So, I was late reading Ryan's post, but here's my thoughts:
Why does the fact that Jambo feels China is a greater threat than Iran mean that China must "attack" the US to have that threat realized?
China supplies weapons and materials to such nations as Iran, North Korea, Syria, Myanmar, and gave $28 million in aid and material to Hamas in Gaza just last year (source HERE). China's "economic" goals come in direct conflict with those of the US on an almost daily basis, and their policies and agendas are as antithetical to our own as we could hope to see now that the USSR is no more.
Just having China operate in a "busniess-as-usual" manner is a threat to US security and national interests... yet we should dismiss that threat as that much LESS than Iran's? All the world knows Iran is a dangerous variable in any international equation... but China is doing its damnedest to make the whole world dependant on IT as the primary consumer/producer/supplier to the world's addiction to cheap, plentiful crap, everything from TVs to clothing, and very soon, energy.
The USSR didn't have to launch ICBMs to be a threat that Reagan recognized when the rest of America didn't, nor did shots have to be fired across the Iron Curtain for that threat to be measurable and specific. What would constitute the same level of awareness here in the West in regards to China?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I wanted to add something here... before Ryan says I didn't read his post.
I know that China depends on US markets for much of its economic success, and that this dependency goes a long way to providing a degree of security to US interests, but I do not feel this means the "threat" posed is reduced at all.
If China depends on US markets, then US markets must depend on Chinese products and goods at established low prices, right? If suddenly, due to political reasons, these products fail to flow west from Chinese ports, then who suffers? Not China... since the US only accounts for 11% of their total national sales, where the US looks to China for as much as 39% of its non-durable goods and one-quarter of its textiles. This is the kind of trade imbalance that I feel negates the claim that we are "safe" from Chinese threats and influence as long as we keep and maintain the "status quo".
China will continue to work day and night to move herself into the role of "primary consumer/producer" for (at first) the far east markets, and then more and more of the global markets. This influence, economically and fiscally, constitute a clear and measurable threat to US interests.
In my eyes, anyway.
Post a Comment