Hillary Clinton Arrives In Bangkok, En Route To Asean Meet

[Publicus]

Huawei are the new suppliers for the likes of Ais, Dtac and Cat, and they used to have Nokia, Ericsson and Siemens bidding for contracts. Doesn't matter if Huawei ripped off/reverse engineered someone else's original designs. They are here now, and they are going to stay.

Chinese will certainly not become a global financial player any time soon, I said they might/will get their own financial houses to support bilateral trade with their vassal countries, and it is going to be a huge chunk of a total market.

Everything about China is huge so magnitude is a given. PRChina is devouring resources at an alarming rate. It's continually looking for more natural resources that it consumes no sooner than it gets. The place is a giant maw.

The amount of growing up and maturing the PRC and its huge population have yet to do is enormous. Its human resource base is feeble. Their general knowlege is paultry at best. They're horses with blinders, robots performing functions in a vaccum.

When finally PRChina surpasses the US in GDP half of the Chinese still will be living in the Age of Agriculture. You know those horrible dumpy villages in Thailand, the rotted places with people sitting around doing nothing? Multiply the sum of them by one thousand.

PRChina has serious and fundamental problems economically, politically and socially that make its development unsustainable.

Edited July 24, 2009 by Publicus

[Plus]

Back to Clinton. There's second part of her interview published today. She answered a few questions about China as well.

The way I see her - she simply carries the american torch that was given to her - make all the necessary noises about human rights, Tibet, defence of Taiwan etc but move on trying to cooperate in all the other areas.

In short - pay lip service, bank on Obama's popularity.

Eventually it's going to backfire on the US image abroad, perhaps even worse than Bush' years - at least he was straight about what he wanted.

[Publicus]

Back to Clinton. There's second part of her interview published today. She answered a few questions about China as well.

The way I see her - she simply carries the american torch that was given to her - make all the necessary noises about human rights, Tibet, defence of Taiwan etc but move on trying to cooperate in all the other areas.

In short - pay lip service, bank on Obama's popularity.

Eventually it's going to backfire on the US image abroad, perhaps even worse than Bush' years - at least he was straight about what he wanted.

The US and the PRC are trying to find ways to create a G-2. That was true during the past 8 years as it has been true the past 16 years. Prez Bill Clinton awarded the contract to manufacure the berets of the Green Berets elite army units to a company in China. The most expert and tuffest of US Army soldiers were walking around wearing caps that had "Made in China" tags inside them. Bush cancelled that contract.

The only people of importance in the world who don't like the Obama Administration are bin Laden, al Zawaheri and the rest of them. Those guys needed Bush and Bush needed them. Obama is the last guy they wanted.

You clearly haven't any idea of how pleased leaders of the major countries of the world are to be dealing with the Obama foreign and military policy teams. In case you missed it, which you clearly have, Sec Clinton is big hit at this conference and in Thailand.

The Obama foreign policy is emminently sustainable and accepted with open arms (unless your name is Vladimir Putin or something like it).

[brahmburgers]

American people are a joke. The claim everything theirs, actually their whole country is made upon foreigners or foreigner influence. I hate that country.

Ok, you got that off your chest, ....you feel better now?

BTW, you can stop using everything Americans invented - if you want. You can start with the following items:

.... electricity ....

Americans "invented" electricity?? Wow, as one with a BSc Physics, I must admit that's a new one on me.

Ok, yanks found ways to harness it, perhaps that's not a new one on you. Two words: light bulb.

....and Shockley's bright idea, the transistor.

USA invented bubble gum, the atomic bomb, the internet, and TOILET PAPER. These colors don't runs (fast).

as for China and the US each bloating up to form another 'cold war' mentality. I hope it doesn't happen, but perhaps it's inevitable, as most resources on this planet are finite, and populations are still booming despite some lessening of % increases. Even so, if push came to shove, China would show itself to be like a giant paper mache dragon (or panda bear) - all tough looking and hard on the outside, but with little substance within. Let's hope true population decline will take hold (across the board), and resource usage will switch tangibly to renewables (other than hydro, which devastates watersheds). To me, that's a more pressing issue than global warming, though the two concepts are intertwined on many levels.

[jayboy]

Back to Clinton. There's second part of her interview published today. She answered a few questions about China as well.

The way I see her - she simply carries the american torch that was given to her - make all the necessary noises about human rights, Tibet, defence of Taiwan etc but move on trying to cooperate in all the other areas.

In short - pay lip service, bank on Obama's popularity.

Eventually it's going to backfire on the US image abroad, perhaps even worse than Bush' years - at least he was straight about what he wanted.

Don't understand this I'm afraid.Pay lip service to what? What's going to backfire on the US image abroad (which recent polls show have improved enormously)?

I suspect you may have got it the wrong way round.Obama/Clinton championship of human rights and democracy - which are universal values rather than purely American values by the way - are surely going to enhance American influence as the world's only super power.

But as I say I may not have fully understood your point.

[Publicus]

Actually when we pause to look, we see that the Chinese dragon which we know is the symbol of China is more a giant snake than anything like the Western dragon that brandishes claws and breathes fire and all of that.

The Chinese dragon has a nasty looking head but more the body of a giant snake, whereas while the Western dragon also has the nasty teeth, menacing mouth and beastly head, it has the menacing arms and feet with sharp claws and the fire-breathing feature. The Chinese dragon is horizontal, the Western dragon vertical.

The Chinese don't think at all of slaying the dragon, as we in the West can't wait for St. George finally to do to save the fair maiden. The Chinese slaying their dragon would be tantamount to the Thais slaying an elephant--repugnant indeed. Inconceivable.

While the American Eagle is a real creature and the Russian Bear perhaps one's worst nightmare, the Chinese dragon is a fictional construct. The Chinese over the milennia certainly have created their own construct of a Heavenly Flowery Middle Kingdom.

A Korean American colleague and friend likes to say the Chinese have created their own universe within the confines of the vast empire that is China. To which I add there's nothing subtle about a giant snake in the grass.

[Plus]

Lip service to democracy and human rights.

Yes, Obama is well accepted, but he is accepted for his image, not for his actions or achievements (of which there are none, btw, internationally). He has yet to walk the talk.

Yes, Clinton was well accepted in Asean, a big hit. She sold them the new US image.

What I am saying is that when it comes to actually doing something that image needs to be backed up by real commitment, and I don't see anything specific from Americans yet. They might come up with something in the future, there's still time, but so far it's nothing.

She'd be happy to see Asean expelling Burma. Is she nuts? That would be a fuc_king revolution, it's just not going to happen no matter what. Clinton expressing this desire publicly just shows she has no clue how these things work here. It's either that or she is playing some very clever game.

Of course if any changes are to happen, they must happen in the mind first. The US got that far. But after that there are two scenarios - it either works or you realise you've been conned. I don't know if it's 50/50 now. The things we've been promised are just too good to be true. As much as I want to see Asean getting tough on Burma, I'm weary it won't work out. It's the US last chance, their credility will be destroyed forever if they don't back up their promises.

[Spee]

BTW, you can stop using everything Americans invented - if you want. You can start with the following items:

.... electricity ....

Americans "invented" electricity?? Wow, as one with a BSc Physics, I must admit that's a new one on me.

Ok, yanks found ways to harness it, perhaps that's not a new one on you. Two words: light bulb.

....and Shockley's bright idea, the transistor.

Actually, the physics of the transistor has more to do with quantum theory than with electricity or electrical theory. And the work of the Bell Labs triad including Shockley had its roots in research done by several scientists of European heritage. None the less, it was a life-changing invention for the world's population.

In fact, most of the discoveries and inventions which have led to so many modern conveniences that we enjoy for relatively modest prices, were the end result of scientific research from around the globe, including not only the US but Japan and Europe as well. I took a summer history course at university called "America's German Heritage." Some would be surprised to things like skyscraper design, bridge design, city orchestras, education and many aspects of American society has roots with German immigrants.

And this leads into what really separates America from countries like Thailand and China. That is, America has been, is, and remains (at least for now) a land where personal and economic freedom and entrepreneurship are cherished qualities, both admired by society and protected by law. Few if any countries in the world have demonstrated a similar system in which immigrants can go from pauper to wealthy in a few generations, sometimes even only one.

China still only has a relatively small smidgen of these things today, and these things because possible because America chose to open its vast consumer market during the Nixon administration 35 years ago (one of the few positive things that he accomplished). Even the dictatorial and tyrannical leadership of Communist China could not hold back the market forces of capitalism, although they still try to restrict and control it as much as possible, and dole out economic opportunity only to loyalist party hacks and cronies.

The same thing could be said of Thailand, where the capital markets and entrepreneurship are largely kept under control by those in a position to wield power and influence. It is virtually impossible in China or Thailand for an individual or family to go from pauper to wealthy in one or two generations.

The truly sad part is that America is in a state of regression, moving towards these repressive methods for the sole purposes of political control and acquisition of power. Past growth in America and recent growth in China shows what is possible when market forces and economic freedom are allowed to function. The current economic problems in America aren't going away any time soon, and are apt demonstration of what happens when a central government becomes too heavily involved in the markets.

[Spee]

The US and the PRC are trying to find ways to create a G-2. That was true during the past 8 years as it has been true the past 16 years. Prez Bill Clinton awarded the contract to manufacure the berets of the Green Berets elite army units to a company in China. The most expert and tuffest of US Army soldiers were walking around wearing caps that had "Made in China" tags inside them. Bush cancelled that contract.

Prez Bill Clinton also allowed classified missile guidance technology to be exported to China, which was by all accounts a horrendously bad strategic move, if not a treasonable offense (remember the President's #1 job is provide for the common defense). Giving a possible future enemy the means to become equal on the battlefield is treason. People used to get hanged or shot for less. Most scientists worth their salt have readily admitted that China would not have made such drastic growth in aerospace technology without this knowledge transfer. Neither Bush nor Clinton were saints. They both had a multitude of lasting positives and negatives in their administrations. To show bias towards one or the other is .... well .... biased and subjective, rather than objective. Cloth berets vs. sophisticated missile guidance technology, quite a difference.

[Jingthing]

The truly sad part is that America is in a state of regression, moving towards these repressive methods for the sole purposes of political control and acquisition of power. Past growth in America and recent growth in China shows what is possible when market forces and economic freedom are allowed to function. The current economic problems in America aren't going away any time soon, and are apt demonstration of what happens when a central government becomes too heavily involved in the markets.

No the truly sad part is that left unregulated too many of the capitalists turned out to be thieves. The current situation to push for more regulation is simply a rational reaction to a travesty that nearly led us to another great depression.

[Plus]

It is virtually impossible in China or Thailand for an individual or family to go from pauper to wealthy in one or two generations.

How about Surayud who rose from a son of a communist killed in a fight with the state to a Prime Minister's position, or Privy Councilor, allegedly pulling the strings behind the coup.

Or how about Thaksin being forced to sell coffee in front of his house to make the ends meet.

The fact is - Thailand is full of success stories.

The most expert and tuffest of US Army soldiers were walking around wearing caps that had "Made in China" tags inside them. Bush cancelled that contract.

I think you got it all totally wrong. Those caps were made in Burma.

That's how the story got in the news in the first place - for the Burma connection.

[Spee]

The truly sad part is that America is in a state of regression, moving towards these repressive methods for the sole purposes of political control and acquisition of power. Past growth in America and recent growth in China shows what is possible when market forces and economic freedom are allowed to function. The current economic problems in America aren't going away any time soon, and are apt demonstration of what happens when a central government becomes too heavily involved in the markets.

No the truly sad part is that left unregulated too many of the capitalists turned out to be thieves. The current situation to push for more regulation is simply a rational reaction to a travesty that nearly led us to another great depression.

IMHO, these are inaccurate statements. The current problems resulted because the politicans, regulators and a handful of powerful businessmen were and are in bed with each, conspiring to protect each others' financial, political and power interests in violation of every law in the book. This is not unsurprisingly, quite similar to the way present day Thailand and China operate.

Rather than get into an extended debate, I will instead defer to an excellent piece of investigative journalism, which even though published in a magazine with strong-leftist leanings, has been lauded by conservatives and libertarians from coast to coast because of the expose' of fraud, conspiracy and corruption at the highest levels in America.

I would challenge anyone to read the article, and the excerpt below, and try to claim that this does not have multiple parallels in present day China and Thailand, where there are financial, political and power control at the highest levels. Truly scary, scary stuff with the end nowhere in sight.

Here is the link:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story...e_machine/print

The excerpt entitled "Goldman Sachs Graduates in the Government" is particularly telling:

"The history of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled-dry American empire, reads like a Who's Who of Goldman Sachs graduates. By now, most of us know the major players. As George Bush's last Treasury secretary, former Goldman CEO Henry Paulson was the architect of the bailout, a suspiciously self-serving plan to funnel trillions of Your Dollars to a handful of his old friends on Wall Street. Robert Rubin, Bill Clinton's former Treasury secretary, spent 26 years at Goldman before becoming chairman of Citigroup — which in turn got a $300 billion taxpayer bailout from Paulson. There's John Thain, the asshol_e chief of Merrill Lynch who bought an $87,000 area rug for his office as his company was imploding; a former Goldman banker, Thain enjoyed a multibillion-dollar handout from Paulson, who used billions in taxpayer funds to help Bank of America rescue Thain's sorry company. And Robert Steel, the former Goldmanite head of Wachovia, scored himself and his fellow executives $225 million in golden-parachute payments as his bank was self-destructing. There's Joshua Bolten, Bush's chief of staff during the bailout, and Mark Patterson, the current Treasury chief of staff, who was a Goldman lobbyist just a year ago, and Ed Liddy, the former Goldman director whom Paulson put in charge of bailed-out insurance giant AIG, which forked over $13 billion to Goldman after Liddy came on board. The heads of the Canadian and Italian national banks are Goldman alums, as is the head of the World Bank, the head of the New York Stock Exchange, the last two heads of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York — which, incidentally, is now in charge of overseeing Goldman."

[Spee]

It is virtually impossible in China or Thailand for an individual or family to go from pauper to wealthy in one or two generations.

How about Surayud who rose from a son of a communist killed in a fight with the state to a Prime Minister's position, or Privy Councilor, allegedly pulling the strings behind the coup.

I'll agree that Surayud "rose from a son of a communist killed," but your implication that he rose up from poverty to become PM through diligence and hard work is way off base. Surayud was a career military hack, born into a family ancestry of career military hacks, who achieved all of his power and influence via the military. He learned from family and friends how to achieve power and influence through the force of the military, not because he was or is some fantastic entrepreneur who pulled himself up by his own bootstraps.

Or how about Thaksin being forced to sell coffee in front of his house to make the ends meet.

From Wikipedia, on the Thaksin family ancestry:

"Seng Sae Khu made his fortune through tax farming. The Khu/Shinawatra family later founded Shinawatra Silks and then moved into finance, construction and property development. Lert Shinawatra opened a coffee shop and several businesses, and grew oranges and flowers in Chiang Mai's San Kamphaeng district. By the time Thaksin was born, the Shinawatra family was one of the richest and most influential in Chiang Mai."

If Khun Thaksin was selling "coffee in front of his house," it must have been out of boredom, not out of need.

Edit: This is not to imply that Khun Thaksin was not a very successful entrepreuner, who made the most of the opportunity provided to him by his forebearers. He most certainly is. In a way, he is similar to Donald Trump, who was also born into wealth and used that opportunity to become a very successful entrepreneur.

The fact is - Thailand is full of success stories.

I never claimed that Thailand was without success stories. What I claimed is that the current governmental structure in Thailand and China is not conducive to entrepreneurship and providing the personal and economic freedoms by which anyone may have an opportunity to go from the poorhouse to financially comfortable or wealthy within 1-2 generations.

Edited July 24, 2009 by Spee

[zzaa09]

Too bad I didn't know her schedule so one couldn't go out and trow some water-bottles in her direction.

Nasty piece of work, she is. Together with Biden they are a clear symbol of corruption in Obamas government.

Indeed. She's closely akin the old school American establishment. Nothing more, nothing less. Disguised easily as something else.....

[zzaa09]

As First Lady Hillary Clinton led the effort to provide national health insurance and care for ALL Americans but was stopped by the opposition in the Congress, an opposition which represented and continues to represent the vested corporations which control access to medical care in the US and regularly overrule doctors recommendations.

This is not the forum for domestic politics and policy making in the US. I do know I'd rather have Sec. Clinton and Prez Obama than the Republican Ron Paul in the guise of Libertarianism.

Sec. Clinton is visiting Thailand because there are close historical and policy connections between the US and Thailand which date to the birth of the present monarch in the US while his father was studying at Harvard Medical School.

Sec. Clinton is not on some grand whirlwind tour of the world or of the region. She is here to do busines with India and Thailand especially and in particular. Let's stay focused on the fact.

Hmmmm....and what type of business might she be after, I might ask?

[Publicus]

Prez Bill Clinton also allowed classified misssle guidance technology to be exported to China...a treasonable offense. Giving a possible future enemy the means to become equal on the battelfield is treason. People used to get hanged or shot for less.

Hanged or shot--for less! Which should it be for the hapless and fumbling Bill Clinton? Your statement refers to esponiage, the esponiage that in the particular instance the PRC must conduct if it is to have the technology it needs in every respect to begin to compete globally. There are a multiplicity of cases of esponiage throughout history, especially most recently during the Cold War. Information vital to national security, also industrial esponiage, has been stolen by any number of adversaries (and allies) over thousands of years. So should we also hang or shoot each former POTUS who experienced esponiage during his term of office? If so, with whom should we begin? Lincoln? Wilson? Eisenhower? Kennedy? Reagan? The list is long indeed so your sage guidance is further requested.

As to the Rolling Stone piece that is recommended, Rolling Stone in NYC is indeed an excellent weekly newspaper. Another poster referred to what I'd call the 'wild west' behaviors of the major financial players that has now been repudiated. The Republican Prez Reagan provided the turning point in the deregulation of the financial market in the US. The deregulation snowballed in its irrationality to the present point.

There was a better balance during the 1990s because of jawboning by Prez Clinton and then Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan whom Clinton had reappointed to the position (confirmed by the Congress). However, from 2000 forward the snowball resumed its monstrous growth to bring us to the present disastrous point.

In the elections of 1932 when FDR had to take the reigns of an economy and financial system that also had had the wild west mentality, and in 2008, the American people once again have turned to the necessary alternative of a prudently regulated market economy with long overdue vital reforms to complement the corrective actions by government such as the creating of a new system of health care (in 1935 Social Security retirement).

Edited July 25, 2009 by Publicus

[jayboy]

Lip service to democracy and human rights.

Yes, Obama is well accepted, but he is accepted for his image, not for his actions or achievements (of which there are none, btw, internationally). He has yet to walk the talk.

Yes, Clinton was well accepted in Asean, a big hit. She sold them the new US image.

What I am saying is that when it comes to actually doing something that image needs to be backed up by real commitment, and I don't see anything specific from Americans yet. They might come up with something in the future, there's still time, but so far it's nothing.

She'd be happy to see Asean expelling Burma. Is she nuts? That would be a fuc_king revolution, it's just not going to happen no matter what. Clinton expressing this desire publicly just shows she has no clue how these things work here. It's either that or she is playing some very clever game.

Of course if any changes are to happen, they must happen in the mind first. The US got that far. But after that there are two scenarios - it either works or you realise you've been conned. I don't know if it's 50/50 now. The things we've been promised are just too good to be true. As much as I want to see Asean getting tough on Burma, I'm weary it won't work out. It's the US last chance, their credility will be destroyed forever if they don't back up their promises.

OK thanks I understand your position - with which I mostly agree.

That Burma remark of hers was a gaffe, though not I think that serious.She may have thought it (I think it!) but it was inappropriate to say it out loud at ASEAN.

On a different topic altogether isn't Indonesia the elephant in ASEAN's front room? If that country gets it act together - which it looks like doing - it's going to want to punch its weight diplomatically.It just isn't realistic to think Indonesia is always going to accept parameters set by the likes of Brunei, Laos, Cambodia,Singapore and Burma.Vietnam has a heft because of population and history but is politically immature.Malaysia is a permanent balancing act.When you look at it I wouldn't be surprised if Indonesia and Thailand take a stronger leadership role in ASEAN in the future.

Edited July 25, 2009 by jayboy

[Publicus]

Sec Clinton's statement was made in response to a question and is the official position of the US Government in the matter. There isn't any gaffe to discuss.

It's the opinion of the US Government only. The US is not seeking action by the UN against Asean member states nor is it threatening to invade all Asean countries if they don't expel Burma. The position of the US Government concerning Burma is the same position as that of the European Union, the UK, Australia, NZ and a number of other democratic governments of the world.

There's a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate in Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi, who won an election by a landslide in 1991 but which the military placed under house arrest, which is where she has been for many years. With an ingenuiously promised election coming up, the fascist military has placed her on trial on bogus charges. The trial is presently underway and concluding. The consensus is that the fascist generals of Burma this time will send her to prison so that this Nobel Laureate will at long last simply rot there and die.

There isn't any gaff or inteference in a government stating its position in respect to democracy and human rights.

Edited July 25, 2009 by Publicus

[Spee]

Prez Bill Clinton also allowed classified misssle guidance technology to be exported to China...a treasonable offense. Giving a possible future enemy the means to become equal on the battelfield is treason. People used to get hanged or shot for less.

Hanged or shot--for less! Which should it be for the hapless and fumbling Bill Clinton? Your statement refers to esponiage, the esponiage that in the particular instance the PRC must conduct if it is to have the technology it needs in every respect to begin to compete globally. There are a multiplicity of cases of esponiage throughout history, especially most recently during the Cold War. Information vital to national security, also industrial esponiage, has been stolen by any number of adversaries (and allies) over thousands of years. So should we also hang or shoot each former POTUS who experienced esponiage during his term of office? If so, with whom should we begin? Lincoln? Wilson? Eisenhower? Kennedy? Reagan? The list is long indeed so your sage guidance is further requested.

As to the Rolling Stone piece that is recommended, Rolling Stone in NYC is indeed an excellent weekly newspaper. Another poster referred to what I'd call the 'wild west' behaviors of the major financial players that has now been repudiated. The Republican Prez Reagan provided the turning point in the deregulation of the financial market in the US. The deregulation snowballed in its irrationality to the present point.

There was a better balance during the 1990s because of jawboning by Prez Clinton and then Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan whom Clinton had reappointed to the position (confirmed by the Congress). However, from 2000 forward the snowball resumed its monstrous growth to bring us to the present disastrous point.

In the elections of 1932 when FDR had to take the reigns of an economy and financial system that also had had the wild west mentality, and in 2008, the American people once again have turned to the necessary alternative of a prudently regulated market economy with long overdue vital reforms to complement the corrective actions by government such as the creating of a new system of health care (in 1935 Social Security retirement).

Your response is so devoid of historical facts and so off topic that I will avoid a detailed response, other than to say that FDR taking the reigns of the economy and financial system, by all reputable accounts was the worst possible method of handling the situation.

The steps taken in 2008 by Bush and Congress and the doubling down in 2009 by Obama and Congress were hardly prudent from an economic perspective and were extremely divergent from the Constitutional restrictions place upon the three branches of government by the American people. With the treasury printing money in the same volume as toilet paper, rampant inflation is inevitable, followed closely by the reality that such economic decisions have bankrupted the country. The damage to the Constitution is incalculable, as is the eventual impact to the world economy.

[Thai at Heart]

It is virtually impossible in China or Thailand for an individual or family to go from pauper to wealthy in one or two generations.

How about Surayud who rose from a son of a communist killed in a fight with the state to a Prime Minister's position, or Privy Councilor, allegedly pulling the strings behind the coup.

Or how about Thaksin being forced to sell coffee in front of his house to make the ends meet.

The fact is - Thailand is full of success stories.

The most expert and tuffest of US Army soldiers were walking around wearing caps that had "Made in China" tags inside them. Bush cancelled that contract.

I think you got it all totally wrong. Those caps were made in Burma.

That's how the story got in the news in the first place - for the Burma connection.

Seems like the issue is more that connections are needed to generate wealth. Wealth is extremely hard to generate without a large measure of tacit approval and palm greasing be it in China or Thailand.

http://www.feer.com/articles1/2007/0704/free/p036.html

Article after article pores over the potential economic reasons for the increase in income inequality in China. We ignore the fact that of the 3,220 Chinese citizens with a personal wealth of 100 million yuan ($13 million) or more, 2, 932 are children of high-level cadres. Of the key positions in the five industrial sectors�finance, foreign trade, land development, large-scale engineering and securities�85% to 90% are held by children of high-level cadres.

[Publicus]

Prez Bill Clinton also allowed classified misssle guidance technology to be exported to China...a treasonable offense. Giving a possible future enemy the means to become equal on the battelfield is treason. People used to get hanged or shot for less.

Hanged or shot--for less! Which should it be for the hapless and fumbling Bill Clinton? Your statement refers to esponiage, the esponiage that in the particular instance the PRC must conduct if it is to have the technology it needs in every respect to begin to compete globally. There are a multiplicity of cases of esponiage throughout history, especially most recently during the Cold War. Information vital to national security, also industrial esponiage, has been stolen by any number of adversaries (and allies) over thousands of years. So should we also hang or shoot each former POTUS who experienced esponiage during his term of office? If so, with whom should we begin? Lincoln? Wilson? Eisenhower? Kennedy? Reagan? The list is long indeed so your sage guidance is further requested.

As to the Rolling Stone piece that is recommended, Rolling Stone in NYC is indeed an excellent weekly newspaper. Another poster referred to what I'd call the 'wild west' behaviors of the major financial players that has now been repudiated. The Republican Prez Reagan provided the turning point in the deregulation of the financial market in the US. The deregulation snowballed in its irrationality to the present point.

There was a better balance during the 1990s because of jawboning by Prez Clinton and then Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan whom Clinton had reappointed to the position (confirmed by the Congress). However, from 2000 forward the snowball resumed its monstrous growth to bring us to the present disastrous point.

In the elections of 1932 when FDR had to take the reigns of an economy and financial system that also had had the wild west mentality, and in 2008, the American people once again have turned to the necessary alternative of a prudently regulated market economy with long overdue vital reforms to complement the corrective actions by government such as the creating of a new system of health care (in 1935 Social Security retirement).

Your response is so devoid of historical facts and so off topic that I will avoid a detailed response, other than to say that FDR taking the reigns of the economy and financial system, by all reputable accounts was the worst possible method of handling the situation.

The steps taken in 2008 by Bush and Congress and the doubling down in 2009 by Obama and Congress were hardly prudent from an economic perspective and were extremely divergent from the Constitutional restrictions place upon the three branches of government by the American people. With the treasury printing money in the same volume as toilet paper, rampant inflation is inevitable, followed closely by the reality that such economic decisions have bankrupted the country. The damage to the Constitution is incalculable, as is the eventual impact to the world economy.

Sounds serious, if not grave!

Edited July 25, 2009 by Publicus

[animatic]

Prez Bill Clinton also allowed classified misssle guidance technology to be exported to China...a treasonable offense. Giving a possible future enemy the means to become equal on the battelfield is treason. People used to get hanged or shot for less.

Hanged or shot--for less! Which should it be for the hapless and fumbling Bill Clinton? Your statement refers to esponiage, the esponiage that in the particular instance the PRC must conduct if it is to have the technology it needs in every respect to begin to compete globally. There are a multiplicity of cases of esponiage throughout history, especially most recently during the Cold War. Information vital to national security, also industrial esponiage, has been stolen by any number of adversaries (and allies) over thousands of years. So should we also hang or shoot each former POTUS who experienced esponiage during his term of office? If so, with whom should we begin? Lincoln? Wilson? Eisenhower? Kennedy? Reagan? The list is long indeed so your sage guidance is further requested.

As to the Rolling Stone piece that is recommended, Rolling Stone in NYC is indeed an excellent weekly newspaper. Another poster referred to what I'd call the 'wild west' behaviors of the major financial players that has now been repudiated. The Republican Prez Reagan provided the turning point in the deregulation of the financial market in the US. The deregulation snowballed in its irrationality to the present point.

There was a better balance during the 1990s because of jawboning by Prez Clinton and then Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan whom Clinton had reappointed to the position (confirmed by the Congress). However, from 2000 forward the snowball resumed its monstrous growth to bring us to the present disastrous point.

In the elections of 1932 when FDR had to take the reigns of an economy and financial system that also had had the wild west mentality, and in 2008, the American people once again have turned to the necessary alternative of a prudently regulated market economy with long overdue vital reforms to complement the corrective actions by government such as the creating of a new system of health care (in 1935 Social Security retirement).

Your response is so devoid of historical facts and so off topic that I will avoid a detailed response, other than to say that FDR taking the reigns of the economy and financial system, by all reputable accounts was the worst possible method of handling the situation.

The steps taken in 2008 by Bush and Congress and the doubling down in 2009 by Obama and Congress were hardly prudent from an economic perspective and were extremely divergent from the Constitutional restrictions place upon the three branches of government by the American people. With the treasury printing money in the same volume as toilet paper, rampant inflation is inevitable, followed closely by the reality that such economic decisions have bankrupted the country. The damage to the Constitution is incalculable, as is the eventual impact to the world economy.

Spoken like a true far right, Rushite Republican.

Regardless whether you are or not.

[ Limbaugh lower now, how loooww can you gooo?]

Actual Publicus's response is quite acurate,

only LATER based on new computer driven analysis methods

has it been show there were 'possibly' better ways to handle 1932.

They did what was understood THEN. And pulled the country through it all.

20/20 hindsight is always more accurate.

The rest of the response is Rush Limbaugh textbook anti-Obama Dem-baiting blather.

Similar to PTP: SAY ANYTHING opposing the government you aren't running.

The US constitution allows flexibilty if 1-2 or 3 branches of the government agree.

And what is happening now is agreed on.

As for suborning the intent of the people Bush and Cheney

have been doing that in a BIG way for years.

But thank God they are out of power.

PS Bush's coddling of his big business buddies,

and unconscionable quid pro quo to his oil buddies,

trebling the price of oil artificially in the last year in office,

is what has bankrupted the economy and nearly the world.

Edited July 25, 2009 by animatic

[jayboy]

PS Bush's coddling of his big business buddies,

and unconscionable quid pro quo to his oil buddies,

trebling the price of oil artificially in the last year in office,

is what has bankrupted the economy and nearly the world.

Yes quite right Bush was the instigator of the current economic crisis!

I don't normally bother reading Animatic not so much because of the content but because the distracting way he posts, a kind of blank verse.But this inane postscript caught my atention.

[toptuan]

PS Bush's coddling of his big business buddies,

and unconscionable quid pro quo to his oil buddies,

trebling the price of oil artificially in the last year in office,

is what has bankrupted the economy and nearly the world.

Yes quite right Bush was the instigator of the current economic crisis!

Simple solutions attract simple minds.

[caf]

Lip service to democracy and human rights.

Yes, Obama is well accepted, but he is accepted for his image, not for his actions or achievements (of which there are none, btw, internationally). He has yet to walk the talk.

Yes, Clinton was well accepted in Asean, a big hit. She sold them the new US image.

What I am saying is that when it comes to actually doing something that image needs to be backed up by real commitment, and I don't see anything specific from Americans yet. They might come up with something in the future, there's still time, but so far it's nothing.

She'd be happy to see Asean expelling Burma. Is she nuts? That would be a fuc_king revolution, it's just not going to happen no matter what. Clinton expressing this desire publicly just shows she has no clue how these things work here. It's either that or she is playing some very clever game.

Of course if any changes are to happen, they must happen in the mind first. The US got that far. But after that there are two scenarios - it either works or you realise you've been conned. I don't know if it's 50/50 now. The things we've been promised are just too good to be true. As much as I want to see Asean getting tough on Burma, I'm weary it won't work out. It's the US last chance, their credility will be destroyed forever if they don't back up their promises.

Saying it on a diplomatic platform is not the same as her thinking or believing that it will happen.

She knows Myanmar borders surround a large part of Thailand and she has surely been briefed on where much of Thialand's electricity comes from. But she has registered her point and left it at that. Both countries need each other.

[Publicus]

The Secretary of State is the diplomat in the US Government who daily represents the United States to other governments and populations. None the less the president is the chief diplomat of the US and the Secretary of State is the Secretary of State to the POTUS, who is the chief of state.

The Secretary of State and the POTUS confer and agree on the foreign policy of the United States. The Secretary of State then presents and articulates the policies. In other words, Sec Clinton is not unilaterally making the foreign policy of the United States Government for the POTUS to find out about on the news each day.

That said, the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi presently is on trial in Burma for winning a landslide election in 1991 and thereafter being placed under house arrest by the fascist generals in charge. Now the generals are going to throw her in a filthy rotten prison to wither and die, finally out of their way forever.

Sec Clinton is on her side and on the side of the people of Burma, as is Prez Obama. That statement needs to be made to the governments of this region and to their peoples, and it needs to be made clearly. The EU and other major democracies of the world are on the side of the Nobel Laureate.

It's unmistakably clear where that leaves Thailand and the rest of Asean.

Edited July 25, 2009 by Publicus

[zzaa09]

The Secretary of State is the diplomat in the US Government who daily represents the United States to other governments and populations. None the less the president is the chief diplomat of the US and the Secretary of State is the Secretary of State to the POTUS, who is the chief of state.

The Secretary of State and the POTUS confer and agree on the foreign policy of the United States. The Secretary of State then presents and articulates the policies. In other words, Sec Clinton is not unilaterally making the foreign policy of the United States Government for the POTUS to find out about on the news each day.

That said, the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi presently is on trial in Burma for winning a landslide election in 1991 and thereafter being placed under house arrest by the fascist generals in charge. Now the generals are going to throw her in a filthy rotten prison to wither and die, finally out of their way forever.

Sec Clinton is on her side and on the side of the people of Burma, as is Prez Obama. That statement needs to be made to the governments of this region and to their peoples, and it needs to be made clearly. The EU and other major democracies of the world are on the side of the Nobel Laureate.

It's unmistakably clear where that leaves Thailand and the rest of Asean.

I don't buy it. I don't believe that Hillary nor the US is terribly concerned with Burma - unless there is something beneficial for America. One needn't be too observant nor understanding of real American foreign policy history to know that all this 'talk' is just whimsy. America doesn't have a reputation for being the shining light on the hill.

[Publicus]

United States policy toward the fascist generals who have destroyed Burma as a nation state is clear to just about everyone. The policy is long standing and rooted in, and actively represents, the view of the democracies of the world.

The focus is on the fascist military rulers of Burma who are going to put the Nobel Peace Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi in prison to rot and die. The realities of ASEAN which ignore the fact are repugnant and indefensible.

Now that's reality.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Publicus

[tlang33]

'Nasty piece of work, she is. Together with Biden they are a clear symbol of corruption in Obamas government.'

so if Obama elects corrupt officials to important positions, what does that make him?

America doesn't have a reputation for being the shining light on the hill

tell that to france, east germany, kuwait, and south korean. their are people who who die for freedom, and their are people who wine anonymously on internet forums

[animatic]

The Secretary of State is the diplomat in the US Government who daily represents the United States to other governments and populations. None the less the president is the chief diplomat of the US and the Secretary of State is the Secretary of State to the POTUS, who is the chief of state.

The Secretary of State and the POTUS confer and agree on the foreign policy of the United States. The Secretary of State then presents and articulates the policies. In other words, Sec Clinton is not unilaterally making the foreign policy of the United States Government for the POTUS to find out about on the news each day.

That said, the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi presently is on trial in Burma for winning a landslide election in 1991 and thereafter being placed under house arrest by the fascist generals in charge. Now the generals are going to throw her in a filthy rotten prison to wither and die, finally out of their way forever.

Sec Clinton is on her side and on the side of the people of Burma, as is Prez Obama. That statement needs to be made to the governments of this region and to their peoples, and it needs to be made clearly. The EU and other major democracies of the world are on the side of the Nobel Laureate.

It's unmistakably clear where that leaves Thailand and the rest of Asean.

Hear, hear!

Yes I agree with this.

Regardless of if on one level there are some financial players with motivations of profit,

there are ALSO fundamental issues that are state policy, even if not acted on with force.

Freeing "The Lady" is one such issue, and pushing ASEAN to act in ANY way can at least

make them THINK, of how their new "Human Rights Body" should be used.

So she was tweaking the paper tigers nose, maybe hoping it would 'grow a pair',

and do something sooner.

Lets not confuse hating Bush's mis-use of US power for 8 years, (I do too)

with periodic and consitent forwarding of laudable ideas by many US leaders.

Hating the USA for some of it's actions, or the independent actions of

some multi-nationals with American bases or product lines, should not distract

from drawn moral lines in the sand on OTHER topics by presidents.

It's too easy to hate the big dog on the block because it beats you all the time,

even as it might keep the rats away from eating the packs food stocks.

I venture that if the USA fell completely from power leaving China, and maybe Russia,

that you would quite likely quickly start missing it's countervailing force more than you realize.