Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Chimp and his handlers think they can intimidate China

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 09:52 AM
Original message
Chimp and his handlers think they can intimidate China
Edited on Sat Mar-18-06 10:08 AM by bigtree
A WaTimes article reported yesterday that the Pentagon is shuffling forces and hardware around the Pacific, right on the heels of their Swarmer show in Iraq. This is clowntime at Foggy Bottom. Rice has a hand in it also with her comments yesterday lecturing China on their "openness".

The Pentagon is moving strategic bombers to Guam and aircraft carriers and submarines to the Pacific as part of a new "hedge" strategy aimed at preparing for conflict with China, the article quotes Pentagon officials saying yesterday.

James Thomas, deputy assistant defense secretary for plans, said the "hedging" policy is aimed at China and Russia.

"In part of the hedging strategy, we're looking at the deployments of bomber elements to Guam on a more routine basis," he said.

"We're also looking at making adjustments in our naval posture globally, shifting to six carrier battle groups in the Pacific region, given the shift in global transport and trade, as well as over the next several years shifting approximately 60 percent of our attack submarine fleet to the Pacific.

This has to be seen as part of the White Hose strategy to pressure China, Russia, and others who may not be inclined to go along with action in the U.N. against Iran, and who also are engaged in lucrative oil and nuclear deals with their nemesis.

All of their militarism assumes that everyone outside Bush's bubble believes his delusional rhetoric about spreading democracy and defeating terrorists. Anyone with eyes can see that America is bogged down in a political quagmire in Iraq, as Bush's only validating claim to any mantle of military leadership is in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Despite overthrowing ruling authorities in both countries, and after installing and facilitating new, compliant authorities Bush still can't bring himself to understand or appreciate how much he and America is hated by the citizens in these countries, in the region, and around the world.

He still sees himself as some sort of conquering hero. His handlers and lackeys perpetuate the myth with their mindless pursuits of jingoistic Narnia, and they've convinced themselves that Jesus would understand why they slaughter women and children in their zeal to make Iraqis and the rest of the world cower before them.

They can't see the laughter behind them, or, perhaps they sense it and are desperately striking out, arms flailing, slapfighting with their eyes closed. One roundhouse from China could flatten us, but our own leaders are punch-drunk and dancing around them, taunting them. If there was a real confrontation, with Bush at the helm, there would be no mystery about the Chimp and his chimp handler's reactions and responses.

There is one absolutely transparent reality about the state of America's defenses that is unassailable, we are overstretched and the nation is battle-weary. That jelly-in-the-pocket is exaggerated by a leadership in Washington which has not shown any ability or willingness to restrain this administration's manufactured mandate to conquer. There is presumably no one positioned to step in between Bush and the potentially dangerous forces he antagonizes with his bull and swagger. His cabal's egging him on.

Bush's whole game is made up of hedges and wedges, abroad and in America. He's got a bevy of real and imagined antagonists that he parries with. Their animosity toward him, his scorn right back at 'em, defines his view of our nation's security needs. He's sucking a billion dollars a week out of our Treasury to keep this going. Over forty-percent of that debt is foreign-owned, by China and others. I'm sure they're more than content to let him blow his top so long as he's weakening our country from within, a wedge against us.

All of this is taking place in the midst of a campaign by our president to boost his record low approval ratings with a series of speeches and a renewed focus on Iraq. It follows an assault by our military forces there that was described as the largest exercise of force since the initial invasion three years ago this month. It should be increasingly evident that the only ones who appear to have been intimidated in all of this are Bush himself and the members of the sorry cabal that round off their reflexive regime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
meegbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
1. Lest we forget the summer of 2001 ...
when a US plane was shot down by them. He grovelled his ass off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
converted_democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
2. This is exactly what we need....
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PDJane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
3. Right...........
so China is supposed to continue loaning the US money while they sabre rattle in the direction of the mainland?

Oh, Right. A universal depression will hurt everyone, so the US can play chicken and win???

No. No, I think this particular tactic is gonna seriously backfire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
4. I'm really worried about China and Russia and what they may perceive
to be a big problem for them down the road and how now, might just be the time to do something to head it off. the US's arrogance toward the world body has to raise some eyebrows. And both of these country's are heavily armed as is Iran. Now I go worry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. I think they're letting Bush play out his false hand
so long as he doesn't long impede their economic deals. China has a 100b oil deal with Iran in their pocket, Russia is ready to follow through on their contract to build a nuclear plant for Iran and provide nuclear fuel. Venezuela has said they intend to take the 60% of oil revenue they get from the U.S. and replace it with China by the end of the year. India, Pakistan, and Iran just moved closer to a pipeline partnership yesterday . . .

Business will dictate how far they let Bush go. Today, Russia indicated they wanted to slow down the release of a statement regarding the U.N. Iran nuclear report from the two weeks the U S. and their purchased cabal is demanding. That's why there's all this pressure now. Bush and his cohorts want to isolate Russia and China and either get them to vote their way or discredit them enough to peel off enough of their followers that they do business with.

Weak and ignorant policy. Backwards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMDemDist2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
5. it all depends on the status of our space weapons
if you want to ruin your morning, check out this documentary

http://www.arsenalofhypocrisy.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. cool
Bruce Gagnon's great
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
6. link to web-published copy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrazyOrangeCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
7. The Chinese are poised to eat EVERYBODY's lunch.
The Shrub is deluded, as usual . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. economically first
swatting off swarming insects is for later
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. CBS news web article from 2005:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/23/uttm/main1070...

If true, then it's a nonissue. Apart from nukes, of course, but nobody's perfect...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. I think the possibility of China attacking us is almost zero
Edited on Sat Mar-18-06 12:59 PM by bigtree
I do think that the members of the Bush cabal have convinced themselves that they have a means a unipolar world with America at the top of the heap by virtue of our military forces. They've been trying to put it all together with the exercise of our military combined with the influx of dollars (astronomical) into the industry coffers to produce weapon's systems that rely on less manpower. Even so, they intend for our forces to remain stretched out thin for as far as their beady little eyes can see.

In September 2000, the PNAC drafted a report entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century."

The conservative foundation- funded report was authored by Bill Kristol, Bruce Jackson, Gary Schmitt, John Bolton and others. Bolton, now Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, was Senior Vice President of the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

The report called for: ". . . significant, separate allocation of forces and budgetary resources over the next two decades for missile defense," and claimed that despite the "residue of investments first made in the mid- and late 1980s, over the past decade, the pace of innovation within the Pentagon had slowed measurably." Also that, "without the driving challenge of the Soviet military threat, efforts at innovation had lacked urgency."

The PNAC report asserted that "while long-range precision strikes will certainly play an increasingly large role in U.S. military operations, American forces must remain deployed abroad, in large numbers for decades and that U.S. forces will continue to operate many, if not most, of today's weapons systems for a decade or more."

The PNAC document encouraged the military to "develop and deploy global missile defenses to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world."

The paper claimed that, "Potential rivals such as China were anxious to exploit these technologies broadly, while adversaries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea were rushing to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American intervention in regions they sought to dominate. Also that, information and other new technologies as well as widespread technological and weapons proliferation were creating a dynamic' that might threaten America's ability to exercise its dominant' military power."

The Chinese would dispute the PNAC claim that they pose a threat to the U.S.; as far as I know, there is still a normalization of relations between our two countries. Perhaps they are alluding to the transfer of weapon's technology between nations; or the threat to Taiwan. In any case, the conservative document's allusion to U.S. "dominant military power" is a recipe for destabilization.

In reference to the nation's nuclear forces, the PNAC document asserted that, " reconfiguring its nuclear force, the United States also must counteract the effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction that may soon allow lesser states to deter U.S. military action by threatening U.S. allies and the American homeland itself."

The authors warned that, "U.S. nuclear force planning and related arms control policies must take account of a larger set of variables than in the past, including the growing number of small nuclear arsenals from North Korea to Pakistan to, perhaps soon, Iran and Iraq and a modernized and expanded Chinese nuclear force."

In addition, they counseled, "there may be a need to develop a new family of nuclear weapons designed to address new sets of military requirements, such as would be required in targeting the very deep underground, hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries."

The 2002 PNAC document is a mirrored synopsis of the Bush administration's foreign policy today. President Bush is projecting a domineering image of the United States around the world which has provoked lesser equipped countries to desperate, unconventional defenses; or resigned them to a humiliating surrender to our rape of their lands, their resources and their communities.

President Bush intends for there to be more conquest - like in Iraq - as the United States exercises its military force around the world; our mandate, our justification, presumably inherent in the mere possession of our instruments of destruction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul 24th 2014, 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC