Hillary Clinton Arrives In Bangkok, En Route To Asean Meet

[animatic]

'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

Uh, not reading the news lately.

Sarkosy is quickly and strongly building ties with the USA.

A sea change in French politics.

Uh...There is no East Germany, but Germany as a whole and America have strong ties,

Kuwait is happy to sell it's oil to the USA, and was also happy to NOT be over-run by Sadam's army 10 years back.

S. Korea is more than happy to do business in a BIG way with the USA.

The problem is North Korea is run by nutters.

There is NO government in the world were corruption doesn't surround the leadership

in some way, at some level. It is the end results that matters more,

and how this corruption is managed/minimized in the long run that matters.

This is so for EVERY ruling party and should surprise and shock no one.

Biden was a compromise VP, put in as an experienced #2, but typically VP's are back burnered

and Biden has been quite silent in general even by VP standards. And he sure is no Cheney. Thanks god.

It is astounding to see so many mis-conceptions in so few sentences.

[Publicus]

I'm still trying to decipher and translate the 'Thailish' of the poster, who MAY mean to be identifying only several of the many countries which have had their freedom restored by and because of the US, and who supports Prez Obama.

But then I'm not very exact at colors either so I would also yield in this particular matter if appropriate. I think the poster is trying to be supportive of the US. However, I'm still rereading the post.

Anyone got a take on the post?

Edited July 27, 2009 by Publicus

[Spee]

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

And what is happening now is agreed on.

These statements are obtuse and inaccurate to the point where they are totally absurd. The US Constitution places restrictions on the federal government to prevent the very abuses that are taking place now. Bush and Obama took an oath to uphold the Constitution, but in abusing the separation of powers and other Constitutional restrictions, it is clear that they both violated their oaths. As for changing the Constitution, it is absolutely NOT up to the branches of government to arbitrarily make changes. For example, Obama has appointed all these dozens of "White House Czars." Aside from the fact that use of the word czar is downright scary in a democratic republic, the Constitution does not grant these people a single iota of authority to spend money or implement policy, regardless of what the almighty Bam-ster may think. To change the Constitution, the stewards of it must obtain the permission of the people, through the Constitution amendment process. Because recent leaders have sought to abuse the Constitution, the US is in a state of serious and drastic political regression, to the detriment of the US citizens and the world at large.

On another note more related to the OT, it is interesting to read all of the accolades being laid at the feet of the US Secretary of State after a single ASEAN visit a few ineffective comments on Burma. In her 8 years as First Lady, followed by 8 years as a US Senator, she had concern for Burma roughly equivalent to jack-squat. Her recent visit is largely a ceremonial function of the office she currently holds. Let's call a spade a spade.

Similarly, not a single person has mentioned the many years of active protest by former First lady Laura Bush, in support of Aung San Suu Kyi, as well as sanctions implemented by the former President. In her last visit to Thailand, Mrs. Bush actively praised the Thai government for their support of refugee camps along the Burmese border. We didn't hear anything of that sort from Mrs. Clinton.

It is also interesting to note the typical anti-American/anti-Bush rants, demanding for the US to stop being the world's police force and let the UN take a world lead in handling radical juntas like that in Burma. Yet every time the US goes to the UN to demand more action from them and the rest of the world, there is little more than the usual limp-dick do-nothing response. Many seems to want the UN to be the new world government, but then curiously remain silent when the self-serving UN continues to be little more than self-serving.

[Spee]

Biden was a compromise VP,

Yeah, right. How does a guy who was shamed out of running for President after admitting to massive plagiarism, become suitable to be next in line? Doesn't that speak volumes about his boss?

put in as an experienced #2,

The only thing Biden is experienced in is being a gaffe machine and loose cannon.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/b/2008/10/...iden-gaffes.htm

http://www.rd.com/blogs/loose-cannon/top-e.../post10268.html

[zzaa09]

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.

The reality is politics. Nothing more, nothing less. Most certainly isn't akin to such extensions of a higher moral and ethical character that pretends to originate from said Democracies. Fakery......

[Publicus]

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

And what is happening now is agreed on.

These statements are obtuse and inaccurate to the point where they are totally absurd. The US Constitution places restrictions on the federal government to prevent the very abuses that are taking place now. Bush and Obama took an oath to uphold the Constitution, but in abusing the separation of powers and other Constitutional restrictions, it is clear that they both violated their oaths. As for changing the Constitution, it is absolutely NOT up to the branches of government to arbitrarily make changes. For example, Obama has appointed all these dozens of "White House Czars." Aside from the fact that use of the word czar is downright scary in a democratic republic, the Constitution does not grant these people a single iota of authority to spend money or implement policy, regardless of what the almighty Bam-ster may think. To change the Constitution, the stewards of it must obtain the permission of the people, through the Constitution amendment process. Because recent leaders have sought to abuse the Constitution, the US is in a state of serious and drastic political regression, to the detriment of the US citizens and the world at large.

On another note more related to the OT, it is interesting to read all of the accolades being laid at the feet of the US Secretary of State after a single ASEAN visit a few ineffective comments on Burma. In her 8 years as First Lady, followed by 8 years as a US Senator, she had concern for Burma roughly equivalent to jack-squat. Her recent visit is largely a ceremonial function of the office she currently holds. Let's call a spade a spade.

Similarly, not a single person has mentioned the many years of active protest by former First lady Laura Bush, in support of Aung San Suu Kyi, as well as sanctions implemented by the former President. In her last visit to Thailand, Mrs. Bush actively praised the Thai government for their support of refugee camps along the Burmese border. We didn't hear anything of that sort from Mrs. Clinton.

It is also interesting to note the typical anti-American/anti-Bush rants, demanding for the US to stop being the world's police force and let the UN take a world lead in handling radical juntas like that in Burma. Yet every time the US goes to the UN to demand more action from them and the rest of the world, there is little more than the usual limp-dick do-nothing response. Many seems to want the UN to be the new world government, but then curiously remain silent when the self-serving UN continues to be little more than self-serving.

Identify one or more of the policy experts in the White House who have the title of "Czar." Or is the word "Czar" a word used by the flaky media in order to grab the attention of viewers and readers and to be thrown around by the gullible who regularly like to cry wolf? Isn't "Czar" a sensationalized and silly term which needn't be taken seriously? Surely this is so. "White House Czar Rahm Emmanuel, who also is White House Chief of Staff, said today... Emmanuel is White House Czar Number 1, so his statement is of special significance." Sure.

Presidents have been issuing Executive Orders since the beginning of the Republic, more than 230 years ago. The Constitution and the jurisprudence of the US Supreme Court are clear concerning the non-matter. For example, while POTUS George Dumbya Bush issued an Executive Order prohibiting any foreign policy funds appropriated by the Congress being used abroad for any family planning purposes or for abortions. Pres Obama in turn issued an Executive Order authorizing the use of funds apppropriated by the Congress for such purposes. Constitutional Law 101 makes clear that nothing in the Constitution requires the POTUS to spend outlays of monies appropriated by the Congress. Congress has the specified EXCLUSIVE Constitutional authority to raise money, to appropriate it and to designate spending outlays. Nothing says the POTUS MUST spend it (Checks and Balances 101).

Princess Di campaigned globally against land mines. While First Lady, Rosline Carter made improving mental health care and services her special cause. While First Lady, Betty Ford admitted to drug and alcohol abuse and concomitantly made that her special cause. While First Lady, Nancy Reagan ("Just Say No!") campaigned against use of drugs. So it's of no surprise that while First Lady Laura Bush occasionally mentioned Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma. Meanwhile, while First Lady Hillary Clinton led the (unsuccessful) Clinton Administration effort to restructure health services in the US. Michelle Obama is out today speaking for the Obama Administration's health care restructuring campaign. Almost all first ladies espouse safe, non-controversial and universally popular causes. Others exceptionally tackle the issues.

Sec Clinton's visit to Thailand for the ASEAN Foreign Ministers conference was of considerable consequential policy impact, as we continue to witness. This is especially true in respect to democracy and human rights. For instance, Sec Clinton put Burma and its ASEAN allies and apologists squarely in the hot seat, especially Abhisit and the Thais, who are pervasively complicit in the fascist regime of Burma. .

Edited July 28, 2009 by Publicus

[animatic]

If I remember correctly Repuboican appointed cabinet security weenies were first called 'Czars".

'Security Czar in the War On Drugs' i believe was 1st usage. it's a pundits device

to show up the exclusive or excessive power beeing bestowed on a few heads.

It never ceases to amaze me the right wing bile piled on Hillary.

This pretty much ever since her attempted Health care reform Clinton term 1.

The insurance/medical/healthcare establishment spent hundreds of millions

to vilify her in the eyes of the American heartland, so that now NOTHING good she does

ever is credited, because she is belived by too many to never do anything good,

just for being who she is.

Pathetic.

[Spee]

So it's of no surprise that while First Lady Laura Bush occasionally mentioned Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma. Meanwhile, while First Lady Hillary Clinton led the (unsuccessful) Clinton Administration effort to restructure health services in the US.

There are huge differences between the actions of First Lady Mrs. Bush and First Lady Mrs. Clinton.

For starters, Mrs. Clinton had absolutely zero Constitutional authority to act in the manner that she did, despite being appointed to head the health legislation task force by the President. The fact the she acted in such a manner actually sealed the destruction of the President's intended policy goal. Rather than acting so as to be an asset to the President, she acted so as to be self-serving and a liability to the President. After this debacle, Travelgate and other early term scandals, Mrs. Clinton was never viewed as anything more than a rabble-rouser who cared more about her own ambitions than anything else, including her husband's philandering. Here's an interesting look at the litany of Bill 'n Hill wreckage from those early years:

http://www.io.com/~cjburke/clinton/clinatoz.html

Mrs. Bush on the other hand, has been publicly lauded in worldly circles outside of the Beltway establishment and White House propaganda machines. As the spokesperson for Myanmar's National League for Democracy states, Mrs. Bush's activism raised Myanmar's plight to the world view.

http://www.nwasianweekly.com/2008/27_47/pages/laurabush.html

Mrs. Bush's activism spurred her husband into policy action against Myanmar, as indicated here:

http://www.peacewomen.org/news/AsiaPacific...BurmaLBush.html

I would say these examples are quite a bit more than "occasionally mentioning" Ms. Aung. Your message only conveys a meaning of "Ready .... FIRE ..... aim!"

Where is the rest of the world? Where is the UN? Once again, it's a classic USA Catch-22 situation, darned if you do and darned if you don't.

Sec Clinton's visit to Thailand for the ASEAN Foreign Ministers conference was of considerable consequential policy impact, as we continue to witness.

Really??

What did Madame Secretary do or say that wasn't already in place as stated US policy? Has there really been "considerable consequential policy impact" in the lengthy era of 10 whole days since her visit?

Would you care to place the rhetoric aside and replace it with some factual examples?

Edited July 28, 2009 by Spee

[Datsun240Z]

Kennedy would have been a good president, to bad he got murdered. He pronounced the moon journey program in 69, but was unable to see it firsthand.

[Publicus]

ASEAN is a circle jerk, i.e, a circle of jerks as Sec Clinton and Pres Obama point out once again.

Hillary Rodham Clinton last year came within a few hundred delegate votes of being the nominee of the Democratic party to be its candidate for president. Taking absolutely nothing from the brilliance of Pres Obama, we can bet the farm Mrs Clinton would have won the presidency last November.

Edited July 29, 2009 by Publicus

[animatic]

ASEAN is a circle jerk, i.e, a circle of jerks as Sec Clinton and Pres Obama point out once again.

Hillary Rodham Clinton last year came within a few hundred delegate votes of being the nominee of the Democratic party to be its candidate for president. Taking absolutely nothing from the brilliance of Pres Obama, we can bet the farm Mrs Clinton would have won the presidency last November.

If MacClain had actually had the republican backing to run properly when younger the world might be a different place.

He was so reasonable that the Republicans, as they tilted towards John Birch land, hated him themselves.

But the Bushies made sure he didn't get that chance as they were grooming one of their own... he decided NOT to run,

and his idiot brother got the job.... we have seen the world wide carnage since then.

I found J. McClain in his earlier years a reasonable choice,

but it was to late and to long in coming, he was clearly NOT up to the task,

and adding on 'Bush Fatigue',

If Obama hadn't been so savy, Hillary would have cleaned the floor with McCain.

Even if he had not picked Palin AKA 'Dubya with tits', she would have smoked him.

Her job is to articulate the American foreign policy and in some ways negotiate with nations,

as the presidents roving spokesperson. She is doing a fine job at that.

Obama was astute to give her this bully-pulpit, she seems to be thriving in.

Just because, by the nature of the job, she must deal with intractable issues and people,

doesn't mean she is doing it badly, it just means they don't change their positions as hoped for,

but likely not expected.

[Spee]

ASEAN is a circle jerk, i.e, a circle of jerks as Sec Clinton and Pres Obama point out once again.

Sources please ?? Or is this just more baseless opinionated rhetoric ??

Hillary Rodham Clinton last year came within a few hundred delegate votes of being the nominee of the Democratic party to be its candidate for president.

By many accounts, Ms. Clinton and the entire Clinton campaign machine screwed the pooch. She had a near insurmountable lead over Barry through most of the campaign and then blew it in the end. Here is a video equivalent of the Clinton campaign:

Is it possible for you to stop being a Clinton & Obama apologist long enough to contribute something useful to the dialog? Being in China, you must have some pulse of what the Chinese government is doing. How about discussing the impact of Chinese government leverage with the Burmese junta and how they are using economic and political influence to manipulate the ASEAN countries?

Personally, I find the ASEAN charter itself to be muddled and contradictory, if not largely ignored by the membership. From Wikipedia:

"Principles set out in the charter include:

Emphasising the centrality of ASEAN in regional cooperation.

Respect for the principles of territorial integrity, sovereignty, non-interference and national identities of ASEAN members.

Promoting regional peace and identity, peaceful settlements of disputes through dialogue and consultation, and the renunciation of aggression.

Upholding international law with respect to human rights, social justice and multilateral trade.

Encouraging regional integration of trade.

Appointment of a Secretary-General and Permanent Representatives of ASEAN.

Establishment of a human rights body and an unresolved dispute mechanism, to be decided at ASEAN Summits.

Development of friendly external relations and a position with the UN (like the EU)

Increasing the number of ASEAN summits to twice a year and the ability to convene for emergency situations.

Reiterating the use of the ASEAN flag, anthem, emblem and national ASEAN day on August 8."

In the case of Burma, how can there be respect for principles of sovereignity and non-interference, when there are chronic abuses of international law with respect to human rights and social injustice?

How can there be regional peace with all of the blatant continuing unrest along the Burma-Thai border, Thai-Cambodia border and Thai-Malaysia border?

Why would the ASEAN group want to have "friendly external relations" with an unabashedly corrupt organization like the UN, which has accomplished very little in the last 60 years to promote world peace and properity?

Personally, I think most people in the world simply want to live in peace and have the opportunity to earn enough money to support their families in their chosen lifestyle. Why wouldn't the ASEAN leaders want to promote a free trade and open market environment which would allow this to happen? Well, we all know the answers don't we? A real leader would act so as to do something about it, and we know how one of them is being treated in Burma.

[Publicus]

Astute of some to notice I'm in China. Less than astute however to try to berate one to publicly provide information spoken to me in confidence regarding the government that passes judgement on my applications for the visa, work permit and the China requirement of the residence permit which overrides each of the two as the ultimate determination and which must be specifically approved after an investigation by the Public Security Bureau.

There are some things I will now post, however, but only because Prez Obama yesterday became the first POTUS to spoke openly of the overriding concern of the Chinese in the PRC, the first president to do so. Prez Obama said he is aware the Chinese view the US and doing everything it can to retard the growth and development of the Chinese economy and of the Chinese people; of China as a country. That Prez Obama seeks a partnership with PRChina despite obvious differences, a peaceful coexistence. This frankness has impressed the Chinese overnight.

I was at an excellent restaurant dinner earlier this evening with a student I tutor privately (an only child), his parents and quite a few of the extended family. Conversation and discussion included Chairman Mao and the Communist Party of China, Deng Xiao Peng etc. I've also had some excellently open discussions in my apartment with certain of the university students where I teach.

The politics 'professors' aka party hacks at universities teach that the US involvement in the Korean Conflict was an attempt by the US to gain a base from which the US could realize its goal of invading China and conquering it. If one considers Gen. Douglas MacArthur at the time, such a scenario COULD

[Spee]

Less than astute however to try to berate one to publicly provide information spoken to me in confidence regarding the government

I don't recall anyone, including me, berating you for not disclosing confidential information. I was not aware that you had access to confidential Chinese government information until you mentioned it above. All I asked for was some substance to back up all the pro-Bamster, pro-Clinton rhetoric, hardly anything to cry foul on.

There are some things I will now post, however, but only because Prez Obama yesterday became the first POTUS to spoke openly of the overriding concern of the Chinese in the PRC, the first president to do so.

Here we go again. Sources please ?? What specifically did the Bamster speak openly about concerning the Chinese that hasn't been said before?

That Prez Obama seeks a partnership with PRChina despite obvious differences, a peaceful coexistence. This frankness has impressed the Chinese overnight.

C'mon .... does anything that anyone in the world does make an overnight impression on the Chinese government? Doubtful. Highly doubtful, IMHO.

IMHO, the Chinese are concerned about three things with the US.

1) Whether the current administration are hawks or doves.

2) Whether US companies will continue to invest there, as a means to support the US consumer base.

3) Whether all the paper they bought will be worth using anywhere besides the crapper.

[Publicus]

...As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted, such a scenario COULD seem plausible to the PRC except the PRC should and would be expected to know better, as MacAuthur openly advocated the creation of a radioactive area of land at the China border at N Korea which certainly and obviously would have precluded for the next 500,000 years any invasion of China by the US or vice versa by the PRC once again against S Korea and the Joint US-ROK UN Military Command in the South.

Likewise as to the Vietnam War. Then N Vietnam leader Uncle Ho Chi Mihn, who learned his Marxism in Paris, stated specifically that "We Vietnamese would rather eat sh*t for a thousand years than to be ruled by China." The PRC is hardly welcome in SEAsia, but its economic ties to Burma intertwine with those of ASEAN member states to the tune of plunder and profit to all.

The PRC finds itself a welcome fully paying guest in Burma. Indeed, the PRC contributed mightily to the construction of Burma's new capital city futher inland, at the recommendation of the PRC goverment, better to insulate it from foreign invasion and attack across its borders. This 'largese' by China is being replicated by the PRC in African countries as it constructs at full costs new Foreign Ministry buildings or compounds/complexes for certain African governments. The implications as to the foreign policies of such recipient governments in Africa are clear to any except the most foggy headed.

Additionally, the PRC is contructing mlitary bases in Burma that give the Chinese Navy, still a minor Navy of the would, range and access to the Indian Ocean, the Bay of Bengal and the vital Strait of Malacca through which most of the shipping to and from East Asian occurs.

Except in matters military and in the funneling of riches from Burma to the PRC by its elite fascist dictatorship, ASEAN remains irrelevant to both Burma and the to PRC. ASEAN countries know they will be defended militarily by the US as the US cannot as a practical matter lose such a geographic region to the PRC. However, the PRC will advance as much of its plan of military expansion anywhere, to include SEAsia as the US will accept.

Meanwhile, ASEAN member states know they have the security umbrella of the US. However, neither are ASEAN members about to sever their iillicitly profitable ties to the Burma regime, nor are ASEAN leaders about to decline in a seizure of social justice such intricate, complex and highly profitable long term schemes by the PRC.

[Spee]

... ASEAN member states know they have the security umbrella of the US.

So the US has defense agreements in place with countries like Brunei, Myanmar, Cambodia and Vietnam ?? Really ?? Actually, the US tolerates the regimes of these nations at the barest level to support the economic interests of US-based businesses.

The US does maintain defense agreements with countries like Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore to ensure regional stability and make sure the those crackpot nations above are kept in check, for the purposes of preserving the economic activity. It is after all, economics and trade that make the world go 'round, not politics. Even Communist China figured this out.

Obviously there is a regional strategic interest, because of China's presence. But the underlying reason for the strategic interest is the economic interest. This is something that countries like Thailand don't seem to be able to figure out. The real power is not political power, police power, religious power or military power. The real power is economic power (also known other forms as economic freedom).

If a country like Thailand would prioritize increasing their economic power and allowing the citizens to have more economic freedom, then all of these other problems would become secondary, if not fall off the radar altogether.

[animatic]

.....

The PRC is hardly welcome in SEAsia,

but its economic ties to Burma intertwine with those of ASEAN member states to the tune of plunder and profit to all.

The PRC finds itself a welcome fully paying guest in Burma. Indeed, the PRC contributed mightily to the construction of Burma's new capital city futher inland, at the recommendation of the PRC goverment, better to insulate it from foreign invasion and attack across its borders. ....

Additionally, the PRC is contructing mlitary bases in Burma that give the Chinese Navy, still a minor Navy of the would, range and access to the Indian Ocean, the Bay of Bengal and the vital Strait of Malacca through which most of the shipping to and from East Asian occurs.

Except in matters military and in the funneling of riches from Burma to the PRC by its elite fascist dictatorship, ASEAN remains irrelevant to both Burma and the to PRC. ASEAN countries know they will be defended militarily by the US as the US cannot as a practical matter lose such a geographic region to the PRC. However, the PRC will advance as much of its plan of military expansion anywhere, to include SEAsia as the US will accept.

Thus little tid bit can't be minimized in it's importance to PRC.

They don't have a countervailing access to the Indian ocean and the coast line

of it's occasionally troubling large neighbor India.

With the periodic uprisings of the under, world-recognized, muslin and Hindu, far western

'peoples of China' and their logical social and religious ties to Indian sub-continent,

China desperately wants quickly usable leverage on india should it ever decide to back

the opposing team in a big way. No love lost between this two 900 gorilas.

Myanmar easily gives that access as a dog leg into that ocean and the power vacuum it represents for PRC.

[Publicus]

The shortcoming of some posters who rail continually is that they fail to think at the grand level of geopolitical and strategic policy, and of strategic policy making. 'animatic' further and more specifically develops the geopolitical and strategic point involving the PRC, India, SEAsia and the US.

Everyone knows the central role of economics, both domestically within a given country, and internationally whether we're considering regional global economies or the global economy itself in all of its diverse forms. The intertwined economies controlled by the grimey elites of ASEAN include Burma as a vital player. However, the missing link and interconnection some who post here are missing is political economy.

Political economy refers to not only economic factors, such as the classic divide between a command economy or market economics, but also to the political system and form of government a country has. The political economy of the PRC, for instance, is a one party state which controls the economy. While the PRC only recently has begun to usher in some factors which are integral to a market economy, the political economy of the PRC remains that of a one party state which controls its economy.

The conflicts discussed are conflicts of political economy, not of economics exclusively. We can't discuss economics exclusively because we need also to discuss the belief a nation has in its political system and in its concomitant form of government.

Because the PRC is controlled by the Communist Party, the PRC promotes one party rule of the state, its people and its economy. The official Party line taught in the PRC is that India is an awful place economically because it has democracy and that India's having democracy makes it an even more awful place. India thus serves the CPC as a lesson that the political economy of India is awful and that the political economy of the PRC, controlled by the CPC, is a good place. The official Party line taught in the PRC is that China cannot have democracy because of its large and diverse population. The fact is, however, that the PRC is but another dynasty and empire of absolute rulers who control and rape the economy to their own benefit while continuing to repress conquered ethnic groups and their religions, not to mention the natural resources of Tibet and the Turkik and Muslim 'XinJiang" province.

Geopolitically and geostrategically, this divide of political economy presents the choice and conflict. Which radically different and competing systems of political economy do we want to see prevail? These factors are by their nature geopolitical and geostrategic.

Edited July 30, 2009 by Publicus

[Spee]

The shortcoming of some posters who rail continually is that they fail to think at the grand level of geopolitical and strategic policy, and of strategic policy making. 'animatic' further and more specifically develops the geopolitical and strategic point involving the PRC, India, SEAsia and the US.

Well, if railing continuously is now defined as asking for you to back off on the pontificating rhetoric and provide some reference sources, then ....yep .... I'm a railer. Still haven't seen any sources, though.

Geopolitically and geostrategically, this divide of political economy presents the choice and conflict. Which radically different and competing systems of political economy do we want to see prevail? These factors are by their nature geopolitical and geostrategic.

Can we cut through all the "geopolitical" and "geostrategic" steer manure and just tell it like it is?

The concept of political economy is hog wash. There is either government control or no government control. In free countries with taxation, outside of providing for the common defense, most money brought under government control through taxation is certain to be abused, wasted, stolen or otherwise used to generate and consolidate political power, to the detriment of the private economy. For you and anyone else who may not understand these basic concepts, I would encourage you to watch "Free to Choose" http://www.miltonfriedman.blogspot.com/

Countries like Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand bear far closer resemblance to their western allies than they do to countries like China. Countries like Myanmar, Brunei and Vietnam bear far closer resemblance to China.

Countries like Myanmar and China are forced tyrannies. They use the force of government, military and police to repress and oppress the population, full time, all the time. The only people who have a chance in these societies are political hacks.

Thailand certainly has its share of faults with repression and could certainly do more in the ways of personal and economic freedom. But it's government, military and police do not exist with the prime directive of repressing and oppressing people.

China's existence is all about governmental control of the people. It has only become an economic player because it has been forced to do so in order to maintain control. America on the other other hand (despite heavy socialist tendencies currently and for a lot of the last 50-60 years), was born solely for the purpose of economic freedom. Personal and religious freedom are a by-product of the quest for economic freedom.

Thailand doesn't seem to be able to figure what it wants to be, a controller of its society or a provider of economic and personal freedom. I hope Thailand realizes that economic freedom is better than political control, and that those who play the middle often end up getting squished.

Edited July 30, 2009 by Spee

[zzaa09]

'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?

We know what Obama is. Nothing has changed. Born of {and represents} ruling elite establishment. As they all are. Same as it ever was......

[Publicus]

The shortcoming of some posters who rail continually is that they fail to think at the grand level of geopolitical and strategic policy, and of strategic policy making. 'animatic' further and more specifically develops the geopolitical and strategic point involving the PRC, India, SEAsia and the US.

Well, if railing continuously is now defined as asking for you to back off on the pontificating rhetoric and provide some reference sources, then ....yep .... I'm a railer. Still haven't seen any sources, though.

Geopolitically and geostrategically, this divide of political economy presents the choice and conflict. Which radically different and competing systems of political economy do we want to see prevail? These factors are by their nature geopolitical and geostrategic.

Can we cut through all the "geopolitical" and "geostrategic" steer manure and just tell it like it is?

The concept of political economy is hog wash. There is either government control or no government control. In free countries with taxation, outside of providing for the common defense, most money brought under government control through taxation is certain to be abused, wasted, stolen or otherwise used to generate and consolidate political power, to the detriment of the private economy. For you and anyone else who may not understand these basic concepts, I would encourage you to watch "Free to Choose" http://www.miltonfriedman.blogspot.com/

Countries like Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand bear far closer resemblance to their western allies than they do to countries like China. Countries like Myanmar, Brunei and Vietnam bear far closer resemblance to China.

Countries like Myanmar and China are forced tyrannies. They use the force of government, military and police to repress and oppress the population, full time, all the time. The only people who have a chance in these societies are political hacks.

Thailand certainly has its share of faults with repression and could certainly do more in the ways of personal and economic freedom. But it's government, military and police do not exist with the prime directive of repressing and oppressing people.

China's existence is all about governmental control of the people. It has only become an economic player because it has been forced to do so in order to maintain control. America on the other other hand (despite heavy socialist tendencies currently and for a lot of the last 50-60 years), was born solely for the purpose of economic freedom. Personal and religious freedom are a by-product of the quest for economic freedom.

Thailand doesn't seem to be able to figure what it wants to be, a controller of its society or a provider of economic and personal freedom. I hope Thailand realizes that economic freedom is better than political control, and that those who play the middle often end up getting squished.

To virtually all that you wrote AFTER presenting Milton Friedman, I say Hear, Hear!! We're talking the same language, or at least arguing the same points from the same side. (The fanatically religious Puritan Pilgrims of Plimoth Plantation ca. 1620 would correct you as to their motivation and purpose, however.)

So, will the 'natural laws' of political economy dictate that some limited but expanding economic liberalism in PRChina will result in a concomitant political liberalization, as most economics right wingers in the US are wont to believe? I seriously doubt it will as we agree the control thing determines all.

BTW, spending on defense in the US constitutes the major source of wasted taxpayer money to include fraud and abuse especially. Spending on Veteran's medical facilities and care, a taxation you omitted from your infintesmal list of approved levies against the people, is much more efficient than the stewardship of taxes raised for the common defense. (You left yourself wide open on that one.)

P.S. We also have geoeconomics in the modern world.

Edited July 31, 2009 by Publicus

[Spee]

spending on defense in the US constitutes the major source of wasted taxpayer money to include fraud and abuse especially. Spending on Veteran's medical facilities and care, a taxation you omitted from your infintesmal list of approved levies against the people, is much more efficient than the stewardship of taxes raised for the common defense. (You left yourself wide open on that one.

This has got to be your most inaccurate statement of the entire thread.

All things considered, US defense spending has provided the best return of any tax dollars spent, not only for the US citizens, but the majority of the civilized world as well. If the historical facts aren't as obvious as a full moon, then nothing else could possibly be.

If you want to talk about veterans medical care, why don't you ask your beloved Barry, who wants to throw disabled vets to the wolves in a token effort to demonstrate how to cut costs from the budget. He will always disgust me for that. People who put their life on the line for their country deserve the best their country has to offer.

Edited July 31, 2009 by Spee

[Publicus]

A thousand toilet seats at $500 per for the Navy made big headlines a few years back, which is one hellova markup. That's one recent instance of fraud, abuse and waste in the US military budget. Meanwhile US troops in Iraq were given ill fitting protective vests which they could not use because of fraud and malfeasance, not to mention have to ride in humvees anyone with a cherry bomb could puncture.

[animatic]

spending on defense in the US constitutes the major source of wasted taxpayer money to include fraud and abuse especially. Spending on Veteran's medical facilities and care, a taxation you omitted from your infintesmal list of approved levies against the people, is much more efficient than the stewardship of taxes raised for the common defense. (You left yourself wide open on that one.

This has got to be your most inaccurate statement of the entire thread.

All things considered, US defense spending has provided the best return of any tax dollars spent, not only for the US citizens, but the majority of the civilized world as well. If the historical facts aren't as obvious as a full moon, then nothing else could possibly be.

If you want to talk about veterans medical care, why don't you ask your beloved Barry, who wants to throw disabled vets to the wolves in a token effort to demonstrate how to cut costs from the budget. He will always disgust me for that. People who put their life on the line for their country deserve the best their country has to offer.

Man, he really bought into that neo-con rhetoric!

$500 toilet seats,

$830 wrenches,

body armor that is improperly made, and sent back twice,

Hummers that had the wrong armor underneath causing many deaths.

legendary stratospheric construction over runs..... too many etc to continue.

Yes we have created an amazing arsenal of high tech gadgetry and much of it works quite well EVENTUALLY.

but to argue that this money is being well spent is ludicrous, it is only the HUGE amounts being spent that

allows the functional technology to shine through the drek and budget padding.

But this is not a critique of having adequate defensive capabilities,

but of egregious waste in the 'defense procurement machine'.

I have no clue who 'beloved Barry' is.... Linden? Goldwater? The Hatchet???

I can support our men and women in harms way 100%

and still be totally disgusted by those at the top mis-leading/mis-managing them.

And even more disgusted with those who would deny them proper care on return,

mental, physical and educational.

{ just saw he beat me in with the toilet seat and other examplea... I was being too verbose.}

Edited July 31, 2009 by animatic

[animatic]

'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?

We know what Obama is. Nothing has changed. Born of {and represents} ruling elite establishment. As they all are. Same as it ever was......

What in hel_l are you talking about.

Obama was poor!

Even his grandmother as only middle class.

His father was an African villager, his mother a world voyaging teacher.

Nothing elitest at all about this.

He worked his butt of and based on serious brains,

and no doubt, knowing the time frame,

a bit of affirmative action; being unavoidable.

He got top level grades at Harvard, inspite of all obstacles.

Not coasting through like Dubya did during his college days.

Just going to Harvard doesn't automatically make you elite nor elitist,

It does give you opportunities to observe and rub shoulders with

the scions of important members of those elites.

But knowing them, and knowing how to deal with them as people,

doesn't make a 'poor, mullato, scholarship student' suddenly become ONE of them.

I will bet there are NOW more than a few of his school years alum. that wish they

had treated him better in their parallel school days.

[Spee]

He worked his butt of and based on serious brains,

and no doubt, knowing the time frame,

a bit of affirmative action; being unavoidable.

He got top level grades at Harvard, inspite of all obstacles.

Oh, please! Now the shit is getting really deep in here.

Obama was a B- student in high school. His undergrad grades have not been released, although it is well known that he did not graduate with honors, despite being in a very soft major study field. His LSAT scores for Law School application have similarly been kept under wraps.

Entrance to Harvard Law is extremely competitive, as discussed here:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=74877

"Harvard Law School is notoriously difficult to get into. Annually, some 7,000 applications apply for some 500 seats. Applicant LSAT scores generally chart in the 98 to 99 percentile range, and GPAs average between 3.80 and 3.95."

So how does a B- high school student with completely unremarkable undergraduate and LSAT grades find himself accepted to Harvard Law, instead of a far more qualified candidate? Obviously the fix was in.

