World War III: U.S. vs. China?

It took the onset of World War II to lift the world out of the Great Depression that began in 1929.

Ignore the historical hyperbole that claim Roosevelt’s “New Deal” had anything to do with it. It was war, plain and simple, that galvanized the U.S. manufacturing complex into debt-driven growth, and ended the period of stagnation following the economic contraction from 1929 to 34.

Bernanke’s theory is that the depression would have been averted had the Federal Reserve acted decisively and boosted liquidity - a theory he is now testing. At that time, the Fed was limited to how much liquidity it could inject by the fact that the available money supply had to be connected (at least partially) to the available gold on hand in U.S. reserves.

But scholars (to use the term loosely) agree – the advent of war was the end of the depression. War has since been recognized as good economic policy, and many U.S. administrations have embraced it as fundamental foreign policy.

I recently had a conversation with a senior Chinese government official who assured me that the Chinese observed the regime change machinations of the Bush administration with interest. He suggested that the precedents set by the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, and myriad other coups overt and covert have thoroughly established the expectation among democratic citizens that forcible regime change of irresponsible governments is an acceptable tool in the democratic arsenal.

That the United States deploys this tool indiscriminately does not pass un-noticed. To the Chinese strategic thinkers, it acts to condone future regime change strategies lurking within the long range plans of expansion-minded countries whose resources may be reaching critical shortages due to excessive population.

Notice that virtually no criticism was leveled by China against Bush’s contrived Weapons of Mass Destruction fallacy, and no interference with the subsequent attack on Saddam Hussein’s fiefdom was seen.

An interesting tidbit in the news over the last 24 hours demonstrates just how easily the pre-text for war can be manufactured.

Five Chinese vessels maneuvered dangerously close to a U. S. Navy ship in the South China Sea on Sunday, closing within eight metres of the unarmed surveillance ship, the Pentagon said.

"This was a reckless, dangerous maneuver that was unprofessional" and violated international law, said Defence Department spokesman Bryan Whitman. The United States protested to Chinese authorities in Beijing and to the defense attaché in Washington over the incident, which occurred in the South China Sea, about 120 kilometers south of Hainan Island.

A Republican lawmaker called the standoff a critical "early test" for President Barack Obama just weeks before he meets Chinese President Hu Jintao in April.

Far from a provocative act of war, the unwillingness of both China and the U.S. to admit any sort of wrong-doing over the incident demonstrates the battle of wills that lurks just under the surface of U.S. – China relations.

According to the Pentagon, the targeting of the Impeccable came at the end of several days in which Chinese naval vessels had been stepping up their harassment in international waters.

The Pentagon insisted the Impeccable was engaged in "routine" and legal operations in international waters.

"The Chinese navy pursues peace and safeguards the security of the country," navy deputy chief of staff Major General Zhang Deshun told China Daily. On most levels, war between two of the planet’s superpowers is unthinkable. Since both are armed to the teeth with the most sophisticated of weaponry, it is difficult to envision a traditional war, where one side sends troops over to physically subdue the other side.

And any idea of a nuclear exchange is clearly self-defeating for obvious reasons. Chemical warfare ditto. Biological? Not in this century.

The third world war, which is, in fact, underway, is being fought economically, as evidenced by Timothy Geithner’s first verbal blunder as Treasury Secretary, where he accused the Chinese of “currency manipulation”, referring to the suppression of the rise of the Yuan against the U.S. Dollar.

Considering U.S. suppression of gold over three decades to create the illusion of a strong U.S. dollar, this is a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black. But that is an entirely different set of cats to skin.

The bottom line is the Chinese, who are the largest foreign holders of United States Treasury Bills, have been underwriting U.S. economic growth for decades, and now hold billions in foreign reserves of a currency being diluted into fractions of its former worth. This monetary hyper-inflation has, in theory, the net effect of devaluing the U.S. dollar denominated foreign reserve holdings in tandem of China and every other holder of Treasurys.

It's like two cowboys each holding a gun with trigger cocked at the other guy’s head, both of them yelling at the other guy to “drop the gun”. The likelihood of a civilized resolution to such a scenario is just about as unthinkable as a nuclear world war.

China deliberately uses manipulation to maintain an undervalued currency. The need to create jobs for the sake of “social stability” has led them to adopt “export led growth strategies” based on an undervalued currency.

This equates to subsidizing its exports and foreign direct investment, and is essentially a tax on China’s imports.

The United States, on the other hand, actively manipulates the value of the United States dollar through the illegal and destructive manipulation of gold and precious metals futures markets, where there is such an accumulation of short interest, that it is inconceivable to think that those contracts will ever be covered by real gold. This amounts to an artificial premium on the United States dollar relative to other currencies, and acts ultimately as a tax on imports.

So the two largest economies are employing similar tactics to achieve identical goals. Both are failing, and the consequence is a global financial system in which confidence has been destroyed, currencies are impossible to value, and the only thing of real value (precious metals and other commodities) are twisting in the wind waiting for somebody to win the third world war.

Comments

[Dave Wrixon:]

Yes, thank God Bush is not in charge.

But one question. How the hell would the US Finance such an undertaking?

The other problem is that due to a complete abortion in the Foreign affairs field in recent years and because of split interests, the US would struggle to Britain on board as a ally (probably pay back time for Suez)let alone the rest of Europe. Russia and Japan would almost certainly side with China to protect their own interests, and the ever vital Middle East would be major stumbling block to the US strategic efforts.

Mar 12 04:44 AM

[untiringeagle:]

Great article and spot on. China has recently greatly increased it's defense budget by double digits and is expanding it's naval capabilities in recognition of the importance of maintaining control of shipping lanes and importance of projecting power to areas of strategic interest. They are also increasing strategic stockpiles of vital commodities like oil and bringing online further storage capacity. Given the enormous energy resources in Central and SW Asia and China's influence and self-interests going back to at least the old Silk Routes one can see a potential conflict over pipeline and distribution routes (google pre-Operation Enduring Freedom efforts by Unocal to negotiate pipleline thru Afghanistan and look at current alt route for NATO resupply thru Central Asia while routes thru Pakistan are temporarily disrupted). Don't be too certain the WWIII won't involve WMDs. This is just the preliminary testing and probing.

Mar 12 05:36 AM

[socrateazz:]

I really believe WWIII is enevitable. But I do not think it will be as conventional of a war as two super powers fighting each other. More likely it will be like Iraq on a global scale. The worlds millitary will overstreched fighting insurgent radicles that seem to come from everywhere and have no structure. Eventually the world will have to come to the conclusion the only real solution will be to destroy all who are related to the radicles. Many million families will be destroyed but the power of egotistic control artists will be destroyed. Conventional war and ethics just will not be effective against unethical attackers. The choice will become to put up with terroristic attackers continuosly or return some of the unethical attacks recieved.Those with the power often abuse it! Even if those with the power look weak!

Mar 12 06:05 AM

[APM:]

Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

-- Sun Tzu (400-320 BC)

Mar 12 06:40 AM

[untiringeagle:]

The Chinese are patient and take the long view of history. For the near term, they need the Western markets but in the long run, as the balance of power shifts, China will project that power more and more. Radical islam and the Middle East is an interim skermish that has already failed. Go to any of the wealthier muslim countries and see how many want to live like the Middle East equivalent of the Amish.

Mar 12 07:00 AM

[logicalsinger:]

<< The bottom line is the Chinese, who are the largest foreign holders of United States Treasury Bills, have been underwriting U.S. economic growth for decades.>>

They have been underwriting mainly their exports of Chinese-made products in the US. At the root, economic growth came from America's tech boom and other innovations. Superpowers don't go to war against one another. Little upside since neither will conquer the other, and huge downside. They wage war through proxies just like the Soviet and US did in the Cold War.

Mar 12 08:13 AM

[y3115y:]

Economic war, yes. American will be the loser, because we spend too much, and they save to much.

Political war, yes. American will be the loser, because we have a highly corrupted Congress - they are still steal money, the pork programs when we have trillion deficit. China have a one party system, but vry effective. Their corruptions are in the low level that are much easier to corrct.

Conventional war, no. We did not fight with Russia, and we are not stupid to fight Chinese. We cannot win for sure.

Mar 12 08:45 AM

[kelm:]

I think China clearly sees the shift in world power coming as, I might add, does the study last year by our own National Intelligence Council. The two nations are in a symbiotic relationship at the moment that frankly,neither of them is totally comfortable with. We rail against the Chinese manipulating their currency (though our largest trading partner Canada does it continuously and overtly and we say nothing) yet we then plead with them to keep financing us through bond purchases. We need to take a hard look at ourselves and fix us. China knows they cannot support the export model forever, they need to grow domestic and regional demand. The danger is that we, the US don;t realize that we have to change.

Mar 12 08:59 AM

[Ferdinand E...:]

No, Mr West. The only thing of value is the productive power of a country, and the Chinese are going to win that war. They know what they want, they know what they have to do to get it, and they are patient.The present economic downturn is bad for everybody, but when the upturn comes, China is going to make the world hold its breath...probably.

Mar 12 09:34 AM

[billp37:]

Perhaps we should worry that WWIII might start if Israel bombs Iran nuclear electric generation facilities?

We're worried that some liberal arts educated individuals

home.comcast.net/~bpayne37/whitman59/w...

might not think out possible consequences carefully.

Mar 12 10:28 AM

[ozzy43:]

Well reasoned article, as always, but starts with a fallacy:

"It took the onset of World War II to lift the world out of the Great Depression that began in 1929."

This notion has been conclusively disproven by the brilliant Robert Higgs - you can read about it here:

www.independent.org/ne...

"ABSTRACT: Relying on standard measures of macroeconomic performance, historians and economists believe that “war prosperity” prevailed in the United States during World War II. This belief is ill-founded, because it does not recognize that the United States had a command economy during the war. From 1942 to 1946 some macroeconomic performance measures are statistically inaccurate; others are conceptually inappropriate. A better grounded interpretation is that during the war the economy was a huge arsenal in which the well-being of consumers deteriorated. After the war genuine prosperity returned for the first time since 1929."

And in case anyone still believes the nonsense about the 'benefits' of FDR's New Deal, Higgs has helpfully debunked this myth, as well:

www.independent.org/ne...

Mar 12 10:57 AM

[relaplan1:]

The war is "no contest". The US is broke.


On Mar 12 04:44 AM Dave Wrixon wrote:

> Yes, thank God Bush is not in charge.
>
> But one question. How the hell would the US Finance such an undertaking?
>
>
> The other problem is that due to a complete abortion in the Foreign
> affairs field in recent years and because of split interests, the
> US would struggle to Britain on board as a ally (probably pay back
> time for Suez)let alone the rest of Europe. Russia and Japan would
> almost certainly side with China to protect their own interests,
> and the ever vital Middle East would be major stumbling block to
> the US strategic efforts.

Mar 12 11:35 AM

[fireball:]

my old aunt used to say. "everything was made in japan....then their fighters and bombers came." it bothered her that everything we buy is made in china.
if china makes it through their own troubles i would guess eventual war is a strong possibility. perhaps we will get lucky with internal problems for china. the people have had a small taste of freedom and the free market concept.
we had a president hand over intercontinental targeting capability soon after he accepted questionable campaign donations. trouble is at the apparent pressure from herald ickes, thompson allowed the treason impeachment hearings to be derailed to sexcapades with monica. wonder what ickes had on thompson. china is now a force to be reckoned with.

Mar 12 12:07 PM

[vaughn:]

Look at the great wall china built long time ago.

why the great wall was built at a great cost? Simple. China wanted to be left alone. For over a thousand years, China never invaded other countries. During that time period, china was invaded numerously times. The most recently ones: the military Japan and the drug lord of British.

Now,ask yourself what the US will do if china sends a spy ship within 75 miles off the coast of the USA to monitor the movement of nuclear submarine? A civilian ship may pass unharmly within 200 miles exclusive economic zone, but a military ship with the intention of spying is not a civilian without the intention of harming. If the US sits tight and does nothing to expel a spy ship, say from russia or china, then the US may claim it has the right to do the same. Last time I checked the US navy will expel any military ship within 200 miles without prior permission from the US navy.

Mar 12 12:40 PM

[Buckoux:]

Posted by vaughn: " Last time I checked the US navy will expel any military ship within 200 miles without prior permission from the US navy."

Then you were not the commander of a US naval combat vessel when you checked.

What's the matter with you non-military types, Do you really believe the Hollywood stereotype about the military. I can speak for most military personal, enlisted and commissioned, and testify that we prefer peace much more than combat. The only caveat to that is that once a fight has started, it is our duty to go to the fight and win. Even if politicians, New York Media and Hollywood tie one hand behind our backs. Our burden is not only the battle, but the notion that we must win, "fair and square" in a "democratic way" in a short period of time, against an enemy that cheats, is totalitarian and has lots of time because it controls its own media.

Mar 12 01:27 PM

[hpcooperjon:]

And you'd like to thank God Obama is in charge? God help you. You speak of financing war (I think); We are at war economicaly and you can easily see how we are financing that war, right? As far as nuclear war is concerned, that war will start in the middle east with nations rushing to back either the Muslim forces or the Israeli forces. You can already pretty well pick out the nations that will back each side or will attempt to be neutral. As America will back Israel, one of two things will happen. America will timidly sit by and watch or America will be destroyed by nuclear weapons so they cannot help Israel. The latter is the more likely scenario. Israel will destroy the invaders. If you don't see this possibility then you don't read much or your bias is such that you cannot see.


On Mar 12 04:44 AM Dave Wrixon wrote:

> Yes, thank God Bush is not in charge.
>
> But one question. How the hell would the US Finance such an undertaking?
>
>
> The other problem is that due to a complete abortion in the Foreign
> affairs field in recent years and because of split interests, the
> US would struggle to Britain on board as a ally (probably pay back
> time for Suez)let alone the rest of Europe. Russia and Japan would
> almost certainly side with China to protect their own interests,
> and the ever vital Middle East would be major stumbling block to
> the US strategic efforts.

Mar 12 02:18 PM

[john redmond:]

The reason we recovered from the "Great Depression" had nothing to do with FDR's dumb "feel good" programs but from the fact that after World War 2, we found ourselves masters of a world in ruins while having the only great industrial engine of production in our hands and no meaningful competition.

China will indeed lead the world into the next century while the United States with it's Congress comprised of thieves, liars, pimps,and two bit con men, will slowly sink in history as a sadly remembered "Camelot". We stand today with the most worthless government in the history of our great nation, kept in power by the most useless, unproductive, and uneducated generation ever to inhabit the planet.

Mar 12 02:45 PM

[PainfullyAware:]

People Do Not Start Wars - Governments Do.

Humanity is the same where ever you go.

The "Club" mentality is what makes them dangerous.

Remember the Khmer Rouge - "For The Good Of The Party".

Those that can get you to believe untruths can get you to commit atrocities.

Question Event And Suspect; Que Bono, Follow The Money.

To Assume Benevolence Is Foolish.

Mar 12 03:10 PM

[PainfullyAware:]

The US People No Longer Have Say In US Policy.

I would surmise that the Chinese are the same in this respect.

Mar 12 03:13 PM

[henarl:]

Putting boots on the ground in Korea or Vietnam is a whole different thing from physically invading China.
China has the largest army in the world and is basically uninvadeable by any other country. The United States will also never be physically invaded due to it's geographic isolation from other superpowers and the resulting logistic problems.
WWIII, when it occurs, will probably be fought between the West and the Muslim world. The Far East would likely make every attempt to remain nuetral. The west would win that war due to vastly superior technology but they would be weakened to the point that China would emerge as the only true super power. This assumes little or no use of nuclear weapons, otherwise there will be NO winners, and very few survivors.

Mar 12 05:01 PM

[MichaelJ007:]

I say Kudos to China for bullying 1 US Navy vessel 1 time near their coast. sorry folks, but we control the seas. To put things into perspective to those that think China could and would challenge the US- the US Navy controls half of all naval vessels in the world, we spend more $ on our military than the next 45 countries combined and this is the 4th century of the seas being dominated by US and British forces. So let's deflate our overpumped egos and stop talking like one little chicken fight starts WW3. BTW- i'm pretty upset that Geithner would try and call the chinese "currency manipulators". China has people starving in the streets. Our over consuming @sses have no right to blame them for our problems. We should be thanking them for buying our TSYs.

Mar 12 05:14 PM

[ngwun:]

"Your enemy cannot defeat you unless you become like them", but also one can not fight a war with so many traitors in the media. Look @ Iraq, where "torture" includes mutilation & beheading, or "pointing @ people's privates" (M Python, & the western press)
The time to argue is before the conflict. During it, the end is hastened by success.
So many theories, but life's not like that.

On Mar 12 01:27 PM Buckoux wrote:

> Then you were not the commander of a US naval combat vessel when you checked.
> What's the matter with you non-military types, Do you really believe the Hollywood stereotype about the military. I can speak for most military personal, enlisted and commissioned, and testify that we prefer peace much more than combat. The only caveat to that is that once a fight has started, it is our duty to go to the fight and win.
> Even if politicians, New York Media and Hollywood tie one hand behind our backs. Our burden is not only the battle, but the notion that we must win, "fair and square" in a "democratic way" in a short period of time, against an enemy that cheats, is totalitarian and has lots of time because it controls its own media.

Mar 12 05:14 PM

[backtoreality:]

you have it right vaughn...china has never invaded anybody...the chinese people worry that US troops are always in somebody else's territory.

war as an instrument of state policy is not chinese..it is taught by the pentagon and comes right out of the books of the German general staff.

china is not exporting cheap goods to the US...it is the US..(and right wing BS that the global economy is good.).that is outsourcing jobs to exploit cheap foriegn labor in china

read upton sinclair's book THE JUNGLE...in 1906 it was bringing ukrainians to the US for cheap foriegn labor in chicago meat plants,in 2006 it is bringing cheap mexican labor to all the US food producing areas,
and send the mfg jobs to india and china.

On Mar 12 12:40 PM vaughn wrote:

> Look at the great wall china built long time ago.
>
> why the great wall was built at a great cost? Simple. China wanted
> to be left alone. For over a thousand years, China never invaded
> other countries. During that time period, china was invaded numerously
> times. The most recently ones: the military Japan and the drug lord
> of British.
>
> Now,ask yourself what the US will do if china sends a spy ship within
> 75 miles off the coast of the USA to monitor the movement of nuclear
> submarine? A civilian ship may pass unharmly within 200 miles exclusive
> economic zone, but a military ship with the intention of spying is
> not a civilian without the intention of harming. If the US sits tight
> and does nothing to expel a spy ship, say from russia or china, then
> the US may claim it has the right to do the same. Last time I checked
> the US navy will expel any military ship within 200 miles without
> prior permission from the US navy.
>

Mar 12 07:28 PM

[chewelahboy:]

I will give you credit for a catchy title, and a very logical arguement, but I fear your basic assumption that the ongoing US Navy mission on the oceans of the world is somehow a war is disingenuous, and you seem somehow to have overlooked the forrest and focused on a few trees.

Yes, our futures are intertwined (China/US). Yes China continues to try to extend their maritime borders (nothing new here), Yes, the US Navy does not back down (recall the incident with the Russians in the Black Sea last year).

No, some Chinese sailors manning the decks in their underwear while their boats block the passage of a US vessel in International waters is not a battle in World War III.

No, China is not one of the two "biggest economies", yet.

Yes, you missed the obvious conclusion, China and the US, soon to be the two world super powers are rmploying similar to achieve - not identical goals, but the same goal, becuase we are, afterall, intertwined.

Regards

Mar 12 10:07 PM

[fireball:]

i would suggest looking for non u.s. sources for news. i realize it can be difficult. it is worth the trouble. most of what we are presented as news should properly be labeled editoial. exhibit 1 (the u.s. is constantly refered to as a democracy. it is a representative republic. in a democracy each citizen votes on each issue, there are no representatives) exhibit 2 ideology is even mispronounced by his geniusness. it is the belief of the person you truely are the id, not your beliefs because of your ideas. the pundits and politicians are not the best nor the brightest. they are supposed to report unbiased news, just the facts. the politicians are servants not masters. we allow this. turn off the boob tube or admit the news is simply more mindless entertainment for your sake and for your country's sake.
i would doubt very seriously that we have much knowledge of the newest high tech weapons. perhaps we could invade china. it doesn't matter how many soldiers you can field if they can be vaporised by better weapons. i would guess the u.s. is far ahead in tech. we can only guess about these things. i hope we still carry the biggest stick.

Mar 12 10:11 PM

[Feng:]

Hmm... So any american believes that the US government and media will give an easy pass to a China sub-marine detector 75 miles off a US navy sub-marine base? If you are one of them, I have a lot of admiration to either your hypocrisy or ignorance.

This kind of small skirmishes can easily get out of control. And nationalism in both countries could carry a small misjudgement into a major conflict. Some politician in the US probably also has some incentive to destroy China's development to stop it from becoming the #1 superpower in the foreseable future, and help itself dig out this economic turmoil.

China is no match to US millitarily at all. US can easily lock up China's raw material supply and trade route on sea, and destroy a significant portion of China's manufacturing capability by air force without sending one single soldier to China soil. (I do believe sending troops to China soil will not be feasible to the US, hey but if your goal is to build but to destroy, you don't have to send troops). So what could be China's response? Nuclear? Unless US is threatening China's survival, China is unlikely to use Nuclear first because China's capability is not enough to guarantee a complete destroy of US while US can destroy 10 China for sure. But China can send weapens, troops to middle Asia, middle east to build proxies to fight the US.

I hope it will not happen, it is truely an ugly picture. However, we can't completely rule out this possibility if economic environment continue to worsen and this thing becomes a deep depression.

On Mar 12 01:27 PM Buckoux wrote:

> Posted by vaughn: " Last time I checked the US navy will expel any
> military ship within 200 miles without prior permission from the
> US navy."
>
> Then you were not the commander of a US naval combat vessel when
> you checked.
>
> What's the matter with you non-military types, Do you really believe
> the Hollywood stereotype about the military. I can speak for most
> military personal, enlisted and commissioned, and testify that we
> prefer peace much more than combat. The only caveat to that is that
> once a fight has started, it is our duty to go to the fight and win.
> Even if politicians, New York Media and Hollywood tie one hand behind
> our backs. Our burden is not only the battle, but the notion that
> we must win, "fair and square" in a "democratic way" in a short period
> of time, against an enemy that cheats, is totalitarian and has lots
> of time because it controls its own media.

Mar 13 11:34 AM

[kiers:]

we (US) are a GONE case. This is the story on the "outside" G_d only knows how much kowtowing the US must be doing on the "inside". Gone case. sold and paid for.

Mar 13 12:24 PM

[Terry Rowe:]

Say what you will about China, but in China Bernie Madoff would have already received the "9mm solution" for his terrible crimes that brought such pain and worry for thousands!!!

Mar 13 04:21 PM

[Richard Men...:]

The reason why the Great Depression ended with World War II has less to do with the occurrence of the war than the fact that the U.S. engaged in massive deficit spending on a scale unprecedented during the 1930s, and employed 16 million people in the process. There is no reason why that can be done in a completely peaceful way; we have over $2 trillion in infrastructure that has fallen into bad repair over the last 30 years. There is no necessary conflict with China--last time I looked, they were lending us more than the rest of the world combined.

Mar 14 02:22 PM

[silverfox:]

APM: YOU NEVER FINISHED YOUR LINE
"AND THATS WHAT CHINA IS DOING"

Mar 15 11:35 PM

[silverfox:]

And we accomplished what in Iraq besides spending billions.
Some say it was for OIL!!!! (where is MR. BUSH )
Why would you go to war in the middle east for oil when your northern neighbor has more oil than all of the middle east in a stable democratic society?

Mar 15 11:44 PM

[414467:]

@Buckoux:
'Our burden is not only the battle, but the notion that we must win, "fair and square" in a "democratic way" in a short period of time, against an enemy that cheats, is totalitarian and has lots of time because it controls its own media. '

-And US don't control its media and manipulate its people with crafted news?
-How does an enemy cheat in war? How is US "fair" agains it's enemies?
-Is there such a thing as "democratic war"? Peacefull murder, consensual rape...They all makes sense then, hmm..

Honestly it is just sad that military types are almost the same all around the world, just brain washed, advocating governmental B.S. as their "personal" ideas. Surely each and every person can be better than this. Just "think" and have "your own" opinion of the world.

May 15 09:11 AM

[Hoang Nguyen:]

China is the world 's disaster. Look at her actual population (1,4 billion ) you know what the chinese government want to do to solve their problem; War. They need the whole world to survive. The great wall is the great fear (the fear of Mongolian envasion). They already moved their people into Vietnam next will be Lao, Cambodia and Thailand ,etc... US already knows their plan and trying to stop them . They anounced the whole South East sea belonging to them .US already signed with Vietnam to explore the oil mines under the sea. They took 2 islands belonging to Vietnam and stop US ships wandering around. Everything they're selling to US is trash vs real money. I think terrorism and North Korea are planned by China (this info every chinese people all knows). They are the real US enemy. USA wake up!!!!

Jun 17 05:58 PM

[Graham and ...:]

Recent events in the Sinkiang (New Province) "Autonomous" region of China's Northwest represent the modern "Kristallnacht."

Jul 06 03:51 PM

[Newton anas...:]

There's no way that china can come close to US when it comes to military superpower. China is like 25 year behind US on technologies. Ex. They land the first Chinese at the moon 40 year after the US. It doesn't matter how big is your military but if you don't have technologies you can't beat US. Fact is during WWII
Germany, Japan and Italian have more troops combine over US, and US manage to beat all of them with basically little help from the Allied. US saved Russia from getting beat-up by Germany and China by getting beat-up by Japan. So for me, it'll make sense if you compare China to British, Canada, Australia, Germany or French and stop comparing it to US.

Oct 13 03:57 AM

[ant123256:]

Newton, I do not agree with your WWII analogy. The USA was never involved in WWII like the European nations and Russia. The USA was mostly providing manufacturing and resources with military support for the Allies while all of the European contenders specifically the Axis powers were fighting a war in the middle of their supply routes, manufacturing base, resources etc. There is no comparison, logistically. Think of it like this. There is a gun fight inside a house and you are standing across the road with a sniper rifle shooting at the windows. Your base position is not under any significant threat.

Oct 14 09:21 PM