Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

North Korea declares war (again) on South KoreaFollow

#102 Apr 09 2013 at 6:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Wow. It's funny that you guys feel the best way to defend Obama's actions...

I wasn't defending Obama. I was laughing at your lack of knowledge of world history and lamprey-like attachment to stock GOP talking points ("Oh no! French!")

I don't think Obama's actions in Libya need any defense. I do find a bit of mirth in the fact that you apparently believe the Republicans got totally rolled by Obama and allowed him to wage this incredibly illegal war with barely any pushback. Man, you ever need a bunch of pussies to use as an example, you don't need the French. You have Boehner & Co.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#103 Apr 09 2013 at 7:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,852 posts
Kavekk wrote:
The French have one of the bloodiest and most successful military histories of any political entity throughout history.




In fairness, their record on asian land wars is kind of so-so...
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#104 Apr 09 2013 at 7:27 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Wow. It's funny that you guys feel the best way to defend Obama's actions...

I wasn't defending Obama. I was laughing at your lack of knowledge of world history and lamprey-like attachment to stock GOP talking points ("Oh no! French!")


Given that you're reaching back to the Napoleonic wars to find the last time the French were considered a significant aggressive military power to make your point, I might suggest that you're exhibiting that behavior far more than I.

Quote:
I don't think Obama's actions in Libya need any defense.


I'm sure you don't. And the sheer size of that moving target is part of my point. Somehow the talking heads on the Left went from "no illegal wars", to "it's ok, he can initiate military action without having to ask congress for 60 days" (despite that actually not being true in the absence of a direct threat to the US itself, but whatever), to "did the time pass and he never bothered to get authorization, we'll it's not that big a deal anyway". Really? I love how the Left's principles kinda move all over the map apparently based solely on who they're applying them to.

Which basically means "no principles".

Quote:
I do find a bit of mirth in the fact that you apparently believe the Republicans got totally rolled by Obama and allowed him to wage this incredibly illegal war with barely any pushback.


No. I'm pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of liberals yelling and screaming about waging illegal warfare suddenly falling silent when Obama does it, not just in a "if you squint and look at it from the right angle, you can say he violated the war powers act", but by just plain ignoring the act entirely. That you feel the need to turn this into some kind of "Republicans got rolled" riff only underscores the need you have to dismiss what Obama did and focus attention any something, anything, else. It shows me that you know that what he did violated everything he claimed he stood for, and everything that the liberal rhetoric had been arguing about for years, but your loyalty to your "side" can't allow you to admit it. So you perpetuate the lie.

Bizarre behavior. And a bit scary. What would Obama have to do before you'd say "He was wrong to do that"? I'm honestly curious.


Oh. Which, in case you're paying attention, is why I'm quite sure that while everyone insists that "of course Obama would be strong if we were attacked", if we were attacked and Obama did nothing, most of you would either stay silent, or loudly insist that he was actually being brave or something for not fighting back. The pattern of the rank and file liberal utterly ignoring what their own leaders do is pretty well established. Simply "being a liberal leader" appears to be all that matters. You will silently accept anything he does, or will come up with an excuse for why what he did really was ok after all. Cause that's what liberals do. As I said, no principles.

Edited, Apr 9th 2013 6:32pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#105 Apr 09 2013 at 7:32 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Wow. It's funny that you guys feel the best way to defend Obama's actions...

I wasn't defending Obama. I was laughing at your lack of knowledge of world history and lamprey-like attachment to stock GOP talking points ("Oh no! French!")


Given that you're reaching back to the Napoleonic wars to find the last time the French were considered a significant aggressive military power to make your point, I might suggest that you're exhibiting that behavior far more than I.


Because nothing says "I don't know history" like using a historical example.

What the **** are you talking about.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#106 Apr 09 2013 at 7:36 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Given that you're reaching back to the Napoleonic wars to find the last time the French were considered a significant aggressive military power to make your point, I might suggest that you're exhibiting that behavior far more than I.


Because nothing says "I don't know history" like using a historical example.


Pointing out French aggressive military actions from 200+ years ago isn't terribly relevant to a discussion of the relative level of French military aggressiveness *today*. Yet, that's exactly where two different posters went when I pointed out that Obama had to be dragged into a war by the French. Not 200 years ago, but just a few years ago.

You don't find that a bit odd?

Quote:
What the @#%^ are you talking about.


Follow the conversation if you're confused.

Edited, Apr 9th 2013 6:37pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#107 Apr 09 2013 at 7:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
That you feel the need to turn this into some kind of "Republicans got rolled" riff only underscores the need you have to dismiss what Obama did and focus attention any something, anything, else.

