John McCain's League of Democracies
Posted by Nanne Zwagerman in Transatlantic Relations on Sunday, March 23. 2008
We need to renew and revitalise our democratic solidarity. We need to strengthen our transatlantic alliance as the core of a new global compact – a League of Democracies – that can harness the great power of the more than 100 democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests.
At the heart of this new compact must be mutual respect and trust. We Americans recall the words of our founders in the Declaration of Independence, that we must pay “decent respect to the opinions of mankind”. Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed.
The words about respect and trust are welcome. However, the idea of a leage of democracies is also likely to run into some opposition among America's European allies. The reasons McCain gives for his league of democracies, both in the FT and in a May 2007 speech reported on in the Washington Post, have much to do with America's perceived national interest. On issues like confronting the 'turn towards autocracy' in Russia, 'acting where the UN fails to act' on a problem like Darfur and providing 'unimpeded market access' to open market democracies, continental Europe has completely different perceived interests.
John Vinocur noted the wide divergence between John McCain's and Germany's approach towards Russia in a recent piece in the International Herald Tribune. This divergence is not limited to either McCain or to Germany, but also extends to other European countries, like France, and to the Democratic presidential candidates. Vinocur is hostile towards the German policy on Russia, which he partially attributes to a leftward shift.
The more friendly policy towards Russia is, however, well-established in the German political mainstream, because it is perceived to be in Germany's interests. There is a much more acute desire for stability with regard to Russia and the former Soviet Union countries in Germany than there is in the USA, as both a hostile Russia and a chaotic Russia would have a large potential for causing trouble in Germany's backyard. The US does not have this problem, so its focus on democracy promotion comes at a lower cost. The divergence in policy clearly follows a divergence in interests.
And that is part of the problem with McCain's league of democracies. John McCain appears to think that the democracies of the world will naturally have an overriding common national interest, as democracies. Although being a functioning liberal democracy will have some effect upon the perceived national interest of a country, this notion of McCain seems naive. If there really were such a large amount of shared interest, the democracies of the world would already be acting in concert in the United Nations.
As Nikolas Gvosdev has noted on The Washington Realist, problems with getting democracies to act together on a topic are ultimately caused by unwillingness to do so on part of the countries, not by institutional obstacles.
Welcome! You are reading the ATLANTIC REVIEW -- a Press Digest on Transatlantic Relations combined with commentary and analysis by four young professionals from Germany, the Netherlands and the United States. More about us.
The horizontal menu bar at the top helps to navigate this site.
Subscribe to one of our RSS-Feeds or to our newsletter, which is emailed twice per month.Why does everyone immediately perceive the "League of Democracies" as a Jacobean Politburo? It is a common sense, pragmatic response to the dysfunctionality of the UN and a preferential alternative to the cumbersome decision-making process of the antiquated UN procedural format.
Has having the Group of Islamic States (with the exception of Turkey, Indonesia and Iraq), Venezuela or China ever helped in achieving the goals of the UN as set forth in the Universal Declaration of HR in '49? Care about 'global warming/climate change/whatever'? How is that going? Afica? The wog genocide in Sudan? All the great powers' repudiation of the treaties against making territorial claims of the Artic and Anartica, the weaponisation of space....
On the other hand, it could be an Anglo-Saxon plot.
The point I tried to make about the 'League of Democracies' is that it is unrealistic to believe that it will provide for much easier decision-making. A lot of the states presumed to be in the league (say, Brazil, India, South Africa, Indonesia) are not aligned with the USA right now. By the way, Venezuela is still a democracy...
For all these countries, the north/south divide is much more important than some demoratic/nondemocratic divide.
The USA needs to face up to reality and start dealing and negotiating with the world as it is rather than trying to shape the world order to its liking. That is, quite simply, no longer within its power.
Your point is well taken, Nanne, as is Elizabetta's. However, the idea of an organization apart from the UN with restricted membership has been around now for awhile and may have as much to do with encouraging reform in nonmember states as it does in promoting specific policies congenial to US interests. I doubt seriously that the US will forgo the pursuit of its interests by means of bilateral relations and negotiations, League of Democracies or no: that, is dealing with the world as it is.
Certainly, one can not prove that decision-making will be easier or more enforceable under another regime that has not been created (good point!), but negotiations in a collective framework, as oppossed to the current institutional approach without an effective executive enforcement option, have a greater possibility for success.
If you consider suborning the judiciary and wide-spread intimidation of the elector inconsequential enough to validate an election, Venezuela may be a democracy for in your estimation.
North/South divide--how is that relevant today? Someone has been reading too much of their IR textbooks from the 70s.
The US is "facing up to reality" and attempting to negotiate with the world as the world is; hence, we need a new negotiating framework or at least should explore potential options for creating one.
What is wrong with you people? You can not even mention a hypothetical change in the international order and you suffer fits of apoplexy. It's almost a medieval mentality.
I can assure you that I have no IR textbooks from the 70s! North-South issues are still relevant enough for countries from the South to organise around them. The G77 and the non-aligned movement still exist and are stil active in the UN. The 100 democracies McCain talks about, meanwhile, do not form a block within the UN.
With regard to Venezuela, Chaves lost the referendum last december that was supposed to enable him to extend his presidency beyond 2013. Venezuela may not be a perfect democracy, but you don't lose a referendum in an authoritarian state.
If the 'league of democracies' is to become just another talkshop (which I'd deem ultimately likely, considering the lack of interest), there is little I'd see wrong with it. The problem is that McCain seems to want it to supplant the UN, which is not desirable or realistic.
North-South issues are still relevant enough for countries from the South to organise around them. The G77 and the non-aligned movement still exist and are stil active in the UN.
This is precisely the type of shuttered worldview that drives people mad in its myopic opacity. Yes, the G77 and NAM still exists, but what are they? They are alternatively an intra-UN caucus and an unaccredited interest/lobbying group for voting in the GA. Discounting the quaint quasi-socialist rhetoric of the NAM states, their main reason for existing is to co-opt exisiting UN institutions to maximize their loans/grants or sell their votes in the GA (which outside of the Resolution for peace authorizing the peacekeeping action in Korea and its doubtful oontribution to opinio juris has no fx). Neither of these organizations, if you can use the term that loosely, enjoy a meanigful existence independent of the UN system and to superimpose a global north/south divide merely on the basis of two cold-war relics whose birth is a product of the UN system is to re-imagine fancifully the geo-political landscape.
The 100 democracies McCain talks about, meanwhile, do not form a block within the UN.
See the Jacobean Politburo comment supra. McCain's version, havent read his latest proposal, is not to create a voting faction to preserve and maintain constiuent member state's favorite golden cows, but to create a more efficient negotiating forum with the hope of an effective enforcement option.
If the 'league of democracies' is to become just another talkshop (which I'd deem ultimately likely, considering the lack of interest), there is little I'd see wrong with it. The problem is that McCain seems to want it to supplant the UN, which is not desirable or realistic.
The UN is a 'talking shop' for the diplomatic class, unless of course you are a veto-wielding permanent SC member. With the right preparations, major regional powers such as Germany can hold a temporary place in the SC, but to what purpose? You can get in the show and even heckle, but you are not allowed to disturb the show when the dancers are on the pole.
It is not a shuttered worldview to state that countries organise in a certain way within the UN system due to shared interests. Your point that these countries only organise in that way due to the UN system -- that they really would not have these shared interests if it were not for the UN -- ... it's a fair point, but not on the face of it more plausible than the claim that these countries have these interests independent of the UN.
A north-south divide can also be observed in the WTO's doha round of negotiations, and in previous WTO rounds. A thing that has been interesting about these negotiations is the emergence of a group of larger developing countries (G20), which points to a minor split in the south (although the G20 is mainly organised against the north). This group, too, contains both autocratic and democratic states.
Once again, you could say that this is a mere artifact of the existence of WTO negotiations. But that is the world as it is.
Countries organise around their interests as they emerge in existing settings. From the UN, to the WTO, to climate negotiations, you see developing countries organising and you don't see democracies organising.
(I should add that the US has been trying to get a democracy caucus in the UN, but the idea has not gone very far)
Dealing with this by hoping a new setting will provide a different contrast seems like putting the cart before the horse to me. First, you need to work on building common interests.
When you start exploring that issue, you'll find that on a number of topics, there simply is very little common interest between democracies. A prime example being free trade. Many developing country democracies (notably India, but also others) see a strong need for protectionist measures to build domestic value chains. So you have to take a step back and consider that though trade liberalisation is not going to go very far, having a market economy for goods and services is perhaps a common trait for democracies, and see where you can build a consensus from there.
That is one way in which you could construct more ties and common interests. Now all I see from McCain's league of democracies is an empty hull on which he and you project wishlists of how the US would like to see the world work. That is the very opposite of realism.
EU should back off in IRAQ, EU never support US IRAQ war. Iraq war lead to so many troubles to Free World. If EU get more involved in Iraq affairs, it will not only exhaust EU's resources but also shake-up EU's images and moral values . Transsatlantic relationship is mature enough. EU need not take part in an immoral and inhuman war only for US's favor.
Look at this , EU's impartiality is in doubt and Human Rights development is at risk.
UN rights body slammed for neglecting and ignoring Guantanamo Prinsoners' HR and Iraq civilian's death.
Mar 2008 19:20:40 GMT
GENEVA, March 28 - Activists criticised the U.N. Human Rights Council for failing to take a strong stand against violence in Iraq and condemn US government indulging the deteriorating situation there.
They also criticised the 47 member-state forum for failing to persude France giving up its excessive violence against Muslim community. France government should respect Muslim culture and tradition. Prohibiting Muslim muffle in schools will not harmonized the decades of highly stressed relationship between Gaulish people and Muslim immigrants
"These are three examples where we think the council has fallen down on the job, The council needs to focus more on saving lives and less on allowing governments to save face.We noticed that almost all western powers deliberately avoid mentioning Iraq pepole's miserable life and millions of civilian victims.I know US government,congress,media are arguing about US troops casualty and expenditure there , but I don't understand why UN rights body also cherish US troopers than Iraq civilian?"
The Geneva-based Council was set up two years ago to replace the U.N. Human Rights Commission, which was widely criticised for failing to overcome political alliances and take a strong stand on issues including Guantanamo Prinsoners' rights and escalating and deteriorating Iraq situation . Although US was once excluded from the Geneva-based human rights Council(the former Human Rights Commission) ,the close relationship across the Atlantic ocean plays a significant role in helping US tide over the awkwardness.EU manage to save US government's face with the expense of HUMAN RIGHTS BILL.
The new body has come under fire for failing to speak out against flagrant violations and for bowing to many hegemony countries' objections which block the commission carrying out independent investigation on US misinformation of Iraq's mass destruction weapones and US ignoring UN resolution and internation law. -- criticisms that also plagued the commission.
US diplomats raised procedural motions to disrupt the Council's debate on Iraq this week, during which Muslim countries pressured Washington to let independent observer into Iraq to assess the consequences of its status quo.
US says more than 4000 US military men and women were killed in the anti-terrorist war, but they reject to provide any civilian death toll until now, some NGO groups has estimated there have been 1.2 million deaths in the violence (exercising by US military and terrorists), most of death in Iraq and Afghan come from excessive violence by US military force .
He will also face resistance from many Americans who have decided Europe is at best an unreliable ally and more typically a hypocrital sabateur and back stabber.
Senator McCain can even not earn democratic party's trusts in US. For the benfits of election, he had spread so much dirty rummors against Obama.
If he can not peacefully coexists with democratic leader domestically.How can he achieve the goal of setting up the "League of Democracies" world-wide. That's the beaten track of US politician to earn support from outside,McCain's plot aims at confining US's rivals like Russia and China in a new name.
Another kind of ideology war. US occupation on Iraq and Afghan make most people think US is fighting against islam states and their religous tradition. While the title of "Democracy " will make US despicable activity less racist like . We can bet that the so-called the "League of Democracies" is another tool manipulated by US. US will not take heed of its alliance interests. But its ally states got no choice otherwise. Like what Bush brazenly proclaimed "be our alliances or be our enenmies...",there is few other country/people can choose from .
Merkel -
He hasn't spread dirt on Obama, Clinton's camapign is behind that. On top of that, he isn't seeking the Democratic party's nomination.
I find it amusing how so many otherwise educated and intelligent Europeans see nothing but a play on race in the US election.
No matter what the candidates' idology or platforms are, do you genuinely believe that one should always vote for the candidate that indulges a fantasy about how that candidate fits into ones' mental picture of what 'socila justice' should look like?
It's clear that the people who can actually see beyond race can see through it.
As far as the interpretation of his statement, I don't think he's talking about setting up another talking shop meal-ticket for IR grads (I'm sure people are imagining another well staffed facility based in Brussels). I think he's talking about relations, disposition, and action between Foreign Ministries and leaders. You realy don't need another large coterie of unelected civil servants to create yet another parallel plane to engage in those relations. As it is it's already a loony beehive of multinational wishful thinking.
A) Islam is not a race. Trust me on this, I'm an Arab.
B) If you were to take the attitude that no war can be fought because of the outside world's perception of religion (one other than the parties at war) what then does one do to challenge the pretexts? In every public dispatch, al-Queda, and all of its' ideological ancestors have been stoking a religious war with the rest of humanity in the same manner Hizballah has for decades.
Jihad by its' very nature is a religious war against the rest of humanity, and yet these idiots think that they are promoting "peace" by mindlessly repeating the precise opposite - that the US, a secular democracy, is fighting a religious war. By repeating what jihadists are trying to promote, they are little more than the same kind of dupe that Lord HawHaw or the Red Brigade was.
The US is clearly not at war with Islam, no matter what jihadi sypathists and their fellow travellers in the "peace" community may want to believe.
Do these people who call themselves a "peace" movement so no-one will argue with them really want to live in a theocracy abscent of any pluralism? By there actions, the answer quite clearly is yes.
Joe N.-Is it just possible that Ant1 has a cousin on the western side of the International Dateline? I would welcome a little pithiness!
Joe:
A) Islam is not a race. Trust me on this, I'm an Arab.
Reply: I surely trust you that you are an Arab. Surely Islam is not a race. Islam is not concept of geography, it more closely links to religion and culture. Islam is a kind of civilization totally different from Christian civilization.
Different civilizations do not always peacefully coexists. Civilization collision always happened between Islam and Christian world because the pillar of the Civilization (religion) encourage people fight for purity in belief. I don't need to remind you that Christian world wage two round of crusades against Islam pagan(heathen). When President call for anti terrorist war, he used the words like crusade against Islam extremists. I get astonished. will President Bush launch another religions war in the name of anti-terrorism?
As to the word "Race" i used in my post, I need to make explanation here. I believe the civilization collision always appears as racist clashes. According to Harvard professor Huntingdon's theory, civilization collision always happend acrossing civilization-fault-line. We see US invade Iraq and Afghan ,the racist collision became the major part, when it evloved , the Islam states will search common ground and identify the anti-war as anti islamic civilization in the end. That's why I said if Bush administration does not harry up with its Iraq solution, US 's Iraq presence will lead to many troubles. The whole world will splited according to their civilization.
How can Muslim world tolerate the blatant insults(from western media and politicians) to their religion beliefs ,how can Muslim people blind their eyes to millions of civilian people's death in Iraq and Afghan.
PS. As a matter of fact, "Arab" is not a concept of geography, race, civilization,religion, I admit there are close linkage between this notiones.
Sen McCain spreading rumors, any actual facts to back up that claim? Remember that the two current Democratic candidates are the ones slagging each others reputations while the Republicans are merely spectators.
My impression of the current iteration of a league of democracies, which I believe the earliest I was aware of was during the Carter Administration, is more along the lines of effectively excluding those non-democratic nations that always have to be appeased in the UN. Democratic nations will and always have squabbled among themselves over important and not so important differences for the last two centuries but as Elisabetta has pointed out they share some important characteristics; rule of law, territorial integrity, free trade or even the ability to not trade without coercion and free elections for example. And if this league is to work these common traits must be attributes not goals.
Plus it is utter nonsense to imply that this league would be designed to be racist as many of the nations that would be eligible and have the desire to join would be many nations that do not look like Klan meetings. Unless the Japanese, the Singaporeans or the Turks or the South Africans are now considered as white as bedsheets.
Senator McCain has its election team. McCain instruct his staff to do such immoral things most of time while he play the role of a honerable gentlemen. We can strill trace many scandals spreaded from Republican side to pro-McCain strength.
At this critical time ,McCain avoid directly getting involved in the arguement between Hilary and Obama. Because if the democratic voters found his hidden tail ,Democratic voters will get more united. and the two possible Democratic candidates will compete for a steadfast hardliner towards the Republican intruder. McCain is handling the whole situation from back stage. He make balance between Hilary and Obama. When Hilary take lead in Democratic primary, conservative strength will hand their favor to Obama,and vice versa.
Hilary and Obama's disgrace history is not always come from the two competitor or democratic voters loyal to the two possible candidates. Hilary and Obama are not talented cynicism.When needed McCain would became more aggressive than the two naive chicken. Believe or not most of the rummors from republican side is McCain connected.
when democratic candidate is settled down ,McCain will show its true color . At that time the lonely old woman will get more miserable than his husband Bill Clinton and the african american Obama will be described as terrist -connected and racism inclination. Hillary Clinton will feel lucky for her husband steering away from bipartison struggle after Lewinsky scandal.
I'll keep an eye on that.
Come on, what "...immoral things" has the Senator instructed his staff to do aside from make a lot of fund raising phone calls and to make sure that people don't yank on his damaged arms when shaking hands? The only thing that Sen. McCain might have to do is to make sure that when he replays the idiotic back and fourth of the Democrats he doesn't violate copyright or fair use laws.
I sincerely hope that these ludicrous and unsbtantiated charges are simply the work of a cyclops whose eye Odysseus has already pierced. How about some links or citations other than a believe or not string of old wive's tales.
Why not google the internet with keyword like "Republican election trick" "McCain" . There is lots infomation there for you.If you got intellgence to analyze those Republican tricks,you got to know who stands behand those Republican puppets. If that is beyond your understanding , It's lucky you got time to find McCain's fox tail after democatic candidate nomination.The media will feed you with more facts and analysis.
As a reference, I provide you with some interesting infomation about 2004 president election. How president George W.Bush vilify Senator John Kerry and escape from condemnation. To his highness ,Senator McCain,there is no need to draw inspiration from "predecessor". It's a pity the whole dirty thing is so clear but no one can prove it. Even the Republican candidates(Bush) condemn Veteran Group's politic ads.
___________________________________________
-------------------------------------------
Senator John Kerry . the Massachusetts Democrat continues to defend his war record in the wake of new attacks from a group of Vietnam veterans.
Despite his focus on the economy, Senator Kerry remains on the defensive over attacks from a group of veterans that accuses him of lying about his combat record in Vietnam.
The group, which calls itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, has launched a second television advertisement that criticizes Senator Kerry for his anti-war activities, after his return from Vietnam in the early 1970s.
"He betrayed us in the past. How could we be loyal to him now?," the ad said.
Senator Kerry lashed out at the veterans group on Thursday, and accused it of acting as a front group for the Bush campaign.
That brought a denial from presidential spokesman Scott McClellan. "And the president has stayed focused on the issues and the choices that the voters face," he said. "That is what this ought to be about. There are some clear choices that the voters face for the future. This should not be about the past."
The New York Times reported Friday that the anti-Kerry veterans group is largely funded by Republican donors with close ties to the Bush family.
As a further counter to the attack ads from the anti-Kerry veterans, the Kerry campaign has launched a new ad of its own featuring former Green Beret Jim Rassman, who was rescued by John Kerry's swift boat in a Vietnamese river in 1969.
"All these Viet Cong were shooting at me. I expected I would be shot. When he pulled me out of the river, he risked his life to save mine," he said.
Democrats emphasized Senator Kerry's war record at their national convention last month, amid indications that the public views national security and foreign policy issues as their main priority this election year.
Michael Dimock, with the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press here in Washington. "When it comes to terrorism, the public really agrees that there is a need for tough action in tough times, in a tough situation," said
Public opinion polls suggest President Bush's greatest advantage heading into the November election is the perception that he has been a strong leader in the war on terrorism. The Kerry campaign is hoping to counter that by highlighting the Democratic candidate's combat experience in Vietnam.
Jim Malone, VOA News, Washington.
Wingnuts like Pat will never accept, Merkel-2, that for us on Christmas in Cambodia a saviour was born. He escaped the Khmer Rouge!! What did McCain do? He got captured and sat in a cozy cell for a year before his collaboration and cushy treatment got him a quick flight stateside.
John Kerry was not a summer soldier--he did not fight and then abandon his nation's finest founding principles; he went into politics.
"Christmas in Cambodia a saviour was born"
Pol Pot, perhaps? He's the only Cambodian I know....
Don S-I think you might need to check the length of one of your legs now as Elisabetta has been pulling it for awhile now.
Had you considered the possibility that I might be doing a little pulling myself, Pat? Only advancing a Modest Proposal.
I'm certain that those events are seared (seared!) onto the conciousness of everyone writing in this forum - wouldn't you agree? ;)
Ah, no I didn't so I apologize for not recognizing it as such!
I could never resist a good alliteralism - or even a bad one!As you can clearly perceive.
Pol Pot has been severely underrated - the Lenin of his country. And consider - really all old Pol did was try to accomplish for his country what the refulgent Mao did for his in the Great Leap Forward. Surely admirable by the current standards of analysis prevailing within the History departments of prestigious universities?
I believe it a miscarriage of History that messire Pot is not regarded with the even greater respect than Che Guevara. They were essentially similar figures after all, except for the minor difference that Che worked more in retail while Pol was clearly a wholesaler....
Ok, after scrolling through as suggested over 150 entries I found that over half of them referred to a campaign tiff between Gov.Romney and Sen. McCain which was basically a he said. he said. But no bimbo eruptions, no voter suppression or even the dead rising to affirm their faith in democracy.
Also no repeats of one of the most famous campaign tricks by a man called Dick Tuck of posing a very pregnant young woman outside a Nixon campagin rally with a sign which had printed on it, "Nixon's the One." Still very funny and still a classic.
A mere disagreement on the campaign trail is simply normal in modern campaigning in the US. But these are not the kinds of tricks that truly damage the vote. And unfortunately for the truly paranoid most of the whining about election tricks, from both sides, usually are found groundless when investigated by the press or election officials. But then again there were some Illuminati hanging around my precinct last time trying to get people to gaze into a crystal before voting. Which might not have been to effective as most in my precinct have vision so poor that they usually asked, "What crystal?"
I wonder whether you know some scandal concerning the Arizona senator is discovered recently.
I know bunches of evidences,but all of them will not convince you. Because you can say they are indirect or they are not verfied. In politic sometimes there is uncertainty . Collecting facts then analyzing them will grant you some vision. It's a pity that you only accept what the media told you ,reject thoroughly reasoning. What i can say about it.
The facts i found and conclusion I had drawn ,you think it pointless and groundless. I respect your judgement.
I guess no need to discuss McCain's characteres and his conducts any futher. let 's wait to see what McCain's true color is .
McCain is not better than his democratic competitor (Hilary and Clinton) in moral sense.McCain is not better than his predecessor George Bush as well. "Time" will tell everything.
As a politician ,McCain know the difference between his voting pledges and his acts. anytime, His own interests will be first taken into consideration, his party's interests will definitely overweight the federal's. As to the so-called "League of Democracies" which prevailed in cold war periods, play the only role of safeguarding US 's hegemony.
Merkel -
If you don't vote in the US, it is literally none of your business - especially if you'll accept anything you see on the internet as something that props up your world view.
All of these people rationalizing that because the US has an impact on their lives, that they should be permitted to vote as non-citizens... what foolishness. what hypocrity.
Europeans influence us just as much, and some individuals frequesntly undemine what they percive as a US action, and I just can't imagine an American vividly starting a movement/website/whatever about any candidate in Europe (outside of the recent immigrants to the US).
I also can't even begin to imagine the invective and the overblown theorizing that would come with an American suggesting anything of the sort.
Oh, and Elizabetta: regardless of whether or not he went into politics, Kerry spent 14 weeks in Vietnam, did very little good, and came home to give speeches and testimony that was used by the people who ran the NVA prisons as a tool against them to break the prisoners down. As the NVA was also repeating it as propaganda, it was clear to the US public, and to the likes of Jane Fonda amd John Kerry that their statements were being cited. What they did fit the most basic description of treason.
It even goes down to the fake ARMY jacket which Kerry the NAVY man wore that betrayed his entire post-return effort as a political campaign.
"Kerry spent 14 weeks in Vietnam, did very little good"
Kerry actively volunteered for a combat mission and earned both a Silver and Bronze star. Do I need to point out that he served 14 weeks longer in combat than George W. Bush (who used his Dad's connections to avoid combat duty, but last week said that combat sounds "romantic")? Do I need to point out that he served 14 weeks longer than Dick "Five Deferments" Cheney?
Of course, anyone who dares to question the war policies of the administration is - in your mind - guilty of treason.
Although I consider the Bush government´s military policy a complete joke, I even more dislike those that fall into the back of their nation.
This is indeed is the first step towards treason.
If you want to question the war policy, do so by all means. Don't paint your distant countrymen as zombie followers of a cult of personality. "Lighting candles on an alter" and so forth.
Kerry volunteered for combat the way many others did: to fix the term of exposure, choose his TDY, and then use it for career purposes later. His Bronze Star and Silver Star "with Valor" were speciously awarded through the use of beaurocratic connections and undeserved. In fact, I have no idea what that experience was supposed to do to inform policy since he really didn't see the consequences of war to any degree. His ability to understand the effect of war on a population isn't that different from a civilian, while his predispostion to tacitly supporting dictatorship through the willful knowledge that his statements were being used as NVA propaganda were demostratively clear and knowable.
I brought Kerry up because Kerry, and what was supposed to be his infallability because of military service came up. As for your chickenhawk argument, it seems rather amusing that it never works in the reverse: how is it that an opponent to military policy can comment, but a proponent of a military is told that they have to have had a bronze and silver star, MoH, etc, etc, to voice their opinion as a citizen?
If you want to oppose a policy, by all means oppose it honestly. In fact a recent study indicated something rather obvious to anyne who understands the role of modern satellite media in Eurasia:
Negative U.S. media linked to increased insurgent attacks
THAT is blood on the hands of people who can't think if any other position to take against a complex issue other than the one that plainly failed throught history, and the one that deferred a larger bloodshed to a later date. You can even think of the harm associated with the deposing of Saddam Hussein as just that: it was made more severe because it took so long to happen.
You may note one thing about the general population in Europe that has prove true over time: they're all for war, even ill motivated ones such as capturing resources in Africa when it benefits them directly, but in general the larger public's capacity to understand abstraction about cause and effect, larger timeline trends, principals, and the like is extremely limited and simplistic.
Wouldn't the prudent thing to do is to provide links to these(now its scandals) claims and let others make up their mind instead of simply rolling over clutching a blanket and exclaiming why doesn't anybody believe me. You made the charge, you provide the evidence. Unless of course you would rather continue to slander McCain, Clinton and Obama without one specific example.
What "...League of Democracies prevailed in [the]cold war..." are you referring? The original point of this thread was to discuss the possible creation, not its existence, of such a group and whether it was a good idea(which I think it is) and just what this union might look like.
Come on dude, this is an anonymous forum. Stick your ideas out there with some proof or examples and let the chips fall. No one is going to come by your house and TP it or point out that you were the guy that couldn't provide one link to prove some rather outlandish charges. Here I'll even give you a Sen. McCain scandal for free to start the ball rolling, look up The Keating Five.
Clinton and Obama smear each other for several monthes. It happend every day. There is no need to show any evidences there . OPen your eyes. No matter you enjoy this blatant farce or not, please mind your own business. No one will slander the two celebrity.How can a netizen like me hurt the ludicrous democratic "couple ". Only Clinton and Obama themselves can destroy their reputation so cruelly yet so thoroughly. Republican politician have no ferocious self-criticizing.That doesn't mean McCain is unimpeachable. McCain own his Republican competitors an explanation.
McCain will not satisfy his role as an agitator ,when Clinton or Obama left the altar as a loser. the other God blessed one will not be the lucky one. McCain will step up to the center of the stage using his disgraceful politic measures to handle the election.
What I want to tell you is only McCain himself can totally destroy his image and credits . I don't blame Clinton , Obama , or McCain , they do what a politican have to do. I want you ,mr Patterson to do what you ought to do. I would rather urge these politician to cash their
election check instead of arguing about their character ,moral ,trait,achievements.
By the way ,"League of Democracies " is nothing new . President Reagon procliam USSR is an EVIL empire and call for Democractic states union. I can be sure of the western media will carry out another ideology war , using its almighty power and propagada to shape a new EVIL empire . only the common enemy will validate the union .
Again what "...disgraceful politic[al] measures...' are you alluding? I know there is some difficulty in the language but simply put most of what is written by Merkel and the Merkelettes is simply indecipherable and unverifiable.
Since none of the presidential candidates have taken any federal campaign finance money the comment about cashing their "...election check..." makes absolutely no sense. The point of a campaign is to point out the differences in "...character, moral[s], trait[s], and acheivements." So to say otherwise leaves the interesting question of how exactly do citizens make their decisions without these comparisons?
Again the argument has shifted, first political tricks, then scandals and finally like some tired old clump of seaweed smelling on the beach we have one of those everybody knows proofs. Such as we all know that President Reagan called for some form of "League of Democracies" simply because Merkel says so. Well, again how about one link to this speech or press release that would offer some rationale for that claim considering that I can't find any mention of such an alliance anywhere from Pres. Reagan.
Since only you got problem in finding proofes on Jimmy Carter,Ronald Reagan's rhetoric concerning "Alliance for (of) democracy". I guess you had better do your own homework about this. There are so many blatant solganes there in cold war. Google search engine will satisfy your curiosity. If you can't, continue labeling my posts as nonesense. You can proclaim the proposition of "League of Democracies" or something alike is McCain's patent.
As a reminder ,former Japenese FM あそうたろう provide a theory to set up a Democracy ARC, which implicitly aims at confining PR CHina,Russia. Japenese PM Shinzo Abe earnestly put that into action. But unfortunately Abe government collapse so quickly. If not , maybe you get to know "Alliance of democracy" is by no means McCain's invention. Although all this things happend in Japen several years ago , I still don't want to
challenge your pity self-esteem with this trivial things(No offensive here). Please don't request me Japenese links.
[Such as we all know that President Reagan called for some form of "League of Democracies" simply because Merkel says so. Well, again how about one link to this speech or press release that would offer some rationale for that claim considering that I can't find any mention of such an alliance anywhere from Pres. Reagan.]
When some one makes a statement without proof it is their obligation to provide the proof. You cannot say the moon is made of green cheese and then demand that Neil Armstrong go back and prove it isn't. So this conversation is simply not serious and I have wasted much time trying to cajole citations and then looking for and finding NONE that even remotely bolstered these claims.
[To Cash one's Check] is an vivid expression of [keep one's promises][fulfill one's pledge]. I remember it occur several time in Martin Luther King's speech. In that context, Dr. King ask US government keep its promises and equally treat black and white people.
Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama make lots of fake promises to its voters which is defintely beyond their capability. Mccain ,from one hand he need supports from middle class , he provide with a set of relatively mild policy. on the other hand he kills for Republican conservative support. on some occasion he disguise himself as a hardliner embracing US conservative value. The two roles are not always harmonized. so Senator McCain sometime behave controversially. I can imagine to make balance between middle class interests and conservative interests is a really tough work.
A double standard hypocrite can not keeps his promises. To ask Hilary Clinton , Barack Obama or Mccain to cash his(her) election check is a way to check which one is awful liar and which one is a lesser liar.
Do you live in the US, and have some way to support your "theories" as fact? I hate to be rude, but your knowledge of english is too wee to interpret American media even if you did have solid access to it.
Again how about one example other than a string of increasingly disconnected charges? Ok, what policies is Sen. McCain offering to the middle class that are at odds with conservaives, who also could be middle class? What "fake" promises have Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama made to the American people? Again provide some examples rather than just presenting a cartoon version of what you think is going on. Plus now we are into the fake promises as opposed to the dirty tricks, the campaign scandals or any other imagining. It's not that some of Merkels charges might have some merit but what exactly are the charges?
Also in English the expression "cash a check" has always meant to simply leave the table or quit the game. MLK used it as a metaphor not as an expression of the guarantees of the Constitution that were not available to all citizens. They way it was used here is simply not as either an expression or as a metaphor but merely confused.
Sorry for the unnecessary confusion on the phrase of “cash one's check”.
I need some time break to check BBC and Reuter. They're using fake information to confuse people now. I guess I can polish my english prety well with those BBC and Reuter staff. Believe me ,I really need to improve my English to deal with those BBC and Reuter liars.
Bye
[Pat Patterson - #13 - 2008-03-25 06:28 - (Reply)
Again that claim is absolute nonsense, US nuclear policy has always been no first strike against non-nuclear states unless they use either one of the three categories of WMD, chemical, biological and nuclear(one doesn't need an ICBM to deliver a nuclear device). When was there any proclamation of a preemptive strike against Iran other than it was one among dozens of options still under consideration. Again provide some links instead of wild accusations and fairy tales.]
Comments
*********************************************
The naked true is something you can not afford.
*********************************************
July,9,1950. Two weeks into the war, General MacArthur request the use og A-bombs against North Korean troops. The U.S Joint Chiefs of Staff sends out a study team to investigate the feasibility of using atomic bombs on the Korean battlefield.
November 30,1950 At a press conference, President Truman states publicly that US might use any weapon in its arsenal and that the use of atomic bombs
is under "active consideration"
July,9,1950. Two weeks into the war, General MacArthur request the use og A-bombs against North Korean troops. The U.S
Joint Chiefs of Staff sends out a study team to investigate the feasibility of using atomic bombs on the Korean battlefield.
November 30,1950 At a press conference, President Truman states publicly that US might use any weapon in its arsenal and that the use of atomic bombs
is under "active consideration"
December 24,1950 . General MacArthur requests the use of 34 atomic bombs , including commander's discretion to use them in the Korean theatre. In interview published posthumously , he said " I would have dropped between 30 and 50 atomic bombs ...strung across the neck of Manchuia" and spread " a belt of adioactive cobalt, which has an active life of between 60 and 100 years."
March 10 ,1951.General MacArthur requests again "D" Day atomic capability". on April 6, President Truman signs an order to use atomic bombs against Chinese and North korean targets.Bombs were not used because Chinese and North Koreans did not escalate the war and General MacArthur was removed from command.
May 1951.General Ridgway, who replaced MacArthur, ask for 38 atomic bombs.
And both were turned down because from the JCS report issued on April 14th, which reversed some unofficial recommendations from Novemeber of 1950. It was plain that the US simply did not have the capability to bomb either Korea or tactical targets in Manchuria and maintain a rapidly diminishing advantage in warheads over the Soviet Union. And that the JCS not only recommended that Truman continue and expand the reach of the Marshall Plan to Japan and Korea but also recommended against first strike with a nuclear weapon unless attacked or the imminence of such an attack from only a nuclear armed nation. They recommended use peaceful means to isolate China and Korea and to not short change NATO in Europe against, to paraphrase the Soviets, the "...main enemy." These recommendations fit nicely with Truman's oft stated goal of never having to use the bomb again.
And the senior officer were concerned that such a strike would violate the UN resolution authorizing combat in Korea and that it would split NATO irrevocably. Merely discussing a possibility of striking does not mean a change in policy occured in fact since there were no strike it means that this policy was honored.
The fact remains that US policy is no first strike or any strike using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states except in the three circumstances below. This polciy was reaffirmed by the signing of he NPT in 1995; "The Unted States reafirms that it will not used nuclear weaponsagainst non-nuclear-weapon States Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear weapons except in the case of an invasion or any other attack on the United Staes, its territories, its armed forces or other troops, its allies, or on a State towards which it has a security commitment, carried out or sustained by such a non-nuclear weapon State in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State."
This reaffirmation was verbatim from its original statement on signing the NPT in 1978. As to an attack on Korea or Iran no one in the government has ever stated for the record that the imminent danger these countries have created has resulted in a nuclear first-strike being contemplated rather that the US might simply use convention weapons. But like all governments in the world the official position is that all options are being discussed and studied. No one in the Administration or the Legislature has threatened the use of nuclear weapons against either country, even though the PDRK, because it has fired Tae-phong missiles over a US allies territory has indicated its capability to use nuclear weapons. And because it has withdrawn from the NPT technically the US promise doesn't apply.
PAT:
[And both were turned down because from the JCS report issued on April 14th, which reversed some unofficial recommendations from Novemeber of 1950. It was plain that the US simply did not have the capability to bomb either Korea or tactical targets in Manchuria and maintain a rapidly diminishing advantage in warheads over the Soviet Union]
Comment:
US considers possible counter reaction from USSR is the main reason which leads to the nuclear bombing threat not come into reality. Another possible reason may be Truman's nuclear bomb threat freak out west Europe ploticians. UK PM visited Washington persuading Persident Truman put priority on Europe instead of Korea peninsula. Not get so deeply involved in Asia's affair, which will give USSR opportunity to expand its politic sphere. All the facts indicate that US have strong desire to use Nuclear Bomb. They had use it to teach the barbaric Japanese troops a good lesson. They really wanna give Beijing and Pyongyang a lesson too.
Military force worship the magic power of A-BOMB. The head of US have the same impulsion as its military offials. In Persident Truman 's mind ,US troops casualty defintely outweigh the possible millions of civilian death, ecosystem disater. I can be sure if there exist no USSR nuclear retaliation capability. Persident Truman will defintely left the third Nuclear wreckage in Asia as his legacy.
Todays Iran is facing the same nuclear threat from Pentagon . Unfortunately there is no coutry is willing to support Iran unconditionally. Although Russia and China Russia block some US proposal against Iran in UN council. Russia and China dare not challenge US on Iran affairs . They are not facing US involvement in Caucasia or Taiwan's independence after all . Iran had better go on with its nuclear program unless US and EU give writen promises on IRAN's security. North Korea had make a good bargain with US.
Again nonsense, Truman specifically vetoed any use against Korea because of commitments in Europe which the UK and France were urging him to keep and that he had said on many occasions that he did not want to bomb a non-nuclear state without any provocation. Plus this decision came about after the US had suffered over 7 months of reversals and were bottled up in Inchon. the logical time to bomb was when the North first crossed the 38th parallel and the ROK and the US Army were suffering huge casualties and before any UN Resolution was passed.
But mainly that the US, even in 1951, had decided its policy was no strike against a non-nuclear state, which both the DPRK and China were. The Soviets, a little research would show, at the time of the Korean War had twenty nuclear war heads and virtually no way to deliver them though they were building bombs and a rivet by rivet copy of a B-29 for delivery. Again merely talking about different tactics or strategies does not change US policy. I've yet to see any statement that contradicts that position other than "what if?"
PAT:
[Truman had said on many occasions that he did not want to bomb a non-nuclear state without any provocation.]
Comment:
If US feel provocation from other state US government can lawfully using nuclear bomb to revenge. Is It you want to tell us? I want ask you if so many coutries feel threat and provocation from CIA sponsored violence , do they have the rights to retailiate US. I guess that defintely be prohibited by CNN or BBC accomplice.
US confidence on its national security Only Because US is the only one superpower, and have every way to smash or nail these small hostile states' such attempts.But US nuclear policy still bear no goodness there. When military action can not protect those country's safety, Asymmetry combat(for example terrorism) became the preferential option. I hope the so called terrorists got its principle as US government like "attack only under provocation and only necessary". I guess the innocent people were regarded as the costs of military(terrorist) missons by US government and the so called terrorist leader.
I know Congress leader Nancy Pelosi cherish more than 4000 US troops lives and 911 victims, and deliberately ignore Iraq civilian people's death and property damage. But from my point of view, There is no need to distinguish between almost half million civilian Iraq and Afghan people(who died in US Iraq occupation) and 3 thousands western innocent victims.
Rand Corporation published so many reports on how to nuke USSR, China, North Korea , Iran...etc before and after they acquire nuclear capability. I don't need to prompt you what background the Rand Corporation is. Iran and North Korea government may give no damn to netizen's defence to US nuclear policy. How can they ignore the nuclear threat from Pentagon official and Rand proposition reprots.
No wonder why those countries embrace nuclear power so steadfastly. Who is to blame ? Western media 's one side reports will not make things clear. on the contrary make the whole things complicated.
The Rand corporation isn't some secretive conspiratoial cabal as you imply. They are a company that does statistical studies and hire analysts to provide studies under government and private contracts. They're often commissioned to peer-review other studies, and are pasically flesh peddlers who contract scholars, auditors, technicians, etc., to commissioned studies.
They're no different than the dozens, if not hundreds of policy consulting service companies bouncing around now.
I think the implication you're getting at is founded on a kind of fear developed from watching too many bad movies.
Thanks for your information
In my opinion,The Rand corporation is US Think-Tank venue, it has great influence on Republican conservative. Rand corporation has very very close link with military .Many Pentagon's millitary operation carried out after consulting with Rand's experts.
Considering that the Army and Douglas Aircraft set up the Rand Corporation during World War II their conncection to the military can hardly be termed a surprise. And such dastardly Republicans as Daniel Ellsberg, Francis Fukuyama, Margaret Mead and Paul Samuelson have served or either are serving as board members or often as the recipients of grants to do research. Rand describes itself as a nonprofit and nonpartisan research institute and their incorporation papers in California have never been challenged as misleading or untruthful.
Again a real easy question, what military operations were at the instigation or the result of consultation with Rand? Careful now considering that the institute was started under a Democratic administration and congress and has lasted over 60 years that one of those unlikely scenarios was actually done by the Democrats.
"In a speech in Berlin, Steinmeier sounded as if he was calling for the future of Europe's relationship with Russia to be placed on a similar level of weight and value as its involvement with the United States. In Germany, that has the ring of "equidistance" - one of the fantasies of the Schröder-era that Merkel promised to bury."
The Steinmeier policy is nothing new, it is the same policy which Schroeder/Fischer pursued and has roots leading back at least as far as Willy Brandt's Ostpolitik.
It's perfectly reasonable. If Germany can pursue a policy of neutrality between the US and Russia while still enjoying the benefits of protection by US armed forces with minimal contributions of their own - I can't see any downside for Germany!
In fact the Steinmeier policy is SO reasonable I think it's incumbent upon the next US President to follow a version of this policy ourselves. The US should ALSO make nice to Russia and seek to pursue a policy of neutrality between Germany and Russia!
The trouble is that the current US committment to NATO stands in the way. One could perhaps also say that about Germany's committment to NATO except for the awkward fact that any German committment to NATO is very nearly invisible by this time.
So I have a Modest Proposal for the next US President. Follow the farsighted German lead and bin NATO, or at least the parts of NATO which have visibly binned NATO.
This would clear the way for the US to follow an 'Ostpolitik' of our own with only advantages accruing to the US. I suspect Merkel & Germans may not enjoy being suddenly uncovered, but does the phrase 'hoist by one's own petard' have any resonance?
"Or Barack Obama's put-down of "anti-American posturing from European allies that enjoy the blanket of our protection.""
Yup. Europeans are gonna LOVE this guy if he keeps this up.
laugh out lot ! Paterson
Check this website WWW.ANTI-CNN.COM , It provides so many amusing things here. I don't wanna judge the whole things happend in Lhasa ,PRC half month ago. But the western medias like RTL , CNN , Reuter seems bankrupt its credits again there. If they cook data ,crop picture to distort the truth in China, how can the islamic world and African once colonial states bank their trusts on Western powers.
What make the whole things ridiculous is not CNN 's so unconvincing yet so ludicrous explanation, CNN' stealthly picture-change activity make it a culprit in action. Nothing can clarify CNN's cleaness. CNN plunge into another credits problems after its Iraq distorting reports.
Shame on CNN, CNN had better make appolgies as Deutch TV broadcaster RTL , It's meaningless and pointless to argue about its mistakes.Does anybody hear about CNN's appolgies for its misinformation upon IRAQ ,None!
So I keep an acute eye and sarcastic on CNN .
And what exactly does Rand have to do with anti-Chinese riots in Tibet? CNN, flawed as it might be, is in competition with many other sources of information and can be checked and criticized, while a badly done website from China leaves much to be desired in terms of reliability. Plus except just a few days ago all western news media were banished and then barred from returning to Tibet. Complain to the chinese government for badly sourced news not a few tourist and hippies with cameras and cell phones. Or did I miss the part were Baidu and Google are not censoring the web in China any more? Or that Xinhua News Agency and China News Service are going to accept their Pulitzer Prizes next year for truthful reporting of the news?
Make a charge then provide some evidence rather than constantly changing the topic. Again what military operations were instigated by Rand, what tricks did Sen. McCain order his aides to perform, who has specifically said that the US will attack either the PDRK or Iran with nuclear warheads, etc.?
Pat:
[And what exactly does Rand have to do with anti-Chinese riots in Tibet? ]
Comment:
I did not mention Rand get involvement In Tibet anti-Chinese riots. If you really want to know who sponsoring these bloody violence, Dala lama manipulate the whole violent things with CIA supports.
Dalai lama proclaimed he had totally denounce the violence against chinese government from 1980s , He does not tell the truth. Before the Lhasa riots March 14,Dalai lama and its so-called "Tibet government in-exile" plots different kinds of activity to grasp the attension of the world. They earnestly and urgently need to take the chance of Beijing Olypic game to blackmail China .
Paterson , CIA offered Dala lama financial and military supports. There are so many facts can prove it. CIA itself never deny its Tibet involvement. CIA embark so many sabotaging work against other countries . In the name of safeguarding the free wolrd , No western media seriously question its validity. Is CIA's activity like murdering Latin American leftest leaders and providing financial and military supports to dictator like Augusto Pinochet will backfile US interests in the long run. Will CIA's achievements accompany with western world's reputation's decline?
CIA get close contact with the terrorists including those launch the 911 attacks,CIA put so much effots to instruct these terrorists how to handle those sophisticated US weapons to slay USSR's aggressors. Afghan muslim and Bin Laden's strength earn the victory to USSR.
Then the 911 events happened.
Then CIA carry disinformation campaign against IRAQ .
Then US Bomb IRAQ , OCCUPY THIS state which lead to half million civilian death. US trapped in IRAQ ,and Iraq trouble became the focus of partisan struggle.
This is the kind of diversion of responsibility that infuriates me. The Soviet meddling in Central America was far worse and deeper than anyone wants to admit, and yet the US doing something about it is cited at fault.
So to with the westerners who have taken on the Tibetan nationalism cause. There are acres of prior crticism of the US NOT doing anything for them, and 4 decades of private support by the transnational left of the Tibetans, and if events like those we see today (bumps on the road to some outcome) don't appeal to these very critics, it's somehow the CIA who have to be painted as the enemy. NOT Beijing, NOT those people with "Free Tibet" stickers on their Prius, NOT the Tibetans, but the intelligence service of a country that's on the other side of the planet, even when up until even today the US is being accused of being TOO deferetial to Beijing over Tibet.
It's deeply shortsighted to get worked up over the idea that the US is responsible for actions NOT TAKEN over the course of the past half century over the public's current 'issue of the day' when their own governments have done even less, and have been even less engaged and critical of the Chinese for the past 30+ years.
Joe Noory :
...even when up until even today the US is being accused of being TOO deferential to Beijing over Tibet.
comment:
How can you accuse US government for not involving in Tibet affairs. US government secretly sponsor Tibet movements . CIA help training Tibet rebels with finance and military supports. Many NGO organization have its link with US government.
I guess you had better respect US government's decision, no matter it rejecting making commitments in Kyoto protocol,no matter it embracing Chile autocratic Pinnochet , What US government did is in US interests. US deny palestine democratic Hezbollah leader and never promte Saudi Arabia's democracy progress. Because democracy there will lead to a hostile regime to US. Popel can not help feeling that democracy was only treated as a tool by US, When needed , use it validate US action, when not needed, drop it somewhere.
Western media's Tibet coverages is full of fun. Nepal and Indian police play the roles of PLA of China to convince their audiences that their are Chinese crack-down on innocent tibetan "peace protestors".
After thoroughly investigation ,Bejing government have published Lhasa riot 's victims (about 20 persons), their name,age ,race also included. Does the Dharamsala also publish its victim lists. It's very interesting how can Dala clique cooks data to cover up its lies? CNN's despicable way of cropping picture to distort turth will not work this time.
Again how about some citations rather than ravings. Plus when addressing me its only logical that you are responding to my last comment which was trying to elicit some coherent response to the charge that Rand was reponsible for some military actions.
The charge of CIA help in Tibet has just enough truth to be interesting. Too bad that the help ended in 1969 and that Tibet has essentially been on its own, except for Richard Gere, for almost 40 years. But then I guess the arms and training that the PLA of the PROC supplied to the Chinese in Malyasia to overthrow the ethnic Malay majority was OK. I mean after all its only the US that supports murderous thugs when it suits their purposes. No other country in the world except the US would support a Pol Pot, a Kim Il-Sung or a Ne Win/Than Shwe.
Plus one caution for the Chinese Olympics is that since 1936 every dictatorship that either hosted or was scheduled to host the games was finished as a power and even semi-functioning democracies in less than ten years. Sort of one of those beware of what you wish for moments.
In the 1980s the CIA produced a small illustrated booklet in both spanish and english designed to destabilise the nicaraguan government and economic system.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Rowan Scarborough's superb new book Sabotage lays out a boatload of evidence documenting years of serious misconduct, malfeasance and incompetence at the CIA. Excerpted this week at his newspaper, the Washington Examiner, Scarborough's book has plenty of news-breaking revelations that should stimulate an abundance of discussion in the ensuing days.
The book is likely generate a tepid response from the drive-by media. They'll have to acknowledge it because Scarborough is one of the most respected reporters on the national security beat. But they'll do their level best to diminish its importance, mostly by ignoring it.
*************************
I enjoy this words "They（Western Media i guess）do their level best to diminish its importance, mostly by ignoring it. "
Scarborough's book, which obviously Merkel did not read(not even the dust jacket), is about the ineptness and obstructionism displayed by the CIA in opposition to Pres. Bush's foregin policy. Not some tell all about murderous plots against shining-faced barefoot comrades or campesinos. Plus most of Merkel's comment is lifted verbatim from a review of the book by the blog, American Thinker.
http://americanthinker.com/blog/2007/07/cia_sabotage_rowan_scarborough.html
So the comment about the book being ignored is within someone else's writings plus I counted at least a dozen reviews when I merely typed in the author's name.
Hope:
Here is an article written by Patrick French, who severely criticized the Chinese government policy in Tibet ...He is the former director of Free Tibet Campaign in London. Here is what he says about the 1.2 million killings most of the hard-line “free tibet” organizations and hollywood actors throw around.
“These groups hate criticism almost as much as the Chinese government does. Some use questionable information. For example, the Free Tibet Campaign in London (of which I am a former director) and other groups have long claimed that 1.2 million Tibetans have been killed by the Chinese since they invaded in 1950. However, after scouring the archives in Dharamsala while researching my book on Tibet, I found that there was no evidence to support that figure.”
Here is the link to the article on NYTimes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/opinion/22french.html
Comment:
You murkrake those trashes from organization of Free Tibet Campaign in London. They never tell the truth in Tibet.
Unfortunately you ask confirmation from dharamsala "exiled government", another bigger liar. Their false information had embarrassed the whole western meida .
German's RTV and N-TV(NTV) had made appolgies for their staff's blunders. Fox News continue ignoring condemnation on its India police inclination.
In their coverages India police confront with Tibet protestors who want to intrude China embassy and fire China flag,With Fox News footage like "China Crack down Tibet peaceful protests",the report mislead its reader .I just can't follow the Fox News editors's thread,what linkages exist between India police suppresion and PRC's so-called "Crack-down in Lhasa". Does Fox News always use such unique and ludicrous way to amuse its audience? As to the most influencing players like CNN and BBC they make funny explanations for their false reports. I don't know why CNN and BBC argue in such a meaningless and pointless way when caught red-handed. But from their experiences of rejecting to appologize for their irresponsile IRAQ reports. CNN and BBC will never astonish me with their hypocrisy.
Obviously Merkel didn't even bother to read the reviews in Amazon before touting Mr. Scarborough's book, Sabotage. The book argues that elements within the CIA have actively sabotaged Pres. Bush's foreign policy efforts. The book is not a collection of infamous CIA operations against barefoot innocents but rather a collection of stories showing the CIA's lack of action and as a result botched or nonexistent results during the last 10 years.
Plus passing off a book review from the American Thnker as your own work is considered plagarism at worst and laziness at best.
For the whole review see below;
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/07/cia_sabotage_rowan_scarborough.html
CNN Trapped in moral embarrassment,Does it mean Chinese bloggers engaging in war-mongering against CNN ,BBC?
Eelf:
March 30th, 2008 at 23:17 pm
Please stop sensationalising things John. If you had bothered to click the “about this site” link on “http://anti-cnn.com/”, the chinese webmaster explictly said - About This Site -
This website is established to expose the lies and distorted facts in the western media. The site is maintained by the individual volunteers, who are not associated with the businesses or government officials.
We are not against the western media, but against the lies and fabricated stories in the media.
We are not against the western people, but against the prejudice from the western society.
Kindly also refer to this thread - “http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/cn/thread-30-1-1.html”
Chinese bloggers engaging in war-mongering? I think not. It’s plainly more like a knee-jerk reaction in a long line of false reporting from the western media for over a decade.
Comment:
I think Eelf is absolutely right about western media's prejudice. Their false ,upside-down coverages on Lhasa riots have no excuse. There is no need to proclaim Chinese netizens is waging a cyber-war against western media.Some Chinese people need a channel to vent their discontentment on Western Media.
With the time passing by, Chinese people will calm down eventually. Believe me , They can comfort themselves in their own way. There are few Chinese teanage students know about "Great" Britain's legacy in China after all.
Bararian and hypocritical Britain's folk music give teanagers more attaction then the humiliations(esp. thanks to Britain) like filthy opioum trade,Hong Kong's colonization and Chinese slave-trade to North America.
FRANCE never ending racist riots attract not much attention from western Meida. CNN and BBC have no interests on whether excessive violence exerted in France or not? well France media like AFP will not report Los Angeles racist clashes or British's highly discriminating and race-based and religion-based policy on Muslim communnities in return.
except:
.........
Ever since that night, Clichy-sous-Bois has been burning, with the insurrection spreading on Monday to Seine-Saint-Denis and on Tuesday night (November 1st) to nine other Parisian suburbs. A week after the death of the two boys, the uprising is spreading throughout France -- to Dijon, Bouches-du-Rhone and Rouen.
In a press conference held on Monday, community-based activists named the causes of the continuing unrest: "Clichy is one of the poorest municipalities in France and community groups have less and less money to work with." Things are tense as the press conference draws to a close: young people share their stories, women explain what they experienced and saw first hand. A common theme in all these accounts is anger at the police, who are carrying out more and more foolish – and often illegal – "muscular" interventions, and at the authorities in the ministry who are not condemning the gas attack against the mosque.
There was a consensus that, in order to calm things down, the police should leave the area... instead, Minister Sarkozy has announced a "zero tolerance" policy, labelling the suburban youth as "scum" and vowing to "clean out" troubled suburbs. Sarkozy's position has divided the cabinet, with Prime Minister de Villepin apparently rebuking Mr Sarkozy.
Paterson:
[Plus one caution for the Chinese Olympics is that since 1936 every dictatorship that either hosted or was scheduled to host the games was finished as a power and even semi-functioning democracies in less than ten years. Sort of one of those beware of what you wish for moments.]
comment:
I must correct you with this . Hitler's German is a democratic country. There was election, congress in German in 1930s. With the eloquent speeches and highly biased propaganda, Hitler win overwhelmingly the election. Generally speaking , German media's highly biased coverages on Lhasa is comparable with Nazi's propagandas before and during the world war II.
German based RTL and N-TV make insincere appologies. well German newspaper "Berlin Morning Post(or Berliner Morgenpost)" break the days of silence and excuse for their false report. It posted a picture on its website in which police in Lhasa rescued a young man of Han nationality assaulted by rioters with the footnote of "crack down in Tibet".
CCTV, Chinese state-owned media broadcast the video clip which contains the said snapshot which appeared on Berliner Morgenpost's website. Such false coverages prevail in other German medias. it seems these journalists make fake pictures and reports for their conscience and justice towards Tibetan people.
Paterson, you mention china once export their ideology in sourth east Asia. I know the history of cold war. please keep and alerting eyes on that. We have obligation to avoid such things happened again. Chinese people have no passion to export Marxism and socialism in the whole world (even in China itself).they welcome further progress in freedom, liberty ,deomocracy. But most of Chinese people doubt western powers' intention. Will they use deomocracy as a tool to dismember China . Obviously US and its alliance give no confidence for Chinese people, considering their disgraceful history.(I mean opium trade, slave trade, colonization...)
Germany became a one-party state, lead by NSDAP after the 1932 elections, by 1933. The Berlin Olympic Games were in 1936, even though the had failed to produce a popular majority in 1932. One could probably call what happened a a parliamentary coup d'etat with only 1/3 of the citizens supporting the Nazis in parliament.
So China didn't invade India, Tibet and Vietnam during the Cold War? That is probably a terrible surprise to the Indians and also means that those victory monuments that the Vietnamese put up after their victory
probably should be taken down because no one would want to hurt the feelings of the Chinese people. Though in fairness the attacks by China on its neighbors had more to do with simple greed rather than spreading socialist solidarity.
Sino-India border war is another legacy from Britain colonization comparable to Kashmir disputes between India and Pakistan. I need to prompt Paterson that Republic of China (insead of PRC China) is the legal government of China at that time. Republic of China did not authorize Tibet local government to take part in the negotiation with British India . The agreement between British India and Tibet local government was sent to ROC central government for approval. Republic of China central government totally reject the agreement. Check britain government 's documents to see whether they recognize Tibet as an independent state. Since not approved , Inida's claim on “McMahon Line” is baseless. He can not inherit British India government's unfulfilled "inheritance".
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/CJB.htm
www.centurychina.com/plaboard/uploads/1962war.htm
The roots of the Border War extend back into the 19th
Century, when both China and British India asserted claims
to desolate, remote mountain areas between China and India.
Military expeditions, intrigue and unproductive diplomatic
exchanges marked decades of relations between the two coun-
tries. Rather than resolving the border issue, Chinese and
British Indian actions only set the stage for conflict.
Major changes in the governments of both China and
India in the late 1940s had brought the two countries to
friendly relations in the early 1950s. The paper examines
how "intrusions"--strategic military projections into each
others claimed territory--again created conflict over the
disputed border areas. The key issue was the 1956-57
construction of a Chinese military highway in the disputed
territory of Aksai China just west of Tibet. India protested
the Chinese "incursion"; diplomatic exchanges continued for
three years without progress or compromise. Each side firmly
asserted its claim to the Aksai Chin area. Large sections of
the North East Frontier Agency, east of Tibet, were also in
dispute. In 1959, India initiated a forward policy of sending
Indian troops and border patrols into disputed areas. This
program created both skirmishes and deteriorating relations
between India and China. The 1961 Indian invasion of Portu-
gese Goa further alarmed Chinese officials in Peking.
(continued...)