Bill Kristol calls for military action in Burma.
« More Threats | Main | Columbus Day »
A Stopped Clock is Wrong Many Times a Day
08 Oct 2007 02:09 pm
Comments (17)
FIRST!!!
Will wonders never cease?
While Kristol is right that China is the largest arms supplier to Burma, he is (like seemingly everyone) wrong about China's trade with Burma. Thailand is Burma's largest trading partner, not China. And while he advocates bombing palaces and such, he avoids advocating the one thing that would really hurt the regime: bombing their gas pipeline to Thailand. Perhaps if a Chinese company owned the pipeline rather than an American one, he might think otherwise. Regardless, I don't think China would appreciate military action in their back yard. And Thailand certainly wouldn't. Any military action would have to be launched from either Australia or the Bay of Bengal because nobody else nearby will let us launch an attack from their country. Indonesia might not even grant us flyover rights. Air operations will be difficult and land operations impossible. Our best hope is that the "turning over the alms bowl" protest will slowly split the military. This is the most important aspect of the recent protests (for Buddhists, anyway) and it appears to be ongoing. Those in the military will fear bad Karma from not being able to give alms to the Sangha. Hopefully, they will put pressure on their leaders.
The best part is (in the link) where Mark Krikorian over at The Corner asks "Is this a joke?"
Yes it is Mark, and his name is Bill Kristol.
"my graduate advisor used to say"
How old do you have to be for this to sound ridiculous? It pretty much screams "I can't think for myself".
Could somebody get him to cackle out, 'Today Burma, tommorrow ze world!!!!'?
max
['Lest the pundits to the east prove the stronger.']
I find it kind of funny that a writer with an Armenian name is telling us to ignore a regime halfway across the world oppressing its own people.
Of course, tribal identity isn't everything (and seriously, God bless America for that), but I'm just sayin'.
Why does he think bombing infrastructure is likely to lead to the overthrow of the regime rather than giving the regime a boost by getting everyone united in being mad at us? And assuming that the regime collapses, what would replace it? Is he forgetting that again?
Kristol's nattering is just the equivalent of a commodity producer looking for shelf space. His comments about this or that are just provocative enough that he's kept around so that someone more informative won't take his slot.
This in particular just sounds like the latest weird hybrid energy lo-cal no-carb drink with a famous label. Lots of gas and no nutrition.
I take it, then, that Krikorian rejects any suggestion that Saddam Hussein's brutality provided even a partial justification of our invasion of Iraq.
I take it, then, that Krikorian rejects any suggestion that Saddam Hussein's brutality provided even a partial justification of our invasion of Iraq.
Hussein was continuously brutal throughout his time in power, but the level of brutality did not stay the same. Yes, he was responsible for tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths, but the vast majority came at a time when the US was cozy with the bastid. The timing of the US response made the brutality rationale look a bit insane. As with Noriega, it was almost like the Bushes were "tidying up" an embarrassing former intelligence asset.
Oh, Bill, is there anyplace you don't want American to make war on?
I find it kind of funny that a writer with an Armenian name is telling us to ignore a regime halfway across the world oppressing its own people.
I find it kind of sad that a commenter thinks that the statement "bombing Burma is a bad idea" is equivalent to shouting, "GOD BLESS the Myanmar junta!" - as if a middle ground between "ignore Burma" and "burn, motherfucking Burma, burn" can't possibly exist.
Isn't that the type of winning thinking that got us into the CURRENT mess?
So why is the Washington Post giving Williams Kristol space to argue his idiotic views?
Is it "kiss Rupert Murdoch's ass lest he buy us as well" week?
Since Kristol has been wrong on absolutely everything I've ever heard him referenced on, WHY is is he still being discussed by ANYBODY?
Give me his job, his salary, and his media outlets - I can be much more interesting and just as whacked as he can.
I could even joke with Colbert.
As for attacking Burma, anytime somebody mentions it, just tell them to come back when they grow up and stop reading "G.I. Joe" comics - which, since I read them, I can tell you are FAR more sophisticated than Bill Kristol at foreign policy concepts.
Kristol's statements are an infallible guide to what one must not do.
Comments closed October 22, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Um, him and WHAT ARMY?
Posted by TheOaf | October 8, 2007 2:21 PM