SternFanNetwork Archive - Olbermann's Latest "Special Comment" Is A Must See

SternFanNetwork Archive > Other Talk > Politics & News

Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.

Olbermann's Latest "Special Comment" Is A Must See - Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics

banner

Olbermann's Latest "Special Comment" Is A Must See - Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics

gofyaself

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/...about-iraq-sir/

Bronks Breasts

That was a pretty damn good speech... DVR's are wonderful items. Keith continues to amaze me with the fact that he is a lone wolf in telling the truth about the Bush crime family. Yeah, the media is liberal .

gt80rider

that was really good...

Mr. PC

Did he give the score of tonights Redsox game?

Quote: Originally posted by Mr. PC
Did he give the score of tonights Redsox game?

did limbaugh give out the Royals scores ok? Cheney seems to think Rush is credible as he releases many news spins there - are you saying Cheney is an idiot?

NC-Stern-Mark

OMFG, no wonder Olbermann's ratings are in the shitter.

after he gets done telling us that US Presidents use events as photo-ops, (gasp) and Bush's end game includes getting the presidential candidates to feel comfortable with a "presence" in Iraq, (again, gasp!) maybe Olbermann can tell us what will happen to Iraq if we do suddenly pull out of the country?

The sad truth is chaos would ensue, making the Afghanistan operation all but worthless. The sad truth is the mistake was made four years ago and the mistake has been compounded many times over by the incredible incompetence in managing the war in Iraq and the sad truth is if we leave now, it would be a monumental disaster. And this is precisely due the fact of us being in the country this long and the instability and civil strife that we have allowed to occur the past 4 years. It's our fault... (collectively)

We broke Iraq and I think we should find a way to fix it and that solution probably doesn't have George Bush in the equation.

Does anyone think we can just pull out of that country and not have total conflagration occur?

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
OMFG, no wonder Olbermann's ratings are in the shitter.

after he gets done telling us that US Presidents use events as photo-ops, (gasp) and Bush's end game includes getting the presidential candidates to feel comfortable with a "presence" in Iraq, (again, gasp!) maybe Olbermann can tell us what will happen to Iraq if we do suddenly pull out of the country?

The sad truth is chaos would ensue, making the Afghanistan operation all but worthless. The sad truth is the mistake was made four years ago and the mistake has been compounded many times over by the incredible incompetence in managing the war in Iraq and the sad truth is if we leave now, it would be a monumental disaster. And this is precisely due the fact of us being in the country this long and the instability and civil strife that we have allowed to occur the past 4 years. It's our fault... (collectively)

We broke Iraq and I think we should find a way to fix it and that solution probably doesn't have George Bush in the equation.

Does anyone think we can just pull out of that country and not have total conflagration occur?

Bush doesn't have the solution and the U.S. alone doesn't have the bankroll

JTProcess

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
the sad truth is if we leave now, it would be a monumental disaster.

It's already a monumental disaster, if we leave now less Americans die... get it?

ArivacaCharlie

So, while bashing Olbermann and the "liberal media," you have said that Bush has been a totally incompetent fucknut regarding Iraq.
You feel, though, that Bush fucked it up and now it's our responsibility to fix it?
Honestly, I understand your point (if that is the point).
I don't feel we have any real security interests there (other than "oil") so I'm in favor of pulling American troops out and, in time, hoping we can regain some credibility on the world stage.
However, please explain how chaos in Iraq will make the operation in Afghanistan "all but worthless."

Kill Van Kull

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
the sad truth is if we leave now, it would be a monumental disaster.

What brand crystal ball do you use? Remember, when we pulled out out Viet Nam the "crystal ballers" warned that "the whole world will fall to communism?" Clearly, that didn't happened.

Our kids are being maimed and murdered to make us less safe, THAT must stop now.

:cool:

zimmie

Excellent point NCSM.......Comical that Democrats have berated Bush for four years about having no plan, yet they want to pull out of Iraq with no plan either....for anything...

NC-Stern-Mark

Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
So, while bashing Olbermann and the "liberal media," you have said that Bush has been a totally incompetent fucknut regarding Iraq.
You feel, though, that Bush fucked it up and now it's our responsibility to fix it?
Honestly, I understand your point (if that is the point).
I don't feel we have any real security interests there (other than "oil") so I'm in favor of pulling American troops out and, in time, hoping we can regain some credibility on the world stage.
However, please explain how chaos in Iraq will make the operation in Afghanistan "all but worthless."

You got the point Charlie. :)

You have to think of the end game in Iraq and what would happen if we leave. Who would take control? Right now the Sunnis are on our side, the Kurds could generally be thought to cooperate and not make a power play, they are pretty happy if no one fucks with them in Kurdistan.

The wild card is the Shia, which I've always thought was Iraq's problem to begin with. That's why Hussein kept them locked down. They are more aligned with Iran and support Iran before Iraq. We are talking the hard-liners here, not your average Shia. If we go poof, and disappear tomorrow, the first to get slaughtered would be the 20 percent of the population that is Sunni and then if would probably be on with the Kurds.

The Kurds would take it in the ass from both Iran and maybe Turkey. At the end of it, Iran would most likely have total control of Iraq with a regional war possible if Turkey or the surrounding Sunni nations take offense at seeing their fellow Sunnis slaughtered. Almost sure to be total chaos and total anarchy for a loooong time to come.

I think the efforts we made in Afghanistan would go down the tubes because we ousted the Taliban there and rid the country of that repressive regime. Having Iraq descend into chaos would only trade Afghanistan, that is still struggling to adopt democracy with total chaos in Iraq, which would then make Afghanistan like look paradise.

Yeah, Bush fucked up Iraq, badly. I would love to pull out of there tomorrow but if there is the slightest chance that the country can reconcile it's differences between it's different populations and save it from going under Iran's total influence, it would be worth it.

I say this and have come to this conclusion more in resignation than any other thought process. Bush is not going to pull troops out. He will not. So it's going to be up to the next president to get us the fuck out without Iraq blowing up behind us. It is bad enough we invaded that country in the first place but to pull out now, after the damage is done and just say fuck it, let the chips fall where they may would not gain this country any kind of credibility.

To me, this seems a cold, hard truth and it sucks very badly.

The best thing about this bullshit is yes, there are some signs of progress and if we ever see a fucking Iraqi army stand up, maybe they can keep it together. I hate to even speculate of this bullshit because I'm fucking sure that somehow, GWB purposely designed this whole fuck up and knew very well it would be someone else's problem after he left office.

so the Iraqi Army should replace the U.S. Army even though an army's job is not to police the people - you guys are a bunch of geniuses

NC-Stern-Mark

Quote: Originally posted by Oz
so the Iraqi Army should replace the U.S. Army even though an army's job is not to police the people - you guys are a bunch of geniuses

Don't you think Iraq needs a army? Of course they are supposed to replace us and keep the foreign fighters out of the country. The question has always been why the fuck is it taking so long for them to stand up.

Look, I don't blame you or anyone for wanting to pull out of Iraq TODAY but there has to some thought of what that means to us tomorrow and to the region.

If Bush had any fucking brains, he would draw up plan to withdraw, drop it on the UN Secretary's desk, show him which day we will out of there and ask him to make plans accordingly. I agree, we've been there far to long and never should have went there in the first place but unfortunately, the same chimp who put us there is still in charge and the damage has been done.

Bush will never do it. It will be the next president's problem.

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
Don't you think Iraq needs a army? Of course they are supposed to replace us and keep the foreign fighters out of the country. The question has always been why the fuck is it taking so long for them to stand up.

Look, I don't blame you or anyone for wanting to pull out of Iraq TODAY but there has to some thought of what that means to us tomorrow and to the region.

If Bush had any fucking brains, he would draw up plan to withdraw, drop it on the UN Secretary's desk, show him which day we will out of there and ask him to make plans accordingly. I agree, we've been there far to long and never should have went there in the first place but unfortunately, the same chimp who put us there is still in charge and the damage has been done.

Bush will never do it. It will be the next president's problem.

shouldn't you be refereeing a dog fight somewhere?

who said I think we should "pull out" today? please don't make any assumptions on what "I think" -

my point is an Army's job is NOT to police the country - that is what the U.S. Army is doing and they're getting slaughtered - they need a police force for these issues and a legal system not corrupted by U.S. money -

please don't show how naive you are by thinking and "army" solves anything

NC-Stern-Mark

Quote: Originally posted by Oz
shouldn't you be refereeing a dog fight somewhere?

who said I think we should "pull out" today? please don't make any assumptions on what "I think" -

my point is an Army's job is NOT to police the country - that is what the U.S. Army is doing and they're getting slaughtered - they need a police force for these issues and a legal system not corrupted by U.S. money -

please don't show how naive you are by thinking and "army" solves anything

I didn't say anything about you wanting to pull out. I said I wouldn't blame you or anyone for wanting that.

I remember now, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. You can read a post, figure out what you want it to say and then act all disturbed about it. It's very amusing. :)

And unfortunately, an occupying army does act as police unless and until indigenous forces are in place.

I also never said an emergence of the Iraqi army would solve anything... I'm sure I didn't, that must be "your problem" popping up again. :)

I stated the fact that has always been stated. We will leave when The Iraqi Army is ready to take our place. Which I hope would be very soon but seeing what has been happening the last few weeks, I'm sure that Bush is Not going to be withdrawing troops from Iraq before the next election. There will have to be a reduction but the next president will have to decide if and when to bring all the troops home.

Please read carefully if you would like to discuss any the points I've brought up. I don't have time for fucking bullshit. :)

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
I didn't say anything about you wanting to pull out. I said I wouldn't blame you or anyone for wanting that.

yes you did - you said you don't "blame me" for wanting to - do you forget what you type?

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark

Look, I don't blame you or anyone for wanting to pull out of Iraq TODAY but there has to some thought of what that means to us tomorrow and to the region.

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark

I remember now, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. You can read a post, figure out what you want it to say and then act all disturbed about it. It's very amusing. :)

And unfortunately, an occupying army does act as police unless and until indigenous forces are in place.

I also never said an emergence of the Iraqi army would solve anything... I'm sure I didn't, that must be "your problem" popping up again. :)

I stated the fact that has always been stated. We will leave when The Iraqi Army is ready to take our place. Which I hope would be very soon but seeing what has been happening the last few weeks, I'm sure that Bush is Not going to be withdrawing troops from Iraq before the next election. There will have to be a reduction but the next president will have to decide if and when to bring all the troops home.

Please read carefully if you would like to discuss any the points I've brought up. I don't have time for fucking bullshit. :)

we will leave when the iraqi army is ready which is what you state - you don't understand the purpose of a military - this isn't that hard to understand - no military will solve the problems there

let me know when you reading comprehension gets up to speed with everyone else's

NC-Stern-Mark

Quote: Originally posted by Oz
yes you did - you said you don't "blame me" for wanting to - do you forget what you type?

Again, comprehension is everything :rolleyes:

Quote: Originally posted by Oz

we will leave when the iraqi army is ready which is what you state - you don't understand the purpose of a military - this isn't that hard to understand - no military will solve the problems there

let me know when you reading comprehension gets up to speed with everyone else's

Unfortunately it is you who do not understand what an armies responsibilities are and you fail to take into account the reality in Iraq.

First. It is the responsibility of an occupying army to maintain the safety of the populace. They act as police. Period. It is International law.

Second. It has always been the stated policy of the commanders in Iraq as well as the chimps administration that our troops can come home when the Iraqi army is ready to replace us. If you never heard that before, your head must have been up your ass the last three years. :)

Third. The reason EVERYONE'S hopes are pinning on the Iraqi army to stand up is the fact the Iraqi Police are simply a bunch of shit-head insurgents, masquerading as police.

Once again, I need to correct your mistakes. :)

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
Again, comprehension is everything :rolleyes:

Unfortunately it is you who do not understand what an armies responsibilities are and you fail to take into account the reality in Iraq.

First. It is the responsibility of an occupying army to maintain the safety of the populace. They act as police. Period. It is International law.

Second. It has always been the stated policy of the commanders in Iraq as well as the chimps administration that our troops can come home when the Iraqi army is ready to replace us. If you never heard that before, your head must have been up your ass the last three years. :)

Third. The reason EVERYONE'S hopes are pinning on the Iraqi army to stand up is the fact the Iraqi Police are simply a bunch of shit-head insurgents, masquerading as police.

Once again, I need to correct your mistakes. :)

hm no, an Army's job is not to do that - why don't you start a thread about it and see how the military folks in this forum respond? A military is NOT a police force. I understand why you have difficulty understanding this, this is not your difficulty alone.

PS - Bush doesn't understand the difference either - so how can I expect you to?

Mr. PC

did he mention how the Eagles look this year ?

Quote: Originally posted by Mr. PC
did he mention how the Eagles look this year ?

who gives a shit?
:D

Tomofnnh

Quote: Originally posted by Mr. PC
did he mention how the Eagles look this year ?

Well, if you cant attack the message..... :rolleyes:

is Mr PC implying that a former sportscaster should have nothing to do with politics?

What about a former male cheerleader?

Quote: Originally posted by Tomofnnh
Well, if you cant attack the message..... :rolleyes:

is Mr PC implying that a former sportscaster should have nothing to do with politics?

What about a former male cheerleader?

or even as I stated earlier

Quote: Originally posted by Oz
did limbaugh give out the Royals scores ok? Cheney seems to think Rush is credible as he releases many news spins there - are you saying Cheney is an idiot?

NC-Stern-Mark

Quote: Originally posted by Oz
hm no, an Army's job is not to do that - why don't you start a thread about it and see how the military folks in this forum respond? A military is NOT a police force. I understand why you have difficulty understanding this, this is not your difficulty alone.

PS - Bush doesn't understand the difference either - so how can I expect you to?

It is not MY opinion. It is International law and part of the Geneva Conventions.

Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:

“Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their
persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and
practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely
treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats
thereof and against insults and public curiosity.

Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour , in
particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault.
Without prejudice to the provisions relating to their state of health, age and sex,
all protected persons shall be treated with the same consideration by the Party
to the conflict in whose power they are, without any adverse distinction based,
in particular, on race, religion or political opinion.
However, the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and
security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the
war.”

Get it. The occupying army PROTECTS the populace. They act as police. That's part of how GWB duped most of the country into going to war. He never mentioned the part about nation building but when you are an occupying army, you have certain responsibilities that are bound by law. This is a fact and can not be disputed.

Besides that, it is beside the fact that we are long since the point were we should have been gone because a police force has been established. As mentioned before, incompetence has created a police force that is also corrupt, holds it's allegiance to militias and actually kills people instead of protecting them so our armed forces are caught in the middle.

Look, I'm not defending anything about Iraq. I'm trying to look at the reality of what would happen if we left right now.

Halcyon

Quote: Originally posted by Oz
who gives a shit?
:D

I give a shit! :mad:

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
It is not MY opinion. It is International law and part of the Geneva Conventions.

Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:

“Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their
persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and
practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely
treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats
thereof and against insults and public curiosity.

Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour , in
particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault.
Without prejudice to the provisions relating to their state of health, age and sex,
all protected persons shall be treated with the same consideration by the Party
to the conflict in whose power they are, without any adverse distinction based,
in particular, on race, religion or political opinion.
However, the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and
security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the
war.”

Get it. The occupying army PROTECTS the populace. They act as police. That's part of how GWB duped most of the country into going to war. He never mentioned the part about nation building but when you are an occupying army, you have certain responsibilities that are bound by law. This is a fact and can not be disputed.

Besides that, it is beside the fact that we are long since the point were we should have been gone because a police force has been established. As mentioned before, incompetence has created a police force that is also corrupt, holds it's allegiance to militias and actually kills people instead of protecting them so our armed forces are caught in the middle.

Look, I'm not defending anything about Iraq. I'm trying to look at the reality of what would happen if we left right now.

quoting the GC has nothing to do with the reality of the situation that the Army is not a police force in any way that is effective - understand the difference between and Army and a police force and it will all become clear to you

VacateTheWord

Quote: Originally posted by Oz
my point is an Army's job is NOT to police the country - that is what the U.S. Army is doing and they're getting slaughtered - they need a police force for these issues and a legal system not corrupted by U.S. money -

please don't show how naive you are by thinking and "army" solves anything

No, it is not the job of the Iraqi Army, ultimately, to police the country. You are correct. However, you are basically saying that the Iraq police should be doing the job that the Coalition forces/Iraqi Army is doing now. The presumption that the Iraqi police would be more effective in the current circumstances is laughable.

You go on, naively, to question the rationale of an army solving anything. Have you ever heard the expression - "Call in the National Guard?"
I'll give you a specific example -

You might be too young to remember this, but in 1992 we had widespread riots in Los Angeles after cops were acquitted in the Rodney King case. Soon after chaos ensued and the city was set aflame with arsonists, looters and rampant violence. After a few days it became quite clear that the police could not bring the situation under control. So what happened - thousands of National Guard and Marines were sent into the area to bring it under control. End result - the violence subsided shortly after the military force was fully deployed.

Now don't get me wrong - I am not asserting that the Iraqi Army should "police" the country forever. The long term goal is to get the country in a position where the Iraqi police will "police" the country for internal crimes and the armed forces will be on guard against external threats. Right now, this is just not feasible. To assert otherwise is, well, naive.

Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
No, it is not the job of the Iraqi Army, ultimately, to police the country. You are correct. However, you are basically saying that the Iraq police should be doing the job that the Coalition forces/Iraqi Army is doing now. The presumption that the Iraqi police would be more effective in the current circumstances is laughable.

You go on, naively, to question the rationale of an army solving anything. Have you ever heard the expression - "Call in the National Guard?"
I'll give you a specific example -

You might be too young to remember this, but in 1992 we had widespread riots in Los Angeles after cops were acquitted in the Rodney King case. Soon after chaos ensued and the city was set aflame with arsonists, looters and rampant violence. After a few days it became quite clear that the police could not bring the situation under control. So what happened - thousands of National Guard and Marines were sent into the area to bring it under control. End result - the violence subsided shortly after the military force was fully deployed.

Now don't get me wrong - I am not asserting that the Iraqi Army should "police" the country forever. The long term goal is to get the country in a position where the Iraqi police will "police" the country for internal crimes and the armed forces will be on guard against external threats. Right now, this is just not feasible. To assert otherwise is, well, naive.

I never suggested the "Iraqi police" replace the "U.S. Army" - I'm saying the "U.S. Army" is NOT a police force and should not be expected to act as such. They are not typically trained to be a police force - their job is to fight another army.

If the U.S. Army is brought in for short bursts to quell violence then so be it - but the day to day is not their job nor their mission nor their task. It is a misuse of our military.

PS - how in the fuck old are you?

VacateTheWord

Quote: Originally posted by Oz
I never suggested the "Iraqi police" replace the "U.S. Army" - I'm saying the "U.S. Army" is NOT a police force and should not be expected to act as such. They are not typically trained to be a police force - their job is to fight another army.

If the U.S. Army is brought in for short bursts to quell violence then so be it - but the day to day is not their job nor their mission nor their task. It is a misuse of our military.

PS - how in the fuck old are you?

So who do you think should be fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq - the US army or the Iraqi police?

Also, in order to bring about stability, do you think armed soldiers standing next to an Abrams tank would be less effective than a group of Iraq police standing next to a Buick? Remember the LA Riots comparison.

I'm not going to reveal any more personal information than I already have, so let me just say I am in my mid-30s.

NC-Stern-Mark

Quote: Originally posted by Oz
quoting the GC has nothing to do with the reality of the situation that the Army is not a police force in any way that is effective - understand the difference between and Army and a police force and it will all become clear to you

I hope you realize how fucking stupid you sound. Quoting the Geneva Conventions has everything to do with the situating because our army occupied Iraq and was bound my the conventions. Maybe we didn't that good a job of following them but that doesn't change the fact we are bound to the treaty. As I stated, it's NOT my opinion that an army should act as a police force and it doesn't matter what YOUR opinion is either, it is the LAW that an occupying army do so.

One of the many reasons the occupation of Iraq went in the shitter was because there were not enough troops to police the country and quell the then nascent insurgency. Whether Bush accomplished this by sheer stupidity or some other malicious reason, I don't know.

Fast forward to today and we have Iraqi police who in some cases are nothing more but uniformed death squads and an Iraqi army that is still largely unable to function on it's own.

Again doofus, nothing has to become clear because the law has always been crystal clear on the responsibilities of an occupying army.

Who the fuck to you think polices an occupied country, Santa Fucking Claus!

Jesus Christ, what a fucking idiot...

Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
So who do you think should be fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq - the US army or the Iraqi police?

Also, in order to bring about stability, do you think armed soldiers standing next to an Abrams tank would be less effective than a group of Iraq police standing next to a Buick? Remember the LA Riots comparison.

I'm not going to reveal any more personal information than I already have, so let me just say I am in my mid-30s.

nobody is asking you to reveal any personal info - just saying "not sure if you remember 92" came across as funny to me -

anyway - I'm not getting into this "al qaeda in iraq" discussion but my point stands that the U.S. military is ineffective in doing a job that is better accomplished for who it is suited for - intelligence and a police force

NC-Stern-Mark

Well THE LAW is one thing and your opinion is quite another.

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
I hope you realize how fucking stupid you sound. Quoting the Geneva Conventions has everything to do with the situating because our army occupied Iraq and was bound my the conventions. Maybe we didn't that good a job of following them but that doesn't change the fact we are bound to the treaty. As I stated, it's NOT my opinion that an army should act as a police force and it doesn't matter what YOUR opinion is either, it is the LAW that an occupying army do so.

One of the many reasons the occupation of Iraq went in the shitter was because there were not enough troops to police the country and quell the then nascent insurgency. Whether Bush accomplished this by sheer stupidity or some other malicious reason, I don't know.

Fast forward to today and we have Iraqi police who in some cases are nothing more but uniformed death squads and an Iraqi army that is still largely unable to function on it's own.

Again doofus, nothing has to become clear because the law has always been crystal clear on the responsibilities of an occupying army.

Who the fuck to you think polices an occupied country, Santa Fucking Claus!

Jesus Christ, what a fucking idiot...

awww lookie what we have here again - mr. backed into a corner name caller - sucks to lose every discussion you get into when logic gets presented your way doesn't it?

1. you believe it is an occupation then - correct?
2. i agree that we should have had more forces when we went in
3. and the part your dull brain doesn't get is that the U.S. Army is not an effective POLICE FORCE - you think things are going well right now because they are a police force? I'll say it again mr. sore loser - intelligence and a police force and politcial and diplomatic resolutions will solve the problem - not an entity that is based strictly on brute force - if you want spec ops to be involved that's fine - but MOS 11 anythings are not gonna get the job done - jackass :hw:

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
Well THE LAW is one thing and your opinion is quite another.

explain how the U.S. Army is doing such a great job policing the country now - pull some examples out genius - its like having an auto-mechanic become a race car driver - they both work on cars - doesn't mean they know how to do each others job -

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
Well THE LAW is one thing and your opinion is quite another.

btw - you're coming across as a real asshole

NC-Stern-Mark

Quote: Originally posted by Oz
explain how the U.S. Army is doing such a great job policing the country now - pull some examples out genius - its like having an auto-mechanic become a race car driver - they both work on cars - doesn't mean they know how to do each others job -

My God, you're a fucking blithering idiot! LOL!

Again, now and read s l o w l y...

It doesn't fucking matter what the fuck your opinion of whether an army can police, should police, are equipped to police effectively or where ever trained to police in the first place.

None of that matters doofus because it is the fucking law that an occupying police the territory which they are occupying. Your opinion does not matter.

You a very amusing fellow. :)

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
My God, you're a fucking blithering idiot! LOL!

Again, now and read s l o w l y...

It doesn't fucking matter what the fuck your opinion of whether an army can police, should police, are equipped to police effectively or where ever trained to police in the first place.

None of that matters doofus because it is the fucking law that an occupying police the territory which they are occupying. Your opinion does not matter.

You a very amusing fellow. :)

awww - now let's see who has the reading comprehension problem -

you know what else the law states? that michael vick is gonna fry for doing something illegal - remember that fuckface :lol:

ahhhhh you're way too easy to play with - anyway, I will state it again for you because you don't get it - THE U.S. Army is NOT a police force. Think about it and let it sink in before you post something totally stupid again.

NC-Stern-Mark

Quote: Originally posted by Oz
btw - you're coming across as a real asshole

That's funny because I thought you were an asshole from the start.

You're amusing but only because of your stupidity. Watching you try to grasp a concept is like watching a tard play with a rubiks cube. :)

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
That's funny because I thought you were an asshole from the start.

You're amusing but only because of your stupidity. Watching you try to grasp a concept is like watching a tard play with a rubiks cube. :)

only insults from you - show's your ability to debate or lack thereof -

NC-Stern-Mark

Quote: Originally posted by Oz
awww - now let's see who has the reading comprehension problem -

you know what else the law states? that michael vick is gonna fry for doing something illegal - remember that fuckface :lol:

ahhhhh you're way too easy to play with - anyway, I will state it again for you because you don't get it - THE U.S. Army is NOT a police force. Think about it and let it sink in before you post something totally stupid again.

Suck my cock asshole.

Any army that signed the Geneva Conventions act as POLICE forces when they occupy territory.

Keep trying to line up those colors, you may get it one day. :giggle:

NC-Stern-Mark

Quote: Originally posted by Oz
only insults from you - show's your ability to debate or lack thereof -

Debate?

:lol:

VacateTheWord

Quote: Originally posted by Oz
anyway - I'm not getting into this "al qaeda in iraq" discussion

And in not doing so you are ignoring the reality on the ground in Iraq, period.

Keep in mind that AQI is not running around shoplifting or littering...then I'd agree with you that the Iraqi police should be "policing" such a problem.
When a bomb goes off in a neighborhood that kills over 500 and wounds 2-3 times that amount, I think it's fair to say that the situation has grown beyond what the police force is capable of - especially given the amount of violence in the country. If this were going on in an Amercian city, I would not think it at all improper or unrealistic to deploy the national guard to gain control of the situtation.

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
Suck my cock asshole.

Any army that signed the Geneva Conventions act as POLICE forces when they occupy territory.

Keep trying to line up those colors, you may get it one day. :giggle:

stay on point motard - the U.S. Army is NOT a police force - get it yet? I've asked you previously
to disregard the GC for this discussion - try it and see if this makes any sense to you - we're tasking the military with a job that is not theirs - now I know you'll snap right back to your security blanket because you're weak-minded and need to request oral sex from me - but try to frame it in your mind such that you can let go of your issues

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
Debate?

:lol:

yes - "debate" - i get and understand to you try to roll with the big boys here - you try

Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord

Keep in mind that AQI is not running around shoplifting or littering...

this shows you have zero understanding of what a police force in an occupied country should do -

intelligence and - let me see if this helps you - picture the "police force" as you would a "swat team" - does that help at all?

NC-Stern-Mark

Quote: Originally posted by Oz
stay on point motard - the U.S. Army is NOT a police force - get it yet? I've asked you previously
to disregard the GC for this discussion - try it and see if this makes any sense to you - we're tasking the military with a job that is not theirs - now I know you'll snap right back to your security blanket because you're weak-minded and need to request oral sex from me - but try to frame it in your mind such that you can let go of your issues

yes - "debate" - i get and understand to you try to roll with the big boys here - you try

:lol; :lol:

Roll with the big boys!!! OMFG, I nearly fell off my chair with that one!

You are an intellectual midget!

You>>>:blow:<<<Me

:D

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
:lol; :lol:

Roll with the big boys!!! OMFG, I nearly fell off my chair with that one!

You are an intellectual midget!

You>>>:blow:<<<Me

:D

:scratch: lot's of gay shit with you - very interesting -

no offense but I'm joking about pretty much all of it aside from two points which instead of addressing you've decided to address with "gay" jokes - odd....

1. the U.S. military is NOT a police force - you're too dumb to get this one obviously
2. Michael Vick should and will fry for what he did to dogs - you're too dumb to get this one either

here's proof http://www.sternfannetwork.com/foru...40&pagenumber=1

:hw:

btw - when I make comments like "roll with the big boys" to a knucklehead like yourself it is meant to get you riled up - nothing else - I don't actually believe there are "big boys" here - but you're dumb enough to believe it :hw:

NC-Stern-Mark

Quote: Originally posted by Oz
:scratch: lot's of gay shit with you - very interesting -

no offense but I'm joking about pretty much all of it aside from two points which instead of addressing you've decided to address with "gay" jokes - odd....

1. the U.S. military is NOT a police force - you're too dumb to get this one obviously
2. Michael Vick should and will fry for what he did to dogs - you're too dumb to get this one either

here's proof http://www.sternfannetwork.com/foru...40&pagenumber=1

:hw:

yeah OK, Michael Vick will get the death penalty!

The Big Dog said so...

:lol:

NC-Stern-Mark

Quote: Originally posted by Oz
btw - when I make comments like "roll with the big boys" to a knucklehead like yourself it is meant to get you riled up - nothing else - I don't actually believe there are "big boys" here - but you're dumb enough to believe it :hw:

Don't apologize!

I'm still laughing at you!

:lol:

ArivacaCharlie

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
You got the point Charlie. :)

You have to think of the end game in Iraq and what would happen if we leave. Who would take control? Right now the Sunnis are on our side, the Kurds could generally be thought to cooperate and not make a power play, they are pretty happy if no one fucks with them in Kurdistan.

The wild card is the Shia, which I've always thought was Iraq's problem to begin with. That's why Hussein kept them locked down. They are more aligned with Iran and support Iran before Iraq. We are talking the hard-liners here, not your average Shia. If we go poof, and disappear tomorrow, the first to get slaughtered would be the 20 percent of the population that is Sunni and then if would probably be on with the Kurds.

The Kurds would take it in the ass from both Iran and maybe Turkey. At the end of it, Iran would most likely have total control of Iraq with a regional war possible if Turkey or the surrounding Sunni nations take offense at seeing their fellow Sunnis slaughtered. Almost sure to be total chaos and total anarchy for a loooong time to come.

I think the efforts we made in Afghanistan would go down the tubes because we ousted the Taliban there and rid the country of that repressive regime. Having Iraq descend into chaos would only trade Afghanistan, that is still struggling to adopt democracy with total chaos in Iraq, which would then make Afghanistan like look paradise.

Yeah, Bush fucked up Iraq, badly. I would love to pull out of there tomorrow but if there is the slightest chance that the country can reconcile it's differences between it's different populations and save it from going under Iran's total influence, it would be worth it.

I say this and have come to this conclusion more in resignation than any other thought process. Bush is not going to pull troops out. He will not. So it's going to be up to the next president to get us the fuck out without Iraq blowing up behind us. It is bad enough we invaded that country in the first place but to pull out now, after the damage is done and just say fuck it, let the chips fall where they may would not gain this country any kind of credibility.

To me, this seems a cold, hard truth and it sucks very badly.

The best thing about this bullshit is yes, there are some signs of progress and if we ever see a fucking Iraqi army stand up, maybe they can keep it together. I hate to even speculate of this bullshit because I'm fucking sure that somehow, GWB purposely designed this whole fuck up and knew very well it would be someone else's problem after he left office.

I'm not convinced that a total pull-out in Iraq would cause any problem to us in America. There would, undoubtedly, be a similar blood-bath as when we pulled out of Viet Nam. I, however, don't care as long as Americans are not involved in it. If there's a bloodbath in the Middle East, so be it. But, as in Viet Nam, leaving wouldn't have any negative effects back home. As far as Afghanistan, I don't see how pulling out of Iraq will affect that other than it will free up a lot of soldiers that we can send to the proper theater of battle. In other words, it may help us achieve victory by giving us the man power to get the job done.

NC-Stern-Mark

Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
I'm not convinced that a total pull-out in Iraq would cause any problem to us in America. There would, undoubtedly, be a similar blood-bath as when we pulled out of Viet Nam. I, however, don't care as long as Americans are not involved in it. If there's a bloodbath in the Middle East, so be it. But, as in Viet Nam, leaving wouldn't have any negative effects back home. As far as Afghanistan, I don't see how pulling out of Iraq will affect that other than it will free up a lot of soldiers that we can send to the proper theater of battle. In other words, it may help us achieve victory by giving us the man power to get the job done.

I'm just wondering what the ramifications of handing over Iraq to Iran would be. I don't pretend to know the answer, just wondering.

I brought up Afghanistan because if Iraq does go to hell, we have just created another al qaeda hide-out while cleaning one out in Afghanistan.

Honestly I'm not convinced about the whole terrorist hideout deal either...

This is why the democrats didn't defund this war. There are a lot of questions that need to be asked before we pull out of there. The biggest problem is the chimp is still in charge.

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
yeah OK, Michael Vick will get the death penalty!

The Big Dog said so...

:lol:

I'm illustrating a point that you're a hypocrite and can't argue your way out of a paper bag - your rules don't apply evenly and you don't understand the simplest of points -

you believe what Vick did was "not so bad" - I'll call that the "whoopie goldberg" excuse - you also don't understand anything about the U.S. military - anything else you'd like to make glaringly obvious is that you're obsessed with homosexual sex and violent acts at that.

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
Don't apologize!

I'm still laughing at you!

:lol:

where in that did I apologize? and I'm the one with the reading comprehension problem - :rolleyes: -

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
I'm just wondering what the ramifications of handing over Iraq to Iran would be. I don't pretend to know the answer, just wondering.

I brought up Afghanistan because if Iraq does go to hell, we have just created another al qaeda hide-out while cleaning one out in Afghanistan.

Honestly I'm not convinced about the whole terrorist hideout deal either...

This is why the democrats didn't defund this war. There are a lot of questions that need to be asked before we pull out of there. The biggest problem is the chimp is still in charge.

:lol: we'll hand it right over to Iran - yep that's what would happen you jackass - that would be the greatest excuse to attack Iran possible is if they tried to occupy Iraq - another armchair general who has shown he doesn't understand the military's job commenting on a topic he's too dim to understand - good job fatso! :tu:

NC-Stern-Mark

Quote: Originally posted by Oz
I'm illustrating a point that you're a hypocrite and can't argue your way out of a paper bag - your rules don't apply evenly and you don't understand the simplest of points -

you believe what Vick did was "not so bad" - I'll call that the "whoopie goldberg" excuse - you also don't understand anything about the U.S. military - anything else you'd like to make glaringly obvious is that you're obsessed with homosexual sex and violent acts at that.

where in that did I apologize? and I'm the one with the reading comprehension problem - :rolleyes: -

:lol: we'll hand it right over to Iran - yep that's what would happen you jackass - that would be the greatest excuse to attack Iran possible is if they tried to occupy Iraq - another armchair general who has shown he doesn't understand the military's job commenting on a topic he's too dim to understand - good job fatso! :tu:

Get back to me when you sober up. And put some ice on your taint, it may help that sore ass. :D

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
Get back to me when you sober up. And put some ice on your taint, it may help that sore ass. :D

more non-answers from you - oh well, I guess that is your M.O.

NC-Stern-Mark

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark

yup - more nonsense from you - down in a ball of flames you go :hw:

NC-Stern-Mark

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark

good morning herr retard - ready for another day of being made to look like a tool?

NC-Stern-Mark

Mr. PC

Any word on the baseball playoff hunt ?

Mr. PC

Boston Redsox look amazing

Tomofnnh

Yes they do. Oh what a great day it would be if the Yanks dont make the playoffs. (20~25 games left in the season)

Mr. PC

Quote: Originally posted by Tomofnnh
Yes they do. Oh what a great day it would be if the Yanks dont make the playoffs. (20~25 games left in the season)

fuck the yanks !! the Evil Empire must die ! :)

i got the whole redsox starting staff on my Fantasy baseball team..they best kick some ass for me in my playoffs.

NC-Stern-Mark

Quote: Originally posted by Mr. PC
fuck the yanks !! the Evil Empire must die ! :)

i got the whole redsox starting staff on my Fantasy baseball team..they best kick some ass for me in my playoffs.

God willing, the Yanks and Boston meet in the play-offs and Boston goes down, ripping the hearts out of Boston fans yet again.

