The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Bergdahl was finally charged with desertion today.  So let's recap.  Five Taliban Commanders were traded for one piece of shit deserter.  Who knew that Obama hired Jeff Ireland as his Player Personnel Guru?   ;D    On a related note, Hooah to you, Gen. Milley for having the courage to take a stand and charge Bergdahl.  I just hope you retire soon before the White House takes out their revenge on you for doing the right thing. 

Well, this movie had an underwhelming and predictable ending.

Hopefully the next movie, Global Leadership II - Kissing the Ayatollahs' Asses, will have a less predictable ending.

http://antiwar.com/blog/2015/03/27/army-report-confirms-bergdahl-never-intended-to-desert/

Even if he did try and desert, good for him the war is illegal anyhow.

Nice, reputable source you posted there. Even the very liberal DailyKos has said they are not a legitimate source of news.

So where is this argument coming from that the war in Afghanistan is illegal?

"antiwar.com"   LULZ   

And they got it from wearepurposelybiased.com, another reputable source.

Actually the source was http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/bergdahl-intended-to-walk-to-nearest-base/index.html

And the war is illegal because it's undeclared even with some silly "authorization" that should have long expired, not to mention it's completely purposeless, no goal no mission.

Antiwar.com says an army report says he never intended to desert.

CNN.com says he claims to the Army that he never intended to desert.

Notice the not so slight difference?


War does not need to be declared to be legal. Under International Law, an act of self defense is justified. Seeing as how the Taliban was harboring the leader of the organization that triggered the 9/11 attacks and because the Taliban was the ruling government in Afghanistan at the time and because they were harboring a leader that could continues his activities against us, the invasion was legal.

Semantics.  Bin Laden is dead so why are we still there?

Stop changing the discussion. I wasn't addressing why we are still there, I was addressing your erroneous statement that the invasion was illegal.

We didn't get Bin Laden during the invasion Bush let him go, by the time Bergdahl left it was an illegal occupation.

I'm sure you'll just discredit the source here but yes the invasion was Illegal

http://www.globalresearch.ca/did-9-11-justify-the-war-in-afghanistan/19891

I never read that story that Bush was there at the Tora Bora, had Bin Laden in grasp and let him go. Has Bush even been to Afghanistan? Ever?

As for it being an illegal occupation, first you said it was an illegal war because no formal declaration of war had been made, then you asked why we're still there, now its an illegal occupation. Sorry if I don't have faith in your understanding of what constitutes an illegal war or illegal occupation given your lack of consistency.

The bottom line is Berghdal is being charged as a deserter even if he is arguing he was just going to the next base. Also, I haven't seen any stories of any other soldiers having issues with that particular base. And lastly, his dad's little prayer in Pashtun during that White House ceremony and their back and forth emails while Berghdal was still on base certainly raise the question about his son's loyalty to the Army as a whole.

I recommend informing yourself of all the facts in this case rather than just the information you WANT to hear...

Of course I am going to discredit it. A site that has articles saying the 9/11 attacks were actually a controlled demolition of the twin towers deserves no benefit of the doubt.

Ok Rich, the hijackers were Saudi's The Taliban would have turned over OBL if we proved it to them, the war  was illegal in the beginning.

It took more courage to leave that mess than stay and follow orders.

How do you know the Taliban would have turned UBL over? Did they tell you this themselves?

It was reported on Mainstream news, worth a shot before an all out invasion? As I said why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia? All the hijackers were Saudis and most of the funding came from Saudi Arabia they were far more responsible.

The United States gave the Taliban an opportunity to turn UBL over. They decided to protect him (of course, he basically provided them with their defense and had a lot of money).

Another fact you have incorrect, 15 of the hijackers were Saudi, the rest were from UAE, Egypt and Lebanon.

Also, it was Zacarias Moussaoui that accused the Saudis of funding the hijackers, but this was never proven out.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/saudi-arabia-and-the-911-terrorist-attacks/

From the LA Times, that neocon conspiracy theorist publication that supports invading every country in the world.


http://articles.latimes.com/2001/sep/22/news/mn-48537

So what? They weren't Afgahnis. Saudis are the worlds top supporters of terror, there hands are all over ISIS and al Nusra and AQAP. When the 28 pages Bush had classified of the 9/11 report come out we'll know the full extent of the Saudi's role. In the meantime keep fooling yourself. The War on Terror has done nothing but create more terror and puts us in danger. Afghanistan, Iraq, the drone war, Libya, Syria all failures.

This coming from someone who gets their news from antiwar.com.  ???

They were Saudi's. Al Qaeda was given protection to plan and train its followers in Afghanistan. The Taliban government knowingly harbored a terrorist group and allowed them to train and plan attacks against other states. This is an act of war. That is why the rest of the world did not think our military intervention in Afghanistan was illegal, and were willing to join with us. Iraq is a different story.
Your grasp of international law, geopolitics, and use of force, are misguided and bordering on ignorance.

You have it backwards, go back to reading the National Review or the Weekly Standard.

http://www.e-ir.info/2013/11/06/was-the-nato-invasion-of-afghanistan-legal/

Now we're referencing student essays for our information on international law. Lets not actually reference international law itself, let's rely on student essays and conspiracy websites. Welcome to Bizarro World.

You hit the nail on the head.  I served in Iraq and the argument can be made that our presence there was a mistake (although arguably not illegal) based on faulty intel and faulty conclusions based on that intel.  Afghanistan however, was an absolutely legal and "proper" invasion for the reasons that you listed.  Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is definitely a case of "sleeping with the enemy" as brilliantly illustrated by Robert Baer in his book.  But that is a whole other conversation. 

http://www.nlgmass.org/2011/02/war-on-afghanistan-is-illegal Ok there's more, just because the New York Times tells you it's legal doesn't mean so either, you asked where the argument for it being illegal was and I gave you several.

And Dolphster, Iraq is Illegal and deliberate lies not "faulty intel". I'm sure you tell yourself that to help you sleep at night since you were there, but it was nothing but bull shit.

Pretty hilarious that some snot nosed kid thinks he is "educating" me when I have 25 years of service including 10 years of Senior Executive Service, 5 years of Executive Level service at the Pentagon, etc etc etc.  Yet you know so much more than I do because you get your SITREP briefings from WarsAreYucky.com    Yeah, you are really in the know with your inner circle connections, son. 

But, here are three neocon websites that say Iraq had WMDs and moved them to the Bekaa Valley prior to the invasion! If it's on the Internet, it must be true...  ::) ::)

http://www.worldtribune.com/2014/07/10/flashback2004/

http://pjmedia.com/blog/satellite-photos-support-testimony-that-iraqi-wmd-went-to-syria/

http://www.wnd.com/2004/05/24713/

I saw the movie In the Army Now with Pauly Shore, so I know more than you...

I saw the movie Stripes several times, and I have no doubt there were several recreational vehicles in Iraq at the time of the invasion, so it was definitely Party Time, Camel-Jockey Style!!

I do love how these discussions always seem to end up boiling down to "My sources are more reliable than your sources, because my sources are enlightened, while yours are liars...so if you don't believe my sources, you're an idiot."

According to www.therewerenorecreationalve hiclesiniraqatthetimeoftheinv asion.com, you have your facts wrong.

I avoid those untrustworthy right-wing RV websites...

Since you are incapable of thinking for yourself, let me show how wrong your source is.
First of all the author is wrong about Article 2 and 51. Article 51 allows for individual or collective self-defense. There is no wording about their having to be an immediate attack, but there is wording about already suffering an attack.

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."

As you can see, your source is wrong. The U.S. was attacked, and the Security Council had undertaken any steps to deal with it. This was the third successful attack against the U.S. and its territories in three years. This meant there was a high probability of another attack. Since Article 51 nullifies Article 2, there is no violation of Article 2.

