It’s frequently easiest to point out things that don’t exist. (1,2,3,4)

But, I want to say that I’m glad that you, unlike many other peoplle, recognize that there’s a bipartisan imperialist project in the U.S. I just wish you would express this not by defending Kissinger, but by indicting Obama, Clinton, Bush, and others and paying attention to the differences in how and why, relative levels of harm and differences in form, the role of economics, the history of it all (esp British colonialism), etc. It’s both more complicated and more simple than this converastion has been.

45 · HitlerWasACommunityOrganizer said

Right, and that is why you were only discussing Kissinger, Cheney and Bush.

I see. So one’s initial comments, when elaborated upon, are stuck in stone, and we are all reducible to simple blocks of text that we have once written. I’m not going to lie to you – I think there’s a difference between the imperialism of Kissinger and Cheney as opposed to the imperialism of Clinton and Bush I.

How about the imperialism of LBJ(D). I am not comparing Kissinger and Clinton. I am comparing Republicans and Democrats. And my contention is that both have blood on their hands. So for you to keep harping upon Republicans is slightly disingenuous.

In defence of Kissinger, he (and Nixon) did bring about the cessation of hostilities in Vietnam. As for Kissinger calling Indira a bitch and Indians as bastards, this was a country which would rather ally itself with an opressive dictatorship (the Soviet Union) than with a country which had saved its ass with grain shipments before the Green Revolution.

Any sentence that starts with “in defence of Kissinger” and goes on to talk about foreign policy accomplishments is generally not going to pass the laugh test. Read up and get back to me: Chile; Angola; East Timor; Vietnam; and Cambodia. Then get back to me, and we can talk about Clinton and Obama.

I am not asserting that Kissinger is the second coming of Gandhi. I am just pointing out the free pass you give the Democrats.

This is rich. You guys make me laugh. Kissinger is bad because he did not stop the genocide in Bangladesh. And what did Obama do when the US wanted

No, what is rich is that Kissinger went beyond mere realpoliticking. In every behind the scenes transcipt released to us, there is NOTHING where Kissinger is shown even momentarily regretting what was going on from a human rights perspective. Take the civil rights struggle. He actively made enemies with our own state department because of this. It was not like he tried to assure the state department something along the lines of “You know what. I too agree what is going on is very crappy, but we need to do this for our strategic interests.” The guy was all about his own power and nothing else.

Right, and that is why you were only discussing Kissinger, Cheney and Bush.

I see. So one’s initial comments, when elaborated upon, are stuck in stone, and we are all reducible to simple blocks of text that we have once written. I’m not going to lie to you – I think there’s a difference between the imperialism of Kissinger and Cheney as opposed to the imperialism of Clinton and Bush I.

In defence of Kissinger, he (and Nixon) did bring about the cessation of hostilities in Vietnam. As for Kissinger calling Indira a bitch and Indians as bastards, this was a country which would rather ally itself with an opressive dictatorship (the Soviet Union) than with a country which had saved its ass with grain shipments before the Green Revolution.

Any sentence that starts with “in defence of Kissinger” and goes on to talk about foreign policy accomplishments is generally not going to pass the laugh test. Read up and get back to me: Chile; Angola; East Timor; Vietnam; and Cambodia.

Then get back to me, and we can talk about Clinton and Obama.

So the partisan card’s not going to work – it’s about imperialism.

Right, and that is why you were only discussing Kissinger, Cheney and Bush.

In defence of Kissinger, he (and Nixon) did bring about the cessation of hostilities in Vietnam. As for Kissinger calling Indira a bitch and Indians as bastards, this was a country which would rather ally itself with an opressive dictatorship (the Soviet Union) than with a country which had saved its ass with grain shipments before the Green Revolution.

bench coach. He started a cheerleader, and he may have ended one. But maybe I’m giving him too much credit? how about phil jackson?

In order: 1) horrific; 2) horrific; 3) a tendentious comment, but a different situation – U.S. involvement is generally worse than better and examples like Kosovo (which I supported at the time) and Rwanda are those points where it make it much more difficult to evaluate. The more complicated disccusion for this one is because you’re talking about an act of omission rather than commission, and one for which the person in question has since expressed regret, despite his numerous numerous failing (his sexuality being the least of them – the Lewinsky thing was more unfortunate because of the context, his choice to put himself above the interests of what he allegedly believed in as with so many other things, and most notably because of the power differences bewteen him and the woman, who was the CEO’s intern).

So the partisan card’s not going to work – it’s about imperialism.

1. Harry Truman(D): Authorized the A-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
2. LBJ(D): Escalating US involvement in Vietnam
3. Bill Clinton(D): Getting a blowjob while Rwanda was burning

Even JFK(D) initially escalated American involvement in Vietnam and LBJ took it to another level

So, what about GW?

I was thinking either Scottie Pippen or Bill Cartwright, depending on how you rate his ‘game’.