RugbyRebels

“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.”

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/02/ ... -on-china/

Do you just repost every single thing that is put on counterpunch?

Pilger has seen better days...you know, I wouldn't be surprised if the CIA had been spiking his coffee.

cashead wrote:Do you just repost every single thing that is put on counterpunch?

I got the interview and article from separate sources, in fact, and just thought it was interesting. I looked for a thread on China to put it on, but we didn't actually have one. So this seemed like as a good a place as any to start. What's your perspective - aside from simply objecting to anything I post?

WaspInWales wrote:Pilger has seen better days...you know, I wouldn't be surprised if the CIA had been spiking his coffee.

Not sure I agree. He seems to have really come into his own with the advent of social media. Utopia was a masterpiece and this documentary film looks set to follow suit. So perhaps it's simply that ISIS has been spiking your coffee, snicker, snicker...

The rash of "free" trade agreements that the US were pushing on behalf of corporate warriors was the front line in a push back against Chinese influence. Now that Benny Hill is POTUS, who knows what strategy will be taken now?

What sort of war? Neither side will want a war, and there's the rather big issue of US debt held by China and that the US isn't about to run a balanced budget.

rowan wrote:

cashead wrote:Do you just repost every single thing that is put on counterpunch?

I got the interview and article from separate sources, in fact, and just thought it was interesting. I looked for a thread on China to put it on, but we didn't actually have one. So this seemed like as a good a place as any to start. What's your perspective - aside from simply objecting to anything I post?

WaspInWales wrote:Pilger has seen better days...you know, I wouldn't be surprised if the CIA had been spiking his coffee.

Not sure I agree. He seems to have really come into his own with the advent of social media. Utopia was a masterpiece and this documentary film looks set to follow suit. So perhaps it's simply that ISIS has been spiking your coffee, snicker, snicker...

As long as it's fair trade, I don't care

WaspInWales wrote:

rowan wrote:

cashead wrote:Do you just repost every single thing that is put on counterpunch?

I got the interview and article from separate sources, in fact, and just thought it was interesting. I looked for a thread on China to put it on, but we didn't actually have one. So this seemed like as a good a place as any to start. What's your perspective - aside from simply objecting to anything I post?

WaspInWales wrote:Pilger has seen better days...you know, I wouldn't be surprised if the CIA had been spiking his coffee.

Not sure I agree. He seems to have really come into his own with the advent of social media. Utopia was a masterpiece and this documentary film looks set to follow suit. So perhaps it's simply that ISIS has been spiking your coffee, snicker, snicker...

As long as it's fair trade, I don't care

Both ISIS and China are of course big on fair trade

& don't underestimate Chinese jumping power. It has been calculated that if everybody in China jumped up and down at the same time it would send a tidal wave across the Pacific that could wipe out North America entirely.

Somewhere in the world it's April 1st. I can think of no other explanation for this thread.

rowan wrote:& don't underestimate Chinese jumping power. It has been calculated that if everybody in China jumped up and down at the same time it would send a tidal wave across the Pacific that could wipe out North America entirely.

That's the most intelligent thing you've ever posted.

Out comes the razor sharp wit again

It was actually funny.

Trump will nuke DPRK. Resulting refugee crisis will cause China to occupy South Korea in the interests of stability. Japan/Taiwan will oppose Chinese expansionism. US will sabre rattle on behalf of allies. China will unleash massive cyberattack on US. Deprived of Netflix, US citizens demand action. Hey ho - hot war between China and US.

Trump looks like his main objective on the international front will be to drive a wedge into the growing Sino-Russian relationship, which clearly poses a major threat to American hegemony.

I'm unconvinced that Trump has any objective beyond self-aggrandizement

Probably right. I still don't think the president has much direct input into foreign policy. That could be quite dangerous, in fact. Not that the prevalent system is much better, of course, but with Clinton at the helm t'would only have been full steam ahead to confrontation with Russia over Syria...

Not sure if you noticed, but Clinton didn't win the election. It may be time to, you know,

CHANGE THE FUCKING RECORD

rowan wrote:Probably right. I still don't think the president has much direct input into foreign policy. That could be quite dangerous, in fact. Not that the prevalent system is much better, of course, but with Clinton at the helm t'would only have been full steam ahead to confrontation with Russia over Syria...

So the president has little input into foreign policy? When then, have I had to scroll past a million of your "Obomber" posts?

canta_brian wrote:

rowan wrote:Probably right. I still don't think the president has much direct input into foreign policy. That could be quite dangerous, in fact. Not that the prevalent system is much better, of course, but with Clinton at the helm t'would only have been full steam ahead to confrontation with Russia over Syria...

So the president has little input into foreign policy? When then, have I had to scroll past a million of your "Obomber" posts?

The fact the president likely has little direct input into foreign policy hardly exonerates him from blame. I shouldn't have to explain that to you. If you front a corrupt organization you're as responsible as everyone else for what goes on whether you personally had a hand in the corruption or not. It's not as if you're oblivious to what's going on. But anyone with a 3-digit IQ knows we often refer to political regimes by the names - and sobriquets - of their leaders. Again, I don't think that needs explaining. I'm well aware this was just another shoot-the-messenger approach.

rowan wrote:Probably right. I still don't think the president has much direct input into foreign policy. That could be quite dangerous, in fact. Not that the prevalent system is much better, of course, but with Clinton at the helm t'would only have been full steam ahead to confrontation with Russia over Syria...

IN all seriousness, are you having a laugh?

US Presidents have far more freedom win foreign affairs than they do in domestic.

rowan wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

rowan wrote:Probably right. I still don't think the president has much direct input into foreign policy. That could be quite dangerous, in fact. Not that the prevalent system is much better, of course, but with Clinton at the helm t'would only have been full steam ahead to confrontation with Russia over Syria...

So the president has little input into foreign policy? When then, have I had to scroll past a million of your "Obomber" posts?

The fact the president likely has little direct input into foreign policy hardly exonerates him from blame. I shouldn't have to explain that to you. If you front a corrupt organization you're as responsible as everyone else for what goes on whether you personally had a hand in the corruption or not. It's not as if you're oblivious to what's going on. But anyone with a 3-digit IQ knows we often refer to political regimes by the names - and sobriquets - of their leaders. Again, I don't think that needs explaining. I'm well aware this was just another shoot-the-messenger approach.

Who set the tone and objectives. Of course, action are carried out by underlings. There may be a chance that some might even slip under the radar of the leader. But Im pretty sure something as big as foreign relations with China will have Presidential direction.

I doubt very much GW Bush had much input into it, nor Reagan, of course, and probably not Obama either - other than fronting up and shaking hands for the newspaper photographers and all. Foreign policy is handled not by underlings but by people who are effectively 'superiors;' those with the real power - the military industrial complex, the big corporations, the CIA and so on. These people are evil as hell, but they're not idiots like most of the presidents have been.

So Trump will front the same corrupt oganisation as would Clinton, and by virtue of having lied over and over and having actually little influence on the corrupt orgnisation Trump will be more peacemaker than warmonger when compared to the war criminal Clinton?

Still seems odd that some demented loons have reimagined not only what Clinton has done, but so determined what she would have proceeded to do in the event she'd won. Essentially it seems she wasn't upset by the death of a brutal dictator in Gaddafi, and from that the conspiracy weirdos have reasoned she'd have wanted war with Russia, a policy Clinton not only never advocated but even a tiny modicum of common sense says wouldn't have been likely nor anything close.

Digby wrote:So Trump will front the same corrupt oganisation as would Clinton, and by virtue of having lied over and over and having actually little influence on the corrupt orgnisation Trump will be more peacemaker than warmonger when compared to the war criminal Clinton?

Still seems odd that some demented loons have reimagined not only what Clinton has done, but so determined what she would have proceeded to do in the event she'd won. Essentially it seems she wasn't upset by the death of a brutal dictator in Gaddafi, and from that the conspiracy weirdos have reasoned she'd have wanted war with Russia, a policy Clinton not only never advocated but even a tiny modicum of common sense says wouldn't have been likely nor anything close.

Yes, the presidents are puppets to the same masters, and they all of them lie over and over, and probably Clinton told more lies than most though she never made it to the white house - and mostly likely for that reason. So she might have been lying when she said she wanted a no-fly zone in Syria, she might have been lying when she said she wanted Assad removed, and she might have been lying too when she talked about standing up to Putin. But, yes, she said all that, and she also laughed about the death of Gaddafi, who was not regarded as a brutal dictator when he was playing ball, and who was certainly no more brutal than the Americans and their cronies, and certainly no more of a dictator than the Kings of Saudi or Qatar. There are actually videos online of her saying and laughing about these things. So I'm not sure why you're in denial about the whole issue and accusing everybody who has seen these videos, read the reports and quoted her of being weirdos and loonies.