But no:
In a Paris hotel room on Monday night, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton... changed course, forming an unlikely alliance with a handful of top administration aides who had been arguing for intervention.
Within hours, Mrs. Clinton and the aides had convinced Mr. Obama that the United States had to act...
... Mrs. Clinton joined Samantha Power, a senior aide at the National Security Council, and Susan Rice, Mr. Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, who had been pressing the case for military action, according to senior administration officials speaking only on condition of anonymity. Ms. Power is a former journalist and human rights advocate; Ms. Rice was an Africa adviser to President Clinton when the United States failed to intervene to stop the Rwanda genocide, which Mr. Clinton has called his biggest regret.
Now, the three women were pushing for American intervention....
To ally with Power and Rice, Clinton had to make "an unusual break with Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, who, along with the national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, and the counterterrorism chief, John O. Brennan, had urged caution." Oh, timid men. Step aside! Yield to the boldness of women.
So... man, the power.
Posts
204 comments:
1 – 200 of 204 Newer› Newest»This is the Hillary whose name I brought a pencil to the voting booth just to write in. You don't say somebody has to go unless you're prepared to do something about it.
As for Code Pink, a bunch of half-witted ninnies who study too much Gloria Steinem and not enough Barbara Tuchman (too much feminist theory and not enough history).
The do-gooder impulse strikes again. What's our goal here, exactly? In any case, something must be done!
"But everyone knows we’ll end up staying to pacify the country [Libya], trying in vain to reconcile one gang of cretinous barbarians with the neighboring gang of cretinous barbarians. As loathsome as Qaddafi is and as richly as he deserves death, there’s nothing happening in Libya that warrants even one American soldier risking a twisted ankle, let alone his limbs, his mind, or his life."
Open question to the site's leftard trolls-in-residence: would you prefer we refer to you as "Neo-libs" from now on... or would the simpler, straightforward "chickenhawks" be more to your liking?
I doubt this is a feminist issue--its really a national security issue and I am thankful that these folks convinced Mr Obama to grow a set. Their gender is immaterial While I have qualms about involving ourselves in Libyia, I suspect Mr Obama was probably swept up more by being overshown by the Europeans--We have as a nation apparently been superceded by european colleagues.
Not a good show by a vacillating and weak US president.
idea that women bring the peace. How long have I heard this feminist plaint: If only women had the power, we would have peace, not phallocratic war.
How sexist.
And ignorant. No doubt they think they would jaw-jaw their way out of conflict, but Diplomacy has killed more than War.
The man has been dominated by women his entire life (except for a grandfather he barely acknowledges).
I'm hardly surprised.
The peaceful nature of women was an argument for women's suffrage as well. I doubt it has had much effect on how much warring we've done since then.
But at least Hillary is not an affirmative action incompetent like Obama.
Neo-cons everywhere are smiling smugly right now.
Obama, mugged by reality.
Women have ALWAYS been the most aggressive and viciously bloodthirsty of the two sexes of the species. American Indians (er, "native Americans" for the PC crowd) used their women to eagerly torture their captives, often running them thru a gauntlet of women armed with knives, stone clubs and sharpened sticks before a ceremonial death.
What's our goal here, exactly?
Exactly. One thing I know: there is no clear endgame envisioned by the deep thinking team of Obama/Clinton/Rice.
If only women had the power, we would have peace
April Glaspie. Appointed ambassador to Iraq in 1989. Greenlights Saddam's invasion of Kuwait with the statement that America does not consider Kuwait to be under our proctective unmbrella. Message: invade without consequence.
It took us 20 years of War to undo her mistake.
Not necessarily entirely a parody:
http://bigjournalism.com/sgrammatico/2011/03/18/pbs-newshour-clinton-announces-state-department-to-secede-from-administration/
Headline ar Reason:
Nobel Peace Laureate Conducts Three-Front War in the Middle East
"Hope! Change! THE WORLD CAN'T WAIT -- !!!"
Women need no fly zones like a fish needs a bicycle.
Alternatively, we could just have the CIA send the Libyans some pizza from Ian's. Very subversive.
I think Gates woke up one morning a few weeks ago and said to himself "Should I advise the president to take action in Libya?" Then he took a deep breath and asked himself, "This president?"
Maguro and kent have spoken. I'll add one more point. You don't commit the military if your track record is vacillation.
Clinton should know this president better.
Too funny, Hagar.
Forget Dante's torments. Carrying water in sieves is nothing compared to being Obama's Secretary of State.
Unfortunately, the choices are the dictator we have, or someone WORSE!
This part of the world is in chaos.
If you think the Egyptians, for instance, are now well off, then I'd beg to differ.
In that part of the world, among arabs, the only way you keep people from killing each other in tribal warfare, is to dictate the terms through one murderous family. Or another.
Plagues will come to Egypt before democracy. Made worse by knowing Egypt is overpopulated. Libya is not. And, there really is a threat that the Egyptians will cross over the border. And, try to steal the Libyan oil fields.
Plus, the mischief from Iran's support of the Shi'a.
This is not the issue that will see voters for Obama peeling off.
You know, when the elder Bush went into Irak, back in 1990, because the Kuwaitis were trying to steal the oil fields of Basra ... Bush LOST his re-election bid.
Today? Maliki has been playing with the Chinese, with oil contracts in Basra. Americans are getting NONE of the business! Sad. Sad. Sad.
Headline ar Reason:
So now the glibertarians are going all peacenik now? haha. Frauds. As if there was ever any doubt.
Barbara Tuchman was wonderful! The Distant Mirror! The Guns of August! LUCID. History writing at its best.
I thought Gloria Steinem's claim to fame is that she was a Playboy Bunny.
So now the glibertarians [SNIP]
Chickenhawk.
The men -- Gates, Donilon, and Brennan -- will turn out to have been right. The women -- Clinton, Rice, Power, and B. H. Obama -- will turn out to be wrong.
Huh?
I could care less about feminism.
Note to all our commenters who want to carp about how Althouse is a right-winger.
She's a feminist.
I don't hold it against her. Well, in fact, I do. But, once again I'm addressing our goofy commenters...
As people age and gain experience, they tend to be more independent. Their views aren't as easily categorized as are the views of the young.
"How long have I heard this feminist plaint"
I'm an Althouse plaint.
@kent, do you think the Norwegians will make him give back the Peace Prize?
If the "situation" (whatever the heck it is - civil war?) in Libya requires US and UN intervention, how many other countries require same?
Roger J
I doubt this is a feminist issue--its really a national security issue and I am thankful that these folks convinced Mr Obama to grow a set.
What exactly is the "national security issue" as it relates to the US? As previously commented, what's our goal here? Assuming the "bad dictator" loses (or wins, really), what exactly is next? If the "situation" stabilizes as is, how long do we have to be involved?
