Preemptive War Against Saddam ---- Dogged, But A Good Thing
|
|
Thread rating:  |
D. Spencer Hines - 26 Dec 2003 07:24 GMT "The Doggedness of War"
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, December 26, 2003 The Washington Post
"Yeah, sure. After 18 years of American sanctions, Moammar Gaddafi randomly picks Dec. 19, 2003, as the day for his surrender. By amazing coincidence, Gaddafi's first message to Britain -- principal U.S. war ally and conduit to White House war councils -- occurs just days before the invasion of Iraq. And his final capitulation to U.S.-British terms occurs just five days after Saddam Hussein is fished out of a rathole.
Capital! ---- DSH
As Jay Leno would say, what are the odds? The nine months of negotiations with Libya perfectly frame the war on Iraq and the fall of Saddam Hussein. How is it possible to ignore the most blindingly obvious collateral benefits?
It is not possible for an intelligent, knowledgeable person to ignore the most blindingly obvious collateral benefits ---- DSH
Imagine this kind of thinking 58 years ago: "Japan Surrenders -- Years of War Deprivation Proved Too Much."
Dateline Tokyo, Aug. 14, 1945. Japan capitulated yesterday to the allies, worn down by the accumulation of hardships from the war begun with the sudden outbreak of violence in Hawaii in December 1941. The housing shortage in Tokyo had become particularly acute, especially since the nights of March 9 and 10. And there also has appeared to be an abrupt downturn in recent economic activity in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Sen. John Kerry was equally ridiculous in his explanation of the Libya deal: "An administration that scorns multilateralism and boasts about a rigid doctrine of military preemption has almost in spite of itself demonstrated the enormous potential for improving our national security through diplomacy."
Hilarious Magnus Cum Laude! ---- DSH
Unlike Howard Dean, Kerry is not a foreign policy ignoramus. Does he really believe that the Libyan surrender is a triumph of multilateralism? Does he really think that Libya's capitulation -- coinciding precisely with a preemptive war that destroyed Saddam Hussein -- is a contradiction of the "rigid doctrine of military preemption"?
No, he's temporizing, fabricating and fibbing ---- hoping to attract the lunatic-left Democrats to his banner ---- seducing them away from Howard Dean. ---- DSH
What kind of naif thinks that this is a triumph for "diplomacy," as if, say, Bill Clinton had sent Warren Christopher to Tripoli, and he chatted Gaddafi into surrendering his WMDs?
Kerry = A Desperate Pogue ---- Who Has Wanted To Be President All His Life. ---- DSH
The Democrats seem congenitally incapable of understanding that force has not just the effect of disarming the immediate enemy but a deterrent effect on others similarly situated. Iraq was not attacked randomly. It was attacked as part of a clearly enunciated policy -- now known as the Bush Doctrine -- of targeting, by preemptive war if necessary, hostile regimes engaged in terror and/or refusing to come clean on WMDs.
Precisely! The BUSH DOCTRINE ---- Producing Results.... ---- DSH
Yes, the Democrats of 2003 just don't understand either the productive use of force or coercive diplomacy ---- in a dangerous world. This makes them totally unsuited and disqualified for managing the National Security Policies of the United States and defending the American People from all enemies foreign and domestic ---- which is the PRINCIPAL duty of ANY government ---- and is indeed called out in the Constitution of the United States. ---- DSH
Mullah Omar did not get the message and is now hiding in a cave somewhere. Saddam Hussein did not get the message and ended up in a hole. Gaddafi got the message. ---- CK
RIGHT!!! ---- DSH
Diplomacy is fine. But we are dealing not with Canada but with gangster regimes. In rogue states, the only diplomacy that ever works is diplomacy at the point of a bayonet. Why, even the hapless Hans Blix went out on a limb to speculate that "I would imagine that Gaddafi could have been scared by what he saw in Iraq."
"The hapless Hans Blix..." indeed. Blix is totally clueless as to the means required to deal with GANSTER REGIMES and FAILED STATES, of which Iraq was one. ---- DSH
Ashton Carter, co-director of the Harvard-Stanford Preventive Defense Project, agreed that "what we did in Iraq put countries like Libya on notice that we're really serious about countering proliferation." To be sure, Carter prefaced this obvious truth with the Blixian phrase "one certainly hopes that." But that is to be expected from an adviser to Howard Dean.
Indeed. But Ashton Carter is simply employing the standard timid, arse-covering, Harvard Fig Leaf in his statement ---- oft-noted in those environs. ---- DSH
Do the Democrats really not see the larger picture, or do they pretend not to because it is an election year? ---- CK
Both. ---- DSH
The domino effects of the Iraq campaign are already in clear view. It is no accident that Iran has agreed to surprise nuclear inspections. Mind you, I do not hold much hope for this; it will take far more to disarm the mullahs, possibly U.S. airstrikes during a second Bush administration. But for now, Bush's willfulness and determination in Iraq have persuaded Iran to grab a European plan for inspections rather than face the wrath of the United States. ---- CK
Bingo! Yes, Virginia, there is a DOMINO EFFECT in International Affairs---- DSH
Elsewhere in the Middle East, Hezbollah has been quiet since the war. Syria has made its first peace overture in years. Libya has now confessed and capitulated on WMDs.
And that's not counting Iraq, which with Saddam Hussein captured has finally turned a historic corner and may be on its way to establishing the first pluralistic, representative pro-Western Arab polity in the region.
These are not triumphs of diplomacy. These are the aftershocks of war." -------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed ---- And Paul Wolfowitz and his fellow NEO-CONSERVATIVES deserve a GREAT deal of the CREDIT.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Exitus Acta Probat
Sheila J - 26 Dec 2003 17:50 GMT > "The Doggedness of War" > [quoted text clipped - 138 lines] > > Exitus Acta Probat I almost wish I was American so I could have this much fun with politics...Could use a daily good laugh...
Cheers, DSH, Sheila J
D. Spencer Hines - 26 Dec 2003 08:13 GMT Hmmmmmm....
Are Canadian Politics so dull, flat and unappetizing!
And what's to LAUGH about, dear?
Politics, International Affairs, Preemptive War And Coercive Diplomacy Are VERY Serious Business ---- Not Playthings For Amateurs And Children, As We Saw Under Clinton....
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
| > "The Doggedness of War" | > [quoted text clipped - 144 lines] | Cheers, DSH, | Sheila J Sheila J - 26 Dec 2003 18:32 GMT > Hmmmmmm.... > > Are Canadian Politics so dull, flat and unappetizing! Yes, they are....
> And what's to LAUGH about, dear? My Dear Mr. Hines...you, yourself, use the word 'Hilarious'... I merely wanted to share in your good humour..
> Politics, International Affairs, Preemptive War And Coercive Diplomacy > Are VERY Serious Business ---- Not Playthings For Amateurs And Children, > As We Saw Under Clinton.... Clinton was in Winnipeg a few weeks ago...it was the first time in his career, he ever spoke to a house that was so many empty seats...
so I guess we don't like him either...
:D Cheers, Sheila
> DSH > [quoted text clipped - 196 lines] > | Cheers, DSH, > | Sheila J D. Spencer Hines - 26 Dec 2003 08:58 GMT Interesting....
Why do you think there were so many empty seats for Clinton in Winnipeg?
Closely Reasoned....
Cheers, Sheila
DSH
| > Hmmmmmm.... | > [quoted text clipped - 220 lines] | > | Cheers, DSH, | > | Sheila J Sheila J - 26 Dec 2003 20:21 GMT > Interesting.... > [quoted text clipped - 271 lines] > | > | Cheers, DSH, > | > | Sheila J I think it was probably because it was Winnipeg, and not, let's say...Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa or Vancouver... But that's being an Eastern Canadian speaking....
I'm not sure actually. It was quite expensive...I think 250. $ just to start...they ended up lowering the price right before because SO many seats had been unsold. I was actually hoping to go but my children had an Xmas concert that night, and hearing an off-tone rendition of Silent Night from my angels wins every time.... That said, I would have liked to have heard him speak...if for no other reason then I have an interest in the 'soft power vs hard power' theory that he was supposed to be talking about..
Interesting gossip aside....They did charge, (I believe) 2500 to have supper with him at the Dubrovnic ( a very nice restaurant here) and then another 500 to have coffee and dessert with him. That didn't even sell out....And then, insult to the city organizers who did stoke his proverbial fire, he was about 2 hours late.... So......I'm not sure if he will be invited back...
:D Cheers, Sheila
D. Spencer Hines - 26 Dec 2003 11:37 GMT Yes, that all makes good sense.
My opinion of those Canadians who did NOT go to hear Clinton speak or to rub shoulders with him has risen appreciably.
Those hefty charges are doubtless in large part to pay for his speaking fee.
One can hear him speak quite frequently on CSPAN for free.
Why anyone would PAY to do so is a mystery to me.
What do folks in Canada think of Chretien's record in office these days?
Cheers,
DSH
| > Interesting.... | > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | > | > DSH
| I think it was probably because it was Winnipeg, and not, let's | say...Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa or Vancouver... [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] | Cheers, | Sheila Sheila J - 26 Dec 2003 21:46 GMT > Yes, that all makes good sense. > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > | Cheers, > | Sheila I'm a die-heart Liberal, so I liked Chretien....if nothing else, he brought a bit of humour to Sussex drive.. He was probably the only PM we had who tried to strangle a protester....
But, like most things, I think people view him now as they view all those who have just retired....
'What a swell guy'.....
I'm sure in another year it will be different.
That said, I'm not a big Paul Martin fan, but we have an interesting opportunity coming up as our son Jens has just won this competition where they are flying our whole family to Ottawa to meet the new PM. He wrote a postcard about what 'peace means to me' and he won. So, we get to go have din-din with Paul Martin so Jens can present his 'essay'.
I'll let you know what I think of him after I view his table manners...
Cheers, Sheila
D. Spencer Hines - 26 Dec 2003 12:22 GMT Fair Enough...
Cheers,
Spencer
| > Yes, that all makes good sense. | > [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] | Cheers, | Sheila Paul J Gans - 27 Dec 2003 02:15 GMT In soc.history.medieval Sheila J <wolseley@shaw.ca> wrote:
[snip]
>I'm a die-heart Liberal, so I liked Chretien....if nothing else, he >brought a bit of humour to Sussex drive.. >He was probably the only PM we had who tried to strangle a protester....
>But, like most things, I think people view him now as they view all >those who have just retired....
>'What a swell guy'.....
>I'm sure in another year it will be different.
>That said, I'm not a big Paul Martin fan, but we have an interesting >opportunity coming up as our son Jens has just won this competition >where they are flying our whole family to Ottawa to meet the new PM. He >wrote a postcard about what 'peace means to me' and he won. So, we get >to go have din-din with Paul Martin so Jens can present his 'essay'.
>I'll let you know what I think of him after I view his table manners... I wonder if he knows that he's getting a military family.
:-) ---- Paul J. Gans
Sheila J - 27 Dec 2003 02:26 GMT > In soc.history.medieval Sheila J <wolseley@shaw.ca> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > ---- Paul J. Gans My husband has already been warned not to do any 'chest poking' by his superiors.....
But, of course, his comment to Jens' win was
'What are we doing wrong that he would win an essay on peace....'
He was joking....( I hope)
Actually Jens wrote about what it was like to have both Mommy and Daddy going off to peace missions... I'm sure it was nothing more than a PR move on behalf of our govt....but it's a free trip, so I won't complain...
Cheers, Sheila
 Signature ÐÏࡱá
Paul J Gans - 27 Dec 2003 04:16 GMT In soc.history.medieval Sheila J <wolseley@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> In soc.history.medieval Sheila J <wolseley@shaw.ca> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> >> ---- Paul J. Gans
>My husband has already been warned not to do any 'chest poking' by his >superiors.....
>But, of course, his comment to Jens' win was
>'What are we doing wrong that he would win an essay on peace....'
>He was joking....( I hope)
>Actually Jens wrote about what it was like to have both Mommy and Daddy >going off to peace missions... >I'm sure it was nothing more than a PR move on behalf of our govt....but >it's a free trip, so I won't complain...
>Cheers, >Sheila Yes, but PR or not, Jens wrote sincerely and it is very likely that it is the sincerity that is being rewarded. The rest is wonderful for PR, but not all PR is bad. Some of it is just natural.
---- Paul J. Gans
Sheila J - 27 Dec 2003 05:31 GMT > In soc.history.medieval Sheila J <wolseley@shaw.ca> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > ---- Paul J. Gans Well (blush) we are pretty proud of him....
Especially since he is autistic so this is pretty significant for him....
:D Sheila
Andrew Chaplin - 30 Dec 2003 13:17 GMT > In soc.history.medieval Sheila J <wolseley@shaw.ca> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > :-) Almost certainly. Mr. Martin's posse have a reputation for thoroughness.
Beyond that, he set the tone for his relationship with the profession of arms and the wider defence establish (camp followers) by making his first public appearance as PM in any ministry in National Defence Headquarters. Admittedly it was to congratulate the staff on a successful annual charity drive, but the following day when he froze major capital acquisitions he exempted the navy's Sea King replacement project.
This will be interesting. He may be the most considerate[1] PM the forces have seen since Louis St-Laurent at the outset of the Cold War.
[1] He might not give the CF what they ask for, but at least the request might have been given due consideration. -- Andrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Sheila J - 30 Dec 2003 16:37 GMT >>In soc.history.medieval Sheila J <wolseley@shaw.ca> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO > (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) Andrew: The only thing that rubbed me the wrong way was at a meeting a few years ago in Ottawa, when Paul was the Finance minister. He sat down with a bunch of military families to explain the amazing coincidence between pay raises and PMQ hikes...etc...etc...I'm sure you remember those debates..
Want to know Martin's response? I'm a military brat...I feel your pain. His father, the great Big Martin, had served with a reserve unit for a few months at some point.
I thought that was the most insulting thing he could have said.
Just my thoughts...
 Signature Also say to them, that they suffre hym this day to wynne his spurres, for if God be pleased, I woll this journey be his, and the honoure thereof. Edward III, at some point...
Andrew Chaplin - 30 Dec 2003 16:53 GMT > The only thing that rubbed me the wrong way was at a meeting a few years > ago in Ottawa, when Paul was the Finance minister. He sat down with a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Just my thoughts... Ouch! I will defend him no farther than to point out that his dad was a reservist when it was more difficult and they had even less to work with, or they were at war (I believe he was talking about the late 30s or during the Second War). But I can see why you're no fan.
As a proceduralist in the employ of the House of Commons, I'm not allowed to be a fan; as a sceptic, I'm not likely likely to be -- but then I'm also likely to be a fan of no one, save those I love. -- ABC On someone else's computer
Peter Skelton - 30 Dec 2003 17:48 GMT >> The only thing that rubbed me the wrong way was at a meeting a few years >> ago in Ottawa, when Paul was the Finance minister. He sat down with a [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >they were at war (I believe he was talking about the late 30s or during the >Second War). But I can see why you're no fan. Paul Martin Sr. was elected in 1935 and in the government from then on. ISTR he was too young for WWI. I doubt it was wartime or late 30's, but haven't anything to hand that tells me.
>As a proceduralist in the employ of the House of Commons, I'm not allowed to >be a fan; as a sceptic, I'm not likely likely to be -- but then I'm also >likely to be a fan of no one, save those I love. Peter Skelton
Andrew Chaplin - 30 Dec 2003 18:31 GMT > Paul Martin Sr. was elected in 1935 and in the government from > then on. ISTR he was too young for WWI. I doubt it was wartime or > late 30's, but haven't anything to hand that tells me. That may well be the case (I thought it was later) but I am not sure M.P.s felt obliged to resign their commissions or retire on being elected the way they would now. -- Andrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Paul J Gans - 31 Dec 2003 01:59 GMT In soc.history.medieval Andrew Chaplin <abchaplin@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote:
>> In soc.history.medieval Sheila J <wolseley@shaw.ca> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> >> :-)
>Almost certainly. Mr. Martin's posse have a reputation for >thoroughness.
>Beyond that, he set the tone for his relationship with the profession >of arms and the wider defence establish (camp followers) by making his [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >major capital acquisitions he exempted the navy's Sea King replacement >project.
>This will be interesting. He may be the most considerate[1] PM the >forces have seen since Louis St-Laurent at the outset of the Cold War.
>[1] He might not give the CF what they ask for, but at least the >request might have been given due consideration. >-- >Andrew Chaplin >SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO >(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) Andrew: As a matter of minor interest, I read this post of yours in alt.politics.british several days ago. Yet it is only now showing up on my server in soc.history.medieval.
I mention this only to remind those who delete all context that newsgroups do not preserve the order of postings...
---- Paul J. Gans
Ken [NY) - 27 Dec 2003 17:00 GMT >I almost wish I was American so I could have this much fun with >politics...Could use a daily good laugh... It's especially fun because the Democrats are told every day what they could do to improve their lot, yet they cannot bring themselves to take the advice. And they will admit they are heading for disaster at the polls. The fun part? It's on the order of watching a car full of clowns driving off a cliff in slow motion cinema, without the horror of resulting deaths. Sort of like watching one of our American adventure films. Pass the popcorn.
Cheers, Ken (NY) Chairman, Department Of Redundancy Department ___________________________________ email: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
"How can anyone take this country seriously when we take the time to celebrate the birthday of an imaginary rodent? - George Carlin, on Mickey Mouse's birthday
Q: What the hardest thing about rollerblading? A: Telling your parents youre gay.
spammers can send mail to uce@ftc.gov
Julian Richards - 27 Dec 2003 00:21 GMT >These are not triumphs of diplomacy. These are the aftershocks of war." >------------------------------------------------------------- > >Indeed ---- And Paul Wolfowitz and his fellow NEO-CONSERVATIVES deserve >a GREAT deal of the CREDIT. They are in great part the result of British Socialists and their diplomacy. Whilst Iraq was run by a madman who could not be reasoned with, Libya has a more pragmatic leader and there are political forces in Iran who are open to diplomacy. Military action against those two has never been an option and they know it. The hard line Palestinian groups would love the USA to go after them as they are spoiling for a fight. The fact that they are willing to go to Iraq to kill Americans is testament to this.
--
Julian Richards julian-richards "at" ntlworld.com
"My son has asked for a pair of Nike trainers. He's ten years old, he should make his own"
"I bought a CD of whale music. Imagine my disappointment when I got home to discover that it was actual a cover version by a tribute band of dolphins"
D. Spencer Hines - 26 Dec 2003 14:42 GMT Hilarious!
Libya could be turned into a parking lot from the Mediterranean, if the United States and its allies so chose.
Colonel Gaddafi well understood that.
You seem pleased to see Americans killed in Iraq ---- and Brits as well?
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
| >These are not triumphs of diplomacy. These are the aftershocks of war." | >------------------------------------------------------------- [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] | Julian Richards | julian-richards "at" ntlworld.com Julian Richards - 28 Dec 2003 01:26 GMT >Hilarious! > >Libya could be turned into a parking lot from the Mediterranean, if the >United States and its allies so chose. But its allies would never choose, not one. The USA certainly could defeat the Libyans (even Chad inflicted the greatest single defeat of armour upon them) but that is not what foreign policy is about. If it were then the USA would continually look to invade other countries, putting them in a very disreputable group of regimes.
With regard to most foreign governments, the carrot will give far greater results than the stick (which still has its uses). GWB realises this having become by circumstance one of the most internationalist of US presidents.
>Colonel Gaddafi well understood that. Why did Libya and Iran want nuclear weapons? To hit Israel? They have more nuclear weapons than the UK. Principally they wanted them because they feared the USA. Why shouldn't they when they hear what Americans say about them. If they feel that the that there is no threat of invasion by the USA then they don't need them. They never wanted a "muslim bomb" because Pakistan is the "muslim bomb", they wanted it for their own national use and would certainly not want the trouble that giving one to someone like Bin Laden could cause.
The USA could have furthered its own interests greatly by being the first and biggest donor of aid to the earthquake in Iran.
>You seem pleased to see Americans killed in Iraq ---- and Brits as well? You know that is not true. Everyday the TV news says one or two US servicemen are killed and my heart sinks. although for different reasons, we both supported war in Iraq, and although both of our opinions had no say in the matter as to whether the war happened or not, I feel some responsibility. I still believe that it was the right choice but the cost has been high.
Have you read the "Time" article about soldiers in Iraq? It certainly isn't easy out there.
--
Julian Richards julian-richards "at" ntlworld.com
"My son has asked for a pair of Nike trainers. He's ten years old, he should make his own"
"I bought a CD of whale music. Imagine my disappointment when I got home to discover that it was actual a cover version by a tribute band of dolphins"
tiglath - 28 Dec 2003 01:29 GMT > >You seem pleased to see Americans killed in Iraq ---- and Brits as well? > > You know that is not true. Don't fall for that "guilt trip" red herring. It is an extension of the ridiculous "if you apposed the Iraq war you are pro-Saddam" fallacy that the hawks have been forced to used repeatedly after their lies were exposed and the WMD debacle damage cried for repairs.
The hawks want to confuse things so that all opposition to their warmonging can be described as "not supporting our troops" "being pleased at coalition casualties" and other red herrings to distract from the repugnance decent people feel for the way this war has been justified, and prosecuted.
Leadfoot - 27 Dec 2003 20:45 GMT Nice try but don't you thnk we are a little busy to invade Libya in the foreseeable future? Keeping in mind North Korea is till an unresolved problem.
D. Spencer Hines - 28 Dec 2003 10:38 GMT Gans has been hiding his posts of this sort of errant gibberish over in AHB and not posting them to SHM. Vide infra.
Why Does He Do That?
Because he wants to maintain TWO quite SEPARATE PERSONAE in the two newsgroups---- and he doesn't want the folks in SHM to see the persona he assumes in AHB ---- or vice versa.
He does the same thing in TALK.ORIGINS, where he assumes a THIRD persona.
Gans thinks all this folderol is "cute" and clever. --------------------------------------------------------------------
"Please stop accusing people of being *for* Saddam simply because they say something you don't like. Invading Iraq was a stupid, useless, expensive exercise that has caused and will cause the US great pain further down the road. We accomplished NOTHING by it."
[Gans, my pet goose, sounds more and more like Howard Dean every day. ---- DSH]
"The world is filled with not-nice folks like Saddam. Some were our friends (like Saddam) and others were our enemies and are now our friends (like Qadaffi). Stop looking for moral values in a place (politics) where there aren't any."
[...]
> Was Prime Minister Chamberlain unpatriotic with his appeasement of Hitler?
> No, but he let his passionate hatred of war make him act like a fool and
> lead the world into a very bad war, a war that he might have been avoided if
> he had acted sooner. Most liberals and Democrats who want to treat our
> enemies with a light hand are like Chamberlain, meaning they are more > foolish than unpatriotic. (Although a few of them do seem to cross the line
> and ARE on the wrong side of this thing.) ---- Rod Keys "I think that's despicable. Perhaps you might give some thought to the idea that the war was unneeded, accomplished very little, had nothing to do with 9/11 or Osama bin Laden and that perhaps the people who are saying so are right."
"How would you react if someone said that the war was fomented for personal profit by those in the current administration and constituted a
using of US power to that end."
"Would you be a bit annoyed at that?"
[Hilarious! Prominent, farblondjet Democrats have said precisely that ---- including Al Gore. Gans hasn't been paying attention. ---- DSH]
[snip]
----- Paul J. Gans
PS: I do NOT think that the war was fomented for personal profit. But the very fact that I have to put this disclaimer in place shows, I think, how low the current level of political discourse in the US has sunk.
P. Jonathan Gans ---- NYU Chemist Masquerading As Grand Strategist And Moral Philosopher ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hilarious Magnus Cum Laude!
Gans, my pet goose, sounds more and more like Howard Dean every day....
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Exitus Acta Probat
Fortem Posce Animum
D. Spencer Hines - 28 Dec 2003 13:09 GMT "Don't forget, my solution was to see him shot while resisting arrest."
"He'd have still been removed from the possibility of power and not been around to make trouble during a trial. Of course the Arabs would see his death as cynical revenge on our part (which it would have been) but at least they'd have understood it."
P. Jonathan Gans ---- NYU Chemist ---- Self-Appointed Grand, Global, Political Strategist And Moral Arbiter ----------------------------------------------
Hilarious Magnus Cum Laude!
Democrats who doggedly and sedulously opposed the War In Iraq don't want a public trial of Saddam because they know the facts that emerge will make them look even MORE like the craven, weak, timid appeasers they so clearly are.
Next Summer Seems Like A Good Time For Saddam's Trial....
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Exitus Acta Probat
Fortem Posce Animum
|
|
|