The US should make a choice - Iran or China.

Discussion of current events
Post Reply
neverfail
Posts: 5446
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

The US should make a choice - Iran or China.

Post by neverfail » Fri Jun 26, 2020 10:57 pm

https://asiatimes.com/2020/06/cold-war- ... ith-china/

The necessity of deterring Iran makes it difficult to draw down US forces from the Middle East and redeploy them against China [/quote}

Even the USA does not have such unlimited military assets that it can afford to wage cold wars at such mutually remote locati0ns.

Logically, Washington should make peace with one in order to focus on the other.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 3720
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: The US should make a choice - Iran or China.

Post by Sertorio » Sat Jun 27, 2020 2:42 am

neverfail wrote:
Fri Jun 26, 2020 10:57 pm
https://asiatimes.com/2020/06/cold-war- ... ith-china/

The necessity of deterring Iran makes it difficult to draw down US forces from the Middle East and redeploy them against China

Even the USA does not have such unlimited military assets that it can afford to wage cold wars at such mutually remote locati0ns.

Logically, Washington should make peace with one in order to focus on the other.
Actually I think that the US should focus on its own problems and stop being aggressive towards other nations, whether Iran, China or any other country. The best place for the US military to be is in the US...

neverfail
Posts: 5446
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: The US as peacekeeper in the Asia-Pacific region.

Post by neverfail » Sat Jun 27, 2020 4:43 am

Sertorio wrote:
Sat Jun 27, 2020 2:42 am
neverfail wrote:
Fri Jun 26, 2020 10:57 pm
https://asiatimes.com/2020/06/cold-war- ... ith-china/

The necessity of deterring Iran makes it difficult to draw down US forces from the Middle East and redeploy them against China

Even the USA does not have such unlimited military assets that it can afford to wage cold wars at such mutually remote locati0ns.

Logically, Washington should make peace with one in order to focus on the other.
Actually I think that the US should focus on its own problems and stop being aggressive towards other nations, whether Iran, China or any other country. The best place for the US military to be is in the US...
I utterly disagree!

In the Middle East the USA seem to have teamed up with the Saudi monarchy to contain the empire building ambitions of Iran and its prosthelytizing high clergy. Since Saudi Arabia champions the competing Wahabini sect of Sunni Islam with similar zeal then I cannot see the point of the US taking sides with one religious bloc against the other. Whoever wins in the long run, Shia Iran or Wahabini Saudia,it is bound to radicalise Islam to the detriment of The West.

China is a different matter. Arguably Xi Jinping, the nationalist leader and political strongman of :lol: ":Communist" China would not have dared to lay claim to the waters of the South China Sea and enforce the claim (against international law) by building military bases on artifically reclaimed reefs and shoals had it not been for US President Barrick Obama's Irresolution. Barrick warned the Assad regime in Syria not to use chemical weapons against enemies in their civil war and Assad brazenly ignored the warning by using them. Obama did nothing. Then as China soon after made its first moves to annex the South China Sea as a territorial sea of the PRC Obama warned Xi not to; but in response to China's building of artifical islands for future military bases also did nothing in retribution.

I have absolutely no doubt that this irresolute streak in Obama's personality is also a significent part of the reason why Putin's annaxation of Crimea and his stoking up a civil war in Ukraine (with Russia supporting the rebel side) also reflects the opportunity provided by Obama's habit of not carrying out his threats. But that is an aside of no relevance other than to further expose the global consequences of a flaw in Obama's personality.

So Sertorio, please do not speak to me about the USA being "aggressive towards other nations". You are in my eyes guilty of "stereotyping" the USA - the very sin you have publically condemned on this website. The accusation might even be true sometimes with regard to parts of Latin America and the Middle East. But over here on the Asia-Pacific side of planet Earth it is basically the USA's willingness to maintain the power balance, keeping the peace, that I am convinced has so far prevented a truly horrible string of wars from breaking out.

(The only problem is the sort of weak charactered duds the Americans keep on electing as Presidents - including the presently incumbent Mr. bluff and bluster. When the US Head of State and commander in chief of their armed forces is a dickhead it only encourages rival powers to take unfair advantage of the debilitating weakness at the pinnacle of US power clossus.)

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 3720
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: The US as peacekeeper in the Asia-Pacific region.

Post by Sertorio » Sun Jun 28, 2020 2:38 am

neverfail wrote:
Sat Jun 27, 2020 4:43 am
Sertorio wrote:
Sat Jun 27, 2020 2:42 am
neverfail wrote:
Fri Jun 26, 2020 10:57 pm
https://asiatimes.com/2020/06/cold-war- ... ith-china/

The necessity of deterring Iran makes it difficult to draw down US forces from the Middle East and redeploy them against China

Even the USA does not have such unlimited military assets that it can afford to wage cold wars at such mutually remote locati0ns.

Logically, Washington should make peace with one in order to focus on the other.
Actually I think that the US should focus on its own problems and stop being aggressive towards other nations, whether Iran, China or any other country. The best place for the US military to be is in the US...
I utterly disagree!

In the Middle East the USA seem to have teamed up with the Saudi monarchy to contain the empire building ambitions of Iran and its prosthelytizing high clergy. Since Saudi Arabia champions the competing Wahabini sect of Sunni Islam with similar zeal then I cannot see the point of the US taking sides with one religious bloc against the other. Whoever wins in the long run, Shia Iran or Wahabini Saudia,it is bound to radicalise Islam to the detriment of The West.

China is a different matter. Arguably Xi Jinping, the nationalist leader and political strongman of :lol: ":Communist" China would not have dared to lay claim to the waters of the South China Sea and enforce the claim (against international law) by building military bases on artifically reclaimed reefs and shoals had it not been for US President Barrick Obama's Irresolution. Barrick warned the Assad regime in Syria not to use chemical weapons against enemies in their civil war and Assad brazenly ignored the warning by using them. Obama did nothing. Then as China soon after made its first moves to annex the South China Sea as a territorial sea of the PRC Obama warned Xi not to; but in response to China's building of artifical islands for future military bases also did nothing in retribution.

I have absolutely no doubt that this irresolute streak in Obama's personality is also a significent part of the reason why Putin's annaxation of Crimea and his stoking up a civil war in Ukraine (with Russia supporting the rebel side) also reflects the opportunity provided by Obama's habit of not carrying out his threats. But that is an aside of no relevance other than to further expose the global consequences of a flaw in Obama's personality.

So Sertorio, please do not speak to me about the USA being "aggressive towards other nations". You are in my eyes guilty of "stereotyping" the USA - the very sin you have publically condemned on this website. The accusation might even be true sometimes with regard to parts of Latin America and the Middle East. But over here on the Asia-Pacific side of planet Earth it is basically the USA's willingness to maintain the power balance, keeping the peace, that I am convinced has so far prevented a truly horrible string of wars from breaking out.

(The only problem is the sort of weak charactered duds the Americans keep on electing as Presidents - including the presently incumbent Mr. bluff and bluster. When the US Head of State and commander in chief of their armed forces is a dickhead it only encourages rival powers to take unfair advantage of the debilitating weakness at the pinnacle of US power clossus.)
Keeping peace? If the US was really interested in keeping peace it would have lifted some of the economic sanctions against North Korea to encourage the denuclearization of Korea. But the US prefers power to peace, and wants to impose its will on everybody.

neverfail
Posts: 5446
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: The US as peacekeeper in the Asia-Pacific region.

Post by neverfail » Sun Jun 28, 2020 5:19 am

Sertorio wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 2:38 am

Keeping peace? If the US was really interested in keeping peace it would have lifted some of the economic sanctions against North Korea to encourage the denuclearization of Korea. But the US prefers power to peace, and wants to impose its will on everybody.
If the North Korean regime were seriously interested in joining the community of nations as a responsible partipiting member instead of behaving like a rogue state then there would be no need to impose sanctions in order to to hobble it.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Flight_858 Only one of countless criminal acts committed by this lawless regime.I have not the space to record all of the others.)

Don't waste your sympathy on North Korea Sertorio. A regime like that which resembles a crime mafia is not worth cvaring for.

Post Reply