@garage:
So now the glibertarians are going all peacenik now? haha. Frauds. As if there was ever any doubt.
In principle, how is what Obama is planning to do (topple a dictator) different from what GW Bush did?
I remember well the litany of the left as regards to Bush's wars (Now Obama's wars...).
I'm not seeing much difference. If the "glibertarians" are frauds, then so is the anti-war left.
Own it.
As to the issue of whether the U.S. ought to intervene in Libya, to a certain extent I find myself more in agreement with Fred Reed's current column.
I don't necessarily have a foreign policy.
But, I think it's time for the U.S. to dramatically reduce the size of its military, pull back most of its foreign bases and start building a primarily civilian economy.
We're bankrupting ourselves with our massive military and global military adventures.
As regards to Tuchman, the book they all should be reading is The March of Folly.
And there is also this
@kent, do you think the Norwegians will make him give back the Peace Prize?
If they never arose as one and demanded, righteously and with thunder, that a squalid, chthonic little toad-thing like Arafat give his back... then: the damned things can't EVER be recalled.
Chickenhawk.
I'm against the No Fly over Libya idiot. But this must be a confusing time for you. A chance to bomb some Arabs and you have to be against it, because Obama is for it. Fuck!
Well I'd give more credibility to the views of the "Women" here IF WE KNEW WHO THE OPPOSITION TO DAFFY IS; as it stands we don't know if they are pro-democracy or more of the Muslim Brotherhood types.
The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.
I'm against the No Fly over Libya idiot. But this must be a confusing time for you. A chance to bomb some Arabs and you have to be against it, because Obama is for it. Fuck!
Gotta be racism causing this, right garbage?
I'm against the No Fly over Libya idiot. [SNIP]
... and who is the "Libya idiot" in that drunken and unfortunate Scrabble hand of a posting, pray?
Post something at least borderline literate, just as a change of pace -- just to see if you might actually end up liking it, f'chrissakes -- and I might actually deign to take your snivelings and piddlings somewhat seriously.
You poor, fuddled chimp, you.
I thought the french were supposed to go in first.
I thought Gaddafi took back control of Tripoli, and other parts that had fallen into rebel hands?
Is this a "show of force?" Or just a show?
Gaddafi said he gave Sarkozy BILLIONS. (And, yes, it's this money that got stashed into the pockets of politicians, including Tony Blair as well) ... that is moving policy.
I think we should take all of this with a grain of salt.
It's like the "eyes" of our navy that was on the yacht that held a family of Americans ... where the pirates killed them. And, yes, we had ships there, tasked with "watching."
Then there was the Iranian ships that made it through the Suez.
Perhaps, if you want to see an American Admiral fired, all you have to do is "key his ship?" The navy deducts points when a ship is damaged. I kid you not.
Nor am I impressed with our reaction to Libya's turmoil. The French should go first!
I'm against the No Fly over Libya idiot. But this must be a confusing time for you. A chance to bomb some Arabs and you have to be against it, because Obama is for it. Fuck!
Uh huh...you're against it so you come over here to rage against other people who are also against it in defense of Obama, who is for it.
Is that it?
Why this rush to war? Did Gaddafi do something to Obama's father? All those kids, flying kites in peaceful Libya about to experience the horrors of war, losing their current innocence of blissful life in Libya.
"A chance to bomb some Arabs and you have to be against it, because Obama is for it."
Such a dumbass. It must hurt your head.
There's a Hellfire missile with Daffy's name on it for Pan Am 103; the UN resolution provides the pretext.
After he and the other perps are toast it's "Mission Accomplished". Let the French handle it.
Whatever follows we have no control over. Just like Egypt.
We should attack Gaddafi aggressively and make it clear it is in retribution for flight 103, but we won't. We should continue to project American power throughout the world. The cost is minimal compared to social program entitlements. I approve of Obama's war-making as much as I can approve of anything he does, but I am sure he won't take it far enough. We can leave the nation building to the Libyans.
I am a consistent neo-con.
At least in Hillary's case, this is simply a continuation of the Clinton-era policy of "Peace by other means."
When men do it, it is phallocentric "rape" with two sides armed with phallic-stand-in weapons ejaculating all over one another for the forcible conquest of the feminized property of their rivals.
When women do it, it is matriarchal defense of the injured child; a healthy and suitable response in the face of aggressive masculinist posturing.
(there is a grant proposal in there somewhere)
Such a dumbass. It must hurt your head.
Alert the Meadia! We've finally stumbled across something of Obama's that garage won't willingly and gratefully swallow!
It's the economy, stupid
Chef Mojo wrote:
I'm not seeing much difference. If the "glibertarians" are frauds, then so is the anti-war left.
Own it.
So far, the most virulent opinion I've read comes from (you'll never guess who) Andrew Sullivan. Ezra Klein attempted to form sentences of frustration and disbelief at Obama, but it didn't ring true.
Just goes to show what all of us have always said: the Left have many in their ranks who don't manage the same outrage when it's a Left-wing president doing it, than when a Right-wing president does.
IOW, it's never the principle.
How quickly people like Code Pink forget the history of women in this country - especially the women who fought for their right to vote, and some of the influences they used. To say that if women held power, we'd be at peace all the time is put to the lie when one simply looks at one society where women decided who the leaders were, owned the property, and had the final say on whether there would be war or not: the Haudenosaunee. Somehow, even with women in charge like that, they built an empire at least the size of the Roman Empire at one point. I'm just saying.
From the American Thinker via Insta: "Military assisted regime change as a solution to humanitarian abuses perpetrated by a government with a history of terrorism linked to a firm belief that more democracy in the Arab world will lead to a more stable region: this is much more Paul Wolfowitz than Colin Powell."
Sound familiar?
Where, O! where is ANSWER and Code Pink, or would opposing this campaign be raaaacisst?
The no-fly zone isn't going to do much. Khadaffy is winning on the ground and air cover is just for softening up at this point. And letting the Limeys and Sarkozy take the lead with The Zero in the background is going to mean one thing to a lot of people over there - colonialism.
Fen said...
But at least Hillary is not an affirmative action incompetent like Obama.
Ah, but she is. She wears a skirt, doesn't she?
She's been at least as big a failure all her life as The Zero. But even her gender wasn't as much help as the fact of who Hubbo was.
PS realwest has the right idea. I'd love to see what the SF country study (correct term?) says about the Libyan rebels.
So far, the most virulent opinion I've read comes from (you'll never guess who) Andrew Sullivan.
Pffftt. Lemme know when he starts demanding to handle and forensically inspect the actual Sasha and/or Malia afterbirth. ;)
Vbspurs said: Ezra Klein attempted to form sentences of frustration and disbelief ... but it didn't ring true.
No surprise there.
Ann Althouse wrote:
How long have I heard this feminist plaint: If only women had the power, we would have peace, not phallocratic war.
UGH. I have been in a few feminist theory-led classes/symposia where this very argument is touted STILL.
Well do I remember the late Andrea Dworkin's foam-at-the-mouth talk about this very topic.
Tim Maguire wrote:
As for Code Pink, a bunch of half-witted ninnies who study too much Gloria Steinem and not enough Barbara Tuchman (too much feminist theory and not enough history).
And have never heard of Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meir.
General Galtieri of Argentina could tell you what underestimating Thatcher's resolve to defend her homeland leads to, whilst it was a very very foolish Arab leader who thought Golda Meir was just a sweet old bubbe, knitting baby socks and making gefilte fish.
Cheers,
Victoria
Edutcher wrote:
Ah, but she is. She wears a skirt, doesn't she?
She's been at least as big a failure all her life as The Zero.
I don't get that sense about Hillary. I can easily imagine her to be what her reputation at Rose Law firm said she was: a cut-throat negotiator and their best lawyer.
She also went to that most competitive of female-only colleges, Wellesley, and made it on her own merits, pre-affirmative action, to Yale Law.
Are women by far the war mongers of the specie? Obama is implementing the Palin Doctrine, for sure.
But, I think it's time for the U.S. to dramatically reduce the size of its military, pull back most of its foreign bases and start building a primarily civilian economy.
My wife is of the same mind. She wants to remodel the living room instead of fixing the hole in the roof.
This was not a principled stance they took. These three all had a huge fear that they would be overshadowed by France & England & the UN so they pushed their "Me Too" policy onto President Obama who replied "Can't this wait til I finish my NCAA brackets!'.
rd Kraus--good question and it deserves an answer--it is in the american national interest to foster democracies in the mid east--first we dont need their oil since only about 19 percent comes from the mid east.
the question of course is will we end up with democracies--thats one I cant answer but I would rather try that the current system of autoractic rule--might it end up bady--yes; but I am optimistic enough think over the long term it will serve our national interest (stability)
appreciate the question
The female of the species is more deadly than the male. - Kipling
Rubber Bullets Fly at Anti-Obama Protest In Rio
"Smart diplomacy" still paying off big, BIG dividends, I see.
Maguro wrote:
Uh huh...you're against it so you come over here to rage against other people who are also against it in defense of Obama, who is for it.
Of course! Our friend garage is demonstrating the sincerity of the Principled Left.
And kent wrote:
Alert the Meadia! We've finally stumbled across something of Obama's that garage won't willingly and gratefully swallow!
Oh, he swallows ... and later, he'll squeal like a pig.
Roger
The difference between us is that I think that democracy is WAY overrated. You give the people in the Middle East democracy, and they're going to vote for ...
Who knows?
Likely as not it's going to be worse for the US than what exists today.
My wife is of the same mind. She wants to remodel the living room instead of fixing the hole in the roof.
There's a hole in the roof?
Funny, I didn't notice.
Misunderestimating Hillary because you don't like her is a big mistake.
Of course! Our friend garage is demonstrating the sincerity of the Principled Left.
Stolen from another site: "The chief take-away from all of this, ultimately, is that 'progressive' principle, boiled down to its essence, is: 'Democrat bombs good, Republican bombs bad.'"
Quoting from Kent's link:
Police major Fabio Alessandro of the 13th Batallion of Rio’s military police said that the protestors, all left leaning social movements associated with the Socialist Workers Party, PSTU, did not have a permit to protest near the consulate along Avenida Rio Branco and had refused to disperse from the area. They wore the ubiquitous Che Guevera T shirt and carried American flags that said Go Home Obama.
The PSTU of Brazil is an insignificant far-left party. It's known for splitting up into factions, the latest of which is the darling of Brazilian intellectuals -- PSOL.
Of course, most of these types support Lula and Dilma's PT, almost universally.
Think of it like Michael Moore. Sure, he would love to support some more left-leaning progressive US political party. But he is a Democrat because that is what can get elected.
I'm pumped about Obama's trip to Rio!
Cheers,
Victoria
I don't know the correct course here, but the following: "Power is a former journalist and human rights advocate; Ms. Rice was an Africa adviser " (failed). does not instill confidence, even with the support of a former presidents wife.
Why are these people even in such a position to influence the use of the most powerful military in history and sacrifice braves lives? You people who voted for this crony cabal of talkers, poseurs and community organizers should be embarrassed.
Roger J. wrote:
the question of course is will we end up with democracies--thats one I cant answer but I would rather try that the current system of autoractic rule--might it end up bady--yes; but I am optimistic enough think over the long term it will serve our national interest (stability)
Given that the administration seems to have made a decision, I hope you're right. But I wonder how helping a bunch of insurgents whose guiding principles we don't even know will foster stability.
I hope some inquisitive journalist asks the President, "If the successor regime in Libya turns out to be worse than Gadhafi's, are you prepared to use American military power to overthrow it?"
From the blogpost:
... Mrs. Clinton joined Samantha Power, a senior aide at the National Security Council, and Susan Rice, Mr. Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, who had been pressing the case for military action,
Clinton, Power, and Rice. If you rush through the names you almost hear "Bush, Powell and Rice".
Plus ça change...
Samantha Power has consistently advocated armed intervention to stop genocide, so no surprise she wants the US to step between Qadafi and the people of Libya.
More women who influence Obama:
His wife, Michelle.
His "soul mate", Valerie Jarrett.
So we're up to five.
Ann,
I remember a story from my childhood involving three women named Athena, Hera and Aphrodite who conspired to bring forth a war between some Greeks and some Trojans. If I real correctly the war lasted ten years and resulted in the death and destruction of most who took part. There is no fury like that of a woman scorned. Scorning two women results in extra special destruction. As only women seem capable of making.
Obama seems nearly as fleckless as Paris. There is now Hector in this adminsitration. No Aeneas is present either.
I think this President is marked for destruction. He seems ill-favored by fate and by his appetites and decisions. The next great diaster to visit the House of Obama will come from Nature and not from Man. And , Obama's choices will inflict great harm upon us.
It is said in Las Vegas that to not make a choice is a choice.
The Obama Administration was for genocide before they were against it.
Golda Meir, Indira Ghandi, Margaret Tatcher, Condolezza Rice. Queen Victoria ( victory), Quuen Elizabeth, Zenobia
Peaceful women all of them
Hillary, Power and Rice? AS Glen Reynolds says, we are in the best of hands.
Combined with Obama, what conceivable basis is there to be confident that they will make the best decisions here? What background do they have that qualifies them for this type of military decision?
(Sweetly) "So now you awful young men go and fight. Shoo. Go now. Ramp up that testosterone."
vbspurs said...
Edutcher wrote:
Ah, but she is. She wears a skirt, doesn't she?
She's been at least as big a failure all her life as The Zero.
I don't get that sense about Hillary. I can easily imagine her to be what her reputation at Rose Law firm said she was: a cut-throat negotiator and their best lawyer.
Have to disagree, mum. I've read she was there largely because Hubbo was Serial-Molester-In-Chief.
Certainly, she was as big a disaster as Education Czarina in AR as she was wannabe Healthcare Czarina at the Federal level.
Moreover, her Senate career was a cipher, as her record at State and her primary campaign in '08.
That she is venal and hateful is without question, but she needs other people to implement it.
Does anyone consider what we have seen for the last few months from this administration to be leadership?
Does this President know that he won in 2008? Do we have a Prime Minister somewhere who could maybe telecommute or call in some advice.
So now the glibertarians are going all peacenik now? haha. Frauds. As if there was ever any doubt.
while a few reason contributors were pro Iraq invasion, for the most part reason magazine and the libertarians there opposed it consistently just as they consistently oppose all initiation of aggression.
Remember when the American left kept itself perpetually a-bubble with hysteria, during the entirety of the Bush administration, over the notion that we were (and I quote) "BOMBING AND KILLING BROWN PEOPLE"...?
Evidently, Libyans don't count as proper "brown people" the same ineffable way that (oh, say) Iraqis did/do... or else don't perish as egregiously, collaterally... or something. Maybe. I guess.
*siiiiiighhhhh*... if only Saint Cindy of Sheehan were here, to beatifically make sense of it all...
That she is venal and hateful is without question, but she needs other people to implement it.
Well, she was a director of Wal-Mart. As MayBee might ask, why isn't that more prominent on her resume?
RD and Murgatroy--you have excellent points, and I do not know that "democracy" is a good idea with the rag heads (oops--did I say that?)
we can have stability with autocrats or we can try it with the others--I simply have no idea but I do believe that executing the Bush doctrine cant turn out to be any worse than than what we have now.
I guess I am an optimist when it comes to aspirations (but I am smart enough to keep my 45 loaded when it comes to the rag heads)
So, three communist women convinced President Feckless to have the US military perform their "Internationist Duties" by intervening in an affair that is not in the national interests of the US?
Or is this intended to stabilize world oil prices? War for oil! War for oil!
Where is the anti war left now?
They told me that if voted for John McCain... And they were right!
Does anyone consider what we have seen for the last few months from this administration to be leadership?
My doctor believes in "watchful waiting" rather than aggressive intervention that would likely be unhelpful. I'd say so does Obama. Think:
Tunisians pushed out their dictator; Egyptians pushed out their dictator; Libyans' dictator refused to budge.
Edutcher wrote:
Have to disagree, mum. I've read she was there largely because Hubbo was Serial-Molester-In-Chief.
Maybe it's because I don't see getting the foot in the door as a disqualification, I admit, Edu. I once got a job through my parents' connexions at a famous bank. But I was promoted TWICE in three months, due to my own hustle. :P
garage mahal said...
"A chance to bomb some Arabs and you have to be against it, because Obama is for it."
Sounds like a chance to bomb some Arabs and you have to keep a low profile, 'cause Obama is for it. So you come here and vent, 'cause criticizing Obama is what only racists and right-wingers (and people with actual, you know, integrity) do.
Yeah, nothing predictable about YOU, clownboy.
Hilary: Ready from Day 789
But at least Hillary is not an affirmative action incompetent like Obama.
Ah, but she is. She wears a skirt, doesn't she?
Uh... since when does Hillary wear a skirt?
Not just any women, mind you. Rest assured this whole thing is being directed by the creme of the Vassar graduate program in Stuff Studies, class of '86. In all fairness that also describes the males in the White House.
The smart money is on the Ivy Leathers to get this one right. These guys are due!
A feminist milestone? ...onward to world domination!!
1. I've never liked the "fly-on-the-wall" accounts of what happens behind closed doors.
2. I'm soooo tired of identity politics.
For RD and Murg:
I didnt complete my argument--for years us policy has been geared to stability so we have supported some real dirtbags.
The difficulty with that policy is that it fosters a great deal of underlying resenment which comes to light as, say, the Iranian revolution when the outcome is even less in the US favor.
Its a policy not unlike buying public sector unions off--we pay for stability now but it will bite us in the ass later.
Bottom line--I agree with Mr Bush's push for democracy in the mid east--the short term results may not be good--but in the long term I think we will be better off
my .02
except that this probably going to turn out like Somalia with Americans getting killed for no reason. Before you intervene you have to know what comes next. These three women are acting to stereotype. They saw some pictures on TV and it tugged at their emotions. This is not a rational act.
Hillary has always been the product of her political position, not her competence. As she gained power and recognition she was lavishly branded as the bestest of the best and the smartest of the smart. Education expert? Check. Health care expert? Check. Legal expert? Check. Feminist ideals made flesh? Check.
In reality, AR is just as backwards educationally as it's ever been. Her health care plan was laughed out of existence. Her legal career was largely spent "losing" and then "finding" incriminating documents and she embodied the wife as doormat, vigorously defending the husband who has no time for her.
that's what happens when the country elects an emasculated beta male for president.
Okay, so a war started by guys is a "phallo" --cratic war.
A war started by women is a what-part-of-the-female-anatomy--cratic war?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Jerryofva wrote:
These three women are acting to stereotype. They saw some pictures on TV and it tugged at their emotions. This is not a rational act.
I had a very witty "knuckle-dragger" insult to apply to you, but I can't post at the moment. I am having the vapours and need to find my fainting couch, STAT.
vbspurs said...
Edutcher wrote:
Have to disagree, mum. I've read she was there largely because Hubbo was Serial-Molester-In-Chief.
Maybe it's because I don't see getting the foot in the door as a disqualification, I admit, Edu. I once got a job through my parents' connexions at a famous bank. But I was promoted TWICE in three months, due to my own hustle. :P
I think that's the difference. Your participation here is such that most people would see you're not someone to let the grass grow under her feet. You're a very perspicacious and discerning combatant.
Hillary doesn't seem to have done a lot in trial law or whatever while she was there.
Mister Snitch! said...
But at least Hillary is not an affirmative action incompetent like Obama.
Ah, but she is. She wears a skirt, doesn't she?
Uh... since when does Hillary wear a skirt?
Well, she could.
PS Take a look at the pic of Hillary looking at Sarkozy at FoxNews.com. Love to know what she's thinking.
Probably something like, "Damn you for getting him to do something. It should have been ME!!!!!".
WV "inisheis" How an Irishman tells his buddies the morning after that his new girlfriend isn't an outie.
YoungHegelian (ooh, I hate Hegel, no offence) wrote:
A war started by women is a what-part-of-the-female-anatomy--cratic war?
Vaginacratic?
Wombacratic?
Uterocratic? (I like this one)
Breasticlecratic?
Or, in honour, of Murgatroyd666, Queefocratic?
Hilary? as in H. Clinton? Like Abe Virgoda my first thought was "is he/her still alive?"
Second thought: "Hey Hilary, what happened to 'No Blood for Oil'?"
Remember Madeleine Albright who seem to think that the US should be the world's policeman.
As it turns out the phone rang at three oclock in the morning and neither hillary nor barack were home
Both of the are fucking idiots
In our rush to find appropriate vajajay-based terms for female-promoted war, we've overlooked the fact that the brilliant Iowahawk has graced us with his presence. Welcome, 'awk!
Cheers,
Victoria
"A war started by women is a what-part-of-the-female-anatomy--cratic war?"
Let's call it a "hysterical" war.
@vbspurs
And, what, you completely ignore the importance of the clitoris in female sexual expression!
I am stunned! Shocked and stunned!
Awww, come on, admit it. You DO get a wee bit o' frisson when you read the section on Lordship and Bondage from the Phenomenology of Spirit. We all do.
@vbspurs wrote: Wombacratic?
Save that one for the Australians.
No one's suggested GYNOcratic, yet?
Seriously...?
Most of us, like those going to sporting events, take sides.
But if you're a politician. Especially a successful politician. Your views about the public are different.
Here? This isn't the one that tears at Obama's popularity. In other words? There are plenty of Americans who are ISOLATIONIST now. And, Libya, like other mideastern counties, can just go to hell in a hand basket.
Do people like to convince others on how to vote? You bet'cha.
And, I even remember, back in 1968, when Nixon won; (after the democrats had LBJ refusing to run. And, what happened at their Convention in Chicago) ... Pauline Kael, writing in the New Yorker said, "Gee, how did Nixon win? None of her friends voted for him."
I remember repeating this "witticism" to my mom ... who said 'she did.' Never underestimate the magic of a secret ballot. (While, yes. My son told me his 2008 choice.)
Oh, and I remember an old story! A very unhappily married woman, who told my mom she ALWAYS voted opposite the person her husband chose "because she wanted to cancel out his vote."
To each his own.
The Duke of Wellington famously quipped, "the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton."
Today we have the Battle of Benghazi - planned in the faculty lounge at Swarthmore.
iowahawk wins the thread
I assure you, I've never overlooked the importance of the clitoris in anything, YoungHegelian. :P
As for Herr Doktor Hegel, woeful memories of trying to spar with my Uni friends who worshipped him as a demi-god. Hegelian fans are amongst the brightest people I've ever known.
Actually, it's FOUR women. If you think this administration isn't already running against Candidate Palin, you haven't been paying attention.
My doctor believes in "watchful waiting" rather than aggressive intervention that would likely be unhelpful. I'd say so does Obama.
Lucky for you, this of course means Obama can always be wise in your eyes by doing nothing about anything.
It's like I always say: chicks go crazy for the latest fashions from Paris.
Just to broaden our perspectives, this woman has been pretty clear about her opposition to a Libyan no-fly zone.
(And she actually won an election.)
Iowahawk wrote:
Today we have the Battle of Benghazi - planned in the faculty lounge at Swarthmore.
Or in Cass Sunstein's tastefully-appointed living room.
VB and young hegelian--please reread Marx's little piece "on the German philosophy." Summarizes hegels bullshit
What Hegel in both the philosophy of right and the philosophy of history was to lay out a philosophical justification for a German state (vis a vis the hapsburgs)--I dont think his vision quite turned out OK if WWII was relevant
"I think Gates woke up one morning a few weeks ago and said to himself "Should I advise the president to take action in Libya?" Then he took a deep breath and asked himself, 'This president?' "
You go to war with the president you have, not the president you'd like to have.
At least when George W. Bush was BOMBING AND KILLING BROWN PEOPLE he went to Congress for authorization to do it.
Will our beloved President do that?
Will the Pricipled Left care whether he does?
Dear V:
Well everybody at work has expressed similar opinions. Work is at the Pentagon, and the MA (that's military assistant to the uninitiated) is a female 0-6 (Army with multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan).
This is a repeat of the mission without end in Bosnia and Kosovo. Like the Balkans, Libya will be a fractured nation that can held together only by outside forces. Qaddafi's opponents manipulated us Just like the Croatians, Bosnians and Kosovar Albanians did. We don't know who these people are. They could be terrorists, criminals and drug dealers like are "friends" in the Balkans. Figure who we are backing before taking the leap.
Hi Miss Vicki--did you ever get you and your mom armed? And if you get to the Versailles, have a cafe cubano for me (and any item on the menu)
APPLAUSE, PAT! You've turned Realpolitik on its head.
@vbspurs
No one should run a war until they've had a puff piece in the Times Style section shot by Annie Leibowitz.
this woman has been pretty clear about her opposition to a Libyan no-fly zone.
(And she actually won an election.)
But who didn't properly vet her defense minister. Who knows where he got the ideas he passed on to her?
murgatroyd666 said...
At least when George W. Bush was BOMBING AND KILLING BROWN PEOPLE he went to Congress for authorization to do it.
Will our beloved President do that?
Will the Pricipled Left care whether he does?
No and No.
As if you thought otherwise.
(There you go again - being logical)
Roger, my friends and I were at Versailles last night! Just before the movie (Rango). I will quaff a cafecito in your honour next time.
Ixnay on the gun. Can you beat that? After all my palavah about buying one 3 years ago. But my mother and I are poised to rush out the moment Zero attempts to go after the 2nd Amendment (which he will, he will).
Ms Vicki--I have not seen Rango but assumed it was named after me and Pancho Villa--surname is Arango they keep losing the A
Kipling knew which gender was the most cruel:
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
One of the first things I learned in life is that many a battle has been waged because of a woman.
This is nothing new.
If people are being slaughtered in large numbers and we can substantially mitigate it with little risk, how does all the other noise make that a wrong course?
@Roger J
Oh, and, what Marx's vision turned out alright? Is that what you're saying?
The first and still greatest critic of Hegel is Schelling. Marx's criticism is not a criticism of Hegel, but of philosophy in general. If you want that world, you can have it.
And there's no serious scholar of German Idealism who holds that there's any relationship between any German Idealist and National Socialism. If you think there is, go find him.
