Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

MSgt · Mar 21, 2011

Boo Radley said:
Having a history is not equal to being right. Respect for rule of law should be one of our values.

Our value should be the rule of the correct law. There is nothing correct about a law that protects the soveriegnty of dictators who murder safely behind their borders. The "Rule of Law" is an excuse used too often by immmoral nations and people. Tell me, how many Rwandans or Sudanes respect us because we adhered to international law? When the Shia or the Kurd was being slaughtered in Iraq by Hussein, how many of them appreciated the high and mighty positions of people who follow the international law? I suppose if the UN simply stated no (as they did with Kosovo and pulled the "moral" support for Somalia) then they would have effectively told us the law? That dead Libyans owuld have died correctly in accordance to the law? I have no respect for laws that were made centuries ago to protect kings and kaisers against each other. It's a dictator's law meant to protect their own. And free nations, who represent everything there is about every level of prosperity and the future, are too concreted in this fantasy of soveriegnty that we are powerless to act on our good morality? It's like insisting that your surgeon operate with the tools fancied by doctors of the 18th century.

Boo Radley said:
You're wrong, it does matter. It matters a great deal.

regardless of the UN, no nation should go around invading countries without justiifcation. Real justification. You can act to stop heavy killing. You can act to stop a imminent threat. But you can act on maybes and what ifs. I've listed the differences, and they matter. It has nothing to do with me feeling better, especially since I don't at all feel better. These things are costly on a number of levels, and no one should feel better when they happen.

Get used to the 21st century. The "evil" of this world is going to force you to change your mind on a few things. We no longer war against our rival Western gentlemen. Real justification is anything that will prevent 9/11s. And this means forcing the very region that breeds these instruments of God to change. It means assisting the rebelling people, who chant for democracy, against our former Cold War fellows. Iraqis had no chance. And because of this, we were forever stuck with that damned UN mission, which meant forever giving the Bin Ladens their excuses. The rest of the MENA is finally voicing out and removing their oppressors on their own. We have an obligation to help. It's in our best interest to deal with democracies (or at least "freed" people) for our oil.

Boo Radley said:
We were wrong to support dictators, and we're wrong when we invade on a pretense and occupy a country. We're not the world police and we can't remake the world in our image without a real and serious cost. You're last sentence is a bit wrong. Again, it is one thing when a people stand up for themselves, and we help. It's another thing when we're so arrogant as to think we can impose ourselves on them, tellling them what is worth what. It is important to recognize differences.

It's important to recognize a lot of things here. We aren't imposing anything on anybody and "democracy" does not equal "America." You may not like it, but we can and we do lean on these governments all the time. Call it arrogance, but the fact is that we can do what others cannot. We should not belittle ourselves just to appease weaker nations who feel shunned by our fast paced power. Just because you don't see Marines charging into foriegn cities on television doesn't mean Washington isn't busy at work pressuring them constantly. We haven't invaded Iran, yet we have the entire world pissing all over Iran. We haven't invaded North Korea, yet we have the entire world ****ting on North Korea. When it came to Iraq, we spent 12 years appeasing the world's need to keep Iraq stable at all cost. We merely handled a problem denied us in 1991 by the same fools who planned 2003 and the same critics who would rather us be chained to the UN's will.

And "World Police" is such a cliche. A complete World Police? No. But at some level we are the World Police and we have done a damned fine job at it as well. Far better than European colonial powers and far better than the Soviet Union. What the hell do you think the Cold War was about? Why do you think we have Marine Expiditionary Units Special Operations Capable (MEUSOC) strategically located all over the world at any given time? It's to protect American interests (embassies, trade routes, allies from bad governments, etc.) whether the average American understands that interest or not. But despite popular bumper sticker protests, we have never injected our military haphazardly around the world and forced anybody to behave in any way other than what they already produced within their own culture. And when it comes to occupation, we have never occupied with the object of conquering and we have never sought to add another star to our flag. We are done with Iraq. We disposed of our thorn and settled in a suitable replacement type of government we can sleep over. We will be done with Afghanistan as soon as they can deliver on securing their future without Taliban oppression and radicalism. Unlike the Soviet Union who sought to Russianize the world, we have no interest in Americanizing anybody. If people associate modernism with Westernism it's because modernism happened in the West first. It has never been about Americanizing or Westernizing anybody in the MENA region. It's about finally allowing them to have modernist opportunity by assisting them at removing our Cold War legacies.

It's always been about our long term security. The dictator was always about our short term security at a time when we were able to get away with it. The future is past here.

And as far as imposing democracy upon people, we aren't imposing anything of the kind. They were wanting democracy at the beginning of European colonialism. They were denied. They wanted democracy after World War II and during the "Age of Independence." They were denied. And they are screaming for it now. Along the way, the radical base has gathered more and more sheep to the desperate crusade of seeking vengeance for God until most of them are completely hopeless. What exactly are we imposing? By not dealing with our Cold War remedies for tribal conflicts throughout the region, we are continuing to hamper what they already want. Iraq was a must since we effectively killed the people's chances for 12 years. The rest of the Middle East merely needed a Tunisia (Arch Duke Ferdinand) to spark it off. For something we are supposedly imposing, the entire Middle East seems more than eager to adopt what we got and have been trying to sell since 2003.

Boo Radley · Mar 21, 2011

MSgt said:
Our value should be the rule of the correct law. There is nothing correct about a law that protects the soveriegnty of dictators who murder safely behind their borders. The "Rule of Law" is an excuse used too often by immmoral nations and people. Tell me, how many Rwandans or Sudanes respect us because we adhered to international law? When the Shia or the Kurd was being slaughtered in Iraq by Hussein, how many of them appreciated the high and mighty positions of people who follow the international law? I suppose if the UN simply stated no (as they did with Kosovo and pulled the "moral" support for Somalia) then they would have effectively told us the law? That dead Libyans owuld have died correctly in accordance to the law? I have no respect for laws that were made centuries ago to protect kings and kaisers against each other. It's a dictator's law meant to protect their own. And free nations, who represent everything there is about every level of prosperity and the future, are too concreted in this fantasy of soveriegnty that we are powerless to act on our good morality? It's like insisting that your surgeon operate with the tools fancied by doctors of the 18th century.

Click to expand...

There's a difference, yes another one, between protecting and not invading. If nations ran around invading evey country they believed was not behaving as they thought they should, we'd have a lot of war. And that might well be worse.

Get used to the 21st century. The "evil" of this world is going to force you to change your mind on a few things. We no longer war against our rival Western gentlemen. Real justification is anything that will prevent 9/11s. And this means forcing the very region that breeds these instruments of God to change. It means assisting the rebelling people, who chant for democracy, against our former Cold War fellows. Iraqis had no chance. And because of this, we were forever stuck with that damned UN mission, which meant forever giving the Bin Ladens their excuses. The rest of the MENA is finally voicing out and removing their oppressors on their own. We have an obligation to help. It's in our best interest to deal with democracies (or at least "freed" people) for our oil.

Click to expand...

It might if core values are only things we have when it is convient to have them. Reckless war is not likely to prevent another 9/11. it is more likely to cause another one than anything else. Remember, 9/11 wasn't committed by any country. No wmds were used. No nation sanctioned it. Instead, a group of individuals took advantage of a lax in security. If another group sees another lax, there will be another one. Things like iraq won't change that. Nor will Afghanistan or Libya. There may be reasons for accassional use of force, but it won't prevent another 9/11.

It's important to recognize a lot of things here. . . .

Click to expand...

No, it is not about security. It never was. Our aggressive actions have not helped with security. There is nothing about invading any country that will do anything to prevent small groups of individuals frmo forming and acting when they see an opening. Bush and his adminsitration ahd is all wrong, and some still do.

And no, Iraq was not a must in any sense of the word. Would could have and did stop support. But freedom is best born from withon and not imposed from without, no matter how they got where they are.

MaggieD · Mar 21, 2011

Mayor Snorkum said:
Where were you standing when GW Bush decided that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed from power by US military action?

Where are you standing now, when Obama has decided to intervene in Libya?

Are your positions consistent or blindly partisan?

Mayor Snorkum opposed both because in neither case was a definable US interest served.

Mayor Snorkum is also a US military veteran.

Mayor Snorkum is neither Republican nor Democrat, but a Libertarian.

Are you related to The Drake?

Fiddytree · Mar 21, 2011

No "unsure" positions?

Objective Voice · Mar 21, 2011

This one's easy.

I opposed the Iraq war because we went into it under false pretenses. Besides, how long had Saddem been murdering his own people? Clearly, his brutality didn't happen over night; it had been going on for years. But did we interven for humanitarian reasons? No. Ours was for "national security"...or so they say.

As for Libya, I felt the U.S. needed to stay out of what amounts to a civil war unless two things happened:

1) the Libyan people (civilians or the leader(s) of the rebellion) asked for help from the world-at-large, or;

2) they were able to establish a coalition of U.N. member states to provide humanitarian aid and/or provide a protect shield (no-fly zone) over Libya to protect civilians and give the rebel forces a chance at a fair fight.

Both happened. Moreover, members of the Arab League supported the U.N. resolution for a no-fly zone. Of course, there are some who disagree, but it's these same folks who say it's an American's constitutional right to bear arms in defense against a brutal and tyrannical government. Well, isn't that the case w/Libya? Egypt? Iran? Saudia Arabia?

Sidenote: Questions are now arising that the U.N. coalition forces have gone too far in implementing the no-fly zone over Libya by "targetting" Ghadeffi's "presidential palace" and bombing land forces and/or surface combat vehicles (i.e., tanks, surface-to-air missle silos), etc. On the one-hand, I would agree. I haven't read the U.N. resolution on the matter, but as I understand it the no-fly zone was suppose to only target aircraft, airstripes/airfields, surface-to-air radar and fixed or mobile surface-to-air missle launchers. Everything else was suppose to be off the table. So, if the U.S. is targetting sites such as manufacturing plants and the like, IMO, we've overstepped the U.N. mandate (if it doesn't call for destroying such facilities). But on the other hand, how long as this maniac been torturing his people? (It's the same argument used to partially justify invading Iraq.) Bottom line is this: I would have been okay with liberating the Iraqi people if that were the primary reason we went there AND we were able to establish a U.N. coalition to do so. That's not exactly what happened. It's for that reason I disapproved of invading Iraq, but can agree with establishing a no-fly zone over Libya. Both countries had similar problems, but in the case of Iraq the justification for going to war was false. That in itself made being their wrong.

ThePlayDrive · Mar 21, 2011

MSgt said:
We did stay out of it. Right up to 9/11. Shall we go through another round of staying out of it until the next historical date of infamy?

Of course, there is a more truthful way to look at it. When we were supporting dictators and twisted regimes during the Cold War and helping to facilitate the blundering failure that is the MENA region, we were hardly staying out of it. When we rushed to protect Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, we were hardly staying out of it. When we aided the UN in starving out Iraq fr 12 years we were hardly staying out of it. And everytime we place sanctions upon another country for their insolence we are hardly staying out of it. And soveriegnty? The law that allows anybody to murder as many people as possible within their own borders without reprise from greater nations? How do UN sanctions and "no-fly" zones honor anybody's soveriegnty? How does influencing the allegiance of character nations honor his soveriegnty?

When considering foreign policy grand strategy I usually ask two questions:
1. Does it advance our interests?
2. Are those foreign interests worth more than domestic interests?

For Iraq and Libya my answer to 1 is "yes" to both and to 2 is "no" for both.

Iraq - it advances our interests because it enables us to influence the new government and build democracy. Since influence and democracy usually help us, this is a good thing. However, because we went in on false pretenses and because it distracted us from our primary goal (getting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan), it hurt our interests, foreign and domestic.
Libya - it advances our interests for the same reasons as Iraq - we get influence and maybe liberal democracy. However, when our economy is ****ed and we have many domestic issues (including education) to fix, I don't see the rationale for going in.

I'm of the mindset that you shouldn't spread yourself all over the world if you haven't taken care of your own citizens already. The United States is risking military and economic overstretch. I also refuse to let people tell me that this is all about protecting Libyans from being systemically murdered. They are rising up and taking control of their government and if they do want help, other countries that free ride all over our military have the ability to give it. I do not believe that U.S. should have the responsibility to be the world's police, particularly when it's own home is messed up.