It'll be OK though, they are used to it. :)

Mr. PC

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
God willing, the Yanks and Boston meet in the play-offs and Boston goes down, ripping the hearts out of Boston fans yet again.

It'll be OK though, they are used to it. :)

thats just cold :(

IWannaBangBiel

I saw that, too. In-fucking-credible. Too bad, there wasn't more of that 5 years ago when all this could've been avoided. Instead, we got Today Show Cheerleaders instead of straight talk.

ArivacaCharlie

I believe alQaeda in Iraq will, more or less, leave when we do.
But, you brought up a good issue when you question the ramifications of turning Iraq over to Iran.
We have seen, since this mess started, that Iran was really the problem over there. Saddam's vague responses to the UN inspectors was to keep Iran from finding out he had no weapons to speak of. He was actually a stabilizing presence in the region.
We can't, however, do anything with Iran now because we simply don't have the troop strength to launch another invasion.
I may be to simplistic here but it seems that by pulling out of Iraq, we will free up troops.
Your question (and it's a good one) regarding Iran is the "x factor" to this whole debate.
One of the "military experts" who was on Meet The Press several months ago suggested pulling back to the borders and sealing off the playground so the civil war can run it's course. That seems like something worth seriously considering.

Crazytree

I want the guy Reagan handpicked to run Iraq... Saddam Hussein!S

Quote: Originally posted by Crazytree
I want the guy Reagan handpicked to run Iraq... Saddam Hussein!S

he's dead jim

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20617762/
Study: Iraqi forces far from ready to take over
Report says Army shows promise but police should be scrapped and rebuilt

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20594604/
Experts doubt drop in violence in Iraq
Military statistics called into question

oh well - guess we'll have to keep the troops in there longer to police the country

IWannaBangBiel

Quote: Originally posted by Oz
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20617762/
Study: Iraqi forces far from ready to take over
Report says Army shows promise but police should be scrapped and rebuilt

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20594604/
Experts doubt drop in violence in Iraq
Military statistics called into question

oh well - guess we'll have to keep the troops in there longer to police the country

I just read those an hour ago. Fucking incredible. The police force should be scrapped entirely and rebuilt from the ground up? I can't wait to hear Bush explain how we're winning.....again.

Mr. PC

the Mets look pretty damn scary. Whoever playes them in playoffs are in for some trouble. Whats Keiths thoughts on the Mets ?

ArivacaCharlie

Quote: Originally posted by Crazytree
I want the guy Reagan handpicked to run Iraq... Saddam Hussein!S

Reagan and Saddam.....hmmm.
Are you insinuating that the only good Republicans are dead Republicans?
:D

NC-Stern-Mark

Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
I believe alQaeda in Iraq will, more or less, leave when we do.
But, you brought up a good issue when you question the ramifications of turning Iraq over to Iran.
We have seen, since this mess started, that Iran was really the problem over there. Saddam's vague responses to the UN inspectors was to keep Iran from finding out he had no weapons to speak of. He was actually a stabilizing presence in the region.
We can't, however, do anything with Iran now because we simply don't have the troop strength to launch another invasion.
I may be to simplistic here but it seems that by pulling out of Iraq, we will free up troops.
Your question (and it's a good one) regarding Iran is the "x factor" to this whole debate.
One of the "military experts" who was on Meet The Press several months ago suggested pulling back to the borders and sealing off the playground so the civil war can run it's course. That seems like something worth seriously considering.

I won't even pretend to know the correct answer. :(

And yeah, Saddam was definitely a buffer to Iran. That's why we armed and supported him during Iraq's war with Iran. My wife lived in Baghdad for 5 years in the early 80's and never had a problem walking around town. It was a first world city.

It was Murtha's plan to pull back to the horizon but can you imagine the world-wide outcry when the blood starts flowing and we are sitting there watching? It would seem the world expects the US to fix what we broke.

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
I won't even pretend to know the correct answer. :(

there's a first :D

NC-Stern-Mark

Quote: Originally posted by Oz
there's a first :D

ArivacaCharlie

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
I won't even pretend to know the correct answer. :(

And yeah, Saddam was definitely a buffer to Iran. That's why we armed and supported him during Iraq's war with Iran. My wife lived in Baghdad for 5 years in the early 80's and never had a problem walking around town. It was a first world city.

It was Murtha's plan to pull back to the horizon but can you imagine the world-wide outcry when the blood starts flowing and we are sitting there watching? It would seem the world expects the US to fix what we broke.

Could be. It also could be that the world wants us out of there so we don't keep piling one fuck-up onto another.
We are definitely the king troublemaker of the world right now.
By the way, it wasn't Murtha I was thinking of. It was a network expert---a retired Admiral, I believe.

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark

ah, a super lame post from you - not a first for sure

NC-Stern-Mark

Quote: Originally posted by Oz
ah, a super lame post from you - not a first for sure

Your Ad Here

Powered by: Search Engine Indexer and vBulletin v2.3.0
Copyright © 2000 - 2002, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
All code and concepts property of iMonkey Inc.

This website is not affiliated with the Howard Stern Show. It is produced by fans for fans.
We share no connection with Howard Stern, Sirius Radio, On Demand, CBS Broadcasting, E! TV or Infinity Broadcasting.

All posts and attachments are the responsibilities of their owners and not of this site.