Gates prepares for a large-scale war with Iran, North Korea, China and Russia

[coughymachine]

I hope this has been misreported or at the very least misrepresented.

Gates prepares for a large-scale war with Iran, North Korea, China and Russia


US Defense Minister Robert Gates called for increasing US army in order to be ready for a large-scale operation. North Korea, Iran, Russia and China are listed among potential enemies.

“We don't know what's going to develop in places like Russia and China, in North Korea, in Iran and elsewhere,” the Pentagon head said at US Senate Armed Services Committee hearings. He supported increasing military expenditures, as it will allow increasing the number of “free detachments.”

The statements seemingly shocked Americans. The current Pentagon head, who worked for the CIA almost 30 years, was considered to be quite a pragmatic person, who apparently was quite sober about the relations with Russia. Quite recently he was speculating on about necessity and usefulness of restoring the bygone Russian authority, Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper (Russia) says.

Meanwhile, Mayak Radio believes that it does not necessarily mean that the Pentagon chief called directly for preparing to a war with Russia. Gates meant that Americans should get ready not only to fighting terrorism, but to large-scale military operations with mass regular armies like Chinese or Russian ones.

Source

[Still_Ill]

I don't think it's been misreported, I think you misread it. It doesn't say the US is going to start a war with four countries at once. It said he wants to be ready in case a conflict should arise at some point, and he lsits these as potential enemies. I don't see what's wrong with that, he is simply speculating.

Also, I see very little pragmatic about restoring Russian authority to Eastern Europe, when countries like Estonia are having great success providing a free-market, western orientated model for the region. Surely the last thing we want is for more former Soviet Bloc countries to go the way of Russia or Belarus.

[sarmajor]

It doesn't say the US is going to start a war with four countries at once.

Now this is really sticking my neck out and totally ignoring the abject stupidity of the man in the oval office however I would sincerely hope that even that ignoramus Bush is not that far gone as to pick a war with Russia, China, North Korea and Iran - at the same time and while he has an unbeaten Iraq and Afghanistan on his plate.

Anyway I would imagine that, in any of his fleeting rational moments, this would be his worst wet dream.

All of these countries know the saying "united we stand, devided we fall.

If I were the leaders of these countries (and knowing Bush's track record) the moment he rattles his sabre would be the time that I would be building alliances.

I am trying to be delicate about this (and have tried to seek an alternate word) however the only thing that I can say is that if Bush picks a fight now with those 4 countries - the US would be well and truly fucked: and would stay fucked.

[Xentil]

Hes not saying that at all, Still has the right of it, re read what he said.

Also even if that happened, it would depend how crazy Bush was. Sure the US would be fucked, but Bush could destroy the whole world if he wanted to. Unless the secret service refused to give him the football

[frozen]

I thought the headline meant Bill Gates to begin with, but anyway...

I think a conflict with China in one form or another is inevitable, but I would say not for another 10-15 years. That'll be the point when the US will have recovered from its current quagmire - particularly in Iraq - but I also think it will be approaching the point of being overtaken by emerging economies. Tie that in with China's increasing thirst for oil, America's refusal to shake the habit and depleting stocks from, I believe, around 2015 and one hell of a poker game is going to take place. Problem with poker is sometimes you have to bet your shirt and then go on to lose.

Russia may get dragged in due to her gas reserves, but either way America isn't going to just sit around and do without energy.

[thaanatos]

isn't it the responsibility of a military leader to prepare contingency plans for dealing with all possible events?

[Xentil]

Russia may get dragged in due to her gas reserves, but either way America isn't going to just sit around and do without energy

I agree, Dwindling fossil fuel reserves will create conflict in the latter half of this century in my opinion.

I think the as yet untouched antarctic will become a battleground. It is the only area of the globe that has unclaimed land, not owned by anyone. And probably has fossil fuel reserves buried under it.

[frozen]

Originally Posted by thaanatos

isn't it the responsibility of a military leader to prepare contingency plans for dealing with all possible events?

Absolutely. And that's exactly what he's doing - this isn't news. The public tend to think when 'Indonesia invade Cambodia' the rest of the worlds militaries and intelligence communities respond with 'who did what?'

[frozen]

Originally Posted by Xentil

I agree, Dwindling fossil fuel reserves will create conflict in the latter half of this century in my opinion.

I think the as yet untouched antarctic will become a battleground. It is the only area of the globe that has unclaimed land, not owned by anyone. And probably has fossil fuel reserves buried under it.

I'm thinking more like the tail end of the next decade. No good trying to fight a war for oil when your military has already run out.

[potter]

It's easy to plan wars when you don't have to fight them, die in them, or pay for them.

Like a game of checkers really.

[Still_Ill]

Originally Posted by potter

It's easy to plan wars when you don't have to fight them, die in them, or pay for them.

Like a game of checkers really.

profound. I guess it's also easy to oppose the removal of a dictatorship when you don't have to live under it.

And no, I am not trying to smear anti-war people. I'm just saying nothing is clear cut and and none of us is perfect so let's stop with the platitudes please.

[potter]

Originally Posted by Still_Ill

profound. I guess it's also easy to oppose the removal of a dictatorship when you don't have to live under it.

.

And profit handsomely from his removel while hundreds of thousands are killed and the country lies in ruins.

Yea...that's how much we care about the Iraqi people.....

Uhh huh.....

Not pinging the "pro-war" people, but...

I have no problem taking out a dictator, but really shouldn't you plan for it and the aftermath?

And shouldn't you be sure you're really there to take out a dictator?

Dictator my ass...this is about military bases and oil....

[ninjalooter1701]

Originally Posted by Still_Ill View Post
profound. I guess it's also easy to oppose the removal of a dictatorship when you don't have to live under it.

Where were you during Pinochet's rule?

Oh, that's right, at best mamando a tu mama.

There are quite a few dictators in the world, we chose Saddam of all of them. The fact that you can't see that, or rather that you won't see that...speaks volumes.

You're just another garden variety conservative parrot.

JAGVCP

[Still_Ill]

Originally Posted by potter

And profit handsomely from his removel while hundreds of thousands are killed and the country lies in ruins.

Yea...that's how much we care about the Iraqi people.....

Uhh huh.....

Not pinging the "pro-war" people, but...

I have no problem taking out a dictator, but really shouldn't you plan for it and the aftermath?

And shouldn't you be sure you're really there to take out a dictator?

Dictator my ass...this is about military bases and oil....

How is it about oil?

[frozen]

Originally Posted by ninjalooter1701

Where were you during Pinochet's rule?

Oh, that's right, at best mamando a tu mama.

There are quite a few dictators in the world, we chose Saddam of all of them. The fact that you can't see that, or rather that you won't see that...speaks volumes.

You're just another garden variety conservative parrot.

JAGVCP

I understand the US positively supported Pinochet as opposed to 'just' putting up with him. And there were a bunch of post-WW2 leaders in places like Malaysia and the Phillipines who murdered thousands of their own people, with the US quite aware of it. What about Zimbabwe or Burma? Indeed we could ask what made Saddam's brutal regime palatable pre-1991? The answer - he was the lesser of 2 evil empires, so America - interferring as ever - chose to back him, vice Iran.

I'm not saying the US or UK shouldn't deal with less scrupulous countries - we'd find ourselves very isolated if we did as every country has its embarrasing little secrets - but our elected governments should be very careful about claiming the moral high ground when it actually boils down to hegemony.

[Still_Ill]

Originally Posted by frozen

I understand the US positively supported Pinochet as opposed to 'just' putting up with him. And there were a bunch of post-WW2 leaders in places like Malaysia and the Phillipines who murdered thousands of their own people, with the US quite aware of it. What about Zimbabwe or Burma? Indeed we could ask what made Saddam's brutal regime palatable pre-1991? The answer - he was the lesser of 2 evil empires, so America - interferring as ever - chose to back him, vice Iran.

I'm not saying the US or UK shouldn't deal with less scrupulous countries - we'd find ourselves very isolated if we did as every country has its embarrasing little secrets - but our elected governments should be very careful about claiming the moral high ground when it actually boils down to hegemony.

Regarding Pinochet, his policies created wealth, and due to the foundations he laid, Chile is today the wealthiest country in South America, with the best standards of living for poor people in the region, and is generally regarded to have the best civil liberties and political freedoms in SA. I think the US was right to support him, as a leader who is creating wealth will ultimately make his people's lives better.

As for supporting Saddam in Iraq or the "holy warriors" in Afghanistan, I'd say that these were terrible mistakes.

[frozen]

Originally Posted by Still_Ill

Regarding Pinochet, his policies created wealth, and due to the foundations he laid, Chile is today the wealthiest country in South America, with the best standards of living for poor people in the region, and is generally regarded to have the best civil liberties and political freedoms in SA. I think the US was right to support him, as a leader who is creating wealth will ultimately make his people's lives better.

As for supporting Saddam in Iraq or the "holy warriors" in Afghanistan, I'd say that these were terrible mistakes.

So Chile's wealth has nothing to do with mining then? I don't doubt some good came from Pinochet's rule, in the same way Germany and Italy benefitted from their respective dictators, but America's positive support for a regime that murdered thousands of its own people is hardly the foundation of freedom we hear quoted so often is it?

I find the whole 'War on Terror' against 'haters of freedom' quite scary - not in the way it is designed to be, I hasten to add - this so-called battle for world freedom seems to be having the opposite effect in terms of lawlessness overseas and reduced civil liberties at home. I find the freedom brand very sinister.

[Still_Ill]

Originally Posted by frozen

So Chile's wealth has nothing to do with mining then?

Lots of countries have natural wealth and are poor - take Chile 30 years ago. A country's wealth depends on how the economy is structured. Greater genuine economic freedom, backed up by the institutions, stability and social attitudes (though this can result from govt. policy, it need not be a precursor to reform) to protect this freedom leads to greater wealth.

I don't doubt some good came from Pinochet's rule, in the same way Germany and Italy benefitted from their respective dictators,

But it was unsustainable, Chile's economic transformation has been different, they have liberalized their economy, not engaged in statist populism and corporatism. Peronism was inspired by Mussolini, and Pinochet's reforms are considered in Argentina to be an alternative model to Peronist corporatism, so I wouldn't equate the two.

but America's positive support for a regime that murdered thousands of its own people is hardly the foundation of freedom we hear quoted so often is it?

I find the whole 'War on Terror' against 'haters of freedom' quite scary - not in the way it is designed to be, I hasten to add - this so-called battle for world freedom seems to be having the opposite effect in terms of lawlessness overseas and reduced civil liberties at home. I find the freedom brand very sinister.

Well yes there's the whole evangelical aspect which I'm not into. I'm just trying to make an argument about what policies will benefit the majority of people. Empirically, I think it's possible to show that Pinochet's economic polices worked better than Peron's or Castro's.

[potter]

Originally Posted by Still_Ill

How is it about oil?

Oh PULLEASE...don't tell me you're that thick....

[Justin]

I hope this has been misreported or at the very least misrepresented.

I actually think it was you misunderstanding it.

The United States military needs to be strengthened, whether we are at war or not. If the war in Iraq is enough to cause us this much trouble...what happens if a full-scale war were to break out?

That being siad, US interventionalism needs to end, soon.