Our education system always needs attention. The military is the scapegoat of the ignorant, because your politicians would rather you believe the absurd rather than looking into where they squander money into their own pet projects and corporate pay offs. You really think our education system would be better had we not taken out the taliban and Saddam Hussein? You think money spent on rockets over Libya is why your kid's text book is crap? Our education system suffers because we have a country full of bad teachers and equally bad parents. In the mean time, the ignorant blame the military campaigns in the wake of exacting their petty 9/11 revenge.

You just made so many assumptions about me in this part based on one sentence. No need to be so aggressive right at the start dude.

I'm not scapegoating the military. I believe in a more conservative foreign policy - offshore balancing or selective engagement to be exact; our foreign policy is bordering on primacy.
I also believe that military should primarily be used to protect immediate threats to our security (i.e. I supported going into Afghanistan after al-Qaeda), not to advance interests that may help us if executed property (i.e. toppling dictators and spreading democracy).
I think we should focus our attention on fixing domestic problems including, but not limited to, education.

rocket88 · Mar 21, 2011

I answered that I opposed both. But to qualify, my position on Iraq has softened. I see that removal of Saddam Hussein was going to need to happen eventually, but I still question the timing of the invasion considering our involvement in Afghanistan. I also question the justifications given, and I still question why anybody thought a democracy was going to flower overnight.

I don't favor involvement in Libya. Getting involved in someone else's civil war just seems like a bad idea. Look how well it worked in Somalia!

upsideguy · Mar 22, 2011

Mayor Snorkum said:
Afghanistan isn't relevant to the thread. Afghanistan attacked us first.

One is consistent by stating what US interest is served by the actions you support, and what US interests are served by the actions you wish were not done.

The US interest served in staying out of Iraq were thousands of not dead US servicemen, a trillion dollars saved. Which is exactly what Mayor Snorkum said in 2002.

The US interst served in staying out of Libya are that there's no interest served by going in. So we could save money and not put US servicemen at risk there when our troops are already overstretched in two other ongoing conflicts.

... I missed that attac k on the US by Afghanistan. Anyone else have a memory of it? I thought we attacked Afghanistan when the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden.

I supported our going into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden, but I did not support us staying there. We should have been out of there in a couple of weeks.

I was strongly against Iraq. It was obvious to me at the time that Iraq was a classic "never let a good crisis (9/11) go to waste" and we asserted Iraq as the enemy because it was convenient (Iraq and 9/11 were constantly used in the same sentances). The whole WMD thing was a ruse. I would have felt differently about Iraq had there been a real international outrage and coalition, but there wasn't. GWB and his cronies just wanted to do Iraq. One of the stupidest things ever done by America.

I am generally against intervention in Libya. Its there civil war, not ours. We just can't afford to do these types of things politically, morally or economically. I do take some comfort in the fact that this is more of an internationaly coalition and we are not taking the lead. For this reason, I was also ok with Gulf War I.

Mayor Snorkum · Mar 22, 2011

MSgt said:
Well, the Mayor is a simple fellow who seems to refuse to acknowledge this wider effort. The US doesn't start wars against dictatirs as a matter of policy. What the US does do since 9/11 is promote democracy and social change throughout a very specific region which happens to be full of dictators. Perhaps the Mayor should point this out instead of jumping and dismissing the effort for the sake of arguing what isn't even the issue. Bringing up China or Cuba or any other country, far removed from the theme of our current and future troubles, is pointless unless the point is to avoid the issue entirely.

Right.

So the US stands on the sidelines while Tunisia trembles, Egypt erupts, and when Bahrain burps, but when Gadhaffy grumbles, well, we just GOTTA promote democracy.

Have you people figured out that the US Constitution is not an export?

Mayor Snorkum · Mar 22, 2011

earthworm said:
The actual troop deployment has not happened and may never. So there is no true intervention...such as there was in Iraq.

Bombs are falling, people are dying, just because it's Obama doesn't mean it's not an intervention.

IMO.I am strongly anti-libertarian, another word for them is isolationists, a national problem before both international wars..

You mean both world wars. Since, however, the United States had no reason to get involved in the First World War, we should have stayed out. Wilson's eagerness to get Americans killed so he could play "Look at me" was not sufficient cause....and no, neither the sinking of the Lusitania or the Zimmerman Letter was justification, either. MOST IMPORTANTLY, the results of the US involvement in that nonsense in Europe was that the French didn't learn their lesson, the Germans didn't learn their lesson, and the British didn't learn their lesson, either. In consequence, there was a SECOND War, worse than the first one, caused by the unequal and unjust demands of the victors, notably the French and British, at Versailles, demands they would not have felt able to make if the United States wasn't standing behind them.

That's why isolationism is usually the correct thing to do. Let the children fight their battles, it's how the pecking order is determined and once that is established the strife on the schoolyard declines.

Again, no US interest is being served by it's very real intervention in Libya.

In a way, President Bush did the right thing in invading Iraq.

Yes. We learned definitively that Iraq had no WMD's. That was worth four thousand dead Americans, right?

Mayor Snorkum is also a US military veteran. so am I, and this means ???

That one of us is unwilling to put his former shipmates in harm's way just because no interests will be served but the President has to look like a leader between tee-times.

Mayor Snorkum · Mar 22, 2011

upsideguy said:
... I missed that attac k on the US by Afghanistan. Anyone else have a memory of it?

No American has forgotten September 11th, 2001.

Mayor Snorkum · Mar 22, 2011

MaggieD said:
Are you related to The Drake?

Mayor Snorkum has nothing to do with ducks unless they're from the Chinese restaurant.

spud_meister · Mar 22, 2011

Mayor Snorkum said:
No American has forgotten September 11th, 2001.

That was by Al Qaeda, not the Taliban.

Catawba · Mar 22, 2011

Mayor Snorkum said:
Where were you standing when GW Bush decided that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed from power by US military action?

Where are you standing now, when Obama has decided to intervene in Libya?

Are your positions consistent or blindly partisan?

Mayor Snorkum opposed both because in neither case was a definable US interest served.

Mayor Snorkum is also a US military veteran.

Mayor Snorkum is neither Republican nor Democrat, but a Libertarian.

Got a love a poll that provides insufficient choices and no "other" vote.

In 2002, I was opposed to our optional war there just as I am opposed to our support of the NATO operation. I do agree with you that we should put it to Congress to decide whether we continue our support of the NATO operation.

Mayor Snorkum · Mar 22, 2011

spud_meister said:
That was by Al Qaeda, not the Taliban.

It's simply amazing that ten years after the fact that the Make-Excuses Left is still making excuses. In August, 2001, the Taliban appointed Osama bin Laden as the Commander in Chief of their "armed forces", an event duly protested by the Russians and reported in the media.

That makes the military decision by Osama bin Laden to attack the United States the decision of Afghanistan to attack the United States.

Welcome to what history really is.

Facts.

Mayor Snorkum · Mar 22, 2011

MSgt said:
Our value should be the rule of the correct law. There is nothing correct about a law that protects the soveriegnty of dictators who murder safely behind their borders.

If the law is incorrect, the correct process is to alter the law, not break it.

If all laws may be broken becuase the established powers determine they are incorrect, explain how those powers differ from dictators.

Oh, there is no difference, dictators are merely people who've gained the power to break law and re-write law at whim.

Just in case you're not sure about that, the United Nations has not role in the definition of US law.

Get used to the 21st century.

You mean where the lawlessness of the Twentieth is eclipsed by the new lawlessness pretending to be "correct" lawlessness, but equally deadly?

The "evil" of this world is going to force you to change your mind on a few things.

FTIW.

We no longer war against our rival Western gentlemen.

This decade. Given the history of war, things can change that quickly.

Real justification is anything that will prevent 9/11s.

Click to expand...

Oh, you mean like the kiddy-porn scanners at airports, the strip searches, the warrantless wire-tapping, the intrusive bank account checking, the travel restrictions....while the US southern border is completely unrestricted?

And this means forcing the very region that breeds these instruments of God to change.

Click to expand...

Yes, history has shown, again and again how effective force is in the termination of religious ideology. Screw Godwin's law, you've just posted absurdity. The German's tried to eradite an undesirable religious belief with force. The Soviets tried to erase religion in their borders to no avail. The Chinese success with suppressing their Falun Gong people is notable for its failure. What force does in suppression attempts is to establish the mentality of the seige and the rabid beliefs become entrenched.

REAGAN reduced the Soviet Union to it's knees by patience and abstention from force.

It means assisting the rebelling people, who chant for democracy, against our former Cold War fellows.

Click to expand...

No. It means choosing sides, when our interests in the region don't even exist. You want people to stop hating the United States in the Middle East? Demand we drill our oil, demand we STAY OUT of their local affairs.

Iraqis had no chance.

Click to expand...

Nor do the Tibetans.

The Cubans aren't fairing well.

The Yemenis aren't too happy.

Our good work in Somalia didn't go unpunished.

Our work in Afghanistan repelling the imperialist soviets was well rewarded on September 11, 2001.

Certainly with that kind of track record for the gratitude of those we've helped we should jump into every single conflict which today's "incorrect" laws are holding us back, just for more adulation like we got on 9/11.

And because of this, we were forever stuck with that damned UN mission, which meant forever giving the Bin Ladens their excuses. The rest of the MENA is finally voicing out and removing their oppressors on their own. We have an obligation to help. It's in our best interest to deal with democracies (or at least "freed" people) for our oil.

Click to expand...

"Our" oil?

It ain't "ours" until it's paid for. Meanwhile oil that it truly ours is left in the ground and under the sea. TWENTY YEARS AGO the lunatic mainstream left was chanting "no blood for oil" and standing in the way all this time against the US developing it's own oil reserves, thereby guaranteeing that more blood will be spilled for oil.

It's important to recognize a lot of things here. We aren't imposing anything on anybody

Click to expand...

Imposing a "no fly" zone qualifies as "something".

and "democracy" does not equal "America."

Click to expand...

The United States is a republic, which has laws that cannot lawfully be disregarded by a sanctimonious golfer.

You may not like it, but we can and we do lean on these governments all the time.

Click to expand...

Yes, Teddy Roosevelt's Big Stick policy could only be something thought up by a man visiting the Panama Canal in the basement in between trumpet blaring charges up the stairs.

The original American ideal was to trade with all, fight with none. Unless forced.

Call it arrogance, but the fact is that we can do what others cannot.

Click to expand...

The more important fact is that we lack the wisdom to refrain from doing. We have the Hammer, every problem a nail, and we never ever get tired of swinging that hammer, even though we never learn that our thumbs are in the way.

We should not belittle ourselves just to appease weaker nations who feel shunned by our fast paced power.

Click to expand...

Drinking beer on the bleachers of the regional Little League Championship is a fine way of spending a summer. Sure beats getting Americans killed.

Just because you don't see Marines charging into foriegn cities on television doesn't mean Washington isn't busy at work pressuring them constantly. We haven't invaded Iran, yet we have the entire world pissing all over Iran.

Click to expand...

Yes, we haven't invaded Iran, even though Iran is a very short time away from detonating it's first nuclear weapons. No, there's no US intersests there, but a petty squabble in Libya? Gotta jump in with both feet.

Read 1984 and begin to understand the purpose of the Perpetual War. Its never about the stated cause.

We haven't invaded North Korea, yet we have the entire world ****ting on North Korea.

Click to expand...

The word you didn't say was "china".

When it came to Iraq, we spent 12 years appeasing the world's need to keep Iraq stable at all cost. We merely handled a problem denied us in 1991 by the same fools who planned 2003 and the same critics who would rather us be chained to the UN's will.

Click to expand...

You're wandering. Iraq I ended the way it did because a foolish president made a foolish speech about a 100 Hour War. The abrupt cessation was later pretended to be the result of some obscure desire to obey a UN mandate. When we unwisely invaded Iraq in 2003 Schwarzkopf said it succinctly: We broke it, its ours until it's fixed.

And "World Police" is such a cliche.

Click to expand...

And yet, and yet, you're demanding we be the cops.

The French jumped in with eagerness. Naturally they're doing it in hopes of grabbing oil, but they're French. We should let them get in and drown, not joined them when we're too exhausted to swim.

What the hell do you think the Cold War was about?

Defending the United States. Europe was a welfare recipient benefitting from the fallout of our own self-interests, and most of Europe was reluctant even then.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Mayor Snorkum · Mar 22, 2011

Catawba said:
Got a love a poll that provides insufficient choices and no "other" vote.

In 2002, I was opposed to our optional war there just as I am opposed to our support of the NATO operation. I do agree with you that we should put it to Congress to decide whether we continue our support of the NATO operation.

People can figure out how to vote "other".

It's like voting for "none of the above".

You use your feet.

Mayor Snorkum wasn't interested in the milquetoasts who wait in vain for someone to tell them what position to take and who won't take a position unless told. If there is some person out there who came up with "maybe", maybe they should spend their time on another thread. There's no law saying a person HAS to post here.

Freedom takes "I won't".

spud_meister · Mar 22, 2011

Mayor Snorkum said:
It's simply amazing that ten years after the fact that the Make-Excuses Left is still making excuses. In August, 2001, the Taliban appointed Osama bin Laden as the Commander in Chief of their "armed forces", an event duly protested by the Russians and reported in the media.

What am I makin excuses about again? And could you prove that the Taliban appointed Osama bin Laden as the Commander in Chief of their "armed forces"? I can't find anything about it.

Mayor Snorkum · Mar 22, 2011

spud_meister said:
What am I makin excuses about again? And could you prove that the Taliban appointed Osama bin Laden as the Commander in Chief of their "armed forces"? I can't find anything about it.

No, Mayor Snorkum is not going to search the internet for news clippings from a decade ago just because you refused to see them last decade and now find it convenient to avoid seeing the whole tapestry of history because that tapestry contradicts the childlike faith you have in your ideology.

Mayor Snorkum presented you with sufficient clues that you can find it yourself if you're interested.

FTIW.

StillBallin75 · Mar 22, 2011

spud_meister said:
What am I makin excuses about again? And could you prove that the Taliban appointed Osama bin Laden as the Commander in Chief of their "armed forces"? I can't find anything about it.

Turns out Mayor Snorkum is correct:

Osama bin Laden Appointed Commander-in-Chief of Taliban Armed Forces

spud_meister · Mar 22, 2011

Mayor Snorkum said:
No, Mayor Snorkum is not going to search the internet for news clippings from a decade ago just because you refused to see them last decade and now find it convenient to avoid seeing the whole tapestry of history because that tapestry contradicts the childlike faith you have in your ideology.

Mayor Snorkum presented you with sufficient clues that you can find it yourself if you're interested.

FTIW.

What ideology do I have childlike faith in again? And I spent 15 minutes searching, and couldn't find anything about it, so if you can't provide proof of your statement, I'll have to presume you're making it up, as this is the first I've heard of it.

spud_meister · Mar 22, 2011

StillBallin75 said:
Turns out Mayor Snorkum is correct:

Osama bin Laden Appointed Commander-in-Chief of Taliban Armed Forces

Ah, thank you.

peepnklown · Mar 22, 2011

It’s all about non-interventionalism.
War is used to distract the people from the problems at home.

cpgrad08 · Mar 22, 2011

peepnklown said:
It’s all about non-interventionalism.
War is used to distract the people from the problems at home.

If that were the case then they are failing at it. The American People are also focus on the problems at home.

Boo Radley · Mar 22, 2011

Mayor Snorkum said:
Right.

So the US stands on the sidelines while Tunisia trembles, Egypt erupts, and when Bahrain burps, but when Gadhaffy grumbles, well, we just GOTTA promote democracy.

Have you people figured out that the US Constitution is not an export?

Freedom Package Infomercial

Jon Stewart Exposes Obama Hypocrisy; Freedom Package Infomercial (Video) | SlapBlog.com — Snarky Conservative News "Unfair, Unbalanced and Totally Uncalled For" Slap Blog

Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

What Best Describes Your Positions?

I supported the invasion of Iraq and I support the Libyan Intervention

I opposed the Invasion of Iraq, I support the Libyan Intervention

I supported the Invasion of Iraq, I oppose the Libyan Intervention

I opposed both.

Read Some Books

Neocon Elitist

Mod Conspiracy Theorist

Pragmatic Idealist

Veni, vidi, dormivi!

Disappointed Evolutionist

Veni, vidi, dormivi!

Salty Specialist

Veni, vidi, dormivi!

Veni, vidi, dormivi!

Frankernaut

American

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency