My RSS Feeds
RED STORM RISING: Pompous Bush Attacks Weaklings (Iraq) But Not True Threats (CHINA)! Is American Empire Going To End Just Like Roman Empire Or The Third Reich? - RI10
RED STORM RISING:
Pompous Bush
Attacks Weaklings
(Iraq) But Not True
Threats (CHINA)!
Is American Empire
Going To End Just
Like Roman Empire
Or The Third Reich?
- RI10
Tabacco: While George W. Bush and his QuasiCon/Neocon cohorts attack basically defenseless Muslim countries, which just happen to be oil-producing, China, which is an oil-glutton just like the USA, is positioning itself to supplant America as the world’s greatest SuperPower!
China need have no fear from the USA because, as with most Cowards, GWB only attacks those, weak enough to guarantee his success. China is also a NUCLEAR POWER! In addition, China is also the main purchaser of American bonds and therefore our banker. When was the last time a nation destroyed its main source of revenue?
Would you pay to watch Elmont High School go up against the Indianapolis Colts in the next SuperBowl? That’s what you saw on TV when the MSM showed the US military sweeping Saddam Hussein and his denatured military into oblivion. First Bush demanded that Iraq disarm itself of WMDs. Then, when sure of absolute military superiority, Bush invaded Iraq under the pretext that Saddam posed a threat to the USA. That concept is preposterous! But when people are frightened silly, they often overreact and allow tyrants to do whatever they wish. If you are American, you fit into that category.
Even if a country has Atom Bombs and no rocketry to deliver them, all it can do is literally carry those Nukes to their targets. How likely is that?
Finally, let’s not forget the Hypocrisy of the United States’ Foreign Policy Position in allowing our “friends” (Israel for example) to retain nuclear weapons with impunity while denying those same Nukes to Israel’s sworn enemies. Shhhhh! Nobody is supposed to mention that little fact! Hell, the USA doesn’t officially acknowledge that Israel has Nukes. Nor does Israel! Forget I said it!
PILGRIM: Coming up, communist China rapidly building up its military. There are startling revelations about how Beijing may use its troops. We'll have a special report.
Also, a representative of more than 2,500 Border Patrol agents will be here. Edward Tuffly says the current immigration bill would be a repeat of mistakes of 1986 and leave our borders unprotected. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: A troubling warning about the rising military threat from communist China. The RAND Corporation says China is rapidly developing a first-strike capability against the United States, and it means Beijing could possibly defeat American forces in battle for the Taiwan Strait.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) PILGRIM (voice-over): China is becoming a powerhouse. Economic domination is well under way. As Chinese products flood world markets, China's trade surplus is up more than 80 percent in the first five months of the year.
But the real worry is China's growing military dominance in the East Asia region.
PETER BROOKES, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: It plans to be not only a regional player, but also a global player. It has the world's fourth largest economy today. It has the world's third largest defense budget, and this year announced a decision to increase its defense budget 18 percent.
PILGRIM: A recent RAND Corporation report describes just what China might try to achieve with those growing numbers. It describes the Chinese military strategy as, quote, "gaining mastery by striking first at U.S. vulnerabilities."
"Some Chinese strategists calculate that the perceived U.S. aversion to casualties might be exploited by delivering a sudden blow aimed at causing a large number of U.S. military casualties, sowing doubt and discontent among the U.S. population."
The report also talks about the U.S. military reliance on technology. China would target computer systems based in the United States, and space communications, with the goal of jamming U.S. military information systems to stop the deployment of American forces.
BROOKES: We are very busy, obviously, in the Middle East with the issue of Iraq and Afghanistan and Iran, but the fact of the matter is, is that no country or issue will shape this century for good or bad more than the rise of China.
PILGRIM: The report concludes the net result of these effects could be that the United States would actually be defeated in the conflict with China, noting the U.S. military would not be destroyed, but the United States could lose all power in the Pacific region.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: The Pentagon is also warning about communist China's huge military build-up. Now, the Pentagon last month said China could overturn the balance of power in the whole of Asia.
Coming up at the top of the hour, "THE SITUATION ROOM" with Wolf Blitzer.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks very much, Kitty.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/11/ldt.01.html
DOBBS: Janet Murguia. The head of La Raza.
Coming up, communist China's rapidly growing military, it is posing a threat and challenge to the United States. And what is the Bush administration doing about that? Why, they're paying for it with their policies.
Disturbing -- you're actually paying for it. Disturbing new numbers on the failure of our public school systems in this country. In one of our major cities. It is our national catastrophe, a national embarrassment. The graduation rate there, just 25 percent. We'll have those details. And we'll be reporting from that city next week. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Top Pentagon official today accusing communist China of concealing a tremendous build-up in its military. That official telling the House Armed Services Committee that Beijing is rapidly modernizing its strategic nuclear forces and developing space weaponry. Kitty Pilgrim has our report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): China says its defense budget grew 18 percent this year to $45 billion. But the U.S. military says that number is really between 85 and 125 billion dollars. At a congressional hearing Defense Department officials say that because of China's secretiveness ...
RICHARD LAWLESS, DEP. UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENSE: We the Department of Defense and more broadly the United States government are put in the position of having to assume the most dangerous intent.
PILGRIM: China is developing 10 varieties of ballistic missiles, some of which will be able to strike the continental United States. Nine-hundred missiles are directed at Taiwan. China is building new missile bases and a new nuclear submarine class. The Navy is also working to develop an aircraft carrier. China is using its $232 billion trade advantage for military build-up.
REP. DUNCAN HUNTER, (R) CA: China is cheating on trade right now. They are buying ships and planes and military equipment with American trade dollars. And a large portion of the American defense industrial base is moving to China. Do you see a problem there?
LAWLESS: Sir, I think we see a huge issue here.
REP. WALTER JONES, (R) NC: China has taken advantage of our economic woes and our trade policies of sending more jobs overseas and more dollars overseas.
PILGRIM: There are also indications China is working on technology warfare, designed to disrupt American computer systems and other key capabilities.
MAJ. GEN. PHILIP BREEDLOVE, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: They have seen and watched. They watched the Desert Storm. They watched every war we've done since that time.
PILGRIM: Congressmen also questioned China shooting down a satellite last January and worried about competition in space. (END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: Now China's financial hold on the United States is a big concern. A $200 billion trade surplus, a trillion dollars in currency reserves gives China a clear advantage in the discussion of any issue with the United States. Lou?
DOBBS: You might also add to that list of advantages that China has is a committed, highly intelligent and strategic leadership that is making the United States look like a cadre of fools in any negotiation or discussion between the two countries, whether it be trade or whether it be geopolitics.
PILGRIM: China's goals are very, very focused and directed.
DOBBS: Kitty Pilgrim, thank you very much. That brings us to the subject of our poll tonight. Our question is, "Is it rational for an administration to warn against China's military build-up while at the same time supporting trade policies that pay for that very build- up?"
Yes or no? Please cast your vote at loudobbs.com. We'd love to hear from you. We'll have the results upcoming.
Next, a shocking new report about the quality of public education. Incredibly, more than three-quarters of one school system, their students failing to graduate.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/13/ldt.01.html
Tabacco: When George W. Bush became president, he was advised by his most trusted administration appointees that the United States faced danger from two sources: a rabbit and a hungry lion. Bush was asked which enemy he preferred to focus his attention on first. Being the Churchill-like leader that he is, George picked the rabbit. (In the event this paragraph went over anyone’s head, allow me to say it is Satire. There is absolutely no attempt on the part of this writer to compare the grit and wisdom of GWB to the grit and wisdom and courage of Winston Churchill – remember, this paragraph is Satire!
To most of my Readers: please disregard this disclaimer. I know you get it. However there are some QuasiCon/Neocon Republican supporters of George W. Bush, who read my column also. So I must attempt to make my prose clear to the LCD – Least Common Denominator!)
Is China A Military Threat To The
United States
by William S. Lind
Washington (UPI) Jul 28, 2006
In the 1980s, when I was on the staff of Democratic Sen. Gary Hart of Colorado, I traveled regularly to Maxwell Air Force Base to give the slide-show briefing of the Congressional Military Reform Caucus to Squadron Officers' School. After one such session, a U.S. Air Force captain, an intelligence officer, came up to me and asked, "Does military reform mean we can stop inflating the threat?"
The U.S. Department of Defense's annual report to Congress, "Military Power of the People's Republic of China, 2006," shows that threat inflation remains a growth industry in Washington. Though the report is written in a careful tone, its message is that China is a growing military threat to the United States. Subheads in Chapter Five, "Force Modernization Goals and Trends", point to "Emerging Area Denial Capability", "Building Capacity for Precision Strike", and "Improving Expeditionary Operations". One can almost hear the threat inflation engines pumping away, puffing the dragon up to a fearsome size.
China is, to coin a Donald Rumsfeld turn of phrase, the threat we want, not the threat we face. By dint of much puffery, China can be made into the devoutly prayed for "peer competitor," an opponent against whom our "transformed", hi-tech, video-game future military can employ its toys, or more importantly, justify their acquisition. Our real enemy, the thousand faces of the Fourth Generation war practitioners, fails to meet that all-important test and is therefore deflated into "rejectionists" and "bad guys".
In fact, China's conventional forces are a long way from being able to take the United States on, especially at sea or in the air. The issue is less equipment -- not that China has much of it -- but personnel. Chinese ships spend little time at sea, its fighter pilots get few flight hours, and one can hardly speak of a Chinese "navy": it's really just a collection of ships. In a
naval and air war with the United States,
China would have little choice but to go
nuclear from the outset, which is what I
suspect it would do.
Tabacco: Well, now I understand why Bush selected the rabbit, not the hungry lion!
A close read of DOD's China report reveals an interesting twist, one all too typical of the "American Empire" advocates, who dominate the Washington Establishment. The main Chinese "threat" the report identifies is defensive, not offensive, namely an improving capability to repel outside intervention in a crisis between China and Taiwan. The report states, "Since the early- to mid-1990s, China's military modernization has focused on expanding its options for Taiwan contingencies, including deterring or countering third-party intervention....
"Simultaneously, the (U.S.) Department of Defense, through the transformation of the U.S. Armed Forces and global force posture realignments, is maintaining the capacity to resist any effort by Beijing to resort to force or coercion to dictate the terms of Taiwan's future status.
Under its "one China" policy, the United States recognizes that Taiwan is part of China. So the "Chinese threat" is that China may be able to deter or counter American intervention in a Chinese civil war. Who is the attacker here? If Britain or France had intervened on behalf of the Confederacy after the American South declared its independence, would the Union have seen such action as defensive?
This points to the grand folly DOD's China report represents, namely America allowing Taiwan, a small island of no strategic importance to the United States, to push it into a strategic rivalry with China. Taiwan is vastly important to China, because the great threat to China throughout its history has been internal division. If one province, Taiwan, can secure its independence, why cannot other provinces do the same? It is the specter of internal break-up that forces China to prevent Taiwanese independence at any cost, including war with America.
But America has no corresponding interest. A war with China over Taiwan would be, for the United States, another "war of choice", not of strategic necessity. We are currently fighting two other "wars of choice", and neither is going particularly well.
A strategic rivalry between the United States and China points to an obvious parallel, the strategic rivalry between England and Germany before World War I. That parallel should give Washington pause. If the rivalry -- completely unnecessary in both cases -- leads to war, as it then did, the war will have no victor. Germany and Britain destroyed each other. While Britain finally won, the British Empire died in the mud of Flanders.
A war between China and the United States could easily result in a similar fatal weakening of the United States -- perhaps after a strategic nuclear exchange -- while a defeated Chinese state may dissolve, with China becoming a vast region of stateless, Fourth Generation instability. Is Taiwan worth risking such an outcome? Was Belgian neutrality worth the Somme, Bolshevism and Hitler?
In a 21st century where the most important division will be between centers of order and centers or sources of disorder, it is vital to American interests that China remain a center of order. America needs to handle a rising China the way Britain handled a rising America, not a rising Germany. From that perspective, the proper place for DOD's China report, the threat inflation it represents and the strategic rivalry it stokes is in the trashcan marked "bad ideas".
(William S. Lind, expressing his own personal opinion, is director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation.)
Source: United Press International
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Is_China_A_Military_Threat_To_The_United_States_999.html
Africa, China, the United States, and Oil
May 8th, 2007
By David H. Shinn
Two Chinese academics wrote last year in the Far Eastern Economic Review that, “energy security is already playing an increasingly important role in Sino-U.S. relations, intensifying friction on regional issues”. They cited, for example, policy disagreements between the United States and China over Sudan. Although Sudan is not a source of crude for the United States, it supplies about 7 percent of China’s imports. China also has significant energy investments in Sudan. As the United States tries to isolate or punish countries like Sudan, China has concluded that they are important to its energy security and the rapid growth of its economy. The two Chinese academics argued that the legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party depends on this continuing strong and sustained economic growth.
In the meantime, a senior U.S. official warned that Beijing’s ties with “troublesome” states would have repercussions. Countries deemed troublesome by the United States that export significant quantities of oil to China will probably continue to cause tension between the United States and China. There is no inherent reason, however, why American and Chinese energy policy in Africa should result in conflict. There are opportunities for Sino-American cooperation on the development and security of oil reserves. It is in the interest of both the United States and China to develop a secure supply of crude at a reasonable international price.
U.S. and Chinese Oil Consumption and Imports
The United States is the largest and China the second largest consumer of oil in the world. China uses about 7 million barrels of oil a day while the United States consumes about 20 million barrels. The International Energy Agency projects that Chinese demand will exceed 9 million barrels daily by 2011. China relies on locally available coal for most of its energy needs. Oil and gas account for only about 20 percent of its energy requirements and imported oil constitutes less than 10 percent of China’s total energy consumption. While it is important to keep this in perspective, China has had one of the sharpest increases in energy demand globally during the past two decades. Oil is replacing coal in some industries because of coal’s low efficiency and negative environmental impacts. China’s demand for oil and gas is rising faster than its demand for coal.
The United States is the world’s largest importer of petroleum. China is the third largest oil importer after the United States and Japan. On a per capita basis, however, China imports only about one-twentieth as much oil as the United States. China’s 1.3 billion people, one-fifth of the world’s population, tend to diminish all per capita statistics. Nevertheless, China’s oil requirements are growing faster than those of the United States. The sheer size of China’s population and its rapidly expanding economy are leading to increasing competition for access to oil with a variety of countries, including the United States. China’s increased consumption is also contributing to the rising price of crude.
China’s crude oil imports have increased about 13 percent annually since 1994. In 2006, imports accounted for 47 percent of Chinese oil consumption while the comparable figure for the United States was about 60 percent. At current rates of growth in oil consumption, China will need to import about two-thirds of its total requirement by 2015, while U.S. imports will rise above 60 percent of total needs. In order to satisfy its growing consumption and higher oil imports, China is diversifying its suppliers and encouraging its national oil companies to invest in Africa, the Middle East, and elsewhere. China is pursuing a long-term policy of
energy security rather than following the
approach of Western companies that tends
to emphasize short-term profits.
(Tabacco: If nothing else differentiates Oriental China from Occidental USA, the Chinese seem to be infinitely more intelligent and a good deal less myopic in their energy policy.)
The Role of Oil from Africa
The 53 countries in Africa possess only 9 percent of the world’s proven petroleum reserves compared to almost 62 percent for the Middle East. But Africa remains largely unexplored and may well be the location of significant future oil and gas discoveries. IHS Energy, an oil and gas-consulting firm, believes that Africa will supply 30 percent of the world’s growth in hydrocarbon production by 2010. A U.S. Department of Energy study projected that African oil production would rise 91 percent between 2002 and 2025. African oil also tends to be high quality and low in sulfur, making it particularly desirable to refiners. Although much less significant than the Middle East as a source of oil, Africa is no longer a marginal player, and has become especially important to the United States and China. Libya’s 39 billion barrels of oil reserves and Nigeria’s 36 billion barrels are both twice the size of China’s proven reserves and just under twice the size of American reserves.
China now obtains almost one-third of its imported oil from Africa; this compares with one-quarter as recently as 2004. About two-thirds of all African exports to China consist of oil. Twenty-two percent of U.S. crude imports came from Africa in 2006; this compares with only 15 percent in 2004 and slightly exceeded U.S. imports from the Middle East. U.S. oil imports from Africa have nearly doubled since 2002. Both China
and the United States are projected to
increase their percentages of imports from
Africa. While Chinese imports from the
Middle East have fluctuated around 50
percent in recent years, they are projected
to increase. At the same time, China is reluctant to become excessively tied to the Middle East as a source of oil. China also lacks refinery capacity for the heavier crude that comes from the Middle East.
Some critics argue that China is a neocolonial power that is simply using Africa as a source of raw materials, especially petroleum. It is true that African oil, minerals, and timber are important to maintaining China’s economy and they constitute nearly all of Africa’s exports to China. But the argument is disingenuous. The same argument could be made for the United States, Europe, and Japan. (Tabacco: Anyone, who did not know that before reading this concept here, please signify by dropping dead toute suite!) China purchased only 9 percent of Africa’s petroleum exports in 2006 while the United States took 33 percent and Europe 36 percent. The four major African suppliers to China in 2006 in order of importance were Angola, Congo-Brazzaville, Equatorial Guinea, and Sudan. The four largest African exporters of oil to the United States were Nigeria, Angola, Algeria, and Gabon.
http://forums.csis.org/africa/?p=34
(Edited by Tabacco for brevity & focus)
Tabacco: Remember the jokes in the ‘60s, ‘70s & ‘80s about America being Russia’s best R&D (Research & Development) source because they (the Russians) stole all their ideas, particularly military ones, from us? Well now it’s the Chinese, who do the stealing. That is they steal it when the USA is not “giving it away!” In either case, George W. Bush won’t do anything about it because guess where the US is getting its bankroll from to finance its Wars of Opportunity? If you said “China”, go to the head of the class!
US takes China IP row to the WTO
Peter Ollier writes today, April 10, 2007, for Managing Intellectual Property:
After months of veiled threats, the US has launched formal proceedings at the WTO against China over its record on enforcing IP rights.
US officials said yesterday that they are making two requests for World Trade Organization dispute settlement consultations: one over what they described as "deficiencies" in China's legal regime for protecting and enforcing copyrights and trade marks, and the other over China's alleged barriers to trade in books, music, videos and movies.
Susan Schwab, the US Trade Representative, said in a statement that "while the United States and China have been able to work cooperatively and pragmatically on a range IPR issues...we have not been able to agree on several important changes to China's legal regime that are required by China's WTO commitments".
China and the US now have 60 days in which to hold consultations. If no progress is made, the US can refer the matter to a WTO dispute settlement panel. The three-person panel usually takes six to nine months to issue a decision, which can then be appealed.
The IP complaint focuses on three elements:
1. Thresholds for Criminal Liability
2. Disposal of Infringing Goods
3. Denial of Copyright Protection to Works Awaiting Censorship Review
Read the full article here.
http://infringement.blogs.com/philip_brooks_patent_infr/2007/04/us_takes_china_.html
Tabacco: China may not NUKE the USA, but they are certainly challenging us in various economic areas. And they are definitely not afraid of George W. Bush. Remember that if China ever pulls the plug on its loans to the USA, we all go DOWN THE TOILET! The QuasiCons/Neocons cannot afford to reciprocate against the Chinese with tariffs, for example, because that would send our primary banker into cardiac arrest. We institute sanctions on China, then they dump those US bonds on the market and it’s “bye, bye America!” Those bonds would become JUNK BONDS instantaneously. So it would not only destroy the USA and drive all possible creditors away, but that action would also destroy China, who would be left holding our “Junk Bonds”.
It’s one helluva fix the GOP/Donkeys have gotten us into. (Sorry about ending with a preposition). We’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t. To put it another way, the US has China by the balls, and China has the US by the balls. If either side invokes sanctions, both sides will have cardiac arrest! Either side can play “unfairly”, but neither side can afford to “pull the plug!” on the other. Apparently we’re in this mess together. But situations of this sort cannot go on indefinitely. It must, like the Cold War with the Soviets, come to an end eventually. The only question is, “Will it end with both the US and China committing economic suicide or nuclear suicide?”
Tabacco: I consider myself both a funnel and a filter. I funnel information, not readily available on the Mass Media, which is ignored and/or suppressed. I filter out the irrelevancies and trivialities to save both the time and effort of my Readers and bring consternation to the enemies of Truth & Fairness! When you read Tabacco, if you don’t learn something NEW, I’ve wasted your time.
In 1981's 'Body Heat', Kathleen Turner said, "Knowledge is power".
T.A.B.A.C.C.O. (Truth About Business And Congressional Crimes Organization)
George W. Bush administration!