Your economy IS the world beyond your borders, you ass.

Your economy IS the world beyond your borders, you ass.

 

Now, now, Walsh. No need to to make derogatory remarks even though I am wrong.

It weakens your argument.

Your economy IS the world beyond your borders, you ass.

 

Now, now, Walsh. No need to to make derogatory remarks even though I am wrong.

It weakens your argument.

 

You're saying you aren't a donkey? For some reason I thought this was you:

 

HA!

So, let me get this straight Kill. You are claiming the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan were pointless? Should we have done nothing after 9-11 then? There is a historical precedent for that. After the first attempt to bring down the WTC in 1993 Clinton did nothing. After the Khobar towers were bombed in 1995 Clinton did nothing. Two US embassies in Africa were bombed leading to large loss of life and Clinton did nothing. The US Air force barracks were bombed and Clinton did nothing. The USS Cole was bombed and Clinton did nothing. Each attack was progressively bolder because they saw how weak our leaders were. Finally 9-11. And no you say we should have done nothing then? Nice to see you place so little value in the blood of your countrymen. I imagine you would have done nothing after Pearl Harbor was well. If people like you were running the country we would have suffered how many 9-11s by now? Three? Five? Dozens? Which one would have stirred up you ire? If Clinton had been man enough to go after them after 1993 or any other of the nine major attacks he did nothing about maybe 9-11 would never have happened. Now after two wars, most of Al-Qeada are either dead or in prison (you know those nice people you want to set free) and Iran is militarily surrounded by US controlled Iraq, Afghanistan, and US allies Turkey, Pakistan, and Turkmenistan. A lot better than doing nothing I would say. Oh, and in case you failed to notice (or perhaps you hate your country and countrymen enough to account it a bad thing) once we put away Clinton's white flags and started fighting there have been no more terrorist attacks against us.

Wait wait waaaaait.

 

There is no correlation between 9-11 and Iraq.

Not quite true. Just because Iraq had no direct ties to 9/11 itself doesn't mean there isn't a correlation between the two. Bottom line is without 9/11, Iraq War likely never would have happened - at least not in the way it did. 9/11 gave the US the will (or the excuse depending on your view) to strike at any enemies BEFORE they attack the US homeland. US would likely rather AQ and others attempting to kill US soldiers in Iraq as well as Iraqis than facing another 9/11.

Which one would have stirred up you ire?

 

You want to see him really mad, give him a mince pie.

 

Seriously though, GD has a point about Clinton's "Let's hide under the duvet and hope it goes away" approach. He managed to trash the concept of UN intervention in humanitarian crises in Somalia, leading to the collapse of UNAMIR in Rwanda, and problems for UNPROFOR in the former Yugoslavia, and the UN mission to Haiti. He also signally did sweet FA about the Russians bombing the crud out of Chechnya. At the same time he fails totally to do anything about the rising tide of Islamic extremism, much of it (in the UK at least) fuelled by apparent indifference to muslim suffering in the aforementioned countries.*

 

* Muslim extremists don't seem to find this ironic. they hate the US for doing nothing in Chechnya and the Balkans, then when they do something in Iraq they hate the US even more.

Of course.

So, let me get this straight Kill. You are claiming the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan were pointless?

 

I never said I had a problem with invading Afghanistan, just Iraq. The invasion of Afghanistan was justifiable, Iraq wasn't.

Edited December 31, 200817 yr by Killian Kalthorne

So, let me get this straight Kill. You are claiming the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan were pointless?

 

I never said I had a problem with invading Afghanistan, just Iraq. The invasion of Afghanistan was justifiable, Iraq wasn't.

 

 

If I recall, you wanted to go in, shoot a bunch of people and then leave. Or did I misapprehend you?

If I recall, you wanted to go in, shoot a bunch of people and then leave. Or did I misapprehend you?

 

What I wanted was the total and elimination of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, have the bulk of US forces leave and then have a joint UN effort to rebuild Afghanistan.

If I recall, you wanted to go in, shoot a bunch of people and then leave. Or did I misapprehend you?

 

What I wanted was the total and elimination of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, have the bulk of US forces leave and then have a joint UN effort to rebuild Afghanistan.

 

Well that's fine then. Because clearly the Talibs and Al Qaeda wear badges identifying them as such, and you know, the UN is so GOOD at dealing with complex long term commitments.

and you know, the UN is so GOOD at dealing with complex long term commitments.

 

The irony, being moved from a prison to a former prison colony.

Former? More like current. am i rite or am i rite?

Well that's fine then. Because clearly the Talibs and Al Qaeda wear badges identifying them as such, and you know, the UN is so GOOD at dealing with complex long term commitments.

 

The point is that we stay focus on one war at a time instead of trying to split our forces to fight two wars at the same time. Also the UN is the best the world has to deal with joint projects. The US cannot afford to do things alone no matter what the Neo-Cons thinks.

Former? More like current. am i rite or am i rite?

LOLZ!

"Also the UN is the best the world has to deal with joint projects."

 

LOLZ

 

 

"The US cannot afford to do things alone no matter what the Neo-Cons thinks."

 

Hilariously enough, neither Iraq or Afghanistan were solo projects.

"Also the UN is the best the world has to deal with joint projects."

 

LOLZ

 

 

"The US cannot afford to do things alone no matter what the Neo-Cons thinks."

 

Hilariously enough, neither Iraq or Afghanistan were solo projects.

 

They might as well be. The only other nation that did any significant work was Britain and they have pretty bugged out now. Everyone else that contributed only gave token support.

Huh?

 

So, now you want to insult Kanada?

 

K.

Edited January 3, 200917 yr by Volourn

Also the UN is the best the world has to deal with joint projects.

 

I can't think of one example where the UN has handled anything remotely successfully. Commitments are patchy, command structures bloated and sluggish, attention spans butterfly thin. And that's before you factor in the inherently creaky mechanisms of UN mandates.

 

So, help me out, here.

 

Back more on topic, in theory the UN should handle resettlement of such people. In fact it ought to be capable of interning such people, where no-one is willing to take them. It won't because it's fundamentally flawed as it stands.

 

 

N.B I'm basing my opinion of the UN on

1. The news

2. A friend of the family who works for the UN and has just won an OBE for his work

3. The books 'Shake Hands with the Devil', 'World's most Dangerous Places' and 'Emergency Sex'

Oh well, nothing is going to change anyway. The US will continue to poke its nose where it doesn't belong. The UN will still be largely ineffective. Most of the nations will stomp their feet in disgust at the US while at the same time asking the US for a hand out. Nothing ever changes.

Until the US is no longer in a position where it is a sole power, or able to give hand-outs, or is overwhelmingly superior militarily, etc.

Good news for anti Amerikans... according to Russian 'experts', Amerika will be 'no more' by the end of 2010...

 

The next logical question is who will the world's ire be turned towards next as the 'big bad bully'. R00fles!

Edited January 5, 200917 yr by Volourn