I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Tomorrow's the 15th anniversary of the Pan Am 103 bombing that killed 270 people, including 35 of my classmates from Syracuse University.
It so warms the cockles of my heart to see our gov'ment negotiate with Ghadafi...
Yeah, the whole thing just reeks to me. Anyone who has been paying attention knows that Libya has been begging for international status and that American oil companies are begging for unfettered (and legal) access to Libya. Now, under the cover of the War on Terror and WMDs, both sides are happy.
There is always an alternative explaination for this Administration's actions.
Be still.
It was announced on a Friday.
Clearly, you are not, I repeat not, supposed to notice this.
I'm waiting to see the picture of Rummy shaking THIS guy's hand.
A joint production with Tony Blair. Expect many more of these "breakthroughs" in the coming election year.
Can Tony Blair be more of a smarmy, twit? David Frost is less stomach churning.
Nasty Guy who has done nasty things, yes. Blew up that jetliner, no. Blackmailed by the US into admitting having done so and eventually paying up, yes. People need to look into the evidence and the trial more closely, the whole thing was a farce.
You know, I've always thought that this election will be decided by the ratio of those getting their news from conventional sources vs those (like everyone here) who gets information from the 'net, where intelligent, fair, liberal thoughts dominate.
However, breaking my own rules of watching cable news, I have to say that just now watching the 4 chicks on CNN (Malveaux, Koppel etc) have got me as depressed as anything has since the race began.
They said how "demoralized" dems were at the unbelievable luck (their word) of the Bush adminstration, with Hussein capture, the economy looking good (from the economic reporter no less), and now Libya. And trust me, they were saying these things with anything of a scowl of uncomfortability on their respective faces! They also said that Dean was losing support.
I wish sometimes, some of these people would just come out and say, "hey, Bush is unbeatable, and the dems shouldn't even waste time on an election".
I'd have more respect for them.
Moammar = George P. Bush's Saddam. Mark my words.
So, what are the alternatives? Do we invade Libya and Iran? Do we boycott them? Look at Iraq: we cut them off and let the country slip into poverty. We dried up all but the most essential aid and controlled their oil, and it had absolutely no effect on Saddam Hussein, except perhaps to make things worse and pave the way for war. Frankly, I just don't see an alternative to what Britain and the U.S. are doing with Libya unless you want to move to the right of them and argue for some sort of confrontation. I chalk this up to an effective isolation of Libya over several administrations, not just Bush's. At some point you have to let the carrot play a role instead of the stick. If Libya starts acting up again, then out comes the stick.
Khaddafi needs sanctions to end, politically. Bush and Blair need to have a tangible positive result from their invasion, particularly one linked to weapons of mass destruction, as the thrill of Saddam's capture wear down. We've shot our wad in Iraq--we will not be marching on Tripoli, so there goes treating Mummar like Saddam. So, dealing away a threat, relying on suddenly-trustworthy inspectors, that wasn't ever terribly threatening is a win for everyone.
Of course, if Khaddafi had tried to kill George H.W., it would be different. I assure you.
I'm not saying that the LIbya thing is necessarily a "bad thing." It just doesn't fit in with the "war on terra" moral absolutism nonsense rhetoric the administration is peddling, and no one in our media feels the need to point that out.
So Saddam lets inspectors in and we are not suppose to believe the UN can dearm the man, but in Libya inspectors can stop WMDs?
watching the 4 chicks on CNN (Malveaux, Koppel etc) have got me as depressed as anything has since the race began
Television news is a gorgon. Avert your eyes from the screen, and you'll do fine. Watch it, and you'll petrify. Spread the word, eric.
Do people give a fuck about Mummar? Will people give a fuck about Saddam if things don't get better, fast, in Iraq? Is the economy that good?
Will David "Specs" Kay be put in charge of dismantling Libya's WMDs? His track record in Iraq is not promising. I hear there's also quite a bit of sand in Libya, under which who knows what might be buried.
Atrios -
Man... you are the best lefty blogger out there. Yet, on rare occasions, your desire to score points against the administration or to try to take-away/minimize positive developments on Bush's watch diminishes your ability to influence me, and I imagine others.
Ghadafi just publicly declared he is opening his country to unfettered UN inspections to verify he is dismantling all of the weapons programs that would be particularly devastating if they fell into the hands of terrorists. This is a good thing. This was accomplished without bloodshed. Assuming that nothing short of a military engagement with Libya will remove Ghadafi from power, this is the best we can be expected to get. And it's pretty damn good.
Then, in your effort to further your argument, you denigrate the UN
Libya's one of those countries whose position on the UN's Human Rights Commission made warbloggers (rightfully) condemn the institution as something of a gross joke (human rights organizations weren't too thrilled either).
The president has had a very good week, both politically and practically. I'm sure that pains you greatly from a political point-of-view (I'm not questioning your patriotism. I don't believe you actually want things to go bad for America, but I would expect you to be experiencing the same kind of things this week which were described in this article by Michael Kinsley - http://slate.msn.com/id/2092874/ - called the Politics of Mixed Emotions). But you sound awfully petty when you try to minimize this development.
Gaddafi has been unilaterally becoming less violent for a long time now. Trust Bush to imply that his recent invasion of Iraq had something to do with Gaddafi's latest move.
Bush is shameless when it comes to leveraging Americans' insecurities for his political advantage.
timshel,
I didn't say it's a bad thing, it's just at best no big deal and at worst a bad precedent. It has nothing to do with iraq and isn't a victory for the bush's foreign policy vision. Ghadafi doesn't have any fucking weapons of mass destruction.
Carlyle Group got any Libyan ties?
Why haven't we given Quaddafi and Jong-Il the same opportunities as Hussein to stand proud and be invaded, have a war, and eventually be captured? They must be bored.
Brian C.B.
Yes, I know about turning off the cable news shows...in fact, I'm always telling friends and family that if you want a democratic victory start by refusing to watch those shows! And yes, I realize their ratings are extremely low.
Nevertheless, this was one of those moments that really signaled to me just how successful the dem nominee (Dean?) will have to be against the shrub AND the mainstream media.
God I hate our media!
Ghadafi doesn't have any fucking weapons of mass destruction. -Atrios
----------
That's exactly what I was thinking while reading the news this morning. This is the best moment for him to cash in, that's all.
Brian C.B. -
So, dealing away a threat, relying on suddenly-trustworthy inspectors, that wasn't ever terribly threatening is a win for everyone.
What appears to be happening in Libya is that they are taking the South African model of disarmament, ie. actively trying to disarm and giving inspectors unfettered access. The UN inspection team never said they were getting that level of participation by Iraq. Assuming things play out as stated (who knows at this point?), then the UN/Libyan inspection process will be importantly, and quantitatively, different from the UN/Iraqi inspection situation.
What it really shows is that patient diplomacy with sanctions can do the trick.
Qadaffi could see from the postwar trouble in Iraq that we were in fact in no position to invade other evildoers for a long, long time.
If Khadafai can be rehabilitated and forgiven, could Osama be far behind?
Atrios -
I didn't say it's a bad thing, it's just at best no big deal and at worst a bad precedent.
"bad precedent"?
I thought this is the kind of development that libs/dems (to the extent either side of the politial spectrum is unified) wanted? Disarmament through diplomacy and enforcement through international institutions.
Unfortunately, the Dork seems to have the media playing field to himself these days. This Libya thing has nothing to do with Iraq. It repulses me to see the plastic people on the news be so partisan. Yes, this has been a bad week for us Dems. Heck, even members of our own party don't want us to win (eg., Lieberma, Miller, H. Clinton, Daschle). How important is this Libya event over the long term? If the Dork gets elected (and right now it seems like a lock) I guess we deserves what we get. Personally, I find the fact that the Dork seems to be teflon coated and lucky extemely depressing and irritationg to my psyche.
One cannot help but wonder if the decision to bomb or negotiate is based on the dictator's willingness to sweeten the pot for Halliburton?
Atrios, actually it appears that Ghadafi did have limited amounts of chemical weapons (mustard gas), a biological program, and even had a nuclear program that was as far along as having centrifuges. That's no mean achievment.
I hope Bush loses the next election, but I also hope that he has learned enough since 911 to understand that we need to fight the "evildoers" on many different levels and that military confrontation can backfire if overused.
I suspect that there is a great deal of skepicism on the Administration's part about letting inspections work. Frankly, it would be a bit naive to think that one can ever rule out the possibility of a country developing WMD even under a rigid inspections regime. I just hope that we can get and keep the situations in North Korea and Pakistan under control. If they fall apart, Libya will look like a kindergarten by comparison.
Perhaps the inspections will suffice to prevent proliferation, even if the basic knowledge and capacity to create the WMD's is not entirely wiped out.
Ghadafi doesn't have any fucking weapons of mass destruction. -Atrios
No wonder he caved. Expect lots of money going to Libya, he'll get something for this. Who's next Mali?
I'll give up my WMDs for a lot less, Tony, George. Me next.
Iraq is being watched closely by those nations which fear an invasion by Bush.It will serve as a model for defeating the US military which can defeat chemical and biological weapons,tanks,infantry,warships,aircraft,artillery etc. etc.Those nations with nuclear forces are immune to pre-emptive attack,the others(like Lybia) will have to fight a guerilla war with small arms,rocket propelled grenades,explosive experts etc. etc.The mystic of the desert has everything to gain and nothing to lose by giving up the wmd and preparing his nation to fight a guerilla war based on the lessons of our invasion of Iraq.
