US Deserter reports for duty

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I'm about to leave, so I really don't have time to point-by-point this argument at the moment, but I have this reply to you, Mike.

 

As did Iraq, hate to tell you. And the ties are no more clear than the Iraqi ties.

 

BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT

 

The ties between al Qaida and Sudan are MUCH MUCH MUCH deeper than Iraq. SUDAN HARBORED OSAMA BIN LADEN FOR SIX YEARS. WILLINGLY. SUPPLIED HIM WITH TERRORIST TRAINING CAMPS. GAVE HIM SUPPLIES. OUTWARDLY AND PUBLICLY GAVE HIM SUPPORT.

 

They NEVER offered up bin Laden, contrary to popular opinion.

 

Mike, we almost invaded Sudan in the mid 90's because of it. We're WELL aware of their active ties to al Qaida.

[Guest MikeSC]

I'm about to leave, so I really don't have time to point-by-point this argument at the moment, but I have this reply to you, Mike.

 

As did Iraq, hate to tell you. And the ties are no more clear than the Iraqi ties.

 

BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT

 

Keep your head buried. Doesn't make it less the case.

The ties between al Qaida and Sudan are MUCH MUCH MUCH deeper than Iraq. SUDAN HARBORED OSAMA BIN LADEN FOR SIX YEARS. WILLINGLY. SUPPLIED HIM WITH TERRORIST TRAINING CAMPS. GAVE HIM SUPPLIES. OUTWARDLY AND PUBLICLY GAVE HIM SUPPORT.

 

They NEVER offered up bin Laden, contrary to popular opinion.

 

Mike, we almost invaded Sudan in the mid 90's because of it. We're WELL aware of their active ties to al Qaida.

Iraq had it, too. And Sudan grew tired of OBL. Why do you think he went to Afghanistan?

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

This is retarded. You can't choose if and when and under which circumstances to play in the sandbox; you fucking beat up on all of the kids in the sandbox, stole their toys, and then fucked their sisters. You don't just pretend that everything is hunky dory and go back and pretend that everything is ho hum after that. We've already established that the administration doesn't give a shit about international coalitions, and the only reason they're worrying about it now is because it's an election year.

So... now that the Administration is trying to go back to the International Community to get help, you fucking chastise them? You are a fucking hypocrit: you can't say "Going into this hell hole is bad without UN approval, but going into this hell hole is a-ok without UN approval!" and expect for people to fucking believe it.

 

This entire idea of "Well, if he went into Iraq without the UN, why doesn't he go in here?" is the biggest fucking straw man on the board. First off, it directly contradicts your entire fucking argument against Iraq if he did; Why do you want him to do something you've demonized him on countless times? Secondly, he's acting within YOUR rules. YOU want to go through the UN. He's doing all he can THROUGH THE UN.

 

I mean, fuck, you act like he really wanted the UN to go fuck off. I'm sure if he wanted to do that, he wouldn't have had Colin Powell go to the UN numerous times pleading their case for a deadline on inspections and disarmament, to waste all that fucking time in useless fucking debate with countries like France, who refused to change their view at all on Iraq. He didn't WANT to go against the International Community on Iraq, but he felt he had to, and he's be chastised, demonized, and utterly blasted by many people for that decision.

 

And you, who have done all that, are asking him to do it again?

 

Bullshit. You want him to do this so you can blast him again. There's no real compassion here, otherwise why isn't there a massive democratic outcry for it? Explain to me why your party has done nothing to encourage action in Sudan, why they haven't given him a reason to deviate from the International community, and we'll have an answer.

 

Here, we have a perfect CLEAR example of a nation who has unquestionably supported, harbored, and had sex with al Qaida. It's a human rights nightmare, far far far far far worse than Saddam's Iraq. And now we're pretending to be the subordinate? Now we're going through the UN?

 

The reports that Bush was given on Iraq said that they had weapons that could be devestating if in the wrong hands (not as though they were in the right hadns in the first place...). He acted, he got burned by your party and the international community. Why would he want to do that again? So you can bitch at him more? The international community obviously doesn't think it's a threat, so do you want him to stick his head into the fire again for something he'll get endlessly bitched at for?

 

It's horrible, pathetic politics. This administration doesn't give a shit about international coalitions beyond what it matters come election time. Unless we intervene and stop this genocide in Sudan, the Bush administration's moral imperitive argument about Iraq is completely fucking shot.

 

No, what YOU are doing is horrible, pathetic politics. Bush is FINALLY doing what you wanted him to do with Iraq, what he was forced to give up with Iraq because countries like France (hilarious that they are doing this to us AGAIN) didn't want to go along with it.

 

You're argument is fucking shot. You didn't support Iraq, you bitched that we should have gotten more UN support, but now we should get into ANOTHER war with likely MORE COSTS and a MUCH harder road ahead without UN Support? What the fuck?!

 

Out of everyone on this board who spews the standard righty talking points about how "Well, you guys wanted this LOL2004", you're the last one I expected to do that. This is a moral travesty that the administration is choosing to play politics with the lives of 1.4 million people, ESPECIALLY when they've shown a complete willingness to declare the UN obsolete when it comes to wars that their opinion polls support.

 

Oh fuck you. Fuck you. You impose standards on Bush that you yourself don't live up to. You want him to get approval from everyone, and finally when he's trying to get it, it's not quick enough.

 

Welcome to my world with Iraq, asshole.

 

Bush wants to get something fucking done, but he can't fucking do it because of YOUR party will play fucking politics on him. You say he's playing fucking politics, and if he is it's because YOUR party is the one binding him to it. He goes in, you fucking destroy him for not acting with UN approval, for getting us into another "Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time". YOUR party is the one that won't allow us to go in right now, not him. So shut the FUCK up before you accuse me of the one being heartless when it's your rules we are playing by.

[Guest MikeSC]

In defense of the Dems, I do believe that Charles Rangel got arrested for protesting the genocide a few months back.

-=Mike

...I still want to know why in the hell we should give two shits if France disapproves of us presently, given their utter lack of anything resembling a soul...

[Justice 0]

I want to make this clear: I want troops in Sudan. If Bush were to skip out of the UN circus, I would fully support it. I'm not exactly proud that he isn't going in right now. But to think you have the moral highground to tell him what to do when he is doing EXACTLY what you wanted to do with Iraq, is fucked up and absolutely hypocritical. I can see why he'd want to try and get the UN onboard for this, but the international community refuses to give him a fucking break.

[Guest MikeSC]

I want to make this clear: I want troops in Sudan. If Bush were to skip out of the UN circus, I would fully support it. I'm not exactly proud that he isn't going in right now. But to think you have the moral highground to tell him what to do when he is doing EXACTLY what you wanted to do with Iraq, is fucked up and absolutely hypocritical. I can see why he'd want to try and get the UN onboard for this, but the international community refuses to give him a fucking break.

Indeed. THIS is what the UN was supposed to take care of --- but they are too damned selfish with their own gains to do it.

 

Should we go to Sudan? Probably. However, Bush is not so dumb as to not realize how utterly screwed up, possibly beyond repair, Sudan is.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

YOUR view doesn't fly. The entire Democratic party bitched about not going into Iraq without UN support (We had international support).

His view is actually more consistant than yours.

 

Consistancy is what your arguement is specifically lacking.

[Justice 0]

YOUR view doesn't fly. The entire Democratic party bitched about not going into Iraq without UN support (We had international support).

His view is actually more consistant than yours.

 

Consistancy is what your arguement is specifically lacking.

What? I want them to go in just as much as he does.

 

But he has no right to bitch and try to take a moral highground on me when he is doing exactly what he wanted before. I have consistancy: I don't want Bush to waste time here. But for Tyler to bitch about how he shouldn't is hypocritical on his part because it's exactly opposite of his view on Iraq.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I understand what you're getting at.

 

The point is, Bush hasn't exactly backed down or apologized for the stink he rose regarding Iraq. In fact, it's a big column of his campaign, that he's not afraid to stick his neck out politically in the interest of human rights. This is the revisionist history. Now, WMDs are not important, because of all the people we helped in our little misguided trip into Baghdad.

 

And by golly, this is a President that means what he says (probably THE most promoted characteristic of his campaign, especially as they paint the other guy as a pushover with no strong agenda), so when he says that it's worth telling the world to go screw itself in the name of ending these big injustices of human rights, well, by golly he means it.

 

This is why saying "Oh, well now he's playing the Democrats' game" isn't a very successful tactic. Bush's message is that going to war for human rights is a noble thing to do and you can quote him on it. Don't chicken out now and say that suddently, now that he's done it once, he's going to lay back and play the Dems' way to keep them happy.

[Justice 0]

I understand what you're getting at.

Well, I'm glad someone does. And I agree with you on some of your points because I do want Bush to stick his neck out and do this. But I can understand why he'd try to get the international community on board after the shit storm the Dems raised after Iraq.

 

This is why saying "Oh, well now he's playing the Democrats' game" isn't a very successful tactic. Bush's message is that going to war for human rights is a noble thing to do and you can quote him on it. Don't chicken out now and say that suddently, now that he's done it once, he's going to lay back and play the Dems' way to keep them happy.

 

But the reason he is trying to get the UN on board is he doesn't want to complicate the damn thing with the political bullshit again. How complicated do you think this war became when every Dem in the country proclaimed it the new Vietnam and that there was no way to win it? Do you really think he wants to fight that sort of PR war while fighting in the Sudan AGAIN?

 

If you invade, you want it to be at your best. With the Dems proclaiming the UN as something we HAVE to have onboard for such an operation, there's no way we could sustain anything there for long: The Dems would attack it, Bush would be voted out and Kerry would likely pull out in favor of whatever mild maneuvers the UN would want to take with it.

 

I don't like Tyler taking some sort of moral highground when this is the sort of action he wanted. You can't be against Iraq and be for this. It just doesn't work, and it pisses me off because I'm sure one of the reasons that Bush is still going through the UN is people like him (And even you) who wanted him to go through the UN before and bitched endlessly when he didn't. It's hypocritical and it irritates me because it looks to me like much more of a political reason for wanting to be in Sudan than an actual honest and compassionate one.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

So, in other words, it's political? That's what I was waiting to hear. Wasn't that difficult to swallow hard and admit it, I hope.

 

Oh, and Tyler's yelling and agressive posting is humorous thanks to having Zealot Miller in his avatar.

[Justice 0]

So, in other words, it's political? That's what I was waiting to hear. Wasn't that difficult to swallow hard and admit it, I hope.

So... you basically ignored most of what I said to get in a pithy comment. Congrats, Jobber.

 

Your comment is a gross overgeneralization what I said. He's bound by political fallout that will be caused by it, yes. The Dems will cruicify him if he goes in without a UN Sanction. I believe Tyler's reasons for criticizing him are much more political than Bush simply adherring to the UN. I think Bush has always wanted the world on board, and it's hard for him to justify a second shunning of the UN to the public, even if it is genocide. So political? It's political, much because people like you and Tyler will jump all over him once he shuns the UN again for ruining our image and being a 'divider' once again.

[Guest MikeSC]

It's this simple:

 

Sudan poses zero threat to us. None whatsoever.

 

So, ANY action will be PURELY humanitarian.

 

The UN will oppose us.

 

The moment a soldier dies, the Dems will bitch that Bush didn't go in with our allies.

 

Meanwhile, since we removed a regime, we can't just LEAVE, either.

 

Yeah, I hear the Dems putting up even a tiny fraction of a fuss that the Bush administration has about this.

 

Then again, that whole "respect for human rights" plank in the platform has been a joke for years with that crowd.

-=Mike

[Guest Suicide King]

I don't think we've been at war with North Korea for about 50 years.

 

The charges about his movie role depend on how widely seen the movie was.

 

Anyways, he's useful if he has any good information on North Korea

 

Just wanted to dive in here amidst the politics and clarify that some of the movies were made during the Korean War, thus were in fact a wartime crime. And I don't think the popularity of the movies should determine the severity of the sentence.

[Justice 0]

I don't think we've been at war with North Korea for about 50 years.

 

The charges about his movie role depend on how widely seen the movie was.

 

Anyways, he's useful if he has any good information on North Korea

 

Just wanted to dive in here amidst the politics and clarify that some of the movies were made during the Korean War, thus were in fact a wartime crime. And I don't think the popularity of the movies should determine the severity of the sentence.

King, what the fuck are you ta-OH! Crap, the actual topic.

 

Yeah, I agree.

[Guest Suicide King]

Yeah... I came for the topic, but I stayed for you and Tyler!

[Justice 0]

Yeah... I came for the topic, but I stayed for you and Tyler!

