War

The Post-Ideological Pragmatism of Blowing People Up

|

Same as it ever was

Ryan Lizza's long New Yorker article on President Barack Obama's evolving foreign policy, which *re-introduced into the political lexicon the memorable phrase "leading from behind," should be required reading for anyone interested not just in current world affairs, but also in the predictable ways that "realist"-tilting, "post-ideological"-posturing American presidential candidates always end up embracing the "idealism" of military force against micro-Hitlers once in office.

The fact that Lizza utterly fails to see the pattern clearly laid out by Obama's two predecessors only underlines the point: When President Mitch Daniels, too, enters the White House after having won an upset victory as a pragmatist problem-solver with a humble foreign policy, he will also be confronted with evildoers mowing down (or threatening to mow down) their own citizens live on al-Jazeera and/or CNN. Once the pro-interventionist idealists eventually win that behind-the-scenes bureaucratic struggle, we will see well-reported pieces from the Ryan Lizzas of the world explaining in respectful detail how the president's abstract foreign policy ideas have responsibly adapted to unforeseen events in this mixed-up, shook-up world.

My favorite excerpt:

Leading from behind

On March 17th, I interviewed Clinton in Tunis. She was sitting under a canopy by the hotel pool, eating breakfast. Although she had been noncommittal with the diplomats in France two days earlier, she now made it clear that the Obama Administration had made a decision. It was well known that she favored intervention, but she was frank about the difficulty in making such decisions. "I get up every morning and I look around the world," she said. "People are being killed in Côte d'Ivoire, they're being killed in the Eastern Congo, they're being oppressed and abused all over the world by dictators and really unsavory characters. So we could be intervening all over the place. But that is not a—what is the standard? Is the standard, you know, a leader who won't leave office in Ivory Coast and is killing his own people? Gee, that sounds familiar. So part of it is having to make tough choices and wanting to help the international community accept responsibility."

No longer a pin-up in Glendale, California

So we are helping the world accept responsibility for global affairs by providing the overwhelming military contribution to a muddle-headed mini-war against a nasty sovereign who might have otherwise massacred some rebels. That fact that there's an understood logic there only makes me despair more for the prospect of ever having a U.S. foreign policy with a default approach of non-intervention. There will likely never be a day without a Problem From Hell, particularly if we keep defining such things down from genocide (though not against the Armenians!) to what's happening in a half-dozen African countries on any given day. Only when we have a president who understands that intervention logic has the same bureaucratic inevitability as regulatory capture will we begin to contemplate the great unwinding of America's imperial responsibilities. Pragmatists will always and forever spill blood.

Whole New Yorker thing here. Some relevant oldies from me on "temporary doves," "the ideology of post-ideology," and "the cost of doing something."

* Added "re-" after being schooled by Tim Cavanaugh in the comments.

NEXT: Hot Spot

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m not sure if this has been confirmed yet, but it’s being reported that NATO has apparently killed Ghadafi’s grandchildren, who are all 12 years old or younger.

    Boy, that’s just great; all of us in the west should be so proud of ourselves.

    1. Nits grow into lice.

      1. What strikes me, is that the rebels will cheer these deaths as a strike against regime. It’s like the bolsheviks killing the children of the Czar and people applauding it because that was the “only way to get rid of the ruling family.”

        We are fighting against a barbarian, true. Sadly, however, we are siding with different barbarians on the other side. Wait and see.

        The day people stop condemning the bombing deaths of children because they are the grandchildren of their enemy, is the day we need to question who to ally ourselves with in a conflict…and in this case, it should be “none of the above” because neither side passes the basic humanity test.

        1. We’ve been siding with different barbarians already. Read the worthless scrap that calls itself the Iraq constitution?

          1. The head rat was in the house at the time. Not that NATO targets individuals (wink).

    2. Hey, we had to act to prevent a massacre. If we have to kill a bunch of children in the process, so be it.

      </sarcasm>

      1. While I oppose this stupid intervention, this is still all the fault of Ghaddafi. He started it by oppressing his own people.

    3. I wish we killed the children of every tin-pot anti-American dictator. Maybe then, their spoiled brats wouldn’t think it was such a great idea to go work for dad.

    4. There are doubts that any grandchildren were killed. The story doesn’t make sense as Libya’s telling it.

      http://www.thedailybeast.com/b…..mainpromo1

      1. As if the incinerated kids not being Gadafi spawn makes it better.

        1. Uhh, how do you know and kids actually died?

    5. Ghadafi said it, it must be true.

  2. That person in the first pic was Elena Kagan’s date to the Press Corp dinner, right?

    1. *barf*

  3. This from the WaPo story on bombing Kadaffy’s grandkids:

    The commander of the NATO operation, Canadian Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard, said he was aware of unconfirmed reports that some Gadhafi family members may have been killed and he regretted “all loss of life, specially the innocent civilians being harmed as a result of the ongoing conflict.”

    How can you pull the trigger and regret “all loss of life” at the same time? And I think we can assume the WaPo’s on board, referring to the youngsters as “some Gadhafi family members.” I distinctly remember them calling unconfirmed deaths of youth in Iraq by a veeeeery different name.

    1. I guess the definition of civilian can be stretched quite a long way.

    2. If you want to see what blind adherence looks like, read the comments from this story.

      Gaddafi is a dictator-murderer. I say wipe out his entire family.
      -or-
      You clowns blaming Obama should also put the blame where it all started. George W Bush and Dick Cheney.
      -and finally-
      Gadhafi had seven sons and one daughter, fo its one down and seven to go. Sahme that the missiles didn’t get the old man himself….

      1. Sometimes I think about just how long the “but but but Buuuuuush” handwavery/blame-deflection is going to go on before fading and then my stomach roils.

        1. my stomach roils

          I blame Bush

    3. Hey, killing children is totally cool as long as it’s your TEAM doing the killing, dude. Haven’t you read your partisan script yet? GO GO TEAM!

    4. “How can you pull the trigger and regret “all loss of life” at the same time?”

      That is a good question. You either believe in the war or you don’t. If you believe in the war, you damn sure better think it is worth killing the enemy over. And if it is worth doing, killing him is not something to regret.

      It goes back to the fact that these people don’t believe in the war or at least they don’t believe in it enough to get their hands dirty. So instead of hating the enemy and wanting him dead, they make a half assed effort and regret any inconvienence.

      1. Huh?

        If a robber came into my house and i was forced to shoot him to preserve my life and property there is nothing wrong with me regretting it afterward.

        Thinking to yourself,
        “oh i wish things had been different and i was not forced to shoot him” is a perfectly reasonable train of thought.

        1. It is semantics. But you are not regretting killing the guy. You are regretting he was who he was. That is not what these people are saying.

          1. Hint: in the Army’s hierarchy, everyone above major is a politician.

            1. Very true. And that is going to bite us in the ass one of these days.

        2. Right, because blowing up innocent kids is just like shooting a guy trying to rob you.

          1. Of course not Tulpa.

            I was arguing a specific point about regret. Saying that one can regret even the necessary killing of the worse sort of monsters.

            Also I fail to see how regretting the necessary deaths of monsters would prevent one from regretting the unnecessary deaths of innocent children.

            But John is probably correct…i am splitting semantic hairs.

      2. Certainly you can believe in killing the enemy but regret the collateral damage that is a fact of the war.

        And this:

        http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/

        1. RC won’t say it because of its implications for the Iraq War, but:

          Forseeable consequences are not unintended.

          1. Sure they can be, that’s partly whey there are too different words for that concept, because they are not the same.

            The commandos who storm a plane to free hostages from terrorist can foresee that hostages will likely be killed, but they certainly can’t be said to intend those deaths.

            1. Of course they do. It’s part of the storming.

              They merely see the result of the storming as justifying the deaths.

              1. Dude, you have a crazy definition of intend. Are you really saying the storming commandos intend for hostages to die? Do you know what the word intend means?

                One way you can know they don’t intend this is that if by some miracle no hostages are harmed they will be elated, not disappointed. That’s an odd thing if they intended it turn out otherwise.

                1. One of the SEAL teams had a saying about the hostage rescue. “Sucks to be a hostage.” They know hostages are going to die,but killing the hijacker is more important than the lives of mere citizens.

          2. “Forseeable consequences are not unintended.

            This doesn’t make sense to me whether it’s coming from Tulpa or RC Dean. For example, I’ve driven my car in conditions it’s really not meant for and it was foreseeable that I could’ve gotten into an accident. That does not mean an accident is at all intended.

            1. I think by ‘forseeable’ here, we really have to mean ‘expected’. If you think that effect Y has a one-in-one-hundred chance of following action X, you can’t really be said to be choosing Y when you perform X. However, if you expect Y to follow X, then by choosing X you are knowingly choosing Y also.

        2. And of course that only leads to the question of whether the war’s objective justifies the inevitable killing of civilians.

          Collateral damage may be justified to prevent an enemy from invading your territory.

          Collateral damage is not justified to prevent the price of gas from going up.

          1. Is it justified to prevent a dictator from slaughtering other innocents who are rising up agains him?

            1. So I guess you think George Bush I should have invaded Iraq when Saddam put down the Shia rebellion in 1991? Somehow I doubt it.

              1. He was heavily criticized for pulling back after pushing Saddam out of Iraq, iirc you agreed with that criticism.

                If we could have prevented that massacre via air power I might have been for it, but of course the question here is where Powers, Clinton etc., would have stood on it.

            2. Trading innocent lives for innocent lives is a very messy thing, particularly when you’re not omniscient (in particular, you have limited knowledge about what’s going to happen if you don’t do your innocent-killing). Unless the innocents are people you have a duty to protect, it’s better to stay out of it.

              1. You have no less of a difficulty reading the future when the innocents are under your duty of course.

                You’re right that it is a difficult calculation, and that is why it counsels against intervention a lot. But the expected p is not always so low. There are times where it is pretty clear that not doing something is going to result in the slaughter of people. Not acting then because “we can never know exactly what might happen” is just dodging responsibility.

                1. US military is intended to defend US citizens, territory, and shipping, so there is no responsibility to dodge in this case.

                  If there’s a 90% chance of a billion people being killed, that can only be prevented by killing a million, yeah, I could see an individual or non-coercive organization deciding to take that course of action and deal with the consequences. Not the military though. And of course, the situations where P(massacre of billions) is that high are exceedingly rare.

                  1. “US military is intended to defend US citizens, territory, and shipping”

                    Says who? The bulk of our history belies this assertion.

                    The Constitution interestingly has such limiting language for the militias (“to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”) but different language for the regular armed forces (“as may be employed in the Service of the United States”). When speaking of both the regular army and militia the limiting language is not used (“when called into the actual Service of the United States”).

            3. Is it justified to prevent a dictator from slaughtering other innocents who are rising up agains him?

              We’re different to them because of the things we won’t do to win. You can sacrifice yourself if you want, but you don’t get to sacrifice other people and call it moral.

      3. “How can you pull the trigger and regret “all loss of life” at the same time?”

        The way he words it makes no sense. However, it is possible to regret the necessity of taking human life in a situation when it is necessary.

        Libya is not that situation, and certainly not for the US.

    5. I’ve sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn’t want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
      Judge Smails

  4. Were any Americans killed? No.

    Is the Arab street happy the Qaddafi kids are dead? You bet.

    So the benefits outweigh the costs. That sounds like a smart move to me. Legal, moral, who cares. It’s smart.

    1. ^I was about to get pissed and then I realized 🙂

  5. I cannot kill a man who shows no fear.

  6. Oddly, the photos for this piece only become _more_ baffling after the first one.

    1. Yeah I was thinking the same thing. And that first photo is actually incredibly disturbing

      1. Who/what was the third one? And am I missing something about the second?

  7. “No longer a pin-up?”
    WTF, does that have to do with a political story
    Do you really want me to google ‘Matt Welch naked in high school?

    1. I tried. All you get is this for some reason.

      1. Great. Now the editorial staff is responding to rectal.

        1. Obviously, you are not a faithful reader of my blog.

          sloopyinca, shouldn’t you be at church confessing your artifice so you may continue another week of Satan’s work?

        2. Yeah, but at least Tim is mocking her. The only rational response to rectal is mockery.

            1. I project that in 5 years, there will still be no one reading rectal’s blog.

              Man, I’m getting tired of being right.

              1. I foreshadow that in 5 years epi will be the same immature lonely little boy he is now, and he’ll spend his time contemplating rather -somehow I don’t think I am practicing thaumaturgy with my guess

                1. You’re so fucking stupid, rectal. I love it. You can’t even use “thaumaturgy” right. You really need to stop picking words at random out of the dictionary. I know being a mongoloid makes you feel inadequate, but your attempts to seem like a normal human with 23 chromosomes are just failing.

                  1. The only pleasure I receive from your response is that I know others are reading it.

                    1. LOOOOOOOOOOOOVE MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

                    2. DON’T YAWN AT ME SMALL DICK LITTLE BOY!

                      GRRRR MY VAG IS ITCHY!

  8. Matt graciously gives Lizza credit for introducing the phrase “leading from behind.” Note that “You can’t lead from the rear” or “You can’t lead from behind” is a commonplace that is (doubtfully) attributed to Gen. James Longstreet but in any event long predates the current administration. I’ve missed the current comeback of “leading from behind.” Is it being used with intentional or unintentional irony?

    1. Intentional.

    2. Matt, these people have no sense of irony. No one with any sense of history or irony could ever coin a phrase as ignorant as “leading from behind.” They really think they are that clever. And that is scary.

    3. It was a direct quote from an (unnamed) Obama administration official defending the policy. So that makes unintentional irony.

    4. Quoting a Confederate general to characterize Obama? I feel like there ought to be a word to describe that…

      1. I’m stumped.

    5. My favorite usage of “leading from behind” comes from science fiction. Larry Niven used it and variations (“Hindmost”) in describing the leadership(?) of the Pierson’s Puppeteer species. They were descended from (and to some extent still were) herd animals.

  9. The worst thing of all is not that they want to enforce a Wilsonian international world order. That at least would be consistent and have some advantages. The worst thing is the half assed nature of the whole thing.

    If Power and Clinton want to keep Gadafi from killing his own people, fine. But for God sake’s go in and do it properly and quickly. You want to throw Gadafi out of power, go in with overwelming force and get it over with and understand that when you do throw him out power you are probably going to be stuch with the job of building a new government after he is gone. If you don’t have the stomach to do that, then don’t. But the worst of all options is going in half assed and causing a prolonged civil war. As bad as Iraq was, it would have been a hundred times worse if we had never gone to Bahgdad and instead just enlessly bombed the country supporting some half baked rebel force. That is what we are doing in Libya. And the longer it goes the worse it is going to get.

    These people live in a bubble. People like Power have never been around anyone who questions their views and they have convinced themselves that everyone who disagrees with them does so out of bad motive. As a result they are incapable of learning from the past or from their own mistakes. You would think after Iraq, the last thing any American president would want to do is half ass a war. But these people write off Iraq and the lessons learned from it as “well but that was when the bad people were in charge, things will be different now”. No the won’t be. The enemy really doesn’t give a shit what your intentions are.

    1. I would think, John, that the lesson is “never get involved in a land war in Asia/Africa/wherever”. I could have told you that after my first viewing of The Princess Bride.

      Their problem is not that they can’t learn. It’s that there is power at hand and they (all of them, either TEAM) can’t resist using it.

      1. Take all partisanship aside and even the most ardent supporter of the Iraq war will admit that the war shows that overthrowing a government and building is a hell of a lot harder and more complex than many thought. And further that these societies that suffer under dictatorship are totally broken by them. How the fuck can someone in power in 2011 get into a war and not ask “what is the end state” and “are willing to do what is necessary to win”?

        1. John, you can’t take all partisanship aside. They’re convinced, like so many others, that the problem wasn’t that it was difficult, but that the wrong people were in charge.

          Which apparently somehow doesn’t include Sec. Gates and Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker or even Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, all of whom are just fine when serving under The One.

          It’s one thing to say “This will have tremendous costs, but I’m still going to argue that it’s better than the alternatives.” (A case that in Iraq was bolstered by the various “sanctions killing Iraqis” reports that inflated the costs of not invading.)

          The current operation in Libya is magical thinking with no Plan B.

          We’ll see what happens with Syria.

        2. John, I think the political reality is different: the recent US governments wanted to wage those wars, and as they want to wage those wars, they come up with completely faked numbers how easy and cheap it will be.

          1. But after Iraq everyone knows it will neither be easy or cheap. Tha argument has been settled. How can they believe otherwise?

            1. See: Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, etc., etc.

              The willful suspension of recognition of reality because they have a good cause?.

              1. On waging wars for peace.

        3. even the most ardent supporter of the Iraq war will admit that the war shows that overthrowing a government and building is a hell of a lot harder and more complex than many thought.

          This was well-known before the Iraq war, in fact it was argued on these very website…and Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rice didn’t give a shit or didn’t think it applied to them. So if you’re going to paint the horns and goatee on Obama for not being wise on this point you’ve got to do the same to Bush. I don’t think you will.

          1. Tulpa we hadn’t invaded a country and occupied it in 50 years in 2003. Further, we had just come off of Kosovo and the Gulf War I. If Kosovo had been as long and expensive as Iraq, you would have a point. And further, I have said numerous times on here that Bush fucked up in grossly underestimating how bad off Iraq was and how difficult it was going to be to rebuilt Iraq. Go back and look and you will find me saying that they didn’t understand that once you took away Saddam the entire civil society of Iraq was going to collapse and you couldn’t just cut off the head and put a new one in like they thought. Go back and you will find me saying that for years, ever since I got back from Iraq. But you of course weren’t listening because you would rather live in a fantasy world of us versus them.

            1. Tulpa we hadn’t invaded a country and occupied it in 50 years in 2003. Further, we had just come off of Kosovo and the Gulf War I. If Kosovo had been as long and expensive as Iraq, you would have a point.

              And yet, we all knew it would be a clusterfuck?

              So here is the question for you: How is it that we knew this but the Iraq invasion supporters didnt?

              Speaking of listening, why the fuck didnt they listen to **US**, especially since we were ones that knew what we were talking about.

              1. Stopped clock Rob C. You said the same thing about every war. Libertarians said the same things about Gulf War I, Kosovo, and so forth.

                1. Gulf War I and Kosovo didn’t involve toppling a government and starting a new one.

                  We did topple a govt and install our own in S. Vietnam though, and that didn’t turn out so well.

                2. Ive said plenty of times if we had left 5 minutes after Hussein had been captured, we could have legitimately claimed victory. So, as Tulpa said, no need to rebuild. That isnt our problem.

                  Not that I favored doing that, but would have been a better strategy. On the same note, however, I supported Afghanistan…until the Taliban wasnt in power, then there was no reason to stick around.

    2. “…If you don’t have the stomach to do that, then don’t.”

      It’s not like they have to feel the full, congruent pinch themselves. It’s other people’s money.

      “…they have convinced themselves that everyone who disagrees with them does so out of bad motive.”

      I wonder if this is also a mechanism of what Thomas Sowell described in “A Conflict of Visions”. This would describe a worldview in the “unconstrained vision” of man’s potential, where once the people outside the in-group are presented with the group’s ideology and don’t follow along, the non-acceptors are typically written off as ignorant or immoral.

    3. People like Power strike me as clearly influenced by two events: Rawanda and Bosnia. The first made them think, we should never stand by and allow this to happen again if we can help it. The second made them think we can stop things like the first with minimal risk to our own forces. Clearly that is the model for Libya.

      And John, Iraq War cheerleaders like yourself should probably refrain from lectures about what the Iraq War has taught everyone.

      1. No MNG, I think people like you who ran around screaming no blood for oil and are now trying to explain why randomly bombing a country and prolonging a civil war is really okay because your side is doing it need to be lectured.

        And yes, the lessons of the Iraq war are right fucking there. And people like you refuse to learn them because you think that your side means well so it is okay. I am at least consistent. I dont’ have a problem with this intervention in principle. I am objecting to the awful way it is being conducting.

        You in contrast ran around calling everyone who supported the Iraq war war mongers. But now make excuses when people you support start a war. Well, you know Power was a journalist and was really affected by Rwanda so this is okay. Yeah, MNG, that makes it different. It was a war crime to invade iraq, but killing Gadafi’s family is okay because Susan power felt bad about Rwanda. Do you even listen to yourself?

        1. “I am objecting to the awful way it is being conducting.”

          If only we could do this in a way that costs way more American lives and resources John would be OK with it…

          “randomly bombing a country”

          Wow, that’s some patent dishonesty right there, almost up with some of the stuff you said beating the Iraq war drums and defending it for years. It’s not like they picked this nation by throwing darts on a board.

          1. “If only we could do this in a way that costs way more American lives and resources John would be OK with it…”

            If we could do it in a way that you know involves us winning and winning quickly. We have taken a civil war that would have been over a month ago and turned it into a protracted stalemate. You really think the people of Libya are better off in an endless civil war than they would have been if we had done nothing? It is not like Gadafi was killing 10s of thousands until the rebellion broke out. He was just a typical Arab thug. If we are going to intervene, we have an obligation to intervene in a way that will shorten the war not prolong it. But we won’t do that because people like Power live in a fucking fantasy world. They don’t have the guts to actually fight a war. But they want to start one anyway. So they do just enough to cause a lot of harm but no enough to do any concominant good.

            I can’t defend or justify putting drones in to bomb Gadafi and his family but then refusing to send enough force in to end the war quickly. This whole thing is just a farce. Gadafi is going to remain in power and we will have put US credibility on the line and killed a bunch of people to accomplish nothing. And you are only defending it because Democrats are doing it. If John McCain had pulled this, you would be having a fit.

            1. And the only reason you’re being critical is because it’s the Democrats. You have no credibility on this issue. There will never be as big a tragic farce as Iraq.

              1. Bullshit. I was very critical of Bush for not using enough force in Iraq and not understanding the task at hand. The very same things I am criticizing Obama for here. I don’t object to throwing Gadafi out of power. But I do object to intervening with no purpose or end state. And that is what we are doing here.

              2. There will never be as big a tragic farce as Iraq

                lol – Libya, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Cuba, Nicaragua….the 20th/21st centuries alone are littered with examples at LEAST as bad as Iraq, if not worse.

                If we must go back further, “REMEMBER THE MAINE!!”

              3. Surprise! MNG and Tony are tu quoque-ing like there’s no tomorrow.

                1. Am I tu quoque-ing? I thought I was saying Libya is like Bosnia not like Iraq and so one can support the first and not the third.

              4. So now we’re comparing which party has the bigger tragic farce? How about we both learn something and stop manufacturing farces? As in, when we start conducting military operations that have nothing to do with actually defending our country, things don’t tend to go well.

                1. But people like Powers can point to Bosnia as examples of interventions which seemed to avert massacres and did not have such terrible results for the US. They seem to be trying to follow this model, not the Iraq one, in Libya.

                  1. You know, 83% of the time, playing Russian Roulette doesn’t hurt you at all.

        2. “It was a war crime to invade iraq, but killing Gadafi’s family is okay”

          And please, stop equating what happened in Iraq and what is now happening in Libya. What is happening in Libya is much closer to Bosnia or the Iraq NFZ. A person could be for limited action to prevent massacres on the grounds that it protects our troops and still be against full scale invasions/occupations. Now if we landed troops and had a full scale invasion of Libya and the people who decried Iraq applaud THEN you may have yourself a hypocrite or two. But that’s not what is happening right now, and you know that.

          1. We would be better off invading. At least we would accomplish ending the war and assume responsibility to rebuilding the country. As it is, we are just prolonging the civil war. Our bombing is making things worse. We don’t seem to be preventing any bloodshed. And we are not ending the war. As I said above, as bad as Iraq was, it would have been worse had we instead of going to Bahgdad just bombed for months in support of some half baked rebel force.

            You think it is okay to kill people and bomb people as long as you just kind of do it a little bit and don’t really try too hard to win the war. It doesn’t work that way. If you are going to get into something, you have a moral obligation to finish it as quickly as possible.

            1. Put another way: If you’re going to put an animal out of it’s misery, make sure the 1st blow is enough to end it.

            2. “as bad as Iraq was, it would have been worse had we instead of going to Bahgdad just bombed for months in support of some half baked rebel force.”

              I’m not sure of that at all. In the second example we might come of less as occupiers, we would put forward less force, and we would expose our forces a lot less.

              I can see and appreciate your point, if you are going to intervene do it forcefully to quickly bring about the result you want and not drag things out for all involved. But it’s striking you can’t see the other side’s points I just went through above. It worked in Bosnia and that’s what they are aiming at.

    4. understand that when you do throw him out power you are probably going to be stuch with the job of building a new government after he is gone.

      Why? If the next government poses a presumed threat, knock it out next. These aren’t high tech defenses.

      If the next “Fearless Leader” gets vaporized, the ones who follow won’t be so fearless. A country can’t be occupied by air and missiles, but a government can sure be disappeared. Whether or not this is right or a good idea is a different question, but functionally, I don’t see why we’d stick around after getting rid of someone we claim to be a threat.

      1. Eternal war! Fuck yeah!

      2. Good point. Back in the day, if a despot threatened say Imperial Britain’s trade routes, that Imperial ruler was dispatched. It didn’t take that much defeat for the despots to get the right idea.

    5. If Power and Clinton want to keep Gadafi from killing his own people, fine.

      No not fine. The American government has the responsibility to protect the lives and rights of American citizens and nobody else. We have the right to do what we’re going, but we shouldn’t be doing it. The wealth the US government is going to have to extract from its citizens to fund this fuckfest is the opposite of its mission stated above.

    6. “The worst thing of all is not that they want to enforce a Wilsonian international world order. That at least would be consistent and have some advantages.”

      Such as…?

    1. OH NOES THE GOOKS ARE GOING TO OVERTAKE US! RUN!!!

      1. Episiarch, if there is a chink out there buying a new car or a DVD player, America can never survive. Don’t you understand that?

        1. It’s a zero sum game! Rising living standards for them mean DOOM for us!

          Unfortunately this is what so many people realle believe.

          1. But affenkopf, every PS3 or XBOX THEY have means one less for MY SON!

            ZOMG TEH WALMARTZS LEAD PAINT COMMIE-MADE AMERICAN FLAGS!!!!
            DOOOOOOOOOOM I SAY!!!

            /da troof

            1. Trade IS a zero some game.

              Real life isn’t an Economics 101 textbook. In reality, trade is war by economic means.

              1. Which is why the standard of living is the same now as it was when the Achaeans first set sail for Egypt.

                You can’t just create wealth, people.

                1. Which is why the standard of living is the same now as it was when the Achaeans first set sail for Egypt.

                  For a large chunk, of not the majority of humanity, this statement is true.

                  1. For a large chunk, of not the majority of humanity, this statement is true.

                    You have completely sacrificed rational debate when you make the claim that the standard of living for most civilizations is comparable to ancient civilizations.

              2. Trade IS a zero some game.

                Real life isn’t an Economics 101 textbook. In reality, trade is war by economic means.

                HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                1. Just go ask Detroit how much wealth all those Japanese car companies have created for them! Why, they’re better off than they’ve ever been!

                  Or ask the (former) steelworkers in Gary and Pittsburgh how much they’ve been “enriched” by cheap Chinese steel.

                  1. Just go ask Detroit how much wealth all those Japanese car companies have created for them! Why, they’re better off than they’ve ever been!

                    They personally may not be better off in the short-term, but they certainly are in the long-term. If trade is allowed to develop along the lines of comparative advantage every country will use its resources in the most efficient way possible and the standard of living of every society will rise. Moreover, due to the nature of human demand for wealth (i.e. it is infinite), absent market distortions every resource in a country will be employed with or without trade protectionism. The unemployed land, labor, and capital will depress their prices and will be reabsorbed back into profitable American industries. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. Literally every non-heterodox school of economic thought, from neoclassicalists to Austrians, understands and incorporates the law of comparative advantage into their economic framework.

                    This isn’t even getting into how high the opportunity cost is for America to waste resources producing textiles. American labor has such a higher marginal productivity than Chinese labor due to capital accumulation that we are squandering resources by producing t-shirts and plastic toys. This is why America specializes in areas that require a very productive labor force and are very capital-intensive, like medicine, the construction of heavy machinery, and so on. Autarky would not only lower the standard of living of Americans by forcing us to employ resource in inefficient lines of production, but would also lower the standard of living for every other human being on the planet.

                    I can only conclude from this that you either hate humanity or just fetishize economic independence.

                    1. They personally may not be better off in the short-term, but they certainly are in the long-term.

                      “You may never have a job again except for one that pays$7.45/hour being a greeter at Wal-Mart, but hey, in the long term you’re etter off! My Ekonomiks Professor said so!”

                    2. “You may never have a job again except for one that pays$7.45/hour being a greeter at Wal-Mart, but hey, in the long term you’re etter off! My Ekonomiks Professor said so!”

                      I smell a false dichotomy. The choice isn’t between manufacturing cars and working at Wal-Mart; it’s between manufacturing cars and pursuing hundreds of thousands of alternative careers in America. This wasn’t a refutation of anything I said in my post, it’s just you grand-standing.

                      And is it really your contention that America’s skilled labor force is so incompetent that they can only get jobs at Wal-Mart?

              3. So is The Truth the love child of Tony and rather?

                1. Nah, he’s a department head at a Chinese spam farm. He did so well posting blog comments to sell Sonic the Hedgehog Obama backpacks that The Party recruited him to demoralize the Western Devils and soften them up for an invasion. They must not think much of him at Party HQ if he got assigned to H&R.

              4. Trade IS a zero some game.

                A zero-sum game is where a benefit gained by one person is directly offset by harm being inflicted on another person. Hence “zero-sum” (the positive benefit is canceled by the negative harm).

                Trade, by definition, is not zero-sum. The only reason two people trade is because they value the good being offered by the other person more than the good they’re trading for it. To coin a phrase, trade is a “positive-sum” game because both parties benefit.

                Real life isn’t an Economics 101 textbook. In reality, trade is war by economic means.

                When someone can no longer win a debate on economics they move to completely disprove economics altogether. You aren’t fooling anyone; you’re changing your tune because every time you come here with your jingoist, xenophobic economic policies they are consistently torn to pieces by the commenters on here.

                Stormfront will be much more receptive to your fasci-, err, I mean “authoritarian state capitalist” ideology than Reason.

                1. A zero-sum game is where a benefit gained by one person is directly offset by harm being inflicted on another person.

                  Which is why the rise of foreign cars didn’t hurt Detroit *at all!* It’s booming just like it was in the ’50s when domestic makes had a 90% market share!

                  1. Which is why the rise of foreign cars didn’t hurt Detroit *at all!* It’s booming just like it was in the ’50s when domestic makes had a 90% market share!

                    And if we had continued to produce cars at a much higher opportunity cost than other nations then American society as a whole would’ve suffered due to the inefficient employment of resources.

                    I’ll simplify things for you. You are asking (forcing?) a doctor to spend time cleaning his own tools rather than having someone else with a much lower opportunity cost clean the instruments for him so that he can spend more time curing people.

                    1. Shorter TNCM:

                      “We just have too many jobs here. We should outsource them, after all, unemployment is at historic lows!”

                    2. “We just have too many jobs here. We should outsource them, after all, unemployment is at historic lows!”

                      Now you’re engaging in slander. Never once have I said that on this website or anywhere else.

                    3. BTW, comparitive advantage doesn’t work in a world where capital is more mobile than labor. That wasn’t the case in the 19th Century when that theory was developed. Now it is.

                    4. BTW, comparitive advantage doesn’t work in a world where capital is more mobile than labor. That wasn’t the case in the 19th Century when that theory was developed. Now it is.

                      It is infinitely more cheaper to move a person from one country to another than to move a factory. It’s not like the difference between American productivity and Chinese productivity is a few assembly lines; we’ve been accumulating capital and lengthening our structure of production for centuries, while they’ve only been doing it since Deng Xiaoping’s economic reforms.

                    5. It is infinitely more cheaper to move a person from one country to another than to move a factory.

                      Bullshit. We’re talking about international borders here. Ex. try being a Brazilian, even a middle class one, and applying for a US visa. Even getting a simple tourist visa as a citizen of a developing country to move to the US or Europe is about as easy as jumping through flaming hoops, let alone a green card.

                      Moving money, meanwhile, is as simple as a few digital transactions.

                    6. Bullshit. We’re talking about international borders here. Ex. try being a Brazilian, even a middle class one, and applying for a US visa. Even getting a simple tourist visa as a citizen of a developing country to move to the US or Europe is about as easy as jumping through flaming hoops, let alone a green card.

                      Many countries, including China and Brazil, have a tax and regulatory policy which discriminates heavily against foreign capital and businesses. From a purely monetary perspective, it is exceedingly more costly to move capital across borders than persons.

                      I’m not sure about the traveler’s visa for Europe, but I didn’t have any difficulty getting my visa to China. It was slow, of course, but what bureaucracy isn’t? Anecdotal, I know, but just thought I’d throw it out there.

                      Moving money, meanwhile, is as simple as a few digital transactions.

                      Money is not capital. It gives one the purchasing power to bid away resources so you can build up capital, but pieces of paper or golden coins do not participate in the process of production, only exchange. The three general categories of economic goods are consumer goods, producer goods, and money.

                    7. Oh man I love this guy. I think he’s definitely one of out better trolls.

              5. Is that true when you buy veggies at the corner store? Or a dvd player from Best Buy? That is trade between you and the store/business owners.

              6. In reality, trade is war by economic means.

                I think trade is badminton by economic means. Or a tortoise by economic means. Because, don’t you know, all nouns are fungible.

      2. Epi! We don’t use that term for Asians any more! It’s disrespectful and inappropriate!

        The correct terms are “Slopes” or “Zipperheads”.

        Please be mindful going forward…

        1. Almanian, this isn’t a guy who built the railroads here, this is a guy…

    2. Ah, a testable hypothesis. See you in five years.

  10. “””It’s that there is power at hand and they (all of them, either TEAM) can’t resist using it.””‘

    As long as the US has bases and military forces available all over the world then the people in Washington (team R or B) will want to use it. Unfortunately it seems that this world wide military force has such a high priority that even with massive deficits the fools in Washington would rather fund it then get the countries financial house in order

    The US needs to get out of NATO and the other military alliances since it just sets up US military to intervene all over the world at a monument notice by the politician class in Washington. However, the only thing that will make that happen is a major economic collapse in the US and that is not something to wish for.

    And even without those forces deployed around the world the US military is working on technology for what the call is “global strike”, the ability to use missiles or aircraft in the US to hit any target around the world. Just what the interventionists would love.

    1. The only way to stop these scum from intervening is to remove the capacity for “easy” intervention, but no senator will allow any drawdown of forces in their home district. The fucking military has become welfare for many people, and they are on the teat now.

      1. If we don’t get that capability someone else will. I really don’t want to live in a world where they can kill us and we can’t kill them. You guys bitch about being the intervenor. Wait until people can come and kill us and fuck with us at will. You will love for the days when our biggest problem was interveneing too much.

        1. You seem to forget that the US has nuclear weapons so that if anyone tries to “global strike” the US then they die? Do you think that a few airforce bombs or marines on the ground is going to be a bigger deterrent then a nuclear weapon?

          1. We will never use those nukes in response to a conventional attack and everyone knows it.

            1. I don’t think the ICBMs will be flying for anything short of WW3 or alien invasion, but I can definitely see small low-yield tactical nuclear devices being used if a conventional threat was extremely dire.

            2. So if another country directly attacks the US you are against using a nuke, but in favor of getting thousands of Americans soldiers dead and hundreds of billions of dollars wasted at a minimum? I think that other countries won’t even try if they are sane, and if they are not sane then your global intervention forces won’t deter them either.

              1. John didn’t say he was against using them, he said other countries know we won’t. He’s probably correct. The damage setting off a nuke would do to the area would likely mean it won’t be done unless America were on the ropes.

            3. You think other countries are willing to take that chance John?

              Why haven’t India and Pakistan invaded each other? I don’t think you’re seriously making the case that nukes aren’t a deterrent.

              We could do just fine with an air force, navy, and our nukes. Any defensive infantry needs would be covered by the National Guard

              1. Nature whores a vacuum…if we don’t dominate the all-important OCEANS, someone else will.

              2. “Why haven’t India and Pakistan invaded each other?”

                Whoops. Might want to rethink that example dude.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War

          2. Who has a navy that could cross either of the oceans to strike us? A few tactical nukes and any landing force is sunk. Period.

            1. Chris, in case you missed the last 50 years or so of military developments, nuclear tipped ICBMs can be launched against the US by a number of nations. Navies aren’t necessary to destroy a large part of the US and her people.

              1. And nuclear weapons are the deterrent to nuclear attack, not bases, ships, aircraft and soldiers around the world

                1. Exactly.

            2. The idea that any nation could challenge the USA’s navy (with more aircraft carriers then the rest of the world combined) is funny.

        2. The bases on US soil are fine. They give the military the capability to deploy in case of a foreign attack.

          But the overseas bases give politicians with flagging approval ratings and itchy trigger fingers far too much to work with in terms of foreign intervention.

          There is no reason for any country to have military bases in other countries.

          1. No, the number of bases we have is not fine. Our military is TOO FUCKING LARGE. It’s welfare for all those who join, their families, and the surrounding towns. It gives politicians the ability to intervene at a whim. It funds the military-industrial complex. It distorts the politics of any place there’s a base.

            We don’t need it. We never needed it before WWII. It’s just another government clusterfuck that causes the expected shitton of problems.

            Get rid of it. If some place magically became able to attack the US over two huge oceans, and had the balls to do so, we build it up as needed.

            1. Standing armies: Bad ideas.

              The founders knew it. Yes, The War of 1812 showed the problems with volunteers, but maybe we wouldnt have invaded fucking Canada with that knowledge.

              Ive got two disclaimers:

              1. SLD
              2. Im too old for it now

              But, regardless of the disclaimers, I could support a Swiss style military if going without a standing army isnt possible.

              1. I suppose we should go with Swiss-style rough terrain and lack of enticing natural resources too.

                1. Two major oceans are as good as the passes in the Alps.

                  1. What is your obsession with oceans?

                    As far as I know, no one has invented a vessel that can travel through the interior of mountains….and as has been pointed out already, ICBMs don’t care about oceans.

                2. The german border isnt that rough of terrain. And, appropriatly (at least when I lived there in early 90s) about 90% of the military maneuvers are dont along the german border.

            2. A major culture shift has to occur. That or another New World to flee to beyond the reach of those who believe the government should and can protect from all risk.

        3. I don’t want anyone else to be the intervenor either, but I don’t think we need a military a hundredd times larger than anyone else either to keep that from happening.

      2. The money legislators use for wars is always other people’s money, which is a big impediment to making them think twice.

  11. The US is a paper tiger and always has been. Look at the countries it fights–weak third world shitholes. Like most bullies, its a coward, and would fold like a cheap house of cards against a real enemy

    1. Unlike the PRC, which in the case of Taiwan is afraid to even attempt to exercise control over what it claims is its own territory. Get back to me when the US is afraid to enforce its authority over Hawaii.

      1. Don’t sell them short; running over your own unarmed civilians in the streets with tanks takes quite a bit of bravery.

      2. One Dong Feng 21 ASBM tearing through the hull of an American aircraft carrier, turning a milti billion dollar vessel into scrap metal with a million dollar missile, and the US leaves East Asia with its tail between its legs and Taiwan is returned.

        1. *Masturbates furiously*

          1. Stop spoofing him or he’ll shoot his Dong Feng at you.

        2. Yeeeeeeaaaaaahhhhhhhhh. Keep your fly zipped there, Mr Truth.

    2. Yeah, becuase fighting the Vietnamese for 10 years on their home soil was just so fucking easy. The Chinese invaded Vietnam in 1979 and got their asses handed to them in a straight up conventional fight, something that never happened to the US in Vietnam. I know you are a troll and all. But even by troll standards you are just God awfully stupid.

      1. I’m surprised you just didn’t use the most obvious counterexample of fighting Germany in World Wars 1 and 2.

        And maybe “The Truth” should ask the survivors of the bombed out cities of the Third Reich whether the US was a “paper tiger?”

        1. Or ask Saddam or the Taliban if we are a paper tiger. I really wouldn’t want to be on the other end of those two wars. The only reason they have held on is their incredible willingness to die for their cause.

          1. As I was saying, the US only fights weak third world enemies. Nice own goal, John.

            1. AFghanistan handed it to the British and the Russians. Yeah, you pretty much are universal stupid. Have you thought about getting therapy? You seem to have a lot of guilt issues with being an American and growing up in such a nice place. Your self loathing is probably treatable. Your stupidity sadly probably isn’t.

              1. The British actually won the second war with Afghanistan.

                The Soviet Union was in its dying days in the 80s and, yes, engaging in stupid wars with smaller countries is a sign of imperial overstretch and imminent decline. Kind of like a balding, fat, middle aged man buying a Porsche.

                1. Please identify which non-3rd world country the PRC has ever had military success against outside Chinese soil.

                  1. Japan, Russia, and, oh yeah, the US in Korea. They drove them back from their border.

                    1. They drove them back from their border.

                      …and then proceeded to get driven back to the 38th parallel by a much smaller US force with one lousy port available for resupplying.

                      And they’ve never fought Japan or Russia outside of Chinese soil.

                  2. Let’s see, in wars without allies the US has had outright victories over:

                    *The Mexicans
                    *The Spanish.

                    Yeaaah…real tough opponents there!

                    1. As opposed to omnipotent China, which had about a fourth of its land mass occupied by Imperial Japan during WW2.

        2. The US was a bit player in WWI. Serbia lost more men!

          Nazi Germany was defeated by the USSR.

          1. The US lost over 200 thousand people in World War I. It made the difference in the 1918 offensive and saved Paris from the arch angel offensive.

            Jesus, is there anything you know something about or are you pretty much universal stupid?

            1. The vast majority of those deaths were Spanish flu.

              Italy and Serbia did more for the Allies
              . Bit. Player.

              1. Italy and Serbia were sideshows. The western front was the main front

                1. Ok, fucking Canada lost more men in combat. How’s that?

                  1. I love the notion that losing more men makes you win. It’s like that guy in Kung Pow

                    Wimp Lo: Ha! Face to foot style, how do you like it?
                    Chosen One: I’m sure on some planet your style is impressive, but your weak link is: this is Earth.
                    Wimp Lo: Oh yeah? Then try my nuts to your fist style!

          2. The goal isn’t to die for your country, it’s to make the other bastard die for his.

          3. The Zulu Kingdom lost over 10,000 warriors in their war with the British, with the Brits losing less than 1800.

            By The Truth’s standards, Zulu really kicked butt!

      2. EVERYONE lost to Vietnam.

        Vietnam is to war what Butler and VCU are to college basketball. It can and often does beat bigger powers. At least China had the sense to cut their losses unlike the French and Americans.

        1. I’m surprised with all this talk of China nobody has mentioned Chinese Food. Very good. I highly recommend it.

  12. Garo Yepremian!

    1. Got that. But who’s the woman?

      1. Right-clicking on the image says it’s called “SamanthaPowerFashion2.jpg”.

        Does that help? 😉

  13. Serious question for the Libya hawks in the audience: Is there any reason for the US not to intervene in Syria?

    Here we have yet another Middle Eastern popular uprising met with violent resistance by a tinpot dictator, with academics and foreign policy analysts already calling for foreign intervention (and since they know we’re willing, why wouldn’t they?).

    Now that the Libyan popular uprising is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the US military, why not just chuck some flying killer robots at Syria too?

    1. Hezbollah is allied with Assad, so there’s no potential for winning the hearts and minds of terrorist organizations.

      It really doesn’t make any sense to attack a dictator who terrorists like.

      Simple enough for you?

      1. So we should attack a country whose leaders the terrorists don’t like????? Sounds like that will just make the world safe for leaders who the terrorists like.

        Its better not to intervene at all, unless there is a direct attack on the US. And even then it should be a proven attack, not some blown up battleship on Havana harbor.

        1. “Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain!”

          1. And remember the US sent a battleship to Havana because the US wanted to support the rebels in Cuban. It was just a show the flag operation but with a mistake or accident the powder magazines exploded and then next thing was the US now had an empire in the Caribbean and Pacific. A rather poor and money draining empire but that does not seem to have bothered the interventionists.

            1. Nothing bothers the interventionists, dude. Because they’re meddlers. Cost? Irrelevant. Lives lost? Unimportant. They want to control, and they’ll do it to anyone they can get their hands on; starting with us right here at home.

            2. We should have made Cuba a state.

              1. In retrospect, yes. See that’s my thing. If it’s worth fighting for, it’s worth making a state. Can you imagine how awesome Spring Break in Cuba would be?

              2. 54-40 or fight!

    2. I’m increasinly against the Libya action, but I will offer an answer. There is bloodshed in Syria but it doesn’t appear they are in the middle of a full scale civil war. In Libya they were certainly in the middle of such a war when we intervened (and up until about a week, a precious week btw which we squandered if we were going to get involved, it looked like the regime was on its heels).

      Shooting demonstrators is not the same situation as a civil war. It’s the difference between trying to give a regime a push and going in and doing a full scale overthrow.

      1. The problem is that the time to be against the Libyan action was before the action happens. Once they get involved the politicians and military will not want to stop because they think they will lose face over retreating. They would rather waste thousands of lives and billions of dollars, then to back down.

        That is why not having US troops, planes and ships stationed around the world would help slow things down a bit, the present situation where they can get into a war much faster then it takes to get real facts and think about the real dangers of intervening.

      2. So when people fight against their government with military-grade weapons, they’re innocent potential massacre victims… but hundreds of unarmed people getting shot in the streets aren’t.

        1. You’re either being dishonest or careless in ignoring the difference between trying to give a regime a push and going in and doing a full scale overthrow.

          Consider if, rather than invading Afghanistan we gave supplies and air support to the Northern Alliance. You would see no difference between that and the invasion/occupation? And you don’t think a person could have supported that without supporting intervening in Syria?

          1. 1. It’s ridiculous to call our intervention “giving Qaddafi a push”. If the intervention had taken place when Qaddafi was on his heels, perhaps, but it was the rebellion that was teetering on the edge of collapse when we intervened.

            2. “Air support” is pretty serious military intervention, quite a step up from merely supplying one side. And it’s a stretch to call attacking the home of a head of state “air support” in the first place.

            1. 1. I agree about the timing, they bungled it. But certainly there was more going on in Libya even when they got around to doing something than is going on in Syria.

              2. Dude, you’re straining. Air strikes < full scale invasion.

  14. Pragmatists will always and forever spill blood.

    Not as much as the neocons. And there’s no moral superiority in washing your hands of foreign intervention if it means more people die. Whatever your position on a specific policy, merely being consistent in how you’d treat countries and events carries no special virtue.

    1. So there’s absolutely no moral distinction between failing to act when someone gets killed and killing them yourself?

      1. Couldn’t there be a moral distinction and yet both be immoral?

      2. Depends on whether you’re in a convenient position to prevent it. If the outcome is the same, how neurons happened to be firing in your brain at the time doesn’t seem to meaningfully matter. The law might find a distinction, but that’s with regard to culpability, not an assessment of the outcome. The outcome and its tragedy are equal.

        1. But a country is not an individual, when the “leaders” in Washington send the US to war, it is not them who go, they send the whole country to war. So is it moral to send others to war so you can feel good about your morality? If Obama or Hillary or Bush etc want to send themselves, that is different then sending the entire country to war, especially since they don’t suffer no matter how badly they screw up the decision.

        2. Tony, WRT outcomes, every story ends the same way, so spare us the view from nowhere.

          The person who pulled the trigger is responsible for a murder. The person/president/society that coulda woulda shoulda prevented it isn’t. Believing otherwise is a conceit.

        3. You are being incredibly dense. I think you are a spoofer. Your second post contradicted your first. Will the real tonetone raise a clenched fist?

      3. Hugh, you really shouldn’t encourage the sockpuppet by talking to it. I mean, do you encourage the hobo who is asking you for money on the street by talking to it? No: you ignore it, or tell it to get lost.

        1. Bums that say they want money for booze/cigarettes/drugs will get money from me. Bums that start with the ol’ “hey my car ran out of gas, brother can you spare a dime” story that seems bizarrely popular get jack.

          1. I used to carry around extra cigarettes and just gave them those instead.

      4. Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin. Throw Hitler in for four.

  15. Is Matt Welch right to blame “pro-interventionist idealists” lurking in the shadows of the government for America’s next inevitable intervention? Or should he just blame the majority of the American people, who seem fine with intervention in every sphere?

    1. I continue to blame Bush

    2. PS Went to your link – Good essay! I like it! Bookmarked your site – cool.

        1. rather: went to your website, saw nothing I liked. Didn’t even think of bookmarking it – cool.

          1. SMALL DICK LITTLE BOY!

          2. what part of that was a fucking joke did you not understand?

            Do you really think I give a shit that some anonymous asshole wants to comment on whether he liked my site? You are as interesting as that piece of shit ‘rather retarted’/helle and the spoof who keeps using my name.

            1. You think I give a shit about you???

              *slits wrists*

              1. your actions speak for you

                1. Our actions speak for us. They’re saying we’re a fat ugly cunt with no life and no friends.

  16. OT: Tibor Machan is on cspan2 now.

  17. I’m dying to hear Obama say, “I keek a touchdown” in an upcoming presser.

  18. Same as it ever was

    Indeed

    1. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

  19. this mixed-up, shook-up world

    ELECT LOLA.

  20. Canada’s Smiley Faced Election – Rex Murphy
    “Jack Layton is by far the most cheerful of our national party leaders, and cheerfulness is a much desired virtue in politics and life. Jack Layton’s campaign has a big smiley-faced Welcome sign on the front door. Stephen Harper’s could have guard dogs on his, the way he keeps things so tight and on script.

    This wave is heading Mr. Layton’s way because he’s doing absolutely nothing ? unlike his opponents ? to frown or gloom or fright it away. And though it’s called an Orange wave, that’s partly a misnomer. The water is not so much rushing toward the NDP as away from others.”

  21. The fuck-up in Chief should really be proud of the catch-22 he’s gotten us into.

    If we keep up this half-assed air war, either the stalemate will continue or Gadhaffi will start to take back territory. Thus handing Obama, the U.S. and NATO a defeat.

    If we up the ante, as it looks like we might be doing with the use of drones and targeting Gadhaffi’s family, we may succeed in destroying the regime. But we are going to have to kill a lot more people, including civilians. And wasn’t protecting civilians the whole reason we got involved? If victory means we have to kill as many if not more civilians than Gadhaffi, what was the point? Winning may also require ground forces to secure victory and “mediate”/control the new government. How’s another occupation in a Muslim country sound?

    We will have earned no good will among muslims, helped Al Qaeda’s strategic position in Africa, and sent the message that dictators have no incentive to work with the U.S. or the West.

    The other option is accepting the survival of the Libyan regime, and therefore accepting ANOTHER defeat for America.

  22. Those wacky 60’s activists are now firmly in charge after working through the system.

  23. THANK YOU for posting this! I’m glad I found your blog!!

    Steve
    Common Cents
    http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com

  24. I did what Bush wouldn’t and that is hunt down and kill Osama bin Laden. Bush was a pussy and didn’t want to offend Pakistan but I ignored Pakistan’s protesting and ordered our drones to go in and hunt him down.

  25. Yeah the WoT is over, bin Laden is DEAD. Disassemble TSA and HHS immediately.

  26. OK, those guys are making a lot of sense dude. Wow.

    http://www.real-privacy.eu.tc

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.