Blame The Real Bad Guys - The Powers Behind Super Powers

There are currently 59 different wars or ongoing armed and violent conflicts going on in the world today. Most of us are aware of the conflicts in the Middle East and in Africa. But many of us aren't aware that they are also happening in Asia, Europe, The former states of the Soviet Empire, and even in the Americas. These aren't the conflicts that get press coverage. These wars all remain dirty little, localized secrets.

When we talk war we almost exclusively discuss the US, Israel, and the Middle East.

Why is this? Is a dead Thai any less a loss than a dead Arab or American? Why is media so fixated upon the Middle East?

This is a question that I ask myself often. Why are the rich and powerful so Hell bent upon reporting one issue and not the other? Why am I being exposed to one issue so much more powerfully than any other?

Of course one answer is that my country is currently at war in Afghanistan and we still have concerns in Iraq. So this explains part of it.

But, if that is the reality - then why is the Department Of Defense saying this?

WASHINGTON, Aug. 23, 2012 – Enemies of the United States would be making a mistake if they conclude the U.S. shift in defense strategy toward the Asia Pacific means less focus on other important regions, the commandant of the Marine Corps said today.

Gen. James F. Amos told reporters the strategy shift should not be taken to mean the U.S. military at large won’t remain engaged with the rest of the world. “We have the capability to do our nation’s bidding (elsewhere) while we’re doing (the Pacific strategy),” he said. “This doesn’t have to be a singular focus for the Marine Corps.”

Marines have a long and distinguished history in Asia and he honored part of that legacy by participating in the 70th anniversary of the Marine landing at Guadalcanal on August 7.

For today’s young Marines, Gen. Amos said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been the proving ground the same way Khe Sanh or Da Nang in Vietnam were for their fathers. “For all the young kids who joined the Marine Corps in the past 10 years, I go out and visit them in Afghanistan and ask how many of you have been in the western Pacific?” he said. “The only ones who raise their hands are the old master gunnery sergeants, the sergeant major and the battalion commander. All the others have never been there before.”

One might argue that the Pacific is one way to get to the Middle East. And they'd be right. But those last two sentences in the above statement, then, gives me pause.

Is the Middle East really the issue? Or is it the distraction?

Let's look at the middle east for a minute.



A lot of familiar names there. Iraq, Kuwait, Iran, Pakistan,Afghanistan, Israel, Turkmenistan... Wait a minute? Turkmenistan? Well sheesh. They're right there with Pakistan and Iran... why have I not been told about the billions of fanatical guys from this country who want to kill me because of religious dogma??? Now I'm confused. I need to research a bit...

This is very disconcerting to say the least. They've got the whole package!

The country possesses the world's fourth-largest reserves of natural gas and substantial oil resources

In the 7th century AD, Arabs conquered this region, introducing Islam. The Turkmenistan region soon came to be known as the capital of Greater Khorasan, when the caliph Al-Ma'mun moved his capital to Merv.

...according to a 2009 Pew Research Center report, 93.1% of Turkmenistan's population is Muslim.

Former president Saparmurat Niyazov ordered that basic Islamic principles be taught in public schools. More religious institutions, including religious schools and mosques, have appeared, many with the support of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Turkey. Religious classes are held in both schools and mosques, with instruction in Arabic language, the Qur'an and the hadith, and history of Islam.

Turkmenistan has been widely criticised for human rights abuses and has imposed severe restrictions on foreign travel for its citizens. Discrimination against the country's ethnic minorities remain in practice.

Source

Aren't these the same kind of things I heard about Afghanistan and Iraq that justified us making war upon them? Aren't these the same talking points I hear, today, about Iran and Pakistan?

So why is nobody shoving Turkmenistan down my throat??? Very odd. Are we cherry picking Arabs to hate? And, if so... then why

The answer I seem to be coming up with is this: Turkmenistan was once part of the Soviet Empire. In short... they already got claimed by a world power. They're Russian property.

I also notice one other thing, as I list the nations that the US seems to have beef with... they line up!!!



( you'll notice that top line ends at the words Chinese line of control. The bottom line ends at India. Funny stuff. )

China Tops U.S. in Energy Use

The Paris-based IEA, energy adviser to most of the world's biggest economies, said China consumed 2.252 billion tons of oil equivalent last year, about 4% more than the U.S., which burned through 2.170 billion tons of oil equivalent. The oil-equivalent metric represents all forms of energy consumed, including crude oil, nuclear power, coal, natural gas and renewable sources such as hydropower...

...China overtook it at breakneck pace. China's total energy consumption was just half that of the U.S. 10 years ago, but in many of the years since, China saw annual double-digit growth rates. It had been expected to pass the U.S. about five years from now, but took the top position earlier because the global recession hit the U.S. more severely, slowing American industrial activity and energy use...

...Beijing has refused to agree to cap its overall growth in its consumption of fossil fuels, or reduce its emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. That frustrated President Barack Obama's efforts to forge an international climate agreement at a United Nations summit in Copenhagen last December...

...China's growth has transformed global energy markets and sustained higher prices for everything from oil to uranium and other natural resources that the country has been consuming. Once, China was a major exporter of both oil and coal. Its increasing reliance on imports has sustained higher energy prices worldwide...

...China's rapidly expanding need for energy promises to have major geopolitical implications as it hunts for ways to satisfy its needs. Already, China's rising imports have changed global geopolitics...

...Prior to the global economic crisis, China had been expected to become the biggest energy consumer in about five years. Economic malaise and energy-efficiency programs in the U.S. brought forward the date,..

Source

Wait... what? I watch my local and network news constantly and they have only talked about China in far more abstract terms as far as I've seen.

cont...

By 2020 there will be a major shift in the global balance of economic power compared to 2010. Emerging economies will rise in importance and China will have overtaken the USA to lead the list of the world’s top ten largest economies by GDP measured in PPP terms.

Source

Hey now! C'mon. I know that there are western corporations doing business in China these days.. I know there is a McDonalds in Bejing and all ( Actually in researching - there are three. And they seem to be pulling some very American stuff there. ) But are they really going to be numero uno in the WORLD?

Another question... if China is loaning us so much money ( according to this source it's $1169.6 billion ) then how are they still doing so well? How are they surpassing us and staying afloat?

Maybe this absolutely mind numbing databse of corporations and companies moving jobs to China gives us food for thought. Absolutely amazing.

So... Apparently our paradigm needs shifting. We, in the US, might not be the big dog anymore. Looking at the map above I now understand one reality... I think that we're clearing out that top red line ( and by virtue of that also helping India as well - another corporate and capitalist fave ) so that our American business interests in China can have cheap oil to work with.

Is that possible? Could we be in a deal with the Chinese? Could we have said "Let our corporations come into your economy and we'll clear out the oil fields right to your front door to ensure that these companies will have the competitive edge over their former American employee base"?

I mean it's a corporate dream in Asia... endless poor people begging to work, few labor laws, little government harassment, and where the minimum wage averages less than $200.00 USD per month. Not a bad deal for a huge company. I'm sure there's a lot of bribery needed to do business effectively in Asia. But crossing a few palms - even with healthy bribes - still makes sense in the whole cost of doing business category. Companies would still save a bundle and that would let them pass the savings immediately onto us. Right?

I mean our prices are dropping like stones thanks to this boon in business cost reduction. Right?

Wait a minute... why are we experiencing rampant economic turmoil, gross unemployment, rising prices, and widespread homelessness when the "job makers", the big guys are actually earning record profits!

I keep hearing folks scream at me about too much government and trickle down economics. Well, the truth is that big business is thriving in a "no rules" environment, over in China - and they aren't trickling a damn thing down to us. So I take exception to the veiled notion that the USA needs to become China 2.0

Could we really be invading relatively innocent nations so that our corporations in China can profit?
Did our leaders really allow the jobs to leave the US solely so that the rich could get richer?
Is the wool getting pulled over all of our eyes while the fox, guarding the hen house just keeps gaining weight?
Are corporate entities literally controlling BOTH world Superpowers???

I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the Wal Mart that it stands for....

WSY ATS... Am I connecting the wrong dots? Or am I getting closer to reality?
Either way... I'm feeling a bit nauseated by it all.

