China/US Relations

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
23

[quote]orion wrote:

What would bother me more is if they showed any sign of projecting military power beyond their own backyard.

They dont. [/quote]

Have a little google - “Unrestricted Warfare” - PLA strategy for China in the 21st century, translated by the CIA and published in 1999. It outlines China’s asymmetric warfare strategy against the US including the use of terrorism and an argument that there should be no distinction between civilian and military targets - i.e. a kind of ‘total war.’

Part of China’s asymmetric warfare strategy outlined more than a decade ago and being played out as we speak:

Financial Warfare (stock market crashes and currency manipulation)

Smuggling Warfare (flooding an enemies markets with illegal goods)

Cultural Warfare (attacking the values of an enemies culture)

Drug Warfare (flooding a society with illegal drugs)

Media Warfare (manipulating foreign media)

Technological Warfare (gaining control of or stealing vital technologies)

Resources Warfare (manipulating or control scarce or vital resources)

Psychological Warfare (dominating a rival nations’ perceptions)

Network Warfare (cyber attacks and hacking)

International Law Warfare (subverting international law)

Environmental Warfare (manipulating environmental constraints)

Economic Aid Warfare (creating aid dependency)

24

China is using fourth generation warfare because it cannot defeat the US militarily. US is moving bases to Australia to get them out of Chinese missile range in the Pacific.

25

China sat as an understudy to Soviet Russia, learned the mistakes of the Soviet playbook, and made sure it didn’t make the same mistakes in its rise to power. Old world Communists believed they could match the industrial (military) output of the West with a command economy. We know - and the Poliburo knew from watching and studying as well - that was impossible. So the Chinese Politburo devised a plan to use ordinary capitalism/Westernism against itself by adopting “capitalist” economics, harnessing markets, and arming itself with both traditional military capacities and power projection capacities (ownership of sovereign debt, etc.).

And it has been working.

China is not a liberal country - its overlords still seek the same missions as the old Chinese Communists. The fact that a semblance of a liberalized economy is in play there is meaningless with respect to the society, where the people merely serve as pawns to add to the GDP. China wants to rule, and we naively whistle past that basic fact even though they aren’t the least bit discreet about it.

And we have played directly into their hands. The relationship we have with China - the worst example of Jefferson’s dictum against “entangling alliances” - has done nothing but empower China and weaken the US.

The neo-liberal notion that “interdependence” through free trade delivers mutually sustained peace and cooperation between nations (and superpowers) is a shibboleth - that abstraction only works if all sides are in agreement as to the endgame of peace and cooperation. If one of the nations seeks power, influence or dominance, the abstraction falls apart. And in any event, when “interdependence” devolves into outright “dependence” - which doesn’t have to happen, but all too often does - the quality of life of the “dependent” depends on the pleasure of the master…and who trusts a Communist supergiant to be a benevolent father?

The cultivation of that relationship was the greatest strategic error in the 20th/21st century.

26

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

What would bother me more is if they showed any sign of projecting military power beyond their own backyard.

They dont. [/quote]

Have a little google - “Unrestricted Warfare” - PLA strategy for China in the 21st century, translated by the CIA and published in 1999. It outlines China’s asymmetric warfare strategy against the US including the use of terrorism and an argument that there should be no distinction between civilian and military targets - i.e. a kind of ‘total war.’

Part of China’s asymmetric warfare strategy outlined more than a decade ago and being played out as we speak:

Financial Warfare (stock market crashes and currency manipulation)

Smuggling Warfare (flooding an enemies markets with illegal goods)

Cultural Warfare (attacking the values of an enemies culture)

Drug Warfare (flooding a society with illegal drugs)

Media Warfare (manipulating foreign media)

Technological Warfare (gaining control of or stealing vital technologies)

Resources Warfare (manipulating or control scarce or vital resources)

Psychological Warfare (dominating a rival nations’ perceptions)

Network Warfare (cyber attacks and hacking)

International Law Warfare (subverting international law)

Environmental Warfare (manipulating environmental constraints)

Economic Aid Warfare (creating aid dependency)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Generation_Warfare[/quote]

The word “war” has no meaning to you whatsoever, right?

Hint: It involves taking extreme measures so that metal pierces the enemies flesh.

27

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
China sat as an understudy to Soviet Russia, learned the mistakes of the Soviet playbook, and made sure it didn’t make the same mistakes in its rise to power. Old world Communists believed they could match the industrial (military) output of the West with a command economy. We know - and the Poliburo knew from watching and studying as well - that was impossible. So the Chinese Politburo devised a plan to use ordinary capitalism/Westernism against itself by adopting “capitalist” economics, harnessing markets, and arming itself with both traditional military capacities and power projection capacities (ownership of sovereign debt, etc.).

And it has been working.

China is not a liberal country - its overlords still seek the same missions as the old Chinese Communists. The fact that a semblance of a liberalized economy is in play there is meaningless with respect to the society, where the people merely serve as pawns to add to the GDP. China wants to rule, and we naively whistle past that basic fact even though they aren’t the least bit discreet about it.

And we have played directly into their hands. The relationship we have with China - the worst example of Jefferson’s dictum against “entangling alliances” - has done nothing but empower China and weaken the US.

The neo-liberal notion that “interdependence” through free trade delivers mutually sustained peace and cooperation between nations (and superpowers) is a shibboleth - that abstraction only works if all sides are in agreement as to the endgame of peace and cooperation. If one of the nations seeks power, influence or dominance, the abstraction falls apart. And in any event, when “interdependence” devolves into outright “dependence” - which doesn’t have to happen, but all too often does - the quality of life of the “dependent” depends on the pleasure of the master…and who trusts a Communist supergiant to be a benevolent father?

The cultivation of that relationship was the greatest strategic error in the 20th/21st century.[/quote]

No.

To cultivate that relationship with a relatively free economy while still clinging to statist fantasies, that was the mistake.

The US could have outperformed China, but not with their hands tied, their feet hobbled and a ball gag.

28

[quote]orion wrote:

To cultivate that relationship with a relatively free economy while still clinging to statist fantasies, that was the mistake.

The US could have outperformed China, but not with their hands tied, their feet hobbled and a ball gag. [/quote]

Incorrect, because the issue is not strictly economic outperformance. It is a strategic mistake to allow unfriendly rivals access to your markets so that rival can arm itself by virtue of that relationship. Even if you “outperform” them over 20 years, they grow and sharpen their fangs, and in the process become emboldened. That’s bad strategy - better to let an unfriendly rival wither on the vine than help it grow strong.

29

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Yes.

They are the future.

Learn Mandarin.[/quote]

And get used to having even less freedom?[/quote]

I do not really think that they are interested in making us play by their book, which would be nice for a change.[/quote]

So, if they invent / develop /control the next internet, for instance, we can expect them to allow info to flow freely?

That may be a bad analogy, but I don’t think you can discount the political & human rights implications for the whole world of Chinese economic dominance. [/quote]

I think I can.

We are not part of the Middle Kingdom, I doubt that they seriously care who does what among the barbarians.

They are not American, their arrogance plays out completely differently and is, quite possibly more bearable.

For Europe especially, because we are only 1/3 to 1/2 barbarians. [/quote]

Wow.

Orion, you really have to do something about your bigotry toward the US.

It blinds you profoundly, and makes an otherwise bright and insightful person sound like a blithering moron. [/quote]

Alright.

See, the Chinese have no messianic mission.

They never had.

They are Chinese, what more could they be?

They never showed any inclination of remodeling the world in their image, whereas the US has started quite a few crusades to do exactly that.

Granted, one could interpret some excursions into Korea or Vietnam as such, but that could also be interpreted as keeping you own backyard clean.

[/quote]

Perhaps you would like to explain that again to:
–Tibetans
–Uighurs
–Vietnamese for the last thousand years or so
–Cambodians and Laotians
–Philipino islanders in the South China Sea
–Mongolians and Siberians

Memories are short, but if Mao in the 1960’s and 1970’s had any mission at all, it was to “remodel” the rest of the world, as well, as he imagined it.

30

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Yes.

They are the future.

Learn Mandarin.[/quote]

And get used to having even less freedom?[/quote]

I do not really think that they are interested in making us play by their book, which would be nice for a change.[/quote]

So, if they invent / develop /control the next internet, for instance, we can expect them to allow info to flow freely?

That may be a bad analogy, but I don’t think you can discount the political & human rights implications for the whole world of Chinese economic dominance. [/quote]

I think I can.

We are not part of the Middle Kingdom, I doubt that they seriously care who does what among the barbarians.

They are not American, their arrogance plays out completely differently and is, quite possibly more bearable.

For Europe especially, because we are only 1/3 to 1/2 barbarians. [/quote]

You really are on a roll with your ignorance. If you want to see just how barbaric China is look at what they have done to Tibet. Or look at their client state North Korea, which is home to the worlds largest, most brutal, concentration camps.

What they are doing in Africa is not good either. China is dangerous and it is getting worse.
[/quote]

A book I may need to read, and one from which orion would benefit:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/11/16/an_important_new_book_112083.html

"…But the authors were right to lead with 50 pages itemizing in grizzly detail Chinese human rights abuses – for the profound reason that after reading those first 50 pages, the reader will be impassioned to resist Chinese domination not only on behalf of American interests, but also for the sake of humanity.

Today, many people think America is in decline and mentally acquiesce to the thought that the rise of China is inevitable. Those 50 pages will stiffen your resolve to be part of the struggle to never let such a malignancy spread to the rest of the world – let alone to America…

In an astounding narrative, Decker and Triplett have refuted the growing authoritarian temptation expressed for too many elite people around the world by Thomas Friedman, the senior New York Times foreign-policy columnist who wrote recently: “One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.”

The authors do not mention Friedman. In those first 50 pages, they focus their compelling narrative on a strictly factual expose of the moral horror being brought down on the Chinese people by their ever-more-powerful Chinese leadership.

The authors carefully delineate the reversal in the last decade of the previous modest Chinese movement toward rule of law and a small hint at decency. It had been the hope of everyone from Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger onward that as China came into the world and embraced capitalism it would become “a modern, progressive society that (would) eventually bring the communist state in line with the rest of the civilized world.” That was the moral foundation for “engaging” with China. It was also a convenient rationalization for trying to make a fortune in the vast Chinese market.

But, grimly, the authors explicate the sad fact that the engagement was a false dawn. In the last decade, it has gotten worse and worse as the Chinese leadership has now consolidated its power. Oligarchic “princelings”-- the 200 to 300 descendants of the founders of the Communist Party – have gained a stranglehold on both the business and government of China. They are using the incomprehensibly vast power that comes with that total control to buy off the business class, exploit the working class and peasants, and prepare China to replace America as the world’s dominant nation.

Once you have read the first searing 50 pages of this book, the hope that China is becoming a “decent,” liberal society is no longer morally available to you. I mention Friedman because of his claim that Chinese leaders are a “reasonably enlightened group of people.” The authors’ narrative shows Friedman’s words to be not merely fatuous, but uniquely immoral."
[/quote]

So?

They are not very nice to their population, but they never were.

What would bother me more is if they showed any sign of projecting military power beyond their own backyard.

They dont. [/quote]

Soon, soon…

Aircraft carriers are not for pleasure cruises along the Yangtze.

31

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

To cultivate that relationship with a relatively free economy while still clinging to statist fantasies, that was the mistake.

The US could have outperformed China, but not with their hands tied, their feet hobbled and a ball gag. [/quote]

Incorrect, because the issue is not strictly economic outperformance. It is a strategic mistake to allow unfriendly rivals access to your markets so that rival can arm itself by virtue of that relationship. Even if you “outperform” them over 20 years, they grow and sharpen their fangs, and in the process become emboldened. That’s bad strategy - better to let an unfriendly rival wither on the vine than help it grow strong.[/quote]

Look, they send you stuff, you send them ever depreciating dollars.

You have no complaints, you play as dirty as they do.

But, this is not as it has to be, this is how you want it to be.

You cannot cheat an honest man, but that is not exactly what you are, is it?

32

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Yes.

They are the future.

Learn Mandarin.[/quote]

And get used to having even less freedom?[/quote]

I do not really think that they are interested in making us play by their book, which would be nice for a change.[/quote]

So, if they invent / develop /control the next internet, for instance, we can expect them to allow info to flow freely?

That may be a bad analogy, but I don’t think you can discount the political & human rights implications for the whole world of Chinese economic dominance. [/quote]

I think I can.

We are not part of the Middle Kingdom, I doubt that they seriously care who does what among the barbarians.

They are not American, their arrogance plays out completely differently and is, quite possibly more bearable.

For Europe especially, because we are only 1/3 to 1/2 barbarians. [/quote]

Wow.

Orion, you really have to do something about your bigotry toward the US.

It blinds you profoundly, and makes an otherwise bright and insightful person sound like a blithering moron. [/quote]

Alright.

See, the Chinese have no messianic mission.

They never had.

They are Chinese, what more could they be?

They never showed any inclination of remodeling the world in their image, whereas the US has started quite a few crusades to do exactly that.

Granted, one could interpret some excursions into Korea or Vietnam as such, but that could also be interpreted as keeping you own backyard clean.

[/quote]

Perhaps you would like to explain that again to:
–Tibetans
–Uighurs
–Vietnamese for the last thousand years or so
–Cambodians and Laotians
–Philipino islanders in the South China Sea
–Mongolians and Siberians

Memories are short, but if Mao in the 1960’s and 1970’s had any mission at all, it was to “remodel” the rest of the world, as well, as he imagined it.
[/quote]

Their backyard, yes.

33

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Yes.

They are the future.

Learn Mandarin.[/quote]

And get used to having even less freedom?[/quote]

I do not really think that they are interested in making us play by their book, which would be nice for a change.[/quote]

So, if they invent / develop /control the next internet, for instance, we can expect them to allow info to flow freely?

That may be a bad analogy, but I don’t think you can discount the political & human rights implications for the whole world of Chinese economic dominance. [/quote]

I think I can.

We are not part of the Middle Kingdom, I doubt that they seriously care who does what among the barbarians.

They are not American, their arrogance plays out completely differently and is, quite possibly more bearable.

For Europe especially, because we are only 1/3 to 1/2 barbarians. [/quote]

You really are on a roll with your ignorance. If you want to see just how barbaric China is look at what they have done to Tibet. Or look at their client state North Korea, which is home to the worlds largest, most brutal, concentration camps.

What they are doing in Africa is not good either. China is dangerous and it is getting worse.
[/quote]

A book I may need to read, and one from which orion would benefit:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/11/16/an_important_new_book_112083.html

"…But the authors were right to lead with 50 pages itemizing in grizzly detail Chinese human rights abuses – for the profound reason that after reading those first 50 pages, the reader will be impassioned to resist Chinese domination not only on behalf of American interests, but also for the sake of humanity.

Today, many people think America is in decline and mentally acquiesce to the thought that the rise of China is inevitable. Those 50 pages will stiffen your resolve to be part of the struggle to never let such a malignancy spread to the rest of the world – let alone to America…

In an astounding narrative, Decker and Triplett have refuted the growing authoritarian temptation expressed for too many elite people around the world by Thomas Friedman, the senior New York Times foreign-policy columnist who wrote recently: “One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.”

The authors do not mention Friedman. In those first 50 pages, they focus their compelling narrative on a strictly factual expose of the moral horror being brought down on the Chinese people by their ever-more-powerful Chinese leadership.

The authors carefully delineate the reversal in the last decade of the previous modest Chinese movement toward rule of law and a small hint at decency. It had been the hope of everyone from Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger onward that as China came into the world and embraced capitalism it would become “a modern, progressive society that (would) eventually bring the communist state in line with the rest of the civilized world.” That was the moral foundation for “engaging” with China. It was also a convenient rationalization for trying to make a fortune in the vast Chinese market.

But, grimly, the authors explicate the sad fact that the engagement was a false dawn. In the last decade, it has gotten worse and worse as the Chinese leadership has now consolidated its power. Oligarchic “princelings”-- the 200 to 300 descendants of the founders of the Communist Party – have gained a stranglehold on both the business and government of China. They are using the incomprehensibly vast power that comes with that total control to buy off the business class, exploit the working class and peasants, and prepare China to replace America as the world’s dominant nation.

Once you have read the first searing 50 pages of this book, the hope that China is becoming a “decent,” liberal society is no longer morally available to you. I mention Friedman because of his claim that Chinese leaders are a “reasonably enlightened group of people.” The authors’ narrative shows Friedman’s words to be not merely fatuous, but uniquely immoral."
[/quote]

So?

They are not very nice to their population, but they never were.

What would bother me more is if they showed any sign of projecting military power beyond their own backyard.

They dont. [/quote]

Soon, soon…

Aircraft carriers are not for pleasure cruises along the Yangtze.
[/quote]

No, they are for being destroyed by supersonic Chinese torpedoes.

Disclaimer: not quite supersonic. I think.

34

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Yes.

They are the future.

Learn Mandarin.[/quote]

And get used to having even less freedom?[/quote]

I do not really think that they are interested in making us play by their book, which would be nice for a change.[/quote]

So, if they invent / develop /control the next internet, for instance, we can expect them to allow info to flow freely?

That may be a bad analogy, but I don’t think you can discount the political & human rights implications for the whole world of Chinese economic dominance. [/quote]

I think I can.

We are not part of the Middle Kingdom, I doubt that they seriously care who does what among the barbarians.

They are not American, their arrogance plays out completely differently and is, quite possibly more bearable.

For Europe especially, because we are only 1/3 to 1/2 barbarians. [/quote]

Wow.

Orion, you really have to do something about your bigotry toward the US.

It blinds you profoundly, and makes an otherwise bright and insightful person sound like a blithering moron. [/quote]

Alright.

See, the Chinese have no messianic mission.

They never had.

They are Chinese, what more could they be?

They never showed any inclination of remodeling the world in their image, whereas the US has started quite a few crusades to do exactly that.

Granted, one could interpret some excursions into Korea or Vietnam as such, but that could also be interpreted as keeping you own backyard clean.

[/quote]

Perhaps you would like to explain that again to:
–Tibetans
–Uighurs
–Vietnamese for the last thousand years or so
–Cambodians and Laotians
–Philipino islanders in the South China Sea
–Mongolians and Siberians

Memories are short, but if Mao in the 1960’s and 1970’s had any mission at all, it was to “remodel” the rest of the world, as well, as he imagined it.
[/quote]

Their backyard, yes. [/quote]

All of those listed consider it their homes, not someone else’s backyard. Try speaking to a Vietnamense about their subservience in China’s “backyard.”

35

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Yes.

They are the future.

Learn Mandarin.[/quote]

And get used to having even less freedom?[/quote]

I do not really think that they are interested in making us play by their book, which would be nice for a change.[/quote]

So, if they invent / develop /control the next internet, for instance, we can expect them to allow info to flow freely?

That may be a bad analogy, but I don’t think you can discount the political & human rights implications for the whole world of Chinese economic dominance. [/quote]

I think I can.

We are not part of the Middle Kingdom, I doubt that they seriously care who does what among the barbarians.

They are not American, their arrogance plays out completely differently and is, quite possibly more bearable.

For Europe especially, because we are only 1/3 to 1/2 barbarians. [/quote]

You really are on a roll with your ignorance. If you want to see just how barbaric China is look at what they have done to Tibet. Or look at their client state North Korea, which is home to the worlds largest, most brutal, concentration camps.

What they are doing in Africa is not good either. China is dangerous and it is getting worse.
[/quote]

A book I may need to read, and one from which orion would benefit:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/11/16/an_important_new_book_112083.html

"…But the authors were right to lead with 50 pages itemizing in grizzly detail Chinese human rights abuses – for the profound reason that after reading those first 50 pages, the reader will be impassioned to resist Chinese domination not only on behalf of American interests, but also for the sake of humanity.

Today, many people think America is in decline and mentally acquiesce to the thought that the rise of China is inevitable. Those 50 pages will stiffen your resolve to be part of the struggle to never let such a malignancy spread to the rest of the world – let alone to America…

In an astounding narrative, Decker and Triplett have refuted the growing authoritarian temptation expressed for too many elite people around the world by Thomas Friedman, the senior New York Times foreign-policy columnist who wrote recently: “One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.”

The authors do not mention Friedman. In those first 50 pages, they focus their compelling narrative on a strictly factual expose of the moral horror being brought down on the Chinese people by their ever-more-powerful Chinese leadership.

The authors carefully delineate the reversal in the last decade of the previous modest Chinese movement toward rule of law and a small hint at decency. It had been the hope of everyone from Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger onward that as China came into the world and embraced capitalism it would become “a modern, progressive society that (would) eventually bring the communist state in line with the rest of the civilized world.” That was the moral foundation for “engaging” with China. It was also a convenient rationalization for trying to make a fortune in the vast Chinese market.

But, grimly, the authors explicate the sad fact that the engagement was a false dawn. In the last decade, it has gotten worse and worse as the Chinese leadership has now consolidated its power. Oligarchic “princelings”-- the 200 to 300 descendants of the founders of the Communist Party – have gained a stranglehold on both the business and government of China. They are using the incomprehensibly vast power that comes with that total control to buy off the business class, exploit the working class and peasants, and prepare China to replace America as the world’s dominant nation.

Once you have read the first searing 50 pages of this book, the hope that China is becoming a “decent,” liberal society is no longer morally available to you. I mention Friedman because of his claim that Chinese leaders are a “reasonably enlightened group of people.” The authors’ narrative shows Friedman’s words to be not merely fatuous, but uniquely immoral."
[/quote]

So?

They are not very nice to their population, but they never were.

What would bother me more is if they showed any sign of projecting military power beyond their own backyard.

They dont. [/quote]

Soon, soon…

Aircraft carriers are not for pleasure cruises along the Yangtze.
[/quote]

No, they are for being destroyed by supersonic Chinese torpedoes.

Disclaimer: not quite supersonic. I think. [/quote]

Why would they destroy their own aircraft carrier?
Apparently, among many things, you are unaware that China launched its first of many aircraft carriers this month?

You need to get out more often.

36

[quote]joebassin wrote:
They are saints compare to the US.[/quote]

Cmon Joe, where would you rather live, China or US? Would you rather be forced to speak english or some language from the third world? by My choice is clear. This is just a biased Quebec view .

I am pretty ignorant on everything about economy but I feel our problems could be attenuated by taxing and limiting exportations (that would mean stopping free trade) from China and just plain preventing those chumps to immigrate to the western world.

But I don’t think there will ever be any world war. There is too much economical relationship and people from every country in every country. It is my belief that no one knows wtf is this all about and that no one or the government controls any of this chaos. I don’t think this mondalised heterogen ugly slump everywhere is a good thing either.

37

[quote]jasmincar wrote:

[quote]joebassin wrote:
They are saints compare to the US.[/quote]

Cmon Joe, where would you rather live, China or US? Would you rather be forced to speak english or some language from the third world? by My choice is clear. This is just a biased Quebec view .

I am pretty ignorant on everything about economy but I feel our problems could be attenuated by taxing and limiting exportations (that would mean stopping free trade) from China and just plain preventing those chumps to immigrate to the western world.

But I don’t think there will ever be any world war. There is too much economical relationship and people from every country in every country. It is my belief that no one knows wtf is this all about and that no one or the government controls any of this chaos. I don’t think this mondalised heterogen ugly slump everywhere is a good thing either.[/quote]

Blocking free trade could work but bear in mind that we also export to China and they can block our exportation if we block theirs.

As far as living in China or the US, off course living in the US is much better but that has never been the point. The US is dominating the world right now and it has not expand the empire by being nice.

CIA operations follow the same recurring script. First, American business interests abroad are threatened by a popular or democratically elected leader. The people support their leader because he intends to conduct land reform, strengthen unions, redistribute wealth, nationalize foreign-owned industry, and regulate business to protect workers, consumers and the environment. So, on behalf of American business, and often with their help, the CIA mobilizes the opposition. First it identifies right-wing groups within the country (usually the military), and offers them a deal: “We’ll put you in power if you maintain a favorable business climate for us.” The Agency then hires, trains and works with them to overthrow the existing government (usually a democracy). It uses every trick in the book: propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, purchased elections, extortion, blackmail, sexual intrigue, false stories about opponents in the local media, infiltration and disruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic sabotage, death squads and even assassination. These efforts culminate in a military coup, which installs a right-wing dictator. The CIA trains the dictatorâ??s security apparatus to crack down on the traditional enemies of big business, using interrogation, torture and murder. The victims are said to be “communists,” but almost always they are just peasants, liberals, moderates, labor union leaders, political opponents and advocates of free speech and democracy. Widespread human rights abuses follow.

40

[quote]orion wrote:

Look, they send you stuff, you send them ever depreciating dollars.

You have no complaints, you play as dirty as they do.

But, this is not as it has to be, this is how you want it to be.

You cannot cheat an honest man, but that is not exactly what you are, is it?[/quote]

Oh good - incoherent babble, and we aren’t three posts into an exchange. Now I remember why I skip your posts.