Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 01/03/2010 11:49:05 AM PST by FromLori
At a stroke the cold reality of China's attitude to the outside world was laid bare for all to see. 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, whether it is enforcing its zero tolerance policy on drug abuse or refusing to cooperate with global efforts to reduce carbon emissions.
China's self-centred approach to international affairs should come as no surprise to the British government. American President Barack Obama was similarly rebuffed during his state visit to Beijing last November. Mr Obama arrived in China hoping to get Chinese cooperation on a range of issues, such as North Korea, financial stability and human rights. But despite being given a warm reception in public by Chinese officials, including a private guided tour of the Great Wall, the American president left Beijing without gaining any concessions from China on any major issue.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Since around 1992, the West should have been placed on suicide watch. And it’s gotten exponentially worse since then.
About all we can do now is watch this play out.
When the proverbial stuff hits the fan, just remember folks. Some of us tried to sound the warning bells about China.
Britain making new trade deals with China, makes it absolutely clear out clueless Western leaders are. It’s a sad thing to watch, the circling of the drain.
SAT
Who were the other major traitors?
When I was young the saying was I would rather be dead then red we all knew the commies couldn’t be trusted I taught my children the commies couldn’t be trusted I think our government deciding to do business with them because globalists wanted the cheap labor was suicide!
When the proverbial stuff hits the fan, just remember folks. Some of us tried to sound the warning bells about China
Yes...a number of us tried to warn everyone about Communist China....wonder what those who whine “isolationism” and “protectionism” are thinking now
Supporting Free Trade with Communist China is just supporting Communism
Unanswered question: Will the US’s policies that have moved large amounts of US manufacturing production to China, and transferred untold amounts of technology, and created massive trade deficits, will those policies prove to be the most stupid, self-destructive in all of human history?
“...the Chinese have demonstrated that their default position is that Beijing’s only real priority it to look after its own interests...”
As any country with even a shred of survival instinct and not afflicted with political correctness should be doing 24/7.
Nations don’t have friends, they have interests — Talleyrand
INHO they already have
Just a big hero to a lot of clueless "conservatives" on this forum, for instance
I suppose you could make that case. Others certainly do, so you’re not alone or in particularly bad company either. I still see it differently.
During the height of the cold war, it was desired to cozy up with one Communist nation in opposition to the other. It gave Russia something to think about, because these two nations (China/Russia) were experiencing skirmishes on China’s northern border. The were hardly kissing cousins in that time frame.
Had the association been kept simply, merely a dialogue and softening of China’s anti-Western stance, perhaps it could have been a positive thing.
What transpired around 1992 was IMO bordering treason. It give aid and comfort to a Communist nation whose politicians were still making statements that they wanted to bury the West.
When you see the subterfuge associated with the Clinton White House, the thefts of state secrets, the gifting of others, the gifting of our technology that gave China a three or more decade jump, there’s little doubt both Bush the Elder and Clinton were psycho-babble idiots when it came to China.
Is that a good thing? Hell no!
Is that Nixon’s fault? No.
Is it reasoned to think a dialogue with China could have helped us in the cold war? Yes.
I see this as a ploy (not by you of course), to lay yet another bad thing off on a guy already suspected and blamed for bad things. It absolves those who truly did game the system.
Bush and Clinton have an awful lot to answer for when it comes to China. One day, I hope they’ll be seen for the contributors who brought us terrible grief.
Their successors will also share in that judgment.
Bingo. And since when is rejecting the AGW scam something bad.
Same here FromLori. I can identify with and agree on all counts there. Absolutely right IMO.
Akmal Shaikh-sure sounds British to me....
If environmentalists were serious about energy independence, they wouldn’t be allowing the solar cell factories in California to outsource wafer fab to China.
Have you seen some of the names in zero administration soon it will sound American :)
It is possible that it prevented a war or wars, since it is not to their benefit to attack their major trading partner, and better to their interests they sit back and watch us financially mismanage ourselves into economic oblivion.
The traitors who benefited from our selling out our industrial base and pushing the "service economy" should get the blame they deserve. It has cost our workers, jobs and our investors, capital. We are approaching a point that we will be unable to change course, even if we could agree on a direction to take. Obama is an accelerator to this dismal condition and is totally clueless, corrupt and incompetent.
How is China wrong in watching out of it’s OWN NATIONAL SELF INTERESTS? Isn’t that what responsible nations are supposed to be doing????
Exactly how different is that from what the British position has been for centuries?
” whether it is enforcing its zero tolerance policy on drug abuse or refusing to cooperate with global efforts to reduce carbon emissions. “
And that is bad how?
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...
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.
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.
Thanks for your gracious response. I agreed with your additional comments BTW. Right on IMO.
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.
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.