Russia, China Host Ahmadinejad at Anti-U.S. Security Summit

Agreed. There's even more irony. During Soviet invasion, US had supplied Afghan resistance with equipment. Osama bin Laden was also an American player then... now US troops suffer casualties primarily by Russian wepons, and OBL has allegedly formed most horrific anti-US terrorist group. What a plan backfire! History seems to have dark sense of humor sometimes.

And those saying that these terrorists groups have goal to kill/destroy/convert to Islam all of the US are actually helping them, since spreading fear and gaining heavy media attention is their modus operandi.

More then anything would these terrorist want to see is US get humiliated in a worst possible way.

Anyways, best of luck with your future job, Luap! And as ham radio operators would say - 73!

Originally posted by vox2442

Originally posted by Duby78
But when you sum it up together, it surely is a sign showing us that some sort of pact is being formed to counter US supremacy politics in the Eurasia. No doubt of that.

What, exactly, is wrong with that?

This is Asia - at least where I am now. I can`t see for the life of me why America should dictate - or even play a minute role - in what goes on here. Americans certainly would not accept China occupying Mexico with their military, or Russia setting up missiles in Cuba (whoops! been there, done that. funny how no one ever remembers the US missiles in Turkey that started it all though). Why should the nations of this region NOT form a pact to remove American "supremacy politics" (as you so eloquently put it) from the region?

Because, America is the "New Rome". It is an empire. What do empires do? Dominate the region, or in this case, the world, by there sheer influence. Once theres a 'chink' in the armor the empire loses its influence thus eventually collapsing the empire.

A world empire china is not. So its different.

[edit on 17-8-2007 by West Coast]

[edit on 17-8-2007 by West Coast]

reply to post by Duby78


It is very ironic. No matter who is shooting who, I have a feeling the military-industrial complexes around the world are pleased. Thanks for the luck, btw.

Originally posted by West Coast

Originally posted by vox2442

What, exactly, is wrong with that?

[snippage]

Why should the nations of this region NOT form a pact to remove American "supremacy politics" (as you so eloquently put it) from the region?

Because, America is the "New Rome". It is an empire. What do empires do? Dominate the region, or in this case, the world, by there sheer influence. Once theres a 'chink' in the armor the empire loses its influence thus eventually collapsing the empire.

A world empire china is not. So its different.

Was putting 'chink' in quotations supposed to draw attention to a lame racist pun on China? Very droll.

That aside, you have quoted me but not addressed either question - only called attention to the reasons behind the need for something like the SCO. The American Empire. American Influence.

American Interests. What exactly does that mean? Business. American business. Making money for Americans. Ensuring cheap oil for cheap gas at the pump in Vermont. Ensuring that Haliburton`s board of directors gets a fat bonus. Ensuring that American banks have a market to exploit. Ensuring that resources are there for the taking to fuel your country. Ensuring that Americans get their 3500 calories a day on the cheap.

But here`s the rub: there are people here, and there, and everywhere America takes from. Normal everyday people. And they are entitled to benefit from the oil in the ground, the gold in the mines and the fruits of their labour. And more importantly, they are entitled to stability.

Stability does not come from the USA. Everyone has seen what the USA has done to Iraq. It has been destroyed, utterly and completely. The population has been decimated, and the infrastructure of the nation has been set back so far that it will be a matter of generations before the population can return to the glorious years of starving to death under sanctions, and the instability caused in this occupation has spread to every country in the region.

The only thing that`s clear is that the USA will not be able to solve this problem, now or ever, because the myopic visionaries have concluded that what benefits the population of America is more important than what benefits all others.

Countless fools on this thread, on this board, and throughout the American population routinely call for the extermination of entire populations in the Asian sphere, as though it were nothing but a game. From the chap on page one of this thread calling for more firepower against Iran (with an absurd "No Offense" following) to John McCain singing "Bomb Iran" to a laughing audience, it has become abundantly clear to most outside of America that the real threat is not Muslim extremism, but a population so bereft of respect for basic humanity that they will joke about genocide and have the audacity to cry foul when called to task for it.

An individual displaying these characteristics would be diagnosed as having sociopathic tendencies. What shall we do with an entire nation who feels no accountability for their actions, who feels their interests supersede all others, and who shows no remorse?

It`s a mistake to think that China is leading this charge with an eye for empire, and pure folly to assume that the nations with current observer status (Iran, Mongolia, Pakistan and India) would express their desire to join if that were the case. This is about creating a balance of power in Asia, centered in Asia, with the economic and social benefits remaining in Asia. It`s not about building an empire - it`s about doing the exact opposite: removing the empire that has called the shots through political assasination, puppet governments, economic extortion, the threat of war and outright invasion for the better part of a century.

Please, rant all you want about the US’s federal government, but please don’t drag the entire population in. It’s unfair and inaccurate.

vox2442
The only thing that`s clear is that the USA will not be able to solve this problem, now or ever, because the myopic visionaries have concluded that what benefits the population of America is more important than what benefits all others.

No. If the people leading America “concluded that what benefits the population of America is more important than what benefits all others” then they would genuinely listen to the public, rather than try to steer the public like with the Iraq war. They would seek to be energy-independent, they would drastically reduce military spending in favor of domestic spending, like education and healthcare, they would entirely cease foreign aid and payments to the UN; we would become essentially an isolationist country again. Our federal government’s actions don’t always reflect the best interests of the American population.

vox2442
Countless fools on this thread, on this board, and throughout the American population routinely call for the extermination of entire populations in the Asian sphere, as though it were nothing but a game.

Do you think that Americans are the only people in the world that make stupid statements about other peoples? I highly doubt it, since you seem like an intelligent person, but this sentence implies "yes" to my question. Sure, some people in America are entirely insensitive and ignorant of the fact that people other than Americans are human too. But I would challenge that you can find other nationalistic jerks all over the world.

vox2442
An individual displaying these characteristics would be diagnosed as having sociopathic tendencies. What shall we do with an entire nation who feels no accountability for their actions, who feels their interests supersede all others, and who shows no remorse?

This is the definition of a generalization. You are taking the actions of the federal government, characterizing those as the actions as a sociopath, and then applying that character to the “entire nation.” Well, I feel accountable for my actions, I don’t feel my interests supersede all others, and I show remorse—and I’m an American.

vox2442
It`s a mistake to think that China is leading this charge with an eye for empire, and pure folly to assume that the nations with current observer status (Iran, Mongolia, Pakistan and India) would express their desire to join if that were the case. This is about creating a balance of power in Asia, centered in Asia, with the economic and social benefits remaining in Asia. It`s not about building an empire - it`s about doing the exact opposite: removing the empire that has called the shots through political assasination, puppet governments, economic extortion, the threat of war and outright invasion for the better part of a century.

It is also a mistake to think that these national governments aren’t pursuing their own best interests, which at the moment involves pushing America out of the region. The leaders of these governments (some of the individuals perhaps) aren’t acting on behalf of the many people that America has a disproportionate influence on, such as the people you talked about earlier in your post. When America’s power is entirely out of the way, who knows? Russia and the PRC might fall into border conflict once again; the latter may be even more powerful and might be courting countries across the world (like America is); India will be a player in the region; and who knows what else is going to happen in the Middle East or Southeast Asia? Saudi Arabia could collapse with heavy consequences for America; the result would be global politics thrown in a blender, IMO.

Anyway, my main point is that the US federal government may be powerful and able to carry out its self-serving agenda, but that agenda certainly does not reflect the interests or desires of all Americans and it is definitely not unique for a powerful government to be exploitative and egotistical.

reply to post by Luap


I have spent a lot of time in the USA. I`ve even lived and worked there for short periods, if you can call staying in a business hotel for six weeks living (it`s more of a suspended animation kind of thing - if you`ve ever had to live on the road, you`ll know what I mean). My generalizations are based on observations. I will concede that there are good Americans, and that`s hardly a grudging concession.

However.

The fact is, like it or not, that Americans are responsible for the actions of their government, and the actions of their corporations, and the acts of their military abroad. You have the vote, do you not? You have the ability to petition for change, do you not? You have the ability to protest, do you not? If the population of the United States cannot be held accountable for the actions of their government, Who Can?

Me? My neighbour down the road, who has never left Hokkaido?

Or shall I look to you, an American citizen, with voting rights, protection under the law with respect to protest, and a litany of institutions at your disposal to change the status quo?

I live in Japan, and I`ve been here for several years. I`m fluent in Japanese, and I tend to pay attention when people around me are talking about foreign matters. And you know what? I have NEVER ONCE heard someone advocating sending the Japanese army to invade North Korea. I have never once heard someone, even while drunk, suggest that Japan reclaim the northern territories from the Russians by force. I have never once heard someone advocate offensive military action. I have never once heard an individual advocate the use of nuclear weapons, for any reason. Why is it that such things are normal parlance in the United States? You may say it`s not you, and it`s not your friends - but in my personal experience, it`s common enough. It`s a near-certainty that when gathered around the water cooler in the average office there will be someone speaking up in favour of a glass parking lot should the conversation extend to the enemy du jour. I`m sure there are Japanese who rant about killing people they`ve never met. I`m sure there are Canadians as well, and probably Chinese as well. But it is far far more commonplace in America. Don`t believe me? Fire up your internet radio and listen in on talk radio from any other country in the world, then compare how many people advocate the use of military action on countries they just don`t like very much with a similar survey of US talk radio. It`s commonplace, and it`s become common enough that however distasteful, it`s shrugged off by otherwise decent people like a relative with an embarrassing social problem. That`s Jimmy, we don`t talk about him. He does his best.

You say that you feel remorse, but with respect and with regret, I must say I feel you`ve missed my point with regard to American interests, and the extent thereof. Perhaps I should have been more clear about it.

America consumes more than any other nation in the world. More resources, more everything. Far more than oil, people around the world work every day to provide you with things. And your government works on your behalf to ensure that the supply stays active, and that the price remains low. Sometimes this means signing a free trade deal with a friendly government, and sometimes this means fomenting revolution abroad or resorting to political assassination to ensure a friendly government. This is hardly new news, it`s been going on for well over a hundred years now. Gunboat diplomacy and all that. It has been status quo for so long, in fact, that the concept has become ingrained in the minds of the vast majority of the population that this is simply the way of the world. Other countries should accept lower quality of life so that America can have cheap bananas or oil or bauxite or whatever it will be tomorrow.

You`re absolutely right about one thing: these governments, the governments involved in the SCO ARE pursuing their best interests. Completely and 100%. Every single one of them. Likewise the nations involved in the Non-Alligned movement. And they are doing so because it has become painfully clear that when your best interests are not America`s best interests, there will be conflict. Iran knows this - the CIA removed a very popular and democratically elected government there once to install a brutal dictator when the former decided to act in the country`s best economic interests. China knows this as well: America arms Taiwan, even though the Taiwanese constitution declares them the rightful rulers of not only Taiwan, but mainland China, all of Mongolia, parts of Russia, India, and a few other countries. America supports Taiwan as the true rulers of Mainland China, because they are more receptive to American Interests.

There are nearly three Billion people in the SCO`S sphere of influence. The main goal is to put their interests before the interests of the United States. To stop worrying about putting food on your table, and two cars in every garage and a chicken in every US pot, and start putting them in their own countries. Will there be trade disputes within the group? Very likely, but the nature of the SCO is to provide a forum to negotiate such disputes. Will there be further border disputes? Possibly, but border disputes between economic partners tend to involve less gunfire, because gunfire is bad for business. Will the collapse of the house of Saud be the undoing of the SCO? Not likely, if Iran and Pakistan are on board.

At the end of the day though, the SCO is about strength in numbers. People know what happens to countries that try to take a piece of America`s pie.



[edit on 19-8-2007 by vox2442]

reply to post by vox2442
Nice reply...

I’ll second mobydog’s comment. It was a very insightful reply.

I don’t have the world experience that you have, so it is difficult for me to compare observations about different cultures; however, I have seen and heard plenty of Americans talking in the offensive manner you point out. Talk about a "glass parkinglot" definitely stands out. I really don’t know what it is about our culture; violence and war are introduced to little children very early on in the many cartoons and toys to be bought. But looking back on my own childhood it’s hard for me to say anything about where a sense of “American exceptionalism” might be fostered. I have no illusions that it doesn’t exist; I figured that every nation-state had its extremists. Perhaps you are right that it is “more commonplace” in America than elsewhere, though, which is admittedly an ugly thought for me to accept.

I made my “remorse” comment for only one purpose, and it wasn’t to try to redeem my countrymen or my government. It was simply to disprove the generalization I saw made; you pointed out that my government behaved like a sociopath, and then went on to question what to do “with an entire nation who feels…” I made the comment to illustrate that, at the very least, one person of that nation didn’t feel the same as a sociopath.

Anyway, you raise some interesting points about our representative democracy and the ability of Americans to change their government—and most importantly, about who is responsible. I agree that Americans are, to a degree (as with all things), responsible for the government that is essentially troubling and/or hurting much of the world. The corporations? I can’t say I agree entirely that Americans are responsible for “our” corporations (who’s to say what is and what is not an “American corporation” anyway?). But that may be another discussion entirely.

Do you think that Americans are entirely responsible for the government we receive? IMO, they aren’t, at least not "entirely." Certainly, apathy is a huge problem in America at the moment. A lot of the people I know are not interested in domestic or foreign politics; they don’t feel they could do anything as an individual, and so they don’t; they consider the system corrupted beyond repair and the status quo as in the hands of “the elites.” Honestly, I think that I fall into the latter camp. I feel that trying to enact changes at the federal level is a hopeless endeavor. The problem with representative democracies, in my mind, is that they come to represent not necessarily a “nation,” or “the public,” but rather wealthy special interests with the power and influence to lobby (or occupy) the decision- and policy-making apparatuses. How could I possibly confront such a system? For instance, the US has already shown that if it feels genuinely threatened by its own people, it will take drastic measures like the Japanese-American internment camps or the COINTELPRO efforts. I’ve made some decisions that are pointing me to a career involved in the so-called “international civil society.” But not all Americans have the resources I fortunately do to get an education that helps equip me for changing the status quo. A lot of them feel (understandably) overwhelmed and decide to get back to just looking after their family or friends.

I don’t know, really. I don’t want to come off as if I’m trying to get out of my responsibility as an American, or as if I’m apologizing for all of the people in America who do nothing to change the situation. It’s tempting for me to say, “it’s out of my hands” since it effectively absolves me and my friends and family of responsibility, but for that very reason it is irresponsible of me to say such a thing. I’m not going to lie and say that I haven’t used that as an excuse to do nothing. Hell, I’m still not registered to vote because I feel so disgusted by the two-party partisan politics dominating the scene. I understand that Americans are arguably in the best position to enact change. Still, I’m not one to judge the efforts of those that have tried, or the character of those that have not; all I can really do is give you a slice of my perspective as an American under the system.


I have one more thing to say concerning the idea of “representative democracy.” You said in your reply that “people around the world work every day to provide you with things,” and that “your government works on your behalf to ensure that the supply stays active, and that the price remains low.” First, I just wanted to note that people working and making things would occur without American influence; America does not run slave labor prisons, as far as I know. But that is not the point I want to make: I get the impression that you imagine the United States as a bullying big brother going around the block, taking things from other people and giving it to his little brother, who sits at home living it up. Is that somewhat accurate? Because if that is how you picture things, please allow me to disassociate myself (as much as I can) from what my federal government has done and is doing. I disagree with the hypocritical trade agreements, with the arrogant stance toward various UN programs and other attempts of international governance, with acts of fomenting revolutions and undermining local politics, with the “Bush Doctrine” of 2002 that basically told everyone that the feds would militarily do what they want when they wanted (or when Congress allowed, pretty much), among many other things. I would like to disassociate myself from these policies, at least; I certainly don’t feel like the politicians and diplomats that executed these policies or negotiations had me in mind as they did so. Rather, it seems to me that the trade or finance ministers were thinking about the interests of their “constituents” like agribusinesses or banks, who don’t really care if their agendas help or hurt the American people. Or, that the people working for “national security” are really seeking to ensure ‘business as usual’, which of course implies business favorable to the industries most represented in our republic and to the federal bureaucracy in general. The example of Mossadeq in Iran is a good one, IMO, and so is the cultivation of an American relationship with the House of Saud. To sum it up, I mostly disagree with the notion that American foriegn trade and military policy was pursued with the interests of the people in mind.

Originally posted by vox2442

It`s a mistake to think that China is leading this charge with an eye for empire, and pure folly to assume that the nations with current observer status (Iran, Mongolia, Pakistan and India) would express their desire to join if that were the case.

I do believe China is in the SCO purely to secure energy routes across the Central Asian Landmass.
Also China has extreme reservations in allowing nations like India to join the SCO, which already have considearble influencial pull in the Central Asian Republics. So in a way China is not in the SCO purely for opposing US influence in the region.
It is also trying to control the membership in such a way that is totally suited to its influence in the region.
Infact that is the very reason India wants to join.
So even though your above quoted statement is true in the certain moral aspects, it does not hold true in entirety.

Originally posted by vox2442
.............
But here`s the rub: there are people here, and there, and everywhere America takes from. Normal everyday people. And they are entitled to benefit from the oil in the ground, the gold in the mines and the fruits of their labour. And more importantly, they are entitled to stability.
.................

And who are the ones who are really opressing the people in China?.... the people in Iran?... the people in India with the caste system and the untouchables who can't better themselves because the outdated "caste system" is still in place?....

Who is responsible for the failures of the Russian government to help it's people better themselves?....

Who is responsible for people in North Korea starving?....

Don't tell me that BS that the SCO is working for the betterment of their people and to put everything their people need in their table, when those are the countries that are oppresing their people the most....

Nice tirade against the United States....

[edit on 21-8-2007 by Muaddib]

i gotta say this is smelling more and more like WWIII, every damn day!

reply to post by Luap


I can`t think of anything in that post to argue, without coming across as a bit of a prick.

I think you hit the nail on the head with regard to voter apathy - this is the paradox of the affluent society. I don`t vote here because I can`t. Not allowed, until I become a citizen of Japan and change my name. (On that day, my moniker here will change to bokkusu2442). I`d add consumer apathy to that as well, though- most people don`t know or even care where their stuff comes from, and as far as the stuff to make the stuff, who knows?

As for the feeling that there`s nothing that can be done - I know that`s a tempting option, but there is always something that can be done. Sometimes it means something as simple as attending a public meeting. I`ve been to some where no one else has even bothered to show up - and then people throw their hands in the air in despair when the motion caries and the park becomes condominiums.

Sorry, been a long day. I feel like I should end on something profound, but I`ve got nuthin.

reply to post by Daedalus3


China`s reservations to increased membership in the SCO have more to do with the lack of real goals and criteria than anything else. It`s moving a little too fast for everyone concerned, but the Chinese tend to like strictly regimented charts with goals clearly outlined and targets and so forth. Keep in mind that somewhere around 90% of the CHinese gov`t has an engineering background. They are, by nature, not into "mission statements". They like it all in 5 year chunks, point form.

In any case, I have this that you might find interesting: It`s a bit heavy on numbers and a bit dry, but very very informative on the India/China situation:

www.asiaquarterly.com...

Originally posted by vox2442

Countless fools on this thread, on this board, and throughout the American population routinely call for the extermination of entire populations in the Asian sphere, as though it were nothing but a game. From the chap on page one of this thread calling for more firepower against Iran (with an absurd "No Offense" following) to John McCain singing "Bomb Iran" to a laughing audience, it has become abundantly clear to most outside of America that the real threat is not Muslim extremism, but a population so bereft of respect for basic humanity that they will joke about genocide and have the audacity to cry foul when called to task for it.

so, who are the fools?? and please show some proof of the American
population routinely calling for the extermination of entire populations, I must have missed that one.

maybe you should take a walk or something, your post is brimming with hatred for America.

China along with Russia and Iran spell trouble plain and simple.

communism versus democracy the struggle of free men against dictators, it never ends, people foolishly think that somehow bringing America down will bring some kind of order to the globe, order out of chaos, huh, we shall see.

who will you point the finger at when communism rules the world??



[edit on 21-8-2007 by the_sentinal]

reply to post by vox2442


I understand. The subject would almost inevitably revolve around my (in)actions as an American citizen and consumer; it would be difficult, even pointless perhaps, to keep the discussion in the abstract. But I don’t mind—be a prick all you want, if you take exception to some of my perspective. Conflict is a harbinger of change, after all.

You bring up a good point about consumer apathy along with citizen apathy. A lot of Americans lament how jobs are being outsourced and how people value cheap products over American jobs and how evil corporations are, but then they take a trip to Wal-Mart using Saudi Arabian gas and come home with some new stuff made in deplorable conditions in Indonesia. I asked earlier, “Do you think Americans are entirely responsible for the government we receive?” That same question could be applied to our responsibility as consumers. I suppose we could argue about just how responsible Americans are as both consumers and citizens; but we could probably both agree that many (hopefully not most?) Americans are not living up to whatever degree of responsibility is theirs. I can’t point my finger at them because I have been and am one of them, I suppose. Even if I had some “good” track record as a concerned individual that took action, I find that I can’t blame those that haven’t. But as you pointed out before, then who is to blame? Some of the greatest people I know care very little or not at all about the misdeeds of governments or corporations and focus instead on the welfare of their family, their friends, and themselves, and then (if at all) strangers. Is that wrong? IMO, there is no getting around the feeling that they and I have some responsibility as American consumers and citizens that we aren’t fulfilling. Being born into America was definitely a privilege, and I do believe that with privilege comes responsibility.

I feel I should wrap this up with some deep moral revelation, but I simply don’t know if one even exists. It has been good talking to you, though; definitely provoked some deep thought on my part about how I live my life.

Originally posted by vox2442

But here`s the rub: there are people here, and there, and everywhere America takes from.
Stability does not come from the USA. Everyone has seen what the USA has done to Iraq. It has been destroyed, utterly and completely.

Heres a Rub you ignored because your hate for a nation is greater than your reasoning..

So how "Unstable" Is japan? Who built that nation with whos $$?

How unstable is west Europe? and who built that with whos $$$?

Haha, thought that was a good one...

anyways, i believe China Russia, EU, india, USA, are all allies in a sort now
at least Economically. which could very well mean, we wont ever have that war

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Heres a Rub you ignored because your hate for a nation is greater than your reasoning..

So how "Unstable" Is japan? Who built that nation with whos $$?

How unstable is west Europe? and who built that with whos $$$?

Haha, thought that was a good one...

anyways, i believe China Russia, EU, india, USA, are all allies in a sort now
at least Economically. which could very well mean, we wont ever have that war

Thanks for proving my point. And a tip of the hat to the sentinel for another truly ironic post.

My comments are not based on hate in the slightest - just observation, and experience. One person in the thread got that - but you both cried foul. I suppose it`s easier.

Who built Japan: The Japanese, with American $$ (the majority of which went to food, by the way)
Who built Western Europe? The populations of their respective countries, again with American assistance.

Both debts have been repaid to the satisfaction of your government. In the case of Japan, I believe that was in the 1960s.

Finally, are either of these situations remotely similar to Iraq? Or to the destabilization of countless Central American, South American and Caribbean governments?