why are we fed with american craps?

Another piece of crap which our local paper, this time Today, think it is worth publishing from New York Times. The article by David Brooks, dunno who he is, was all praised for Rice Condoleeza as if she had made the biggest discovery of the century. It titles, 'The US is Back in Business. At one fell swoop, Iran is left floundering.' Now what have Rice done to deserve such a flattering glorification. Actually she only said that she was prepared to talk to Tehran. And this after all the threats of nuking Iran or applying sanction. So it is a grand plan, a big success. Why? Oh, according to Brooks, Tehran was gaining and trampling around the world in total disregard of the US threat. Now the US said it wants to talk to Tehran, so Tehran is now fumbling and on the defensive. What rubbish! And as expected, Tehran flatlyannounced that it refused to talk to the US. Now what of the grand plan? In reality, Tehran has been gaining support foom many corners of the world for its right to build a nuclear plant for non military purposes. The oil producing countries have endorsed it. And a few days back the Non Aligned Movement has also supported this stand. Both threw the US threat and objection to Tehran's nuclear ambition into the rubbish bin. The US has been ignored by countries of these two movements. The US is now on the defensive, unable to find support to nuke Iran. Now it has to fall back to talks and to the UN, an organisation it has held in contempt and total disrespect since the Iraq invasion. The US is now all alone against Iran. Now what's so great about Rice offering to talk when the Iranians are ignoring her and the US?


Anonymous said...

America doesn't need the support of anyone, least of all impotent organisations like OPEC and NAM if they truly intend to attack Iran. The only thing constraining them from doing that at the moment is insuffcient troop numbers.

redbean said...

it has been the european practice since the attack on china during the league of nation. they will gang up or round up a few countries to give them a semblance of credibility against any country they are attacking. iraq is a modern day example. this also helps in dragging other countries into the same shit hole.

so before they attack iran, they want as many countries as possible to be on their side. but after iraq, no one is going to believe them. the european union with not touch them with a 10 foot pole. blair will be kicked by the brits if he dares to side with bush again.

now who else will be on the american side? yes they don't need anyone and can go it alone. but they know that world opinion is something they cannot ignore. and opec and nam have taken their stand. so did the eu.

it is thus not only the question of troops. they will want to go in only if they can drag others into it. then they will say the whole world is with them and against iran.

Anonymous said...

The real reason nations gang up is not only to give them a semblance of credibility or respectability. More importantly, it is about the cost of war and the potential loss of lives that is likely to create a backlash back home and could be a political disaster.

redbean said...

i look at it this way, for the americans now, they rather drag a few more countries with them into the shithole in iraq. and all these countries would probably have to buy more american weapons and lose a few of their soldiers.

but more important, they cannot afford to criticise the americans or remain neutral. and the americans will gloat to the world that so many countries are with them. so that makes them that much more right. if so many countries are with them, they cannot be wrong, or so many countries are also wrong.

Anonymous said...

cherche says:
America can go alone, that's for sure, but without the support of the UK (Ireland, Britain, Scotland- counts for a lot of oomph) she is nothing. Currently it's true that the EU is wary, even suspicious, of the US especially after the WMD fiasco.

With most of the European countries banding together (the UK is the renegade one who is too wimpy to leave the US and all the trade benefits attached to it) and with the growing might of Europe (especially with the euro stomping around the market), we might see again another power worthy of the pre-WWII era.

Except for some new additions- China (of course), Taiwan, Korea, Japan, possibly India (though contestable), and the oil-rich countries. Hugo Chavez is rising. Saudi Arabia has too intimate oil ties with the US but she can easily switch to another country later. The EU is still wary of China, suspicious even, but if trade and business ties can be established faithfully (give it some decades) the US can be left high and dry. I think the current problem with EU and China relations is that they don't understand each other.

Anyway my conclusion is that given a few decades, maybe a bit more if China and the EU find it difficult to compromise, a coup d'etat of sorts, or a conspiracy if you like, can be carried out against the US and yes, the world will be thoroughly fed up with american crap by then.

redbean said...

hi cherche,

welcome to the blog.

the world and its politics is evolving quite rapidly and new centres of power are emerging. it is good for the smaller countries when there are more power brokers. otherwise they will be forced to accept the doctrine of either 'you are with me or against me.'

this is no choice. with china, europe and india emerging, plus russia, the americans will now have to balance their acts a little more and allow the smaller countries to breath a little easier.

i no longer count japan in. japan, uk and germany are passe. too small to be a force to be reckon with. but they might not think so and would still think that they can rule the world. but this is a very different world where size is a factor that can weigh heavily on any country.

but for a long time to come, no other power can hope to challenge the mighty americans. the only power to challenge them is the religious bigots, the virus, like avian flu, that can get into the core of american society and tear it apart.

Anonymous said...

Cherche replies:
Hey Redbean. Didn't expect the welcome note so thanks a lot!

I am also of the opinion that America is not a very pleasant country in terms of political hypocrisy and manipulation, so anyone of a different perspective is welcome to criticise me.

I don't question your stance about Japan but Germany's rise will be inevitable. Alone she is nothing (unlike the US who can hold her fort) but together with the EU she will be a dominant player. And Germany seems to be the most enthusiastic pursuant of EU goals, followed by France- for evidence look to the new Franco-German alliance in the constitution.

It's the new phenomenon of the 'United States of Europe' which is increasingly acting as a counterweight against the trembling arm of the US. The Franco-Prussian war and the world wars shoved them down but they're rising yet again.

Japan is not faring that bad either- the US is deeply in debt to her and this is set to increase because Bush pledged more funds to Iraq again. Probably wished he hadn't committed himself- the UK is still the lapdog that it is but due to amounting civil and external pressure the dog might be set to turn on the hand that feeds it.

Anonymous said...

Cherche adds:
About the more minor countries having more room to breathe, I don't think this will be the case in global politics. It probably will NEVER be the case. Countries like Indonesia and Singapore should seize this epoch and act upon it because world politics will soon be in flux as the giant scales of power are shifting.

Once they shift into their respective positions I think it'll be back to a game of cat and mouse, i.e. the mouse watches the movements of the cat. Back to the same old game with different names.

redbean said...

hi cherche,

we are all different and definitely see things differently. if i were an american, i will see the world differently too, wearing a different pair of lenses.

even as an outsider, i can understand how a superpower will react to protect its own interest. that is only natural. why would america want to change the status quo for other ginny comes lately to swagger around.

but as the world media are so dominated by the americans, i just try my best to post some alternative views to the published american views. it's kind of saying the things that were not said. after it is all twisted truth from either perspective.

the eu is a new force to be reckon with as it develops itself. the next force is the sco. both are large enough to balance the americans. germany or japan on its own would not be strong enough to do anything. but the japanese would not agree with me on this. they still think that they can do the same thing as in ww2.

small fishes must try to swim among the big fishes. but true that when the chips are down, they still have to take sides. in the case of iraq, many have their arms twisted by the americans just like the days of cento and seato.