Now I Understand
 

:idea: UG is L Ron Hubbard.

No fuckin' way. L. Ron Hubbard is not only dead, but I'm both a nicer guy and a better writer.

So you're going to imagine I've got a problem with getting the job done by whatever the effectual means is? Dream on, if you want to stay that silly.

I deny ever having been against departing, and a careful reading of my posts will prove my denial beyond doubt. You're in too goddamn big a hurry to find evil right where evil isn't, Undertoad, and that's a mug's game when you try it with me. The right wing is not evil, and only pseudosophisticates can sustain a belief that right equals evil. Don't be those guys. They have shallow minds.

The "timetable" idea is designed to make us lose the war -- without obliging our undemocratic enemies to manage to win it. Foolishness, no? Certainly antidemocratic, and thus propounded only by the awfulest of tyranny lovers and the most brainless of boobies. Take no advice from these, the unwise.

Plus, L. Ron preferred pills to fine food.

I still can't figure out how UG eats what he eats, and still thinks what he thinks. It makes no sense.

Irony Alert. Irony Alert.

Ummmm, I don't think that is historically correct. I do believe it was a constitutional monarchy and in Iran's case they would have had a hereditary monarchy, with the Shahs family dominating the power base. We probably prevented them from forming some form of democratic model by propping up the Shah for so many years.

Dr Mohammad Mossadegh brought democracy to Iran, but stepped on the toes of the Brit oil interests. They were unsuccessful in ousting him, so they turned to the CIA to come up with operation TP/Ajax, I think it was, to overthrow Mossadegh violently and regain control of the oil.

So where's our oil. Bastids.. :D

The damn Brits took it. :eyebrow:

Damm Bastid Brits! Give us our oil back. Hosers! :apistola:

UG said boobies

Takes one to say one. ;)

You forgot what thread you're in. #54 and #55:

UG: It is, after all, hardly unlibertarian to remove libertarianism's most determined foes, or democratic republicanism's as an intermediate step in the development of a more libertarian society in a country that not only could use it, but is probably incapable of being run any other way, between geography and psychology.

UT: That, UG, depends on whether what ends up there is a Democratic Republic. Most pundits say it won't. Does that change your usual?

UG: All you need do is continue removing any foes of libertarianism that present themselves. Whether by conversion or by gunfire, the absence of antidemocrats is very much a good thing, is it not?

Oh dear. A careful reading of your post #55 says that ALL you need to do is kill and convert. Departing? Not part of the UG recipe. That's what we're talking about here and YOU stated what your approach was and it most certainly didn't include Departing. IN THIS VERY THREAD.

And so we are back to square one. Not only pundits, but major figures in both the outgoing and incoming administration now say that the end game in Iraq is not a Democratic Republic. Does this change anything for you? It isn't working, do you have another idea or something?

The "timetable" idea is what convinced the Iraqis that we were not in an indeterminate occupation, which in turn convinced them to step up.

Looking for some new insight, I am getting ready to start:

The Devil We Know - Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower

by Robert Baer

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...iews/baer.html

http://www.huntingtonnews.net/column...ookreview.html

Yay! We got a new superpower just in time for Great Depression II and WWIII.