The View From 1776

Will China Replace The U.S. As Middle Eastern Stabilizer?

Read Spengler’s take on China’s growing role.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/13 at 12:23 AM
  1. If China can exert a stabilizing influence on Iran, the world will be better off.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/13  at  07:02 PM
  2. J. Jay,

    You can't be serious - Communist China as the world's new superpower and all around defender of what is right!? If ever you were suspected of being delusional, this proves it. Next you will be telling us Stalin and Mao weren't so bad! Yes, China will assume the role of enforcer if we abdicate to them, but we can be sure a Commie enforcer won't maintain the peace for its own sake but, rather, in order to expand communism only. What they won't be is a protector of the weak, nor a bulwark against like-minded aggressors like Russia. Are we to assume, then, you are perfectly okay with that?
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/18  at  08:30 PM
  3. I suspect that I lean toward the isolationist position of the majority of the Tea Party enthusiasts, include Rand Paul. While I support a strong military for national defense, that is entirely different from a John McCain-style world view where he never saw a war he did not want to get involved in.

    Neither the Chinese nor the Iranians are likely to be our allies or bosom buddies in the near future, but if they counterbalance each other in a geopolitical sense, that may be a good thing.

    To imply that we have to bully China and Iran at the same time purely for the joy and prestige of being international "Top Dog," that is likely to be a bankrupting policy that may at first feel good, but send us to the poorhouse (and also national decline) in the process.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/20  at  07:11 PM
  4. J. Jay,

    Bull-dukie! You lean to whatever position your party dictates. If the DNC were pushing for a confrontation with Iran, you would be defending it to the skies. If they were rattling sabers at China, you’d be rattling yours too.

    As to pretending you support a strong military, why haven’t you been complaining of Obama gutting it the last several years? What, no comment?! Where is your support for our military if not in one that can defeat any enemy or combination of enemies? What kind of support is it that strips it of tools it needs to do the job of defending us. That kind of support consists of platitudes, window dressing, and sympathy after you've sent them unarmed into harm's way. So, once again I say – bull-dukie!

    Just which war are you claiming McCain was gung-ho for. He was notably reluctant to sign off on Iraq; a reticence that earned him the title of ‘maverick’ from the left. As an ex-prisoner of war, McCain has more reason than most to oppose to war, which he does and has other than defensive war. It was precisely because he was distanced from the Iraq War that he was able to edge out Republican competition in the 2008 primaries, and for that reason got much of his support from independents. Sometimes you do say the most despicable things. This one about a guy who put it all on the line for you. Again, bull-dukie!!

    Your ability to analyze the existing and probable China-Iran relationship in a post-American super-power world is, if anything, even more pathetic than your assessment of McCain. No one here is suggesting (nor ever suggested) America should ‘bully’ anyone (unless it is you). But, stand up for ourselves and our friends when pushed, you bet’cha. We are not the “Top Dog” (as you call us) because we want to be, but because someone is going to be, and it is better that someone is us than some power-obsessed totalitarian out for world and ideological mastery. There is a huge difference between being the world’s leader and being its master, and it is high time you wised up to the difference and get off that phony drum you are beating.

    Did I fail to mention you are full of utter and complete ... bull-dukie!

    My apologies to anyone else listening in, but that crack at McCain just got me riled. I have my differences with McCain also, but will not suffer some fool taking pot shots at an indisputable war hero who still deserves better of us.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/21  at  08:31 PM
  5. Bob,

    One of McCain's favorite and famous lines, in referring to Iran is a take off on the Beach Boys tune "Barbara Ann." Instead of the actual chorus that goes, "Ba, Ba, Ba, - Ba, Ba-bara Ann," in a well known press conference he crooned that we should, "Bomb, bomb bomb, -- bomb, bomb Iran," to the delight of all the Chicken Hawks present.

    And as for a strong military, we now spend more money on the military that the rest of the world combined. I think most rational people would agree that we can have a perfectly able military is we spend an amount equal to, say, the next top 10 countries combined.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/22  at  04:36 PM
  6. J Jay,

    Still harping on that out-of-context McCain gotcha moment are you? McCain explained himself regarding that long ago to the satisfaction of any sane, reasoning person (see ). If a guy consistently resists going to war many times over and when it really means something, in your estimate he is still forever suspect. Yet, should he joke even once about bombing an enemy among fellow vets when it matters not the least, that is enough to convince you (and every other howling monkey) he’s a fraud and warmonger, and always was one. Never mind he did more to delay the Iraq invasion than did Hillary, Kerry and other leading Democrat Senators combined. John Stewart recently joked around about bombing Syria but we don’t see you condemning him as a warmonger. You seriously need to get a grip on such hypocrisy.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/24  at  07:22 PM
  7. J. Jay,

    Regarding your “Chicken Hawk” crack, that accusation can only be used in regard to those who have never served in the military or in some similar ‘harm’s way’ capacity (e.g., CIA, combat-zone contractor, firemen, &c) for their country (i.e, have to have run the risk yourself). I realize you pretend it wasn’t directed at me, but we both know it was. Regardless the object of your insult (assuming it wasn’t meant for me), what call have you for including poor Thomas and Bill in your cheap shot who have ever been models of civility toward you. As I know you would not do such a thing as to slam an innocent bystander (yeah, right), I have to assume it was meant for me and me only. Just so you know, I served my country (in uniform and honorably discharged) during the final years of the Vietnam War. From remarks you made recently, I have to assume you have not (please, correct me if I am wrong and I will kiss and make up). I don’t know if or in what capacity Tom and Bill may have served, but without that knowledge (which you certainly lack regarding any of us), neither of us is in a position to judge their qualifications for this particular insult.

    You have (on several occasions) claimed or implied you are a pacifist and, therefore, immune to the charge of hypocrisy with which you tar others. But, that is often simply a refuge for cowards who chose pacifism for camouflage it provides. Such are the real ‘chicken-hawks’, or would be if they ever let slip the facade by declaring themselves in favor of violence (however justified). [Did you not defend Obama’s stirring up the Arab Spring and his subsequent use of drones? Or was that some other Jay I am thinking of?] Had you told me you were a rescue worker taking great risks to save others, or that said pacifism is founded on religious grounds, I might be inclined to believe you. Also and given your frequent digs at others, your claim to ‘pacifism’ is certainly not rooted in charity. Did I leave any qualifying criteria out? Oh, yes, coming as your claim does from a proud socialist/atheist who defends and admires the likes of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Guevara, &c (all butchers), I am understandably unimpressed by your claim.

    I had thought we had agreed to keep the cheap and baseless shots to a minimum, but here you go again, and thrice on the same comment page. I expect you will be more careful in future lest I get my dander up from you attacking my friends unkindly. You want to slam me (to my face that is, not that slick ‘I wasn’t talking about anyone in particular’ baloney), then fine. I am a big boy and can (and will) give as good as I get if that’s how you want to play this. I also consider politicians (including McCain and Bush) and similar public figures as fair game, but only for things for which they are actually guilty (i.e., presented honestly, of course, which doesn’t apply to your Bomb Iran smear). Regardless, you should not take this exception as a license for slander and libel. So, how about we agree to leave these others out of it. I really had thought you’d ‘evolved’ past such crap.

    Well, not really I guess, but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt for a long as it lasted.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/25  at  07:08 PM
  8. Bob,

    I scrupulously and meticulously endeavor never to utter an unkind word about you or Bill Greene (and rarely slip in my complaints about Thomas). I have never met you and know nothing about your military service. If you read my comment about Chicken Hawks, it was specifically about the comrades listening to Senator McCain. I do not expect that you were there.

    In point of fact, the term "Chicken Hawk" is generally applied to those in congress who delight in sending our kids off to war -- without ever having served themselves. The prime malefactor in this category is Richard Cheney who dodged the draft, I believe, seven times and said that the reason he did not go was that he had "other priorities." This man was more directly responsible for our involvement in Iraq than any other person, and should be held accountable for the thousands killed and maimed for no apparent benefit.

    At least Mr. George W. Bush put on the uniform (for a while), and during the Vietnam War was a crucial force in defending our southern border from attack. I believe you will correct me if I am wrong, but I think he had some excuse for not completing his service failing to serve out his 6 year obligation.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/26  at  10:17 PM
  9. J. Jay,

    Again, bull-dukie, even allowing for your latest weaseling out maneuver! Those 'chicken-hawks' you refer to as the real objects of your scorn are bona fide veterans, many of them combat veterans! So for you to call them 'chicken-hawks' is, if anything, even more reprehensible. You claim to be "scrupulous and meticulous" in all you utter, but clearly you are the least scrupulous, nastiest, careless of blowback provocateur to ever grace these pages.

    If you bother to look up the term (see ), it is not at all specific to Congressmen, and has been used as a slur encompassing all who support war but who, at some point or some manner, avoided actually serving. The term has been in general use and with that connotation since the mid-1980s. Scrupulous and meticulous suggests you would have made it your business to check a slur's meaning before using against someone (whoever that someone happens to be). This term can't be used to describe McCain or his veteran audience, so once again you are caught in a lie of your own devising. It will be interesting seeing how you weasel out of it next.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/27  at  10:17 AM
  10. J. Jay,

    Meticulous implies you are careful it is clear from your text who you encompass with your slurs.

    Scrupulous implies you avoid the use of slurs altogether, or at least without good cause, and that it is a point of pride or conscience that you do so. It is difficult seeing why you went out of your way here to use such language given such scruples.

    It is untrue your claiming to have endeavored withholding your occasional insults from Tom, Bill or me. It is, however, true that you have endeavored lately to more circumspect in this regard, and we do appreciate that. But, please stop blowing smoke up our collective butts about how scrupulous you've 'always' been.

    You are still doing it BTW, only now you are substituting Cheney for McCain (it's that weasel thing you do). The fact he requested and got draft deferments(five times) does not make him a draft-dodger unless it can be shown it was intentional, neither of which appear to be the case here. He was both in college and married at the time of the Vietnam War, and for part of that time had young children. It was not uncommon for young men in that position to ask for and receive deferments (not an exemption mind you of which there were some, a deferment). The fact that he asked for 5 deferments has no bearing unless there is also a change of circumstance making him ineligible(which there wasn't) and goes out of his way concocting some new circumstance. By the time of his graduation (1969), he'd begun serving a Congressional internship, and those are automatically excluded from the draft. It is doubtful Cheney dodged the draft so much as counted his blessings, and was anxious about his family and career. Few who are called to serve are anxious to go, and if we had to rely on blood-thirsty types we'd never put up a good fight, and I seriously doubt that's something you'd encourage anyway. But, had Cheney been called to serve, I have no reason to believe he would have served other than willingly and honorably. So, lay off the 'chicken-hawk' crap and finding new victims to flay with it.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/27  at  11:09 AM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.