Re: Will the USA allow to China to become more powerful
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You seem to not understand that military action in a democracy is guided by, fundamentally a citizenship's preferences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Must you word things condescendingly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I guess that was bad word choice. I was just trying to make a point and sometimes I forget that people on the internet are real people with real feelings.

[ QUOTE ]
And you do not seem to understand reality. A strong majority of the country is against the war in Iraq, but even the "opposition" Democrats (minus Kucinich) have announced they are not leaving for the foreseeable future. The Democrats got a mandate, but keep cravenly knuckling under to Bush, even on civil liberties basics. Where's the citizen preference in that? You don't understand that just because people have the vote does not mean they are not flummoxed by corrupted information and aggressive lying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Almost everyone is against the war *now*. When it started, it required the 911/WMD/Saddam sucks story line, and enough people bought it to make it plausible. I really do not see any foreseeable recipe to make attacking China even a remote possibility.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the truth is it is restrained by the (sometimes misguided) preferences of its citizens. Really all it does is respond to what will win elections for politicians.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, enough with the civics class quotes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Civics class? I guess I'll take it as a compliment that you assume I'm educated, but I never took any classes that had much to do with politics, and wouldn't have been awake if I had.

[ QUOTE ]
Things a strong majority want but do not get from politicians: universal health coverage, more money for education, an end to the wars of Korea, Vietnam, Gulf II. (We got two of those, but way later than people wanted.) Greater environmental protection, more investment in alternative energies. The right of Medicare to bargain drug prices.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are things a "strong majority" wants? Or these are things *you* want and wish other people agreed with you?

If you have data showing that a "strong majority" supports universalized medicine, then I'd love to see it.

Regardless, I'm not even saying the system is a perfect reflection. Democracy is inherently inefficient. All I'm saying is that if the government wants to do something that is totally out of line with what the mainstream wants, then it won't be able to, because politicians do not commit suicide. They don't do things that are unpopular because unpopular things do not get them re-elected. I'm confused how you actually disagree with this.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the idea that an attack on a country like China ...could be even remotely politically plausible is almost laughable.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the U.S. threat is not in the form of an intended invasion. ... The military balance dictates the agreements countries reach.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh OK. That's all you meant.

[ QUOTE ]
Any great power is going to feel highly threatened by absolute military dominance, even when an occupation is out of the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you agree an actual war is out of the question, and that the "arms race" is then for bargaining power. I agree with that, and personally don't have a problem with our country doing that. But when you throw around words like "threatening stability" you imply that we are recklessly waiting for an opportunity to strike them. If all you meant is that we're building our arms for bargaining power, and you don't agree with that, then fine.

[ QUOTE ]
So yes, it is foremost America's arms race that threatens other countries and threatens stability.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shhh. Cut that out. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Attacking a small country with what is seen as a ruthless dictator in the Middle East after September 11th is like a political gimme. Don't let that lead you to believe that attacking China is even a remote possibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're a lawyer?? And don't know what a straw man is?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not a lawyer. What straw man did I use? lol. All I was saying was that trigger happy politicians may have had a relatively easy time invading Iraq, but doing so to China (when I thought that's what you meant) would be much tougher.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just don't see any reason why China's leaders would want to start a military conflict with us anyways.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then contemplate just why in the hell it is being pumped up as this existential threat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? I don't know, you tell me??

I'm agreeing with you that China is not really any threat to peace. I have no idea what you point is with this line.

My head hurts.

Re: Will the USA allow to China to become more powerful
 

[ QUOTE ]
Almost everyone is against the war *now*.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well yea, yet there is no movement towards a pullout. Even the Democrat's rhetoric is barely opposed to the war. Where is the governmental responsiveness? Any responsiveness at all?

[ QUOTE ]
All I'm saying is that if the government wants to do something that is totally out of line with what the mainstream wants, then it won't be able to, because politicians do not commit suicide.

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't commit suicide because everything is spun so well, and especially because the media refuse to say the emperor has no clothes.

84% support insuring all children. 62% are willing to pay higher taxes for insuring everyone. Times poll.

The war, universal health, drug prices, investment in alternative energy, freedom, -- on all the most important political questions, they government is outside the mainstream. Yet it gets away with it.

[ QUOTE ]
So you agree an actual war is out of the question, and that the "arms race" is then for bargaining power. I agree with that, and personally don't have a problem with our country doing that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, just because they don't want war with the big dogs doesn't mean peace. Full-spectrum dominance means endless little wars -- Iraq for starters. Look at the price we pay for empire. War in Iraq; the expense -- our country is bankrupt. We spend more on weapons than the rest of the world put together. (No lie.) Empire is destroying civil liberties. It was unthinkable 30 years ago for the government to openly engage in torture. Protections against wiretapping are now hollow. Even habeas corpus is being messed with. We are losing even the most basic red, white, and blue freedoms.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just don't see any reason why China's leaders would want to start a military conflict with us anyways.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Then contemplate just why in the hell it is being pumped up as this existential threat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? I don't know, you tell me??

[/ QUOTE ]

Because that's how they get around mainstream preferences -- by frightening people.

Re: Will the USA allow to China to become more powerful
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Almost everyone is against the war *now*.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well yea, yet there is no movement towards a pullout. Even the Democrat's rhetoric is barely opposed to the war. Where is the governmental responsiveness? Any responsiveness at all?

[ QUOTE ]
All I'm saying is that if the government wants to do something that is totally out of line with what the mainstream wants, then it won't be able to, because politicians do not commit suicide.

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't commit suicide because everything is spun so well, and especially because the media refuse to say the emperor has no clothes.

84% support insuring all children. 62% are willing to pay higher taxes for insuring everyone. Times poll.

The war, universal health, drug prices, investment in alternative energy, freedom, -- on all the most important political questions, they government is outside the mainstream. Yet it gets away with it.

[ QUOTE ]
So you agree an actual war is out of the question, and that the "arms race" is then for bargaining power. I agree with that, and personally don't have a problem with our country doing that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, just because they don't want war with the big dogs doesn't mean peace. Full-spectrum dominance means endless little wars -- Iraq for starters. Look at the price we pay for empire. War in Iraq; the expense -- our country is bankrupt. We spend more on weapons than the rest of the world put together. (No lie.) Empire is destroying civil liberties. It was unthinkable 30 years ago for the government to openly engage in torture. Protections against wiretapping are now hollow. Even habeas corpus is being messed with. We are losing even the most basic red, white, and blue freedoms.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just don't see any reason why China's leaders would want to start a military conflict with us anyways.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Then contemplate just why in the hell it is being pumped up as this existential threat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? I don't know, you tell me??

[/ QUOTE ]

Because that's how they get around mainstream preferences -- by frightening people.

[/ QUOTE ]

My view is that it's not empire that is responsible for destroying civil liberties; rather, it's the overbroad interpretations of the General Welfare clause, the Commerce Clause, the 14th Amendment, and existence of the Income Tax.

I'm sure that I am as much against irrational wars and loss of civil liberties as you are. I just don't think it's primarily a matter of empire or leftist-rightist approaches.
I think it's largely due to departure from a narrow interpretation of our Constitutional roots and basis. The Federal Government keeps gaining more and more power at the expense of the states and individual citizens, and that gain in federal power is what is causing things like the Iraq War and loss of civil liberties. Of course, that path was started on many decades ago.

If the military positions of China and the USA were completely reversed, that is, switched, today, we could be
pretty sure that China would be an even bigger threat to peace than the USA is. That's because China's central government has even more internal power than the USA's federal government. A strong federal government with broad powers is Bad with a capital "B" except in very limited capacities such as national defense.

Take a look at Switzerland and notice how the powers of their federal government are pretty weak, relatively speaking, compared to the powers of their states or cantons. It's no coincidence that the Swiss are not embroiled in foreign wars (of course their policies help too).

If the U.S. federal government were to be returned to its originally intended Constitutional limits, with the addition of the Bill of Rights, there would be far less overseas meddling or war-mongering. To that end, I think Amendments should be passed now rewriting the Commerce Clause, the General Welfare clause, etc. in a manner in which they can only be interpreted narrowly. The 14th Amendment, which was illegally passed, has done much to strip power from the States and give it to the federal government. And of course the 16th Amendment, the income tax, is designed to fund and thereby empower the federal governme t far beyond its originally intended role.

If you don't want empire, it doesn't make sense to want a greatly empowered federal government. Yet many left-leaning persons don't seem to make this connection.

Any country with a strong military AND a strong broadly empowered federal government may well pose potential and real threats to other countries. I believe a strong military is important to the preservation of liberty. A broadly empowered federal government, though, is antithetical to the preservation of liberty. Combine the two things and that is what we are seeing now, a continual usurpation of our civil rights along with misguided war-mongering abroad.

I don't think the leftist idea of equalizing opponents or creating greater central control is the answer. I think the answer is pass specific legislation returning America to its Constitutional roots. Specifically, the Welfare Clause and Commerce Clause need Amendments forcing a narrow interpretation. The 14th and 16th Amendments need to be repealed. If those things are done, empire will not be a concern much longer, and the withering flower of liberty called America will again spring forth out of rains and into sunshine.

Thanks for reading.

Re: Will the USA allow to China to become more powerful
 

Except there are dozens of left-leaning states throughout the world who aren't worried about maintaining an empire. So I think your whole premise is wrong.

Re: Will the USA allow to China to become more powerful
 

[ QUOTE ]
Except there are dozens of left-leaning states throughout the world who aren't worried about maintaining an empire. So I think your whole premise is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, there are dozens of right-leaning states that can be said for as well. No country that isn't sufficiently large and powerful will have a far-reaching empire.

I think any country with a lot of power and a strong central government is interested in maintaining that power. Why do you think otherwise?

I think the only reason we don't see a much greater amount of hegemonistic activity by China is because China isn't yet powerful enough to fully exert its powers on a global scale. Yet, China has acted militaristically with regards to Tibet and other border states, and is now building its military at a faster rate of increase than is the USA, and is artificially setting the value of its currency to give itself international trading/economic advantages. The USSR, while it lasted, acted to expand its power and empire both militarily and politically. So I'm not understanding how you mean the assertion above.

Thanks for reading and responding.

Re: Will the USA allow to China to become more powerful
 

[ QUOTE ]
I believe a strong military is important to the preservation of liberty. A broadly empowered federal government, though, is antithetical to the preservation of liberty.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if you have a large military, you have a broadly empowered federal government. They are one in the same.

[ QUOTE ]
it's not empire that is responsible for destroying civil liberties; rather, it's the overbroad interpretations of the General Welfare clause,the Commerce Clause...

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly the powers arrogated by the government are a basis for all kinds of mischief. But the most recent and egregious restrictions on freedom all stem from empire: wiretapping, destruction of habeas corpus, torture, murder of journalists (non-U.S.), and worst of all, war.

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't want empire, it doesn't make sense to want a greatly empowered federal government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Every leftist I know wants the national security state vastly scaled down. And I don't think you should assume that a generically large state automatically leads to foreign aggression. It's all in the particulars. India, Brazil, South Africa, China, are all very powerful states, but their aggression is almost exclusively directed inward. If we expanded Medicare, the EPA, the Department of Education -- I don't see how they provide an institutional basis for war, except in the loosest sense. The state faction that is the military-industrial complex is distinctly hostile to growth of many parts of government.

[ QUOTE ]
If the military positions of China and the USA were completely reversed, that is, switched, today, we could be
pretty sure that China would be an even bigger threat to peace than the USA is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you can assume this based on generalities about the nature of the state. There are things working in the other direction. What makes the US particularly dangerous is pervasive idealism -- the certainty that we are always motivated by good. All the worst atrocities are made possible by commitment to doing good. I think the Chinese state is more real politick. Everybody knows they live in a corrupt police state, and like the deeply cynical Soviet people, they are immunized against idealism. Their government has such control over people that it needs to do much less bamboozling about altruism. The American state does, however, have to put more effort into persuading the populace. Hence, this great effort to convince people that matters of state and power are guided by altruism, not greed. The belief we do right is the key enabler of our state terrorism around the world.

China is brutal, but it has not fought so many stupid wars -- Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc. It's wars have all been clearly linked to secure borders, yet none of ours have been since 1865.

You cannot assume an overweening central government automatically leads to empire and aggression. There are so many exceptions (shall we list them?) and so many other factors involved.

But I think we can say that a powerful state is one of the necessities of empire.

[ QUOTE ]
China isn't yet powerful enough to fully exert its powers on a global scale.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that is true. But it remains to be seen if Chinese power will take the militaristic form of the US. China has immense competitive advantages. The US economic power is greatly in decline -- it is relying more and on militarism, especially control of the world's on-off switch. When you look at specific factors, rather than general theory of state, I don't see much evidence of China becoming more reckless than the US. Anything can change, but that's not what we see now, and nothing is predetermined.

Re: Will the USA allow to China to become more powerful
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You guys are all wrong. The US will attack China in less than 20 years. The planning is already in the works and the indoctrination of "China must be stopped" is pervasive through the military.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually think a war between the US and China is sickeningly likely, but if it happens, it's virtually certain to be over an attempted Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

[/ QUOTE ]

contrary, i'd say it would be virtually impossible to expect US would be willing to lose millions of americans just for saving taiwan.
i'd say a direct war with china is the most unlikely of all, including wars against russia, europe, britain, canada, etc.

Re: Will the USA allow to China to become more powerful
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You guys are all wrong. The US will attack China in less than 20 years. The planning is already in the works and the indoctrination of "China must be stopped" is pervasive through the military.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually think a war between the US and China is sickeningly likely, but if it happens, it's virtually certain to be over an attempted Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

[/ QUOTE ]

contrary, i'd say it would be virtually impossible to expect US would be willing to lose millions of americans just for saving taiwan.
i'd say a direct war with china is the most unlikely of all, including wars against russia, europe, britain, canada, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Millions of Americans? A war over Taiwan would be neither nuclear nor a land war.

Re: Will the USA allow to China to become more powerful
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You guys are all wrong. The US will attack China in less than 20 years. The planning is already in the works and the indoctrination of "China must be stopped" is pervasive through the military.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually think a war between the US and China is sickeningly likely, but if it happens, it's virtually certain to be over an attempted Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

[/ QUOTE ]

contrary, i'd say it would be virtually impossible to expect US would be willing to lose millions of americans just for saving taiwan.
i'd say a direct war with china is the most unlikely of all, including wars against russia, europe, britain, canada, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Millions of Americans? A war over Taiwan would be neither nuclear nor a land war.

[/ QUOTE ]

wanted to say US would never go into a direct war with china. how many US victims would it be in case of direct war with china in your opinion?

Re: Will the USA allow to China to become more powerful
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You guys are all wrong. The US will attack China in less than 20 years. The planning is already in the works and the indoctrination of "China must be stopped" is pervasive through the military.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually think a war between the US and China is sickeningly likely, but if it happens, it's virtually certain to be over an attempted Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

[/ QUOTE ]

contrary, i'd say it would be virtually impossible to expect US would be willing to lose millions of americans just for saving taiwan.
i'd say a direct war with china is the most unlikely of all, including wars against russia, europe, britain, canada, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Millions of Americans? A war over Taiwan would be neither nuclear nor a land war.

[/ QUOTE ]
And if the U.S. interferes in a chinese invasion of Taiwan, you don´t think there is a risk of the conflict escalating?