Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditBEIJING--During President Obama's recent visit to China, he got some advice on Afghanistan from Chinese government officials – and an offer of Chinese assistance toward a negotiated settlement of the war.
Yang Wenchang, a retired senior Chinese diplomat who is currently the president of the Chinese People's Institute of Foreign Affairs (CPIFA), told a small group of US journalists that China is willing to cooperate with the United States in finding a way out of the Afghan morass. "The two presidents discussed the issue at length," said Yang, who maintains extensive contacts with US and other Western officials as head of CPIFA. "China will cooperate."
However, during a wide-ranging discussion over dinner at an Italian restaurant in Beijing, the former ambassador said that China does not believe that the US and NATO can succeed militarily. "I think Obama should realize from the outset that no outside power can rule Afghanistan. The Russians tried to change the system in Afghanistan for ten years," he said. "Many Americans, especially among the Republicans, want to send more troops. I don't think NATO can succeed."
Although Yang did not specify exactly how Beijing might support US diplomacy in South Asia, China's assistance could be crucial in a political settlement of the war in Afghanistan because China is a close ally of Pakistan, and Pakistan's support for a deal in Afghanistan is essential for the emergence of a stable, multi-ethnic government in Kabul. Though Pakistan is a nominal ally of the United States, the Pakistani military and its intelligence service, the ISI, covertly support the Taliban in Afghanistan and provide safe havens for leading Taliban officials. Over the course of a week-long visit to China, various Chinese officials and experts have said that China is concerned about the presence of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, which has a troubled border with China, and they are concerned that growing instability in Afghanistan could lead to a spreading conflict in South Asia to the detriment of China's interests in the region. But they are modestly encouraged, so far, by Obama's policy.
"Obama is now considering to negotiate with the Taliban," says Yang, who says that a political accord must allow the Taliban, especially its moderate wing, to take part in a new government in Kabul. "The United States should help build up a government in Afghanistan that is acceptable to all countries in the region," he says. "That is the only solution." By "all countries," the former Chinese diplomat means above all Pakistan, which has great influence among the Taliban and among the ethnic Pashtuns who make up the majority of Afghans and from whom the Taliban draws its core support.
"Who can control the Pashtuns?" asks Yang. "Pakistan."
Since 2001, the United States and NATO have propped up an increasingly unpopular and illegitimate Afghan government that is largely drawn from that country's Tajik, Uzbek, and Hazara minorities, the remnants of the old Northern Alliance that opposed the Taliban during the 1990s. The Northern Alliance, in turn, was backed by India, Iran, and Russia. And Pakistan, along with the Pashtuns who live mostly in southern and eastern Afghanistan, is fearful of India's increasing role in Afghanistan.
In a separate interview, Zheng Zeguang, the director general of the Chinese foreign ministry's section on North America, said that China welcomes Obama's rethinking of the war in Afghanistan. "We are quite encouraged by his new approach," he says. "Obama seems to be taking a more comprehensive approach. The US side told us that they believe that military means is not the solution." China, he said, is willing to step in with economic and financial assistance to Afghanistan.
More broadly, China is prepared to become involved more directly in Middle East and South Asian affairs, because it is becoming increasingly dependent on oil and gas imports from the region. Over and over again, Chinese officials told me that Beijing is intensely interested in regional stability. For the second year running, China's oil imports have risen by double digits. "As China moves ahead on the fast track of industrialization, our demand for oil and gas is increasing rapidly," says a top official at the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation, a government thinktank. And most of that increased demand can come only from the Persian Gulf.
Recently, China has tried to assert itself in the Middle East, only to be rebuffed by the United States. Since 2001, China has tried to become a fifth member of the so-called Quartet – the US, Russia, the European Union, and the UN – that is the guiding force behind the road map for a settlement of the Israel-Palestine problem. "Unfortunately, China is not part of the Quartet," says Zheng, of the foreign ministry's North America section. "Personally, I do not understand why China is not included." But a retired Chinese diplomat with wide experience in the Middle East suggests that United States is reluctant to see China play a greater role in the region. Some US analysts, such as Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution, have called on the United States to bring China into the Middle East quartet, because China is likely to play a constructive role.
Zheng acknowledges that the United States must continue, at least for now, to take the leading role in the Middle East. "China," he says, "can only play a role commensurate with its influence. The biggest factor In the Middle East is the United States." During the Bush years, China was troubled by the US invasion of Iraq and by President Bush's confrontational policy toward Iran, which inflamed the entire region and drove up the price of oil on world markets. Now, clearly, China hopes that the Obama administration will seek a more cooperative approach in the region that emphasizes diplomacy over military action. China is directly engaged in support of US diplomacy with Iran, though Beijing strongly opposes using pressure and the threat of new UN-imposed sanctions to force Iran to make concessions on its nuclear program. Despite China's opposition to the war in Iraq in 2003, Beijing has taken advantage of the Iraqi government's relative independence now to secure important Iraqi-Chinese oil deals. And, as Chinese officials make clear, China is ready to play a stepped-up role across the region, from Afghanistan to the Israel-Palestine problem.
Yet there are troubling signs. If the US talks with Iran break down, the US and China could find themselves involved in a test of wills over Washington's desire to increase Iran's economic isolation. And if President Obama decides soon to order a large escalation in the American war in Afghanistan, that too could lead to new tensions between Washington and Beijing.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
Afghanistan is the graveyard of the empires for centuries. Only the withdrawal of the US and NATO forces will bring peace there to an extent.
Posted by Dastu11 at 11/23/2009 @ 09:02am
DREYFUSS: "Who can control the Pashtuns?" asks Yang. "Pakistan."
Righto!
That explains the brilliant strategy of the Pakistani Army killing said Pashtuns by the thousands IN Pakistan and the Pashtuns in turn, setting of bombs regularly IN Pakistan.
Newspeak, Chinese style!
Posted by Happy at 11/23/2009 @ 09:36am
Obama needn't bring China to the Middle East. Sooner or later some Middle East countries will bring China.Nobody wants to stay in a sinking ship.
Posted by Dastu11 at 11/23/2009 @ 09:40am
DREYFUSS: "During the Bush years, China was troubled by the US invasion of Iraq and by President Bush's confrontational policy toward Iran, which inflamed the entire region and drove up the price of oil on world markets."
And what did China actually experience "During the Bush years"? How about emerging as a true economic power and having hosted the `08 Olympic to showcase its economic rise?
As for the slander of Bushism having "inflamed the entire region and drove up the price of oil on world markets", does anyone remember back a few years, there was precious little surplus capacity in OPEC and that China itself, was absorbing just about all the increased production in the world?
Before anyone jump on Bush for reduced Iraqi oil production, it was declining rapidly long before our invasion and the incremental reduction was nominal. The problems in Nigeria and our own declining production, due entirely to Enviro-Nazis' politics, had far greater impact on oil production!
Posted by Happy at 11/23/2009 @ 09:44am
Posted by Happy at 11/23/2009 @ 09:44am
Who's writing for you today "happy?" The confused syntax & unreadable commentary is noticeably absent.
Posted by Sorelish at 11/23/2009 @ 11:00am
Can China Help on Afghanistan?
No. China will only help China in Afganistan. Are you that daft?
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/23/2009 @ 11:05am
Happy would HAVE to support China helping us in Afghanistan if such help "left it beter off than it was on the eve of 9/11/01".....wouldn't you, Happ???
"As long-time fans of mine know, I support whatever our magical CIC wants to do w/Afghanistan AS LONG AS he succeeds in leaving it better off than on the eve of 9/11/01. "----Posted by Happy at 08/26/2009 @ 09:42am
Posted by Mask at 11/23/2009 @ 11:38am
Posted by Happy at 11/23/2009 @ 09:44am
Another way of putting it Happy is that China is probably thrilled that Bush removed the capricious Saddam and gave it a much more trustworthy Iraq government to deal with re getting some good Iraq oil contracts (darn there goes that US war for oil rationale).
Living in the region where China news has rated a little higher than in the US I remember pre-election reports of how concerned the leadership of China was that Obama, who had been conning the gullible Left, would not be as sympathetic to free trade as Bush, who in turn, was regarded as a bit of a hero there and in Japan and unsurprisingly in Vietnam for the same reason.
What one must admire about Obama is he comes to every issue with no preconceived ideas (some suggest that preconceived could be dropped) that way he too could become China's friend or for that matter any other country that needs a favour from the US.
Not sure if it was reported there that Obama was extolling the virtues of free trade during APEC in Singapore. I guess on the principle of when in Rome do as Rome does (and hope it is not reported in the US news).
Despite his slant, which both sides have, except ours is more credible, naturally, Dreyfuss, who certainly gets around the world, is as always a good read.
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/23/2009 @ 12:21pm
lrjones4;
Say is'nt there some way you aussies can lure the Obamanation down under and pummel some common sense into him? Maybe he can "guest play" a little aussie football or do a "walk about" that might give him an enlighted perspective on helping our nation to survive his administration! Anything you could arrange to help would be appreciated.
Posted by BigPasture at 11/23/2009 @ 1:18pm
bigpasture-lrjones has his wife mow the lawn so it would be his wife and not him that you would want to pummel Obama.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/23/2009 @ 1:43pm
Posted by BigPasture at 11/23/2009 @ 1:18pm
You know me BP, I'd love to help America and would but my missus hates his guts and I'm a bit under the thumb if you know what I mean.
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/23/2009 @ 1:45pm
The U.S. cannot impose a government on Afghanistan. Afghans will have to determine their own future. However, local governments can be empowered protected by their own militias. Any aid program will probably go directly to the people, in order to by pass corrupt officials at the national and provincial levels. We might be able to build a national army, but the rest is up to the Afghans. The Taliban, in either Pakistan or Afghanistan, are not popular. It would be in the national interest of both countries to cooperate in dealing with the insurgents along their shared border. China has a good relationship with Pakistan, but Pakistan is dealing with it's own Taliban problem. China's main problem in the region is not the U.S., but international Islamic groups that might want to support Muslim minorities in China.
Posted by pjcasey at 11/23/2009 @ 3:02pm
The Taliban are so outrageously evil, it is almost darkly humorous as an honest portrayal of the hideous darkness that exists in the human condition.
The Taliban are pure evil, plain and simple. The lengths they go to in order to show off the depths of their depravity are astonishing. Their extraordinary sadism and cruelty is breathtaking. They gas little girls for going to school, bomb grade schools, light women on fire, pour acid in the faces of little girls for learning to read, and buy six-year-olds as child slaves to use them as suicide bombers. They saw the limbs off of aid workers and teachers; behead apostates, stone adulterers to death. They abduct and repeatedly rape foreign female journalists covering the war, torture men to death for shaving, kill Shiite children for subscribing to the "wrong" branch of Islam (meaning the more tolerant, progressive, and humane branch of Islam). They crush gays with huge stone walls, genitally mutilate little girls, molest children, and saw off the limbs of criminals. They aren't just evil; they are so extreme and radical in the extent of their evil, far beyond the Iranian Mullahs or even Saddam Hussein in their sheer debasement, that even they must know that what they do at times is unnecessary and wicked, such as when they stone women to death for leaving their home without a male relative. It's as if the thrill of having power over women and little children is their real main purpose in life; the ecstasy they must have felt when these vile subhuman inhumane creatures gained control of an entire country and became free to do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted to whomever they wanted in it is the rush they seek to regain by seeing just HOW FAR they can go in terms of cruel and inhuman treatment of others.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/23/2009 @ 3:44pm
I wish there was a Hell for the Taliban to burn in.
Never before in history has there ever been such a clear-cut battle between pure good and pure evil like the current war between the US and the Taliban.
The Taliban are the most depraved and evil tyrants in the world, with a record rivaled only by Kim Jong-Il and Omar al-Bashir.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/23/2009 @ 3:50pm
Say is'nt there some way you aussies can lure the Obamanation down under and pummel some common sense into him?
Posted by BigPasture at 11/23/2009 @ 1:18pm
You want Kevin Rudd to pummel Obama and talk some sense into him? Hahha, that'l be the day.
You must have been on planet wingnutia when the Bush ass kissing, necon wannabe, Howard government was outed in a landslide.
Posted by Shingo at 11/23/2009 @ 4:26pm
They gas little girls for going to school, bomb grade schools, light women on fire, pour acid in the faces of little girls for learning to read, and buy six-year-olds as child slaves to use them as suicide bombers.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/23/2009 @ 3:44pm
They were doing that back when Ronald Reagan called them freedom fighters who presented American values.
Yes the Taliban are nasty, but for some reason, we keep supporting them and giving them money, and allied with Saudi Arabia, who funds them. In fact,. the Taliban make more money from the protection money the US taxpayer pays them then from opium.
So you see, there is no such thing as pure good and pure evil, becasue the guys you think are good and pure and helping the guys you think are pure evil.
Posted by Shingo at 11/23/2009 @ 4:30pm
"They were doing that back when Ronald Reagan called them freedom fighters who presented American values."
The Taliban didn't exist under Reagan. Reagan supported the Afghan Mujahedeen, which was a loose collection of rebels that eventually splintered apart and started killing each other. One of its factions was the Taliban, but there were other, more moderate factions. Now, even the most moderate of them were still pretty nasty, but Ronald Reagan supported them in order to stop the Soviet genocide of the Afghans which killed about 1.5 million Afghans and in order to destroy the puppet totalitarian Communist dictatorship the Soviets set up in Afghanistan, like we had failed to destroy the puppet dictatorship Soviet troops set up in North Korea. One could argue that Reagan's real mistake was not accepting the Soviet offer to pull out and abandon their Communist allies but only after working with the United States to help set up a democracy in Afghanistan.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/23/2009 @ 5:17pm
Ronald Reagan wasn't concerned about Soviets killing Afghans. he just wanted to stick his thumb in the eye of the Soviets.
In fact, as Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted, the US supported the Jihadists extremists in order to incite the Soviets to invade so that we could bog them down in a war that woudl bankrupt them.
The reason Reagan did not accepting the Soviet offer to pull out is becasue like Brzezinski, he wanted to keep them there to bleed them longer.
Posted by Shingo at 11/23/2009 @ 5:48pm
"In fact, as Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted, the US supported the Jihadists extremists in order to incite the Soviets to invade so that we could bog them down in a war that woudl bankrupt them."
This is a discredited fantasy. Jimmy Carter repeatedly warned the Soviets not to invade Afghanistan, and they seemed to agree. Naive Carter's jaw literally dropped in astonishment at the news of the invasion. "The reason Reagan did not accepting the Soviet offer to pull out is becasue like Brzezinski, he wanted to keep them there to bleed them longer." False. The Soviets actually pulled out sooner because Reagan rejected the offer. They only made the offer as a last resort to find a peaceful solution before ordering a complete withdrawal.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/23/2009 @ 5:54pm
This is a discredited fantasy. Jimmy Carter repeatedly warned the Soviets not to invade Afghanistan, and they seemed to agree.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/23/2009 @ 5:54pm
Of course. The US is never going to admit what it's doing behind the scenes. The fact that you fell for Carter' s charade shows who's naive.
"The Soviets actually pulled out sooner because Reagan rejected the offer."
Wrong. The Soviets pulled out because the cost was out weighing the benefits of occupation. The same thing is happening to us right now.
Posted by Shingo at 11/23/2009 @ 6:03pm
"Wrong. The Soviets pulled out because the cost was out weighing the benefits of occupation."
Shingo, you obviously don't know WHEN Reagan was given the proposal. It was after the Soviets had already decided to pull out.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/23/2009 @ 6:07pm
Shingo, just admit that America is the best nation in the world and that it is better than other countries.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/23/2009 @ 6:10pm
Shingo, you obviously don't know WHEN Reagan was given the proposal. It was after the Soviets had already decided to pull out.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/23/2009 @ 6:07pm
Irrelevant. The Soviets pulled out becasue it was a lost cause. Reagan woudl have been only too happy for thec conflict to continue. After all, he promised that he would destroy the Soviets by outspending them.
"Shingo, just admit that America is the best nation in the world and that it is better than other countries"
I could but you'd have to give me a lot of money. Every nation on earth thinks they're the best nation in the world. It's like men who think their dicks are bigger.
Posted by Shingo at 11/23/2009 @ 6:17pm
BTW rightwingnutcase.
Have you ever been outside the of America?
Posted by Shingo at 11/23/2009 @ 6:19pm
Shingo, who's more evil: Mullah Omar or George W. Bush?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/23/2009 @ 6:19pm
"Have you ever been outside the of America?"
Yes. I've been to Canada, the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, and Europe.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/23/2009 @ 6:22pm
Mullah Omar or George W. Bush?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/23/2009 @ 6:19pm
Don't know them personally, but Bush killed a lot more people. In any case, evil is a term used by religious nuts. Omar and Bush both want power.
BTW. Our puppet n Kabul is making friends with Omar, which makes him our friend too right?
Posted by Shingo at 11/23/2009 @ 6:28pm
"but Bush killed a lot more people"
Actually, Bush saved millions of lives in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Africa. He also liberated 60 million Muslims and prevented two genocides against Muslims.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/23/2009 @ 6:33pm
"In any case, evil is a term used by religious nuts."
Hitchens is a religious nut?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/23/2009 @ 6:34pm
Actually, Bush saved millions of lives in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Africa. He also liberated 60 million Muslims and prevented two genocides against Muslims.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/23/2009 @ 6:33pm
Bush invaded Iraq and created a war that killed 1.2 million, so he saved no one there. In fact, eh created a genocide.
Same with Afghanistan.
So where are the 60 million Muslims he liberated? What genocides did he prevent?
"Hitchens is a religious nut?"
Yes, Hitchens has his own religion.
Posted by Shingo at 11/23/2009 @ 6:40pm
"So where are the 60 million Muslims he liberated"
Iraq and Afghanistan.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/23/2009 @ 6:42pm
China is set to implode economically so I doubt they will have a pot to pee in or be concern about afghanistan! The investment guru who runs the world's biggest bond fund at Pimco, Bill Gross, says a speculative bubble is emerging in China.
Gross told Bloomberg News that the Chinese will have "a bubble of their own" to confront shortly.
"It's gearing up for export that doesn't find an end consumer, that's the real problem in China."
Constrained growth potential in the United States will be the "new normal" for a while, Gross contends.
"With U.S. unemployment in the double digits and likely to stay close to that for the next six months despite job creation ahead, the Fed has nowhere to go," Gross says.
China's trade surplus with the United States nearly doubled in October from the previous month to $24 billion, figures from the Customs Bureau show.
The Shanghai Composite Index of shares has returned 84 percent so far this year. The index is valued at 35 times reported earnings, more than doubling in a year.
This is unsustainable, notes Gross.
The "systemic risk" of another asset bubble is rising, in part because the Federal Reserve has kept interest rates at record lows.
What's more, there are other, potentially difficult developments.
"China may abandon its dollar peg within six months' time and with it, its own easy monetary policy that has fostered more significant mini-bubbles of lending and asset appreciation on the Chinese mainland," Gross adds.
Bloomberg News also reports that China's government has encouraged a $1.3 trillion credit boom this year to complement its monetary and fiscal stimulus, which is raising concern internationally about future economic instability there.
Posted by BigPasture at 11/23/2009 @ 6:47pm
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) also is raising red flags about the burgeoning Chinese bubble.
They will have more on their plate than they can handle soon enough!
Posted by BigPasture at 11/23/2009 @ 6:49pm
"China is set to implode economically"
True, but so are we.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/23/2009 @ 6:52pm
Posted by Dastu11 at 11/23/2009 @ 09:02am
As much as I am against the war in Afghanistan, this "graveyard of empires" argument is bad.
For one, it is false. Genghis Khan laid waste to the country. Or, you could also talk about the Mughals. You think Islam showed up there by magic?
Do you think a systematic program of destroying agricultural crops, poisoning sources of water and killing military age men wouldn't bring Afghanistan to its knees in a single year? So, let's cut the bullshit shall we?
Afghanistan is a bad idea, but it's no graveyard of empires. The Soviets never had more than 100,000 in the field. We've never had more than the Soviets. And neither force was giving the population the Mongol treatment. If you wanted to play nice, you could accomplish the same thing by putting a million soldiers on the ground. Either way, the country would be a graveyard, but not of an empire.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/23/2009 @ 7:49pm
Iraq and Afghanistan.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/23/2009 @ 6:42pm
There aren't that many people in those countries combined. Plus, 1.2 million in Iraq are dead and 4-5 million are refugees.
Posted by Shingo at 11/23/2009 @ 8:25pm
China is set to implode economically.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/23/2009 @ 6:52pm
Except that China does have a manufacturing base and they hold all our debt. China's biggest problem is the exposure hey have to our debt.
Posted by Shingo at 11/23/2009 @ 8:34pm
31,234,000 people live in Iraq.
28,150,000 people live in Afghanistan.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/23/2009 @ 8:38pm
Afghanistan is a bad idea, but it's no graveyard of empires. The Soviets never had more than 100,000 in the field.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/23/2009 @ 7:49pm
Our country is broke, so yes Afghanistan could become a graveyard fo sorts as it saps what little money we have left.
Posted by Shingo at 11/23/2009 @ 8:39pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/23/2009 @ 8:38pm
25,000,000 people lived in Iraq. Only 20 million live there now.
31,000,000 people live in Afghanistan and none are liberated.
Posted by Shingo at 11/23/2009 @ 8:55pm
Not according to any population survey you'll ever find.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/23/2009 @ 9:48pm
If the Chinese can bulldoze Tibet, they can surely bulldoze Afghanistan. Hey, Blackwater, are you listening?
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/23/2009 @ 10:12pm
Not according to any population survey you'll ever find.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/23/2009 @ 9:48pm
If liberation means being free from the Taliban, then the survey won't tell you anything. The Karzai government is inviting Mullah Omar into the Afghan government and has already agreed to impose Shariah Law.
Posted by Shingo at 11/23/2009 @ 11:17pm
Except that China does have a manufacturing base and they hold all our debt. China's biggest problem is the exposure hey have to our debt.
Posted by Shingo at 11/23/2009 @ 8:34pm
They have a huge manufacturing base and it is modern growing and efficient.
The debt exposure issue is correct but they are spending it buying oil, natural resources and commodities all over the world, including our back yard.
While we shut our economic engine down .
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/24/2009 @ 01:05am
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/24/2009 @ 01:05am | ignore this person | warn this person
See the other thread where our enviro-wackos want to save our coal for use by the Chinese in the future!
Posted by BigPasture at 11/24/2009 @ 03:43am
Why would we allow our foreign policy to be influenced one iota by the desires of a communist dictatorship? These days communist dictatorship is generous, it's devolved into little more than a Central American style mafia state. Except this time they have total control over the entire national government and enforce their will over the chinese people with extreme fear violence tactics with no hope for a future reprieve. So no, China is a non-issue in regards to Pakistan, Afghanistan, or any foreign policy component that our country is dealing with.
Posted by Milhaus at 11/24/2009 @ 07:11am
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/24/2009 @ 01:05am
John, don't YOU do a lot of business with China?
Posted by Mask at 11/24/2009 @ 07:52am
Bring China into the Middle East?
China just sentenced a guy to three years in prison for being critical of the Chinese government's response to that big earthquake awhile back.
Yeah, that's just the sort of people we need spreading their influence around the world. Let Freedom Ring!
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/24/2009 @ 08:33am
Bring China into the Middle East?
China just sentenced a guy to three years in prison for being critical of the Chinese government's response to that big earthquake awhile back.
Yeah, that's just the sort of people we need spreading their influence around the world. Let Freedom Ring!
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/24/2009 @ 08:33am
Yeah, that's just the sort of people we need spreading their influence around the world. Let Freedom Ring!
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/24/2009 @ 08:33am
Yeah, what we need is more of that Patriot Act, Rendition, and life TIPS, and life imprisonment for using the word Jihad while playing paint ball.
Let Freedom Ring - elsewhere.
Posted by Shingo at 11/24/2009 @ 5:26pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/23/2009 @ 8:38pm
25,000,000 people lived in Iraq. Only 20 million live there now.
Posted by Shingo at 11/23/2009 @ 8:55pm
Seems RWNC is right on this one:
Demographics of Iraq (wikipedia)
The 2009 IMF population estimate of Iraq is 31,234,000.[1]
The following in millions from reference [1].
2006 28.750
2007 29.584
2008 30.413
2009 31.234
That gives an annual growth rate of about 2.5%.
The population was estimated to be 24,001,816 in July 2002 (World Fact Book).
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/27/2009 @ 05:52am