Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
not a big fan of monarchs.
However ruthless tyrants kept a lid on things and eventually tyrants die, there's war, misery and a new tyrant.
well it's been made painfully clear that ruthless tyrants kept the islamists in check. to busy killing each other for crumbs to really bother with the rest of the worldnot a big fan of monarchs.
However ruthless tyrants kept a lid on things and eventually tyrants die, there's war, misery and a new tyrant.
Interesting topic though?
And I did say, the lesser of the evils. It all amounts to that, in the end.
Kings are ignorant azzholes and just as inept as anybody else.Constitutional monarchy is a cornerstone of many stable democracies – so why are we so keen to avoid it in places like Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan?
Why the Middle East needs more kings
well it's been made painfully clear that ruthless tyrants kept the islamists in check. to busy killing each other for crumbs to really bother with the rest of the worldnot a big fan of monarchs.
However ruthless tyrants kept a lid on things and eventually tyrants die, there's war, misery and a new tyrant.
Interesting topic though?
And I did say, the lesser of the evils. It all amounts to that, in the end.
The Czar was a corrupt and inept azzhole who did nothing about starvation among his/her peasants. No different than an inept king/queen.Should of never messed with them, but we couldn't let Russia take Afghanistan I guess. Maybe Afghanistan would of been better off though. Beirut use to be the Paris of the Middle East.
Maybe Russia should have kept the Czar.
uhmmShould of never messed with them, but we couldn't let Russia take Afghanistan I guess. Maybe Afghanistan would of been better off though. Beirut use to be the Paris of the Middle East.
Maybe Russia should have kept the Czar.
sons usually take overwell it's been made painfully clear that ruthless tyrants kept the islamists in check. to busy killing each other for crumbs to really bother with the rest of the worldnot a big fan of monarchs.
However ruthless tyrants kept a lid on things and eventually tyrants die, there's war, misery and a new tyrant.
Interesting topic though?
And I did say, the lesser of the evils. It all amounts to that, in the end.
Interesting conjecture.
But what would have happened when the tyrant died?
GHWB and GWB have indeed both proved that it was a big mistake to remove the murdering strong man Saddam from power.well it's been made painfully clear that ruthless tyrants kept the islamists in check. to busy killing each other for crumbs to really bother with the rest of the worldnot a big fan of monarchs.
However ruthless tyrants kept a lid on things and eventually tyrants die, there's war, misery and a new tyrant.
Interesting topic though?
And I did say, the lesser of the evils. It all amounts to that, in the end.
things go so much better w/o themThe Czar was a corrupt and inept azzhole who did nothing about starvation among his/her peasants. No different than an inept king/queen.Should of never messed with them, but we couldn't let Russia take Afghanistan I guess. Maybe Afghanistan would of been better off though. Beirut use to be the Paris of the Middle East.
Maybe Russia should have kept the Czar.
then obama removed the leader of egypt and lybiaGHWB and GWB have indeed both proved that it was a big mistake to remove the murdering strong man Saddam from power.well it's been made painfully clear that ruthless tyrants kept the islamists in check. to busy killing each other for crumbs to really bother with the rest of the worldnot a big fan of monarchs.
However ruthless tyrants kept a lid on things and eventually tyrants die, there's war, misery and a new tyrant.
Interesting topic though?
And I did say, the lesser of the evils. It all amounts to that, in the end.
Even so, it was the right thing to do, morally.
Iraq will settle down eventually, even though the population is Islamist and irrational.
The Czar was toppled because he joined WW1 and made his people suffer for it.uhmmShould of never messed with them, but we couldn't let Russia take Afghanistan I guess. Maybe Afghanistan would of been better off though. Beirut use to be the Paris of the Middle East.
Maybe Russia should have kept the Czar.
interesting thought.
If they had the world would be a much different place.
maybe russia would have become a republic
there certainly would not have been a Cold War
If WW2 happened, it would have gone much differently
The Czar was toppled because he joined WW1 and made his people suffer for it.uhmmShould of never messed with them, but we couldn't let Russia take Afghanistan I guess. Maybe Afghanistan would of been better off though. Beirut use to be the Paris of the Middle East.
Maybe Russia should have kept the Czar.
interesting thought.
If they had the world would be a much different place.
maybe russia would have become a republic
there certainly would not have been a Cold War
If WW2 happened, it would have gone much differently
The Czar was an inept idiot.
Thus the Czar and all his vermin family were exterminated by the People.
sons usually take overwell it's been made painfully clear that ruthless tyrants kept the islamists in check. to busy killing each other for crumbs to really bother with the rest of the worldnot a big fan of monarchs.
However ruthless tyrants kept a lid on things and eventually tyrants die, there's war, misery and a new tyrant.
Interesting topic though?
And I did say, the lesser of the evils. It all amounts to that, in the end.
Interesting conjecture.
But what would have happened when the tyrant died?
they kill some generals, so other leaders
like in N Korea
I am not aware of the CIA's involvement in the Arab Spring or in the overthrow of the Egyptian and Libyan governments.then obama removed the leader of egypt and lybiaGHWB and GWB have indeed both proved that it was a big mistake to remove the murdering strong man Saddam from power.well it's been made painfully clear that ruthless tyrants kept the islamists in check. to busy killing each other for crumbs to really bother with the rest of the worldnot a big fan of monarchs.
However ruthless tyrants kept a lid on things and eventually tyrants die, there's war, misery and a new tyrant.
Interesting topic though?
And I did say, the lesser of the evils. It all amounts to that, in the end.
Even so, it was the right thing to do, morally.
Iraq will settle down eventually, even though the population is Islamist and irrational.
don't be a hack, speak the whole truth
and H refused to remove him, that's a fact
Saddam's sons would have been no different than Saddam.sons usually take overwell it's been made painfully clear that ruthless tyrants kept the islamists in check. to busy killing each other for crumbs to really bother with the rest of the worldnot a big fan of monarchs.
However ruthless tyrants kept a lid on things and eventually tyrants die, there's war, misery and a new tyrant.
Interesting topic though?
And I did say, the lesser of the evils. It all amounts to that, in the end.
Interesting conjecture.
But what would have happened when the tyrant died?
they kill some generals, so other leaders
like in N Korea
Nepotism, you mean?
I shudder to think of Saddam's playboy sons.
