PDA

View Full Version : US global strategy foiled



J-10
06-02-2004, 02:26 AM
www.chinaview.cn 2004-05-29 10:43:16

BEIJING, May.29 (Xinhuanet) -- The United States has suffered continuous setbacks after it obstinately launched the Iraq war in disregard of internal and external pressures, the result is out of the expectations of many people. The reason for this is that the new conservatives holding power in the US government have committed two fundamental errors:

First, they have formulated and implemented a strategy of containment, such as containing all competitors and establishing a unipolar world; they combined counter-terrorism and accelerated implementation of its world-domination strategy; and institution of unilateralist and preemptive strategies, all these go against the trends of today's world nationalism, multi-polarization and economic globalization and against world people's desire for peace and development.

Second, they calculated that with unmatched military strength and enormous economic and political influence, the United States is all-powerful and can do as it pleases, and that it can carry out war and intervention in all parts of the world, it even attempts to fight five wars in a year. All these exceed the American sustainability in economic and military aspects and in public opinion.

The global neocolonial system formed in the early 20th century was disintegrated in the latter half of the said century, this represents an epoch-making great development in the century. Nowadays, the United States, flaunting the banner of counter-terrorism and taking Afghanistan and Iraq as breaches, attempts to control and Middle East and proceed to control the Eurasian continent and establish a 21st century global empire. The modern Islamic rejuvenation movement, emerged in the fight against Western colonial oppression, itself has a strong nationalist tendency. For example, the national resistance movement is now being formed in Iraq in which the Shiites and Sunnis Muslims unite in their fight against occupation by US troops. In a recent interview US scholar Huntington pointed out: the Americans will never win the war against the Iraqi Muslims. It appears that the US neo-conservatives have immeasurably underestimated the nationalist strength of the people of Iraq and other Arab world.

The incident of the "September 11" 2001 terrorist attack has thoroughly exposed the weak point of the United States, making the country a target of attack by the world anti-US forces. As early as before the "September 11" event, some American newspapers and magazines had pointed out: Due to the resentment of the world people, fight against America has become a global phenomenon. Instead of making self-examination, the US rulers seek deterrent force for the world's sole superpower. This move can only anger the world. US counter-terrorist war has made more enemies for itself and its followers. On March 12, 2004, the Boston Global News (Website) wrote: The Bush administration was reluctant to see that the anti-US forces have developed to a climax since the end of the Vietnam War.

The world multi-polarization trend continues to develop in a zigzagging process. Domination and anti-domination, and uni-pole and multi-poles are and will be a focus of international trial of strength for a considerably long period of time to come. After the first Gulf war, there appeared in the world the tendency of ferment to put US monopoly under restraint. After the Kosovo war, Europe tried hard to establish an independent defense force. After the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, Europe accelerated promoting defense building, some big countries and developing nations began to strengthen coordination and cooperation to restrain the United States. This indicates that the US search of hegemony has spurred the further development of world multi-polarization; and that though other world forces still cannot stop US launch of the Iraq war and other unilateral actions, they can contain and restrain America to a certain extent and cause it to suffer setbacks; it also indicates that to form a new multi-polar world pattern, it is still necessary to go through a long-term process of division and combination, twists and turns, ups and downs, and difficulty and complexity. Nevertheless, it should be noticed that the combination of forces and the interest pattern in today's world are experiencing profound changes. The fact that the Spanish People's Party government, which followed the United States in sending troops to Iraq, suffered crushing defeat in the election, and that the new Spanish government has pulled its troops from Iraq and is strengthening cooperation with France and Germany, is an important example of the change in the combination of forces in Europe.

US neo-conservatives underestimated today's world capability in restraining the United States and overestimated the American domestic bearing capacity.

The US rapid economic growth in the 1990s was benefited from the US economic structural adjustment which led the world in the fields of high technology and new industries, but it also gave rise to such problems as the bubbles of stock market, the excessive development of hi-tech industries and company scandals. Despite US economic recovery, its huge amounts of financial deficit, trade deficit, the sharp rise of foreign debts, the wide disparity between the poor and the rich and the increase of private and enterprise debts will do long-term harm to the US economy.

Though US new military strategy is leading the world, it also exposes US weaknesses such as fear of casualties, difficulty in fighting guerrilla war, US military presence at home and overseas being vulnerable to attacks, far-flung battle line, insufficient armed forces and low morale. The Iraq war demonstrated the superiority of US powerful military forces, but it also exploded the myth of the US "incomparable power" and "invincibility".

After the "September 11" incident, the US government, taking advantage of the general public's psyche of astonishment, fear and revenge, won domestic support by means of a "counter-terrorist war state", suppressed objection and action, discriminated against and excluded immigrants, particularly Muslim immigrants. But the increase of casualties of US troops in Iraq and other places, the heavier financial burden, the unfounded reason for launching war in Iraq and the scandal of US troops' abuse of prisoners have caused more and more Americans to doubt about the government's current policies. The US government is regarded as "the synonym of deception and abuse of power" by some people. A poll conducted last December reveals that 37 percent of the Americans say that the United States itself is the greatest threat to world peace. Not long ago, Zhigniew Brzezinski, former assistant to the US President in national security affairs, wrote: a United States which tops the list but breaks faith with the international community is an isolated and weak United States in the world. He also said: The phenomenon of US loss of international reputation and its becoming increasingly isolated reflects a distressing paradox: US global forces are at a historical pinnacle, but US international political status has fallen to a slump.

US rulers are often liable to overestimate their own strength, and underestimate the challenges and problems they face. The neo-conservatives have reached a new peak in this respect. They can be described as "the higher they climb, the harder they fall". Pressed by the situation, the US government is making certain adjustments to its tactics and methods, But so far its global strategy and basic policies essentially remain unchanged. It is likely to rush down the pre-set road, which would lead to the result independent of people's will. Enditem

(People's Daily)



http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-05/29/content_1497168.htm

Hullebullen
06-02-2004, 02:31 AM
Is this the so-called leftist media :lol: p-)

Kilgor
06-02-2004, 02:34 AM
its just more red flag waving anti us retoric.

Ratamacue
06-02-2004, 02:40 AM
As soon as I saw the words "world-domination strategy," I stopped reading.

ZeroPositive
06-02-2004, 02:42 AM
yeah might as well say this line from Pinky and the Brain
*what we going to do today Brain*
"Try and take over the world..."
replace Brain with the US....
lol
bunch of rubbish

J-10
06-02-2004, 02:47 AM
its just more red flag waving anti us retoric.

Its not red flag waving, I think its similar to EU's comment. p-) :lol:

Mark Sman
06-02-2004, 04:27 AM
Hey, how is the anti-Islamic extermism campaign going in Xinjiang province near Afghanistan?

Oops, they forgot to mention that.

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/etim.cfm

By the way, whatever happened to the Chinese support for the US invasion of Afghanistan. Oops forgot that too.


In the wake of the September 11 attacks on the United States, the People's Republic of China has offered strong support for Washington and affirmed that it "opposes terrorism of any form and supports actions to combat terrorism."
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/china-bck1017.htm


China shares a small border with Afghanistan, and has been generally supportive of the U.S. call for action against terrorism.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,175372,00.html

Russia and China positively assess results of the antiterrorist operation in Afghanistan.


Now on an official visit in Beijing, Russian Security Council secretary Vladimir Rushailo told reporters on Wednesday after talks with Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan that "Russia and China note a positive role which the United States has played in Afghanistan". At the same time, it is too early to speak of serious stability in Afghanistan: many contradictions still exist there and the military component of the Taliban has not yet been destroyed, said Rushailo.
http://english.pravda.ru/diplomatic/2002/07/17/32701.html


The Security Council Thursday voted 15-0 to authorize the deployment of the multinational force to provide security
http://english.people.com.cn/200112/21/eng20011221_87205.shtml
Hmmm, no veto from a veto power like China.

This is what comes of having a controlled media. The "article" is a joke and doesn't represent the coverage that comes out of the EU.

Happy reading quoted from Wahington Post
http://www.davi****e.net/newsroom/asia/china/092001a.html

Vance
06-02-2004, 04:28 AM
OgMG tEh UsA sI GoInG dOwN!!1111twotwo

J-10
06-02-2004, 05:28 AM
Hey, how is the anti-Islamic extermism campaign going in Xinjiang province near Afghanistan?

Oops, they forgot to mention that.

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/etim.cfm

By the way, whatever happened to the Chinese support for the US invasion of Afghanistan. Oops forgot that too.


In the wake of the September 11 attacks on the United States, the People's Republic of China has offered strong support for Washington and affirmed that it "opposes terrorism of any form and supports actions to combat terrorism."
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/china-bck1017.htm


China shares a small border with Afghanistan, and has been generally supportive of the U.S. call for action against terrorism.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,175372,00.html

Russia and China positively assess results of the antiterrorist operation in Afghanistan.
........................


Yeah, this article seems worry about the only superpower-US try to control the world at the sametime against terrorism, hahah :lol:

BTW, I state here I support US's action against terrorism in Afghan and Iraq or in other places. But it's more better that UN troop instead of Allied troop next year in Iraq, I think. ;)

seruriermarshal
06-02-2004, 05:35 AM
Yeah, this article seems worry about the only superpower-US try to control the world at the sametime against terrorism, hahah :lol:

BTW, I state here I support US's action against terrorism in Afghan and Iraq or in other places. But it's more better that UN troop instead of Allied troop next year in Iraq, I think. ;)

Like Rwanda ?

:lol:

Mark Sman
06-02-2004, 05:35 AM
But it's more better that UN troop instead of Allied troop next year in Iraq, I think.

I agree, but I wouldn't worry about getting run over by any UN convoys on the roads just yet.

By the time the blue helmets show up, everyone has forgotten what the hell they were fighting about. p-)

Secret Squirrel
06-02-2004, 08:38 AM
Yeah, this article seems worry about the only superpower-US try to control the world at the sametime against terrorism, hahah :lol:

BTW, I state here I support US's action against terrorism in Afghan and Iraq or in other places. But it's more better that UN troop instead of Allied troop next year in Iraq, I think. ;)

Like Rwanda ?

:lol:

Well this gets my award for the "Heights of Ignorance". Rwanda was a political problems, pure and simple. Rwanda occured because of a lack of support by countries and Clinton came out and told the world in speeches that the U.S doesnt have any national interests in Rwanda so they arent going to send troops. Clinton also dodged calling it Genocide, which is obviously was. Yet even a chapter 6 mission by 450 soldiers saved a lot of lives. But really seruriermarshal, I'd love to see you make that comment and laugh in the face of Roméo Dallaire. I've had the chance to speak to him once, and honestly i doubt you'd make it out alive (at least i hope you wouldnt). Incase you havent the intelligence to figure this out, the calls for the U.N to be in Iraq revolve around putting an international face on the occupation of Iraq to remove the image of American domination.

seruriermarshal
06-02-2004, 09:05 AM
Yeah, this article seems worry about the only superpower-US try to control the world at the sametime against terrorism, hahah :lol:

BTW, I state here I support US's action against terrorism in Afghan and Iraq or in other places. But it's more better that UN troop instead of Allied troop next year in Iraq, I think. ;)

Like Rwanda ?

:lol:

Well this gets my award for the "Heights of Ignorance". Rwanda was a political problems, pure and simple. Rwanda occured because of a lack of support by countries and Clinton came out and told the world in speeches that the U.S doesnt have any national interests in Rwanda so they arent going to send troops. Clinton also dodged calling it Genocide, which is obviously was. Yet even a chapter 6 mission by 450 soldiers saved a lot of lives. But really seruriermarshal, I'd love to see you make that comment and laugh in the face of Roméo Dallaire. I've had the chance to speak to him once, and honestly i doubt you'd make it out alive (at least i hope you wouldnt). Incase you havent the intelligence to figure this out, the calls for the U.N to be in Iraq revolve around putting an international face on the occupation of Iraq to remove the image of American domination.

In fact , Rwanda's disaster because in UN and those bureaucrat .

He219
06-02-2004, 09:26 AM
Send the Blue helmets to Tibet first!

;)

Secret Squirrel
06-02-2004, 09:43 AM
Yeah, this article seems worry about the only superpower-US try to control the world at the sametime against terrorism, hahah :lol:

BTW, I state here I support US's action against terrorism in Afghan and Iraq or in other places. But it's more better that UN troop instead of Allied troop next year in Iraq, I think. ;)

Like Rwanda ?

:lol:

Well this gets my award for the "Heights of Ignorance". Rwanda was a political problems, pure and simple. Rwanda occured because of a lack of support by countries and Clinton came out and told the world in speeches that the U.S doesnt have any national interests in Rwanda so they arent going to send troops. Clinton also dodged calling it Genocide, which is obviously was. Yet even a chapter 6 mission by 450 soldiers saved a lot of lives. But really seruriermarshal, I'd love to see you make that comment and laugh in the face of Roméo Dallaire. I've had the chance to speak to him once, and honestly i doubt you'd make it out alive (at least i hope you wouldnt). Incase you havent the intelligence to figure this out, the calls for the U.N to be in Iraq revolve around putting an international face on the occupation of Iraq to remove the image of American domination.

In fact , Rwanda's disaster because in UN and those bureaucrat .

care to re-type that last statement so it makes sense? Or to actually respond to my points that point out your uneducated generalization of Rwanda?

seruriermarshal
06-02-2004, 09:53 AM
Yeah, this article seems worry about the only superpower-US try to control the world at the sametime against terrorism, hahah :lol:

BTW, I state here I support US's action against terrorism in Afghan and Iraq or in other places. But it's more better that UN troop instead of Allied troop next year in Iraq, I think. ;)

Like Rwanda ?

:lol:

Well this gets my award for the "Heights of Ignorance". Rwanda was a political problems, pure and simple. Rwanda occured because of a lack of support by countries and Clinton came out and told the world in speeches that the U.S doesnt have any national interests in Rwanda so they arent going to send troops. Clinton also dodged calling it Genocide, which is obviously was. Yet even a chapter 6 mission by 450 soldiers saved a lot of lives. But really seruriermarshal, I'd love to see you make that comment and laugh in the face of Roméo Dallaire. I've had the chance to speak to him once, and honestly i doubt you'd make it out alive (at least i hope you wouldnt). Incase you havent the intelligence to figure this out, the calls for the U.N to be in Iraq revolve around putting an international face on the occupation of Iraq to remove the image of American domination.

In fact , Rwanda's disaster because in UN and those bureaucrat .

care to re-type that last statement so it makes sense? Or to actually respond to my points that point out your uneducated generalization of Rwanda?

Your great uneducated , why UN went Rwanda ? Help Rwanda people killed ? Perhaps you hope join bureaucrat , but that's great uneducated !

Secret Squirrel
06-02-2004, 11:19 AM
Yeah, this article seems worry about the only superpower-US try to control the world at the sametime against terrorism, hahah :lol:

BTW, I state here I support US's action against terrorism in Afghan and Iraq or in other places. But it's more better that UN troop instead of Allied troop next year in Iraq, I think. ;)

Like Rwanda ?

:lol:

Well this gets my award for the "Heights of Ignorance". Rwanda was a political problems, pure and simple. Rwanda occured because of a lack of support by countries and Clinton came out and told the world in speeches that the U.S doesnt have any national interests in Rwanda so they arent going to send troops. Clinton also dodged calling it Genocide, which is obviously was. Yet even a chapter 6 mission by 450 soldiers saved a lot of lives. But really seruriermarshal, I'd love to see you make that comment and laugh in the face of Roméo Dallaire. I've had the chance to speak to him once, and honestly i doubt you'd make it out alive (at least i hope you wouldnt). Incase you havent the intelligence to figure this out, the calls for the U.N to be in Iraq revolve around putting an international face on the occupation of Iraq to remove the image of American domination.

In fact , Rwanda's disaster because in UN and those bureaucrat .

care to re-type that last statement so it makes sense? Or to actually respond to my points that point out your uneducated generalization of Rwanda?

Your great uneducated , why UN went Rwanda ? Help Rwanda people killed ? Perhaps you hope join bureaucrat , but that's great uneducated !

From what i can understand from your garbled response, you think the UN went into Rwanda to help commit genocide. Man you should really just go back to the rock you crawled from and stop wasting people's time reading or trying to respond to your uneducated ramblings. What country are you from (I want to know which schools i should avoid)?

Aussie E
06-02-2004, 11:25 AM
Send the Blue helmets to Tibet first!

;)
Second the motion!

J-10
06-02-2004, 12:48 PM
Send the Blue helmets to Tibet first!

;)
Second the motion!


Joined: 01 Apr 2004
Posts: 266
Location: Sin City, NV

Yeah, on April Fool's Day :lol: