Comments on: Bump: China Tops Iraq, Osama in QDR

By: Justin

Justin — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 08:36:43 +0000

Not in the short term, but in the medium and long term China does pose the biggest threat to America. If you deny this fact you probably would have liked British PM Chamberlin.

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 08:30:10 +0000

“Too bad, even with this military supremacy, the precious lives of its soldiers are being wasted every day. So what price glory of being the strongest country in the world? China? It is just happy being the strongest economic country in the world.“
Uh, the United States is the “strongest economic country in the world” by fairly well any measure, the canard of Chinese holdings of U.S. treasury debt notwithstanding. I’m unaware of any way in which a nation with 1/7th our GDP and whose annual GDP growth measures less than its trade surplus with us is “economically stronger” on the world stage than are we.

By: C-Low

C-Low — Fri, 03 Feb 2006 22:19:42 +0000

Those gold platted systems maybe over kill in a gorilla war. After all a propeller plane can do close air support better than a jet if your enemies main anti-air weapon is a RPG. And those gold platted stealthily ships are way over kill against some 3rd world junk.
The problem is that those non-gold platted systems can fight the gorilla war just fine but IF we have to fight the big war you cant just pop out those gold platted systems immediately and in the mean time you pay drastic prices in BLOOD maybe even lose.
We can afford some overkill in the small wars it dont change the outcome maybe yes some up armoring in the middle that is doable and hurts but wont cost the War. We cant afford not to be prepared in the big war the consequences there are too great. I am not willing to gamble US lives like that nor would I support any leader who is.
I find it ironic that most people who now cry about better amour better this or that more troops are the same who during peace time cry we dont need more troops we dont need more money for the military, better spent for this or that social program, and then best is in the future they are the ones that would cry about how we dont have those gold platted systems in the middle of that big war.
You cant just prepare for today or just tomorrow its a balance.

By: Louie

Louie — Fri, 03 Feb 2006 19:03:31 +0000

I agree with Kelleyb we need to push for alternate fuel sources. Right now whether we like it or not we are at the mercy of opec and any other country that gives port to our tankers or processes crude. We have reserves and we have our own natural petroleum resources that are yet untapped but they will only last for so long. Our country was founded by people wanting freedom and independence so why should we give so much power over our countrys economy and well being to radicals who would love nothing more than to see our nation and the freedoms we believe in fall. Most of Henry Fords vehicles originally ran on alcohol a renewable resource farmers could produce themselves. Many vehicles can be converted with minimum modifications to run on alcohol and we can stop paying our farmers NOT to grow crops. I dont want to sound like an isolationist but we must secure our countrys needs so when the inevitable happens i.e. opec raises prices or worse cuts us off we do not go into a spiral and crash.

By: Edward Liu

Edward Liu — Fri, 03 Feb 2006 15:01:12 +0000

"Too bad, even with this military supremacy, the precious lives of its soldiers are being wasted every day. So what price glory of being the strongest country in the world? China? It is just happy being the strongest economic country in the world." Why don't you ask a Taiwanese citizen what they think of your assessment of what China will be happy with? If you were to ask me, I think there is some merit in building systems to deter China because the Taiwan issue is only a step or two away from a Cuban Missile Crisis-sized event, if not an outright shooting war. It's lasted as long as it has because both sides can't/won't lose face over it. This stupid obsession on both sides is keeping anyone from putting the pin back in the grenade. Get one successful, public nuclear test in North Korea followed by a Taiwan announcement that it's going to start up a nuke program for self defense, and I guarantee you that China will start a shooting war, justifying it with the same claims of pre-emption that Bush used to invade Iraq. Should such a war happen, America will be left with the choices of going to war with China, or standing on the sidelines and saying, "Please stop" as a totalitarian country steamrollers over one of the only reasonably functional democracies in the region. Mind you, I'm still upset about the choices being made in the QDR. I haven't seen the QDR or any critiques of it even mention Taiwan when it's a much more justifiable reason to deter China than, "Boy, we better look a lot bigger before they get any funny ideas." It's another failure of American policy makers (such as they are) to actually understand policy beyond our own borders. To be fair, it's possible that this IS the real reason for the China deterrence clauses in the QDR but it's politically untenable to say so. Frankly, I don't give the suits that much credit. If I did, I'd think they'd also find a less openly antagonistic way to say it. In addition, I'm not entirely convinced that current American forces aren't a sufficient deterrent to China. For that matter, I'm not sure that all the deterrence in the world will matter if it reaches that point -- see above about the Chinese obsession about losing face. I'm also not sure whether assessments of Chinese capabilities aren't being overblown to justify big-budget pet projects, as some assessments of the Soviet threat were used during the Cold War. I still see the QDR as the triumph of gold-plated projects like the F-22, and lip service to the war on terror that's not backed up by money. I think it's far more concerned about lobbyists, corporations, and money than the success and well-being of our soldiers or of the role the military plays in American foreign policy. It may have a China deterrence policy in place, but I think it's for entirely the wrong reasons.

By: WING

WING — Fri, 03 Feb 2006 02:51:09 +0000

Couldn’t understand how China could post any threat to the U.S. as the U.S. has the largest stockpile of the latest weapons in the world and can bomb any country to hell like it has been doing in Iraq. China can never reach that level of supremacy. Not now, not ever.
Too bad, even with this military supremacy, the precious lives of its soldiers are being wasted every day. So what price glory of being the strongest country in the world? China? It is just happy being the strongest economic country in the world.

By: ddjango

ddjango — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 18:28:39 +0000

I know longer believe that the Bush admin wants to win wars — it only wishes to keep fighting them. The spectre of the “next threat” keeps people scared and supports a “strong security” stance … and the existence of continuous war makes them money. Our military has been stolen by cynical thieves.

By: Josh

Josh — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 06:28:32 +0000

Many don’t seem to know what kind of military we have. The United states Armed forces is the greatest in the world. I feel pity on the fools who dare attack us. I feel pity for the fools who do not believe that we can take care of the threats to national security some countries pose. I feel it is our own fault that China is building as much as they are now. Look at everything you buy now days. Made in China on just about everything. I am willing to pay more to support the economy of my country

By: kelley b.

kelley b. — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 02:57:27 +0000

You want to defend the United States?
Spend a few hundred million– a fraction of the cost of a week in Iraq– on the development of alternative hydrocarbon development.
Invest in the bioengineering of organisms that couple sunlight to renewable energy production.
Do that and take away the oil money that bankrolls the terrorism.
Do that and remove the competition with China for dwindling fuel supplies in the years to come.

By: Alfred

Alfred — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 02:27:15 +0000

I hope that is just trying to put a political front. If there was a battle between our forces and China’s during the Iraqi occupation. We would lose.
Very likely we would lose if not in Iraq either. China was a very large threat during the cold war. They are not any less now.
Really though the best hope is that the capitilist system they are working with is introduced through out the entire country. It might take some time but it would be better for both sides.