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.

(The Daily Beast)   John McCain (R-eality challenged): We won the Iraq war. Obama lost it   (thedailybeast.com) divider line 282
    More: Asinine, John McCain, Iraq, Morning Joe  
•       •       •

1021 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Jun 2014 at 11:08 AM (15 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-13 01:08:41 PM

dinch: thamike: dinch: This group is called ISIS.

[www.slate.com image 568x346]

That always cracks me up, and I have NO idea what it is about. I'm going to have to look it up.


You're going to have to WATCH it.  It's streaming on Netflix--4 seasons.  Hilarious show.
 
2014-06-13 01:09:59 PM

trotsky: nekom: raerae1980:
I remember, because, I used to listen to talk radio, being told that ANYONE who did not support the war or Bush was a traitor and unamerican.

Back in the days of blinding rage in the wake of the most devastating terrorist attack in our history.  I supported the war at first based largely on that kind of sentiment.  I was dead wrong, and I'm not afraid to admit being wrong.  Not sure what the hell we should do about it now though.

You're not the only one. I was dead, dead, dead wrong as well. The more I read about it, the more I realize just how much of a PR campaign the whole thing was. Poorly planned, poorly thought out and paid for with the lives of Americans.


And tens of thousands of Iraqis.
 
2014-06-13 01:10:36 PM

Lord_Baull: *Sigh* No one reads upthread for context anymore.


Why would we?  If your argument is so good, it couldn't hurt to just do a little copy & paste.

If, however, your argument is weak sauce, just referencing to it and hoping no one takes a look is a decent tactic.
 
2014-06-13 01:12:12 PM

dinch: Noam Chimpsky: Geotpf: Noam Chimpsky: RyogaM:

This ain't al Qaeda

Yeah, they're just some kids letting off a little steam.

Well, no matter what you say, the fact remains that group currently invading Iraq is not Al Queda.

Of course, Al Queda kicked them out because they were too extreme, but...

Lol, okay. They just think the flag looks cool, is all.

Sigh, ok, one more time. This group is called ISIS. It stands for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria . They are NOT Al Qaeda.


Better tell them that, apologist. Their flag is the al qaeda flag. The various al qaeda factions, and now armies, have their own titles. They are branches and al qaeda is the trunk. Do you know what "al qaeda" means in Arabic?
 
2014-06-13 01:15:03 PM

thamike: dinch: thamike: dinch: This group is called ISIS.

[www.slate.com image 568x346]

That always cracks me up, and I have NO idea what it is about. I'm going to have to look it up.

You're going to have to WATCH it.  It's streaming on Netflix--4 seasons.  Hilarious show.


Ok, you've sold me! I'm guessing it's not something I can watch with my lids, though.
 
2014-06-13 01:17:41 PM

MBrady: raerae1980: Thanks Bush.

Can't believe I actually supported going to war. At least I never voted for him.

also be sure to thank: 0bama, both clintons, Biden, Kennedy, Reid, and every other democrat in congress who voted for going to war.  Not to mention Germany, France, the UK, and just about every nation in the UN.

/at least Bush asked congress first, eh?


Obama didn't vote on the IWR. He wasn't in Congress. And Germany didn't send troops to Iraq.

but you're close to being right.
 
2014-06-13 01:17:52 PM

Noam Chimpsky: dinch: Noam Chimpsky: Geotpf: Noam Chimpsky: RyogaM:

This ain't al Qaeda

Yeah, they're just some kids letting off a little steam.

Well, no matter what you say, the fact remains that group currently invading Iraq is not Al Queda.

Of course, Al Queda kicked them out because they were too extreme, but...

Lol, okay. They just think the flag looks cool, is all.

Sigh, ok, one more time. This group is called ISIS. It stands for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria . They are NOT Al Qaeda.

Better tell them that, apologist. Their flag is the al qaeda flag. The various al qaeda factions, and now armies, have their own titles. They are branches and al qaeda is the trunk. Do you know what "al qaeda" means in Arabic?


"Vote Republican"?
 
2014-06-13 01:18:12 PM

dinch: Ok, you've sold me! I'm guessing it's not something I can watch with my lids, though.


No, your lids will definitely have to be open.
 
2014-06-13 01:18:40 PM
PanicMan:
I was worse. I looked at all the evidence, and decided there was no reason to go to war. But then when Bush said we have to go in, I believed him. Even after everything I knew about politics and human nature, I had to believe the President wouldn't lie about something so important. I never even liked him, but I believed him.