The recent episode with the arrest of black radical H.L. Gates, where the Bamster stooped down from being the President completely back to full tilt community agitator with a single stupid statement, should provide everyone a clear example of this guy's true colors and how not-so-bright he really is.

Edited July 31, 2009 by Spee

[Spee]

A thousand toilet seats at $500 per for the Navy made big headlines a few years back, which is one hellova markup. That's one recent instance of fraud, abuse and waste in the US military budget. Meanwhile US troops in Iraq were given ill fitting protective vests which they could not use because of fraud and malfeasance, not to mention have to ride in humvees anyone with a cherry bomb could puncture.

You obviously have no clue about congressional budget appropriation, defense contracting, and design/build/test requirements for one component or another, or you would understand how congressional interference and procurement requirements cause these costs to escalate. I've been there and done that. The costs get out of control and poor equipment gets ordered because the Congress and other government bureacrats can't avoid micro-managing so many things. Yet you use the bureacracy as an example to take a cheap shot at the men and women in service.

Why don't you just admit that you are an anti-American leftist bigot? Again you purposely avoid responding to my posts because you have nothing substantial to say. Why does it kill you to acknowledge all of the positive things that the US and American military servicemen and servicewomen have done for the benefit of the civilized world? You seem to be just another agitator at heart, like the Bamster you seem to adore.

I've had enough of this thread and enough of you and your associate.

[Publicus]

A thousand toilet seats at $500 per for the Navy made big headlines a few years back, which is one hellova markup. That's one recent instance of fraud, abuse and waste in the US military budget. Meanwhile US troops in Iraq were given ill fitting protective vests which they could not use because of fraud and malfeasance, not to mention have to ride in humvees anyone with a cherry bomb could puncture.

You obviously have no clue about congressional budget appropriation, defense contracting, and design/build/test requirements for one component or another, or you would understand how congressional interference and procurement requirements cause these costs to escalate. I've been there and done that. The costs get out of control and poor equipment gets ordered because the Congress and other government bureacrats can't avoid micro-managing so many things. Yet you use the bureacracy as an example to take a cheap shot at the men and women in service.

Why don't you just admit that you are an anti-American leftist bigot? Again you purposely avoid responding to my posts because you have nothing substantial to say. Why does it kill you to acknowledge all of the positive things that the US and American military servicemen and servicewomen have done for the benefit of the civilized world? You seem to be just another agitator at heart, like the Bamster you seem to adore.

I've had enough of this thread and enough of you and your associate.

Well now I feel compelled to state that I am a veteran of the US Army, Infantry, in which I voluntarily served actively and honorably for three years. Before you dump your load on this thread, I'd be interested in your military service history, if any and of its character. I spent another six consecutive years in the US Army Reserves.

Further, you claim I haven't any knowlege of the nature and processes of Congress and that you do. Possibly each you and I do have such knowledge. I was employed as professional staff in the US House of Representatives in Washington for several years. I was professional staff with each a standing commitee and in the office of an elected Member of Congress. I worked for a Republican MC and for a Democrat MC. The experience immersed me in the legisative process behind the scenes and on the Floor of the House during consideration of bills I'd proposed to Members of Congress or simply had worked on. Each year I was heavily involved in the budget processes from start to finish to include reconciliations with the Senate versions of budgets and legislation.

During my professional employment with the Committee on Veteran's Affairs of the US House of Representatives in Washington, I worked closely and with dedication to assist Vietnam Veterans in their processes of readjustment to civilian life, especially in respect to education, employment training and medical care.

I've worked as professional campaign staff in contests for Congress, governor and in races at other levels so I'm well aware of the nature and processes of the US political system. If that makes President Obama and I agitators who are disloyal to the US Goverment and nation, then you need to provide a hellovalot more substance to your serious and recklessly irresponsible charges. This indeed you cannot do, Mr. Lone Patriot amongst we of the unwashed mob and rabble.

Despite your obvious and self-inflicted exasperation and frustration, you are obliged to return back to this thread to explain your presumptious imperiousness, thank you.

Edited July 31, 2009 by Publicus

[Publicus]

It's been 24 hours since I made the above post yet all I see of the guy who provoked it is his back side...with a yellow streak down it plainly in view.

[zzaa09]

It's been 24 hours since I made the above post yet all I see of the guy who provoked it is his back side...with a yellow streak down it plainly in view.

I believe that Spee has already mentioned that he'll be declining any such further discussion and debate {and your associates }......not that such thought has much to do with the seemingly patriot/anti-patriot seesaw thread, but your subliminal insistence on using military experience as a cure all for everything might make some wonder. Akin to a national religion, sort to speak. These indoctrinated ideals of military worship and romanticism are quite lame. Some wiser circles might find the foundation to honour a militarism as backward and barbaric, as one simply transfers one's civility to an atomosphear of fear. Dronish mercenaries for the state. Without recall and independent thought. I might add....very American. Semper Fi, Dude.