Skip navigation

diversitylane__iran_for-blog

Advertisements

64 Comments

  1. It is the #1 threat facing the planet, forget terrorits – they’re just poor, misunderstood fluffy teddy bears. Plus Iran is an Islamic country, the religion of peace. Nothing to see here, move along.

    • buzz bannister
    • Posted September 28, 2009 at 6:45 am
    • Permalink

    Ditto Chuck! They Poo Skittles too.

    • ikabod
    • Posted September 28, 2009 at 8:25 am
    • Permalink

    Iran has a right to those nukes! Just like they have a right to imprison there dissidents, execute protesting students… Really, who are we to impose our imperialist values on the peaceful nation of Iran.

  2. Steve T.– Love the right-on sentiments, but: Ikabod is one of us! He was being 110% sarcastic in his comment. But Ikabod, to be fair to Steve T., he clearly doesn’t know you as well as I do and if looked at objectively one can understand why your comment, on the face of it, is exactly the kind of brain dead nonsense that a genuine lefty might offer up.

    • John
    • Posted September 28, 2009 at 1:40 pm
    • Permalink

    Everyone rest easy. The Emperor In Chief is on the job. The Iran crisis must have been solved since he is flying to Denmark to pitch Chicago for the 2016 Olympics. Don’t you feel better now?

    Not only that, but we also must have solved Global Warming, since as we all know, flying a huge jet is the WORST kind of pollution…especially if there is only one passenger on a whole, giant, non-carbon-neutral plane.

    • Methodistmin
    • Posted September 28, 2009 at 2:58 pm
    • Permalink

    But, but, but…

    Iran doesn’t mean any harm. They wouldn’t really shoot off a nuclear weapon. It’s all bluster. Imajeannadid (sp?) is a very eduacted man. He doesn’t really believe there wasn’t a holocaust. He just does his little routone for other Muslim allies. Why are you so worried about him?

    Yes, it’s satire, but I talk to liberals on the internet who actually believe all that.

    Besides, isn’t that great diplomat Obama going to solve everything?!!

    • Steve T
    • Posted September 28, 2009 at 3:00 pm
    • Permalink

    Ok – my ‘bad’…(oops-!)

    • thesecolorsdontrun
    • Posted September 28, 2009 at 3:12 pm
    • Permalink

    @Ikabod

    we have the titan and mirvs, guantanmo bay, and kent state. And we have individuals like yourself eager to institute a racially divisive theocracy. Iran is your America!

    I can’t really tell the difference, can you?

    • ikabod
    • Posted September 28, 2009 at 3:17 pm
    • Permalink

    No worries Steve. I cannot remember the exact date but it was during the Iran hostage crisis. He was on his way in AF-01 to Europe. As one of the secret service agents walked by. As he was talking to him about the Iranians. Carter in all of his wisdom: “Don’t they know this is wrong?” (something to that effect). Yes Steve I realize the level of stupidity of the left when it comes to terrorism, rogue nations with nukes, thinking that sanctions will actually work… They would rather wait till something horrible happens then build a memorial. I cannot even fathom Obama considering using military action against Iran. Who by the way has yet to be paid back for the 241 Marines killed in 83 killed in Lebanon.

    • Steve T
    • Posted September 28, 2009 at 6:42 pm
    • Permalink

    Ikabod-
    Thanks – you ‘got me’-!
    In truth – there are many, many folks from my home town of Ann Arbor, who say exactly those same things!

    At one point, I was tempted to quote the late William F. Buckley – he once said to someone;
    ‘…I won’t insult you by accepting that you believe what you just said.’ (close paraphrase).

    That guy was seriously witty.

    I lived here in GA for most of ten years – and I have yet to encounter ONE person who will speak respectfully of J Carter (their former Gov.).
    The (then) Soviet Union was so impressed with his strength of leadership, they flipped the world ‘the bird’ by invading Afghanistan.
    The Iranians are so impressed with BHO – they are firing test missiles as fast as they can, and this is only the beginning.

    Last November, when I realized the sickening results of the electoral count, I spent several minutes taking a mental inventory of how BHO was going to damage our country, and screw up international relations. [applied ‘lessions learned’ from Carter & Clinton]

    So far, there are no surprises.

