“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Sunday, May 28, 2017

If Gaddafi was still ruling Libya, Saddam in Iraq and Assad in Syria, there would be no 23,000 people on a UK watch list and no EU refugee crisis

To prevent another week of terror, our state must not become a vast ISIS recruiting sergeant





British Libyans and Libyan exiles who had their passports returned to fight Gaddafi were always unlikely to return as model citizens

The Independent Online
libya-stories-9.jpg
National Transitional Council fighters take part in a street battle in Sirte, Libya in the final assault on Gaddafi's hometown in 2011 Getty

The massacre in Manchester is a horrific event born out of the violence raging in a vast area stretching from Pakistan to Nigeria and Syria to South Sudan. Britain is on the outer periphery of this cauldron of war, but it would be surprising if we were not hit by sparks thrown up by these savage conflicts. They have been going on so long that they are scarcely reported, and the rest of the world behaves as if perpetual warfare was the natural state of Libya, Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, South Sudan, North-east Nigeria and Afghanistan.

It is inevitable that, in the wake of the slaughter in Manchester, popular attention in Britain should be focussed on the circumstances of the mass killing and on what can be done to stop it happening again. But explanations for what happened and plans to detect and neutralise a very small number of Salafi-jihadi fanatics in UK, will always lack realism unless they are devised and implemented with a broad understanding of the context in which they occur. 

It is necessary at this point to emphasise once again that explanation is not justification. It is, on the contrary, an acknowledgement that no battle – certainly not a battle to defeat al-Qaeda and Isis – can be fought and won without knowing the political, religious and military ingredients that come together to produce Salman Abedi and the shadowy Salafi-jihadi network around him.

The anarchic violence in the Middle East and North Africa is underreported and often never mentioned at all in the Western media. Butchery of civilians in Baghdad and Mogadishu has come to seem as normal and inevitable as hurricanes in the Caribbean or avalanches in the Himalayas. Over the last week, for instance, an attack by one of the militias in the Libyan capital Tripoli killed at least 28 people and wounded 130. The number is more than died in Manchester, but there were very few accounts of it. The Libyan warlords, who pay their fighters from the country’s diminished oil revenues, are thoroughly criminalised and heavily engaged in racket from kidnapping to sending sub-Saharan migrants to sea in sinking boats. But their activities are commonly ignored, as if they were operating on a separate planet.  

Manchester explosion in pictures

Britain played a central role in overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 without considering that there was nothing but such warlords remaining to replace his regime. I was in Benghazi and Tripoli at that time and could see that the rebel bands, financed by Gulf oil states and victorious only because of Nato airstrikes, would be incapable of filling the vacuum. It was also clear from an early stage that among those taking advantage of this void would be al-Qaeda and its clones.
But it is only since last Monday that people in Britain have come to realise that what happened in Libya in 2011 dramatically affects life in Britain today.


British Libyans and Libyan exiles in Britain, who saw their “control orders” lifted and their passports returned by MI5 six years ago so they could go and fight Gaddafi were never going to turn into sober citizens the day after his fall. Just as the link is undeniable between the perpetrators of 9/11 and the US and Saudi backing for Jihadis fighting the Communists in Afghanistan in the 1980s, so too is the connection between the Manchester bombing and the British Government using Salafi-jihadis from the UK to get rid of Gaddafi.

The British Government pretends that anybody making this obvious point is seeking to limit the responsibility of the killers of 9/11 and the Manchester attack. The Conservative response to Jeremy Corbyn’s common sense statement that there is an obvious link between a British foreign policy that has sought regime change in Iraq, Syria and Libya and the empowerment of al-Qaeda and Isis in these places has been dismissive and demagogic. The venom and hysteria with which Mr Corbyn is accused of letting the bombers morally off the hook has much to do with the General Election, but may also suggest a well-concealed suspicion that what he says is true. 

The Manchester bombing is part of the legacy of failed British military interventions abroad, but is this history useful in preventing such calamities as Manchester happening again? Analysis of these past mistakes is important to explain that terrorists cannot be fought and defeated while they have safe havens in countries that have no governments or central authority. Everything should be done to fill these vacuums, which means that effective counter-terrorism requires a sane foreign policy devoted to that end. 

There should be nothing mysterious about the cause and effect which led to the Manchester bombing. Yet the same mistakes have been made by Britain in Iraq in 2003, Afghanistan in 2006, Libya in 2011 and in Syria over the same period.

It is no advertisement for President Bashar al-Assad to say that any well-informed assessment of the balance of forces in Syria from 2012 onwards – and the powerful foreign allies supporting each side – showed that Assad was likely to stay in power. Fuelling the war with the expectation that he would go was unrealistic and much to the advantage of al-Qaeda, Isis and those who might target Britain.
Eliminating the bombers' safe havens is a necessity if the threat of further attacks is to be lifted. Security measures within Britain are never going to be enough because the al-Qaeda or Isis targets are the entire British population. They cannot all be protected, particularly as the means of murdering them may be car or a kitchen knife. In this sense, the bomber will always get through, though it can be made more difficult for him or her to do so. 

Better news is that the number of Salafi-jihadi networks is probably pretty small, though Isis and al-Qaeda will want to give the impression that their tentacles are everywhere. The purpose of terrorism is, after all, to create pervasive fear. 
Experience in Europe over the last three years suggests that the number of cells are limited but that committed Jihadis can be sent from Libya, Iraq or Syria to energise and organise local sympathisers to commit outrages.

Another purpose of terrorism is to provoke an overreaction, in this case the communal persecution or punishment of all Muslims in Britain. The trap here is that the state becomes the recruiting sergeant for the very organisations it is trying to suppress, The ‘Prevent’ programme may be doing just this. Such an approach is also counter-effective because so many people are regarded as suspicious that there are too little resources to focus on the far smaller number who are really dangerous. 

Atrocities such as Manchester will inevitably lead to friction between Muslims and non-Muslims and, if there are more attacks, sectarian and ethnic antipathies will increase. Downplaying the religious motivation and saying the killers “have nothing to do with real Islam” may have benign intentions, but has the disadvantage of being glaringly untrue. All the killers have been Muslim religious fanatics.

It might be more useful to say that their vicious beliefs have their roots in Wahhabism, a very small portion of the Muslim world population living in Saudi Arabia. Of course, this would have the disadvantage of annoying Saudi Arabia, whose rulers Britain and much of the rest of the world are so keen to cultivate.

117 comments:

  1. BACKGROUND

    On August 2, 1990, Saddam Hussein, notorious Iraqi strongman, triggered the first great international crisis of the post-Cold War era by invading Kuwait and declaring it Iraq’s nineteenth province. With Kuwait in his back pocket and the fourth largest army in the world at his disposal, Saddam effectively controlled two-thirds of the earth’s oil reserves, and had every hope of establishing Iraq as the dominant power in the region.
    As the Iraqi military build-up continued apace in Kuwait, fears of an invasion of Saudi Arabia mounted. On August 6, George Bush declared, “This will not stand, this aggression of Kuwait,” and he meant it. Quickly the American president obtained UN Security Council resolutions condemning the attack, imposing an embargo on Iraq, and seizing its foreign assets.
    An extraordinarily diverse military coalition consisting of more than half a million American and 200,000 international troops, including those of key Arab states, was formed under the command of Gen. “Stormin’ Norman” Schwarzkopf, and deployed along the Kuwait-Saudi Arabian border over the course of the next several months. The coalition’s initial mission, Operation Desert Shield, was to prevent an Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia while diplomats, Western and Arab alike, sought to persuade Saddam to withdraw his forces. Its second mission—Operation Desert Storm—was to force Iraq’s withdrawal by force of arms if diplomacy failed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Saddam, believing the United States had no stomach for a conventional war bound to produce heavy casualties in the tinderbox of the Middle East, proved intractable.

      On the morning of January 17, 1991, phase one of Operation Desert Storm—the air campaign of what the world would soon know as the Persian Gulf War—began.

      Desert Storm was the first major test of an all-volunteer U.S. military that had been rebuilt from the ground up following the debacle of Vietnam, and the impact of that experience on the services was everywhere in evidence. From the point of view of doctrine and training, the new American military eschewed protracted and messy insurgencies and inconclusive “operations other than war” in favor of conventional conflicts against regular armies.

      The new American military had been kitted out with a welter of new precision-guided weapons, high-tech command-and-control information systems, state-of-the art stealth fighter-bombers, and Abrams tanks that could hit targets 2,500 yards away while traversing rugged terrain in excess of 30 miles an hour with astonishing accuracy.

      In short, the new American military possessed a level of speed, mobility, and striking power unprecedented in the history of warfare.

      Delete
    2. EDIT

      ... This new creed of military interventionism was hubristic and idealistic at the same time, and drew on a tradition of American exceptionalism as old as Puritan John Winthrop’s “City upon a Hill” sermon of 1630. Americans were a unique people, with a special role to play in world affairs.

      A cadre of prominent neoconservatives, spearheaded by Robert Kagan, Charles Krauthammer, and William Kristol, spread the gospel of U.S. military intervention as a kind of panacea for all sorts of international problems and crises. “Military strength alone will not avail, counseled Robert Kagan, “if we do not use it actively to maintain a world which both supports and rests on American hegemony.”

      ...

      Delete
    3. ALONG COMES BILL CLINTON

      The Clinton administration embraced the new creed of military interventionism with gusto, as would the Bush administration that followed it. As the Department of Defense Annual Report of 1997 put it, “There is and will continue to be a great need for U.S. forces… not only to protect the United States from direct threats but also to shape the international environment in favorable ways… and to support multinational efforts to ameliorate human suffering and bring peace to the regions torn by ethnic, tribal, or religious conflict.”

      During the entire Cold War era, there were a total of six major American military deployments. Between 1990 and 1997 alone, U.S. forces conducted operations on foreign shores—peace keeping, peace enforcement, humanitarian relief, traditional combat missions, etc., etc.—more than 30 times, according to Department of Defense sources.

      Delete
    4. NOW FOR THE GOOD PART

      Ironically, the new interventionism completely rejected the Powell doctrine upon which the military had been reconstructed after Vietnam, and the Gulf War had been fought.

      That doctrine held that if military force was to be used at all, it must be used overwhelmingly, and only in defense of vital national interests, with the full support of the American people, for clearly defined political ends, and with a clear and quick exit strategy.

      One of the doctrine’s chief objectives was to insure that the military and the nation never again found themselves mired down in another protracted insurgency war with unclear or protean objectives.

      Delete
    5. OORAH

      As it happened, the much vaunted new world order never materialized, but the new world disorder surely did.

      Without the built-in constraints imposed by the East-West rivalry, the international community faced a welter of crises from failed and rogue nation states, disgruntled ethnic groups, insurgents and, increasingly in the mid ’90s, Islamic terrorism.
      American foreign policy decision makers turned to the new American military with unprecedented frequency as a kind of “salvation army,” deploying it in places such as Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, and Haiti where American interests appeared to be anything but vital, and with decidedly mixed results.

      THE GENIUS OF GEORGE BUSH AND HIS NEOCONS BEARS FRUIT

      Then came 9/11, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. After a period of striking initial success in conventional operations, both wars turned into nightmarish protracted counterinsurgencies that resembled nothing so much as Vietnam.

      Delete
    6. THE CHICKENS COME HOME TO ROOST

      The most expensive and capable military force in world history found itself completely out of its depth, unable to cope with either the political or military complexities of sectarian guerrilla warfare in cultures it did not understand. Firepower, mass, maneuver, and advanced technologies—the sine qua non of the post-Vietnam American way of war—were hardly the keys to victory against lightly armed insurgents living among the people Americans were meant to protect.

      Just after victory in the Persian Gulf in March 1991, a very wise MIT military expert named Barry Posen had cautioned foreign policy decision makers, “Don’t get the idea it will always be this easy. The terrain was favorable to our high-tech weapons, and we were up against a second-rate gangster. We must not confuse what we did here with using military power to redirect the domestic politics of a society.” Neither George W. Bush nor his chief advisors had bothered to listen to Posen, or to a score of other strategists who had carried his message forward into the early 2000s.

      Delete
    7. ANDREW BACEVICH ON PERMANENT WARFARE AND THE JOY OF EMPIER

      After all, these wars are unfinished business, and the new American business, as scholar Andrew Bacevich has eloquently pointed out, is permanent warfare. The Obama administration may have sworn off large deployments for the moment, but in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, “drone attacks employed pursuant to a campaign of targeted assassination [have become] the signature of Obama’s new way of war.”

      Looking back on the post 9/11 perpetual cycle of military operations in his book, The New American Militarism, Bacevich asks, “What has this vast outlay of treasure and this harvest of death and suffering purchased? Simply put, not victory.”

      Meanwhile, the American public’s disturbing reaction to this reality, outside the relatively small world of the military itself, has been indifference rather than outrage.

      Seen from the vantage point of 2016, the “stunning victory” that was the Gulf War of 1991, that great turning point in American military history and international politics, seems to have lost its former luster. Indeed, the war now appears to have been nothing so much as a lopsided but misleading prequel to the nightmarish civil war in Iraq, and the event that, more than any other, fed the tragic illusion that American military power could and should shape the world environment to fit our imperial will.

      Delete
    8. Now we have:

      Little girls being mutilated to death by psychopaths with nail bombs

      Families run over by psychotics in trucks

      Watch lists in the tens of thousands

      Delete


    9. “What has this vast outlay of treasure and this harvest of death and suffering purchased? Simply put, not victory.”


      But it sure smells of napalm.

      Delete
    10. .

      Watch lists in the tens of thousands

      The problems with the hundreds of $ billions we spent (wasted to a degree?)on a vast sprawling surveillance system are twofold. First, the predictable morphing of the system into a means of also monitoring American citizens. Second, for its stated purpose, that of monitoring our foreign enemies, it has always had a problem of dividing the wheat from the chaff. They have the technological capacity to 'collect' enormous amounts of information. The problem of course is what to do with it when you've got it.

      When they first decided to share the information between various intelligence agencies it was actually counterproductive as each of those agencies was flooded by an avalanche of data they couldn't possibly process but no one wanted to be the one who when the next attack occurred was accused of having the information and not acting on it so for some time they were chasing their tales before finally saying 'enough'.

      I'm sure capabilities are improving daily but there is no way an algorithm is going to be able to predict when some nutjob is going to go off. We will always be acting responsively if we depend on this type data gathering. In the end, it will be the police who protect us not the military. We will have to depend more on Humint rather than Sigint for this war, informers, front operations set up to draw these guys in, operations like the Israeli one Trump was accused of compromising.

      .

      Delete
  2. GET OUT

    STAY OUT

    AND GET THEM THE HELL OUT

    ReplyDelete
  3. A Refresher course on Modern American History.

    ReplyDelete

  4. Trump lied ... people will die.

    A lot more than four.

    Instead of providing tax credits based on income and cost of living in an area — like the ACA does — the AHCA would give flat credits to people based on age, ranging from $2,000 for those under 30 to $4,900 for people aged 60 to 64.

    According to the CBO, those flat credits mean that older people just shy of Medicare age would see premiums skyrocket.

    For 64 year olds making $26,500, the average premium would increase from $1,700 a year to $16,100 under the base AHCA scenario. That would mean roughly 61% of the person's income would go to premiums, compared with just over 6% under the ACA.




    ReplyDelete
  5. .

    That doctrine held that if military force was to be used at all, it must be used overwhelmingly, and only in defense of vital national interests, with the full support of the American people, for clearly defined political ends, and with a clear and quick exit strategy.

    One of this Twins keeps asking me what is my strategy. This is it.

    The US lost its standing as a hyper power when it went away from this approach, the use of overwhelming power to attain well defined and achievable goals.

    No more elitist wars of choice to spread 'democracy' or American culture and values to supposedly benighted peoples who not only don't want it but haven't a clue as to what you are talking about. No more interventions in support of R2P. No more regime change. No more mission creep. No more pottery barn rules. No more worrying about forming coalitions when in the end we do all the hard lifting and spending anyway.

    Simply respond to any aggression with overwhelming force, kick ass, and leave. We did the first two in both Iraq and Afghanistan but failed to do the third. We stayed and in fact are still there. Had we left after achieving are initial goals and let the countries reorganize themselves it is hard to argue they would be any worse off than they are now. On the other hand, the US would now have a reputation for strength and competence and following through on its word. It would not be viewed as an incompetent and unreliable ally. We might not be liked but we would be respected. Right now we are neither.

    This doesn't mean isolation. We can interact with these countries. We can provide aid and assistance. We can interface with them diplomatically. We can influence them. But the empire building has to stop.
    Treaties should be restricted to only those that protect vital American interests.

    .
    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Some would argue that the approach is brutal and that we have a responsibility to help these countries rebuild infrastructure and form new governments rather than leave them to clean up what we destroyed.

      Against that argument I would point out the obvious effects of our staying where we are not wanted, our apparent inability to establish truly representative rather than corrupt and divisive governments, wasting money on infrastructure projects that only serve to provide walking around money for corrupt politicians ours and theirs, ultimately killing millions and turning tens of millions into homeless refugees.

      Any war is going to have casualties and collateral damage. There is no chance to do no harm but we can do less harm.

      .

      Delete

    2. But what you describe, Q, is just what was done in Lybia.

      The "threat" to the US was destroyed, and then the US 'left'.

      The results, disastrous.
      Without LOCAL forces capable of controlling the ground, the vacuum the US left behind in its brutal wake spawned anarchy and chaos.

      Now one could argue the US had no vital interest in Libya, but the elected leadership of the US did not agree.

      Delete
  6. .

    On militarism, exhaustion, and decadence

    http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/26/trumps-budget-is-american-caesarism/">Trump’s Budget Is American Caesarism


    President Donald Trump’s new budget has been faulted for craven cuts to a raft of health care and civil society programs that taken together literally help provide for the general welfare of the citizenry. But it also seeks to raise the Defense Department’s budget by 10 percent, and that of the Department of Homeland Security by almost 7 percent, while cutting the State Department by 29 percent and eliminating funding for such estimable institutions as the U.S. Institute for Peace (USIP) and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. These proposals in and of themselves signify cultural and political decline by any historical measure.

    The rise of the military, if coupled with the undermining of civilian aspects of national power, demonstrates a spiritual exhaustion and a descent into Caesarism. Named after Julius Caesar — who replaced the Roman Republic with a dictatorship — Caesarism is roughly characterized by a charismatic strongman, popular with the masses, whose rule culminates in an exaggerated role for the military. America is moving in this direction...


    .

    ReplyDelete
  7. I agree with the Q strategy. Unfortunately too many liberal special interest groups don't have the stomach for collateral damage and / or potential blowback. Obama was scared shitless in fear of both, IMO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But what Q described is just what was done in Libya.

      The "threat" to the US was destroyed, and then the US 'left'.

      The results, disastrous.

      Without LOCAL forces capable of controlling the ground, the vacuum the US left behind in its brutal wake spawned anarchy and chaos.

      Delete
    2. Which, one must agree, has not enhanced the security of the United States or its allies.

      One just has to look at the Manchester bombing for affirmation of that reality.

      Delete
  8. Unless we didn't kick ass ENOUGH. My contention is we haven't been brutal enough. At this point is when some will call me a Chicken Hawk. None the less, whack a mole doesn't work, whack a mole on steroids doesn't work either.

    As to Manchester, our allies across the pond have a huge geographical disadvantage to the US.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Brutality, in and of itself, does not work.

    The proof of that is in Fallujah, Mosul, Raqqa, etc.

    Cities that were destroyed, and now are hotbeds of Saudi backed Islamic extremists.

    Now, we could attack Islamic extremism at its base of support, but Mr Trump just sold them billions of dollars worth of weapons.
    So that idea is a none starter.

    Or we could just leave the mess and bring the all boys home, but no one seems interested in that idea.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Berlin, and Moscow ...
      Seoul and Pyongyang ...

      All were leveled, razed with brutality.
      Millions of the inhabitants killed

      Those cities the US remained involved with, Berlin and Seoul, have become economic allies.

      Those cities we abandoned, Moscow and Pyongyang, not so much.

      Delete
    2. .

      Brutality, in and of itself, does not work.

      I disagree. I believe the truly justified, focused, and limited, in time and objective, can be effective.

      Fallujah, Mosul, and Raqqa have direct links back to our ill-advised war of choice under Bush that left Iraq as a near failed state in the hands of a corrupt and sectarian regime, a breeding ground for radicals.

      .

      Delete
    3. .

      I disagree. I believe the truly justified, focused, and limited, in time and objective, brutality can be effective.


      Too many commas.

      .

      Delete
    4. .

      No.

      Certainly not at this point.

      .

      Delete


  10. Us allies?

    Egypt has blocked the website of one of its most prominent financial newspapers, the paper's owner said on Sunday, expanding a media blackout initiated last week to curb what authorities called support for terrorism and fake news.

    Egypt blocked access to a number of news websites including Al-Jazeera and Huffington Post Arabic on Wednesday after similar actions by its Gulf allies Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.


    The US supplied 1,400 M1 Abrams Main Battle Tanks to the Egyptians.
    Hundred of billions of arms sold to the Saudis
    The UAE ... it goes without saying ...

    Trump International Golf Club, Dubai is a world-class golf course, exceeding all expectations.

    ReplyDelete
  11. .

    But what you describe, Q, is just what was done in Lybia.

    The "threat" to the US was destroyed, and then the US 'left'.


    Bullshit, rat.

    You completely missed the point of my post. Libya was the exact opposite of what I was suggesting.

    There was no threat to the US from Libya. We had no US interests there. There was no existential threat posed. Libya was a war of choice. The only interest in the war were the oil interests of the UK and France. Under the excuse of R2P humanitarian exigencies, not only did we takes sides in an internal tribal conflict, we forced regime.

    Under my suggested policy there would have been no failed state in Libya unless they did it to themselves. We wouldn't have been responsible by the simple fact that we weren't involved. We wouldn't be blamed for the clusterfuck that exists today.

    .

    .

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. The President of the United States believed there was a threat emanating from Libya.
      Colonel Q was a well known supporter of international terrorism.

      The President of the United States made a Constitutionally questionable decision that US interests were threatened.

      Just as Mr Trump has decided that the Assad regime, in Syria, is a threat to the vital interests of the US, even if I disagree.

      To paraphrase, you wrote the US should use whatever force required to defeat the enemy and then leave.
      That is what was done, in Libya.

      Delete
    2. .

      The President of the United States believed there was a threat emanating from Libya.

      Bull titty. If you truly believe that there no pint in further discussion.


      To paraphrase, you wrote the US should use whatever force required to defeat the enemy and then leave.

      That is what was done, in Libya.



      You take one sentence, remove all context provided by the rest of the post, and completely change the intended meaning of that post.

      .

      Delete

    3. One would assume you would now support destroying Damascus?

      That'd teach 'em, aye?

      Delete
    4. .

      There is also no point in further discussion.

      .

      Delete

    5. All based upon the AUMF of 13SEP2001.

      Especially since the Congress DID NOT give the President any authority to expand the war in Syria, when it was requested.

      Delete

    6. Q, the carpet bombing advocate.

      Except the Q would never want to engage.

      So, you provide US with a policy alternative that even you do not want to implement.

      Delete
    7. .

      One would assume you would now support destroying Damascus?

      Rat, were do you come up with this shit? What don't you get about the fact that before we entered that conflict I was arguing we shouldn't. What don't you get about the fact that I don't think we should be there now.

      Assad is not a threat to the US. He never was. Why the fuck would I want to bomb Damascus? Right now we're doing the same thing we did in Libya.

      There is no existential threat to the US from either Syria or Iraq, unless it comes by accident in the air filled with US and Russian jets, something that wouldn't be a concern if we weren't there.

      .

      .

      Delete
    8. .

      So, you provide US with a policy alternative that even you do not want to implement.

      Nonsense, rat, just can't seem to get it.

      You distort the whole point of the strategy I proposed. What I proposed was a response to aggression not using war as a policy of empire.

      You are talking about wars of choice which we wouldn't be in under my strategy. We would only resort to military action to respond to aggression or to when US national interests were threatened.

      The difference between us is I define real US interests, those that can be considered existential, much more narrowly than you.

      Your comments offer justification or rationalization for US wars of choice since 9/11. I don't.

      My strategy was followed in the first 6 months in both Iraq and Afghanistan. After that we followed the neocon/liberal interventionist formula and can see the result.

      .

      Delete
    9. I think Jack has made a reasonable point regarding your strategy Quirk. For everyone one of the recent wars the justification has always been framed as US vital interests being at stake.

      Delete
    10. .

      That's ridiculous ash. You've got the same problem as rat.

      Under my strategy, there would have been no Libya, there would have been no Iraq, Syria, Yemen, etc. None of those situations represented a threat to US interests.

      This is all theoretical. I don't expect the Pentagon to be checking in and saying, "Hey that makes sense."

      But why in the hell would you care about how Obama or Bush rationalized their wars of choice. We've seen that everything they did ended up in a clusterfuck. Under my strategy their rationales would have been rejected out of hand. I'm not talking about what was, I'm talking about what should have been and what should be going forward. What's done is done, opportunity costs lost. Try looking forward.

      Under my strategy US 'interests' would be defined extremely narrowly and wouldn't include phony R2P reasons or made up WMD threats. Anyone with an ounce of common sense could see the justification for all of these action including the ongoing war in Afghanistan are bullshit.

      .

      Delete
    11. .

      I've named mine the 'Baddest Dude in the Valley' strategy and is in direct opposition to the 'Policeman to the World' strategy.


      .

      Delete
    12. Can you say "I was wrong" about the "inconsequential" Supreme Court overreach?

      Delete
    13. .

      Still?

      I was going to ignore your last post and let it go.

      You know none of my answers are short. Do you really want me to do this?

      .

      Delete

    14. “[T]his court is not a legislature,” he wrote.

      “Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us.

      Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.”

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/06/26/how-each-supreme-court-justice-came-down-on-same-sex-marriage/?utm_term=.9a4e7b245eca

      Delete
    15. Make that long and confusing, if you can.

      Delete
    16. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    17. Oil and the control of it has been deemed to be a vital US interest hence the ME wars. It isn't ethical in my view but that has been the gist of it.




      Delete
  12. "Kushner correct to create channels with everyone," Assange tweeted Sunday, following reports that Kushner sought to set up a line of communication between the Trump transition team and Moscow.

    "CIA has no authority over leadership and is financially motivated to increase conflict."

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/335478-assange-kushner-correct-to-create-channels-with-everyone

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Well, then, there you have it, Assange said.


      Common sense would indicate and history would indicate back channels were used by many presidents, Obama, Reagan, Kennedy. There wasn't much of a fuss raised about it.

      I have heard that (but not confirmed) that the meeting took place at Kusher's request, was held in the Russian embassy, and a Russian Bank was in attendance. Suspicious? Not necessarily. Worth asking a few questions about? Probably.

      .

      Delete
  13. Back channel communications are normal and necessary. NYT and WAPO need to stop crying wolf every single fucking day.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 911 demonstrated the insanity and consequences of US policy in the ME. It wasn't the beginning, it actually was the beginning of the end but it still is not over.

    The only real threat to the US in the Middle East was from the Saudis in 1973 with the Opec oil embargo because of US support for Israeli. That in itself was a result of a deal the US made with the Saudis in 1950 establishing a 50/50 split with the Saudis where the US oil companies put up the capital and technology to exploit the Saudi oil reserves.

    The US did not see that this was a threat to US security and the Saudis eventually took 100% in 1980. The US had ample reason to see a threat to its interests in 1973, but it didn't. It saw no reason to go to war in 1973. That made sense as oil is a commodity and available to the highest bidder. The US had ample opportunity to deal with the embargo though commercial and support for alternate energy sources, but it foolishly didn't.

    Inexplicably, in 1990 Bush senior decided that Saddam taking Kuwait back was worthy of the US going to war. Why? Kuwait was a part of Iraq and why it was not a strategic threat when the Saudis "took the oil" in 1973 but it was when Iraq took back what they believed was theirs in Kuwait.

    The claim of historical claims is the same as has been made by Israel in 1967 and the Saudi claims that the oil was theirs. We accepted both outcomes without going to war.

    Kuwait under Iraq, was no more of a threat to US interests than any other seizing of oil assets that were not in the US. Under Iraq or Kuwait or Iran or Venezuela, or anywhere else outside of the US, the oil never belonged to us.

    The true insanity began in 1990 under George Bush Senior. That debacle, part and parcel of the current debacle, has been going on for 27 years.

    How has that worked out for us? What did it cost? What did we gain? When will it end?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The fact that we kicked ass and buried Tankers alive only whetted appetites more.

      Delete
    2. If we had to do it over again, I would send in special forces before operation
      "Iraqi Freedom"
      commenced to set up a giant scoreboard that would have tallied the cost as we drilled a hole in the ground in Baghdad with scores of cruise missiles ferreting out Saddam's underground lair.

      Delete


    3. "The Iraq War was a protracted armed conflict..."

      Got that right!

      Delete
  15. Quirk ignores James Harden, doubles down on investment in Big Baller Shoes.

    http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/05/lavar-ball-big-ballers-aau-52-point-compton-magic-highlights-video-lamelo-lonzo-ucla-nba

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If only he coulda been MY Dad !

      https://usat.ly/2raOzL6

      Delete
  16. One thing we no longer need worry about is ISIS. It's great thing to have a military expert around who can predict what will happen. ISIS was to be 'wiped out' in Iraq last Memorial Day This prediction was made some 6 months or so earlier. Alas, it didn't happen. Now we can celebrate the wiping out of ISIS this Memorial Day, except that even if the rest of Mosul falls, the ISIS folk will still be out there in the desert, doing terrorism when they can, attacking targets of opportunity.....so even with the final fall of Mosul we can't say that ISIS has been 'wiped out' of Iraq.....

    Then there's Syria....

    Yup it's a great thing to have a 'military expert' around the joint.

    It provides endless opportunity for mockery and laughter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A self proclaimed 'military expert' to boot.

      Just too bad there ain't no gas in his neon sign....

      Bwabwabwahahaha

      Delete
    2. We should hire Jack to distract and exhaust Quirk,
      leaving a clean field of play for us Eruditers.

      Delete
    3. Better yet, in this thread he did it for free.

      Delete
    4. Jack can work off his $5 internet gambling debt to me by distracting and exhausting The Quirkster.


      Did anyone even mention above that the whole ISIS problem was caused by O'bozo taking the troops out too soon ?

      I even noticed Ash in the argument for a while.....

      Talk about our Three Top Blazing Guns....

      When they get going just head for the Mockery Dugout.....

      Bwabwabwabwahahahahaha

      Delete
    5. More like Blazing Saddles.

      Delete
  17. Where would buried alive in a Tank rank in the list of bad ways to go?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fairly high up the list, I'd think. Up there is the 90%+ area.

      Delete
  18. Quirk takes tailgating to New Level, misses Indy 500.

    https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/cf/14/d1/cf14d12c982ca5c2a2e81613e0a2a891.jpg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What he missed:

      https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/7781e9ff3912a3ddbf5450da4b9b7607558deae8/r=x393&c=520x390/local/-/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2013/05/12/indy-history-gallery-first-race-1305182231_4_3.jpg

      Delete
  19. .

    DougSun May 28, 04:52:00 PM EDT
    Make that long and confusing, if you can.


    Re:

    Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.”


    Sorry, Doug, dinner intervened.

    First, I am against the courts 'making' law, not on specific issues but on all issues. That said, my umbrage over a particular decision is proportional to the importance I apply to the issue being judged.

    On gay marriage, I find the words a perverse change in the meaning of the word marriage, oxymoronic based on the history over millennia of marriage being considered the union of a man and a woman. I find it as one more step in an avalanche of steps that are turning the US into a society of Eloi. That said, compared to the shit going on these days I find it to be one of my lesser concerns. For that reason, I assumed the final result as soon as the issue hit SCOTUS and haven't really been following the issue since.

    However, this subject seems to have affected you deeply so if you want to fill me in on the various arguments presented in the case, it will help me offer you a more informed answer.

    Going from the few details I know I can only offer you the following...

    First the constitutional issue. The original Constitution did not approve of gay marriage, it did not forbid it, it did not mention it at all. I would imagine it would have been the last thing on the Founding Father's mind. This makes a gay marriage a likely issue for court review at some level. It also means that if it reaches SCOTUS the decisions will be considered as an expansion of specific rights that are written into the Constitution.

    I outlined the history of the gays rights movement in a digest form on the last stream. By the time of the SCOTUS decision in 2015, about 70% of the population was living in states where gay marriage was legal. Lawsuits were ubiquitous. The decisions at the state, the District, and the Circuit Court levels were mixed but with the majority favoring gay marriage. The issue was ripe for SCOOTUS review.

    When the Court finally decided, I assume it was won on some sort of discrimination claim. Since you are so interested in the case, you can likely provide a more detailed explanation.

    If the decision was based on those type considerations I would say the arguments are specious and the decision flawed. Gay Marriage is a feel good issue for the gay community, it is an attempt to pervert a perfectly good word with an understood meaning to somehow convince that what still remains an alternative lifestyle is somehow mainstream. It is a symbolic judgment that goes beyond the legal rights included in civil unions.

    IMO, the SCOTUS ruling did in fact make law.

    As you are basking in that victory, let's talk about the real reason behind your question. You made it yesterday in your series of post.

    You assign great importance to the fact that Trump nominated a conservative judge. You accept that conclusion before he has even offered up a decision. I am less convinced by the argument and have the patience to wait until he has a few votes under his belt.

    You cite the gay marriage case as an example of the perfidy of liberal judges 'making law'.

    I, on the other hand, I take the view that SCOTUS appointments are like a box of chocolates. You never know what you will get. Whether you failed to recognize or your failed to mention it, Justice Kennedy the swing vote on the gay marriage decision, in fact, the man who wrote the majority opinion was appointed by Ronald Reagan.

    Likewise, I've mentioned my selective umbrage over various cases. IMO, the rulings on Roe v Wade, Citizens United, and the Obamacare Mandate were all cases of the Court 'making law', all have a more substantial effect (in my opinion a more negative effect) on the US than the gay marriage decision, all were passed by Court majorities nominated by the GOP presidents.

    Take that for what it's worth.

    Believe what you want. Just don't give any shit about my opinion on SCOTUS.

    .



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I take the view that SCOTUS appointments are like a box of chocolates. You never know what you will get.

      The Quirkster

      My father would have agreed with you.

      Delete
    2. Much of what you say is true, but does not prove the box of chocolates analogy valid:

      To say there is not a radical difference, on average, between the GOP box and folks like Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Kagan is obviously not true.

      Don't know much about Breyer, but he's next to Alito in the list I just looked at, and for me that's another no contest comparison.

      Delete
    3. .

      I'm not trying to prove anything. You asked me what I thought and I gave it to you.

      .

      Delete
    4. Yeah, but if it's not true, why write it?

      There's either a difference, on average, or there isn't.

      ...although Robert's Grand Slam on Obamacare came close to evening up the score.

      Delete
    5. Gay marriage at it's core is an equal rights issue- if Doug can marry Cindy why should he not be able to marry Bob?

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. Most of the time it's best to let Ash go unanswered.

      btw,

      Cindy's not interested.

      Delete
  20. .

    Saw John Kelly on TV in a couple of interviews today. He confirmed my opinion of the Trump team's inability to walk and chew gum at the same time.

    He was defending the need for the Trump Muslim Ban. He was arguing that it wasn't really a ban because all they were talking about is a 90 day halt until 'extreme vetting' could be set up. He indicated 'we need the ban so that we have time to set up the extreme vetting'. I've seen other members of the Trump team make the same argument.

    Temporary? 90 days?

    It's already been 120 days since Trump asked for a 90 day halt. Have these guys been standing around for four months with their thumbs up their asses waiting for the ban to be approved?

    The bullshit counter is red lining with these guys.

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The whole goo is going to the Supreme Court.

      There, I certainly hope a solid majority backs The Donald.

      Then he can just ban 'em all.

      If you are a muslim you subscribe to sharia.

      If you subscribe to sharia you wish to overthrow out Constitution.

      Therefore, you should be banned from entering the USA.

      Delete
    2. If they rule on the law, it's no contest.

      Obviously that's not a given.

      Next they'll be ruling on what someone said in High School.

      Delete
    3. "Temporary? 90 days?

      It's already been 120 days..."

      ===

      The MSM, Dem, Judicial Consortium gave them so much shit to deal with, they couldn't find the time...

      :-)

      Delete
  21. There is nothing normal about a man wanting to have sex with a man. There is no greater absurdity of a man calling another man "his husband". I don't think there should be laws restricting the freak show, but there certainly should be no privilege subsidizing it.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Instead of appropriating and redefining an age old term, they could say something like:

    "I got my freak on."

    ReplyDelete
  23. Our previous President was so enthralled with the LBGTQ community, he felt the need to light up the WH with rainbow colors. Certainly one of his top ten low points.

    ReplyDelete

  24. Too many pints spoil the stew.

    "Bull titty. If you truly believe that there no pint in further discussion."

    ReplyDelete
  25. This is how I think of my good friend Quirk, and why I treat him so --

    Your meanest friend just wants the best for you, scientists say
    By Christian Gollayan May 26, 2017 | 1:17pm

    Your meanest friend just wants the best for you, scientists say

    Friends who give tough love just want what’s best for you.

    A new study at the University of Plymouth found that people who insult their friends aren’t necessarily mean-spirited — some just want the insultees to benefit in the long run.

    Scientists surveyed 140 adults and asked them about hypothetical situations.

    “We identified several everyday examples where this might be the case — for instance, inducing fear of failure in a loved one who is procrastinating instead of studying for an exam,” psychological scientist and the study’s author Belén López-Pérez wrote.

    The researchers found that subjects who were mean to their partners were more likely to be empathetic and want their partners to succeed.

    “These findings shed light on social dynamics, helping us to understand, for instance, why we sometimes may try to make our loved ones feel bad if we perceive this emotion to be useful to achieve a goal,” López-Pérez said....

    http://nypost.com/2017/05/26/your-meanest-friend-just-wants-the-best-for-you-scientists-say/

    Somebody's got to light a fire under his dead damp ass !

    I've taken the task upon myself due to my love and affection for the Detroit freak.

    Doug is helping too.

    ReplyDelete
  26. .

    Bwabwabwabwahahahahaha

    The haunting cry of the male Idaho loon, an endangered species doomed to extinction (some would say none too soon) by a deadly agglomeration of negatives, to wit its habit of continually trying to walk with its foot in its mouth, a singularly low intelligence expressed by the fact that it doesn't know its ass from a hole in the ground, and the fact that its peculiar cry is unintelligible and indecipherable even to other loons. Its unprepossessing looks don't help much either.

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You see, folks, how little progress I'm made with the freak, and what a lot of mountain I've left to climb !

      It's like:

      "packin' pork up Parnassus"

      Images of Mt. Parnassus here:

      https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=AwrTccCNkitZcMkA0JMPxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTByNWU4cGh1BGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--?p=mt+parnassus&fr=yhs-adk-adk_sbnt&hspart=adk&hsimp=yhs-adk_sbnt

      Delete
  27. May 28, 2017
    Bad news for Warmists: North Pole ice cap the same thickness as 1940
    By Thomas Lifson

    The apocalyptic religion of global warming/climate change stumbled upon the best animal mascot nag since Smokey the Bear when someone snapped a photo of a polar bear on an ice floe. Of course, polar bears are great swimmers, so the notion that a poor bear could be stranded on the last piece of ice remaining from the North Pole melt-off is absurd. But the religious frenzy of the Warmists holds such a myth as sacred, so the picture became its icon of compassion for cute furry objects of pity, the victims of the very carbon dioxide upon which its metabolism depends.

    Now comes the worst possible news: the North Pole is not melting. Realclimatescience.com reports:


    The Danish Meteorological Institute reports that Arctic sea ice is about two meters thick.



    DMI Modelled ice thickness

    In 1940, Arctic sea ice was also about two meters thick.



    The Changing Face of the Arctic; The Changing Face of the Arctic – The New York Times

    Arctic sea ice is about the same thickness as 75 years ago, but because people are constantly being lied to about climate by government scientists, they carry the same misconceptions which people had 60 years ago.

    23 Feb 1940 – THE NORTH POLE

    In 1958, the New York Times reported that Arctic ice was about two meters thick, and that people carry a popular misconception that the ice is much thicker than it is. They also predicted an ice-free Arctic within one generation.

    Yes.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/05/bad_news_for_warmists_north_pole_ice_cap_the_same_thickness_as_1940.html

    Nifty pics, old article clips, graphs, etc.

    It's true that the glaciers in Glacier National Parking are melting.....BUT, they have been melting since before the coming of the automobile....we have been in a warm period, and it may change the other way....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or not.

      Musk and Bezos will conquer all though, so fear not.

      Delete
  28. Climate Central just ran this piece, which the Washington Post picked up on. They claimed the US was “overwhelmingly hot” in 2016, and temperatures have risen 1,5°F since the 19th century.

    The first problem with their analysis is that the US had very little hot weather in 2016. The percentage of hot days was below average, and ranked 80th since 1895.

    ...

    They also claim US temperatures rose 1.5°F since the 19th century, which is what NOAA shows.

    The problem with the NOAA graph is that it is fake data. NOAA creates the warming trend by altering the data.


    Data Tampering

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When you pave 40 miles around half the thermometers, they tend to read higher, also.

      Delete
  29. Ash was a big warmer for awhile....see all these peer reviewed articles, he said.....then it turned out all the peers were in cahoots....since then he has been rather quiet on the subject.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I'd still like to cull about 6 trillion by aging out though.

    I'm about to do my part.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We all must do our part to sustain a viable Earth.

      Here's what's been bugging me the last couple of days -

      Harvard researchers find protein that could reverse the aging process

      Anthony Wood Anthony Wood May 7, 2014

      http://newatlas.com/gdf11-protein-aging-mice-harvard/31929/

      That's dated three years ago. Wonder how it is going along.

      If I could quickly shed thirty or thirty five years I could marry my Niece !

      Delete
    2. Maybe they're 3 years behind where they were then.

      Delete
  31. Fuckin Windmill Farmers oughta be pulled out by the roots.

    https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Red-kite-with-broken-wing-awaiting-slow-death-under-wind-turbine-%E2%80%93-courtesy-of-GURELUR_shadow.png

    https://realclimatescience.com/2017/05/forty-five-years-of-fighting-for-the-environment/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. O come on, everybody wins with the windmill farms. The 'farmer's get subsidies, the blade makers get rich, those who site the installations have to write big expensive papers, cross country transmission lines must be built....

      Some years ago one windmill was a million bucks. Probably a lot more now....

      There are no losers except the taxpayers and a few dead birds, and 50% of the people pay no federal income taxes.

      SMILE

      Delete
    2. And I think the danger to the birds is vastly overrated.

      Delete
    3. Did you notice how far that field of ugliness stretched?

      Delete
    4. Yup, all along the ridge.

      “Best of all he loved the fall,
      The leaves yellow on the cottonwoods,
      Leaves floating on the trout streams,
      And above the hills,
      The high blue windless skies…
      Now he will be a part of them forever.”♦



      “Best of all he loved the fall,
      The leaves yellow on the cottonwoods,
      Leaves floating on the trout streams,
      And above the hills,
      The high white ugly windmills....
      Now he will be a part of them forever.”♦

      Delete
    5. We had a Sycamore behind the house with two trunks, each about 3 feet across, between which a footbridge past before crossing the creek.

      Love the bark.

      http://pics.davesgarden.com/pics/2005/10/16/frostweed/18af77.jpg

      Delete
    6. At least 5 feet across where the single trunk went into the creekside.

      Delete
    7. Actually the footbridge passed between the trunks.

      Delete
    8. MOME rests against the State Tree:

      http://www.prairiedust.net/PrairieDust/images/20080709210114_cottonwood_2912_sm.jpg

      Delete
  32. Generation Jihad: SHOCKING photos show West will be fighting jihad for DECADES
    By Pamela Geller - on May 28, 2017
    GLOBAL JIHAD 2017

    Our children are slaughtered while theirs hold guns and give the Islamic State salute.


    They are arming their children for war. We are disarming our children in the information battle-space and beyond.

    Our children are taught in school to “respect” jihad killers in a new teaching aid.

    Our children are proselytized to in the classroom.

    This is not a decades-long war — this is a 1,400 years long war.

    We saw these same images in the 1970s with “Palestinian” Muslim children. Look how that went:



    GENERATION ISIS: HORROR PHOTOS WHICH SHOW WE COULD BE FIGHTING DAESH FOR DECADES
    EXCLUSIVE: TINY CHILDREN ARE BEING BRAINWASHED BY THEIR ISIS SUPPORTING PARENTS WHO ENCOURAGE THEM TO ATTACK WESTERNERS, HORROR PHOTOGRAPHS HAVE REVEALED.
    By Zoie O’Brien, The Express, May 27, 2017:...

    http://pamelageller.com/2017/05/west-will-be-fighting-jihad-decades.html/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Photos of the little darlings....

      Delete
  33. American Thinker has been reading Deuce -

    May 29, 2017
    The U.S. and tolerating the existence of dictators
    By Armando Simon

    The world is full of dictators. Some even call themselves president or prime minister, and sometimes there is even a superficial semblance of democracy. There is no question that these individuals are reprehensible individuals. But having said that, the recent American policy of the last decade demonstrates that instead of actively trying to remove them, it might be a much wiser policy to simply back off from any interference. The problem is, our government leaders never seem to learn from their mistakes. Just listen to John “the walking dead” McCain. And, to tell the truth, we have become addicted to sticking our noses into other countries’ business.

    The Middle East region during this past decade provides ample proof of this dictum. The fiasco caused by that consummate imbecile, George W. Bush, is one that has endured to this day and whose mistakes we are all still paying for. It is because of him that there is a Shiite Iraq, a Palestinian region run by an elected radical group, and a genocidal ISIS out from the Iraqi ashes (and Bush still believes that he did a good job as president---just like Jimmy Carter). This was followed up by Libya and Syria falling into civil war and anarchy. Whereas Libya, Syria and Iraq may have been pariah states under those dictatorships, the resulting demise (or imminent demise) led to wholesale butchery that has spilled over the borders, and, has increased tenfold the number of deaths.


    During the Cold War, leftists routinely condemned the United States for “supporting” authoritarian regimes (this “support” ranged from simply having regular diplomatic relations to supplying them with weapons), such as Mobutu Sese Seko of the Congo, as being immoral. Ironically, these same leftists showed no moral indignation whatsoever at atrocities committed by Marxist regimes. Their moral indignation has always been highly selective. It may have been “immoral” (a term that is highly subjective), but in the global chess game of the time, it was a necessity, just as it was necessary to supply the Soviet Union during World War II.

    Which means, that it should be in the best interest of the United States to keep its nose out of other countries’ internal affairs---especially if no one has any accurate idea of the circumstances in that country. Look, Vladimir Putin is corrupt, a murderer and a democracy killer, no question about that, but he was correct when he told the West regarding the mess in Libya, Syria and Iraq, “Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, we got violence, poverty and social disaster---and nobody cares a bit about human rights, including the right to life. I cannot help asking those who have forced that situation: Do you realize what you have done?"



    Armando Simón is a retired college professor and is the author of A Cuban from Kansas, The U and The Only Red Star I Liked Was a Starfish.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/05/the_us_and_tolerating_the_existence_of_dictators.html

    ReplyDelete
  34. Angela

    “The times when we could fully rely on others are to some extent over -- I experienced that in the last few days,” Merkel told supporters in the Bavarian capital a day after the G-7 meeting ended. “We Europeans must really take our destiny into our own hands.”

    “Of course we need to have friendly relations with the U.S. and with the U.K. and with other neighbors, including Russia,” she said. Even so, “we have to fight for our own future ourselves.”

    https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-05-28/merkel-signals-new-era-for-europe-as-trump-smashes-consensus

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Merkel will probably import a million young muzz, put them in the Army, and arm them up.

      That's how bright she is.

      Delete
  35. Gomer Pyle marries his longtime male partner

    http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/clip/8274854/exclusive-actor-jim-nabors-marries-his-longtime-male-partner

    ReplyDelete
  36. Rhino Ride

    Damn thing weighs 350 lbs!

    ...shoulda had one made out of carbon fiber.

    http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article153151579.html

    RhinoRide.org



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hope he goes through Truckee, something different for the locals.

      Delete
    2. Damn Chicoms pay for the tusks.

      Detusk them, the hunters kill them anyhow, and grind up their feet.

      Delete
  37. Sports betting system earn +$3,624 PROFIT last week...

    Z-Code System winning bets and predictions for MLB, NHL, NBA & NFL!!!

    ReplyDelete
  38. If you need your ex-girlfriend or ex-boyfriend to come crawling back to you on their knees (no matter why you broke up) you got to watch this video
    right away...

    (VIDEO) Win your ex back with TEXT messages?

    ReplyDelete