U.S. at War With Beijing, Reports Cite China as No. 1 Threat

newsmax.com ^ | June 17, 2004 | Charles R. Smith

[Tailgunner Joe]

Are you a conservative or a liberal?

I am a conservative...at least, to those who have not confused "nationalist socialist" and "conservative."

In other words, he's not conservative, and if you point this out he'll call you a nazi!

[rudypoot]

My posts were based on facts and you ignored that part. Laughing is not a rebuttal. My facts still stand.

[Smiling-Face TIGER]

Has the Chinese ever test-fired their missiles?

I believe the answer is "yes'

The first report came from TIME mag in 1969, (under the headlines "scaring the hell out of a lot of neighbours") which said that the PRC had successfully test-fired a missile with a 700 mile range

Recently, iinternational news agencies like AFP, REUTERS, etc had been reporting (1999-2004) Chinese ICBMs test-firing. Interestingly enough, A few of these tests co-incided with the official visits of US Chairmans of Joint-Chiefs to China(eg Gen Meyers) (DF-31s).....a pychological message?
The American Foreign Policy Council's SANTOLI also reported in Sept-2002, that China tested -fired (successfully, I'm afraid) three "JL-2" SLBM from three subs, and all 3 hit their targets 5000 lm away

[Poohbah]

Has the Chinese ever test-fired their missiles?

I believe the answer is "yes'

Note that I did not say "test-fire." I said "live fire."

There is a world of difference between the two terms.

And test-firing A missile just tells you that you could successfully test-fire THAT missile. Given the endemic corruption within China, and especially within the PLA, it says nothing about any of the OTHER missiles from that production line.

[Don Joe]

My posts were based on facts and you ignored that part. Laughing is not a rebuttal. My facts still stand.

WHAT "facts" might those be?

If you're serious about your belief that a blockade can force China to send its COSCO containerships out of their home ports, out to sea, to make deliveries to the USA, then you either have -zero- concept of the meaning of the word "blockade", or, you are off the charts delusional.

In either case, I stand by my laughter.

[rudypoot]

I guess i didnt make myself clear. If we want to stop importing chinese goods then we'd simply use sanctions. A naval blockade prevents the entrance and exit of traffic and commerce. But a blockade is an act of war. I never claimed that we could force trade. Is that clear enough for you? Do I have to give the definitions of the words 'prevent' and 'force'? How about the word 'sanctions'?

WHAT "facts" might those be?

They were in the rest of my post that you either ignored by choice or had no ability to comprehend it. If it's the former, then stop reading here. In case it's the latter: In a nutshell, the amount of chinese imports to the US accounts for 1% of the US economy in terms of GDP. The US is not dependent on China. Rather, it could be said that it's the other way around. Go to the source I provided.

This is my second post of trying to explain to you what I said in my first post. If you don't get it now, then you'll never get it. Go back to all the teachers you've ever had and slap them. Hard.

[Don Joe]

I never claimed that we could force trade. Is that clear enough for you?

Then why did you argue that a Naval blockade could do exactly that?

I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt and suggest that you may not have read my initial post before dashing off your reply. I extend this act of kindness, because the alternative would be a defict in your basic reading comprehension skills.

In a nutshell, the amount of chinese imports to the US accounts for 1% of the US economy in terms of GDP. The US is not dependent on China.

Well, I tell you what. You stop that "1%" from hitting the shelves for a while and then see how "the masses" take it.

It's not merely a numbers game. It's what that "1%" consists of that matters.

You could probably get along just fine with 21% less air -- unless that "21%" is the "21%" that comprises the O2 content in the air.

In a nutshell, the amount of chinese imports to the US accounts for 1% of the US economy in terms of GDP. The US is not dependent on China.

Try not to be such a snotty little upstart and maybe you'll be able to learn something. Like, for example, the definition of "a stern chase".

To help you in that goal, I'll give you the answer: A stern chase is a long chase.

If you want to know the meaning of that axiom, well, you're on your own. Fish, cut bait, or learn to dance with your hands in your pants. I don't care.

[rudypoot]

It's what that "1%" consists of that matters.

Commodity/ $ billions (Source: US Department of Commerce)

Power generation equip/ $31
ele. machinery & equip/ $30
Toys and games/ $17.4
Furnature/ $13.6
Footware/ $11.1
Apparel/ $9.1
Leather & travel goods/ $5.4
Plastics/ $4.8
Iron & steel/ $3.8
medical instruments/ $3.4

Sorry for my lack of HTML skill. I can't make a table. These are the major commodities from China that the US imports. Which one is so vital to the US we couldn't find elsewhere (Mexico for example) or produce ourselves for a little more cost? Personally I don't see a blaring security issue on this list.

In the long-run, trading will hurt communist china and may even end it. Trade with France? they get Wal-Mart. Trade with Saudi Arabia? They get McDonalds. Because when the US trades with another country our culture goes with it whether we like it or not. Examples of this are european hatred toward the US; our culture helped when over the eastern block (blue jeans and MTV, Reagan's ideas). The only reason Cuba and NK are still communist is that they have remained isolated. Now our culture is invading china via the internet. The internet is waging our war against communism for us.

Karl Marx summed up communism in a simple sentence: The abolition of private property. A couple of years back China introduced private property.