(1) When speaking about Islamic terrorists, it's considered appropriate to adopt this understanding tone — not that we're excusing the acts, but that we recognize that terrorism comes from being oppressed and disenfranchised, that people turn to terrorism as a last resort, etc. (I don't necessarily agree with those statements, but I've heard them countless times, from people who seem to feel very strongly about it.)
(2) We're told that the word "terrorist" is used too selectively, and especially that we should be more willing to apply it to white men and Christian men (e.g. the KKK, mass shooters, and those people who occupied the Oregon wildlife refuge).
Well, wait a minute... how oppressed and disenfranchised are white, Christian men?Trump's success has been attributed to the existence of those oppressed, disenfranchised, white, Christian men. They're not at their last resort — terrorism — if they can get their champion elected President. Maybe those "same people" John is talking about — those people who believe this theory of the cause of terrorism — should be heartened at the prospect of Trump winning: It may save us from domestic terrorism.
I'm looking anew at Obama's old guns-and-religion statement:
"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."He imagined these people pathetically holding onto abstractions of power to soothe themselves in their weakness, not getting up the gumption to do anything. He was showing and trying to stir up empathy. He was not alarming his audience — rich people in San Francisco — about the potential for domestic terrorism.
But that was 2008, and now it's 2016, and they've got Donald Trump "explain[ing] their frustrations with "anti-immigrant sentiment" and "anti-trade sentiment." We're spared decline into violence because we have democracy — and yet the nice people of the elite places like San Francisco see Trump as the embodiment of violence, not any kind of bulwark against it.
पोस्ट्स
१४२ टिप्पण्या:
Third parties have rarely posed much of a threat to the dominant two parties in America. So how did the People’s Party win the U.S. presidency and a majority of both houses of Congress in 2020?
It started four years before, with the election of 2016.
As you remember, Donald Trump didn’t have enough delegates to become the Republican candidate, so the GOP convention that summer was “brokered” – which meant the Party establishment took control, and nominated the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan.
Trump tried to incite riots but his “I deserve to be president because I’m the best person in the world!” speech incited universal scorn instead, and he slunk off the national stage (his last words, shouted as he got into his stretch limousine, were “Fu*ck you, America!”)
On the Democratic side, despite a large surge of votes for Bernie Sanders in the final months of the primaries, Hillary Clinton’s stable of wealthy donors and superdelegates put her over the top.
Both Republican and Democratic political establishments breathed palpable sighs of relief, and congratulated themselves on remaining in control of the nation’s politics.
If a mad dog is trying to bite me, I am not the least concerned about his source of distress- his life is forfeit. All the subsequent space you may desire for empathy and philosophy is based on that simple principle and follows from the security of the dead dog. Feel free to substitute "mad dog" for hungry cave bear, raider from the next village, religious fanatic, etc.
Another possibility is that there's a lot of bad advice out there.
"Well, wait a minute" The "why, whoa, I can't believe" shtick runs in the family, I guess. Progs will make up any BS to suit their purposes. No point in asking them to be consistent in excusing Muslims and sliming white men.
Maybe being oppressed and disenfranchised are necessary prerequisite for becoming a terrorist (putting aside Osama Bin Laden (billionaire family) and Ayman al-Zawahiri (eye surgeon)), but obviously they are not sufficient. You need a hateful and apocalyptic religion that excuses complete barbarism as virtue as a catalyst to complete the mix. A religion, for example, that makes it OK, for example, to sexually enslave and rape young women.
Bringing down a government and replacing it with another one is the raison d'etre of asymmetrical terrorism warfare. That is why the War of Conquest Religion is using it al over te world. Calling Muslim Conquest Doctrine a religion of peace has always been silly wishful thinking.
The crisis in politics is not Trump leading peaceful Americans competently, but Obama being clearly exposed as a lifelong undercover Muslim Conquest enabler. He has slowly pushed every way possible to destroy the United States of America and Israel... every one.
The scandal is that since Reagan the GOP global money flow boys (The Bush Dynasty) have used that Muslim habit as a wartime excuse to get American citizens to ignore the fast sell out to Chinese Trade wealth for them.
This has lead to the true Nazi successors, who are the Muslim, being seriously underestimated, like Herr Hitler was by The Prussian Elite in 1932 Germany.
"Do these two messages about terrorism add up?"
No - but they describe analogous phenomenon.
The KKK was a terrorist organization run by the Democrats in the South. It's been discredited and is largely impotent and irrelevant now.
Radical Islam is alive and well, causing damage and destruction in Israel, sometimes in Europe and on occasion here in the US, most notably on 9/11. This is a distinct problem, Democrats don't want to face. It will get worse, if Dems stay in power.
It's silly to wonder about inconsistencies in liberal thought. That's not how liberal thinking works.
On the left, words don't have objective meaning, they have emotional meaning. They are chosen not to express an idea, but to elicit a reaction. If they stir the intended emotion, then they are "true". Under that circumstance, expecting different statements (terrorism is caused by opression and white people are turning to terrorism as they are foced to deal with non-white people) to be consistent with each other is to misunderstand the purpose of the statements.
tim maguire:
You lost me at "liberal thought". Did you misspell feelz?
The Huffington Post two days ago had a thread on terrorism with multiple comments on the theme that Southern Baptists were every bit as dangerous in Texas as Muslims. I resisted the urge to ask for an estimate of Southern Baptist suicide bombers.
This whole abortion opponents are terrorists is the best they can do but, if you are already convinced, it's easy to keep you convinced.
The problem with calling it "radical Islam" is that to some extent, it apparently isn't that radical. What is apparently radical is editing the calls to violence to extend the religion out of the Koran and their other sacred texts. A good part of the Christian Reformation was going through the Bible text and discovering that this practice and that practice was, essentially made up, and carried forward as a sacred tradition. Which might have been fine, except that a significant number of those departures from the scriptures seemed to be designed to enrich the Roman and Orthodox churches. So, the Reformation was coming back to basics, to the text of the Scriptures. But, we keep hoping for an Islamic Reformation, but if modeled on the Protestant one, that would mean getting just what we are seeing here - conversion by the sword. There has long been in the English speaking west a sympathy with the strict Wahhabi Islam of the Saudis, because it is unadorned, and, realistically seems somewhat similar to the more militant (and older) strains of Protestantism. A lot of similarities there - except that according to their respective scriptures, Christianity is a religion of peace, and Islam is a religion of war (for obvious reasons - the Romans were looking for an excuse to put down the Jews at the time of Christ, and the Arab peninsula was ripe for armed conquest at the time of Mohammed). So, in my view, it may be better to call it "fundamentalist" Islam, and not "radical" Islam.
And the cities in flyover country have been ravaged by elite political policies for almost three decades now. Obama lays it out there and just says screw you and triples down on those same policies to enrich those same elites even more. Shameful politics. I certainly hope trump is successful because these bigoted class policies have got to stop.
Or as a recent NRO writer said, hurry up and get a uhaul and die, your community is a negative on society.
Birkel said...
tim maguire:
You lost me at "liberal thought". Did you misspell feelz?
Keep reading.
Less serious. More jokes. The z gives the joke away.
As always, it's about control of territory and resources, whether it's Isis or America or any other warring entity.
(1) When speaking about Islamic terrorists, it's considered appropriate to adopt this understanding tone — not that we're excusing the acts, but that we recognize that terrorism comes from being oppressed and disenfranchised, that people turn to terrorism as a last resort, etc. (I don't necessarily agree with those statements, but I've heard them countless times, from people who seem to feel very strongly about it.)
This has always been wishful thinking. Ben Laden, et al. were mentioned above. But, it should also be remembered that the 9/11 hijackers were, by and large, middle class. A number of engineers or engineering students. The poor goat herders mostly lacked the sophistication that allowed Islamic terrorists to operate undetected in the sophisticated west. The middle class could blend in, and did. Now - this may be changing, with second and third generation Muslims growing up in European slums, with the sons and grandsons of those goat herders being raised literate enough to read subway guides and road signs, and speak the native language (e.g. French) well enough to get by.
"And the cities in flyover country have been ravaged by elite political policies for almost three decades now. Obama lays it out there and just says screw you and triples down on those same policies to enrich those same elites even more. Shameful politics. I certainly hope trump is successful because these bigoted class policies have got to stop."
And you think a Trump administration won't continue with the same policies and "shameful politics" as have the past several administrations?
Robert Cook suggested that we read: As always, it's about control of territory and resources, whether it's Isis or America or any other warring entity. This is a thoughtful and interesting article, and why he is inevitably one of most thoughtful leftists on this blog.
HT Pinker:
How the tribal warfare of our ancestors explains the Islamic State ...
"Only through the short view of modern history does this type of war look new. Public displays of brutality have long been used to terrorize and subdue populations around the globe."
Cook's article is interesting because it posits that most terrorism, including what we are seeing right now with Islamic terrorists, is the asymmetric tactic of losers. ISIS is losing on the ground right now in Iraq and Syria, and terrorism in France, Belgian, Germany, and even the US, is how they respond.
I am not convinced that at least some of the emphasis behind Islamic terrorism, esp. by ISIS, et al., does not have a theological side. Even before ground reverses at the hands of their enemies, they were committing genocide against the Christians and other religious minorities in the area. And, destroying millennia old religious structures.
Still, and interesting article with a thought provoking thesis.
Robert Cook wrote:
"And you think a Trump administration won't continue with the same policies and "shameful politics" as have the past several administrations?"
And you think a Sanders administration won't continue with the same policies and "shameful politics" as have the past several administrations?
@Terry: I don't support Bernie Sanders for the very reason that he supports our military foreign policy. He's better by far than Trump or Clinton, but he's still not good enough. I'm voting for a third party candidate, as I have for the past 20 years.
and yet the nice people of the elite places like San Francisco see Trump as the embodiment of violence, not any kind of bulwark against it.
Violence and terrorism are not identical constructs. Trump presents as an extremely domineering, 'strong-man' type of leader. While Trump speaks of negotiating, that is not the same as compromise, and he depicts himself as the master of negotiation because he will consistently deal from a position of strength, power, and threat.....and as the President of the U.S., he would be in the ultimate position of strength when negotiating, being that we are the richest most powerful and weaponized, country in the world. He would have access to money and power beyond even his great wealth. Trump appears to negotiate primarily and possibly solely by coercion, i.e. forcing his opponents to submit by virtue of his greater resources and threats of harm.
I would believe that he would rely on these coercive tactics, very familiar to him, to deal with opposition both domestically and internationally. My simplistic prediction is that it may suppress violence in the short-term, however it is likely to increase violent challenges in the long term, and especially terrorism, a technique often used by those who perceive themselves to be oppressed and estranged from traditional established sources of power.
The problem with reducing ISIS to economics is that it only makes sense from a very narrow viewpoint. All conflicts have an economic dimension, but that does not mean that the conflict is reduced to being only an economic exercise. The ISIS suicide bombers and murderers are obviously not motivated by economic self interest.
"Cook's article is interesting because it posits that most terrorism, including what we are seeing right now with Islamic terrorists, is the asymmetric tactic of losers."
Well, it's the asymmetric tactic of forces lacking the manpower and material of those against whom they fight. In some cases these tactics can lead to eventual victory, in others defeat.
The only way Administrations can hurt the rest of us is because we have ceded too much power to a centralized government.
Robert Cook, as always, favors consolidation of power to the 'right' people.
Thoughtful? No.
Xenophilia combined with Oikophobia. Worst college educated class since the 30's.
People keep talking about the KKK like its a real thing. It isn't. there aren't more than 5,000 people in the Klan and half of them are FBI agents. They haven't committed an act of terrorism since 1968. They hold no power, they rarely even protest. Most Klan sightings occur on college campus.
