The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 John Pilger Archive
The Coming War on China
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
ComingWar-Quad-Approved4

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

When I first went to Hiroshima in 1967, the shadow on the steps was still there. It was an almost perfect impression of a human being at ease: legs splayed, back bent, one hand by her side as she sat waiting for a bank to open. At a quarter past eight on the morning of 6 August, 1945, she and her silhouette were burned into the granite. I stared at the shadow for an hour or more, unforgettably. When I returned many years later, it was gone: taken away, “disappeared”, a political embarrassment.

I have spent two years making a documentary film, The Coming War on China, in which the evidence and witnesses warn that nuclear war is no longer a shadow, but a contingency. The greatest build-up of American-led military forces since the Second World War is well under way. They are in the northern hemisphere, on the western borders of Russia, and in Asia and the Pacific, confronting China.

The great danger this beckons is not news, or it is buried and distorted: a drumbeat of mainstream fake news that echoes the psychopathic fear embedded in public consciousness during much of the 20th century.

Like the renewal of post-Soviet Russia, the rise of China as an economic power is declared an “existential threat” to the divine right of the United States to rule and dominate human affairs.

To counter this, in 2011 President Obama announced a “pivot to Asia”, which meant that almost two-thirds of US naval forces would be transferred to Asia and the Pacific by 2020. Today, more than 400 American military bases encircle China with missiles, bombers, warships and, above all, nuclear weapons. From Australia north through the Pacific to Japan, Korea and across Eurasia to Afghanistan and India, the bases form, says one US strategist, “the perfect noose”.

A study by the RAND Corporation – which, since Vietnam, has planned America’s wars – is entitled, War with China: Thinking Through the Unthinkable. Commissioned by the US Army, the authors evoke the cold war when RAND made notorious the catch cry of its chief strategist, Herman Kahn — “thinking the unthinkable”. Kahn’s book, On Thermonuclear War, elaborated a plan for a “winnable” nuclear war against the Soviet Union.

Today, his apocalyptic view is shared by those holding real power in the United States: the militarists and neo-conservatives in the executive, the Pentagon, the intelligence and “national security” establishment and Congress.

The current Secretary of Defense, Ashley Carter, a verbose provocateur, says US policy is to confront those “who see America’s dominance and want to take that away from us”.

For all the attempts to detect a departure in foreign policy, this is almost certainly the view of Donald Trump, whose abuse of China during the election campaign included that of “rapist” of the American economy. On 2 December, in a direct provocation of China, President-elect Trump spoke to the President of Taiwan, which China considers a renegade province of the mainland. Armed with American missiles, Taiwan is an enduring flashpoint between Washington and Beijing.

“The United States,” wrote Amitai Etzioni, professor of international Affairs at George Washington University, “is preparing for a war with China, a momentous decision that so far has failed to receive a thorough review from elected officials, namely the White House and Congress.” This war would begin with a “blinding attack against Chinese anti-access facilities, including land and sea-based missile launchers … satellite and anti-satellite weapons”.

The incalculable risk is that “deep inland strikes could be mistakenly perceived by the Chinese as pre-emptive attempts to take out its nuclear weapons, thus cornering them into ‘a terrible use-it-or-lose-it dilemma’ [that would] lead to nuclear war.”

In 2015, the Pentagon released its Law of War Manual. “The United States,” it says, “has not accepted a treaty rule that prohibits the use of nuclear weapons per se, and thus nuclear weapons are lawful weapons for the United States.”

In China, a strategist told me, “We are not your enemy, but if you [in the West] decide we are, we must prepare without delay.” China’s military and arsenal are small compared to America’s. However, “for the first time,” wrote Gregory Kulacki of the Union of Concerned Scientists, “China is discussing putting its nuclear missiles on high alert so that they can be launched quickly on warning of an attack … This would be a significant and dangerous change in Chinese policy … Indeed, the nuclear weapon policies of the United States are the most prominent external factor influencing Chinese advocates for raising the alert level of China’s nuclear forces.”

Professor Ted Postol was scientific adviser to the head of US naval operations. An authority on nuclear weapons, he told me, “Everybody here wants to look like they’re tough. See I got to be tough … I’m not afraid of doing anything military, I’m not afraid of threatening; I’m a hairy-chested gorilla. And we have gotten into a state, the United States has gotten into a situation where there’s a lot of sabre-rattling, and it’s really being orchestrated from the top.”

I said, “This seems incredibly dangerous.”

In 2015, in considerable secrecy, the US staged its biggest single military exercise since the Cold War. This was Talisman Sabre; an armada of ships and long-range bombers rehearsed an “Air-Sea Battle Concept for China” – ASB — blocking sea lanes in the Straits of Malacca and cutting off China’s access to oil, gas and other raw materials from the Middle East and Africa.

It is such a provocation, and the fear of a US Navy blockade, that has seen China feverishly building strategic airstrips on disputed reefs and islets in the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. Last July, the UN Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled against China’s claim of sovereignty over these islands. Although the action was brought by the Philippines, it was presented by leading American and British lawyers and could be traced to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

In 2010, Clinton flew to Manila. She demanded that America’s former colony reopen the US military bases closed down in the 1990s following a popular campaign against the violence they generated, especially against Filipino women. She declared China’s claim on the Spratly Islands – which lie more than 7,500 miles from the United States – a threat to US “national security” and to “freedom of navigation”.

Handed millions of dollars in arms and military equipment, the then government of President Benigno Aquino broke off bilateral talks with China and signed a secretive Enhanced Defense Co-operation Agreement with the US. This established five rotating US bases and restored a hated colonial provision that American forces and contractors were immune from Philippine law.

The election of Rodrigo Duterte in April has unnerved Washington. Calling himself a socialist, he declared, “In our relations with the world, the Philippines will pursue an independent foreign policy” and noted that the United States had not apologized for its colonial atrocities. “I will break up with America,” he said, and promised to expel US troops. But the US remains in the Philippines; and joint military exercises continue.

In 2014, under the rubric of “information dominance” – the jargon for media manipulation, or fake news, on which the Pentagon spends more than $4 billion – the Obama administration launched a propaganda campaign that cast China, the world’s greatest trading nation, as a threat to “freedom of navigation”.

CNN led the way, its “national security reporter” reporting excitedly from on board a US Navy surveillance flight over the Spratlys. The BBC persuaded frightened Filipino pilots to fly a single-engine Cessna over the disputed islands “to see how the Chinese would react”. None of these reporters questioned why the Chinese were building airstrips off their own coastline, or why American military forces were massing on China’s doorstep.

The designated chief propagandist is Admiral Harry Harris, the US military commander in Asia and the Pacific. “My responsibilities,” he told the New York Times, “cover Bollywood to Hollywood, from polar bears to penguins.” Never was imperial domination described as pithily.

Harris is one of a brace of Pentagon admirals and generals briefing selected, malleable journalists and broadcasters, with the aim of justifying a threat as specious as that with which George W Bush and Tony Blair justified the destruction of Iraq and much of the Middle East.

In Los Angeles in September, Harris declared he was “ready to confront a revanchist Russia and an assertive China …If we have to fight tonight, I don’t want it to be a fair fight. If it’s a knife fight, I want to bring a gun. If it’s a gun fight, I want to bring in the artillery … and all our partners with their artillery.”

These “partners” include South Korea, the launch pad for the Pentagon’s Terminal High Altitude Air Defense system, known as THAAD, ostensibly aimed at North Korea. As Professor Postol points out, it targets China.

In Sydney, Australia, Harris called on China to “tear down its Great Wall in the South China Sea”. The imagery was front page news. Australia is America’s most obsequious “partner”; its political elite, military, intelligence agencies and the media are integrated into what is known as the “alliance”. Closing the Sydney Harbour Bridge for the motorcade of a visiting American government “dignitary” is not uncommon. The war criminal Dick Cheney was afforded this honour.

Although China is Australia’s biggest trader, on which much of the national economy relies, “confronting China” is the diktat from Washington. The few political dissenters in Canberra risk McCarthyite smears in the Murdoch press. “You in Australia are with us come what may,” said one of the architects of the Vietnam war, McGeorge Bundy. One of the most important US bases is Pine Gap near Alice Springs. Founded by the CIA, it spies on China and all of Asia, and is a vital contributor to Washington’s murderous war by drone in the Middle East.

In October, Richard Marles, the defence spokesman of the main Australian opposition party, the Labor Party, demanded that “operational decisions” in provocative acts against China be left to military commanders in the South China Sea. In other words, a decision that could mean war with a nuclear power should not be taken by an elected leader or a parliament but by an admiral or a general.

This is the Pentagon line, a historic departure for any state calling itself a democracy. The ascendancy of the Pentagon in Washington – which Daniel Ellsberg has called a silent coup — is reflected in the record $5 trillion America has spent on aggressive wars since 9/11, according to a study by Brown University. The million dead in Iraq and the flight of 12 million refugees from at least four countries are the consequence.

The Japanese island of Okinawa has 32 military installations, from which Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan and Iraq have been attacked by the United States. Today, the principal target is China, with whom Okinawans have close cultural and trade ties.

There are military aircraft constantly in the sky over Okinawa; they sometimes crash into homes and schools. People cannot sleep, teachers cannot teach. Wherever they go in their own country, they are fenced in and told to keep out.

A popular Okinawan anti-base movement has been growing since a 12-year-old girl was gang-raped by US troops in 1995. It was one of hundreds of such crimes, many of them never prosecuted. Barely acknowledged in the wider world, the resistance has seen the election of Japan’s first anti-base governor, Takeshi Onaga, and presented an unfamiliar hurdle to the Tokyo government and the ultra-nationalist prime minister Shinzo Abe’s plans to repeal Japan’s “peace constitution”.

The resistance includes Fumiko Shimabukuro, aged 87, a survivor of the Second World War when a quarter of Okinawans died in the American invasion. Fumiko and hundreds of others took refuge in beautiful Henoko Bay, which she is now fighting to save. The US wants to destroy the bay in order to extend runways for its bombers. “We have a choice,” she said, “silence or life.” As we gathered peacefully outside the US base, Camp Schwab, giant Sea Stallion helicopters hovered over us for no reason other than to intimidate.

Across the East China Sea lies the Korean island of Jeju, a semi- tropical sanctuary and World Heritage Site declared “an island of world peace”. On this island of world peace has been built one of the most provocative military bases in the world, less than 400 miles from Shanghai. The fishing village of Gangjeong is dominated by a South Korean naval base purpose-built for US aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines and destroyers equipped with the Aegis missile system, aimed at China.

A people’s resistance to these war preparations has been a presence on Jeju for almost a decade. Every day, often twice a day, villagers, Catholic priests and supporters from all over the world stage a religious mass that blocks the gates of the base. In a country where political demonstrations are often banned, unlike powerful religions, the tactic has produced an inspiring spectacle.

One of the leaders, Father Mun Jeong-hyeon, told me, “I sing four songs every day at the base, regardless of the weather. I sing in typhoons — no exception. To build this base, they destroyed the environment, and the life of the villagers, and we should be a witness to that. They want to rule the Pacific. They want to make China isolated in the world. They want to be emperor of the world.”

I flew from Jeju to Shanghai for the first time in more than a generation. When I was last in China, the loudest noise I remember was the tinkling of bicycle bells; Mao Zedong had recently died, and the cities seemed dark places, in which foreboding and expectation competed. Within a few years, Deng Xiopeng, the “man who changed China”, was the “paramount leader”. Nothing prepared me for the astonishing changes today.

China presents exquisite ironies, not least the house in Shanghai where Mao and his comrades secretly founded the Communist Party of China in 1921. Today, it stands in the heart of a very capitalist shipping district; you walk out of this communist shrine with your Little Red Book and your plastic bust of Mao into the embrace of Starbucks, Apple, Cartier, Prada.

Would Mao be shocked? I doubt it. Five years before his great revolution in 1949, he sent this secret message to Washington. “China must industrialise.” he wrote, “This can only be done by free enterprise. Chinese and American interests fit together, economically and politically. America need not fear that we will not be co-operative. We cannot risk any conflict.”

Mao offered to meet Franklin Roosevelt in the White House, and his successor Harry Truman, and his successor Dwight Eisenhower. He was rebuffed, or willfully ignored. The opportunity that might have changed contemporary history, prevented wars in Asia and saved countless lives was lost because the truth of these overtures was denied in 1950s Washington “when the catatonic Cold War trance,” wrote the critic James Naremore, “held our country in its rigid grip”.

The fake mainstream news that once again presents China as a threat is of the same mentality.

The world is inexorably shifting east; but the astonishing vision of Eurasia from China is barely understood in the West. The “New Silk Road” is a ribbon of trade, ports, pipelines and high-speed trains all the way to Europe. The world’s leader in rail technology, China is negotiating with 28 countries for routes on which trains will reach up to 400 kms an hour. This opening to the world has the approval of much of humanity and, along the way, is uniting China and Russia.

“I believe in American exceptionalism with every fibre of my being,” said Barack Obama, evoking the fetishism of the 1930s. This modern cult of superiority is Americanism, the world’s dominant predator. Under the liberal Obama, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, nuclear warhead spending has risen higher than under any president since the end of the Cold War. A mini nuclear weapon is planned. Known as the B61 Model 12, it will mean, says General James Cartwright, former vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that “going smaller [makes its use] more thinkable”.

In September, the Atlantic Council, a mainstream US geopolitical thinktank, published a report that predicted a Hobbesian world “marked by the breakdown of order, violent extremism [and] an era of perpetual war”. The new enemies were a “resurgent” Russia and an “increasingly aggressive” China. Only heroic America can save us.

There is a demented quality about this war mongering. It is as if the “American Century” — proclaimed in 1941 by the American imperialist Henry Luce, owner of Time magazine — has ended without notice and no one has had the courage to tell the emperor to take his guns and go home.

John Pilger can be reached through his website: www.johnpilger.com

(Republished from Counterpunch by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, China, South China Sea 
Hide 118 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Jason Liu says:

    What exactly does America fear China will do? On its current trajectory, China will:

    -Become richer
    -Seek greater political and economic influence in the region

    There’s simply no evidence the PRC will start invading/annexing neighbors. Squabbles over tiny bits of disputed territory is about as much as it gets. Both the Chinese people and the government believes “world domination” or even world policing a la US is basically an expensive, thankless, and worthless pursuit.

    Unless American analysts are reading China all wrong, the pivot to Asia leads me to believe anti-Chinese sentiment in America is similar to anti-Russian sentiment — caused by a difference in political systems and ideological values, and not territorial concerns.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    by simply becoming rich or as rich as america, china is a threat. robust economy = better and modern military = america no longer calling the shots.

    ex: taiwan declares independence, pre 1995 usa could send carrier battle groups and china would have to back down. now china has anti ship missiles and cruise missiles. american carriers and bases around china are actually sitting ducks in any war between usa and china. that is why the air force is building a stealth cruise missile tipped with nukes.

    we got some crazy fucks in our govt and military. I am very surprise china still haven't put their nukes on hair triggers.

    , @iffen
    There’s simply no evidence the PRC will start invading/annexing neighbors.

    Economic, political and military power are intertwined.

    Expecting China to be the Mother of all Boy Scouts in international activities when they complete their development into a full super power ignores reality. Generically, all superpowers express and exercise their power. The reason China has not in recent history is because they have not had the power. It will be different when they are fully enabled. Otherwise you expect them to be the exception to the rule that is evident throughout history.

    , @Aren Haich
    China is probably interested in becoming the dominant trading nation in the world. The US has the upper hand because it can choke the Chinese trade roots by the sheer weight of its Pacific naval presence.
    Something has to give.
    , @Madderhatter67
    This -->> Seek greater political and economic influence. Is not allowed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /article/the-coming-war-on-china/#comment-1671224
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Merely as a pedantic aside: there are a number of laws making it illegal for private citizens to make U.S. foreign policy.

    Señor Trump is still a private citizen and will be until he assumes office.

    What exactly is going on with his conversations with such as the President of Taiwan?

    Is Señor Trump attempting to make foreign policy as a private citizen and thus acting illegally?

    Read More
    • Replies: @antipater_1
    Should President Obama have Trump arrested and then claim dictatorial powers?
    , @Alden
    You mean the Logan act. Mr Trump is no longer a private citizen He is the president elect. According to long established custom, during the Transition the president elect can announce policies he plans to implement Furthermore, accepting a phone call from the president of another country in no way constitutes
    "making foreign policy"
    , @Aren Haich
    Donald Trump has shown that he never fears acting beyond the law. Remember that the claim that he "could shoot somebody in plain sight on a street", and nothing would happen.
    , @Aschwin
    Lets find out by prosecuting Sidney Blumenfeld and George Soros.
    , @Justan American
    He didn't called her she called him. The last time I remember as a free country any private citizen can speak on the phone with anyone of their choosing. All she did was to congratulate him on his election..And in case you are clueless we sold them some old Navy ships not long ago..So we the people are actually doing business with them..
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. “I believe in American exceptionalism with every fibre of my being,” said Barack Obama, evoking the fetishism of the 1930s.

    Actually it should evoke the fetishism of the 1890s, which too few have any clue of.

    “It is a glorious history our God has bestowed upon His chosen people; a history heroic with faith in our mission and our future; a history of statesmen who flung the boundaries of the Republic out into unexplored lands and savage wilderness; a history of soldiers who carried the flag across blazing deserts and through the ranks of hostile mountains, even to the gates of sunset; a history of a multiplying people who overran a continent in half a century; a history of prophets who saw the consequences of evils inherited from the past and of martyrs who died to save us from them; a history divinely logical, in the process of whose tremendous reasoning we find ourselves to-day.”

    Albert J. Beveridge,
    THE MARCH OF THE FLAG
    September 1898

    The would be Lincoln hagiographer, Albert J. Beveridge, was shocked at what he found when he began researching his boyhood hero, Lincoln. Most of what he “knew” was campaign rhetoric and outright fabrication much like the propaganda against Germany and Japan which lives on almost a century after the fact.

    “The more research that Beveridge did the more disgusted he became with the “slush and rot” that had been—and was being—written about Lincoln. There were few exceptions.

    http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/25.2/braeman.htmlm

    There’s still plenty of slush and rot about pretty much everything. Thank Gawd for the Pilgers of the world.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. @Jason Liu
    What exactly does America fear China will do? On its current trajectory, China will:

    -Become richer
    -Seek greater political and economic influence in the region

    There's simply no evidence the PRC will start invading/annexing neighbors. Squabbles over tiny bits of disputed territory is about as much as it gets. Both the Chinese people and the government believes "world domination" or even world policing a la US is basically an expensive, thankless, and worthless pursuit.

    Unless American analysts are reading China all wrong, the pivot to Asia leads me to believe anti-Chinese sentiment in America is similar to anti-Russian sentiment -- caused by a difference in political systems and ideological values, and not territorial concerns.

    by simply becoming rich or as rich as america, china is a threat. robust economy = better and modern military = america no longer calling the shots.

    ex: taiwan declares independence, pre 1995 usa could send carrier battle groups and china would have to back down. now china has anti ship missiles and cruise missiles. american carriers and bases around china are actually sitting ducks in any war between usa and china. that is why the air force is building a stealth cruise missile tipped with nukes.

    we got some crazy fucks in our govt and military. I am very surprise china still haven’t put their nukes on hair triggers.

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @eah
    we got some crazy fucks in our govt and military

    Would you say fomenting 'squabbles over tiny bits of disputed territory' is evidence there are also "crazy fucks" in the Chinese government and military?

    But essentially you're right -- the "crazy fucks" in the US military are the ones trying to push through acceptance of homosexuality, transgenderism (including "reassignment" surgery at taxpayer expense), and women in combat -- to name some of the "crazy" things they're doing.
    , @The watcher
    China today is a fragile superpower tottering on the brink of chaos. Without the theft of American and Russian technology China would still be a society that looks like the something out of the early 1900s.
    Look at their so called space program. It is virtually a copy of the Russians. New Chinese weapon systems are copies of American systems. The much vaulted Chinese J-20 is an amalgamation of stolen American F-22 technology powered by Russian engines
    China now is attempting to expand into Africa and become the new colonists by stealing African natural resources and dumping their poorly made products on the Africans. China is over fishing the waters off of Africa as they have over fished their local waters
    However people are wise to the Chinese game. China has no place to go but down. And the recent election of Donald Trump may be the push that helps that happen.
    , @Aren Haich
    The US position is that it is enforcing freedom of navigation around China: for as long as it suits America and so long as it can't be challenged by an inferior power.
    That leaves the door wide open for any handy excuse so that the US, at a time of its own choosing, to deny freedom of navigation for others because it has the power to do so unilaterally.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Wally says:

    Won’t happen. All bluster and a means for getting more”defense” spending.

    The US can’t even win a war in the primitive Middle East against camel herders and wedding parties, let alone against the smart, well equipped, and oh so numerous Chinese.

    I do envision some economic measures against them, but that’s it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    The US can’t even win a war in the primitive Middle East against camel herders and wedding parties, let alone against the smart, well equipped, and oh so numerous Chinese.
     
    This is a common but erroneous non sequitur. Not being able to win a war of colonial occupation, which is basically an asymmetric conflict requiring winning hearts and minds (to use some of the applicable jargon), has little or nothing to do with whether or not the same country can win a war against a peer military competitor. Indeed, to some extent a military configured for one is at a disadvantage for the other.

    As for the rest, you might well be correct that this is mostly, or even all, bluff and bluster aimed at serving various lobby objectives, such as increased military spending and prestige, etc. However, that doesn't mean it isn't highly dangerous, as such behaviour might easily lead to an unintended escalation spiral to full war, or provoke a pre-emptive strike by the target state (as something similar did with the Japanese in 1941).

    And on the other hand, there's an outside chance that Pilger is right and you are wrong - it could be that the US regime will launch a war against China, if they think they can get away with it. Fwiw, I agree with your implied position that the risks are probably always going to be too great for that ever really to happen, but the US regime does have a track record of open military aggression in recent years, in Iraq and Yugoslavia. If I were responsible for China's military posture, I wouldn't want to risk letting Washington even think they might be able to get away with it, with their latest precision strike and missile defence toys.
    , @Joe Wong

    The US can’t even win a war in the primitive Middle East against camel herders and wedding parties,
     
    it is an obfuscation the USA uses to white wash its war crimes and crimes against humanity. Using such obfuscation the USA is saying that all the atrocities it committed against tens of millions of innocent civilians do not count, because it even cannot win against the primitive camel herders and it can't do harm.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. eah says:
    @Astuteobservor II
    by simply becoming rich or as rich as america, china is a threat. robust economy = better and modern military = america no longer calling the shots.

    ex: taiwan declares independence, pre 1995 usa could send carrier battle groups and china would have to back down. now china has anti ship missiles and cruise missiles. american carriers and bases around china are actually sitting ducks in any war between usa and china. that is why the air force is building a stealth cruise missile tipped with nukes.

    we got some crazy fucks in our govt and military. I am very surprise china still haven't put their nukes on hair triggers.

    we got some crazy fucks in our govt and military

    Would you say fomenting ‘squabbles over tiny bits of disputed territory’ is evidence there are also “crazy fucks” in the Chinese government and military?

    But essentially you’re right — the “crazy fucks” in the US military are the ones trying to push through acceptance of homosexuality, transgenderism (including “reassignment” surgery at taxpayer expense), and women in combat — to name some of the “crazy” things they’re doing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Robert Magill

    Would you say fomenting ‘squabbles over tiny bits of disputed territory’ is evidence there are also “crazy fucks” in the Chinese government and military?
     
    China is concerned about those 'sand piles' because they fit into the lower 'Silk Road' plan for trade in the region. We see everything in terms of bullets.

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com
    , @Astuteobservor II
    they are doing exactly what other countries in the SCS has been doing for the last 20 years, china is just that much better at it because they are richer. did we make a big deal out of it when it wasn't china doing it? if you want your words to carry weight, you need standards.

    you just essentially proved the chinese saying in the article:

    “We are not your enemy, but if you [in the West] decide we are, we must prepare without delay.”
     
    remember, china isn't a threat to our existence like the soviets were, it is considered a threat simply because it is getting richer. try to wrap your head around that. we are preparing to use nukes just to make sure we stay world #1 the crazy fucks are willing to start MAD for that. so yea, they are crazy fucks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Alfred says:

    I cannot help thinking that if one of these gigantic and obsolete aircraft carriers were sunk with a missile that cost $1m, the emperor would be shown to be naked.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Quartermaster
    As we have learned from a number of SinkEx, ships are far harder to sink that we thought. The only way it could be done with a single missile reliably is with a nuke. If the Chinese use a nuke to try to sink a carrier, they are bigger fools than I thought.
    , @BenKenobi
    Also, all these fancy nuclear powered carriers and subs are gonna be an environmental disaster when they start to sink in a shooting war.

    Just think of all the tonnage sunk in WW2... for example imagine if the Yamato also had a nuclear reactor on board...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Brabantian says: • Website

    It’s increasingly argued, with substantial evidence, that ‘nuclear weapons’ are a hoax, they never existed … Hiroshima & Nagasaki were chemical fire-bombing horrors just like Toyko, people burned satanically along with their wooden houses

    Swedish engineer & nuclear expert Anders Björkman has provided evidence of this for years … On Hiroshima bombing day at the same hour, US records log a fleet of 66 bombers, a fire-bombing-size fleet, to ‘bomb nearby Imabari Japan’ … which no longer existed, wiped out in 2 previous raids

    All 10 alleged ‘nuclear bomb nations’ played along, in what seems a global scam, trillions for oligarchs owning armaments industries … wealth shared, e.g., with Soviet Union elites in the fake ‘Cold War’ over decades (the ‘Cold War’ hoax proven by economist Antony Sutton half a cenury ago in ‘The Best Enemy Money Could Buy’, with Israel a key USA-Moscow transfer point)

    1945 – USA chemically bombs Hiroshima & Nagasaki (like Tokyo, Dresden, Hamburg…), also dumping illness-inducing radioactive rubbish. Witnesses ordered to shut up under threat of death, chemical-blast ‘mushroom clouds’ in film & photos – USA HAS NUCLEAR BOMBS

    1949 – Soviet Union accepts deal for Russian elites to get wealthy by playing along with Cold War & global nuclear terror – COMMIE RUSSIA HAS THE BOMB

    1952 – UK Brits & London financial centre don’t want to be 2nd class – UK HAS THE BOMB

    1960 – France chafes not to be 2nd class to Brits – FRANCE & DE GAULLE HAVE THE BOMB

    1964 – China upgraded to major league – COMMIE CHINA HAS THE BOMB

    1966 – Israel joins the club in time to terrorise & blackmail Arabs in 1967 & 1973 wars – JEWS HAVE THE BOMB & JEWS ARE READY TO SAMSON OPTION EVERYBODY, later ‘confirmed’ by Mordechai Vanunu to MI6 London Times & then maybe living on Haifa beach, not ‘in Israeli prison’, like ‘not really in Ecuador Embassy’ hoaxer Julian Assange

    1974 – India accepted as big power, debasing its heritage naming its bomb programme ‘Smiling Buddha’ – INDIA HAS THE BOMB

    1979 – South Africa’s white apartheid gov gets to play – WHITE RACIST SOUTH AFRICA HAS THE BOMB READY TO KILL BLACK PEOPLE … but ‘dismantles bombs’ before Mandela & black government can find out the scam

    1998 – Pakistan becomes central player in new Western anti-Muslim theme – PAKISTANI MUSLIMS HAVE THE BOMB & OSAMA OR TERRORISTS MIGHT GET AHOLD OF IT

    2006 – North Korea, always making deals, gets to upgrade – CRAZY NORTH KOREA HAS THE BOMB

    ‘Nuclear terror’ – A greatly profitable business!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    If your theory stands those "some crazy fucks in our(USA) govt and military" like Obama and Hellary Clinton would have used them already without worrying a nuclear exchange to ruin their own well-being.
    , @edNels
    Your ''theory'' isn't completely too far fetched, I had the same thoughts too. It might take 66 bombers +/- to deliver enough chemicals, but they could do that.

    The effects could be done with standard chemical means, the whole rouse of Atomic energy is a complete crock! Makes work for idiot science teachers who should be diggin' ditches for a livin'.

    Well Poor ole Pilger is down there in Austrailia with the Dr. Caldecott, who is pretty scarey when she talks about Nuculear stuff. I hope it is all a gaddamed ruse, or it is the end of life on our planet, the ''halve lives'' of these atomic things is too long, just for starters.!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. mp says:

    America is on the way out. It’s become a hodgepodge of Third World demographics ruled by an alien (I don’t mean space-race, either) elite and their “let’s make a quick buck” cucks. As a country it produces little of true value, and is sustained by ever expanding credit backed by the “full faith” of the government. Much of the country is on welfare of one form or another. American “soldiers” in a war with China would in large part be women piloting drones sitting half way across the world, and a few white men flying jet fighters and bombers. Not saying that war with China couldn’t happen, but let’s say it does. And let us say that we “win.” What are we going to do? Occupy it with brown and black regular Army soldiers? In order that the Taiwan KMT can move back and take over the mainland? This entire scenario is moronic. That, however, doesn’t mean US globalists wouldn’t try it out. The more nuts it is, the more likely it is, I guess. Insane.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    But the author left out the MOST important reason for all the American war mongering against China; China’s new GOLD-backed Yuan will not accept FED reserve notes in trade, which becomes more of a problem when the Yuan is being used in the IMF’s ‘basket of currencies,’ which nations use to trade among each other.

    China goes even more global this weekend. Love ‘em or hate ‘em, on Saturday Oct. 1, the Chinese yuan joins the International Monetary Fund’s currency basket. Once the yuan is a full fledged member of the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights, it becomes a currency worth holding at every single emerging market central bank holding foreign currency reserves. That’s a few billion yuan, on the low end, of demand for the Chinese currency…automatically.

    Even though the yuan is not an immediate threat to the U.S. dollar’s dominance in world trade, nor as a global reserve currency, the yuan’s official entrance makes it the newest, liquid safe haven. Moreover, unlike the yen and the euro safe havens, this one actually has yield.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2016/09/30/much-to-the-dismay-of-china-haters-the-yuan-goes-global-on-oct-1/#3c01c2e378a9

    Imagine a currency that actually grow in value, instead of being constantly degraded by the FED. Which one would you choose?

    Read More
    • Replies: @interesting
    "China’s new GOLD-backed Yuan"

    I literally laughed out load at that!! As i predicted once the Chinese Yuan was in the basket China would embark on a devaluation campaign and they aren't done yet.

    You do realize that China's economic is almost 100% dependent on exports, right? What does a strong currency do for an exported based economy? IT DESTROYS IT.

    The china bulls just crack me up with their dyer predictions of the dollar and this has been going on for over 10 years no with no end in sight. The Yuan debasement that has been going on for almost a year (the exact OPPOSITE of what you're saying) is destroying my industry as now everything being made there is 30% cheaper to do so.

    I for one am salivating at the thought of a gold backed Yuan as that will mean the work most certainly will return to the USA
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. @E. A. Costa
    Merely as a pedantic aside: there are a number of laws making it illegal for private citizens to make U.S. foreign policy.

    Señor Trump is still a private citizen and will be until he assumes office.

    What exactly is going on with his conversations with such as the President of Taiwan?

    Is Señor Trump attempting to make foreign policy as a private citizen and thus acting illegally?

    Should President Obama have Trump arrested and then claim dictatorial powers?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Randal says:

    the rise of China as an economic power is declared an “existential threat” to the divine right of the United States to rule and dominate human affairs.

    In fairness, it is just that

    What it needn’t be is any threat to the American nation or its legitimate interests. But of course the elites who “influence” US foreign policy for their own benefit and the benefit of the lobbies and often foreign interests they serve will turn it into such a threat, if they insist on the kind of confrontation that risks open war.

    Time, and long past time, for the American people to address the problem of US foreign policy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. Randal says:
    @Wally
    Won't happen. All bluster and a means for getting more"defense" spending.

    The US can't even win a war in the primitive Middle East against camel herders and wedding parties, let alone against the smart, well equipped, and oh so numerous Chinese.

    I do envision some economic measures against them, but that's it.

    The US can’t even win a war in the primitive Middle East against camel herders and wedding parties, let alone against the smart, well equipped, and oh so numerous Chinese.

    This is a common but erroneous non sequitur. Not being able to win a war of colonial occupation, which is basically an asymmetric conflict requiring winning hearts and minds (to use some of the applicable jargon), has little or nothing to do with whether or not the same country can win a war against a peer military competitor. Indeed, to some extent a military configured for one is at a disadvantage for the other.

    As for the rest, you might well be correct that this is mostly, or even all, bluff and bluster aimed at serving various lobby objectives, such as increased military spending and prestige, etc. However, that doesn’t mean it isn’t highly dangerous, as such behaviour might easily lead to an unintended escalation spiral to full war, or provoke a pre-emptive strike by the target state (as something similar did with the Japanese in 1941).

    And on the other hand, there’s an outside chance that Pilger is right and you are wrong – it could be that the US regime will launch a war against China, if they think they can get away with it. Fwiw, I agree with your implied position that the risks are probably always going to be too great for that ever really to happen, but the US regime does have a track record of open military aggression in recent years, in Iraq and Yugoslavia. If I were responsible for China’s military posture, I wouldn’t want to risk letting Washington even think they might be able to get away with it, with their latest precision strike and missile defence toys.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    A well thought out post, thanks.

    However:
    "If I were responsible for China’s military posture, I wouldn’t want to risk letting Washington even think they might be able to get away with it, with their latest precision strike and missile defence toys."

    Exactly. The Chinese are not just sitting on their thumbs and we won't get away with it.

    As I said, Americans do not absorb casualties well and the massive casualties we would see in a war with China would put a quick stop to any madness in the Pentagon.

    Agreed, that doesn't mean that the nutters won't give it shot. But realistically, I say the chances are next to zero.

    Cheers.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. The greatest build-up of American-led military forces since the Second World War is well under way.

    This is risible. The US military is declining in strength, not building up. You need to get off the wacky Baccy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. Joe Wong says:

    The USA is sick, wicked, psychopathic, demented war monger and the ‘God-fearing’ morally defunct evil ‘inquisitor’, it is rotten to the core, merely asking it to take its guns and go home is not enough to make the world safe and peace, it will rear its ugly head to haunt rest of the world again; it must be broken up like all evil empires before it, its fabrics must be cleansed to make sure it will not come back to haunt the world again.

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. Joe Wong says:
    @Wally
    Won't happen. All bluster and a means for getting more"defense" spending.

    The US can't even win a war in the primitive Middle East against camel herders and wedding parties, let alone against the smart, well equipped, and oh so numerous Chinese.

    I do envision some economic measures against them, but that's it.

    The US can’t even win a war in the primitive Middle East against camel herders and wedding parties,

    it is an obfuscation the USA uses to white wash its war crimes and crimes against humanity. Using such obfuscation the USA is saying that all the atrocities it committed against tens of millions of innocent civilians do not count, because it even cannot win against the primitive camel herders and it can’t do harm.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @eah
    we got some crazy fucks in our govt and military

    Would you say fomenting 'squabbles over tiny bits of disputed territory' is evidence there are also "crazy fucks" in the Chinese government and military?

    But essentially you're right -- the "crazy fucks" in the US military are the ones trying to push through acceptance of homosexuality, transgenderism (including "reassignment" surgery at taxpayer expense), and women in combat -- to name some of the "crazy" things they're doing.

    Would you say fomenting ‘squabbles over tiny bits of disputed territory’ is evidence there are also “crazy fucks” in the Chinese government and military?

    China is concerned about those ‘sand piles’ because they fit into the lower ‘Silk Road’ plan for trade in the region. We see everything in terms of bullets.

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Quartermaster
    And you seriously think the Chinks see things any different? Here's a newsflash for you: Human nature is the same everywhere. The only thing that differs is the cultural filter.

    The Chinese are acting just as every expansionist power has acted throughout history. they are pushing the envelope to see what they can get away with. The Chinese won't hesitate to start shooting when one of their lines are crossed. The only thing stopping them at this point is they still fear us. They have a Navy, but it has no hard experience at sea keeping while at war and taking on the #1 Navy at this point would be a serious, serious mistake.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Joe Wong says:
    @Brabantian
    It's increasingly argued, with substantial evidence, that 'nuclear weapons' are a hoax, they never existed ... Hiroshima & Nagasaki were chemical fire-bombing horrors just like Toyko, people burned satanically along with their wooden houses

    Swedish engineer & nuclear expert Anders Björkman has provided evidence of this for years ... On Hiroshima bombing day at the same hour, US records log a fleet of 66 bombers, a fire-bombing-size fleet, to 'bomb nearby Imabari Japan' ... which no longer existed, wiped out in 2 previous raids

    All 10 alleged 'nuclear bomb nations' played along, in what seems a global scam, trillions for oligarchs owning armaments industries ... wealth shared, e.g., with Soviet Union elites in the fake 'Cold War' over decades (the 'Cold War' hoax proven by economist Antony Sutton half a cenury ago in 'The Best Enemy Money Could Buy', with Israel a key USA-Moscow transfer point)

    1945 - USA chemically bombs Hiroshima & Nagasaki (like Tokyo, Dresden, Hamburg...), also dumping illness-inducing radioactive rubbish. Witnesses ordered to shut up under threat of death, chemical-blast 'mushroom clouds' in film & photos - USA HAS NUCLEAR BOMBS

    1949 - Soviet Union accepts deal for Russian elites to get wealthy by playing along with Cold War & global nuclear terror - COMMIE RUSSIA HAS THE BOMB

    1952 - UK Brits & London financial centre don't want to be 2nd class - UK HAS THE BOMB

    1960 - France chafes not to be 2nd class to Brits - FRANCE & DE GAULLE HAVE THE BOMB

    1964 - China upgraded to major league - COMMIE CHINA HAS THE BOMB

    1966 - Israel joins the club in time to terrorise & blackmail Arabs in 1967 & 1973 wars - JEWS HAVE THE BOMB & JEWS ARE READY TO SAMSON OPTION EVERYBODY, later 'confirmed' by Mordechai Vanunu to MI6 London Times & then maybe living on Haifa beach, not 'in Israeli prison', like 'not really in Ecuador Embassy' hoaxer Julian Assange

    1974 - India accepted as big power, debasing its heritage naming its bomb programme 'Smiling Buddha' - INDIA HAS THE BOMB

    1979 - South Africa's white apartheid gov gets to play - WHITE RACIST SOUTH AFRICA HAS THE BOMB READY TO KILL BLACK PEOPLE ... but 'dismantles bombs' before Mandela & black government can find out the scam

    1998 - Pakistan becomes central player in new Western anti-Muslim theme - PAKISTANI MUSLIMS HAVE THE BOMB & OSAMA OR TERRORISTS MIGHT GET AHOLD OF IT

    2006 - North Korea, always making deals, gets to upgrade - CRAZY NORTH KOREA HAS THE BOMB

    'Nuclear terror' - A greatly profitable business!

    If your theory stands those “some crazy fucks in our(USA) govt and military” like Obama and Hellary Clinton would have used them already without worrying a nuclear exchange to ruin their own well-being.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. dearieme says:

    It’s interesting to picture Obama as the new Kaiser Bill. Shame that he doesn’t have a magnificent ‘tache like Bill’s.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. Alden says:
    @E. A. Costa
    Merely as a pedantic aside: there are a number of laws making it illegal for private citizens to make U.S. foreign policy.

    Señor Trump is still a private citizen and will be until he assumes office.

    What exactly is going on with his conversations with such as the President of Taiwan?

    Is Señor Trump attempting to make foreign policy as a private citizen and thus acting illegally?

    You mean the Logan act. Mr Trump is no longer a private citizen He is the president elect. According to long established custom, during the Transition the president elect can announce policies he plans to implement Furthermore, accepting a phone call from the president of another country in no way constitutes
    “making foreign policy”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eustace Tilley (not)
    He isn't the President-elect until he is elected...by the Electors.

    The Archaically-Sanctioned Chosen Ones have yet to vote. Right?

    China can damage us greatly by continuing to add CO2 to the atmosphere. The wisest way to prevent China from doing further damage to the World Ecosystem is to gently "encourage" her to deindustrialize. We should do this by buying less of her junk. (Needless to say, we must lead by example and produce less junk ourselves). Maybe a trade war with China is the best place to start.

    , @Wally
    Nailed it. Good one, Alden.

    E.A. Costa, you have been taken to school.
    , @Randal

    Furthermore, accepting a phone call from the president of another country in no way constitutes “making foreign policy”
     
    It does if the foreign policy in question is not to accept telephone calls from that country's president.

    You mean the Logan act. Mr Trump is no longer a private citizen He is the president elect. According to long established custom, during the Transition the president elect can announce policies he plans to implement
     
    If Trump weren't the presumptive next president, then I would have thought this was a pretty straightforward breach of the Logan Act, on its face. The defence would have to be as you say, that he is in some sense already presidential by virtue of his election win. But there is still a President of the United States, Obama, and the Constitution says he makes foreign relations. The Logan Act was written to keep that prerogative from being infringed upon. If Obama wanted to make trouble he could probably make an issue about this, but he could also take the view that it's better to keep quiet and regard the popularly elected future president as acting as a kind of presidential delegate (even when - bizarrely - going directly against US foreign policy as set by the existing President).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    What exactly does America fear China will do?

    One fear is that the dollar will no longer be the world’s reserve currency. The Chinese currency may play a role in pushing it out. The dollar is currently held in place by a number of things including military threat. Were it to lose that status the debt riddled US economy might take a huge tumble. Also, it’s said the US economy is slowing down and may no longer drive the world economy, being superseded by the Chinese. This is George Soros’ contention.
    The US has been an Asian presence and power since it entered the Philippines and later even more so after the war with Japan. Countries do not like the rise of rivals in what they consider their spheres of interest.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    But don't you know, the Dems are saying that Obama is handing Trump a strong economy.

    http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/12/05/left-pretends-trump-inheriting-strong-economy/
    , @eah
    One fear is that the dollar will no longer be the world’s reserve currency. The Chinese currency may play a role in pushing it out.

    Believing this could ever happen is one definition of clinical insanity -- China is a one party dictatorship -- and it's the communist party at that, which governs at whim -- no one would ever see China as a safe haven where strong courts and the rule of law protect property and assets -- ask eg all the people who fell victim to the numerous Chinese 'reverse merger' stock scams -- they cannot be trusted, and for that reason no one trusts them -- period -- for this and other obvious reasons, eg the political and military hegemony of the US, the status of the USD as the 'world's reserve currency' is not even remotely threatened right now -- that may not always be true -- but when the USD does come under threat, it won't be from the Chinese yuan.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Diogenes says:

    You have got to admire John Pilger as an eloquent, long time, tireless antiwar campaigner and social justice advocate.

    It sure looks like the Americans, who in the cause of self profit helped industrialize and modernize the Chinese economy want now to stop it from surpassing America in power and profit.

    The “Silk Road” project is going to further develop the Asian continent and China’s maritime expansion in the S. China Sea is going to project Chinese power and act as a buttress against an American embargo or mainland assault.

    America will defeat China in a conventional war but at great cost. See following war game scenario:

    Surely nothing is worth a war with China and hopefully the American people will not be duped into such a misadventure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    "America will defeat China in a conventional war but at great cost. "

    Nonsense. Americans will run back to their video games after a few ships are hit by Sunburn missiles and Chinese subs sink an aircraft carrier or two.

    Americans like easy civilian slaughters, not real fights.
    , @Joe Wong
    Despite the USA led gang has overwhelming superior fire power, but they did not win conventional war against China in Korea. American does not have the strategy and tactical intelligence to win conventional and non-conventional wars, but it has the most lethal weapon, the big mouth loose cannon, in the world to win wars in the world by claiming credit where credit is not due.

    Mind you the USA did not defeat Nazi, the Red Army did, nor it defeated the beastly psychopathic imperial Japanese alone, China and Russia were the major contributors of the victory over the evil barbarian the unrepentant war criminal Japanese.

    As long as the American deluding themselves with those computer generated war game glories, they will start war against China and destroy themselves with radioactive mushrooms and nuclear winters.
    , @Astuteobservor II
    the video is better than most usa vs china videos, but still retarded. the very first thing to happen between any usa vs china is anti sat weapons going off. all the tech becomes useless without sat navigation. that is without nukes. if we include nukes, usa is willing to nuke china as a first strike because china has too many anti access and area denial weapons on it's coast. and china would probably be nuking all the american bases around china with it's short range nukes. kinda hard to repair nuked bases. but all of this talk is stupid anyway, once the first nuke goes off, MAD starts.

    wars between major nuclear powers will never happen, because it will be the end. even if we can win a nuclear war, what kind of super power would we be after eating chinese nukes? I am 100% sure the crazies would want to nuke russia too just so it doesn't become the new #1. MAD once again.

    crazy fucks.

    ps: people at RAND are especially retarded. china! yes, we just nuked you coastal cities! but don't nuke us back! this is not MAD. crazy and stupid fucks.

    , @Randal

    Surely nothing is worth a war with China and hopefully the American people will not be duped into such a misadventure.
     
    This is surely correct.

    The analysis you posted is limited (as it states) by its own assumptions ("nukes, morale or allies aren't modelled"), and it also assumes a quick start war rather than a slow buildup. In the end, though, nobody really knows how the interaction of massed modern high tech systems will play out, in orbit and in a crowded airspace especially.

    Where it falls down even on its own terms, I'd suggest, is in not modelling industrial capacity. It suggests a long war of attrition ("after 6-12 months of air war to thin out the defences, another year might be needed to inflict enough damage to Chinese infrastructure and economy", "slow and meticulous campaign", "China would eventually run out of missiles"), but in such a situation the ability of the protagonists to build new systems (certainly missiles and air defences, possibly even aircraft as well, given proper preparation, stockpiling of components etc) will come into play in a way it hasn't for a US military target since at least Vietnam. Given that, it's not necessarily the case that China would "run out of missiles", nor that the US would even be able to turn around the initially unfavourable loss ratio and grind down the Chinese mainland air defences, as the piece suggests. China's real industrial capacity far exceeds that of the US, and it will be replacing missiles and air defence systems where the US will be losing high tech aircraft and ships.

    And as others have pointed out, there must be a serious question mark over the US regime being able to sustain support for a war that grinds on for years and involves losses, as even that analysis suggests, of "dozens of US navy vessels sunk and over a thousand combat planes lost". It would need a suitable propaganda pretext such as the Japanese preventive attack on Pearl Harbor to motivate the US nation sufficiently, I think. I doubt that merely helping out regional allies in the SCS or keeping Taiwan separate from China would cut it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. iffen says:
    @Jason Liu
    What exactly does America fear China will do? On its current trajectory, China will:

    -Become richer
    -Seek greater political and economic influence in the region

    There's simply no evidence the PRC will start invading/annexing neighbors. Squabbles over tiny bits of disputed territory is about as much as it gets. Both the Chinese people and the government believes "world domination" or even world policing a la US is basically an expensive, thankless, and worthless pursuit.

    Unless American analysts are reading China all wrong, the pivot to Asia leads me to believe anti-Chinese sentiment in America is similar to anti-Russian sentiment -- caused by a difference in political systems and ideological values, and not territorial concerns.

    There’s simply no evidence the PRC will start invading/annexing neighbors.

    Economic, political and military power are intertwined.

    Expecting China to be the Mother of all Boy Scouts in international activities when they complete their development into a full super power ignores reality. Generically, all superpowers express and exercise their power. The reason China has not in recent history is because they have not had the power. It will be different when they are fully enabled. Otherwise you expect them to be the exception to the rule that is evident throughout history.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    And why would China annex it's basket case neighbors?
    So they can have economic responsibility for them?

    No chance.
    , @Randal

    Expecting China to be the Mother of all Boy Scouts in international activities when they complete their development into a full super power ignores reality. Generically, all superpowers express and exercise their power.
     
    Absolutely so, but all superpowers do not exercise their power in the same ways. There's no reason to suppose China will be as aggressive around the world as the US has been, and other European colonial powers before them, nor as the ideologically involved Soviet Union was. To the contrary, there are reasons to think that China will adopt rather different approaches. One way to encourage it in the right direction is not to try to "contain" it and thereby force it to direct massive resources into military and diplomatic power simply in order to defend itself and to achieve its reasonable objectives.

    China's concerns culturally tend to be more about Chinese racial/ethnic unity and other cultures paying them appropriate (as they see it) "respect". The best way to avoid Chinese interference is probably not to let large ethnic Chinese communities (like, say, Singapore) build up on your territory, and also to stay economically and militarily strong enough to deter opportunist interference (but that's a general good rule of thumb anyway). But staying strong does not mean engaging in aggressive confrontation - too many US establishment thinkers confuse the two.

    Doubtless Chinese foreign policy might be influenced more by global-oriented interest groups as it becomes more globally involved, but there is no reason necessarily to assume its foreign policy will be as lobby-manipulated as the US's has been, for instance.

    Time will tell.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @Alden
    You mean the Logan act. Mr Trump is no longer a private citizen He is the president elect. According to long established custom, during the Transition the president elect can announce policies he plans to implement Furthermore, accepting a phone call from the president of another country in no way constitutes
    "making foreign policy"

    He isn’t the President-elect until he is elected…by the Electors.

    The Archaically-Sanctioned Chosen Ones have yet to vote. Right?

    China can damage us greatly by continuing to add CO2 to the atmosphere. The wisest way to prevent China from doing further damage to the World Ecosystem is to gently “encourage” her to deindustrialize. We should do this by buying less of her junk. (Needless to say, we must lead by example and produce less junk ourselves). Maybe a trade war with China is the best place to start.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    The candidate who wins the general election has been termed the Presidebt Elect for the past 220 years.

    And if you knew anything about foreign affairs you would know that the President allegedly runs foreign affairs. Except for Middle East policy which is run by the Israel and American Jews.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @eah
    we got some crazy fucks in our govt and military

    Would you say fomenting 'squabbles over tiny bits of disputed territory' is evidence there are also "crazy fucks" in the Chinese government and military?

    But essentially you're right -- the "crazy fucks" in the US military are the ones trying to push through acceptance of homosexuality, transgenderism (including "reassignment" surgery at taxpayer expense), and women in combat -- to name some of the "crazy" things they're doing.

    they are doing exactly what other countries in the SCS has been doing for the last 20 years, china is just that much better at it because they are richer. did we make a big deal out of it when it wasn’t china doing it? if you want your words to carry weight, you need standards.

    you just essentially proved the chinese saying in the article:

    “We are not your enemy, but if you [in the West] decide we are, we must prepare without delay.”

    remember, china isn’t a threat to our existence like the soviets were, it is considered a threat simply because it is getting richer. try to wrap your head around that. we are preparing to use nukes just to make sure we stay world #1 the crazy fucks are willing to start MAD for that. so yea, they are crazy fucks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Quartermaster
    Actually, the Chinese are doing something very different than others have done. They are well outside their EEZ, and they know it. They have simply pushed the envelope to see what they can get away with.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Wally says:
    @Alden
    You mean the Logan act. Mr Trump is no longer a private citizen He is the president elect. According to long established custom, during the Transition the president elect can announce policies he plans to implement Furthermore, accepting a phone call from the president of another country in no way constitutes
    "making foreign policy"

    Nailed it. Good one, Alden.

    E.A. Costa, you have been taken to school.

    Read More
    • Replies: @E. A. Costa
    What school is that? Trump is still a private citizen--got it? The Electoral College has not voted.You are a fool as is whatever an "Alden" is.

    And by the way one's list for Federal Officials subject to war crimes charges and other criminal charges includes--Señor Clinton, Señor Bush the younger, Señor Cheney, and Señor Obama. Señor Biden has also indulged in close to criminal activity in the Ukraine. Señora Clinton has remained unprosecuted for any number of crimes reaching back to her husband's presidency, the most obvious one being perjury, covered by "I can't recall". She pulled that again as Secretary of State.

    But this is just the short list.

    Trump is neither President nor President elect yet--so except for his playing fast and loose as a private citizen making foreign policy in regard to China, he has not yet committed any of the more serious crimes of his predecessors, as a federal official at least.

    Now you two fools go fuck yourselves, together or separately, however you prefer.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Wally says:
    @iffen
    There’s simply no evidence the PRC will start invading/annexing neighbors.

    Economic, political and military power are intertwined.

    Expecting China to be the Mother of all Boy Scouts in international activities when they complete their development into a full super power ignores reality. Generically, all superpowers express and exercise their power. The reason China has not in recent history is because they have not had the power. It will be different when they are fully enabled. Otherwise you expect them to be the exception to the rule that is evident throughout history.

    And why would China annex it’s basket case neighbors?
    So they can have economic responsibility for them?

    No chance.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Wally says:
    @Diogenes
    You have got to admire John Pilger as an eloquent, long time, tireless antiwar campaigner and social justice advocate.

    It sure looks like the Americans, who in the cause of self profit helped industrialize and modernize the Chinese economy want now to stop it from surpassing America in power and profit.

    The "Silk Road" project is going to further develop the Asian continent and China's maritime expansion in the S. China Sea is going to project Chinese power and act as a buttress against an American embargo or mainland assault.

    America will defeat China in a conventional war but at great cost. See following war game scenario:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3VqF2dXje0

    Surely nothing is worth a war with China and hopefully the American people will not be duped into such a misadventure.

    “America will defeat China in a conventional war but at great cost. ”

    Nonsense. Americans will run back to their video games after a few ships are hit by Sunburn missiles and Chinese subs sink an aircraft carrier or two.

    Americans like easy civilian slaughters, not real fights.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Wally says:
    @anonymous

    What exactly does America fear China will do?
     
    One fear is that the dollar will no longer be the world's reserve currency. The Chinese currency may play a role in pushing it out. The dollar is currently held in place by a number of things including military threat. Were it to lose that status the debt riddled US economy might take a huge tumble. Also, it's said the US economy is slowing down and may no longer drive the world economy, being superseded by the Chinese. This is George Soros' contention.
    The US has been an Asian presence and power since it entered the Philippines and later even more so after the war with Japan. Countries do not like the rise of rivals in what they consider their spheres of interest.

    But don’t you know, the Dems are saying that Obama is handing Trump a strong economy.

    http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/12/05/left-pretends-trump-inheriting-strong-economy/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Randal says:
    @iffen
    There’s simply no evidence the PRC will start invading/annexing neighbors.

    Economic, political and military power are intertwined.

    Expecting China to be the Mother of all Boy Scouts in international activities when they complete their development into a full super power ignores reality. Generically, all superpowers express and exercise their power. The reason China has not in recent history is because they have not had the power. It will be different when they are fully enabled. Otherwise you expect them to be the exception to the rule that is evident throughout history.

    Expecting China to be the Mother of all Boy Scouts in international activities when they complete their development into a full super power ignores reality. Generically, all superpowers express and exercise their power.

    Absolutely so, but all superpowers do not exercise their power in the same ways. There’s no reason to suppose China will be as aggressive around the world as the US has been, and other European colonial powers before them, nor as the ideologically involved Soviet Union was. To the contrary, there are reasons to think that China will adopt rather different approaches. One way to encourage it in the right direction is not to try to “contain” it and thereby force it to direct massive resources into military and diplomatic power simply in order to defend itself and to achieve its reasonable objectives.

    China’s concerns culturally tend to be more about Chinese racial/ethnic unity and other cultures paying them appropriate (as they see it) “respect”. The best way to avoid Chinese interference is probably not to let large ethnic Chinese communities (like, say, Singapore) build up on your territory, and also to stay economically and militarily strong enough to deter opportunist interference (but that’s a general good rule of thumb anyway). But staying strong does not mean engaging in aggressive confrontation – too many US establishment thinkers confuse the two.

    Doubtless Chinese foreign policy might be influenced more by global-oriented interest groups as it becomes more globally involved, but there is no reason necessarily to assume its foreign policy will be as lobby-manipulated as the US’s has been, for instance.

    Time will tell.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Frankie P
    I get a real kick out of this statement. "The best way to avoid Chinese interference is probably not to let large ethnic Chinese communities (like, say Singapore) build up on your territory..."

    I'm wondering if you have any conception of how long those healthy Chinese trading communitites have been established throughout Southeast Asia. There was a mixed community of Chinese and Malay in Singapore in the early 1300s, hundreds of years before the first Europeans made it to the new world.

    I agree with your idea that the Chinese will exercise their power in different ways. The Chinese have traditionally treated smaller neighbors (I hesitate to use the word "countries", as the nation/state is such a young concept, one which the Chinese don't really use, preferring to see themselves as a civilization rather than a nation/state.) as tribute states, asking for some token tribute and pretty much leaving them alone, provided they don't make trouble for Chinese. Western folks, weaned historically on ideas of extractive colonialism and subsequently neo-colonialism, are unable to fathom this idea of the Chinese: how can they not want to rule the world when we historically have always strived to do so?

    Frankie P
    , @Alden
    Anyone interested in Chinese expansionism should read "Lords of the Rim" by Sterling Seagrave.

    It's the 3,000 year old history of Chinese overseas control of Asian economies Its in PDF.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Joe Wong says:
    @Diogenes
    You have got to admire John Pilger as an eloquent, long time, tireless antiwar campaigner and social justice advocate.

    It sure looks like the Americans, who in the cause of self profit helped industrialize and modernize the Chinese economy want now to stop it from surpassing America in power and profit.

    The "Silk Road" project is going to further develop the Asian continent and China's maritime expansion in the S. China Sea is going to project Chinese power and act as a buttress against an American embargo or mainland assault.

    America will defeat China in a conventional war but at great cost. See following war game scenario:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3VqF2dXje0

    Surely nothing is worth a war with China and hopefully the American people will not be duped into such a misadventure.

    Despite the USA led gang has overwhelming superior fire power, but they did not win conventional war against China in Korea. American does not have the strategy and tactical intelligence to win conventional and non-conventional wars, but it has the most lethal weapon, the big mouth loose cannon, in the world to win wars in the world by claiming credit where credit is not due.

    Mind you the USA did not defeat Nazi, the Red Army did, nor it defeated the beastly psychopathic imperial Japanese alone, China and Russia were the major contributors of the victory over the evil barbarian the unrepentant war criminal Japanese.

    As long as the American deluding themselves with those computer generated war game glories, they will start war against China and destroy themselves with radioactive mushrooms and nuclear winters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Wally says:
    @Randal

    The US can’t even win a war in the primitive Middle East against camel herders and wedding parties, let alone against the smart, well equipped, and oh so numerous Chinese.
     
    This is a common but erroneous non sequitur. Not being able to win a war of colonial occupation, which is basically an asymmetric conflict requiring winning hearts and minds (to use some of the applicable jargon), has little or nothing to do with whether or not the same country can win a war against a peer military competitor. Indeed, to some extent a military configured for one is at a disadvantage for the other.

    As for the rest, you might well be correct that this is mostly, or even all, bluff and bluster aimed at serving various lobby objectives, such as increased military spending and prestige, etc. However, that doesn't mean it isn't highly dangerous, as such behaviour might easily lead to an unintended escalation spiral to full war, or provoke a pre-emptive strike by the target state (as something similar did with the Japanese in 1941).

    And on the other hand, there's an outside chance that Pilger is right and you are wrong - it could be that the US regime will launch a war against China, if they think they can get away with it. Fwiw, I agree with your implied position that the risks are probably always going to be too great for that ever really to happen, but the US regime does have a track record of open military aggression in recent years, in Iraq and Yugoslavia. If I were responsible for China's military posture, I wouldn't want to risk letting Washington even think they might be able to get away with it, with their latest precision strike and missile defence toys.

    A well thought out post, thanks.

    However:
    “If I were responsible for China’s military posture, I wouldn’t want to risk letting Washington even think they might be able to get away with it, with their latest precision strike and missile defence toys.”

    Exactly. The Chinese are not just sitting on their thumbs and we won’t get away with it.

    As I said, Americans do not absorb casualties well and the massive casualties we would see in a war with China would put a quick stop to any madness in the Pentagon.

    Agreed, that doesn’t mean that the nutters won’t give it shot. But realistically, I say the chances are next to zero.

    Cheers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Agreed, that doesn’t mean that the nutters won’t give it shot. But realistically, I say the chances are next to zero.

    Cheers.
     
    Cheers. Appears we're pretty much in agreement on this.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @Diogenes
    You have got to admire John Pilger as an eloquent, long time, tireless antiwar campaigner and social justice advocate.

    It sure looks like the Americans, who in the cause of self profit helped industrialize and modernize the Chinese economy want now to stop it from surpassing America in power and profit.

    The "Silk Road" project is going to further develop the Asian continent and China's maritime expansion in the S. China Sea is going to project Chinese power and act as a buttress against an American embargo or mainland assault.

    America will defeat China in a conventional war but at great cost. See following war game scenario:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3VqF2dXje0

    Surely nothing is worth a war with China and hopefully the American people will not be duped into such a misadventure.

    the video is better than most usa vs china videos, but still retarded. the very first thing to happen between any usa vs china is anti sat weapons going off. all the tech becomes useless without sat navigation. that is without nukes. if we include nukes, usa is willing to nuke china as a first strike because china has too many anti access and area denial weapons on it’s coast. and china would probably be nuking all the american bases around china with it’s short range nukes. kinda hard to repair nuked bases. but all of this talk is stupid anyway, once the first nuke goes off, MAD starts.

    wars between major nuclear powers will never happen, because it will be the end. even if we can win a nuclear war, what kind of super power would we be after eating chinese nukes? I am 100% sure the crazies would want to nuke russia too just so it doesn’t become the new #1. MAD once again.

    crazy fucks.

    ps: people at RAND are especially retarded. china! yes, we just nuked you coastal cities! but don’t nuke us back! this is not MAD. crazy and stupid fucks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Randal says:
    @Alden
    You mean the Logan act. Mr Trump is no longer a private citizen He is the president elect. According to long established custom, during the Transition the president elect can announce policies he plans to implement Furthermore, accepting a phone call from the president of another country in no way constitutes
    "making foreign policy"

    Furthermore, accepting a phone call from the president of another country in no way constitutes “making foreign policy”

    It does if the foreign policy in question is not to accept telephone calls from that country’s president.

    You mean the Logan act. Mr Trump is no longer a private citizen He is the president elect. According to long established custom, during the Transition the president elect can announce policies he plans to implement

    If Trump weren’t the presumptive next president, then I would have thought this was a pretty straightforward breach of the Logan Act, on its face. The defence would have to be as you say, that he is in some sense already presidential by virtue of his election win. But there is still a President of the United States, Obama, and the Constitution says he makes foreign relations. The Logan Act was written to keep that prerogative from being infringed upon. If Obama wanted to make trouble he could probably make an issue about this, but he could also take the view that it’s better to keep quiet and regard the popularly elected future president as acting as a kind of presidential delegate (even when – bizarrely – going directly against US foreign policy as set by the existing President).

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Well, as long as we're bringing up pedantic technical points, Ms. Tsai is not considered under the law a representative of a foreign government, since Taiwan is not recognized!

    But this sort of pedantry is fun, so let's go on.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Randal says:
    @Wally
    A well thought out post, thanks.

    However:
    "If I were responsible for China’s military posture, I wouldn’t want to risk letting Washington even think they might be able to get away with it, with their latest precision strike and missile defence toys."

    Exactly. The Chinese are not just sitting on their thumbs and we won't get away with it.

    As I said, Americans do not absorb casualties well and the massive casualties we would see in a war with China would put a quick stop to any madness in the Pentagon.

    Agreed, that doesn't mean that the nutters won't give it shot. But realistically, I say the chances are next to zero.

    Cheers.

    Agreed, that doesn’t mean that the nutters won’t give it shot. But realistically, I say the chances are next to zero.

    Cheers.

    Cheers. Appears we’re pretty much in agreement on this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. eah says:
    @anonymous

    What exactly does America fear China will do?
     
    One fear is that the dollar will no longer be the world's reserve currency. The Chinese currency may play a role in pushing it out. The dollar is currently held in place by a number of things including military threat. Were it to lose that status the debt riddled US economy might take a huge tumble. Also, it's said the US economy is slowing down and may no longer drive the world economy, being superseded by the Chinese. This is George Soros' contention.
    The US has been an Asian presence and power since it entered the Philippines and later even more so after the war with Japan. Countries do not like the rise of rivals in what they consider their spheres of interest.

    One fear is that the dollar will no longer be the world’s reserve currency. The Chinese currency may play a role in pushing it out.

    Believing this could ever happen is one definition of clinical insanity — China is a one party dictatorship — and it’s the communist party at that, which governs at whim — no one would ever see China as a safe haven where strong courts and the rule of law protect property and assets — ask eg all the people who fell victim to the numerous Chinese ‘reverse merger’ stock scams — they cannot be trusted, and for that reason no one trusts them — period — for this and other obvious reasons, eg the political and military hegemony of the US, the status of the USD as the ‘world’s reserve currency’ is not even remotely threatened right now — that may not always be true — but when the USD does come under threat, it won’t be from the Chinese yuan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @E. A. Costa
    "the status of the USD as the ‘world’s reserve currency’ is not even remotely threatened right now "

    Poor darling. And "not even remotely" to boot!

    Take one's advice--DO NOT APPLY FOR EMPLOYMENT AT GOLDMAN SACHS.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Randal

    Furthermore, accepting a phone call from the president of another country in no way constitutes “making foreign policy”
     
    It does if the foreign policy in question is not to accept telephone calls from that country's president.

