Democrats & Liberals Archives

Warmongering Diplomacy

The Bush Administration does everything differently from other admnistrations. Take diplomacy. Almost everyone believes that diplomacy requires both carrots and sticks. Bush uses sticks. Everyone believes you must talk about the issues. Bush says, if you agree with my conditions then we can talk. Everyone tries to keep friends on board. If Bush does not like the position of friends, he proceeds on his own.

For years the U.S. and Europe were trying to change Iran's mind about nuclear weapon development - Europe taking a soft approach and U.S. a hard approach. Finally, U.S. has unilaterally increased sanctions against Iran, or rather, groups in Iran:

The move designated the Quds force of the Revolutionary Guard and four state-owned Iranian banks as supporters of terrorism, and the Guard itself as an illegal exporter of ballistic missiles. The decision thus raised the temperature in American’s ongoing confrontation with Iran over terrorism and nuclear weapons.

Europe is not going along. Putin has denounced it. And under secretary of state for political affairs Nicholas Burns tells us not to worry because this is diplomacy:

“We do not believe that conflict is inevitable,” said R. Nicholas Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs. “This decision today supports the diplomacy and in no way, shape or form does it anticipate the use of force.”

If this is diplomacy, how come nobody is talking to Iran about it? What sort of carrots are we offering them? Now that U.S. is alone with its unilateralism how can we get Europe and anyone else to support our sanctions? Without support from other nations, what good are any sanctions?

It makes one wonder. What is the purpose of all this talk about diplomacy? It sounds eerily the same as the administration's talk about diplomacy before we invaded Iraq. We tried talk, we tried everything, but Iran would not budge. So, we must attack.

The purpose of all this "diplomacy" is to prepare Americans for the bombing of Iran. If you don't want this to happen, call or write your representative and senators and tell them you are against this warmongering diplomacy.

Posted by Paul Siegel at October 26, 2007 4:50 PM
Comments
Comment #237043

Paul,

Let me state that I have no interest in going to war with Iran. Quite the opposite, in fact.

But let us face facts.

Iran has done nothing BUT warmongering…threatening to blow Isreal off the map, importing weapons into Iraq to blow up American soldiers…and thumbing their collective nose at the peaceful approach to European diplomacy.

Would you have us ignore Iran’s “war by proxy” with the U.S. in Iraq?

Would you have us ignore the not so hollow threats against our staunchest ally in that region?

Would you have us ignore the diplomatic slaps in the face to the Europeans?

You point out a problem, but offer no solution…and nothing is or has worked so far.

What do you suggest we do?

Posted by: Jim T at October 26, 2007 5:20 PM
Comment #237044

The purpose of all this “diplomacy” is to prepare Americans for the bombing of Iran.

Thank you Paul for approaching this very important issue. My first thoughts upon hearing this information this morning were exactly the same as yours. GW and his administration have a history. And that history does not bode well for any sort of diplomatic endeavors. These folks are diplomatically challenged. Hell they are just plain challenged, period. This man has another year left to truly screw the pooch, so to speak. What is scary is I think he may be succesful.

Posted by: RickIL at October 26, 2007 5:27 PM
Comment #237045

“If this is diplomacy, how come nobody is talking to Iran about it? What sort of carrots are we offering them? Now that U.S. is alone with its unilateralism how can we get Europe and anyone else to support our sanctions? Without support from other nations, what good are any sanctions?” Posted by Paul Siegel at October 26, 2007 04:50 PM

Paul, there are so many errors and untruths in your post it is difficult to address them all. Have you forgotten our backing of the Russian offer to recyle the spent fuel rods so Iran needn’t spend the money to build the thousands of centrifuges to refine nuclear material for fuel and also for possible bomb making? I would call that a carrot. There are many other examples. Within the past two or three weeks the French SEC State proclaimed there was a very real possibility of their going to war with Iran if they didn’t cease their efforts to become nuclear armed. Germany’s President Merkel has backed American efforts at sanctions along with many other nations. It is naive to believe this is a unilateral move by the U.S. We always carry the water for the rest of the timid world and in the background are applauded. Putin’s Russia has greed and political aims at the center of its Iran policy. Have you forgotten about all the sanctions in the U.N. and warnings given before we and our many allies had no choice but to invade Iraq to stop a monster so out of touch that he claimed to have WMD he didn’t have. We couldn’t trust because we couldn’t verify. It’s the same right now with Iran. Once again, we are trying to avoid war using carrots and sticks along with considerable diplomacy. Simply because you choose not to see it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Iran will cave into world pressure or it will be stopped in some other way. Regardless, they will not be allowed to join the nuclear club. I support our efforts and that of other western world leaders who are willing to stick their necks out to avoid an inevitable catastrophe should Iran obtain and disemminate nuclear weapons. Should this happen, I don’t believe libs will any longer be trying to scare people with their false man-made global warming nonsense. Try cleaing up the atmosphere filled with nuclear radiation and co2 will soon be considered unimportant. Many liberals will continue to wear their blindfolds and spout slogans of peace, but the real work for peace is being done in Wahsington and other world capitals to save your ass and mine.

Posted by: Jim at October 26, 2007 5:45 PM
Comment #237057

Paul:

The Bush Administration does everything differently from other admnistrations.

You always generalize.

Almost everyone believes that diplomacy requires both carrots and sticks.

Almost everyone is not quite this simplistic.

Europe is not going along. Putin has denounced it.

It’s been a long time since I have seen Putin used as a source speaking for Europe!!

Posted by: Craig Holmes at October 26, 2007 8:03 PM
Comment #237062

Paul,

Great topic! Let’s think a bit. Israel bombs a purported nuke site in Syria. How much press have we seen on that? Uh, almost none! What was Syria’s response? What major offensive did they launch?

Turkey is preparing to cross their border with Iraq to quell attacks by the PKK ………… uh, just how much has the media mentioned that the PKK has also been launching cross-border terrorist attacks in Iran? Uh, jeez ……….. once again, almost not at all!

Is there any double standard here at all? Syria should not and dare not respond to an air assault by Israel! Turkey and Iran should not or dare not respond to any attack by the Iraqi PKK because Iraq is now basically an American province!

Putin is now threatening a standoff reminiscent of the Cuban missile crisis over our increased sanctions against Iran and our insistence on building new missile silos in Europe. Holy crap!

Are we really that damn hell bent on Armageddon?

Why is no one suggesting that Bush & Co. are insane?

Posted by: KansasDem at October 26, 2007 8:59 PM
Comment #237067

Aw hell, here goes Kansas, I’ll volunteer. These people are insane. And I’m not just suggesting it, the evidence is well in. Anyone seen Putins censored press conference?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17856.htm

Or how about this?

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2007/10/04/imperial-playground-the-story-of-iran-in-recent-history-by-andrew-g-marshall/

Still don’t get it?

http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics___Eurasia/Putin/putin.html

or how about this one;

http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261

We’re living in the most dangerous time since the Missile crisis in what was it, 61? People, we’re on the eve of destruction, and most Americans can’t see past their provincial & partisan bigotry? Jesus wept!

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at October 26, 2007 10:50 PM
Comment #237068

As a ps, I guess the flaky rapturists will be a shiverin and a shakin, singin halleluia, praise Jesus and bring it on brotha, while Jesus is getting ready to smite their perverted stupidity. I am become death, the destroyer of Nations……..

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at October 26, 2007 10:58 PM
Comment #237069

Paul in Euroland,

Bravo!

It is indeed wake up time.

I’m just glad that I’m not the only one that realizes the USA is starting WW III. And those of us who try to stop it are called traitors, cowards, and worse!

It’s downright depressing!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: KansasDem at October 26, 2007 11:23 PM
Comment #237078

We’re seem to be in familiar pattern here. Where have we seen this exact same script before?

Putin is repeating almost exactly the behaviors of previous Russian strongmen like Nikita Khrushchev and Joseph Stalin.

He suppresses the press, persecutes dissidents, and takes a strongly nationalistic line in his rants and raves about how the United States and its Western European allies are “provoking” Russia by building up defensive military assets near Russia’s borders.

Meanwhile, the American and European Left play to perfection the role assigned to them. They didn’t want us to fight the Cold War either, considering anything but abject softness to be “provocative” war-mongering. They bitterly complained about the actions of US Presidents like Kennedy and Reagan, and demanded nothing but weakness, defeat, and spineless appeasement.

We’ve seen this all before—a classic example of history repeating itself, with each faction in place and playing exactly the role they always play.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at October 27, 2007 12:20 AM
Comment #237080

LO,

Can you not see that we’ve become the aggressor?

Very few argue that we were wrong to invade Afghanistan. A vacuum existed there that allowed rogue elements to operate unhampered. Now negotiations with the Taliban are being considered, so what have we gained?

Iraq was (and is) a different story ………… and now that we’re rattling sabers with Iran it’s not surprising that Putin thinks the USA is seeking domination of a large part of the worlds oil resources.

Can’t you see that we’ve become the “bad-guy” in this scenario? Look from the outside-in! We are presenting a threat to the sovereignty of other nations based purely on suspicion.

Posted by: KansasDem at October 27, 2007 12:58 AM
Comment #237081

KansasDem, if you consider sanctions to be “saber-rattling” and acts of “aggression,” then I have to disagree.

In the run up to Iraq, the anti-war argument was that we should let sanctions and inspections contain Saddam Hussein.

Well, there are NO inspections in Iran. In fact, they have an active nuclear weapons program.

So you’re saying that there should be no sanctions either? Remember that the only reason we even had inspections in Iraq was not due to sweet-talking Saddam Hussein but a strong set of sanctions. That used to be the route liberals said they preferred.

When it concerned Iraq, liberals considered sanctions to be diplomacy. But when it comes to Iran, sanctions are “aggression.”

Sanctions are a form of diplomacy. Not war, but an attempt to put pressure on an adversary and avoid war. What the left is telling us in opposing even sanctions is that capitulation, appeasement, and weakness are the ONLY approaches they will tolerate. And that they will ALWAYS parrot the propaganda of totalitarian states when dictators claim to be the poor and innocent victims of the United States. Even when the United States does something as mild as impose sanctions against rogue states building nuclear weapons.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at October 27, 2007 1:22 AM
Comment #237088

LO
There is no conclusive evidence Iran has an active nuclear weapons program.

There is no conclusive evidence the Iranian government is supplying arms to insurgents in Iraq.

As a soverign state Iran would have the legal right to develope nuclear weapons except they are signatories to the NPT. They can legally withdraw from it at anytime they choose. They have not.

Iran is not a totalatarian state. They are far more democratic than many of our allies and trade partners.

The US is providing weapons to the PKK group that carries out operations in Iran. THAT is an act of agression.

The very best result of a major offensive against Iran is a global depression. Its downhill from there.

Putin has a legitimate concern about US anti-missile bases in Europe. Although Russia has an arsenal that could overwhelm the 10 or so ABMs we are placeing they cannot allow it. The reason is strategic. That they have sufficient numbers ICBMs to overwhelm them is only true unless they suffer a 1st strike. Their military planners must assume the ABMs as a possible prelude to such a nitemare. We would do the same. They have no choice. The infrastructure for a 1st strike advantage will exist if we persist.

I understand your penchant for hardnosed diplomacy. How about this? If the real fear is that Iran will attack Isreal then we publicly announce that Isreal is under the US nuclear umbrella. That an attack on Isreal will trigger an immediate and massive counterstrike against Iran, not in months or even days but in minutes.

Posted by: bills at October 27, 2007 5:32 AM
Comment #237089

LO,

Iraq was a threat to every country in the Middle East, not just Israel.
Are we being aggressive with Iran because they have threatened Israel (but no one else), or are we truly afraid of nuclear proliferation?

Iran has said that they are merely developing nuclear power, as they have a right to do, but apparently this administration feels otherwise.

As someone that actually lived through the “duck and cover” times of the late ’50s and ’60s, I don’t think a repeat of that time is a good thing.
America won the cold war because diplomacy actually does work, and because Communism was a failed experiment. The fact that the USSR shot it’s wad in Afghanistan (a lesson we apparently haven’t learned yet) was a big factor as well.

Whether we like it or not, America seems to be in the same economic and geopolitical position that the Soviets were in during the late ’70s and ’80s.

America has the ability to make Iran a smoking hole, but can we risk it?

Posted by: Rocky at October 27, 2007 7:02 AM
Comment #237091

If there is serial killer in your community, should we take a soft or hard approach? If we make life hard for him, he will surely get angry and strike again. If we leave him alone, he will have no reason to hate us, and he will leave us alone.
Diplomacy works with reasonable people, but the kooks only understand power and fear. We strategically have to show off our power and instill fear to keep these people from acting against us.
We are the good guys.

Posted by: JoeRWC at October 27, 2007 8:49 AM
Comment #237092


JoeRWC: It won’t work. A show of power is not going to instill fear in the kooks that are running our government. However, the kooks that are running our government think they can use power to instill fear in the American People and prevent them from electing non kooks.

What I find hard to understand is what did the American People think was going to happen if they voted to allow oil capitalists to have control of our government and our military?

Putin has caused this confrontation between Russia and The United States. All he has to do to relieve the tension is ignore all those anti-balistic missiles we are trying to surround Russia with and open his borders to allow foreign investors to have control of the Russian gas and oil reserves.

Posted by: jlw at October 27, 2007 10:27 AM
Comment #237093

Two things: you reap what you sow. and if you say a lie long enough people will begin to believe it.

Looking back at the history of the middle east it is no wonder things are where they are. They have every reason to hate us (europe included)and fear us. What the US has done to Iran in the past is enough on its own for them to want a nuclear weapon to protect themselves. We have tons of nuclear weapons so where do we get off telling another country they can or can’t have one. In my view, Iran would be stupid to not try and get a nuclear weapon as a way to protect themselves from Israel and the US. Would they be stupid enough to use it preemptively knowing the consequences? Logic says no but I guess it is a possibility. What about the other countries that have nuclear weapons? We may be on friendly terms with them today but what about tomorrow. Why all this fear mongering about Iran?

Regarding my second point this is Iraq all over again. Bush kept up his talking points and people began to believe it and look where that got us. You would think that the American people would be smarter this time and not believe what this man says but that is not happening. It’s like the abused child if you tell him often enough that he is stupid, he will begin to believe it. We will begin believing Bush’s lies and then it will become the American truth and off we will march to Iran to do our dirty deeds against them again.

Call me unAmerican if you like. I love my country but I do not believe we are exempt from making tragic errors and mistakes.

If are on a scary course here. Bush and his crew are using many tactics used by Hitler. Read Naomi Wolf’s well researched book, “The End of America”.

Posted by: Carolina at October 27, 2007 11:12 AM
Comment #237095

Not much new meat to chew in these responses, just the some old “cud”. I am so glad there is an extreme liberal left wing in the Democrat Party as it clearly shines a bright light on why they can’t be allowed to hold the reins of power. The dems keep moving left away from the center to satisfy the Moveorgasm.com crowd and that’s a good thing. No longer can anyone say there’s no difference between the two parties philosophy. Some in the Republican Party started acting like liberals and we lost an election. Now, more are returning to our conservative roots which will see the party ascending again.

Posted by: Jim at October 27, 2007 11:27 AM
Comment #237099

Jim
“the party ascending again”…Now if you guys can just stop hanging out in public toilets and taking bribes you could have a point.

So much for partisan response. Actually a realization that conservatives have been betrayed by the people they have been fooled into electing would be a good thing for the country. The neo-cons are NOT conservative. Best of luck regainning control of your party. Goldwater was pro-choice. Buchanan opposes an attack on Iran.Ron Paul wants a drastic cut back in agressive military actions and spending.Again,good luck.

Posted by: BillS at October 27, 2007 1:48 PM
Comment #237103

What I read here on the conservative side are just more of the same old neocon views that have been continuously expounded for as long as I have frequented this blog, and I am sure much longer. If you all will look back a few years before Iraq you will all remember a time when the world was relatively peaceful. We as a nation were not viewed as an aggressor. We were quite successful via sanctions and fly overs, weapons inspections and diplomacy to keep Iraq and other threats in check. Iraq was for the most part our main military concern. Hell even Bush senior recognized that all that was needed was reminders that the world is watching to keep Saddam in check after the first invasion. Enter stage right one not too bright Bush son running with an extremist madman vice president elected by a nation of impressionable voters, 9/11 and almost 7 years of poor foreign policy desicions later a decade of detentes has all but been erased.

Bush is a fool who is hellbent on controlling the oil reserves of the middle east. It is as simple as that. Permanent military bases are being built in Iraq today. What more needs to be said. Are you people so gullible and blind that you can’t see the writing on the walls. These people are unconscionable. They have the worst rating of any administration in american history. As I see it they have nothing to lose. Why not go for the gold, if things don’t pan out well they are already at rock bottom. Theirs is an agenda of power grabbing capitalists who want to control everything at the expense of the rest of us.

Posted by: RickIL at October 27, 2007 2:32 PM
Comment #237115


Well, there are NO inspections in Iran. In fact, they have an active nuclear weapons program.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at October 27, 2007 01:22 AM

LO, where do you get this idiocy from? You have only to check the website of the International Atomic Energy Agency ( IAEA ) for their most recent report confirming that Iran is broadly in compliance with the NPT and expect upcoming material to confirm complete compliance;

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2007/gov2007-48.pdf

All of you warmongers out there, have you listened to Scott Ritter, former member of the USMC and former UN weapons inspector? Check this out;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XQan1qo8T4

If that’s not enough for ya’ll, how about this one;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EawPGrVz9o

But I guess that won’t make any difference. After all, this guy is just one of junkie Limbaugh’s phony soldiers. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Perish the thought that you will have to challenge your paradigms. Better that the world perish first. YYYYEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAWWWW…..YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEE HHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA, as Slim Pickens might have said!

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at October 27, 2007 7:08 PM
Comment #237122

Paul, I was wrong about some of the details regarding inspections in Iran—there are in fact declared sites that have been subjected to inspections.

But the point I was making to KansasDem still stands (despite my botching of certain facts).

Implementing sanctions are not the same thing as launching war, and in fact represent an attempt to use diplomacy instead of war. And whatever the truth is about Iranian weapons plans, the UN Security Council itself has enacted sanctions against Iran for its uranium enrichment activities, and the IAEA itself (no friend of the Bush administration) has said that Iran has engaged in concealment of its nuclear programs and judged that Iran has violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to which it is a signatory. The real point I wish to make is that intensity of the condemnation of the United States for merely enacting sanctions seems disproportionate to the actually severity of the action. And it totally overlooks the attempt to do exactly what the critics have long been calling for: the use of diplomacy instead of military action.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at October 27, 2007 11:01 PM
Comment #237131


L.O.: your loyality is misplaced. In case you haven’t noticed, nearly the entire planet is no friend of the Bush Administration. The reason for this is that the Administration is determined to use intimidation, force and fear to obtain it’s ultimate objective which is Pax Americana.

For as long as the United States and any other country has a nuclear arsenal, the people of the world must face the fact that eventually they will be used. Sometime in the next fourty to fifty years, the human population is going to be culled. This culling will be accomplished by both nuclear and biological agents with an emphisis on the biological.

Posted by: jlw at October 28, 2007 10:15 AM
Comment #237140

“Sometime in the next fourty to fifty years, the human population is going to be culled. This culling will be accomplished by both nuclear and biological agents with an emphisis on the biological.” Posted by: jlw at October 28, 2007 10:15 AM

jlw, I believe the libs will disagree with your assessment. From what I read, the culling will be accomplished by man-made global warming. Am I wrong? And by the way, I am still waiting to hear any appreciation for this administrations efforts in dealing effectively with North Korea. The carrots and sticks worked quite well with that situation, and might also work well with Iran. Oh…wait, I forgot, its not a democrat administration so we can’t give any credit or cudos. So sad. As soon as a demo is elected president all will be well, the world will again love us and sanctions once again will be a good thing. How juvenile and dangerous. Will everyone who believes that a nuclear armed Iran does not represent the greatest current threat to humanity please raise their white flag now.

Posted by: Jim at October 28, 2007 12:42 PM
Comment #237147

jlw, it does not require “loyalty” to the Bush administration (which I have very little of, incidentally) in order to not believe that the United States is the source of all the world’s problems.

When you consider Iran (and a number of other troublesome regimes), it’s simply remarkable that the United States is 1). expected to take the lead in “policing the world” while 2). being accused of the worst sorts of excesses even when they use diplomatic instead of military pressure.

Whether the US ought to play the role in international affairs that we do and whether others should do more is another issue— but it’s not a role that was simply dreamed up by the Bush administration. How soon we forget that many of the same international players who dislike the Bush administration said the exact same things about the Clinton administration—or even the Kennedy administration, for that matter. Remember Kosovo? Clinton’s involvement there was the occasion for massive street protests around Europe and elsewhere.

Look at this link. It’s called “Clinton Unpopular with Just About Everybody,” and describes, among other things, anti-Clinton riots in Turkey and Greece. You could substitute the name “Clinton” with “Bush” and it would look like today’s news. This idea that the US was somehow loved and admired around the world before Bush came along and spoiled it is a myth.

Personally, I’d like to us withdraw our influence and on a number of fronts and let some of our detractors contemplate what it would actually mean to rely on the “soft diplomacy” that they seem to so vocally demand. Let’s let Western Europe think about dealing with Russia without so many security guarantees; the same for South Korea in their dealings with the North.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at October 28, 2007 5:09 PM
Comment #237154

Loyal Opp,

Where do I say that sanctions are a bad thing?

Threats and hot-headed rhetoric are not the same as sanctions. I will however admit that I think sanctions are sometimes harmful if the consequences of those sanctions are largely absorbed by those members of society who lack the resources to effect the necessary change.

Obviously it’s great to stop the flow of technology and supplies that bolster our enemies defenses. In the case of Iran we’ve failed largely due to Putin. So, should we start a new “cold war” with Russia?

This is exemplary of our diplomatic failures during the Bush administration. IMO we’ve achieved the unwise goal of being viewed by a large part of the international community as an aggressor.

You might find this article interesting (todays news):
” UN nuclear chief attacks hostile US claims on Iran” http://tinyurl.com/26nhur

Yeah, I’m a skeptic! The 1% doctrine ain’t good enough for me.

Posted by: KansasDem at October 28, 2007 9:11 PM
Comment #237159

LO
Sounds like a plan to me.


Jim
When I was in high school I had a little job working in a pet shop.We had one bird,a parrot named “Captain”, that when prompted by a treat offering etc.,would turn around on his perch and say “,pretty bird,pretty bird”. I was a bit sad when he sold for what at that time was a lot of money,around $400 dollars as I recall.Thanks to you I can now appreciate why he sold for so much.His parrot comments were sucinct ,more sophisticated,and less harmful than the parrots of today.

Posted by: BillS at October 28, 2007 9:32 PM
Comment #237167

KD and all

Time to shift the whole conversation. Iran should not be the “enemy” and they will not be unless we make them so. They have not attacked another country in hundreds of years. Their last war was with Saddam’s Iraq,same as ours. They are more democratic than most Arab states,including Eygpt and Saudi Arabia.It was through their influence that the new constitution on Afganistan contains the democratic provisions it does.They have never been linked to Al Queada and in fact are largely Shite and an anathema to such nut jobs as Bin Laden.And most importantly, their cooperation is the key to regional peace and the key to gainning an end to the conflict with Islamic jihadist,”the war on terror”.Their biggest crime appears to be the fact that much of the worlds oil reserves are in Iran and they insist on a policy that forces resourse extractors to pay fairly for the privelege.

Posted by: BillS at October 28, 2007 10:13 PM
Comment #237185

Bills

I believe what you say is correct an I would like

to shift a lot more attention pursuing the Congress,

and Senate with an inundation of our wrath for

allowing these problems to get this far out of

control in the first place. Americans must take

back the nation an that we the people can make a

difference. Letters, e-mail, phone calls can an

will make a difference. The problem is I believe,

that not enough Americans realise that America

has a serious situation, which must be contained

by Congress, with a lot of (Tough Love.)


Posted by: -DAVID- at October 29, 2007 3:21 AM
Comment #237199

Bills, love your little bird story. Sometimes the truth can hurt I know, but what exactly did you object to? The U.S. success in defusing a pending disaster in North Korea, or the spector of calamity if Iran obtains nuclear weapons? Even a dumb parrot gets the answers right on occassion. Can hardly say that about Moveorgasm.com. Jim

Posted by: Jim at October 29, 2007 12:13 PM
Comment #237214

Paul in Euroland

Thanks for the links

Posted by: -DAVID- at October 30, 2007 7:54 AM
Comment #237220

Jim,

Have you forgotten about all the sanctions in the U.N. and warnings given before we and our many allies had no choice but to invade Iraq to stop a monster so out of touch that he claimed to have WMD he didn’t have.

Seems you’re the one who have forgot here.
He claimed to NOT have WMDs.
Try again.

I don’t believe libs will any longer be trying to scare people with their false man-made global warming nonsense. Try cleaing up the atmosphere filled with nuclear radiation and co2 will soon be considered unimportant.

So true. Cleaning brains is.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 30, 2007 11:55 AM
Comment #237222

Jim,

Sometime in the next fourty to fifty years, the human population is going to be culled. This culling will be accomplished by both nuclear and biological agents with an emphisis on the biological.

jlw, I believe the libs will disagree with your assessment. From what I read, the culling will be accomplished by man-made global warming.

Since when humans are not biological agents?
Wake up.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 30, 2007 12:03 PM
Comment #237223

Since when humans are not biological agents?
Wake up. Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 30, 2007 12:03 PM

Well…OK, you’re correct I suppose, but what a stretch. But then, so are elephant farts.

Posted by: Jim at October 30, 2007 12:30 PM
Comment #237283

Jim,

Since forever, the worst man enemy is himself.
And it wont change anytime soon.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 31, 2007 3:23 AM
Post a comment