Join 3,564 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Frontline on the frontline.
May 17, 2009 9:11 AM   Subscribe

Children of the Taliban.

More info on the homepage, including this slideshow on women's issues in Afghanistan.
posted by gman (38 comments total) 4 users marked this as a favorite

 
Whatever else you want to say about the Taliban, at least when they massacre civilians, they get their own hands dirty.

When we murder 95 children, we prefer to do it by remote control.
posted by Joe Beese at 9:31 AM on May 17, 2009


at least when they massacre civilians, they get their own hands dirty

I'd never thought about moral superiority in this way. It gives me an entirely new perspective on the Khmer Rouge, Augusto Pinochet, John Wayne Gacy, and others that I had so vilified. (You know who else I had vilified?)
posted by found missing at 9:40 AM on May 17, 2009 [3 favorites]


Hard line religion, obscurantism, fear mongering.

Pretty much like that model saying that homosexual couples shouldn't be able to marry or other people saying that abortion and contraception should be prohibited, that poor people deserve being poor, that it is ok to kill for your own country and going to war is ok when it's a sacred crusade, that atheists are not citizens, that don't shed a cry when freshly built houses are being bulldozed when people are out in the cold, that welfare is socialism disguised, that unions are evil but 80% of the wealth in the hands of 5% or less then the population makes sense..... it's quite a long list.

Guess that talibans, even before being despised, should be taken as a reminder that we may fervently believe we are doing everything right and that we are on top of the world, while an unbiased check would reveal we have serious shortcomings to fix, before taking the moral high ground.
posted by elpapacito at 10:06 AM on May 17, 2009


It isn't a zero-sum game. I can despise Taliban values, oppression, etc., while also despising religious stupidism in my own country/culture.
posted by found missing at 10:14 AM on May 17, 2009


As the world follows the violence and unrest in Pakistan, Bill Moyers speaks with historian Juan Cole and journalist Shahan Mufti about how the US's relationship with the troubled nation will impact prospects for peace, human rights, and democracy in the war-torn region.
posted by homunculus at 10:21 AM on May 17, 2009


Whatever else you want to say about the Taliban, at least when they massacre civilians, they get their own hands dirty.

Oh, gee, I sure wish we were more like the Taliban.

Thanks for the links, gman.
posted by lullaby at 10:42 AM on May 17, 2009


A terrible situation, but important to know about.
posted by voltairemodern at 10:47 AM on May 17, 2009


I can't help but watch this and wonder just what the hell kind of solution there is.

I'm not a pacifist per se. I'm highly skeptical of American Imperialist aims. But I also harbor absolutely no love for religious fundamentalists.

And while I tend towards a Taoist perspective in the sense that appears as action/reaction -- and the best route is one that is Yin, passive, yielding... The way the Taleban use our infliction of civilian casualties (intentional or not, is irrelevant to them -- dead is dead) indicates that it would be a better route to not strike.

At the same time, I have no doubts that they would use the time of "peace" in order to gain strength and grow their authoritarian rule ever more.

So what the fuck kind of solution is there? I mean of course, same as it ever was. But Jesus.

I'm a firm believer that people have to save themselves... And I guess that's all I can hope.

The story of the two best friends who were holding hands, but then both said "yeah, I'd kill him if we came in combat with each other" (one wanting to be Pakistani Army, the other wanting to be Taleban)... Just... Fucking Awful.

One thing I didn't like is when she said the kids name was "Shaheed" and said "that means 'Martyr'" -- it may be that it means it in the sense we tend to interpret Martyr, but ultimately it means "Witness". The same meaning as Martyr. I don't think Shaheed means "suicide bomber", and to imply that is a little disingenuous. Just a nitpick, really, and it's all semantics, so whatever.
posted by symbioid at 11:27 AM on May 17, 2009


The Taliban stuff starts at 24 minutes. It is really surreal to see such pre-modern idealogies (I wouldn't call it a theology as much as a sort of militant version of Luddites, it is not that they are accepting their religion without Enlightenment baggage like late Antiquity Christianity, I wouldn't say this is Emperor Justinian rejecting and punishing Monophysitianism, this is outright rebellion against the last 200-300 years, clearly an untenable position outside of the poorest, least educated tribal ages). You get into all sorts of Pynchon like narratives when you have this rejection of modern society firing at invisible planes which no one can see, but are assuredly there, somewhere, only to be hit by missiles, only to them they are less like missiles and more like explosions that seems to hit with complete randomness and without any sort of predictive ability. It would come off more as God smiting his children for misdeeds than a nation-state waging a war... blow up a convoy? 3 hours later, boom explosion and you're gone.

It is an untenable position, drones and automated warfare are great inventions but I'd be pretty pissed if I was sitting in my village and my neighbors house exploded. Did I know they were up to no good? Probably, but did I know they just came from blowing up a convoy? No, which is why we developed a justice system and why if we can target these people with such precision for it to be considered an assassination we should probably be going in SWAT style and pulling them out and putting them on trial. Short term military gains don't necessarily lead to more stable societies in the longterm.
posted by geoff. at 12:10 PM on May 17, 2009


I feel sorry for all of the normal people just trying to live their lives, but this doesn't surprise me at all. Pakistan was a mistake from the very start, and this is the natural progression of anti-hindustan eating itself.
posted by Meatbomb at 12:11 PM on May 17, 2009


Survey says majority of the local people support the US drone attacks.

Some commentary on the survey:
The results of this survey tally closely with the sentiments of the Pashtuns that I speak to but are vastly different from the views of non-Pashtuns in Pakistan. Therefore, it is quite evident that a disconnection is emerging on the value and necessity of drone attacks between the affected Pashtuns and the more distanced rest of Pakistan. While non-Pashtuns may view the drones as a violation of Pakistani sovereignty, Pashtuns increasingly argue that the areas being targeted are not under the control of the Pakistani government and the writ of the state is already absent there. Thus, for them, it is a choice between being left to the will of the militants or facing minimal collateral damage from the drones but still maintaining the hope that the stranglehold of the militants may dissipate and life return to some form of normalcy.

The distance for most of us, I presume, is even greater.

You may of course question the reliability and validity of this study, given how difficult it would be to replicate in such an environment, but it would be fairly arrogant to simply stick to one's assumptions of local opinion unless you have real evidence going against the results.
posted by Anything at 1:24 PM on May 17, 2009


I was going to attempt another FPP yesterday, but chickened out. This seems like an opportune moment to share my links, though:

Legalize opium, like Portugal did. Provide a medical alternative. The Taliban goes bankrupt and can no longer hire the impoverished.

There is no way to accommodate the Taliban's desire to subjugate women in this modern world. As other countries done before, the military rebels claiming to be protecting their ethnic people will need to be “handled”… or maybe it goes on forever… or perhaps they can negotiate a tribal settlement. Either way, in the tribal territories off Pakistan's top left flank we've got a serious threat that was heading for the nukes. They will kill for the right to enact sharia law.

It would be wise to take some of the savings gained by finally being done with an expensive land war in Asia and put it toward education and security for some of the poorest people in this world. Low short-term costs and high long-term gains: these people are so broke-ass that it will cost a pittance to do the right thing.

Credit to Husain Haqqani in his Daily Show interview for inspiring that line of thought. But he isn't to blame for the links in this post nor the way I've expressed them, and I do not it is representative of his interview at all.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:51 PM on May 17, 2009 [3 favorites]


Speaking of drones, I think they're going to end up being the Best Thing Ever for border control.

The USA could solve its problems on the Mexican border easily: put up a razor wire fence exactly on the border. Pour fifty yards of concrete, install a ditch 20' deep and 40' wide, pour another fifty yards concrete, and put up another razor wire fence.

Drones would patrol the ditch and anything with body temperature would be annihilated, no hesitation whatsoever.

Most of the problem of illegal immigration over the Mexican border would be solved. The only humans that would be killed would be suicidal nutcases. No rational person would expect to survive an attempt.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:58 PM on May 17, 2009 [1 favorite]


FFF, your drone army would easily be circumvented by tunnels (which are already becoming a big problem with eyes on the border) and people running with thermal blankets covering them. In the hot desert you really only have to lower your temperature to ambient fauna levels.

Not to mention the problems you have when one of the dozens of drones you have running 24/7 get a short in their GPS and start patrolling 4 miles north and suddenly you have half a city block leveled by robots, great PR.
posted by geoff. at 4:22 PM on May 17, 2009 [1 favorite]


Monitoring devices are easily installed under the trench. It can be made damn difficult to sneak a tunnel under it.

The drones can use any number of techniques to ensure they are in the right place. They can follow retroreflective dots placed down the center of the trench. They can use visual recognition to ensure they are flying between two fifty-yard expanses of concrete. They can use radar to ensure they are flying over a twenty-foot trench. They can use radio signal to ensure they are above an embedded antenna. They can use RFID to ensure they are in their proper locale.

The drones can detect body temperature and movement. Radar in the trench can supplement their spy capabilities. Etcetera.

I think you are hard pressed to come up with any sound arguments as to why a drone-enforced No Man's Land would not work.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:29 PM on May 17, 2009


The same technology would probably go over well in separating any number of warring factions. It would put an end to cross-border raids. Removing the threat of incursions would help a lot of struggling countries get back on their feet.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:35 PM on May 17, 2009


How hard is it to shoot down a drone that is patrolling a narrow strip?
posted by found missing at 4:38 PM on May 17, 2009


How hard is it to shoot down a drone that is patrolling a narrow strip?

According to this factsheet, a USAF MQ-1 Predator drone has a ceiling of 25,000 feet. According to this NY Times article, only four have ever been shot down (in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraq).

So, probably pretty hard.
posted by lullaby at 4:50 PM on May 17, 2009


Oh, good to know. But, I imagine those free ranging drones are harder to shoot down than would be a drone flying in a predictable zone. Still, if the drones can stay at high altitudes, that would protect them from surface-to-air fire. Can drones hit ground targets reliably from high altitude?
posted by found missing at 4:59 PM on May 17, 2009


A spy drone can call in a high-speed hunting drone.

There are only two parts to this puzzle: accurate detection and safe elimination. I do not for a moment believe that we do not have the technology to accomplish this to perfection.

Related to this idea, tunnelbots are being used to map and clean-out cross-border tunnels.

Seems to me that while building a trench, it wouldn't be altogether too difficult to detect tunnels at the same time. And to drop sensors at a deep level as well near the surface.

This would make an excellent Public Works Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Returning Vets Employment, etceteras public work project. It would employ a lot of skilled and unskilled blue-collar labourers, white-collar civil engineering specialists, and research and development eggheads, plus keep the military corporations gainfully employed creating and building new autonomous, automatic weaponry.

And it should be done as openly and publically as possible. First and foremost, it would help prevent the criminal underworld from creating opportunities to implement weaknesses and faults in the system.

Secondly, it would help prevent this from being interpreted as an Evil project: it does, in the end, have the goal of purposefully, arbitrarily killing people. But with open process, it becomes open knowledge that the only those people who are killed made an informed, deliberate choice to have themselves killed: it is an act of suicide, not murder.

And thirdly, I think an open process would make it safer and cheaper. It's easier to find design flaws, develop safety regulations, and monitor expenses when everything is laid out open to the public.

Hell, build the first implementation somewhere in Iraq. Give the Kurds a homeland by cutting them off from Turkey and Iraq. Secure the mid-East against Pakistan's tribal territories. Whatever. No one here is going to get too upset if the prototype kills a bunch of mid-East foreigners. And actually securing the hell out of those borders would be a huge step toward developing peace between tribal territories and nations.

The more I think about it, the more I can only see huge good coming of an accurately-defined, well-marked drone-patrolled merciless No Man's Land between warring factions.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:44 PM on May 17, 2009


Still, if the drones can stay at high altitudes, that would protect them from surface-to-air fire.

Those are some mighty aggressive Mexicans you're thinking about there. They'd have to be some serious about getting across the land border.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:45 PM on May 17, 2009


I was thinking of this comment of yours when I made that comment:

The same technology would probably go over well in separating any number of warring factions. It would put an end to cross-border raids. Removing the threat of incursions would help a lot of struggling countries get back on their feet.

Although I'm sure Mexican drug cartels will have stinger missiles sooner or later.
posted by found missing at 6:30 PM on May 17, 2009


I am certain they already do, and more.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:41 PM on May 17, 2009


That's a pretty frightening scenario of soulless state control over entire populations. Also, politically unpalatable for any number of reasons. Not the least of which is that it involves setting up robots to automatically murder people for crossing an imaginary line without proper documentation. Maybe instead of dreaming up ways to machine-gun poor people for trying to build a better life for themselves and their families, we could legalize immigration and/or work permits for everyone who isn't a felon, a terrorist, or carrying some terrible contagious disease?

/end of derail
posted by skoosh at 10:36 PM on May 17, 2009 [1 favorite]


it involves setting up robots to automatically murder people for crossing an imaginary line without proper documentation

I fail to see anything imaginary about it. It seems like an exceedingly literal definition of a national border. Throw a design competition for the equivalent "do not enter" visual symbolic language that will stand the test of time. Like they did for Yucca Mountain.

I think landscape of thorns would speak pretty loudly that this is a no-shit, do-not-enter, omgwtfbbq literal, physical, visual, primal-speaking line that ensures one can be very liberal with allowing people into the country in a controlled, documented manner as befits modern nations.

And come to think of it, I don't think I'd be particularly offended if they put up a similar No Man's Land along the border with Canada. I might even be grateful for it. Hell, if it comes to that, I think Canada should participate in its design and construction and funding. A whole lot of bad comes up from the USA, to the point that it is a problem for Canada (guns, gangs, drugs); and a whole lot of bad goes down to the USA (a lot of pot you really should be growing yourselves.)

As far as I can see, there are only benefits to myself and my nation when the Canadian border is secure. As a Canadian citizen who respects the national border I already do the security rigamoral when I cross into the USA (and fear being denied for having said something here), just like I do it when I visit a European or Asian country. A truly secure border is pure win for me; I'm never going to try to bypass it even if I am pissed off that I can't get to Disneyland.

Now were I a Mexican wanting to improve my life, I am certain I'd very much want to cross the USA border regardless America's desire to say whether or not I get in. A border like that would be a frustration of the direct attempt. Either I'd end up having to do the usual security rigamoral, and maybe be disallowed entry; or I'd have to do some sort of special agreement that ensures I leave the country again (same as with Canadians); or I'd have to look for another way to bypass the border. Invest in small submarine stocks if a truly secure land border is developed.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:48 PM on May 17, 2009


Oh, and to the concern that lay behind your mischaracterization (murder? no, suicide.) —

Maybe instead of dreaming up ways to machine-gun poor people for trying to build a better life for themselves and their families, we could legalize immigration and/or work permits for everyone who isn't a felon, a terrorist, or carrying some terrible contagious disease?

I think that with a truly secure border, you would in fact have exactly that.

There is no reason everyone who legitimately respects the law of the foreign nation in which they are entering, can not be allowed into the USA. A truly secure border does not in the least infringe upon people who respect national borders.

The situation in Mexico does truly suck for a lot of people, and I agree that it will continue to suck for those who rely on a permeable border as a plausible means of escape from their impoverished, desperate status.

At the same time, the USA as a nation needs its borders to be less permeable. Not just because of drugs and guns and depraved human trafficking, but also because it needs to be populated by full citizens, not an illegal, impoverished, underground worker class that is one step shy of being a caste of slaves. Which is where you're headed with a permeable border that is being massively disregarded.

IMO, YMMV. Maybe you think you can continue to add a half-million illegal immigrants a year to your population of some 15 million unregistered, uninsured, unprotected low-paid workers and come out ahead. I hope you're right, but I'm skeptical.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:15 AM on May 18, 2009


Gee, FFF, I didn't know you were such a chicken-shit, to wish to spend so much money and effort on a few poor folks sneaking over a desert border. Damn.

Here's a better idea: Kill NAFTA, and maybe stop taking so much water from the Colorado River, leaving something for the Mexicans to grow some of their own food.

If the "drug cartels" are what has you shitting your pajamas, then get rid of prohibition. The scary cartels will disappear almost overnight.

If the way cheap immigrant labor effects wages is what bugs you, promote unions. Most of what makes modern life nice, for us common folk, came due to unions (you know, like the 5-day work week, and paid vacations, and paid sick leave).

Just some simple, honorable solutions that I think beat the crap out of gunning down poor people. Oh, and to tell you the truth, the United States doesn't have an illegal immigrant problem anyway. It has an illegal employer problem. Throw the management of the employers in prison, and the practice of hiring undocumented workers will disappear.
posted by Goofyy at 7:31 AM on May 18, 2009 [1 favorite]


Although I'm sure Mexican drug cartels will have stinger missiles sooner or later.

