Replies

I don’t see Japan in 1936 seeking power through conquest of territory and Communist China in 2025 seeking power via dominance in industry and trade as the same thing.

The calculus is not the same.

That said, we are more over the barrel with industry and trade in 2025 with China than we were with Japanese conquest of territory for power in 1936 when they went into China.

Anyone who says there is no risk is whistling past the graveyard. But we should keep the risk in context.

Allowing a government (not just the people-the government) who , for the last 46 years have been screaming “Death to America” (and threatening to wipe both the United States and Israel off the map) to possess nuclear weaponry has far, Far, FAR greater inherent risk.

It has been my experience in life that when people threaten to kill you, it is the height of folly to ignore their threats as bluster.

Thanks to the Left in General, and the Biden Administration in particular, our country is wholly vulnerable to terrorist cells, and I fully expect Iran to leverage those as they attempt to develop “plausible deniability”. That is a risk we must accept.

The calculus is not the same.

You can do better than that. Please supply your rationale.

That said, we are more over the barrel with industry and trade in 2025 with China than we were with Japanese conquest of territory for power in 1936 when they went into China.

Not to mention that :public education" has assured that our people are now nowhere near as capable.

Actually, I would see the left using them to that end.

That is a risk we must ~~accept~~ undermine.

The real problem with the left is that their sponsors' ideological predispositions toward 'shaping a new world after catastrophe;' i.e., 'population reduction to protect the environment.' It's been the dominant thesis for 90 years. My research refutes its ecological, economic, and religious premises. We hardly have the capable labor available to keep native biodiversity alive and reproducing.