China, Russia, and Iran...

[GottaDiesel]

Uhhh... We can't take care of a little country like Iraq -- so what do you think of this?

------------

By LEILA SARALAYEVA
The Associated Press
Thursday, August 16, 2007; 2:56 PM

BISHKEK, Kyrgyzstan -- The leaders of Russia, China and Iran said Thursday that Central Asia should be left alone to manage its stability and security _ an apparent warning to the United States to avoid interfering in the strategic, resource-rich region.

The veiled warning came at a meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and on the eve of major war games between Russia and China.

The SCO was created 11 years ago to address religious extremism and border security in Central Asia, but in recent years, with countries such as Iran signing on as observers, it has grown into a bloc aimed at defying U.S. interests in the region.

"Stability and security in Central Asia are best ensured primarily through efforts taken by the nations of the region on the basis of the existing regional associations," the leaders said in a statement at the end of the organization's summit in the Kyrgyz capital, Bishkek.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, attending the summit for the second consecutive year, criticized U.S. plans to put parts of a missile defense system in Eastern Europe as a threat to the entire region.

"These intentions go beyond just one country. They are of concern for much of the continent, Asia and SCO members," he said.

Washington has said the system would help protect against potential Iranian missiles.

Russian President Vladimir Putin didn't mention the United States in his speech, but he said that "any attempts to solve global and regional problems unilaterally are hopeless."

He also called for "strengthening a multi-polar international system that would ensure equal security and opportunities for all countries" _ comments echoing Russia's frequent complaints that the United States dominates world affairs.

Moscow has also bristled at Washington's plans to deploy the anti-missile system in Poland and the Czech Republic, saying the system would threaten Russian security.

Putin and Hu Jintao of China were set to attend Friday's military exercises in the Chelyabinsk region in Russia's Ural Mountains. Some 6,000 Russian and Chinese troops, dozens of aircraft and hundreds of armored vehicles and other heavy weapons will participate _ the first such joint drills on Russia's territory.

China hosted the first-ever joint maneuvers in August 2005, which included a mock assault on the beaches of northern China and featured Russia's long-range bombers.

Moscow and Beijing have developed what they dubbed a "strategic partnership" after the Soviet collapse, cemented by their perceptions that the United States dominates global affairs.

In 2005, the SCO called for a timetable to be set for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from two member countries, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. Uzbekistan evicted American forces later that year, but Kyrgyzstan still hosts a U.S. base, which supports operations in nearby Afghanistan.

Russia also maintains a military base in Kyrgyzstan.

The SCO, whose members are some of the world's biggest energy producers and consumers, also discussed ways to enhance energy cooperation. Washington has supported plans for new pipelines that would carry the region's oil and gas to the West and bypass Russia, while Moscow has pushed strongly to control the export flows.

A further sign of the group's intention to influence energy markets was the participation in the Bishkek summit of Turkmen President Gurbanguli Berdymukhamedov, whose country is the second-largest producer of natural gas in the former Soviet Union after Russia. Turkmenistan is not an SCO member; the president was attending as a guest.

[MTI]

Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.

[Botnst]

Circumstances are everything.

A more important quesdtion is not the capability of the military to win a war, the question is more accurately asked of the American people, who send their children to war and then surrender from afar.

B

[BAVBMW]

All at once, or one at a time? That makes a big difference. As does defeating them militarily, or occupying and/or pacifying them.

Militarily, Iraq didn't stand a chance, but now that we're just baby-sitting, it's another story. We all taunted the baby-sitter with out much worry. Most wouldn't try the same with a police officer...

MV

[GottaDiesel]

All at once or not... no chance on any of them. Iran would be impossible for us (unless we nuked ala Japan-style) -- China and Russia. Forget it. China would come to Russia's side and we'd be renting our own homes back from them.

[LUVMBDiesels]

Originally Posted by Botnst

Circumstances are everything.

A more important quesdtion is not the capability of the military to win a war, the question is more accurately asked of the American people, who send their children to war and then surrender from afar.

B

I agree 100%. The situation in Iraq was mishandled for the past three years. It is only now that we are doing what should have been done in 2004. However, the Democratic party and more and more Republicans are saying that all is lost there even in the face of things getting better.

You also have to remember that that the toll in Iraq is MUCH less than we saw in Vietnam and amounts to less than the losses on D-Day. The idea that we are doomed to fail in Iraq would have had Eisenhower, Patton, and MacArthur turning over in their graves.

As far as the other countries go, China is my biggest worry. They have the ability to paralyze us economically. They are also a unrepentant police state that should NEVER have been given Most Favored Nation status. They have modern American weapons thanks to Wild Bill Clinton and they have shown themselves to be ruthless (Tienanmen Square) I predict that there will be a day when they get tired of Taiwan and invade it. That would bring us into a conflict with them.

As far as Iran goes, there is a huge amount of people who want to be rid of the Mullahs. The Persian society has always been very cosmopolitan. It has only been since the Shah tried to modernize the countryside too quickly that the whole Islamic Republic thing came about. A Persian friend of mine, whose father was a cabinet minister under the Shah told me that she had supported the revolution thinking it would lead to greater democracy. Nobody expected Khomeni to take over. There have been large protests in the streets there that nobody reports on here.
I think that if we can do it right (big IF there) that country would be better suited for decapitation of its leadership than anywhere else.

As for Russia, they are slipping back into a police state as well. Look at the engineered elections they are gong to have with BOTH candidates hand picked by Putin. The thing is, their military has gone rapidly downhill and is now little more than a joke. Still they are dangerous and we should be trying to make them into more of an ally, as they were under Yeltsin.


Just my 2 cents...

[450slcguy]

A war with Russia would probably turn nuclear and that would in turn lead to "the end of humanity" as we know it. A no win situation.

A war with China would also turn nuclear, although we could probably survive that one. An invasion would be impossible due to their overwhelming population and nationalism, similar to Japanese in WW2. Their huge population would be extremely susceptible to food, water and material shortages. That would be the way to bring them to their knees. We could probably win this one, but it would be an extremely difficult challenge and could take many years to achieve.

We could probably kick Iran's ass quickly once we destroy their front line defenses. Destroy their manufacturing and transportation infrastructure, eliminate their water supply, then starve them to death. We could win this one but forget about post war reconciliation or rebuilding

But then again, any of the above could escalate into a Armageddon type scenerio, and then the whole world looses.

[A264172]

Originally Posted by MTI

Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.

"Well, boys, I reckon this is it - nuclear combat toe to toe with the Roosskies. Now look, boys, I ain't much of a hand at makin' speeches, but I got a pretty fair idea that something doggone important is goin' on back there. And I got a fair idea the kinda personal emotions that some of you fellas may be thinkin'. Heck, I reckon you wouldn't even be human bein's if you didn't have some pretty strong personal feelin's about nuclear combat. I want you to remember one thing, the folks back home is a-countin' on you and by golly, we ain't about to let 'em down. I tell you something else, if this thing turns out to be half as important as I figure it just might be, I'd say that you're all in line for some important promotions and personal citations when this thing's over with. That goes for ever' last one of you regardless of your race, color or your creed. Now let's get this thing on the hump - we got some flyin' to do. "

[Botnst]

The Great Leap Backward?
Elizabeth C. Economy
From Foreign Affairs, September/October 2007
Environmental woes are mounting, and the country is fast becoming one of the leading polluters in the world. The situation continues to deteriorate because even when Beijing sets ambitious targets to protect the environment, local officials generally ignore them, preferring to concentrate on further advancing economic growth. Really improving the environment in China will require revolutionary bottom-up political and economic reforms.

Elizabeth C. Economy is C. V. Starr Senior Fellow and Director for Asia Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of The River Runs Black: The Environmental Challenges to China's Future.

China's environmental problems are mounting. Water pollution and water scarcity are burdening the economy, rising levels of air pollution are endangering the health of millions of Chinese, and much of the country's land is rapidly turning into desert. China has become a world leader in air and water pollution and land degradation and a top contributor to some of the world's most vexing global environmental problems, such as the illegal timber trade, marine pollution, and climate change. As China's pollution woes increase, so, too, do the risks to its economy, public health, social stability, and international reputation. As Pan Yue, a vice minister of China's State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA), warned in 2005, "The [economic] miracle will end soon because the environment can no longer keep pace."

With the 2008 Olympics around the corner, China's leaders have ratcheted up their rhetoric, setting ambitious environmental targets, announcing greater levels of environmental investment, and exhorting business leaders and local officials to clean up their backyards. The rest of the world seems to accept that Beijing has charted a new course: as China declares itself open for environmentally friendly business, officials in the United States, the European Union, and Japan are asking not whether to invest but how much.

Unfortunately, much of this enthusiasm stems from the widespread but misguided belief that what Beijing says goes. The central government sets the country's agenda, but it does not control all aspects of its implementation. In fact, local officials rarely heed Beijing's environmental mandates, preferring to concentrate their energies and resources on further advancing economic growth. The truth is that turning the environmental situation in China around will require something far more difficult than setting targets and spending money; it will require revolutionary bottom-up political and economic reforms.

For one thing, China's leaders need to make it easy for local officials and factory owners to do the right thing when it comes to the environment by giving them the right incentives. At the same time, they must loosen the political restrictions they have placed on the courts, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and the media in order to enable these groups to become independent enforcers of environmental protection. The international community, for its part, must focus more on assisting reform and less on transferring cutting-edge technologies and developing demonstration projects. Doing so will mean diving into the trenches to work with local Chinese officials, factory owners, and environmental NGOs; enlisting international NGOs to help with education and enforcement policies; and persuading multinational corporations (MNCs) to use their economic leverage to ensure that their Chinese partners adopt the best environmental practices.

more at: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86503/elizabeth-c-economy/the-great-leap-backward.html

[Kuan]

We can take care of Iraq. We choose to be divided about the issue. If Congress were to approve another 300,000 troops the war would end in six months.

[Chas H]

Originally Posted by Kuan

We can take care of Iraq. We choose to be divided about the issue. If Congress were to approve another 300,000 troops the war would end in six months.

A draft would be needed to provide that number of troops and they wouldn't be ready for years. It'll never happen.

[Medmech]

Approximately 1,426,713 personnel are currently on active duty in the military with an additional 1,259,000 personnel in the seven reserve components

No need for a draft.

[Chas H]

Originally Posted by Howitzer

Approximately 1,426,713 personnel are currently on active duty in the military with an additional 1,259,000 personnel in the seven reserve components

No need for a draft.

Then why have stop loss orders been issued and troops required to serve more than one tour? The Pentagon has recently murmured that a draft may be neccessary at the current troop levels.

[Chas H]

Originally Posted by Kuan

We can take care of Iraq. We choose to be divided about the issue. If Congress were to approve another 300,000 troops the war would end in six months.

The President has been given everything he has asked for in his war with Iraq. That the war has not been concluded is the responsibilty of the President, and no one else.

[Medmech]

Originally Posted by Chas H

The President has been given everything he has asked for in his war with Iraq. That the war has not been concluded is the responsibilty of the President, and no one else.

True.

He let Rumsfeld folly it, I agree with you 100%.