Should The Us Liberate Burma?

[Boon Mee]

Taiquila,

You still haven't addressed the fact that your posts are blatantly anti-US.

In terms of THE WORST President in recent times, this distinction applies to Jimmy Carter & don't make me cite all his f*uck-ups again!...

Yeah Carter was not an effective president. But he is a good man.

It is simple red baiting to call my posts anti-American. I completely deny that. They are anti-Bush. There is all the difference in the world. It is a typical right wing ploy, you listen to too many right wing talk shows. For all the damage Bush has done to America, a better argument is that it is Bush that is the real anti-American. Remember when he ran as a uniter, not a divider?

Yes, but 9/11 changed all that and he's now a War President with radically different priorities - like defending the Homeland???

[Boon Mee]

My agenda is to oppose the worst president in American history. I strongly support John Kerry and think he has the potential to repair the drastic damage to international relations that Bush has managed to inflict. He has substance and intelligence, and shows potential to be a great war president, and to also move the US forward on its many domestic issues.

It is absolutely disgusting (are we back in the McCarthy era?) to equate support of the opposition party to support of Islamic terrorists. Shameless.

To quote the First Lady of Common Sense:

The myth of "McCarthyism" is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times. Liberals are fanatical liars, then as now. The portrayal of Sen. Joe McCarthy as a wild-eyed demagogue destroying innocent lives is sheer liberal hobgoblinism. Liberals weren't hiding under the bed during the McCarthy era. They were systematically undermining the nation's ability to defend itself, while waging a bellicose campaign of lies to blacken McCarthy's name. Liberals denounced McCarthy because they were afraid of getting caught, so they fought back like animals to hide their own collaboration with a regime as evil as the Nazis." -- Ann Coulter

[britmaveric]

Hmmmm Bush is the worst president in History? Doubt that very much-he's done a faire job and made tough decisions that no president of america since FDR had to make.

As far as Kerry goes-pretty much an enigma, I don't think anyone knows what his agenda is even Kerry himself.

Oil? Doubtful since America won't benefit one drop from it.

AlQueda connection-already proven that Saddam had some dealings with these lot, though I don't think it was on the scale that Bush Admin thinks.

Burma-absurd comparison? I don't even understand what point this makes- resources or not, Burma is no threat to the western world, and never will be.

[britmaveric]

Boon Mee- McCarthyism well there were a few communist infiltrations, but it wasn't on the scale that McCarthy had insisted. The whole affair pretty much got out of the control, and it was all about naming names even if it wasn't true or be black listed or ruined.

It all backfired when those investigating were being named, and this is when McCarthy was shutdown himself.

[Thaiquila]

Some brief points in reply:

1. Ann Coulter is not the queen of common sense. She is a shameless right wing demagogue who has zero credibility.

2. I personally have several relatives whose lives were ruined during the McCarthy era. Many brilliant professional careers were ruined and some were driven to suicide. What was their crime? They were idealistic young people mostly during the depression in the 1930s when only American socialists and communists were fighting for workers rights. These were the days when many cities had socialist schools where children sung The Internationale. Belonging to a socialist or communist party is legal in a free democracy. Belonging to such a party does not mean these people were spies for Russia. Old history, but to deny what McCarthy did is a big lie.

3. Bush sold the war for two reasons: IMMINENT DANGER to the US. A lie. And connections to Al Queda. Also a lie. WMDs. Incorrect, though it is hard to know whether Bush knew or not. After these reasons were discredited, Bush fell back on REGIME CHANGE as the default reason. The reason I asked about Burma was of course rhetoric. If BUSH really believes we were justified to go to war in IRAQ only for regime change, why stop there? Why not attack all of the countries with evil regimes, including Burma? A talking point, if you will.

4. If you do not believe my assertions in point 3, read this article in today's Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Mar21.html

[britmaveric]

Ahh Clarke again! Depends on who you believe?

Clarke is an avid Kerry supporter, selling a book, and doesn't like Bush. Hmmm those 3 ingredients cause credibility issues.

[Boon Mee]

Taiquila~

Here's another quote from that "shameless right-wing demagogue" who, by the way, has a lot of credibility. She's also very smart - clerked for Supreme Court Justice William Brennen.

"It was not lost on Osama bin Laden that it only took 18 dead in Somalia for the Great Satan to pull out. It should not be lost on Americans that this is what the Democrats are again demanding we do in Iraq." -- Ann Coulter

Your point re. Burma is apples/oranges. Burma is not a Muslim nation exporting terrorism. Ang San Suu Kyy is STILL doing OK living under "house arrest". And, Burma gives Thais a place close by to go to gamble! (last pt. tongue-in-cheek)

[Bob Chittie]

AlQueda connection-already proven that Saddam had some dealings with these lot, though I don't think it was on the scale that Bush Admin thinks.

Burma-absurd comparison? I don't even understand what point this makes- resources or not, Burma is no threat to the western world, and never will be.

Let me try to clear it up a bit. Before the war Bush and Blair: WMD's, WMD's, WMD's!!!!!

After the war Bush and Blair: Well, he really was an evil man. Really he was. The Iraqi people are far better off now.

The 50% plus Americans who haven't even bothered to apply for a passport:

That's right. He was an evil man. We still did the right thing.

The rest of the sane world: What the ######? You mean there were no WMD's? Yeah he was evil, but there are evil dictators across the world. Are you really trying to tell me that the American government is in the business of 'doing the right thing'? A MILITARY REGIME OUSTED A DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT IN BURMA. THEY RULE BY FORCE. THEY KEEP THIER POPULATION IN POVERTY. So I guess the Burmese just don't deserve the sweet freedom that the Iraqis now know. Oh, there really was a threat? Eventhough there is no evidence whatsoever. WE DON'T BELIEVE YOU.

[Basher]

Chaps,

I found this interesting little article, nice little complication involving VP Dick Cheney, Brown and Root, Heroin, arms deals etc. takes a bit of reading but opens even the eyes of the non-conspiricy theorists amounst us...

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/bushcheney.html

[Boon Mee]

Chaps,

I found this interesting little article, nice little complication involving VP Dick Cheney, Brown and Root, Heroin, arms deals etc. takes a bit of reading but opens even the eyes of the non-conspiricy theorists amounst us...

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/bushcheney.html

You must be joking.

Drug Empire/Pipeline - riiight...but there still is an opportunity to get in on that cheap beach-front property in Arizona!

[Thaiquila]

Ahh Clarke again! Depends on who you believe?

Clarke is an avid Kerry supporter, selling a book, and doesn't like Bush. Hmmm those 3 ingredients cause credibility issues.

Why Clarke is extremely credible and why his book is a BOMBSHELL to BUSH:

1. Clarke is a registered republican.

2. He is dedicated to the good of the country, and has asserted he has non partisan intentions.

3. Clarke worked first under Republican REAGAN, Republican BUSH Sr, Democrat CLINTON, and Republican Baby "W for War Criminal" Bush Jr.

4. Clarke was the TERRORISM czar under Bush at the time of Sept 11, 2001. He was there! And he was a very important figure during this crisis. Listen to what he says.

5. Clarke's story is backed up by many other accounts at the time. NOT a lone voice.

6. The shrill denials from the white house do not DENY the ALLEGATIONS; rather they are focussed on destroying the reputation and credibility of Clarke. If these allegations are really false, why can't they come up with proof of that, rather than a smear campaign?

***

The Bush apologists here are in denial. If Clinton had done what Bush has done, the impeachment proceedings would be in effect. Wake and and realize this man who you thought was a hero is a shameless liar who led the US to a war in Iraq that was not needed. Al Queda-Iraq -- NO CONNECTION.

[britmaveric]

Thaiquila-wow you really have heaps of venom in you.

Come out and say you HATE BUSH and get it over with - personal attack after personal attack on the man. I didn't care for Clinton, but I never "hated" the man and calling Bush a war criminal is pretty silly. Next thing you will be calling him "Hitler".

Clarke apologist? Hmm seems he had 8yrs in Clinton Admin, and really didn't help...1st world trade center attack, Somalia, African Embassy Bombings, USS Cole, botched attempts on UBL, and the list goes on. Lucky he had a job that long with that track record.

[Thaiquila]

Thaiquila-wow you really have heaps of venom in you.

Come out and say you HATE BUSH and get it over with - personal attack after personal attack on the man. I didn't care for Clinton, but I never "hated" the man and calling Bush a war criminal is pretty silly. Next thing you will be calling him "Hitler".

Clarke apologist? Hmm seems he had 8yrs in Clinton Admin, and really didn't help...1st world trade center attack, Somalia, African Embassy Bombings, USS Cole, botched attempts on UBL, and the list goes on. Lucky he had a job that long with that track record.

Master Brit,

None of your comments negate the points in my post.

To reply:

1. Yes, of course, I hate George W. Bush. It is healthy for me to express it.

2. You might not have hated Bill Clinton, but millions of Americans did, and even tried to impeach him for spurious reasons.

3. On the Hitler/Bush comparison: personally I don't compare them, though sometimes it is descriptive to describe Bush as Hitler Lite. I have a related comment. Assuming Bush is a very bad, maybe even evil, president, is it not PATRIOTIC to do everything you can to remove him from office? Was it PATRIOTIC of Germans in the Nazi era to support their fuehrer? Perhaps, but it was WRONG.

4. Did Clarke fail? I understand that argument. Again, it is the line of reasoning that attacks Clarke personally, and does not address his allegations. He no longer works there. Lets do the same favor for Bush. The world and especially the US can no longer AFFORD Bush.

[britmaveric]

Thaiquila-curious what will you do if Bush is re-elected?

1. Good we now know you hate Bush!

2. Personally I thought Clinton was funny, no better person to have around if you want to escape a tight situation.

3. Hitler lite? Well personally Bush is "Jai Dee" Do I think he is right on every issue- no, but I think he has it pegged correctly in regards to terrorism. Have to love Israel too, missle right up the arse of Yassin.

4. Clarke-very transparent he wants to sell a book. I would give the lad more credit if he was a plain/simple whistle blower. Basically he is another Paul O'Neil

[Thaiquila]

I will be very sad if Bush is reeelected. What do you suggest I do?

Clarke wants to sell his book? OK, and what is wrong with that? Again, there is nothing out there, or here, refuting the TRUTH of his allegations. Interestingly, what he has said is pretty much exactly how I have been feeling, that Bush has made the world MORE DANGEROUS due to his Iraq folly.

Clarke has also been accused of trying to influence the election. Consider these things:

A. He was required by law to have the book vetted by the white house. He sent them the book in November. They could have allowed its release right away, last November. It is the white house that is responsible for the later timing of the release. No doubt, the sales will also be greater due to the election year interest. Again, the doing of the white house.

B. Clarke is non-partisan. He has also pledged that he will never accept a post in a Kerry administration.

C. Like Clarke, I think Bush THINKS he is doing the right thing. However, he has no ethics. He is willing to LIE to get his policies approved.

[Boon Mee]

I will be very sad if Bush is reeelected. What do you suggest I do?

Move to some little village in Laos? If you speak Issan Thai right now you'll make it OK