Are we making too big of a deal about China's first aircraft carrier?

On August 14th, 1912, the United States launched its first aircraft carrier, the USS Langley. This 11,500 ton ship served during both World Wars until its luck ran out near Java in 1942 and had to be abandoned and sunk in order to avoid capture by the Japanese.

Almost one hundred years later, China has just launched its first aircraft carrier and the U.S. State department is demanding to know why.

"We would welcome any kind of explanation that China would like to give for needing this kind of equipment," said Victoria Nuland, a State department spokeswoman.

Let me give you the explanation, Victoria. China is the world’s largest country and has recently become the second largest economy behind the United States. China is also the undisputed powerhouse in Asia. Is that a good enough explanation for you?

Great post. Ponder life is wrapped up, IMHO, in sophestry arguements.

Fact is, using population count to try and compare miltaires, the need for militaries, the relative merits and capabilities of militaries is completely meaningless.

The only real measure is this...can ours beat theirs.

In a world where there are nations whose ideological...or purely self-interest...basis is competing with our own (ie Marxism/communism vs. constiutional republics, or command economy vs. the free market), the need for a strong military is self evident.

Once that is established, the only measuring stick worth considering is, as you say, to make sure ours can defeat theirs, or any allied group of "theirs."

Lately we have forgotten that and are acting as if though there can never be a threat to worry too much about on the high seas.

China is in the process of showing us (as the Japanese did in World War II) that that line of thinking is a mistake. I pray we do not have to spend the treasure and the blood to relearn that lesson as we did in World War II, but that we will use the tools we still have to try and blunt it beofre it gets that far.

It may be too late for that, but I pray not.

THE RISING SEA DRAGIN ON ASIA

As it is, China has now launched their first carrier. As we speak, they have two more, simultaneously building in Shanghai which they hope to launch in 2014 and 2015, after which they intend to immediately start two more, to launch around 2020. Five large carriers in ten years is a monumental investment and accomplishment that itself speaks to their intentions. They intend to project power in the Western Pacific, plain and simple.

...and all of that power they are building will be concentrated in the Western Pacific, whereas ours is spread out across the globe.

Well, let me be blunt: it's not China's race that's the problem here, it's their stinkin' Communist government.

First of all, I never called anyone a racist. Never have on this board. And secondly, why is any inferrence that such preference have to go there or is even a bad suggestion? To deny that plays an influence at all isn't being entirely honest. Once again, I'm not calling anyone racist or nationalistic. But do I feel it plays a part or has a strong influence? Yes I do.

Well, for American conservatives, it's not China's economy, it's the socialism, stupid.

When China becomes a real constitutional republic (or some reasonable facsimile of one), it will have as many friends among American conservatives as any other country.

I want to believe you and I hope you are right (really, I do). The problem is, when I read postings on the FR, watch pundits on TV bashing China, and other bloggers on other sites, my conclusion isn't, "jee, its the economy the whole time". No. My conclusion is, everyone is angry at China's rise.

So, it's not Chinese prosperity Americans fear, its their Communist government.

I beg to differ. All across the world, there are rogue nations. Many who we don't even hear in the news until there is some political flare up. And even then, most neo cons don't pay no mind to. And as far India, yes, they are a democracy. But people see little evidence of India becoming a super power, despite the fact that India gets lumped in with China from an economic influence point of view.

The equivalent for China would be its actions in Tibet.

China didn't drop bombs on Tibet and kill tens of thousands of people. Had they done so, you can bet, everyone from Hollywood to Trump Towers would have been up in arms.

You've written alot, and I will try and address them later. I do have an opinion on everything you've written, though.

Overall, your replies are reasonable. However, keep in mind, my views are shaped by everything I read and see in the media and on forums like this. And I see little to suggest that in regards to China, people would embrace China if she became a consitution republic. And few, even on the FR, say their views would change if she did. You are an one of very few. And most, I believe, would still harbor animosity towards China even if her political system did change, but still marched on to an economic power equivalent to the entire Western world.

And what is wrong with a "Western centric" view of the world? I AM a westerner. Most people on these boards are. Why shouldn't my own perspective be by far the most important one to me?

Depends on what that Western centric view entails. If you tell me that lutefisk is the greatest food on earth and that sushi is lame. I may not agree with it, but I will not hold anything against you. However, if you call me an unpatriotic American because I own a Japanese car and excuse or give a pass to those who own a Volvo or Volkswagen, then being Western centric is wrong. Rejecting China as a fellow global power falls under second that scenario.

I don't personally think that China having a carrier is, in and of itself, such a big deal. It's what it portends that is slightly worrying. China's economy is booming, the Western economies are stagnating. China's military is expanding (in both numbers and capability), the West's military is contracting. China's power and influence is growing, the power and influence of the West is retreating. Excuse me if I find the fact of my culture declining while that of another is expanding into the resulting gap a bad thing.

Well, the Western world isn’t in decline. It is, going through economic turmoil. The last one of this magnitude was back in the 1930’s. And I believe the 1930’s was worse… much worse. By the 1950’s, things were humming again. And the rise of China today is not expanding into the gap, rather, there isn’t a gap, but rather additional economic output in the world.

This is all very well thought out, but the problem to westerners, as you say, is that China is moving up the value chain. In the old days, we had technology and knowledge and industry, and they had people who labored for not very much. Now, increasingly they have technology and knowledge. They already have the industry, and they still have lots of people. In the future when they have as much technology and knowledge as we have, and still far more labor, what will we have to trade with them? Tourism?

Europe once led technologically between it and the US. Today, of course, the US is leading. However, did that mean Europe simply withered away? Of course not, the European Union is still the largest economy in the world and does more trade with the rest of the world than the US. Conversely the coming and existence of an industrialized China does not mean the Western world will simply wither away economically. However, rather than just one part of the world, i.e., the West wielding all the power, it may have to get used to sharing it with China. Yet, the standard of living in the West, I’m absolutely convinced, will continue to rise as well. China’s will rise faster simply because there is still a significant technological gap between her and the West.

The assets of the West are declining, the assets of the Chinese are growing. That's not the greatest news I've ever heard.

The West is not in decline. What is happening, is that there is a change in relative economic power. That’s all. And the West should not fear it, whether that be India, Africa, etc. Westerners should always wish for themselves great prosperity, but not wish for other countries to stay behind. Resenting China’s rise is to insist she stay in the dark ages.

I'll take it even one step further. There were the Flying Tigers during WWII. There were American Christian missionaries in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that went to China. So, really, it depends what you think these early American Christians would view China's current economic rise. By the way, half of all Christian missionaries during this time period went to China.

One of those early Christians who spend decades in China, was Billy Grahams father-in-law, Dr. Lemuel Nelson Bell. Billy Graham had the utmost respect for his father-in-law.

Billy Graham, in his early years used to state his political views. He was burned so badly, that he stayed away from it for decades. Until the 1990's, when the US renewed China's Normal Trade Relations status. If you recall, Congress had to renew it every year. Well, Billy Graham was asked for his opinion on several ocassions. And he understood full well the political ramifications. What do you think he did? He endorsed NTR for China every year. I'm not sure how often they asked him, but nonetheless, he endorsed NTR.

So, I am well aware of America's Christian heritge and how it relates to China. The question now is, would those early Christians who spent so much time in China approve of China's economic progress? I think they would.

And keep in mind, not all Americans think alike. Which is true of every nation or people group. Before the American Civil War (I'm not getting into the cause of the Civil War, just using it as a time marker), there were many Christians who wanted to outlaw slavery. But there were other Christians who were equally indignant at someone telling them what to do. I bring this up, because even within America today, there isn't a consensus on how China should be viewed.

If everyone thought like you and many others on the FR in regards to China, wouldn't trade with China have already ended? But instead, it marches on.

Getting back to those early American Christians who dedicated their lives evangelizing China, building schools, hospitals, etc. I think they would approve of the industrialization and modernization of China. And with these new found resources, would approve of Chinese Christians getting ready to evangelize to the Muslim world.

ponder life: "My conclusion is, everyone is angry at China's rise."

Then you don't understand what you hear.
No Americans, least of all conservatives, are unhappy about Chinese improving their standards of living.
What worries many, especially conservatives, is that increased prosperity for Chinese people quickly translates into greater military & other power for China's COMMUNIST government.

In case you never noticed this: American conservatives love genuine capitalists, especially small-business people, whether they are Chinese on Taiwan or anyone else.
At the same time, conservatives hate COMMUNISTS, no matter who they are, Chinese, European or other Americans.

So, if you want to understand what Free Republic and other conservatives are all about, you just have to get over the idea that it's a race-thing. It's not.
Indeed, we not only hate COMMUNISTS, but also strongly dislike socialism, "progressivism", "liberalism", and all those other "isms" which inevitably translate into: ever bigger government and higher taxes, with more centralized political power and control.

So, for as long as China is ruled by a COMMUNIST government, America will protect and defend with our lives, those Chinese living in Taiwan, and elsewhere, for that matter.

ponder life: "All across the world, there are rogue nations.
Many who we don't even hear in the news until there is some political flare up.
And even then, most neo cons don't pay no mind to."

And isn't it amazing, when you stop to think about it, how many of those "rogue nations" have close ties to the COMMUNIST government of China?

North Korea is simply a client state of China, and China could end that problem whenever it wants -- so why doesn't it?
Both Pakistan and Iran received technical assistance from China on their nuclear programs.
So, how were those actions helpful or friendly to the United States?

And in Africa, why are states with the closest ties to China -- i.e., Darfur, Zimbabwe -- also the most violent countries?

Look, the attitude of most Americans, and conservatives especially is: let the rest of the world take care of itself, it's none of our business -- until, that is, events in some far-off country (i.e., Afghanistan) become a THREAT to us.
Then we want to fix that problem, even if it can sometimes take decades.

So, bottom line: your argument that America ignores rogue nations is bogus to begin with -- we never ignore rogues that become THREATS to us.
But more to the point, your suggestion that because the US may ignore SOME rogue nations, therefore we SHOULD also ignore the Chi-Com government's rogue actions is ludicrous to the point of insanity.

So, what is wrong with your mind, pal?

ponder life: "China didn't drop bombs on Tibet and kill tens of thousands of people."

What??!! You don't know your own history??

China didn't kill "tens of thousands" in Tibet, China killed hundreds of thousands, over a million by some counts.
And the West had plenty to say about it, but did virtually nothing.
Is that because the US loves the Chinese and hates Tibetans?
Obviously not -- it's because we have no magic wand to wave and make people behave themselves.

ponder life: "And I see little to suggest that in regards to China, people would embrace China if she became a consitution republic."

It would be one heck of a good first step.
Other steps would include doing those things that genuine friends do for their friends, such as being certain to bring major issues to the negotiating table, not the battlefield.

I understand your viewpoint, and to a certain extent I agree with it (your arguments are well presented). However, when I said the West was in decline, I did mean relative decline. And that is not good. In the first place, absolute decline (which may or may not happen) is always preceded by a relative decline. In the second place I can assure you that relative decline is a shattering experience to nations and cultures which have been at the top. Just check some of the less reasoned arguments presented on this thread!

On that basis, I disagree that the West is not in decline. I suggest that is because we disagree as to what constitutes a decline. Yes, in absolute terms the standard of living in the West is at an all time high. We live longer, we have better quality food, better health, better education, more material possessions - on just about every level life is better for the average joe - but are material things the only consideration?

It is very difficult to put your finger on what is wrong, but most people, certainly on these boards, almost subconsciously sense that all is not well. The decline of the West is measured in tiny things - a loss of self-confidence, a trading of opportunity for security, a lack of self-reliance, a damning of curiosity, a freezing of initiative, an increasing (and overweening) bureaucracy, a more rigid social order, an increasing gap between haves and have nots, a tendency to stress rights rather than responsibilities...the list goes on and on.

Even if you do not accept that Western Culture is in decline, I noticed you sideslipped my question - In the future when China has as much technology and knowledge as we have, and still has far more labor, what will we have to trade with them?

I have no wish for other countries to remain poor. Far from it - I'd like all the world to live in peace and prosperity. But I also know that will never happen, and I also know that the inevitable rise of China (and to a lesser extent India and Africa) will bring challenges to the West. Economic power leads to military power and military power translates to political power, as surely as acorns grow into oak trees. If you want to call that concern "resentment" I think you have got me all wrong.

Vanders9: "It is very difficult to put your finger on what is wrong, but most people, certainly on these boards, almost subconsciously sense that all is not well.
The decline of the West is measured in tiny things - a loss of self-confidence, a trading of opportunity for security, a lack of self-reliance, a damning of curiosity, a freezing of initiative, an increasing (and overweening) bureaucracy, a more rigid social order, an increasing gap between haves and have nots, a tendency to stress rights rather than responsibilities...the list goes on and on."

Sorry, I hate to say this, but that is such a load of cr*p I can't believe it!

First of all, it's not in the least difficult to put my "finger on what is wrong." I can spell it out in just a few words:
O-B-A-M-A.
D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-S
W-A-Y T-O-O B-I-G G-O-V-E-R-N-M-E-N-T

The United States was never intended and never tried to be the New Roman Empire, or have colonies on which "the sun never set."
So we have no empire to lose -- never did.
We have always been, since Day One, a major player in the world, and will continue to be that into the long-range future.

But we have never been the sole power, and even at the peak of our relative world influence, there were always competitors, including the old Soviet Union and Communist China.

And least we somehow forget, we did not win every war we ever fought -- need I mention Korea and Vietnam?
Does anyone remember who was the strongest supporter of our enemies there?

So, at no time was the US ever unchallenged, and we are still challenged today -- by the very forces we thought Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr. had defeated over 20 years ago: big government socialism.

One difference is that today Americans themselves voted, in a moment of political swooning, voted those people into our own government and gave them the power to radically transform America.

Now, finally, we seem to be sobering up, and having once identified the enemy, have started back to work taking them down.
It is even possible that by November of 2012, the Bigger Government party will be thoroughly defeated, there will be actual reductions in the US budget, the economy will rebound, and all this ridiculous gloom and doom about a "declining America" will become nothing more than a bad memory.

Like old Jimmy Carter's 1970s era days of malaise.

Oh dear...I'm sorry you think that. I shall try and explain myself a bit better.

First of all, it's not in the least difficult to put my "finger on what is wrong." I can spell it out in just a few words: O-B-A-M-A. D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-S W-A-Y T-O-O B-I-G G-O-V-E-R-N-M-E-N-T

Fair enough, BUT - why is there an Obama? How did such a man, positively inimicable to the American way, manage to get himself elected? He was elected very convincingly, after all. And as for Democrats - why are they the way they are now? They didn't used to be. I mean, there was a time when you might disagree with them on numerous issues but you would never doubt their patriotism. You might think their policies were absurd, but you never for one moment thought they had ulterior motives in pushing them. Now, what they are pressing for is so obviously dangerous to the common weal you wonder. And as for Government, why is it so big? How has it managed, despite all the numerous safeguards built into the system, to inexorably grow? And the answer to all those questions in a constitutional republic with democratically elected leaders is that "we the people" have voted for it all. And why has that happened? Because, basically, of the factors I listed (and no doubt a few more besides). Nations get the leaders, parties and governments that they deserve.<

Now you call that a "moment of political swooning", but I am not so optimistic. Obama may very well get voted out in 2012, and the Republicans will hopefully have a stab at turning things around, but the vacuous thinking that got him elected, and the idealogies that now dominate the democrat party and the left generally are now very deeply entrenched in American society. Untold millions are dependent on the State for their livelihood, even their very lives in the case of the "entitlement culture". Trying to get them off that teat is not going to be easy. It certainly isn't going to be done quickly.

The United States was never intended and never tried to be the New Roman Empire, or have colonies on which "the sun never set." So we have no empire to lose -- never did. We have always been, since Day One, a major player in the world, and will continue to be that into the long-range future.

The US was one of the main colonists in the world! What do you call the expansion into the wild west? What about the Phillipines? Porto Rico? The Virgin Islands?

However, I take your point. The US never had a massive colonial empire aka Britain, France, Netherlands etc. But it doesn't matter, because we are not talking about that kind of empire. The US "Empire" is one of the mind (and more importantly the wallet). But if you have economic power, that translates into political power. Obviously. Why is the US military deployed all over the world? Well, its principle function is to defend US interests. It may not have colonies to protect but it has bases, trade routes, and allies that need patrolling, stabilising, reassuring and/or propping up. How is that different from what the European colonial powers were doing a century back? It differs in semantics only.

Now if the US retreats from doing that, it will create a power vacumn. Nature hates a vacumn, and Human nature is no different. Other nations will move in. And you may very well be able to live with that, but it will affect US power, and therefore US economics. Inevitably.

I think a relative decline is a shattering experience for some, but not most. If, you took a group of Americans (lets say, a thousand of them) who had visited China back in the 1980's and brought them to China today, they'd probably all be taken a back by the progress there. Upon retrning home and getting back to their routine, most of those thousand Americans wouldn't give it a second thought before long. However, a small handful would come away, as you say, sensing something was wrong with the picture. And hence, like you said, many of the unreasonable postings here on the FR.

As for the question that you said I side stepped. Actually, I didn't do it intentionally. I probably saw and realized it was going to require a long answer. But I'll keep it breif.

In a nutshell, China moving up the value China doesn't take away from the developed world's productivity. If anything, it adds to it. However, I admit, not without pain. As China moves up the value chain, she will without a doubt begin competing against existing producers. However, she will create a greater demand for products she still does not produce. For example, Germany does not have a problem with China. Because as China continues to move up the value chain, their are still many products she doesn't make, and in particular, specialized machinery that are made in Germany, and even here in the US and other developed nations. But she is starting to cut into the middle tier. But her cutting into the middle tier expands the productions of products in the upper tier from the developed world. As China begins to move up the value chain into the upper tier, wages in China will continue to go up. She will begin to compete directly with the products she is buying from Germany today. But by that time, wages will have already climbed, and many of her middle tier products will be less competitive and other nations, including the developed nations, will begin to be competitive again.

We already see that happening now as China is slowly leaving the lower tier and into the middle tier industries (there are probably more classifications than low, middle and upper, but I'm using those terms for arguement's sake). Some of the lower tier products, manufacturing is actally leaving China and moving back to the US or back to North America in Mexico. While wages are still much cheaper in China, they are no longer so cheap that shipping things across the ocean is worth it anymore. And especially since fuel prices, driven higher, in part by China's own consumption.

The bottom line is, economics is not static. There's not a finite number of factories in this world and there is not a finite number of consumers. The best example I can give you is that in 1950, the global auto consumption was 7 million vehicles in which the US represented 5 million. Today, its probably about 70 million in which the US consumption is 15 million. So, the world didn't stay static, but was and is dynamic and ever changing and evolving.

So, I don't believe China moving up the value chain will adversely affect the West. It may cause pain in a sense certain types of factories may have to shut down, while others expand. And then those that were shut down will reopen again and those that had expanded will shut down. So, what happens, is not that China's rise takes away wealth from the developed world, rather, it causes a major inconvenience at worse.

A good example is Japan back in the 1980's as she manufactured more cars than the US. This continues even to this day. However, America's per capita GDP is still higher than Japan's. That's because further up the value chain, the US is even more competitive. The Microsofts, super computers, cloud computing, etc. And America's workforce shifted to software development, something that people in industry know that Japan was and is very weak at. And unfortunately, some Americans may have been forced into the lower rungs. But overall, Japan's rise did not affect the overall US productivity for the negative.

What caused stress in the Japan/US economic relationship (and there will continue to be stress when the China/US economic relationship cointinues to evolve), is that not everyone in America has the ability or rather the fortitude to work in these higher value industries. That's because, its nice to get paid $50/hr to operate a milling machine or work in a routine factory jobs. But the advent of other nations getting into the middle tier like autos, pushes most Americans upward and some downward. But either way, America will continue to produce.

And again, the US per capita GDP will remain higher than China for a very long time. It may remain higher for the rest of the century, who knows. There was a brief period when Japan's was higher, but that can be explained by the bubble economy they had.

And finally, I can understand the unease that arises from knowing that economic and the potential for military power exists. And for that reason, I can understand the need to ensure a transparency from China and someday India and Africa. But at the same time, insisting on transparency from China without reassuring her that the West welcomes her rise, sounds alot like containment to them. Whether that is the intention of the West or not, it sounds like that to China. So, its important to take into considerations their fear and unease as well.

I accept that you don't want others to stay in the dark ages. But at the same time, other nations do see themselves more as citizens of the world rather than how they fit into a Western paradigm.

ponder life: "I think if I hear more conservatives state what Gates, Mullen, and Obama have said about China, I can go along more strongly with drive for a constitutional republic in China.
I think its very important to the Chinese people, that China's rise receives support from the West."

Then you will win a lot of FRiends here.

You have mentioned American Christian missionaries in China as evidence of America's high regard for Chinese people.
I could mention another fact which most people are not aware of.

President Franklin Roosevelt (lived from 1882 to 1945) is usually ranked (not always for better) up with George Washington and Abraham Lincoln as amongst America's greatest presidents.
Roosevelt's family was quite wealthy and young FDR was a child of privilege.
Not everyone knows that the Roosevelts made their money in China (ahem, I won't mention how), and President Roosevelt's high regard for the Chinese was a key factor in the demands he made of Japan in 1941.

Those demands included that Japan must withdraw its military forces from China.
This Japan was unwilling to even discuss, and as a result decided to attack US forces in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

So, you could say that, among other reasons, World War II for the United States was all about defending Chinese from a murderously oppressive foreign army.

My point is: personal friendships between US and Chinese people go back a long way in history.

Vanders9: "And as for Democrats - why are they the way they are now? They didn't used to be.
I mean, there was a time when you might disagree with them on numerous issues but you would never doubt their patriotism. You might think their policies were absurd, but you never for one moment thought they had ulterior motives in pushing them."

Since the days of President Woodrow Wilson (1912 to 1920), Democrats have championed the "progressive" cause, which means, basically, grow, grow, grow, grow... ad infinitum, the US Federal Government.

And here is the measure of their success:

During the time of, for instance, President Jefferson, the Federal Government consumed about 1% of US gross domestic product (GDP).
After the Civil War, the Federal Government grew to 2% of GDP, and then 3% beginning with the Teddy Roosevelt / Woodrow Wilson "progressive" era.
After the First World War (now using the new "progressive" income tax), federal spending rose to 4% of GDP.
Under President Roosevelt's "New Deal" it rose to 5%.
After the Second World War, federal spending settled in around 18% of GDP, where it remained (plus or minus) until today's nearly 25%
Projections are that federal spending will soon rise to 30% of GDP, making the United States just one more European style socialist country.

My point is, since Wilson the Democrats' answer to all problems, whether real or imagined, has been "grow the government" -- that has always been their "ulterior motive"
At the same time, Republicans have served as nothing more than ratchets -- holding the Democrats growing spending in place, never actually cutting it back again.

Today the only way Democrats can continue to grow the government is by destroying whole private industries -- health insurance, for example.

Vanders9: "And as for Government, why is it so big? How has it managed, despite all the numerous safeguards built into the system, to inexorably grow?
And the answer to all those questions in a constitutional republic with democratically elected leaders is that "we the people" have voted for it all.
And why has that happened?"

Ultimately, bottom line, it's because Democrats are evil, and Republicans are stupid and cowards -- how can I say it more simply?

Vanders9: "the vacuous thinking that got him elected, and the idealogies that now dominate the democrat party and the left generally are now very deeply entrenched in American society.
Untold millions are dependent on the State for their livelihood, even their very lives in the case of the "entitlement culture".
Trying to get them off that teat is not going to be easy.
It certainly isn't going to be done quickly."

No doubt all that is true.
But it must be done, because Democrats have no other value, if I might say so: no other reason to live, than grow, grow, grow and yet still grow the federal government.
If they are not stopped, they will eventually consume all of what was once -- and can still be -- the greatest nation in history.

Now I'm out of time again...

[Obama (as Bill Clinton did) is probably selling the Chinese our advanced weaponry as we speak.. the traitors that they both were and are..]

my dear hosepipe, if harboring this “me tarzan you jane chest thumping turk-the-gorilla (above reference) mentality towards the chicoms” makes you feel a prouder person; if it makes you feel more manly; and if it makes you see yourself more superior to but a bunch of kungpao chicken makers; then by all means live in that self spun caccoon of yours because time stands still for no one.

i mean, hey! if even biddon would goes calling, then you can bet your bunnies on it that the [obama “team”] is looking to reach a concession with the chicoms in the areas of economics so as to lock in a second four years in the oval office.

my theories: a give and take compromise between the two super-duper-rivals with [a reciprocal commitment and arrangement] to assist one another in the firing up of their economies offers the obamy team, yes “team works” and not obama alone, [a second chance] and a further opportunity to run the country again.

in other words, [the chicom variable] is an invaluable factor, and an asset, in the outcome of the next election because it’s all about the debt and it’s all about the economy.

now, regarding the chopper: seriously, with the technical knowhows the chicom’s now have in the fields of aeronautics, in stealth technology, in space based technologies, and [in the bring back to life of what is essentially no more but a flea market item that have “NOTHING, ZILCH, NADA, NIL, NIET, MEIYU” (everything was stripped remember?) in it and turn it into an eye grabbing blond that makes your head spin, what possibly then does the chinese need from the chopper that they doesn’t already have?

let’s not kid ourselves, the chicom of today is not the chicom of yesteryear. the chicom of today have proven they are in the leagues of the uss starship enterprise and we must accept this fact, truth, and reality, otherwise we are all but just kidding ourselves.

only the dead lives infinitely in the past. the future impact life with many changes, shifts in the wind, calm and and compromises. mandkind can learn, progress, and advance himself from those living changes.

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.