So had we invaded China, 9/11 would never have happened? Give me a break!
You mean like the war on terror and the war on drugs and the war on bad skools and the war on...
Well, I make a distinction between metaphoric and actual. The "war against drugs" is a metaphor. War with China would be an example of a real war. And, I'm convinced that with patience and persistence, it is an avoidable war. That's the Chinese way. That's fighting fire with fire.
Further, it is difficult for me to see the war on Islamic fascism and the war on North Korean proliferation as the same, simply because we have essentially deferred in the latter to the Chinese and Russians in Korea, and in the former, deferred to the Europeans in Iran.
No disagreement here, that I can tell of. You're right; they are completely different--well, save in the respect that both would require enormous expenditure of life, energy, and resources. By the way, that's why I now applaud what I earlier decried: W's refusal to escalate a belligerent confrontation. This event, to my thinking, reinforces the reasonableness and righteousnous of his decisions to wage war against Afghanistan's Taliban and Sadam's Iraq.
As to deferring to Iran's, Syria's & North Korea's neighbors : I don't have a better idea myself. You?
Obviously, your brain isn't much in the mix. You lump ME in with the Buchananites?
Maybe you're right about my brain, in April '01 my brain was convinced that we ought to tweak the Chicoms's nose and teach 'em a lesson. Damned glad we didn't now.
I apologize for lumping you in with the Buchaninites. I thought I had you pegged. Obviously I was wrong.
I'm damned glad of that too!
C'mon, quit with the cheap straw man attack. But you act as if our response to China was somehow inapplicable to world politics. If we had mounted a strong response, perhaps expelling the Chinese ambassador and threatening a tariff on all Chinese goods, we might have been seen to give a damn about our national interest in being a world power, instead of simply being a world power that has managed to maintain its position through good luck. Instead we had days of backdoor wrangling and an apology, which had to be reassuring to people like Bin Laden and the Taliban, who could foresee little retribution for 9/11. So to address that straw man, no, the appeasement of China didn't mean that 9/11 WOULD happen--but it sure didn't place any concerns in Islamofascist terrorists' way, either.
"Well, I make a distinction between metaphoric and actual. The "war against drugs" is a metaphor. War with China would be an example of a real war. And, I'm convinced that with patience and persistence, it is an avoidable war. That's the Chinese way. That's fighting fire with fire."
I don't believe it is avoidable, since I don't believe that simply adding capitalism will convert an oppressive system to a free one. It only enriches it and provides more opportunities for graft. I think in the long run, having opened China to capitalism, enriching that evil state to protect its survival financially, without ensuring China values the freedom of its citizens, will be Nixon's final stab into the heart of the American republic.
"No disagreement here, that I can tell of. You're right; they are completely different--well, save in the respect that both would require enormous expenditure of life, energy, and resources. By the way, that's why I now applaud what I earlier decried: W's refusal to escalate a belligerent confrontation. This event, to my thinking, reinforces the reasonableness and righteousnous of his decisions to wage war against Afghanistan's Taliban and Sadam's Iraq."
We disagree--I think it ensured that there would be a war against those countries. And I think the war that will inevitably result from our continued appeasement of both China and Islam will be far greater in loss of life than any skirmish that would have erupted now. We are in the days before our Poland. It is only a matter of when that happens, with China and Islam so certain of our lack of national resolve. All we need to do is elect a Democrat president, and that will probably provide the final spark that lights the world on fire.
"As to deferring to Iran's, Syria's & North Korea's neighbors : I don't have a better idea myself. You?"
Certainly. First, I'd force South Korea to stop subsidizing their neighbors by telling them to end their food and money transfers to the North, or we'd pull out entirely from the South and withdraw our military umbrella, too. If the purpose of our presence there is to defend against North Korea, we should be defending our allies. If they're not our allies, we should be out of there, and let Kim busy himself with the takeover instead of annoying us. In the long run, it seems to have been better for us to have done that in Vietnam, as opposed to the halfway job in Korea, where not only does the North hate us, the Southern kids are ungrateful little $#!#s.
Second, I'd also tell Russia and China to quit acting like North Korea's buddy or we'd slap tariffs on their goods and oil, and start a trade war. If we're doomed to fight a war, better to start it on ground we know. We can win that war without bloodshed and build Mexico's economy as a bulwark against south American nutjobbery at the same time.
Third, I'd have set up around the region along with our allies, watching for North Korean and other ship movements that might result in nuke transfers. And I'd have our navy board every North Korean ship that emitted a detectable nuke signature. While South Korea may not care about crazy-ass Kim, we still have to worry about him making a buck on the world market with his nukes even if we cut the ROK loose.
Fourth, as to Iran, I'd track their nutjob president. After he'd made the grand public pronouncement that they had enriched uranium (in violation of the international agreements they've made to the contrary, and after they have repeatedly threatened America with death) I'd kill him, and try to kill their entire mullahocracy, if possible. We are at war with Iran. There is no question they believe it. We seem to think otherwise. Killing their President and the religious leadership that encourages him would be the best first step to returning that country to a nearly free one. Civil war in Iran would also cause real damage to the Islamofascists' cause in Iraq. Sure, more nutjobs would rise up in Iran, but they'd have to consolidate power again, and without the power of the entire Iranian state behind them would find it much harder to present a threat like Iran does today. Didn't we take out Saddam precisely because it would destabilize a region that is plainly aligned against our long term interests in a worldwide democracy?
Fifth, as to Syria--why are we even talking about Syria? Lebanese and Israeli problems with that country mean we should have let the Israelis have a free hand with them a long time ago. Let Olmert solve his wimp problem by tearing Syria a new one.
"Maybe you're right about my brain, in April '01 my brain was convinced that we ought to tweak the Chicoms's nose and teach 'em a lesson. Damned glad we didn't now. I apologize for lumping you in with the Buchaninites. I thought I had you pegged. Obviously I was wrong. I'm damned glad of that too!"
We should have tweaked their nose to teach them a lesson and teach the WORLD a lesson. Instead, we taught the North Koreans and Taliban a lesson, all right--lie to the U.S., and threaten them, even attack them conventionally, and nothing will happen to you if you happen to have nukes. This in the long run is a pretty dangerous lesson for us to have taught those countries, and 9/11 proves it. China learned, at the same time, that the U.S. fears the loss of China as a trading partner more than it values American face worldwide. Another very dangerous lesson for China to learn (essentially, it proved the old adage we'd sell them the rope to hang us with).