All Hank, all the time.

[i was penske]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
"I was able to establish with certainty whose swinging dick was bigger."

Exactly, I found out the GOP operative had a vagina after all. Who knew?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
he certainly did ass-fuck Clinton's socialistic legacy of peace,

if only we had let Al queda continue to train 10,000 terrorists a year in Afghanistan they would have left us alone?

[Gattigap]

Today's op-ed piece in WaPo advocates dealing with immigration from Mexico through a massive program in which we provide Mexico with assistance with infrastructure, and Mexico agrees to raise their standards of enviromental, labor, health and safety regs, etc. The result, apparently, is that it would both reduce the incentive for northern immigration, and would create incentives for southern immigration.

It's not the same as annexing Mexico, of course, but it's an interesting thought. Of course, it contains the word "subsidy," though, so it's already politically dead.

Gattigap

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Today's op-ed piece in WaPo advocates dealing with immigration from Mexico through a massive program in which we provide Mexico with assistance with infrastructure, and Mexico agrees to raise their standards of enviromental, labor, health and safety regs, etc. The result, apparently, is that it would both reduce the incentive for northern immigration, and would create incentives for southern immigration.

It's not the same as annexing Mexico, of course, but it's an interesting thought. Of course, it contains the word "subsidy," though, so it's already politically dead.

Gattigap

I think we're too busy with a similar project in Iraq.

112 billion barrels versus 15 billion barrels.

[adebisi, esq.]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
if only we had let Al queda continue to train 10,000 terrorists a year in Afghanistan they would have left us alone?

spot on analysis hankchinaski. the donkeys are so eager to support anyone but their own country that they would gladly risk another 911 in the name of coddling their terrorist friends.

i wonder though, do they really believe that the islamofacists and their homocide bombers would spare the donkey-infidels after they turned the united states into an islamofacist thugocracy?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by adebisi, esq.
spot on analysis hankchinaski. the donkeys are so eager to support anyone but their own country that they would gladly risk another 911 in the name of coddling their terrorist friends.

i wonder though, do they really believe that the islamofacists and their homocide bombers would spare the donkey-infidels after they turned the united states into an islamofacist thugocracy?

one good thing about once we are an Islamic republic is that fat girls running on tracks will have to wear burkas!

[adebisi, esq.]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
one good thing about once we are an Islamic republic is that fat girls running on tracks will have to wear burkas!

doesn't the sha'ria ban female sweat?

an aside, when the sons of muhammed set up a ruling islamic council on our shores and call the donkeys to answer for their infidelity, do you think any of them will defend the principles of freedom of our once great nation or will they all just capitulate to islam in the same manner as they act the yellow appeasers and apologists for the world's terror regimes today?

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
"I come before this body to express my sincere regret," McKinney said on the House floor. "There should not have been any physical contact. ... I am sorry that this incident happened at all ... and I apologize." The statement fell short of apologizing directly to the officer.

Bummer that she apologized. I love that she bitch slapped that overpaid whiny rentacop.

[Spanky]

I don't understand the logic behind thinking we should have invaded Afghanistan but should have know better than to invade Iraq.

If the argument is that one attacked us and the other one didn't, that line of reasoning doesn't make sense to me because wouldn't we have we been better off invading Afghanistan before 9/11? Wasn't the problem with Afghanistan is that we waited to long to invade? In addition, hadn't shot at our airplanes in violation of the treaty, broke other provisions of the treaty and attempted to assassinate a former president (are those not acts of war).

The argument that Iraq did not have ties with Al Queda doesn't seem to make sense to me either. Why is Al Queda the only terrorist group that justifies invasion? There was a time when Al Queda did not seem like a bid deal, wasn't the mistake in waiting until it was a big deal? Why does Al Queda have to be the only terrorist group that could use Iraq as a base of operations? Why couldn't another group use Iraq as a sponsor, just like Al Queda used Afghanistan as a sponsor?

Al Queda, using a much less sophisticated country than Iraq as a sponsor, was able to hit the United States hard. Wasn't it logical to assume that another terrorist group or maybe even Al Queda could eventually use Iraq as its sponsor for an attack on the US that would prove much more devastating? Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, would be able to be a much better sponsor to a terrorist group being much richer and having a much more sophisticated population and infrastructure - plus having much more experience with WMDs than the Taliban.

If a terrorist group sponsored by Afghanistan could take out the twin towers, just think what a terrorist group could have done with the help of Saddam Hussein and all his scientists who had experience with WMDs? What if Al Queda and Iraq had hooked up?

Afghanistan was potentially much a bigger problem for invasion and occupation than Iraq. We had fought Iraq before and knew we could beat them. Afghanistan was a complete unknown, and they had fought off the Russians. Plus we had no bases near Afghanistan where we had bases right next to Iraq.

Afghanistan is a tribal warlike country that had never been successfully occupied. The British had occupied Iraq. Afghanistan has just as many fractional and tribal problems as Iraq. From an historical perspective it would seem that we could have been much more assured of being able to occupy Iraq than Afghanistan.

The argument of, well if we went into Iraq, why didn't we choose North Korea or Iran doesn't make much sense to me. Why didn't we invade these countrys before Afghanistan? They have the potential of making WMDs where Afghanistan was never even in the running. So they could potentially hit us harder than a second hit from Afghanistan.

In addition, we can't invade North Korea without losing Seoul, which is an unacceptable loss. Iran seems to be destined to become more moderate because of the sentiments and sophistication of its populace. In addition, we did not have the experience of, or that easy ability to invade Iran like we did with Iraq. Also, Iran seemed less likely to launch a terrorist attack on the US. If they hit the twin towers they would know the US would retaliate. Saddam Hussein showed that he did not fear US retaliation because he tried to murder one of our presidents. I can't imagine Iran being that stupid.

WMDs? Afghanistan didn't have any WMDs and we knew that going in.

So why are so many people taking the position that at the time it was the obvious right thing to do to invade and occupy Afghanistan but at the time it was clearly the wrong decision to invade Iraq.

Liberals argue that Bush decision to invade Afghanistan was clearly justified, but invading Iraq was clearly not justified and Bush must have had some nefarious purpose in doing so.

Does someone want to explain to me why going into Afghanistan was a no brainer, but going into Iraq was clearly misguided and stupid?

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
Why couldn't another group use Iraq as a sponsor, just like Al Queda used Afghanistan as a sponsor?

And yet, for 12 years, despite having their ass handed to them by the United States, this didn't happen.

Afganastan was serving as a base for terrorsts who had already successfully attacked us, and were threatening to immediately attack us again. Iraq could have been a base of operations for attacks by another organization that may or may not have existed. Yes. I can see how those two things are exactly the same. You've convinced me, Spanky.

Also, your argument that we were justified invading Iraq because there were other countries that were a bigger threat than Afganistan? Priceless.

ETA: I'm going to assert to you, Spanky, although you clearly disbelieve it is possible, that many, many people believe that one is more justified in invading a country after it has actually attacked you than one which has the capacity and perhaps the desire to attack you. There's a fair amount of propaganda to this effect out there: it's why we were the good guys in Gulf War I. In Korea. In WWII. And WWI. And the Spanish American War. And the Civil War. The Israilis and Palestinians each continuously try to take the high ground as to who provoked whom. And sympathies with the two sides there have a lot to do with how far back one's memory goes.

Like it or not, there's a lot of emphasis in the world on "who started it." It's pretty clear (but not crystal) we didn't "start it" with Afghanistan. It's much harder to argue the same with a straight face about Iraq.

[adebisi, esq.]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't understand the logic behind thinking we should have invaded Afghanistan but should have know better than to invade Iraq.

Does someone want to explain to me why going into Afghanistan was a no brainer, but going into Iraq was clearly misguided and stupid?

there is no logic to it, other than the logic of hating your country at the expense of its security. this is exactly why the infantile donkeys cannot be trusted with the reigns of power. if we learned no other lesson from the donkey regime of the 90s, the fact that their hatred of the military and intelligence agencies culminated in 911 should be lesson enough.

911: never forget, never forgive, never again!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Afganastan was serving as a base for terrorsts who had already successfully attacked us, and were threatening to immediately attack us again. Iraq could have been a base of operations for attacks by another organization that may or may not have existed. Yes. I can see how those two things are exactly the same. You've convinced me, Spanky.

If you accept those coulds/mays then invading Iraq was a good idea. The point is/was to not wait until the Sear's Tower goes down, but to be proactive. I'm not saying the coulds/mays were actually coulds/mays, but if you can accept them as real, then 70% of america would support invading.

(but not crystal)

Wow. You need to get help.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If you accept those coulds/mays then invading Iraq was a good idea. The point is/was to not wait until the Sear's Tower goes down, but to be proactive. I'm not saying the coulds/mays were actually coulds/mays, but if you can accept them as real, then 70% of america would support invading.

I don't disagree with that analysis (although I might not agree with the ultimate decision). But they aren't the same.

Wow. You need to get help.

Meh. I'm just saying that the work of al Queda isn't a state act. I think it's clear enough. But it's not Pearl Harbour, crystal clear. The world doesn't always make crystal, though. This was more like glassware from IKEA clear.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't understand the logic behind thinking we should have invaded Afghanistan but should have know better than to invade Iraq.

One was a threat to us. The other was not.

If the argument is that one attacked us and the other one didn't, that line of reasoning doesn't make sense to me because wouldn't we have we been better off invading Afghanistan before 9/11? Wasn't the problem with Afghanistan is that we waited to long to invade? In addition, hadn't shot at our airplanes in violation of the treaty, broke other provisions of the treaty and attempted to assassinate a former president (are those not acts of war).

One was a threat to us. The other was not. We can and did deal with shooting at planes by, for example, bombing radar installations. We did not need a full-scale invasion and a now 3-year occupation. (Yes, I know -- in neo-con fantasy-land the invasion would only take 35 troops and the occupation would only last four hours, followed by two days of cleaning up all the flowers and sweets. But I'm talking about reality here.)

The argument that Iraq did not have ties with Al Queda doesn't seem to make sense to me either. Why is Al Queda the only terrorist group that justifies invasion? There was a time when Al Queda did not seem like a bid deal, wasn't the mistake in waiting until it was a big deal? Why does Al Queda have to be the only terrorist group that could use Iraq as a base of operations? Why couldn't another group use Iraq as a sponsor, just like Al Queda used Afghanistan as a sponsor?

By this logic, there is no country on earth that we should not invade.

The threat posed by al Qaeda was a threat of radical, fundamentalist Islam. There are many groups of that ilk, and they set up shop in many countries -- Indonesia, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, and innumerable others. We do not, should not, and cannot invade all of these countries. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein, though evil, a dictator, and an enemy of the US, was not a friend of radical, fundamentalist Islam. In contrast, the Taliban was al Qaeda's ideal.

Al Queda, using a much less sophisticated country than Iraq as a sponsor, was able to hit the United States hard.

And now, we have a choice between near permanent occupation, and leaving Iraq as hospitable to al Qaeda as Afghanistan was.

Wasn't it logical to assume that another terrorist group or maybe even Al Queda could eventually use Iraq as its sponsor for an attack on the US that would prove much more devastating? Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, would be able to be a much better sponsor to a terrorist group being much richer and having a much more sophisticated population and infrastructure - plus having much more experience with WMDs than the Taliban.

Once again, this logic would justify an invasion of virtually any country in the world.

If a terrorist group sponsored by Afghanistan could take out the twin towers, just think what a terrorist group could have done with the help of Saddam Hussein and all his scientists who had experience with WMDs?

And yet, despite at least a decade of purest hatred for the US, they never did so. Why is that? Why was an invasion necessary to protect the US in 2003, but not in 1996? (And before you sputter "Clinton... appeaser" identify the Rs who called for an invasion and occupation of Iraq in 1996. I don't remember that as a plank in Dole's platform.)

What if Al Queda and Iraq had hooked up?

Despite all of Bush's efforts to tie the two together, the fact remains that they hated each other and there was virtually no chance of this.

Afghanistan was potentially much a bigger problem for invasion and occupation than Iraq. We had fought Iraq before and knew we could beat them. Afghanistan was a complete unknown, and they had fought off the Russians. Plus we had no bases near Afghanistan where we had bases right next to Iraq.

At this point, you just get too silly to respond to.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by baltassoc
And yet, for 12 years, despite having their ass handed to them by the United States, this didn't happen.

Afganastan was serving as a base for terrorsts who had already successfully attacked us, and were threatening to immediately attack us again. Iraq could have been a base of operations for attacks by another organization that may or may not have existed. Yes. I can see how those two things are exactly the same. You've convinced me, Spanky.

So the only difference was Afghanistan had been successful and Iraq hadn't. So why wait until Iraq was successful? Why not hit them before they were successful?

Originally posted by baltassoc Also, your argument that we were justified invading Iraq because there were other countries that were a bigger threat than Afganistan? Priceless.

You use the word "Justified". I was not talking about if we were "justified", I was talking about what was prudent from a national security perspective. You go after the country that is the bigger threat from a national security perspective. The point here is to save U.S. citizens lives not to please the international community. Is it not?

Originally posted by baltassoc
ETA: I'm going to assert to you, Spanky, although you clearly disbelieve it is possible, that many, many people believe that one is more justified in invading a country after it has actually attacked you than one which has the capacity and perhaps the desire to attack you. There's a fair amount of propaganda to this effect out there: it's why we were the good guys in Gulf War I. In Korea. In WWII. And WWI. And the Spanish American War. And the Civil War. The Israilis and Palestinians each continuously try to take the high ground as to who provoked whom. And sympathies with the two sides there have a lot to do with how far back one's memory goes.

Like it or not, there's a lot of emphasis in the world on "who started it." It's pretty clear (but not crystal) we didn't "start it" with Afghanistan. It's much harder to argue the same with a straight face about Iraq.

"Who started it" has become an obsolete concept in the age of terrorism and WMDs. We can't let them get in the first blow because in the first blow we could lose Chicago, or even worse Vegas.

Not that it mattered, but again, Iraq had started it. If breaking a treaty to end a war, and trying to assisinate the former of head of your state is not justification enough, I don't know what is.