ever ask a Christian why they believe a dude born in the Middle East 2100 years ago was white?

It wasn't some dude. It was GOD. And God would, of course, come down as a cool kid. The Jews there only killed him because he was white, dontcha know?

/Moses was white. Didn't you see the Ten Commandments?



lol    Hollywood gets it 'right' every time.
 
2013-05-25 02:39:10 PM  

Biological Ali: Alphax: Biological Ali: Car_Ramrod: To be specific, here's Randy saying someone carrying cash, who is exercising their Second Amendment rights, can be drone-killed and he's totally fine with that:

"If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash. I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him."

That will never stop being hilarious.

Death penalty for petty robbery.. I really can't get behind that.

It's not even that. The funniest part is that he apparently "doesn't care" whether this suspected robber is killed by a policeman with (presumably) small arms fire, or with a drone shooting (presumably) a missile with a significantly larger damage radius.


Exactly!  I'm sure the liquor store owner (a small businessman/job creator!!!) would be very pleased with a drone strike that would incinerate the robber, the cash, and most of his liquor store.
 
2013-05-25 03:12:23 PM  

Linux_Yes: Don't Troll Me Bro!: Linux_Yes: if God was black, they'd be biatching about what God does.    (assuming God exists)

Ever ask a Christian why they believe a dude born in the Middle East 2100 years ago was white?

no.  but i intend to start asking.  it'll be fun watching the look of confusion on their faces.   ((::


Might also want to point out the popularity of names like Peter, Paul, Mary, Thomas, Simon, James, Andrew, etc among the Israelites/Arabs/Egyptians of 2100 years ago. And how they managed the miracle of spelling Joseph and Jesus despite Hebrew having no 'J'.

/if you're banking on a guy to save you from eternal torment you would think that getting his name right would be some kind of minimum requirement
 
2013-05-25 03:39:28 PM  
see, people? This is what happens when you go full retard.

At this point, we have the Greens (liberal), Democrats (conservative), and GOP (Retarded).
 
2013-05-25 04:52:43 PM  

vygramul: I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong when it comes to International Law. To maintain neutrality, according to the Hague Convention, you must inter the non-wounded enemy forces until the end of hostilities. Failure to do so makes you a belligerent. Since Al Qaeda declared war, and since we delivered the ultimatum in accordance with the Hague Convention, Afghanistan had only one option to remain inviolate and they did not take it.

Feel free to peruse articles V and XIII to get the gist of what a neutral may or may not do, and article III for what International Law says about ultimata. (BTW: International Law gives fark all about what our internal mechanisms for DoW are.)


Afghanistan did not declare war on us. And Al Qaeda was based out of Saudi Arabia.

The bottom line is there were too many accentuating circumstances to make attacking Afghanistan justified.

There were many other options the US had an obligation to pursue, and it took the militant route immediately, presuming guilt before any sort of investigation took place.

And again, there was no Security Council authorization to use force
Yes, under Article 51 there was right of reprisal, but the means to bring about that reprisal were based on unilateralism, not the representative spirit of the UN.

At this point, it's more amusing to me to note the dogpiling on Iraq for its violations and un-Constitutionalities, but still Afghanistan isn't called for being pretty much the same thing.

If the neocons were making that argument, then they were right.

ecx.images-amazon.com

Well that goes without saying. .
 
2013-05-25 09:30:34 PM  

wxboy: Obama should come out in favor of breathing.


It would spur shovel ready jobs. Literally.
 
2013-05-25 10:41:11 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
Displayed 50 of 150 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report