Gee, where have we heard this before. In 2003, Dick Cheney assured us we'd be "greeted as liberators" in Iraq. https://t.co/gLXbQVsL5D
— Adam Jentleson 🎈🐢💧 (@AJentleson) January 3, 2020
३ जानेवारी, २०२०
Dancing in the streets.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२२९ टिप्पण्या:
229 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Per his Tweeter profile, Adam is a he/him.
No credibility. STFU, loser.
Leftwing Americans don't care. They hate Trump more than they love freedom for others.
Killing an international terrorist can never be wrong, unless Trump does it.
Any time any government official makes any announcements about our military actions, our military successes, the need for our actions, etc., they're lying through their fucking asses!
Stay away from our military bases. Stay away from our embassies.
The message is clear.
Some Iraqis are Iran sympathizers. Some hate Iran.
The ones who hate Iran danced.
But Americans should leave Iraq per State Department.
That's Scott Adams's take. The exterminated guy may have been a threat to Iran as well.
Geezer, Ann, we WERE greeted as liberators in Iraq.
Just because Bush and Bremer screwed up the rebuilding does not mean our action to remove Saddam was not good or popular in Iraq.
But Americans should leave Iraq per State Department.
The reason Americans should leave Iraq is because there are a lot of Iranian terrorists and soldiers there, not because of the Iraqis.
I have no idea what dancing in the streets signifies. It’s enough that we got rid of General Quds.
In 2003, Dick Cheney assured us we'd be "greeted as liberators" in Iraq.
As a matter of fact, that actually happened. Many Iraqis greeted US soldiers with cheers and handed them gifts.
Unfortunately, it didn't last.
BleachBit-and-Hammers said...
Leftwing Americans don't care. They hate Trump more than they love freedom for others
Leftwing Americans do care. They just hate Trump as much as they hate freedom for any
fify!
Wasn't OBL a humble religious leader that we assassinated? Obama should apologize for that?
@Althouse, commentator Patrick Henry is right. Bremer, Bush, and Cheney squandered a lot of good will with their policies.i
Good Hugh Hewitt interview with Michale Oren this morning.
MO: Well, I think there’s also an element of unpredictability about this president, which in international affairs, what can I say, is sometimes an advantage. I used to always say that under the Obama administration, I knew was ambassador pretty much, 95% of the time, I knew what that administration was going to do. The situation has pretty much reversed, sometimes, under this administration. So that is an advantage of not being predictable. And I don’t think the Iranians were expecting this. I think it caught them off guard. And I think the fact that it caught them off guard further restores American deterrence, because they’re not predictable.
A bit like Reagan. "The bombing begins in 5 minutes ." It was not a mistake, just psyching them out.
Big Mike said...
@Althouse, commentator Patrick Henry is right. Bremer, Bush, and Cheney squandered a lot of good will with their policies.i
Whose goodwill ? There is no goodwill in the Middle East, Bremer made it worse, certainly.
Some of us thought Iraq was the one Arab state that could be governed without tyrants. We were wrong.
“Dancing in the streets”?
I do hope they are happy to be rid of the murderous tool of the mullahs, but if they ever produce a celebratory music video as ghey as that one with Jagger-Bowie, all bets are off.
https://youtu.be/BHkhIjG0DKc
'we'd be "greeted as liberators" in Iraq.' Okay, you've convinced me. Let's not invade Iran.
Who cares what Harry Reids ex-coffee boy thinks about anything? Did he help his boss lie about Mitt Romneys taxes?
There is video of pro assassination demonstrations in Iraq, also graffiti in Iran. The latter seemed somewhat manufactured to me, but there have been previous demonstrations in Iraq protesting Iranian influence, so there is definitely some opposition there.
The assassination struck me as a spoiling attack, so I see no reason to doubt Pompeo on that count. It makes sense.
One hasn’t anything to do with the other.
The troops WERE greeted as liberators. No one remembers the toppling of the statues?
Yet another stupid, boneheaded move by the US that guarantees to escalate the conflict with Iran. But I have little doubt that the Ever Trumpers will trip over themselves to lick Trump's ass and defend this idiotic behavior.
The hype hack media already have us in a full blown war.
Robert.
Just so I'm understanding you correctly; Our embassy is not the sovereign soil of the United States and does not need to be protected? Protecting US citizens is a provocation? Clear this up for me , please.
Remember just a few months ago - the Trump hating left/D-media industrial complex went berserk after Trump pulled 50 troops out of Syria?
Good times.
For the left, they cheer for Benghazi failure. Hillary letting our people die is all cool when you have Susan Rice and the hack press available to spread the "it was a video" lie.
Cookie: "Any time any government official makes any announcements about our military actions, our military successes, the need for our actions, etc., they're lying through their fucking asses!"
Anything our military does that gets this kind of reaction from Cookie has to have been effective. That said, if anyone knows anything about lying through their fucking asses it would be Cookie.
@Rusty:
Robert.
Just so I'm understanding you correctly; Our embassy is not the sovereign soil of the United States and does not need to be protected? Protecting US citizens is a provocation? Clear this up for me , please.
So, for example, in response to the bombing of the embassy in Belgrade, it would be okay with you if the Chinese decided to assassinate the DOD's chief of staff? Clear this up for me, please.
’Yet another stupid, boneheaded move by the US that guarantees to escalate the conflict with Iran.
I like how you made an unknowable future outcome the foundation of your argument.
J. Farmer said...
"Yet another stupid, boneheaded move by the US that guarantees to escalate the conflict with Iran. But I have little doubt that the Ever Trumpers will trip over themselves to lick Trump's ass and defend this idiotic behavior. "
Jesus, J. It isn't an either or situation. According to the above statement when our embassies are attacked we should just sit there and take it. The killing of this man was a direct response to the attack on a US embassy. Quit attacking us and we'll quit killing the attackers. it's that simple.
Listening right now to Mitch McConnell; he's making a more articulate case for the elimination of Soleimani than anything I have heard from the Administration or its ennablers. GOP establishment at its best.
I think that there is an interesting question about the legal justification for the action, but given that it happened in Iraq, apparently under the AUMF for Iraq from 2002, I think that the Administration has a good argument to make. The problem was in not consulting with Congress under that AUMF.
Anything our military does that gets this kind of reaction from Cookie has to have been effective. That said, if anyone knows anything about lying through their fucking asses it would be Cookie.
Yeah, remember all those lying idiots who were against the Iraq War. Thank god we didn't listen to them!
@Beasts of England:
I like how you made an unknowable future outcome the foundation of your argument.
If the Pentagon's chief of staff was assassinated by a foreign adversary while in an allied country, how do you think we would react?
Oh, and the brilliant Congressman Justin Amash raises the right question(s) about any future war with Iran:
https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1213141191845388288
J. Farmer said...
Yet another stupid, boneheaded move by the US that guarantees to escalate the conflict with Iran. But I have little doubt that the Ever Trumpers will trip over themselves to lick Trump's ass and defend this idiotic behavior.
What if they had breached the embassy killing some of the Marines, and then had taken hostage the rest of them? What would you have done? Nothing? Does the words Jimmy Carter mean anything to you? How about Benghazi? Were you ok with four dead Americans in the fiasco called Benghazi where Clinton/Obama did absolutely nothing? Thank God for Trump to fight back.
@Rusty:
Jesus, J. It isn't an either or situation. According to the above statement when our embassies are attacked we should just sit there and take it. The killing of this man was a direct response to the attack on a US embassy. Quit attacking us and we'll quit killing the attackers. it's that simple.
And you know this how? Oh right, the government said so. It must be true.
Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck: "Oh, and the brilliant Congressman Justin Amash raises the right question(s) about any future war with Iran"
Justin Amash has zero understanding of foreign policy, military affairs and he is completely and utterly owned by the Chinese communists due to his family business which has its entire supply chain originating out of China.
Further, Amash is a dead man walking in his district and you won't be seeing him anymore except on MSNBC where he will provide additional FakeCon "True Conservative" lefty talking points.
Yet another stupid, boneheaded move by the US that guarantees to escalate the conflict with Iran. But I have little doubt that the Ever Trumpers will trip over themselves to lick Trump's ass and defend this idiotic behavior.
Given that you think everything is hopeless, Farmer, it seems that any positive action is idiotic.
Killing the Quds commander was a positive step. I don't worry about escalation because the mullahs in Tehran don't need any excuse for escalation.
@AllenS:
What if they had breached the embassy killing some of the Marines, and then had taken hostage the rest of them? What would you have done? Nothing? Does the words Jimmy Carter mean anything to you? How about Benghazi? Were you ok with four dead Americans in the fiasco called Benghazi where Clinton/Obama did absolutely nothing? Thank God for Trump to fight back.
Who is "they?" Hilarious how the US media is the fake news lying media until they tell you something you want to hear, and then they are Johnny on the Spot.
It's foggy right now. It's best to be on alert for the worst but hope for the best. The horse has left the barn.
Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck: "Listening right now to Mitch McConnell; he's making a more articulate case for the elimination of Soleimani than anything I have heard from the Administration or its ennablers. GOP establishment at its best."
Trump administration doesn't bother consulting with Congress (since they leak operational plans) and executes a brilliant counterstrike against the most prolific global terrorist and murderer of Americans for the last 20 years.
GOPe Senator then speaks from the well of the Senate and Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck gives the Senator all the credit.
LOL
You're right Chuck, that IS the GOPe at its "best".
@Francisco D:
Killing the Quds commander was a positive step. I don't worry about escalation because the mullahs in Tehran don't need any excuse for escalation.
That just demonstrates how ignorant and simple-minded your view of the issue is. Of course you don't worry. You, like every other keyboard cowboy, won't have to pay the price for this escalation.
"Titty-twister Chuck said...
Oh, and the brilliant Congressman Justin Amash raises the right question(s) about any future war with Iran:
https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1213141191845388288"
I clicked through and this is what Twitter told me:
You may also like:
Thomas Massie
Ted Lieu
George Conway
Adam Schiff
Jake Tapper
I'll bet TTC loves them all.
Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck: "The problem was in not consulting with Congress under that AUMF."
LOL
Just add it to your sham-peachment.
So, for example, in response to the bombing of the embassy in Belgrade, it would be okay with you if the Chinese decided to assassinate the DOD's chief of staff? Clear this up for me, please.
For this to be a meaningful analogy Suliemani's attacks on American bases would have to have been accidents. Farmer is just as dishonest as the left when it comes to defending his sacred cows.
But imagine for a moment our military planned and executed an intentional attack on the Chinese embassy and we celebrated it. How fake would our outrage be if the Chinese killed the American General responsible in a targeted retaliatory attack? The very same people outraged today would be arguing that action was less outrageous than the attack on the embassy and thus did not justify retaliation.
@Rick:
For this to be a meaningful analogy Suliemani's attacks on American bases would have to have been accidents. Farmer is just as dishonest as the left when it comes to defending his sacred cows.
Right. The bombing of the embassy was an "accident." And you know this how? Oh right, because the Clinton administration told you it was an accident. Case closed!
readering: "But Americans should leave Iraq per State Department."
And?...........
@ Farmer
We already tried not blowing Suleimani up on numerous occasions. It didn't help.
I'm still trying to recover from the nuclear war with North Korea that Trump started.
I hope this newest conflict doesn't interfere with the older one.
Tiny thought experiment:
1) Your friend drives his car to a crime-ridden neighborhood and leaves it running with the keys in the ignition over night.
2) Your friend wakes the next morning to find his car stolen.
3) You tell your friend it was pretty stupid and reckless to leave the keys in the car in that neighborhood.
4) Your friend replies, "Oh, you're blaming me? Nobody has a right to steal my car."
How convinced would you be by this exchange?
’If the Pentagon's chief of staff was assassinated by a foreign adversary while in an allied country, how do you think we would react?’
Trying to promote your unknowable future outcome doesn't provide support for your original argument either.
Rep. Elissa Slotkin, the freshman moderate Democrat from Michigan's (swing) 8th Congressional District was a CIA analyst whose work was for a time devoted to in-theater Shia militia analysis from inside Iraq. She knows more about Soleimani than all but a tiny percentage of DoD and CIA analysts.
Her position is simply that the Trump Administration needs to make its strategic aims clear to Congress ASAP.
J. Farmer said...
So, for example, in response to the bombing of the embassy in Belgrade, it would be okay with you if the Chinese decided to assassinate the DOD's chief of staff? Clear this up for me, please.
So the US attacked an embassy on purpose?
Iran fully backed, organized and supported this attack. Did the US do the same in Belgrade? Clinton said it was a mistake and apologized. I agree that someone should have been fired for screwing up but not everyone is as perfect as you are.
You just have to make dishonest arguments don't you.
Per Martha, they were dancing in the streets of Detroit in 1964. Then look what happened.
Totally rubbleized. Perhaps even moreso than Bagdad.
Dancing is dangerous.
Plenty of people were danging in the streets of bagdad in 2003. Plenty of Iraqis did greet us as liberators. Not all but certainly many.
Read Christopher Hitchens, for example. He was there.
John Henry
@Bob Boyd:
We already tried not blowing Suleimani up on numerous occasions. It didn't help.
Didn't help what? What the fuck are you even talking about?
That just demonstrates how ignorant and simple-minded your view of the issue is. Of course you don't worry. You, like every other keyboard cowboy, won't have to pay the price for this escalation.
You overestimate your ability to handle complex thinking, Farmer. That may be one of the reasons you are depressed.
You also make a mistake in thinking that people who favor straightforward action don't understand complexity. You can get tangled up in a ball of yarn with no way out or you can take calculated risks to disentangle. Every action has a price as does all inaction.
Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck: "Her position is simply that the Trump Administration needs to make its strategic aims clear to Congress ASAP."
I'm sure Trump will get right on that and let Congress know his exact plans so your dem allies can relay that to the Iranians. Possibly via your hero John Kerry.
Chuck said...
Oh, and the brilliant Congressman Justin Amash raises the right question(s) about any future war with Iran:
https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1213141191845388288
Justin Amash is a paid for Chinese shill and a traitor.
No decent person cares what he thinks even if he mouths the right words.
So Iran is the pissed off friend and Suleimani is the car?
Her position is simply that the Trump Administration needs to make its strategic aims clear to Congress ASAP.
So they can leak it?
Read Christopher Hitchens, for example. He was there.
And he got pretty much everything about Iraq wrong.
Darkisland: "Plenty of people were danging in the streets of bagdad in 2003. Plenty of Iraqis did greet us as liberators. Not all but certainly many.
Read Christopher Hitchens, for example. He was there."
Indeed. But then the Bushies allowed the deep staters to begin their mission creep and on and on it went until no one was dancing in the streets.
@Bob Boyd:
So Iran is the pissed off friend and Suleimani is the car?
No, America is the pissed off friend. We just can't understand why countries get mad at us for wanting to bomb and overthrow them.
"Breaking:
John Bolton has been hospitalized after his erection from the Iran news lasted more than 4 hours."
(A Comment @) https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/01/02/soleimani-dead-sketchy-details-emerging-airstrikes-at-baghdad-airport-cargo-area/
Farmer: "And he got pretty much everything about Iraq wrong."
He didn't get that wrong.
Iran built a scud missile bunker aimed at Israel.
Spent a lot of $$$ we took that out too.
Those nut jobs have a 12th Iman fixation.
I highly doubt, tho they’ve been trying to bait us, they’re going to get their wish.
1500 years this shit’s been going on.
Even the Germans have stated this removal of Soleimani was the result of and in response to Iran's repeated malevolent actions.
J. Farmer said...
@Bob Boyd:
We already tried not blowing Suleimani up on numerous occasions. It didn't help.
Didn't help what? What the fuck are you even talking about?
Iran is the major open State supporter of terrorism in the region.
They are constantly attacking their neighbors and subverting regimes.
That is what he is talking about dummy.
Iman: "Even the Germans have stated this removal of Soleimani was the result of and in response to Iran's repeated malevolent actions."
Putin controls Merkel!!!!
Stop shouting and acting on Death to America become a trade partner and settle down.
Improve your citizens’ lot.
It’s that easy Farmer.
You know what is funniest about all this?
Foreign policy/Military affairs moron Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck leaning heavily on Foreign policy/Military affairs moron and ChiCom owned asset Amash for guidance.
This isn't the blind leading the blind, its the decapitated leading the decapitated.
Did you ever think the Saudi’s would do the minor reforms they’re doing?
@Bob Boyd:
So Iran is the pissed off friend and Suleimani is the car?
That is good work.
+1
But smug is immune to humor.
@Achilles:
Iran is the major open State supporter of terrorism in the region.
They are constantly attacking their neighbors and subverting regimes.
That is what he is talking about dummy.
And this is different from Saudi Arabia supporting the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, helping to create ISIS in Syria, and giving American-provided arms to Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula how?
Iran's Death Cult has been decapitated. That is a good thing.
Iran's Death Cult has been decapitated. That is a good thing.
Right. They'll never be able to replace their Quds commander.
Golda Meir was right.
Maybe the CIA should’ve been focused on this shit instead of attempting to take down a duly-elected president?
the closest comparison in Iraq, among the baath, was izzat Ibrahim of the nasquabandi brigades, he coordinated the attacks with the salafi elements who came into the country,
J. Farmer said...
Yet another stupid, boneheaded move by the US that guarantees to escalate the conflict with Iran. But I have little doubt that the Ever Trumpers will trip over themselves to lick Trump's ass and defend this idiotic behavior.
This hurts you and I like it, but even without you this is excellent.
If we strike at no other country in MENA we should strike Iran. Hell, I would have praised Obama if he had done this. In fact I condemn GWB for not doing it. PDT doing it is just what I would have expected and hoped for, and quite justifies my votes for him, present and future.
This ooh they did this we did that, we dis this so they could do that...so childish. The point of war is to do and not to be done to. You've expressed that you are a sexual top or dom: you fuck, you don't get fucked. Surely that asymmetry is unjust? Surely your catamites should get to sodomize you equally?
Put another less personal way, since Iran bombed a Jewish community center in Argentina, Argentina or Israel should/may bomb civilian targets in Iran?
As for the Chinese Embassy. China should have done whatever they felt was right. Please, China, attack us. Please, just try to assassinate William Cohen. Please, take any action against American interests you can that you're not already doing. Oh wait, that would be nil.
Doing to them more/better than they do to us is called WINNING. You just want Iran to win instead of the US. It's ok, I guess you're allowed. Maybe when you flee the US you should go there.
As for keyboard cowboys paying the price, neither of us is in the sandbox, but New York is a more likely target than Tampa, so, there's that.
Farmer: "And this is different from Saudi Arabia supporting the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, helping to create ISIS in Syria, and giving American-provided arms to Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula how?"
