Shooting The Star
Babble on.
Every time I get the urge to tear into Queen Z or any of the other frothing lunatics who write for Pravda Canada, I ask myself one simple question: how will my critique stand up in comparison to Bob's work?
I then sigh and move on to another topic. 'Cause nobody fisks all things Starrish like Tarantino.
Hmmmm. Something seems not quite right about that: Vietnam was the United States' "last" (meaning most recent, prior to the present, not meaning "final") "illegal, pre-emptive" war? Hmmmm. What is it about that which seems so... incorrect? Oh, that's right: it ignores that whole "bombing the holy bejeezus out of Serbia" thing from a couple of years back. Remember that one? That was when the soft left fell head over heels in love with the notion of non-UN authorized pre-emptive war; other people who, like me, have no real life, will recall that the Toronto Star and most of its columnists went into full braying-for-blood mode, cheering on the war, evidently (as subsequent events have proven) just because it was a Democrat US president prosecuting the war and a Liberal Canadian PM who tagged along.
Read all of it, and enjoy. While I look for something else to blog about. Again.
Babble off.
posted by Babbling Brooks @ 9:47 a.m.
2 comments
2 Comments:
It's amazing how forgotten that whole episode is. No one demanding the promised evidence or questioning the evidence provided; no one bemoaning the absence of an "exit strategy", no one complaining about how we "went it alone" without our "allies". No consternation at the notion of a defensive alliance being used to invade and destroy the industrial capacity of a non-member. Not even condemnation for the horribly failed experiment in gun control and protection of human rights that was Srebrenica... nothing. In fact, the genius who sent three missiles into the Chinese embassy even ran for the Democratic nomination without anyone mentioning a single detail of the campaign.
Thanks for turning me on to another good blog, by the way.
What's the first clue that something is morally right and justified? When the U.N. and its assorted fan clubs say its " illegal."
Funny, I've never understood how regime change in Iraq is characterized by Annan as being "illegal," yet the U.N. standing aside to allow genocide in Rwanda was simply a "mistake," on the part of the U.N.
Evidently a hypocrite of the magnitude of Annan isn't concerned with the fact that the U.N.'s own Charter and myriad conventions made the act of not intervening in Rwanda " illegal."
This is the response that should be thrown in the face of the multilaterist genocide facilitators each time the " illegal " tag is applied to Iraq.
Mike
Post a Comment
<< Home