Nepal’s king has has once again dissolved the government for not being democratic enough. The autocrat is opposed by the communists, who’ve been strong-arming the parliament to put off elections.
You’d think that this might be the political equivalent of putting the Bush administration in a round room and ordering it to find the corners. But it’s not:
1) Kings who favor freedom are better than “freedom fighters” who don’t.
2) It’s Nepal. Oil? No. Military might? Nope. Geopolitical importance? Not as such.
3) It’s kind of a “Chinese thing.”
How will this play out? Can we expect America to treat an unfavorable outcome the same way we treated Iraq? I mean, given that we invaded Iraq to spread freedom… If the anti-democracy forces win, are we going into Nepal!!!???
Who can say? Stay tuned, dear readers…
Nah, don’t. You’ve seen this one before.
Fanny Roborat
45 comments
Murray
February 1, 2005 at 6:56 am
1Freedom is on the march!
Freedom is on the march!
Freedom is on the march goddammit!
We do all that marching and you expect us to make it all the way to Nepal?
Thompson
February 1, 2005 at 7:21 am
2Unless the road to Nepal leads straight through Iran (with a roughly decade-long stop to make sure that the resulting insurgency is well and duly planted there as well), I don’t see us going there.
Rusty
February 1, 2005 at 10:06 am
3We invaded Iraq to spread freedom? Oh. I thought it was because of those WMD things. I’m SO behind the times, but when you have an administration that changes the face of its policy faster than an Amsterdam hooker turns tricks it is easy to forget.
David
February 1, 2005 at 10:15 am
4Murray, Murray,
This is the inexorable march of the Army of God. The absence of Bushian Freedom in any corner of the globe is a threat to America. And since freedom fries, the troops will be able to stay warm. And besides, by the time we withdraw enough troops from Iraq, global warming might have solved the weather problem. We’re going to need vacation spots like Nepal to replace all the current getaways that have become scuba-dive–only-directly-from-cruise-ships resorts, kind of Atlantises gone global.
Adam, without your postings we’re all sunk.
Vinft
February 1, 2005 at 10:27 am
5Actually Cheney was interested in invading until he found out that it isn’t an opportunity to drop Napalm on Communists. (Or is it?)
norbizness
February 1, 2005 at 10:37 am
6As soon as it is explained that Kathmandu is not only the capital of Nepal, but also the title of a song by Chevy truck balladeer Bob Seeger, the American people will gladly jump on board.
Deno the Untergeek
February 1, 2005 at 12:22 pm
7It’s Nepal…gateway to the inner steppes of Asia…Think of the trade valuse with China. Or not. It’s easier to ship things over water. Wait and see if that happens to come up as an impetus for war.
gardenbearMN
February 1, 2005 at 1:13 pm
8..spreading feardom around the world. Feardom is on the march…
Thompson
February 1, 2005 at 2:01 pm
9OOOOOH! Nice shot!
Mike Z
February 1, 2005 at 4:40 pm
10!!Off Topic Alert!!
Some of you may have already heard about this, but a faculty member at Univ of Colorado, Boulder wrote an article about whether the WTC towers could have been considered a legitimate target for the 9-11 terrorists (similar to the way the Pentagon has generally been considered a legitimate military target). Since he came down on the “affirmative” side, some campus republicans (and non-campus reublicans) are demanding that he be fired. Other campus republicans, along with most democrats and independents (and, as far as I know, all of the the Maoist rebels), are vigorously defending his free speech rights.
If you’re interested, here’s the address of his actual essay:
http://coloradoaim.org/Wardchurchillghostsof911.htm
He makes some valid points, though I personally disagree with his conclusion. Plus, he uses that shrill, Chomsky-esque style that I really dislike.
gardenbearMN
February 1, 2005 at 5:29 pm
11Thompson: given that the road to Osama & 9/11 went thru Iraq, it’s not too much of a stretch to think that someone (not in this readership) could deduct that the road to Nepal has a tollbooth in Iran. When the destination is phony, the getting there is ALL the fun.
Deno the Untergeek
February 1, 2005 at 5:39 pm
12I’m a student on campus here at CU Boulder…Ward Churchill is no longer on the faculty, nor, it seems, will he ever be on one again. His press release is fascinating. His words were taken out of context and stretched. Even though he’s a bit more candid than I care to be about the 911 attacks, this is a matter of free speech and a free press. He really hammered the US Government and, by association, the US people. Interesting debate. He stepped down, effective Jan 31, as chair of the Department of Ethnic Studies, no negotiations, no reconsiderations. His press release, not CU’s, is here: http://www.colorado.edu/EthnicStudies/press_releases/ward_churchill_01 3105.html
It’s an interesting read, certainly worth the time to read.
neocleo
February 1, 2005 at 5:49 pm
13We’ll get to Nepal right after we get through straightening out Korea.
Mike Z
February 1, 2005 at 6:10 pm
14Deno -
He resigned as chair of the dept (perhaps to draw fire away from his colleagues), but did he resign from the faculty altogether?
tess
February 1, 2005 at 6:37 pm
15*sigh* too tired for anything resembling wit . . .
I thought we loved autocrats who despise democracy. Isn’t that why we’re still on speaking terms with Saudi Arabia? I keep getting confused by which plutocracy we’re for or against.
Bob
February 1, 2005 at 6:44 pm
16Tess, we’re for Eurasia. We’ve always been for Eurasia.
Deno the Untergeek
February 1, 2005 at 7:03 pm
17Mike Z -
He’s still on the faculty, but he resigned as department chair…sorry, I misread the article late last night and didn’t bother to reread it. I do recommend reading it, cause it’s an interesting take on things.
Mike Z
February 1, 2005 at 7:08 pm
18Turns out that Ward Churchill has not resigned from the CU faculty.
Gov. Owens of Colorado released a letter denouncing Churchill and calling for him to resign altogether. In the letter, Owens repeats many of the silly misrepresentations of Churchill’s position that Deno mentioned. He says that “taxpayer money” should not be used to support such anti-American viewpoints.
I wish I could post the link, but the governor’s website is down. Interestingly, CU receives very little state funds anymore. Almost all of the funding comes from tuition and individualized grants.
Crap! As I write this, NPR is reporting on the issue and they’re repeating the exact same misrepresentations (the victims = Nazis; terrorism is good; etc.). Oh well…lesson learned.
Murray
February 1, 2005 at 7:35 pm
19Tess,
Some times it’s a little hard to figure out who should be good or bad guys, (our friends or evil doers).
If we consult the former Senate Foreign Relations chairman, World’s Greatest Drug pusher, and the one person in history responsible for more drug deaths world wide than any one else, Jessie Helms, he would divide the world like this: Any country that opposed communism was good. Any country that didn’t care was our enemy. So Chile’s Pinochet was not only a friend to America but one of his own close personal friends. However Jessie also said “All of Haiti is not worth a single drop of American blood”.
Hmmm… Murderers are our friends, innocent people are worthless, any one else could be good or bad.
Not much different than the current administration.
Tess, it’s done on a whim.
Deno the Untergeek
February 1, 2005 at 8:18 pm
20The humanity is missing in modern politics. All the humanists are gone: RFK, MLK…very saddening. It strikes me as a lasting reminder of man’s folly, that might, at least for a while, really does make right.
Oh, and the whole state funding thing: Damn TABOR! It makes politicians think more highly of prisons than schooling, which is so incredibly BAD for the future of America…Of course, that may change with the new state congress. We shall see.
Rusty
February 1, 2005 at 10:18 pm
21I read as much of Ward Churchill’s article as I could until boredom set in. His writing reminds me of the mobius guy who occasionally posts here. Just because you can make a footnote doesn’t mean you have a point. [1]
I found Churchill’s rational for al-Quaida (does anyone know how this is really supposed to be spelled) attacking us uncompelling. He claimed it was in part a repayment for 500,000 deaths of children in Iraq due to sanctions over the years. It wasn’t people from Iraq or Iraqi money that attacked us. It was the Saudis. Al-Quaida did not attack in the name of Iraq or injustice. It attacked in the name of Islam.
The mortality of 500,000 Iraqi children is terrible. Definitely. Yet, I’m not ready to accept responsibility for them. The infant mortality rate in Iraq, at 53 deaths/1000, is higher than most other countries in the Middle East, but not the highest. Yemen takes that honor (63 deaths/1000). I am aware of no sanctions we might have against Yemen. Without knowing what the Iraqi mortality rate was prior to sanctions we cannot suggest anything about cause and effect. The world average, if you want to know, is 50.31 deaths/1000.
Running through the math from figures obtained from the CIA Fact book, indeed, 445,000 children died over the last 10 years in Iraq. What about the 507,000 that died in Iran in the same period or the 161,000 that died in Syria over the last ten years? The fact is that there are high mortality rates in this sad part of the world.
I’m a bit callous on this one, friends. I cannot, will not, look at the widow or orphan of a 9-11 victim and say it was our fault. Churchill can say what he wants. He has the right; but that doesn’t mean he is right.
[1] I have no point here.
craig
February 1, 2005 at 10:33 pm
22Rusty,
I think you’re missing Churchill’s point completely. He’s not saying that the attack on the WTC is justified. In fact, what he’s saying is that just like the WTC is not a valid target, neither are many of the ones that the US military uses. However, if one were to use the same rationalization that the US military does to defend it’s (or rather “our”) targets, than the same logic says that the WTC is a legitimate target. “Collateral damage” looks much different when it’s close to home.
Rusty
February 2, 2005 at 12:39 am
23Wouldn’t be the first time a point missed its mark on me…. OK Craig, reading along in the section to which you are referring, Churchill says that the 911 attackers weren’t “seeking to get even” or to “start something”. They were on a joyride gone bad to ask us “how does it feel”.
I think Churchill is wrong right there, too. He is wrong in the castigations he spreads on us (my previous post) and he is grasping thin air here. He carefully justifies everything he says except “Still less is there a basis for claims that they “started” something,…” Why should we accept this statement? It is pivotal, I think.
I agree that 911 wasn’t about payback. Remember that US Navy ship that the Iraqis attacked with Exocet missles during the Iran-Iraq war back when we supported Hussien? That incident occurred right after it came out that we had been arming BOTH sides. Ooops! That’s payback. We knew it was payback. In fact, we didn’t even do anything about it because we knew had it coming!
Nor do I think the people who organized 911 did so to ask us how it felt. They were not expressing the moral outrage of the World. They held no position nor consensus to act as such. We do not deserve all of the World’s moral outrage. Indeed, they could have just as easily attacked their own country if this was their justification.
All that’s left is that they were trying to start something. And they did.
I know I haven’t touched your point about the validity of targets. I’m processing that one. Since Churchill’s “a” and “b” don’t make sense to me, I’m not doing to accept from him that a + b = c. But, I’m sleepy. We can work Churchill over some more tomorrow.
Deno the Untergeek
February 2, 2005 at 2:21 am
24And where is the humanity, the humility, that is so absolutely necessary for ANY action of war to be justified? Maybe I’m just a pacifist, but if one Iraqi child dies due to sanctions (the sanctions cut down on how much food they could buy, albeit indirectly), then that action of sanctioning Iraq is not just. But, I guess when you kill one, you’re a murderer; when you kill 10, you’re a serial killer; but when you kill half a million you’re a war hero.
While Iraq may not have been special in it’s stats, you’re taking the numbers out of context, Rusty. Iran has a population of something like 61 million - 3 times Iraq’s. As far as Syria…I can’t really say anything on that cause truthfully I don’t know enough about it. Aren’t they in some sort of civil war? Or is that Lebennon…
Churchill is a fool for thinking that people are smart enough to digest what he’s saying and think about the words he’s written. Some of it’s quite brilliant, written with disdain for governmental actions…unfortunately, it comes off as cocky and ‘unpatriotic.’ Of course, that’s one of the easiest things to twist out of context, things written in that style. Look at Tom Paine if you want an historical example of that sort of demonizing.
SOTU drinkin' man
February 2, 2005 at 3:15 am
25Off of the off-topic CU thread…
Does anyone remember today is the State of the Union address? And what tradition must we keep on this hallowed occasion… The annual POTUS SOTU Drinking Game!
So on what words should we quaff our drink of choice?
Personally I suggest a Felber-sized Makers Mark.
pjk
February 2, 2005 at 6:21 am
26SOTU DRINKIN’MAN, you better choose your words carefully if that’s gonna be your beverage.
Allow yourself a few. Don’t die of alcohol poisoning on “freedom” “democracy” or “God”, stay away from “ownership”, “fullfillment” and “promise”, but don’t be stone-ass sober waiting for “What can I say? I fucked up. Just like I always do! I am truly sorry. I resign.”.
He’s a-gettin’ better, so if you only drink to mispronounced words (other than nukular), you may have a chance.
Nobody should attempt even the shot-of-beer game for each smirk, however. Certain death will follow.
dee
February 2, 2005 at 8:06 am
27What’s really scary is last year’s game is still pretty relevant — just substitute “personal retirement accounts” for “tax relief.”
Maria
February 2, 2005 at 1:40 pm
28If you sold tickets to the Bush administration in the round room gig you could erase the national debt! Especially if there were monkeys involved. It would be funny to see them try to explain their way out of it — there are corners, really there are!
Murray
February 2, 2005 at 4:15 pm
29(this is a copy of my post on the last column)
Our new SOTU drinking game consists of;
1. see the president.
2. drink your self into a stupor
3. take anything he says as either hilarious, not that big a deal, incredibly stupid, or tragically wrong.
4. think of your hangover as being a harbinger of the state of the union in the near future.
John
February 2, 2005 at 9:24 pm
30Don’t you think that maybe our reluctance to interfere in Nepalese affairs might have less to do with craven hypocrisy and a lot more to do with the superpowers conferred upon King Gyanendra by his magical headdress? Behold:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/international/asia/01cnd-nepal.html
Deno the Untergeek
February 2, 2005 at 10:21 pm
31There any oil there in Nepal? There ya go.
Sad, isn’t it?
David
February 2, 2005 at 11:40 pm
32I’m telling you, Nepalese Internal Improvement Fund for aggressive investment with a no-more-polar-ice-cap time horizon. High ground is going to be worth its weight in dilithium crystals.
I’m on the spine of Florida that was still above water when sharks were swimming over Orlando. Looking forward to surf fishing in Ocoee.
Jerry
February 3, 2005 at 3:41 am
33Of course we’re going to go enfree Nepal. All the signs are there! All this talk about Iran! And, yes, Thomson, Nepal is almost due east of Iraq, the road goes through Iran. Now, as you point out, we may have to slow down there for a few years, but then it’s on the move again, east into Afghanistan, though we may have to re-enfree that country by then. Which could take a while. But then it’s right through Pakistan and India (where they will be glad to see us just passing through, as these democracies don’t need enfreeing) and zip-bang, there, by oh, 2020, we are in Nepal! And what country do you think is just a little north of east of Nepal? North Korea, buddy! That’s what! Oh, sure, the PRC is in the way, but I’m sure we can work something out with that peaceful, freedom-loving and democratic nation. Somehow. If you know what I mean
For a bonus, think how an endless series of wars on the Asian mainland will cut down on the drag on the Social Security system by people living long enough to collect!.
Joan
February 4, 2005 at 11:02 am
34For a bonus, think how an endless series of wars on the Asian mainland will cut down on the drag on the Social Security system by people living long enough to collect!.
That would be a very long-term solution, considering how young our fighting forces are. To really save the system, we need to have our senior citizens going into battle. The military pay would offset the benefit cuts they’re about to get, and they’ll be too busy in the trenches to think about filling those expensive prescriptions for Procardia and Lipitor.
Jerry
February 4, 2005 at 12:52 pm
35Don’t think they haven’t thought of that. I know at least one Marine Reservist who was called up for BOTH GWI and GWII. He’s about 50.
David
February 4, 2005 at 4:34 pm
36I ran into a guy in Perry, Florida, who is a veteran in his late 60s. They tried to call him back up last year for Iraq. He had to talk them out of it. He was a medic, so they wanted him as a special needs troop, reasoning that he could still apply bandages. The man is partially disabled and on retirement. I am not making this up.
I also need some help with the following:
“And now the liberals want to stop President Reagan from selling chemical warfare agents and military equipment to Saddam Hussein, and why? Because Saddam ‘allegedly’ gassed a few Kurds in his own country. Mark my words. All of this talk of Saddam Hussein being a ‘war criminal’ or ‘committing crimes against humanity’ is the same old thing. Liberal Hate Speech! And speaking of poison gas…I say we round up all the drug addicts and gas them.”
Rush Limbaugh, Nov. 3, 1988
My problem, as a cyber-infant, is that I don’t know how to authenticate this. It’s certainly believable, but… Can anyone out there help?
Jerry
February 5, 2005 at 1:27 am
37Sadly, David, this one is a myth. Not that Limbaugh wouldn’t have said it. And he certainly has called for up-to-death punishment for druggies. Other druggies. Not him. Other ones.
David
February 5, 2005 at 9:25 am
38Thanks, Jerry.
As plausible as it was, I guess Limbaugh was more in the mindset “So what if Hussein gassed some Kurds. Whatever is under a Republican administration is an acceptable necessity.”
Now I can delete that particular bit of cyberspace satire.
Jerry
February 5, 2005 at 1:45 pm
39snopes is an invaluable asset. haven’t caught ‘em wrong yet.
and, sure, Limbaugh had that mindset, but then, so did Rumsfeld. After all, Saddam opposed the theocrats in Iran. Now, we have gotten rid of Saddam, and seem to be establishing a fundamentalist theocracy with ties to Iran. Well worth $200 billion, 1500 dead Americans, 12,000 grievously injured Americans, the loss of world respect, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Doncha think?
David
February 5, 2005 at 11:29 pm
40What is/are snopes, besides the con artists non pariel in Faulkner? I really am aa cyber-infant.
Oh, yeah, Reagan/Bush/Rumsfeld Iraq policy, followed by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld Iraq policy, continues its proud tradition of just one truly smashing success after another. Boy do we know how to smash things.
Hear the booms, see the sparklies, and enjoy the pleasure of shooting those people, as that Marine general opined. Takes me back to Westmoreland reviewing the troops in Viet Nam and asking them if they were up for going out and killing some Veet Cong?
Florida trounced Bama today. Can anybody guess who’s a Happy Gator?
Jerry
February 6, 2005 at 7:32 pm
41David - thats snopes.com, confirming or busting urban legends and cybermyths. The word “myth” four panels up is a link.
Links are hard to find here at FA, but though I’ve moaned, whined, begged and importuned, to the point I expected to get cut off, they are what they are.
David
February 6, 2005 at 7:36 pm
42Jerry the Unsuccessful Importuner,
Thanks. Looks like I wandered back onto FA right after your posting.
Adam,
At least give Jerry a fair hearing.
Jerry
February 6, 2005 at 10:21 pm
43Adam is more than fair (he quickly adds!) Kept the blog going in spite of bizarre and frustrating technical problems. I really don’t blame an “If it ain’t broke, don’t screw with it,” approach.
Murray
February 7, 2005 at 7:35 pm
44The Limbaugh quote was a little too good and concise to be true BUT!
Back in the middle of the Clinton Administration the republican War Macht accused Bill of selling plots in Arlington. There was no proof but that didn’t keep Limbaugh from repeating the lies. When is as proven that Clinton had not sold any plots, rather than apologize for perpetuating baseless lies, Rush stated that it was appropriate to air them because “They COULD have been true”
So David;
Feel free to continue to distribute this bit of misinformation about Rush. According to Rush’s own rules it is perfectly fine.
Nop
February 9, 2005 at 7:46 pm
45“Back in the middle of the Clinton Administration the republican War Macht accused Bill of selling plots in Arlington. There was no proof but that didn’t keep Limbaugh from repeating the lies. When is as proven that Clinton had not sold any plots, rather than apologize for perpetuating baseless lies, Rush stated that it was appropriate to air them because “They COULD have been true”
Thats a lie. Rush “cautioned people to not jump to conclusions, to be careful, because there were anonymous people making charges”
“Feel free to continue to distribute this bit of misinformation about Rush. According to Rush’s own rules it is perfectly fine.”
Thats right. Invent a lie, a strawman. Claim a Republican did it, and then justify your own bad behavior because the other side does it (even if they didnt)