Bibi won!

[Sava]

Wouldn't be the first war criminal to win reelection

[regexcellent]

For starters, he'd have to be a war criminal.

[Berzerker]

Um, what the **** are you talking about Berzerker? Bibi wasn't even PM of Israel when we went to war in Iraq. Plus, everyone in Israel has to join the military anyway, and the dude was a ****ing special forces operative, so even if he had, he still would have his money where his mouth is.

He was finance minister at the time, a totally domestic post, and Israel was not really involved in our decision to invade Iraq anyway.

I dont care what his job was at the time, he lied us into the war with Iraq. And he provided cover for the scum here who lied us into war. And I dont care if Israelis serve in their military, the USA went to war. I want the people here who support that ahole to send their kids into the next war he's pushing.

[Hauldren Collider]

I don't think he ever did that, Berz...you think it's honestly Bibi's fault that we went to Iraq? :wtf:

[Berzerker]

Wouldn't be the first war criminal to win reelection

Yup, we re-elected Bush and we get to see his legacy on TV every night in the form of Wounded Warriors ads

[Berzerker]

I don't think he ever did that, Berz...you think it's honestly Bibi's fault that we went to Iraq? :wtf:

Yes, he did... I just watched old news video of the BS he was telling us about how wonderful the ME will be with Saddam gone

I blame the politicians and bureaucrats who lied us into war, he's one of them - so is Hillary.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

here it is



a new age indeed.

[Berzerker]

I dont care what his job was at the time, he lied us into the war with Iraq. And he provided cover for the scum here who lied us into war. And I dont care if Israelis serve in their military, the USA went to war. I want the people here who support that ahole to send their kids into the next war he's pushing.

actually I have to retract that, I dont want their kids paying the price either

[regexcellent]

Denmark's prime minister at the time was in favor of the invasion too. Lots of people were. Hillary Clinton, for instance. In fact, it was pretty popular at the time. You may have forgotten.

[Al B. Sure!]

[Al B. Sure!]

Denmark's prime minister at the time was in favor of the invasion too. Lots of people were. Hillary Clinton, for instance. In fact, it was pretty popular at the time. You may have forgotten.

He may have forgotten? You were about 12 at the time!

You're right that the benefit of hindsight causes people to forget how popular defeating Sadam was once. However, that popularity has nothing to do with anyone's suspicion of the same ilk, if not the same man, singing the same refrain and beating the war drums again.

I do wonder about the hoopla with Iran now in the face of ISIS, a crisis more deserving of our intervention on a humanitarian level than Saddam's regime, an enemy Iran is fighting.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Denmark's prime minister at the time was in favor of the invasion too. Lots of people were. Hillary Clinton, for instance. In fact, it was pretty popular at the time. You may have forgotten.

Quite the opposite.

At the time it was popular to side with the US, it was a post 9-11 world, and even so France, Germany, half of European states were not in support, neither were Russia, China (not a suprise, but hey) even Turkey was against it - all that a year after 9-11 and the greatest ever international support of the US in the run up to the Afghanistan invasion. With Iraq US wasted all that goodwill on an manufactured platform... but hey... forgotten... here is a reminder

Europe's new gang resists US 'bullying'

On the face of it they are an unlikely threesome, ganging up against America and its planned war on Iraq.

Russia, under President Putin, has been currying favour with Washington, especially since the terrorist attacks of 11 September, 2001.

Russia may have been sucking up to America of late, but as a nation it has been smarting ever since the Soviet Union collapsed and it lost its status as a superpower

Germany, as Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer pointed out at the weekend, is grateful to the Americans for their part in the defeat of Nazism and the restoration of democracy.

And France... Well, France has always been something of a wandering star in the Allied constellation.
.
Germany's position is the most extreme - ruling out participation in a war on Iraq even if there is a UN resolution in favour of it. That stance was adopted before last September's elections and probably helped Gerhard Schroeder scrape back into office.

It was a popular policy in a country which since World War II has developed strong pacifist traditions. Nonetheless, it might have been modified had it not been for America's strong-arm tactics, which have united Germans in their opposition to war.

All three countries suspect the US is using Nato as its personal weapon, circumventing the United Nations, where international action should really be decided.

The divide is deep. The new troika believes there is no reason to plunge the region into war at this stage

The deadlock in Brussels HQ has not really been about Turkey (France and Germany made quite clear they would come to Turkey's aid in the event of a real threat) but about being bullied by the Americans.

Officials in Paris and Berlin point out that Turkey would not be under a particular threat from Iraq in the first place, were it not for America's plans for war.

The divide is deep. The new troika believes there is no reason to plunge the region into war at this stage, for three reasons: it would lead to massive civilian bloodshed, it would destabilise the region, and it might still be possible to disarm Iraq by peaceful means.

And if there is to be action, they argue, it should not be carried out by a self-appointed "world policeman" (a phrase coined by the Soviet Union to decry American foreign adventures) but collectively, by the United Nations.

this article also brings up an interesting point about Russia and Putin, but this has also been forgotten.

Russia may have been sucking up to America of late, but as a nation it has been smarting ever since the Soviet Union collapsed and it lost its status as a superpower, and with it the "right" to divide the world into spheres of influence with the USA.

Under President Yeltsin, the Kremlin resisted every American move towards hegemony, including the gradual extension of Nato into eastern Europe.

Vladimir Putin was more pragmatic. He acquiesced in the expansion of Nato, even to include the three Baltic states territories which were once part of the USSR.

The attacks brought Russia and US closer, but Iraq is dividing them. The reasons for this included a desire for better relations and the promise that Russia would be better integrated into the world community.

After 11 September Putin quickly signed up to the "war on terror", partly to gain sympathy and help in his own war on terrorism in Chechnya.

A Nato-Russia council was set up last May, crowning the new relationship.

and look where that got him, Ukraine in NATO after an American lead coup of a democratically elected government a decade and a half later.

[regexcellent]

Alby, ISIS isn't as dangerous to us as Iran is, Iran funds its own terrorist organizations, it's not really better than ISIS either in terms of executing people more or less at random, and it has an active nuclear program. And we've been badly burned in the past with enemy-of-my-enemy stuff.

[Jon Miller]

I am really confused by people telling me that Iran is a threat to the US.

I understand Iran being a threat to Israel, but I am really really confused about Iran being a threat to the US.

Russia? Maybe. China? Definite possibility.

Iran?

JM

[regexcellent]

If you don't think Iran is a threat to us, you definitely shouldn't think ISIS is a threat.