Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 01/03/2010 11:49:05 AM PST by FromLori
Bulls-eye IMO.
I don’t know I just wish we would look after Americans instead of the rest of the world myself.
“If environmentalists were serious about energy independence, they wouldn’t be allowing the solar cell factories in California to outsource wafer fab to China.”
Hypocrisy and irony in one fell swoop.
Let me expand on that a bit, not so much for you, but for others who won’t get this on their own.
“Moderation in all things!” It’s a statement I’ve tried to keep in mind during my life. I can’t think of a single thing that can’t be overdone.
Capitalism is the best system going. I am firmly convinced of that. That doesn’t mean that there can’t be bad outcomes if we don’t use common sense as it applies to Capitalism.
If for instance, if we provide the economic stimulus to spark the rebirth of a tyranical government, making it not just an internal or regional problem, but a global pariah, is that still beneficial?
Of course it isn’t. And that’s just what we have done, and are continuing to do. And it’s not being done by people who give one hoot about the U.S., and it’s longevity. For them it’s all about the $$$$$. To hell with the petty concerns for global stability, U.S. Sovereignty, or even U.S. survivability. And as for the troops who will die defending this nation against China and it’s proxies, “Well screw them. They are of no concern!”
One has only to look at 1930s Germany to see how fallacious the Free Trade argument was. If Free Trade was the end-all to global wars, WWII would never have taken place.
And of course, WWIII wouldn’t have either, but it will. We have assured that outcome.
I want to stress, this isn’t leveled at you. I do think it’s very important to clearly define what our problems really are, so that we can modify our actions and avoid doing bad things again.
If we had kept what Nixon put in place, we would still have a healthy policy today. Therefore, Nixon’s policy did not backfire.
Our trade policies changed around 1992, as we began to dump every bit of trade we could off on China. That was the policy that backfired. It’s the policy I stated would backfire, and it has. Still, we haven’t seen anything yet. It’s still blossoming out, and before that policy is done, you’ll see backfire in living color, even here on our homeland.
Hands off with major trading partners did not prevent WWII. France, Britain, other German trading partners were attacked without mercy. Don’t get the idea that trade prevents wars. It merely makes them possible.
As for traitors, you’ve got my blessing going after them, but they’ll be long gone to the next new mecca by then.
As much as I’d love to lay this at the feet of Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush got us here. He isn’t going to help, but the barn door has been open for far too long to even mention his name at this point. Give him a few years. He’ll no doubt catch up, but he’s got quite a ways to go.
America was found on free markets and liberty, not capitalism and freedom. Free markets is capitalism bound by discipline and morality; liberty is freedom bound by discipline and morality. Today the US practices neither free markets and liberty, that is why we have so much social problems and economic disruptions. Hopefully after this financial meltdown we will learn.
For once, I think we can laugh with China. To start with:
1) They understand power is based on nationalism, not international socialism. They see international socialists as naive dimwits and failures. The Chinese “communism” has evolved into little more than a modern version of the Confucian bureaucratic monarchy that preceded them.
2) They are not particularly given to imperialism, preferring exploitative trade with dictators to military conquest. They do insist that the nations which surround China culturally do things, “The Chinese Way”, as a buffer against powerful nations outside of this circle. This “cultural imperialism” makes little sense to Americans, who have their own way of doing business.
3) They do want substantial foreign trade, which means trade routes, and a deep water navy to defend their shipping. They prefer naval supremacy in the western Pacific and Indian oceans, but it increasingly unlikely they will get it.
4) Since the 1980s, their intent was to prepare for an eventual naval war with the US. This intent was very well known to the US Navy, who planned accordingly. However, the rise of India has made serious headway in its potential for conflict with China, and this is a much more serious prospect from the Chinese point of view.
5) Ironically, the seriousness and realism of China cannot stomach some of the sillier western fads like internationalism, climate change, progressivism, international law and “human rights”. While they will let others fool around that way, they will not sign up to any such schemes. Because they see them as such, just schemes to get money and power, nothing more. If they are to enrich Al Gore, it is for political concessions when he is elected. Otherwise, he can sod off.
Hmmm. I don’t see where I SAID that it’s wrong for China to watch out for it’s own national self interests. Reading into something that’s not there?
1. China is not an “ally” of Britain. What poppycock.
2. Of course the chinese are looking out for their own national interest. Hello! That’s what countries do. I wish the U.S. did.
3. I agree with the chinese on their ignoring the Brits when it comes to executing common criminals. Stupid of the Brits to try and intervene for a drug trafficker.
4. The great zero got zilch from China. No kidding. When you arrive, hat in hand, in hock to the host up to your frigging eyebrows, don’t expect more goodies.
China recently bought some mines in Afghanistan too and other then holding our debt are benefiting greatly by our presence there.
http://www.thedailybell.com/700/US-Does-Heavy-Lifting-For-China.html
>>>>
Rather than being a partner that can be trusted to work with the West on issues of mutual concern, <<<<
>>>>
the Chinese have demonstrated that their default position is that Beijing’s only real priority it to look after its own interests, <<<<
What is this moron saying ?!?
Why should ANY government be working ‘against its own interests?
It sounds like he is saying that the Chinese are refusing to be saps and engage in actions that are against the interests of their own country.
Good for them.
Now perhaps we can get some politicians that will do the same for our own country!
A GOOD DEAL is one that benefits BOTH parties interests.
Agree China is an ally of CHINA that is the forgotten lesson you can’t trust commies and our leaders did and it will and has already come back to haunt us with the loss of our jobs and heaven only knows what else in the future. I too wish our government would take care of our OWN citizens, stop all foreign aid is another of my pet peeves what gives them the right to steal from us to take care of the rest of the world and what irony that we have to borrow to do so!
Foreign aid that goes to foreign thieves, who then turn around and bad mouth us.
I know let them fend for themselves!
The President and Congress, A Racketeering Enterprise
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18559
I don't believe the prevailing sympathies, or lack of, on this forum, is ever about the people involved, in this case Shaikh.
Instead, this article, and many of the posters here, seem more indignant and offended that the Chinese did not give in to the demands of the "Mighty" British. And this would have been true whatever the subject may have been.
The US governmnet has tried to work with the Italian government in regards to Amanda Knox, to no avail. The fact that they ignore American influence doesn't seem to draw the same indignities as the Chinese ignoring the influence of the British government. On this forum, that is. Americans, in general, are more indignant about Knox and the Italian judicial system.
Many times, what people talk about, isn't the main sympathy (in this case, this thread in regards Shaikh). Its clear to me, what is happening, as far as sympathies goes, is a growing indignation among some circles in the West (those with strong nationalistic leanings), of a rising, more global centric world away from a Western centric world.
I agree with your comments. Thank you.
It must be pretty hard for a leader, king, President or whatever of every country on Earth when they have to deal with Obama knowing through their own intelligence assets that Obama is an usurper of power and ultimately, eventually, his stroke of the pen is short lived and meaningless.
The world is on a Wait and See attitude, they are awaiting to see when he is removed, many leaders are envious that he managed to fool a sizable amount of American voters to support him, and my guess is most are laughing at America.
“Those stupid arrogant Americans are getting what they deserved. ....” has probably been stated many many times.
Many individuals think that Amanda Knox was guilty. Regardless of the truth, the Italians followed their justice rules so I do not see any role for international diplomacy.
As America, it's standard of living, and economy slide, we don't seem to hear too much from these globalist types anymore...
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.