That's some serious mental gymnastics you've got going there. The fact that I'm not getting drawn into a debate I think is pointless and would rather laugh at you means I must be sooooooo scared of the debate?

Hahaha... I guess. That or, you know, I have a healthier sense of self than you do and don't see the need to wring my hands any time someone says something against my supposed "side". We've already hashed out the arguments regarding Libya. You have a search function if you need to revisit them. It is undeniable that, if the GOP honestly believes it was illegal, they let themselves get completely rolled by Obama since there was only the most token of opposition. Honestly, I think most quarters of the GOP didn't think it was and only gave a little lip service towards it for partisan reasons but you've obviously bought into the more kooky fringes of the GOP in waving the "Illegal War!" banner. Congratulations.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#108 Apr 09 2013 at 7:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Quote:
Given that you're reaching back to the Napoleonic wars to find the last time the French were considered a significant aggressive military power to make your point, I might suggest that you're exhibiting that behavior far more than I.


The French intervene all the time. They've been intervening in the ivory coast for decades. Let's face it, you're laughing at the French because of WWII and maybe the second gulf war. Maybe they should laugh at the idea the States is a militaristic nation because Eisenhower didn't have the balls to support their occupation of the Suez?

If the US were led into war by the Swiss, that'd be funny.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#109 Apr 09 2013 at 9:30 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
gbaji wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Given that you're reaching back to the Napoleonic wars to find the last time the French were considered a significant aggressive military power to make your point, I might suggest that you're exhibiting that behavior far more than I.


Because nothing says "I don't know history" like using a historical example.


Pointing out French aggressive military actions from 200+ years ago isn't terribly relevant to a discussion of the relative level of French military aggressiveness *today*. Yet, that's exactly where two different posters went when I pointed out that Obama had to be dragged into a war by the French. Not 200 years ago, but just a few years ago.

You don't find that a bit odd?

Quote:
What the @#%^ are you talking about.


Follow the conversation if you're confused.

Edited, Apr 9th 2013 6:37pm by gbaji


That has absolutely nothing to do with my criticism.

You're like a lobotomy patient.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#110 Apr 10 2013 at 6:06 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,244 posts
I'm sure you don't. And the sheer size of that moving target is part of my point. Somehow the talking heads on the Left went from "no illegal wars", to "it's ok, he can initiate military action without having to ask congress for 60 days" (despite that actually not being true in the absence of a direct threat to the US itself, but whatever), to "did the time pass and he never bothered to get authorization, we'll it's not that big a deal anyway". Really? I love how the Left's principles kinda move all over the map apparently based solely on who they're applying them to.

Which basically means "no principles".


Yes, correct, no principles. Welcome to adulthood. Neither political party cares about principle. They care about power. If power means selling out their core values and killing their own family, they'll do it instantly. Also: Santa..not real. If you want to discuss lack of principle, however, maybe starting with the GOP opinion about executive power and wildly it fluctuates might be a good place to start. There are ideological as well legal arguments for broad expansion of executive power, none of them come from the left. (Which, YES, makes your point which I conceded at the start of the paragraph, the problem is you whining about the "hypocrisy" of it makes you a hypocrite by definition.)
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#111 Apr 10 2013 at 6:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That said, "no principles" would probably sting a lot more had I personally (rather the the nebulous "Left") ever accused Bush of waging an illegal war. A poorly conceived, poorly executed war that was to the detriment of the US on several fronts, sure. Illegal? Not so much.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#112 Apr 10 2013 at 6:51 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,244 posts
That said, "no principles" would probably sting a lot more had I personally (rather the the nebulous "Left") ever accused Bush of waging an illegal war. A poorly conceived, poorly executed war that was to the detriment of the US on several fronts, sure. Illegal? Not so much.

There's a fairly good argument that legally the executive branch can do whatever it wants with the military, checked no by congresses power to declare war, but by their ability to halt funding for one.

I'm not much of an anti-war guy, either, but it's a fair point that some people assumed Obama would actually close Guantanamo bay's detention center, which it should have been immediately obvious was a silly fantasy. On the other hand it's equally fair to point out that some people thought "no child left behind" was a program to help poor kids.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#113 Apr 10 2013 at 7:12 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,404 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
You're like a lobotomy patient.
Considering how often he repeats the same arguments over and over, I'd nominate Alzheimer patient.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#114 Apr 10 2013 at 9:38 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,887 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Arip wrote:
You can carpet bomb them all you want. You'll eventually need someone sane in power to surrender the nation to you.


