Replies

I don't know how Clinton fits into the entire China picture yet. Again, I go back to my three-way analysis. From a national security point of view, many mistakenly, IMO believed that increased trade with China would eventually cause the existing system to implode.(and voila, a non-Communist China would no longer be a threat). Then we have our political/corporate interests who saw China primarily in terms of potential profits. And finally, we have our enemies, who want us to believe that China is not a threat.

I want face time with the Counselor on the oil question. Maybe we could drive to Cowtown, USA together or something. I'll include a list of cites in a post later today so he can give me his take on same.

I think you know I believe there is a fourth group (affectionately known in tinfoil circles such as my own as the NWO) which has determined that PRC can neither be supplanted nor brought in as a willing partner in "global governance." This group has used each of the others facilitate the fulfillment of PRC's economic goals (strategic goals come later) in the belief that if PRC has what it wants it will not be a threat to the NWO.

IMO the plan is to gradually cede hegemony in Asia and autonomy in an otherwise "united" world.

BTW, the other most serious threat to global governance is Israel, both because of fight-to-the-death nationalism and the multitude of nations which are unwilling to concede her right to exist. I theorize that this is why the West has been backing away from unconditional support, though the "end" of the Cold War would seem to justify it on those grounds.