Skip to comments.
US enters 'checkbook war' with China
Asia Times Online ^
| 15 Mar 2008
| Dmitry Shlapentokh
Posted on 03/15/2008 9:38:35 AM PDT by BGHater
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
'It can be stated that the decline of American influence is of no interest to the majority of average Americans. Moreover, many assume that the so-called end of the US empire will mean more American money will be spent at home. Still, the shrinking of the US's imperial presence in Africa and elsewhere would correspondingly shrink its access to vital natural resources. At the same time, access to these resources will increase China's economic might and influence all over the world, the US included.
This aspect of America's global influence has not been discussed by any of the contenders for the presidency. And this is easily understood: the average Joe believes that the American system in both its internal and external applications works perfectly well. Just replace a "bad" president with a "good" one, whoever he or she will be, and the problems will be solved. '
1
posted on
03/15/2008 9:38:36 AM PDT
by
BGHater
To: BGHater
Empire?
Have you goofballs lost your mind?
2
posted on
03/15/2008 9:45:09 AM PDT
by
TexanToTheCore
(If it ain't Rugby or Bullriding, it's for girls.........................................)
To: BGHater
The Russians are anti-American even when it doesn't serve their interests, it's just a knee-jerk reaction. This author had better hope that his prognostications are wrong.
3
posted on
03/15/2008 9:45:25 AM PDT
by
2ndDivisionVet
(http://www.fourfriedchickensandacoke.blogspot.com)
To: BGHater
If it were not for our country, most of those in Europe and the far east would be under the Russian empire. How soon they forget.....
4
posted on
03/15/2008 10:03:44 AM PDT
by
illiac
(If we don't change directions soon, we'll get where we're going)
To: illiac
5
posted on
03/15/2008 10:08:52 AM PDT
by
Eyes Unclouded
(We won't ever free our guns but be sure we'll let them triggers go....)
To: Eyes Unclouded
6
posted on
03/15/2008 10:09:49 AM PDT
by
illiac
(If we don't change directions soon, we'll get where we're going)
To: BGHater
The reason is simple: US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are badly stretched, and the pleas of US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to European countries to send more combat troops have fallen on deaf ears. Still, John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, notes that the war could proceed "for a hundred years". Is there anthing to exspensive for the US tax payer? For, if the europeans won't help defend them from the terrorist, why not just do it for them? After all we wouldn't want to have to pick lettuce for only 50 dollars an hour.
7
posted on
03/15/2008 10:23:20 AM PDT
by
deuteronlmy232
(How I wish disgusted in maine had not been refused as a screen name.)
To: BGHater
I stopped reading at “the war could proceed ‘for a hundred years’”
If the author is too stupid to comprehend what McCain actually said or too disingenious to report it accurately, there's nothing of value in the rest of his piece.
8
posted on
03/15/2008 10:26:50 AM PDT
by
enough_idiocy
(Holding my nose in 2008. I disagree with McCain on lots of issue, but with the Democrats on more.)
To: deuteronlmy232
McCain never said the war could last for 100years.
9
posted on
03/15/2008 10:27:41 AM PDT
by
enough_idiocy
(Holding my nose in 2008. I disagree with McCain on lots of issue, but with the Democrats on more.)
To: BGHater
Like the author or not - he has a good point.
Just as we wore down the old Soviet - causing it to spend itself out of existence, are the folks from China & Russia doing the same to us, via surrogates in the ME.
And 'Empire', as used contextually, is probably accurate.
Pax Britannia came and left. Now, Pax Americana may be on its way out.
10
posted on
03/15/2008 10:45:28 AM PDT
by
ASOC
(I know I don't look like much, bit I raised a US Marine!)
To: enough_idiocy
Libs always take it out of context—his point was that we should stay as long as it takes to win in Iraq. A snotty reporter asked the very stupid question, how long would that be (apparently too dumb to understand what McCain was saying,) so McCain replied sarcastically one hundred years—I am sure he was thinking (I have to be around these dumb turds in the press?)
11
posted on
03/15/2008 10:46:52 AM PDT
by
richardtavor
(Pray for the peace of Jerusalem in the name of the G-d of Jacob)
To: ASOC
Pax Americana will be around for a long time. No other power even comes close to matching our military and we are pulling away from most of the contenders at a rapid pace.
12
posted on
03/15/2008 10:49:04 AM PDT
by
TexanToTheCore
(If it ain't Rugby or Bullriding, it's for girls.........................................)
To: TexanToTheCore
Blithely tossing out the "empire" phrase, is a favorite among critics of the U.S. The accusation is overblown, so in reality, is not an accurate description. Wielding influence, does not equate with "empire", for that word holds connotations of British Raj. In light of that, "empire" has not been much of an American undertaking, save for the ham-fisted efforts in the Phillipines about a century ago.
One could in the past, honestly speak of mercantile empire, but that has NEVER been solely an American undertaking.
Today, the mercantile empire builders, are the State run enterprise such as comes from China & present day Russia.
If one wants to honestly speak of "empire" and hegemony seeking, than one needs to look honestly at the mercantile rulers of China today. They have become the running imperialistic dogs of capitalism, they so long accused the U.S., and the West as being.
The writer [Dmitry Shlapentokh] ends his piece talking about how China's expanding spending and influence in Africa will lead to China becoming wealthier in the long run, and how that isn't much noticed by many or most Americans;
"...the average Joe believes that the American system in both its internal and external applications works perfectly well. Just replace a "bad" president with a "good" one, whoever he or she will be, and the problems will be solved. This is completely understood by those competing for the White House, and none of the presidential candidates will tell the public about losing the "checkbook" war to China and the implications of the defeat, which might be more serious in the long run than American defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan. "
Our defeats in Iraq & Afghanistan??? Huh? The writer is projecting his fondest hopes perhaps???
In formulating this post, I went and dug up a few of Dmitry's other articles. (there are about a hundred, and additionally a few books) In one article, entitled;
Does the World Want America to Leave Iraq?
after covering [and giving tepid support for] such things as the "Bush lied to lead the U.S. to war in Iraq" type of thinking, he finally gets to the truth of things here;
While the populace might be blind to the future, America's defeat in Iraq would have the most dire consequences not just for the U.S. but for global stability. In fact, even foreigners not predisposed favorably to the U.S. understand that a precipitous departure from Iraq would be nothing but disaster, not just for the U.S. but for many other countries of the world.
We see here in this earlier article, no mention of U.S. "defeat" in Iraq, but honest admission as to the need for continued American presence there, not for "empire", but for the long term interests of
many nations.
So America is doing the itself, and the world a favor by being in Iraq, and Afghanistan, huh Dimtry? I mean, you made mention [in another article] that the Russians spoke favorably of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, in the beginning of that effort.
You know, my own father was right, way back when, back in the 1980's. The U.S. should not have been helping the "brave mujahadeen". We should have been helping the Soviets!
Dmitry! You talk a who-oole bunch. By doing so, you frequently end up talking out of both sides of your face, whether you realize that, or not.
13
posted on
03/15/2008 11:23:31 AM PDT
by
BlueDragon
(come on and sing it children (He's a stranger in a strange land) Whoa, sing it one more time)
To: deuteronlmy232
Still, John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, notes that the war could proceed "for a hundred years". Is there anything too expensive for the US tax payer?
Yes.
Handing over military control of the Persian Gulf geographic region that controls 70% of the World's know oil reserves to Iranian Islamist fanatics actively seeking nuclear weapons and ICBM's to deliver them to the soil of the "Satan Incarnate" aka, the United States of America.
"A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing." -- Oscar Wilde
14
posted on
03/15/2008 11:29:27 AM PDT
by
Polybius
To: BlueDragon
I think “Empire” is more of an inflammatory phrase throughout the world than it is here because we exited from an empire and have no wish to create one. It is an irrelevant word.
15
posted on
03/15/2008 11:38:34 AM PDT
by
TexanToTheCore
(If it ain't Rugby or Bullriding, it's for girls.........................................)
To: TexanToTheCore
Paying for a world wide military eventually bankrupted the British empire (WWI didn't help)- and they are paying for their colonialism now.
Can we continue to pour so much of our treasure into a world, where others will not lift a hand? The demographics of America have changed, we no longer have families of 5, 6 or 10 children. Can we afford to send off our best to fight for Europe, when they will not? (Kosovo, etc)
16
posted on
03/15/2008 11:39:25 AM PDT
by
ASOC
(I know I don't look like much, bit I raised a US Marine!)
To: ASOC
Actually, the socialism of the twenties that Britain adopted is what put a lid on their culture. According to a Brit friend of mine the empire was parted because that was the popular thing to do. Don’t know how true this is.
17
posted on
03/15/2008 11:42:31 AM PDT
by
TexanToTheCore
(If it ain't Rugby or Bullriding, it's for girls.........................................)
To: Polybius
I agree, let's fight to win and start getting payed back in oil. I ahve no problem with the war, I have a problem with the way we are fighting it. Let's fight to win, worry about the political correct after we win. And second, it is time for those countries over their whose freedom we are insurring give us oil, not sell it cheap, give it.
Use the force we have to win, stop worring aobut what others think and say, jsut fight to win. We were attackted, let's stop playing around with the likes of murtha and his ilk. Order the fighters to fight, and let the CIC cover their coolective butts.
didn't we learn anything about troop morale from Nam?
To: deuteronlmy232
I agree, let's fight to win and start getting payed back in oil. I ahve no problem with the war, I have a problem with the way we are fighting it. Let's fight to win, worry about the political correct after we win. Agreed.
That is why I want John McCain to be our next Commander-in-Chief. Back when Rumsfeld was firing any General that wanted a Surge in Iraq and Bush was meekly going along with Rumsfeld's opinion that war can be fought on the cheap, McCain was adament about the need to fight the war to WIN.
Published December 27, 2006 ..... Novak: McCain's 'aggressive surge' stance backfiring ........ conservative columnist Robert Novak suggests that Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) "aggressive" push for a U.S. troop expansion -- or "surge" -- in Iraq may be costing the top 2008 GOP contender in the polls, especially when matched against another presumed front-runner, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY). "The decline in the polls of [McCain], as measured against [Clinton], reflects more than declining Republican popularity ......... "It connotes public disenchantment with McCain's aggressive advocacy of a 'surge' of up to 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq
"I understand the polls show only 18 percent of the American people support my position. But I have to do what's right, what I believe is right and what my experience and knowledge and background tells me is the right thing to do in order to save this situation in Iraq ... In war, my dear friends, there's no such thing as compromise. You either win or you lose." - Sen. John McCain's reaction to the Iraq Study Group Report, 2006
And second, it is time for those countries over their whose freedom we are insurring give us oil, not sell it cheap, give it.
To be blunt about it, we are not in the Persian Gulf to bring "freedom" to Iraq. We are in the Persian Gulf to protect the lifeblood of modern Western civilization (a reliable supply of oil).
Even if Iraq were populated by nothing but sand fleas, we would still need to be there "protecting" it.
We control the sea lanes and we control whether or not Iran controls the oil supply. Once Iran is dealt with, the U.S. Navy could impose a surcharge on Western European oil tankers taking advantage of oil ports American military might has kept open for them.
19
posted on
03/15/2008 12:05:44 PM PDT
by
Polybius
To: TexanToTheCore
China wants an empire, and perceives US influence in the world as being one, it wants to dismantle that empire, and move in to the resulting power vaccum. That is the whole actual struggle presently going on in the world, in which Iran and Venezuela and the like, are merely pawns on the board.
Isolationists can pretend it isn't happening if they like, but it is how China and Russia and Iran, et al, see the world, and it drives their actions. If the US disengages they will grab things and consider it geopolitics as usual.
20
posted on
03/15/2008 12:24:23 PM PDT
by
JasonC
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson