Politics: Cartoon of the day

November 12, 2007
By Billy Dennis

schock_toon.jpg

From today’s State Journal-Register. It’s not a cartoon you want to see when you’re running for Congress. Unless you’re Jim McConoughey or John Morris.

Tags: , , , ,

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

11 Responses to “ Politics: Cartoon of the day ”

  1. Mark on November 12, 2007 at 9:17 am

    Excerpt from Threewisemen Blog concerning Schock’s statemetn about Nukes to Taiwan:

    “an outside view from PAUL DIEHL, a political science professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Diehl, an expert on international conflict, has written or edited 17 books and more than 100 articles on international relations matters.

    Diehl, who said he’s personally a political independent, said Taiwan is a “very sensitive issue” in the region.

    “The statement about selling nuclear weapons to Taiwan reflects an incredible naivete about international relations,” he said of Schock’s idea. “Transferring nuclear weapons technology to any state is a violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It would also encourage other states to do the same, specifically to enemies of the United States.

    “I can’t think of anything more provocative to China than giving Taiwan nuclear weapons, assuming that they would even foolishly accept them. A nuclear Taiwan would not be strong enough to deter China and indeed (would) probably provoke an attack before the missiles could be deployed.”

  2. vonster on November 12, 2007 at 10:20 am

    He should have made some crazy claim about killer rabbits. That would have put him in line for a Nobel.

  3. The Peoria Chronicle » Blog Archive » Editorial cartoon lampoons Schock on November 12, 2007 at 10:27 am

    [...] Hat tip: Billy Dennis. [...]

  4. bmcgill on November 12, 2007 at 11:11 am

    So would selling nuclear technology to Iran also be a violation of the non-proliferation treaty? Isn’t that what North Korea, China’s puppet, is alleged to have done? So if China is acquiescing in sales to our enemies already, isn’t that a provocative action by them? I get the fact that taiwan getting nukes is the equivilent of the cuban missle crisis in reverse, but to suggest that China isn’t already aiding our enemies is naive as well. We now live in at least a bi-polar (systems political theory speak) world, with China playing the role of the USSR today. While financially linked to a far greater degree than the USSR during the cold war, their goal of eclipsing the US as the dominant world power is as clear today from their efforts in the middle east, Africa and south america as those of the Krimlin a generation ago. And just as then, sale of military armaments is a piece of the diplomatic puzzle. AWAC’s, bunker busters and fighter jets to Saudi Arabia and Israel as a deterance to Syrian, Iraq (with Saddam) and Iran ring a bell? As someone pointed out to me last week, locating nuclear missles in a foreign country, as we did in central europe under Reagan, is far different than selling them to that foreign country. And in the end, I think the population’s desire for American consumer goods did as much to transform the USSR’s policy as did the missles or SDI, just as I think it will be KFC and the Yahoo which transform China’s, but until then, we cannot underestimate the great Empire’s appetite for an ascendency to power, even when that means arming the enemy (Iran, North Korea) of their enemy (the U.S.)

  5. bmcgill on November 12, 2007 at 11:13 am

    forgive the typos, e.g. I know Kremlin is spelled with an E.

  6. the wonderboy on November 12, 2007 at 11:21 am

    bmcgill…It’s true that we should be taking actions against countries violating the provisions of nonproliferation, but those actions shouldn’t include violating the treaty ourselves. Are you trying to say that we should arm Taiwan and then claim “Yeah, but China did it first” after the fact? Such steps would treat a sensitive foreign policy issue like a playground fight…and the two are drastically different.

  7. bmcgill on November 12, 2007 at 2:12 pm

    as I stated, I think the decision is the equivilent of the cuban missile crisis. however, a treaty should not be unilaterally followed, to the detriment of our national interests. When one nation (China) proliferates, then at some point we are fighting a battle with one hand tied behind our backs, to follow a treaty that our enemies flout. Would I put missiles in taiwan? I’d probably blockade Iran shipments from China first, but if you thank THAT isn’t a provocative act as well, then….. There is a time for nuance and there is a time for clarity. When nuance fails, then clarity permits rationale decision makers on the other side to adjust accordingly. Would Hitler have been less aggressive if the European powers had been less nuanced (when he invaded the Sudetenland) and more clear? Sometimes the fear of being provocative leads to a paralysis which invites aggression. I think such is the case with China. Aegis destroyers would similarly be considered provocative, but do you and other critics think THAT would be a nutty idea? I’ll bet the professor would.

  8. C. J. Summers on November 12, 2007 at 3:19 pm

    Why isn’t China pushing Iran more on the nuclear question?

    China also has big economic stakes in Iran that it is reluctant to sacrifice. Iran is China’s third biggest supplier of imported crude oil, behind Angola and Saudi Arabia.

    Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? Everybody needs oil.

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKPEK9041120071112

  9. the wonderboy on November 12, 2007 at 4:31 pm

    bmc…I again think that you are comparing apples and oranges. One cannot compare the sale or deployment of any weapon in our system with that of nuclear weapons. Do we care that other countries sell conventional weapons to Iran? We don’t like it, but we don’t get our worked up until other countries start selling nuclear information to Iran. The same is true when discussing our conventional systems.

    As for fighting with one hand tied behind our back, that is factually inaccurate. We are one of the most heavily nulear capable countries in the world. If Iran DOES become nuclear capable and WW3 ensues on a nuclear level, we would have plenty of capability to nuke the crap out of the country LONG before they did the same to us. If one of our hands is tied behind our back, then we would be like a lion playing with a mouse with only one paw should things ever turn to nuclear hostility.

    The fact remains that we simply cannot get into the practice of violating treaties just because other countries have done so. The NPT has over 100 other countries signed on…what happens if we violate the terms because one of them did so first? Simply stated, it would be a scary world if the other 100+ countries followed suit, and how could we blame them? If we get into the practice of ignoring treaties which we have signed, then the balance of world power would quickly fade. We must lead by standing by our word even when another country fails to do so. If we act in such a manner, then other countries in the world have a reason to trust our actions in a global setting and thus are far more likely to join in pressuring rogue states.

  10. No Football « blueollie on November 12, 2007 at 8:19 pm

    [...] Hat tip to the Peoria Pundit. [...]

  11. A Knight in Dragonland » Was Schock In Utah In 2006? on March 27, 2008 at 9:15 am

    [...] wondering … did Aaron Schock visit Hill Air Force Base in Utah in 2006?  Maybe that could explain why 4 fuses designed for use [...]