You guys are seriously funny, instead of conceding Bush's victories and moving on and trying to attack where he is vulnerable, you guys are determined to flounder in denial and impotent rage. Somebody in another thread was bemoaning the fact that your views don't get mainstream media attention when he should be thanking whatever powers he believes in that that is the case, because airing some of you guys positions would make Ann Coulter look like a visionary.
If you want to have any chance at all of beating Bush, you need to concede his foreign policy so you can move the topic onto something else where you stand on firmer ground. Trying to deny that this new development with Kaddafi is anything but a victory for Bush only makes Karl Roves job easier.
I think this is a nice summary, from last September:
http://tinyurl.com/2tdmu
Bush publicly promises $15B for AIDS fight.
Later, quietly, this commitment vanishes.
Bush publicly says Khadafy is responding to U.S. terror policy.
Later, quietly, Libya receives multi-billion dollar quid-pro-quo grants.
Negotiating with terrorists. Learned at his wimp father's knee.
At least we're not invading. Thank the godofyourchoice for small favors.
Atrios earlier wrote that this decision set a "bad precedent". I still don't understand why Atrios believes that.
According to the NY TIMES, we aren't even lifting sanctions on Libya as a result of this development.
(Article here. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/2...pagewanted=2&
hp reg. req.)
The White House said that despite Libya's apparent renunciation of unconventional weapons, Mr. Bush was not yet ready to lift American sanctions; United Nations sanctions were removed on Sept. 12 after a settlement involving the Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 269 people.
I agree with the good. You guys do assert Reagan era propaganda too much.
the good Friar
I was under the impression that the terrorist threat is not so much centered in particular countries, but rather consists of many, many angry men, young and old, from many different countries, who hate America (more so now) and have taken up the cause against us.
Weapons are everywhere. They are everywhere.
What are we doing about that? Iraq wasn't a threat; nor was Libya. This is all so ridiculous. You little boys and your love of war and killing and death and destruction make me ill.
Libya reached a $2.7 billion compensation settlement with the families of the victims of the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in August, and a second, renegotiated, settlement was in the final stages, in mid September, with families of a French airliner destroyed earlier, allegedly by Libyan agents. With the Ghadafi regime long having given up sponsoring terrorist acts, the U.N has now removed its sanctions against the North African Nation. The U.S. has stated that it is encouraged, but seeks further Libyan action before lifting its sanctions.
This is the text that explains the cartoon I linked to before. From:
http://home.earthlink.net/
~circl...cworld0500.html
Could we have the madman throw in an agreement to get a better wardrobe, and ditch the hats.
Lucky today. Assigned multiple operatives. Tag team dumbassing.
Just concede! Can't beat Bush da Warrior!
And, the war goes on...U.S. troops mistakenly kill 3 Iraqi police
Not a word about the need for democracy in Libya ?
So lets see: Libya at one time had a WMD program, but it was cut way back about a decade ago, and Clinton policies put an end to most of what was left. Now UN inspectors are going to go in and look for any remanants that might be left. Under the circumstances, I don't see that we have any choice but to invade.
Libya is just the latest in a series of red herrings.
Sure, Halliburton wants to sew up some more oilfield work, and strategically, the PNAC crowd needs a clear route to the sea, but the story's biggest hook is that it will provide a week's worth of distraction from the 9-11 commision trying to announce that the attack was preventable.
This is really good news. But the problem I have is that the last time I looked it wasn't WMD that were getting on major jetliners flying themselves into buildings. Sure, it could happen that terrorists get WMD and then fly into buildings, causing that much more of a catastrophe, but that contingency doesn't seem necessary to be a terrorist. Run of the mill explosives seem to work just fine. Can someone tell me about the progress on the real WOT (ie actual, shadowy, bad guy terrorists)? Is there any hearts and minds plan to alleviate the circumstances that lead to terrorism in the first place, other than blowing shit up and being morally relativistic when it suits one's own political needs?
Do you think Hussein might have done a Libya in a couple more years, if Bush had'nt lied us into a war?
Atrios, actually it appears that Ghadafi did have limited amounts of chemical weapons (mustard gas), a biological program, and even had a nuclear program that was as far along as having centrifuges. That's no mean achievment.
So this cracks me up. Accepting this as true (and adding in Lockerbee which is in some ways still more scary than 911 because it didn't require suicidal maniacs), riddle me this, Bush policy defenders:
Why the fuck was Bush and Powell wasting our and the UN's time with bullshit oratory about Iraq? The guy who actually admits to taking down a US jetliner, the guy who actually has advanced weapons labs, the guy that everybody over 35 damn well remembers was categorized as an "underterrable madman" (sound familiar warbloggers?), shouldn't THAT GUY have been the first target post Afghanistan??
When the fuck are you guys going to realize that you are following a snake-oil salesmen? What does it take?
Is there any hearts and minds plan to alleviate the circumstances that lead to terrorism in the first place, other than blowing shit up and being morally relativistic when it suits one's own political needs?
So good it had to be repeated.
I have to side with the idea that while this is all nice and sweet of ol' Mommar, it really don't amount to much. Course, it beats going to war with another piss-poor desert country, grant you. However, my favorite line from Bush The Lesser's statement:
"[WMD's] do not bring influence or prestige. They bring isolation and otherwise unwelcome consequences."
And just who has the most chemical, nuclear, biological and conventional weapons on the planet, moreso than ALLLL the other countries of the world combined? Why, the U.S. of good ol' A., of course! So, since we have the biggest dick arsenal-wise, we have the moral right to tell everyone else on the planet to hop to when and how we feel like it. Does anyone else wonder what's gonna happen when, one day, we holler "jump" and the rest of the world replies "fuck off"?
And while I'm on the thought, why does Mommar get more or less a free pass when we had no other option than to bomb the living shit out of Saddam? Is there a pecking order for international strongmen dictators?
Didn't Bush just get through telling Diane Sawyer that there wasn't any difference between actually having weapons and having the ability to build them later?
What's with the missile range limits? Is that an international thing or is that the distance to tel aviv?
Libya has weapons of mass destruction. (We know Where they are, in the area around Tripoli)
Libya has programs of mass destruction.
Libya has people who in their minds think about reconstitution weapons of mass destruction.
Ghadafi is a terrible dictator and the world is better off without him.
We must win the hearts and minds of the Libyan people and bring democracy to Libya.
Libya has oil.
While he's doing all this disarming and all, I wish Gaddafi would tell us how his name is spelled.
Since when is Mustard Gas, which is seldom fatal even under optimum battlefield conditions, a Weapon of Mass Destruction?
Copernicus: Libya caved to intense isolationism and brutal sanctions; combined with a possible fear of being targeted next.
I don't see how Iraq could be put into that position as long as they had the oil commodity Ace-in-the-hole. Hell, look at France and Russia (Lukoil going out of business I heard...too bad) bending over backwards to protect their oil assets.
In the end it's all about "tha benjamins".
I think this is definitely a good thing, and as several posters have commented, undermining this makes the left seem more and more fringe. Sure, you may not agree with Bush's policies at all, you may think the guy is a jackass. But the truth is, he is making definite steps toward a peaceful resolution concerning Libya. Who knows what the framework being laid out today will accomplish 30 years from now.
The article on the WAPO included a comment from the "Admin" saying that N. Korea and Iran also have been negotiating with the US, similarly to Libya...
Hell, old Mohamar was probably feeling left out with the spotlight on Saddam. Mohamar loves the bright lights - that should be clear to anyone who has been paying any attention to him for the last 20 years. I don't think he was scared at all. I think he likes being the star-dictator of the middle east.
Whatever. He used to be a credible threat. He doesn't seem to have been one for a number of years now. But, hey, it's great whenever anyone says they are giving up their nukes (though I don't believe he has them.) Now, if the U.S. would just promote a sane nuclear policy internally. Right, when monkeys, etc...
Who the fuck really cares?
The real war is not against Islam, but religion in general.
See these die hard capitalist want every man and woman of employable age to be good buy on credit consumers.
Religions that hold woman can not work, stand in the way of that vision.
None of this is about Democracy, or merely war on Islam, but a real war to promote wage slave company store capitalism.
Dennis: I think I hear the black helicopters off in the distance...
I know there is a difference between a democracy and a dictatorship but I always get a bit confused when the common wisdom seems to assume US stockpiles and research programs of weapons of mass destruction are unproblematic. Our ownership of these things is an unquestioned background assumption. Of course we have them and will use them if we must. Of course we have the moral right to insist that others do not. What lies behind this "of course" assumption?
He used to be a credible threat.
Piffle. That was a Reagan-era myth.
Virtus,
"The article on the WAPO included a comment from the "Admin" saying that N. Korea and Iran also have been negotiating with the US, similarly to Libya..."
Well, yeah...hell, they probably figure they'd better, since Bush was so hellbent on going to war with Iraq, good reason or not. Too bad Bush The Lesser couldn't have hit on this policy epiphany sooner, though...
Waitaminute...so the Bush administration, which is beholden cravenly to the religious right and the corporate right...is waging a war on religion as a hole? Izat why the extreme right goes all gooey over cats like Roy Moore and wet themselves over the Pledge's "Under God" bit?
Man, I'll have to smoke on that one for a bit, admittedly...
Backslider: I concur, but...
Iraq has had quite a history. It is well and good to hope for a diplomatic solution, and I definitely would have liked to see a stand-down last march. However, Saddam has been picking a fight with the US and the UN for quite a while. His assault on Kuwait, his continued breach of the '91 resolution for peace. His attempted assassination of Bush Sr. regardless of whether you like him, he was a President, and an attempt on any American's life is a reprehensible act that demands retribution. To set a precedent otherwise is to roll over and admit you have a 'rolling standard'.
