Paul Craig Roberts penned an editorial linked below on the...

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

Poll question: Paul Craig Roberts penned an editorial linked below on the...

...new Russian-Chinese military alliance he maintains to be the result of U.S. hegemony. My question is: Are you glad to see the development of this alliance at least to the degree that it might effectively place a check on U.S. military misadventures in the Middle East and elsewhere?

And secondly, do you believe it is the patriotic duty of U.S. citizens to discourage our young men and women from enlisting in the U.S. armed forces as long as they continue to be so badly misused by BushCo?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

US Hegemony Spawns Russian-Chinese Military Alliance
By Paul Craig Roberts
Online Journal Guest Writer

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2287.shtml

[Meldread]

1. Oh shit....

...this isn't good at all.

This is some scary stuff. The Chinese are already threatening to fuck us over economically.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/08/07/bcnchina107a.xml

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

2. How would you look at the situation if you were...

...China's leadership? Wouldn't you think such an alliance prudent in view of BushCo's militarism?

[Meldread]

3. Well I don't think Bush would attack China.

After all, unless China suddenly comes up with more oil than the Middle East there is nothing there for the Bushies. The only way we could win against China would be with nuclear weapons, which they also have, and frankly I think the Bushies want to live as long as possible to enjoy the money that they've fleeced from the country.

Really, no matter how bad you think things are you can't honestly believe that this is a good thing. If anything, it will make the situation much worse. It will provoke Bush to swagger out and make some idiotic statements about ensuring that the Chinese and Russians will know "justice" for their actions...

Do you honestly want to see us all killed in a nuclear war?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

4. BushCo is trying to get control of world...

...oil resources and I don't think it's reasonable to expect China or Russia (being big oil consumers themselves) to sit still for it -- the international community at large shouldn't sit still for it.

They will build a coalition and isolate us and Israel over time if they have to -- I think this is the direction we're already headed -- they don't trust us at all, and they're right not to.

I certainly hope we will never see use of nuclear weapons by again.

[Meldread]

6. It is still not something to hope for of see as a good thing.

No matter how much you hate Bush, no matter what evils he commits, what happens here between these countries effects real living people. All of them are innocent of any crimes. China isn't a saint, nor is Russia. They aren't great saviors. They have just as much blood on their hands as the United States. It isn't wise to believe that they are doing this to stop us, they are doing this for their own benefit.

The problem that many people do not understand is that we're in a much larger struggle. As the worlds natural resources dwindle getting to them becomes more and more competitive. China and Russia both want those resources just as much as the United States. Innocent people, millions of them, are going to suffer in the process.

China and Russia are not some great saviors or equalizers of power. Their motives are just as sinister and dark as the United States. To look at one side and think it is somehow morally superior than the other is to not understand the big picture.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

7. Agreed. I'm not hoping for armed conflict...

...between the U.S. and anyone -- I'm hoping this new alliance will serve as a deterrent for BushCo.

China and Russia have worse human rights records than we do -- I'm by no means trying to place a white hat on either one.

[Meldread]

8. I know. It as a blanket statement.

It was mostly aimed at people I know who are cheering this sort of action.

The thing is, it won't be a deterrent to Bush, and really it isn't Bush who is driving this foreign policy. It is a policy based on America's need for energy, and the same is true for the other nations involved. Just as China continues to grow so does their thirst for energy and oil. The same for India. Russia has a good amount of oil but that still doesn't mean they aren't interested in the geopolitical landscape.

What I think we are going to end up seeing are the military powers of the world marching down into relatively weak and poor nations and occupying them. It is similar to how we've done with Iraq, but some of these nations tend to be dictatorships. The nations (China, Russia, the United States) who have large militaries also have large bank accounts. They can pay and prop up the dictators who suppress the people, while having their military guard oil pipelines and drilling sites. This is what the United States was going for in Iraq - a weak democratic government that they could bully around while they rape the resources of the country. It would have been successful as well had it not been horribly mismanaged, and had it been successful you would see lots of people - on the right and on the left - cheering over its success.

Ultimately, as resources grow even more scarce armed conflict grows more and more likely. The only real hope we have is to find a way to completely meet our energy needs without relying on oil. Currently the alternatives simply are not good enough to match.

[Donna Zen]

5. The strategic framework

Our foreign pollicy is currently being crafted by the military through the strategic framework. The framework is also determined by economic interests. All of this bad.

When we buy weapons systems, place bases, or anyone of a number of elements that effect our military posture, we send signals to the rest of the world and they react. Our current posture reflects the dated thinking of the Great Game theory, and thus, it sets the tone of our foreign policy. That policy is based on Long War thinking, a war that ends with China. "The country with the most oil wins the war."

China and Russia are responding.

All of this is wrong-headed, but the old thinking foreign policy buffs inhabit both sides of the aisle. There are new thinkers in foreign policy, those that reside far away from the CFP in NYC and did not shill for the Iraq War. It is important to look within any candidate's team to look for some saner minds.