it makes me weary just reading this thread....doesn't anybody feel the least bit of OUTRAGE?
i don't mean this personally LAN, but this phrase caught my eye....it strikes me as indicative of this administration's thinking re: policy in general, but foreign policy in particular....it is a thought process that starts with fear and mistrust about activities that are not so unlike our own, and then makes them different because they don't serve our interests anymore, and finally ends up condemning by questioning their peaceful intent.LANMaster said:.....a potential enemy.....
not piling on, LANLANMaster said:"We Received Money and Arms from Syria and Iran"
angelize56 said:Iran Speaks Up! Guess they heard the news too! Iran Says It Has Military Might to Deter Attack
eggsaxactly :up: ....... this stinks of empire building (control)....the school yard bully, or the all star athlete (depending on your pov) in a pissing contest with some testosterone nemisis...there is no end to the list of "potential enemies" in the world, if you set it up as an armed camp.izme said:All I can say is, are you willing to send your children to Iran, for what our Government see's as a threat, and if they die there, was it worth it to lose your son or daughter? Maybe we should put these politicians on the front line first? How much more war can we endure and how long will the other powers that be, let us run amock like Alexander the great? Defensive actions to prevent the inevitable? Why not go after Saudi Arabia too? Hell, why stop there? Canada has rich oil reserves
purely political, angel. ....tho methinks the articles you're posting on this thread are feeding the fuel of my flames...it tough for me to come to grips with policies created out of fear.angelize56 said:^^ iltos: Hmmm.....are you comparing me with LAN...or just making a political statement with that avatar?
LOL....a very tactful way to say "get a grip" :up:LANMaster said:Outrage over what?
Have we attacked Iran?
i can't agree with that...while the administration's response may well be true, in the sense that he has drawn some erroneous, even over the top, conclusions, he didn't write the article in a vacuum.....LANMaster said:Looks like Seymore Hersh is the one spewing the fears. Not the Administration.
if i were president (god help us)....my four years would see me impeached inside of a year....if that didn't happened, we'd either all be dead by the end of my first term, or this madness would end by the end of my second one.....LANMaster said:Good question.
The Administration denies any such actual preparations are in the works.
But if you were President, wouldn't you have people working on contingencies for any likely threat from Iran & NK ????
I submit to you that this is all blown out of proportion by Hersh, or a clandestine deliberate leak by the DOD to make the Iranians think twice about her nuclear aspirations. If the latter is the case, it apparently failed. I tend to believe the former. Hersh has a history of anti-Republican hysteria. I submit this is all about him regardless the damage it does with our relationship with Iran.
Just my opinion.
that our human brains, gifted with so much logic and imagination, can even concieve of a rational scenario that would again justify the use of nuclear weapons.....this is exactly why some folks suggest that we, as a species, are an evolutionary dead end.....izme said:you brought up an interesting idea for a question, when should we use pre-emptive nukes?
paradigm shifts are downright scary....they take courage and conviction....and the willingness to risk the unknown and to sacrifice comfort and convience....america became the leader it is today because of these qualities, and today, i believe, is in danger losing that role because it will not face the truth of the geopolitical situationLANMaster said:Thoughtful post, Iltos.
I think there's a bit more gray than you're allowing, though.
Different places in the world require different responses to situations.
One thing is for sure, though. Showing up at the OK Corral with only a daisy of friendship in your hand is not a very smart thing to do.
I do not recommend that we should do that. It seems that maybe you are.
this is my hope, as well, LAN :up:LANMaster said:I don't thionk you need top worry about America becoming the "loose cannon of the 21st century". I don't see that happening.
We have already had our hands slapped over Iraq, and I don't think we enjoyed that too much.
Perhaps we will stumble and make a few mistakes (not that Iraq was a mistake, but clearly it was not as necessary as we were led to believe) but I think we are learning from them all the time.
ChrisJones said:Yes but the reason the Romans had half the world hateing them was becasue they had invaded and occupied a lot of it. If the US continues on it's merry crusade around the Middle East, soon every nutcase with a gun that isn't already doing so, is going to start aiming it in your direction.
WarC.... IF that bolded statement is somehow true, it is, imo, a tacit admission that the economic prowess of the united states is directly proportional to our military might....and makes the assertion in CJ's quote all the more significant....you suggest that "superpowerdom" carries with it responsibilities that foster dislike around the world, as tho to achieve our standard of living and quality of live....and more importantly, to assure that it is maintained....we need to keep the rest of the world in line....WarC said:The basic truth of the matter is that the US is a huge, powerful country. It is the sole superpower. It has huge resources and a huge economic tree. When a state reaches the height of power that ours has, they must spend increasingly larger amounts of money on defense.
until we the people are willing to look into the link between our economic comfort and our military manipulations, the truth, imo, is that the notion of peace will continue to be forged on the anvil of young men who die on foreign soil for a VERY ill defined and self serving idea of freedom.ChrisJones said:As the world's only remaining superpower the US should be using it's position to bring peace to the world.
which brings to the motivation behind any further military action in the region....cloak it how you will....and even admitting that, in the long run, it might well have beneficial effects for the world, the motivations are an unacknowledged hypocrisy, imo, having less to do with the economic and social well being of populations, as claimed, than with simple geopolitical expediency.....ChrisJones said:Oh and I wasn't suggesting Saudi could kick Americas as s militarily... or are you suggesting the US should go and invade Saudi now as well??? Not going to happen the US has too much oil to loose.
February 8, 2005
The Human Rights Case Against Attacking Iran
By SHIRIN EBADI and HADI GHAEMI
DURING her tour of Europe, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has given assurances that a military attack by the United States on Iran "is simply not on the agenda at this point." But notwithstanding Ms. Rice's disavowal, recent statements by the Bush administration, starting with President Bush's State of the Union address and Vice President Dick Cheney's comments about a possible Israeli military attack on Iran, are reminiscent of the rhetoric in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. And Ms. Rice herself made clear that "the Iranian regime's human rights behavior and its behavior toward its own population is something to be loathed."
American policy toward the Middle East, and Iran in particular, is often couched in the language of promoting human rights. No one would deny the importance of that goal. But for human rights defenders in Iran, the possibility of a foreign military attack on their country represents an utter disaster for their cause.
The situation for human rights in Iran is far from ideal. Security forces harass, imprison and even torture human rights defenders and civil society activists. The authorities attack journalists and writers for expressing their opinions and regularly shut down newspapers. Political prisoners languish in jails. Superfluous judicial summonses are routinely used to intimidate critics, and arbitrary detentions are common.
But Iranian society has refused to be coerced into silence. The human rights discourse is alive and well at the grassroots level; civil society activists consider it to be the most potent framework for achieving sustainable democratic reforms and political pluralism.
Indeed, American readers might be surprised to know how vigorous Iran's human rights organizations are. Last fall, when security forces unlawfully detained more than 20 young journalists and bloggers because of what they had written, independent Iranian organizations like the Center for Defense of Human Rights, the Association of Journalists for Freedom of Press, and the Students Association for Human Rights campaigned for their release.
This outcry, in tandem with support from the international community and human rights organizations like Human Rights Watch, led to the release of detainees. In fact, so great was the criticism of the abuses committed during these detentions that some of Iran's most senior government officials came out in favor of releasing the detainees.
Independent organizations are essential for fostering the culture of human rights in Iran. But the threat of foreign military intervention will provide a powerful excuse for authoritarian elements to uproot these groups and put an end to their growth.
Human rights violators will use this opportunity to silence their critics by labeling them as the enemy's fifth column. In 1980, after Saddam Hussein invaded Iran and inflamed nationalist passions, Iranian authorities used such arguments to suppress dissidents.
American hypocrisy doesn't help, either. Given the longstanding willingness of the American government to overlook abuses of human rights, particularly women's rights, by close allies in the Middle East like Saudi Arabia, it is hard not to see the Bush administration's focus on human rights violations in Iran as a cloak for its larger strategic interests.
Respect for human rights in any country must spring forth through the will of the people and as part of a genuine democratic process. Such respect can never be imposed by foreign military might and coercion - an approach that abounds in contradictions. Not only would a foreign invasion of Iran vitiate popular support for human rights activism, but by destroying civilian lives, institutions and infrastructure, war would also usher in chaos and instability. Respect for human rights is likely to be among the first casualties.
Instead, the most effective way to promote human rights in Iran is to provide moral support and international recognition to independent human rights defenders and to insist that Iran adhere to the international human rights laws and conventions that it has signed. Getting the Iranian government to abide by these international standards is the human rights movement's highest goal; foreign military intervention in Iran is the surest way to harm us and keep that goal out of reach.
Shirin Ebadi, the 2003 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, is the founder of theCenter for Defense of Human Rights in Tehran, Iran. Hadi Ghaemi is a researcher for Human Rights Watch.
i've never quite understood what a neoconservative is, but my own feeling is that, for conservatives in general, the 'expansionist' view of u.s. power is much more a kind of economic throwback to the mid twentieth century, when america was without a doubt the dominant economic force in the world....terrorism aside, the military swaggering we are currently witnessing is, imo, completely reactionary, an effort to reassert dominion on the geopolitical scene...while that truth may have certain christain overtones for the administration, there is growing evidence that the body of voters from the religious right, as opposed to their pundits, are themselves plagued by misgivings re: our sword rattling.....Linskyjack said:Neoconservatives are tingling with excitement to see their expansionist view of U.S. power in the world so enshrined (and all dissenters removed from the Cabinet)
there are nations out there that would just as soon we dropped off the face of the earth, so that their own geopolitical ambitions could be excersised more freely, and a few groups of multinationals that are willing to kill off our citizenry to make a point....these both could be called enemies,,,,WarC said:Mr. Wallis, who wrote that article, is blind to the fact that we as a nation have enemies, and they won't go away by hugging them and telling them its all going to be alright.
and what are we defending against....currently?as a global power, we will have interests that need to be defended
again, even acknowledging terrorism, those bolded letters are completely egocentric in a global economy....and this is the one true benefit of captialism vis a vis "world peace".....even the dictatorial megalomaniacs, who sometimes disregard their own people for the sake of political and military ambitions, must deal with the marketplace...so let's pretend for a moment that the only marketplace they really care about is weaponry....throughout the entire cold war, the weapons market was a legitimate means for both the soviet union and america (and through these two "superpowers", israel and china, among others) to contruct these fabled balances of power, which have proliferated into the current state of affairs....These people run on this false idea that every violent action in the world occurs through the US government, its as if they don't understand that there are other countries and organizations at work here that are actively working against the US government and have been since before Bush came into office.
agreed...he inherited this ongoing dance....he's stepped on some toes, but is no wall flower.....his understanding is very presidential, in the sense of history, but imo his abilities are reactionary, with a minimum of vision towards what seems to me to be the future.Bush didn't invent terrorism.....etc.
i don't buy the terrorist arguement as the source of this "global war"....there will be incidents for a long time, no doubt (which is why i advocate for a very active watchfulness)....but, from both a nationalistic and political perspective, the only "global war" is economic, and its only a war if one chooses to react against the changes that the global spread of captialism will bring to the geopolitical situation.....How many more Americans have to die at the hands of our enemies before people realize we're fighting a global war
February 19, 2005
Doubting U.S., China Is Wary of Korea Role
By HOWARD W. FRENCH
HANGHAI, Feb. 18 - The dispatch by China of a high-level envoy this weekend to persuade the North Koreans to return to talks on their nuclear weapons would seem to present it with an ideal opportunity.
China's economy is growing enormously, casting shadows in every direction. Its fast-modernizing military has the attention of every power, regional or global. No other country, meanwhile, enjoys the kind of long, unbroken friendship that China has nurtured for over five decades with North Korea. In short, all the pieces would seem to be in place for Beijing to score its first big coup in global diplomacy, brokering an end to the nuclear threat on the Korean peninsula.
The only problem with this optimistic scenario is that it is shared by almost no one in China.
For now, the Chinese remain reluctant to take major diplomatic risks on North Korea, convinced that this longtime ally, a country that Chinese soldiers shed blood in large numbers to defend, will never turn against them. Analysts say that Beijing's top priority is to maintain quiet on its frontier, and that it would take a more aggressive tack only if tensions between Washington and North Korea were to increase seriously.
Beyond such doubts, however, lingers an even more fundamental reason for the reluctance of China to take the lead in this crisis: its deep-seated skepticism about the United States' strategic designs in the region.
"If we cut off aid and the Koreas are unified on South Korean terms, that would be a big disaster for China," one analyst said. "The U.S. would insist on basing its troops in the northern part of the peninsula, and China would have to consider that all of its efforts going back to the Korean War have been a waste."
Other experts here look cynically on Washington's insistence on Chinese leadership in the North Korean face-off, seeing it as part of a broader effort by the United States to entangle Beijing in a growing web of international arrangements, the better to limit Chinese influence.
A fresh example of the divisions between the United States and China was provided this week with confirmation that Tokyo is moving closer to Washington's policy position that the status quo on Taiwan must be maintained. Chinese analysts often point out that having a friendly country tying up American troops on its northern border frees Beijing to focus its forces on other contingencies, notably the Taiwan question.
Meanwhile, most Chinese international security experts insist that the United States holds the two most important keys to resolving the North Korean problem: ending a state of hostility that dates from the earliest days of the cold war and providing tangible assurances to North Korea that Washington does not seek the government's overthrow.
"Although many of our friends see it as a failing state, potentially one with nuclear weapons, China has a different view," said Piao Jianyi, an expert in international relations at the Institute of Asia Pacific Studies in Beijing. "North Korea has a reforming economy that is very weak, but every year is getting better, and the regime is taking measures to reform its economy, so perhaps the U.S. should reconsider its approach."
This widely held picture of a slowly, painfully reforming North Korea suggests a broad sympathy for North Korea among Chinese intellectuals and policy makers. For many, North Korea's experience echoes China's fitful reforms of a generation ago. "In the late 1960's, China also had a lack of transparency," Mr. Piao added. "It was also threatening to other countries and, as Westerners would say, it was an oppressive country. But one threatens others because one feels threatened, and in that perspective, you can better understand North Korea."
Many experts in Chinese affairs say the main emphasis of the country's foreign policy remains avoiding turbulence wherever possible in international relations, the better to realize its economic ambitions. "As far as the Chinese are concerned, the bottom line is stability," said Robert Sutter, a former national intelligence officer for East Asia, and author of the coming book "China's Rise in Asia." "They've been really concerned about the danger of war in Korea, and that is why they got busy behind the six-party talks, not because they wanted to be seen as any great Asian player. Still, putting a lot of pressure on North Korea would be hard for them, and I don't think they want to take those risks."
But if caution remains the cornerstone of China's policy toward North Korea, Beijing wants to keep up at least the appearance of being a responsible power and attentive to regional problems. Moreover, some voices here have begun to insist that traditional diplomatic approaches no longer meet its current interests.
The nuclear situation on the Korean peninsula is unlike anything China has faced before, said Zhang Liangui, a foreign affairs expert at the Central Party School, in Beijing. The new development "might lead to nuclear competition in northeast Asia, which is the most important region in the world for China," he said, adding, "We must treat this with the greatest seriousness."
Other Chinese experts go further. Shen Dingli, vice president of the International Relations Institute at Fudan University in Shanghai, said China's priorities in the international face-off were clear: keeping North Korea from collapsing, and keeping American troops south of the 38th parallel, the line that divides the two Koreas. But he complained of Chinese timidity in limiting itself to a host's role for the talks.
"China still does not have a mentality for leading the world, and has no reflexes for pushing the U.S. and North Korea to do something," Mr. Shen said. "This crisis is a reminder that we must raise the level of our diplomacy quite a bit still. If China is not wary of the old passive approach to the world and doesn't learn how to be more pushy, we will only have ourselves to blame."
North Korea Sets Talk Conditions
SEOUL, South Korea, Saturday, Feb. 19 (Reuters) - North Korea will return to talks about its nuclear weapons program if the United States pledges "coexistence and noninterference," the North's envoy to the United Nations told a South Korean newspaper in an article published Saturday.
The envoy, Deputy Ambassador Han Song Ryol, also told the newspaper JoongAng Ilbo that the North wanted an assurance by the United States that there would be substantive results from negotiations before it returned to talks.
good observation, gb....it did seem to me that the author skimmed over both the potential military ambitions of china, as well as what can only be considered the "secondary" role of north korea in the region, both politically and economically...gbrumb said:iltos......Interesting article but the writer has completely ignored the last two decades of border skirmishes between the NK army and NSRC army. These have progressed to the use of heavy artillery not the usual AK-47 shot across the border. Seems to me the writer has a rather simplistic view of the relationship between NK and China as that of big brother. There is no true and substantial economic ties between the countries that comes close to that of China and the US. If nothing else the Chinese's leaders are pragmatic and NK has nothing to offer China in the long run and never will.