Antiwar.com Blog

The China Post perceives a new cold war with the United States:

“A new Cold War is taking shape after last week’s U.S.-Japan joint statement that China is their biggest security threat and that Taiwan is key to keep Beijing’s growing military might in check… It was the first time that the U.S. and Japan openly placed Taiwan under their defense umbrella. The joint statement represented the most significant change since 1996 to the 1960 U.S.-Japan Security Alliance. Just two days before that, U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Douglas Feith, told the Council on Foreign Relations that China was one of the ‘four key concerns’ of the U.S., the others being weapons of mass destruction, terrorism and failing states. While the U.S. would respect China’s aspiration to achieve national greatness, Feith said, this in turn would require Beijing to ‘forgo the threat or use of force to pursue unification.’
In other words, China’s rise has to be in line with America’s ‘rules of the road.’ If not, he warned, ‘respect for sovereignty’ does not require the U.S. ‘to ignore the depredations of tyrannical regimes.'”

We (especially Feith) are in a position to say so because our government has respect for the rule of law.

What a shock. I honestly didn’t see this coming. What happens when you design a “missile defense”, which might, someday, be able to stop all missile attacks, and thus nullify the ability of any nation in the world to respond to a US attack? This is what happens;

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said Tuesday that Moscow was creating a nuclear weapon capable of thwarting any defense system in the world, Interfax news agency reported.
“There is not now and will not be any defense from such missiles,” the news agency quoted Ivanov as saying.

Noam Chomsky has been pointing out that opponents of the missile defense were arguing incorrectly that the missile defense doesn’t work, when it’s far more dangerous if it appears that it might work. If that’s the case, then the US can attack any nation in the world with total impunity. And certainly the US has not given the rest of the world any reason to fear attack, has it? …

From Democracy Now:

The resolutions, every single one, and it got up to 56, more than 52, every single resolution begins with a plea to support and respect the troops. We need these people here. They’re first responders, they’re family, they’re friends, they’re workers down the street. They make up the fabric of society in Vermont. They’re an important part of that fabric. So, we began with that, and Amy, it wasn’t just lip service, as some have suggested. The rest of the resolution also supports members of the Guard. Let me just give you the high points of what we asked for. We asked for our legislature to assess the impact of the deployment, not just on readiness, but on our communities, on our families. We’re asking the delegation, Senator Leahy, Senator Jeffords, Congressman Sanders, to help restore a reasonable balance between states and the federal government, not in the case of every war, only in what we call “wars of choice.” We know that if this country is attacked, if there’s an emergency, if there’s an insurrection under the Constitution, there is no question that Guard members have signed up to serve, and that they would serve, and they would serve with enthusiasm and a sense of duty. Wars of choice are a whole different phenomenon. They’re relatively new. We have no national policy governing the use of these wars. It’s a big omission.

Vermont has lost more soldiers per capita than any state, and has the second highest mobilization rate for its National Guard and reservists.

The US congress has certainly come a long way since the days of John C. Calhoun and John Quincy Adams. Amy Goodman and Jackson Thoreau have both reported that congressman Sam Johnson (R-Texas) has called on president Bush to nuke Syria. Thoreau quotes Johnson as having said (at a church gathering, of all places – are these our old pals the Fundies?);

“Syria is the problem. Syria is where those weapons of mass destruction are, in my view. You know, I can fly an F-15, put two nukes on ’em and I’ll make one pass. We won’t have to worry about Syria anymore.”

Thoreau says the church crowd “roared with applause”. Now, I’m sure the administration is not seriously thinking about dropping the bomb on Syria, and that Johnson can’t possibly be the homicidal maniac he sounds like here. But this is still extremely inappropriate language for any US Representative to be using at this particular moment. What are the Syrians supposed to think?
And shame on this allegedly Christian (I’m assuming it’s some branch of Christianity) crowd for cheering Johnson. Do you suppose Christ would have cheered?

I also happened to catch this on the telly. The only thing James Wolcott left out of his otherwise spot-on post is that CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer is an alumnus of the Likudist Jerusalem Post and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Gary Leupp, writing in Counterpunch;

Before Bush’s Tribunal of Freedom and Godliness, Syria stands guilty until proven innocent. The sentence on its regime was pronounced even before this Year Four, as was the sentence on Iran. The plan is to execute both before Year Five. “This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous,” declared Bush in Europe. “Having said that, all options are on the table.” Indeed all the cards are on the table, they are all ridiculous, because they’re all in the same suit, all marked: “Attack!”

(emphasis mine)