GOP introduce bill to remove USA from United Nations

[Maschine_Man]

You aren't explaning anything that isn't known and acknowledged. Again ISAF and OEF same shyt different commands.

There missions overlapped completely and this is sourced from US and NATO/UN command detailing individual missions.
The author is stating there was mission creep and that due to either one side or the other or both creeping, they were effectively doing the same missions.

Yes you repeated the mission I posted for ISF, it doesn't really counter the point that I was arguing though.

As I said OEF and ISAF did the same shyt under different command, when you tried to claim their missions were different. In actuality they werent/ Ono top of that you tried to claim ISAF wasn't involved in the Afghanistan war, this is false. On top of that you initially tried to claim Afghans wanted US invasion or benefited from invasion, which is wrong. All this to try to claim some how and some way that NATO is needed, and the fact that there was a OEF non NATO/UN coalition in the same country is a direct indictment against the need for NATO at all, and that a coalition was formed to go into Iraq which further proves there is no need for NATO to amount coalitions to act aggressively on other nations.

You tried to claim NATO kept the peace, you ignored NATO launching an invasion against Libya which had not threatened another country, and that NATO actually aided a domestic fight to put a leader out of power. You say NATO is for peace and defense, you ignore NATO being directly behind the Euro Madian Neo-Nazi protests that removed a democratically elected president because he was friendly to Russia.

You keep saying no one knows the mission, except you and people who support NATO, while folks like myself keep pointing out how 1) NATO had no reason to exist after the fall of the USSR because that was the only reason for it to exist and provide its mission and 2) How it acts in a manner that doesn't provide defense for its member states but actually acts in a militarily offensive manner with regards to Libya and Afghanistan.

When brought up that the very political objective of NATO is to be on Russia border and that this provokes military volatility and threatens the peace of security of the european members by making Russia act in response to such actions, since NATO leadership and the US promised Russia during the fall of the USSR that it would not expand from its early 90s nations, you ignore this.

So even using your own description of its mission, NATO fails totally.

You say but they help fight pirates, you ignore that the countries members of NATO actually caused the growth of the pirates in the first place.
The whole concept of national sovereignty also seems to be an issue you ignore, as if NATO is necessary for the various nations national defense.
As if NATO's sole purpose isn't to increase the US's military influence and presence in Europe, moreso than providing defense, which could occure without the US being involved and footing the bill.

Like I said earlier, we will simply have to agree to disagree, because there isn't a way in hell I can see any justification for the continued existence of NATO and most definitely continued US support and membership in NATO.


If the UN can't hold losing one member nation, even the US, it serves no purpose in existing, since it would mean the whole UN was nothing but a puppet organization for US hegemony.

bruh, I can't argue with you anymore.. I just can't

How long should we have to sacrifice. I've been retired for 2 years but my wife is still active duty. I was deployed on a JET tasking training the ANA. The shyt was eye opening to me. I asked my interpreter what do you think we can actually do to change things here. He told me absolutely nothing. The change you're talking about isn't coming in our life time had we been there or pulled out. You have to know when to chalk up your losses. The same interpreter I helped him get the hell up out of Afghanistan and currently lives in The bay area. Dealing with all those different folks from the Pashtun, Tajik, Uzbek bruh at some point you just have to empower them folks and let them figure it out.

my man, you were there. maybe you can try to help explain how the ISAF role and the role of OEF were different.

(seeing how you went to train the ANA, you know the roles were different, something OEF wasn't there to do, among other things)

Having overlap, such as fighting insurgencies or training the ANA/ANP on manoeuvres and fighting in the field doesn't mean they did "the same shyt under different Command."

 

[David_TheMan]

bruh, I can't argue with you anymore.. I just can't


my man, you were there. maybe you can try to help explain how the ISAF role and the role of OEF were different.

(seeing how you went to train the ANA, you know the roles were different, something OEF wasn't there to do, among other things)

Having overlap, such as fighting insurgencies or training the ANA/ANP on manoeuvres and fighting in the field doesn't mean they did "the same shyt under different Command."

There is nothing to argue, you literally couldn't even deny that ISAF had mission overlap with OEF.
You tried to claim ISAF wasn't part of the war, when it was acknowledged that it was in fact part of the war.
OEF objective was pretty limited to fighting counter insurgency, ISAF's mission was fighting counter insurgency, as well as training Afghan national military, and securing Kabul, which spread to securing the whole nation.

To claim that they were entirely different, when ISAF's own mission statement includes the entireity of the OEF mission statement is absurd.

That said like I said before, I had no problem agreeing to disagree and leaving it, but you replied to me, so I continued.
If you want to end it now that is fine with me.

 

[Maschine_Man]

There is nothing to argue, you literally couldn't even deny that ISAF had mission overlap with OEF.
You tried to claim ISAF wasn't part of the war, when it was acknowledged that it was in fact part of the war.
OEF objective was pretty limited to fighting counter insurgency, ISAF's mission was fighting counter insurgency, as well as training Afghan national military, and securing Kabul, which spread to securing the whole nation.

To claim that they were entirely different, when ISAF's own mission statement includes the entireity of the OEF mission statement is absurd.

That said like I said before, I had no problem agreeing to disagree and leaving it, but you replied to me, so I continued.
If you want to end it now that is fine with me.

The main mission of ISAF was to train and build local forces to fight for themselves. build up their infrastructure they can fight back.

so yes..there will be some overlap (as in they ISAF and OEF were both fighting bad guys lol) but the missions were not the same.

also, insurgency levels after 2005 really stepped up leading the NATO Force to be more active in fighting back those insurgencies, mostly with the ANA(see the difference now?)

I just don't get it, you are literally arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[David_TheMan]

The main mission of ISAF was to train and build local forces to fight for themselves. build up their infrastructure they can fight back.

so yes..there will be some overlap (as in they ISAF and OEF were both fighting bad guys lol) but the missions were not the same.

also, insurgency levels after 2005 really stepped up leading the NATO Force to be more active in fighting back those insurgencies, mostly with the ANA(see the difference now?)

I just don't get it, you are literally arguing for the sake of arguing.

I know what the ISAF mission is I know what the OEF mission was I posted them both
Yes there is overlap and ISAF mission covers the entirety of the OEF mission, to the point where as you noted in the article OEF US side wanted to merge the two entirely.
Yes insurgency ramped up NATO also expanded area of ISAF coverage, so this meant what? ISAF doing even more counter insurgency because now their area was increased. Which means what, oh, they were doing more of the exact same shyt that OEF was doing.

I don't know what you are confused about, I have posted facts, you have yet to refute any of the facts I presented, and you seem to want to save face or validate your support for NATO by defending this organization by actions in a nation that you even said it had no business being in.

So like I said if you want to agree to disagree fine, I haven o problem ending it, but if you want to continue I will continue with you.. It isn't hard.

 

[Maschine_Man]

I know what the ISAF mission is I know what the OEF mission was I posted them both
Yes there is overlap and ISAF mission covers the entirety of the OEF mission, to the point where as you noted in the article OEF US side wanted to merge the two entirely.
Yes insurgency ramped up NATO also expanded area of ISAF coverage, so this meant what? ISAF doing even more counter insurgency because now their area was increased. Which means what, oh, they were doing more of the exact same shyt that OEF was doing.

I don't know what you are confused about, I have posted facts, you have yet to refute any of the facts I presented, and you seem to want to save face or validate your support for NATO by defending this organization by actions in a nation that you even said it had no business being in.

So like I said if you want to agree to disagree fine, I haven o problem ending it, but if you want to continue I will continue with you.. It isn't hard.

It's like you just WANT to just ignore what I'm saying. are you being intentionally obtuse right now or are you just not comprehending what I am saying????

maybe you don't even know what the ANA is??? or ANP???

you haven't posted anything other than saying ISAF is the doing the same thing as OEF...which they aren't.

not even remotely true. "Yes there is overlap and ISAF mission covers the entirety of the OEF mission"

 

[Maschine_Man]

let me break this down to simpler terms...
have you heard the expression "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime"?

OEF was there fishing. Taking the bad guys out for them

ISAF was there teaching the ANA (Afghann National Army) and ANP (Afghan National Police) HOW to fish, so they can be able to sustain themselves.

if you still think that is the same mission.... I got nothing for ya man.

 

[David_TheMan]

It's like you just WANT to just ignore what I'm saying. are you being intentionally obtuse right now or are you just not comprehending what I am saying????

maybe you don't even know what the ANA is??? or ANP???

you haven't posted anything other than saying ISAF is the doing the same thing as OEF...which they aren't.

not even remotely true. "Yes there is overlap and ISAF mission covers the entirety of the OEF mission"

I replied explicitly to every single thing you've actually written. so to claim i"m ignoringg what you are saying or trying to argue is a lie outright and I can only think of it as a face saving measure.. Why you feel you have to save face or lie about me? I don't know.

ANA Afghan National Army
ANP Afghan National Police
Now what else aside are you going to throw out there to try to act like you are some how in possession of something no one else knows about?

I posted the fact that ISAF overlaps and covers the entirety of OEF, I posted a source that documented the overlap was so consuming OEF officials tried to merge the missions together. This isn't my opinin, this is documented fact. It is documented that they provided redundant services under different commands. This isn't an argument its a factual assertion.

So when you can post all the smileys you want, lie outright, do anything you want, facts haven't changed and your attempt to derail all this instead of actually presenting a reasoned and logical explanation as to why NATO is beneficial is loud and very telling.

 

[ineedsleep212]

the world is fukked

 

[DonKnock]

Prepare for war if you young

 

[Jack Trippa 3z company ho]

People in here criticizing this and defending the UN? I swear the Coli has got to have some of the dumbest people on the internet.

The UN is atrocious. Defending them is a joke. That is the real life NWO and y'all defend it.

 

[DonKnock]

People in here criticizing this and defending the UN? I swear the Coli has got to have some of the dumbest people on the internet.

The UN is atrocious. Defending them is a joke. That is the real life NWO and y'all defend it.

Yea I can understand why a fascist like you wouldn't support it

 

[Maschine_Man]

Yea I can understand why a fascist like you wouldn't support it

And We can see how pedophiles and rapists like you can support them

Predatory Peacekeepers – UN Soldiers Are Committing Widespread Child Rape
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/06/africa/united-nations-peacekeepers-sexual-abuse/
The vile sex abuse by UN peacekeepers is leaving the United Nations in tatters


Y'all are so simple minded, looking at the UN as some great organization that only does good, please stop being so naive.

 

[DonKnock]

And We can see how pedophiles and rapists like you can support them

Predatory Peacekeepers – UN Soldiers Are Committing Widespread Child Rape
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/06/africa/united-nations-peacekeepers-sexual-abuse/
The vile sex abuse by UN peacekeepers is leaving the United Nations in tatters


Y'all are so simple minded, looking at the UN as some great organization that only does good, please stop being so naive.

I don't need negotiate with fascists

 

[Maschine_Man]

I don't need negotiate with fascists

cool, keep turning a blind eye while ppl get abused, raped, murdered, and completely taken advantage of.



some of us aren't blind to the UN and their bullshyt. I know you dudes want to argue because Trump is involved but if you looked at this objectively you would see that the UN is NOT the organization you think they are.