Naynay and 4eyes

[majorownage]

Sad, sad little man.

+1

[Forever_frost]

I believe I read in the Constitution that congress pass's all spending bills then presents them to the president to be passed or not. So Congress spent the money he just approved it.

S&P up 81%, CCI up 86%, Drilling up 23%, On track to be the worlds largest exporter of oil next year and the amount has been going up EVERY year for the last 4 years DOH!!! Guess he's anti oil huh? Wind and solar power up 116% Guess he cares about the future also.
Manufacturing up 48%. Guess he cares about jobs also?

As for the 1500 troop deaths if we hadn't been there in the first place they wouldn't have happened. I would like nothing better than to yank every last one of them out of harms way and get them home, but if we did Afghanistan would burn to the ground. It probably will anyway but since we went in and destabilized the country we have a responsibility to do what we can to fix the mess.

No, we really don't. Obama said he'd get us out of both. Instead he followed Bush's SOFA and pushed Afghanistan beyond his term so he can claim he's doing something about it. I imagine you believe we are out of Iraq don't you?

Sad, sad little man.

So, since we went in and destabilized Egypt, Libya and Syria, do we have an obligation to them as well? You really don't like talking about these Obama wars.

and you're also forgetting about Obama's moratorium on offshore drilling, him handing 2 billion to Venezuela to drill in their waters while we're not allowed to drill in ours AND he cut drilling on federal lands. My favorite? He didn't allow permission for Keystone but the part that didn't need his approval started getting built and he went and took credit for that.

You're still dodging the sheer amount of debt he's accumulated during his term. Debt he said wouldn't happen, unemployment he said would be about half of what it is. Spin the 50% increase in total debt and almost 80% in public debt.

[4eyedwillie]

"Because an embassy represents a sovereign state, any attack on an embassy is considered an attack on the country it represents."

Reading is fundamental. Attacks on the embassy is an attack on the US

But NOT Us soil which were you words

From your link:
While an embassy remains the territory of the host state

[4eyedwillie]

Food stamps up 46%
Soldiers killed in Afghanistan almost 1500 troops since he became president
Total Debt increase 52%
Debt held by the public: 72%

Alone, he increased TOTAL debt by 52%. By himself during only his presidency. And INCREASED debt held by the PUBLCI 72% by himself only during his presidency.

Spin that.

Here's a towel, wipe yourself off

I believe I read in the Constitution that congress pass's all spending bills then presents them to the president to be passed or not. So Congress spent the money he just approved it.

S&P up 81%, CCI up 86%, Drilling up 23%, On track to be the worlds largest exporter of oil next year and the amount has been going up EVERY year for the last 4 years DOH!!! Guess he's anti oil huh? Wind and solar power up 116% Guess he cares about the future also.
Manufacturing up 48%. Guess he cares about jobs also?

As for the 1500 troop deaths if we hadn't been there in the first place they wouldn't have happened. I would like nothing better than to yank every last one of them out of harms way and get them home, but if we did Afghanistan would burn to the ground. It probably will anyway but since we went in and destabilized the country we have a responsibility to do what we can to fix the mess.

[Forever_frost]

"Because an embassy represents a sovereign state, any attack on an embassy is considered an attack on the country it represents."

Reading is fundamental. Attacks on the embassy is an attack on the US

[4eyedwillie]

I challenge your wiki with the government's site
An embassy is usually located in the capital city of a foreign nation. U.S. embassies abroad, as well as foreign embassies in the United States, have a special status. While an embassy remains the territory of the host state, under international rules representatives of the host country may not enter an embassy without permission—even to put out a fire.

Because an embassy represents a sovereign state, any attack on an embassy is considered an attack on the country it represents.

http://diplomacy.state.gov/discoverd...ces/170537.htm

There ya go, see we agree! The territory belongs to the host country. Which means it's not US soil.

[Forever_frost]

I'm glad you have it in you (FF) for these arguments, because I lost my patience in regards to military things years ago. I'll throw in 2 cents every now and then, but I can't understand how people can have 0 understanding of how the military/government works from a training aspect.

I do it otherwise they would believe everything their masters say

[Forever_frost]

So 6 of 18 the numbers slipped? That's not to bad. And really, back the gas prices back a couple months to Bush's high number and we still haven't got there even with all the QE you keep spouting about. So that's really 5 that slipped.

S&P up 81%, Consumer Confidence Index up 86%, Petroleum imports down 23%, WOW guess he's a total fuckup, can't get ANYTHING right huh?

Food stamps up 46%
Soldiers killed in Afghanistan almost 1500 troops since he became president
Total Debt increase 52%
Debt held by the public: 72%

Alone, he increased TOTAL debt by 52%. By himself during only his presidency. And INCREASED debt held by the PUBLCI 72% by himself only during his presidency.

Spin that.

Here's a towel, wipe yourself off

[Forever_frost]

Actually they're not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_mission

Contrary to popular belief, diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and are not sovereign territory of the represented state.[5][6] Rather, the premises of diplomatic missions remain under the jurisdiction of the host state while being afforded special privileges (such as immunity from most local laws) by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Diplomats themselves still retain full diplomatic immunity, and (as an adherent to the Vienna Convention) the host country may not enter the premises of the mission without permission of the represented country. The term "extraterritoriality" is often applied to diplomatic missions, but only in this broader sense.
Additional sources to combat the anti wikipedia crowd.

http://fairplaysubstantialjustice.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/are-embassies-considered-united-states-territory/

http://www.experienceproject.com/que...S-SOIL/1182650

I challenge your wiki with the government's site
An embassy is usually located in the capital city of a foreign nation. U.S. embassies abroad, as well as foreign embassies in the United States, have a special status. While an embassy remains the territory of the host state, under international rules representatives of the host country may not enter an embassy without permission—even to put out a fire.

Because an embassy represents a sovereign state, any attack on an embassy is considered an attack on the country it represents.

http://diplomacy.state.gov/discoverdiplomacy/diplomacy101/places/170537.htm

[4eyedwillie]

So 6 of 18 the numbers slipped? That's not to bad. And really, back the gas prices back a couple months to Bush's high number and we still haven't got there even with all the QE you keep spouting about. So that's really 5 that slipped.

S&P up 81%, Consumer Confidence Index up 86%, Petroleum imports down 23%, WOW guess he's a total fuckup, can't get ANYTHING right huh?

[4eyedwillie]

Actually, an embassy IS US soil. It is sovereign US soil. You didn't know this?

Actually they're not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_mission

Contrary to popular belief, diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and are not sovereign territory of the represented state.[5][6] Rather, the premises of diplomatic missions remain under the jurisdiction of the host state while being afforded special privileges (such as immunity from most local laws) by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Diplomats themselves still retain full diplomatic immunity, and (as an adherent to the Vienna Convention) the host country may not enter the premises of the mission without permission of the represented country. The term "extraterritoriality" is often applied to diplomatic missions, but only in this broader sense.
Additional sources to combat the anti wikipedia crowd.

http://fairplaysubstantialjustice.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/are-embassies-considered-united-states-territory/

http://www.experienceproject.com/question-answer/Are-US-EMBASSIES-On-Foreign-Grounds-Still-Considered-To-Be-US-SOIL/1182650

[ceyko]

I'm glad you have it in you (FF) for these arguments, because I lost my patience in regards to military things years ago. I'll throw in 2 cents every now and then, but I can't understand how people can have 0 understanding of how the military/government works from a training aspect.

[Forever_frost]

War games aren't risk. You're an idiot if you think we dont' war game. Why don't you ask our Squids here if our subs don't war games with other countries.

[majorownage]

I'm pretty sure we have plans to invade every country. It's called war gaming. I wouldn't expect someone who hasn't done it to actually know this but we do it all the time. You'd freak if you saw some of the simulations we go through.

Yes, Biden drew up the Patriot Act in the 90's.

So Blair and Bush are involved with war game simulations?

Sure, heads of state play Risk with each other... *smh*

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/21/iraq-inquiry-tony-blair-bush

A confidential record of a meeting between President Bush and Tony Blair before the invasion of Iraq, outlining their intention to go to war without a second United Nations resolution, will be an explosive issue for the official inquiry into the UK's role in toppling Saddam Hussein.

The memo, written on 31 January 2003, almost two months before the invasion and seen by the Observer, confirms that as the two men became increasingly aware UN inspectors would fail to find weapons of mass destruction (WMD) they had to contemplate alternative scenarios that might trigger a second resolution legitimising military action.

Bush told Blair the US had drawn up a provocative plan "to fly U2 reconnaissance aircraft painted in UN colours over Iraq with fighter cover". Bush said that if Saddam fired at the planes this would put the Iraqi leader in breach of UN resolutions.

The president expressed hopes that an Iraqi defector would be "brought out" to give a public presentation on Saddam's WMD or that someone might assassinate the Iraqi leader. However, Bush confirmed even without a second resolution, the US was prepared for military action. The memo said Blair told Bush he was "solidly with the president".

The five-page document, written by Blair's foreign policy adviser, Sir David Manning, and copied to Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the UK ambassador to the UN, Jonathan Powell, Blair's chief of staff, the chief of the defence staff, Admiral Lord Boyce, and the UK's ambassador to Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer, outlines how Bush told Blair he had decided on a start date for the war.

Paraphrasing Bush's comments at the meeting, Manning, noted: "The start date for the military campaign was now pencilled in for 10 March. This was when the bombing would begin."

Last night an expert on international law who is familar with the memo's contents said it provided vital evidence into the two men's frames of mind as they considered the invasion and its aftermath and must be presented to the Chilcott inquiry established by Gordon Brown to examine the causes, conduct and consequences of the Iraq war.

Philippe Sands, QC, a professor of law at University College London who is expected to give evidence to the inquiry, said confidential material such as the memo was of national importance, making it vital that the inquiry is not held in private, as Brown originally envisioned.

In today's Observer, Sands writes: "Documents like this raise issues of national embarrassment, not national security. The restoration of public confidence requires this new inquiry to be transparent. Contentious matters should not be kept out of the public domain, even in the run-up to an election."

The memo notes there had been a shift in the two men's thinking on Iraq by late January 2003 and that preparing for war was now their priority. "Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," Manning writes. This was despite the fact Blair that had yet to receive advice on the legality of the war from the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, which did not arrive until 7 March 2003 - 13 days before the bombing campaign started.

In his article today, Sands says the memo raises questions about the selection of the chair of the inquiry. Sir John Chilcott sat on the 2004 Butler inquiry, which examined the reliability of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war, and would have been privy to the document's contents - and the doubts about WMD running to the highest levels of the US and UK governments.

Many senior legal experts have expressed dismay that Chilcott has been selected to chair the inquiry as he is considered to be close to the security services after his time spent as a civil servant in Northern Ireland.

Brown had believed that allowing the Chilcott inquiry to hold private hearings would allow witnesses to be candid. But after bereaved families and antiwar campaigners expressed outrage, the prime minister wrote to Chilcott to say that if the panel can show witnesses and national security issues will not be compromised by public hearings, he will change his stance.

Lord Guthrie, a former chief of the defence staff under Blair, described the memo as "quite shocking". He said that it underscored why the Chilcott inquiry must be seen to be a robust investigation: "It's important that the inquiry is not a whitewash as these inquiries often are."

This year, the Dutch government launched its own inquiry into its support for the war. Significantly, the inquiry will see all the intelligence shared with the Dutch intelligence services by MI5 and MI6. The inquiry intends to publish its report in November - suggesting that confidential information about the role played by the UK and the US could become public before Chilcott's inquiry reports next year.

This does not describe a war game simulation, they are plans of action.

[Forever_frost]

I'm pretty sure we have plans to invade every country. It's called war gaming. I wouldn't expect someone who hasn't done it to actually know this but we do it all the time. You'd freak if you saw some of the simulations we go through.

Yes, Biden drew up the Patriot Act in the 90's.