    You mean the Logan act. Mr Trump is no longer a private citizen He is the president elect. According to long established custom, during the Transition the president elect can announce policies he plans to implement
     
    If Trump weren't the presumptive next president, then I would have thought this was a pretty straightforward breach of the Logan Act, on its face. The defence would have to be as you say, that he is in some sense already presidential by virtue of his election win. But there is still a President of the United States, Obama, and the Constitution says he makes foreign relations. The Logan Act was written to keep that prerogative from being infringed upon. If Obama wanted to make trouble he could probably make an issue about this, but he could also take the view that it's better to keep quiet and regard the popularly elected future president as acting as a kind of presidential delegate (even when - bizarrely - going directly against US foreign policy as set by the existing President).

    Well, as long as we’re bringing up pedantic technical points, Ms. Tsai is not considered under the law a representative of a foreign government, since Taiwan is not recognized!

    But this sort of pedantry is fun, so let’s go on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Pedantry is a large part of what law is about, in my experience. But I think you'll find that Ms Tsai most certainly would be held to be a representative of a foreign government.

    On reflection, perhaps Trump's best defence would be the opposite of Alden's suggestion that he could claim to be presidential in some way - to argue precisely that he is not yet a member of government, and that the existing US policy is only for members of government not to take calls that would implicitly recognise Taiwan.

    , @E. A. Costa
    To add pedantry to pedantry--Señora Tsai's precise status does not matter. According to the PRC she is the leader of the Taiwan territory. It is the Joint Communiqué on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations of 1979 in which the United States recognized mainland China as the sole legal government of the territory of Taiwan that counts.

    Señor Trump, a private citizen, has now at the very least undermined that agreement. A prosecuting precisian should obviously immediately demand a transcript or recording of the call, which surely exists.

    Perhaps they only discussed Peking Duck--who knows?

    And even if something untoward occurred the penalty would at most be a fine.

    For all that, Señor Trump, no doubt deliberately, has fucked up big time.

    His tactics of provocation, used against Señora Clinton, will not work with the Chinese Communists.

    Merely by the way, Taiwan firms are heavily invested in mainland enterprises.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. AaronB says:

    I see very little to prefer between China and the US. They are both awful, although to be fair to China it is only awful because of and to the extent that it is trying to imitate the US, and its only imitating the US because of Western aggression a hundred years ago or more. But still, there is no doubt China is awful.

    I don’t see why I have to take sides, and Pilger’s attempt to make China sympathetic to me seems ridiculous and many of his claims over the top.

    A world with China on top might be worse – maybe – simply because the US is on its way out and I think China has quit a bit of time left time left to mess up the world before its decision to turn towards ego and aggression hollows it out spiritually, kills its morale, and makes it collapse just like the West.

    Ego-based societies don’t last, but they tend to do a lot of damage before they self-destruct in self-hate. The West is going through that now, China has at least a few decades more of this kind of attitude left.

    We should root for neither.

    Read More
    • Replies: @joe webb
    "I see very little to prefer between China and the US." why bother to read further?

    It all boils down to Oriental Despotism. All the particulars can be seen in the context of despotic genes in the ascendence, never mind greed.

    No other race invented Free Speech, etc. and all these other races do is use it to harm Whites, whether it is milking us or butchering us. Aaron B. is probably a jew, which by the way, reminds me that jews never invented free speech or any other liberties either.

    All these inferiors are Under the thumb of rabbis or emperors....prostrate in the dirt before the Maximum Leader.

    Joe Webb
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Randal says:
    @Diogenes
    You have got to admire John Pilger as an eloquent, long time, tireless antiwar campaigner and social justice advocate.

    It sure looks like the Americans, who in the cause of self profit helped industrialize and modernize the Chinese economy want now to stop it from surpassing America in power and profit.

    The "Silk Road" project is going to further develop the Asian continent and China's maritime expansion in the S. China Sea is going to project Chinese power and act as a buttress against an American embargo or mainland assault.

    America will defeat China in a conventional war but at great cost. See following war game scenario:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3VqF2dXje0

    Surely nothing is worth a war with China and hopefully the American people will not be duped into such a misadventure.

    Surely nothing is worth a war with China and hopefully the American people will not be duped into such a misadventure.

    This is surely correct.

    The analysis you posted is limited (as it states) by its own assumptions (“nukes, morale or allies aren’t modelled”), and it also assumes a quick start war rather than a slow buildup. In the end, though, nobody really knows how the interaction of massed modern high tech systems will play out, in orbit and in a crowded airspace especially.

    Where it falls down even on its own terms, I’d suggest, is in not modelling industrial capacity. It suggests a long war of attrition (“after 6-12 months of air war to thin out the defences, another year might be needed to inflict enough damage to Chinese infrastructure and economy”, “slow and meticulous campaign”, “China would eventually run out of missiles”), but in such a situation the ability of the protagonists to build new systems (certainly missiles and air defences, possibly even aircraft as well, given proper preparation, stockpiling of components etc) will come into play in a way it hasn’t for a US military target since at least Vietnam. Given that, it’s not necessarily the case that China would “run out of missiles”, nor that the US would even be able to turn around the initially unfavourable loss ratio and grind down the Chinese mainland air defences, as the piece suggests. China’s real industrial capacity far exceeds that of the US, and it will be replacing missiles and air defence systems where the US will be losing high tech aircraft and ships.

    And as others have pointed out, there must be a serious question mark over the US regime being able to sustain support for a war that grinds on for years and involves losses, as even that analysis suggests, of “dozens of US navy vessels sunk and over a thousand combat planes lost”. It would need a suitable propaganda pretext such as the Japanese preventive attack on Pearl Harbor to motivate the US nation sufficiently, I think. I doubt that merely helping out regional allies in the SCS or keeping Taiwan separate from China would cut it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. joe webb says:

    Pilger is a card-carrying neo-communist, and has been at it for decades. Whatever he says must be subject to review, in spades.

    Unz is great in general (like his piece on the KKK ) but his Inclusivity factor gets a bit weird by Pilger, etc. Sort of like the Adam-the first-man-Shamir. Joe Webb

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. Randal says:
    @anon
    Well, as long as we're bringing up pedantic technical points, Ms. Tsai is not considered under the law a representative of a foreign government, since Taiwan is not recognized!

    But this sort of pedantry is fun, so let's go on.

    Pedantry is a large part of what law is about, in my experience. But I think you’ll find that Ms Tsai most certainly would be held to be a representative of a foreign government.

    On reflection, perhaps Trump’s best defence would be the opposite of Alden’s suggestion that he could claim to be presidential in some way – to argue precisely that he is not yet a member of government, and that the existing US policy is only for members of government not to take calls that would implicitly recognise Taiwan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    I'm not so sure. It would center on the U.S. characterization of Taiwan, which has always been left deliberately vague. China would probably object stridently if we took any point of view other than that Taiwan is a part of China, in which case Ms. Tsai would be a member of (depending on how you looked at it) a benevolent social club or a violent criminal society (though the Taiwan Relations Act prevents the US from taking the latter view), using titles related to those of a defunct government.

    On the other hand, supposing we disregard this, it would be a major coup if Taiwan was recognized as a foreign government; but since the policy of which Trump would putatively be accused of violating is in fact dependent on the maintaining of Taiwan's ambiguous status by refusing official contact with Taiwanese officials, if we implicitly recognized Taiwan as a legitimate government it would be difficult to say this policy ever firmly existed, since it would be being disregarded by our own courts.

    However, the Taiwan Relations act (sec. 4, sub. b sub. sub. 1) could be cited to get around this. On yet another hand (must be a mutant) the whole tone of the TRA tends towards the encouragement of relations between the U.S. and Taiwan, and makes quite the contrary of an attempt to restrict US-Taiwan relations, specifically relations between the people of the respective countries.

    The Logan Act further requires (in one clause) intent to alter the conduct of said foreign power in a dispute with the United States; it would have to be established that a dispute exists between the U.S. and Taiwan.

    Alternately it would have to be shown that Trump "defeated the measures" of the United States; presumably a more plausible charge. But these measures would have to be defined, and I don't think this could be done with any clarity. In fact, the TRA explicitly announces (in sec. 2-a-2) the intention of the United Stated to promote its foreign policy by continuing "cultural, commercial, and other" contacts; it can reasonably be argued that this is the public face of American policy, at least as seen by a member of the general public like Trump.

    Lastly, there is no precedent for successful prosecution under the Logan Act and the case would in all probability be thrown out of court.

    I'm not a lawyer and am mostly just spitballing here, didn't intend to write half so much.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. pyrrhus says:

    The war with China is NOT going to happen under Trump, friendly relations will be the mode. As to whether or not some later Democrat/neocon President could drag us into such a war, it’s very unlikely, given the precarious nature of US finances. Such a war would, of course, be catastrophic for the USA….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  43. @Greg Bacon
    But the author left out the MOST important reason for all the American war mongering against China; China's new GOLD-backed Yuan will not accept FED reserve notes in trade, which becomes more of a problem when the Yuan is being used in the IMF's 'basket of currencies,' which nations use to trade among each other.

    China goes even more global this weekend. Love ‘em or hate ‘em, on Saturday Oct. 1, the Chinese yuan joins the International Monetary Fund’s currency basket. Once the yuan is a full fledged member of the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights, it becomes a currency worth holding at every single emerging market central bank holding foreign currency reserves. That’s a few billion yuan, on the low end, of demand for the Chinese currency…automatically.

    Even though the yuan is not an immediate threat to the U.S. dollar’s dominance in world trade, nor as a global reserve currency, the yuan’s official entrance makes it the newest, liquid safe haven. Moreover, unlike the yen and the euro safe havens, this one actually has yield.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2016/09/30/much-to-the-dismay-of-china-haters-the-yuan-goes-global-on-oct-1/#3c01c2e378a9
     
    Imagine a currency that actually grow in value, instead of being constantly degraded by the FED. Which one would you choose?

    “China’s new GOLD-backed Yuan”

    I literally laughed out load at that!! As i predicted once the Chinese Yuan was in the basket China would embark on a devaluation campaign and they aren’t done yet.

    You do realize that China’s economic is almost 100% dependent on exports, right? What does a strong currency do for an exported based economy? IT DESTROYS IT.

    The china bulls just crack me up with their dyer predictions of the dollar and this has been going on for over 10 years no with no end in sight. The Yuan debasement that has been going on for almost a year (the exact OPPOSITE of what you’re saying) is destroying my industry as now everything being made there is 30% cheaper to do so.

    I for one am salivating at the thought of a gold backed Yuan as that will mean the work most certainly will return to the USA

    Read More
    • Replies: @E. A. Costa
    "You do realize that China’s economic is almost 100% dependent on exports, right? "

    Presumably a typo fo economy, but even corrected not true.
    , @NoseytheDuke
    You are correct in that dyeing the dollar (presumably a different colour) would have dire effects.
    , @utu
    Since you seem to know all about value of Yuan what do you think of this twit by Trump:

    "Did China ask us if it was OK to devalue their currency (making it hard for our companies to compete), heavily tax our products going into.."

    Would anybody ever complain that a seller is selling his good too cheaply? Apparently that is what Trump and also, I remember, Obama administration was complaining about.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. joe webb says:
    @AaronB
    I see very little to prefer between China and the US. They are both awful, although to be fair to China it is only awful because of and to the extent that it is trying to imitate the US, and its only imitating the US because of Western aggression a hundred years ago or more. But still, there is no doubt China is awful.

    I don't see why I have to take sides, and Pilger's attempt to make China sympathetic to me seems ridiculous and many of his claims over the top.

    A world with China on top might be worse - maybe - simply because the US is on its way out and I think China has quit a bit of time left time left to mess up the world before its decision to turn towards ego and aggression hollows it out spiritually, kills its morale, and makes it collapse just like the West.

    Ego-based societies don't last, but they tend to do a lot of damage before they self-destruct in self-hate. The West is going through that now, China has at least a few decades more of this kind of attitude left.

    We should root for neither.

    “I see very little to prefer between China and the US.” why bother to read further?

    It all boils down to Oriental Despotism. All the particulars can be seen in the context of despotic genes in the ascendence, never mind greed.

    No other race invented Free Speech, etc. and all these other races do is use it to harm Whites, whether it is milking us or butchering us. Aaron B. is probably a jew, which by the way, reminds me that jews never invented free speech or any other liberties either.

    All these inferiors are Under the thumb of rabbis or emperors….prostrate in the dirt before the Maximum Leader.

    Joe Webb

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @Robert Magill

    Would you say fomenting ‘squabbles over tiny bits of disputed territory’ is evidence there are also “crazy fucks” in the Chinese government and military?
     
    China is concerned about those 'sand piles' because they fit into the lower 'Silk Road' plan for trade in the region. We see everything in terms of bullets.

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    And you seriously think the Chinks see things any different? Here’s a newsflash for you: Human nature is the same everywhere. The only thing that differs is the cultural filter.

    The Chinese are acting just as every expansionist power has acted throughout history. they are pushing the envelope to see what they can get away with. The Chinese won’t hesitate to start shooting when one of their lines are crossed. The only thing stopping them at this point is they still fear us. They have a Navy, but it has no hard experience at sea keeping while at war and taking on the #1 Navy at this point would be a serious, serious mistake.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Robert Magill
    They have all their original bullets still shiny and in the original packaging. We have trillions in debt and nothing to show for it. It would be our untried navy versus their untried fleet so the outcome is dubious.

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com
    , @Randal

    They have a Navy, but it has no hard experience at sea keeping while at war and taking on the #1 Navy at this point would be a serious, serious mistake.
     
    This is correct, imo. It will be decades, most likely, before the Chinese navy can go toe to toe with the US navy on equal terms and in neutral waters and hope to prevail. At the moment they aren't even in a position to try yet.

    But they don't need to do that and have no intention of doing so anytime soon - all the Chinese need to do is exclude the US Navy from their own waters, in order to prevent it from interfering with its recovery of Taiwan, or its activities in the SCS. Imo we have already reached the point at which the US probably could no longer prevent a Chinese occupation of Taiwan, although opinions are divided on that and it might be a few more years yet before the issue is certain.

    But unless something unexpected changes the trajectory, it's only going one way - in the direction of increased Chinese power relative to the US military, and with every year that passes the safe operating zone for the USN gets pushed further and further into the Pacific.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @Astuteobservor II
    they are doing exactly what other countries in the SCS has been doing for the last 20 years, china is just that much better at it because they are richer. did we make a big deal out of it when it wasn't china doing it? if you want your words to carry weight, you need standards.

    you just essentially proved the chinese saying in the article:

    “We are not your enemy, but if you [in the West] decide we are, we must prepare without delay.”
     
    remember, china isn't a threat to our existence like the soviets were, it is considered a threat simply because it is getting richer. try to wrap your head around that. we are preparing to use nukes just to make sure we stay world #1 the crazy fucks are willing to start MAD for that. so yea, they are crazy fucks.

    Actually, the Chinese are doing something very different than others have done. They are well outside their EEZ, and they know it. They have simply pushed the envelope to see what they can get away with.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_South_China_Sea at least come up with a better argument than tired old crap. look at the EEZ claims of of every country around the SCS.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @Alfred
    I cannot help thinking that if one of these gigantic and obsolete aircraft carriers were sunk with a missile that cost $1m, the emperor would be shown to be naked.

    As we have learned from a number of SinkEx, ships are far harder to sink that we thought. The only way it could be done with a single missile reliably is with a nuke. If the Chinese use a nuke to try to sink a carrier, they are bigger fools than I thought.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    As we have learned from a number of SinkEx, ships are far harder to sink that we thought.
     
    Don't have to sink them. Just damage them reasonably badly.

    The hard part is finding them, admittedly.

    The only way it could be done with a single missile reliably is with a nuke. If the Chinese use a nuke to try to sink a carrier, they are bigger fools than I thought.
     
    Hitting a carrier group with a nuke is a perfectly legitimate escalation step, and one the Chinese will almost certainly use if things are going badly for them and the opportunity arises. Likewise for key island bases.

    What's the US going to do, start hitting the Chinese mainland with nukes in retaliation, risking a strategic exchange? And if they do, so what? The Chinese can spare a few mainland bases a lot more easily than the US can lose carrier battle groups or key island bases.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @Quartermaster
    Actually, the Chinese are doing something very different than others have done. They are well outside their EEZ, and they know it. They have simply pushed the envelope to see what they can get away with.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_South_China_Sea at least come up with a better argument than tired old crap. look at the EEZ claims of of every country around the SCS.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @Quartermaster
    And you seriously think the Chinks see things any different? Here's a newsflash for you: Human nature is the same everywhere. The only thing that differs is the cultural filter.

    The Chinese are acting just as every expansionist power has acted throughout history. they are pushing the envelope to see what they can get away with. The Chinese won't hesitate to start shooting when one of their lines are crossed. The only thing stopping them at this point is they still fear us. They have a Navy, but it has no hard experience at sea keeping while at war and taking on the #1 Navy at this point would be a serious, serious mistake.

    They have all their original bullets still shiny and in the original packaging. We have trillions in debt and nothing to show for it. It would be our untried navy versus their untried fleet so the outcome is dubious.

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. polistra says:

    Highly unlikely. Since the Switchover in 1989, we’ve allowed China to become our bank and our factory. If we bomb China, Holy Apple and Holy Walmart will instantly disappear. A major buyer of our worthless debt will disappear. Bombing China would HURT the People Who Count.

    When we attack Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria and Yemen, we are HELPING the People Who Count. We are destroying governments unfriendly to Bibi, and we are destroying oil producers who compete with Saudi.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  51. @Wally
    Nailed it. Good one, Alden.

    E.A. Costa, you have been taken to school.

    What school is that? Trump is still a private citizen–got it? The Electoral College has not voted.You are a fool as is whatever an “Alden” is.

    And by the way one’s list for Federal Officials subject to war crimes charges and other criminal charges includes–Señor Clinton, Señor Bush the younger, Señor Cheney, and Señor Obama. Señor Biden has also indulged in close to criminal activity in the Ukraine. Señora Clinton has remained unprosecuted for any number of crimes reaching back to her husband’s presidency, the most obvious one being perjury, covered by “I can’t recall”. She pulled that again as Secretary of State.

    But this is just the short list.

    Trump is neither President nor President elect yet–so except for his playing fast and loose as a private citizen making foreign policy in regard to China, he has not yet committed any of the more serious crimes of his predecessors, as a federal official at least.

    Now you two fools go fuck yourselves, together or separately, however you prefer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    My, my, someone's off his meds. And completely wrong.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @interesting
    "China’s new GOLD-backed Yuan"

    I literally laughed out load at that!! As i predicted once the Chinese Yuan was in the basket China would embark on a devaluation campaign and they aren't done yet.

    You do realize that China's economic is almost 100% dependent on exports, right? What does a strong currency do for an exported based economy? IT DESTROYS IT.

    The china bulls just crack me up with their dyer predictions of the dollar and this has been going on for over 10 years no with no end in sight. The Yuan debasement that has been going on for almost a year (the exact OPPOSITE of what you're saying) is destroying my industry as now everything being made there is 30% cheaper to do so.

    I for one am salivating at the thought of a gold backed Yuan as that will mean the work most certainly will return to the USA

    “You do realize that China’s economic is almost 100% dependent on exports, right? ”

    Presumably a typo fo economy, but even corrected not true.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Randal
    Pedantry is a large part of what law is about, in my experience. But I think you'll find that Ms Tsai most certainly would be held to be a representative of a foreign government.

    On reflection, perhaps Trump's best defence would be the opposite of Alden's suggestion that he could claim to be presidential in some way - to argue precisely that he is not yet a member of government, and that the existing US policy is only for members of government not to take calls that would implicitly recognise Taiwan.

    I’m not so sure. It would center on the U.S. characterization of Taiwan, which has always been left deliberately vague. China would probably object stridently if we took any point of view other than that Taiwan is a part of China, in which case Ms. Tsai would be a member of (depending on how you looked at it) a benevolent social club or a violent criminal society (though the Taiwan Relations Act prevents the US from taking the latter view), using titles related to those of a defunct government.

    On the other hand, supposing we disregard this, it would be a major coup if Taiwan was recognized as a foreign government; but since the policy of which Trump would putatively be accused of violating is in fact dependent on the maintaining of Taiwan’s ambiguous status by refusing official contact with Taiwanese officials, if we implicitly recognized Taiwan as a legitimate government it would be difficult to say this policy ever firmly existed, since it would be being disregarded by our own courts.

    However, the Taiwan Relations act (sec. 4, sub. b sub. sub. 1) could be cited to get around this. On yet another hand (must be a mutant) the whole tone of the TRA tends towards the encouragement of relations between the U.S. and Taiwan, and makes quite the contrary of an attempt to restrict US-Taiwan relations, specifically relations between the people of the respective countries.

    The Logan Act further requires (in one clause) intent to alter the conduct of said foreign power in a dispute with the United States; it would have to be established that a dispute exists between the U.S. and Taiwan.

    Alternately it would have to be shown that Trump “defeated the measures” of the United States; presumably a more plausible charge. But these measures would have to be defined, and I don’t think this could be done with any clarity. In fact, the TRA explicitly announces (in sec. 2-a-2) the intention of the United Stated to promote its foreign policy by continuing “cultural, commercial, and other” contacts; it can reasonably be argued that this is the public face of American policy, at least as seen by a member of the general public like Trump.

    Lastly, there is no precedent for successful prosecution under the Logan Act and the case would in all probability be thrown out of court.

    I’m not a lawyer and am mostly just spitballing here, didn’t intend to write half so much.

    Read More
    • Replies: @E. A. Costa
    Incidentally the wikipedia article on the Logan Act is incorrect--it states that no one has ever been prosecuted for violations of the Act. It probably was meant to read "successfully prosecuted" but that too is wrong.

    The filibustero William Walker was prosecuted under the act and acquitted and at least one other filibustero pleaded guilty and was fined.
    , @Randal
    It's all just idle speculation for our own entertainment, really, given a law that has never really been used much. What's more it's speculation about a foreign country's law for me, as an Englishman :-)

    I would argue that the Act doesn't require Trump to have contacted a member of Taiwan's government, and therefore convicting him would in no way indicate any recognition of same. The Act says (bold added by me):

    "Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined...."

    So even if Tsai is viewed as the head of the Taiwan regional government (which is the Chinese view) the Act still applies to contact with her, and since the established policy of the US is not to treat the Taiwanese government as a legitimate sovereign state, having purportedly official contact with her in that would be "defeating the measures of the United States", if Trump is seen as acting as a quasi-government representative (which he is, really, as the popularly elected next President).

    Indeed, the only reason there's all the fuss about the call (apart from malice on the part of the establishment) is precisely that taking the call was in fact a clear breach of the established protocol for China/Taiwan (and I understand some of the Trump team are now claiming that it was intended as such all along).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Randal says:
    @Quartermaster
    As we have learned from a number of SinkEx, ships are far harder to sink that we thought. The only way it could be done with a single missile reliably is with a nuke. If the Chinese use a nuke to try to sink a carrier, they are bigger fools than I thought.

    As we have learned from a number of SinkEx, ships are far harder to sink that we thought.

    Don’t have to sink them. Just damage them reasonably badly.

    The hard part is finding them, admittedly.

    The only way it could be done with a single missile reliably is with a nuke. If the Chinese use a nuke to try to sink a carrier, they are bigger fools than I thought.

    Hitting a carrier group with a nuke is a perfectly legitimate escalation step, and one the Chinese will almost certainly use if things are going badly for them and the opportunity arises. Likewise for key island bases.

    What’s the US going to do, start hitting the Chinese mainland with nukes in retaliation, risking a strategic exchange? And if they do, so what? The Chinese can spare a few mainland bases a lot more easily than the US can lose carrier battle groups or key island bases.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @anon
    I'm not so sure. It would center on the U.S. characterization of Taiwan, which has always been left deliberately vague. China would probably object stridently if we took any point of view other than that Taiwan is a part of China, in which case Ms. Tsai would be a member of (depending on how you looked at it) a benevolent social club or a violent criminal society (though the Taiwan Relations Act prevents the US from taking the latter view), using titles related to those of a defunct government.

    On the other hand, supposing we disregard this, it would be a major coup if Taiwan was recognized as a foreign government; but since the policy of which Trump would putatively be accused of violating is in fact dependent on the maintaining of Taiwan's ambiguous status by refusing official contact with Taiwanese officials, if we implicitly recognized Taiwan as a legitimate government it would be difficult to say this policy ever firmly existed, since it would be being disregarded by our own courts.

    However, the Taiwan Relations act (sec. 4, sub. b sub. sub. 1) could be cited to get around this. On yet another hand (must be a mutant) the whole tone of the TRA tends towards the encouragement of relations between the U.S. and Taiwan, and makes quite the contrary of an attempt to restrict US-Taiwan relations, specifically relations between the people of the respective countries.

    The Logan Act further requires (in one clause) intent to alter the conduct of said foreign power in a dispute with the United States; it would have to be established that a dispute exists between the U.S. and Taiwan.

    Alternately it would have to be shown that Trump "defeated the measures" of the United States; presumably a more plausible charge. But these measures would have to be defined, and I don't think this could be done with any clarity. In fact, the TRA explicitly announces (in sec. 2-a-2) the intention of the United Stated to promote its foreign policy by continuing "cultural, commercial, and other" contacts; it can reasonably be argued that this is the public face of American policy, at least as seen by a member of the general public like Trump.

    Lastly, there is no precedent for successful prosecution under the Logan Act and the case would in all probability be thrown out of court.

    I'm not a lawyer and am mostly just spitballing here, didn't intend to write half so much.

    Incidentally the wikipedia article on the Logan Act is incorrect–it states that no one has ever been prosecuted for violations of the Act. It probably was meant to read “successfully prosecuted” but that too is wrong.

    The filibustero William Walker was prosecuted under the act and acquitted and at least one other filibustero pleaded guilty and was fined.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Frankie P says:
    @Randal

    Expecting China to be the Mother of all Boy Scouts in international activities when they complete their development into a full super power ignores reality. Generically, all superpowers express and exercise their power.
     
    Absolutely so, but all superpowers do not exercise their power in the same ways. There's no reason to suppose China will be as aggressive around the world as the US has been, and other European colonial powers before them, nor as the ideologically involved Soviet Union was. To the contrary, there are reasons to think that China will adopt rather different approaches. One way to encourage it in the right direction is not to try to "contain" it and thereby force it to direct massive resources into military and diplomatic power simply in order to defend itself and to achieve its reasonable objectives.

    China's concerns culturally tend to be more about Chinese racial/ethnic unity and other cultures paying them appropriate (as they see it) "respect". The best way to avoid Chinese interference is probably not to let large ethnic Chinese communities (like, say, Singapore) build up on your territory, and also to stay economically and militarily strong enough to deter opportunist interference (but that's a general good rule of thumb anyway). But staying strong does not mean engaging in aggressive confrontation - too many US establishment thinkers confuse the two.

    Doubtless Chinese foreign policy might be influenced more by global-oriented interest groups as it becomes more globally involved, but there is no reason necessarily to assume its foreign policy will be as lobby-manipulated as the US's has been, for instance.

    Time will tell.

    I get a real kick out of this statement. “The best way to avoid Chinese interference is probably not to let large ethnic Chinese communities (like, say Singapore) build up on your territory…”

    I’m wondering if you have any conception of how long those healthy Chinese trading communitites have been established throughout Southeast Asia. There was a mixed community of Chinese and Malay in Singapore in the early 1300s, hundreds of years before the first Europeans made it to the new world.

    I agree with your idea that the Chinese will exercise their power in different ways. The Chinese have traditionally treated smaller neighbors (I hesitate to use the word “countries”, as the nation/state is such a young concept, one which the Chinese don’t really use, preferring to see themselves as a civilization rather than a nation/state.) as tribute states, asking for some token tribute and pretty much leaving them alone, provided they don’t make trouble for Chinese. Western folks, weaned historically on ideas of extractive colonialism and subsequently neo-colonialism, are unable to fathom this idea of the Chinese: how can they not want to rule the world when we historically have always strived to do so?

    Frankie P

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    I don't think the longstanding nature of the Chinese communities in eg Singapore has any real relevance to my point. It's far from beyond reason imo to suggest that if China is globally dominant a few decades hence it will seek to exercise protection and authority over substantial ethnic Chinese communities around the world.

    I am against allowing mass migration on principle anyway, so it's not a particularly anti-Chinese thing for me, even though I do think it's one way that a powerful China could become troublesome for far-off nations, even despite the different Chinese approach from the Euro-US approach to global empire that I mentioned and you agreed with.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @interesting
    "China’s new GOLD-backed Yuan"

    I literally laughed out load at that!! As i predicted once the Chinese Yuan was in the basket China would embark on a devaluation campaign and they aren't done yet.

    You do realize that China's economic is almost 100% dependent on exports, right? What does a strong currency do for an exported based economy? IT DESTROYS IT.

    The china bulls just crack me up with their dyer predictions of the dollar and this has been going on for over 10 years no with no end in sight. The Yuan debasement that has been going on for almost a year (the exact OPPOSITE of what you're saying) is destroying my industry as now everything being made there is 30% cheaper to do so.

    I for one am salivating at the thought of a gold backed Yuan as that will mean the work most certainly will return to the USA

    You are correct in that dyeing the dollar (presumably a different colour) would have dire effects.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    You are correct in that dyeing the dollar (presumably a different colour) would have dire effects.
     
    I think you mean dyer effects, no? ;)
    , @interesting
    My spelling is so bad even spell check doesn't help.

    jacques sheete, correct........typed while hanging my head in shame.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Randal says:
    @anon
    I'm not so sure. It would center on the U.S. characterization of Taiwan, which has always been left deliberately vague. China would probably object stridently if we took any point of view other than that Taiwan is a part of China, in which case Ms. Tsai would be a member of (depending on how you looked at it) a benevolent social club or a violent criminal society (though the Taiwan Relations Act prevents the US from taking the latter view), using titles related to those of a defunct government.

    On the other hand, supposing we disregard this, it would be a major coup if Taiwan was recognized as a foreign government; but since the policy of which Trump would putatively be accused of violating is in fact dependent on the maintaining of Taiwan's ambiguous status by refusing official contact with Taiwanese officials, if we implicitly recognized Taiwan as a legitimate government it would be difficult to say this policy ever firmly existed, since it would be being disregarded by our own courts.

    However, the Taiwan Relations act (sec. 4, sub. b sub. sub. 1) could be cited to get around this. On yet another hand (must be a mutant) the whole tone of the TRA tends towards the encouragement of relations between the U.S. and Taiwan, and makes quite the contrary of an attempt to restrict US-Taiwan relations, specifically relations between the people of the respective countries.

    The Logan Act further requires (in one clause) intent to alter the conduct of said foreign power in a dispute with the United States; it would have to be established that a dispute exists between the U.S. and Taiwan.

    Alternately it would have to be shown that Trump "defeated the measures" of the United States; presumably a more plausible charge. But these measures would have to be defined, and I don't think this could be done with any clarity. In fact, the TRA explicitly announces (in sec. 2-a-2) the intention of the United Stated to promote its foreign policy by continuing "cultural, commercial, and other" contacts; it can reasonably be argued that this is the public face of American policy, at least as seen by a member of the general public like Trump.

    Lastly, there is no precedent for successful prosecution under the Logan Act and the case would in all probability be thrown out of court.

    I'm not a lawyer and am mostly just spitballing here, didn't intend to write half so much.

    It’s all just idle speculation for our own entertainment, really, given a law that has never really been used much. What’s more it’s speculation about a foreign country’s law for me, as an Englishman :-)

    I would argue that the Act doesn’t require Trump to have contacted a member of Taiwan’s government, and therefore convicting him would in no way indicate any recognition of same. The Act says (bold added by me):

    Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined….

    So even if Tsai is viewed as the head of the Taiwan regional government (which is the Chinese view) the Act still applies to contact with her, and since the established policy of the US is not to treat the Taiwanese government as a legitimate sovereign state, having purportedly official contact with her in that would be “defeating the measures of the United States”, if Trump is seen as acting as a quasi-government representative (which he is, really, as the popularly elected next President).

    Indeed, the only reason there’s all the fuss about the call (apart from malice on the part of the establishment) is precisely that taking the call was in fact a clear breach of the established protocol for China/Taiwan (and I understand some of the Trump team are now claiming that it was intended as such all along).

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Ah, if agents of the Trump campaign collaborated (or conspired) with members of the Tsai administration that puts a different and far more reprehensible spin on matters. I'm still not sure that this contravenes US intentions, as these (as the proverbial reasonable man might estimate) apply to official contacts, while the Trump call was quite unofficial (again, a matter of estimation), and the desired effects (a strengthening in the US popular mind of the American commitment to defend Taiwan) are entirely in accord with stated US policy. But now I think a case could definitely be brought without being thrown out, though I don't think it would be won.

    And of course it would matter what Trump and Tsai discussed.

    Applying the Logan act to a so-called provincial government would be an interesting thing in itself; too bad we won't see it in court.

    I had been mentally comparing this to the Laurel telegram, but the element of preplanning quite distinguishes them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Randal says:
    @Frankie P
    I get a real kick out of this statement. "The best way to avoid Chinese interference is probably not to let large ethnic Chinese communities (like, say Singapore) build up on your territory..."

    I'm wondering if you have any conception of how long those healthy Chinese trading communitites have been established throughout Southeast Asia. There was a mixed community of Chinese and Malay in Singapore in the early 1300s, hundreds of years before the first Europeans made it to the new world.

    I agree with your idea that the Chinese will exercise their power in different ways. The Chinese have traditionally treated smaller neighbors (I hesitate to use the word "countries", as the nation/state is such a young concept, one which the Chinese don't really use, preferring to see themselves as a civilization rather than a nation/state.) as tribute states, asking for some token tribute and pretty much leaving them alone, provided they don't make trouble for Chinese. Western folks, weaned historically on ideas of extractive colonialism and subsequently neo-colonialism, are unable to fathom this idea of the Chinese: how can they not want to rule the world when we historically have always strived to do so?

    Frankie P

    I don’t think the longstanding nature of the Chinese communities in eg Singapore has any real relevance to my point. It’s far from beyond reason imo to suggest that if China is globally dominant a few decades hence it will seek to exercise protection and authority over substantial ethnic Chinese communities around the world.

    I am against allowing mass migration on principle anyway, so it’s not a particularly anti-Chinese thing for me, even though I do think it’s one way that a powerful China could become troublesome for far-off nations, even despite the different Chinese approach from the Euro-US approach to global empire that I mentioned and you agreed with.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. The USA is in denial. It owes so much money to the Chinese, that it has already sacrificed its independence. It cannot go to war unless China agrees to supply the funds.

    In these circumstances it would be better for America to seek cooperation with China. Donald Trump has a golden opportunity to achieve this, because he wants to revoke the TPP, among whose purposes was to exclude China.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ken
    China owns less than 10% of US debt.
    , @jacques sheete

    The USA is in denial. It owes so much money to the Chinese, that it has already sacrificed its independence. It cannot go to war unless China agrees to supply the funds.
     
    That probably goes for ammo and a lot of other weapons components too! :(

    As it is, the US weapons manufacturers are pretty much tied up by some real dirt bags (guess who/what) who could and probably would pull the plug on "us" if they thought it would profit them. Who/what now controls some venerable old manufacturers is pretty sickening. I'll try to recall the details and it's no doubt worse now than it was 2 decades ago.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @anon
    Well, as long as we're bringing up pedantic technical points, Ms. Tsai is not considered under the law a representative of a foreign government, since Taiwan is not recognized!

    But this sort of pedantry is fun, so let's go on.

    To add pedantry to pedantry–Señora Tsai’s precise status does not matter. According to the PRC she is the leader of the Taiwan territory. It is the Joint Communiqué on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations of 1979 in which the United States recognized mainland China as the sole legal government of the territory of Taiwan that counts.

    Señor Trump, a private citizen, has now at the very least undermined that agreement. A prosecuting precisian should obviously immediately demand a transcript or recording of the call, which surely exists.

    Perhaps they only discussed Peking Duck–who knows?

    And even if something untoward occurred the penalty would at most be a fine.

    For all that, Señor Trump, no doubt deliberately, has fucked up big time.

    His tactics of provocation, used against Señora Clinton, will not work with the Chinese Communists.

    Merely by the way, Taiwan firms are heavily invested in mainland enterprises.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chuck Orloski
    "... Taiwan firms are heavily invested in mainland enterprises."

    So are U.S. Zionist corporations and investors! Such is conveyed daily by a casual reading of The Wall Street Journal.

    There's a war declared upon PERCEPTION, and what people actually know is useless as being in a Catskill Mountain fog.

    (below) Guess who's coming to dinner at Davos?

    https://www.ft.com/content/08c2ce22-baec-11e6-8b45-b8b81dd5d080
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Ken says:
    @James N. Kennett
    The USA is in denial. It owes so much money to the Chinese, that it has already sacrificed its independence. It cannot go to war unless China agrees to supply the funds.

    In these circumstances it would be better for America to seek cooperation with China. Donald Trump has a golden opportunity to achieve this, because he wants to revoke the TPP, among whose purposes was to exclude China.

    China owns less than 10% of US debt.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James N. Kennett
    Interesting. Does that figure include bonds issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @E. A. Costa
    To add pedantry to pedantry--Señora Tsai's precise status does not matter. According to the PRC she is the leader of the Taiwan territory. It is the Joint Communiqué on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations of 1979 in which the United States recognized mainland China as the sole legal government of the territory of Taiwan that counts.

    Señor Trump, a private citizen, has now at the very least undermined that agreement. A prosecuting precisian should obviously immediately demand a transcript or recording of the call, which surely exists.

    Perhaps they only discussed Peking Duck--who knows?

    And even if something untoward occurred the penalty would at most be a fine.

    For all that, Señor Trump, no doubt deliberately, has fucked up big time.

    His tactics of provocation, used against Señora Clinton, will not work with the Chinese Communists.

    Merely by the way, Taiwan firms are heavily invested in mainland enterprises.

    “… Taiwan firms are heavily invested in mainland enterprises.”

    So are U.S. Zionist corporations and investors! Such is conveyed daily by a casual reading of The Wall Street Journal.

    There’s a war declared upon PERCEPTION, and what people actually know is useless as being in a Catskill Mountain fog.

    (below) Guess who’s coming to dinner at Davos?

    https://www.ft.com/content/08c2ce22-baec-11e6-8b45-b8b81dd5d080

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. edNels says:
    @Brabantian
    It's increasingly argued, with substantial evidence, that 'nuclear weapons' are a hoax, they never existed ... Hiroshima & Nagasaki were chemical fire-bombing horrors just like Toyko, people burned satanically along with their wooden houses

    Swedish engineer & nuclear expert Anders Björkman has provided evidence of this for years ... On Hiroshima bombing day at the same hour, US records log a fleet of 66 bombers, a fire-bombing-size fleet, to 'bomb nearby Imabari Japan' ... which no longer existed, wiped out in 2 previous raids

    All 10 alleged 'nuclear bomb nations' played along, in what seems a global scam, trillions for oligarchs owning armaments industries ... wealth shared, e.g., with Soviet Union elites in the fake 'Cold War' over decades (the 'Cold War' hoax proven by economist Antony Sutton half a cenury ago in 'The Best Enemy Money Could Buy', with Israel a key USA-Moscow transfer point)

    1945 - USA chemically bombs Hiroshima & Nagasaki (like Tokyo, Dresden, Hamburg...), also dumping illness-inducing radioactive rubbish. Witnesses ordered to shut up under threat of death, chemical-blast 'mushroom clouds' in film & photos - USA HAS NUCLEAR BOMBS

    1949 - Soviet Union accepts deal for Russian elites to get wealthy by playing along with Cold War & global nuclear terror - COMMIE RUSSIA HAS THE BOMB

    1952 - UK Brits & London financial centre don't want to be 2nd class - UK HAS THE BOMB

    1960 - France chafes not to be 2nd class to Brits - FRANCE & DE GAULLE HAVE THE BOMB

    1964 - China upgraded to major league - COMMIE CHINA HAS THE BOMB

    1966 - Israel joins the club in time to terrorise & blackmail Arabs in 1967 & 1973 wars - JEWS HAVE THE BOMB & JEWS ARE READY TO SAMSON OPTION EVERYBODY, later 'confirmed' by Mordechai Vanunu to MI6 London Times & then maybe living on Haifa beach, not 'in Israeli prison', like 'not really in Ecuador Embassy' hoaxer Julian Assange

    1974 - India accepted as big power, debasing its heritage naming its bomb programme 'Smiling Buddha' - INDIA HAS THE BOMB

    1979 - South Africa's white apartheid gov gets to play - WHITE RACIST SOUTH AFRICA HAS THE BOMB READY TO KILL BLACK PEOPLE ... but 'dismantles bombs' before Mandela & black government can find out the scam

    1998 - Pakistan becomes central player in new Western anti-Muslim theme - PAKISTANI MUSLIMS HAVE THE BOMB & OSAMA OR TERRORISTS MIGHT GET AHOLD OF IT

    2006 - North Korea, always making deals, gets to upgrade - CRAZY NORTH KOREA HAS THE BOMB

    'Nuclear terror' - A greatly profitable business!

    Your ”theory” isn’t completely too far fetched, I had the same thoughts too. It might take 66 bombers +/- to deliver enough chemicals, but they could do that.

    The effects could be done with standard chemical means, the whole rouse of Atomic energy is a complete crock! Makes work for idiot science teachers who should be diggin’ ditches for a livin’.

    Well Poor ole Pilger is down there in Austrailia with the Dr. Caldecott, who is pretty scarey when she talks about Nuculear stuff. I hope it is all a gaddamed ruse, or it is the end of life on our planet, the ”halve lives” of these atomic things is too long, just for starters.!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @NoseytheDuke
    You are correct in that dyeing the dollar (presumably a different colour) would have dire effects.

    You are correct in that dyeing the dollar (presumably a different colour) would have dire effects.

    I think you mean dyer effects, no? ;)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @James N. Kennett
    The USA is in denial. It owes so much money to the Chinese, that it has already sacrificed its independence. It cannot go to war unless China agrees to supply the funds.

    In these circumstances it would be better for America to seek cooperation with China. Donald Trump has a golden opportunity to achieve this, because he wants to revoke the TPP, among whose purposes was to exclude China.

    The USA is in denial. It owes so much money to the Chinese, that it has already sacrificed its independence. It cannot go to war unless China agrees to supply the funds.

    That probably goes for ammo and a lot of other weapons components too! :(

    As it is, the US weapons manufacturers are pretty much tied up by some real dirt bags (guess who/what) who could and probably would pull the plug on “us” if they thought it would profit them. Who/what now controls some venerable old manufacturers is pretty sickening. I’ll try to recall the details and it’s no doubt worse now than it was 2 decades ago.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Correct, re above comment.

    Remember the ammo for the M16? I think Olin got the contract based on their connections but, if I recall correctly, the ammo only met army specs and not manufacturer specs. Consequently the M16s were jamming at rather inconvenient moments. Somebody should have gone to the wall for that but it's doubtful anyone did.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Dylan D says:

    Cynical, weak, shamelessly opinionated. This article says so little in so many words.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Cynical, weak, shamelessly opinionated. This article says so little in so many words.

     

    Kindly elaborate, please!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Randal
    It's all just idle speculation for our own entertainment, really, given a law that has never really been used much. What's more it's speculation about a foreign country's law for me, as an Englishman :-)

    I would argue that the Act doesn't require Trump to have contacted a member of Taiwan's government, and therefore convicting him would in no way indicate any recognition of same. The Act says (bold added by me):

    "Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined...."

    So even if Tsai is viewed as the head of the Taiwan regional government (which is the Chinese view) the Act still applies to contact with her, and since the established policy of the US is not to treat the Taiwanese government as a legitimate sovereign state, having purportedly official contact with her in that would be "defeating the measures of the United States", if Trump is seen as acting as a quasi-government representative (which he is, really, as the popularly elected next President).

    Indeed, the only reason there's all the fuss about the call (apart from malice on the part of the establishment) is precisely that taking the call was in fact a clear breach of the established protocol for China/Taiwan (and I understand some of the Trump team are now claiming that it was intended as such all along).

    Ah, if agents of the Trump campaign collaborated (or conspired) with members of the Tsai administration that puts a different and far more reprehensible spin on matters. I’m still not sure that this contravenes US intentions, as these (as the proverbial reasonable man might estimate) apply to official contacts, while the Trump call was quite unofficial (again, a matter of estimation), and the desired effects (a strengthening in the US popular mind of the American commitment to defend Taiwan) are entirely in accord with stated US policy. But now I think a case could definitely be brought without being thrown out, though I don’t think it would be won.

    And of course it would matter what Trump and Tsai discussed.

    Applying the Logan act to a so-called provincial government would be an interesting thing in itself; too bad we won’t see it in court.

    I had been mentally comparing this to the Laurel telegram, but the element of preplanning quite distinguishes them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Why don't you call Loretta Lynch and tell her to have the FBI arrest Trump for violating the Logan Act? I'm sure the USAG will welcome your expertise and advice.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @Dylan D
    Cynical, weak, shamelessly opinionated. This article says so little in so many words.

    Cynical, weak, shamelessly opinionated. This article says so little in so many words.

    Kindly elaborate, please!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @jacques sheete

    The USA is in denial. It owes so much money to the Chinese, that it has already sacrificed its independence. It cannot go to war unless China agrees to supply the funds.
     
    That probably goes for ammo and a lot of other weapons components too! :(

    As it is, the US weapons manufacturers are pretty much tied up by some real dirt bags (guess who/what) who could and probably would pull the plug on "us" if they thought it would profit them. Who/what now controls some venerable old manufacturers is pretty sickening. I'll try to recall the details and it's no doubt worse now than it was 2 decades ago.

    Correct, re above comment.

    Remember the ammo for the M16? I think Olin got the contract based on their connections but, if I recall correctly, the ammo only met army specs and not manufacturer specs. Consequently the M16s were jamming at rather inconvenient moments. Somebody should have gone to the wall for that but it’s doubtful anyone did.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Alden says:
    @E. A. Costa
    What school is that? Trump is still a private citizen--got it? The Electoral College has not voted.You are a fool as is whatever an "Alden" is.

    And by the way one's list for Federal Officials subject to war crimes charges and other criminal charges includes--Señor Clinton, Señor Bush the younger, Señor Cheney, and Señor Obama. Señor Biden has also indulged in close to criminal activity in the Ukraine. Señora Clinton has remained unprosecuted for any number of crimes reaching back to her husband's presidency, the most obvious one being perjury, covered by "I can't recall". She pulled that again as Secretary of State.

    But this is just the short list.

    Trump is neither President nor President elect yet--so except for his playing fast and loose as a private citizen making foreign policy in regard to China, he has not yet committed any of the more serious crimes of his predecessors, as a federal official at least.

    Now you two fools go fuck yourselves, together or separately, however you prefer.

    My, my, someone’s off his meds. And completely wrong.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Alden says:
    @Randal

    Expecting China to be the Mother of all Boy Scouts in international activities when they complete their development into a full super power ignores reality. Generically, all superpowers express and exercise their power.
     
    Absolutely so, but all superpowers do not exercise their power in the same ways. There's no reason to suppose China will be as aggressive around the world as the US has been, and other European colonial powers before them, nor as the ideologically involved Soviet Union was. To the contrary, there are reasons to think that China will adopt rather different approaches. One way to encourage it in the right direction is not to try to "contain" it and thereby force it to direct massive resources into military and diplomatic power simply in order to defend itself and to achieve its reasonable objectives.

    China's concerns culturally tend to be more about Chinese racial/ethnic unity and other cultures paying them appropriate (as they see it) "respect". The best way to avoid Chinese interference is probably not to let large ethnic Chinese communities (like, say, Singapore) build up on your territory, and also to stay economically and militarily strong enough to deter opportunist interference (but that's a general good rule of thumb anyway). But staying strong does not mean engaging in aggressive confrontation - too many US establishment thinkers confuse the two.

    Doubtless Chinese foreign policy might be influenced more by global-oriented interest groups as it becomes more globally involved, but there is no reason necessarily to assume its foreign policy will be as lobby-manipulated as the US's has been, for instance.

    Time will tell.

    Anyone interested in Chinese expansionism should read “Lords of the Rim” by Sterling Seagrave.

    It’s the 3,000 year old history of Chinese overseas control of Asian economies Its in PDF.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @NoseytheDuke
    You are correct in that dyeing the dollar (presumably a different colour) would have dire effects.

    My spelling is so bad even spell check doesn’t help.

    jacques sheete, correct……..typed while hanging my head in shame.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Guilty as charged, sorry. I was having a larf.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. The Coming War on China

    I call BS. No double BS.

    I used to read Pilger but now he has become unhinged with maybe an onset of Dementia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  75. Alden says:
    @anon
    Ah, if agents of the Trump campaign collaborated (or conspired) with members of the Tsai administration that puts a different and far more reprehensible spin on matters. I'm still not sure that this contravenes US intentions, as these (as the proverbial reasonable man might estimate) apply to official contacts, while the Trump call was quite unofficial (again, a matter of estimation), and the desired effects (a strengthening in the US popular mind of the American commitment to defend Taiwan) are entirely in accord with stated US policy. But now I think a case could definitely be brought without being thrown out, though I don't think it would be won.

    And of course it would matter what Trump and Tsai discussed.

    Applying the Logan act to a so-called provincial government would be an interesting thing in itself; too bad we won't see it in court.

    I had been mentally comparing this to the Laurel telegram, but the element of preplanning quite distinguishes them.

    Why don’t you call Loretta Lynch and tell her to have the FBI arrest Trump for violating the Logan Act? I’m sure the USAG will welcome your expertise and advice.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. utu says:
    @interesting
    "China’s new GOLD-backed Yuan"

    I literally laughed out load at that!! As i predicted once the Chinese Yuan was in the basket China would embark on a devaluation campaign and they aren't done yet.

    You do realize that China's economic is almost 100% dependent on exports, right? What does a strong currency do for an exported based economy? IT DESTROYS IT.

    The china bulls just crack me up with their dyer predictions of the dollar and this has been going on for over 10 years no with no end in sight. The Yuan debasement that has been going on for almost a year (the exact OPPOSITE of what you're saying) is destroying my industry as now everything being made there is 30% cheaper to do so.

    I for one am salivating at the thought of a gold backed Yuan as that will mean the work most certainly will return to the USA

    Since you seem to know all about value of Yuan what do you think of this twit by Trump:

    “Did China ask us if it was OK to devalue their currency (making it hard for our companies to compete), heavily tax our products going into..”

    Would anybody ever complain that a seller is selling his good too cheaply? Apparently that is what Trump and also, I remember, Obama administration was complaining about.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    "When we buy foreign goods, we get the goods and they get the money. When we buy our own we get both". Abraham Lincoln (I think ;o).
    , @interesting
    Ya know.....i don't think i said i know EVERYTHING about the Yuan, so I'm not sure why you're going a bit off on that. Is the Yuan being devalued? Yes. Is this on purpose? Yes, in my opinion.

    I get some of my information from guys like Kyle Bass, Jim Chanos, Harry Dent, and David Stockman so if you want the "experts" opinions start there.

    I do know a thing or two about China having been dealing with companies and people there for going on 20 years. Profits are of a secondary concern, putting people to work is primary.....

    selling products for cheaper than it cost you to make them because the government subsidizes you is called dumping and it puts people out of business that have to actually turn a profit. That is NOT FREE TRADE.

    And once again I'm no "expert", it's just MHO.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. BenKenobi says:
    @Alfred
    I cannot help thinking that if one of these gigantic and obsolete aircraft carriers were sunk with a missile that cost $1m, the emperor would be shown to be naked.

    Also, all these fancy nuclear powered carriers and subs are gonna be an environmental disaster when they start to sink in a shooting war.

    Just think of all the tonnage sunk in WW2… for example imagine if the Yamato also had a nuclear reactor on board…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. denk says:

    Donald Trump
    “I will rebuild our military. It will be so strong, and so powerful, and so great. It will be so powerful and so great that we’ll never have to use it. Nobody’s going to mess with us, folks. Nobody.”, [sic]

    Well i’ve got news for you, Gringo !
    Murkkan armed forces has been so powerful it’s unchallenged since ww2 ,yet it still rampaged all over the world like a mad bull chasing a red flag !
    Why ?

    Not that anybody was ‘messing with you’ [sic],
    It’s the Albright doctrine
    *What a shame to have such a magnificent military and not using it !*

    Two obvious conclusion,

    1] Trump is just another gringo speaking with forked tongue, a fraudster.

    2] He’s the latest iteration of the Micc appointee churned out by the murkkan
    election circus.

    hhhhhhhh

    Q.E.D.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  79. anon says: • Disclaimer

    Did you miss the part where I said that I wasn’t a lawyer? Did you miss the part where I said a case brought against Trump would be lost? Did you miss the part where I said it wouldn’t be brought? Did you miss the part where this whole discussion is a hypothetical for the avowed purpose, and I quote, of “fun”?

    I know I shouldn’t respond, but here I am responding anyway. Good luck to you and a word of advice: don’t take the comment section too seriously.

    Cheers!

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    A heads up; this comment is a reply to #75. Don't know how I messed up posting it, sorry for the mistake. See, Alden, my bad karma for replying rudely to you follows me ...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @anon
    Did you miss the part where I said that I wasn't a lawyer? Did you miss the part where I said a case brought against Trump would be lost? Did you miss the part where I said it wouldn't be brought? Did you miss the part where this whole discussion is a hypothetical for the avowed purpose, and I quote, of "fun"?

    I know I shouldn't respond, but here I am responding anyway. Good luck to you and a word of advice: don't take the comment section too seriously.

    Cheers!

    A heads up; this comment is a reply to #75. Don’t know how I messed up posting it, sorry for the mistake. See, Alden, my bad karma for replying rudely to you follows me …

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. America is a nation in crisis, more polarised and divided than at any other time in its short history and it is tearing itself apart from the inside.

    A continent sized ghetto of drug addiction, vice, poverty, illiteracy, child mortality and predatory police forces, while a selection of rackets are perpetrated on the heads of the people from pharma, oil, sugar, agricultural, real estate, finance and military.

    In any war with China U.S servicemen are going to die, most likely in their thousands, thats inevitable, the Chinese have been busy developing missile technology specifically for sinking U.S ships so we would see American aircraft carriers burning, thats a given.

    How would all those deaths play out domestically?

    And how long before American soldiers decided to turn their guns on their leaders rather than burn alive and drown in the South China Sea?

    Americans are ready to die to defend their country but in their hearts they no longer believe they are indispensable or exceptional, that belief has long been beaten out of them by their own political establishment pursing their own course of ideology and dogma.

    Any war with China will come at the cost of the social and financial destruction of the United States.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Americans are ready to die to defend their country
     
    When was the last time Americans died actually defending their country? That would be the War of 1812 maybe?

    Also, while Americans are very happy to kill "defending" their country they're not so keen on actually dying. The last time they came up against an opponent who actually fought back, in Vietnam, they didn't seem happy about it at all.

    America's wars have mostly been colonial wars. It's a lot of fun when you have overwhelming material superiority and you're fighting a Third World country. The British mostly enjoyed their colonial wars as well. Using Maxim guns against men in skirts armed with spears is a ripping adventure. It's like fox hunting - you get to be in the great outdoors, there's a very tiny amount of danger to add spice, and you get to do lots of killing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @interesting
    My spelling is so bad even spell check doesn't help.

    jacques sheete, correct........typed while hanging my head in shame.

    Guilty as charged, sorry. I was having a larf.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @utu
    Since you seem to know all about value of Yuan what do you think of this twit by Trump:

    "Did China ask us if it was OK to devalue their currency (making it hard for our companies to compete), heavily tax our products going into.."

    Would anybody ever complain that a seller is selling his good too cheaply? Apparently that is what Trump and also, I remember, Obama administration was complaining about.

    “When we buy foreign goods, we get the goods and they get the money. When we buy our own we get both”. Abraham Lincoln (I think ;o).

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    “When we buy foreign goods, we get the goods and they get the money. When we buy our own we get both”. Abraham Lincoln (I think ;o).

    Nice truism but why do we complain that Yuan is too cheap?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Randal says:
    @Quartermaster
    And you seriously think the Chinks see things any different? Here's a newsflash for you: Human nature is the same everywhere. The only thing that differs is the cultural filter.

    The Chinese are acting just as every expansionist power has acted throughout history. they are pushing the envelope to see what they can get away with. The Chinese won't hesitate to start shooting when one of their lines are crossed. The only thing stopping them at this point is they still fear us. They have a Navy, but it has no hard experience at sea keeping while at war and taking on the #1 Navy at this point would be a serious, serious mistake.

    They have a Navy, but it has no hard experience at sea keeping while at war and taking on the #1 Navy at this point would be a serious, serious mistake.

    This is correct, imo. It will be decades, most likely, before the Chinese navy can go toe to toe with the US navy on equal terms and in neutral waters and hope to prevail. At the moment they aren’t even in a position to try yet.

    But they don’t need to do that and have no intention of doing so anytime soon – all the Chinese need to do is exclude the US Navy from their own waters, in order to prevent it from interfering with its recovery of Taiwan, or its activities in the SCS. Imo we have already reached the point at which the US probably could no longer prevent a Chinese occupation of Taiwan, although opinions are divided on that and it might be a few more years yet before the issue is certain.

    But unless something unexpected changes the trajectory, it’s only going one way – in the direction of increased Chinese power relative to the US military, and with every year that passes the safe operating zone for the USN gets pushed further and further into the Pacific.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @Ken
    China owns less than 10% of US debt.

    Interesting. Does that figure include bonds issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Alden says:
    @Eustace Tilley (not)
    He isn't the President-elect until he is elected...by the Electors.

    The Archaically-Sanctioned Chosen Ones have yet to vote. Right?

    China can damage us greatly by continuing to add CO2 to the atmosphere. The wisest way to prevent China from doing further damage to the World Ecosystem is to gently "encourage" her to deindustrialize. We should do this by buying less of her junk. (Needless to say, we must lead by example and produce less junk ourselves). Maybe a trade war with China is the best place to start.

    The candidate who wins the general election has been termed the Presidebt Elect for the past 220 years.

    And if you knew anything about foreign affairs you would know that the President allegedly runs foreign affairs. Except for Middle East policy which is run by the Israel and American Jews.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. utu says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    "When we buy foreign goods, we get the goods and they get the money. When we buy our own we get both". Abraham Lincoln (I think ;o).

    “When we buy foreign goods, we get the goods and they get the money. When we buy our own we get both”. Abraham Lincoln (I think ;o).

    Nice truism but why do we complain that Yuan is too cheap?

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Because even though it makes Chinese cheap goods even cheaper it just accelerates the rate of the one-way exodus of American dollars to China. The British had the same problem with buying tea from China using silver as currency, the supplies of silver ran very low and caused problems at home.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @utu
    Since you seem to know all about value of Yuan what do you think of this twit by Trump:

    "Did China ask us if it was OK to devalue their currency (making it hard for our companies to compete), heavily tax our products going into.."

    Would anybody ever complain that a seller is selling his good too cheaply? Apparently that is what Trump and also, I remember, Obama administration was complaining about.

    Ya know…..i don’t think i said i know EVERYTHING about the Yuan, so I’m not sure why you’re going a bit off on that. Is the Yuan being devalued? Yes. Is this on purpose? Yes, in my opinion.

    I get some of my information from guys like Kyle Bass, Jim Chanos, Harry Dent, and David Stockman so if you want the “experts” opinions start there.

    I do know a thing or two about China having been dealing with companies and people there for going on 20 years. Profits are of a secondary concern, putting people to work is primary…..

    selling products for cheaper than it cost you to make them because the government subsidizes you is called dumping and it puts people out of business that have to actually turn a profit. That is NOT FREE TRADE.

    And once again I’m no “expert”, it’s just MHO.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Tony Papagallo
    America is a nation in crisis, more polarised and divided than at any other time in its short history and it is tearing itself apart from the inside.

    A continent sized ghetto of drug addiction, vice, poverty, illiteracy, child mortality and predatory police forces, while a selection of rackets are perpetrated on the heads of the people from pharma, oil, sugar, agricultural, real estate, finance and military.

    In any war with China U.S servicemen are going to die, most likely in their thousands, thats inevitable, the Chinese have been busy developing missile technology specifically for sinking U.S ships so we would see American aircraft carriers burning, thats a given.

    How would all those deaths play out domestically?

    And how long before American soldiers decided to turn their guns on their leaders rather than burn alive and drown in the South China Sea?

    Americans are ready to die to defend their country but in their hearts they no longer believe they are indispensable or exceptional, that belief has long been beaten out of them by their own political establishment pursing their own course of ideology and dogma.

    Any war with China will come at the cost of the social and financial destruction of the United States.

    Americans are ready to die to defend their country

    When was the last time Americans died actually defending their country? That would be the War of 1812 maybe?

    Also, while Americans are very happy to kill “defending” their country they’re not so keen on actually dying. The last time they came up against an opponent who actually fought back, in Vietnam, they didn’t seem happy about it at all.

    America’s wars have mostly been colonial wars. It’s a lot of fun when you have overwhelming material superiority and you’re fighting a Third World country. The British mostly enjoyed their colonial wars as well. Using Maxim guns against men in skirts armed with spears is a ripping adventure. It’s like fox hunting – you get to be in the great outdoors, there’s a very tiny amount of danger to add spice, and you get to do lots of killing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Trader says:

    What devaluation? Top 3 Chinese markets are Europe (EUR), US (USD) and Japan (JPY), in that order. The yuan is up significantly against the EUR and JPY. So where is this devaluation?

    As far as selling goods at a loss, you’ve obviously never set foot in China. Profits, and not necessarily long term profits, are on those SOB’s mind all the time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @interesting
    Donald Trump's win in US presidential election sends China yuan to six-year low against dollar

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/09/donald-trumps-win-in-us-presidential-election-sends-china-yuan-to-six-year-low-against-dollar.html


    This could be fake news. But i use the dollar so that's all that matters to me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Art says:

    This article is misleading. It is not all America bad – China good.

    Israel and China are the two most dangerous countries on the planet. They are both ancient peoples with a giant chip on their shoulders. They are tribal Zombies fed arrogance from childhood. They are like Germany and Japan were in the last century.

    They are going to push until they are shut down.

    Sorry but that is human nature.

    Peace — Art

    Read More
    • Replies: @denk
    *They are tribal Zombies fed arrogance from childhood*

    Jeeze,
    Doesnt it fits morons like you down to a tee, ?

    How old are you ?
    Much as I loathe censorship I think this site should ban kiddies from posting.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. denk says:

    Trump
    ‘Did China ask us if its ok to built a military complex [sic] in the middle of scs’

    OMFG !
    This megalomaniac thinks China should get murkkan permission to build up on an uninhabitated isle in its own backyard !

    OTOH, its must be murkkan’s god given right to build a vast military complex all around China, not to mention poking a dagger at China’s belly and pointing a gun at its heart ! [1]

    So whats the difference bet this megalomaniac and all those before him, Obama, clinton, Bush…….?

    Zero, none, nade, zilch.

    hhhhhhhh

    [1]
    military bases in SK, JP, GUAM, SG, PH, Oz….
    Agies warships and THAAD in SK.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  93. ” It will be decades, most likely, before Chinese navy can go toe to toe with the US navy on equal terms and in neutral waters and hope to prevail.”

    The Chinese have no plans to compete with the US Navy. That’s a Unitedstatesian sucker punch you throw.

    The Chinese plans are more subtle:

    (1) strictly defensive

    (2) asymmetrical

    (3) innovative

    (4) dirt cheap.

    The US Navy will disappear quickly in any theater of operations where it attacks the Chinese or their materiel. No USN, no need to compete–voilà.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  94. @eah
    One fear is that the dollar will no longer be the world’s reserve currency. The Chinese currency may play a role in pushing it out.

    Believing this could ever happen is one definition of clinical insanity -- China is a one party dictatorship -- and it's the communist party at that, which governs at whim -- no one would ever see China as a safe haven where strong courts and the rule of law protect property and assets -- ask eg all the people who fell victim to the numerous Chinese 'reverse merger' stock scams -- they cannot be trusted, and for that reason no one trusts them -- period -- for this and other obvious reasons, eg the political and military hegemony of the US, the status of the USD as the 'world's reserve currency' is not even remotely threatened right now -- that may not always be true -- but when the USD does come under threat, it won't be from the Chinese yuan.

    “the status of the USD as the ‘world’s reserve currency’ is not even remotely threatened right now ”

    Poor darling. And “not even remotely” to boot!

    Take one’s advice–DO NOT APPLY FOR EMPLOYMENT AT GOLDMAN SACHS.

    Read More
    • Replies: @interesting
    Baring some black swan event it's not even remotely at risk in our lifetimes.

    the day the USD loses reserve currency status it will be really really bad for everyone......just like the last time a currency ion that position changed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. denk says:
    @Art
    This article is misleading. It is not all America bad - China good.

    Israel and China are the two most dangerous countries on the planet. They are both ancient peoples with a giant chip on their shoulders. They are tribal Zombies fed arrogance from childhood. They are like Germany and Japan were in the last century.

    They are going to push until they are shut down.

    Sorry but that is human nature.

    Peace --- Art

    *They are tribal Zombies fed arrogance from childhood*

    Jeeze,
    Doesnt it fits morons like you down to a tee, ?

    How old are you ?
    Much as I loathe censorship I think this site should ban kiddies from posting.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @utu
    “When we buy foreign goods, we get the goods and they get the money. When we buy our own we get both”. Abraham Lincoln (I think ;o).

    Nice truism but why do we complain that Yuan is too cheap?

    Because even though it makes Chinese cheap goods even cheaper it just accelerates the rate of the one-way exodus of American dollars to China. The British had the same problem with buying tea from China using silver as currency, the supplies of silver ran very low and caused problems at home.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @Trader
    What devaluation? Top 3 Chinese markets are Europe (EUR), US (USD) and Japan (JPY), in that order. The yuan is up significantly against the EUR and JPY. So where is this devaluation?

    As far as selling goods at a loss, you've obviously never set foot in China. Profits, and not necessarily long term profits, are on those SOB's mind all the time.

    Donald Trump’s win in US presidential election sends China yuan to six-year low against dollar

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/09/donald-trumps-win-in-us-presidential-election-sends-china-yuan-to-six-year-low-against-dollar.html

    This could be fake news. But i use the dollar so that’s all that matters to me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @E. A. Costa
    "the status of the USD as the ‘world’s reserve currency’ is not even remotely threatened right now "

    Poor darling. And "not even remotely" to boot!

    Take one's advice--DO NOT APPLY FOR EMPLOYMENT AT GOLDMAN SACHS.

    Baring some black swan event it’s not even remotely at risk in our lifetimes.

    the day the USD loses reserve currency status it will be really really bad for everyone……just like the last time a currency ion that position changed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Have you read The Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb by any chance? Now that IS interesting.
    , @Anonymous
    Do you even know how America has a reserve currency?

    It is directly tied to the petrodollar. There are lots of scenarios where the American dollar gets dislodged (I'm not saying the Yuan would replace the dollar).

    The Arabs could get fed up with Trump and decide to drop the dollar. The shiites could take over the Saudi and other important oil fields. The Chinese could join their gold with Russian gold and come out with a gold backed currency.

    Pretty much the only way to maintain the dollar as the reserve currency is to maintain our military empire and to prevent any alternate banking system that threatens the fed.

    This will be hard to pull off especially with Trump in office and especially if he stokes nationalism across the world.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. America, oblivious to the changing economic and political map of the world, is keen on having Chinese ambitions under control. Many in America think that the US has military muscle to bend China to its will. However, sober heads in Washington know that to challenge China on its own turf also bears dangers to American forces and mainland.
    The problem is then how can US look like a no nonsense, intimidating and imperious hegemon willing to use nuclear might; without getting in a shooting war with China. Showing the world and the Chinese in particular that US is not shy of applying nuclear arsenal against “existential threats” is perhaps America’s last trump card in stopping the rising China.
    Regime change in Iran has been on the US’ wish list for over 3 decades. American military for obvious reasons has not risked toppling the Islamic regime by conventional military force. Nuking Iran’s military and industrial infrastructure might do the trick without likelihood of the Islamic Republic being able to retaliate effectively. At the same time, this bold demonstration will serve as a dire warning to other countries, China and Russia in particular.
    Have Iran, Russia, China and the world at large taken account of this scenario and its aftermath?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  100. Mr Pilger tells an interesting tale, but not one that hangs together to form a convincing narrative.

    The USA is apparently preparing to attack China with major force, risking a nuclear exchange, and at the same time prepared to confront Russia in a similar way (there are definitely influential people trying to provoke a conflict with Russia over Syria, but they do not appear to be in control of the US military).

    Yet at the same time the US is awash with Chinese imports (adding to its huge trade deficit), both of goods and of people (including a lucrative anchor-baby industry). Australia (also in Mr Pilger’s bad-boy list) and Canada (see Vancouver house prices) likewise. China is buying up real assets – mines, oilfields, agricultural land, ports – across the globe (Piraeus in Greece the latest), and is doing for African infrastructure what the British did for South American infrastructure a century ago. It’s also IIRC trying to build strategic control of the rare earth elements on which so much modern electronics depends.

    Also at the same time, the US is reducing its internal cohesion (and its average IQ, and its average wage) via mass immigration, and reducing the cohesion of the armed forces via a number of destructive initiatives (women in combat roles and on board ships). The trade deficit is massive, they are giving away vital production know-how to rivals. The US doesn’t look like a country that’s taking the retention of their global superpower status seriously.

    How do we square these competing narratives? Or is it Mr Pilger’s contention that the US is strong enough to both seriously weaken its own productive capabilities and yet still have the wherewithal to destroy Chinese military capability?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Western tactics rely not on direct confrontation but on divide and conquer.

    That's why Trump is reaching out to Putin and Taiwan.

    The goal is to take Russia away from China as an ally and to use the Taiwan issue as a reason to have America and the UN join forces to fight China.

    It will be like Iraq where Iraq was threatening democracy and human rights etc etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @Astuteobservor II
    by simply becoming rich or as rich as america, china is a threat. robust economy = better and modern military = america no longer calling the shots.

    ex: taiwan declares independence, pre 1995 usa could send carrier battle groups and china would have to back down. now china has anti ship missiles and cruise missiles. american carriers and bases around china are actually sitting ducks in any war between usa and china. that is why the air force is building a stealth cruise missile tipped with nukes.

    we got some crazy fucks in our govt and military. I am very surprise china still haven't put their nukes on hair triggers.

    China today is a fragile superpower tottering on the brink of chaos. Without the theft of American and Russian technology China would still be a society that looks like the something out of the early 1900s.
    Look at their so called space program. It is virtually a copy of the Russians. New Chinese weapon systems are copies of American systems. The much vaulted Chinese J-20 is an amalgamation of stolen American F-22 technology powered by Russian engines
    China now is attempting to expand into Africa and become the new colonists by stealing African natural resources and dumping their poorly made products on the Africans. China is over fishing the waters off of Africa as they have over fished their local waters
    However people are wise to the Chinese game. China has no place to go but down. And the recent election of Donald Trump may be the push that helps that happen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II

    China today is a fragile superpower tottering on the brink of chaos.
     
    this opinion is about as retarded as it gets.

    what is wrong with copying when you are playing catch up? there is no need to reinvent the wheel. do you know how much tech we got from nazi germany after ww2?

    most african countries prefer chinese investment over ours, that tells you something right?

    you actually believes trump can and will change things. even after his appointments? and axing over time pay for 42 mil americans? jeeez.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @Jason Liu
    What exactly does America fear China will do? On its current trajectory, China will:

    -Become richer
    -Seek greater political and economic influence in the region

    There's simply no evidence the PRC will start invading/annexing neighbors. Squabbles over tiny bits of disputed territory is about as much as it gets. Both the Chinese people and the government believes "world domination" or even world policing a la US is basically an expensive, thankless, and worthless pursuit.

    Unless American analysts are reading China all wrong, the pivot to Asia leads me to believe anti-Chinese sentiment in America is similar to anti-Russian sentiment -- caused by a difference in political systems and ideological values, and not territorial concerns.

    China is probably interested in becoming the dominant trading nation in the world. The US has the upper hand because it can choke the Chinese trade roots by the sheer weight of its Pacific naval presence.
    Something has to give.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    We can't choke the Chinese trade routes. Hence why we are so worked up about the South China Seas. And this is also why China is so keen to build rail across to Europe.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @E. A. Costa
    Merely as a pedantic aside: there are a number of laws making it illegal for private citizens to make U.S. foreign policy.

    Señor Trump is still a private citizen and will be until he assumes office.

    What exactly is going on with his conversations with such as the President of Taiwan?

    Is Señor Trump attempting to make foreign policy as a private citizen and thus acting illegally?

    Donald Trump has shown that he never fears acting beyond the law. Remember that the claim that he “could shoot somebody in plain sight on a street”, and nothing would happen.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @Astuteobservor II
    by simply becoming rich or as rich as america, china is a threat. robust economy = better and modern military = america no longer calling the shots.

    ex: taiwan declares independence, pre 1995 usa could send carrier battle groups and china would have to back down. now china has anti ship missiles and cruise missiles. american carriers and bases around china are actually sitting ducks in any war between usa and china. that is why the air force is building a stealth cruise missile tipped with nukes.

    we got some crazy fucks in our govt and military. I am very surprise china still haven't put their nukes on hair triggers.

    The US position is that it is enforcing freedom of navigation around China: for as long as it suits America and so long as it can’t be challenged by an inferior power.
    That leaves the door wide open for any handy excuse so that the US, at a time of its own choosing, to deny freedom of navigation for others because it has the power to do so unilaterally.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Poupon Marx
    I disagree that America has any CONVENTIONAL advantage at all pre-positioning itself in Asia and making threatening noises.

    This article contains useful facts and opinions, and is certainly stimulating for the average reader who takes the time from making a living or puts some effort into trying to see through the curtains of deceit of todays public conduits of “information” (disinformation, misinformation). There are some parts that I feel are necessary of further comment. Some background:

    MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, was a doctrine and practice during the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States. This “balance of terror” was designed to prevent pre-emptive, “first strikes”. During this period, the US President had a DIRECT AND INSTANT communication line to the Soviet President.

    Nuclear weapons and their efficacy are not subject to geographic locations. They haven’t been for some time. They are called ICBMs for a reason, i.e. Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. Their longest horizontal distance covered is in the upper atmosphere, where air resistance and gravity effect are the least. In addition, these weapons were further enhanced by the addition of MIRV(Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles) technology and innovation. Essentially the one ballistic missile “bus” transports the “payload” to a sub-orbital trajectory path, where over the target 3 to 12 smaller ballistic missiles are released from the nose cone. They become in effect “smart bombs”, able to self direct to individual targets. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle
    Submarines contain MIRV ICBMs, from 12 to 16 missiles per vessel. Their range is over 7,000 kilometers. Each country has a maximum of 12 miles of territorial water. Beyond that, open water is considered international. It takes almost no imagination to conceive that an innocuous “merchant” vessel off the coast could suddenly launch hyper-sonic arrays of MIRVs directly at coastal cities. There is no defense against this. Washington, AC/DC, is a big fat cow sitting as a target at a shooting gallery.

    So, with the foregoing considered, certain conclusions and assertions can be made.
    First, the so-called “encirclement” of China by “hundreds of US bases” as a strategic consideration of any importance IN A NUCLEAR CONTEXT, STATEGY OR TACTIC IS NULL, VOID, NILL at least for the reasons I have outlined above. This is a ZERO CORRELATION with nuclear advantage for anybody.
    Second, as I already mentioned in a previous post, these so called “military bases” are misnamed. Many are nothing more than fuel depots, materiel depots, camps, support facilities. In other words, non-combatant in every sense. You might be excused for thinking, “Gee, Poup, how would you know that?” Because I have been to many of them, that’s why and how. A good chunk of my career was spent on Navy privately contracted ships under charter. Cargo varied from military vehicles, missile parts, fuel, food, ammunition, and other items. Japan, Philippines, South Korea, Germany, Italy, Spain, Azores, Diego Garcia, and all of the Middle East. ONLY AN EXTREME MINORITY OF THESE BASES ARE RELATED TO DIRECT COMBAT.
    Third, the Navy not only wastes money (over budget 200-300 percent, and over 200 percent overtime is common and the norm). Plus, just to add injury to these insults, they build junk in combat ships today that blow up and fail within a year or two. Google Littoral Combat Ships and follow the links. A aircraft carrier being built in Newport News has had major equipment casualties while in the construction phase, e.g., Main Propulsion Steam Turbines BLEW UP during testing. The project is months behind schedule and tens-if not hundreds-of million dollars over “budget”, aka “budge it”.

    Fourth, this “encirclement” is not a strategic advantage or leverage in a conventional warfare sense at all. To think so is to ignore certain ineluctable, irreducible variables. The US Armed Forces are in a dilapidated state, as per the wishes and plans of Obama and his Globalist Masters. Amurka is to be absorbed into the International Superstate aka the United Nations. This is the long term/short term plan, depending on your time frame. I gave several examples and a survey explanation. The problems are worse when you drill into specifics. I mean across the board. These “bases”, halfway around the world of a country that is totally bankrupt and on the verge of financial and economic collapse are nothing more than bowling pins for the Chinese military. Unlike the stupid Americans, the Chinese people are rabidly patriotic and ready to fight for and defend the Motherland, their ancestral home. If conventional hostilities break out, the Chinese will be completely supported by Russia, which will be bitter payback for lapdog and cockroach Obama, the Emissary of Satan and his Executive Team, the (((NeoCons))). And finally, the total humiliation will come when all the ASIAN countries see and side with the winner, hands down: “Sorry Amurka, you f**ked up and we are not going down with you; we are going with our neighbor and culture cousins”.
    Final word on this “encirclement”. From my perspective, because it makes no strategic, tactical, conventional, or nuclear sense, it must have been implemented by subversive, anti-American, treasonous elements with this Administration. We already know they are many and are mere appendages and dumb terminals directed by Internationalist Hostile Elites. (If anybody disputes this last sentence, come forth with a refutation, counter evidence, substantive testimony, or hold silent). The goal, therefore of this strategy is nothing short of total humiliation and widespread destruction of Amurka military assets.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Randal says:

    China is probably interested in becoming the dominant trading nation in the world.

    Already ticked that box, by some measures:

    China surpasses US as world’s largest trading nation

    The US has the upper hand because it can choke the Chinese trade roots by the sheer weight of its Pacific naval presence.
    Something has to give.

    Most likely to give first is the overdependence of China on sea trade, as it builds up overland connections throughout Eurasia.

    The only real chance the US had of maintaining its stranglehold on China long term was to bring Russia onside after the end of the Soviet Union. US policy on NATO, on regime changing wars, on colour revolutions and “democracy promotion” etc gave up any hope of that happening.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  106. I like John Pilger very much but for me, I don foresee a major U.S./Zionist versus The Peoples Republic of China within at least the next 8-years. Such is only foreseeable if the communist party prohibits Wall Street investors from having full play in China and minus a requirement for the need for Chinese business partners.

    What smart journalists know is usually passed down second hand and depending upon the
    integrity of the source, the news might be either intentionally true or intentionally false.

    Over the past 7-weeks or so, I am reading The Wall Street Journal. On Tuesday, December 6, 2016, the W.S.J. Business & Finance page (headline) blared “Mexico Awards Oil Rights.”

    (Note: “Oh how convenient I thought,” given president-elect Donald Trump had interviewed Exxon Mobil Corp CEO, Rex Tillerson for the job as Secretary of State, just a couple days ago)

    The W.S.J. article, written by Robbie and Anthony Harrup reported, “8 of the 10 exploration blocks were snatched up in competitive bidding bu firms including Exxon Mobil Corp. and China’s sate-run China National Offshore Oil Corp.”

    My all time favorite Jewish singer is Neil Diamond. He sang the lyric, “Money talks, but it don’t sing or dance and it don’t walk.” By following the W.S.J. money trail and U.S./Zio Empire wars, one indeed learns that money does “talk” and if such fails, negotiations are followed up by M.S.M. demonization of the “Face of Evil” and then come SALM or SLBM attacks. (I don’t think our Deep State is yet ready to “walk that way” especially since the P.R.C. can hit us with nuclear weapons)

    So given the boon Mexico gets from the oil right$ deal, it’s feasible that President Enrique Pena Nieto will have extra funds so that Donald Trump’s border can be built, with Mexican government funding! Also, come to think of it — Exxon Mobil & China National Offshore oil companies just might be in need of hiring cheap labor for working the off shore oil rigs, and maybe President Nieto might want his citizens to stay home.

    Just thinking, Mr. Pilger… I realize the W.S.J. is quite near being at the top of the New World Order’s Fountain of False Truth. What do you make of thi$? Thank you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  107. @interesting
    Baring some black swan event it's not even remotely at risk in our lifetimes.

    the day the USD loses reserve currency status it will be really really bad for everyone......just like the last time a currency ion that position changed.

    Have you read The Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb by any chance? Now that IS interesting.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. This article leaves too many unanswered questions.
    The U.S. Armed Forces are down to lowest readiness and capability of a century. The military budget has been continually shrinking and the money lost due to corruption, sloth, and criminality is staggering.

    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2014/03/27/the-growing-problem-of-a-shrinking-us-military-budget

    Military waste is reaching historic levels. The budget you see is not the budget that is actually spent. I spent several years working for the Federal Government as a private contractor. The sheer volume of waste, fraud, and misuse of resources is stupefying. It has to be seen to be believed.

    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/articles/2016-02-03/the-pentagon-could-reach-a-historic-level-of-wasteful-spending

    Obama, the Marxist revolutionary posing as an American President, has caused enormous damage to the military, which he and his fellow travelers loath. Today’s “Pansy Military” has met all the politically correct, diverse, inclusive, gender neutral, affirmative action targets. Results, the high ranking non-commissioned officers, who actually run things and direct the personnel, are leaving. The real issue in today’s 1984 world in the military is sexual harassment of STRAIGHT MEN AND WOMEN. Obama has cleared out warriors and installed ideologues and PC wigs in the highest positions.

    http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/obama-weakening-military-in-unprecedented-ways/

    The military is forced to cannibalize working equipment to maintain a bare minimum
    ‘Wiped Out’: Air Force losing pilots and planes to cuts, scrounging for spare parts”

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/14/wiped-out-air-force-losing-pilots-and-planes-to-cuts-scrounging-for-spare-parts.html

    From this article: Fox News visited two U.S. Air Force bases – including South Dakota’s Ellsworth Air Force Base located 35 miles from Mount Rushmore, where Pfrommer is stationed – to see the resource problems first-hand, following an investigation into the state of U.S. Marine Corps aviation last month.

    Many of the Airmen reported feeing “burnt out” and “exhausted” due to the current pace of operations, and limited resources to support them. During the visit to Ellsworth earlier this week, Fox News was told only about half of the 28th Bomb Wing’s fleet of bombers can fly.

    “We have only 20 aircraft assigned on station currently. Out of those 20 only nine are flyable,” Pfrommer said.

    “The [B-1] I worked on 20 years ago had 1,000 flight hours on it. Now we’re looking at some of the airplanes out here that are pushing over 10,000 flight hours,” he said.

    “In 10 years, we cut our flying program in half,” said Capt. Elizabeth Jarding, a B-1 pilot at Ellsworth who returned home in January following a six-month deployment to the Middle East for the anti-ISIS campaign.

    On an overcast day in the middle of May with temperatures hovering in the low 50’s, two B-1 bombers were supposed launch at 9:00 a.m. local time to fly nearly 1,000 miles south to White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico for a live-fire exercise.

    On this day, though, only one of the two B-1s that taxied to the runway was able to take off and make the training mission on time. The other sat near the runway for two hours. It eventually took off but was unable to participate in the live-fire exercise and diverted to a different mission, its crew missing out on valuable training at White Sands.

    A spare aircraft also was unable to get airborne.”

    Rather a sobering assessment, isn’t it? The USSA “encircling” China is laughable. Maintaining a large mechanized force halfway around the World is the same problem that Napoleon and Hitler experienced deep into the Soviet Union. Outstrip your supply lines and you will be fighting with your bare hands.

    And finally, did you know that Obama mandated the Navy use fuel from “renewable” plant sources? What a fantastic idea. It only costs 5 times more than fossil fuel, e.g. Navy Special, diesel, jet fuel.

    One should be very careful in taking opinions from those whose expertise and depth of knowledge of military affairs is unproven, undemonstrated, and who make glib, sweeping statements. So this guy, Pilger-he looks like an aging surfer- made documentaries of what? starving chillens in Afreaka, Panda Bears???? This article was suspect for me right from the gate. There is a lot more, such as dwindling numbers of submarines, and the general LOW QUALITY of military personnel overall. Who wants to be in such a clown act?

    Finally, “Since “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” was repealed, male-on-male rape has become epidemic in the U.S. Military.
    POSTED: September 19, 2014

    In late 2010, Congress used a lame-duck session — after the November elections — to overturn “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, the de facto ban on open homosexual behavior in the US military. Even prominent Republicans caved in. US Senator Scott Brown not only voted for it but bragged about voting for it in his television commercials when he ran for re-election. In 2012, while running for president, Mitt Romney told reporters that the repeal was working fine and he would not attempt to reverse it. MassResistance and others, however, had predicted that it would lead to terrible consequences.”

    “According to the Daily Mail, a prominent newspaper in the UK, male on male rape in the United States military is reaching epidemic proportions.

    Absorb this tragic excerpt:

    When a man enters the military he is ten times likelier to be sexually abused, and in 2012 alone there were an estimated 14,200 reports of male rape.

    Read that again. A man who enlists in the United States military is ten times more likely to be on the receiving end of sexual abuse than if he remains in the civilian population. The risk of being raped jumps a staggering 1,000 percent.

    Our military has become a playground for sexual predators, a veritable smorgasbord of victims for homosexuals on the prowl.

    This week Bryan Fischer has written a devastating article revealing what the politicians in both parties are now afraid to talk about.

    http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen2/14c/rape-in-us-military.html

    Heard about the Electro-magnetic Pulse?

    “Abstract: An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) over the United States could end modern life in America overnight. Whether caused by an enemy attack (a nuclear device detonated above the atmosphere) or by a natural phenomenon (a geomagnetic storm), an EMP can cause entire regions of the country to lose electricity—permanently. Despite the EMP Commission’s recommendations in 2004 and 2008, hardly any progress has been made in protecting the country from an EMP attack and its catastrophic results. The U.S. must prepare to deal with an EMP—now.

    While the ability of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) to inflict catastrophic damage on U.S. infrastructure has been a known fact for decades, insufficient efforts have been taken to mitigate the threat. A survey of congressional, federal, state, local, and international measures to deal with the threat reveals more complacency than action.”

    ONE, just one, thermonuclear device detonated over the center of the United States could take out the entire power grid of North America, immobilized your car, destroy all computer system, and all solid state devices. This would mean permanent darkness, and mass starvation in the TENS of MILLIONS. I’m sure you’ve read of Iran-helped by Obama-continually ramping up its missiles; same for North Korea.

    Do you really think that China does not have a retaliatory Doomsday weapon to be used? This missile can be fired FROM A SHIP OFF THE COAST OF THE UNITED STAKES. We have no missile defense system.

    http://www.heritage.org/issues/missile-defense/electromagnetic-pulse-attack

    An Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) attack on the United States, whether manmade or naturally occurring, could result in the deaths of nine out of ten Americans through starvation, disease and the collapse of modern society, warned Dr. Vincent Peter Pry, a member of the congressional EMP Commission and executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security.

    “A natural EMP catastrophe or nuclear EMP attack could blackout the national electric grid for months or years and collapse all the other critical infrastructures — communications, transportation, banking and finance, food and water — necessary to sustain modern society and the lives of 310 million Americans,” Pry this week told the House Committee on Homeland Security Committee’s Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection and Security Technologies.””

    http://www.hstoday.us/briefings/daily-news-analysis/single-article/emp-attack-on-us-would-be-catastrophic-congress-told/1b5e33a26545ac5ebf9398f00064dc0a.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  109. @Aren Haich
    The US position is that it is enforcing freedom of navigation around China: for as long as it suits America and so long as it can't be challenged by an inferior power.
    That leaves the door wide open for any handy excuse so that the US, at a time of its own choosing, to deny freedom of navigation for others because it has the power to do so unilaterally.

    I disagree that America has any CONVENTIONAL advantage at all pre-positioning itself in Asia and making threatening noises.

    This article contains useful facts and opinions, and is certainly stimulating for the average reader who takes the time from making a living or puts some effort into trying to see through the curtains of deceit of todays public conduits of “information” (disinformation, misinformation). There are some parts that I feel are necessary of further comment. Some background:

    MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, was a doctrine and practice during the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States. This “balance of terror” was designed to prevent pre-emptive, “first strikes”. During this period, the US President had a DIRECT AND INSTANT communication line to the Soviet President.

    Nuclear weapons and their efficacy are not subject to geographic locations. They haven’t been for some time. They are called ICBMs for a reason, i.e. Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. Their longest horizontal distance covered is in the upper atmosphere, where air resistance and gravity effect are the least. In addition, these weapons were further enhanced by the addition of MIRV(Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles) technology and innovation. Essentially the one ballistic missile “bus” transports the “payload” to a sub-orbital trajectory path, where over the target 3 to 12 smaller ballistic missiles are released from the nose cone. They become in effect “smart bombs”, able to self direct to individual targets. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle
    Submarines contain MIRV ICBMs, from 12 to 16 missiles per vessel. Their range is over 7,000 kilometers. Each country has a maximum of 12 miles of territorial water. Beyond that, open water is considered international. It takes almost no imagination to conceive that an innocuous “merchant” vessel off the coast could suddenly launch hyper-sonic arrays of MIRVs directly at coastal cities. There is no defense against this. Washington, AC/DC, is a big fat cow sitting as a target at a shooting gallery.

    So, with the foregoing considered, certain conclusions and assertions can be made.
    First, the so-called “encirclement” of China by “hundreds of US bases” as a strategic consideration of any importance IN A NUCLEAR CONTEXT, STATEGY OR TACTIC IS NULL, VOID, NILL at least for the reasons I have outlined above. This is a ZERO CORRELATION with nuclear advantage for anybody.
    Second, as I already mentioned in a previous post, these so called “military bases” are misnamed. Many are nothing more than fuel depots, materiel depots, camps, support facilities. In other words, non-combatant in every sense. You might be excused for thinking, “Gee, Poup, how would you know that?” Because I have been to many of them, that’s why and how. A good chunk of my career was spent on Navy privately contracted ships under charter. Cargo varied from military vehicles, missile parts, fuel, food, ammunition, and other items. Japan, Philippines, South Korea, Germany, Italy, Spain, Azores, Diego Garcia, and all of the Middle East. ONLY AN EXTREME MINORITY OF THESE BASES ARE RELATED TO DIRECT COMBAT.
    Third, the Navy not only wastes money (over budget 200-300 percent, and over 200 percent overtime is common and the norm). Plus, just to add injury to these insults, they build junk in combat ships today that blow up and fail within a year or two. Google Littoral Combat Ships and follow the links. A aircraft carrier being built in Newport News has had major equipment casualties while in the construction phase, e.g., Main Propulsion Steam Turbines BLEW UP during testing. The project is months behind schedule and tens-if not hundreds-of million dollars over “budget”, aka “budge it”.

    Fourth, this “encirclement” is not a strategic advantage or leverage in a conventional warfare sense at all. To think so is to ignore certain ineluctable, irreducible variables. The US Armed Forces are in a dilapidated state, as per the wishes and plans of Obama and his Globalist Masters. Amurka is to be absorbed into the International Superstate aka the United Nations. This is the long term/short term plan, depending on your time frame. I gave several examples and a survey explanation. The problems are worse when you drill into specifics. I mean across the board. These “bases”, halfway around the world of a country that is totally bankrupt and on the verge of financial and economic collapse are nothing more than bowling pins for the Chinese military. Unlike the stupid Americans, the Chinese people are rabidly patriotic and ready to fight for and defend the Motherland, their ancestral home. If conventional hostilities break out, the Chinese will be completely supported by Russia, which will be bitter payback for lapdog and cockroach Obama, the Emissary of Satan and his Executive Team, the (((NeoCons))). And finally, the total humiliation will come when all the ASIAN countries see and side with the winner, hands down: “Sorry Amurka, you f**ked up and we are not going down with you; we are going with our neighbor and culture cousins”.
    Final word on this “encirclement”. From my perspective, because it makes no strategic, tactical, conventional, or nuclear sense, it must have been implemented by subversive, anti-American, treasonous elements with this Administration. We already know they are many and are mere appendages and dumb terminals directed by Internationalist Hostile Elites. (If anybody disputes this last sentence, come forth with a refutation, counter evidence, substantive testimony, or hold silent). The goal, therefore of this strategy is nothing short of total humiliation and widespread destruction of Amurka military assets.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Madderhatter67
    “One Belt, One Road” is the initiative to bypass this circulation. The circulation could economically strangle China.
    , @El Dato
    > Submarines contain MIRV ICBMs,

    It's called SLBM (and we often have SLCMs)

    > It takes almost no imagination to conceive that an innocuous “merchant” vessel off the coast could suddenly launch hyper-sonic arrays of MIRVs directly at coastal cities. There is no defense against this. Washington, AC/DC, is a big fat cow sitting as a target at a shooting gallery.

    Woah! Well, welcome to the war goodies of post 1960, buddy. You notice it's 2016, maybe, hmm....?

    > Amurka is to be absorbed into the International Superstate aka the United Nations.

    I hope you are smoking good stuff.

    > If anybody disputes this last sentence, come forth with a refutation, counter evidence, substantive testimony, or hold silent

    Proving a negative. FAIL.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @Jason Liu
    What exactly does America fear China will do? On its current trajectory, China will:

    -Become richer
    -Seek greater political and economic influence in the region

    There's simply no evidence the PRC will start invading/annexing neighbors. Squabbles over tiny bits of disputed territory is about as much as it gets. Both the Chinese people and the government believes "world domination" or even world policing a la US is basically an expensive, thankless, and worthless pursuit.

    Unless American analysts are reading China all wrong, the pivot to Asia leads me to believe anti-Chinese sentiment in America is similar to anti-Russian sentiment -- caused by a difference in political systems and ideological values, and not territorial concerns.

    This –>> Seek greater political and economic influence. Is not allowed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @Poupon Marx
    I disagree that America has any CONVENTIONAL advantage at all pre-positioning itself in Asia and making threatening noises.

    This article contains useful facts and opinions, and is certainly stimulating for the average reader who takes the time from making a living or puts some effort into trying to see through the curtains of deceit of todays public conduits of “information” (disinformation, misinformation). There are some parts that I feel are necessary of further comment. Some background:

    MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, was a doctrine and practice during the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States. This “balance of terror” was designed to prevent pre-emptive, “first strikes”. During this period, the US President had a DIRECT AND INSTANT communication line to the Soviet President.

    Nuclear weapons and their efficacy are not subject to geographic locations. They haven’t been for some time. They are called ICBMs for a reason, i.e. Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. Their longest horizontal distance covered is in the upper atmosphere, where air resistance and gravity effect are the least. In addition, these weapons were further enhanced by the addition of MIRV(Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles) technology and innovation. Essentially the one ballistic missile “bus” transports the “payload” to a sub-orbital trajectory path, where over the target 3 to 12 smaller ballistic missiles are released from the nose cone. They become in effect “smart bombs”, able to self direct to individual targets. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle
    Submarines contain MIRV ICBMs, from 12 to 16 missiles per vessel. Their range is over 7,000 kilometers. Each country has a maximum of 12 miles of territorial water. Beyond that, open water is considered international. It takes almost no imagination to conceive that an innocuous “merchant” vessel off the coast could suddenly launch hyper-sonic arrays of MIRVs directly at coastal cities. There is no defense against this. Washington, AC/DC, is a big fat cow sitting as a target at a shooting gallery.

    So, with the foregoing considered, certain conclusions and assertions can be made.
    First, the so-called “encirclement” of China by “hundreds of US bases” as a strategic consideration of any importance IN A NUCLEAR CONTEXT, STATEGY OR TACTIC IS NULL, VOID, NILL at least for the reasons I have outlined above. This is a ZERO CORRELATION with nuclear advantage for anybody.
    Second, as I already mentioned in a previous post, these so called “military bases” are misnamed. Many are nothing more than fuel depots, materiel depots, camps, support facilities. In other words, non-combatant in every sense. You might be excused for thinking, “Gee, Poup, how would you know that?” Because I have been to many of them, that’s why and how. A good chunk of my career was spent on Navy privately contracted ships under charter. Cargo varied from military vehicles, missile parts, fuel, food, ammunition, and other items. Japan, Philippines, South Korea, Germany, Italy, Spain, Azores, Diego Garcia, and all of the Middle East. ONLY AN EXTREME MINORITY OF THESE BASES ARE RELATED TO DIRECT COMBAT.
    Third, the Navy not only wastes money (over budget 200-300 percent, and over 200 percent overtime is common and the norm). Plus, just to add injury to these insults, they build junk in combat ships today that blow up and fail within a year or two. Google Littoral Combat Ships and follow the links. A aircraft carrier being built in Newport News has had major equipment casualties while in the construction phase, e.g., Main Propulsion Steam Turbines BLEW UP during testing. The project is months behind schedule and tens-if not hundreds-of million dollars over “budget”, aka “budge it”.

    Fourth, this “encirclement” is not a strategic advantage or leverage in a conventional warfare sense at all. To think so is to ignore certain ineluctable, irreducible variables. The US Armed Forces are in a dilapidated state, as per the wishes and plans of Obama and his Globalist Masters. Amurka is to be absorbed into the International Superstate aka the United Nations. This is the long term/short term plan, depending on your time frame. I gave several examples and a survey explanation. The problems are worse when you drill into specifics. I mean across the board. These “bases”, halfway around the world of a country that is totally bankrupt and on the verge of financial and economic collapse are nothing more than bowling pins for the Chinese military. Unlike the stupid Americans, the Chinese people are rabidly patriotic and ready to fight for and defend the Motherland, their ancestral home. If conventional hostilities break out, the Chinese will be completely supported by Russia, which will be bitter payback for lapdog and cockroach Obama, the Emissary of Satan and his Executive Team, the (((NeoCons))). And finally, the total humiliation will come when all the ASIAN countries see and side with the winner, hands down: “Sorry Amurka, you f**ked up and we are not going down with you; we are going with our neighbor and culture cousins”.
    Final word on this “encirclement”. From my perspective, because it makes no strategic, tactical, conventional, or nuclear sense, it must have been implemented by subversive, anti-American, treasonous elements with this Administration. We already know they are many and are mere appendages and dumb terminals directed by Internationalist Hostile Elites. (If anybody disputes this last sentence, come forth with a refutation, counter evidence, substantive testimony, or hold silent). The goal, therefore of this strategy is nothing short of total humiliation and widespread destruction of Amurka military assets.

    “One Belt, One Road” is the initiative to bypass this circulation. The circulation could economically strangle China.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @interesting
    Baring some black swan event it's not even remotely at risk in our lifetimes.

    the day the USD loses reserve currency status it will be really really bad for everyone......just like the last time a currency ion that position changed.

    Do you even know how America has a reserve currency?

    It is directly tied to the petrodollar. There are lots of scenarios where the American dollar gets dislodged (I’m not saying the Yuan would replace the dollar).

    The Arabs could get fed up with Trump and decide to drop the dollar. The shiites could take over the Saudi and other important oil fields. The Chinese could join their gold with Russian gold and come out with a gold backed currency.

    Pretty much the only way to maintain the dollar as the reserve currency is to maintain our military empire and to prevent any alternate banking system that threatens the fed.

    This will be hard to pull off especially with Trump in office and especially if he stokes nationalism across the world.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous Nephew
    Mr Pilger tells an interesting tale, but not one that hangs together to form a convincing narrative.

    The USA is apparently preparing to attack China with major force, risking a nuclear exchange, and at the same time prepared to confront Russia in a similar way (there are definitely influential people trying to provoke a conflict with Russia over Syria, but they do not appear to be in control of the US military).

    Yet at the same time the US is awash with Chinese imports (adding to its huge trade deficit), both of goods and of people (including a lucrative anchor-baby industry). Australia (also in Mr Pilger's bad-boy list) and Canada (see Vancouver house prices) likewise. China is buying up real assets - mines, oilfields, agricultural land, ports - across the globe (Piraeus in Greece the latest), and is doing for African infrastructure what the British did for South American infrastructure a century ago. It's also IIRC trying to build strategic control of the rare earth elements on which so much modern electronics depends.

    Also at the same time, the US is reducing its internal cohesion (and its average IQ, and its average wage) via mass immigration, and reducing the cohesion of the armed forces via a number of destructive initiatives (women in combat roles and on board ships). The trade deficit is massive, they are giving away vital production know-how to rivals. The US doesn't look like a country that's taking the retention of their global superpower status seriously.

    How do we square these competing narratives? Or is it Mr Pilger's contention that the US is strong enough to both seriously weaken its own productive capabilities and yet still have the wherewithal to destroy Chinese military capability?

    Western tactics rely not on direct confrontation but on divide and conquer.

    That’s why Trump is reaching out to Putin and Taiwan.

    The goal is to take Russia away from China as an ally and to use the Taiwan issue as a reason to have America and the UN join forces to fight China.

    It will be like Iraq where Iraq was threatening democracy and human rights etc etc.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Aren Haich
    China is probably interested in becoming the dominant trading nation in the world. The US has the upper hand because it can choke the Chinese trade roots by the sheer weight of its Pacific naval presence.
    Something has to give.

    We can’t choke the Chinese trade routes. Hence why we are so worked up about the South China Seas. And this is also why China is so keen to build rail across to Europe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @The watcher
    China today is a fragile superpower tottering on the brink of chaos. Without the theft of American and Russian technology China would still be a society that looks like the something out of the early 1900s.
    Look at their so called space program. It is virtually a copy of the Russians. New Chinese weapon systems are copies of American systems. The much vaulted Chinese J-20 is an amalgamation of stolen American F-22 technology powered by Russian engines
    China now is attempting to expand into Africa and become the new colonists by stealing African natural resources and dumping their poorly made products on the Africans. China is over fishing the waters off of Africa as they have over fished their local waters
    However people are wise to the Chinese game. China has no place to go but down. And the recent election of Donald Trump may be the push that helps that happen.

    China today is a fragile superpower tottering on the brink of chaos.

    this opinion is about as retarded as it gets.

    what is wrong with copying when you are playing catch up? there is no need to reinvent the wheel. do you know how much tech we got from nazi germany after ww2?

    most african countries prefer chinese investment over ours, that tells you something right?

    you actually believes trump can and will change things. even after his appointments? and axing over time pay for 42 mil americans? jeeez.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. Aschwin says:
    @E. A. Costa
    Merely as a pedantic aside: there are a number of laws making it illegal for private citizens to make U.S. foreign policy.

    Señor Trump is still a private citizen and will be until he assumes office.

    What exactly is going on with his conversations with such as the President of Taiwan?

    Is Señor Trump attempting to make foreign policy as a private citizen and thus acting illegally?

    Lets find out by prosecuting Sidney Blumenfeld and George Soros.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @E. A. Costa
    Merely as a pedantic aside: there are a number of laws making it illegal for private citizens to make U.S. foreign policy.

    Señor Trump is still a private citizen and will be until he assumes office.

    What exactly is going on with his conversations with such as the President of Taiwan?

    Is Señor Trump attempting to make foreign policy as a private citizen and thus acting illegally?

    He didn’t called her she called him. The last time I remember as a free country any private citizen can speak on the phone with anyone of their choosing. All she did was to congratulate him on his election..And in case you are clueless we sold them some old Navy ships not long ago..So we the people are actually doing business with them..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. El Dato says:
    @Poupon Marx
    I disagree that America has any CONVENTIONAL advantage at all pre-positioning itself in Asia and making threatening noises.

    This article contains useful facts and opinions, and is certainly stimulating for the average reader who takes the time from making a living or puts some effort into trying to see through the curtains of deceit of todays public conduits of “information” (disinformation, misinformation). There are some parts that I feel are necessary of further comment. Some background:

    MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, was a doctrine and practice during the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States. This “balance of terror” was designed to prevent pre-emptive, “first strikes”. During this period, the US President had a DIRECT AND INSTANT communication line to the Soviet President.

    Nuclear weapons and their efficacy are not subject to geographic locations. They haven’t been for some time. They are called ICBMs for a reason, i.e. Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. Their longest horizontal distance covered is in the upper atmosphere, where air resistance and gravity effect are the least. In addition, these weapons were further enhanced by the addition of MIRV(Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles) technology and innovation. Essentially the one ballistic missile “bus” transports the “payload” to a sub-orbital trajectory path, where over the target 3 to 12 smaller ballistic missiles are released from the nose cone. They become in effect “smart bombs”, able to self direct to individual targets. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle
    Submarines contain MIRV ICBMs, from 12 to 16 missiles per vessel. Their range is over 7,000 kilometers. Each country has a maximum of 12 miles of territorial water. Beyond that, open water is considered international. It takes almost no imagination to conceive that an innocuous “merchant” vessel off the coast could suddenly launch hyper-sonic arrays of MIRVs directly at coastal cities. There is no defense against this. Washington, AC/DC, is a big fat cow sitting as a target at a shooting gallery.

    So, with the foregoing considered, certain conclusions and assertions can be made.
    First, the so-called “encirclement” of China by “hundreds of US bases” as a strategic consideration of any importance IN A NUCLEAR CONTEXT, STATEGY OR TACTIC IS NULL, VOID, NILL at least for the reasons I have outlined above. This is a ZERO CORRELATION with nuclear advantage for anybody.
    Second, as I already mentioned in a previous post, these so called “military bases” are misnamed. Many are nothing more than fuel depots, materiel depots, camps, support facilities. In other words, non-combatant in every sense. You might be excused for thinking, “Gee, Poup, how would you know that?” Because I have been to many of them, that’s why and how. A good chunk of my career was spent on Navy privately contracted ships under charter. Cargo varied from military vehicles, missile parts, fuel, food, ammunition, and other items. Japan, Philippines, South Korea, Germany, Italy, Spain, Azores, Diego Garcia, and all of the Middle East. ONLY AN EXTREME MINORITY OF THESE BASES ARE RELATED TO DIRECT COMBAT.
    Third, the Navy not only wastes money (over budget 200-300 percent, and over 200 percent overtime is common and the norm). Plus, just to add injury to these insults, they build junk in combat ships today that blow up and fail within a year or two. Google Littoral Combat Ships and follow the links. A aircraft carrier being built in Newport News has had major equipment casualties while in the construction phase, e.g., Main Propulsion Steam Turbines BLEW UP during testing. The project is months behind schedule and tens-if not hundreds-of million dollars over “budget”, aka “budge it”.

    Fourth, this “encirclement” is not a strategic advantage or leverage in a conventional warfare sense at all. To think so is to ignore certain ineluctable, irreducible variables. The US Armed Forces are in a dilapidated state, as per the wishes and plans of Obama and his Globalist Masters. Amurka is to be absorbed into the International Superstate aka the United Nations. This is the long term/short term plan, depending on your time frame. I gave several examples and a survey explanation. The problems are worse when you drill into specifics. I mean across the board. These “bases”, halfway around the world of a country that is totally bankrupt and on the verge of financial and economic collapse are nothing more than bowling pins for the Chinese military. Unlike the stupid Americans, the Chinese people are rabidly patriotic and ready to fight for and defend the Motherland, their ancestral home. If conventional hostilities break out, the Chinese will be completely supported by Russia, which will be bitter payback for lapdog and cockroach Obama, the Emissary of Satan and his Executive Team, the (((NeoCons))). And finally, the total humiliation will come when all the ASIAN countries see and side with the winner, hands down: “Sorry Amurka, you f**ked up and we are not going down with you; we are going with our neighbor and culture cousins”.
    Final word on this “encirclement”. From my perspective, because it makes no strategic, tactical, conventional, or nuclear sense, it must have been implemented by subversive, anti-American, treasonous elements with this Administration. We already know they are many and are mere appendages and dumb terminals directed by Internationalist Hostile Elites. (If anybody disputes this last sentence, come forth with a refutation, counter evidence, substantive testimony, or hold silent). The goal, therefore of this strategy is nothing short of total humiliation and widespread destruction of Amurka military assets.

    > Submarines contain MIRV ICBMs,

    It’s called SLBM (and we often have SLCMs)

    > It takes almost no imagination to conceive that an innocuous “merchant” vessel off the coast could suddenly launch hyper-sonic arrays of MIRVs directly at coastal cities. There is no defense against this. Washington, AC/DC, is a big fat cow sitting as a target at a shooting gallery.

    Woah! Well, welcome to the war goodies of post 1960, buddy. You notice it’s 2016, maybe, hmm….?

    > Amurka is to be absorbed into the International Superstate aka the United Nations.

    I hope you are smoking good stuff.

    > If anybody disputes this last sentence, come forth with a refutation, counter evidence, substantive testimony, or hold silent

    Proving a negative. FAIL.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?