Let us not forget that Britain was a more than willing partner in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Not Britain. Tony Blair. The majority of Brits opposed the war before it had begun, which is why a million people took to the streets of London to protest it.
I hear ya brian. But when are we, as a whole, ever gonna learn? When's enough? When do we FINALLY say ok, enough, we're done buying all the bullshit you're selling us. It has to start with all of us wanting and knowing the truth. Are we ready for the truth? Idk if I can honestly say we all are. But it's been how many years of war and lies? Going all the way back to the first gulf war for me. That was what 91, and we're in 2014! And look at us as a nation, same old song and dance. And funny thing, almost the SAME fucken players.
A lot of you on the train are critical thinkers, that I know for fact. A lot of you have independent thoughts and are able to distinguish the difference between truths and propaganda. And I appreciate reading all of your thought out posts. But some on here (most of you can tell who's who) are just so fucken lost and blind. But here's the thing, I think the ones who (I believe to be lost) dnt want to know and dnt honestly care to know the truth. And that's the sad thing. My history high school teacher tried to teach his class to be critical thinkers in life. I want to thank you mr Hayes for indoctrinating that into me.
I think maybe it's time for me to get off on the next station stop, maybe give this place and my head a break.
We did not invade Afghanistan; we were there to kill the scumbags who turned lower Manhattan into a parking lot, attacked the Pentagon and killed innocent citizens in those buildings and areas and on 4 planes. That was a declaration of war.
It wasn't a declaration of war. It was a terrorist attack. And the Taliban offered to hand Bin Laden over to the U.S and the U.S refused. Now why would they do that? Because they had another agenda, that's why.
As far as 'my foreign policy', it caused a bunch of people who take the Quran and completely misinterpret it for their extremist positions to declare war on WESTERN SOCIETY.
It wasn't WESTERN SOCIETY that declared war on Iraq in 1991, and it's not WESTERN SOCIETY that's been bankrolling Israel's ethnic cleansing and land-grab for the past 45 years, to name just two examples.
Did they hate that we went into Iraq during the first Gulf War - infidels on their land - yes. We were asked by Kuwait to help from being overthrown. So we did that and came home.
Except it wasn't as simple as that. And you also neglect to mention the subsequent ten years of illegal sanctions and daily bombing raids on that country.
Representative Ron Paul reveals that American ambassador to Iraq April Glassby had a conversation with Saddam Hussein one week before he invaded Kuwait and gave the green light to his plans. The information is contained in a cable recently released by Wikileaks.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/08/wikiileaks_april_glaspie_and_saddam_hussein In a now famous interview with the Iraqi leader, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam, ‘[W]e have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.' The U.S. State Department had earlier told Saddam that Washington had ‘no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait.' The United States may not have intended to give Iraq a green light, but that is effectively what it did."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11376.htm "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasise the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America." - US Ambassador Glaspie
On July 31, 1990, two days before the Iraqi invasion [of Kuwait], John Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, testified to Congress that the "United States has no commitment to defend Kuwait and the US has no intention of defending Kuwait if it is attacked by Iraq."
Post edited by Byrnzie on
0
Options
hedonist
standing on the edge of forever Posts: 24,524
Just want to give kudos to BB and njnancy for their passion and respect for each other here, not to mention eloquence in the heat of the moment; I believe it all comes from a decent place.
I agree that we shouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place. And I'm sure you would agree that you learn from your past mistakes.
Except it wasn't a mistake. It was deliberate. 'Mistake' is now a favourite word of politicians who think they can justify and excuse their crimes. Here's the dictionary definition of the word:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mistake?s=t noun 1. an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc. 2. a misunderstanding or misconception. 4. to understand, interpret, or evaluate wrongly; misunderstand; misinterpret. 5. to be in error.
So you see, that the word is completely inappropriate when discussing the invasion of a sovereign nation and the murder of over 1 million people. If the word 'mistake' had been used in the defence of those on trial at Nuremberg, it would have generated mostly ridicule, some laughter, and a great deal of disgust. Yet in the year 2014 it passes without so much as anyone batting an eyelid. Welcome to the 21st Century!
essentially, what cheney's trying to do is the exact same thing as this scenario...
a group of guys goes and beats up a man with pipes and weapons. the man is beaten so badly he in a coma for 5 years. THEN, when the man dies after 5 years of being in a coma, the group who beat the victim comes out and blames the doctor for the death.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
We did not invade Afghanistan; we were there to kill the scumbags who turned lower Manhattan into a parking lot, attacked the Pentagon and killed innocent citizens in those buildings and areas and on 4 planes. That was a declaration of war.
It wasn't a declaration of war. It was a terrorist attack. And the Taliban offered to hand Bin Laden over to the U.S and the U.S refused. Now why would they do that? Because they had another agenda, that's why.
So, whenever there is a terrorist attack, it is America's fault...America sucks so we should all die.
You can quit with the straw man melodramatics.
That is just so insulting that I no longer can respect any of your prior posts which i read with an open-mind. Do not tell me to quit giving my opinion. And do not call me a straw 'person'. That's really the most important thing you had to say about anything I posted? you can take a sentence or two out of anyone's post and play with it as you want, but i am trying to respect people here. I cannot do that when someone attempts to patronize me.
As far as 'my foreign policy', it caused a bunch of people who take the Quran and completely misinterpret it for their extremist positions to declare war on WESTERN SOCIETY.
It wasn't WESTERN SOCIETY that declared war on Iraq in 1991, and it's not WESTERN SOCIETY that's been bankrolling Israel's ethnic cleansing and land-grab for the past 45 years, to name just two examples.
yeah, okay, COMPLETELY taken out of context and i did not mention Israel once.
Did they hate that we went into Iraq during the first Gulf War - infidels on their land - yes. We were asked by Kuwait to help from being overthrown. So we did that and came home.
Except it wasn't as simple as that. And you also neglect to mention the subsequent ten years of illegal sanctions and daily bombing raids on that country.
i probably didn't mention a shitload of stuff, but it was my post - not yours. i also didn't mention that it's 90 degrees out. I didn't neglect to mention it; it wasn't part of what i had to say. I've read a lot of your stuff in the political threads. I cannot respond to what you say because it is self serving. I don't need a copy editor. Respect others as you would want to be respected. Or don't - I can't make anyone in this damn world do a damn thing; except for me.
We did not invade Afghanistan; we were there to kill the scumbags who turned lower Manhattan into a parking lot, attacked the Pentagon and killed innocent citizens in those buildings and areas and on 4 planes. That was a declaration of war.
It wasn't a declaration of war. It was a terrorist attack. And the Taliban offered to hand Bin Laden over to the U.S and the U.S refused. Now why would they do that? Because they had another agenda, that's why.
you're nitpicking.
Not nitpicking, just stating a plain fact. It was a terrorist attack, not an act of war. Most of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. So why didn't you attack Saudi Arabia if it was an act of war?
Like I said, the Taliban agreed to hand over Bin Laden, and the U.S government weren't interested. Why?
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,802
I hear ya brian. But when are we, as a whole, ever gonna learn? When's enough? When do we FINALLY say ok, enough, we're done buying all the bullshit you're selling us. It has to start with all of us wanting and knowing the truth. Are we ready for the truth? Idk if I can honestly say we all are. But it's been how many years of war and lies? Going all the way back to the first gulf war for me. That was what 91, and we're in 2014! And look at us as a nation, same old song and dance. And funny thing, almost the SAME fucken players.
A lot of you on the train are critical thinkers, that I know for fact. A lot of you have independent thoughts and are able to distinguish the difference between truths and propaganda. And I appreciate reading all of your thought out posts. But some on here (most of you can tell who's who) are just so fucken lost and blind. But here's the thing, I think the ones who (I believe to be lost) dnt want to know and dnt honestly care to know the truth. And that's the sad thing. My history high school teacher tried to teach his class to be critical thinkers in life. I want to thank you mr Hayes for indoctrinating that into me.
I think maybe it's time for me to get off on the next station stop, maybe give this place and my head a break.
Oh man, badbrains, I hope you stick around or at least come back after a break. Giving politics and current events a break now and then is a great idea- it's so easy to get overwhelmed by the insanity of it all.
Will we ever learn? I hope so but if I had to be honest I would say I doubt it. But I also answer my own cynicism by remembering that things can, do and have changed and even more importantly I tell myself what has become a mantra for me- Vaclav Havel's notion that hope isn't the conviction that things will turn out well but that hope is the conviction to do what makes sense no matter how things turn out. We just keep forging ahead. Look at Sea Shepherd founder Paul Watson. That guys by beaten to shit, imprisoned numerous times, nearly frozen to death, harassed and badgered and lost many battles... but he's also saved and helped save thousands of sea mammals and he's still going strong. We just gotten keep moving forward.
Also, I like the way you spell fuckin': "fucken" -- like "fucken turducken".
Oh, and yeah, humor- gotta have it, can't live without it- hahaha!
Ok, back to Iraq. Where the fucken were we?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
We did not invade Afghanistan; we were there to kill the scumbags who turned lower Manhattan into a parking lot, attacked the Pentagon and killed innocent citizens in those buildings and areas and on 4 planes. That was a declaration of war.
It wasn't a declaration of war. It was a terrorist attack. And the Taliban offered to hand Bin Laden over to the U.S and the U.S refused. Now why would they do that? Because they had another agenda, that's why.
you're nitpicking.
Not nitpicking, just stating a plain fact. It was a terrorist attack, not an act of war. Most of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. So why didn't you attack Saudi Arabia if it was an act of war?
Like I said, the Taliban agreed to hand over Bin Laden, and the U.S government weren't interested. Why?
I spoke about Saudi Arabia in an earlier post. Why did we not attack them - i think you already know the answer to that.
When thousands of people are killed by a terrorist group - that is as close to a declaration of war that you are going to get in this day and age. We can go around in circles about the terminology - but is it progressing the conversation?
When did the Taliban agree to hand over Bin Laden? I am asking out of true curiosity, I am not adverse to learning things I previously had not known. I also do not think I have all the answers - I am one person with one viewpoint that was formed (and continues to form and reform) due to education, geography, life experience. political views and other factors - same as everyone else.
It is completely and utterly absurd to think that the United States owes Iraq support because we caused the terrorists to terrorize. No matter how ignorant GWB and DC motivations were for invading Iraq, it's done and over with. I've said it before, we toppled Saddam, then we're not welcome there anymore. Regardless of GW's lack of an exit strategy, the United states spent millions of dollars training the Iraqi military and police to protect themselves from this very threat. We helped that country put together their version of a democracy. So when we were ever so politely told to leave, that left the burden of responsibility to protect Iraq on Iraq.
