It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by infinite
Most of their growth now comes from domestic consumption, the economy has been adapted during the "Great Recession." It is slowly drifting away from being dominated by American consumers.
Originally posted by crisko
It seem's I need a second line - China? Sure - they have money but it's akin to a banker walking into a biker bar. What are they going to do, throw rice at our B-52's?
Originally posted by infinite
I do love jingoistic Americans. Surprised you did not advocate nuclear strikes
So, if the Chinese government liquidated all its US Treasuries and Dollar reserves, you think Uncle Sam will still be strong? It would trigger a global sell off.
The Chinese are a bunch of morons. They just keep taking it and taking it. Buying our debt. I wonder who REALLY is pulling the strings behind China's government.
The US government are a bunch of idiots. The Chinese are a very powerful country. Plus the Chinese are our biggest trading partner and own our debt. It's almost as if itching for a fight........are we as Americans that stupid?
The last major review was released in 2006 and the Pentagon's view of the world has changed dramatically in the four years since.
The 2006 review was heavily focused on the threat of a large-scale conventional war with China and that country's saber rattling over Taiwan. It also stressed the need for more of and a greater role for special forces troops for use in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The 2010 review still stresses the threats from China, but will look at the need to defend against a growing threat of cyber attacks -- without directly tying China to past cyber attacks, according to Pentagon officials -- and China's focus on preemptively striking and crippling an adversary's ability to tell what it will do next ahead of a large attack.
"Prudence demands that future conflicts could involve kinetic and non-kinetic (use of explosive weapons and laser weapons) attacks on space-based surveillance and communications," according to the draft.
China mulls setting up military base in Pakistan BEIJING: China has signaled it wants to go the US way and set up military bases in overseas locations that would possibly include Pakistan. The obvious purpose would be to exert pressure on India as well as counter US influence in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Well, why not? China already pays for our military imperialism by loaning us the money to play soldier. So, why shouldn't the world's new Superpower just cut to the chase and open their own bases?
Setting up overseas military bases is not an idea we have to shun; on the contrary, it is our right. Bases established by other countries appear to be used to protect their overseas rights and interests. As long as the bases are set up in line with international laws and regulations, they are legal ones. But if the bases are established to harm other countries, their existence becomes illegal and they are likely to be opposed by other countries. China develops its military force with a theme of peace in mind. Therefore, we can either develop military forces domestically to maintain peace, or place the forces abroad as long as we take world peace as the ultimate goal.
Needless to say, The Cato Institute is having a cow over this "revolting development:" The lay reader should be clear that the United States does not look favorably on China’s developing the ability to guarantee its own smooth trading; we like having the leverage to determine, ultimately,whether we will allow foreign countries to trade.
Originally posted by crisko
reply to post by ANNED
That's not it at all. The new balance of power is forming U.S. and the E.U. and then Russia & China. I predict Japan will gravitate towards China and Australia will fall in line with the west.
Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by blujay
So true blujay it is all about a battle between the light which is rapidly fading to darkness and the light.
Sadly while some of us will win that war, and evolve above and beyond far too many are going to loose and be lost.
It's a shame people can't open their eyes and their hearts and their minds and question and think more.
Great addition!
CHINA yesterday intensified its attacks on the US government for its decision to sell $US7.2 billion ($8.14bn) of arms to Taiwan but was careful not to level similar criticisms at the recipient, the government in Taipei.
All the major Chinese media led their front pages and bulletins yesterday on the controversy, including headlines such as China Daily's "Beijing furious at arms sales".
The newspaper said that Beijing's scrapping of military contacts with the US and its warning of an end to co-operation on "key international and regional issues" comprised "its toughest response in three decades to US arms sales to Taiwan". It said: "China's response, no matter how vehement, is justified."
Luo Yuan, a senior researcher with the Academy of Military Science, said "the US action gives China a justification to accelerate its defence modernisation".
Originally posted by Jakes51
This recent arms sale is really boiling their bones, and plus, the recent military build-up around Iran who is one China's leading oil exporters must be driving them nuts. Hopefully, this soap opera doesn't turn into a Greek Tragedy.
Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
reply to post by Jazzyguy
And what would that be? The only reason I could see the US government pulling a stunt like this is to alienate the Chinese and cause them to do something that would "justify" us in walking away from our debt. I.e. some sort of military conflict. Either way this could be nothing but if it is more than nothing............
Originally posted by Jakes51
So, is the honey moon over between the US and China? It is apparent that nations around the world are taking notice of a more influential China. It is clear that they are ratcheting up leverage for a confrontation with the West if the need arises.
Originally posted by Jakes51
At every table of world power and influence, the Chinese have forced their way to a seat. They have been making inroads in international business on every continent around the globe and are a force to reckon with. I have said before, that the US and others in the EU should be ever watchful of a resurgent China, and a China run by those who are ideologically opposed to western values and thought.
Quote from : Wikipedia : United Nations Security Council
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is one of the principal organs of the United Nations and is charged with the maintenance of international peace and security.
Its powers, outlined in the United Nations Charter, include the establishment of peacekeeping operations, the establishment of international sanctions, and the authorization of military action.
Its powers are exercised through United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
Permanent Members :
The Security Council's five permanent members have the power to veto any substantive resolution:
*China
*France
*Russia
*United Kingdom
*United States
Originally posted by Jakes51
When I mention it to family, friends, and acquaintances; I get the same old rhetoric that the Chinese are Capitalistic and practice a soft form of Communism than during the Mao era. So, I am labeled a fear-monger. However, in an instant, they can resort to their hard-line ways to route disruption and ideological differences among their own population, and what is to stop them from using that approach in international relations, as well? Nothing will stop them from resorting to old ways if provoked.
Originally posted by Jakes51
Now, getting to the crust of this latest development of the arms deal with Taiwan, and why the US went along with such a deal, given their financial relationship with China proper. Well, I see it as a strategic ploy to test the resolve of the Chinese with their new found role as the United States' seminal banking partner. How far can the US push China, until they resort to their old ways as an enemy of the the United States, and eventually cutting the money supply?
Originally posted by Jakes51
This latest move by the US is only testing the waters to see how far they can push the giant before it gives the world a knee-jerk reaction, and the US international license to harden the tone with China. So, in a sense, the chess game has started and the pieces are being strategically placed across the board.
www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
[edit on 31-1-2010 by Jakes51]
Amazon Review :
Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger asks a question in the title of his book Does America Need a Foreign Policy?
--
but there's really no doubt about the answer.
That's not to say it shouldn't be asked:
"The last presidential election was the third in a row in which foreign policy was not seriously discussed by the candidates," writes Kissinger.
"In the face of perhaps the most profound and widespread upheavals the world has ever seen, [the United States] has failed to develop concepts relevant to the emerging realities."
Kissinger tours the world in this book, describing how the United States should relate to various regions and countries.
This is not a gripping book, but it is sober, accessible, brief, and comprehensive--and an excellent introduction to international relations and diplomacy.
Kissinger has opinions on just about every topic he raises, from globalization (for it) to international courts (against them, for the most part).
He supports a vigorous missile-defense system:
"The United States cannot condemn its population to permanent vulnerability."
He opines on peace in the Middle East:
"Israel should abandon its opposition to the creation of a Palestinian state except as part of a final status agreement."
His claims are often eye-opening:
"There are few nations in the world with which the United States has less reason to quarrel or more compatible interests than Iran."
He is especially critical of domestic politics interfering with America's international relations:
"Whatever the merit of the individual legislative actions, their cumulative effect drives American foreign policy toward unilateral and seemingly bullying conduct."
The media has been a special problem in this regard, as it zips around the world in search of exciting but ephemeral stories, which are "generally presented as a morality play between good and evil having a specific outcome and rarely in terms of the long-range challenges of history."
Does America need a foreign policy?
Of course it does, and Henry Kissinger has done readers a service by outlining what a good one might be.
--John J. Miller
Amazon Review :
The former national security advisor is still a believer in geopolitics after all these years.
Like most foreign-policy aficionados weaned on the Cold War, Brzezinski (Out of Control, 1993) has been forced by the disintegration of the Soviet Union to broaden his perspective--but not very far.
He sees the US as the only global superpower, but inability to maintain its hegemony indefinitely means that ``geostrategic skill'' is essential.
To what end is not specified beyond the vague shaping of ``a truly cooperative global community'' that is in ``the fundamental interests of humankind,'' but in this genre, goals are commonly assumed rather than examined.
In any case, Brzezinski casts Eurasia as the playing field upon which the world's fate is determined and analyzes the possibilities in Europe, the former Soviet Union, the Balkans (interpreted broadly), and the Far East.
Like a grandmaster in chess, he plots his strategy several moves in advance, envisioning a three-stage development.
Geopolitical pluralism must first be promoted to defuse challenges to America, then compatible international partners must be developed to encourage cooperation under American leadership, and finally the actual sharing of international political responsibility can be considered.
The twin poles of this strategy are a united Europe in the West and China in the East; the central regions are more problematic and, for Brzezinski, not as critical in constructing a stable balance of power.
This updated version of East-West geopolitics is worth taking seriously but it is also an amazing example of how a perspective can be revised without actually being rethought.
(Radio satellite tour)
--
Copyright ©1997, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved