Replies

The Red Chinese are pushing for a fascist style economic system more akin to what the Nazis accomplished in the late 1930s IMHO. They hope to instill enough nationalism and pride in their population, and to slowly and carefully ensure enough economic prosperity to avoid an implosion. They are walking a razor's edge as they maintain a hold on power and build their military.

Unless we take actions similar to the way Ronald Reagan squared off against the Soviets, there is a chance that the Red Chinese will succeed. There is also the chance that they will implode in any case. Either way, if they become stronger, or if they leaders see severe internal problems, I believe they will seek to either bolster their strength or stave off the problems with military adventurism.

They are building the military machine for it and I believe they will use it. Probably, if it goes to their liking, sometime after the 2008 Olympics and then after seeing what our elections produce...so the 2009-2010 time frame. If things go badly for them...and they get desperate...perhaps even before then.

Either way, even though economically it will be painful for us at this point, I believe we need to treat them the way Reagan treatred the "evil empire" of his day. That would be less painful at this point than awaitiing the chance that they force the issue on their own terms.

Just my opinion.

I believe we need to treat them the way Reagan treatred the "evil empire" of his day.

I agree and I think it's important that all readers and lurkers more fully understand Bill Clinton's Chinagate and how Chinagate put China on par with the U.S. Along with your fine work on China, it is imperative that those who've not read Senator Inhofe's June 23, 1999 Senate speech do so and also fully review Alamo-girl.com.

U S Congressional Record/Senate
106th Congress
June 23, 1999
pgs. S7483-S7486
The Clinton National Security Scandal and Coverup
Senator James Inhofe
(right column/top)

Columbia University Professor Bhagwati (a "free trader's" "free trader") in a recent WSJ article put it this way.

"China's greater economic success has led to increased social protests in the rural areas; we hear constantly of 'land grabs' leading to disruptive demonstrations . . . [the] explanation is a witless repetition of the mistaken focus on inequality as the prime mover [for the unrest, reported to be some 60,000+ incidents per annum] . . . it is evident that if a commissar's cronies grab your land, a phenomenon that may reflect also the fact that increased prosperity makes land more valuable to grab, there is no redress because there are hardly any NGOs, no opposition parties, no free press and no independent judiciary. So you turn to the streets. The Chinese rulers cannot face up to the fact that their antidemocratic structures are at the heart of the problem of increasing rural unrest; they cling to the self-serving view that economic inequality is the cause." [End of excerpts with my comments]

Throughout the Cold War up until near the end the "free traders" (the usual, internationalist Rockefeller Republicans and "progressive" liberals ) demanded that we help the Soviet economic development lest we "play into the hands of the hard liners." It'd be our fault if there was a war, they said.

We didn't, there wasn't, and the Commies gave up.

The internationalist Republicans and "progressives" had their way dealing with Red China.