The China Threat Goes Unchecked

Churchill said in the British parliament that “democracy is the worst form of government,” and when the parliament gasped, he finished to its relief . . . “except all others” (that is, all other forms of government).

Churchill spoke after the victory over Nazi Germany (totalitarian dictatorship) to which victory he contributed as prime minister of Britain. But as of today the post-nuclear attack of China (totalitarian dictatorship) on the West (democracy) is within the realm of a future possibility, and so far the West has been barely aware of the existence of China, except recently, as a producer of toys, wonderfully cheap (slave labor), but sometimes toxic (absence of inspection).

Aristocracy (“the power of the best individuals”) as a form of government competed in ancient Athens with democracy (“the power of the people”). When John Stuart Mill published his “On Liberty” (in 1859), the form of government in the constitutional monarchy of Britain was still to some extent aristocracy. Even today, the prime minister, corresponding to the U.S. president, is elected by the parliament, which, in turn, was elected, at the beginning of the 19th century, by “the best,” accounting for a small percentage of the male population.

The problem was: Who are “the best”? John Stuart Mill said that his wife was more intelligent than he was. Why were women deprived of suffrage (the right to vote)?

John Stuart Mill was no doubt one of “the best.” As a child he never attended school, and as an adult he was not affiliated with any university. He was a thinker (like Aristotle), and he was known throughout the world (meaning the West) because he wrote books. Newspapers horrified him, and it is hard to imagine his horror if radio and television appeared in his time.

In U.S. presidential democracy, “the U.S. president is elected by the people.” Well, members of the British parliament at least know politically one of their own whom they elect. What did an American voter know in 1989 about a 65-year-old Texan oilman George H.W. Bush, and then in 2000 about a failed Texan oilman George W. Bush, except that George W. was a son of George H.W.?

Yes, in the last 17 years, we have seen that bad as democracy is, it better than all other forms of government, as Churchill said.

Mao in China, Stalin in Soviet Russia, or Hitler in Germany would not have focused on the oil of Iraq (or Iran) because all the wealth in their countries belonged to them. Besides, their absolute power could acquire in their countries all that wealth could acquire — and more. They focused on world domination, not on the conquest of small backward oil-rich countries like Iraq.

Mao’s and Stalin’s goal was to establish a world communist state, and that of Hitler to establish a world ruled by the supreme (Aryan) race.

How modest and limited was the goal of George H. W. Bush (a Texas oilman) and of his son (a failed Texan oilman), and of their oil cronies like Vice President Cheney!

Their war to conquer Iraq actually began in 1990. President George H.W. Bush appointed April Glaspie ambassador to Iraq, and on July 25, 1990, she met with Saddam Hussein. She was one of possibly blind tools of George H.W. Bush to assure Saddam that the U.S. would be indifferent to Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait (an autocracy) to solve their territorial disputes. Actually, Saddam’s invasion was a pretext for George H.W. Bush to launch war on Iraq.

The “sanctions” to bring him down also failed, and in 2003 the new president, George W. Bush, launched a conventional war on Iraq.

When I described the war of the Bushes and their cronies for the Iraqi oil, Edward D. Kutz from Arlington, Texas, sent an e-mail to me on Oct. 24, 2007, declaring that my description was ridiculous (at least to those of us who have an iota of intelligence). If our motive was to grab Iraq’s oil, then why didn’t we make any discernable effort to do so?

Well, according to a “Yahoo!” entry of October 25, 2007: "Reports in the Wall Street Journal suggested the [oil] contracts [in Iraq] could be worth as much as $900 m."

Halliburton “has a history of governments contracts” and will be a “leading beneficiary” of the war on Iraq. Mr. Cheney should receive huge financial rewards for the war on Iraq through substantial investments in the corporation he once headed.

Iraq is currently the world’s second largest source of oil, but the majority of subterranean oil reserves have never been tapped. After the war, when U.S. oil corporations have fully developed the industry’s potential, Iraq is expected to become the largest single supply of oil on Earth.

Vice President Cheney will not find it too difficult to share part of the money with oil shareholders in his government.

Such is the situation in the case of U.S. defeat in the war. What would it have been in the case of U.S. victory?

On May 22, 2003, George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13303, which was duly transmitted by the Internet and published by The Los Angeles Times on Aug. 7, 2003.

The Order granted immunity to U.S. oil corporations in Iraq from both criminal prosecution and civil litigation. Suppose Halliburton decides that $x billion in oil money should belong to a certain member of the U.S. government. Neither criminal prosecution nor civil litigation is possible.

To enliven the subject, let us imagine schoolchildren who already know that there are many countries in the world besides Iraq and Iran.

Surely some of them, such as China in cooperation with Russia, threaten the West more than would Iraq, even if Iraq did have several (!) atom bombs, or even more than would Iran if Iran did have them. So why this war with Iraq, which actually started in 1990 and which may start with Iran, as a war that President Bush compared to World War III?

As for North Korea, President Bush refused even to make comment. No oil! Exclusive attention to the oil-rich Iraq and Iran! Those schoolchildren who know about the existence of many other countries, besides Iraq and Iran, will define the cause of President Bush’s partially for them: oil.

So what’s the moral? Yes, democracy is the worst form of government — except all other forms. Human beings have resulted from millennia of creative evolution.

Since the 13th century, constitutionalism has evolved in the West to a certain livable stage of freedom, while in China, “the form of government” is a slave state, as it was millennia ago.

What is tragic on the world scale is that as far as I know there is only one presidential candidate — Rep. Duncan Hunter, R.-Calif., who speaks publicly about the China threat and is ready to defend the United States against it. If he becomes the U.S. president, the United States will be able to develop post-nuclear weapons, able to oppose the aggressive weapons, created by the dictatorship of China in cooperation with Putin’s Russia.

Then we will be able to recall Churchill’s words that democracy is the worst form of government (look at George W. Bush’s Iraqi escapade!) except all other forms of government.

On the other hand, if Duncan Hunter is not elected, but the U.S. president would be no better than George W. Bush, or any mute-on-China participant in the CNN debates of presidential candidates, then we can well expect a successful Chinese attack on the West by post-nuclear super weapons, which may include the annihilation of the population of the West (to create out of the United States, Canada, and Australia a “life-space for chicoms”).

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1891445/posts
Pentagon: China Gearing Up for High-Tech Warfare

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/9/29/25139.shtml
“Clinton Gave China Chips for Nuclear War”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1845268/posts
HUNTER INTRODUCES “NUCLEAR SECRETS SAFETY ACT” (Duncan Hunter - 2000)

Excerpt:

“The Clinton-Gore Administration has, through fumbling incompetence and short-sighted policies, lost critical defense secrets,” said Hunter. “The recent incident at Los Alamos National Laboratory is indicative of the irresponsibility and disregard this administration has given to protecting America’s national security. This legislation begins to correct the problem.”

Since 1996, there has been the transfer of missile technology to China, inadequate tracking of supercomputers, the discovery of a Communist spy at our national laboratory, the failure to remove this same individual for 17 months, and missing computer data containing nuclear secrets.

(snip)

Testimony at post:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1845268/posts?page=40#40

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1868847/posts
China: Pictures of DF-25 Missile Revealed For the first time (3-warhead MIRV medium range)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1913355/posts
China hijacks Google, Yahoo, MSN, Youtube...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1814236/posts
Chinagate: The Movie

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1932668/posts
China: Navy Spat Not a Misunderstanding (Kitty Hawk was about the Dalai Lama)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1932507/posts
Hunter asks Bush for China policy meeting

Duncan Hunter: No, you know what we are talking about actually is reversing what China has got which is protectionism. Right now, if we send a good to China, they hit us with a 17% tax at the water’s edge. When they send their products to the United States their government subsidizes every product they send over by cheating on trade. The devalue their currency 40% below where it should be. That undercuts on every American product. They know they are doing it. The head of the Federal Reserve Board, Ben Bernanke, knows they are doing it. He said as much. Yet we have allowed them to continue to do it.

One thing that a President does, is enforce trade rules. I am going to enforce trade rules. I am going to stop China from cheating on trade. If we have to use counter veiling duties we are going to do that. But we are going to keep them from enmassing these 100s of billions of dollars, some of which they are using to buy weapon systems. And the difference between China and Japan is this, Japan is a military ally. Not a robust ally, not one that comes to Iraq or Afghanistan with lots of help. But China is a potential adversary and certainly one that has conflicting interest. The idea that American dollars that are being used to buy missile destroyers from the Russians which were designed to kill American aircraft carriers and buy and build ballistic missiles some of which are aimed at our cities does not make good policy.

Hugh Hewitt: Before 9/11 China had downed our plane in Yunnan Island I believe it was. And we had a confrontation with China. After 9/11 no one pays much attention to them. Are they friend or foe in the Global War on Terror?

Duncan Hunter: Well, you know, China has many conflicting interests. They have interests to continue to market their products in the U.S. and stack our billions of dollars in their treasury, they like that. On the other hand, they like an America that is off balance. And that is why they have transferred technology to countries around the world that are not friends of the United States. That is why we can see China as always, like when we put stiff sanctions on Iran which is walking down the path to build nuclear weapons, China is there to blunt American sanctions. So they like to see America off balanced, a little bit weakened. They also see America as a competitor in the industrial Global Trade that is taking place. They are moving aggressively to lock up oil supplies around the world. People say you can’t be tough on China because they are so big. I say you can’t ignore China because they are so big. And because of what they are doing.

I watched their military build up. They are building up at double digit pace right now. They are building lots of submarines, buying lots of high end fighter aircraft from the Russians, building about 100 short range ballistic missiles a year. China is stepping into the super power shoes that the Soviet Union left. Now we can have a good relationship with China; but it will have to be a relationship based on American Strength. I think Ronald Reagan proved that to us in our era of conflict and competition with the Soviet Union.

Hugh Hewitt: How many years have you chaired the Armed Services Committee?

Duncan Hunter: I have chaired it for four years. I’ve been on that committee for 26 years.

Hugh Hewitt: And does the Pentagon understand China? Do they come forward and do they talk on the record with the Hill about what China represents for the next generation?

Duncan Hunter: You know this last report on China actually received lots of criticism from the State Department because it was very candid about assessing this enormous growing military strength of China. The assessment of the Pentagon was they are doing so much more then they have to do for self defense. They are building an offensive capability. When they shot that satellite out of space on January 11th, because America’s military eyes are largely in space, that really hurdled a new era of military competition between the U.S. and China in space. Like it or not, if you have to rely on satellites for movement of special forces or army brigades or marine corps divisions, you have to rely on satellites for that, and your satellites are in danger, you are in trouble. So we have our eyes, our military eyes [on China]. Plus a lot of our economic capabilities are reflected through our space apparatus. You have to protect that. We are going to have to spend a lot of money now and take a lot of effort to neutralize what is an aggressive Chinese policy in regard to space.

Hugh Hewitt: Let’s talk about the media and China. I asked you about this on the radio yesterday, how many questions have you had about China in the course of the Campaign. You have been on the trail for how long?

Duncan Hunter: We have had 4 congressional debates now and we have been out campaigning hard this entire year. We had one great question, I think it came from either Brit Hume or one of his team, during the Fox debate in the South Carolina, last question of the debate to me on China. I was able to give, you only have one minute answer, I try to be a master on the compact answers, I laid out that we have this cheating on trade which is stacking up billions to China and they are using this money to arm. This presents a long term challenge to the United States. Maybe not a direct threat; but a military threat is comprised of two things, capability and intent. They certainly are building a capability to cause us a lot of harm. And the intent of China is always difficult to understand.

Those tough old communists that ran the politboro are still running things. We see these generals make wild statements like, “We hope you value L.A. more than you do Taiwan”. That is a thinly veiled threat to nuke L.A. Then there will be a flurry of newspaper statements by people saying well, ‘general so and so didn’t mean it’. Well I hope general so and so is pretty far away from that nuclear trigger. Because that is a wild statement. You see those wild statements that came out of Yunnan Island where the American plane was shot down or was forced down, and the wild statements that came out of there diplomacy core after that were tempered by their trade people. But it shows us there is a element of leadership that is embedded in the Chinese hierarchy that is very aggressive, very anti American and very war like. It is difficult to know which element of the Chinese leadership is going to dominate the government in 5 years.

Hugh Hewitt: One more question, the Armed Services Committee under the democrats, has it been doing a responsible job to protect the military budget and looking around the corner for what it needs?

Duncan Hunter: I think that my great friend, Ike Skelton from Missouri, conservative democrat with sons that are in the uniform, has done a good job with respect to the ham and eggs of making sure we continue the equipment procurements and the readiness procurements. Of course he has largely followed the administrations budget. And also we are increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corp. The administration has finally acquiesce our recommendation and they are recommending that this year.

Of course on the side where the democrats put their political hat on, and that is with respect to policy in Iraq. Obviously the person calling the shots there is Nancy Pelosi. And I think she is calling the wrong shots. I thought the statement by the democrat whip, Jim Clyburn, who said, “good news from General Petraeus in September would be bad news for the democrat party”. The idea that good news off the battlefield is bad for a political party in the United States, I thought that was a tragedy that that statement was made and a sorry reflection on the fact that the democrats look at Iraq not through the prism of national interests; but through the prism of politics. That is bad for our country.

I like that great old Senator Henry ‘Scoop’ Jackson who was one of the great democrat strong defense leaders of our time. He said, ‘in time of war national policy should emanate from our shore with one voice’. He liked to arm wrestle over spending on transportation and other things; but he supported the President in matters of national security. And the idea that the democrats are pulling away from us even before General Petraeus has made his statement, prepping the ground for the statement, that is a tragedy for our country.

Hugh Hewitt: Congressman, Thank You.

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.