Article

2005-01-02 International-UN-NGOs

ElBaradei Unchallenged for Third Term as IAEA Head

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by .com 2005-01-02 1:42:52 AM|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 3^rd ElBaradei term = Iranian nuclear capability = WW III

Posted by Zenster 2005-01-02 2:29:20 AM|| 2005-01-02 2:29:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 My position: Time to FUCK THEM ALTOGETHER.

By the way, Zenster, about what you said about the American consumer ...

HOW THE HELL DO YOU EXPECT US TO HAVE ANY EFFECTIVENESS AGAINST CHINA IF THAT'S WHAT OUR PEOPLE ARE MADE UP OF???

Posted by Edward Yee 2005-01-02 3:26:14 AM|| [http://edwardyee.fanworks.net] 2005-01-02 3:26:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 That we did not put up a candidate may reflect that we could not succeed in getting enough countries to vote for an alternative. Rather than be defeated in a vote whose outcome was known, we chose to skip the vote and the defeat. But the real defeat here has probably been suffered by the UN. This is the kind of thing one does when one's attitude is, "Who gives a shit."

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-01-02 7:34:12 AM|| 2005-01-02 7:34:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 I do think it was a mistake not to put someone up. Make it a good tough candidate. Sure, you have no chance of getting him through, but then when this creep gets back in, say "Well, we tried to make the IAEA effective, but they insisted on putting the fox back in charge of henhouse security, so we'll do it on our own."

Posted by jackal 2005-01-02 11:11:07 AM|| [http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2005-01-02 11:11:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 That's not W's way. He won't make a fuss in public because he knows it'll just generate more negative publicity. He'll just do what you suggest quietly in the background.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-01-02 11:22:39 AM|| 2005-01-02 11:22:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Zenster, about what you said about the American consumer ...

HOW THE HELL DO YOU EXPECT US TO HAVE ANY EFFECTIVENESS AGAINST CHINA IF THAT'S WHAT OUR PEOPLE ARE MADE UP OF???

Edward, I was quoting (incorrectly, it turns out) the acerbic author Henry Mencken.

âNo one in this world, so far as I know, has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.â

â H. L. Mencken â

It seems Mencken was painting with a much broader brush than just the American public, which is actually more appropriate.

I'd like to think that this is why we elect leaders; So that they can utilize tools of state in order to notify the public of trends and methods whereby they can help implement foreign policy or national security.

We have the Department of Homeland Security recruiting our citizenry in order to maintain better security at airports and public gathering places. Yet, our government is conspicuously silent about the threat that China represents to American and world prosperity alike.

I feel that this is due to economic influence (or pressure) applied by special interests that stand to lose money if the torrent of cheap goods flowing from China is finally choked off. These special interests have not one whit of concern about America's manufacturing capacity, merely it's buying power. If burger flippers can purchase their products, then this entire nation could be made up of burger flippers, for all they care.

Wal-Mart is an economic Trojan horse. Municipalities provide huge tax incentives for siting of their superstores only to have their small business communities hollowed out. Furthermore, Wal-Mart compensates their employees so poorly that community services like health provision and childcare are suddenly burdened by these same underpaid workers. To top it off, Wal-Mart sells people low quality goods made by a country that operates directly counter to American interests world-wide. That US consumers are so cost sensitive whereby they willingly subsidize such an organization does not speak well for their level of common sense.

Similarly, that our government continues to downplay the looming threat which China represents in the face of their financing North Korea and proliferating weapons technology to Iran is a gross dereliction of duty. China already subverts segments of America's economy through institutionalized copyright piracy and theft of intellectual property. Other branches of our public services are burdened by the flood of refugees and illegal immigrants fleeing communist China. Yet, while correctly identifying an "Axis of Evil," the White House cannot bring itself to notice how China's economic contributions and military support in Iran will finally necessitate armed intervention at the cost of BILLIONS of dollars.

What prevents the Bush administration from doing this? The ramifications are glaringly obvious. China's communists are destabilizing the exact same area we are spending untold billions of dollars to pacify and introduce democracy into. There is a direct clash of National security interests that continues to be greeted with thundering silence. We face the possibility of Iran equipping terrorists with a nuclear weapon for potential use against America. How can this possibly escape the notice of our government?

If it hasn't, why then are there not more significant measures in place to counter the threat of Chinese support for our enemies? The inability of Bush to directly address this issue is a searing indictment of his will to defeat antidemocratic (read: communist) forces at work in this world.

The sham that ElBaradei and Europe's dalliance with Iran represent are merely symptomatic of an overarching malaise. There is a prevailing global blindness to exactly where and how the threat of terrorism is being bred up. Few other nations willingly recognize that all support for terrorist regimes must be cut off. Somehow, just about no one is willing to point at China's underwriting of these terrorist sponsors, Bush included. America deserves better.

Posted by Zenster 2005-01-02 4:21:59 PM|| 2005-01-02 4:21:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Once again you have expended 1,000 words without benefit of a plan, Grasshopper. How do you propose to deal with China and Iran starting NOW? Lets talk about "next steps" instead of just Bush-bashing. What should happen NEXT? Cut off all trade with China? Blockade Iranian oil to China? Be specific, Grasshopper.

Posted by Tom 2005-01-02 4:33:52 PM|| 2005-01-02 4:33:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Ah, the man-without-a-non-nuclear-plan demands that others provide one.

We need to begin instituting tariffs on Chinese goods that benefit from their institutionalized theft of intellectual property and copyright piracy. Whichever Chinese industries are controlled by the military or powered by prison labor should face trade barriers. Prohibit the import of products that rely upon unfair price competition through lax environmental enforcement or human rights violations by manufacturers. There are many ways to erect well-justified trade restrictions against the flood of unfairly leveraged Chinese goods. Forcing China to realistically peg their currency would be another good start.

While a blockade of Middle East oil is not a functional solution, crippling Iran's petroleum export capability would certainly fire a warning shot across China's bow. Damaging Kharg Island's supertanker facility would instantly curtail Iran's petro-dollar income and place a damper on China's access to cheap oil. Iran's nuclear threat to regional and global stability is the perfect pretense for doing so.

All righty then, Tom. What solutions do you have to present? Or are you just here to carp? A substantial portion of your own posts deal with the inappropriate use of nuclear weapons but rarely demonstrate any real-world functionality.

Posted by Zenster 2005-01-02 4:58:17 PM|| 2005-01-02 4:58:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 You're here for therapy, Zenless, why can't Tom be here for carping? You come and bitch for 1000 (or more) words and he can't write 50 that differ? Pshaw. That has a rather fascist flavor, doesn't it?

Posted by .com 2005-01-02 5:08:56 PM|| 2005-01-02 5:08:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 You come and bitch for 1000 (or more) words and he can't write 50 that differ?

I'm just waiting for Tom to start providing some actual solutions, instead of his usual nuke-em-all strategy. He can write whatever he wants, but lack of constructive criticism doesn't cut any ice with me.

Posted by Zenster 2005-01-02 5:28:04 PM|| 2005-01-02 5:28:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Since you've stepped into the fray, .com, let's hear your solutions to how we should go about reining in communist China. Or do you not see any problem with their incessant meddling?

Posted by Zenster 2005-01-02 5:30:26 PM|| 2005-01-02 5:30:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 It was only 593 words Tom.

Posted by Shipman 2005-01-02 5:33:15 PM|| 2005-01-02 5:33:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 BTW what's the commie chinks stand on 2 fag families? I figure they're for the 0 child aspect but against the social upheavel it might cause which would mightily slow down their rise towards world domination thru inexpensive textiles and quality whiz bangs.

Posted by Shipman 2005-01-02 5:38:04 PM|| 2005-01-02 5:38:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Like the U.N., Grasshopper, you think that using many words can solve problems, but you don't realize that truths tend to be concise. Your many words are poorly chosen:

1) Believe it or not, most Chinese industries are neither controlled by the military nor powered by prison labor.

2) Lax Chinese environmental enforcement is not the issue either. What would you enforce, U.S. standards? Would you write Chinese law for the Chinese?

3) You say "human rights violations by manufacturers" but what you must mean is "low wages". That's what affects prices and thus sales the most. So you want the Chinese to raise their prices. Then we can buy less for more. And they will still have the money to buy oil from Iran.

4) "Forcing China to realistically peg their currency..." How? What is this force?

5) "Damaging Kharg Island's supertanker facility..." Instant WWIII, Grasshopper.

In fact, almost everything you advocate in your anti-Chicom rants is a ticket to a WWIII with China. You would do well to study the background on the start of WWII as regards Japan and oil. And when WWIII begins, and I have little doubt that it will eventually, we had best try to keep the Chicoms out of it. Right now the Chicoms are moving toward capitalism and we have other fish to fry. As for nukes, we will only win a world war against the Axis of Evil the same way as before -- by obliterating our foes. Luckily, this time we have the arsenal ready.

Grasshopper, if I give you the one corner of a problem and you cannot find the other three corners by yourself, the lesson will not be repeated!

Posted by Tom 2005-01-02 5:48:31 PM|| 2005-01-02 5:48:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Now, now...

"doesn't cut any ice with me"

RB isn't your site and it's not your call. You are tolerated, no? So is Tom. The debates here are often silly - especially when it gets arisified into a shitfest about Aris - the topic long lost. Usually, we're all talking past each other, rather than to each other. The maxim is that Internet Debate Isn't - that it's actually a joke.

I disagree with or find fault in much posted - hell, my own included viewed a day or more later, lol - but have respect for those who "grow" - and you've seen it when a discussion (not a debate) occurs and someone actually changes their POV because of info others posted. That's cool and laudable - on the part of the person honest enough to acknowledge another's point or data. Otherwise, it's just I think this vs I thank that. Opinionated assholes, lol - you can get that tripe anywhere.

RB is what we make it, collectively. It could be more than a bunch of soap boxes scattered around Hyde Park. Those who try to use it to acquire some sort of standing are fools fooling themselves.

China! Nuke 'em! (Happy? Subtext: I'll post what I think about China when I'm good and ready, K? You don't control my schedule, lol!)

Posted by .com 2005-01-02 5:55:52 PM|| 2005-01-02 5:55:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 .com, did you have to use the four letter word of he who should not be named? You know he searches the site to find his name so he can turn an otherwise interesting thread into an opportunity to have everyone gaze into his glorious navel.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-01-02 6:05:23 PM|| 2005-01-02 6:05:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Mrs D - You're absolutely right - and definitely my bad. I promise it won't happen again, lol! Honest.

Posted by .com 2005-01-02 6:21:04 PM|| 2005-01-02 6:21:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Zenster is a deconstructionist, and his arrogance and continual penchant for pontificating is anything but "Zen."

His ultimate goal is to disrupt necessary and important societal norms as well as present political structures and conduits of political energies, and replace them with new arrangements, of his own making, that favor his particular views. In other words, he's not really here to discuss things. He's here to "make things happen."

One of his tools toward that goal is to slowly syphon people's support away from president Bush (as he also was doing before the election), by ongoing attempts at criticism, and by inserting pseudo-conservative militantism (ala Andrew Sullivan--"gays can be pro-military too") that is actually devoid of intelligent political thought or real solutions. Interestingly, during the pre-election conversations here, there was NOT ONE WORD about John Kerry from him. I found the silence both deafening and revealing. Now, as then, most of his arguments pivot on how "terrible" the current administration is, and how stupid and unworthy underdeveloped nations are. He has a clearly fascist outlook toward world affairs and his "political" positions always remind me of the comic book-like self-proclaimed "savior geniuses" who eventually turn out to be the arch villain dictators with aspirations toward world domination. His harping about the Islamofascists and DOMA have the same whining ring to them and probably emanate from the same personal stance he takes on sexual "orientation."

His smaller aim, and the aim of his little group of parrots on Rantburg, is to to "gain a following" among the unsuspecting, and through it to change public opinion, and if possible, the course of the nation. In fact, his agenda has become so abundantly clear to seasoned posters, and his methods for achieving it so startlingly apparent in their duplicity, that Antiwar and Gentle would be proud to call him "bro." The "greek guy" already does.

What to do? Not sure, but we already know he has loads of time to spend here, and I can promise that his redundancy will NOT cease or be genuinely modified. His method will be to continue to post things he thinks people want to hear, and then he will "test" the waters by sometimes revealing his true political directions, then he will adjust his tactics somewhat depending on the feedback he gets, then he'll go again. Over and over and over and over--until he is satisfied that he has been persuasive.

As for me, I WILL NEVER BE PERSUADED by the idiocy of "Captain Z-Troll."

Posted by ex-lib 2005-01-02 6:49:39 PM|| 2005-01-02 6:49:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Rrrrrrrrrrip! Lol, ex-lib!

Posted by .com 2005-01-02 7:20:13 PM|| 2005-01-02 7:20:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 1) Believe it or not, most Chinese industries are neither controlled by the military nor powered by prison labor.

Some still are and inappropriate government participation in China's manufacturing sector is the source of much corruption. We'll refrain from mentioning how it has also contributed to massive bad bank debt that is slowly coming home to roost.

2) Lax Chinese environmental enforcement is not the issue either. What would you enforce, U.S. standards? Would you write Chinese law for the Chinese?

If China is obtaining corporate profitability through massive environmental damage (much like the machiladoras in Mexico) then we need to offset such shortsighted business practices through tariffs. However misguided the Kyoto protocols may be, they still represent some sort of approach towards environmental responsibility, a notion that remains completely foreign to the Chinese mandarins.

3) You say "human rights violations by manufacturers" but what you must mean is "low wages". That's what affects prices and thus sales the most. So you want the Chinese to raise their prices. Then we can buy less for more. And they will still have the money to buy oil from Iran.

No, I do not mean "low wages." Those are your words, not mine. I'm talking about incredibly hazardous workplace conditions. Ever follow the incessant stream of coal mine disasters in China? That's just the tip of the iceberg. Cutting corners on workplace safety to such an extent that it kills the labor force is an unfair competitive advantage and needs to be penalized.

4) "Forcing China to realistically peg their currency..." How? What is this force?

How about the threat of a trade embargo? Something our spineless politicians just can't seem to comprehend.

5) "Damaging Kharg Island's supertanker facility..." Instant WWIII

Really? I do believe that now you are the one who is over-reacting. America has every right to go in and interdict Iran's nuclear weapons program. I doubt that even China is insane enough to militarily respond against such a move.

Unless you mean that China is using the threat of military retaliation if America attempts to neutralize Iran's nuclear weapons program. Again, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Right now the Chicoms are moving toward capitalism and we have other fish to fry.

Unfortunately, the Chinese are using their unfair competitive advantage to finance a steady stream of destabilizing regimes which constitute a threat to America. Diverting massive amounts of our national budget towards combating these various rogue governments is both costly and counter-productive. We will not win the war on terrorism by putting out each individual flare-up as it ignites. There will come a time where a real firebreak must be established between such flash points and those who keep lighting them off.

At some point, support for these various tyrannies and hostile entities must be cut off at the source. One major source is communist China. Merely crushing the upstarts will not solve the actual problem. Your plan of waiting around for the communists to go capitalist will come at the price of confronting a fully modernized and and even more well-armed Chinese military. Measures are better taken now while China is still relatively vulnerable. Waiting until later only assures that China will show even less regard for any consequences that their aggression might entail.

Tom, your "status quo" approach is clearly not viable. In such a scenario, America is faced with thwarting an endless succession of threats-by-proxy being ginned up by China. The economic drain of doing so is not sustainable. Your approach plays directly into China's hands and does nothing to solve the problem.

#15 RB isn't your site and it's not your call.

Where do I say it is, .com? That Tom's incessant sniping doesn't cut any ice with me, is my own call to make. I'm not telling him, or anyone else for that matter, that he shouldn't post here. I just refuse to accept criticism that is devoid of constructive content.

Posted by Zenster 2005-01-02 7:21:07 PM|| 2005-01-02 7:21:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 You appear agitated, Grasshopper.

Posted by Tom 2005-01-02 7:28:24 PM|| 2005-01-02 7:28:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 You appear agitated, Grasshopper.

Not in the least, Tom, that's merely you projecting (something you are rather accomplished at). I'm just waiting for you to drop the childish personalities and display some actual forensic ability.

Posted by Zenster 2005-01-02 7:38:39 PM|| 2005-01-02 7:38:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Is a legal background a prerequisite for posting here? I thought this was a spook site. But then, perhaps there's no difference.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-01-02 7:45:55 PM|| 2005-01-02 7:45:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 "I just refuse to accept criticism that is devoid of constructive content."

When, pray tell, have you EVER accepted criticism from ANYBODY? That same phrasing and attitude is the signature of The One That Shall Not Be Named - and he is loved and respected for it, no? Lol! Pfeh. You don't even acknowledge the ideas or thoughts of others unless:
1) they agree with you, then you post a "pat on the head"
2) you are sucking up to someone here whom you perceive to have wide respect

ex-lib has your number. So do I, Jen, and phil_b. We've seen what's under the cloak - and it's an ugly moonbat looneytoon agenda. Others will figure it out, too - long before you make it to "authoritative" or "respected".

Posted by .com 2005-01-02 7:50:00 PM|| 2005-01-02 7:50:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Much corruption, massive environmental damage, shortsighted business practices, incredibly hazardous workplace conditions -- mercy, sounds like they'd sink under the weight of all that. Except that you could describe the U.S. of 100 years ago that way.

Damaging Kharg Island is not a prescription for dealing with Iran's nuclear program. It's just a way to escalate the problems. And it's a classic example of Zenster grasshopper thinking that would pit us directly against over a billion Chinese in addition to the WOT.

My approach is to take out the Iranian nuclear program and the mullahs in one massive strike, sparing as much Iranian population and oil capacity as possible. No invasion. The secondary goal would be to scare the hell out of all of our adversaries and the remaining Iranians by unleashing only a tiny portion of our nuke capability. We will never prevail over the mullahs or other Islamic fanatics through diplomacy. For us to win, their only perceived choice must be religion of peace or extermination.

Posted by Tom 2005-01-02 7:55:28 PM|| 2005-01-02 7:55:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 The far flung legions of Lucky are gathering in the night.

Posted by Shipman 2005-01-02 7:57:40 PM|| 2005-01-02 7:57:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 When, pray tell, have you EVER accepted criticism from ANYBODY?

On a regular basis, especially when such persons display a polite and productive attitude. I cannot count the excellent advice countless thoughtful people have gifted me with that has become part of my daily decision-making process.

We've seen what's under the cloak - and it's an ugly moonbat looneytoon agenda.

While that's your privilege to maintain, I find it absolutely laughable. Need I detail how many of my liberal friends label me as "reactionary" because of how I poke gaping holes in their fantasy-based approach to global politics?

Tom, because you are more recently arrived here, I'll point out that long ago I suggested a full decap of the mullahs and their nuclear sites. Along side of those points I also mentioned how Kharg island should be taken out of service by pinching off the pipelines that feed it, not by destroying the pumping complex itself.

As to your own propositions:

The secondary goal would be to scare the hell out of all of our adversaries and the remaining Iranians by unleashing only a tiny portion of our nuke capability.

Upon whom do you propose "unleashing only a tiny portion of our nuke capability"? Such a move would specifically invite terrorist nuclear retaliation upon American soil and escalate the war against terrorism in a dramatic fashion.

Please clarify exactly where and when you would like to start WW III. Your suggestions go a lot further towards sparking such a conflict than my own do.

Posted by Zenster 2005-01-02 8:15:47 PM|| 2005-01-02 8:15:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 "On a regular basis"

ROFL!!! Right, lol, you're such a generous poster! Oh, may face hurts - thanks for the laugh. As for your friends and their reaction - hey, good. What is just is and everyone dealing with reality is a help. Those not dealing with reality are, by definition, lost in phantasy. Everyone who can join us in the real world is welcome. I made that leap, leaving behind the silly and clueless, yet remarkably dangerous, world of bleeding hearts. I hope they make it, too.

"I find it absolutely laughable"

Funny - so do I!

Now, uh, let's see. Who was the President from 2000-2004?

And who will be sworn in as the President on Jan 20, 2005?

Just wondering, Mr Consistency.

Posted by .com 2005-01-02 8:25:14 PM|| 2005-01-02 8:25:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Now, uh, let's see. Who was the President from 2000-2004?

And who will be sworn in as the President on Jan 20, 2005?

George W. Bush was seated as president by the supreme court during 2000 - 2004.

George W. Bush actually won election to the American presidency on November 2, 2004.

Posted by Zenster 2005-01-02 8:33:32 PM|| 2005-01-02 8:33:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Grasshopper, how can you be in so many places at once when you're not anywhere at all?

Posted by Tom 2005-01-02 8:34:49 PM|| 2005-01-02 8:34:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Well, you are consistent on that point, lol!

Posted by .com 2005-01-02 8:35:08 PM|| 2005-01-02 8:35:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 George W. Bush was seated as president by the supreme court during 2000 - 2004.

GIVE IT A FRIGGINâ REST !

Letâs have a little lesson in politics. Our system of presidential election is that, by and large, each state gives âelectoral votesâ not âpopular votesâ toward the election of a president. Thatâs been the U.S. system for, like forever.

The question in 2000 was who won the popular vote in Florida -- because whoever won the popular vote in Florida took the electoral votes for the state, and thereby won the national election. The question of who won the popular vote in Florida was marred by Democrats trying to set up selective recounting procedures that violated Florida statutes governing elections, in select portions of Florida, using invented techniques of ballot counting, after the MSM had already screwed the conservative vote in the panhandle.

It was entirely appropriate for the U.S. Supreme Court to step in, addressing a federal question about a federal election, and put a stop to the monkey business. But, the most amazing thing is this rather underreported news gem:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president. The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news media companies, including CNN.

Posted by cingold 2005-01-02 9:07:26 PM|| 2005-01-02 9:07:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Regards China (lol!) 3 things are crystal clear to me... I do not have the range of expertise needed to cover the range of aspects and considerations that need to be covered.

1) They represent the largest state threat we will ever face. As implacable as Islam, but several orders of magnitude more intelligent and (Lol - long time since I used this term!) diabolical than mere Jihadis and Mad Mullahs.

2) Every President from Truman on has underestimated them. And, also starting from that point, each has hamstrung his successor more than he started with in terms of how we can deal with them, further limiting our options, until now we are faced with either continuing the status quo until they are our miltary match and they choose the timing - or we initiate the inevitable break and treat them as pure adversaries to be defeated in every venue we can address. Wholesale and total defeat is probably the only thing that will do. And, of course, this is where a wide range of expertise for a workable and reasoned set of strategies, is needed, from economics to logistics to military.

3) We need to act sooner, rather than later. Soon enough, they'll even steal the Whitehouse silver set - to go... with... the... china. Nevermind, bad pun. But sooner is far far better militarily. They're stealing and or buying (via so-called neutrals and allies alike) our technological lead. We must take them on before they have any more. Yesterday would've been good. Or back when Truman fired MacArthur would've been a helluvalot better.

That's all I have to say about that. At the moment.

Posted by .com 2005-01-02 9:10:43 PM|| 2005-01-02 9:10:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 .com, you and I are in total agreement regarding China. I'm glad to see you have that sort of perspective. Not enough people do and it is downright scary to see so much inaction with respect to a threat that is on such a massive scale.

So, Tom, got any non-nuclear solutions to suggest? I can only regard your status quo attitude and willingness to initiate a nuclear attack as being totally deluded.

Posted by Zenster 2005-01-02 9:31:15 PM|| 2005-01-02 9:31:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 Mrs. Davis, you also forgot to mention how I hypnotize everyone into mentioning me so that I have an excuse to "arisify" the thread. Still no word from Fred on the issue I mentioned. As for you, tell us again about the need to recognize the independence of the Macedonians, please.

Tom, for someone who recently spoke about the need not to use condescension when speaking, what exactly do you think the repetition of the word "Grasshopper" indicates if not that? Follow your own damn advice, kiddo. And as for China going capitalist - true. Too damn bad it's not going any more democratic or freedom-loving, or any less imperialistic. For thousands upon thousands of years imperialists didn't need communism to be dangerous you know.

If anything the fact that China's going capitalist is all the more dangerous as it's installing an actually *functional* economic system beneath the motor of its aggression. Soviet Imperialism was doomed to failure because of the dysfunctional economic system of the Soviet Union. Your gladness about China going capitalist should have been dismay instead: the dragon is putting sharper teeth within its jaws, but its mind remains as evil.

Hi, ex-lib. This "greek guy" still wishes you to either back up or apologize for the outrageous slander you spoke against me in this thread, when you claimed that "he's said so himself" that "if he can influence toward an anti-American ideology, heâs done his bit".

When did I ever "say so myself", ex-lib?

.com> Have you ever thought that when a person doesn't change his mind after speaking with you, the failure may be yours rather than his?

How's *this* for arisifying a thread? I mean after three people bringing me up in different insulting ways, I choose to appear. As someone said -- just like Beetlejuice. No worries about spelling out my name, though, implication also works.

Bullies always hate it when people stand up to them -- just like liars hate it when their lies are challenged, bigots when their bigotry is exposed, and hypocrits when their hypocrisy is revealed.

Now .com has been recently going into rants against people strong enough in their opinions that mere repetition of insults against them doesn't cause them to yield in submission. Yes: It's called actually needing *arguments* to change an honest person's mind. You can't bully your way into convincing them, .com.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-02 9:32:29 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-02 9:32:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 The only thing that makes you of note is that everyone knows who is being referred to when such phrases as total fucking arrogant pissant asshole child and other such endearments are mentioned. So don't get all swelled up, sonny, You're still irrelevant, an attention whore, and a leech of the First Order (How is that massive Tip Jar contribution coming, BTW, LEECH-BOY?). Toddle off back to your playpen, now.