Look, this is a completely fair point with one real wrinkle that must be acknowledged: The ruling members of the Saudi ruling family are paying the sunni radicals in their midst protection money. It's that simple. The ruling members of the Saudi family are more interested in their yachts and palatial Paris abodes and getting on those private jets as frequently as possible so they can break out the bubbly as soon as they leave Saudi airspace.
The Iranian leadership caste are in it as fervent believers.
So, there is that.
And the Saudi's do work with the Israeli's and the Egyptians (now that LLR-lefty Chuck's "magnificent" obama's Muslim Brotherhood punks are no longer running that nation) and the Jordanians and Kuwaiti's and a couple others.
'Overthrow is within reach': Leader of Iranian resistance group hails death of Qassem Soleimani
"The problem was in not consulting with Congress under that AUMF."
Can you imagine letting Adam Schiff know beforehand?
I can't.
when we went after mugniyeh, who was hezbollahs field commander in 2008 is similar, bob baer wrote a whole book about the fellow,
Farmer: "Right. They'll never be able to replace their Quds commander."
The Japanese "replaced" Yamamoto, but lets just say there was a significant drop off in talent.
For Banned Commenter and historial ignoramus LLR-lefty Chuck's benefit, Admiral Yamamoto was really clever and his replacement was far less clever.
You're welcome.
'Overthrow is within reach': Leader of Iranian resistance group hails death of Qassem Soleimani
The National Council of Resistance of Iran is a Mojahedin-e Khalq front group. They are a Marxist/Islamist cult that sided with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War and is widely loathed within Iran.
yes, that was mousavian, who is the regime's scholar in Princeton, think of him like putzi hanstaegl, Harvard '11, he was the one who admitted to the ayatollah he had deceived the p 5+1
To me, the biggest question remains: is President Trump ready for the revolution he has unleashed? With this single act, the United States has set in motion big historical forces for positive change. Are we prepared to help the forces of freedom against tyranny and oppression?
via http://ace.mu.nu/
So, for example, in response to the bombing of the embassy in Belgrade, it would be okay with you if the Chinese decided to assassinate the DOD's chief of staff? Clear this up for me, please.
Now I understand. The attack on our Baghdad embassy was an accident. Thanks for the illuminating info, Farmer. I would have sworn it was deliberate.
Seriously did you ever think you’d see the day where Israel is actually working with other Muslim countries ?
The human condition is getting better it will always be rocky because you’re dealing with human beings
@Drago:
The Japanese "replaced" Yamamoto, but lets just say there was a significant drop off in talent.
For Banned Commenter and historial ignoramus LLR-lefty Chuck's benefit, Admiral Yamamoto was really clever and his replacement was far less clever.
You're welcome.
Had you ever even heard of Qasem Soleimani before yesterday?
and the badr brigade, the army of the righteous, and associated parties are Iranian affiliates, next question,
Trump didn’t consult Congress? Well, when seconds count….
Did trump consult any lawyers ?
same with khalid sheikh mohammed, they tried replacing him on three different occasions,
First in his class at West Point.
Besides if he stayed in Lebanon or he stayed in Iran he’d still be alive but he couldn’t help himself he had to be in Iraq.
@Seeing Red:
Seriously did you ever think you’d see the day where Israel is actually working with other Muslim countries ?
The human condition is getting better it will always be rocky because you’re dealing with human beings
Israel has been working with Egypt and Jordan for decades. And Israel has had a working, if quiet, relationship with Saudi Arabia for years. They, like the Americans, have an interest in supporting authoritarian forces who will keep a lid on popular sentiment. The Saudis keep this quiet because they have to pay lip service to the Salafist clerical sect which is the source of their legitimacy as the guardian of the two mosques.
Can you imagine letting Adam Schiff know beforehand?
I can't.
No kidding. Adam Schitt(D) is a dangerous fraud.
Besides if he stayed in Lebanon or he stayed in Iran he’d still be alive but he couldn’t help himself he had to be in Iraq.
I guess that's why our military commanders never travel to allied countries.
Farmer: "Had you ever even heard of Qasem Soleimani before yesterday?"
The head of the IRGC? Yes Farmer. You'll find many current and former flag staff officers are a tad more informed on these matters than Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck's hero Justin Amash (I-ChiComs)
Well if we had actually read Rantburg or strategy page or any of the other military-leaning blogs, probably.
Farmer: "I guess that's why our military commanders never travel to allied countries."
I would hang tight on that idea for now. Something tells me we may find out that Senor Soleimani was involved in some "interesting" activities in Iraq which may have included direct action against the current Iraqi govt due to the Iranians looking to perhaps install a more compliant dude at the top.
Just sayin.
If this were just about the Hooligans at the Iraq embassy, assassinating this guy would have been an overreaction.
But Iran has been too aggressive toward the US. They don’t own the Middle East. We’ve got some interests there and are invited guests.
Iran should really make a deal. Trump is probably too eager to cut a deal — it will be likely marginally better than the Obama deal.
The sanctions aren’t going anywhere. They are better off as friends with the US than with China and Russia.
Of course, this is all conjecture and we won't know for sure until the Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck designated Brilliant Beyond All Measure Justin Amash of ChiCom Family Business Supply Chain Fame checks in after detailed discussions with Admiral Inga and Field Marshall Freder.
The Mullahs know we have some spies among them with good intelligence. This should bother them the most.
Time to come to the table.
So, for example, in response to the bombing of the embassy in Belgrade, it would be okay with you if the Chinese decided to assassinate the DOD's chief of staff? Clear this up for me, please.
So, for example, because Americans had a little peripheral involvement with the Opium Wars, it's okay with you that China decided to poison food and drug exports to America with heavy metals, melamine and fentanyl?
The head of the IRGC? Yes Farmer. You'll find many current and former flag staff officers are a tad more informed on these matters than Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck's hero Justin Amash (I-ChiComs)
Yep, "a tad more."
"We will be greeted as liberators" was correct, but not 100% correct. A great many Iraqis - possibly a large majority - were happy to be liberated from Saddam. But the rest of that quote should have been "but not by everybody." And the rest of the guys made life hell for Iraqis and Americans for many years, a prospect to which the war's architects and supporters seem not to have given much thought.
John F. Burns was the NYT's man in Iraq, and reported:
BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 9 — Saddam Hussein's rule collapsed in a matter of
hours today across much of this capital city as ordinary Iraqis took to
the streets in their thousands to topple Mr. Hussein's statues, loot
government ministries and interrogation centers and to give a cheering,
often tearful welcome to advancing American troops.
...Army and Marine Corps units moving into
the districts of eastern Baghdad where many of the city's five million
people live finally met the kind of adulation from ordinary Iraqis that
American advocates of a war to topple Mr. Hussein had predicted.
Much of Baghdad became, in a moment, a showcase of unbridled enthusiasm
for America, as much as it metamorphosed into a crucible of unbridled
hatred for Mr. Hussein and his 24-year rule.
American troops, but almost as much any Westerner caught up in the tide
of people rushing into the streets, were met with scenes that summoned
comparisons to the freeing of Eastern Europe 14 years ago.
McCullough: "Iran should really make a deal. Trump is probably too eager to cut a deal — it will be likely marginally better than the Obama deal."
Nope.
Actually, from an Iranian point of view, why would they cut a deal now? The Iranians are being reassured every single day by the obama/Biden-ites that if they just hang tight OrangeManBad will be gone soon and then the Iranians can have their nukes and regional influence and more cash than they could ever count from the dems/LLR-lefty types.
So, if I'm the Iranians, the last thing I do is make a deal with Trump at this point and instead, I try to stir up trouble and create events that the dems/far left/LLR-lefty can exploit to try and drive Trump from power in Nov.
Time will tell.Expect every action against USA to be labeled as "retaliation".
But the real impact, one can legitimately wager, will be quite different from what you’ve been hearing so far from most of the U.S. and international media.
Rather than engendering some massive Iranian “retaliation,” as many talking heads have been warning, I believe this strike will throw the Iranian regime back on its heels, as wannabe successors contemplate their careers vaporizing in a U.S. drone strike and Iran’s civilian leaders fret that they have been exposed as emperors without clothes.
Put simply, the aura of the Iranian regime’s invincibility is over.
They have pushed us and our allies repeatedly, and have been encouraged by the modest response from U.S. political and military leaders until now.
But with this strike, the gloves are off. And the leadership in Tehran – and more importantly, the people of Iran – can see it.
Suleymani was not some run-of-the-mill terrorist. He was worst of the worst; a man with more blood on his hands than even Osama bin Laden. Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, Afghanistan, 9/11, Benghazi: all of them were his doing.
But he was also the most respected and the only charismatic military leader to have emerged since the 1979 Islamist revolution in Iran.
No other leader in Iran today even comes close to Suleymani for sheer star power.
This is a huge loss for the Tehran regime; bigger, indeed, than if the Supreme Leader himself (who actually is a nobody) died or was killed.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/01/bye-bye-suleymani-kenneth-r-timmerman/
Farmer: "Yep, "a tad more."
Well, I guess you would know.
@Nichevo:
So, for example, because Americans had a little peripheral involvement with the Opium Wars, it's okay with you that China decided to poison food and drug exports to America with heavy metals, melamine and fentanyl?
Had it been up to me, China would've never gotten most favored nation status in the first place.
J. Farmer said...Right. The bombing of the embassy was an "accident." And you know this how? Oh right, because the Clinton administration told you it was an accident. Case closed!
I find it interesting you offer this nutjobbery immediately after demanding to know how other people "know" something. Explain how you know this Farmer.
It's revealing how quick the conspiracy nutters reveal themselves when their shibboleths don't hold up.
Original Mike said...
"The problem was in not consulting with Congress under that AUMF."
Can you imagine letting Adam Schiff know beforehand?
I can't.
Now that we know, through the continuing exposure of the Trump Administration's internal communications, from folks like Mulvaney and Duffey, that the Administration is, from the top down, populated with a significant number of lawless pricks determined to serve Trump's personal interest at the expense of American national interests.
https://www.justsecurity.org/67863/exclusive-unredacted-ukraine-documents-reveal-extent-of-pentagons-legal-concerns/
So yeah, I can understand a lot of mutual distrust. It's why this President needs to be impeached and removed. It is needed for American national security.
Farmer: "Had it been up to me, China would've never gotten most favored nation status in the first place."
No argument there.
If Pompeo genuinely expects Iranians to be grateful to America that our military killed one of their most popular and respected commanders, he is in for quite a shock. This statement fits a larger pattern of the administration’s complete lack of understanding of Iran and its internal politics. The vast majority of Iranians today views the U.S. unfavorably, and almost the same number had a favorable view of Soleimani. According to last survey’s University of Maryland survey, 82% of Iranians had a favorable opinion of Soleimani. 59% held a very favorable view of him. Killing him will not only intensify anti-American sentiment in the country, but it will very likely make Soleimani even more popular in death than he was in life. In what universe would people celebrate the killing of one of their war heroes by a hated foreign power?
The Dangerous Delusions Of Iran Hawks
Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck: "So yeah, I can understand a lot of mutual distrust. It's why this President needs to be impeached and removed. It is needed for American national security."
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
OMG
My sides are splitting!
Too funny.
Hey Chuck, I have to tell you that when you pull this stuff everyone knows you've surrendered on a topic!!
I can't wait till we circle back around to the Great Pecan Pie Crisis!!
@Rick:
I find it interesting you offer this nutjobbery immediately after demanding to know how other people "know" something. Explain how you know this Farmer.
It's revealing how quick the conspiracy nutters reveal themselves when their shibboleths don't hold up.
I don't know. But I am not prepared to simply take Clinton's word for it. Perhaps you are. But most importantly, the Chinese never accepted the claim that it was merely an accident. But if you'd like some food for thought, here is A New Conspiracy Theory About the CIA's 1999 Bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade
Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck: "So yeah, I can understand a lot of mutual distrust. It's why this President needs to be impeached and removed."
Hmmmmm, someone help me out here. Did LLR-lefty Chuck's beloved dems include "mutual distrust" as one of their "powerful" "irrefutable" Articles of Galactic Impeachment?
J Farmer,
Yes I agree, no one would be convinced by the exchange in your car theft analogy. However, it is a completely inapt analogy.
(Assuming the Quds Force was responsible for the causus belli of invading our embassy.) Are you saying the U.S. establishing an embassy in the boundaries of an allied foreign power is equivalent to leaving the keys in your car in a bad neighborhood? A third-party foreign power then attacks that embassy inside of a sovereign nation and you think the U.S. should be blamed?
Our actions establishing an embassy are clearly proper. I believe a brutal response to an act of war committed against that embassy is also clearly proper. You seem to be arguing the opposite.
[IMHO it appears that you believe that we have not proven that the Quds Force was the source of the attack. However, you have not clarified your thinking on that point, and are instead arguing that our response is improper. It certainly could be true that it was a false flag attack, but you keep denying the propriety of any response without that important clarification.]
I had kind of hoped those days were over to a certain degree but if that is the requirement that we must meet farmer then that is what we must do .
The Mullahs are worried that whoever they promote to replace Soleimani will be one of our guys.
The Mullahs don’t fear the Iranian population. They fear a military coup.
he was a worthy adversary, was he an honorable man, certainly not, he wasn't a Rommel, more like a skorzeny or a sepp dietrich,
I wont know what to think of the Belgrade embassy situation until He Who Must Be Listened To Justin Amash (I-ChiComs) thinks about it.
Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck, could you contact Justin's office (I'm assuming you wont need a Chinese to English translation guide) and get his opinion on this matter?
J. Farmer said...
I don't know.
Since you now admit that was a pathetic effort at distraction you're not willing to stand behind lets return to the original point. Your comparison of this attack to the Chinese Embassy attack shows you and everyone else outraged today would have the exact opposite position -that the attack was retaliatory and did not justify escalation - if the roles were reversed.
"The problem was in not consulting with Congress under that AUMF."
The problem there is timing (and yes, secrecy). They found the Quds commander who had most likely planned and orchestrated the attack on our Iraqi embassy in Iraq. Much different situation than if they had found him in Iran. If the Administration waited until they Congress had been briefed, they risked missing their target of opportunity. And that doesn't include the real possibility that the operation would be leaked. How could they inform Congress and not inform the Gang of Eight, which includes HSCI chair Schifty and SSCI vice chair Warner, both notorious for their leaking of highly classified information for partisan political gain? The AUMF doesn't require that Congress be notified of time critical operations in advance, and if it did, it would violate Separation of Powers, by infringing on the President's plenary powers as Commander in Chief and to conduct foreign policy.
Just look at how desperately LLR-lefty Chuck and his dem allies are spinning today to try and blunt the obvious powerful message sent in just the right way for just the right purpose against just the right folks.
Once again, the LLR-lefty Chuck Axiom holds, and is as follows: If LLR-lefty Chuck is angry and defensive, good things are happening for the United States of America.
Bruce, LLR-lefty Chuck knows all that.
It's precisely why he wanted Trump to do that. It would undermine the entire effort and then LLR-lefty Chuck and his far left dem/anti-American allies could claim Trump failed.
If American troops were killed in the effort so much the better from LLR-lefty Chuck's point of view.
J. Farmer writes: But most importantly, the Chinese never accepted the claim that it was merely an accident.
But most importantly, Iran did not offer an apology to the United States for accidentally attacking their embassy.
Any time any government official makes any announcements about our military actions, our military successes, the need for our actions, etc., they're lying through their fucking asses!
I submit that the clause "about out military actions, out military successes, the need for our actions, etc.," is un-needed.
Posted from another thread:
madAsHell: "You know......Trump is making Obama look completely incompetent.
Who would have guessed that a senator from Illinois could be such a fuck up??
1/3/20, 12:13 PM"
And that, my friend, is precisely why Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck is spluttering about in a flailing fashion. His "magnificent" obama and wonderful Biden have been further exposed as empty-suited morons and if there is one thing LLR-lefty Chuck will not countenance, its his bro-mance buddy obambi being made to look bad.
@Rick:
Since you now admit that was a pathetic effort at distraction you're not willing to stand behind lets return to the original point. Your comparison of this attack to the Chinese Embassy attack shows you and everyone else outraged today would have the exact opposite position -that the attack was retaliatory and did not justify escalation - if the roles were reversed.
By all means, Rick, please lay out the evidence that led you to conclude it was an "accident." I don't know what actually happened, but unlike you I am not going to just take Clinton's word for it.
@Seeing Red:
I had kind of hoped those days were over to a certain degree but if that is the requirement that we must meet farmer then that is what we must do .
Apologies but I don't actually know what you are referring to with this statement.
"[IMHO it appears that you believe that we have not proven that the Quds Force was the source of the attack. However, you have not clarified your thinking on that point, and are instead arguing that our response is improper. It certainly could be true that it was a false flag attack, but you keep denying the propriety of any response without that important clarification.]"
I think that there was intelligence that it was a Quds operation. But that really doesn't matter - the Quds commander had been responsible for the deaths of a number of Americans, thus making him a legitimate military target. No different than all of the al Quaeda and ISIS commanders taken out from the air over the years. If he had been in Iran, instead of Iraq, the calculations would have been very different. Taking out specific Iranians in Iran from the air challenges Iranian sovereignty, and arguably violates international law and norms. It would, essentially, have been an act of war. This wasn't, and much of the Middle Easy likely gave a sigh of relief.
@Seeing Red:
I had kind of hoped those days were over to a certain degree but if that is the requirement that we must meet farmer then that is what we must do .
Apologies but I don't actually know what you are referring to with this statement.
Drago said...
Farmer: "Had it been up to me, China would've never gotten most favored nation status in the first place."
No argument there.
No argument, violent agreement in fact, but it's still ducking the question. JF, you seem desperate.
Farmer: "By all means, Rick, please lay out the evidence that led you to conclude it was an "accident." I don't know what actually happened, but unlike you I am not going to just take Clinton's word for it."
Realistically, I'm not sure there is any "evidence" that could be "laid out" that would be acceptable to you, or anyone else for that matter.
For instance, we still have LLR-lefties running around who think Kavanaugh is a gang rapist and the hoax dossier is true and Trump colluded.
J. Farmer said... I am not going to just take Clinton's word for it.
By all means hide behind that glass thimble.
They actually knew what plane some of them arrived on from Lebanon.
Are you saying the U.S. establishing an embassy in the boundaries of an allied foreign power is equivalent to leaving the keys in your car in a bad neighborhood? A third-party foreign power then attacks that embassy inside of a sovereign nation and you think the U.S. should be blamed?
No, I am saying that the embassy protests did not appear out of the blue. The US chose to bomb targets in Iraq, against the protestation of Iraqi leaders, in a manner that was certain to inflame anti-American sentiment in the country. And anti-American reprisals in response were totally predictable. If you go to into a bar and start shoving people around, you shouldn't be surprised if someone decides to react by punching you in the face.
[IMHO it appears that you believe that we have not proven that the Quds Force was the source of the attack. However, you have not clarified your thinking on that point, and are instead arguing that our response is improper. It certainly could be true that it was a false flag attack, but you keep denying the propriety of any response without that important clarification.]
I certainly don't believe that. And given the government's facility for lying in order to provide a pretext to military engagement, I think everyone should take such claims with a huge grain of salt.
@Rick:
By all means hide behind that glass thimble.
By all means explain to us the evidence that led you to conclude it was an accident. I'll wait.
Bruce Hayden said...It would, essentially, have been an act of war. This wasn't, and much of the Middle Easy likely gave a sigh of relief.
I don't know why you jump through hoops to deny this is an act of war. Suleimani's and Iran's actions have been acts of war for decades [revealingly this has drawn effectively zero criticism from those using this characterization to feign outrage today]. Even if it is an act of war since it is in response to the same it is still not an escalation. The "act of war" characterization is completely irrelevant.
J. Farmer said...
By all means explain to us the evidence that led you to conclude it was an accident. I'll wait.
If you sit real still maybe you can convince yourself others can't see you.
@Nichevo:
No argument, violent agreement in fact, but it's still ducking the question. JF, you seem desperate.
You're right. I am desperate not to see the US dragged into yet another stupid, pointless, counterproductive war. And the question, "So, for example, because Americans had a little peripheral involvement with the Opium Wars, it's okay with you that China decided to poison food and drug exports to America with heavy metals, melamine and fentanyl?" is nonsensical. It in fact perfectly illustrates my car analogy. It wouldn't be "okay with" me that my friend's car was stolen, but I'd still point out that he made a series of foolish decisions that vastly increased the likelihood it would be stolen.
Farmer: "You're right. I am desperate not to see the US dragged into yet another stupid, pointless, counterproductive war."
I think we all agree on that.
But that doesn't mean this strike was wrong or will absolutely lead to that result.
@Rick:
If you sit real still maybe you can convince yourself others can't see you.
Instead of just attacking me personally, just have the balls to admit you don't actually have any evidence and can't justify why you believe it was an accident. It'll be a good little character builder for you.
@Drago:
But that doesn't mean this strike was wrong or will absolutely lead to that result.
Very few people thought on June 28, 1914 that millions would be dead and Europe would be in ruins four years later. That's the problem with this kind of escalation. It can very quickly spiral out of hands.
@Farmer, you are thinking in adjectives, they don't help make your case.
J. Farmer said...
Instead of just attacking me personally,
I'm criticizing your technique of distraction. Maybe you should learn what a personal attack is before mentioning it again.
It'll be a good little character builder for you.
I'm satisfied watching you discredit yourself.
That's the problem with this kind of escalation. It can very quickly spiral out of hands.
Said no winner, ever.
Farmer: "Very few people thought on June 28, 1914 that millions would be dead and Europe would be in ruins four years later."
Dude, once mobilization started by the major powers there was ZERO chance any nation was not going to continue to full war footing and advancing troops to boundaries.
Zero chance.
Logistically any nation that either slowed mobilization and/or demobilized first was putting themselves at existential risk.
And once those forces were fully mobilized and standing there bayonet to bayonet and considering the animosities that existed (pull up a list of European wars in the 1800's) war was inevitable.
Hell, Germany and Italy had just been unified 30 years earlier after 50 years worth of wars and conflicts!
Blogger Robert Cook said...
Any time any government official makes any announcements about our military actions, our military successes, the need for our actions, etc., they're lying through their fucking asses!
So, we lost world war 2, commie?
"...This action by President Trump and our military was in direct response to Iranian aggression orchestrated by General Soleimani and his proxies," Graham continued. "If Iran continues to attack America and our allies, they should pay the heaviest of prices, which includes the destruction of their oil refineries."
via ace again.
Hopefully we didn’t leave any money in The General’s accounts.
We aren’t destroying Iran’s oil facilities. It’s not even a plausible threat. There’s a reason Graham is a Senator.
Are we still waiting for a statement from John McCain’s family as to what Maverick would say?
@Rick:
I'm criticizing your technique of distraction. Maybe you should learn what a personal attack is before mentioning it again.
Let's just recap here, Rick. At 11:28am you responded to me bringing up the Chinese embassy bombing in Belgrade by saying: "For this to be a meaningful analogy Suliemani's attacks on American bases would have to have been accidents."
I have since asked you half a dozen times to defend your conclusion that it was an accident, and you've steadfastly refused. I'll let the readers draw their own conclusions.
Michael K:
Said no winner, ever.
Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria. Boy I sure am tired of all this winning.
A uniformed military commander of a hostile power responsible for planning and directing attacks against American civilians and military personnel is targeted and killed in a military operation.
I'm talking about the Yamamoto shoot-down, of course.
@Drago:
Dude, once mobilization started by the major powers there was ZERO chance any nation was not going to continue to full war footing and advancing troops to boundaries.
I'll repeat: Very few people thought on June 28
J. Farmer said...If the Pentagon's chief of staff was assassinated by a foreign adversary while in an allied country, how do you think we would react?
--
Hmm..are they orchestrating terror there and around the globe?
"...This action by President Trump and our military was in direct response to Iranian aggression orchestrated by General Soleimani and his proxies," Graham continued. "If Iran continues to attack America and our allies, they should pay the heaviest of prices, which includes the destruction of their oil refineries."
Yet another reason (as if more was needed) to completely ignore Lindsay Graham on matters of foreign policy.
Hmm..are they orchestrating terror there and around the globe?
What do you call overthrowing three countries within a decade and attempting to overthrow a fourth by giving money and guns to radical Salafists in Syria?
@Farmer
But that doesn't mean this strike was wrong or will absolutely lead to that result.
Very few people thought on June 28, 1914 that millions would be dead and Europe would be in ruins four years later. That's the problem with this kind of escalation. It can very quickly spiral out of hands.
Correct. Now, as then, time will tell. Months from now, commenters can say "I told you so.."
Question is, which commenters?
Stretching the definition of "allies".
