What do you get when you cross an ostrich with a frickin' appeasemonkey?

Babble on.

I'm getting increasingly frustrated with you 'multilateralists' - or, more accurately appeasemonkeys - who continue to ignore facts and insist that all the ills of the world can be solved if only we will 'build consensus' and negotiate with tyrants and murderers.

Your Boston Globe - widely discredited by Ra^ther more reliable sources than me - has come out of the raving, frothing, barking moonbat closet today and blamed President Bush personally for North Korean nuclear weapons. What colour is the sky on your godforsaken planet, people?

The plutonium has been removed from Yongbyon, the inspectors are gone, the reactor is up and running, the North could have eight bombs' worth of plutonium, and Washington worries that the North may be preparing to set off a nuclear test explosion.

Bush is responsible for this peril. Whoever wins in November must negotiate with the North Koreans, offering them the normalization and energy aid they need in return for placing their plutonium under seal and under inspection. To do anything else is to play into the hands of Osama bin Laden (ed. - OBL? WTF??). (my big, bad BOLD)

OK. I'm going to say this really frickin' slowly for all you smoked-too-much-dope-in-the-John-Kerry-60's types: the UN...never...does...anything. Oh, they'll talk until they're blue in the face. Or until 800,000 Rwandans are blue in the face. But any useful coalition you can name has always had a defining purpose other than simple dialogue (NATO, the Allies of WWII, OPEC, etc).

Your faith in the UN is entirely misplaced. The world's tyrants think it's a complete frickin' joke. No less a friend of the 'unilateral' Bush administration than Joseph C. Wilson tells us so.

By Wilson's account, Hussein was contemptuous of what he saw as U.S. weakness, viewing America in much the same way that Osama bin Laden did. When Wilson met Hussein on Aug. 6, 1990, just after the Iraqis had invaded Kuwait, Hussein explained his belief "that the United States was unwilling to spill the blood of 10,000 of its youth in the sands of Saudi Arabia, or the Arabian Desert. He thought that we didn't have the staying power for the sort of war that he contemplated. He was basing his view on a couple of things: one, his ability to have stalemated Iran for 10 years [in the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s]; two, his understanding of our experience in Vietnam; and, three, his understanding of our experience with the Marine barracks in Beirut and the various hostages in Beirut."

The centerpiece of Hussein's strategy was based on contempt for the United Nations. Wilson explains Hussein's perspective this way: "He had basically made a bet that if he could get the Iraq-Kuwait issue thrown into the United Nations system, then he could have 20 years in Kuwait."

Wilson continues: "He envisioned some toothless U.N. resolutions. He had already been the recipient of two resolutions on his use of chemical weapons. Nobody remembers them because they had no biting sanctions to them. He anticipated that if he got the issue into the U.N. system, he could spend 20 years jockeying and negotiating, while at the same time plundering what was left of Kuwait."

The only thing that changed Hussein's calculus, explains Wilson, was when the United States moved troops into Saudi Arabia to prepare for Operation Desert Storm. "Up until that point, he had some reason to think that if he could keep this in the U.N., then he probably could win." (Babbler's Bold)

How many times are right-thinking commentators going to have to yank your puny ostrich heads out of the goddamned sand and slam them into the brick wall of reality before you get it? These people see negotiation as weakness. They understand only power. Am I getting through at all here?

Sometimes it's enough to make a man go all Ayn Rand.

Babble off.