Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditWhen Yiang Jiemian, president of the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies, gets together with his brother, Yang Jiechi, China's minister of foreign affairs, they don't talk strategy or politics. "We talk about our grandfather," he says, with a smile.
We're sitting in a conference room at SIIS, though, and Yang Jiemian is talking strategy with a few visiting journalists. I ask Dr. Yang about China's view of US policy in the Middle East and central Asia. What, exactly, is his opinion of the notion that the United States is seeking to control that crucial region, including its oil and natural gas reserves, as part of a strategy of containing China? President Obama has just left Shanghai, the sprawling city of 19 million people, and he told China that the United States does not want to contain or limit China's influence in Asia or the world. Yet the United States and China don't always agree on Iran, Afghanistan, and other questions.
"There might be a slight difference of understanding between our two cultures, our two languages," says Yang, who is flanked by a team of strategists and area specialists. ""When America talks about strategy, it implies military, security, confrontation. In China, we have a much broader view of the idea of 'strategy.' We mean something that is long-term and systematic."
Is he concerned about the idea of US hegemony in the Middle East? Could it be a detriment to China, which is excruciatingly dependent on that part of the world for its energy? "If you ask different people in China, you will get different answers," he says. "Personally, I'm concerned about the possibility that these things could be part of a plan to 'contain' China." But, he adds, China's view is to work cooperatively with all countries in the region, and with the United States, to deal with what he calls a critical transition that the countries of central Asia and the Middle East need to make.
On Iran, Yang made it clear that, despite his pleas, Obama isn't likely to get much support from Beijing over confrontation and sanctions against Iran if the nuclear talks don't move quickly. "China and the United States have similar views on some issues regarding Iran, and we have some differences," he says. He points out that China has supported limited, targeted sanctions against Iran at the UN Security Council in recent years, and he notes that China and the US both support the strengthening of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. "We will work together to persuade Iran to become part of the mainstream of the world community," he says. "But China supports Iran's right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and we oppose a military solution to the problem." Adds a colleague, "Most of us believe that Iran's nuclear program is for peaceful uses."
In a separate conversation, an expert from another thinktank says that Iran's negotiations with the P5 + 1, including China and the United States, may go on for a long time. "The important word is patience," he says. "Not sanctions." The talks are just starting. When I tell him that Obama is under pressure from neoconservatives and hawks in Congress to end the talks quickly if there is no immediate result, he scoffs. "We must approach Iran with patience. It is not just a question of months, but perhaps of years. And perhaps, in two or three years, the leaders of Iran will change." In that, he is echoing the notion of some US and Israeli diplomats with whom I've talked, who suggest that the political turmoil in Iran means that the "political clock" in Iran is ticking faster than the "nuclear clock." Iran, US intelligence believes, is several years away from being able to build a nuclear bomb, if that is indeed Tehran's intention.
China, overwhelmingly concerned about economic growth and domestic political stability, is worried that instability in the Persian Gulf and Central Asia, including Afghanistan, could threaten China's energy lifeline and undermine China's surging economy.
What's true of Iran is also true of the war in Afghanistan, China believes. Wang Xiaoshu is vice president of the Shanghai Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries, a kind of "foreign minister" for the city of Shanghai. The US intervention in Afghanistan is "not wise," he says, adding that no country has successfully invaded Afghanistan in centuries and that NATO cannot solve the problem militarily. He stresses that because of the US invasion and the current stalemate, the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan is very dangerous. "China's interest is stability in the region, and a crisis there means that the entire region could become inflamed," says Wang.
Yang, of SIIS, expresses concern over Obama's turn from Iraq to "AfPak." "It is natural for us to think that there is now a US and NATO presence at China's Western border." (Afghanistan and China share a border in China's far west.) "We hope," he says, "that the United States respects China's interests." In conversations, though, the Chinese officials and experts seem to believe that, in essence, Afghanistan is America's mess and that there is little or nothing that China can do to help the United States clean it up.
That's unfortunate, because under the right circumstances China might be able to help convince Pakistan, China's ally, to reign in the Afghan Taliban and brings the Taliban to the negotiating table. But that, of course, won't work unless Obama signals that he's prepared to draw down US forces there. As long as the United States is escalating the war, China's isn't going to providing any help. It's our quagmire, not theirs.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
It's obvious that to China, its interest is best served by NOT meddling in other countries. And when it does, it uses foreign aid....irregardless how Western Libs think of the despotic regimes China seeks to befriend. Pragmatic to a fault and its people love it!
Posted by Happy at 11/17/2009 @ 09:01am
"It's obvious that to China, its interest is best served by NOT meddling in other countries. And when it does, it uses foreign aid...."----Posted by Happy at 11/17/2009 @ 09:01am
And does that strategy work for them or against them?
Posted by Mask at 11/17/2009 @ 09:13am
So Dreyfuss has gone from defending Afganistan's Taliban and the "peaceful nuclear aims" of Iran to seeking out the counsel of China since they obviously (in the mind of Dreyfuss) have a superior world view to the American establishment.
Why do I feel like I'm reading Tom Hayden?
Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 09:41am
Interesting article, ROBERT DREYFUSS!
There appears to be some conflating Bush policies in AFPAK and the Middle East with Obama's policies on the part of the Chinese with whom you spoke. But it is encouraging that they would be interested in helping in Pakistan if the US signals a "responsible" withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Posted by Metteyya at 11/17/2009 @ 10:22am
Only reason I can think that the Chinese would help is concern for the crushing debt owed by US to Chinese.
Otherwise, the US wasting away in Afghanistan/Pakistan and Iraq, and spending political capital on Iran, is strategically very good for the Chinese.
The shifting center of gravity has already been acknowledged, and it is now a multi-polar world thanks to neo-conservative tunnel vision and trapping us into occupations that do very little to serve AMERICAN interests.
US continues to peddle its debt overseas, and long term debt reportedly met with demand. I am not sure what is being promised by our government to foreign creditors to support long term demand - but it is my guess that it is a fiscal and monetary policy focused on preservation and stablility of debt value, a policy which may be at odds with needed structural adjustment in the US economy.
Posted by OneVote at 11/17/2009 @ 10:30am
That's unfortunate, because under the right circumstances China might be able to help convince Pakistan, China's ally, to reign in the Afghan Taliban and brings the Taliban to the negotiating table.
rein in, from horses, not kings.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/17/2009 @ 11:05am
So Dreyfuss has gone from defending Afganistan's Taliban and the "peaceful nuclear aims" of Iran to seeking out the counsel of China since they obviously (in the mind of Dreyfuss) have a superior world view to the American establishment.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 09:41am | ignore this person | warn this person
--spoken like someone who doesn't want the wars to end.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 12:06pm
--spoken like someone who doesn't want the wars to end.----Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 12:06pm
He wants them to end, urmy. He'll say "When we get victory"...which always takes more years and more troops, always is elusive, and is always "just around the corner".
Posted by Mask at 11/17/2009 @ 12:10pm
Of course our foreign policy has been flawless, since we build bigger bombs than they do!
Posted by teach at 11/17/2009 @ 12:57pm
So Dreyfuss has gone from defending Afganistan's Taliban and the "peaceful nuclear aims" of Iran to seeking out the counsel of China since they obviously (in the mind of Dreyfuss) have a superior world view to the American establishment.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 09:41am
Larry, why do you hate peace so much?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/17/2009 @ 1:02pm
So Dreyfuss has gone from defending Afganistan's Taliban and the "peaceful nuclear aims" of Iran to seeking out the counsel of China since they obviously (in the mind of Dreyfuss) have a superior world view to the American establishment.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 09:41am | ignore this person | warn this person
--spoken like someone who doesn't want the wars to end.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 12:06pm
So Dreyfuss has gone from defending Afganistan's Taliban and the "peaceful nuclear aims" of Iran to seeking out the counsel of China since they obviously (in the mind of Dreyfuss) have a superior world view to the American establishment.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 09:41am
Larry, why do you hate peace so much?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/17/2009 @ 1:02pm
Only those who have been so brainwashed by marxist nonsense could draw that conclusion from my statements.
I think that there is no hope that leftists will ever have any contact with reality.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 1:30pm
--spoken like someone who doesn't want the wars to end.----Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 12:06pm
He wants them to end, urmy. He'll say "When we get victory"...which always takes more years and more troops, always is elusive, and is always "just around the corner".
Posted by Mask at 11/17/2009 @ 12:10pm | ignore this person |
--victory also being undefinable--although the spoils of "victory" will certainly be definable, in a burnable black resource kinda way
Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 2:46pm
So Dreyfuss has gone from defending Afganistan's Taliban and the "peaceful nuclear aims" of Iran to seeking out the counsel of China since they obviously (in the mind of Dreyfuss) have a superior world view to the American establishment. Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 09:41am
Larry, why do you hate peace so much? Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/17/2009 @ 1:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--gold stephen, gold!
Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 2:50pm
Only those who have been so brainwashed by marxist nonsense could draw that conclusion from my statements. I think that there is no hope that leftists will ever have any contact with reality.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 1:30pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--marxism! yeah, right. i work for a living.
--reality! haha...if only we didn't know your religious beliefs we may be able to no laugh at that statement.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 2:52pm
In the late 1960s, I took all the Chinese history courses that were available at Cal State L.A. While I am terribly outdated, there are some basic things that are still relevant. The Nationalists and the Communist governments would agree that Tibet and Taiwan were part of China. They disagreed on who should run China, but, they did not disagree on Chinese territory. I was pleased that Obama recognized that Tibet belonged to China. This was a step forward in our relations with China. The second thing I learned was that China is not interested in overt Imperialism. Unlike the Soviet Union, it was never interested in spreading Communism through the barrel of a Chinese cannon. However, as J.A. Hobson noted in his book "Imperialism", Trade often leads to Imperial adventures. Anytime a nation goes beyond their borders, there are often unforeseen consequences. I do think they are economic Imperialists on trade matters. I don't think the Chinese will pressure Pakistan to come to an agreement with the Taliban. Pakistan tried for an agreement with them at least three times, and they are now involved in an offensive against them. China may soon have problems with groups similar to the Taliban. In deed their border with Afghanistan may be an entry point for terrorists. Obama is interested in engaging China and not containing it. I do think China is making a major mistake engaging in foreign trade with collapsing Western markets. When these markets completely collapse, it will produce massive unemployment in China. They should concentrate on the internal development of the Chinese market. They can have an independent self sustaining national market behind trade barriers, which is how we developed an industrial base!
Posted by pjcasey at 11/17/2009 @ 3:32pm
Excellent piece, more than we get from the NYTimes.
" ... no country has successfully invaded Afghanistan in centuries ..."
Millennia, actually. Not in recorded history.
Yes, it a US mess, not China's. China collects interest on the 2 trillion plus it's lending US to wage that war & in Iraq.
Cozy.
The same Red China US killed 3+ million Vietnamese (according to Robt McNamara) to save the Asian dominoes from falling into its debt.
Posted by sloper at 11/17/2009 @ 3:34pm
victory also being undefinable--Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 2:46pm
definable...just incredibly VAGUELY or IDEALISTICALLY defined.
Like "when the country is stable"...like Iraq is with only "minimal incidents" of roadside and suicide bombings.
or "when democracy has taken a foothold"...unless the guy in charge is OUR guy, then...who cares?
or, of course..."When all the terrorists are dead"...i.e. when poor, angry people in Afghanistan and elsewhere decide they are no longer angry with corrupt leaders and don't want to fight about it....or stop blaming the US for propping them up. (i.e. Saudi royalty, Karzai, etc.)
Posted by Mask at 11/17/2009 @ 3:45pm
They can have an independent self sustaining national market behind trade barriers, which is how we developed an industrial base! Posted by pjcasey at 11/17/2009 @ 3:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person
and we did that when, a hundred and fifty years ago? your prescription is about from the same vintage.
Taiwan was only recently part of China.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/17/2009 @ 3:55pm
China and the US, as in late 1960's, form a G-2 that directs globsl affairs. In this context, Afghanistan is another Cambodia, while Iran and Pakistan are today's Vietnam.
Meanwhile, the Taliban represent the 1968 Khmer Rouge, whereas al-Qaeda is increasingly becoming anti-nationalist, Trotskyite, ultra-leftist, and objectively reactioary and pro-Iran, which in turn is a running dog of Germany and the Nazis -- see TIME Magazine, Iran's Secret Weapon -- the Pope," 26 Nov 09.
Posted by Koba17 at 11/17/2009 @ 4:49pm
So Dreyfuss has gone from defending Afganistan's Taliban and the "peaceful nuclear aims" of Iran to seeking out the counsel of China since they obviously (in the mind of Dreyfuss) have a superior world view to the American establishment.
Why do I feel like I'm reading Tom Hayden?
Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 09:41am
Probably because of the stuff you're smoking.
Dreyfuss has never defended Iran's "peaceful nuclear aims", becasue he hasn't had to. Iran has no nukes and is not producing them.
And seeing as China's economy is growing at 8% and we owe them more than a trillion dollars, not to mention the fact that China prefers to trade with countries as oppose to invading them, we might have something to learn f from them
Posted by Shingo at 11/17/2009 @ 4:56pm
Only those who have been so brainwashed by marxist nonsense could draw that conclusion from my statements.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 1:30pm
It doesn't require brainwashing by marxist nonsense to realize that if something looks like a duck, walks like and suck and sounds like a duck, that it's....a duck.
"I think that there is no hope that leftists will ever have any contact with reality."
Funny coming from someone from the fringe.
Posted by Shingo at 11/17/2009 @ 5:03pm
Oh yeah almost forgot.
"I think that there is no hope that leftists will ever have any contact with reality."
This coming from someone who believes in Iranian nukes that don't exist.
Posted by Shingo at 11/17/2009 @ 5:05pm
Interesting piece, Robert, but it's "rein," not "reign." The rest makes total sense.
Posted by mimsky at 11/17/2009 @ 6:10pm
Iran is the most active state sponsor of terror in the world. It has nearly 400 AQ terrorists that it is harboring and giving training and explosives to so they can launch new attacks on America. It was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, as the 9/11 Commission has shown. It has killed or helped kill thousands of Americans, and has attempted to murder tens of thousands of Europeans, Americans, and Israelis. Iran has killed hundreds of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Its leaders chant every day about their desire to kill more Americans. They are about to develop nuclear weapons and spark an arms race that will leave a half-dozen or more Middle Eastern dictatorships with the ability to give nukes to terrorists without the Americans knowing it was them. They've vowed to nuke Israel. They will invade Bahrain shortly. Americans at home and, especially, who travel abroad are at mortal risk of being killed in terror attacks sponsored by Tehran, whose military and financial support is necessary to carry out serious attacks. Their murder of our citizens is not a reasonable disagreement to be discussed and debated.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/17/2009 @ 7:17pm
It was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, as the 9/11 Commission has shown.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/17/2009 @ 7:17pm
Please RWNC, enough of this bovine excrement. I've already debunked more times than I care to remember.
Please cite the statement that says this.
"It has nearly 400 AQ terroris.."
That's funny. You said in another post that AQ no longer existed. Caught in your own lies again?
"They are about to develop nuclear weapons and spark an arms race ...."
The IAEA has reported fro the 2st time that Iran is not making nukes.
"They've vowed to nuke Israel"
I have asked you to provide the link to this statement and you have refused. You are lying again.
"They will invade Bahrain shortly. "
I have asked you to provide the link to this statement and you have refused. You are lying again.
"Their murder of our citizens is not a reasonable disagreement to be discussed and debated."
Then why are we supoprting the MEK, who've murdered our citizens?
Why are we supporting Jundulla, the old gang of Kaleid Sheik Mohammed, who was the architect of 911?
You need to get out more RWNC. It's obvious you are completely insane.
Posted by Shingo at 11/17/2009 @ 7:45pm
So, China is politely saying that the US is not really trying to 'contain' China and that it does not support putting the screws to Iran for peaceful reactors and/or a non- existent weapons program. So, since we're not fighting these wars for OIL and Iran is not a threat to Israel or the US, why don't you ask them point blank why they think we ARE fighting these wars? Maybe the Chinese don't have a word for neocons, or zionists, but surely they DO have a term for Israel.
Posted by DejaVu at 11/17/2009 @ 8:21pm
Anyway, both China and America will likely suffer a catastrophic economic collapse within the next few decades, with rampant inflation and poverty and joblessness and crime and misery, as well as Weimar-republic style inflation.
The damn leftists know how to ruin countries.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/17/2009 @ 9:41pm
"That's funny. You said in another post that AQ no longer existed. Caught in your own lies again?"
No, I said that there is no formal AQ organization. The assorted Islamists we dubbed AQ probably had less than 1,000 members, and more than half of them were killed in the first few weeks of the Afghan war. The rest of them fled to Iran.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/17/2009 @ 9:44pm
""They will invade Bahrain shortly. "
I have asked you to provide the link to this statement and you have refused. You are lying again."
You can learn all about it if you read Christopher Hitchens' Fighting Words columns for Slate.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/17/2009 @ 9:46pm
Anyway, both China and America will likely suffer a catastrophic economic collapse within the next few decades, with rampant inflation and poverty and joblessness and crime and misery, as well as Weimar-republic style inflation.
The damn leftists know how to ruin countries.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/17/2009 @ 9:41pm
China will be fine.
It was the right and faux capitalism that broke America. Yuo can't spend 3 trillion on wars and put it all on a credit card and not expect problem later on.
Posted by Shingo at 11/17/2009 @ 10:18pm
The rest of them fled to Iran.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/17/2009 @ 9:44pm
That would explain why Clinton accused Pakistan of harboring them and not Iran.
Posted by Shingo at 11/17/2009 @ 10:20pm
You can learn all about it if you read Christopher Hitchens' Fighting Words columns for Slate.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/17/2009 @ 9:46pm
I read all of Christopher Hitchens' colums on Slate and Hitchens is an bald faced liar, but in this case, he made no claims that Tehran were planning to invade Bharain.
As usualy, you read something innocuous as saw what you wanted to see.
What he said was:
"Already you hear the odd rumble in hard-line circles in Tehran to the effect that Bahrain ought properly to be part of the Persian motherland."
Even the Gulf Daily source he sites makes no mention of any threats, let alone threats to invade.
You've been exposed as a liar once again.
Posted by Shingo at 11/17/2009 @ 10:28pm
Shingo, Hitchens gave a talk on the Axis of Evil where he claimed that "Iran will claim Bahrain as it's Kuwait".
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/17/2009 @ 10:32pm
Read The Coming Collapse of China.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/17/2009 @ 10:37pm
Shingo, Hitchens gave a talk on the Axis of Evil where he claimed that "Iran will claim Bahrain as it's Kuwait".
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/17/2009 @ 10:32pm
If he did, it's pure hyperbole (which Hitchers is renowned for) but again, there is no evidence of any statements from Iran that they will invade Bahrain.
You said the Tehran were planning and delayed they woudl invade Bahrain, but none of this is true.
You lied and I have exposed you as a liar once again.
Posted by Shingo at 11/17/2009 @ 10:39pm
"it's pure hyperbole (which Hitchers is renowned for)"
True.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/17/2009 @ 10:41pm
Read The Coming Collapse of China.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/17/2009 @ 10:37pm
I did. Interesting but wrong.
Posted by Shingo at 11/17/2009 @ 10:55pm
I wonder if Shingo has written any books himself, or is only qualified to comment on the Mr. Hitchens works?
Posted by Elcobar at 11/18/2009 @ 12:47am
Posted by Happy at 11/17/2009 @ 09:01am
Irregardless is not a word, please don't use it. It makes you look as dumb as your opinions do.
Posted by jfair at 11/18/2009 @ 08:27am
Obama's Goal --- Chinamerica Global Empire.
As Mr. Obama smoothly put it in his meeting with students in Shanghai Monday, "there are very few global challenges (to global Empire) that can be solved unless the United States and China agree."
Obama is signaling that his paymasters have found a most attractive building-block to their global ruling-elite corporate/financial EMPIRE, one which they would like him to charm and incorporate.
The global empire's smoothest 'front-man', Obama, is currently trying to square the circle between America's failing image of 'democratic capitalism' (moron Bush's oxymoron) with the reality of China's 'corporate communism' (as Dylan Ratigan accurately describes this evolving Empire both here and there).
Both ‘hoped-for' partners in this G2 Empire have world-class records of stratospheric GINI Coefficient of Income Inequality, and in keeping their oppressed citizens quiet (albeit via different techniques --- which they could share/blend)
"Yes, we can do EMPIRE bidness with China. They sure know how to manage their human cogs, and keep things going swimmingly. Bloody good show, old men."
Or as Dylan Ratigan might say beyond Keynesians, "We're all 'Corporate Communists' (really fascists) now."
These two improbable super-powers --- experts in respectively conflating the ideologies of democracy and communism into the service of corporatism --- could well be the winning and perfect couple on "Dancing with the Stars"
Alan MacDonald Sanford, Maine
Posted by amacd at 11/18/2009 @ 1:36pm
Obama's Goal --- Chinamerica Global Empire.
As Mr. Obama smoothly put it in his meeting with students in Shanghai Monday, "there are very few global challenges (to global Empire) that can be solved unless the United States and China agree."
Obama is signaling that his paymasters have found a most attractive building-block to their global ruling-elite corporate/financial EMPIRE, one which they would like him to charm and incorporate.
The global empire's smoothest 'front-man', Obama, is currently trying to square the circle between America's failing image of 'democratic capitalism' (moron Bush's oxymoron) with the reality of China's 'corporate communism' (as Dylan Ratigan accurately describes this evolving Empire both here and there).
Both ‘hoped-for' partners in this G2 Empire have world-class records of stratospheric GINI Coefficient of Income Inequality, and in keeping their oppressed citizens quiet (albeit via different techniques --- which they could share/blend)
"Yes, we can do EMPIRE bidness with China. They sure know how to manage their human cogs, and keep things going swimmingly. Bloody good show, old men."
Or as Dylan Ratigan might say beyond Keynesians, "We're all 'Corporate Communists' (really fascists) now."
These two improbable super-powers --- experts in respectively conflating the ideologies of democracy and communism into the service of corporatism --- could well be the winning and perfect couple on "Dancing with the Stars"
Alan MacDonald Sanford, Maine
Posted by amacd at 11/18/2009 @ 1:36pm
Diplobamacy...
Japan just coughed up 5 billion for Afghanistan costs. I didn't see them doing that when Bush was on his anger-the-planet tenure...
You get to employ a carrot + stick approach when you are talking. When you isolate, it's just stick. So the opposite side hardens, and 3rd parties don't come over to your side of the matter -- saw a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth
Posted by reg373 at 11/18/2009 @ 2:38pm
<Japan just coughed up 5 billion for Afghanistan costs. I didn't see them doing that when Bush was on his anger-the-planet tenure...
Posted by reg373 at 11/18/2009 @ 2:38pm>
Ignorance is not bliss. this report is dated from 2005 but is sufficient to rebut.
<The Koizumi government strongly condemned the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and initiated a series of unprecedented measures to protect American facilities in Japan and provide non-lethal logistical support to U.S. military operations against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The latter mainly took the form of at-sea replenishment of fuel oil and water to U.S., British, French, and other allied warships operating in the Indian Ocean, and logistical airlift. A small flotilla of transport ships, oilers, and destroyers has provided about a third of the fuel used by 10 allied naval forces in the Indian Ocean since the first deployment in November 2001. On October 26, 2004, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced the sixth six-month extension of the deployment -- until May 1, 2005 -- and reported that, in addition, the Japanese flotilla would begin supplying fresh water and helicopter fuel for the multinational forces engaged in anti-terrorist operations in the Indian Ocean. In a press release on October 28, 2004, the U.S. Defense Department said that as of mid-October 2004 the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force (MSDF) had carried out 430 refueling operations, involving 100 million gallons of fuel -- some 30 percent of all fuel used by U.S. and allied ships
Aid to Afghanistan. After the United States, Japan also has been the leading country States to Afghan relief and reconstruction.>
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/46431.pdf
Posted by antisocialist at 11/18/2009 @ 3:08pm
Hitchens is an alcoholic shill. His Brit affectations & anti-clericalism are meant to give him creds with progressives. Perhaps that was once the case, but no longer. Quoting Hitchens on the MidEast now is as valuable as quoting FoxTV.
Posted by sloper at 11/18/2009 @ 4:00pm
I wonder if Shingo has written any books himself, or is only qualified to comment on the Mr. Hitchens works?
Posted by Elcobar at 11/18/2009 @ 12:47am
Mr. Hitchens works are limited to the scope where Hitchens is most capable. His columns for Slate however, are a different matter. Hitchens has no expertise in nuclear science, but has written mountains of garbage on the matter. I happen to have a background in nuclear science, so in that regard, I am more than qualified to comment on what Hitches has written on that subject.
Posted by Shingo at 11/18/2009 @ 4:07pm
"Larry, why do you hate peace so much?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/17/2009 @ 1:02pm"
Stephen, why do you love the Taliban so deeply?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/18/2009 @ 5:32pm
Stephen, why do you love the Taliban so deeply?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/18/2009 @ 5:32pm
Rightwingnutcase, why are we paying the Taliban?
Posted by Shingo at 11/18/2009 @ 5:38pm
We don't, though the Mullahs in Tehran do fund them and train them and give them explosives.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/18/2009 @ 5:43pm
We don't, though the Mullahs in Tehran do fund them and train them and give them explosives.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/18/2009 @ 5:43pm
Of course we do. Money from the US taxpayer is paying bribes to the Taliban.
http://tinyurl.com/ych6gny
The US military knows this is going on.
What's more, the Taliban are using American made weapons, not Iranian.
http://tinyurl.com/yf295hr
As for C4 explosives, they can come from anywhere, including China. Iran were blamed for the IED's in Iraq, until it was revealed that they were being made in Iraq and that less than 1% of weapons in Iraq were from Iran.
Posted by Shingo at 11/18/2009 @ 6:10pm
Shingo, you just hate America.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/18/2009 @ 6:15pm
Shingo, you just hate America.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/18/2009 @ 6:15pm
Your standard response when confronted with inconvenient facts.
America is not the American government. You love the US government and are addicted to war.
Posted by Shingo at 11/18/2009 @ 6:26pm
Shingo, you just hate America. Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/18/2009 @ 6:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--larry's favorite line; being co-opted by other right wing nuts on this board!
whenever you see one of them asking you "why do you hate ______?" you know you've defeated their lame ass "argument"
Posted by urmygyro at 11/19/2009 @ 08:42am