...
I gotta know why it's alright with you if our diplomats go around making stentorian pronouncements upon what other countries do, can do, should do, not do, etc. What if the top diplomat, from, say, Ireland, came for an official visit to that pansy up in Canada and proclaimed the United States had to stop using illegal aliens for all its jobs and forego infrastructure improvement while it whittles down its debt?
Hah! You might well say, but that diplomat would have as much right as Tillerson to open its yap about another country's affairs. If Iraq wants Iranian help to stop, it will say so, and it would no doubt stop then. Yeah, yeah, he was only trying to ingratiate himself with the anti-Shi'ite Saudis, but, still, why do we pay for this shit?
Why do we suffer the so costly and complete balderdash being slung around under the rubric of "foreign policy" or "national security" by diplomats with huge staffs and armies of covert agents across the globe? Isn't that beyond the pale excessive? And doesn't it give you the distinct impression that they don't give a fuck what you think about it, whether they have your consent or not?
Are you even thinking of ways to impact this situation, or did Code Pink's switch from antiwar to pro-immigration convince you it is not possible? That's why they do that shit, you know... to convince you of bullshit that keeps you paralyzed.
...
I don't want to make a big deal of it, but it seems finally the world is waking up to what I have been saying for decades. Aung San Suu Kyi is no kind of hero, nor was she ever. She was a nobody in Britain who saw a chance to grab power back in Burma. Her inability to lead or to think got a lot of good people killed, and, as we are seeing now, still is accomplishing the same, all her lofty blather notwithstanding. She and Nosbaracktu are soulmates.
pipe up any time....