I was wrong and stupid. I only hope I don't make the same mistake again.


For me, it was Gen. Powell.  I had a great respect for that man, which is now forever tarnished.  Plus I was just pissed.  It's so easy to think well, the Muslims attacked us, so we have to hit them back without really thinking the whole thing through.  I was wrong, along with a whole lot of other people at the time.  What I don't understand is why people are STILL committed to the idea that it was a good idea, at this late hour and with the benefit of hindsight.  I guess some people just can't deal with having been wrong.
 
2014-06-13 01:20:29 PM

Noam Chimpsky: Better tell them that, apologist. Their flag is the al qaeda flag. The various al qaeda factions, and now armies, have their own titles. They are branches and al qaeda is the trunk. Do you know what "al qaeda" means in Arabic?


Apologist... that's a really strange word to use for what I just said.

I guess you could be correct in that they were initially a splinter group of Al Qaeda, however, Zawahiri has denounced their actions as being too extreme and they are now almost in competition with each other.
 
2014-06-13 01:21:09 PM

ALL GIRLS AGREE TO PULL PANTIES DOWN: Lord_Baull: ALL GIRLS AGREE TO PULL PANTIES DOWN: FTFY.


Actuallly, I was considering bolding the entire sentence, but the "both clintons" caught my eye.

True.  Plus, the "every Democrat (and Republican) in Congress that voted for it" is based on two assumptions:

1.  The "inaccurate" intelligence given to Congress of Iraq's WMDs was presented in good faith, and not cherry-picked specifically to support an          invasion.

2.  The Authorization of Force bill was presented in good faith, which stated the Bush administration would explore every possible diplomatic resolution,         and only use force as an absolute last resort, and that the Bush administration was not secretly intending to invade no matter what..

Here's a hint.  They weren't.


No. No one gets a pass on this. If you voted yes on the IWR, you were either too stupid to see through the lies, or too afraid to make waves.

I don't want anyone stupid or cowardly in a position of leadership. Don't give any of them a pass.
 
2014-06-13 01:21:12 PM

thamike: dinch: Ok, you've sold me! I'm guessing it's not something I can watch with my lids, though.

No, your lids will definitely have to be open.


Damnit! Meant kids
 
2014-06-13 01:22:44 PM

FlashHarry: mccain is in-farking-sane.

here's the deal: iraq is a european construct, created out of the desert after WWI by drawing lines on a map. those lines enclosed three historically antithetical factions: sunnis, shiates and kurds. stability was maintained initially through a colonial government, a strong monarchy and then through a brutal dictatorship. when we removed that dictatorship in 2003, it was inevitable that the country would fall apart. and that is what's happening now.

iraq should never have been a country in the first place, except maybe as a smaller sunni country, with the rest going to syria and an independent kurdistan.


Not sure that's going to solve anything as the Kurds and shiates would be left with the bulk of the oil wealth after you carve up the country by ethnicity.  I don't think the Sunnis, which are causing all the problems now, are going to be content with the proceeds from dates and playground sand, especially after having been in effective control of everything up until recently.

 http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iraq_ethno_2003 .jp g

http://www.mappery.com/maps/Iraq-Oilfields-and-Facilities-Map.jpg
 
2014-06-13 01:23:50 PM

what_now: ALL GIRLS AGREE TO PULL PANTIES DOWN: Lord_Baull: ALL GIRLS AGREE TO PULL PANTIES DOWN: FTFY.


Actuallly, I was considering bolding the entire sentence, but the "both clintons" caught my eye.

True.  Plus, the "every Democrat (and Republican) in Congress that voted for it" is based on two assumptions:

1.  The "inaccurate" intelligence given to Congress of Iraq's WMDs was presented in good faith, and not cherry-picked specifically to support an          invasion.

2.  The Authorization of Force bill was presented in good faith, which stated the Bush administration would explore every possible diplomatic resolution,         and only use force as an absolute last resort, and that the Bush administration was not secretly intending to invade no matter what..

Here's a hint.  They weren't.

No. No one gets a pass on this. If you voted yes on the IWR, you were either too stupid to see through the lies, or too afraid to make waves.

I don't want anyone stupid or cowardly in a position of leadership. Don't give any of them a pass.


What if someone voted for it because they wanted to go to war, like a certain former Secretary of State?
 
2014-06-13 01:24:01 PM

dinch: thamike: dinch: Ok, you've sold me! I'm guessing it's not something I can watch with my lids, though.

No, your lids will definitely have to be open.

Damnit! Meant kids


Seriously, though, probably not the best show for kids.  Little ones will be traumatized and no one under 20 will get the jokes.
 
2014-06-13 01:24:44 PM

what_now: MBrady: raerae1980: Thanks Bush.

Can't believe I actually supported going to war. At least I never voted for him.

also be sure to thank: 0bama, both clintons, Biden, Kennedy, Reid, and every other democrat in congress who voted for going to war.  Not to mention Germany, France, the UK, and just about every nation in the UN.

/at least Bush asked congress first, eh?

Obama didn't vote on the IWR. He wasn't in Congress. And Germany didn't send troops to Iraq.

but you're close to being right.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-06-13 01:25:53 PM

Noam Chimpsky: Better tell them that, apologist. Their flag is the al qaeda flag. The various al qaeda factions, and now armies, have their own titles. They are branches and al qaeda is the trunk. Do you know what "al qaeda" means in Arabic?


According to wiki, they cut all ties with each other in Feb. 2014, and are now classed as opponents to each other.  So, fine, if Obama wants to drone them, maybe he could claim they are al Qaeda-like, and send the bill to Iraq for the cost.  In any event, that chances nothing about whether we should come to the aid of Iraq, who deserve all the shiat they get for kicking us out and refusing to even discuss paying us back for assisting them.
 
2014-06-13 01:26:51 PM

Noam Chimpsky: dinch: Noam Chimpsky: Geotpf: Noam Chimpsky: RyogaM:

This ain't al Qaeda

Yeah, they're just some kids letting off a little steam.

Well, no matter what you say, the fact remains that group currently invading Iraq is not Al Queda.

Of course, Al Queda kicked them out because they were too extreme, but...

Lol, okay. They just think the flag looks cool, is all.

Sigh, ok, one more time. This group is called ISIS. It stands for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria . They are NOT Al Qaeda.

Better tell them that, apologist. Their flag is the al qaeda flag. The various al qaeda factions, and now armies, have their own titles. They are branches and al qaeda is the trunk. Do you know what "al qaeda" means in Arabic?


They  used to be part of Al Queda.  The main Al Queda group kicked them out.  In fact, Al Queda and the ISIS have actually fought battles against each other in Syria.

As for the flag, I'm sure they simply didn't change their flag after being kicked out.
 
2014-06-13 01:28:19 PM

llortcM_yllort: What if someone voted for it because they wanted to go to war, like a certain former Secretary of State?


Sure- that's another very good reason to never vote for someone.
 
2014-06-13 01:32:31 PM

dinch: Noam Chimpsky: Better tell them that, apologist. Their flag is the al qaeda flag. The various al qaeda factions, and now armies, have their own titles. They are branches and al qaeda is the trunk. Do you know what "al qaeda" means in Arabic?

Apologist... that's a really strange word to use for what I just said.

I guess you could be correct in that they were initially a splinter group of Al Qaeda, however, Zawahiri has denounced their actions as being too extreme and they are now almost in competition with each other.


They are wannabe al qaeda? Well, that's a relief!

If ISIS isn't al qaeda, then al qaeda doesn't have any members anymore...SO WE WON!!. It's more like Zawahiri is no longer in control of al qaeda. I don't think Zawahiri copyrighted the term.
 
2014-06-13 01:33:23 PM

Noam Chimpsky: dinch: Noam Chimpsky: Better tell them that, apologist. Their flag is the al qaeda flag. The various al qaeda factions, and now armies, have their own titles. They are branches and al qaeda is the trunk. Do you know what "al qaeda" means in Arabic?

Apologist... that's a really strange word to use for what I just said.

I guess you could be correct in that they were initially a splinter group of Al Qaeda, however, Zawahiri has denounced their actions as being too extreme and they are now almost in competition with each other.

They are wannabe al qaeda? Well, that's a relief!

If ISIS isn't al qaeda, then al qaeda doesn't have any members anymore...SO WE WON!!. It's more like Zawahiri is no longer in control of al qaeda. I don't think Zawahiri copyrighted the term.


Are you being willfully stupid or does it just come naturally to you?
 
2014-06-13 01:33:57 PM

nekom: PanicMan:
I was worse. I looked at all the evidence, and decided there was no reason to go to war. But then when Bush said we have to go in, I believed him. Even after everything I knew about politics and human nature, I had to believe the President wouldn't lie about something so important. I never even liked him, but I believed him.

I was wrong and stupid. I only hope I don't make the same mistake again.

For me, it was Gen. Powell.  I had a great respect for that man, which is now forever tarnished.  Plus I was just pissed.  It's so easy to think well, the Muslims attacked us, so we have to hit them back without really thinking the whole thing through.  I was wrong, along with a whole lot of other people at the time.  What I don't understand is why people are STILL committed to the idea that it was a good idea, at this late hour and with the benefit of hindsight.  I guess some people just can't deal with having been wrong.


At one point I would have voted for Powell. Not anymore.

Team politics, man. People just want to feel good about their decisions.
 
2014-06-13 01:37:20 PM

dinch: Are you being willfully stupid or does it just come naturally to you?


C) he's a troll
 
2014-06-13 01:38:31 PM

Noam Chimpsky: dinch: Noam Chimpsky: Better tell them that, apologist. Their flag is the al qaeda flag. The various al qaeda factions, and now armies, have their own titles. They are branches and al qaeda is the trunk. Do you know what "al qaeda" means in Arabic?

Apologist... that's a really strange word to use for what I just said.

I guess you could be correct in that they were initially a splinter group of Al Qaeda, however, Zawahiri has denounced their actions as being too extreme and they are now almost in competition with each other.

They are wannabe al qaeda? Well, that's a relief!

If ISIS isn't al qaeda, then al qaeda doesn't have any members anymore...SO WE WON!!. It's more like Zawahiri is no longer in control of al qaeda. I don't think Zawahiri copyrighted the term.


You are making less sense the more you post.  Just because one group splint off from al Qaeda does not mean that there are not still groups in al Qaeda. When your wife goes to the store, does that mean that no one in your family is home?  Of course not.

Can anyone point me to an terrorist action taken by this al Qaeda splinter group against American interests, either here at home or abroad?  Or are we just saying that anyone who supported al Qaeda's goals after 9/11 are able to be droned even if that support did not result in attempted terror acts?
 
2014-06-13 01:39:20 PM
Hey guys, remember that time that McCain criticized Obama for not arming the rebels in Syria?

Do you think he realizes that the people he wanted to arm 6 months ago are the same people who are attacking Iraq right now?  Because that would be pretty embarrassing if he failed to make that connection.....
 
2014-06-13 01:40:55 PM

grumpfuff: dinch: Are you being willfully stupid or does it just come naturally to you?

C) he's a troll


Probably.  But I tend to think he's a liberal posing as a clueless conservative/ Fark independent whose goal is to make Fark independents look idiotic.  And he's doing a bang-up job.  Truly a stellar job.
 
2014-06-13 01:40:59 PM

nekom: FlashHarry: mccain is in-farking-sane.

here's the deal: iraq is a european construct, created out of the desert after WWI by drawing lines on a map. those lines enclosed three historically antithetical factions: sunnis, shiates and kurds. stability was maintained initially through a colonial government, a strong monarchy and then through a brutal dictatorship. when we removed that dictatorship in 2003, it was inevitable that the country would fall apart. and that is what's happening now.

iraq should never have been a country in the first place, except maybe as a smaller sunni country, with the rest going to syria and an independent kurdistan.

Same problem in Africa, really.  Arbitrary borders drawn up by foreigners that in no way represent the real ethnic, tribal or religious groups.  See also:  division of India and Pakistan


What do all these countries have in common?  They were ALL drawn just after WWI by former colonial powers who drew them that way with the overt intent of preventing them from every uniting and growing strong enough to pose an economic threat to Europe.   South America and Southeast Asia, had many of the same economic issues as the Mideast and Africa, but the Monroe Doctrine, and Simon Bolivar prevented European meddling in South America  (thought he US did a fair bit of its own for a while in Central America with predictable results)  and Asia had too long a history to let such meddling take for very long

Result?   The hotspots of the world continue to be where the British foreign office had a hand in drawing the maps
 
2014-06-13 01:42:18 PM

llortcM_yllort: what_now: ALL GIRLS AGREE TO PULL PANTIES DOWN: Lord_Baull: ALL GIRLS AGREE TO PULL PANTIES DOWN: FTFY.


Actuallly, I was considering bolding the entire sentence, but the "both clintons" caught my eye.

True.  Plus, the "every Democrat (and Republican) in Congress that voted for it" is based on two assumptions:

1.  The "inaccurate" intelligence given to Congress of Iraq's WMDs was presented in good faith, and not cherry-picked specifically to support an          invasion.

2.  The Authorization of Force bill was presented in good faith, which stated the Bush administration would explore every possible diplomatic resolution,         and only use force as an absolute last resort, and that the Bush administration was not secretly intending to invade no matter what..

Here's a hint.  They weren't.

No. No one gets a pass on this. If you voted yes on the IWR, you were either too stupid to see through the lies, or too afraid to make waves.

I don't want anyone stupid or cowardly in a position of leadership. Don't give any of them a pass.

What if someone voted for it because they wanted to go to war, like a certain former Secretary of State?


Or like a certain Senator from AZ?
 
2014-06-13 01:43:45 PM

dinch: Noam Chimpsky: dinch: Noam Chimpsky: Better tell them that, apologist. Their flag is the al qaeda flag. The various al qaeda factions, and now armies, have their own titles. They are branches and al qaeda is the trunk. Do you know what "al qaeda" means in Arabic?

Apologist... that's a really strange word to use for what I just said.

I guess you could be correct in that they were initially a splinter group of Al Qaeda, however, Zawahiri has denounced their actions as being too extreme and they are now almost in competition with each other.

They are wannabe al qaeda? Well, that's a relief!

If ISIS isn't al qaeda, then al qaeda doesn't have any members anymore...SO WE WON!!. It's more like Zawahiri is no longer in control of al qaeda. I don't think Zawahiri copyrighted the term.

Are you being willfully stupid or does it just come naturally to you?


Weren't you just agreeing with me that Zawahiri lost control of al qaeda?
 
2014-06-13 01:44:22 PM

propasaurus: llortcM_yllort: what_now: ALL GIRLS AGREE TO PULL PANTIES DOWN: Lord_Baull: ALL GIRLS AGREE TO PULL PANTIES DOWN: FTFY.


Actuallly, I was considering bolding the entire sentence, but the "both clintons" caught my eye.

True.  Plus, the "every Democrat (and Republican) in Congress that voted for it" is based on two assumptions:

1.  The "inaccurate" intelligence given to Congress of Iraq's WMDs was presented in good faith, and not cherry-picked specifically to support an          invasion.

2.  The Authorization of Force bill was presented in good faith, which stated the Bush administration would explore every possible diplomatic resolution,         and only use force as an absolute last resort, and that the Bush administration was not secretly intending to invade no matter what..

Here's a hint.  They weren't.

No. No one gets a pass on this. If you voted yes on the IWR, you were either too stupid to see through the lies, or too afraid to make waves.

I don't want anyone stupid or cowardly in a position of leadership. Don't give any of them a pass.

What if someone voted for it because they wanted to go to war, like a certain former Secretary of State?

Or like a certain Senator from AZ?


All I know is I am definitely NOT voting for Obama in 2016.
 
2014-06-13 01:45:56 PM

RyogaM: grumpfuff: dinch: Are you being willfully stupid or does it just come naturally to you?

C) he's a troll

Probably.  But I tend to think he's a liberal posing as a clueless conservative/ Fark independent whose goal is to make Fark independents look idiotic.  And he's doing a bang-up job.  Truly a stellar job.


Well, he used to suggest at least somewhat rational counter-arguments and had a bit of originally. Now it's just generic "DEMS BAD NO MATTER WHAT!!" crap, same as most of the other trolls around here.

And what the hell is it with trolls that haven't been around in months/years suddenly all showing up at the same time? Cuz that's not odd or suspicious at all, nope.
 
2014-06-13 01:47:27 PM

llortcM_yllort: heavymetal: The Why Not Guy: MBrady: also be sure to thank: 0bama, both clintons, Biden, Kennedy, Reid, and every other democrat in congress who voted for going to war.

Check your history. Barack Obama wasn't a Senator until 2005.

And as for the rest, when President Bush stood on the flight deck of the USS Lincoln, with a "mission accomplished" banner waving in the breeze, did you say "hey wait a second, some of this glory belongs to the Democrats, too"? I'll bet you didn't. I'll bet what you said was more like "I'm glad the Republicans are taking it to the terrorists unlike those wimpy Democrats."

They did not vote to "go to war", rather President Bush asked congress for the authorization to go to war because he said he needed it as a bargaining chip in forcing Saddam Husein and Iraq into giving up the WMDs we now know never existed. Bush said war would be a last resort and he would not abuse it. of course as soon as he got it he declared the UN reports stating that Iraq was in compliance as lies and invaded anyway.

So to say the Democrats voted "for the Iraq war" is intellectually dishonest. It's kind of like posting the picture of Reagan with the Mujahedin and claiming it was the Taliban and/or Al Queda without acknowledging all the nuance behind the actual reality.

The irony is President Obama asked for the same courtesy regarding Syria and the Republicans blocked it in order to make President Obama look bad, and undermine him on the international stage. Of course now the same Republicans are criticizing him for not using force. Of course if he did without congressional authorization (which he is constitutionally allowed to do) he would have been called a war mongering dictator by the same Republicans. It's just like they were criticizing President Obama for leaving Berghdal in Afghanistan before they crityicized President Obama for freeing Berghdal.

This is just another example of the political equivalent of "haters gonna hate".

So what did they think he was going to do with the authority to go to war?


I guess you skimmed over it and missed it in the post so I will copy it and paste it here for you:

........as a bargaining chip in forcing Saddam Husein and Iraq into giving up the WMDs we now know never existed.

They voted on an authorization allowing Bush to go to war at his discretion. I guess they made the mistake of trusting him. Bush is the one who made the decision to use the authorization and invade, he was the commander in chief. No member of congress could do that, Democratic or Republican.
 
2014-06-13 01:49:16 PM

Noam Chimpsky: dinch: Noam Chimpsky: dinch: Noam Chimpsky: Better tell them that, apologist. Their flag is the al qaeda flag. The various al qaeda factions, and now armies, have their own titles. They are branches and al qaeda is the trunk. Do you know what "al qaeda" means in Arabic?

Apologist... that's a really strange word to use for what I just said.

I guess you could be correct in that they were initially a splinter group of Al Qaeda, however, Zawahiri has denounced their actions as being too extreme and they are now almost in competition with each other.

They are wannabe al qaeda? Well, that's a relief!

If ISIS isn't al qaeda, then al qaeda doesn't have any members anymore...SO WE WON!!. It's more like Zawahiri is no longer in control of al qaeda. I don't think Zawahiri copyrighted the term.

Are you being willfully stupid or does it just come naturally to you?

Weren't you just agreeing with me that Zawahiri lost control of al qaeda?


How is Zawahiri forcing a faction of people out of al Qaeda proper "losing control of al Qaeda?"  Do you think a boss who fires a group of workers from his company, leaving 90% of his workforce in place, has "lost control of his company?"  Troll UP.
 
2014-06-13 01:50:07 PM

grumpfuff: RyogaM: grumpfuff: dinch: Are you being willfully stupid or does it just come naturally to you?

C) he's a troll

Probably.  But I tend to think he's a liberal posing as a clueless conservative/ Fark independent whose goal is to make Fark independents look idiotic.  And he's doing a bang-up job.  Truly a stellar job.

Well, he used to suggest at least somewhat rational counter-arguments and had a bit of originally. Now it's just generic "DEMS BAD NO MATTER WHAT!!" crap, same as most of the other trolls around here.

And what the hell is it with trolls that haven't been around in months/years suddenly all showing up at the same time? Cuz that's not odd or suspicious at all, nope.


And the fact that it's been explained to him several times and he's still playing dumb.
 
2014-06-13 01:54:31 PM
Sen. McCain, speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations, April 2004:

Let me give you a hypothetical, senator. What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there? I understand it's a hypothetical, but it's at least possible.

McCAIN: Well, if that scenario evolves, then I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because- if it was an elected government of Iraq- and we've been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government, then I think we would have other challenges, but I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.
 
2014-06-13 01:59:14 PM

heavymetal: I guess you skimmed over it and missed it in the post so I will copy it and paste it here for you:

........as a bargaining chip in forcing Saddam Husein and Iraq into giving up the WMDs we now know never existed.

They voted on an authorization allowing Bush to go to war at his discretion. I guess they made the mistake of trusting him. Bush is the one who made the decision to use the authorization and invade, he was the commander in chief. No member of congress could do that, Democratic or Republican.


I want the authority to steal my co-workers lunch out of the break room fridge.  I only want this as a bargaining chip to encourage him to work harder.  No, I have no plans to steal his lunch.  Why would you think that?

Also, what do you think about the Democrats that were on record as supporting the war.  Were they still duped or did they vote for it on purpose?
 
2014-06-13 01:59:44 PM

RyogaM: Noam Chimpsky: dinch: Noam Chimpsky: dinch: Noam Chimpsky: Better tell them that, apologist. Their flag is the al qaeda flag. The various al qaeda factions, and now armies, have their own titles. They are branches and al qaeda is the trunk. Do you know what "al qaeda" means in Arabic?

Apologist... that's a really strange word to use for what I just said.

I guess you could be correct in that they were initially a splinter group of Al Qaeda, however, Zawahiri has denounced their actions as being too extreme and they are now almost in competition with each other.

They are wannabe al qaeda? Well, that's a relief!

If ISIS isn't al qaeda, then al qaeda doesn't have any members anymore...SO WE WON!!. It's more like Zawahiri is no longer in control of al qaeda. I don't think Zawahiri copyrighted the term.

Are you being willfully stupid or does it just come naturally to you?

Weren't you just agreeing with me that Zawahiri lost control of al qaeda?

How is Zawahiri forcing a faction of people out of al Qaeda proper "losing control of al Qaeda?"  Do you think a boss who fires a group of workers from his company, leaving 90% of his workforce in place, has "lost control of his company?"  Troll UP.


So you're telling me that what you consider al-qaeda properis 900% larger than the army that is currently marching across Iraq and all of the real al-qaeda are opposed to this army marching across Iraq?

Someone who wants to join the al-qaeda cause is gonna head to Iraq right now. Not Zawahiri's cave.
 
2014-06-13 02:09:06 PM
If the war was won, if the country was stable, we didn't need to stay.

But it wasn't stable and it was never going to be no matter how long we stayed or how many people we fed to the meat grinder.

Sometimes the only winning move is not to play.
 
2014-06-13 02:19:33 PM
Magorn:
What do all these countries have in common?  They were ALL drawn just after WWI by former colonial powers who drew them that way with the overt intent of preventing them from every uniting and growing strong enough to pose an economic threat to Europe.   South America and Southeast Asia, had many of the same economic issues as the Mideast and Africa, but the Monroe Doctrine, and Simon Bolivar prevented European meddling in South America  (thought he US did a fair bit of its own for a while in Central America with predictable results)  and Asia had too long a history to let such meddling take for very long

Result?   The hotspots of the world continue to be where the British foreign office had a hand in drawing the maps


So you think it was done intentionally as opposed to just being a byproduct of maps drawn up by a bunch of laughin' jokin' numbnuts for no particular reason?  Interesting thought that hadn't crossed my mind, but could they have actually had the foresight to do that?  Perhaps, I guess.  Thanks for giving me something interesting to think about and research.
 
2014-06-13 02:20:42 PM

Noam Chimpsky: So you're telling me that what you consider al-qaeda properis 900% larger than the army that is currently marching across Iraq and all of the real al-qaeda are opposed to this army marching across Iraq?

Someone who wants to join the al-qaeda cause is gonna head to Iraq right now. Not Zawahiri's cave.


Allies to al Qaeda proper are WORLDWIDE

ISIS is located primarily in Turkey, Syria and Iraq.  There two allies are both Syrian.  That's it.

So, yeah, not seeing how you think al Qaeda has lost control of its organization.  And not sure what point you think you are making.  If you want Obama to drone them, like he does al Qaeda, you need to work on the Republicans in Congress to make sure they don't backstab him as they did in Libya.
 
2014-06-13 02:28:28 PM

RyogaM: Noam Chimpsky: So you're telling me that what you consider al-qaeda properis 900% larger than the army that is currently marching across Iraq and all of the real al-qaeda are opposed to this army marching across Iraq?

Someone who wants to join the al-qaeda cause is gonna head to Iraq right now. Not Zawahiri's cave.

Allies to al Qaeda proper are WORLDWIDE

ISIS is located primarily in Turkey, Syria and Iraq.  There two allies are both Syrian.  That's it.

So, yeah, not seeing how you think al Qaeda has lost control of its organization.  And not sure what point you think you are making.  If you want Obama to drone them, like he does al Qaeda, you need to work on the Republicans in Congress to make sure they don't backstab him as they did in Libya.


Obama allied with al qaeda against Libya. Why would the Republicans support that? I suspect that the al qaeda army currently marching through Iraq started out as Obama's "Arab Spring" Army and that Obama armed them with automatic weapons and mortars. Now they are picking up even more weaponry, uniforms, etc. that the US sent to Iraq.
 
2014-06-13 02:42:48 PM

Noam Chimpsky: Why would the Republicans support that?


Golly, what a conundrum!

"The United States must see this effort in Libya through to its conclusion," reads the letter, signed by conservatives including Liz Cheney, William Kristol, Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz and R. James Woolsey Jr. "Success is profoundly in our interests and in keeping with our principles as a nation. The success of NATO's operations will influence how other Middle Eastern regimes respond to the demands of their people for more political rights and freedoms."

Noam Chimpsky: I suspect


I suspect I've wasted enough time with you. Good luck with the next troll.
 
2014-06-13 03:11:50 PM
If it wasn't dangerous and sad, it would be hilarious how incredibly skilled Democrat politicians are at losing wars.
 
2014-06-13 03:22:28 PM
I firmly believe that the solution to the crises will have to come from the Iraqis.   We can back them if that solution is in line with our interests, but in the end we can't save a government that doesn't have the will to save itself.

And ISIS's victory may be further from certain then it appears.  A big part of the reason ISIS was able to advance so quickly is that most of the troops in the areas they have overran have been dominated by Sunnis (both in terms of military garrisons and civilian population) who are unwilling to fight people who are at least obstinately part of the same Islamic sect.  Once they start running into shiate dominated areas, they will find that the troops are more determined and the population is a lot more hostile to them (to the point where tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens have volunteered to fight ISIS without pay).
 
2014-06-13 03:25:39 PM
Well I see Noam Chumpsky has caught his limit in this thread. When are you all going to stop biting at his troll bait?
 
2014-06-13 03:27:31 PM

Non-evil Monkey: A big part of the reason ISIS was able to advance so quickly is that most of the troops in the areas they have overran have been dominated by Sunnis (both in terms of military garrisons and civilian population) who are unwilling to fight people who are at least obstinately part of the same Islamic sect.


If this is true, why aren't the ISIS personnel unwilling to fight the Sunni Iraq troops (who are at least obstinately part of the same Islamic sect)?  It doesn't make any sense.
 
2014-06-13 03:37:18 PM

SunsetLament: If it wasn't dangerous and sad, it would be hilarious how incredibly skilled Democrat politicians are at losing wars.


Yeah, both Iraq and Afghanistan are shining achievements for Republicans.

/party of personal responsibility, my ass
 
2014-06-13 03:39:20 PM

James!: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 850x538]


www.infiniteunknown.net
 
2014-06-13 03:40:54 PM

nekom: Magorn:
What do all these countries have in common?  They were ALL drawn just after WWI by former colonial powers who drew them that way with the overt intent of preventing them from every uniting and growing strong enough to pose an economic threat to Europe.   South America and Southeast Asia, had many of the same economic issues as the Mideast and Africa, but the Monroe Doctrine, and Simon Bolivar prevented European meddling in South America  (thought he US did a fair bit of its own for a while in Central America with predictable results)  and Asia had too long a history to let such meddling take for very long

Result?   The hotspots of the world continue to be where the British foreign office had a hand in drawing the maps

So you think it was done intentionally as opposed to just being a byproduct of maps drawn up by a bunch of laughin' jokin' numbnuts for no particular reason?  Interesting thought that hadn't crossed my mind, but could they have actually had the foresight to do that?  Perhaps, I guess.  Thanks for giving me something interesting to think about and research.


Look at the maps:  The old Belgian Congo was carved into countries where  either Hutu or Tutsi would be a majority with a strong pocket of the other ethnicity there to always foment unreast instead of creating "Bantuland" with all the Hutus  and Wastutsia with all the Tutstsi tribes

Or look at the Sunni/Shia breakdown of nearly every country in the middle east.  You COULD have had a Sunni State incorporating Saudi Arabia, Jordan Palestine and parts of Syria  and Iraq on the one hand   and a  shiate homeland made up of the rest of Iraq Syria and Iran, and some of Lebanon, and a Kurdish state in southern Turkey and Northern Iraq but those would have grown to be stable, economically interdependent regional powers.  Hell, when Iran started looking like it would have a modern, western-style democracy, Churchill convinced Eisenhower to have the CIA overthrow it and install the Shah because it looked like the democratic government was going to repudiate the insanely lopsided oil contracts BP had forced on a previous monarchy literally at gunpoint.
 
2014-06-13 03:47:02 PM

SunsetLament: If it wasn't dangerous and sad, it would be hilarious how incredibly skilled Democrat politicians are at losing wars.

www.archives.com

www.truman.gov
www.fireandreamitchell.com

Frown on your shennanigans
 
Displayed 50 of 282 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report