I didn't mention carpet bombing or surrendering. You're creating scenarios outside of what is being mentioned. Admittedly, my solution is a fantasy (due to politics), but is very feasible.

North Korea doesn't have much to fight with. Considering everything to be functional and/or done in accordance with procedures, their missiles will never do any real damage. That is their only hope. Their Army wont make it far past the DMZ. They don't have the computer power to do any cyber attacks, so they're powerless. At that point, NK will concede as opposed to surrendering, which would be a win for everyone else. No carpet bombing necessary.

You're falling prey to the media, which is exactly what NK wants. NK is just taunting to draw attention in hopes that someone attacks them first. That way they can spin it. They do this EVERY SINGLE YEAR at the SAME TIME. The only attack NK will do will be like the sinking of the ship. Something that is small and able to deny any involvement.

Sounds like they're taking their cues from Fred Phelps.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#115 Apr 10 2013 at 9:39 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,404 posts
They'd be much more mellow if they listened to Michael Phelps instead.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#116 Apr 10 2013 at 9:52 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,887 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
They'd be much more mellow if they listened to Michael Phelps instead.


Wouldn't we all.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#118 Apr 11 2013 at 2:15 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
The French have one of the bloodiest and most successful military histories of any political entity throughout history.




In fairness, their record on Asian land wars is kind of so-so...


Their record against Sicilians is also not great.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#119 Apr 11 2013 at 2:53 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Jophiel wrote:
We've already hashed out the arguments regarding Libya. You have a search function if you need to revisit them.


Yes. The posters from the peanut gallery all insisting that he had 60 days to get approval, so there was no problem with what he was doing, and then... silence. Which is what I was talking about. You are fine with looking the other way when it's your "side" doing something. If your normal response to such things is to not bother posting or creating a thread, that would be one thing. The hypocrisy is the same group of people who would jump up and down in anger if a Republican did what Obama did, just ignoring it in this case.

Quote:
It is undeniable that, if the GOP honestly believes it was illegal, they let themselves get completely rolled by Obama since there was only the most token of opposition. Honestly, I think most quarters of the GOP didn't think it was and only gave a little lip service towards it for partisan reasons but you've obviously bought into the more kooky fringes of the GOP in waving the "Illegal War!" banner. Congratulations.


I'm sorry. Did the Dems pass some kind of resolution declaring Iraq an illegal war? I'm curious what lack of official Republican response in this case means "you can't talk about this, cause the GOP didn't make it an issue", but the same lack on the part of the Dems is no reason at all to hinder years and years of similar whining and crying by the left. You're seriously trying to use that as an argument?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#120 Apr 11 2013 at 2:59 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
I'm sure you don't. And the sheer size of that moving target is part of my point. Somehow the talking heads on the Left went from "no illegal wars", to "it's ok, he can initiate military action without having to ask congress for 60 days" (despite that actually not being true in the absence of a direct threat to the US itself, but whatever), to "did the time pass and he never bothered to get authorization, we'll it's not that big a deal anyway". Really? I love how the Left's principles kinda move all over the map apparently based solely on who they're applying them to.

Which basically means "no principles".


Yes, correct, no principles. Welcome to adulthood. Neither political party cares about principle. They care about power.


I'm talking about the people and how/why they choose to support/vote for one party or another. I'm talking about a group of people who claim they do care about the poor, and sick people, and homeless people, and <insert victim group here> consistently proving that they have no means of determining who they care about, or what they should do about it aside from "my political leaders tell me do do X". I get why a political party might work to dupe people into voting for them to do things those people would not really want. What I don't get is how consistently the liberals not only allow this to happen to them by the Dems, but seem to actively be ok with it.

When the GOP does something that conservatives don't like, we get angry at the GOP. We call for the offending members to step down. We demand they do better/different. When the Dems do something that liberals don't like, they.... well... they ignore it. Cause politics trumps principles, not just at the party level, but among the rank and file on the left.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#121 Apr 11 2013 at 3:05 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,699 posts
On the other hand, I think I'd say it's because the liberals are more willing to compromise with the other side than the conservatives. If a Republican shows an ounce of compromise... they are vilified by the people who used to support them.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#122 Apr 11 2013 at 4:01 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
TirithRR wrote:
On the other hand, I think I'd say it's because the liberals are more willing to compromise with the other side than the conservatives. If a Republican shows an ounce of compromise... they are vilified by the people who used to support them.


I think it's selective though. Conservatives tend to hold a set of principles important, and apply those principles. When a politician does what matches their principles, they're happy. When they don't, they let them know. If that's "unwilling to compromise", then so be it. The issue I'm getting at is that it seems like Liberals willingness to compromise or not compromise isn't based on principle but "side". They're willing to compromise their positions if a Democrat is doing something, but unwilling to do so if it's a Republican. Or, perhaps more correctly, they choose whether to support or oppose something, not based on some previous conclusion about that thing, but based on which party is doing it. They seem to invent the argument for/against *after* they decide to oppose/support it, which is done *after* they look at which party is responsible.

An anti-war conservative will openly criticize a decision to go to war regardless of party doing it. An anti-war liberal will tend to only criticize such a decision when it's the GOP doing it. The degree of outrage varies wildly on the left based on which part is to blame for whatever is going on. Hence, years of "Bush's illegal war" rhetoric, and nary a peep about an actual illegal war on the part of Obama.

Edited, Apr 11th 2013 3:03pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#123 Apr 11 2013 at 4:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The posters from the peanut gallery all insisting that he had 60 days to get approval...

Ah, well, I guess I can't answer for vague references to "the posters". I personally noted how McCain and other Senate Republicans said they wouldn't make any moves if the sixty day mark passed as they didn't see any problem with it.
Quote:
I'm sorry. Did the Dems pass some kind of resolution declaring Iraq an illegal war?

No, should they have? Again: I did not view Iraq as an illegal war. Therefore, I am not at all worried about whether anyone "passed a resolution" or whatever else. In fact, I'd rather they didn't since -- again -- I didn't view it as illegal. If someone else did, I'm sorry both for their error in thinking so and your apparent angst that this occurred. Since you're under the impression that "The Left" is some singular mind, let me speak on behalf of everyone and unconditionally apologize for anyone and everyone who said Iraq was "illegal". They were wrong. Do you feel better now?
Quote:
You're seriously trying to use that as an argument?

An "argument"? No, of course not. I'm not arguing anything, really. I'm laughing at you for your massive blind spot between throwing a hissy fit declaring the actions in Libya "illegal" and the complete lack of resistance from the GOP when it came to those same actions.

Do you think Libya was "illegal"?
Do you think the GOP viewed those actions as illegal?
If so, can you explain why they did nothing beyond some lip service from the fringes to do anything at all about a president illegally waging combat?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#124 Apr 12 2013 at 7:15 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,244 posts

I'm talking about the people and how/why they choose to support/vote for one party or another.


They choose by the image they have of themselves. Republicans generally imagine themselves to be better than other people and are terrified of losing status (even if they live in a trailer park). Democrats generally imagine themselves to be working to help as many people as possible live better lives (even if they never leave Brentwood).
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#125 Apr 12 2013 at 7:24 AM Rating: Good
******
43,404 posts
gbaji wrote:
They seem to invent the argument for/against *after* they decide to oppose/support it, which is done *after* they look at which party is responsible.
So by your own definition you're the most liberally of liberals on these boards.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#126 Apr 12 2013 at 7:52 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
gbaji wrote:
Or, perhaps more correctly, they choose whether to support or oppose something, not based on some previous conclusion about that thing, but based on which party is doing it.
This isn't a trait of one party or the other as politicians on both side of the aisle are guilty of it. I'd call it a symptom of a compromised political system.

The most obvious example for the times is of course the NRA's influence with the Republican party.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#127 Apr 12 2013 at 9:19 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,940 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Or, perhaps more correctly, they choose whether to support or oppose something, not based on some previous conclusion about that thing, but based on which party is doing it.
This isn't a trait of one party or the other as politicians on both side of the aisle are guilty of it. I'd call it a symptom of a compromised political system.

The most obvious example for the times is of course the NRA's influence with the Republican party.


I'm still waiting on your peaceful solution that doesn't involve simply ignoring NK. I guess you realized that none exist.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#128 Apr 12 2013 at 9:31 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
Almalieque wrote:


I'm still waiting on your peaceful solution that doesn't involve simply ignoring NK. I guess you realized that none exist.
You added in the part I scratched out. Ignoring them has worked well for years. Our Sec of State is prepared to negotiate. Should we just skip that?

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#129 Apr 12 2013 at 10:13 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,254 posts
Despite the DIA report, the Pentagon’s spokesman and the U.S. national intelligence director both said it was “inaccurate” to infer Pyongyang had the proven ability to launch a nuclear missile.

Interesting development. North Korea may actually have nuclear launch capabilities but we may be ignoring the intelligence due to mistakes made in Iraq. Do we (as in the world, I'm not American) wait for Pyongyang to prove their ability to launch a nuclear missile? Or is it safe to assume the "officials" know what they're talking about?

How much of an issue is it for North Korea to have nuclear capabilities really? Outside of politics nukes aren't exactly tactically useful, they're really just big suicide machines as far as usefulness to North Korea. Obviously they're unbelievably dangerous in the wrong hands but wrong hands in this case = "batsh*t insane", not "bad person" and frankly I'm not convinced little Kim is crazy. Unless we actually intend to invade I can't see them ever being used.
#130 Apr 12 2013 at 10:15 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,244 posts
Interesting development. North Korea may actually have nuclear launch capabilities but we may be ignoring the intelligence due to mistakes made in Iraq.

Woah woah woah. DIA didn't fuck up Iraq intel. Let's not lump all of the three letter agencies together, now. DIA got most things exactly right, except where they relied on CIA assets.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#131 Apr 12 2013 at 10:17 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,254 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Woah woah woah. DIA didn't fuck up Iraq intel. Let's not lump all of the three letter agencies together, now. DIA got most things exactly right, except where they relied on CIA assets.


Fair enough, don't really care where the mistakes were made point is the same and I won't pretend to know all of the details.
#132 Apr 12 2013 at 10:24 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,244 posts
mistakes were made point

No, "mistakes" weren't made. A narrative was created and the analysts were pressured to find anything, no matter how tenuous, to support it at the expense of everything else. It was an intentional political calculation, there was no intelligence community failure. If I give you 1000 pictures of someone and one has flash red eye and you decide they're possessed by the devil, that's probably not the photographer's fault.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#133 Apr 12 2013 at 10:32 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,940 posts
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:


I'm still waiting on your peaceful solution that doesn't involve simply ignoring NK. I guess you realized that none exist.
You added in the part I scratched out. Ignoring them has worked well for years. Our Sec of State is prepared to negotiate. Should we just skip that?



Ignoring the problem isn't a solution to the problem. Ignoring NK doesn't prevent them from attacking anyone, which is the problem. NK hasn't started war yet. If they did start war, there are still no peaceful solutions.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#134 Apr 12 2013 at 11:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,589 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Ignoring the problem isn't a solution to the problem. Ignoring NK doesn't prevent them from attacking anyone, which is the problem. NK hasn't started war yet. If they did start war, there are still no peaceful solutions.

They do something to try and get attention, we try to ignore it.
They do something worse, we ask them to stop.
They do something even worse, we get mad and punish them.
We feel bad, apologize, and offer a reward for good behavior.
And repeat.

It's like a bad parent with a bratty kid or something. Smiley: rolleyes

Makes me wonder, though, how much of a pain they'll get. I mean if ignoring them makes them enough of a pain that it irritates China, the hope is to break the cycle somehow? I don't know, it seems like what we're wishing for sometimes. The US and China looking at each other like two tired parents and saying "it's your turn to deal with this."

Edited, Apr 12th 2013 10:00am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#135 Apr 12 2013 at 11:09 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,244 posts
Ignoring the problem isn't a solution to the problem. Ignoring NK doesn't prevent them from attacking anyone, which is the problem. NK hasn't started war yet. If they did start war, there are still no peaceful solutions.

Really, there's no peaceful solution to an aggressor actively waging a shooting war? Thanks, Clausewitz.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#136 Apr 12 2013 at 11:40 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,254 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
mistakes were made point

No, "mistakes" weren't made. A narrative was created and the analysts were pressured to find anything, no matter how tenuous, to support it at the expense of everything else. It was an intentional political calculation, there was no intelligence community failure. If I give you 1000 pictures of someone and one has flash red eye and you decide they're possessed by the devil, that's probably not the photographer's fault.


So no mistakes were made except for the mistakes that were made. Braided line is ok, but I'm kind of partial to mono, makes tighter knots and tends to cast a bit further but if the bait is heavy enough both work well in most situations.
#137 Apr 12 2013 at 11:51 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,244 posts


So no mistakes were made except for the mistakes that were made.


I guess it depends on how you define "mistake". Is premeditated, calculated deception "a mistake"?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#138 Apr 12 2013 at 11:58 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,404 posts
Only if you get caught.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#139 Apr 12 2013 at 12:01 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,674 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Ignoring the problem isn't a solution to the problem. Ignoring NK doesn't prevent them from attacking anyone, which is the problem. NK hasn't started war yet. If they did start war, there are still no peaceful solutions.
Everyone ignored Hitler. That worked out well.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#140 Apr 12 2013 at 12:07 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Ignoring the problem isn't a solution to the problem. Ignoring NK doesn't prevent them from attacking anyone, which is the problem. NK hasn't started war yet. If they did start war, there are still no peaceful solutions.
Everyone ignored Hitler. That worked out well.
Chamberlain ignored Hitler.

