« Coffee Snorterz: Caged Panda Heat Edition | Main | For Mark, With Love »

March 27, 2008

Hope, Realism, and the Obama Doctrine

In the middle of the room a single doll wrapped in a white shroud represents children killed during the iron-fisted rule of Saddam. It is surrounded with toys and cheap plastic flowers.

Mothers and widows who have visited the museum have broken down in tears at the sight of this display, Badawi said.

Also on show are cases containing the personal effects of some of Saddam's victims, whose remains or mutilated bodies have been found over the past five years in dozens of mass graves across Iraq.

The artifacts include combs, identity cards, a rosary, a sock caked in soil, a fragment of a pair of spectacles and bloodstained clothes. Arrest warrants signed by Saddam himself are also on view.

Among the most horrific objects retrieved by Badawi and his team from the notorious torture rooms of the mukhabarat, and now included in the museum, is a wooden table covered in a worn strip of leather and with a domestic iron placed at one end.

"This is an electrocution table," Badawi said.

"The naked prisoner was bound to the table with a steel bar strapped to his shoulder" to ensure maximum immobility as his torturers electrocuted him or used the iron to inflict burns, Badawi said.

Electric shocks were delivered via electrodes attached to a plastic syringe, the needle of which "was inserted into the urethra of the victim's sexual organ," Badawi added. "The pain was atrocious."

Videos of torture sessions are also screened in a basement room. Terrified prisoners can be seen being beaten, having their arms and legs broken and being thrown from rooftops or blown up with explosives.

graves.jpg Badawi spent five years of his life in one of Saddam Hussein's prisons. The fact that you are hearing his story now is due to the American invasion of Iraq:

He was arrested along with 13 members of his family - and seven of his brothers were killed by Saddam's goons.

During the past five years Badawi's committee has helped to locate 106 mass graves and the remains of 1,050 men, women and children killed by members of the ousted regime.

Eugene Robinson, the descendant of African slaves, a man who likes to remind us to remember how the pain of oppression that ended more than 150 years ago can burn white-hot in the minds of people who never experienced it directly, has the gall to ask "4,000 Dead: For What?":

When U.S. military deaths in Iraq hit a round number, as happened Sunday, there's usually a week or so of intense focus on the war -- its bogus rationale, its nebulous aims, its awful consequences for the families of the dead. Not likely this time, though. The nation is too busy worrying about more acute crises, some of them real -- the moribund housing market, the teetering financial system, the flagging economy -- and some of them manufactured, such as the shocking revelation that race can still be a divisive issue in American society.

On this fifth anniversary of the war's beginning when so many in the media gleefully tick off our war dead like obscene hatchmarks in some sick game of "I told you so", it's hardly an idle exercise to indulge Mr. Robinson. Let's ask Mr. Badawi. In his torture chamber, did he think the crisis in Iraq was real enough? On his bed of pain, did he straddle the fence (figuratively speaking, of course)? Or did he find sufficient grounds for reckless, pre-emptive military intervention of a type unsanctioned by France and Germany?

There is a hard truth both Eugene Robinson and Barack Obama (with his impressive sounding Obama Doctrine and its talk of dignity promotion) elide right past. Natan Sharansky, who spent his share of time in Soviet prisons, would be the first to explain it to them.

Men in chains possess very little dignity:

MEQ: Pundits and European governments criticized President Bush for the crudeness of his "Axis of Evil" reference.[5] How important is rhetoric?

Sharansky: The world is full of doublethink. What it most lacks is moral clarity. It is extremely important to call a spade a spade. It is necessary to understand the nature of the war that we are in the midst of. The battle is not between Israel and the Palestinians or between the United States and Iraq. Rather, the current fight pits the world of freedom against the world of terror. I have told President Bush that the two greatest speeches of my lifetime were Ronald Reagan's speech casting the Soviet Union as an evil empire and the president's own speech on June 24, 2002, when he said that Palestinians deserve to live in freedom and that only with freedom would the Middle East enjoy security.[6]

...MEQ: Why has dictatorship flourished for so long in the Middle East?

Sharansky: For too long the free world has been willing to appease dictatorships. The United States is no longer willing to accept a policy of appeasement [toward Middle Eastern dictators]. [Washington's] willingness to coddle dictators has been the main obstacle to dissent in the Arab world.

MEQ: Can't strongmen bring stability?

Sharansky: The more resolute the free world is in not appeasing dictators, the less often it will have to use military power. If you look at the history of struggle between democracies and dictatorships, you will see that outright war is almost always preceded by a period of appeasement. This was the case with both Hitler and Stalin. In the Middle East, Palestinian violence and terror followed a period of appeasement. In Iraq, too, a decade of appeasement emboldened Saddam Hussein and contributed to war. We would not have had this problem in Iraq if the free world had not once thought that Saddam Hussein was good for stability. Had the United States and the West linked their foreign policies to basic human rights, not one shot would need to have been fired in Iraq.

On September 17th, 1862 a battle was fought very near my home that claimed 23,000 casualties in a single day. The principle that freedom is the birthright of all men was thought important enough to conscript free white men and force them to fight back then.

Today, free Americans of all colors volunteer to give that chance to generations yet unborn. There was a larger principle at stake in both that long ago war between the states and the one between freedom and fanaticism. In the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln believed a house divided against itself could not stand: the United States must be all slave or all free, and so he could not allow the South to secede from the Union. There were many who violently disagreed with him. He was by no means a popular president for standing against public opinion, yet today he is widely considered to be one of our greatest, largely because he did stand on principle. His actions were validated by history though at the time, as the Union lost battle after battle to the numerically inferior Confederacy and conscription riots racked Northern cities, they seemed doomed to suffer an ignominious defeat.

In today's borderless world, some want to resurrect an isolationist stance which became obsolete as soon as international air travel, telephony and the internet erased the barriers that separate America from the rest of the world. We can no longer afford that pipe dream: the very people who argue most vigorously in favor of it are the ones who refuse to allow us to protect ourselves from outside aggressors via electronic surveillance, profiling, aggressive law enforcement, and military intervention. They believe it a legitimate function of the media to publish classified documents, including the vulnerabilities of Marine body armor. And yet, oxymoronically, they argue we can somehow protect ourselves from the outside world while not giving up any of our freedoms.

Barack Obama has said he would not hesitate to go into Pakistan, even against the will of its government, after al Qaeda. What reaction, precisely, does he expect from a sovereign state when it is militarily invaded by a foreign power?

Passive acceptance? What reaction does he expect from the most radical Islamist elements within Pakistan? Would this not give them all the excuse they need to stage a coup and topple a government which at present cooperates with us, if not to the extent we desire?

And if military intervention in Iraq was unrealistic, what bizarre realism governs the Obama Doctrine's refusal to distinguish between military intervention where there is at least a demonstrable American security interest and situations (like Darfur) where there is none? Who in Darfur ever tried to assassinate a former U.S. President? Who in Darfur ever gave shelter to the architect of a World Trade Center bombing? Darfur doesn't fund terrorist organizations worldwide. America hasn't paid tens of thousands of dollars for decades to man a no-fly zone over Darfur. Darfur has no history of using weapons of mass destruction - several times - on its own people and on neighboring states:

Saddam launched more than 350 chemical weapon attacks across the border. Iraq has since admitted using 1,800 tonnes of mustard gas and 740 tonnes of the highly toxic nerve agents sarin and tabun. It was the worst use of mustard gas since the First World War and the first use of nerve agents. Iranian soldiers often had inadequate masks and little detection and decontamination equipment. Civilians had nothing.

Does Barack Obama see no moral problem with asking an all volunteer force to give their lives when there is no national security interest to protect?

Because this Marine wife damned well does. I believe in freedom and democracy promotion, but the United States cannot free the entire world single-handed. Where is the much-vaunted realism steely-eyed Progressives have been calling for now? It appears to be a function of political convenience.

Eugene Robinson wants to know what has been gained in Iraq. He might try looking in Karmah:

Just beyond the outskirts of Fallujah lies the terror-wracked city of Karmah. While you may not have heard of this small city of 35,000 people, American soldiers and Marines who served in Anbar Province know it as a terrifying place of oppression, death, and destruction. “It was much worse than Fallujah” said more than a dozen Marines who were themselves based in Fallujah.

Very few insurgents remain in the city. The remnants are thought to be exclusively locals. The Marines believe the foreign leadership cadre has been driven out.

“I had a good conversation with Iraqi Police Lieutenant Colonel Sattar about this last night,” Lieutenant Macak said. “I said Why are your family members the ones kidnapping you, beating you up, and killing your people?”

“It was his family members?” I said.

“Lieutenant Colonel Sattar was captured and held by Al Qaeda for over a year,” he said. “He was beaten and thrashed before they eventually let him go. And the guy who captured him was his cousin. The culture here – they lie, they deceive, they steal, they don't trust each other. In order to survive. That's what Saddam Hussein's era bred in them. If they wanted to survive and do well, they had to go behind everyone's back. After 20 or 30 years of Saddam, they can't break away over night.”

Girl Waving Hands Karmah.jpg

Barack Obama wants to be our next president. Like his predecessor, who called himself The man from Hope, he promises to restore a sense of optimism. But what expression shines in the face of the children of Karmah these days, if it is not hope? If Barack Obama wishes to speak of dignity promotion, he might wish to start here:

After many months of being oppressed by al-Qaeda, many places around Iraq are beginning to come to life. The markets are reopened, citizens fill the streets without fearing for their lives and many people are returnng to work and school. In one community in southern Baghdad, that has never been so evident. The community of Hawr Rajab is returning to normalcy after months of being terrorized by al-Qaeda operatives.

Because security in Hawr Rajab has improved so much, Troops and the Iraqis themselves are beginning to focus their attention on rebuilding the economy. One such rebuilding project, the “Village of Hope,” is a vocational school that is designed to teach the students attending there, the basics of construction. They recently had 50 students enroll for classes.

Troops from the 6th Squadron, 8th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division are providing security at the construction sites where the students are attending clsses. The classes are taught by US Air Force Airmen who are in related occupational specialties. The Airmen/teachers are part of the 557th Expeditionary Red Horse Squadron, who are headquartered at Balad Air Base. About 30 members conduct classes at the Village of Hope, from Patrol Base Stone, that is located in the heart of Hawr Rajab. As new as it is for the students, who are just now learning the basics of construction, the new task is also new for the instructors, who had to change their mindset from pounding nails to teaching others how to do it.

Men who have jobs and know a trade have dignity. The Villages of Hope program has been going on since 2004. If you read about it, you'll see a familiar name: one David Petraeus, 101st Airborne Commander.

Otherwise known as General Betrayus.

Small world, isn't it? But it is a world in which good things still happen to those who are willing to stand firm for the principles they believe in. In Diyala, once a hotbed of the insurgency, a graduation is taking place:

A graduation ceremony will be held for the 4th Brigade of the 5th Division of the Iraqi Army at Besmaya Range Complex. A force generation unit formed through the "Unit Set Fielding" program which is used to build capacity for the Ministry of Defense.

The graduating 4/5 Brigade is the first brigade to be fully equipped with equipment (M16s, M4s, tactical and non-tactical vehicles and more) purchased through Foreign Military Sales. Once they graduate, this brigade will be moving out directly to their battlespace in Diyala.

I don't know about Eugene Robinson but to this Marine wife, but when free men can finally tell the story of their oppression without fear of torture or imprisonment, when children are finally able to smile and play in the streets, when a people begin to fight back against the criminals who once controlled their lives, that looks a lot like dignity promotion.

Or maybe just good sense.

Update: A few more thoughts on moral clarity, just because I'm angry today.

These grand, overarching questions cannot obscure, at least for me, the plain fact that Mark Daily felt himself to be morally committed. I discovered this in his life story and in his surviving writings. Again, not to romanticize him overmuch, but this is the boy who would not let others be bullied in school, who stuck up for his younger siblings, who was briefly a vegetarian and Green Party member because he couldn't stand cruelty to animals or to the environment, a student who loudly defended Native American rights and who challenged a MySpace neo-Nazi in an online debate in which the swastika-displaying antagonist finally admitted that he needed to rethink things. If I give the impression of a slight nerd here I do an injustice. Everything that Mark wrote was imbued with a great spirit of humor and tough-mindedness. Here's an excerpt from his "Why I Joined" statement:

Anyone who knew me before I joined knows that I am quite aware and at times sympathetic to the arguments against the war in Iraq. If you think the only way a person could bring themselves to volunteer for this war is through sheer desperation or blind obedience then consider me the exception (though there are countless like me).… Consider that there are 19 year old soldiers from the Midwest who have never touched a college campus or a protest who have done more to uphold the universal legitimacy of representative government and individual rights by placing themselves between Iraqi voting lines and homicidal religious fanatics.

And here's something from one of his last letters home:

I was having a conversation with a Kurdish man in the city of Dahok (by myself and completely safe) discussing whether or not the insurgents could be viewed as "freedom fighters" or "misguided anti-capitalists." Shaking his head as I attempted to articulate what can only be described as pathetic apologetics, he cut me off and said "the difference between insurgents and American soldiers is that they get paid to take life—to murder, and you get paid to save lives." He looked at me in such a way that made me feel like he was looking through me, into all the moral insecurity that living in a free nation will instill in you. He "oversimplified" the issue, or at least that is what college professors would accuse him of doing.

We hold far too lightly what we don't pay for ourselves.

Posted by Cassandra at March 27, 2008 08:32 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2056

Comments

I have known a few who were morally opposed to war. Not many but a few. Mostly, they were extremely religious people. The ones I see today protesting the war in Iraq who also say we need to intervene in Darfur are NOT morally opposed to war. If they were honest, they'd admit they're merely opposed to the current administration. The humanitarian crisis in Darfur IS real. But no more real than the crisis in Iraq was. The difference is that Sudan is not in violation of both UN resolutions and a cease fire agreement with the United States.

Pretty it up all you like, but ultimately, if you believe in intervention in Darfur, then Iraq was not a 'mistake' or 'tragedy'. And all the claims that "Iraq's a civil war and we need to get out," ignore the fact that the situation in Darfur IS, in fact, a civil war.

Posted by: MikeD at March 27, 2008 10:52 AM

If I were still in college,you would have just written my term paper.btw,I would have received an A+ in red pen.Great Job.

Posted by: Maggie at March 27, 2008 11:11 AM

Excellent, Cass!

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at March 27, 2008 01:21 PM

“Does Barack Obama see no moral problem with asking an all volunteer force to give their lives when there is no national security interest to protect?”

I don’t recall you having a problem with GWB asking America’s all volunteer force to give their lives by invading Iraq when there “threat” posed by Saddam Hussein was contrived by GWB, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and their fellow-travelers.

http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2008/pa032008.html

Posted by: Mark In Irvine at March 27, 2008 02:55 PM

ahhh yes..
The stalker returns.

Context, Mark and perspective.
Make friends with them. Even if you manage that, they'll be your only ones here.

I swear you'd crap your pants if you thought you'd get Cass' attention by doing so.
Pathetic, really...

Posted by: Carrie at March 27, 2008 03:28 PM

I didn't have a problem with it because in 1998 my husband was packed and ready to go into Iraq to deal with that "contrived threat".

Except, as Buzz Patterson relates in his book, your Prez was too busy watching a golf game to pull the trigger. Pity, that.

Posted by: Cass at March 27, 2008 03:36 PM

Contrived? Ohhhhh, I'm just too old and time is too short to expend the energy to try to break MinI out of this
for (;;) {
repeat SOSDD
}

(forever loop), particularly when the condition handler has but one callout routine which is to repeat out-dated and debunked talking points...

Give me a vector, Victor and I'll just stop by later when I again have a moment to watch the more energetic and charitable handle the unexpected visitor bearing the same ole, same ole.

But while I have a moment at present, let me agree with what Miss Ladybug said, very nice Cass.

Posted by: bthun at March 27, 2008 03:45 PM

Aw, damn, Cass. It's crawled out of the dung pile it lives in to drag it's foul smell all over your beautiful and compassionate post.

Posted by: Sly2017 at March 27, 2008 03:57 PM

Eugene Robinson wants to know what has been gained in Iraq. He might try looking in Karmah:

Death merchants ain't going to find anything of value in Karmah.

They'd do better looking elsewhere, like here.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103

What's what the death merchants sell and supply.

What are Death Merchants?

Posted by: Ymarsakar at March 27, 2008 04:35 PM

I don’t recall you having a problem with GWB asking America’s all volunteer force to give their lives by invading Iraq when there “threat” posed by Saddam Hussein was contrived by GWB, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and their fellow-travelers.

Your problem is that Bush didn't kill enough of the right colored children, not that Bush asked anybody to kill or die for the beliefs that sustain America.

Stop the BS, so we can see which side you are on. Humanity's side or the side of the enemies of humanity.

Aw, damn, Cass. It's crawled out of the dung pile it lives in to drag it's foul smell all over your beautiful and compassionate post.

Compassionate people eventually have to decide whether their compassion compels them to help enemies of humanity or to obliterate them. If the latter, then the existence if Irvine Marks just prove the case.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at March 27, 2008 04:40 PM

Ymar, sadly It's presence on this site is simply as a stalker/spoiled child desperately seeking validation/attention - good, bad or ugly - for the unfortunate object of It's unequivocally unwanted obsession.

Posted by: Sly2017 at March 27, 2008 05:09 PM

Sounds like you are talking about "g" from Bookworm's Room as well, Sly.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at March 27, 2008 05:24 PM

Hey Mark..
"I wasn't talking to you. Funny how it's only stalking when someone disagrees with you. I imagine that you can be a charming and delightful friend, and probably even a good person, but you always come across as so cheap and vulgar when you think you're zinging me."

Cheap and vulgar? I was being honest and upfront. You are a stalker and you really would crap your pants if you thought she'd pay attention to you.
so why the private email? Aren't you man enough to do that here?
Thought you weren't going to darken our doorsteps anymore....
that was april 26th, 2007 at 03:54pm...

Not man enough to own your words?
What's up with that, little fella?

Posted by: Carrie at March 27, 2008 06:14 PM

Great post, Cass.

You know, I just had dinner with an Israeli friend of mine who's in town on business. He's a great storyteller, and one of his new stories was about the 4 months he spent working in Nigeria.

So he makes a comment along the lines of, "People (in the West) complain about their governments which is a such a joke compared to countries like Nigeria where they have real problems with their governments. They have no idea what real problems are."

You know, like a government comprised of like 10 (Nigerian) families which takes in billions in oil revenue each year while their people live in one of the worst cesspools of humanity on the face of the earth.

Maybe all of us belonging to the 1% of the people on the planet who - by accident of birth - live privileged and charmed lives built on the sacrifices of prior generations should be required to spend oh, say, 5 minutes in a country like that. We could be put into bubbles or shark cages or whatever in order to be able to actually survive for 5 minutes.

So that we can safely return home with our newly found perspective and kiss the ground when we arrive.

Posted by: MaryAnn at March 27, 2008 06:23 PM

What's up with that, little fella?

The death merchant business must be going downhill and he needs to borrow some funds and parts.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at March 27, 2008 06:27 PM

So that we can safely return home with our newly found perspective and kiss the ground when we arrive.

That gets into the problem of education. How do you educate people in the truth when humans only believe what they hear and see?

You have to use propaganda. Yet the government isn't allowed to use propaganda or even propaganda lies, while the media are.

So we have an imbalance in the triumvirate of government, which is causing the problems. And those problems are the deficient grievance sentimentality that America needs to be "fixed" with fake liberal policies.

The difference with here and Africa is that Africa was traditionally dysfunctional to begin with. Tribal cultures are notorious for successful republics and democracies after all. While here, our traditions were sound and solid. Thus the solution to our problems was always going back into the past and recreating what has been done before, while the solution for Africa was to NOT go into the past.

The fake liberal policies that are causing so much damage reverses it. They want Africa to find their cultural heritage and stick with it, which means starvation and tribalism. And they want America to "progress" towards some kind of alien utopia, which requires destroying any link to the past, the past which the Left sees as tainted with colonialism and "empire".

If helping people means creating an empire, I say go for it. That's my priorities. The priority of the Left is "only we can do empire in the form of welfare and govmint, and anyone else that does it is a white imperialist and racist".

Posted by: Ymarsakar at March 27, 2008 06:31 PM

Tribal cultures are notorious

Not notorious.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at March 27, 2008 06:33 PM

Maybe all of us belonging to the 1% of the people on the planet who - by accident of birth - live privileged and charmed lives built on the sacrifices of prior generations should be required to spend oh, say, 5 minutes in a country like that.

Yeah. Or just memorize the comment on that Berkeley post from the gentleman who was here on a visa and couldn't believe the idiocy Code Pink were spouting... because (as he said) if any of it were really true, as it actually is in his country, they'd be the first to be lined up against the wall and shot.

But as the old saying goes, a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on.

Posted by: Cass at March 27, 2008 06:34 PM

"We could be put into bubbles or shark cages or whatever in order to be able to actually survive for 5 minutes."

Do we have to give everyone one? There are some, such as It the Stalking Troll, who need to have their noses rubbed in their misconceptions a few times before they learn to quit crapping in their own house.

Posted by: Sly2017 at March 27, 2008 07:02 PM

No, we don't have to give everyone a shark cage, Sly.

I suppose Special Friends could be just thrown in there and given a choice between going it alone or running to a strategically placed nearby squad of Marines and begging for protection.

We could get a CNN crew to film the whole thing (from their shark cages).

Posted by: MaryAnn at March 27, 2008 07:30 PM

Mark,
You are quite something...your IP has been banned here twice already because of your over the top attention and your offtopic crap.
This email just makes me laugh...


"I posted an "on topic" comment on a subject which VC was discussing, and had no intention of taking up anyone else's bandwidth with personal comments. I have no problem with owning my words: I'm sure nobody misunderstood who it was that posted the comment over the name "Mark In Irvine", and anybody who wants to do so can easily find me and my words. You just think it's funny to create a mountain out of a molehill - live it up "Carrie". I also have no particular concern about whether "Cass pays attention to me" as you put it: I'm gettin' all the lovin' I need from real people and have no need for the fantasy relationship you think I'm seeking. Although it wasn't my intention to stir up anything of the sort, it is kinda funny watching you get your panties all in a bunch - you musta been bored - maybe YOU'RE not gettin' all the lovin' YOU need. I'm guessing that your thrill at "making fun of me" isn't so great that you'll post this message. Ha ha ha."


Hey Mark..
"I wasn't talking to you. Funny how it's only stalking when someone disagrees with you. I imagine that you can be a charming and delightful friend, and probably even a good person, but you always come across as so cheap and vulgar when you think you're zinging me."

Cheap and vulgar? I was being honest and upfront. You are a stalker and you really would crap your pants if you thought she'd pay attention to you.
so why the private email? Aren't you man enough to do that here?
Thought you weren't going to darken our doorsteps anymore....
that was april 26th, 2007 at 03:54pm...

Not man enough to own your words?
What's up with that, little fella?


Posted by: Carrie at March 27, 2008 06:16 PM


Posted by: Carrie at March 27, 2008 08:48 PM

Hey Mark..
I can post comments AND your dumbassed emails..
and you can't.
neener, neener, neener...

Posted by: Carrie at March 27, 2008 08:52 PM

Let them run to the UN *Peacekeepers* if they can't go it alone. The US Marine Corps has more important work to do, such as helping the Iraqi people build a free nation.
And, according to SWHNOB, the chum goes on the outside of the cage. So as to facilitate the feeding frenzy that most of the major news outlets (CNN, CBS, etc.) lust after.

Posted by: Sly2017 at March 27, 2008 10:29 PM

It,
You were politely asked to leave by the Hostess with the Mostest. Then not so politely by her friends who don't take kindly to trolls who are unable to fire their one neuron and catch the clue. The first time you reneged on your promise to never darken her door, I pointed this fact out to you in the only terms you seemed capable of comprehending, and even though your original IP was blocked, you appear even more determined than ever to show your arrogance and ignorance by continuing to post using other IP's. You have now officially become a stalker, which makes you less welcome than a simple troll. Given all the attorneys who are welcome here and call the Princess "friend", I strongly suggest you consider inhabiting another site for the rest of your life. Given the size of the world wide web, I'm sure you'll have no trouble locating a site that has a breed of mammal such as you infesting it's site. Perhaps there you will be able to find whatever passes for friendship and commeraderie within your particular sub-species.

You have been unwelcome here for over a year. That has not changed. In fact, given your move into the criminal realm of cyber-stalking, it has only become more vehemently pronounced.
Go. Away.
Stay. Away.

Posted by: Sly2017 at March 27, 2008 11:19 PM

Was it feeding time for trolls?

Let' em starve, I say...

Posted by: camojack at March 28, 2008 01:38 AM

Is there a particular reason why M in I likes arguing with women instead of men?

Posted by: Ymarsakar at March 28, 2008 03:12 PM

Hostess with the Mostest

I saw that as Hostess with the Moistest

Posted by: Ymarsakar at March 28, 2008 03:12 PM

Cause It foolishly thinks It can win.
And I'm not touchin' the second comment, Ymar. I still haven't found my marmoset shield from the move.

Posted by: Dear Lord Sly at March 28, 2008 08:51 PM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)