Wrong we are not fighting a war, if this were really a war it would be over and there would be a giant freaking sheets called the middle east.
We have to play these games because all of the sudden we have popularity contests for elections instead of leaders in our country.
It is lack of assertiveness and lack of war that is bankrupting us.[/quote]
WOOO we gotta just blow up all a them bloodthirsty murderous sandniggers! Even the little kids, yeah, cause they’re all evil and want to kill people who aren’t like them!
America! fuck yeah![/quote]
Ah, classic misrepresentation of conservative views by a slackjawed elitist liberal college kid who wouldn’t know a fact if it drove a truck up his ass.[/quote]
Please explain what “if this were really a war it would be over and there would be a giant freaking sheets called the middle east” means other than “We should just bomb everybody over there” furthermore…
oh, wait, its you…
I’ve been burning a lot of incense in my room lately. Its quite nice.
He meant that we wouldn’t have mishandled our strategy for 9 years in the name of saving face internationally.
Of course, you don’t ever know what the fuck you’re talking about so it really just serves you better to falsely characterize anyone who disagrees with you as racist warmongers instead of addressing realities.
Do you mix any mind control HFCS with you incense?
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
He meant that we wouldn’t have mishandled our strategy for 9 years in the name of saving face internationally.
Of course, you don’t ever know what the fuck you’re talking about so it really just serves you better to falsely characterize anyone who disagrees with you as racist warmongers instead of addressing realities.
Do you mix any mind control HFCS with you incense?[/quote]
OWW ow stop it the faks are hurting my brian. fax bad.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
He meant that we wouldn’t have mishandled our strategy for 9 years in the name of saving face internationally.
Of course, you don’t ever know what the fuck you’re talking about so it really just serves you better to falsely characterize anyone who disagrees with you as racist warmongers instead of addressing realities.
Do you mix any mind control HFCS with you incense?[/quote]
OWW ow stop it the faks are hurting my brian. fax bad. [/quote]
This is probably the truest post you’ve ever made.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
He meant that we wouldn’t have mishandled our strategy for 9 years in the name of saving face internationally.
Of course, you don’t ever know what the fuck you’re talking about so it really just serves you better to falsely characterize anyone who disagrees with you as racist warmongers instead of addressing realities.
Do you mix any mind control HFCS with you incense?[/quote]
OWW ow stop it the faks are hurting my brian. fax bad. [/quote]
This is probably the truest post you’ve ever made.[/quote]
But lets get back to the mass slaughter of innocents: the middle east being “a giant freaking sheet” would probably mean nobody living ther anymore, right?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
But lets get back to the mass slaughter of innocents: the middle east being “a giant freaking sheet” would probably mean nobody living ther anymore, right?[/quote]
It could.
Or it could mean the annihilation of all forces that would do harm to Americans on American soil. That means victory, rather than the worsening scenario we face now due to the lack of definitive leadership at the top of our military’s ranks.
Of course, it serves your purpose to interpret it as nobody living there anymore so I’m guessing that is the only interpretation you will accept.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
But lets get back to the mass slaughter of innocents: the middle east being “a giant freaking sheet” would probably mean nobody living ther anymore, right?[/quote]
It could.
Or it could mean the annihilation of all forces that would do harm to Americans on American soil. That means victory, rather than the worsening scenario we face now due to the lack of definitive leadership at the top of our military’s ranks.
Of course, it serves your purpose to interpret it as nobody living there anymore so I’m guessing that is the only interpretation you will accept.[/quote]
LOL
Really now, guy, make the connection between “A GIANT FREAKING SHEET” and “Annihilation of all forces that would do harm to americans on american soil”
There is zero way to make that connection, unless you want to suggest that everyone in the middle east fits into the latter.
[quote]Otep wrote:
Why does no one on this board like college education?
Its like the main mode of attack to say someone is a college grad, or a recent college grad.[/quote]
It’s not the fact that someone has a college education. It’s the fact that college kids are fed bs or buy into bs and then will defend that bs with their “college educated” lives without ever having looked at the alternatives or doing a little bit of research. I’m only 3 years out of college, a college as liberal as it gets, where I would get yelled at by professors for voicing my views, even if I could support those views. As long as you buy into the liberal party line, you’re golden. That is why people attack college kids…and I totally agree with those attacks.
The war in Afghanistan was devised and directed by the United States. It was led by a coalition of countries, mainly NATO members (including Canada), who on 4 October 2001 invoked Article 5 of the North Atlantic (Washington) Treaty. Under this provision, an armed attack against any NATO country is considered an attack against them all.
There is no UN Security Council resolution authorizing the United States, whether alone or in coalition with other countries, to attack Afghanistan. Between 11 September and 7 October 2001, when the bombardment of Afghanistan began, the UN Security Council adopted only two resolutions concerning the 9�¢??11 attacks. Resolution 1368 of September 12 �¢??unequivocally condemns in the strongest terms the horrifying terrorist attacks�¢?�¦ and regards such acts, like any act of international terrorism, as a threat to international peace and security.�¢?? The preamble to this resolution recognizes �¢??the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter.�¢?? Though, as we have seen, the terms of the Charter do not apply to the Afghan war, this language in the preamble of the resolution allowed the United States to claim legitimacy for its actions. Then, on 28 September 2001, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1373, which sets forth certain antiterrorism measures that all states must apply. Neither Resolution 1368 nor Resolution 1373 even mentions the word �¢??Afghanistan.�¢??
[/quote]
Way to pick out the editorial written by someone from… wait for it… Canada. Oh Canada…
Here is one written by the House of Commons in England. Written by actual Lawyers.
From your link:
The military campaign in Afghanistan was not specifically mandated by the UN â?? there was no specific Security Council Resolution authorising the invasion â?? but was widely (although not universally) perceived to be a legitimate form of self-defence under the UN Charter.
where : widely perceived to be a legitimate form of self-defence under the UN Charter; means that this is the interpretation of the US and UK government since they are the only two government quote in the document. I guess the US and UK being the two main invaders is giving them a lot of credibility on this matter.
