Bill Buckley, you and I know the war was a mistake

The Hill ^ | June 28, 04 | Josh Marshall

[chris1]

We could not fight WWII today. We would be too concerned that the japs and huns were being called japs and huns. I am sickened by what has become of us. Oh yeah, we would be concerned that Hitler got his vegetarian meals more than our totally destroying the reich.

[Miss Marple]

Who said no one should criticize Republicans? I am talking about people who NEVER have anything positive to say, and make it their life's work to mock those who do.

[Merdoug]

Okay. Fair enough.

[A Jovial Cad]

Ahhhh...what a pantload of nonsense to juggle in just one post! Hilarious...quit tickling my ribs with such...LOL.
Okay, here we go:

*The mask slips away and what do we find - precisely what I thought in the first place. We see now the swirling sludge of your thought processes*

LOL--just too, TOO, funny. Please quit. Or don't. According to you that "mask" has never been there in the first place (SEE PREVIOUS POSTS AT THIS POINT); it's ALL been about, well, other than the truth about nopardons manner of, ahem, dealing with those whom she disagrees with, and your idle threats, what? LOL...not much...just too, TOO, funny.

*In any event, you jest at scars that never felt a wound - I honestly don't care what you think of me*

Ah, jeeze...now you've dragged Shakespeare into it...LOL. I honestly DON'T either--care what *you* think, that is. But ah you must--"care" what I "think" of you, of course. Otherwise, you would've quit posting "reply" to me long ago...LOL...Hilarious...just too, TOO, funny.

*But please do continue...the more you speak, the more you tie the knot in the noose, which strangles what remnants you have of a reputation*

Really? LOL...jeeze...I'm just soooo worried about *that* that it's driven me to reflection and inner contemplation and....LOL...(snicker)...You're kidding, right? LOL...

[bobsatwork]

I can't find the NY Times piece that contains the Buckley quote. I would like to see what WFB actually said before I swallow this guy's conclusions as to what WFB meant.

[MadIvan]

I believe the appropriate American term to describe you is "fruit loop" - you are way, way over the top in terms of describing your pretended hilarity at this situation, and your false non-chalance. I also note that your posts are getting longer, as if you have to remind yourself what your tactics are.

Really, you made a mistake - you attacked the wrong person, got into a lengthy discussion with someone who sees you for what you are, and all you do with your replies is merely reinforce what I'm saying. We can continue this as long as you like - I presume that one of two things will occur in the long run: either you'll be dragged off in a straightjacket (and I have to admit a chuckle at that idea), or Jim Rob will throw you out on your ear. Either of which is fine. ;)

Ivan

[A Jovial Cad]

You're sure obsessed about those "tactics" you imagine are constantly being plotted around your ears, aren't you? LOL...it's a constant and ongoing theme of your marathon defense of the indefensible. I guess it's the ultimate fallback position, so to speak, eh?
LOL...what a deal...

Speaking of which, what do we have here?:

*Secondly, anyone going over the posts will see how you are really not having fun, despite your protestations to the contrary*

Gee...LOL...I think NOT, "old boy"...LOL...what they'll see is a twit who likes to type in the service of a bad cause..and a recognition of some old home truths I stated in the initial post that sent you to the barricades about a poster whom spews abuse around FR about like Dandelions sprout yellow tops across the green fields of spring... do you *ever* "get real," and deal in facts, BTW? Just an honest inquiry...

[Remole]

Look, hindsight can go both ways. How about this: An element in favor of forcibly changing the regime in Iraq that has not been elaborated enough is the situation that would have prevailed had the US-UK alliance NOT done so. Of course, "what would have been" is an uncertain science, but it does not take a whole lot of imagination to see that, if US-UK forces (all 150,000 of them!) had exited the scene in the summer of 2003, the following would have occured:

- Saddam would have gone after the Kurds in a big way--this, the second time the Kurds would have been betrayed by the US in the past 15 years and in the only place in the Middle East outside of Israel where some form of representative democracy was in place;

- Saddam's place as the new "Saladin" of the Middle East would have been secured, and this in a short time would have seen him gather his allies in Syria, Egypt, Yemen etc (even Iran--see Yossef Bodansky's 2002 book)and establish a firm anti-West axis;

- that axis would have been emboldened to raise the tension in Israel in a very short time, with war within 3-5 years a certainty.

- Saddam would have reconstituted first the chemical weapons (from dual use to single use plants), then the biological weapons, then the nuclear weapons; and here is the key point: after the departure of the US-UK forces in the summer of 2003, the UN would not have the stomach to go to the mat against Saddam for a long time, and so Saddam would have had a long time when he could work on those programs without a whole lot of outside interference.

- The French-German-Belgium axis would have won the diplomatic war.

But most importantly, Saddam would have stared down the West again, as he did all through the 1990's, and would have emerged victorious in the eyes of the entire Arab world, if not in the entire world at large.

[MadIvan]

Come now, really, you have a particular "debating tactic", and you refuse to acknowledge it? That's simply pitiful. For you to label it "paranoia" is utter silliness - it would like Bush being paranoid about Kerry boring him to death in the debates, rather than simply bringing the No Doze.

Similarly, I'm bringing my version of the No Doze for the benefit of those others reading the thread - I'm merely stating what you are about, and it's fairly obvious that you're squirming from having that done to you. It's not my problem that you don't like it. If you didn't want to get challenged, you shouldn't go around insulting friends of mine just because you're too weak to handle their challenge back at you, and it left a permanent mark on your fragile ego. Simple, really.

Ivan

[Just mythoughts]

Might be totally off subject, however, we here in the US are about to be revisiting "King Arthur", got any ideas what this is all about?

[A Jovial Cad]

*I believe the appropriate American term to describe you is*

LOL...my, my, my... Are you telling me, Ivan, that you, perchance, aren't an American? Is that what I'm hearing here? LOL...that's just icing on the cake, Monty. A non-American lecturing me on Free Republic?...satire couldn't do proper justice to it all...LOL...just too, TOO, funny.

*Really, you made a mistake - you attacked the wrong person*

WRONG--I "attacked" a person who deserved--and deserves--to be "attacked" on sheer grounds of consistent and perpetual nastiness, plain & simple.

*We can continue this as long as you like - I presume that one of two things will occur in the long run: either you'll be dragged off in a straightjacket (and I have to admit a chuckle at that idea), or Jim Rob will throw you out on your ear. Either of which is fine. ;)*

Yep, we can. I'm willing to "continue this" FOREVER -- as I've previously stated. But I somehow doubt that it'll be Jovial who gets thrown "out on your ear," if it comes to that. I really do...

[MadIvan]

If you haven't figured out I'm British already, you're more idiotic than I thought.

And by the way, the "Limey go home" tactic has been tried for the nearly 6 years I've been here, mostly by the supporters of Pat Buchanan. As you can see, I'm still here. I took a break of a year, not too long ago. Judging by the welcome I received on my return, I'm still welcome. Which is probably more than can be said for you, old boy.

And you did indeed attack the wrong person. Nopardons is a lady I am proud to call a friend. She is generous and of good character and I'd be delighted to help her any day. But it is obvious that she has hurt you. Poor little boy, poor wretched little boy...can't get over the just desserts that nopardons cooked up in her kitchen, I dare say. ;)

And certainly, we'll see who gets thrown out on their ear. I wonder if my colleagues here are setting up a dead pool. ;)

Ivan

[Alberta's Child]

OK. Whatever you say. You have no idea what my approach to those "competing considerations" would be in any case, especially in light of what we now know about the pre-WW2 era in Europe and the U.S. dealings over there.

[A Jovial Cad]

Yes, let us all "come now," to a basic set of facts, and some old home truths:
Ivan offers unsolicited advice to Jovial, in a post that does not concern him, *per se*. He makes the usual snarky threats of the randy among us--see previous posts--and throws down a gauntlet. That gauntlet is picked up, and answered. Ivan replies by posting "reply" after "reply" after sad "reply" that largely consists of what passes for, these days, the King's English version of dry wit and slobbering, comedic obfuscations, all in the service of a lousy cause...
Hmmmm...it appears to me now that it's little wonder how easily the events at Yorktown eventually panned out. Such "opposition" amounts to not much at all, at least by these standards...

[Alberta's Child]

I believe that the "Mission Accomplished" banner referred to the aircraft carrier's mission...not to the war effort. I am surprised at your ignorance.

Now that is the kind of backpedaling spin that would make a Clintonoid proud.

If you truly believe that the President's every appearance isn't a deliberate, well-planned, carefully scripted performance, then you are naive. And you obviously don't think very highly of President Bush's team, either.

[Petronski]

But I somehow doubt that it'll be Jovial who gets thrown "out on your ear," if it comes to that. I really do...

You'd better think that one through again.

[Ditter]

"Hollywood supported this war" What??????? I think your memory is skewed a bit. Don't you remember "a chill wind is blowing"?

[Petronski]

...the President's every appearance isn't a deliberate, well-planned, carefully scripted performance, then you are naive.

No naivete needed. The banner was deliberately planned to thank the sailors on the Lincoln by acknowledging the mission they accomplished.

[MadIvan]

Careful, old boy, your temper is showing. The only thing you offered in reply to my throwing down the gauntlet is a tired, tepid series of posts in which you proclaim how amused you are. Or how you can continue on this vein forever, which is a veiled threat to bore me to death, presumably.

It does concern me, as it is a friend of mine you chose to attack. I do not regard the definition of friendship as being so flexible as to stand idly by when one can render assistance. However I should note, I do not regard the definition of intelligence as so flexible as to accomodate you under its umbrella. Nor are the terms "good sense", "taste", and "character" so malleable.

Be that as it may, you may drivel on all you like about how "ineffective" it is...but apparently you're paying attention to this, to the exclusion of everything else. Which as I said, is fine - containment is useful, after all. :)

Ivan

[Petronski]

I wonder if my colleagues here are setting up a dead pool. ;)

Such a pool wouldn't even be fair.