Posted on 12/21/2004 8:43:18 AM PST by ninenot
Cato has not ever, is not now, and never will be a 'conservative' organization. They are libertines, at least economically, revolutionaries against the Old Order which placed labor ahead of capital in all Governmental policy.
Cato, in fact, is pushing the ChiCom philosophy.
And by the way, if things are so excellent here, howcumizzit that since 2002, real earnings (private industry, after inflation) have gone DOWN.
This is what you call 'good news?'
Which part of a strong economy don't you understand?
Maybe this can help focus you a bit: The following threat is being facilitated by shallow, unthinking knee-jerk unprotected Chinese trade policies. So pervasive is the myth of free trade, that even defense analysts genuflect in the direction of saying, albeit with the qualification, the Chinese are getting 'certain' econmic freedoms...when as the term is generally understood...they aren't:
MissileThreat.com
The Chinese Scenario
The People's Republic of China is not today our enemy. Changes in China are allowing for certain economic freedoms and the integration of the Chinese economy into the world economy. This is a change much for the good.
However, it is well-documented that political repression in Communist China continues. The Chinese people do not enjoy freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, or freedom of assembly.
In the transition to a free society-a transition that is by no means certain-the most militaristic elements of the Communist Chinese government appear to be solidly in control.
Bi-partisan Congressional committees report that China is rapidly building a modern military and strategic nuclear force capable of threatening the United States.
Although no one can imagine the use of nuclear weapons, the threat must be considered. One possible scenario involves the forcible reunification of the democratic Republic of China on Taiwan with the People's Republic of China.
China has maintained that democratic Taiwan is arenegade province; that must be reunited with the mainland government.
Indeed, in February of 1996, China and the United States had some unusual diplomatic exchanges during a heated confrontation between China and Taiwan prior to Taiwan's presidential elections.
During this confrontation over Taiwan, Lt. Gen. Xiong Guang Kai, a senior Communist Chinese official and a frequent spokesman for Chinese policy, made an implicit nuclear threat against California, telling U.S. official Chas Freeman not to interfere with relations between China and Taiwan because Americans care more about Los Angeles than they do Tai Pei.
This is in the spirit of the great Communist Chinese leader, Deng Xiaoping, who said in 1995, If Taiwan engages in one Taiwan and China or Taiwan independence, or if it colludes with foreign forces to interfere in China's internal affairs, we will have no choice and we will use force to solve the Taiwan question. We may have to pay an enormous price but we must pay and we can afford the cost.
Chinese missiles can certainly hit Los Angeles as well many other strategic targets along the West Coast of the United States.
But, in fact, would the Chinese really launch a nuclear attack?
We do know that Chinese President Jiang Zemin has threatened the use of force against Taiwan if they declare their independence from China. Even talk by President Lee Ten-hui of "state to state" relations between Taiwan and China provoked angry responses by the communist government in Beijing. And the Chinese have condemned efforts by the United States Congress to stregthen relations with Taiwan.
The official position of the United States is that we hope for the peaceful reunification of one democratic China.
Under the terms of the Taiwan Relations Act, passed over twenty years ago, the President is directed to "inform the Congress promptly of any threat to the security or the social or economic system of the people on Taiwan and any danger to the interests of the United States arising therefrom. The President and the Congress shall determine, in accordance with constitutional processes, appropriate action by the United States in response to any such danger."
Currently the United States sells defensive arms to Taiwan and has in the past pledged to defend Taiwan against direct attack by China.
But it should be remembered that under the terms of the Taiwan Relations Act the United States is not obligated to defend Taiwan. This does not mean, however, the United States would not come to the aid of Taiwan in order to protect our strategic interests in the Far East, and to secure our relations with our other Asian allies. It is possible that a Communist Chinese government could well misjudge the commitment and resolve of the American people and their representatives to protect freedom in the Far East and the people of Taiwan.
Consider then the following scenario:
Suppose Communist China were to invade Taiwan with military force because they were provoked to do so by activities in Taiwan-such as calls for Taiwanese independence-or by the ambitions of the leadership of the Communist Chinese government. Suppose the Chinese government believed it could take Taiwan by force and that the United States would not come to the aid of Taiwan. Suppose that prior to the invasion they threatened the United States with nuclear attack should the United States come to the aid of Taiwan. Suppose that the United States did indeed live up to its pledge to defend Taiwan and deployed both the navy and airforce against the invading Chinese army. Suppose that the Communist Chinese kept good on the nuclear threat and launched a CSS-4 ICBM against Los Angeles.
One can only imagine the unfortunate, and tragic, military confrontation that could ensue.
China is not today the military equal of the United States. The United States has far more advanced military technologically and military capability despite the fact that the Chinese have a substantially larger army.
For this reason China may well view the use of nuclear weapons differently than do American policymakers. For the Chinese, nuclear weapons are the great equalizer against American technological superiority.
Given this tragic scenario, Americans and American policymakers should consider the danger they are in and the possible targets of Chinese or North Korean ICBMs.
From the MissileThreat.com Web site, at http://www.missilethreat.com/scenarios/china.html.
Copyright © 2004 MissileThreat.com
Heh, heh! In a Hong Kong minute!
Remember this story from UPI which conveniently gets swept down the memory-hole by the "free" traders?
China Reveals Nuclear War Plans Against U.S.
UPI
Monday, March 20, 2000
WASHINGTON -- China's People's Liberation Army has outlined plans, including a nuclear conflict with the United States, to "liberate" Taiwan, Hong Kong's South China Morning Post newspaper reported Monday.
The PLA issued a 16-page publication, the Howangjio Weekly, that was devoted to Taiwan, that was sold on street corners. In contrast, most Chinese newspapers had little to say about Taiwan's pro-independence vote.
The publication included plans to send 200,000 fishing vessels with a two-million-strong invading force to take over Taiwan. It also included photographs of what it said were the most advanced secret weapons in the world. These included laser weapons to disable the U.S.-owned F-17's guidance systems, the newspaper said.
The PLA has reportedly been working on a new generation of nuclear weapons, the publication said, and it outlined steps by which China would threaten the United States with nuclear war. China would then sway U.S. public opinion by making economic concessions, and it would increase arms purchases from Russia, the Post reported.
It would then stage a limited attack on Taiwan and if that failed, China would mobilize its people into exercises that would show that it is preparing to survive a nuclear war, the newspaper said.
"The United States will not sacrifice 200 million Americans for 20 million Taiwanese and eventually they are going to back down," the publication said.
-- Copyright 2000 by United Press International. All rights reserved. -
You provide the data source and I will be glad to comment on it.
With regard to the Cato Institute, you are right. They are not (Buchanan) Conservatives by any stretch. But I'm not either. I believe in Capitalism with a capital C. Not a Government protected capitalism but the real thing. There will be winners and there will losers. That's just the way it is.
If you want to see what happens when you try to avoid the "problem with capitalism" go study how well Communism worked in the Soviet Union. Plenty of work to go around in that place. 100% employment. No trade unbalances. Nothing to eat worth eating and 20 square feet to live in. A workers paradise. No winners except the 2% who ran things. 98% losers. I'll the good old U.S.A.
If you think the government will help things by interfering in trade you are just wrong. They will screw it up just like everything else they touch.
No. Not in Hong Kong year. Not in a Hong Kong Century. Not in a Hong Kong Millennium.
The Chinese, if nothing else, are patient. And one would have to assume that they are irrational, willing to give up all of their major cities to get what? Taiwan? Taiwan is not worth it to the Chinese. If they were going to adopt your strategy the best time to do it is now. A better time was a year ago. Waiting risks the American development of a nuclear shield.
The facts of the matter are that they can wait us out on Taiwan and that is what they are going to do. They will wait for some mushy Democrat to get elected in the U.S. who will just give them Taiwan. It will happen. It may take decades or centuries. They can and will wait and, occasionally, rattle a saber or two by leaking some study they conducted on a future war with the U.S.
Here I was -- silly me -- thinking that with the weakened dollar we'd be on a more even playing field with Canada and Europe buying goods FROM us instead of selling TO us... nope, they just tax more to make it impossible.
In the end, Von Clausewitz will be proven right, once again, and post "Englightenment" utopian, liberal, globalist ideologues will be discredited by a war that will make WW2 look like a skirmish.
Pure Communism and pure Capitalism are two faces on the same coin--they both suppress the individual for the sake of another god, either the State or Money.
That's why the USA does not tolerate pure capitalism, and never should do so.
You're only part right...and mostly wrong. First, you ignore that global trade is between countries, and it takes more than just ONE government. Second, you ignore that trade requires rules and law. Those laws are created and enforced by Governments. No government, no trade. And a corrollary: No peace, no trade.
Governments are pretty inefficient. But, when it comes to the Chinese Government "interferring in trade" ...i.e., preventing imports of U.S. industrial exports that will rebuild America's devastated industrial infrastructure...they are pretty damned efficient. And any "free tradeer" which refuses to recognize that fact, is not a free trader.
Yes, I'm afraid you are right. The Cato and Von Mises school people are frankly historical amnesiacs, or they never studied in the first place. They miss the forest for the trees, and focus on mostly the WRONG trees at that. Hence, they don't come to the correct conclusions as to the health of things. As they say in I.T., "Garbage in, garbage out."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.