If the first Gulf War didn't pass Kerry's global test, then nothing will.

Kerry and the Dems have this grossly immature perception of foreign policy.

To them it's like a high school popularity contest. They don't understand that other nations act according to their own interests, not how much they like someone or some country.

Kerry's foreign policy is a roadmap to disaster...

The Demos idea of a foreign policy is to destroy the Bush Administration's policy - using any means possible and at all costs.

Isn't it interesting that the world view of Chinese Communists so closely resembles the world view of "traditional"(Confucianist/Imperialist) Chinese. The more the world changes...

Oil For Fraud dwarfs Enron and Worldcom, yet nobody wants to talk about it in the MSM. It's too bad Fox waited so long to go forward with their report a couple of weeks ago, as I think outing oil-for-food months ago would have gotten the wheels turning among the general public more effectively. As it stands now, waiting until September to release a major report on the problem makes Fox look like they were trying to unleash a late-election partisan surprise. It's not true and of coure it takes time to come up with an investigative report, but that won't stop the LLLs from claiming partisanship.

I think part of the problem with the liberal view on foriegn policy is that they often forget to account for human nature. They assume every insane, scary, power hungry leader will follow a verbal agreement, as long as we are nice to them and give them money.

I don't think Kim Jung Il, the Mullahs etc care how nice we are. Their motivation isn't popularity, but power.

I think part of the problem with the liberal view on foriegn policy is that they often forget to account for human nature.

Actually, the flip side of that is that they have too much of a reliance on human nature - namely, the idea that personal concepts of honor, honesty, kindness and nobility have an overriding influence in a nation's self-interest.

Ironically, though we certainly commonly stray from humanist motivations in foreign policy, America is the best representation of strategic morality - probably because we have arguably the most effective representative democracy that's properly driven by market economics and built on puritan traditions.

Sounds more and more like those who were opposed to removing Saddam were the coalition of the bribed.

"Sounds more and more like those who were opposed to removing Saddam were the coalition of the bribed."

I absolutely agree. And I am bothered by the fact that there have been two debates so far, and nobody seems to want to touch this issue, but it is one that really bothers me.

Bush discussed it briefly when I saw him speak in New Hampshire a couple of weeks ago, but mostly he just said he was waiting until the investigations were complete.

A part of me suspects that the administration doesn't want to touch it, because they are too afriad it will cause problems at/on the security council, so they are avoiding the conflict altogether.

Robert,

Good Comment...

The NEW/OLD Coalition of the Bribed and Coerced is now, France, Germany, Russia, etal...

Too bad, no republican up for election will use that, but I hope Sean or someone else does.

Could go something like this.

"If you want to talk about the Coalition of the Bribed and Coerced, I suggest you look at the United Nations Oil for Food Program, and the Countries of France, Germany, & Russia.

While they may be allies in Afghanistan, and we appreciate our common goals against Terrorism, it is now obvious to all why they were opposed to support going into Iraq. They were part of a Willing Saddam Hussein Iraqi Coalition of the Bribed and Coerced.

Their participation in the Oil for Food Scheme run by The United Nations and Kofi Annan should be Front page news, and the lead headline on every news program."

Now That more than sums up my feelings on this.

Regards,
Sonar5

The problem for Bush, if he brings this up, is that it will be used against him for being a divider. I'd love it for Bush to say to Kerry at the next debate "You keep saying we needed to build alliances against Saddam. Well how could we bring France in when Saddam was paying them off?" It would be devestating, but for diplomatic reasons, he won't.

Robert - exactly! Which is why I love Glenn Reynolds' (aka Instapundit) article today.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6168202/#041007

Best line: "It's hard to pass the "Global Test" when the people grading it are being bribed to administer a failing grade. Perhaps Kerry should change his stance, and promise that a Kerry Administration would "outbid the bad guys.""

Duh...I know better than to just paste a link in comments.

Is this better?

Allow me:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6168202/#041007

I have to agree with the link, that Kerry's foriegn policy positions are collapsing.

I also still think the US isn't going hard at this issue because they have to work with the UN security council, and that includes several of those "bribed" countries.

I wonder though, if the issue will come up in debates tomorrow night, since it will be people in the audience asking the questions and not a moderator, although I suspect both candidates want to avoid this one.

Let me see if I can summarize the main point you're trying to make:

France, Russia, and China base their policy toward Iraq (and so, indirectly, toward the United States with regard to its Iraq policy) primarily on economic self-interest centering around access to petroleum.

Imagine that. As long as we're going "over the edge" with "tinfoil hat conspiracy theories" directed outwardly, I wonder, do you think these three are the only countries in the world who do so, or could there be another, more powerful (one might even say "super-powerful") nation to which this issue (oil) may have some degree of importance? The leader of the country I'm thinking about is called Hedge, or Tree, or something along those lines. I'm sure you can think of it.

Supposing that you were to accept the conclusions of a few conspiracy-minded radicals we keep hearing about in the liberal media -that Iraq had no WMD- does it seem at all plausible to you that perhaps, just perhaps, the same motivations that you believe drove opposition to the invasion of Iraq on the part of China, Russia, and France (presumably because, with Saddam no longer in power, these countries assumed they would lose favorable trading status and lucrative kickbacks) might have had something to do with the previously-mentioned arboreal leader's decision to invade Iraq (presumably, again, in the full knowledge that invasion would allow the same de facto favorable status that had been enjoyed by the other nations you mention)?

Oh, I know, spreading freedom, creating a new paradigm in the region, etc... I'm sure that was always on the minds of every person involved at every level in the decision to go to war. That being said, and taking into consideration the more pragmatic or "realpolitik" aspects of foreign policy, I simply find myself wondering whether some small nugget of that same sense of petroleum-centric economic self-interest may have surreptitiously insinuated itself into the otherwise purely altruistic minds of the most vociferous advocates for war.

I'm surely wrong to question the absolute sincerity and humanism of leaders who would so selflessly offer their own lives up on the sacrificial altar of freedom, but I find it impossible to dispel in my own mind that sliver of doubt, that one kernel of uncertainty. Can it be? Oh, say it ain't so!

Walter -

you bizarrely cherry pick from my post:

France, Russia, and China base their policy toward Iraq (and so, indirectly, toward the United States with regard to its Iraq policy) primarily on economic self-interest centering around access to petroleum.

1. I'm not criticizing these countries for acting out of self-interest in the least, merely pointing out that their self-interest can directly interfere with the self-interest of the US.

2. The provided links also highlight official graft, strategic economic interest beyond petroleum, military competition, and in the case of the Chinese, natural cultural differences and thought modalities that make consensus with the West difficult; specifically as it realates to our natural inclination towards the finite nature of the rule of law. All of these points represent fundamental, natural and omnipresent obstacles, which mean ...

... achieving consensus on foreign policy aims is never easy, and many times impossible. Thus, acting in the interests of the US will often violate the concept of a "global test." John Kerry and the left's attack on Bush for failure to build a coalition is a weak point of order.

C'mon, Walter. You may disagree with me on many things, but you're a smart guy, and your angrily selective reading that mistakenly attacks me for hypocrisy based on merely one factor in my post is beneath you.

Walter
The issue isn't who's doing deals with bad men in order to make money; it's that three members of the UN Security Council, who ostensibly are there to ensure that Saddam disarm, stay disarmed, and stop oppressing his people, are being bribed by him -- in violation of their own UN security council resolutions -- to undermine the sanctions. France, Russia and China have undercut the authority of the security council by their actions. Now I don't mind so much that Russia & China acted in this manner, they are, after all, independent players. France, however, allegedly is an ally (some little thing called NATO, IIRC). As well France took the lead in opposing Gulf War II, forged documents for US intelligence agencies, and basically denied any attempt at diplomacy - France took the lead in saying there'd be no further authorization of force to implement the UN resolutions. Now we know the reason: Saddam Hussein bought the French government.

France needs to be kicked off the UN Security Council. Today.

"France needs to be kicked off the UN Security Council. Today."

I agree, I don't even understand why they have a veto, other than the allied forces felt sorry for them after WWII. I think a country like India has more reason to be there with a veto than France.

Also, I would point out that during the security council votes, none of these secret bribery deals were known, France, Russia and China were regarded as taking some kind of moral high road by the anti war crowd, when in fact they were up to their eyeballs in corruption.

Also, I would point out that what they were doing with the oil for food program was corrupt, and undermined everything the UN was trying to do in regards to Iraq.

Sonar -

Thanks!

Walter - so it's okay for France, Russia and China to skim profits from a United Nations program aimed at providing the people of Iraq with important medical supplies and food??

Come on man!

I'm not criticizing these countries for acting out of self-interest in the least, merely pointing out that their self-interest can directly interfere with the self-interest of the US.

Sorry Bill, I guess I didn't make my point very clear. I wasn't accusing you of hypocrisy or even disagreeing with your assessment of the Chinese, Russian, or French motivations. I actually think you have a great point about that, and I never really believed that the leaders of any of those countries opposed the war out of some sense of morality. What I was trying to say, in my own sarcastic way, was that I think the same may be true of American leaders. In other words, that even if the war wasn't "blood for oil" in the starkly Machiavellian way that it's portrayed by the Moores of the world, the fact that we would be gaining effective control over a huge amount of such a precious resource may have entered into the calculation somewhere. In other, other words, the Bush narrative about the war being either purely defensive or a combination of defense and spreading of freedom, there are probably other factors involved that have nothing to do with terrorism or democracy, and everything to do with, let's say "Machiavellian lite" economic self-interest.

I suppose I didn't really establish the context for my thought process very well. I meant this as a contrast to the usual position of Bush supporters that it's ridiculous to even suggest that the administration may have chosen to act for any but the most "unselfish" reasons (e.g. spreading freedom, removing a brutal dictator, WMD). This position strikes me as inordinately trusting of Authority, so what I really wanted to say was, if you can see "selfishness" in the behavior of the Russian, Chinese, and French leadership, then why not in our own?

Walter -

was that I think the same may be true of American leaders. In other words, that even if the war wasn't "blood for oil" in the starkly Machiavellian way that it's portrayed by the Moores of the world, the fact that we would be gaining effective control over a huge amount of such a precious resource may have entered into the calculation somewhere.

A. I think the Machiavellian cries of blood for oil are highly relevant in the sense that our entire involvement in the region is based around the Middle East's control of a strategic resource. Our machination in Iraq only goes so far as a desire to guarantee a stable supply, but even then, a war to remove Saddam Hussein was contradictory to this goal - the war was engaged in the hope of installing a pluralistic democracy in the region to serve as an anchor for change, the possibility of WMD (largely wrong), etc, etc, etc. Human rights concerns were present but realistically no higher than third or fourth on the list. What's ironic about Moore-like assertions that we were after oil is the fact that morality even came into play at all, in contrast to the primary motivations of many "allies" (google France + colonial suppression) that are really strategic competitors - our case wasn't strictly or primarily moral, but it had a moral component, and it was more moral than the motivation of the countries that opposed us. Ask yourself - why do my beliefs and the beliefs of Christopher Hitchens intersect on Iraq? Because Hitchens buys the moral case, and is willing to ally himself with the means to do it, even if the host of motivations behind the means aren't strictly moral. He's a utilitarian, to some extent.

Meanwhile, the idealists and romantics at Amnesty International issue reports documenting abuses, but have barely one-one-thousandth the practical impact of the efforts of the United States Third Infantry Division.

so what I really wanted to say was, if you can see "selfishness" in the behavior of the Russian, Chinese, and French leadership, then why not in our own?

B. And what I've gotta say is, and what makes me laugh at many Chomsky-ites is ... and you (no offense), is ... what makes you think that I don't see selfishness in our actions? The difference between a neocon demon like me and you, for example, is that I've made a fundamental judgement about the West's superiority as a pluralistic society and engine for human advancement, and I am unapologetic about undertaking any action (that's not patently immoral) to advance it's continued success. If one never comes to that conclusion and still holds out fantastical hopes for a dream world of perfectly moral rules, a level playing field and a socialist ideal that will drive human progress and self-actualization without the inconvenient concept of human self-interest and competition as primary motivators - one winds up ... raging against the machine for life as a semi-famous linguistics professor at MIT.

Which may make money, impress hippie girls and sell books, but it has little practical implications for moving society forward or actually freeing oppressed peoples.

That was the long answer. The short answer is the US has selfish interests and I unapologetically embrace those interests over the interests of our competitors, within a generally moral framework. Conveniently, the US usually stays within the framework, and the bounds of the framework typically average out to amore moral center point than most countries in the world.

Walter, by that argument the US can't use its military - period. It's the six-degrees of separation rule. We _always_ benefit if we control the military action. When we don't ultimately control our own military, we end up with Kosovo. A complete fubar that has the same exit strategy as Korea. _Any_ war will put more money through the military-industrial complex, that seems pretty inextricable to me.

We have the screaming about No-Bid contracts and Haliburton ignoring that the two next-up bidders would be Bechtel and Schlumberger. Bechtel is partially owned by Haliburton, and Schlumberger has stong ties to both big Democrats and the French government. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/co?s=HAL

We can't _assume_ either selfishness or selflessness. But when there's memos on French letterhead saying 'Don't worry, we'll veto anything for XXX oil', it isn't an assumption anymore. I'd like to see the raw documents put online.

But we can't assume selfishness or selflessness in our own government either. The list of reasons given in the SotU 2003 was quite long. Add 'unstated' reasons: strategically this will put strong pressure on Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Plus all the 'selfish reasons' you care to name 'Shoot at my daddy will you, I don't like your face, and we want stable oil supplies'.

I haven't seen cogent arguments against the whole litany of reasons to deal with Iraq - primarily they've been focused on lack of world unity and lack of WMD proof. But _each_ would be worth debating.

Is it ok to cause a net decrease in refugees even if selfish reasons are also met? Is a civil war nominally over slavery ok if there are other facets that help some of the movers and shakers?

The UN _is_ an Authority.

try these links to get a view of how the French view us.

http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=58&story_id=12654&name=Chirac+warns+of+'catastrophe'+of+world'choked'+by+US+values

http://www.expatica.com/source/site_content_subchannel.asp?subchannel_id=25&name=France+Home+Page

1) I wasn't calling you a "neocon demon".

2) I wasn't at all defending "Chomskyites" or supporting their position.

3) Yes, I understand that the U.S. has selfish interests and pursues them just like every other country. I only meant my point as a contrast to the self-congratulatory righteousness of the Bush Administration and many of its supporters.

Look, if you were just criticizing the corruption of the countries mentioned, then I guess my response was a little off the mark. I thought you were trying to make the broader point that China, Russia, and France opposed the war due to their own "oil interests", rather than boldy standing up to American aggression the way they claim to have been doing. I think the point still stands that the Administration's rosy picture of its own motivations is more than a little deceptive (NO, I'M NOT SAYING "BUSH LIED", I mean "deceptive" in the more standard political sense) and it seems to me that an awful lot of Bush supporters have bought into it.

One last thing:

I am unapologetic about undertaking any action (that's not patently immoral) to advance it's continued success

There's no question, to me, about the morality of taking action to ensure the continued success of our civilization; the question in my mind is whether the action under discussion was taken "to ensure the continued success of our civilization" or "to promote the exclusive self-interest of our civilization" in a situation of choice, not necessity. You can make a strong case for promoting exclusive self-interest in the short term, but I think in the long run it almost always comes back to bite you in the ass. So all I'm saying is that if we were pursuing short-term self-interest without considering the long-term ramifications, then that one dimension of the case does not support going to war in Iraq.

I realize this argument doesn't consider the point about promoting stability in the region, and it wasn't meant to; I only wanted to address the specific point about economic interests. But since you bring it up... you might argue that in the big picture, questions of survival trump questions of selfishness, and you'd be right. But to believe that invading Iraq involved a question of survival based solely on the argument about reducing the long-term threat of terrorism by opening up the region to democracy, etc, it's necessary to also believe the following:

1) That terrorism represents as much of an existential threat as is often claimed.

2) That Iraq in its pre-war state contributed, however directly or indirectly, to the threat of terrorism.

3) That invading Iraq would, in fact, promote democracy in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East.

4) That promoting democracy in the Middle East would reduce the threat of terrorism.

I think it's possible to reasonably differ in degree on the first two points, but let's accept them both for the sake of argument. In my opinion, the third condition is the biggest sticking point. I strongly believe that democracy is rarely spread by force; Germany and Japan were, in my opinion, exceptions (there's really enough here for a whole separate discussion, but, in short, I think both countries were ripe for change and managed the psychological transition in large part because of the shocks both societies experienced during the course of, and at the end of, the war). I think the desire for freedom has to come from within in order to have any long-term success.

You might counter this by saying that no such desire combined with effective action appeared to be forthcoming in Iraq or almost any other Arab society, and that therefore the continuation of the status quo in which radicalism thrives is threatening to us, and therefore our problem; again, I would agree. I'm not arguing the peacenik position that "war is never the answer" or that military action to promote democracy is inherently wrong in the presence of near-certainty that said action is taken out of genuine altruism. Where we disagree is on the question of whether that altruism is present and, far more importantly, on the likelihood of success in promoting democracy in this particular case.

I realize as I'm typing this that you've probably heard this argument a thousand times before, so I'll stop now. I just wanted to clarify my position so you understood where I was coming from.

Don't have time to respond in full, but stop assuming -

I wasn't calling you a "neocon demon".

- no, I was calling myself a neocon demon, to make light of those who do (it's a popular sentiment), not you specifically.

Sorry for the confusion.

Honestly, I think Bush is a true believer in the idea that promoting democracy is the way to really win the war on terror. There may be other motivations involved, but I think he at least believes that democracy is the answer, and I actually agree with it.

A very fascinating website explores the issue of governments killing their own people, and the one thing they found was the more democratic the government, the less likely they were to murder their own people. It is very fascinating reading, but there is a lot there:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome.html

I think when it comes to the human rights issues in Iraq, and the goals of having a more stable region-it very much reminds me of the above link.

By the way Bill, did you catch O'Reilly on The Daily Show tonight? He actually made some sense and didn't act like a total dick. Why can't he do that on his show?

Very clever of Saddam to bribe AND keep records. After all, had the coalition not invaded he had the potential to have retained enormous influence over three members of security council.

Who–uh that on China, Bill.

Finally, we get to China, who would love to see the US/NATO bogged down in the Middle East, even more the Monsieur Kerry/Cute Skywalker.

You know, Bill, in Texas, they say, “if you done it, it ain’t braggin”!
So, to allay the knee-jerk reactions of the folks looking for tin-horn paranoids, let me just say instead what the gov officials in Asia told me there in 1994 about their neighbor - China.

From a Vietnam General:

“No, Mr. Gautier, we are not angry at the US, in fact, we very much desire to have American companies help develop us into the 7th (Asian) Tiger, we are now in great in need of development.”

(VN was under a US trade embargo at the time I was there. We left VN in 1975 in shambles, 50,000 miles of roads ruined, etc.. Yet now, they prized us over all others for our $, fair trade, “best of world quality” products, engineering skills, and technology.)

“Thank you, General,” I said. “But, you have been colonized by the French for over 100 years, and my country has killed perhaps several millions of your people in the war, many non-combatants with high level booming, and all – and you say your not offended?”

“No. We are not angry. We are only interested in the future, that
war is over, and we need your help now, more than any other”.

“O.K., I am here to help facilitate that process – but I am confused, please explain further”.

Seated informally at the table on my immediate right, he poured more café sua da (bitchin good coffee) for me, put his hand on my arm, and in a grandfatherly manner (he was easily in his seventies, but some Asians look deceptively young) said:

“For over 1000 years we have been trying to keep the Chinese from murdering us, and we have learned to be very watchful, patient, resourceful, and determined, to be able to survive as a people……..”

This made perfect sense to me - they did whip the world’s 4th best army (French) in 1954 using bicycles to cross a mountain range with armaments to do so (and kicked butt bad), and then managed to outlast a Super Power (us) with a determination that made the Sioux look tame. I was told that with just four more hours of booming of Hanoi at Christmas in 1972 by Nixon, Uncle Ho would have had to raise the white flag in response to public demand – no shit, that ‘s what I heard from several, unrelated non-gov sources.

Just Amazing! That sure would have rained on the antiwar protest parade, the MSM, & John “Switch-Hitting” Kerry. They’re the same ones who put the pressure on Nixon to stop the “godforsaken” booming at Christmas time. How you gonna win a war if you can’t drop some bombs, beaucoup bombs! Pace is a product of war, not appeasement.

The General continued.

“The Chinese are challenging our territorial rights to the (oil rich) Spratley and Parasal Islands that we placed in their keeping during the war with the US; they backed the Kamir Rouge and Pol Pot in Cambodia against us until 1979, and they are now acquiring submarines and aircraft carriers from the Russians – Mr. Gautier, these are weapons of offense! Surly you can anticipate their expansionist desires? We do.

We know the Chinese, their character. The West has no idea. They see themselves as the center of the universe, with a destiny to rule all in time, and you must understand that China does not value time as does the US and the Western minds do.”

I heard the same sort of attitude from other Asian government officials and civilians – their nations were busy buying US and French fighter aircraft as a deterrent to perceived Chinese expansionism. Buying ‘em by the 6-pack.

Fifty so years ago my family lived in ROC (Tipai). 12 years ago, as the head of an Houston-based American Biz Consulting firm, I visited Vietnam and China to negotiate contracts for American firms to develop Asian gov projects (fertilizer and petro-chemical plants, port developments, agricultural farms, etc.). Fascinating travels.

A well traveled man, I have never received hospitality as good as I got in Vietnam, primarily HCM City (Saigon areas).

While there in HCM City and Vung Tau (a near-by sea coast resort) I saw two different fifty foot ancient granite columns with the same statue of a Warrior in battle-gear with one arm held erect, extended, and pointing South towards the Sea. Upon my inquiry, I was told, “he is General Dau, our hero”.

This General Dau, like the one I met, had even less use for the Chinese. He was the 12th century VN leader who expelled Ginges Kahn from VN. To accomplish this feat, he told his people, “stand and fight with me, or swim away into the South China Sea.” Obviously, a convincing man, he was the only one to kick G. Khan’s ass. That’s a big deal.

We had all the power to win – they had all the will to win – the rest is now history, including the MSM and the anti-war movement’s contributions here at home.

I admire the Vietnamese people, historically.

The point is, if you want to know a person, talk to his neighbors. The people in S.E. Asia have a stern warning to us regarding China.

Research their relations with the ME, Iran, etc., since 1980, and you will see an active hand attempting to snare the US in a protracted problem there. This leaves China more free to pursue its aims, now including a space program designed to mask their efforts to deploy their own “star wars” system. What on earth for? Hummme!

Remember Bush’s first challenge in office in early 2001 – Chinese fighter jets aggressively attacked and downed a US recon plane. Few of us remember much before 911, these days.

China is now the largest buyer of surplus oil on the world market, merely stockpiling it, which helps drive the price up. Who gets hurt? The US economy and GWB’s re-election chances. They are now involved in the Panama Canal Zone (thanks Peanut Farmer/Nobel prize winning, Jimmy “Chamberlain” Carter, who also deserted Subic Bay, and Iran, as well). China absolutely gives N. Korea its marching orders. Check their voting record on the UN in-Security Council.

Today we are focused on fighting groups of sponsored Islamofacist kamikaze, as well we should!

But, China is a far more formidable potential foe, which is growing stronger. Should they become the world’s dominate economy (soon?), then we’ll face a showdown some day, probably on Russia’s behalf, with really big, enormous shit hitting the fan.

I also received in Asia some very encouraging info on the failures of China, but for another time.

Until then, screw the pretenses, kick the UN to Paris, resign, and form alliances based on merit that serve our needs first.

Sorry Kerry, no International Courts, Kyoto, re-draft of UN Charter, etc. Just get the hell out, and take your Hussein payola with you!

God, if Bush could only just tell the American public tonight the truth behind UNSCAM and why our best allies stabbed us in the back in Iraq - election over!. (In response, Kerry would look worse then “boy wonder” after getting those multiple, combination flurries from the debate champ, Cheney. Earth to Kerry, earth to Kerry, come in, over!)

We’ve seen all to well what becomes of the world’s policeman – feared and resented by a corrupt gang of thugs on the UN Security Council that steal, while plotting our doom - not to mention the our home-grown “violence prone” peace-movement that hates America first, er, that almost sounds like the modern Dem party that shoots up REP campaign offices – so much for their anti-gun plank.

For about two hundred years we have been schooled in diplomacy by Zeropens, getting our butts handed to us almost every time - stop playing by their rules.

We save their asses from each other, liberate and rebuild them, with no re-payments or gratitude - only to earn their resentment, scorn, duplicity, and hatred. Enough! Oh, and just close the useless US State dept., they’re a big part of the problem.

I have heard the Zeropean caustic provocative remarks on the streets of Amsterdam and Europe since 1988. Glad to say that I gave a lot better than I got from some “Green Peacers” who jumped me for merely being an American. Seems they were pissed about the US and Latin America, “Viva Nicaragua” and such, so, I told them across the canal, “good for you, just don’t call on us when the Russian tanks roll in from the East, we wont be home for you – dudes, learn to fight your own battles, like us”! They cowered away, and the Dutch crowed applauded the American.

By heritage, I am French, English, Irish & Am Indian, my folks have been here since the Constitution. Politically, I am registered Republican – but above all, as you may guess, I am first and foremost, an American.

Whatever else we do, we had better begin to watch China far more closely, those same folks that made political contributions to the Clintons and got away with our national nuke secrets from NM.

China is no paper tiger! So, thanks for putting China in blog-play.

I have never lost the intent of the VN General’s meaning. His name was also Kahn, but spelled differently from GK. He was intently ernest, and spoke with a thousand year history of knowledge!

Just amazing, to us, that war was, and still is, a really big deal - to them, a blip on the thousand year radar screen. Perspective is everything.

MacAuthur, the American who knew the Oriental mind the best, said it best, “we do not know or understand their cultures”.

Let’s not repeat our mistake of Vietnam, with China.

C ’est la vie!

The Goat.

Goat -

Wow long comment, lot of graet stuff in your post. One suggestion, if you haven't already -

But, China is a far more formidable potential foe, which is growing stronger. Should they become the world’s dominate economy (soon?), then we’ll face a showdown some day, probably on Russia’s behalf, with really big, enormous shit hitting the fan.

Read "the Bear and the Dragon," by Tom Clancy.

Thanks, again, Bill.

I covered the flight time (14 hours) to ROC/Vietnam with Gresham's limp read, "The Client" (live in NOLA, not very accurate, nor engaging), and a much better Clancy novel on the back leg.

Wife is former Major in USSR Red Army by way of being an M.D., so I have unique perspective on actual facts of some historical matters, now pertinent.

Will read proposed when time allows.

Meantime - keep an eye on China, and tell me later where my instincts may be wrong! They will prove to be a major impediment to resolution of N. Korea nuke issue, I predict.

Can China loose face by having the US become seen as the power broker of Asia? Think not.

(Bye the bye- the VN Generals I met with laughed about the diplomatic faux pas made by Clinton in Asia, vis a vis Korea, while I was there (I asked them why they called Bill "milk cheeks", - as in, a baby, inexperienced, a big error of Face in Asia, he cut off the Koren Diplomat by crossing infront of him, minor to Bill - big to Asia" I was told. Nixon expired while there, no one told me, but Mandella's election was widely covered - unique, considering Dick's impact on VN. I asked at LAX bar, upon return, are the Houston Rockets still in the hunt & why are our flags at half-mast, who has died?).

These are very perceptive people. They do respect strength and intelligence - so the ball is in our court, now. Again, I evoke MacArthur's advice, & refer you to "American Caesar" about him, great historical read, about 1986 copywrite.

Yes, from you traffic base, brevity is desirable, yet, to have meaningful discourse, credentials these days in blogworld are especially now (pajamahadeen jihad slur) required - further posts can now/will be concise.

Thanks.

The Goat.

5276 http://www.slots-big.com slots
online casinos
poker online.
internet poker
online poker
online poker