Yes, that same phrase caught my attention, as well.

But one cannot deny either that for a Communist country, they don’t seem to be getting it right:

USN&WR: Everything we’ve discussed sounds like western-style capitalism. But China’s still a Communist country.

JR: The Chinese call themselves Communists. No question about that. But they’re among the best capitalists in the world. I know people who believe they may be the best capitalists in the world right now. Everybody in the Communist Party is trying to get rich, and the party allows capitalists in.

~ “Q&A: Jim Rogers: Adventures in Chinese Capitalism,” US News & World Report, November 29, 2007

In addition, the Chinese may freely travel outside of — and even emigrate from — China, and westerners are welcome to visit, live and invest there.

My point is that, while China is totalitarian in several respects, in the last 30-odd years they have also undergone remarkable reform for a “Maoist/Stalinist regime.”

Sorry, but it is my impression that much of the hulaballoo about the “Chinese threat” is just the same old neo-con drum-beating about the necessity of maintaining “American greatness” (read “democracy-loving, freedom-spreading, unipolar hegemony”) at all costs.

Or to put it another way, “There ain’t room enough fer two superpowers on this here planet … “

Report comment to moderator

Red China doesn’t have a “long” history, having started only in 1949. While there may be certain traits in the culture that remain from the millenia of Chinese history just as there are remnants of Samurai society in Japan, all bets are off as to what this China wants in the future. They take from us “legally” by lending money and buying into our companies and land. There will come a day when we may have to fight them on a battlefield over Middle East oil or other resources. They won’t hesitate to fight–they have too many men and not enough women, and historically, that means war. Nor are they interested in helping their own peasants with their new-found wealth. They ruthlessly enforce their one-child campaign. The current economic threat from China is enough for me. I don’t trust them, and I do my best — it is hard — not to buy Chinese products. We shouldn’t underestimate what can happen in the future. That’s what we do all the time for the almighty dollar.

Report comment to moderator

But ah, yes – there you go with the moral/ethical equivalence argument again toward the end. Because American history is stained with a number of things (Native Americans, slavery, Spanish-American War, etc.) that are not good, you equate the United States to a regime that has brutally murdered hundreds of millions (reaching upward toward a billion) human beings (especially if you count the forced abortions and starvations).

In general, I am pretty much of a libertarian myself. But not in foolishly comparing the United States to Red China or the Soviet Union. There is no comparison at all, at least to a reasonable person. You can gripe all you want to about the two party system (don’t disagree with you) and our tendency to engage in places we maybe shouldn’t and the evils that we have done (which everybody knows about because all we do is talk about them) and the increasingly idiotic TV-lobotimized populace. But if you think there is any meaningful comparison in terms of historical heritage and between this Republic- imperfect as the Republic is – and the butcher regimes of Mao and Stalin, you know less than nothing.

Report comment to moderator

Frank: Which nations, incidentally …

1. Are within easy striking distance of China’s land forces; and

2. Whose own militaries are dwarfed by China’s.

Neither of those situations are ours. (Or have you been too busy being frightened to notice?)

I notice you left out New Zealand. We went there in August 2006, and they have legitimate reason to be worried about China. Well, Chinese. Seems lots and lots of them are moving in and buying property and businesses there. (Odd habit for a Communist nation to let its people move offshore and to let foreigners move there and open businesses … but I digress … )

drill (15): No, Frank, I don’t think that Red Chinese soldiers will appear in downtown Salt Lake City anytime soon, as you so sneeringly infer.

Frank: Then why all the sneering at Ted Turner’s remark that China isn’t building landing craft to attack the United States? “Well, they’re a threat! Really! Just not that kind of a threat …”

drill (15): … the interests of the United States stretch (whether you like it or know it) across the planet and into space.

Frank: Ah, I see. We’ve gone from the Bush Doctrine to the Buzz Lightyear Doctrine, have we? “America’s interests extend to Infinity and Beyond!”

Whereas we act as if the interests of all other natons extend to whatever trivial concerns they might have regarding the designs of their immediate neighbors.

Maybe.

If we deign it to be so.

drill (15): The manpower, resources, and boots-on-the-ground capability of the Chinese military are enormous, compared to ours, on a per capita basis.

Frank: And just how do you surmise all them boots on the ground would get to us over here in the CONUS?

Oops, forgot. It simply doesn’t matter because [say it with me now] “Our interests stretch across the planet and into space. To Infinity and Beyond …”

But seriously, folks. Why would China even want to invade the US? Or “detsroy us with nukes”?

drill (15): They don’t need us, Frank. Not at all. They already have us in a stranglehold economically …

Frank: Well, I dunno about them “not needing” us. I would wager that we are their largest single MARKET. And if we ever do piss them off royal and they then want to hurt us, all they’d need to do is stop buying our debt. Why all this spooky-talk of the Chinese military threat to Americans in America?

Of course, maybe the threat you really perceive is that they might feasibly respond militarily to our projection of military force into what they believe to be their rightful region of influence? “Oh, we can’t have that kind of arrogance, now! (The Chinese arrogance of wanting to resist our arrogance, that is … )”

drill (15): … the internal maintainence of power (suppression) and the projection of that power (aggression).

Frank: [DISCLAIMER: Your anticipated claims to the contrary, the following statement does NOT constitute an assertion of moral equivalence between China and the US.]

The “internal maintainence of power,” American style: The suppression by the two political parties of any attempts by those outside those parties to have a say in American politics. This occurs when both parties write and control various laws, rules and policies making it virtually impossible for other parties to break in to the political system.

The “projection of that power,” American style: Well, you know. Just turn on the evening news. Or better yet, read a history book. (Start with the history of Hawaii’s relationship with the United States. Now that will make your blood boil. Or it should … )

I suppose the difference is, when we suppress internally and aggress externally, we have pure motives and do it for everybody else’s own good!!

Oops! This is real fun, but I must run … Mrs. Frank needs me … Hang by your thumbs … Write if you get work … And by all means, hold down the fort against those inscrutible orientals …

Report comment to moderator

No, Frank, I don’t think that Red Chinese soldiers will appear in downtown Salt Lake City anytime soon, as you so sneeringly infer. Who said that? But the interests of the United States stretch (whether you like it or know it) across the planet and into space. One can argue about the wisdom of how we got to that point but that is no longer of interest due to the more pressing needs of the reality of the now.

The manpower, resources, and boots-on-the-ground capability of the Chinese military are enormous, compared to ours, on a per capita basis. The exact amount of military ’spending’ is unknown – as is its war budget – however given the type of society one can essentially assume that the entire GNP is dedicated to both the internal maintainence of power (suppression) and the projection of that power (aggression). They have already shown advanced capability in terms of space-based warfare and their long-range nuke capability is presumed lethal to the continental US.

Militarily, China is a waking giant – and not one that will be our buddy, regardless of all your fond wishes to the contrary. They don’t need us, Frank. Not at all. They already have us in a stranglehold economically – and you say we and our allies have nothing to fear from them militarily? A truly naive view – and one that there is no historical precedent for. They can extort about what they want and they now have the muscle to back it up as well. Your trust that they will not, as I have noted, is touching, but I would rather not bet the future of the country on it.

And, oh yes. You did make a moral/ethical equivalence, whether you admit it or not. You essentially stated or implied that America is an aggressor because we build carriers and that China is or would be no different. The problem with that is that there is a HUGE difference, as I suspect you well know, regardless of your posturing.

For all the foibles and errors and stupidities of the American system with its astoundingly inept interplay of military-civilian-press-public spheres, I would still infinitely more trust our military and our government (even controlled by the Democrat party) with our carriers and missiles than I would the Chinese Politboro and its military lackeys with the same capability. Call me old-fashioned on that. I prefer a Republic, even a dysfunctional one, to a totalitarian and brutal state.

I am not so worried about the Yellow Horde.

It is the Stupid Horde we already have here that worries me.

The Stupid Horde is the real . . . Boo!

Report comment to moderator

Don’t forget Michael Moore (MM) with alGore and Ted Turner (TT). Things go better and happen in 3’s.

What comes between MM and a TT? Why an alGore of course

Does this mean Ted’s conversion to not hating Christians is suspect? I think he is kooky enough to have just plain forgotten what he said – about anything,

Report comment to moderator

… much of the PRC’s military program seems directed at creating a credible deterrent to America. The Pentagon reports:

China’s nuclear force modernization, as evidenced by the fielding of the new DF-31 and DF-31A intercontinental-range missiles, is enhancing China’s strategic strike capabilities. China’s emergent anti-access/area denial capabilities – as exemplified by its continued development of advanced cruise missiles, medium-range ballistic missiles, anti-ship missiles designed to strike ships at sea, including aircraft carriers, and the January 2007 successful test of a direct-ascent, anti-satellite weapon – are expanding from the land, air, and sea dimensions of the traditional battlefield into the space and cyber-space domains.

It’s an impressive list. But America’s military capabilities remain far greater. Why does the PRC need anti-ship missiles for use against aircraft carriers? Because it lacks even one carrier, while the U.S. controls the seas with 12 carrier groups. This country dominates most other military fields as well. America’s nuclear missile arsenal is much bigger, more sophisticated, and more deadly than that possessed by China. Washington already is reaching into space with its missile defense program.

Thus, the PRC is seeking to deter America from deploying its more powerful forces. Notes the Pentagon, “Through analysis of U.S and coalition warfighting practices since 1991, Beijing hopes to develop approaches to waging future conflict by adapting and emulating lessons learned in some areas while seeking perceived vulnerabilities that could be exploited through asymmetric means in others.” In particular, “As part of its planning for a Taiwan contingency, China is prioritizing measures to deter or counter third-party intervention in any future cross-Strait crisis.”

Thus, Beijing might be preparing to confront the U.S. But the critical question is, confront the U.S. over what?

If Beijing was plotting the conquest of Guam, Hawaii, and ultimately the North American continent, then Beijing’s ongoing military build-up would look dangerous indeed. But there is nothing in China’s long history that suggests such overarching ambitions. Unwilling to remain weak and thus subject to coercion by a trigger-happy superpower across the Pacific. Yes. Determined to vigorously assert its perceived interests. Yes. Expecting international respect and consultation that reflects its increasingly expansive interests and growing power. Yes. Ready to commit global aggression, initiate world war, and wreck both China’s and America’s futures. No.

Which means the U.S. should think carefully before responding to China’s ongoing build-up. The Pentagon speaks of a situation which “will naturally and understandably lead to hedging against the unknown,” meaning Washington will need to spend even more on the military. If half of the world’s military outlays aren’t enough, one wonders how much would be. Two-thirds? Three-fourths? Even more?

Washington should not fret. If the goal is defending America, the U.S. possesses sufficiency today. Just catching up with the U.S. will be a daunting task for the PRC. Explained the Pentagon: “The U.S. Intelligence Community estimates China will take until the end of this decade or longer to produce a modern force capable of defeating a moderate-size adversary. China will not be able to project and sustain small military units far beyond China before 2015, and will not be able to project and sustain large forces in combat operations far from China until well into the following decade.”

~ Doug Bandow, “Turning China into the Next Big Enemy,” March 7, 2008

The Yellow Horde is coming … Boo!

Report comment to moderator

Frank: [Yawn] Look. It’s the non-sequitur from Hell …

drill (11): … even over the smell of several 100 millions (that is several HUNDRED MILLIONS) butchered and killed in various creative ways by its Maoist government.

Frank: Hmm. And yet we here in the good ol’ US of A still buy all their stuff like it’s going out of style.

Why dat is, drill?

drill (11): Your moral/ethical equivalence of America (whatever the faults you perceive with the United State) with Red China is disgusting or simply ignorant – pick the one that fits.

Frank: I’ve made no assertions about moral equivalence. That is something you have falsely inferred from my remarks. But I want to know why your knickers are all balled up over Turner’s statement.

The US of A spends roughly half of all the military spending in the world. Are you saying that Turner is wrong, and that China is building landing craft to attack the United States?

Do you think China poses a military threat this country?

If so, how?

Report comment to moderator

Your moral/ethical equivalence of America (whatever the faults you perceive with the United State) with Red China is disgusting or simply ignorant – pick the one that fits.

Report comment to moderator

http://online.worldmag.com/2008/04/03/whirled-views-43-2/

Report comment to moderator