Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • amherstblackbear
    replied
    Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

    Generic focus group on the use of drone strikes against U.S. citizens associated with terrorist groups:
    Democrats: This is horrifying. We have met the terrorists, and they are us.*
    Republicans: Kill 'em! Kill 'em all! Kill 'em with fire!

    Focus group on Obama's policy of killing U.S. citizens abroad with terrorist association:
    Deomocrats: You go, BO!
    Republicans: Won't anyone consider the constitution?

    *With the exception of one talented Mother Jones commenter, who went with:
    Don't drone me, bro!
    Excellent.

    Leave a comment:


  • WeWantMore
    replied
    Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

    When the US Government Can Kill You

    Leave a comment:


  • dxmnkd316
    replied
    Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
    Don't worry. Not even God can hit a 1-iron.
    *runs*

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

    Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
    *takes a few steps back before Kepler is fried*
    Don't worry. Not even God can hit a 1-iron.

    Leave a comment:


  • dxmnkd316
    replied
    Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
    When I found Jebus; duh!
    *takes a few steps back before Kepler is fried*

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

    Originally posted by Hopkinja View Post
    No, a black Jesus.
    No kidding. Everyone knows Jesus was a nice Caucasian gentleman with blond hair and blue eyes, and probably spoke with a Southern twang. I mean, just because he was born in the Middle East...

    Leave a comment:


  • Hopkinja
    replied
    Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
    I know. A white iPod?
    No, a black Jesus.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

    Originally posted by joecct View Post
    That comes awfully close to sacrilege. Probably it is.
    I know. A white iPod?

    Leave a comment:


  • joecct
    replied
    That comes awfully close to sacrilege. Probably it is.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

    Originally posted by joecct View Post
    You're a follower of 43's brother? AMEN!
    *****http://media.adamdodson.org/var/albums/Religion/jebus%20ipod.jpg?m=1276762681******

    Leave a comment:


  • joecct
    replied
    Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
    When I found Jebus; duh!
    You're a follower of 43's brother? AMEN!

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

    Originally posted by Priceless View Post
    When did you stop using meth?
    When I found Jebus; duh!

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
    Wrong question. The real question has to carry all the consequences of war.

    This is the same drive to war (by the same people) that gave us Iraq. They made the case: which is better, Iraq with Saddam or Iraq without Saddam? You don't really think it's in the United States' national interest for Saddam to stay in power, do you?

    The real choice was: which is better, Iraq crippled by sanctions vs a US war of choice followed by an occupation, a generation of free recruiting for AQ, the undying enmity of half the Muslim world, 4k US casualties, somewhere between 100k and 500k Iraqi civilian casualties, the removal of the only regional counterweight to Iran, and a $2T price tag.

    It is possible that we have a national interest in hemming in the Iranians, especially when it comes to their support of client terrorist groups. But let's be smart about it for once, and not reduce everything to, well, a New York Post editorial.
    When did you stop using meth?

    Leave a comment:


  • FreshFish
    replied
    Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

    Originally posted by Hopkinja View Post
    Do they have gray on your planet?
    yes, that's the color of nuclear fallout, isn't it?

    Leave a comment:


  • FreshFish
    replied
    Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
    It is possible that we have a national interest in hemming in the Iranians, especially when it comes to their support of client terrorist groups. But let's be smart about it for once, and not reduce everything to, well, a New York Post editorial.
    Mr. Taheri is an esteemed international syndicated journalist whose work regularly appears in many publications around the world. He does not write "editorials" for the NYPost.

    Also, either you have a short memory or [redacted]. It seems to me that we very clearly have a strong vested interest in making sure that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons; the concept of mutually-assured destruction does nothing to deter martyrdom!! Do you really have any doubts that Iranian fanatics would love to unleash nuclear weapons against the US, probably smuggled by sleeper cells already many years in place?? if so, I have a bridge for sale, please buy it!

    By threatening destruction by conventional weapons, we may well convince the Revolutionary Guard (whose leaders are living a very comfortable secular lifestyle!) to split off from the fanatics; thereby obviating the actual use of any weaponry at all. However, the threat must be severe and serious enough to convince them that we really do mean it.

    It is a "catch-22" situation in reverse.


    Regarding Iraq, it seems to me that if Saddam did not try to bluff and pretend he still had WMDs, and instead let weapons inspectors into the country to verify same, the US "pretext" to go to war would have been taken away. I blame Jacques Chirac more than anyone else for the coalition's invasion; documents seized from the Iraqi oil ministry clearly showed that high-level officials in the French government were on Saddam's payroll. Had Chirac not blocked UN action (which Russia and China were willing to allow!!) in order to try to kept these bribes hidden, then a UN force would have gone into Iraq, not a US-led coalition. People forget that there were multiple UN resolutions which Saddam defied, and that a majority of Democrats in both houses of Congress initially voted in favor of the US-led coalition. It is only in revisionist history that people forgot all of these contemporary events. The US approached the UN twice, and Chirac used the French veto, not Russia nor China, to prevent UN action. I'm not defending the US action nor am I demonizing it. I am merely regretting that Chirac vetoed the use of the UN to verify that Saddam did not have WMDs, which they would have done, and we'd have all been spared the negative consequences which you listed.
    Last edited by FreshFish; 02-22-2012, 12:59 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X