@Full Moon:
Correct. Now, as then, time will tell. Months from now, commenters can say "I told you so.."
Question is, which commenters?
That's true. We can't predict the future. But given my sentiments about Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, I'm pretty confident in my predictions. Though, as you said, only time will tell.
Farmer: "I'll repeat: Very few people thought on June 28"
Dude, nations were mobilizing months in advance of that.
With 1914 logistics capabilities, full mobilization takes 6 to 12 months. Most nations began mobilization far earlier than June of 1914.
Farmer: "What do you call overthrowing three countries within a decade and attempting to overthrow a fourth by giving money and guns to radical Salafists in Syria?"
A Full Employment Act for Deep Staters and Military-Industrial lads?
As well as ignoring the notion of an actor actively organizing an "imminent" action against the ally..which doesn't make sense.
But they are your words.
I don’t give one fuck about Iraqi freedom. Get. The. Fuck. Out. And blow everything up on the way out.
A Full Employment Act for Deep Staters and Military-Industrial lads?
Haha
This assaination was t about Iraqi freedom. We would install The Ghost of Saddam there if we could turn that place back to 1999.
@donald:
I don’t give one fuck about Iraqi freedom. Get. The. Fuck. Out. And blow everything up on the way out.
Yeah! Let's just murder millions of people. They deserved to be punished for getting mad at us for destroying their country.
I still don’t understand why we didn’t just let Saddam have Kuwait. That was a total blunder.
mccullough: "This assaination was t about Iraqi freedom. We would install The Ghost of Saddam there if we could turn that place back to 1999."
Well, that's when we knew how to party.....
@Drago:
Dude, nations were mobilizing months in advance of that.
With 1914 logistics capabilities, full mobilization takes 6 to 12 months. Most nations began mobilization far earlier than June of 1914.
Perhaps you and I are operating under two different ideas of "mobilization." In general, mobilization would've been considered an act of war. Partial mobilization of Russian forces against Austro-Hungary began in late July and full mobilization of Russian forces occurred a couple of days later.
Also, there was nothing "inevitable" about Austro-Hungary giving a bogus ultimatum to Serbia as a pretext for war, and there was nothing "inevitable" about Germany supporting such a pretext.
mccullough: "I still don’t understand why we didn’t just let Saddam have Kuwait. That was a total blunder."
Wrong wrong wrong!!
Saddam could then move his ground troops within very quick striking distance of the bulk of the Saudi oil fields in the east of the country and the Saudi's would then have been in a continuous blackmail situation by Saddam.
That could not be allowed at a time when we were still heavily dependent on foreign oil and not to mention the precedent of allowing a sovereign nation being absorbed by an invading power.
Farmer: "In general, mobilization would've been considered an act of war."
Yep.
@Drago:
Yep.
So what did Nicolas mean he ordered partial mobilization on July 28 and full mobilization a couple of days later?
Farmer, those guys were going to go to war. The Germans had been preparing for this for 10 years (Von Schlieffen Plan) and were not going to be dissuaded.
Now just because a few players here and there were more reluctant to go to war means absolutely nothing.
You go to war if just one side wants to, and in this case more than just one player on one side wanted to.
Farmer: "So what did Nicolas mean he ordered partial mobilization on July 28 and full mobilization a couple of days later?"
I wouldn't use the Russians as the standard for mobilization in Europe.
There is a reason the Germans in both World Wars moved West first right off the bat and let Russia/Soviet Union hang out for awhile before turning their guns at them.
Farmer, those guys were going to go to war. The Germans had been preparing for this for 10 years (Von Schlieffen Plan) and were not going to be dissuaded.
That's why I support the so called Fischer thesis regarding Germany's war guilt over WWI. Even after the war broke out, there was a great zeal in Vienna. Nobody really knew that they were in the beginning of the end Austro-Hungary. Which was precisely my point. Wars have a way of going in their own direction regardless of what's been planned or intended for.
Farmer: "Which was precisely my point. Wars have a way of going in their own direction regardless of what's been planned or intended for."
You think you came up with that?
I will offer this one caveat to everything I've written in this thread: I'm willing to wait until Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck's "brilliant" Justin Amash chimes in with his very very very valuable "thoughts" which Amash's district is about to kick to the curb.
@Drago:
You think you came up with that?
No, but given how recklessly goes to war, it's a point that deserves to be mentioned more often.
Farmer: "No, but given how recklessly goes to war, it's a point that deserves to be mentioned more often."
Well thank goodness you are here at Althouse blog offering such bromides. Whew!
J Farmer: thanks so much for the link to the Iranian poll of October 2019. Download the PDF. I'm not convinced they do enough to screen out pro-mullah responses made over easily monitored land lines and internet.
Even so, I agree that Pompey's happy talk is pathetic.
Saddam was a better ally than The House of Saud.
He had no intention of taking the Saudi oil fields. And would not have done so without our permission.
But the Bushes were friends with The Kingdom.
Letting Saddam have Kuwait would have been a good signal to The Kingdom to get their house in order.
mccullough: "Saddam was a better ally than The House of Saud.
He had no intention of taking the Saudi oil fields. And would not have done so without our permission."
He did not have to physically take them to wield considerable new influence over the Saudi's.
@Drago:
Well thank goodness you are here at Althouse blog offering such bromides. Whew!
Yeah, it's not 20 posts bitching about "chuck," but it is something.
Farmer: "Yeah, it's not 20 posts bitching about "chuck," but it is something."
True, true.
Kudos.
Maybe Saddam would have told the Saudis to kill off their Wahhabists or he’d take their oil fields. Certainly the Bushes would never say that.
mccullough: "Maybe Saddam would have told the Saudis to kill off their Wahhabists or he’d take their oil fields."
I like that.
You are definitely a "glass half full" kind of guy.
Don't be so skeptical, Howie.
Why, I hear their public internet is being somewhat restored.
J. Farmer said...
"@Rusty:
Robert.
Just so I'm understanding you correctly; Our embassy is not the sovereign soil of the United States and does not need to be protected? Protecting US citizens is a provocation? Clear this up for me , please.
So, for example, in response to the bombing of the embassy in Belgrade, it would be okay with you if the Chinese decided to assassinate the DOD's chief of staff? Clear this up for me, please."
Nice straw man you got there. Hope it don't burn.
Let me lay it out for you. If they thought they could get away with it they would. They were warned. They went and took it anyway.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा