Will the USA allow to China to become more powerful
 

For the sake of debate, assume that in 50 years China is going to be more powerful and wealthier then the United States. Will the United States allow this to happen? Policing the world seems to be a top priority of the United States government and its hard to imagine the future George Bushs of the world being okay with the fact that China will be able to kick our ass, have a stronger military, etc. So what happens? Does the president get on television and say that we must go to war with China or we will fall to number 2 and not be able to defend ourselves in the future? As China gets more and more powerful does the United States government begin to instigate confrontations to create a window for a propaganda campaign to convince the American population that a war is a good idea?

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

I think we've past the point of no return. Barring an internal collapse (or the US getting off its ass and publicly funding science again), China will become the world superpower in 20-30 years, and dominate Asia. And unless there are drastic changes in the Chinese leadership structure, this will begin a chain of events in Asia that will likely start World War III.

As for your scenario...the US can never attack China. It is rapidly militarizing and will be an unstoppable military force soon. They're estimated to have several hundred nuclear weapons as well. The only hope against China is the development of overwhelming technology and a huge change in Western ownership laws to cripple their economy and shut off their resources, which isn't going to happen.

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

I think China is more likely to be the aggressor. The communist party has no legitimate hold to power, so a few decades out if there was an economic downturn or something, I could see them starting a war to rally the people and hold onto power.

In any event, I think your much more likely to see a slow decline then violence. Why would the George Bush's of the world care, they can always shift thier money form US stocks to Chinese stocks.

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

[ QUOTE ]
I think China is more likely to be the aggressor. The communist party has no legitimate hold to power, so a few decades out if there was an economic downturn or something, I could see them starting a war to rally the people and hold onto power.



[/ QUOTE ]

Made me chuckle.

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

The thing is, there's not really anything that can be "done" about China. The preeminence of China is a demographic fact, and has been for centuries. Short of genocide, the only thing that can prevent it is the Chinese government, and they've stopped doing so. Given that, any kind of military action would only set China back a decade or so and make them justifiably hate us.

Far more likely than war is an effort to build an anti-China coalition (US, Japan, Taiwan, S.Korea(?), India, maybe Australia) to try to compel the Chinese to respect international norms.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think China is more likely to be the aggressor. The communist party has no legitimate hold to power, so a few decades out if there was an economic downturn or something, I could see them starting a war to rally the people and hold onto power.



[/ QUOTE ]

Made me chuckle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wag the Dog? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

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

Why is that?

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

[ QUOTE ]
this will begin a chain of events in Asia that will likely start World War III.

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I've seen, China's foreign policy is Real Politick. They are businessmen, conquering world trade through productivity. What makes you believe they are into world wars of aggression? They strike me as far, far, less reckless than the US, militarily.

The way many commentators are talking about China, they seem desperate for an enemy. China's military spending is a sliver of the U.S. 2005, U.S. military budget was seven times China's.

I'm surprised to find myself defending China, but marking it as a special threat to world peace does not appear supported.

[ QUOTE ]
try to compel the Chinese to respect international norms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is China especially egregious in anything? I mean, it commits more crimes against its people than most countries because it is so big. But what are they doing that isn't common?

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

I don't see them doing anything in the next 30 years, but they've done a very good job of keeping the Taiwan option open. If thier economy advances and the middle class starts wanting representation, if thier economic promises ever faltered, they could try to reclaim Taiwan in a war to solidify thier power.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this will begin a chain of events in Asia that will likely start World War III.

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I've seen, China's foreign policy is Real Politick. They are businessmen, conquering world trade through productivity. What makes you believe they are into world wars of aggression? They strike me as far, far, less reckless than the US, militarily.

The way many commentators are talking about China, they seem desperate for an enemy. China's military spending is a sliver of the U.S. 2005, U.S. military budget was seven times China's.

I'm surprised to find myself defending China, but marking it as a special threat to world peace does not appear supported.

[ QUOTE ]
try to compel the Chinese to respect international norms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is China especially egregious in anything? I mean, it commits more crimes against its people than most countries because it is so big. But what are they doing that isn't common?

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone did post China's past military aggressions, and to me it was a surprisingly long or robust list, including in the 20th century. Sorry I can't remember more details.

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

[ QUOTE ]
The way many commentators are talking about China, they seem desperate for an enemy. China's military spending is a sliver of the U.S. 2005, U.S. military budget was seven times China's.



[/ QUOTE ]

Wow! thats insane! Thanks for the link

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

[ QUOTE ]
I mean, it commits more crimes against its people than most countries because it is so big.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, what? It commits more crimes against its people because it's so big AND because the government represses the [censored] out of the population. Complete denial of political rights, repression of the media, secret trials, gross invasions of reproductive rights, all on a massive scale.

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

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.

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

Should the British Empire stop the ascendancy of its former colony the United States of America ?

Oh wait.......

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

[ 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.

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

[ QUOTE ]
It commits more crimes against its people... Complete denial of political rights, repression of the media, secret trials, gross invasions of reproductive rights....

[/ QUOTE ]

That is all awful, but it is not unusual. Saudi Arabia, Singapore, West Bank, many republics in the former Soviet Union, etc. etc., all rival China for human rights abuses Some US allies, some not.

What I'm driving at is what makes China a particular threat to other countries? (Beyond of course Tibet or Taiwan.)

I can't think of anywhere it has invaded besides bordering countries. While horrible, what reason do we have to expect military conquest of Japan, India, etc.? The US is out of the question, an amphibious assault on California is preposterous. Where's the treat to us?

If anybody, it's China threatened by the US quest for "full spectrum dominance."

Here is the sort of thing provoking China and Russia: Russia has just resumed long-range bomber patrol after 15 years, because the US is engaging in an arms race. Vladimir Putin:

"We have decided to restore flights by Russian strategic bombers on a permanent basis," he said.

He added: "Russia stopped this practice in 1992. Unfortunately not everybody followed suit."

Guardian article (London).

The US had 15 years to respond to the end of the Cold War and return to a peace-time military, but no.

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

[ QUOTE ]
If anybody, it's China threatened by the US quest for "full spectrum dominance."

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to not understand that military action in a democracy is guided by, fundamentally a citizenship's preferences, and then whatever is best for politicians to be elected and keep their jobs.

America and its allies, while maybe loose militarily, have no ambition to conquer the world. World dominance was so 18th century.

I realize it might be fun for you to visualize the U.S. military as some entity that does what it wants whenever it wants, but 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. And the idea that an attack on a country like China (particularly because both countries gain so much through trade) could be even remotely politically plausible is almost laughable.

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.

I agree with you that it's probably also ridiculous to think China would want to attack us (particularly because their military will not be anywhere close to ours for at least a couple decades, and again because they gain so much from our economy). Not being terribly familiar with China though, I personally am not really sure what exactly makes their leaders tick, so I'd yield to someone who knows more.

The only reason I'd say China might be slightly more likely to start something, is their government's willingness to censor information from their citizens. All leaders everywhere are power hungry [censored]. So the idea of a billion or so people acting without full information is sort of scary. Western democracies might have our own sort of systematic indoctrination to promote the righteousness of our side, but that's different and less dangerous than flat censorship, imo. But ultimately I just don't see any reason why China's leaders would want to start a military conflict with us anyways.

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

Well my brother went to China two months ago and he said that they hate the USA and would never sing the national anthem even if they could do it in chinese. So i think that china must be plotting to take over the state. They probably will set up lots of mini bases in the forum of take out food restaurants and arm them with cheap starches to slow the american people down. Then they will all come over in container ships similar to the trojan horse attack. when they have landed i hear they plan to invade everyone house that has purchased made in china merchandise and then kill everyone and that will be enough and then they will go home cause that all they wanted to do. but this is just what my brother said so don't quote me and he might not have gone to china he might have gone to australia but they are both close to each other so rumours do spread. remeber loose lips sink ships

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

[ 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? 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 ]
...no ambition to conquer the world. World dominance was so 18th century.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not conquest in the classic colonial sense, but the march toward full-spectrum dominance of the world is openly proclaimed and promoted. From the horses mouth.
This refers to unchallengeable military supremacy from outer space to the bottom of the ocean, of the entire world. Military control of major resources and markets, and an elaborate parallel universe of bases circling the globe.

[ 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. 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. Did you know the government is legally barred from negotiating prices of the drugs Medicare buys???!!!! Nothing so astoundingly harmful and craven could get done if the government ultimately answered to citizen preferences.

[ 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. By controlling much of China's oil (by controlling Mideast), the shipping lanes, it's neighbors, its airspace -- this all means China is over a barrel. It cannot drive good bargains because it knows if push came to shove, it will lose a war. In the language of power, war itself is rarely resorted to. The military balance dictates the agreements countries reach. Any great power is going to feel highly threatened by absolute military dominance, even when an occupation is out of the question. So yes, it is foremost America's arms race that threatens other countries and threatens stability.

[ 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 ]
The only reason I'd say China might be slightly more likely to start something, is their government's willingness to censor information from their citizens.

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly censorship cripples the citizenry. But the American empire gets by very well with limited censorship by overpowering the public space with propaganda and corrupted news media.

[ 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.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Well my brother went to China two months ago and he said that they hate the USA... So i think that china must be plotting to take over the states.

[/ QUOTE ]

That slays me!!

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?

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

USSR is one example. You said "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." I can certainly give examples of countries without a strong military and a failry socialized political system and they have a great deal of personal liberty -- in some cases, more than Americans. By the way, the Founding Fathers would generally completely disagree with your assertion that a strong military preserves liberty -- they were insightful enough to conclude the exact opposite.

"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"An armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics -- that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe..." ~ James Madison

"Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." ~ George Washington

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

USSR is one example. You said "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." I can certainly give examples of countries without a strong military and a failry socialized political system and they have a great deal of personal liberty -- in some cases, more than Americans. By the way, the Founding Fathers would generally completely disagree with your assertion that a strong military preserves liberty -- they were insightful enough to conclude the exact opposite.

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant that a strong military is necessary to protect a country from would-be foreign attackers. Liberty can be usurped by conquerors as well as by forces within a country.

[ QUOTE ]
"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"An armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics -- that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe..." ~ James Madison

"Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." ~ George Washington

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is exactly why nearly every citizen should be armed as well, so the government and the criminals aren't the only ones with guns. I do think a strong military is in today's world essential to discourage external foes from military adventurism at our expense. I also think an armed populace is essential to discourage government tyranny.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

By "broadly empowered" I'm referring to the legal purview of the federal government within the country.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

I think most of that stems from a federal government that has been given, or has usurped, powers that were not intended to be granted it by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Specifics may vary, but I think that generally the broader the legal powers of the federal government, and the more heavily it is funded, the easier it is for that government to make war. Also, giving the federal government broad powers is not always neatly compartmentalized. Legally, the rationale that is used to give the fedrral government certain (desirable) powers can often be used to give that same government undesirable powers. I think it is best to not give the federal government broad powers, but rather only narrowly defined and enumerated powers, much as the founders of this country originally established. By following such a principle, the evils of government will be restrained for the most part. If, for instance, the states instead of the federal government must address the education issue, well then so be it, that's a small price to pay for keeping the size and scope of the federal government under control and limited.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

I think we can agree that a powerful state and empire each require the other for existence.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Much remains to be seen.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

USSR is one example. You said "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." I can certainly give examples of countries without a strong military and a failry socialized political system and they have a great deal of personal liberty -- in some cases, more than Americans. By the way, the Founding Fathers would generally completely disagree with your assertion that a strong military preserves liberty -- they were insightful enough to conclude the exact opposite.

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant that a strong military is necessary to protect a country from would-be foreign attackers. Liberty can be usurped by conquerors as well as by forces within a country.

[ QUOTE ]
"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"An armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics -- that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe..." ~ James Madison

"Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." ~ George Washington

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is exactly why nearly every citizen should be armed as well, so the government and the criminals aren't the only ones with guns. I do think a strong military is in today's world essential to discourage external foes from military adventurism at our expense. I also think an armed populace is essential to discourage government tyranny.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as the US goes, I surmise our stroung military and international interventionism has increased our peril rather than reduced it. I can't imagine any foreign invaders wanting to attempt to subdue an armed, freedom-loving, advanced society of 300 million protected by vast oceans onm both sides unless we gave them some pretty good reasons. Look at how much trouble it is for the world's largest military to subdue a small relatively 3rd world adversary we are fighting in Iraq. I believe to exaggerate the threat of foreign invasion as a justification for the size of our military is to clearly engage in fear-mongering.

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

[ QUOTE ]
As far as the US goes, I surmise our stroung military and international interventionism has increased our peril rather than reduced it.

[/ QUOTE ]

International adventurism has of couse increased peril. I don't see why a strong military, if used defensively, would have increased our peril. I don't even see why you combined the two in the same sentence, but maybe I'm missing something.

[ QUOTE ]
I can't imagine any foreign invaders wanting to attempt to subdue an armed, freedom-loving, advanced society of 300 million protected by vast oceans onm both sides...

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, Japan attacked America.

[ QUOTE ]
unless we gave them some pretty good reasons...

[/ QUOTE ]

And/or unless they thought we gave them some pretty good reasons. Or there might be a struggle for resources. Or an aggressor also simply might be in the conquering mode. Was Nazi Germany "given some pretty good reasons" to attack its neighbors??? Churchill was right, IMO. Strength is necessary for peace; and international agreemnents don't hold water when it comes to serious conflict of interests.

[ QUOTE ]
Look at how much trouble it is for the world's largest military to subdue a small relatively 3rd world adversary we are fighting in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it's a great difficulty (and I would say probably an impossibility given our rules of engagement and ultimate goals. I've long thought that trying to force Middle Eastern Muslims to become Western-style Demopublicans is an impossibility and doomed to failure).

[ QUOTE ]
I believe to exaggerate the threat of foreign invasion as a justification for the size of our military is to clearly engage in fear-mongering.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you may believe, but I feel better knowing that no country dare attack or invade us. How does one assess the long-term risks of being attacked by another country, anyway? I don't trust readily, and history seems to bear out that distrust is the wiser and more prudent course. It is generally only a matter of time before the militarily weak are attacked.

Thanks for your responses.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't imagine any foreign invaders wanting to attempt to subdue [the U.S.]

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, Japan attacked America....

I feel better knowing that no country dare attack or invade us.... only a matter of time before the militarily weak are attacked.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, I see the root of how your perceptions differ from Kaj and mine. You believe the U.S. is much more vulnerable than we do (I think I can include Kaj here).

Case in point, you seem to believe Japan wanted to conquer the U.S. But there was never a thought of a land occupation of California. The attack was entirely to drive the US out of East Asia, where Japan wanted exclusive domination. The U.S. entered both WWI and WWII to protect/extend influence on world affairs and politics. We could have sat out both wars, especially WWI, if we chose to, without threat of being occupied. There would be all kinds other consequences, and I'm not arguing against participation in WWII, but the issue was world influence, not protection from foreign invasion.

Think about it. By what scenario could a huge amphibious invasion of the US succeed, and what would possibly make it worth it? And even if they reached our shores, they could never control the territory. The U.S. killed around 3 million from tiny Vietnam, and never had a chance of controlling the populace.

Sure, there can be some sniping and terrorism against the US, but only we can revoke freedom.

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

[ QUOTE ]
...Case in point, you seem to believe Japan wanted to conquer the U.S. But there was never a thought of a land occupation of California. The attack was entirely to drive the US out of East Asia, where Japan wanted exclusive domination. The U.S. entered both WWI and WWII to protect/extend influence on world affairs and politics. We could have sat out both wars, especially WWI, if we chose to, without threat of being occupied. There would be all kinds other consequences, and I'm not arguing against participation in WWII, but the issue was world influence, not protection from foreign invasion.

Think about it. By what scenario could a huge amphibious invasion of the US succeed, and what would possibly make it worth it? And even if they reached our shores, they could never control the territory. The U.S. killed around 3 million from tiny Vietnam, and never had a chance of controlling the populace.

Sure, there can be some sniping and terrorism against the US, but only we can revoke freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow! Historical revison FTW!

So when The Nazis had control of all europe and Africa, and there Japanese allies friends all of Asia and the western Pacific they would have just Stopped RIGHT there? Because, well, because, well., [censored], it's your theory, you tell me why they would have both stopped?

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...Case in point, you seem to believe Japan wanted to conquer the U.S. But there was never a thought of a land occupation of California. The attack was entirely to drive the US out of East Asia, where Japan wanted exclusive domination. The U.S. entered both WWI and WWII to protect/extend influence on world affairs and politics. We could have sat out both wars, especially WWI, if we chose to, without threat of being occupied. There would be all kinds other consequences, and I'm not arguing against participation in WWII, but the issue was world influence, not protection from foreign invasion.

Think about it. By what scenario could a huge amphibious invasion of the US succeed, and what would possibly make it worth it? And even if they reached our shores, they could never control the territory. The U.S. killed around 3 million from tiny Vietnam, and never had a chance of controlling the populace.

Sure, there can be some sniping and terrorism against the US, but only we can revoke freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow! Historical revison FTW!

So when The Nazis had control of all europe and Africa, and there Japanese allies friends all of Asia and the western Pacific they would have just Stopped RIGHT there? Because, well, because, well., [censored], it's your theory, you tell me why they would have both stopped?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, of course. To think Hitler or Japan wanted to invade America is the real revisionism.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...Case in point, you seem to believe Japan wanted to conquer the U.S. But there was never a thought of a land occupation of California. The attack was entirely to drive the US out of East Asia, where Japan wanted exclusive domination. The U.S. entered both WWI and WWII to protect/extend influence on world affairs and politics. We could have sat out both wars, especially WWI, if we chose to, without threat of being occupied. There would be all kinds other consequences, and I'm not arguing against participation in WWII, but the issue was world influence, not protection from foreign invasion.

Think about it. By what scenario could a huge amphibious invasion of the US succeed, and what would possibly make it worth it? And even if they reached our shores, they could never control the territory. The U.S. killed around 3 million from tiny Vietnam, and never had a chance of controlling the populace.

Sure, there can be some sniping and terrorism against the US, but only we can revoke freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow! Historical revison FTW!

So when The Nazis had control of all europe and Africa, and there Japanese allies friends all of Asia and the western Pacific they would have just Stopped RIGHT there? Because, well, because, well., [censored], it's your theory, you tell me why they would have both stopped?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, of course. To think Hitler or Japan wanted to invade America is the real revisionism.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK so using your awesome straw, ad hominen logic we'll just add
[*] Japanese atrocity and agression apologist[*] Nazi atrocity and aggression apologist

to your list of brilliant intelectual contributions
[*] Radical Islamic terror apologist[*] Any American targeting terrorists apologist[*] Iran for the big bomb apologist[*] Hate any and all things American strongest supporter.


weeeeeeeeeeee! Let's play the Haj gimmick sniper game!

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...Case in point, you seem to believe Japan wanted to conquer the U.S. But there was never a thought of a land occupation of California. The attack was entirely to drive the US out of East Asia, where Japan wanted exclusive domination. The U.S. entered both WWI and WWII to protect/extend influence on world affairs and politics. We could have sat out both wars, especially WWI, if we chose to, without threat of being occupied. There would be all kinds other consequences, and I'm not arguing against participation in WWII, but the issue was world influence, not protection from foreign invasion.

Think about it. By what scenario could a huge amphibious invasion of the US succeed, and what would possibly make it worth it? And even if they reached our shores, they could never control the territory. The U.S. killed around 3 million from tiny Vietnam, and never had a chance of controlling the populace.

Sure, there can be some sniping and terrorism against the US, but only we can revoke freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow! Historical revison FTW!

So when The Nazis had control of all europe and Africa, and there Japanese allies friends all of Asia and the western Pacific they would have just Stopped RIGHT there? Because, well, because, well., [censored], it's your theory, you tell me why they would have both stopped?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, of course. To think Hitler or Japan wanted to invade America is the real revisionism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe you or anyone else alive today knows what Japan or Germany would have done had they won the war. If you actually know, please illuminate the rest of us.