The Shotgun Blog
« My initial reaction to the president's speech | Main | Clueless & Dangerous »
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Now that the President has noticed Iran and Syria . . .
. . . perhaps he might also take into account the Chinese Communist regime's stubborn unwillingness to cut its longstanding ties to the mullahcracy.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on January 11, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834d645e753ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Now that the President has noticed Iran and Syria . . .:
Comments
OK DJ,
You've finally convinced me...
How dare they buy oil and gas from the ME....that's ours!
How dare they sell arms and technology without first asking America's permission.
Let's nuke China now!
No,wait...maybe we should attack Iran first...no...hold it...maybe we better attack N. Korea first,then Iran,then China.Sh*t...I forgot about Syria.
OK,let's nuke Iran,China,N.Korea and then Syria....oh geez...there's Pakistan and Saudi Arabia too....they're only pretending to be allies...maybe they should be first.Damn...I know I'm forgetting someone else too...
Actually,maybe you better consult Remi....he seems to have thought out quite clearly which countries need to be wiped off the face of the earth...although he has also been unclear about which order to proceed in.
;)
Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2007-01-11 12:01:46 PM
Canadian Observer,
Tongue in cheek, no matter how well stated, does not advance your position, no matter how much you are personally attached to it.
Furthermore, leaves you in a vulnerable position, like a turtle on his back in the hot sun. The sun may have felt good for a short while, but by about 11am, it sure feels like global warming, even though it is on a particularily local scale.
hahahahahhahahahhahah!
Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-11 12:17:54 PM
Logically, I would be of the opinion of General McArthur after WWII. He wanted to invade China in order to bring back democracy. I think Chiang Kai Check was the democratic China leader ousted by Mao Tse Toung.
This action would have prevented millions of dead by the reds and we would not face the problem now.
Right now I would put pressure on China to implement democracy, sign a peace treaty with Taiwan, give Tibet back. If China keeps supporting terrorism, I think it is necessary to consider invasion.
We got rid of USSR. But there still is a big commie nuisance called Communist China.
I think we should start with regime change in China. Then we can deal with Islamists.
Like one saying goes: if you want peace, prepare for war.
Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2007-01-11 1:39:27 PM
Remi,
This isn't relevant to the discussion, but for your info, Chiang was no democrat. I spent a year in Taiwan (1969-70), long after the massacres perpetrated by the KMT on Taiwanese democrats and anyone remotely suspected of being a threat to the regime. People still lived in fear, even afraid to talk politics in front of their children lest they be denounced to schoolmasters many of whom worked for the secret police. The economy was largely socialist with, for example, railroads, petroleum, electricity and mining all controlled by the state.
There were a host of micro-control laws too. For example, a farmer couldn't butcher one of his own pigs and distribute the meat among family members and friends. (Sounds like the EU doesn't it ?!)
I went back for a visit a couple of years ago, and it was like entering a whole new world. The place is a thriving democracy (complete with a modest measure of corruption) living standards are high, public health has improved immeasurably and, except for the constant nagging fear of invasion, people seem happy and contented.
For decades, the KMT, instead of declaring Taiwan's independence when it could have easily pulled it off, maintained the silly fiction that it was the legitimate government of all of China. Ironically, the KMT, now as official political opposition, is leading the appeasement and investment movement which will probably lead to some sort of reuification with the communists effectively in charge.
Posted by: Zog | 2007-01-11 3:34:06 PM
I like Canadian Observer's take.
This world is full of wogs who hate us and if the truth be told we hate a few of them too.
We could sit and watch and help the USA sporadically attack everyone until there is a mini war in every nook a cranny of the world. Or we could do it differently.
We would first need a strong set of shared values which we don't have anymore. We have our culture war with the loony left as they do in the USA and even Australia has it's moonbats.
Soooo if we concentrated on getting our own society in order we might have the strength of will to better deal with the wogs who want to kill us ... and they want to kill both sides of our culture by the way. WE all taste the same to the Islamic crocodile.
We are in a no win situation at present. We cannot do enough with enough commitment to protect ourselves, but we cannot run and hide.
What will it be? Do we eventually go down the vortex and then the wogs fight on for decades over the carcass or we consider the previous suggestion of growing a set and get on with it.
We need some strong leadership at this time in history and what we may get soon is that little white lad rat Dion and down south they may wind up with Hellory.
No matter what happens, it us great entertainment.
Posted by: Duke | 2007-01-11 3:59:12 PM
Canadian Observer, very well put. You expose these bumbling idiots for what they are, deluded war mongers who have no grasp of the ramifications of war.
Posted by: Jason | 2007-01-12 4:40:40 AM
You can be assured that before the US moves on Iran ( and it is assured seeing the Dem Buy-in to it) that the US will swing a deals with China ( who has the most US currency backing it's trade reserves) to give acces to Iranian oil....China has no loyalty to Iran other than what the current regime can gurantee them in Oil access.
Iran, Iraq and syria were all part of the overal stabilization plan first cited in PNAC documentation....when the dust dies down from all the US presense in these nations, residents will find they have a democratic government whos leaders are installed by US policy and backed by permanent US military presence in the ME....count on it....the PNAC p;am has played out as scripted and the Dems buy into it as well.
The big question is can the US pull this off on the massive credit required to meet long term commitments and by expanding the money supply the requisite 3 fold before being found out by global traders....if the world trading community loses faith in the inflated greenback's value, they will shift to the Euro for at least a major portion of their trade deals...then the US is truely Fxxked!
Big gamble...for a big pot.
Posted by: Wlyonmackenzie | 2007-01-12 11:00:51 AM
The neoconservative Bush administration will attack Iran with tactical nuclear weapons, because it is the only way the neocons believe they can rescue their goal of U.S. (and Israeli) hegemony in the Middle East.
The U.S. has lost the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Generals in both war theaters are stating their need for more troops. But there are no troops to send.
Bush has tried to pawn Afghanistan off on NATO, but Europe does not see any point in sacrificing its blood and money for the sake of American hegemony. The NATO troops in Afghanistan are experiencing substantial casualties from a revived Taliban, and European governments are not enthralled over providing cannon fodder for U.S. hegemony.
The "coalition of the willing" has evaporated. Indeed, it never existed. Bush's "coalition" was assembled with bribes, threats, and intimidation. Pervez Musharraf, the American puppet ruler of Pakistan, let the cat out of the bag when he told CBS' 60 Minutes on Sept. 24, 2006, that Pakistan had no choice about joining the "coalition." Brute coercion was applied. Musharraf said Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage told the Pakistani intelligence director that "you are with us" or "be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age." Armitage is trying to deny his threat, but Dawn Wire Service, reporting from Islamabad on Sept. 16, 2001, on the pressure Bush was putting on Musharraf to facilitate the U.S. attack on Afghanistan, stated: "'Pakistan has the option to live in the 21st century or the Stone Age' is roughly how U.S. officials are putting their case."
That Musharraf would volunteer this information on American television is a good indication that Bush has lost the war. Musharraf can no longer withstand the anger he has created against himself by helping the U.S. slaughter his fellow Muslims in Bush's attempt to exercise U.S. hegemony over the Muslim world. Bush cannot protect Musharraf from the wrath of Pakistanis, and so Musharraf has explained himself as having cooperated with Bush in order to prevent the U.S. destruction of Pakistan: "One has to think and take actions in the interest of the nation, and that's what I did." Nevertheless, he said, he refused Bush's "ludicrous" demand that he arrest Pakistanis who publicly demonstrated against the U.S.: "If somebody's expressing views, we cannot curb the expression of views."
Bush's defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel's defeat by Hezbollah in Lebanon have shown that the military firepower of the U.S. and Israeli armies, though effective against massed Arab armies, cannot defeat guerillas and insurgencies. The U.S. has battled in Iraq longer than it fought against Nazi Germany, and the situation in Iraq is out of control. The Taliban have regained half of Afghanistan. The king of Saudi Arabia has told Bush that the ground is shaking under his feet as unrest over the American/Israeli violence against Muslims builds to dangerous levels. Our Egyptian puppet sits atop 100 million Muslims who do not think that Egypt should be a lackey of U.S. hegemony. The king of Jordan understands that Israeli policy is to drive every Palestinian into Jordan.
