While I agree that Pelosi shouldn't go, to write an article like this and not make the point that China is 100% in the wrong here is ridiculous.
While our official support for Taiwan should continue to operate behind the scenes, journalists need to describe the situation for what it is. If Israel threatened to expel all Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza if Nancy Pelosi visited those places, do you agree she shouldn't go?
While I think you're a voice worth reading Peter, you're consistent only in your inability to approach problems in a balanced way. Twenty years ago you wrongly attacked the character of those opposing the invasion of Iraq. Now you're a voice who is just as one sided about the Middle East. While I am supporter of J Street's approach to the Middle East conflict, I have no illusions about the leadership of the Palestinians. The fact that you continue to write with so little nuance Peter is why folks will and should continue to doubt your judgment.
Life is complicated, and so is foreign policy, full of nuances. Being a consistent advocate for justice and against war is noble at any time. Our world is teetering on major social and other revolutions. The left is rising for justice in Latin America, the right is getting crazy, and forces all over are abandoning the truth. For me, Peter shines light into dark places. Israel is already expelling people from all the territories and is consistently undermining all Jewish and moral values.
It's not "ridiculous" to refrain from making the point that China is 100% wrong because China is *not* "100% wrong."
If you want to state that their form of government is 100% illegitimate (lack of consent of the governed, lack of rule of law, and so forth) you'd be on firmer ground. But the elephant in the room that seldom gets discussed in American circles is that quite odious regimes are capable of having perfectly respectable territorial claims.
Mind you having a respectable territorial claim isn't the same as having "a right to kill a lot of people in pressing that claim." For a variety of reasons the CCP regime is *morally* more in the wrong than in the right here. But their stated position with respect to Taiwan—that the island is a legitimate part of China returned to its rightful owner in the settlement when WW2 ended—isn't self-evidently crazy from the perspective of international law. Indeed Washington's adherence to the One China Policy in large part is a reflection of the soundness (however inconvenient) of China's legal position.
Comparing Taiwan and Palestine is misleading. Taiwan was part of China, before the autocratic UK/US puppet fled there, with US support. Also, Palestinians are being expelled from their homes and villages. They’ve been faced with ever encroaching expulsion since the Nakba. Has Pelosi said one single thing against Israel’s treatment of its Palestinian population?
It seems inconsistent for someone who supports the rights of Palestinian people to have full citizenship in a single state - and I agree - not to support the rights of Taiwanese people to decide their own sovereignty. If they want to go with China, fine. If not, that's their choice too.
"By a nearly two-to-one margin, people in Taiwan rate the U.S. more favorably than mainland China. There is widespread support for increased economic and political ties with Washington; enthusiasm for similar relations with mainland China is much more muted. Still, even as people are skeptical about closer political relations, half would embrace closer economic ties with mainland China. Younger people are particularly likely to support closer relations with the U.S., and they are less likely to embrace closer relations with China."
Peter's not a supporter of the Palestinians right to have their own sovereignty. He doesn't support Palestinian self-determination. His position is consistent.
As outlined in Admiral Stavridis 2034 which is clearly a test scenario from the Pentagon, any war between the US and China will be a tech war with quick and instantaneous damage to both countries that will be so sobering as to cause an instantaneous end to the war with both China and the US suffering severe civilian damage. I believe both countries know this and will avoid it.
That said there really was no reason for Nancy to go and pull on the tiger's tail. Particularly now when we want (although I note not everyone on this site) Putin's aggression stopped and reversed.
Not sure how this would work, but could it be legislated that members of congress and all elected officials must put their children and grandchildren on the front lines? Or we can reinstall the draft.
Substantially irrelevant, I'm afraid, in this particular instance. It's not just 19 and 20 year old Americans who are at risk here. The country's policy vis a vis this 90 year old foreign civil war is now very much putting US cities (and the millions of civilians who live in them) in the front lines.
China has better options than starting a costly, dangerous military confrontation over Taiwan. It can increase its involvement in Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba. Ouch!
Which brain stem in the Democratic party decided it would be a swell idea for Nancy to go now????
Now isn't the time for the U.S. to be flexing it's international muscles. Way too many domestic problems, a growing white nationalism and much much more. Let us pick our battles. Putin is feeding off the chaos of the last four years. Let's pick our battles. Right now Ukraine is paramount.
You're right. The US must continue fanning the flames of war in Ukraine with an endless supply of weapons, must continue pressing Zelensky not to negotiate a peaceful outcome and must keep supporting the Nazis of the Azov Battalion and their fascist friends. That's the American way, as it has always been.
Unfortunately for the people of Ukraine, that's what the US is doing. If Ukraine had agreed and implemented Minsk II, the invasion would likely not have even happened. Aaron Maté at Scheerpost:
"“I think Zelensky found out very quickly that because of the Ukrainian right, it was impossible to implement Minsk II,” John Mearsheimer, the University of Chicago professor who has warned for years that US policies were pushing Ukraine into a conflict with Russia, said in a public event the same day. “…Zelensky understands that he cannot take the Ukrainian right on by himself. So basically we have a situation where Zelensky is stymied.”
Echoing his late friend and colleague Stephen F. Cohen, Mearsheimer stressed the centrality of the US role.
“The Americans will side with the Ukrainian right,” Mearsheimer said. “Because the Americans, and the Ukrainian right, both do not want Zelensky cutting a deal with the Russians that makes it look like the Russians won. So this is the principal reason I’m very pessimistic about Ukraine’s ability to help shut this one down.”...
...Indeed, on April 5, the Washington Post made clear the prevailing viewpoint in Washington and Brussels: “For some in NATO, it’s better for the Ukrainians to keep fighting, and dying, than to achieve a peace that comes too early or at too high a cost to Kyiv and the rest of Europe.” While rhetorically claiming to support Ukrainian agency, in reality, the Post added, “there are limits to how many compromises some in NATO will support to win the peace.” This is undoubtedly the message being relayed to Zelensky from the White House in what National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan described as “near-daily contact” with Zelensky’s team about the negotiations with Russia."
I too thought it was a mistake for Clinton to expand NATO to Russia’s doorstep. But history has shown otherwise. Note that Russia has not tried to gobble up Lithuania and Estonia both tiny and within a day of being overrun and let me assure you Putin thinks they are part of Mother Russia too. Clearly if Ukraine had been a member Putin would not have attempted anything.
As for Stephen Cohen, no longer alive but as late as 2014 he said Putin was the "best potential partner we had anywhere in the world to pursue our national security". That has turned out to be wrong as well. As for Mearsheimer “if only Zelensky had agreed to it…” please recall Putin was clear eyed when he said Ukraine is part of Mother Russia. Minsk II would have simply codified Putin’s aggression until the next round. This is what Chamberlain tried to do in WWII.
As for Nazis in the Ukraine. There are Nazis everywhere in Europe. And even more so in the US. I keep reminding people here on this site that they should look more closely at America before they go pontificating to others (usually Israel) on how to conduct their biz. Right now, I consider America’s Nazis and their acolytes the Trumpies a lot more dangerous than the Nazis outside the US.
"Chickenhawk" is the term coined to describe those who seek war but who also expect others to fight those wars: war for thee but not for me.
While I agree that Pelosi shouldn't go, to write an article like this and not make the point that China is 100% in the wrong here is ridiculous.
While our official support for Taiwan should continue to operate behind the scenes, journalists need to describe the situation for what it is. If Israel threatened to expel all Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza if Nancy Pelosi visited those places, do you agree she shouldn't go?
While I think you're a voice worth reading Peter, you're consistent only in your inability to approach problems in a balanced way. Twenty years ago you wrongly attacked the character of those opposing the invasion of Iraq. Now you're a voice who is just as one sided about the Middle East. While I am supporter of J Street's approach to the Middle East conflict, I have no illusions about the leadership of the Palestinians. The fact that you continue to write with so little nuance Peter is why folks will and should continue to doubt your judgment.
Life is complicated, and so is foreign policy, full of nuances. Being a consistent advocate for justice and against war is noble at any time. Our world is teetering on major social and other revolutions. The left is rising for justice in Latin America, the right is getting crazy, and forces all over are abandoning the truth. For me, Peter shines light into dark places. Israel is already expelling people from all the territories and is consistently undermining all Jewish and moral values.
It's not "ridiculous" to refrain from making the point that China is 100% wrong because China is *not* "100% wrong."
If you want to state that their form of government is 100% illegitimate (lack of consent of the governed, lack of rule of law, and so forth) you'd be on firmer ground. But the elephant in the room that seldom gets discussed in American circles is that quite odious regimes are capable of having perfectly respectable territorial claims.
Mind you having a respectable territorial claim isn't the same as having "a right to kill a lot of people in pressing that claim." For a variety of reasons the CCP regime is *morally* more in the wrong than in the right here. But their stated position with respect to Taiwan—that the island is a legitimate part of China returned to its rightful owner in the settlement when WW2 ended—isn't self-evidently crazy from the perspective of international law. Indeed Washington's adherence to the One China Policy in large part is a reflection of the soundness (however inconvenient) of China's legal position.
Comparing Taiwan and Palestine is misleading. Taiwan was part of China, before the autocratic UK/US puppet fled there, with US support. Also, Palestinians are being expelled from their homes and villages. They’ve been faced with ever encroaching expulsion since the Nakba. Has Pelosi said one single thing against Israel’s treatment of its Palestinian population?
right on
It seems inconsistent for someone who supports the rights of Palestinian people to have full citizenship in a single state - and I agree - not to support the rights of Taiwanese people to decide their own sovereignty. If they want to go with China, fine. If not, that's their choice too.
"By a nearly two-to-one margin, people in Taiwan rate the U.S. more favorably than mainland China. There is widespread support for increased economic and political ties with Washington; enthusiasm for similar relations with mainland China is much more muted. Still, even as people are skeptical about closer political relations, half would embrace closer economic ties with mainland China. Younger people are particularly likely to support closer relations with the U.S., and they are less likely to embrace closer relations with China."
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/05/12/in-taiwan-views-of-mainland-china-mostly-negative/
Peter's not a supporter of the Palestinians right to have their own sovereignty. He doesn't support Palestinian self-determination. His position is consistent.
Peter, I am with you for all time, Yshar Choach.
As outlined in Admiral Stavridis 2034 which is clearly a test scenario from the Pentagon, any war between the US and China will be a tech war with quick and instantaneous damage to both countries that will be so sobering as to cause an instantaneous end to the war with both China and the US suffering severe civilian damage. I believe both countries know this and will avoid it.
That said there really was no reason for Nancy to go and pull on the tiger's tail. Particularly now when we want (although I note not everyone on this site) Putin's aggression stopped and reversed.
If you think US politicians visit a free nation/Ally would provoke a war and it's US to blame rather than the invader, then it's your own problem.
Not sure how this would work, but could it be legislated that members of congress and all elected officials must put their children and grandchildren on the front lines? Or we can reinstall the draft.
Substantially irrelevant, I'm afraid, in this particular instance. It's not just 19 and 20 year old Americans who are at risk here. The country's policy vis a vis this 90 year old foreign civil war is now very much putting US cities (and the millions of civilians who live in them) in the front lines.
China has better options than starting a costly, dangerous military confrontation over Taiwan. It can increase its involvement in Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba. Ouch!
Which brain stem in the Democratic party decided it would be a swell idea for Nancy to go now????
Now isn't the time for the U.S. to be flexing it's international muscles. Way too many domestic problems, a growing white nationalism and much much more. Let us pick our battles. Putin is feeding off the chaos of the last four years. Let's pick our battles. Right now Ukraine is paramount.
You're right. The US must continue fanning the flames of war in Ukraine with an endless supply of weapons, must continue pressing Zelensky not to negotiate a peaceful outcome and must keep supporting the Nazis of the Azov Battalion and their fascist friends. That's the American way, as it has always been.
I don't think that was my point at all and do not agree with you. Pressuring Zelensky not to negotiate a peaceful outcome??? What???
Unfortunately for the people of Ukraine, that's what the US is doing. If Ukraine had agreed and implemented Minsk II, the invasion would likely not have even happened. Aaron Maté at Scheerpost:
"“I think Zelensky found out very quickly that because of the Ukrainian right, it was impossible to implement Minsk II,” John Mearsheimer, the University of Chicago professor who has warned for years that US policies were pushing Ukraine into a conflict with Russia, said in a public event the same day. “…Zelensky understands that he cannot take the Ukrainian right on by himself. So basically we have a situation where Zelensky is stymied.”
Echoing his late friend and colleague Stephen F. Cohen, Mearsheimer stressed the centrality of the US role.
“The Americans will side with the Ukrainian right,” Mearsheimer said. “Because the Americans, and the Ukrainian right, both do not want Zelensky cutting a deal with the Russians that makes it look like the Russians won. So this is the principal reason I’m very pessimistic about Ukraine’s ability to help shut this one down.”...
...Indeed, on April 5, the Washington Post made clear the prevailing viewpoint in Washington and Brussels: “For some in NATO, it’s better for the Ukrainians to keep fighting, and dying, than to achieve a peace that comes too early or at too high a cost to Kyiv and the rest of Europe.” While rhetorically claiming to support Ukrainian agency, in reality, the Post added, “there are limits to how many compromises some in NATO will support to win the peace.” This is undoubtedly the message being relayed to Zelensky from the White House in what National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan described as “near-daily contact” with Zelensky’s team about the negotiations with Russia."
https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/18/siding-with-ukraines-far-right-us-sabotaged-zelenskys-peace-mandate/
I too thought it was a mistake for Clinton to expand NATO to Russia’s doorstep. But history has shown otherwise. Note that Russia has not tried to gobble up Lithuania and Estonia both tiny and within a day of being overrun and let me assure you Putin thinks they are part of Mother Russia too. Clearly if Ukraine had been a member Putin would not have attempted anything.
As for Stephen Cohen, no longer alive but as late as 2014 he said Putin was the "best potential partner we had anywhere in the world to pursue our national security". That has turned out to be wrong as well. As for Mearsheimer “if only Zelensky had agreed to it…” please recall Putin was clear eyed when he said Ukraine is part of Mother Russia. Minsk II would have simply codified Putin’s aggression until the next round. This is what Chamberlain tried to do in WWII.
As for Nazis in the Ukraine. There are Nazis everywhere in Europe. And even more so in the US. I keep reminding people here on this site that they should look more closely at America before they go pontificating to others (usually Israel) on how to conduct their biz. Right now, I consider America’s Nazis and their acolytes the Trumpies a lot more dangerous than the Nazis outside the US.
Rebecca, you talk the talk, and walk the walk.
You are as straight as an arrow.
You cut to the chase, no bullshit.