My greatest fears about Bush coming to pass

[BrianS]

Bush didn't just rally the Islamic world to join the terrorists, he's gonna bring down the wrath of the rest of the world on our heads...

Giants meet to counter US power (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1386812.ece)

India, China and Russia account for 40 per cent of the world’s population, a fifth of its economy and more than half of its nuclear warheads. Now they appear to be forming a partnership to challenge the US-dominated world order that has prevailed since the end of the Cold War.

Foreign ministers from the three emerging giants met in Delhi yesterday to discuss ways to build a more democratic “multipolar world”.

It was the second such meeting in the past two years and came after an unprecedented meeting between their respective leaders, Manmohan Singh, Hu Jintao and Vladimir Putin, during the G8 summit in St Petersburg in July.

It also came only four days after Mr Putin stunned Western officials by railing against American foreign policy at a security conference in Munich.

The foreign ministers, Pranab Mukherjee, Li Zhao Xing and Sergei Lavrov, emphasised that theirs was not an alliance against the United States. It was, “on the contrary, intended to promote international harmony and understanding”, a joint communiqué stated.

Their formal agenda covered issues ranging from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East and North Korea to energy security, nuclear non-proliferation and trade. The subtext, however, was clear: how to use their growing economic and political muscle to prevent Washington from tackling such issues alone.

“In the long term, they feel that the whole structure of international relations has to shift in their direction,” said Vinod C. Khanna, of the Institute of Chinese Studies, Delhi. “What has happened is that quite independently they’ve reacted very similarly to recent international events.”

Mr Mukherjee said: “We agreed that cooperation rather than confrontation should govern approaches to regional and global affairs. We also agreed on the importance of the UN.”

Diplomats say that it is premature to talk of a strategic axis between the world’s largest and two most populous nations because they still have more in common with the West than with each other.

Delhi was close to Moscow in Soviet times, but has forged a new friendship with Washington. Chinese relations were soured by its border wars with India in 1962 and the Soviet Union in 1969, and by its arms sales to Pakistan. Russia appears keener than China or India to challenge American hegemony. But there has been a convergence of interests as each struggles to make the transition from a command economy to free markets. Since 2003 they have found further common ground in opposing the US-led invasion of Iraq.

One area of agreement is opposition to outside interference in separatist conflicts in Chechnya, the northeast of India and the northwestern Chinese region of Xinjiang.

Another is energy. India and China are desperate for Russian oil and gas, and Moscow is worried about its dependence on Western markets. But their most significant common ground is opposition to US military intervention in Iran. The joint statement did not mention Iran, but the three countries have taken a common stance in calling for a negotiated solution through the International Atomic Energy Agency. None of them wants a nuclear-armed Iran, but Russia sells Tehran nuclear technology and India and China need Iranian gas.

[Fusion]

Its the first time in my life that I can dream up the absolute worst in a person, and he proves to be 10 times worse than I thought.

[nihilance]

In all fairness this was going to happen eventually anyway. Unfortunately, our administration since 2001 saw that our free ride as the lone superpower wouldn't last forever and decided to squeeze the world for all they could personally before the house of cards fell, rather than sow seeds of cooperation and solidarity between the nations of the world to protect us in the future. Now you will never see other nations take pity upon us and rise to help the way you still could on 9/12/01. That is Bush's true legacy.

[JoeE]

Cool. I wouldn't mind China and Russia getting to rule the world, then all these whiny fucking liberals will pine for the days when the worst thing going on was Bushitler picking on poor Saddam.

[Ben]

Cool. I wouldn't mind China and Russia getting to rule the world, then all these whiny fucking liberals will pine for the days when the worst thing going on was Bushitler picking on poor Saddam.You sound like an absolute delight.

[Bill!]

Cool. I wouldn't mind China and Russia getting to rule the world, then all these whiny fucking liberals will pine for the days when the worst thing going on was Bushitler picking on poor Saddam.

I like how you make it an argument over liberal conservative issues when having two nations like China and Russia ruling the roost would be the worst possible thing for human rights and development. Nice.

[TIP]

Oops...read that as Bush Shitter.

T
(heads to Urban Dictionary to add a new slang term)

[JoeE]

Not for me. The U.S. is too big of a trading partner for China and Russia for them to get away with fucking with us too much. At the absolute worst we'd end up like a more heavily-armed Canada. Plus we could use the money we'd save from not having to pay for Europe's defense to pay down the debt. Sounds like a winner to me.

[JoeE]

I like how you make it an argument over liberal conservative issues when having two nations like China and Russia ruling the roost would be the worst possible thing for human rights and development. Nice.

Yes, I'm sure BrianS posted this in the spirit of bipartisanship.

[Bill!]

Yes, I'm sure BrianS posted this in the spirit of bipartisanship.

Bush is a douchebag beyond partisan politics. He is dangerous to everyone. That is what I see as the purpose of this thread.

[NATE!]

Bush is a douchebag beyond partisan politics. He is dangerous to everyone. That is what I see as the purpose of this thread.

No, the purpose of this thread is to make paranoia so BrianS won't feel alone.

[Bill!]

No, the purpose of this thread is to make paranoia so BrianS won't feel alone.

Yeah... :blah:

[mario]

Not for me. The U.S. is too big of a trading partner for China and Russia for them to get away with fucking with us too much. At the absolute worst we'd end up like a more heavily-armed Canada. Plus we could use the money we'd save from not having to pay for Europe's defense to pay down the debt. Sounds like a winner to me.


HAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!
you're funny! You should write for Saturday night Live!

Really. Come on , continue: i need a good laugh

[Bill!]

Not for me. The U.S. is too big of a trading partner for China and Russia for them to get away with fucking with us too much. At the absolute worst we'd end up like a more heavily-armed Canada. Plus we could use the money we'd save from not having to pay for Europe's defense to pay down the debt. Sounds like a winner to me.

Pay down the debt? HA! Do you realize what would happen if we faced off with China economically? They would cash in our debt! We as a nation would be absolutely fucked without Chinese financial support.

[Doc Randy]

Plus we could use the money we'd save from not having to pay for Europe's defense to pay down the debt.

I never understood why so many people mistakenly believe that our presence in Europe has anything to do with protecting Europe.

[JoeE]

If we withdraw from the world and drastically cut military spending there is no need for continuing financial support from the Chinese.

[mario]

I never understood why so many people mistakenly believe that our presence in Europe has anything to do with protecting Europe.

me neither.

[JoeE]

I never understood why so many people mistakenly believe that our presence in Europe has anything to do with protecting Europe.

Because that's exactly what it was during the Cold War?

[Bill Nolan]

I never understood why so many people mistakenly believe that our presence in Europe has anything to do with protecting Europe.

I've never understood why so many people mistakenly believe that our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq has anything to do with protecting oil.

- B

[Drkemerld73]

Bush is a douchebag beyond partisan politics. He is dangerous to everyone. That is what I see as the purpose of this thread.

Granted he could be considered dangerous to everyone, but I think more importantly, it is all of the people who run the administration (Cheney/Rumsfeld/etc) as well as those people behind it. Bush and Co. brought their so called foreign policies to the table that ultimately led us to where we are and shaping where we will be come the next half century at the very least.

This is an issue that will have far reachng consequences to liberal/conservative/other. When you have a group of people who have their own vision of the way the world should be, and force it upon everyone else (be it through fear, intimidation, or some other method) it's not going to end well.

This is the price we've paid by letting us be ruled by fear and arrogance.

[Amos Moses]

I never understood why so many people mistakenly believe that our presence in Europe has anything to do with protecting Europe.

Sshhhh! That's what they're supposed to think!

[Bill!]

I've never understood why so many people mistakenly believe that our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq has anything to do with protecting oil.

- B

I've never understood why anyone would believe we have any other interest in the middle east.

If anyone can tell me what legitimate interest we have there over any where else in the world, why we want a military presence and US created ally nation there, other than this area of the world contains most of the planets oil, I'd really love for them to tell me.

[NATE!]

I've never understood why so many people mistakenly believe that our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq has anything to do with protecting oil.

- B

It makes them feel special.

[Doc Randy]

Because that's exactly what it was during the Cold War?

If that was the case, we would have left in 1989 when the Cold War ended.

Our military presence in Europe, and every other place in the world, has little to do with "protection" and everything to do with forward deployed operating bases and what the military calls force projection.

They are about having permanent military establishments in strategic locations all across the glode that can quickly respond to any threats to American political or economic insterests.

[NATE!]

If that was the case, we would have left in 1989 when the Cold War ended.

Our military presence in Europe, and every other place in the world, has little to do with "protection" and everything to do with forward delpoyed operating bases and what the military calls force projection.

They are about haveing permanent military establishments in strategic locations all across the glode that can quickly respond to any thereats to Aemrican political or economic insterests.

So we should leave Europe to it's own devices, yes? I mean pull out every financial and military asset we have there. If we are just this evil, capitalistic warmongering entity, then wouldn't the right thing to do would be just leave them be?

[JoeE]

Israel is not a US-created ally nation. The US voted against partition in 1948 and supported Egypt against Israel during the Suez Crisis in 1956. It wasn't until the late 1960s that Israel became a major U.S. ally after De Gaulle screwed them over like he did every other ally he ever had.

[Amos Moses]

I've never understood why so many people mistakenly believe that our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq has anything to do with protecting oil.

- B

You think we intervened in the Gulf war to help the Kuwaitis?

[Bill!]

Israel is not a US-created ally nation. The US voted against partition in 1948 and supported Egypt against Israel during the Suez Crisis in 1956. It wasn't until the late 1960s that Israel became a major U.S. ally after De Gaulle screwed them over like he did every other ally he ever had.

Im talking about Iraq buddy.

[Doc Randy]

So we should leave Europe to it's own devices, yes? I mean pull out every financial and military asset we have there. If we are just this evil, capitalistic warmongering entity, then wouldn't the right thing to do would be just leave them be?

You sure love your strawmen.

I am not saying we should leave Europe or any other foreign location where we have our military deployed.

What I am saying is that we should get passed the childishly naive notion that we are only in Europe (or where ever else) to protect the locals.

The reality is that we are in these locations for one reason and one reason alone: it is what the powers that be have declared to be best for American interests.

[NATE!]

You sure love your strawmen.

I am not saying we should leave Europe or any other foreign location where we have our military deployed.

What I am saying is that we should get passed the childishly naive notion that we are only in Europe (or where ever else) to protect the locals.

The reality is that we are in these locations for one reason and one reason alone: it is what the powers that be have declared to be best for American interests.

You sure love your hip, dissident-like buzzwords.

No, I'm presenting a hypothesized solution in light of the discussion and trying to foment conversation on it. Nowhere did I suggest that was your stance.

[Bill!]

You sure love your hip, dissident-like buzzwords.

No, I'm presenting a hypothesized solution in light of the discussion and trying to foment conversation on it. Nowhere did I suggest that was your stance.

Perhaps you should take a look at the way you worded your post. Because from the way its written, I can't possibly believe any of the above statement.

[Doc Randy]

You sure love your hip, dissident-like buzzwords.

No, I'm presenting a hypothesized solution in light of the discussion and trying to foment conversation on it. Nowhere did I suggest that was your stance.

hip, dissident-like buzzwords?

That's funny. Most of the terms I use and the stuff I post about the US military come from my life both in and around the military. It is my life-long respect for and understandng of the military that fuels my posts on these subjects - not simple hip, dissident-like buzzwords.

[NATE!]

hip, dissident-like buzzwords?

That's funny. Most of the terms I use and the stuff I post about the US military come from my life both in and around the military.

Well, my mistake, then. But don't accuse me of using straw-men. The whole "U.S. is an evil empire bent on world domination" is on a lot of people's minds. I'd like to know how they felt if we did the right thing and left the rest of the world to its own devices. And you can believe that the question was related, because in this discussion, (or as it's supposed to be) the article was about three countries making up 40% of the world's population taking more of an active role in the world's development, as opposed to the U.S. doing most of it. Maybe it's a bit of a stretch, but hell, in this world, anything's possible.

But hey, we're just talking here. It's not like anything I'm saying is making you have to bite down on a leather strap in order to keep from gnashing your teeth together in anger, right? ;)

[Ray G.]

Heh, no.

India is a US ally and is going to stay so. They're playing China right now, but they know exactly what side their bread is buttered on if China invades or the Islamist dictatorship next door starts lobbing nukes.

China pretty much owns us economically already. We need to do something about that, but they're not an immediate threat.

Russia is the only one to be worried about right now, and that's mainly because Putin needs a distraction from his ongoing efforts to push Russia ever closer to Fascism. It's a typical move of dictators. And the first person to make a Bush comment here gets a clue bat upside the head. Nate and Joe will be delivering it in my stead.

[Bill!]

Nate and Joe will be delivering it in my stead.

That's not very intimidating.

[Taxman]

I don't know how you can really blame Bush for something like this. Historically, there has always been a balance of power that shifts around. Some sort of anti-US alliance has been inevitable since the fall of the Soviet Union. It's really that natural order of things in international relation.

[Greenville 90210]

Not for me. The U.S. is too big of a trading partner for China and Russia for them to get away with fucking with us too much. At the absolute worst we'd end up like a more heavily-armed Canada.

That's not the absolute worst...

Just cause it makes liberals mad doesn't mean it's a good thing. Put down your red flag and think.

[mayhemspider]

I don't know how you can really blame Bush for something like this. Historically, there has always been a balance of power that shifts around. Some sort of anti-US alliance has been inevitable since the fall of the Soviet Union. It's really that natural order of things in international relation.

exactly and thank you.


but this does kinda remind me of Millar's Ultimates 2 storyline.

[Keith P.]

I never understand why people like tomatoes. They're gross!

[Josh!]

He's a uniter, not a divider.

[stevapalooza]

Heh, no.

Russia is the only one to be worried about right now, and that's mainly because Putin needs a distraction from his ongoing efforts to push Russia ever closer to Fascism. It's a typical move of dictators. And the first person to make a Bush comment here gets a clue bat upside the head. Nate and Joe will be delivering it in my stead.

For sure. Russia is the only country on that list that has an aggressive expansionist history. India and China have never been in the business of empire building, even when they had the power. The only territories they tend to strongarm are ones they consider to be part of their historical domain-- Tibet, Taiwan, Kashmir, etc. Neither country is a threat in the military sense. But Russia, if given the power, could easily become one.