Bush is incapable of recognizing his mistake. He can only escalate. Plans have long been made to attack Iran. The problem is that Iran can respond in effective ways to a conventional attack. Moreover, an American attack on another Muslim country could result in turmoil and rebellion throughout the Middle East. This is why the neocons have changed U.S. war doctrine to permit a nuclear strike on Iran.
Neocons believe that a nuclear attack on Iran would have intimidating force throughout the Middle East and beyond. Iran would not dare retaliate, neocons believe, against U.S. ships, U.S. troops in Iraq, or use their missiles against oil facilities in the Middle East.
Neocons have also concluded that a U.S. nuclear strike on Iran would show the entire Muslim world that it is useless to resist America's will. Neocons say that even the most fanatical terrorists would realize the hopelessness of resisting U.S. hegemony. The vast multitude of Muslims would realize that they have no recourse but to accept their fate.
Revised U.S. war doctrine concludes that tactical or low-yield nuclear weapons cause relatively little "collateral damage" or civilian deaths, while achieving a powerful intimidating effect on the enemy. The "fear factor" disheartens the enemy and shortens the conflict.
University of California Professor Jorge Hirsch, an authority on nuclear doctrine, believes that an American nuclear attack on Iran will destroy the Nonproliferation Treaty and send countries in pell-mell pursuit of nuclear weapons. We will see powerful nuclear alliances, such as Russia/China, form against us. Japan could be so traumatized by an American nuclear attack on Iran that it would mean the end of Japan's sycophantic relationship to the U.S.
There can be little doubt that the aggressive U.S. use of nukes in pursuit of hegemony would make America a pariah country, despised and distrusted by every other country. Neocons believe that diplomacy is feeble and useless, but that the unapologetic use of force brings forth cooperation in order to avoid destruction.
Neoconservatives say that America is the new Rome, only more powerful than Rome. Neoconservatives genuinely believe that no one can withstand the might of the United States and that America can rule by force alone.
Hirsch believes that the U.S. military's opposition to the use of nuclear weapons against Iran has been overcome by the civilian neocon authorities in the Bush administration. Desperate to retrieve their drive toward hegemony from defeat in Iraq, the neocons are betting on the immense attraction to the American public of force plus success. It is possible that Bush will be blocked by Europe, Russia, and China, but there is no visible American opposition to Bush legitimizing the use of nuclear weapons at the behest of U.S. hegemony.
It is astounding that such dangerous fanatics have control of the U.S. government and have no organized opposition in American politics.
Posted by: Andrew Lukawesky | 2007-01-12 7:37:27 PM
AL: A very poor analysis.
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2007-01-13 11:32:36 AM
Andrew Lukawesky,
1. it is customary, that one gives credit to the author of an article, at least when so long is cited,
2. Paul Craig Roberts, the author of the above cited article is wrong in some accounts.
The biggest error on his part is the assessment, that
"The U.S. has lost the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan"
The US and England have won the *war* long ago already.
However, their hypocricy comes back and bites them. Had it been a just war, they could go home, saying "now clean up and next time think twice before messing with us".
After having been proven liars and fraudsters in the reasoning of Iraq's invasion, the administrations (US and English) switched the tunes: now it is a "humanitarian intervention". This lie costs them a lot (well deserved): the issue now is not winning the war but achieving the humanitarian goals - and that is, what they can't. It is difficult to liberate someone, who does not want to and does not need to be liberated, and who - rightly - hates the so-called "liberators".
---------------------------------------
Re the more important part of the assessment, namely that the US will attack Iran with nuclear weapons:
The US administration has been fooled into invading Iraq (how difficult is it to fool the fools?). Now some "foolers", foremost the US Zionists are trying to make the people believe, that *they* (i.e. the US) have a cause to attack Iran, and to convince them to fight another war for Israel.
I don't have any doubt, that the fools can be fooled again, and that the average American can be made believe anything through a concentrated action of the Zionist controlled media.
There is to hope, that the military makes it clear to the administration, that there is not much to win with a "limited, tactical" deployment of nuclear weapons, and the expectable backlash would more than mitigate the gain (of course, Israel does not care for that).
Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-13 12:16:56 PM
Where do you buy your tinfoil hats Cato ? Do they have specials somewhere where you get a good deal ?
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2007-01-13 12:54:20 PM
MarkAlta,
your thorough, logical reasoning (like your last two posts above) is certainly contributing a lot to the discussion.
Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-13 1:01:53 PM
"your thorough, logical reasoning (like your last two posts above) is certainly contributing a lot to the discussion"
"Hate-o"
This comment comes close to causing one to break out in hysterics, coming from someone who bases his entire argument in extreme Anti-Americanism, the default position of so many of the kool-aid drinking left these days.
And if it is not Americas fault, then of course it follows that it must be Israel's fault. And if anyone agrees with these two nations then of course, they too are idiots.
What utter, self defeating hogwash. It is you who needs to begin using logic and reason when debating geopolitics.
Your current position simply shows you for the completely misinformed fool you are.
Given the choice between a radically run, sharia style Muslim state, or the democratic style nations modeled after the US or Israel, I think the decision for most clear thinking people is obvious.
Posted by: deepblue | 2007-01-13 3:08:30 PM
It's through the efforts and sacrifices of the Great Democracies of this World Leftoids have the freedom to spout their venom.
They are not worthy, but we protect them anyway and shudder to think where we'd end up if we followed their ideology.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-01-13 3:45:31 PM
Andrew
"The neoconservative Bush administration will attack Iran with tactical nuclear weapons"
Do you have a the lotto numbers for this week? I could really use your help predicting the future.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-01-13 6:01:27 PM
Andrew:
"The neoconservative Bush administration will attack Iran with tactical nuclear weapons, because it is the only way the neocons believe they can rescue their goal of U.S. (and Israeli) hegemony in the Middle East."
The Islamist Iranian administration is boastin about an attack against Israel that may include tactical nuclear weapons, because it is the only way the Islamist believe they can establish their goal of Iranian (and Muslim) dominance in the Middle East.
"The U.S. has lost the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Generals in both war theaters are stating their need for more troops. But there are no troops to send."
The U.S. is getting its second wind in the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Generals in both war theaters are stating their need for more troops. At least 20000 more troops in the all volunteer American forces are prepared to do their duty.
"Bush has tried to pawn Afghanistan off on NATO, but Europe does not see any point in sacrificing its blood and money for the sake of American hegemony. The NATO troops in Afghanistan are experiencing substantial casualties from a revived Taliban, and European governments are not enthralled over providing cannon fodder for U.S. hegemony."
NATO has stepped up to the batter's box in Afghanistan to help Bush, but continental Europe is not wise enough to see any point in sacrificing its blood and money for the sake of historical Western values. The NATO troops in Afghanistan are causing substantial casualties on a shrinking Taliban, yet European continental governments are still not courageous enough to have their troops join the NATO led battle.
"Neocons believe that a nuclear attack on Iran would have intimidating force throughout the Middle East and beyond. Iran would not dare retaliate, neocons believe, against U.S. ships, U.S. troops in Iraq, or use their missiles against oil facilities in the Middle East."
Liberals believe that a nuclear attack on Iran would not have intimidating force throughout the Middle East and beyond. Iran would hopefully retaliate, Liberals wish, against U.S. ships, U.S. troops in Iraq, or use their missiles against oil facilities in the Middle East.
"Neocons have also concluded that a U.S. nuclear strike on Iran would show the entire Muslim world that it is useless to resist America's will. Neocons say that even the most fanatical terrorists would realize the hopelessness of resisting U.S. hegemony. The vast multitude of Muslims would realize that they have no recourse but to accept their fate."
Liberals have also concluded that a U.S. nuclear strike on Iran would embolden the entire Muslim world to resist America's will. Liberals say that even the most moderate of Muslims would realize the certain victory of resisting U.S. hegemony. The vast multitude of Muslims would realize that they have no recourse but to join the jihad.
"There can be little doubt that the aggressive U.S. use of nukes in pursuit of hegemony would make America a pariah country, despised and distrusted by every other country. Neocons believe that diplomacy is feeble and useless, but that the unapologetic use of force brings forth cooperation in order to avoid destruction."
There can be little doubt that the aggressive Iranian use of force in pursuit of MidEast dominance would make Iran a pariah country, despised and distrusted by every other country. Liberals believe that diplomacy is almost omnipotent, and that the unapologetic use of force is frequently wrong no matter what the circumstances.
"Neoconservatives say that America is the new Rome, only more powerful than Rome. Neoconservatives genuinely believe that no one can withstand the might of the United States and that America can rule by force alone. "
Liberals lament that America is the new Rome, only more powerful than Rome. Liberals regret that no one nation can withstand the might of the United States and despise America because America is so just that she tries hard to not rule by force alone.
"It is astounding that such dangerous fanatics have control of the U.S. government and have no organized opposition in American politics."
It is astounding that such dangerous fanatics have control of the U.S. MSM and have no organized opposition in American media except for Fox and the bloggers.
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-01-13 8:07:38 PM
Andrew
"Neoconservatives say that America is the new Rome, only more powerful than Rome. "
Really? I haven't heard any neocons say this. Perhaps I was sick and away for that meeting.
Who the hell wants to be like Rome anyway? Didn't they fall a long time ago? And those costumes! Too uncomfortable and chafing. Besides, the weather in the Hamptons is much better than in the 7 hills.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-01-13 8:18:06 PM
I don't think I do this as well as you, though.
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-01-13 8:21:52 PM
Andrew
"Bush is incapable of recognizing his mistake. He can only escalate. Plans have long been made to attack Iran."
There have been war games with this in mind since at least 1979.
" The problem is that Iran can respond in effective ways to a conventional attack. "
You mean "terrorist ways". Don't shy away.
"Moreover, an American attack on another Muslim country could result in turmoil and rebellion throughout the Middle East. "
What? They are currently the epitomy of stability and organization now?
"This is why the neocons have changed U.S. war doctrine to permit a nuclear strike on Iran. "
Proof or psychotic LSD over-dose? You report, we decide!
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-01-13 8:24:23 PM
Brent,
Thx but you sell yourself way too short. We all have a contribution to make and yours is exemplary. Fire away!
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-01-13 8:26:44 PM
Thanks.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%206%20:40;&version=49;
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-01-13 8:27:39 PM
Canadian Observer, this is a link that you probably never looked at before your sarcasm toward the original post by McGuire. I think human rights are important, even in China.
"News of the Day (January 11)
Communist China to U.S. on Iran ties - buzz off: The Communist regime "demanded that the US stop interfering in its trade affairs with Iran" (BBC), a reference to what could be a huge natural gas deal that raised concerns in Congress and sanctions against Communist-run firms who made "missile and weapons of mass destruction sales to Iran and Syria" (Bill Gertz, Washington Times) . The cadres apparently believe it should suffer no consequences of its longstanding ties to the mullahcracy."
http://china-e-lobby.blogspot.com/2007/01/news-of-day-january-11.html"
No, you're right, CO. Nothing to worry about there at all!
------
"Logically, I would be of the opinion of General McArthur after WWII. He wanted to invade China in order to bring back democracy. I think Chiang Kai Check was the democratic China leader ousted by Mao Tse Toung.
This action would have prevented millions of dead by the reds and we would not face the problem now.
Right now I would put pressure on China to implement democracy, sign a peace treaty with Taiwan..."
post by_Remi
I agree. That, and stop pretending that they're just like us, with freedom to choose.
Ordinary Chinese citizens ( those without ties to graft and privilege through the Communist Party) ARE just like us. But kissing the a**es of every Chinese diplomat will never make life better for the poor average Chinese citizen the left supposedly cares about.
Posted by: Larry | 2007-01-14 4:58:01 PM
"The communist regime demanded, that the US stop interfering in its trade affairs with Iran"
The Chinese government is always very sensitive, when the issue is Taiwan's international relationships (even though the Chinese have nothing to do in Taiwan, they should be driven out).
The government of mainland China was and still is expecting other governments not to recognize Taiwan as a state, not to invite Taiwan to international events, etc. The Western nations *rightly* ignored this demand of China, and China is *rightly* ignoring other states' demands to change their trading policies.
Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-14 5:51:12 PM
David Warren's Saturday comments are a good read.
http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/index.php?artID=695
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-01-15 6:35:04 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.