Lot’s of Damage, but Precious Little Control: British think-tank Chatham House's report on the realities in Iraq [PDF] "is stark and sobering in its assessment and it delivers a stinging indictment of the folly of the Iraq misadventure, stupidly launched on lies by mendacious, warmongering, agenda-driven idiots."
Or, in more colorful language, "F@#%! The f@#%ing f@#%er's f@#%ed!"
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
2 comments:
Please pick a handle or moniker for your comment. It's much easier to address someone by a name or pseudonym than simply "hey you". I have the option of requiring a "hard" identity, but I don't want to turn that on... yet.
With few exceptions, I will not respond or reply to anonymous comments, and I may delete them. I keep a copy of all comments; if you want the text of your comment to repost with something vaguely resembling an identity, email me.
No spam, pr0n, commercial advertising, insanity, lies, repetition or off-topic comments. Creationists, Global Warming deniers, anti-vaxers, Randians, and Libertarians are automatically presumed to be idiots; Christians and Muslims might get the benefit of the doubt, if I'm in a good mood.
See the Debate Flowchart for some basic rules.
Sourced factual corrections are always published and acknowledged.
I will respond or not respond to comments as the mood takes me. See my latest comment policy for details. I am not a pseudonomous-American: my real name is Larry.
Comments may be moderated from time to time. When I do moderate comments, anonymous comments are far more likely to be rejected.
I've already answered some typical comments.
I have jqMath enabled for the blog. If you have a dollar sign (\$) in your comment, put a \\ in front of it: \\\$, unless you want to include a formula in your comment.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Wasn't destabilization of the region the main reason Bush Sr. didn't proceed to Baghdad at the end of the Gulf War? I think he knew that an on the ground U.S. military intervention in a country composed of three extremely contentious factions, barely held together through dictatorial brutality, was folly. Yet here we are smack in the middle of the 21st century version of the Eastern Question, and Ron Paul (since he's a long shot) the only presidential candidate willing to even hint at an honest answer to that question.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of Republican presidential candidates, and I know there are more to come (an actor/former senator, and a guy whose eye is apparently on the list of ingredients for a witches' potion, to name two possibilities), but who in the present field do you think will end up the front runner? I think it'll either be the guy who says the Iraq war is somehow about retribution for damage done to his city (never about a certain commodity!); or the one who follows the teachings of a prophet who not only talked through his hat (literally), but read a strange and unverified version of "American history" through it as well.
Personally, I think Bush pere had such a mind-blowing orgasm when we slaughtered thousands of retreating Iraqi soldiers that he fell asleep before he could order an invasion.
ReplyDeleteI have not the slightest clue who the GOP will feed to Barack Rodham Edwards in the general. What I do know is that we will still be at war in the Middle East, probably in Iran as well, when s/he runs for re-election.