I assume anything against their case will be “lies” and “falsehoods”.
I assume anything against their case will be “lies” and “falsehoods”.
Not to mention repetitive.
And don’t forget “perfidious” either.
Somehow, starting a war to bring stability doesn’t sound very logical to me.
When did “deal with” become a euphemism for “invade”?
No, it’s more like a “let’s not just say we’re a peaceful nation, let’s act like it” attitude.
When will the pro-war hawks realize that “might makes right” is not a viable long-term international strategy?
CarnalK, the mere airing of his atrocities will be enough. It’s the reminder that’ll do it.
However, Evil One, I was interested to see, based on what I’ve seen posted around here about the case of the gassing of the Kurds, where it appears the blame actually may lie with Iran, that he denied gassing them and said it was Iran who did it.
If it comes out in the trial that it was actually Iran, this could be…interesting.
Also, I posted that whole scenario about the dollar rising and stocks rising and all that, and that kind of got blown out by the fact that the dollar barely budged yesterday. It’s still down today, even though on the headlines you’ll see stuff like “Dow rises 100!” or something like that.
But the persistent fall in the dollar is an indication that all might not be as rosy as it looks. Check out this communication I got last night from a service I subscribe to:
Interesting in light of the fact that the selloff is continuing today. If you want terrorism futures, my opinion is that the best place to look is at the level of the dollar, and right now that ain’t looking too hot. Which in turn may mean that Bush’s re-election may not quite be the done deal I thought it was.
CarnalK, the mere airing of his atrocities will be enough. It’s the reminder that’ll do it.
However, Evil One, I was interested to see, based on what I’ve seen posted around here about the case of the gassing of the Kurds, where it appears the blame actually may lie with Iran, that he denied gassing them and said it was Iran who did it.
If it comes out in the trial that it was actually Iran, this could be…interesting.
Also, I posted that whole scenario about the dollar rising and stocks rising and all that, and that kind of got blown out by the fact that the dollar barely budged yesterday. It’s still down today, even though on the headlines you’ll see stuff like “Dow rises 100!” or something like that.
But the persistent fall in the dollar is an indication that all might not be as rosy as it looks. Check out this communication I got last night from a service I subscribe to:
Interesting in light of the fact that the selloff is continuing today. If you want terrorism futures, my opinion is that the best place to look is at the level of the dollar, and right now that ain’t looking too hot. Which in turn may mean that Bush’s re-election may not quite be the done deal I thought it was.
Ya know, I didn’t even press submit twice. Sheesh.
Given the US history with Saddam, the airing of dirty laundry may turn out a wash propoganda-wise. That’s world wide though. I have a sneaky suspicion that the iffy stuff won’t get a lot of play on this continent and even less in your guys share of it. So in the end it will probably be as you say pantom as far as US dom. politics goes.
Who wants to get in on the ground floor of my “I survived 8 years of Bush” tshirt biz.
I like this better, for political and, um, other reasons (I suspect Stoid might be behind it, but that’s just a suspicion):
I must humbly agree. It’s much more “proactive”.
[Baghdad Bob]Had Saddam been martyred in his hiding place, I would have referred to it as a “Glory Hole.”[/BB]
I dunno–methinks that if Iran was the one who had gassed the Kurds (and I’m not sticking up for the damn ayatollahs), they wouldn’t be pressing so hard to have a say at Saddam’s trial. They seem genuinely outraged at the bastard and pleased that he’s been caught. I don’t doubt they committed some nasty deeds but having one of the most publicized attacks of the last fifteen years proved to be theirs is not something that would be in their interest. To put it mildly.
Yes, why didn’t he just tell us? Why didn’t he explain that Saddam is an evil dictator and the world is better without him? We would understand! We are fair-minded, freedom-loving, honest-to-goodness reg’lar folks, not at all given to partisan rancor or opportunistic political sniping. Why, just tell us there is a thug somewhere in the world abusing some captive people, we will rise as one man, we will leave our pasta cookers and wide screen TVs, we will wade across oceans, we will plough through deserts, we’ll get the SOB and free the world of his stench forever! Just tell us the truth! Why do you always play to our fears? Why do you always excite our baser instincts? Why don’t you talk to us as intellectual equals? Why, oh Why, oh Why…
Is that elucidating enough?
I wish!
Nope.
Scylla:
God. After all the times we’ve gone over this ground, one would think that you would hesitate to continue posting such drivel. And yet, nothing seems to sink in; you’re beginning to sound like a broken record player.
Your Thanksgiving concession has fizzled; it is less than meaningless, really, since it has had absolutely no impact on your views as far as I can see. And you can really spare us the long posts. I understand. Why not simply save yourself the time and me the eyesore? Just post the phrase “Big Dawg” anytime you feel the urge to hop up on the soap box, and we’ll all get the message. Clearly there’s no point in debate when the same arguments taken up and refuted months ago are regurgitated again and again. You waste both your time and ours. Let’s simply agree to disagree.
World Eater (in response to Scylla):
Touché.
Spavined:
Please allow me to also join the chorus and wish you a speedy recovery.
elucidator:
Had we ever had the good fortune of meeting in real life, I strongly suspect I would quickly have come to count you among the best of my acquaintance.
But then again, you probably already knew that.
**
Go read something else, then. The whining is unbecoming.
More whining. You don’t like my stance. Why should I give a shit?
Why don’t you stop whining and complaining about what I choose to write? It’s not really any of your business. There’s nothing you can do about it, and I really don’t care how it makes your feel. I can’t imagine why you think I should.
As for why I’ve chosen to repeat it, it’s in the hopes that it will one day be addressed rather than characterized.
And yet, here you are. Characterizing an argument you don’t like as “drivel” is not a refutation, nor is complaining about it.
Like I told Spavined, you would need to actually address it, and present a better alternative course of action to refute it.
Qaddaffi seems to have gotten the message.
**
Oh go lick your dog’s ass you infantile, chucklehead. You quote the entire post, and this is your rebuttal?
The US should “try not to be such an asshole to the world?” Is that the kind of thing one is supposed to include in every post concerning foreign policy? Kind of like a “keep your mittens on Son, and remember, try not to be an asshole to the world?”
I want the US to be an “asshole to the world.” Since you haven’t bothered to characterize this generalization, I will. Most of the time people get called “assholes” because somebody else doesn’t like what they do or say.
I would like our foreign policy, and the way we fight the war on terror to have more depth than simply a response to the opinions of others.
But, if it will make you happy, I will so stipulate that as we change the world to make it safe for future generations, fight a war against terror safeguarding humanity in general in a conflict who’s repercussions will be felt for decades… we should make sure that no matter what we do, we don’t hurt anybody’s feelings.
Satisfied?
Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot!
Qadaffi delivered the message. And it is this: patient pressure and diplomacy, coupled with the obvious advantages of being a member in good standing of The Nations, can bring a sworn enemy to stand down.
Mr. Qaddaffi, to his credit, seems to have the interests of his people at heart, at least to a primitive degree. It would appear that this has led a mystical monomaniac into a semblance of sanity. All to the good.
But consider the irony, the confusion of principle, as our potential friends and enemies surely will: one man, who’s complicity in attacks on Americans is purely conjectural, and who turns out not to have the weapons we purported to fear. His nation, we invade and take him into custody.
The other, a man whose complicity in terrorist attacks on Americans is entirely demonstrated and admitted. He almost certainly has the very things we accuse Saddam (save nukes: that boogeyman seems to entirely a figment of our fears).
With him, of course, we cut a deal. Pay the $2.
Be grateful of one thing,Scylla! You’ll not have to endure any whinging lefties raving about its being “about the oil”, 'cause Libya doesn’t even have so much as a drop…what?..oh, really?..light sweet crude!..you don’t say!..
Never mind that last.
Anyway, Sam’s already started a laurel pressing party in GD. You wouldn’t want to miss it. If you are quite finished telling Big Svin how indifferent you are to his opinion, that is.