Tsunami Of Wikileaks Has Hit Thailand

[jayboy]

I can't see the stats at the moment, but if I recall a few days ago the wikileaks site listed that it had over 5,000 leaks from the Bangkok embassy.. Only like 3 have been released.. should be interesting to see what comes..

It will be fascinating.One nugget picked up in a brief scan is that Obama has never picked up the phone to speak to Abhisit and that Thaksin has easy access to Russia (including one to one meetings with Putin.)

Go figure.

[rubl]

I'm sure Mrs. Clinton will listen to the Thai ambassador in case a US Judge is in error .....................................would she ?

Would you?

LaoPo

How about you come up with a case of similar nature where a Thai ambassador would be obliged to express his or her sentiments?

You also have a convenient memory. Last May, Thailand's Minister of Foreign Affairs summoned the US Ambassador to protest and express the Thai government's disappointment after the meeting between U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell and Thai politicians. The Thai FM also expressed his views to Secretary Clinton at the ASEAN meetings last October in Vietnam.

What is your point?

When the MoFA summoned the US Ambassador it was a case of a US official 'meddling' in Thai affairs IN Thailand. Not really the same methinks

Where was the "meddling". A party to an ongoing dispute related to the the overthrow of the previous government asked to meet with some officials and to explain its position. The U.S. government neither endorsed, nor supported the party. In fact, the U.S. government conveyed its view that it did not want violence and had a firm position that it did not support violent uprisings in Thailand. At the time, the U.S. officials had a duty to listen to this view and to gather information which could be forwarded to the U.S. State Department. The USA has a large number of citizens in Thailand. U.S. companies have large investments in Thailand (as do Chinese, Japanese, German and other companies). In order to assess the situation and to determine whether contingency plans needed to be drawn up to evacuate U.S. citizens, it was important to hear what the party had to say. At no time did the U.S. representatives take sides. In fact they, and the other governments that sent teams to survey the situation were acting on behalf of their legitimate interests. As you may recall, foreign governments were caught flatfooted when PAD seized the airports. Those governments were ripped apart for doing "nothing". That poor response came about in large part because they were clueless to the planned airport seizures. had the foreign governments obtained the views of PAD beforehand, they would have been better prepared. The meeting with the party in this case was a legal meeting and was an important part of the U.S. officials duties. In no way does this mean there was any meddling nor support.

Would you care to try again?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that talk between April 10th and May 19th this year ? 'meddling' may not have been the right word, but that's why I put it between quotes. The moment the 'peaceful' protest started to escalate the 10th of April it started to become wrong for other nationals especially with an official function / status, to even just talk with those protesters. No government would have accepted that.

[mark45y]

It will be interesting if any cables come to light regarding US views of Mr Thaksin and his shenanigans.

People dissapear here. Human rights lawyers are abducted in public and the police allowed to go scott free. Abductions occur at the airport. Don't you think we need a dollop of truth landing on Thailand?

Where will we get it though? Our moral superiors in all things, the United States, abduct people with no respect for due process or other country's laws. They also drop bombs and hellfire missiles on people they don't like.

You can count the number of sane governments on one hand.

Who might those be?

[huma79]

I can't see the stats at the moment, but if I recall a few days ago the wikileaks site listed that it had over 5,000 leaks from the Bangkok embassy.. Only like 3 have been released.. should be interesting to see what comes..

It will be fascinating.One nugget picked up in a brief scan is that Obama has never picked up the phone to speak to Abhisit and that Thaksin has easy access to Russia (including one to one meetings with Putin.)

Go figure.

Yeah, I thought that was interesting too. I have the impression that the BKK embassy was a little annoyed that the white house was so slow in talking with Abhisit.

[jayjay0]

<br>

<br>

<br>Such leaks can only show this reluctant Nation that the truth is out there and available to everyone now that it is being published. It may lead to an improvement upon how business is done.<br><br>It may also speed up the removal od despots and the implementation of democracy around the world. <br><br>It may also lead to regime change from within the state by civil protest replacing the marching in of American and UK armies later joined by NATO.<br><br>There's enough wrong here on the surface. Imagine what lies below?<br><br>It would top any petty name calling done by the US.<br><br>People dissapear here. Human rights lawyers are abducted in public and the police allowed to go scott free. Abductions occur at the airport. Don't you think we need a dollop of truth landing on Thailand?<br><br>I do. Long may they lose face via the internet where the world can read it.<br>

<br><br>Not sure what you mean by democracy. Can you explain to me?<br><br> I know the system Thailand uses is the same as England and Canada and I suspect a lot of others. Are you saying they are not a democracy? I also know that the US does not even claim to be a democracy they claim to be a Republic.<img src="http://static.thaivisa.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/annoyed.gif" class="bbc_emoticon" alt=""><br>

<br><br>Jay have you lost the plot?  Thailand uses the same system as England and Canada?  Election - coup, Election - coup, re write constitution, Election - coup, military law, election, ban political parties that lose, election - coup.  Thai is like England and Canada?<br>

<br><br>

No they use the same system how ever.

Put the other oar in the water.

I see you have no definition for democracy either. That seems to be a common theme here on TV.

Just say there is no democracy and post any kind of nonsense you want.

To bad you weren't here in Thailand or even paying attention to it. If you had you would know that the last three PM were elected legally and no one got in by a coup. You would also know that Thaksin tried it but failed miserably.

What has rewriting the constitution got to do with the electoral system?""

Edited December 3, 2010 by jayjay0

[LaoPo]

Thailand is a very small country in population, geographical size, and economic import. Thailand works because of the good will of its larger stronger partners. You know that. Why would you make a comment so silly as to expect a quid pro quo relationship between foreign ministers between Thailand and the US.

Because, in International Diplomacy, it is NOT DONE that an ambassador, even from the US, who is much lower in rank than the Minister of Foreign Affairs, tells the Foreign Minister in the country where he is guest, that a Judge from the same country made a wrong decision.

Such a remark is totally absurd and NOT DONE in diplomatic circles.

PS: I'm puzzled why you mark me as being anti-American; I'm against dirty politics from whatever country but if you fit the shoes, wear them; be my guest

LaoPo

[LaoPo]

Would be interesting if Wikileaks could get hold of the private cables from The Russian side.

Oh, don't worry they're there already or were you afraid that the American diplomats in Russia didn't inform their Bureaus in Washington ?

....or do you mean the other way around.....?

LaoPo

Edited December 3, 2010 by LaoPo

[LaoPo]

I can't see the stats at the moment, but if I recall a few days ago the wikileaks site listed that it had over 5,000 leaks from the Bangkok embassy.. Only like 3 have been released.. should be interesting to see what comes..

http://www.spiegel.d...lash-24861.html

could take time to load.

PS: I don't know where you found the number of over 5,000 leaks from Bangkok but there are a "mere" 2.941 from Bangkok and 278 from Chiang Mai and the focus is within the years 2004 to 2010; according to Der Spiegel that is.

LaoPo

Edited December 3, 2010 by LaoPo

[LaoPo]

I realize your anti American posts serve to keep the thread going. It sparks a vitriolic debate and allows you to get your frustrations out of your system for a few minutes. But really you could be a little more subtle.

.

You know Mark, I was thinking about your remark about anti-Americanism but that may not surprise you the least.

What suprises me is that most Americans on this entire forum show they have such long toes when it comes to their beautiful country (I mean that since I know America quite well) and allow me to explain why I say that.

You are of an age, and me too, that we recall the Vietnam war and how devestating and disgusting that war was.

But, many amongst us may NOT REMEMBER the name: Daniel Elssberg ....it may not ring a bell to many youngsters amongst the TV audience but it surely does to you (and me).

Daniel Ellsberg became worldwide famous because of his PENTAGON PAPERS* since he copied more than 7,000 secret documents, one-by-one, on a copy machine (no internet at the time and 10 years earlier he wouldn't even been able to do the job because there were NO Xerox machines yet, widespread) in order to expose the role the Pentagon and CIA had in the Vietnam war.

Because of his actions the beginning of the end of the war in Vietnam started in 1969/1970 and made the American public aware of the enormous scale they were cheated upon by the Administration and thus finally leading to the end of the war in 1975, also because of the mass protests in the US !!

The rest is history but my point is that if an American -Daniel Ellsberg- opposes to his dirty Government and their various sub-bureaus like Pentagon/CIA, lying about the Vietnam war amongst other things, why am I now painted as anti-American if I oppose to the same dirty tricks by those consecutive Governments?

If one is anti a certain Government he's not necessarily anti-country; the same as I despise the Chinese regime, or Burmese, or some Middle Eastern regimes, but that doesn't mean I despise all people, companies, products, nature in said countries; on the contrary.

2 days ago someone wrote that he didn't like Chinese; that's the same silly remark, generalizing 1,3 Billion people, as saying that you don't like Thai, Indonesian, European or Dutch people; The only difference is the number of people in a given country.

There are a few people in my neighbourhood that I don't like (because they're dishonest people) but many more I DO like. The same for people I know in so many countries around the world, including the US; some are nice, some are less nice.

* http://en.wikipedia....Pentagon_Papers

Do I like American cars....not in Europe but in the US, they're fine...

See what I mean?

LaoPo

[Piengrudee]

Wikileaks are bad people. The world is blocking it, not just Thailand. I just check http://www.wikileaks.org/ and it is not accessible.

[phutoie2]

Wikileaks are bad people. The world is blocking it, not just Thailand. I just check http://www.wikileaks.org/ and it is not accessible.

Try wikileaks.ch - have fun!

PS:- no probs on facebook!!

Edited December 4, 2010 by phutoie2

[Ulysses G.]

I realize your anti American posts serve to keep the thread going. It sparks a vitriolic debate and allows you to get your frustrations out of your system for a few minutes. But really you could be a little more subtle.

Nothing new about these very slanted posts.

[Piengrudee]

It is not just anti-US. It also anti-Russian, as it suggest that Russian also know how to bribe.

[mark45y]

<br>

<br>

<br>Such leaks can only show this reluctant Nation that the truth is out there and available to everyone now that it is being published. It may lead to an improvement upon how business is done.<br><br>It may also speed up the removal od despots and the implementation of democracy around the world. <br><br>It may also lead to regime change from within the state by civil protest replacing the marching in of American and UK armies later joined by NATO.<br><br>There's enough wrong here on the surface. Imagine what lies below?<br><br>It would top any petty name calling done by the US.<br><br>People dissapear here. Human rights lawyers are abducted in public and the police allowed to go scott free. Abductions occur at the airport. Don't you think we need a dollop of truth landing on Thailand?<br><br>I do. Long may they lose face via the internet where the world can read it.<br>

<br><br>Not sure what you mean by democracy. Can you explain to me?<br><br> I know the system Thailand uses is the same as England and Canada and I suspect a lot of others. Are you saying they are not a democracy? I also know that the US does not even claim to be a democracy they claim to be a Republic.<img src="http://static.thaivisa.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/annoyed.gif" class="bbc_emoticon" alt=""><br>

<br><br>Jay have you lost the plot?  Thailand uses the same system as England and Canada?  Election - coup, Election - coup, re write constitution, Election - coup, military law, election, ban political parties that lose, election - coup.  Thai is like England and Canada?<br>

<br><br>

No they use the same system how ever.

Put the other oar in the water.

I see you have no definition for democracy either. That seems to be a common theme here on TV.

Just say there is no democracy and post any kind of nonsense you want.

To bad you weren't here in Thailand or even paying attention to it. If you had you would know that the last three PM were elected legally and no one got in by a coup. You would also know that Thaksin tried it but failed miserably.

What has rewriting the constitution got to do with the electoral system?""

I got to Thailand in 1969. I do know a little about its government. Thailand was a absolute monarchy until the 1930's then it became ruled by the military. The military has continued it's rule since then. The military informs the government of the best approach to rule and if the government does not agree the military stages another coup. Coups have taken place in 1932, 1933, 1947, 1951, 1957, 1976, 1977, 1981, 1985, 1991 and 2006. Thailand has had 17 constitutions since 1932. I would answer your question about constitutions but I don't want to write that much. Look it up and you will find out what the constitution has to do with Thailand's laws.

[mark45y]

Thailand is a very small country in population, geographical size, and economic import. Thailand works because of the good will of its larger stronger partners. You know that. Why would you make a comment so silly as to expect a quid pro quo relationship between foreign ministers between Thailand and the US.

Because, in International Diplomacy, it is NOT DONE that an ambassador, even from the US, who is much lower in rank than the Minister of Foreign Affairs, tells the Foreign Minister in the country where he is guest, that a Judge from the same country made a wrong decision.

Such a remark is totally absurd and NOT DONE in diplomatic circles.

PS: I'm puzzled why you mark me as being anti-American; I'm against dirty politics from whatever country but if you fit the shoes, wear them; be my guest

LaoPo

I really hadn't thought about the rank of the people communicating. I meant the relationship between countries.

The one who pays the fiddler is obviously going to call the tune.

Maybe you don't know. Maybe my posts have not been as transparent as I imagined. I am a bit of an anarchist.

And there is a side of me that enjoys the Wikileaks especially when the bad guys squirm.

I also am pleased that Hillary announced she will never hold public office again. She is one of the bad guys.

Your approach is not even handed. Try and see a bit of the other side, even if you don't see it. When listing an argument give both sides with the weight being on the side you favor instead of being 100% in one direction.

If you create the impression that you are objective and even handed your argument will carry more weight and be more statesmanlike.

[geriatrickid]

Thailand is a very small country in population, geographical size, and economic import. Thailand works because of the good will of its larger stronger partners. You know that. Why would you make a comment so silly as to expect a quid pro quo relationship between foreign ministers between Thailand and the US.

Because, in International Diplomacy, it is NOT DONE that an ambassador, even from the US, who is much lower in rank than the Minister of Foreign Affairs, tells the Foreign Minister in the country where he is guest, that a Judge from the same country made a wrong decision.

Such a remark is totally absurd and NOT DONE in diplomatic circles.

PS: I'm puzzled why you mark me as being anti-American; I'm against dirty politics from whatever country but if you fit the shoes, wear them; be my guest

LaoPo

My goodness me. Now you are an expert on the role of an Ambassador. Let's start with some facts;

1. An Ambassador is not a "guest". He or she is the representative of the head of state. There is a reason why an Ambassador presents his or her credentials to the foreign head of state. In Thailand, the Ambassador presents his or her credentials to the King or his representative. I believe the Crown Prince now acts on behalf of his majesty for these events.

2. The U.S. Ambassador at the time was termed as an Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary is a personal representative of the President of the USA. In this case the Ambassador may be treated as an honoured guest in terms of hospitality, but he is much more than a "guest".

3. If the Ambassador is making a call to a Minister of Foreign Affairs, then the Ambassador is doing so in his or her capacity as the representative of the President. In terms of protocol, he is speaking on behalf of the President and in speaking with him it is the equivalent to speaking to the President, except that one is allowed to vent more and use saltier language when responding. Sort of akin to the old position as a prince's whipping boy back in the day when a prince that misbehaved so a whipping boy was punished in his place as one was not allowed to strike the prince.

4. Any action the Ambassador took was on the instruction of his President, although for practical purposes, the Ambassador is receiving his instructions from the Department of State.

5. The remarks you protest are most certainly done in diplomatic circles. I suggest you pick up the memoirs of some retired ambassadors.

I trust this answers your questions in basic civics. BTW, I think you owe the gentleman an apology.

[Ulysses G.]

PS: I'm puzzled why you mark me as being anti-American

He probably went back and read all your old posts.That gives it away.

[Spee]

Daniel Ellsberg became worldwide famous because of his PENTAGON PAPERS* since he copied more than 7,000 secret documents,

Or alternatively ....

Daniel Ellsberg became worldwide famous because he STOLE and ILLEGALLY RELEASED classified documents in a period of American history in which it was politically unpopular to prosecute and incarcerate people for doing so. Ellsberg had to confess to criminal activity and turn himself over to the authorities before he faced any penalty for his actions.

So too, Assange and his co-conspirators are abusing and misusing the STOLEN property of others. But let's be clear about it. The real problems are the sources, the thieves themselves. Assange is only the puss oozing out of an infected wound.

Inner city pawn shops are the bane of local communities, because they fence locally stolen goods under the guise of a legal enterprise. They too are only the puss from a festering open wound. Those inflicting the wound, the thieves, are the real source of the problems.

As it was once said (James Carville IIRC), if Hillary Clinton gave Barack Obama one of her balls, she would still have more than him. If he had any balls and any sense of American pride and Presidential responsibility, Assange and his co-conspirators would already be under indictment for possession of STOLEN American property. But as we have seen, Obama uses his Justice Department for political retribution rather than to protect the interests of the American people.

Edited December 4, 2010 by Spee

[geriatrickid]

Spee, you make a valid point but I believe the POTUS is restrained by events and by past administration decisions. For example, the current administration is still relying on decisions about torture made during the Bush administration. One need only look at the current problem with the US special committee on the fiscal crisis, or the attempt to pass the nuclear arms treaty with Russia or the multiple unconfirmed department appointments held up in the Senate to understand that. The POTUS has limited powers as part of the US system, the checks and balances issue. One of the items illustrated by the wikileaks that none of the finger pointers want to discuss is the desperate attempts of the current adminiustration to close Gitmo. None of the governments approached wanted to take back their nationals. The U.S. is stuck with Gitmo because of that. The leaks reveal that the U.S. was trying everything it could to transfer the prisoners. No one wanted to help. That in itself speaks volumes. It is easy for people to criticize, but no one is stepping up to help solve some of these issues.

[LaoPo]

Interesting thread but I hope some of you chaps will forgive me for not answering to every single post and rant, intending to harm and bash upon me.

But, don't worry, you won't succeed with personal attacks.

My skin is too thick

The difference between some of you and myself is that I always try to stay polite and prevent to bash upon members personally, but it looks like some of you enjoy it to bash upon the undersigned and it even looks like it has become a kind of a mutual sport, attacking LaoPo, mostly by specific frustrated members.

How jolly good that a new sport has been invented.

It's no longer a debate about views about the topic on hand, amongst members,........... no it's becoming more and more a fierce attack on the debater himself, rather than discussing his views; how silly and pathetic.

Maybe I will call for the 2010 Bash Champion on December 31st, 2010

But, at least it's nice to see that my post about the comparison between the PENTAGON PAPERS and WikiLeaks received some attention. Good feedback!

Have a nice weekend and: Hasta Pronto !

LaoPo

[Ulysses G.]

Pointing out that many of your posts are anti-American is not "bashing". It is stating the obvious. Trying to claim that you are being "bashed" is about as accurate as most of the wild, blog-based claims that you are using to support your opinions.

[LaoPo]

Pointing out that many of your posts are anti-American is not "bashing". It is stating the obvious. Trying to claim that you are being "bashed" is about as accurate as most of the wild, blog-based claims that you are using to support your opinions.

Let me bite:

Maybe you and other fellow member Americans, once and for all, are willing to write down the definition rules of being considered "Anti-American".

It's OK with me if you all speak behind the curtains with one another (PM's) and draw up a document, explaining what the American members on TV consider to be Anti-American.

That would be a good guide for all of us, and eventuall also to be included in the TV Forum rules, if you and Administration wish so.

Be, however, prepared that such an Anti-Country document will also be valid for all other nations, OK?

Deal ?

LaoPo

[Ulysses G.]

Well, at least you did not claim that I was "bashing" you this time, but I'm sure that you know that you can look up the definition of anti-American is any dictionary - or just examine your posting history carefully and work from there.

[Spee]

Spee, you make a valid point but I believe the POTUS is restrained by events and by past administration decisions.

Not trying to turn this into political debate, but I think you are off base on some things. I will address a few.

One need only look at the current problem with the US special committee on the fiscal crisis,

There is only a fiscal crisis because the Obama controlled government has spent us into oblivion (the subprime mortgage issue not withstanding), while his primary concern is getting the &lt;deleted&gt; outta Dodge for his next vacation. As for the special committee, I think the great Dr. Thomas Sowell has everything exactly on point here:

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell111610.php3

The POTUS has limited powers as part of the US system, the checks and balances issue. One of the items illustrated by the wikileaks that none of the finger pointers want to discuss is the desperate attempts of the current adminiustration to close Gitmo. ..... No one wanted to help. That in itself speaks volumes.

The system of checks and balances has been thoroughly trashed by this administration. One need look no further than the vast number presidential edicts and czar appointments, all of which have been done outside of the enumerated powers granted by the Constitution. Obama has done nothing to close Gitmo, which is one in a multitude of phony unfufilled campaign promises. While I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with both movements, the administration made very clear plans to close Gitmo, try the enemy combatants in stateside civilian court and imprison them in stateside civilian penetentiaries. He tried to propagandize the disastrous fiasco of the Ghailani trial as a huge success, yet there is still no decision on where the now convicted terrorist will be imprisoned. Obama has done nothing with Gitmo because he doesn't have the balls to follow through with any tough decisions, not because countries don't want their bad boys back. Personally, I think military tribunals and Gitmo incarceration are the proper solutions to the problem, but that is another story.

But let's get back to Wikileaks for what it is, a rogue website with no real purpose other than to make democratic governments and government officials look bad in the eyes of the rest of the world. As others have suggested, why isn't Wikileaks releasing all kinds of information about the abuses in places like Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, Burma and other rogue nations?

And more importantly, who is funding and providing cover for Wikileaks? And how is the flow of stolen property being funneled from the thieves to the Wikileaks people?

[animatic]

Ulysses G.' timestamp='1291505089' post='4066912'

Pointing out that many of your posts are anti-American is not "bashing". It is stating the obvious. Trying to claim that you are being "bashed" is about as accurate as most of the wild, blog-based claims that you are using to support your opinions.

Let me bite:

Maybe you and other fellow member Americans, once and for all, are willing to write down the definition rules of being considered "Anti-American".

It's OK with me if you all speak behind the curtains with one another (PM's) and draw up a document, explaining what the American members on TV consider to be Anti-American.

That would be a good guide for all of us, and eventuall also to be included in the TV Forum rules, if you and Administration wish so.

Be, however, prepared that such an Anti-Country document will also be valid for all other nations, OK?

Deal ?

LaoPo

Anti-Americanism in seven easy steps

The humanitarian catastrophe in Haiti is turning out to be a

classic illustration of anti-Americanism in seven easy steps.

1. Calamitous events take place in a chaotic place (think Bosnia, think Somalia, think Iraq in 1991).
2. The U.N and the U.S intervene.
3. The civil government proves to be useless or malign, or both. The U.N isn't up to the job. The only effective force in sight is the U.S. According to today's Guardian, John O'Shea, the head of Goal, a medical charity, has called on the U.S to take charge of the whole operation. So has a major U.S aid agency ("which declined to be named for political reasons").
4. There are only two possible outcomes.
5. The U.S takes over. If this happens, it will be accused of "creating a military occupation under the guise of humanitarian aid" and "occupying" the country outright. (Apologies, my memory's failing me. These criticisms have been aired already. The first quote's from President Chavez of Venezuela. The second's from Alain Joyandet, France's "Co-operation Minister".)
6. The U.S doesn't take over. If this happens, it will be criticised for "not doing enough" - and isolationism.
7. So either way, the U.S loses. by Paul Goodman

Why People Hate America A Summary of Anti-Americanism

By Vexen Crabtree 2001 Sep 24

This was inspired by American friends' confusion over whether they are hated or not, and why. Although it includes some of my own views most of the reasons people give here are common to average people, plus some opinions of reporters and other bodies. This has been written during the fallout of the terrorist attacks on North America on 2001 Sep 11, during which both towers of the World Trade Center collapsed, killing over 2000 people, the Pentagon was attacked leaving over 100 dead, and other bombs and hijackings (some of which failed) occurred.Many of today's achievements would not be possible without the help or aid of the USA. Many medical, technological advances and much human aid and third world relief comes from this rich nation.

This page is educational in that it is a description and analysis of criticism of America. My personal stance is one of vague indifference. I don't hate America. Its foreign policies are increasingly unacceptable and its current government's attitude to some of the issues below (pollution, environment, arms race) is appalling, immature and short sighted. But at some point, during the times I have spent in America I have kind of fallen in love with it.

http://www.vexen.co....ateamerica.html

Anti-Americanism: A Clinical Study

By Bernard Chazelle

Last summer, with France on his mind, the British historian Paul Johnson graced the pages of Forbes Magazine with this trenchant observation: "Anti-Americanism is racist envy" <a href="http://www.cs.princeton.edu/%7Echazelle/politics/antiam.html#fn1">[1]. Lest anyone miss the point, the best-selling author quickly rephrased it in more accessible language: "France is not a democracy." His novel insight could hardly be dismissed as mere anti-Frenchism for the simple reason that the word does not exist. In fact, neither does anti-Polishism, anti-Spanishism, or even anti-Vaticanism. (Each one googles in the single digits—the modern definition of nonexistence.) With over 115,000 Google hits, anti-Americanism stands alone: a living testament to US exceptionalism.

http://www.cs.prince...ics/antiam.html

Good ahead, have a field day with this.

Edited December 5, 2010 by animatic

[animatic]

Spee, you make a valid point but I believe the POTUS is restrained by events and by past administration decisions.

Not trying to turn this into political debate, but I think you are off base on some things. I will address a few.

One need only look at the current problem with the US special committee on the fiscal crisis,

There is only a fiscal crisis because the Obama controlled government has spent us into oblivion (the subprime mortgage issue not withstanding), while his primary concern is getting the &lt;deleted&gt; outta Dodge for his next vacation. As for the special committee, I think the great Dr. Thomas Sowell has everything exactly on point here:

http://jewishworldre...well111610.php3

The POTUS has limited powers as part of the US system, the checks and balances issue. One of the items illustrated by the wikileaks that none of the finger pointers want to discuss is the desperate attempts of the current adminiustration to close Gitmo. ..... No one wanted to help. That in itself speaks volumes.

The system of checks and balances has been thoroughly trashed by this administration. One need look no further than the vast number presidential edicts and czar appointments, all of which have been done outside of the enumerated powers granted by the Constitution. Obama has done nothing to close Gitmo, which is one in a multitude of phony unfufilled campaign promises. While I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with both movements, the administration made very clear plans to close Gitmo, try the enemy combatants in stateside civilian court and imprison them in stateside civilian penetentiaries. He tried to propagandize the disastrous fiasco of the Ghailani trial as a huge success, yet there is still no decision on where the now convicted terrorist will be imprisoned. Obama has done nothing with Gitmo because he doesn't have the balls to follow through with any tough decisions, not because countries don't want their bad boys back. Personally, I think military tribunals and Gitmo incarceration are the proper solutions to the problem, but that is another story.

But let's get back to Wikileaks for what it is, a rogue website with no real purpose other than to make democratic governments and government officials look bad in the eyes of the rest of the world. As others have suggested, why isn't Wikileaks releasing all kinds of information about the abuses in places like Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, Burma and other rogue nations?

And more importantly, who is funding and providing cover for Wikileaks? And how is the flow of stolen property being funneled from the thieves to the Wikileaks people?

There were even more broadly trashed by the previous mis-administration.

[nocturn]

What? Do you think Bout sold them weapon only because he thought they are terrorists?

I really would like to hear your definition of 'terrorists'.

And why it was a 'conspiracy'?

terrorist (plural terrorists)

A person, group, or organization that uses violent action, or the threat of violent action, to further political goals; frequently in an attempt to coerce either a more powerful opponent, (such as a citizen or group targeting a government), or conversely, a weaker opponent, (such as a government, or even an internal citizen or group, being targeted by a larger government).

to conspire (third-person singular simple present conspires, present participle conspiring, simple past and past participle conspired)

- To secretly plot or make plans together, often used regarding something bad or illegal.

- (intransitive) To agree, to concur to one end.  

- To try to make things go a certain way.

ironically your sad use of cut and paste to justify your argument has provided us with a definition of terrorism wide enough to indict almost any country in the world that has fielded a military or funds an intelligence service.

what was your point?

[slapout]

The older the parents the more likely hood of the offspring being somewhat mentally/physically afflicted. This accepted point of genetics may give a hint into the projected longevity of governments of the modern world. When a system is broken/flawed, changes should be forthcoming. The old school that got us there, may be on the downhill side of their mental capability. The problem seems to be that us old codgers do not want to relinquish the control for the betterment of mankind/country.

[whybother]

What? Do you think Bout sold them weapon only because he thought they are terrorists?

I really would like to hear your definition of 'terrorists'.

And why it was a 'conspiracy'?

terrorist (plural terrorists)

A person, group, or organization that uses violent action, or the threat of violent action, to further political goals; frequently in an attempt to coerce either a more powerful opponent, (such as a citizen or group targeting a government), or conversely, a weaker opponent, (such as a government, or even an internal citizen or group, being targeted by a larger government).

to conspire (third-person singular simple present conspires, present participle conspiring, simple past and past participle conspired)

- To secretly plot or make plans together, often used regarding something bad or illegal.

- (intransitive) To agree, to concur to one end.  

- To try to make things go a certain way.

ironically your sad use of cut and paste to justify your argument has provided us with a definition of terrorism wide enough to indict almost any country in the world that has fielded a military or funds an intelligence service.

what was your point?

Maybe it's just your reading skills that is the problem.

[endure]

Tsunami of leaks .............

and

The first wave of the WikiLeaks hurricane ...............

It's certainly getting very stormy round here !!

Next thing you know Thailand will be the hub of leaks.