Yet the MSM, keep acting like there's the ISIS on the left, and the KKK on the right. Equal threats. And David Duke is just one guy who doesn't hold office, has no real money, and no organization. He just gives talks and did (or does?) have a obscure radio show.
That's not a bad article, Cookie. The point about the ignorance of the ISIS fighters is probably right on but it does us no good.
This article makes a similar point although not one the Nation would make.
"Alex, a 23-year-old Sunday school teacher and babysitter, was trembling with excitement the day she told her Twitter followers that she had converted to Islam."
The only Muslims she knew were those she had met online, and he encouraged her to keep it that way, arguing that Muslims are persecuted in the United States. She could be labeled a terrorist, he warned, and for now it was best for her to keep her conversion secret, even from her family.
So on his guidance, Alex began leading a double life. She kept teaching at her church, but her truck’s radio was no longer tuned to the Christian hits on K-LOVE. Instead, she hummed along with the ISIS anthems blasting out of her turquoise iPhone, and began daydreaming about what life with the militants might be like.
“I felt like I was betraying God and Christianity,” said Alex, who spoke on the condition that she be identified only by a pseudonym she uses online. “But I also felt excited because I had made a lot of new friends.”
The NYT article calls the process enticing the lonely. The other phrase for it is filling the emptied. "She felt as if she finally had something to do," Callimachi wrote.
The West is filled with millions of people like Alex, all of them waiting for Someone. They are the product of a multi-decade campaign to deliberately empty people of their culture; to actually make them ashamed of it. They were purposely drained of God, country, family like chickens so they could be stuffed with the latest narrative of the progressive meme machine. The Gramscian idea was to produce a blank slate upon which the Marxist narrative could be written.
That's why The Nation won't like it. These kids are the detritus of Marxism. They have no beliefs at all and are ready to be filled with Islamic radicalism.
The anti-native factions are desperate to project their prejudice in order to distract people from appreciating the consequences of their policies in America, Norway, Syria, Mexico, etc.
"The ISIS suicide bombers and murderers are obviously not motivated by economic self interest."
They're just the soldiers, the tools of those heading the organization, and appeals to religion are the means to attract those soldiers. They die in the belief they are dying for a greater cause. American soldiers are motivated by patriotism and love of country, even though our leaders wage wars for similar reasons of gaining control of territory and resources.
"Robert Cook, as always, favors consolidation of power to the 'right' people."
Yes...the "right" people being "we," the people.
"American soldiers are motivated by patriotism and love of country, even though our leaders wage wars for similar reasons of gaining control of territory and resources."
American soldiers are more motivated by group solidarity, which is why gays and women in combat units will destroy that same source of courage and motivation.
But I wouldn't expect you to know anything about soldiers.
@Jaltcoh, to dispose of the KKK first, it certainly was a terrorist organization and the Democrats who organized it and neglected to enforce laws against its depredations are right to be ashamed of it. But as an organization it's been effectively extinct for at least 40 years. You'd think a political philosophy that prides itself on "science," even junk science like AGW, would focus on the present and future, not the past, but there it is.
Strange that no one on the left wants to talk about eco-terrorism, and the Earth Liberation Front and Earth First! groups. To their credit, eco-terrorists renounced tree spiking after a mill worker was killed or injured (I heard killed but Wiki points to an injury), however ELF really, really enjoys arson as a tactic.
Anyway, the proper response to a Lefty regarding point #1 is that terrorism as a tactic requires an organization behind it, whether the organizing principle is hatred of a race or religious or extreme nationalism or drug profits or communism, without an organization behind it the acts of terror (Columbine) are just criminal acts.
The proper response to a Lefty regarding point #2 is that if Baptists behaved the way Lefties think Baptists behaved, they'd all be dead or getting dunked and forced to sit through church services on Sunday morning. Christians are ordinary people getting on with their lives. If only Lefties did the same.
When all you have is Marxism, every problem looks like a class struggle.
Rock on, Robert Cook.
"Yes...the "right" people being "we," the people"
I don't believe that you really mean that, Cook. You do not want power in the hands of Trump's followers, do you? There is nothing magic about getting 50% + 1 of votes that allows you to rule over the side that gets 50% -1. Every wicked totalitarian dictatorship of the 20th century (and the few that remain in the 21st century) has wielded power in the name of the people.
The article linked to by Ferdinande @ 10:43 AM is quite interesting and pertinent.
The KKK was a Democrat affiliated movement that was created during a massive social upheaval. Unfortunately, it was both white and black Americans who reacted aggressively.
Mass murderers come in black, brown, and white skin colors.
The occupation of the wildlife refuge was by armed men and remained peaceful until the federal government escalated the situation and murdered an American citizen.
"American soldiers are more motivated by group solidarity, which is why gays and women in combat units will destroy that same source of courage and motivation."
Group solidarity once they're in, but patriotism and love of country impels them to enlist. (When it's not simply a need for a paying job, which is often.) Don't think the ISIS bombers or terrorists of any type don't feel a sense of group solidarity.
Why would the gender or sexual orientation of any sub-group of soldiers destroy the group solidarity of the larger group? They're fighting for their group, and women and gays would be part of their group, wouldn't they?
"The tribal warfare in Iraq was suppressed by a dictator. It was unleashed following Obama's premature evacuation of the American diplomatic and security 'honest broker'."
It was unleashed by our illegal invasion of Iraq and destruction of its government.
"It was unleashed by our illegal invasion of Iraq and destruction of its government."
If it was illegal, then why isn't anyone in jail? Are you judge and jury, Robert Cook?
The tribal warfare in Iraq was suppressed by a dictator. It was unleashed following Obama's opportunistic evacuation of the American diplomatic and security "honest broker".
women and gays would be part of their group
No, they are fighting for men, women, and children, not white, black, transgender, etc. The natural order is to protect women, not to place them in harm's way. The political ambitions of female chauvinists have failed to reconcile individual dignity with natural imperatives. The normalization of transgender/homosexual behavior is antithetical to evolutionary fitness, but even as more men and women choose to abstain from functional behaviors, or engage in dysfunctional behaviors, there is the corruption of pro-choice policy (e.g. "=") that establishes legal exclusion and marginalization of politically unfavorable constituencies.
"If it was illegal, then why isn't anyone in jail?"
Because the criminals are still in charge.
Our enforcement action was prompted by the government's repeated violations of the ceasefire agreement following its failed invasion of a sovereign neighbor. Unlike the violent regime changes in Libya and Ukraine, the failed regime change in Egypt, and the humanitarian crisis caused by the unsuccessful regime change in Syria, Hussein stood trial for his crimes committed against the people, and the country was successfully stabilized by the American "honest broker".
"The tribal warfare in Iraq was suppressed by a dictator. It was unleashed following Obama's premature evacuation of the American diplomatic and security 'honest broker'."
No one had any idea how long an external force (be it a dictator)or American Forces) would have needed to stay in Iraq before it would coalesce into a functioning country. Indeed, no one could even say it would ever happen. Coercion works by suppressing the other, as long as the coercive threat is in place. It does not lead to fundamental changes in the other in the absence of the coercive threat. Therefore, once the coercive threat is removed, the other, expresses it's true nature, it returns to form. I order to prevent Iraq from falling apart, we would have to commit to being there indefinitely.
Apparently we engaged in wishful, even magical, thinking about Iraq and the Middle East.
"Because the criminals are still in charge."
Actually, it is because you like to think the invasion was illegal (whatever that means to you), and you want to draw in the law as being on your side when clearly it is not. HJR 112, teh Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, was duly passed by the house and senate and signed into law by the president.
I ask you again, Robert Cook, if the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam was illegal, what authority has made this finding? Mrs. Krabapple's sixth grade class?
Coercion works by suppressing the other, as long as the coercive threat is in place.
Coercion or an "honest broker". These tribal conflicts have persisted for hundreds, if not thousands of years. So, yes, there should have been an expectation of a long-term investment, similar to Japan, Korea, Germany, etc.
"Why would the gender or sexual orientation of any sub-group of soldiers destroy the group solidarity of the larger group? "
I said you would not understand.
"If it was illegal, then why isn't anyone in jail?"
Now that's funny right there , I don't care who you are.
Robert Cook believes there is "International Law" that trumps "We, the People" but still pretends he does not support consolidation of power.
Robert Cook is foolish.
The problem with the theory that international law was broken by our incursion into Iraq is that we had UN approval, thanks to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait a decade or so before. So, we had UN approval and a Congressional law supporting and justifying the war in Iraq, and Cook still proceeds with his claim of illegality.
@Terry: lacking a self-defense necessity as justification, the only other legal basis to wage war against another country is by approval by the UN Security Council, as per constitutional treaty obligations which makes the UN Charter--of which we are founding signatories--the law of the land.
The UN Security Council did NOT approve our invasion of Iraq.
By the way, Congress did not specifically vote to approve invading Iraq. They voted to cede their constitutional power and obligation to declare war to the President, allowing him to do--at the time and into the future--anything he wanted to do to anyone he wanted to do it to, in service of fighting the so-called "war against terror." Of course they knew this meant he would invade Iraq, but it was not a specific authorization to attack Iraq, specifically. So, even constitutionally our invasion is illegal.
What "nice people" in "elite places" are you talking about Ms. Althouse? Those "nice people" are a bunch of sneering condescending self satisfied jerks. Other than that they are just peachy keen.
Bruce Hayden: we did not have UN approval in 2003 to attack Iraq.
Terry: lacking a self-defense necessity as justification, the only other legal basis to wage war against another country is by approval by the UN Security Council, as per constitutional treaty obligations which makes the UN Charter--of which we are founding signatories--the law of the land.
The UN Security Council did NOT approve our invasion of Iraq.
So it's Mrs. Krabapple's sixth grade class, then?
You do not understand what it means to be a sovereign nation, Robert Cook.
You may think that you do, but you do not.
Whatever the people of the United States do, as long it follows our laws, is legal. If other nations believe that we have acted illegally by some other set of rules, they can attack us and conquer us to prove their point, or ask us to consider ourselves bound by some supranational tribunal (or their own courts). We can, being sovereign, decline to do so.
The UN is not a sovereign entity, Robert Cook. It passes rules which the people who belong to the UN agree to follow, provisionally. The UN does not determine what the American people may consider self-defense.
" The Gramscian idea was to produce a blank slate upon which the Marxist narrative could be written."
This is a profoundly important statement and is at the root of the cultural dissolution and impending destruction of Western Civilization.
"Whatever the people of the United States do, as long it follows our laws, is legal."
We broke our law, Terry. By signing the UN Charter, as per the constitution, it becomes the law of the land.
People are starting to understand and this might be our last chance.
"As if to underscore his point, Slovenians marched in the streets this week against the EU’s immigration policies, shouting “Trump! Trump!” So preposterous have the Europeans become that multiculturalism and political correctness have tied the hands of any sane moves to prevent these attacks. The EU has forced countries to admit immigrants and then denied them the right to resettle them in ways that will minimize creation of enclaves of unassimilated, dangerous immigrants."
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/03/havana_obama_and_the_soppy_greeting_card_war.html
"We broke our law, Terry."
Congress makes the laws, Robert Cook. The courts enforce them. That is the whole of the law. Congress passed HJR 112, the president signed it. Who has made the finding that what congress passed and the president signed is illegal?
Mrs. Krabapple's 6th grade class has limited jurisdiction.
The states could sue, I suppose, but since the constitution invests war making powers in the federal government, they wouldn't get far.
'Sanders for Prez, Cook for VP,
Hail 'The People' gettin' stuff for free
Revolutionary Freedom & Equality
Are next. Call up your Sean Penns,
Yer hard workin', tenured, laborin' men
Useful college kids who won't ask when,
exactly, utopia is supposed to arrive.
History is Alive,
Ideology thrives...
Come make honey for the hive.'
-From 'Ol Hobo Joe's Singalong Songs For The Revolution'
" The Gramscian idea was to produce a blank slate upon which the Marxist narrative could be written."
This is a profoundly important statement and is at the root of the cultural dissolution and impending destruction of Western Civilization.
Richard Fernandez so often gets right to the heart of matters like these. Like this.
There's a saying that every man on the Internet is a man, every woman is a man and every child is actually an agent of the FBI. In the future that may also mean that every Jihadi is an NSA bot. Unleashing virtual friends on Islam is technologically nifty but more than slightly disturbing. But secret containment is what PC society does as opposed to open confrontation. The contrast in the struggle between ISIS and Western leaders could not be greater. One is strategically decisive but tactically and technologically weak. The other is strategically insane but tactically and technologically dominant. The result of this asymmetrical contest is a standoff.
Blogger Beaumont said...
"The tribal warfare in Iraq was suppressed by a dictator. It was unleashed following Obama's premature evacuation of the American diplomatic and security 'honest broker'."
No one had any idea how long an external force (be it a dictator)or American Forces) would have needed to stay in Iraq before it would coalesce into a functioning country. Indeed, no one could even say it would ever happen. Coercion works by suppressing the other, as long as the coercive threat is in place. It does not lead to fundamental changes in the other in the absence of the coercive threat. Therefore, once the coercive threat is removed, the other, expresses it's true nature, it returns to form. I order to prevent Iraq from falling apart, we would have to commit to being there indefinitely.
Apparently we engaged in wishful, even magical, thinking about Iraq and the Middle East.
30 years.
Bush and the JCS said approx. 30 years.
Blogger Beaumont said...
"The tribal warfare in Iraq was suppressed by a dictator. It was unleashed following Obama's premature evacuation of the American diplomatic and security 'honest broker'."
No one had any idea how long an external force (be it a dictator)or American Forces) would have needed to stay in Iraq before it would coalesce into a functioning country. Indeed, no one could even say it would ever happen. Coercion works by suppressing the other, as long as the coercive threat is in place. It does not lead to fundamental changes in the other in the absence of the coercive threat. Therefore, once the coercive threat is removed, the other, expresses it's true nature, it returns to form. I order to prevent Iraq from falling apart, we would have to commit to being there indefinitely.
Apparently we engaged in wishful, even magical, thinking about Iraq and the Middle East.
30 years.
Bush and the JCS said approx. 30 years.
Blogger Robert Cook said...
"Whatever the people of the United States do, as long it follows our laws, is legal."
We broke our law, Terry. By signing the UN Charter, as per the constitution, it becomes the law of the land.
Our constitution is the supreme law of the land and those soveriegn rights that preceed it.
The state can sign any agreement it chooses with any foreign power it chooses, but no foreign contract in any way abrogates our rights as citizens.
Bruce Hayden: we did not have UN approval in 2003 to attack Iraq.
Disagree - the Kuwait invasion resolutions were still in effect, and the cease fire that kept us out during that war had been repeatedly violated by Iraq. That is what happens when you sign a cease fire with the other party having a corps of tanks just on the other side of the border, ready to roll into your capital, and then repeatedly violate that cease fire. Legally, that is maybe the best way to view the whole thing, as a resumption of the UN sanctioned action due to the multiple breaches of the cease fire by Iraq. When you sign a cease fire, then violate it, that is what you should expect, that the other parties will resume where they left off. If not, then what is the purpose of a cease fire?
Robert Cook: Thanks for the link to the Nation article. Interestingly enough, the only US Presidential candidate who is talking about disengagement in the middle east now that fracking has provided us with more oil is Donald Trump. His foreign policy talk with the NY Times yesterday outlines his approach of dismantling the US military presence around the world. He probably can't do it, but he is the only (mainstream) one promoting a more progressive foreign policy.
No one had any idea how long an external force (be it a dictator)or American Forces) would have needed to stay in Iraq before it would coalesce into a functioning country. Indeed, no one could even say it would ever happen. Coercion works by suppressing the other, as long as the coercive threat is in place. It does not lead to fundamental changes in the other in the absence of the coercive threat. Therefore, once the coercive threat is removed, the other, expresses it's true nature, it returns to form. I order to prevent Iraq from falling apart, we would have to commit to being there indefinitely.
I somewhat disagree. The original problem was that minority Sunni Muslims were ruling a majority Shia country. When we successfully engaged in regime change, we found that the officer corps were almost exclusively Sunni, and, indeed, many of them had tribal affiliations with SH. For the most part, we couldn't trust them, for those reasons (but arguably should have trusted them more). What needed to happen, to a great extent, was to train up a competent officer corps, along with the noncoms, that reflected the demographics of the country, or, at least was majority Shia. That takes time, but not forever. But, the problem was that Obama pulled us out before this process was far enough along, and, of course, did so with no appreciation of how far along we were (and, apparently against the advice of most of those in the govt. then who understood the situation). But, it probably wouldn't have taken another decade of far fewer military personnel than we have in either South Korea or Europe. And, notably, the Iraqi army is retaking territory from ISIS now.
That is not to say that taking over the country was justified from a geopolitical point of view. Our government, including Hillary, Kerry, Bush, and Cheney, along with our NATO allies, were mistaken about WMDs (or, didn't move fast enough to keep the Russians from moving many of them out of the country, presumably to Syria). No one lied there - and, indeed, George W. Bush apparently asked repeatedly whether the intelligence was accurate, and was reassured each time. But, maybe the bigger problem was that they grossly underestimated how much they needed to do to stabilize the country. And, the closer it got to the reinitiation of hostilities, the easier it looked. And, yes, some, if not much, of that may potentially be laid at the foot of the Clinton Administration that gutted the CIA's on-the-ground assets (while ignoring Iraq's breaches of the cease fire).
"Our constitution is the supreme law of the land and those soveriegn rights that preceed it.
The state can sign any agreement it chooses with any foreign power it chooses, but no foreign contract in any way abrogates our rights as citizens."
By signing the UN Charter, its provisions become the binding law of the land, as per the constitution. We broke our law.
If we do not wish to be bound by that law, we can certainly withdraw from the UN, but otherwise, the UN Charter--of which we are signatories--is the law.
Our invasion of Iraq was illegal.
"outlines his approach of dismantling the US military presence around the world. He probably can't do it, but he is the only (mainstream) one promoting a more progressive foreign policy" Combine it with touchback amnesty, trade wars, liberal SCOTUS appointments, and no change in entitlements, and you have the perfect Dem takeover of the GOP.
That is not to say that taking over the country was justified from a geopolitical point of view.
The only real geopolitical reason, Cook notwithstanding, was oil. We could not allow Saddam to control all of Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi oil. It was too dangerous when he was an unstable ruler.
Now, we are independent, for the first time since 1967, of Saudi oil. We have the choice to let them fight it out.
What we must NOT do is import that tribal war with refugees.
Trump seems to get that.
"By signing the UN Charter, its provisions become the binding law of the land, as per the constitution. We broke our law."
You should actually study this before you write about it, Cook. You are ignorant on this topic. The treaties the US signs are just that, treaties, which we may follow or not, or interpret ourselves or not, as we choose.
The federal government does not have the power to reduce the states to vassals of some hypothetical international body.
It is always precious to watch a committed Leftist argue they believe in the sovereign right of the people, which our overlords have voted to give over to an international body, and which now has authority over those people.
I enjoy assuming the precedent and the antecedent just as much as the next solipsist, but I never quite lower myself to the illogic required by a Robert Cook.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
"The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.[1] It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied. Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law.[2] In essence, it is a conflict-of-laws rule specifying that certain national acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with national law. In this respect, the Supremacy Clause follows the lead of Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which provided that "Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress Assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them."[3] The Supremacy Clause has been described as the "cornerstone of our Federalism".[4]"
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing [sic] in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Muslims don't commit terrorist acts because they feel oppressed. They do it because they believe that their religion requires it of them. The people making those statements mostly don't have religious beliefs and are gobsmacked that others actually are true believers.
Progressives have weird ideas about what it means to be a nation. They do not, for example, seem to be able to understand that under our constitution, the states have more rights than the federal government. The states can gather together, if they wish, and dissolve the federal government. The federal government has no similar right, under the constitution, to unmake a state.
Progressives love the federal government because it is not subject to the democratic forces that state governments are subject to.
Amanda demonstrates an ability to cut and paste.
Now let her pretend at understanding.
"watch a committed Leftist argue they believe in the sovereign right of the people, which our overlords have voted to give over to an international body, and which now has authority over those people."
Sort of like "one man, one vote, one time".
It's a good thing, then Amanda and Bob, That our rights do not come from the government.
A Question;
Is our NATO treaty made under the auspicies of the UN?
Amanda and Cook have this strange notion that the Constitution permits the President to negotiate and the Senate ratify treaties that violate the Constitution. I suspect they believe that if for example the US under a President Sanders were to negotiate a treaty that required the banning of all civilian guns in the US and that treaty was somehow ratified by a Democrat controlled Senate that would trump the Second Amendment. They believe that the US Constitution permits Congress to waive away it's authority. It doesn't. Congress can pass laws and it can rescind said laws. The US can enter treaties and it can abrogate treaties, that is what means to be sovereign. It is that simple.
Point of order: The Supremacy Clause in the 1789 Constitution was forever changed by a trial lawyer named Lincoln who chose men named Sherman, Meade and Grant to rewrite it in the blood of half a million men. And nobody has erased that rewrite.
I'd be interested in learning EXACTLY what part of the UN Charter "we" violated by invading Iraq ---especially when we had coalition partners, including members of the UN Security Council, who joined us.
And I'd like to know EXACTLY what the UN is empowered to do when another of its members ---in this case, Iraq---violates numerous security council resolutions. For example, was the Korean War "illegal" as well?
Then I'd like to know EXACTLY which tribunal, acting under what named powers and jurisdiction under the UN charter, has determined that the Iraq war was "illegal".
Go ahead, Cook: parade your erudition!!!
"rewrite it in the blood of half a million men"
By "rewrite" do you mean "revise" or do you mean "reiterate"?
"Progressives have weird ideas about what it means to be a nation. They do not, for example, seem to be able to understand that under our constitution, the states have more rights than the federal government."
This was never true, for good or ill.
UN Charter, Chapter I, Article 2(4)
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
Chapter VI, Article 37:
"Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council.
"If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate."
Chapter VII, Articles 39 - 51 (Article 51 spells out the self-defense rationale)
Article 51:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."
bush said 30 years.
Guess I wasn't aware of the fine print.
Lefties aren't trying to garner sympathy for white Christian men.
"The treaties the US signs are just that, treaties, which we may follow or not, or interpret ourselves or not, as we choose."
Not without violating the law, we don't.
But then, we have never, in our history, refrained from violating domestic or international law at whim.
"The federal government does not have the power to reduce the states to vassals of some hypothetical international body."
All states are subject to the law of the land. Treaties entered into by the federal government become the law of the land, and, as expressly stated in the Supremacy clause (posted so helpfully by Amanda), "the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby."
Lotta dumb people think they are smart.
Boy, Robert Cook, Mrs. Krabapple sure makes some important sounding rules!
I suggest that you lodge a complaint with the relevant authorities!
Maybe the UN will send a team of peacekeepers to arrest the evil doers! After they've stopped for a little R&R at a schoolyard.
Bruce said I somewhat disagree.
Except there is over 50 years of research that has found that the use of coercion does not lead to lasting behavior change. The Neoconservatives based the intervention on thought experiments and groupthink with no good tangible data.
Is it odd that the U.N. has never done what Robert Cook thinks the law requires? Nope. Not odd at all.
Don Quixote thinks Robert Cook looks ridiculous.
"The US can enter treaties and it can abrogate treaties, that is what means to be sovereign. It is that simple."
As I said earlier, if we don't wish to abide by our constitutional treaty obligations to the UN, we can always withdraw from membership. We have not withdrawn from membership, however, and we have not repudiated any portion of the charter, so we remain bound by it under law.
The invasion of Iraq was illegal.
That it was founded on lies simply compounds the criminality of the invasion.
If not coercion, we should pay the Danegeld.
Robert Cook:
If you stamp your feet, we will all be more likely to take your word for it.
Robert Cook said...
"The US can enter treaties and it can abrogate treaties, that is what means to be sovereign. It is that simple."
As I said earlier, if we don't wish to abide by our constitutional treaty obligations to the UN, we can always withdraw from membership. We have not withdrawn from membership, however, and we have not repudiated any portion of the charter, so we remain bound by it under law.
The invasion of Iraq was illegal.
That it was founded on lies simply compounds the criminality of the invasion.
3/27/16, 4:08 PM
Cook again reading comprehension is your friend. The Senate cannot ratify a treaty that abrogates the authority of the Congress which includes the power to declare war. The lies are just your political bias and ideology.
cubanbob:
Under the Robert Cook analysis, I would like to sell the rights to ownership of Robert Cook to a third party. Is that legitimate?
Oh yeah, I bet if the UN commanded the US to do something that Cook didn't approve of his deference to the international committee of despots and layabouts would vanish pretty quickly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTmfwklFM-M
was the question too difficult?
Where I live there are sometimes issues between the indigenes and us regular Americans. The self-appointed representatives of the indigenes never seem to lack for 'human rights lawyers' whom they pay to tell them that the American occupation of their land is AGAINST INTERNATIONAL LAW! The indigenes have apparently been instructed to repeat this phrase as often as possible, all the while they collect federal grants and student loans from an entity that they believe has no right to give them grants or student loans, lol. 'Cuz it's payback for the stolen land, man!
What a bunch of wankers! I believe that they hold solemn meetings of their 'We Hate Amerika!' club weekly, on land given them for that use by a state whose authority they do not recognize.
OK. I'll give it a go since my question seems to have embarassed our Comrade Bob.
" In May of 1948, Republican Senator Arthur H. Vandenburg proposed a resolution suggesting that the President seek a security treaty with Western Europe that would adhere to the United Nations charter but exist outside of the Security Council where the Soviet Union held veto power. The Vandenburg Resolution passed, and negotiations began for the North Atlantic Treaty."
Oh my. This appears to justify our military expendatures to help Europe defend itself. All with the aproval of the UN.
And all legal.
Bye Bob.
Althouse was sloppy to use "and" to connect anti-trade and anti-immigrant. BHO used "or."
Read literally, BHO's comment was very narrow, presumably a law prof should
realize this.
It would be great if Jaltcoh could cite at least one source for those messages we supposedly are hearing from so many people. (The comments sections of internet message boards don't count.)
I would appreciate it, because, unlike Jaltcoh, I am hearing those messages exactly nowhere.
About 40 years ago, I remember Sydney J. Harris observing to the effect that terrorism is violence by the weak, while war is violence by the strong.
That comes close, I guess. But that was 40 years ago.
Jaltcoh, I fear, has a long way to go.
Read literally, as in the inclusive versus exclusive or?
Send in the next clown, please.
Ah, the next clown arrived.
"Oh yeah, I bet if the UN commanded the US to do something that Cook didn't approve of his deference to the international committee of despots and layabouts would vanish pretty quickly."
Can you find anything in the UN Charter that gives the UN authority to "command us to do something"? Rather, it is a treaty agreement we voluntarily signed into the law of the land that prohibits the unilateral use (or or threat) of force against another country. We are one of the member nations of the UN Security Council, which means we have a prominent, even dominant, place in its proceedings. The charter's prohibition of unilateral war (or threats of war) is in service to the primary founding purpose of the UN, which was to prevent, insofar as possible, future wars between nations. (This was just post-WWII, when a great patch of the world had been devastated by a ghastly war.)
That said, if there were an obligation upon the United States under the UN Charter I would not suggest we had a right to freely ignore and violate or advocate that we do so...even though I'm sure we would, as we do with any obligation already upon us that we find too binding in any given situation.
"Oh my. This appears to justify our military expendatures to help Europe defend itself. All with the aproval of the UN.
And all legal.
Bye Bob."
NATO was formed to present a defense against Soviet aggression.
There was no self-defense rationale to invade Iraq and the reasons that were put forth for it were lies. NATO as an organization had no involvement with our invasion of Iraq, (even though some member nations of NATO did participate).
Our invasion and destruction of Iraq was illegal. (The expansion of our violence into myriad other nations in the region compounds and continues the criminality.)
The timeline of our criminal march to war.
Robert Cook:
Nice sidestep from defense to self-defense. LULZ
All:
Understand, for Robert Cook to be correct the Soviet Union, China, Iran, Iraq, Aregntina, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Libya, Kenya, Nigeria and all other signatories knowingly signed away their ability to threaten war.
But nobody seriously believes those countries believe those countries signed away such an ability.
Don Quixote still on hold.
The Lincoln Rewrite in the blood of half a million men had two aspects . When Lincoln was reelected and Lee surrendered effectively at that time we became an Indivisible Union no matter what the old words were argued to mean.
And the. covenant Document aspect of a Constitution had been effectively reinaugurated by blood. Judeo Christian scripture that was and is the cultural basis for the USA says a covenant must be inaugurated by blood.
We are a people of that Covenant as rewritten.
Birkel said...
cubanbob:
Under the Robert Cook analysis, I would like to sell the rights to ownership of Robert Cook to a third party. Is that legitimate?
3/27/16, 4:27 PM"
If you can find a cash buyer that is willing to buy, take the money and run and as for the buyer possession is 90% of the law. Remember he is occupying someone else's land-yours (somewhere you must be part indigenous) and the sale for cash is your just compensation.
"Understand, for Robert Cook to be correct the Soviet Union, China, Iran, Iraq, Aregntina, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Libya, Kenya, Nigeria and all other signatories knowingly signed away their ability to threaten war."
Yes, they did.
Did you tell them, Robert Cook? Because the signatories seem to have a different understanding that involves maintaining sovereignty.
Did you tell Russia? Ukraine?
Don mother Quixote fucking Cook.
cubanbob:
About a quarter Native American, actually.
At no time Bob did I mention Iraq.
I mentioned money spent on defense of Europe. Which we as sigbatories are obligated to do with the approval of the UN
You seem to have a problem following a line of reasoning that hasn't been fed to you by one of those websites you visit.
Rusty,
I certainly have a problem seeing how your non-sequitur about NATO explains why our illegal invasion of Iraq was legal. You make some mention of "defending Europe," yet Iraq was not threatening Europe. There was no self-defense basis for our invasion of Iraq, and no NATO-related operation. Do you think the NATO treaty nullifies our UN Charter treaty obligations? Is that your point?
When did defense become self-defense?
You keep pretending the terms are interchangeable.
They are not.
This ball of string is boring.
Birkel,
If you must be pedantic: there was no DEFENSE basis to attack Iraq. They were not threatening anyone, and we were neither defending ourselves nor anyone else.
We went there for the same reason any country goes to war: to take possession or control of the territory, and thereby to obtain possession or control of the territory's coveted resources.
It isn't a non-sequitur , Bob because I never mentioned Iraq. Apparently your script allows for no deviation from narrative.
So what's your point?
Except there is over 50 years of research that has found that the use of coercion does not lead to lasting behavior change. The Neoconservatives based the intervention on thought experiments and groupthink with no good tangible data.
My view is that you can either work with the grain, or against it. In the case of Iraq, we were working with the grain, with the flow, building up a Shiite majority military in a Shiite majority country, instead of the Sunni Arab dominated military that they had under SB. So, contrary to what is often the case with regime change, the natural tendency would be to move in the direction we pushed things, even if we weren't still pushing. Most often, it works the other way, by fighting the natural order of things, you are working against the grain, against the flow, and, realistically, once you stop pushing, things are liable to move back towards where things were before.
Good bye Bob.
I've wasted enough time on you and your juvenile, whatever it is people have told you to believe in.
Rusty:
Did you mistake Robert Cook for somebody willing to engage? He is here to be mocked, or nothing.
@Rusty, Terry's right. Cookie is so many sigmas to the left of the norm that he regards Barack Obama as being only negligibly different from Ronald Reagan.
"If you must be pedantic: there was no DEFENSE basis to attack Iraq. They were not threatening anyone, and we were neither defending ourselves nor anyone else."
More than once I have linked to the text of 2002's Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution in an attempt to force Robert Cook to acknowledge reality. He simply ignores it, and blathers about what his imagined reasons are for the use of force against Iraq by the US and its allies authorized by the US congress.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hjres114/text/enr
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ‘material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations’ and urged the President ‘to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations’;
And so on . . .
Terry, Colin Powell and Condi Rice, in February and July 2001, respectively, stated publicly that Saddam Hussein was no threat to anyone.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq was nothing but a bag of hot ass-wind, meant to pretty up and justify what was to be a criminal act as an act of necessity. It refers to the findings of international weapons inspectors, yet even as the eve of the invasion approached, Hans Blix's team of inspectors were in Iraq, had been for months, and had found NO sign or evidence of production facilities or new stocks of proscribed weapons. They were months from completing their inspections, but the day of invasion had already been established--showing that Bush's claim that "war would be a last choice" was a lie--and the inspectors were told to evacuate Iraq for their own safety. Heh. It sounds to me like they were worried the inspections would end months later with a conclusion not to their liking, as it would have erased their primary basis for urging the necessity and urgency of invasion.
It is indisputable: the invasion of Iraq was a crime, based on lies, and everyone in Washington complicit in the war's planning and execution is a war criminal. Every American soldier killed or grievously wounded for lies--for nothing--is the victim of the Bush administration's criminal actions, (not to mention all the Iraqis killed, injured, or forced into homelessness as refugees as their civil society was destroyed).
Wow. Cookie was on a roll here.
Glad I stayed away.
The USA is now a police state, the fatal blow being our "war of terror."
"The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq was nothing but a bag of hot ass-wind"
Come now, Robert Cook. It was passed by the House and Senate and signed and signed into law. It was the law of the land. And we all know how much you respect the law of the land.
But it was superseded by our treaty obligation with the UN Charter, which specifically has to do with the resolution of conflicts between nations.
By your logic, any country in the world can freely invade any other country, simply because their governing entities declare their actions "legal."
"The USA is now a police state "
Blame Myles Standish.
"It was passed by the House and Senate and signed and signed into law. It was the law of the land. And we all know how much you respect the law of the land."
Nope, it violates our treaty obligations under the UN Charter.
I think the second message is troll politics; We're seeing that more and more, with things like proposals from legislatures to required waiting periods for vasectomies like waiting periods for abortions; mandatory prostate exams like mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds.
So nobody really thinks that the random white guy who shoots up an abortion clinic is a 'terrorist' like a bunch of ISIS plotters. Different category. He was a crazy for one, with other mental health issues.
But they're 'sick and tired' and overwhelmed by the obvious and noticiable fact that lots of terrorists are brown people. So they want to 1) deflect that attention 2) provide some sauce for the goose.
The troll policy position is supposed to show the "other sides" hypocrisy or selectivity, or in other ways defang an opponent.
I think the petition to have open cary is a fake troll petition. It may have some real people fooled, but i think most know its a troll and are signing it to make others look foolish.
Based on Terry's last comment, we need to count the score:
Terry's score: Infinity
Cook's score : Dick
It never gives Robert Cook pause to wonder that all signatories reject quixotic reading of the UN Charter.
Carry on, Don Roberto.
UN Secretary General says Iraq invasion was illegal.
Which kleptocracy said what as represented by whom that I should give a wet shit about, Robert Cook?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा