http://www.washingtontimes.com/advertising/open-letter/
(Washington Times, 11/23/10, p. A3)
OPEN LETTER TO SENATOR JON KYL
November 23, 2010
Hon. Senator Jon Kyl
730 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510Dear Jon,
We regret to make this letter public, but time is of the essence, and we were afraid that otherwise it wouldn’t be brought to your attention before the quickly approaching end of the “lame duck” Congress.
In a curious departure from regular Senate procedure (one Senator, one voice) your voice can count for more than one and in fact decide the outcome of an issue crucial to U.S. security and U.S. – Russia relations. Several Republican senators have indicated that they will be guided by you in voting on START ratification, thus putting all burden of responsibility for making a historical decision on you.
While this is within your procedural prerogatives as a Senator — and a measure of your colleagues’ respect for your judgment — we respectfully suggest you reconsider using your considerable influence in this matter.
If you recall, it was the late Paul Weyrich and us who helped organize your trip to Moscow about twenty years ago, as the Soviet Union collapsed. We also helped bring other prominent Republicans to Moscow, like Vice-President Dan Quayle, Senator Phil Graham, Congressman Henry Hyde, and many others. At that time we all had great expectations for Russia, liberated from communism, to evolve into one of America’s strongest and most reliable allies. So the purpose of those trips was to see the situation on the ground and generate some ideas for the success of that vision.
Well, twenty years on our goals are far from being realized, much to our regret. If you believe many of our fellow Republicans the main fault for this spectacular failure lies with the Clinton administration, as was clear by about the year 2000.
At that time, the Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert formed the Advisory Group on Russia chaired by Christopher Cox, Chairman of the House Policy Committee. The membership of that committee read like a Who’s Who of the Republican Party in Congress, including heads of the most important committees.
The report of that group, titled “Russia’s Road to Corruption,” was a devastating analysis of the work of Clinton and his top advisors on Russia policy – Al Gore, Strobe Talbott, and Laurence Summers, the men who had squandered away a historic opportunity to bring Russia on our side.
The 100+-page-long report is fascinating reading; it is readily available on the Internet at http://www.fas.org/news/russia/2000/russia/index.html though for some reason it mysteriously disappeared from the original site, http://policy.house.gov/russia
We wish we could indeed put all the blame on the Democrats, but have eight years of George Bush brought us closer to our original vision? Unfortunately, in those years US – Russia relations reached their lowest point since the end of communism. Now, after 9/11 there was a real chance to repair the damage done in the nineties. At that time Putin did everything Bush was asking for in his attempt to defeat the Taliban. Naturally, Moscow expected some kind of positive gesture from Washington in return. Instead, it got NATO Eastern expansion, the US unilateral withdrawal from the ABM treaty, “color revolutions” in countries along Russia’s borders clearly instigated from the outside, a democracy promotion crusade, a pipeline policy intended to sap Russia’s energy revenues, arming Georgia to the teeth, and worst of all, a push for former Soviet republics of Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO.
As we all know, Bush policies did not bring too many dividends to America. We have an astronomical national debt, close to ten percent unemployment, two endless and pretty hopeless wars, the rise of militant Islam, and many other problems including, quite unnecessarily, ever worsening U.S. – Russian relations.
We should admit that Obama’s administration “Reset” policy with Russia started to turn things around, and the ratification of START treaty would be a logical step in this direction. It will also help reduce the two countries’ nuclear stockpiles thus enhancing U.S. national security, as stated by practically all current and living former U.S. Defense and State secretaries, Pentagon and NATO top brass, and the expert community. Over and above this, it may offer yet another chance for U.S. to engage Russia, still a nuclear superpower despite all the setbacks it has suffered, and clearly the biggest, most populous and arguably most powerful country in Europe.
Twenty years ago the Russian government’s stated objective was a formal alliance with the United States and NATO. Russia pursued a strongly pro-American foreign policy, while the United States enjoyed unprecedented affection and admiration among masses of ordinary Russians. Today, U.S. – Russia relations have been practically shattered but, as the recent NATO summit in Lisbon shows, there is a thrust to move towards achieving the same goal that many of us dreamed of after the collapse of communism.
It just happens that the fate of this treaty is in your hands. Knowing you we are sure you will look at this matter not from a narrow partisan view but as a statesman with a great vision for the welfare and security of the United States and mankind. Do what’s right for America: Ratify the treaty.
Warm regards and Happy Thanksgiving,
Edward Lozansky
President
American University in MoscowJames George Jatras
Former Foreign Policy Analyist, U.S. Senate Republican Policy Comittee
Former U.S. Foreign Service Officer• The reality is, despite what anybody says, I as secretary of defense and the entire uniformed leadership of the American military believe that this treaty is in our national security interest.
Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense• So, I believe, and the rest of the military leadership in this country believes, that this treaty is essential to our future security. I believe it enhances and ensures that security. And I hope the Senate will ratify it quickly.
Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff• Today marks a fresh start in NATO-Russia relations. For the first time in history, NATO countries and Russia will be cooperating to defend themselves. Our security is indivisible. We share important interests and face the same threats to our common security.
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO Secretary-General at the November 2010 NATO Summit in Lisbon• The fact that we are talking to Russia about common threats and the chance to cooperate with Russia on missile defense is an extremely important step. That could be proof that the Cold War has finally come to an end.
Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany
Originally published on 1389 Blog.
Tags: ABM Treaty, Bill Clinton, NATO, Senator Jon Kyl, START, Ukraine
I am against the START Treaty for a very simple reason: competition or rivalry with Russia should not be what is driving our strategic arms strategy at all. We need a strategic strategy, including clear guidelines publicly stated, to deter any acts of aggression my quasi-failed States, terror States, or non-State actors acting in conjunction with such entities. Our greatest threat isn’t swarms of Russian warheads coming over the poles. It is a simpler Iranian, North Korean, or (possibly) Syrian device smuggled into a port city, trucked to its destination, and detonated without fear of reprisal. Or similar actions involving chemical or biological weapons, against which Obama has already foolishly precluded nuclear retaliation. I’d go so far as to include any mass attacks on American citizens as being a possible trigger for nuclear annihilation, but I am ahead of the curve on that. Be that as it may, treaties with Russia aren’t what should be driving our strategic weapons decisions.
@ Iron Fist:
I agree with you that we should not consider Russia to be our adversary in this regard. OTOH I think that we need to look for a way to cooperate with Russia against our jihadi enemies (AND against other rogue or failed states with nuclear capabilities including North Korea). This treaty may be the beginning of such cooperation.
That said, I have little hope for real cooperation with Russia against the global jihad until we get a president in office who understands that Islam is our real enemy and can NEVER be a potential sphere of influence for the US. That’s why I favor Col. West as our next President.
BTW…James George Jatras is a Greek-American who is, and has long been, a staunch defender of the Serbs and a relentless campaigner for an end to the US/NATO persecution of the Serbs.
@ 1389AD:
I agree that Russia should be our natural ally against the commonMohammedan threat. I must confess that I am puzzeled by Russia’s continuing support of Iran. The Iranians might decide to give the Chechens the gift of an atomic bomb, after all, and Moscow could become the target of nuclear terrorism. Is it the persuit of a warm-water port? Russia doesn’t really have a cold-water navy left, so the persuit of a port for it seems a bit misplaced.
This is interesting as much for where it is as what it says. The writer could almost be posting on Blogmocracy with what he says
Obama is out of touch. Even the Liberals are waking up to that. Dangerously out of touch.
Iron Fist wrote:
I think it may be an effort to control Iran. If so, I believe it is misguided.
Russia SHOULD be rebuilding its navy, despite its limited resources at the moment. I don’t know to what extent it is doing so. I would suggest that ALL non-Muslim countries aside from the US are spending way too little on defense at this time. Waaaaay too little. I’m seeing the same situation as that preceding WWII with regard to lack of preparedness.
Sorry – I can’t stay to participate any further in this discussion. Husband is going in for what we hope is minor surgery. Biopsy and all that. We would appreciate your prayers!
1389AD wrote:
Certainly. Good luck!
@ Iron Fist:
Me too!
Доверие, но проверяй! Vote Нет!
@ 1389AD:
My wife and I send our prayers to you and your husband.
More evidence the aggressive “security measures in airports (and coming everywhere near you) are just harassment designed to show the Little People who is boss:
A smart Administration would not only make these “Elites” go through the same procedures, it would make a point of it to show we are “all in the same boat”. Of course, we aren’t. They are our betters, and deserve to be treated as such. Someday, We The People may treat them as they deserve for their crimes…
Our Favorite Broken Clock (with whom I do not agree on certain issues) is right again! Ron Paul: Crotch Groped by TSA, Calls for Boycott of Airlines
Read the rest!
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by 1389, The Blogmocracy. The Blogmocracy said: Lozansky-Jatras letter to Sen. Jon Kyl in support of #START http://goo.gl/fb/m0yqP #billclinton #democraticparty [...]
@ Macker:
Ron Paul is right about half the time. The other half, he is off deep in moonbat territory. He’s kinda bi-polar in that way…
@ Iron Fist:
This morning they had that Pistole guy on Fox. When asked about screening ALL passengers dude used the examples of Timothy McVeigh, the uni-bomber and Randolph the abortion doc killer dude.
They simply refuse to admit that any muslim could be involved… well in ANYTHING BAD.
*spit*
@ Iron Fist:
Hence the intro “Our Favorite Broken Clock.” GMTA my friend!
@ Macker:
AGREED!
Next it’ll be any and all federal buildings, courthouses, dmvs… everywhere.
we dont need the huge inventory of warheads…what, are we and the russians gonna nuke the world X-many times over?
our defense budget along with EVERYTHING else has to be cut as they were based on a total sham of a bubble economy.
ratify START2. i think 10,000 warheads of w88 variant are quite enough to kill the world many times over.
@ Iron Fist:
Never let a crisis go to waste. Here is why the left/demonrats are in league with the islamists. What a perfect cover to empower themselves and enslave the rest of us.
I hope sooner rather than later, the rest of the country realizes what we are suffering for the pleasure of hosting muslimes in our midst’s and leaders who are two-face traitors.
@ coldwarrior:
Under normal circumstances, I would agree. However, things are not normal…especially with the Mohammedans now in play.
@ Iron Fist:
How long until they use another ten or so billion dollars on special entrances and lounges to help streamline the nobilities travels to important meeting with other important people, and add chosen ‘essential’ corporate execs to their lofty Estate?
@ m:
Read the second link in my post on this. That is exactly where they intend to go with this. They are putting in place the infrastructure for a police state. Whether that is simply from a desire to punish America for the last election, or for more sinister reasons, I don’t think we can honestly judge. But we can see what they are doing, in the name of “safety”. This is so far beyond anything Bush did that there is no real comparison. You notice, though, that the people who screamed we were becoming a police state unde Bush are silent now. Some even defend the latest. As Buzzsawmonkey has pointed out, if we are anywhere near having the legal grounds to do this, we could and should be profiling heavily. Sure, they might come up with a terrorist that doesn’t fit the profile, but so far all of the terrorists have fit the profile. Not one has been an 80+ year old grandmother in a wheelchair.
@ coldwarrior:
Agreed, reducing our warhead numbers will have to be done.
@ Iron Fist:
The Progressives are doing this to create a Fascist state. This isn’t about combating Terror.
@ coldwarrior:
Exactly!
coldwarrior wrote:
That would be, but that isn’t what START 2 gives us. It would limit us to 1550 deployed warheads. That might be sufficient if it were coupled with an aggressive modernization program, but that is not, to my knowledge, in the works. We needed the “micro-nukes” program that Bush tried to start, but he couldn’t get that through a Republican congress (any more than we could drill ANWR, and mostly due to the same *cough*John McCain*cough* people). We need a credible, effective strategic weapons program, backed by tactical weapons that aren’t limited by treaty, and the will to use them. Give me all that, and then we can talk about cuts or limitations in the strategic part of the arsenal.
@ Scott Madsen:
Exactly. They are dividing us into serf and lord. This cannot be allowed to stand.
@ Iron Fist:
Drop Ships would be nice too!
Macker wrote:
no, really, there is a point where enough is enough on the warheads.
the current load (on a quick calculation of just our nukes) unleashed on the entire muslim world would kill them and salt their earth hundreds of times.
start does not cover tactical nukes, btw…
@ Iron Fist:
1550 is enough to destroy the world. We don’t need that many and we can’t afford it anymore.
@ m:
What do all those terrorists have in common? No, not being white. None of them committed their acts anywhere near an airport.
/FAIL!!!!
@ coldwarrior:
Correct, it just cover Intercontinetal weapons.
@ Iron Fist:
name me 1550 targets.
i will see you in hell if we need to do that kind of work.
@ coldwarrior:
You’re assuming that warhead reduction is the primary goal here – it isn’t. Disarmament is. And the design for those W-88s is how old ? Don’t expect there to be any budget for maintainence or upgrading, either for the warheads themselves or the delivery systems.
Oh, and don’t expect there to be any real pressure for verification that this isn’t a one-sided deal, either. And let’s not even get into tactical nukes, which aren’t covered at all.
@ Iron Fist:
1550 deployed mervs?
@ Mike C.:
you guys crack me up.
i cant believe I sound like the CND
@ Mike C.:
Do you have evidence of this?
@ Iron Fist:@22
I have been thinking this one up and down for a few days now.
Chewing on it, there was something that kept coming back to me, which I remembered from about 2 years ago when we were all starting to learn about Obama because the MSM refused to do so.
I was able to find what kept coming back to me. Alinsky tactic #4.
In my mind, this is purely an effort to show us (the American People) that if we want protection from terrorism, we are going to get it. All the way from our most senior people, to our children. With humiliation specifically involved.
If one group is guilty, we are all guilty.
Consider this type of due diligence after the news that just came out about the Taliban negotiator.
Rodan wrote:
That is nowhere near enough to destroy the world. It would devistate 1550 major cities, but if your goal is total destruction it will require more than one warhead per city. All a nuke really is is a very large bomb. They aren’t any more magical than a common knife. One Ohio class submarine can carry up to 288 warheads, but if I am not mistaken START 2 also limits how we can deploy our weapons to drastically cut how effective our submarine deterrant can be. I don’t know all of the details of this treaty, but ask yourself this: if it were really to America’s advantage to ratify it, would Obama be pushing it? If past performance is any indicator, the answer is a resounding “NO!” In any event, there is no rush to ratify it before the new Congress is seated. Give the Republicans time to read the treaty, possibly hold some actual hearings and determine what the real effects of the treaty will be before ratifying it. That doesn’t seem like too much to ask.
@ Formercorpsman:
Good point. I hadn’t thought of the Alinskiyite angle. You are probably right as to where the plan came from. That makes sense. So is Obama pushing this so he can get rid of all security (and give the Mohammedans free access), or to impose an authoritarian order?
Rodan wrote:
Evidence of what ? I mentioned several items.
I wouldn’t trust this administration to negotiate the price of lunch, much less anything more important.
@ coldwarrior:
1550 warheads. At ten apiece, that would be 155 MIRVs. It doesn’t sound like so much when you cut it to that, does it? At 24 apiece, our existing OHIOs could carry more than that.
IMHO, 1,550 warheads with the increased accuracy of delivery systems that has come about in recent years, seems quite adequate for our needs. Those, with the uncovered tactical nukes seems more than adequate since these, it would seem to me, to be the first ones deployed.
@ coldwarrior:
I’d say if I tried I could come up with that many targets running from the coast of Africa to the border of China. Especially when you have big cities that will soak up 10 or even 20 warheads to completely destroy them. The whole point of deterrance is to deter. In case you missed it, ours isn’t doing that. Why do you want this thing rammed through the Lame Duck congress, anyway? Why not give the Republican Congress time to analyze it. I could be persuaded on the issue. I even listed a number of concrete steps that could be taken to persuade me. None of that was in any way over the top or excessive. Why are you defending the Obam line?
Mike C. wrote:
Exactly. I trust the fucking Russians more than I do Obama.
@ Iron Fist:@40
That is really where I am stuck now.
What you described makes sense with respect to controlling movement. They look to deploy this on other forms of tranist now, it really does start to become 1984.
I truly don’t know. But, it is one of those gut instincts on my end. I can’t help but feel this is on the radar now, and the over the top aspect we have seen with it, is probably proportional to that last election outcome.
With their comments of the past, their elitist attitudes, it just has the fit. I am unable to articulate it better than that.
@ PaladinPhil:
Exactly! I was hoping they would ask him what that had to do with airport security, but of course it just passed…
@ Iron Fist:
This isn’t about Obama. It’s about the fact we don’t need that many nukes. Also this only covers strategic weapons, not tactical weapons. 1550 is enough to destroy the Islmaic World, China or Russia.
We are broke and can’t afford a big inventory.
@ Iron Fist:
you dont understand targeting. hitting cities is useless. they will die after the transportation, water, and power points are hit.
hitting a city with a nuke is pointless, hitting the power stations, rail yards, and infrastructure kills the cities.
one bomb on TVA does waht?
@ Mike C.:
This isn’t about Obama.
Unless you have proof that we are going to disarm, your statement is just a conspiracy theory. We aren’t disarming and Obama is not a dictator who can order disarmament.
@ Iron Fist:
by all means, read the thing and debate.
@ m:
You can’t expect today’s media, not even Fox, to come up wit penetrating and imperitive questions like that. The average “Journolist” has a degree in Journolism, not reasoning and critical thinking. They know how to sum up bullet points for a reader with a sixth grade reading level, not explore the ramifications of national security policy with political aparatchiks who are no more educated or informed than they are.
Good morning.
There is an article in the Chicago Tribune this morning that makes
you ask yourself, WTF?
Evanston, Il. High School which is just North of Chicago & is in the
same town as Northwester U is proposing changes to honors classes.
Turns out that too many Whites & not enough minorities are qualifying
for these classes.
The solution? Just balance the classes with the % of enrolled minorities & just forget all of this qualification stuff.
@ Iron Fist:
This isn’t about Obama. It’s about the fact America is broke and we can’t maintain a huge arsenal. In fact many of those weapons have degraded.
Also what will the reaction be if a future Republican President signs a treaty and the Dems kill it in payback? No one will ever sign treaties with us.
Frankly, when we’ve reached the point when we have expended 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads, I would just as soon not be alive.
RIX wrote:
That is the way the Liberal midn works. Besides, for the really highly paying jobs like Union Boss and political aparatchik their race is their qualification anyway. It isn’t like they are going to be going into the private sector. There won’t eb enough of that left to bother with after the Obama Administration, anyway.
MacDuff wrote:
in a real exchange, a nuke will hit about 500meters from my house. rodan knows what i am talking about.
i’d rather go quick than die of cancer a few years later.
Rodan wrote:
Exactly. Did you read my post 26? There are a number of things that we should be doing right now that we aren’t doing, and cutting warheads isn’t one of them. Had you or Coldwarrior read the FAS link, you’d have seen that the Obama Administration intends to hit these targets treaty or not, which makes me question even more what the imperitive for this treaty is. Let the new Congress be seated, let them hold hearings, read the Treaty, and then vote on it. That isn’t a radical position at all. Do you really trust this Congress to do what is in America’s best interests? They haven’t so far. Why would they suddenly start doing it now?
coldwarrior wrote:
Yeah, it will definetly be a “the living will envy the dead” scenario. I live just down the road from Ft. Knox, and I’ve often heard that may well be a target.
after something like that, the world will be a dark, brutal and diseased place; better to be vaporized.
coldwarrior wrote:
Come on, you know that isn’t the truth. A nuke strike wouldn’t be as bad as Cherynobl. Not anywhere near in terms of the radioactives. Fallout is mostly short-lived high emmitters, anyway. Big bombs that are airburst kick all that shit up into the stratosphere where it burns out before it falls to earth. In a big blowup, background radiation would go up slightly around the world, but you probably wouldn’t notice it unless you pay attention to such things. I can look five feet away from me and get a current background reading, so I might notice it, but I doubt seriously we’d have to change the “high-background” cutoff level of our device (which we do in some really hot nuc-med labs). Incidence of certain cancers would see a statistically significant up-tick for a few years, but even there it won’t effect 95% of the world’s population.
@ Iron Fist:
While it might make interesting reading for them, you do realize that the House has no role in treaty ratification, right?
Treaties are ratified by the Senate.
Evanston, Il is often referred to as “The peoples Republic”
These educators see diversity as the answer, but they’re asking the
wrong question.
I want to see more minorities in honors classes, but not through
numerical formulas. A better solution is to provide remedial
help & have them test out honestly.
@ Iron Fist:
i have a nuclear power station as prime target upwind from me at 7 nautical miles.
yes, radiation.
and a huge rail yard less than 1 mile away.
@ coldwarrior:
First lock on the three river lake makes river transport null and floods the Ohio valley by overwhelming every lock and damn downstream.
Lake Mead and many others would be a bitch too.
@ lobo91:
I know that. When speaking of the entire legislature you refer to that as the Congress, too. Fine, the new Senate to be more specific. Six more Republican Senators could and probably would make a difference. That is why Obama is pushing to get this ratified NOW. Because he knows the next Senate probably won’t ratify it.
Pretty much the plot for “The Road” & “The Book of Eli”
The latter is a prtetty good flick. But I wouldn’t reccomend either the book or movie The Road. It is the most depressing, nonentertaing
movie that I have ever see. Someone suicidal could be pushed by it imo.
Scott Madsen wrote:
multiplied damage
@ Iron Fist:
It seems like everything that this Administration does , is a hysterical emergency.
“Vote now, this can’t wait. Read the bill later. ” “We have to pass
the bill to find out what is in it.”
Not dealing with the merits of the bill here, but this is supposed to
be a deliberative process.
Scott Madsen wrote:
one nuke on the 3 gorges dam.
aswan…
@ Iron Fist:
it does not have to passed now,
we have to cut invetory tho…we have to cut everywhere in all places.
@ coldwarrior:
Exactly, we can’t keep defending evryone. We are broke.
@ coldwarrior:
Then you are in more danger from conventional weapons used to crack your reactor core (something that is theoretically possible, though those things are as well-built as engineeering can make them) than you are of a nuke weapon. Russia isn’t likely to nuke us. We aren’t likely to need to nuke them. We are playing by different strategic rules today than we were when you were on duty in Berlin. The best you can say for this treaty is that it addresses the needs of a strategic reality that went away 20 years ago.
Gotta work. Be back later.
Bullshit on every one of those assertions, with the possible exception that Afghanistan seems pretty hopeless with Obama in charge. Right away this clown has shot down any credibility I might have given him.
I admit no such thing, restart was a slogan, a misinterpreted slogan I might add, that accomplished nothing whatsoever except maybe Putin’s contempt. Russia is far less a threat than China, Iran, North Korea, or even Syria. Why agree to restrict our missile defense in order to perpetuate a MAD policy with Russia? Why curtail our nuclear capabilities at a time of Chinese ascendancy and Muslim nuclear proliferation? So Russia will like us?
I’m back.
@ Rancher:
The Iraq war was a failure. We created an Islamic state loyal to Iran where Christians are being ethnically cleansed. Plus China and France got the oil contracts. We lost 4,000 dead and throusands wounded for NOTHING.
Bush was a failure and that’s the truth.
Iron Fist wrote:
That was quick!
Exactly right. Even former opponents of it now admit that it was
the Mutually Assured Destruction policy that avoided war between
The US & the old USSR.
Drawing down our nuclear stockpile will neither win us friends or
make us safer. Our enemies are trying to nuke up & they have
their reasons.
@ Rodan:
I had to debug something in code of mine that another programmer modified. I thought it would take me longer than it did. It isn’t running right on another guy in the department’s computer. I’ll have to step through it on his machine, but he is away from his desk right now and it is rude to use another guy’ smachine without him there. So I can go back to integration testing my last contribution to the project. I love my job. We are doing important work, on near-cutting edge software (the hardware is a different story
).
@ Iron Fist:
we can take this up later,
i was being theoretical on damages with single warheads.
@ Rancher:
you know that these talks/numbers were mostly reagans doing.
@ Iron Fist:
You and Eliana are both Coders! I might set upa Tech thread!
@ Rodan:
Could be nice. Kirly is a hardware person, IIRC. Have a geek thread and we can let it all hang out about our professional opinions of Chuckles as a
script kiddeesoftware engineer…@ coldwarrior:
Sure.
Iron Fist wrote:
nice idea fo a thread i think…
i’ll get wichyoo later
coldwarrior wrote:
My problem with the START treaty is the justification is predicated on the fundamentally inaccurate premise that it will be the final proof that the Cold War is over.
The Cold War is not over, the Cold War had three protagonists, The Soviet Union, China, and The United States. The simple fact that the majority of people insisted on single mindedly focusing on the Soviet Union does not change the fact that China was involved as a protagonist in that conflict.
While the Soviet Union has for all reasonable accounting ceased to be a Cold War protagonist, China has not. China’s approach to the Cold War was always different than that of the Soviet Union. China’s approach was to tightly cloak their bellicose nature and expend considerable energy and resources to give the pretense of not being an active participant.
China was following the advice of Sun Tzu, “When your enemy is fighting someone else, do not let your involvement become known, lest your enemy draw you into the fight”. China’s involvement was always kept as discrete as possible so as to not draw any more attention to them then necessary.
The vast majority observing the Cold War were so preoccupied with the theatrics of the Soviet leadership that few noticed or paid any attention to the Chinese involvement. For the most part when the Chinese involvement was noticed it was generally written off as incidental exploitation of a situation by the Chinese.
Those however who were tasked with keeping track of who was doing what with whom during the Cold War’s most dangerous period will indisputably remember the extent of the Sino-Soviet relationship.
It was in fact the Chinese who kicked off the Cold War with their involvement in the Korean War. That conflict’s ending in a stalemate resulted in the Vietnamese war which had a far greater Chinese involvement than Soviet involvement.
The Sino-Soviet slip in 1962 was misinterpreted by most as a Chinese withdrawal from the Cold War, when in reality it was anything but that. In fact “Chairman Mao criticized Premier Khrushchev for withdrawing from fighting the US in the Cuban missile crisis (1962) —“Khrushchev has moved from adventurism to capitulationism”; Khrushchev replied that Mao’s confrontational policies would provoke a nuclear war“.
Chinese advocacy of limited capitalism was also misinterpreted by most as a Chinese further withdrawal from the Cold War, when in reality is was nothing more than a change in strategic tactics.
The Chinese are not stupid, they watched the conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States carefully and recognized that in the end a purely Marxist closed economic system could not compete financially with an open capitalist one.
The Chinese watched with great interest when Ronald Reagan recognized Capitalism greatest strength against a closed Marxist economic system, Reagan forced the Soviet Union into a spending war that the Soviet Union never had a chance to win.
The Chinese adapted their strategy so that what Reagan did to the Soviet Union could not be done directly to China. When Reagan’s strategy worked even better than the Chinese had anticipated the Chinese tactical response was to create their own variation on that theme and employ it against the United States.
The point I am making here is that the Cold War is still very much alive, it has simply progressed from having three protagonists to now only having two. The fifth column Treasonous Media is going to do everything they can to create and advance the myth that the Cold War is over because while the Chinese version of Marxism is different than that of it’s old Soviet counterpart, it’s still Marxism.
As such it has become their only hope of assistance in their struggle to transform America into a Marxist Utopia.
Rodan wrote:
It was a failure based on the utopia you would like to see where a Democratic Islamic country is free of Sharia and religiously tolerant. That’s not ever going to happen though. You’re other alternative I believe was to bomb them into a smooth pane of glass, something else that was out of the question for 98% of Americans. What we did achieve was an end to a terror sponsoring dictator who threatened the region and basically thumbed his nose at America. It showed that we can exact a high price for pursuing WMDs or pretending to pursue WMDs. It resulted in a Democracy; however imperfect, whose very existents sends shivers throughout the autocratic Muslim world, especially Iran. The Kurds now have a secure homeland with a mostly autonomous government, something else that irritates the hell out of Iran and also our newest Islamic advisory, Turkey. Failed states like Afghanistan under the Taliban are dangerous. Iraq now has the 12th fastest growing economy in the world; it will grow at about 7% per year for the next few years. That’s something else Iranians are seeing as their economy continues to crumble under the Mullahs. Some believe Iraq may eventually rival Saudi oil production while Iran’s production is declining. Iraq ranks fourth in the Middle East in political freedom, behind only Israel, Lebanon, and Morocco. If Hezbollah takes over you can put it ahead of Lebanon.
And what was the alternative? Sanctions were a joke; even our NATO allies were breaking them. The No Fly Zones that kept the Shiites and Kurds relatively safe would have eventually been abandoned. Saddam would have revamped his nuke program eventually and may by now have had nukes. All in all I think Iraq has been far more successful than we could have realistically hoped for.
Ron Paul wrote:
Well, there’s something seriously wrong with you, Ron Paul, in your readiness to appease the territorial ambitions of the mujahedeen — in Cyprus, East Timor, Ethiopia, Armenia, the Balkans, India, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Burma, Sri Lanka, Spain, Portugal, and of course Israel — and your denial of the reality of jihad al-talab wa’l-ibtida’i waged in order to achieve izhaar al-deen…
Rancher wrote:
Not just the Iranians and Turks…
The Arabs too, who view the very existence of any other ethnicity in their sacred laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaands as an “imperialist colonialist provocation”…
Of course, the Arabs are blinded to the fact that they are the ultimate imperialists…
[...] Macker) Kurt Nimmo Infowars.com November 23, [...]
Craven Capitulation by Jon Kyl and Orrin Hatch…
trackback >>The Moral Liberal: Defending the Judeo-Christian ethic, limited government, and the American constitution>>…