North Korea begging to have the s*** bombed out of them.

This is utterly reprehensible. This quote tells me all I need to know about you and why you think the way you do on these issues.

 

fatfatcow, the United States has around 550 ICBMs while China has +-20.
The United States has a larger Navy (including Marines), larger Air Force, and a better equiped Army.

 

OK, I'm only going answer anything new as I've already answered the other...

First, you said earlier you did not believe in communism so I wonder why you are now defending it? Second, my father grew up in the Soviet Union, later emigrated to the USA, and fought against communists in Vietnam. My grandfather fought communists in Korea. I have not been brainwashed about anything. I do not need to read a book about what it is like to live in a system that kills, starves, and tortures its own people. I have an indepth understanding of communism, thank you just the same.

Well, now who's being subjective about 'legitimate reasons?' What works for you works for me.

I didn't know the PRC sent active divisions to Vietnam??? As for Korea you've got to be joking, right? Mao says 'I want soldiers to go to Korea,' they go. Who's been brainwashed, me or you? Next, if the PRC can send troops to N Korea because they asked for help, why can't the US send troops to help the S Koreans when they ask for help, or to the S Vietnamese when they ask for help? Please remember the N Koreans attacked S Korea, not the other way around. So please also explain how the PRC was justified supporting an aggressor and the US was not justified helping the victim?

Because the PRC will keep the territory it takes in its future conflicts (Taiwan, the Spratleys, etc) while the US does not seek to expand its territory. Only to punish those who attacked or will attack us or our allies.

Why does that make it right? Or at least why is that MORE legitimate than the US helping S Korea when the S Koreans were NOT the aggressors? And keep in mind that the US has NEVER fought against the UN, while the PRC has.

That is funny. I do not think a country normally attacks its neighbor with FIFTEEN DIVISIONS because of some border theft. That is pure propaganda and you are being silly. You talk about 'innocents' in Serbia and Afghanistan but around 50,000 people died in the PRC invasion of Vietnam. Do you think that is justified over some border theft?

Pretty much the PRC is almost alone is shipping high tech weaponry to countries like Iran and N Korea. N Korea especially has been considered a 'rogue state' by most of the world community since their invasion of South Korea. But then again it makes sense for the PRC to be allies with a bordering totalitarian regime that starves it people and is aggressive toward its neighbors. That makes them very much like the old Maoist China. But please keep in mind that EVEN THE PRC does not want N Korea to proliferate now!!! ONLY YOU are saying they should. And the UNITED STATES is trying to involve other regional actors like the PRC, Japan, and S Korea, but the North Koreans are refusing!!!

The US has not ANNEXED another country in quite some time. While the PRC wants to annex Taiwan and has annexed Tibet, and wants to annex the Spratley Islands.

We believe every person has certain rights, which is contrary to your belief system. I understand that. But nonetheless we must act to give people a chance to realize those rights, especially when they are not because of a totalitarian regime. In addition, we are obligated to defend those rights of countries we have allied ourselves with when they want that support. The PRC gets into other people's business, as you put it, just like every other country. If you need examples try Tibet, try Korea, try Vietnam, try Cambodia.

Hmmmm, so Tibetans don't want to be part of PRC but HAN CHINESE want Tibets so take it. Taiwanese don't want to be part of PRC but HAN CHINESE want Taiwan so take it. Muslims in Xinjiang province don't want to be part of PRC but HAN CHINESE want Xinjang, so take it. I have no IDEA why that is right.

Yep.

The people in Afghanistan are pretty happy to be rid of the Taliban, so not sure how they are being made to suffer. But even if you assume they supported the Taliban then they are responsible for the actions of their government and must pay the piper.

I bet. But I think you just know too little about Americans or you realize that we have no wish to first strike a peaceful legitimate country/government. Plus a system neutralizing nuclear weapons would make the world a much safer place. Or I guess you could try harder to be our friend, and not our enemy!

Or you could make a similar system to defend against US nukes. Equally probably since the PRC is good at stealing state secrets.

As I have pointed out, the Saudis requested our presence in Saudi Arabia. The Kuwaitis in Kuwait. That is AT LEAST as legitimate as the PRC in Korea, although personally I believe it is much more so. As for Japan and S Korea, I have no doubt you will find many more who want the US presence than do not. I guarantee it.

Yes.

Yes, I am a nationalist. It has nothing to do with race, since America, like the PRC, is composed of many races. I believe the unique cultural experience of the US allows us to thrive in many areas, and that our value system, which triumphs equality of opportunity, is superior to communism, among others.

Korea was a win. We acted to stop N Korea from taking over S Korea and we did so, despite millions of PLA soldiers fighting us. Now your arguments are just getting silly. 'Chinese are super soldiers compared to weak imperialist Yankee dogs!!!' Surely you can do better than an old communist propaganda film!

Well the US forces and S Korean forces were attacked by N Korea. The goal was to eject N Korea from below the 38th parallel, which they did, and to destroy the N Korean ability to attack S Korea again, which they did. The PRC coming into the war was a suprise, considering it was a UNITED NATIONS action. What MacArthur considered is irrelevant since he was removed as a result of his push to attack the PRC.

They fought and died and killed for worse than nothing. They did it to save a totalitarian dictator who killed his own people, and they did it for a dictator who killed his own people and liked little girls.

But you said a blue water navy was for global expansion. If it is for global expansion then why do you need it for defense? Do you need blue water navy to fight Russians in Mongolia?

We fought on land in Iraq, no? We squared up to the Soviets in Europe, no? We fought the North Koreans and PLA in Korea, no? So what are you talking about?

Oh, right. I keep forgetting that the PRC never does anything aggressive. Those pesky Vietnamese thieves come across the border (79), take over your islands (90s), etc etc.

Well I'll feel a lot better if the PRC is democratic. I think Chinese will feel better too!

Yes, as I said I am a nationalist and I don't have a problem admitting it. But I think the US will be the best regardless of our military situation, and if the world is peaceful in 50 years, and the PRC's economy is bigger, that is ok with me.

 

Pleasant dreams!!!

Good times.

 

HS,

Thanks for taking the time to respond to fatfatcow so others don't need to; many good points.

I'm not sure that it would make much difference. Many of our Chinese friends here, thank god, are much more independent thinkers than this dolt, eh?

 

Thanks Cohen.

 

Another bulletin from the HayesStreet Department of Redundancy Department.

 

Hayesstreet and fatfatcow, seem in a way to be two peas in a pod. Both are nearsighted nationalists. My country is bigger than yours!!! No it's not. Yes, it is!


Neither can see the imperialism or faults of of their own country. Hey fatfatcow, how about Tibet? Fatfatcow seems unwilling or unable to see the faults and the oppression of the communist model in China. (I do agree that it is in a state of transition).

Hayes is unconcerned about the predatory practices of US companies and supporting dictators if they support us. Democracy, schmocracy who gives a damn, ala Kissinger. How dare those irresponsible Iranians, Guatemalans, Chileans, Venezuelans etc. dare to elect governments our corporate interests don't approve of. Hey let's put in some leaders we like in the Middle East. Its our right and even our duty.

Hayes' obsession is seeing threats to the US on the scale of Stalin, where none exist. This justifies a permanent cold war or a permanent war of some sort. Any less militaristic response to foriegn policy is just boring bananas and textile tariffs to him.

 

Glynch, we've had this discussion before, but doesn't it register to you that each of your examples is more than 20 years old? Iran/Chile = 70s. Guatemalans 70s/80s. I understand you think the Cold War was some grand illusion propagated by corporations, but your spin is simply naive at best. And you obviously recognize how irrelevant your examples are since you throw Venezuela out there to at least attempt to give some modern application to your theories. However...

As far as Venezuelans choice of an elected government, have you read ANYTHING about Venezuela lately? They seem to NOT WANT the current President in office. In fact they are PARALYZING the country in an effort to remove him, so again you have NO IDEA what you are talking about.

In your world there are no threats. We are all happy shining people. In the real world that is not the case. And don't you find it strange that you cry how terrible people like Pinochet were, and yet you would stand by and do nothing while dictators who are much much worse kill and torture and starve their citizenry in Iraq and N Korea? You completely misunderstand the power dynamic in those countries: those leaders are no in power as the result of democratic elections. One was installed as the supreme leader by his father, who was in turn installed by the Soviets. The other has literally killed any and all POSSIBLE opposition. Are those what you would consider duly elected? That, is ludicrous.

In addtion, there are strategic reasons to prevent nuclear proliferation by either of those countries. Strategic issues that you also refuse to address. Please tell us, glynch, how you think Japan will react to a nuclear armed N Korea. I would love to see you hypothesize on the issue so we can all see in print your lack of understanding of the issue. Do tell. You claim I am shallow and shortsighted. So please detail for us your vision what East Asia will look like if the US were to be hands off N Korea...Let's move away from your generic corporations are evil and blind people to their true evil mission, and lets see if you have ANY grasp of the implications of a foreign policy based on your criteria.

Glynch, threats do exist. I'm sorry if the smoke from burning your draft card conceals that fact for you, but make no mistake, that is a fact. You consistently refuse to address the implications of a hands off policy re: US foreign policy. You may duck you head in the sand, but thankfully policymakers, and not just conservative 'hawks,' do not see it that way.

 

your boys threatened to nuke LA not too long back....does that count??

 

Just one little question for the fatcow guy.

All things considered, if we were truely as aggressive and arrogant as you think, why haven't we invaded and annexed all these weak countries that we have troops in? Do you honestly think that we couldn't do it?

You obviously look at things differently than we do, being from a different situation...but you can depend on one thing.

We will respond when asked to intervene on behalf of a weaker ally that is facing aggression or attack from a stronger opponent.

We don't have to, we do it because we don't like to see the little guy getting bullied. We believe that everyone has the right to make decisions about their own life and will fight and have fought to support that right all over the world.
The only ppl that don't like when we help others out are the ones that stand to lose something they want in the process. Or the ones that are too ignorant and brainwashed to know the difference.

You sir, have had every point you brought up answered in a seasonable fashion...yet all you can do is keep parroting the same misguided interpretation that you did at the beginning of this thread.
Hayes has done an admirable job of answering your concerns, if you would just try to see and understand what he's saying.

Flatout- We worry about others having nukes because they often don't have the system of checks and balances that keeps us from ruining this earth for all by using our nukes.

Let me reiterate that point...we may have nukes, but I highly doubt we will EVER use them again because of the long term damage and suffering they cause..

I wish I could convince you that you have nothing to fear from us as long as you don't invade a country that doesn't wish you to be there. We want all the countries of the world to be successful and peaceful...that includes China..
If all the countries were peaceful, we would never need to "put our noses in their business"...we could all just get along with the business of having a good life...

Geeze, it's tough being a optomist..


PS----Don't bother jumping on me for not seeing the conspiracies you see glynch...I think better of my fellow man than that.

 

Hayes:

Of course 20 years ago you still wanted to overthrow them and seem to be still in favor of what was done. At the time you would have considered them all communist threats as you are prone to do to this day with muslims or communists.

This is not 20 years ago. Thanks for giving us a cuurent proof of your intolerance to democracy-- in this case Venezuela..

Ever heard of elections? You do know that Chavez can be voted out? So because some people in Venezuela don't like Chavez you want the US and the CIA to fund a coup ala Kissinger.

With your logic since some people in the US don't like Bush II Russia would be entitled (in the name of democray??)to have the KGB overthrow the US government?

You just don't get it. Many Americans aren't in favor of invading and overthrowing all the world's dictators. THIS NOT EQUIVALENT TO SUPPORTING THESE DICTATORS. In a way one can appreciate your crazy sort of idealism, but is just isn't realistic to think the US can invade and , occupy all the dictatorships in the world.

A good start might be for us to stop supporting so many of the ditatorships around the world even if they are our allies.

In your world there are many threats, all equivalent to the Stalin of your father's era. It is time to move on to a post Berlin Wall world. The Soviet Union is dead. You are safe.

You consistently refuse to realize the implications of transferring your fear of the Soviet Union, a superpower of approximately 20 years ago, to every third world country that is trying to get nuclear weapons. You also consistently refuse to realize that there are other ways to deal with countiries that oppose us besides military threats or invasions.

Just because someone is against your Iraqi IIwar or your Korean II war does not mean that they are a pacifists who advocates no spending whatsover on the military.

 

After 9/11 you feel safe? Even after the bombings in Bali and continued terrorism threats around the world?

 

I hesitate to jump into this, but a few thoughts....

1) Saying we can beat China in any war is wrong. Wars have goals that go beyond who can kill the most people. If that were the goal, yes, we could beat China and every country in the world. But that's not the case. Every war should have specific goals and there are a lot of factors that come into play. We probably have the strongest military in the world, but that doesn't mean we can defeat anyone. Our biggest military advantage has historically been our geographic location. The world is a much smaller place now and it isn't as much of an advantage as it used to be.

2) The danger involved with NK having nukes is not that they may possessing them or use them *themselves*. The problem is that NK's economy sucks and it will be very tempting to sell a couple nukes to rogue groups (i.e al queda) to get some cash into the country. They already sell scuds, if there's a much, much bigger price tag, why not sell a nuke?

3) China assumed control of Hong Kong a few years ago. I've been to Hong Kong since then, and it's still a fun, vibrant and free city. If Taiwan was to be annexed, would their way of life really be threatened? HK seems to be doing perfectly fine, why are we so much more concerned about Taiwan? I know I'm probably overlooking something really basic, but I don't see it now, so I'm sincerely asking why we assume the Taiwan experience will be so different from the HK experience.

 

At the time they were communist threats, although I have specifically rejected many of these actions in the past. More to the point I have acknowledged these actions as reasonable at the time in the face of the Soviet threat, which you sometimes acknowledge and sometimes do not.

Wrong. In the specific case of Venezuela I have pointed out that the majority of Venezeulans DO NOT want the current President in place, giving credence to the military's impetus to remove him. At no time did I EVER advocate that the US should remove him, since he is NOT, in fact, a dictator.

Further, REMOVING a dictator and replacing them with elected officials IS IN NO POSSIBLE WAY the same as SUPPORTING a dictator AGAINST popularly elected officials. It is the DIAMETRICAL OPPOSITE. Stop completely distorting my position. I understand you are having problems delineating my position. That much is obvious, but I have written so much on the subject I am at a loss to find a way to communicate with you. You are just refusing to actually read what I'm writing.

Uh, no. You see despite your paranoia, Bush is not a dictator and hence is not comparable to Saddam or Kim Jr.

I disagree. On one hand you present the advocacy of one of these third world people's who YOU SAY 'wish the US had intervened.' On the other you decry it as 'bullying oppressed people's.' Don't you see the contradiction there? In addition I never advocated some blanket invasion of the rest of the world. IN FACT, in this very thread I responded to fatfatcow by acknowledging that each country must be taken on a case by case basis. What is possible would dictate whether our action would be containment, sanctions, multilateral action (specifically when I point out the US is trying to involve other relevant actors in Northeast Asia while N Korea threatens to nuke us if we do so). You are simply misreading my position and trying to make it extreme while providing NO SUBSTANTIVE answers of your own.

Where did I EVER ADVOCATE supporting dictators ANYWHERE? Please clue me in. Please name a dictator in today's world I have advocated supporting.

When did I EVER EQUATE ANY of these dictatorships to the threat posed by the Soviet Union? Please back up your point instead of slinging accusations my way. We're waiting...

Actually you are so incorrect it is laughable. As you squirm to make a coherent answer you ignore, as I've said above, that there each country MUST be handled differently (as when I acknowledged to fatfatcow that we COULD NOT invade the PRC). In addition, just because Saddam and Kim Jr are not the threat of the same scale as the USSR DOES NOT mean they are not a threat that requires military options.

As I predicted, you have NO SUBSTANTIVE answers. Only your generic slanging on my ideology. Again I say, let us all read in amazement at your crisp and intellectual grasp of the situation in Northeast Asia. Please explain to us what Japan will do when N Korea proliferates. Please explain to us how that will be a safer world. How the PRC will just LOVE a nuclear armed Japan. Please, please, show us the way.

But I think not. You keep applying the same tired old philosophical rants not matter who points out your inconsistencies or your contradictions. I'm willing to bet you nothing new to add. Prove me wrong if you dare.

Now its 8:30 and I have guests arriving for New Years Eve, so I bid you ALL a happy evening and new year. Even you glynch
and dimsie (who must be drunk and passed out by now)....

 

Nope. I don't feel as safe as before. Unfortunately I believe that attacking Iraq and other Bush II policies actually makes me personally less safe, both when travelling abroad and here at home. All the polls I've seen show most Americans realize that the Iraq invasion will lead to more terrorism against Americans. This is a stupid price we should not have to pay.

1) I think we need to go after Al Qaeda militarily. This involves counterintelligence and special forces type operations.

2) We need to react in an intelligent fashion diplomatically.

A) It means forcing Israel to honor the 1948 borders and UN resolutions. This means accepting the Saudi Peace proposal that invloved Arab recognition of Israel. We should guarantee Israel's borders along with the UN, Russia and China. This would actually show that we aren't anti-muslim. Talk is cheap. Anything less fuels Al Qaeda and makes you and me less safe.

B) We need to stop the murderous Iraqi sanctions and negotiate with Iraq with dignity not like a bully. Not just threaten them with attack and demand regime change. We need to quit threatening the UN and the Europeans to support the sanctions. Again this provides less fuel for Al Qaeda.

C) We need an emergency all out energy conservation program so that we don't need to station troops in the Middle East just to protect oil supplies. This would provide less fuel for Al Qaeda.

D) Having shown that a new dawn has come and we are not just oppressing Arabs to get cheap oil we will get more assistance from moderate Arabs in our pursuit of Al Qaeda.

E) We need to work through the UN and quit bullying them. Quit threatening to do what we want anyway. Such a return to the community of nations would not make Americans particularly the target of anyone who opposes UN resolutions.

 

TL, good post. A few quick answers...

We cannot take over the PRC. That much should be obvious. In a nuclear exchange we would do MUCH more damage to them than they would us, although we all hope that NEVER EVER HAPPENS. We would defeat the relatively easily if the tried to forceably reunify Taiwan, which was the focal point of the discussion.

N Korea - because of the internal problems they could well attack S Korea, leading to their military getting crushed leaving a (by all accounts) crazy Kim Jr with ONLY the nuclear card to play. I feel there is a much larger danger of instability, however, from Japan rearming with a nuclear component in light of East Asias paranoia over a rearmed Japan.

Taiwan/Hong Kong - because many of those in HK had become British citizens, there were EXTENSIVE negotiations with the PRC about HOW HK would be governed once the PRC took over. Because HK was actually LEASED from the PRC, there was no was no need for the PRC to militarily move on HK, and it was INEVITABLE that the two would be reunited. However with Taiwan none of those components are present, and whether the reunification will happen is NOT inevitable. Hence, the PRC continually lobs missles at Taiwan during elections, for instance, where they NEVER had to do this with HK. In addition there is no third party such as the UK to negotiate about a One China - Two Systems set up, nor to guarantee that the PRC holds up its end of the negotiations.

 

F) Shut down all Saudi military bases.

 

Hayes, have a good party. We're having one at the house, too. As you know only 2:30 here.

I don't know if I can say this without pissing you off, but you are probably my favorite hawk on the board.

BTW are there any leftwingers invited to the party?

I also noted the reference to dimsie. Are you sure you don't wish you were actually hanging around with leftwing women?

 

Glynch,

I agree with many of your points, but how does attacking Iraq cause more terrorism? I understand that Arabs might get mad, but there's got to be more reasoning behind your position? Regime change in Iraq, on the other hand, could lead to a more peaceful Iraq and a more peaceful Middle East overrall. It could be like a domino effect.

Saudi Arabia is a joke. Their "peace proposal" was nothing but cheap talk. Their hatred for the US and Americans is very thinly disguised. They obviously hate Israel. If the Democrats want to score points on Bush it's on how he has dealt with the Saudis.