“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Don’t think this cannot happen in Afghanistan - US air war in Cambodia




Lon Nol, (born Nov. 13, 1913, Prey Vêng, Cambodia—died Nov. 17, 1985, Fullerton, Calif., U.S.), soldier and politician whose overthrow of Prince Norodom Sihanouk (1970) involved Cambodia in the Indochina war and ended in the takeover (1975) of the country by the communist Khmer Rouge.

Lon Nol entered the French colonial service in 1937 and became a magistrate, then a provincial governor and head of the national police (1951). He joined the army in 1952 and fought against intruding Vietnamese communist guerrillas in Cambodia as an area commander. After again serving as a provincial governor, he became Cambodian army chief of staff (1955) and commander in chief (1960) under the country’s leader, Prince Norodom Sihanouk. He was deputy premier (1963), minister of defense (1968–69), and twice premier (1966–67 and from 1969) under Sihanouk.

Lon Nol was a prime architect of the coup in March 1970 that overthrew Sihanouk, and he became the most prominent leader in the new government, serving as its premier until 1972. Abandoning Sihanouk’s policy of neutrality in the Indochina war, Lon Nol established close ties with the United States and South Vietnam, permitting their forces to operate on Cambodian territory. On March 10, 1972, he assumed total power over Cambodia and installed himself as president two days later. In the meantime, the communist Khmer Rouge movement was gathering strength in the Cambodian countryside, despite a U.S. air campaign against the insurgents. On April 1, 1975, with Khmer Rouge communist guerrillas only a few miles from the capital, Lon Nol left the country and settled in the United States, where he died in 1985.

124 comments:

  1. Some leaders of the red khmers got a lot of their 'education' in France. Paris.

    Says a lot.

    They would have done much better to have paid attention to their own native traditions.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Proceedings at the Khmer Rouge tribunal took an unexpected turn on Thursday, when defense attorneys for Nuon Chea said the court should reschedule the testimony of torture chief Kaing Kek Iev for the mornings only because Noun Chea would not participate in his trial in the afternoons.

    ...

    The court adjourned for 20 minutes, after which Trial Chamber chief judge Nil Nonn announced a new schedule.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The security breach occurred near where Mr. Panetta's plane was due to park, and just before the defense secretary arrived, a U.S. military official said.

    The vehicle missed the Marines, driving into a ditch 100 yards away. Witnesses, Gen. Scaparrotti said, saw a puff of smoke, then saw the driver emerge engulfed in flames. The dog that helped subdue the man was slightly injured by burns, the official said.

    "We don't know his intent, we don't know what triggered this," Gen. Scaparrotti said. Before trying to hit the Marines, the Afghan man attempted to run over a British soldier and injured him, officials said.

    ReplyDelete
  4. .

    Despite Rights Concerns, U.S. Plans to Resume Egypt Aid


    To restart the aid, which has been a cornerstone of American relations with Egypt for more than three decades, the administration plans on sidestepping a new Congressional requirement that for the first time directly links military assistance to the protection of basic freedoms.

    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is expected to waive the requirement on national security grounds as soon as early next week, according to administration and Congressional officials. That would allow some, but not yet all of $1.3 billion in military aid this year to move forward, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so that they could discuss internal deliberations...


    So, it's for national security reasons?

    Or, maybe it was further payoff for letting the American NGO emplyees go.

    The threat that the military aid might end was a critical factor in the release by the Egyptian government of seven Americans employed by four American-financed international organizations that were involved in community organizing activities...

    Or, maybe it's just the usual looking out for the old military/industrial complex.

    Within weeks Egypt risks missing payments on defense contracts, largely with American arms manufacturers, forcing Mrs. Clinton to decide the certification question now. “It’s coming up sooner than some people wanted,” one senior official said.

    Any way you look at it, it's one more example of the US' screwed up ME policy on the one hand and Obama's contempt for laws passed by Congress on the other.

    Egypt Aid

    .

    ReplyDelete
  5. “The new constitution should be for all Egyptians, not just for one group,” asserted Kyrillos Kamal William Samaan, Coptic Catholic Bishop of Assiut, underscoring the right of Christians to participate in the creation of a new Egypt. Since mid-February, Bishop Kyrillos has been representing the Cairo-based Patriarch of Alexandria, Antonios Kardinal Naguib, who is gravely ill, as the leader of the nation’s Coptic Catholic Church.

    ...

    “We have no problems with the victory of the Muslim Brotherhood in recent elections,” Bishop Kyrillos emphasised, and noted that many Muslim brothers were more moderate than the Salafis. The latter want a “pure” Islam and would reject the election of Christians on the grounds that they were infidels.

    However, the Coptic Christian Church works hard to maintain good contacts with Muslims. “Christians are not strangers to this country, a minority admittedly, but certainly 15 percent of the population.

    ReplyDelete
  6. .

    “When it all comes out, it will be a combination of stress, alcohol and domestic issues — he just snapped,” said the official, who has been briefed on the investigation and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the soldier has not yet been formally charged...


    Soldier's Lawyer Refutes Official's Version

    .

    ReplyDelete
  7. The lawyer added that he's been told that, despite some media reports, there were no major problems with the soldier's marriage at home and that he was a loving father to both of his children.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Here is the scenario: We withdraw from Afghanistan, within 6 months, the corrupt Karzai is assassinated, the “trained” Afghan troops/police scurry back to the Taliban who will kill them if they don’t, and the country is back to a Taliban training facility. Too many lives and too much money being spent for this era’s Viet Nam. Should we have been there in the first place? We ought to know that answer. We cannot afford to be the international cop. We are making more and more people HATE us, and thus creating the very problem we are supposedly trying to avoid.

    Iraq will soon be like it once was and Afghanistan will follow and for what? Don’t give me that crap from some who say, “Those troops died for our freedom!” Bullcrap. I honor the troops, I am vet. of this first Gulf War. The troops did what they were told by a bunch of thugs (ie. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush). Obama and Panetta are no better. When the Secretary of Defense is afraid of the U. S. Marines, your armed forces are f**ked.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Operation Enduring Freedom”, in Paktika province, in east Afghanistan, Pashtuns, Pakistan. Those troops died for a lot of reasons, freedom was not one oof them.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Another tragedy of this case was America’s decision to join the Chinese in tacitly supporting the Khmer Rouge through the recognition of their seat at the United Nations, all in the name of the Cold War geopolitics! Jimmy Carter, for all his human qualities in his post-Whitehouse time, made a really terrible mistake in such decision. China has always tried to dominate and control Vietnam in particular, and Indochina in general. China’s support for North Vietnam in the Vietnam-America War is well documented, but its support (materiel, manpower, ideology, and diplomacy) is not as well documented. Tens of thousands of Chinese ‘advisers’ were evacuated (by ships) from the country ahead of the Vietnamese forces in 1979. Taking into consideration the Khmer Rouge’s Mao-inspired agrarian revolution and policies once they took over the country in 1975, the presence of thousands of Chinese advisers provides a strong indicator of their non-agricultural roles. Deng Xiaoping’s decision to invade Northern Vietnam provides another clear indication of China’s role in supporting the Khmer Rouge (i.e., to relieve the pressure facing the Khmer Rouge leadership as the Vietnamese troops neared Phnom Penh)
    Even as China has become more prosperous since its economic opening to Capitalism, its foreign policy continues to seek out advantages for itself, even at the expense of human rights in other countries. One needs look no further than China’s involvement today in many African countries ruled by oppressive dictators. China has not, and does not seem to be interested to contribute to world peace and well-being of other peoples. So much for China’s slogan of “Peaceful Rise”! In the eye of all Khmer people, China Com. Gov. and Sihanouk himself needed to be in the box of this UN Tribunal to answer along with those senior KR’s to find the real truth.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Whether the real truth about anything can be found in a UN Tribunal I have my doots, but many years ago I ran across some human truth here in a May Fair in our park, when a Cambodian lady, who spoke not a word of English, was trying to sell some weavings that told the story of how the violent men with AK-47s came through her village, and they (her village people and herself) escaped across a river, leaving some of their dead relatives behind. In her case she somehow escaped all the way to our park here, and I bought some of her story weavings to help her out. The human truth of much of her life was told in those weavings, which I still own.

    XXXXX


    Breitbart Lives!! Breitbart Is Here!!!

    Sarah Breitbart Is Here!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Interesting. If I'm doing my sums right, the world is now obtaining about 3% of its electricity from "Wind."

    New Record

    ReplyDelete
  13. Rufus: Interesting. If I'm doing my sums right, the world is now obtaining about 3% of its electricity from "Wind."

    And if things keep going this way, the world will get more and more of it's power from wind, and animal muscle, and eventually human muscle. What an amazing productivity tool a whip can be.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Most of that wind is coming from Mississippi.

    I'll knock it off for a week if you will read THIS Rufus, and admit a vote for Obama is a vote for a commie unamerican lying son of a bitch prick.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Bob, every time I click on one of your idiotic links I waste 2 seconds of the rest of my life. I'm getting too old for that.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Actually, other than the fact that he's been a little too strong on electric cars, and a lot too weak on biofuels, I pretty much like what Obama's done.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Google executive parting shot:

    Google now wants to 'learn as much about people's private lives as possible'

    Company has 'stopped' being a technology company focused on innovation

    'When Gmail displays ads based on things in my email it creeps me out'


    It's really embarrassing when my mother comes over and wants me to clean the malware off her laptop, and when she watches me surf to Google to look for the link to Lavasoft, it says, "Based on your frequent searches for 'whips' and 'chains' we recommend the following products for you to consider."

    ReplyDelete
  18. Female politicians in four other states are joining Ohio and Georgia representatives in a bid to crack down on men's sexual and reproductive freedoms, including access to Viagra and vasectomies. It's their way of striking back against restrictive state abortion laws and attacks on health insurance coverage for birth control. An Oklahoma amendment demands that semen only be deposited in a woman's vagina. Not to comply would be "interpreted and construed as an action against an unborn child," reports NPR.

    People think such laws are "strange," even though many accept laws restricting access to abortion or birth control for women, said Ohio State Sen. Nina Turner, who recently introduced legislation requiring men seeking Viagra to get a cardiac stress test, see a sex therapist, and obtain a note from partners saying that they're having erectile problems. Experts say such laws have zero chance of passing. But the point isn't getting the laws passed, but to make a point, and to get women to the polls in November, said Jennifer Lawless, director of the Women and Politics Institute at American University.

    I see the boys are gnawing on their buffalo bones again.

    ReplyDelete
  19. At least one source close to the Palin family in Wasilla, Alaska, has confirmed that Palin "still believes it is God's will" that she serve as president, if not in 2012 then perhaps in 2016.

    Identifying as a Christian seems to be a precondition for membership in the Republican Party. The extended argument is that, as a Christian nation, USA should design foreign policy out of Washington to support other Christian nations. I am not sure if the more serious challenges are logistical/technical or intellectual/philosophical.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Well, of course it is obvious we should design our foreign policy to support muzzie nations it is the will of allah.

    One source close to the anonymous family told me it was a nitwit.

    Meanwhile dozens of sources close to family Rufii told me the whole family was nitwits. Used to be sane, they said, but something had gotten into the shine.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Foreign policy conditioned on religious belief is theocracy. USA is not a theocracy.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Under normal circumstances, I would give the Palin story some latitude, but not given what I now understand about the central role of Christian theology in grounding conservative political ideology. Christian first. Conservative second. Or, the more moderate position, both at the same time as inseparable components of a unified world view. Either of which means non-Christians need not apply to the Republican Party.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Well, of course it is obvious we should design our foreign policy to support muzzie nations it is the will of allah.

    One source close to the anonymous family told me it was a nitwit.

    Meanwhile dozens of sources close to family Rufii told me the whole family was nitwits. Used to be sane, they said, but something had gotten into the shine.

    .....

    NOW WAIT TILL RUFUS BELLOWS "KRAUTHAMMER IS A DICK"!!!

    Can't you feel it coming??

    ReplyDelete
  24. :)

    You might want to saddle that horse and go for a ride.

    ReplyDelete
  25. .

    The extended argument is that, as a Christian nation, USA should design foreign policy out of Washington to support other Christian nations...

    Under normal circumstances, I would give the Palin story some latitude, but not given what I now understand about the central role of Christian theology in grounding conservative political ideology. Christian first. Conservative second...



    Perhaps. If you are willing to conflate or confuse the term 'conservative' with the 'whack-job, kool-aid drinking, yahoos' that dominate the GOP primaries. The primaries are a side-show designed to shore up the base. What the candidates offer are pablum, trinkets for the natives. What they seek is votes.

    "...Christian first, conservative second...?"

    Mere words, words you can depend upon as much as...well...the promises of a politician.

    In reality, the pecking order for the politician (at least after his first successful reelection campaign when he may gain some actual power)are votes to keep him in power, money to get him the votes to keep him in power, influence to get the money to get the votes to keep him in power, the perks, prestige, and power of his office, a plan for cashing in after he leaves office, then somewhere along the line mix in a little actual conservastive conservative philosophy (as long as it doesn't interfere with his previous objectives) and then possibly somewhere some sort of Christian philosophy.

    What drives US foreign policy on the part of the 'conservsatives' in Washington? To support other Christian nations? Possibly, but not by design.

    Is Israel a Christian nation, Japan, India, Turkey, Egypt? Can you really call France a Christian nation? Less than 60% there call themselves Christians, less than 5% could be called practicing Christians.

    The GOP primaries, like those of the Dems, are a laugh fest. If you believe anything these guys say, your nuts. They are appealing to fringe of American society, that 20-25% on either side, the left or the right, that drink the Kool-aid. On the GOP side it contains those that believe in the Rapture and think Sheriff Joe is on to something other than his own self-promotion and trying to take attention off the corruption charges against him.

    On the 'left' it includes those that that scream 'reproductive rights' and that the GOP is waging a 'war against women' because they support (although cynically) the constitutional right of freedom of religion. Or, those who ignore the fact that Obama has usurped his constitutional obligations in murdering an American citizen without seeking permission to do it through the courts.

    What we get from our politicians are words, half of them regarding the constitution are made up words. The Kool-aid drinkers on the right and left suck them up. If you believe stuff they offer up, I hear the rat has some ocean-front property in Arizona he is willing to sell.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  26. Couple of points, Quirk, in no particular order.

    1. Words have meaning. We can try to out-cynic each other but there wouldn't be much point. The profoundly arrogant legislation coming out of Virginia got my attention, as did the cavalier response to it. No Republican War on Women? Just close your eyes and repeat that three times after doing that little acrobatic performance with the aspirin. The response spectrum may never have achieved escape velocity from silly and trite, but the legislation itself was words on paper that damn near passed before the girls raised a well deserved stink - and gave it a context as well. Then ask yourself how many versions you have heard of women who denied their innate mission to become mothers in favor of pursuing a dream to "Become what you want to be"? (Isn't that the Army slogan - Be all that you can be.) With or without the dripping denial of arrogance, it's code speak for Biology is Destiny, with a healthy dose of "don't you ever forget it" thrown in.

    2. Christianity has always been in the background of this country's foreign policy - sometimes in the shadows but always a tangible presence. See anything by Walter Russell Mead, but Evangelicals and Foreign Policy for a good start [premium article - subscription req'd.] If Mead is a crackpot, then words have no meaning and this Ayers flap is equally nonsensical.

    3. The conservative blog space is chock full of this kind of thinking and it's getting piped directly into the Tea Party movement. BC is rife with the theme that Christian nations should form a block of solidarity with other Christian nations. (There's been some push-back but not much.) The little 'eruptions' that ooze into the public consciousness suggest a faith-based commitment to a well-formulated set of principles and an ideology that are situated in direct opposition to the gains made in women's suffrage and reproductive rights over the last 100 years.

    If the Republicans are smart, they'll change the subject.

    ReplyDelete
  27. And I didn't even get into the clarion call for establishing a Christian theocracy in USA.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I'm proud to say I've always considered myself an actual conservastive conservative. There are few enough of us around so that it becomes something of a distinction.

    How is the great American novel going, Quirk? Or coming? Or, going and coming? You seem to be putting the hours in on it.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I think you've found your match in this anon, Quirk. He/she/it can throw words around as well as you, and, like you, say nothing at all.

    As for myself, I'm proud to say I've always considered myself an actual conservastive conservative. There are few enough of us around so that it becomes something of a distinction.

    How is the great American novel going, Quirk? Or coming? Or, going and coming? You seem to be putting the hours in on it.

    ReplyDelete
  30. War on women. Heh, what a lot of horse shit.

    They've owned most of the country for decades.

    I doubt even Quirk would buy that.

    Especially since he seems to live in fear of his wife, as I live in fear of mine.

    I think you've found your match in this anon, Quirk. He/she/it can throw words around as well as you, and, like you, say almost nothing at all.

    As for myself, I'm proud to say I've always considered myself an actual conservastive conservative. There are few enough of us around so that it becomes something of a distinction.

    How is the great American novel going, Quirk? Or coming? Or, going and coming? You seem to be putting the hours in on it.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Bob considers himself a conservative conservative, lordy, what a friggin' loon!! So loony he's got to repeat it over and over as if it would convince anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  32. ...say nothing at all.

    Just playing to the audience. (Highly unusual response from a wordsmith that values the lyricism of poets and prose writers. Maybe I should have wrapped it up in a bright and shiny NDE.)

    Actually I said quite a bit. BC entered into some extreme narratives and I suspect that the Republican platform/candidate slate is in disarray because strategists cannot reconcile the heated rhetoric from conservative analysts with middle class reality.***

    Reminder of the 20/40/40 voting demographic.

    ***The emerging narratives became offensive, coupled with on-the-ground developments out of Virginia and Texas. It is one thing to dismiss the perturbations as "everybody is lying." It is something else to wake up one morning and find words on paper that will forever change one's life.

    ...

    "The root problem here is that we can't have an honest debate on abortion itself." - Charles Krauthammer

    ReplyDelete
  33. The Republicans are casting about furiously in search of a way to lose this election.

    A pary "plank" against birth-control? Yeah, that oughtta do it.

    ReplyDelete
  34. So what's in it for me?

    The pleasure of doing an old employee a favor by reminding him of the position nature chose for him.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Yoorghis@Jurgis.net wrote: Why is Contraception care for women---any different than a colo-rectal regimine, prostrate cancer, testicular cancer, any different for men?

    So let's get all the hookers off the street, have them employed by the government, and call them sex care providers.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Obama: "Do Not Tell Me That We're Not Drilling. We're Drilling All Over This Country"

    (Fossil fuel production on federal lands at 9 year low)

    ReplyDelete
  37. Leon Panetta afraid his own Marines:

    "...the incident is believed to be the first time they were stripped
    of guns during an address by their own secretary of defence."

    ReplyDelete
  38. .

    A couple of points in a particular order.

    1. As you point out, words have meaning; yet, IMO, given the two posts I initially responded to as well as this latest, you confuse the GOP with 'conservatism' and then layer on 'religion' as the driving force behind both.

    Again, IMO, your worldview is influenced to a large extent by your views on 'reproductive rights'. You take the views of a bunch of Tea party wackos and equate it to a 'GOP war on women'. You have bought into the liberal media line on this because it fits with your existing predilections.

    2. Christianity has always been in the background of this country's foreign policy - sometimes in the shadows but always a tangible presence

    I admire the extent of your reading but sometimes question whether you question what you read. I read the Mead article you posted. You offer it up as some sort of a proof when in reality it is merely his opinion.

    First, he offers up that religion is the basis for our foreign policy. Then he says, of course our policy changes over time as different forms of 'Protestantism' exert more influence.

    He ignores the influence of the Jews. He ignores the influence of the Catholics, the largest religious voting bloc in the country. He ignores the influence of political philosophies like the neocons. He ignores influence of other vested interests.

    He brings it all down to religion, IMO, a simplistic point of view.

    If Mead is a crackpot, then words have no meaning and this Ayers flap is equally nonsensical.

    Your statement lacks logic. It amounts to a logical fallacy referred to as begging the question, the very point that has to be proved to be true is just assumed to be true.

    No one said Mead is a crackpot merely that he has a stated opinion that not everyone agrees with. "Words having no meaning?" As I said, illogical. The only correct part of your statement, IMO, is the part about the Ayers flap being nonsensical. Only the wig-jobs and children worry about calling a politician names, it's what he actually does or doesn't do that should be the basis for judging him.

    (continued below...)

    .

    ReplyDelete
  39. .

    (continued from above)

    3. The conservative blog space is chock full of this kind of thinking and it's getting piped directly into the Tea Party movement.

    Once again, you confuse right-wing nut Jobs with conservatives. They call themselves conservatives and you believe them. I had to laugh when I heard Shawn Hannity call Mark Levine a constitutional scholar. Rush Limbaugh is a deviant that has come to believe all the bullshit he says about himself. The BC as an appeal to authority? They have about as much power to influence events as the EB does. I doubt quoting Wretchart impresses many here.

    To say that the Tea Party is driven primarily by religious motivation is, again IMO, silly.

    BC is rife with the theme that Christian nations should form a block of solidarity with other Christian nations.

    And not that many years ago, people far more influential than the BC were calling for a League of Democratic Nations. So what?
    That didn't go anywhere either.

    4. Reminder of the 20/40/40 voting demographic.

    Again you seem to flit from one subject to another. Surveys are always interesting especially when you get into the details. For instance the breakdown Cons/Indep/Lib is by people who self-identify. Given the blow-up our economy has been through, it's strange that 100% of the people wouldn't identify as Conservative. But what has this got to do with religion? If you look at the two questions listed that might give some clue (Traditional Values and Abortion) you will see there has been a slight movement in both categories to the right. You ascribe this to a GOP-Conservative-Religious cabal whereas others might ascribe it to the typical ebb and flow in the moral standards of a society

    The little 'eruptions' that ooze into the public consciousness suggest a faith-based commitment to a well-formulated set of principles and an ideology that are situated in direct opposition to the gains made in women's suffrage and reproductive rights over the last 100 years.

    Once again you show you true colors. This was not a discussion over religion influencing US foreign policy. It was in reality a discussion over religion influencing US domestic policy.

    I would be glad to have the discussion with you if we can decide what it is we are to talk about.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  40. I'll get back to you tomorrow Quirk.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I'm getting a bit tired of the "deranged" soldier story. It was predictable, of course. The 38-year-old staff sergeant who massacred 16 Afghan civilians, including nine children, near Kandahar this week had no sooner returned to base than the defence experts and the think-tank boys and girls announced that he was "deranged". Not an evil, wicked, mindless terrorist – which he would be, of course, if he had been an Afghan, especially a Taliban – but merely a guy who went crazy.

    This was the same nonsense used to describe the murderous US soldiers who ran amok in the Iraqi town of Haditha. It was the same word used about Israeli soldier Baruch Goldstein who massacred 25 Palestinians in Hebron – something I pointed out in this paper only hours before the staff sergeant became suddenly "deranged" in Kandahar province.

    "Apparently deranged", "probably deranged", journalists announced, a soldier who "might have suffered some kind of breakdown" (The Guardian), a "rogue US soldier" (Financial Times) whose "rampage" (The New York Times) was "doubtless [sic] perpetrated in an act of madness" (Le Figaro). Really? Are we supposed to believe this stuff? Surely, if he was entirely deranged, our staff sergeant would have killed 16 of his fellow Americans. He would have slaughtered his mates and then set fire to their bodies. But, no, he didn't kill Americans. He chose to kill Afghans. There was a choice involved. So why did he kill Afghans? We learned yesterday that the soldier had recently seen one of his mates with his legs blown off. But so what?

    The Afghan narrative has been curiously lobotomised – censored, even – by those who have been trying to explain this appalling massacre in Kandahar. They remembered the Koran burnings – when American troops in Bagram chucked Korans on a bonfire – and the deaths of six Nato soldiers, two of them Americans, which followed. But blow me down if they didn't forget – and this applies to every single report on the latest killings – a remarkable and highly significant statement from the US army's top commander in Afghanistan, General John Allen, exactly 22 days ago. Indeed, it was so unusual a statement that I clipped the report of Allen's words from my morning paper and placed it inside my briefcase for future reference.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Allen told his men that "now is not the time for revenge for the deaths of two US soldiers killed in Thursday's riots". They should, he said, "resist whatever urge they might have to strike back" after an Afghan soldier killed the two Americans. "There will be moments like this when you're searching for the meaning of this loss," Allen continued. "There will be moments like this, when your emotions are governed by anger and a desire to strike back. Now is not the time for revenge, now is the time to look deep inside your souls, remember your mission, remember your discipline, remember who you are."

    Now this was an extraordinary plea to come from the US commander in Afghanistan. The top general had to tell his supposedly well-disciplined, elite, professional army not to "take vengeance" on the Afghans they are supposed to be helping/protecting/nurturing/training, etc. He had to tell his soldiers not to commit murder. I know that generals would say this kind of thing in Vietnam. But Afghanistan? Has it come to this? I rather fear it has. Because – however much I dislike generals – I've met quite a number of them and, by and large, they have a pretty good idea of what's going on in the ranks. And I suspect that Allen had already been warned by his junior officers that his soldiers had been enraged by the killings that followed the Koran burnings – and might decide to go on a revenge spree. Hence he tried desperately – in a statement that was as shocking as it was revealing – to pre-empt exactly the massacre which took place last Sunday.

    Yet it was totally wiped from the memory box by the "experts" when they had to tell us about these killings. No suggestion that General Allen had said these words was allowed into their stories, not a single reference – because, of course, this would have taken our staff sergeant out of the "deranged" bracket and given him a possible motive for his killings. As usual, the journos had got into bed with the military to create a madman rather than a murderous soldier. Poor chap. Off his head. Didn't know what he was doing. No wonder he was whisked out of Afghanistan at such speed.

    We've all had our little massacres. There was My Lai, and our very own little My Lai, at a Malayan village called Batang Kali where the Scots Guards – involved in a conflict against ruthless communist insurgents – murdered 24 unarmed rubber workers in 1948. Of course, one can say that the French in Algeria were worse than the Americans in Afghanistan – one French artillery unit is said to have "disappeared" 2,000 Algerians in six months – but that is like saying that we are better than Saddam Hussein. True, but what a baseline for morality. And that's what it's about. Discipline. Morality. Courage. The courage not to kill in revenge. But when you are losing a war that you are pretending to win – I am, of course, talking about Afghanistan – I guess that's too much to hope. General Allen seems to have been wasting his time.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Anon, I thought the same thing when I read that comment


    Allen told his men that "now is not the time for revenge for the deaths of two US soldiers killed in Thursday's riots". They should, he said, "resist whatever urge they might have to strike back" after an Afghan soldier killed the two Americans. "There will be moments like this when you're searching for the meaning of this loss," Allen continued. "There will be moments like this, when your emotions are governed by anger and a desire to strike back. Now is not the time for revenge, now is the time to look deep inside your souls, remember your mission, remember your discipline, remember who you are.”

    Was there ever honesty in the press? They aren’t as bad as we thought. They are worse.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I haven't heard one person make a valid case for why we should remain in Afghanistan.

    ReplyDelete
  45. That certainly sounds profound, anon.

    Lots of big words there.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Jubal, if someone tried to make a valid case, no one else, at least here, would call it valid, so why try?

    That certainly sounds profound, anon.

    Lots of big words there.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Jubal, if someone tried to make a valid case, no one else, at least here, would call it valid, so why try?

    That certainly sounds profound, anon.

    Lots of big words there.

    Someone might say, I suppose, because hundreds of thousands, even millions will die if we leave, that might not if we stay. That we might make progress with the non Pashtun part and save their ass, they did help us in the beginning, many of them.

    You'll have to ask anon. He's the guy with the big words.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Fuck Gen. John Allen. Fuck the Pashtun, and the non-Pashtun. Fuck the queer-assed Scots Guard, fuck Scotchgard, fuck'em all.

    We're wasting our kids over there, and a lot of money we don't have.

    I informed Trish, and anyone else that would listen that Iraq wasn't "Vietnam;" Afghanistan was Vietnam.

    Fuck transitioning that shithole over to the corrupt-assed Karzai kops, and fuck the MIC. Bring in the Big Birds, and get our guys the hell out of there.

    ReplyDelete
  49. As far as Obama/Romney/RufusCare, I said at the very start that it would cost $150 Billion/Yr. Look it up.

    ReplyDelete
  50. There is no decent way to extract us from the Afghan wreckage of Bush/Obama. Just look at the historic tribal and geographic map of Afghanistan.

    Where do you start?

    ReplyDelete
  51. But, what you're Not seeing is the savings at the "other" end. When the sums are done correctly, the cost will be about 1/2 to 2/3rds of that.

    ReplyDelete
  52. You "turn in the key, Lee."

    And, leave.

    ReplyDelete
  53. The planes flying in will be empty; the ones flying out will be full of troops and equipment.

    In military parlance it's called the "fuck this" manuever.

    ReplyDelete
  54. .

    But, what you're Not seeing is the savings at the "other" end. When the sums are done correctly, the cost will be about 1/2 to 2/3rds of that.




    :)


    .

    ReplyDelete
  55. Someone mentioned to Bush that we had a military that could fight two major war simultaneously and Bush did not have enough sense to question why we would want to even if we could. We could have accomplished all that was necessary in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia by December 2001 but Bush was baking Ramadan cookies. The Neocons saw their opportunity with Bush and took it. Their work is still not done.

    ReplyDelete
  56. There will be tremendous savings in "emergency room" costs for the hospitals, Q (they will get paid for their work.) Those savings should, to some extent, get passed on to your insurance company.

    Right now, we're turning $20,000.00, one and done, procedures into life-long $250,000.00 nightmares.

    Someone is paying. Care to "guess who?"

    ReplyDelete
  57. To those posters here who want to simply fold up tent and run in defeat for home... we're fighting the Taliban for a reason. Always have been. Not only do they torment the innocents in Afghanistan, especially women, they were the primary safe harbor for Al Qaeda. It is mere fantasy to suggest that they would not continue to harbor and aid terrorists targeting U.S. interests there and here, if they were allowed to regain control over Afghanistan.

    ReplyDelete
  58. We have moved way past the tent stage.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Televangelist Pat Robertson on Monday tried to deflect the blame for tornadoes away from God, saying people shouldn't build houses in the Midwest and could prevent the deadly storms by praying.

    He also said God would punish Orlando because Disneyworld allowed a "Gay Day", and God promptly set fire to every county in a ring around Orange Country.

    ReplyDelete
  60. When informed of the planes hitting the world trade center, "it's a slam-dunk" Tenet said, "I hope this doesn't have anything to do with those guys taking flight lessons down in Phoenix."

    Afghanistan, and the Taliban aren't responsible for nine eleven. Our own incompetent bureaucrats at the CIA, FBI, et al are the ones responsible.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Anono: Foreign policy conditioned on religious belief is theocracy. USA is not a theocracy.

    Evangelicals are puzzled that Amurrica doesn't show up in the book of Revelation and they are trying to buy their way into the Big Game of the end times.

    US Government budget:

    Schools CANCELED

    Hospitals CANCELED

    Roads CANCELED

    Bridges CANCELED

    Flood control CANCELED

    Veteran's benefits CANCELED

    Bombs for Israel $1923648264729831

    Warplanes for Israel $02347503247598043

    Cruise Missiles for Israel $2340957230475

    Harpoon Missiles for Israel $9864598236498752

    Chemical weapons for Israel $2937452374805720

    Radars for Israel $239475370458

    Missile defense systems for Israel $2390845720375

    Warships for Israel $203945238

    Surveillance satellites for Israel $29348572964988

    ReplyDelete
  62. Rush drops Rush:

    Add the Canadian music group, "Rush" to the list of vendors who have demanded that Rush stop using their products.

    The group is ultra-conservative and allowed him to use their music for free, but even they have become disgusted with the shock jock.

    So today, lawyers for the group issued a cease-and desist order, informing ClearChannel that he is not licensed to use the material, that the group does not approve of the way he's using it, and that he's forbidden from using it again.


    Heh.

    ReplyDelete
  63. A group of musicians aren't enthralled by the idea of girls using the old "aspirin between the knees" method of birth control:

    Who'd a ever thunk it?

    ReplyDelete
  64. .

    There will be tremendous savings in "emergency room" costs for the hospitals, Q (they will get paid for their work.) Those savings should, to some extent, get passed on to your insurance company.

    The world loves a cock-eyed optimist Ruf. The financing on Obamacare has been a scam since day one. Anyone who doesn't see it is a naif.

    First the 10 year plan was back-loaded to make it appear less costly. What this did was allow the insurance companies time to guarantee they wouldn't be hurt.

    Since Obamacare was passed, inflation has probably 'averaged' 1-2%. Healthcare costs have been going up 8-9%.

    One area where we could have saved costs was in actually negotiating with the healthcare companies over increases. Instead that was ruled out. On drugs, they demanded a ransom from the companies but put no restrictions on the costs. How long do you think it will take Big Pharma to get their money back (if they haven't got it back already)?

    Then there's the "Doc-Fix", savings from which they wrote into the numbers. They have been putting off the doc-fix for years and each year the total number gets bigger, and harder to pass.

    You talk about 'emergancy care'. Everyone talks about it. Have you ever seen a number put on it? If so by whom? Have you seen any calculations? Where the numbers done correctly?

    Then there are the 'waivers', political quid pro quo at it's finest. Four states have received waivers. 500,000 union employees. Drug and healthcare companies are recieving them if you can believe such a thing. Political payoffs from the DEMS (In one month last year, Nancy Pelosi's district got about 20% of the waivers granted. And these weren't to the Three Sisters Polish Restaurant. It's unlikely you or me could afford the $59 porterhouse steak at Boboquivari’s or the $60 entrees at the Franciscan Crab, at least, on a regular basis.)

    McDonald's and Walmart got waivers. Despite that, Walmart dropped coverage for part-time workers last year due to spiralling healthcare costs. They raised co-pays and deductibles on their full time workers. One women who makes less than $20,000 reported having a deductible of $5,000.

    As far as government "cost savings", here is where they will come from

    The Coming Medical Ethics Crisis

    And if you think the government 'death panels' will cut costs, you're crazy. Since there is no negotiating involved, services will be cut, but Big Pharma and the healthcare providers will merely juice up the price of other services and drugs to make up for any lost revenue.

    The government will show numbers on how they cut costs on specific procedures but overall costs will continue to climb.

    Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of good things about Obamacare, but if you thin it will result in cost savings, well...

    Of course, this discussion may become mute in June.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  65. MARCH 17, 2012 4:00 A.M.
    Worse Than a Powder Keg
    Our troops should be out of Afghanistan. Yesterday.
    By Andrew C. McCarthy
    -----------------------------

    ReplyDelete
  66. I didn't say Obama/Rufuscare would "Cut" costs, Q. I said there were savings on the back-end that would mitigate as much as 1/3 to 1/2 of the increased costs through government.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Politics and religion exist because the world is not a neat and tidy place. Small wonder those committed to rigorous analytics have blood pressure problems.

    What is the subject? The one-word answer is abortion. Rufus's favorite political analyst nailed it. A more genteel reframing is that the subject is the role of religion in politics, specifically Christianity.

    During the last 100 years, women carved out what is essentially a new set of rights, two of the most historically important being suffrage and reproductive rights, both of which have become objects of malignant derision and contempt in the post-modern environment where "rights" proliferation has degraded the concept. Women's rights speak directly to both the politics and the religion of conservatives, in ways that effectively deny conciliatory integration into public thought.

    Suffrage speaks to the politics. Let that subject go for the moment. Reproductive rights speaks to interfering with the "natural order of god's will." A small sample from Kathleen Parker's recent column:

    One who wrote in defense of Limbaugh informed me of my place in God’s hierarchy, slightly above goats, and gave me a tutorial about why women have been saddled with the monthly inconvenience and painful childbirth — for tempting men to do evil and failing to recognize their roles as “helpmeets” for men.

    “Pagan women like yourself,” he patiently averred, “have no regard for the natural order of God’s plan and shamelessly promulgate the ‘we are goddesses’ bile that has infected the entire country and pretty much stopped it in its tracks from incurring God’s blessing.” I’m leaving out the best parts.

    The belief spectrum is fully populated with variations on this theme.

    This country decided to put the decision-making at the level of the individual, a pretty reasonable resolution to a difficult issue. Conservatives want to reposition the decision-making at the level of the States, consistent with federalism, so goes the argument.

    As noted by numerous analysts, the glaring inconsistency of this position is the call for more State control/intrusion in the life of the individual. The galling justification is that this is being done in the name of religion. Reproductive rights, more specifically abortion, sit squarely in the middle of this messy intersection.

    ************************

    Republicans are on the wrong side of two issues - religion in government and reproductive rights, which brings me to a final subject, the hoary fog space that connects ideological thought with political activism, or the Party.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Exit poll from the current campaigns:

    So far, 50 percent of Republican primary and caucus voters have been white evangelical, or born again, Christians...

    "Conservative people of faith are playing a larger role in shaping the contours and affecting the trajectory of the Republican presidential nomination contest than at any time since they began pouring out of the pews and into the precincts in the late 1970's," said Ralph Reed, founder and chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, who called our attention to the numbers today.

    Reed said conservative Christian turnout among Republicans exceeds its rate from four years ago, when 44 percent of white Republican primary voters described themselves as evangelical. They're not only a factor in the South but also in general election battleground states like Ohio, where 47 percent of Republican primary voters subscribed to the label this year.

    Reed estimated that through the primaries in Alabama and Mississippi this past Tuesday, more than 4 million evangelical Christian voters had participated in those 16 primaries and caucuses where entrance or exit polls were conducted by CBS and other news organizations.

    "They are indispensable to any winning strategy for the eventual Republican presidential nominee in both the primaries and the general election. Any candidate who ignores these voters and the values that motivate them does so at their own peril," Reed said.

    ************************

    Is there a Republican War on Women? We sure hope not.

    Is there a Republican effort to overturn Roe v Wade and put the decision-making at the State level rather than the individual level? We sure hope not there too.

    Is abortion a tough decision? Yes, which is why it belongs with the individual.

    Is there a correlation between conservative Christians and the Republican Party? You better believe it.

    ************************

    The emerging trend is to identify USA as a "Christian" country, and by extension, as I wrote earlier, to define foreign policy objectives and alliances in terms of other "Christian" nations. I strongly object to any such effort. Whether it becomes mainstream remains to be seen, but the mere enunciation of such a concept (Christian theocracy) is offensive and dangerous. USA supports freedom of religion, here and elsewhere. That's just the way it is.

    Ann

    ReplyDelete
  69. Or, to put it another way, the republican party is becoming "ate up with stupid."

    ReplyDelete
  70. It is always remarkable how gas prices go up about a year to 8 months before the election, then drop closer to election time thus making the incumbent appear to be all powerful.

    ReplyDelete
  71. I have some problems with your reasoning and logic, Ann.

    Record Christian voter turnout or overturning Roe v Wade do not equal "Christian Theocracy". State Laws regarding abortion do not mean "Christian Theocracy" anymore than laws against murder, child abuse, or theft.

    It seems to me that if one were to follow your reasoning to a logical conclusion, it would be prudent to require a "no religious affiliation" statement from all candidates for higher office.

    ReplyDelete
  72. the republican party is becoming "ate up with stupid."

    Truth. (Will be interesting to see how some of the savior-angels on deck, like Rubio, will handle the Ralph Reed clique-claque.)

    ...

    The deranged soldier posts are another Anon so you can stop with the "big words" babble. (I say that to disassociate him from my stuff which is written from the dizzy space of a head cold. I would delightedly take credit for his work. More truth I believe.)

    ReplyDelete
  73. This country decided to put the decision-making at the level of the individual, a pretty reasonable resolution to a difficult issue

    Beg to differ but I believe is ws the the US Supreme Court that decided to do that.

    ReplyDelete
  74. do not equal "Christian Theocracy"

    That argument is being made as the logical end-state of "true" conservative government. It is not yet mainstream thinking, but I cringed when I first heard it (@BC) and surely the uneasy relationship between conservatives/Republicans with reproductive rights is concerning.

    require a "no religious affiliation"

    I'm in a DADT frame of mind. I don't care - and neither should you.

    Ann

    ReplyDelete
  75. This country is in absolutely no danger of becoming a Christian Theocracy or even electing someone who remotely sounds like Rick Santorum.

    ReplyDelete
  76. That's how is works Anon.

    Unless of course a critical mass decides to arm with berets and guns.

    Level of support:

    Generally, 57 percent in this ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, and 54 percent favor the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 ruling that made it so. While 42 percent want the government and the courts to make abortions harder to get, more either support the status quo, or favor fewer restrictions.

    ReplyDelete
  77. The "people" are absolutely capable of electing ANYBODY.

    Pa is a "purple" state, and elected Santorum for, what?, 3 terms?

    ReplyDelete
  78. The electorate was so pissed at the Republicans that they voted in a strongly socialist, arrogant, half-black, Manchurian/Indonesian by the name Barack, Hussein, Obama.

    Don't ever believe they can't get pissed enough about high gas prices, and stagnant high unemployment to elect a good-looking, lily-white Christian from Pennsylvania.

    ReplyDelete
  79. So Ann,

    Where do you stand on other issues such as polygamy, prostitution or drugs?

    ReplyDelete
  80. :)

    Jimmy Carter

    That's not even to get into Congress.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Looking for a fight Anon or can we keep it civil??

    Ann

    ReplyDelete
  82. Let Me weigh in.

    Polygamy - None of the Government's business.

    Prostitution - None of the Government's business

    Drugs - Should be a law against "driving under the influence," otherwise, None of the Government's business.

    ReplyDelete
  83. OK, here was my contribution while waiting for a peace signal:

    I haven't given much though to polygamy or prostitution for about a quarter of a century. I lean towards drug legalization, as an economic issue. Drug usage is supported by the middle to upper class. The expenditures should be taxed.

    Ann

    ReplyDelete
  84. Forget bird flu. There's already a "pandemic" sweeping America: It's called pornography, Rick Santorum says. "Pornography is toxic to marriages and relationships. It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking." As president, he'd appoint an attorney general who would ban "illegal obscene" content, he declares on his website. "While the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families, that will change under a Santorum Administration."

    Observers are weighing in on his comments, notes Yahoo News. The Daily Caller talks to a law professor who thinks Santorum could be successful. Others are more skeptical. "Looks like he's found time in his busy schedule of condemning 'radical' women for working outside the home and using birth control and now is turning his hot, penetrating gaze to manfolk-bizness," writes Rebecca Schoenkopf at Wonkette.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Anonymous said...
    Looking for a fight Anon or can we keep it civil??

    Ann

    Sat Mar 17, 01:32:00 PM EDT


    This should be good.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Sgt. Robert Bales, an Army sniper from Joint Base Lewis-McChord shows up in Washington state court records that describe a 2008 hit-and-run accident involving the U.S. soldier now accused of killing 16 civilians in Afghanistan.

    According to Pierce County Municipal Court documents, Robert Bales was cited in a single-vehicle rollover in the early morning of Oct. 11, 2008. It isn't clear what Bales hit, but the report refers to damaged property.

    Witnesses saw a man in a military-style uniform, with a shaved head and bleeding, running away.

    Deputies found him in the woods, and Bales told them he fell asleep at the wheel.

    Bales paid nearly $800 in fines and court costs in monthly increments of $56. He paid $180 restitution, and the case was dismissed in October 2009. Now that he is in Fort Leavenworth, Kan., it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Under the Military Rules of Evidence, a confession alone is insufficient evidence to convict. There has to be evidence to corroborate the confession (and it appears that some sort of incriminating statement was made). If the only other evidence is the testimony from the surviving Afghan villagers, then trying the case in the States just got more complicated. We can bring those villagers to the U.S. to testify, but that brings its own set of challenges (assuming we can even convince them to come). I'm sure that's already been considered, though - the decision to bring the sergeant back to the States was not made lightly, I'm sure.

    ReplyDelete
  87. From Foreign Policy


    The Army has released the name of the suspect in last weekend's shooting rampage in Afghanistan, Staff Sgt. Robert Bales:

    His lawyer, John Henry Browne, said on Thursday that the suspect was a 38-year-old man who had been injured twice while serving in Iraq.

    He also said the accused had witnessed his friend's leg blown off the day before the killings.

    A 2009 news article on the Army website, which has been removed but is still available in Google's cache, quotes a Staff Sgt. Robert Bales (it's not confirmed that this is the same Bales) who participated in the Battle of Zarqa, also known as the Battle of Najaf -- a bloody confrontation between Iraqi security forces, assisted by U.S. and British troops, and the radical Shiite group, the Soldiers of Heaven:

    The twilight had turned to darkness, through which the Charger platoons prepared to maneuver around the helicopter. Clemmer issued orders to his platoon leaders to envelop the crash. As the platoons stepped off, AK-47s opened up from four huts to the north.

    "The SF was still in control of the birds at that point," Butler said. "That's when the first Hellfire went off." "It was like a match lit up," said Staff Sgt. Robert Bales, team leader in C Company's 1st Squad, 1st Platoon. "It looked like a toy with a candle lit underneath it. Fire straight up."

    The account speaks of an intense battle between U.S. forces -- Lt. Col. Barry Huggins' 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division Stryker battalion -- and a "well armed Shiite paramilitary faction" on Jan. 28 and 29, 2007.

    The mortar section fired missions and alternately dug in. By the early morning, the 60 mm tubes were ensconced inside fighting positions. The platoons on the crash-site perimeter were also using shovels in throwback defensive tactics.

    "The cool part about this was World War II style, you dug in," Bales said. "Guys were out there digging a fighting position in the ground. You're taking a shovel and digging as fast as you can."

    But most remarkable about the battle, writes reporter Don Kramer, was that:

    In the end, the most important metric was the casualty count: 250 enemy fighters killed, 81 wounded and 410 detained and not a single 2-3 Inf. Soldier hurt or killed. Sophisticated, relentless firepower defeated superior numbers on ground of the enemy's choosing....

    What cannot be measured occurred at the end of the battle. Defining 'agility,' American Soldiers seamlessly shifted into humanitarian operations."

    Here, Bales appears in the narrative again:

    After a while, however, the clearing operation morphed with the humanitarian. As Soldiers pulled out the injured, it became apparent to their horror that these fanatics had brought their families to the fight.

    "Once we started clearing the town we actually started carrying people back out," said Staff Sgt. Bales, a team leader in 1st Platoon, C Co. "We'd go in, find some people that we could help, because there were a bunch of dead people we couldn't, throw them on a litter and bring them out to the casualty collection point."

    And here's where it gets a little bit creepy:

    "I've never been more proud to be a part of this unit than that day," Bales said now a member of 2-3 Inf. headquarters, "for the simple fact that we discriminated between the bad guys and the noncombatants and then afterward we ended up helping the people that three or four hours before were trying to kill us. I think that's the real difference between being an American as opposed to being a bad guy, someone who puts his family in harm's way like that." [Ed. italics added].

    ReplyDelete
  88. .

    What is the subject? The one-word answer is abortion. Rufus's favorite political analyst nailed it. A more genteel reframing is that the subject is the role of religion in politics, specifically Christianity.


    Again your phrasing of the question doesn't make sense logically. These are two separate questions, the one broad and general the other specific. We can start talking about religion's influence on politics if you like and then discuss abortion as a subset of that discussion. But since you stated that abortion is the one word answer to "What is the subject?" I suspect abortion is where you want the emphasis.

    I am not looking for a fight merely a discussion. As for being civil, some here will likely say I am rarely civil. However, the way you phrased the issue is likely to lead us to going around in circles like yesterday where we started out with a discussion on religion's influence on foreign policy and ended up at abortion.

    To set the parameters of the discussion, let me ask once again, what is it you wish to discuss?

    Your and my personal views on abortion?
    The moral aspects of abortion?
    The legal aspects of abortion?
    The political aspects of abortion?
    Religious views on abortion in the US?
    The GOP's views on abortion?
    Conservatives views on abortion?

    Or, do you want to talk about "the role of religion in politics, specifically Christianity."

    Or, do you want to talk about something you didn't mention above but have implied on a number of occasion, that the GOP is defined by the religious right?

    If you say all of them, it's not a problem; all that I ask is that we attack them systematically and not jump around like cats chasing a shiny object.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  89. .

    I haven't given much though to polygamy or prostitution for about a quarter of a century.


    Lordy, Ann, this begs the question, "What were you up to 25 years ago?"


    :)

    .

    ReplyDelete
  90. I suspect abortion is where you want the emphasis.

    You suspect wrong.

    As for the rest of it, not going down the school ma'arm road.

    "Civil" was addressed at Anon-2 which apparently was you. Who knew?

    ReplyDelete
  91. .

    It may take me a while to get back with answers today.

    My wife took off for a couple days to visit a friend and I am left to amuse the dogs (a full time job).


    .

    ReplyDelete
  92. :)

    My "socially aware" days. Back when I had "concern." Essentially agree with Rufus (again) - none of the government's business.

    I have to go get some medication.

    ReplyDelete
  93. .

    "Civil" was addressed at Anon-2 which apparently was you. Who knew?


    Don't be stupid Anonymous.

    I have no need to hide behind the Anonymous tag like many here.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  94. Don't be stupid Anonymous

    Wouldn't presume to encroach on your territory. Which makes my point. Some enjoy the juvenile pissing matches and name calling. I do not.


    1. Abortion: decision-making is properly positioned at the level of the individual.

    2. USA is *not* a theocracy, Christian or otherwise, nor should it be.

    3. Religion has no place in foreign policy. Creating a "Christian block" is strategically ill-advised and unconstitutional.

    4. The Republican Party seems to require that "true" conservatives belong to the Christian faith which is equally ill-advised and (possibly) unconstitutional.


    The name is Ann as I have already indicated. Normally I would assume you just missed something but I find it takes only one or two posts for the disingenuous to reveal themselves. I doubt very much that you miss a damn thing, certainly not the opportunity to post like a prick.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Drugs - Should be a law against "driving under the influence," otherwise, None of the Government's business.

    This shows how utterly stupid Rufus can be.

    From heroin to cocaine to crack cocaine to hallucinogens to you name it, to shit that will make you dangerous to even be around, even to the safety of medications and doctors prescriptions (no FDA, no purity tests) Rufus again

    PROVES HIMSELF AN IDIOT

    And you want this FOOL running the relationship between you and your doctor? You and your hospital? You and your rest home?

    ReplyDelete
  96. .

    The name is Ann as I have already indicated


    The name is Quirk as I have always indicated.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  97. Paddy was waiting at the bus stop with his mate when a lorry went by loaded up with rolls of turf.
    Paddy said, 'I gonna do that when I win lottery'.
    'What's dat', says his mate.
    'Send me lawn away to be cut', says Paddy.

    ReplyDelete
  98. To the United States Government:

    We went in to get Osama Bin Laden. We got him. Afghanistan citizens DO NOT WANT to be "liberated." I think they've made that perfectly clear. They want the foreign occupiers out of their country. We should oblige them, considering that we have done what we actually set out to do. We have killed the terrorist responsible for 9-11. The BS lines about why we must, stay, stay, stay is nothing more than a ploy to gain a few more years of lining a few choice pockets.

    We left Iraq and anyone keeping up with the news can see it's going back to the way it was before we were ever there. Maybe it's just me but that sure makes the lives, limbs, and billions of dollars lost there seem like a big FAT WASTE. As both an American and a soldier's wife, that frankly P*SSES me the H3LL OFF!

    Now our Government completely IGNORES what the American people are SCREAMING at them, refuses to bring our troops home sooner rather than later and I can't help but wonder for what? In 5 or 10 years, when we FINALLY truly end this war and this country goes RIGHT BACK to the way it was before we ever set foot there, how much American blood and taxpayer dollars will have been left in the sand for NOTHING?

    To my fellow commenters:
    Like many of you, I have been following the war articles like a maze and reading the comments of both my fellow American's as well as those from people around the world. And for once a pretty obvious agreement has been reached. Our Government is so clearly in the WRONG that its own people are outraged and furious. A great majority seem to be in agreement that our "leading" politicians have lost their d$mn minds. So I encourage anyone that would typically spend 10 minutes reading and commenting here to instead spend that 10 minutes emailing the White House with their views to comments@whitehouseDOTgov

    It would seem ladies and gentleman that our Government can't hear us. Perhaps it's time for a louder shout. In my opinion our troops should be on our soil watching OUR backs. And our tax dollars should be spent fixing OUR broken economy. That's just my views, whether you agree or disagree shouldn't be posted here. No matter which side you fall on, spend this time telling the White House your thoughts instead of arguing with me or others here.

    -PEACE...not in our lifetime

    ReplyDelete
  99. .

    1. Abortion: decision-making is properly positioned at the level of the individual.

    From an individual values standpoint, I agree (not speaking to the right or wrong of it but merely the decision making process); however, when you live in a society where moral values shift over time and half the people consider abortion morally wrong, you are faced with legal, religious, and political considerations that make the issue a societal one despite your personal view. When resources have to be allocated all decisions become political and numerous factors enter the decision making process.


    2. USA is not* a theocracy, Christian or otherwise, nor should it be.

    As far as I know, none here have suggested it should be. From what I have seen it was introduced here as the musings of somebody over at BC.

    3. Religion has no place in foreign policy. Creating a "Christian block" is strategically ill-advised and unconstitutional.

    Once more an issue raised by you. While it may have had some credence in days past (what country hasn't lived through the period of some king or general rallying the public or the troops with the cry "God is on our side"), however, I find it strange that you would accept the premise these days in the USA.

    4. The Republican Party seems to require that "true" conservatives belong to the Christian faith which is equally ill-advised and (possibly) unconstitutional.

    IMO, a simplistic take on the existing situation. You take the views of evangelicals and fundamentalist Christians who form a portion of the GOP base and equate that to the GOP as a whole.

    You confuse correlation with causation and focus only on the GOP. How many presidents have we had, GOP or DEM or whatever? How many of them weren't Christians? No more than a handful I would imagine. Unconstitutional? At 2% of the polulation, given the life of the country, I guess you could say it's a Jew's turn right about now. I'd have to look up the latest numbers on the Rosecrucians. Dem, GOP, what they call themselves is meaningless except when compared to what they do.


    .

    ReplyDelete
  100. Quirk took a good porking from anon at 1:45 - 1:50 but fought back frontally at 1:59.

    ReplyDelete
  101. .

    No matter which side you fall on, spend this time telling the White House your thoughts instead of arguing with me or others here


    I've been doing it starting with Iraq right on through Libya (White House, Senators, Reps, Etc.). As far as I can see, it's had no measurable effect to date other than to provide me with a measure of catharsis (which ain't a bad thing).

    .

    ,

    ReplyDelete
  102. Government analysts monitor the high-traffic internet sets. You can take that to the bank.

    ReplyDelete
  103. In fact they probably prefer it that way - don't have to send out a form letter that says "fuck you we never read this crap anyway."

    ReplyDelete


  104. I haven't given much though to polygamy or prostitution for about a quarter of a century.


    Me neither. Last time I gave to the prostitutes was when I was 17, and got broke in

    I can't think I ever gave to nothin' to polygamy, whoever she is.

    ReplyDelete
  105. We won't have to worry about that, here. You can take That to the bank.

    :)

    ReplyDelete
  106. Just browse the Fragile Future comments by the Mensa crew @BC and tell me they're not disturbing.

    And that these folks would hesitate to support a form of Christian theocracy.

    And that faith-based government is less dangerous than "secular" socialism.

    Hopefully, the American people will "ride this tiger" down the middle until the country returns to a stable place, but there is no guarantee of that.


    Ann

    ReplyDelete
  107. I lettered my Congress people on health care. They sent me back a smiley face. I swear it chirped at me.

    Ann

    ReplyDelete
  108. I was asking civilly with no intention of fighting.

    anon 2

    ReplyDelete
  109. How a person can be for the legalization of all drugs, saying it is none of the government's business, and, by extension, be for defunding the FDA, and, at the same time be in favor of ObamaCare, which says every detail of your health life is the government's business, down to what operation they will consider funding, IS BEYOND ME.

    Rufus?

    ReplyDelete
  110. That's so dumb, Bob, I'm not even going to respond.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Can't respond, rather.

    Legalize heroin. You're full of shit Rufus. That's what you've said. Legalize all these killer drugs.


    And you are going to get what you deserve, with this nonsense of handing of your health over to the government.

    But nobody else deserves it. That's the sad thing about it.

    Hopefully we still have a Supreme Court with some good sense.

    Which we surely won't if your commie Alinsky loving fraud is re-elected.

    I thought it was a stereotype, that all people from Mississippi are just dumber than shit, but you make one wonder.


    THIS ARTICLE WON'T BE POPULAR HERE BUT IT DOES MAKE A POINT


    Happy Saints Day back to you Melody.

    ReplyDelete
  112. How's that Medicare treating you, Bob?

    They haven't put you in front of the "Death Panel," yet?

    ReplyDelete
  113. You are aware that Obama/Rufus/Romneycare has an 80+% approval rating in Mass, right?

    ReplyDelete
  114. Yeah, I'd legalize heroin. And cocaine. And pot. and oxycontin. and 'ludes.

    And, have it sold in stores, to non-minors, just like beer, and wind, and vodka, and bourbon, and everclear.

    I would also legalize gambling, and alligator wrestling, and bunjee jumping, and sleeping with strange women for a price.

    I'd put a lot of Judges, lawyers, pushers, smugglers, and jailors out of work, but the cops wouldn't have to waste so much time messing with drug-violence related stuff, and would have more time for putting banksters in jail.

    Oops, I think I may have found my plan's achilles heel.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Aristotle, Kant,
    Bob, Mill, Rufus


    Much of the argument is over what a government or a state is....we all recall Rufus saying over and over we need to be a society that at least looks out for one another's health, that we can't really call ourselves a group unless we look to each other illnesses etc and try to make a better outcome.

    But, then he turns in the opposite direction when it comes to killer drugs. Here, we don't need to look to the betterment of our brothers and sisters at all.

    All this killing shit should be sold at the corner soda pop store.

    This shows the schizo tendency in Ruf's mind.

    An Aristotlean when it comes to a young woman's health (The state is an association intended to enable its members, in their households and the kinships, to live well);a Millian when it comes to drugs.

    Go figure, if you can

    Aristotle would have thought so. In The Politics, he argued,

    It is clear … that the state is not an association of people dwelling in the same place, established to prevent its members from committing injustice against each other, and to promote transactions…. The state is an association intended to enable its members, in their households and the kinships, to live well; its purpose is a perfect and self-sufficient life.[9]

    Immanuel Kant took the same view. He specifically argued that the state should protect its citizens from the harmful effects of

    … stupefying agents such as opium....



    GodAlmighty, ol' Ruf wants 18 year olds to be able to buy crack, heroine, ecstasy, oxy, you name it, at the corner store.

    ReplyDelete