Politics As Usual

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Cite, please.

You want a cite for something that didn't happen? Or are you just disagreeing.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.html

[Saudis to propose increase to oil production]

Oh, come on. Woodward had this scooped a couple of months ago.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You want a cite for something that didn't happen? Or are you just disagreeing.

I don't know why you think that. It is bizarre to me. We would not surrender control to the UN. But if we would, I think it would have stepped in.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Poly Sci

Is that like a buffet curriculum?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Your post makes no sense.

POTD.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't know why you think that. It is bizarre to me. We would not surrender control to the UN. But if we would, I think it would have stepped in.

Even if you are right, what would have happened if something happened like their headquarters were bombed? Oh wait, we know what would have happened.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://cnnfyi.printthis.clickability...partnerID=2020

[school attempting to ban KKK from campus as terrorist org]

I'm beginning to think that all school administrators should be taken to the wall.

http://www.abqtrib.com/archives/opin...teachers.shtml

ETC: "principal" to "administrator"

[Not Me]

I wonder whether Chalabi's nephew will still be the lead guy for the SH trial now that Chalabi is out of favor?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't know why you think that. It is bizarre to me. We would not surrender control to the UN. But if we would, I think it would have stepped in.

Because the UN was not going into a war zone to rebuild a country that (a) was still unstable and (b) the invasion of which did not get a UN blessing. We saw what happened at the first site of trouble. They cut and run. And who, pray telll, would have comprised the UN's military?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Because the UN was not going into a war zone to rebuild a country that (a) was still unstable and (b) the invasion of which did not get a UN blessing. We saw what happened at the first site of trouble. They cut and run. And who, pray telll, would have comprised the UN's military?

I think you are on crack. Other countries wanted the UN to take the lead. The administration didn't want to give up any power, and it didn't. See, e.g., this or this or this or this or this ("Most European countries, including Britain, the main U.S. ally in Iraq, want the United Nations to take command in Iraq once the war is over.") or this or any number of pieces that you can find with your own Google search.

[Not Me]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=5211332

• NEW YORK (Reuters) - Air America Radio, the upstart liberal talk show network that has been plagued by management troubles, is seeking to raise new money in efforts to pay off debts and steer the business toward profitability.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
crack.

Mmmmmmm, crack.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Not Me
Mmmmmmm, crack.

See ncs? I told you it was her.

[Not Me]

Interesting article by Garry Kasparov :

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110005100

• While al Qaeda may not have a headquarters to bomb, there is no shortage of visible adversaries. What is required is to name them and to take action against them. We must also drag into the light those leaders and media who fail to condemn acts of terror. It is not only Al Jazeera talking about "insurgents" in Iraq, it is CNN. Many in Europe and even some in the U.S. are trying to differentiate "legitimate" terrorism from "bad" terrorism. Those who intentionally kill innocent civilians are terrorists, as are their sponsors. No political agenda should be allowed to advance through terrorist activity. We need to identify our enemy, not play with words.
  
  The situation is worse in the Muslim world. Calling the terrorists "militants" or "radical Islamists" presupposes the existence of moderates willing to confront the radicals. Outside of Turkey, it is very hard to find moderate clerics who will stand up to Islamist terrorists, even though the majority of their victims are Muslim. In Iraq, Muqtada al-Sadr has been murdering his religious opposition and using armed gangs to establish political rule. He appears immune to anything resembling condemnation. We know that his militia receives outside support--and where would it come from other than Syria and Iran?
  
  We have seen 25 years of anti-Western propaganda and hatred emanating from Iran, not only against Israel and the U.S. but against the liberal values that make up the core of our civilization. The effect has been to so polarize the Muslim world that we are left with two unappealing groups. On one side you have those who rally support by exhortation against a common foe: America and Israel. We may call this the Arafat model. By appearing to be the only viable leader in Palestine he has received billions of dollars from the European Union to prop up his corrupt organization and to fund terrorism. Hijacking, suicide bombings, hostage-taking--this "Palestinian know-how" has been exported throughout the region.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Those who intentionally kill innocent civilians are terrorists, as are their sponsors.

By this definition, the Israeli Army's actions against protesters in Rafah makes it terrorists. The same with our attack on the wedding party, according to Slave's logic (if the bad guys are using women and children as shields, tough for them).