Posted by .com 2005-01-02 9:37:51 PM|| 2005-01-02 9:37:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 Oy, *that's* the kind of argument that will convince a person. Come on! Use some more of those analytical and synthetical abilities against me. The inventiveness of the insults shall shut me up. Any decade now, you'll succeed where in the past years you've failed.

As for the Tip Jar, it's yet again Fred's choice to decide whether the money are for the forum or the forum is for the money. And I'm afraid that Fred's decision on whether to tell me to take a hike or no will have to be made without any monetary promises on my part.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-02 9:47:01 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-02 9:47:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Aris, you cry out for respect and thus are advised to avoid condescension. I seek no respect from Grasshopper or you.

I never said that China isn't a BIG problem. I just don't see the point in cutting off its Iranian oil and forcing an immediate and total confrontation with both Iran and China. Grasshopper would target Kharg Island for no benefit I can see other than to satisfy his impulse to poke a stick at the awakening dragon.

Posted by Tom 2005-01-02 9:52:27 PM|| 2005-01-02 9:52:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 Regards, China, again I didn't offer a solution - just made observations on the situation.

I will say that today, using purely conventional arms, and suffering fewer casualties than many would presume on first blush, they could be sent back to the 18th century in a matter of a few days. Their commercial and industrial strength is rather concentrated, their infrastructure and lines of cummunications are extremely vulnerable, their high-tech centers are well known to us, and they can't project power beyond their own neighborhood.

Hell, if we were willing to suffer approx the same casualty rate as Vietnam for aircraft, we could use B-52's, F-15 & F-16 cover and some mud-moving, after the Wild Weasels and Stealth craft took down the "fence". But that's just talk from a grunt - you need a real spook to make it feasible.

Speculation from a non-economist:
The economic impact would be large. We are wired into them and their product assembly & Mfg. No one will build a plant today in the US to make toasters that sell for $14.95 unless the total mfg cost is well under $4 (Isn't 4:1 the common minimum ratio for this sort of item, today, for profitability? Read this somewhere...) - and that ain't happening with our labor costs. So if we remove sources of good, they won't be picked up here - maybe Mexico or Central America - but not in the US. We are priced out of many markets, now, solely on labor alone.

Posted by .com 2005-01-02 9:56:30 PM|| 2005-01-02 9:56:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 Aris and Zenster sound pretty much the same to me.

Posted by ex-lib 2005-01-02 10:12:59 PM|| 2005-01-02 10:12:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 Golly says Gomer!

Posted by John Q. Citizen 2005-01-02 10:29:10 PM|| 2005-01-02 10:29:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 (Isn't 4:1 the common minimum ratio for this sort of item, today, for profitability? Read this somewhere...)

I've heard it as 5:1 or more. I also agree with your strategic assessment. The hit we will take putting China in its place is expanding daily. Failure to act by our politicians (of any stripe) is a disservice to all American people.

Posted by Zenster 2005-01-02 11:08:39 PM|| 2005-01-02 11:08:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 Of course we're leaving out a small fact: political suicide. The number of businesses and people hurt would be enough to swing any election since Nixon - McGovern.

But it's coming.

More Science vs Golden Dragon

Posted by .com 2005-01-02 11:21:20 PM|| 2005-01-02 11:21:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 Of course we're leaving out a small fact: political suicide.

The only reason it's political suicide is because the American public has the global awareness of a hamster. We need to wake up to the threat that communism has always been.

American business is addicted to eating from Uncle Mao's all-you-can-eat fast profits trough. If this nation's people have any brains, they will cheerfully accept paying 10-25% more for their cheap goods and avoid a nuclear war several years from now. It's either that or accept China absorbing much of the east Asian quadrant. Too bad so few people are capable of thinking on such a scale.

Posted by Zenster 2005-01-02 11:37:58 PM|| 2005-01-02 11:37:58 PM|| Front Page Top

08:10 Hupailet Grereting6218
08:10 Hupailet Grereting6218
23:57 Zenster
23:54 Floting Granter5198
23:45 .com
23:41 mojo
23:37 Zenster
23:32 .com
23:23 Zenster
23:21 .com
23:09 .com
23:08 Zenster
23:06 .com
23:05 mojo
23:03 .com
22:59 Zenster
22:57 .com
22:56 .com
22:55 Zenster
22:48 .com
22:45 .com
22:42 GK
22:39 Zenster
22:38 .com