Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Wed 09/15/2004 View Tue 09/14/2004 View Mon 09/13/2004 View Sun 09/12/2004 View Sat 09/11/2004 View Fri 09/10/2004 View Thu 09/09/2004
1
2004-09-15 Syria-Lebanon-Iran
U.S., Europeans drift apart over what to do with Iran (what else is new?)
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 Mark Espinola 2004-09-15 7:15:23 AM|| || Front Page|| [11127 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Who cares? Even with a resolution, the E.U. and the U.N. are impotent and the Iranians are as uncooperative as the North Koreans. Does anybody here think that the U.N. can do anything other than provide the Iranians extended cover before the inevitable?

Bush needs to invite some Iranian folks to the ranch and talk Texan. Tell 'em we're fed up with ground wars and we're thinkin' about reducing inventory on our 7,000 nuke warhead stockpile. Ask 'em when they'd like to take delivery.
Posted by Tom 2004-09-15 8:23:45 AM||   2004-09-15 8:23:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 I care. It sure would be nice to see the Euros get their sanity back. They are drifting Muslim demographically and politically and I'd like to see at least the political part stop and reverse. EUrabia is not in our interest.

If they were on board we would have a lot less domistic dissention and more will to see things through in places like Fallujah. We are pulling punches and we shouldn't be.

The Euros can also make contributions to ops in Iran that make life easier. If we don't have their help we can still do it, but it becomes harder.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-09-15 9:04:11 AM||   2004-09-15 9:04:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 I care too, but we should not expect much. Let's be realists.

The cold hard facts of the Euros' situation are that they are militarily impotent, with stagnant economies and rapidly aging populations that will inevitably break their welfare state, and are sitting atop an arc of instability that they cannot control or contain.

Tony Blair and the few brave Euro intellectuals (Bernard Henri-Levy, Bernard Kouchner et al) who stood up for robust military action in Iraq are the exception.

The vast majority of Euros will increasingly conclude that appeasement is the logical response to a situation characterized by weakness and extreme vulnerability to a swelling muslim population on Europe's southern edge. To think otherwise is to misread the facts of their situation and all of the political signs coming out of Europe now. aka, wishful thinking
Posted by lex 2004-09-15 11:57:02 AM||   2004-09-15 11:57:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 
Posted by BigEd 2004-09-15 12:14:22 PM||   2004-09-15 12:14:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Why waste so much time with the Euros instead of cultivating India and Russia? Those nations have vastly more power to help, or harm, us re Iran.
Posted by lex 2004-09-15 12:22:42 PM||   2004-09-15 12:22:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 lex, my friend, if you were the Dem nominee, looks like the debate would be a lot more substantive...

But of course, Kerry and logical are mutually exclusive terms.
Posted by BigEd 2004-09-15 12:49:32 PM||   2004-09-15 12:49:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 I think Rummy and Condi get it, but I'm not sure the neo-cons do. In this century, the Asian powers matter to us far more than any continental European nation does.

It doesn't matter whether Russia's regional populations "freely" elect the violent thieves who govern them. We need Russia on our side vs Iran, and right now the Russian state is about as feeble and hostile to us as Musharraf's was pre-9/11. If Putin is serious about reversing that, then he needs our support just as Musharraf does. Unlike Musharraf, there's not a lot we can do to bully him.
Posted by lex 2004-09-15 12:53:50 PM||   2004-09-15 12:53:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 lex: It doesn't matter whether Russia's regional populations "freely" elect the violent thieves who govern them. We need Russia on our side vs Iran, and right now the Russian state is about as feeble and hostile to us as Musharraf's was pre-9/11. If Putin is serious about reversing that, then he needs our support just as Musharraf does. Unlike Musharraf, there's not a lot we can do to bully him.

The Russians are not our friends and will likely be lousy allies, for one simple reason - Russia always looks out for number one, without exception. During WWII, they had no choice but to fight the Nazis, when they were invaded. But not before making a non-aggression pact that divided Poland up between Germany and Russia. The only Russia will become an American ally is if they are invaded by China or some other regional power, such as Iran. Without that impetus, Russia will continue to look out for number one. Note that Russia has been active in selling weapons systems to Sudan, which is in the processing of liquidating large segments of its black population.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-09-15 1:35:33 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2004-09-15 1:35:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Ditto with the Indians.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-09-15 1:36:11 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2004-09-15 1:36:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Besides, the Muslim threat is minor compared to the Chinese threat. As to the possibility of alliance with India, I have four words for you: "Hindi, Chini, bhai, bhai".
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-09-15 1:45:32 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2004-09-15 1:45:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 ZF It might be easier to list the countries that don't look out for #1. The only variation is the time horizon they use to determine their best interests.

While the Muslim threat may not be as great as the potential Chinese threat, it is 100% probable and they are 100% wacko. The Chinese threat while potentially greater, seems much more amenable to containment and the Chinese seem more rational.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-09-15 1:52:29 PM||   2004-09-15 1:52:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Russia always looks out for number one

As do we, and the French, and the Persians, the Indians and anyone else. To convince them that their interests align with ours is what diplomacy and strategy are all about.

the Muslim threat is minor compared to the Chinese threat.

Not so. Iran has been attacking our installations overseas via proxies for two decades. Iran today is crawling with AQ. When Iran develops enough material for a fwe dirty nukes, the likelihood that they will attack us yet again, this time via an AQ proxy with dirty nukes slipped into a container that arrives at a US port, is very high.
We can manage China, but we cannot forestall a container attack of this sort.

Right now, Russia and India are tilting toward the Iranians. This must be reversed.
Posted by lex 2004-09-15 2:03:19 PM||   2004-09-15 2:03:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 MD: The Chinese threat while potentially greater, seems much more amenable to containment and the Chinese seem more rational.

Rationality isn't a problem for any of Uncle Sam's potential enemies. They bat around belligerent rhetoric because it is better and cheaper to achieve their aims using words than to follow through with actions, which can get expensive and can result in a much more vigorous response than expected, as happened to bin Laden after 9/11. None of these folks are irrational - they're just gamblers. They know what they want, and they'll push their luck as far as they can.

The Chinese are the biggest gamblers of them all. They have attacked almost every one of their neighbors for territory they claim as their own, including the former Soviet Union, India, Vietnam and the Philippines. During the Korean War, China did not need to intervene, but did so anyway, against a US Army that had chewed up the Japanese formations that had killed millions of Chinese troops, both Nationalist and Communist. China knows how to do peaceful rhetoric, but the underlying theme for thousands of years has always been territorial expansion followed by hordes of Chinese settlers. The Chinese are born gamblers. And they will bet it all on one throw of the dice.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-09-15 2:06:08 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2004-09-15 2:06:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 The Chinese are the biggest gamblers of them all. They have attacked almost every one of their neighbors for territory they claim as their own

The mullahs have attacked our barracks, our marines.

We are not at war with China. We are in fact engaged in a cold war with Iran.
Posted by lex 2004-09-15 2:08:26 PM||   2004-09-15 2:08:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 The Muslim rhetoric is very effective. I believe they are so wacko they'll blow themselves up just for the pleasure of the chance they may kill one of my countrymen.

Have the Chinese have been any more territorially agressive than the Soviet Union, India or Japan? They are gamblers, but they seem to be gambling they can make their people rich, and they seem to be doing well at that. The richer they get, the more they've got to lose. That's the problem with the Islamofascists; they've got nothing to lose and no idea how to get anything. They're dead enders. The Chinese are the Germans of the 21st century.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-09-15 2:19:39 PM||   2004-09-15 2:19:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 In economic terms, we and the Chinese are joined at the hip. Anything that might hurt access to our market, or US demand for Chinese goods, is a vital threat to the Chinese regime.

The mullahs don't give f*** all about the US market or even the presence of US troops in Iraq. They've socked away their millions and can sell all the oil they want to the Euros or India. We have much more leverage over China than over the mullahs.
Posted by lex 2004-09-15 2:24:05 PM||   2004-09-15 2:24:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 One potential solution is for America to construct a highly effective missile defense shield and then make any access to such technology contingent upon genuine cooperation in the war on terrorism.

As the Iranians come online with long-range missile technology, nuclear tipped or not, Europe will be the first to be entered into their launch coordinates. We should withhold all technology access until the Europeans purchase a clue. Protecting a group of terrorist facilitators is no longer serving American interests in the least.

We are not at war with China.

Guess again, lex. Just as Japan failed in its attempt to wage military war and instead initiated a campaign of economic war against the United States, so is China attempting to stifle American might through financial hemorrhage. China purposefully facilitates such rogue nations as North Korea and Iran so that America can spend BILLIONS putting out those fires. How is assisting our definite enemies not being at war with us? Our politicians and their contributors are so busy feeding at Uncle Mao's All-You-Can-Eat Cheap Labor trough that no thought is being given to the real outcome of such insanity. Zhang Fei is absolutely correct in placing the priority he does upon the threat represented by China.

Yes, the Middle East is a hyper-violent bunch of domineering thugs that need to be quashed. No doubt about it. China is a genuine superpower that is equally obsessed with world domination and has the actual means to go about doing so.

In economic terms, we and the Chinese are joined at the hip.

lex, try to keep in mind the staggering 127 BILLION dollar trade deficit America has with China. We are in no way "joined at the hip." China enjoys a one-way downhill street where all capital flows in their direction. How many American jobs does that $127 billion represent? How many missiles and nuclear weapons does that allow China to build each year? Why do you think China is so obsessed with absorbing the eighteenth economy in the world (i.e., Taiwan)?

China is dead set on obtaining irreversible leverage over both its enemies and allies. The communists have an endless supply of cannon fodder, and it is a supply that is becoming quite restive as they realize how corrupt their leadership is.

Does anyone think for one second that the politburo would hesitate to conjur up some pretext for war so as to dispose of this malcontented portion of their population? They will not execute them outright. Instead, these warm bodies will be flung against neighboring countries as China seeks its own version of lebensraum.

Ignore this at your own yellow red peril.
Posted by Zenster 2004-09-15 3:25:33 PM||   2004-09-15 3:25:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 MD: Have the Chinese have been any more territorially agressive than the Soviet Union, India or Japan?

Do you have any idea how big China is? It is the third largest country in the world, just behind Russia and Canada. China isn't composed of a union of states that decided to band together - it was conquered, piece by piece. Tibet alone (including the pieces hacked off and attached to other provinces) is almost one quarter of China's territory, and that was conquered just 50 years ago.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-09-15 5:08:36 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2004-09-15 5:08:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Zenster,

There's an old saying in banking lend money and you've got a debtor, lend more money and you've got a partner. The same is true here.

We got stuff, they got paper. If they want to, they can make it worthless paper. That would put some people out of work here, but a lot more there. They could roil the markets for a short time to some advantage in a crisis, but long term they are now tied to us at the bank account.

China is not interested in absorbing the eighteenth economy in the world. They absorbed Hong Kong and are in the process of impoverishing it. They would do the same with Taiwan. But they do want the island as geographic territory and evidence of the triumph of China over the West. They just won't know what to do with it, or the repercusions of seizing it.

With its male/female imbalance, China will be a very unpleasant neighbor. And if one listens to all you say about what the Chinese want to do, I can see only one group with serious worries, the Russians. But China remains the Germany of the 21st century and can be kept from starting a World War if we amintain our navy and manage relations with it properly, unlike the Muslim maniacs who are bent on our destruction for ideological reasons.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-09-15 5:11:12 PM||   2004-09-15 5:11:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 What Mrs. D said. The Chinese hold something like a quarter or more of US Treasuries. I doubt they want that investment to go down the drain.

The same's true for us. Every corporation in this country wants a piece of China, and every consumer in this country wants prices to continue to fall. China is a relationship that can be managed. Iran is a nightmare state.
Posted by lex 2004-09-15 5:25:19 PM||   2004-09-15 5:25:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 ZF, Love ya, guy, but we clearly disagree, as friends, I hope. But I gott ask, if Canada is bigger than China, should we fear it more?

As a co-worker used to say, It's not the size of the wand that pulls the rabbit out of the hat, but the magic that it performs.

I've been waiting for a good excuse to use that. Language was so much more interesting when people were not vulgar.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-09-15 6:01:08 PM||   2004-09-15 6:01:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 MD: ZF, Love ya, guy, but we clearly disagree, as friends, I hope. But I gott ask, if Canada is bigger than China, should we fear it more?

Canada hasn't spent the last 5,000 years expanding at the expense of its neighbors. The Chinese have. Big difference. (Murat's ancestors - assuming he is Turkish - came from western China, from which they were relentlessly pushed west by Chinese military pressure).
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-09-15 6:11:12 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2004-09-15 6:11:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 MD: ZF, Love ya, guy, but we clearly disagree, as friends, I hope.

But of course. I think you're a bit more optimistic about China because you haven't spent enough time looking into it. At this point, all you know about China are its economic growth and some of its social problems. But there's a lot more to the China story than growth and social dislocations. China's periods of economic strength have always been accompanied by territorial expansion. I don't think we have witnessed the end of history as yet.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-09-15 6:18:07 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2004-09-15 6:18:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 China is too rigid to exist in the 21st century, much less expand. I believe they are one natural disaster (how's that dam?) away from fracture. This will be worse, as far as confusion, Taiwan,uncertainty, and crackdown, but it can't persist as-is
Posted by Frank G  2004-09-15 6:21:11 PM||   2004-09-15 6:21:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 To synopsize -- China already has its empire and therefore it can be partially appeased to restrain itself within a certain area and sphere of influence. As long as we don't give a damn about the threats it poses its immediate neighbours, and the oppresion within its border, and the general support to all the enemies of the West, everything is hunky-dory.

Islamofascists on the other hand are currently in the *process* of seeking to build their empire (the Caliphate), and therefore they could only be successfully appeased in any significant measure if they are first successful in *that*.

*If* the Caliphate ever became reality perhaps the West could *then* appease it by e.g. surrendering over the entirety of Israel to it, the same way the whole of Tibet is surrendered to China, (and North Korea and Vietnam to the chinese sphere of influence).

The Islamic Caliphate would still have *further* claims ofcourse, same way that China has further claims on Taiwan and so forth, but the situation would have reached a sort of immoral balance, where they freely oppress the folk within their borders and in general leave the folk on our side alone.

Now, I don't find that a morally acceptable solution at all. But that's the argument I hear in the words of the people trying to disregard China as an enemy.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-09-15 6:26:22 PM||   2004-09-15 6:26:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 I'm with Aris, let's nuke the slants.
Posted by Shipman 2004-09-15 6:32:37 PM||   2004-09-15 6:32:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 FG: China is too rigid to exist in the 21st century, much less expand. I believe they are one natural disaster (how's that dam?) away from fracture. This will be worse, as far as confusion, Taiwan,uncertainty, and crackdown, but it can't persist as-is

I wish I shared your optimism. China is doing many of the right things necessary to get its economy going. It is the preferred destination for offshore production not simply because it has cheap labor (Africa and South Asia are cheaper), but because China's government has gotten a lot of the infrastructure right, ranging from roads, power stations, telephone lines to law-and-order. China is like pre-war Japan - still poor but moving relentlessly in the right direction. Only China has 15 times Japan's population when it started WWII. Islam isn't monolithic and it certainly isn't what I'd call strong. China is both of these things.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-09-15 6:34:54 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2004-09-15 6:34:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Shipman: I'm with Aris, let's nuke the slants.

Don't laugh. The Chinese might do something that could provoke an American response. I still remember the words of the Chinese general (Xiong Guangkai) who said that Uncle Sam will ultimately give in on Taiwan because it values LA more than Taiwan. This is why we need to develop and deploy credible missile defenses - so that neither LA nor the Chinese civilian population have to suffer for the indiscretions of acquisitive Chinese leaders.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-09-15 6:39:29 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2004-09-15 6:39:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 #19 China is not interested in absorbing the eighteenth economy in the world. They absorbed Hong Kong and are in the process of impoverishing it. They would do the same with Taiwan. But they do want the island as geographic territory and evidence of the triumph of China over the West. They just won't know what to do with it, or the repercusions of seizing it.

Mrs. Davis, I have already stated here many times how the politburo drools in its sleep at night over raping Taiwan's economy. While there is no way that they could possibly administer Taiwan as a functional semi-autonomous region (the only chance Taiwan has for survival post-absorbtion), China would have no problem scattering the technological expertise surrounding Taipei to the four winds. Witness the huge talent exodus from Hong Kong.

Those of you who argue against my stance have yet to reply about how China supports our enemies. Witness Iran being supplied with missile technology and China's prior relations with Iraq, including installation of fiber optic comm links that helped secure vital military data transmission before the invasion. All of these actions end up costing America untold billions of dollars as we set about correcting the imbalances that China has intentionally installed. How can it possibly be worth it to endure these financial outlays in the name of cheap VCRs, athletic shoes and plastic goods?

Just because China has invested heavily in America is not an indicator that they mean us no harm. In cooperation with our own politicians, China is effectively hollowing out the American economy. We have already encoutered situations where certain vital technlogies, like Tinsley labs (satellite optics mfr.) had to be split off of other core technologies (SVG semiconductor) before being sold to foreign buyers.

China intentionally encourages an unhealthy dependence upon their manufacturing capacity. It neither promotes a stable economy at home nor does it foster a well-balanced global industrial base. Arguments concerning how greater individual wealth in China will serve as a bulwark against communist aggression do not take into account the irrational blindness to logic exhibited by the politburo.

That our politicians are willing to ignore the potent threat that China presents goes beyond a disservice to their electorate. At some point it becomes a conflict of interest when one considers the huge amount of political campaign contributions generated by those companies which profit from doing business in China.
Posted by Zenster 2004-09-15 8:27:05 PM||   2004-09-15 8:27:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 ZF - I understand your hesitance to take that approach. As I see it: the only thing that will keep China operational in crisis will be the inertia of outstanding goods orders from Japan, Taiwan, and the US. should one of those linchpin become inop due to PRC action, or, to a lesser extent,m natural disaster, all orders are off
Posted by Frank G  2004-09-15 8:49:38 PM||   2004-09-15 8:49:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 BigEd ....love the 'Eurabia Rising' lol

Is this disc also being carried by CBS Records?
Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-09-15 9:04:13 PM||   2004-09-15 9:04:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Zenster, As you do not seem to disagree with my point about Taiwan, I do not disagreeagree with yours. But we are now in a shooting war with 1+ billion Muslims. Do you want to add another billion plus Chinese?

I just don't buy that China is hollowing out the American economy any more than that Japan is #1 and would over take us as everyone believed in 1980. What financial outlays are we "enduring"? The country really getting screwed by the Chinese is Mexico, cause that's where all the crappy mindles factory jobs used to be, not in the U. S. China is just getting in the line of the food chain of developing countries behind the Tigers and Japan. We survived them, we'll survive China. All things considered, I'd rather be playing our economic hand than theirs.

China is an enemy. So was the Soviet Union. We survived the Sovs and we'll survive the Chinese Politburo. Preferably without a lot of shooting. In the meantime, they'll collaborate with the enemies of mankind against us. Just as the Soviet did and the French always will. When the Politburo finally washes up, I hope China will be in a beter position to move into the civilized world than is Russia.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-09-15 9:22:31 PM||   2004-09-15 9:22:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 #25 Now, I don't find that a morally acceptable solution at all. But that's the argument I hear in the words of the people trying to disregard China as an enemy.

Like it or not, just as Aris has been spot on about Russia and RasPutin in particular, so is his synopsis here an accurate assessment of what is being put forth against my position vis China. I would like to see some more cogent replies than "ignore them and they'll go away."

#32 But we are now in a shooting war with 1+ billion Muslims. Do you want to add another billion plus Chinese?

Mrs. Davis, where exactly do I recommend that we engage China militarily? We had the good sense to embargo the Soviet Union, we need to do the same with China, to one extent or another.

As to Mexico. They have never manufactured semiconductors. China has the necessary educational base to produce engineering graduates capable of fabricating solid state devices. That America is shipping them the fab lines which they have set about copying represents a distinct hollowing out of our premier industrial core.

What other more advanced jobs exist whereby America can afford to outsource it's semiconductor prowess? These are the jobs of the future. Other high paying technical jobs will be few and far between, yet we are shoveling them into China's bottomless pocket.

As to the "financial outlays" we have and shall endure. How much do you think it's going to cost for America to contain Iran? Are you against any sort of military intervention to prevent Iran from fabricating nuclear devices? If not, who do you think is going to make the air sorties or put any boots on the ground? What do you think this will cost? Who do you think is going to bear the brunt of that bill? Hint: America.

What about North Korea? China is the one who has bred up that monster, yet America is stuck sending in untold millions in aid and even technological assistance. Why isn't China doing this? Answer: China is too busy providing North Korea with the dangerous weaponry and means to create a constant threat to the entire north Asian quadrant. How much money are we spending on helping to defend South Korea? Would we need to pour out all that money if North Korea wasn't such a threat? What about Taiwan? How much assistance do we send them? If China would sit down and STFU, we would have BILLIONS of dollars to help mend our own economy. Instead, we are force to run around and piss on all the fires that China sets torch to. Why are they doing this? Big clue: It's not just for the fun of watching us run around frantically like a chicken with our head cut off.

China is intentionally distracting us from making significant progress against the war on terror, nuclear proliferation and a host of other major problems in order to bleed our economy dry. They are cheerfully taking our money with one hand and passing it directly to our declared enemies with the other. Are you going to tell me that this does not represent hostile aggression?

I do not see where we have the luxury of waiting for the politburo to implode. While I appreciate your optimism, I do not share it. We need to begin taking significant steps towards bringing China into line. Economic embargoes and trade sanctions should be liberally applied until China levels the playing field. Otherwise, we are merely financing our own doom.
Posted by Zenster 2004-09-15 10:40:21 PM||   2004-09-15 10:40:21 PM|| Front Page Top

22:07 Anonymous6474
22:07 Anonymous6474
08:51 Anonymous6463
08:51 Anonymous6463
07:53 Silk
02:04 JFM
00:53 lex
00:33 Super Hose
00:08 Zarathustra
00:06 Zarathustra
23:46 Laurence of the Rats
23:45 Brutus
23:45 Anonymous6478
23:37 Brutus
23:25 Laurence of the Rats
23:24 Capt America
23:17 Capt America
23:16 CrazyFool
23:15 smn
23:07 Phil Fraering
23:00 Anonymous6476
23:00 Anonymous6476
22:51 smn
22:47 Bomb-a-rama









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com