Karzai threatens to send Afganistan Army into Pakistan

How dare you

 

Until he decided to throw them out again.

 

Because when friendly countries get invaded and have their ass handed to them by their neighbors, who do they call for help? As much as you would like to think so, North America is not an island.

 

How about more 40 years of UN Resolution violations? Should you attack country who do that?

 

I'll say it again, The World. As I recall even most arab nations were with us.

 

If they attack their neighbor, throw the world into war and then refuse to comply after surrending? Yes. But I think Israel is actually the one who suffered unprovoked attacks from their neighbors in the past so that's probably not a great analogy.

 

Ahh but he didn't throw them out, so we are better selectively not wanting him to follow the terms?

If memory serves me one of the times we have been force fed Saddam threw them out he actually did not

 

Us. Although friendly doesn't necessarily mean righteous, does it?

Don't make me name all of our nasty friends. And besides, Kuwait was purposely f**king Iraq, because they knew we would spend our money and blood to defend them. Seems like a lop sided relationship, doesn't it?

But it's not because our heads of state and politicians spend more time with Kuwaiti Oil Sheikhs than they do with Billie Ray down at the Gas Station on Main Street. They don't give a shit how many of us die. How much of our money is lost. They don't give a shit about you. They would sell you for a nickel if they thought you were worth that much. You're just a pawn to them.

If you're going to post like a b**ch, you will get slapped. Think about that, ok?

 

Double standard as usual. Everyone should comply with UN resolutions 'cept Israel. It doesn't matter what you think at all!
Same rules should be for everyone.
And JFYI it wasn't "unprovoked attacks" at all.l Read some history. Zionist started war before creation of Israel. They didn't came to Palestine with flowers and olive branches and they were actually attacking brits during WWII instead of fighting with nazis. Tell us loads about them, isn't it?

 

One of the times? How many times did he throw them out? How long did he play the cat and mouse game of pretending to give the inspectors free reign until they came close to something he didn't like or he just got a wild hair up his ass and decided to throw them out? Why should we have tolerated it more than once? He caused, what was basically an almost one-sided mini world war.
The UN should of passed a resolution requiring themselves to grow balls but it probably would of lacked teeth as well.

 

The world also spent their blood and money to help and Saddam lost. After he lost he was obliged to comply.

You go girl.

 

Saddam knew he was on his last leg, he was caving, doing exactly what we wanted him to do. Yet we should 'in your logic' not care that he is doing exactly what he's supposed to do, and bypass the very organization to invade that you trumpet over and over that he was not following 'the UN'

You've got some seriously flawed logic there.

Inspectors were able to go wherever they wanted, whenever they wanted. The 'oh until when' is a failed argument since we invaded we will never know. Was he going to throw the inspectors out? Perhaps, sure would appear to be to be a much wiser approach to allow the inspectors to do the job they finally were able to do and only back up with force should he throw them out.

But nope lets keep chanting 'until he throws them out' of which of course you do not know if he would, all the while costing us billions, reputation throughout the world, taking our eye off the actual terrorist problem, losing scores of our troops.

Yep, that is sound logic if I ever heard it.

 

It doesn't require speculation, you only have to look at history and what Saddam did before.

We would have still been criticized by apologists and US haters.

 

What a load of crap.

It's a serious topic. If you don't want to discuss it seriously, and continue being ignorant and making lame jokes, then fine. I won't waste my time indulging you.

I mean, it's bad enough you're clueless AND argumentative on the topic. But then when you say dumb crap about what I think, that just sets me off.

Don't imply I am an isolationist. The isolationists are the jackholes who think that sanctions, bombing and invasion are the tools of foreign policy. That we can murder and intimidate our way to peace and understanding.

You think we're on less of an island today than on 9/12? You think Americans are safe to travel everywhere? You think there will be no more attacks? You think the world looks up to us for occupying Iraq after we fabricated the evidence, lied to the UN to go in? Read the foreign press. We're the laughingstock of the world. People don't know if they should fear us or laugh at us.

Looking at the price of oil, the stock market, the economy and the progress of the war, laughter might be in order.

 

You can not compare the past with what went on this time around.

In the past did Saddam have the US military set to invade on his border?
In the past did Saddam have a president using 9/11 to muster support from the US population to invade?

These two items alone totally change the circumstances........................

 

That's the type of seriousness you're talking about? It made me think of a same sex couple fighting, sorry.

What dump crap? Like believing the CIA or global elitists remoted controlled airplanes into the twin towers?

 

The military can't be poised to invade indefinitely without losing advantage. Besides I think 13 years was enough.

 

So 40 years is not enough?
Oh yeah! Some should obey UN resolutions while others can ignore them!

 

So you'd rather us spend billions, drop the ball on terror, lose scores of our brave men and woman because you feel 13 years was enough?

Even though he was taking it up the axx and doing exactly what he was ordered to do?

Our military has been there for how long now actively fighting. If we can be there this long actively fighting, why could they not have been sitting by with the threat of force for this long? What advantage would we lose? If anything we would gain advantage, after all we were also allowed to fly spy flights over Iraq as we pleased.. With weapons inspectors actively in Iraq and spy flights, among other items I highly doubt Iraq is going to suddenly get an advantage, or is there mystical creatures at work here?

I'm sorry but your stance really lacks all true rationale IMHO.

 

Go back to my post where I said I'm not sure it was to our strategic interests to invade. Strategic interests and justification are two different things.