Saturday, January 24, 2009

"Wot" is over - declares Pepe

Yeah, right. If you say so.
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , ,

16 comments:

Mr roT said...

Pretty shameful.

1/24/2009 3:57 AM
Pepe le Pew said...

by design and just like the war on ingrown nails, the wot was meant to keep us in a permanent state of war, with the purpose to justify the scaling back of civil liberties at home and push the WH's agenda of executive power grab.
You boys should be delighted that Obama won't be using it to push his.

1/24/2009 5:28 AM
Tecumseh said...

Drone on, Pepe. Just make a fool of yourself.

1/24/2009 8:51 AM
Pepe le Pew said...

I think it's great that you are holding on to your beliefs even though they have been unequivocally disapproved by your compatriots (not all "pinkos"), who put Obama in place exactly for the purpose of wiping out the corrupt ideology that you find so attractive.

You are now in the ranks of those that still believe Nixon was a great president, use rotary phones, and believe the earth is flat.

1/24/2009 11:17 AM
Tecumseh said...

So your take is, Americans voted for Obama with the express mandate that he capitulate to the head-hackers in the War on Terror? I know the hard core Left devoutly wishes that, and that was part of their mandate for Obama --no question about it, I'll grant you that -- but I very much doubt a majority of the others had that in mind...

1/24/2009 11:24 AM
Arelcao Akleos said...

So,AI, we see that Le Pew fessin' up that Obama's campaign was all an elaborate ruse of The Saudirian Candidate...
... No wonder Obama claimed that American states came in 57 varieties.

1/24/2009 11:30 AM
Pepe le Pew said...

Americans voted for Obama with the express mandate that he capitulate to the head-hackers in the War on Terror?

No - Americans voted to end the exploitation of 9/11 to promote a domestic agenda. Calling the "wot" over isn't capitulating - it's reframing it in a policy consistent with the Geneva Convention.

The "wot" was created to bypass the GC: as you pointed out many times, it does not apply to non-uniformed combatants. But the wot targeted specifically non-uniformed wackos and was therefore an attempt at casting the war outside of the bounds of international law.
However, there is really no reason to treat a bunch of relatively harmless head-hackers differently than nuclear soviets, but that's what was done (note that I am not saying that IM is harmless, just that it is relative to the threat of nuclear enemies). Ending the "wot" is just going to do this: recast the fight against IM within the bounds of international law. Not capitulating to the wackos like you like to cast it.
Americans will look civilized again and we'll all be better for it.

1/24/2009 12:35 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...

Gee, that is why Le Pew is happy that IM is powerful in countries that possess, or soon will possess, nuclear weapons. That way he has "realpolitik" cover for his submission.
So relatively harmless headhackers with their magnificent radiant machines are not to be fought against when you had the opportunity, because the whole point of PP is to deny us that opportunity and make the world safe for the headhackers to rule over us.
Nice. Frank. Als Klahr.

1/24/2009 12:47 PM
Pepe le Pew said...

the whole point of PP is to deny us that opportunity and make the world safe for the headhackers to rule over us

Actually, international law was instituted to make the world safer. The notion that bypassing is preferable, that the United States ought to be able to operate outside of its bounds for the greater good is frightening.
Incidentally, this is the actual core of our disagreement.

1/24/2009 2:10 PM
Tecumseh said...

Pepe: you're just tying yourself up in knots with your sophistries. All this orotund posturing is simply a transparent cover leaf for capitulating to the enemy. As for the US bypassing international law in its prosecution of the War on Terror -- this is just an invidious canard by the God Damn the US of KKK A crowd, which you are slavishly parroting.

1/24/2009 2:50 PM
Pepe le Pew said...

simply a transparent cover leaf for capitulating to the enemy

Name one reason why the AQ wackos should be treated any differently than the soviets.

Yours is a transparent cover to beat up on muslims.

1/24/2009 4:03 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...

It was a cold war with the Soviets, it is a hot war with Islam Militant. If it had been a hot war with the Soviets, in those days we would have been sane enough to fight the bloody war and place the idjits who'd advise us to approach it as an internal legal matter in the path of the Soviets line of attack and let them plead their cause to the sympathetic ears of the Red Army.
However, given the current triumph of those Pepean idjits, it's a damn good thing the Soviets aren't around [or, at least not yet resurrected by the Putinistas]

1/25/2009 1:19 AM
Pepe le Pew said...

It's not about whether or not to fight. it's about whether or not to fight legally. Not kicking your opponent in the balls during a boxing match doesn't mean you are refusing to fight.

1/25/2009 12:07 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...

That's the whole point, gerbil. War is not a matter of a crime internal to the nation, it is not bound to any legal system. If a nation wishes to choose to regulate its conduct of war, for itself, well fine, but its enemies are under no legal obligation to reciprocate.
Which is bloody obvious.
Number of American or Israeli prisoners returned alive by IM against Israel or the US in the last three decades? None. Pepe finds this most unworthy of note. IM is just doing good works.
Number of IM prisoners returned alive by Israel or the US in the last three decades? Almost all. Pepe finds this horrific and bays for the Hague [apparently, and comically, the Moral Center of PlanetaryLaw to PP] to clobber us and haul Neocons and Bushites and "Neocons" and Rabinites in chains to crucifiction.
The difference is guided purely by each sides judgements as to how to fight a war, and nothing to do with a legal writ over the conduct of war. The Bill of Rights is for citizens or legal residents of this country, and nothing to do with fighting the enemy. On the other side, Sharia is for the conduct of the Ummah and not a guide as to how to fight War [that is described in Islam, but it isn't part of Sharia].
What about the Geneva convention, you say? The Geneva convention sets up "law", such as it is, only for armed, marked, combatants of nations who have signed the geneva convention. IM may be armed, it rarely is marked, and never ever a signee of the Geneva convention. We are under no legal obligation to follow the Geneva convention in this war. To the extent we do, it is purely a matter of will and not obligation.

1/25/2009 12:35 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...

So, if you are fighting against an enemy who sees this war as a total one, and one without end unto victory, and we refuse to fight it as a war and hope it can be swept under the rug as a police matter, and then all hell blows up with that policy on 9/11, and we STILL refuse to fight it as a war? Then, yes, we are refusing to fight it. We surrender the battlefield uncontested
And we are lost.

What do you think the imprisoning of people in Eurabia, [who "offend Islam"] means except that the leadership of those nations have chosen to surrender preemptively to the enemy?
Given a choice between preserving democracy and the notion of the rights of man [ and so obligated to fight against those who would destroy it], or simply giving up and choosing to join with the destruction of that democracy and those rights of men, these Pepe-ites [in Holland, Belgium, Sweden, England, Austria, Germany, Canada, and the list is growing as fast in the West as it did in Asia], these Lords of Versailles, have surrendered to the tyrants of the future with the condition that they be allowed to join 'em. They are Vichy, and Eurabia is their Reich, and you are its Messenger.

1/25/2009 12:39 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...

Boy.

1/25/2009 12:40 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)