The author does not list what violations of the Geneva Conventions took place. The I.C.C. and Rome Statute do not apply to the U.S. as they have not been ratified by our Congress( a necessary component of a state being held accountable to international treaties, is that they have to be legally binding and ratified by the state in question).

So it is now blatantly obvious that you have a child's grasp of both international law and geopolitics, and blindly follow the poorly reasoned and argued logic of some random "guild" of lawyers. I can assure you that there are highly qualified and knowledgeable lawyers and judges who would agree with your "sources" legal understanding of the U.N. Charter and how Article 51 applies to Afghanistan... and they are not GOP hacks.

The U.S. would not meet the legal standards required for genocide, ethnic cleansing, or other offenses listed under War Crimes in Afghanistan. Due to the ability to argue self-defense under Article 51, the U.S. would not meet the criteria of aggression.

On a side note, have you been to either Iraq or Afghanistan? Have you talked to people living there?

Whatever dudes. You experts on geopolitics and international law have done a bang up job. I mean the way you spread radicalism throughout the middle east. Good job in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and Syria, fantastic work.

Yep, radical Islam did not exist until we stuck our noses in the Middle East. Brilliant!

Not to be nit-picky, but he said "spread" not "create".  ;D

Yep, but also, not to be nitpicky either, but Iran is really the one that started the spread of radical Islam in the Middle East back in the 70s when the ayatollahs took over. That spurred the Sunnis to respond to a Shiite theocracy.

I know there isn't a huge difference between Iran and the US, but it is important to make that slight, nuanced distinction.

And the Ayatollahs came to power why? As a response to the US overthrowing Mossadeq in 50's and installing the Shah.

Al-Qaeda comes from Saudi sunni theology that the US props up, no Al-Qaeda in Iraq until the US showed up, it was contained in Libya until we assassinated Qadaffi.

I'm sure you're terrified of Iran as well, and that "bomb" the Israelis claim they've been building since 92 haha.

You're right. Actually, when the United States started the Crusades, that's when this shit really got started.

Nope. Iran is engaged in a proxy war with Saudi Arabia over who will control the region. They are seeking the bobb to prevent the U.S. from invading, or Israel from launching attacks against them. This is because no country that possesses nuclear weapons has been invaded. It is the ultimate trump card. Even Pakistan, which has fucked us over and betrayed us does not fear us invading, because they have nuclear weapons. I do not fear Iran giving the bomb to Hamas or other terror groups.
Zawahari did split off and form his own Al Qaeda group in Iraq. They were so violent, that they were rejected by everyone, and quickly eliminated. Al Qaeda has not had a real presence since then.

The war in Afghanistan was more than justified.  Arguing against it you might as well make the case for why the US was not justified in entering wwii after pearl

iraq on the other hand was a war of agression by bush

Not so fast... all intelligence indicated that Iraq still had WMDs in their possession. Iraq had violated UN requirements by kicking out inspectors. Iraq had also violated no fly zones and other conditions that were fallout from their invasion of Kuwait and attacks on Israel and Saudi Arabia in the 90s. Both sides of the aisle strongly supported the invasion. You can pull up quotes from every notable politician, from John Kerry to Hillary Clinton on and on and on saying Iraq's WMD program was a threat and needed to be dealt with. The threat of Iraq's WMD program was not a fabrication of the Bush Administration. It was something that was discussed before he even became president.

And as it turns out, American and Iraqi troops did find thousands of chemical weapons in Iraq, mostly containing mustard gas and sarin, from 2004 to 2011. These discoveries were kept secret by the Army, primarily because the encounters, especially more recent ones, were deemed worrisome given the activities of Al Qaeda in Iraq early on and then the Islamic State. This information was published in the New York Times, just in case anyone wants to refer to it as a right wing media fabrication.

To be fair, the program that was described leading up to the Iraq War and the program we've discovered since are not the same, but the fact remains that Saddam Hussein's government was still in possession of stockpiles of WMDs.

That is the major issue now. We were sold that they had a modern and active WMD program. We knew they had WMD's from the past...but there is little to no evidence of the active program that the public was sold on.