Technorati's roundup of reactions is here. Balloon Juice may have the most apt response:
There will be chaos in Pakistan because of this. F**king crazy. Holy shit.Post your own apocalyptic scenario in the comments.
The Assassination of Benazir Bhutto
Pakistan's opposition leader, Benazir Bhutto, has been killed in a suicide attack. Current press accounts say at least 20 others died in the bombing.
Technorati's roundup of reactions is here. Balloon Juice may have the most apt response:
Technorati's roundup of reactions is here. Balloon Juice may have the most apt response:
Comments to "The Assassination of Benazir Bhutto":
Mr. Nice Guy | December 27, 2007, 10:04am | #
Hey, this is the kind of thing that makes me think the whole "Islamofascism" concerns are not just simply the overwrought wet dreams of militaristic authoritarians (though many with those concers certainly fall into that camp). Holy shit this is terrible.The conspiracists will have a field day with this. I don't know how things will shake out, but there are more bad scenarios than good.
Duckman | December 27, 2007, 10:07am | #
It's terrible, but it's still not our direct concern.Bhutto was a woman ahead of her time. A woman trying to bring democracy to a nation full of Muslim radicals. Alas, it failed. There is a lesson in this for us: you can't modernize backwards parts of the world. Cultures must slowly evolve to become better. They can't be forced there.
That's completely unfair to Pakistan, Duckman. Pakistan is where lawyers and judges stand up to riot police to defend the rule of law and separation of powers. Pakistan is where the "Muslim radicals" have the support of only 10- 20%, according to the best opinion polling. Pakistan has had democratic elections going back decades, and when they were interrupted, it was not by "Muslim radicals," but by military strongmen.
Mr. Nice Guy | December 27, 2007, 10:18am | #
joeI feel you. Pakistan has some very positive elements. But they also have this 10-20% that keeps BLOWING UP THEIR OPPONENTS. And I thought dittoheads were bad (actually, they are, but not that bad).
Guy Montag | December 27, 2007, 10:18am | #
How does this affect her conviction in Switzerland money laundering the cash she plundered from Pakistan? Can her victims still recover damages or was it just so much eyewash?Yes, this was asked in an earlier thread.
John C. Randolph | December 27, 2007, 10:19am | #
Shooting and blowing up a woman is not the kind of thing that will make new friends for the head-choppers. This is probably going to be the thing that turns Pakistan into a zero-tolerance zone for islamists.-jcr
Jennifer | December 27, 2007, 10:20am | #
There is a lesson in this for us: you can't modernize backwards parts of the world. Cultures must slowly evolve to become better. They can't be forced there.A Muslim nation elected a female head of state. Sounds like the only "force" being inflicted on this culture is from the Islamic extremists trying to force the country back about 13 centuries or so.
TDL | December 27, 2007, 10:21am | #
So do her years of corruption and graft get swept under the rug because she was assassinated? This event is unfortunate (as all violent deaths are,) but is it really that much of a shock given the political discourse of the region?Regards,
TDL
Duckman | December 27, 2007, 10:21am | #
Pakistan may still have some elements of modernity left over from when it used to be a part of India, but I would still consider 10-20% as being "full" of Muslim radicals. Too full, at any rate, to support any kind of non-authoritarian government.joe | December 27, 2007, 10:21am | #
I'll take a corrupt democrat over a principled Islamist every day of the week, Guy.Your lips to God's ear, Mr. Randolph. Inshallah.
Elemenope | December 27, 2007, 10:21am | #
Duckman --re: Modernization
I'm sure that's exactly what the Cordoban and Ottoman Muslims thought of backwards Christian Europe eight centuries ago.
They were wrong, too.
Mr. Nice Guy | December 27, 2007, 10:22am | #
joeIn past debates I've been totally down with criticizing the "we gotta get those Islamofasicists" meme. It often masks stupid authoritarian jingoism and xenophobia (and of course plain ignorance of Islam and Islamic populations).
BUT I am concerned about how decent nations with democratic traditions and a rule of law can deal with an admittedly minority though significant population that seems to have no qualms whatsoever.
I watched the Batle of Algiers the other day. The French director was actually sympathetic to the Algerians, but what I took away from the film was, how in the world do you deal with people who have no qualms about waging anything in war? I mean, the French tried law enforcement, the Algerians put bombs in cafes. The French had checkpoints but had the deceny not to harrass the Algerian women and children, so the Algerian's gave the bombs to women and children. And on and on. These guys are not playing by the same rules of decency...I feel for someone like Pakistans dictator sometimes...
Ayn_Randian | December 27, 2007, 10:22am | #
Bhutto was a woman ahead of her time. A woman trying to bring democracy to a nation full of Muslim radicals. Alas, it failed.Let's not rush to canonize the woman; this is certainly bad news, but let's not forget whose ISI forces it was that assisted the Taliban, both militarily and monetarily, under the guise of "stabilization".
Cultures must slowly evolve to become better. They can't be forced there.
A contentious notion and assertion that has no basis in fact. How long was Japan's history of democracy again? Germany's? Italy's?
(Ed note: just contending the facts; anyone who knows me knows I don't support the neocon "change the world with a checkbook and a gun" notion).
John C. Randolph | December 27, 2007, 10:23am | #
"So do her years of corruption and graft get swept under the rug because she was assassinated?"Worked for JFK...
-jcr
Ayn_Randian | December 27, 2007, 10:25am | #
how in the world do you deal with people who have no qualms about waging anything in war?you hunt them down and kill them. that involves prioritizing targets and commissioning headhunters.
Note: you do not invade and reform a nationalist-socialist country that was about at the bottom of the "Islamic fundie" food-chain.
Duckman | December 27, 2007, 10:26am | #
I'll stand by my statement about slow cultural change. Germany and Italy are western nations that evolved culturally in ways similar to England and the US. So I don't think those cases are too suprising. Japan though, you got me there. I guess when you believe your emperor is god and he is deposed that tends to make you a little more open minded.Mr. Nice Guy | December 27, 2007, 10:26am | #
I'm curious what those who bring up Bhutto's corruption are aiming at? Someone like Guy Montag is just a raving d*ck/retard of course, but what are the rest of you getting at? Good riddance or something? Bhutto certainly had problems but compared to many of Pakistans other leaders she seemed the more optimistic hope to me...Tom Walls | December 27, 2007, 10:26am | #
This is truly sad news.I don't think there's much we can do about it, except wonder... what the hell would motivate someone to get up in the morning, strap on a bomb and say "today, I'm gonna try and kill Benazir Bhutto so we can make Pakistan a happy place." Was she seen by some as a tool of the West or an usurper of some sort?
Her supporters were chanting "Dog, Musharraf, dog!" after this happened. No one likes that guy, neither the moderates nor the muzzies.
Mr. Nice Guy | December 27, 2007, 10:29am | #
"you hunt them down and kill them. that involves prioritizing targets and commissioning headhunters."I agree with that point (as well as the invade one). But if these people are entrenched in 20% of the population, with fanatical support, how do we accomplish this? How many, if any, extremists can we take out without killing/torturing/generally violating a slew of rights or innocent though misguided sympathizers (or even non-sympathizers who just get caught up in the net...)?
Duckman | December 27, 2007, 10:29am | #
I think Muslim radicals were opposed to Bhutto because she is a woman. They don't like Musharraf either. They want a theocracy run by a spiritual leader.Tom Walls | December 27, 2007, 10:29am | #
OK, I know she was formerly associated with corruption, but I could never see someone suicide bombing Dan Rostenkowski's office.Thank god it doesn't happen here.
Elemenope | December 27, 2007, 10:30am | #
"Dog, Musharraf, dog!"Oooooh...Unclean. That's a lot meaner than that insult is here.
Ayn_Randian | December 27, 2007, 10:30am | #
And I thought dittoheads were bad (actually, they are, but not that bad)Yeah, you know, that whole Church of Rush, and Kill Yourself and Liberals for Rush movement and stuff...
Oh, by "not as bad" you meant, "not even worth comparing"...I wonder why you did that then?
Guy Montag | December 27, 2007, 10:31am | #
TW,She was seen by more than a few people as a corrupt politician who did her best to ruin their country, in their eyes.
Until the folks who blew her up are found out we will not have any idea of their specific motovation.
Duckman | December 27, 2007, 10:32am | #
Mr. Nice Guy, the answer is: you can't.If large numbers of the population are driven to fanatacism by their religious beliefs, there's nothing you can do. If you invade the nation, you still have their presence in the general public. Re-education isn't going to work, especially not with Islam that teaches that apostasy is punishable by death. Your only options are genocide or to leave them the hell alone.
That's why I think we should do: stop worrying about these nations until they actually become a threat to us. And by threat, I mean an actual leader of a nation who wants to attack us with military weapons.
The only defense against terroristic threats is to secure our borders so that we know who is getting into the country, and to be vigilant at home, which is something we need to do anyway.
Elemenope | December 27, 2007, 10:32am | #
Speaking of how far we've come, vis a vis "modernization", isn't the Republican party threatening to nominate someone for president who believes in a fuzzy, warm Christian rule supported by the might of the US military?Brian24 | December 27, 2007, 10:33am | #
A Muslim nation elected a female head of state.This is fantastically nitpicky, but as Prime Minister Bhutto was Head of Government, not Head of State (that would be the President).
Middle Class Worker | December 27, 2007, 10:33am | #
You know what will happen? BushCo is going to find a so-called link to the Iranians, and use this as an excuse to bomb Theran.Mr. Nice Guy | December 27, 2007, 10:33am | #
Ayn-RandianOh, just because Limbaugh is such a big fat hypocritical boring hypocrite pussy and fool whose really faithful listeners tend to be (in my expereince) the embodiement of the kind of stupid authoritarianism that, when unchecked, becomes something like what we see among Islamic fundies. I mean, there is a certain amount of dogmatism implied in the term "dittohead."
joe | December 27, 2007, 10:35am | #
Ayn Randian,but let's not forget whose ISI forces it was that assisted the Taliban, both militarily and monetarily, under the guise of "stabilization".
Musharrif, no? Are you saying that began under Bhutto? I'm genuinely asking here.
How long was Japan's history of democracy again? Germany's? Italy's? In each case, the had elected legislatures for decades prior to the fascists seizing power.
But yes, let's not canonize Bhutto. Democracy and freedom are about systems, not individual political figures.
MNG,
I hear you, but let's not forget a little detail about Pakistan's military dictator: when he declared the state of emergency earlier this year, allegedly because of the terrorist threat, he didn't go after the terrorists. He went after the judges and the opposition parties in parliament.
John | December 27, 2007, 10:35am | #
Joe,The Bolsheviks never had wide support in Russia. They were just the most organized and the most ruthless. If even 10% population is radical and willing to die or commit any act of babarity for thier cause, the other 90% of the population has a real problem. A few people with weapons and the will to use them can oppress the hell out of the masses.
Mr. Nice Guy | December 27, 2007, 10:36am | #
"The only defense against terroristic threats is to secure our borders so that we know who is getting into the country, and to be vigilant at home, which is something we need to do anyway."I tend to agree Duckman. I'm concerned though as to what nations like thos ein Europe should do when faced with immigration from Muslim nations and some signs of this creating little bastions of Islamic extremism within their countries? How can they fight that?
Ayn_Randian | December 27, 2007, 10:36am | #
Germany and Italy are western nations that evolved culturally in ways similar to England and the US.I think that's contentious as well; hell, even France latched on to liberal democracy pretty fast, considering its history (yes, I'm aware of the revolution, but the Third Republic didn't come about until 1870) of having nothing but kings or emperors in control of it for thousands of years.
I guess my whole point is that the spread of liberal democracy (excepting England) happened pretty quickly in the nations known as the West; to me, this points to a exponential model rather than a linear model. (Don't beat me up, math nerds! I was using exponential colloquially.)
highnumber | December 27, 2007, 10:37am | #
RIP, Bezazir Bhutto.She was indeed a flawed human being, as every one of us is. I hope that her family and friends can find some comfort while facing their loss. I hope Pakistan can find some peace and stability despite this trouble.
jkp | December 27, 2007, 10:38am | #
The standard repository of all knowledge and wisdom, the Wikipedia, says this about Ms. Bhutton and the Taliban:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto
Policy on Taliban
"The Taliban took power in Kabul in September 1996. It was during Bhutto's rule that the Taliban gained prominence in Afghanistan. She viewed the Taliban as a group that could stabilize Afghanistan and enable trade access to the Central Asian republics, according to author Stephen Coll.[citation omitted] He claims that her government provided military and financial support for the Taliban, even sending a small unit of the Pakistani army into Afghanistan.
More recently, she took an anti-Taliban stance, and condemned terrorist acts committed by the Taliban and their supporters."
Buck Smith | December 27, 2007, 10:38am | #
"how in the world do you deal with people who have no qualms about waging anything in war?"The US military has just demonstrated this very nicely in Iraq.
Mr. Nice Guy | December 27, 2007, 10:39am | #
"I hear you, but let's not forget a little detail about Pakistan's military dictator: when he declared the state of emergency earlier this year, allegedly because of the terrorist threat, he didn't go after the terrorists. He went after the judges and the opposition parties in parliament."Good point. My very reluctant acceptance of Mushareef is premised on him being a realistic alternative to radical muslim rule. But to the extent that he is waging war on the "liberal" parts of their liberal democracy he may be part of the problem. Hmmm..
highnumber | December 27, 2007, 10:40am | #
Scratch the "RIP." Can't rest in peace when you die that way.Change to "She will be missed by many."
miche | December 27, 2007, 10:40am | #
I'm curious what those who bring up Bhutto's corruption are aiming at?It's easy to get caught up in high praise of even bad people when they are killed. I also wondered about the corruption charges and her support of the Taliban but I don't know enough about her history to really participate in a full on conversation on the matter. But since it's been mentioned by others, I thought I'd bring up the questions surrounding her brother's assasination. Bhutto's niece had some things to say about it here.
Rattlesnake Jake | December 27, 2007, 10:40am | #
"stop worrying about these nations until they actually become a threat to us. And by threat, I mean an actual leader of a nation who wants to attack us with military weapons."Which I don't think they ever would. They would be foolish to do so with our military might.
joe | December 27, 2007, 10:41am | #
Mr. Nice Guy,The people bashing Bhutto while her corpse is still warm are Iraq hawks.
Benazir Bhutto committed the horrific crime of being extorted by the Saddam Hussein regime when she tried to do business there under the oil-for-food deal.
How far has the Iraq War distorted the political views of the right? So far that they don't know which side to take when al Qaeda bombs a democratic politician. That far.
As for what you do when 20% of the population are loonies: you build up the liberal, democratic institutions of society so that they become more and more marginalized, while giving those individuals the opportunity, through schools and development programs, to join the modern majority.
Oh, and you hunt down and kill the really big wheels.
Middle Class Worker | December 27, 2007, 10:41am | #
BushCo doesn't care about Democracy as demonstrated by his support for Musharaff and the leaders of the other 'stans. As long as the leader is a good corporate-imperial puppet of the United States, we always support them.Jennifer | December 27, 2007, 10:42am | #
"The Taliban took power in Kabul in September 1996. It was during Bhutto's rule that the Taliban gained prominence in Afghanistan. She viewed the Taliban as a group that could stabilize Afghanistan and enable trade access to the Central Asian republics, according to author Stephen Coll.[citation omitted] He claims that her government provided military and financial support for the Taliban, even sending a small unit of the Pakistani army into Afghanistan.So she made alliances with foreign scumbags if she thought it would forward her own country's interests? If not for an accident of birth, she could've been an American leader instead. Maybe she felt that the head of the Taliban, like Putin, had "a good heart."
Elemenope | December 27, 2007, 10:43am | #
Don't beat me up, math nerds!You're kidding, right? Math nerds...beating someone up?
But you're absolutely right, "civilzation" comes quickly and unexpectedly. If I were an alien visiting the Earth in the 12th century, I'd have put good odds on China or the North Africans leading the industrial revolution. I certainly would have lost that bet!
joe | December 27, 2007, 10:43am | #
John,The Bolsheviks never had wide support in Russia. True, but they came to power as part of a broad popular front of communists, socialists, democrats, and religious leaders which DID have the support of most of the population.
Which is an important point, when you consider how "Czar Pervez" is uniting disparate opposition elements with his authoritarianism.
John | December 27, 2007, 10:43am | #
"how in the world do you deal with people who have no qualms about waging anything in war?"The US military has just demonstrated this very nicely in Iraq."
Well, they didn't just make a parking lot out of the place, true, but they killed a lot of people and didn't exactly use the velvet glove approach either. Lots of countries, Peru, Columbia, Isreal, Russia, France, Britian, to name a few, have delt with fanatical well armed terrorist organizations and none of them succeeded by using conventional law enforcement. They all ended up having to compromise civil rights and fight pretty dirty. In their defense, they didn't have a lot of options. It is kind of hard to arrest people and give them a public trial when your enemy's answer to that is to murder the judge, the prosecutor, the jurors and their entire families.
Mr. Nice Guy | December 27, 2007, 10:45am | #
"It's easy to get caught up in high praise of even bad people when they are killed."I see the point. I guess I was just thrown off more by the insanity of blowing up your political opponents. I mean, many of us here do not like Hillary Clinton, or say Mitt Romney. We think, perhaps to varying degrees, their rule of this nation and their influence would be bad for the nation and people that we love. But (I dearly hope) none of us thinks that BLOWING THEM UP is even a remote possibility or something we would think of as a good thing. It's damn insane and uncivilized and it makes me worry for a nation that is pivotal in geopolitics that has this occurring with alarming regularity and a world that faces such problems. That to me is the tragedy (though the killing of Bhutto, corrupt or not is still a tragedy itself).
Fluffy | December 27, 2007, 10:45am | #
MNG:Two things.
First of all, although "Islamic extemists" will be blamed for this assassination and may even try to take credit for it, it's much more likely that Musharraf is the one who actually had her killed.
Second of all, I can't believe that your question about the Algerian war is "How can you fight such savages?" This assumes that France had a right to occupy Algeria. The easiest way to deal with it was to give Algeria independence.
The entire point of the terrorist provocations in Algeria was to induce the French to crack down. The torture chambers run by the French belie the statement that the Algerians were somehow uniquely savage. The "terrorists" simply knew that if they provoked the French enough, the French would brutally crack down, and the mask they wore to disguise the reality of their oppression would be torn. It turns out that they were right.
I'm not shocked in the least. It was almost a foregone conclusion that's she'd be rubbed out. Murder and mayhem is part of the sorry landscape now and for years to come.
Ayn_Randian | December 27, 2007, 10:46am | #
You know what will happen? BushCo is going to find a so-called link to the Iranians, and use this as an excuse to bomb Theran.And in other unlikely news, some troll-like poster is going to learn how to spell important Middle Eastern capitals.
Are you saying that began under Bhutto? I'm genuinely asking here.
There's lots of evidence in favor. "Ghost Wars" cites a lot. I'll have to look up some stuff, though. Wish I had brought the book with me! Anywho, that was my understanding, given that the Taliban came to power in 09/96 and she had just left government (actually, removed again) at that time...Pakistan supported the Mujahadeen against the USSR, I would be willing to bet that inertia set in and someone didn't get around to changing the policy.
Oh, just because Limbaugh is such a big fat hypocritical boring hypocrite pussy and fool whose really faithful listeners tend to be (in my expereince) the embodiement of the kind of stupid authoritarianism
You don't actually listen to Rush, do you? As I understand it, he's pretty hedonisitic in his personal life.
John | December 27, 2007, 10:46am | #
"True, but they came to power as part of a broad popular front of communists, socialists, democrats, and religious leaders which DID have the support of most of the population."Yeah but they shot those people pretty early on. The Bolshevicks could have been stopped by the navy rebellion. The hold on power was very tenuous and if anyone had stood up and been as ruthless as them, they would have been stopped. But no one realized or admitted how awful they were until it was too late.
joe | December 27, 2007, 10:47am | #
Duckman,"The only defense against terroristic threats is to secure our borders so that we know who is getting into the country, and to be vigilant at home, which is something we need to do anyway."
One of the only areas I give Bush and Rice credit is in their effective use of diplomacy and PR in support of the democratic, anti-Syria uprising in Lebanon. Our best defense against international terrorist is for the locals in "terrorist donor areas" to put their houses in order, and that means modernizing, liberalizing, and democratizing THEMSELVES. When we can support LEGITIMATE, INDIGENOUS democracy movements, we should.
John | December 27, 2007, 10:49am | #
Also,I would never pretend to know enough about Pakistan to bet any money on who did this. Yeah, suicide bomber sure seems like radical Islamics to me, but if it turned out that Musharif did it, I can't say I would be surprised.
Mr. Nice Guy | December 27, 2007, 10:50am | #
And my Limbaugh comment was actually an attempt to put a positive spin on such depressing news: thank God I live in a nation where folks that represent, in my opinion, the worst this nation has to offer politically just listen worshipply to some fat hypocritical pussy and vote for morons like Mitt Romeny or Mike Hucakabee. It really puts it into perspective how good we have it here. Over there the worst they have to offer politically are authoritarian murderers with no qualms about their murderous actions in order to gain power.Brian24 | December 27, 2007, 10:51am | #
The people bashing Bhutto while her corpse is still warm are Iraq hawks.Accusations of corruption against Bhutto date to her first term as PM in the '80s. I am no Iraq hawk, but I think it's important to remember this as people on this thread talk about her "bringing her people democracy."
Lots of countries, Peru, Columbia, Isreal, Russia, France, Britian, to name a few, have delt with fanatical well armed terrorist organizations and none of them succeeded by using conventional law enforcement.
Arguably, not many of them succeeded by fighting dirty either.
It seems to me that most people here are assuming that she was killed by a radical Muslim. The ISI or some other politcal opposition is as likely a candidate at this point.
Ayn_Randian | December 27, 2007, 10:51am | #
BushCo doesn't care about Democracy as demonstrated by his support for Musharaff and the leaders of the other 'stans. As long as the leader is a good corporate-imperial puppet of the United States, we always support them.Who let Cindy Sheehan get near the computer?
You're kidding, right? Math nerds...beating someone up?
heh...guess I should have said "Don't take Windows XP or my credit score away from me!"
Murder and mayhem is part of the sorry landscape now and for years to come.
Saying that is like saying "murder" "rape" and "theft" are all a regular part of the U.S. landscape.
Remember, kids, if it bleeds it leads.
Seriously, about 95% of people over here want to live their lives and be productive. Just like in any other society, you've got the 5% who fuck it up for everybody.
John | December 27, 2007, 10:52am | #
Mr. Nice Guy,True enough. Few things reveal a person's ignorance more than someone ranting about the U.S.'s fascist government. Clowns who say shit like that wouldn't know a fascist if one came up and bit them in the ass.
Duckman | December 27, 2007, 10:52am | #
Mr. Nice Guy, I think European nations currently have small enough numbers of radical Muslims that they are probably okay for now. But if this trend continues, I think the only way these European nations can cope with radicalism in their own countries is to curb immigration from Muslim nations. I know that's contentious for libertarians; I sympathize with the argument that people should be free to travel without arbitrary national borders, but I think Muslim radicals are a special case that requires un-libertarian methods, unfortunately. I think curbing their entry is less problematic than other approaches to the problem (such as trying to control their religious practices (like outlawing the burqa) in order to keep them from wanting to enter).I think immersion in Western culture will eventually dull radicalism over a generation, but only if the number of migrants is relatively small.
joe | December 27, 2007, 10:52am | #
I don't know about this, John.The hold on power was very tenuous and if anyone had stood up and been as ruthless as them, they would have been stopped
The Whites certainly didn't shrink from shedding blood.
Middle Class Worker | December 27, 2007, 10:52am | #
Who let Cindy Sheehan get near the computer?Don't diss Cindy Sheehan, shes a true American Hero who stood up against this war when it was still unpopular to do so.
Guy Montag | December 27, 2007, 10:53am | #
OMG! MNG called me a bad name! He must have the best argument . . . no, wait, if he throws food he has the best argument.Sorry, I am not smart enough to follow a brain that big, I might get sent off to Iraq for being dum.
Must make a resolution to ignore people I vow to ignore.
BakedPenguin | December 27, 2007, 10:53am | #
...suicide bomber sure seems like radical Islamics to me, but if it turned out that Musharif did it, I can't say I would be surprised.You might not have to choose between the two. Musharraf may not have directly ordered anyone to do it, he may simply have let it happen. Rawalpindi is supposed to be a garrison town, where the Pakistani army should be strong.
John | December 27, 2007, 10:55am | #
"Lots of countries, Peru, Columbia, Isreal, Russia, France, Britian, to name a few, have delt with fanatical well armed terrorist organizations and none of them succeeded by using conventional law enforcement.Arguably, not many of them succeeded by fighting dirty either."
Peru certainly did. Argueably so has Columbia who are starting to make real progress against the FARC. The Brits have managed to get peace in Northern Ireland. Considering that the IRA was a Marxist terrorist organization bent on the overthow of both the Irish and British governments, it is doubtful that would have happened had the Brits just rolled over for them.
Mr. Nice Guy | December 27, 2007, 10:55am | #
"You don't actually listen to Rush, do you? As I understand it, he's pretty hedonisitic in his personal life." Sadly, I did for a while (at a workplace where the boss listened to it and his ill fated tv show). Yes, I heartily agree that he is quite hedonistic in his personal life while endorsing and apologizing for all kinds of right wing puritanism on his show. That's why I said "hypocrite" between pussy and boring.But really, we had a Limbaugh thread a few weeks ago, and unless absolutely necessary we need not rehash all that here. I did not mean to threadjack from the topic at hand (for what I meant see prior post).
anon | December 27, 2007, 10:55am | #
MNG, re: The Battle of Algiers.The way the French fought the Algerians was not by "law enforcement." It was by killing 1 million of them (out of a population of 9 million) and torturing others.
Good to see you anarchists come 'round to my way of thinkin'. This is a moment to unite not divide.
Elemenope | December 27, 2007, 10:55am | #
...But (I dearly hope) none of us thinks that BLOWING THEM UP is even a remote possibility or something we would think of as a good thing. It's damn insane and uncivilized and it makes me worry for a nation that is pivotal in geopolitics that has this occurring with alarming regularity and a world that faces such problems...Um, political assassination has a long and proud tradition in all civilized nations. We ourselves have had four presidents successfully assassinated, not to mention the sheer number of serious but unsuccessful attempts. What makes this any more distasteful...bombs instead of guns? I agree it is certainly messier and less subtle, but let's not pretend for a moment we are oh so much more evolved morally or politically than the "rabble" of nations around us.
Guy Montag | December 27, 2007, 10:56am | #
John,Considering that the IRA was a Marxist terrorist organization bent on the overthow of both the Irish and British governments, it is doubtful that would have happened had the Brits just rolled over for them.
The end of their Soviet support kinda helped that along too.
eatmorefascists | December 27, 2007, 10:58am | #
The Bolsheviks, the Ba'aathists, the Bushes... a motivated minority can make for a healthy run of Rusty Nail nights.Did anyone actually expect a different outcome here? Bhutto seemed almost to welcome a slaughter: "I am ready to die for my country."
Now all the cool kids will wonder: how is this going to impact the Positive-Mental-Attitude of those Cheney Walker Bush clients still in possession of their arms and face?
Duckman | December 27, 2007, 10:58am | #
joe, diplomacy is fine. I totally support the US trying to help unite divided factions. But I don't support the US making behind the scenes threats of military force in order to coerce agreements.Mr. Nice Guy | December 27, 2007, 10:59am | #
Jeez Montag, I posted that half an hour ago and you just got it. I know, judging from your confused arguing ability, that you're slow and all, but c'mon, call your mom out of the kitchen and have her read the posts too you (and mybe act them out with fingerpuppets) so you can keep up with the discussion!The main significance of Pakistan's violence is how it shows the neocon method for fighting terrorism is not working... big time.
Brian24 | December 27, 2007, 11:02am | #
The Brits have managed to get peace in Northern Ireland.Which only happened when the British government agreed to recognize Sinn Fein as a legit counterparty to negotiations and made several major compromises.
It could be argued that the Brits forced the IRA to back down through playing hardball. It could just as convincingly be argued that the Brits' insistence on playing hardball condemned Northern Ireland to 25 years of unnecessary strife, and that only in agreeing to compromise did they attain peace.
joe | December 27, 2007, 11:02am | #
John,The Colombians have been negotiating with FARC for decades, and even ceded them a portion of the country at one point.
As for Britain and the IRA - did you miss the entire 1990s? Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness? Demilitarization of Northern Ireland? Reforming the RUC? The entire peace process?
They tried it your way for decades, and it only brought them more bombs.
Ayn_Randian | December 27, 2007, 11:03am | #
Don't diss Cindy Sheehan, shes a true American Hero who stood up against this war when it was still unpopular to do so.you need to quit playing.
Sheehan didn't become an anti-war activist until her son was KIA in Iraq.
I'm not saying that as a bad thing, but like I said, let's not canonize the woman.
Episiarch | December 27, 2007, 11:03am | #
I will ignore everyone's posts and simply say: it is very likely that serious shit will hit the fan in a nuclear-armed country with a lot of batshit insane religious fanatics.If I were India I would be sweating profusely right now.
edna | December 27, 2007, 11:04am | #
mng, we're of one mind in this case.i have trouble imagining that it's pervert mushy behind this- the m.o. doesn't fit with a pure political assassination.
"Bring Me My Brown Pants" Musharaff | December 27, 2007, 11:08am | #
If I were India I would be sweating profusely right now.If India starts "sweating profusely" Pakistanis ought to "shit their pants"--while they still can.
John | December 27, 2007, 11:11am | #
"If I were India I would be sweating profusely right now."I think the whole western world should be sweating profusly. Those Pakistani nukes are just as likly to be stolen and used on us as they are to be used on India
It may have been a garrison town, but a lone nut who seeks death is tough to stop for anybody.
As far as places like Ireland and Peru and Columbia and the peace negotiations, why do you think fanatical murders like the IRA and the FARC were willing to negotiate? It is because they were forced to by the strength of the their enemies. Had their opponents not been willing to go after them, they would have just taken what they wanted and never bothered to negotiate. Strength produces compromise not weakness.
Ayn_Randian | December 27, 2007, 11:14am | #
If I were India I would be sweating profusely right now.Me too! I think it's all the curry and the heat, though.
Serious question: if we're willing to support a militaristic but secular dictator (Musharraf, by most accounts); wtf is with the Iraq peacekeeping operation?
I think if I were Musharraf I'd just skip out and seek asylum somewhere (a la the Shah) and become a monied political adviser.
Ali | December 27, 2007, 11:17am | #
Lew Rockwell on the assassination:The horrific assassination of Benazir Bhutto is a massive blow to the empire, since she was the handpicked US replacement for the hated Pervez Musharraf. The US had installed Musharraf as military dictator after kicking out his elected predecessor, Nawaz Sharif (ah yes, global democracy), who was considered insufficiently obedient. The US has spent many billions on Musharraf and his military, but it has only earned the contempt of Pakistanis who don't like being a US colony (and no, one does not have to be pro-terrorist to be opposed to foreign control). What will happen now in Pakistan? Nothing good. At the same time, the US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan continue to go badly, and Turkey--with US support--is bombing the Kurds in Iraq, the most pro-American part of the population. All over the world, other occupied areas grow restive as well.
Meanwhile, thanks to the Fed, the dollar weakens every day, riaking a key pillar of US hegemony. Domestically, housing heads into a 1930s-style crisis, with more of the economy to follow.
This is the way empires end: in blood and economic disaster. The regime will want to do more of the same: inflate and bailout at home, threaten and bomb abroad, which will only worsen everything.
There is only way out: cut spending, cut taxes, stop inflating, end the police state, bring the troops home. Peace and freedom: libertarianism, in other words. How blessed we are, at the very moment of crisis, to have Ron Paul.
joe | December 27, 2007, 11:17am | #
Yes, John.Negotiation requires a stick, too.
This observation is not nearly as obscure as you seem to think. It's actually pretty universally understood.
The idea that bringing your opponent to the negotiating table can be a wise use of your strength, and not a exercise in defeatist capitulation, does not seem to be as widely known.
Ali | December 27, 2007, 11:18am | #
I think if I were Musharraf I'd just skip out and seek asylum somewhere (a la the Shah) and become a monied political adviser.But Musharraf is not you. You're rational.
joe | December 27, 2007, 11:18am | #
I don't know what to make of Musharrif.He is is utterly baffling.
R C Dean | December 27, 2007, 11:21am | #
That's why I think we should do: stop worrying about these nations until they actually become a threat to us. And by threat, I mean an actual leader of a nation who wants to attack us with military weapons.Under this formula, we would have done exactly nothing after 9/11, because we were not attached by the state of Afghanistan with military weapons.
The only defense against terroristic threats is to secure our borders so that we know who is getting into the country, and to be vigilant at home, which is something we need to do anyway.
This line of thinking has brought us the Homeland Defense debacle and miscellaneous other pointless infringements on our civil liberties. A defensive hunker will fail, but in doing so will wreck what is left of this country's tradition of civil liberties.
One of the only areas I give Bush and Rice credit is in their effective use of diplomacy and PR in support of the democratic, anti-Syria uprising in Lebanon.
As near as I can tell, that uprising is in the process of failing, as the Syrians, via their secret services and catspaws, seem to be pretty thoroughly entangled in Lebanese affairs yet again. The life expectancy of any leader who wants Syria out seems to be back down to its pre-"Cedar Revolution" days.
Episiarch | December 27, 2007, 11:22am | #
I think if I were Musharraf I'd just skip out and seek asylum somewhere (a la the Shah) and become a monied political adviser.If what you like is power then that is a sucky option. He's already got money.
Ayn_Randian | December 27, 2007, 11:23am | #
The US had installed Musharraf as military dictator after kicking out his elected predecessor, Nawaz SharifThis is why I hate LewRockwellians; they deal in conspiracy theories and crazy bullshit.
I haven't seen nor do I believe that there is any credible evidence that the military coup was anything but internal.
Rockwellians have a weird idea of the U.S. Government: sometimes it's an all-encompassing shadow organization that manages to overthrow whole regimes on its own, but sometimes they think the government is a bunch of bumbling clowns.
"Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to incompetence"
Isaac Bartram | December 27, 2007, 11:23am | #
Very bad business, this. Not unexpected, but sad, nonetheless.And other posters have gone into both her virtues and her flaws, so I shan't bother.
But I don't support the US making behind the scenes threats of military force in order to coerce agreements.Well, in reality, a threat of force lies behind all diplomacy.
There are those who believe that the more credible the threat the more effective the diplomacy. I suspect they're right.
I am much more disturbed by idle and/or pointless threats.
Duckman | December 27, 2007, 11:27am | #
R C Dean, I don't think our presence in Afghanistan has exactly yielded any fruit. We don't have Bin Laden, and Afghanistan seems to be sliding back towards Taliban rule.I also think you misinterpret what I mean by "vigilant" at home. I just mean that ordinary citizens should be on the lookout for suspicious behavior. The 9/11 hijackers left a few clues, such as their disinterest in learning how to land a plane and an outburst by Mohammad Atta in a bank. (Sorry, I don't have links for these, but I'm sure you can find them). I do not mean a police state being "vigilant" for us, although I do admit we run such a risk. However, I honestly think there is ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY NOTHING we can do about terrorism by adventuring abroad. The only thing we can do is try to keep them out of our country or watch for them to slip up once they are here.
Ayn_Randian- But it does make sense to have a strongman from the military to be head of state of Pakistan. I can not, now, remember the US response to Musharraf's coup d'etat, but what was the US position on the coup d'etat? The typical "We strongly condemn this attack on democracy" [in lower voice] "but that is okay with us"?
Ayn_Randian | December 27, 2007, 11:29am | #
kicking out his elected predecessor, Nawaz Sharif (ah yes, global democracy), who was considered insufficiently obedientSeriously, they are unwell and sort of schizo; on one hand, you'll see Rockwellians lambasting democracy here at home and then trumpeting how the U.S. overthrew "the will of the people" in Pakistan.
Also, Nawaz Sharif was no angel; he was well on his way to consolidating power as Prime Minister.
Lost_In_Translation | December 27, 2007, 11:29am | #
I can't imagine how insane you have to be to think you can get away with using a nuke on any nation. The outrage might result in the complete leveling of your country. If a terrorist ever used a nuke, they will have demonstrated complete loss of mental function. Nuclear weapons only worked when the US was the only nation to have them. Since then, nobody's been ballsy enough to contemplate using them for anything other than the complete destruction of another nation.Isaac Bartram | December 27, 2007, 11:30am | #
...the m.o. doesn't fit with a pure political assassination....
Yes and no.
Could be the perfect m.o. for someone who wanted to kill two birds with one stone, as it were.
joe | December 27, 2007, 11:32am | #
RC Dean,As near as I can tell, that uprising is in the process of failing, as the Syrians, via their secret services and catspaws, seem to be pretty thoroughly entangled in Lebanese affairs yet again.
That movement certainly did take a beating as a result of the Isreali decision to wage a country-wide punitive war in response to Hezbolllah's occupation, but Lebanon is certainly more free and independent today than they were before Hariri's funeral, even if there has been backsliding.
Ali | December 27, 2007, 11:32am | #
Randian-Also, Nawaz Sharif was no angel; he was well on his way to consolidating power as Prime Minister.
Of course he was not, but he was more legitimate the Musharraf, no?
the $50 is the new $20 | December 27, 2007, 11:33am | #
I'll put a hundred on "Mossad did it"Duckman | December 27, 2007, 11:33am | #
Lost_In_Translation, you are correct in your judgement if you believe the person holding the nuke is sane and rational. I submit that by definition a Muslim radical is not sane or rational by our definition, because they believe we are the Great Satan and that their religion demands that we be destroyed, regardless of the consequences. If we nuke them in retailiation, perhaps all the Muslims we kill will be marytrs who will go to Paradise?I do think there is a real threat from Muslim radicals with nukes. However, that doesn't alter my assessment that there is no way for us to pre-empt such a situation.
Ayn_Randian | December 27, 2007, 11:34am | #
I can not, now, remember the US response to Musharraf's coup d'etat, but what was the US position on the coup d'etat?I dunno. It's not particularly important either way in the context of the now, but for the Rockwell folks to peddle in insane and unfounded conspiracy theories is disgusting.
But it does make sense to have a strongman from the military to be head of state of Pakistan.
Sure; just like it made sense to have one head Iraq while we hunted down OBL and his gang of crazies.
Ali | December 27, 2007, 11:36am | #
If we nuke them in retailiation, perhaps all the Muslims we kill will be marytrs who will go to Paradise?From a practical point of view, you either mean (a) nuke them all, or (b) not all of them, but then what about the rest who will probably seek revenge? Neither option is something I would recommend doing. Bad.
Tom Walls | December 27, 2007, 11:36am | #
This isn't Kashmir or some sectarian squabble we're talking about. I tend to think it was a foreign element - possibly Al-Qaeda or some other group with foreign members operational in Pakistan.If it was a Pakistani, it was likely a young madrassa brainwashee.
joe | December 27, 2007, 11:37am | #
Duckman,Lord knows I'm not exactly an imperialist hawk, but there are certain specific cases where the use of military force overseas can ben an effect weapons against terrorists - those cases when the terrorists adopt a military stance.
The overthrow of the Taliban, routing of the al Qaeda training camps there, and that destruction of al Qaeda at Tora Bora are all (or at least, would have been, if that last one had been completed) examples of such. The special forces aid we provided to the Phillipines and the joint American/Frence naval patrols off the Horn of Africa are others.
Ayn_Randian | December 27, 2007, 11:37am | #
Of course he was not, but he was more legitimate the Musharraf, no?Ali - do you really want to go down the "legitimacy" road again? Although I do agree with you, for whatever that's worth. I just wanted to point out that Nawaz acted much like a right-wing Putin prior to his ouster. No good guys or bad guys here, just sad situations.
Ali | December 27, 2007, 11:41am | #
Randian-I dunno. It's not particularly important either way in the context of the now, but for the Rockwell folks to peddle in insane and unfounded conspiracy theories is disgusting.
I think Rockwellians' point of view is that there is evidence in history to support their "theories". We can't just say history is irrelevant. Essentially Rockwellians are making the very Ron Paul argument about "blowback". Don't expect your adversaries to forget history while you do.
Sure; just like it made sense to have one head Iraq while we hunted down OBL and his gang of crazies.
So we agree that there is a US interest in having Musharraf in power. It would be consporatorial to say that the US helped him in the coup d'etat, but not so much so if we see that there was a nod of approval because there was a US interest in having him in power. While we're at it, why don't we send him a few hundred million dollars or so to secure his new regime? We do not approve of him, but it is in our interest.
Duckman | December 27, 2007, 11:42am | #
joe, I agreed with our decision to attack Afghanistan, and I agree that if we know where the most organized terrorists are we should take action. My main beef is with us staying behind in these nations and having a permanent presence there. I think that just creates resentment from people who think we are trying to install puppet governments, and I think this plays into the hands of Muslim radicals.. | December 27, 2007, 11:42am | #
A contentious notion and assertion that has no basis in fact. How long was Japan's history of democracy again? Germany's? Italy's?1) It is debatable whether or not Japan is actually a Democracy. Sure, they have elections, but democracy is more than that. Also, they tried to invade everybody once they started to modernize.
2) After attempting to become a democracy, not only did Germany try to kill all the Jews, half of the country became an authoritarian communist country only to become democratic a few years ago. It took time.
3) Wait, so more insane nationalism. Then a bunch of instability. still took time.
I guess I'd rather do it British style, at least they kept their internal democratic struggles internal.
Joe S. | December 27, 2007, 11:43am | #
One week before the Iowa caucus, and no one thinks, 'False Flag.'I guess no one here is aware of how the US government authorized the Diem assassination as a pretext to years of US military intervention in South Vietnam.
This is not a case of 'Crying Wolf,' however. This is a case of 'Creating Wolf.' While spending trillions of dollars and thousands of lives to make America safe from car bombers in Iraq, the Bush Administration let al-Qaeda grow and fester in Pakistan, a country with nuclear weapons.
Anyone remember how the Bush Administration quietly shut down the CIA's bin Laden Unit, which was charged with tracking bin Laden in Pakistan? If al-Qaeda gets its hands on a nuke now, we may have to intervene, but one thing for sure is that the neocons have been thoroughly discredited in the realm of competence and should not be permitted anywhere near the helm of state any longer.
It's time to talk impeachment, for the high crime and misdemeanor of Supreme Stupidity.
whatjoereallythinks | December 27, 2007, 11:43am | #
Lord knows I'm not exactly an imperialist hawk, but there are certain specific cases where the use of military force overseas can ben an effect weapons against terrorists - those cases when the Democrat Party holds the Whitehouse.. | December 27, 2007, 11:43am | #
3) refers to italyAyn_Randian | December 27, 2007, 11:43am | #
you are correct in your judgement if you believe the person holding the nuke is sane and rational. I submit that by definition a Muslim radical is not sane or rational by our definitionI'm not inclined to believe there is a huge portion of human beings who have thrown their basic survival instinct out the window. Nor their reason.
By that, I mean I could drop 99% of people in the middle of an American mall with 100 bucks and I'd bet they all come back with something for themselves and their families.
Larger point: economic incentives work better than the "stick".
Shorter version: the proper response to the '79 Iranian takeover was to keep trading with the people, even if we hated the leaders. Ditto Cuba, Iraq, Libya et al.
Brian24 | December 27, 2007, 11:44am | #
As far as places like Ireland and Peru and Columbia and the peace negotiations, why do you think fanatical murders like the IRA and the FARC were willing to negotiate? It is because they were forced to by the strength of the their enemies. Had their opponents not been willing to go after them, they would have just taken what they wanted and never bothered to negotiate. Strength produces compromise not weakness.Perhaps. And the core of the IRA were certainly fanatical murderers (though not all wer Marxist). But they were only able to operate for so long because of the many thousands who supported them because of the very grievances--some legitimate, some not--they had against the British government, the provincial government and the structure of their society.
Only when the Brits finally showed that they were willing to address these grievances, and to force their Orange allies to engage in real negotiations, was any headway made. At that point, in the eyes of public opinion, the IRA was now the side of intransigence, and Gerry Adams was smart enough to see that he faced a choice between coming to the negotiating table and losing support.
There is still, to this day, a branch of IRA diehards who preach Marxist revolution. You'll note that people don't pay much attention to them anymore.
Strength doesn't always mean fighting harder. Sometimes it means having the balls to take away your opponent's support by addressing their legitimate grievances.
This is bad news yes, no doubt about it...however Bhutto for whatever was good about her...she was a kleptocrat who defrauded Pakistan out of a ton of money. Her husband is in jail for the same offence. So all I am saying is please do not believe the saintly songs that are sung in her honor.
Ali | December 27, 2007, 11:47am | #
Randian-No good guys or bad guys here, just sad situations.
I do agree. But that goes back to a position as that taken by Paul or Rockwell. It is not a matter of conspiracy. It is a matter of a terribly messy world out there that a direct US involvement only makes worse. It is a matter of admitting that big empire could just make things worse. Avoiding an empire does not mean surrender or weakening your defenses. On the contrary, it implies stronger defenses by eliminating unnecessary costs. And so that if someone attacks us here, we root the hell out of them for good. Simple, constitutional, yet makes the US ever more powerful. 3-in-1.
joe | December 27, 2007, 11:47am | #
Duckman,My main beef is with us staying behind in these nations and having a permanent presence there. I think that just creates resentment from people who think we are trying to install puppet governments, and I think this plays into the hands of Muslim radicals.
I agree, though if you look at the actions of the adminstration in Iraq and Afghanistan, and what their theorists wrote in the months and years before the Iraq War, it looks pretty clear that, for them, "staying behind" was the point from the beginning.
While you and I thought the administration was going through the Taliban to get at al Qaeda, what they were actually doing was using al Qaeda as a reason to invade and occupy Afghanistan. Ditto Iraq.
dhex | December 27, 2007, 11:48am | #
Sometimes it means having the balls to take away your opponent's support by addressing their legitimate grievances.amen.
i can't say i'm very surprised someone finally got to bhutto; seeing as she was less than favored by the current regime on top of other issues her creative accounting may have created.
Duckman | December 27, 2007, 11:48am | #
Ayn_Randian, I agree that most people are rational and for most people economic and survival incentives work. But clearly, given the number of Muslim radicals willing to blow themselves up in the name of Allah, regardless of whether it creates more hatred and "blowback," it seems to me that any Muslim radical who straps a conventional bomb to his back would be more than happy to strap a nuclear bomb there if only he could.Ruthless | December 27, 2007, 11:48am | #
Obama could make a lot of political hay out of the Pakistan situation. I can't see Hillary being bold enough.All the Repubs (but RP) should hang their heads in shame.
joe | December 27, 2007, 11:49am | #
whatjoereallythinks | December 27, 2007, 11:43am | #Lord knows I'm not exactly an imperialist hawk, but there are certain specific cases where the use of military force overseas can ben an effect weapons against terrorists - those cases when the Democrat Party holds the Whitehouse.
Funny how the three examples I gave were all Bush administration actions, then.
It would be nice if people weren't so blinded by their partisanship that they saw everything through those lenses.
joe | December 27, 2007, 11:49am | #
Oh, and it's called the "Democratic Party.""Democratic," you partisan shill.
Ayn_Randian | December 27, 2007, 11:51am | #
One week before the Iowa caucus, and no one thinks, 'False Flag.'Exhibit "A" for the prosecution. The attack just happened, what, five hours ago, and already we have the loons coming out for a look-see.
They're like cultists; every shred of evidence supports the conspiracy, even the ones that don't seem to at all.
Essentially Rockwellians are making the very Ron Paul argument about "blowback".
No, they aren't, Ali. You don't say words like "installed" "insufficiently obedient" "handpicked" and "U.S. Colony" when describing blowback; Rockwellians are saying the U.S. is a massive shadowy empire.
There is a very important distinction.
Guy Montag | December 27, 2007, 11:54am | #
JFC MNG is under the delusion that I must hang on his every word, like a twisted Dave W.Sorry, went to lunch. Now I have a new policy to review. If you get too lonely without me TDB.
Ali | December 27, 2007, 11:54am | #
Duckman-Have you ever asked yourself what was the percentage of "radical Muslims who are ready to blow themselves up" 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 100, 200, and 400 years ago? You will probably see a trend and a sharp spike in the last 20-40 years. What is it about those 20-40 years that has changed?
To get to my point. The radicals are very irrational, dangerous and murderous. But what is the basis on which they are being recruited? I also hope that you realize that it is not a "Muslim" thing.
John | December 27, 2007, 11:54am | #
"Strength doesn't always mean fighting harder. Sometimes it means having the balls to take away your opponent's support by addressing their legitimate grievances."It has to be a mixture. You can't kill your way out things true. But at the same time, you can't die on your principles either. Most people are going to join the side they think is going to win. Nothing kills popular support like losing.
It is my understanding that the State Department had a lot to do with Bhutto going back to Pakistan. She was our guy over there. I can't think of a more westernized leader of an Islamic country than her. Granted she was corrupt as hell, but so are leaders of a lot of other countries. She was no worse than Vincente Fox and his mob that runs Mexico. She also did a lot to stablize the economy and bring investment to Pakistan. Bhutto was very much a Western alternative and a lot of people wanted her dead because of it.
Duckman | December 27, 2007, 11:55am | #
Aresen, I would make one change to your apocalyptic vision: Guiliani will not be elected because if a US city gets nuked, Bush will declare martial law and stay in power indefinitely.Ayn_Randian | December 27, 2007, 11:55am | #
But clearly, given the number of Muslim radicals willing to blow themselves up in the name of AllahHey man, if France pulled all the Grey Goose of the shelves (or the Brits Tanqueray) because they disagreed with the Administration, I might go apeshit too.
More serious point: Let's not forget that if goods don't cross borders, soldiers will. We have to expose the most radical nations to the wealth that comes from peace and the peace that comes from wealth.