Fred J. McCall wrote: > "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : > :if Cheney and Bush go to Europe you probably will see warrants issued. > :
> You Lefty Loons never manage to step outside your own wet dreams, do > you?
> It ain't gonna happen, Ray. Give it up. And we won't even mention > the small detail that any country that issues a warrant for one of > those two is pretty much obligated to do the same for Obama and most > of Congress.
Ex-president Bush should consider himself under country arrest. This is similar to house arrest only with more land. The same for Cheney.
Obama did not start either of the wars and has not been caught committing any war crimes, yet. He also still has diplomatic immunity, so currently only the International Criminal Court and UN Security Council can order Obama's arrest.
As for Congress they are not in the direct military command structure.
> The American Communist Party had many good Americans who were idealists, but > they were dupes to Stalin. > Stalin was never a true commie anyway.
That is what I used to think until I read the Communist Manifesto. Ignore the long fairytale propaganda at the top (most people do not get any further). The action sections mentions what they plan to do on gaining power and who the warring classes are. The classes are not the aristocracy Vs the peasants/workers that everybody assumes (that was the previous wars) but the proletariat Vs the bourgeoisie.
The Communist Party claimed to be part of the proletariat but actually consisted of people like lawyers, civil servants, political activists and journalists - making it bourgeoisie. A trainee priest like Stalin was definitely bourgeoisie and therefore a real communist.
Fred J. McCall wrote: > Andrew Swallow <am.swal...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> :Fred J. McCall wrote: > :> "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote: > :> > :> : > :> :if Cheney and Bush go to Europe you probably will see warrants issued. > :> : > :> > :> You Lefty Loons never manage to step outside your own wet dreams, do > :> you? > :> > :> It ain't gonna happen, Ray. Give it up. And we won't even mention > :> the small detail that any country that issues a warrant for one of > :> those two is pretty much obligated to do the same for Obama and most > :> of Congress. > :> > : > :Ex-president Bush should consider himself under country arrest. This > :is similar to house arrest only with more land. The same for Cheney. > :
> : > :Obama did not start either of the wars and has not been caught > :committing any war crimes, yet. > :
> He hasn't appreciably changed any policies, so anything they're guilty > of he is guilty of.
> : > :He also still has diplomatic > :immunity, so currently only the International Criminal Court and > :UN Security Council can order Obama's arrest. > : > :As for Congress they are not in the direct military command structure. > :
> Neither were some of the folks tried at Nuremberg.
Business bosses have direct command of their business. Government ministers can authorise civil servants to commit crimes against humanity.
Matt Wiser wrote: > On Oct 31, 7:24 am, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >> John Mianowski wrote: >>> On Oct 31, 9:29 am, Arved Sandstrom <dces...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> ... >>>> Personally I think it was a mistake that Bush did not declare war on the >>>> Taliban; rather it became just another part of this featureless "War on >>>> Terrorism", which is nothing of the sort since no war has been legally >>>> declared. Being evasive and mealymouthed about what you're trying to do, >>>> and labelling people as terrorists, which is also what Bush decided to >>>> do, is precisely why we now have all this confusion. If we'd called it a >>>> war in the first place we wouldn't now be arguing over exactly when >>>> "terrorist" acts become acts of war. >>> That was exactly my thinking after the initial shock of 9/11 abated. >>> At a time when the US really needed a good (if not great) president, >>> GWB was a mediocre one at best. I had never had high hopes for him in >>> the 1st place, & even I was disappointed. >> The problem here is that formal declarations of war are something the UN >> was set up to stop.
>> I believe there are formal procedures the US would have to get through >> if they wanted a proper war.
>> -- >> William Black
>> "Any number under six"
>> The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of >> Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat >> single handed with a quarterstaff.- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
> And when someone attacks you, and a nation-state is providing safe > haven to those responsible, a declaration of war isn't necessary. > Article 51 of the UN Charter (self-defense) applies.
I'll remember that the next time we catch the US sending guns to Northern Ireland...
-- William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat single handed with a quarterstaff.
> 9-11 wasn't a crime. It was an act of war. And that favor was returned > on the Taliban and AQ beginning 7 Oct 01.
Utter and absolute rubbish.
It was a criminal act perpetrated by thugs.
That at least one individual has been brought to trial over that act proves this.
-- William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat single handed with a quarterstaff.
> On Oct 31, 11:05 am, John Mianowski <jo...@boreal.org> wrote:
> > On Oct 31, 9:29 am, Arved Sandstrom <dces...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > ...
> > > Personally I think it was a mistake that Bush did not declare war on the > > > Taliban; rather it became just another part of this featureless "War on > > > Terrorism", which is nothing of the sort since no war has been legally > > > declared. Being evasive and mealymouthed about what you're trying to do, > > > and labelling people as terrorists, which is also what Bush decided to > > > do, is precisely why we now have all this confusion. If we'd called it a > > > war in the first place we wouldn't now be arguing over exactly when > > > "terrorist" acts become acts of war.
> > That was exactly my thinking after the initial shock of 9/11 abated. > > At a time when the US really needed a good (if not great) president, > > GWB was a mediocre one at best. I had never had high hopes for him in > > the 1st place, & even I was disappointed.
> > JM
> I keep harping on the fact, belief, whatever, that theJawbreaker > people could have gotten bin Ladin in December 2001 with a small > amount of effort from Washington. Perhaps not Presidential, maybe only > CIA but they thought they had him and no one blocked his exit from > Tora Bora.
Just saw a video on Rachel Mddow's show, George W. Bush on December 14, 2001 saying he would get Osama dead or alive. Jawbreaker requested 800 American troops on December 7. The request was never answered.
> On Oct 31, 10:13 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> > wrote:
> > On Oct 31, 11:05 am, John Mianowski <jo...@boreal.org> wrote:
> > > On Oct 31, 9:29 am, Arved Sandstrom <dces...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > ...
> > > > Personally I think it was a mistake that Bush did not declare war on the > > > > Taliban; rather it became just another part of this featureless "War on > > > > Terrorism", which is nothing of the sort since no war has been legally > > > > declared. Being evasive and mealymouthed about what you're trying to do, > > > > and labelling people as terrorists, which is also what Bush decided to > > > > do, is precisely why we now have all this confusion. If we'd called it a > > > > war in the first place we wouldn't now be arguing over exactly when > > > > "terrorist" acts become acts of war.
> > > That was exactly my thinking after the initial shock of 9/11 abated. > > > At a time when the US really needed a good (if not great) president, > > > GWB was a mediocre one at best. I had never had high hopes for him in > > > the 1st place, & even I was disappointed.
> > > JM
> > I keep harping on the fact, belief, whatever, that theJawbreaker > > people could have gotten bin Ladin in December 2001 with a small > > amount of effort from Washington. Perhaps not Presidential, maybe only > > CIA but they thought they had him and no one blocked his exit from > > Tora Bora.
> Just saw a video on Rachel Mddow's show, George W. Bush on December > 14, 2001 saying he would get Osama dead or alive. Jawbreaker requested > 800 American troops on December 7. The request was never answered.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
And Rachel Maddow doesn't have an agenda? Right.....considering she's a protege of Keith Olbermann (who should've stuck to being a sportscaster, IMHO).
> On Nov 3, 6:28 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > On Oct 31, 10:13 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> > > wrote:
> > > On Oct 31, 11:05 am, John Mianowski <jo...@boreal.org> wrote:
> > > > On Oct 31, 9:29 am, Arved Sandstrom <dces...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > ...
> > > > > Personally I think it was a mistake that Bush did not declare war on the > > > > > Taliban; rather it became just another part of this featureless "War on > > > > > Terrorism", which is nothing of the sort since no war has been legally > > > > > declared. Being evasive and mealymouthed about what you're trying to do, > > > > > and labelling people as terrorists, which is also what Bush decided to > > > > > do, is precisely why we now have all this confusion. If we'd called it a > > > > > war in the first place we wouldn't now be arguing over exactly when > > > > > "terrorist" acts become acts of war.
> > > > That was exactly my thinking after the initial shock of 9/11 abated. > > > > At a time when the US really needed a good (if not great) president, > > > > GWB was a mediocre one at best. I had never had high hopes for him in > > > > the 1st place, & even I was disappointed.
> > > > JM
> > > I keep harping on the fact, belief, whatever, that theJawbreaker > > > people could have gotten bin Ladin in December 2001 with a small > > > amount of effort from Washington. Perhaps not Presidential, maybe only > > > CIA but they thought they had him and no one blocked his exit from > > > Tora Bora.
> > Just saw a video on Rachel Mddow's show, George W. Bush on December > > 14, 2001 saying he would get Osama dead or alive. Jawbreaker requested > > 800 American troops on December 7. The request was never answered.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> And Rachel Maddow doesn't have an agenda? Right.....considering she's > a protege of Keith Olbermann (who should've stuck to being a > sportscaster, IMHO).
She aired the video, I drew the parallel between the dates Gary Berntsen asked for the extra men and the date of Bush's statement to the world. The reason we are in Afghanistan seems to be in question, the fact that Osama bin Ladin is apparently holed up in Pakistan 8 years after Bush's speech seems relevant. If you can't handle it, go lock on to Fox, they would never air that Bush video.
Olbermann signed a four-year contract a year ago raising his pay from $4m to $7.5 a year. Somewhat better than the $650,000 he made at MSNBC in 1997. He does football on NBC's Sunday night show before the NFL game. I think he has accomplished something few others have, an independence from politically correct management.
> On Nov 3, 1:22 pm, Matt Wiser <mattwiser...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 6:28 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > On Oct 31, 10:13 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Oct 31, 11:05 am, John Mianowski <jo...@boreal.org> wrote:
> > > > > On Oct 31, 9:29 am, Arved Sandstrom <dces...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > ...
> > > > > > Personally I think it was a mistake that Bush did not declare war on the > > > > > > Taliban; rather it became just another part of this featureless "War on > > > > > > Terrorism", which is nothing of the sort since no war has been legally > > > > > > declared. Being evasive and mealymouthed about what you're trying to do, > > > > > > and labelling people as terrorists, which is also what Bush decided to > > > > > > do, is precisely why we now have all this confusion. If we'd called it a > > > > > > war in the first place we wouldn't now be arguing over exactly when > > > > > > "terrorist" acts become acts of war.
> > > > > That was exactly my thinking after the initial shock of 9/11 abated. > > > > > At a time when the US really needed a good (if not great) president, > > > > > GWB was a mediocre one at best. I had never had high hopes for him in > > > > > the 1st place, & even I was disappointed.
> > > > > JM
> > > > I keep harping on the fact, belief, whatever, that theJawbreaker > > > > people could have gotten bin Ladin in December 2001 with a small > > > > amount of effort from Washington. Perhaps not Presidential, maybe only > > > > CIA but they thought they had him and no one blocked his exit from > > > > Tora Bora.
> > > Just saw a video on Rachel Mddow's show, George W. Bush on December > > > 14, 2001 saying he would get Osama dead or alive. Jawbreaker requested > > > 800 American troops on December 7. The request was never answered.- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > And Rachel Maddow doesn't have an agenda? Right.....considering she's > > a protege of Keith Olbermann (who should've stuck to being a > > sportscaster, IMHO).
> She aired the video, I drew the parallel between the dates Gary > Berntsen asked for the extra men and the date of Bush's statement to > the world. The reason we are in Afghanistan seems to be in question, > the fact that Osama bin Ladin is apparently holed up in Pakistan 8 > years after Bush's speech seems relevant. If you can't handle it, go > lock on to Fox, they would never air that Bush video.
> Olbermann signed a four-year contract a year ago raising his pay from > $4m to $7.5 a year. Somewhat better than the $650,000 he made at > MSNBC in 1997. He does football on NBC's Sunday night show before the > NFL game. I think he has accomplished something few others have, an > independence from politically correct management.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
He should've stuck to being a sportscaster, because when it comes to sports, he does do a pretty decent job. It's his political stuff I can't stomach.
> > > > > > > Personally I think it was a mistake that Bush did not declare war on the > > > > > > > Taliban; rather it became just another part of this featureless "War on > > > > > > > Terrorism", which is nothing of the sort since no war has been legally > > > > > > > declared. Being evasive and mealymouthed about what you're trying to do, > > > > > > > and labelling people as terrorists, which is also what Bush decided to > > > > > > > do, is precisely why we now have all this confusion. If we'd called it a > > > > > > > war in the first place we wouldn't now be arguing over exactly when > > > > > > > "terrorist" acts become acts of war.
> > > > > > That was exactly my thinking after the initial shock of 9/11 abated. > > > > > > At a time when the US really needed a good (if not great) president, > > > > > > GWB was a mediocre one at best. I had never had high hopes for him in > > > > > > the 1st place, & even I was disappointed.
> > > > > > JM
> > > > > I keep harping on the fact, belief, whatever, that theJawbreaker > > > > > people could have gotten bin Ladin in December 2001 with a small > > > > > amount of effort from Washington. Perhaps not Presidential, maybe only > > > > > CIA but they thought they had him and no one blocked his exit from > > > > > Tora Bora.
> > > > Just saw a video on Rachel Mddow's show, George W. Bush on December > > > > 14, 2001 saying he would get Osama dead or alive. Jawbreaker requested > > > > 800 American troops on December 7. The request was never answered.- Hide quoted text -
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > And Rachel Maddow doesn't have an agenda? Right.....considering she's > > > a protege of Keith Olbermann (who should've stuck to being a > > > sportscaster, IMHO).
> > She aired the video, I drew the parallel between the dates Gary > > Berntsen asked for the extra men and the date of Bush's statement to > > the world. The reason we are in Afghanistan seems to be in question, > > the fact that Osama bin Ladin is apparently holed up in Pakistan 8 > > years after Bush's speech seems relevant. If you can't handle it, go > > lock on to Fox, they would never air that Bush video.
> > Olbermann signed a four-year contract a year ago raising his pay from > > $4m to $7.5 a year. Somewhat better than the $650,000 he made at > > MSNBC in 1997. He does football on NBC's Sunday night show before the > > NFL game. I think he has accomplished something few others have, an > > independence from politically correct management.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> He should've stuck to being a sportscaster, because when it comes to > sports, he does do a pretty decent job. It's his political stuff I > can't stomach.
Take a Pepto, or glory in yesterday's Republican cum conservative victory.
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 18:34:27 -0800 (PST), Matt Wiser
<mattwiser...@yahoo.com> wrote: >He should've stuck to being a sportscaster, because when it comes to >sports, he does do a pretty decent job. It's his political stuff I >can't stomach.
Yoou mean Ronald Reagan, the best pay by play man WHO radio, Des Moines, ever had. He should have stuck with it.
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 18:34:27 -0800 (PST), Matt Wiser ><mattwiser...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>He should've stuck to being a sportscaster, because when it comes to >>sports, he does do a pretty decent job. It's his political stuff I >>can't stomach.
> Yoou mean Ronald Reagan, the best pay by play man WHO radio, Des > Moines, ever had. He should have stuck with it.
> Casady
Sorry,but Reagan is widely credited with the fall of the Soviet Union,and initiating ballistic missile defense in the US.
> > On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 18:34:27 -0800 (PST), Matt Wiser > ><mattwiser...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>He should've stuck to being a sportscaster, because when it comes to > >>sports, he does do a pretty decent job. It's his political stuff I > >>can't stomach.
> > Yoou mean Ronald Reagan, the best pay by play man WHO radio, Des > > Moines, ever had. He should have stuck with it.
> > Casady
> Sorry,but Reagan is widely credited with the fall of the Soviet Union,and > initiating ballistic missile defense in the US.
> -- > Jim Yanik > jyanik > at > localnet > dot com
So I guess all that stuff back in the 60s and 1972 was playing around?
Jack Linthicum wrote: >> > Olbermann signed a four-year contract a year ago raising his pay >> > from $4m to $7.5 a year. Somewhat better than the $650,000 he made >> > at MSNBC in 1997. He does football on NBC's Sunday night show >> > before the NFL game. I think he has accomplished something few >> > others have, an independence from politically correct management.-
>> He should've stuck to being a sportscaster, because when it comes to >> sports, he does do a pretty decent job. It's his political stuff I >> can't stomach.
> Take a Pepto, or glory in yesterday's Republican cum conservative > victory.
>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 18:34:27 -0800 (PST), Matt Wiser >> <mattwiser...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> He should've stuck to being a sportscaster, because when it comes to >>> sports, he does do a pretty decent job. It's his political stuff I >>> can't stomach. >> Yoou mean Ronald Reagan, the best pay by play man WHO radio, Des >> Moines, ever had. He should have stuck with it.
>> Casady
> Sorry,but Reagan is widely credited with the fall of the Soviet Union,and > initiating ballistic missile defense in the US.
Reagan is widely credited with the fall of the Soviet Union, yes. Doesn't change the fact that he had little to do with it. The US, over the nearly fifty years of the Cold War, certainly contributed to the demise of the fUSSR and the Warsaw Pact, but what the US did wasn't the major factor, and to believe that what a president did or didn't do in the '80's _was_ the major factor runs entirely contrary to actual fact.
Just as one example, the June 1976 protests in Poland and the rise of Solidarity in the same country, starting with its founding in 1980, are several indicators of social currents right across the entire Communist bloc that had everything to do with what happened roughly a decade later. And you don't seriously believe Reagan had anything to do with those events, do you?
On Nov 5, 4:35 am, Arved Sandstrom <dces...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Just as one example, the June 1976 protests in Poland and the rise of > Solidarity in the same country, starting with its founding in 1980, are > several indicators of social currents right across the entire Communist > bloc that had everything to do with what happened roughly a decade > later. And you don't seriously believe Reagan had anything to do with > those events, do you?
Lech Walesa seemed to think RR had something to do with it, from 2004. ... I often wondered why Ronald Reagan did this, taking the risks he did, in supporting us at Solidarity, as well as dissident movements in other countries behind the Iron Curtain, while pushing a defense buildup that pushed the Soviet economy over the brink. Let's remember that it was a time of recession in the U.S. and a time when the American public was more interested in their own domestic affairs. It took a leader with a vision to convince them that there are greater things worth fighting for. Did he seek any profit in such a policy? Though our freedom movements were in line with the foreign policy of the United States, I doubt it.
I distinguish between two kinds of politicians. There are those who view politics as a tactical game, a game in which they do not reveal any individuality, in which they lose their own face. There are, however, leaders for whom politics is a means of defending and furthering values. For them, it is a moral pursuit. They do so because the values they cherish are endangered. They're convinced that there are values worth living for, and even values worth dying for. Otherwise they would consider their life and work pointless. Only such politicians are great politicians and Ronald Reagan was one of them. ...
Like it or not, many in Poland(and other areas too) credit him, along with Margret Thatcher and John Paul II, for reducing Communism.
On Nov 5, 8:18 am, mike <marat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Oh, and Gorby, for not starting WWIII over it.
In my reading and thinking about this issue, this seems to me to be the key point. Gorbachev's decision that it was better for the Warsaw Pact to fall than to go to war to protect it was neither inevitable nor expected by many observers at the time. Everything that Reagan and Thatcher ever did would have been undone had Gorbachev made the decision to do a Czechoslovakia-68 or Hungary-56 again.
And I'm honestly not sure of how much a factor the leaders of the US and Britain played in Gorbi's calculations on whether to use troops or not. It's hard to read his mind on this, but I suspect that the ongoing fiasco in Afghanistan played a large role in his calculations (if the Soviet Army couldn't handle those Afghans, could they handle Poland?). And that fiasco wasn't because of US support; the US didn't start ramping up it's support for the Mujahedin until after Gorbi had told the generals they had one year and then it was time to start withdrawing. (That was 1985, the same year the US funneled 250 million through Pakistan's ICI- more money than they had given since 1979 combined, that is really the start of major US involvement in Afghanistan, but it never grew that large.)
In short, I think that the more or less peaceful break up of the Soviet Bloc had much more to do with Gorbachev than anything that Western Leaders did.
> On Nov 5, 8:18 am, mike <marat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Oh, and Gorby, for not starting WWIII over it.
> In my reading and thinking about this issue, this seems to me to be > the key point. Gorbachev's decision that it was better for the Warsaw > Pact to fall than to go to war to protect it was neither inevitable > nor expected by many observers at the time. Everything that Reagan and > Thatcher ever did would have been undone had Gorbachev made the > decision to do a Czechoslovakia-68 or Hungary-56 again.
> And I'm honestly not sure of how much a factor the leaders of the US > and Britain played in Gorbi's calculations on whether to use troops or > not. It's hard to read his mind on this, but I suspect that the > ongoing fiasco in Afghanistan played a large role in his calculations > (if the Soviet Army couldn't handle those Afghans, could they handle > Poland?). And that fiasco wasn't because of US support; the US didn't > start ramping up it's support for the Mujahedin until after Gorbi had > told the generals they had one year and then it was time to start > withdrawing. (That was 1985, the same year the US funneled 250 million > through Pakistan's ICI- more money than they had given since 1979 > combined, that is really the start of major US involvement in > Afghanistan, but it never grew that large.)
> In short, I think that the more or less peaceful break up of the > Soviet Bloc had much more to do with Gorbachev than anything that > Western Leaders did.
> Chris Manteuffel
You have to add in the Pope, having a Polish Pope at a time when Poland was trying to break free of Soviet rule was an important factor both in Poland and outside.
mike wrote: > On Nov 5, 4:35 am, Arved Sandstrom <dces...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Just as one example, the June 1976 protests in Poland and the rise of >> Solidarity in the same country, starting with its founding in 1980, are >> several indicators of social currents right across the entire Communist >> bloc that had everything to do with what happened roughly a decade >> later. And you don't seriously believe Reagan had anything to do with >> those events, do you?
> Lech Walesa seemed to think RR had something to do with it, > from 2004.
[ SNIP ]
Let's put this in context - this was less than a week after Reagan's death. Walesa is also a former president of Poland. There's no doubt in my mind that Walesa sincerely thought that Reagan made a significant contribution to the fall of the USSR, but (1) Walesa isn't necessarily completely right, and (2) he was hardly going to be less than fulsome and glowing in what was practically a eulogy.
> Like it or not, many in Poland(and other areas too) credit him, > along with Margret Thatcher and John Paul II, for reducing Communism.
> Oh, and Gorby, for not starting WWIII over it.
Reagan and Thatcher do deserve credit. They were important - not as important as some in the West like to think - but important nonetheless. The major contribution that both made, once both had taken the measure of Gorbachev, was to stop being right-wing militaristic hawks, and this is probably what Walesa was alluding to. A lot of Americans believe that it was our colossal military spending and Reagan's "Evil Empire" [1] stand that did the Soviets in - that's completely the opposite of how things really happened. It's all mythology. In fact it was the accommodations that Reagan and Thatcher made in the late '80's that helped the Eastern Europeans successfully negotiate this process that was essentially driven from within, not without.
So I'm not discounting Reagan. I'm making the points that he was simply less important than many would like to believe, and that his actual contribution was entirely of a different nature than what many would like to believe.
AHS
[1] The argument could be made - and has been made - that deep Cold War rhetoric, arms-races, demonization, and sabre-rattling - on both sides - propped up the Communist bloc for much longer than it ought otherwise to have survived. Dictatorships need real or imaginary internal and external enemies to survive, and we in the West gave them an enemy figure that they couldn't have improved upon if they'd tried.
|
