Hey all,

Something we all need to be aware of for the upcoming elections, imo. Bush's idea of a New World Order involves a very long process of dismantling religious fanaticism around the globe, something I might post about later. But to make a long story short:

 

Some believe that the PRC is the sustainer and provider of religious fanaticism around the globe today. The arguments are involved, but evidence of the PRC supporting violent extremists around the globe to undermine U.S. foregin policy is aplenty. What do you think?

 

This was published on my blog and can be read there as well.

The CFR is today reporting that the U.S. will be re-orienting its military posture as the wars of the last decade "come to a close"; something I was not aware was happening. But if you know anything about who the people are who are discussing this, its a done deal and that is where USG foreign policy is almost certainly headed, in my narrow opinion, the 2012 Presidential Clown election notwithstanding.

This is a sad day for me. I am witnessing the slow motion decline of my country as the world's greatest economic and military power. This re-orientation is, as is always the case with nations in decline, driven by economic reality: The U.S. can no longer spend like it used to. The size of the U.S. economy, ceteris paribus, is drawing downward as the PRC rises to global prominence.

And the New World Order described by George Bush, Senior - as opposed ot the conspiracy version - requires that we deal with the PRC directly, as they are the ringleader of resistance to this agenda. Leading a pack of resistance to U.S. and western global hegemony, China is the linchpin behind the ability of countries like Russia, Iran, Venezuela and Brazil to buck the New World Order.

It is the economy of the PRC that allows these countries to withstand sanctions and harrassment from the west. The PRC provides both the production and the consumption to keep this small cabal of international resistance breathing ... indeed, doing quite well. While the west is in economic decline, the "resistance" is doing surprisingly well and getting better economically. We'll see where that goes.

I've postedthe USG's DoD Quadrennial Review that CFR is referencing, which is apparently the "cheaper" military USG is now going to build out.

- kk

Tags: asia, fanaticism, geopolitics, global, hegemony, religious

Views: 116

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hey all - btw, that link to the cfr article is wrong. Try here, sorry. -kk

Hi Kir, I'm hoping that one day I'll understand what your'e on about lol. Can you make this simpler so I can get some sort of grasp as to what you're on about? or should i just leave it well alone?

regards

Bob

Hey Bob,

 

... what your'e on about ...

 

I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with that idiom. But I'm guessing you mean "what am I talking about"?

 

Basically, China and the United States are engaged in a de facto competition to be the dominant economic, global power. So, both nations play the world against each other as much as they can. China trades very heavily with the very countries the United States seems to think of as "rogue"; Iran, Russia, Brazil, Venezuela, etc. And geopolitically it makes sense because the U.S. wants to undermine China's economic progress.

 

China, on the other hand, wants to do the same to the U.S.by upsetting and frustrating the U.S. access to petroleum, for one thing, and the U.S. attempts to destabilize or invade countries China needs for trade. What the general public doesn't really realize is that most of the geopolitics in the world today revolve around the U.S.- China competition; much like it did between the U.S. and the USSR during the cold war. All this talk about "terrorism", "Iran's nuclear weapons", "spreading democracy" and even "climate change" is intricately linked into all of this.

 

So, one of China's tactics is to support radical religious sects around the globe. Islam happens to be a good one and they've used it to great effect. The PRC supported the "enemy" in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and in virtually every place where the U.S. has tried to seize control of petroleum or any of China's big trading partners the U.S. has tried to destabilize and undermine.

 

When you understand what is really going on all the world events make much more sense and the big picture is much clearer. So, the U.S. moving its military focus to Asia is necessary (and has been but the U.S. couldn't do so because it was over extended elsewhere) to challenge China's growing influence there. That's what the quadrennial review was all about.

 

- kk

Hi Kir are you a professor ? if so I'm well out of my depths. Rand was talking about Individualism regardless of countries or states. So far since 1957 her "prophesies" have been coming true.Have you seen All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace? Brilliant 3 part documentary on Ayn Rand

Hey Bob,

 

No, I haven't seen that documentary. I'll search on youtube, thanks.

 

- kk

The "Asian Pivot" and the move away from COIN is directly related to the failure of the two recent wars, economic realities, Chinese naval expansionism, as well as the application of Mearsheiman hard realism to foreign policy. Presumably the first two is well known to most, but let me expand a bit on the two latter points.

It was generally accepted that China had hegemony of land forces in the far east, with Vietnamese/Korean/Russian/Indian checks on its borders, while the US maintained the naval aspect. China is now aggressively expanding its naval capabilities, as evidenced by the recent "cruise-by" of a US warship by a Chinese destroyer, Sino claims on islands in the Chinese seas, and the kerfuffle around the Chinese trawler brought up y the JDF. This bleeds into the second point regarding the very influential book The Tragedy by John Mearsheimer, in which he proposes a shift in US foreign policy from neo-con moral interventionism to regional power balancing. In effect, this means that the US with its East Asian friends and allies ensures that Chinese imperialism is checked before it has a chance to get underway, thus avoiding a major confrontation down the road.

It's all a lot less scary sounding if you dig into the material. The goal is for the US to be a regional "police force" and to ensure that no country in the region becomes expansionist, which is certainly a feature of current Chinese politics, and will increase exponentially when the CCP starts losing grip on power.

Hey Arcus,

Great post, thanks,

It's all a lot less scary sounding if you dig into the material

I, for one, don't think the PRC's economic ascendency is durable. It leaves me in a minority, but it is a rapidly growing minority of very smart folks; so I guess I'm in good company :-) Anyway, China has deep social, cultural, demographic and political liabilities that are only just now about to come to the fore. I don't want to discount the PRC, but I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid on this view, either, My greater concern has to do with the survival of some of the core Madisonian and Hamiltonian principles of government. I hope a decline of the U.S. doesn't marginalize it.

- kk

As I have understood Madison and Hamilton their major concern was that the US didn't go on moral crusades against enemies, but ensured that it's military would only ensure operations strictly related to domestic security. Essentially, they were a type of isolationists favoring neutrality. Firstly, you are aware that the US had two recent and quite bad experiences with a strong pursuit in this direction (Wilson, Roosevelt II)?

However, the Asian Pivot can easily be reinterpreted as an extension of this idea of maximum isolationism within a realist framework as applied on the current state of affairs. US presence tends to act as a stabilizing force in areas it deploys forces. A stable state of affairs is to be preferred, and is also historically proven to reduce tensions. This why it's called off-shore balancing: Even a small US force weighs heavily, which is good since China is a heavyweight. A bit of a modern version of the Monroe Doctrine covering the world to replace the Carter and Bush doctrines.

That's not drinking the kool-aid, it's just logical.

I've thought for years that too many people were announcing that China will be in charge of everything without understanding the major problems facing China and the possiblity that it will implode at some point. Yes China is a force to be watched and respected but we have to be careful not to give it more credit then is due when it comes to it's economic rise. It's not going to be this all powerful force like some like to shout at the top of their lungs like the guys on the corner talking about end of the world. If trends hold the real estate bubble in China will pop and all of the other issues will continue to surface like the coming major population decline , resource shortfalls, the rumbling demands for civil liberties and of course the higher wage demands from its working class. In any case the U.S should have been putting more focus on Asia to start with and it's good to see some common sense in it's planning now in relation to Asia.

I agree, at least the last 5 years or so it has become more prominent. It resembles the fear mongering surrounding Japan's rise in the eighties. China will most likely slow down rapidly at the end of the decade at the latest, or before if a major bubble pops..

However, potential lack of stability later is not exactly an argument againstUS presence, rather the opposite.

Hi thanks Kir it makes a little more sense to me now.but not a lot. Why would a communist/Atheist country need to use religion to procure anything? It makes no sense to me. Ayn Rand has already predicted this is not going to happen because there's simply no point. 

regards

Bob

Hey Bob,

 

Oh, no, that's not what I meant. What I'm saying is that countries like the PRC will *use* religion to further their geopolitical objectives. One of those might be to frustrate U.S. geopolitical goals in places, like say, Iraq. In fact, the PRC has supplied weapons and materiel to rebels in Iraq fighting against the U.S, for example. The PRC doesn't care what the religion believes or whatever.

 

- kk

RSS

Forum

The Elephant in the Room...

Started by Belle Rose in Small Talk. Last reply by Kairan Nierde 2 hours ago. 23 Replies

Calling All Vaginas!

Started by Pope Beanie in Small Talk 4 hours ago. 0 Replies

A relapse.....

Started by Belle Rose in Small Talk. Last reply by Belle Rose 5 hours ago. 4 Replies

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service