~Heff

S & F

A few years back some of us started contributing to a thread on The New Great Game. Many of the items you've mentioned and outlined were covered. Great to see others asking some hard hitting in depth questions

This is something to be watched...

Closely

I've always thought that these countries are viewed as obstacles for a NWO. Like they're not playing ball so we must crush them into submission. Just my thoughts.

Excellent post, very interesting research.

As I let this thread start to seep in with ATS, I am also educating myself in a very rapid way about China. I find two different developments ( missed as I wrote my OP ) interesting:

First, Chinas economy has slowed down apparently. This seems to off-set my OP - and might in ways - but I am seeing it as supportive of the ending theme - that Corporations are playing the same game - across the board.

This information is three hours old as I post:

(Reuters) - China should ready plans to respond to near term risks in an economy facing significant downward pressure, but keep the broad policy focus on longer term structural adjustments, the official People's Daily said in a front page editorial on Friday...

...China rescued its economy from a prolonged global recession in 2008/09 by rolling out a 4 trillion yuan ($635 billion) investment stimulus.

But that left 10.7 trillion yuan worth of debt racked up by local governments to meet obligations under the national plan, drove a frenzy of speculation in real estate and was a key factor in a surge in inflation to a three-year high of 6.5 percent in July 2011.

Economists fear it also likely added to a swathe of inefficient production capacity that China was already struggling to turn around...

Source

Wait a minute... Inefficient production capacity??? They have too many jobs???

Other than that - the rest looks familiar.

But here's the rub...

Foreign businesses in China are voicing growing frustration about the country's heavily regulated market — a bureaucratic maze many say is designed deliberately to hamstring non-Chinese players to the advantage of their local competitors. Last week the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China joined the chorus: its annual position paper, an unwieldy, 650-page tome, lists hundreds of market-access problems for foreign companies across a range of industries. By stymieing open competition between local and foreign business, China is hurting itself too, says the organization's president, Jacques de Boisséson. "The proportion of European investments to China compared to the overall outbound investment from the E.U. is only 3%," he says. "There is not enough European investment in China."..
...Their concerns are not unfounded. In early 2009 a set of policy proposals known as Indigenous Innovation Accreditation caused alarm among international businesses when early drafts seemed to shut the door to foreign products across the high-tech industry through a complicated licensing system that required companies to register their IPR in China before registering elsewhere in order to qualify. In a report this June, the Washington-based U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the policies were "considered by many international technology companies to be a blueprint for technology theft on a scale the world has never seen before."...

Source

Corporations are kvetching that China is too controlling? Did I mention the minimum wage in China is less than $200.00 USD per month and that many of these corporations are recording record profits???

Didn't they ship our jobs overseas saying the same things about us???

None of this makes sense... Well unless you're a CEO making the last remaining world powers dance to the tune from your pipe....

I wonder if folks are wandering around China, near broke and scared, saying "Damned Americans stole my job!"
I wouldn't doubt it possible.

Divide and conquer.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


On that note:

China partners with every foreign company that sets up shop in China with 51% ownership. Now, When there were those suicides everybody jumped all over Apple but nothing was said about the other 51% owner?


The Chinese are nothing but a commodity for their Government to exploit for their bottom lines.
People in the West and ATS think they got it bad?

reply to post by SLAYER69


That brings up a very interesting point. American hemhorraged jobs to the east - including China ( reference the list in the OP. It is HUGE ) because they insisted that the cost of doing business here was just too high.

Are we really to believe that giving away majority stakes is cheaper than paying Americans to do it? That seems very contrary. While the payroll gap makes sense... Every company I've ever worked for ( and managed with ) ran a payroll between 25 and 28%. That is far less than 51%

Strange strange stuff.

Thanks for the info Slayer!

It is probably going to take me a few days to get enough puzzle pieces put together here... but this is definitely a good start!

And my feed shows me that this timely little nugget of information that's about an hour old...

China’s Missile Advances Aimed at Thwarting U.S. Defenses, Analysts Say

HONG KONG — China is moving ahead with the development of a new and more capable generation of intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched missiles, increasing its existing ability to to deliver nuclear warheads to the United States and to overwhelm missile defense systems, military analysts said this week...

...China has separately tested submarine-launched missiles as well in recent weeks, and could use these to outflank American missile detection systems, Colonel Wortzel said. Most of the radar arrays that the United States has deployed to detect ballistic missiles were built during the cold war to detect attacks over polar routes...

...“We have again and again said that we will not be the first country to use nuclear force,” he said. “We need to be able to defend ourselves, and our main threat, I’m afraid, comes from the United States.”...

As I pull all of this information in, I am currently conflicted...

Is this an indication that the proverbial honeymoon is over?

Or is this just a tactic - two allies using each other to scare and control their citizens through fear?

~Heff

Informal Land Grab is what it boils down to it appears.

Could this be the startup of protectorates again?

Afghanistan an American Colony perhaps? Just like you point out with Russian and Turkmenistan

Great work Cliff, I will be doing a little more research in those countries in the middle east we never see mentioned in the MSM.

China has been developing a lot of infrastructure in seemingly worthless land in Africa, could this be the a similar situation? The continent is strife with conflict, it has the similar elements of the middle east.


S+F

Yep corporations have quickly become a dirty word in my opinion. The question is for me; who are these men or women that are sitting back and collecting the ungodly amounts of money for themselves. I mean honestly these insanely rich could never spend all that money in multiple lifetimes. Ego driven and well many will say evil. I guess everything is never enough for them even if genocide to get money for them that they truly don't even need.

Well maybe in the end we will see a big surge back to small business in the US...which would certainly be a good thing I think. Small business is what made this country and in the end may be what will save it.

Originally posted by Hefficide

And my feed shows me that this timely little nugget of information that's about an hour old...

China’s Missile Advances Aimed at Thwarting U.S. Defenses, Analysts Say

HONG KONG — China is moving ahead with the development of a new and more capable generation of intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched missiles, increasing its existing ability to to deliver nuclear warheads to the United States and to overwhelm missile defense systems, military analysts said this week...

...China has separately tested submarine-launched missiles as well in recent weeks, and could use these to outflank American missile detection systems, Colonel Wortzel said. Most of the radar arrays that the United States has deployed to detect ballistic missiles were built during the cold war to detect attacks over polar routes...

...“We have again and again said that we will not be the first country to use nuclear force,” he said. “We need to be able to defend ourselves, and our main threat, I’m afraid, comes from the United States.”...

As I pull all of this information in, I am currently conflicted...

Is this an indication that the proverbial honeymoon is over?

Or is this just a tactic - two allies using each other to scare and control their citizens through fear?

~Heff

A new cold war maybe? The elites profited greatly from the fear of a soviet nuclear attack. Americans are more divided than ever. Give Americans a common enemy to hate. What better way to stir up some good old fashioned patriotism and pull up on a very divided country.

Originally posted by TRGreer


A new cold war maybe? The elites profited greatly from the fear of a soviet nuclear attack. Americans are more divided than ever. Give Americans a common enemy to hate. What better way to stir up some good old fashioned patriotism and pull up on a very divided country.

Just wanted to add that this tactic would seem to benefit China as well.

Originally posted by Hefficide
cont...
Is that possible? Could we be in a deal with the Chinese? Could we have said "Let our corporations come into your economy and we'll clear out the oil fields right to your front door to ensure that these companies will have the competitive edge over their former American employee base"?

Very possible. Strong work, Hefficide.

I'm sure many of you are already familiar with this text, Unrestricted Warfare. For those that aren't, it is a Chinese military manual written in 1999, and its premise is that restricting warfare to military engagements is going the way of the dinosaur. Clearly outlined are several alternative approaches, one of which is economic warfare.

Financial War: Now that Asians have experienced the financial crisis in Southeast Asia, no one could be more affected by "financial war" than they have been. No, they have not just been affected; they have simply been cut to the very quick! A surprise financial war attack that was deliberately planned and initiated by the owners of international mobile capital ultimately served to pin one nation after another to the ground--nations that not long ago were hailed as "little tigers" and "little dragons." Economic prosperity that once excited the constant admiration of the Western world changed to a depression, like the leaves of a tree that are blown away in a single night by the autumn wind. After just one round of fighting, the economies of a number of countries had fallen back ten years. What is more, such a defeat on the economic front precipitates a near collapse of the social and political order. The casualties resulting from the constant chaos are no less than those resulting from a regional war, and the injury done to the living social organism even exceeds the injury inflicted by a regional war. Non-state organizations, in this their first war without the use of military force, are using non-military means to engage sovereign nations. Thus, financial war is a form of non-military warfare which is just as terribly destructive as a bloody war, but in which no blood is actually shed. Financial warfare has now officially come to war's center stage--a stage that for thousands of years has been occupied only by soldiers and weapons, with blood and death everywhere. We believe that before long, "financial warfare" will undoubtedly be an entry in the various types of dictionaries of official military jargon. Moreover, when people revise the history books on twentieth-century warfare in the early 21st century, the section on financial warfare will command the reader's utmost attention [see Endnote 12]. The main protagonist in this section of the history book will not be a statesman or a military strategist; rather, it will be George Soros. Of course, Soros does not have an exclusive monopoly on using the financial weapon for fighting wars. Before Soros, Helmut Kohl used the deutsche mark to breach the Berlin Wall--a wall that no one had ever been able to knock down using artillery shells [see Endnote 13]. After Soros began his activities, Li Denghui [Li Teng-hui 2621 4098 6540] used the financial crisis in Southeast Asia to devalue the New Taiwan dollar, so as to launch an attack on the Hong Kong dollar and Hong Kong stocks, especially the "red-chip stocks." [Translator's note: "red-chip stocks" refers to stocks of companies listed on the Hong Kong stock market but controlled by mainland interests.] In addition, we have yet to mention the crowd of large and small speculators who have come en masse to this huge dinner party for money gluttons, including Morgan Stanley and Moody's, which are famous for the credit rating reports that they issue, and which point out promising targets of attack for the benefit of the big fish in the financial world [see Endnote 14]. These two companies are typical of those entities that participate indirectly in the great feast and reap the benefits.

www.cryptome.org...

What makes me shake my head: China is paying the US to purchase its goods. How did we think that was going to work out well for anyone? And why do both parties seem to forget that corporations have no state loyalties?

reply to post by Hefficide


Judging solely off of gross domestic product, yes, China is on pace to over take the American GDP eventually.

However, despite the top dog of that measure changing, the average income of their citizenship is probably going to still be incredibly low, so you have to wonder what truly is "better". Gauging it simply off the GDP is only focusing on the total amount of product the country is responsible for, and nothing else, lol.

Silly.

There's a lot more to this entire situation, let alone what the future will bring. Ill tell you that much.

I'm worried about ya' Heff. Not in the "Heff's off his rocker" kind o' way. More in the "Heff's shining a light in the darkness" kind o' way.

If you get disappeared we'll know what happened. Good on ya, though.

Thank you for shopping at Walmart, have a nice day.

So the real bad guys behind the super powers are.......?

reply to post by Soloro


According to this article - "middle class" in China is very different than our definition. Therefore the cost of living must be much lower.

These companies need to be wary, though. China’s middle class does not really exist, at least by the American definition. Many analysts define the 350 million Chinese who live in households that earn between $6,000 and $15,000 a year as middle class. However, Chinese consumers with this socio-economic background do not exhibit the same hopes, aspirations, and shopping habits of middle-class Americans. As a result, brands that emphasize a middling position will not appeal to consumers there.

Source - with good factoids about American Corporate Growth in China

This guide for students says:

To have a comfortable living standard which corresponds to the Western OECD-level, one perhaps needs just as much as financial resources as one would in Sydney or Seattle. Shanghai for example, is amongst the top 10 cities when it comes to living costs in the world. An average salary for a white collar worker in Shanghai is 1000 US Dollars. If you have a budget of 1000 USD per month, it will be enough. It is always good to look for some extra work. For example, there is always plenty of opportunities for English
teachers. This can bring you some extra pocket money.

In my opinion these numbers are meaningless without context - and I'm not in a position, right this moment, to do comparisons... But it's clear that a dollar will go further there. Living in most US cities on a grand per month would be nearly a starvation diet situation. In China, this says, that's "white collar" income. Here it would be far beneath that level. Ratio ( what does that buy and how much would the same cost here ) is really the issue.

IE. Inflation will happen, if their middle class is growing and strong. Workers will demand an increase in pay as they get more comfortable and addicted to comforts and luxuries. Companies are already prepared for that. They learned here. They'll give out raises... and then raise prices so that the new income levels don't do the average person any good.

Just like here ( before the crash - back in the "good old days" )

The way I'm reading things though... It seems like the average Chinese citizen is smarter than most of us have been. They don't seem to be inclined to go into hyper-debt just to have things.

The deeper I get into this, the more I feel a need to go to the Rosetta Stone website and order a learning course for Mandarin...

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


www.abovetopsecret.com...

I know my thread was (mistakenly) moved to the Hoax section but
it ties in well with what you have detailed here.

Time is short for the U.S. and the West.

www.ia-forum.org...

That's a 100 page special on China published by international affairs forum in June.

I posted a thread today based on the first article, which talks about the Chinese ambition for a worldwide government.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

A lot of good information and analysis in that document, presented as essays by top experts.

The now virtually certain Republican challenger to President Obama in the 2012
election is also the candidate who has articulated the most coherent and articulate
China policy, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. While a challenge to
the incumbent on the China issue is far from unprecedented, Romney is unusual in
focusing his attack not on human rights or security issues but on trade and “unfair”
competition. Thus the China critique is thematically integrated into Romney’s central
campaign narrative, which emphasizes his determination to overcome the postLehman economic malaise and restore American growth and competitiveness.7
The Republican critique of Obama’s security policy is subordinate to domestic politics
but it is relatively simple: the US must retain strategic primacy, and to do so must
increase defense spending, including shipbuilding, national missile defense, and space
weaponry. Core US defense spending must be maintained at 4 percent of GDP. This
would increase annual defense spending to $600 billion or more, and overall military
spending to about $720 billion. If Obama’s vow to grow the military while cutting its
budget strains credibility, Romney’s does so even more.
But the most consistent and fully articulated Romney critique is of the Obama
economic policy: “On many occasions Chinese companies, have simply reverseengineered American products, with no regard for the patents and other protections
of intellectual property rights that are crucial to our own economic well-being. The
Chinese government facilitates this behavior by forcing American companies to share
proprietary technology as a condition of their doing business in China. A recent study
by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce reports that international technology companies
consider these practices to be ‘a blueprint for technology theft on a scale that the
world has never seen before.’ China’s unfair trade practices extend to the country’s
manipulation of its currency to reduce the price of its products relative to those of
competing nations such as ours.”8 Thus Romney promises on “Day one” to issue
an executive order (not requiring congressional approval) directing the treasury
department to label China a “currency manipulator.”

How should we interpret Beijing’s greater rhetorical assertiveness in the international
arena and what are its implications? There is no shortage of opinion on these
questions; but three views seem to get the most play. The first of these assesses the
tough language emanating from Beijing as evidence of a significant shift in China’s
international policy. According to this perspective, China, emboldened by its relative
resilience through the global financial crisis, has abandoned its taoguang yanghui
“low profile” approach to international affairs introduced by Deng Xiaoping in the
early 1990s that focused national energies on economic development. Beijing’s
rhetorical push in pursuit of its interests today is seen as a harbinger of a China that
is willing to more actively use its economic and military power to assert its interests,
can be expected in the near future.

Anti China rhetoric in the presidential campaign aimed at an emerging power that is growing confident.

Secretary Clinton captured the enormity of the challenge at the fourth round of the
U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue: “The United States and China are
trying to do something that is historically unprecedented, to write a new answer to
the age-old question of what happens when an established power and a rising power
meet.”

As to now, China and America have been very successful business partners. But there remains a fundamental difference in ultimate vision as to how the world will be governed and that dispute is just beginning.

Originally posted by Murad
So the real bad guys behind the super powers are.......?

.....The Roman Empire, with (deliberately propagated) rumours of its demise greatly exaggerated.