Iraq is America?s Boer war

The Green Bean

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2003
6,506
7
81
By Timothy Garton Ash


STANFORD: If you want to know what London was like in 1905, come to Washington in 2005. Imperial gravitas and massive self-importance. That sense of being the centre of the world, and of needing to know what happens in every corner of the world because you might be called on ? or at least feel called upon ? to intervene there. Hyperpower. Top dog. And yet, gnawing away beneath the surface, the nagging fear that your global supremacy is not half so secure as you would wish. As Joseph Chamberlain, the British colonial secretary, put it in 1902: ?The weary Titan staggers under the too vast orb of his fate.?

The United States is now that weary Titan. In the British case, the angst was a result of the unexpectedly protracted, bloody and costly Boer war, in which a small group of foreign insurgents defied the mightiest military the world had seen; concern about the rising economic power of Germany and the United States; and a combination of imperial overstretch with socio-economic problems at home.

In the American case, it?s a result of the unexpectedly protracted, bloody and costly Iraq war, in which a small group of foreign insurgents defies the mightiest military the world has seen; concern about the rising economic power of China and India; and a combination of imperial overstretch with socio-economic problems at home.

Iraq is America?s Boer war. Remember that after the British had declared the end of major combat operations in the summer of 1900, the Boers launched a campaign of guerrilla warfare that kept British troops on the run for another two years. The British won only by a ruthlessness of which, I?m glad to say, the democratic, squeamish and still basically anti-colonialist United States appears incapable. In the end, the British had 450,000 British and colonial troops there (compared with some 150,000 US troops in Iraq), and herded roughly a quarter of the Boer population into concentration camps, where many died.

In a recent CNN/Gallup poll, 54% of those asked said it was a mistake to send American troops into Iraq, and 57% said the Iraq war has made the US less safe from terrorism.

The protest camp outside President Bush?s ranch in Crawford, which grew around the mother of a soldier who died in Iraq, exemplifies the pain. CNN last Sunday aired a documentary with top-level sources explaining in detail how the intelligence on Saddam?s weapons of mass destruction was distorted, abused, sexed up and, as the programme was entitled, Dead Wrong.

This will hardly be news for British or European readers, but the facts have not been so widely aired in the US. In another poll, the number of those who rated the president as ?honest? fell below 50% for the first time. This week, he has again attempted to bolster support for his administration and his war. It doesn?t seem to be working.

A recent article in the New York Times plausibly estimated the prospective long-term cost of the Iraq War at more than $1 trillion. If Iraqi politicians do finally agree a draft constitution for their country today, only the world?s greatest optimist can believe that it will turn Iraq into a peaceful, stable, democratic federal republic. Increasingly, the Islamic Republic of Iran quietly calls the shots in the Shia south of Iraq. As the Washington joke goes: the war is over, and the Iranians won.

Meanwhile, oil prices of more than $60 a barrel put the price of petrol at American pumps up to nearly $3 a gallon for basic unleaded fuel. For someone from Europe this is still unbelievably cheap, but you should hear the shrieks of agony here. ?Gas prices have changed my life,? moaned a distressed Californian commuter. If higher energy prices persist, they threaten not just a still vibrant economy but a whole way of life, symbolised by the Hummer (in both its civilian and military versions).

Besides instability in the Middle East, the main force pushing up oil prices is the relentless growth of demand for energy from the emerging economic giants of Asia. The Chinese go around the world quietly signing big oil supply deals with any oil-producing country they can find, however nasty its politics, including Sudan and Iran. When a Chinese concern tried to buy a big California energy company, that was too much ? American politicians screamed and effectively blocked the deal.

China and India are to the United States today what Germany and America were to Britain a hundred years ago. China is now the world?s second largest energy consumer, after the United States. It also has the world?s second largest foreign currency reserves, after Japan and followed by Taiwan, South Korea and India. In the foreign reserve stakes, the US comes only ninth, after Singapore and just before Malaysia. According to some economists, the US has an effective net savings rate ? taking account of all public spending and debt ? of zero. Nil. Zilch.

This country does not save; it spends. The television channels are still full of a maddening barrage of endless commercials, enticing you to spend, spend, spend - and then to ?consolidate? your accumulated debt in one easy package.

None of this is to suggest that the United States will decline and fall tomorrow. Far from it. After all, the British empire lasted for another 40 years after 1905. In fact, it grew to its largest extent after 1918, before it signed its own death warrant by expending its blood and treasure to defeat Adolf Hitler (not the worst way to go). Similarly, one may anticipate that America?s informal empire ? its network of military bases and semi-protectorates ? will continue to grow.

The United States, like Edwardian Britain, still has formidable resources of economic, technological and military power, cultural attractiveness and, not least, the will to stay on top.

You don?t have to go very far to hear that refrain in Washington today. The Bush administration?s national security strategy makes no bones about the goal of maintaining military supremacy. But whether the ?American century? that began in 1945 will last until 2045, 2035 or only 2025, its end can already be glimpsed on the horizon.

If you are, by any chance, of that persuasion that would instinctively find this a cause for rejoicing, pause for a moment to consider two things: first, that major shifts of power between rising and falling great powers have usually been accompanied by major wars; and second, that the next top power could be a lot ?worse?.

So this is no time for schadenfreude. It?s a time for critical solidarity. A few far-sighted people in Washington are beginning to formulate a long-term American strategy of trying to create an international order that would protect the interests of liberal democracies even when US hyperpower has faded. ?Dawn/ The Guardian News Serviceq

Some interesting facts and prophecies.
Even though I despies American polocies, I do tend to agree with the fact that America is the best country in the world today to be THE super-power. China and India both would be more trouble for muslims, but they donot seem to ever understand that fact!
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,267
126
A very good article and an analogy few have recognized. Oddly enough the NeoCons believe they are the few far-sighted people. By advancing US military power throughout the globe they hope to make America safe. The problem is that they can't, because the premise is based on the US being able to completely subjugate a people in multiple countries, or that the American way of life is so appealing that no one would refuse it. They can but try, but as the Brits and Hitler and all Imperial powers official and not found out the subjugated will find an effective way to resist, and will break free when they can.

At some point it comes to payback time. That won't be pretty and we are seeing the beginning of that effect now.

 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
If you're going to C&P an article, please provide some attribution in the way of a link.

And it's funny how the left pick, choose, and determine what wars are anologous, or what portions of wars are anologous, or how they compare. Vietnam, the Boer war...but not WWII. You see there's no comparisons to that one at all...oh, except Bush!tler!. :roll:
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
50,104
41,069
136
The British Empire was far more vast for much longer than anything the US could ever claim. Our territorial holdings outside the 50 states are negligible in comparison.

Only our military strength would be comparable, particularly as we have the largest and most powerful navy afloat by a wide margin.

 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,267
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If you're going to C&P an article, please provide some attribution in the way of a link.

And it's funny how the left pick, choose, and determine what wars are analogous, or what portions of wars are analogous, or how they compare. Vietnam, the Boer war...but not WWII. You see there's no comparisons to that one at all...oh, except Bush!tler!. :roll:

It's funny that you cite anyone who sees similarities between VN and Iraq or the Boer War as being on the left, but you would. You need to do so in order to promote your agenda. So be it.

No one here has compared Bush to Hitler at least not yet. What is being compared is the use of military power to shape the world in an aggressive manner. The circumstances in which we entered WWII are in no way similar to VN or Iraq. In the latter case, the US attacked VN based on a preemptive strategy in order to prevent the "Domino effect" of Communism, an obviously flawed concept. Likewise we are doing the same thing apparently hoping to do the same thing with democracy as we assumed the Communists would in SE Asia. Yet another flawed concept as witnessed by the fact that Iraq is heading towards being one or more Islamic republics.

Of course you will pretend not to get this, maybe you genuinely do not, but like the Jethro Tull song goes, I can make you feel, but I can't make you think.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
25,122
9,525
136
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If you're going to C&P an article, please provide some attribution in the way of a link.

And it's funny how the left pick, choose, and determine what wars are anologous, or what portions of wars are anologous, or how they compare. Vietnam, the Boer war...but not WWII. You see there's no comparisons to that one at all...oh, except Bush!tler!. :roll:
Maybe the left doesn't compare Iraq to WWII because its not a WORLD war? Maybe because Saddam is not a cunning despot intent on world domination like Hitler was? Seriously, if you want to draw this analogy, DO IT YOURSELF. Please enlighten us on how the Iraq war and WWII are so similar.

 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: UNCjigga
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If you're going to C&P an article, please provide some attribution in the way of a link.

And it's funny how the left pick, choose, and determine what wars are anologous, or what portions of wars are anologous, or how they compare. Vietnam, the Boer war...but not WWII. You see there's no comparisons to that one at all...oh, except Bush!tler!. :roll:
Maybe the left doesn't compare Iraq to WWII because its not a WORLD war? Maybe because Saddam is not a cunning despot intent on world domination like Hitler was? Seriously, if you want to draw this analogy, DO IT YOURSELF. Please enlighten us on how the Iraq war and WWII are so similar.

:thumbsup::laugh::thumbsup:
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,267
126
Originally posted by: Train
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
...the premise is based on the US being able to completely subjugate a people in multiple countries, ...
Says who? You? :roll:

You have to either get them to take your position by force or they adopt it willingly. If they don't swallow it, you have the choice of walking away, or subjugating them. Of course you can hang around in a "quagmire" and get nothing done because a few can screw the pooch for you. Of course you knew that, right? Why didn't anyone in charge know that before they went on this safari?

 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: UNCjigga
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If you're going to C&P an article, please provide some attribution in the way of a link.

And it's funny how the left pick, choose, and determine what wars are anologous, or what portions of wars are anologous, or how they compare. Vietnam, the Boer war...but not WWII. You see there's no comparisons to that one at all...oh, except Bush!tler!. :roll:
Maybe the left doesn't compare Iraq to WWII because its not a WORLD war? Maybe because Saddam is not a cunning despot intent on world domination like Hitler was? Seriously, if you want to draw this analogy, DO IT YOURSELF. Please enlighten us on how the Iraq war and WWII are so similar.
Bush doesn't seem intent on military domination of the world either, yet that doesn't stop folks on the left from comparing Bush to Hitler.

Saddam was not a cunning despot intent on world domination? No, of course not. He was a cunning despot intent on Arab domination, with his dream of a pan-Arab dictatorship, which is completely different, right?

Do you care to discuss how unsimilar the Boer War is to Iraq as well? Western settlers fighting against the very republics they founded in the first place?

I bet you don't.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
.

Saddam was not a cunning despot intent on world domination? No, of course not. He was a cunning despot intent on Arab domination, with his dream of a pan-Arab dictatorship, which is completely different, right?


If you classify Saddam as cunning or even remotely successful in his attempt then you are very confused. For all I know about Hitler, Saddam is no Hitler. Hell he isn't even on the same page as Mussolini. He slightly ranks above Idi Amin as far as cunning Despots go.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
.

Saddam was not a cunning despot intent on world domination? No, of course not. He was a cunning despot intent on Arab domination, with his dream of a pan-Arab dictatorship, which is completely different, right?


If you classify Saddam as cunning or even remotely successful in his attempt then you are very confused. For all I know about Hitler, Saddam is no Hitler. Hell he isn't even on the same page as Mussolini. He slightly ranks above Idi Amin as far as cunning Despots go.
Saddam was not cunning? His failed attempts don't demonstrate a lack of cunning, it demonstrates how overly-ambitious he was.

I made no attempt to classify him as successful either. Are such red herrings attempt to shift some goalposts?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
.

Saddam was not a cunning despot intent on world domination? No, of course not. He was a cunning despot intent on Arab domination, with his dream of a pan-Arab dictatorship, which is completely different, right?


If you classify Saddam as cunning or even remotely successful in his attempt then you are very confused. For all I know about Hitler, Saddam is no Hitler. Hell he isn't even on the same page as Mussolini. He slightly ranks above Idi Amin as far as cunning Despots go.
Saddam was not cunning? His failed attempts don't demonstrate a lack of cunning, it demonstrates how overly-ambitious he was.

I made no attempt to classify him as successful either. Are such red herrings attempt to shift some goalposts?
Shift some goal;posts? Is that another one of your clever sayings that nobody but you gets?As far as him being cunning, well it looks like he cunningly fscked himself out of his position of power....not to good at the cunning part in my book.If he was so cunning he would have known not to push his luck with the Dub in a power, a leader who rules by emotion not wisdom.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
.

Saddam was not a cunning despot intent on world domination? No, of course not. He was a cunning despot intent on Arab domination, with his dream of a pan-Arab dictatorship, which is completely different, right?


If you classify Saddam as cunning or even remotely successful in his attempt then you are very confused. For all I know about Hitler, Saddam is no Hitler. Hell he isn't even on the same page as Mussolini. He slightly ranks above Idi Amin as far as cunning Despots go.
Saddam was not cunning? His failed attempts don't demonstrate a lack of cunning, it demonstrates how overly-ambitious he was.

I made no attempt to classify him as successful either. Are such red herrings attempt to shift some goalposts?
Shift some goal;posts? Is that another one of your clever sayings that nobody but you gets?
LOL. There you go with more poor assumptions, assuming that because YOU don't get it, nobody else does either.

As far as him being cunning, well it looks like he cunningly fscked himself out of his position of power....not to good at the cunning part in my book.If he was so cunning he would have known not to push his luck with the Dub in a power, a leader who rules by emotion not wisdom.
That's an ironic remark coming from an ideological side that argues primarily with emotion and not wisdom.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
.

Saddam was not a cunning despot intent on world domination? No, of course not. He was a cunning despot intent on Arab domination, with his dream of a pan-Arab dictatorship, which is completely different, right?


If you classify Saddam as cunning or even remotely successful in his attempt then you are very confused. For all I know about Hitler, Saddam is no Hitler. Hell he isn't even on the same page as Mussolini. He slightly ranks above Idi Amin as far as cunning Despots go.
Saddam was not cunning? His failed attempts don't demonstrate a lack of cunning, it demonstrates how overly-ambitious he was.

I made no attempt to classify him as successful either. Are such red herrings attempt to shift some goalposts?
Shift some goal;posts? Is that another one of your clever sayings that nobody but you gets?
LOL. There you go with more poor assumptions, assuming that because YOU don't get it, nobody else does either.
Thebn please explain it, I'm not literate in Smart Ass.

As far as him being cunning, well it looks like he cunningly fscked himself out of his position of power....not to good at the cunning part in my book.If he was so cunning he would have known not to push his luck with the Dub in a power, a leader who rules by emotion not wisdom.
That's an ironic remark coming from an ideological side that argues primarily with emotion and not wisdom.[/quote]
Which side is that?
 

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,579
75
91
www.bing.com
Wouldnt that fact the the USA is primarily responsible for the rise of Chinese and Indian economies kind of disprove the baseless theory that "we are afraid of rising superpowers like China and India" ?

Unlike the old Imperial Brittish Empire, we dont go to a country and force tea on them, force taxes on them, and basically control/enslave them for our benifit. Instead we just open trade channels with them, such as with China, is doing them a lot more good than it is doing us.

Besides, who is someone to tell us what we are afraid of?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
.

Saddam was not a cunning despot intent on world domination? No, of course not. He was a cunning despot intent on Arab domination, with his dream of a pan-Arab dictatorship, which is completely different, right?


If you classify Saddam as cunning or even remotely successful in his attempt then you are very confused. For all I know about Hitler, Saddam is no Hitler. Hell he isn't even on the same page as Mussolini. He slightly ranks above Idi Amin as far as cunning Despots go.
Saddam was not cunning? His failed attempts don't demonstrate a lack of cunning, it demonstrates how overly-ambitious he was.

I made no attempt to classify him as successful either. Are such red herrings attempt to shift some goalposts?
Shift some goal;posts? Is that another one of your clever sayings that nobody but you gets?
LOL. There you go with more poor assumptions, assuming that because YOU don't get it, nobody else does either.
Thebn please explain it, I'm not literate in Smart Ass.
That reply seems to immediately contradict your claim.

That's an ironic remark coming from an ideological side that argues primarily with emotion and not wisdom.
Which side is that?
The anti-war side.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,812
6,520
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
.

Saddam was not a cunning despot intent on world domination? No, of course not. He was a cunning despot intent on Arab domination, with his dream of a pan-Arab dictatorship, which is completely different, right?


If you classify Saddam as cunning or even remotely successful in his attempt then you are very confused. For all I know about Hitler, Saddam is no Hitler. Hell he isn't even on the same page as Mussolini. He slightly ranks above Idi Amin as far as cunning Despots go.
Saddam was not cunning? His failed attempts don't demonstrate a lack of cunning, it demonstrates how overly-ambitious he was.

I made no attempt to classify him as successful either. Are such red herrings attempt to shift some goalposts?
Shift some goal;posts? Is that another one of your clever sayings that nobody but you gets?
LOL. There you go with more poor assumptions, assuming that because YOU don't get it, nobody else does either.
Thebn please explain it, I'm not literate in Smart Ass.
That reply seems to immediately contradict your claim.

That's an ironic remark coming from an ideological side that argues primarily with emotion and not wisdom.
Which side is that?
The anti-war side.

Except you wouldn't know wisdom if it bit you in the ass.
 

stateofbeasley

Senior member
Jan 26, 2004
519
0
0
:roll:

Boer War aside, Hitler was a far different case than Saddam Hussein. Was not Hitler already attacking and occupying large amounts of Europe? Did Nazi Germany not declare war on the US first? Isn't it true that an axis power attacked the US first?

On the other hand, Saddam was contained and his military crumbling.

There's no other way to say it: you are delusional. It comes as no suprise to me that your credibility around here is near zero.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Saddam was not a cunning despot intent on world domination? No, of course not. He was a cunning despot intent on Arab domination, with his dream of a pan-Arab dictatorship, which is completely different, right?

Do you care to discuss how unsimilar the Boer War is to Iraq as well? Western settlers fighting against the very republics they founded in the first place?

I bet you don't.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
.

Saddam was not a cunning despot intent on world domination? No, of course not. He was a cunning despot intent on Arab domination, with his dream of a pan-Arab dictatorship, which is completely different, right?


If you classify Saddam as cunning or even remotely successful in his attempt then you are very confused. For all I know about Hitler, Saddam is no Hitler. Hell he isn't even on the same page as Mussolini. He slightly ranks above Idi Amin as far as cunning Despots go.
Saddam was not cunning? His failed attempts don't demonstrate a lack of cunning, it demonstrates how overly-ambitious he was.

I made no attempt to classify him as successful either. Are such red herrings attempt to shift some goalposts?
Shift some goal;posts? Is that another one of your clever sayings that nobody but you gets?
LOL. There you go with more poor assumptions, assuming that because YOU don't get it, nobody else does either.
Thebn please explain it, I'm not literate in Smart Ass.
That reply seems to immediately contradict your claim.

That's an ironic remark coming from an ideological side that argues primarily with emotion and not wisdom.
Which side is that?
The anti-war side.
OK so I'm Anti War then? I think I'm more Anti Wrong War (Iraq) as I did fully support the military action taken in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attack from terrorists based in that country and supported by that countries leaders at the time. I'm all for using Military action when it is in the interest of our National Security or the Security of our allies (like the first Gulf War). With the lack of any evidence of vast quantities of WMDs our foray into Iraq was a mistake and is costing us dearly.

Unlike you I will admit when I was wrong. I was wrong to support this invasion and I was wrong to believe the BS that the Dub and his handlers fed us to convince us into supporting his ill conceived and ill advised Excellent Adventure into Iraq. Of course I'm sure you will have another one of your patented flippant replies to my post but then it should be expected of you as it seems to be your MO to every post you don't agree with. I understand that with you it isn't about the facts, it's about the gamesmanship and who can get in the best dig.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
.

Saddam was not a cunning despot intent on world domination? No, of course not. He was a cunning despot intent on Arab domination, with his dream of a pan-Arab dictatorship, which is completely different, right?


If you classify Saddam as cunning or even remotely successful in his attempt then you are very confused. For all I know about Hitler, Saddam is no Hitler. Hell he isn't even on the same page as Mussolini. He slightly ranks above Idi Amin as far as cunning Despots go.
Saddam was not cunning? His failed attempts don't demonstrate a lack of cunning, it demonstrates how overly-ambitious he was.

I made no attempt to classify him as successful either. Are such red herrings attempt to shift some goalposts?
Shift some goal;posts? Is that another one of your clever sayings that nobody but you gets?
LOL. There you go with more poor assumptions, assuming that because YOU don't get it, nobody else does either.
Thebn please explain it, I'm not literate in Smart Ass.
That reply seems to immediately contradict your claim.

That's an ironic remark coming from an ideological side that argues primarily with emotion and not wisdom.
Which side is that?
The anti-war side.

Except you wouldn't know wisdom if it bit you in the ass.
Fortunately, I can easily recognize an ass when I see one.
 

LLCOOLJ

Senior member
Oct 26, 2004
346
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Fortunately, I can easily recognize an ass when I see one.
You should be able too with all the self reflecting you've been doing!
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,812
6,520
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
.

Saddam was not a cunning despot intent on world domination? No, of course not. He was a cunning despot intent on Arab domination, with his dream of a pan-Arab dictatorship, which is completely different, right?


If you classify Saddam as cunning or even remotely successful in his attempt then you are very confused. For all I know about Hitler, Saddam is no Hitler. Hell he isn't even on the same page as Mussolini. He slightly ranks above Idi Amin as far as cunning Despots go.
Saddam was not cunning? His failed attempts don't demonstrate a lack of cunning, it demonstrates how overly-ambitious he was.

I made no attempt to classify him as successful either. Are such red herrings attempt to shift some goalposts?
Shift some goal;posts? Is that another one of your clever sayings that nobody but you gets?
LOL. There you go with more poor assumptions, assuming that because YOU don't get it, nobody else does either.
Thebn please explain it, I'm not literate in Smart Ass.
That reply seems to immediately contradict your claim.

That's an ironic remark coming from an ideological side that argues primarily with emotion and not wisdom.
Which side is that?
The anti-war side.

Except you wouldn't know wisdom if it bit you in the ass.
Fortunately, I can easily recognize an ass when I see one.
Yes, for you it would be anybody who is really wise.

 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yes, for you it would be anybody who is really wise.
You're confusing wise-ass with being wise, Moonpie. I hate to break it to you, but they are not the same thing.