« Bhutto AssassinatedPak Press »

Rue Pol

Bhutto assassination our fault, AQ annoyance justified. LGF has the Ron Paul vid.

Topics: pols

  Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:05 am on Friday, December 28, 2007

9 Responses to “Rue Pol”

1. El Cid Says:
   December 28th, 2007 at 1:07 pm

   Rue Pol

   God, what a groaner that is. The header to the thread, not the story.

2. El Cid Says:
   December 28th, 2007 at 1:09 pm

   Of course her assassination was our fault…everything is, isn’t it?

   I really don’t need sarc tags, do I?

3. Vanguard of the Commentariat Says:
   December 28th, 2007 at 2:07 pm

   Ron Paul, the Dennis Kucinich of the right…

4. Baby M Says:
   December 28th, 2007 at 2:47 pm

   I’m not a libertarian, but if I were, I’d be fumed that the most prominent libertarian in the country is a whackjob who sides with the islamofascists against his own country.

   Then, perhaps, I’d start to wonder if there’s perhaps not something a bit “off” about libertarianism.

5. websmith Says:
   December 28th, 2007 at 8:08 pm

   When you give billions to 5% of the population, 95% of the population becomes disenfranchised.

   When 95% of a population is disenfranchised, the country becomes politically unstable.

   This process is very effective and creates rebellion, violence, including suicide bombers, and profiteering opportunities where your return on investment rate can be very high if you sustain the destabilization. Any risk can be eliminated by using taxpayers’ money to make the initial investment.

   Look for Al Qaida to be blamed, a remote village to be bombed, innocent citizens sacrificed, indistinguishable bodies to be produced, soldiers to go into caves after more terrorists they will never find, and billions more to be given to 5% of the population.

6. J.M. Heinrichs Says:
   December 28th, 2007 at 9:45 pm

   websmith
   Just a suggestion: “disenfranchised”; look it up in the dictionary. And your “process”, as described, has no historical precedent. You’re linking ‘pseudo’ to ‘intellect’.

   Cheers

7. saltydog Says:
   December 29th, 2007 at 2:17 am

   Mr. Heinrichs, my dictionary gives the following definition of disfranchisement (the first definition of disenfranchinement) is: to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity. I think webmaster’s use falls within that definition. Even speaking within the definition of the right to vote, his statement still stands, considering that most of the country has been striped of their right to vote for their representatives.

   That said, I think there is a serious problem with giving these countries bribes of any kind. We can see the results in numerous countries where our generosity has propped up some dictator. This holds whether we’ve given the money directly to the government or whether we’ve given the money in aid for food, or aids, or for whatever crisis of the moment you choose to name. We do people no favors with such largess, and we rarely get whatever political position for which we’ve paid for longer than the next few minutes, if that.

   And, by the way, I don’t claim to be an intellectual, pseudo or otherwise, and I don’t remember webmaster making that claim either. Snarky comments don’t make one an intellectual either, by-the-bye.

8. tanstaafl Says:
   December 29th, 2007 at 11:05 am

   I’ve been uncomfortable for the duration, since 911 (at least).

   When we needed an “ally” in the region, and Pakistan has since been receiving copious monetary (and otherwise) support.

   I would guess that it is US funds that are, at present, “protecting” and insulating Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.

   I have defended Musharraf and “believed” for a long time that the Pakistani military (or a large part of it) has been the defender of stability and democracy in the region, despite (apparent) ISI infiltration and flaws.

   But Musharraf, apparently, doesn’t have “the right stuff” (internally) to literally hold the place together.

   TheUS State Department had a large hand in bringing back Benazir Bhutto (her earlier corruption involvement must have been forgiven to effect that) in order to show growing “democracy” in the region.

   John Bolton has referred to this as “micromanagement”, and such micromanagement (or attempts at “tweaking” a situation) often has unintended consequences.

9. tanstaafl Says:
   December 29th, 2007 at 11:42 am

   Re: the video

   Ron Paul’s remarks are cliché filled and he appears a very simplistic thinker.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.