China Replies To Bush Space Grab
In a message aimed directly at the United States, China has destroyed one of it’s own satellites with a ballistic missile. When asked about the test, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said only that, “China will not participate in any kind of arms race in outer space.”
China denies any intentions to develop space weapons, and has criticized the U.S. for experimenting with space-based missile defense.
Both Russia and China have called for a treaty to ban space weapons, but this has had no effect on the Bush administration’s determination to both retain and extend America’s hegemony in that area.
Even though China denies that this is anything more than a defensive step, both analysts and politicians in Washington take a completely different view of the situation. In their eyes, it is a move that signals a clear threat to American global dominance, and possibly an arms race into the future.
What will the Cowboy Administration do? With 2 wars already being fought, and noises being made about starting another in Iran, how many enemies can we afford to cultivate? Especially when those other wars are being paid for with Chinese money?
Of course, China is a far more insidious and realistic foe right now than those other, less well equipped enemies, but can we really afford open hostilities with them? They own our economy; a radical break without the ability to manufacture anything for ourselves could be catastrophic. If it were to occur, we would certainly know what hardship means.
There are 6 Comments to "China Replies To Bush Space Grab"
Uh-oh, Bush whatcha gonna do? China just gave you a wedgie and hung you on the flag pole, just after you step on stage with your cowboy boots, proclaiming that you own space, and we have te right to bring our pistols too, if anyone doesn’t like it.
Maybe not signing that space weapon ban, wasn’t the best idea, then again not like you knew this was going to happen, abit like that kyoto treaty, about that so called “global warming”, right?
Oh well, if your gonna give a truces talk a chance, suck it up, and except your not going to be the only cowboy…
The old-timers who run and advise the Bush administration desperately want and need another cold war. They chose the “Islamic Terrorists” because they were a convenient enemy. They also had a ready-made excuse with 9/11. But China, as a rising superpower, would be even better. And they deal with the Muslims.
Bush isn’t about to make truces, sign treaties, or even have talks with other countries so long as he feels he can intimidate them.
Is he open to actual war with China? Probably not, as it would interfere with his vision of a “New World Order” in which big business, not national affiliation, calls the shots and makes the rules. But you never know with Bush–especially since he doesn’t have to run for reelection.
The “cold war” with China has been coming for a long time. They’re not building up their blue water navy for nothing. Whether it ever will be a shooting war is open to question. I think not. Of course, don’t forget the powder keg that is Taiwan. North Korea, a Chinese client state, is another possible flash point, especially if China loses some control.
Look for China to be a more obviously fascist state (meaning an aggressive combination of nationalism and socialism and not necessarily Nazism) with a desire to enforce their own hegemony on the region. The reactions of India and Japan, two U.S. allies with their own regional ambitions, will be interesting.
China is notorious for discriminating against their ethnic minorities. The largely Muslim population in the west is suffering.
Interesting that you should refer to China as a fascist state, since communist countries are usually viewed as the antithesis of fascism. However, Mussolini regarded fascism as nationalism driven by corporatism, and China certainly meets that criteria.
Japan and South Korea still rely on the U.S. for their defense, as does Taiwan. What would America do should China threaten one of these allies? Probably only Taiwan is at risk, and my belief is that we would do a lot of posturing and threatening, and then cave in.
Although I doubt that we would have a great deal of trouble with their conventional forces in an equal contest, it must be remembered that China has an enormously larger population base to call on. It would be a long and costly war unless somebody was stupid enough to go nuclear, in which case it would be short and costly.
In any case, I doubt if either the U.S. or China is anxious to get into a shooting war with the other.
I had not previously heard of the Muslim bias. Thanks for the info.
Fascism vs. Communism is the battle of the red ants vs. the brown ants. Their bitter antipathy results from their recruitment from the same basic population profile. They are both merely flavors of totalitarianism. Nazism was iself a kind of fascism.
They may recruit from the same group, but the end result is no different than that of any other political system gone bad; those at the top of the pile lord it over those at the bottom. Even Democracy recruits from this group. The basic difference, it seems to me, is that in a Democracy the bottom-feeders are led to believe that they still wield some degree of say-so, even when its not true, while pure totalitarian governments make no pretense of such a practice.
Under Communism or Fascism, death and punishment comes swiftly, in Democracies, it is a slow, sure process–unless one has certain advantages such as birth, or intelligence, or inordinate ambition and drive. And none of these guarantees success, only advantage.
At this time in America, one is probably best off being a corporate servant, since these multinational conglomerates have more rights than actual citizens. Either you give up your life for power, you go to college and learn how to serve the rulers, or else you get shit on by the establishment.