The circumstances under which N. Korea and Iran opened up the diplomatic floor may be less than perfect, but we still need to capitalize on them and reach an accord.
Dale: The US demanding other countries control their WMD, while possessing the same may be hypocritical. However, if Iraq was the only superpower how much would you like to bet they wouldn't want us to have WMD? The same can be said of any country...no one wants others to be as powerful as them.
For better or worse.
It really has been no secret that Libya has been wanting better international relations for years, even before 9/11. The simple fact of the matter is that it was always much easier to score political points (both Dems and Repubs did this) by saying "no negotiations with rogue terrorist states" than to actually talk to Libya. Libya has not had real ties with terrorist groups for a decade. The simple fact of the matter is that this announcement does not have squat to do with the "war on terra" and that we would still be ignoring Libya totally if the administration did not have a domestic political reason for changing course. I suppose though that it's easier to bitch about "leftist" sour grapes than to look at the facts. It's much easier than to actually have been paying attention to Libya over the past ten years, also.
I see the resident idiot is back.
Iraq would have gone the same route as Libya in just a little while. The Bush administration is a bunch of fucking liars who wanted a war for greed and a war on Islam in the Middle East.
Virtus:
The "only superpower" has the role of leading the way to nuclear disarmament. Period.
The rest is just your idiotic 21-year-old-ex-marine commentary.
Our family has fond memories of Living in Tripoli under the so-called "brutal" Ghedaffi while in the employ of Esso. Bathtub gin, baby "lobsters" in the backyard, picnics at Sabratha, the Warsaw ballet on tour, bridge and tennis at the expat club. My husband even won a medal in a Ghedaffi-sponsored chess competition.
The wildmen in the Reagan administration _ordered_ the Americans to leave (Americans were sent off with flowers and tears), prevailed on Europe to end air service, made Fiat go under by forcing Libyan capital disinvestment, nearly bankrupted Allis-Chalmers, provoked and harrassed the Libyans with constant naval maneuvres, bombed their capital, shot down an Italian airliner mistaking it for Ghedaffi's plane, and terrorized the entire region.
The Americans were resentful that Ghedaffi closed down Wheeler AF Base after the corrupt King Idris was deposed in an essentially bloodless 48-hour revolultion. As a result, Libyans got free education, health service, and subsidized staples (chicken, milk, cooking oil, rice) and kerosene for heating (winters were chilly) with the new government. These practices further irritated the proto-neocon Reaganites, who viewed Libya an agent of the Evil Empire. Oh, and I do remember those fantastic, laughable official Washington dispatches that Libyan hitsquads had crossed the border into Texas and were gunning for the Gipper.
I do believe that Libya was possibly blackmailed into taking the rap for Lockerbie. btw Libya was the first nation to prosecute Osama for terrorism.
Maybe people don't understand that what happened to Saddam Hussein was a wake up call to all the other dictators of the world who viewed having WMD as some kind of prestige and show of their power. Ghadafi was intimidated and was wondering if this could happen to him next - being dragged out of a hole like Saddam. This wasn't a result of patient "multilatelalism". Do you think it is not a coincidence that he decided to say this one week after they captured Saddam? I think not.
Virtus,
Not to cast asparagus on you, but I've been hearing your arguments for the past year and they still ring hollow when thumped. Between you, me and the internet fence post, I honestly believe this most recent war was akin to someone lashing out when hurt. We got a huge black eye and instead of working to prevent such a thing from happening - which would require a huge change in foreign policy and, frankly, domestic policy on certain levels - we went sniffing for war. And, luckily, we had a ready-made demon in ol' Saddam...a demon of our own making, as a matter of fact. His removal from power and subsequent capture is nice and all, but it doesn't bring justice to the dead nor has it made the situation as a whole one whit better. Of course, this is just my take on the ballgame.
And I'll grant you it's groovy Iran and North Korea are talking nice, but we're still negotiating from the business end of a shotgun, as my old poppaw used to say. Granted, since the U.S. took it's position as the biggest dog in the yard, it's how we've done things. It ain't unheard of, though, for a big dog to be taken down by enough little dogs. Shit's gotta change or, well...nothing will change except the players.
And like I said earlier about the U.S. having more WMD's than any other nation on the globe, we're still dealing with some nasty sumbiches - China, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Uzbekistan to name a few. Just makes me wonder exactly our moral superiority comes from.
Copernicus: I make a reasonable comment concerning Iraq's continued practice of pissing all over the US and the UN, and your response is some "Bush Hating" party rhetoric, an unsupported ascertation, and an insult...
And I'm the idiot...
*sigh* I don't see how name calling has any place in substantiative debate.
As for the role of the only superpower, that is certainly your opinion. I bet the Trojans would be happy to tell you about the results of dearmament. Or we can ask the Carthagians about the hard rigors of 'real life'...Maybe the Ottoman Empire could finish up with a little discourse on the importance of maintaining a strong military presence.
Dennis:
I agree completely that, ultimately, the Iraq war is about capitalism. It is about an extreme capitalist economic functioning in which the US military functions as an arm of economic policy. In this extreme of economic functioning, the US military is not serving the vast majority of the American people. In this extreme, the US military is serving the interests of the board directors, top management, and major shareholders of large, politically connected corporations.
This aspect of US economic functioning has refused to accept moderation or restraint for as long as the US has had a legal notion of "corporation". The corporation itself is a legal fiction created to shield very wealthy capitalist investors from liabilities associated with the operation and functioning of a business. The entire legal notion of "corporation" needs to be rethought and amended to prevent Iraq wars from occurring.
The US Middle East policy under the Bush administration is essentially a Monroe Doctrine applied to Islamic lands, as opposed to Spanish-speaking lands.
Virtus: buzz off.
The US Middle East policy under the Bush administration is essentially a Monroe Doctrine applied to Islamic lands, as opposed to Spanish-speaking lands.
Copernicus
Those Spanish speaking lands are next.
A number of left leaning politicians are starting to act up. Like that whole Costa Rica avoiding privitazation.
I bet Chavez will have those Iraqi WMD's, since that recall thing is going so badly.
Anyone see the article with the pic of Saddam? It claims he looked sick. But probably doped to the gills.
We need a death pool.
See if he makes it to a trial.
Backslider: I have only been posting on here for a few weeks, so I hardly see how you could have been listening to my rhetorical banter for a year.
That aside, as for your opinionated statement, I definitely concede that that is one option, one very VIABLE option. Honestly, that is how I felt initially when we where told OBL was behind the whole mess.
Hopefully some good comes out of everything. If this means peaceful accord with the rest of the countries we have had trouble with, then maybe the perceived evil outweighs the potential for good.
my $.02
And we all know the history of the Monroe Doctrine.
What we don't have is an accurate count of the numerous millions of people killed throughout the Carribean and Latin America by the US military to support policies constructed by our national government specifically to serve the rich US investor and big business class. We'll never know for sure just how many people were killed, because then, even as now, no records of non-US body count are kept or recognized by the US.
Get it?
Wow that was an amazing avoidance of really happen there, Atrios. But what else could one expect from you? We did not make peace with Ghadafi, he fell to our will. We secured the unfettered right to inspect and dismantle Libya's WMD programs. This was the result of America's liberation of Iraq. And yes it has made us safer. This is one example of that.
If we had the Wesley Clark or Howard Dean stated foreign policy, there would be no capitulation by Muammar and his programs would still be continuing. By his own admission, his nuclear program was well advanced. We are now seeing the fruits of the Bush Administration foreign policy. Unlike the bombing of Kosovo from 15,000 feet, the liberation of Iraq is making America safer.
If as you state that Ghadafi was so willing to normalize relations, why couldn't Madeline do it during the Clinton Administration? She should have had time between champagne toasts with Jong Il to do it...
Virtus writes: "If this means peaceful accord with the rest of the countries we have had trouble with, then maybe the perceived evil outweighs the potential for good."
If what is happening in Islamic lands today is your idea of "peaceful accord", I'd hate to see your idea of "unrest and open warfare".
"liberation of Iraq"?!
What is it the the idiot wingnut loon factor today?
The big question of "liberated Iraqis" is just how many of them are going to be willing to participate in a GROWING guerrilla insurrection against our military occupation of their nation in the coming YEARS.
"Liberation", indeed. If a military
If a military dictatorship enforcing a massive economic exploitation by foreign investors and now OWNERS is some MBF's idea of "liberated Iraq", well, then I think the MBF's idiocy speaks for itself.
They're so fucking liberated they don't even own their economy anymore. They have to ask the military dictator in Washington DC to hire his cronies at a rip-off-the-US-taxpayer price to come rebuild their power grid and school system which the US so sweetly destroyed with the military, precisely so that the well-connected US corporations could DO that rebuilding ...
What I mean by that, is that if this mess in Iraq allows for peaceful relations with Libya, N. Korea, Pakistan, Iran, etc...Than, while Iraq may have been bad, at least the potential for good is there.
I am still 50/50 about Iraq personally. Pre-war I was of the opinion that it was (As you said) an attempt to lash out and find a scapegoat for 9/11...now I am a little more positive towards our involvement, but I think we will not know the full measure of our actions there until we can look back on all of this.
There is a very simple reason the US doesnt do body counts. In vietnam, many commanders were not given any clear objectives like they were in previous wars - they were told not to invade north vietnam, so how would they define victory? Bodycounts. This was a bad precedent to set. Commanders often inflated body counts, or were harsher than they could have been. Today, Body counts does not equal victory. All the commanders know this. The standard of victory is a peaeful Iraq free from terrorism. The time when commanders used to begin press briefings with how many body counts they bagged is over. The military has changed a lot since Vietnam. You should acknowledge that.
Copernicus: Could be worse, Baghdad has power 80% of the time.
Years after Kosovo the UN cannot even keep power on 50% of the time!! And the situation is not getting better. GO UN!!!
If we had the Wesley Clark or Howard Dean stated foreign policy, there would be no capitulation by Muammar and his programs would still be continuing.
Bulls*it.
Do you honestly believe Dean or Clark care so little about this country that their foreign policy decions would put up in more jeopardy than Bush has? They're not against military intervention; they were against this intervention in Iraq and for very good reasons. Saddam was not a threat, and he didn't have WMDs. This war was a stupid ass decison by an incompetent little weasel who lied, lied, lied.
Come back when you're less ridiculous and have some proof of your assertions. Otherwise, don't waste our time.
The neoconservative "vision" for the Middle East is not producing "peaceful relations" of any sort. It is producing horror, warfare, poverty, and suffering.
Libya and Ghaddafi have been through more than one US presidential administration together, and they are both planning on outlasting George Walker Bush as well.
Bullshit is right!
If we had a Dean/Clark/GORE foreign policy, the fucking Iraq war would never have happened, and though it is impossible to know for sure, it is quite likely that Hussein would have done would Libya just did.
In fact, it is even possible that Rummy might have, a few years from now, gone back to Iraq and shook hands again with Saddam Hussein for the purposes of the US backing his regime against Iran.
Virtus,
I didn't mean you specifically. I meant other's who've made similar arguments for war. Sorry if it came across that way, it certainly wasn't my intention.
As for the rest of your statement, I'm a little confused by the last sentence. Do you mean to say the potetential good that could - but not neccessarily - come out of this mess will be worth the ugly shit we have to deal with and the ugly dudes we have to deal with? If so, I don't know...pretty much, that's how we got into all this nonsense, ain't it? The whole "lie down with the dogs" type deal and all...
As a disclaimer - and if this isn't already apparent - I'm extremely left-wing. I'm one of those cats who voted for Nader because I felt Clinton (in '96) and Gore (in 2000) were little more than corporate puppets pulling different strings than they're Republican counterparts. Even despite the extremely shady doings in Florida during the last election, however, I was willing to suck it up and give Bush The Lesser a chance if'n he walked the straight and narrow...and, of course, he screwed the pooch pretty much right out of the gate.
Nevertheless, I do agree that the next few months will be terribly interesting on the geopolitical level. Maybe some good can come out of these recent doings - your Saddams and your Mommars - but frankly, I see nothing but bread and circuses with no real change in the root causes. It all goes back to the dollar bill, y'all, and as long as that's the main god worshipped...well, strap down, son, because the ride's gonna stay bumpy.
Copernicus nails it, as usual:
"If what is happening in Islamic lands today is your idea of 'peaceful accord,' I'd hate to see your idea of 'unrest and open warfare.' "
G Resaba:
The US does not keep foreign body counts in these dirty wars because those body counts are both bad PR as well as records that can be used in the future in legal claims against the US or as propaganda by/against the new despotic puppet regimes that the US props up in the countries it demolishes.
Copernicus: That is blatant conjecture. How can you possibly go so far as to tell me what the 'necocon' vision for ANYTHING is?
By your logic I could submit an editorial about the far left vision for the future as that of "killing babies and punching old people in the face" It's just an opinion right? Blah!
No one is saying that Libya and Ghaddafi are NOT going to outlast Bush, to say otherwise would be to say that we (or someone) planned on wiping them out of existence...hardly the continuation of the current peaceful diplomatic actions.
I recall hearing an interview on PRI shortly after we invaded Iraq. The person being interviewed was a government official from India. I don't recall his name, but one thing he said has stuck with me. He said that India felt that since the U.S. marched into Iraq pre-emptively it meant that India might be justified in pre-emptively nuking Pakistan.
I'm not so sure that the precedent we've set in Iraq is such a winner. There may be short-term gains, but the long term picture is much scarier. Not least because the U.S. seems to have emasculated the U.N., which it has been trying to do for years, despite the gains in world peace that that organization has had a hand in. The U.S. is kind of like Ghadaffi that way - it wants to be the star player and doesn't want to share the spotlight.
And apparently the dork thinks that there is now "peaceful accord" with Noth Korea.
It's another open secret: the Bush administration let North Korea go nuclear. They did this because:
a) half the combat power of the US Army is currently mired in Iraq and will be forever and a day, leaving insufficient forces to really threaten North Korea without creating a catastrophe, and
b) their asshole, idiotic "duhplomacy" ruined any possibility of genuine engagement with the North Korean government.
Get it? Washington lost to North Korea in the nuclear standoff. It was obvious that it would happen before it happened, it was obvious what was happening as it happened, and in hindsight, it is obvious what has gone on.
Washington ignored the REAL nuclear WMD proliferation problem, which is North Korea and also Pakistan. The Bush administration did this ignoring so that they could lie up a war against Iraq, which they wanted for the purposes of asshole/idiot rightwing radical political "theory", and as a result, when the "duhplomacy" did'nt work, Bush simply handed off the problem of dealing with the North Korean WMD program to China, abrogating our responsibilities in Asia, and incidentally making us dependent yet more on the totalitarian Communist government of ChinawhichisualsothemajorholderofUSnationaldebt.
Backslider: I concur with your statement that it all revolves around money...however, in my opinion that is a GOOD thing, and has been the decisive factor in the United States (and the rest of the world too).
We got our freedom because a bunch of guys (patriots now) didn't want to pay taxes. We sparked an industrial revolution because someone wanted to make a few bucks, etc...
I would go so far as to say that Money is the #1 cause of overall human advancement (good or bad).
Virtus writes "if the Iraq mess has led to peaceful accord (ed: LAUGH) with the trouble nations" and then accuses someone else of "conjecture".
Oh My.
Smoke this-
Loud, obvious, ricochet like popping sound
Heads coming out of asses realizing what continues, and what is past, is definitely not what has been sold
The Libya bell is yet another nasty cycle in diversion 101
To date, there has never been anything revealed to the public about
how the U.S. government KNOWS that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were the
actual perps of 9/11
Lie to me once, shame on you, lie to me over and over again, and when a spark of truth is uttered, I no longer care to discern the difference.
Behold the neocon "vision" which is to derail any form of reconciliation with our former Western European friends for the purposes of bettering the Middle East by announcing that the friends cannot compete in the bidding for profiteering contracts in the "interests of US national security", just as Papa sends his fixit man to try repair relationships with those governments.
Relationships which, incidentally, have been severely damaged by the neocon "vision".
Its very simple, pie, if the stated foreign policies of Clark and Dean had been in effect today, Saddam would still be in power and Ghadafi's admitted nuclear program would still be in operation. Ghadafi bowed to our will. The only peace here is the capitulation of the defeated.
Now explain to me how bombing Kosovo from 15,000 feet made America safer?
So you think this is a war for economic gain? If this was this was the worst business descision ever. We are not making any profits from ths. If Bush gave billions of dollars to Haliburton to fix Iraq, he could have easily given billions of dollars to other non-military domestic business interests and recieved a kickback that way. Or instead of spending that money, he could have lowered taxes again further endearing himself to the wealthy, or he could make some government programs that would steal some thunder from the democrats and get him millions of extra votes. The point is there is a lot of ways he could enrich himself AND become more popular. This war he knew would not get him any extra votes. It won't make him wealthier. The reason Bush went to Iraq and Afghanistan was because it was the right choice. The hard choice. A weaker leader could have rushed to the UN where they would pass more empty resolutions and sit on their hands. Look! no soldiers are getting killed! No war! But when the US is attacked and the does nothing it can logically conclude one thing: the US is weak. This may seem alien to the liberals way of thinking, because you and coutries like Europe and Japan, live in the post modern age when people negotiate before fighting, violence is ruled out, and concensus is sought. But the rest of the world still has not reached that point. Its still a Hobbseian world where the strongest army will try to conquer the small. For the last half century, America has been western civilization's shield against this world. During that time, the western world forgot what real life was like: peace is not the natural state of things, spoiled only by unilateralist cowboys. Peace is something rare and precious. However, when danger threatens, we cannot cling to peace and hope the danger will pass us by. We have to confront the danger with all our might. Most Americans are people of action. they instinctively understadn this.
So let's see: 3/4 of the way through his first administration, George W. Bush has put two dictators out of business and, without firing a shot, persuaded a third to dismantle his WMD. And the Democrats' case against administration foreign policy is... what, again?
Kabul, Baghdad, Tripoli. On to Pyongyang and Tehran!
--National Review
Virtus:
The people who led the American revolution were a transplanted congenitally entitled aristocracy from Western Europe, and they promptly imposed taxes (as well as involuntary military service to them) on US after managing to shake the landlord in England. Wake up, dude. The average colonial worker before and after the revolution against England served first and foremost the colonial aristocracy - the LOCAL aristocracy - which was brutally regressive and imposed even long-term imprisonment, torture, and death on AVERAGE people for the simple crime of being poor. This is all documented. Don't be such an idiot.
The policy of radical detaxation at work right now is about one thing: establishing a permament, deeply entrenched rich ruling class in America which increasingly consumes and owns more and more and more and more of the national economic functioning, the inputs, and the outputs.
Copernicus: I am ignoring you in the future due to your constant use of the 'name-calling' tactic.
I am a fairly young guy overall, and I find the maturity to not use derogatory or inflammatory remarks about people. Perhaps you could muster the same amount of maturity.
As for your points.
"a) half the combat power of the US Army is currently mired in Iraq and will be forever and a day"
I'm sure you will be happy to know that half of the US's combat power is NOT in Iraq. And that the 3rd Marine Division, The 1st Marine Air Wing, and the 3rd Force Service Suppor Group are all quite happily employed in Okinawa Japan. (I don't know the names of them, but there are also several divisions of Soldiers and Airmen stationed in that region as well). There are also several operational bases in Seoul Korea, and the RoK Army is also far from being nonexistent.
Hopefully this should assuage your fears for our ability to deter N. Korea.
Virtus,
Gotta disagree with you, there, hoss. We got our country not because a bunch of cats didn't want to pay taxes. We got our country because said cats weren't all that happy with paying taxes but not having a voice in government. Amusingly enough, the first big kerfluffle the young nation suffered after the constitution was hammered out was over taxes. Look up Shay's Rebellion for more info.
Hell, one could argue - and win me over - that we've got a whole heapin' helpin' of Taxation Without Representation goin' on today. Like I tell my Libertarian friends who piss and moan about those naughty income taxes, study a bit on not how much YOU pay, but just where that money goes and how it's spent. It'll curl (or straighten) your hair
As for the rest, well, we'll have to chalk that one up to differing ideologies. I see human advancement not in the doo-dads and gee-gaws we have - even this groovy-keen Internet thing the kids are ravin' about - but art and music and literature and scientific inquiry. Again, like I told a Libertarian friend, if you're doing something for the money - in this instance we were discussing the whole health care issue - you're doing it for the wrong damn reason.
But...that's just me.
Libya capitulated under sanctions. The chances of Libya being invaded by the US (remember: the US army is stuck in Baghdad, for a very long time) were approaching ZERO.
Get it? The sanctions against Libya worked. And Bush had nothing to do with it, though, of course, his administration is exploiting the good news and trying to take credit for it.
Virtus: the "name-calling" tactic, indeed. You're a fucking idiot. Get over it.
Bush, typically, is trying to take credit for other people's hard work -- twenty years of diplomacy and sanctions.
For all the Bush administration's focus on deadly arms, however, the United States may have missed an opportunity to act earlier because of its preoccupation with Afghanistan and then Iraq, said U.S. officials familiar with earlier overtures.
"Within months after September 11th, we had the Libyans, the Syrians and the Iranians all coming to us saying, 'What can we do [to better relations]?' We didn't really engage any of them, because we decided to do Iraq. We really squandered two years of capital that will make it harder to apply this model to the hard cases like Iran and Syria," said Flynt Leverett, a former Bush administration National Security Council staff member now at the Brookings Institution.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp...-
2003Dec19.html
On to Pyongyang and Tehran!
Hahahahahahaha!
Dude, I don't owe you any "courtesy". This is not a scripted McDebate on corporate-owned TV. If you write something idiotic, and you do, over, and over, and over again, simply repeating the Weekly Standard prints as if arguing from Holy Scripture, then I am going to show you little or less than zero respect. I am so fucking sick and tired of the "respect" shown to the pathological rightwing liars in the corporate mass media I could scream (and I am screaming). It's total bullshit, and so are your "points". This is not a McDebate on Fox "News". I do not have to agree politely with you when state that the sky is red and that up is down. This not Corporate TV, and I am not following the script that Rupert Murdoch has assigned for me as "the liberal".
And if you don't like the tone, then write a letter to your Great Leader asking him to respect the existence of the slightly greater than 50% of the country that did'nt vote for him 2000 and will not vote for him in 2004.
Backslider: Last comment for me tonight (My internet is really screwy and it's pissing me off)
I definitely agree that if our tax money was not squandered on so many worthless things we could afford what most people in all the parties truly want, (heres a hint: It's not congressional pay raises *sigh*).
As for as art and music and literature. Remember, those are jobs too, and if Michaelangelo wasn't getting paid, I bet the sistene chapel would be bare. In the end, a case can be made for money fueling nearly every achievement man has made...but that is an ideological discussion for another day. Anyway, good night.
Copernicus: I wouldn't care if you said Idiot at the beginning of every post, but to call me an Idiot, then tote random speculation, DNC party lines, and unsupported statements is rather annoying and juvenile.
Maybe one day you will grow up, wear some daddy pants, and realize that people have differing points of views, and everyone who disagrees with you is no more or less intelligent than you.
If you truly think that, then I submit you are the idiot.
(BTW your argument sucked, it wasn't even worth hunting down links to show the utter worthlessness of what you have to say. Go read a book douchebag)
So when Qaddafi lets weapons inspectors in, it's a triumph, and when Saddam Hussein does, it's a provocation. Letting Qaddafi stay in power is a triumph, and letting Saddam Hussein stay in power is peacenik appeasement. Got it.
Glad to see the Republicans working their way backwards through their list of bogeymen. Look out, Daniel Ortega, you're next! Idi Amin, the Bush administration is on the case!
em - thank you for that. It was obvious the minute Bush stepped up and said: "It's us or them," that we were going to squander every single bit of political and diplomatic capital we had just had handed to us by most of the world. If we hadn't thrown that away, the world could have been a much more peaceful and stable and safe place today. Instead, every day we teeter on the brink of disaster because the morons in the WH "hit the trifecta."
We could have formed meaningful alliances with middle eastern and asian countries that would have enabled us to bring terrorists to justice. Instead, Bush took us to Iraq, filled Gitmo with a bunch of innocent people and spit on the constitution here. And so we worry now about another terrorist attack on the U.S., and worry too that the U.S. has lost the moral capital it once claimed among nations. Do not think that that moral capital wasn't important - it was. It's gone.
The administration is comprised of the most incompetent, rigid and closed-minded bunch of fools who ever were in charge of a country that isn't a banana republic. And we look more like a banana republic every day.
These banana republics and their tin pot dictators used to play a role in the Cold War, aligning with whichever bully, US or USSR, would pay better. Their function was to suppress the domestic opposition who would be getting help from the other superpower. Now that there's only one bully on the block the generalissimos have nothing to gain by confronting the west, or the US specifically. The insurgents are now just "terrorists" who see the US supporting their oppressors with the biggest military in the history of the world. In the post-Cold War era the tin-pots, be it Taliban or Iran or Syria or Cuba will have no incentive to intervene in regional conflicts. The intifada or insurgents or terrorist don't go away. They just use stones, suicide bombers, boxcutters, whatever. The middle east becomes the model for the rest of the world. The root causes? When necessary we export democracy at the end of a cruise missile.
Virtus:
By the time I was your age (21) I had already completed a college education, graduating with a 3.9 GPA. I assure you that, by the time I was your age (21) that I read more books than you have in your time enlisted in the Marine Corps.
Go hunt down the links to disprove that.
And, again, this is not a McDebate, and I am not following a script given to me by Rupert Murdoch in which I portray "the liberal weakling". I will not nod politely to you and just agree with whatever you say because the network won't give me air time if I actually seem to disagree. This is not corporate TV.
Virtus,
Well, speaking as a writer and a musician, I make a pretty decent living as a prep cook. I don't do either for the money. In fact, I was never more miserable than when I wrote for newspapers/magazines as my "day job". Artists do what they do because, well, that's what they do. Them that do it just for the bread generally ain't worth a damn.
Not to sound degrading, but to quote the great Charlie Parker, "If I have to explain it to you, you'll never understand." For me, as long as my band's crankin' out some good rock & roll and I can indulge my modest skill with the written word, I'm a happy cat. And, hey...I turn a buck, all the better. There's a difference between making a living and making a fortune, but again, differing perceptions, I suppose.
Take it easy.
We should all be happy about this, but clean elections would be better. Still, interesting that he can remain in power, praised by Bush as an example of how we'll accept brutal dictators with a history of sponsoring terrorism if they give up current and future programs for weapons of mass destruction. Not necessarily a mistaken policy from a Kissinger-esque realpolitik world view. But I thought the latest GOP Talking Points are the opposite - that Iraq's lack of WMD is irrelevant, that we went in there without UN support as a humanitarian mission?
Again, as I said yesterday, your talking points were rather obvious as I predicted the Left would say something along these lines (where's the originality guys?)
Your comments suppose that there is no happy medium between foricbly removing a dictator and being his best friend.
Such a supposition is just dumb. We have diplomatic relations with Qadaffi and nothing more.
And I still have no respect for the UN until Libya is no longer the head of its human rights commission. Nothing has changed there.
Copernicus: Congratulations, that means nothing...I had my scholarship to college when I was 17...I decided not to take it. Now I'm seeing the world (yay...) and working on a degree via distance education. Maybe that is not how you wanted to do things, but no one is telling you how to lead your life here...(maybe you should follow suit)
As for who read more books? Is that akin to the "my dad makes more money than your dad argument?"
Proving once again that college does not grant maturity...
I'm not asking you to follow a script, but constructing a reasonable argument, supported with fact is generally preferable to loose conjecture and random generalizations about the evils of Bush. Save the opinions for your conclusion of the facts, but don't replace the facts with your opinion!
Blah. Goodnight.
Your comments suppose that there is no happy medium between foricbly removing a dictator and being his best friend.
We'll get along better if you stop putting words in people's mouths.
Bush will never be anybody's best friend, sweetie.
For Virtus, with regards to American revolution being a populist tax revolt:
"The voyage to America lasted eight, ten, or twelve weeks, and the servants wre packed into ships with the same fanatic concern for profits that marked the slave ships. If the weather was bad, and the trip took too long, they ran out of food. The sloop Sea-Flower, leaving Belfast in 1741, was at sea sixteen weeks, and when it arrived in Boston, forty-six of its 106 passengers were dead of starvation, six of them eaten by the survivors. On another trip, thirty-two died ofhunger and disease and were thrown into the ocean ... Indentured servants were bought and sold like slaves ... Beatings and whippings were common. Servant women were raped ...
All this was done by the congenitally-entitled transplanted European aristocracy, Virtus. They went on to lead a revolution, with regards to taxation, that served them, not the majority of colonial Americans. The majority of colonial Americans who paid taxes paid them to the local aristocracy, not England, and continued to do so AFTER the revolution in 1776. Very little actually changed for the typical American through the 1776 revolution alone. You have been cruelly mislead. After 1776, the "democracy" that existed only existed for wealthy, congenitally entitled white male landowners. "Freedom" for the average person was not to come for some time.
Just a little FYI.
"It so warms the cockles of my heart to see our gov'ment negotiate with Ghadafi..."
Bush loses if he's forceful and Bush loses if he's diplomatic.
"Nasty Guy who has done nasty things, yes. Blew up that jetliner, no. Blackmailed by the US into admitting having done so and eventually paying up, yes. People need to look into the evidence and the trial more closely, the whole thing was a farce."
Ok whackjob.
"What are we doing about that? Iraq wasn't a threat; nor was Libya. This is all so ridiculous. You little boys and your love of war and killing and death and destruction make me ill."
Pie, the threat of proliferation of WMD's combined with state sponsored terrorism is the threat. I'm starting to get the feeling you are just clueless on this matter pie.
This is all just a sly ruse by Khadafy. How do I know? I saw the pictures of him in Weekly World News, where he was a member of the wedding party at Saddam & Osama's gay marriage. Other wedding party members: Kim il Jong and Jacques Chirac. The only most evil personages not included, it seems, were Lex Luthor, Dr. Evil, and Hillary Clinton. Though the first two are allegedly fictional characters, only prior engagements can explain Hillary's absence at the happy event.
Okay so Bush's foreign policy "sucesses" so far include Afghanistian (where the Tailban and the various warlords are still controlling parts of the country, but hey we have control of Kabul), Iraq (where people are still getting killed, and suffering needlessly) and now because the simpering moron in the whitehouse likes killing people Libya has capitulated to all of Americas demands, the sanctions had nothing at all to do with it.
The fact that bush the idiot pisssed off North Korea into restarting their nuclear programs isn't a mark against him when it comes to foreign policy? How about his inability to negotiate with the UN to get the resolutions passed he wanted(oh sorry I forgot, this here is the US of A we don't need no stinkin UN trying to control us). How about his inept handling of trade disputes, is that good foreign policy? What about his capitulation, and subsequent loss of "face" to the Chinese when he begged to get that plane back, is that good foreign policy? His ignoring the will of the people, both in the USA and abroad when it came to starting a war with no jusification, is that good foreign policy? His support of bloodthirsty, and brutal dictators in several countries, while attacking the weakest of the lot of scumbags in Saddam is good foreign policy? His constant attempts to undermine the democracy in Venezula is good foreign policy?
And the Democratic Party should conceed foreign policy?
the threat of proliferation of WMD's combined with state sponsored terrorism...
Who are you talking about? Have you read this thread at all?
I'm starting to think you just refuse to see the truth, Philly G.
As for as art and music and literature. Remember, those are jobs too, and if Michaelangelo wasn't getting paid, I bet the sistene chapel would be bare. In the end, a case can be made for money fueling nearly every achievement man has made...but that is an ideological discussion for another day
An ideological discussion?
Anyhoo, dear Virtus, you fail to explain the difference between money as a "motive" and money as a "means".
Besides, making art solely for the money is a recipe for artistic disaster.
Bushboy's dealings with Khaddafy and his treatment of Saddam have to be seen through the lens of politics as focused by Rover.
The conquest of Iraq and the capture of Saddam represent "photo-op and sound byte heaven" to Rover. Ergo: the ridiculous flight suit on the aircraft carrier, the phony turkey in the nanosecond visit to Baghdad and the pictures of Saddam with his mouth wide open as a flashlight is beamed into his throat - all of this represents affirmation to the Gooper faithful that Bushboy is "The Man!" and it persuades the more oblivious of the American electorate that something is being "accomplished."
Ditto with Khaddafy! His capitulation which was more symbolic than substantive, can be promoted as evidence that the Bushboy policy of "pre-emptive war" is a sound one.
Come 2004, we will see many iterations of these farces to convince the electorate that Bushboy knows what he is doing when, in fact, he clearly does not.
Darth-
How many horses are starving with that straw-man you're building?
It's certainly not the case, as I see it, that there's no distinction between forcibly removing a dictator and being his best friend. Rather it's a case of consistency. Tell me, what criteria has Qaddafi filled that has saved him from being ousted? He took responsibility for shooting a civilian airliner out of the sky for goodness sake! Bush has (re- and re-re-)framed this "war on terra" as a moral necessity since the whole WMD thing hasn't worked out yet. Does this administration have any consistency in its arguments? Maybe you don't require it, but I sure like it when wars are waged with very lucid arguments.
Monkeybutt,
That's what I said. You wanna see someone make music for money? Two words: Celine Dion. Or Shania Twain. Or that squirrley dude from American Idol.
Christ, I hate the music business...
You who deny the Libyan WMD program are sticking your heads in the sand. The program exists and we have photodocumentary evidence dating back to 1985 that the Libyans gave plutonium to an American scientist known as DOC BROWN. Yet Brown, due either to his feelings of guilt or his own ambition, utilized the plutonium to build a time machine.
Regardless of the outcome of that exploit into Padilla-style dirty bombmaking, the Libyans who were working with Brown are believed to have remained in America. They were thought to have been guilty of murdering Doc Brown, until photodocumentary evidence proved that Brown possessed the foresight to wear a bulletproof vest. Brown, his dog, and his lab assistant have since disappeared.
THERE ARE LIBYANS AT LARGE IN AMERICA, AND THEY HAVE BEEN HERE SINCE 1985.
everyone should read the current issue of The Economist...hardly a liberal publication. this week's leader discusses the capture of saddam...and gives a thorough background report of all the regimes complicit in saddam's rule over the years...including the Russians, French and yes, the US and the Bushes. I'm glad I renewed my subscription. But as many here have said...you have to go overseas to get a balanced view of the news now. Thank God for the BBC, Reuters, The Economist, The Guardian and the Independent. (Those are all British aren't they?) Well I'll also include AFP.
The question is : why DONT we have a pic of Muammar and Rummy shaking hooves??!! Get photoshopping, dammit!
Anything good for Bush is alas bad for the Democrats, and therefore "bad" according to the half-baked scheme of morality underlying these threads. All Bush's opinions are implanted by his corporate masters in the service of pure evil. Down with Chimpy! Up, up with that-which-is-not-Chimpy, no matter what the fuck that means!
Hey Copernicus, I wanna hear more about your credentials; any chance you could post your SAT scores, a copy of your senior thesis and a polaroid of your genitals? Thanks.
Backslider, yeah I just noticed you said it first. I have no problem BTW with Celine Dion, she is not singing in my house 
I thought about giving some examples to demonstrate your and my point, but then I decided against it. Your Charlie Parker quote says it all. Virtus' remark about it being an "ideological" discussion still has my head spinning.
"b) their asshole, idiotic "duhplomacy" ruined any possibility of genuine engagement with the North Korean government."
I must say this is the stupidest thing ever printed anywhere in the whole wide world. It's the dumbest thing I've ever read on the whole world wide web. And you are dumb for thinking it, and dumber still for typing it. Which makes you a dummie. The end.
This is the continuation of the Ronnie and Poppy “any friendly dictator” policy.
Democracy, what’s that, what was in it for the Libyan people, exactly bubkes, as long as the dictator made some malleable noises, it is carry on dude, you the buddy now. Remember the handshake with Saddam.
Besides, who the hooey knows what he really had and how much he is really giving up.
Plus their constant hucksterism of the Barnum and Bushie show is getting to be tiresome.
On top of which the real tensions are in North Korea and that is where we need to see the feller eased out and we need to see the rhetoric and tensions reduced without any more speeches and hucksterism by the annoying duo, just knock it off boys, this is getting so old.
.....
After reading Copernicus extensively, it really seems like he's joined the tin foil hat club. He's like Noam Chomsky "intellectual", except Chomsky is at an idiot that people have heard of.
Monkeybutt,
Ehh, some people, some don't. I, for one, don't understand the whole marriage, kids, two-car garage, dog and white-picket-fence house thing. I've never been able to wrap my brain around the whole "money for money's sake" - or, as the old folks would call it, good ol' fashioned "greed". But, hey, that's how the game is played, ain't it? Everything's gotta be about the greenbacks, otherwise you're a worthless waste of oxygen and a lazy daydreamer.
Until, of course, your doodles/scribbling/noodling on guitar starts making a little scratch. Then, that's when they're buddy-buddy with ya. Go figure. *shrug*
According to a random interviews done by JImmy Breslin there are people out there who REALLY believe that Saddam Hussein IS Osama Bin Laden. I bet they also believe Qaddafi (sp?) is Hussein AND Bin Laden and himself. Wait - my head is exploding.
Backslider, I understand the money-is-everything ideology. But Virtus was talking about "money fueling nearly every achievement man has made". You can write an historical/scientific essay about this and then compare notes with other historians/scientists and then develop a general theory/hypothesis. Researchers can be ideologically driven and may ignore or revise or interpret "facts" to suit their ideology, of course. But I suppose Virtus was not talking about that.
That last post was me, not "money". I am afraid Virtus' affect on my brain is more serious than I suspected.
This is my all time favorite funny picture of all time, more chuckles even than that Rummy pic you folks keep trotting out.
First and foremost, I just don't get how Qadaffi disarming is not unequivocally a good thing.
No but but but's necessary. He is disarming voluntarily. This is a GOOD thing, and while not central to the War on Terrorism, it certainly doesn't hurt.
Troll, the same Madeline Albright who claims we're hiding OBL and are ready to unleash him just in time for the election.
Pass the bong dude. The black helicopters are on their way and the mind control satellites are gettin' to me man....
MinnieB9 - Oh, I like your comment - I like your style. "...who the hooey knows..." and the whole last paragraph on hucksterism is just really good.
You got it right - the entire thing.
Darth Philly, I think someone was smoking some premium hydroponic boo when this asinine document was drawn up. Wait, when was that again?? And where did I leave my keys????
the same Madeline Albright who claims we're hiding OBL and are ready to unleash him just in time for the election.
For fuck's sake you insufferable idiot, she already pointed out what would have been blindingly obvious to any moderately attentive five-year-old: she was joking.
but but but what would Ronny say???
GEE, it looks like CONTAINMENT WORKED.
and i seem to remember that SADAAM let inspectors in.
I ALSO HEARD GEORGE SAY HE WAS A PATIENT MAN.
aslso heard about WMD, imminent threat,rape rooms yada yada yada.
and since this IS africa, it doesn't matter. right?
I love how North Korea is referred to as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. I don't see the Leftiest complaining about the Orwellian speak there.
"For fuck's sake you insufferable idiot, she already pointed out what would have been blindingly obvious to any moderately attentive five-year-old: she was joking."
Of course she was...the next day.
Unfortunately Mort Kondrake and the other people in the green room didn't think so the day of. Who says something like that and doesn't snicker, laugh or say "I'm kidding".
She believes her own horseshit, but doesn't want to admit it, because it would only confirm how deluded many on the Left have become.
Who says something like that and doesn't snicker, laugh or say "I'm kidding".
Maybe she assumed Mort was smart enough to know she was joking.
Her mistake, trusting a Fox News employee to have a sense of humor.
She believes her own horseshit, but doesn't want to admit it, because it would only confirm how deluded many on the Left have become.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Maybe Halliburton bought him off......
Here's another gem from the Clinton-era "detente" with North Korea. HAR HAR HAR!!! HAR!!!
Seraphiel, if it were in earnest, Albright's OBL comment might rank somewhere (but not far) below the "Agreed Framework" on the scale of cheeba-induced fantasies.
if it were in earnest,
If it were, sure.
But it wasn't.
So why do you keep bringing it up?
Why don't we just keep mentioning Georgie's comment about how his job would be easier if he were a dictator? Was he joking? How do we know?!? He might have been serious! Holy shit!
You people need some serious help.
Madeline Albright? Left? What world do you inhabit?
Seraphiel:
I only wish I had'nt stirred the pot this morning. I was already angry when the LAT kindly informed me that the republicans in California are at it again, with another white supremacist/xenophobe hate referendum targeting the only remaining completely vulnerable ethnic minorities left in the country, undocumented immigrants. Seems that the rightard community, in between "arguing" for increasing global hate, suffering, warfare, and poverty like the mindless 'bots they are, are also trying to exploit the moment in California to produce a law that would require doctors to let for example gunshot victims bleed to death on the floor of the emergency room waiting area because they are brown-skinned, possessing an accident, and not carrying a green card.
However, if you look at LAT right now, they are also telling us that apparently Ghaddafi has been doing diplomacy for years and years as far as getting out of the sanctions, and implicitly that Bush had nothing to do with it.
Of course, the rightard community does'nt want to learn about that, it does'nt further inflate their Great Leader.
"It's another open secret: the Bush administration let North Korea go nuclear. They did this because:"
Who thinks that as a gesture of goodwill Copernicus should share his dealer's name with the group???[raising hand empatically]
Copernicus?? You there, pal??
cat:
Of course Albright is a "leftist". She is a trotskyite socialist agrarian revolutionary, engaging in a Bolshevik revolution, just like Bill Clinton. Just like all of us here.
Your problem is that you just don't have the intellectual capabilities of the clear-eyed conservative realists, don't you see? They understand easily that anyone who fails to support Bush is obviously a hardcore communist subversive wishing to institute a totalitarian command economy on the heartland of America and 'murk'n peeple.
Can't you see what is obvious?
Troll: you and I are not "pals". I think you are a fucking creep.
Tis the season to be jolly, Lalalalalala...
Santa: What's up with the substandard wages, unbearable labor conditions, and elf-right violations going on in the North Pole sweatshops?
We're coming for you, next!
;P
I love the way G. Reseda and other trolls equate "strength" with the most armaments and the most willingness to use them. That is not strength, that is bullying.
Lots of growing up to do for the war bloggers.
I have replaced my elves by cheap trolls. Still coming for me? Hohoho!
Jeebus, the capture of Saddam sure is drawing more ludicrous seething and whining out of Atrios.
You Bush loathers and Islamofascist lovers are blinded dumb. If you could see past your Deannie see-all-red hatred, you would have been able to see the news that Ghadafi was trying to finish off a nuclear program until just recently. Well after the Iraq war.
He was recently using Iraqi nuclear engineers and technology and parts recently purchased from NKorea. He was almost as close as Iran is to enriching uranium. And still funding terrorists around the region. No need to sound clueless and try to apologize for another, um, Islamofascist brownshirt.
I know this means nothing to you flaming Lefties since it does nothing for Dean. You don't care about Libya, NKorea or Iran developing nukes since your dear leader Dean can't use these too effectively in his stump speeches. While you cheer wildly at his "we're no safer," "let's unilaterally talk to NKor and offer him more stuff," "I NEVER said Saddam was a threat," Karl Rove is simply writing all of these contradictory and unhinged comments down. Now Dems are too, and not just those supporting the other 8 dwarves.
But he's at a serious crossroads lately. Seriously, you people need to get a clue out to Dean. He's done enough probably to win the Dem nomination and take over the DNC/Mcauliffe/Clinton reigns of power. Dean is the best you got. And now he's going off the rails.
It's not too late, Bush-hating Lefties--keep the Bush hate but drop the whacked foreign policy snarks. Save yourselves before it's too late on the security thing, and just STFU. Otherwise, you get Hillary in 08.
Tena:
Again, I apologize for stirring the pot this morning. My bad completely. As I indicated, I was already ticked off over something in the news, I mean, really steamed. Sometimes I wonder if some of the people I might have known could hypothetically have been the intended victims of the racist hate referendum the rightards are trying to get on the ballot down in lovely California.
But, sorry, I should'nt have vented at the one twerp. I just had this moment where I realized that I really, really can't stand some of the types causing problems.
That apology goes to other Atrios regulars, as well. I took the troll bait on this thread, and I am sorry about the mess that resulted.
Santa:
If you want to sweatshop-exploit trolls, I clearly won't be the one that gets in your way.
Copernicus, that is an unloving and mean thing to say, and I must say through soft whimpers that I am hurt. I guess I won't hold my breath for your explanation how Bush "let North Korea go nuclear" when their nuclear capability is obviously of much older (read: Clinton-era) vintage. Also, that those nukes were midwifed by Russia as surely as Israel's nukes were made possible by the non-venal peaceloving French.
Bush loathers
Stranger's Law invoked. Thread over.
Upon looking upthread, I note that Virtus killed this thread long ago.)
I am not exploiting trolls, I am re-educating them. Unfortunately, some of them escaped to the internet cafe in Rovaniemi to spout their frustrations. I do apologize for the inconvenience.
Stranger: some of us (such as yours truly) took the troll bait while in an off-color mood, and contributed to the resulting spasm.
Troll: in case you have'nt noticed, you and I are not "debating" ... my last comment to you was sincere and honest. however, continue you as you will ...
Santa:
You might try exploiting them while reeducating them. Tell then if they complain the exploitation that, according them, the state does not owe them an education, and they ought to be grateful.
Coper:
Of course Albright is a "leftist". She is a trotskyite socialist agrarian revolutionary, engaging in a Bolshevik revolution, just like Bill Clinton.
Can't you see what is obvious?
I apologize for my moral and intellectual inferiority. I got the memo before the Cincinnati speech, but you know, I...I...I just forgot.
Should have put my end-facetious tag at the end of that, if not obvious.
Who said anything about "debating?" I hardly expect you to defend the indefensible. PLus, as another poster eloquently put it "my urls cancel your urls blah blah blah." This isn't a debate, its a pep rally. Go team!
I'm still waiting to see those SAT scores though, or a MENSA card, cuz you're obviously like a great big genius or sumthin. And that polaroid.
Refuckhead:
Get a physics textbook. The Agreed Framework was one of two choices in 1994. The other was bombing the North Korean reprocessing facility, with the likely immolation of the Korean peninsula following. Our buds in the RoK would have died by the tens of thousands. DPRK refugees would have flooded China, which is not prepared to help them. It would have been a humanitarian and economic nightmare to put 11 September to shame. So we bargained for the shutdown of DPRK plutonium production, which is the fastest way to build bombs, by the way. Instead, the North Koreans pursued enriched uranium production--far more expensive, far slower, because only seven-tenths of one percent of the world's uranium is fissile, and can only be harvested mechanically. When Bush challenged Kim and his "Axis of Evil," he fired up the plutonium reprocessing facility, meaning he could build enough bombs to actually export them. It was a typical neocon move. Oh, by the way, have you noticed that China has taken advantage of our little Iraq obsession to assert itself in Asia? And that Bush has quietly begun to cooperate with both China and North Korea to given Kim a bit of what he wants? Because there is no fucking way we can stop Kim right now, if he chooses to cause trouble, short of our using nuclear weapons. As the Nelson Report wrote in the spring, there are only two kinds of Asian experts in DC right now: Those who are terrified of the dangers that confrontation with the DPRK pose, and those who aren't paying attention. Crawl back to Karl.
Copernicus - your apology was very gentlemanly, but totally unnecessary as far as I'm concerned.
See, I think the trolls serve a very good function. When something really upsetting happens (and what you cited is absolutely unbelievable - how cruel people can be,) it can be cathartic to have an argument with the little buggers. Doesn't bother me.
But the main thing that keeps getting buried in all this is that Bush didn't do shit. This was Ghadaffi's offer, and he's been trying for years to have this offer accepted. Rove just decided that it would make the Bush Policy on international murder look like some kind of real foreign relations policy that works if they accepted now. And considering how badly Ghadaffi wanted to normalize relations, he'd pretty much say whatever to get there.
Let's all run a pool on how long it will be before there are American oil companies all over Libya.
Tena:
Thanks for the accomodating response.
Brian:
But dammit, it's CLINTON'S FAULT, can't you see? Can't you just ... see? It's Clinton's fault!
Seriously though, when you write:
"Oh, by the way, have you noticed that China has taken advantage of our little Iraq obsession to assert itself in Asia? And that Bush has quietly begun to cooperate with both China and North Korea to given Kim a bit of what he wants? Because there is no fucking way we can stop Kim right now, if he chooses to cause trouble, short of our using nuclear weapons. As the Nelson Report wrote in the spring, there are only two kinds of Asian experts in DC right now: Those who are terrified of the dangers that confrontation with the DPRK pose, and those who aren't paying attention."
I agree. This is the exact line of reasoning that some time ago led me to conclude that Bush was quietly agreeing to NK going nuclear. Any cost of a war in Iraq was acceptable to the administration. Any cost at all, even a nuclear North Korea.
Besides, after the invasion of Iraq commenced, there is nothing that Bush could do to stop NK without precipitating a catatrophe.
Tena: article on LAT right now goes into depth on how Ghaddafi has been trying to "diplomatize" Libya out of sanctions ever since the onset of global awareness that the Pan-Am bombing was a Libyan action.
Unfortunately, that reporting will not show up on WaPo or NYT. Too controversial, you know, pointing out that the crowing resident of the White House has no responsibility for Libya's choice whatsoever - it is not as if Libya was about to invaded anytime soon - and is merely exploiting the Libyan policy change for the purposes of sorely-needed domestic PR.
Brian you're obviously very knowledgeable about fissionable materials and newkular science and stuff. Therefore, you'll acknowledge that DPRK's weapons research must have been taking place before, during and after the "Agreed Framework" was signed in 1994. You needn't believe, as I do, that the light water reactors, and heavy oil guarantees, merely bolstered the Great Leader's teetering regime and made for outstanding propaganda (as did that ill advised Albright visit.) The humanitarian catastrophe you spell out will pale next to the nuclear war currently liable to engulf that part of the world; this horrible outcome will belong mainly to the psychopathic Kim Jong Il, but also to all those helping to keep him in power through wishful thinking / willful stupidity.
What are you confused by? Noriega kills who we want him to, he's our friend. Noriega tries to do minor economic things to help his country, he's a terra'ist. Saddam makes war, gasses seccessionists and guns down dissent, guess not only who's beind him but who's supplying the helicopter gunships and germ cultutres. Saddam fails to jump when we tell him to, he's a terra'ist "addicted to weapons of mass destruction" (there are only three to five countries which can rightly be accused of this rather specific charge, and Iraq ain't one of them). Ghaddafy has tangential ties to a CIA mess-up, he's a monster. Ghaddafy bends over backwards for us, all his human rights record is half a split hair. This is extremely consistent, kids; the best argument against the incompetant pieces of shit in Foggy Bottom, etc, is that Kermit Roosevelt's unforgivable confidence in the nonexistance of blowback seems alive and well, clinging to life like the elderly dictators it benefits.
Get used to it, turkeys. All through the election year you'll be seeing front page stories about the Hussein war crimes trial ... each documenting the days testimony regarding yet another atrocity.
Meanwhile, the minimal coverage of Libya will be to hold it as an example of how terrorists have given up their ways out of fear of Bush.
Give it up. You can't win.
Philly blunt: I love how North Korea is referred to as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. I don't see the Leftiest complaining about the Orwellian speak there.
a.) I don't live in North Korea;
b.) I expect tinhorn dictators to co-opt and pervertedly use words like "democracy," "freedom" and "patriotic," but I don't expect it of the President of the USA.
.
preznit giv godaffy tukee
So how did bombing Kosovo from 15,000 feet make America safer? No one seems to be able to answer this question...
So how did bombing Kosovo from 15,000 feet make America safer? No one seems to be able to answer this question...
When did anyone claim it was supposed to make America safer? That is the question that has not been answered, y'see.
.
the threat of proliferation of WMD's combined with state sponsored terrorism is the threat.
That is easily the stupidest thing anyone has ever written on the internet, or maybe in all of recorded time.
....this man, who has shown no interest in making any international mischief for years....
Might want to check that statement with some west Africans, chief.
"the threat of proliferation of WMD's combined with state sponsored terrorism is the threat."
if anyone holding real power cared about this, why did we go out of our way to make sure the formerly Soviet suffered a punitive birth into capital[feudal]ism? Why did we transform middle-ladder nations with tons of nukes alreday built and ready to go into bottom of the barrel shitpots with major security and economic problems? Could it be poetic justice, considering those that froze to death their first capitalist winter, those that felt their guts slowly solidify in the street, those that had valued teaching positions turned to thieves and terrorists by sudden jerking into capitalism, that this same utter heartless carelessness could free up some wmds which would certainly never have "fallen into the wrong hands" in the Soyuz? If this or anything is the real threat why is our diplomatic corps and military so fucking careless?
the threat of proliferation of WMD's combined with state sponsored terrorism is the threat.
boxcutters
good understanding of any martial art
good fists and feet unpolished by good understanding of any martial art
a heavy book
toothpicks
ice picks
the compasslike things that portage sugar cubes
heavy steel-toed well-cleated boots
matches
cigarette lighters
alcohol or fuel disguised as a beverage or mouthwash
amurcan nuclear power facilities trained (according to the bulletin of the atomic scientists) to deal with three terrorists at a time but not any more
airplanes full of fuel
buses
semi trucks
cessnas
cars with explosives (arlington road)
fertilizer
IX/XI involved no conventional or nuke-bio-chem wmds. (conventional wmds would be like carpet bombing). it involved no real military ordnance, like a pistol or a frag grenade, at all. it involved as far as has been publicly proven no involvement or affiliation with any government or state.
what is strange about the bush fetish with wmds (here truly "is a man addicted to weapons of mass destruction" as shrub said about hussein) is that these are precisely what we should not be worried about.
With regard to the comment about all the fair and liberal news available on the net - trust me, outside of "our" blogs, the lard-brained right wing is all over the place on the net. Myself and several good friends of mine no longer post very often on discussion boards for a hobby we all enjoy very much, because of the right wing "thought police." My e-mail in-box always manages to leave me proof that "most people are morons" from the right wingers who hate that I am a "guru" in that hobby as well as an unabashed liberal.
I wish we all had a nice liberal "Arthur C. Clarke" community up here throughout the internet, but the opposite is more the reality, and becoming moreso as computers become so user-friendly that bipeds without frontal lobes or opposable thumbs can now use them.
The net *was* a nice place of thoughtful, intelligent people (even including conservatives you could respect) about 4-5 years ago. Not today. Unfortunately.
TC
(a trout in a guppy tank in my own little corner of the net )
you would have been able to see the news that Ghadafi was trying to finish off a nuclear program until just recently. Well after the Iraq war. [...] He was recently using Iraqi nuclear engineers and technology and parts recently purchased from NKorea. He was almost as close as Iran is to enriching uranium. And still funding terrorists around the region.
Congratulations, Paul, on making a case for war with Libya. What's that? Oh, right, I almost forgot, this week we trust dictators at their word, respect weapons inspectors, and believe that there *is* in fact a difference between having a weapon and having the possibility of restarting a program to build such a weapon. When it comes to major foreign policy decisions, it's always nice to inject the maximum amount of whimsy and hypocrisy.
TC you are a moron. PEOPLE DON'T AGREE WITH YOU!!!! Holy shit, I can't believe it. PEOPLE THET ARE AS SMART AS YOU DON'T AGREE WITH YOU!!!That is revolutionary.
Oh, like you care, Libya is bullshit, they were so powerful and mattered so much on the world stage before now, I can't imagine why they would ingratiate themselves to America.
When Bush stated that "We don't negotiate with terrorists," he failed to mention that he was secretly engaging in a policy of terrorist appeasement with Libya, a nation which supports terrorism.
good one; might mention also Putin's state terror against Russians and Chechens and China, a huge successful fascist terror state.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
