Japan, Stop Pretty Boy Diplomacy in the Middle East

This is just an excerpt of the most recent post in Global American Discourse.

It is widely believed among the Japanese public that Japan’s position in the Middle East is completely different from those of America and Europe. Those who argue like this, mention the following reasons. First, Japan is not involved in the clash of civilizations between Christian West and Islam Middle East. Second, Japan has been a disinterested power, and never pursued imperialist policy in this region. Third, people in the Middle East admire Japan as a non-imperialist economic giant. However, I am determined to refute such airy fairy ideas, and insist that Japan stop being a pretty boy in the Middle East. Furthermore, I advocate that Japan must be at the heart of the Western alliance to promote enlightenment and democracy, and defeat Islamic radicals who are spiritually indulged in Dark Age ideals.

Quite importantly, anti-establishment activists find their places for exile in the West, not in Japan. From there, activists fight against super villains in their counties, in order to win freedom of their fellow citizens.

Establishments also look America and Europe far more than Japan. Arab princes and millionaires spend their holidays for shopping and sightseeing in London, Paris, and New York rather than in Tokyo.

Apparently, Japan’s pretty boy diplomacy leaves extremely weak impression on both anti-establishments and establishments in the Middle East.

More importantly Japanese people must keep alert to threats posed by radical Muslims. In terms of ideology, they are natural enemy to Japan. This is because they have been defying modernization and enlightenment in Turkey and Iran. This is a serious challenge to Japanese ideology of getting out of Dark Age Asia and becoming a Western Great Power.
Japan was a role model for both nations. Kemal Ataturk and Reza Pahlavi Ⅰ made a step toward rapid Westernization as Japan had done.

For detail, please see Global American Discourse.

Can Jimmy Cater Blame Bush and Blair?

Former US President Jimmy Carter criticized current President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair with regard to Iraq policy. Carter accused Blair of supporting the Iraq War, and argued that the next British prime minister should be less enthusiastic to act with the Bush administration on Iraq (“Carter attacks Blair's Iraq role”, 19 May, BBC News). Shortly after this TV interview, he denounced Bush as the worst president in history (“In Carter-Bush Duel, Dual Retreats”, May 22, Washington Post). But is he in a position to denounce both leaders so openly in public? Apparently, he does not understand the consequence of his policy to the Middle East.

Jimmy Carter failed to stop the Iranian Revolution, which brought about widespread catastrophes in the Middle East. It has triggered the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, Gulf States, and even Algeria. Had the Guard of Persian Gulf existed, Saddam Hussein would never have attacked Iran, Kuwait, and Kurdistan for his grandiose pursuit of towering over his fellow Arab nations. Also, the Soviet Union would not have intervened into Afghanistan. Moreover, Osama bin Laden is a product of the Afghan War and the Gulf War. In other words, Carter’s failure to deal with Iran led to 9-11 attack by Al Qaeda terrorists.

In conclusion, I said the following.

Jimmy Carter is the most responsible for uprisings in Iraq and Afghanistan today. Had he succeeded in preventing the Iranian Revolution, Saddam threats could have been contained and the Soviets would never have intervened into Afghanistan. Islamic radicals would not be as rampant throughout the Middle East as it is today. Former President Carter caused a substantial degree of disturbance in the Middle East and the world. He has no qualification to blame President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair. Please be quiet, sir.

For further detail, see the post in Global American Discourse.

ALERT: EU is ripping us off & using OUR name to do it!

This is just another reason why we should never trust an ally, just like President George Washington stated in his farewell address. They will stab you in the back the first chance they get. That is what Europe is doing now.

EADS: Partner or proliferator?
CSP Occasional Paper Apr 25, 2007

In this paper, the Center argues that the U.S.'s involvement with European defense conglomerate EADS poses potentially serious problems for our security. For example, although EADS routinely bids for U.S. defense contracts, it sells military equipment to Iran and China, and has even been fingered in a scheme in which Iran purchased nuclear weapons parts.

If EADS wants to be a legitimate, reliable partner for the U.S., it must stop its dangerous and irresponsible behavior, plain and simple. Its bribery, corruption, proliferation, and anti-Americanism need to come to an end. Also, it must fully make clear the extent to which Putin's Russia - which owns a substantial part of the company - is capable of guiding EADS policy.

Until these behaviors are changed, the U.S. has every right to deny EADS a role in our national security.

View Full Paper (PDF).

We must let all Americans know the truth. This is not right. As a matter of fact, it is very dangerous! We are the informers, so let us inform! Get writing, e-mailing, calling, and doing whatever it takes to get this news to as many people as possible.

We got the truth out about Islam vs. Islamists. We can do this. Thank you for all of your help. Have a wonderful day.

Hat tip: Bryan Hill, Research Associate, Center for Security Policy.