I don't see the connection though.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#141 Apr 12 2013 at 12:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
Chamberlain ignored Hitler.

Not really. Chamberlain ramped up production of British fighters and radar installations in 1938. Those were the fighters and installations that allowed the UK to win the Battle of Britain. Prior to that, the RAF was almost entirely a bomber wing. The army and navy were beefed up as well. In 1938, Britain was in no shape militarily, economically or politically to go to war in large part due to a peace-time doctrine after WWI that was in effect before Chamberlain came on the scene. Chamberlain saw Hitler and started preparing the nation's military for the inevitable.

Chamberlain arguably made a mistake in allowing the public to think things were hunky-dory but he obviously didn't ignore the threat or think Hitler was his chum. But declaring war or making empty threats at the time would have been remarkably stupid.

I guess his other mistake was in allowing historically ignorant dopes to say "LOL peace in our time!! LOLOLOL" seventy-five years later. He really should have thought ahead.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#142 Apr 12 2013 at 12:30 PM Rating: Good
******
43,404 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Everyone ignored Hitler. That worked out well.
I blame his art teacher.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#143 Apr 12 2013 at 12:31 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Chamberlain ignored Hitler.

Not really. Chamberlain ramped up production of British fighters and radar installations in 1938. Those were the fighters and installations that allowed the UK to win the Battle of Britain. Prior to that, the RAF was almost entirely a bomber wing. The army and navy were beefed up as well. In 1938, Britain was in no shape militarily, economically or politically to go to war in large part due to a peace-time doctrine after WWI that was in effect before Chamberlain came on the scene. Chamberlain saw Hitler and started preparing the nation's military for the inevitable.

Chamberlain arguably made a mistake in allowing the public to think things were hunky-dory but he obviously didn't ignore the threat or think Hitler was his chum. But declaring war or making empty threats at the time would have been remarkably stupid.

I guess his other mistake was in allowing historically ignorant dopes to say "LOL peace in our time!! LOLOLOL" seventy-five years later. He really should have thought ahead.

Maybe ignored is a strong word. He drug his feet - particularly regarding Poland.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#144 Apr 12 2013 at 12:33 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,699 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Everyone ignored Hitler. That worked out well.
I blame his art teacher. Aliens.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#145 Apr 12 2013 at 12:37 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,940 posts
Elinda wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Ignoring the problem isn't a solution to the problem. Ignoring NK doesn't prevent them from attacking anyone, which is the problem. NK hasn't started war yet. If they did start war, there are still no peaceful solutions.
Everyone ignored Hitler. That worked out well.
Chamberlain ignored Hitler.

I don't see the connection though.


Ignoring a person who's stuck on "war" will not make that person change their mind, especially when there isn't any provocation in the beginning. Ignoring that person will not make him or her treat their people better. Ignoring that person will not make them stop attacking others.

If you don't want to get involved, that's fine, but there is no way to peacefully change any of the aforementioned. That's reality.

Edited, Apr 13th 2013 1:44am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#146 Apr 12 2013 at 5:38 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The posters from the peanut gallery all insisting that he had 60 days to get approval...

Ah, well, I guess I can't answer for vague references to "the posters". I personally noted how McCain and other Senate Republicans said they wouldn't make any moves if the sixty day mark passed as they didn't see any problem with it.


And? Republicans didn't make any formal moves to condemn the war in Iraq either. What's your point? I'm talking about the hypocrisy of those who did condemn the Iraq was as "illegal", who then failed to make the same condemnation with regard to Obama's actions in Libya. Since Republicans in the Senate didn't take any formal action with regards to the Iraq war being illegal, it's not hypocritical for them not also not to do in this case.

Quote:
Quote:
I'm sorry. Did the Dems pass some kind of resolution declaring Iraq an illegal war?

No, should they have?


No. But that didn't stop many very vocal liberals from calling the Iraq war illegal. You are arguing that since the GOP didn't pass a resolution declaring Obama's actions in Libya illegal, no one on the right is allowed to point out that what he did violated the War Powers Act. But you have never made that same argument with regard to the Dems compared to liberals calling Bush's actions in Iraq illegal. That's a double standard on your part.

Quote:
Again: I did not view Iraq as an illegal war.


And you never argued that liberals who did view it as an illegal war have no grounds to do so because the Dems never passed a resolution declaring the Iraq war illegal. So why make that argument now when the only difference is the party involved?

Quote:
Therefore, I am not at all worried about whether anyone "passed a resolution" or whatever else.


And yet, you used precisely that as a criteria to dismiss criticism of Obama's actions regarding Libya.

Quote:
Since you're under the impression that "The Left" is some singular mind, let me speak on behalf of everyone and unconditionally apologize for anyone and everyone who said Iraq was "illegal". They were wrong.


It's really not about you though Joph. I'm not talking about some kind of hive mind. I'm talking about general trends. And people who align themselves on the left politically tends to be far far more likely to judge others actions based on their political orientation than on the action itself. Even as a relatively moderate liberal, what you did above is a perfect example of this. While you personally may disagree with the claim that Iraq was an illegal war, that position does not compel you to correct others on the left who claim that it was, while you wont hesitate to not just state your disagreement when it's with someone on the right, but make an argument that you'd never use if the situation was reversed.

I don't recall you ever correcting a poster on this forum back in the 2003-2006 time period claiming that Iraq was an illegal war, and you certainly never argued that they have no grounds to make that claim unless elected Democrats take some kind of formal action. You're holding left and right to a completely different standard, and I suspect you don't even realize you're doing it.


Quote:
Do you think Libya was "illegal"?


Yes. In so much as Obama's actions directly violated (ignored really) the War Powers Act. By definition what he did was illegal.

Quote:
Do you think the GOP viewed those actions as illegal?


Of course. That does not translate into taking action though.

Quote:
If so, can you explain why they did nothing beyond some lip service from the fringes to do anything at all about a president illegally waging combat?


Because it would have been politically harmful to do so? Because it would have been misconstrued (deliberately) as partisan opposition to a war that the GOP agreed with, instead of an opposition to the means by which the war was authorized. And no amount of explaining it in crystal clear terms would have mattered. **** Joph, I'm 99% sure you would have been one of the loudest voices on this forum condemning the GOP using exactly that "Why are they opposing this when they clearly think we should be helping topple Khadaffi?" argument. It's not like you haven't made the false partisan argument before.


Oh. And just to point out your inconsistency (again), I'll note that you have never asked those questions of someone on the left who claimed the Iraq war was illegal. Why not? I'll also point out that my point isn't about Obama and Libya. It's about highlighting how liberals behave very differently even to very similar actions, based on which party is involved. You're providing an excellent set of examples of this btw. Are you even aware that you do this?

Edited, Apr 12th 2013 4:45pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#147 Apr 12 2013 at 6:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And? Republicans didn't make any formal moves to condemn the war in Iraq either. What's your point?

Neither war was illegal.

Quote:
No. But that didn't stop many very vocal liberals from calling the Iraq war illegal.

Thankfully, I have apologized for those people so I hope the healing can begin and you can move past that.

Quote:
And yet, you used precisely that as a criteria to dismiss criticism of Obama's actions regarding Libya.

Sure. It would have been the course of action to take if one legitimately thought Obama was acting "illegally". But no one really did and thus no resolution was ever put out.

Quote:
Even as a relatively moderate liberal

I'm going to have this post bronzed. That's true though that I never put much energy into calling out anyone who said Iraq was illegal. Part of that is because the people most likely to do so are extremely tedious to argue with (and generally foreigners playing the "US is so evil!" card). Part of it is because I post primarily for my own amusement and thus don't feel any special onus to provide "fair and balanced" coverage in who I choose to verbally spar with or over which topics. But if your best argument is that I didn't yell at them enough so I'm not allowed to point it out now, well, that's just silly talk.

Quote:
Because it would have been politically harmful to do so?

Wow. That's... ummm... something. So they allowed the President of the United States to partake in actions that you claim they knew were obviously illegal and did absolutely nothing to stop him because it would have been "politically harmful".

Well, you said it, not me. And you align with them, not me. Have fun with that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#148 Apr 12 2013 at 7:50 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And? Republicans didn't make any formal moves to condemn the war in Iraq either. What's your point?

Neither war was illegal.


The use of military force in Libya was absolutely illegal. But see, the president is allowed to break the law. He can't be charged with any domestic crime. He can impeached by congress. That's it in terms of legal effects he's subject to. So it being illegal is more a matter of technicality. But guess what? Technically, Obama failed to comply with the War Powers Act, thus making his actions (not the war, but his actions in terms of how he authorized it) illegal. You know: In violation of the law?

Quote:
Quote:
No. But that didn't stop many very vocal liberals from calling the Iraq war illegal.

Thankfully, I have apologized for those people so I hope the healing can begin and you can move past that.


I'm not looking for an apology. I'm pointing out that you hold one "side" to a more stringent standard than the other. I'm pointing out that this is a common theme for liberals in general, you included.

