Kowabunga

Looks like the Red Star Tribune is living up to its name once again, this time taking the side of Communist China after that country successfully destroyed one of its weather satellites as a show of force, the old "we can knock out satellites, too." In its editorial today The Red Star Tribune states:

China's apparent success in felling a weather satellite with a missile presents a serious diplomatic and defense challenge to the United States. As worrying as the technical ability it required (not great; the U.S. ability to knock down satellites dates to 1985) are the intentions China signaled: It aims to be a force in missile defense and military uses of space. Washington, it seems, has been hanged with its own space weaponry rope. Perhaps now it will take seriously China's long-standing desires for international talks on military issues involving space.

Bush administration cries of foul and protests decrying China's militarization of space reek of hypocrisy. From the early days of the first Reagan administration, hawks in the Republican establishment have pursued dreams of space-based weapons systems with nary a concern over what anyone or any nation might think. Many others have always believed that anything even hinting at military use of space was a thoroughly bad idea. Blowing up satellites is a particularly bad idea, as the United States and Russia discovered decades ago, because it creates a great deal of space debris that puts other space vehicles at risk.

True, blowing up satellites does create debris fields that may be hazardous to other low-Earth orbit satellites. There is, however, a big difference between the intentions of the U.S. and those of Communist China. China has on many occasions, including as recently as 2006, threatened the use of nuclear weapons against the United States, particularly where our continued support of an independent Taiwan is concerned. The only reason for the Communist Chinese to pursue the development of satellite killers is to neutralize U.S. space-based missile defense systems (SDI).

China is only interested in terminating the U.S. ability to stop their nuclear missiles from striking their targets. This will give them a strategic advantage, militarily, over the United States. No SDI, no stopping incoming nukes, bye-bye USA.

Further, trusting Communist Dictators, or any dictator for that matter, to keep their word is foolish. Eisenhower trusted the Soviets to cease nuclear weapons development in the '50s, and that was proved to be trust misplaced, as the Soviets continued development, using the time bought through deceit to close the nuclear weapons gap that then favored the USA.

In the 1990s, former President Carter brokered the deal with North Korea that the Clintons signed off on, that handed nuclear technology to Kim Jong Il on the condition that Communist North Korea would cease all nuclear weapons programs. Again, we have learned that that was trust misplaced as they now have several nuclear weapons. Thanks to Democrats like Carter and the Clintons.

Iran claims to only be developing the refinement of nuclear materials for peaceful uses, yet they continue to call for the destruction of Israel, and could easily become the supplier of uranium 235 to al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and other terrorist groups who would trade their lives to kill millions with a few well placed nukes. And that is a very easy thing to do, once they have a supplier of uranium 235, or plutonium.

Why is it, given this history, the Liberal Media and the Liberal-Left that today controls what was once a great political party, think the United States is the bullying bad guy, and that these dictatorships, who have murdered thousands, and in the case of China, millions, of their own people?

The editorial has more:

The Bush administration was then considering abrogating the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia because it was impinging on administration plans for its "Star Wars" programs. Bolton was asked: While neither China nor India is party to the ABM treaty, both nations' nuclear postures are predicated on the treaty's existence. Given that, shouldn't their concerns be considered before the United States unilaterally abrogates the treaty?

His answer dripped scorn, for the question and for its implication that perhaps the United States should consider what others think of U.S. actions. Well, he said, I guess we should just let foreign nations determine U.S. foreign policy.

Actually, the U.S. did not abrogate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia. That treaty was with the Soviet Union, and when it finally ended up on the trash heap of history where it belonged, all treaties with the Soviet Union also ended.

As for China, or India for that matter (why didn't they mention Pakistan as well?), if they have "concerns" about a treaty between the U.S. and a country that no longer exists, why should it be considered as more important than U.S. concerns? Bolton's response is classic, and why I believe it is a disgrace that the Democrats in the Senate blocked his appointment to the United Nations. There is little doubt that the Liberal-Left and the Main Stream Media would prefer the United States defer all foreign policy (and in many cases, doemstic policy as well) to the foreign nations such as China, North Korea and Iran, or, better still, to the United Nations.

To the Red Star Tribune and the rest of the Liberal-Left controlled media, it is always the U.S. that is at fault when there are confrontations with other nations. They trust murdering dictators more than they trust our own leaders.

Tags:

SDI China ABMT Foreign Policy