« Battlestar Galactica returns | Main | Yes, Virginia, even Nobel Prize winners can be wingnuts »

October 18, 2006



A useful distinction, too. I must try to discipline my own language.

I still say the Americans are playing NATO for suckers, though.


Beyond Afghanistan and Rwanda (what - no mention of Darfur?) not being the same situation, the fact of the matter is that there was no genocide being carried out in Afghanistan. Had there even been an inkling of evidence to suggest such a claim, Bush, Blair & Co, LLC would have jumped on that one right away. "Not only are they terrorists, and not only do they treat their women and camels unfairly, but they're also engaged in genocide." It seems "genocide" was an even less believable scenario than "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq - afterall, we used the "genocide card" in Iraq.

But, as I've repeatedly said, I don't understand online ideologues. I understand them even less than the ones in the so-called "MSM."

That Iraq and Afghanistan both have nothing to do with "human rights" is quite evident: the administration now and in 1991 is virtually identical. There were no "humanitarian interventions" then and there aren't any now.

The comments to this entry are closed.