Tens of thousands of people continued to be detained or imprisoned in violation of their fundamental human rights and were at high risk of torture or ill-treatment. Thousands of people were sentenced to death or executed, many after unfair trials. Public protests increased against forcible evictions and land requisition without adequate compensation. . . .
Torture and ill-treatment continued to be reported in a wide variety of state institutions despite the introduction of several new regulations aimed at curbing the practice. Common methods included kicking, beating, electric shocks, suspension by the arms, shackling in painful positions, and sleep and food deprivation.
The U.S. is currently holding two Chinese nationals who are ethnic Uighurs at Guantanamo. The U.S. Government has been holding them for several years even though our own military tribunal long ago ruled that the men were not enemy combatants against the U.S. The reason we are still holding them? Because we can't send them back to China, because they will be almost certainly tortured and killed by the Chinese Government, and no other country will take them.
Beyond their horrendous record of human rights abuses and a complete suppression of democracy, China has weapons of mass destruction - lots and lots of them. And they routinely threaten their neighbors, particularly a free and democratic Taiwan, one of our closest allies. This is the kind of thing they have been saying for years:
The Taiwan leaders have before them two roads: one is to pull back immediately from their dangerous lurch towards independence ... The other is to keep following their separatist agenda to cut Taiwan from the rest of China, and in the end, meet their own destruction by playing with fire.
Moreover, not only is China not working with us to prevent Iranian proliferation, they have made clear that they will veto any U.N. sanctions regardless of what Iran does. All of this leads directly to the stirring proclamation in the Bush administration's new national security strategy:
Governments that brutalize their people also threaten the peace and stability of other nations.
Clearly, China has a government "that brutalize(s) their people," yet we aren't threatening them with preemptive attacks or putting them on the lists we keep of evil nations. Instead, we are meeting with them in an attempt to improve our relationship with them, even knowing that we have no influence whatsoever over their domestic policies or the liberties they extend to their citizens. We have extensive economic relations with them, and today President Bush met with Chinese President Hu Jintao, and even accommodated his request to ban reporters from asking questions:
The White House's acquiescence to a Chinese demand that Mr. Hu not be subjected to possibly embarrassing queries about political prisoners, religious freedom or censorship of the Internet symbolizes a major element of Mr. Bush's policy -- his willingness to relegate China's worsening performance on political freedom and human rights to a back burner.
The President's opening remarks included some cursory and half-hearted references to Iran and some vague allusions to China's human rights abuses, both of which Hu effortlessly ignored when he spoke.
So what accounts for the fundamentally different treatment we give to China and Iran -- two countries which themselves have a fairly close relationship, tolerate little dissent, offer little democratic freedom or liberty to their citizens, and issue threats of militarism and aggression against some of their neighbors? If anything, one could make a quite reasonable argument that an Iranian citizen has more liberty and more democratic participation in their government than does a Chinese citizen -- supposedly one of the primary, if not the primary, criteria for how we measure the threat-level posed by another country.
So why are we heaping praise on China and developing increasingly productive relations with them, while threatening Iran with invasion and even preemptive nuclear attack? One obvious answer -- that China has nuclear weapons and Iran does not -- surely cannot be the explanation, since to embrace that framework is to send the most dangerous and counterproductive message possible to the nations of the world: obtain nuclear weapons and we will treat you with great respect and civility; fail to obtain such weapons and we will threaten you with invasion and attack you at will.
We make common cause with all sorts of countries that issue crazy, hostile statements and which abuse human rights at least as much as the Iranians do, and in many cases more. And we ought to. That's what smart nations have always done. There is simply nothing that distinguishes Iran from scores of other countries, including China, with whom we maintain friendly or at least neutral relations, at least nothing that even remotely justifies attacking them militarily.
"So why are we heaping praise on China and developing increasingly productive relations with them, while threatening Iran with invasion . . ."
ReplyDeleteWhy? Cause they own us, that's why.
Why? Cause they own us, that's why.
ReplyDeleteEconomics alone doesn't explain it. A military attack on Iran would be incalculably destructive on all sorts of economic fronts. If anything, Iran has been a perfectly rational and responsible member of the world oil market, and it is difficult to conceive of what would happen in that regard if we waged war on them, or even destablized that regime.
Obviously, China's influence over us is at least substantially accounted for by the economic motivations, but the same economic motivations would militate against conflict with Iran, not in favor of it.
I just wrote a post at the end of the last thread about China and now see Glenn is also writing about China! Great!
ReplyDeleteI wrote that I hope they don't do anything harmful to that poor woman who protested at today's ceremony and if they do, I hope Glenn will be her lawyer and defend her. She was incredibly brave to do what she did at such a risk to her personal safety.
It's nauseating to me to see Bill Gates posing for pictures with these leaders, and to see our President shaking that guy's hand.
It's terrible the way so many people and nations profess one set of principles, but abandon those principles so quickly in exchange for being "expedient."
What goes on in that repressive regime, China, is an abomination and we should identify it for what it is.
The hell with the "trade." People are being tortured and murdered and it is a brutal, dictatorial, repressive, evil system of government. Pure and simple.
The "difference" is that china has already achieved the type of control of dissent and its population that the chimperor strives for.
ReplyDeleteAnd, china enables walmart...
This was an unusually silly post. While China is indeed an oppressive state, the differences between it and Iran are profound. First, sheer numbers - China represents almost a quarter of the human race. That in and of itself puts it in an entirely different category. Second, China is already a gigantic and growing economic power, with an economy that on a daily basis is becoming integrated with our own. Third, directionally China has become and is becoming - much too slowly, to be sure - more open, or at least more integrated into international norms and institutions; Iran seems to be moving in the opposite direction under its new leader. Finally, China is not funding terrorists, threatening to wipe other countries off the map, or presenting an immediate threat to our civilian population by making nuclear weapons availale to those who want to attack us, as Iran no doubt intends to do if it becomes a nuclear power. Should we press China harder on human rights? Absolutely. But the technocrats who run China today are far from the deranged Jihad seekers in charge of Iran.
ReplyDeleteEconomics alone doesn't explain it. A military attack on Iran would be incalculably destructive on all sorts of economic fronts.
ReplyDeleteWhen are you going to get a clue?
One person's "economic destruction" is another's "profit opportunity."
The interests behind the chimporer are doing well far beyond avarice in the "economic destruction" that is chimpy's agenda. That is why the pushed him to the top of the neocon food chain.
oh -- is it obvious that there are more than one "anonymouses" in this thread?
ReplyDeleteChina represents a potentially huge market for U.S. investments and products – far greater than Iran does. It also seems to be more receptive to some U.S. products than Iran as well.
ReplyDeleteIn this editorial representatives from Washington State saw nothing but potential for profits in China.
We were struck by the influence Washington state has already had on China. We flew to and around the country on Boeing airplanes. We watched students on Chinese television learn Microsoft Excel. We even stopped in a Beijing Starbucks.
American influence is everywhere. We spotted McDonald's and Kentucky Fried Chicken on every block in Beijing, American cars, giant skyscrapers to rival Seattle's tallest, American equipment in factories, and entrepreneurs putting their American educations to work.
Now this does not account for the difference in the way we treat them, but it is certainly a factor – we don’t want to blow such a huge potential market for US products.
Iran is next for the same reasons that made Iraq an attractive target for the Bushies – oil, and it is an enemy of Israel – plus it viewed as an “Islamo-fascist” threat – and after 9/11, that gives us another reason to attack it.
That’s why Bush views attacking it as a win-win situation. Also, it will make Bush look macho again, at least for a little while until the public realizes what a disastrous decision it was – even worse than Iraq!
GREAT NEWS!!!!
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of the chimperor in leak:
Approval among Republicans is below 70 percent for the first time of Bush’s presidency. Two-thirds (66 percent) approve of Bush’s job performance today, down almost 20 percentage points from this time last year when 84 percent of Republicans approved. Among Democrats, 11 percent approve today, while 14 percent approved last April.
Even at FAUX NEWS, the lying liars are proclaiming he has only 33% approval!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192468,00.html
Is this enough to cause some to realize how pointess it is to get up on their tiny little soapboxes and "refute" the "copy and paste" trolls?
Chimpy's support is approaching that of the lunatic fringe and current "actions" in the WH will push that support lower.
No need to refute the obvious, is there?
Since "Banana Republic" bart is probably quite busy deciding on the best way to support Bush (and he's waiting for his next paycheck), I'll save him some effort and write his response to Glenn's latest post for him:
ReplyDelete"Glenn, yet again you engage in intellectual dishonesty. Any lawyer worth his salt (like me) learned in Constitutional Law 101 that Bush's endorsement of China is falls within the purview of his Consitutional power as President to wage the war on terror as he sees fit. Further, that woman who disrupted Bush's execution of his Presidential power should be dealt with just as Bush haa dealt with all attempts by Congress to pass unconstitutional laws like FISA that attempt to illegally restrict his power as President."
(not my best...but it's good enough)
While China is indeed an oppressive state, the differences between it and Iran are profound.
ReplyDeleteAccording to our foreign policy doctrine, oppressive nations are threats to the peace and to our security.
First, sheer numbers - China represents almost a quarter of the human race. That in and of itself puts it in an entirely different category.
So we only fight against bad countries that are small and that we can easily win against, but not big strong countries? That was my point - if you know that this is our policy, you'd be rushing to get nuclear weapons ASAP.
Second, China is already a gigantic and growing economic power, with an economy that on a daily basis is becoming integrated with our own.
So we will wage war against other countries which oppress their citizens and threaten their neighbors . . . unless we have economic ties with them? I just want to understand our war doctrine.
Third, directionally China has become and is becoming - much too slowly, to be sure - more open, or at least more integrated into international norms and institutions; Iran seems to be moving in the opposite direction under its new leader.
I know of exactly nobody who thinks that China is improving its human rights abuses. Do you dispute that an Iranian has more individual liberty and democratic rights than a Chinese citizen?
Finally, China is not funding terrorists,
Which terrorists are Iranians funding? Any that attack the U.S.?
threatening to wipe other countries off the map,
ask Taiwan about that.
or presenting an immediate threat to our civilian population by making nuclear weapons availale to those who want to attack us, as Iran no doubt intends to do if it becomes a nuclear power.
Has Iran given weapons to Al Qaeda to attack us with?
Should we press China harder on human rights? Absolutely. But the technocrats who run China today are far from the deranged Jihad seekers in charge of Iran.
What has Iran done that is deranged? Why is its President's threat to destroy Israel different or more disturbing than China's off-repeated threat to do the same to Taiwan?
Here's an interesting hypothesis from The American Prospect:
ReplyDeleteMany Cheney staffers were obsessed with what they saw as a looming, long-term threat from China.... [and] ...who "all saw China as the solution to 'enemy deprivation syndrome.'" ... For the Cheneyites, Middle East policy is tied to China, and in their view China’s appetite for oil makes it a strategic competitor to the United States in the Persian Gulf region. Thus, they regard the control of the Gulf as a zero-sum game. They believe that the invasion of Afghanistan, the U.S. military buildup in Central Asia, the invasion of Iraq, and the expansion of the U.S. military presence in the Gulf states have combined to check China’s role in the region. In particular, the toppling of Saddam Hussein and the creation of a pro-American regime in Baghdad was, for at least 10 years before 2003, a top neoconservative goal, one that united both the anti-China crowd and far-right supporters of Israel’s Likud. Both saw the invasion of Iraq as the prelude to an assault on neighboring Iran.
We make common cause with all sorts of countries that issue crazy, hostile statements and which abuse human rights at least as much as the Iranians do, and in many cases more. And we ought to.
ReplyDeleteActually, this is not true in my opinion. We put China on the map by trading with them and allowing them to steal all our technology. They didn't create it themselves because technological advances do not flourish in repressive regimes.
We gave it to them by trading with them. The fact that we didn't trade with the Soviet Union eventually caused that country to implode from within.
Now they are much closer to democracy, despite the rogue elements and lawlessness, than China is.
Sanctioning evil is never a good thing as far as I am concerned. I do not advise warring with countries which have repressive, brutal systems of government, but neither do I think it moral to trade with them.
If the people in the Sudan who are committing genocide and such hideous atrocities there come up with a formula for a better hamburger and suddenly want to trade with us, I do not accept that as a legitimate thing for us to do.
Well, once you accept that the reasoning of the Bush administration is purest pretext, that they keep their own counsel and are not admitting the public into their decision-making process, then the fragmentary, inconsistent nature of their reasons for wanting to attack Iran make perfect sense. Just as in the case of Iraq, the public statements of the administration are simply marketing language, not subject to the constraints of logic and consistency, like all sales pitches.
ReplyDeleteSo we will wage war against other countries which oppress their citizens and threaten their neighbors . . . unless we have economic ties with them? I just want to understand our war doctrine.
ReplyDeleteMe too. That makes about a hundred million of us. It doesn't seem to make any rhyme or reason. I would think Saudi Arabia would near the top of the list too- no representative government, widespread corruption and oppression, plus the side benifit of funding radical Islamists.
After reading Bob Baer's Sleeping With the Devil, it's hard not to believe that economic interests for America top the priority list.
Actually that Fox poll is both encouraging, as regards Bush's low approval ratings, and completely mystifying.
ReplyDeleteNEW YORK — More Americans disapprove than approve of how George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Congress are doing their jobs, while a majority approves of Condoleezza Rice. President Bush’s approval hits a record low of 33 percent this week, clearly damaged by sinking support among Republicans.
Every single thing that is wrong about Bushco is also wrong about Condi Rice, but because the MSM has given her a pass and taken pictures of her at the gym, people cannot see that?
The world is a very strange place.
"Torture and ill-treatment continued to be reported in a wide variety of state institutions despite the introduction of several new regulations aimed at curbing the practice. Common methods included kicking, beating, electric shocks, suspension by the arms, shackling in painful positions, and sleep and food deprivation."
ReplyDeletePlease remember that none of the above are classified as torture by the Bush Administration. I wish I were joking, but I'm not.
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
Sanctioning evil is never a good thing as far as I am concerned. I do not advise warring with countries which have repressive, brutal systems of government, but neither do I think it moral to trade with them.
ReplyDeleteBut trading with a country can be the best hope for exerting influence over it, exposing it to new ideas, etc. If we leave them isolated and ignored, we deprive the repressed citizens of one of the only mechanisms to be exposed to outside ideas and opportunity.
A capitalistic but politically repressive China surely holds out more hope for its citizens than a communist, politically repressive China does.
Just as in the case of Iraq, the public statements of the administration are simply marketing language, not subject to the constraints of logic and consistency, like all sales pitches.
No question about this - but I think we need to constantly be pointing out the inconsistencies and irrationality in their claims, which - to me at least - is the strongest, if not only, way to undermine them.
Whenever I point out some logical inconsistency or hypocrisy in the administration's claims, I always get comments and e-mails telling me how naive and dumb I am to be surprised, since they are always inconsistent and hypocritical, and it's nothing new.
But I'm not surprised. I'm not pointing out these inconsistencies because I'm shocked and emotinally traumatized that they're not being consistent. I point them about because, as I said, I believe it's the most effective way to undermine their appeal.
Steve Clemons makes a very interesting point on the lack of questions at the news conference and a bit of national self-reflection:
ReplyDeleteWe live in a political age now where the unscripted question asked of a president or cabinet secretary is so unique that it makes headline news in the rare moments one occurs. ... We live in a time when we have quietly watched the largest expansion of "official secrecy" in American history -- under a secrecy-obsessed President, Vice President, and Secretary of Defense -- except at the moment, of course, when the President wants to tilt an argument his way in a major paper by dumping secrets into the lap of Judith Miller-type journalists.
Hu Jintao should have been compelled to face questions, but the Washington Post's lead should have been:
Why should American reporters expect Hu Jintao to respond to questions when our own government mocks the public's right to know?"
That’s a very good question, and the sad answer is we’ve reached the point in the U.S. that reporters don’t even expect this administration to respond to questions anymore – we expect dishonesty, stonewalling, and fantasies – the last thing we expect is an honest answer.
That doesn’t happen anymore.
Glenn, you disagreed with my post, so let me try again.
ReplyDelete"So we only fight against small countries?" I can't and won't speak for the Bush administration. We should fight where it's in our national interest to do so. And where we can win. Do we have to be more wary when our opponent has the ability to destroy our cities? You bet! So we shouldn't prevent our enemies from obtaining that ability? Where's the logic here?
"So we will wage war . . . unless we have economic ties?" Surely the existence of deep economic ties means the adverse consequences of conflict are significantly increased. Would you NOT take these into account? And such ties offer the possibility of further change in China. The presence of oil in the middle east - essentially money in the ground - has been a primary cause of the Islamic world's failure to modernize. Trade forces you to take the other fellow's needs into account.
"Do you dispute that an Iranian has more individual . . . rights than a Chinese citizen?" Not if Ahmhadinajad has his way.
"Which terrorists is Iran funding?" Is this a joke, Glenn? Hezbollah is totally Iran funded. Hamas has just been offered millions. It's not exactly playing a benign role in Iraq.
"Ask Taiwan" News to me that China is threatening to obliterate Taiwan's population. They're threatening to invade if Taiwan declares independence, not to wipe out every man woman and child.
"Chimpy's support is approaching that of the lunatic fringe and current "actions" in the WH will push that support lower."
ReplyDeleteThis entirely misses the point. they don't care about polls anymore because they don't fear elections. wake up. they can steal any election that is important enough.
Why does everyone ignore the fact that the Iranian president has little real power. The real power in Iran is the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons. Not to say I believe that Iran won't move to acquire nukes, but I never see this addressed.
ReplyDeletethey don't care about polls anymore because they don't fear elections. wake up. they can steal any election that is important enough.
ReplyDeleteOK, genius - what are you doing here then? Why bother to do anything or write anything. Just like Lex Luthor in the cartoons you watched as a kid, they are all-powerful in their evil and control everything.
They sit in their underground chambers, rub their hands and cackle demonically while they plot their world domination. Any time they want, they snap their fingers and their evil slaves get into the voting system and switch everything to make them win.
So why bother with anything? They're magic.
Glenn writes: But trading with a country can be the best hope for exerting influence over it, exposing it to new ideas, etc. If we leave them isolated and ignored, we deprive the repressed citizens of one of the only mechanisms to be exposed to outside ideas and opportunity.
ReplyDeleteA capitalistic but politically repressive China surely holds out more hope for its citizens than a communist, politically repressive China does.
Exactly. And is why I have opposed the trade embargo with Cuba, travel restrictions & etc -- aside from their being stupid and entailing repressive limits on our right to freely travel.
A China where everyone has a PC and a modem, no matter how many firewalls are put up, is a nation whose citizens will be harder to lie to and repress. Best Buy should be on every corner there.
Time to bring in my "A" team:
ReplyDeletePLAYBOY: In Atlas Shrugged you wrote, "There are two sides to every issue. One side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil." Isn't this a rather black-and-white set of values?
RAND: It most certainly is. I most emphatically advocate a black-and-white view of the world. Let us define this. What is meant by the expression "black and white"? It means good and evil. Before you can identify anything as gray, as middle of the road, you have to know what is black and what is white, because gray is merely a mixture of the two. And when you have established that one alternative is good and the other is evil, there is no justification for the choice of a mixture. There is no justification ever for choosing any part of what you know to be evil.
PLAYBOY: Then you believe in absolutes?
RAND: I do.
and
PLAYBOY: Would you favor U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations?
RAND: Yes. I do not sanction the grotesque pretense of an organization allegedly devoted to world peace and human rights, which includes Soviet Russia, the worst aggressor and bloodiest butcher in history, as one of its members. The notion of protecting rights, with Soviet Russia among the protectors, is an insult to the concept of rights and to the intelligence of any man who is asked to endorse or sanction such an organization. I do not believe that an individual should cooperate with criminals, and, for all the same reasons, I do not believe that free countries should cooperate with dictatorships.
And where we can win. Do we have to be more wary when our opponent has the ability to destroy our cities? You bet! So we shouldn't prevent our enemies from obtaining that ability?
ReplyDeleteSo if you were the rational leader of a country towards which the U.S. is hostile - such as, say, Veneuzuela, or Iran - wouldn't you decide based on this doctrine that it made sense for you to acquire nuclear weapons so that the U.S. will treat you with respect and civility rather than threats of attack?
At the time we fought the Germans, they had the most powerful military on earth (twice). Our country was founded based on a war against the most powerful empire on earth.
We never before had the Jonah Goldberg doctrine of war - that we only fight wars against weak countries which we knew we could beat so that we can feel strong. Now that we do, we have incentivized every country to become as military powerful as possible so that they don't get attacked by us. Nothing could be dumber.
Surely the existence of deep economic ties means the adverse consequences of conflict are significantly increased. Would you NOT take these into account?
This is rather circular. We could have economic ties with Iran. The reason we don't is because we keep threatening them with invasion and preemptive nuclear strikes.
"Do you dispute that an Iranian has more individual . . . rights than a Chinese citizen?" Not if Ahmhadinajad has his way.
What do you mean "if Ahmadinajad has his way"? Why doesn't he have his way now?
"Which terrorists is Iran funding?" Is this a joke, Glenn? Hezbollah is totally Iran funded. Hamas has just been offered millions.
When is the last time either of those groups attacked the U.S.?
"Ask Taiwan" News to me that China is threatening to obliterate Taiwan's population. They're threatening to invade if Taiwan declares independence, not to wipe out every man woman and child.
All you have to do is read the quote in my post, where China threatened Taiwan "with destruction". Maybe if you cared about the Taiwanese as much as you do the Israelis, you would see that the statement is no different than the one single politician in Iran is issuing about Israel.
Exactly. And is why I have opposed the trade embargo with Cuba, travel restrictions & etc -- aside from their being stupid and entailing repressive limits on our right to freely travel.
ReplyDeleteA China where everyone has a PC and a modem, no matter how many firewalls are put up, is a nation whose citizens will be harder to lie to and repress. Best Buy should be on every corner there.
Doesn't this same reasoning mean that we ought to be engaging the Iranians rather than isolating and shunning them and treating them like untouchable lepers who need to be nuked into good behavior?
All we want from Iran is their oil.
ReplyDeleteAll we want is for oil producers to sell oil for $ not Euros.
Google "Iran Oil Euro" or Google "Iran Oil Bourse." Iran or Veneuzuela could do serious harm to the US Oil hegemony by pegging oil on Euros (or any other currency for that matter).
Brazilians like to ask me who I would vote for if I were able to vote in the upcoming Brazilian election. And I tell them that I would vote for Enéas, because despite his many and various flaws, he is the only candidate who understands how the Republicans -- and their constituency in the US -- see the world. And if Enéas were to be elected president of Brazil, Brazil could protect itself from Northern Agression. Unless the US decided to shock and awe before Brazil acquired its defense...
ReplyDeleteGlenn inquires: Doesn't this same reasoning mean that we ought to be engaging the Iranians rather than isolating and shunning them and treating them like untouchable lepers who need to be nuked into good behavior?
ReplyDeleteWell first, if you meant to imply that I have ever remotely suggested we should nuke Iran, that would be wrong. While I can imagine circumstances where it would be moral and prudent for the U.S. to breach the long decades of the nuclear moratorium, the Iran situation is not even close to being one of them.
Second, I certainly do think we should trade with Iran, and with every Muslim country. If they'd let them in, I'd put a Wal-Mart on every 10th corner of the nation. Let them buy CDs, DVDs, appliances, trashy romance novels, jeans and cheap knock-offs of Victoria's Secret lingerie... and let the mullahs overcome all THAT. People going about their business working, earning a living, and engaging in the much derided "consumerism," are not generally pre-occupied with killing infidels in a suicide mission so that they may be dispatched to the 72 virgins and what not. A bourgeoisie is peaceful.
But let me ask you. You have said a nuclear Iran is not in this nation's interest. So what do you think we should do, if anything, to prevent that?
I think Glenn is dead on.
ReplyDeleteWhile a few commenters (anon?) clearly take the administration's talking points at face value, I simply cannot.
Until there is proof provided of Iranian support for international terrorrists, and claims of proof don't qualify (see recent wingnut claims that translated documents 'prove' that Saddam was training foreign fighters before 9-11), there is no sane reason for the U.S. government to attack any more countries.
Blind faith in this administration has earned U.S. citizens nothing but shame and debt. If the public allows Bush to attack Iran without due cause then the Republic has truly lost its way. Empire was never the vision the framers of the U.S. Constitution held for its citizens, and neither was war profiteering.
It's crucial that the American people make it clear to its leaders that the time and place for another war are not now, and not Iran.
Alas, Glenn's post avoids the obvious answer, as the real difference between the two countries is mainly race. The U.S. has an intolerance problem, but especially with those of arab descent, and by extension, brown skinned people in general. Convincing those who already have a bias against arabs that we really need to strike (insert Arab country here), before "it's too late", is just way too easy.
Let them buy CDs, DVDs, appliances, trashy romance novels, jeans and cheap knock-offs of Victoria's Secret lingerie... and let the mullahs overcome all THAT.
ReplyDeleteI know an American living in Tehran who seems to be able to keep up with U.S. movies better than I do. Now, true, she has to do it clandestinely, but in private homes, when they remove their burkas and watch videos on MTV smuggled in their country, there are a lot of Iranians who are no different than young people anywhere. They love much of the entertainment the U.S. provides, but that does not translate into approval of all of U.S. culture, and what Bush represents in particular.
Bush’s belligerence will only enhance the “72 virgin” mentality and make life more difficult for those in Iran who oppose it and embrace much of western culture – in particular music and movies. Instead of being legitimate, they will now be seen as agents of the U.S. It will be a huge set back for modernization in that country. But that’s what is going to happen.
Quite frankly, we don’t have to do anything immediately. Iran is not an immediate threat and won’t be as long as Bush is in office. Even Iraq war supporter Tom Friedman would rather have a nuclear Iran than have these idiots try to implement another war – that says a lot.
But Bush is going to do it. It’s a done deal. We will just be debating the aftermath and all the bad choices we are faced with, just like in Iraq.
But trading with a country can be the best hope for exerting influence over it, exposing it to new ideas, etc. If we leave them isolated and ignored, we deprive the repressed citizens of one of the only mechanisms to be exposed to outside ideas and opportunity.
ReplyDeleteA capitalistic but politically repressive China surely holds out more hope for its citizens than a communist, politically repressive China does.
____________________________________
This might be true in theory but in practice the reverse has occurred. or if not the reverse China is as repressive now as before. they have figured out how to use the multi- national companies avarice against us. Of course this has been happening at least since the end of WW2.
Trade in and of itself will not improve human rights unless it is explicitly put into the trade agreement or backlash among consumers in the US (boycotts etc) rises to such a level that the company must act as a force for betterment. Otherwise the corporate and country bigwigs collude to both get what they want -- permanent power and more money.
This entirely misses the point. they don't care about polls anymore because they don't fear elections. wake up. they can steal any election that is important enough.
ReplyDeleteTrue, but I didn't miss that point, just can't cover everything in a short comment.
That is why we will see the wedge issues and be bombarded with the lie of the "engergized base."
They know that they actually have minority support and that even the MSM is reporting it -- so they talk about having such an "engergized base" that they vote in improbably to impossible numbers and chimpy and gang win again!
And the morons talk about red-state/blue-states and the "engergized base" instread of the vote-flippin' software.
America does need free, open, and verifiable elections; but that will not happen until we start making more inroads into public disapproval of the chimporer in leak.
The real power in Iran is the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons.
ReplyDeleteWell that is not going to make any money for the military-industrial complex. Gotta fan the flames with lies that continue the "bull market" in the ultimate "consumable market" - WAR!
This is all about the military-industrial complex that pushed the chimperor into the WH to siphon money from the public treasury.
Not only have they made money beyond avarice, but they are destroying the fiscal integrity of the nation, thereby setting the fiscal policies for generations to come.
People need to quit talking about the distractions, follow the money trail, and talk about who is going to pay for all the looting.
Hypatia, don't be an ass!
ReplyDeleteA China where everyone has a PC and a modem, no matter how many firewalls are put up, is a nation whose citizens will be harder to lie to and repress.
We have all of that in this country and a chimpanzee is the ruler of the world's only superpower!!!!
He stole 2 elections and the faux "advertise liberally" largely refused to acknowledge the statistical facts and documentable evidence of fraud and abuse.
We have 24/7 coverage of FITZMAS that is ALL WRONG ALL THE TIME!
Labor is what used to be the backbone of the opposition -- but the faux liberal crowd won't touch those issues.
Glenn is better than most, but even this blog goes on and on about platitudes of "right and wrong" while consistently overlooking the source of most of the conflict in this nation!
Yup, PC's really prevented the lying liars here, didn't they...
The last national election was stolen in OH, virtually no one will talk about it, and then the same corrupt election system "passed" a referendum to remove all accountability from the system. Yup, its an "information age," isn't it?
What is the current reason for being in iraq now anyhow?
Martin Van Crevald, a highly respected military historian teaching at Hebrew University writes, talking about American intelligence agencies:
ReplyDeleteIf their past record is any indication, the intelligence agencies may not even know how to tell whether they know enough about Iran's nuclear installations — or whether or not they are lying to their superiors, or to themselves. Anybody who believes one word they are saying — let alone uses the "information" they provide as a basis for decision-making — must be out of his or her mind.
Really fills one with confidence.
In any case, I personally have concluded this country has no intention of attacking or bombing Iran, and I am totally not worried about that situation any more.
These people, in addition to being master manipulators, have all become drama queens who are addicted to the "dramatic action" they love to generate.
They should take up chess, but most don't have the mentality to learn how to even move the pieces.
Your posts are great reading even for citizens as myself of other democratic nations who may or may not be aligned with US interests. However, I think the choice of China as a comparison with Iran is rather limiting and not at all effective to your primary arguments regarding some glaring inconsistencies in US foreign policy.
ReplyDeleteFirstly when people discuss China's size, what they mean to say is that if you have tens of thousands of political dissidents over a billion+ people being suppressed, this is nevertheless a smaller percentage than many other tinpot regimes around the world. The real danger in China is political instability due to uneven economic benefits across the population - note the rampant farmer protests.
I believe the freedom-loving and politically active dissidents are NOT the main targets insofar as they are being clamped down just for who they are. Rather, the party leaders are fearful of a repeat of Tiannanmen square whereby a vocal activist minority can ignite a volatile and uncontrollable rural population, leading to: counter-revolution. I'm no Chinese apologist but the implications of cascading dissent are far more catastrophic for China than in Iran, where religion and culture tie the people together far more strongly and where income disparity and other social issues are less a triggering factor for political dissent. In Iran, repression is for its own sake, to deny opposition for unchecked power. China: potential for total chaos.
As for Taiwan, it is not a country by any measure but a state de jure. If anything, it was the world's backing away from Taiwan as the legitimate government of China that left it the way it is now, threatened by the officially recognized PRC. Sabre-rattling between these two antagonists is very understandable: their history is pretty much one of continuous and mutual belligerence (Mao vs Chiang Kai-shek).
Sabre-rattling between Iran and Israel is not understandable as Israel has taken nothing from Iran or committed to any public military action that would invite such threats from the Iranian president. It is in short, out of the norm (rationally-speaking, not theologically) and therefore politically suspicious. Not unusual for the unenlightened Islamist to threaten Israeli destruction; unusual for it to be united with political will (which may or may not be what is *really* happening in Tehran).
As regards economic linkages between USA and any potential small rogue state; US fortunes are always tied to some extent to the world markets. And one thing world markets crave is predictability, which any war will not bring. I don't believe for a moment that any government, much less the Bush administration, is unaware of the gulf between geo-political and economic goals, at least in the short term.
This article is amazing.
ReplyDeleteJust when you think you can trust someone, you read another article on the Internet suggesting you cannot. This author now debunks the work of Seymour Hersh, and says he supported torture.
Meanwhile the UN has apparently just elected an Iranian to a top spot on the Non-Proliferation Committee.
I know this is a side issue, but I hope some of you will stop and think about the Chinese Muslims (Uighurs) Glenn mentioned that have been stuck in Guantánamo for five years for no reason whatsoever (since even our military tribunals agree that they're innocent). It's an incredibly sad and troubling story. Here's what the lawyers for one of them wrote in an incredibly moving and disturbing article:
ReplyDeleteHe has no visitors save his lawyers. He has no news in his native language, Uighur. He cannot speak to his wife, his children, his parents. When I first met him on July 15, in a grim place they call Camp Echo, his leg was chained to the floor. I brought photographs of his children to another visit, but I had to take them away again. They were "contraband," and he was forbidden to receive them from me.
All that was despite his innocence.
Glenn is right that we can't send them to China and no one else will take them. In a post I wrote a few days ago, I discussed a possible proposed a solution:
the United States won't simply admit that it made a mistake and take responsibility for wrongly incarcerating them by allowing them to immigrate here. Seems like the least we could do after wrecking their lives. [Charities] have offered to take responsibility for them, so they would cost U.S. taxpayers nothing. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Unless we do something, they will continue to rot in prison until a court forces the military to change policy. "Fortunately," as I note in my post, nothing like this could ever happen again because the courts are no longer allowed to force the military to change its detention policies at home. Future innocents will be caged forever, circumventing this thorny issue altogether.
I forgot to put a quote from the article I just linked to.
ReplyDeleteHersh s principal concern is that Rumsfeld's blanket order to use torture disrupted the operations of an elite group made up of professional commandos involved in a secret special access program designed to murder, kidnap, torture terror suspects throughout the world. In other words by involving thousands of everyday US soldiers (referred to by one of Hersh's sources as hillbillies ) as torturers in Iraq, Rumsfeld was endangering the operation of professional killers throughout the world.
I don't profess to know if what this article says is true or not. I do know that if it is, we are in deep, deep trouble as a nation (and probably as a species) and Iran is the least of our worries.
Does anyone know if this article is true? Cynic librarian?
I see our copy and paste troll is here defending the chimperor in leak and his lies. Funny how he feels compelled to fill his clipboard and dump off-topic, inaccurate text from other sites here.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, even FAUX NEWS says that bush has only a 33 percent approval rating, this number is falling, and even repugs are starting to abandon this looser and his neocon agenda.
But bart's clipboard is always full of crap and ready to take a shit in the threads.
That alone makes your whole post silly and a huge waste of time.
ReplyDeleteGlenn is floating "trial balloons" to determine what kind of issues will keep this blog afloat after his NSA mania crashes and burns.
This particular one is a bust. My guess is that he'll settle in to Israel-bashing, which is sure to attract a significant segment of his far-left constituency. As can be seen by comments in other threads, there is a passionate core of Jew-haters among the regular readers of this blog, and sooner or later Glenn, like other savvy entrepeneurs, will bend to the demands of the marketplace.
jao. I have hardly excluded you from anything. As stated, I have greatly benefited from many of your posts. I feel strongly your positions on the converatives on the SC are wrong, but time will tell, and also your ideas of what is needed from SC justices at this time may differ from my own.
ReplyDeleteThis article by Petras is one of the more amazing articles I have read recently, and here's why.
Having never heard of Seymour Hersh before a few weeks ago, as I haven't been political until recently, I was very impressed with his work in exposing Abu Graib as torture is the issue which most shocks my conscience and got me into all this in the first place.
How could I possibly have the tools with which to evaluate either his career or his motives? That would take probably weeks or months on my part to do sufficient research to come up with any kind of an informed opinion of my own.
So I just appreciated and accepted what it appeared he had done, and left it at that.
However, this becomes a very big possible story now, in light of Seymour Hersh's recent article on the upcoming attack on Iran which, from my reading, was the article which got most people's attention and put this issue in the spotlight currently.
The Petras article describes something I have never read a word about before, and that is that there is a fight going on within neocon circles and some neocons are now pitted against Bush himself!
You may reject all this as folly and lies, and maybe you are right, but I, at the mercy of what I read and trying to then connect the dots and put things together, see that it could indeed explain a lot of what has happened in the news this last week, especially the push to pin it all on Rumsfeld and ostensibly push him out.
That you have seen yourself in countless recent articles, and the dueling Generals is itself a mystery to figure out.
So I ask others with more background than I to evaluate this article on its merits, because if it is right, it's incredibly alarming and sheds a whole new light on everything that has been reported in the press thus far.
You may write that Petras is a known liar and has been discredited by everyone who is really seeking the truth, and that would make me think twice at least before giving him more benefit of the doubt.
Anyone is free to scorn and pity me, but what about the allegations made in this article?
I just try to go where whatever the truth is leads me, and do not find it all that easy to sort everything out.
Did I put up the wrong link? Here's the right one then.
Petras article
Glenn, Bless You. Please read this by one of my favorites---as if you don't know this already. Thank you for broaching this subject. You never let us down.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=603&Itemid=1
P.S. Sorry. I still don't have html down yet for links and stuff.
Let me try that again. Sorry.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?
option=com_content&task=view&id=603&Itemid=1
ent&task=view&id=603&Itemid=1
One more time....Go to Chris Floyd Empire Burlesque and read the post named The Really Real "Long War".
ReplyDeleteFrom anonymous at 10:42PM:
ReplyDelete"Glenn is floating "trial balloons" to determine what kind of issues will keep this blog afloat after his NSA mania crashes and burns."
Oh, look. The moral midget has migrated.
Perhaps a more intelligible reading of both this post and Glenn's general point is wondering why our government's approach, both policywise and rehtorically, is so diametrically different between two countries whose approaches towards such things as human rights are all but identical.
But then, that would require actually *thinking* about the issue, rather than spouting hysterical nonsense as another frequent contrarian here is wont to. And, as you've proven several times today alone, using both hemispheres of your brain isn't really your forte, is it?
Sad. Truly, truly sad.
Glenn: "So what accounts for the fundamentally different treatment we give to China and Iran. . so why are we heaping praise on China and developing increasingly productive relations with them, while threatening Iran with invasion and even preemptive nuclear attack?"
ReplyDeletePutting aside the obvious -- that we are treating them differently -- I was hoping to hear more of your thoughts on this, Glenn . . . perhaps you could shed some light on why they are treating them differently -- not White House/RNC reasons need to make sense.
Bluntly, I can ask questions all day long as well, and ask others to answer them . . . is that what you want the readers to do; or is there something else going on here . . . not walking away with the impression there is a clear answer or explanation. What obvious thing have I missed?
Jao, do you like Bill Lind? He's a conservative, right? Here's a link to an article he just wrote on Iraq. The Real Problem Wasn't the Execution of the War, But the Enterprise Itself
ReplyDeleteAlso, what ever happened to Chalabi?
Also, Unamused Queen :) People on this blog were really nice and taught me how to do the link html stuff and it is really easy :) Do you want me to teach you?
From Bart at 10:12PM:
ReplyDelete"Nukes are a difference between Iran and China, not to mention North Korea and the old Soviet Empire. Once a murderous totalitarian regime has nukes, they have purchased military protection for even the most heinous mass murder."
You base this on what historical examples, exactly?
"Tell me again why we would want to allow Iran's ruling Islamic death cult to have this protection?"
First, I think you're letting your inherent hysteria get the better of you.
Second, NOBODY here actually wants Iran to develop and build a working nuclear weapons program; we simply recognize they're on well on their way towards that outcome - albeit one years from actual completion - and there appears no certain, verifiable way to stop this that doesn't actually make the situation worse.
Third, I really think you haven't thought this through, given you next say...
"However, there is a difference between China (and the old Soviet Empire) and Iran. The leaders of the great powers were not members of a religious movement which worshipped death and did spend their time whipping up crowds with speeches about wiping other countries off the map."
Again, you really aren't thinking this through. Stalin was as much a messianic despot as any, though with a decidedly secular bent, while Kim Jong-il is the revered head of a cult of personality that makes the Bushites here look like free-spirited atheists. And even today, the iconic Mao still holds a special place of reverence amongst the peasantry and is used by the ruling elite to maintain their position.
*Yet* neither Stalin, Mao, nor either of the Kims initiated any kind of direct military conflict with the US or our satellites after they'd acquired the bomb. (please note I'm going with the assumption Jong-il isn't simply blowing smoke up our tailpipes and they really have a working device or two) Indeed, Stalin's influence was more or less purged from the USSR after his death, China turned inwards through most of Mao's reign, and North Korea has been a near-basket case since 1953; in all cases, they sought to minimize conflict and tensions with the US and NATO lest such conflict lead to the end of the world.
Not that I think you've actually considered these points, given you next say...
"Tell me again why we would want to give a death cult the means of mass nuclear murder and then retaliatory martyrdom?"
Again, no-one here is suggesting we should give them nuclear weapons nor simply allow them to do so. The trouble, which you would understand if you'd actually been paying attention, is that we don't have any good options available to either compell or necessarily convince Tehran to keep their R-n-D limited to civilian applications. Use of military force (be it a bombing campaign or otherwise) would be an even bigger disaster than what we're seeing in Iraq right now, and our country's standing in the world has been so completely shot thanks to the Bush Administration's incompetence and idiocy that any diplomatic avenue is effectively closed.
I think you're also a little too fixiated on the overblown rehtoric coming from Tehran just now. The record there hasn't been changed since about 1980, so we aren't hearing anything new. The nuclear angle is somewhat new, granted, but not a direct concern right now.
Perhaps if you tried actually breathing and engaging your entire brain (plus studied history a bit more closely), you wouldn't come across as a screaming lunatic in the vein of Hal Lindsey.
...why our government's approach, both policywise and rehtorically, is so diametrically different between two countries...
ReplyDeleteSome fellow upthread answered this question in a single sentence. You may have missed it. He merely pointed out that China has 1.3 billion people, Iran 70,000,000. Think about this fact for a few minutes and then get back to us.
The really real "long war"
ReplyDeleteThis is the queen is not amused's link.
Isn't this curious, someone is asking a question. Who might be an expert in this field? I do not take the question seriously. I find it disingenuous to ask these questions. There is a track record of ignoring the "other views and responses" of those they accuse of self-promotion.
ReplyDeleteyankeependragon "Perhaps a more intelligible reading of both this post and Glenn's general point is wondering why our government's approach, both policy wise and rhetorically, is so diametrically different between two countries whose approaches towards such things as human rights are all but identical."
Let's take a step back, are we saying
A. that this is actually a topic for discussion, and others are open to other views; or
B. are we merely posting this as a question that cannot be answered and demands that we have consistent policy; or
C. if we were to hear a real reason why there is a difference -- putting aside that the reason might be non-sense -- is anyone open to a real discussion on that.
* Suppose someone were to have already discussed this elsewhere do you want to have links to that location; or
* if someone has back up information to something that might provide a direct answer to this question, will you want to read it?
Again, I'm all for a discussion, but if he response to the response provided on another site is, "We don't like people who provide links" then you're not serious about a discussion.
Come clean everyone -- are you really interested in a discussion on this topic, or do you want to keep your discussion focused in the narrow bands of what can be thrown in a single line?
Translation: I find it absurd that you're discussing this topic, asking questions, despite the reputation of many to say, "We do not like to look at other sites or blogs."
You can't get a straight answer to this question if you narrow your "acceptable range of answers" to what may or may not fit within a single frame of your computer. In other words, stop asking questions or soliciting inputs when you've got a demonstrated track record of refusing to take "other views" and "intelligent responses" credibly.
After reading the comments and general questions, I’m more inclined to respond, “Hay, that’s a great question – maybe you should figure out the answer yourself. I’m not going to bother . . .” Is that the kind of response you want? If so, congratulations: You’ve built a wonderful community that is trained to provide you nothing of value except, “Wow, you’re wonderful . . .”
"Seixon" said:
ReplyDeleteGlenn, tell me you are not that dumb. Seriously. China is a nation of over one billion people. Iran has what, almost 70 million? Calculate the implications of that if either of them were to rise up in arms against us.
That alone makes your whole post silly and a huge waste of time. I could slice and dice you with several other important differences between the two nations, but why bother? The one will do just fine.
Ummmm ... tired of getting your A$$ handed to you over at thinkprogress.org, so you came over here, did you? Sorry too disappoint, but you won't fare any better here. Just a FYI.
Gotta love this 'logic' of yours, though (from a TP post):
We prevented Saddam from becoming a big fish, because we’ve already got North Korea and Iran on our plate, and we really didn’t need another one popping up on us 5-10 years from now.
So that's your excuse for the fustercluck there, eh? Wow, I'm sure people here will be impressed with your incisive commentary.
Tell me, how's the Iraq veture "helping" us with Iran and North Korea? That 'tactic' worked out like a charm, didn't it?
Why dontcha just go back to TP and leave the adults here to converse in peace?
Cheers,
Glenn is floating "trial balloons" to determine what kind of issues will keep this blog afloat after his NSA mania crashes and burns.
ReplyDeleteYou mean like FDL and the 24/7 "Tomorrow is FITZMAS" coverage?
LOL -- all fitzmas all the time and virtually ALL WRONG!
Won them a koulfax...
And then they follow up by proclaiming that they will be Kansas' savior -- yup, just follow their "free market" corporate model and everything would just be PERFECT!!!
Glenn is not a self-indulgent, one-trick pony...
LOL
Like most of the rest of the faux "advertise liberally" crowd and the "circle of links..."
Glenn even tolerates an honest dialog without expecting everyone to kiss his ass.
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteFrom Bart at 10:12PM: "Nukes are a difference between Iran and China, not to mention North Korea and the old Soviet Empire. Once a murderous totalitarian regime has nukes, they have purchased military protection for even the most heinous mass murder."
You base this on what historical examples, exactly?
Which part of the Soviet Empire, China or NK did you not understand? If the Nazis developed the bomb in 43, they would still be dominating Europe.
"Tell me again why we would want to allow Iran's ruling Islamic death cult to have this protection?"
NOBODY here actually wants Iran to develop and build a working nuclear weapons program; we simply recognize they're on well on their way towards that outcome - albeit one years from actual completion - and there appears no certain, verifiable way to stop this that doesn't actually make the situation worse.
There is a fundamental difference between wishing that bad things will not happen in the world and then actually taking action to stop them.
The uncertainty of success is simply your latest excuse for failing to act.
"However, there is a difference between China (and the old Soviet Empire) and Iran. The leaders of the great powers were not members of a religious movement which worshipped death and did spend their time whipping up crowds with speeches about wiping other countries off the map."
Again, you really aren't thinking this through. Stalin was as much a messianic despot as any, though with a decidedly secular bent, while Kim Jong-il is the revered head of a cult of personality that makes the Bushites here look like free-spirited atheists. And even today, the iconic Mao still holds a special place of reverence amongst the peasantry and is used by the ruling elite to maintain their position.
Did I mention anything about cults of personality? My point is that Islamic fascism is a death cult which worships suicide as martyrdom. We haven't seen anything of the like for centuries and certainly not in communism.
"Tell me again why we would want to give a death cult the means of mass nuclear murder and then retaliatory martyrdom?"
Again, no-one here is suggesting we should give them nuclear weapons nor simply allow them to do so. The trouble, which you would understand if you'd actually been paying attention, is that we don't have any good options available to either compell or necessarily convince Tehran to keep their R-n-D limited to civilian applications. Use of military force (be it a bombing campaign or otherwise) would be an even bigger disaster than what we're seeing in Iraq right now, and our country's standing in the world has been so completely shot thanks to the Bush Administration's incompetence and idiocy that any diplomatic avenue is effectively closed.
:::sigh:::
Iran would not stand any more of a chance against our military than did Iraq. The war you call a "disaster" is winding down and just about won. US casualties have plunged around 70%, suicide bombings have gone down by about half and the military just announced today that attacks on infrastructure are down 60% over the last four months with the lowest KIA rate in history.
What you lack is the will to bite the bullet and make the hard decision.
Your lack of will is encouraging the Iran in its march to war. It is when the enemy actually believes that you might use the military option that they respond to diplomacy and back down without violence. It is when the enemy underestimates the US that war occurs.
Usually by the time I get to these comments they're so long that Glenn has moved on and most of my initial thoughts about Glenn's post have been covered, leaving me to follow a particular thread or another and missing some of the more interesting discussions, so this time I'm just jumping over most of these and putting in my couple cents before I go back and take a closer look.
ReplyDeleteA few years ago I was working in a graduate lab under a Russian Prof and a Chinese postdoc. I speak pretty fair Russian and the prof spoke passable Chinese so we had some really interesting talks.
One of the most amazing things I came away with was that the Chinese student was amazed at American attitudes about China. I had assumed he must be glad to be out of there and living in this beautiful university town and having access to so much stuff and enjoying the freedom to talk openly about politics and other topics I assumed were off the table for him at home. He was shocked. Genuinely. Which in turn left me shocked. I had assumed things about China that he said were just not true. He said there was no political oppression to speak of. He and all his friends and family felt free to duscuss things openly, including politics and religeon. He said he knew about some opression among some smaller outlying communities but in the city life was very good and he couldn't wait to get home after finishing school. I didn't know what to think. I tried to unravel the difference between his experience and the one I thought was going on in China by asking him a lot of questions about his life. He wasn't from a wealthy family or a politically connected one. He hadn't felt he'd had a different experience than all the other Chinese he knew. He just insisted we have swallowed a lot of propaganda about China and he felt Chinese people probaly knew more about America than most Americans knew about China. Pretty much every tack I took to determine why his attitude didn't match what I'd expected turned out to be a dead end. I came away rethinking some assumptions, and deciding I wouldn't assume things in the fuTure about China.
So now I question pretty much every thing I hear about China. I try to read between lines and watch closely whenever I see something in the news to get a good idea about what seems to be happening in the background. I try to read the faces of the people in pictures and try to get the best real picture I can. I've spoken to as many Chinese students as I can and find a surprising commonality in their imprssion of things. Needless to say, travelling to China has climbed to the top of my things-to-do list.
As for your comparisons with Iran, i think China has always been treated differently from other countries. Its so huge and so powerful we keep away from direct confrontation. It does have a vast nuclear capability, and while it makes sense to treat each country equally, it just isn't realistic politically, militarily, or socially. Iran also deserves better treatment in my opinion. Why do we treat them like there's no way we will ever come to some understanding and that the only way we should interact with the countries in the ME is by force or sanction. I think it would be a good idea to treat the whole world more even-handedly, wherever possible. Certainly a nuclear Iran would be a real concern, but so is a nuclear Pakistan, or even India. Right now the notion that Bush and Rumsfeld are capable of handling even Iran militarily is belied by our experience in Iraq. Unfortunately the whole world now knows if it keeps people away from tactically critical sites for a few weeks of horrible pounding by our heavy weapons, they can crawl out of the woodwork after a few weeks and fight our ground forces to a standstill. Just like Viet Nam. Just like Iraq. "Why not us" they now wonder. Great work Bush.
I imagine i'll see some of these same thoughts as I read through the comments this evening.
MOM!!!!
ReplyDeleteBart took another dump in the sandbox!!!
And all for such an unpopular chimp... go figure....
You'd think the "copy and paste" crowd would have better things to do than spread the lies that the rest of America will not accept...
jao. I didn't see that on Al Jazeera. I saw it on War Without End. That's a British site. Anything wrong with that site?
ReplyDeleteBTW, jao, do you consider yourself a neo-conservative? Are many people in the Federalist Society neo-conservatives?
I'm jumping ahead again but i have to respond the chewie, who makes the point about the percentage of dissidents in China being rather small. This is exactly what I've come to believe since my interaction with the Chinese student.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to spring from our different paths through history. our embrace of Constitutional govt is rather new, even for us. for thousands of years it never occurred to us. it still hasn't in China. They seem to feel that if life is good for the vast majority, whats the problem? They point out our oppressive actions in Chile etc, and i can't disagree.
we now feel it necessary to be protected from the creeping abuse of power by a bill of rights and a Constitution. They aren't there. Yet? I don't know if they'll need it. maybe they will discover a path to enlightened govt that slowly cleans itself of oppression along another path. maybe they'll be more successful than we have been so far. I don't know the answers to thses Qs, but this has been some of my thought lately.
Well another inetersting section of comments. Bart there at the end scares me. Where do you get these ideas? We are getting hammered in Iraq. As has been pointed out (by a famous conservative), we don't even control the road to the airport. It's one thing to see the world and disagree about it, but here we seem to have two universes of reality because of the destruction of our meida due to the loss of the Fairness Doctrine. Now anybody can claim anything all day long and people who want to believe something just have to go to a place that tells them what they want to believe is true. Which it seems to me you do all the time. Not sure how to ever get past such diametrically opposed notions of reality. But if you turn out to be wrong, you have to see that it would mean umitigated disaster for the world if the US started to throw its weight around and ended up losing wars all over the place, or even just not winning them, which is more likely. It would be the end of us. Something to at least make you want to be absolutely sure about what you're choosing to believe. The scary thing is Bush is much less careful than even you are about what reality to believe in.
ReplyDeleteThanks Glenn for bringing up the China-Taiwan issue. I've commented about it before, as I'm living in Taiwan at present the whole issue means a lot to me. Hopefully my experience here can enlighten a few of the misconceptions that have been so far stated.
ReplyDeleteTo Chewie,
"As for Taiwan, it is not a country by any measure but a state de jure. If anything, it was the world's backing away from Taiwan as the legitimate government of China that left it the way it is now, threatened by the officially recognized PRC. Sabre-rattling between these two antagonists is very understandable: their history is pretty much one of continuous and mutual belligerence (Mao vs Chiang Kai-shek)."
It is certainly understandable, though especially since the election as President of Chen Shui-bian of the Democratic People's Party in 2000, the Mao (CCP) vs Kai-shek (KMT) dichotomy is no longer the the real issue. The problem when the UN and the US switched their recognition from the ROC to the PRC was that the Taiwan (the ROC) was still under the martial-law rule of the KMT who still had delusions of reconquering mainland China and so refused to accept the PRC's claim to the mainland leaving Taiwan in it's excluded-from-the-vast- majority-of-the-international- community position of today. The DPP now in power, however, is a native Taiwanese party that harbors no dream of going back to China and would quite happily accept the PRC as the legitimate government of the mainland if the rest of the world would accept Taiwan as the independent country it for all intents and purposes is. Chewie, you say that Taiwan is "not a country by any measure but state de jure" - well, no and yes. It is not part of the UN, since it was kicked out in 1971, and is officially recognized by only 20 or so other countries (though this is because of China's insistence that any country that is to have diplomatic contacts with it must accept it's "One China" policy), but having had continuous control of territory and people for over 50 years it is a de jure state, but also a functional country in every possible way. The only difference is that China's blackmailing and belligerence prevent other countries from recognizing it, despite the UN Charter's insistence on the right of self-determination of people's; something the people of Taiwan should undoubtedly have. So "not a country by any measure"? Please explain how you justify this arrogant dismissal of 23 million people's rights.
To David Byron,
"I think you owe China an apology Glenn. They have a better record on human rights than America has, both under the current regimes and in the past.
America has caused the death of about 2 million Iraqis over the last two decades. What comparable degree of human suffering has China caused? America invades small countries all the time. Bush has invaded three countries so far. Three countries in 5 years. China hasn't invaded another country since the thirteenth century. China doesn't threaten to invade either -- Taiwan is a part of China of course so your example there is bogus."
Are you by chance one of those 30,000 or so internet watchers employed by the Chinese government? Your absurd apologetics for China's gross human rights abuses sure make it look like. Taiwan is - and please do some research before you make such idiotic pronouncements - NOT PART OF CHINA! The PRC has NEVER controlled the territory that is Taiwan and has absolutely no right to the control of its territory or its people. The then Emperor of China ceded "in perpetuity" the island of Formosa, which had only been controlled by China since 1683, to Japan in 1895. From then until 1945 it was a Japanese colony. After the defeat of Nationalist Japan, the then KMT government of the Republic of China took over its administration. After losing the Civil War in 1949, the KMT, along with two million or so mainland Chinese fled to Taiwan. In the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty Japan formally gave up its control of Taiwan, but (from Wikipedia) "stipulated the United States as the main occupying power of Taiwan while not naming the recipient of Taiwan's sovereignty." It is, therefore, the USA, not the PRC, that has a legitimate claim to owning Taiwan.
While I am by no means a fan of the Bush Administration, I cannot let your opinions go uncritiqued. By what means did you come up with the US having caused the deaths of 2 million Iraqis? I think you blame the US when if anyone is responsible for those who died in the Iran-Iraq War, the First Gulf War and during the 90's due to international sanctions it is unquestionably Saddam Hussein. And what is the third country that the US has invaded in the last five years? I'll grant you Afghanistan and Iraq - though Afghanistan was hardly invaded and was instead in 2001 undergoing a long running civil war between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance, the latter whom US Special Forces helped overthrow the former; hardly an invasion - but I'm blanking on a third. As for China's supposed innocence in not having invaded any countries since the 13th century, how easily you forget Tibet and Turkmenistan, which were both invaded in 1949 and have been the subject of brutality and authoritarian rule ever since in which tens of thousands have been killed.
And let us not forget June 1989 when the ironically named People's Liberation Army cleared Tianenmmen Square killing hundreds, posssibly thousands in the process; something the Chinese government maintains to this day did nt result in any deaths. The mistreatent of members of Falun Gong is yet another example of China's brutality with widespread evidence coming out that China is harvesting organs from imprisoned members and selling them for profit. Then of course one cannot forget China's saving of N. Korea in 1951 and its propping up of this most-horrible of regimes ever since. The USA perfect? Far from it. But compared to the PRC, the USA is still a beacon of democracy and freedom.
Since coming to Taiwan I've developed a real love for the people and the culture here. These people have only had real democracy for around ten years and how they value it! China persists in its threats and intimidations because it is scared of Taiwan's example of a country that is successfully democratic and puts a lie to the PRC's claim that "Western-style" democracy is not applicable to Chinese culture. Sadly there are those like Mr. Byron - your most famous namesake who died helping the Greeks win their independence from the Ottoman Empire would be disgusted by your moral equivalence - who buy into the depravity of the Chinese government's propaganda.
A few simple factual corrections. DavidByron: China certainly has invaded a neighboring country much more recently than the 13th century, even, as is somewhat reasonable, disregarding Tibet. Forget about their invasion of Vietnam after we left? Threats against Taiwan - though I do not believe they are really more than saber-rattling - are not a bogus example, and are a good comparison with Iran/Israel. I've also seen people here exaggerate Iranian peaceableness - Saddam's invasion of Iran was disproportionate but not unprovoked; Khomeini was much more recklessly aggressive than Iran's current leadership and he earlier ordered border raids into Iraq. I would not disagree that both China and Iran have historically been more peaceable than the good ole USA though. Yankeependragon, North Korea was not a basketcase after 1953, unless you want to call South Korea one too; NK was more industrialized and had a higher GNP until around 1980 IIRC. Both sides in the Cold War having nukes did not always cause them to try to minimize conflicts and tensions. Due to the pissing contest of all of our glorious leaders in the Cuban Missile Crisis, we came within a third of a hairsbreadth from nuclear war, which was avoided mainly by dumb luck.
ReplyDeleteI agree with some of the comments on China. I've been there a half a dozen times, and I don't see much difference between them and any other country I've been to, in politics, in society, and in life style, etc. People are the same all over, and people there have the same aspirations, the same worries, the same issues, that people do everywhere, for the most part. There's an authoritarian government there, but that's hardly unique in the world, and for most things in life, it really doesn't make much difference in the way most people live their lives. Sure, it'd be nice if the folks there had the same democratic choices we have -- hmmm, or would it? -- but that's not the major concern. In China, with 1.3B people, making a decent living is a more pressing worry. When they're economically developed enough, maybe they'll have time to worry about the niceties of our "open society" ... but maybe they won't all be all that thrilled, either.
ReplyDeleteCheers,
Mel Backstrom:
ReplyDeleteIt is certainly understandable, though especially since the election as President of Chen Shui-bian of the Democratic People's Party in 2000, the Mao (CCP) vs Kai-shek (KMT) dichotomy is no longer the the real issue.
I've been to Taiwan too. Not much difference at all compared to across the Straits.
Say, what do you think of that interesting "election" they had a year ago or so? You know, the one with the rather curious "assassination" attempt? Politics is just as corrupt (if not more) and the government just about as authoritarian in Taiwan (and not all that uncommon for Asian countries, actually, for countries in general; Indonesia, South Korea, Malaysia, and even Singapore come to mind, but the list is long....)
Cheers,
armagednoutahere:
ReplyDeleteRight now the notion that Bush and Rumsfeld are capable of handling even Iran militarily is belied by our experience in Iraq.
You miss the point. They don't need victory. They need a war. Preferably somewhere around October. And after November, someone can clean up the mess ... and the blood all over the floor.
Cheers,
[Arne]: You miss the point. They don't need victory. They need a war. Preferably somewhere around October. And after November, someone can clean up the mess ... and the blood all over the floor.
ReplyDeleteFollowing up: In fact, some serious bad s*** happenin' may not be all that terrible; in fact maybe a couple of charred bodies hanging from bridges might even be a good thing.
<*/ROVE*>
Cheers,
to Davidbyron
ReplyDeleteI think you make some good points. Some are better than others, but some are absolutely correct.
Arne:
ReplyDeleteIn fact, some serious bad s*** happenin' may not be all that terrible; in fact maybe a couple of charred bodies hanging from bridges might even be a good thing.
ROVE
would sure make it clear where the future leads
Thanks, nuf. I see he is a somewhat controversial thinker whose main thrust has been his consistent anti-imperalism and his focus has primarily been on South American countries. He's descriibed as a "revolutionary", whatever that means.
ReplyDeleteJao,
Thanks for the reply. Seems reasonable. I think I understand your basic position on Consitutional interpretation, much of which I agree with, but I have this question for you:
If you allow that this is a crisis in this nation heightened by the possibility that future administrations will also take the position that we are in a long war against terrorism which would mean the Constutition's provisions about wartime powers for the President will always be in effect, and you agree that the administration is claiming broad executive powers that often appear to override the Constitution, wouldn't you agree this is a time for the Supreme Court to assert itself more vigorously and take whatever opportunities it can to weigh in on those issues and solidify the traditional role of the judciary?
In other words, even though conservative judicial thinking has been against "activist judges" who read things into the Constitution they don't think are there, wouldn't a certain amount of a different kind of activism now be called for to make sure things which are there don't get trampled on?
If the SC would not limit itself to dealing with the narrowest possible rulings but instead get more involved, and they've had that opportunity but passed on it, to preserve things like the right to habeas corpus and the just treatment of detainee American citizens, wouldn't that be a proper role of the Supreme Court if it wants to make sure basic rights crucial to our form of government are secure?
They haven't done that recently, and I personally think they should have.
What's your opinion on that?
Finally, you write Unfortunately, the practitioners of this aggressive foreign policy find it useful to distort U.S. law as a means to that end and yet the President seems to have been insistent that certain justices who are widely seen as supporters of the broadest possible definition of Executive Powers have been placed on the court. You support these Justices. Your statement and your support of these Justices appear to me to be inconsistent.
I know you and hypatia have assured us that the SC will come through in limiting unlawful Presdential power, but their recent decisions on matters such as these, shying away from taking a position on the big underlying issues, have been unsettling.
nuf, as you point out, that article apparently is not new. I hadn't realized that. It's dated 2004. I don't exactly understand that because if that exact article was written in 2004, we now have the benefit of hindsight and can see the author is actually eerily prescient about some of the things he writes.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, he mentions that Gen. Zinni has been against the neo-con position with regard to Iraq and other things. Yet who even knew about that until very recently when Gen. Zinni issued a public statement?
And the attempt to place all the blame now on Rumsfeld? That's exactly what he said one faction of the neo-cons would land up doing.
Nuf, do you know any more about all this?
Iran has oil, China has capital. You have to persuade people to give you capital.
ReplyDeleteI know you and hypatia have assured us that the SC will come through in limiting unlawful Presdential power, but their recent decisions on matters such as these, shying away from taking a position on the big underlying issues, have been unsettling.
ReplyDeleteIf you need any further proof that right wing liberatarians are completely gullible simpletons, (i.e. the useful idiots Lenin never spoke or wrote about), just ask.
That suburban bedroom ideology truly is the Marxism of the Right.
Bart there at the end scares me. Where do you get these ideas?
ReplyDeleteCollege Republicans, ROTC and FedSoc. And probably a REMF, too.
and it is difficult to conceive of what would happen in that regard if we waged war on them, or even destablized that regime.
ReplyDeleteWe have a pretty good idea. We can check the history (before it disappears) after the last time we did that.
Regarding history, you can go back far enough and see that Persians have toyed with dreams of empire, and usually gotten their asses kicked. China, OTOH had traditionally been somewhat isolationist.
ReplyDeletedave, I read up on your site about this tragic recent case.
ReplyDeleteThe BBC report, as you mentioned on your site, said
Guantanamo Uighur appeal rejected
It does not want to admit them to the US, and cannot find another country to take them.
Do we know if any SC Justices voted to hear this case?
Why do we treat China differently than Iran?
ReplyDeleteIt's not that we should but there are a multitude of reasons why we do.
It's no secret that Bush is pro business.
More than half of all industrial goods are made in its factories.
What does anyone think would happen when Wal Mart and the rest of our retailers have nothing to sell? We certainly don't make much of anything anymore.
US corporations have invested more than $50bn in China. A large portion of the factories that were here are now in China.
Good for business profits and investors short term, terrible for America's middle class.
China finances a large portion of our debt. We borrow 2bln a day to finance our lifestyles and wars. We are living on borrowed time as well as money.
Bush has proven to be remarkedly "tone deaf" when it comes to oil producing countries. We have alienated Venezuela for no good reason, we have invaded Iraq for no good reason, we are threatening to attack Iran for no good reason, and Bush p*ssed off Dubai with an offer to let them take over our ports that he shouldn't have done and couldn't follow through with.
Someone in the thread made a comment that oil producing countries can't hurt us because they have to sell it somewhere.
That foolish remark assumes that there will always be an adequate supply. What happens when there isn't?
China is already second to us in consumption of oil. China has already overtaken Britain and France to become the world's fourth largest economy.
China’s oil industry has been courting nations that the United States has tried to isolate for political reasons — such as Sudan, Iran and Burma — potentially undermining the isolation efforts.
Three of China’s major oil companies have been aggressively pursuing long-term supply arrangements in such places as Venezuela, Nigeria, Gabon and Angola.
Even Saudi Arabia, despite its long-standing tight relationship with U.S. oil companies, is turning toward China and is today its largest oil supplier.
The WasHington Post
Over the next 15 years, the number of automobiles in China is expected to increase fivefold, helping to double China’s overall demand for oil, which has already passed Japan’s to become the second-largest in the world.
By 2020, China is expected to import 70 percent of its oil needs, compared with 40 percent today.
Again, what do you think will happen when there isn't enough supply to meet demand and China has sewn up a large portion of the available supplies with long term contracts? Who do you think will suffer, China or us?
From Bart at 12:12AM:
ReplyDelete"The uncertainty of success is simply your latest excuse for failing to act."
My word! You mean *I* can choose what course of action we as a country should take? I had no idea I was so powerful!
"Did I mention anything about cults of personality? My point is that Islamic fascism is a death cult which worships suicide as martyrdom."
I can't really argue that one, given it ranks alongside the Flat Earth Society's stances in reasoning. Suffice it to say I think you don't grasp the ideology involved all that well.
"Iran would not stand any more of a chance against our military than did Iraq. The war you call a "disaster" is winding down and just about won."
For a former serviceman, you seem to have a remarkably weak grasp of the concept of what it takes to wage a successful military campaign. One must plan not merely for winning the battle, but for what comes after; in this respect, the continued collapse of Iraq into sectarian violence, the continued perception of illegitimacy surrounding the 'elected' government, and the nonexistance of a professional Iraqi military hardly sounds like a resounding success.
"What you lack is the will to bite the bullet and make the hard decision."
Again, I had no idea *I* was so powerful.
"Your lack of will is encouraging the Iran in its march to war. It is when the enemy actually believes that you might use the military option that they respond to diplomacy and back down without violence. It is when the enemy underestimates the US that war occurs."
My oh my. Does this mean I can call CENTCOM and order an air strike on Addas Abba? I mean, we all Yemen is as big a supporter of terrorism as Iran ever was.
Bart, exactly who are you trying to convince here, me...or yourself?
My gods, man, you claim to have served in uniform, yet here you are calling for war based on nothing more than some bombastic speeches from a powerless figurehead and the vague threat that Iran *might* develop nuclear weapons several years from now, *and* blame me (probably the only one left here who is willing to treat your comments seriously) for the mess your idol has left us with.
Did you forget to ask for your brain back when you turned in your fatigues or what?
From anonymous at 11:41PM:
ReplyDelete"He merely pointed out that China has 1.3 billion people, Iran 70,000,000. Think about this fact for a few minutes and then get back to us."
I caught that, actually. Population might enter into the calculation, as does economic interest and the fact China holds a sizable reserve of T Bonds.
My comment was in response to an earlier one by (I presume) a different anonymous who seems fixed on the notion Glenn thinks and posts only on the ongoing NSA scandal. Even a casual reading of this weblog shows that isn't the case, and that perhaps the commentator should devote some thought to question at hand rather than engage in cheap shots.
Did I mention anything about cults of personality? My point is that Islamic fascism is a death cult which worships suicide as martyrdom.
ReplyDeleteWhy not call it what it is, Bart, extremist Islamic fundamentalism? Why because you don't have an honest bone in your body. It has no similarity to fascism other than be authoritarian in nature as are most theocracies.
My gods, man, you claim to have served in uniform
ReplyDeleteBart=REMF
And many American lives have been saved as a result of that fact.
The least of which was Bart's. I'm sure he would have been fragged in most units.
ReplyDeleteGlenn,
ReplyDeleteWe probably agree on the optimal path forward with regards to Iran and the problems involved with US intervention there. I'd probably argue that -- for reasons of stability, balances of power and various IR issues -- Iran presents a categorically different problem than does China, and it's unwise to take military intervention off the table entirely.
That said, I should point out that the attacking Iran is not a partisan, Republican threat. The Democrats have made that an explicit part of their "Real Security" platform. They state that under no circumstances will Iran be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, and that Iran should understand that we will attack them "under some conditions".
The difference between the Republican and Democratic positions on Iran is mostly a domestic one. Ultimately, both parties reach the same conclusion: intervention before Iranian nukes.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteBart there at the end scares me. Where do you get these ideas?
College Republicans...
No, I was a libertarian in college.
ROTC...
Check.
FedSoc...
Check. I was an officer at FSU.
And probably a REMF, too.
:::gong:::
Infantry platoon leader and combat veteran of the Persian Gulf War.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteBart says :::gong:::
ReplyDeleteInfantry platoon leader and combat veteran of the Persian Gulf War.
11:24 AM
No wonder a little pupster like you thinks they are all gonna be cakewalks.
No, I was a libertarian in college.
ReplyDeleteThat's worse from the perspective of having a functioning brain. Fortunately they can rarely get elected to any office higher than dog catcher.
The simplest, most precise and elegant definition of fascism is the marriage of business and government, Bart. That puts America right up there now.
ReplyDeleteA conservative is one who stands astride History, yelling “Stop!”.
ReplyDeleteWFBuckley, jr.
Conservatism is a perfect breeding ground for fascism because the people who are part of this movement are usually educated enough to know they are being left behind by history and they feel powerless to do anything about it.
Glenn, I hope someday you will put your very considerable talents to use in combatting the religious idiocy behind the republican party: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_041706M.shtml
ReplyDeleteRetyping the link:
ReplyDeletewww.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_041706M.shtml
...Iran seems to be moving in the opposite direction under its new leader.
ReplyDeleteAmerica is also moving 'in the opposite direction' (away from human rights) under its leader. Does this mean George Bush should declare war on George Bush. I certainly hope so.
From Bart at 11:32AM:
ReplyDelete"No, this is a fascism - the ideology of subsuming the individual who feels powerless to the greater state where he gains power as a member of the state. In this case the state is a theocracy."
You realize you've just described the old Stalinist model, right? The same one that (in slightly modified version) is still at work in China and North Korea. Neither have proven an aggressive military threat to the US or our allies as yet despite being nuclear armed.
You have yet to present a persuasive argument that Iran will prove any greater a threat to anyone if it ever gets a working nuclear weapons program than it already does (which isn't very).
Either make an argument for military action that depends on actual evidence of an immediate danger and not just a bunch of catch-phrases and hysteronics, or please just give it a rest.
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteFrom Bart at 11:32AM: "No, this is a fascism - the ideology of subsuming the individual who feels powerless to the greater state where he gains power as a member of the state. In this case the state is a theocracy."
You realize you've just described the old Stalinist model, right? The same one that (in slightly modified version) is still at work in China and North Korea. Neither have proven an aggressive military threat to the US or our allies as yet despite being nuclear armed.
Fascism and Communist are flip sides of the same totalitarian coin. I was not distinguishing fascism from communism, I was merely arguing why I believe there exists a Islamic fascist movement.
China is no longer communist. They are simply a garden variety dictatorship clinging to power.
North Korea is a good example of Stalinist communism.
You have yet to present a persuasive argument that Iran will prove any greater a threat to anyone if it ever gets a working nuclear weapons program than it already does (which isn't very).
Please. Which is more dangerous - a fascist movement bent on attacking its neighbors with or without nuclear weapons?
Either make an argument for military action that depends on actual evidence of an immediate danger and not just a bunch of catch-phrases and hysteronics, or please just give it a rest.
I never said the danger was immediate, I am simply arguing against the conventional wisdom here that Islamic fascist Iran with nuclear weapons is in fact a danger which needs to be dealt with with the full means at our disposal.
Diplomacy has not run its course, but I have serious doubts that Iran can be swayed with words because, like Saddam, Iran does not think we (or anyone else) will act militarily.
We are in the same position with Iran that we were with NK in 1993. They are a few years away from developing nuclear weapons. We have some breathing time, but not much. If Bush does not act in 2007, then the next President will be presented with a nearly nuclear Iran as his or her first order of business. Welcome to the toughest job on the planet.
Fascism and Communist are flip sides of the same totalitarian coin.
ReplyDeleteDrivel.
Take this test. It's not like that idiotic Nolan charttest that tells everyone they are a libertarian as intended, sucker.
Then look into this, or history will leave you behind and your will to fascism will manifest.
From Bart at 12:15PM:
ReplyDelete"I never said the danger was immediate, I am simply arguing against the conventional wisdom here that Islamic fascist Iran with nuclear weapons is in fact a danger which needs to be dealt with with the full means at our disposal."
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. The more you try to explain your position the more incoherent you get!
The 'conventional wisdom' as you put it is that yes, a nuclear-armed Iran would not be a good thing. Should the US work to ratchet down tensions and try to convince Tehran to keep its nuclear research to strictly civilian applications? Yes, everyone here is in agreement.
Does anyone here seriously argue that a miliatary strike into Iran, obstensively to destroy its nuclear facilities, is the best option available should diplomacy fail? No, and like it or not, the consequences (military, diplomatic, economic, etc.) of such an action are too disasterous to consider.
Your own argument has facilated between advocating immediate military action to now acknowledging diplomacy hasn't been exhausted yet. You say Iran is in the grip of an "Islamic Death Cult" one minute, then claim its little more than a dictatorship/theocracy the next. You claim it is bent on attacking its neighbors, completely ignoring how Iran has historically kept to its own borders since the 1950s.
In fact, you haven't provided a reasonable, convincing argument that a nuclear-armed Iran is any more of a threat than it proses today. As I've point out time and again, the bombastic speeches and rehtoric we're hearing aren't anything new, and Iran is no more a 'neighbor' to Israel than Morocco is. I would further point out Iran has not undertaken any territorial aggression since the 1979 revolution; its wasteful war with Hussein in the 1980s can be laid at the latter's feet.
History shows nuclear weapons actually make possessor states *more* cautious, less militarily aggressive than those without them; this includes China, the USSR, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. There is no reason to think Iran would be any different, whatever annihilation fantasies its powerless President pronounces in public.
Earlier on this thread you all but accused me of being the reason we have this situation, specifically my "lack of will to bite the bullet and make the hard decision", conveniently overlooking its been the incompetents and hacks in the Bush Administration who have brought us to this point.
If throwing cheap insults at me is what makes you feel better, fine. I've dealt with worse. But please don't present yourself as holding any higher moral ground here; so far as I can see, you're somewhere below sea level. Its embarrassing.
Tens of thousands of people continued to be detained or imprisoned in violation of their fundamental human rights and were at high risk of torture or ill-treatment. Thousands of people were sentenced to death or executed, many after unfair trials. Public protests increased against forcible evictions and land requisition without adequate compensation. . . .
ReplyDeleteTorture and ill-treatment continued to be reported in a wide variety of state institutions despite the introduction of several new regulations aimed at curbing the practice. Common methods included kicking, beating, electric shocks, suspension by the arms, shackling in painful positions, and sleep and food deprivation.
Are you sure you didn't mix that up with the reports on US prisons (and NOLA)--?
Njorl said...
ReplyDelete"Someone in the thread made a comment that oil producing countries can't hurt us because they have to sell it somewhere.
That foolish remark assumes that there will always be an adequate supply. What happens when there isn't?"
They will still sell it for the highest price they can get, and it won't matter that George Bush acted like a baboon toward Hugo Chavez."
At some point oil will be available in limited supply. You assume it will follow market economics and the highest bidder will get what they want at a higher price. That isn't necessarily how things work. Geopolitics can enter into it too. What if they decide to sell what is available to their friend China and leave their enemy America out of the bidding process. What if, and I consider it a probable what if considering the way we are conducting ourselves, oil isn't available to us at any price, or at least enough of it?
My point is about the long term contracts that China is locking up and the friendly relations they are building with countries such as Venezuela that we are going out of our way to p*ss off.
You also seem to put a lot of faith in the ability of Saudi Arabia to supply us no matter what. But, I have seen a study that indicates that the Saudi oil reserves may not really be as large as everyone is lead to believe and that at least a portion of their fields may already be in decline.
Our hubris, swagger and braggadocio will be as much the end of us as anything else.
Iranians are likely to be browner than Chinese. I'm not kidding either. As long as Americans are scared, they will accept anything.
ReplyDeleteAs for a more legitimate answer, I'd say it's a travelling wave outward from Iraq with the goal of regime change vis a vis PNAC. They'll say that Iran helped support Iraqi militants so we had to go into Iran. Next they'll say that Pakistan/Syria/? helped Iran, so we have to go there. Rinse and repeat.
The reckless calls to arms and disingenuous distinctions between similarly atrocious political realities in the two countries are debatable tactical choices. The strategic evaluation *IS* economic. The Chinese are bankrolling our current suicidal potlatch through cheap socks and home equity loans. The Iranians have he unmitigated gall to be sitting on top of a big puddle of crude that we covet. If we successfully reinstalled the Pahlavis (or similar friendly regime) we will be tightening the Iron Ring around the Yellow Peril. Once we control the oil maybe we can welch on our debts. You are way too quick to dismiss the economic incentives... the NASCAR dads and Security moms may be easily inflamed by race, religion, terror... but the real Global Players follow the money. At the end of the day money, and the resources it affords are all that matters.
ReplyDeleteCheck out the following page for irrefutable evidence that Saddam did possess nukes and was actively testing them:
ReplyDeletehttp://rayrobison.typepad.com/ray_robison/2006/04/more_support_to.html
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteCheck out the following page for irrefutable evidence that Saddam did possess nukes and was actively testing them:
http://rayrobison.typepad.com/ray_robison/2006/04/more_support_to.html
Bwahahahahaha!
The administration asserts that we cannot send Abu Bakker Qassim and A'del Abdu Al-Hakim, the Uighers to whom you apparently referred, back to China because they would be persecuted. So we are persecuting them instead.
ReplyDeleteThe United States did not apprehend those men during a military engagement or as the result of an intelligence operation. We bought them. When we invaded Afghanistan, we offered a bounty throughout the region for possible terrorists — $5000 a head. Someone in Pakistan saw easy money walking down the street and tipped us off. We spent $10,000 for the opportunity to kidnap those men.
Months after they were secretly acquitted, when they met their lawyer for the very first time, Qassim and Al-Hakim were chained to the floor.
The United States has not been unable to find a country that will accept Qassim and Al-Hakim; the United States doesn’t want to find a country that will accept them. There are Uigher communities in the U.S., but we won't let Qassim and Al-Hakim come to America. There are Uighers in Canada, but we won’t let them go to Canada. We won't let them live in the civilian community at Guantanamo; we won't let them contact their families; we won't even let them out of their cells.
The United States is not holding two Uighers; a score of Uighers are imprisoned at Guantanamo. It appears likely that they are all innocent of any offense against the United States and our allies. But we won't let them go, and it isn't because we are concerned for their safety. We won't let them go because once they are out of prison they will be free to talk about what happened to them in captivity — and that we will not permit.