If the Bushies actually invade Iran, the international backlash will make the protests against war in Iraq look like a cakewalk. With Syria at least a legitimate argument can be made that they still haven't left Lebanon, and that Syria and Lebanon are prime training and recruitment grounds for Muslim terrorist organizations (not unlike Idaho). With Iran, the story is much different.

You libs are sooooo lame. It's the same stuff over and over again. And you know what, it doesn't even make sense, know why?

Because if it were about oil, we'd be in Liberia!! The U.S. considers Western Africa to be the next best source for oil apart from the Middle East. It's been targeted as a location to lessen our dependence on Middle East oil.

Nah... liberals want to throw our troops anywhere (Bosnia) where our national security interest is suspect at best.

Now, CJ, liberals like Liberia because the first five letters of both words are the same-- LIBER, as in LIBERTY-- something you also doubtless, oppose. PLease resume your normal cheerleading for the Bush Administration, and pretend that it is the same thing as "patriotism".

A relatively modest deployment in Liberia could probably improve things there, though not necessarily. Anything more than a modest deployment ain't gonna happen. I say again: our army has 33 combat batallions, 16 of which are engaged in the Iraqi theater, leaving 17 others world wide, and N. Korea may be heating up, who knows about Afghanistan, etc., etc.

We may have a "moral" obligation; we also have a more practical obligation to help take out Taylor-- who has helped destabilize a number of countries, right up to the edge of the most promising area for non-Middle Eastern oil these days.

But there seems little political benefit to Dubya to doing it (or so Karl thinks). That's the problem. Too bad for the Liberians.

I'm confused now.

"Nah... liberals want to throw our troops anywhere (Bosnia) where our national security interest is suspect at best."

Are conservatives concerned with national security interest (which would rule out invading countries like Iraq which pose no threat) or with solving humanitarian crises (which is the after-the-fact justification for the Iraq invasion)?

--Kynn

Talking Dog sez:
"Now, CJ, liberals like Liberia because the first five letters of both words are the same-- LIBER, as in LIBERTY-- something you also doubtless, oppose."

Yeah, but you'd think we'd like libertarians more.

And of course, we get confused by librarians.

--Kynn

CJ-
"When he was campaigning for president in 2000, Bush was explicit about his foreign policy regarding Africa. He said the continent was a low priority for him because it did not fit into America's national interest."

Yes, Nurse Ratched, but that was before someone explained to him that Pat Robertson owned diamond and gold mines in Africa.

Aww, Jo, you've picked up your very-own rightwing idiot troll flea! How cute! And "CJ" is so easy to type.

Now you can have hours of fun belittling his asshat willful stupidity and ignorant strawman blanket statements!

I love how when someone disagrees with the blogger of choice... they become a "troll." That's fine. If my comments aren't welcome, just tell me. If free and open debate is frowned upon here, just let me know. I'll update my link on my website to say "only liberal point of view welcome."

You came in here, insulted everyone and wonder why you get called a troll?
CJ, your a fucking retard. Go fuck yourself.

Make that fucking CHICKENHAWK retard.

1. Timely
   
2. Strategery
   
3. Webb wins
   
4. Huh?
   
5. Bunnypants in Bagdad
   
6. Outage
   
7. Filthy Lucre Watch
   
8. Playing the numbers
   
9. My letter to Countdown
   
10. Jefferson's Nigerian Scams