Does it bother anyone besides me?

[jahcs]

They will deal with the North Korea situation as best it suits their strategic ends, not ours.  I really don't blame them for that.  No one looks out for Number one like number one.

Occhi
[right][snapback]80650[/snapback][/right]

Yeah, and if it ends in what seems to be a positive manner for the U.S. everyone will think we owe China a few "favors." - A position I'd rather not find the U.S. in.

[whyBish]

Europe being nuked?  Bad idea.  Now, there are a few other places I'd like to see glowing green in the night, starting with Beijing and Shanghai.

Occhi
[right][snapback]80624[/snapback][/right]

It's a wonder that the U.S. has any allies being so arrogant and militarious(--edit-- insert real word here :P ). I wonder if the U.S. will have any allies once China has a larger economy and military?

[whyBish]

And they are polluting their section of the planet at a remarkably fast clip.  Beijing's air pollution is as bad as Victorian London's was.
[right][snapback]80646[/snapback][/right]

As will an ycountry going through industrialisation, hence the KP having allowances for developing nations.

...and last I looked the U.S. hadn't signed up to the Kyoto Protocol <_<

[eppie]

We support Isreal for 3 reasons.

1 The rest of the world with the exception of Asia is rather anti-semitic, especially Europe. After seeing what the Nazies did 60 years ago, there is a feeling that its worth proping up Isreal because no one else would help them if they were down.

Thats the main reason.

[right][snapback]80613[/snapback][/right]

Excuse me? Europe rather anti semitic, where do you get that from? In the west that is for sure not true. If there are any antisemitic countries than that e.g.the baltic states, but also there antisemitism for sure is not a government point of view.

occhi
Israel is the beneficiary of some 3-5 billion dollars per year in aid, and a harder to track amount of "forgiven" loans. Somewhere, I am sure, there is a cost benefit analysis outlining what American security gets for its $3-5 billion per year. Some is spent, I imagine, in the US for things like helicopters, missiles, tools, spare parts, what have you. Where is the rest going?

(I hope I did this quoting right)

Occhi, I know you will react to me that I get carried away by conspiracy theories but listen to this.
The US (as a country) spends 5 billion on Israel, so that is the tax-payers money. As youi pointed out rightly part of that money (a few billion for sure) is spend on american weaponry and other stuff. And as the weaponlobby is quite strong they will get the money.
So public money is spend, and half of it is coming back for the people who own the rights businesses.

This is the scary thing when you have business people in politics, depending on what the population of a country will stand, they will often try to get some profit themselves.
A very clear case of this is of course Italy, where Berlusconi even succeeds in passing on laws that make him immune against all kinds of fraud charges against him, and laws that give his football team millions of tax-profit. Many people in Italy are very much apathic, helped a lot by the fact that berlusconi owns most television stations.

Same thing happened in the US in the Iraq war. First you make sure all the people like the idea of going to war, and then it is no problem at all if you spend tens of billion of dollars of their tax money.

[Occhidiangela]

This is the scary thing when you have business people in politics, depending on what the population of a country will stand, they will often try to get some profit themselves.
A very clear case of this is of course Italy, where Berlusconi even succeeds in passing on laws that make him immune against all kinds of fraud charges against him, and laws that give his football team millions of tax-profit. Many people in Italy are very much apathic, helped a lot by the fact that berlusconi owns most television stations.
[right][snapback]80685[/snapback][/right]

If you seek a conspiracy, don't look to the US arms dealers, my friend. The indigenous Israeli arms industry is a competitor to the US arms industry, and is a considerable benificiary of this largesse.

Peel the onion back a little further to consider the shape of conspiracy.

As I pointed out, the very vocal pro Israel lobby has been a part of our political institutions since the creation of a state of Israel in 1948. I think that 10-15% of our Representatives and Senators are Jewish, out of about 2% of our population, which makes some of our less tolerant special interest groups scream about a Zionist plot in the US Congress. *shrugs* Not every Jew is a Zionist.

The lobbying is an overt and public effort. *shrugs* The point that bothers me is not a matter of conspiracy on money, it is the linkage between official Israeli governmental functions and a US based political lobby. I consider it a betrayal for all our years of support.

You do raise an interesting question, eppie. :D Who should be in politics? Professional bureaucrats only? If that is your position, the tyranny of the Mandarins is the fate of your nation. Group think. No thanks.

Ivory Tower Idealists? No. Tendency to extremism. Mao was an excellent revolutionary, and a disaster as a national leader in the practical domestic sense. Economic erosion, famine, much else destroyed under his ideals focused leadership. It was not until the next generation of political leadership arose that China found its economic feet again.

What are the pros and cons of people with business experience being in politics?

One advantage is knowing how to make a deal. Being accountable to a council (shareholders for example, boards of directors). And the clear understanding of cost benifit analysis.

Downsides? Among others, a tendency to materialism and poor long term thinking. Also, as with anyone in politics, conflicts of interest due to relationships previuosly established.

Tendency to manage and manipulate rather than lead.

The military? A very mixed bag. Professional military men as politicians are as varied in success as John Glenn to General Franco. Dwight Eisenhower was one of the few professional military men who made a good president. The problem with too many military to politics transitions is that they may be able to lead, but may not be as willing to compromise when a deal needs to be made. Politics is all about making deals to move things forward.

So, eppie, where does one find leaders?

Well, special interest groups are not interested in leaders, they want front men. As true in Europe as in America, and for that matter in most pluralist societies.

Some veterans of business make good politicians and leaders, some don't. To ascribe an inherent evil to businessmen overly simplistic. I would look at Berlusconi, for exammple, as a New Age Aristrocrat at this point in his life, not a merchant.

Occhi

[Ashock]

&nbsp;
I think that 10-15% of our Representatives and Senators are Jewish

Are you sure about those numbers? I'd have thought it was much more in line with the population percentages.


-A

[Assur]

[quoteOcchidiangela,Jun 14 2005, 05:34 PM]

Israel is the beneficiary of some 3-5 billion dollars per year in aid, and a harder to track amount of "forgiven" loans. Somewhere, I am sure, there is a cost benefit analysis outlining what American security gets for its $3-5 billion per year. Some is spent, I imagine, in the US for things like helicopters, missiles, tools, spare parts, what have you. Where is the rest going?

Hi

I don't think this will lighten your mood :whistling:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4092646.stm

Leaving apart all questions of morals or good faith it's just downright stupid to so anger your only friend and protector in such a way!

good karma

[Occhidiangela]

Are you sure about those numbers? I'd have thought it was much more in line with the population percentages.
-A
[right][snapback]80734[/snapback][/right]

I leave that as an exercise to the reader. Read a summary a few weeks back and was surprised at the numbers. It may have just been Senators. Considerably greater than 2%.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

There is no doubt that relationship with the United States is critical to Israel. But, with all the enormous importance of US diplomatic, economic and military help, Israel must keep its independence and also some reciprocity in this relationship," he added. 

Wants to have cake and eat it too. If ya want the dough, ya gotta obey the rules. Or if you want "independence" then good for you: aid be gone.

The Phillipines asked the US Navy and Air Force to leave in 1991. Leave they did. It cost some money, as in the annual inflow of hard currency stopped, but it sure made the Phillipines a more independent country in terms of not being perceived as a colony.

Independence has a price. Perhaps for Israel, that price is 5 billion dollars a year of no unearned income from the sugar daddy.

We shall see. Not sure which way to bet. We have seen tempests in teapots before, am curious to see what further rhetoric from the various lobbies in Washington on this score.

Occhi

From a blomberg.com article. Boeing is in a partnership with Israeli Air Defense company. Money goes to both, apparently.

The U.S. Congress has given $1.5 billion to Israel's Arrow program since the late 1980s, worrying that this ally was vulnerable to attack from nearby adversaries such as Iraq, Syria and Iran. Interest in Arrow development quickened after the 1991 Persian Gulf War when Iraq fired Scud missiles into Tel Aviv.

The threat from Iraq was canceled by the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. Syria, Israel's neighbor to the north, has Scuds and is trying to develop longer-range missiles, according to the CIA. Iran has become only more menacing: Its Shahab-3 can reach targets from Tel Aviv to western India, the U.S. director of naval intelligence said last year.

At 80 billion a year for two years, I'd say a few more missiles might have been a more cost effective way to defend Israel from Scuds than invading Iraq. :P

Yes, that is a very narrow view or a complex regional security problem.

Occhi

[Chaerophon]

There are a lot of people out there who will disagree with your stance on the 'rivalry' with China... It would seem that the only reason that a war would start would be as a result of US aggression in the face of their impending loss of economic hegemony - that would be a matter of pissing in the wind, if you ask me.

Many on the lounge turn to you as an authority on such matters; however, there are a number of different IR/IPE perspectives on the rise of China, and not all are so ruthlessly realist. This is not to say that you are, strictly speaking, wrong, only that many knowledgable, informed commentators have taken a different view of the matter. I'm not a pie in the sky 'globalization of markets will save the day' type, but I find your characterization a tad premature. I agree: China wants to erode America's influence. Whether that means that they have any desire to destroy the economy of their American rivals, a la US v. Communist Russia is another matter, altogether. After all, in order to erode America's economy, China has had to liberalize.

My point: America won the cold war - China has simply adapted to the reality of that victory. Your comparison to the cold war conflict seems a bit off-base. America will most likely (at least not for a long, long while) never have to adapt to a new world order in terms of basic, free-market economic ideology. However, they may have to cope with the fact that they are no longer the lone big dog. In fact, struggle as they might, this is more and more becoming case.

[Occhidiangela]

It would seem that the only reason that a war would start would be as a result of US aggression in the face of their impending loss of economic hegemony - that would be a matter of pissing in the wind, if you ask me.

And I think you are wrong, due primarily to the stereotype you cast on causes of war. However, since we are both in predictive mode, neither of us will know what is right until a war starts. That said, an economic "war" is already underway. Trade wars are "wars by other means" when seen through the leans of realpolitik. Play is continuous. And as I pointed out, I hope it does not come to armed conflict. That would be massivley bad.

Many on the lounge turn to you as an authority on such matters; however, there are a number of different IR/IPE perspectives on the rise of China, and not all are so ruthlessly realist.&nbsp; This is not to say that you are, strictly speaking, wrong, only that many knowledgable, informed commentators have taken a different view of the matter.

Yep, I have read a bit of other commentary, to include some stuff by Dr Kissinger. I think he's wrong, yet I acknowledge that he knows international tensions far better than I do from his personal experience.

I'm not a pie in the sky 'globalization of markets will save the day' type, but I find your characterization a tad premature.&nbsp; I agree: China wants to erode America's influence.&nbsp; Whether that means that they have any desire to destroy the economy of their American rivals, a la US v. Communist Russia is another matter, altogether.

China wishes to be preeminent in Asia, and anywhere else it can penetrate markets. Check their outposts in Africa for some interesting reading, and where they and India may compete. China also has a workforce that dwarfs the EU and America combined.

If you are The Middle Kingdom, it is natural to presume that the world does indeed revolve around you, and to act accordingly. :lol: Hmmm, other nations and empires have done likewise, perhaps it is their turn. That is how they see it, I'll warrant, that it is time for the sun to shine on the Chinese dog, even if dog is for dinner this evening. :D

After all, in order to erode America's economy, China has had to liberalize.&nbsp;

Partially. They are also closer to fascist than democratic, in terms of economic control, though how that will transform in the next decade, and I am sure it will transform, is a mystery to me. What is also a mystery is whether or not China will devolve.

My point: America won the cold war - China has simply adapted to the reality of that victory.&nbsp; Your comparison to the cold war conflict seems a bit off-base.&nbsp;

Nope. Not in the least. The battle of empires is on. Again. The most interesting twist is that we have a penta polar economic game. China. US. EU. India. MidEast/oil. Maybe Secta polar, when you consider the Pacific Rim nations exclusive of China. Six sided game of economic Starcraft? In that regard, OK, the Cold War model hardly fits.

America will most likely (at least not for a long, long while) never have to adapt to a new world order in terms of basic, free-market economic ideology.&nbsp; However, they may have to cope with the fact that they are no longer the lone big dog.&nbsp;

Yes, five or six poles means we gotta share the pound. No question. Or, fight to see who is alpha male. Not all conflict is armed.

Occhi

[whyBish]

That said, an economic "war" is already underway.&nbsp; Trade wars are "wars by other means" when seen through the leans of realpolitik.&nbsp; Play is continuous.&nbsp; And as I pointed out, I hope it does not come to armed conflict.&nbsp; That would be massivley bad.
Occhi
[right][snapback]80783[/snapback][/right]

When all I have is a hammer, everything is a war?

I know you stuck war in quotes, but I'm not sure why. Economics is about competitive forces, but due to comparative advantage both sides can end up better off. Military war is a negative sum game.

America gains by China becoming economically stronger.

--edit can't spell, and probably never will be able to.

[ShadowHM]

Economics is about competitive forces, but due to comparative advantage both sides can end up better off.&nbsp; Military war is a negative sum game.

America gains by China becoming economically stronger.


[right][snapback]80789[/snapback][/right]

Overly simplistic, O Devil's Advocate :)

National interests get in the way of economic forces. It may make sense to have widgets made in China and wodgets made in America, but if America really needs widgets, they have a disincentive to rely on a source outside of their control - a source that might withhold widgets for reasons other than 'best market deal'.

Further, a country that elects its leadership has an incentive to make sure that electorate is happy. Lost jobs make for an unhappy electorate. That is also overly simplistic, I know, but the point is that much economic theory, such as that of comparitive analysis, fail to take such things into consideration.

And, on another note re: the Kyoto Protocol Canada has ratified the KP. Now the wrangling/weaseling is underway. Endorsement of a principle is a fine thing, but actually doing it and on schedule? I am skeptical.

[Occhidiangela]

When all I have is a hammer, everything is a war?

I know you stuck war in quotes, but I'm not sure why.&nbsp; Economics is about competitive forces, but due to comparative advantage both sides can end up better off.&nbsp; Military war is a negative sum game.

America gains by China becoming economically stronger.

--edit can't&nbsp; spell, and probably never will be able to.
[right][snapback]80789[/snapback][/right]

The standard model of elements of national power: economic, military, informational, diplomatic, population/demographic. (Often included in military, I prefer to split it.) Conflict between nations can be armed or unarmed. Suasion can take armed or unarmed forms. So, the "war" in quotes more properly termed conflict. Competition? Nonsense. It's jungle rules in real international politics, though certain forms and conventions are adhered to by many, though NOT ALL players. And there is no referee. Or hadn't you noticed?

The hammer nail analogy is a load of crap, bishie, and is neither mine nor one I care for. Try a better metaphor, a better sound byte. I've been on a "China is a strategic rival and not some large third world nation" jag since about 1991.

Occhi

[whyBish]

Competition?&nbsp; Nonsense.&nbsp; It's jungle rules in real international politics, though certain forms and conventions are adhered to by many, though NOT ALL players.&nbsp; And there is no referee.&nbsp; Or hadn't you noticed?

Occhi
[right][snapback]80806[/snapback][/right]

You seem to be reading my use of the word 'competition' as 'sport'. (I was thinking in terms similar to evolutionary usage, or optimisation situations such as the Prisoners Dilemma where an increase along a particular independent axis may result in different levels of increase (or decrease) in two or more dependent axes)

As to the actual discussion, I'm not sure how you are using the term 'rival' either, unless you also consider your allies rivals as well?

In a hypothetical world, if Britain had the economic potentail of China, but the same political relations with the U.S. as it does in the real world, then would you vew it as a strategic rival?

Also, from your point of view, why is it neccessary for the U.S. to be the dominant force?

... I just realised I haven't put a smilie in this thread yet... perhaps therein lies my problem ;)

[Occhidiangela]

You seem to be reading my use of the word 'competition' as 'sport'.  (I was thinking in terms similar to evolutionary usage, or optimisation situations such as the Prisoners Dilemma where an increase along a particular independent axis may result in different levels of increase (or decrease) in two or more dependent axes)

As to the actual discussion, I'm not sure how you are using the term 'rival' either, unless you also consider your allies rivals as well?

In a hypothetical world, if Britain had the economic potentail of China, but the same political relations with the U.S. as it does in the real world, then would you vew it as a strategic rival?

Also, from your point of view, why is it neccessary for the U.S. to be the dominant force?

... I just realised I haven't put a smilie in this thread yet... perhaps therein lies my problem  ;)
[right][snapback]80895[/snapback][/right]

''

Some good questions, let me try to do them justice.

Japan is a trade rival in some respects, a trade partner in others, and a security partner in all respects to ensure stability that allows the trade in which we are rivals. Europe are economic rivals, yet we tend to be security partners and trade partners. China is a power rival, and we are NOT security partners as yet. If that changes, the security calculus in the Pacific Rim changes dramatically. US - USSR were power rivals. Shades of meaning, so easy for it to be vague. US and Russia need to be trade partners, security partners, and possibly trade rivals. That makes for peace.

Why is it necessary for the US to be dominant?

When other power blocks are dominant or co equal, we have World War. That is history. That fact makes our move into Iraq in 2003 all the more troubling, since if we weaken ourselves through that endeavour, the multi polar set up becomes LESS stable. Multi polar is how World War I started. Seven Years War. Thirty Years War. World War II. And so on.

Britain and the US operate under similar cultural assumptions, but not identical ones. US and China have few shared cultural assumptions in comparison. That analogy does not hold, since there are fewer areas of common interest to build on as paths to avoiding conflict where we diverge in approach.

Game theory approach is probably a valid lens through which to view the next couple of decades, particularly if the blocks line up as I expect they will. I tip my chapeau to you on that one. :) It also means to get the head out of the sand in re China, where it has been since WJ Clinton was in the White House.

Occhi

[whyBish]

Occhi
[right][snapback]80896[/snapback][/right]

Cheers for the response, I can see where you are coming from now. Without the reasoning you just gave in this post, your previous statement looked xenophobic, which just pressed my buttons :P

[Occhidiangela]

Cheers for the response, I can see where you are coming from now.&nbsp; Without the reasoning you just gave in this post, your previous statement looked xenophobic, which just pressed my buttons&nbsp; :P
[right][snapback]80969[/snapback][/right]

I have reasons for my "xenophobia" though they do depend on where I sit and what I have seen. :D

Cheers back.

Occhi

[Rinnhart]

I dunno. However, they did do it in 3 previous wars already and while they were getting help from the US, the Arabs were getting MASSIVE help from the USSR, so I'd say that at least evens it out. The fact of the matter is the Arabs are very poor fighters in open warfare.
As far as the US help providing ammunition for US detractors, as I've said, the Arabs were getting so much help from the USSR, that it dwarves the US-Israel association. Most seem to forget that.... or they simply do not care to remember/know it, as it does not suit their purpose.
-A
[right][snapback]80643[/snapback][/right]

All the M1-A1's the ME states have been buying up might level that playing field a bit.

[Occhidiangela]

All the M1-A1's the ME states have been buying up might level that playing field a bit.
[right][snapback]80986[/snapback][/right]

It's not the arrow, it is the Indian.

The M1-A1 is a fine piece of equipment, but the French in 1940 proved that even with the better tank (at the time, their medium tank was the best in the world) you cannot win an industrial age, mobile war with poor doctrine, weak command and control, and poor leadership. The leadership and Command and control in the ME states varies widely, Saddam actually had one of the better outifts in tha regard.

Modern warfare is an incredibly complex undertaking. The level of organizational sophisitcation and mental agility required to train and fight a combined arms battle at brigade level and above is hard to explain. There are so many factors, so many ways to scew up.

The Israeli's, as I understand it from what I have read, adapted Wermacht doctrine to their situation. They have since evolved a uniquely Israeli "way of war." They have the doctrine, they train, they use good equipment, and have a compelling motive. Losing is not an option, as for them there is no tomorrow if they lose.

Occhi