Finally getting bitten

[Guest guest]

Finally getting bitten by our politician's excessive spending, maybe. They haven't done it yet, but if they do, it won't be nice.

China threatens 'nuclear option' of dollar salesBy Ambrose -Pritchard

Last Updated: 1:48am BST 08/08/2007

The Chinese government has begun a concerted campaign of economic threats against the United States, hinting that it may liquidate its vast holding of US treasuries if Washington imposes trade sanctions to force a yuan revaluation.

Two officials at leading Communist Party bodies have given interviews in recent days warning - for the first time - that Beijing may use its $1.33 trillion (£658bn) of foreign reserves as a political weapon to counter pressure from the US Congress. Shifts in Chinese policy are often announced through key think tanks and academies.

Described as China's "nuclear option" in the state media, such action could trigger a dollar crash at a time when the US currency is already breaking down through historic support levels.

advertisement

It would also cause a spike in US bond yields, hammering the US housing market and perhaps tipping the economy into recession. It is estimated that China holds over $900bn in a mix of US bonds.

Xia Bin, finance chief at the Development Research Centre (which has cabinet rank), kicked off what now appears to be government policy with a comment last week that Beijing's foreign reserves should be used as a "bargaining chip" in talks with the US.

"Of course, China doesn't want any undesirable phenomenon in the global financial order," he added.

He Fan, an official at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, went even further today, letting it be known that Beijing had the power to set off a dollar collapse if it choose to do so.

"China has accumulated a large sum of US dollars. Such a big sum, of which a considerable portion is in US treasury bonds, contributes a great deal to maintaining the position of the dollar as a reserve currency. Russia, Switzerland, and several other countries have reduced the their dollar holdings.

"China is unlikely to follow suit as long as the yuan's exchange rate is stable against the dollar. The Chinese central bank will be forced to sell dollars once the yuan appreciated dramatically, which might lead to a mass depreciation of the dollar," he told China Daily.

The threats play into the presidential electoral campaign of Hillary Clinton, who has called for restrictive legislation to prevent America being "held hostage to economic decicions being made in Beijing, Shanghai, or Tokyo".

She said foreign control over 44pc of the US national debt had left America acutely vulnerable.

Simon Derrick, a currency strategist at the Bank of New York Mellon, said the comments were a message to the US Senate as Capitol Hill prepares legislation for the Autumn session.

"The words are alarming and unambiguous. This carries a clear political threat and could have very serious consequences at a time when the credit markets are already afraid of contagion from the subprime troubles," he said.

A bill drafted by a group of US senators, and backed by the Senate Finance Committee, calls for trade tariffs against Chinese goods as retaliation for alleged currency manipulation.

The yuan has appreciated 9pc against the dollar over the last two years under a crawling peg but it has failed to halt the rise of China's trade surplus, which reached $26.9bn in June.

Henry son, the US Tresury Secretary, said any such sanctions would undermine American authority and "could trigger a global cycle of protectionist legislation".

Mr son is a China expert from his days as head of Goldman Sachs. He has opted for a softer form of diplomacy, but appeared to win few concession from Beijing on a unscheduled trip to China last week aimed at calming the waters.Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/8/2007 12:46:28 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

How ironic that Hillary, if elected, will be forced to clean up the mess her husband started with his sweeping free trade deals with China during his term in office.I predicted this would happen when the deals were made, but everyone thought I was just being pessimistic or anti-Democrat. Well, one Clinton made the mess, and now another Clinton can work to clean it up.

It isn't just the trade deals but the massive debt that 40 years of Congress has run up. That is something on the order of over $10 trillion, yes that is TRillion. The profligate spending by our politicians is what created much of that debt.

The next cause if the tax code which penalizes savings and investment and favors debt. You get taxed on interest from saving and profits on investments, but you get to write off mortgages and loans. It should be that you aren't taxed on investments and savings and can't write off mortgages. That would have the effect of encouraging investment and savings, which means more money in the big banks for businesses to do their thing, and people would be much more leery of getting that second mortgage or that great big first one.

Another fault is this, combined with the corporate tax structure. It used to be that a major selling point for a stock was dividends. However, the tax code was changed to penalize dividends, so now they are rather rare or are very small compared to what they used to be. As a result, it is all about the stock price. That has encouraged a lot of industry going overseas, since that increased the profit margins which boosted stock price. Dividends also encouraged people to hang on during tough markets rather than selling at a loss.

The last thing I will mention is simply the shortsightedness of our system. The politicians ran up these debts and cut bad trade deals because it wasn't going to hurt until they were out of office. Even if it did, they could turn around and shell out more government money to "help" the people they hurt in the first place. Win, win.

Well, China should also realize that if they do this to us, it is going to tank much a lot of the world economy. If we had any guts, we would also freeze Chinese assets and seize their ships in our ports. We are their biggest importer and if they want to hurt our economy, we can hit right back. We could probably bring enough European nations on line, save for Russia, to get after China too. If we really had our salt, deep behind the scenes we would tell the Chinese that we would bend over backwards to buy all the oil that was bound for China from whomever the source: Russia, Sudan, Iran, whoever, even if the government had to buy it at 10 times the going rate, while behind the scenes again, tell those countries that any tanker headed for China would never make it, The Los Angeles and Virginia class subs and all that you know.

China Will hurt itself badly if it does this, but it will hurt us plenty too. Just how badly the dollar will devalue I don't know. Oddly. If they devalue the dollar, since the Yuan is pegged to it, they will be crashing their own economy. If they decouple it from the dollar, we will be getting what we wanted in the first place.

It is just a shame we have made fools of ourselves in Iraq and let the Chinese subs stalk our aircraft carriers. Big signs of weakness. Then again, we could have let the Chinese subs get in that close deliberately to fool them into thinking it would be easy.

Well, hopefully cooler heads will prevail on this. Too bad they got the Olympics, although their crackdowns and pollution are causing some nations to threaten to boycott. Wouldn't a Tianamen Square During the Olympics be hysterical though?

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/8/2007 12:46:28 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

How ironic that Hillary, if elected, will be forced to clean up the mess her husband started with his sweeping free trade deals with China during his term in office.I predicted this would happen when the deals were made, but everyone thought I was just being pessimistic or anti-Democrat. Well, one Clinton made the mess, and now another Clinton can work to clean it up.

It isn't just the trade deals but the massive debt that 40 years of Congress has run up. That is something on the order of over $10 trillion, yes that is TRillion. The profligate spending by our politicians is what created much of that debt.

The next cause if the tax code which penalizes savings and investment and favors debt. You get taxed on interest from saving and profits on investments, but you get to write off mortgages and loans. It should be that you aren't taxed on investments and savings and can't write off mortgages. That would have the effect of encouraging investment and savings, which means more money in the big banks for businesses to do their thing, and people would be much more leery of getting that second mortgage or that great big first one.

Another fault is this, combined with the corporate tax structure. It used to be that a major selling point for a stock was dividends. However, the tax code was changed to penalize dividends, so now they are rather rare or are very small compared to what they used to be. As a result, it is all about the stock price. That has encouraged a lot of industry going overseas, since that increased the profit margins which boosted stock price. Dividends also encouraged people to hang on during tough markets rather than selling at a loss.

The last thing I will mention is simply the shortsightedness of our system. The politicians ran up these debts and cut bad trade deals because it wasn't going to hurt until they were out of office. Even if it did, they could turn around and shell out more government money to "help" the people they hurt in the first place. Win, win.

Well, China should also realize that if they do this to us, it is going to tank much a lot of the world economy. If we had any guts, we would also freeze Chinese assets and seize their ships in our ports. We are their biggest importer and if they want to hurt our economy, we can hit right back. We could probably bring enough European nations on line, save for Russia, to get after China too. If we really had our salt, deep behind the scenes we would tell the Chinese that we would bend over backwards to buy all the oil that was bound for China from whomever the source: Russia, Sudan, Iran, whoever, even if the government had to buy it at 10 times the going rate, while behind the scenes again, tell those countries that any tanker headed for China would never make it, The Los Angeles and Virginia class subs and all that you know.

China Will hurt itself badly if it does this, but it will hurt us plenty too. Just how badly the dollar will devalue I don't know. Oddly. If they devalue the dollar, since the Yuan is pegged to it, they will be crashing their own economy. If they decouple it from the dollar, we will be getting what we wanted in the first place.

It is just a shame we have made fools of ourselves in Iraq and let the Chinese subs stalk our aircraft carriers. Big signs of weakness. Then again, we could have let the Chinese subs get in that close deliberately to fool them into thinking it would be easy.

Well, hopefully cooler heads will prevail on this. Too bad they got the Olympics, although their crackdowns and pollution are causing some nations to threaten to boycott. Wouldn't a Tianamen Square During the Olympics be hysterical though?

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

" The threats play into the presidential electoral campaign of

Hillary Clinton, who has called for restrictive legislation to

prevent America being " held hostage to economic decicions being made

in Beijing, Shanghai, or Tokyo " .

" She said foreign control over 44pc of the US national debt had left

America acutely vulnerable. "

How ironic that Hillary, if elected, will be forced to clean up the

mess her husband started with his sweeping free trade deals with

China during his term in office.

I predicted this would happen when the deals were made, but everyone

thought I was just being pessimistic or anti-Democrat. Well, one

Clinton made the mess, and now another Clinton can work to clean it

up.

As for what she said about Tokyo, that shows short-sightedness and

inexperience. The Japanese and American exconomies are almost

interlinked, and what hurts us hurts them. If the dollar falls on

the world market, people will not buy as many Japanese cars and

other products, even if they are manufactured in the US.

What Clinton fails to see here is that China's plan is to become the

dominant economic, political, and military power in Asia, and this

ecomic method is the way to do it. You can flatten Japan and South

Korea if you economically flatten the US.

People may think that sounds like an extreme thing to say, but what

people must never fail to forget is that one of Communism's mandates

is to spread Communism as much as it can. And if that statement

sounds silly to a person's ears, just look at how the US patiently

keeps trying to bring Democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq. The people

in those two countries don't want it, yet we earnestly keep trying

to give it to them. Communism is more insistent. You either become

part of the party, or you get sent off to a camp, or you die.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

" The threats play into the presidential electoral campaign of

Hillary Clinton, who has called for restrictive legislation to

prevent America being " held hostage to economic decicions being made

in Beijing, Shanghai, or Tokyo " .

" She said foreign control over 44pc of the US national debt had left

America acutely vulnerable. "

How ironic that Hillary, if elected, will be forced to clean up the

mess her husband started with his sweeping free trade deals with

China during his term in office.

I predicted this would happen when the deals were made, but everyone

thought I was just being pessimistic or anti-Democrat. Well, one

Clinton made the mess, and now another Clinton can work to clean it

up.

As for what she said about Tokyo, that shows short-sightedness and

inexperience. The Japanese and American exconomies are almost

interlinked, and what hurts us hurts them. If the dollar falls on

the world market, people will not buy as many Japanese cars and

other products, even if they are manufactured in the US.

What Clinton fails to see here is that China's plan is to become the

dominant economic, political, and military power in Asia, and this

ecomic method is the way to do it. You can flatten Japan and South

Korea if you economically flatten the US.

People may think that sounds like an extreme thing to say, but what

people must never fail to forget is that one of Communism's mandates

is to spread Communism as much as it can. And if that statement

sounds silly to a person's ears, just look at how the US patiently

keeps trying to bring Democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq. The people

in those two countries don't want it, yet we earnestly keep trying

to give it to them. Communism is more insistent. You either become

part of the party, or you get sent off to a camp, or you die.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

> People may think that sounds like an extreme thing to say, but what

> people must never fail to forget is that one of Communism's mandates

> is to spread Communism as much as it can. And if that statement

> sounds silly to a person's ears, just look at how the US patiently

> keeps trying to bring Democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq. The people

> in those two countries don't want it, yet we earnestly keep trying

> to give it to them. Communism is more insistent. You either become

> part of the party, or you get sent off to a camp, or you die.

>

> Tom

> Administrator

>

So communism and democracy are both trying to spread as much as they

can.

[Guest guest]

> People may think that sounds like an extreme thing to say, but what

> people must never fail to forget is that one of Communism's mandates

> is to spread Communism as much as it can. And if that statement

> sounds silly to a person's ears, just look at how the US patiently

> keeps trying to bring Democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq. The people

> in those two countries don't want it, yet we earnestly keep trying

> to give it to them. Communism is more insistent. You either become

> part of the party, or you get sent off to a camp, or you die.

>

> Tom

> Administrator

>

So communism and democracy are both trying to spread as much as they

can.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/8/2007 4:47:31 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

So communism and democracy are both trying to spread as much as they can.

There is a substantial difference between the two.

Democracy values the individual and encourages individual effort and for people to do for themselves and improve their lot in life. Doesn't always work that way and some are more successful than others, but that is how the system works.

Communism does not value the individual at all and discourages individual effort and holds down anyone who tries to better their lot, unless they are in the communist party of course, but the masses had better stay in line or else.

Bear in mind also that under Lenin and Stalin, the Russians murdered at least 20 million of their own people in the Collectivization schemes, slave labor programs, etc. Mao in China killed at least as many again, probably several times that given how disastrous his Great Leap Forward was. Pol Pot killed a million or two, which doesn't sound like much, but it was one third of the population. North Korea under the Kims has a population about as large as it was when they took over, while the South has greatly increased, and regularly uses starvation to keep the masses in line and diverts food aid to Party members and the military.

Every Communist Revolution has had something else in common. The Communists always carried lists with them. These were lists of political leaders, doctors, teachers, business people, landowners, basically anyone capable of thought. Those people were rounded up and murdered as quickly as possible. This was seen in Russia and China. During the Korean War, when the UN forces struck north out of Pusan, they found just this, large numbers of people herded into ditches and shot by the Communists because they were educated or owned property. Same things happened in Vietnam too.

It should also be remembered that large numbers of people took great pains to escape the communist countries to come to the west. Very few went the other way, and most that did came back after a few years.

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/8/2007 4:47:31 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

So communism and democracy are both trying to spread as much as they can.

There is a substantial difference between the two.

Democracy values the individual and encourages individual effort and for people to do for themselves and improve their lot in life. Doesn't always work that way and some are more successful than others, but that is how the system works.

Communism does not value the individual at all and discourages individual effort and holds down anyone who tries to better their lot, unless they are in the communist party of course, but the masses had better stay in line or else.

Bear in mind also that under Lenin and Stalin, the Russians murdered at least 20 million of their own people in the Collectivization schemes, slave labor programs, etc. Mao in China killed at least as many again, probably several times that given how disastrous his Great Leap Forward was. Pol Pot killed a million or two, which doesn't sound like much, but it was one third of the population. North Korea under the Kims has a population about as large as it was when they took over, while the South has greatly increased, and regularly uses starvation to keep the masses in line and diverts food aid to Party members and the military.

Every Communist Revolution has had something else in common. The Communists always carried lists with them. These were lists of political leaders, doctors, teachers, business people, landowners, basically anyone capable of thought. Those people were rounded up and murdered as quickly as possible. This was seen in Russia and China. During the Korean War, when the UN forces struck north out of Pusan, they found just this, large numbers of people herded into ditches and shot by the Communists because they were educated or owned property. Same things happened in Vietnam too.

It should also be remembered that large numbers of people took great pains to escape the communist countries to come to the west. Very few went the other way, and most that did came back after a few years.

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/8/2007 11:39:56 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, mnmimi@... writes:

This may be a more threatening and sinister play for dominence, we(America) are too fat, lazy, and complacent. We believe many luxuries are rights and we long ago(as many often post) expect nothing of the poor class there is no drive to utalize those numbers in a positive. So many working professional carry a heavy burden on their backs. We automate more and farm out to foreign countries. we cut ourselves off at the knees in the name of monetary gain. Our short sighted program has not been ignored by Asia. Our days as a the superpower in the world may be numbered.I read a lot of Sci-fi and in many of them America is destroyed or scattered. Just my own thoughts mimi

Actually, American workers are some of the most productive in the world. You are right, though, that automation has put a lot of people out of work, but more it has been jobs shipped overseas. A lot of that went to China, which was also a mistake. Americans are fat too, but that is another matter.

The big problem that we have is that we are still wedded to the notion of Free Trade and certain other economic principles that don't apply any longer. Free Trade and some of these others, like Comparative Advantage, work just fine when looking at a Pre-Industrial society of villages and small towns. Each town focuses on what it can do best and trades with others for what they do best. This pattern is seen around the world in those settings and was the model for Free Trade. It is also intended to work between nations that are equals.

In the bigger world and especially today, there are too many discrepancies for it to work. Free Trade will not work between nations where in one workers are paid $20 an hours with that much again in benefits while in the other, the workers are paid 20 cents for the same work. For the system to work, workers in both countries would be paid about the same amount. That is necessary because while in the higher paid country they might be able to buy up a lot of the material made by the others, the others will be able to buy very little produced by the high paid country. Thus we have an imbalance and this can be seen in the trade deficits as that is part of the reason for it. Our trade balances are much more equal with Canada and Europe because our economies are more equal.

Free Trade also fails to take in to account military needs. By that I mean our leaders have for some time seemingly acted as though alliances will last forever and that allied and trading nations work for the betterment of all involved. Reality isn't like that. Alliances don't last forever and even within them, nations look after their own interests first. We have had a lot of people with their heads in the clouds from idealists to businessmen who ignored this and thus our current problems.

We could get out of this in a couple of simple ways. First, reform the tax code to favor savings and investments again. Second, reform corporate taxes to encourage them to return to the US. Third, streamline the great muddle of business laws and regulations to make it easier for them to operate here. Fourth, break the labor unions so labor can move more fluidly within the country. Most importantly, the people need to be told that prices will be going up but, with the return of manufacturing jobs, that wages will be too. They might have to cut back some on their consumption of luxuries, but that's just the way it is.

Yes, SciFi is full of the US collapsing. That could happen as no culture survives forever. The Founding Fathers didn't expect the US to last 20 years let alone 200. If our politicians weren't so self-serving and corrupted by special interests and the way the voters have been divided up into pressure groups, things would be much better. It is funny that the politicians seek ever greater control over the people, but increasingly shield themselves from accountability and increase their power. It should be the other way around since the politicians are able to cause far more harm than the people. Our country is currently divided between the liberals who want government to do everything for them and the conservatives who want government to shrink and stay out of their way. What I can see happening is the US breaking up along the lines of the old confederacy and the midwest while the northeast and the pacific coast states go their own ways.

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/8/2007 11:39:56 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, mnmimi@... writes:

This may be a more threatening and sinister play for dominence, we(America) are too fat, lazy, and complacent. We believe many luxuries are rights and we long ago(as many often post) expect nothing of the poor class there is no drive to utalize those numbers in a positive. So many working professional carry a heavy burden on their backs. We automate more and farm out to foreign countries. we cut ourselves off at the knees in the name of monetary gain. Our short sighted program has not been ignored by Asia. Our days as a the superpower in the world may be numbered.I read a lot of Sci-fi and in many of them America is destroyed or scattered. Just my own thoughts mimi

Actually, American workers are some of the most productive in the world. You are right, though, that automation has put a lot of people out of work, but more it has been jobs shipped overseas. A lot of that went to China, which was also a mistake. Americans are fat too, but that is another matter.

The big problem that we have is that we are still wedded to the notion of Free Trade and certain other economic principles that don't apply any longer. Free Trade and some of these others, like Comparative Advantage, work just fine when looking at a Pre-Industrial society of villages and small towns. Each town focuses on what it can do best and trades with others for what they do best. This pattern is seen around the world in those settings and was the model for Free Trade. It is also intended to work between nations that are equals.

