China will soon have the power to switch off the lights in the West

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.

There is nothing in your post that I cannot agree with.

The amazing thing is that it was pushed on the American people as a good thing by the greatest propaganda machine the world has ever seen (the most subtle), the main stream media. We kept hearing about the glories of the post industrial economy ad nauseum. What a joke on the American people!

Tom Brokaw should be very proud!

During the 1980’s China sent several hundred scholars to study the US and how it became a superpower at the beginning of the 20th Century when other nations had to exist for hundreds of years before achieving it. The scholars were unique because they were specially screened and isolated from the rest of Chinese population and instructed to divorce all their Communist notions of the US and study it objectively as possible. One of their conclusions was that the US developed their economic strengths first before using it to support their military power, and to achieve this the US basicly kept out of world affairs until after WW2.
China since the 1980’s basicly took this path. Economic development and very little international involvement. Maoist wars of liberation efforts ceased, and most of the resources were concentrated inward to economic development. The only sources for friction were their claims of Chinese territories (Tibet, Sanjing, Taiwan, unresolved border issues with India, Hong Kong, Macau, and certain islands in South China Sea). China did not participate in international or UN efforts. Most of the time China voted abstain in the UN.
IMHO China will continue this policy because they saw what happen to the US as they got involve in one region after another and see how the US economy is being sapped by all the wars as the US played policeman of the world. The only sources for war is China’s disputed claims over territory with her Asian neighbors.

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.

My point is, on THIS forum, her guilt or innocence is irrelevant. What is relevant and most important (on this forum) is that a once mighty nation (Britain) can no longer sway a nation that was once plagued by famines (China). Meaning, the topics at hand may be about Akmal Shaikh, but that isn't where the real sympathies lie. The real sympathies isn't about whether Shaikh is executed (I really don't believe anyone on the FR is going to lose sleep over it). What is important (to many on the FR), is that Britain, a country that once ruled over an empire that covered more land mass than any empire in history, can no longer sway a country like China.

That is what is at the very heart of this thread and many others started on this forum in regards to China.

I brought up the Knox analogy because she is a young American woman. Her ordeal did not bring about the vilification of Italy the way Shaikh did for China (on this forum). And the irony is, Shaikh isn't even an American.

Britain is a “has-been” nation with no real influence in the modern world. I don’t think their opinions would count for much with China(which by most measures is the #2 power on Earth). Now if this guy had been an American, I believe the Chinese response would be different.

Yes, I agree, China may have been swayed had the person been American and the US government got involved instead.

But what really irks me is that the posters here are Americans, yet they are indignant about China not being swayed by Britain. Sort of a "don't mess with my cousin" mentality. Or more specifically, "don't mess with the West".

What if the country had been Russia instead of China? I really doubt it would have raised a fuss here.

I can totally understand and respect the British for being angry. But why would Americans be angry at China's response to Britain?

China works in China’s own self interest. Although the heroin smuggler who is the subject of the article may have mental problems, smuggling heroin is profitable precisely because it is so risky. What’s the risk? Getting caught and executed.
In other columns, Con Coughlin warns Britain about giving up military might and allowing themselves to be cowed by Muslim terrorists.
In this instance, I don’t think he’s whining as much as laying it out on the table for the rest of us to see, and I don’t think he’s surprised by it.

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.