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 281
    More: Asinine, John McCain, Iraq, Morning Joe  
•       •       •

1023 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Jun 2014 at 11:08 AM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



281 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-06-13 10:21:56 AM  
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.
 
2014-06-13 10:24:25 AM  
What he said^
 
2014-06-13 10:27:09 AM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-06-13 10:30:47 AM  
So what happens if we decide to let them go it alone...no intervention from the US? Can we consider that approach?
 
2014-06-13 10:31:33 AM  
Done in one.
 
2014-06-13 10:32:05 AM  
Technically I guess we won the war. Unfortunately, like usual, nobody cared enough to think beyond blowing shiat up.

In addition to the above comments, middle eastern people don't have the cultural foundation to have real, successful democracies. I say that as a man of middle eastern descent. They need time to change their whole culture and mindset. You can't just shove elections at them and say "you're a democracy now! Have fun!"
 
2014-06-13 10:41:51 AM  
I'm curious as to when, exactly, we had this thing won. And when, exactly, we lost it.
 
2014-06-13 10:47:26 AM  
And the reason we didn't leave behind a residual force is because the Iraqi government wouldn't let us. We wanted to have any service member tried in a military court for crimes committed there, and they disagreed. Hence we were invited to leave.
 
2014-06-13 10:52:36 AM  

ginandbacon: I'm curious as to when, exactly, we had this thing won. And when, exactly, we lost it.


We lost it the day we went in
 
2014-06-13 10:53:05 AM  
i see i was filtwned when naming the adherents to the shia branch of islam. i should've seen that coming.
 
2014-06-13 10:55:03 AM  
Sure we won the war, but we lost the peace.

Of course, like the rigged carney game that the Iraq War was, there never really was any peace to win.
 
2014-06-13 10:56:39 AM  

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
 
2014-06-13 10:57:57 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: What he said^


Why is that so goddamn hard for certain people to get?
 
2014-06-13 10:57:58 AM  
Thanks Bush.

Can't believe I actually supported going to war. At least I never voted for him.
 
2014-06-13 10:59:03 AM  

FlashHarry: mccain is in-farking-sane senile.


ftfy
 
2014-06-13 10:59:59 AM  

FlashHarry: i see i was filtwned when naming the adherents to the shia branch of islam. i should've seen that coming.


if you hadn't pointed it out, no one would have noticed :-)
 
2014-06-13 11:03:26 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: ginandbacon: I'm curious as to when, exactly, we had this thing won. And when, exactly, we lost it.

We lost it the day we went in


Well yeah, but what date does McCain look at as when the mission was accomplished?
 
2014-06-13 11:04:42 AM  
Isn't McCain retiring soon? He's too old to be effective in government.
 
2014-06-13 11:09:51 AM  
Okay, we're now back into the "you didn't believe, which was the real problem" territory that these idiots do with every stupid war.
 
2014-06-13 11:11:24 AM  
cdn.thedailybeast.com


Is he using his cheeks for storage now?
 
2014-06-13 11:11:56 AM  

raerae1980: Isn't McCain retiring soon? He's too old to be effective in government.


He's been that way at least 6 years.  Of course, there's a lot of ineffective in Congress right now.
 
2014-06-13 11:11:57 AM  
The only thing I can think of that is possibly funnier than the argle bargle coming out of today's GOP.

www.dragtimes.com
 
2014-06-13 11:11:59 AM  

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.


Except that now it is an OPEC nation, a very large oil producer, one of the largest in the world, and splitting it up geographically may be easy, but those folks aren't going to want to give up that oil revenue, and therein lies the problem - how do you split up oil money when the production of it isn't really spread out in the same way the ethnic and religious groups are?
 
2014-06-13 11:12:19 AM  

nekom: Same problem in Africa, really.


having lived in nigeria as a kid, i can vouch for this.
 
2014-06-13 11:12:34 AM  

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


Same thing happened in Eastern Europe. When the Iron curtain fell you saw the hell that broke loose there.
 
2014-06-13 11:13:10 AM  
I am reminded to again give thanks this man, with Palin as VP, isn't sitting as Commander in Chief
 
2014-06-13 11:13:13 AM  

raerae1980: Isn't McCain retiring soon? He's too old to be effective in government.


That's true for anyone over retirement age.
 
2014-06-13 11:13:41 AM  
did obama check under the couches in the oval office
 
2014-06-13 11:13:46 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: ginandbacon: I'm curious as to when, exactly, we had this thing won. And when, exactly, we lost it.

We lost it the day we went in

the GOP stole the 2000 election.

FTFY

raerae1980: Thanks Bush.

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


I really wanted to believe them when they said Saddam had WMDs, and was even willing to forgive them
flip flopping on whether they were nukes or gas.

Once they went in and found none, I wish I could say I was shocked.
 
2014-06-13 11:14:09 AM  
Why are the Democrats letting an al qaeda army march across an allied nation conquering towns and leaving beheaded bodies in their wake?
 
2014-06-13 11:14:16 AM  

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.


I've been telling right wing friends of mine for years the insurgency wasn't about hating America, it was about America being in the way.
 
2014-06-13 11:14:26 AM  

raerae1980: Isn't McCain retiring soon? He's too old to be effective in government.


He's talking about running in 2016. Fark, I hope not!
 
2014-06-13 11:15:03 AM  
John "100 years in Iraq" McCain? Nope.
 
2014-06-13 11:15:07 AM  
static.comicvine.com
 
2014-06-13 11:15:11 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: Why are the Democrats letting an al qaeda army march across an allied nation conquering towns and leaving beheaded bodies in their wake?


okay - this made me laugh
 
2014-06-13 11:16:06 AM  

Bugerz: The only thing I can think of that is possibly funnier than the argle bargle coming out of today's GOP.

[www.dragtimes.com image 640x480]


230 hp (170 kW) @ 5100 rpm and 245 lb·ft (332 N·m) @ 2400 rpm  (2006+)

TMYK
===*
 
2014-06-13 11:16:09 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: Why are the Democrats letting an al qaeda army march across an allied nation conquering towns and leaving beheaded bodies in their wake?


Because the U.S has no authority in a sovereign country. If they ask for help then the U.S can do something, but until then it is up to the Iraqi government to stop them.
 
2014-06-13 11:17:04 AM  

beb004: raerae1980: Isn't McCain retiring soon? He's too old to be effective in government.

He's talking about running in 2016. Fark, I hope not!


Nooooooooo!!!!!!
 
2014-06-13 11:17:17 AM  
McCain: Sarah Palin is capable of functioning as the Commander in Chief of our armed forces.
 
2014-06-13 11:17:44 AM  
sphotos-h.ak.fbcdn.net

media.cagle.com
 
2014-06-13 11:19:21 AM  
He was part of the gang of idiots that thought Iraq would be like postwar Germany.
 
2014-06-13 11:19:22 AM  

DjangoStonereaver: raerae1980: Thanks Bush.

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


I really wanted to believe them when they said Saddam had WMDs, and was even willing to forgive them
flip flopping on whether they were nukes or gas.

Once they went in and found none, I wish I could say I was shocked.


I was sure that, even if Iraq somehow had either type of weapon, they had no way of using it offensively.  Our nation had flown air patrols over their nation for a decade.. they could do nothing.
 
2014-06-13 11:19:47 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: ginandbacon: I'm curious as to when, exactly, we had this thing won. And when, exactly, we lost it.

We lost it the day we went in Marjorie Cheney did not orally swallow a load of semen and Dick Cheney was born nine months later.


FTFY
 
2014-06-13 11:19:53 AM  
Anyone with a lick of knowledge about that region knew as soon we left the shiat was going to get real again. Whether it happened on Obama's watch or Hillary's or Jeb's <snicker> is moot. The insurgents knew we'd get tired and leave and it'd be time to make their move.

We won battles. We didn't win the war.
 
2014-06-13 11:20:03 AM  
I never saw you raise your arms in victory John.
 
2014-06-13 11:20:16 AM  

salvador.hardin: McCain: Sarah Palin is capable of functioning as the Commander in Chief of our armed forces.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-06-13 11:20:20 AM  

parasol: Noam Chimpsky: Why are the Democrats letting an al qaeda army march across an allied nation conquering towns and leaving beheaded bodies in their wake?

okay - this made me laugh


Wow. You have a very dark sense of humor if you thought that was funny. I suppose it's funny until it's your family and friends that gets beheaded in a blitzkrieging al qaeda army's wake.
 
2014-06-13 11:20:45 AM  

Sin_City_Superhero: So what happens if we decide to let them go it alone...no intervention from the US? Can we consider that approach?


Iraq has already said they'll ask Iran for help, in the event that USA gives them the finger.

So I guess the question is if USA can accept that outcome.
 
2014-06-13 11:21:06 AM  

StopDaddy: Anyone with a lick of knowledge about that region knew as soon we left the shiat was going to get real again. Whether it happened on Obama's watch or Hillary's or Jeb's <snicker> is moot. The insurgents knew we'd get tired and leave and it'd be time to make their move.

We won battles. We didn't win the war.


And it will happen in Afghanistan too. I don't see how this is surprising to anyone.
 
2014-06-13 11:21:38 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: parasol: Noam Chimpsky: Why are the Democrats letting an al qaeda army march across an allied nation conquering towns and leaving beheaded bodies in their wake?

okay - this made me laugh

Wow. You have a very dark sense of humor if you thought that was funny. I suppose it's funny until it's your family and friends that gets beheaded in a blitzkrieging al qaeda army's wake.


Pants on head.
 
2014-06-13 11:21:49 AM  

StopDaddy: Anyone with a lick of knowledge about that region knew as soon we left the shiat was going to get real again. Whether it happened on Obama's watch or Hillary's or Jeb's <snicker> is moot. The insurgents knew we'd get tired and leave and it'd be time to make their move.

We won battles. We didn't win the war.


Anybody with a lick of knowledge about the region should have known that a soon as Saddam was removed as dictator shiat was going to get real there.
 
2014-06-13 11:22:39 AM  
The U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.

Source
 
2014-06-13 11:23:54 AM  

DjangoStonereaver: MaudlinMutantMollusk: ginandbacon: I'm curious as to when, exactly, we had this thing won. And when, exactly, we lost it.

We lost it the day we went in the GOP stole the 2000 election.

FTFY

raerae1980: Thanks Bush.

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

I really wanted to believe them when they said Saddam had WMDs, and was even willing to forgive them
flip flopping on whether they were nukes or gas.

Once they went in and found none, I wish I could say I was shocked.


Well, Gore wanted to overthrow Saddam too even if he wanted the US to do a better job coalition building first and about half of the Democrats voted to support it.  What makes you so sure President Gore wouldn't have done the same thing?
 
2014-06-13 11:24:08 AM  
Utterly not surprised ...

chartroose.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-06-13 11:24:31 AM  
I'm totally surprised that a republican would expect us to leave a strong military presence in every country in the world for infinity.
 
2014-06-13 11:25:07 AM  

We "won"?


We attacked a country that had been under embargo for a decade, based solely on manufactured motive - lies, as normal people call them - and rabidly defended our "right" to basically raze the Iraqi infrastructure so that corporations could move in for the oil. We then installed a puppet government that would ensure that the oil would remain in the hands of those corporations, even as we committed atrocities that guaranteed the enmity of the population. We didn't "win" anything.

Bush put us in an untenable position. Leaving Iraq means that this outcome was inevitable, but staying in Iraq only postponed that inevitability, at high cost and with dwindling support. Frankly, Obama's taken way too long to get this done - we should've been gone at least two years ago. Of course, we should also have closed Gitmo, apologized to the EU, stopped illegal domestic and foreign surveillance, unwound the USA PATRIOT Act, and so on, and so on, but, given that much of that has nothing to do with Obama, it's going to be hard to make all that happen.

The legislative branch, not the executive branch, controls the money, and it's money that runs the world now. Money's upset that their enforcers - our military - are leaving Iraq, and so money's paid lapdogs are coming out to bark about it.

McCain is a lapdog. Nothing more. He's in deep for screwing up and giving Obama the Presidency, because he couldn't make Sarah Palin happen, and so he's repaying the campaign debts by barking for the folks that continue to hold his friggin' leash.
 
2014-06-13 11:26:08 AM  

Sirsky: The U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.

Source


What does that have to do with an al qaeda army blitzkrieging across an allied nation in 2014?
 
2014-06-13 11:26:43 AM  

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.

⇑↑ THIS!! ↑&Arr;

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

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

Cartographers may be among the most unwittingly dangerous people on the planet.
 
2014-06-13 11:26:45 AM  

FormlessOne: We "won"?
We attacked a country that had been under embargo for a decade, based solely on manufactured motive - lies, as normal people call them - and rabidly defended our "right" to basically raze the Iraqi infrastructure so that corporations could move in for the oil. We then installed a puppet government that would ensure that the oil would remain in the hands of those corporations, even as we committed atrocities that guaranteed the enmity of the population. We didn't "win" anything.

Bush put us in an untenable position. Leaving Iraq means that this outcome was inevitable, but staying in Iraq only postponed that inevitability, at high cost and with dwindling support. Frankly, Obama's taken way too long to get this done - we should've been gone at least two years ago. Of course, we should also have closed Gitmo, apologized to the EU, stopped illegal domestic and foreign surveillance, unwound the USA PATRIOT Act, and so on, and so on, but, given that much of that has nothing to do with Obama, it's going to be hard to make all that happen.

The legislative branch, not the executive branch, controls the money, and it's money that runs the world now. Money's upset that their enforcers - our military - are leaving Iraq, and so money's paid lapdogs are coming out to bark about it.

McCain is a lapdog. Nothing more. He's in deep for screwing up and giving Obama the Presidency, because he couldn't make Sarah Palin happen, and so he's repaying the campaign debts by barking for the folks that continue to hold his friggin' leash.


"The people of (the United States) have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honor."

Lawrence of Arabia knew. 100 years ago he knew. And we still don't understand or give a sh*t.
 
2014-06-13 11:26:50 AM  

grumpfuff: [cdn.thedailybeast.com image 800x500]


Is he using his cheeks for storage now?


He's certainly not using his brain for storage anymore.
 
2014-06-13 11:27:34 AM  

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?


It was Bush's war and will always be Bush's war.
 
2014-06-13 11:27:44 AM  

FlashHarry: nekom: Same problem in Africa, really.

having lived in nigeria as a kid, i can vouch for this.


Need any help getting your millions of dollars out of there?
 
2014-06-13 11:27:50 AM  

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.


Syria is the same kind of construct that Iraq is. So why you arbitrarely think parts of it should have been given to Syria is beyond me. It would just be a different way of drawing lines that has no root in history or demographics.

All in all, I think you're coming of as a hypocrite when you're biatching about how Europe drew the lines, and then in the same breath, explain how the lines should have really been drawn.

---

Its kinda irrelevant anyway, because those ISIL assholes are not a problem originating in the creation of the Iraqi state. They're mostly foreign fighters.

Just like how the Taliban are actually from Pakistan, and thus not a symptom of a problem in Afghanistan.


Of course you can rightfully argue that Iraq has their share of blame for ISIL, namely their seemingly complete incompetence of their army.
 
2014-06-13 11:28:18 AM  

FormlessOne: We "won"?
We attacked a country that had been under embargo for a decade, based solely on manufactured motive - lies, as normal people call them - and rabidly defended our "right" to basically raze the Iraqi infrastructure so that corporations could move in for the oil. We then installed a puppet government that would ensure that the oil would remain in the hands of those corporations, even as we committed atrocities that guaranteed the enmity of the population. We didn't "win" anything.

Bush put us in an untenable position. Leaving Iraq means that this outcome was inevitable, but staying in Iraq only postponed that inevitability, at high cost and with dwindling support. Frankly, Obama's taken way too long to get this done - we should've been gone at least two years ago. Of course, we should also have closed Gitmo, apologized to the EU, stopped illegal domestic and foreign surveillance, unwound the USA PATRIOT Act, and so on, and so on, but, given that much of that has nothing to do with Obama, it's going to be hard to make all that happen.

The legislative branch, not the executive branch, controls the money, and it's money that runs the world now. Money's upset that their enforcers - our military - are leaving Iraq, and so money's paid lapdogs are coming out to bark about it.

McCain is a lapdog. Nothing more. He's in deep for screwing up and giving Obama the Presidency, because he couldn't make Sarah Palin happen, and so he's repaying the campaign debts by barking for the folks that continue to hold his friggin' leash.


www.offshootinc.com
 
2014-06-13 11:28:39 AM  

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?


On the list of key words that indicate you have nothing useful to add.

Also includes: teatard, conservittard, libtard, etc...
 
2014-06-13 11:29:25 AM  

parasol: I am reminded to again give thanks this man, with Palin as VP, isn't sitting as Commander in Chief


If we had elected him, he would have been dead from a heart attack within a year.  President Palin ahoy!
 
2014-06-13 11:29:39 AM  
This is the same farking idiot who went to the Al Daura market protected by three infantry battalions, a Stryker platoon, a cavalry troop, an attack helicopter squadron, Delta Force, and an Iraqi National Police battalion, while he was wearing farking body armor and declared it safer than an Indiana farmers' market.
 
2014-06-13 11:29:44 AM  
fark you John...you're a shell of the man you think you are
 
2014-06-13 11:29:50 AM  

jst3p: I never saw you raise your arms in victory John.


Well...damn...
 
2014-06-13 11:30:16 AM  

Sirsky: The U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.

Source


Doesn't matter. It's Obama's fault, as far as Congress is concerned. 2014 is an election year, and so Obama can do nothing right. He'll be blamed for not pulling out our troops by 2011, for pulling our troops out now, for not pulling all of them out immediately, for pulling them out in a staggered manner according to Bush's agreement, for anything that they feel may give them a leg up in the elections.

We're going to see more and more of this crap.
 
2014-06-13 11:30:22 AM  
I miss last week, when we were praising Bush for brokering the deal to pull the U.S. out of Iraq.
 
2014-06-13 11:30:30 AM  

All you need to know about McCain is this:



i865.photobucket.com


Even after the "illegitimate black baby" stuff allegedly started by Karl "Turd Blossom" Rove, he still sucked up to Dumbya and his cronies.
The man has no shame.
 
2014-06-13 11:30:45 AM  

Quasar: Technically I guess we won the war. Unfortunately, like usual, nobody cared enough to think beyond blowing shiat up.

In addition to the above comments, middle eastern people don't have the cultural foundation to have real, successful democracies. I say that as a man of middle eastern descent. They need time to change their whole culture and mindset. You can't just shove elections at them and say "you're a democracy now! Have fun!"


The "Cultural Foundation" argument tastes sour to me, let me offer an alternate hypohisis. Nations don't develop stable and responsive governments from external sources. The history of post colonial nations has been one of instability and poor government that progressively improves over time, unless it gets continued serious influence from what we will call the Super Power Bloc. Like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, we can meddle (aid to a power bloc, a military presence) or we can help (humanitarian aid), but to do one we can't do the other.
 
2014-06-13 11:30:47 AM  
nekom:
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

Huh, the creation of India and Pakistan (including what is now Bangladesh), seems like a genuine way of separating Hindus and Muslims.

I mean, they tried. Under the British, all of it was just India.
 
2014-06-13 11:31:47 AM  

Sgt Otter: This is the same farking idiot who went to the Al Daura market protected by three infantry battalions, a Stryker platoon, a cavalry troop, an attack helicopter squadron, Delta Force, and an Iraqi National Police battalion, while he was wearing farking body armor and declared it safer than an Indiana farmers' market.


It was safer because McCain wasn't driving at the time.
 
2014-06-13 11:32:04 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: parasol: Noam Chimpsky: Why are the Democrats letting an al qaeda army march across an allied nation conquering towns and leaving beheaded bodies in their wake?

okay - this made me laugh

Wow. You have a very dark sense of humor if you thought that was funny. I suppose it's funny until it's your family and friends that gets beheaded in a blitzkrieging al qaeda army's wake.


Thing is, so far, they've occupied Sunni areas, where the local civilians actually prefer them to the Shia government of Maliki.  Of course, Baghdad itself is another story.
 
2014-06-13 11:32:48 AM  

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?


You do realize that Obama wasn't a Senator in 2003, yes? And that the only opposition to the war at all came from Democrats, and it was the GOP who were fully united behind the idea?

Also, you are asserting that there was a UN Security Council resolution for intervention in Iraq? That's hilarious.
 
2014-06-13 11:33:00 AM  

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?



Is this satire?
 
2014-06-13 11:33:02 AM  

Nabb1: 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.

Except that now it is an OPEC nation, a very large oil producer, one of the largest in the world, and splitting it up geographically may be easy, but those folks aren't going to want to give up that oil revenue, and therein lies the problem - how do you split up oil money when the production of it isn't really spread out in the same way the ethnic and religious groups are?


In case you didn't notice. The Kurds just snatcged Kirkuk. So they're good. ;)
 
2014-06-13 11:33:11 AM  

spawn73: nekom:
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

Huh, the creation of India and Pakistan (including what is now Bangladesh), seems like a genuine way of separating Hindus and Muslims.

I mean, they tried. Under the British, all of it was just India.


I watched a documentary on it recently, the British guy who was in charge of it tried his level best but was very frustrated with the impossible task.  There was an ensuing mass migration of minority groups heading to the other country, and of course some stayed.  It's no easy task.
 
2014-06-13 11:33:50 AM  

qorkfiend: 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?

You do realize that Obama wasn't a Senator in 2003, yes? And that the only opposition to the war at all came from Democrats, and it was the GOP who were fully united behind the idea?

Also, you are asserting that there was a UN Security Council resolution for intervention in Iraq? That's hilarious.


He's also full of sh*t. France did not support it. Anyone remember 'Freedom Fries'?
 
2014-06-13 11:34:03 AM  

Rann Xerox: grumpfuff: [cdn.thedailybeast.com image 800x500]


Is he using his cheeks for storage now?

He's certainly not using his brain for storage anymore.


.....when did he start doing that?
 
2014-06-13 11:34:27 AM  

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


Heh. I was there.
 
2014-06-13 11:35:16 AM  

FormlessOne: stopped illegal domestic and foreign surveillance, unwound the USA PATRIOT Act, and so on, and so on, but, given that much of that has nothing to do with Obama


Oh, bullshiat, those are both things this President has very much embraced and he owns it just as much as Bush.
 
2014-06-13 11:35:20 AM  

Nadie_AZ: Anyone remember 'Freedom Fries'?


Fark you for reminding me.
 
2014-06-13 11:36:07 AM  

Quasar: Technically I guess we won the war. Unfortunately, like usual, nobody cared enough to think beyond blowing shiat up.

In addition to the above comments, middle eastern people don't have the cultural foundation to have real, successful democracies. I say that as a man of middle eastern descent. They need time to change their whole culture and mindset. You can't just shove elections at them and say "you're a democracy now! Have fun!"


Someone said yesterday that the United States wanted democracy for Iraq more than Iraqis wanted democracy for Iraq.

That's abundantly clear.
 
2014-06-13 11:37:40 AM  

Nadie_AZ: qorkfiend: 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?

You do realize that Obama wasn't a Senator in 2003, yes? And that the only opposition to the war at all came from Democrats, and it was the GOP who were fully united behind the idea?

Also, you are asserting that there was a UN Security Council resolution for intervention in Iraq? That's hilarious.

He's also full of sh*t. France did not support it. Anyone remember 'Freedom Fries'?


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.
 
2014-06-13 11:37:53 AM  

Nabb1: FormlessOne: stopped illegal domestic and foreign surveillance, unwound the USA PATRIOT Act, and so on, and so on, but, given that much of that has nothing to do with Obama

Oh, bullshiat, those are both things this President has very much embraced and he owns it just as much as Bush.


Well, I suppose you could consider illegal surveillance "stopped" if it's made legal...
 
2014-06-13 11:38:14 AM  

llortcM_yllort: DjangoStonereaver: MaudlinMutantMollusk: ginandbacon: I'm curious as to when, exactly, we had this thing won. And when, exactly, we lost it.

We lost it the day we went in the GOP stole the 2000 election.

FTFY

raerae1980: Thanks Bush.

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

I really wanted to believe them when they said Saddam had WMDs, and was even willing to forgive them
flip flopping on whether they were nukes or gas.

Once they went in and found none, I wish I could say I was shocked.

Well, Gore wanted to overthrow Saddam too even if he wanted the US to do a better job coalition building first and about half of the Democrats voted to support it.  What makes you so sure President Gore wouldn't have done the same thing?


Assuming that Saddam didn't do anything to overtly provoke the US (and he wasn't that stupid),
I don't think Gore would have gone to the mattresses.  He'd have done what Clinton did: continued the
No-Fly zones and economic sanctions.

The GOP wanted the war to get revenge on Saddam for not stepping down after the first Gulf War,
pure and simple.
 
2014-06-13 11:38:27 AM  

FlashHarry: here's the deal: iraq is a european construct, created out of the desert after WWI by drawing lines on a map


i236.photobucket.com
 
2014-06-13 11:38:47 AM  

grumpfuff: Rann Xerox: grumpfuff: [cdn.thedailybeast.com image 800x500]


Is he using his cheeks for storage now?

He's certainly not using his brain for storage anymore.

.....when did he start doing that?


Breathing, heart rate and other autonomic functions.  Duh!  :-)
 
2014-06-13 11:38:53 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: Sirsky: The U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.

Source

What does that have to do with an al qaeda army blitzkrieging across an allied nation in 2014?


You keep using this term. Why do you keep using this term? Al Qaeda came out and said that the tactics ISIS has been using are over the top. They are not the same group.
 
2014-06-13 11:38:54 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: parasol: Noam Chimpsky: Why are the Democrats letting an al qaeda army march across an allied nation conquering towns and leaving beheaded bodies in their wake?

okay - this made me laugh

Wow. You have a very dark sense of humor if you thought that was funny. I suppose it's funny until it's your family and friends that gets beheaded in a blitzkrieging al qaeda army's wake.


It is funny in that you asked why "the Democrats are...." as if the "democrats" in any position of power aren't stymied at every turn by the GOP - as in "Fartbama ren**ged on his pledge to end the war" or better "If he is for it, we're agin'it" OR as if "the Democrats" didn't bring this possibility up beforehand and were poo-poo'd
It is funny that you think ISIS is Al Qaeda.
It is funny in an ironic way that you view that country as an "allied nation in need of US intervention" when they have asked us to leave
It is amusing that so many "not Democrats" are appalled at the bloodshed in the wake of what was a predicable outcome but defend the NRA as if they were providing famine relief.

Is my humor dark? or am I faced with the option of laughing at the cartoon-like antics of "not Democrats" who demand the other party "fix"  things and thus wash their hands of all fault, all action and all critical thinking?

It is either laugh and vote as often as is legal - or become a spiteful, one-sided, judgmental a** on an open forum demanding "someone else do something because I am sure it will fail and I really want to watch and be right"

/why do so many find beheadings so grim and objectionable? and what are the odds they mocked the Newtown officer who resigned citing PTSD as being "just interested in disability payments"?
 
2014-06-13 11:39:37 AM  
Oh, go crash another jet.
 
2014-06-13 11:39:57 AM  

Nabb1: FormlessOne: stopped illegal domestic and foreign surveillance, unwound the USA PATRIOT Act, and so on, and so on, but, given that much of that has nothing to do with Obama

Oh, bullshiat, those are both things this President has very much embraced and he owns it just as much as Bush.



We share a lot in common. I, too, bitterly complain when a president uses the expanded powers a predecessor and Congress gave him.
 
2014-06-13 11:40:24 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: Sirsky: The U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.

Source

What does that have to do with an al qaeda army blitzkrieging across an allied nation in 2014?


It has to do with the accusation that Obama cut and run and that we should have left forces there when 1) it was agreed before he was elected that this was the timeline, 2) the Iraqis didn't want us there after that point, and 3) that the right attacked Obama for taking credit for the withdrawal, pointing to this very pact as proof that it was all Bush's idea in the first place.

But I know you're just being disingenuous, so derp away.
 
2014-06-13 11:40:36 AM  

spawn73: In case you didn't notice. The Kurds just snatcged Kirkuk. So they're good. ;)


img.fark.net
 
2014-06-13 11:41:10 AM  
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.
 
2014-06-13 11:41:48 AM  
So even John McCain admits since the start of the Iraq war are only options were to keep troops in a middle eastern country forever fighting and dying, or leave and see the country revert to its natural state.

Sorry John, if we have to keep troops in a country forever fighting, it does not mean we 'had it won'.
 
2014-06-13 11:41:56 AM  

dinch: Noam Chimpsky: What does that have to do with an al qaeda army blitzkrieging across an allied nation in 2014?

You keep using this term. Why do you keep using this term? Al Qaeda came out and said that the tactics ISIS has been using are over the top. They are not the same group.



I'm pretty sure it's because the Bush Administration told him Al Qaeda was actively working with Saddam, which is why we have to invade.
 
2014-06-13 11:43:13 AM  
Fark John McCain. He is a douche of mythical proportion.

He should have had a lifetime suite at the Hanoi Hilton.

He is the one person that exceeds 43 on my list of despicable, evil people.

/crappy pilot
//crappier politician
///crappiest as a human
 
2014-06-13 11:43:47 AM  

Aldon: So even John McCain admits since the start of the Iraq war are only options were to keep troops in a middle eastern country forever fighting and dying, or leave and see the country revert to its natural state.

Sorry John, if we have to keep troops in a country forever fighting, it does not mean we 'had it won'.


What it means is that Shinseki was right. Strange that nobody is mentioning that.
 
2014-06-13 11:44:33 AM  

ALL GIRLS AGREE TO PULL PANTIES DOWN: FTFY.



Actuallly, I was considering bolding the entire sentence, but the "both clintons" caught my eye.
 
2014-06-13 11:44:36 AM  

Lord_Baull: Nabb1: FormlessOne: stopped illegal domestic and foreign surveillance, unwound the USA PATRIOT Act, and so on, and so on, but, given that much of that has nothing to do with Obama

Oh, bullshiat, those are both things this President has very much embraced and he owns it just as much as Bush.


We share a lot in common. I, too, bitterly complain when a president uses the expanded powers a predecessor and Congress gave him.


Poor guy just can't help himself, can he? Is there anything he's responsible for or is he just a puppet of the Bush Administration's nefarious plots?
 
2014-06-13 11:45:13 AM  
McCain is one to talk. The biggest reason for the success they have had in toppling the current Iraqi government is due to the instability in Syria. McCain was all for that while Obama was supportive but not as much. Had it not been the bungling in foreign policy over the last few years things could have gone better. Just had to maintain the post Saddam status quo a bit longer.
 
2014-06-13 11:45:30 AM  

nekom: Back in the days of blinding rage in the wake of the most devastating terrorist attack in our history.



There have been no attacks on US soil during the Bush admin.
 
2014-06-13 11:45:34 AM  
It should be noted that John McCain's definition of "winning" includes an open-ended, permanent occupation against the wishes of the country in question.
 
2014-06-13 11:45:36 AM  
WAR IS PEACE!
 
2014-06-13 11:47:13 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: Sirsky: The U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.

Source

What does that have to do with an al qaeda army blitzkrieging across an allied nation in 2014?


If you live in a country where your government is unable to stop an al Qaeda army blitzkrieging across your country, after America spent 10 years,  $2.5 T. and the lives of over 4000 American soldiers, then maybe you need to be demanding more from your government than trying to fark over your neighbor because he's the wrong religion.

If the Iraqis wanted us in their country to protect them from these assholes, then they should have been promising to pay us back for the support we already gave them, including the continued medical care for our vets, and not trying to place demands on us, like letting any asshole with a grudge press charges against American service men and demanding they face trial in Iraqi courts.  Screw the Iraqis, seriously.
 
2014-06-13 11:47:30 AM  

Nabb1: Lord_Baull: Nabb1: FormlessOne: stopped illegal domestic and foreign surveillance, unwound the USA PATRIOT Act, and so on, and so on, but, given that much of that has nothing to do with Obama

Oh, bullshiat, those are both things this President has very much embraced and he owns it just as much as Bush.


We share a lot in common. I, too, bitterly complain when a president uses the expanded powers a predecessor and Congress gave him.

Poor guy just can't help himself, can he? Is there anything he's responsible for or is he just a puppet of the Bush Administration's nefarious plots?


Well, he certainly uses them, but I think it's a stretch to say he "owns them just as much" as the guy whose Administration conceived of and implemented them.
 
2014-06-13 11:47:56 AM  

Nabb1: Lord_Baull: Nabb1: FormlessOne: stopped illegal domestic and foreign surveillance, unwound the USA PATRIOT Act, and so on, and so on, but, given that much of that has nothing to do with Obama

Oh, bullshiat, those are both things this President has very much embraced and he owns it just as much as Bush.


We share a lot in common. I, too, bitterly complain when a president uses the expanded powers a predecessor and Congress gave him.

Poor guy just can't help himself, can he? Is there anything he's responsible for or is he just a puppet of the Bush Administration's nefarious plots?



Do I like Obama continuing Bush's policies? Absolutely not. Is it funny that you think Obama would have enacted those policies if they had not existed before? Absolutely.
 
2014-06-13 11:50:05 AM  

Sirsky: that the right attacked Obama for taking credit for the withdrawal, pointing to this very pact as proof that it was all Bush's idea in the first place.


Holy shiat, I can't believe I forgot this fact! Christ, what assholes.
 
2014-06-13 11:50:49 AM  

RyogaM: Christ, what assholes.


yuuup.
 
2014-06-13 11:51:20 AM  

FormlessOne: Frankly, Obama's taken way too long to get this done - we should've been gone at least two years ago.


Uhhh...we left over 2 years ago. Heckuva job there.
 
2014-06-13 11:51:55 AM  

Alphax: raerae1980: Isn't McCain retiring soon? He's too old to be effective in government.

He's been that way at least 6 years.  Of course, there's a lot of ineffective in Congress right now.


The federal government doesn't need term limits, it needs age limits.
 
2014-06-13 11:52:23 AM  

ongbok: StopDaddy: Anyone with a lick of knowledge about that region knew as soon we left the shiat was going to get real again. Whether it happened on Obama's watch or Hillary's or Jeb's <snicker> is moot. The insurgents knew we'd get tired and leave and it'd be time to make their move.

We won battles. We didn't win the war.

Anybody with a lick of knowledge about the region should have known that a soon as Saddam was removed as dictator shiat was going to get real there.


I totally agree with the folks that agree with me.
 
2014-06-13 11:52:33 AM  

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.


As much as I dislike Bush, the one thing he got right was getting involved in pressing for the creation of South Sudan. Sudan was yet another country drawn up by colonial powers that stuck together groups that had very little in common. While it's going to be a long road to being a successful state, especially since Sudan is rather upset at losing a huge amount of oil fields when South Sudan left, they now have a much better chance at long term stability and success than they did as a single jumbled up country.
 
2014-06-13 11:53:25 AM  

Rann Xerox: grumpfuff: Rann Xerox: grumpfuff: [cdn.thedailybeast.com image 800x500]


Is he using his cheeks for storage now?

He's certainly not using his brain for storage anymore.

.....when did he start doing that?

Breathing, heart rate and other autonomic functions.  Duh!  :-)


Fair enough, I suppose. But I've yet to see any evidence that he has a heart.
 
2014-06-13 11:53:41 AM  

Lord_Baull: Nabb1: Lord_Baull: Nabb1: FormlessOne: stopped illegal domestic and foreign surveillance, unwound the USA PATRIOT Act, and so on, and so on, but, given that much of that has nothing to do with Obama

Oh, bullshiat, those are both things this President has very much embraced and he owns it just as much as Bush.


We share a lot in common. I, too, bitterly complain when a president uses the expanded powers a predecessor and Congress gave him.

Poor guy just can't help himself, can he? Is there anything he's responsible for or is he just a puppet of the Bush Administration's nefarious plots?


Do I like Obama continuing Bush's policies? Absolutely not. Is it funny that you think Obama would have enacted those policies if they had not existed before? Absolutely.


Upon what basis do you think that he would not have enacted them? He voted to renew the Patriot Act as Senator. I see no evidence that he, as President, truly has any issue with any of his predecessor's policies of executive power. If he continues to use them, then, yes, he is responsible. He needs to own up to his actions. You want to excuse him for purely hypothetical reasons, contrary to what is factually in front of you. Yes, the Obama in your speculative statements is a benevolent leader. The guy who is really in the White House seems to be actually taking a different course.
 
2014-06-13 11:53:42 AM  

RyogaM: Noam Chimpsky: Sirsky: The U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.

Source

What does that have to do with an al qaeda army blitzkrieging across an allied nation in 2014?

If you live in a country where your government is unable to stop an al Qaeda army blitzkrieging across your country, after America spent 10 years,  $2.5 T. and the lives of over 4000 American soldiers, then maybe you need to be demanding more from your government than trying to fark over your neighbor because he's the wrong religion.

If the Iraqis wanted us in their country to protect them from these assholes, then they should have been promising to pay us back for the support we already gave them, including the continued medical care for our vets, and not trying to place demands on us, like letting any asshole with a grudge press charges against American service men and demanding they face trial in Iraqi courts.  Screw the Iraqis, seriously.


Isn't the very idea of having al qaeda out in the open and open to attack reason enough to start droning the piss out of them? Or do we have a hands-off policy towards al qaeda, now?
 
2014-06-13 11:54:10 AM  
www.infiniteunknown.net
 
2014-06-13 11:54:19 AM  
Go to constitutional peasant.  Democracy rises from a mandate from the masses.  When they want peace and stability over there badly enough, it MIGHT happen.  When you try to get in the middle of 2 sets of idiots that want to win or die, you're not helping anyone.  Let them take care of themselves.....mutually assured destruction over there really isn't our problem.  McCain does himself no favors by arguing for armed intervention in every farking fight.  He's a caricature.
 
2014-06-13 11:56:06 AM  

Totally Sharky Complete: [www.infiniteunknown.net image 600x654]


do you have the original of that?
 
2014-06-13 11:56:08 AM  

Nabb1: Upon what basis do you think that he would not have enacted them?


You honestly think the Democrats would have drawn up the PATRIOT Act and passed it through Congress?

Nabb1: You want to excuse him for purely hypothetical reasons,


And you're assigning blame for purely hypothetical reasons. See above.
 
2014-06-13 11:57:11 AM  

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.


I remember the Authorization of Force bill.  'This is just something to show Saddam that we're serious.  We won't actually use it unless we really, really have to.'  As soon as it passed, 'Unleash the Ultimatums!'
 
2014-06-13 11:57:34 AM  

FlashHarry: spawn73: In case you didn't notice. The Kurds just snatcged Kirkuk. So they're good. ;)

[img.fark.net image 312x213]


Point being that there's a shiatload of oil in and around Kirkuk.

/dunno what the point of your GIF was, perhaps you weren't aware of the importance of Kirkuk, when the context is distributing oil amongst various people in Iraq.
 
2014-06-13 11:57:53 AM  
In the past ten years I've been spit on, called an unamerican traitor, and openly mocked and threatened because I fought the Iraq war.

I have to laugh because now the same idiots are trying to claim that the mess they started is someone else's fault.
 
2014-06-13 11:57:59 AM  

qorkfiend: Nabb1: Upon what basis do you think that he would not have enacted them?

You honestly think the Democrats would have drawn up the PATRIOT Act and passed it through Congress?

Nabb1: You want to excuse him for purely hypothetical reasons,

And you're assigning blame for purely hypothetical reasons. See above.


The Democrats and Republicans jointly gave us the Patriot Act. There was little to no opposition from either party on the initial passing or the renewal. And yes, I hold the President accountable for his actions. That's perfectly reasonable to do so. Obama's vote in favor of renewal speaks to his support of the Patriot Act.
 
2014-06-13 11:59:15 AM  

spawn73: Point being that there's a shiatload of oil in and around Kirkuk.

/dunno what the point of your GIF was, perhaps you weren't aware of the importance of Kirkuk, when the context is distributing oil amongst various people in Iraq.


i'm very aware of the importance of kirkuk. my point was, "it's happening," meaning the inevitable breakup of iraq.
 
2014-06-13 11:59:47 AM  
Shut up, McCain, you cock.
 
2014-06-13 12:00:06 PM  

Bill the unknowing: Go to constitutional peasant.  Democracy rises from a mandate from the masses.  When they want peace and stability over there badly enough, it MIGHT happen.  When you try to get in the middle of 2 sets of idiots that want to win or die, you're not helping anyone.  Let them take care of themselves.....mutually assured destruction over there really isn't our problem.  McCain does himself no favors by arguing for armed intervention in every farking fight.  He's a caricature.


Worse. He's my Senator. :(
 
2014-06-13 12:00:21 PM  

Lord_Baull: 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?


Is this satire?


There are a lot of questionable names in that list (Obama, France, and Germany are the most glaring), but both Clintons did support the war.  Hillary Clinton voted for it and has since said that her decision made sense at the time.  It was one of the major reasons she lost the 2008 primary.  Slick Willy wanted to remove Saddam in 1998.  Criticizing the Clintons over their position in Iraq is completely fair game.
 
2014-06-13 12:00:33 PM  

FlashHarry: Totally Sharky Complete: [www.infiniteunknown.net image 600x654]

do you have the original of that?


media.tumblr.com
 
2014-06-13 12:01:23 PM  

llortcM_yllort: Lord_Baull: 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?


Is this satire?

There are a lot of questionable names in that list (Obama, France, and Germany are the most glaring), but both Clintons did support the war.  Hillary Clinton voted for it and has since said that her decision made sense at the time.  It was one of the major reasons she lost the 2008 primary.  Slick Willy wanted to remove Saddam in 1998.  Criticizing the Clintons over their position in Iraq is completely fair game.


He forgot Poland.
 
2014-06-13 12:04:40 PM  

Nabb1: Lord_Baull: Nabb1: Lord_Baull: Nabb1: FormlessOne: stopped illegal domestic and foreign surveillance, unwound the USA PATRIOT Act, and so on, and so on, but, given that much of that has nothing to do with Obama

Oh, bullshiat, those are both things this President has very much embraced and he owns it just as much as Bush.


We share a lot in common. I, too, bitterly complain when a president uses the expanded powers a predecessor and Congress gave him.

Poor guy just can't help himself, can he? Is there anything he's responsible for or is he just a puppet of the Bush Administration's nefarious plots?


Do I like Obama continuing Bush's policies? Absolutely not. Is it funny that you think Obama would have enacted those policies if they had not existed before? Absolutely.

Upon what basis do you think that he would not have enacted them? He voted to renew the Patriot Act as Senator. I see no evidence that he, as President, truly has any issue with any of his predecessor's policies of executive power. If he continues to use them, then, yes, he is responsible. He needs to own up to his actions. You want to excuse him for purely hypothetical reasons, contrary to what is factually in front of you. Yes, the Obama in your speculative statements is a benevolent leader. The guy who is really in the White House seems to be actually taking a different course.


qorkfiend: Nabb1: Upon what basis do you think that he would not have enacted them?

You honestly think the Democrats would have drawn up the PATRIOT Act and passed it through Congress?

Nabb1: You want to excuse him for purely hypothetical reasons,

And you're assigning blame for purely hypothetical reasons. See above.



Forget it. If he wants to argue over what might have happened, whatever.
 
2014-06-13 12:07:02 PM  

STFU JMcC YOU COCK



This growing chorus of "things were great in Iraq before 0bongo" is hilarious...and sad
 
2014-06-13 12:07:12 PM  

llortcM_yllort: Lord_Baull: 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?


Is this satire?

There are a lot of questionable names in that list (Obama, France, and Germany are the most glaring), but both Clintons did support the war.  Hillary Clinton voted for it and has since said that her decision made sense at the time.  It was one of the major reasons she lost the 2008 primary.  Slick Willy wanted to remove Saddam in 1998.  Criticizing the Clintons over their position in Iraq is completely fair game.



See bolded area.
 
2014-06-13 12:07:49 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.


But if Clinton's claim that "I had acted in good faith" passes muster, her assertion that she "made the best decision I could with the information I had" does not. Prior to Clinton's October 10, 2002 speech from the Senate floor explaining her Iraq vote, the Bush administration sent over two documents to the Senate for review. The first was a 92-page, classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The second was a  five-page, unclassified version.

Despite a partial dissent from the State Department's intelligence arm, the unclassified NIE declared that the intelligence community possessed "high confidence" that "Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs." It's hard to know exactly what was in the longer, classified version, since even when the Bush administration released it in 2004, it whited out 78 of its 92 pages. But it went into more detail about the objections raised by the State Department, and especially the Department of Energy, to claims that Hussein had a nuclear-weapons program. According to Senator Jay Rockefeller, "the NIE changed so dramatically from its classified to its unclassified form and broke all in one direction, toward a more dangerous scenario."

Senators Bob Graham and Patrick Leahy would later say that reading the classified version helped convince them to vote 'no.' And during a lunch two days before Clinton's speech, according to Gerth and Van Natta Jr., Graham "forcefully" urged his Democratic Senate colleagues to read it.
Few did. Using logs of who entered the secure room where the classified NIE was kept, The Washington Post reported that only six senators read it. When The Hill newspaper later polled senators, 22 said they had.

Clinton has never claimed to be among them. When asked directly on Meet the Press in 2008, she sidestepped the question, declaring, "I was fully briefed by the people who wrote that."
 
2014-06-13 12:08:02 PM  

Nabb1: qorkfiend: Nabb1: Upon what basis do you think that he would not have enacted them?

You honestly think the Democrats would have drawn up the PATRIOT Act and passed it through Congress?

Nabb1: You want to excuse him for purely hypothetical reasons,

And you're assigning blame for purely hypothetical reasons. See above.

The Democrats and Republicans jointly gave us the Patriot Act. There was little to no opposition from either party on the initial passing or the renewal. And yes, I hold the President accountable for his actions. That's perfectly reasonable to do so. Obama's vote in favor of renewal speaks to his support of the Patriot Act.


I didn't say no Democrats voted for it; I said it was originally conceived of and implemented by the Republicans. Nothing you've said suggests the Democrats would have actively sought to put it in place if it wasn't already.
 
2014-06-13 12:08:28 PM  
i512.photobucket.com
 
2014-06-13 12:08:49 PM  

Lord_Baull: Forget it. If he wants to argue over what might have happened, whatever.


Nonsense. I have said numerous times that I hold him responsible for his own actions as President and as Senator before that. The facts are that he did vote for renewal of the Patriot Act as Senator. He has embraced and used all the authority granted the Executive. He has continued and in some cases expanded domestic surveillance. These are facts. You say it's okay because they were powers granted to him (in part by himself in the case of the renewed Patriot Act). If he were truly opposed to them, he would not employ them. He has no problems standing up the the Republican noisemakers in Congress when it matters to him. Do you suggest he is cowering to their will on those issues? Or perhaps the reality is he believes in what he is doing.
 
2014-06-13 12:09:48 PM  
The great political lesson from the War on Drugs : Success wins you nothing. Failure is the only way to stay in business.

If we are successful in the War on Terror, then the bureaucracy that conducts that war becomes unnecessary. In order to ensure that Homeland Security and the TSA last well into the next century, we need a steady supply of dangerous-looking foreigners we can point at in order to whip up a froth of mindless political sloganeering. Fortunately there is the Middle East, the dangerest. We have planted the seeds - shiat, we have an entire orchard - of virulent anti-Americanism that will probably outlive America itself. In order to protect us from this self-made menace, Our Glorious Leaders need to restore a medieval level of social stratification, wherein the lords will provide minimal subsistence only to those peasants who demonstrate their fealty and obsequiousness to their proven masters in ways that you can be certain will be made known to you when the time comes. Until then, keep working, drink as much as possible, and pretend you are the captain of your fate. You can even call yourself a Sovereign Citizen, that's good for a laugh.
 
2014-06-13 12:10:35 PM  

Primum non nocere: Done in one.


It should be noted the British left them with a functioning parliamentary republic, and they went to shiat then as well. Just like I told my friend: The moment we leave thugs are going to turn that country to shiat.
 
2014-06-13 12:10:40 PM  

Lord_Baull: llortcM_yllort: Lord_Baull: 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?


Is this satire?

There are a lot of questionable names in that list (Obama, France, and Germany are the most glaring), but both Clintons did support the war.  Hillary Clinton voted for it and has since said that her decision made sense at the time.  It was one of the major reasons she lost the 2008 primary.  Slick Willy wanted to remove Saddam in 1998.  Criticizing the Clintons over their position in Iraq is completely fair game.


See bolded area.


One voted for it while the other merely supported the war.  That clearly undercuts what  MBradywas saying.  Besides, I took that to mean that every Democrat who voted for the war was partially to blame in addition to the people in that list not that everyone in that list voted for the war.
 
2014-06-13 12:10:41 PM  

ginandbacon: I'm curious as to when, exactly, we had this thing won. And when, exactly, we lost it.


Answer for the first part: see the aircraft carrier image above*

Answer for the second part: January 20th, 2009*

*not valid in this realm of reality
 
2014-06-13 12:11:32 PM  

qorkfiend: Nabb1: qorkfiend: Nabb1: Upon what basis do you think that he would not have enacted them?

You honestly think the Democrats would have drawn up the PATRIOT Act and passed it through Congress?

Nabb1: You want to excuse him for purely hypothetical reasons,

And you're assigning blame for purely hypothetical reasons. See above.

The Democrats and Republicans jointly gave us the Patriot Act. There was little to no opposition from either party on the initial passing or the renewal. And yes, I hold the President accountable for his actions. That's perfectly reasonable to do so. Obama's vote in favor of renewal speaks to his support of the Patriot Act.

I didn't say no Democrats voted for it; I said it was originally conceived of and implemented by the Republicans. Nothing you've said suggests the Democrats would have actively sought to put it in place if it wasn't already.


So, the Democrats should not be held responsible for that which they have actively supported and voted for on two occasions? Where was the move to repeal or scale back the Patriot Act when they briefly held the House, Senate and White House for two years? Yes, it was conceived, drafted, passed and implemented under the Republicans, but I see no reason why the Democrats were not fully willing accomplices.
 
2014-06-13 12:11:57 PM  

Nabb1: You say it's okay because they were powers granted to him


Really?

Lord_Baull: Do I like Obama continuing Bush's policies? Absolutely not.

 
2014-06-13 12:12:38 PM  

but whole: FormlessOne: We "won"?
We attacked a country that had been under embargo for a decade, based solely on manufactured motive - lies, as normal people call them - and rabidly defended our "right" to basically raze the Iraqi infrastructure so that corporations could move in for the oil. We then installed a puppet government that would ensure that the oil would remain in the hands of those corporations, even as we committed atrocities that guaranteed the enmity of the population. We didn't "win" anything.

Bush put us in an untenable position. Leaving Iraq means that this outcome was inevitable, but staying in Iraq only postponed that inevitability, at high cost and with dwindling support. Frankly, Obama's taken way too long to get this done - we should've been gone at least two years ago. Of course, we should also have closed Gitmo, apologized to the EU, stopped illegal domestic and foreign surveillance, unwound the USA PATRIOT Act, and so on, and so on, but, given that much of that has nothing to do with Obama, it's going to be hard to make all that happen.

The legislative branch, not the executive branch, controls the money, and it's money that runs the world now. Money's upset that their enforcers - our military - are leaving Iraq, and so money's paid lapdogs are coming out to bark about it.

McCain is a lapdog. Nothing more. He's in deep for screwing up and giving Obama the Presidency, because he couldn't make Sarah Palin happen, and so he's repaying the campaign debts by barking for the folks that continue to hold his friggin' leash.

[www.offshootinc.com image 560x284]


Why is his nickname 'Hacksaw', anways.  I guess '2x4' Jim Duggan doesn't quite have the same ring to it....but still.  Why doesn't he wield a hacksaw instead?

I suppose I will never truly understand Professional Wrestling

/Whoooooooooo!
 
2014-06-13 12:13:48 PM  

llortcM_yllort: Lord_Baull: llortcM_yllort: Lord_Baull: 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?


Is this satire?

There are a lot of questionable names in that list (Obama, France, and Germany are the most glaring), but both Clintons did support the war.  Hillary Clinton voted for it and has since said that her decision made sense at the time.  It was one of the major reasons she lost the 2008 primary.  Slick Willy wanted to remove Saddam in 1998.  Criticizing the Clintons over their position in Iraq is completely fair game.


See bolded area.

One voted for it while the other merely supported the war.  That clearly undercuts what  MBradywas saying.  Besides, I took that to mean that every Democrat who voted for the war was partially to blame in addition to the people in that list not that everyone in that list voted for the war.



Everything MBrady said undercuts what MBrady was saying.
 
2014-06-13 12:14:14 PM  

Lord_Baull: Nabb1: You say it's okay because they were powers granted to him

Really?

Lord_Baull: Do I like Obama continuing Bush's policies? Absolutely not.


Fair enough. You don't like what he's doing, but yet you don't believe he is responsible for the way he has done so?
 
2014-06-13 12:16:29 PM  

Nabb1: Lord_Baull: Nabb1: You say it's okay because they were powers granted to him

Really?

Lord_Baull: Do I like Obama continuing Bush's policies? Absolutely not.

Fair enough. You don't like what he's doing, but yet you don't believe he is responsible for the way he has done so?



I guess we're arguing two different things here. You're arguing whether he's responsible for continuing Bush's policies. I'm arguing whether he would have implemented Bush's policies if Bush hadn't done so already.
 
2014-06-13 12:16:50 PM  

llortcM_yllort: Despite a partial dissent from the State Department's intelligence arm, the unclassified NIE declared that the intelligence community possessed "high confidence" that "Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs." It's hard to know exactly what was in the longer, classified version, since even when the Bush administration released it in 2004, it whited out 78 of its 92 pages. But it went into more detail about the objections raised by the State Department, and especially the Department of Energy, to claims that Hussein had a nuclear-weapons program. According to Senator Jay Rockefeller, "the NIE changed so dramatically from its classified to its unclassified form and broke all in one direction, toward a more dangerous scenario."

Senators Bob Graham and Patrick Leahy would later say that reading the classified version helped convince them to vote 'no.' And during a lunch two days before Clinton's speech, according to Gerth and Van Natta Jr., Graham "forcefully" urged his Democratic Senate colleagues to read it.
Few did. Using logs of who entered the secure room where the classified NIE was kept, The Washington Post reported that only six senators read it. When The Hill newspaper later polled senators, 22 said they had.


I blame the sign that said "Beware the Leopard."
 
2014-06-13 12:18:44 PM  

Lord_Baull: Nabb1: Lord_Baull: Nabb1: You say it's okay because they were powers granted to him

Really?

Lord_Baull: Do I like Obama continuing Bush's policies? Absolutely not.

Fair enough. You don't like what he's doing, but yet you don't believe he is responsible for the way he has done so?


I guess we're arguing two different things here. You're arguing whether he's responsible for continuing Bush's policies. I'm arguing whether he would have implemented Bush's policies if Bush hadn't done so already.


What difference does the latter make in all of this? Isn't that pure speculation?
 
2014-06-13 12:19:19 PM  

Lord_Baull: llortcM_yllort: Lord_Baull: llortcM_yllort: Lord_Baull: 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?


Is this satire?

There are a lot of questionable names in that list (Obama, France, and Germany are the most glaring), but both Clintons did support the war.  Hillary Clinton voted for it and has since said that her decision made sense at the time.  It was one of the major reasons she lost the 2008 primary.  Slick Willy wanted to remove Saddam in 1998.  Criticizing the Clintons over their position in Iraq is completely fair game.


See bolded area.

One voted for it while the other merely supported the war.  That clearly undercuts what  MBradywas saying.  Besides, I took that to mean that every Democrat who voted for the war was partially to blame in addition to the people in that list not that everyone in that list voted for the war.


Everything MBrady said undercuts what MBrady was saying.


Then why did you pick the one accurate thing he said to criticize his post? The Clintons both supported the war.  Many of the other people listed did not.  Why don't you point out that he was wrong about Obama supporting the war instead of pretending Hillary wasn't a hawk?
 
2014-06-13 12:20:19 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Isn't the very idea of having al qaeda out in the open and open to attack reason enough to start droning the piss out of them? Or do we have a hands-off policy towards al qaeda, now?


This ain't al Qaeda, and if they were and Obama wanted to drone them, I would have no problem with that.

As for ISIS, as far as I know, they have never attacked American interests and we have not declared war on them due to this fact.  If Congress wants to declare ISIS a terror organization that is a threat to America, and give Obama the authority to drone them, as Obama already has authority to drone al Qaeda, they are free to do so.  And if Obama then drones them, I would be fine with that.  As it currently stands, ISIS is merely a thorn in the side of the Iraqi government, and not us, and we owe the Iraqis nothing in trying to help them remove  this thorn.  If Obama chooses to help out of the kindness of his heart, he had better have the Republicans lined up behind him, because they will give him shiat for it.  As they always do.
 
2014-06-13 12:21:43 PM  

Nabb1: What difference does the latter make in all of this? Isn't that pure speculation?


It's not "speculation" to say that a given thing wouldn't have happened if the people who did that thing had instead not done it.
 
2014-06-13 12:23:32 PM  
John, seriously, it's time to check yourself in to a facility.
 
2014-06-13 12:24:36 PM  

Biological Ali: Nabb1: What difference does the latter make in all of this? Isn't that pure speculation?

It's not "speculation" to say that a given thing wouldn't have happened if the people who did that thing had instead not done it.


Oh, so Bush did what he did, so it's okay Obama has continued doing it, because Bush shouldn't have done it in the first place.

Can we just admit we are in Dubya's fourth term now in many respects, or is the circle jerk going to keep going for another two and a half years?
 
2014-06-13 12:25:58 PM  

RyogaM: Noam Chimpsky: Isn't the very idea of having al qaeda out in the open and open to attack reason enough to start droning the piss out of them? Or do we have a hands-off policy towards al qaeda, now?

This ain't al Qaeda, and if they were and Obama wanted to drone them, I would have no problem with that.

As for ISIS, as far as I know, they have never attacked American interests and we have not declared war on them due to this fact.  If Congress wants to declare ISIS a terror organization that is a threat to America, and give Obama the authority to drone them, as Obama already has authority to drone al Qaeda, they are free to do so.  And if Obama then drones them, I would be fine with that.  As it currently stands, ISIS is merely a thorn in the side of the Iraqi government, and not us, and we owe the Iraqis nothing in trying to help them remove  this thorn.  If Obama chooses to help out of the kindness of his heart, he had better have the Republicans lined up behind him, because they will give him shiat for it.  As they always do.


Well, first they'll give him shiat for NOT doing anything. Then, if he DOES do something, they will give him shiat about that.
 
2014-06-13 12:26:11 PM  

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.
 
2014-06-13 12:26:54 PM  
So now the deadline is Obama's idea again.


Funny it was Obama's idea, then Bush flopped to it and it was "Bush's idea" now again it's Obama's idea.
 
2014-06-13 12:29:04 PM  
RyogaM:

This ain't al Qaeda

Yeah, they're just some kids letting off a little steam.
 
2014-06-13 12:29:06 PM  
It amazes me that anyone still listens to these assholes. How many times do they have to be actually proven exactly wrong on any given subject before they are simply pointed and laughed at?

It's probably the liberal media's fault.
 
2014-06-13 12:29:36 PM  

llortcM_yllort: Lord_Baull: 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?


Is this satire?

There are a lot of questionable names in that list (Obama, France, and Germany are the most glaring), but both Clintons did support the war.  Hillary Clinton voted for it and has since said that her decision made sense at the time.  It was one of the major reasons she lost the 2008 primary.  Slick Willy wanted to remove Saddam in 1998.  Criticizing the Clintons over their position in Iraq is completely fair game.


Sen. Ted Kennedy (assuming that's the right "Kennedy") voted against it.  He said it was one of his proudest votes in his career.

I spent a couple of years in Iraq.  I worked with the Iraqi National Police.  The NPs were more interested in looting houses than searching them,  more interested in making arrests to settle personal scores than pacifying the insurgency, and more interested in sneaking off to steal shiat out of our trucks than learning COIN tactics during our joint training sessions.

Throwing American troops back in there will just keep delaying the inevitable.
 
2014-06-13 12:31:07 PM  

llortcM_yllort: Lord_Baull: Everything MBrady said undercuts what MBrady was saying.

Then why did you pick the one accurate thing he said to criticize his post? The Clintons both supported the war.  Many of the other people listed did not.  Why don't you point out that he was wrong about Obama supporting the war instead of pretending Hillary wasn't a hawk?



BOTH CLINTONS VOTED FOR THE WAR. I cannot make this anymore clear.
 
2014-06-13 12:32:27 PM  

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."
 
2014-06-13 12:32:34 PM  
John McCain should be forced to go to every high school graduation and give a speech that uses the phrase:

I believe that a percentage of you should give your lives in our efforts to provide the Iraq we want. Never you mind that their own citizens are dropping their weapons and refusing to defend themselves. We need a larger proportion of US solider deaths as we move into the future and you are perfect candidates. Your parents will grieve, but we must, at all cost, do what we can to salvage former President Bush's legacy, destroy President Obama's, pacify oil companies and defense contractors.
 
2014-06-13 12:32:51 PM  

Nabb1: Where was the move to repeal or scale back the Patriot Act when they briefly held the House, Senate and White House for two years?


Counting days. How the fark does it work?
 
2014-06-13 12:32:52 PM  

dinch: RyogaM: Noam Chimpsky: Isn't the very idea of having al qaeda out in the open and open to attack reason enough to start droning the piss out of them? Or do we have a hands-off policy towards al qaeda, now?

This ain't al Qaeda, and if they were and Obama wanted to drone them, I would have no problem with that.

As for ISIS, as far as I know, they have never attacked American interests and we have not declared war on them due to this fact.  If Congress wants to declare ISIS a terror organization that is a threat to America, and give Obama the authority to drone them, as Obama already has authority to drone al Qaeda, they are free to do so.  And if Obama then drones them, I would be fine with that.  As it currently stands, ISIS is merely a thorn in the side of the Iraqi government, and not us, and we owe the Iraqis nothing in trying to help them remove  this thorn.  If Obama chooses to help out of the kindness of his heart, he had better have the Republicans lined up behind him, because they will give him shiat for it.  As they always do.

Well, first they'll give him shiat for NOT doing anything. Then, if he DOES do something, they will give him shiat about that.


I won't do that. Pinky swear.
 
2014-06-13 12:33:16 PM  

lilbjorn: John, seriously, it's time to check yourself in to a facility.


Or one of his houses.  He will have to ask his staff how many there are.
 
2014-06-13 12:34:03 PM  

Lord_Baull: llortcM_yllort: Lord_Baull: Everything MBrady said undercuts what MBrady was saying.

Then why did you pick the one accurate thing he said to criticize his post? The Clintons both supported the war.  Many of the other people listed did not.  Why don't you point out that he was wrong about Obama supporting the war instead of pretending Hillary wasn't a hawk?


BOTH CLINTONS VOTED FOR THE WAR. I cannot make this anymore clear.


When did Bill Clinton vote in Congress? Or are you referring to George Clinton? And did all of P-Funk get a vote?
 
2014-06-13 12:35:34 PM  
Noam Chimpsky: Why are the Democrats letting an al qaeda army march across an allied nation conquering towns and leaving beheaded bodies in their wake?

 So i assume that you and your family have already volunteered for the armed services to go fight in Iraq?
 
2014-06-13 12:36:26 PM  

ginandbacon: MaudlinMutantMollusk: ginandbacon: I'm curious as to when, exactly, we had this thing won. And when, exactly, we lost it.

We lost it the day we went in

Well yeah, but what date does McCain look at as when the mission was accomplished?


When the Iraqi people met us in the streets throwing flowers and Iraqi oil paid all of our war expenses,silly.
 
2014-06-13 12:36:45 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: dinch: RyogaM: Noam Chimpsky: Isn't the very idea of having al qaeda out in the open and open to attack reason enough to start droning the piss out of them? Or do we have a hands-off policy towards al qaeda, now?

This ain't al Qaeda, and if they were and Obama wanted to drone them, I would have no problem with that.

As for ISIS, as far as I know, they have never attacked American interests and we have not declared war on them due to this fact.  If Congress wants to declare ISIS a terror organization that is a threat to America, and give Obama the authority to drone them, as Obama already has authority to drone al Qaeda, they are free to do so.  And if Obama then drones them, I would be fine with that.  As it currently stands, ISIS is merely a thorn in the side of the Iraqi government, and not us, and we owe the Iraqis nothing in trying to help them remove  this thorn.  If Obama chooses to help out of the kindness of his heart, he had better have the Republicans lined up behind him, because they will give him shiat for it.  As they always do.

Well, first they'll give him shiat for NOT doing anything. Then, if he DOES do something, they will give him shiat about that.

I won't do that. Pinky swear.


But you'll keep calling ISIS an al Qaeda operation. I'm finding that very annoying.
 
2014-06-13 12:37:33 PM  

Farkin_Crazy: Lord_Baull: llortcM_yllort: Lord_Baull: Everything MBrady said undercuts what MBrady was saying.

Then why did you pick the one accurate thing he said to criticize his post? The Clintons both supported the war.  Many of the other people listed did not.  Why don't you point out that he was wrong about Obama supporting the war instead of pretending Hillary wasn't a hawk?


BOTH CLINTONS VOTED FOR THE WAR. I cannot make this anymore clear.

When did Bill Clinton vote in Congress? Or are you referring to George Clinton? And did all of P-Funk get a vote?



Please read upthread. Thanks.
 
2014-06-13 12:38:17 PM  

RyogaM: after America spent 10 years, $2.5 T. and the lives of over 4000 American soldiers


That, more than anything, defines that we 'lost' the Iraq 'war'.  $2.5 trillion in original dollars, and hundreds of billions every year since - just like Reagan got away with ballooning the national debt, W made it far worse.

Millions for defense but not one cent for tribute
has become
Trillions for offense but not one cent for making healthcare available to poor people
 
2014-06-13 12:40:02 PM  

syrynxx: RyogaM: after America spent 10 years, $2.5 T. and the lives of over 4000 American soldiers

That, more than anything, defines that we 'lost' the Iraq 'war'.  $2.5 trillion in original dollars, and hundreds of billions every year since - just like Reagan got away with ballooning the national debt, W made it far worse.

Millions for defense but not one cent for tribute
has become
Trillions for offense but not one cent for making healthcare available to poor people


Or veterans.
 
2014-06-13 12:41:18 PM  

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.


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.
 
2014-06-13 12:41:34 PM  

wheatpennyandaglock: Noam Chimpsky: Why are the Democrats letting an al qaeda army march across an allied nation conquering towns and leaving beheaded bodies in their wake?

 So i assume that you and your family have already volunteered for the armed services to go fight in Iraq?


Only if there are any available spots left in the elite 101st Keyboardist REMF Batallion.
 
2014-06-13 12:42:58 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: parasol: Noam Chimpsky: Why are the Democrats letting an al qaeda army march across an allied nation conquering towns and leaving beheaded bodies in their wake?

okay - this made me laugh

Wow. You have a very dark sense of humor if you thought that was funny. I suppose it's funny until it's your family and friends that gets beheaded in a blitzkrieging al qaeda army's wake.


img.fark.net
 
2014-06-13 12:44:58 PM  

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...
 
2014-06-13 12:47:16 PM  

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...


That's what cracks me up. If you have Al Freaking Qaeda telling you to calm it down a bit, you've got to be a real asshole.
 
2014-06-13 12:48:17 PM  
Lord_Baull:BOTH CLINTONS VOTED FOR THE WAR. I cannot make this anymore clear.

Bill Clinton voted for the war in Iraq?  You know, the vote that happened three years after the last time he was in any elected office?  I...um...what?  That doesn't even work as humor or snark.
 
2014-06-13 12:48:24 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?


This discussion is about Iraq, not Afghanistan. You didn't have UN support for Iraq.
 
2014-06-13 12:50:08 PM  

dinch: 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...

That's what cracks me up. If you have Al Freaking Qaeda telling you to calm it down a bit, you've got to be a real asshole.


Absolutely true, but the Sunnis who live in the areas they've taken over so far actually prefer them to Maliki, so that makes Maliki Grand Asshole Supreme, IMHO.
 
2014-06-13 12:52:29 PM  

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.
 
2014-06-13 12:52:46 PM  

shastacola: ginandbacon: MaudlinMutantMollusk: ginandbacon: I'm curious as to when, exactly, we had this thing won. And when, exactly, we lost it.

We lost it the day we went in

Well yeah, but what date does McCain look at as when the mission was accomplished?

When the Iraqi people met us in the streets throwing flowers and Iraqi oil paid all of our war expenses,silly.


Oh silly me!
 
2014-06-13 12:53:13 PM  

Farkin_Crazy: Lord_Baull: llortcM_yllort: Lord_Baull: Everything MBrady said undercuts what MBrady was saying.

Then why did you pick the one accurate thing he said to criticize his post? The Clintons both supported the war.  Many of the other people listed did not.  Why don't you point out that he was wrong about Obama supporting the war instead of pretending Hillary wasn't a hawk?


BOTH CLINTONS VOTED FOR THE WAR. I cannot make this anymore clear.

When did Bill Clinton vote in Congress? Or are you referring to George Clinton? And did all of P-Funk get a vote?


This.  I do believe he was out doing speaking engagements in 2002.  I don't ever recall him showing up for a vote on the floor.
 
2014-06-13 12:53:56 PM  

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


Thank you for saying that. You are one of exactly four people I have ever seen, in person or online, say this without then trying to pin the blame on someone else.
 
2014-06-13 12:56:21 PM  
*Sigh* No one reads upthread for context anymore.
 
2014-06-13 01:00:38 PM  

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".
 
2014-06-13 01:00:45 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?


And thank Colin Powell and the other liars that fed the bullshiat to the people you mentioned, conning them into voting for taking action.
 
2014-06-13 01:01:06 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-06-13 01:01:07 PM  

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.
 
2014-06-13 01:01:17 PM  

Lord_Baull: llortcM_yllort: Lord_Baull: Everything MBrady said undercuts what MBrady was saying.

Then why did you pick the one accurate thing he said to criticize his post? The Clintons both supported the war.  Many of the other people listed did not.  Why don't you point out that he was wrong about Obama supporting the war instead of pretending Hillary wasn't a hawk?


BOTH CLINTONS VOTED FOR THE WAR. I cannot make this anymore clear.


Today we will discuss the English language.  The word and is used as a way to connect words together.  This does not mean that those two words are the same thing.  For example, fish and chips refers to a dish that includes both fish as well as chips.  It does not mean that fish and chips are the same thing.  So when someone says "0bama, both clintons, Biden, Kennedy, Reid, and every other democrat in congress who voted for going to war" they do not necessarily mean that everyone in that list voted for it.  It just means that everyone in that list contributed.  For example, if I said "the Iraq War happened in part because of the actions of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, and everyone at Fox News," I would not be implying that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfield worked for Fox News.  All MBrady's original comment said was that those people listed all contributed towards helping start the Iraq War.  His statement was not accurate, but bot Bill and Hillary Clinton supported and help cause the Iraq War.

Do you deny that Bill and Hillary Clinton supported the Iraq War?
 
2014-06-13 01:04:01 PM  

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


No one particularly cares what you have to say. Express yourself clearly or work harder in the future. Fark doesn't have an edit button.
 
2014-06-13 01:04:12 PM  

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?
 
2014-06-13 01:04:20 PM  

dinch: This group is called ISIS.


www.slate.com
 
2014-06-13 01:06:21 PM  

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.
 
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
 
2014-06-13 03:48:57 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.


Yes, I think it was deliberate. The brits were especially good at setting up long-running feuds in places they vacated.
 
2014-06-13 03:51:46 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-06-13 03:53:33 PM  

clancifer: 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.



Well, by all means, please continue to post on discussions you have absolutely no idea about!
 
2014-06-13 03:55:02 PM  

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

[www.infiniteunknown.net image 600x654]


Now that's funny!
 
2014-06-13 04:00:25 PM  
I just heard Hannity say the same thing, without hesitation. ("Obama kicked away or victory in Iraq...") This must be a fresh batch of talking points.

/If you want to know what Hannity thinks, tune in to the Hannity show, and Hannity will tell you. Sean Hannity.
 
2014-06-13 04:04:14 PM  

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


How can the Iraq war even be "won" or "lost"? That implies that there is some objective to be met. It was a pointless quagmire since it was conceded that WMD did not exist. We should have left after the famous 'mission accomplished' photo op.
 
2014-06-13 04:07:20 PM  
let me see if i have this straight...

• bush invades iraq on false pretenses
• bush fails to secure the peace
• bush sets to the pullout timeline

obama abides by bush's timeline.... and this shiat is his fault?

i46.tinypic.com
 
2014-06-13 04:12:21 PM  
If that is true the GOP should hold a press conference and have Bush and Rumsfeld come out and give tips on success in Iraq, while he is there W can give tips on how to jump start an economy.
 
2014-06-13 04:17:56 PM  

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

How can the Iraq war even be "won" or "lost"? That implies that there is some objective to be met. It was a pointless quagmire since it was conceded that WMD did not exist. We should have left after the famous 'mission accomplished' photo op.


Practically speaking, the war was won in two months.  That's how long it took to depose Hussein and conquer the country's capitol.  Those were the goals of the war.  The country was stable, democracy was put in place, we had couple nice military bases there - the war was a success.

When I say Obama "lost the war", I mean that his actions and inactions post-war have allowed the gains made during our Iraq War to disappear almost overnight.  In fact, it's worse because Al Qaeda is running through the country looting; money that will be used to kill Americans in the future.
 
2014-06-13 04:21:48 PM  

Savage Belief: Well I see Noam Chumpsky has caught his limit in this thread. When are you all going to stop biting at his troll bait?


Are you saying ISIS isn't al qaeda?  Here's the thing, apologist: Obama will have to order military action against this terrorist army, and unless you want the Democrats in Congress to have to vote on this, you best just admit that it's al qaeda so that Obama will already have the presidential authority to take action. If they begin a lame-ass semantics argument such as some of you have been trying against me, they will look like ridiculous terrorist apologists. That should be apparent to y'all, now.

Can't you see I'm trying to help you, Democrats?
 
2014-06-13 04:23:49 PM  

SunsetLament: Practically speaking, the war was won in two months.  That's how long it took to depose Hussein and conquer the country's capitol.  Those were the goals of the war.  The country was stable, democracy was put in place, we had couple nice military bases there - the war was a success.



I lol'd.
 
2014-06-13 04:25:28 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Can't you see I'm trying to help you, Democrats?


I lol'd again.
 
2014-06-13 04:43:54 PM  

SunsetLament: When I say Obama "lost the war", I mean that his actions and inactions post-war have allowed the gains made during our Iraq War to disappear almost overnight. In fact, it's worse because Al Qaeda is running through the country looting; money that will be used to kill Americans in the future.


Well that's a very infromed opinion. What actions and inactions specifically is fark's biggest liar talking about now?
 
2014-06-13 04:45:38 PM  

Halli: SunsetLament: When I say Obama "lost the war", I mean that his actions and inactions post-war have allowed the gains made during our Iraq War to disappear almost overnight. In fact, it's worse because Al Qaeda is running through the country looting; money that will be used to kill Americans in the future.

Well that's a very infromed opinion. What actions and inactions specifically is fark's biggest liar talking about now?



Presumably, daring to comply with Iraq's insistence of US troops leaving the country as brokered by the Bush administration.
 
2014-06-13 05:10:34 PM  

Nabb1: Except that now it is an OPEC nation, a very large oil producer, one of the largest in the world, and splitting it up geographically may be easy, but those folks aren't going to want to give up that oil revenue, and therein lies the problem - how do you split up oil money when the production of it isn't really spread out in the same way the ethnic and religious groups are?


violently.
 
2014-06-13 05:23:00 PM  
How about forced retirement for senators over a certain age? McCain should be the example...
 
2014-06-13 05:27:35 PM  

TeddyRooseveltsMustache: How about forced retirement for senators over a certain age? McCain should be the example...


That's what I'm thinking. There shouldn't be term limits, so much as age limits. I think 70 should be the mandatory retirement age nowadays.

I'm 25, and I'm tired of all these senior citizens screwing shiat up for America.
 
2014-06-13 05:43:05 PM  

Bith Set Me Up: TeddyRooseveltsMustache: How about forced retirement for senators over a certain age? McCain should be the example...

That's what I'm thinking. There shouldn't be term limits, so much as age limits. I think 70 should be the mandatory retirement age nowadays.

I'm 25, and I'm tired of all these senior citizens screwing shiat up for America.


I am also 25, and I agree with you totally.
 
2014-06-13 05:44:05 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Savage Belief: Well I see Noam Chumpsky has caught his limit in this thread. When are you all going to stop biting at his troll bait?

Are you saying ISIS isn't al qaeda?  Here's the thing, apologist: Obama will have to order military action against this terrorist army, and unless you want the Democrats in Congress to have to vote on this, you best just admit that it's al qaeda so that Obama will already have the presidential authority to take action. If they begin a lame-ass semantics argument such as some of you have been trying against me, they will look like ridiculous terrorist apologists. That should be apparent to y'all, now.

Can't you see I'm trying to help you, Democrats?


Noam seems to think that Estonia is the Soviet Union.

Now, nobody is arguing they aren't terrorists, or that they aren't "bad guys"-it's just that they ain't Al Queda.
 
2014-06-13 05:45:06 PM  

TeddyRooseveltsMustache: How about forced retirement for senators over a certain age? McCain should be the example...


Unconstitutional, and see my profile for the chances of passing a constitutional amendment.
 
2014-06-13 05:59:54 PM  

Geotpf: Unconstitutional, and see my profile for the chances of passing a constitutional amendment.


well, that and it assumes a generational boundary on stupid that really isn't in evidence, either.

it aint like you just get your stupid handed to you when you turn 70, or anything.
 
2014-06-13 06:18:57 PM  

Lord_Baull: Halli: SunsetLament: When I say Obama "lost the war", I mean that his actions and inactions post-war have allowed the gains made during our Iraq War to disappear almost overnight. In fact, it's worse because Al Qaeda is running through the country looting; money that will be used to kill Americans in the future.

Well that's a very infromed opinion. What actions and inactions specifically is fark's biggest liar talking about now?


Presumably, daring to comply with Iraq's insistence of US troops leaving the country as brokered by the Bush administration.


History's greatest monster.
 
2014-06-13 06:36:55 PM  

Geotpf: TeddyRooseveltsMustache: How about forced retirement for senators over a certain age? McCain should be the example...

Unconstitutional, and see my profile for the chances of passing a constitutional amendment.


The founding fathers were incredibly intelligent, but they weren't prophets. Our world is incredibly different than theirs. In their day, it took weeks or months to travel cross-country. Now, we're able to do it in hours or days. People rarely reached their seventies back then, today's advancements in science and medicine have made it more common.
 
2014-06-13 06:47:27 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Savage Belief: Well I see Noam Chumpsky has caught his limit in this thread. When are you all going to stop biting at his troll bait?

Are you saying ISIS isn't al qaeda?  Here's the thing, apologist: Obama will have to order military action against this terrorist army, and unless you want the Democrats in Congress to have to vote on this, you best just admit that it's al qaeda so that Obama will already have the presidential authority to take action. If they begin a lame-ass semantics argument such as some of you have been trying against me, they will look like ridiculous terrorist apologists. That should be apparent to y'all, now.

Can't you see I'm trying to help you, Democrats?


Don't mind me. I'm just trolling the troll. Looks like I caught the big fish of the day. Yay me!
 
2014-06-13 07:18:44 PM  

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

How can the Iraq war even be "won" or "lost"? That implies that there is some objective to be met. It was a pointless quagmire since it was conceded that WMD did not exist. We should have left after the famous 'mission accomplished' photo op.

Practically speaking, the war was won in two months.  That's how long it took to depose Hussein and conquer the country's capitol.  Those were the goals of the war.  The country was stable, democracy was put in place, we had couple nice military bases there - the war was a success.

When I say Obama "lost the war", I mean that his actions and inactions post-war have allowed the gains made during our Iraq War to disappear almost overnight.  In fact, it's worse because Al Qaeda is running through the country looting; money that will be used to kill Americans in the future.

.
Man, that's great!  And if you skip the rest of 2003 through 2009, the 4000 deaths and 30,000 wounded that followed, you are spot on!
 
2014-06-13 07:59:37 PM  

Bith Set Me Up: The founding fathers were incredibly intelligent, but they weren't prophets. Our world is incredibly different than theirs. I


Sure, unless you're talking about the 2nd Amendment.
 
2014-06-13 11:02:58 PM  
McCain is mostly wrong.  But Obama's approach to foreign policy of backtracking on his words and generally doing little or nothing is making things much worse.  Bush never should have invaded Iraq and Obama has badly mismanaged it.  Yes, both can be true.
 
2014-06-14 12:02:30 AM  

Animatronik: McCain is mostly wrong.  But Obama's approach to foreign policy of backtracking on his words and generally doing little or nothing is making things much worse.  Bush never should have invaded Iraq and Obama has badly mismanaged it.  Yes, both can be true.


And yet only one of them is.
 
2014-06-14 12:56:38 AM  
i14.photobucket.com
 
2014-06-14 02:38:10 AM  
I'M A FRACKING CYLON!!
 
2014-06-14 08:34:18 AM  

SunsetLament: Practically speaking, the war was won in two months.  That's how long it took to depose Hussein and conquer the country's capitol.  Those were the goals of the war.  The country was stable, democracy was put in place, we had couple nice military bases there - the war was a success.


i48.tinypic.com
 
2014-06-14 10:01:22 AM  

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.


You are really heavily invested in being able to label ISIS as al Qaeda.

Can't keep track of more than one group of militant Islamists, can we?
 
Displayed 281 of 281 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report