BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
They aren't surrounding 40,000 Yazidis right now threatening their extinction. Why you and Sav are hell-bent on dismissing the one because of the other is nuts. You guys may need to do some soul searching.
Question.
- Thread starter The Tariff King
- Start date
They aren't surrounding 40,000 Yazidis right now threatening their extinction. Why you and Sav are hell-bent on dismissing the one because of the other is nuts. You guys may need to do some soul searching.
It's like Zitos stance in the israel thread that he deleted because he realized he was being stupid. The cartels and drug lords operate in jungles and in deserts out of the public view so the local police and military won't see/find them. The leaders of cartels run and hide and are always on the move because the military is after them. Cartels fight other cartels over business and they leave the public out of it because innocent victims dying is bad for business. Once the public gets sick of innocent victims they turn their back on them. Cartels don't operate during the day in public in broad daylight
Isis is controlling a piece of land where they have total say. They kill hundreds/thousands of people because they don't like them. Isis operate freely in the public in broad daylight. They answer to no one.
How anyone can compare the two and rightfully mean it, is a joke.
Ok, how is that any different than what I said? I said the Cartels are killing innocent civilians as well. But are mainly focused on killing each other (or other military combatants). Hence the reason why the death toll is so large. The Cartels are not just mass murdering tens of thousands of innocent civilians like you are trying make it out to be.
Sadly, yes they are.
Thethe liberals never blame anything on personal responsibility, why would this be any different?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Sykes, Picot, and their respective governments. Plus extra to the Brits for supporting Ibn Saud.
Runnin
Well-known member
The people to hold accountable for Iraq's current crises are the neocons, who were so convinced that once Saddam was gone, Iraq would become a West-loving democracy.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Yeah, how sad is it that the worst consequence of that stupid adventure seemed to be an Iraqi government who was cozy with our (and Israel's) biggest strategic adversary in the region? Then, the tragic joke turns out to be that—HAHA!—there's worse news.
That gif of Al-Maliki and Ban Ki Moon standing next to each other and there's a big explosion and Ban Ki Moon ducks under the podium and Al Maliki barely flinches is glorious.
What was the house and senate vote to invade Iraq again?
Since it was the neo-cons fault.
Was Iraq this bad before Obama pulled the troops out?
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Actually they never voted to invade Iraq, because then it would have been a legal war.
And since you asked.
In the house 215 reps voted for it, 82 dems voted for it, 6 reps voted against it, 126 dems voted against it, 1 indy voted against it, 2 reps abstained, one dem abstained. Reps had the number of votes even if ever single dem voted against it.
In the Senate the Rs had 48 people vote for it, dems had 29 for it. Rs had 1 against it dems had 21 against it and 1 indy against it. So in the Senate if 100% of the dems voted against it they could have stopped it but when have 100% of one party or another agreed on something?
And it wasn't the dems who essentially incentivized the CIA to make up **** to increase the call to arms.
I dislike both parties, but one party had the power in the early 2000s and that's blatantly obvious.
ANd Obama did dick for pulling troops out. That was a plan that Bush signed into place with the Iraqis. Obama did **** in Iraq.
57Brave
Well-known member
In fact the vote was to give authority to the President to use military action. At the time of the vote there were still UN inspectors in Iraq that eventually concluded there were no WMD.
The Bush Administration shorted that report and essentially threw the inspectors out.
So the fact is, no one (R) or (D) voted for war. The war was a unilateral decision
You can look it up == do they not have Google or Wikipedia in Dumbphuckistan???
//////////////////////////
Though Obama campaigned on getting us out of Iraq, the deal was in place as early (?) as 2007. Obama stayed to the timeline drawn out by the Bush Administration.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Of all the wrongness posted in this thread, this bolded section at least has the benefit of 0% subjectivity. I'm not saying it's wrong because it's a matter of opinion and I believe otherwise, I'm saying it's wrong because it is ludicrously, laughably, factually inaccurate as applied to the cartel war in Mexico. Really, man, you shouldn't post unless you at least have some modicum of understanding of the subject.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
Shouldn't we hold ISIS accountable too? Just thinking out loud here...
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
ISIL should be held accountable for sure. But like the cartels in Mexico, JMO we shouldn't be involved with it. Basically we have 2 options. we can go back to the pre-cold war ways of doing things where we stayed out of the entanglements of foreign nations for the most part, or we have to spend an extraordinary sum of funds to be Team America World Police and just bomb people like this all of the time. Of course whihc side do we back? Do we back ISIL in Syria or the dictator? Tricky question isn't it? One hates america and yada yada yada the other commits genocide.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
Either/ors aren't always the best way to look at such situations - overly simplistic. Nevertheless, while the finger pointing game has many targets, let's not forget IS or ISIS or ISIL, lest they become the next "poor Hamas."
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
i feel like you're comparing apples and genocidal oranges.