Quote:
Quote:
And yet, you used precisely that as a criteria to dismiss criticism of Obama's actions regarding Libya.

Sure. It would have been the course of action to take if one legitimately thought Obama was acting "illegally". But no one really did and thus no resolution was ever put out.


No one thought that impeachment was worth bothering with in this case. That doesn't mean that what Obama did wasn't in violation of the law as written. More importantly, and the point you seem to be working hard to avoid, all of those who made a huge deal about Bush's war being illegal were silent as **** when Obama did this. Which makes it clear that they aren't basing their positions and statements on what things *are* but on which side is doing that thing.

You're trying to stand above the fray here and claim that because you didn't join in calling the war in Iraq illegal you don't do this, but you didn't point out to those making that claim then that they were wrong, while you made a specific point of doing it when I made the claim about Obama and Libya. If you were treating everyone by the same standard, you'd have long ago (and many many times) used the same arguments you just used on me against your fellow liberals. But you never did. Hence why you provide an example of what I'm talking about.


Quote:
Quote:
Because it would have been politically harmful to do so?

Wow. That's... ummm... something. So they allowed the President of the United States to partake in actions that you claim they knew were obviously illegal and did absolutely nothing to stop him because it would have been "politically harmful".


Um... Yes. Why are you feigning surprise over this? You're not that ignorant of how politics works are you?

Quote:
Well, you said it, not me. And you align with them, not me. Have fun with that.


And you're the guy who aligns with the folks who gleefully attack conservative politicians who make the mistake of acting on principle instead of political reality. You know darn well what would have happened if the GOP had moved forward with impeachment over Libya. Hell. You'd have been the first to make fun of them on this forum. You play this game so often, it's a bit strange that you even bother to pretend you aren't aware of it Joph. You know darn well that your own "side" uses political rhetoric and "us vs them" appeals to condemn acts by the GOP, even when they are the right things to do, purely because those things *can* be cast in a negative light.

You did the same thing with regard to GOP choosing not to pursue action against **** and Freddie in the 2003/2005 time frame, even though they knew that they were creating this whole housing bubble thing. I'll give you the same response I did then: Which is better? To be on the side of the guys who wanted to do the right thing, but didn't because they knew they'd be viciously attacked by the other side for doing so? Or to be on the side of the guys who viciously attacked the guys trying to do the right thing?

Cause you're in the latter group. And what's bizarre is when you sit here and pretend that you aren't aware of this, and that we should instead blame the GOP for not setting itself up for being attacked by your "side". You're like the guy who sits on the sideline, cheering for the bully who beats people up and takes their lunch money, laughing at the people who get beat up, and then blaming people for not standing up to the bully because they were afraid that they'd get beat up and people like you would laugh at them instead of help them. I just find your whole line of reasoning strange. You can't possibly lack so much introspection that you're unaware of this, can you? I mean, you join in attacking conservatives all the time, but then you blame conservatives for not doing something because they didn't want to be attacked? That's... insane.

Edited, Apr 12th 2013 6:51pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#149 Apr 12 2013 at 7:56 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,404 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm pointing out that you hold one "side" to a more stringent standard than the other. I'm pointing out that this is a common theme for liberals in general, you included.
Again, if that's a characteristic then you must be the most liberal person in the universe.

Edited, Apr 13th 2013 12:22am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#150 Apr 12 2013 at 8:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,182 posts
Quote:
conservative politicians who make the mistake of acting on principle instead of political reality


Can you cite an example of this, just so I know which ball park you're currently in?

And for the rest, it'd be much more interesting to see a sitting President impeached for illegal (or "illegal") military activity than, say, a blow job.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#151 Apr 12 2013 at 10:18 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
You're like the guy who sits on the sideline, cheering for the bully who beats people up and takes their lunch money, laughing at the people who get beat up, and then blaming people for not standing up to the bully
How very odd; that's pretty much how I've always thought of you. If you can't understand why I'd think that........ah, heck; you know why I think that, you're just to **** to admit why.



As an aside (concerning "bias" of polititians action):

Politician A is pro-abortion, supports **** marriage, and wants all to have access to contraception and the day-after pill.

Politician B is anti-abortion, abhors **** marriage, promotes "family values", and claims to be a born again Christian.

BOTH are caught snorting coke and humping strippers. I, personally, would judge politician B more harshly. Can you understand why?
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.
gbaji wrote:
My own extraordinary nature has nothing to do with the validity of what I'm talking about..
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 40 All times are in CDT
Samira, Anonymous Guests (39)