« Doe, a deer, a big dead deer | Main | More PS3 Giveaway Chances »

Forcing the issue

Some time ago, I read something that really struck me as profound. I wish to heck I could remember where, to give it proper attribution, but let me just say that it is in no way my own original thought.

For a government to be legitimate and valid and viable, it must have a monopoly on force.

That sounds rather brutal and harsh, but it's true: within a stable and successful nation, the government must be the only body that has the authority to use violence against individuals and groups. And it must bring its full force to bear on those who attempt to usurp that right.

I'm no expert on the earliest parts of American history, but it seems to me that that concept was an element in Shays' Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion, when disgruntled citizens raised their own militias to oppose the government. And it also played a part in the US Civil War.

In more recent history, that principle has shown its validity. When the modern state of Israel was founded, the leaders were largely drawn from the "partisans," "insurgents," "Zionist patriots," or "terrorists" (name your term; they're all tossed around pretty much equally) who had fought the British who controlled the territory. But not all the groups were thrilled to be subsumed into the newly-formed Israeli Defense Forces, and one of them -- Irgun -- struggled to maintain its status as an independent armed force. This culminated in the Altalena Affair, when the unthinkable happened -- Jew fought and killed Jew -- and the IDF took decisive action against Irgun. Nineteen Israelis were killed before it was all settled, and eventually Irgun's leader, Menachem Begin, was elected prime minister of Israel. But the principle was established: there would be no armed groups within Israel that were not part of the Israeli Defense Forces or in some other way under the control of the government.

It is an example that the Muslim world could stand to learn from, but they would never accept the idea that they could learn anything from the Zionists.

In Lebanon, the Lebanese government is, at best, the third-strongest force. First up is Syria, which has held Lebanon as a puppet state for decades. Next up is Hezbollah, Syria's favorite proxy force. They are not completely Syria's creature, though -- they show remarkable levels of independence on occasion.

In old Afghanistan, the Taliban's biggest mistake was in accepting and encouraging Al Qaeda's presence. They thought they were spiritual brothers, but it was Al Qaeda's use of force outside Afghanistan's borders -- but protected by the Taliban -- that led to the fall of the Taliban.

In the Palestinian territories, the problem they are having is that there are three major factions that direct violence. Fatah initially took the reins of the civil government, but Hamas and Islamic Jihad continued to direct attacks on Israel. Fatah didn't give the people what they wanted, so they turned to Hamas. Hamas didn't have Fatah's sense of PR, though, and didn't tone down its rhetoric (or, as I prefer to think of it, "was more honest about their goals and intentions and didn't pretty them up for global consumption") after winning the last elections.

Right now they're trying to arrange a cease-fire with Israel (largely motivated by Israel's recent decision to take Hamas at their word and started hitting back), but they can't keep Islamic Jihad or Fatah from carrying out their attacks. Hell, they can't even keep their own people from attacking Israel -- they were behind the GrannyBomb attack last week.

Here's the real reason why no one in their right mind should accept Hamas' offer of a "cease-fire" with Israel: not only do they not have any ability or interest in enforcing it against their own allies, they won't even try to implement it among their own members. It's a PR move designed to save their own asses from Israeli reprisals.

And in Iraq, that is the biggest obstacle to establishing peace. There are too many groups that have taken upon themselves the business of implementing violence. "Militias," "insurgents," and other terms for terrorists have all chosen to fill the void created by the dismantling of Saddam's regime, the void that has yet to be filled by the nascent Iraqi government.

President Bush has said, repeatedly, the terms under which he wants us to withdraw from Iraq: when the Iraqi government can survive on its own. "We will stand down as they stand up" is how he puts it. And part of "standing up" is finding the will and wherewithal to stand up to your own people who choose to usurp the government's prerogative of being the sole provider of force and violence.

That, so often, is the test of whether a government will survive or fail. We passed it. Israel did. Lebanon tried, and may try again. The Palestinians failed.

Will the Iraqis pass this test? I sincerely hope so.


Comments (36)

Jay, are you saying that it... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Jay, are you saying that it is time for Iraq to stand on it's own?

Good points and I agree pre... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

Good points and I agree pretty much totally. But... this wouldn't be the intertrons without a quibble.

For a government to be legitimate and valid and viable, it must have a monopoly on force.

Should read
For a government to be legitimate and valid and viable, it must have a monopoly on offensive force.

Think "Castle Doctrine".

Barney,Are you say... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Barney,

Are you saying that since they've had a barely functioning government for almost 6 months now, we should abandon them?

Barney, that's the GOAL. Yo... (Below threshold)

Barney, that's the GOAL. You don't give the SATs to third-graders and use that to decide if they get into college.

Even for a cheap shot, that was pretty lame.

J.

I agree Veeshir.I ... (Below threshold)
ExSubNuke:

I agree Veeshir.

I don't like the idea of removing from the common citizen the ability to form militias for defense (being a strong believer in The 2nd Amendment), as well as providing a check on the government.

But you're spot on the mark about government being the sole proprieter of offensive capability against "outsiders".

As an analogy, I fully expect my son to help me defend our house if it comes under attack, or to defend his mother and sister if I ever (heaven forbid) lose my temper. However, I also don't like the idea of having to clean up his mess and being responsible if he decides to throw stones at the neighbors house.

Will the Iraqis pa... (Below threshold)
Will the Iraqis pass this test? I sincerely hope so.

They may eventually but only after the sectarian fighting has burned itself out. The situation is very similar to Lebanon's civil war in terms of the sectarian nature of the conflict. That war lasted for 15 years with 100,000 killed before a general amnesty was declared and all the warring factions (excl. Hezbollah) agreed to lay down their arms.

It's clear that all the factions in Iraq right now would rather fight than cooperate. The wise thing for us to do would be to get out of the way and allow events to take their natural course. We can't impose an articial peace on people who don't want it (and besides we haven't got enough troops to do so).

Don't Iraqis have the sovereign right to fight their civil war if that's what they want? Would we have appreciated the British intervening in our own Civil War and trying to force a settlement upon us?

If Iraq is in a civil war t... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

If Iraq is in a civil war then we have civil wars occurring in every major city in the United States.

Jay, how is my comment a ch... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Jay, how is my comment a cheap-shot? Your post indicates that further US involvement is counter productive (an emerging government must survive the inevitable internal strife). The longer our forces stay, the longer we are delaying this natural evolution in governmental development.

You are suggesting a cut and run strategy, and this is greatly different than your previous statements.

Well. Of course governments... (Below threshold)
JamesT:

Well. Of course governments need a monopoly on force. All governments are predicated on coercion, trying to get people to do things they would not normally do left to their own devices, and may be in the short term or long term against the individuals best interest, but in the nations best interest. The government needs force, or threat of force in order to get its citizens to comply with its decisions. The way you tell a "bad" government from a "good" government is buy the type of coercion/force used to get people to toe the line.

If memory serves, the idea ... (Below threshold)
IllTemperedCur:

If memory serves, the idea of a state monopoly on force comes primarily from Max Weber.

I'm not so sure about the idea of defining it only as a monopoly on offensive force. A state monopoly of force doesn't mean that the state can't relinquish a portion of that monopoly under certain circumstances, like the "castle doctrine" (which I'm all in favor of). Even in a "castle doctrine" situation, the state (thru the DA's office & police) will investigate that use of force to ensure that it meets the castle doctrine criteria as specified in the law.

Jay,I completely a... (Below threshold)
Tim:

Jay,

I completely and totally disagree. I think the cure proposed by that statement is worse than the disease.

Any time a government gains a monopoly on force, the only rights retained by it's citizens are those the government allows them to keep.

The problem in the Middle East is insufficient restraint in the use of force. The problem here in the US is the same, but on a much smaller scale. Both are paying the price for freedom, because if the general populace is disarmed, then freedom will sooner or later be gone.

I dare say you have a bette... (Below threshold)
robert:

I dare say you have a better grasp on history than the bulk of college students I meet, and Im a history minor. Ignorance of our own past and the inability to face reality in the when it isnt pretty give me a headache sometimes. I fear it will be too late when some people figure out theat there are elements out there who are incapable of responding to anything else but force. I wish it wasnt that way because Im one of those who actually has to apply force in that intrest. Something maybe to pass on from George Orwell. "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to violence on their behalf."

