Del Dolemonte on May 18, 2011 at 6:59 PM

Didn’t you say something to me about not feeding the trolls?

catmman on May 18, 2011 at 8:02 PM

On occasion a smackdown is necessary, especially when the person you’re “debating” with can’t refute the facts you cite and responds with 3rd grade schoolyard insults.

And I didn’t even mention that a Federal Judge appointed by Bill Clinton in US District Court in Lower Manhattan concluded after hearing the trial evidence in a lawsuit by 9/11 family members that al Qaeda and Iraq had been in cahoots at the time of those attacks.

Of course, by the time that ruling took place in 2003, we had already liberated Iraq, so it was lost in the Fog of War and didn’t really matter.

So we have 1,000, or more troops in Afcrapistan, and 1,000, or more contractors, in Afcrapistan for every 1 AlQ in Afcrapistan. This makes the U.S. Post office look stellar by comparison.

HalJordan on May 18, 2011 at 4:04 PM

Good Lord. And for all that…we just now got Osama and still haven’t been able to drag the goatherders out of their Stone-Age mentality.

Man up and raze the place stem to stern or just get the hell out already.

Del Dolemonte on May 18, 2011 at 6:59 PM

Didn’t you say something to me about not feeding the trolls?

We’ve lost 5,000 people, our soldiers, in fighting two wars that had nothing to do with bin Laden.

LOL! Earth calling HalJordan…there’s your conspiracy theory right there.

No need to thank me.

Del Dolemonte on May 18, 2011 at 4:33 PM

I see no reason to thank you from something so poorly thought out from beginning to end. Are you an affirmative action student? OBL was very likely never in Iraq and probably split Afcrapistan for Pakistan very-very early on.

HalJordan on May 18, 2011 at 5:17 PM

Thanks for admitting with your first two sentences that you can’t debate me with facts . Saul Alinsky taught you well.

First of all, I am not a student. But your suggesting I am an Affirmative Action student could be considered a racist statement.

I never claimed bin Laden was in Iraq, you assumed that I did.

But I have some facts on my side. I’m sure you’ll weakly respond by insulting me some more.

1. In 1998, the Clinton Justice Department indicted bin Laden, and their Federal Indictment clearly states that Iraq and al Qaeda were in cahoots.

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html

4. Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their
perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States.

In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

2. In 2002, the Authorization that many Democrats signed off on stated that al Qaeda members were in Iraq at the time.

Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.

Del Dolemonte on May 18, 2011 at 4:35 PM

I will take that desperate non sequitur as an admission on your part that you can not defend Imam Petraues. You should have just remained silent. Maybe you have “Newt Syndrome”.

HalJordan on May 18, 2011 at 5:10 PM

I take it back. You’re a genius.

But seriously, if Pakistan goes to h, we send in SEALS to steal or destroy the Paks’ nuclear weapons and critical nuclear facilities and material stocks. If the CIA is doing anything at all in Pakistan, it is meticulously recording the location of all of those targets on an hourly basis.

Strip them of that nuclear capability, and then get out. Occupation would be pointless and impossible.

With WHAT?

The IOUs government issues?

Sir Napsalot on May 18, 2011 at 4:38 PM

Well, they’ll start there.

And then they’ll crank up the printing presses.

Nothing we haven’t seen before.

We’ve lost 5,000 people, our soldiers, in fighting two wars that had nothing to do with bin Laden.

LOL! Earth calling HalJordan…there’s your conspiracy theory right there.

No need to thank me.

Del Dolemonte on May 18, 2011 at 4:33 PM

I see no reason to thank you from something so poorly thought out from beginning to end. Are you an affirmative action student? OBL was very likely never in Iraq and probably split Afcrapistan for Pakistan very-very early on.

More American troops died in non combat during the 8 years Bill Clinton was President than have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

Were their deaths Petraeus’ fault too?

Idiot.

Del Dolemonte on May 18, 2011 at 4:35 PM

I will take that desperate non sequitur as an admission on your part that you can not defend Imam Petraues. You should have just remained silent. Maybe you have “Newt Syndrome”.

More American troops died in non combat during the 8 years Bill Clinton was President than have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

How do you define non-combat? Soldiers killed in Somalia, Haiti, the Balkans and other places might have been there for humanitarian reasons but the people who killed them were practicing combat even if they weren’t.

Don’t stop there, though, because Paul then explains the factual basis of his prediction that the US will occupy a nation of over 140 million people, armed with nuclear weapons.

HotAir commenters repeatedly call for the US to confiscate Pakistan’s nuclear weapons so it can’t be tha off-the-wall crazy.

Somehow I’m thinking that if things keep on going the way they are, it will be the flat, glassy plain option for Pakistan.

Yeah, and I mentioned that. Then stated everything else being equal, why wouldn’t India invade Pakistan as opposed to us?

catmman on May 18, 2011 at 4:36 PM

Because, while it’s very possible the leadership of the Pakistani military would ask for our help to stabilize the situation and protect key sites throughout the nation, they would never, NEVER allow, let alone ask for, Indian help. I think you underestimate how much Pakistan hates India. I am convinced that, even in the midst of collapse, Pakistan would send all remaining loyalist divisions to the Indian frontier to keep them out – they probably would even use those nukes of theirs.

No, he doesn’t want us ‘to first follow Pakistani Sovereignty over US Sovereignty’. I’m at a loss to even explain what that means. He believes in protecting US sovereignty from infringement by international organizations, yes. He also believes respecting the sovereignty of other nations and not engaging ourselves in the internal affairs of other nations is the wisest course for success in our diplomatic efforts. How are those positions contradictory?

Inkblots on May 18, 2011 at 4:26 PM

Wrong, he repeatedly now has said he would not have ordered the Bin Laden raid and said we should have followed “International Law” instead.

that is Pakistani Sovereignty before US Sovereignty, and “International Law” before US Law under the Constitution.

Get away from the slavish cult, and think.

Ron Paul: The US will end up occupying Pakistan

With WHAT?

The IOUs government issues?

I said we’re helping to secure it, not that we’re stopping them from expanding their nuclear program. Typical Paulian. You guys are just like your leader.

strictnein on May 18, 2011 at 4:21 PM

Listen, I think we’re talking past each other. Sure, we’re providing support to secure loose nuclear material, to try to stop up the AQ Khan network, etc. That’s not the point.

First of all, to the extent that we’re trying to keep nuclear devices out of terrorist hands, the fact that Pakistan is expanding their nuclear program and dispersing it throughout the country is undermining those efforts – so they’re not being very good partners in this. Second, and more important, if the government of Pakistan is overthrown, the worry is not only that the people who take over might not accept our help to secure their nukes, but might be inclined to let them ‘accidentally’ fall into the wrong hands. This is the very reason that we may end up sending troops into Pakistan to stabilize it, which was my whole point from the beginning!

I fail to see what’s ‘typical[ly] Paulian’ about this point.

Inkblots on May 18, 2011 at 4:30 PM

Yeah, and I mentioned that. Then stated everything else being equal, why wouldn’t India invade Pakistan as opposed to us?

We also haven’t invaded Iran, who has nuclear ambitions – just to keep that fact in check – contrary to Herr Doktors fear-mongering.

HalJordan on May 18, 2011 at 4:25 PM

More American troops died in non combat during the 8 years Bill Clinton was President than have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

Were their deaths Petraeus’ fault too?

Idiot.

We’ve lost 5,000 people, our soldiers, in fighting two wars that had nothing to do with bin Laden.

LOL! Earth calling HalJordan…there’s your conspiracy theory right there.

No need to thank me.

HalJordan on May 18, 2011 at 4:14 PM

Give that man a Cupie Doll! A Truther.

Of course.

catmman on May 18, 2011 at 4:16 PM

Please don’t feed it.