Les Jones

WWIII. "The only thing we have to fear is...the technology we allowed them to steal so that they could produce it more cheaply."
If China, or Kim Jong Il, make the first move, it's a justification for US intervention. But, if they wait for the US or our allies (South Korea, Japan) to strike North Korea (and they REALLY want to), they can use that as a justification for invading Taiwan.
Whoever uses nukes first will be condemned by the international community (Europe and Russia) and they will take the side of whoever refrains from any retaliatory strikes. If they use any nukes, we win, because everyone on the planet who has them will take our side as soon as one goes off.

If they use any nukes, we win

I hope I never have to witness that sort of "victory." China is the big foreign policy problem of the 21st century. What will they do? They've always been somewhat opaque, but how does an evolving market economy change them? Now we have to deal with an inscrutable nation undergoing incrutable change. That's a hard nut to crack.

lobbygow: I know you're pretty moderate. You're somewhat liberal, but not a moonbat, and you've voted for Republicans at times. Want to make a little bet?

Liberals have villified China in many cases. Justifiable cases, I might add. China uses slave labor. China lords it over Tibet. If a US president - a Republican president - goes toe-to-toe with China militarily or otherwise I'm willing to bet the liberal opinion makers will rush to China's defense. The same people who are wearing "free Tibet" pins today will encourage the US to stay out of the way so that China can make Taiwan unfree.

That's exactly what happened with the Taliban. I knew all about the Taliban prior to 9/11 because Salon had articles about their treatment of women and their destruction of the icons of other religions. Post-9/11, Salon was too happy to equivocate on the Taliban once George Bush declared them as the enemy.

lobbygow: I know you're pretty moderate. You're somewhat liberal, but not a moonbat, and you've voted for Republicans at times. Want to make a little bet?

I'm a "liberal" in the classical sense of the word. A sense which is lost on modern audiences and I don't waste time defending the term anymore, since the label has been very efficiently redefined. So has "conservative," for that matter.

Whenever I take one of those nifty on-line tests concerning political orientation, I always score something like "libertarian left" or "leftist libertarian." Basically, I think it boils down to an anti-authoritarian personality who believes government can do some things better than individuals, but the government which governs "closest to the action," governs best. I don't believe centralized control works in the corporate or government arena. I prefer a common playbook and groundrules, but leave the play selection and execution to the team on the field.

But enough about me.

Let's talk about China.

I can almost guarantee that some contingent of what the Right labels "liberal" will defend China in the manner you suggest.

However, I also predict that many a corporatist will also rush to China's defense if they believe that the threat to the global economic web is greater through attacking China rather than letting them bully some other country.

Anyone who thinks Human Rights has anything to do with the tactical and strategic decisions that ALL nations make in this world is dreaming.

Machievelli had it right. Every nation is self-interested. The only debate is over how well they truly understand what serves their best interests and how effective they are at acting in service of those interests provided they know what they are. I think the U.S. still has plenty of power to do the latter, but if we fuck up on the former, it won't matter that we're doing the wrong thing quickly and efficiently.

Whew! Guess I'll do anything to avoid finishing this damn presentation I have to do tomorrow.

Wow. it's a very different view of China,haha