Jay,I agree with t... (Below threshold)
JohnMc:

Jay,

I agree with the observation but not necessarily with the civil war analogy. Though the govt had 'control', in large part during that period mustering of troops was a private affair. Private citizens would organize whole regiments then go into battle. It was only after the draft was instituted in '63 that troop commitments were federalized as a function.

If Iraq is in a ci... (Below threshold)
If Iraq is in a civil war then we have civil wars occurring in every major city in the United States.

Oh yeah! Just the other day we had a car bombing in downtown San Diego that killed 200 people. And I heard the cops just found 50 bodies dumped in the San Diego River. That kind of stuff happens all the time here. Baghdad--San Diego---what's the diff?

When is someone going to pu... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

When is someone going to put a bullet in Al Sadr's head?

Alive he can continue to provoke this shit.

Dead... Well, as a martyr, he's got a "best used by" date.

This will sound very strang... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilot:

This will sound very strange coming from me, but I can't help wonder were LAWS fit into all of this talk about the use of force.

Iraq will fail simply because we are not nearly mean enough to get the job done. If a child needs a vacination, you hold them down, even though they are kicking and screaming, and stick a needle in them. Until we are willing to shoot everyone who is carrying a gun, enter and search houses and people (with out a warrant), and summarily execute terrorist and those associated with it, we will have no vicitory in Irac, and the Iraqis will all be the worst for it.

No only does the Iraqi "Gov... (Below threshold)
Matt:

No only does the Iraqi "Government" not have a monopoly of force within their country, they don't even have confidence in who exactly their own armed forces are loyal to at any given time. The Iraqi government would have disapeared/been killed by now if the U.S. wasn't propping them up and securing them.Iraq can't become a viable state when the government can't even secure themselves.

To be viable, the Iraqi government must be able to provide security for themselves (internal and external), provide security to their citizens, and provide for the citizens being able to procur basic goods and services. Until that happens the average Iraqi will fall back to "primary loyalties" which is loyalty to whatever group can keep them safe and provide access to basic neccesities.

The best way to facilitate this might be for the U.S. to continue to provide security to the government (until they form a loyal palace guard of their own), continue to arm and train the armed forces (drop the focus on the Iraqi police until the military is up and running), keep the borders secure from external invasion, and provide humitarian aid as needed. Other than that, they should disengage from combat and let the Iraqi's sort it out for themselves.

Hear! Hear! for USMC Pilot.... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Hear! Hear! for USMC Pilot. I second that statement.

I agree with you Jay but th... (Below threshold)
Fwarnt:

I agree with you Jay but the government has to wield the power to put people in their place. The major problem we've seen throughout history is that the government goes beyond that and enslaves the people so that they have limited rights and limited or no say in how the government conducts it's affairs.

It's something countries in the middle east have been unable to do consistently for many, many years.

"It is an example that the ... (Below threshold)
cat:

"It is an example that the Muslim world could stand to learn from..."

Muslim, Muslim, Muslim...you're obsessed, Jay. There are 56 members of the Organization of Islamic Conference." To prove your endlessly repeated message that Muslims are inferior, you point to four of these members. What about the other 52?

There have also been rather a lot of conflicts in Christian, Hindu, Buddhist and other countries.

As far as I remember, the Iraqi government did have a monopoly on force until 2003. It was a rather nasty government and an equally nasty monopoly, but when Saddam wasn't waging war, which he did quite a lot, there was peace - for those who weren't foolish enough to speak out against the government.It was the United States that made absolutely certain Iraq would descend into civil war - first you invaded, then you dismantled all the mechanisms needed to ensure order - government, police and army.

The Palestinians are in an ever-deepening state of despair, which is one of the reasons for their chaotic security situation.

Lebanon, in case you forgot, is a patchwork quilt of Sunni and Shiite Muslims, Maronite, Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christians, Druze...and a few others thrown in for good measure. It was also an artificial state created by the French, just as Iraq was an artificial state created by the British.

As for Afghanistan, well, that's just a whole different issue. Just taking one snapshot from history, Zbigniew Brezezinsky has boasted that he deliberately provoked the Soviet invasion by funding Islamic opponents of the new Communist government (which, among other things, was trying to ensure equal rights for women). Funny how today's chessboard so often turns into tomorrow's catastrophe.

But since you've apparently discovered the Grand Unified Theory, perhaps you'd like to enlighten us as to how these broken countries and territories are supposed to achieve their monopoly.

Larkin: "Oh yeah! Jus... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Larkin: "Oh yeah! Just the other day we had a car bombing in downtown San Diego that killed 200 people. And I heard the cops just found 50 bodies dumped in the San Diego River. That kind of stuff happens all the time here. Baghdad--San Diego---what's the diff?"

Well in the first 10 months of this year, you've had 5,386 violent crimes in the City of San Diego. (Yet with only 1/6 the population of Bagdad.) I'd have to call that a quagmire. We should pull all the police out of that city immediately. Nothing can be done. It's a lost cause. A civil war!

And lets not forget the main fact that is competely ignored by most lefties: fewer Iraqi's are dying today than there were before the invasion.

Bunyan,The fact th... (Below threshold)

Bunyan,

The fact that the gang bangers, drug dealers, drug addicts and common criminals are shooting each other primarily in one area of town (south east San Diego) doesn't mean there's no civil war in Iraq. There are no car bombings, organized militias, kidnappings, summary executions or ethnic cleansing. There's no mortar fire from SE San Diego going into the downtown, and the Latinos aren't charging into Black neighborhoods and shooting every fighting age male they can find.

You guys lose all credibility when you insist that the inner city crime we see here is equivalent to Iraq's bloody civil war. It reminds me of how you all resisted using the terms "insurgency" and "guerrilla warfare" for so long.

To expand on Cat's points, the borders of the Middle East were drawn by the British and French imperialists with no consideration given to the sectarian differences in the region. Iraq, in particular, has never made any sense and has only been held together by brute force in the past. Like Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and the Soviet Union, it will inevitably fall apart and new borders will be drawn that will create more ethnically and religiously homogenous and cohesive states.

No more of our heroes need to die for this bad idea called the Republic of Iraq. We should give up on this shotgun wedding of forcing the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds to live together in the same country and let this conflict play itself out. We should focus on containing the fallout from Iraq's civil war and mitigating the humanitarian catastrophe as much as we can, but it is time to get our troops out of the crossfire and let them have at it.

No more of our heroes need ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

No more of our heroes need to die for this bad idea called the City of San Diego. We should give up on this shotgun wedding of forcing the Hispanics, Whites and Blacks to live together in the same city and let this conflict play itself out. We should focus on containing the fallout from San Diego's civil war and mitigating the humanitarian catastrophe as much as we can, but it is time to get our law enforcement personel out of the crossfire and let them have at it.

I take it Larkin, then that you'd prefer the level of deaths in Iraq to rise back to the levels it was at before we invaded? You lefties are such humanitarians.

Larkin said: "No more of... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Larkin said: "No more of our heroes need to die for this bad idea called the Republic of Iraq. We should give up on this shotgun wedding of forcing the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds to live together in the same country and let this conflict play itself out. We should focus on containing the fallout from Iraq's civil war and mitigating the humanitarian catastrophe as much as we can, but it is time to get our troops out of the crossfire and let them have at it."

Very well said, but to do so would be to admit that entering Iraq in the first place was a bad idea. These knotheads will never admit that. Like their lying leader Bush, the vocal conservatives here would rather let innocent Iraqis and American military personnel continue to die rather than admit they made a mistake.

The Administration's operating plan, as near as I can tell at this point, is to let things continue to fester and stew for a while, hoping that at some pint they can shift blame over to the incoming Democrats. Fortunately, enough people seem unwilling to let things continue to "stay the course" and the issue is being forced to a head.

That won't stop the apologists from continuing to suggest there isn't a civil war in Iraq, of course, but ever since November 7th the conservatives have been without an active voice in American politics today (now that most people know not to trust what Bush says) -- so let Limbaugh and Hannity and the trolls 'round here preach to the choir all they want - no one else is listening.

I kind of like the idea of ... (Below threshold)
Matt:

I kind of like the idea of pulling out of San Diego. Any chance the original inhabitants want it back?

If it is successful there, we could proceed up the coast, pulling out until the quagmire is gone.

"For a government to be leg... (Below threshold)
Jim:

"For a government to be legitimate and valid and viable, it must have a monopoly on force ... within a stable and successful nation, the government must be the only body that has the authority to use violence against individuals and groups."

I am amazed how many here just accept the above statement as true!

I can and will protect my home and family. I have the authority to do so. I have the duty to do so.

I understand that I may have to answer to the state and defend my actions after the fact, but I do have the authority, right and duty to use force appropriately in certain situations.

The only governments that deny this are not legitimate or valid. We call such entities police states and, yes there are many.

You have the Democratic lea... (Below threshold)
John S:

You have the Democratic leadership not only promise Al-Qaeda our surrender, but they gave them a timetable as well. The only argument among Dems is whether to surrender immediately or in 3 months. And we are surprised that Iraq is decending into chaos? It's now time for the U.S. Military to restore order with appropriate force (Google Carthage) or to get the hell out.

BTW: If Al-Qaeda wins in Iraq, their car bombs will be exploding in San Diego and elsewhere. Probably before the 2008 elections.

I take it Larkin, ... (Below threshold)
I take it Larkin, then that you'd prefer the level of deaths in Iraq to rise back to the levels it was at before we invaded? You lefties are such humanitarians.

This is a false argument because if Saddam had remained in power the economic sanctions would likely have been lifted because they were falling apart already. The Iraqi death rate would have gone down as the country reintegrated into the world economy, became open to foreign investment again, and its economy began to grow.

The increase in oil prices that we have seen over the last 3 years would also have generated increased economic activity in Iraq and helped to alleviate the poverty of the people. A growing economy is the best solution for poverty and the subsequent human suffering that derives from it.

John S,That's just... (Below threshold)

John S,

That's just beautiful. I knew you guys would find a way to blame the Democrats for the debacle that the Republicans got us into. And you've done it even though it is more than a month before they will have any power at all in Washington.

To be honest, I'm not going to spend the rest of my life cowering in my basement worrying about Al Qaeda. If they want to invade San Diego, I say (like our fearless leader) "bring 'em on". San Diego has more guns per capita than any large city in America and we've got a substantial military population (active and retired). I'd like to see them try and set up a checkpoint in my neighborhood.

In fact, wouldn't it be a lot easier to fight these guys here? It sure would be easier to pick them out of a crowd than it is in Fallujah. You may be afraid of them; but I don't think most Americans are. Ergo, that's why we voted to pull out of Iraq in the election.


Larkin:Are you rea... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilot:

Larkin:

Are you realy that dense? What on earth makes you believe that if Sadam were in power and oil revenue rose, that he would let any of it filter down to the underprivelaged in Iraq. The man killed six hundred thousand of his own people, while building 100 million dollar palaces, and you think Iraq is suddenly going to join the world community because oil revenues rise. Promise me your not going to run for president!

The only argument among ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The only argument among Dems is whether to surrender immediately or in 3 months. And we are surprised that Iraq is decending into chaos?

I was going to comment on how separated from reality this statement is, but Larkin beat me to it.

You have the Democratic leadership not only promise Al-Qaeda our surrender...
...
BTW: If Al-Qaeda wins in Iraq....

Umm, Al-Qaeda can't win in Iraq, because they're barely involved. We're caught up in Iraqi sect violence in Iraq, not Al-Qaeda. Are you really not aware of that?

Still, even in Iraq, the foreign jihadists made up only about five percent of the anti-American fighters and their commitment centered on the U.S. occupation, not on a strict allegiance to al-Qaeda's ideological goals.

Not to mention...

A new poll of Iraqis shows that al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are rejected by overwhelming majorities of Shias and Kurds and large majorities of Sunnis.

So you go feel proud supporting the death of Americans in an Iraqi civil war, and justify yourself with the false boogeyman of Al-Qaeda. Go on. I dare you.

Nice job Brian.I w... (Below threshold)

Nice job Brian.

I would add that I believe the Sunnis only tolerate the Al Qaeda presence because they are helping them to fight us. Once we are gone they will eradicate the Al Qaeda in Iraq once and for all. We've already seen Sunni tribes turning against them in some cases.

What on earth makes you believe that if Sadam were in power and oil revenue rose, that he would let any of it filter down to the underprivelaged in Iraq.

Pilot, I'm not disputing that Saddam would have built more palaces with the money. However, he had to employ Iraqis to build those palaces. There's no doubt that a tripling of oil revenues would have had increased economic activity across the board in Iraq at some level.

My point is that if our only concern was a humanitarian one then we should have advocated lifting the sanctions and increasing our own level of trade with and investment in Iraq. Saddam was manipulating the situation to cause suffering in his own country because he believed that the bad press created by that would eventually force us to lift the sanctions. And he was right about that because the sanctions were crumbling by the time we went to war. If we had lifted the sanctions he would not have had any reason to do that anymore and the lot of the average Iraqi would have improved.

But this war wasn't really about our humanitarian concern for the Iraqis. It was about WMD. Remember?


Larkin said:<blockquo... (Below threshold)

Larkin said:

"But this war wasn't really about our humanitarian concern for the Iraqis. It was about WMD. Remember?"

I shredded that one last March, Larkin. Got another one?

J.

Iraq will fail si... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:
Iraq will fail simply because we are not nearly mean enough to get the job done. If a child needs a vacination, you hold them down, even though they are kicking and screaming, and stick a needle in them. Until we are willing to shoot everyone who is carrying a gun, enter and search houses and people (with out a warrant), and summarily execute terrorist and those associated with it, we will have no vicitory in Irac, and the Iraqis will all be the worst for it.

Precisely. If we lose in Iraq, it will be because that's the path we've chosen. I've stated previously that trying to execute war in a 'civilized' manner simply extends the duration and increases the total death and destruction. War isn't won by capturing the 'hearts and minds'. It's won by one side beating the other to the point they they no longer have the WILL or ability to fight.

J:"I shredded that... (Below threshold)
cat:

J:

"I shredded that one last March, Larkin."

I remember that "shred." It was pathetic. You claimed that WMD had been found in Iraq, but in smaller quantities than expected. In fact, what was found was precisely what former UN inspectors had said would be found - harmless goo, lost during the Iran-Iraq war that had long past its shelf-life and could no longer be considered a weapon. You even said one of them had been used as an IED. You were right, it had. But it didn't work. Why? Because it was the WMD equivalent of a toothless centenarian trying to beat his 20-year-old great grandson.

Dick(Cheney)heads have thrashed around for the last three and a half years saying that "Bush didn't say this" and "Bush didn't say that." But the whole campaign for war centered around promoting the fear that the smoking gun would be a mushroom cloud. The DCHs are busy doing it again with Iran - based on "intelligence" from the MeK, the Islamic socialist cult and former Saddam Hussein ally listed by the State Department as a terrorist organization. Deja vu?

Back in March, you backed up your case with an NYT article. Oh spare us please! The Wizbangers, Malkinites and LGF*****s are constantly telling us that the "liberals" at the NYT are a bunch of liars. I agree entirely. But I don't try to use their lies to back up my case. You all do. How strange.

You bleated about intelligence not being precise. Very true. But the intelligence that wasn't being dictated by the Big Dick said there was probably nothing there.

Oh, yes...you also talked about spreading democracy and all that throughout the Middle East. That's going really well, isn't it. If Heaven and Hell are democracies, a lot of people are now enjoying their freedom. Only another 25 million or so to go in Iraq. See if you can send them to paradise too.

Jay, go to Iraq. Sod the "I don't speak their language" BS. Go. Go and see what you have done. Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a seriously bad place. But you have taken a bad place to such depths of Hell that tens of thousands are now fleeing every month. But why believe them? They only lived there. Go. You've given us your answer to the Chickenhawk argument. I agree with you on that one. But you don't have to be a soldier to visit a country. You don't have to speak their language. Just go.

There is just one reason why you cannot do this - if you do, and you venture alone outside the Green Zone, you will die.

I don't actually want that to happen to you, but since you are constantly justifying the deaths of others, perhaps you should find out what that actually means.

But you won't. You'll find some pathetic reasons that don't address the reality of the disaster that America has created. And you'll continue to advocate creating the same Hell on Earth in Iran. And you'll carry on living your safe life, never seeing the suffering that your twisted ideas actually produce.

Wow, cat just made Jay's "s... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Wow, cat just made Jay's "shred" look more like a paper cut!




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy