This flung open a door to criticism:
"It is dangerous and irresponsible to leave even the impression the United States would needlessly and publicly provoke a nuclear power," Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) said in a statement.Nothing from Hillary yet.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, in a telephone interview, said that Obama's threat, if acted upon, could inflame the entire Muslim world. "My international experience tells me that we should address this issue with tough diplomacy first with Musharraf and then leave the military option as a last resort," he said.
Former senator John Edwards (N.C.) said in a statement that he would first apply "maximum diplomatic and economic pressure on states like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia" to do their utmost to combat the spread of terrorism. He also challenged both Obama and Clinton to block a proposed U.S. arms deal with Saudi Arabia.
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, called Obama's threat misguided. "The way to deal with it is not to announce it, but to do it," Biden said at the National Press Club. "The last thing you want to do is telegraph to the folks in Pakistan that we are about to violate their sovereignty."
So has Obama convinced you he's a tough guy -- a smarter tough guy?
पोस्ट्स
२०४ टिप्पण्या:
204 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Indeed. Few things would be better for our long-term national security than invading an ally.
The shine is starting to come off of the Magic Negro.
No, he's now firmly convinced me that he's an immature candidate not ready to hold the reins of power. Dodd is right.
Is that desperation I smell?
The other guys aren't much better.
Dodd makes some sense, although Pakistan's nuclear weapons aren't exactly the issue (yet).
Richardson is half right, regarding his concern about inflaming the entire Muslim world. Otherwise, he suggests "tough diplomacy." Ouch. Stop beating me with a spaghetti noodle.
Edwards? Desperately trying to change the subject to his new bete noir.
Gen. Joseph R. Biden, USA (Ret.) is only concerned about the tactic of announcing our intent. Good thing the taxpayers wasted all that money on his West Point education and that now obviously useless career in the U.S. Army. Oh wait, that was in his earlier bio...
Nah- reinforces my opinion that Obama is this year's "say anything" candidate. His policies and worldviews are ill-formed so he tends to wing it.
Serious, honest observers should agree Obama is now offically toast and can't win the top seat.
Allens: screw you and the horse you rode in on.
Didn't help his image one bit. I'm still shaken by his anti-Kennedy stance on national affairs.
Sounds like he needs to sound tough to balance his remark about meeting with leaders of renegade states during the Youtube debate. I doubt this reflects a deeply principled view that he would employ if he were POTUS. If he ever becomes POTUS, this will be forgotten and he'll most likely act in diplomatic and pragmatic mode.
Politically it was a smart move - It's getting a lot of play in the media.
"Few things would be better for our long-term national security than invading an ally."
It does not seem to have harmed Mexico.
I think we should hit Canada.
So has Obama convinced you he's a tough guy -- a smarter tough guy?
Neither since I am convinced that his statement was simply a response to his 'national security' credentials being called into question. Considering he's willing to enter in unconditional negoatiations with any tin pot dictator who thumbs their nose at us, I question his sincerity in actually using military force on an ally's territory. I don't disagree with him, I simply question his sincereity.
That said, I do agree that if we have actionable intelligence that the AQ leadership is meeting at Omar's house in south central Pickastan which is located in Pakistan, cry havoc and let slip the cruise missles. If Osama or Zarwahiri end up as a brown stain in a crater, I doubt any president is going to catch much grief, domestically anyway.
Obama's critics to terrorists: You can run and hide. Depending on your hiding spot, you can even let us know where you're hiding.
Richardson is half right, regarding his concern about inflaming the entire Muslim world. Otherwise, he suggests "tough diplomacy." Ouch. Stop beating me with a spaghetti noodle.
What do you suggest instead, Tim? (Another poorly managed invasion? Carpet bombing? A nuclear attack?) It seems to me that the "tough diplomacy" is about the only option avaialable, unless you can suggest a better one. I'm all ears.
Me, I'm thinking that this looks like the beginning of the end of a very overinflated candidacy.
In the debate, Obama was asked if he would be willing to meet — without precondition — in the first year of his presidency with the leaders of France, Israel, Costa Rica, Japan and Poland.
"I would," he responded.
"Not only would I meet with them...
I'd invade them."
I disagree, Peter. Obama's critics are saying that those who wish to take the main seat in the Oval Office ought to know better than talk about invading an ally with a very large and very restless population and that possesses nuclear weapons. It was irresponsible. Can't imagine what his foreign affairs advisers were thinking, unless perhaps time to leave a sinking ship and torpedo it on the way out.
Re: Tim:
Dodd makes some sense, although Pakistan's nuclear weapons aren't exactly the issue (yet).
Aren't they? I mean, we know in retrospect that in the 90s, Pakistan was the premier proliferation risk. A.Q. Khan provided nuclear weapons technology to Libya, to Iraq, to Iran, and to North Korea. There's intimations that, like the ISS, the nuclear program is at least partly controlled by Islamic radicals sympathetic to and affiliated with various terrorist groups operating out of Pakistan, possibly including Al Qaeda (to the extent they remain a meaningful organisation). The problem of the Pakistani bomb seems to be one lurking in the background of everything we do over there. Last time two nuclear powers got into a hot war (1998, the Kargil War), we were fortunate enough that everyone stood down without using nukes. We may not be so lucky next time.
My horse's name is Mary Beau Nibs. An Arabian mare. Bay in colour. Are you taking offense at my usage of the words Magic Negro? If so, you need to know that the first time I heard that was an article from the LA Times. Written by a liberal journalist. I almost called you a name, but decided to delete it.
much better to piss away our resources in Iraq
IR: I guess I'm wondering how different Obama's statement is than Bush's statement that the terrorists can run but cannot hide, and that countries who harbor them would be dealt with harshly.
The Obama critics I'm directing this are the right wing ones who claim that this speech indicates that Obama is out of his league. Yeah, well, so's Bush.
One more good reason not to vote for Obama, Peter ;-)
I think Peter makes a good point.
The only thing is, along the lines of ill-advised rhetoric, Bush, at least, seems to have learned the lesson.
Are you taking offense at my usage of the words Magic Negro? If so, you need to know that the first time I heard that was an article from the LA Times. Written by a liberal journalist.
Yeah that's true enough. But the "shine" part was your own invention, right? Clever, but ya gotta admit it is racist.
IR: I guess I'm wondering how different Obama's statement is than Bush's statement that the terrorists can run but cannot hide, and that countries who harbor them would be dealt with harshly.
Well, the most salient difference is that Pakistan isn't "harboring" terrorists any more than Germany or England are. They just happent to be countries where terrorist organisations have been able to operate with relative impunity.
Bush has recognised that Pakistan's leadership is doing what it can, but is constrained by domestic political realities, and by the fact that the tribal areas -- FATA -- have been more or less autonomous since the days of the British Raj (and continue to be administered using "Agents" and so on, rather than normal ministers and bureaucracies, just like under the Raj). Where we have operated in Pakistan, we've worked together with Pakistan's government and armed forces. To facilitate that, we've also engaged in some of the useless goodwill gestures one might expect -- Reconstruction Opportunity Zones (ROZ) in the tribal areas and so on.
Obama, in contrast, has said:
"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges,"
BUT
If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
In other words, we won't act with an ally that has cooperated insofar as it is able. We won't show any appreciation for their efforts in the past. Instead, we'll just invade. And that's just dumb.
IR said:Obama's critics are saying that those who wish to take the main seat in the Oval Office ought to know better than talk about invading an ally with a very large and very restless population and that possesses nuclear weapons.
While I agree that invading Pakistan is pretty outlandish considering our current commitments, I don't think missle strikes on specific targets should be out of the question. I don't equate Pakistan as an ally in the same sense as say, Britain or even France or Germany. Musharaff may be pro-US but the population as a whole and probably a good chunk of the military is overtly hostile to us if not outright supportive of AQ. If AQ is operating out of Pakistan with impunity and Musharaff is unwilling or unable (most likely) to deal with the situation then we either 1) do it ourselves or 2) admit defeat and go home and keep our fingers crossed. Afghanistan was removed as a sanctuary for jihadists so if they simply moved shop next door and it's listed as off limits, then the whole thing was simply a waste of time, money and manpower.
I think Peter's correct - we have seen the results of electing a lightweight president. We need to avoid electing another.
I said:
They just happent to be countries where terrorist organisations have been able to operate with relative impunity.
I suppose I should clarify -- elements of Pakistan's leadership are more clearly compromised by close association with terrorist groups than is true of England or Germany, where only small elements of the ruling classes are so compromised. George Galloway, maybe, and elements of his Respect party, or whatever they're calling it. But Pakistan's national leadership has cooperated with us (and China) in suppessing Islamic radicals within Pakistan.
"If so, you need to know that the first time I heard that was an article from the LA Times. Written by a liberal journalist. "
And the first time I heard many things was from John Rocker. A professional baseball player.
Believe it or not, liberal journalists, like professional baseball players, can be offensive, bigoted louts, just like anyone else. Hard to believe, but true!
"Yeah that's true enough. But the "shine" part was your own invention, right? Clever, but ya gotta admit it is racist."
It wasn't meant to be. I guess you could say that my horse's third part of the name, could be called racist too. If I remember, Nibs was a black licorice candy, but
it was the stallion's name. Hell, everything is racist, in one way or another.
Obama, the neo-Cowboy!
If AQ is operating out of Pakistan with impunity and Musharaff is unwilling or unable (most likely) to deal with the situation then we either 1) do it ourselves or 2) admit defeat and go home and keep our fingers crossed. Afghanistan was removed as a sanctuary for jihadists so if they simply moved shop next door.
Well . . . I think Pakistan has been making progress. Al Qaeda was operating with impunity out of the tribal areas, FATA, but at the same time, Al Qaeda was also operating with comparative immunity out of places like Anbar province and Fallujah.
Remember too -- the British never obtained effective control over these areas, and more or less resigned themselves to sending in the occasional punitive expetition, and spending the rest of the time hoping their Agents could strike up close relationships with the tribal leaders, and persuade them not to kill people who passed through, or raid their sedentary neighbours. The Pakistani government has been, if anything, even more ineffective in controlling the tribal areas, particularly Waziristan. Pakistan and the tribes have been at war since 2004 or so, partly on our prompting (to extract Al Qaeda). And Pakistan's army more or less lost in late 2006.
Since then, though, tensions between and among the tribes and foreign interlopers have led to continuing warfare, and Pakistan seems to be making some progress in winning over the natives, sort of the way we've been making progress in Anbar. Together with the assault on Lal Masjid, apparently prompted by the Chinese, Pakistan's armed forces appear to be taking a much more openly harsh line on Islamic radicalism. For whatever reason, that also seems to have reinvigorated Musharraf's approval numbers too, suggesting that the population is not as sympathetic to Islamic radicalism as we had feared. Or if not, that at least they go for bin Laden's famous "strong horse" analogy. I think that given time, these developments will bear fruit.
A British froend of mine commented recently that while the British Empire did a great job of occupying territory, they had three spots that gave them neverending headaches: Palestine, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
So has Obama convinced you he's a tough guy -- a smarter tough guy?
No.
Answer to your question: no.
But Bill Richardson certainly has convinced me that he's a moron. He says, "...if acted upon, could inflame the entire Muslim world."
Ah yes, a macro variation on the vaunted "Muslim Street."
Remember, the "Muslim Street" is almost always 8 or 10 guys surrounded by AP and Reuters cameramen.
Its obvious what Obama is trying to do. This whole idea of getting out of Iraq and concentrating on Afghanistan/Pakistan is all politics. It shows how much of a moron Obama really is.
Strategically it would be a disaster to lose Pakistan as an ally. Our entire campaign in Afghanistan is dependent on supplying our troops through pakistan. If we withdraw from Iraq, all the jihadists in Iraq will then come to Afghanistan/Pakistan to fight us. So we will end up fighting the same people in a worse environment.
Obama is an evil bastard for playing politics with our national security.
Invading a nuclear power is insane. What more needs to be said?
Remember, the "Muslim Street" is almost always 8 or 10 guys surrounded by AP and Reuters cameramen.
Hilarious!
A British froend of mine commented recently that while the British Empire did a great job of occupying territory, they had three spots that gave them neverending headaches: Palestine, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
Blah Blah Blah. What a moronic loaded statement. The British also had a lot of problems with America, South Africa, and India too if you remember. They just considered the problem colonists in America and South Africa more civilized then the ones in Iraq.
A British froend of mine commented recently that while the British Empire did a great job of occupying territory, they had three spots that gave them neverending headaches: Palestine, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
That's a cute story, but he's forgetting (among other places) South Africa (Zulu uprisings and the Boer war), India (frequent unrest and rebellions throughout the 19th and 20th centuries) and, for that matter, the United States (the one part of their empire they had forcibly taken away from them).
Bah! Sloan beats me to the observation. :(
I think Obama's light weight has been obvious from the first. But his charisma was covering that for a long time.
The problem for him right now is that Hillary drew blood, he tried to strike back, and failed, and now the rest of the pack, sensing weakness is trying to take him down.
Of course, as a Republican, I could have hoped that he had gotten the nomination, and then this weakness was exposed after at least he had it sewn up. But this is like trying to fight an enemy who doesn't adapt - not realistic in the real world.
Hillary is looking more and more like the anointed here. She doesn't have to respond here, since everyone knows she wouldn't be that stupid internationally, and instead, she can sit back and let everyone else do the dirty work. Not a bad place to be.
Next, as to the merits of Obama's suggestion. Yes, it is brain dead, but we have been hearing almost exactly the same thing from the net crazies and KOS crowd for quite awhile now. Of course, it isn't quite as dim witted as Murtha's suggestion that the troops be deployed to Okinawa, which has the advantage of still being in Asia, but, the disadvantage of being on the opposite end of the largest continent (and where we moving in the opposite direction due to significant our unpopularity there already).
What Obama and his supporters intentionally ignore is that the center of the fight against Islamic terrorism, etc. has moved since 9/11, and it moved to where they didn't want it to move - Iraq. As noted above, no one really cares that much what goes on in the Pakistani tribal areas. They have never been governable. Luckily though, they are also fairly inaccessible and remote.
No, the center is now Iraq. All you have to do is look at a map, and note that Iraq is sitting there right in the middle of the heart of the Islamic world. Not only is it geographically in the center, it is also politically and historically in the center. Osama and al Qaeda see this. Our Administration sees it. Most of the world sees it, and in particular most of the Moslem world does.
Instead, Obama is pushing to pull our troops out of the place where they would do the most good, and throw them into an area that frankly doesn't count, but is likely to be far, far, more dangerous for them. All, because the people he is trying to court are so deranged by BDS that throwing lives and national stature away in an irrelevant part of the world is more important than Bush being right to them.
Never fear though, I think it likely that Obama will ultimately be president, unless he become the vice president to Hillary instead. He is bright, has charisma (is Black), and next time around can look a lot more sage and experienced.
This was the point at which Obama lost me for good. It is clear he has never read either Santanya or history. There is a good and practical reason we moved the battlefields to Iraq. Mountainous regions are always problems and one of the reasons Musharraf has no control there. Serious quagmire potential.
"Magic black man" is the preferred phrasing, usually applied to TV characters such as Hawkins in "Jericho"
In response to the comments about what Richardson said, there is a big difference between invading a country that you had a cease fire with, but that cease fire had been repeatedly violated, including attempts to shoot down our planes, and with a country that is officially an ally. Maybe not the best ally, but one nevertheless. Somewhat like Saudi Arabia, and, yes, France. Ok, of the three, France is finally heading in the right direction the fastest.
Diplomatically, around the world, Obama's suggestion would be one of the worst things that we could do. Talking to our enemies without preconditions is bad. But attacking our allies would be far, far, worse. Indeed, one of the reasons to become an ally of ours it to gain some protections.
What must be remembered about Richardson's Moslem street is that we aren't entirely the bad guy there. A good part of the reason that we are involved in Iraq five years ago is because Saddam Hussein invaded another Arab Moslem country. We intervened back in GWI partially at the behest of the other Arab Moslems in the area.
And it was fine when the Islamic terrorists killed American soldiers. But it turns out that our enemy in Iraq (and now Afghanistan) spend most of their efforts killing other Moslems. And the "Mostlem Street" knows that. Maybe they aren't truly ambivalent about us, but they could be a lot more negative - and invading our ally Pakistan would push them in that direction.
Obama is TOO liberal for me to consider voting for, but I was intrigued that he would say what he said. I had not given him a passing thought, and reading this makes me want to dig out the context of what he said.
The term Magic Negro refers to a story telling device, it is not racist. The device was meant to emphasize the positive qualities blacks. My children watched the Bridge to Terebithia recently, in that there was a Magic Girl. She was white, but it was the same device.
More later, I gotta work.
Trey
Yes, it's obvious Obama an the rest of the Democratic candidates can't possibly come up with a policy that even remotely compares to the fantastic job Bush and company have provided over the past 6 years.
I mean...how could things be any better in Iraq? A massive shortage of electricity, the Iraqi parliament on vacation, Maliki calling for the Petreus firing, the Sunnis walking away from the table, daily bombings, 3,600 dead Americans, 27,000 wounded, hundreds of American military suicides, untold Iraqi civilian deaths, torture convictions, murder convictions, the Tillman family still being stonewalled about their son's death, etc.
And you people wonder why the Republicans lost the last elections...and will blown out in the next?
Duh.
IR wrote: "What do you suggest instead, Tim? (Another poorly managed invasion? Carpet bombing? A nuclear attack?) It seems to me that the "tough diplomacy" is about the only option avaialable, unless you can suggest a better one. I'm all ears."
Obviously I don't favor an invasion of any kind, poorly managed or not (or did you miss the very first comment on this thread?); nor do I favor overt use of military force you describe now (I refer you back to my first statement).
Pakistan, as you and others have noted, is a tough case; I do not discount the need for diplomacy (and shouldn't all of our diplomacy be, when necessary, "tough"? - or are you in the habit of recommending hiring agents or lawyers predisposed to engaging in "soft" negotiations? Richardson's adjective was an unnecessary blandishment to make himself appear "tough"). Rather, for Richardson to invoke "tough diplomacy" is for him to invoke the failed policy regarding North Korea during the Clinton Administration and the approaching failure regarding Iran. "Tough diplomacy" without effective international alliances and reliable threats are useless; data to date suggests we have neither now vis a vis Pakistan, and will likely have less, especially threat capability, under any prospective Democrat president.
As to what I suggest, I think we're probably doing about as well as we can. If you don't think we have covert assets on the ground, you aren't thinking; if you don't think we aren't pushing Musharraf as hard as we can, within tolerances, you aren't thinking; if you don't think the Bush Administration wouldn't dearly love to capture bin Laden, you aren't thinking.
So, if you have better options, I'm all ears.
Regarding Obama, this clearly was a reaction to his mindless statement about meeting dictators of rogue nations without precondition; sadly for him, an equally mindless statement doesn't mute the first one.
I've never thought much of Obama, but he has a point here. Pakistan can't have it both ways. Either the tribal areas are under Pakistan's control or they aren't. If they are, Pakistan should be held responsible for what happens there. If they aren't, Pakistan can have no legitimate objection to a U.S. presence there. If he's really our "ally," Musharraf should prefer to have us in his country rather than terrorists. He needs to be less afraid of his own people and more afraid of us...he should be reminded of what happened to Diem.
OK, of ALL the Middle Eastern leaders to be a hardass with, he chooses Musharraf??
Obama advocates diplomacy with the most unreasonable nutcases of the world--Iran, N. Korea, Venezuela--and then turns around and starts threatening one the few leaders in the Middle East we are at least somewhat able to deal with... most definitely NOT smart.
The very "best" way for me to evaluate Obama on this matter is that while saying this (for obvious political reasons) he knows its a crazy idea that he would never actually undertake. Not very impressive.
You think we have a mess in Iraq, one little incursion into Waziristan will tip over a pot of 170 million pissed off Pakistanis. Some of that spills over into Kashmir, then you got India and possibly China involved. At least you won't have to worry about a few suicide car bombers, just check the radar for missiles.
Balfegor,
Of course Pakistan's nuclear weapons are an issue (or did you not notice my qualifier "(yet)"?), but they aren't the issue; otherwise, yes, I agree with your comment. I would hope we have contingency plans to snatch and grab or otherwise disarm Pakistan's nukes in the event of an adverse change in power, but I am under no such delusions such an operation would be close to 100% effective.
My children watched the Bridge to Terebithia recently, in that there was a Magic Girl. She was white, but it was the same device.
What a great movie. A total tear-jerker. It had a totally unexpected ending.
Wow!
It appears from the comments that Obama is accomplishing the impossible:
making Bush look good.
I mean...how could things be any better in Iraq? A massive shortage of electricity, the Iraqi parliament on vacation, Maliki calling for the Petreus firing, the Sunnis walking away from the table, daily bombings, 3,600 dead Americans, 27,000 wounded, hundreds of American military suicides, untold Iraqi civilian deaths, torture convictions, murder convictions, the Tillman family still being stonewalled about their son's death, etc.
These are fair observations Lucky. However, here are some other fair predictions. If we did not invade Iraq Iraq would be enduring Saddam's continued abuse of his own people - the mass graves, the human rights violations, the midnight murders, the gassing of his own peoples, and the restarted nuclear program. There would be no Iraqi parliament to take a vacation. There would be no Maliki expressing his views on Gen. Petreus. Instead we would have Saddam taking his $50 billion per year winfall from $70 per bl oil and using the money to fund the jihadists fighting us in Afghanistan, he would be funding the terrorists in Somalia, in Palestine.
We would have 7500+ deaths fighting all the jihadists in Afghanistan that we are now fighting in Iraq. The Congress would be calling for us to get out of Afghanistan.
Saddam would be the biggest trouble maker in the world. You, Lucky would then be criticising George W Bush for not taking out Saddam when we had the chance, just as you critise Bush today for failing to take out Osama Bin Ladin.
knoxwhirled said..."OK, of ALL the Middle Eastern leaders to be a hardass with, he chooses Musharraf??"
According to the latest CIA intelligence, they're pretty sure Pakistan is where our old friend, Osama, resides these days?
You do remember Osama...9/11...the towers...right?
It appears from the comments that Obama is accomplishing the impossible:
making Bush look good.
In this crackpot comment section, these morons might think Churchill makes Bush look good. These are some of the same people itching for war with Iran, but going after the actual terrorists in Pakistan while their govt. stalls, that's JUST PLAIN KRAZY! Up is down here man, up is down.
Anyone who has been paying attention knows that if Guiliani had come up with this first, Sloan and others would be praising him for going on OFFENSE against the terrorists.
Oh, and Allen S., your just a plain racist asshole.
I am not able to confidently assess the appropriateness of Obama's statement. I mistakenly put my faith in Bush regarding Iraq because I assumed he and his administration had the best grasp in the world on the dynamics of the terroristic threat.
The notion of how we use our power to attack the enemy seems quite complex. To neutralize terrorism, it seems to me, we have to think of our power as not limited to military force, but conceive of it as multi-dimensional....i.e. How we coordinate and bring to bear our economic, moral, informational, military, technological, psychological, political, societal, police and civil bureaucratic activities to combat terrorism. Moreover, we need to use our multi-facted power to understand and counter the underlying social, economic, and cultural preconditions that promote the development of terrorism.
I can't help but think about Dostoevsky's line from the 'Possessed'; "While nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer, nothing is harder than to understand him".
I have not seen much coming from this administration (or from the democrats) that indicates a real understanding of the threat and effectively mobilizes all of our powers to address, not only the symptoms, but the root causes of terror as well.
Pakistan's security establishment would know about the invasion before the U.S. Air Force. Al Qaeda's ISI moles would tip off Zawahiri before any damage could be done and they would disappear in the cave labyrinth they live in.
Obama is in way over his head! Musharraf has survived several assasination attempts so it is clear that he is committed to making life uncomfortable for the radicals.
One more reason why the democrats cannot be trusted with foreign policy.
Sloan,
I have no idea where you come up with the 7,500 figure if we were in Afghanistan. We went through there like a house afire and had things under control, with few casualties...then...made the insane decision to invade Iraq. (And please, no more of the; "Saddam killed his own people" crap. Most of th killings were of Kurds...and if you read books...we helped out in that endeavor.)
As to your comment that; "Saddam would be the biggest trouble maker in the world."
Let's be realistic. We had him so bottled up for ten years before the invasion, he couldn't take a shit without us knowing about it. He never left the country, we lost not one American life patrolling the no-fly zones and spent a total of about 5 billion dollars. (We'll spend a trillion on the invasions and aftermath.)
And...Saddam served as the perfect "buffer" between Syria, Pakistan, Iran and Turkey...because...those idiots also thought he had WMD and were petrified of what he might do.
Of course now we ALL know that was a crock...he had nada.
vet66 says...and with a straight face no doubt: "One more reason why the democrats cannot be trusted with foreign policy."
Right.
So can we assume you're perfectly comfortable with how the Republicans have handled matters??
When will you people ever learn?
I loved Cheney's comment on Larry King, that Bush would have a lasting legacy and be remembered fondly...much like Jerry Ford was...after he died.
Now who wouldn't want to have to wait until they were dead...before people began to respect them?
I find it fascinating that in Bill Richardson's universe, the "Muslim world" apparently is not inflamed. Anyone know how to get there from here?
Sloan says: "we would have Saddam taking his $50 billion per year winfall from $70 per bl oil and using the money to fund the jihadists fighting us in Afghanistan, he would be funding the terrorists in Somalia, in Palestine."
Where do you come up with this stuff?
The ONLY thing I remember him doing was offering $25,000 rewards for suicide bombers in Israel...and that's far from "funding" ongoing wars in other countries.
kirk,
I understand your comment, but you do realize that there are 1 billion Muslims throughout the world...or at least 1/6 of the world's total population.
Do you really think a majority of them are "inflamed?"
Anyone who has been paying attention knows that if Guiliani had come up with this first, Sloan and others would be praising him for going on OFFENSE against the terrorists.
That's nuts. Rudy is smarter than that. Too smart to think that way, let alone say something like that.
With this Barack has definitively shown that he's just plain not ready for prime time.
lucky,
And please, no more of the; "Saddam killed his own people" crap. Most of th killings were of Kurds...and if you read books...we helped out in that endeavor.
Do you say that because the Kurd's that were mass-murdered don't matter as much as "Saddam's own people?"
lucky, have you ever thought that US intervention in preventing genocide has ever been justified?
Do you believe that it is ever justified?
Let's be realistic. We had him so bottled up for ten years before the invasion, he couldn't take a shit without us knowing about it. He never left the country, we lost not one American life patrolling the no-fly zones and spent a total of about 5 billion dollars.
he couldn't take a . . .?
If we didn't know if he had WMD, how did we know everything else about him, including his s*** so well?
Cite something that supports what you said.
Militarily, assuming we could pinpoint Al Quaeda leadership in remote Pakistan, it might not be a bad idea to send in special forces to take them out.
But our president would need to be able to assure Musharraf that our guys thought they were still in Afghanistan.
So much for plausible deniability.
Politically, I think Obama imagined that he was scoring points against Bush. Not so long ago the New York Times ran an article about how Rumsfeld pulled the plug on just such an operation, for the obvious reasons.
But the article made it sound like a blunder, a blunder that fit neatly into the "we should be focusing on Afghanistan" narrative that lets Democrats oppose the Iraq war and still pose as hawks.
Unfortunately for Obama, he isn't yet running against a Republican; he's running against other Dems. And for them, this is an easy opening.
Re: Smilin Jack:
If they aren't, Pakistan can have no legitimate objection to a U.S. presence there. If he's really our "ally," Musharraf should prefer to have us in his country rather than terrorists
We . . . are in his country, assisting in operations, providing aid, etc. The problem raised by the possible 2005 raid, and Obama's idiotic proposal, are acting in Pakistan without cooperating with the Pakistani government. A country letting you operate in its territory with its knowledge isn't the same as giving you a blank check to operate in its territory wherever and whenever you want.
All that said, as I think I said above, Pakistan has become much more agressive against our mutual terrorist/rebel foes in the past month or so, ever since the Chinese prompted the government to attack the Lal Masjid. In addition to progress at turning the tribes in the frontier agencies against the foreigners from Afghanistan and Uzbekistan, they've apparently resumed military operations in north Waziristan (after their 2006 defeat) so they are continuing to make real and serious efforts to control the area, almost certainly with our active support.
Obama's really right about this, in spite of himself. Of course you allow Musharraf to save face by giving all the credit to Pakistan. It was a Pakistani op, for which we merely provided intel, resources, and assistance. Praise them for a job well done. Give Musharraf all the credit. If he pleads ignorance, well, of course has to do that for internal political considerations... wink, wink, say no more. Well done, Pervez!
That's nuts. Rudy is smarter than that. Too smart to think that way, let alone say something like that.
And how would you know that, his Middle East policy at this point is repeating that he will go on offense against the terrorists. That's about it. Rudy hasn't given enough info to understand what he might or might not do, except for "go on offense against the terrorists".
Obama is in way over his head! Musharraf has survived several assasination attempts so it is clear that he is committed to making life uncomfortable for the radicals.
And vet66 continues to show his ignorance of the Middle East. Even radical Middle East leaders like Basir in Syria have had assination attempts on them. That means little to nothing about a leaders idealogical position in the Middle East.
And for those who continue to listen to the opinion of those who have been thoroughly discredited in their stance on the Iraq War, amongst other things, recent analysis has shown how unlikely it is that Islamists would take over in that country. Polls show that only 7% of the population is with the main Islamist parties combined. Musharaff's chief opposition is Bhutto, the former prime minister, who is a Harvard trained secularist.
b asks: "lucky, have you ever thought that US intervention in preventing genocide has ever been justified?"
Of course, but in the case of Iraq...NO, I don't believe that's why we went in, and if you do, you're dreaming.
As I said before...we had him locked in for 10 years...and I don't remember any threat of a GENOCIDE.
Bush Sr. wouldn't go into Baghdad, Powell wouldn't...but Rummy and the gang did.
And look where it's gotten us.
As for the Kurds...yes, any loss of life is not good, but to continue to harp on Saddam killing his "own people" is disingenuous , and if you read some history, you'll see we were up to our eyeballs helping out.
Peter: The Obama critics I'm directing this are the right wing ones who claim that this speech indicates that Obama is out of his league. Yeah, well, so's Bush.
Not comparatively: Bush gets little crdit for the diplomatic tightrope he's walked with Pakistan. The trick has been to get help from Musharraf without destablizing his government. A coup by radical Islam, allowing them to gain Paki's nuclear arsenal, is very likely.
I tend to agree with Obama that we should go into Warzistan, but only in a way that doesn't endanger Musharraf's government. Its a very delicate siutation [pre-emptive launch by India?]
But I also agree with others here -Obama is compensating for his sit down with our enemies without condition flub in a dangerous way that reveals a basic ignorance of foreign policy.
LOS saidAccording to the latest CIA intelligence, they're pretty sure Pakistan is where our old friend, Osama, resides these days?
I would think you would be very concerned how the CIA obtained that intelligence. Considering that torture provides such unreliable intel, I’m surprised you’re using the CIA to make your point.
Then I suppose you can cite scripture for your own purposes too.
Until I see him sitting next to 4 eyes Zarwahiri in the next video, I'm going on the assumption that he's worm food.
Yeah my guesstimate of Obama's SAT score keeps getting lower. I am now pegging it was less than 1000.
Obama just had another nuclear faux paux acording to AP. Course maybe Obama is intentionally f-ing up to sew up the spot as Hillary's VP.
Lucky: Bush Sr. wouldn't go into Baghdad, Powell wouldn't...
And the Marsh Arabs got slaughtered. Thanks, but no thanks.
Sloan says: "we would have Saddam taking his $50 billion per year winfall from $70 per bl oil and using the money to fund the jihadists fighting us in Afghanistan, he would be funding the terrorists in Somalia, in Palestine." Where do you come up with this stuff?
What? Think a little bit. In the 1990s, oil was $15-$20 per bl. At 3 million barrels a day, Saddam was grossing about $20 billion per year. Today he would be grossing $75 billion. What do you think he would be doing with that extra money? Spending it on his own people?
Revenant said...
Invading a nuclear power is insane. What more needs to be said?
That is can be done successfully.
Look at 12-20 million Mexicans and OFNs that did it with near full cooperation of Bush corporatists and various liberal cause groups despite the wishes of the American people.
And, lets not leave out the Islamists that invade from Muslim lands - attack and kill people in nuclear-armed America, UK, France, India, Israel, China, and Russia.
The difference of course, is Islamoids are not burdened with multiculti, the ACLU, Bush cronies looking at profits, or great power considerations. THEY get invaded, they go off like snakeshit crazy vipers..In Pakistan's case, a nation with among the most xenophobic constituents, including not just the tribal barbarians in the NW, but also the most fanatic Muslims in the Raj, who left India on Partition to create a Pure Muslim ("Pak" is Urdu for pure, untainted) nation (Urdu, Arabic word "Stan" ) cleansed by force of unbelievers (Jews & Christians), Pagans (Hindu), and evil heretics (Shiites).
But the fairly described "Magic Negro" (see note) showed he is just a slick-talking lightweight once again, and this time, Hillary the Lizard Queen just had to sit back and lick her chops&and flaunt what little cleavage she has while liberal Senator Dodd tore him a new asshole and Biden hilariously ridiculed him.
Biden was telling stories of Obama back in January when John Negroponte briefed Foreign Relations on the resurgent Taliban problem in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Obama chose not to ask a single question about the Taliban, but give a talk on the "astonishing levels of mercury in Lake Michigan fish".
Apparantly, a large oil refinery in Indiana that Obama blames for mercury and other pollution by operating on Federal pollution limits vs. Illinois stricter ones - has been a pet cause of his for shutdown since he was a State Senator. He blames mercury in part for low test scores of children in Chicago. Which is hard to connect, because kids too lazy to study tend to be too lazy to fish..
Revenent - We can confront, even take action on a nuclear power under US military doctrine and use a variety of strategies to keep it from escalating into nuclear. Having nuke bombs does not make a nation invulnerable to attack. But its not one of the things you want to do without the highest level diplomatic and economic pressure failing. And certainly not for a guy committed to terrorist civil liberties to bloviate public threats about invasion to score cheap political points.
The best reply Pakistan could make, BTW, would be they would be very worried if Hillary, Giuliani, Romney, of Foreign Relations Chairman Biden had said it...but it was just young Obama...
***************
Note: "Magic Negro" is a regular plot device used in Hollywood and by several pulp writers, including Steven King.
Typically, the least qualified person in the cast of characters in the plot, but who turns out to be the font of wisdom and sage advice that helps morally redeem and guide the troubled white protagonist through professional or ethical quandaries.
Striking because in real life, it rarely happens....
And right after it was coined, PC forces accepted it, but began campaigning that "Negro" is the new bad word, and Magic Black Person, Magic Person of Color, Magic Minority were more acceptable. But so far, guilty liberals in Hollywood have not used the Magic Chinese Person, the Magic Chollo, the Magic Muslim....etc...so most of the phrases PC people want instead of "Negro" are currently "inoperative".
Same with the "magic Child" - who is the innocent, wise beyond their years character - usually a young girl these days because Hollywood prefers girls as more PC - who helps guide and redeem the adult character in their love life, creating scientific inventions, career or addiction problems, moral quandaries..
Hoosier - I appreciate your feeling that a missile or bomb or two to take out a few terrorists
shouldn't be a big deal - but the risk of badly damaging relations with a critical nation is I think too high to take the risk of an Islamist nation with nukes and some willing to use or give away those nukes after replacing Musharaff - just for whacking a few
guys or capturing them for deluxe ACLU-demanded civilian trials.
We didn't exactly fall over cooperating with the Brits in ending the American safe haven and fundraising center for IRA terrorists. But I imagine the reaction of the American public to a Harrier jet coming off the Royal Ark off Cape Cod, in the late 80s, performing a "surgical 2,000 lb bomb strike" on a Boston bar full of IRA, American sympathizers, bystanders and a Kennedy or two. It would be like a Pakistani one...
Let's be realistic. We had him so bottled up for ten years before the invasion, he couldn't take a shit without us knowing about it. He never left the country, we lost not one American life patrolling the no-fly zones and spent a total of about 5 billion dollars. (We'll spend a trillion on the invasions and aftermath.)
You assume from this that the UN would not have dropped the sanctions. You assume that our "good friends" Russia, China, and France would have continued to enforce them.
You are very naive. Saddam with his oil money and totalitarian rule would be a major problem for the world right now, much bigger than Iran.
Victor David Hanson nails it: "Apart from the notion that it would be as hard to distinguish civilians in a Waziristan from terrorists as it is in Iraq, which the senator has written off, other questions arise. As a US Senator why not now introduce an October 11, 2002-type resolution, authorizing such an invasion? Or why hasn't he in the past? Obama has criticized Sen. Clinton for her approval of that Iraqi authorization, but the sort of action he is envisioning involves crossing into a nuclear Islamic country, one bullet away from an Islamic republic, and surely should be a question for Congressional approval."
Obama is undeniably a putz.
Re: Dan:
Obama's really right about this, in spite of himself. Of course you allow Musharraf to save face by giving all the credit to Pakistan. It was a Pakistani op, for which we merely provided intel, resources, and assistance. Praise them for a job well done. Give Musharraf all the credit. If he pleads ignorance, well, of course has to do that for internal political considerations... wink, wink, say no more. Well done, Pervez!
And yet . . . that somehow doesn't quite work when you've already made a bold declaration that if Musharraf won't do what you demand, you'll invade Pakistan. I don't think we have plausible deniability any more at that point. Not if Obama is the president.
As for the Kurds...yes, any loss of life is not good, but to continue to harp on Saddam killing his "own people" is disingenuous , and if you read some history, you'll see we were up to our eyeballs helping out.
What is this? Revisionist history? Are you going to deny the holocaust too? You are a pathetic human.
A minimum of over 300,000 bodies have been found in mass graves around Iraq. Some outlets estimate there are a million more. Saddam got convicted on the first count against him for slaughtering a few hundred in a town (they were not Kurds).
And what history are you talking about. You are blaming our government for assisting Saddam in these mass murders. That is a slap against every person who serves in our government - both democrat and republican. Is this your own made up history? You are a fucking bastard and a fraud. Just listen to what you are saying. You are so invested in Iraq being wrong that you are willing to deny these evil deeds. You are no different than the typical Stalin supporters from the 1950s.
Maybe you shouldn’t show your face around here anymore.
Sloan,
As to OUR involvement with Saddam and the Kurds...please...read more...talk less. (Remember the pictures of Rummy shaking hands with Saddam?):
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/dec96kurdi.htm
http://www.representativepress.org/CIASaddam.html
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html
When B. Hussein Obama invades our Pakistani ally, will he do so with the sacred UN approval? How about with the cooperation of other allies? Or is he - heaven forbid - going to act unilaterally?
With each passing day, Obama confirms my initial impression of him as an empty suit. He is a fraud, a phony, a lightweight who will say anything that he thinks the moment requires.
But I imagine the reaction of the American public to a Harrier jet coming off the Royal Ark off Cape Cod, in the late 80s, performing a "surgical 2,000 lb bomb strike" on a Boston bar full of IRA, American sympathizers, bystanders and a Kennedy or two. It would be like a Pakistani one...
Cedar, I appreciate the analogy but I think it’s a tad weak. A Boston bar full of IRA sympathizers dropping a 10 spot to support Sinn Fein is a bit different than thousands of terrorists who are using an ungovernable tract of Pakistan to train and organize and launch attacks. I see your point but I have to question degrees of impact between the two.
I fully appreciate the situation that Musharraf is in and full understand the ramifications of striking inside Pakistan. That said, I would pose the analogy of Waziristan is politically untouchable as North Vietnam was prior to Linebacker II. If AQ can pretty much hang out without fear of retaliation then we’re purely operating in a reactive mode.
I think what we need to come to grips with is that absent some horrific attack such as a city nuked, we simply are not going to fight this war with a WW2 style goal and that is simply adopting a kill em all mentality until they give up. Let’s face it, we killed almost 2 million German civilians in the prosecution of that war and virtually destroyed the infrastructure of the country. But because Nazis are bad, hardly anyone blinks an eye over it. Unless we adopt the attitude that we’ll hit them anywhere they hide then we’ll be playing perpetual defense.
In light of the negativity surrounding Bush claiming that he did the same -- but was misinformed by said intelligence -- Obama is daring to say that. Still, I'm not turning my back on what he has to say in the future. I agree with sheepman's comment.
And even though I don't support her for President, Hillary's answer to this question -- no amendment needed -- was better.
H. Daddy:
"Until I see him sitting next to 4 eyes Zarwahiri in the next video, I'm going on the assumption that he's worm food."
I'm with you. I'm baffled why everyone is NOT speculating that
OBL is a stain on a cave wall and has been for a long time. I've said here before in this day and age when video can be on a memory stick that can be hidden under a tongue, OBL hasn't made any appearances that don't look like cut and paste jobs from pre Tora Bora/Operation Anaconda era.
Lucky: Let's be realistic. We had him so bottled up for ten years before the invasion
Sure, thats how Saddam was able to farm out his nuclear program to Libya. Thats why he had a chemical weapons program in Sudan.
Lucky: those idiots also thought he had WMD and were petrified of what he might do.Of course now we ALL know that was a crock...he had nada.
Hey Lucky, the 500 arty shells of Sarin and Mustard Gas - where do you think they came from? Easter Bunny?
As to OUR involvement with Saddam and the Kurds...please...read more...talk less. (Remember the pictures of Rummy shaking hands with Saddam?):
How pathetic. We aided the Soviets in WW II. We actually sent them $billions in aid. FDR shook hands with Stalin. Are you going to put the 20 million killed by the Communists in Gulags on our government as well.
Lucky, you still have a chance to redeem yourself. I suggest you delete your posts. You don't want to be known for such statements in the future.
henry,
So are you actually saying G.W. is smarter than his father?
Right.
Sloan,
Why not actually read something before commenting.
Anybody with a 12th grade education, who's read any history at all, knows what our involvement in Iraq was during the Reagan and even the Bush Sr. years.
*I still don't believe you're an attorney, but if you are...I feel for your clients. (And when do you ever practice? You're here for hours on end every day.)
Fen,
You are truly a pathetic soul.
Still, at this point in time, espousing the theory that Saddam had WMD and nuclear capabilities.
Oh, and you might want to pass this on to Bush...because even he acknowledges there were known to be found.
Good for him for drawing attention to the people who actually attacked us on 9/11. Bush has failed the American people grievously by letting those who attacked us on 9/11 go free.
Obama has laid out a plan that refocuses on the people who attacked us, not Dubya's war of choice to revenge his father.
BTW, Mike O'Hanlon, who was posing as a Bush war critic this past Monday is now backing off of his article:
'In an interview on Wednesday, Mr. O’Hanlon said the article was intended to point out that the security situation was currently far better than it was in 2006. What the American military cannot solve, he said, are problems caused by the inability of Iraqis to forge political solutions. “Ultimately, politics trumps all else,” Mr. O’Hanlon said. “If the political stalemate goes on, even if the military progress continued, I don’t see how I could write another Op-Ed saying the same thing.”'
Yeesh. And he also contradicted his own assessment published only days before the op-ed!
"However, violence nationwide has failed to improve measurably over the past 2-plus months, with a resilient enemy increasingly turning its focus to softer targets outside the scope of the surge."
Ughly hypocrisy.
LOS said Sloan,
As to OUR involvement with Saddam and the Kurds...please...read more...talk less. (Remember the pictures of Rummy shaking hands with Saddam?):
None of these are groundbreaking revelations. I’ve seen pictures of FDR cozying up to Stalin too and read plenty about how FDR had no qualms in writing off Eastern Europe. It’s no secret to anyone that we backed Saddam when it was in our interests to do so. That’s how international relations work. There are no ‘friends’ in the international community but relationships of interest. If you want to take the ‘moral high ground’ and say that past support for Saddam invalidates our actions now, then go for it, its just not a realistic position. Also lets realize that your links are also going back through multiple administrations, all of whom had different policy goals based upon the political landscape at that time. This is almost equivalent of saying an ex-wife can’t bad mouth her ex-husband cause she banged him for 10 years. Relationships change and by your reasoning we should still be pissed at Britain for burning the capitol.
Also, keep in mind when touting the whole WE SUPPORTED SADDAM mantra that his biggest arms suppliers including those nasty ‘dual-use’ materials were 1) Soviet Union 2) France and 3) Britain.
I think he got some satellite intel and a couple of helicopters from us. Hardly anything to get your knickers in a twist over.
08-02
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday he would not use nuclear weapons "in any circumstance. I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance," Obama said, with a pause, "involving civilians." Then he quickly added, "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table"
http://www.pr-inside.com/print193277.htm
Lucky: Still, at this point in time, espousing the theory that Saddam had WMD and nuclear capabilities.
Not espousing, but quoting Clinton officials and congressional reports: Saddam exported his WMD research out to Libya and Sudan. You claimed Saddam was "boxed in", so how did that happen? I note that you were non-responsive, nothing but ad hom, so I'll give you another chance to answer...
Oh, and you might want to pass this on to Bush...because even he acknowledges there were known to be found.
Again, we found 500 arty shells with WMD inside Iraq. Are you trying to say they were planted there by someone else?
1:32 PM
LOS is simply not a serious person.
The fact that US inspectors could not find armed WMDs in Iraq post-invasion could mean many things. You want it to mean only one thing: That Hussein never had them, and that those who believe he did were "idiots" or duped by liars.
But that's an illogical conclusion.
No one doubts that Hussein had chemical weapons at one time, because he used them. In addition, as Fen, said the Sarin and mustard gas shells were found. Moreover, the whole premise of the UN resolutions in the 1990s and Clinton's threatened invasion in 1998 was that Hussein was not allowing the inspections that would have proved he had destroyed his weapons as he claimed. And, as I know the leftists hate to keep hearing, the conclusion that Hussein still had WMDs was one that was held by foreign and domestic intel agencies that were completely independent from Bush/Cheney. (Yeah, I know, you're sick of hearing that one. No wonder. It undermines your entire argument.) Finally, it is now well beyond proven that Hussein corrupted the oil-for-food program in order to divert funds toward his various military, security and terrorist-supporting programs.
In LOS's world, you're an "idiot" if you find Hussein's behavior combined with these intelligence reports suspicious. We'll have to alert the local burglars in his neighborhood. Go ahead, hide in the bushes near LOS's house. Bring your tools and a floor plan. If the police should happen to see you and find these items, not to worry. LOS will call them "idiots" for thinking you're doing anything wrong.
alpha: Dubya's war of choice to revenge his father.
What a stupid comment. You really beleive Iraq was all about "avenging" his father?
Obama has laid out a plan that refocuses on the people who attacked us
Then some questions for you via Captain's Quarters:
"One of the reasons that Democrats insist that the war in Iraq was a mistake was because it unnecessarily radicalized Iraqis into jihadists. What does Obama think an invasion of Pakistan will do to its population? And if the former was a mistake, consider that Pakistan has a population of over 160 million people. How does Obama think they will react to a military invasion by a putative ally?
Those are just the political considerations. If we march across the border of a sovereign nation without their permission, that's an act of overt war. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and would be likely to use them in a last extreme. They could certainly shoot tactical nukes at our Navy ships that would have to support an invasion force. They may also be inclined to use them against our new ally, India, in the case of an invasion.
Not to demean Obama's vast military expertise, either, but has he looked at a map of Pakistan? It's shaped like a wedge, with the base on the Arabian Sea and the Waziristan region almost the farthest point from the water. How does Obama propose to create lines of communication for an invasion? Right now we rely on Pakistan for overflight to Afghanistan to supply our troops for the fight against the Taliban there. General Obama would eliminate those lines of communication overnight, leaving the invasion force critically isolated -- unless he thinks we can start resupplying Afghanistan through Iran.
Only an idiot would invade Pakistan from the north, if at all. Any war against Pakistan would have to seize the Arabian Sea ports first, and then roll through the center of Pakistan -- where all of the formerly moderate Pakistanis would have lived -- to get to a mountainous region that Pakistan itself has hesitated to engage.
And did we mention that Pakistan has a potential mobilization of 39 million troops?"
Lucky, I mostly skim over your posts. A dog's breakfast of disconnected facts and thoughtless assertions is not really worth picking apart. But occasionally one of your oddball statements jumps out demanding context.
So consider my reference to the Marsh Arabs some context. Nothing more or less than that.
Really, I don't have a dog in your fight. I don't give a damn about George W. Bush, his rise, reputation, or fall, and so your obsessive insertion of the anti-GWB case into every Althouse post is of no interest to me.
Ooh, let's not inflame the entire Muslim world. Because, as our betters tell us constantly, a Muslim is sweet reason personified.
Sidebar: I think Hillary is playing smart by keeping quiet and letting Obama's latest gaffe just hang out there. I depise her but admit she is a political pro. Will be very interesting to watch how she responds to Obama.
Will be very interesting to watch how she responds to Obama.
Maybe she'll call him Carter/Mondale lite. That's be good for a few undecided conservatives.
if Guiliani had come up with this first, Sloan and others would be praising him for going on OFFENSE against the terrorists.
What a fascinating hypothesis.
Unfortunately, since Rudy is unlikely to ever make the idiotic and insane suggestion that we invade a nuclear power, we'll probably never actually get a chance to test that hypothesis. What a pity.
You claimed Saddam was "boxed in", so how did that happen?
Maybe Bush did it? :)
Rev, don't forget Obama proposes invading a Muslim nuclear power and in the next breath forswears ever using nuclear weapons. Hard to believe he is not actually working for Hillary.
I don't think he forswore using nuclear weapons, he just refused to say if he'd use them because nobody was suggesting we should.
Of course, if reporters had brains and balls one of them would ask him "how will you respond if Pakistan uses its nuclear arsenal against our invading troops?".
From the AP:
"Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday he would not use nuclear weapons "in any circumstance" to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
"I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance," Obama said, with a pause, "involving civilians." Then he quickly added, "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."
Seems pretty clear to me. But he's just posturing anyway, his whole comment is entirely meaningless.
hoosier says: "None of these are groundbreaking revelations. I’ve seen pictures of FDR cozying up to Stalin too and read plenty about how FDR had no qualms in writing off Eastern Europe. It’s no secret to anyone that we backed Saddam when it was in our interests to do so. That’s how international relations work."
Oh, I see.
So, if we're in with the asshole...it's A-OK...but if we decide he's not longer of use to us...we invade?
Do you people ever actually reads books?
It's not that I think we should never push the limits, act unilaterally, or simply do what we feel must be done.
It's that we must weigh the need against the consequences. Cost/benefit. And quite frankly, as much as killing Osama bin Laden is a frequent and powerful fantasy, it is NOT worth the cost at this point. I believe he's rotting in a hole and has been for some time. But even if he is not, and despite the fact that it would be emotionally satisfying to blast him to pudding, it is *only* emotionally satisfying and anyone who would put emotion over sense should never be put in a position to command our military.
Going across a border uninvited should only be done because it is necessary to do so, not because of some base need for revenge on someone who is probably dead anyway. And if he *isn't* dead, he's as powerless as if he was dead, so what's the difference?
Could there be a good enough reason to decide to hit the Taliban in Pakistan? Quite possibly, but not to get bin Laden. How many lives of our special ops guys should be wasted to kill one man who is so ineffective that we can easily assume he's dead?
Not one, quite frankly. Getting bin Laden would be a wet dream for sure, but it is not worth a SINGLE American life to do so. We gain nothing strategically or tactically by taking out one complete has-been.
Statesmanship is not about retribution for past deeds. It just isn't.
There may be reason to go into Pakistan, to attack our enemies there, but they are cold, rational reasons and not emotional, feel-good ones. And if we did decide to do such a thing it would be necessary to NOT announce our intentions before hand and to be certain that the Pakistan government could be righteously angry at us and that we had grounds to act suitably sorry for the mistake.
Henry,
And I'm supposed to care what YOU think about me or my comments?
Personally, I think we could have and maybe even should have finished Saddam off when Bush Sr. was running the show, but he didn't and the killings you describe most certainly did occur (read Ricks book, "Fiasco" for a full account), but again...this is merely another instance of our foreign policies being dictated by politics, etc.
rev,
Saddam was "boxed in" via the international force securing the no-fly zones, etc. We handled Saddam effectively for ten years, lost NO American lives and spent about 5 billion.
And it was Bush Sr. who was in charge, then Clinton.
If you think things are better now it only proves my point: you're delusional.
Oh, I see. So, if we're in with the asshole...it's A-OK...but if we decide he's not longer of use to us...we invade?
If circumstances dictate, yes. Whether you agree with the circumstances, that's a whole different story. You seem to think that past relationships dictate how all future ones should be handled and that is simply a 5 year old way of looking at things.
Do you people ever actually reas books?
Yes I read them all the time. Evidently YOU don't based upon your naive perspective of international relations. Lets see, we nuked Japan and now they're one of our best allies. Get it? Personal relationships are complicated but you seem to think that international relations with constantly changing administrations and national interests should be so cut and dry.
Will all respect, you really need to take your own advice and read more.
LOS said but again...this is merely another instance of our foreign policies being dictated by politics, etc.
You could not have made my previous post any more clear with that statement.
(read Ricks book, "Fiasco" for a full account), but again
You mean the book by the guy who said Al Anbar province was lost 6 months ago. Why would anyone read stuff from someone who has been proven by events to be completely wrong.
Past sins can't remove the right for those sins to be corrected, repented of, and set behind us.
Historically we've done a number of very stupid things in the way of supporting tyrants or setting others up to do our fighting for us.
I think it's about the most immoral thing we can possibly do. It is also the most unwise.
I realize that since this doesn't risk American troops that some people think it is a good thing. It's not. And we shouldn't do it any more if we possibly have any other options whatsoever. But this sort of non-military "diplomacy" as well as sanctions and other sorts of uses of force and coercion are supposedly the *right* thing to do while using our military is automatically bad.
I read a nice essay the other day about how our support of those fighting the Russians in Afghanistan during the cold war was likely the largest reason for Pakistan's current problems.
The most important element to take away from that *now* is that we should stop doing that.
If past actions wed us to doing nothing but more of the same we are doomed.
Lucky: Personally, I think we could have and maybe even should have finished Saddam off when Bush Sr. was running the show
Then you didn't read those history books carefully. We were not allowed to conquer Iraq by the UN. They refused to give us a mandate to topple Saddam. And if we had tried, the carefully crafted coalition of Arab allies on our flanks would have switched sides and cut off our logistics, leaving the US troops stranded in the desert. You should stick to "playing golf".
And I'm still waiting for your answer about Saddam's WMD programs. You claim he was "boxed in", but ignore that he was able to farm his WMD programs out to Libya and Sudan. How do you reconcile that?
I also wanted to say that it's not surprising that Pakistan seems to have been prompted to action by the Chinese. We've a disadvantage simply because of who we are. The government of Pakistan can be cooperative with us to some extent but politically needs to keep up the appearance of being independent and strong enough to stand up to America.
What happens domestically and internationally if Pakistan is too openly cooperative is that the leaders there get called things like "poodle" "lap-dog" and "puppet"... often enough by persons running for the presidential nomination of the Democrat party in the United States, and most certainly by lesser dignitaries and the media.
Lucky said: I still don't believe you're an attorney, but if you are...I feel for your clients.
That it pretty meaningful from a guy who believes that the U.S. government helped Saddam fill his mass graves.
Are you a certified nut? Try pinching yourself.
Alpha liberal - Good for him for drawing attention to the people who actually attacked us on 9/11. Bush has failed the American people grievously by letting those who attacked us on 9/11 go free.
An insipid argument that the enemy is just limited to the operational combat team that attacked, not the ideology. Only about 30 unlawful combatants had direct involvement in the 9/11 plot, 15 if you weed out the Saudis who were told it was just to be a hijacking to free Palestinian and Saudi political prisoners.
As insipid as FDR declaring we were at war with torpedo bombers and the ships that carried them after Pearl Harbor. Then widening the war to "those German U-boats that attacked us".
The truth was we fought those with a Fascist ideology from 7 different European nations, not just Germany, in the Euro Theater.
In the Pacific theater it was mostly Japan, but they also did have their ideological auxiliaries from Taiwan, Korea, S Pacific Islands shooting at US soldiers.
And the Lefty faux manliness about "getting" the "real enemy" - the 9/11 perps - is completely undermined by their blubbering moans for the 9/11 mastermind and other 9/11 perps we do have in custody to get the "best" treatment possible and the hysterical anger that Khalid Sheik Mohammed was interrogated, denied his ACLU lawyers, didn't see his family for a while, and lacked reacreation and use of musical instruments - all "war crimes" by his beastly American captors!!!
Just Lefty sophistry.
*****************
Fen, Fen my man, continued inssistance that Iraq "was proven to have WMD threatening the world" because someone found a box of WW1 technology mustard gas shells and some stray phosgene shells stuck undetonated in a sandbank since the Iran-Iraq war 25 years ago puts you in the tinfoil hat, right wing nut territory the Lefties talk about.
You embarass yourself when you keep on about how the WMD threat was all TRUE! TRUE!
By your logic, Belgium, which was digging up thousands of gas shells from WWI every year from the 20s to the 60s, now down to 100 or so a year, is a menace to all the world. And the Japanese located a forgotten cache of several dozen 200Kg mustard bombs on Honshu in the early 90s doing a construction project.
Saddam exported his WMD research out to Libya and Sudan.
Yeah, sure.
Libya came clean about their whole program, the Sudan lacks PhDs in chemistry and nuclear physics like Zimbabwe lacks PhDs in Arctic climate research.
Just like the "vast hidden sums of WMD" are buried in Syria after the "secret convoys" right-wing Israeli Zionists learned about it from their "top-secret sources."
Just like the Saddam we hanged was a double, according to some right-wingers, while the real Saddam plays with his vast WMD stockpiles in an underground cave and refuses to release the mountains of stuff for use by the insurgents against the Persian whores (Shiites) or dull-witted Zionist lackeys (Americans) - why nutty "Bush is always right!" zealots advocate invading Syria...The same Zionists assure the deep end conservatives that we will find them if we invade Syria, and also Iraq, because some "secret WMD convoys" went there, and the US must also conquer Lebanon because some other "secret hush-hush WMD trucks" went into the Bekkaa Valley with their "Cargo of Mass Death".
Just like the Saddam we hanged was a double, according to some right-wingers, while the real Saddam plays with his vast WMD stockpiles in an underground cave and refuses to release the
Nice Rhetoric Cedar.... It is a fact that we did not find the "stockpiles" of weapons that we thought Saddam had. However, you very well know that the real threat was Saddam himself. Do you believe that after getting a clean bill of health from the inspectors that Saddam would not have just reconstituted his programs. After he he would have an additional $50 billion coming in today from $75 oil. That is quite a hefty budget (twice the GDP of N. Korea).
People forget that a major benefit of the Iraq war is the removal of this nuclear threat. Saddam both desired and had the means to make nukes. IF Saddam would have acquired nukes, he could have taken Kuwait with impunity and then Saudi would have desired nukes... you know the scenarios.
It could happen again in the future - that a new strong man will acquire totalitarian control over all of Iraq's oil resources and be able to pool the resources into a viable program that employs hundreds of "loyal" scientists. But, that will be a long long time.
Correction--
Re: Mary Beau Nibs
Beau was the stallion.
Nibs was the dam.
So many experts! I bow to the superior knowledge of all you war college professors.
Actually, Hillary went on radio and said she wouldn't rule out unitlaterally invading Pakistan for raids to kill terrorists (it was on ABC News).
This, of course, contradicted her previous statement that she would not have American troops in Pakistan for any reason unless led by Pakistani troops on a joint mission.
I think you all are a bit silly. The idea that Obama wrote this whole speech in response to the debate is a moonbat theory. The speech was written awhile ago, and the event was planned and scheduled awhile ago. I'd also note that the speech was given at the Woodrow Wilson Center for symbolic reasons. Woodrow Wilson was a liberal internationalist.
Instead of buying into the experience/inexperience frame, one would do well -- even if one hates Obama -- to realize that the liberal internationalist (Obama) vs. neorealist (Hillary) divide is what this is really all about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_internationalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neorealism
John Stodder said..."LOS is simply not a serious person."
And you base this on my opinion that there were no WMD found in Iraq??
Bush admits no WMDs found, defends Iraq invasion
By Frank Munger
July 12, 2004
Ron Edmonds (Associated Press)
President Bush, with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, motioned to reporters as they departed the White House today for a trip to Oak Ridge. Bush toured the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and will make remarks on the war on terrorism.
OAK RIDGE — President Bush delivered a 35-minute talk today that defended the administration's campaign against terror in the Mideast and elsewhere.
"Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq," he said.
(http://www.csm.ornl.gov/PR/PR2004/NS-07-12-04.html)
You people are delusional.
I'd also note that the speech was given at the Woodrow Wilson Center for symbolic reasons.
Kind of like the Axis of Evil speech was symbolic but was pilloried for being antagonistic, too cowboy and crude. I understand the whole symbolism of speech making but when one says how they'll unconditionally meet with any dictator and then talk about invading an 'ally', it doesn't say much about his foreign policy smarts. It may work with those with a 3rd grade knowledge of history and politics but it doesn't wash with those who have read a few books on the subject. Hillary is at least being consistent on foreign policy which is to her credit.
even if one hates Obama
Keeping it within the Althousian family, can you name one person that 'hates' Obama? I personally think he is decent person. I don't agree with this politics and I think he is completely out of his league in terms of being President but I don't hate him. I would not want to be presumptuous but I'll wager that the other usual suspects of conservative bent probably feel the same way.
Fen said..."We were not allowed to conquer Iraq by the UN."
Oh, please.
You actually believe we couldn't have gone and finished up...because of the U.N.?? Because they didn't give us "permission??"
You're completely out of your mind.
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGI2NDQzYzgwZGRhYzc4N2FhODIyYzhkNjAyYjA3MDI=
Here's the National Review on Hillary's flip-flop.
You actually believe we couldn't have gone and finished up...because of the U.N.?? Because they didn't give us "permission??"
Would you have then been decrying Bush Sr. for his unilateral actions and flaunting the UN directive?
You're completely out of your mind.
Tsk tsk. Calling people's mental state into question because you don't agree with them. How Soviet of you. Check out the top thread, Jane said she has an old Soviet flag she got while back and doesn't know what to do with. I'm betting you might like it.
Would you have then been decrying Bush Sr. for his unilateral actions and flaunting the UN directive?
Well, we could have ignored the UN, so in that sense "the UN would not have allowed us to invade" is inaccurate.
The statement "the Democratic Party would not have allowed us to invade", on the other hand, is entirely accurate. Bush asked Congress for authority for a purely defensive war limited to that requested by the United Nations. It passed the Senate 52-47 (the narrowest margin for a war declaration in nearly 200 years), with 45 Democrats voting against the war. Invading Iraq would have required a new declaration of war in direct defiance of UN resolutions. The measure would never have achieved even the 50 votes necessary for passage, let alone the 60 needed to defeat the inevitable filibuster.
When lefties say "Iraq was contained", they always seem to forget to add "thanks entirely to the Republican Party and the handful of Democrats who went along with them". :)
"It passed the Senate 52-47 (the narrowest margin for a war declaration in nearly 200 years), with 45 Democrats voting against the war."
Yep. Our enemies can always count upon the Democrats to seek any and all accommodations for them. Conversely, as Obama's statement regarding Pakistan demonstrates (one of countless examples), our allies can equally count upon the Democrats to abandon them.
The rest of us, of course, are prohibited from questioning their patriotism. It wouldn't be polite, don't you know.
When lefties say "Iraq was contained", they always seem to forget to add "thanks entirely to the Republican Party and the handful of Democrats who went along with them". :)
They also conveniently forget that it was that containment that was killing 100,000 Iraqi children and making life really tough for Iraqis other than those working on palace construction which is why they wanted that 'containment' lifted.
"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons. ... I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons," Clinton said.
Asked about the idea of unilateral U.S. military action in Pakistan to get al-Qaida leadership, Clinton said: "How we do it should not be telegraphed or discussed for obvious reasons."
Obama's spokesman, Bill Burton, responded: "If we had actionable intelligence about the existence of high-level al-Qaida targets like Osama bin Laden, Senator Obama would act and is confident that conventional means would be sufficient to take the target down. Frankly we're surprised that others would disagree."
Anyone here think we should nuke a civilian population just to get at a terrorist cell in a cave when we have conventional weapons more powerful and precise than the nukes we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in our arsenal? (Not you, Hillary, we already know you support nuking civilians.)
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=555
See what I mean? "Obama inexperienced" isn't how the left sees it. They see: CLINTON IS FUCKING NUTS!!!
The best hope we have of beating the terrorists in Pakistan is by winning the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Anyone here think we should nuke a civilian population just to get at a terrorist cell in a cave when we have conventional weapons more powerful and precise than the nukes we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in our arsenal?
I'm not current on our nation's conventional arsenal (they won't give me clearance for some reason) but I am wondering in breathless anticipation for someone to tell me what conventional weapon we have that is more powerful than Fat Man or Little Boy that we would be willing to use.
Now I don't want to be accused of misreading your post but you imply that nuking is bad whereas we could use a conventional weapon that is in your words more powerful than the WW2 a-bombs. So as long as it's not a nuke, you're saying we can do a Tokyo/Dresden fire bombing to get those cells and that's cool with you?
I can't imagine any situation where a nuke seems uniquely useful.
That doesn't mean that there can never be a situation where a nuke is the best or necessary choice.
My imagination is not omniscient after all.
Chip Ahoy: "So many experts! I bow to the superior knowledge of all you war college professors."
How silly! Whatever for? You've got a brain that's as capable as anyone else's, including war college professors, so if the logic of something strikes you as off go ahead and argue your point.
LOS, if you have to characterize my views incorrectly in order to knock them down, that tends to validate my argument, not refute it -- the opposite of what you're intending. If you can't answer me factually, it's probably in your best interests to just stop.
Just to make it clear: No, my opinion of you as an unserious person was based on the conclusion you draw from the US failure to find Saddam's WMDs. You conclude this means Saddam never had them, and further to think otherwise defines someone as "an idiot."
But the fact is, Hussein did have WMDs. He killed people with them. The whole question was, did he spend the period of the oil-for-food sanctions destroying his WMDs like he was supposed to, or hiding them? Was he building more, or not? Our failure to find the weapons does not answer those questions -- except in your mind. But you are not serious. You are campaigning. You want this whole story to come out with the following happy ending:
"...and Bush was disgraced, and America learned its lessons: Never elect Republicans, and never go to war."
This is why people like you went crazy earlier this week when O'Hanlon and Pollack disrupted your "narrative" by indicating the surge was possibly succeeding based on their eyewitness accounts. As that Kansas congresswoman articulated it so perfectly, any good news about the surge "will divide the country," so it has to be discredited.
There are lots of places where you can practice this disinformation campaign and people will just luv ya for it. Here, you will face inconvenient questions, and so you need to think harder about your answers to avoid looking foolish.
I don't like Bush/Cheney and yada yada. But there is a lot more at stake in the success of the surge than the political prospects of either party, and that's what I'm focused on. If America loses the Iraq war, the results will be beyond bleak, and won't be worth the little electoral bump the Dems think they're going to get from it.
I could never stand watching I Love Lucy because I liked Lucille Ball, but that sweet energetic goofball would always find herself undone by mistakes of her own design, in classic farce style, and end up crying BWAAAAH Riiiiickieeeeee. I just couldn't watch it happen.
Obama is starting to look alot like Lucy. BWAAAAH Hillllareeeeeeeeeeeeee
I don't like Bush/Cheney and yada yada. But there is a lot more at stake in the success of the surge than the political prospects of either party, and that's what I'm focused on.
If the vast majority of people in this country were as logical in thought and eloquent in writing as Mr. Stodder, I'd probably be more optimistic about our nation's future with respect to what needs to be accomplished.
Excellent post.
I don't know if I'm convinced Obama is "a smarter tough guy" - but it's a refreshing novelty not to be looking for the fence post sticking out of a candidate's rump.
And I think folks like Bill Richardson should think about the insular near-racism of talking about "the Muslim world" as if over a billion human beings (including a good number of Americans) are some homogeneous mass.
Hoosier,
You're right if one adopts your interpretation of what I meant by powerful. But rather than fight your right to (mis)interpret, I'll note that even by your definition of powerful, we have conventional weapons that are as powerful as a tactical nuke.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-388_Davy_Crockett
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOAB
You've got a brain that's as capable as anyone else's, including war college professors, so if the logic of something
Logic is not always helpful. Truth is often counter-intuitive and so are scientific conclusions, accidents of history, the technical meanings of nomenclature arising out of military discourse, and moves in strategy that prey on human psychology. War college professors are not necessarily logicians but they are experts in military theory and military history. Mastering either discpline requires more than mere understanding of logic.
And I think folks like Bill Richardson should think about the insular near-racism of talking about "the Muslim world" as if over a billion human beings (including a good number of Americans) are some homogeneous mass.
"Muslim" isn't a race, so obviously the phrase "the Muslim world" is in no way racist.
The Muslim world is not a homogeneous mass, but neither is "Americans", "New Yorkers", "Baptists", or any other group of human beings. The Muslim world does, however, consist of people with common traits (particularly the obvious one -- they're Muslim).
Sloanasaurus said:
"You are a pathetic human...You are a fucking bastard and a fraud...Maybe you shouldn’t show your face around here anymore."
A year or two ago, I used to post here. Once in a while, not that often. I stopped when I was attacked in a fashion more or less exactly like this. Go away, I was told, and I did.
A few weeks ago I started lurking, reading the blog again. I see things haven't changed; if anything they're worse. Slowly, it's getting to be less and less a forum for ideas.
So, I won't be back again.
Mortimer, I was by no means denigrating those people who are war college professors. They study this, that is true. They also disagree with each other about stuff.
Most of those who have been in the military for any length of time have advanced schools they have attended that do teach this stuff, particularly officers but enlisted also study war.
There is also a whole lot available for anyone who is interested, books and History shows on television... just a whole lot of information is out there.
And it's also true that we *learn* by talking to people. Logic does have a role. So do facts. Talking about the logistical limitations of action in Afghanistan or Pakistan or the political ramifications of action in those places is not limited to a few experts. If I suggest something stupid and someone explains why it's stupid in a logical way and factual examples, then I learn something.
The idea, somehow, that we aren't qualified to talk about it is very silly. I dare say Obama knows no more than I do. He hasn't graduated from war college either, after all.
J. Guptil: Yes, a lot of us have been attacked here in similar fashion, and yes, I have become quite disillusioned about the notion that this, or frankly, any other venue in the blogosphere can be a real forum for ideas. You have to take these things for what they are: A freak show where something interesting occasionally breaks out.
This also can be a good place to practice writing clearly and succinctly. You can compare your writing to that of others, and get an idea of the variety of reaction to what you write, some of which can be quite surprising. It's part of education, to be taken in the spirit of, say, Henry Adams.
For what it's worth, I think Sloan was overreacting a bit to Lucky's comment because of Lucky's history here as a troll. Lucky has cleaned up his act considerably in recent weeks. While one may disagree with him, he now usually participates in the conversation instead of bringing it to an insult-spewing, Lucky-centered halt as he used to. I, for one, appreciate that, and think he should be encouraged, even if some might disagree with his ideas. Sloan was probably reacting to the "old" Lucky, which is quite understandable because of how bad that really was. Lucky in beta release was horrible, but now that 1.1 is out, things are looking up.
War college professors agree and converge on more than they disagree and diverge on. And academics usually have plenty of information that is not accessible to the public, ranging from the discussions, symposia, workshops, working papers, etc., that are not open to the public, to the debates in specialized journals not sold at the local bookstore, to the classified research and confidential or private consulting they do. War college professors often also have served in the military or in the government as analysts, so have applied what they know in practice. They also have more free time to immerse themselves in the discourse and converse with other experts in the profession, and have spent more time contemplating the relevant topics and techniques.
Can anyone play piano? I suppose. But watching a pianist on TV doesn't make you one.
For a serious counterrorism analysis of Obama's speech, see:
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007/08/obama_them_back_to_the_stone_a.php
Theo, you opinined:
Sloan was probably reacting to the "old" Lucky, which is quite understandable because of how bad that really was.
I agree with you that lucky has made a real attempt to participate, and I would like to see it continue.
But - there's still a ways to go. From lucky's comments in just the thread above:
---- Where do you come up with this stuff?
---- Fen,
You are truly a pathetic soul.
---- What a stupid comment.
---- I still don't believe you're an attorney, but if you are...I feel for your clients.
---- Do you people ever actually reads books?
---- : you're delusional.
---- You people are delusional.
---- You're completely out of your mind.
That might have also been what sloan was reacting to . . . .
For J. Guptil to pick out sloan's comment and not list any of above as well tells us that J Guptil is probably too closed-minded to one side to even participate rationally here. Probably couldn't appreciate actual factual give and take.
I'll note that even by your definition of powerful, we have conventional weapons that are as powerful as a tactical nuke.
Davy Crockett is a tac nuke so I would not call it a conventional weapon.
While the MOAB is one of our largest non-nuke weapons, it doesn't even come close to Fat Man or Little Boy.
You're right if one adopts your interpretation of what I meant by powerful. But rather than fight your right to (mis)interpret
You clearly stated that we had conventional weapons more powerful than the bombs dropped on than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I don't think there is room for mis-interpretation. What I was asking was if you were ok with using that kind of destructive power to get terrorists.
For the record, I am.
B, re Guptil: well put.
Sloanasaurus said...
"It shows how much of a moron Obama really is.
...entire campaign in Afghanistan is dependent on supplying our troops through pakistan. ..withdraw from Iraq, all the jihadists in Iraq will then come to Afghanistan/Pakistan to fight us. Obama is an evil bastard for playing politics with our national security."
Sloanasaurus...you were calling Obama a moron???? Didn't you mean Bush instead of Obama in that last sentence? Did you grow even more stupid since last you wrote? Does anything you say ever cause you embarrassment? It should.
VET said...
Pakistan's security establishment would know about the invasion before the U.S. Air Force."
What invasion? Did Obama say anything about an invasion of Pakistan? NO. He said if they didn't take action in re terrorists (i.e. OBL) then we would.
Your distortions are noted.
B: I agree that it is likely J. Guptil could be closed-minded to one side. On the other hand, he might have just seen what appeared to be nasty remarks on Sloan's part and took those as emblematic of the whole discussion. That's my somewhat charitable take on it, as someone often frustrated with the rough and tumble around here.
I fully understand that Lucky still often behaves badly. That's the reason I said Sloan overracted "a bit," and what he said was "understandable." Sloan was perfectly justified in unloading on Lucky. You've nicely documented Lucky's serious lack of manners.
But, if it were me, I might have cut Lucky some slack. The reason is that Lucky is the only person I've seen go from "troll" to "participant," however rough he remains. Lucky's positions are not completely off the wall, and his voice is one that should be heard. But he seriously needs a little charm school, or perhaps charm boot camp, plus some more work ironing out his arguments and documenting his positions.
He then would be one less reason to call this a "freak show," and to prove to J. Guptil, and to the rest of us, that there is an attempt at a conversation here, and not some virtual Three Stooges writ large.
I take Lucky's personal attacks in stride. However, what really bothered me about Lucky's post was his accusation that the United States assisted Saddam in mass killings of his own people. This sort of position is below the discourse on this blog. It sounds like something that would be written on a neo-nazi site.
Saddam was a very bad guy. We shoulcn't let the critics get away with revising history.
What invasion? Did Obama say anything about an invasion of Pakistan? NO. He said if they didn't take action in re terrorists (i.e. OBL) then we would.
House, I think Obama is getting in over his head. He is trying to talk tough about how if he were President he would go in and get Osama. But, its all rhetoric. Do we seriously believe that Bush would not be going in to get Osama if something like that was feasible. Obama is making a reckless military promise that he can't keep soley for the purpose of showing that he is "hawkish." I think that is playing politics with our national security.
Pakistan has apparently responded.
They are pissed and said in no uncertain terms that if there is actionable intelligence that *only* Pakistani troops will act on it and that they certainly have the ability to do so.
I'm so glad that Obama understands international relations so well.
But he seriously needs a little charm school, or perhaps charm boot camp, plus some more work ironing out his arguments and documenting his positions.
And stop calling into question other people's mental state because they don't agree with his position. As I mentioned previously, that is so Soviet.
There are liberal commenters on here whom I don't agree with but can have a civilized dialouge with. I personally have tried to avoid responding to some of the usual suspects but it's either sadism on my part or a desire to try and raise the dialouge bar. Call it an intervention.
hoosier says: "They also conveniently forget that it was that containment that was killing 100,000 Iraqi children and making life really tough for Iraqis other than those working on palace construction which is why they wanted that 'containment' lifted."
Provide any factual evidence of this.
YOU'RE also out of your mind.
Sloanasaurus said..."...what really bothered me about Lucky's post was his accusation that the United States assisted Saddam in mass killings of his own people."
Maybe if you were to actually read a fucking book or an article that relates to our CIA's involvement with Saddam. I provided three such references but you never really want to investigate anything your don't already believe.
Again:
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/dec96kurdi.htm
http://www.representativepress.org/CIASaddam.html
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html
Here's a news flash:
Gates On Iraq: "We Probably All Underestimated...How Difficult It Would Be"
No kidding?
hdhouse: What invasion? Did Obama say anything about an invasion of Pakistan? NO. He said if they didn't take action in re terrorists (i.e. OBL) then we would.
From Obama's own website:
"The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid."
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/obama_vows_to_hunt_down_terror.php
hdhouse: Your distortions are noted.
Hysterical. You pulled a partisan knee-jerk without checking the facts, and got busted.
Remember the fantastic Op=Ed last week...touting all of the wonderful things happening in Iraq?
Well, think again:
O’Hanlon, Pollack stop sticking to the president’s script
The Brookings Institution’s Michael O’Hanlon and Ken Pollack certainly know how to raise a fuss. On Monday, their op-ed on the war in Iraq appeared in the NYT and immediately became The Most Important Opinion Piece Ever, at least as far as Bush and his supporters are concerned.
The two, who recently returned from an eight-day visit to Iraq, argued that U.S. forces are “finally getting somewhere in Iraq.” O’Hanlon and Pollack added that they were “surprised by the gains” they saw, and now believe there’s a potential for “sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.”
It’s worth noting that O’Hanlon and Pollack are both backpedaling from their own piece.
They evidently spoke with very few Iraqis and could independently confirm very little of what they heard from American officials…. The improvements in security, they said, are “relative,” which is a heavy qualification, given the extreme violence of 2006 and early 2007.
And it’s far from clear that progress anywhere is sustainable. Everywhere he went, the line Pollack heard was that the central government in Baghdad is broken and the only solutions that can work are local ones.
It was a step back from the almost definitive tone of “A War We Just Might Win” (a bad headline, and not the authors’). That tone was misplaced, and it is already being used by an Administration that has always thought tactically and will grasp any shred of support, regardless of the facts, to win the short-term argument.
The White House and its allies, in other words, are drawing conclusions from an op-ed that its authors are not entirely comfortable with.
Indeed, O’Hanlon seems to be going out of his way to argue the opposite.
In an interview on Wednesday, Mr. O’Hanlon said the article was intended to point out that the security situation was currently far better than it was in 2006. What the American military cannot solve, he said, are problems caused by the inability of Iraqis to forge political solutions. “Ultimately, politics trumps all else,” Mr. O’Hanlon said. “If the political stalemate goes on, even if the military progress continued, I don’t see how I could write another Op-Ed saying the same thing.”
Looks like war proponents are going to need some different heroes. These two aren’t sticking to the president’s preferred script.
Fen,
If Pakistan is assisting the terrorists...what exactly would YOU recommend as a course of action?
More money?
LOS said Provide any factual evidence of this.
Of the sanctions killing 100,000 Iraqi kids? If that is what you are referring to, that was the mantra being touted by the LEFT to show what damage the sanctions were doing to the Iraqis. The sanctions were part and parcel of the 'containment' of Saddam. I can't fathom that you were unaware of those claims being touted as justification to remove sanctions. Hell it was what the whole oil for food boondoggle was about.
YOU'RE also out of your mind.
C'mon Lucky, some are arguing on your behalf that you're trying to participate in a meaningful way and then you resort to your usual Soviet method of questioning my sanity. I have to honestly ask if you are that completely close minded or being willfully obtuse.
Theo: I fully understand that Lucky still often behaves badly
I think you're being too kind. If I behaved the way he did, my own side would call me out for it.
But Lucky's you're delusional responses don't bother me. Its his way of admitting that I'm right and he's wrong. Else he would have counter-argument instead of ad hom.
Theodore says: "Lucky's positions are not completely off the wall, and his voice is one that should be heard. But he seriously needs a little charm school, or perhaps charm boot camp, plus some more work ironing out his arguments and documenting his positions."
Oh, really?
And the people HERE are going to assist me in attaining that level of intellectual discourse?
And exactly who would you suggest as the instructor?
Sloan, who is so far to the right, he feels any form of government assistance, to ANYBODY, is nothing more than a form of communism? And has absolutely no idea of the CIA's involvement with Saddam for years on end?
Or how about Fen? He still believes there were WMD found in Iraq. And that we had to go into Iraq because if we didn't Saddam would have launched an attack on us first?
Or maybe Hoosier, who feels an 1,800 mile fence along the southern border would do the illegal immigration trick...with no mention of that pesky 5,000 mile northern border.
I don't visit this site to "charm" anybody, I visit for one reason only: To counter or tear apart the nonsensical arguments put forth by the Bush sycophants you'll find here every day of the week.
90% of the comments here are really nothing more than a form of mass agreement among the people who just can't admit they were flat out wrong voting and continuing to support the current administration.
*And just wait until Hillary wins in 2008; then the real WHINING will begin.
Fen said..."Theo: I fully understand that Lucky still often behaves badly
I think you're being too kind. If I behaved the way he did, my own side would call me out for it."
Right.
Unless of course, all you're doing is calling anyone who disagrees with you or the Bush administration un-American or traitorous.
Lucky: Or how about Fen? He still believes there were WMD found in Iraq.
But thats not what I said. You said there were NO wmds in Iraq, but can't explain where the 500 arty shells of Mustard and Sarin came from. Its simple logic Lucky.
Either there were 500 arty shells with WMD in Iraq, or not.
Lucky: And that we had to go into Iraq because if we didn't Saddam would have launched an attack on us first?
Thats not even a distortion. I never said such a thing. You're making stuff up.
Hoosier,
Do you support the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq and it's current policies?
Be careful now...
[Clinton] CIA Director to Senate Intelligence Committee, 2002:
"Iraq’s increasing support to extremist Palestinians, coupled with growing indications of a relationship with al Qaeda, suggest that Baghdad’s links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action. ... We have solid reporting of senior-levelcontacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade. ... We have credible reporting that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities."
Fen,
Yep, Saddam definitely had something to do with 9/11.
He and Osama were buds.
Had coffee together 2-3 times a week.
Al Queda was right there in Iraq from the start.
Bush is great.
*Oh, by the way...Clinton isn't the President anymore.
Lucky: Yep, Saddam definitely had something to do with 9/11
I have never ever said that. Keep flailing away at your strawman.
Is this the "participation" that Theo and others credited you with? Hysterical.
Fen,
Speaking of things Americans would have loved to have known...and Bush should have acted upon:
APRIL 10--Under pressure from the September 11 commission, the White House today declassified and released an intelligence digest given to President George W. Bush weeks before the 2001 terrorist attacks.
The confidential President's Daily Brief (PDB) for August 6, 2001 contained a two-page section entitled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US," and refers to possible hijacking attempts by Osama bin Laden disciples and the existence of about 70 FBI investigations into alleged al-Qaeda cells operating within the United States.
OR
Published on Friday, February 11, 2005: Bush Team Tried to Suppress Pre-9/11 Report Into al-Qa'ida
by Andrew Buncombe in Washington
Federal officials were repeatedly warned in the months before the 11 September 2001 terror attacks that Osama bin Laden and al-Qa'ida were planning aircraft hijackings and suicide attacks, according to a new report that the Bush administration has been suppressing.
OR...my favorite:
decoration
Home > News & Policies > April 2004
Printer-Friendly VersionPrinter-Friendly Version Email this pageEmail This Page
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
April 10, 2004
Fact Sheet
The August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing:
The August 6, 2001 Pdb Item Entitled "bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US" was prepared in response to questions asked by the President about the possibility of attacks by al-Qaida inside the United States.
"BOXED IN"
"By the time the Gulf Crisis erupted in 1990, several Iraqi researchers were already working in Libya as individuals, as were several foreign scientists who had worked in Iraq beforehand. Most were working on Chemical weapons projects, primarily in Rabta. At first Saddam reluctant to share with Qadhafi some of the unique achievements of the Iraqis. However, with pressure from UN inspections mounting, and with intelligence leaking from defectors, Iraq had no alternative but to transfer more and more sensitive projects to Libya as the sole venue for their continuation. Although Sudan was glad to receive anything Iraq had to offer, it had such an abysmal scientific- technological infrastructure that it could not sustain the more sophisticated Iraqi programs. Thus, with not too many takers of the Iraqi systems, Libya would have to do. Meanwhile, Qadhafi was most interested in receiving extensive help from Iraqi scientists for his own covert, biological, weapons program and conditioned his support for Saddam on cooperation in this field. Thus, since the early 1990s, Iraqi scientists have been working in Libya in order to continue the key Iraqi research and production programs into advanced and next generation CW and BW."
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1998_r/980210t-fr.htm
Fen,
There's no way I could ever "participate" with you in any kind of rational discussion...you just keep repeating the administration mantra or talking points over and over again. (When was the last time you posted something contrary to what Bush wants us to believe?)
Your continued support of George W. Bush and his policies tell me you either do not read enough or just don't want to know.
History will prove me to be correct...and you wrong.
Fen,
List all of the terrorist attacks, etc. Saddam implemented in the ten years he was contained.
How many Americans lost their lives providing the security measures?
(0 versus 3,600 now)
How much we did we spend?
(5 billion...versus 2 billion a week right now)
And please, not the usual...oh, he paid suicide bombers to go into Israel...(how many? can you identify any of them?)...because others were handling 99% of that themselves.
Davy Crockett is a tac nuke so I would not call it a conventional weapon.
I was not asserting that the Davy Crockett is a conventional weapon.
My point is that the MOAB, a conventional weapon, is as powerful as the Davy Crockett, a tactical nuke.
See how you misinterpret?
U.S. officials rarely rule out nuclear attacks as a matter of diplomacy, preferring to keep the threat as a deterrent. Yet several foreign policy experts said Obama was essentially right: It would be unwise to target an individual or a small group with nuclear weapons that could kill civilians and worsen the United States' image around the world.
Michael O'Hanlon, a Brookings Institution scholar, said Obama "clearly gave the right answer."
"He's certainly right to say you would never use a nuclear weapon to get Osama bin Laden," he said. He said that if intelligence officials were able to locate bin Laden with the precision required for a nuclear attack, they would also be able to catch or kill him by more conventional means that would not signal to the world that using nuclear force is acceptable.
The Obama campaign was still responding to the uproar late in the afternoon. "If we had actionable intelligence about the existence of high-level al-Qaeda targets like Osama bin Laden, Senator Obama would act and is confident that conventional means would be sufficient to take the target down," said Bill Burton, a campaign spokesman. "Frankly we're surprised that others would disagree."
Sloan, who is so far to the right, he feels any form of government assistance, to ANYBODY, is nothing more than a form of communism?
Where does this come from? Do you work for the New Republic?
Besides, this claim is illogical because no one who lives under communism actually gets much in the form of government assistance.
Fen,
I'm still waiting for your response to this: When was the last time you posted something contrary to what Bush wants us to believe?
List all of the terrorist attacks, etc. Saddam implemented in the ten years he was contained.
Saddam was too busy bribing most of the UN to plan terrorist attacks during the 1990s. Of course that was back when oil was only $15 per bbl. Today, Saddam would have an extra $50 billion per year to play with. That's more than the defense budget of the UK.
Fen,
I'm still waiting for your response to this: When was the last time you posted something contrary to what Bush wants us to believe?
I don't get this test Lucky. What does it prove? Are you saying that Fen gets paid by the Bush Adm and doesn't actually believe the things he writes. What is wrong about agreeing with the President.
Sloan,
You're not worth the time.
Read a book one of these days.
Or maybe Hoosier, who feels an 1,800 mile fence along the southern border would do the illegal immigration trick...with no mention of that pesky 5,000 mile northern border.
Well when 10-20 million pesky Canadians start flowing across that pesky 5K mile border, we can get one up there too. Until then, deal with the problem at hand not the one in your imagination.
Hoosier,
Do you support the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq and it's current policies?
I think I have made my position clear on this awhile ago. I didn't think Iraq needed invading now or even back in 1991. That said, now that our proverbial schlong is in the meat grinder, I want to see us win rather than crawling out ala Saigon 1975. Once you make a commitment to go to war, you finish the job.
The issue I have always had with the lefty anti-war crowd is the picking and choosing of which wars they get behind. Iraq was illegal, immoral, no UN, no imminent threat yet no one ever said boo about Clinton going into Bosnia.
It appears as long as an illegal war is fought with minimal bloodshed on our side then those other pesky issues are irrelevant.
Be careful now...
Why? Should I wear my helmet?
Read a book one of these days.
Can you tell me where the book is that shows how America helped Saddam put his own people in to mass graves. I want to know where you got that from...
Or did you just make it up.
Hoosier says: "Well when 10-20 million pesky Canadians start flowing across that pesky 5K mile border, we can get one up there too."
So, you're not that concerned with terrorists coming in. It's those damn brown people who have you concerned??
This is what I mean by the hypocrisy of most here. You're worried about people who come into the country to work (as if Americans even want or would do most of the jobs they take)...but bail out when the idiocy of only having a fence on the southern border is pointed out.
Hoosier...what happened to that grand War On Terror Bush is always touting??
Sloan,
One last time:
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/dec96kurdi.htm
http://www.representativepress.org/CIASaddam.html
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html
Hoosier says: "I want to see us win..."
Really?
And exactly what does thatmean?
How long would we stay?
How many more American lives would you feel is necessary?
How many more wounded?
How many more Iraqi civilians?
How much money?
Iraq was illegal, immoral, no UN, no imminent threat yet no one ever said boo about Clinton going into Bosnia.
That's not actually true. The hard left consistently opposes everything America does, and did indeed Clinton's attacks on Bosnia.
For example, Michael Moore opens "Bowling for Columbine" by using the bombing of Bosnia by the Clinton administration to illustrate how horribly evil and violent the United States is. Of course, that didn't stop him from backing Wesley Clark for President a few years later, but nobody ever accused Moore of being intellectually consistent.
Mort saidMy point is that the MOAB, a conventional weapon, is as powerful as the Davy Crockett, a tactical nuke.
I didn't mis-interpret anything. Please go back to your original post where you said:
Anyone here think we should nuke a civilian population just to get at a terrorist cell in a cave when we have conventional weapons more powerful and precise than the nukes we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in our arsenal?
I then asked what conventional weapons we had that are as powerful as Fat Man and Little Boy at which point you moved the goal posts and provided links showing comparisons between a tac nuke and a MOAB.
Thus I did not mis-interpret anything. Again, this was a side comment on the weaponry whereas my real question was whether you would condone the use of such weapon in taking out terrorists.
That's not actually true. The hard left consistently opposes everything America does, and did indeed Clinton's attacks on Bosnia.
You have a point Rev but you also have to admit that the opposition to what Clinton did was from the peanut gallery compared to the wailing and gnashing of teeth that is going on now.
Lucky said So, you're not that concerned with terrorists coming in. It's those damn brown people who have you concerned??
Do me a favor and don't play the race card with me. Its really old. Get some new material.
Actually I am not concerned with terrorists coming here via the Rio Grande. They don't seem to have much problem boarding a plane and coming over the old fashioned way.
What I am concerned with is the complete willingness of people like you to give anyone who crosses illegally a free pass while everyone else has to go through the legal process. That if it isn't completely obvious to you is discriminatory and racist.
We like every country in the world has an immigration process yet you seem to think that it should be waived for a specific demographic. I'd like to hear you explain how that is not discriminatory
Hoosier...what happened to that grand War On Terror Bush is always touting??
Last time I checked, we're still killing them in Afghanistan and Iraq.
As for your other questions:
Hoosier says: "I want to see us win..."
Really? Yeah really.
How long would we stay? Till we win.
How many more American lives would you feel is necessary?
None
How many more wounded?
None
How many more Iraqi civilians?
None but AQ needs to stop blowing them up.
How much money?
How much money have we spent on the war on poverty? Get back to me on that.
You have a point Rev but you also have to admit that the opposition to what Clinton did was from the peanut gallery compared to the wailing and gnashing of teeth that is going on now.
Well, that's true. Then again, Republicans were quite hostile to Clinton's interventions in Bosnia, too. You can put mainstream political opposition down to simple partisan interests, I think.
The hard Left -- the Moores and Chomskys, et al -- opposed Bosnia, the invasion of Afghanistan, and pretty much everything the United States does, especially if the action is one that benefits America. That's the group of people about whom people like Glenn Reynolds remarked "they're not anti-war, they're just on the other side". Latecomers to the anti-war movement -- e.g., the Democratic Party and its partisans -- now try to claim that *their* loyalty and patriotism was being attacked. Of course it wasn't. After all, when those remarks were made, the Democrats supported the war too.
By the way... WHY are you arguing with Lucky? What's the point? You can't reason a troll out of his political positions.
The hard Left -- the Moores and Chomskys, et al -- opposed Bosnia, the invasion of Afghanistan, and pretty much everything the United States does, especially if the action is one that benefits America. That's the group of people about whom people like Glenn Reynolds remarked "they're not anti-war, they're just on the other side".
Good point. It just seems more pronounced now, more due to the casualty count rather than the principle.
By the way... WHY are you arguing with Lucky? What's the point? You can't reason a troll out of his political positions.
I know and I shouldn't. I keep looking at it as an intervention. Trying to help but as you say, probably a lost cause.
I then asked what conventional weapons we had that are as powerful as Fat Man and Little Boy at which point you moved the goal posts
I did no such thing. What I wrote was the following:
"Hoosier,
You're right if one adopts your interpretation of what I meant by powerful. But rather than fight your right to (mis)interpret, I'll note that even by your definition of powerful, we have conventional weapons [MOAB] that are as powerful as a tactical nuke [Davy Crockett]."
You then, mistakenly, attributed to me the argument that a Davy Crockett is a conventional weapon, which is nonsensical.
In any event, regardless of your repeated misinterpretations, the point is we have conventional weaponry powerful enough to render use of nukes unnecessary.
I did no such thing. What I wrote was the following:
Mort, with all due respect, I quoted your original post. Please go back to your 7:18pm post in which you said:
Anyone here think we should nuke a civilian population just to get at a terrorist cell in a cave when we have conventional weapons more powerful and precise than the nukes we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in our arsenal? (Not you, Hillary, we already know you support nuking civilians.)
Then see my follow up post at 8:11pm where I stated:
I'm not current on our nation's conventional arsenal (they won't give me clearance for some reason) but I am wondering in breathless anticipation for someone to tell me what conventional weapon we have that is more powerful than Fat Man or Little Boy that we would be willing to use.
After that you provided the tac nuke and MOAB link. Perhaps somewhere along the lines we had a communication gap and I don't recall looking back on my posts where I advocated the use of nuclear weapons. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else who is disagreeing with you.
I'm all for dropping a MOAB on any area that has a terrorist cell. My question is whether you are ok with that considering the destructive power.
There is an obvious psychological aversion to using nukes and I think it's purely due to the after effects rather than the immediate destruction. If we can drop the equivalent of Fat Man on Warziristan and not have to worry about the after effects of radiation then are you for or against using those weapons in the fight against AQ?
I'm really sorry, everyone.
I now know in a very tiny way how Norman Mailer must have felt about Jack Abbott.
Hoosier says: "Actually I am not concerned with terrorists coming here via the Rio Grande. They don't seem to have much problem boarding a plane and coming over the old fashioned way."
Well, pass that on to your fearless leader, pal.
That's one of the primary elements of the immigration/fence border argument.
Like I said hypocritical to the very end.
Theodore,
Why are you continually trying to pass yourself off as some kind of intellectual?
It's not working.
Oh, and I assume everybody got your point regarding Jack.
Luckyoldson:
I'm not trying to pass myself off as anything. But you are a PIECE OF SHIT.
And my name isn't "Theodore," asshole.
You thought you were so clever posting my supposed address. Wow, you got it together to look in a phone book for my screen name. That's what I call being intellectual. Hard as it is for you to imagine, everyone doesn't live in Los Angeles or even in California. And given that you're wandering around loose out there, it's even more reason to avoid the place.
You said in so many words that your purpose here isn't to participate. Participation means arguing your positions. I thought you were doing that for a while. I was wrong. You mindlessly attack and insult. There is nothing more to be said to you.
* * * * * * * *
I do not have time or energy to waste on such dreck.
Everyone else here may reach his or her own conclusions about how to treat this despicable troll. For my part,
I will not read any post by this moron. I will not respond to anything he writes. As far as I am concerned, he is nonexistent.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा