China's getting nervous

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
why won't force and coercion work? it worked in china during the 19th century.

19th Century China didn't have a couple thousand ICBMs.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by nationalist


Hey, that's almost double what they cost now

I'd put in wage and price ceilings.

Then nobody will want the jobs. Or, no-one will want to invest in the relevant companies.

Practically speaking, you're bringing China to the US, rather than shipping US jobs to China.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

right, as if we would use them

[nationalist]

My political rant, (or the platform of the new American Nationalist party ):

I don't believe in free trade with under developed nations, because I think that the situation exploits both the American and the foreign workers. Under developed countries have lax environmental and labor laws, which our businessmen exploit. Meanwhile, the social structure of America is decaying because the majority of people who would have been industrial workers 40 years ago are forced to work in minimum-wage, no insurance jobs. This lack of adequate employment breeds a hoplessness, while our MTV culture screams that we need to buy the latest designer label. Nike makes $150 off of a $3 dollar shoe, and its young urban market sells drugs to afford those shoes. "American labor is too expensive" is the justification used by the industrialists to squeeze out every drop of money they can, and the majority of the American people are too vain/stupid to refuse to buy their designer crap.

I propose neutrality as the official American foreign position. We spend billions each year trying to police the world, money that could be given back to the taxpayers or used to create a better education system. Our thanks: a world that hates us. Now we are becoming embroiled in wars that have little point and don't benefit Americans. We may be taking out a threat and doing the world a favor, but Europeans don't seem to think so. I think that we should step back and let them take care of the world for a while. If anyone actually tries to invade our country (which will never happen) then we should use whatever force is necessary to repel them. Other than that, U.S. troops should only be stationed in U.S. territory.

I think that the answer to terrorism is to take back control of our borders. The soldiers that we have stationed in foreign countries should now be stationed to guard the U.S. border. We should know exactly who enters and who leaves our country. We should deport every illegal alien. We should put a moratorium on immigration from all countries until we create an INS that is competent enough to protect us. After all, it issued Visa to some 9/11 terrorists AFTER the attack! Internally, we need to step up CIA investigation of suspected terrorist groupd, be they Muslims, Freemen Militia, KKK, etc. We should inspect everything that comes into our country. Controlling our borders could help us win the war on drugs as well. If we begin to produce things for ourselves, imports will drop and this job will be much less daunting.

All American citizens should be issued ID cards with their social security cards. Americans with IDs are able to travel abroad as they wish. Those without IDs or proof that they have an ID will be deported. Foreigners can visit the U.S. as much as they like, but visitors would need to be registered. We should work out a deal with Canada to register frequent visitors to the U.S. so they could get special I.D. cards. Fre exchange of ideas should be allowed and encouraged, and there should be no censorship of the press.

Some form of trade should still go on between the Developed world. Americans would still be able to import French wine, German beer and cars, and other high-quality goods from Europe & Japan. My reasoning is that only the developed world is on equal footing technologically and socially with the U.S., and therefore only the Developed world could truly have free and fair trade with the U.S. Underdeveloped countries aren't can't compete on the same level as us, and inevitably become our slaves. I would transform NAFTA into something that included only the U.S. and Canada, in hopes of developing an even closer bond. Perhaps the U.K. could leave the EU and join the new NAFTA, since it doesn't like to cooperate with the EU anymore

We should drill into whatever oil reserves that we have, as well as try to create alternative forms of energy to
break away from our dependence on Mid-East oil.

I suggest that this industrial isolation continue until we have created an effective system of education that includes free vocational school to train students in usefull trades, such as plumbing or construction. Only after we have created an effective education system would I relax my autarkic system, but I would still require that the U.S. produce at least 1/3 of its basic goods (steel, textiles, etc.) on its own.

I suggest these policies because I have a fear that our country is rotting from the bottom. The youth of our nation are swiftly becoming incapable of upholding a democratic form of government. I place the blame on not their not being a way out for many people who are wealthy or scholarly enough to get a university education. Our "proletarian" population is decaying into a large, uneducated, semi-employeed service class. Unionized industiral jobs could solve this problem, providing otherwise hopless people with insurance and vacation time. Our pourous borders are inviting for terrorists and cheap workers who undercut American wages (BTW, Bush was going to grant a general amnesty to all illegal aliens in the country shortly before 9/11. This would have made the terrorists citizens of the U.S.) Our country has developed a foreign policy that makes us hated worldwide, one with little benefit to the average American, but one with a high price tag. Combined with pourous borders and you have a situation where every American is at risk from a terrorist attack. Spending $78 billionTaking out a tinpot Middle Eastern dictator won't solve the problem.It is time for us to make a change and get out of this doom spiral that we are swiftly falling into. The Republicans and the Democrats are unwilling & unable to do anything about it. It is time for a change.

I feel a bit better now.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

I propose neutrality as the official American foreign position. We spend billions each year trying to police the world, money that could be given back to the taxpayers or used to create a better education system. Our thanks: a world that hates us. Now we are becoming embroiled in wars that have little point and don't benefit Americans. We may be taking out a threat and doing the world a favor, but Europeans don't seem to think so. I think that we should step back and let them take care of the world for a while. If anyone actually tries to invade our country (which will never happen) then we should use whatever force is necessary to repel them. Other than that, U.S. troops should only be stationed in U.S. territory.

i liked this part.

[nationalist]

I think that I'll move my rant into a new thread just to get people's reactions to it and avoid threadjacking this one.

[ranskaldan]

[moved]

edit:

NAT: are you gonna move it?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Willem
ranskaldan

How are relations between China, Vietnam and India these days?

China is developing a good relationship with Vietnam, with perhaps the Spratly Islands being a sore issue. Border commerce between the Chinese province of Yunnan and Vietnam is underway, and other economic ties are being forged.

OTOH, the relation with India is strained. The country always had ambitions of a regional if not a global power, its military spending clearly indicates this.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jack_www
well I think that the US will approach NK a different way then Iraq, since they most likely have nukes already and would use them if US attacked them. Right now what I think the US is doing is ignoring NK because they are trying to black mail US so to speak. The Bush administration has said many times that they want China, Russia, and South Korea involved in stop NK. Anyone would now trying to start a war to get NK to stop devoloping nukes would be stupid. People get a little to neverous sometimes.

The thing is DPRK wants to talk to the US directly, but the Bushies keep rejecting this.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
[moved]

edit:

NAT: are you gonna move it?

I moved it to the thread titled "American Problems and solutions"

[Tingkai]

The Chinese government will continue its present course which is to protect itself from the American government while encouraging American corporations to invest. They'll do this by continuing to upgrade the PLA while relying on its nukes to keep the US at bay.

The US has long been recognised as a threat simply because it is the only nation with the realistic ability to invade China.

From a Chinese perspective, the US is obviously a dangerous threat because:
1) Americans constantly talk about how China will one day become a threat to the US; and
2) Americans have just invaded a country because there was a risk that it could one day become a threat to the US.

What might change is that China forms better relations with other countries threatened by the US.

[Vandal-1]

China is not likely to have a confrontatioon with America in the near future as we are just to busy and will be for awhile.I base this on a hypothetical over estimation of US economic prowess coupled with a backlash at the shoe shop.We are heavily devalued and I do believe its becoming a issue.Whenthe bill gets back from this brawl and we still have soldiers comitted to keep the peace and pay for,then I think the populouse is gonna get a little concerned...enough to pull back from any further commitments.

[muppet]

Originally posted by Willem
All through the UN negotiations, China has been quietly saying no, and letting France and Germany deal with the verbal sparring. And it seems to me that no one knows exactly how they really feel about the situation.

China has a history of saying no to just about every armed conflict or peacekeeping operation. It has a history, despite being a nuclear power, and a veto-wielding member of the security council, to say no and then abstain from using its veto. Count how many veto's it's used compared to how many Russia and the US have used! That's the objective non-spin reply, and I make no implications as to the morality, value or legality of China's position.

CNN propoganda:
Position to mean that China does not want to be on record as permitting the infringement upon sovereignty and self determination by foreign powers so that China can exercise it's powers without foreign interference against it's future expansionist tendencies.

Chinese propoganda:
Position to mean that China respects other nation's sovereignty and right to self determination, that it is up to the people of a region to effect change, not a foreign power.

I don't know alot about China, just some basics, and reading that article is making wonder what to expect from that quarter after all this dies down. What sort of changes can we expect to see in China/US relations?

Remove the spin and look at the historic facts. China has a habit of saying "No, but we won't veto." China's reply to this war is historically consistent. China's military modernization began before this war and should be expected to continue whether or not this war started. China continues to fund UN peacekeeping operations despite it's consistent, "No, but we won't veto" position. The status quo hasn't changed.