China stays cool as new US defense strategy targets Asia
-
China stays cool as new US defense strategy targets Asia
Some Chinese scholars worry that the new US defense strategy could promote strategic competition in the long term. The most likely theater for crisis? The South China Sea.
“Military guys always seek the best but prepare for the worst,” says Jin Canrong, deputy head of the School of International Studies at Renmin University in Beijing, commenting on the strategy document unveiled Thursday by US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. That document calls for an increase in the number of US troops in Asia both in the face of uncertainty over China’s strategic goals, and North Korea's future.
Officially, Beijing was mute Friday about the US strategic shift to its doorstep. Neither the Foreign Ministry nor the Defense Ministry answered requests for comment. But several scholars closely linked to foreign policy-making circles say they do not see the move as a fundamental shift in US attitudes to China.
“It does not mean that the US is trying to contain China” as it once sought to contain the former Soviet Union, says Yuan Peng, head of the US department at the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, a government-linked think tank. “They are hedging, but they still hope to have positive relations.”
American analysts agreed. “This document emphasizes the pessimistic scenario. It is necessarily an insurance policy,” says Denny Roy, a security expert at the East-West Center in Hawaii. “You don’t see the full breadth of US policy toward China here.”
That does not mean, however, that Washington is not worried by China’s intentions as it modernizes its military, building advanced stealth jet fighters, developing an anti-ship missile that could keep US vessels 1,500 km (about 932 miles) away from the Chinese coastline, and refurbishing an old Soviet aircraft carrier with which to run sea trials.
Promoting strategic competition
“China would not be wrong to conclude that the US is concerned by its military modernization and its intentions,” says Bonnie Glaser, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “But it would be wrong to say China is now a US adversary.
“There are areas where we compete and areas where we cooperate,” she adds. “The key is to stop the competition from slipping into strategic rivalry that would overwhelm the cooperation.
Some scholars here worry that the US shift, while posing no immediate threat to China, might promote such strategic competition in the longer term.
“It will damage mutual trust, and if it poses a potential threat it could lead to a vicious circle and deepen misperceptions,” argues Professor Yuan. “It is very natural for the Chinese to think that they are a very important target, so it is not constructive.”
Potential crisis?
Sun Zhe, a security expert at Tsinghua University’s department of International Relations, shares that fear. In the face of Washington’s new posture, he says, “China probably has no choice but to adopt hedging itself. “We won’t give up talking to the US but we will continue to strengthen our military power,” he predicts. “I am afraid of an escalation of military competition and a potential crisis.”
The most likely theater for such a crisis would be the South China Sea, believed to be rich not only in fisheries but in oil and other minerals. China has laid sovereignty claims to almost the whole sea, bringing it into conflict with Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Brunei, which all maintain claims to specific islands and atolls.
Washington has officially declared itself neutral in these disputes, but US officials have recently done little to hide their support for China’s neighbors.
Washington’s new “tilt” toward the Asia Pacific region “implies that if China does something to prevent US power projection, the US will fight back,” suggests Professor Sun. “That hurts our bilateral relations.”
The new US defense strategy, however, “is only a new step in the same direction” that Washington has been taking for two years toward greater involvement in Asia, points out Professor Jin. “China’s leaders have had some psychological preparation for this,” he says. “It won’t shock them … and they won’t be very nervous.”
One thing it will do however, he adds, referring to the Chinese military, the People’s Liberation Army, “is give the PLA an excuse to ask for more money. I think they’ll get a bigger budget now.”
-
Talk is cheap, the American military cupboard's quite bare, there isn't much "hard" assets that they can shift to Asia that they havn't already committed elsewhere, even with the Iraqi pullout. Not enough moolah. Pity really. And the poor US Navy has been neglected over the recent years in favour of the more high profile airforce, and it's modernization plans are sort of... not really up to date. Examples are the LCS cost overruns, the non-deployment of the Sea Shadow and the Zumwalt, the limbo status of Waverider (which leave Harpoons/Tomahawk AshMs vs Onyx/Sunburn/Brahmos) and a few others I can't casually recall right off the top of my head. Long story short, there really isn't much the US can contribute to the region, other than a cheerleading squad.
-
U.S wants to target Asia, then China and others go target europe and south america lor.
You target me, I target you lor.
-
Think you got "Target" as reinforcements and "Target" as possible enemy mixed up. America isn't really considering going to war with Asia.
-
No war good lah. Just let China rise in peace lah, don't go and make trouble lah.
Target europe, target south america, China also doesn't want war.
-
"cough.." Spratleys... "cough" border intrusions... "cough" Japan... Phillipines... "cough"... Kashmir...
-
Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II
How the IMF Props Up the Bankrupt Dollar System
http://www.serendipity.li/hr/imf_and_dollar_system.htm
Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order
The Face of Imperialism
The Global Gamble: Washington's Faustian Bid for World Dominance
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/1576753018
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: How the U.S. Uses Globalization to Cheat Poor Countries Out of Trillions
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/11/9/confessions_of_an_economic_hit_man
Super Imperialism - New Edition: The Origin and Fundamentals of U.S. World Dominance
Empire's Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism
The CIA's Secret War in Tibet
Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq
Global Flashpoints: Reactions to Imperialism and Neoliberalism
Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent
Naked Imperialism: The U.S. Pursuit of Global Dominance
Dying Empire: US Imperialism and Global Resistance
The New Imperialism
Globalization Unmasked: Imperialism in the 21st Century
Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance
Dismantling the Empire: America's Last Best Hope
Freedom Next Time: Resisting the Empire
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1568583265/ref=cm_cr_asin_lnk
Secret Affairs: Britain's Collusion with Radical Islam
Unpeople: Victims of British Policy
The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony: Petrodollar Recycling and International Markets
Oil, Power, & Empire: Iraq and the U.S. Global Agenda
Web of Deceit
Global Energy Security and American Hegemony
America's Other War: Terrorizing Colombia
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Suffer_the_Children_Iraq.html
Depleted Uranium Weapons — an investigation
Angus Stickler, BBCA BBC investigation can reveal that the US and UK military have continued to use depleted uranium weapons despite warnings from scientists that it poses a potential long-term cancer risk to civilians...USA used Enriched Uranium while invading Iraq
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFqyK8kB1Vk
-
I sense an agenda in the Forum. Not to mention a certain theme in his reading list. Before you recommend books to us Dal, I have to ask, you read them yourself? Or just spaming a search list? If not, how do you really know the contents say what is on the summary? BTW, China also has it's list of crimes. Unfortunately, most of the possible book authors are 6 feet under. Or "reeducated". Oh and one other thing, that last reference? As a medical professional, I know that "DU Cancer risk" thing is fake. You should worry more on heavy metal toxicity using DU.
-
Originally posted by Underpaid:
I sense an agenda in the Forum.
The agenda is anti U.S imperialism, anti war, anti U.S propaganda and anti neo colonialism and anti U.S hegemony.
As long as U.S imperialism exists and it continues to impose its hegemony onto the world and instigates killings and wars and sow chaos and destruction I will oppose it to the end.
Before you recommend books to us Dal, I have to ask, you read them yourself? Or just spaming a search list? If not, how do you really know the contents say what is on the summary?
These are just the typical left wing critic of U.S foreign policy and U.S imperialism for the past 60 years.
Some left wing sites and left wing propaganda:
http://www.zcommunications.org/zmag
http://marxandphilosophy.org.uk/reviewofbooks
http://www.internationalviewpoint.org
http://www.brettonwoodsproject.org
-
the whole world should sit down and talk about disarmament.
-
lol dragg, I can just predict the reply now. "You first." :P Well, at least Dalforce admits it's propaganda. And remember, America has an anti-war movement. Where is China's? That is one of the reasons I think the US is a lesser threat than China, in the US, anti-war is a valid political movement. In China, they're tank bait. Gate of Heavenly Peace my ass. More like Gate of Heavenly Armoured Tank Column.
-
Originally posted by Underpaid:
Well, at least Dalforce admits it’s propaganda.
But the propaganda is accurate. It is not false propaganda.
And remember, America has an anti-war movement.
Where is China’s?China's political theory is anti-imperialism, anti-war and peaceful co-existence already.
U.S is war war war.
Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence
Premier Zhou Enlai advocated the Five Principles as basic norms in handling international relations during his India visit in June, 1954.
Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence are China’s fundamental and everlasting norms guiding international relations.
The Five Principles are: mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in each other's internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence.
http://wiki.china.org.cn/wiki/index.php/Five_Principles_of_Peaceful_Coexistence
-
Actually, a lot of it IS false propaganda. And might I ask how China sees Tibet and the Kashmir region? And the Spratleys? At least we now know whose coin Dalfarce accepts.
-
Originally posted by Underpaid:
Actually, a lot of it IS false propaganda.
I see a lot of truths.
U.S lies on Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, I consider false propaganda.
-
Dal must be Chinese, no one else could be so blind to their own faults. BTW you do realise that colonialism was ended by the US? It was one of their conditions for helping Britain out in WWII. The release of all extra-territorial colonies. Never claimed the US to be saints, they can be fairly stupid at times, and have a hero wannabe complex a mile wide, but as I mentioned before, China's the bigger threat. Their pride and nationalism, if directed wrongly, can plunge the world into WWIII. US right now is a paper tiger, no $ to be adventurous, so it makes big pronouncements most know to be just for show. China on the other hand, has the resources to cause trouble, even if it's just only their citizens. Didn't an illegal Chinese fisherman in Japanese waters kill a Japanese Coast Guard recently? Isn't Chinese civillian incursions into Japan a common thing? Didn't PLAN military ships recently harass vessels in the Spratleys? Dal, clean up your own house 1st before criticizing others. And BTW, lots of Marxist sites on your list. News flash. Marxism doesn't work. Demonstrated since the 90s. I'd like you to think of what kind of people would still cling on to Marxism even after so much evidence of failure.
-
Underpaid, people like him are the product of our society and national leadership.
We are surrounded by muslim neighbours whose populations, if not leadership, identify with muslim causes. We share our environment with China and its extreme nationalists, some of whom are here.
Certainly it does not hurt for our leaders to hurl verbal insults at the USA while working hand in glove to support their presence here. The US is a mature power and takes such things in stride. They understand if local regimes must appease their populations and their neighbours.
-
Originally posted by dragg:
the whole world should sit down and talk about disarmament.
-
Originally posted by alize:
Underpaid, people like him are the product of our society and national leadership.
We are surrounded by muslim neighbours whose populations, if not leadership, identify with muslim causes. We share our environment with China and its extreme nationalists, some of whom are here.
Certainly it does not hurt for our leaders to hurl verbal insults at the USA while working hand in glove to support their presence here. The US is a mature power and takes such things in stride. They understand if local regimes must appease their populations and their neighbours.
And by "appease", I mean the Govt gives its people and perhaps its neighbours the good old lip service.
When it comes to deeds, well... what do our people know? They live with the choices they make and the rights they failed to uphold, ie they live most deservingly.
-
Naive to think global disarmament would work. People have been fighting for thousands of years. Countries like Iran threatening closure of straits of Hormuz and North Korean provocations eg sinking of Cheonan are recent cases in point.
Why would powerful countries like US give up on decades on investment to be on par with countries like China in terms of global disarmament? Unrealistic.
Reality is that US will do what they want to in APAC. They will spend what they can afford (or even unafford) on defense. So will China. If the objectives are conflicting, whoever is stronger will get their way.
It is not a question of religious causes. Religion normally don't encourage wars. People can use whatever tools including religious excuses eg Al Qaeda or wars to further their causes. They have done so since man learnt to hunt. Nothing new. The meek may inherit the earth but until they do.... the strong still yet rules it.
-
Originally posted by Underpaid:
BTW you do realise that colonialism was ended by the US?
Seems like your history and my history different.
http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/baku/
Into the holy war against the last citadel of capitalism and imperialism in Europe, against the nest of pirates and bandits by sea and land, against the age-old oppressor of all the peoples of the East, against imperialist Britain!
Into the holy war for freedom, independence and happiness for all the peoples of the East, all the East’s millions of peasants and workers enslaved by Britain!
Peoples of the East! In this holy war all the revolutionary workers and all the oppressed peasants of the East will be with you. They win help you, they will fight and die along with you.
It is the First Congress of representatives of the Peoples of the East that tells you this.Long live the unity of all the peasants and workers of the East and of the West, the unity of all the toilers, all the oppressed and exploited.
Long live the battle headquarters of this united movement — the Communist International!
May the holy war of the peoples of the East and of the toilers of the whole world against imperialist Britain burn with unquenchable fire!
http://amadlandawonye.wikispaces.com/1920,+Baku+Congress+of+the+Peoples+of+the+East,+Manifesto
League against Imperialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_against_Imperialism
V. I. Lenin
Draft Theses on
National and Colonial Questions
For The Second Congress Of The Communist International
the need for a determined struggle against attempts to give a communist colouring to bourgeois-democratic liberation trends in the backward countries; the Communist International should support bourgeois-democratic national movements in colonial and backward countries only on condition that, in these countries, the elements of future proletarian parties, which will be communist not only in name, are brought together and trained to understand their special tasks, i.e., those of the struggle against the bourgeois-democratic movements within their own nations.
The Communist International must enter into a temporary alliance with bourgeois democracy in the colonial and backward countries, but should not merge with it, and should under all circumstances uphold the independence of the proletarian movement even if it is in its most embryonic form;
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jun/05.htm
Ho Chi Minh
Lenin And The Colonial Peoples
‘Lenin is dead!’ This news struck the people like a bolt from the blue. It spread to every corner of the fertile plains of Africa and the green fields of Asia. It is true that the black or yellow people do not yet know clearly who Lenin is or where Russia is.The imperialists have deliberately kept them in ignorance. Ignorance is one of the chief mainstays of capitalism. But all of them, from the Vietnamese peasants to the hunters in the Dahomey forests, have secretly learnt that in a faraway corner of the earth there is a nation that has succeeded in overthrowing its exploiters and is managing its own country with no need for masters and Governors General.
They have also heard that that country is Russia, that there are courageous people there, and that the most courageous of them all was Lenin. This alone was enough to fill them with deep admiration and warm feelings for that country and its leader.
But this was not all. They also learned that that great leader, after having liberated his own people, wanted to liberate other peoples too. He called upon the white peoples to help the yellow and black peoples to free themselves from the foreign aggressors' yoke, from all foreign aggressors, Governors General Residents, etc. And to reach that goal, he mapped out a definite programme...
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/ho-chi-minh/works/1924/01/27.htm
Long before U.S, the USSR was already in the struggle against colonialism, and imperialism.
USSR's support for anti-colonialism was the main reason why people from colonial and semi-colonial countries became communists.
They want to destroy colonialism and imperialism.
-
BTW you do realise that colonialism was ended by the US?
Secretary of War Henry Stimson in May 1945 when he was explaining how we must eliminate and dismantle regional systems dominated by any other power, particularly the British, while maintaining and extending our own system.
But they reimposed a hegemonic and neo-colonial system, using world bank, IMF, WTO, NATO etc to enforce their dictates.
News stories and academic studies often focus on the options chosen by a president and his officials during a crisis. Central to such decisions, however, are the forces that determine what options show up on the agenda and what options do not even make it to the table. Imperial Brain Trust, published in 1977, is the classic study of the Council on Foreign Relations, an organization that has, for decades, played a central behind the scenes role is shaping such foreign policy choices.
This private club and think tank, bringing together the New York establishment and the Washington foreign policy elite as well as other powerful forces, took the lead in laying out the plans for post-World II international order.
The Council also traced the key guidelines for Cold War intervention and vetted and advised generations of White House officials. Rival think tanks, such as the far-right Heritage Foundation, now have a higher profile.
But the Council on Foreign Relations continues to mark the boundaries of what insiders consider to be respectable foreign policy discussion, helping aspirants to policy influence test out their schemes for establishment approval.
Shoup & Minter's devastating research on the planning behind the U.S. Empire is finally back in print 27 years after its 1977 publication by Monthly Review Press!The CFR, the Council on Foreign Relations, was formed by the international wing of U.S. capital after the League of Nations fell apart and inter-imperialist collaboration proved ineffective, leading to WWII.
The farsighted few took measures to see that such a debacle did not recur. The CFR, the "imperial brain trust" of the title, carried out research concerning the optimal strategy for the U.S. in the war.
They identified a minimum and maximum "Grand Area" that the U.S. needed to control, based on an assessment of factors including raw materials, and decided long before Pearl Harbor that the U.S. would need to control the Pacific Basin. War with Japan was the plan, with or without Pearl Harbor. Everything that happened in Europe was secondary to this consideration.
The CFR Grand Area planning team was imported wholesale into FDR's State Department -- it became the State Department and directed the war strategy. So the U.S. was not in the war to defend itself, or to fight for Freedom, or to liberate anyone, cherished propaganda to the contrary.
The goal was to seize as big a chunk of the globe as possible along with its raw materials and markets.
This proved quite successful, of course, and with a few pesky holdouts that were encircled and attacked with variations on containment and rollback over the years, the U.S.
Empire replaced the 19th century British Empire, with an unprecedented military reach and military bases everywhere. Since 1945 the sun has never set on the American Empire.
http://avaxhome.ws/ebooks/history_military/0595324266_ImperialBrain.html
From 1939 to 1945, extensive studies were conducted by the Council on Foreign Relations and the State Department. One group was called the War-Peace Studies Group, which met for six years and produced extensive geopolitical analyses and plans. The Council on Foreign Relations is essentially the business input to foreign policy plainning. These groups also involved every top planner in the State Department, with the exception of the Secretary of State.
The conception that they developed is what they called "Grand Area" planning. The Grand Area was a region that was to be subordinated to the needs of the American economy. As one planner put it, it was to be the region that is "strategically necessary for world control." The geopolitical analysis held that the Grand Area had to include at least the Western Hemisphere, the Far East, and the former British Empire, which we were then in the process of dismantling and taking over ourselves. This is what is called "anti-imperialism" in American scholariship. The Grand Area was also to include western and southern Europe and the oil-producing regions of the Middle East; in fact, it was to include everything, if that were possible. Detailed plans were laid for particular regions of the Grand Area and also for international institutions that were to organize and police it, essentially in the interests of this subordination to U.S. domestic needs.
Of course, when we talk about the domestic economy, we don't necessarily mean the people of the United States; we mean whoever dominates and controls, owns and manages the American economy. In fact, the planners recognized that other arrangements, other forms of organization, involving much less extensive control over the world would indeed be possible, but only at what from their point of view was the "cost" of internal rearrangements toward a more egalitarian society in the United States, and obviously that is not contemplated.
With respect to the Far East, the plans were roughly as follows: Japan, it was understood, would sooner or later be the industrial heartland of Asia once again. Since Japan is a resource-poor area, it would need Southeast Asia and South Asia for resources and markets. All of this, of course, would be incorporated within the global system dominated by the United States.
With regard to Latin America, the matter was put most plainly by Secretary of War Henry Stimson in May 1945 when he was explaining how we must eliminate and dismantle regional systems dominated by any other power, particularly the British, while maintaining and extending our own system. He explained with regard to Latin America as follows: "I think that it's not asking too much to have our little region over here which never has bothered anybody."
The basic thinking behind all of this has been explained quite lucidly on a number of occasions. (This is a very open society and if one wants to learn what's going on, you can do it; it takes a little work, but the documents are there and the history is also there.) One of the clearest and most lucid accounts of the planning behind this was by George Kennan, who was one of the most thoughtful, humane, and liberal of the planners, and in fact was eliminated from the State Depatment largely for that reason. Kennan was the head of the State Department policy planning staff in the late 1940s. In the following document, PPS23, February 1948, he outlined the basic thinking:
We have about 50 percent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 percent of its population.... In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity.... We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.... We should cease to talk about vague and..., unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.
http://www.chomsky.info/talks/19850319.htm
AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Okay, explain this term, "economic hit man," e.h.m., as you call it.
PERKINS: Basically what we were trained to do and what our job is to do is to build up the American empire. To bring — to create situations where as many resources as possible flow into this country, to our corporations, and our government, and in fact we’ve been very successful. We’ve built the largest empire in the history of the world. It’s been done over the last 50 years since World War II with very little military might, actually. It’s only in rare instances like Iraq where the military comes in as a last resort. This empire, unlike any other in the history of the world, has been built primarily through economic manipulation, through cheating, through fraud, through seducing people into our way of life, through the economic hit men. I was very much a part of that...
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/11/9/confessions_of_an_economic_hit_man
One of the crucial pillars of support for today's Dollar System is Washington's control of the International Monetary Fund, the IMF.
The way this actually works is carefully disguised, behind a facade of technocrats and economic theory of free market ideology.
In reality, the IMF is a modern era collection agency for the Dollar Empire.
It collects its tribute, through major international banks, who use the dollars to further extend the power of American financial and corporate hegemony, in effect the driving motor of what is globalization....
...
Globalization is a word used today, often without precision.
If we use the word globalization to refer to the entire process of IMF and WTO-led neo-colonialism under the Dollar System, then it is a descriptive term. It describes the creation of a global dollar imperium, a Pax Americana.
Establishment critics of the IMF system such as Joseph Stiglitz, himself a former Clinton adviser and World Bank official, make accurate charges against the IMF. They assume, however, that it is merely misguided policy that leads to the problems.
The entire IMF institution, along with the World Bank and WTO, however, have been deliberately developed to advance this globalization of the Dollar System, the second pillar of Pax Americana after the military power.
It is no mistaken policy, no result of bureaucratic blunders.
That is the crucial point to be understood. The IMF exists to support the Dollar System.
http://www.serendipity.li/hr/imf_and_dollar_system.htm
-
Originally posted by alize:
Underpaid, people like him are the product of our society and national leadership.
How can that be?
PAP is pro west.
I am not pro west.
I am anti-imperialist.
An anglophile bastard like Lee Kuan Yew and his half fuck ang moh system can produce someone like me?
Can't be lah.
China and others are working to destroy the U.S hegemonic world order.
I will fully support the annihilation of that system and I wholeheartedly support China and all those working to end the system so that the world can be free from imperialism.
BRICS, a relatively young bloc which brings together the five major emerging economies of China, Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa, is helping form a new and more balanced global economic order.
The current economic order has long been dominated by traditional Western economic powerhouses like the United States and European nations, which have enjoyed a much bigger say at major global financial organizations, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.
However, the creation of BRICS and its rapid development speak volumes for the gradual shift of the global economic balance from developed economies to emerging ones, the need to speed up the formation of a new international economic order, and the trend towards a multi-polar world to counterbalance the absolute power of industrialized countries....
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/business/2011-12/17/c_131312524.htm
-
TL;DR. lol Anyway, we really should repatriate these infiltrator FTs. Dalfarce, I wasn't talking about "history". I'm talking about current day. Which country even supports Marxism nowadays other than Cuba and your friend North Korea, and they're either borderline states or even outright dependent on foreign aid to survive. Even the old mainstream "Communist" countries like China and Russia are bailing out/bailed out ASAP. And it's also this kind of "I'm right, all of you are wrong" pride and nationalism that I was warning about. This kind of approach doesn't allow any compromise which means a head to head confrontation is almost inevitable. Luckily I doubt it's the mindset of the Central Commitee or we'll really be screwed. WWIII. And I'll have a lot more confidence in a neutral observer's viewpoint on communist history other than one of it's most obvious proponents. It's like asking a fox if it was pro-open henhouse. Expect bias.
-
Originally posted by Underpaid:
TL;DR. lol
Anyway, we really should repatriate these infiltrator FTs.
Dalfarce, I wasn’t talking about “history”. I’m talking about current day. Which country even supports Marxism nowadays other than Cuba and your friend North Korea, and they’re either borderline states or even outright dependent on foreign aid to survive. Even the old mainstream “Communist” countries like China and Russia are bailing out/bailed out ASAP.
And it’s also this kind of “I’m right, all of you are wrong” pride and nationalism that I was warning about. This kind of approach doesn’t allow any compromise which means a head to head confrontation is almost inevitable. Luckily I doubt it’s the mindset of the Central Commitee or we’ll really be screwed. WWIII.
And I’ll have a lot more confidence in a neutral observer’s viewpoint on communist history other than one of it’s most obvious proponents. It’s like asking a fox if it was pro-open henhouse. Expect bias.
Whatever weakens U.S imperialism and their hegemonic world system I will support.
Whatever strengthens U.S imperialism and their hegemonic world system I will oppose.
China and the BRICS bloc oppose the U.S hegemonic system. I will continue to support China and BRICS and all the anti imperialist forces and deal a death blow to U.S imperialism.
The current economic order has long been dominated by traditional Western economic powerhouses like the United States and European nations, which have enjoyed a much bigger say at major global financial organizations, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.
However, the creation of BRICS and its rapid development speak volumes for the gradual shift of the global economic balance from developed economies to emerging ones, the need to speed up the formation of a new international economic order, and the trend towards a multi-polar world to counterbalance the absolute power of industrialized countries....
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez dismissed a U.S. warning to avoid close ties with Iran yesterday, denouncing what he said was Washington’s attempt to dominate the world as he welcomed the Iranian president to the Latin American nation.
Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived at the start of a tour to shore up support from the region’s leftist leaders, as tough new Western sanctions aim to isolate the Islamic republic and target its vital oil exports.
“A spokesman or spokeswoman in Washington from the State Department or the White House said it was not convenient for any country to get close to Iran. Well, the truth is, it made you laugh,” Chavez said in a televised speech.
“They’re not going to be able to dominate this world. Forget about it (President Barack) Obama, forget about it. It would be better to think about the problems in your country, which are many,” he said.
“We are free. The people of Latin America will never again kneel, dominated by the imperial Yankee. Never again,” he said, to applause from his audience at an oil processing facility.
http://www.stabroeknews.com/2012/news/world/01/09/chavez-welcomes-ally-ahmadinejad/
GREG GRANDIN Right. All of the elements that I call the "new imperialism" have been in play for decades, if not centuries, in U.S. foreign policy, a kind of promotion of free market capitalism, a certain sense that the United States has a special purpose in the world to advance democracy or freedom, a certain kind of real politique cynicism in which we back dictators and coups and death stars in order to maintain stability in allied countries...
GREG GRANDIN: What happened is that the United States, in — well, and not just in El Salvador, in Guatemala and Nicaragua, turned Central America into one of the last killing fields of the Cold War.
And this is why Central America has such a pull on the imagination of the neo-cons, is that it occurred simultaneously with the end of the Cold War.
Now, Reagan for the most part acted in moderation everywhere else in the world, in other hotspots of the world. In El Salvador and Guatemala and Nicaragua, he gave that policy, U.S. policy to movement conservatives for them to act — it’s kind of wish fulfillment — to act the way they wished the U.S. would act towards the Soviet Union and the Middle East and in South Asia.
In El Salvador, the U.S. supported an anti-communist regime in order to contain an insurgency that resulted in the deaths of something between 60,000 and 70,000 civilians. In Nicaragua, we supported an anti-communist insurgency, which resulted in the murder of 30,000 to 40,000 civilians.
And in Guatemala, we provided moral justification for a regime that was committing genocide, murdering somewhat around 200,000 civilians, mostly Mayan Indians.
And that was throughout the 1980s. So when somebody like Margaret Thatcher says that Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot, there’s a certain kind of historical amnesia with those kind of pronouncements which get circulated in the mainstream press.
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/5/11/empires_workshop_latin_america_the_united
U.S imperialism is a very vicious and barbaric oppressive force that must be wiped out and destroyed from the face of the earth.
-
Dalforce imperialism is a very vicious and barbaric oppressive force that must be wiped out and destroyed from the face of the earth. *Fixed* If you're a sample of their enemies, I'd support them. Bad news for you kid, you don't tell us who our enemies are, we see our enemies through their actions, not because someone tells us A,B or C is bad. Give it a rest, the more you sound like a mad dog, the more people are not going to believe you and the more you hurt your own cause. And BRIC is anti-US? Bull. Brazil wants to stop the US? News to me. Dito Russia. And India's more anti-China than anti-US. Kashmir, you know. Seems like the only outright anti-US on the list is China. Which unfortunately for you, ISN'T the spokesperson for BRIC.