Massacre in Kandahar

Originally posted by whodey
How many of those interventions does the US oppose?

Also, if you want something major done militarily, the US is the chosen country to be in the mix.

How many of those interventions does the US oppose?

You are moving the goalposts, drastically; are you trying to distance yourself from something you've just said? A page or two ago you were claiming U.N. interventions happen because "the bulk of the military might" is from the U.S.

Also, if you want something major done militarily, the US is the chosen country to be in the mix.

Which U.N. interventions are being carried out because of [or with] "the bulk of the military might" coming from the U.S.? Remember that out of 82,539 troops currently involved in U.N. military operations, 16 are Americans, that is to say 0.02 %

While you're at it, which U.N. interventions since the Korean War (60 years ago) got carried out because of [or with] "the bulk of the military might" coming from the U.S.?

Originally posted by whodey
I did not mean to imply [the Nobel Prize] was the sole reason [for the U.S. involvement in NATO's Libya operation], but I think it may have helped win him over.

Are you being serious?

Originally posted by whodey
Why do you say that? Did you hear him say it? My guess is you are speculating.

Well, whodey, if you and I are aware of the widespread negative or baffled perception that the award was somewhat embarrassingly premature (at best), then I am sure President Obama is aware of it too. You think he is "unaware" of it because you "didn't hear him say it" yet or because he didn't "hand it back"?

Originally posted by FMF
Well, whodey, if you and I are aware of the widespread negative or baffled perception that the award was somewhat embarrassingly premature (at best), then I am sure President Obama is aware of it too. You think he is "unaware" of it because you "didn't hear him say it" yet or because he didn't "hand it back"?

The fact that he did not give it back makes him look like an idiot.

Of course, you disagree even though you agree everyone is laughing at him?

Whatever.

Originally posted by FMF
[b]How many of those interventions does the US oppose?

You are moving the goalposts, drastically; are you trying to distance yourself from something you've just said? A page or two ago you were claiming U.N. interventions happen because "the bulk of the military might" is from the U.S.

Also, if you want something major done militarily, the US is th ...[text shortened]... carried out because of [or with] "the bulk of the military might" coming from the U.S.?

Surely you know FMF that the US has been the world leader in terms of economics and military might? Surely you know that the UN was not designed for such a unipolar set up and that such a set up creates problems. For example, the US Congress refused to pay arrears to the UN until the UN gave them some concessions. With the headquarters in New York and the fact that the US has the bulk of military might in the world, I think the US carries far more weight politically than say Egypt.

Originally posted by whodey
The fact that he did not give it back makes him look like an idiot.

Don't be so silly. A joke is a joke, whodey. But you just thrash your little gag over and over till it becomes so dreary. It was a bit of peculiar international drama created by an Award committee that has made a string of decisions over the years that were peculiar or controversial for a range of reasons. Obama "giving it back" might have entertained someone like you; I have no doubt you'd have criticized Obama if he had given it back for not entering into the spirit of it and accepting it on America's behalf or some such gag reflex anti-Obama thread hijacking nonsense. What about the massacre in Kandahar, whodey? Do you agree that the credibility of U.S. military justice is under the spotlight with this latest massacre?

Originally posted by whodey
Surely you know FMF that the US has been the world leader in terms of economics and military might? Surely you know that the UN was not designed for such a unipolar set up and that such a set up creates problems. For example, the US Congress refused to pay arrears to the UN until the UN gave them some concessions. With the headquarters in New York and the ...[text shortened]... military might in the world, I think the US carries far more weight politically than say Egypt.

I see. So you are simply trying to distance yourself from what you have been saying for a few pages because it didn't stand up to scrutiny. Same old same old from whodey.

Originally posted by FMF
? Do you agree that the credibility of U.S. military justice is under the spotlight with this latest massacre?

Credibility? What credibility? What on earth do they expect to accomplish there FMF? Moreover, what on earth do they expect out of these poor servicemen who have been left over there to rot in a hellish country like Afghanistan?

Originally posted by whodey
Credibility? What credibility?

The credibility of U.S. military justice in handling this latest massacre, bearing in mind how previous cases were handled.

If you don't want to discuss the topic you need not feel compelled to spam up the thread, whodey.

Originally posted by FMF
I see. So you are simply trying to distance yourself from what you have been saying for a few pages because it didn't stand up to scrutiny. Same old same old from whodey.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/10/gates-blasts-nato-questions-future-alliance/

Perhaps you feel that those that seem to agree with Whodey, like Obama's own Robert Gates, should be further dicredited?

---------------------------------------------------------

Robert Gates lashed out, speaking directly to partner nationin Brussels, accusing European allies of dumping the majority of their military burdens onto the laps of the US. He warned NATO that it risks becoming a relic the US can no longer afford. "The blunt reality is that there will be dampening appitite and patience in the US Congress -- and in the American body of politic writ large -- to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to the serious and capable partners in their own defense," Gates said.

He pointed to Libya as a prime example.


"While every alliance member voted for the Libya mission, less than half have participated at all, and fewer than a third have been willing to participate in the strike mission. Frankly, many of those allies stiing on the sidelines do so not because they do not want to participate, but simply because they cannot. The military capabilities simply are not there."

The US pays more than 75% of the defense budget for the 28 members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Gated said that by slashing their own defense budgets, the European nations are falling short in Libya. "The mightiest military in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country, yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the US, once more, to make up the difference," Gates said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

What a dope Gates is. Maybe he reads too much of Whodeys posts here at RHP.

Of coures, what Gates does not say is that the Europeans should not be blamed, rather, it should be the man in charge who agreed to all this nonsense without prior commitments from other countries. Then again, none of this is Obama's blood and money so what does he care?

Originally posted by whodey
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/10/gates-blasts-nato-questions-future-alliance/

Perhaps you feel that those that seem to agree with Whodey, like Obama's own Robert Gates, should be further dicredited?

---------------------------------------------------------

Robert Gates lashed out, speaking directly to partner nationin Brussels, accusing Eur ...[text shortened]... er countries. Then again, none of this is Obama's blood and money so what does he care?

What about the massacre in Kandahar, whodey? Do you agree that the credibility of U.S. military justice is under the spotlight with this latest massacre?

Originally posted by FMF
What about the massacre in Kandahar, whodey? Do you agree that the credibility of U.S. military justice is under the spotlight with this latest massacre?

So you have the time to bash Whodey but not respond to his defense?

Ok then.

So what do you think FMF? A man goes off his rocker in Afghanistan for the entire world to see. Of course they are all on trial here. So what?

Originally posted by whodey
So what do you think FMF? A man goes off his rocker in Afghanistan for the entire world to see. Of course they are all on trial here. So what?

The question you are avoiding for some unknown reason is whether you think that the credibility of U.S. military justice is under the spotlight with this massacre in view of how the military has handled previous cases(s). One poster raised the question of whether the U.S. military is able to/should be handling its own war crimes. If you want to address the thread topic, and/or any points made in the ensuing discussion, please feel free.

Originally posted by whodey
So you have the time to bash Whodey but not respond to his defense?

What "defence" of what, whodey? A few posts back - totally off topic - you were claiming "the bulk of the military might" used in U.N. interventions is from the U.S. and they don't happen without this "military might". That turned out to be spectacularly untrue.

So then - bizarrely - you were suggesting that what you had meant all along was that the U.S. is a richer/more influential country than Egypt within the U.N.

Then you seemed to think that the fact that out of the 82,539 troops currently involved in U.N. military operations, 16 being Americans (i.e. 0.02 percent) was somehow offset by the U.N. Headquaters being located in New York, and somehow justified your "the bulk of the military might" of the U.N. thing.

There was also your thread hijacking sub-plot in which "the bulk of the [U.S.] military might" somehow came under the control of the Norewegian Nobel peace Prize committee because President Obama was - you claimed - an "idiot".

And now here you are, having dashed yourself against various rocks of your own inaccurate and scattergun invention, you seem to be suggesting that evidence about U.S. contributions to NATO operations in Libya somehow serves as evidence of the U.S. military and manpower contributions - "the bulk of the military might", as you put it several times - to U.N. military operations, seeing as you could not come up with actual evidence of the latter.

This, lest we forget, is all in the service of your attempted (and successful) thread hijacking.

Start that blog, whodey. 😵

Originally posted by FMF
What "defence" of what, whodey? A few posts back - totally off topic - you were claiming "the bulk of the military might" used in U.N. interventions is from the U.S. and they don't happen without this "military might". That turned out to be spectacularly untrue.

So then - bizarrely - you were suggesting that what you had meant all along was that the U.S. is ...[text shortened]... your attempted (and successful) thread hijacking.

Start that blog, whodey. 😵

Apparently Robert Gates is as crazy as Whodey.