    • The Observer
    • Posted September 28, 2009 at 8:28 pm
    • Permalink

    Great job as usual, Zack.

    Surprised that no one yet has come in attempting to railroad the subject by comparing the number of nuclear plants in the US to the number of nuclear plants in Iran – or whatever tangential discussion they’d rather have us focus on instead.

    Ikabod – great first response. Had me going for a second, as well.

    And for the record, I miss WFB as well. “Cancel your own goddam subscription” – quite an epitaph.

    • Flavor Aid Woman
    • Posted September 28, 2009 at 10:14 pm
    • Permalink

    psh, well yeah Islam isn’t the religion of peace. that title goes to Rastafarianism, mon

    • Sean
    • Posted September 28, 2009 at 11:56 pm
    • Permalink

    Hahaha! See, it’s funny because liberals only care about global warming! They’re so stupid! We’re so much better than them, aren’t we gang?

    • ikabod
    • Posted September 29, 2009 at 9:29 am
    • Permalink

    Sean: website punk attempt…… FAIL!
    “Global warming” as if the terrorist threat does not exist. I don’t think for one minute that liberals are stupid. They were able to fool the country with a man they deemed as this great savior full of hope and change, that would swoop in and deliver us all from the evils that was Bush. Yet here we are 9 months in to this guy’s administration and yet Gitmo is still open holding the religion of peace’s kids, we are still in Iraq, still in Afghanistan. Maybe he just can’t get these things done or maybe, just maybe BHO got a little intelligence briefing last November. The world is in-fact a lot more dangerous than moveon.org, daily kos, or George Soro’s, said it was. Stupid? Hardly. Naïve, absolutely.

    The junior senator from Illinois is going to have to come to terms with the fact that so-called global warming is going to have to remain on the back burner. He’s not going to create more jobs by thrusting Cap and Trade through. It will kill jobs, and mess up an otherwise slow recovery. Or…. If the dems are so committed to this economy killing legislation, they can kiss their next election cycle good bye. There are still a large number of dems that would like to work for a living rather than rely on elected officials to promise them hand outs.

    • Jake
    • Posted September 29, 2009 at 9:58 am
    • Permalink

    If anyone believed at any time that Obama is/was liberal, I’ll gladly call them stupid.

    Oh, and if anyone uses “FAIL” as a meme, I’ll also gladly call them stupid. That’s right up there with “sheeple” on the list of things people with worthless opinions say.

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted September 29, 2009 at 1:15 pm
    • Permalink

    So now you admit there are people being detained in Gitmo without reason ikabod? But I thought everyone there was an evil terrorist poised to destroy ARE COUNTRY? No one there could possibly be innocent!

  3. The problem with Big Government is that it cannot possibly address two issues at once. Iran or Global Warming, PICK ONE. There is no such thing as multi-tasking.

    • ikabod
    • Posted September 29, 2009 at 10:33 pm
    • Permalink

    Manuel-
    Tell you what, how about you do a sort of religion of peace exchange insurgent program at YOUR place. If you believe your captive friends are so “innocent” have them live with you for a while and see how long it takes before you want innocent people killed in name of Allah.
    You can’t stand the fact that for 8 years prior during the 90’s we did it YOUR way, terrorism was a law enforcement issue. It worked great….. um until the attacks of 9/11. Unless of course you believe the attacks were inside jobs……..

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted September 29, 2009 at 10:37 pm
    • Permalink

    Now now ikabod, that’s not what I said and you know it. Do you or do you not agree there are people who were detained at Gitmo when they didn’t do anything wrong? This isn’t a matter if *I’D* house convicts, since I’m not a prison facility. Truthers don’t even enter into it because they’re on the same level of silly wackjobs as the Birthers, so don’t compare me to either one.

    • taco
    • Posted September 30, 2009 at 12:30 am
    • Permalink

    “It worked great….. um until Bush decided he’d rather play golf and work on his ranch than do his job and defend our country.”

    There, I fixed that quote for accuracy. Bush’s incompetence has proven quite fatal.

    “Do you or do you not agree there are people who were detained at Gitmo when they didn’t do anything wrong?”

    Come on now, Manny. You know the answer to that. If the Bush put them in jail, they must be guilty. Remember, the president is never wrong, as long as he is white. You just can’t trust those colored folks, though.

    • Methodistmin
    • Posted September 30, 2009 at 5:54 am
    • Permalink

    The Mexican food here is really bad. Taco is yet another troll-and clearly not a very skilled one.

    • taco
    • Posted September 30, 2009 at 6:06 am
    • Permalink

    I seem to be getting a lot of responses out of you, Meth. So, I’d say I’m doing well enough. Or are you just really thin-skinned and stupid?

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted September 30, 2009 at 7:53 am
    • Permalink

    Right taco, I know that’s the *REAL* answer overall. But I wanna hear ikabod, and Meth even, say that themselves. That or admit that there may have been illegal detainment.

    • ikabod
    • Posted September 30, 2009 at 8:03 am
    • Permalink

    Taco-
    Never miss an opportunity to raise the race card. The majority of those in gitmo where put there from engaging the US military in battle. These are not good people Taco. Yet, if racism is part of the equation here, can you tell me the skin color of the soliders that put them there? Are they racist too?

  4. This typically liberal perspective reminds me of this quote from Dennis Prager:

    One day, our grandchildren may ask us what we did when Islamic fascism threatened the free world. Some of us will say we were preoccupied with fighting that threat wherever possible; others will be able to say they fought carbon dioxide emissions. One of us will look bad.

    http://VocalMinority.typepad.com
    The Jewish Republican’s Web Sanctuary

    • taco
    • Posted September 30, 2009 at 9:33 am
    • Permalink

    One day, our grandchildren may ask us what we did when American Imperialism threatened the free world. Some of us will say we were preoccupied with fighting that threat wherever possible; others will be able to say they fought to expand it. One of us will look bad.

    • ikabod
    • Posted September 30, 2009 at 11:22 am
    • Permalink

    Taco-
    I really believe the world has a lot less to worry about when it comes to the so-called American Imperialism, and a lot more to worry about whacked out religious nuts obtaining nuclear weapons, in order to hasten the arrival of the 12th Imam.

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted September 30, 2009 at 11:56 am
    • Permalink

    Oh come on, the Islamic Fascist bogeyman is just bad and you know it. It’s as bad as people wanting the Temple to be rebuilt, because it’s a sign of the end times.

    • ikabod
    • Posted September 30, 2009 at 12:48 pm
    • Permalink

    So we should just ignore the problem? Run away? “Hey look, global warming that’s something I was told we could control, limit, reverse, believe in! Islamic fascism…. who are we to judge how they treat their women, impose sharia law. Not my problem. Besides they may get mad at me, and maybe even dislike us!”

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted September 30, 2009 at 1:26 pm
    • Permalink

    It’s a red herring here. You still haven’t answered that question I’ve asked a few times now, three I think. “Do you or do you not agree there are people who were detained at Gitmo when they didn’t do anything wrong?”

    • drs
    • Posted September 30, 2009 at 1:43 pm
    • Permalink

    the most entertaining thing about this whole conversation is the fact that some people believe that America should follow the rules even when it is against the safety of its people when no one else in the world does.

    Manuel let me answer your question I am pretty sure some innocent people where detained I am also damn sure many guilty parties were detained as well.

    I also feel that whether you agree with who ever is in office you have to accept that they are trying to do the job to the best of their ability.If they happen to be incompetent and unable to comprehend world issues they still try.

    There was a president before W that told the CIA not to do their job, become book keepers and librarians instead of keeping track of potential dangers to America in the field.

    Also you may remember W is not the only Bush nor the only president this nation has had.

    • ikabod
    • Posted September 30, 2009 at 1:48 pm
    • Permalink

    Manuael I do think there are people detained at Gitmo. Just like we have people in prison now who may not have done anything wrong. Wrong place at the wrong time. Sort of like being in a very large building when plane smash into it. It happens, people make mistakes. Your alluding to the deliberate imprisonment of innocent people?

    • ikabod
    • Posted September 30, 2009 at 2:03 pm
    • Permalink

    Sorry folks let me refrain that….. I do think people are detained at gitmo that ARE innocent.

    With this and my errata, does this answer you question?

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted September 30, 2009 at 3:18 pm
    • Permalink

    that’s a straight answer finally, yes.

    drs – thank you for taking a middle ground (it seems). I’m well aware there were Presidents before Bush 2, but I only came of age in the later years of his Presidency (I turned 18 after the 04 election), thus my views are skewed that way, I’ll admit it. He did try, yes, but at the cost of respect internationally.

    • ikabod
    • Posted September 30, 2009 at 4:44 pm
    • Permalink

    Yet what price are you willing to pay for security? What sacrifice is worth saving American lives?

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted September 30, 2009 at 5:26 pm
    • Permalink

    It’s to late to find out now in those cases, as they’re in the past. Every cognizant life has a value, be they American, European, or some radical group. However, their rights end when they directly threaten another. Not being part of the group someone else who made the threat, but if they made the threat. “Your rights stop at the end of my nose” as the saying goes. You?

    • drs
    • Posted September 30, 2009 at 6:03 pm
    • Permalink

    well lets wait and see how this pres fails and spend the time after he is out of office crucifying him, oh wait you can only do that to conservatives

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted September 30, 2009 at 6:52 pm
    • Permalink

    Not true if people are still going “lol Clinton got a blowjob in the Oval Office.”

  5. When my grandchildren asked me which one of them I loved the most, I will tell them I am incredibly slow and dumb, and can only pay attention to one of them at a time. I will also explain to them this is why I was unable to care about more than one issue at a time in the early 21st century.

    • taco
    • Posted October 1, 2009 at 1:44 am
    • Permalink

    “whacked out religious nuts obtaining nuclear weapons,”

    I agree with you that putting Palin in charge of America’s nuclear arsenal would be a tremendous threat to life on this planet.

    We were fortunate to survive Dubya’s religious nuttery, but I am afraid that we would not be so lucky with Palin.

    “Yet what price are you willing to pay for security?”

    Take it, Franklin: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

    • Donny
    • Posted October 1, 2009 at 7:06 am
    • Permalink

    “I was unable to care about more than one issue at a time in the early 21st century.”

    What percent of Republicans do you think are single-issue voters? That might explain why they cannot imagine anyone dealing with more than one thing at a time.

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted October 1, 2009 at 8:45 am
    • Permalink

    A friend of mine voted solely based on the 2nd Amendment, so there’s at least one (or some voters, to go into Logic terms.) Thanks for the Frankling quote taco, that fits perfectly.

    • Donny
    • Posted October 1, 2009 at 9:31 am
    • Permalink

    Yeah, I know a few single-issuers too. I managed to get one to actually evaluate candidates by their entire platforms, instead of just her pet issue. She changed her party alliance for at least that election cycle. I think she came up with a 20/80 split in terms of issues she agreed with and went with the 80% candidate.

    • ikabod
    • Posted October 1, 2009 at 10:49 am
    • Permalink

    Taco-
    Nice quote indeed coming from a time when the the only real terrorism was due to Piracy. Look it up and let me know how the US dealt with pirates during the days of Franklin. You may find it difficult to deal with.

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted October 1, 2009 at 10:51 am
    • Permalink

    Actually make that two friends. And they’re both gay at that, which really gets confusing. One used to live with the other, but then he moved to West Virginia. The one who moved is pretty racist too, I dno about the first guy… but, well, I think he is too since they seemed to agree on things.

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted October 1, 2009 at 11:10 am
    • Permalink

    @ikabod – then Conservatives are never allowed to use the “the Tree of Liberty must occasionally be watered with the blood of tyrants” line again. Up to you.

    • ikabod
    • Posted October 1, 2009 at 12:11 pm
    • Permalink

    How so Manny?

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted October 1, 2009 at 12:32 pm
    • Permalink

    If he can’t use the Jefferson line, Conservatives aren’t allowed to use that line. Since it’s also from a time past.

    • ikabod
    • Posted October 1, 2009 at 12:38 pm
    • Permalink

    Yeah your right, we’ll leave the defense of freedom and liberty to you guys now. Tyrants the world over will collectively breath easier now, knowing their tyrannical ruling, oppression, and destruction of human rights will continue without a complaint from the left. I just hope there is not another attack on our soil, with your guys in charge.

    • ikabod
    • Posted October 1, 2009 at 12:50 pm
    • Permalink

    I guess my question to you Manny would be, do you even believe the things, the quotes, the society these men lived and died for? I find it hard to believe you do.

  6. ikabod: Do you believe in it? I find it hard to believe because I am not genuinely trying to debate anything. I would argue with you, but I am too busy concerning myself with the Islamofascist threat. What are YOU doing wasting your time having a discussion?

    • ikabod
    • Posted October 1, 2009 at 1:10 pm
    • Permalink

    My time is worth while as long as the topic is worth discussing. You have NO idea my knowledge of islamic facism and the support I have for those who are out there 24 hours a day “minding the fence”, while we sleep well and enjoy our Jamba juices (I’ll take a Strawberry’s wild with vita boost and peanut butter). For the time being we must be vigilant as sharia law creeps slowly throughout western society under the guise of political correctness, and tolerance.

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted October 1, 2009 at 2:16 pm
    • Permalink

    You’re putting words in my mouth ikabod. Conservatives can’t have that line if we can’t have the Franklin quote, that’s what I said. Because they’re both from a bygone time. I do believe Franklin’s quote tho. I don’t get what else you’re trying to imply though.

    As for the Islamic fascism, well, bogeyman like I said. I don’t believe they’re as big a threat as you do.

    • ikabod
    • Posted October 1, 2009 at 3:53 pm
    • Permalink

    After 8 years of going after Al Queda with the verocity we have, perhaps, you have a point. At the same time if your going to equate the bogeyman to islamic terror, are you then admitting we are safer than we were 8 years ago?

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted October 1, 2009 at 4:00 pm
    • Permalink

    That’s not really quantifiable. We have some semblance of a feeling of security. But are we safer definitely? Dno, hard to quantify. I’d say about the same to slightly-less-than compared to pre-9/11 post-Red Scare America.

    • ikabod
    • Posted October 1, 2009 at 4:14 pm
    • Permalink

    Manuel
    Exactly to claim otherwise, to announce that perhaps the last 8 years of covert and overt direct action operations against the bogeyman might, just might have worked. And therefore credit will have to be given to the former administration. Can do that. However what was the alternative? A continuation of the Clinton doctrine of dealing with despots and dictators.

    • Donny
    • Posted October 1, 2009 at 11:15 pm
    • Permalink

    I’ll gladly give credit to the previous administration for being asleep at the wheel and allowing us to be attacked. That is what Bush did, so he certainly deserves credit for it.

    Your response to Taco seems to suggest that times have changed since the nation’s founding, and that we should not rely on the intents of the founders in determining current policy. I am glad to hear that some right-wingers, including you, oppose the supposed strict constructionism of conservative judges.

    • ikabod
    • Posted October 2, 2009 at 8:07 am
    • Permalink

    I know there is a need from the left to blame Bush for the attacks of 9/11. Yet remember that administration had not done in 9 months to piss off the religion of peace enough to attack us. So your assesment of blaming Bush is lacking creditbility at best. The plan had been in works for quite some time during the days of peace and love long before Bush had taken office. Furthermore to claim Bush was asleep at the wheel is a little stupid assesment since our intelligence services had been gutted during the Clinton administration. Since, well there where no more enimies. The left has a knack for cherry picking quotes and sayings from the Founding Fathers then in the same breath accuse the lot for being racist slave owners that should have never formed the country in the first place. Please spare me the “spirit of 76” cheerleading. I have read your blogs seen your websites, the last thing you guys want is nation of liberty or security.

    • Donny
    • Posted October 2, 2009 at 8:36 am
    • Permalink

    Yep, the intelligence officials certainly never warned Bush that Osama was planning an attack. There is definitely not a video of Dr. Rice reporting that Bush had been briefed about a potential attack prior to 9/11. Nope, no such thing exists at all. Bush certainly didn’t spend a great deal of his first 9 months screwing around a\on his ranch and playing golf, no siree Bob.

    Yeah, only left-wingers cherry pick founders’ quotes. There has never been a single instance of a right-winger dismissing certain quotes while espousing other. Definitely not on this site, and certainly not from you, Icky.

    How can someone live their life with absolutely no sense of introspection? How can you be so oblivious to your self, Icky? Very troubling.

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted October 2, 2009 at 8:44 am
    • Permalink

    “The plan had been in works for quite some time during the days of peace and love long before Bush had taken office.” That must mean you’re in cahoots with them if you know this for a fact.

    As for your thoughts on the Founding Fathers, and how you think we hate them all. Well… that’s silly and you know it.

    Might I suggest you use Firefox? It has a built in spellchecker. It’s pretty awesome. Less security risks than Internet Explorer as well, which I’ll venture to guess is what you’re using ikabod.

    • ikabod
    • Posted October 2, 2009 at 9:40 am
    • Permalink

    So if I’m to understand this Bush should have grounded ALL domestic flights because of the risk of the attacks that might happen? This is like shutting down San Francisco because an earthquake the size of the 1906 shaker MAY happen tomorrow. I suppose this video you speak of also gives the flight numbers, flight path of the civil aircraft taking part in the attacks? How convenient this comes out now!. Ever thought of signing up for the NSA or CIA? They could use a guy like you with your knowledge of hard hitting investigative knowledge of would be attackers.
    In cahoots with THEM? Really?

    “Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said the had plan changed from 1996, when he first proposed to Osama bin Laden an attack in which terrorists would “hijack 10 planes in the United States and fly them into targets”, according to reports seen by Associated Press.”

    http://www.globalissues.org/article/443/original-911-plan-involved-10-planes

    http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Exec.htm

    “By late 1998 or early 1999, Bin Ladin and his advisers had agreed on an idea brought to them by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) called the “planes operation.” It would eventually culminate in the 9/11 attacks. ” This is from the National Commission on Terrorism, hardly a body of folks in “Cahoots” with Al Queda. 1996, 1998 or early 1999. Was this information found out after the attacks where carried out? Here we have information that clearly demonstrates that the Clinton administration never took PREVENTION of terrorist attacks seriously enough to do anything about. The problem is liberals look at terrorism as:
    1. Perpetrated by individuals who have a valid gripe against the United States. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
    2. A manmade event that cannot be predicted.
    3. Deep down we have it coming. The chickens have come home to roost.
    4. Terrorism is a law enforcement issue.
    5. Perpetrators have no other means of voicing their displeasure of the United States a racist nation hell bent on imperialism and domination of the Islamic nations resources. Therefore these attacks are justified in that they lack the voice, the funds of western nations to adequately project a non-violent forum of discussion.

    • Donny
    • Posted October 2, 2009 at 10:22 pm
    • Permalink

    “One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.”

    Isn’t that what Reagan said when we were working with future Al Qaeda leaders? Damn Reagan and his horrible liberal beliefs. Worst president ever.

    And damn Clinton for using his liberal mind control powers to take over Bush’s Brain and force him to go on vacation for nine months instead of preventing 9/11. Those evil liberals, always using their magic powers to force good Republicans into ignoring their jobs and playing golf. LIBERALS!!!!!!

    • ikabod
    • Posted October 3, 2009 at 11:32 pm
    • Permalink

    Diane Sawyer ABC news: “One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.” When describing the (cough cough) Nobel (cough cough) Peace Prize winner Yaser Arafat’s death. Can you tell me how Reagan knew that al queada would have been formed after the Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan? Preventing 9/11…… I’m sure your boy Gore would have been all over that. After 8 years of Clinton decimating the intelligence services. I’m amazed the dot connection came together at all, and before you go there, I’ll beat you to the punch: The decline in CIA and NSA budgets started in with Bush 41. With the Soviets gone there were no more enemies, or so they thought. Yet with the first world trade center attack, numerous attacks (Against the EEEEviil Americans) throughout the world, one would think that perhaps increasing the budgets of our intelligence services was warranted.

    • Donny
    • Posted October 4, 2009 at 10:16 am
    • Permalink

    “The tragedy of Afghanistan continues as the valiant and courageous Afghan freedom fighters persevere in standing up against the brutal power of the Soviet invasion and occupation.”
    Reagan, 1983.

    Typical shortsighted right-wing foreign policy. Here’s a tip: the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Too bad Reagan couldn’t figure that out.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: