EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- One American Who Isn't For Sale
- Edward Snowden: Saving Us from the United Stasi of America
- Major Loss to Organic Farmers as Court Rules in Favor of Monsanto
- The Judicial Lynching of Bradley Manning
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
Popular content
Today's Top News
Tone Deaf US Foreign Policy Announcements Create New Provocations in Asia
On UN Day, at a panel on Nuclear Disarmament, Secretary General Ban-ki Moon spoke about his 2008 five point proposal for nuclear disarmament, including the requirement for negotiations to ban the bomb. It was dismaying when the next speaker, a retired US Air Force General, Michal Mosley, breezily assured the audience and his fellow panelists that it certainly was now possible to rid the world of nuclear weapons, since atomic bomb technology is thoroughly out of date. He boasted that today “we” have long range attack weapons of such “unbelievable precision and lethality” that we no longer need nuclear weapons in the US arsenal. Our conventional weapons are ever so superior to those of any other nation. He said this as his fellow co-panelists, the Russian and Chinese ambassadors, took in the full import of his braggadocio, to my extreme embarrassment as a US citizen. Did the General consider for a moment the effect his words were having on the Ambassadors and the other non-US participants in the meeting? His astonishing disregard for the effect of such provocative war talk on our fellow earth mates seems to be a major failure of our “tin ear” foreign policy.
Hillary Clinton proclaimed a similarly tone-deaf policy in an article in November’s Foreign Affairs, “America’s Pacific Century”, remarking that now that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were winding down, we were at a “pivot point” and that “one of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will be to lock in a substantially increased investment—diplomatic economic, strategic and otherwise—in the Asia-Pacific region.” Calling for “forward-deployed” diplomacy, she defined it to include “forging a broad-based military presence” in Asia…that would be “as durable and as consistent with American interests and values as the web we have built across the Atlantic…capable of deterring provocation from the full spectrum of state and non-state actors” She added that just as our NATO alliance “has paid off many times over…the time has come to make similar investments as a Pacific power”.
Citing our Treaty alliances with Japan, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines and Thailand as the “fulcrum for our strategic turn to the Asian-Pacific”, she also spoke of the need to expand our relationships to include India, Indonesia Singapore, New Zealand, Malaysia, Mongolia Vietnam, and the Pacific Island countries. While acknowledging “fears and misperceptions that “linger on both sides of the Pacific”, stating that “some in our country see China’s progress as a threat to the United States; some in China worry that America seeks to constrain China’s growth” she blithely asserted, “we reject both those views …a thriving America is good for China and a thriving China is good for America”. This said as the United States aggressively lines up a host of new nations in an expanded Pacific military alliance, providing them with missile defenses, ships, and warplanes, encircling China. What is she thinking?
Shortly after Clinton’s article appeared, Obama went to Australia to open up a new military base there with a token 250 US soldiers, and a promise of 2500 to come with plans for joint military training, promising that “we will allocate the resources necessary to maintain our strong military presence in this region.” He also adopted the “Manila Declaration”, pledging closer military ties with the Philippines and announced the sale of 24 F-16 fighter jets to Indonesia. Clinton just paid a visit to Myanmar, long allied with China, to re-establish relations there.
In her article’s conclusion Clinton bragged, “Our military is by far the strongest and our economy is by far the largest in the world. Our workers are the most productive. Our universities are renowned the world over. So there should be no doubt that America has the capacity to secure and sustain our global leadership in this century as we did in the last.” Didn’t anyone tell her that the number of Americans living below the official poverty line, 46.2 million people, was the highest in the 52 years the Census Bureau has been publishing those figures? Or that the United States deteriorating transportation infrastructure will cost the economy more than 870,000 jobs and would suppress US economic growth by $3.1 trillion by 2020, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers?
The tone-deaf quality of US foreign policy pronouncements is like an infant who pulls the covers over his head to play peek-a-boo, thinking he can’t be seen so long as he can’t see out. China has responded as would be expected. A Pentagon report warned Congress that China was increasing its naval power and investing in high-tech weaponry to extend its reach in the Pacific and beyond. It ramped up efforts to produce anti-ship missiles to knock out aircraft carriers, improved targeting radar, expanding its fleet of nuclear-powered submarines and warships and making advances in satellite technology and cyber warfare. What did we expect? And now, having provoked China to beef up its military assets, the warmongers in the US can frighten the public into supporting the next wild burgeoning arms race in the Pacific and what appears to be endless war.
This month, Mikhail Gorbachev, in The Nation, observed the US elite’s “winner’s complex” after the end of the Cold War, and the references to the US as a “hyperpower”, capable of creating “a new kind of empire”. He said, “[t]hinking in such terms in our time is a delusion. No wonder that the imperial project failed and that it soon became clear that it was a mission impossible even for the United States.” The opportunity to build a “truly new world order was lost.” The US decision to expand NATO eastward “usurped the functions of the United Nations and thus weakened it." We are engulfed in global turmoil, drifting in uncharted waters. The global economic crisis of 2008 made that abundantly clear.
Sadly, the powers in control of US public policy and their far-flung global allies appear to have learned nothing from the extraordinary opportunity we lost for a more peaceful world at the Cold War’s end. We are now repeating those expansionary designs in Asia, and “thus we continue to drift towards unparalleled catastrophe” as Albert Einstein observed when we split the atom which “changed everything save man’s mode of thinking”.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
44 Comments so far
Show AllWhat China, Russia and other nations have done in response to US Imperialism goes far beyond the mere expansion of navies and armories. Indeed, the list is qiute long and very unknown to most inhabitants of the Metropole. Most prominant is the concerted attack on Dollar Hegemony that's concentrated in Asia and to lesser degree Latin America as the SCO countries joined by Japan, India, Iran, and Pakistan start reconciling their trade in their own currencies, a move the Bank of the South will facilitate in Latin America this year. Even OPEC, with its many Counter-Revolutionary members, will begin to accept only a "basket of currencies" instead of all dollars to settle energy trades. As a result of these currency manuvers, Japan has stated it will not allow the Yen to become the international settlement currency, but favors the yuan attaining that position, an opinion not protested by Beijing. But if you want to learn about such developments, you must read non-US media journalists like Pepe Escobar and M K Bhadrakumar, who both write for AsiaTimes.com, while the latter has a very informative blog, http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/
What Slater doesn't say is the majority of the planet's people are now against the US Empire and await its demise and that she favors that result.
Mosley the spammer - he used the UN meeting to spam US product. What a champ!
Soooo .... the world waits for speeches at the UN to get the real skinny on the Empire's intentions?
Rulers at Empires end frequently suffer various delusions. The USA intends to construct a new Asian NATO. Or something. It will apparently overcome the effects of the diffusion of technologies across barriers into China,India ,Brazil etc . Somehow, though this part is a bit sketchy. China will not be able to build ten thousand ICBM's. Either because they are Chinese or some other compelling argument. All the Asian states will be glad to suffer nuclear annihilation in the service of Uncle Sam. Apparently, must be a blood relative. The EU/NATO will slowly sink into obscurity. And I can't tell you how pleased I am as a European that Europe has finally been granted 'has been' status. There is one thing that always flows along histories cutting edge, blood.
"In her article’s conclusion Clinton bragged, “Our military is by far the strongest"
Hillary is delusional as usual. American forces have been defeated on the ground in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Ecactly!!!!
Our "heroes" are killing themselves faster than they can be killed in combat!!!!!
In what parallel universe is suicide a "strength"?
It's called "Mars rules" and it places militarism above every other objective.
It dumps most of the nation's capital into combat operations, and weapons' makers pockets.
It turns soldiers who really are hired killers into instant heroes
It uses Hollywood to glamorize all sorts of violence, depicted AS entertainment
It has children learning to efficiently kill in video games
It pits person against person to keep raw competition ever at the ready
It celebrates sports where each team focuses on "slaughtering the enemy," as an easy seague into the real thing... war!
It doesn't do "enemy" body counts
It never says "I'm sorry."
It cannot learn, for it is fueled by an anti-life hubris
It sees caring as being a sissy; and diplomacy as the path of weaklings.
It is an amoral, distorted premise for running a nation, and/or running a world to the ground, ecologically.
This is why I speak out to expose the monster for what it is, and link it with its mythological origins... for many don't understand where this spiritual sickness began, and how far it's cannibalized so much of the Western world (with Eastern nations not far behind).
Well said,thank you
Excellent comment!
Clinton is supposed to be head of the State Department, not the Pentagon. As for Obama, read the Matthew Rothschild article in the Progressive (I found it in Antiwar.com). Every time you think Obama could not get worse, he does. He seems to relish WW3.
During the Bush administration, the State Department was extensively militarized. At one point, we were getting complaints from some countries saying that we had more spies in our embassies than diplomats. The plan for AFRICOM was to establish bases in every country on that continent -- all to be staffed by mercenaries managed by State. No African country has agreed to let us build such a base, however, which is darn smart of them. In Iraq, State will employ thousands of mercenaries to protect the Largest Embassy on Earth and its inhabitants and American visitors at a cost of $6 billion per year. Makes one wonder if there's a way to reverse that trend by letting State be State and the military the military.
"The tone deaf quality about US foreign policy pronouncements is like an infant who pulls the covers up over his head to play peek-a-boo, thinking he can't be seen so long as he can't see out." -Alice Slater
Wonderful simile.
Here we have Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, citing US treaties with Japan, South Korea, Australia, the Phillippines, and Thailand as "the fulcrum of our [US] strategic turn to the Asia-Pacific" [in what she's apparently dubbed America's Pacific Century], extolling the desirability to expand future NATO-styled relationships to include "India, Indonesia, Singapore, New Zealand, Malaysia, Mongolia, Vietnam, and the Pacific Island countries."
Vietnam? Has Mrs. Clinton gone totally batshit crazy?
Mongolia? Peek-a-boo! Well, at least she had the diplomatic delicacy not to include Taiwan or Tibet on the laundry list. And one can bet the Cambodians are relieved that they, too, were left unmentioned, though that omission may have been mere oversight.
It's as though Washington's self-designated foreign policy elites have shut their eyes tight, pretending the Asian locals have all forgotten those piles of 20th Century corpses. Forgive and forget. Let's all join hands like good little Fonzies and turn, looking forward, not back. No harm, no foul. A brave new American-led world order beckons out there on the horizon.
Mars rules. Hillary is from Venus.
At least Mikhail Gorbachev speaks like a sane and sensible resident of planet earth.
Bill from Saginaw
"Vietnam? Has Mrs. Clinton gone totally batshit crazy?"
She hasn't and isn't. Vietnam and the US are both cozying up to each other, throwing coy looks at each other. Grand irony. Vietnam has always been about independence and sovereignty; ATM its defense doctrine sees China as the greatest threat.
"It's as though Washington's self-designated foreign policy elites have shut their eyes tight, pretending the Asian locals have all forgotten those piles of 20th Century corpses."
Most of those (East) Asian locals will likely adopt a pragmatic stance, that is to play the US against China, China against the US, having both spend (ever more) money on militaries, while they in the meantime concentrate on growing their economies. If the US is spending money to "counter" China, that means all those EA countries do not have to spend as much (to "counter" China). Similarly, if China is spending money to "counter" the US, those EA countries do not have to spend as much (to "counter" the US)
"At least Mikhail Gorbachev speaks like a sane and sensible resident of planet earth.
"
Not in the quote in this article. There is more, much more to being a power, than just spending huge amounts of money on your military. Economic strength / material resources matters more than how much of your economic / material resources you are spending on your military. In fact, by spending so much money on its military, the US is becoming LESS of a power, not more of one. All that money going to the US military is money that can be otherwise spent elsewhere, on measures to strength the American economy.
Bill:
I see you've made use of the idiom I often use as thus:
"Mars rules. Hillary is from Venus. "
The truth is, she is NOT from Venus. I was quite amazed to find that Riane Eisler unearthed societies that pre-dated the Mars rules version so many believe constitutes the full scope of history's examples. She refers to the type of society that functions on war and conquest as the DOMINATOR society (in her seminal work: "The Chalice & The Blade").
In mythology, Mars is the god of War, and Zeus is the head CEO of Olympus. Yet unlike Venus, a Goddess of romance, art, beauty, and sensuality... it is ATHENA who denies having been born of a Mother to instead assert that she originated from her father Zeus' head! In other words, a female who THINKS like (having come from the mind of her Dad) the patriarchs... THAT is the archetype that suits Hillary; and it explains why she crossed over to become as right wing as those she once accused of knee-capping her husband's administration.
Hillary, and women like her, are from the model of Athena; and this model CHAMPIONS war! It is totally UNFEMININE. (There are several male archetypes that are also resistant to war.)
There is a great wisdom to the Zodiac and its 12 Archetypes of Time... in my view, these prototypes are to human behavior what DNA is to biology. Much can be learned that would modify--and expand--our views of human nature and history, through the study of this ancient meta-science. I'm glad to see you and others integrate the "Mars rules" meme into your thoughtful posts.
Not to quibble here, but in ancient times people looked at Venus as the god of war and destruction, not of romance. "The sun refused to show itself and during four days the world was deprived of light. Then a great star appeared, it was given the name Quetzal-cohuatl. [It] caused to perish a great number of people who died of famine and pestilence." Brasseur, Histoire des nations civilisees du Mexique, volume 1, 311.
Plato spoke of Phaeton, the blazing star, which became the Morning Star.
One of the real problems is we have a very weak understanding of historical astronomy and make presumptions of unceasing change, when in fact we have no way of knowing whether things changed or not.
Zeus became Jupiter (Zeus Pater, say it fast a few times) and Venus coming out of Zeus shoulder or head could have been an astronomical observation, not a psychological motive.
Posted by Bill from Saginaw
>"Vietnam? Has Mrs. Clinton gone totally batshit crazy?"<
Yes and no. If Clinton thinks that Vietnam really loves the US, then she's batshit crazy: even Vietnamese refugees in the US have noted bitterly how Agent Orange has deformed thousands of Vietnamese babies and will continue to deform at least a couple of generations more. Vietnam continues to hold exhibitions of US War of Aggression in its cities, and many Vietnamese continue to demand war reparations. The so-called "cozy relationship" that some people talk about are a put-on for the Chinese leadership to see as Vietnam has become increasingly dependent on gas from some South China Sea locations. I think the CIA knows that American tourists are the only international group that are being followed everywhere in Vietnam: Vietnam knows that ultimately the US will want to control their country again. That's the reason why, under a Sino-Vietnam pact, thousands of Vietnamese and Chinese youths have been mingling with each other and strengthening their long-term relationship (both nations had been part of the Chinese empire for over a thousand years). Use the US for our purpose, say the Vietnamese leaders, but retain our traditional ties with China. It's not surprising that what like General Giap - hero of Dien Bien-phu - did during the 1980s, a Vietnamese party leader recently thanked Beijing again for help in defeating the American imperialists.
However, Clinton is NOT crazy if what she wants is to probe for greater cooperation with Southeast Asian nations with the aim of influencing their leaders to become more pro-American (possible coups are not discounted, of course). That was why she even went to Burma. Moreover, if what she does would worry China, that would be a plus. More than that would be impossible: Southeast Asians are not as stupid as she imagines - they know what the US is up to and they do have long memories. Temporarily dancing with the US don't amount to becoming American pawns.
Go read up on vietnam's defense doctrine. While you're at it, you might want to look up on vietnamese history and the centuries they fought to kick china out, precisely because they did not want and do not want to be part of the chinese empire. Or you might want to look up on the territorial disputes Vietnam has with china. They are playing america against china, and china against america. Despite what you might wish none of the asean countries are stupid. They will do, and are doing what is pragmatic, playing off the us and china agianst each other, especially since only a few of them actually have been invaded before by America.
Behold, some cretin who doesn't understand Vietnamese history or language - which even today comprises 60 percent southern Chinese (my dialect) - wants to tell me about Vietnamese defense doctrine. Despite repeated US propaganda, the early "Vietnamese" fighters against the Chinese empire were HANS - my people! And Vietnam still has some of the earliest Confucianist outposts in Asia. One of China's "four historical beauties" was a "Yue" ("Viet" is a Western pronunciation). "Nam" is the Chinese/Vietnamese word for "South." Once, the Yue peoples were located as far north as Shanghai, and today our mixed descendents - yes, I have Yue blood - are all over Eastern China. I doubt CD readers can get this info anywhere else! The name Ho Chi-Minh is again composed of Chinese characters (Minh or Ming means brilliant), so is his original name Nguyen Ai Quoic which is Chinese for "person who loves his country." Yes, Vietnam certainly treasures independence, and since it had fallen under the French, there's no reason why it should not, after independence, continue to be independent. Certainly Vietnam will do almost anything to maintain this independence, including playing off China and the US. But that does not mean it has forgotten its blood-relatives, nor forgotten the barbarians that slaughtered and wounded millions of their small population, and consigned hundreds of thousands more to a cancerous future.
As for Southeast Asia, I am from there, and know better how the locals - not the few government officials - think about the US.
>only a few of them actually have been invaded before by America.<
Discounting the small island state of Singapore, there are six other countries of which more than half - the Philippines, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia - had seen first-hand the evil machinations of the US imperialists. The genocidal war against the Philippines during the late 19th century saw torture used against the ordinary Filipinos on a large-scale. Laos saw the CIA rigged their national elections that allowed American puppet Boum Oum to win with more votes than the entire Laotian electorate, forcing neutralist Souvana Phouma to join Prince Souphavong of the Communist Pathetic Lao and thereby started a deadly civil war (American planes not only helped Boum Oum, but also had used Laos as a transit area to ferry dope from the Golden Triangle to sell to the rest of the world, including the US itself). Cambodia was pounded mercilessly by the US with more bombs than used during WW2. Hundreds of thousands of Cambodian peasants perished, and the Cambodian countryside was wrecked, allowing the erstwhile insignificant Khmer Rouge to emerge. The revenge of Pol Pot was equally murderous, and together with those wiped out by the US bombing, the Cambodian population was nearly halved. US propaganda, however, often tells the rest of the world that the skulls dug up were solely victims of Pol Pot.
I will write about US role in the murder of millions of people in Indonesia, both as a result of Gestapu and the arming of Indonesian troops against the Timorese, later.
The Vietnamese intervened, on humanitarian grounds, to stop Pol Pot's murderous rampage and the USG protested the Vietnamese intervention because it placed Pol Pot as the ruler of Cambodia. As for the Chinese way of thought influencing the East Asia, the USG just doesn't have a clue because of its arrogance and hubris.
Nice rejoiner, Larry D. Have you read "Before the Revolution" by Ngo Vinh Long, and if so would you provide a comment?
Actually, it is piss poor response. Only someone ignorant about SE Asia would think that it is a good response.
The US Empire waged war on Indonesia in 1958. Careful who you call ignorant.
That is a ridiculous view of what happened in Indonesia in the 50s. Ignorant.
Gawd man. The CIA waged war on Indonesia. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/Indo58.html
You are clearly proving yourself to be the ignorant one here.
Yep, Karlof1. Here's another website: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/54b/033.html
Those were terrible days - too horrific to recall. And CIA instigations still goes on in that country, though the present leadership is pretty enlightened. What many people are afraid is that the army, again, would be bought and manipulated to conduct another bloodthirsty purge should Indonesia proved too unwilling to fall in with the Empire's plans.
Gawd man. The cia waged war on many countries. It still isn't an invasion and most citizens of indonesia don't see it as an invasion and occupation
Good article!
Good article!
Skimmed through some time ago, karlof1. Shows, I think, that the subsequent Vietnam War (or "the American War") was more a nationalistic struggle than an ideological (Communist) one. It has been largely the same with most Third World revolutions - China, as another example, didn't have its revolution because of Communism. Rather, it was the ideology that was used to achieve a better life. A counter-revolution apparently took place during the 1980s and the country is showing again the pre-1949 gross inequalities, worker exploitation, and other forms of class oppression. It might be time to start another guerrilla war, though I hope the present Chinese government would reform.
Note: it's sad that Vietnam might also be following the Chinese capitalist experiment.
1. The mandarin for south is NOT "nam". It is "nan(2)". Nor is the cantonese for south "nam". It is nan(3).
2. ASEAN consists of 10 countries, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Brunei, Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar. The US has invaded 4 out of those 10 in the past, Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos. 4 out of 10 is not a "majority" except to mathematically illiterate cretins like you.
3. Just because countries might share cultural, ethnic, linguistic ties does not mean they want to be in the same empire. You can try to handwave it away as much a you want, but Vietnam spent centuries fighting to kick the Chinese empire out. You want to talk about Vietnamese history? Fine. Let us do so. Let us talk about the Trung Sisters, about Lady Trie. Let us talk about Ngô Quyền who kicked the Han out.
4. You ARE aware that Singapore, that ASEAN nation that you are trying to handwave away, is predominantly Han in ethnicity, yes? Yet, they are the most pro-US country in ASEAN, along with the Philippines. You are aware that Lee Kuan Yew, Han Chinese in ethnicity, the father of the current Sing PM, and still "Minister Mentor", only recently stated that US presence in SE Asia is necessary, triggering a torrent of whining from China, yes?
5. Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore, share many similarities in terms of language, culture, ethnicity. Yet, they have all chosen to be separate countries, not to be part of some empire. Brunei, in terms of ethnicity, language, culture, is no different from that of any state in (the) Malaysia(n Federation). Yet, it chose not to become part of Malaysia (when Malaysia was formed). Singapore, after a short while in Malaysia, left / got kicked out, despite many similarities with Malaysia in terms of language, culture, history, ethnicity; despite many familial ties on both sides. Malaysia and Indonesia fought a war, over Indonesia wanting to absorb Malaysia, despite many linguistic, cultural, ethnic, familiar ties.
6. There are many many Han Chinese scattered all over East Asia, all over the world. They do not necessarily want to become a part of some Chinese empire.
Taiwan isn't exactly clamoring to become part of the Chinese empire.
8. Despite your arrogance, you are not the only one on CD who knows something of SE Asia, and who has personal experience of it, and personal ties to it.
If you are going to call someone a cretin, it would be a good idea to make sure you are not talking bullshit:
I just missed having to fight in Vietnam. I was young and naive enough that I probably would have gone. Who knows if I had gone over their what condition I would have come back in. In a body bag? Physically maimed for life? PTSD? One thing I know for sure is that I would not be the same person that I am today.
So I found it a bit sad and ironic, maybe hypocritical or some combination of the three when I went to Sears and purchased a winter vest that was, you guessed it, made in Vietnam. Normally I do my best to buy American, but in this case I thought it fitting that I wear a vest that keeps me warm that was made by people that would have been trying to kill me, (and vise versa) barely two generations ago.
So now we have the opposite situation. A trading partner, China, who now has the financial and military power to supposed make TPTB (The Powers That Be), nervous, when it was those same PTB that funneled American jobs and treasure to China that make it a world power.
Now from where we sit this seems like a rather stupid thing to do, but from TPTB point of view it makes total sense. They made tremendous profits off of the Cheap Chinese labor, and now they can make more money on the weapons and arms that we "need" to protect us from the supposed "monster" that they created.
It is amazing how may elephants in the room that the American Empire has hiding in plain view. We have the Chinese situation I just mentioned. Then we have the high unemployment that the politicians are screaming that they want to bring down, when it was those same politicians that wrote the laws that created the high unemployment.
Then there is the massive national debt that must now be fixed by cutting social programs, when some of the major causes for it were the tax cuts for the rich, fighting two wars in the national credit card, and bailing out banks that acted recklessly because of the lack of regulation. But so many of our fellow Amerikans simply cant see these things. They are screaming for the freedom to be homeless, in debt for the rest of their lives, and to die from lack of needed health care. Getting people to believe that that is freedom, is something that would make old Joe Goebbels blush.
But at least if the American Banksters steal my home, pension, and 401k from me leaving me homeless, I'll have my "Made in Vietnam" vest to keep me warm.
Oh, the irony...
Good comments
American responses to Chinese militarism are provocations.
China claims the entire South China Sea. This is not a provocation.
China regularly seizes Vietnamese fishing boats in international waters. This is not a provocation.
China points 1600 missiles at Taiwan and demands that Taiwan annex itself to China or else it will maim and kill Chinese. This is not a provocation.
China invented a claim to Japan's Senkaku Islands in 1969 over oil. This is not a provocation.
Chinese naval vessels regularly intrude on territorial waters of nearby nations and have threatened and even attacked local coast guard vessels over seizures of illegal fishing boats. This is not a provocation.
China invented a claim to the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh and is now ramping up its troops and infrastructure there. This is not a provocation.
Chinese military aircraft have buzzed Japanese naval ships in waters off Japan. This is not a provocation.
China is damming the rivers of the Himal and related mountain chains, preventing their water from reaching the nations downstream. This is not a provocation.
No, if we're progressives, only the US can provoke. All forms of imperialism and militarism are ok, provided they are not American in origin.
I wonder when my fellow progressives are going to wake up.
Michael Turton
Alice Slater is either new to the game, or oblivious to history. It has been US public policy (i.e. law) since 1992 to maintain a "nuclear deterrence". And Congress, every year since 1996 has vowed never to repeal this law.
michael *i'm a progressive* turton
*American responses to Chinese militarism are provocations*
oh gimme a fucking break mr *progressive*
where were u when ur country amerikka was committing *in ur face* provocations at china's doorstep ?
http://www.g2mil.com/May2001.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0715-04.htm
[just the tip of the iceberg]
hmm, i seem to remember u were cheering on the great usn like so....
*the pla should know that it isnt the only game in town* [sic]
did u say *militarism* lol
i've known u for a decade now for chrissake
when was the last time u protested against amerikkan *militarism* ?
since direct provocations failed to incite a chinese reponse
now amerikka is swtching to instigating proxy wars on china's border
http://tinyurl.com/727mvsv
n bingo, *progressive* turton jump out right on cue, yelling *chinese provocation*
the evil empire sure could use more of such *progressives*
hehehe
Sigh...it's clear that cretins cannot understand even simple English.
Regarding the Chinese/Vietnamese language for Vietnam, let's see what I wrote:
>"Nam" is the Chinese/Vietnamese word for "South." <
And yes, it IS the same WORD in both Chinese and Vietnamese - in other words, it has the SAME meaning. And no, retard, while it's pronounced "nan" in Mandarin, it's NOT the same in Cantonese, which is my mother tongue. South is pronounced "lam" for us. Want to learn some Cantonese? How about "lei oi ngor tiu lei mou?"
Actually, Vietnam was originally called "Nan-yue" in Mandarin, but was later reversed to Yue-nan or Vietnam which is also what the Vietnamese call their country.
Regarding "ASEAN consists of 10 countries ...."
Let's see again what I'd written:
>Discounting the small island state of Singapore, there are six other countries of which more than half - the Philippines, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia - had seen first-hand the evil machinations of the US imperialists. "
So did I say how many countries make up ASEAN??? What I did was to point out the six other countries of which more than half "had seen first-hand the evil machinations of the US imperialists." The other two, Indonesia and Burma, did not experience American bombings BUT still suffered from US policies. The threats and sanctions against Burma was well known, and so was the earlier arming of pro-KMT troops, many of whom used to grow opium - to create trouble on China's southern borders. As for Indonesia, as mentioned before, I will write in detail later about the millions killed in the Gestapu incident as well as the US-supported genocidal actions in East Timor. Now, I merely mentioned Singapore and then discounted it because other than American rightwing attacks on Kuan Yew (often called a "dictator" by the late William Safire), it was a small city state and not really significant in the scheme of things.
Two states, Brunei and East Timor, are excluded from discussion because the former has, so far, been left alone. East Timor will be discussed together with Indonesia because the American-aided killings occurred when it was still part of Indonesia.
Let us recapitulate: of the countries that had suffered from direct US armed interventions, four - Vietnam, Cambodia, the Philippines and Laos had felt first-hand the full force of US imperialism. Indonesia was NOT invaded by the US, but its army WAS used to conduct horrifying murders on Indonesian citizens as well as on the East Timorese. The above list of victims is quite a substantial figure, and only a bloodthirsty runt would say that "only a few" had been invaded: even ONE is already too many in a region thousands of miles away from the United States, not to say FOUR nations bombed, and several had experiences of bloody purges or economic sanctions, etc.
One more comment and I've to close (for now). The semi-literate said: "Just because countries might share cultural, ethnic, linguistic ties does not mean they want to be in the same empire."
See, this is the price of the disfunctional system of education we've since the rightwing cutbacks: WHERE IN HELL did I mention about any nation wanting "to be in the same empire"??? Vietnam wants to be independent and SHOULD be independent. Overseas Hans like me are citizens of other nations and DON'T want to be part of ANY Empire. Intelligent people DON'T WANT EMPIRES. But we do want a coming together of citizens, a joint celebration of things that makes us all human, and that could start - at least - between nations of common ethnic/cultural backgrounds. We cannot do that with armed interference in Latin America more than 40 times since WW2, or shower other nations with napalm, Agent Orange, cluster bombs, drones, etc.
i notice that whenever amerikka is r2pping another defenceless country
there'd be some *progressives* appearing
they'd tell us
*ur enemy's enemy isnt neccesarily ur friend*
or
*gadaffi is a tyrant that doesnt deserve ur support*
or
*assad is an asshole who's *killing unarmed protesters*
or
*china is just as evil*
their argument are so predictable these days
it makes u wonder if these *progressives* have been attending the same *briefing* somewhere in langley ?
in essence, these *progressives* are telling the anti imperialists to
buzz off every time uncle sham /nato bombs another defenceless country to submission
with *progressives* like this, who needs knowlton n hill or the wapo ?
no wonder our messiah in the wh is implementing the pnac manisfesto with such ease
with total impunity
heck, bush n cheney could only dream about such luxury hehehe
Posted by denk
Jan 12 2012 - 4:23am
>i notice that whenever amerikka is r2pping another defenceless country there'd be some *progressives* appearing...<
Hahaha. Dear Denk, don't worry too much about the saliva-drippers - he's NOT a real progressive as, whatever people might say, genuine progressives are often also intelligent people. They seldom make brain-dead statements such "China claimed the entire South China Sea" just because that country has re-stated its sovereignty of the Xisha and Nansha islands. Now Vietnam and the Philippines too claimed sovereignty over the same group of islands: does that mean Vietnam and the Philippines are ALSO claiming the "entire South China Sea"? When nations contend over territories, the only proper solution is to get together and discuss the problem. This was, in fact, already accomplished a decade ago and this year the littoral nations , including the two nations mentioned above, are probably gathering in Beijing right now to observe the 10th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC). The US, of course, is instigating some governments not to go along with the peace moves, but that is the modus operandi of imperialists: divide and rule. Think how the Native Americans lost their country.
Considering the stakes at the South China Sea, whatever conflicts there had been were comparatively minor: most were verbal challenges. The few hot confrontations over the years generally resulted in damaged ships and few fatalities - if any did occur. Quite unlike what's happening in Iraqi or Afghanistan (not to mention Kashmir). Despite having a reactionary capitalist government, China could never imitate the British which declared War against a very weak Argentine over the Malvinas (Falklands), nor will it ever use any excuse like the US to conquer an entire Kingdom like Hawaii. Nor will any Chinese leader follow Douglas MacArthur in claiming, as WW2 ended, that "the Pacific Ocean is now an Anglo-Saxon lake." Nor insists, like former Indian General Vaidya, that "even if we (Indians) do not rule the waves of all the five oceans of the world, we must at least rule the waves of the Indian Ocean." Vaidya's contemporary, Pannikkar (in 1945), likewise considered the Indian Ocean as "India's Ocean." Unlike MacArthur, the latter two persons belonged to one of the poorest countries in the world: the average life expectancy of an Indian in 2010 is about 65 years, somewhat less than Maoist China in 1975 (though Indians generally live longer than the Lakotas in the United States). Yet such were, and still are, the grandiose visions of many a Anglophile Indian today (Chinese Anglophiles are generally equally contemptible but in other aspects which shall not be discussed here yet).
About Taiwan (official name: The Republic of China), the UN continues to regard it as part of China, despite the propagandist Western media that often added, whenever they mentioned the island, that "Beijing regarded it as part of China..." The idea is to give the impression that China is about the only country to regard the province as part of itself, and not the hundreds of other nations that make up the UN. Yet it was the majority of the world's countries that expelled Taiwan in 1971, and enabled Beijing to represent affairs of the island in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758.
Why was the Republic of China or Taiwan in the UN even after the Kuomintang had fallen? Simply because of US clout: the US had forced the UN to recognize the Republic of China on Taiwan as the SOLE representative of the Chinese nation for about 20 years. This injustice - and illegality - was corrected only in 1971.
Shall talk later about the so-called "Aruna -something Pradesh" which never existed (it was called "Northeast Frontier Agency" by the British and never recognized by China) before the Sino-Indian border war in 1962. For more info about this problem, readers might like to access http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/oct/08max1.htm
hello larry
good post
i bet many chinese have been wondering why, as far as china is concerned, practically everything under the sun, be it tibet, xinjiang, *dissidents*, environment, one child rule, flg, etc, there's some international campaign, mostly based in the usa, championing its cause ?
have u ever come across similar campaigns targeting india, indonesia, turkey, saudi n the u.s. itself ?
dont dismiss these *progressives* lightly, they're part of the conspiracy to undermine china, besides the usual covert n overt wars
as for michael turton n his ilks
he is just ur typical delusional anglo hypocrite
imagine, he has been going all over the world
whinning *china has 10000 missiles pointing at my beloved tw*
all the time while his country amerikka has been raining down missiles, bombs, drones on third world peasants !!!
in the first place, the *10000 missiles* allegation was hyped in the 80's by the u.s. [usual suspects] , it has never been substantiated anyway.
besides yelling himself hoarse defending *his* tw, mturton has never paid any attention to the deigo garcians or okinawans for example.
yet he is unabashed to keep advertising his *progessive* credential !
lol
michael *i'm a long time progressive* turton
*No, if we're progressives, only the US can provoke. All forms of imperialism and militarism are ok, provided they are not American in origin.
I wonder when my fellow progressives [sic] are going to wake up.*
if i'm a *progressive*
anti amerikkan imperialism would be my top priority
its a no brainer, amerikka is the most destructive force ravaging our planet for the past 60 yrs at least,
if i'm a gringo progressive
that makes my objective doubly clear, i've the moral duty to stop my country's rape of the planet
as for self proclaimed gringo *progressive* turton,
look me in the eyes n answer this
*when was the last time u come out to oppose amerikkan imperialism ?*
many sock puppets have been popping up to rationalise amerikka's imperial conquests these days
some'd appeared in a few anti amerikkan imperialsm threads n post some comments before they pushed their real agenda elsewhere,
i've known u for a long time now n i dont think u're a shill
but in a way u're even worse
at least those *pros* know what a real progressive should do n they took the trouble to *buy some street creds*
whereas ur credibility as a *progressive* is zero..... nein, zilch, nada
worse still, u dont even realise it !!
so dont kid urself turton
u're no fucking *progressive*
u've only one mission in life n thats to protect *ur* [sic] tw
from the *evil chinese*
to that end
u've been flitting from site to site to fight *chinese imperialism/militarism* [sic] for the past 2 decades or so, while totally oblivious to the havoc ur own country is heaping on the world
if u're so convinced of ur righteousness
why shy away from a debate ?
spare us ur tired bullhorn rants
if u're not willing to stand up for ur own conviction
what about my challenge to u the last time ?
http://tinyurl.com/cthazfb
u're spouting exactly the same craps again
according to gringo *progressive* turton
japan is an oh so defenceless poor dear living in fear of the evil chinese
u should hear what this japenese is saying about the the hue n cry around china these days
http://tinyurl.com/7zo28uv
i dont know if he's a *progressive*
but obviously he can think..........
p.s.
ur mentality can be summed up like so
*i came, i saw, i own*
do u know that its not much different from ur ancestors' dictum..
*i came, i saw, i conquer*, which is still being wielded all over the world by ur brethens
mr *progressive* ?
Hi Denk:
>mturton has never paid any attention to the deigo garcians or okinawans for example.yet he is unabashed to keep advertising his *progessive* credential !<
Or India's invasion of Goa without anything similar to China's compromise of "one country, two systems." As to the focus of attacks on China, it's right on the PNAC agenda. And once a country or region is targeted for aggression, all the calumnies, lies naturally follow. Just imagine: the demonization of Islam and Muslims in general began when the neo-cons decided to control the oilfields in the Middle-East. And what a massive campaign it has been, from websites calling the Prophet Muhammad a child molester to constant news on the barbaric behavior of this or that Muslim - the whole effort is mind-boggling. The principle is the same, however: tell a lie, make it big, keep repeating it and the whole world would soon believe it. And always connect the lies to the big picture - an evil enemy that needs to be attacked and vanquished. Believe me, China is merely feeling the first slingshots of an even more intensive and extensive campaign. There would be much more to come, and it's partly due to the encouragement by the present bourgeois Chinese leadership that often prized "free-trade" over everything else, including national dignity. This is not surprising: During WW1 and even WW2, many of the French bourgeoisie actually welcomed a German invasion of their country.
hello larry
this is a true progressive, on the power of propaganda
*The Western population is increasingly hostile towards China and it is not because it knows about it or understands it, but because of propaganda by which it is being bombarded day and night. Tens of thousands of men and women in media and academia have no other purpose in professional life than to bash China; to discredit it, to make it appear as evil. China bashing is now an excellent career, one of the best ways to get academic or research grants or rise in media corporate ladder*
http://tinyurl.com/6f2vgcv
Yes, Denk, he's genuine but there are few like him - most are unable to shake the shackles of the Western hegemonic media. Thanks for the url - I'd read Vltchek's articles before, but not this one.