*plft*

[kyburg]

So Clinton said something. And now Rice is saying something.

Okay, so maybe what Clinton said was newsworthy - not the fact that he actually spoke, okay?

Ditto Rice.

"Yes I did."

"No you didn't."

Is not a legitimate discourse - or newsworthy.

I am interested in actions - not political posturing or empty rhetoric. I am also terribly aware that we have now killed more of our own people in Iraq than were killed on 9/11. And in the case of Iraq? It won't take years of forensic lab work on body parts or investigative work on the part of a task force to verify the deaths. The names, faces and lives have a paper trail miles wide, and lifelong to see.

Ending with flag-draped coffins we're not allowed to see or acknowledge in any way. That's criminal. These people gave their lives for something they truly believed was necessary - you can't see a single thing about 9/11 without seeing the lives that were lost.

Iraq? I see a significant increase of "In Memory Of" decals on cars around here - and graves in the cemetary where Cliff was buried for people just old enough, the right gender and in some cases, their friends have put pictures of them together with their letters at graveside - and only one of them is in uniform. You tell me.

I don't need either Fox News or Air America to tell me which way the wind's blowing, okay? And don't even try to fool me with the stupidity at the gas pump, okay? I've got a memory longer than six months. Spare me.

I'm not a Democrat. I was raised by Republicans. But I can tell you this - I remember when shit happened during Clinton. It didn't last eight years.

Gee. Wonder why.

OH - and go ahead. Discuss the Thai situation. I dare you. Better THINK before you open your mouth - and have done your homework. No, democracy is not dead in Thailand. They're just getting rid of the people who saw it as a free ride to more riches than they deserved.

Comments

[machineplay.livejournal.com]

I can't remember who had a great link to a Thai friend's comment about the Thailand coup. It went something along the lines of "not all peoples are willing to let corrupt elected officials stay the full term".

Ranking members of Canada's Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces attend every 'homecoming' of coffins here, and each one is televised. And if the excuse is -- there's too many -- then maybe something needs to change.

Part of me hopes that Bin Laden is dead of typhoid or something similar. Except that the irony will be lost on those who will just say that God did it for America. A Canadian journalist astutely pointed out that the reason Bin Laden is out of the US news so much is because then the gov't would be drawing attention to that 1/7th the number of troops are invested in finding Bin Laden and fighting the Taliban as are stationed in and fighting in Iraq.

Dead from the neck up is right.

CNN Headline

[bigbigtruck.livejournal.com]

WHITE HOUSE ISSUES PRESS STATEMENT: 'NO U'

Re: CNN Headline

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

*dies*

[bitpig.livejournal.com]

What about all the innocent women and children that died when then-president Clinton and then-NATO Supreme Commander Gen. Wesley Clark bombed the living shit out of Serbia ("Operation Allied Force", March 24 - June 10, 1999)? Don't they count?

Oh, right. They were only white Christian women and children. Killing civilians in war is only wrong if a) the president at the time is a Republican and b) they're brown-skinned non-Christians. Killing Serbs is OK by those standards. Besides, at the time we were all too busy learning how to use the Internet to care about foreign policy.

(And President Clinton killed his share of Iraqis, too -- in 'Operation Desert Fox", December 16-19, 1998, when he blew the crap out of Iraq with cruise missiles and bombs. Curiously, this bold stand against Iraqi tyranny took place at the exact same time Congress was mulling over his impeachment! What a crazy coincidence!)

Lest we forget, there was "Operation Infinite Reach", President Clinton's missile strikes against suspected terrorist bases in Sudan and Afghanistan, which by pure chance started three days after Clinton was called to testify before a grand jury during the Lewinsky scandal. It's amazing how all the innocent civilians killed in that strike just sort of got lost in the shuffle! Oh, well, the president had a lot on his mind at the time. Plus he played the sax. In sunglasses. And everybody gets BJs from their female interns, especially the ones that are the same age as their own daughters.

And I didn't even metion Haiti...

It didn't take us eight years to win in the Balkans because the goal was never to win at all. What the goal actually was remains a mystery. (It certainly wasn't self-defense. Serbia never had anything to do with Al-Qaida.) As a result of Bill Clinton's brave stand against, uh, Serbia, the radical Islamist militias in the area are now growing stronger by the day and killin' Serbs by the truckload. His bloodletting in Iraq was of course an attempt to halt Saddam's WMD program, which he never had, because Saddam would NEVER try to develop WMDs. And as for Sudan and Afghanistan, well, who cares, right? Peace in our time!

Sooner or later we'll have to sort out the mess that ol' Splooge-Stain made in eastern Europe. That'll mean more flag-draped coffins -- and all with not a trace of blood on Bill Clinton's hands. Until then, we must remain eveer-vigilant against the luciferian machinations of ChimpyMcBusHitler, KKKarl Rovenstein, and the neo-con menace that threatens our way of life! Courage!

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

Personally I'd like to see *both* heads on a pike. They're both guilty of wagging the dog, lying to Congress and the American people, and generally aiding and abetting the enemies of the United States by giving away our tech and assaulting our freedom. Last I checked, that last fits the definition of "treason" and is good for a firing squad. Although I'm quite willing to compromise with those who don't believe in shooting quislings and simply bringing back the stocks and the pillory...

How can two people from two supposedly radically different parties appear to be so damn inept and yet be so damn good at destroying the Republic?

I think the tag on the original post is right. Dead from the neck up.

[7leaguebootdisk.livejournal.com]

The thing about Clinton was that he lobbied for, and signed, the law that he was latter questioned under, and he had the nerver to get all indignant about it. If it was good for us, it's good for him.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

Sorry, you lost me at the "white Christian women and children." Uh, no men died that day or something? I did ask - SPARE ME.

You missed the point completely.

It's the bickering and finger pointing I hate - and the total lack of action to end the .. *gasp* .. killing.

But no. You want to put a political label on it and call it macaroni. How utterly typical. Please. You have a brain. I've seen it at work.

Shame on you.

We have peace in any time when we achieve it. It usually begins when the killing stops. (And yes, someone has to do it first. Funny, that.)

(Oh and how about all those nice Lebanese Christians we sat back and let Israel send to their maker? HUH? HUH? What, they looked Arab? Pity.)

Believe what you will. You'll find plenty of things in the pay-per-view media to support it. They like people with your take on world events. It keeps them fed.

Shame on you. You should be finding a way to stop the bloodshed, if you know so much about it.

Official count of dead and wounded, updated routinely

[moropus.livejournal.com]

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf#search=%22dead%20troops%20iraq%202006%20total%22

[bitpig.livejournal.com]

Stop the killing? Why? Sometimes, violence is the only solution left to a moral man -- or to a nation under attack. I don't want our government to stop killing the bad guys. On the contrary, I want them to step up the killing, until there are no bad guys left, or until the remaining bad guys realize they cannot win and submit to us. The best action we can take to end the killing is to kill our enemies as quickly as possible and get the war over with.

And why should I feel shame? Because I want our side to win? Sorry, but I simply don't. There is nothing evil about killing the enemy in a war, therefore, nothing to be ashamed of in wanting one's own side to win. Christianity is not a pacifist religion; it is a just war religion. As C.S. Lewis said in Mere Christianity

All killing is not murder any more than all sexual intercourse is adultery. When soldiers came to St John the Baptist asking what to do, he never remotely suggested that they ought to leave the army: nor did Christ when He met a Roman sergeant-major - what they called a centurion. The idea of the knight - the Christian in arms for the defence of a good cause - is one of the great Christian ideas. War is a dreadful thing, and I can respect an honest pacifist, though I think he is entirely mistaken. What I cannot understand is this sort of semi-pacifism you get nowadays which gives people the idea that though you have to fight, you ought to do it with a long face and as if you were ashamed of it. It is that feeling that robs lots of magnificent young Christians in the Services of something they have a right to, something which is the natural accompaniment of courage - a kind of gaiety and wholeheartedness.

There is nothing to be ashamed of in a just war — and this is a just war. (For those curious about the Christian doctrine of Just War, Darrell Cole's tidy little essay on this subject is worth a read.)

It is a tragedy when any noncombatant is killed in a war. No one's disputing that. All I'm trying to do here is to point out a double standard that I have perceived on the part of many of those who oppose the current war on the basis of noncombatant deaths. It seems to me that these same folks had nothing to say on the topic when it was "their" president blowing women, kids (and, sure, men too) to pieces from 15,000 feet; it is only now, when the current president does it, that it suddenly becomes baaaaaad.

Little bickering exists within the ranks of those who want us to win the war. The majority of the bickering and finger-pointing I have seen comes from those who oppose the war against Islamic fascism. They quibble endlessly over motives, methods, and the morality of war, while they themselves enjoy the peace and security purchased for them in blood by those who sacrificed themselves in the just wars of the past. Those who support the war are still in September 11 mode; they just want to get on with the war, get it over with, and get back to working on more fruitful pursuits, such as space colonization. I feel pride -- not shame -- in being among their number.

Concerning Thailand...

[ionotter.livejournal.com]

Brad Hicks does his homework.

Roots of the Coup: Thailand and the IMF

"Thaksinomics" and the Thai Coup

Y'wanna know the worst of it?

He's right.

I was there in 1997 and I saw, first hand, how bad things were. And that was in the "successful" tourist trap of Phuket. Desperation and absolute abject poverty were the order of the day.

I was also there in 2000 when the recovery was on it's way forward, and the difference was unbelieveable. From shit-hole to paradise in four years, with things only getting better under Thaksin. Not a single beggar on the streets. Not one. They all had jobs. The average people were happy and had hope for the future.

Like Brad says:

"...once they disassemble Thaksinomics if they get away with it, we'll have one less successful democracy that also works for its increasingly prosperous hard working people as well to use as an example."

[secanth.livejournal.com]

It never ceases to amaze me that neither the Republicans or the Democrats think we have a memory longer than last week. Hell, I remember LBJ, for heavens sake....and most of the blunders inbetween. (I consistently thank the gods that I was actually in England during Watergate, however. Reading about it in the British papers was quiet enough, thanks.) NO President hasn't done exceedingly dumb things, though some are undeniably dumber than other.

[catsonmars.livejournal.com]

Sorry, you lost me when I realized you were a douchebag.

Those who support the war are still in September 11 mode; they just want to get on with the war, get it over with, and get back to working on more fruitful pursuits, such as space colonization. I feel pride -- not shame -- in being among their number.

IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SEPTEMBER 11. My source on this? George W. Bush. Iraq was not an extension of the war on terror; it became one when we invaded without just cause.

It's worth mentioning that the Kosovo endeavor, though largely fronted by the US, was a NATO venture brought on by an escalating crisis within the balkan states. Comparing a war waged by NATO with one waged by the Coalition of the Willing (The US, the UK, and don't forget Poland) is both logistically and circumstantially a red herring.

The simple fact is, this war was waged without broad international consensus and even our own intelligence services and government accounting offices have confirmed that we've pissed away our treasury and severely stretched our military's abilities on a quagmire that had no legitimate trigger and absolutely NO connection to 9/11.

Before you start flapping your gums about how I must be reading Noam Chomsky or some shit, these are reports coming from traditionally conservative groups: congressional accounting bodies, the joint cheifs of staff, and the CIA, to name a few.

Why are we there? Can you tell me? This administration has come up with so many new and exciting explanations; which one is the real answer? Why did we destabilize an unfriendly-yet-secular state if we're at war with a made-up concept your ilk likes to term "Islamo-facism?" Why did we attack a country that our own intelligence knew (and vocalized) had no WMD and no connection to 9/11 and whose leader, although vile, detested Al-Qaeda? Why did we attack them for violating UN resolutions concerning disarmament when UN inspectors (despite dealing with an ornery and dishonest dictatorship) had not yet finished their task and not found weapons?

Why did we secure the oil ministry immediately, but allow the National Museum, which contained some of human civilization's first and oldest artifacts, to be looted? Furthermore, if Iraq's oil WAS a lucrative treasure to be had, why are we pouring billions into the venture? I seem to recall the hypocrites and liars who run our government saying something about those revenues funding the reconstruction of the country.

See, there are lots of questions. And most importantly, a question for you: HOW IN ANY WAY IS THE WAR IN IRAQ "JUST"? Also, how do you subscribe to such massive self-delusion? Is there a pill, or do I just stare at an american flag long enough to suspend my facilities of reasoning and logic?

[dudemungus.livejournal.com]

I think the important lesson is if America could stop trying to run the world, we would be in a likely better place--most, if not all, of America's current enemies were in fact at one point America's allies, funded and propped up by America, with full knowledge and consent of what they were doing to the people within their borders.

Many of the same folks who were in frantic "moral outrage" over Clinton's sexual dalliances fell not just silent but were supportive of the huge and deadly lie Bush et al foisted on the world. neo cons screaming about "character" are now trying to justify the state of the world theatre and America's status within it.

I think we should all sit back and take a body count of the people killed by Clinton's marital woes, and then re discuss the concept of what passes for "morality" in certain circles in America.

I can say this, and I think it is an important point--I do not know what religion the leader of my country is. I do not know if he is married, or has kids. I have never heard his opinions about god and Jesus, or allah or whomever, as they are not relevant to the running of a country. Honesty is simply honesty, where a person finds that is up to them.

[bitpig.livejournal.com]

Sorry, you lost me when I realized you were a douchebag.

Ad hominem = weak arguments. You are hereby ignored.

Ky, I'm going to shut up now. Sorry to waste your bandwidth. Anyone who wants to continue arguing on this topic should feel free to visit me at my own LJ.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

Don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you. Come back when you can live without someone to hate - because that's all you convinced me of.

You might want to refresh your memory when it comes to 'just wars.' There are wars - trying to quantify current events as they stand into anything resembling moral? I call self-justification and dare I say it? Mental masturbation.

Endless posting of reports - without cease or balance - to prove that demonizing an entire religion/race is justifiable. Nah. There's no way in hell I'm wasting my time with that. You begin working from that level with individual members (each one a creation of God, don't forget), and you'll be lost forever. IT'S EASY TOO. Very easy.

I'll read it - I have to, to be fair. But please - don't be surprised if I don't consider it intelligent discourse. It isn't. It never was. You're not looking for common ground, resolution or understanding. Just hate, and any reason to perpetuate it. You're reporting the problem. Over and over again.

Never forget that actions are individual. Indivduals do form groups - but each of us is accountable - as ourselves when we go to judgement. Stripped of gender, race or occupation. Stripped of everything.

I kind of think that's a good example to follow.

Never slap a label on someone based on race, religion or anything else visible that Ain't Like Me. There's a reason that's wrong - it leads to all kinds of evil. Things that break commandments, like murder and the like.

You go have your party and your cake. "Douchebag" is fast food profanity - for me? I'm pretty dissapointed in you right now. Name calling isn't required to convey that, is it?

Re: Concerning Thailand...

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

There is still plenty of poverty in Thailand - there is still plenty of lack.

You might want to ask about the jobs. Doing what would be a good start.

And frankly, the guy on the street couldn't be bothered with who warms the throne -

I like what Pico Iyer had to say about the place.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

I remember the last administration that killed less than 10 members of its own people in the armed forces.

That was Carter. Everyone since, seems to think our military, let alone our people, is one thing and one thing only - expendable. Eh, they die, they die....

Noooooooo Dude!!!!

[dwinghy.livejournal.com]

Don't get sucked into the vortex! You'd be better off trying to have a rational discussion with a mentally disturbed hobo than you would with the idiot you're responding to.
(I absolutely agree with the points you've made, BTW)

Re: Concerning Thailand...

[ionotter.livejournal.com]

There is still plenty of poverty in Thailand - there is still plenty of lack.

Of course there is. Just like in the US and every single 1st world country in existence. Yet the moment Thaksian started to disobey the IMF, things got better. It just so happens that every single country who has done what the IMF ordered them to do has not only failed, but had their corpse picked clean on top of it.

Well...every single country that didn't have petroleum, uranium, gold or diamonds, that is. Mysteriously enough, those countries managed to survive and even turn a wee bit of a profit, although most of the population wouldn't know it. And they certainly didn't have to worry about "trying hard enough", either.

You might want to ask about the jobs. Doing what would be a good start.

It's a job. Who cares what it is when your whole world is total shit? Seriously. Roosevelt had people weeding the national forests during the New Deal, and now we have the finest national parks in the world. Along with millions of miles of highway, hundreds of hydropower projects and other big-ticket items. But all of it boiled down to everyone having something to do.

Granted, this didn't work out too well for the USSR, but then they had other problems besides poverty, such as being spent into oblivion during the Cold War.

The sad thing is that the rules instituted by the IMF would actually work...

...if the average income was at least somewhat equal to the United States. But for countries where the yearly income is about a month's wages at McDonalds, those sorts of regulations are an unmitigated disaster that leaves the country ripe for the pillaging.

And Thaksian wasn't on the throne. He was repairing the economy as Prime Minister, but those plans didn't include the rich and priviledged few.

So they got rid of him. Just like they tried-and failed miserably-to get rid of Hugo Chavez.

[dudemungus.livejournal.com]

"Ad hominem = weak arguments. You are hereby ignored."

This is ultra-right-wing nerd speak for, "you got me, I don't know what I'm talking about"

At some point he may call you "sirrah" or accuse you of being a "dullard" or possibly a "Buffoon not worth the time to respond to" Do not be offended! .

It's called "the Doctor Doom Big Book of Imposing Words for Internet Arguments" (peguin press;1997) An entire chapter is dedicated to "hereby ignoring people".

Re: Noooooooo Dude!!!!

[dudemungus.livejournal.com]

He just seems so lonely. All he needs is a little love and attention. Is this the guy who decided to be Jewish a long time ago, but was like a total conservative hardline Jew? I get these guys mixed up sometimes.

He ain't the guy who owned the jet fighter is he? I loved that guy. Remember him? He rocked--he was all about n=ebing in line for the presidents job, and racing cars on the side, and I think he was a ninja or something too. That guy was sooo cool.

Re: Noooooooo Dude!!!!

[dwinghy.livejournal.com]

Ha ha, yeah, this is the temporary Jew. That was back when he was a "Communist" though.
The jet fighter cap'n/racecar driver was awesome, I miss him. It's easy to tell the difference between him and the idiot up-thread: the jet fighter ninja is actually a nice guy.

Re: Noooooooo Dude!!!!

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, so give him a year, he'll be all about raising bees as a master race for the betterment of mankind or "space colonization" or something equally out there that he will insist he fully supports, and will bring up ad nauseum.

Oh. I just read the tail end of one of his rants here..heh heh.