Posted on 11/06/2001 9:55:05 AM PST by FreepForever
Either way, it's always the same. Status quo of dictators-in-place always seems to appeal to these sorts of gents. They love these guys and vice-versa.
Wild speculation, how about eventually in a few years, china is occupying afghanistan as part of a UN/whatever deal to "keep the peace"? Not only running the end of the oil pipeline ports, but the whole ball O wax? I mean, china.Inc, which is a cartel of international bankers and arms merchants and oil guys and shipping guys mostly? Will the US and England move away, go closer back over to their normal turf centered around the arabian peninsula and the gulf, and leave this area to "china" to run with their partners in the oil and construction business? I think so.
In fact, it's gotten old even using the normal national identity as the premier desriptive term in geopolitics, it's way more which current corporate cartel is in charge here or there. but, I know, old habits, , so we'll stick to the old fashioned noun/names, but really, it should be these corporations we use anymore as the named players, IMO
Back to discussion. China,Inc. has manpower up the wazoo, they could easily put into afghanistan at least a one-to-one soldier to normal citizen there if they wanted to, or something so close to that as being almost identical. Their concept of supply lines is this-"hey soldiers, take what ya need". They have a completely different way of looking at armies than we do, totally different..The west has high tech and comfort on the brain, no one here working in an office that is airconditioned, and who eats lunch that costs 100$ and is paid for as a business expense with some issued credit card really has a clue on this, including uniformed warriors of the higher ranking sorts. Maybe when they were a kid over in gookville they lived like that, that's decades ago, it's ancient history now, and they still got massive tech support and dropped in food and whatnot, very little actually living in perpetutity in a condition of "no support". china is different in some ways there, they got both ideas in place and practice it, so they can cruise better into this sort of ground position.. It's as alien as the martian landscape, but in china, that's historically normal and usable. they just order it so, and millions jump and move. So, it's possible.
So, these large companies will have to be able to know that the pipelines are operable, not subject to sabotage. No way that's possible until that country is so pacified even the dogs have been sent to re-education camps. And the only way to do that is mass quantities of ground troops and genocide. On the one side, you got china, on the other, russia-stan, on another, India, on another, pakistan. Pakistan is in this weird position of being allied with itself mostly, with varying contacts that might change on a daily basis, and being funded militarily by both the united states and china, and they have the taliban/OBL supporters mixed in there as well. Looks like 4 separate factions just inside pakistan, pro-this, pro-that.
Everyone wants the oil and to have it cheaply and like almost 'right now". Almost right now time frame means pacifying one zillion mad jihaders. It always goes back to "on the ground" and mass quantities of troops. That leaves India or China as the grunt pool, I doubt russia could pull it off much anymore, combo of it costs too much, and once bitten twice shy, although maybe this is so far in the past now they'd be willing to try again, I doubt it though.
The bottom line is SOMEONE in huge numbers is going in there on the ground sometime soon. 6 trillion dollars in todays money, with the peaking of oil fields elsewhere, could conceivably be worth 20 trillion in just a few years, or even more than that. This is an incentive to use large armies methinks. Large armies that have no compunction to be genocidal, and that can get away with it.
China fits all the bills there, they keep getting a free skate internationally on human rights abuses, NO ONE in the international business community or political "leadership" fields gives care one over what china does to any human beings they get in contact with. Not bush, not blair, not putin, not any named large international company doing business with them, they could give a care. China gets standingovations for being 'allowed' into the WTO. And etc., etc.
India doesn't fit, because china and her international backers wouldn't stand for it, china won't allow india to occupy afghanistan, so it just ain't happening. India just is not the star quarterback on the international big business varsity team. they are on the team, but let's look at reality, china is the handpicked superstar, anyone can see it.
Both countries are large, huge, and with a burgeoining, expanding workforce, but china hands down is expanding more rapidly, and is obviously picked globally over India by the ones with the gold, with the juice. The global internationalists seem to prefer the chinese model, that's where the businesses are relocating 10 to 1 or some such amazingly lopsided figure. So I expect the occupiers to be primarily chinese sometime soon, with afghanistan losing it's traditional borders mostly. They will be allied with whomever in the islamics is picked as the 'supportable faction" by the international bankers. They are forced to pick someone, they can't support all the sides, so they will keep getting one faction of the islamics to bump off the other, and support them with chinese. Russia will be sitting it out on the border at the north, except for maybe occupying some strategic turf. They will juist keep selling oil and weaponry, that's all they got, they sell oil, guns, and the brains behind that stuff. Russia and China have been dealing with a strained border relationiship with each other for years, decades, centuries, so this is nothing new to them, it's really not as big a deal as most think, or much of a problem if the dotted lines shift around a little bit. If you have enough cash, dotted lines on a map don't mean that much, ask mr. Fox and mr. Bush about that deal there. Dotted lines can be taken care of with a few words on a piece of paper if there's enough loot involved for the ones who get to write and sign the words.
The least likely scenario that is possible is maintaining this status quo of perpetual warfare in afghanistan, none of the rich big guys are gonna put up with that noise for much longer. Genocide is the only thing that will end it. China is the annointed international golden boy nation in the region. One leads to the other I guess.
Scenario 2- here's another rewally wild speculation, exactly WHY again does this pipeline have to go through afghanistan? Ain't china where all the manufacturing action is, where it's going to be, and where the loot required to build and use all this stuff being concentrated at right now? And isn't it where the bulk of that oil is going to be used? So-o-o-o, how about the bigboys just route the oil direct to china instead, of what possible use is it over in pakistan and snaking through afghanistan where it's a severe pain? The west is gonna re-take and shake up a few mullahs and sheiks and various tinpot rascals over in the gulf region, so that takes care of at least the wests needs for oil. there's still plenty there, just need to get a new crop of controlled dictators in, the old crop have all gotten stupid fat and lazy and gone half mad dog, so I more expect those guys to be put down, and a new puppies brought in to be trained.
Just a few random thoughts, because global history is not real predictable, might as well look at all the possibilities. Large scale small and medium wars here and there are preferrable and the current economic exploitation model for the large international cartels, global thermonuclear war isn't. Populations at peril of being considered surplus and unusable any more are primarily mad jihaders and africans. The global big boys don't need too many of those folks anymore, they only need just a few. So, I bet "out they go", with the remaining ones being kept in the pen, and whipped a lot.
I think the most important thing to remember is that (1) China has more enemies than friends in the world, and most of China's enemies are on its direct border; and (2) given all of the major and open problems afflicting China right now, as mentioned in the article, all that needs to be done is for China's geographical and ideological enemies to merely foment those conflicts and hasten, not prevent, their complete and utter fruition.
When an elephant is about to fall, do you try to prop it up, or do you get out of its way? My point is this: If we want China to destroy us, we will continue to do business with it, and encourage others to do the same; but if we want to preserve our freedoms and way of life, then all we need to do is take a laissez faire approach to China, while supporting and strengthening its enemies.
It seems to me that everytime we do business with the Dragon, we are only hastening, if not ensuring, our own demise.
Seems to me to consider the countries immediately adjacant to China as enemies o0f China is to misinterpret the basic characteristic of China. They state that they are in charge. That they are a Great Nation and should be so 'respected'. I would perceive that many nations are FEARFUL of China.
** (2) given all of the major and open problems afflicting China right now, as mentioned in the article, all that needs to be done is for China's geographical and ideological enemies to merely foment those conflicts and hasten, not prevent, their complete and utter fruition. **
Allow me to take a Kow Tow position. Utter poppycock.
**then all we need to do is take a laissez faire approach to China**
We were already using the 'lazy' faire approach to China under Clinton. Look what it got us. The FBI Director and the Special investigator for the Attorney General said excedingly serious events occured between the Chinese government and the upper echelons of our government that were detrimental to our National Security. I'd rather do nothing of a laissez faire nature with China on any issue.
Our business leaders have a challenge. The USA market is 'saturated'. We MUST find large new markets to continue to grow. Those markets are in general China and Latin America.
If you are a supporter of Communism, then you are an enemy of freedom, democracy, and the United States.
Obviously nothing I say to you will be of any help in changing your mind.
That's a laugh. India could wipe out China in five minutes with ICBMs and thousands of other nuclear warheads. Japan is no friend of China, and would salivate at the prospect of helping to turn China into a parking lot. The People's Republic of China seems to have a military beef with nearly everyone. They have more enemies than any country I have ever heard of, and each one of them wants a piece of China's hide. Some examples of these China-hating countries include (a) India - most of the boundary with India is in dispute, (b) Russia - there is a dispute over at least two small sections of the boundary with Russia that remains to be settled, despite a 1997 boundary agreement, (c) Tajikstan, where large portions of the boundary with Tajikistan are indefinite, (d) North Korea, where a 33-km section of boundary with North Korea in the Paektu-san (mountain) area is indefinite, (e) Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, and possibly Brunei involved in a complex dispute over the Spratly Islands, (f) Vietnam (man you are going to love those guys) with disputes in maritime boundary agreements in the Gulf of Tonkin, awaiting ratification, (g) the Paracel Islands occupied by China, but claimed by Vietnam and Taiwan, (h) claims by Japanese-administered Senkaku-shoto (Senkaku Islands/Diaoyu Tai), and finally, and (i) Taiwan, which detests China. I think China knows the definition of "FEAR" more than anyone else in the world today.
"Our business leaders have a challenge. The USA market is 'saturated'. We MUST find large new markets to continue to grow. Those markets are in general China and Latin America."
What you don't seem to understand is that Chinese Communism is expanionist by nature. That means that it wants and needs to "expand" at all costs, death and destruction are not ruled out. The state in China is absolute, as it is with Communist countries. The economy is the state. Therefore, when the economy grows, the state must grow. Everytime we or our allies gives another billion dollars to China, their "state" is a billion dollars stronger.
I agree with you about Latin America, but China must be strictly off limits if we are to protect ourelves and our way of life.
Capitalists will tell you that money has no morality. Both the Capitalists and the Communists will want to talk only of Ethics not morality.
The Far Left and the Far Right generally agree on many issues. That leaves the overwhelming majority of those in this country non-plused as to why the Multi-nationals don't act in the interest of the USA. If Self-interest is ones highest priority then National Interest will Lose.
The multi-nationals are designed to protect the interest of the Shareholders. To do that they must continue to grow at reasonable rates, with reasonable return.
The markets for most all products in the USA are saturated. That means almost no growth and possibly some slippage from growth. The leadership of multinationals has NO choice but to increase sales. Generally speaking, there are two main areas in which to grow substantially over a period of time. China and Latin America.
The government of China, whoever they are, is generally making it possible to manufacture products in China. To sell products in China is more complicated and difficult. But it is being done.
We have one major 'stick' in dealing with China. They need to produce a year over year increase in job expansion for a population having difficulties with unemployment.
So, you see the the Chinese know of our problem and we know of theirs. How is this to be navigated? With great vigilance and care. They have expressed a desire to beat us in a war. We must work with them in different ways but with the certain knowledge that they are beligerant and will attack us on any and all fronts when possible.
All of the bordering nations and pricipalities are well aware of the intentions of the Chinese and their present abilities and capabilities. These peoples have much less of a 'stick' than the USA. Therefore, they don't maneauver from hatred but from fear of what China 'is going to do' not just what they are doing now.
If you deduce that I am a Communist from this, then you are mistaken.
You are confusing "ethics" with "morality." Religion is more closely related to morality, and ethics is more closely related to the law. Morality has more of an element of humanity coupled with long-term results, while ethics has more in common with expediency and the avoidance of conflict in society. Herein lies the problem.
If corporations continue to stick with "ethics," or short-term gain, they can engage China economically without any political fallout from the American people or without any accusations that they are fostering Communism. But if their actions are thought of in the context of morality, and long-term results, then these multinational corporations are committing the worst atrocities by engaging China on an economic level.
If we continue to make China stronger economically, they will eventually swallow us. Slowly, our laws will change, our Bill of Rights will evaporate, and our individual freedoms will become fond memories (See, "1984," by George Orwell, or "Brave New World," by Aldous Huxley). Everytime an emergency takes place, our leaders will take more and more of our rights away, until we are utterly naked in the context of individual and inalienable rights.
What our corporations are doing, by engaging China, is not at first blush unethical, but it is most certainly immoral. When dealing with humanity, it always becomes an issue of morality, not of ethics. When dealing with freedom, it always becomes an issue of morality, not of ethics. When dealing with enslavement, it always becomes an issue of morality, not of ethics. When dealing with selling human organs on the black market, it always becomes an issue of morality, not of ethics. This is because ethics can be frittered away with a good argument, just like in the law. And laws are written by men, who are subject to the whim and caprice of lobbying powers, money, prejudice, and other human faiings. Morality has its roots in spirituality, and an "unwritten code" of conduct, based on humanity.
I am not by any means recommending religion or any type of religion, but all apparently "positive" religions seem to contain, at the very least, something of substance which precludes what we are doing with China. It does not matter whether you are Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, or Catholic. Interestingly enough, Communism and Communist China in particular, bans outright the practice of religion, and condemns those who do, to death or imprisonment.
Next you state, "The markets for most all products in the USA are saturated. That means almost no growth and possibly some slippage from growth. The leadership of multinationals has NO choice but to increase sales. Generally speaking, there are two main areas in which to grow substantially over a period of time. China and Latin America...The government of China, whoever they are, is generally making it possible to manufacture products in China. To sell products in China is more complicated and difficult. But it is being done...We have one major 'stick' in dealing with China. They need to produce a year over year increase in job expansion for a population having difficulties with unemployment...So, you see the the Chinese know of our problem and we know of theirs. How is this to be navigated? With great vigilance and care. They have expressed a desire to beat us in a war. We must work with them in different ways but with the certain knowledge that they are beligerant and will attack us on any and all fronts when possible...All of the bordering nations and pricipalities are well aware of the intentions of the Chinese and their present abilities and capabilities. These peoples have much less of a 'stick' than the USA. Therefore, they don't maneauver from hatred but from fear of what China 'is going to do' not just what they are doing now...If you deduce that I am a Communist from this, then you are mistaken."
I don't think you are a communist, but I am sure many communists would salivate at your argument, and would possibly use them if successfully pressed into a debate.
My answer to this is fairly simple: There are plenty of untapped markets that do not threaten our national character and core belief system. They have all of the advantages of dealing with China on a purely economic point of view, but they do not threaten our way of life, our living standards, and our inalienable human rights as free people. We must explore new avenues of producing wealth, with other nations, rather than destroy our nation systematically by engaing the Communist Chinese on a financial basis.
After all, the U.S.S.R. crumbled because we starved it of an economic relationship with the US, and we pressured our NATO allies and other developed nations to do the same. We have the power to do this, we just are not, for some very weird reasons. You tell me what the reasons are. I am sure if you think about it, you might get worried.
My comments were not to say that what is going on is good for our country, just the opposite. All the leaders of the Latin American nations are totally aware of the struggle the USA is in with China. They know that when the GNP of China will more than double in 10 years. They will then be of such economic power as we are now.
Our delima leaves no other choice than to work with all of Latin America as quickly as our little legs will go. The organization already formed to do this is the FTAA. Will we be able to work together and grow at 10% per year?
Probably not. Then the alternative is what the Chinese are calling for, a war.
I personally know this will be no good for us. This is only a quick synopsis.
We will need President George W Bush for a second term and another man like him after that to wade through this swamp for us.
Will we be so blessed?
BUMP
Well I know nothing but have been told to invest in China.Hang in there and think positive.
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.