Saturday Open Thread

I've been so busy following ISIS I forgot to put up a new open thread. I know there are other things going on the world, so here's a place to discuss them. All topics welcome.

< ISIS Brings in Engineers to Repair Mosul Dam | 40 Years Ago Today: Richard Nixon Resigns >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    9 August 1974... (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by desertswine on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 03:46:30 PM EST
    Nixon resigns - 40yrs ago, can't believe it. I'm getting sooo old.

    Speaking of "old," (none / 0) (#3)
    by christinep on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 05:12:39 PM EST
    I also remember that day...very clearly. As fortune would have it, I happened to be in San Francisco for a meeting the preceding few days ... when the resignation talk grew incessant throughout August 8th, a few of us went across the bay and stayed overnight near the Berkeley campus.  First:  The resignation announcement.  Second: The dragon dance and all forms of dance in the streets in a kind of kaleidoscope.  Third: Back to the TV to watch the departure with stylized wave as RMN boarded the helicopter from the White House lawn with a pale, bereft-looking Pat Nixon.

    A momentous time; and, a very emotional time (and memory) for everyone.  Tonight--when husband and a longtime mutual friend and myself go to dinner--we will toast August 9, 1974 as the day when Dick Nixon did the right thing with his resignation and return to California ... the right thing for himself and for our country.


    this deserves its own thread, (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 06:18:20 PM EST
    thanks for letting us know

    How about (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by KeysDan on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 04:53:49 PM EST
    air drops of water to the people of Detroit.

    wow (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by DFLer on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 06:36:28 PM EST
    More than 15,000 households have had their taps turned off for being past due. Yet the bankrupt city hasn't touched 40 businesses who owe $9.5 million in total.

    (from your link)


    So Go to a Business for Water... (none / 0) (#49)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 11:42:29 AM EST
    ...seems like the plan if you are a Detroitian.

    I went through Ike and no water for about 10 days.  Ended up carrying 5 gallon buckets of pool water up 10 flights of stairs just so I could use the bathroom by candlelight.

    That IMO is the most important and cheapest bill I will ever have.  If I had to skip bills, electric would get cut before water, one has to have bathroom facilities to function in the modern world.  And it's so cheap for what you get.

    If my cable bill was at the same level of value for what I get, it would be like $7.25, rather than +$100.


    marijuana medical research (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Lfrieling on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 09:22:04 AM EST
    Is it encouraging that we have 28 studies currently approved by the Feds addressing some claimed medical benefits of marijuana?  Yes and no.  The headlines suggesting a loosening of restrictions and an increase in federally approved experiments is fantastic.  What is less exciting is the rest of the story.

    We know that the marijuana plant has a minimum of 80 to 105 cannabinoids.  Most of the research addresses either a single cannabinoid (with 6 of 100 holding center stage).  Synthetic cannabinoids are also single substance research, and I'm ignoring those studies for the moment.  Is it really useful, given our present state of knowledge, to look at a single cannabinoid, selected from 100 possible choices?  What if a medical benefit of the plant is realized most fully when a combination of two cannabinoids are present?  What if it takes three?   What if maximum therapeutic benefit is realized when 30 of the cannabinoids are present?  

    It seems to me that the place to start is with the plant, as nature and growers grow it.  If the plant shows a benefit, then it would be interesting to attempt to isolate the cannabinoid(s) responsible.  The current batch of experimentation in the US is taking the opposite track.  It is like trying to figure out if a car works as transportation by looking at the brakes, then, separately, at the trunk, and on and on.  What about the brakes, trunk, and spark plugs?

    I believe the correct math to know how many combinations of two or more cannabinoids exist, one looks at "factorials."  In short, if there are 100 cannabinoids (105 is the highest claimed number I've seen), how many combinations of two or more of the 100 are there?  100 factorial is the answer.  In english, that means 100x99x98x97...x2x1.  My handy "googelator"  tells me that the number is, and I'm not making this up,


    Using a LITTLE bit of math shorthand, that number is
    9.332621544×10 to the 157 power.  In english again, that is about 9 billion PLUS 157 more zeros.  I know.  It's a really big number.  

    So, given that rather large number (well, actually, an incredibly huge number) of possible combinations, does it make any sense to look at single cannabinoids?  Not to me.  Lenny

    Sorry! corrected math/number (none / 0) (#14)
    by Lfrieling on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 09:29:54 AM EST
    Sorry, 100 factorial is only about 9 with 157 zeros after it.  But after all, what is a few billion between good scientists?  with 157 zeros after it, it really does not change my thinking even a tiny bit.  I do prefer to get my math right!  Lenny

    Brilliant, MT! (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by christinep on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 10:49:03 AM EST

    Unfortunately it contained (none / 0) (#70)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 02:07:46 PM EST
    personal attacks and name calling and had to be deleted.

    GWBush-appointed federal judge from Alabama (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Peter G on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 10:32:17 PM EST
    arrested in Atlanta Saturday night for beating a woman companion, possibly his wife (few details announced yet).  This is the same judge, Mark E. Fuller, who presided over the political railroad trial of former Ala. Gov. Siegelman, and sentenced him excessively. I presume Fuller to be innocent and hope he gets a good lawyer.

    Might want to read the rules again (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 01:37:05 PM EST

    Name-calling, personal attacks and insults, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by TalkLeft will not be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice.

    Jim and Squeaky need to take a time out (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 01:45:50 PM EST
    for a few days and cool off.
    Thanks to the several of you who alerted me to the insults in this thread. I just have a few minutes and skimmed and deleted. I'll check tonight to see if more should go

    Curiosity Question (none / 0) (#71)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 04:24:44 PM EST
    Do you actually have the ability to ban for a set period of time, or do you block and add again, or is it voluntary.  

    Just curious how it works behind the scenes.


    Politalkix: Perceptive (3.00 / 2) (#21)
    by christinep on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 11:04:45 AM EST
    Thank you for that statement.  My only addition: Lentinel and Jim seem sadly trapped by themselves because the extremely limiting, unforgiving, rigid worldview seems to have constricted any analysis beyond the starting point of some time back.  It has a sense of personal philosophical strangulation born of fear of change.

    Ah, sj, where have you been :) (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by christinep on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 08:56:03 PM EST
    Seriously (3.00 / 2) (#52)
    by sj on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 12:15:15 PM EST
    what is wrong with you? Why can't you (and others) just state your opinion and make counter arguments without being insulting and dismissive of other people? The jim/Yman wars are the epitome of this and, much as I often agree with Yman has to say, the insults that really do fly here are getting ridiculous.

    Some have to use exclamation points!!!!! and say "Absurd!"

    Some have to talk about bugs up butts while tripping down a thread insulting nearly everyone they engage.

    Some have to bark out questions as if they are cross examining a commenter.

    And you go all patronizing with "sadly trapped" this "unforgiving" that.

    I never rate a commenter, only a comment. You and "bug up butts" and MKS and jb should know this well. If you, or "bug up butts" or jb or MKS say something that I think is meaningful or well said, I don't hesitate to up-rate.

    Well, I know jb knows it. The rest of you not so much. You are getting back what you are putting into the universe. I'm no avenging angel here to make judgements. If a comment makes my stomach queasy -- for any or all of the reasons I have stated in the past -- I downrate it.

    And your "butter wouldn't melt in your mouth" pretense at sweetness while insulting lentinel turned my stomach.


    All in the eye of the beholder, sj (3.50 / 2) (#72)
    by christinep on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 04:54:47 PM EST
    As I've said many times before: We simply differ in our views.  We appear to differ so much that I was inclined to ask of you the same question: "What is wrong with you.?"  In many respects, we seem to talk past each other on most matters.  I'll just leave it at that.

    I don't care if our views differ (3.00 / 2) (#73)
    by sj on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 05:25:28 PM EST
    It isn't that "we simply differ in our views". I don't know of one single soul that mirrors my views one hundred percent of the time. I expect to find differences of opinion. Don't you?

    Moreover, I expect that you and I agree on many things: for example, the goal of an initiative if not the implementation.

    It's not the "difference in views" that I find vile, it's the approach. Look, for example, at the virtual hand clapping and verbal applause you gave for comments so insulting they were removed from the website.

    And the only reason we "talk past each other" is because, when you reply to me you pointedly ignore my actual comment. Just as you did here. I suppose you may be right about "All in the eye of the beholder" because you certainly do not behold what I have actually said.

    Just so we're not "talking past each other": Paragraph 3 explains the rating. I didn't downrate the comment for your "views". I downrated the insulting, patronizing psycho babble.


    I beg to differ. (none / 0) (#74)
    by christinep on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 05:35:35 PM EST
    You differ? (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by sj on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 05:58:19 PM EST
    I beg to differ. (none / 0) (#74)
    by christinep on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 04:35:35 PM MDT


    With what? Exactly? Because, as usual, you didn't address anything that that I actually said. You can't "differ" with my impression of your actions. My impression is what it is. And you "differ"-ing doesn't change that impression. You can, however, have your own impression.

    Moreover, you can't "differ" with my reason for rating you. Do you think you know my intentions better than I do?

    Never mind. I'm not hungry for word salad today.

    Your decision to make an example of yourself was pretty funny though, although I expect it was habit and not intention.

    Wev. Go walk your dog. That's what I'm going to do.


    that comment was deleted (none / 0) (#67)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 01:41:27 PM EST
    Squeaky, take a time out. Too much name calling today.

    Heh, who appointed you (none / 0) (#79)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 09:00:50 AM EST
    king of the world?

    If you do not like insults then why call me out like this.  Very poor comment.


    And I'm calling you out (3.00 / 2) (#89)
    by sj on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 11:59:52 AM EST
    If you do not like insults then why call me out like this.
    as the most thin skinned commenter it has ever been my displeasure to encounter. Check out all the "1" you've been laying down.

    Unlike you, I'm not going to scour your comments to downrate. Your hostility and unpleasantness can speak for themselves.

    You have my express permission to plaster a "1" on this comment as well.


    You gratuitously insult (none / 0) (#90)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 01:47:22 PM EST
    people, as you did with me here in this thread more than once.  That is why I downrate you.

    You out of the blue parachute into conversations and downrate and you complaint about downrating.

    You are very, very controlling.  And dish out insults all the time.

    There, you have my explanation.  Not that it makes any difference.  Stop starting fights and then complaining about the result.  


    I think what sj is talking about can (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 03:36:51 PM EST
    be seen here:
    LOL! (1.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 10:31:24 AM EDT
    Too true.  But I didn't see "Guardians of the Galaxy."
    I don't think I'd like Bradley Cooper as a raccoon.  Or, the voice of a raccoon.  He's way too cute in real life.    ;-)

    Parent | Reply to This | 1 2 3 4 5

    You rated this comment a "1" - darned if I can figure out why it deserved that rating...

    Or this one:

    That makes sense (3.67 / 3) (#72)
    by sj on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 05:39:09 PM EDT
    Definitely better safe than sorry.

    Parent | 1 2 3 4 5

    Also rated "1" by you.

    That's what sj is taking issue with - the apparent malicious down-rating of comments in retaliation for one or more of your comments getting hit with a "1" or a "2."

    That's "gratuitous" don't you think?  And I think it goes to sj's point that she doesn't rate people, she rates comments; when a troll rating gets slapped on a completely innocuous comment, on the other hand, it's clear that it's the person that's getting slapped, not the comment.

    And what's worse - "parachuting" into threads to express an opinion, or "stealth-rating" comments without ever participating in the conversation, and doing so seemingly out of spite?  Is that not insulting in its own way?  It's certainly dishonest, in my opinion, and kinda cowardly.

    I think the comments exist for people to read and respond to at will, with no requirement that someone be in on a conversation before being allowed to express him- or herself.  


    You Know... (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 04:21:35 PM EST
    ...that downgrading of Zorba's comment has been stuck in my mind, it simply makes no sense.  

    Does MKS not like BC, which is fair, but to say the comment deserves a '1' is simply being a pr!ck.  The guy is good-looking, so I can't figure out if the rating is because MKS doesn't like anyone pointing it out, or that somehow not seeing a movie is worthy of a '1'.

    And sj, I don't find you controlling, I rather like you being around this place.


    MKS: I strongly concur with your statement (none / 0) (#93)
    by christinep on Wed Aug 13, 2014 at 12:54:19 PM EST
    The groupings here (aka buddy systems) are all too obvious.  But, that's life ... isn't it.

    Yes (none / 0) (#94)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 13, 2014 at 02:28:24 PM EST
    The groupings here (aka buddy systems) are all too obvious.

    It really is. Those who are blind loyalists are definitely a group.


    Yep ... on both sides (none / 0) (#95)
    by christinep on Wed Aug 13, 2014 at 02:41:13 PM EST
    I don't know what (none / 0) (#96)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 13, 2014 at 03:34:21 PM EST
    "both sides" means, as there seem to be the blind loyalists on one side, and everybody else who has differing opinions and level of loyalty to the Democrats and this administration - which can't really be counted as "a side".

    But, whatever.


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 13, 2014 at 06:34:02 PM EST
    Some here do swing to the right. And they cover by calling themselves independent thinkers and all the others blind loyalists.

    Maybe it's more a case of (none / 0) (#97)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 13, 2014 at 03:59:41 PM EST
    "blinders on" versus "blinders off" than of anyone being completely blind.

    I don't think anyone's "blind," per se, but I do think some see more than others are willing to.


    The meaning (none / 0) (#98)
    by christinep on Wed Aug 13, 2014 at 04:46:44 PM EST
    Only that it is easy to think that "others"--particularly those with whom we disagree and who disagree with us--have blinders on or are blind loyalists.  You and I and a number of other commentators here have all engaged in that manner of categorization.  We all stereotype ... unfortunately.  (Shall I sign myself "the cheerleader?)  

    Was it ... (none / 0) (#99)
    by sj on Wed Aug 13, 2014 at 05:10:31 PM EST
    ...your intention to be ironic, because that's not your usual style.

    MKS: I strongly concur with your statement (none / 0) (#93)
    by christinep on Wed Aug 13, 2014 at 11:54:19 AM MDT

    The groupings here (aka buddy systems) are all too obvious.  But, that's life ... isn't it.

    I ask only because right here in this very thread you were applauding the now deleted comments of some kind of group you wanted to be associated with. Just as this comment of yours cozies up to the three initialed one.

    However, if it was intentional irony, I apologize for looking askance and say "well done!"


    And yet... (1.00 / 1) (#86)
    by sj on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 11:43:34 AM EST
    Heh, who appointed you  (none / 0) (#79)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 08:00:50 AM MDT

    king of the world?...

    it is the comments that "inspired" this that are gone, your attempts at controlling notwithstanding. I called you out because of your history of revenge ratings. This happened yet again just last week.

    As I said, I rate a comment. Never the commenter. Even your unlikeable self has received plenty of up ratings from me. Not that I would ever expect you to return it. Down rating you, on the other hand is a guarantee that you will search my comment history for a target on which to plaster a "1"

    ::rolls eyes::
    As if I cared about that.


    Thank you (1.00 / 1) (#87)
    by sj on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 11:48:42 AM EST
    for providing Exhibit AAAB (hexadecimal) in typical MKS tactics.

    ::even more eye rolling::


    What does all that even mean? (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 10:33:10 AM EST
    You call out jim and lentinel for their "limiting, unforgiving, rigid worldview," so I have to ask: do you see yourself or do you believe that the comments you make exemplify an open, forgiving, flexible worldview?

    Because, really, I think you believe what you believe, and you stick to it; I've even seen you engage in some pretty interesting rhetorical contortions in order to keep to the views and opinions you've expressed - so is it that you are so convinced you're right that that makes everyone else wrong and stubborn and inflexible?

    You take these people to task for the constrictions in their analysis - but don't you constrict yours, as well?  I mean, I don't think I've ever seen your analysis be based on anything other than what can be seen through the Democratic Party lenses you don't ever seem to take off, so how are your views not constricted?  Or would you choose to describe it as "focus?"

    Let's face it - we all believe we're right about what we think, don't we?  I can't recall anyone saying, "I know I'm wrong to think this, but..."

    You are just as strong in your own views as the rest of us, and as tired as you get of lentinel's negative outlook, there are many here who find your ability to see unicorns and sparkle ponies and rainbows everywhere you look to be less than reality-based.  And the constant questioning of others' bona fides is as offensive from you as it is when jim accuses people of hating America and not being "real" patriots.

    I'm not sure the smug tone of your comment to Politalkix is very flattering or supportive of your overall arguments.

    Food for thought?  One can only hope (but you're good at that hope thing, so maybe it will get some consideration).


    I love it when you folks (1.00 / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 11:06:22 AM EST
    break out the psycho babble about me.

    It kinda defines you.

    Let me help you.

    We have confirmed to our enemies that we will not use over whelming force to defeat them.

    We hinted at in Korea.

    We shouted at in Vietnam.

    We proved it again in Desert Storm.

    We used all possible methods to show it in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    We are, and will, pay a terrible price for our actions.

    If a war is worth fighting it is worth winning.



    When it comes to babble (none / 0) (#76)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 08:13:36 PM EST
    I'm reminded that my mother used to say that crazy people usually think they're the sane ones in a sea of crazy people.

    The U.S. Senate primary election in Hawaii ... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 04:39:23 AM EST
    ... between Sen. Brian Schatz and Congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa took place today, but is inconclusive as of this hour (11:35 p.m. HST), with Schatz presently up by 1,788 votes.

    However, up to 10,000 votes remain up for grabs, because there are two large precincts in hurricane-ravaged Puna district on the eastern side of the Big Island that still need to vote. The widespread damage was such that the election there had to be postponed two days. So we won't know the final outcome for several days, at least.


    What's your take on Abercrombie getting ousted? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Angel on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 08:45:17 AM EST
    He was compelled to make ... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 11:12:40 AM EST
    ... some unpopular decisions regarding the public employee unions, which angered them -- and this is a unionized state. But he turned this state around economically, and resolved several thorny issues which had bedeviled us for the better part of 20 years, which include same-sex marriage, the preservation of Kawela Bay on Oahu from development, and unfunded liabilities.

    Gov. Abercrombie entered office with the state government facing a $359 million operating budget deficit. He leaves us with an $880 million surplus. And the next governor -- most likely David Ige -- will get to play Mr. Nice Guy, because Abercrombie held the line and played hardball.



    Do you think David Ige will do a good job? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Angel on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 11:43:25 AM EST
    I should qualify that question: Should David Ige (none / 0) (#25)
    by Angel on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 11:45:50 AM EST
    win the general election....

    We'll see. (none / 0) (#35)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 06:48:30 PM EST
    I'll be honest here -- I've worked with Ige in the past, and he's never shown me much. But at this point, he's certainly head and shoulders above what's offered by the other two alternatives, Duke Aione (R) and Miliufi Hannemann.

    Thanks. I have friends who live in Maui but (none / 0) (#36)
    by Angel on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 07:56:00 PM EST
    we don't discuss politics because she's a D and he's a R.  :)  Best to avoid the topic altogether when we are together.  

    Isn't Schatz the more (none / 0) (#80)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 09:06:35 AM EST
    liberal....a true progressive from what I have read....

    Some quotes... (none / 0) (#7)
    by lentinel on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 08:03:31 AM EST
    Lyndon Johnson:
    ... We don't want our American boys to do the fighting for Asian boys. We don't want to...get tied down in a land war in Asia.

    Barack Obama:

    "I will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq."

    Mr. Obama spoke as he ordered American fighter pilots back into the skies over Iraq, a decision that he said he reached after concluding that the United States needed to protect the Kurdish regions in the north and "bolster" an Iraqi leadership that was panicked in the face of advances by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
    ...he (Mr. Obama) insisted that the United States has a "strategic interest in pushing back" ISIS,...
    (Mr. Obama) vowed that the United States had no intention of "being the Iraqi air force."

    Lyndon Johnson 9/64:

    So what are we doing? We're staying there and supplying them with some of the things that we have, some of the things that the richest, most powerful nation in the world has developed. We have some tanks, some planes, and some helicopters. We have ... men out there advising and helping them, and we're hoping that some way, somehow, these people that are invading them and trying to envelop them and trying to take their freedom away from them will some day decide that it's not worth the price and they will leave their neighbors alone and we can have peace in the world. But we are not about to start another war and we're not about to run away from where we are.

    LBJ Speech Sept 25. 1964 (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 09:18:37 AM EST
    It appears that you believe that Obama is lying to the US public and really wants another full out war in Iraq, and intends to escalate ground troops.

    The LBJ quote is after Gulf of Tonkin incident. Considering that Congress gave LBJ the green light to send troops to Vietman (two senators voted no), the comparison would be more apt to Bush and the AUMF. Despite what LBJ said to the American public, history shows was intent to escalate the war. I think a better comparison for Obama would be JFK, who before he was assassinated wanted to pull troops out.

    He [LBJ] emphasized commitment to both the American people, and the South Vietnamese government. He also reminded Americans that there was no desire for war. "A close scrutiny of Johnson's public statements...reveals no mention of preparations for overt warfare and no indication of the nature and extent of covert land and air measures that already were operational." Johnson's statements were short to "minimize the U.S. role in the conflict; a clear inconsistency existed between Johnson's actions and his public discourse."[25]


    Actually, no (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 10:57:57 AM EST
    would be JFK, who before he was assassinated wanted to pull troops out.

    Just the loss of all of Southeast Asia if you lost Vietnam. I think everybody was quite clear that the rest of Southeast Asia would fall.
    What if it did?
    Just have profound effects as far as our position throughout the world, and our position in a rather vital part of the world. Also, it would affect what happened in India, of course, which in turn has an effect on the Middle East. Just, it would have, everybody felt, a very adverse effect. It would have an effect on Indonesia, hundred million population. All of these countries would be affected by the fall of Vietnam to the Communists, particularly as we had made such a fuss in the United States both under President Eisenhower and President Kennedy about the preservation of the integrity of Vietnam.
    There was never any consideration given to pulling out?



    Robert Kennedy? (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 11:14:59 AM EST
    Typical ppj, leaving off the first name to give the impression that those were JFK's words.

    Here are JFK's words, Audio tapes (for the reading impaired).

    While discussing a new set of instructions for Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge∇ to help manage a deteriorating situation in South Vietnam, President Kennedy continues to ruminate on the public relations dimension of an American troop withdrawal. As he does in the meetings of October 2, Kennedy considers the prospects for troop reduction against the backdrop of the war effort.

    All from the horses mouth, not his brother's opinion.


    You really compare what is happening (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 09:20:11 AM EST
    Today to Vietnam?

    No. (none / 0) (#16)
    by lentinel on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 10:09:05 AM EST
    The only comparison I'm making is to the statements made by leaders who are committing us to combat, saying that the engagements are limited, for the purpose of helping local forces and local government and will not be dominated by Americans.

    i don't think, personally, that we can consider the "war in Iraq", started during the Bush administration, over until we are actually out of there. Leaving behind mammoth embassies and advisors is a recipe for what we are seeing now. An expression of our "strategic" interests - and that we will be pulled in over and over again. Perhaps for decades.

    I hope not.

    But I'm not too hopeful either.


    When would you fight?? (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 08:24:32 AM EST
    The question is (4.57 / 7) (#9)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 08:26:27 AM EST
    why would that be any of your business?

    Last time I checked, you don't get to decide who is and isn't a 'real Amurican' around here based on their military service or lack thereof.


    Gotta disagree here (none / 0) (#40)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 07:31:10 AM EST
    Even though I don't agree with most of what Jim says, it's a perfectly valid question.  (And I notice you accuse him of asking a question he didn't ask - no one mentioned anything about how "real 'Muricans" feel).

    If lentinel is going to posit that using military force was bad in Vietnam because s/he doesn't think we should have bought the "domino theory", that's legit.  Is s/he doesn't think we she get involved when one religious group is being persecuted by a government we helped to set up, that's an arguable position.

    But it's also equally valid to ask the question of someone who opposed different times when military forced was used, "When WOULD you use military force?"

    I'm sure YMMV.


    When would you use military force? (none / 0) (#42)
    by Politalkix on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 09:27:27 AM EST
    IMO, we should only use military force

    (1) when we are directly attacked. eg: Pearl Harbor, WTC attack, etc. I therefore do not have problems about use of military in WW2, war in Afghanistan, etc.

    (2) to prevent genocide or large scale humanitarian catastophes. It is not difficult to get support of the UN in these cases. eg: preventing mass slaughter of Yazidis, Christians and Kurds in northern Iraq, Libyans by Gadaffi, Tutsis in Rwanda, etc.

    IMO, we should not use military force (1) for "pre-emptive strikes" (2)to insert America in civil wars where each side is committing war atrocities or (3) to start wars/get involved in proxy wars by using an  expansive definition of "national interest". eg: securing energy resources, prevent "dominos" from falling like what we did in South east Asia, central and latin America and Africa during the cold war. Such involvement usually come to bite us in the end.  


    I don't disagree (none / 0) (#43)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 09:51:32 AM EST
    But the fact remains is that is exactly what Jim asked - but NOT what Mordiggian tried to make his question out to be.

    Mordiggian 88 (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 09:27:20 AM EST
    First, as jbindc noted, I didn't ask or comment about anyone's service, or lack thereof.

    So you have, again, posited that I wrote something I did not.

    Secondly, by using the phrase 'real Amurican' you are slurring me.

    Now, Jeralyn asked us to be nice. I said I will do my part. I trust you will do the same.

    My question to lentinel was straightforward. What would, in h/she's opinion, warrant our taking military action.

    And, since you have noted that I am incorrect in my assessment that you are an isolationist with pacifist leanings, I ask you the same question.

    When would you fight.

    And I will answer for myself. I would initiate military actions whenever I became convinced that the US was threatened sufficiently to cause grievous harm.

    For example, I did not support our actions in Kosovo. I did not think the participants there offered possible grievous harm to the US. I saw our entrance solely based on humanitarian reasons and that the other European powers were perfectly capable of "fixing" the problem.

    I called both of my Senators and my US Representative expressing my opposition.

    But, and here is the difference between me and many who opposed the war in Iraq... When the action started I shut up and supported the troops.

    OTOH, looking at the preponderance of the evidence I agreed with Bush that we needed to change the regime in Iraq. Saddam had demonstrated he was capable of doing wild things and we had lots of evidence that he was not living up to the UN agreement that saved him in Desert Storm. Plus, we had the inputs from all of the major intelligence agencies that he had WMD's.

    As President, knowing what Bush knew, I would have been remiss in my sworn duties if I had not acted.


    Where is the Outlander discussion (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 09:38:32 AM EST
    I expected to find going on?

    Yes Great Comment MT (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 10:59:25 AM EST
    Although I beg to differ with you about al Sadr...  he had exactly the same position you and I had about the US invasion of Iraq.

    US out of Iraq.

    Had another country invaded the US and had a large embassy here where central command was stationed, that would be the biggest target for US militias to bombard.

    IMO, Muqtada al-Sadr is not anti US per se, just anti US as an occupying force. He is for the well being of Iraq as he should be.

    I agree (none / 0) (#23)
    by lentinel on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 11:16:53 AM EST
    with what you are saying about embassies and their importance.

    It's just that in Baghdad, we have left the world's largest.
    As I understand it, it consumes 104 acres and employs 15,000 people.

    It is a statement as well as an embassy, in my opinion that is.

    As far as the statements I quoted by Johnson, I will admit it was a free association. When I read Obama saying that we were sending our jets on bombing missions but that we were not going to be Iraq's air force, or when he said that he was not going to be drawn back into another war in Iraq, at a time when it appears that is exactly what is happening... I thought of old Lyndon.

    Maybe what the President said will turn out to be true. It will only be some weeks... months... of American engagement. Maybe the government in Baghdad will change and be more inclusive...


    I did want to ask you, MT, as a member of a military family, whether it affects you at all that Mr. Obama made his statement about committing American air power, gave his interview to Friedman of the Times, and then went on a two weeks vacation.

    I know that vacations are necessary. I know that all presidents take them - and there is never a good time - that the demands of the office are relentless... But nevertheless, I felt something about taking off and a time when you are committing forces to combat.

    Is it something that you felt, or is it just OK... the way things go and completely understandable - or someplace in between?

    C'mon, lentinel (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by christinep on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 03:14:47 PM EST
    Perhaps the President should not be allowed to sleep at night ... or, no more than 4 hours, in any event.

    BTW, the "vacation" is being described for the reality that it has become: "a working vacation." Maybe, tho, it would be better if he would wear a hair-shirt or some such to satisfy those intent on continuous personal vilification. :)


    You're playing the vacation card? (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by nycstray on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 03:34:48 PM EST
    {head desk}

    I am (none / 0) (#31)
    by lentinel on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 04:31:03 PM EST
    not playing any card.

    I am asking a question.
    I am asking for a subjective reaction from a person who is part of a military family.

    This question is of no interest to you.
    It may be of no interest to MT either.

    So be it.


    Dana Milbank asks the same thing (none / 0) (#77)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 08:36:23 AM EST
    I am glad Obama is (none / 0) (#78)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 08:58:28 AM EST
    not all hopped up and trying to assert us aggressively all over the place.

    And, Hillary, unfortunately apparently agrees with you that Obama should be more aggressive.  Those of us who supported Obama years ago did so because he was not as hawkish as Hillary.

    We need to say out as much as possible....


    I bet you had the same feelings (none / 0) (#81)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 10:06:23 AM EST
    About GWB's vacations.

    Well, Dubya was on vacation in Crawford (none / 0) (#83)
    by Angel on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 10:39:06 AM EST
    when he received the infamous August 5th memo.  Not sure being on vacation matters one way or the other.  

    W spent so much time down there... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by unitron on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 10:53:07 AM EST
    ...that no one else in Crawford should have to clear brush until the 22nd Century.

    Just pointing out hypocrisy (none / 0) (#85)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 11:04:26 AM EST
    I didn't care about W's vacations (none / 0) (#88)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 11:52:35 AM EST
    In some ways I wish he had stayed on vacation.

    "More engaged" sounds like "more aggressive" to me.  I am opposed to that.  I think there are others who are opposed as well.  


    Clinton criticizes Obama on foreign policy (none / 0) (#28)
    by Green26 on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 03:53:42 PM EST
    Hillary is saying Obama's failure to assist in Syria allowed ISIS to build up. She is also concerned that what is happening in the Middle East now, will spread to Europe and the US.

    "The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad -- there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle -- that failure left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled,"

    "One of the reasons why I worry about what's happening in the Middle East right now is because of the breakout capacity of jihadist groups that can affect Europe, can affect the United States," she continued. "Jihadist groups are governing territory. They will never stay there, though. They are driven to expand. Their raison d'etre is to be against the West, against the Crusaders, against the fill-in-the-blank -- and we all fit into one of these categories. How do we try to contain that? I'm thinking a lot about containment, deterrence and defeat."

    Vote (none / 0) (#29)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 04:08:12 PM EST
    Does that mean she will get your vote?

    I supported her over Obama (none / 0) (#30)
    by Green26 on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 04:23:46 PM EST
    Mainly because I thought she was competent.

    Are you going to say Hillary is war-mongering now?

    Do you think it's okay to allow a large portion of Syria and Iraq, and perhaps eventually other areas, to be taken over by a well-armged and well-financed organization like ISIS?


    I also (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by lentinel on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 04:37:03 PM EST
    preferred her to Obama - because I thought she was more competent, more experienced, a bit more honest and somewhat more intelligent.

    At this point in time, for me she is someone campaigning her azz off. No more. No less.

    I personally would not vote for her - and would not have voted for her in 2008 either - because of her vote for the war.

    In short, I think she is very intelligent, she knows the ways of Washington and how to get things done. But I don't have a deep sense of a clue about what she might want to get done. At present, she just seems like another pol making hay from various international confrontations.

    I would prefer someone focused on what is happening here.


    Dodging the Question? (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 04:57:38 PM EST
    BTW how did it work out when we armed rebels in the past?

    The U.S. has a long, complicated, and dark history of arming rebel groups around the world. Our support for the anti-communist militias in Argentina and Honduras led us to directly train some of the fighters that later evolved into outright death squads. Nixon-era CIA operations in Chile helped Augusto Pinochet's takeover by military coup, which later ended with Pinochet's arrest as a war criminal for the mass murder and torture. The Nicaraguan contras, whom we armed in the 1980s to terrorize the Marxist government, instead terrorized civilians, whom they tortured and killed in large numbers. The U.S.'s support for the rise of the Khmer Rouge, remembered for their genocide of nearly 2 million Cambodians, is more ambiguous and complicated. At the very least, they enjoyed tacit U.S. tolerance as long as they fought Communist Vietnam.

    And despite Hillary's criticism in 2012 we provided $1billion to the syrian rebels plus Pentagon training.

    She is running and hoping to pick up Independents and GOPers.

    And, as far as her Hawkish stance, I believe that part of the reason for her tough talk (war mongering) is to counter the sexist schtick that a woman cannot lead the military.


    Thanks for the slurs, MT (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 10:51:18 AM EST

    Take into consideration if you will ppj's islamophobia and how his lack of true knowledge leads him to fear ghosts under the bed.

    Again a slur.

    If he had been raised around more individuals from the ME he probably wouldn't fear the very thought of them so much, and he would have some understanding too that would allow him to feel like he could negotiate with them...work with them.

    And another.

    You have no idea as to who I grew up with. And you have no idea as to who I have worked with and lived around.

    I don't mind you disagreeing but making false statements is going too far.

    My position Muslims is simple. People are people. Some are good. Some are bad. Most are in between.

    Towards Muslims in conjunction with religious and political matters... As the Gipper said about the Soviets.

    "Trust but verify."

    both of you stop sniping (none / 0) (#66)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 01:40:18 PM EST
    at each other. Get a room or start your own blog.

    Scott over in another thread (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 11:08:58 AM EST
    You wanted to talk about the 8 US attorneys Bush fired...

    Do you also want to talk about the 93 Clinton fired??

    Jim (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 11:55:12 AM EST
    As you know, it is customary for an incoming president to ask for the resginations of all the US Attorneys - and Bush did it too, BTW - he just staggered them over a few months, instead of one fell swoop.

    "On the issue of Clinton [U.S. attorneys], we called each one and had them give us a timeframe. Most were gone by late April. In contrast, Clinton [Justice Department] told all but a dozen in early March to be gone immediately," McNulty said.

    The difference appears minor. Both McNulty and Sampson acknowledged that the Bush administration, like the Clinton administration, brought in a new slate of U.S. attorneys within a few months of taking office.

    But historical data compiled by the Senate show the pattern going back to President Reagan.

    Reagan replaced 89 of the 93 U.S. attorneys in his first two years in office. President Clinton had 89 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years, and President Bush had 88 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years.

    In a similar vein, the Justice Department recently supplied Congress with a district-by-district listing of U.S. attorneys who served prior to the Bush administration.

    The list shows that in 1981, Reagan's first year in office, 71 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys. In 1993, Clinton's first year, 80 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys.

    Nonetheless, the idea that Clinton and Reno broke with precedent and fired all U.S. attorneys upon taking office has played a key role in the public debate in recent weeks. In conservative media and on talk radio, Reno's abrupt firing of all the U.S. attorneys had been described as extreme and unprecedented.

    I defended you above, and sometimes people jump on you without actually reading your comments, but sometimes it appears you like to throw grease on a fire without actual facts to back it up. You sir, are a provacateur, and there are many people here who are willing to take the bait.


    jbindc (1.00 / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 12:49:46 PM EST
    As the new doctor said, "All fevers appreciated."

    But I did not attack Clinton for what he did, I just noted that he had. So I agree with your point re what new Presidents do.

    Which was my point to Scott.

    Bush didn't do anything different.


    Jim take a time out (none / 0) (#68)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 01:42:57 PM EST
    and come back when you can write comments that do something other than bait people for your amusement.

    I Did Not (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 12:06:06 PM EST
    What I wrote in reply to Nixon destroying the infamous tapes:

    Yes, Pulling a Cheney would have kept him in office, then he could have refused to testify in front of Congress about the missing 5 million emails:

    The Bush White House email controversy surfaced in 2007, during the controversy involving the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys. Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available, because they were sent via a non-government domain hosted on an email server not controlled by the federal government. Conducting governmental business in this manner is a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act. Over 5 million emails may have been lost or deleted.  Greg Palast claims to have come up with 500 of the Karl Rove lost emails, leading to damaging allegations. In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been deleted.    LINK

    I used to think you acted really dumb to goad people into your non-sense, but I have since realized you aren't acting.  You don't have the capacity.

    You just can't help yourself implying something that simply didn't happen, much like your 'service' record.  The reality is no where near your implication, much like your statement that I wanted to disuss US Attorneys; pure deception.