Hawk, what do you think of "Axila of Evil" for war justification against General Qaddafi?
'Cause you know that man's armpits must be RIPE.
"But at least Hillary is not an affirmative action incompetent like Obama." Oh I don't know. If it weren't for Bill, you would never of heard of Hillary Rod em Clinton.
garage mahal said...
I'm against the No Fly over Libya idiot. But this must be a confusing time for you. A chance to bomb some Arabs and you have to be against it, because Obama is for it. Fuck!
What the fuck is your problem? Seriously. Why the bad attitude every day? Nowhere has anyone said they had any thoughts that are evidently, no different than your own, yet you feel the need to come here and insult people. What the fuck is your problem?
If it weren't for Bush Sr. raising taxes, we never would have heard of Hillary... or Monica.
Young Hegelian--will look forward to another conversation on another said--Hegel's philosophy ultimately was the justification for an independent German state--which came about--and I am most certainly not going to blame Hegel for national socialism.
I do look forward to chatting with you on some other thread--I had a hell of a time understanding Hegel until I had professor Julian Frankel at Columbia help me with it.
May a suggest we defer our discussion to a more relevant thread?--look forward to chatting
Is Monica L. the only person famous in history for a blowjob? It seems like there should be someone else in all of history famous for such a seminal act.
And IIRC correctly Marx's essay was "On the GERMAN philosophy" :)
I love the smell of estrogen in the morning...smells like a brand new bag with matching shoes.
Bagoh:
see "Blackhawk Down"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWAhVbayGv4
we went into Somalia just to feed people, what was the risk in that?
This will devolve into a UN led operation, and Gaddafi will die in bed.
"Why the bad attitude every day?"
Imagine being a dedicated lefty and watching as your side self destructs day after day. All sides and the middle see it, and it's failure at the core of the philosophy. I think a little compassion is in order.
William--rather like Slobodan Milsovic--the UN can find their ass with both hands in the dark--but at least their diplomats get violate NYC parking regs
And if it wasn't for Hillary, you would never have heard of William Jefferson Clinton!
Wv: flogo - dead horse being flogged.
So, can we keep the oil this time? Just asking...
"we went into Somalia just to feed people, what was the risk in that?"
Of course there is risk of things going bad, but when people are being slaughtered, good people don't look for excuses to let it continue. I think we should be smart about it, but assholes like Gadaffi should have concerns about things falling from the air if they want to express their murderous side.
The fear you express about us acting is what I want leaders like him to feel. If we are the only ones afraid to act, then the Rwandas, and Somalias will continue to happen unabated.
No doubt, good brave Americans will pay a high price as the brave often do, but the alternative is not risk free, nor what we should stand by and watch during our short stint in history at the top.
Rick: "I stick my neck out for nobody."
Louie: "I wise foreign policy."
I might add, the problems of three little people (Clinton/Rice/Obama) don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.
No one's suggested GYNOcratic, yet?
Hystocratic flows a little better.
(sorry)
vbspurs said...
Ixnay on the gun. Can you beat that? After all my palavah about buying one 3 years ago. But my mother and I are poised to rush out the moment Zero attempts to go after the 2nd Amendment (which he will, he will).
Is it tautological to say if you wait too long it will be too late? Buy it, and become familiar with it's operation before hand. Time at the shooting range will expose you to people in that arena: develop that social network.
I have been told female pitbulls make the most ferocious fighters. Men are better at acknowledging they have been beat, and deferring to the winner. Women hold grudges much longer than men.
Don't forget that women are still not allowed into combat. These women and their daughters are not at risk. Let's you and him fight.
Bagoh:
Promoting one homicidal thug over another is not an improvement. It only puts the apparatus under new management. Intervention only yields positive results when you change the game. I don't see any game changers here. Libya will look the same whether Qaddafi is tossed out or not.
Is Monica L. the only person famous in history for a blowjob? It seems like there should be someone else in all of history famous for such a seminal act.
Linda Lovelace
Linda lovelace made the blowjob famous.
And so we come back to Rudyard Kipling: "..twas the women, not the warriors, drove those stark enthusiasts pale; for the female of the species is more deadly than then male."
bagoh20 said...
Is Monica L. the only person famous in history for a blowjob? It seems like there should be someone else in all of history famous for such a seminal act.
Don't know that Linda Lovelace really counts, but Lola Montez should.
"A feminist milestone" or a feminist millstone?
I get confused.
Why do we need to be involved in Libya? We're already dealing with democracy promotion in two other Muslim nations. Can't France or Germany get this one?
Linda Lovelace certainly worked harder at it, and I bet beats Monica on quantity and quality, but Monica is more famous because it's who you blow that counts and she went straight to the top. Life is so unfair.
Eff Marx's critique of Hegel; I find Hegel (in various passages of the Phenomenology of Spirit) to be one of the best critics of Marxism (especially its virulent 20th century strains), avant la lettre. E.g. in the section on "Absolute Freedom & Terror" (on the French Revolution).
Bagoh wrote:
Is Monica L. the only person famous in history for a blowjob? It seems like there should be someone else in all of history famous for such a seminal act.
If you are a certain age and from a certain culture, you might recall the furore the divorce of Margaret, Duchess of Argyll caused.
Her husband, the Duke, sued her for infidelity and submitted the names of the 88 men who allegedly slept with her.
As well as a series of photos of a naked Duchess of Argyll wearing high heels and pearls, fellating a man.
The man? Supposedly a son-in-law of Winston Churchill or Douglas Fairbanks Jr.
@shoutingthomas
But, I think it's time for the U.S. to dramatically reduce the size of its military, pull back most of its foreign bases and start building a primarily civilian economy.
Yeah, that worked so well for us in the 30's.
/sarcasm
Seriously, there's also the matter of civil emergency response, the military is the only agency with the means and manpower to respond if a Japan quake level disaster strikes the US.
Eventually the US will suffer a calamitous earthquake, volcanic eruption, or natural disaster in a populous region.
Perhaps you recall that it was the National Guard, Coasties and the Navy who rescued people and delivered supplies in NOLA when local and state agencies were overwhelmed. Think about the cuts to first responders that are currently being made and how little help may be available locally.
After the massive tsunami in the Southeast Asia our Navy was the only agency who had the means to respond with massive amounts of relief materials and saved hundreds ofthousands of lives.
You'll note that many of the on-scene vehicles and choppers shown on Japanese news footage are military, their's and our's.
I'm sitting above the Hayward fault and I know one day I may regret that choice, but when a quake flattens the East Bay, the Cascadia fault and/or Mount Rainier rips Seattle, the Big One strikes Sthn CA and Diablo Canyon goes into meltdown or the New Madrid fault ruptures; who ya gonna call?
"A feminist milestone: Our male President has been pulled into war by 3 women."
That's because they have more testosterone then the men in his administration.
Milwaukee wrote:
Is it tautological to say if you wait too long it will be too late? Buy it, and become familiar with it's operation before hand.
No, it's perfectly sound logic to mention that. My mother also said that the day the Administration announces their tightening of gun laws, we'll be fighting the crowds in gun shops. She's right...my father has no objections, either.
I don't know why I hesitate, honestly. MAYBE, maybe that if you own a handgun you are X-times more likely to use one. I dunno.
we went into Somalia just to feed people
To be more precise, we went in to escort food convoys from tribal gangs fighting over dirt. We were at the river crossing in Baderra. Taking sniper fire every day. My wingman had his shoulder blown off by a 50 cal.
YoungHegelian said...
Okay, so a war started by guys is a "phallo" --cratic war.
A war started by women is a what-part-of-the-female-anatomy--cratic war?
Inquiring minds want to know
=====================
I say it is a war launched by women, a war for count-try.
Leave it at that.
Feminism was launched by militant man-hating lesbians, Stalinist jewish female activists, and academics.
It never recovered from that.
C-fudd, did you have a good JO when your Pali buds slit the throat of that Jewish infant? You betcha. Extra points because the victim was female.
By the way Fudd, Shankman is Catholic:
Shankman son of Catholic academic
I love it when antisemites prove, as they do without fail, that they are pathetic lying misfucks and born losers. C-fudd has always faithfully adhered to this cause, which is probably the most productivity we can get from his smelly, cum-stained little flophouse room.
Vic,
Just read up on Margaret, Duchess of Argyll - thanks, that was great. If only the poor dear could've stayed on her feet (in more ways than one) things probably would've turned out a lot better.
It's funny how, until the end, the little hooker didn't think she had a bad run, but that's life I guess.
vbspurs: I wrote:
Is it tautological to say if you wait too long it will be too late? Buy it, and become familiar with it's operation before hand.
and you responded
No, it's perfectly sound logic to mention that. My mother also said that the day the Administration announces their tightening of gun laws, we'll be fighting the crowds in gun shops. She's right...my father has no objections, either.
I don't know why I hesitate, honestly. MAYBE, maybe that if you own a handgun you are X-times more likely to use one. I dunno.
Do you really want to be in that gun shop fighting for a weapon? Wouldn't it make more sense to acquire the weapon and practice regularly when you don't need to, so that when you do need to, you have?
Do you really want to be in that gun shop fighting for a weapon? Wouldn't it make more sense to acquire the weapon and practice regularly when you don't need to, so that when you do need to, you have?
Yeah, like, if you get the gun, but then you need more ammo, you can blast your way in like Dirty Harry.
Can't do that without one,...
Y chromosomes are for sissies
if you own a handgun you are X-times more likely to use one
Talk about tautological. :)
There's a hole in the roof?Funny, I didn't notice.
They're scattered across the country. Ground Zero is but one example.
My point is that Americans won't see the fruits of any investment in a "civilian economy" if they're all dying from a dirty bomb.
Schopenhauer became a lecturer at the University of Berlin in 1820, and deliberately scheduled his class to coincide with Hegel's. Five students came to Schopenhauer's class, so he quit and never returned to Academia.
bagoh20 said...
If people are being slaughtered in large numbers and we can substantially mitigate it with little risk, how does all the other noise make that a wrong course?
...If we are the only ones afraid to act, then the Rwandas, and Somalias will continue to happen unabated.
No doubt, good brave Americans will pay a high price as the brave often do, but the alternative is not risk free, nor what we should stand by and watch during our short stint in history at the top.
================
The problem is there are about 40 places in the world crying for the Free 9/11 service. Which Americans alone foot the bill for, currently by taking loans out from China and Saudi Arabia.
The risk is not just 4,000 dead and 3700 "Stumpy" or eyeless Vets. It is mission creep, a trillion dollar nation-building bill, and in the end seeing China buy up the oil contracts.
It is also a danger of being mired in distraction and strategically being tied up by the US being the Empire that does the free 9/11 Service.
In the 90s while we were focused on humanitarian suffering in Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, East Timor, the NORKS famine & ukes, Rwanda - we we blinded to things far more in our national interest. Chinese economic dominance. A gathering Islamist terror threat. The failure of capitalism and democracy to work well in Russia.
In the 00s, we suffered from maybe focusing too much on Islamoid Evildoers and Noble Muslims(but backstabbers that even the French and Israelis with their past - think are essentially ingrates) Arabs/Afghans/Pakis who dreamed of being purple-fingered Freedom Lovers.
While we focused on them, other nations saw we were strategically bogged down, going bankrupt on Neocon Dreams, our troops tied up for decades. And those nations could largely do as they pleased. Venezuela, Bolivia, Iran, Burma, Putin of Russia, China's decade-long quest to wrest control of strategic minerals and petroleum/coal reserves from the US orbit.
What America is doing - Neocon Empire, wars for non-American's benefit not ours, the 9/11 Service of interventions that start and never end - threatens to make our stay "at the top" shorter, not longer.
My friend Arthur Schopenhauer left behind a wonderful trail of hate directed at Hegel, most of which sounds eerily, presciently fitting for a blog comments section.
According to Schopenhauer, Hegel was a "clumsy and nauseating charlatan", a "pernicious person, who completely disorganized and ruined the minds of a whole generation", "a commonplace, inane, loathsome, repulsive and ignorant charlatan, who with unparalleled effrontery compiled a system of crazy nonsense that was trumpeted abroad as immortal wisdom by his mercenary followers." "...[T]he greatest effrontery in serving up sheer nonsense, in scrabbling together senseless and maddening webs of words, such as had previously been heard only in madhouses, finally appeared in Hegel..."
And he's right!
C-fudd is clearly too chickenshit and yellowbellied to answer me. Meanwhile he continues to accumulate evidence that he is a compulsive liar.
Rosen - You are a one-note troll. I simply respond to note like Jared Loughner, Jim Shankman is 50% Christian by ancestry.
Care to discuss the other half?
There is a distinct thread of anti-Christian bigotry in America's WASP and Progressive Jewish Elites.
Classic. Obama is the classic typical Beta Male. Add to this list of 3 women his wife, who obviously leads him around by the nose.
And the guy lives with his mother-in-law and 2 daughters?
He doesn't have the balls of a snail. And now we're starting a new war because of it.
Heh, much affection for Schopenhauer too, gotta love the ol' pessimist & misanthrope. I have a special affinity for philosophers of tragedy (as expression of the human condition). But I dig Georg too! Can't help it, love those old philosophers, sublime and absurd (human all too human), the whole canon of 'em.
"one-note troll" LOL. And your evidence that the Catholic theologian's husband is Jewish is ...?
You are still, and will forever be, a liar and an antisemite, Fudd.
Noted you did not deny my description of your response to anti-Jewish terrorism.
Generally, it is not good form to open a three-front war when your commander-in-chief is a buffoon. Gender aside, the three advocates for war and the President have no experience with war. The ones with experience are more cautious.
Scott
"There is a distinct thread of anti-Christian bigotry in America's WASP and Progressive Jewish Elites."
From the poster of "ball-licking Christian Zionists" LOL.
Give it up, Fudd. You lose. You ALWAYS lose. Because you're a loser.
Is it a quagmire yet?
Artie Schopenhauer could handle the hot corner.
Hegel? Deep right field.
Fen - "My point is that Americans won't see the fruits of any investment in a "civilian economy" if they're all dying from a dirty bomb."
==============
That was the Soviet Union's argument. That you didn't have to invest in infrastructure and a civilian economy if you had the World's Greatest Army of Heroes protecting Mother Russia from Evildoers and Counter-revolutionaries.
A "dirty bomb"? Maybe a dozen people killed and 1,000 curies released. With a cost to clean up between 20 million and 200 million depending on what standard methodology is used civil defense at 20 million, 200 million with "no expense spared" EPA procedures.
Obama and Bush have spent 1.4 trillion, 43,000 casualties since 9/11 to spare America one casualty at home, one minor dirty bomb.
The only real WMD are nukes, biowar, and a very large quantity of nerve gas.
Despite the idiots of law enforcement trying to prosecute use of possession of hand grenades, car bombs, dirty bombs, pipe bombs as "WMD" capable of killing more than one person. (By the idiots standard, a six-shooter or bolt action with more than 2 rounds, or a single shot 12 guage loaded with buckshot is a "WMD". )
C-fudd doesn't know what he's talking about. He just spouts bullshit to "prove" whatever he's arguing. A proven tactic with him.
So are you against the intervention or for it?
Or, as is more likely, do you need to find some way to continue to think, see, and describe him as weak even when he takes military action?
I don't know why I hesitate, honestly. MAYBE, maybe that if you own a handgun you are X-times more likely to use one. I dunno.
A possible solution: I once worked with a guy who rented a safe deposit box to store his handgun in, because he didn't want to be constantly responsible for it. He would retrieve it whenever he went to the range. If you have a safe deposit box already this may be quite convenient.
You can also develop proficiency without having a gun around by going to a range that rents handguns. Pick one that suits you and keep practicing with it.
do you need to find some way to continue to think, see, and describe him as weak even when he takes military action?
All real men live only with other men, obviously.
So obama gets us into a war with 1 U.N resolution and 24 hours notice and nothing from Congress .....question ...how many U.N. resolutions did the evil Bush have to go along with Congressional support for his action in Iraq. Not to mention the months of debate before the first shot was fired
"Clinton should know this president better."
Or she's planning to run in 2012.
Cedarford, unless you are taking the Nazi definition of Jew (since you presume his FATHER is Jewish, which is undetermined), he isn't Jewish. There is no such thing as 50% Jewish. If the mother isn't Kewish, the kid isn't either.
My GOD, man.
Edutcher wrote:
Don't know that Linda Lovelace really counts, but Lola Montez should.
Right! I had forgotten her. The King, Ludwig I, said of her other talents: "Sir, the lady can perform miracles with her interior parts". Heh.
Crack, it must be awful, after the life she led, to end up in a grim little room. *shiver*
Milwaukee, you make total sense. I'll talk about it to my parents. :)
"In principle, how is what Obama is planning to do (topple a dictator) different from what GW Bush did?"
In general principle, not different at all. In practical terms it is different simply because it is not the same nation in the same situation and we don't have a policy of toppling dictators simply because they're being naughty.
"I remember well the litany of the left as regards to Bush's wars (Now Obama's wars...).
I'm not seeing much difference. If the "glibertarians" are frauds, then so is the anti-war left."
Democrats are anti-war but can be counted on to engage in foreign adventuring. They. Always. Do. It. Not a single one doesn't do it or won't. Anyone voting for a Democrat because they're anti-war is a moron.
Libertarians can be isolationist or interventionist, depending if one views the actions as a form of self-defense, proactive or not. It's not a "fraud" to have a different opinion about any given conflict.
Republicans don't tend to engage in anti-war rhetoric but don't engage any more often in foreign adventures than the Democrats do. There is nothing about favoring military involvement in one situation that demands favoring it in another situation.
"Own it."
Or at least SELL it. Egad. Have a plan or at least a reason that goes beyond "have to do something".
Iraq was conceivably a threat, but it was also an important strategic asset in the region. Proof of that strategic asset, in fact, is the voluntary nuclear disarmament of Libya.
What do we get for intervention in Libya? Anything?
"So are you against the intervention or for it?
Or, as is more likely, do you need to find some way to continue to think, see, and describe him as weak even when he takes military action"
When I read backward through the comments farther, will this make more sense?
What about taking military action makes a person strong?
That's just silly.
The military might be strong, but there is nothing intrinsically *strong* about using the military.
Obama talked tough about Pakistan during his campaign and I never understood why he would do that. The reaction of Pakistan was negative, understandably. They were pissed about it and *we* were dependent on supply overland through Pakistan to Afghanistan. So what was the purpose?
Other than... he wanted to convince voters he wasn't a whimp.
I guess being an idiot is less damaging than being a whimp.
And now one has to wonder... is there a reason to this other than not wanting to appear weak?
"And so we come back to Rudyard Kipling: "..twas the women, not the warriors, drove those stark enthusiasts pale; for the female of the species is more deadly than then male.""
And it's the result of weakness not strength. Men can afford to have symbolic battles, beat their chests and then go off and have a beer. They aren't nearly as vulnerable as women and can take the risk of future conflict more easily.
My prediction list:
1) The French arbitrarily declare victory and go home.
2) The US picks up the slack
3) Obama decides that air strikes aren't enough and sends in special forces
4) Obama decides to arrest Khaddafi
5) American soldiers get slaughtered
6) Obama runs away
These three women are brave, but their gender is irrelevant. Hillary, like Thatcher & other strong females in history, were simply stronger than the weakling males around them. And Obama is a sneaky weakling.
"My GOD, man"
vb, are you actually surprised or shocked? C-fudd has been doing this for years on various blogs, most of which have by now ejected him because he has never, ever posted *anything* which did not turn into a fount for his unhinged, single-digit-IQ antisemitic rants. It is utterly pointless to engage him, that is why I only taunt him.
Post a Comment