There were two presidential debates tonight (Saturday, January 5) — one among the Democrats and one among the Republicans. Just look below this post for dozens of posts throughout the evening offering reactions and responses to the hijinks in New Hampshire. Good night.
Contentions
“But in 1979, when the Soviet Union went into Afghanistan with 40,000 troops and installed Babrack Karmal as president, it embarked on a (failed) occupation to pursue the nakedly immoral and unjust goal of aggressive expansionism.”
The same motives that inspired unjust occupations of Iraq, Vietnam, Grenada, Guatemala….
Entirely predictable: West Bank Palestinians, who previously backed the Palestinian Authority, are switching thei allegiance to Hamas and now support the continued rocketing of southern Israel. See, brainiacs, war feeds extremism. Will it ever sink in? Nah, you love killing more than you want success. Same pathological mindset that made conservatism such a complete failure and utter laughingstock in America.
Per Voice of America
Israeli Assault on Gaza Galvanizes Hamas Support in West Bank
By Luis Ramirez
Ramallah
11 January 2009
Palestinian protesters in the West Bank town of Ramallah, 11 Jan 2009
Israel’s continued offensive in Gaza – now in its third week – is drawing many Palestinians in the West Bank to support Hamas, the militant group that controls Gaza. They accuse the government of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas of not doing enough to defend the Palestinians of Gaza.
I have no idea what this statement means, and I suspect the author doesn’t either.
My guess is that it means, with respect to Gaza, only Zionist quislings have the right to sovereignty.
A grisly experience: watching the Commentary hacks shed their pundit masks to reveal the criminals beneath.
Grumpy Old Man,
Maybe Robert Kagan can clarify what I meant. He wrote of internationalizing Pakistan:
“Would the U.N. Security Council authorize such action? China has been Pakistan’s ally and protector, and Russia might have its own reasons for opposing a resolution. Neither likes the idea of breaking down the walls of national sovereignty — except, in Russia’s case, in Georgia — which is why they block foreign pressure on Sudan concerning Darfur, and on Iran and other rogue states. This would be yet another test of whether China and Russia, supposed allies in the war against terrorism, are really interested in fighting terrorism outside their own borders. But if such an action were under consideration at the United Nations, that might be enough to gain Pakistan’s voluntary cooperation. Either way, it would be useful for the United States, Europe and other nations to begin establishing the principle that Pakistan and other states that harbor terrorists should not take their sovereignty for granted. In the 21st century, sovereign rights need to be earned. “
Doesn’t the idea that “sovereignty” for what are now called third-world countries is a good thing really go back to Woodrow Wilson’s doctrine of self-determination? I’ve felt for a long time that much of the tolerance for thuggery that we now see in the world stems from Woodrow’s well-meaning efforts.
I should have said “…the idea that “sovereignty” for what are now called third-world countries is *automatically* a good thing…”
shaking head at Hurf….
# 4
Well, thanks for the response to a very snarky commenter.
That would be something–Russia, China, India and the US trying to run a non-nation like Pakistan.
Get together with John Bolton, who wants to give Gaza back to Egypt and the WB back to Jordan.
While we’re at it, I kind of miss the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Let’s reconstitute that, while we’re redrawing the map.