I disagree that it's reasonable for the US to unjustly invade a nation, fuck it right the hell up and create a problem of insurgents in that country, and then refuse to help them deal with said insurgents when asked, all because they figure they trained their security well enough (which they clearly didn't). What's happening in Iraq is a predictable result of the US's illegal militant actions, and I think the US is obligated to help when necessary. I don't expect you to agree with me, but that's how I see. I am fully aware that this could end up being another shit storm for the US.... but if the US doesn't want shit storms, then they shouldn't start them in the first place. SORRY, I FUCKED UP THE QUOTE ABOVE
I agree that we shouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place. And I'm sure you would agree that you learn from your past mistakes. Why would you insist that we go back to Iraq, knowing it will cause another shit storm? Because if we did go back to Iraq, and shit hits the fan, you will be the first one in this message board to say "fucking United states, they are so dumb. didn't they learn their ownlesson after the first time they were in Iraq for no reason?" And it's real easy to sit back and criticize how poorly our military was in training the Iraqi military. I'm not a military man nor have I been to Iraq, but I'm sure our boys trained those fuckers over there as best as they could. As far as the illegal militant actions: what was illegal? Was the United States ever penalized, or sanctioned by the UN or NATO for illegal activities in Iraq? -----------------------------------------
(What's wrong with the quotes?) PJ_SOUL saying: No, I wouldn't be saying that. For one, they've been asked to help. Certainly not the same as invading obviously. Secondly, I actually am in favour of anyone doing what they can to stop jihadist militants from taking over a country. I feel that Taliban and other jihadist militants are a real and dangerous threat to the world and it's stable future. The taliban viole tly taking over iraq is bad for iraq, the entire region, and the world in general. And it actually looks like a take-over could be imminent. I do not oppose military action that seeks to stop them generally, and certainly not if the military action is requested by those being threatened directly. Some fights actually are worth fighting still IMO, all other shady political bullshit aside.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I hear ya brian. But when are we, as a whole, ever gonna learn? When's enough? When do we FINALLY say ok, enough, we're done buying all the bullshit you're selling us. It has to start with all of us wanting and knowing the truth. Are we ready for the truth? Idk if I can honestly say we all are. But it's been how many years of war and lies? Going all the way back to the first gulf war for me. That was what 91, and we're in 2014! And look at us as a nation, same old song and dance. And funny thing, almost the SAME fucken players.
A lot of you on the train are critical thinkers, that I know for fact. A lot of you have independent thoughts and are able to distinguish the difference between truths and propaganda. And I appreciate reading all of your thought out posts. But some on here (most of you can tell who's who) are just so fucken lost and blind. But here's the thing, I think the ones who (I believe to be lost) dnt want to know and dnt honestly care to know the truth. And that's the sad thing. My history high school teacher tried to teach his class to be critical thinkers in life. I want to thank you mr Hayes for indoctrinating that into me.
I think maybe it's time for me to get off on the next station stop, maybe give this place and my head a break.
Oh man, badbrains, I hope you stick around or at least come back after a break. Giving politics and current events a break now and then is a great idea- it's so easy to get overwhelmed by the insanity of it all.
Will we ever learn? I hope so but if I had to be honest I would say I doubt it. But I also answer my own cynicism by remembering that things can, do and have changed and even more importantly I tell myself what has become a mantra for me- Vaclav Havel's notion that hope isn't the conviction that things will turn out well but that hope is the conviction to do what makes sense no matter how things turn out. We just keep forging ahead. Look at Sea Shepherd founder Paul Watson. That guys by beaten to shit, imprisoned numerous times, nearly frozen to death, harassed and badgered and lost many battles... but he's also saved and helped save thousands of sea mammals and he's still going strong. We just gotten keep moving forward.
Also, I like the way you spell fuckin': "fucken" -- like "fucken turducken".
Oh, and yeah, humor- gotta have it, can't live without it- hahaha!
Just want to give kudos to BB and njnancy for their passion and respect for each other here, not to mention eloquence in the heat of the moment; I believe it all comes from a decent place.
Now back to our regular programming.
Thank you for that. I'm saying thank you for badbrains too because he isn't here and he wrote such a heartfelt post. There are so many people to be pissed at in this particular situation; but fellow posters are not where that should be directed. And a thick skin helps when you enter the fray. >:)
I spoke about Saudi Arabia in an earlier post. Why did we not attack them - i think you already know the answer to that.
When thousands of people are killed by a terrorist group - that is as close to a declaration of war that you are going to get in this day and age. We can go around in circles about the terminology - but is it progressing the conversation?
When did the Taliban agree to hand over Bin Laden? I am asking out of true curiosity, I am not adverse to learning things I previously had not known. I also do not think I have all the answers - I am one person with one viewpoint that was formed (and continues to form and reform) due to education, geography, life experience. political views and other factors - same as everyone else.
'Four days [after 9/11] the US State Department asked Mohabbat [who dealt with foreign relations for the Afghan mujahiddeen, where he developed extensive contacts with the US foreign policy establishment] to set up a meeting with the Taliban. Mohabbat says the Taliban were flown to Quetta in two C-130s. There they agreed to the three demands sought by the US team: 1. Immediate handover of bin Laden; 2. Extradition of foreigners in Al Qaeda who were wanted in their home countries; 3. shut-down of bin Laden’s bases and training camps. Mohabbat says the Taliban agreed to all three demands.
A few days later [...] Mohabbat drew the ire of the Bush administration where he already had an enemy in the form of Zalmay Khalilzad, appointed on September 22 as the US special envoy to Afghanistan. After giving him a dressing down, US officials told Mohabbat the game had changed, and he should tell the Taliban the new terms: surrender or be killed. Mohabbat declined to be the bearer of this news and went off the US government payroll.
Towards the end of that same month of October, 2001 Mohabbat was successfully negotiating with the Taliban for the release of Heather Mercer (acting in a private capacity at the request of her father) when the Taliban once again said they would hand over Osama Bin Laden unconditionally. Mohabbat tells us he relayed the offer to David Donahue, the US consulate general in Islamabad. He was told, in his words,that "the train had moved". Shortly thereafter the US bombing of Afghanistan began.'
Staff and agencies guardian.co.uk, Sunday 14 October 2001
President George Bush rejected as "non-negotiable" an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan.
Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over." He added, "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty". In Jalalabad, deputy prime minister Haji Abdul Kabir - the third most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime - told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, but added: "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country".
The Taliban would be ready to discuss handing over Osama bin Laden to a neutral country if the US halted the bombing of Afghanistan, a senior Taliban official said today.
Afghanistan's deputy prime minister, Haji Abdul Kabir, told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US.
"If the Taliban is given evidence that Osama bin Laden is involved" and the bombing campaign stopped, "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country", Mr Kabir added.
I also recall stories that the US had green lighted Kuwait to angle drill for oil, into Iraqi territory; another engineered conflict.
So read the Wiki story and don't see how the statement Glaspie made equated US giving green light to invade. Simply party line that we don't get into Arab Arab disputes.
So don't think it a fair assessment of what happened and shouldn't be used in this or other debates
Fine, it wasnt a mistake, it was an ignorant, unjustified act. I ask again, was the United states ever sanctioned for illegal activities by the UN or NATO for any war crimes? So why would/should the united states repeat the same illegal/unjustified act that nobody supported in 2003? Because Iraq asked us to? No thanks.
I also recall stories that the US had green lighted Kuwait to angle drill for oil, into Iraqi territory; another engineered conflict.
After reading it I would not justify it as describing it as a "green light" for Iraq to invade. She stated she hoped the border dispute would be resolved via negotiations via the Arab League or Egypt and not by the US.
If Saddam took that as US approval coming from an ambassador he had only met a few times then he was very, very dumb.
I also recall stories that the US had green lighted Kuwait to angle drill for oil, into Iraqi territory; another engineered conflict.
So read the Wiki story and don't see how the statement Glaspie made equated US giving green light to invade. Simply party line that we don't get into Arab Arab disputes.
So don't think it a fair assessment of what happened and shouldn't be used in this or other debates
That's all you took from that, eh? They noted the military mobilization, told Saddam that they had no interest In the dispute, and that they had no agreements to defend Kuwait.... I disagree. And I think it is certainly worth mention in this and other debates, so frankly I don't care if you don't think it should be used or not - I provided the information, do with it what you will, but don't patronize me for doing so by telling me I shouldn't. No comment on the falsified incubator story that was trumpeted by US politicians pushing for war? You don't see any hidden agenda in this US 'diplomacy'?
So read the Wiki story and don't see how the statement Glaspie made equated US giving green light to invade. Simply party line that we don't get into Arab Arab disputes.
So don't think it a fair assessment of what happened and shouldn't be used in this or other debates
You don't think it's a fair assessment of what happened? Really? I'd love to hear what you think is a fair assessment of 'what happened'.
She explicitly said the United States took no position on the border dispute between Iraq and Kuwait. How much more of a green light could there be?
"...we told him (Saddam) he could take the northern part of Kuwait; and when he took the whole thing we went nuts. And if we didn’t tell him that, why won’t we even let the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee see the written instructions for Ambassador Glaspie?" - Ross Perot
Comments
A lot of you on the train are critical thinkers, that I know for fact. A lot of you have independent thoughts and are able to distinguish the difference between truths and propaganda. And I appreciate reading all of your thought out posts. But some on here (most of you can tell who's who) are just so fucken lost and blind. But here's the thing, I think the ones who (I believe to be lost) dnt want to know and dnt honestly care to know the truth. And that's the sad thing. My history high school teacher tried to teach his class to be critical thinkers in life. I want to thank you mr Hayes for indoctrinating that into me.
I think maybe it's time for me to get off on the next station stop, maybe give this place and my head a break.
You can quit with the straw man melodramatics. It wasn't WESTERN SOCIETY that declared war on Iraq in 1991, and it's not WESTERN SOCIETY that's been bankrolling Israel's ethnic cleansing and land-grab for the past 45 years, to name just two examples.
Except it wasn't as simple as that. And you also neglect to mention the subsequent ten years of illegal sanctions and daily bombing raids on that country.
Representative Ron Paul reveals that American ambassador to Iraq April Glassby had a conversation with Saddam Hussein one week before he invaded Kuwait and gave the green light to his plans. The information is contained in a cable recently released by Wikileaks.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/08/wikiileaks_april_glaspie_and_saddam_hussein
In a now famous interview with the Iraqi leader, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam, ‘[W]e have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.' The U.S. State Department had earlier told Saddam that Washington had ‘no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait.' The United States may not have intended to give Iraq a green light, but that is effectively what it did."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11376.htm
"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasise the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America." - US Ambassador Glaspie
On July 31, 1990, two days before the Iraqi invasion [of Kuwait], John Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, testified to Congress that the "United States has no commitment to defend Kuwait and the US has no intention of defending Kuwait if it is attacked by Iraq."
Now back to our regular programming.
Here's the dictionary definition of the word:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mistake?s=t
noun
1.
an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc.
2.
a misunderstanding or misconception.
4.
to understand, interpret, or evaluate wrongly; misunderstand; misinterpret.
5.
to be in error.
So you see, that the word is completely inappropriate when discussing the invasion of a sovereign nation and the murder of over 1 million people. If the word 'mistake' had been used in the defence of those on trial at Nuremberg, it would have generated mostly ridicule, some laughter, and a great deal of disgust. Yet in the year 2014 it passes without so much as anyone batting an eyelid.
Welcome to the 21st Century!
Another habit says its long overdue
Another habit like an unwanted friend
I'm so happy with my righteous self
i read most of it, through tears of laughter.
essentially, what cheney's trying to do is the exact same thing as this scenario...
a group of guys goes and beats up a man with pipes and weapons. the man is beaten so badly he in a coma for 5 years. THEN, when the man dies after 5 years of being in a coma, the group who beat the victim comes out and blames the doctor for the death.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Will we ever learn? I hope so but if I had to be honest I would say I doubt it. But I also answer my own cynicism by remembering that things can, do and have changed and even more importantly I tell myself what has become a mantra for me- Vaclav Havel's notion that hope isn't the conviction that things will turn out well but that hope is the conviction to do what makes sense no matter how things turn out. We just keep forging ahead. Look at Sea Shepherd founder Paul Watson. That guys by beaten to shit, imprisoned numerous times, nearly frozen to death, harassed and badgered and lost many battles... but he's also saved and helped save thousands of sea mammals and he's still going strong. We just gotten keep moving forward.
Also, I like the way you spell fuckin': "fucken" -- like "fucken turducken".
Oh, and yeah, humor- gotta have it, can't live without it- hahaha!
Ok, back to Iraq. Where the fucken were we?
SORRY, I FUCKED UP THE QUOTE ABOVE
I agree that we shouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place. And I'm sure you would agree that you learn from your past mistakes. Why would you insist that we go back to Iraq, knowing it will cause another shit storm? Because if we did go back to Iraq, and shit hits the fan, you will be the first one in this message board to say "fucking United states, they are so dumb. didn't they learn their ownlesson after the first time they were in Iraq for no reason?"
And it's real easy to sit back and criticize how poorly our military was in training the Iraqi military. I'm not a military man nor have I been to Iraq, but I'm sure our boys trained those fuckers over there as best as they could.
As far as the illegal militant actions: what was illegal? Was the United States ever penalized, or sanctioned by the UN or NATO for illegal activities in Iraq?
-----------------------------------------
(What's wrong with the quotes?)
PJ_SOUL saying:
No, I wouldn't be saying that. For one, they've been asked to help. Certainly not the same as invading obviously. Secondly, I actually am in favour of anyone doing what they can to stop jihadist militants from taking over a country. I feel that Taliban and other jihadist militants are a real and dangerous threat to the world and it's stable future. The taliban viole tly taking over iraq is bad for iraq, the entire region, and the world in general. And it actually looks like a take-over could be imminent. I do not oppose military action that seeks to stop them generally, and certainly not if the military action is requested by those being threatened directly. Some fights actually are worth fighting still IMO, all other shady political bullshit aside.
'Four days [after 9/11] the US State Department asked Mohabbat [who dealt with foreign relations for the Afghan mujahiddeen, where he developed extensive contacts with the US foreign policy establishment] to set up a meeting with the Taliban. Mohabbat says the Taliban were flown to Quetta in two C-130s. There they agreed to the three demands sought by the US team: 1. Immediate handover of bin Laden; 2. Extradition of foreigners in Al Qaeda who were wanted in their home countries; 3. shut-down of bin Laden’s bases and training camps. Mohabbat says the Taliban agreed to all three demands.
A few days later [...] Mohabbat drew the ire of the Bush administration where he already had an enemy in the form of Zalmay Khalilzad, appointed on September 22 as the US special envoy to Afghanistan. After giving him a dressing down, US officials told Mohabbat the game had changed, and he should tell the Taliban the new terms: surrender or be killed. Mohabbat declined to be the bearer of this news and went off the US government payroll.
Towards the end of that same month of October, 2001 Mohabbat was successfully negotiating with the Taliban for the release of Heather Mercer (acting in a private capacity at the request of her father) when the Taliban once again said they would hand over Osama Bin Laden unconditionally. Mohabbat tells us he relayed the offer to David Donahue, the US consulate general in Islamabad. He was told, in his words,that "the train had moved". Shortly thereafter the US bombing of Afghanistan began.'
Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5
Taliban demand evidence of Bin Laden's guilt
Staff and agencies
guardian.co.uk,
Sunday 14 October 2001
President George Bush rejected as "non-negotiable" an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan.
Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over." He added, "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty". In Jalalabad, deputy prime minister Haji Abdul Kabir - the third most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime - told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, but added: "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country".
The Taliban would be ready to discuss handing over Osama bin Laden to a neutral country if the US halted the bombing of Afghanistan, a senior Taliban official said today.
Afghanistan's deputy prime minister, Haji Abdul Kabir, told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US.
"If the Taliban is given evidence that Osama bin Laden is involved" and the bombing campaign stopped, "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country", Mr Kabir added.
So don't think it a fair assessment of what happened and shouldn't be used in this or other debates
If Saddam took that as US approval coming from an ambassador he had only met a few times then he was very, very dumb.
They noted the military mobilization, told Saddam that they had no interest In the dispute, and that they had no agreements to defend Kuwait....
I disagree. And I think it is certainly worth mention in this and other debates, so frankly I don't care if you don't think it should be used or not - I provided the information, do with it what you will, but don't patronize me for doing so by telling me I shouldn't.
No comment on the falsified incubator story that was trumpeted by US politicians pushing for war? You don't see any hidden agenda in this US 'diplomacy'?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Another habit says its long overdue
Another habit like an unwanted friend
I'm so happy with my righteous self
She explicitly said the United States took no position on the border dispute between Iraq and Kuwait. How much more of a green light could there be?