In the bigger world and especially today, there are too many discrepancies for it to work. Free Trade will not work between nations where in one workers are paid $20 an hours with that much again in benefits while in the other, the workers are paid 20 cents for the same work. For the system to work, workers in both countries would be paid about the same amount. That is necessary because while in the higher paid country they might be able to buy up a lot of the material made by the others, the others will be able to buy very little produced by the high paid country. Thus we have an imbalance and this can be seen in the trade deficits as that is part of the reason for it. Our trade balances are much more equal with Canada and Europe because our economies are more equal.

Free Trade also fails to take in to account military needs. By that I mean our leaders have for some time seemingly acted as though alliances will last forever and that allied and trading nations work for the betterment of all involved. Reality isn't like that. Alliances don't last forever and even within them, nations look after their own interests first. We have had a lot of people with their heads in the clouds from idealists to businessmen who ignored this and thus our current problems.

We could get out of this in a couple of simple ways. First, reform the tax code to favor savings and investments again. Second, reform corporate taxes to encourage them to return to the US. Third, streamline the great muddle of business laws and regulations to make it easier for them to operate here. Fourth, break the labor unions so labor can move more fluidly within the country. Most importantly, the people need to be told that prices will be going up but, with the return of manufacturing jobs, that wages will be too. They might have to cut back some on their consumption of luxuries, but that's just the way it is.

Yes, SciFi is full of the US collapsing. That could happen as no culture survives forever. The Founding Fathers didn't expect the US to last 20 years let alone 200. If our politicians weren't so self-serving and corrupted by special interests and the way the voters have been divided up into pressure groups, things would be much better. It is funny that the politicians seek ever greater control over the people, but increasingly shield themselves from accountability and increase their power. It should be the other way around since the politicians are able to cause far more harm than the people. Our country is currently divided between the liberals who want government to do everything for them and the conservatives who want government to shrink and stay out of their way. What I can see happening is the US breaking up along the lines of the old confederacy and the midwest while the northeast and the pacific coast states go their own ways.

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/8/2007 1:05:17 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, enderwiggin52@... writes:

Side Note:Engineers (except the arrogant ones) believe in the wisdom of the great and truly visionary Edsel , and his work regarding the behavior of systems. There is a corollary to " Law" called the "Parkinson's Principle" which states that, "Once opened the only way to close a can of worms is to use a larger can."

I like this too. Very interesting and true.

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/8/2007 1:05:17 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, enderwiggin52@... writes:

Side Note:Engineers (except the arrogant ones) believe in the wisdom of the great and truly visionary Edsel , and his work regarding the behavior of systems. There is a corollary to " Law" called the "Parkinson's Principle" which states that, "Once opened the only way to close a can of worms is to use a larger can."

I like this too. Very interesting and true.

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/8/2007 1:05:17 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, enderwiggin52@... writes:

The problem is she won't even try to correct the problems she will cover them up and setup a new round of deals that will dig the hole deeper but the general public that believed that "Slick Willie" Bill Clinton was a great guy and Pres. will delude themselves into believing things or fixed and proclaim her the second coming... It will be rather like Neville Chamberlain in 1938... but with the whole world on the line, not just eastern Europe, this time...Ender

The problem with China is an old one. During WWII, we backed Chiang Chia Check (terrible misspelling) who was the free leader against Mao who was the Communist. We kept backing Chiang after the war, but endemic corruption caused them to fall to the Communists. Mao embarked on various programs that devastated China. He also got involved in the Korean War and we backed down there, which encouraged him.

Now, the current problems began in the 1960's. President Nixon ordered the CIA to do a study on the Soviet Union and other Communist states. This revealed the sad state of their economies and that holes in the alliances. So, Nixon chose to break them up by warming to China. Nixon was indeed the first US President to visit China. This did have the effect of helping break up world Communism, which wasn't that strongly united anymore since the death of Stalin, and got us involved there economically.

Since then, we have pursued the ideals of comparative advantage and free trade. In many regards, this favored China in terms of cheap labor. However, there are limits to this in terms of quality and lesser efficiency. China is reaching the limits of this and the people are angry about the low wages and poor living conditions. It is getting to be the same with India: the limits of cheap labor have about been reached and there is the quality issue as well.

What we should have focused on was a trade alliance with the developed nations like Europe, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, etc. These would be places where free trade could work a little more effectively, but not perfectly, as conditions aren't equal in all countries and countries will look after their own interests. From this, we could have worked on bringing other countries up to speed over time with the intent not of exploiting cheap labor, the old colonial mentality, but instead of making them trade partners on a more equal footing. Not all countries could be this, however, because of local conditions and government views, etc. But a few could. The rest would be why we need militaries, to protect against them.

Chamberlain might have acted differently if he had opened his eyes and realized he was affecting the entire world, not just England. It was clear to many that actions by Hitler would precipitate actions around the world and for decades to come. But instead of bold action at the beginning, he showed weakness and Hitler took advantage.

Our politicians didn't think beyond their districts and getting votes at the next election. Therefore, they didn't care that they ramped up huge national debts, because that money allowed them to get re-elected to keep up more of the same. They are still at it too. Listen to the Dems especially and it is all about more programs, more spending and more debt.The more people dependant on the government, the bigger it gets and the bigger it gets the more money it needs. Money comes from taxpayers and debt. Taxpayers are about tapped out and debt is too. There is competition now, mainly from the Euro, so the dollar and US economy isn't the end all and be all it has been. It could remain that way, however, if we rein in government and our personal spending, but mostly government.

What they have forgotten is that being debtor is to place yourself at the mercy of another, your creditors. Our chain is being yanked right now, but they seem not to notice. No real surprise right now since the campaign season has become almost 2 years long and the pols are busy stabbing each other in the back and saying stupid things to get ahead in the polls. Two years is a long time two build up a real stock of idiotic statements that foreign leaders will remember, even if the American public does not.

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/8/2007 1:05:17 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, enderwiggin52@... writes:

The problem is she won't even try to correct the problems she will cover them up and setup a new round of deals that will dig the hole deeper but the general public that believed that "Slick Willie" Bill Clinton was a great guy and Pres. will delude themselves into believing things or fixed and proclaim her the second coming... It will be rather like Neville Chamberlain in 1938... but with the whole world on the line, not just eastern Europe, this time...Ender

The problem with China is an old one. During WWII, we backed Chiang Chia Check (terrible misspelling) who was the free leader against Mao who was the Communist. We kept backing Chiang after the war, but endemic corruption caused them to fall to the Communists. Mao embarked on various programs that devastated China. He also got involved in the Korean War and we backed down there, which encouraged him.

Now, the current problems began in the 1960's. President Nixon ordered the CIA to do a study on the Soviet Union and other Communist states. This revealed the sad state of their economies and that holes in the alliances. So, Nixon chose to break them up by warming to China. Nixon was indeed the first US President to visit China. This did have the effect of helping break up world Communism, which wasn't that strongly united anymore since the death of Stalin, and got us involved there economically.

Since then, we have pursued the ideals of comparative advantage and free trade. In many regards, this favored China in terms of cheap labor. However, there are limits to this in terms of quality and lesser efficiency. China is reaching the limits of this and the people are angry about the low wages and poor living conditions. It is getting to be the same with India: the limits of cheap labor have about been reached and there is the quality issue as well.

What we should have focused on was a trade alliance with the developed nations like Europe, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, etc. These would be places where free trade could work a little more effectively, but not perfectly, as conditions aren't equal in all countries and countries will look after their own interests. From this, we could have worked on bringing other countries up to speed over time with the intent not of exploiting cheap labor, the old colonial mentality, but instead of making them trade partners on a more equal footing. Not all countries could be this, however, because of local conditions and government views, etc. But a few could. The rest would be why we need militaries, to protect against them.

Chamberlain might have acted differently if he had opened his eyes and realized he was affecting the entire world, not just England. It was clear to many that actions by Hitler would precipitate actions around the world and for decades to come. But instead of bold action at the beginning, he showed weakness and Hitler took advantage.

Our politicians didn't think beyond their districts and getting votes at the next election. Therefore, they didn't care that they ramped up huge national debts, because that money allowed them to get re-elected to keep up more of the same. They are still at it too. Listen to the Dems especially and it is all about more programs, more spending and more debt.The more people dependant on the government, the bigger it gets and the bigger it gets the more money it needs. Money comes from taxpayers and debt. Taxpayers are about tapped out and debt is too. There is competition now, mainly from the Euro, so the dollar and US economy isn't the end all and be all it has been. It could remain that way, however, if we rein in government and our personal spending, but mostly government.

What they have forgotten is that being debtor is to place yourself at the mercy of another, your creditors. Our chain is being yanked right now, but they seem not to notice. No real surprise right now since the campaign season has become almost 2 years long and the pols are busy stabbing each other in the back and saying stupid things to get ahead in the polls. Two years is a long time two build up a real stock of idiotic statements that foreign leaders will remember, even if the American public does not.

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

>

> Finally getting bitten by our politician's excessive spending,

maybe. They

> haven't done it yet, but if they do, it won't be nice.

>

>

>

>

> China threatens 'nuclear option' of dollar sales

>

> By Ambrose -Pritchard

> Last Updated: 1:48am BST 08/08/2007

>

>

> The Chinese government has begun a concerted campaign of economic

threats

> against the United States, hinting that it may liquidate its vast

holding of US

> treasuries if Washington imposes trade sanctions to force a yuan

> revaluation.

Actually to me it seems more of setting a standard. China isn't a

foolish place. they are driven, strive for excellence and catagorize

skills by groups.

This may be a more threatening and sinister play for dominence, we

(America) are too fat, lazy, and complacent. We believe many

luxuries are rights and we long ago(as many often post) expect

nothing of the poor class there is no drive to utalize those numbers

in a positive. So many working professional carry a heavy burden on

their backs. We automate more and farm out to foreign countries. we

cut ourselves off at the knees in the name of monetary gain. Our

short sighted program has not been ignored by Asia. Our days as a

the superpower in the world may be numbered.

I read a lot of Sci-fi and in many of them America is destroyed or

scattered. Just my own thoughts mimi

[Guest guest]

>

> Finally getting bitten by our politician's excessive spending,

maybe. They

> haven't done it yet, but if they do, it won't be nice.

>

>

>

>

> China threatens 'nuclear option' of dollar sales

>

> By Ambrose -Pritchard

> Last Updated: 1:48am BST 08/08/2007

>

>

> The Chinese government has begun a concerted campaign of economic

threats

> against the United States, hinting that it may liquidate its vast

holding of US

> treasuries if Washington imposes trade sanctions to force a yuan

> revaluation.

Actually to me it seems more of setting a standard. China isn't a

foolish place. they are driven, strive for excellence and catagorize

skills by groups.

This may be a more threatening and sinister play for dominence, we

(America) are too fat, lazy, and complacent. We believe many

luxuries are rights and we long ago(as many often post) expect

nothing of the poor class there is no drive to utalize those numbers

in a positive. So many working professional carry a heavy burden on

their backs. We automate more and farm out to foreign countries. we

cut ourselves off at the knees in the name of monetary gain. Our

short sighted program has not been ignored by Asia. Our days as a

the superpower in the world may be numbered.

I read a lot of Sci-fi and in many of them America is destroyed or

scattered. Just my own thoughts mimi

[Guest guest]

At 12:44 AM 8/8/2007, you wrote:

How ironic that Hillary, if

elected, will be forced to clean up the

mess her husband started with his sweeping free trade deals with

China during his term in office.

I predicted this would happen when the deals were made, but everyone

thought I was just being pessimistic or anti-Democrat. Well, one

Clinton made the mess, and now another Clinton can work to clean it

up.

The problem is she won't even try to correct the problems she will cover

them up and setup a new round of deals that will dig the hole deeper

but the general public that believed that " Slick Willie "

Bill Clinton was a great guy and Pres. will delude themselves into

believing things or fixed and proclaim her the second

coming...

It will be rather like Neville Chamberlain in 1938... but with the whole

world on the line, not just eastern Europe, this time...

Ender

Side Note:

Engineers (except the arrogant ones) believe in the wisdom of the great

and truly visionary Edsel , and his work regarding the behavior

of systems. There is a corollary to " Law "

called the " Parkinson's Principle " which states that,

" Once opened the only way to close a can of worms is to use a larger

can. "

There is also the " O'' Corollary " to " 's

Law " which states that, " was an optimist!!! "

And the " Law of Selective Randomness " that states, " When

any event occurs, it will do so at a time, place, and way to maximize the

negative affects of its occurrence. "

So it can be inferred that, " All cans will at some point in time

will leak, " " Cans of Worms will leak more often than

other cans " , and " Cans of Worms will start to leak

when ever a suitable can, in which to re-can them, is not

available. "

:-) Would that class as Aspie Humor???

[Guest guest]

At 12:44 AM 8/8/2007, you wrote:

How ironic that Hillary, if

elected, will be forced to clean up the

mess her husband started with his sweeping free trade deals with

China during his term in office.

I predicted this would happen when the deals were made, but everyone

thought I was just being pessimistic or anti-Democrat. Well, one

Clinton made the mess, and now another Clinton can work to clean it

up.

The problem is she won't even try to correct the problems she will cover

them up and setup a new round of deals that will dig the hole deeper

but the general public that believed that " Slick Willie "

Bill Clinton was a great guy and Pres. will delude themselves into

believing things or fixed and proclaim her the second

coming...

It will be rather like Neville Chamberlain in 1938... but with the whole

world on the line, not just eastern Europe, this time...

Ender

Side Note:

Engineers (except the arrogant ones) believe in the wisdom of the great

and truly visionary Edsel , and his work regarding the behavior

of systems. There is a corollary to " Law "

called the " Parkinson's Principle " which states that,

" Once opened the only way to close a can of worms is to use a larger

can. "

There is also the " O'' Corollary " to " 's

Law " which states that, " was an optimist!!! "

And the " Law of Selective Randomness " that states, " When

any event occurs, it will do so at a time, place, and way to maximize the

negative affects of its occurrence. "

So it can be inferred that, " All cans will at some point in time

will leak, " " Cans of Worms will leak more often than

other cans " , and " Cans of Worms will start to leak

when ever a suitable can, in which to re-can them, is not

available. "

:-) Would that class as Aspie Humor???

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/8/2007 4:50:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, lemnosforge@... writes:

Why has the USA government done these things? There are many reasons, but I just point out that right after the Tiananmen Square massacre, perhaps the single most important international relations policy analyst in the USA, Zbigniew Brzezinski (founder of the trilateral commission etcetera ad nauseum) loudly predicted that the Chinese government would collapse within four years. (I thought his prediction was wrong at the time and told people so.) Then suddenly he disappeared from view for about a year at which time he came out saying what a great future of economic prosperity and political stability there was for China- He had been hired at undisclosed amounts as a member of a Chinese group, basically a lobbyist group to influence american opinion. ...very tragic.

Heph

Very interesting. I hadn't heard that. One of his books was mandatory reading in a college international relations course. That is also a large part of the problem with our system I remember reading stories in the 1990's about so many foreign lobbyists, especially Chinese, at the Senate and House business committees that there wasn't any room for American lobbyists. So of course, if they packed the conferences, and slipped a lot of money under the table, then it is small wonder we have so much trouble. Another story mentioned how the Chinese laughed about how cheaply our politicians could be bought.

On the other hand, we did have a good chance to break up Communist China during the Korean War. It was Mao's Prime Minister who threatened the UN forces in Korea. Since he was Mao's man, it was the same as Mao speaking himself. The people may or may not have been loyal to Mao, but in great Chinese tradition, the top generals, politicians and bureaucrats were all a bunch of scheming backstabbers and would have loved to unseat Mao.

What we should have done was this.

When China threaten to attack, we should have again stated that we would not approach the Yalu River. We did this and offered to allow a 30 mile wide Demilitarized Zone, 30 miles on both sides of the river. The Chinese refused. We should have then said that if attacked, we would counter and punch through to Pyongyang and establish a line there along the Taedong Rive that ran through it into the eastern part of the country. Then, a DMZ would be established between the Taedong and the, can't find the name of it, but the next river about 30 miles north of it.

If we had done that, pushing the Chinese back from the 38th and capturing the enemy capital, again, it would have stood in our stead. Remember, the UN never recognized North Korea, so technically we would not be occupying a sovereign state. We could then have held that line, which would have given South Korea about 50% of the peninsula and around 70% of the population. Kim Jong-IL would have all the rest and the Chinese too. This way, we could have forced all the fighting to be in the less developed land between the Taedong and the 38th parallel. Also, because we had drawn a line and said "no further for either of us," then it would have stood in our favor in world opinion as well.

Now, this would have hurt Mao because he would have lost face. First, he would not have kicked us out of Korea. Second, we would have counter attacked and rolled his forces back a distance from the 38th and we would have taken the enemy capital and held it. By having to cross two river under fire, Chinese losses in future would have been terrible in the face of our firepower. We could have stayed largely on the defensive and dug in more and more and in depth (meaning miles deep across the ground, not deep below it) to further hurt Chinese attacks. Again, those failures and our sitting in "Communist" territory would be a loss of face.

As a result, the predators probably would have taken him out and then fell on each other. Best case scenario, another civil war in China which would have destroyed its already near dead economy and perhaps even split the country up into warlord states rather than the barely unified whole that exists today. Worst case would have been more fighting in Korea until the Chinese economy collapsed under the strain, which would not have been long at that time.

It is possible that they could have used a nuke, but in that case I would have used restraint, because of the Russians. Rather than nuke back, I would have blockaded the Chinese coast and attacked its merchant and fishing fleets. No mass destruction but it would shove the economy over the edge. The Chinese would then be so busy killing each other to restore power and order that Korea would be a non-issue.

But we chose to camp out at the 38th and suffered through several more years of active fighting and the war still goes on as a peace treaty has yet to be signed. We also have a belligerent which is capable of long term planning and is willing to be ruthless.

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/8/2007 4:50:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, lemnosforge@... writes:

Why has the USA government done these things? There are many reasons, but I just point out that right after the Tiananmen Square massacre, perhaps the single most important international relations policy analyst in the USA, Zbigniew Brzezinski (founder of the trilateral commission etcetera ad nauseum) loudly predicted that the Chinese government would collapse within four years. (I thought his prediction was wrong at the time and told people so.) Then suddenly he disappeared from view for about a year at which time he came out saying what a great future of economic prosperity and political stability there was for China- He had been hired at undisclosed amounts as a member of a Chinese group, basically a lobbyist group to influence american opinion. ...very tragic.

Heph

Very interesting. I hadn't heard that. One of his books was mandatory reading in a college international relations course. That is also a large part of the problem with our system I remember reading stories in the 1990's about so many foreign lobbyists, especially Chinese, at the Senate and House business committees that there wasn't any room for American lobbyists. So of course, if they packed the conferences, and slipped a lot of money under the table, then it is small wonder we have so much trouble. Another story mentioned how the Chinese laughed about how cheaply our politicians could be bought.

On the other hand, we did have a good chance to break up Communist China during the Korean War. It was Mao's Prime Minister who threatened the UN forces in Korea. Since he was Mao's man, it was the same as Mao speaking himself. The people may or may not have been loyal to Mao, but in great Chinese tradition, the top generals, politicians and bureaucrats were all a bunch of scheming backstabbers and would have loved to unseat Mao.

What we should have done was this.

When China threaten to attack, we should have again stated that we would not approach the Yalu River. We did this and offered to allow a 30 mile wide Demilitarized Zone, 30 miles on both sides of the river. The Chinese refused. We should have then said that if attacked, we would counter and punch through to Pyongyang and establish a line there along the Taedong Rive that ran through it into the eastern part of the country. Then, a DMZ would be established between the Taedong and the, can't find the name of it, but the next river about 30 miles north of it.

If we had done that, pushing the Chinese back from the 38th and capturing the enemy capital, again, it would have stood in our stead. Remember, the UN never recognized North Korea, so technically we would not be occupying a sovereign state. We could then have held that line, which would have given South Korea about 50% of the peninsula and around 70% of the population. Kim Jong-IL would have all the rest and the Chinese too. This way, we could have forced all the fighting to be in the less developed land between the Taedong and the 38th parallel. Also, because we had drawn a line and said "no further for either of us," then it would have stood in our favor in world opinion as well.

Now, this would have hurt Mao because he would have lost face. First, he would not have kicked us out of Korea. Second, we would have counter attacked and rolled his forces back a distance from the 38th and we would have taken the enemy capital and held it. By having to cross two river under fire, Chinese losses in future would have been terrible in the face of our firepower. We could have stayed largely on the defensive and dug in more and more and in depth (meaning miles deep across the ground, not deep below it) to further hurt Chinese attacks. Again, those failures and our sitting in "Communist" territory would be a loss of face.

As a result, the predators probably would have taken him out and then fell on each other. Best case scenario, another civil war in China which would have destroyed its already near dead economy and perhaps even split the country up into warlord states rather than the barely unified whole that exists today. Worst case would have been more fighting in Korea until the Chinese economy collapsed under the strain, which would not have been long at that time.

It is possible that they could have used a nuke, but in that case I would have used restraint, because of the Russians. Rather than nuke back, I would have blockaded the Chinese coast and attacked its merchant and fishing fleets. No mass destruction but it would shove the economy over the edge. The Chinese would then be so busy killing each other to restore power and order that Korea would be a non-issue.

But we chose to camp out at the 38th and suffered through several more years of active fighting and the war still goes on as a peace treaty has yet to be signed. We also have a belligerent which is capable of long term planning and is willing to be ruthless.

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/8/2007 4:59:37 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

The thing is, I don't think that any country ought to be compelled to accept democracy if they do not want to....And in a democracy, I have the right to express that opinion.

I agree. Democracy is not something that can just be handed to a people. They have to understand what it means beyond going to the polls now and then. It is more than just that, it is a philosophy and way of thinking and a set of ethics. If people haven't made that jump yet, then it is a wasted effort.

What I fear is that by dumping Democracy on the Iraqis and having given them a little taste of something that they don't really understand, that when it falls apart, they will be unwilling to attempt it again. We shouldn't have tried to set up a Democracy but rather something like Constitutional Monarchy with a weak Parliament and headed by a strongman of our choosing. Not the ideal system, but it is what Iraq needs right now. Once order was restored, we could begin working toward Democracy or leave the system as is it.

However, there was lot of trouble in Iraq otherwise that stood against Democracy. Three separate peoples who hated each other, major religious differences and millennia of vendettas still being acted on. Very hard to get people to cooperate under those conditions.

We should have gone in like WWII, massive firepower and flattening cities. That is what our current enemy understand. At Fallujah, rather than evacuate the people and then spend weeks fighting through the city, we should have let some civilians out and turned loose the B-52s and regiments of artillery to level the city, then not rebuild it, just leave it in ruins. Harsh, yes, but it is what the enemy understands. Doing that would have impressed them and we'd be having less trouble now because other cities would be afraid of getting the same treatment and wouldn't work with the terrorists.

But that is the problem. The terrorists are quite ruthless and are willing to far worse things than we are. If we used a little more firepower and brute force rather than precision attacks all the time, we would impress them and they would back down.

Anyway, my point is also that such force would not be necessary if the people were willing to work together in a Democracy. They aren't so right now we aren't establishing Democracy, but just keeping the lid on a very hot boiling pot that will explode at any time.

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/8/2007 4:59:37 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

The thing is, I don't think that any country ought to be compelled to accept democracy if they do not want to....And in a democracy, I have the right to express that opinion.

I agree. Democracy is not something that can just be handed to a people. They have to understand what it means beyond going to the polls now and then. It is more than just that, it is a philosophy and way of thinking and a set of ethics. If people haven't made that jump yet, then it is a wasted effort.

What I fear is that by dumping Democracy on the Iraqis and having given them a little taste of something that they don't really understand, that when it falls apart, they will be unwilling to attempt it again. We shouldn't have tried to set up a Democracy but rather something like Constitutional Monarchy with a weak Parliament and headed by a strongman of our choosing. Not the ideal system, but it is what Iraq needs right now. Once order was restored, we could begin working toward Democracy or leave the system as is it.

However, there was lot of trouble in Iraq otherwise that stood against Democracy. Three separate peoples who hated each other, major religious differences and millennia of vendettas still being acted on. Very hard to get people to cooperate under those conditions.

We should have gone in like WWII, massive firepower and flattening cities. That is what our current enemy understand. At Fallujah, rather than evacuate the people and then spend weeks fighting through the city, we should have let some civilians out and turned loose the B-52s and regiments of artillery to level the city, then not rebuild it, just leave it in ruins. Harsh, yes, but it is what the enemy understands. Doing that would have impressed them and we'd be having less trouble now because other cities would be afraid of getting the same treatment and wouldn't work with the terrorists.

But that is the problem. The terrorists are quite ruthless and are willing to far worse things than we are. If we used a little more firepower and brute force rather than precision attacks all the time, we would impress them and they would back down.

Anyway, my point is also that such force would not be necessary if the people were willing to work together in a Democracy. They aren't so right now we aren't establishing Democracy, but just keeping the lid on a very hot boiling pot that will explode at any time.

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/8/2007 5:22:51 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, lemnosforge@... writes:

In Orwell's novel 1984 the three main powers were eurasia, oceania, and the east-asians. Of course, Japan was part of the Axis powers in WWII. (I don't think Orwell ever appreciated the depth of the conflicts between the Japanese and Chinese.) But overall there's the Japan-English-Americas as oceania... the european union as eurasia including Hungary, Romania and so forth. And with the Soviets going, my guess is, with the east-asians which in this case now is the Chinese. There are many reasons for a Chinese-Russian alliance, including that they've been somewhat allied for many decades already during the cold war. But now Russian oil and rising Chinese demands for oil make for a very natural alliance, especially if they form an economic block including the former USSR republics north of China, the various 'Stans.

Heph

Most people did lump the Asian all together. Really most of them hate each other. Indeed, shortly after the Vietnam War, the Vietnamese attacked the Chinese, who had been helping the Vietnamese against us. Nothing new there, however, as the two had been at war for centuries off and on.

I always thought that the UN was highly flawed, just like the League of Nations. It allowed in nations that wanted to conquer the world and were in a position to veto any move to stop them. Remember, the Russians are on the high council AND they have three votes to the other's one. The only reason any action was taken during the Korea War was that the North launched the invasion while the Russians were boycotting the UN for some reason. had they been there, they surely would have voted against fighting the North and restoring South Korea.

What we should have had was a Free Nation's League. That would have been composed of all non-Communist and not overly socialist countries. Core members could have been the US, Canada, England, much of Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia and New Zealand. These nations are all roughly the same economically and have fairly similar views. It would have been like a combination military and trade alliance, not seeking to control member states, but to make trade easier between relative equals and allow for a common military defense. Other nations could apply for membership and would be given aid, mostly in the form of advisors and education, with some money in the form of businesses moving in and government money to help with infrastructure. They would be "second seaters" for some time, like the regular members of the UN and not on the High Council.

The Communists could have had their Bloc, just like they did anyway.

Of course, we could still have had both the UN and the Free Nation's League. Like I said, the Communists had a pretty solid Bloc, so why shouldn't the Democratic Capitalists have an official one too? I think our doing that officially and working together more closely would have shut the Communists down even sooner than actually happened.

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/8/2007 6:01:04 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

I would think Russians are more interested in an alliance with China than China is interested in having an alliance with Russia. When you consider that China has more than a billion people and Russia has only a couple hundred million, nothing but good terms prevents China from simply taking what they want from Russia. With Russia plotting its flag beaneath the waters in the arctic, thereby annoying Iceland, Greenland, Canada, the US, and other countries which border on the arctic circle, one wonders how long it will take before China does the same thing, both of their own coast and off the coast of eastern Russia.

China doesn't have a direct link to the Polar Seas and what lies below. However, they do have a vast population that is demanding resources. They DO have a border with Siberia, which is very rich in minerals and oil and is virtually unpopulated. I think the only thing keeping the Chinese from charging up and taking it is Russia's nukes. There was a program started in the 1990's to buy Russian nukes to keep them out of terrorist hands. Congress never really funded it though. Too bad about that.

To my way of thinking, if it is a choice between having it out militarily with the US or having it out militarily with Russia, fighting Russia is the way to go. Like the US, Russia has nukes, but China is adjacent to Russia and this gives China the capability of sending a land army in if it chooses. One would call it suicide for China to do such a thing, but China has enough people that they can throw them into battles the way Stalin churned troops into the war against Hitler's armies.

The Chinese leaders don't care much for their people. I think that they would send them off to die in huge numbers like they did in Korea. They might even risk nuclear strikes from the US if they thought it would be limited. The Russians on the other hand, would probably scorch the whole of China. We wouldn't have to invade however. We could do a naval blockade of the Chinese coast with our Submarines and rs. We could let it be known that any ship leaving China after a given time would be sunk, no questions asked or warnings given and that port facilities would also be hit. There are articles of Sea Law and War that would back this up.

As an option, we could up the bidding for oil going to China. We could offer to buy Chinese oil contracts, even from the likes of Iran and Sudan, with the primary aim of forcing the Chinese to pay a lot more for their oil, several times more, than they would otherwise. If we still ended up final owner of it, that's great too. The result would be that even if China ended up with the oil, paying $200 per barrel would put a drag on their economy and government. By the same token, torpedoing or cruise missiling a couple of freighters, even if we paid the home country the value of the freighter plus crew losses, would quickly shut down trade and cripple the Chinese economy, which is highly export driven.

Stalin sent his men in weaponless in some cases and the German's would mow them down row after row. Once tanks began to reach the front, THEN Stalin had the advantage and proceeded to take Germany and its eastern neighbors. China could do the same thing if necessary and MIGHT get away with avoiding a nuclear exchange.

The Russia-German thing was more complicated than that. The Russians were caught with their pants down by the Germans and really mauled at the beginning. Had Hitler pushed straight on to take Leningrad in the north and Stalingrad in the south, both could have been taken on the march and sieges could have been avoided, thus freeing up hundreds of thousands of troops to hit Moscow, and sparing the huge losses in Stalingrad later. It was Hitler's fixation on Stalingrad that tore the heart out of his army and let the Russians throw back the Germans with their new tanks and fresh formations. A lot of logistical things too.

I very much doubt that China would be willing to BUY oil with its biggest neighbor over a lengthy period of time. If Russia's claim to the artic oil fields were allowed to stand, they would have a hegenmony over Europe's and Asia's oil, especially if the US should attack Iran, -or, if O'Bama gets into office- Pakistan, or any other state thought to be harboring terrorists (and these states could include Libya, Algeria, Sundam, Etheopia, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc. -all oil producing states).With China already having an economic noose around the neck of the US, it is doubtful we could do much if China went to war with Russia. People believe that if there was a World War III, that would be an answer to the US's economic problems. But WWII was a time when the US government had a stockpile of cash and could afford to hire companies to mass-produce weapons. We are broke now. People are mortgaged to the hilt so taxing them more would put a lot of people out on the street. Our government owes other countries so much money that were the US forced to get companies to maufacture war goods, the ecomony would be more likely to collapse since the only thing the government could do to pay for what it buys is flood the market with useless currency, thereby making the dollar even more worthless than the Chinese would make it.

It isn't just the US. A lot of European manufacturing is in China too. This is a tactic of theirs, to absorb manufacturing so they can threaten to cut it off if their client doesn't do as they wish. You knew that very soon, China will be selling cars in the US? As Stalin said: a capitalist will sell you the rope you are to hang him with.

WWII is not what solved the US economic problems. The Great Depression was actually made longer because of poor, socialistic choices, like sky high taxes, upwards of 90% at the highest levels, and other things. Once those were relaxed, because enough people realized that Maynard Keynes was a drunken imbecile and began to ignore him, that the economy turned around. It would have recovered on its own without the war, just like we have from subsequent recessions and depressions. Once taxes were cut and people had an incentive to work and invest, we climb out of them.

I really do not know what will happen, but my thinking is that China is the one country that we really need to keep an eye on right now. People keep saying that the US is the last great superpower, but I have always believed that China is another one, and it is only a matter of time before they become aggressive.

China isn't a superpower yet. It is becoming a regional power and it upgrading its military very rapidly. Their military get a fixed percentage of the nation budget. With a yearly growth of over 8%, military spending automatically goes up every year. They are, however, a major economic power. Unfortunately, this his the greediest capitalists in our midst falling all over themselves to do business with the Chinese. The Chinese like this, of course, because they make money but are also tightening the leash on us as well.

They will become aggressive, it is only a matter of time. All it will take is major domestic trouble or for something to happen in the US, like a terrorist nuclear strike or major rioting and such over a contested presidential election. As soon as we show sufficient weakness, they will strike. They might even hold off until the elections or just before to carry out their economic threat to make sure a Republican does not get elected. No telling what the next President might do to mollify China, but I doubt it would be the right thing, which would be an embargo and blockade.

TomAdministrator

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.