This was a tribunal set up by the former ruler of Malaysia and has no enforcement powers. Tomorrow, I'm holding a tribunal to see whether the Cookie Monster is guilty of making children obese.
Greg, I'm not so sure it was that insignificant. In any case, I think they're exactly right. The only problem is it should be Cheney and Rumsfeld and Condi baby named with them.
I'd be more impressed if Saddam Hussein had been charged and given the same commentary, at the very least. It was right to remove him. The only thing in doubt is whether is was a good idea for us to have done it. On that point, we're probably much closer in our judgement.
When digging to get out of a hole, you need a much bigger shovel.
If Saddam Hussein had been removed the way I suggested, way back in the 90's--by putting a $1B bounty on his sorry ass, the Iraq War need not have transpired.
Several U.S. administrations either ignored or actually helped Saddam as it suited them. This is in fact a feature, not a bug, of U.S. foreign policy. It's shameful.
Anonymous said... Yeah I'm sure he's really scared. What a fucking joke. Bush was a great president.
November 24, 2011 3:37 PM
Thanks, Anonymoron; it's always good to know, at the outset, when you'll be dealing with some insane, bigoted reichwing asshole.
Aren't you aware that since the 70s, we've had a ban on assassinating foreign leaders? We have that ban on the grounds that other nations won't try to assassinate our leaders in return--that seems to work, at least with rational nations.
Perhaps we should have gone all the way to Baghdad in the First Gulf War when we had a large coalition. We could have said, "oops, we didn't mean it. . ."
"Aren't you aware that since the 70s, we've had a ban on assassinating foreign leaders? We have that ban on the grounds that other nations won't try to assassinate our leaders in return--that seems to work, at least with rational nations."
Are you actually that naive? The sole reason that most countries wouldn't attack the U.S. is that they know what sort of shitstorm they'd be bringing down on themselves. The stateless terrorist types don't really give a rat's ass but they also don't have state support
It never surprises me when you're an idiot, but it is annoying. The bounty that you proposed would have been illegal. We aren't allowed to do that. I'm not naive; I'm explaining to you why that law came into being. I think that it came about during the Ford administration, but I'll leave you to look it up.
HAHAHAHAHAHA. Thanks for the morning laugh.
ReplyDeleteYeah I'm sure he's really scared. What a fucking joke. Bush was a great president.
ReplyDeleteThis was a tribunal set up by the former ruler of Malaysia and has no enforcement powers. Tomorrow, I'm holding a tribunal to see whether the Cookie Monster is guilty of making children obese.
ReplyDeleteGreg, I'm not so sure it was that insignificant. In any case, I think they're exactly right. The only problem is it should be Cheney and Rumsfeld and Condi baby named with them.
ReplyDeleteI'd be more impressed if Saddam Hussein had been charged and given the same commentary, at the very least. It was right to remove him. The only thing in doubt is whether is was a good idea for us to have done it. On that point, we're probably much closer in our judgement.
ReplyDeleteGreg Camp:
ReplyDeleteWhen digging to get out of a hole, you need a much bigger shovel.
If Saddam Hussein had been removed the way I suggested, way back in the 90's--by putting a $1B bounty on his sorry ass, the Iraq War need not have transpired.
Several U.S. administrations either ignored or actually helped Saddam as it suited them. This is in fact a feature, not a bug, of U.S. foreign policy. It's shameful.
Anonymous said...
Yeah I'm sure he's really scared. What a fucking joke. Bush was a great president.
November 24, 2011 3:37 PM
Thanks, Anonymoron; it's always good to know, at the outset, when you'll be dealing with some insane, bigoted reichwing asshole.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteAren't you aware that since the 70s, we've had a ban on assassinating foreign leaders? We have that ban on the grounds that other nations won't try to assassinate our leaders in return--that seems to work, at least with rational nations.
Perhaps we should have gone all the way to Baghdad in the First Gulf War when we had a large coalition. We could have said, "oops, we didn't mean it. . ."
"Aren't you aware that since the 70s, we've had a ban on assassinating foreign leaders? We have that ban on the grounds that other nations won't try to assassinate our leaders in return--that seems to work, at least with rational nations."
ReplyDeleteAre you actually that naive? The sole reason that most countries wouldn't attack the U.S. is that they know what sort of shitstorm they'd be bringing down on themselves. The stateless terrorist types don't really give a rat's ass but they also don't have state support
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteIt never surprises me when you're an idiot, but it is annoying. The bounty that you proposed would have been illegal. We aren't allowed to do that. I'm not naive; I'm explaining to you why that law came into being. I think that it came about during the Ford administration, but I'll leave you to look it up.