Chinese General Threatens U.S. Over Taiwan

Yes but they were doing alright with a mostly public transportation system. The increased use of resources is probably balanced by an increasing difficulty in controlling, forming and restraining public opinion and movements. China could survive a more democratic system, the Indians do, somehow, but they just don't have a good record at it.

It's silly to get into the semantics of "what a superpower is". By your definition, even the US isn't technically a superpower. This is good enough for me:

"A powerful and influential nation, especially a nuclear power that dominates its allies or client states in an international power bloc."

or

"a state powerful enough to influence events throughout the world"

USSR exerted plenty of power elsewhere, and could have been much worse had it not been in competition. Anyway we're basically arguing an opinion--mine is that the Soviets were a superpower at the time.

The genocide thing with Japan, what you say may have been the case (I've heard otherwise somewhere), but we can at least say that Japan was excessively aggressive and a major nuisance to the entire area. From a common sense approach, we're not going to put up economic barriers and damage our own economy unless we have some kind of decent reason for doing so. I don't know all the primary reasons given at the time but there's gotta be some.

We agree on the other stuff. I was afraid that some of the arguments you were making were going to lead to the old "the Cold War was better" thing, because asserting that the USSR wasn't a major threat is the first step in making that tired argument.

I agree China (and DPRK) are worse opponents, for various reasons, but given the spread of democratic ideas, capitalism, and the export of "Western" culture, I think they'll eventually weaken.

We've barely even started on that road yet, I think that's why it looks tough. I'm sure it looked tough in the 40's and 50's too. It took decades to happen the first time, it'll probably take as long or longer to happen again...but I think those types of governments are on a limited time span.

"My definition" of a superpower is the definition created and/or accepted by the U.S. Department of State, NATO, the United Nations, the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations, the Fletcher School of Diplomacy, the JFK School of Government, etc., etc., etc. Did you think I had the cojones to make it up myself and toss it at you? Heh, thank you for the compliment, but no, I can't accept credit; I'm not influential, famous, or powerful.

A question of semantics? No. The kind of common definition that people can generally agree on so that the discussion can proceed beyond throwing the word "semantics" around.

The Soviet Union was never a superpower. For the reasons stated. Good enough for me.

And I didn't say I thought the Chinese or North Korea were "worse" than the old Soviet Union. Just the opposite, for reasons relating to strategic force (relative to North Korea), and general incompetence and irrationality (relative to China).

Nor did I defend Japan. I only said that U.S. economic policies regarding that nation allowed them to convince themselves that they were justified in creating an irrational plan for conquest along the eastern Pacific rim in the 1930s.

As I understand it, that was one factor: problems with Siberian oil production and the inability to acquire oil from foreign sources without overspending Soviet stocks of US currency partly catalyzed the crisis over a more serious issue - the inability of the Soviet economy to maintain civil and military infrastructure and maintain a slow rise in the public standard of living. Food was another area with similar issues. And over everything was the increasing ability of increasingly aware and educated Soviet citizens to "communicate" with the West, and thus compare their lives - almost always with negative results.

Opium. Why do you think we invaded Afghanistan?

Or we could sell fireworks and imitation porcelain to China.

Funny how we the US owe every one else now. What happened to all the money the US spent on WW1 and WW2 to help out others? Then what happened to all the rebuilding cost the US spent to help them all out? Oh ya we forgave the doubt. Maybe it’s time to go back to France and them and say hand it over!

Aside from the sheer satisfaction of having returned a favor and dragged their collective asses out of the fire, twice now, there are the aspects of being called an indian giver (is that term even politically correct these days? Considering all the times we gave the Indians their own land and then took it away from them it should be...) plus the fact that France is having a very tough time themselves, financially.

Well, we helped ourselves as well.

The simple fact is that we spend more money than we take in. Someone has to finance that debt.

Yes, we should go to other countries and demand "do overs" instead of the obvious soluton of spending less and taking.

Hooray for tax cuts and increased government spending. Fiscal conservatism rocks!

Now, now. You're not allowed to criticize government spending if it's for National Security (that includes giveaway leases of wilderness areas to multinational oil conglomerates, BTW).

You're only allowed to criticize spending if it, you know, actually HELPS people.

Don't make me call the thought police on you.

I agree we should spend less. The problem is if we did spend less then places like China would make less. Then you end up with a problem because they will want the money that we are in debut to them too. Also France is not the only one. We also did allot for China and have gotten back none of it and ended with nothing but problems. Ha and why not stop and ask Israel to pay for the weapons we sell them.. Oh wait they do with the aid we send them. Lets see give money then get it back to sell weapons. So really we are just giving them weapons. Time to pay up people. US is not the only place living out side it’s means. Maybe we should stop helping others and start paying our bills and then after our house is clean then maybe help others.

PS I am for the Tax cuts.......After all I got them and I needed the money.

US Aid to foreign countries is an embarassingly small portion of our budget. Ending it would have no significant impact on the deficit, but might well destabilize sizable portions of the world (leading, no doubt, to further massive expenditures for preemptive 'defense').

The trade deficit is an issue parallel to, but seperate from, the Federal budget deficit.

First if we owe people money and we are giving aid then that is the true embarrassment. If you owe me money and your giving money to charity I would be pissed. Give me the money then maybe I could up my charity.

More things are Charity then we know of.

We well weapons at 1/2 cost to Israel. Lets cut there Aid and then make them buy the weapons at full price.
We pay farmers not to farm then we buy other grains to give to humanitarian aid. Why not pay the farmers to farm and take there grains and send them to humanitarian aid? We always talking about how much more food they need. How many US acres are paid by the government not to farm?

Problem is the US government has a 75% over head.

The trade deficit could be helped if we stopped buying forin oil and started to use our own. Why is it ok to Oil Drill in the middle east but not ok to drill in the US? Don’t say wild life because the desert has allot of wild life.

That may well be, but show me a more benevolent country than the USA.

Interesting analogy. I don't think it's quite that simple, though. In diplomatic terms, one can rest assured that every gift comes with strings attached.

Anyhoo, if the US were in a true financial crisis, do you even remotely expect that the favor would ever be returned? I highly doubt it. There's also such a thing as looking a gift horse in the mouth.

Since this thread has strayed a bit.
----------
As far as the Marshal Plan - It paid for itself , really

US business reaped huge rewards both from helping in reconstruction directly in terms of machinery contracting, consulting.

And for the fact that we had markets for all our goods , there was a Post War Boom in part directly related to this.

-------
Yes Japan invading China was a good reason to cut exports, however I didnt want to go into the specifics.

--------
The US meets the defitnition of Super Power Seth Provided.

However by the older definition of Super Power the USSR definitely Fit. Remember it dominated MANY countires in Eastern Europe and had ideological (thanks largely to weapons exports) ties to many more countires around the world.

And even though their military wasnt as advanced as ours, there really wasnt any country in the world who came close to them except the US

The whole concept of Super Powers didnt exist until after World War 2 when people looked at how much more powerful the USSR and USA were compared to the other undefeated powers.

Since the whole term arrose to describe these two nations , simply redefining it so the USSR didnt fit the definintion is a pretty interesting attempt to deny its place in Cold War history.
-------------

Now then more about China - Its probably inevitable they will get Taiwan back - I think the most the US will be able to do is negotiate a way it is as painless as possible for the people who live there.

I dont think either side will let it get to the point of war.

I also think China being careless in their testing does not mean they will be so callous about using nuclear weapons. US testing in the late 40's early 50's was similair to what was described. There was even testing with soldiers in reasonable proximity to the weapon.

Even the generals comments seem to mainly say if the US tries to use advantage of its more advanced military technology, China will be forced to use nuclear weapons.

Theres a lot of people in the world very concerned with how quickly the US was able to take over Iraq (to the extent it did) with such a small force.

China being a rival of course needs some way to posture against this since they like saber rattling diplomacy when it comes to Taiwan.

In terms of raw dollars allocated, Japan beat out the U.S. for more than a decade, although the U.S. has recently regained the top spot. This was during a period that Japan had its own economic woes.

As a percentage of gross national product, the U.S. is way down the list. We gave less than .2%. Norway gives almost five times as much by this measure.

Interestingly, Americans who were polled on the question estimated that the U.S. spends about 24% of the Federal budget on foreign aid. The actual figure is less than one percent.

On an individual level, think of it this way: you can stop dropping donations at the poor box on the pretext that you have a big mortgage, but it's not going to have a big impact on your mortgage. It will, however, matter to the people who go hungry because of your decision.

None of which has a direct impact on China and Taiwan... but having a positive image among the international community strengthens our position when we take a stand on any given issue.

Big mortgage idea.

You owe a 1K a month mortgage.
Your Monthly income is $4,500 after tax.
You normally give $45 poor box a month (1%)
In 22 months if you stopped spending money in the poor box you will have one payment. This may not look like allot but on a 30 year mortgage and interest it will help. A 30 year mortgage is paid out in 360 months. That means you will have paid off your mortgage 1 year earlier not counting the interest (360/22= 16.36). Did it do nothing for you? I would say it did allot.

If your mortgage is 2k it is half that but that still puts you at 8 months faster pay out.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930884.html
Per Capita Foreign Aid Assistance
by World's Wealthiest Countries, 2002


government aid Per capita private giving
Australia14¢3¢Austria182Belgium282Canada172Denmark641Finland241France251Greece70.1Germany183Ireland286Italy110.2
Japan 20¢ 0.4¢
Netherlands574New Zealand81Norway1.0224Portugal90.1Spain111Sweden611Switzerland357United Kingdom232
United States 13 5

Source: © Center for Global Development and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. From “Ranking the Rich,” Foreign Policy, May/June 2004. Reprinted with permission.

I count that as insignificant over the span of thirty years, if the money went to a worthwhile cause.

And the poor box may be a poor metaphor. It's more like a neighborhood renovation drive that doesn't just help poorer residents, but makes the community more livable, economically stable and safe for everybody... and coincidentally pushes up your property value, which may make that mortgage a better investment.

1% of your income going any place other then your mortgage is a bad if you want to pay it off faster. Paying off China faster could put the US on better standing with China. This could prevent a war or at least helping stop one. We need to start looking out for number one, our self. If we owe money we should start paying it off before we give money to others. If I were China and you were the US I would be pissed every time I seen you give money to Mexico or Africa or were ever.

As for helping out to make your investments better I agree home not abroad and only after you got your house in order. If your community was better off then I agree. Our community would be Mexico, Canada, Cuba, and the other North American Countries (They would be like the people in your town). Then I can see South American countries (This could be your township). Then Europe and Asia (surrounding towns) then last Africa and Australia (This would be your County).

How many people have a 2k mortgage with a take home of $4,500? Most mortgage complains want you to be below 1/3 your take home. That would only be $1,500 so below as I listed would be 16 months not the 8. Even at the mean of 12 is still a year. That is still interest. Interest on $18,000 on a rate of 6% is $1,080 just for one year. You man not think that is significant but I can use the extra money from a faster pay out of 12 months. If your that rich then tell you what, you send your money out to were ever and give me the money back so I can get my bills paid.

We need to stop looking out for number one quite so much and realize that the whole planet is in this together.

But I see we're not going to find any answers here, and it's tangental to the thread, so I'm not going to argue the point further.

No really it is inline with the topic at hand. If we were to have been paying out that 1% humanitarian aid to China for pay back then we can hold it over them. Invade and we stop paying you and we go to war with you. Part of our cease fire agreement will be forgiveness of pass doubt we owe you. Now what do we really have to hold over there head? Don’t go to war or we will not pay you what you are not paying you now. Looking out for our self in this would be paying our bills. By paying our bills we can use that to help others keep safe by holding it over the bill collectors head.

I could be wrong, but I don't think the U.S. government is in default on any portion of our debt. Federal government debt is financed with government securities, and those securities tend to be an attractive investment -- not for their return, but for their extremely low risk. When you buy certain Treasury bonds, for example, you're essentially lending money to the government. The return is not great, but your capital is about as safe as it can get with any investment.

If China went to war with the U.S. over Taiwan, quite apart from the possibility of a nuclear exchange, they strike a crippling blow to their own economic future. I find it unlikely that the party bosses in Beijing would miscalculate that badly.