I'm still the loyal left hand of God, right?

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

I don't think we've been at war with North Korea for about 50 years.

 

The charges about his movie role depend on how widely seen the movie was.

 

Anyways, he's useful if he has any good information on North Korea

 

Just wanted to dive in here amidst the politics and clarify that some of the movies were made during the Korean War, thus were in fact a wartime crime. And I don't think the popularity of the movies should determine the severity of the sentence.

wait.. the guy went to North Korea in the 60s, and made films during the Korean War (in the 50s)

 

obviously, we shouldn't ask why he did these films, we should ask how he traveled back in time.

[Guest MikeSC]

I don't think we've been at war with North Korea for about 50 years.

 

The charges about his movie role depend on how widely seen the movie was.

 

Anyways, he's useful if he has any good information on North Korea

 

Just wanted to dive in here amidst the politics and clarify that some of the movies were made during the Korean War, thus were in fact a wartime crime. And I don't think the popularity of the movies should determine the severity of the sentence.

wait.. the guy went to North Korea in the 60s, and made films during the Korean War (in the 50s)

 

obviously, we shouldn't ask why he did these films, we should ask how he traveled back in time.

We've been in a virtual state war since the 1950's with them.

 

That whole DMZ thing and all.

-=Mike

[Guest Suicide King]

wait.. the guy went to North Korea in the 60s, and made films during the Korean War (in the 50s)

 

obviously, we shouldn't ask why he did these films, we should ask how he traveled back in time.

 

Hmm... well, I went back and checked my primary source on this (teach me to trust CNN) just to make sure, and I thought I would do this just to see if the world would end.

 

I was wrong.

 

::waits for it::

 

Nope, nothing happened. So apparently I misread or was misinformed. I hereby admit my specific ignorance of the exact date involved. Terribly sorry. Still think it was pretty awful though, and he should be punished. The previous poster is correct in that even if the actual period of direct warfare had ended, we haven't exactly been pen pals with NK.

[Guest MikeSC]

BTW, Tyler, take a gander at this from today's Sudan rally at the UN.

 

 

Notice the words on the Bush poster?

 

A bigger version is available at instapundit.com.

-=Mike

[Slickster 0]

Wow, one sign.

[Guest MikeSC]

Wow, one sign.

For the one man leading the charge --- and it was imploring him to step up the fight.

-=Mike

..."That isn't proof. Well, it IS proof, but it's not ENOUGH proof..."

[Vanhalen 0]

We're the only ones. Our "allies, such as the French, refused to even hit them with sanctions over the genocide.

*Cough* Britain *Cough*

[Guest MikeSC]

We're the only ones. Our "allies, such as the French, refused to even hit them with sanctions over the genocide.

*Cough* Britain *Cough*

Wasn't referring to Britain, as I have no clue where they stand. I was referring to our "allies" (note the quotes) such as France.

-=Mike

[Vanhalen 0]

Ah sorry mate, well as pertains us, we were the first country to send aid, and of course, if any American troops go in, we will be side by side as usual

[Guest MikeSC]

So, will Blair go down in flames if Britain, as it appears, rejects the EU Constitution?

-=Mike

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

So, will Blair go down in flames if Britain, as it appears, rejects the EU Constitution?

-=Mike

Blair is like the teflon Prime Minister, mostly due to the fact that Britain doesn't really want to turf him because the alternatives (the conservatives, the lib. dems., etc.) arn't very appealing to Labour's electoral base. The only way he goes down is if a series of votes don't go his way, and they would have to be both domestic and international issues.

[Vanhalen 0]

I will be 90 before Blair is finally unelected, the guys untouchable, you could find him shooting up heroin, surrounded by prosititues, planning to nuke Scotland , and he would still be 10 points clear of everyone else, the opposition in this country at the minute is just absoulutly shameful, plus everyone still hates Maggie Thatcher

[Guest MikeSC]

I will be 90 before Blair is finally unelected, the guys untouchable, you could find him shooting up heroin, surrounded by prosititues, planning to nuke Scotland , and he would still be 10 points clear of everyone else, the opposition in this country at the minute is just absoulutly shameful, plus everyone still hates Maggie Thatcher

Ah. Some of the people I've been reading indicate that the rejection of the EU Constitution might end up harming him horrificly. Thanks for clarifying.

-=Mike