A surface-to-air stinger missile wouldn't be able to hit a drone. The maximum effective range would fall short of a high flying predator drone (or reaper, which has a higher ceiling of 50k feet). So unless we'd be carrying out this hypothetical with Apaches, stinger missiles wouldn't really be a concern.

And apparently the US government already thought of using drones for the border: The unmanned spy plane will provide eyes in the sky for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which currently employs three Predators to monitor the U.S.-Mexican border. Though it seems they have yet to actually send any Hellfire missiles down to greet any illegal border jumpers (uh, not that that's a bad thing).
posted by lullaby at 7:46 AM on May 18, 2009


You have twenty seconds to comply.
posted by flabdablet at 7:53 AM on May 18, 2009 [1 favorite]


Just some simple, honorable solutions that I think beat the crap out of gunning down poor people.

Pardon, I fail to see where I suggest any poor people be gunned down. No one is going to be shot by the drones unless they choose to commit suicide by crossing a clear line.

Killing NAFTA, leaving some water in the river, legalizing drugs, all that stuff should also be done. It is not an either-or scenario.

And what do you offer as a solution? Leave the border permeable, hunt people like dogs, let the fuckers die of dehydration as they try to cross a desert? Hey, that's compassionate. Or maybe you want the border to be opened up completely, install drinking fountains every mile, maybe run a shuttle service! Instead of a 5% illegal population, maybe you can bump it all the way up to 20%!
posted by five fresh fish at 10:11 AM on May 18, 2009


Maybe instead of dreaming up ways to machine-gun poor people for trying to build a better life for themselves and their families, we could legalize immigration and/or work permits for everyone who isn't a felon, a terrorist, or carrying some terrible contagious disease?

I think that with a truly secure border, you would in fact have exactly that.

There is no reason everyone who legitimately respects the law of the foreign nation in which they are entering, can not be allowed into the USA. A truly secure border does not in the least infringe upon people who respect national borders.


Then, we could machine gun all the folks who hire illegal workers. And all the folks who benefit from the labor and money of illegal workers.

Impermeable borders are a fantasy for any country that values civility. The problem with respecting law is that the law has to be respectable. When laws do not reflect reality, people ignore them. This applies to jaywalking, gambling, etc as much as immigration.

And what do you offer as a solution? Leave the border permeable, hunt people like dogs, let the fuckers die of dehydration as they try to cross a desert? Hey, that's compassionate. Or maybe you want the border to be opened up completely, install drinking fountains every mile, maybe run a shuttle service! Instead of a 5% illegal population, maybe you can bump it all the way up to 20%!

De-restrict immigration. There's no reason to cross in the middle of the desert when crossing at an official border crossing carries no penalty. There is no such thing as illegal immigration when immigration is legal. Illegal immigration is one of those things like smoking pot or paying a prostitute, a crime that actually has no victim, which negative effects come from illegality rather than actual harm done. Get the government out of the business of determining the needs of the markets. Protectionism for labor is fundamentally no different than protectionism for cars, steel, or brooms.

Or we can really try your plan. And have folks simply enter the country by overstaying their tourist visas. Then we can restrict tourism to plug that hole. And start building another no man's land on the northern border. All this stuff is completely doable. And cost effective, too...
posted by 2N2222 at 3:55 PM on May 18, 2009 [1 favorite]


But, 2N2222, if we de-restrict immigration, what's to stop us being overrun by (dramatic chord) foreigners?
posted by flabdablet at 4:06 PM on May 18, 2009


Awesome!

How the FUCK did this goddamn thread de-rail from Taleban and Pakistan to the US Border?

Please, what a fucking ridiculous derail. (and I further add to it, I guess, but seriously!?)
posted by symbioid at 4:23 PM on May 18, 2009


To get back on track with the actual, you know, topic of the post:

FFF says we should stop fighting a war in Afghanistan and spend money on schools and shit.

I mean, I love the liberal ideological imperialism there (I'm about 50% snarking and 50% serious)... But how, exactly, do you propose we go in and setup shop? Magically, we just stop fighting and they lay down their arms and Kumbaya? The let us bring in our Western/Secular/Infidel pedagogical material with no questions asked, let us build schools, and they're suddenly our pals?

Nope, we stop going, the Taleban gathers force and continues their march to conquer yet more territory and enslave more minds, more children, and more women... I am so depressed at the intractability of this issue. It breaks my heart. I wish I had an answer. I wish it would be as easy as "peace". Maybe, maybe I make the Taleban too much into the "other".

I also would like to take issue with this idea that somehow the Taleban only gets its support from poor impoverished tribal peoples. The founders of some of the modern Islamic "fundamentalist" (sorry I know that's not the correct term, but don't know the right word) movements had an upper class teaching, went to universities in the United States or Europe, and were repulsed by the secular world. These were people who had access to all kinds of knowledge and yet they were still the forerunners of this modern form of Islamic fundamentalism.

It's a nice progressive myth to believe if only we could bring democracy and education to these people suddenly they won't be willing to bomb for their beliefs. You know, the march of progress! Yay! But I think it's just that. I think it's a form of cultural imperialism, and in fact has no basis in the realities on the ground. I think it shows a lack of respect for autonomy of these regions, and a sort of paternalistic hubris.

I don't have any damn answers. And I wish someone could find something that seemed like it would work.
posted by symbioid at 4:36 PM on May 18, 2009


I mean, I love the liberal ideological imperialism there

The Pakistani Ambassador seems to think it's one helluva good idea. He seemed pretty authentically Pakistani to me, a smart guy who understands how Pakistan has attempted to balance tribal rights with national interests, and who has seen what has succeeded in the past, and acknowledges what has failed. And he was all about the importance of spending money on schools and shit.

The rest of your rants looks like strawman to me. I'm pretty sure I indicated that the militant al Queda/Taliban sect will have to be eliminated. They are willing to go to war, to make a grab for nukes, to ensure they maintain a right to repress the shit out of women. I don't think nations that consider themselves to be civilized can allow that to occur in this world. Universal human rights exist only when we insist upon it.

That said, by far most of the Pakistani Tribal Area is populated by people who want equality and democracy. They made incredible progress, achieving in years what took Western society decades. We should be offering education and support toward sustainable local agriculture, not warring with them.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:52 PM on May 18, 2009


De-restrict immigration. …Illegal immigration is…a crime that actually has no victim, which negative effects come from illegality rather than actual harm done. Get the government out of the business of determining the needs of the markets. Protectionism for labor is fundamentally no different than protectionism for cars, steel, or brooms.

Is all that true? I admit, I could be wrong: maybe having 5% of your population and rising as an underclass is beneficial to the country. I guess if having them as legal citizens, but still subject to shit pay and shit laws, is all that's required to satisfy the needs of the markets, that's what should be done.

The national boundary botwall is an even better idea now that the immigration problem is solved. The only people who are crossing the border in your preferred scenario are trafficking in drugs, weapons, and human slaves. A good national government would put a stop to it.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:19 PM on May 18, 2009


This thread is cold and dead now, but I still want to post this comment. I discussed FFF's idea with some Mexican friends and this is what we figured out.

Drug cartels are running out of gruesome ways to execute opponents. Close the USA border there is a competition to see who is the most brutal. It started with throwing peoples families from tall bridges, moved on to decapitation, and right now is at the slowly lowering into a vat of acid stage of sophistication.

It would be very easy and show really well in web videos to throw your opponent into the no mans zone and see him getting blown up with a 70,000 dollars missile Uncle Sam paid for.

Do it to 20 the same night, mass executions are not rare, and you get DHS to spend a couple million dollars, deplete their ammo and give the smugglers a nice window to pass as many people as possible.

Otherwise, great idea FFF.
posted by dirty lies at 1:54 AM on May 20, 2009


Well, having discovered there are certain other people who appear to think that this would solve a lot of problems, I'm now going to have to stand firmly against it despite having thought I'd come up with a pretty nifty idea.

I can not recall the last time the bible-thumping lunatics succeeded in reducing the world's woes. Sure as hell, if they support it, it'll end up being a disaster. See: Bush's Crusade.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:46 PM on May 20, 2009


« Older If you had to pinpoint today's problem that had no...  |  "In the days surrounding the i... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments