Obama tees up war with China

Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Obama tees up war with China

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Loving that Noble Peace Prize stuff. Loving it. We got us a good warlord in the hopey changey guy. Thanks Democrats for the warlord. You guys can be real bloodthirsty, appreciate it. This is a warmonger President.

The empire grows.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Defense ... /id/423099
President Barack Obama on Thursday unveiled a new defense strategy that will shrink the country's armed forces at a time of tight budgets but pledged to maintain U.S. military superiority in the world.

"Our military will be leaner but the world must know -- the United States is going to maintain our military superiority with armed forces that are agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats," Obama told a news briefing at the Pentagon.

Emphasizing the American presence in the Asia-Pacific region, where there is growing U.S. rivalry with an increasingly assertive China,Obama cautioned the military would remain vigilant in the Middle East.

Noting the defense budget had witnessed "extraordinary" growth after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, Obama said that pace of spending would slow but continue to grow.

"I firmly believe, and I think the American people understand, that we can keep our military strong -- and our nation secure -- with a defense budget that continues to be larger than roughly the next 10 countries combined," he said.

Obama has already earmarked defense budget cuts of $489 billion over 10 years. The defense budget faces an additional $600 billion in cuts after Congress failed to agree to broad deficit reduction after an August 2011 debt ceiling deal.

The president's budget proposal for 2013 will be published in early February.

"Some will no doubt say the spending reductions are too big; others will say they're too small," Obama said. "After a decade of war, and as we rebuild the sources of our strength -- at home and abroad -- it's time to restore that balance."

In putting his stamp on the cuts, Obama outlined two things: The need to streamline the military in an era of tighter budgets and reassess defense priorities in light of China's rise and other global changes.

Obama's decision to announce the results himself underscores the political dimension of Washington's debate over defense savings. The administration says smaller Pentagon budgets are a must but will not come at the cost of sapping the strength of a military in transition, even as it gets smaller.

In a presidential election year, the strategy gives Obama a rhetorical tool to defend his Pentagon budget-cutting choices. Republican contenders for the White House already have criticized Obama on a wide range of national security issues, including missile defense, Iran and planned reductions in ground forces.

The administration and Congress already are trimming defense spending to reflect the closeout of the Iraq war and the drawdown in Afghanistan. The massive $662 billion defense budget planned for next year is $27 billion less than Obama wanted and $43 billion less than Congress gave the Pentagon this year.

Factors guiding the Obama administration's approach to reducing the defense budget are not limited to war-fighting strategy. They also include judgments about how to contain the growing cost of military health care, pay and retirement benefits. The administration is expected to form a commission to study the issue of retirement benefits, possibly led by a prominent retired military officer.

The administration is in the final stages of deciding specific cuts in the 2013 budget, which Obama will submit to Congress next month. The strategy to be announced by Panetta and Dempsey is meant to accommodate about $489 billion in defense cuts over the coming 10 years, as called for in a budget deal with Congress last summer. An additional $500 billion in cuts may be required starting in January 2013.

A prominent theme of the Pentagon's new strategy is expected to be what Panetta has called a renewed commitment to security in the Asia-Pacific region.

On a trip to Asia last fall, Panetta made clear that the region will be central to American security strategy.


"Today we are at a turning point after a decade of war," Panetta said in Japan. Al-Qaida is among a range of concerns that will keep the military busy, but as a traditional Pacific power the United States needs to build a wider and deeper network of alliances and partnerships in that region, he said.

"Most importantly, we have the opportunity to strengthen our presence in the Pacific — and we will," he said.

The administration is not anticipating military conflict in Asia, but Panetta believes the United States got so bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11 that it missed chances to improve its position in other regions.

China is a particular worry because of its economic dynamism and rapid defense buildup. A more immediate concern is Iran, not only for its threats to disrupt the flow of international oil but also for its nuclear ambitions.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Carbizene
Posts: 450
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:41 am

Re: Obama tees up war with China

Post by Carbizene »

Mr. Perfect wrote:Loving that Noble Peace Prize stuff. Loving it. We got us a good warlord in the hopey changey guy. Thanks Democrats for the warlord. You guys can be real bloodthirsty, appreciate it. This is a warmonger President.

The empire grows.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Defense ... /id/423099
"Most importantly, we have the opportunity to strengthen our presence in the Pacific — and we will," he said.
I would like to see the Nobel retracted and bailiffs sent round for the million.

Sarah Palin was right about how is that hopey thing working out, as my Grandpa said "thought followed the lavender cart because it thought it was a good idea".

TPSP is Economic framework for this re-expansion into SE Asia so the green has been mapped out from all angles.
AzariLoveIran

Re: Obama tees up war with China

Post by AzariLoveIran »

Mr. Perfect wrote:.

Loving that Noble Peace Prize stuff. Loving it. We got us a good warlord in the hopey changey guy. Thanks Democrats for the warlord. You guys can be real bloodthirsty, appreciate it. This is a warmonger President.

The empire grows.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Defense ... /id/423099
President Barack Obama on Thursday unveiled a new defense strategy that will shrink the country's armed forces at a time of tight budgets but pledged to maintain U.S. military superiority in the world.

"Our military will be leaner but the world must know -- the United States is going to maintain our military superiority with armed forces that are agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats," Obama told a news briefing at the Pentagon.

Emphasizing the American presence in the Asia-Pacific region, where there is growing U.S. rivalry with an increasingly assertive China,Obama cautioned the military would remain vigilant in the Middle East.

Noting the defense budget had witnessed "extraordinary" growth after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, Obama said that pace of spending would slow but continue to grow.

"I firmly believe, and I think the American people understand, that we can keep our military strong -- and our nation secure -- with a defense budget that continues to be larger than roughly the next 10 countries combined," he said.

Obama has already earmarked defense budget cuts of $489 billion over 10 years. The defense budget faces an additional $600 billion in cuts after Congress failed to agree to broad deficit reduction after an August 2011 debt ceiling deal.

The president's budget proposal for 2013 will be published in early February.

"Some will no doubt say the spending reductions are too big; others will say they're too small," Obama said. "After a decade of war, and as we rebuild the sources of our strength -- at home and abroad -- it's time to restore that balance."

In putting his stamp on the cuts, Obama outlined two things: The need to streamline the military in an era of tighter budgets and reassess defense priorities in light of China's rise and other global changes.

Obama's decision to announce the results himself underscores the political dimension of Washington's debate over defense savings. The administration says smaller Pentagon budgets are a must but will not come at the cost of sapping the strength of a military in transition, even as it gets smaller.

In a presidential election year, the strategy gives Obama a rhetorical tool to defend his Pentagon budget-cutting choices. Republican contenders for the White House already have criticized Obama on a wide range of national security issues, including missile defense, Iran and planned reductions in ground forces.

The administration and Congress already are trimming defense spending to reflect the closeout of the Iraq war and the drawdown in Afghanistan. The massive $662 billion defense budget planned for next year is $27 billion less than Obama wanted and $43 billion less than Congress gave the Pentagon this year.

Factors guiding the Obama administration's approach to reducing the defense budget are not limited to war-fighting strategy. They also include judgments about how to contain the growing cost of military health care, pay and retirement benefits. The administration is expected to form a commission to study the issue of retirement benefits, possibly led by a prominent retired military officer.

The administration is in the final stages of deciding specific cuts in the 2013 budget, which Obama will submit to Congress next month. The strategy to be announced by Panetta and Dempsey is meant to accommodate about $489 billion in defense cuts over the coming 10 years, as called for in a budget deal with Congress last summer. An additional $500 billion in cuts may be required starting in January 2013.

A prominent theme of the Pentagon's new strategy is expected to be what Panetta has called a renewed commitment to security in the Asia-Pacific region.

On a trip to Asia last fall, Panetta made clear that the region will be central to American security strategy.


"Today we are at a turning point after a decade of war," Panetta said in Japan. Al-Qaida is among a range of concerns that will keep the military busy, but as a traditional Pacific power the United States needs to build a wider and deeper network of alliances and partnerships in that region, he said.

"Most importantly, we have the opportunity to strengthen our presence in the Pacific — and we will," he said.

The administration is not anticipating military conflict in Asia, but Panetta believes the United States got so bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11 that it missed chances to improve its position in other regions.

China is a particular worry because of its economic dynamism and rapid defense buildup. A more immediate concern is Iran, not only for its threats to disrupt the flow of international oil but also for its nuclear ambitions.


.
.

:lol:


told you


Look , MP

West, America, is now same position Brits were 1900 in

Brits pretty much controlling all natural resources of the world outside USA

Germans said, not so fast

Germans needed for their economic & industrial development, free access to those resources

Brits said NO

Brits were stealing Iranian oil and selling it full price to Germans

well

you saw what happened

What happened was, after , nearly 70 million dead in WW I & II , Brits lost all and Germans (and Japan) now top of the world

same thing happening now

after

maybe

500 million dead

a new world order will emerge

.
User avatar
Carbizene
Posts: 450
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:41 am

Re: Obama tees up war with China

Post by Carbizene »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Enki wrote:You're a moron.
You're a neoconservative. Which is worse?
Well he is in 'good' company, Obama's a NeoCon.
User avatar
Carbizene
Posts: 450
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:41 am

Re: Obama tees up war with China

Post by Carbizene »

AzariLoveIran wrote:
after

maybe

500 million dead

a new world order will emerge

.
China is too smart for the Machiavellian Neo Cons who think they are so smart with their thought patterns from a time when Europe had 2 books and China had hundreds of thousands.

The arrogance of the Neo Con is they think History doesn't matter, only Philosophy.

After 5000 years of bureaucratic structure China knows better.
User avatar
Azrael
Posts: 1863
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: Obama tees up war with China

Post by Azrael »

Carbizene wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:
Enki wrote:You're a moron.
You're a neoconservative. Which is worse?
Well he is in 'good' company, Obama's a NeoCon.
A "neocon" who just got us out of Iraq. Sorry, Croc, but you just brought a knife to a gun fight.
cultivate a white rose
User avatar
cincinnatus
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 5:28 pm

Re: Obama tees up war with China

Post by cincinnatus »

Azrael wrote:
Carbizene wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:
Enki wrote:You're a moron.
You're a neoconservative. Which is worse?
Well he is in 'good' company, Obama's a NeoCon.
A "neocon" who just got us out of Iraq. Sorry, Croc, but you just brought a knife to a gun fight.

To be honest, all President Obama did was follow the 2007 Security Agreement that W's administration negotiated with Maliki that dictated U.S. forces would be out by the end of 2011. This from the man I personally saw during a debate in 2008 raise his voice that he would get us out of Iraq "now," not in 4 years. Glad he did it, but it wasn't exactly "great moments in political courage."

RE the new strategy...it's a step in the right direction. Finally, there is a cut to strategic roles to match the budget axe (although I'd argue it's ass-backwards). At a bare minimum, trashing the fantasy "4-2-1" concept is a big win. The reset to a Pacific focus would happen R or D. No sense maintaining so many forces in Europe now, much less ten years ago. Getting the f-ck out of the COIN business makes sense...we've never been the strategically patient populace willing to put up with what in effect is colonial policing. Now gunboat diplomacy...or as this strategy calls it "AirSea Battle," that is as American as apple pie (sadly, in case the irony meter is broken). I said before Libya that after W, we'd return to the Clinton-era "Allied Force" way of war (air power). Add in the era of "drones," and that option becomes positively easy for the imperial executive to launch "kinetic operations," and then say it's over after 60-days to avoid congressional oversight. Sorry world, Globocop continues.

Of course, the R's are bleating that Obama is trashing defense. I really wish they'd take a hard look at what happens when you make "military first" the official doctrine of the state...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45917169/ns ... wm-fYFdBPk
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
AzariLoveIran

Re: Obama tees up war with China

Post by AzariLoveIran »

Carbizene wrote:.
AzariLoveIran wrote:.

after

maybe

500 million dead

a new world order will emerge

.
China is too smart for the Machiavellian Neo Cons who think they are so smart with their thought patterns from a time when Europe had 2 books and China had hundreds of thousands.

The arrogance of the Neo Con is they think History doesn't matter, only Philosophy.

After 5000 years of bureaucratic structure China knows better.

.

:D


you pretty much @ the money


.
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: Obama tees up war with China

Post by Zack Morris »

One of the complaints about the Bush administration was its monomaniacal focus on starting incredibly costly (in terms of lives and dollars) wars in the middle east at the expense of the Pacific Rim, which is strategically more important. These criticisms are harder to level at Obama, who has not started any wars approaching the size and scope of Bush's two messes. Libya and Yemen have been restrained, multilateral affairs in the post-Cold War Democratic tradition.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Obama tees up war with China

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Zack Morris wrote:One of the complaints about the Bush administration was its monomaniacal focus on starting incredibly costly (in terms of lives and dollars) wars in the middle east at the expense of the Pacific Rim, which is strategically more important. These criticisms are harder to level at Obama, who has not started any wars approaching the size and scope of Bush's two messes.
AFG is now Obama's mess, he doubled down on dumb@$$ in AFG. Called it the smart war to begin with.

You just don't think that because the media didn't tell you to.
Libya and Yemen have been restrained, multilateral affairs in the post-Cold War Democratic tradition.
He hasn't had the excuse to go big. But he will if given one.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: Obama tees up war with China

Post by Zack Morris »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Zack Morris wrote:One of the complaints about the Bush administration was its monomaniacal focus on starting incredibly costly (in terms of lives and dollars) wars in the middle east at the expense of the Pacific Rim, which is strategically more important. These criticisms are harder to level at Obama, who has not started any wars approaching the size and scope of Bush's two messes.
AFG is now Obama's mess, he doubled down on dumb@$$ in AFG. Called it the smart war to begin with.
Promising time tables for withdrawal, pushing for negotiations with the Taliban, and committing less troops than the military wants all sound like a strange way of "doubling down" to me, but we must be working from different definitions. It's hard to take you seriously when you say Afghanistan is Obama's mess, despite not starting the war and not having run it for the first 7 years, after you tried blaming GSEs for the mortgage mess. To be logically consistent, you would have to assign 100% of the blame to Bush.
He hasn't had the excuse to go big. But he will if given one.
Bush didn't have an excuse, either. He invented one. That's why he was the worst President in US history.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Obama tees up war with China

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Zack Morris wrote: Promising time tables for withdrawal, pushing for negotiations with the Taliban, and committing less troops than the military wants all sound like a strange way of "doubling down" to me, but we must be working from different definitions. It's hard to take you seriously when you say Afghanistan is Obama's mess, despite not starting the war and not having run it for the first 7 years, after you tried blaming GSEs for the mortgage mess. To be logically consistent, you would have to assign 100% of the blame to Bush.
I blame both. Both deserve blame.

There hasn't been a reason to be in AFG since Bush was President, yet Obama campaigned on the necessity of it, called it the smart war, surged it, and lost more lives there than Bush did long after there was anything to be gained there. Making Obama one of the worst Presidents in history.
Bush didn't have an excuse, either. He invented one. That's why he was the worst President in US history.
Of course he had an excuse. Saddam's noncompliance with weapons inspections and UN resolutions. It was such an obvious pretext that support for the war was over 70% long before we went in.

You don't know very much history, do you?
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: Obama tees up war with China

Post by Zack Morris »

Mr. Perfect wrote: I blame both.
News to me.
There hasn't been a reason to be in AFG since Bush was President, yet Obama campaigned on the necessity of it, called it the smart war, surged it, and lost more lives there than Bush did long after there was anything to be gained there. Making Obama one of the worst Presidents in history.
Correction: There hasn't been a reason to be in AFG since Obama's administration decimated Al Qaeda with targeted attacks.
Bush didn't have an excuse, either. He invented one. That's why he was the worst President in US history.
Of course he had an excuse. Saddam's noncompliance with weapons inspections and UN resolutions. It was such an obvious pretext that support for the war was over 70% long before we went in.
1. Noncompliance with UN resolutions is a routine occurrence all over the world, and had been with Iraq for years, so I'm puzzled why you think the option had to be exercised at that particular time. We were not compelled to go to war. In international affairs, there are other options and alternatives that ought to be exhausted first. Clearly these were not and clearly, the war was one of choice because there was no automatic mechanism that would have forced a war.

2. The Bush administration used phony intelligence to make wild claims that were not true. They intentionally linked 9/11 and Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein and claimed that war was necessary to preempt a terrorist attack on a US city. The exaggerated, phony, and un-vetted intelligence was used to establish a weapon and a motive for Iraq. If it were about noncompliance, none of that would have been necessary. The 70% support you cite "long before we went in" was based on this unnecessary (in your view) evidence. I think we both know why these claims were made. We both remember the talk of "smoking guns". And we both remember the peculiar timing. Much ink has been spilled about this and historical consensus will be simply that WMDs/anti-terrorism were the stated reason, noncompliance was the legal and technical justification, and the result was a lack of WMDs, a waste of money, and decimation of goodwill towards America.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Obama tees up war with China

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Zack Morris wrote: News to me.
Well you may not pay attention, which is ok. I semi co-authored something called the Milo Doctrine. We'll get into that later maybe.
Correction: There hasn't been a reason to be in AFG since Obama's administration decimated Al Qaeda with targeted attacks.
Citation needed.
1. Noncompliance with UN resolutions is a routine occurrence all over the world, and had been with Iraq for years, so I'm puzzled why you think the option had to be exercised at that particular time. We were not compelled to go to war. In international affairs, there are other options and alternatives that ought to be exhausted first. Clearly these were not and clearly, the war was one of choice because there was no automatic mechanism that would have forced a war.
If you want to know why people wanted to go to war in Iraq and are American, ask any of your countrymen. Over 70% of them wanted to. I think just about any of them will tell you.
2. The Bush administration used phony intelligence to make wild claims that were not true. They intentionally linked 9/11 and Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein and claimed that war was necessary to preempt a terrorist attack on a US city. The exaggerated, phony, and un-vetted intelligence was used to establish a weapon and a motive for Iraq. If it were about noncompliance, none of that would have been necessary. The 70% support you cite "long before we went in" was based on this unnecessary (in your view) evidence. I think we both know why these claims were made. We both remember the talk of "smoking guns". And we both remember the peculiar timing. Much ink has been spilled about this and historical consensus will be simply that WMDs/anti-terrorism were the stated reason, noncompliance was the legal and technical justification, and the result was a lack of WMDs, a waste of money, and decimation of goodwill towards America.
Every Western Nation considered Saddam armed, even France, Germany and Russia. The Clinton administration considered Saddam armed. Everybody did. Hans Blix could not declare them unarmed.

Did you graduate HS in like 2004? This is very Michale Moorish material.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27267
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Obama tees up war with China

Post by Typhoon »

Mr. Perfect wrote: Every Western Nation considered Saddam armed, even France, Germany and Russia. The Clinton administration considered Saddam armed. Everybody did. Hans Blix could not declare them unarmed.

. . .
What nations besides Luxembourg are considered to be not "armed".

The claim of WMDs was a fabricated pretext to invade.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Obama tees up war with China

Post by Mr. Perfect »

It was the intelligence assessment of all Western Nations. All the Western Nations said their intelligence was that Iraq had WMDs. That is just a matter of historical fact.
Censorship isn't necessary
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 5:51 pm

Re: Obama tees up war with China

Post by admin »

A reminder to several posters in this thread:

Simple Rule 2
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27267
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Obama tees up war with China

Post by Typhoon »

Mr. Perfect wrote:It was the intelligence assessment of all Western Nations. All the Western Nations said their intelligence was that Iraq had WMDs. That is just a matter of historical fact.
As far as I'm aware, the claimants consisted of the Americans with the collusion of the British rather than "all" Western nations.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: Obama tees up war with China

Post by Zack Morris »

Mr. Perfect wrote: Citation needed.
Osama Bin Laden Killed: 'Justice is Done,' President Says

Al Qaeda On The Ropes: One Fighter's Story
Few Americans share Hanif’s regret at the terrorist group’s decline. But by all accounts, al Qaeda has been practically wiped out in its former Afghan and Pakistani strongholds. Although America has suspended its drone attacks inside Pakistan since mid-November—the program’s longest hiatus in three years—the respite seems to have come too late for bin Laden’s old associates. “The drone attacks may have ended, but only after the near ending of al Qaeda in the tribal areas,” says a senior Taliban intelligence officer who has been in contact with surviving members of the group. “As far as I can tell, the operational command of al Qaeda has almost been eliminated.” Hanif’s uncle, a Taliban operative, tells Newsweek he’s been in contact with a few al Qaeda members who have taken refuge outside the tribal areas. “All of al Qaeda’s assets who had a strategic vision have been eliminated,” they’ve told him.
If you want to know why people wanted to go to war in Iraq and are American, ask any of your countrymen. Over 70% of them wanted to. I think just about any of them will tell you.
Sure, and they'll tell you the reason was 'weapons of mass destructions', a byproduct of the lies that came out of the White House and Pentagon during 2002-2003. 'Noncompliance' with a UN resolution that did not require military action is not the reason cited. If you'd like, you can go back in time and examine the news coverage for yourself. You seem to be either too young or too old to remember.
Every Western Nation considered Saddam armed, even France, Germany and Russia. The Clinton administration considered Saddam armed. Everybody did. Hans Blix could not declare them unarmed.
'Armed' is not a binary concept. And I don't think even you would argue that most 'Western Nations' were pushing for invasion.
Did you graduate HS in like 2004? This is very Michale Moorish material.
Newsmax. This is very Sarah Palinish material.
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: Obama tees up war with China

Post by Zack Morris »

Typhoon wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:It was the intelligence assessment of all Western Nations. All the Western Nations said their intelligence was that Iraq had WMDs. That is just a matter of historical fact.
As far as I'm aware, the claimants consisted of the Americans with the collusion of the British rather than "all" Western nations.
This is correct. France, Germany, and Russia were deeply involved in this matter as well but exercised superior restraint and caution regarding the intelligence. The United States, on the other hand, knowingly peddled false intelligence to the public in order to make the case for war (much of it coming from a single con-man) and the neo-con obsession with invading Iraq as part of a larger strategic mission in the middle east has been well documented. Apparently, some folks here still like to take their pet favorite administration at its word.
AzariLoveIran

Re: Obama tees up war with China

Post by AzariLoveIran »

Mr. Perfect wrote:.

It was the intelligence assessment of all Western Nations. All the Western Nations said their intelligence was that Iraq had WMDs. That is just a matter of historical fact.

.

west had given Saddam chemical, biological and all kinds of weapon .. to kill Iranians

West knew what Saddam had, because west had given those things to him

Iraq had no capacity to produce much themselves .. all given by west

so, there was no ambiguity what Saddam had

western mistake was not that

western mistake was to try to genuflect Iran

well

stay tuned

.
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: Obama tees up war with China

Post by Zack Morris »

This argument about Iraq is too easy. Let's get back to the topic at hand. Is there something wrong with our posture in Asia? For all the annoying things American Marines have done in Okinawa and the passions they stir in Korea, neither the Japanese or Koreans seem to dislike or fear us. The Vietnamese are warming up, too. My questions are: who do the Japanese and the Koreans feel more comfortable with? The US or the Chinese? If the former, what would it take to foster good relations with China?

In other words, how tenuous is our influence in East Asia?
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Obama tees up war with China

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Do you know that OBL was killed in Pakistan, where he had been living for many years?
Al Qaeda On The Ropes: One Fighter's Story
Few Americans share Hanif’s regret at the terrorist group’s decline. But by all accounts, al Qaeda has been practically wiped out in its former Afghan and Pakistani strongholds. Although America has suspended its drone attacks inside Pakistan since mid-November—the program’s longest hiatus in three years—the respite seems to have come too late for bin Laden’s old associates. “The drone attacks may have ended, but only after the near ending of al Qaeda in the tribal areas,” says a senior Taliban intelligence officer who has been in contact with surviving members of the group. “As far as I can tell, the operational command of al Qaeda has almost been eliminated.” Hanif’s uncle, a Taliban operative, tells Newsweek he’s been in contact with a few al Qaeda members who have taken refuge outside the tribal areas. “All of al Qaeda’s assets who had a strategic vision have been eliminated,” they’ve told him.
Can you tell my why we molest women and children at the airport and why the President now has powers to detain people indefinitely?

Do you think the USG knows more about the subject or the people in the article?
Sure, and they'll tell you the reason was 'weapons of mass destructions', a byproduct of the lies that came out of the White House and Pentagon during 2002-2003. 'Noncompliance' with a UN resolution that did not require military action is not the reason cited. If you'd like, you can go back in time and examine the news coverage for yourself. You seem to be either too young or too old to remember.
Yikes. You are going to be a lot of repetitive work.

Zack, 4 months or so before the war GWB went to the UN and gave a speech explaining that Saddam was in violation of the terms of his surrender, ie some 17 UN resolutions. Not resolutions about where aid money goes or whatnot, but terms of surrender of war. He was in total violation of them.

So we had every legal justification to go to war, even Ramsey Clark will tell you this.

Zack, regime change in Iraq was the policy of the Clinton administration, for the very same reason that Bush gave to go to war. He was in violation of his terms of surrender and was not complying with weapons inspections programs. I really can't believe I have to do this.
'Armed' is not a binary concept. And I don't think even you would argue that most 'Western Nations' were pushing for invasion.
The issue is did all the nations believe, through intelligence that Saddam was armed. The answer is yes.
Newsmax. This is very Sarah Palinish material.
Thank you. A wonderful compliment.
Censorship isn't necessary
AzariLoveIran

Re: Obama tees up war with China

Post by AzariLoveIran »

Zack Morris wrote:.

In other words, how tenuous is our influence in East Asia ?

.

Brzezinski says America want to control .. he uses the word " ARBITRATOR " for resources of EuroAsia .. basically control Energy of the world

bfikRg2jE6o


China does not accept America as " ARBITRATOR " of world energy .. neither does Iran nor Russia

that is why all the wars going on in that space .. Iran is the key

If Iran becomes a strong power, America can not controll EuroAsia

If Iran falls, things become much easier for US of A

We will play ball, but has a price .. it is not free


.
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: Obama tees up war with China

Post by Zack Morris »

Mr. Perfect wrote: Do you know that OBL was killed in Pakistan, where he had been living for many years?
Irrelevant. Pakistan had long been a front of the Afghan war.

Can you tell my why we molest women and children at the airport and why the President now has powers to detain people indefinitely?

Do you think the USG knows more about the subject or the people in the article?
I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Yikes. You are going to be a lot of repetitive work.

Zack, 4 months or so before the war GWB went to the UN and gave a speech explaining that Saddam was in violation of the terms of his surrender, ie some 17 UN resolutions. Not resolutions about where aid money goes or whatnot, but terms of surrender of war. He was in total violation of them.
This is all in the news reports in the date range I gave you.
So we had every legal justification to go to war, even Ramsey Clark will tell you this.
1. Technical legality as decided by the aggressors is irrelevant.

2. Legality here remains in question. There was no provisions requiring military action. The Security Council would have preferred alternative measures. Many others disagreed that there was a legal basis for war.

3. Military action does not imply full-scale invasion and regime change. The scale of the action was disproportionate to the alleged threat.

4. The case for war was being floated by the administration before any resolutions of murky intent were proposed to authorize force.
Zack, regime change in Iraq was the policy of the Clinton administration, for the very same reason that Bush gave to go to war. He was in violation of his terms of surrender and was not complying with weapons inspections programs. I really can't believe I have to do this.
I have no doubt the US would prefer regime change to the status quo in a number of countries but the fact of the matter is that Clinton used appropriate levels of force and rates of escalation. He did not go from no-fly-zone to full-scale invasion over what had become a routine dance with the Iraqis.
The issue is did all the nations believe, through intelligence that Saddam was armed. The answer is yes.
And the point is?
Post Reply