Blood on Obama's Hands

Originally posted by Crimson_King
If you had paid attention the other guy asked me whether UN said it was illegal war and I provided proof that indeed UN said Iraq war was illegal.

Yeah, that was me. And I say, "So"? If this really got Kofi's panties in a bunch, how come nothing else was done? Yeah, the US has veto powers. Ever heard of an expression, "Press to test"? Kofi could have put it before a vote and if the US did veto it, he'd have even more leverage to pound home the point, "This is illegal and the US is rubbing our nose in it."

Instead, he didn't. I guess he was too busy counting the money him and his family raked in from the "oil for food" program.

Originally posted by Crimson_King
So are you trying to claim that 1 million deaths in Iraq was not due to the result of "illegal war" led by Bush (who had no military experience...yes I love to rub it in again and again)?

One million? Lemme guess, still quoting that BS Lancet survey that had holes big enough to drive a truck thru?

And no military experience? Hmmm....I do remember Bush being a fighter pilot in the Air National Guard. I think that counts as "military experience".

Now, Obama? No military experience.

Originally posted by LarryLove
reply to post by burdman30ott6

 

By proxy, we were fighting Russia in Afghanistan, but Russia cut their losses and ran. Iraq was about Iran and the real truth about that war is yet to be properly revealed. Forgive me, but it almost reads as if our support of Saddam and Osama was an attempt to keep Communism at bay?

Half right. The Iran/Iraq morass had little to do with communism. The Shah had an excellent relationship with the USA. Kohmeini did not. Following his return from exile and the overthrowing of the much more secularly minded Shah, Iran was suddenly a huge threat to US interests in the Middle East. The espoused millitant radical Islamic policies. Hussein, until late in his rule, was very much a secularist. He was a brutal butcher, but he didn't hide his barbarism behind any Islamic veil as the Ayatollah's a Mujahs do/did. Thus, he was considered the reasonable party in the Iran/Iraq war and we supported him. Again, even in hindsight that was not a dumb move on the US's part. Had Kohmeini won we'd be dealing with a much, much larger Iranian threat today.
(Interesting note: there is a widely held belief that Saudi Arabia will one day go the same route that Iran did. When the House of Saud finally falls, they will almost certainly be ruled by one of the CPVPV high ranking Sheik's or a yet to be named Marja. This will essentially create a very bad situation in which you have the money and power of an Iran coupled with the fanaticism of the Taliban at the helm. BAD)

Afghanistan was about stopping communism, I suppose. In reality, it was more of an assault against democracy, as Afghanistan was well on the road to being a thriving democracy at the time. Had that mental midget Jimmy Carter and his clueless NSA chief Brzezinski kept out of things, the USSR likely would have never even invaded Afghanistan in the first place. Instead, Carter's half a horsepower single stroke engine of a brain gave the go ahead to fund, train, and arm the Taliban and Mujahideen thinking that a civil war in Afghanistan could spill over into the USSR and ultimately lead to the fracture of the Soviet Union entirely. Instead, Russia sent in troops and became embroiled in a 10 year long war which saw Reagan and Bush 1 continue Carter's idiocy (at least in regards to supporting the Taliban et al). Did it play a role in breaking up the USSR? It may have played a small role, but it was nowhere near as destructive to the USSR as perestroika was. So on this one, we screwed the pooch. Had our leadership known that Gorbechev would bring down the Iron Curtain all by himself with his policies we likely would have supported the democratic government in Afghanistan and things would be incredibly different in the world today.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6

Originally posted by LarryLove
reply to post by burdman30ott6

 

And yet you are happy with the fact that Osama Bin Laden was supported by American administrations? As you assert, all of Europe treats terrorists with kid gloves and yet the CIA was financing Osama and Saddam until they were of no use or became problematic.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Throughout history this has occurred and it likely will never stop. We sided with Russia in WWII to fight Japan... over the next 50 years Japan became our closest trading partner and a good friend while we went to the brink of anihilation with Russia. Had we not supported Hussein & bin Laden at that time, Russia would have owned Afghanistan and Khomeini would have had a summer villa built in Baghdad. At the time it made sense and was the wise thing to do.

Criticism is always so much easier in hindsight.


[edit on 4-8-2010 by burdman30ott6]

One would like to imagine that with that critical hindsight we would of been suspicious of the future use of an arsenal, which we provided, against our own military forces.

Originally posted by intrepid
We don't need you. Get over yourselves. Read an international paper, not something publish that makes you go "Rah, Rah, Rah."

Oh, you're breaking my heart. Yeah, whatever. How about telling that to the people of Haiti? No food, no medical supplies, no hospital ships, no nothing.

But I guess Canada could have done all that, right? Or would you just would have sent your abomination that you call bacon (round bacon?!?!) and Celion Dion, hun?

reply to post by jerico65


Maturity alert! I, for one, love Canadian bacon and it has an unbelievably small amount of fat and calories, especially compared with (American?) bacon. I must side with my country, though, (oh, how it pains me) to admit that our bacon is actually better.

We and the new government we installed in Afghanistan are supporting the Taliban again today, are we not? And so we come full circle. Again.

Seriously, I think what matters here is TODAY. As in we need to get the flock out of there and batten down our hatches and start retooling and take care of our own before the SHTF between Pakistan and India or Israel and Syria or Iran and Russia. Pakistan's goal is to hit India. India knows it. They're looking to us. China and Russia are just watching to see what shakes out. And we're only there because we need those pipelines to maintain...or something (hegemony). The way it's lining up, we aren't winning this one. Wait, which one? Any of them. Biggest clusterflock ever. And lots of people are gonna die. Yay. More blood.

Originally posted by Hadrian
One would like to imagine that with that critical hindsight we would of been suspicious of the future use of an arsenal, which we provided, against our own military forces.

Totally, 100% agree. The United States should be arming only the United States and it should be to the teeth, utilizing every advance possible to ensure that we are prepared for anything which arises. Our leaders clearly do not learn from the past, unfortunately.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
OK....
We all know you posted what HE said and how he felt, Now show anybody reading this "ANYTHING OFFICIAL" from the UN stating that it was "Illegal" His personal opinion doesn't matter then nor now.

That's the official statement from United Nations

On September 16, 2004 Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

Here the term "our point of view and charter point of view" Kofi Annan is implying United Nations Charter.

You can find more here Was The Iraq War Legal, Or Illegal, Under International Law?

reply to post by Crimson_King


Yes Yes Yes

I've read all that before. I'm simply asking for something "Official" From the UN that states that it was illegal.

Thanks.

reply to post by SLAYER69


That's the official statement from United Nations.

Originally posted by jerico65
Yeah, that was me. And I say, "So"?

So that proves UN indeed said Iraq War was/is illegal.

And no military experience? Hmmm....I do remember Bush being a fighter pilot in the Air National Guard. I think that counts as "military experience". Now, Obama? No military experience.

Bush's military records reveal that he did not do any duty between April 16 and October 28, 1972 and missed training altogether in December 1972 and February and March 1973. There were no records of him having served with any unit in Alabama. It is a requirement of members of the National Guard that they accumulate a minimum of 50 service points in a year. (Each full day of weekend training is worth two points).

On May 2, 1973 one of Bush's superiors noted that "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of report. A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to Montgomery, Alabama. He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has been performing equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187th Tac Recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama." However, no records for service in Alabama exist.

Source: Gaps Remain In Bush Guard Service

Bush was a draft dodger

[edit on 4-8-2010 by Crimson_King]

reply to post by Crimson_King


OK so you have NO REAL proof or anything official stating that it was illegal...


Thank you.

Never mind.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Yep only the United Nations officially stating it was illegal.

Thank You

Please do mind.

reply to post by Crimson_King


I'm sorry but

An article on this This Biased Webpage does not constitute an "Official" UN Statement. Posting for the reader the UN charter Also doesn't point anybody reading this thread in any direction that points to anything "Officially" supporting your claim and a common misconception [Or should I say deception] that it was illegal.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by SLAYER69]

reply to post by SLAYER69


Glad to see you minded and took pain to reply again, brings me utmost joy

Here's another source with same words said by Kofi Annan declaring United Nations official position at the time a draft dodger Bush was President.

Why are you all debating the Iraq War? Did you folks read the article or Semper's post?

Afghanistan is a whole other issue. Nobody, except Terrorist sympathizers faulted us for this.

We move out, the Taliban and Al Qaeda move back in. It's that simple. As well as they will be even closer to taking over Pakistan and acquiring their weapons, including atomic weapons and delivery devices.

I've been predicting for over 20 years now that the big war everyone is expecting will start over Pakistan, not over Israel and the Palestinians.

Linking this to Iraq is really disingenuous and misleading. Not to mention its not even the topic here.

That we should not have gone into Iraq, I agree. Afghanistan however is a security threat to us and the world. Even more so because of Pakistan.

The topic here however is Obama, the mess he is making and people who are dieing as a direct result of his actions as well as his being unqualified to be a Commander and Chief. His bizarre ideologies make him totally incompetent. He should pull them all out right now instead of leading these brave Soldiers to slaughter.

If you actually read the article, or perhaps you already knew about this insane policy if you keep up with the news, you know that policy is insane and deadly to these Soldiers. Retreat from the enemy if their are civilians anywhere in Theater and no air support. That is suicide. Blood on Obama's hand, your damn right!

I am still interested to know why the Semperfortis hasn't responded to any of these posts. I would expect a thread starter to be integral to the evolution of his opening post considering how many pages this has gone.

reply to post by Crimson_King


If you have millitary records then by definition you have millitary experience.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Afghanistan however is a security threat to us and the world. Even more so because of Pakistan.

Because of Pakistan is indeed true thanks to the ISI and Pakistan military who exploited the situation in Afghanistan after it was invaded by United States under a draft dodger President Bush who had no military experience in any war. It would have made more sense not to fund Pakistan at all.

reply to post by Blaine91555


Blaine, with respect that article originates from one of the most right wing websites I have ever read. To call it intelligent analysis would be stretching the truth somewhat.